This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Franklin

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Quote from: Melinglor
I dunno, you think maybe it would have had a warm reception here?

Fuck, dude, what do you want? I played a game I enjoyed, and I posted it to a site where that game is popular. So? You said (repeatedly) that GMless gaming can't work and could not be fun. Tony said well, what about people who DO find it works and DO find it fun? You said, "Where's your evidence?" Given that the only "evidence" that exists for this (and possibly, the only kind that could exist) is actual play, whether first- or second-hand. So I offered my expereince as a datapoint. But it doesn't count because I posted it to the wrong website?

So, I guess the bottom line is, do you believe that GMless play can work (not, "will always work" or "is the One True Way to play"), or not? If an account of firsthand experience with it working didn't convince you, what would? What exactly are you looking for here?


I do not believe that GMless play can work properly. That's just the way I see things. In my experience, a game group needs a single person who guides the game and who makes decisions aboput plot. Anything else will just result in a mess.

However, I apologise if I insulted you and your game in a previous post.

Thanks
Frank

2
Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Helping newbies?
« on: February 23, 2007, 05:24:38 am »
Quote from: Dominus Nox


Not long ago I gave a beginning player a character a weapon with a variety of ammo loads for it. Think a 20mm rail grendae launcher, and when the party was attacked he went to fire on the attackers, but he didn't know what to fire, so he hadn't loaded it.

OK, his character had military experience, so I assumed the character had loaded and locked before going in, then I told the player he'd have to state that he has a round loaded or not from now on. (It was an EM propelled weapon, so leaving a live round in it was usually no problem.)

Then I asked what kind of round he was firing, and he was stuck so I helped him out. "Ok, you're indoors, at close range so the HE round with the frag jacket is kinda contraindicated in these conditons, right? The attackers aren't armored that you can see so you don't need an AP round. The fletchette round is great against unarmored humanoids, especialy at close range, so..."

OK, he picked the right one. The fletchette round also gave a large bonus to hit so was definitely the perfect round for the conditions.

He caught on pretty quick, and didn't need much more help except for game mechanics issues after that.


That doesn't sound to me like anything to do with knowledge of how to play an RPG or stuff. It sounds like that was a situation where the player didn't not have any knowledge of military tech and had to be guided through it. To be honest, if their character is an experienced military one, why not just allow them to assume they have loaded the right ammo for the job at hand? I certainly know very little about guns and when I've been playing military characters inj groups, we've always tended to assume that we're using the right ammo for the job (liek if we're shooting at someone in powered armour, we assume we're using armour piercing ammo or whatever the settinghas for that).

The character might have a lot of knowledge about the miliatry, but the player probably won't. So why spend time focussing on that, when it would be better to help them understand how a game works, what the GM does, how you roleplay your character and so on.

Dunno, just my thoughts on it.

Thanks
Frank

3
Quote from: Melinglor
Y'know, I personally have played a Gm-less game recently, and everyone involved had lots of shouting-match-free fun. And with a bunck of folks that normally play D&D quite enthusiastically.

Peace,
-Joel


And of course the report on play is on the Forge. Why does that not surprise me at all?

Thanks
Frank

4
Sometimes they just pop up, like others have said. The minor bad guy from session 1 turns up again when the PCs visit the town again in session 4, then they start to think he's more than he appear to be, so that inspires you to actually build a backstory round him and make him into somkething bigger. I find it all just feeds of the little comments from the players "Surely we've seen him too many times? And what about thos strange things have been happening to us suince we last bumped ito this guy? I wonder if he's..."

Thanks
Frank

5
Quote from: TonyLB
Well ... how do you explain the people who play GMless games and have a good time?  Are they just deluding themselves somehow?  Are they actually playing GMed games?  Are they actually not enjoying themselves?

Even if there weren't evidence that GMless games can work, you'd be in a pickle trying to prove a negative.  But given that people have plenty of actual play experience of these games producing fun, challenging and dramatic results ... man ... you've really got a hard row to hoe here, with this argument.


What is your evidence then? I've never seen a GMless game work, none of the people I've ever gamed with have. It's just going to end up as a fight over who gets to shout the most and act the smartest. Without a GM and RPG cannot work.

So where is your evidence?

Thanks
Frank

6
Media and Inspiration / Who else would you like to see join RPGsite?
« on: February 15, 2007, 11:08:24 am »
How about more people from the UK? I know theres a few on here but it would be good to have more from this side of the Atlantic. None of the UK Forger people post here to defend their games or even try to pretend that they have something useful to say.

Thanks
Frank

7
Quote from: Geoff Hall
What complete and utter rubbish!

Let me start out by stating that I don't think either kind of game is superior; I like plenty of games with GMs (I believe that I put WFRP 2nd Ed. as my top game in my top 10 on these very forums) but I also like some games that don't have a GM.  The idea that those games devlove into everyone shouting and making a mess of things is, quite frankly, laughable and if they do it says rather more about your group than it does the games themselves.  It's perfectly possible to have an RPG with distributed GMing (i.e. the players share the duties in some form or another) and have it run smoothly and be immensely fun.  Not everyone starts power tripping the moment they realise there isn't some central figure in control :rolleyes: .


So, if you have a group of people playing a game without a GM, then everyone is going to give everyone else equal time and everyone is going to get their go? No your not. It's that kind of idea that is utter rubbish. There will always be people who are more forceful than the rest and will have more to do and end up running tghe game. So why not make them the GM and run the game PROPERLY in the first place?

