Quote from: SettembriniThey say, we are insane and lunatics, because we don´t dig the concept of colour. Which is, for everyone intellectually decent a matter of taste. So we are insane because of our taste. I say they are idiots because they judge stuff they don´t understand AND mock it.
They aren´t idiots because they like colour as a concept, but they say we are insane because we don´t like it.

Big. Difference.

Again, this looks like baseless accusations to me.

You cant just go around claiming that these people think this or that, or know this or that, and not produce any evidence to support your claim.

As far as Im aware, nobody has called anyone anything except you. Ive never seen anyone call you or anyone else "insane and lunatics" for not "digging the concept of color."

You claiming that they dont understand traditional gaming seems, to me, rather immature. Like everyone else, they come from traditional gaming. Thats where they learned to game.
Or do you think Luke Crane hasnt ever played a bog-standard game of D&D?

Quote from: TempleAs far as Im aware, nobody has called anyone anything except you. Ive never seen anyone call you or anyone else "insane and lunatics" for not "digging the concept of color."

Please look here: http://itsmrwilson.livejournal.com/39864.html

Quote from: SettembriniPlease look here: http://itsmrwilson.livejournal.com/39864.html

I have. And I still cant see anything to the effect that people who preferr hard mechanics over color are insane or stupid.

Is it the word "looney" you are referring to?
If so, I think ts a language barrier thing, because that word does not carry the connotations I sense you think it does.

The author of that livejournal is reacting to the absurdly absolutist statements, and the implications (by you) that people who prefer to handle spaceships (in this case) as color are worthy of pity.

I think you are projecting, dude.

Well, I see an insane there right on top.
And it´s not only me. Pierce is also called a looney/insane.

There is nothing looney or insane or even funny about wanting a spaceship to be a spaceship in RPGs. There is nothing loco or funny in disliking  colour as a concept.

Pierce is explicitly mocked with the "push to shove" comment. So really, even Calithena is ignored/mocked. Clearly, it´doesn´t matter if we remain friendly and polite, as Claithena and Pierce were. They are mocked, scorned and declared insane anyway. So praytell, why should I think highly of them?
Why should I not utter my contempt and pity for these poor souls?
No reason.
Holding back ones anger hasn´t helped Pierce or Calithena.

Maybe, just maybe I´m not reading into that how it was meant. Maybe just maybe they are all friendly at heart. But I differ in evaluating that entry. I see malice all the way. Uninformed malice, that is.

Quote from: TempleHow so?

Because in a performance type environment, of course none of that is important. If you just describe it, all that stuff can be handwaved away, sure. But then every single detail you trivialize like that becomes something that just isn't important. Why even have a game set in space at all?  Making something into color effectively erases it from the game.

Which, if your'e into this because you need to explore your relationship with the social paradigms or whatever, is perfectly understandable. who cares how fast the spaceship goes, then, right? It just doesn't matter. We could just say "fast".

But in a game environment, such details are important because the players directly interact with things such as "how much fuel will we need", "is this an inhabitable planet", "what resources are available here.." "how much is germanium going on the market here.."

When you are playing Traveller, knowing those details is just as important as knowing how many dice you are supposed to roll when playing monopoly. (Two 6-siders, by the way. Monopoly also predates the 80s).

So of course it doesn't matter what the sun or a spaceship is like if all you care about is the feelings and the morality and the Lagos Egris crap. But if you are trying to do things like play a game in which players are trying to set up a trade route or chart a path from one system to another, or find alien wildlife somehow...  players do in fact need to know. You need to know where encounters are going to happen, and how often, and what they'll be, and what equipment you might need, and how much fuel. Similarly, you need to know how fast a group can march in one day if it's a fantasy game, and how much damage a broadsword does, and all of that.

This is an important interactive part of gaming.

And the beauty of it all? The kind of gaming I am describing creates stories. Yes. Players develop an intense personal interest in their characters, and they get involved with guiding what happens and where their characters are going and what gets done. so this "crazy" idea of detailing things that actually come up in play actually helps create these awesome, wonderfully detailed adventure stories that just serialize session after session and keep players interested and coming back, year after year. This is what adventure gaming is all about.


Or you know, you guys have that tackling issues thing, which is cool. I just don't consider those stories except in a technical sense.

Quote from: SettembriniUninformed malice, that is.

Youre pretty quick to point out that anyone who disagrees with you or expresses a dislike for you or your preferences are intellectually inferior to you.

See, I think you are projecting that malice into what you read.
I think you (and many others) see rpg theory and all these new and fancy-schmancy ways of gaming, and think "what if my way of playing really is inferior?"
Maybe that makes you feel stupid, and you dont want to admit it.

So whenever someone mentions something about theory or Forge-based indie games, basically any untraditional game or gaming preference, you see your own percieved inequity and respond with hostility.

I could be wrong. I could be talking out of my ass. I dont think I am, but thats just my opinion.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBecause in a performance type environment, of course none of that is important. If you just describe it, all that stuff can be handwaved away, sure. But then every single detail you trivialize like that becomes something that just isn't important. Why even have a game set in space at all?  Making something into color effectively erases it from the game.

Which, if your'e into this because you need to explore your relationship with the social paradigms or whatever, is perfectly understandable. who cares how fast the spaceship goes, then, right? It just doesn't matter. We could just say "fast".

But in a game environment, such details are important because the players directly interact with things such as "how much fuel will we need", "is this an inhabitable planet", "what resources are available here.." "how much is germanium going on the market here.."

