TheRPGSite

http://mearls.livejournal.com/146778.html

QuoteYour Job is to Chase Characters Up Trees
So, years ago Ron Edwards (I think) introduced the idea of kickers and bangs in Sorcerer. I own Sorcerer, read it, and thought I understood them.
.........
OK, so a lot of this stuff is basic RPG theory and covers some now fundamental methods to put characters into motion. The big reveal for me is that, for the past few campaigns, I've been unhappy with how the story has progressed. My last Eberron campaign in Boston was a lot of fun, but since then the games have felt a little flat.

So, yesterday, to kick off my Greyhawk Temple of Elemental Evil campaign, I trotted out a set of Traveller-style rules I built with an eye toward kickers and bangs. The rules lack significant mechanical impact on a PC. Instead, they build kickers right into the character's background. We ended up with some really interesting characters with lots of reasons to push the story ahead. The kickers it produced also suggest a number of bangs that can come up in play.

I'm not sure what you're wanting to discuss.

Are you wanting advice on how to do this with your game or your players? Are you wondering if story hooks are necessary, or even a good idea? Are you wondering if this sort of thing should be codified into the rules or left to participants to describe?

Does this mean all is lost ?

Regards,
David R

Commence the jackassery!

That's really too bad. Poor Mike.

Kickers and bangs are standard GM tricks given neat, catchy names by Mr. Edwards. They are so old they were both around when I started GMing 30 years ago. This is silly, Droog! Or was that your point? :P

Actually I think it's a scream that Mearls is treating them like cool new ideas when they're just cool old ideas... :D

-clash

What are Kickers and Bangs? Sounds like how I should categorise my women :D

Quote from: David RDoes this mean all is lost ?

No, we still have each other!

:ponder:


:bawling:


:suicide:

Quote from: flyingmiceKickers and bangs are standard GM tricks given neat, catchy names by Mr. Edwards.

I disagree. Those names are lame. Whenever I hear them I get the urge to grab the speaker by the ears and go start building a fence by using their face to pound pickets into the ground.


EDIT: But maybe that's just me?  Perhaps I'll ask my anger management coach next week when he gets out of the hospital.

Quote from: blakkieI disagree. Those names are lame. Whenever I hear them I get the urge to grab the speaker by the ears and go start building a fence by using their face to pound pickets into the ground.


EDIT: But maybe that's just me?  Perhaps I'll ask my anger management coach next week when he gets out of the hospital.

:p

Quote from: blakkieBut maybe that's just me?  Perhaps I'll ask my anger management coach next week when he gets out of the hospital.

No, it's not just you. I'm a firm believer than names should be meaningful, not just sound cool to a select few.

Quote from: flyingmiceOr was that your point? :P

I have multiple points!

Quote from: Mike MearlsThe big reveal for me is that, for the past few campaigns, I've been unhappy with how the story has progressed.

Yeah... isn't Mike playing all 4e right now?

That's rough.

Quote from: droogI have multiple points!

Then make them.

For example, kickers and bangs have three flaws that I can see:

1. They are tied to particular characters, but don't necessarily encourage the group to get involved with one another (and can even discourage it, if they are badly done).

2. They are a means of classifying plot hooks based on the gamemaster's perspective, but they seem to be designed by players, which is clumsy (though I could be misreading this).

3. They only seem to set up the start of the story. Many other games include things like enemies, dependents, patrons and driving goals (to steal some examples from GURPS) to help create plot hooks. These are superior because they can reoccur throughout the story much more easily.

Whenever I hear "Kicker and Bangs" I think of bangers and mash.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Bangers_and_mash_1.jpg)

Delicious?

They may not be the perfect names, but they're okay. A kicker kicks things off. A bang is a loud noise that makes you jump.

Quote from: droogThey may not be the perfect names, but they're okay. A kicker kicks things off. A bang is a loud noise that makes you jump.

Or you could use a catalyst and a trigger which are pretty easy to figure out.

Quote from: brettmbOr you could use a catalyst and a trigger which are pretty easy to figure out.

That'd be using common language that everyone can understand. What nonsense! ;)

Quote from: JongWKThat'd be using common language that everyone can understand. What nonsense! ;)

Stupid me! :)

Love that Avatar, Jong-Won.

Just my guess sitting on the sidelines...

For what its worth, I think Mearls was significantly influenced by the Forge and its quite likely that various concepts from there will make it into 4th Edition.

Of course if he ends up using any of the even half-way good concepts, the orgin of them won't in truth be the Forge. This is because of the fact that what good ideas exist at the Forge, exist there because them stole them from other places and renamed them.

If he ends up focusing on the crap (i.e. original to the) Forge ideas... he may will end up with something worse than 2nd edition.

Ummmm, are "Kickers and Bangs" supposed to be part of the system?

I really don't understand what makes them significant. How do you make a player jump at charcter creation?

I'm very confuzzled.

Quote from: brettmbOr you could use a catalyst and a trigger which are pretty easy to figure out.

Riiiight.

Quote from: droogRiiiight.

How about laxatives and hot peppers?

A bit polysyllabic for me.

