Something about 'height advantage' and it's kin
Jim D.:
Quote
from what you say in your post, have expectations getting first priority. Would you disagree - you just mentioned how important expectations are to you?
Not at all. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head with respect to where I stand. The rules of any tabletop RPG, as written, are what they are, but it's everyone's understanding of the SIS and how your group plays that counts. Same reason, I believe, so many RPG rulebooks go to great lengths to encourage you play by the rules you think make sense or are the most fun, even if they skirt or even openly contradict what the rulebook suggests. Why use a rule if it doesn't make sense to you and your group? And I believe that generally the house rules that stick are the ones that:
a) are just more fun, or more often
b) better fit the group's expectations of how the game (per the manual) is played and how to best reflect the SIS and spirit of the campaign/session being run.
So yes, to word it succinctly, I do believe the "real" component of an RPG depends on the hybrid of the game, house rules, and group. It's their knowledge and expectations that build the SIS, and become the reference point, even more so than the rulebook, even though what the group "expects" is often made up in large part of the written rules.
contracycle:
Quote from: Callan S. on May 05, 2010, 06:11:58 PM
Gareth, you seem to be telling me things as if your not considering you could be wrong on the matter. You need to add stuff like 'And this would be wrong if X'. Even Richard Dawkins said if a rabit skeleton is found in the wrong fossil record, it'd disprove the thing he passionately believes is true (evolution theory). Please don't post again unless you can mull over being wrong somehow.
Hahaha. Shit man, I CAN always be wrong, that goes without saying, that doesn't oblige me to construct self-critical positions which I think are think are bogus. Whats more, I'm not obliged to do your job for you - I'm not obliged to invent weaknesses in my own arguments for your benefit. If thats your criterion for participation, that everyone with a contrary view must also concoct a reason why you are right, then you are simply demanding acquiescence from the outset.
Either you can counter my argument, or you can't. You haven't even made an an attempt to do so here.
Christian:
Callan :
About the talking shit : steps are clear and to be followed in strict order:
- informal description, talking, etc (standard, out of conflict roleplaying stuff)
- player or gm asks for a conflict
- player states his goal
- gm spends (or not) threat tokens
- player activates traits and all
- roll the dice
- goal reached (or not), someone narrates
So there is no back and forth talking shit.
And if there is, maybe it's more a problem of person... or maybe i misunderstand something.
About not allowing the enterprise stuff : you're right, but I got to be more precise :
- if the player asks for that out of conflict, the gm allows it or not, based on the context decided altogether. As you say, grownups etc !
- the player can't ask for it as is during conflict, but using your example he could say "I use my (relevant) trait, I remember capt kirk phone number, etc... far fetched but if the context allows it, why not.
- (the one point I forgot) just after the conflict, the narrator (can be the player or the gm) has narrative rights, so he could imagine this enterprise stuff, again considering the context allowed.
For the context relevancy aspect, well, as you say people are grownups. If the context boils down to "anything goes" or "science fantasy" then why not ?
In other cases, perhaps there should exist some kind of veto rule, I don't know... "When all other players roll their eyes, the narrator just shut up and grab the nachos". He he, what do you say ?
Caldis:
Keeping it simple.
If you dont say your character climbed up on that table the gm has no reason to give you a bonus to hit. Because you did the gm gives you the bonus but also because of that he knows your character is on this imaginary table so he can use it subsequently in following rounds like say if he decides to have the enemy smash the table sending your cleric falling to the floor to face all the penalties that entails. We have rules but they depend on imagined events.
Roger:
Hi Callan,
My earlier optimism about understanding your point was, I fear, perhaps misplaced. I read through your linked AP (which, in retrospect, I probably should have started with) and it seems to me that you're doing exactly the thing that you're opposed to.
By way of specific example, I mean the places where you write:
...we've been hired to do a job...
...we'd head off, down the road toward the destination...
...we were to head up to this cave where some orcs were near it and retrieve some treasure for our employer...
...We get to the cave and the orcs have a camp about 700 meters away from the cave...
Those all seem to be cases where, if I didn't have any other context, I would be unable to distinguish whether it was your fictional characters fictionally going off to a fictional cave, or whether it was you real people really going to a real cave.
To be fair, I think you're speaking mostly towards the way the rules and games are designed and written, rather than the way Actual Play is written. Still, it seems like if the players are naturally comfortable speaking in terms of "we get to the cave and the orcs have a camp" that the rules might be written to direct that situation in similar language: "When the characters get to the cave, they can make a Perception check to notice the orc's camp, about 700 meters away."
So, in summary: yes, I think I see the phenomenon you're describing as occurring all the time. No, I don't see any fundamental problems arising from it. Even if there were deep problems to resolve, I don't think I see any clear alternative that would resolve them.
Cheers,
Roger
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page