User talk:BenofZongo

--Matts 09:49, 23 October 2007 (MST)Cleaned out old discussion. I really like the high-seas idea, though I'm never sold on "high" fantasy (says the guy with the pillar thing). But boats are awesome. I'm a fan of swashing buckles in general, and cannon are also neat!

--Dieter the Bold 13:22, 24 October 2007 (MST) I always love me some high fantasy as well as the high-seas. But I'm starting to sour on the "small fish w/ super-awesome advantage in huge bowl" theme. In your currently imagined setting, I wouldn't mind playing a regular coastal vessel in vicious competition with larger merchant costers for nothing more exotic than regular cargo (and obviously smuggling). We don't need to be the one exception to a rule, pitting us against vast and unimaginable powers. We could be regular, yet awesome, Joes trying to turn a buck against mercantile monopolies. We have to watch out for sabotage and harassment, hustle people to get them to ship through us, scour the ports for jobs, contacts and materials, etc., etc. I could see a totally awesome game being run just trying to survive as a regular merchanting vessel. Of course, maybe this is just because I see shades of Gemini in the general set-up, but I'm wondering what it would be like to have a strictly mid-power level focus for the group. We're not absolute beginners who must fear pwnage at every encounter, but we don't have the resources or abilities (besides our own intelligence and imagination) to plot the take-over of entire cities and empires. Still, loves me some high fantasy and seas. So, Yahhhrrrr!!!

BEN: that game idea was posted pre-gemini, so it was essentially "gemini in fantasy". I haven't edited it or thrown it out because I just want to keep the idea written down somewhere, but given that we are a.) playing fantasy and b.) the gemini setup clearly is not well suited for our group, I don't anticipate that running this game would be a good idea any time soon. The last three ideas are the main ones I'm tossing around as "near- to not-so-near-but-not-far-either" future games.

--Edmiao 15:58, 24 October 2007 (MST) is this wiki-activity all kind of daydreaming, or are you getting the itch? and relatedly, what's going on with Exemplars? maybe i should post that on the main page

BEN: its not daydreaming but I don't have the itch. consider me in a perpetual state of GM readiness. I'm actually more eager to play than to GM right now (gemini left me with a bad taste in my mouth), but if the time comes when people say they want to see one of my games implemented (ie they are excited about one of the ideas I post) and there is a time slot open, I will happily step up.

--Edmiao 18:37, 24 October 2007 (MST) see because we could get excited about one of these games if we wanted to, but i don't want to get excited about a different game if exemplars is about to start. if it is not about to start, then i will read your ideas more than a skim and think about them.

BEN: word.

--Edmiao 17:22, 30 October 2007 (MST) i find the light vs dark fairy tale idea #5 interesting. alice in wonderland / pan's labarynth game. Ever play that computer game called Alice? visually a very interesting and twisted take on wonderland.

BEN: that game idea would lend itself well to quick, one shot adventures. The system would be very DITV-esque though, with an emphasis on story creation as opposed to power balance. As I may have mentioned on the page, it would revolve around some sort of cooperative spell casting system.

--Edmiao 13:48, 1 April 2008 (MST) high fantasy go! i want to kill a dragon. wait, we just killed a giant squid monster, but there was no magic lootz! wait, there was magic lootz daggers! sweet. How would you adapt gemini combat to high fantasy? seems kind of lethal for the genre. or you could break the mold and do DnD 4th edition and make Deiter have a mess in his pants induced by sheer extasssy.

GABE: DiTV is dogs in the whatever, isn't it? So not Gemini which was basically cyberpunk ED. Kekeke.

While I do like D&D, even 3.5 with some tweaking is fun, the Hero system lends its self very nicely to high fantasy. Also it goes well with the group. Its actually pretty fun the one time I ran it. Plus you don't have to keep track of like off the wall figures, most people don't have a speed higher then 3.

BEN: yeah, the high fantasy may be moot...fundamentally I just want to try a game where xp goes to buying your loot and your stats, with super fast advancement. anyways, they are just there mostly so that I don't forget about them and to let people know what I am thinking.

--Matts 14:53, 1 April 2008 (MST)I like both the one shot and the campaign. I also like the idea of smaller, contained adventures.

--Edmiao 17:40, 1 April 2008 (MST) perhaps you misinterpreted my above comment. i would love to do high fantasy. and i don't think wfrp is high fantasy, i was being sarcastic in that wfrp isn't really high fantasy, but has some tones of it, which is fine, cus that's what it is. so High Fantasy Go!! and i love the hero system.

BEN: cool, I'm glad you like the ideas I've put up. I'll flesh them out whenever the fancy strikes me, particularly that one shot idea, since I can imagine there might be a place for that in the near future...although I think that overall our group isn't too hot on one shots, so maybe not.

JASON: We should figure out a way to do some regular one-shots. Screw those haters.

BEN: for me that is largely a time consideration...but Kim is going to be traveling a lot for photo shoots in the next few months, so I expect that I will have time for some one shots, depending on how things go at work.