I like the idea of Mearls applying these hippie techniques to his regular games. Maybe because I do this often too.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: gleichmanOf course if he ends up using any of the even half-way good concepts, the orgin of them won't in truth be the Forge. This is because of the fact that what good ideas exist at the Forge, exist there because them stole them from other places and renamed them.

The 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

Quote from: gleichmanFor what its worth, I think Mearls was significantly influenced by the Forge and its quite likely that various concepts from there will make it into 4th Edition.

And that makes me glad I cancelled my 4E preorder.

Quote from: droogThey may not be the perfect names, but they're okay. A kicker kicks things off. A bang is a loud noise that makes you jump.

My complaint isn't with the meaning of the names. They are fine that way. I just don't actually like them asthetically.

Quote from: flyingmiceIt's not like us old timers wrote this stuff down....

Yeah you oldtimers were remiss in that. At least somebody's writing them down now. I count that as progress. Next up, some better names. :D

Quote from: madunkiegThen make them.

For example, kickers and bangs have three flaws that I can see:

1. They are tied to particular characters, but don't necessarily encourage the group to get involved with one another (and can even discourage it, if they are badly done).

2. They are a means of classifying plot hooks based on the gamemaster's perspective, but they seem to be designed by players, which is clumsy (though I could be misreading this).

3. They only seem to set up the start of the story. Many other games include things like enemies, dependents, patrons and driving goals (to steal some examples from GURPS) to help create plot hooks. These are superior because they can reoccur throughout the story much more easily.

4: Bangs usually lead to illusionist play, which I find highly dissatisfying.  Save the old man from a bandit?  Okay, the old man is the guy who killed your father.  Couldn't save the old man?  The old man's wife is the one who killed your father.  Reading through the actual play, and posts about planning bangs, they usually read like a laundry list of "I'm gonna do -this- to the PC".

5: Since the premise of bangs is to make an interesting choice no matter what you choose, they often make you decide between the two most important things to your character.  Either way, you lose something important.  "Okay, spiderman, your choices are saving Mary Jane or a bus full of people that includes aunt May.  Choose."

As presented, the idea is too Scruples-y for my tastes. Put the character on the spot, with no warning. Eh. I'm starting to think, or rather this reinforces my impression that a lot of bored GMs want to poke sadistically at their players.

That isn't to say I'm against applying the idea at all, I just prefer applying it as a method of framing larger arcs.

(Speaking of Scruples, here are some of the lists it appears on over at BGG:

Throw it on the Fire: Worst Games By Year
The Worst Game in Your Collection
FIGHTS... and the games that start them
Games that can make people stop speaking to each other
Games that Bring out the Be(a)st in People
Games better suited for thought and talk rather than serious game play
"Dilemma" games -- Games in which you discuss real world situations   
Why you shouldn't play games with couples ......games that can cause divorces)

Quote from: droogRiiiight.

I expect more from you.

1. Told you so! Gaming Outpost!

2. NOW I understand why he said a while back he doesn't *get* Traveller.

Quote from: BrantaiWhenever I hear "Kicker and Bangs" I think of bangers and mash.

Awesome!  I thought I was the only one who thought that! :haw:

Quote from: Elliot WilenAs presented, the idea is too Scruples-y for my tastes. Put the character on the spot, with no warning. Eh. I'm starting to think, or rather this reinforces my impression that a lot of bored GMs want to poke sadistically at their players.

I always thought of them as part of the "Games-as-Therapy" school of design... but that's an excellent comparison to the game "Scruples".  

If you want to play RPG + Scruples, cool.  If not... then here are some techniques to avoid...

I'm loving the sour grapes here.

Before anyone dismisses these techniques as pure GM sadism, I should like to hear examples from play, rather than imagined evils. Often in these discussions that's what it's about, some imaginary bastard GM player whom nobody ever met, some sort of golem made from parts of every bad gamer you ever knew. Tell us your experiences. Save your imagination for the game table.

"Kickers" are what old-timers called "hooks". Sometimes the GM would say to the player, "if you do a character background, please put some kind of plot hook in it for us." And often the GM wouldn't even have to ask, players will put in lost brothers and evil fathers and broken friendships and mysterious objects passed down to them from their grandfather and so on.

For example, in one campaign I had several different hooks from the players: one PC was an orphan with a mysterious runed blade, another had a mother who died and blamed his father, another had a brother thought a fool who went wandering, while the fourth had a brother die by drowning while he watched and so had a fear of water. The first three got tied intimately to the plot, the fourth unfortunately I couldn't think how to fit in; but three out of four ain't bad.

"Bangs" are what old-timers call "surprises" or "dilemmas". Sometimes the session is running a bit slow and needs a boot in the arse to keep going. The aim here is not "illusionism", it's not to show the PCs that they're powerless to affect the course of events and make them inactive; rather it's to force them to make decisions so that things happen, keep things moving. In one campaign, it was modern espionage and the PCs were feeling a bit lost and without direction, nobody was taking the lead - so they asked their boss for direction, he gave them some, then went outside, got in his car - which then blew up. The stakes had been raised, they themselves were being directly attacked now and with their boss severely injured they simply had to make decisions and get things done. They had the motivations of self-preservation and revenge.

