tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post48865204150170611..comments2024-03-28T22:00:35.840-07:00Comments on Playing D&D With Porn Stars: Stop Me If You've Heard This One BeforeZak Sabbathhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-69468704979375558162012-06-08T06:34:36.398-07:002012-06-08T06:34:36.398-07:00This is the best post ever. I want to start a web...This is the best post ever. I want to start a website devoted to it.widderslaintehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16364618128943330961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-27898431551131830622012-06-05T20:41:02.607-07:002012-06-05T20:41:02.607-07:00Well, the setting itself can be as much a characte...Well, the setting itself can be as much a character as any PC, particularly when it outlasts the lives of individual PCs.<br /><br />Of course, that being said, you have to have players that <i>want</i> to partake in such a setting.<br /><br />The screening process you mentioned, I think, is as important (maybe more?) than polling the players for their likes and dislikes. While the GM may be obliged to provide the players with a game they enjoy, he is by no means obliged to play with players that don't enjoy his game.<br /><br />At the end of the day, a setting without players is material but players without a setting are just daydreamers.JDG Perldeinerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07632961831809544262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-60990548135181147352012-06-05T20:31:18.488-07:002012-06-05T20:31:18.488-07:00Good Gming is putting the fun of the players you h...Good Gming is putting the fun of the players you have first. And then achieving it.<br /><br />Not putting following the rules first<br /><br />Not putting your precious little world first.<br /><br />You can be measured. You can be found wanting.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-31177772746482398862012-06-05T20:22:04.687-07:002012-06-05T20:22:04.687-07:00"It's how do I tell if it's the ficti..."It's how do I tell if it's the fictional things that are screwing up the fun or our procedures? "<br />Ask them.<br /><br />"If fun is subjective, then good GMing is not measurable in a way that it makes any sense to talk about."<br /><br />Incorrect. The good GM helps make the players s/he has happy. You can totally look at that. Unhappy players with good will=worse GM.<br /><br />For the 100th time: the Good GM is the one who takes on players and goals with those players that s/he CAN achieve and does NOT take on ones s/he can't. Not one that has a certain style.<br /><br />"better or lower quality in art"--I have a painting in the MOMA and went to art school for like 10 years and get paid to talk about art for a living and write a column in a magazine about art and have no idea what that could mean.<br /><br />_<br />"I wish I could share your confidence that there are no artificial circumstances that could ever be engineered to get me to screw people over for no reason."<br /><br />I understand there is a certain bill of goods sold to certain college students about this subject and I further understand I disagree entirely. <br />http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2011/11/put-on-your-beret-light-gauloise-and.html<br />Blaming a noncoerced system for your own behavior is just a way of avoiding responsibility for your own actions.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-18748731679147420662012-06-05T20:18:48.234-07:002012-06-05T20:18:48.234-07:00The Tynes change was a crosspost, just to fix my e...The Tynes change was a crosspost, just to fix my error. Not a reply to anything.X the Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504602654591485949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-75413737134518993802012-06-05T20:14:46.058-07:002012-06-05T20:14:46.058-07:00Maybe it's an end, but the first question is n...Maybe it's an end, but the first question is not how do I tell if someone is tired or bored or whatever-give me a little credit. It's how do I tell if it's the fictional things that are screwing up the fun or our procedures? <br /><br />If fun is subjective, then good GMing is not measurable in a way that it makes any sense to talk about.<br /><br />You don't have to talk about objective good & bad to talk about better or lower quality in art-it's generally pretty silly to so that. Nobody ever got a crit that said "this ain't as good as a Rembrandt, so just go back and work til you can paint like him." There are lots of standards you can talk about that have nothing to do with "objective good & bad."