JASON: Heck, even if we did one once a month that would be cool. I need to try out some new things to see what I actually like and what just looks good on paper.

--Edmiao 13:16, 2 April 2008 (MST) i enjoy the one shotz and might attend some. but in general my preference is longerRPG or board game > one shots. that said, i enjoy the distreet short shot RPGs, like a discreet story line that lasts 6-10 sessions (a la Jin dynasty) I would enjoy very much, because there would be a beginning and an end and an actual objective to unify the group.

JASON: I think you mean discrete...hehe I love the board games, but in general, I only need about one board gaming day per month. They dont inspire creativity like rpgs do. Of course, if we were to play some of the more tactical or setting related games I would be interested more often. I love the Euro games, yet what they lack is setting/imagination/genre, though their structure and playability are off the charts. My main reason for one shots is not that I want something to end, because I love campaigns, instead it is to find the right mix of GM inspiration, player interest and system playability. I am still searching for that gaming holy grail. All of these new RPGs I buy have something in them to make them interesting, but sitting on my shelf they are nothing but vanity. Its easy for all of us to talk about how we are interested in genre x, but the reality is that we dont all mean the same things when we say that. The only reliable way to know is to try, and rather than devote a game slot to something that could be good or bad, why not do some testing? I think one of the biggest sources for improvement the group had when I was there was the resistance to testing things. It seemed like everyone was super impatient to just get a game started, almost as if they felt that game sessions spent playing a game that doesnt go on to be a campaign were wasted. I strongly disagree with this. Yet, as has been proven time and again, I am in the minority on these things.

--Edmiao 15:30, 2 April 2008 (MST) I agree that testing for the sake of finding a good genre/setting/system is useful. I'm just not super excited in one shots for the sake of one shots; that said, i enjoy them and would try to show up for them. also, board gaming once a month is a good frequency for me as well. so pretty much i agree with everything you say, Jason, you are the man.

--Dieter the Bold 15:50, 2 April 2008 (MST) I'm with you, Jason. I'd love to try out new systems and I do enjoy one-shots. It's nice to play something different from what I usually do, but not have to be stuck with it for a long time. Plus it would be fun to try different focuses (focii?) for sessions. Either just to see how the players handle situations as a sorta' scratch-test for incorporation into campaigns, or just to get fun little urges out of our systems so the campaign can focus more on story or the like.

BEN: I would say that historically I was someone who was opposed to a bunch of testing, largely because although I liked the idea of it, I've never found it to be that useful. I tried to test the crap out of the gemini concept, we used almost two full sessions for that, and in the end, the test results were totally non-relevant to the game itself. The mechanics of a one shot are just sooo different from a campaign...I actually like long, long, long campaigns best myself...guess that's why I'm excited about WHFRP, since all in all its almost run for a year, if you include the last iteration. But I digress...Jason makes a very strong argument for the usefullness of testing and I'm inclined to see that as a reasonable goal for one shots...although I'd say that's a secondary goal for me, also to be taken with a grain of salt, given what I put about the accuracy of "test" results. The one shot I proposed, though, would not really be meant to go beyond that one session: just one round of 3-6 kids vs. immortal, magic wielding, reality bending faeries, and that's that :).

JASON: Ben hit some really important points here. Everyone needs to understand the scope of the game. What testing can do is establish a universe and a style of play. For instance, if Gemini were played again, do you think everyone would choose characters which were more genre/game appropriate? What about that really cool cooperative character generation system, dont you think the group would make radically different choices now that they understand the ramifications?

I was really pumped to do Space Opera a second time, because I figured now that everyone understood the universe they would make characters that were made specifically for that universe, rather than just generic sci fi characters. The same would be true of Gemini. I think we all agree that the long running campaign is the best by far, and my goal with one shots is to facilitate having that by making sure players: have characters that are appropriate to the game and setting; understand the way the universe outside of the PCs interact with each other and the PCs; and are interested in the GMs actual implementation of the idea they put forth on paper.

I think a one shot should not be a single session if it is a test implementation; instead it should be a one (arc) shot. Play through a single medium length story, something like 3-4 sessions. This way the players get the full flavor of the intended genre, instead of just an inkling.

As an aside, the next World of Darkness core book is Innocence the Lost, a book on playing children in WoD. Since Ben seems to be interested in this kind of thing a lot, I think he should consider getting it.

BEN: that's because I'm a pedophile, duh. Except for Gabe's mom, but she's a changeling (this creature is all creature types), so I guess that counts. Funny, how child villains and/or heroes have come up in a lot of my games...I always think its interesting to notice patterns in your own style of play/GMing...especially when there's no rational reason for it. I actually don't think the reasons have been the same in most cases...in champions I wanted child heroes so that the characters could be bad asses but not the mostest bad asses, but without eliminating the need for the characters (ie, the bad asses aren't ready for bad assery yet...). In PA I wanted a child villain because I thought it would be scary/intense to have a child serial killer. The one shot I propose is inspired by a song I just heard, and looking through Lorwyn magic cards.