The best surprises or dilemmas are where as soon as the players get over the shock of meeting them, they say, "ah, that makes sense now" - the event or message makes other things they didn't understand fall into place.

None of this is new, it was being done since Arneson started Blackmoor.  

So there you go, some examples from play. What this has to do with that drongo Mearls I've no idea, except that like the Forgers he's constantly discovering things everyone else has known for decades and proclaiming it as his own new genius.

You should read the links Mearls provides, Kyle. There are some differences between the kicker as presented and the classic chr hook. Also, RE lays out quite carefully what his influences were and how kickers aren't his own invention.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"Kickers" are what old-timers called "hooks". Sometimes the GM would say to the player, "if you do a character background, please put some kind of plot hook in it for us." And often the GM wouldn't even have to ask, players will put in lost brothers and evil fathers and broken friendships and mysterious objects passed down to them from their grandfather and so on.

I think those two are close.  Although I see a heavy emphasis on things "on the horizon" rather than "sometime during the campaign" for kickers, I don't see them as being too different than hooks.  Kickers are also supposed to be open-ended, and I've seen a lot of hooks that were rather closed, but that's a different matter.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"Bangs" are what old-timers call "surprises" or "dilemmas". Sometimes the session is running a bit slow and needs a boot in the arse to keep going. The aim here is not "illusionism", it's not to show the PCs that they're powerless to affect the course of events and make them inactive; rather it's to force them to make decisions so that things happen, keep things moving. In one campaign, it was modern espionage and the PCs were feeling a bit lost and without direction, nobody was taking the lead - so they asked their boss for direction, he gave them some, then went outside, got in his car - which then blew up. The stakes had been raised, they themselves were being directly attacked now and with their boss severely injured they simply had to make decisions and get things done. They had the motivations of self-preservation and revenge.

I think there's a clear difference between a surprise and a bang.  Although bangs can work by winging it, the assumed style of play is preparing bangs before play.  You have on your little piece of paper "PC's boss dies, leaving them high and dry".  Now while you're playing, it doesn't really matter what they do in a certain sense, because you've already killed their boss... you just haven't told them yet.

I will note that I think it's a thin line between illusionism and normal preparation, but it is distinct.

Some people are in for a big shock when they notice that 4e is built upon such assumptions. More people will leave that game, because those assumptions are plain wrong.

add:

1) mearls doesn´t get how most people played RPGs in the last 30 years

2) AM is a 4e champion, a former personal buddy of CRN and a gaming outpost veteran, has recently made a historical revisionist post, lacks Wargame understanding. Coincedence?

3) Pathfinder will be directly proportional more successful as more of that wrongster ideas are in 4e

4) the next five years will be the suckymost for RPGs as a hobby.

5) Where the fuck is the Pundit? They are wrecking D&D, and he´s eating out in Buenos Aires, or somesuch.

Kyle, well, in a game of Burning Wheel using a somewhat modified version of the Burning Sands materials, I had a character who was an officer in the imperial army. I'd already pushed for a view of his side as a bit of a cross between Imperial Germany and 1960's-era America, a mix of chauvinism and idealism. The guy was constructed to embody the irony of colonizing people for their own good; he was a "promising young major" who also had a local mistress and was addicted to a local drug.

The GM dutifully threw bang after bang at the character--one no-win situation after another. There was a terrorist attack after which the mistress appeared at the site and tried to climb into an ambulance to follow a wounded person, with this explicitly framed as "if she gets on, some other person who needs the space will die". Then the character was ordered to commit a massacre to relieve a police station besieged by rioters who were trying to free prisoners who, it was made clear, were mostly a bunch of "usual suspects" rounded up. Oh, and I just remembered, had I been able to get into the station, my orders were to execute the suspects.

There 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.

It´s character-exploration centered, and thusly total crap.

EDIT: It´s also bad at what´s it wants to do, as Elliot said.

Oddly, I can think of a counter-example where an experienced GM missed a chance to use a "Bang" that'd have been quite welcome. This was a 2300AD game that was summarized on RPG.net here (//forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=352248). The GM and I had agreed that my character, Mbemba would have to deal with an NPC whose political views and academic rivalry could be a problem. Early in the preparations for the expedition, both characters embarassed themselves by getting into a spat in public, though I believe Mbemba got the better of it.

The thing is, something more could have happened, but the GM would have had to provide the impetus; Mbemba wasn't going to go out of his way to screw over a member of his expedition. It'd have been different if Suzanne had attempted a coup during a later scene, or sabotaged something for some reason.

But overall the adventure did provide some tough decisions...which although sometimes a bit transparently constructed, were (a) much less "no win" than the BW game, and (b) less in-your-face. I'm thinking of the sections "Be Careful What You Ask For" and "Endurance". What doesn't appear in the text of the latter episode was a moment when part of the team wanted to head back. Dr. Rand refused because his wife had been lost, and Mbemba had to decide what to do. What made these episodes effective aside from (a) and (b) was that the decision in each case was less of a Scruples moment than an opportunity to ensure that subsequent action, handled in straightforward manner, was character-directed and motivated.

