TheRPGSite

Hi!
Before I post what I want to talk about, lets get some of the stuff I don't want to talk about out of the way:
1) Trad vs. Indie - I like both styles of games, but lets just talk about trad games here, ok?
2) Surreal vs realistic - Again, I don't have a strong desire to try and force comparisons of Mage vs D&D or really use a surreal game like Over the Edge as a milestone, lets talk about games that try to stick to a semi-realistic framework
3) Whacky groups vs normal groups - I have no interest in discussing groups that always use the same system or that are doing thought experiments or counter culture protests. Like using Vampire the Masquerade to play a slapstick game or Paranoia to play a survival horror game
4) Whacky Players - That one player that makes a barbarian with no social skills for your political intrigue game, yeah, he doesn't count either
5) Whacky GMs - That GM that goes for 2 or more sessions without touching the dice, yeah, he doesn't count either.
6) I don't want to discuss "System" or have an argument about Forge Theory.

Caveat - I think the stuff I don't want to talk about is interesting and not necessarily an example of bad play or bad players, I just don't think these issues are conducive to discussing this topic. I mean, once you say, system doesn't matter, my GM uses Modern D20 to play everything from Modern, to fantasy to Wyld Fae adventures, then what else is there to talk about, right?

Note - This was inspired by http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=427841
Apologies for posting a TBP link, hope that doesn't offend anyone...

And the topic is, how much do the mechanics (not necessarily the "system" as that is too broad for this topic) affect play?

For instance, if you play a fantasy game, how different is your actual play, and the stories that are told by it, if you play Exalted vs D&D vs GURPS vs some other system? Does the change in mechanics affect the way you play your characters?

And if so, why?

And if not, why?

Anyways, I hope this is a productive thread and if you want to discuss some of those things I voted against, start another thread and I will be glad to engage you there.

Absolutely.

I have played and run against type, and there are valid reasons to do so. But overall, it just making life difficult for yourself.

Different game systems create different expectations, incorporate different rewards systems, have different pace, have a specific tone

ust looking at combat, if a combat scene takes 1 1/2 to play, its going to crowd out other activities. If combat is very lethal, players will not engage in it lightly.If the combat system is very detailed and tactical, players will make play with their head. If it's cinematic they are more likely to engage in cool, crazy stunts.

There is a reason why there are so many game systems out there, the differenct system address different game styles.

SG,
  OK, but does it actually change the way you play your characters? If you make a mighty warrior in GURPS and a mighty warrior in D&D, is one more likely to run from a fight as played by you? Does that change the story you can tell with the game?

Absolutely, yes mechanics influence play.  Now, the question as to what degree will probably vary from individual gamer to gamer.

Using your D&D vs. GURPS fighter example, I would say yes, I would play them differently.

GURPS is much more deadly than D&D.  The very real and probable possibility of death in GURPS would change the way I play the GURPS fighter compared to how I would play a D&D fighter.

In GURPS, I would seriously consider fleeing when faced with two or more opponents in combat.  However, when faced with two or more opponents against my D&D fighter, I would charge the opponents while gleefully shouting derogatory remarks at them.

To an extent, which obviously differs for each of us. Like anything it's not a constant.

Absolutely.

Say I am creating a D&D character. I spend the best part of an hour choosing spells, feats and weapons. There is an implicit promise that I will be making significant use these spells, feats and weapons, otherwise why the hell did the GM make me do it? Why couldn't he have chosen a game with a much quicker character creation system?

Say I am creating a Spirit of the Century character. It might take me just as long, but now I am focused much more on who the character is rather than what he can do. There is an implicit promise that all this character fluff like Aspects and background will be significant to the game. If the adventure then turns out to be a dungeon crawl, why the hell did he choose a system with puts so much emphasis of character fluff?

Drohem and Serious Paul said what I was going to say, so I won't say it again. :)

Quote from: dindenver;272068And the topic is, how much do the mechanics (not necessarily the "system" as that is too broad for this topic) affect play?

For instance, if you play a fantasy game, how different is your actual play, and the stories that are told by it, if you play Exalted vs D&D vs GURPS vs some other system? Does the change in mechanics affect the way you play your characters?

