Quote from: blakkieSo stroke out the size reference if you like. *shrug* I'd hardly call it 'wrong' on that. It is really just has Settembrini decided he likes and everything else.  Look at your game, all that relationship shit getting in the way. :rolleyes:

I think your'e just pretending to not understand.

My point is the "relationships" didn't and don't define anything, especially when you leave it up to the respondent to define relationship however they like. In fact, I think it should be painfully obvious that relationships were all over my primitive cavemanesque D&D game. But nobody would ever call D&D, or even "my campaign" thematic. It's a game. There might even be actual themes every once in a while, but it's kinda loose. Sometimes theyre tracking down clues, sometimes theyre hanging out in taverns gambling, sometimes theyre trying to research spells. Sometimes they go find a dungeon and clear it. It's great to have so many options.  

However, for some people -- the activity really is just working out these "relationship maps" (or using other such gimmicks) so that they can then tackle issues and themes via roleplay. The relationships don't define "thematic" (as I and nearly everyone on this thread has shown). But once these 'relationships" are governed by rules and being used for a specific purpose here (as in the bolded sentence up above).. then you have thematic.

Conflating the two is just obfuscation. I can't tell if it's deliberate or just misunderstanding sometimes.

Quote from: David R1. How important are relationships in your games ?

I like RPGs to play like being in an action movie, not a drama.  So relationships, themes, etc - they are largely there to add "color".

I use NPCs like a by-the-numbers screenplay uses minor parts - they are there to move the story along, nothing more.  

A villain is there to be a guy that needs to be defeated.  An ally appears only to provide help or information.  A shopkeeper's sole purpose is to sell shit to the PCs. Etc.

They are more like stage props than proper people, and are usually one-dimensional.  They are not there to provide deep, meaningful explorations of themes.  The NPCs do have motivations and personalities, but that's usually just window dressing.  It's not really important why the evil cult leader wants to raise the demon lord from the sea - what's important is stopping him before he does it.

Granted, there are exceptions every once in a while.

And just to clarify - I'm not saying there isn't any character interaction with NPCs, I usually try to have a fair amount.  I've had whole sessions with no real action, just interaction.  It's just not at the "relationship" level (at least, by my understanding of what we are talking about).

Now, PC on PC relationships - that's up to the players.  Personally, I like a fair amount of that - especially some animosity.  Nothing is more boring (or unrealistic) than a group of people that stay together for no particular reason and that never really disagree.

Quote from: David R2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

Not usually.

The only problem I've ever seen with them is that sometimes PC on PC relationships with animosity can devolve into circular arguments about something - in which case either one of the other players will try and end the argument (using their character - but the motivation comes from the other players getting annoyed) or I will have to stop them by using my GM powers to make something happen to break the logjam.

Quote from: David R3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

No

Quote from: Abyssal MawI think your'e just pretending to not understand.

You think wrong.  You just don't understand that I understand, understand?

QuoteMy point is the "relationships" didn't and don't define anything, especially when you leave it up to the respondent to define relationship however they like.

*shrug* I like rules like that, the falicy is that you can't have such rules. Sure I find crash's rules of an explicit space on the character sheet a little on the light side for my tastes. But there it is, an actual spot in his rules saying "hey, over here!" Maybe he's got more stuff in there that even says "hey, over here, this is important." Couldn't say because I haven't read through any of his books yet. The only game of his that I have much interest in from a premise POV is In Harm's Way and unfortunately the FLGS doesn't carry that one yet and the only other person I know that would dig that is about to leave the country for a couple years.

QuoteIn fact, I think it should be painfully obvious that relationships were all over my primitive cavemanesque D&D game. But nobody would ever call D&D, or even "my campaign" thematic.

Well if you ripped the "D&D" label off I wouldn't put it past Settembrini. Seriously, he's brought up this "Thematic" label in the most bizzare of situations. I wish the Search engine here wasn't so damn dodgy or I'd bring up some real choice examples.

QuoteIt's a game. There might even be actual themes every once in a while, but it's kinda loose. Sometimes theyre tracking down clues, sometimes theyre hanging out in taverns gambling, sometimes theyre trying to research spells. Sometimes they go find a dungeon and clear it. It's great to have so many options.

That certainly isn't any sort of innoculation from being hit by Settembrini's Thematic label-matic. Sure that might seem totally off-the-wall illogical. Because it is. Welcome to Settembrini-ville.

QuoteHowever, for some people -- the activity really is just working out these "relationship maps" (or using other such gimmicks) so that they can then tackle issues and themes via roleplay. The relationships don't define "thematic" (as I and nearly everyone on this thread has shown). But once these 'relationships" are governed by rules and being used for a specific purpose here (as in the bolded sentence up above).. then you have thematic.

