I'm going to assume Ron was just kidding around, or mispoke, or was taken out of context.  I can't imagine he really thought he could copyright a single word, or even game mechanic for that matter.

Although if I were going to use that term in a game I'd probably want to reference Ron's game and give some explanation for where the (strange) term comes from.

I have to agree  with those who say that "kickers & bangs" have been around  for ever. Back in the old days they were just common sense methods of GMing. Apparently sometime between the invention of D&D and today a they have been forgotten.

That's not to say that Sorceror isn't important or that Edwards ripped anything off. I think it's more of a case where he found something that worked for him, maybe for years before, and decided to highlight them. He just simply took the two concepts and told people that in his games they will be much more significant.

The concepts of Kickers & bangs are not "hippie" game design elements just old concepts that are more the center of attention than before. I think many seasoned GMs and players use them regularly without  realizing it or giving them stupid names.

Quote from: gleichmanInterestingly enough, all the players I've encountered over the years (many dozens), I've never seen a DIP player except online. That may be because of the games I play (HERO seems disliked by them as it almost requires DAS) or because I steer them away by other means.

I'm DIP but can deal with Hero.  The key is to stay away from Disadvantages that will cause problems (e.g., having a DNPC jerked around by the GM can be bad, so I normally stay away from them) and to paint the personality traits broadly enough that they can be worked in.  In a few cases, I've restructured the Disadvantages after a few sessions of play to make them better match what I was actually playing.  In other cases, I pick a Disadvantage or two that become the central focus of the character and what I build around (e.g., one of my Fuzion characters had Impulsive as his defining trait).

Quote from: gleichmanI'm rather glad I haven't. It doesn't sound like they'd work in my group.

Why do you need to know the character concept up front?  It's not as if I start with a totally blank slate.  I usually have a rough concept.  The problem is that they often don't play out the way I anticipate them to, but that's only a problem if the game is expected to go a certain way.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI don't know if I do it "smoothly", but I have parts of sessions where character is more important, and others where tactics are important.
....And most want some balance of character stuff and tactical stuff. Most seem to enjoy it best when their character having a combat has some real reason for it - "this man will bring ruin to the land, we must destroy him!" or "this man killed my mother!" and so on. It doesn't have to be really deep, it's just an rpg session. Cliches work fine :cool:

But let's take a hypothetical roleplaying game in which you play, say, slaves. Or teenage girls (without kewl powerz). In that case you're proceeding from a different idea of what 'balance' is. It's very unlikely that those characters will face any sort of tactical challenge at all.

Gleichman says he likes roleplaying because it gives his wargaming a context. You're saying people like combat best when their characters are deeply connected to the fight. I'm asking why the assumption of combat needs to be central to the idea of 'roleplaying game'.

Quote from: droogI'm asking why the assumption of combat needs to be central to the idea of 'roleplaying game'.

Combat need not be central to the idea of roleplaying game, it's just what interests most gamers. Of course if you say, you're only in it for the non-combat stuff, then you open yourself to attacks that you're really not playing an RPG. I mean you could easily play teenage girls (without cool powers) using d20 instead of some "story" system...right?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David ROf course if you say, you're only in it for the non-combat stuff, then you open yourself to attacks that you're really not playing an RPG. I mean you could easily play teenage girls (without cool powers) using d20 instead of some "story" system...right?

Of course you could, though why you'd use the whole apparatus of something like d20 to play teenage girls is beyond me. There's always Risus if people want to remain ideologically pure.

And I'm not 'only in it for the non-combat stuff'. But if you compare the role of combat in a roleplaying game to that of action in the movies, you can see that while action films are all well and good, there are times you don't want to see an action film, and there are films in which action would be pointless or ridiculous.

Quote from: droogAnd I'm not 'only in it for the non-combat stuff'. But if you compare the role of combat in a roleplaying game to that of action in the movies, you can see that while action films are all well and good, there are times you don't want to see an action film, and there are films in which action would be pointless or ridiculous.

Well I didn't mean "you" you...

