Just curious, E, but would you roleplay with complete strangers without interview or preamble?

Quote from: Thanatos02I hear that's why Brantai bought it. Personally, I never use baby blood unless I'm baking, though. It's too expensive to waste on just anything.

It is, but they were out of 1st ed. and revised was printed in toddler's blood.  I decided it was close enough.  Since Luke seems to be answering questions in both threads I'll field this one: do you have any other mini-setting books in the works after blossoms (which looks amazing, by the way)?

Quote from: lukeJust curious, E, but would you roleplay with complete strangers without interview or preamble?

I would.

Anyone who has ever gone to a convention would. The forgies like to spread the fear, uncertainty and doubt about the idea, but they work like hell to get strangers into pick-up games as well.

This idea that roleplaying is like sacred communion and you can't trust the horrible horrible strangers is one of the funnier things about them. Quite often, the forgies themselves happen to be the horrible horrible strangers that you don't want in your group in the first place.

In gaming, as in life, as in anything, you make your assessments of people and whether they are going to fit in. You go from there. But the important thing is, you do it without fear.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe forgies like to spread the fear, uncertainty and doubt about the idea, but they work like hell to get strangers into pick-up games as well.

This idea that roleplaying is like sacred communion and you can't trust the horrible horrible strangers is one of the funnier things about them. Quite often, the forgies themselves happen to be the horrible horrible strangers that you don't want in your group in the first place.

Y'know what else is cool about having a Q&A thread?  When one person interprets Luke in one way, and another person interprets him in a different way, we don't have to guess what he actually thinks on a topic.  We can ask him.  I'm'a gonna go do so.

Liberating!

Quote from: TonyLBY'know what else is cool about having a Q&A thread?  When one person interprets Luke in one way, and another person interprets him in a different way, we don't have to guess what he actually thinks on a topic.  We can ask him.  I'm'a gonna go do so.

Liberating!

IMHO, it's not a stretch to interpret Luke's question as a response.  IOW - he's saying that if you play with complete strangers, you don't know if you can trust the GM and, by extension, the Fiat he's granted by rules systems that do so. AM is taking that interpretation and responding.

Luke, can, of course, correct me if I'm wrong. Am I wrong Luke? What is it you meant to say with that question?

I do see another place where my logic train and Luke's logic train take different switches. He's seems to be saying, through that question, that the reduction of GM Fiat in rules systems better facilitate fun at a table where the people are strangers. I don't necessarily doubt that it can be the case.  I don't think it's an objective truth that this is inherently better. And I'm stymied to figure out why an entire movement would be created just to serve the situation where the players are all strangers.  Finally, all this seems to turn on the FUD, as AM points out, that you can't trust a group of strangers all sitting down to play an RPG.

Given the repeat convention business, I find that difficult to accept.

Quote from: Thanatos02I hear that's why Brantai bought it. Personally, I never use baby blood unless I'm baking, though. It's too expensive to waste on just anything.

 God jam it!!
 You almost made me snort a drink out of my nose!!
Stop that!

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnyone who has ever gone to a convention would. The forgies like to spread the fear, uncertainty and doubt about the idea, but they work like hell to get strangers into pick-up games as well.

This idea that roleplaying is like sacred communion and you can't trust the horrible horrible strangers is one of the funnier things about them. Quite often, the forgies themselves happen to be the horrible horrible strangers that you don't want in your group in the first place.

I think you're all misreading me on this one. AM, you would play with strangers, that's great. Have you? Also, could you share some of your horrible horrible experiences playing games with forgies you've never previously met before at cons, in-stores or game days?


Brantai,
Nothing in the works in that department at the moment.

QuoteI think you're all misreading me on this one. AM, you would play with strangers, that's great. Have you? Also, could you share some of your horrible horrible experiences playing games with forgies you've never previously met before at cons, in-stores or game days?

He already did that several times.

Not that you asked me, luke, but I play at conventions with strangers almost exclusively (unfortunately) at this point.  There are some familiar faces in the crowd, but when I sit down at a table, I rarely, if ever, know anyone else, including the GM.

Last convention was a great example of how this can work really well.  There were a core of four or five of us that ended up playing six slots together for the entire weekend.  I met nice folks and talked a lot of gaming.

When I played at a table with folks I ended up not liking (not the people, per se, but the way the play went), I avoided them at later tables. And I've never had a GM at a con that pulled some shit using GM Fiat - ever.

Then again, I'm not a convention hound like AM

(Side Note: Which is one of the interesting things Abyssal Maw brings up about DnD 3.5 - that while the GM still has Fiat, it's less evident simply due to the sheer force/number of existing rules that cover situations - is something I hadn't considered until he said it. Do more rules = less Fiat? Another thread AM?)