I´m more and more confused. Is everything constructed these days?
Apart from that: It was a character-conflict-driven game, no?

So there you go.

Kyle: Thanks, that explains things to me quite well.

As long as these things aren't mechanically implemented (or called "kickers and bangs") but perhaps included as a bit of advice in the DMG, then I'm ok with it.

It sounds like classic DM strategy hyped up on Poochie.

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.

Quote from: jeff37923This is one of those subjects where being a GM is more art than science.

I don't know much about art, but I know what I like.

Quote from: David RI 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

Agreed, that is why the decision must be made based upon the nature of the group. I think we're on the same page here.

I should probably mention, the Mountain Witch game didn't exactly deprive me of a chance to enjoy my character--because the characters themselves were so hastily drawn and barely detailed. Still, there were a couple incidents that ramped up the pressure so quickly, and were so obviously off-the-cuff improv, that they left the player sputtering. In one case the guy apparently had difficulty coming up with an answer an acceptable to himself, nor could the group as a whole help him out, and it got ugly as the character was ganged up on and executed. The player left in a bad mood.

To reiterate, the problem is at least partly with presentation, and to a certain extent with reception and re-transmission. Or if you will, hype. Some people take these methods, and the "school" as a whole, as implying a radical regimentation of play, hewing closely to "the rules". And that might even be how they play, they take "the rules" as a license to ramp up the melodrama and GM "posing of questions" to a level that others would hate. But that doesn't mean other groups don't have an enjoyable zone of play which could be interpreted as already containing the techniques. Or that they wouldn't benefit from seeing the techniques as guidelines.

When my wife started her classes last year she was forced to go through an online program called "Alchohol Edu", which was written by an alcoholic. She wasted several hours of her life being lectured in a ridiculous manner about the evils of alchohol. The thing is, she barely ever has a sip herself, she doesn't go to college parties, etc. For a few students, the heavy handed message of the program is probably appropriate, for others common sense and personal tastes are more than sufficient. If they took the program seriously they'd probably be running around with axes, smashing kegs and generally making nuisances of themselves.

Oh well, you obviously had some social problems in that group, and the GM wasn't so hot. But you know, it's not like games give you brain damage.

Quote from: flyingmiceMr. 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.

Hmm, that's not you you said...

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.

In that was "not like us old timers wrote this stuff down"

The old timers did write it down.

Now if you hadn't put that part in and added "maybe Edwards never read anything and come up with this on his own" to your original post, I think it would have been easier to understand your intent.

I think it would be pointless claim because it only turns Edwards from one type of idiot (a stealing abusing one) into another (pure idiot, one unwilling to step aside when it's pointed out that others have done it first and better). But I would have understood it.

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

There was a lot of discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy about "Develop at Start" (DAS) vs "Develop in Play" (DIP) players, with respect to how they create characters.  The quick summary for those unfamiliar with those discussions or the idea is that some players fully develop their characters before play while others sketch out their character before play and fill in the character during play.  Testing a character that's not fully developed is like administering a final exam on the third day of classes.  Not only is the player unlikely to get much out of the test but even if they do work their way through it in an acceptable manner, the character can wind up failing the test.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNote 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.

My biggest problem with these theories is when they go from being optional to being mandatory.  It assumes a "one size fits all" idea of fun.  If you look over the player types detailed by Robin Laws, quite a few of them aren't going to find "one no-win situation after another" very fun.  

This also relates to the GM biases discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy that I recently excerpted and mentioned here (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=187310&postcount=99).  One person's "good GMing" can wreck a game for another person, especially when applied at every turn.  Subtlety can be important and seems to be almost entirely absent from many of the story game concepts that I've seen.  It's like having R. Lee Ermey screaming, "STORY NOW, MAGGOT!" at you.  "NOW DROP AND GIVE ME 5 KICKERS!  NOW! NOW! NOW!"

And I'm saying this as someone who likes intense character play.  I just don't like it forced on me.

Unless I misunderstand the term, illusionism only sucks when you know its illusionism.

Quote from: AosUnless I misunderstand the term, illusionism only sucks when you know its illusionism.

It always sucks.  Unless you like it.

Quote from: gleichmanHmm, that's not you you said...

In that was "not like us old timers wrote this stuff down"

The old timers did write it down.

Now if you hadn't put that part in and added "maybe Edwards never read anything and come up with this on his own" to your original post, I think it would have been easier to understand your intent.

OK. That was what I was driving at, anyway. All well and good! I really must have mangled that one! Thank goodness I'm not a professional writer!

... Wait a minute! :O

-clash

I reminded of a Superman comic, one where Joker visisted Metropolis.

The Joker tried to set superman up with a "Bang".

He kidnapped Louis Lane and stuffed her in a Lead-Lined coffin. He then hid twelve other lead lined coffins around Metropolis. He then put a bomb on a train, and told Superman he had to make a chioce, between the people on the train and Louis.