And if so, why?

And if not, why?

I think mechanics affect what I play more than how I play it.  Generally, if I'm outgunned, I'll run away.  If the system didn't give me a great chance to run away, I'd probably try to make a character that was all or nothing.  Hence, the mechanics affect what I play more than how I play it.

Since StarCluster games can be played with different task resolution systems, with everything else being the same, I speak from direct experience: Yes! Playing - say - Blood Games with percentile is a very different feel than playing Blood Games with a d20 dice pool, even though everything else is the same. Same players, same characters, same table, same setting, very different game!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;272130Since StarCluster games can be played with different task resolution systems, with everything else being the same, I speak from direct experience: Yes! Playing - say - Blood Games with percentile is a very different feel than playing Blood Games with a d20 dice pool, even though everything else is the same. Same players, same characters, same table, same setting, very different game!

-clash

 Could you please elaborate? I have found myself in recent years leaning toward games with diepool mechanics over percentile, or d20 style one-die-to-roll systems.

 I have my own thoughts, but I would like to hear from someone who has designed and played both type of systems in the same basic game.


.

Clash,
  Well, a lot of people are just saying "yes" without elaborating, so I will re-iterate the question, do the characters act differently? Are the stories told by the group at the table different?
  Just because the rules "feel" different doesn't always result in different play, right? I have seen plenty of games where risk had a high penalty (character death, etc), but the players still took on lots of risk. Is that your experience too or is that a local phenomenon?

Quote from: Jaeger;272143Could you please elaborate? I have found myself in recent years leaning toward games with diepool mechanics over percentile, or d20 style one-die-to-roll systems.

 I have my own thoughts, but I would like to hear from someone who has designed and played both type of systems in the same basic game.

OK, though my point isn't limited to die pool vs. percentile. I have half a dozen other drop-in TR subsystems besides those. In the die pool game, a success is easier, but a very good success is less likely, than in the percentile game. Thus PCs are more willing to try something risky, leading to a less constrained, more cinematic game. Another, perhaps understated difference is that in percentile games, your chance of success is transparent to the player. In dice pool games, chance is much less apparent, and this also leads to a less calculating game.

-clash

Quote from: Jaeger;272143Could you please elaborate? I have found myself in recent years leaning toward games with diepool mechanics over percentile, or d20 style one-die-to-roll systems.

 I have my own thoughts, but I would like to hear from someone who has designed and played both type of systems in the same basic game.

OK, though my point isn't limited to die pool vs. percentile. I have half a dozen other drop-in TR subsystems besides those, including diceless. In the die pool game, a success is easier, but a very good success is less likely, than in the percentile game. Thus PCs are more willing to try something risky, leading to a less constrained, more cinematic game. Another, perhaps understated difference is that in percentile games, your chance of success is transparent to the player. In dice pool games, chance is much less apparent, and this also leads to a less calculating game.

-clash

There are a lot of variables outside of the mechanics that are impossible to really control for, but I sure believe it's easier to play a character recklessly when chargen only takes a few minutes.

Yes, you will still get people who write elaborate backgrounds for their OD&D or TFT characters, but overall those systems are much more amenable to a classic dungeoncrawl than, say, GURPS. So it's not just the characters (as played by the players) who are influenced by the mechanics, but the scenarios (as presented by the GM).

Quote from: dindenver;272144Clash,
  Well, a lot of people are just saying "yes" without elaborating, so I will re-iterate the question, do the characters act differently?

Yes, most definitely.

QuoteAre the stories told by the group at the table different?

I wouldn't know. My players don't tell stories. Story is a byproduct of my gaming, not a desired end.

QuoteJust because the rules "feel" different doesn't always result in different play, right? I have seen plenty of games where risk had a high penalty (character death, etc), but the players still took on lots of risk. Is that your experience too or is that a local phenomenon?

Players seldom risk death in my games. Player characters risking death, on the other hand, are a different thing altogether... :D

I think casual risk-taking is different from risk-taking for something the character "feels" deeply. In some systems, characters are more likely to take casual risks, but risks for important matters are taken or not taken without regard to system mechanics.

