Quote from: John MorrowWhat would happen if you sat down to write an essay about how you handle social interactions in your day-to-day real life and accidentally wrote it in "rules" form?

Curiously I actually do this in a piecemeal manner. One of my children are autistic so it is faster for him to learn through explicit encompassing rules. I find it an interesting and enlighting process analysing what we typs do and expect and then figuring out concise rules to explain it. Extracting the relavent patterns that he doesn't see. [EDIT: I should say the patterns that most people don't think about or notice. They just "know" them, although specifically what each person "knows" differs widely.]

QuoteHow long would your essay be?  How many rules would they contain?

As long as and as detailed as I decided to make it? As always "scope" be your friend!

QuoteAnd would you switch to using the rules defined in the essay to run your life rather than just, uh, interacting socially with other people like you always have?

If I had to "switch" I'd say I either failed and/or I learned something.

Quote from: BalbinusI think this thread would go smoother if we didn't try to explain for Set what he meant, because as the thread continues I think we get further and further from whatever that was.

Thank you Balbinus. I realize this trouble began with my first post. I certainly did not mean this thread to be an attack on Sett's adventure/theory division...but I understand that my original post could certainly be construed as such. I'll make sure this does not happen again.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RThank you Balbinus. I realize this trouble began with my first post. I certainly did not mean this thread to be an attack on Sett's adventure/theory division...but I understand that my original post could certainly be construed as such. I'll make sure this does not happen again.

Regards,
David R

Yeah considering all the posts I'd have to sort through since I last posted to put together a response I'm going to go slacker and just drop that whole line. Can I have an IOU for helping bailing you out of this mess you've made?

What? What?

I'm getting fuzzy on what relationship rules are.  In some form or another, don't most games have some rules that affect character relationships in game?  Charisma, karma, social skills, BITs, etc...

Quote from: GunslingerI'm getting fuzzy on what relationship rules are.  In some form or another, don't most games have some rules that affect character relationships in game?  Charisma, karma, social skills, BITs, etc...

Yupper. D&D 3e has got Diplomacy and some NPC reaction tables or something, right? I never use the AD&D/D&D NPC reaction rules because I happen to think they stink (or I did when I first experienced them). From my (limited) experience I don't think they are all that popular at all.

My point is:

It's not (just) a 'vast majority' of people that are saying "relationships are important in my game".

So far it's 100%.

That obviously does not mean that everyone is BY DEFINITION an adventure gamer or a thematic gamer or whatever.If you asked the same question and substituted the word 'story" for "relationship" you would probably get another 100% mark. It's just how gamers are. Even the most dungeony of d&d guys is going to say story is important.

But if you ask him if he needs game rules to deal with creating story at a structural level, probably not.

You know, last year around this time they were openly sneering at us for having rules for such things as drowning and falling. Does nobody recall this?

The "evidence" of Settembrini saying "Because Adventure is something new and exciting. Whereas relationship problems are the same old same old." is merely a statement of preference. I consider such statements to be untouchable. How can you argue with preference? Even for those forgies who I unabashedly hate.. I can't argue with their preferences.

For what its worth I don't care about hearing anyone else's relationship problems either- in or out of a game. If I was in a game and it started to be all about relationships I'd be looking for a graceful exit out of that group. for one thing, I already have plenty of relationships in my actual life. In gaming, I like adventures. I like characters who are going places and doing things that interest me. I'm simple that way.

Drowning and falling? Sure. And climbing. And defusing bombs. And swinging on ropes. and busting through windows. and wrasslin alligators. And sneaking into enemy bases. and jumping onto moving trains. ... ...

Quote from: blakkieYupper. D&D 3e has got Diplomacy and some NPC reaction tables or something, right? I never use the AD&D/D&D NPC reaction rules because I happen to think they stink (or I did when I first experienced them). From my (limited) experience I don't think they are all that popular at all.

I think that's probably right, certainly I've never used reaction tables in any game, I judge by the NPC's nature and the PCs acts and traits.  Frankly, it's much quicker than rolling on a bloody table.