The Joker made the mistake in lining the coffins with lead, becase all Supes had to do was use his X ray vision to find all of the coffins (it was easy to spot twelve coffins he couldn't see through). Using his superspeed he quickly found Louis, made it to the train to disable the bomb AND tracked down and arrested the Joker (who was robbing a bank at the same time).

How's that for a Bang :D

In all frankness, that would be too narragamulationist for my taste.

Quote from: John MorrowThere was a lot of discussion on rec.games.frp.advocacy about "Develop at Start" (DAS) vs "Develop in Play" (DIP) players, with respect to how they create cahracters.

One of the dangers of Design in Play IMO is that without a firm grasp of character upfront, the player may be unable to come to a good understanding in play.

The example I'm thinking of (didn't play in it, this is from an online conversation) involved a DIP player's attempt to run a Paladin in D&D. As was typical with DIP, the player didn't seem to have a grasp on why the character was a Paladin or what the character even believed. When confronted with decisions during the course of play, the player had no chose but to decide their actions without the grounding necessary to how a paladin would view the decision.

Of course the result was decisions in conflict with a Paladin's concept, or decisions made that didn't seem rational to the player who was attempting play the concept.

After time, it blew up with the player not only rejecting the character's starting concept (lost of paladin status, maybe- the story wasn't clear on this point) but with the player rejecting the idea that paladins were reasonable or possible characters to run in D&D at all.

If that type of reaction is possible in something as easy as D&D, I can imagine that the over the top screaming "STORY NOW, MAGGOT!", "NOW DROP AND GIVE ME 5 KICKERS! NOW! NOW! NOW!" would be enough to get them to run screaming from the hobby.

Quote from: KrakaJakHow's that for a Bang :D

Terrible, nothing blew up.

Gleichman, re. Paladin: that's a special case, namely of a PC who comes with built-in beliefs (or divergence from those, doesn't matter) from the get-go. So, at start of game Paladins and Clerics are much less clean slates than the other classes.

RPG + Paladin + Scruples = Dogs in the Vineyard

I don't see how trying to run Dogs in the Vineyard with D&D is playing to the games strengths.  If that's what you want to be doing -- run DitV! :)

Quote from: Pierce InverarityGleichman, re. Paladin: that's a special case, namely of a PC who comes with built-in beliefs (or divergence from those, doesn't matter) from the get-go. So, at start of game Paladins and Clerics are much less clean slates than the other classes.

True enough, but what are kickers if less than a clean slate?

Btw, the player who related the story was seriously insulted when I made the suggestion you just did, i.e. that they didn't understand paladins and shouldn't run paladins until they did...

Quote from: StuartRPG + Paladin + Scruples = Dogs in the Vineyard

I don't see how trying to run Dogs in the Vineyard with D&D is playing to the games strengths.  If that's what you want to be doing -- run DitV! :)

A good Paladin would slay DitV as the tool of satan it is. ;)

Quote from: AosUnless I misunderstand the term, illusionism only sucks when you know its illusionism.

The term is best understood, in my opinion, as the use of arbitrary GMing power to covertly nullify or undercut the significance of player decisions or actions. Of course if the player knows about it, it's no longer covert. "Railroading" is a term often used to refer to the overt version. But in between, there are areas of suspicion and doubt, and it may well be that it's not so much the covert quality that bugs people so much as focusing on the dilemma and disallowing the divergent thinking that's comes naturally with a coherent setting.

The Superman example's a good one. Most people do understand that the Joker's an SOB who'd do exactly that sort of thing to Supes--it doesn't violate the setting. But once it's set up, the GM should not be fixated on forcing a "hard choice" when there's a perfectly doable tactical/simulationist solution available. It's like in a dungeon I ran recently, I had what I thought was a pretty nifty combat encounter involving some goblins and a "pet" otyugh. So what did the adventurers do? They talked to the goblins, presenting themselves as security experts, and convinced them to allow an "audit" of the lair. This was all achieved through a high Charisma character making good reaction checks. So I let the game go that way. I suppose if I'd later rolled an encounter with one of the goblins while the PCs were ransacking a side room, I could have interpreted that as the goblins getting wise, but that also didn't happen. So they got out scott free with the good loot and just a few minor scrapes. And I think they enjoyed themselves.

Quote from: gleichmanTrue enough, but what are kickers if less than a clean slate?

Sure, but I'm not making a case for "kickers," I'm simply saying that PCs from several D&D classes can be and have been developed during play.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySure, but I'm not making a case for "kickers," I'm simply saying that PCs from several D&D classes can be and have been developed during play.

Oh I have no doubt about that. But there's a cost for a clean slate class and a setting that would allow it.

Interestingly 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 rather glad I haven't. It doesn't sound like they'd work in my group.

Quote from: gleichmanOh I have no doubt about that. But there's a cost for a clean slate class and a setting that would allow it.

Interestingly 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 rather glad I haven't. It doesn't sound like they'd work in my group.

I believe in Develop in Play, pretty much exclusively. (But then, here I am online...). I don't mean to discount Brian's experience, but it seems like any player could be either/or depending on the camapign. So for one campaign you might have a backstory and a fully developed character.. and for another all you have is the filled out character sheet.

