QuoteMy basic philosophy is that if the NPC is not an integral part of the adventure, then gloss over that NPC; relegate the NPC to the background. Move onto something that showcases the PCs.
This is not to say there should not be interesting NPCs in a campaign, just that they should not be the focus. Interesting NPCs should be used to shine the spotlight on the PCs. Use a memorable NPC to make the interaction and information that NPC provides for the PCs memorable. When the PCs walk away from an encounter they should remember that something happened to them there, not that there was something unusual about the NPC; the NPC should be secondary to what happened. (source (http://bigballofnofun.blogspot.com/2012/05/my-npcs-are-lame-on-purpose.html))
If a non-player character is more interesting than your player character, then I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the referee is not the problem.
Shorter? Interesting npc != Mary Sue.
Can't really say anything wrong with that view. The game isn't about you or the NPC'S but what the players do or don't do in the setting. As much as I love Dragonlance and White Wolf both made the error of doing the exact opposite for example. Thank God that can be fixed with a few simple techniques.
That doesn't mean make NPC'S cookie cutter boring with no motivation beyond being a punching bag or whatever more equally boring thing for players to abuse.
I don't wilt as a player the second the spotlight shifts from me, so I would say this DM is full of shit. What is memorable about any adventure isn't me by myself, but what happened in the totality, which can include a PC's actions, an NPC's actions, or anything else.
There's a galaxy or two of difference in between a Mary Sue GMPC and this guy's "lame NPCs'.
I honestly can't imagine enjoying a game where the PCs are functionally cut from any kind of interesting social interaction because the GM has decided to populate the game world with lame NPCs.
Even worse is the suggestion that the only NPCs should be those "integral to the adventure". If you're trying to empower your players by predetermining which NPCs they're supposed to find interesting, then I'm afraid you don't understand what the word "empower" means.
I do the exact opposite: I fill my game world with interesting NPCs and then I let the players tell me which NPCs they're interested in interacting with. (Hint: Those would be the NPCs they choose to interact with.) I develop those NPCs, giving them more depth and detail in order to reward the players as they continue to interact with them.
The result is that, over time, the players (and the PCs) become emotionally invested in the game world.
Quote from: Marleycat;543679The game isn't about you or the NPC'S but what the players do or don't do in the setting.
Interacting with npcs is a big part of what the players do or don't do in the setting. Interacting with cardboard cut-outs isn't half as entertaining as dealing with fully realized people.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;543695Interacting with npcs is a big part of what the players do or don't do in the setting. Interacting with cardboard cut-outs isn't half as entertaining as dealing with fully realized people.
Totally true, I know I missed the point of the thread because I didn't read the linksie, sorry.
Good NPCs know when to sit down and shut up.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;543689Even worse is the suggestion that the only NPCs should be those "integral to the adventure". If you're trying to empower your players by predetermining which NPCs they're supposed to find interesting, then I'm afraid you don't understand what the word "empower" means.
I do the exact opposite: I fill my game world with interesting NPCs and then I let the players tell me which NPCs they're interested in interacting with.
Yeah, that was pretty much my initial reaction as well.
If it wasn't for npcs with intrigues and agendas, my campaign would consist of nothing but characters banging swords together.
You'd think there'd be a happy middle between Mary Sues and cardboard cutouts. Sometimes players want to interact with the seemingly most mundane things. But as you flesh out those mundane things, they breathe life into the world and often draw the players into greater potential adventures. Why would you as a GM try to pre-decide such things? Let the players have fun; part of the GM's fun is trying to keep up fleshing out this world they're exploring.
Well, I guess it might be important if you have a story arc or adventure goal to follow... But dampening NPCs seem like such a lost opportunity. I'd rather toy with a few mundane and eccentric characters just to see what my players want to do.
QuoteWhen the PCs walk away from an encounter they should remember that something happened to them there, not that there was something unusual about the NPC; the NPC should be secondary to what happened.
