TheRPGSite

Three 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

True some games focus more on this issue than others, but I really believe that most games and gamers place a lot of emphasis on this issue during the course of the campaign, which makes Sett's whole thematic/adventure divide pretty ridiculous and shows it for what it is, a misguided attempt to ghettoize games for the sake of maintaining some kind of gaming purity. Not to mention the terms thematic and adventure are really just code for your games suck and mine don't.

So, here are the questions.

1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Now define relationships however you want. I would assume they cover a whole range of interactions. A pc questioning her loyalty to a once honorable monarch. A pc struggling to protect his secret identity from an NPC loved one. Squabbles between PCs - are just a few examples of relationships in games. How important are these relationships in your campaigns ?

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

By this I mean, do you find that these relationships hinder game play in any way. Slow down the interesting "adventure" stuff. Get in the way of "killing it and taking it's stuff" Or does it make the campaign more interesting? How do they affect your games?

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

If they were no rules for this kind of thing, would you still have them in your games?

*For the record, IME rules don't matter a whole lot when it comes to the relationships issue in my games.

So these are the three questions....

Regards,
David R

I find campaigns where the characters have relationships of some kind with NPCs to be more interesting and fulfilling. While it's fun for me to say, "Jim Bob cuts the guy's head off with his axe! Haha!" it's fulfilling for me to say, "Jim Bob would like to cut his head off... but Jim Bob's daughter is watching, so... um... I guess I better show mercy, I can't kill a guy in front of my daughter."

Character relationships do not hinder adventure stuff, or vice versa, any more than "pass the cheetos" does. You can only do one thing at a time, so if you have more of one then you have less of another, so it slows things down, but it doesn't "hinder" them.

1: Pretty Important. In many games they're the framework I build the "action" or 'adventure' around, albeit the relationships aren't there just to provide the framework but also add to the emotional impact of the game. In order for them to have emotional impact they have to have substance, and commitment from the PC to the "relationship" (whether thats friend, lover, sister, brother, cousin etc.) It's better if over time the relationship is fashioned without pressure of the "adventure" aspects--so when those do come along the players via their PC has a real desire to interact with the latter. Example: If in a superhero game some random girl is kidnapped--it won't matter much to the PC's emotional state. If I kidnap a girl who is just said to be his girlfriend (or sister, or whatever) then it still hasn't got any real valuable impact. But if the sister has popped up time again, asking favors, interacting with the PC, flirting with the other heroes secret ID, then weight is given to the relationship, and the emotional impact of bad (or good things happening is stronger)

2: Sometimes, and when they do get in the way of the action, that's the point. Action is well and good, but its not all RPG's are good for. Sometimes the relationship of the two fictional people is the thing we're interested in exploring. Sometimes its a spice to the main course of action/adventure.


3. Not Really.  Albeit systems which are easier on me in running them (requiring less conscious focus, and more freewheeling) lets me not worry about the rules and focus on the relationships better.
Example: In my current OVA game I've presented a number of NPC's going to the same "Knight School" as the PC's--some of them are relationship prospects (even ones I didn't fully expect when I presented them.)

Hey, I've mostly been running Nobilis for a good long while now...

3. Intrigue and feuding are fairly integral to the setting, especially since every single thing is sentient to some degree and may harbour feelings towards everything else, so having to deal with relationships would be unavoidable even if there weren't the mechanics for Bonds, the emotional attachments that characters have to all the things dearest to them.

2. However, because of these Bonds, in many ways relationships are in the heart of the action. While trying to protect everything that you care about, you'll no doubt also pry into the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of your enemies so that you can turn those against them. Knowledge about their personal lives can be a weapon that's literally more effective than a tactical nuke, and attempting to gain that knowledge is an adventure in itself.

1. So yes, relationships are important in the game, IC and OOC. And of course, there's more to their mechanical significance than simply the Bonds: for example, Nobles can only possess people that they have truly loved or hated.

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

Very important.

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

I find that the "action" sometimes gets in the way of the relationship play.

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

Normally, the rules play very little role in the relationship content.

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

Of primary importance

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

No.  It only makes the action more intense and more interesting.

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

Nope.  Players (including the GM) play the most important part of determining the relationship content in my games.  Rules are available to aid in creation of ideas for and developing those relationships, but behavior is not regulated by rules, it is regulated by play and how the characters interact with one another.

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

It depends on the game being played (not the system being used). That is, it depends on my players and what they're intrested in. They can either form the entire basis of a given campaign or simply serve as window dressing (per the tried and true "backstory" of a character).

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

They play as little or much of a role as my players want. So, no.

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

This is purely a matter of system. If relationships are represented by specific mechanics in the game we (i.e., my group) is playing, we use them.

1: Relationships are vital - not important, vital! - in my games. All of my games have spaces on the character sheet back page for important relationships. People live in a matrix of relations, and if you take the character out of that matrix, the character becomes inhuman.

2: No. IMO, they enhance the action. A person who has nothing to die for has nothing to live for. The relationships give meaning to the character's life,

3: I prefer no overt rules for relationships. To me, rules are clumsy and crude tools to handle something as nuanced and complex as relationships. To me that is like using a hammer to shape glass.