You know, at one point just prior to being hired by WoTC, Mearls was considering moving to Uruguay to live here and write online, to take advantage of the economic benefits of doing so... now more than ever I wish this had happened, for many reasons.

RPGPundit

Myself and the thirty-odd people I regularly game with are all about DIP.

"Character history is what you have at tenth level."

Surely, we always see to that the character is embedded in the setting. But that is only concerned with "Why is he/she here/taking part in that mission."

That can be pretty scant oftentimes. Th problem with most backstory stuff is that it´s not beneficial to the game. Now, I´m a firm believer in the-game-before-the-game and the-game-after-the-game. But backstory oftentimes does not mesh well, as it creates longings which I and other DMs don´t really want to be concerned with.

I'm just curious...how many folks actually went and read the Mearls post and all of the comments?

It´s actually worse than I thought!

Same here. Dude likes Supertramp.

I mean, Supertramp.

:killingme:

Oh, 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."

Yes, this is pure snark, but if RE can claim copyright on "Kicker", Wizards should have a field day with "Class", "Level", "Hit Points", etc.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, this is pure snark, but if RE can claim copyright on "Kicker", Wizards should have a field day with "Class", "Level", "Hit Points", etc.

Given that apparently "Hit Points" was lifted from another game, that could be problematic.  Class and Level? Err, those they could have a problem with defending due to genericness, especially at this point given a lapse in enforcement and them entering common usage.  But if Microsoft can pull of "Windows" (yeah, that probably represents the fringes of defendability), "Word" and "Excel"? All Ron really needs is big bags of money and a desire to part with them. :hehe:

P.S. But if you really did use it why wouldn't you acknowledge it, other than just being a prick?

Somebody should point him, very gently, to Germany's biggest soccer website.

http://www.kicker.de/

You 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!

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 (http://www.gamecircle.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=21). 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. :)

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.

Quote from: John MorrowSo 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.

It seems the control is of course counter to the original desire, thus a DIP would have to give up some of what they are seeking to fit inside my campaign to at least some degree. Most the DIP I've encountered online would be willing to do that.

So while I'd likely trust you on this point, I doubt I'd be anything other than nervious about others. That is perhaps a flaw in me due to bad experiences.

On the other hand, I don't screen for this when new players show up. For all I know I may already have one that's working fine but isn't so strongly DIP that I've noticed.

Quote from: gleichmanIt seems the control is of course counter to the original desire, thus a DIP would have to give up some of what they are seeking to fit inside my campaign to at least some degree. Most the DIP I've encountered online would be willing to do that.

For me, DIP isn't an issue of control.  It's simply a matter of not being able to predict how a character will behave until they are actually played, when I get to see how all of the components work together (or don't, at which point planned elements of the character's personality might be ejected from the concept or replaced with something that fits).  So I have no problem trying to make characters designed to fit and I've learned how to nudge them to keep them from breaking the game most of the time.

Quote from: gleichmanOn the other hand, I don't screen for this when new players show up. For all I know I may already have one that's working fine but isn't so strongly DIP that I've noticed.

As with all things, by putting a label on both ends, it creates a bit of an excluded middle situation where the reality can be a lot more blended.  I think that few people are so Develop In Play that they start the game with a totally blank slate and I suspect that few people are so Design At Start that their concept doesn't change at all in play.

Quote from: John MorrowAs with all things, by putting a label on both ends, it creates a bit of an excluded middle situation where the reality can be a lot more blended.  I think that few people are so Develop In Play that they start the game with a totally blank slate and I suspect that few people are so Design At Start that their concept doesn't change at all in play.

I would agree.

I'd also add that people are more extreme online than they on in reality no matter the subject specifics.

Quote from: gleichmanI would agree.

I'd also add that people are more extreme online than they on in reality no matter the subject specifics.

:verkill:

Quote from: Kyle AaronI 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.

It's a pervasive mindset. See the Poobutt's quote below.

Quote from: David RBut 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 ?

No, that's it.

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

You have made a mental leap from 'no combat' to 'do nothing' as if all there truly were to do in an RPG was fight.

Yes, nevertheless I find the obstacle/dilemma scheme useful. (I think those are Kyle's terms.) Broadly speaking, obstacles have solutions and are susceptible to tactical or strategic play. Dilemmas do not have solutions so much as resolutions; there's no absolutely "right" answer. Dilemmas are about defining goals rather than achieving them. The problem for me is that if it's just dilemmas which are completely impervious to tactical play, it seems highly artificial. Basically a game of this sort, carried beyond a certain point, fails a fundamental requirement of RPG-ness, namely a coherent, comprehensible continuity. The less you have of that, the more the game becomes, IMO, a disjointed series of "what would you do ifs?".

Quote from: droogYou have made a mental leap from 'no combat' to 'do nothing' as if all there truly were to do in an RPG was fight.

No, you're the one who took that mental leap, by assuming that in any RPG where there was combat you could do nothing BUT fight; and used this to try to argue that in order to appeal to non-tactical gamers you need to create RPGs that the average human being would find dull as shit.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, nevertheless I find the obstacle/dilemma scheme useful. (I think those are Kyle's terms.)

