Gaming "Did You Know?"s

Aug 29 19:11 UTC 1998

Did you know: The idea of weapon familiarity based on a weapon a character
is proficient in in AD&D came from the Player's Handbook and not the Player's
Option books?

Get anymore gaming did you knows?  post 'em here.

response 2 of 32:

Sep 23 15:27 UTC 1998

Yea I guess so.  Here's another one - The chance of psionic wild talents is
an arbitrary percentile roll with miniscule adjustments based on race,
abilities, and class in AD&D, in Alternity it's a simple choice at the expense
of some skill points, yet both game systems are done by TSR.

response 4 of 32:

Oct 7 19:37 UTC 1998

why?

response 6 of 32:

Oct 8 19:55 UTC 1998

There's no such thing as cheating in a RPG, at least not as long as it's 
consentual with the other players.

response 8 of 32:

Feb 13 07:46 UTC 1999

it's not really cheeting if the gm does it

response 10 of 32:

Aug 11 19:04 UTC 1999

Power gamer syndrome.  YYYEEEEECCCCCHHHH!

I prefer to get into the characters-- advancement is a side benefit.

I've played improv with my wife where we totally made up the game 
spontaneously as we went.  No dice, no rules per se, just ebb and flow 
role-playing.

As far as playing within an established system-- there are ways to deal 
with power gamers-- GMs can create games that tend to disinvolve them, 
(so essentially, power gamers find they contribute next to nothing), the 
all-powerful anvil on the head, and GAKing particularly abusive 
cheaters.

Myself, I like White Wolf-- it's easy to power play, but so much more 
fun to develop char

response 12 of 32:

Aug 28 00:12 UTC 1999

I've not found that being a GM makes someone a better roleplayer
[any more than more roleplaying does] -- certainly, better roleplayers
make better GMs.  
        My solution to power gaming is thus: if people want power, let 'em 
have it, as long as it doesn't decrease the GM's ability to run a game.  
What they can't monopolize is the real power -- influence in the story, and
that player power as much as it is character power.  -That- the GM needs to
tightly control enough that all players get at least as much influence as they
want.

response 14 of 32:

Oct 11 04:11 UTC 1999

Influential, yes, absolutely.  They must feel that they had an effect, and
that effect was something that wouldn't have been there if they hadn't been
playing in  the game.

response 16 of 32:

Nov 1 22:58 UTC 1999

Well, yeah; the problem is that a lot of gamers -don't- take it as a given,
looking more for simulation or competition or something.  I don't really get
party-oriented 10 player games (though I've been in 10 player character
oriented games), nor "railroading", nor "if the rules/dice say so, it must
happen, however odious".

response 18 of 32:

Nov 4 00:44 UTC 1999

I've also found that gamers seem to grow better with age.  I know that 
some teenagers are guilty of these behaviors when they start out, and I 
know quite a few of them like to hold on to them as long as they can, 
but they start to role-play more as they get older.

I've gamed with a lot of different people.  When I moved away from my 
hometown for further undergrad studies, I lost contact with a lot of 
the people I'd gamed with-- but then I got married and just connected 
with all the gaming friends my wife had.  They are either my age or her 
age (she's 30 but doesn't look it) and have had a lot of experience.

response 20 of 32:

Nov 22 04:07 UTC 1999

In referse order...
No, I have to disagree with you phenix -- the way to play a "life is cheap"
game is to make death plentiful and nasty, but for anything with -any- decent
characterization, plot, and story you have to avoid random PC death.  Period.
Don't use the game's rules as inspiration, or worse yet, it's advice, except
where it bears out -- use the source (whiuch is so different from the -game-
Cyberpunk, and -so- much better it ain't even funny).  As Handy says: "Read
a book!"
        And on the same token, while one should be able to advance the plot
by being smart, one -shouldn't- be able to avoid having plot at all -- the
players are just as responsible for making the game work well as the GM is;
they aren't competitors with either eachother or the GM.

Lumen: Definately agreed on many gamers getting better as they get older. 
On the other hand, I've seen some pretty good gamers who were pretty young,
and gamers who never really -wanted- to get better.

 It's largely the "one or two leaders" bit I have a problem with -- I don't
like the concepts involved with assuming that level of uniformity amongh a
roleplaying group -- essentially, if you've got leaders, you've got a
party=-oriented group. rather than a character oriented group, where most of
the action takes place in dialogue between two or three characters.  IMO, the
ideal number of players for a character-oriented game is 3 or 4; 6 is getting
big, while 10 means that the players who don't talk much are -going- to get
shut out of the action (whether by officially appointed leaders or by
loudmouths who want to get their own share of the limelight), unless you've
got a -really- good GM who can split the party into 3 or four groups and run
what is essentially several parallel games (which also requires a GM who is
willing to trust players to separate character and player knowledge).

response 22 of 32:

Nov 23 06:41 UTC 1999

You misinterpret the word "plot"  A plot doesn't mean that there as a GM
imposed story; or worse, a game-designer imposed story.  If you've got
crap where, as often happens in Pinnacle, WW, and AEG products (as
good as they sometimes are), large parts of the plot are
Predetermined, desgined by God and Mark Rein.Hagen, (or whoever the
designer is, let him be as good as Gred Stoltze or as bad as the worst
of the hacks) that ain't "plot", and it damned well ain't
story-oriented roleplaying; that's railroading, plain 'n simple,
the walking dead zombie evil cousin of true roleplaying.  
    Now, true story oriented gaming ain't that, never was, never shall
be, no matter how many trademark symbols Certain Parties put after
appropriate words.  Story-oriented gaming ain't about what you start
with -- it's about what you end up with.  If after playing a few
games, what you've got is a jumbled mess, close as you can get to real
life crossed with a power-mad fantasy, well, have fun, and I hope your
reading material is more sophisticated than your games.  On the other
hand, if what you end with is something that was never existent before
but is still worth retelling and reliving, giving satisfaction not
just to the players-as-gamers but to the players-as-audience, and
is possibly even worth retelling to a second-generation audience,
you've reached a state devoutly to be wished, where the players ain't
just playing a game, but performing and act of creation.
     Now, if that's not the meatballs you want on your pizza, don't
let me rain on your parade; after all, to consistently get a story
worth remembering, you've got to warp probability, giving more power
into the hands of the players and GM, and less into the ever-random
dice/cards (which end up taking on the roll of benign but balmy
advisors, looked on as a source of advice, but never unquestionable).
But it's worth it.
    At least, that's the gospel according to YT, and one true
story-telling game is worth a hundred of the other sort.  But don't
take my word on it.