Quote from: CavScout;274935LOL... "I am so smart in real life I don't want to play a smart PC in a game!"

Very common attitude.  I share it.   S'why I like playing Fighters and putting my brain into neutral.

You're not one of those people who take offense at anyone claiming to be smart, are you?

Quote from: RPGPundit;274904All RPGs are wish-fulfillment, but there's a pretty absurd gap between "I wish I was a wizard!" and "I wish that though a series of increasingly unplausible and miraculous turns-of-events, Apartheid-era South Africa had managed to conquer the world and turned out to be Objectively and irrefutably PROVEN the best philosophy EVER!!!"

RPGPundit

You aren't usually this subtle about Forge bitch-fests.  What's up?

.....going back to the thread titled topic......:

YES, I was in one of those kinds of games - as a player. I was bored and annoyed with the GM and I hated it .

This was in 1985 or 1986.
The GM was using the GURPS rules.
We were all supposed to be characters from different time periods and settings. Okay, good enough.  Then on the GM's world we had to go through this 'processing house' or special teachibg guild building that was supposed to open up thge minds of our characters.  Game-wise , that didn't really do much for having fun.  Then there was this whole mystical thing about guided  imaging or dreaming - still, kind of boring as far as the "game aspect" of things.

When I finally rode off ...by my lonesome to take on the Thieves' guild that was half a days' ride away - the GM was annoyed , but several players thanked me later.

The GM was doing a hodge-podge of his ideal utopia village setting in a fantasy land. He comined elements of eastern philosophy, Carl Jung, and some pagan and wiccan stuff he had been reading at the time.

It was a mess of a setting and game attempt.
 I believe we only had that one game session.

- Ed C.

Quote from: S'mon;275096You're not one of those people who take offense at anyone claiming to be smart, are you?

I can't speak for him, but I think in this case he's just making fun of Jack, who's pretty well proven that he isn't the most brilliant star in the sky. But this is CavScout, so who knows what entertaining non answer he'll actually give.

Quote from: David R.I do sit down with a political agenda in mind - something that has to be adhered to but :

1 : It's an agenda (political, social etc) that I don't necessarily subscribe to

2: It's something we discuss as a group before the game. If the players have no interest in it, we move on.

I'm not sure your first sentence makes sense to me in conjunction with your second exception, but I think I understand what you're saying. You and the players agree ahead of time to what you want in the game, be it a serious look at [Insert Political Issue here] or just a playful game with little serious depth.

QuoteI don't find it useful exploring my pet political peeves in my games having found more effective avenues for expressing them.

I agree completely. (From here I just espouse my own point of view, inspired by this conversation, but not directed at anyone person.)

I'm pretty lucky, my group doesn't suffer from a lot of the male ego bullshit that I've seen some groups of people who call themselves friends suffer from. We all know our place in our social order, and there is no need to fight it our or compete for place, or status. I think this goes a long ways for us-no one's trying to nail apiece of ass, or throw a ball the furthest, or whatever.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274904All RPGs are wish-fulfillment...

Only in the sense that grunts sometimes wish that tank wasn't there.

Quote from: S'mon;275096Very common attitude.  I share it.   S'why I like playing Fighters and putting my brain into neutral.

You're not one of those people who take offense at anyone claiming to be smart, are you?

Only if all other available evidence suggests otherwise.

Quote from: -E.;275075I didn't mean to imply that those two types of wish fulfillment were in any way exclusive -- I think almost everyone does "I'm a hero" and some folks also do "here's my ideology."
My intent with defining two categories was just to clarify the question and focus on the more uncommon type (ideological) since that's what the communist thread was about.

Actually most times I think they are. I was offering myself as an example of those who cross the lines fairly frequently. You are right of course of making the distinction with regards to the rpgnet thread. I should have been clear that I was commenting on the exchange between Serious Paul and you.

QuoteI think there is an interesting issue with taking your approach ("throw out questions, see where the players take them") -- specifically: if the world is set up based on an ideological dialectic then doesn't it render any actions or perspectives that are at odds with that dialectic meaningless?

