Quote from: Kyle Aaron;360638No sign of 'em yet, Elliot.

Thanks for your comment that you wouldn't be commenting, Peregrin. Non-contributions are always helpful!

If you really want to know (or even if you don't), I think Seanchai is following what those 'dirty people' over yonder call a Gamist creative agenda.

In other words, fuck the drama of possibly sacrificing yourself for your friends, fuck the world making any real sense, play fair and play by the rules to overcome shit.

Quote from: jhkim;360643IMO, Kyle is wrong when he says that rules come dead last behind people, snacks, and setting - because people coming first defines the other order is.  There are people who care about rules more than they do about setting, and enjoy playing by the rules.

If they have a bunch of rules with minimal or no setting, they're not roleplaying, they're wargaming. Which as I said is a fun hobby, but it's not roleplaying.

Most rules are shaped by setting ideas in the game's design. That's why everyone finds generic rules systems so boring to read. No flavour.

As well, few people will say "I'll play anything so long as it's GURPS" (or whatever). Whereas people will play even systems they hate so long as it's with gamers they like in a setting they're interested in. No-one will play settings they hate because they like the system.

People first determine rules - the rules must fit their playstyle - but setting determines it, too. You wouldn't use the Toon system for a game of existential angst, nor Unknown Armies for a comedic game.

Snacks are necessary because roleplaying is a social creative hobby, and people bond by sharing food. They can bond without it, but it's slower and less fun. The snackless game sessions I have seen were generally joyless affairs, everyone a bit reserved, reluctant to step on up and participate actively.

Thus, people, snacks, setting, system - in that order.

QuoteIt's possible to run a campaign that kills off PCs and is fun.  It's also possible to run a campaign that has explicit script immunity and is fun.

I don't doubt either of those things. However, there must always be uncertainty of outcome with the chance of failure in the PCs' aims; the failure need not be lethal for the PCs.

Quote from: Cranewings;360532Why should there be risk? People that say this kind of thing don't seem to connect with the idea of the absolute sweetness of their characters. Regular people are afraid of death.

I don't think there should be a risk of *death* in every genre. Nor should everything that would be lethal to me in real life (traps, drowning) be lethal to every character (Admiral Ackbar). But something that IS risky should be risky according to the rules too.
 

QuotePlayer characters in a rpg are usually so sweet, even at the beginning of the game, that you can't apply normal rational thinking to what they do.

I apply rational thinking but they often live in a world where arrows are no more lethal than snowballs, and thus they have the same level of bravery that I have when I'm in a snowball fight. And that can be fun if you like showboating and victory laps.
 

QuoteI think reality emulation is a noble goal in rpg design, but almost none of the major game labels worry about it.

Most of reality is simulated just fine by players. The rules are there for simulating things that players don't have a good handle on.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;360647Snacks are necessary because roleplaying is a social creative hobby, and people bond by sharing food. They can bond without it, but it's slower and less fun. The snackless game sessions I have seen were generally joyless affairs, everyone a bit reserved, reluctant to step on up and participate actively.

Thus, people, snacks, setting, system - in that order.

OK, I see how people determine the snacks, setting, and system - people have their own preferences about all of them - and I can see how setting determines system, but how the hell do snacks determine setting OR system? Shouldn't the diagram look like this?

Snacks <- People -> Setting -> System

(where the arrows go from the dominant element to the subservient element)

I've seen 'setting' determine snacks on occasion... such as when we're playing a spaghetti western and the GM cooks up a big vat of pasta...

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;360650I apply rational thinking but they often live in a world where arrows are no more lethal than snowballs, and thus they have the same level of bravery that I have when I'm in a snowball fight. And that can be fun if you like showboating and victory laps.

That's pretty funny (:

Quote from: Peregrin;360644If you really want to know (or even if you don't), I think Seanchai is following what those 'dirty people' over yonder call a Gamist creative agenda.

What's that? This? "In other words, fuck the drama of possibly sacrificing yourself for your friends, fuck the world making any real sense, play fair and play by the rules to overcome shit."

If so, no, not really.

About the drama of sacrificing yourself - clearly, the player didn't want said drama. Had he wanted to die, then I don't have a problem with ignoring the rules and narrating an effect.

What happened instead is that the GM substituted the player's intention with his own and then ignored the rules or created new rules so that he's interpretation of the player's actions was successful. That, in my opinions, breaks trust.

It doesn't matter that it's jumping on a grenade. The player could have been trying to bluff his way past the guards, saying, "I have a high Bluff and guards are usually not too bright, so this should work." If the GM said, "Instead of Bluff, you try to fight your way past them. They're better at combat. You fail and are hauled off to the king's dungeon," that would be the same essential breach of trust, in my opinion.

As far as the world making sense, I see it completely differently. I see grenades suddenly becoming unalterably lethal as "unrealistic." They just don't seem that damaging in Star Wars. Standing over one doesn't make them instantly lethal according to the rules, so why would laying on top of one?

I believe people should play fairly.

As far as following rules go, I'd ask, "Why aren't you following the rules?" If the answer is, "Because it's more fun or more awesome than following the rules," cool! If the answer is, "To hose over this player because I don't like his attitude," then that's not cool in my estimation.

Seanchai

Quote from: Simlasa;360656I've seen 'setting' determine snacks on occasion...

Okay, but do snacks ever "get in the way" of roleplaying? And should a combination of Cheetos and Dr. Pepper be "lethal" to players?