<br /><br />Small groups still exhibit group dynamics, and I wish I could share your confidence that there are no artificial circumstances that could ever be engineered to get me to screw people over for no reason.X the Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504602654591485949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-48473218424812853552012-06-05T20:03:25.573-07:002012-06-05T20:03:25.573-07:00...or won't at least, talk to you about it so ......or won't at least, talk to you about it so you can agree about how it should workZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-30216614380234696352012-06-05T20:02:27.306-07:002012-06-05T20:02:27.306-07:00irrelevant. If he wants you in his game and won...irrelevant. If he wants you in his game and won't change the game to fit you, he sucks.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-19515342696121931782012-06-05T20:01:36.837-07:002012-06-05T20:01:36.837-07:00Made a mistake: John Tynes, not John Wick, similar...Made a mistake: John Tynes, not John Wick, similar high-status Cthulhu GM guy. Essay is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20011224143100/http://www.johntynes.com/rl_mofo.htmlX the Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504602654591485949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-26466842611093451442012-06-05T19:52:41.597-07:002012-06-05T19:52:41.597-07:00"John Wick is a bad GM if he did not contort ..."John Wick is a bad GM if he did not contort his horror game around you."<br /><br />That is, if you showed up and he wanted to play with you.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-85264400897873689402012-06-05T19:51:10.846-07:002012-06-05T19:51:10.846-07:00" how do you know, for a given player and a g..." how do you know, for a given player and a given instance of time, that it's time to switch our procedures vs it's time to offer different fictional content."<br /><br />How do you know if someone is tired or bored or uncomfortable? Don't be Martin--sense social cues.<br /><br />The stanford experiment is a perfect example: I would never have behaved like one of those "guards". Even less now that I've seen the experiment. A lot of people wouldn't have. Your group is not People In Bulk. It's 5 people out of 6 billion on earth. Even if only 1% of people don't fit a pattern, that;s a HUUUUGE number and you could easily have someone who doesn't fit it. Unless the number is 100%, then you cannot design a game that way. Aesthetic experiences rely absolutely and entirely on nonuniversality. Otherwise when I went to see a David Lynch movie everybody else on earth would be there. <br /><br />John Wick is a bad GM if he did not contort his horror game around you.<br /><br />Art is "bad" for anyone who doesn't like it. Good art has indeed failed to occur if you didn't like the art. For you.<br /><br />A major difference is: the GM can (and should) be responding to the audience because RPGs are interactive and have that opportunity. A painting has to simply sit there and encounter some people for whom it is good and some for whom it is bad,<br /><br />Anyone who thinks there is objectively good art is a fascist.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-60276562120667067812012-06-05T19:41:16.161-07:002012-06-05T19:41:16.161-07:00I thought the "I don't know" paragra...I thought the "I don't know" paragraph was a question about, how do you know, for a given player and a given instance of time, that it's time to switch our procedures vs it's time to offer different fictional content.<br /><br />Two points: I don't know if, at bottom, I buy that people are all sooo different that there's no such thing as reliable social rules. If you think the prison experiment was valid or teh Milgram, then it's trivially easy to design social situations in which people who have no reason to do so will fuck each other over badly. If you believe what structured dialogic design proponents claim, they can take any group struggling with how to communicate about any vexing issue and create structures that get to solution. Individuals have different tastes , yes, but we get pretty preditable in groups. <br /><br />2nd, "fun" is a tarbaby. I can think of any number of games that could be well GM'ed, and woudl leave me cold and/or angry. I'm thinking specifically of an old John Wick article about running good horror as an example, in which he advocates lots of really invasive techniques, including deliberately pushing player's personal space and uncomfortable touching, to really get a sense of creepitude in there. Lots of people say he runs the greatest Cthulhu ever. So he's not a bad GM, but he would run games that I would find deeply unfun. People write and do Nordic LARPs that they report as fun, yet would be very bad for me for many of the same reasons. I find MLWM fun, but don't need you to, and wouldn't expect the greatest GMing of it ever to show otherwise.<br /><br />"He's the greatest Nordic LARP GM ever!" "I/we had zero fun playing with him and was highly creeped out." are not contradictory statements.