When you are playing Traveller, knowing those details is just as important as knowing how many dice you are supposed to roll when playing monopoly. (Two 6-siders, by the way. Monopoly also predates the 80s).

So of course it doesn't matter what the sun or a spaceship is like if all you care about is the feelings and the morality and the Lagos Egris crap. But if you are trying to do things like play a game in which players are trying to set up a trade route or chart a path from one system to another, or find alien wildlife somehow...  players do in fact need to know. You need to know where encounters are going to happen, and how often, and what they'll be, and what equipment you might need, and how much fuel. Similarly, you need to know how fast a group can march in one day if it's a fantasy game, and how much damage a broadsword does, and all of that.

This is an important interactive part of gaming.

And the beauty of it all? The kind of gaming I am describing creates stories. Yes. Players develop an intense personal interest in their characters, and they get involved with guiding what happens and where their characters are going and what gets done. so this "crazy" idea of detailing things that actually come up in play actually helps create these awesome, wonderfully detailed adventure stories that just serialize session after session and keep players interested and coming back, year after year. This is what adventure gaming is all about.


Or you know, you guys have that tackling issues thing, which is cool. I just don't consider those stories except in a technical sense.

You dont get it.

Elaborate.

Can we talk about games without being nasty to one another?

That would be really nice.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBut in a game environment, such details are important because the players directly interact with things such as "how much fuel will we need", "is this an inhabitable planet", "what resources are available here.." "how much is germanium going on the market here.."

Absolutely, so let's say there are a few different ways to do this.  I think we can agree on that.

I wouldn't stat up all of this stuff before the game began.  I'd leave it in the background until one of my players pursued it.

So, one of my players wants to know how much Germanium is on the market in our Burning Whatever game.  I ask them to roll their Merchant-wise skill, obstacle 2.  The hit their mark and I tell them about the market, what the prices are and what's happening, etc.

If they fail, perhaps they get a wildly wrong notion about the market or make a mistake.  Hopefully, both results, success or failure, will lead to adventure.

But the Germanium Market of Orion-4 didn't exist until he made that roll.  We made it up as we went and created what we needed to.  Until that moment, Germanium was just color, something mentioned in the background.

So, tell me how you'd do handle this at your table.

Quote from: TempleYoure pretty quick to point out that anyone who disagrees with you or expresses a dislike for you or your preferences are intellectually inferior to you.

Huh?
Why should I wait when it´s obvious?
What to wait for?

Quote from: PakaSo, tell me how you'd do handle this at your table.

We have, like, trade rules?
And we have, like, star maps?
And we have, like, a model for markets?
And we have, like, supply & demand structure derived from the interaction of the star systems?

EDIT: I still acknowledge, like AM, that there´s games that don´t need that. because they are not about plausible results regarding ceratin elements of the background. And that´s okay.

Quote from: Settembrini1) We have, like, trade rules?
2) And we have, like, star maps?
3) And we have, like, a model for markets?
4) And we have, like, supply & demand structure derived from the interaction of the star systems?

Let's number your questions for ease of answering.

1) I don't give a fuck about living up to your notions of trad rules or what you think gamers should be doing.  That's clear, right?

2) Maps are fun, maybe we have one, sure.

3) Model for markets?  Nah, not interesting to me.  I'm here to game and fly starships, not be an economist.  But the game will have internal consistency.  It will all fit together nicely.

4) Again, fun space stories do no = economy to me but if that is what you dig, gods bless.

You wanted to know how WE do it. We already know how YOU do it.

What´s your point?

EDIT: Have you ever even played traveller? These rules are not complicated.

EDIT @temple: Here see the malice. he asks a question but doesn´t want to know the answer:

Quote1) I don't give a fuck about living up to your notions of trad rules or what you think gamers should be doing.

Is what I get for answering him. Uninformed malice all the way.
And regarding starships, starsystem and trade, anyone who hasn´t played Traveller is uninformed. Period.

Quote from: SettembriniYou wanted to know how WE do it. We already know how YOU do it.

What´s your point?

EDIT: Have you ever even played traveller? These rules are not complicated.

I haven't played Traveller but I'm making my way through the Little Black Boxed set nowadays but probably won't get to finish it until after Gen Con.

I was responding to AM's post, Sett.  If you don't care, don't respond.

So, tell me how you do this.  Describe it.

Tell me what you do when one of your players wants to dip his toe in the Germanium market in a galactic space game.  Stop the bullshit and talk about gaming and talk technique.

What do you do at the table?

Christ. Thats what I get for daring to be enthusiastic about an idea by 'one of them'.

Sett:  Until your damn starship does anything important (and travel isn't necessarily that, I think) who the fuck cares if you have one orbiting the planet or sitting in a dock somewhere?  How is this 'untrad'?

Hell, starships are ONE place where I could actually SEE using fucking color, which is why I keep going there.   Hell, for the most part I'm pretty anti-starships the way they are presented in the rules.   Starships work great as set peices, where stuff happens, and they work great to move the players from planet to planet, but the shit breaks down when you try to explain why one player has a million dollar peice of equipment and another one can't afford a decent gun! Never mind that when doing 'starshippy stuff' like dogfights maybe half the party can really get involved. You know, the pilot, a gunner or two... everyone else sits there with their thumb up their ass unless, for some reason, the entire party made ship crew, in which case they have no reason to ever leave!  

On the other hand, if you just hand wave the starship as a plot device, it makes it hard to use things that such a ship might justifiably have, like, say, sensors...