The BW game was very constructed, overly so. I don't think the game system needs to be run that way.

The 2300AD game had some Forge-y stuff tacked on at the beginning, but not all was actually used. Also, the "kicker-like elements" were more a matter of "prepositioned situation", conflicts implicit from the start. The GM wanted them, we went along, and they were used to some extent. But the overall mission-based challenge plus sci-fi exploration was dominant. The initial bit where people got absorbed into the body of the ship may have been scripted; on the other hand it wasn't designed to hook into a deep character issue other than obvious stuff like team loyalty and mission survival. The second was probably less scripted; I think if I'd taken proper precautions the incident wouldn't have happened.

Okay, that clears it up a bit.

My favorite motto of this month:

"we explore dungeons, not characters" - awesome megadungeon guy from Dragonsfoot

Quote"we explore dungeons, not characters"

You can't do both at the same time ?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYou can't do both at the same time ?

My opinion is that it's tricky. Are you concentrating on tactical challenge or individual characters? The best you can do is smoothly alternate between the two, and that would certainly piss the likes of Settembrini off, because he thinks character issues suck.

Elliot, it does sound like your GM was a bit heavy-handed. But I'll put it to you that ineptness or malice with the provided tools is not something inherent in Forge games. I'm sure we all know (and may even have been) that GM who harries his players too hard with monster encounters; stupidly or sadistically.

Quote from: droogMy opinion is that it's tricky. Are you concentrating on tactical challenge or individual characters? The best you can do is smoothly alternate between the two, and that would certainly piss the likes of Settembrini off, because he thinks character issues suck.

But I think alternating between the two is what most gamers do. I think if you reduce "explore characters" to it's most basic "what would your character do?" you more or less "get" what role playing games are all about. Yeah, it's a bit simplistic, but I really do believe if all one wanted was tactical challenges...a boardgame would be the more appealing choice. RPGs have that something extra, even if it means just (role)playing conflicting archtypes.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: flyingmiceThe fact that they pre-existed doesn't mean that they "ripped them off." It's entirely possible that Kickers and Bangs, for example, were an independent invention. It's not like us old timers wrote this stuff down, and they are a logical outgrowth of stuff like hooks.

-clash

Wtf?

Go read some old HERO system supplements, the whole concept is there and they pre-dated the Forge use of those terms.

r.g.f.a certainly wrote down GDS before Edwards ripped it off and changed it into the worthless monster it is now.

Other elements came straight out of Roblin's Laws, again renamed and abused.

Everything good in Forge theory *was* written down at one point. That's how Edwards got ahold of it.

Quote from: David RBut I think alternating between the two is what most gamers do. I think if you reduce "explore characters" to it's most basic "what would your character do?" you more or less "get" what role playing games are all about. Yeah, it's a bit simplistic, but I really do believe if all one wanted was tactical challenges...a boardgame would be the more appealing choice. RPGs have that something extra, even if it means just (role)playing conflicting archtypes.

Let's take me and Settembrini as two opposite ends of a spectrum. Tactical challenges bore me, and I'm hopeless at them (these two things are not unconnected). I care not about the adventure, I'm all about the drama. Fights are all very well, but in some games they're extraneous. Those are my preferences these days.

I think we're still doing recognisably similar things, especially to an outside eye, but our respective games would shit each other. His sounds to me like a nightmare of armchair generalism. Mine sounds to him like pointless melodrama.

I think there exist a comfortable middle ground droog. Something Sett forgets and you have no interests in.

Regards,
David R

So.....wait.

 This "Kickers" and "Bangs" stuff is just bits of Character backstory and things we've already been doing for the past 20 some years.

Wow - not only are those guys elitist , but they stealother people's shit , give it a new name and try to claim they invented it.

- Ed C.

Quote from: gleichmanWtf?

Go read some old HERO system supplements, the whole concept is there and they pre-dated the Forge use of those terms.

r.g.f.a certainly wrote down GDS before Edwards ripped it off and changed it into the worthless monster it is now.

Other elements came straight out of Roblin's Laws, again renamed and abused.

Everything good in Forge theory *was* written down at one point. That's how Edwards got ahold of it.

Mr. Gliechman, I SAID they predated the Forge. I SAID I knew about these techniques thirty years ago when I began GMing. I never read Hero, so I don't know about that iteration, and if Mr. Edwards didn't read Hero either, and was never told about them by another GM, he could easily have thought he invented them. I was giving benefit of a reasonable doubt to Mr. Edwards, not defending him. The point it moot anyway, because Mr. Edwards apparently doesn't claim to have invented them, according to droog.

I am not addressing Forge theory. Kickers and Bangs are not theory, they are GMing techniques. I don't care about theory. Theory can go crap in a hat.

Really, Mr. Gliechman, if you think I am some Forge apologist, you are sadly mistaken.

-clash

Quote from: David RI think there exist a comfortable middle ground droog. Something Sett forgets and you have no interests in.

Regards,
David R

The poor old Excluded Middle rears its ugly head again! :O

-clash

Quote from: droogLet's take me and Settembrini as two opposite ends of a spectrum. Tactical challenges bore me, and I'm hopeless at them (these two things are not unconnected). I care not about the adventure, I'm all about the drama. Fights are all very well, but in some games they're extraneous. Those are my preferences these days.

I think we're still doing recognisably similar things, especially to an outside eye, but our respective games would shit each other. His sounds to me like a nightmare of armchair generalism. Mine sounds to him like pointless melodrama.

Just a note here, when you are concentrating on a single character's backstory it usually precludes the rest of the party, when you are concentrating on the party as a whole that usually precludes individual character interaction with the GM. Approaching the group as whole and as individuals by the GM to facilitate play is a balancing act that is best determined by percieving the nature of the group and not through hardwired rules. This is one of those subjects where being a GM is more art than science.

Quote from: David RYou can't do both at the same time ?

Indeed. I've never had a problem blending the two, nor have any of the people I usually game with.

Quote from: jeff37923Approaching the group as whole and as individuals by the GM to facilitate play is a balancing act that is best determined by percieving the nature of the group and not through hardwired rules.

I dunno about this. It all comes down to what kind of game you want to play and the expectations of the group. I don't think hardwired "balancing rules" are necessarily a drawback per se.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Elliot WilenThere was no chance to do anything with the character before he was being "tested" left and right, and utterly arbitrarily.

My experiences playing Dogs in the Vineyard and The Mountain Witch were similar.

Note I don't think these were necessarily sadism but they were unpleasant, unwelcome, and certainly inspired by the Kicker/Bang concept. Which, again, I don't reject entirely, but the presentation seems to encourage a sort of "high octane" improvisational approach that I dislike. And I agree with KingSpoom that it can easily amount to illusionism.

If you like that stuff, add it to your games or design games to make it front and centre.  The idea that "all RPGs should use these techniques!" is something I don't agree with at all.  (Interesting bits of back story or things you hope will come up during the adventure are different I think, and can be positive things as well)

Personally, I'm not interested in "would you rather do bad thing X or bad thing Y" type games.