4e player detected. Sometimes the interesting thing that happened
is the NPC.
Sometimes you want the NPC to be interesting so that the Players feel something sympathetic towards the NPC when bad shit happens to it. Doesn't make it a Mary Sue GMPC.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;543674If a non-player character is more interesting than your player character, then I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the referee is not the problem.
Shorter? Interesting npc != Mary Sue.
The quoted text seems to equate "interesting npc" with DMPC. NPCs can be interesting without hogging spotlight or taking over the adventure. Interesting NPCs are important parts of a good adventure in my book.
So what's the issue here? Since we all agree the premise is fucked up.
I introduced a throw-away henchmen (humanoid fodder) for a game back in 2005 or thereabouts. He had a funny Italian accent and was mostly just a goof-off, spur-of-the-moment creation.
The players loved him.
I tired of him very quickly, but they wouldn't let him leave the party, or get captured, or die. I was letting the dice fall where they may and they often went against him, but the players love him so there was always had to be some reason for him to be back.
Ugh. Didn't mind at all when that campaign died.
The inherent problem here is one that has infected new school and continues to be enabled by game systems:
Me Me Me!!
The fixation of the player on their little snowflake and all the kewl stuff he/she can do has led to a very egocentic view of play. Good times, fun adventures with friends, and exploring a fantasy world have taken a backseat to showboating wankery.
The kind of crap passed off in that example further disconnects the players from the game world and reinforces the view that the game world is just a two dimentional cardboard backdrop constructed to be chewed on by the psychoctic wish fufillment fantasies of the players.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;543740The inherent problem here is one that has infected new school and continues to be enabled by game systems:
Me Me Me!!
The fixation of the player on their little snowflake and all the kewl stuff he/she can do has led to a very egocentic view of play. Good times, fun adventures with friends, and exploring a fantasy world have taken a backseat to showboating wankery.
The kind of crap passed off in that example further disconnects the players from the game world and reinforces the view that the game world is just a two dimentional cardboard backdrop constructed to be chewed on by the psychoctic wish fufillment fantasies of the players.
I completely disagree with this being associated with the 'new school' of playing.
Wouldn't the new school obsession with say, balance, and of course the strong trend towards rules-light 'indie' games be the literal opposite of 'all the cool shit I can do'? (which I sort of associate with 90s and some 2000s ie high level 3e)
I agree with most here in that, while GMPCs are a bad idea, the GM is still a player. A great deal of the fun, at least for me when I GM, is playing interesting NPCs. Interesting != spotlight hogging.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543742I completely disagree with this being associated with the 'new school' of playing.
Wouldn't the new school obsession with say, balance, and of course the strong trend towards rules-light 'indie' games be the literal opposite of 'all the cool shit I can do'? (which I sort of associate with 90s and some 2000s ie high level 3e)
When you consider the new school balance concerns to be primarily all about making sure nobody can be cooler than me and the rules light indie games being centered around making sure nobody else gets a smidge more spotlight time or "influences the narrative" more than ME!.........Nope.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543742I completely disagree with this being associated with the 'new school' of playing.
Wouldn't the new school obsession with say, balance, and of course the strong trend towards rules-light 'indie' games be the literal opposite of 'all the cool shit I can do'? (which I sort of associate with 90s and some 2000s ie high level 3e)
I tend to associate spot light management with new school design.
Edit: spotlight parity is probably a better wayto phrase it.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;543745When you consider the new school balance concerns to be primarily all about making sure nobody can be cooler than me and the rules light indie games being centered around making sure nobody else gets a smidge more spotlight time or "influences the narrative" more than ME!.........Nope.
You're wrong - here's why.
Players of 'new school' style games
are entitled. They feel that by playing the game in good faith, they're
entitled to have fun. If you think this is wrong, fine - I'd disagree very strongly.
That's why they all get to 'influence the narrative' the same, or why they prefer systems without trap choices in character generation. Because these actively hurt
players (not characters) - and yes, it does easily lead to players feeling shafted at the table.