Quote from: Abyssal MawYou know, last year around this time they were openly sneering at us for having rules for such things as drowning and falling. Does nobody recall this?

Um, that was probably me to be honest, I have always found rules for drowning and falling absurd.

I'd give a naval game a pass, since it becomes more relevant, though even there I doubt I'd use them.

If you were playing a character that as part of the game--  found himself in dangerous situations, and it sometimes came up that he had to climb someplace high, or possible deal with water..

In other words- if you were playing a character who was having adventures, with all the malevolent smug sneering lowliness that such a primitive thing might entail....

Do you not agree that IF you preferred such kinds of experiences (or let's be daring and call them 'stories') in a game, it makes sense to have rules for such things as drowning or falling? Otherwise what do you do? Just handwave any falls from ridiculous heights? Not include places where water might exist?

See, the whole sneering at Drowning and Falling thing is hugely indicative. If you don't think drowning and falling should have rules, what exactly should have rules?

It doesn't have to be a supremacist thing either. It could be just a "recognize the differences" thing.

Do you not agree that there is a fundamental difference in a game about characters who are off having adventures, and one in which characters have to think about which dress they are wearing to the prom as a point of play? I am not inventing the example of a game about which dress you wear being a major rules-oriented point-of-play, either. I bet you can name two examples of such games right off the top of your head. I can too.

It seems like an obvious dichotomy to me.

Quote from: BalbinusI think that's probably right, certainly I've never used reaction tables in any game, I judge by the NPC's nature and the PCs acts and traits.  Frankly, it's much quicker than rolling on a bloody table.

This is just going from fuzzy memory but it isn't even so much that it's faster. I found it counter productive to use them. They were like those old random encounter tables that lacked taking intellegently into account context and such. Plus they are very much limited in use and a bit like a bridge to nowhere. A solid example of how not to do.

You're being characteristically self-deprecating, Max, or maybe you just didn't see it, but yes, in the past couple years there's been lots of sneering references to how mainstream games obsess over physical details instead of having rules to address narrative authority and abstract thematics. Not just drowning & falling but rules for carrying & so forth.

The thing is, while I get the point that making a clone of GURPS Space or Traveller, and then slapping the title Serenity onto it, doesn't really give the TV fan what they need to capture the essence of the show, at least not in the mechanical rules, I've never been a big fan of gaming in fictional worlds translated from other media.

Gunslinger has got it right, there, I reckon. Almost all games have got something to do with social stuff in there. But I think the distinction David R meant (before the thread went blakkiewards into pointless semantics) was between something like D&D having just "Charisma" and something like Fate which might have a character with "Aspect - Loving Wife []", or something like GURPS with "Ally - Wife (appears on 15 or less, same power level as PC) [15]".

Given that, I think it can be useful to have game mechanics for relationships. Often players respond to what's on the character sheet or in the game book. For example, Unknown Armies goes to great pains to tell us that violence is wrong and will fuck you up, and PCs should be encouraged to avoid violence, especially violence which might kill. Then they give us 72 different types of firearms, and 25 different types of ammo - compared to 87 different example skills. So from that, players take the message that all that anti-violence spiel was bullshit, and guns are cool fun.

If your character sheet for your game just has a list of relationship and personality stuff, it's going to be a rare player who ignores all that and just has their character kill things and takes their stuff. Likewise, if you have a character sheet with combat stats and equipment lists and nothing else, it'll be a rare player who never has their character do the killing, and instead gets into detailed personality and relationship stuff.

What's on the character sheet comes from the game rules, and this stuff does not determine play, but it certainly shapes it. So, some sort of mechanics for personality and relationships in an rpg can be good if you want that in play.

I also find that when there are mechanics to support it, players are more likely to focus on it, because they feel the relationships are more reliable. If we're playing RuneQuest and the player writes down that their character has a husband, then as GM I may bring the husband in, or I may not - it depends on GM whim. But if we're playing Fate and the character has an aspect, "Loving Husband []", then the player gets to decide when the loving husband is relevant to the plot; or if we're playing GURPS and the character sheet has got "Ally - Husband (appears on 15 or less, same power level as PC) [15]", then the player knows that if the GM rolls 15 or less on 3d6, then the husband will be available to help their character out.