-clash

I find campaigns where the characters have relationships of some kind with NPCs to be fun and fulfilling. While it's fun for me to say, "Pajor cuts the guy's head off with his axe! Haha!" it's fulfilling for me to say, "Pajor would like to cut his head off... but Pajor's daughter is watching, so... um... I guess Pajor will hand the axe to her and let her get her first kill."

:D

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

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

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

1. They are the driving force behind much of the game.

2.  No.  Rather they are the catalyst for much of the action.

3.  Not really.  Although perceptions of characters and NPCs can be shaped by how they perform within the framework of the rules, and there are the occasional rare random reaction rolls which turn into something more permanent, for the greatest part relationships between various characters is determined by role-playing not mechanics.

QuoteHow important are relationships in your games ?

Pretty important to set the tone of the setting.  Relationships are how we empathize with the characters without having to "act out" emotional encounters at the table.  

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

No but they can be springboards, resources for, or a way to illustrate the importance of the action.  I've cleared dungeons, fought dragons, taken down evil sorcerers but there's still some asshole in the local bar that wants to fight?    

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

Somewhat, maybe.  Games like BW have a player initiated relationship mechanic, so I could see how that could increase relationship content because it's a resource the players use.  Otherwise, it's the standard GM/player built relationship content.

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

Truth be told, I just like having shit blow up.  I'm currently GMing the most "mature" (as in least dungeonlike) game I've ever done.  The PCs are the ones setting up all the relationships and such.  I'd be just as happy cuing up the firefight theme from ALIENS and having them take on gangs of chakram-throwing goons.  :D

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

I dunno yet.  Get back to me in a month or so.  (Incidentally, I'm kicking around an idea for a totally Swinish game in which the PCs' relationships directly correlate to their performance in combat.)

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

Sometimes.  If a relationship begins as part of a conflict, then die rolls played a large part.  I've played a game of Exalted in which social combat was the main source of "action".  (In my aforementioned game idea rules would be central to the whole thing.)

Settembrini has been reluctant to discuss his adventure game thing in any depth for a while now. Until he lays the groundwork for an actual discussion, or points to earlier links in which he's done that in the past, I'll just call him a boardgamer, not a roleplayer.

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

True some games focus more on this issue than others, but I really believe that most games and gamers place a lot of emphasis on this issue during the course of the campaign, which makes Sett's whole thematic/adventure divide pretty ridiculous and shows it for what it is, a misguided attempt to ghettoize games for the sake of maintaining some kind of gaming purity. Not to mention the terms thematic and adventure are really just code for your games suck and mine don't.

Well, they are indeed code for that. So are the terms "sim", "narrativism", "brain-damage" and "story-game". And about a million others.  

I don't mind you pointing that out or phrasing it like that, either. But until you are able to show some even-handedness, I have to doubt your honesty in this post.

If we can all agree that that trend sucks and that the people primarily behind it are reprehensible and should be shunned, than my work is mostly done. But the real point is, you can't hate us without hating the forgies for doing the exact same thing.

Quote from: david rSo, here are the questions.

1. How important are relationships in your games?

Now define relationships however you want. ...

Actually, stop right there. If we're talking about the divide between adventure and thematic as defined by Settembrini, you can't "define them however you want". They can only be defined in ways that support theme. This is a rhetorical misdirection. If I said "how important is story to your game?" and then followed that up with a parenthetical (define story however you want), I'd get about a million assertions of story being this terribly significant thing, but then the trick at the end, is when suddenly it comes down from on high that a story is "only those things which contain a "premise" as defined by Lagos Egris, and a moral lesson."

And at that exact thing actually happened in 2004 or so.

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

By this I mean, do you find that these relationships hinder game play in any way. Slow down the interesting "adventure" stuff. Get in the way of "killing it and taking it's stuff" Or does it make the campaign more interesting? How do they affect your games?

Someone up above said you can only really do one thing at a time. Given that the definition has been left completely up to the responder, I don't see how any answer to this question can give you any new information.

Quote from: david r3. Do rules* play an important part in determining the relationship content in your games?

If they were no rules for this kind of thing, would you still have them in your games? ...

See, now THIS, is where the real question is. This is the only one that actually applies to Settembrini's assertion, and it only does so in sort of a glancing half-aimed way. Because if we are still trying to prove or deny the idea of a "adventure/thematic" dichotomy, those rules for relationships are ironclad. In order for the dichotomy to be true.. the thematic game must have rules for all that stuff. So here, I thought "now we're getting close to someone actually making a point!" Either David is going to see a lot of people say "hell yeah, I want relationships with rules. I need to roll dice to see if my parents respect me or whatever." Or he's going to see a lot of "fuck that. I'll roleplay that relationship stuff out and save the dice-rolling for when I have to battle giant mushrooms and whatnot"

But then here's your next sentence:

Quote from: David R*For the record, IME rules don't matter a whole lot when it comes to the relationships issue in my games.

This makes me think two things:

1) You wussed out. Either you like games like Dogs in the Vineyard because of the relationship rules, or despite them.