-clash

Clash,
  Ha ha ha. I did say "character death", btw.

  I do appreciate your answers though, thanks.

Ken, Paul,
  Care to elaborate? When have you avoided risk because of system mechanics. When have you accepted risk regardless of the penalties of the mechanics you were using at the time?

Yes mechanics influence play a great deal.

Example: ORE (Godlike), has what they feel is a gritty system. You roll a pool of dice and assign matching sets to successes. The problem is, that the game system really doesn't want you rolling dice. So it makes success by this system without making specialized builds to succeed as specific tasks, difficult to get.

When we played it we found the results of failure more like Keystone cops--because it was consistent, regular failure. Now the game says this is gritty, but failure so often doesn't feel gritty, it feels silly.  Now the game recommends NOT applying the system (dice rolls) except when things are stressful. (When are characters with demi superpowers, not stressed in World War 2?)

So it basically says the mechanics work, BY NOT applying them. This influences play a great deal making most things simply freeform; Why should someone pay money for a system which tells you NOT to apply it, I don't know. Yet the fact that its biased results shapes how play unfolds.  

The same goes for a great number of games--how the mechanics are applied, when they are applied, and to what ends, greatly impacts play.

A game system which expects you to roll dice (or cards, or spend points) ANYTIME you want to make an impact in the event, will play much differently than one which asks you only to do so when its something very important.

What types of mechanics a system has, will ALSO influence play. If only a few choice character designs are valid. (That is you must choose A,B or C for your character) then you'll see a different type of play than if any valid concept to the setting works.


Example: D&D

In D&D it assumes magic works a specific way. Because of that design element, it doesn't allow common fantasy concepts. (Such as the enormously powerful young wizard, who must learn control.) While the latter is sometimes a valid archetype in fantasy, it is not one the mechanics of D&D handles, or wants to emulate.

I imagine such a concept can be handled in GURPS. (It's designed to have a tinkerable magic/power system.)


Now mechanics aren't the only thing that influences play.

Quote from: dindenver;272153Clash,
  Ha ha ha. I did say "character death", btw.

I can't resist a straight line, even if I have to stretch it a bit... :D

QuoteI do appreciate your answers though, thanks.

No problem. Some of my points are also addressed in my reply to Jaeger as well.

-clash

Quote from: Silverlion;272160In D&D it assumes magic works a specific way. Because of that design element, it doesn't allow common fantasy concepts. (Such as the enormously powerful young wizard, who must learn control.) While the latter is sometimes a valid archetype in fantasy, it is not one the mechanics of D&D handles, or wants to emulate.

I imagine such a concept can be handled in GURPS. (It's designed to have a tinkerable magic/power system.)

That was one of the points Klaxon and I addressed in the Book of Jalan magic system. Power is inborn, and separate from Skill, which is learned.

-clash

Wow. I think I will have the unpopular view here. I believe that the elements that the group brings to the table trump the system that is chosen for play. That is to say, elements that group brings are things like a desire for lots of combat. Let's run with that. Then the GM is going to adjust the monsters appropriately. The players will adjust the character actions appropriately and the system will be forced into the profile the group has for it based on the elements that describe there play style preference.

So, yes, system can effect play, if the group desires it. This is an element as well, one of desiring to play the system as written or as close as possible. Alternatively, it can be to change the system. Elements are merely the discrete expression of the groups collective play style.

Unfortunately, some groups are not aware of this and feel bound byt he system they choose. However, eventually, it will seep through and morph the system to fit the needs and desires of the group.

Of course, all the above is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Bill

My view is that mechanics will influence play if there are too many of them or if they are made to very important by the designer.

They won't influence all players or maybe not even most player but there is a rather large segment of the gaming communting that it will influence and those are the players that are really into the "game" aspect of mechanics.

IMO, any game that has mechanics that influences how I would play a character beyond the most basic sense is a bad game.

Well, my players chose clash's IHW instead of the GURPS powered Napoleonic campaign I had created. What influenced play was stuff like Notice , Practicallity/Honor , the surgery/healing rules.....the whole tone of the campaign would have been different if we had stuck with my GURPS version. BTW my players are still pricks for rejecting my awesome hardwork with better plagarized art.

