Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886482What happened before the game starts is irrelevant.

True for more traditional games and playstyles. For more narrativist ones what players bring to the table tend to be pretty relevant. Never played Dungeon World though, so don't know where it falls on the spectrum.

QuoteShow, don't tell.

I prefer the saying "Play, don't show" myself, as the "show" reminds me of the gratuitous exposition that may happen when GMs get too enchanted with their own stories and settings, a not so rare occurence in traditional games in my experience.

Jesus, we don't really need to do the whole "quote from the AW book" again, do we?
Fucking for Hx and forced PC response...
Hardholders...

Of course if you choose to not play with all that stuff, then fine, Rule 0 Fallacy etc.   Most of the time this conversation goes something like this.
"AW is not OOC"
"multiple quotes of rules"
"Well, of course we don't play with any of that"
:banghead:

Quote from: Itachi;886493a not so rare occurence in traditional games run by bad GMs in my experience.

Fixed that for you.  I've gone to restaurants and had a steak that wasn't worth eating...didn't become a vegetarian, I just didn't go back to the restaurant after telling the manager he needs a new chef.

Quote from: jhkim;886385I don't find that the predefined setting makes much difference to how the system works.

Wait, wait, you mean "in general" by that, or is it purely from *.World games point of view?

Quote from: CRKrueger;886390What the hell is the point of declaring as a player that the Silken Veil has the best wenches in town?  Hoo boy, that was interesting...not.

FOR CROM!

Remember Conan the Barbarian movie? The scene where Conan and Subotai sit, eat some meal and discuss whose god is the stronger, better one?

Some people enjoy this kind of stuff, it makes them strengthen the connection with the setting, treat it as something familiar, what they (at least partially) control, that they helped to shape it not only by their characters' actions, but also as co-demiurges of sorts. Not everyone's cup of tea, I guess, but still, some enjoy it. Others require that.

After all, you control what you name, isn't that right, Hulk?

Quote from: Maese Mateo;886423For example, tremulus builds a nice mechanical framework to tell Lovecraftian stories, but also includes a random generator to design your own town filled with plots, which is quite cool to start a game and see where it goes. I can work with that.

A player who don't like *.World games is "merely" a bonus. Every voice counts.  

I'm curious about "Tremulus" - do you think it's good enough to actually deliver the experience similar to games like "Call/Trail of Cthulhu"? Those a few sessions I've had weren't especially good, but there were many factors influencing the outcome.

Quote from: GameDaddy;886459I'm pretty much exactly the opposite. I really enjoy building custom game worlds.

Oh, I have nothing against worldbuilding per se and from time to time, I'm ok with assembling everything from the scratch. It's just that I don't enjoy starting with a blank state all the time. I'm thumbs up for filling/changing some details later, but at first I really appreciate some framework, something that tells me where my character lives and gives me some hints regarding who he might be/become.

Quote from: GameDaddy;886459I also like running games where a setting is included...

(...)

Much better to let the players be creative. GIve them opportunities to build a ship, buy one, or steal one. Then run an adventure on that.

No need to have everything all pre-printed or stated out. It is ok though, to build a short encounter list.

So, I take it that while you prefer to build everything, you're also fine with the opposite. Effectively, with or without a predefined setting, you'll have your share of fun. An universalist, eh?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886482What happened before the game starts is irrelevant.  Show, don't tell.

Pardon me, but does that mean that all your characters, no matter what game and genre come with "FU, it's no concern of yours" background? I mean, I know it's an exaggeration, but I can't wrap my head around this style of play. I'm certainly missing something here...

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886555Remember Conan the Barbarian movie? The scene where Conan and Subotai sit, eat some meal and discuss whose god is the stronger, better one?

Some people enjoy this kind of stuff, it makes them strengthen the connection with the setting, treat it as something familiar, what they (at least partially) control, that they helped to shape it not only by their characters' actions, but also as co-demiurges of sorts. Not everyone's cup of tea, I guess, but still, some enjoy it. Others require that.

The difference of course being that if we were in a Hyborian Age roleplaying game, Crom is a part of the existing setting, as is that fact that Turanians worship Erlik and his prophet the Living Tarim, the Shemites worship Ishtar and a Zamoran thief possibly gives praise to Bel.