This has
nothing to do with making a character all-powerful or a 'special snowflake', and everything to do with having a creative, exciting, social, fantasy world-based game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;543746I tend to associate spot light management with new school design.
Edit: spotlight parity is probably a better wayto phrase it.
Spotlight parity is very new school and explicit in 4e. But it isn't about being a super powerful snowflake, its about having a character who is supported by the rules and the playstyle of the game.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543748Spotlight parity is very new school and explicit in 4e. But it isn't about being a super powerful snowflake, its about having a character who is supported by the rules and the playstyle of the game.
I myself never use the "special snowflake" language to describe it, but When people do I think they have spotlight parity in mind. It is a matter of taste. If you enjoy that kind of game more power to you. Personally I find 4E's spotlight parity greatly reduces my pleasure for a range of reasons.
I would say it goes beyond having a character concept that is supported by the rules, and really comes down to ensuring everyone has a chance to shine. For some this is golden, it makes the game better. For others, it takes away some of the challenge, some of the risk vs. reward. I do come from a competitive background and so for me, i prefer not to be assured of spotlight, but to have to work for it a bit. I think a little healthy competition between the players can make for a more exciting game. But that is just my preference.
So I dont hold it against you if you like this kind of design. Where I start to get a bit prickly is when people talk about spotlight parity and class parity as if they are universally better design approaches, which they aren't...they are just well suited for particular tastes. This is where I see a lot of 4e people getting into trouble. Taking their preferences and assuming they are universal.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543747You're wrong - here's why.
Players of 'new school' style games are entitled. They feel that by playing the game in good faith, they're entitled to have fun. If you think this is wrong, fine - I'd disagree very strongly.
That's why they all get to 'influence the narrative' the same, or why they prefer systems without trap choices in character generation. Because these actively hurt players (not characters) - and yes, it does easily lead to players feeling shafted at the table.
This has nothing to do with making a character all-powerful or a 'special snowflake', and everything to do with having a creative, exciting, social, fantasy world-based game.
I think everyone here wants to have fun at the table. But for many of us spotlight parity doesn't produce fun, it works against it. There are two key issues raised by your post that relate here. One is giving players narrative control is immerssion breaking for some (and if immersion is part of the fun...). The other is building the game so everyone always has x number of big shines per encounter, x number per day, etc takes away some of the challenge and creates a much more uniform experience of the game. At leSt it does fpr some of us.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;543751I myself never use the "special snowflake" language to describe it, but When people do I think they have spotlight parity in mind. It is a matter of taste. If you enjoy that kind of game more power to you. Personally I find 4E's spotlight parity greatly reduces my pleasure for a range of reasons.
I would say it goes beyond having a character concept that is supported by the rules, and really comes down to ensuring everyone has a chance to shine. For some this is golden, it makes the game better. For others, it takes away some of the challenge, some of the risk vs. reward. I do come from a competitive background and so for me, i prefer not to be assured of spotlight, but to have to work for it a bit. I think a little healthy competition between the players can make for a more exciting game. But that is just my preference.
So I dont hold it against you if you like this kind of design. Where I start to get a bit prickly is when people talk about spotlight parity and class parity as if they are universally better design approaches, which they aren't...they are just well suited for particular tastes. This is where I see a lot of 4e people getting into trouble. Taking their preferences and assuming they are universal.
For starters, I'm a 3/3.5 player at heart. I don't own a 4e book, even.
I like some of 4e's ideas because to me -
they encourage more risk and reward. Lots more.
When you have a highly codified and tactical combat system, for instance, you have a lot more control over the stakes. As a player, you take clearer choices with clearer effects on the battle rather than having to negotiate for these. Therefore, the DM doesn't have to play the monsters with a hand tied behind his back and the players know this - it is truly
competitive, in the strictest sense of the term. Players aren't entitled to shine - they're
able to if they play well - and they know the DM's going to play well.
