Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jason"

Revision as of 20:31, 16 June 2008

--Dieter the Bold 13:10, 16 June 2008 (MST) So, the recent clarification of gaming vs. narritivist action has intrigued me. Since we'd like to have you back and you'd like to come back but don't really want to be gaming, would it work to have you script out a short adventure, just to read through so that we could see more what it is you're imagining?

--Edmiao 13:36--Dieter the Bold 15:50, 16 June 2008 (MST), 16 June 2008 (MST) i've never understood the issues that Jason has with our game style, despite many endless debates on the topic.

--Dieter the Bold 13:56, 16 June 2008 (MST) I wasn't really getting it either, until the little exchange he and Ben had on my talk page:

BEN: my interpretation would be that he's trying to go for more narrativist, and less (particularly) gamist or even simulationist games. That's cool, and I do actually agree that we have a strong gamist streak in our group, as well as some very simulationist leaning players. I can imagine things might still get very frustrating for you Jason: I think we will all just have to lament, and game together in one shots n' shit.

JASON: Ben is correct. I noticed a while back that some things really bothered me, but these were things that werent particularly unreasonable, and that other players really enjoyed. For instance, looting of all enemies and maximizing every possible attack/defense stack. The combats become an exercise in dice rolling if every attack is the same max attack. To me, thats what video games are for. Roleplaying is about developing a good story. Characters do fun and interesting things, not necessarily the thing that does the most damage or has the best probability of hitting. I can just meddle from afar and show up when I have an open night, then my nuisance-age is mitigate for all.  ;-)

So I started getting a kind of idea what he was meaning, and the only way I could think of that might clear things up would be a literally guided gaming session. Where he writes parts out for everyone and we just sorta' act them out as he'd imagine things (ideally) going. And then we could stop and ask questions along the way. This could, in fact, be describing the most hellish experience he could imagine, but Jason is fun to game with so I'm grasping at straws to find a workable way we can all get together again.

JASON: That wouldnt be good for me, Dieter. I dont like being controlled just like any of you dont either. I really screwed up in Exemplars by not being clear enough and trying to have too much control over the beginning. What I want is for everyone to agree to play a particular type of game, instead of for everyone to agree to play in a particular setting and try and bend it to be a game they want it to be. Player caveat: we are going to play the next game this way (insert gaming compact or whatever), no matter what the setting is.

I will do my best to be more clear. In many cases its subtle. The plots and games from a high level are all fine, there is no difference between an adventure I would write and one we would all play. Its more in details.

I dont like video games. In fact, I despise them. I dislike when RPGs become like a video game even more than video games themselves.

Example: Looting every villain. In a good believable story, there often isnt time or need to do so. In Children of Men a bad dude is chasing the protagonist and he closes the door on his arm, which dislodges the guys gun. He could reach down and grab the gun, and in fact it would probably help him, but instead he runs. His primary goal is to get away, he doesnt have a second to spare to grab it. Advance the story, not characters individual experience or wealth.

Nothing should be free. I get very annoyed when one choice is always made because it is system better, but not without real life consequences. Making a choice should get you something as well as sacrifice something.

Example: Shields in WHFRP are overpowered. In real armies, men always carried shields. But an army is very different from a wandering band of yokels. Carting around a shield all the time is hard work. They are also cumbersome to make ready. A shield offers the exact same benefit as a main gauche, but the main gauche requires a special skill. Why would anyone use the main gauche? In real life, because they are very light and fast. Encumbrance is too difficult to utilize in most games, and its hard to convince players that their shield is slow to ready, even though it is. WHFRP has lots of these little idiosyncrasies, and though I love the world, I am as soured on it as a system as I am with Hero because of the munchkining I experienced in our games.

Players are unwilling to think clearly about situations. This is global, not a function of this group. When a group of enemies has a drop on the players, instead of trusting the GM and surrendering, or trying to talk their way out of it, what happens? WE DRAW AND FIRE!!!! Now the GM has to bend probability so the party doesnt die, when they probably should. It is extremely difficult to bring realistic consequences to bear without hurting players feelings or destroying the game. This leads to each encounter being pushed as far down the crazy path as the craziest character at that particular moment chooses to push it. This sends a plot hurtling out of control very quickly.

Combat uber-munchkining with attacks and defenses also drive me nuts. Character A has one attack that is clearly better than all others, why would he choose any other? In real life, because you cant just do a flying roundhouse kick in an elevator, or you cant catch a guy in an arm bar when you are both standing. But this is never mitigated. Combat breaks down to move x inches, roll dice for maximized attack, collect booty.

In all of these situations players are 'winning' rather than storytelling. If I do x I can more efficiently collect more booty type y.

