Quote from: Caesar SlaadBurning Empires, which has the "fear the GM"-ish "let it ride" principle has a very useful technique call instincts. Basically, instincts are pre-defined declarations about what your character would do in given situations. This can give you free rolls or otherwise make sure that your character's behavior is followed without later vocalizing it.

LOL, you can make a hell of a lot stronger case for Instincts as being "fear the GM" founded than Let It Ride because Let It Ride cuts both ways. In my estimation, especially because of the usage based advancement, players tend to want rerolls more than the GM.

Quote from: blakkieLOL, you can make a hell of a lot stronger case for Instincts as being "fear the GM" founded than Let It Ride because Let It Ride cuts both ways. In my estimation, especially because of the usage based advancement, players tend to want rerolls more than the GM.

If you say so...

I saw instincts as clarity of communication and clarity of definition, which is a GOOD way to deal with GM/player communication problems.

I see "let it ride" as the "defy common sense and assume the GM is out to get you" solution, which is NOT a good way.

Let us, for once, not have a barney over LiR.

I'm having trouble answering the larger question. I think it's because any technique can be a good or bad thing in context.

Quote from: blakkieSo have you pulled Karma then?

Actually no, I will be adding it as an optional rule in Iridium V2. I think it has merit, especially for cinematic play styles, and adds something to the system as a universal system.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltActually no, I will be adding it as an optional rule in Iridium V2. I think it has merit, especially for cinematic play styles, and adds something to the system as a universal system.

Bill

See how much pull I have?

But, see, then you go and do the sensible thing and make it optional to allow individual groups to determine their "cinematic-scale" preference...

Quote from: droogI'm having trouble answering the larger question. I think it's because any technique can be a good or bad thing in context.

Yeah.

Also a lot of it comes from reading APs/ discussion threads and you kind of absorb stuff, know what I mean, Ceaser Slaad ?

In the Rebuke thread that the Pundit started, I mentioned my OtE game, which I speak briefly about player contribution before and during play. Some of this came from reading APs from the Forge and discussions from Storygames (I think).

So for me at least, it's not so clear cut. It's more than just about specific techniques, although if I rummage through my campaign notes, I'm sure to find some very specific techniques and subsequent modifications to suit my crew.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: droogI'm having trouble answering the larger question. I think it's because any technique can be a good or bad thing in context.

Quote from: David RYeah.

Also a lot of it comes from reading APs/ discussion threads and you kind of absorb stuff, know what I mean, Ceaser Slaad ?

I think the quote I included in the OP should have set the context. :shrug:

But if that's insufficient, you have all the room you need in a forum post to tell me what situations you think a given technique works well it. For that matter, tell me which situations you don't think it does well in.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI think the quote I included in the OP should have set the context. :shrug:

But if that's insufficient, you have all the room you need in a forum post to tell me what situations you think a given technique works well it. For that matter, tell me which situations you don't think it does well in.

Sorry Slaad. I'll go thorugh my various campaign notes and attempt to contribute to this thread. What I was trying to say is,  giving specifics beyond what has been said by others so far, is a bit difficult for me. I'm lousy when it comes to talking about craft

I do think though, if one is going to use techniques from the Forge etc, IME one should test them out in one shot games and discuss them with the group before hand.

Games are all about expectations and some (if not most) of these techniques
seem to conflict with the more traditional modes of play.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RGames are all about expectations and some (if not most) of these techniques seem to conflict with the more traditional modes of play.

Well, look at the few that don't, and you have a working list.

That said, though I may come across as hostile to some "non traditional game" notions, I don't think the divide is as steep as some imagine. Or at the very least, is useful in specific context.

To give you one example, I'm not particularly jazzed about "setting the stakes" as a general mechanic as it exists in some Indie games. That said, I do find the topic of character death to be a sticky one in traditional games, and some players don't want to part with a character. Ever. But I really dig lots of risk engendering skin-of-the-teeth action.

To this end, I think that some variant of Ryan Stoughton's "raising the stakes" hack (here) could be really effective at getting player buy-in for conflicts that carry a high risk of lethality with them.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadTo give you one example, I'm not particularly jazzed about "setting the stakes" as a general mechanic as it exists in some Indie games. That said, I do find the topic of character death to be a sticky one in traditional games, and some players don't want to part with a character. Ever. But I really dig lots of risk engendering skin-of-the-teeth action.

I find a lot of the goals of "hippy" game design are good (this being one of them) -- I just don't care for how any of the ones I've seen have been implemented for the types of games I'm interested in.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI see "let it ride" as the "defy common sense and assume the GM is out to get you" solution, which is NOT a good way.