Big difference when we played Star Wars using Feng Shui instead of d20....hell big difference when we used d6.....

Regards,
David R

Yes, the group dynamic trumps system, I agree. If the group want to,  it is entirely possible to run a serious Call of Cthulhu using Ghostbusters. The question is why would you want to?

However the other point is that a lot of players and GMs don't just have one style of play. The choice of system then becomes one of the clearest to communicate to everyone what kind of game you are about to play.
.

Quote from: Soylent Green;272169However the other point is that a lot of players and GMs don't just have one style of play. The choice of system then becomes one of the clearest to communicate to everyone what kind of game you are about to play.

I agree with this but I'm not too sure of clearest.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: dindenver;272144Well, a lot of people are just saying "yes" without elaborating, so I will re-iterate the question, do the characters act differently? Are the stories told by the group at the table different?
  Just because the rules "feel" different doesn't always result in different play, right?

Game mechanics do influence play, however they are the thing which influences it the least. More important are people, snacks and setting.

For a few years now I've run the Tiwesdæg Clíewen (http://www.gamecircle.org/modules/wiwimod/index.php?page=Tiwesd%C3%A6g+Cl%C3%ADewen&back=WiwiHome) series of games. Each was run with a different system. GURPS 4e, FATE, RuneQuest, and lastly HarnMaster.

It made very little difference. GURPS 4e hindered play a little because I chose it poorly for the group, I had only one player who was interested in it, and one player who wouldn't read even one page of rules and so got some nasty surprises in play. "What? Why can't I...?" This was not really the fault of the system, but of my poor choice of system as GM.

HarnMaster hindered play once or twice because it had a "whiff factor" with some fights being heaps of dice rolling with not much result. This was a fault of the system, but should have been forseen by me.

Aside from those minor things, which were only issues in about half an hour of play in more than a dozen sessions, system made very little difference to play in the Tiwesdaeg series of games. GURPS and Harnmaster encouraged combat (simply by having lots of rules for it), FATE gave a more thespy literary sort of feel, but really these were very subtle things. All the significant differences in style can be attributed to the people at the game table.

Game mechanics do influence play, however they are the thing which influences it the least. More important are people, snacks and setting.

The most important thing is the people at the game table. Their personalities, their likes and dislikes, how talkative each is, how open to new ideas, and how they all get along. Game groups rarely break up because somebody didn't like the Attacks of Opportunity rules or something like that, they break up because Anna decided Bob is a cocksmock, or whatever. People.

Once I asked a heap of gamers what the best, most memorable moment in a game session was for them. One guy mentioned a scene where his character was just watching while a couple of other players had an intense scene - his best moment was when someone else at the game table was having fun. And he wasn't alone in this. The fun we have is often just enjoying that someone else is having fun. People.

People make or break a game session, and are absolutely the most important thing determining its success.

The next most important thing is the snacks at the game table. Sharing food is a social experience which binds people. And the kind of food they eat sets the mood. A silver service four course dinner with obscure and expensive ingredients sets a certain mood, pizza, coke and cheetos sets another mood. If one or two of the people are new to the group, eating food together is a way for them to slowly settle into the group, it gives them something to talk about, and an excuse to say nothing while others are talking. The right snacks help the people get along.

After the people and snacks comes the setting of the campaign. Players need something to capture their imagination. "Make a character for a universal campaign" will not inspire me. "Make a character who comes from a world where faster-than-light travel was discovered in the 1950s and now there's the Cold War in space!" or "Make a character who comes from a world which is sort of medieval but dragons and magic are real and the character will make their living from travelling around slaying monsters!" may inspire me.

Down at the bottom of the list comes system. You want a system which is going to help you with the setting and the people (no system can help you with snacks). If you have players who love reading big books and being incredibly detailed with their character, you'll need one system. If you've players who never read anything except comics and Mechwarrior novels, and who want to just show up and play, then you'll need a different system. And obviously your system must have rules for things which happen in the setting, like magic.

So remember,

1. People. 2. Snacks. 3. Setting. 4. System.

Get the first three right, and the last one makes little difference.