2) Your'e actually an Adventure gamer!

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, they are indeed code for that. So are the terms "sim", "narrativism", "brain-damage" and "story-game". And about a million others

Yeah and I don't think much of those terms either.

QuoteI don't mind you pointing that out or phrasing it like that, either. But until you are able to show some even-handedness, I have to doubt your honesty in this post.

Why don't you point out where I've been biased. I mean you seem to doubt my honesty. Does liking one forge game - DiTV - make me a dishonest participant ? Let's look at the games I've talked about.

Unknown Armies.
Cyberpunk2020
D&D
In Harms Way
Over the Edge
Hunter

All mainstream games...well most of them. I linked to Sett's original comments, which were far worse if one reads the thread. What he said about relationships and games is there for all to see. You seem to think his def of thematic valid. Great, but I for one, think it's bollocks.

QuoteActually, stop right there. If we're talking about the divide between adventure and thematic as defined by Settembrini, you can't "define them however you want". They can only be defined in ways that support theme.

Sett has not defined them. Actually Sett brought up the whole issue of relationships. I can't help it if his definition is dodgy or that it does not reflect the reality of what happens around the gaming table.

QuoteThis is a rhetorical misdirection. If I said "how important is story to your game?" and then followed that up with a parenthetical (define story however you want), I'd get about a million assertions of story being this terribly significant thing, but then the trick at the end, is when suddenly it comes down from on high that a story is "only those things which contain a "premise" as defined by Lagos Egris, and a moral lesson."

Rubbish. I asked folks to define relationships in their games simply because, different people have different ways they define it. I want folks to talk about their games. And if you look closely, most people don't really have a problem with defining what "relationship" means. We know it when we see it in our games.

QuoteSomeone up above said you can only really do one thing at a time. Given that the definition has been left completely up to the responder, I don't see how any answer to this question can give you any new information.

Yeah one person. Another person said it was vital to his game. Most if not all have said that it's important. What info can I get ? That gamers not necessarily adventure gamers view relationships as important in their games.

QuoteSee, now THIS, is where the real question is. This is the only one that actually applies to Settembrini's assertion, and it only does so in sort of a glancing half-aimed way. Because if we are still trying to prove or deny the idea of a "adventure/thematic" dichotomy, those rules for relationships are ironclad. In order for the dichotomy to be true.. the thematic game must have rules for all that stuff. So here, I thought "now we're getting close to someone actually making a point!" Either David is going to see a lot of people say "hell yeah, I want relationships with rules. I need to roll dice to see if my parents respect me or whatever." Or he's going to see a lot of "fuck that. I'll roleplay that relationship stuff out and save the dice-rolling for when I have to battle giant mushrooms and whatnot"

No this is where your bias is showing. Look through some of the old Nutkinland threads where Maddman, blakkie and I clashed over this very issue. Most gamers don't need rules for relationships in their games. But what are thematic games? Sett does not seem to have a clue. The one thing I see bandied about is, that these games have rules for relationships...so a thematic game is a game where there are rules for relationships...so what about gamers who carry out relationships in their games without rules...are they engaging in thematic play?

QuoteThis makes me think two things:

1) You wussed out. Either you like games like Dogs in the Vineyard because of the relationship rules, or despite them.

2) Your'e actually an Adventure gamer!

Here's a few more thoughts you might want to chew on.

1) That I don't need rules for this kind of play, but just like DiTV because it's an interesting game.

2) Trying out new games is something we do as a group and we get a lot of fun out of them...most times.

3) I'm not so set in my playstyle that other types of play is anathema to me.

Pick one.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R1) That I don't need rules for this kind of play, but just like DiTV because it's an interesting game.

'Need' is a loaded word. Frankly I don't think you 'need' any rules at all for anything (EDIT: including martial combat). However there are clear positives for having rules, besides the fact you end up creating them in the end anyway.

You know this. You act on this. Why else would you even consider adopting DitV rules for a WH setting game? Rules are about what we say is important. Do we make/use/propagate rules about something because we think it isn't important? Of course not. Rules (and maybe the word instructions would be better choice) are just another form of communication and people [when being effective] communicate about the things that are important.

Quote from: blakkieYou know this. You act on this. Why else would you even consider adopting DitV rules for a WH setting game?

Because I think the rules would be cool for this setting. And I don't need them, I want them because I think they would be...you know cool. (My players have since said no :deflated: )

Regards,
David R

QuoteSett has not defined them. Actually Sett brought up the whole issue of relationships. I can't help it if his definition is dodgy or that it does not reflect the reality of what happens around the gaming table.

Well, here's what I think the definition is:

Thematic games are pretty much games about exploring themes. You can't play Dogs in the Vineyard as a game about a party discovering the treasure of the Sierra Madre. You CAN make it about all of the judgemental things a group of people might do or say to each other as they discover the treasure of the Sierra Madre.  See also, this discussion (http://lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=159). Notice how he starts out trying to redefine the word "fun" as thematic. And finally settles on thematic by post #4.

I'm glad you think it's bullshit. It is. Just remember who it really came from.