(I'm more of a combat light guy and prefer to play faster!)
And no, I certainly don't believe every group or every system should have spotlight parity (and certainly not
every instance!) (quick edit: I'm not trying to imply I was accused of this) But I do have a strong preference for systems that encourage equally powered characters as to not shaft players.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543756When you have a highly codified and tactical combat system, for instance, you have a lot more control over the stakes. As a player, you take clearer choices with clearer effects on the battle rather than having to negotiate for these. Therefore, the DM doesn't have to play the monsters with a hand tied behind his back and the players know this - it is truly competitive, in the strictest sense of the term. Players aren't entitled to shine - they're able to if they play well - and they know the DM's going to play well.
This is what I feel is good about 3 and 4, if anything. Both botched the pace and lethality, and while I've got my fixes in 3 I'm still working on a game to address these issues.
I don't like spotlight parity as a design goal, both because of it's faulty premise (all players do not crave the spotlight) and because of it's faulty application (players must be able to do something every round... where do something almost always means deal damage).
Narrative control I don't like because I wield the unknown elements of the environment to generate suspense and mystery. Even without SoD issues, narrative control of elements outside the PCs would tend to fuck that up.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543747You're wrong - here's why.
Players of 'new school' style games are entitled. They feel that by playing the game in good faith, they're entitled to have fun. If you think this is wrong, fine - I'd disagree very strongly.
That's why they all get to 'influence the narrative' the same, or why they prefer systems without trap choices in character generation. Because these actively hurt players (not characters) - and yes, it does easily lead to players feeling shafted at the table.
This has nothing to do with making a character all-powerful or a 'special snowflake', and everything to do with having a creative, exciting, social, fantasy world-based game.
Here is why I think you are wrong.
Entitlement to fun is bullshit. A roleplaying game is a cooperative entertainment experience. Therefore sitting around with an entitlement to fun equates to a demand to be entertained.
Instead, each and every participant (including the GM) has a responsibility. This responsibility is to do your utmost to make sure everyone involved in the experience has good time. It is the exact opposite of head-up-your-ass entitlement. It involves putting the shared activity (the fun of the adventure) ahead of personal gratification.
Do the math. If you are doing your best to make sure everyone else is having fun and the others are doing likewise then you will have fun without any particular rules entitling you to such.
New school rules are developed with the assumption that everyone participating is a selfish prick out to seize their slice of fun from the rest of the group via force of rules. Thats the sort of thinking that necessitates entitlements over social responsibilities.
I don't like the tone of a game that assumes I am an asshole to my friends from page 1. YMMV.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;543759Here is why I think you are wrong.
Entitlement to fun is bullshit. A roleplaying game is a cooperative entertainment experience. Therefore sitting around with an entitlement to fun equates to a demand to be entertained.
Instead, each and every participant (including the GM) has a responsibility. This responsibility is to do your utmost to make sure everyone involved in the experience has good time. It is the exact opposite of head-up-your-ass entitlement. It involves putting the shared activity (the fun of the adventure) ahead of personal gratification.
Do the math. If you are doing your best to make sure everyone else is having fun and the others are doing likewise then you will have fun without any particular rules entitling you to such.
New school rules are developed with the assumption that everyone participating is a selfish prick out to seize their slice of fun from the rest of the group via force of rules. Thats the sort of thinking that necessitates entitlements over social responsibilities.
I don't like the tone of a game that assumes I am an asshole to my friends from page 1. YMMV.
This is why I specified that if you go play 'in good faith' I think you have a reasonable entitlement to fun - I'd agree completely that everyone has a 'responsibility' to make sure everyone involved has a good time, that's the thought I was trying to express.
I'd agree
completely with your first three paragraphs.
I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree with your assertion that new school rules believe the players involved are selfish pricks, and that the rules are there to keep them in line. However, if the tone of the rules is an issue for some, I would fully support changing it.