Quote from: dindenver;272157Care to elaborate?

I'll try. The question is pretty broad, and open ended from where I stand.

QuoteWhen have you avoided risk because of system mechanics.

I don't think the majority of my players do. Avoid risk based on system that is. We heartily encourage players to make decisions that their player character would make.

For instance, if you're playing a Neutral Evil Barbarian who tends to be self centered, and self promoting why would he voluntarily help someone in need, especially if there's nothing in it for him?

On the opposite end why doe your Chaotic Good Fighter bypass the village in need, and obey the head man's wishes on how to fight?

For us it's about internal consistency. We don't expect anyone else to get their kicks this way, it;s just how we play and what we enjoy. Characterization has always been more important to us than the rules. I'd be willing to violate every rule in the book to make a fun game, or fun scene. Luckily after 15 to 20 years gaming together we know each others limits pretty well.

QuoteWhen have you accepted risk regardless of the penalties of the mechanics you were using at the time?

I run the game so for me it's an easy answer, never. But my players have, generally speaking, no problems what so ever accepting the consequences of their actions. They know if they mass murder, eventually law enforcement will bring it's resources to bear. If they rip off the villagers, maybe one or two will come looking for their gold. Or hire another group to get even.

For us real life consequences don't need a mechanic. Like others said things are never constant, and we change things up-sometimes just to try fun, or new stuff. I've used or added rules after we come across a situation where we think rules need to come into play, but generally we try to keep it rules lite.

Bill,
  I did post this question on other boards. And your view is actually quite predominant across all the threads I started.
  By and large, people seem to think some combination of these three things:
1) Mechanics don't change your preferred course of action, just how you feel about it afterward
2) Whenever possible, players will avoid games that do not promot their playstyle.
3) If Mechanics and playstyle do not mesh, players will house rule the system to match their playstyle

  Now, it depends on how self-aware these people are, but the prevailing belief across different forums and different splay styles tells me there is at leastr a kernel of truth in there somewhere, what do you think?

Paul,
  Thanks for the thoughtful answer (I had to really try not to say "serious, lol). I think you are in the majority. But I wonder why?
  And I wonder what it says about all those designers that make a game more lethal in order to discourage combat?

Quote from: HinterWelt;272166Wow. I think I will have the unpopular view here. I believe that the elements that the group brings to the table trump the system that is chosen for play. That is to say, elements that group brings are things like a desire for lots of combat. Let's run with that. Then the GM is going to adjust the monsters appropriately. The players will adjust the character actions appropriately and the system will be forced into the profile the group has for it based on the elements that describe there play style preference.

So, yes, system can effect play, if the group desires it. This is an element as well, one of desiring to play the system as written or as close as possible. Alternatively, it can be to change the system. Elements are merely the discrete expression of the groups collective play style.

Unfortunately, some groups are not aware of this and feel bound byt he system they choose. However, eventually, it will seep through and morph the system to fit the needs and desires of the group.

Of course, all the above is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Is that just a long way of saying, "system/mechanics influence play unless the group ignores the system/mechanics"?

Quote from: CavScout;272346Is that just a long way of saying, "system/mechanics influence play unless the group ignores the system/mechanics"?

Yes, but that's an important "unless" there. The group ALWAYS trumps the designer, in every respect. If the group wants to change the mechanics, or ignore them, then the group can and should do so. Every time. That isn't what was asked, though it seems to be what Dave was looking for.

What was asked in this thread was "Do mechanics influence play?" The answer to that question is "Yes, they do." Even if the group changes the mechanics, the original mechanics did influence play to the extent that they were changed to better accommodate the play style desired.

When Dave asked tBP, the question was "How much do mechanics influence play?" which is a different question. The answer to that is "Only as much as the group allows it to influence play." Different questions, different answers. Bill was actually answering this question, and answering correctly.

-clash

Quote from: dindenver;272323Bill,
  I did post this question on other boards. And your view is actually quite predominant across all the threads I started.
  By and large, people seem to think some combination of these three things:
1) Mechanics don't change your preferred course of action, just how you feel about it afterward
2) Whenever possible, players will avoid games that do not promot their playstyle.
3) If Mechanics and playstyle do not mesh, players will house rule the system to match their playstyle

  Now, it depends on how self-aware these people are, but the prevailing belief across different forums and different splay styles tells me there is at leastr a kernel of truth in there somewhere, what do you think?