An Adventure game is about people who go places and so stuff. That could be about discovering the treasure of the Sierra Madre. Interestingly, the situation is not binary- it's not either or. You can have a D&D adventure where characters have relationships, and you can switch gears. You can switch during a session, or have one session full of bear-wrestling, and then one session where you go all sturm and drang.

QuoteRubbish. I asked folks to define relationships in their games simply because, different people have different ways they define it. I want folks to talk about their games.

No, you wanted to disprove Settembrini. The goals are related, but you can't  disprove him by changing the definition to something meaningless, gather up support, and then turn around and say your'e proving your point.  

QuoteYeah one person. Another person said it was vital to his game. Most if not all have said that it's important. What info can I get ? That gamers not necessarily adventure gamers view relationships as important in their games.

This was a misunderstanding, probably my fault for phrasing it like that. I agree that you can't do both at the same. But my point is all the answers here are useless, since you left the defition up to the respondent.

QuoteNo this is where your bias is showing. Look through some of the old Nutkinland threads where Maddman, blakkie and I clashed over this very issue. Most gamers don't need rules for relationships in their games.

I am completely biased, so you can take that as a given. I also agree that most gamers don't need any rules for relationships.

QuoteBut what are thematic games? Sett does not seem to have a clue. The one thing I see bandied about is, that these games have rules for relationships...

This part is where you go wrong. Thats not "the one thing", however it's an important signifier. You can look at my defintion above (restated in the other thread) for what I assert that thematic means in this context.  

Quoteso a thematic game is a game where there are rules for relationships...

No. You missed.

Quoteso what about gamers who carry out relationships in their games without rules...are they engaging in thematic play?

The answer is "sure", but not in the binary way that thematic games support. Because as I said, you can have thematic non-enforced 'play' in any game.

But the distinction is not about 'play', it's about 'games' as entities.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, here's what I think the definition is:

Now you are giving my your definiton?

QuoteThematic games are pretty much games about exploring themes. You can't play Dogs in the Vineyard as a game about a party discovering the treasure of the Sierra Madre. You CAN make it about all of the judgemental things a group of people might do or say to each other as they discover the treasure of the Sierra Madre.  See also, this discussion (http://lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=159). Notice how he starts out trying to redefine the word "fun" as thematic. And finally settles on thematic by post #4.

We have had this discussion before. I think we both know where each other is coming from.

QuoteI'm glad you think it's bullshit. It is. Just remember who it really came from.

All of it is bullshit. That's why I don't like folks introducing jargon.

QuoteAn Adventure game is about people who go places and so stuff. That could be about discovering the treasure of the Sierra Madre. Interestingly, the situation is not binary- it's not either or. You can have a D&D adventure where characters have relationships, and you can switch gears. You can switch during a session, or have one session full of bear-wrestling, and then one session where you go all sturm and drang.

This sounds familiar. We have talked about this before. Game focus is one thing, lumping games into adventure/thematic another. I don't think the definition is accurate.

QuoteNo, you wanted to disprove Settembrini. The goals are related, but you can't  disprove him by changing the definition to something meaningless, gather up support, and then turn around and say your'e proving your point.

No. I wanted to show that gamers regardless of the type of games they played valued the role of relationships in their games. I was pretty upfront about it.

QuoteThis was a misunderstanding, probably my fault for phrasing it like that. I agree that you can't do both at the same. But my point is all the answers here are useless, since you left the defition up to the respondent.

It is because I left the def up to the respondents that it is usefull. The play not the game defines reality around the gaming table.

QuoteBut the distinction is not about 'play', it's about 'games' as entities.

And the distinction is not accurate IMO as far as games are concerned. Focus may be a bold choice to use. Thematic/adventure is not.

Regards,
David R

I decided to make this its own post. I'll give you some thoughts of my own.

QuoteHere's a few more thoughts you might want to chew on.

1) That I don't need rules for this kind of play, but just like DiTV because it's an interesting game.

Strangely enough, I don't actually care what anyone else likes or dislikes. I gather that many if not most of the people here hate my favoritest thing in the world, D&D3.5. I don't actually care that much.

I do care about things like intellectual honesty and the tyranny of mob rule. So after a few sustained years of people saying broadly untrue and sometimes downright vicious things about my hobby or trying to ghettoize me, I have developed this persona as a way to strike back at the mob. (This is why I think TonyLb got it exactly wrong when he stated that theRpgSite is about Mob Justice-- thats exactly wrong. It's a place where even the mob is powerless.)

I know. It's kind of brutal the way I-- or we-- all of us--  act sometimes. I'm not a very likeable person here. :hehe:  But I think some of us here have had a great effect on a few people, and I'm willing to take that hit. We've made some people unhappy, which I acknowledge. We've also made some people modify their behaviors. You'll notice that there's a lot less "flamewar fuel" out there in the swine-o-sphere. They keep it hidden or to themselves. Thats a good thing. Ron Edwards is largely discredited. Chris Chinn is just a funny memory at this point. The rest of the gang are sort of devolving into a left-wing parody of self-loathing. Turns out it was all really about politics and not gaming after all!

So that's great. In a lot of ways, I think we won the culture war that so many people were so keen to deny ever took place.