We can have one incredibly entertaining roleplaying session (and possibly PvP encounter) discussing religion, none of it being made up by our players creating facts about the cosmology of the world as they do so.

My character can choose to brag for years about the famous royal brothel he snuck into called Ishtar's Sigh in Shadizar the Wicked.  It doesn't mean such a thing exists, or even if it did, that I ever went there.

If I have a Cimmerian character who pulls an Arnold and mixes the worship of Crom with that of the Nordheimers , I'm not going to tell the character his character doesn't believe that.  But other Cimmerians are probably going to tell him he's off his rocker, because Crom does not live in Valhalla.

If you *need* to be able to create True facts about the Gods, become a GM.

I'm one of those weird fuckers I guess that doesn't feel the need to insert a metric assload of non-roleplaying into a roleplaying session to have fun.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886555After all, you control what you name, isn't that right, Hulk?

BTW, the Hulk thing came from a forum discussion about Marvel Heroic Roleplaying and I called it Hulk in the Vineyard due to the storytelling nature of the game and put up the pic as a joke.  Someone pointed me to a Something Awful post where I guess I made it into grognards.txt and an idiot there said because I used The Hulk, I must look like a sumo wrestler with a vagina or something.  Well, when someone tells you what bothers them...

Of course, I could say something about a guy who uses a character avatar who has a god-complex having a need to fill in world details as a player and liking games that let him do that, but that would be just crazy...right?

During Wonder Woman Avatar month, I think I had the best one with Tori Black though.

We should do another Wonder Woman Avatar month in honor of Batman vs. Superman.

Quote from: CRKrueger;886556We can have one incredibly entertaining roleplaying session (and possibly PvP encounter) discussing religion, none of it being made up by our players creating facts about the cosmology of the world as they do so.

Of course. I don't claim Conan and Subotai "invented" their gods, or even that players are supposed to do that. I simply assume that they might do that, that the scene might be the result of two players defining things on the fly. In fact, I think it's pretty much system-agnostic approach. Were I to be the GM I'd see no reason not to include the result of players' creativity into the world.

It's a possibility, nothing else. Some might use it, some might enjoy it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;886556My character can choose to brag for years about the famous royal brothel he snuck into called Ishtar's Sigh in Shadizar the Wicked.  It doesn't mean such a thing exists, or even if it did, that I ever went there.

Of course. Then again, you might've just suggested quite a nice plot hook and a potential adventure seed. Some players might want to determine whether your character speaks truth, or is he pulling their legs. While this won't have much impact on predetermined scenario, it works quite well for freeform/FF sandbox type of games, where players are free to determine their own set of goals, agendas and goals.

Quote from: CRKrueger;886557If you *need* to be able to create True facts about the Gods, become a GM.

I'm one of those weird fuckers I guess that doesn't feel the need to insert a metric assload of non-roleplaying into a roleplaying session to have fun.

Hmmmm, yes and... no.

I agree that if you feel the need to co-create the world to such an extent, that you influence its most basic elements (like gods), then you should simply run the game instead of playing it. It's reasonable approach.

Then again, how about a very specific scenario? Let's put *.World games aside and focus on "in general" for a moment, shall we?

Imagine an adventure, where one of players controls a character of  anti-clerical class. It might be an apostate, a heretic, or simply a disbeliever, atheist or everything inbetween. I believe there's a similar archetype for PFRPG, and I'm sure something like that exists in D&D (or one of its derivatives/d20 based games).

I'd like to know your opinion whether such a PC should be encouraged to define (in-game, mind you) his set of beliefs, an explanation why he opposes the natural order of things, gods & such, or that "I dunno, I simply don't like gods" would be enough?

Quote from: CRKrueger;886557BTW, the Hulk thing came from a forum discussion about Marvel Heroic Roleplaying and I called it Hulk in the Vineyard due to the storytelling nature of the game and put up the pic as a joke.  Someone pointed me to a Something Awful post where I guess I made it into grognards.txt and an idiot there said because I used The Hulk, I must look like a sumo wrestler with a vagina or something.

Weird. I was sure you used Hulk for an avatar because of his most obvious trait - becoming an unstoppable juggernaut when agitated. Then again, I'm new here, I have much to learn.