Well I guess it is no innoculation from you either. :rolleyes: I guess the welcome was premature since you are a resident in good standing.

QuoteConflating the two is just obfuscation. I can't tell if it's deliberate or just misunderstanding sometimes.

The categories themselves are the real obfuscation.

You have placed yourself in the unenviable position of simultaneously denying the existence of an idea, while you also act as an advocate for it.

Quote from: Abyssal MawYou have placed yourself in the unenviable position of simultaneously denying the existence of an idea, while you also act as an advocate for it.

I'm placed myself in the position of [EDIT:you] showing how the "idea" as you define it is about has helpful as GNS's Simulation category.

As Settembrini defines it it is worth even less.

QuoteAs Settembrini defines it it is worth even less.

Please restate for the class what your interpretation of "how Settembrini defines it" is.

Use your own words first, and then place supporting quotes if you like.

P.S. This may not go well for you.

Quote from: blakkie*shrug* I like rules like that, the falicy is that you can't have such rules. Sure I find crash's rules of an explicit space on the character sheet a little on the light side for my tastes. But there it is, an actual spot in his rules saying "hey, over here!" Maybe he's got more stuff in there that even says "hey, over here, this is important." Couldn't say because I haven't read through any of his books yet. The only game of his that I have much interest in from a premise POV is In Harm's Way and unfortunately the FLGS doesn't carry that one yet and the only other person I know that would dig that is about to leave the country for a couple years.

I think you have a different concept of "rules" than I do, blakkie. It's much more comprehensive than mine. I would call that space on the character sheet an option or a suggestion, not a rule. There is no reference anywhere else in the games to that "relationships" area.

I don't see it as my job as designer to tell people they must work relationships into their games. Other designers feel differently. Folks like jgants seem to get along fine without them, and that doesn't bother me. Just because I think they're essential to what I want out of a game I'm running doesn't mean someone else can't have a completely different view. That's why I leave it to the GM and group level. I leave lots of options open in my games, because I personally like options.

This point always kicks up a fuss between us, and we were getting along so well recently! :O

-clash

Quote from: Abyssal MawIn this world, there are joiners and there are influencers. RPGnet is set up as a community of joiners- mostly because of the way it is moderated.

Joiners/Influencers...Adventure/Thematic...why am I not surprised you think this way. About the only thing I agree with is the moderation needs to be fixed. Even then I'm not really bothered because I don't have much invested in that place and most folks get a lot out of that site.

QuoteTheRPGSite is a community of influencers. So we can win the war here, and thats enough for me.

There's no war. Most folks here just like to talk about games...different kinds of games. But I suppose if you did want to wage war here, either side has a fair chance of winning. But most folks couldn't be bothered as to who wins.

QuoteHah! I can!

1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Player-NPC:
I'd say they are important to driving the plot forward and making the adventures interesting. For a long while in our campaign we had a thing where the group psion was in a relationship with an NPC psion called Kizmet. In the session before last, she sacrificed herself to break the curse of a wraith queen, and her personality was transferred into a magic sceptre. The psion now carries the sceptre around and still talks to it.

Player-Player:
We celebrated our 1-year anniversary as a campaign last night. The group is a team and a family. They joke and converse in-character just as if they were really like that team. They rescue each other from catastrophes and certain death at least once a week. They play pranks on each other just like a family would.  

2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

Nope. They are part of the fun.  

3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

Absolutely not. But then, I'm playing an adventure game with adventurers who are .. adventuring. Last night, they shrank down to microscopic size and entered a "bottled city" demi-plane called the Egg of Rodnak.  They fought a Nightwing. They made friends with a female Eldritch Giant and made a deal to locate a Caerceran Keystone that would help them all escape. The goblin PC flirted with her and she threatened to turn him into her new familiar. Then they explored some caves and battled a Roper.

It was fun.

Thanks for replying. Very interesting relationships between the characters. And I appreciate that you used an actual session as an example.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: flyingmiceI think you have a different concept of "rules" than I do, blakkie. It's much more comprehensive than mine. I would call that space on the character sheet an option or a suggestion, not a rule. There is no reference anywhere else in the games to that "relationships" area.

Call it what you want it is still there. Afterall rules are just suggestions from front cover to back, right? Certainly that is my POV. Isn't it yours?

QuoteThis point always kicks up a fuss between us, and we were getting along so well recently! :O

We actually are pretty damn close on a lot of subjects. This one too....except you refuse (and I really do expect you capable of at least a passable job if you tried) to sort out and write down all that good stuff in your head in a nice light, sturdy framework. Ironically it is the same thing driving you that'd work to keep it lean and flexible that keeps you from doing it at all.