Quote2) Trying out new games is something we do as a group and we get a lot of fun out of them...most times.

Thats great for you. Personally, I don't care what anyone else plays or doesn't play. I care how they act, what they say.
 

Quote3) I'm not so set in my playstyle that other types of play is anathema to me.

Well, me neither, actually. But it isn't about playstyles, really. I personally despise the smug supremacism of the forgies and their associations with certain playstyles annoys me...

...I can never go back.

Quote from: blakkieRules are about what we say is important. Do we make/use/propagate rules about something because we think it isn't important? Of course not. Rules (and maybe the word instructions would be better choice) are just another form of communication and people [when being effective] communicate about the things that are important.

Actually, I think relationships are so important that I wouldn't dare make rules regarding them. The other things in roleplaying are easily codified, but relationships are too nuanced to be bruted about by rules. People know how to deal with relationships, so that's the best course.

But then that's just my feelings.

-clash

Quote from: Abyssal MawI decided to make this its own post. I'll give you some thoughts of my own.

You know, if you wanted to talk about this stuff, why don't you go start a thread about it.

I don't know what to make of this little ...whatever.

Look you seem to really care about a war which most gamers don't know exist. I gather the battlefields were tBP and some other sites, that most gamers didn't even know existed or cared about. You seem to think you have won this so-called war even though tBP still seems to be a hotbed of Swine and Villainy.

You seem to be affected by the thoughts and games a few folks play even though most gamers have not heard of either. Whatever. Now could you please answer the questions I put forward...if you are at all interested.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RBecause I think the rules would be cool for this setting. And I don't need them, I want them because I think they would be...you know cool.

Exactly. Because they embody the type of game you'd like to be involved in. EDIT: From an action and character interaction POV.

Quote from: David R(My players have since said no :deflated: )

Sorry to hear that. *shrug* Not because you won't be using DitV rules. But because you are playing with people that don't want one of types of game you'd really like to play. But on the very positive upside those explicit rules aided in you and the players communicating and averting a potential campaign that could easily have been a real letdown.  Hopefully you'll have another shot at it in the future, people's interests do change over time.

You might review this thread, were my definition, that seems to be of concern to some people, is in.

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4624 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4624)

I think relationships are what make RPGs what they are.

There are two ways a gam can go with it:

#1- Give the players a framework. A settings with cultures,events, and overall mood that makes a player want to explore. However, all of the relationship stuff up to the players to come up with.

#2- Influence relationships through mechanics as done by many indie games.

nothing wrong with either way, imo.

Quote from: blakkieExactly. Because they embody the type of game you'd like to be involved in. EDIT: From an action and character interaction POV.

Yeah which is why I like to try different systems. I mean the 40KDogs is not abandoned but rather we are looking for a system which we all like. Strangely a lot of stuff from DiTV is still in there, but we're looking for another system.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySettembrini has been reluctant to discuss his adventure game thing in any depth for a while now. Until he lays the groundwork for an actual discussion, or points to earlier links in which he's done that in the past, I'll just call him a boardgamer, not a roleplayer.

Now, now let's not go down the "You aren't playing an RPG" path. :whistleblower: ;)

What it boils down to is basically whatever Settembrini has decided he wants in a game gets tossed into "Adventure" and everything else gets sorted into a big bin called "Thematic". Everything gets sorted into one of the two categories even if he doesn't actually understand the item/rule/game/whatever in question. So trying to figure out things by the names or even some sort of objective rationale is an exersize in futility....or maybe an excersize in uncovering Settembrini's personal tastes because the most accurate names for the two categories are "What Settembrini has decided he likes" and "Other".

I get the distinct impression that interpersonal affairs aren't Settembrini's bag in any sense. They get in the way, they just aren't interesting. So in RPGs it is a lock tossing them into the Other Bin because there they are getting in the way.

Quote from: David RYou know, if you wanted to talk about this stuff, why don't you go start a thread about it.

I don't know what to make of this little ...whatever.

Look you seem to really care about a war which most gamers don't know exist. I gather the battlefields were tBP and some other sites, that most gamers didn't even know existed or cared about. You seem to think you have won this so-called war even though tBP still seems to be a hotbed of Swine and Villainy.

In 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.

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

QuoteNow could you please answer the questions I put forward...if you are at all interested.

Regards,
David R

Hah! 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.

But then, this was not a thematic game about exploring relationships or tackling various political issues through our exploration of relationships or any of that other crap.

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

What it boils down to is...

Wrong.

The "big bin" is the "adventure" bin. Nearly everything ends up in there. And the very small bin is the one labelled "other". Its demonstrably much easier to qualify as an adventure game than a thematic game by anyones definition.

Speaking hypothetically, of course.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWrong.

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

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. :p

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. (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=88833&postcount=27) 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. :)

QuoteAnd I'm wondering how a strategic-level game is an RPG.

There is differences:

Strategic Adventure Gaming
or
Playing Strategically Important People.

You can have strategic gaming, and never ever rule anyone else than yourself. Wilderlands is a classic example of a sandbox/strategic Adventure background.