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;360674Okay, but do snacks ever "get in the way" of roleplaying? And should a combination of Cheetos and Dr. Pepper be "lethal" to players?

Back in the goofy days of Traveller, one of my friends ran some games where the bad guys were Cheetons and Fritons.

Strangely enough, no drugs or alcohol was involved.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;360674Okay, but do snacks ever "get in the way" of roleplaying? And should a combination of Cheetos and Dr. Pepper be "lethal" to players?

!i!

Only if the pizza gets too greasy.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;360647If they have a bunch of rules with minimal or no setting, they're not roleplaying, they're wargaming. Which as I said is a fun hobby, but it's not roleplaying.

Most rules are shaped by setting ideas in the game's design. That's why everyone finds generic rules systems so boring to read. No flavour.

As well, few people will say "I'll play anything so long as it's GURPS" (or whatever). Whereas people will play even systems they hate so long as it's with gamers they like in a setting they're interested in.

Many would say that if you have a setting with no rules, you're just playing pretend or writing shared fiction, not playing a Role-playing Game.   Similarly, few people will say - "I'll play Forgotten Realms, regardless of whether it's using Rolemaster or Best Friends."  

But really, how many people do the extremes isn't really the point.  If people are doing it in significant numbers at all, I think it should be a valid preference - even if it isn't the majority.  Otherwise, the only valid preference is playing D&D.  

If a gamer moves to a new place and searches online or asks around for a game, they might ask first after setting - like "Anyone here running Lovecraftian horror like Call of Cthulhu or Trail of Cthulhu?"  However, in my experience the chances are at least fair that they'll ask after the rules system first - i.e. "Does anyone around here play GURPS?" or "Does anyone play D&D4?"  I've been with a group that met to play GURPS, and only later agreed on the setting to play. That doesn't mean they'll play absolutely anything with that system, of course.  However, the point is that these two have different priorities.  If you just say that "setting comes before system," it fails to reflect these differing priorities.

Quote from: Seanchai;360673About the drama of sacrificing yourself - clearly, the player didn't want said drama. Had he wanted to die, then I don't have a problem with ignoring the rules and narrating an effect.

What happened instead is that the GM substituted the player's intention with his own and then ignored the rules or created new rules so that he's interpretation of the player's actions was successful. That, in my opinions, breaks trust.

It doesn't matter that it's jumping on a grenade. The player could have been trying to bluff his way past the guards, saying, "I have a high Bluff and guards are usually not too bright, so this should work." If the GM said, "Instead of Bluff, you try to fight your way past them. They're better at combat. You fail and are hauled off to the king's dungeon," that would be the same essential breach of trust, in my opinion.

As far as the world making sense, I see it completely differently. I see grenades suddenly becoming unalterably lethal as "unrealistic." They just don't seem that damaging in Star Wars. Standing over one doesn't make them instantly lethal according to the rules, so why would laying on top of one?

I believe people should play fairly.

As far as following rules go, I'd ask, "Why aren't you following the rules?" If the answer is, "Because it's more fun or more awesome than following the rules," cool! If the answer is, "To hose over this player because I don't like his attitude," then that's not cool in my estimation.

Seanchai

Seanchai, knowing that my grenade incident causes an existential crisis for you is full of win for me. Makes my day and is awesome.

Dance monkey! Dance!

Quote from: jhkim;360680If a gamer moves to a new place and searches online or asks around for a game, they might ask first after setting - like "Anyone here running Lovecraftian horror like Call of Cthulhu or Trail of Cthulhu?"  However, in my experience the chances are at least fair that they'll ask after the rules system first - i.e. "Does anyone around here play GURPS?" or "Does anyone play D&D4?"

Rules probably are more important than setting to a lot of folks.
I'm not sure that that is always so much a primary concern with the rules system as it is an acknowledgment that certain systems favor certain styles of play and types of settings and types of people.

Looking for a GURPS group is also code for saying I'm NOT looking for a D&D group. I'm looking for a group that enjoys the sorts of settings/playstyles that GURPS supports.
Setting is more important than rules to me... but I'm not looking for a particular setting so much as much a particular type of group.
Once I find a good group I don't much care what rules we play by, or even what setting we're in.

Quote from: Warthur;360655OK, I see how people determine the snacks, setting, and system - people have their own preferences about all of them - and I can see how setting determines system, but how the hell do snacks determine setting OR system? Shouldn't the diagram look like this?

The elements are in the order they are because of their relative contribution to the success of the game session. That is, how much of our fun comes from this or that element.

Each element matters, but some are more important and make a bigger contribution than others.

It's not simply that one determines another, such as the setting you have determining the system you'll use. It's their relative importance in the success of a game session.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOkay, but do snacks ever "get in the way" of roleplaying?

Yes. It's hard to be thespy with junk food snacks, it's hard to be hacky with "healthy" snacks. "I cut off their heads!" just doesn't make sense over camembert and almongs. "I pause for a moment to reflect on the lives I've taken, and feel the angst of -" just doesn't work with a mouthful of cheetos.

Most effects of snacks on play can be predicted, but alcohol is the big uncertainty. It makes some people hackier, and some thespier.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;360685Most effects of snacks on play can be predicted, but alcohol is the big uncertainty. It makes some people hackier, and some thespier.

Hmmm... I've never played with a group that had alcohol at the table... or camembert for that matter.
To me the space we're playing in, the lighting and decor, the way people are dressed, probably effects my roleplaying more than the snacks that are available.