GABE: As far as carrying a shield or looting though, that is what YOU view as realistic, the game world is not the real world, it is an entertaining world. Sure the guy in Childern of Men didn't grab the gun, but lets say your in a warzone, like a real one, and you don't have a weapon, you kill someone who does. You really not going to take that?

I take each system as is, that is just the way the world works in that system. Personally I don't like any sort of "but in real life" arguments.

Also why should there be no reason to loot the badguys?

I guess I'm saying, what is wrong with just enjoying a game as it? Killing things and getting stuff is fun for lots of people and that system has been around long before video games.

ALSO. Not saying your wrong, just adding my 2 cents.

I hope we can avoid maximizing attacks in the next supers, I like well rounded dudes, or maybe who excell in some areas, but not like a one hit KO.

--Edmiao 14:59, 16 June 2008 (MST) a lot of that stems from the systems. in wfrp, you are dirt poor and a shield can be sold for more money than your character has ever seen in his entire life. you damn well bet he's gonna take the shield. lets say some thugs tried to mug you in downtown seattle and you punched them and knocked them out somehow. and the thug dropped 10,000 dollars and you are dirt poor and work at McDonalds. damn well bet you take that money in the real world. That's wfrp looting.

if the game system is designed to make shields incredibly useful, and further to make it so that you will likely die without a shield, then it's hard to resist not carrying a shield around if combat is frequent. at least for me. does it make me a gamer to want my character to live? Jacob became an archetype of the untouchable character in combat because I gamed him. I still thought he was an interesting character to play outside combat as well. Combat is a pretty small portion of a day's session, and i think by necessity if you use a game system then combat goes by the rules.

I sometimes try new things in combat that go outside the rules, and usually the rules just come back in and squish my ideas. often this involves grappling and tackling and stuff. the one big exception, when i have actually done some cinematic combat was last week in the one shot when I had Dar check that goon into the vat of boiling body parts, that was awesome. and later when he dove from truck to truck and knocked the other guy out of the truck, that was awesome too.

I am going to try to make my Viho suit more versatile in combat.

GABE: Yeah, but I think Jason has a point with what KIND of gaming you want to play, and how it should be somewhat established from the onset. Well glad you enjoyed doing dat crazy shiznit! I think suggesting it is always a good idea, sure you might fail, but might as well try eh? I mean after chucking the guy in you were like can I jump over the cauldren? And really I couldn't see you doing it lacking all the skills to do so, so I put the ney on it, but you still asked. That said I realized for when Ben asked if he could jump across the plateform instead of run, I said "But you could just run", but looking back now I'm like man... why not? It has no affect on the game and just makes his dude stand out at what he does. Also if he had failed or done his acrobatics roll it wouldn't of had an affect on the game so I should have just let him.

That said I don't think EVERY attack should be something amazingly cool. Those combats were a lot of fun to run though. Mostly cause you all made it interesting.

--Dieter the Bold 15:50, 16 June 2008 (MST) Gentlemen, we're getting off topic. I'm not posting on JASON's talk page in order to argue with him or put out my 2cents. I respect your two cents, but it's someplace for a specific discussion on gaming in general or your own talk pages. I'm posting with some specific ideas to try and get some better idea about what Jason's thinking and ways that would get him back into the group, either as playing with us or running a game with us. So, Jason, back to what I had originally mentioned, I didn't mean run a whole campaign like this, or even a full one-shot. I was thinking more in the vein of taking one of those cheap one-shots/adventure hooks in gaming accessories. Nothing that would take more than an hour or two, and not designed to make us walk around like robots, but designed to "play as Jason does". So, we'd see Plot Device Y, and then we'd read some segment of dialog and take some action. Another person would read their characters reaction and the like. It sounds stupid, it could very well be insanely aggravating for you, so if you ixnay it again I won't bring it back up. It's just my initial thought on how to literally get it to the basics of what you're trying to go for. By literally taking us by the hand and leading us through how you'd like a session to go as. Would it work for you GMing if you loathed us? Like created some adventures that would work the way you wanted them (i.e., shields aren't so great, trying to loot doesn't work, failing to surrender gets you pounded in the ass) and just let us do our regular thing with increasingly horrifying results if we fail to act appropriately?

GABE: I don't think it is off topic to say why we do what we do. I mean really gaming shouldn't be just about one person's vision, but something that at least the whole group can generally find fun. So I'm just offering up my reasons for why I do what I do, and why I find it enjoyable. I want Jason to game with us too, DUH! Plus, I'm bored!

But I'll jump outt-o!

JASON: This is exactly why I dont play with you guys! Gabe doesnt like in real life arguments. I want something that makes sense in the real world. You dont. End of story. Shields are heavy, thats a fact. Thats not my perception. I care about this, but you guys dont. Rather than forcing you guys to play my way, I left to find people who also want to care about these things.