The difference between playing a sector duke and just playing (I say just, because FFW can be part of being a sector Duke) is the same difference as between taking part in a military exercise at brigade level and playing Panzer General on your PC.

Or the difference between playing PBEM empire building games and playing ASL Online.

Really, totally different beasts.

Nice Over-Analysis there, but did any of you answer David R.'s 3 questions?


- E.W.C.

Quote from: blakkieCall 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?

That's my basic assumption.  

Quote from: blakkieWe 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. :(

Probably. We're far more similar in tastes than might be suspected on first glance. :D

Quote from: blakkieWhat 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?

I'd probably burn it. I'd be reall iffy about the essay part in the first place. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI'd probably burn it. I'd be reall iffy about the essay part in the first place. :D

You and David both. :p

How about you just type it up and then delete it. But first I'll send you a malware keywatch program have a sexy legal-teen friend of mine send you an email with the attachment Pics_From_My_WILD_MMF_Weekend_In_Mexico.JPEG.EXE that you can open and peruse for your own personal enjoyment. Then after you've openned it up fire up your wordprocessor type out the document, save the file, and then delete it without even bothering to print it out. It'll save you a match or two. :D

Quote from: blakkieYou and David both. :p

How about you just type it up and then delete it. But first I'll send you a malware keywatch program have a sexy legal-teen friend of mine send you an email with the attachment Pics_From_My_WILD_MMF_Weekend_In_Mexico.JPEG.EXE that you can open and peruse for your own personal enjoyment. Then after you've openned it up fire up your wordprocessor type out the document, save the file, and then delete it without even bothering to print it out. It'll save you a match or two. :D

Stop writing this stuff while I'm drinking coffee! Now I have to get a sponge!

:D

-clash

I said restate, but you could only give me a link? I guess I'll have to quote the link then.

What blakkie claims he is arguing against is this:

Quote from: blakkie"What it boils down to is basically whatever Settembrini has decided he wants in a game gets tossed into "Adventure" and everything else gets sorted into a (big) bin called "Thematic". Everything gets sorted into one of the two categories even if he doesn't actually understand the item/rule/game/whatever in question. So trying to figure out things by the names or even some sort of objective rationale is an exersize in futility...."

If you are arguing that this is what he actually thinks, I would say you have misunderstood the issue, possibly deliberately.

You don't have to accept the defintions of the difference between thematic and adventure games to argue against them. I certainly don't demand that you accept them.

I shall restate for the third time.

Adventure games are a larger category of roleplaying- these are games in which characters go places and do stuff. Often there is a party. If there is a party then there are certainly relationships between players and other party members. Often there are NPCs. If there are NPCs, then there are certainly relationships between pcs and NPCs. But the important thing is: there are adventures and thats the focus. You could also have themes going on from time to time .. but they aren't necessary.

Thematic games are games which are not about adventure, but rather concern themselves with tackling thematic issues. The old forgie concept of a "premise" (which in their terms means a question such as 'what are you willing to risk for X' or something like that. So there might be an adventure framework going on, but the entire focus is not on guys going places and doing stuff, but rather on exploring the thematic issues that have been hard-coded into the rules. There is a whole list full of gimmicks that some people came up with to support this idea: everything from 'conflict resolution' to 'relationship maps'. All of this stuff is there to support theme.

Now- according to this definition you can take any old game and play it thematically. D&D, The Fantasy Trip, Gurps, Amber, whatever. And relationships is a moot point anyway. As has been proven by every single respondent on this thread.

I suppose maybe you could play a thematic game as an adventure game. I kinda doubt it, but maybe.

Quote from: KoltarNice Over-Analysis there, but did any of you answer David R.'s 3 questions?


- E.W.C.

The "3 questions" are an obfuscation, and don't actually prove what people apparently thought was being proved.

They were valid questions!! Oh for pity's sake!!

 YEah David may have carried over an argument with Sett from another thread/forum - so what??

 Those 3 questions were still interesting by themselves.


- E.W.C.

See even if you had rules for this kind of thing--relationships don't always work. Players can't be forced to care. If a rule shows up and tries to force that connection, most players won't feel the same about the relationship as one that simply builds naturally from events in play.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe "3 questions" are an obfuscation, and don't actually prove what people apparently thought was being proved.

What I think was proved in this thread was that the vast majority of people who answered this thread thought character relationships in an RPG game were important. Nothing further can be inferred from this, as respondents were a self selected minority of a self-selected minority of a self-selected minority. It has no statistical validity as a poll indicating any wider validity.

That said, I found the questions interesting enough for me to answer on their own merit, and found the answers of others as interesting as the questions.

-clash

Quote from: SettembriniThere is differences:

Strategic Adventure Gaming
or
Playing Strategically Important People.

You can have strategic gaming, and never ever rule anyone else than yourself. Wilderlands is a classic example of a sandbox/strategic Adventure background.

The difference between playing a sector duke and just playing (I say just, because FFW can be part of being a sector Duke) is the same difference as between taking part in a military exercise at brigade level and playing Panzer General on your PC.

Or the difference between playing PBEM empire building games and playing ASL Online.

Really, totally different beasts.