Quote from: CRKrueger;886557Of course, I could say something about a guy who uses a character avatar who has a god-complex having a need to fill in world details as a player and liking games that let him do that, but that would be just crazy...right?

Ahahahahaha, that'd be just plain crazy! Ahahahahaa... ahaahahaa... LOOK! IT'S WONDER WOMAN COPULATING WITH THE INVISIBLE MAN! (Roll spot: a medium success. You notice suspicious looks and an occasional, nervous coughs. Is he trying to distract you?)

Quote from: CRKrueger;886557We should do another Wonder Woman Avatar month in honor of Batman vs. Superman.

Wasn't it Abyssal Maw who started this? Man, I miss that guy.

Quote from: The Butcher;886564Wasn't it Abyssal Maw who started this? Man, I miss that guy.

Heh, wonder if he plays 5e?

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562Of course. I don't claim Conan and Subotai "invented" their gods, or even that players are supposed to do that. I simply assume that they might do that, that the scene might be the result of two players defining things on the fly. In fact, I think it's pretty much system-agnostic approach. Were I to be the GM I'd see no reason not to include the result of players' creativity into the world.

It's a possibility, nothing else. Some might use it, some might enjoy it.

Collaborative world-building to me is one of those "Roleplaying+" things you add to roleplaying that I don't need or particularly want.  I realize a lot do, I just like to make sure that people realize that is a + thing, not a roleplaying thing, because for some reason weird shit starts happening when people forget things like basic definitions and how things work outside their own preferences.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562Of course. Then again, you might've just suggested quite a nice plot hook and a potential adventure seed. Some players might want to determine whether your character speaks truth, or is he pulling their legs. While this won't have much impact on predetermined scenario, it works quite well for freeform/FF sandbox type of games, where players are free to determine their own set of goals, agendas and goals.

Characters determining their own agendas and goals is good, I don't see a point in roleplaying any other way.  
Players determining the truth of the setting through Player will is different, I don't see a point in roleplaying that way.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562I agree that if you feel the need to co-create the world to such an extent, that you influence its most basic elements (like gods), then you should simply run the game instead of playing it. It's reasonable approach.

I must have been having a Baxter moment.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562Imagine an adventure, where one of players controls a character of  anti-clerical class. It might be an apostate, a heretic, or simply a disbeliever, atheist or everything inbetween. I believe there's a similar archetype for PFRPG, and I'm sure something like that exists in D&D (or one of its derivatives/d20 based games).

I'd like to know your opinion whether such a PC should be encouraged to define (in-game, mind you) his set of beliefs, an explanation why he opposes the natural order of things, gods & such, or that "I dunno, I simply don't like gods" would be enough?

If it's his beliefs, his rationale, his opinion on the gods, sure, why wouldn't I let him know his own mind?  When he expects his beliefs to magically and retroactively create an Anti-Church of His Beliefs that he is a contributing member of, that's where he gets off the Player bus and goes and makes his own setting.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562Weird. I was sure you used Hulk for an avatar because of his most obvious trait - becoming an unstoppable juggernaut when agitated. Then again, I'm new here, I have much to learn.

Actually, that is a joke between me an another poster, but that's not how it started.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562Ahahahahaha, that'd be just plain crazy! Ahahahahaa... ahaahahaa... LOOK! IT'S WONDER WOMAN COPULATING WITH THE INVISIBLE MAN! (Roll spot: a medium success. You notice suspicious looks and an occasional, nervous coughs. Is he trying to distract you?)

Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886555Pardon me, but does that mean that all your characters, no matter what game and genre come with "FU, it's no concern of yours" background? I mean, I know it's an exaggeration, but I can't wrap my head around this style of play. I'm certainly missing something here...

To be honest I'd actually prefer this as a DM. I'd far far rather have characters be motivated and shaped by stuff that happens in game rather than stuff they made up, feels more organic and gets everyone on the same page since play is (usually) a shared experience and back stories are (usually) cooked up individually.