<br /><br />Possible analogy: you did not like it? Good art has failed to occur.X the Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504602654591485949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-62977184054513164502012-06-05T19:19:46.172-07:002012-06-05T19:19:46.172-07:00"Are there existing or possible RPG systems t..."Are there existing or possible RPG systems that have good enough procedures that a group's customization efforts ought to be devoted to fictional content and social contract issues? "<br /><br />For my group? No. Are there suits that fit you off the rack? If so: lucky you.<br /><br /><br />I do not know what this means:<br />"Still, if there's a baseline that some social/creative group rules do work (given preliminary nature of agreement as to what "work" means) that could be profitable. Or, related, what's the cue that it's time to switch procedures rather than switching fictional stuff?"<br />_<br /><br />"Good Gming" is a real thing. And measurable.<br />You did not have fun? Good GMing has failed to occur. Or possibly there was a bad player, or two.<br /><br />If someone GMed a game with people who have had fun with that same game before with a different GM and it wasn't fun then probably the GM is the problem. Not the module (which the GM chose or let themself be bullied into running) not the game (which the GM chose or let themself be bullied into running) or any rule (which the GM chose or let themself be bullied into not changing).<br /><br />There, a Bad GM has been isolated. It can now be discussed.<br /><br />Good GMing means not being a bad GM. Easy. Simple.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-32856678356693750512012-06-05T19:06:01.491-07:002012-06-05T19:06:01.491-07:00Cont'd
So, as I see it, there are two issues ...Cont'd<br /><br />So, as I see it, there are two issues on the table that might be discussable: Are there existing or possible RPG systems that have good enough procedures that a group's customization efforts ought to be devoted to fictional content and social contract issues? (I think your current answer to this is "Hell, no!" Correct if I'm wrong) Still, if there's a baseline that some social/creative group rules do work (given preliminary nature of agreement as to what "work" means) that could be profitable. Or, related, what's the cue that it's time to switch procedures rather than switching fictional stuff?<br /><br />Or, maybe, there's an actual disagreement about whether or not it's ever productive or interesting to talk about "good GMing" at anything other than a crude "don't be a dick" level without talking about what procedures you're using and whether or not you're using them well.<br /><br />That's my take on this thing we've done-I hope it's different enough from yours that you'll take my protestations of good faith seriously. Being given a binary choice between accepting illiteracy or being a straight troll is not usually a sign that someone wants to talk.X the Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504602654591485949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-69614969892301499282012-06-05T19:04:48.058-07:002012-06-05T19:04:48.058-07:00Can I just recap what I thought I was trying to sa...Can I just recap what I thought I was trying to say instead? I'd rather be able to say that we actually had a conversation than that I proved you wrong. I'm really & truly pretty unsure as to what we disagree about. <br /><br />I read the post I was commenting on as you responding to various & sundry internet arguments about how certain mechanics relying on"strong GMing" are inherently unfun. I thought my first comment was just an attempt to say that invoking "good GMing" as a solution was unhelpful and potentially cut off better conversations about how to do specific GMing things. I thought it was disappointing that you, specifically, whose response to lots of other GMing problems is to come up with neat-o ways to do the thing, just fell back on "good GMing" as the solution. <br /><br />I'll skip over a bunch of stuff to the point where it seemed like the conversation was going off the rails, which was my "why is no RAW an rpg principle" question.<br /><br />In my post after the "people are different" post, I should have been clear that I intended my examples as amplifications of "what an answer should look like" rather than more arguments-I really meant it as a question, not a debating tactic. It really seemed(and still seems) to me like a really strange place to plant a design principle flag.<br /><br />So, your next post looked to me like substantive agreement to at least some version of "rules that structure social and/or creative activities workably are possible." We differ about how well they can work, and whether altering them to fit specific people is always desirable. That's my AA example-the procedures don't get altered based on an individual participant's engaging with what we're here to do or not. That's (to them) literally a matter of life and death. I thought that the improv group example is an example of an instance where some alteration based on people's real issues is generally warranted, but the "how we do this" is really not up for debate.