I'd call that a gross misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what it does and it's full implications. Even if you don't bother looking further than the literal explaination of it.

P.S.  Barney is coming to get you droog!

Quote from: HinterWeltActually no, I will be adding it as an optional rule in Iridium V2. I think it has merit, especially for cinematic play styles, and adds something to the system as a universal system.

So it's in there, with it's got a volume knob. And now you've clearly marked the zero level for those folks that didn't realize the game was playable with Karma set to zero.


P.S. I'm just giving you the gears because apparently you are much more 'hip' than a portion of your customer base.

Quote from: blakkieSo it's in there, with it's got a volume knob. And now you've clearly marked the zero level for those folks that didn't realize the game was playable with Karma set to zero.


P.S. I'm just giving you the gears because apparently you are much more 'hip' than a portion of your customer base.

See, this is one of the reasons I feel the "indie" publishers are more of a club. Aspects of my games could be easily compared to their design methods but, at best, I have been run out on a rail from the Forge as "corporate" or Story Games as "soulless shill" because I talk about marketing like I am in business or some such.

Anyway, I do feel some aspects of a game are very useful at reinforcing or allowing Elements that players want in their games. So, in this case, if they essentially want a "Do Over" mechanism they have it. It also serves the Element of "Character Injected Plot" which is something I believe Feats do in a far more limited way. Karma allows you to say "I swing and give a resounding thwack to the bad guys head!". I spend 3 Karma and it happens. With Feats, you take the "Cleave bad guy in the Head" Feat and use it. Some people will like the Element to be restricted in this manner, others want a more open playing field. I tend to be in the latter and design my games to be thus.

I have often been described as "more trad than trad" in terms of my design but I wonder about that sometimes. In the end, it does not bother me to be "trad" but I often wonder what you need to be "indie". My emerging theory is a focus on meta-mechanics as opposed to in-character mechanics;i.e. "I will spend 3 Karma to have the bad guy fall to the ground as I chase him" as opposed to "My character uses a Trip Spell, spending 4 Spell Points".

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI have been run out on a rail from the Forge as "corporate" or Story Games as "soulless shill" because I talk about marketing like I am in business or some such.

Did you actually get banned or did a lot of posters just give you the gears till you decided "Well f*ck this getting repeatedly abused, I'm outa here"?

QuoteMy emerging theory is a focus on meta-mechanics as opposed to in-character mechanics

Just to give you a point that maybe throws that off a bit, I prefer stuff that is centred on the character. Although I obviously give more leeway than others in that, and how it is defined to do so, I always strive to be thinking about the character or how things look through their eyes.  As such I don't care much for the idea of spending points to make another NPC fall down. I'd much prefer that I spend points in my character's name to notice a stick that'll likely trip the NPC (and they get to roll) or to 'recall' that my character did something prior like lay down a trip-trap there (points to do the spell or doing some other direction action is even better, though not entirely necessary).  Although it is semantics I think it is important semantics as RPGs are largely about seeing things from the POV of the individual you are playing. :shrug:

Quote from: blakkieDid you actually get banned or did a lot of posters just give you the gears till you decided "Well f*ck this getting repeatedly abused, I'm outa here"?

Ron warned me several times but no, no banning. It was mostly a case of the jackyls saw a lone lion and decided to tear him down. I am not really one to hang out where the general consensus is that "my type" are not welcome. I am borderline about theRPGSite just due to the "If you post here you support Pundit" vibe but that is different. And, yeah, I get my share of static here but it is usually one on one, not the consnensus of the regular posters that I should not post here. SG and the Forge, well, let's just say I have found them not very welcoming to my type.

Quote from: blakkieJust to give you a point that maybe throws that off a bit, I prefer stuff that is centred on the character. Although I obviously give more leeway than others in that, and how it defined to do so, I always strive to be thinking about the character or how things look through their eyes.  As such I don't care much for the idea of spending points to make another NPC fall down. I'd much prefer that I spend points in my character's name to notice a stick that'll likely trip the NPC (and they get to roll) or to 'recall' that my character did something prior like lay down a trip-trap there.  Although it is semantics I think it is important semantics as RPGs are largely about seeing things from the POV of the individual you are playing. :shrug:

Yeah, see, this is still not an incharacter mechanic to me. It is a mechanic that you as the player are aware of but that your character is not. So, your character is not invoking an ability but you, the player, is invoking an ability to "remember" that you set a trap or, more to the point, change the plot/past.

Generally, I prefer to resolve actions with in-character abilities (would that word work better?) and not player functions.

Bill