To use hyperbole this is often a massive headache:
"As a baby a fortune teller told my parents that I would restore the Azure throne! We've got to go west!"
"But orcs murdered my parents and they're in the west!"
"I can't go west, I was the warlord of the western marches before I was exiled!"
"Well we obviously have to go north, I need to find the water of life that flows from the last glacier to restore my beloved!"
"OK, OK, I'll completely ignore the orcs that murdered my family for another few months, lets head north!"


While this pretty damn easy:
"Stupid kobolds stole our stuff last session!"
"Yeah, let's kill those bastards."

Quote from: Daztur;886574To be honest I'd actually prefer this as a DM. I'd far far rather have characters be motivated and shaped by stuff that happens in game rather than stuff they made up, feels more organic and gets everyone on the same page since play is (usually) a shared experience and back stories are (usually) cooked up individually.

To use hyperbole this is often a massive headache:
"As a baby a fortune teller told my parents that I would restore the Azure throne! We've got to go west!"
"But orcs murdered my parents and they're in the west!"
"I can't go west, I was the warlord of the western marches before I was exiled!"
"Well we obviously have to go north, I need to find the water of life that flows from the last glacier to restore my beloved!"
"OK, OK, I'll completely ignore the orcs that murdered my family for another few months, lets head north!"


While this pretty damn easy:
"Stupid kobolds stole our stuff last session!"
"Yeah, let's kill those bastards."

Heh, sounds like Fallout 4.  There's all this great post-apocalyptic rebuilding of towns, getting involved with factions, setting up trade routes, and I feel like a total fucking asshole for liking any of it because I got saddled with the backstory of SOMEONE TOOK MY SON!  The writers at Bethesda were not talking much to the coders.

Quote from: Daztur;886574To be honest I'd actually prefer this as a DM. I'd far far rather have characters be motivated and shaped by stuff that happens in game rather than stuff they made up, feels more organic and gets everyone on the same page since play is (usually) a shared experience and back stories are (usually) cooked up individually.

To use hyperbole this is often a massive headache:
"As a baby a fortune teller told my parents that I would restore the Azure throne! We've got to go west!"
"But orcs murdered my parents and they're in the west!"
"I can't go west, I was the warlord of the western marches before I was exiled!"
"Well we obviously have to go north, I need to find the water of life that flows from the last glacier to restore my beloved!"
"OK, OK, I'll completely ignore the orcs that murdered my family for another few months, lets head north!"

While I totally see where you're coming from here, the PbtA games I've played have the GM mediating the players creative input in a way that links them between themselves and to the situation right now. A good example would be, say, player Joe introducing a battle scar, then player Zak introduces his biker gang (Pam, Tun-Tun and Vox), and then GM immediately pivots back to Joe asks "so Joe, looking from here, that scar of yours kind of matches Tun-Tun machete. Do you have a story to tell ?". And this works for PbtA games because they are usually about local communities instead of overarching epic plots or something. (though, again, I've never played Dungeon World, or Tremulus). I'm not saying the kind of dysfunctional (and useless) team motivations you describe couldn't happen, it sure could happen to any game, but PbtA games have a method in place to facilitate functional and instantly gameable (and messy!) relationships and cross-motivations between players. It's not infallible though, nothing is.

QuoteWhile this pretty damn easy:
"Stupid kobolds stole our stuff last session!"
"Yeah, let's kill those bastards.

Oh I know that. My groupe always go back to some good old D&D and Shadowrun where we can sideline the world building and focus our creative juices on problem solving and CQC tactics.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;886555Pardon me, but does that mean that all your characters, no matter what game and genre come with "FU, it's no concern of yours" background? I mean, I know it's an exaggeration, but I can't wrap my head around this style of play. I'm certainly missing something here...

The longest character background I ever wrote was "son of a landless knight."  I don't write character backgrounds, period.  I don't care where my character came from, I care what my character is doing.

I also don't expect the referee to create a world to cater to my character.  I want an open map where I can go wherever the whim takes me.  I want to wander around an interesting setting and see interesting stuff.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886587The longest character background I ever wrote was "son of a landless knight."  I don't write character backgrounds, period.  I don't care where my character came from, I care what my character is doing.

I also don't expect the referee to create a world to cater to my character.  I want an open map where I can go wherever the whim takes me.  I want to wander around an interesting setting and see interesting stuff.

Fair.