I agree. To point 2, the biggest problem is being aware. Unfortunately, advance knowledge is rare. You often end up with having to play a game to realize it is not your style. Then, IME, you see people have a threshold, a point where they will house rule the rest or abandon the system. This is usually expressed by the amount they need to actively rewrite as opposed to drop. For instance, I purposely design my games so that players can drop elements rather than with a need to rewrite. I have run stripped down version of Iridium that look a lot like Basic DND. To me, this is often more pertinent and a function of people not being aware of their preferences. They just know that they do not want to play with weapon speeds because they "suck". I believe the self aware designer/GM carefully recrafting a system to meet the clearly expressed play preferences of his group are rare to the point of being myth.

Quote from: CavScout;272346Is that just a long way of saying, "system/mechanics influence play unless the group ignores the system/mechanics"?

As said below, it is an important "unless" that makes all the difference.

Quote from: flyingmice;272354Yes, but that's an important "unless" there. The group ALWAYS trumps the designer, in every respect. If the group wants to change the mechanics, or ignore them, then the group can and should do so. Every time. That isn't what was asked, though it seems to be what Dave was looking for.

What was asked in this thread was "Do mechanics influence play?" The answer to that question is "Yes, they do." Even if the group changes the mechanics, the original mechanics did influence play to the extent that they were changed to better accommodate the play style desired.

When Dave asked tBP, the question was "How much do mechanics influence play?" which is a different question. The answer to that is "Only as much as the group allows it to influence play." Different questions, different answers. Bill was actually answering this question, and answering correctly.

-clash

Thanks! ;)

And I did answer the first. They do influence play but as you noted, the group trump the mechanics and any "designer" influence. I would argue that any system, played enough, will eventually come to reflect the play style of the group. Those mechanics are not set, so to say they "influence" play is a bit misleading. I would prefer to say that they reflect play of the group. A minor point but an important one to me (and I think to you Clash) in that it then falls on the designer to do his best to provide a system that can be easily extended, manipulated and substituted.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;272359And I did answer the first. They do influence play but as you noted, the group trump the mechanics and any "designer" influence. I would argue that any system, played enough, will eventually come to reflect the play style of the group. Those mechanics are not set, so to say they "influence" play is a bit misleading. I would prefer to say that they reflect play of the group. A minor point but an important one to me (and I think to you Clash) in that it then falls on the designer to do his best to provide a system that can be easily extended, manipulated and substituted.

Bill

We are singing the same tune, Bill. And, of course, my goal in life is to provide a system that is easily and completely customizable to fit a group's needs, perfectly strong and perfectly flexible. Since that is an unreachable goal, it's perfect, as I can keep getting closer without achieving it for the rest of my life. Bill and Brett have both made serious pushes in the same direction, and continue to refine their approaches. Modularity, flexibility, ease of replacement, ease of customization, a strong and simple core which can stand on its own, yet capable of bearing the weight of a full suite of modular bits without complaining.

-clash

Quote from: dindenver;272327Thanks for the thoughtful answer.

No worries.

QuoteI think you are in the majority. But I wonder why?

I don't know, and I'm not sure I could say this is true or not. I figure I've gamed with about 2 maybe 3 hundred people, ranging from high school kids, to Marines I served with, to people I hooked up with online because we liked the same games.

But I have no idea how we really compare to what's out there, or hell even really what's out there.

QuoteAnd I wonder what it says about all those designers that make a game more lethal in order to discourage combat?

I don't know which designers those are. *Shrugs* I've played a few games, but I seem to have missed these. (I'm not saying they don't exist, just that my experience is limited.)

Quote from: dindenver;272068And the topic is, how much do the mechanics (not necessarily the "system" as that is too broad for this topic) affect play?

I think they have an affect, but I also think that the extent and breadth of their influence depends on the game, the group, and the individual.