No game without a GM can possibly work because that's not the way people work.

Quote
In certain situations having a GM-less game is an advantage, specifically if you have a group of creative individuals but no one who likes to GM (which is, annoyingly, precisely the situation that I find myself in at the moment.)  In that case the choice shouldn't have to be between no game and 1 poor sod doing something that they don't enjoy and, with GM-less games, it doesn't have to be.  Of course if you have someone who enjoys being the GM then cool, play a game with a GM, there are lots of excellent ones out there and if someone finds GMing fun then all the better.


I have never, ever seen a group where there is no one who wants to GM. In fact I've never heard of a group where there is no one who wants to GM. If nobody wants to GM, then why is anybody bothering? Surely at least one person has enough skill and imagination to run a game? If nobody wants to do that then a game without a GM is a pretty poor excuse.

Thanks
Frank

8
So why on earth do they need to re-do Cthulhu, especially with these guys? Its perfectly fine as it is and doesn't need and entirely new syste,. The percentile one that has been used from the very start works just fine for almost everyone who has ever played it. Why change it at all?

Thanks
Frank

9
Quote from: Geoff Hall
DM/GM presence:

I've got no real opinions either way on this one.  I think for a more traditional RPG then a GM is necessary but, equally, if a game is designed right then distributing GMing duties equally amongst the players can work absolutely wonderfully.  I have equally high regard for WFRP, Nobilis and Polaris for instance.  The first is very traditional, the second has such high powered players that, whilst the GM (or HG) has the traditional role, their powers are comparatively diluted and the third has no single GM with players taking on the role jointly in a round-robin style from scene to scene.


If a game does not have a GM who has the piower over the story and the plot then it isn't an RPG. I can see how people might enjoy games that don't have GMs, but they are not roleplaying games, they are just the same as sitting round a fire and telling ghost stories. But the people who write those games try to tell us that they ARE roleplaying games and they they ARE better than games that have a GM. So evceryone shouting and making a mess of things with nobody to stop them, it just cannot work. If you have a GM they can make things run smoothly and give a better game for everyone. Games without a GM are like the communism of gaming: thye do not work ion the real world.

Thanks
Frank

10
Like other people, the Kafers in 2300AD.

Thanks
Frank

11
My brother played D&D and Cthuhlu with his mates in our front room and I hassled him ebnough to let me play. From then on got really into it and ended up GMing for them a couple of years later. never looked back really.

Now need to find a new gaming group since the move and start again.

Thanks
Frank

12
I remember reading about Price of Freedom years ago. It was the one where it was 'better dead than red', yeah? Was it not kind of like Twilight: 2000, only set in the USA rather than in Europe?

Thanks
Frank

13
The RPGPundit's Own Forum / Swinewatch UK
« on: January 19, 2007, 06:08:46 am »
Quote from: Garry G
What's interesting about this thread is that a few weeks ago Franklin started a thread looking for 'Forgey' stuff in the UK. This isn't like he accidentally came across stuff or somebody went all evangelical on him at a con he went out deliberately to find people he could label 'Forgey' so he could be offended by them. When in this thread people pointed out that the guys he was attacking are actually alright he just got more offensive about them.

This all says a lot more about Franklin than anybody else if you ask me.


So? So what? I was just trying to find out if forge stuff had come to mthe UK? Whats wrong with that? So I find out it does and tell people about it. Whats wrong with that?

And I don't think the guys I was so-called 'attacking' are 'alright'. So, Malcolm makes a sanctimonius post and then runs like a scardey cat without even coming back to answer to anyone. At least I am still here. I don't see anyopne from the UK forge coming here to try to defend their bullshit.

Thanks
Frank

14
Quote from: JessHartley
I haven't played Etherscope yet, but I got fairly intimate with the setting (ooh, that sounded naughty) when editing The Lemurian Candidate, an Etherscope adventure that was nominated for an Ennie at last year's GenCon.  

I can't say enough about the setting or TLC. It puts a twist on modern day game-play, incorporating aspects of the supernatural/alt-science that I found very enjoyable to read and which I think would be fantastic to play.

The only issue I kept coming up against was that I really wanted to play it in a Victorian steampunk type setting, rather than the "recent past" era it was written in.  Has anyone else ran up against this?

~jess~
http://www.jesshartley.com


I've not had that problem, no. I have tended to run it with a very Victorian style anyway, I sometimes flick through the Chthulhu by Gaslight books for ideas for the game.

I think the recent past era and 1984 references work very well to provide a great setting for playing games in. if you have had this problems, how have you managed to overcome it?

Thanks
Frank

15
Quote from: Geoff Hall
Except that Etherscope is written by Malladins Gate Press and marketed/published by Goodman Games...

I do, on an unrelated note, find it somewhat ironic that Franklin loves Etherscope (as do I, great setting/game) and yet is ragging on the Collective Endeavour over on Pundit's forum.  I can only assume that he doesn't realise that one of CE's founders writes adventure modules for Etherscope and is good friends with the authors, Nigel and Ben, and has worked on some of the other Etherscope suppliments put out by them.


Yes, that is the Etherscope I'm talking about. I did not know that about one of the CE guys designing stuff for Etherscope. Well, at leats that is one good thing that is coming out of that.

Thanks
Frank

Pages: [1] 2 3