Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jason"

Revision as of 15:49, 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, 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.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
--Matts 15:12, 21 January 2007 (MST)You've made clear several times what it is you don't like in roleplaying, but that doesn't provide a picture of what you do want from roleplaying, and I don't have a clear picture of what that is. Is it something you'd be willing to share and elaborate on?

--Jason 15:45, 21 January 2007 (MST)I have been thinking about this all day. Youre right, I have been a malcontent, and I even addressed it with my new years resolution that Im already breaking. But here are some things I believe, maybe they can help illustrate my position:

Heroes are made not born. Normally this means I am against high powered games.

Nothing should be too easy. Im not a patient person, but when I am forced in game to be cautious and take baby steps, in the past I have found it to be quite enjoyable.

Players actions should have consequences, both good and bad. Sometimes we as players should fail, sometimes because we make a mistake, but sometimes things just go against us. Really bad decisions should have significant consequences.

When a major success can finally be achieved, it will be a huge accomplishment.

The game is about story over character or player, we should all be willing to do what it takes to advance the story. Characters should also be consistent, yet have a survival instinct. When situations dictate, characters should compromise.

The GM should have a lot of flexibility to implement the story and the players should trust him as well as each other. When things go poorly for us, trust that the GM has a good reason. But when making rulings, the GM should rule in favor of the player when its a toss up. Let the players play, and let them participate in creating an amazing story.

--Edmiao 19:36, 21 January 2007 (MST) I must agree that some of the most memorable moments for me have been in PA where things went horribly wrong and we survived by the skin of our teeth. Or when we did really stupid things and horrible things happened to us (like losing all my phat loot to ghosts or Wik nearly dying of infection). That said, you should be able to achieve the same thing in a high powered game by making things harder for the characters (but it may take more work). More skills required, more plot items hidden, more difficult skill test rolls.... is it ironic that you, (Jason), are gearing up a high powered supers game......? I'm excited about it!

--Jason 19:43, 21 January 2007 (MST)Its not really ironic, the games I run are geared towards what you guys would want to play in, not me. Not to split hairs, but its a standard supers game, not high powered. Still superheroes nonetheless...

--Matts 21:10, 21 January 2007 (MST)Well, all I ask is that when you run the games you run them because they're the kind of games you enjoy running - hopefully those are also the kinds of games we want to play in.

--Gdaze-- Jason, I should have my character's history to you by either today, or tomorrow. I've just got a few things I want to mull over. Also, what is the name of that one school, the supers one? Oh wait, NEVERMIND. Got it right here in an email. Alright, I shall email you the history when I have it + character.