Pierce, someone needs to point you gently in the direction of an IP attorney at law.

The point is that individual words can't be copyrighted. Trademarked, maybe ("Three-peat") but that requires either a filing or establishing significant identification in the marketplace.

But no, I wouldn't use it without acknowledgment, because I wouldn't use it. If I were writing a game that used a similar concept, I'd come up with my own wording for it and, if necessary, term of art, specifically so as to avoid getting it mixed up with external philosophical/semantic debates.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou know, I'm much more troubled by Mearls' reference to using a set of "Traveller-like" rules (for generating characters? in play?) and his prior statements to the effect that he doesn't "get" Traveller.  Does he only now "get" Traveller within the context of Sorcerer?

!i!

What was the context of not getting Traveller? Was it not getting the setting maybe? Or the concept of wildly different power levels of PCs? And by 'getting' he means on an academic level he can sort of see it but he doesn't connect with it emotionally?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou know, I'm much more troubled by Mearls' reference to using a set of "Traveller-like" rules (for generating characters? in play?) and his prior statements to the effect that he doesn't "get" Traveller.  Does he only now "get" Traveller within the context of Sorcerer

Going back to the one of the threads he links, I think probably a much more apt likeness is to R. Talsorian's games. I haven't read Cyberpunk but I've got Mekton Z, and the tables at the beginning of that one sound much more like what Mearls is talking about, than Traveller.

A best of both worlds (maybe) would be tables that generate both personal background details, as suggested by Mearls, and concrete stat-able characteristics (and/or possessions, etc.), all in the same roll.

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe point is that individual words can't be copyrighted. Trademarked, maybe ("Three-peat") but that requires either a filing or establishing significant identification in the marketplace.

Single words yeah. I probably shouldn't have brought in Microsoft's legal handiwork, that's not directly comparable. The link there is about what being agressive with big bags of money can get you.

But when you are dealing with the concept as a whole and using key identifiable words like that? The Kicker site is in a completely different industry, not remotely connected.

Quote from: blakkiePierce, someone needs to point you gently in the direction of an IP attorney at law.

Having been an editor-in-chief for several years, I do think I can find my way.

That said, for the benefit of the jocularly challenged I'll henceforth bracket every little quip with sunshine smilies:

Or not.

Quote from: Elliot WilenKyle, well, in a game of Burning Wheel using a somewhat modified version of the Burning Sands materials [...]

The GM dutifully threw bang after bang at the character--one no-win situation after another. [...]

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.

Then your GM was being a cocksmock. The only question is whether they were irredeemably stupid, or just made stupid by something they read in those games or on some forum somewhere. This latter can happen a lot.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the idea of plot hooks and surprises or dilemmas, but like all things they need to be in moderation. Surprises are really a "climax of this week's episode" sort of thing, to help drive the ongoing campaign.

And the GM has to be careful about these surprises, they should be something that surprises and motivates the players, not simply fucks them. I mean, "rocks fall, you die!" is a surprise, but what are the players supposed to do about it? "You can save the busload of children, or your girlfriend!" is a dilemma, but a pretty boring one. It's much better to provide them with something they can really sink their teeth into.

For example, in my current campaign, the PCs are offered a choice between supporting two lords, one the son of the old lord, the other the son-in-law. One is honourable but because he is allied with foes of the realm, would bring war and suffering to the land. The other is dishonourable and has murdered his father-in-law so he can pin it on the other lord and get rid of him now before he brings conflict to the land. So - do they support the one who is personally nasty but good for the land, or the one who is personally good but will bring misery? That's a real dilemma, one which gives the players the chance to think about what's important to their characters.

And of course the dilemma isn't immediately presented as an on the spot decision, nor is it ever entirely final (well, unless they stick a sword in one of the two lords, I suppose). There are other lords involved, other interests to consider, so the players can think hard and come up with a third option. With similar decisions to make in the last campaign, the players thought of a third way which really surprised me - I had to finish the session early so I'd have the week before the next one to sketch things out!

But I mean, it takes thought to come up with these interesting and meaningful choices to offer PCs and players in campaigns.  Every GM is tempted by stuff along the stupid lines of, "you wake up in a featureless room with no doors or windows and wearing nothing and remembering nothing - what do you do?"
"I beat my head to death on the wall, and make a new character in a new campaign with a new GM."

