My 2e thread

[Toptomcat]

This debate is attracting some very interesting comments.

[BluSpecs]

Hey lin, you shoiuld start another thread about your dislike of feats/levle in 3e I'd be interested in hearing it.

Ever play Chaosiums BRP system?

It's one of my favorites...

[K Man]

Strict sets of rules can create a fun game, but I don't think they create or encourage much of anything besides the level of equality and mutual goal. If you have that pre-existing relationship or you feel confident you can build it, than rules like "Its DC 32 to jump 8 feet" really don't mean much as the group can decide for itself whether or not the character should be able to. A roleplaying game is not like bridge: a random set need not be in play and nothing needs to happen that the collaboration of people involved can't craft.

BOOYAH!

I have to side with Lin on this one. Hell, I think we've all seen this phenomena, at least on some level, at one point and time in our lives, even on this board. Some people call them 'house-rules', others don't label them anything.

In essence, it's the removal of rules in place of trust. "Encumbrace sucks...can't we just go without it and assume that if we're not lugging a stone statue along, we can move at a good speed?" or "We don't like rolling iniative. It seems relevant that the highest DEX should just go first...can't it be like that?" These are basically lesser versions of 'Free-form' roleplaying like Lin said. Modifications or absence of the rules in place of trust. To put it nerd-terms:

(Role-Playing-Rules)XTrust=Fun

Myself, as a DM, I listen to my players. I'll never tell my players 'No' or 'You can't do that.' I see it as - they are gracing me with their presence and attention, I should make the game worth it. They don't like a rule, we sit down and decide what to do about it. They don't like a certain way something is handled, they have every right to voice and change said action.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again - "I strive for 100% player satisfaction in my games", and if that means completely turning the game upside...I will. As long as everyone is OK with it, I think it's perfectly fine to do this. If someone doesn't agree, then the majority shifts to accomadate them.

The above being said, there are people that need rules, that need cohesive structure to their games, yet trust their fellow gamers completely. There's nothing wrong with this either and they can often make valid arguements for their case.

I'm halfway between two worlds myself. I value the story above all else and I hate little rules that people use to their advantage. Especially when I'm told that, during my villains monologue, the players should get a surprise round to Hide/Move Silently vs. the villains Spot/Listen at a -5 because he was talking loudly about his diabolical schemes.

Simultaneously, I've often used the same rules when I needed them. For instance, I can't tell anyone how many times a character in the story arc needs to get away to become a greater villain later, only to be jumped by PCs and their interpretations of the rules. Well, in comes the hand of the DM, calling for listen/spot rolls and fudging the dice so that my villain can get away.

In short, I can see both sides of the arguement and consider them both valid.

Oh...and side note -

and Old School Rap is playing in the background

Sweeet....

[VemuKhaham]

About the discussion of trust and rules:

I have been game master of a game once that we played, over the internet, entirely without rules. This means: the players can submit ANY character they want, as long as it is a character that has a background that is possible in the campaign setting. That's the only limit, and players may even choose to be 'the Gandalf guy of the group' (by far the most powerful) or the 'Pippin' (little and silly hobbit). It doesn't matter as long as they know that the game is there to further the storyline TOGETHER and for each to have the ability to play what he wants to play.

And it never was a bother to any of the players or to me. We had fun with that campaign, and there were indeed character far and far more powerful then others, but that didn't keep them from cooperating and sometimes even the 'little guy' suddenly did something far braver then anyone expected of him.

This campaign was indeed, as you have put it well, evidence of trust among the players and gm, but let me add something to the trust-factor: more then a few times I had difficulty to decide wether acts succeeded and encounters where won. Most of the time, it is pity for the players that stood opposed to the knowledge that they SHOULD lose according to the difficulty. That means, it is also ability to decide these things, and also to do this impartially, that is the hard part. This is made up by a rules-system in common D&D games, and frankly, even though that non-rule campaign was great, I would still prefer the ease of rules in a game. Not for trust matters, but for ability matters.

However, I just considered while writing this post, that perhaps these two can be combined: if you allow the players to create every possible character concept (WITH the rules-system), but give them ultimate freedom in choice of level, class, etc. Would it still be fun to do, you think, now that the rules apply, or would it just not work?

[Lin]

Vemu: Rather than answer your question directly, I'll give a counter-annecdote which might help to illuminate the situation as I see it.

I ran a free-form roleplaying game with no rules in person about two years ago. It lasted about ten sessions than ended, as the story was pretty wrapped up. I had an idea and dropped the a setting and barebones plot for the players. The players picked characters who would shape that plot and we played. Not once did a situation come up where there was a conflict over what someone could or could not do. The players stayed within the realm of the plot at outlined before the game, but there actions varied intensely from what I would have crafted had it been a story rather than a roleplaying game. The players willing accepted, and indeed suggested there characters failures and successes equally and did not interrupt the game by bickering about unfairness.