Isn't a sector duke PC just an in-game wargamer persona? What's the RPG element in a game like that? Diplomacy rules published as an appendix to FFW?

How does that mesh with the whole Adventure (rather than thematic) game idea? Adventuring is about drifting from one episode to the next, Conan-style. But Fred the Great is not a drifter. Fred the Great is what Conan becoems when he retires from adventuring.

On that note, I don't see how a Wilderlands hexcrawl is remotely "strategic"; where strategic = resource management at a higher organizational level than tactical. Again, the goals of a hexcrawl aren't necessarily starting small and eventually ruling the mapboard, if that's what you imply.

So, how is playing one guy "strategic," how is playing strategically "adventurous," and where does the role-playing come in?

Quote from: KoltarThey were valid questions!! Oh for pity's sake!!

 YEah David may have carried over an argument with Sett from another thread/forum - so what??

 Those 3 questions were still interesting by themselves.


- E.W.C.

Agreed. I answered the three questions without looking at the thread/posts that prompted David to ask them. In and of themselves, the questions are both interesting and merit discussion.

[On other topics, note that adventure can be a theme -- the term "thematic" doesn't mean "non-adventurous"]

Quote from: blakkieRules are about what we say is important.

This is flatly wrong for many, many people.  This concept is why so many of the story gamer crowd don't understand how other people actually play.  They make an assumption like this and extrapolate from it, without asking people if it's right.

It's not right, what is important in the game and what the game has rules for are not necessarily at all related, sometimes they are inversely related.

Quote from: blakkieDo we make/use/propagate rules about something because we think it isn't important?

Often yes, because those things are not important we don't want to spend time playing through them with rp, so we use rules.  Things we think are important we want to rp through, so we don't have rules for them.

Seriously, your tastes may not be mine, you just can't make sweeping assumptions like that with any accuracy.

Quote from: BalbinusThis is flatly wrong for many, many people.  This concept is why so many of the story gamer crowd don't understand how other people actually play.  They make an assumption like this and extrapolate from it, without asking people if it's right.

It's not right, what is important in the game and what the game has rules for are not necessarily at all related, sometimes they are inversely related.

Often yes, because those things are not important we don't want to spend time playing through them with rp, so we use rules.  Things we think are important we want to rp through, so we don't have rules for them.

Seriously, your tastes may not be mine, you just can't make sweeping assumptions like that with any accuracy.

Yes!

-clash

Quote from: blakkieWhat 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?

It would lose its flexibility and for me at least would stop being fun, because I actively don't want rules to cover that stuff in most cases.

You're proselytising, not only that but you're using non-standard meanings of words like rules for rhetorical effect and intentionally misunderstanding people.

Why?  All it does is fuck up these kinds of conversations.  You know what the word rules means, and in ordinary English it does not mean the sum total of all formal and informal patters of human communication.  Redefining words doesn't make you right, it just makes you impossible to meaningfully talk to.

I mean, the question I quoted, you know the fucking answer Blakkie, you're just playing rhetorical games to win points in some debating exercise.  Frankly, I think you can do better than that.

Quote from: flyingmiceYes!

-clash

For example, one of my players a while back wanted to play Tunnels & Trolls, because it didn't have many rules to get in the way of the roleplaying.

On Blakkie's analysis that is a nonsensical statement, but the flaw is that it's a statement large swathes of gamers would understand quite easily.

But I think Blakkie puts this on for rhetorical effect in large part, he understands perfectly well, he's simply choosing not to.

Quote from: jdrakeh[On other topics, note that adventure can be a theme -- the term "thematic" doesn't mean "non-adventurous"]

So true.

If I may get "meta" for a moment here...

I think there's a tendency in these discussions to read stuff into what other people say based on who they are or certain hot-button buzzwords that they use. At least that's a phenomenon I see in a lot of Forge-centric discussion (leading to both wrong-headed support and wrong-headed rejection of the theory), and I can't help worrying that it's what's going on with Settembrini's concept. Because to me, Abyssal Maw's gloss of Sett makes perfect sense, but I don't really know if Sett has said what AM attributes to him.

For what it's worth, my gloss of AM's gloss is that "adventure games" are those where the players interact with the game entirely, or nearly entirely, through their in-game personas, using mechanics that represent the way the persona is imagined to interact with the game world.

Another way of putting it, I think, is to say that adventure games don't contain mechanical rules which operate directly on the metatextual level--the level of theme, interpretation, and abstraction. Whatever is there in the game that does touch on that level isn't intended to be read as "rules", nor is it received by the participants as such.

By the by, I'm borrowing a bit from fusangite in this ENworld thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=68315&page=1&pp=30). But you can also look at what Vincent wrote about Technical Agenda (http://www.lumpley.com/comment.php?entry=36) in his blog. His first group is pretty clear, I think:

QuoteProceduralist
The rules explicitly organize the interactions of the people, with little reference to the fictional stuff. Examples: Primetime Adventures, Universalis, The Nighttime Animals Save the World.