Quote from: lukeI think you're all misreading me on this one. AM, you would play with strangers, that's great. Have you? Also, could you share some of your horrible horrible experiences playing games with forgies you've never previously met before at cons, in-stores or game days?


Brantai,
Nothing in the works in that department at the moment.

And just to address this - since you said we all were - am I?

Did you mean something other than what I thought?  If so, what?

James,
I was not about to launch into a "horrors of convention games" post. I was merely curious about the boundaries of E's play experience and if he'd been put in situations where trust was not implicit in the out of game relationship.

Quote from: James J SkachIMHO, it's not a stretch to interpret Luke's question as a response.

That's cool.  I don't know whether it's a "stretch" or not ... and I don't particularly care.  That's what I was saying about the Q&A option being liberating:  If I want to hear, very explicitly, whether Luke believes (A) or (B) or None of the Above on a certain subject then I can just bop over to the thread and ask him.

Given that, I end up with very little interest in speculating on what he might mean.  It would feel sort of like trying to derive the current weather from meteorological first principles while sitting next to a window.  Instead I look outside, and I now know what the weather is.

Does that make sense?

Quote from: lukeI think you're all misreading me on this one. AM, you would play with strangers, that's great. Have you? Also, could you share some of your horrible horrible experiences playing games with forgies you've never previously met before at cons, in-stores or game days?


Brantai,
Nothing in the works in that department at the moment.

Yes, I have! In fact, usually when I start a new weekly campaign, I invite 2 or 3 totally new or new-to-me players. Also, for a few months when I was messing around with FantasyGrounds II, I basicly did blind recruits from the FGII website and ran the game for whoever showed up on my server that had a completed character at the time. Also, I've gone to a lot of RPGA events. The point is- it's hit or miss on those (I had one problem player on FGII, so eventually I just disinvited him), but it's never the end of the world. And word gets out fast about the people you don't want in your game: For example here's a guy named Howard N. in the Geoff region (I won't spell out his full name...) who I know I've got to watch out for, for similar reasons.

Well, actually, you missed the point on the forgies. For example, I know I would never game with a lot of you fuckers because your'e griefers or your'e insane. See also, the drow guy, the guy that thinks D&D is for 14 year olds only, the guy that thinks the hobby needs to be "degeeked". The guy with the race obsession that thinks "gnomes represent the oppression of mexicans" or whatever...  People like that are total fucking tools. And as far as hygiene issues, well, I've seen photos of enough sweaty balding guys with black t-shirts for a lifetime. I'll leave it at that. My own group looks like a college IT department by comparison.

See? I was easily able to correctly tag certain forgies as people I wouldn't want to play with. And as far as the games go-- I only have to look as far back as a disastrous and badly run game of Sorcerer run in 2000. The GM of that game would be a former member of my gaming group. I don't want to embarass him, but it's someone you know. :cool:

I'm not a total convention hound, either. This year I've been to Raptorcon, DDXP, and many gamedays and small local ad-hoc RPGA events, as well as my own weekly campaign group.

Quote from: TonyLBThat's cool.  I don't know whether it's a "stretch" or not ... and I don't particularly care.  That's what I was saying about the Q&A option being liberating:  If I want to hear, very explicitly, whether Luke believes (A) or (B) or None of the Above on a certain subject then I can just bop over to the thread and ask him.

Given that, I end up with very little interest in speculating on what he might mean.  It would feel sort of like trying to derive the current weather from meteorological first principles while sitting next to a window.  Instead I look outside, and I now know what the weather is.

Does that make sense?

Fair enough, Tony.  And as you can see, I asked...

Quote from: lukeI was not about to launch into a "horrors of convention games" post. I was merely curious about the boundaries of E's play experience and if he'd been put in situations where trust was not implicit in the out of game relationship.

Fair enough, Luke.  I hope my answer was not a "horrors of convention games" post.  However, now that we've established my particular convention play experience (and I'd be willing to bet that Abyssal Maw, who I think goes to more conventions than I do, has a similar wide range of experiences), how does that inform, if at all, your opinion about the need to curb GM Fiat? What about regular group play – do you think the same GM Fiat concerns are an issue for a group that's played together for 6 months, 2 years, 5 years?

Quote from: James J Skach(Side Note: Which is one of the interesting things Abyssal Maw brings up about DnD 3.5 - that while the GM still has Fiat, it's less evident simply due to the sheer force/number of existing rules that cover situations - is something I hadn't considered until he said it. Do more rules = less Fiat? Another thread AM?)

I do believe more rules=less fiat. If there's any situation where the GM has to decide what happens with no rule support, it's fiat.

Even if the GM is told to "say yes or roll the dice". If the GM has to do anything at all, it's fiat.

This is also why fiat isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is an abusable thing, though, which is what people are really watching out for. It's also abusable to have more rules than you really need. So if you need rules to eat, and you have to roll to see whether the fork makes it to your mouth, that also sucks.