I don't feel accused by new school rules - I just like (generally fairly mundane) character concepts that aren't completely shafted by these rules, and to have adventures where player choice is important, rather than 'whatever the DM says'.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543760This is why I specified that if you go play 'in good faith' I think you have a reasonable entitlement to fun - I'd agree completely that everyone has a 'responsibility' to make sure everyone involved has a good time, that's the thought I was trying to express.
I'd agree completely with your first three paragraphs.
I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree with your assertion that new school rules believe the players involved are selfish pricks, and that the rules are there to keep them in line. However, if the tone of the rules is an issue for some, I would fully support changing it.
I don't feel accused by new school rules - I just like (generally fairly mundane) character concepts that aren't completely shafted by these rules, and to have adventures where player choice is important, rather than 'whatever the DM says'.
Its a mindset difference. What can I do to make this fun for everyone? VS Whats in this for me?
As a DM, I feel player choice is very important. Not knowing what the players will do or how a situation will end up is what holds my interest in running games.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;543765Its a mindset difference. What can I do to make this fun for everyone? VS Whats in this for me?
That's a good way to put it. I prefer, of course, as we all do, 'fun for everyone' - for me, that comes out of both a sense of fairness and because I prefer a 'fun for everyone game' and don't enjoy the '
me me me' approach.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;543765As a DM, I feel player choice is very important. Not knowing what the players will do or how a situation will end up is what holds my interest in running games.
Absolutely. How the rules interact with this, though, is debatable. I feel that the rules should emphasize player choice and give the DM a good framework in which to work, rather than retreating and leaving DM choice to fill the void.
Quote from: every old school vs. new school RPG debate everkids these days entitlement yadda yadda
Some people can only have fun when they're in the spotlight; they want to be like Conan or Aragorn or whoever and they don't want to die an ignonimious death in some dark, damp tomb, poisoned by a trap or surprised by a lucky goblin.
Some people can only have fun clawing their way through lethal obstacles and opponents, and prying the much-vaunted spotlight from an owlbear's cold, dead paws. They don't even mind burning through a few dead characters on their way to glory.
For the first group, there's games with protagonism mechanics. This can be as simple as bail-your-ass (hero, fate, drama, action, whatever) points or as complex as a full-blown "storygame".
For the second group there's the more hardcore trad stuff.
And there you have it why no edition of D&D will ever satisfy both camps; because they're fundamentally at odds. 3.0e/3.5e were probably the closest to the middle of the road that we'll ever get.
Quote from: The Butcher;543768And there you have it why no edition of D&D will ever satisfy both camps; because they're fundamentally at odds. 3.0e/3.5e were probably the closest to the middle of the road that we'll ever get.
I don't really believe that the pseudo-middleground 3.0 represented can't be better embodied by a functional, modular game system like Next. If you look at it in the details, there are in fact few mechanics concerned when the focus is to what they want to both groups of players (i.e. fate points, how healing/SoD/Level Drain/Rust monsters work, etc etc). A few of these are touching to the core of the game system (I'm thinking HP economy and how that plays domino with other elements in the game like weapon damage, hit points of creatures, and so on, so forth), but none which I think has to be one way or the other. So I think there's a possibility to make things right for both groups in Next (by revising the HP economy, by proposing random HPs for creatures AND fixed HPs at the same time, by thinking about variant effects of situations like SoD and level drain, etc) and propose options people can turn on and off to get the game they want out of it.
Now it's NOT easy. It's a complex affair. And there will/is a lot of bitching and the sky is falling ans stuff involved in the meantime - and honestly, I think you kind of need to have it that way to see what really makes each group react positively and negatively to what you've got in the game system being playtested - but I do think it is possible to get there.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543760I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree with your assertion that new school rules believe the players involved are selfish pricks, and that the rules are there to keep them in line. However, if the tone of the rules is an issue for some, I would fully support changing it.