I describe it as,

The GM provides challenges. Challenges are two types. Obstacles are things like traps and monsters and "your daughter was kidnapped by the evil overlord", overcome by the character's skills and the player's dice. Complications are things like "your daughter has fallen in love with the evil overlord's son," overcome by the player's imagination and brains.

Dilemmas are a common type of complication, but not all complications are dilemmas. In a dilemma, the GM will usually know the two basic responses the players could have; in a complication, the GM may have no idea what they'll do.

I prefer complications when I can because a railroad is still a railroad even if the players get to choose which of two tracks they want to go down. I like giving players the chance to forge their own path through the wilderness of adventure. Of course, some complications will naturally resolve themselves into dilemmas: "okay, so your daughter's in love with the evil overlord's son, if you whack the evil overlord you upset your daughter, if you don't then he does more evil, now you get to choose between love and duty." That's a bit heavy-handed for my taste, but is still better than "she got kidnapped."

On the other hand, sometimes you can't make it that complicated, I mean we only have a three hour session we don't want to spend the whole time debating stuff.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBroadly speaking, obstacles have solutions and are susceptible to tactical or strategic play. Dilemmas do not have solutions so much as resolutions; there's no absolutely "right" answer. Dilemmas are about defining goals rather than achieving them. The problem for me is that if it's just dilemmas which are completely impervious to tactical play, it seems highly artificial. Basically a game of this sort, carried beyond a certain point, fails a fundamental requirement of RPG-ness, namely a coherent, comprehensible continuity. The less you have of that, the more the game becomes, IMO, a disjointed series of "what would you do ifs?".

I agree with all this. Likewise with nothing but combats it's not a coherent, comprehensible continuity (I like the way you dodged using the word "story", Elliot, very neat! :cool: )

You need a balance. There should be dramatic moments of conflict - physical or not - but they should have some weight and reason behind them, otherwise just play a computer game, it does it better, resolves thigns quicker and with prettier pictures.

Quote from: RPGPunditNo, you're the one who took that mental leap, by assuming that in any RPG where there was combat you could do nothing BUT fight; and used this to try to argue that in order to appeal to non-tactical gamers you need to create RPGs that the average human being would find dull as shit.

Try again, buddy.

If you redefine 'combat' to mean 'any conflict' it's fine with me; though I wonder if that's really what people mean. Anyway, of course you want something going on, and obviously hurling conflicts at the characters ought to achieve that. As usual, having a good GM helps.

If Dilemmas are presented with only two solutions, they're not what R. Edwards calls Bangs. When presenting a good Bang the GM should have no idea how the player is going to react. [ADD: The choice to walk away should be a real choice.]

And I'm not sure I buy the distinction between Complication and Dilemma, Obstacle and so forth. 'Your daughter has fallen in love with the evil overlord's son' could well be taken as a Dilemma or Obstacle. Or, indeed, as an Opportunity.

I didn't redefine "combat" as "any kind of conflict." But I find that players enjoy all kinds of conflict, and they enjoy the subset of "conflict" which is a physical conflict with another living being that we call "combat".

A "dilemma" is a clearly-defined pair of choices. The "di" means "two".

A complication in your character's life will often lead to two clearly-defined choices, each as bad or good as the other; but not always. So the "complications" are more or less, though not exactly, what Uncle Ronny calls "bangs". Close enough that he can't really try to claim a trademark on them, especially not if he confuses it with copyright.

You may not buy the distinction between complication and obstacle, but nonetheless it exists and is quite clear to players at a game table. When they meet an obstacle they look at their character sheet and reach for their dice, when they meet a complication they say, "fuck, now what?" and start thinking.

And "challenges are just opportunities in disguise" are the sort of HR horseshit I'd hoped not to hear from a gamer.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou may not buy the distinction between complication and obstacle, but nonetheless it exists and is quite clear to players at a game table. When they meet an obstacle they look at their character sheet and reach for their dice, when they meet a complication they say, "fuck, now what?" and start thinking.

Let's say I'm playing ye olde style D&D as propounded most notably by Prof. Calithena, and the party comes up against a trap that we cannot roll dice for but must think our way around? Is that an Obstacle or a Complication?

QuoteAnd "challenges are just opportunities in disguise" are the sort of HR horseshit I'd hoped not to hear from a gamer.

Concretely, then, my character chooses this opportunity to gain a tie to the evil overlord's family. Aha!

Challenges, obstacles or dilemmas....I call them action. I doubt any kind of rpg can exist worth action :D

Regards,
David R

I didn't mean to bring up dilemmas; in truth I hadn't even thought of their binary nature, but now that it's been pointed out, then yes, dilemmas tend to be crappy complications.

I still see a distinction between complications and obstacles. Complications call for defining goals while obstacles are things that stand in the way of a pre-defined goal.

That's a brilliant way to put it, Elliot.

Complications call for defining goals while obstacles are things that stand in the way of a pre-defined goal.

RPG theory, and in plain English! Amazing.

Quote from: David RChallenges, obstacles or dilemmas....I call them action. I doubt any kind of rpg can exist worth action :D

Regards,
David R

This.

