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.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

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 - Doctor Jest

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 68
The hobby has been dying since at least 1990. Given it's growth in that time, it must be undead. Its the zombie apocalypse of hobbies.

Indiana business supports the law, says they will discriminate against gays, internet explodes

Quote from: Brad;823157
You seriously think that's what's going to happen? This is all a dog and pony show. After Mike Pence's conference this morning, it was pretty obvious the press was just bored and looking for a sensationalist axe to grind. Arkansas passed something far harsher, to the sound of absolutely fucking nothing.

Nothing to see, folks.

It's already happening. Bans and boycotts are growing rapidly by both other states and many US corporations. So yes I believe its going to happen because I am not in denial of what is happening right now.

Heck, Angie's List canceled a 40 million dollar contract to build offices in Indiana already and that's almost the value of GenCon itself.

So why wouldn't I believe this will cost the state many millions of dollars? It already has. The question is, why don't you believe it in light of the facts?

Quote from: gattsuru;823147
Connecticut jurisprudence follows federal on the question, both allowing a corporate person to bring RFRA claims.

The biggest difference in the law is that the CT version only requires a burden, not a substantial burden.

Please, try a little harder.

Connecticut has a long tradition of being at the forefront of protecting civil rights, as well as religious freedom; state law explicitly prohibits governmental entities from burdening the exercise of religion, while also protecting against discrimination, such as discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.
--Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy

Quote from: jeff37923;823136
So, if Gen Con knew they were locked in a contract until 2020 and were not going to leave, then why make the empty threat? What else was motivating them?

The vain hope that people might care about the long term?

Quote from: LordVreeg;823132

(and if NASCAR is looking down it's nose at you....where they hell are you?)

Seriously. When NASCAR and the NFL start thinking you need to dial it down a notch, that tells you something right there.

Quote from: Brad;821958
I really don't see a problem with these sorts of laws. Limiting the ability of a private business to operate as they wish seems to be the heart of capitalism.

Similarly, when other private businesses decide they don't want to operate in States who have these laws, such as GenCon LLC, and go elsewhere, that's capitalism, too.

Indiana fucked up in terms of Rational Self Interest to the tune of many millions of dollars - more than 50 million annually - all to pander to a political minority. That's just bad for business.

Quote from: TristramEvans;823081

Does anyone more experienced in legalese want to unpack that one for me? Because it sounds really bad from a layman's perspective.

If a government worker dislikes the cut of your jib, they can deny you a driver's license.

Or voter registration
Or marriage license
Or State benefits
Or a building permit
Or business license

I'm not surprised to see the "I can do that with D&D" crowd poo-pooing this,as it seems that anything Not D&D automatically gets met with protestations of disbelief as to why someone might want to play a game that is not D&D.

This game is totally up my alley. Rules easy, dark and grim setting, minimalist mechanics with surprising depth. While I doubt this will supplant Tim Kirk's High Valor as my favorite system, it has a lot of interesting mechanics that intrigue me and make me want to play it.

Yes it's expensive, but I am in for a penny and  a pound on this one. I think it'll be worth it. Your pocket book may vary.

Quote from: CRKrueger;818217
BTW, I have read HillFolk.  Saying the game does not include key OOC top-down mechanics is...well, ignoring the entire dramatic economy that's the point of the whole system.

I can't agree at all. The point economy is, again, going to be something you see in a lot of RPGs like Savage Worlds, Deadlands, Fate, etc. Some people have no problem looking past them and not having them bother their immersion. Others have issues with them. I get that, and if your objection is because point economies are immersion breaking for you, I get that. But for those of us who are unphased by bennies or fate points or whatever, this game shouldn't be any different.

I don't see what's so different about spending a Drama Point vs. spending a Benny in Savage Worlds to reroll a diplomacy check.

D&D could be played 100% OOC, or 100% IC.

D&D cannot be played 100% IC. How does your character know what XP is or HPs are or what a d20 result means? Any time you engage with the mechanics or write something on your sheet, it's OOC. It's unavoidable.

Hillfolk cannot be played 100% OOC, however it also cannot be played 100% IC (which is where I tune out).