Seanchai

Sean,
  OK, that makes sense. So, to put it another way. How do mechanics affect your play? Do you run from a fight when the mechanics are exceedingly lethal? Even if you are playing a brave warrior?
  Either way, why?

Quote from: dindenver;2723231) Mechanics don't change your preferred course of action, just how you feel about it afterward

This one I'm iffy on as it seems to me that many times folks don't try things unless there's rules support for their action.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;272434This one I'm iffy on as it seems to me that many times folks don't try things unless there's rules support for their action.

I agree.  I remember a 3.x game where there was an enemy fleeing on horseback.  We wanted to knock him off his horse, but the only rules we saw were for an unconscious rider to fall off his horse (and it might have been he either falls off or he rides along until the horse decides to stop).  We ended up just chasing after him and attacking until he died.  There was no trying to knock him off the horse because there was no rule for it and (perhaps more importantly) nothing on which to base such a thing.  In 4e, it would be easier to improvise a balanced attempt at knocking someone off from their horse.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;272181The next most important thing is the snacks at the game table. Sharing food is a social experience which binds people. And the kind of food they eat sets the mood. A silver service four course dinner with obscure and expensive ingredients sets a certain mood, pizza, coke and cheetos sets another mood. If one or two of the people are new to the group, eating food together is a way for them to slowly settle into the group, it gives them something to talk about, and an excuse to say nothing while others are talking. The right snacks help the people get along.

I find that snacks have nothing to do with the game for any of my groups.  I can see how it could have an impact, but do you really think your group would play differently depending upon what food you eat?

Quote from: KingSpoom;272630I find that snacks have nothing to do with the game for any of my groups.  I can see how it could have an impact, but do you really think your group would play differently depending upon what food you eat?

Kyle's the high priest of Cheetoism, the snack food guru of gurus. Of course he's going to rate snacks over piddly things like systems. :D

-clash

Quote from: KingSpoom;272630I find that snacks have nothing to do with the game for any of my groups.  I can see how it could have an impact, but do you really think your group would play differently depending upon what food you eat?

Yes.

Try this menu at a game session: boiled vegies for dinner, then water and plain cashews for snacks. That's it.  

Next try this menu: pizza for dinner, then coke, cheetos, chocolate biscuits.

Or perhaps try a game group where everyone hogs their snacks to themselves and doesn't share.

After that experiment, tell me that snacks don't make a difference.

I once had a game group where we had healthy snacks. The group imploded. Of course you may not see the causal relationship, but that's what happened.

Eating's a social thing, and is a big part of gaming. That's why so many of us are fat.

Quote from: flyingmice;272631Kyle's the high priest of Cheetoism, the snack food guru of gurus. Of course he's going to rate snacks over piddly things like systems. :D

I gave a gamer a tofu burger just to watch him cry.

Regards,
David R

Let's be fucking serious, here. Because this is a fucking serious topic. Imagine two game groups with different snacks, game groups who are otherwise identical.

Game group A:
(http://www.thegiftbasketcafe.com/cafe/images/GF_HealthyPartySnacks.jpg)

Game group B:
(http://blog.lib.umn.edu/schwitz/healthnews/junk%20food%20basket.jpg)


Don't mess us about. You know the truth.

People. Snacks. Setting. System. In that order.

Ironically I agree with Kyle's basic assertion, it just embarrasses me that he's the spokes person for my POV sometimes. :)

Hmmph! I'd prefer the first actually. I like nuts and fruit. As for my gamer group, sometimes we have cheetos or chips, sometimes we have pretzels, sometimes we have pita and hummus, sometimes we have homemade cookies, it doesn't seem to matter to play. My wife and I usually serve a meal too - we're both excellent cooks, as I know Kyle is. This meal varies wildly - spaghetti with chourizo and meatballs, Indian mee goring with tofu, burgers and fries, tilapia amandine, hot dogs and baked beans, or pork tonkatsu - and again, it seems to have no effect on play. I don't think it's what we eat that's important, but the sharing food itself that matters. I seem to be a bit of a cheetoist heretic. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;272657Hmmph! I'd prefer the first actually. I like nuts and fruit. As for my gamer group, sometimes we have cheetos or chips, sometimes we have pretzels, sometimes we have pita and hummus, sometimes we have homemade cookies, it doesn't seem to matter to play. My wife and I usually serve a meal too - we're both excellent cooks, as I know Kyle is. This meal varies wildly - spaghetti with chourizo and meatballs, Indian mee goring with tofu, burgers and fries, tilapia amandine, hot dogs and baked beans, or pork tonkatsu - and again, it seems to have no effect on play. I don't think it's what we eat that's important, but the sharing food itself that matters. I seem to be a bit of a cheetoist heretic. :D