And Ed, if 10,000 falls out of a guys pocket, of course you take it. Thats not analogous at all. If I beat up a thug, and with the threat of police or others showing up I sat there and ransacked his pockets, took his keys, stripped him of his $100 silk shirt and $150 Nikes, then we get closer to what the games are like. Its a game of find and rob, be it of stuff or XP.

A minor point here also is that merchants probably wouldnt buy used shields or swords from you because it doesnt make economic sense. So you come in with a 40 gc shield. In game its easy to say they give you 20gc for it, but really that is about their investment in a new one. A used shield, which is undoubtedly dented and otherwise less than perfect, is probably worth no more than 4 gc. And how heavy are these to carry? How long can you walk with a bag full of metal objects? Sure, our characters are stronger than us, but still, speed is reduced by a significant margin.

if the game system is designed to make shields incredibly useful, and further to make it so that you will likely die without a shield, then it's hard to resist not carrying a shield around if combat is frequent. at least for me. does it make me a gamer to want my character to live?

Yes. Real people (and interesting characters) dont sit down and crunch every number to find the most efficient way to do every detail. The story is more important than any character. Any player should be happy to sacrifice their character for the good of the story. The story belongs to us all, its more than any one of us can do on our own. We dont sit around months later and talk about that time I looted villain x and then rolled a natural 01 on some skill or otherwise gamed the system, we talk about a character doing something interesting and cool. Good storytelling should always be rewarded; gaming should never be rewarded.

But as I mentioned before, that is the most important point here, you guys dont seem to mind things I hate. That is my problem, not yours. You guys are some of my best friends, and I love doing stuff with you. But gaming doesnt really work often.

In hero, each character has a huge collection of disadvantages, but they only get roleplayed when its convenient and not dangerous. In my opinion no one should get ANY xp except for roleplaying disadvantages when its dangerous or inconvenient. Its easy (and not particularly interesting) to have principles sitting at the bar with your buddies.

And now a bit about Dieters question. I dont think I could do that. I am not a particularly good GM. I can come up with some really good ideas, but follow through is really hard for me. As Ben has noticed, my sessions go much better when I plan them well. I dont improvise well unless I have the tools available to do so. But what is mentioned there is basically handing you guys a story I wrote. That doesnt seem like fun to me or the players.

I believe that Dieter also has a similar thing happening. He says he doesnt like Werewolf and he would never play VtM, but really, I think if he examined it, it isnt the settings. Its his perception of those settings' play styles. When I first played VtM, I was not excited at all. I thought that game was gonna suck balls, but the others wanted to do it, so I did. I made a character. Klaus, that was about 25% as detailed as Hassan, but ended up taking a real life of his own. It is my favorite campaign (Forged in Steel) and character of my life. My biggest gaming fantasy is finding the right people and reviving that game.

Now some more points. I dont think my gaming style or opinion is inherently better than any of yours. Its just better for me. I can see that you guys like the looting and gaming, and that is your right. This is why I stopped trying to bend the games to things I wanted when clearly you guys didnt want that.

As an example, in that Forged in Steel game, Klaus eventually got to be pretty tough in combat (we played for 3+ years), but I have always refused to give him Celerity. If I did, his combat effectiveness would go through the roof. But it doesnt fit the character. No matter how much more he could do or how tough he would be, he wouldnt be Klaus anymore. And that destroys the soul that makes the game special. That takes away the interesting storycraft and replaces it with friends throwing dice and drinking Mountain Dew.

--Edmiao 17:25, 16 June 2008 (MST) de ja vu. let's have this debate again in 6 months after I've forgotten what it was about again. i yield the floor

JASON: Nothing to yield man, we are just different animals. And on a related note, I have really been trying to work on being more accepting. As you might guess, its very difficult for me. For some reason criticizing is so natural to me, but creation is so difficult. I can see something wrong, and it bothers me, but I cant create something better. Its frustrating. I am a good helper, but a terrible island.

BEN: social problems tend to be a pretty even mix of circumstance and internal bidness. In this case, I would say that we all have tried to change the circumstances (ie, mess with the gaming environment to make it appealing to all) and Jason has made several attempts to change the internal bidness (ie, becoming more accepting). I think that both things have fallen short so far in making friday nights appealing to Jason, and although that's a pity, I respect it.

--Gdaze 19:31, 16 June 2008 (MST) Indeed, just two different ways of seeing it. The thing is, is can you be okay with one way sometimes? Or something like that.

Its funny when you talk about the charactes putting up a fight. I once had a dude loss a fate point cause he went up against over whelming odds. Characters generally don't like to give up. Like in werewolf these black sprials were being all none confritational and the characters totally engaged them, it was great.