User talk:Jason

--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?