Constructing rules to control behavior and prevent "bad GMs" is one of the hallmark signifiers of a "new school" game.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543760I don't feel accused by new school rules - I just like (generally fairly mundane) character concepts that aren't completely shafted by these rules, and to have adventures where player choice is important, rather than 'whatever the DM says'.
Any rules system designed with a shred of thought towards power relationships at the table is by definition "New School", if not outright Forgite.
To quote the philsopher Sam Kinison, "If you don't trust the pussy, why are you fucking the pussy?"
Every game I've ever played in outside a convention has dealt with bad players and bad GMs the old fashioned way, discussion and voting-via-foot. The "but the rules say..." conversation has always happened, but it has turned into a rules obsession due to WotC managing D&D like Magic, focusing solely on tournament-style rules.
When I attempt to do something with my character that the rules might not cover exactly, and I ask the GM what happens, I'm just asking a referee to make a call, I'm not genuflecting and kissing his sacred cockhead.
This shit is so Gen-Y it's pathetic.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543756For starters, I'm a 3/3.5 player at heart. I don't own a 4e book, even.
I like some of 4e's ideas because to me - they encourage more risk and reward. Lots more.
When you have a highly codified and tactical combat system, for instance, you have a lot more control over the stakes. As a player, you take clearer choices with clearer effects on the battle rather than having to negotiate for these. Therefore, the DM doesn't have to play the monsters with a hand tied behind his back and the players know this - it is truly competitive, in the strictest sense of the term. Players aren't entitled to shine - they're able to if they play well - and they know the DM's going to play well.
To me having a more tactical combat system is a different thing than having spotlight parity. You can have a very tactical combat system with little to know spotlight parity. Where 4E breaks down for me is the powers mechanics (dailies, utilities, encounter and at will) which appear designed to give everyone an equally rationed amount of shine time in combat (spotlight parity). A game where tactics mattered and where decisions players made had important mechanical consequences wouldn't bother me the way 4E does, it is the way 4E does it, which is through parity at each stage of the game. Just not for me.
Quote(I'm more of a combat light guy and prefer to play faster!)
And no, I certainly don't believe every group or every system should have spotlight parity (and certainly not every instance!) (quick edit: I'm not trying to imply I was accused of this) But I do have a strong preference for systems that encourage equally powered characters as to not shaft players.
I am combat light as well.
Balance is fine. But I don't think it should be centered entirely around combat, and I don't think it means everyone has to be assured of equal spotlight time.
Quote from: CRKrueger;543798Every game I've ever played in outside a convention has dealt with bad players and bad GMs the old fashioned way, discussion and voting-via-foot. The "but the rules say..." conversation has always happened, but it has turned into a rules obsession due to WotC managing D&D like Magic, focusing solely on tournament-style rules.
When I attempt to do something with my character that the rules might not cover exactly, and I ask the GM what happens, I'm just asking a referee to make a call, I'm not genuflecting and kissing his sacred cockhead.
I'm glad we're on the same page about this.
I don't want to genuflect and fellate my GM, or play rules lawyer with him in order to affect the situation. I want a nice framework in which out-of-rules actions make sense.
And I have no idea why you think that a new school system that acknowledges the relationship between player and GM somehow excludes out of game meta negotiations, leaving the game altogether, etc. It doesn't.
But really - it's a game, and you're probably playing with friends. 'Voting with your feet' is probably the worst case scenario. A framework that avoids that outcome while not intruding with actions while keeping the game fun is, in my opinion, ideal.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;543805Balance is fine. But I don't think it should be centered entirely around combat, and I don't think it means everyone has to be assured of equal spotlight time.
I think I disagree here. If I'm reading you right, you prefer characters to be balanced overall (ie one character might be good inside of combat, another be utility-based, another social), while I like having all characters contribute strongly in and outside of combat.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543808I think I disagree here. If I'm reading you right, you prefer characters to be balanced overall (ie one character might be good inside of combat, another be utility-based, another social), while I like having all characters contribute strongly in and outside of combat.