Um...I think I wasn't clear in my post either to Paul or you. I didn't mean to imply that there was a dialectic going in the games I run. The questions I throw out are not meant to be a critique of that particular ideology.

For instance in a Naploeonic game I ran, the philosophies/ ideologies/power structures that powered the characters were imperialism, colonialism, authority etc. Most of these I didn't necessarily agree with (niether did the players btw) but it was something that was embraced for the game.

You mentioned your Supers game. What defines success - if it were my game - would be defined by the players, meaning, if it was a "street" level game, the effects would not be far ranging, however if it was a game beyond street level, they may have an opportunity to change the world. My own personal beliefs in vigilantism is irrelevent. In either type of game, the question would be "how far would you go in order to change the world ?"

Regards,
David R

That makes more sense. Some issues are relevant to some settings, your Napoleonic  example is a great one.

Quote from: Serious Paul;275201I'm not sure your first sentence makes sense to me in conjunction with your second exception, but I think I understand what you're saying. You and the players agree ahead of time to what you want in the game, be it a serious look at [Insert Political Issue here] or just a playful game with little serious depth.

More like, me and my friends agree ahead of time to the kind of game we want, even though the politics of the game may not be the kind we subscribe to. I gave an example of this in my reply to -E.

Regards,
David R

Serious Paul and -E, reading my replies, I do come off sounding like a bit of a dick. Sorry about that, I'm in a bit of a rush.

Regards,
David R

No worries, I didn't pick up that vibe for my part, and when I start being perfect-well everyone is face first up against the wall right?

Quote from: David R;275212Actually most times I think they are. I was offering myself as an example of those who cross the lines fairly frequently. You are right of course of making the distinction with regards to the rpgnet thread. I should have been clear that I was commenting on the exchange between Serious Paul and you.

Okay--got it. That makes sense. Based on what you're saying, I wouldn't categorize what you do as 'ideological wish fulfillment' really -- I'm not saying you're wrong to do so, but you're taking a much more open-minded approach than where I'd set the bar for 'wish fulfillment'

As you point out:

Quote from: David R;275212Um...I think I wasn't clear in my post either to Paul or you. I didn't mean to imply that there was a dialectic going in the games I run. The questions I throw out are not meant to be a critique of that particular ideology.

For instance in a Naploeonic game I ran, the philosophies/ ideologies/power structures that powered the characters were imperialism, colonialism, authority etc. Most of these I didn't necessarily agree with (niether did the players btw) but it was something that was embraced for the game.

You mentioned your Supers game. What defines success - if it were my game - would be defined by the players, meaning, if it was a "street" level game, the effects would not be far ranging, however if it was a game beyond street level, they may have an opportunity to change the world. My own personal beliefs in vigilantism is irrelevent. In either type of game, the question would be "how far would you go in order to change the world ?"

Regards,
David R

This doesn't strike me as you (the GM) having a specific point of view you want to make.

Again, you'll have to rely on your own beliefs about the world to work out the effects (long-ranging and short-term) of the PC"s actions... and if (for example) you believe that imperial colonialism usually disrupts and impoverishes conquered cultures, you'd probably choose to have those results occur in the game... but done subtly it wouldn't be a main point of the game in anyway.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;275361Again, you'll have to rely on your own beliefs about the world to work out the effects (long-ranging and short-term) of the PC"s actions... and if (for example) you believe that imperial colonialism usually disrupts and impoverishes conquered cultures, you'd probably choose to have those results occur in the game... but done subtly it wouldn't be a main point of the game in anyway.

Yeah, although IME - based on online chatter - if the GM has a "point" to make it's rarely subtle. Although my players (and me) have strong opinions on colonialism it was never a focus of the campaign. The ship's doctor may have been an "Arabist" but he took a paterfamilias attitude to the "locals" and the ship's Captain was more interested in the "just" appilcation of administration. This was the extent of their views . The rest of the crew were more concerned about their families back home, surviving on a ship and taking sides in the upcoming conflict between the Captain and Doctor who had a Bylthe/Fletcher Christian dynamic.

Regards,
David R