Quote from: Kyle AaronRPG theory, and in plain English! Amazing.

You'll never start a cult that way.

I know. And it's not like I can rely on my charisma to make up for it!

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to settle for having good game sessions.

QuoteThat's a brilliant way to put it, Elliot.

Complications call for defining goals while obstacles are things that stand in the way of a pre-defined goal.

RPG theory, and in plain English! Amazing.

Except that you're already creating jargon by trying to pin down the definition of two plain English words. I suggest you begin work on a glossary right away.

Dilemmas: A subset of Complication wherein the PC (see PC) is effectively given two and only two choices (see Choices). Generally frowned upon for being Sucky (see Sucky).

Obstacles: Barriers placed by the GM (see GM) between the party and its goals (see Goals). Obstacles are thought by the Jimbobists to involve the use of dice, but the Grognards maintain that player skill is the defining factor. The Droogists are split on the matter, much argument having been expended on the crucial point of whether Obstacles can in fact be justified other than as a stalling device. (See http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/lotofcrapmultiplethreadwank.html).

Quote from: Elliot WilenThe BW game was very constructed, overly so. I don't think the game system needs to be run that way.

Indeed, I don't think the term "kicker" or "bang" appears in the BW rules at all. The closest you have is the Beliefs section, where a) the DM is encouraged to use a PCs' beliefs to get them involved in things, and to generally challenge them and b) the player is encouraged to bear that in mind when choosing Beliefs. I actually like doing it that way: if there's a specific box on the character sheet where you get to say "Here is an area where I would like you to challenge my character", then you essentially give the player to declare which part of their background they want to be important and tied in with the action of the game, and which part is just for colour.

Quote from: gleichmanOne of the dangers of Design in Play IMO is that without a firm grasp of character upfront, the player may be unable to come to a good understanding in play.

FWIW, that's not how I understand the definition of "Develop In Play". I consider myself to be a "Develop In Play" sort of guy, but I always have a firm grasp of my character when I'm coming into a game; specifically, I have a grip on the essentials of the character, whereas the specifics come out in play.

To give you an analogy: Develop At Start is like painting a detailed portrait of your character before game start, and then sticking to that. Develop In Play is more like starting out with a sketch, and then filling it out until you get a portrait just as detailed as the DAS character. Maybe the portrait will develop in unexpected directions, but you're not going to up and contradict the initial sketch outright.

To address the Paladin example in D&D, a Paladin is inherently a class which comes with a lot of baggage - any D&D player knows that (or at least should do). If I decided to play a Paladin in a D&D game, I'd be damn sure that, whatever direction I want to take the guy in, I want to play a Paladin. Like the guy in your example, I might not start out the gaming knowing precisely why the dude is a Paladin, but I'd certainly have at least a vague idea of what sort of code I was going for (assuming that the DM in question didn't have a specific "Paladin Order" imposing a particular code of ethics in the game).

QuoteThe example I'm thinking of (didn't play in it, this is from an online conversation) involved a DIP player's attempt to run a Paladin in D&D. As was typical with DIP, the player didn't seem to have a grasp on why the character was a Paladin or what the character even believed. When confronted with decisions during the course of play, the player had no chose but to decide their actions without the grounding necessary to how a paladin would view the decision.

This sounds like a player who is trying DIP but isn't actually very good at it. Personally, faced with such a decision, I find that I can quickly say "OK, what does my character think about this? Hmmm, right, let's proceed on that basis." Were I playing a Paladin, I'd think "OK, how does this compare to the code of honour my Paladin's adhering to/that the Paladin Order in this game espouses? Right. How does my character feel about this? Hmmm, that's different from what the Order would say. Is this big enough of a deal for my character to break step with his code? Not really. OK, here's what I'll do..." I can normally work through this sort of process very quickly.

On the other hand, if a player is the sort of person who, when asked "What does your character do about this?", tends to freeze unless you have established beforehand what their character thinks, then I'd say that they'd be better off Developing At Start, or at least doing enough development at the beginning to have a vague idea of how to proceed. (I suspect most DIP players actually do the latter - doing enough character prep to get a vague roadmap, and then working out the precise details in play.)

Quote from: WarthurThis sounds like a player who is trying DIP but isn't actually very good at it.

That was my conclusion as well. It didn't go over well with the person in question to say the least.

Also judging from my encounters online- my conclusion in general about DIP players :)

Quote from: WarthurOn the other hand, if a player is the sort of person who, when asked "What does your character do about this?", tends to freeze unless you have established beforehand what their character thinks, then I'd say that they'd be better off Developing At Start, or at least doing enough development at the beginning to have a vague idea of how to proceed. (I suspect most DIP players actually do the latter - doing enough character prep to get a vague roadmap, and then working out the precise details in play.)

It's not a problem if the player is given enough low-key play before the character is thrown into life-or-death decisions to get a feel for the character.  It's can be a big problem when the game starts in media res and the player is asked to make deep decisions for the character but hasn't worked out the character in that much depth yet.  In fact, I think that's a key argument for why starting games in media res can be a bad thing for some players or groups.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAnd 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.

How many times have I warned you about using my IP?