Quote from: Kyle AaronEvery GM is tempted by stuff along the stupid lines of, "you wake up in a featureless room with no doors or windows and wearing nothing and remembering nothing - what do you do?"

Hey, I have done this before. It was more like:

Me : "I've got this idea for a campaign where you guys wake up not remembering anything. Want to give it a try ?"

Players : Can we use d20 ?

Regards,
David R

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.

Quote from: David RBut I think alternating between the two is what most gamers do.

I 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.

Nobody gets pissed off because before I start a campaign I ask the players what they want. 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 again, you have to ask the players. And not just ask them directly, but watch them during a game session. I mean, heaps of players say that the character's personality and relationships are really important to them, and they'd like to roleplay them out in detail. Then they get into a session and get the cheeto-high and start being a bit sillier or more combative. You've just gotta roll with it.

I've said it before, but I think finding the right balance of elements in a game session is like two kids on a see-saw, you have to move and adjust to the others, and the fun doesn't come from the thing being perfectly balanced - because then it's not moving. The fun comes from the motion, the back-and-forth, at times drama and at times hacking, and so on.

Quote from: flyingmiceThe poor old Excluded Middle rears its ugly head again! :O

I don't care about the excluded middle as such. It's just that I care about what my fellow gamers want when I'm gaming with them. And that's usually something in the middle.

Quote from: John MorrowIt's like having R. Lee Ermey sreaming, "STORY NOW, MAGGOT!" at you.  "NOW DROP AND GIVE ME 5 KICKERS!  NOW! NOW! NOW!"

That's beautiful, man.

It doesn't work as well if it's "compromise and balance now, maggot!"

Quote from: SettembriniBut backstory oftentimes does not mesh well, as it creates longings which I and other DMs don´t really want to be concerned with.

That's why character backstories get looked over by the GM before play. "No, you cannot be a ninja."

For example, I had one player present a backstory where his young warrior boy fell in love with another young warrior boy, they made love by a stream, their love was discovered by the others' father, there was great rejection and drama and now his character was miserable and lonely.

So obviously the player was interested in exploring themes of misery, loneliness and rejection. Perhaps it'd be cathartic for him, I don't know. But I wasn't interested in that, and I doubted the rest of the group would be. So I said, "mate, in this game world it's basically the Dark Ages, and in those times there were sex, love and marriage, which were three different things that if you were lucky overlapped. So the prejudice against homosexuality was not that it was evil and wrong, but that it was just sex and there couldn't be love there, and certainly not marriage. So you don't get rejection and drama, you get trivialisation of this thing that's important to you. Nobody cares if you schtup the same gender, so long as you get married and produce children. Being gay isn't a social stigma, refusing to marry is. "You prefer men? So what? What's that got to do with marrying and producing children?" Marriage was a social duty like paying taxes. Plus anyway why be mean to your character and make him miserable? Give him a boyfriend or something, let him be happy. I promise not to have him kidnapped by a villain."

So here the player got the message that the campaign would not be about exploring themes of misery, loneliness and rejection, and changed his character backstory.

I don't see how that's any different from looking over their character stats. You're just making sure the PC will fit into the campaign world, and with the other PCs. That's a GM's job, to make sure all those crazy fucked-up PCs somehow form a party and make sense in the game world.

Quote from: Elliot WilenOh, dear. From one of the linked threads, on "Kicker"

Ron Edwards: "It's a copyrighted term, it's part of the Sorcerer rules, and I am perfectly happy for anyone to include it in their game design if they give me credit."

Unsurprisingly, Uncle Ronny doesn't understand what copyright is. You can't copyright single words, however descriptive. You can try to trademark them. Copyright is for a whole text, or substantial portions of it. Trademark is for individual words, logos, the "dress" (overall distinctive appearance) of your product, and so on.

Copyright is subject to the "doctrine of merger", which basically means that if there are only so many ways to express some idea, and if it's a pretty old idea, you can't claim its protection under the law. For example, you can't protect, "and then play proceeds clockwise around the table" or "then the player rolls the dice" or "and then he kissed her" because these are old ideas and there are only a few basic ways to express them.  

I suppose he could try to trademark "kickers" and "bangs", but he'd have a hard time, and I don't recall seeing (TM) or (R) next to those words in the text.

