*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 21, 2019, 04:39:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
46709 Posts in 5588 Topics by 13299 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 57 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: [GURPS Traveller] What type of play is this?  (Read 9156 times)
David C
Member

Posts: 262

lost in the woods...


« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2010, 11:02:55 AM »

I'm gonna say what Gareth just said, but with less sophistication and more fervor:

Sim is definitely my least favored CA.

Whether it is or isn't, please don't base that on this piece of shit game!  I've loved many Sim games but would rather do jumping jacks for 4 hours than sit through what you've described here!  (There's a reason for the "don't lump me in with those guys!" phenomenon Ron mentioned!)

I'm not trying to say that Sim is bad, per se. It's just that I know I really get into my tactical board games and story games.
Logged

...but enjoying the scenery.
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 17707


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2010, 11:10:21 AM »

Hiya,

Whoa - yes. You can see all three of us blinking in surprise at the kill-one-another deal. It's not that inter-PC conflict and killing is intrinsically bad (in fact, I can name several RPGs which are no fun without it), but rather that it doesn't fit at all with the observably-enjoyable version of the sort of play you're describing here.

What I'm beginning to construct, based on the posts, is boredom that no one dares identify openly. The GM can't get his story going because the players "won't start." The players see nothing to do or start toward, hence they do whatever (trivial or drastic) just so something will freaking happen. In order to validate what they're doing (because to invalidate it may well have consequences in terms of self-identification and sunk cost), they, or at least the GM, must turn towards vague terms like "realism" and "sandbox" as if they were ideals to reach via play.

In this specific case, I submit that "realism" means calling for skill rolls under all circumstances and abiding by their results in a GURPS-literalist fashion, i.e., if you miss a roll to hit, that means the character has failed to aim and fire properly; and also that it is not permissible to do any scene framing or introduction of material which connotes an unavoidable decision-point. The term "sandbox" specifies and reinforces the latter clause. (The terms are each used for a vast range of concepts. I am talking about what I think they are being used for here only.)

The net effect of privileging these concepts is that the players can't get anything off the ground because to do anything, they have to roll skills, and those fail a certain percent of the time, and the GM can't get anything off the ground because as he sees it, unless events arise "naturally" out of what the players do, such events shouldn't be imposed. So play spins its wheels, and fatigue is setting in.

And to be slightly redundant, I emphatically agree with Gareth's points in his post.

Best, Ron
Logged
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 4268


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2010, 03:41:22 PM »

Along with the money as point pool and 'count your B-cells, dammit', the PC killing makes me think of gamist 'turnin' play. Whether there's a gamist agenda or not. Indeed I'd almost think it an agenda struggling to get to the surface and obtain dominance at the table. I'd ask which specific players are trying to kill others, and basically if it's only some of them, that's your 'rooting for gamism' pack. Or it might be all of them including David and the GM is the last player in the way of, well, atleast some turnin' gamism.
Logged

athornton
Member

Posts: 5


« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2010, 07:53:17 PM »

So, if I may ask, why are you bothering?  You don't like this game, the players who are enjoying this game clearly don't much appreciate your presence in it, you and the GM are already at loggerheads....why not just go do something else, and leave them in their game, which might be fun for them but clearly is not for you?
Logged
David C
Member

Posts: 262

lost in the woods...


« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2010, 11:12:46 PM »

So, if I may ask, why are you bothering?  You don't like this game, the players who are enjoying this game clearly don't much appreciate your presence in it, you and the GM are already at loggerheads....why not just go do something else, and leave them in their game, which might be fun for them but clearly is not for you?

I feel honored that somebody with only 3 posts since 2006 is responding to my thread... but maybe you should have kept it to yourself after all?

I haven't gotten the impression the other players don't appreciate my presence in it. Only the guy who tried to "mind control" me has seemed to have any issue, and why should he trump me anyways?  I'm definitely not at loggerheads with the GM. It isn't that I haven't had any fun, but it certainly could happen a lot more often.  Me and other players aren't even paying attention for most of the game because it doesn't involve us!

Anyways, I understand what I came here to understand. This thread can rest peacefully.
Logged

...but enjoying the scenery.
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 17707


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 05, 2010, 06:30:37 AM »

All right, that interaction stops here.

David, the fellow posting did not say anything wrong. That question is perfectly valid. If it's not an issue, then you are free to say that it's not an issue and to move on. It was not an attack, or if it was, then you are under no obligation to treat it as such. One of the worst behaviors on the internet is blind and over-compensating defense in response to perceived slights. He can't hurt you - you don't have to hit back.

You responded with sarcasm and gratuitous abuse: "I am honored," translates to "fuck you." That is not acceptable here. You belittled the person regarding his or her number of posts. You at one point had 3 posts here - you did not receive this treatment from others at that time, and you shouldn't inflict it on anyone either. Associating number of posts with social rank is also unacceptable here.

It was a good thread and I agree that it's served your purposes. It is now officially closed by me. No one is to post to it further.

Best, Ron

Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!