But I'm struggling to get your point. I mean it really depends on the kind of game you want to play where combat may or may not be an aspect of it....or is there something else you're getting at ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowI'm DIP but can deal with Hero.

I recall you being DIP and immersive John, so I'm not surpised that you called me on this.

My reaction may not even apply in your case, it's hard to tell. I may be that I'm gun shy after being subjected to the most extreme cases possible, like someone who shows up one of those legendary horrid and dysfunction D&D games. I may well be overreacting

In your case I'd likely give it shot, but be nervious about the outcome. If someone basically unknown to make but was known to be a DIP/immersive player acts to join my group- I'd decline.

Quote from: John MorrowWhy do you need to know the character concept up front?  It's not as if I start with a totally blank slate.  I usually have a rough concept.  The problem is that they often don't play out the way I anticipate them to, but that's only a problem if the game is expected to go a certain way.

It's not so much that I need the full character concept up front (although I find that very useful) as the fact that past stories related online has caused to be highly concerned about where such players will take their characters in the future.

The Paladin example I spoke of is perhaps the most extreme, but there have been others with more open character concepts that derailed the original campaign and even caused them to fail completely.

One DIP player has to my knowledge *never* had a successful campaign. Without fail something happens in-game that causes some sort of internal short as the character 'adjusts in play' and they drop it to move on to the next one because that character went to a very non-happy place dragging the whole campaign with it.

I on the other hand have campaigns dating back almost three decades now, and would rather they continue.

What David said.

I've never met a gamer yet who didn't get into combats at some point or other.

I mean, heaps of players said they didn't want combat, but then at some point in the campaign - whether GMed by me or not - they'd start a fight, or if someone else had started a fight they'd join in enthusiastically. And then they'd enjoy it.

Like I said, it's a balance thing - you have to give and take with the players. But I've never yet seen it that they wanted zero combat. Some much less, others much more - sure. But never none.

I don't know where that nonsense of "it's not a roleplaying game if there's no combat" came up, droog. I'd never say that. Did anyone else? If they did, they'd be stupid. That makes as much sense as when some fuckwit on rpg.net said that Ars Magica wasn't a real roleplaying game because it didn't have an equipment list.

Replace Combat with Conflict and that covers all RPGs.  You could think of conflict against the GM / Game System as being more like a Challenge, while Conflict against another player is "Conflict".  All games require a challenge. Some games have Conflict.

Oh, there are a lot of people playing RPGs void of any challenges! I hate that style, but it exists!

Quote from: droogBut let's take a hypothetical roleplaying game in which you play, say, slaves. Or teenage girls (without kewl powerz).

Why the fuck would anyone ever want to play a game where they play slaves or teenage girls and don't actually do anything?!

You see, this is why your kind's games are so unpopular. Because you're addle-minded idiots.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SettembriniOh, there are a lot of people playing RPGs void of any challenges! I hate that style, but it exists!

Possibly.  I think they may just be confused about what the challenges are... or who's actually playing the game.

For some Germans, and some Frenchmen, it´s all about jeux d´ambiance...

Quote from: gleichmanI recall you being DIP and immersive John, so I'm not surpised that you called me on this.

Correct

Immersive DIP play can be very selfish and can derail games but that can be controlled by creating character concepts that are resistant to derailing games, should fit with the general tone and direction of the game, and by keeping on eye on the where the character seems headed and either talking to the GM or nudging the character in a different direction if the character is headed in an undesirable reaction.  Basically, it can be disruptive in the hands of a player who lets it run wild but can play nicely with others if the player makes an effort to do so, during character creation and/or during play.  

As to switching characters because they aren't working out, the only character I can remember that I asked to have pulled out of a campaign was a character that had been created for and played through another campaign (and was thus well defined) that just didn't fit the direction of the new campaign (which was an experiment in playing old characters again).  My group tends to play campaigns lasting about a year but most of my characters could have carried on past that.

So my point is that I think there is some justification for your concern but it doesn't have to go as badly was what you are describing.