Yes, i think we just disagree. I dont mind if my character is combat weak but a great detective for example (or if he is terrible at social situationsbut a beast with a sword).
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;543809Yes, i think we just disagree. I dont mind if my character is combat weak but a great detective for example (or if he is terrible at social situationsbut a beast with a sword).
What's odd is that in certain game styles (absurdly, the kind I prefer), I'd agree a lot more with you.
But in either 4e-style lengthy, tactical combat games - or extremely rules-light social games, your style sort of breaks down at the table.
I think I just feel that the rules should sort of cover the last option as possibly occurring and balance from there.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543811What's odd is that in certain game styles (absurdly, the kind I prefer), I'd agree a lot more with you.
But in either 4e-style lengthy, tactical combat games - or extremely rules-light social games, your style sort of breaks down at the table.
I think I just feel that the rules should sort of cover the last option as possibly occurring and balance from there.
I most of my games the pcs dont go through a series of social encounters or a series of combat gauntlets, i let them try different coursesof action (sometimes it means bashing things over the head, sometimes it means they engage in political maneuverings, other times it mean sweat talking their way out of situation. So my games tend to be a strong mix. Personally games built around a series of long encounters bore me to tears.
Also, pryingeyes suggestion only really works if you basically buy into the Forge's design philosophy and focus on making your game "coherent" so that then, you can balance things between those game components or abilities that are more obviously prevalent than these other ones in game play. The farther away you get from Forge game design, the less likely you'll be able to separate the relative utility of two components between them in the game.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543807I want a nice framework in which out-of-rules actions make sense.
Well, obviously, no rules can give you that.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543807And I have no idea why you think that a new school system that acknowledges the relationship between player and GM somehow excludes out of game meta negotiations, leaving the game altogether, etc. It doesn't.
No, it doesn't, anymore then Chess doesn't, but one player wanting to play a casual game, while another wants to take seven hours per move is something that can render the game unstatisfying to both, but the rules have no purpose in that discussion. EVERY game that isn't single-player has the "outside of game" social aspect. So what? New School games go further into trying to define and codify that interaction.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543807But really - it's a game, and you're probably playing with friends. 'Voting with your feet' is probably the worst case scenario. A framework that avoids that outcome while not intruding with actions while keeping the game fun is, in my opinion, ideal.
What framework avoids the outcome? 4e? Maybe, but you're talking about basically playing a wargame at that point.
I know the odds, I know the situation because the rules have forced the GM to allocate me the proper magic items, they have forced the GM to set up a an encounter I know I can win, and now it's all about who plays the game better. Fucking AWESOME wargame, shit roleplaying game.
Quote from: CRKrueger;543815What framework avoids the outcome? 4e? Maybe, but you're talking about basically playing a wargame at that point.
I know the odds, I know the situation because the rules have forced the GM to allocate me the proper magic items, they have forced the GM to set up a an encounter I know I can win, and now it's all about who plays the game better. Fucking AWESOME wargame, shit roleplaying game.
4e doesn't avoid that outcome. But at least it tried - I don't play it myself, but I respect some of its ideas.
I don't know why you think rules that encourage (no rule can force anyone to do anything) fair encounters make a 'shit roleplaying game' necessarily. However, I wouldn't slavishly adhere to perfect balance within encounters or with magic items or whatever. So we may actually agree on that point.
Quote from: pryingeyes;543820I don't know why you think rules that encourage (no rule can force anyone to do anything) fair encounters make a 'shit roleplaying game' necessarily.
Because there is no fantasy, modern, or futuristic setting that I can think of where the inhabitants always face equivalent foes, and rarely have to run. Any game that models something like that is far too self-aware to be immersive to me.
Quote from: CRKrueger;543798To quote the philsopher Sam Kinison, "If you don't trust the pussy, why are you fucking the pussy?"
YAY! New line in the sig for Sigmund :D