-clash

My standard gamer meal is Tacos!! Yes, that is Tacos!! I sometimes make them with chicken or beef but the fav seems to be mushrooms. Mmmm, mushroom Tacos!! are the best. Really, they are more like burritos but sometimes I do not add beans (dangerous substance with gamers).

And I am with you. Many types of snacks, from healthy to not. Maybe if we dip Kyle's nuts in chocolate?

Bill

ETA: You know Clash, Linda really likes the idea of putting out a "Gamer's Cookbook". We have fights over the title. I like "To Serve Gamers" and she think "Gamer's Cookbook". We should collaborate. ;)

Quote from: HinterWelt;272662Maybe if we dip Kyle's nuts in chocolate?

There's an image I won't be able to purge for a while.

Quote from: flyingmice;272657I like nuts and fruit.

Squine..

Quote from: HinterWelt;272662ETA: You know Clash, Linda really likes the idea of putting out a "Gamer's Cookbook". We have fights over the title. I like "To Serve Gamers" and she think "Gamer's Cookbook". We should collaborate. ;)

Advanced Kooks and Kitchens - AK&K

Group B snacks look like more fun to me. I can worry about eating healthy on the 28 days a month that I don't game. Since gaming is about fun...

People - Snacks - Setting - System

I can actually accept that paradigm.

Quote from: James J Skach;272672Advanced Kooks and Kitchens - AK&K

I like To Serve Gamers, with fava beans and a nice chianti.

-clash

I dont want to alienate people on my first post but I am sure I will. I think play is greatly influenced by the mechanics of the system. When you boil down good ole d20 or Gurps you get what the names implied, generic. Roll a d20 for your action. I have noticed that a lot of people default to "5' step and attack" kind of mentality. They will pateintly wait their turns and say OK I am going to attack the Blah Blah Blah. It does not matter weather you are a giant warrior of sneaky rogue.

Now systems that have incorporated theme into their mechanics are far superior. Deadlands (OG), 7th Sea, Shadowrun, and Exalted  all have theme based game mechanics at their core. They all have taken a step away from "5 foot step and attack" mentality. Now I would guess from other posts that people will poo poo my comments as being the cinematic style of play that most of these games try to use as being the culprit of the game play change. This may be true. But I am infavor of that style of play and have tried unsuccessfully to incorporate that play style into my D&D games. My players STILL took "5 foot step and attacked" even though I told them I would modify their rolls to include the COOL things they could try. Even though I gave them a reroll pool and kharma bonuses for stunt actions they still waited their turns and then attacked blah blah blah.

I think all systems can be boiled down to two types. One is percentile based the other is dice pool based. One is for mechanics with game play that better suits table-top mini battlers. The other is flexible and emotive which better suits LARP-ers. They both work well if the players all play that style and the DM wants to craft stories that fit that genre. If you are truly trying to "Role Play" than your fearless ogre barbarian who smashes things without thinking should still smash things regardless of mechanics.

I think how they smash those things is what changes.

Those are my two scents:
Opinionated & Moody

Quote from: James J Skach;272672Advanced Kooks and Kitchens - AK&K

I don't know. That seems like an unwholesome cross between an AK47 and the KKK...

Bill

Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;272691Those are my two scents:
Opinionated & Moody

Are they from Chanel?

Ranger Smith won't like that, Kogi!

-clash

Judging by their analysis of us, storygamers are not fond of cheetos (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=8274&page=1#Item_0), either.

Well actually they express no opinion on snacks, instead talking about other shit, but I thought that might make it sound more interesting. Sorry.