Those imaginary "other kinds" of RPGers
greyorm:
Quote from: Wolfen on April 22, 2009, 05:26:13 AM
See now here's where I'm scratching my head
Sorry, Lance, that was directed towards Dan as a "don't get stuck on this point" sort of thing, in case he was thinking "My character was stabbed, so he lost hit points or has a reduced Dexterity, which is what reduces my ability to contribute" or "I'm out of spells, so I can't contribute to play any more this session." (Which I may not have even needed to say because he might not have thought that.)
Ron Edwards:
Speaking as an experienced observer of these threads, not as iron-fisted moderator, I suggest that the issue of win conditions is veering into a new and not necessarily helpful direction. The word "win" means very different things to different people. Everyone's posted something interesting and made arguable points, but my usual views about actual play as a communication-touchstone are kicking in.
The real issue, and now I guess I am moving into moderator mode, is for Daniel: based on your last post, the thread has at least shined some light on your initial question. Unless you really have some remaining issue with that question's content, it's probably time to let it be a done (or "won") thread. Alternately, with the new light on the subject, I know that I'd like to see an account from you of a play-experience in which character death illustrates exactly the viewpoint from which you posed the question.
Best, Ron
Paul Czege:
Hey Ron,
Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 21, 2009, 06:29:13 AM
Decoupling character death from those two things is a real jolt. It can be done a couple of ways. Sometimes the character's death is part and parcel (and here I speak of the rules) with finishing, which is not the same as losing/quitting. You can find this in my games Trollbabe and Sorcerer, and in games influenced by them like Dogs in the Vineyard. Other times the rules permit the player to contribute exactly as he or she had before. This first showed up in The Mountain Witch based on my playtesting-advice to the author, it also shows up in Grey Ranks based partly on dialogue with me, and as I see it, it takes on its fullest form in my Spione, as well as in Zombie Cinema which is strongly influenced by Spione.
And what influenced you originally was...Everway?
Paul
Judd:
Hey Daniel,
The Olden Days
So, I can think back to AD&D 2nd edition and some kits were just better than others. One kit got you an extra skill, another got you extra skills and a giant tiger to ride. And sometimes folks chose the shittier kit to tag on to their class because it fit the character. This was seen as a sub-optimal choice but good role-playing. We kinda gave each other an attaboy for doing it and then whooped and cheered at how cool our giant tigers were while Joe Role-Play had his extra skill and meaningful color.
I can think back to Champions too, where you had, let's say, 250 points to spend and 50 more points if you took 50 additional disadvantages. Of course you took the 50 more points and had a dependent child and were hunted by the super-powered mob. Those 50 points went a LONG way towards making your character optimal and useful in play and plus, it is cool to be hunted by the mob and have a kid to take care of when you are not super-heroing.
And Now
Now, thinking to how I enjoy playing now, let's say with Burning Wheel, which of all the games I own, is the one I keep coming back to the most in the past 5 years or so.
In that game, I put myself in a rough spot and give myself Beliefs that will create drama. When I create a Burning Wheel character through the lifepath system, I squeeze every resource point I can. I have seen players say things like, "Well, I really wanted X skill, so I guess my mercenary captain spent some time as a Freebooter and that is cool; it changes him a bit but it works for me and adds a fun dimension to the character."
So, nowadays, I like to create a competent character and put him in a cool situation (orcs whose horde was destroyed and are now stuck behind enemy lines in elven territory, bastard whose father is attempting to usurp the young king, hostages from the steppe nomads whose family was killed by the current reigning khan) and then play like hell, fight like a tiger to get what my character wants on his Beliefs.
I think also to Sorcerer, where the GM and the player make the player's starting demon together and I notice the system-savvy players watching how many powers we add on, being careful as to how powerful that demon becomes. They don't want to get too deep in the hole. Then their kickers put them in the hole and the system asks them how far are they willing to go to get out of it or to even rise above that hole and rule the roost.
So, to answer your question, I think system has a whole lot to do with it, as does the vibe at the table. At some tables, making a less than optimal 3e or 4e character would just be seen as dumb. At others, its an attaboy and some table respect.
I'm kinda done with attaboys. Lately, I want a system that let's me fight tooth and nail against a shitty situation that me and my friends created.
Hope that makes sense.
Daniel B:
Hello,
I'm with Ron's moderation that the thread shouldn't go in the "what is fun" direction. (I'd be glad to debate it in another thread somewhere but it feels hideously opinion-heavy. I love debates like that but maybe too messy for a Forge forum.)
As for my own play experiences..
It's mostly been a vague feeling I've had during the course of my RPGing "career". That said, the issue has come to the forefront very recently for me, because I began playing in a campaign where the moons aligned, and I saw an opportunity to play one of the underdog races for the first time. (You know them: goblin, kobold, gnoll, etc. etc.) I've always wanted to play an underdog race for the roleplaying opportunities: misunderstood, trying to survive in a land of bigots etc. etc. I never have, however, because the AD&D 2nd Edition evil races SUCKED. Furthermore, since the upgrade to D&D v3/3.5, I've spent most time DMing, and those times I wasn't a DM, these races weren't appropriate for the campaign. Now, in this recent campaign, I'm both a player, the evil races are an appropriate race (because they fit the world and aren't killed on sight necessarily), and the Goblin race in particular is actually fairly decent, powerwise, especially as a thief.
The above line of thinking just goes towards what the whole post is about. I only chose to play a Goblin because I didn't feel it to be underpowered.. but I think I'd have played one LONG ago if "something" wasn't in the way, I've never been sure what. (That whole discussion of the entanglement of "losing the game" with character death may be the key.. or maybe I'm just greedy :D )
Quote from: Paka on April 22, 2009, 12:54:39 PM
So, to answer your question, I think system has a whole lot to do with it, as does the vibe at the table. At some tables, making a less than optimal 3e or 4e character would just be seen as dumb. At others, its an attaboy and some table respect.
Agreed.
Daniel
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page