What would happen if you sat down to write an essay about how you handle social character interactions in a game and accidentally wrote it in "rules" form?

Quote from: David RThree questions. I've been wandering about the connection between relationships and the so-called adventure gaming since Sett's rather disparaging comments about the former here:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=88508&postcount=24

A LOT of what "Sett..." says seems silly on 2nd reading.

Quote1. How important are relationships in your games ?

 Pretty damn important in my campaign.  By relationships , I am including friendships with NPCs, Romaces with NPCs, Alliances, promises made ...etc...

We had a whole session center around the marriage ceremony of an NPC to a player character - also had a Hell of a fight at the end of the same session between good guys ands bad guys  and  a pretty signicantly  ominous smuggling operation was discovered.

Quote2. Do these relationhsips get in the way of the "action" ?

Oh Hell No!!  Read my above example to the first question. IF I'm doing my GM duties correctly these things weave together well so the "realtionship" stuff leads up to or informs the Action! and combat! scenes.   its to the point now that the PCs have NPCs that will cover their back in a fight and vice versa. HeQ, on one planet the local police officers even tip off the starship's crew if too many of the wrong sort have been asking questions about them.  You don't need to "bribe" a police officer if you've been to each other's parties and shared drinks together.

Quote3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

Rules ? Not really . As most of you have figured out - I use the GURPS set of rules.... I mostly use the reaction rules when characters first meet each other. After that I tend to just manage  it all by "what makes sense". If an NPC seems like they will show up more than twice - then I work oup a mini-character sheet so I have stats to roll against. These folks have worked their way up to "recurring character" status if you want a TV show analogy.

QuoteSo these are the three questions....

 And interesting questions they are...


- E.W.C.

Quote from: Abyssal MawPlease restate for the class what your interpretation of "how Settembrini defines it" is.

Use your own words first, and then place supporting quotes if you like.

P.S. This may not go well for you.

Oh I know how it'd go. I've been down that path in the past. I already partially covered this upthread. I'd spend hours upon days trying to sort through old posts and threads (EDIT: And onto those other subforums here where I so rarely tread for my own sanity) , in no small part because the board's Search engine is unreliable and broken somehow, of Settembrini posts to show the bizzaro forms to which he takes the polarized Thematic/Adventure categorization.

Which indeed is the kind of rot on my brain that would be bad for me. I'd rather reread the collected esssays and blogs of Ron Edwards and RPGPundit combined because at least that isn't in message board form. Good god, this is a guy that seemed oblivious to RPGs being about characters.

Quote from: blakkieNow, now let's not go down the "You aren't playing an RPG" path. :whistleblower:

Hey, I just like rocking the boat.

That said, I'm not interested in the umptieth critique of "thematic" games. I'm interested in alternatives. And I'm wondering how a strategic-level game is an RPG.

I'm not saying it can't be. After all (and this may be devastating news to Mr. Settembrini), Greg Stolze is finishing Reign as we type. I'm just honestly curious how playing a sector duke in Traveller (which seems to be what this is about) is different from playing Fifth Frontier War.

Quote from: blakkieOh I know how it'd go. I've been down that path in the past. I already partially covered this upthread. I'd spend hours upon days trying to sort through old posts and threads (EDIT: And onto those other subforums here where I so rarely tread for my own sanity) , in no small part because the board's Search engine is unreliable and broken somehow, of Settembrini posts to show the bizzaro forms to which he takes the polarized Thematic/Adventure categorization.

Which indeed is the kind of rot on my brain that would be bad for me. I'd rather reread the collected esssays and blogs of Ron Edwards and RPGPundit combined because at least that isn't in message board form. Good god, this is a guy that seemed oblivious to RPGs being about characters.

You don't need search for this.

You have already proven your'e against "it", whatever you think Settembrini is saying.

Restate in your own words what you think his definition of "it" is. Only then can you prove or disprove.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityHey, I just like rocking the boat.

Well all that rocking tipped over the chum bucket and now the place is really starting to stink.

Quote from: Abyssal MawYou don't need search for this.

You wanted supporting quotes. *shrug*

QuoteYou have already proven your'e against "it", whatever you think Settembrini is saying.

The "it" I'm against is the use of the categorization because:
1) As you use it it is has no practical, functional value.
2) It has several definitions that cut a swath a mile wide. I've tried a number of times from Settembrini's various definitons and use to try figure out WTF he's talking about. But over and over it escapes logical definition outside of....

QuoteRestate in your own words what you think his definition of "it" is. Only then can you prove or disprove.

Use this one if you like. But I'm not really here to prove it, it's just some handy info....that apparently Pierce didn't really want or need. P.S. I stroked out the 'big' just for you.