This was not a heroic game and the people were just people in the world. The players had a very good idea of what they could and could not do, because most people have that general idea. The game had an extraordinary flair that was regulated to one player (myself, the GM) and the players implictly accepted my authority on that issue just as I accepted there authority on there characters. It worked because of the trust that everyone was serving the interest of the story and the whole thing turned out wonderfully dramatic in the end, without the need for a single roll of a die.

I think the bold parts are what really matter. You need likeminded people and you need people you know well enough to trust with these things. Trust is also important for "sensitive topics in roleplay," which is a different issue, but another reason to place that quality high.

I think the reason rules are so important is because so many roleplaying groups are based around people who are thrown together out of convenience rather than an honest desire to roleplay together, so a neutral party is required to "keep everyone honest."

NOTE: I realize it is entirely possible to enjoy a roleplaying game solely on a tactical level, but I'm ignoring that fact as I don't think its relevant to this particular thread. Rules are of course paramount in a tactical game, that goes without saying.

[Toptomcat]

Intriguing.
Usually on boards that sort of thing doesn't usually work out, but the bad sort of poster seems to have largely avoided Kman's, so that might actually work here.
Ever think of trying to GM a freeform game here, Lin?

[Solorn]

Hmmmmm, lots and lots of interesting stuff going on in here.

In several places I've lived I've had the oppertunity to play with tons of roommate GM's. I think there were two I loved the most, one named Sean and one named Shawn. Sean was very rigid about the rules and pushed you. Shawn was very free-form about everything. Both had their merits, both had their flaws. Give either of them any gaming system, they'd devour it, and produce something wonderful. They were also talented in that no matter what the problem, they could cope and still make it enjoyable for everyone.

I think it can be said that no system is perfect for everyone. That could be why some systems constantly keep re-inventing themselves, and in turn give everyone more options each time they do.

I like to see and partake in all types of RP. (if you're reading this, stow it Japic) I'm all for a 2e game, I think I can still dig up my 2e books if I rummage in these endless boxes I keep moving with me, I think I can still locate the original D&D stuff my father gave me. I'm also all for a free-form play.

I'll keep checking in. It'll be fun.

[Lin]

TTC: Well, time is a major problem: I'm not sure if I want to invest that much in another game.

Second problem is, I'm not sure if I like DMing in this format. Running my very simple one-shot right now, I'm not satisified with the "port" from tabletop to post. I won't do into detail now as the game isn't over, but I intend to review it afterwards for feedback and analysis.

Lastly, were I to run a campaign, I would expect a significantly higher level of participation (unless it was a one shot, in that case I don't mind doing 95% of the design) than I think most people are used to giving as a player. My lofty ideal is always equal levels of effort from everyone involved in the game, but that is rarely feasible, so I usually go for 50%. If each player isn't putting in at least half the effort I am, its not going to work out. When I run a campaign, I expect the players to be designing settings, NPCs, building up plot hooks and subplots, etc. This high expectation means that I've run games with many players that bombed because this is far from the norm and they (rightly) backed out as they learned the requirements. I don't like the DM/Player seperation very much, which is probably not shocking, so even in games where there is a definitive GM I prefer to blur the lines and share the responsibilties. I'm not sure if that would go over well. I've had plenty of successful games, but always in small groups for what should be obvious reasons.

I guess my answer is I'll think about it, but its doubtful at this point.

Blue: I might make that thread. Never played Chaosium. My experience is in the following systems:

D&D 2nd
D&D 3rd (d20)
Storyteller
Atlas Games (Unknown Armies)
Palladium
Freeform
The Jesus Game (NOTE: This is a system a few of my friends and myself designed that is worth a thread on its own, but probably won't get it. It is unique, because it is adverserial, goal oriented, uses a dictatorlike GM and still manages to be rules-loose.)

[Toptomcat]

Knowledge: Internet, success
Here's a good place for freeform.
nocturnalsoldier.org/forums/

[K Man]

I'm not satisified with the "port" from tabletop to post.

On the opposite side, I'm actually very pleased with the port to internet from tabletop. It has expanded, given me a chance to revise and add...all while keeping the previous PCs now as NPCs so the story is still my own.

Specifically, with BOYD, I have been able to do what I had always intended to do with the campaign, but never could in tabletop. (I don't know about you, but I have never had a successful party-split where half the table wasn't bored out of their mind while the other half played.) The forums allow me to do that. Players seem to like it cause rather than a seperate gaming night where they have no idea what the other party has done, they can keep up and enjoy their story as well...plus I don't have to do all the work of translating for them. If players didn't want to know, they have stated that they wouldn't read the other storyline...in either case, they have still done a great job of playing it out when the parties meet.

Also, in the forums, I don't have to make up stupid voices or describe NPCs too much because there are so many pictures I can use in their place. If I mess up a voice while DMing in person, someone might mistake it for a different NPC, jump them and call them 'imposter'...here, the pictures make up for that.