Players are more likely to bring in the relationship stuff for their character if they feel they can rely on it being relevant in the game session; for this, they need either a very co-operative GM, or else some game rules which support it.

Quote from: blakkieWhat? What?

Your participation in my threads is always welcomed. I also think that folks like AM and Sett make good contributions. For a believer in the " Speak English Motherfucker !" school of thought, I should have practised more of said philosophy in my original post. Somewhere in Australia JimBob is shakin' his head.

Regards,
David R

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

Very important, in that all the pressures on the PCs that impel them to action of one sort or another are caused by other people, not natural, supernatural, or otherwise impersonal forces. If the Bad Guys didn't have nefarious intentions, if the local gray-marketeer didn't want to become mayor, if the nightclub bandleader didn't hate the PCs boss, if that boss didn't want to crush another crime lord, if the hill tribes weren't warring against each other, nothing would have disturbed the equilibrium and set the PCs in motion.

Now that the PCs have spent all this time running around and interacting with NPCs, they have relationships with them that are in and of themselves driving character action.

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

Not that I'm aware of. They cause the action in most cases.

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

If you mean "rules" the way I understand some indie games use them -- formal mechanics for qualifying or quantifying social relationships between PCs and NPCs or between PCs and other PCs, and/or rules that require play to focus on these relationships -- then no. And, um, ick.

But if you mean rules for PC/NPC interaction, like intimidation, sex appeal, trickery, and so forth, then they play a part only when the player is incapable of or unwilling to accurate represent that interaction through roleplay (frex, the "tongue-tied guy playing a famous debater" problem). If the player says "I say thus-and-such and I act really intimidating," then I'll have them roll against skill, unless of course I've already decided that the NPC will cave.

I only ever consider reaction tables when I haven't pre-decided an NPC's reaction to the PCs, generally when that NPCs reaction isn't very important to the progress of play or the PCs have gone off on a complete tangent and interacted with someone I have to make up on the spot. (And I should note that I use random reactions about as often as I use random encounters, which is to say nearly never.)

ETA: I was composing this while JimBob posted his last, and, whoops! I forgot about Allies, Patrons, Contacts and whatnot, which I certainly use. But while listing of "Ally: wife" on my GURPS character sheet implies a spousal relationship with the NPC and all that goes with it (and I'd be perfectly happy to roleplay that relationship), it's really just a game-mechanical way of listing a resource. "Ally: wife" and "Ally: soulless zombie" are functionally exactly equivalent.

Quote from: Elliot WilenYou're being characteristically self-deprecating, Max, or maybe you just didn't see it, but yes, in the past couple years there's been lots of sneering references to how mainstream games obsess over physical details instead of having rules to address narrative authority and abstract thematics. Not just drowning & falling but rules for carrying & so forth.

The thing is, while I get the point that making a clone of GURPS Space or Traveller, and then slapping the title Serenity onto it, doesn't really give the TV fan what they need to capture the essence of the show, at least not in the mechanical rules, I've never been a big fan of gaming in fictional worlds translated from other media.

System wise, there's a credible point to be made that Serenity *is* Traveller.

But I think that what I want to do most TV-shows / movies is setting rather than world-simulation mechanics.

To put it another way: situations that characters get into and their reactions to those situations should simply make sense given the world they live in and the background they have.

GURPS Space + an appropriate list of weapons & equipment, jobs, space ships, history, lingo, economic situation (trade, running costs, etc.) and so-on would give me exactly what I need to do Serenity (or Star Wars, if you throw in rules for the Force, or just about an other space game).

In fact, I'd want so much background and setting material that I'd be disappointed if the game world spent much time giving me rules for shooting people or character generation... there's already tons of systems that are perfectly adequate for that.

And if the system was set up to mechanically re-create the show, I'd just be disappointed.

Drowning and Falling: I want rules for both. I'm... a bit surprised that some people find them unnecessary.

I'm going to start a thread about that.

Cheers,
-E.