No RPG can be played 100% IC without ever breaking out of character at least partially to deal with the game mechanics. I imagine the only game which can be 100% (or nearly 100%) IC is a very detailed LARP.

Again, it depends on what breaks your immersion, and for me point economies don't do that. I can stay in character and manage a point, as spending points ends up being an emotional decision based on my character's feelings. This does require a little sliding into OOC to spend the point, but it's no different for me from rolling a die.

But for people who dislike point economies, this isn't the game for them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;818212
No, I completely and vehemently disagree.  Treating my character as a person outside myself with motives and goals different from my own, and character traits and points defined by an OOC economy I can receive and spend is NEVER going to be the same as rolling to swing a sword or take damage.  

Except the game doesn't involve any of those things except the point economy but lots of games have those - if point economies are a killer for you, then yeah I get that, it's not for you. I understand why some people don't like point economies. But the whole "treating a character as a person outside yourself" is completely false.

Quote from: Simlasa;818211
Again, not seeing how that isn't a common feature of RPGs I already play. Most of the guys I play with are pretty good about taking the PC's point of view... arguing with the barbarian as a barbarian, rather than Tony the guy sitting in front of me.
Are you claiming people playing trad RPGs never get deep into character?

Of course not. This is just a different set of rules to explore that experience in a different way. Different. Not necessarily better. But different. I'm interested in different. I play lots and lots of games. Maybe you're different. But I find lots of different games deliver different kinds of play experience and I like that.

Yeah, I'm still not getting it... not that I'm 'suspicious' of other kinds of games, I just put them under different categories.

OHHHHH I see, this is some kind of "is this an RPG" kind of thing for you that you clearly have an emotional investment in. Not really interested in that specific conversation. But given that it's really impossible to play the game without IC roleplaying (unlike D&D, which can be played 100% OOC if someone wishes) I think it probably qualifies. It's definitely not an adventure game, though.

Either way I don't care.

How so? What mechanical bits are appended to that example conversation in your previous post?

Darkeye's player received a Drama Point. That's the sum total of the mechanical fallout from that scene.

See, bits of hype like that seem awfully presumptuous about how I'm already playing... that the games I'm playing are deficient somehow. How the fuck do they know how much time I'm spending inside my 'protagonists's' head? ('protagonist' driving me further toward thinking this is a game for writers).

You're just trying to find things to disagree with at this point. Your mind is made up on this one.

Got it. Moving on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;818208
From above...
"Dramatic Scenes are the heart of the system, and are encounters between two characters, the Petitioner and the Grantor. The Petitioner wants some emotional payoff from the Grantor; the Grantor may or may not want to give it. If the Grantor gives the payoff up, they get a token; if they don't give it up, the Petitioner can force the issue, which the Grantor can then block. If the Petitioner is rebuffed, they get a token."

You're jumping to a heck of a lot of conclusions based off that tiny little paragraph that's trying to explain a 65 page set of rules. The only one who absolutely needs to think about who is a petitioner and who is a granter is the GM. If you've ever had a GM ask you "what are you trying to accomplish here" that's about as OOC as it needs to get.

If I'm roleplaying, I don't want or need a system to help me get into my character's head, because I am my character's head.  I don't need to internalize the rules of interaction because I've internalized my character, and when he interacts, it's with faults, biases, prejudices, and limited knowledge intact and already taken into consideration.  My characters goals are mine.  I have no story arc I'm wanting to see happen, my character's motivations are mine.

That is precisely the right mindset to play this game. I imagine it'd be really hard to play it without understanding all of that, or would definitely be less fun.

What I do object to is the notion that games like Hillfolk just "make into mechanics what everyone does anyway" because neither I or anyone I've regularly gamed with in 25+ years does that.  

I don't know that it necessarily mechanizes what everyone does anyway as much as it helps bring that stuff into sharp focus and ensures that everyone gets a chance to bring their character into the mix equally (or as much as they wish, if they want to stay behind the scenes). It democratizes play more than it dictates anything.

The only thing it requires is that when everyone makes their character, they connect them to at least two different PCs by some relationship, and one of those relationships has to be a fraught relationship (emotionally asymmetrical) and that you need to pick two competing desires your character has. That's the extent the game tells you to do anything with your character. The rest of the game is exploring those relationships and their consequences.