<br /><br />I was trying to suggest that customized procedures are not always the ideal customization axis, and sometimes they are actively counter-productive. I think that this might be the case in RPG design, for at least some sets of procedures. <br /><br />I also start committing a rhetorical boner of saying "I know something about you you don't." Dumb. So, cards on the table: I thought, based on my reading of, especially, the time when your group played S/Lay w/Me & Dread (tho really just S/lay, 'cos I haven't read/played Dread) and the kinda flag-waving tone of the "internet-argument ender thing that provoked this response, that you've got this really excellent system that makes a lot of things work well, and that you choose to call "playing D&D" 'cos it involves 20-sided dice (a little charity, here, please-I'm trying to get over a lot of ground here, and not being careful in my phrasing)-and thought is in the past tense for sure at this point-I was really focused on the "no system" thing and thought I had to convince you that you were in fact using a system. (Am I correct in thinking that you're in agreement with VB's definition of system?) Your last post convinced me I was not correct in that, and that I had somehow mistaken you for rpgpundit. Again, my bad.X the Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504602654591485949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-79871636333155204402012-06-05T17:54:32.382-07:002012-06-05T17:54:32.382-07:00@x the owl
I am not insulted and you should not t...@x the owl<br /><br />I am not insulted and you should not take your toys and go home. I swear a lot, it is not an indicator of anger or offense.<br /><br />If you are confused, read this:<br />http://dndwithpornstars.blogspot.com/2012/02/another-utility-post.html<br /><br />And then explain, take specific statements made by me and quote them and tell me specifically where they are not correct.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-92220962395647335702012-06-05T17:11:24.208-07:002012-06-05T17:11:24.208-07:00"you and the groups you play with have really..."you and the groups you play with have really strong deep-in-the bone procedures of play, that aren't really up for negotiation."<br /><br />Incorrect.<br />They can always always protest or leave.<br /><br />""As for your 2nd to last paragraph, it is hard to understand. "system"? I say any true thing I can think of that other people might benefit from. No system." I took that to mean that you don't think that that's a system. I'll stop here and be completely open to you saying I just misread you."<br /><br />Yes, you misread. Iwas trying to figure out what the hell you were talking about and then I described what was in the content of my blog. "Hey look, one page dungeons!" is not a system.<br /><br />"you're pretty much screening for buy-in to "my procedures of play/system."<br /><br />Duh. however, anyone I want to play with can negotiate to change those.<br /><br />"would it be harder to get you to let me play a bard in one of your games or to convince you that it'd be fun to let another player decide what monsters come out and what they do "<br /><br />If I wanted to play with you enough, either thing could happen. You mistake me explaining a procedure (repeatedly) to saying I'd play no game that followed another.<br /><br />" I translate "good GMing" in the original post into "really strong and mindful attention to working with a set of procedures I call old-school.""<br /><br />You have translated entirely incorrectly and have made a disastrous error. I fear you are not paying attention. I fear you are dangerously illiterate or trolling this error is so disastrously, painfully incorrect<br /><br />"Good GMing" means "really strong and mindful attention to whatever motherfucking procedures and rules and actions and content you are using and who you are using them with and whether they are compatible with an eye toward distributing maximum fun."<br /><br />AGAIN: IF YOU CHOOSE _Any Way_ OF GMING and your players walk away unhappy or less happy than they could;ve been, you fucking did it wrong or they did. It just so happens with me and my players this way happens to be what works for us. If I switched players I might very well switch procedures.