Now, the internet is not without its downside. It's agonizingly slow. I almost want to move certain parts to an instant message format to get done quicker. It kills me...but it's a relatively minor nuisance, I just like to bitch.

If each player isn't putting in at least half the effort I am, its not going to work out. When I run a campaign, I expect the players to be designing settings, NPCs, building up plot hooks and subplots, etc.

I have to agree with you on this one. As a DM, I like to give players a chance to develop the storyline as their own, to create subplots, love interests and what not. Their feedback drives the story and creates the game. I consider myself just here to run the rules, push them along and occasionally make a joke. Otherwise, they are really running the story. If they don't get that back to me, the game flops.

[BluSpecs]

One of the Best Dm's my groups has ever had was named Sean as well. He only ever ran one Darksun adventure for us. That was over 6 years ago and we still talk about it today.


Kman and I actually Co-Dm'd the OG tabletop version of BOYD and it was great fun ("if you smell what the Drock is cookin" was the best tag line from that version) In the OG version the master was called the Bringer of Decay so I was trying to talk Kman into calling the game "Just Bringer it" but he didn't see the humor ;D

The player-Dm shared world is something I've always wanted to expirement with further.

Chaosium's system is mostly % based and is very intuitive so I think the rules fade away and you can focus on the story easily.

I also find it somewhat realistic because from the when you create you character to when they die. you keep the same # of hp (Baring any ability damge you may take, then they just go down ) Weapons do lethal damage so unlike D&D if you have a guy with a gun/x-bow pointed at you you actually have to think your way out of it rather than going " Ha I'm 10th level with 70 hp, I scoff at your piddly d8 dmg. eat sword fucker!"

;D

[Wizard]

Lin said:

When I run a campaign, I expect the players to be designing settings, NPCs, building up plot hooks and subplots, etc.

You have to remember, a DM gets more bang for his buck out of design. First, he knows he can always use something he's created if he really wants to. A player, on the other hand, has no such knowledge. It's certainly possible (and rather easy) to throw a hook into play as a player, but that's hardly design---it's more of a "I dare you" to the DM.

For settings and NPCs, why even bother? NPC's don't fit into the plot or end up working differently than the player imagined, because someone else is playing them. Player-created settings can frustrate metagamers and non-metagamers alike---sure, you know about the setting because you designed it, but what if the DM changed that treasure horde to a power word, kill trap?

I'm getting the sense I may have misunderstood exactly what you were trying to get across, Lin. But I thnk the best a player can realistically do is play a full-blooded, living, breathing character. Past that...

[Toptomcat]

Then again, all skills work on a %-chance of success with few modifiers, if my admittedly sparse understanding of the system is correct.
Mmm...Impersonate Chtulu 15%...

[K Man]

Then again, all skills work on a %-chance of success with few modifiers, if my admittedly sparse understanding of the system is correct.
Mmm...Impersonate Chtulu 15%...

Not only do all skills operate on percentages, you could make up any skill on the fly. Some of my personal favorites from various published Chasoium material:

Babble Incoherently - 95%
Gouge Eyeball - 85%
Eat Unwary Diver - 110%
Animal Husbadry - 50%
Utter Chilling War Cry - 35%
Cause Mischief - 75%
Keep Pipe Lit - 4%
Whittle - 50%
Throw Furniture - 50%
Operate Security Monitor - 45%
Worry - 85%
Take Messages - 80%
Flick Cigarette - 95%
Lurk Unseen - 75%
Regain Consciousness - 3%

As you can see, no skill is beyond creation...

[BluSpecs]

I also like that does not have levels or an experience point system.

Basicly if you use a skill and succed you get to put a check in that skill. at the end ove the scenario 9or when the keeper dictates) yoiu get to roll % for the checked skills. if you roll over you current score you get to add 1d10 % to that skill.

I've always liked that idea ;D

[Lin]

Is Chaosium published by Atlas games? The system sounds very much like Unknown Armies.

Wizard: I don't agree at all obviously, but I'm not exactly sure where we're missing each other.

The DM doesn't get anymore bang for there buck than the players. The players can (and will) ignore your plot hooks and characters. When a player designs a setting or an NPC, it is theres to play and to describe. I gave a detailed example of this long ago on the wizards.com forum of how a typical session in one of my campaigns goes, maybe I can dig it up because it was reasonably illustrative. The Group not the DM has the final say over matter of the game.

[Toptomcat]

Chaosium is the publisher, I think.

[BluSpecs]

Yup Chaosium is the publisher. They put out Call of Cthulhu, Elric and one other game thats escaping me...

They call their system Basic Role Playing or BRP for short.

They've been around almost as long as D&D I think 1980ish?

[Toptomcat]

What's Elric?

[BluSpecs]

Never palyed it but I think Elric is is based on the fanasy novel seris of the same name. Elric is a good but weak prince that uses an evil artifact sword for the good of his people. soulds cool I always ment to track down and read a few of the books.