It's not surprising that as well as not understanding how people game, he wouldn't understand copyright and trademarks. I don't like to think of his understanding of patents - which is what, if people bothered with it, game mechanics come under. But no-one bothers (except for Magic cards), thus OSRIC and the like.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThen your GM was being a cocksmock. The only question is whether they were irredeemably stupid, or just made stupid by something they read in those games or on some forum somewhere. This latter can happen a lot.

I don't know him that well, but he's actually quite a nice guy. And when I submitted my critique of how he ran the scenario, he appreciated it. But I don't know how he's used to playing games before he came into contact with Kickers & Bangs; as I've said upthread, I think how you receive that stuff depends on your background as much as personal taste (to the extent they can be separated).

QuoteI don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the idea of plot hooks and surprises or dilemmas, but like all things they need to be in moderation.

I'd prefer more clarity in establishing the overall structure of the campaign, building conflicts in from the start--some player-inspired, some world-based--and then letting them appear (or not) naturally through the decisions made in play. But it's been a long time since I GMed a long-term campaign, so I may be underestimating the difficulty.

I'm now deeply tempted to sprinkle liberal references to "Kickers" throughout my upcoming FtA!GN! sourcebook, only to define them as something utterly different than Ronnie's stupid misappropriation of what are essentially plot hooks.

I mean shit, can I take hit points, rename them "Pundit Points", and then claim I invented the concept?

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot WilenI don't know him that well, but he's actually quite a nice guy.

You can be a nice guy, but still be a cocksmock during a game session. Players and GMs both get carried away with something they've fixed on for whatever reason.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut I don't know how he's used to playing games before he came into contact with Kickers & Bangs; as I've said upthread, I think how you receive that stuff depends on your background as much as personal taste

And this is why before you run a campaign you've got to talk to the people who'll be in it, about what you'd all like to see. Obviously if you've got a regular group you don't need to do that because you just know each-other. But if it's a new group, new campaign, or even just one player new to the group - then you've got to talk. And the talk doesn't even have to be about the campaign itself, if you just get to know the person a bit, the sorts of things they enjoy, then you can usually translate that to a game session.

The thing is that there are two ways you can do it. Either you have a whole swag of campaign ideas and game rules and GMing/playing techniques that you want to use, and you try to shove the preferences of the group into those pigeon holes, or else you find out what the preferences of the group are, and you choose the campaign ideas, rules and techniques to fit.

Obviously as with any compromise there are limits to what each will do. But that's why we have over 1,000 different game systems, and millions of different groups. That's why I have this "game circle" thing. "Okay mate we weren't each-other's style, but here I know these other gamers, let's introduce you to each-other."

Quote from: Elliot WilenI'd prefer more clarity in establishing the overall structure of the campaign, building conflicts in from the start--some player-inspired, some world-based--and then letting them appear (or not) naturally through the decisions made in play. But it's been a long time since I GMed a long-term campaign, so I may be underestimating the difficulty.

It's certainly difficult. I described earlier a campaign where I designed it from the ground up to tie into the backgrounds of three of the players. I still consider it my best campaign ever. But I still missed out on one player, who was a bit of a spectator in events, which was a pity. Even in my best campaign ever, someone still missed out.

And then we have my current campaign, where I developed two major bunches of things that could happen. But one was tied to a particular PC who went and got himself killed (first PC death in ages). So half the thing fizzled out, more or less.

So I agree it's fucking difficult to do. But it's worth trying. Even if it doesn't work perfectly, it's still a more satisfying game session than a railroad one, or a pinball one. A pinball game session is where the PCs just bounce randomly off NPCs and events with no real direction. Which is what happens if you put in too many surprises - a mistake I made in the campaign with the boss being blown up. Well, it was less surprises than the general pace of events, but same principle. The players got overwhelmed.

Notice that here's something you don't see in the discussions Mearls or Uncle Ronny have - we're discussing as honestly as we can our failures and successes. It's not just "these techniques are teh w1n!" It's more like, "I try this, it usually works, but sometimes fucks up, but works more often than fucks up so I like it."

..So does this mean that every time a Soccer or Football rules book is published - this Ron Guy  will want his 5 cents when the word 'kicker" is used??


- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle AaronBut no-one bothers (except for Magic cards), thus OSRIC and the like.

In no small part because there is dick-all for money in AD&D. Certainly compared to the $$$ in MtG.