Now I get it if that's not the kind of game you want to play, not everyone does, or is comfortable with that level of PC vs PC emotional struggle dangling all pink and naked. But to reject it because it requires playing a character from "above" or removed from that character is a grave mischaracterization of the game.

Some people seem to always have and probably always will roleplay "one step removed" as a friend likes to say...they always have a narrative lens through which they view roleplay, so to them, narrative mechanics do simply make explicit what for them has always been implicit.  The weird part is that many of them don't believe or understand that not everyone roleplays that way, and thus explicitly making rules for something we don't do at all changes entirely the roleplaying process.

My wife and I are both hardcore immersionists (her more than I, she hates anything that gets in the way of her roleplaying). Having actually read the book, instead of making snap assumptions, we're both eager to give this a try.

Quote from: Simlasa;818204
Yeah, because... while I can't have an actual swordfight with a troll at the table I CAN roleplay a conversation/argument with one.

But you're in direct conflict with one of more of the other PCs as part of the premise of your character. Mediating disputes over outcomes without it devolving is the point of rules. Otherwise we'd all just sit around and play let's pretend like we did as kids. You're still roleplaying everything out, moreso than usual probably because now you do actually have to convince the other character, not just their player, to agree with you.

And BTW, people DO indeed play RPGs where they have actual swordfights (just not with actual swords).

No need for breaking it down into 'moves' or 'Drama Points' or whatever... just act it out.
Really, my favorite aspect of RPGs are those bits where the rules fall away and PCs/NPCs interact... why would I want to hand those off to mechanical whatnots that take me out of immersion?
As it is it sounds almost ANTI-immersion.

I'm not saying no one could enjoy this game, even I might like it in the proper context... but it sounds like its appeal is something wholly different than what I want from an RPG.

This isn't "social combat" or "social mechanics" like you see in other games. I abhor those. It's a really new thing, so it's hard to explain it to others who are unfamiliar, especially when those others are generally suspicious of other kinds of games

It's not anti-immersive, because the drama rules come into play outside of the roleplaying scenes as consequences of what happened inside of them. It's no less immersive than "take 10 points of damage" is. You're clearly making mental leaps to interpret those 10 points of damage as something distinct

From a page on Immersion in the rulebook:

"Over time you'll discover that the game allows a very close identification with and focus on, your character and the world. With it's minimal rules and play centered on interaction, you'll spend much more time inside your protagonist's head than in any traditional game. Now and then you breifly step out of character to discuss things like intentions and petitions, but these are still about your character's perspective. All roleplaying games require some out-of-character decision making. DramaSystem requires a different, but in practice very minimal, set of those decisions. These will soon become invisible to you, just as the artificial act of rolling a d20 to see if you hit an orc becomes natural through repetition. Having navigated the shift, you'll find it a method actor's paradise. If the ultimate goal of your immersion is tight identification with your character, DramaSystem will deliver that for you by the bucketload." -- Hillfolk, pg 60

I think that makes it worth a serious look.

Quote from: CRKrueger;818198
Competent? ROFL, try more interested in talking about and dealing with the characters from an OOC perspective than an IC one.

What makes you think that? Because I don't see anything in the game that requires talking OOC (well not moreso than any other game), and I do see things that absolutely require not only talking IC, but being in tune with your character's desires and psychology in a very deep way.

Quote from: CRKrueger;818198
 The fact that it attempts to mimic episodic drama genres doesn't change the 100% OOC thinking.

This is from the Hillfolk rulebook as part of an example of play:

DELIA: Some say I have eyes for your husband. I am here to say I have done nothing dishonorable, and to assure you I never will.

BEATA: You don't deny the gossip then.

DELIA: What?

BEATA: You promise you won't act on your desires and I believe you. But you do desire him.

DELIA: I.. I...

BEATA: Do not fear girl, I question your taste not your honor.

DELIA: Um, Thanks?

BEATA: I've more important concerns than making trouble for you

DELIA: (shifting to show Darkeye is edging away) Uh, good then.

BEATA: (cupping hand to mouth as if to call after her) If it were up to me, you could have him.

Yep 100% OOC alright.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 68