<br /><br />A chef wants to make a good meal that is tasty. That is all. If you decide to do salty, do salty right, if you decide to do a dessert. do a dessert right. If you decide to use player-generated environmental content fucking use it in an interesting way. If you decide not to, make that decision make that game better in a different wayZak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-40310831659038386322012-06-05T16:02:19.590-07:002012-06-05T16:02:19.590-07:00It also seems worth pointing out that one of your ...It also seems worth pointing out that one of your big jobs, as I read your system, is having lots of ways to generate imaginatively potent fictional content. This ties in with my earlier stuffs 'cos it seems like that's often the site for customization as needed for individuals. I mean, would it be harder to get you to let me play a bard in one of your games or to convince you that it'd be fun to let another player decide what monsters come out and what they do (Although I wouldn't be likely to try either, the second seems like it would also be damn-near objectively unfun with the "old-school style"-just a parenthesis. Dismiss as you please)? <br /><br />All that feels pretty straightforward to me. Reading over this thread, I'm prepared to cop to some nonsense and overstatement on my part, but I do care about having this conversation. Going back to my original reason for posting, I hope it at least makes sense for me to say that I translate "good GMing" in the original post into "really strong and mindful attention to working with a set of procedures I call old-school."X the Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504602654591485949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-6120281269005132522012-06-05T16:01:26.429-07:002012-06-05T16:01:26.429-07:00I really don't think I'm calling you incor...I really don't think I'm calling you incorrect, chief. At most, I'm saying that, like it or not, you and the groups you play with have really strong deep-in-the bone procedures of play, that aren't really up for negotiation. Just 'cos it's not all written down doesn't mean it's not there.<br /><br />(I consider the new GM fiat post as evidence of this as well)<br /><br />I think the second is easier, so I'll start there. You said, a few messages ago, "As for your 2nd to last paragraph, it is hard to understand. "system"? I say any true thing I can think of that other people might benefit from. No system." I took that to mean that you don't think that that's a system. I'll stop here and be completely open to you saying I just misread you.<br /><br />If I'm right in the way I read you, I say it is (or, more accurately, a big chunk of one). I think your post about GM fiat bears this out, too, since you're articulating what "other people might benefit from" in a really strong fashion. You have lots of other ways to articulate this, and you use them as seems good/right/fun as needed. I find the Vincent Baker thing pretty transparent about this.<br /><br />w/r/t my reading of your "how I know who to play with" stuff-the quote I'm parsing is: "I exclude people I can't communicate with or who I don't think the game would work with. In real life this is by knowing them socially, but when it comes to "internet strangers" there is a very elaborate self-selection system going on here. Most people I roll with on-line got in touch to be in a game because they read this blog, decided to follow me on G+, etc etc --all these things winnow away people. It's the internet "you're in a bubble where everyone likes you" effect.<br /><br />When you go "Who wants to play D&D"? You are not excluding a lot of people.<br /><br />When you go "Who wants to play D&D with this guy who put out this specific D&D book you probably have or heard about and has this extensive list of opinions and actual play reports and likes these products and wants you to roll your PC using the rules printed here and have already had the following D&D-based conversations about..." then you are screening a lot of people out."<br /><br />I did misread this a bit, since I at first took you to mean you were also seeking out people who made cool shit, which is entirely my bad. Still, you're saying that the self-selection process weeds out people who don't want to play using your system. Since there are apparently lots of folks who don't believe that a system without, for instance, strict rules about "what stuff the GM doesn't get to talk about" written down can work, you're pretty much screening for buy-in to "my procedures of play/system." (I think you do follow such rules, though-do you get to say what a PC thinks about stuff? How they feel? I'm guessing you only get to do so under very limited and negotiated circumstances, if at all, even if you technically reserve the right to do so. If you buy that Baker stuff, we're only talking about what you actually do at the table.)X the Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504602654591485949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-90890453409783445382012-06-05T13:48:02.221-07:002012-06-05T13:48:02.221-07:00I don't know what this means:
" I just d...I don't know what this means:<br /><br />" I just don't think that making the procedures of things the most important subject for customization is always the best way to go about it (and, I would submit, given your account of how you know who to play with, neither do you)."<br /><br />Please take specific statements made by me and quote them and tell me specifically where they are not correct.<br /><br />_<br />I also do not know what this means:<br /><br />"[I get that you think I'm full of shit when I say you're using a big fat system."<br /><br />I do? Again: <br />Please take specific statements made by me and quote them and tell me specifically where they are not correct.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-65479779591185980712012-06-05T13:41:23.156-07:002012-06-05T13:41:23.156-07:00The rule thing-OK, fine. I still think it's i...The rule thing-OK, fine. I still think it's important that you, in coming up with a fun rule, re-wrote in at least three significant ways: 1) the feedback is immediate-stop doing that vs. I know pronounce a judgment on all that stuff you've been doing, based on a secret chart I kept. 2)The feedback is temporary and does not make your guy matter less relative to everyone else. 3) You chose paladin for the rule (I think) the only class that explicitly includes a mechanic saying the DM can strip you of this class if s/he doesn't like what you're saying. I think these matter to the point of effectively making a whole new rule.<br /><br />The other thing-Empirically, lots of the things I mentioned pride themselves pretty strongly on the robustness of their procedures. AA meetings, for instance, have a really set way of dealing with people who come in to say "Bill W didn't know me" or tell war stories or don't do the thing the meeting is there to do, and it is the same for all participants-everyone says "thanks" and "keep coming back" and someone else speaks. (It's pretty important that really good participation gets exactly the same feedback as well) They're designed to be minimum-function procedures, true, but that's because that's part of how AA defines itself.<br /><br />Improv people might customize along the axis of "don't go to that fictional content with this person," but that's really not the same thing as "in our group, we block like crazy" The basic principles are remarkably robust across different improv groups and styles, in my experience.<br /><br />In both those cases, it's a minimum requirement of participation that "we all trust and use these procedures." W/r/t you getting reliably fun play, it seems like you're basically screening for people who trust and use stuff very similar to your procedures, plus generate nifty fictional content. Which is what I was suggesting when I said you use an extremely strong system.<br /><br />Bigger deal, is I'm not disagreeing at all with the idea that customization for individuals takes place. I just don't think that making the procedures of things the most important subject for customization is always the best way to go about it (and, I would submit, given your account of how you know who to play with, neither do you).<br /><br />The above is the reason lots of fancy hippie games have very little or none in the way of canonical setting-the awesome comes in when the group collectively customizes fictional material that they're all very jazzed by. That's true of MLWM, Sorcerer, the Mormon Game, S/lay W/Me, an lots of others. Not the only way to do customization given a group that is trying to trust the procedures, but a common and good one. It's the reason you'll never see the "fake-Utah super-setting" or the Sorcerer "Book O'Demons" or whatever. <br /><br />I'm cool leaving it there if you are, since I think the issue of what gets customized and how to customize and when or how procedures should be the customized thing is hella big. I mean if all we're disagreeing on is what to customize when you've got robust procedures (your 60%, as I read it), then we're just talking about ways to get more awesome, which is what you do on this blog anyway, so I'm not sure you need or want my input on that.<br /><br />[I get that you think I'm full of shit when I say you're using a big fat system. I'll explain if you want, but all I'd really be doing is repeating stuff Vincent Baker said here: http://lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=23]X the Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06504602654591485949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-32925611903790374872012-06-05T10:00:01.088-07:002012-06-05T10:00:01.088-07:00To me, RM is the ultimate triumph of substance ove...To me, RM is the ultimate triumph of substance over style.<br /><br />Modern RPG authors often take the approach that they don't have to do the hard work of making a game full of options and content. If you have a clever dice mechanic, you can basically hand-wave the rest. 'Oh, think of some spells yourself. We can't be bothered to design any.'<br /><br />That's laziness. RM is the opposite of lazy. And because they've invested the time and effort in the game's actual contents, it's really easy to use.<br /><br />(Also, I dug up my copy of Spell Law: 'Second US Printing, 1989' is what it says. So whatever that means.)Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13185778323826500331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-37898672573481142652012-06-05T09:09:32.777-07:002012-06-05T09:09:32.777-07:00Or to put it another way:
The more popular way of...Or to put it another way:<br /><br />The more popular way of doing things isn't "more right" it's just the one that works for a group of people that happens to be larger.<br /><br />Very often that group of people doesn't include the group you will be rolling with.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-16826048173468956352012-06-05T08:56:29.039-07:002012-06-05T08:56:29.039-07:00"The internet habit of postulating a freaky c..."The internet habit of postulating a freaky counter-example, without any evidence that there either is such a group or even a compelling scenario in which it could be fun, is one of the things I kinda read you to be calling out in the post above."<br /><br />Actually the exact opposite:<br /><br />The internet habit of claiming a phenomenon Does Not Exist (which you just did) is what I am calling out. That is one of the kinds of claims that can be disproven.<br /><br />Claiming Things Usually Happen a certain way is really really hard to prove especially in RPGs. All I have to prove a given Gygax rule could work for his group is ask some dude on Dragonsfoot for an example. Just because you lack the imagination to think of a kind of human being who isn't you doesn't mean that person does not exist.<br /><br />Personally I would totally play in a game where lightning punished my paladin for acting like my thief. I think it'd be funny (and it might not entirely stop me form acting like a thief). I wouldn't run that game for my current group of players but I'd totally run that way if it was, say...just Adam, Darren, Connie, and Caroline and the campaign was taking a sort of light-hearted turn.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2638993969706011706.post-29173442988141689782012-06-05T08:49:02.729-07:002012-06-05T08:49:02.729-07:00@x the owl
"You can't design rules for s...@x the owl<br /><br />"You can't design rules for social and/or creative groups that you've never met? Google "improv games" "structured dialogic design" "group therapy practice" "how to run an AA meeting" "brainstorming techniques" "Stanford prison experiment" and lots of other things that I'm sure you're thinking of. "<br /><br />In all of those cases, if you wanted MORE success you'd customize the thing. I am sure there are lots of "I ran an AA meeting and it didn't work so we do things slightly differently here" stories out there.<br /><br />Or "I went to group therapy and it didn't work" or, really, any number of things.<br /><br />It's not like "There's one way to do it and the one that works for 60% of people is objectively better than one that works for 40% of people". It's like "People are all fucking different so find out if they're in the 60% or the 40% or the 1% or--more to the point--realize you have a TINY group of people and narrow your rules to fit _every single thing that tiny sample might have in common_ then make new ones so _their energy feeds on each other_ .<br /><br />Customized things are gonna fit better. Who would argue with that? So you bought something off the rack and it fit perfectly once. Great. Still, if your main concern in life is fit, the services of a tailor will probably save you a lot of time and money and heartache. You need The Maximum Good, not An Acceptable Lowest Common Denominator For Tonight.<br /><br />"The question really is, tho, if that's the case, why are your games (by your own report) so consistently good with new people, including internet strangers? "<br /><br />OBVIOUS REASON: I exclude people I can't communicate with or who I don't think the game would work with. In real life this is by knowing them socially, but when it comes to "internet strangers" there is a very elaborate self-selection system going on here. Most people I roll with on-line got in touch to be in a game because they read this blog, decided to follow me on G+, etc etc --all these things winnow away people. It's the internet "you're in a bubble where everyone likes you" effect.<br /><br />When you go "Who wants to play D&D"? You are not excluding a lot of people.<br /><br />When you go "Who wants to play D&D with this guy who put out this specific D&D book you probably have or heard about and has this extensive list of opinions and actual play reports and likes these products and wants you to roll your PC using the rules printed here and have already had the following D&D-based conversations about..." then you are screening a lot of people out.<br /><br />Then you have an online group. Then you evaluate them socially during the game and change shit even more.Zak Sabbathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08812410680077034917noreply@blogger.com