Technical Simulationist
The rules work on the pretense that they directly represent the fictional stuff. They leave organization of the players' interaction strictly unspoken. (Of course they do organize interaction, but indirectly and often without consideration. I consider this pretense socially destructive.) Examples: GURPS, Vampire: the Masquerade, Ars Magica.

Effectivist
The rules refer extensively to the fictional stuff but don't pretend to represent it directly. They organize the players' interactions explicitly, but based on the fictional stuff. Examples: Dogs in the Vineyard, Over the Edge, The Mountain Witch.

IMO the middle category is the same as "adventure game", Vincent's reaction to it is typical of the way "adventure games" are misunderstood, while the "effectivist" category is what's typically offered as a superior tool for accomplishing what, it is supposed, the unwashed masses really want.

Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo true.

One of the main reasons that I don't participate in game forums as much as I once did is that I've seen no other place where the English language is so frequently raped -- as if, somehow, capitalizing the "a" in "adventure" makes all currently recognized definitions of the word incorrect and elevates Whatever Rant Poster X is Currently On About to the status of a new universal standard for language :rolleyes:

[Back on Topic]

David's three questions were of interest to me because I (often) hear the completely unsupported strawman argument that elevating relationships (in-game) to the status of central focus for play somehow invalidates all other aspects of the game. Naturally, games such as SOAP prove that this argument has absolutely no merit. Still, it persists. By answering the questions the way that I did, I hoped only to illustrate that any element of a game is only as intrusive as the players let it be.

Quote from: Elliot WilenFor what it's worth, my gloss of AM's gloss is that "adventure games" are those where the players interact with the game entirely, or nearly entirely, through their in-game personas, using mechanics that represent the way the persona is imagined to interact with the game world.

I should have said, that the players' mechanical interaction with the game is through their in-game personas. I'll add that perceiving a distinction between mechanical & nonmechanical is probably also a criterion, as well as the nature of the nonmechanical, social interaction with the game, in terms of roles & responsibilities.

Quote from: Elliot WilenI think there's a tendency in these discussions to read stuff into what other people say based on who they are or certain hot-button buzzwords that they use. At least that's a phenomenon I see in a lot of Forge-centric discussion (leading to both wrong-headed support and wrong-headed rejection of the theory), and I can't help worrying that it's what's going on with Settembrini's concept. Because to me, Abyssal Maw's gloss of Sett makes perfect sense, but I don't really know if Sett has said what AM attributes to him.

Whether AM's take on adventure gaming makes sense depends on the individual - to me it makes sense in that I understand where he's coming from but it really does not accurately describe what I have seen happen around the gaming table and to a lesser extent some of the stuff I've read - but I can say for sure it's not what Sett has been saying.

I think there is a tendency by supporters of problematic theory/jargon to make the theory/jargon more palatable or gloss over some of the more extreme rhetoric and of course the old "here's what he/she said...this is what he/she meant" type posts.

QuoteOriginally posted by jdrakeh
David's three questions were of interest to me because I (often) hear the completely unsupported strawman argument that elevating relationships (in-game) to the status of central focus for play somehow invalidates all other aspects of the game. Naturally, games such as SOAP prove that this argument has absolutely no merit. Still, it persists. By answering the questions the way that I did, I hoped only to illustrate that any element of a game is only as intrusive as the players let it be.

(Bolding mine) This is exactly what Sett has claimed/hinted at in many of his posts including the thread I linked to.

And Elliot, how about answering the questions.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R(Bolding mine) This is exactly what Sett has claimed/hinted at in many of his posts including the thread I linked to.

I've seen many of these assertions elsewhere, but never a single shred of evidence to support them. A group of people deciding to focus on relationships in the game that they're currently playing does not make all other aspects of the rule set cease to exist, nor does it prevent said focus from shifting to those other aspects in the future (should the players decide to do so) :rolleyes:

[Edit: Come to think of it, the crux of these claims is essentially that the game has shifted away from the playstyle that the complaintant enjoys more. In short, it's not a rule issue, but simply an issue of one person's interests diverging from what the rest of a group wants and, subsequently, that one person complaining loudly that the group won't do things his/her preferred way and is therefore wrong. It's all value judgement in the absence of emperical evidence and, thus, it's a valid statement of opinion but not a thing that can be proven conclusively and by no means a universal truth, as Settembrini seems to be suggesting.]

Quote from: BalbinusFor example, one of my players a while back wanted to play Tunnels & Trolls, because it didn't have many rules to get in the way of the roleplaying.

On Blakkie's analysis that is a nonsensical statement, but the flaw is that it's a statement large swathes of gamers would understand quite easily.

But I think Blakkie puts this on for rhetorical effect in large part, he understands perfectly well, he's simply choosing not to.

I understand that attitude perfectly and intuitively. Blakkie's points I have to work at, not being the sharpest tool in the shed. I think I understand him better now, though, and that helps a lot. It's been worth the effort.

-clash

Quote from: David RThis is exactly what Sett has claimed/hinted at in many of his posts including the thread I linked to.

"Because Adventure is something new and exciting. Whereas relationship problems are the same old same old." (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88508#post88508)

Fair enough, David. Here you go.

1. How important are relationships in your games ?

They're pretty important. To me "relationships" however means how the character is situated or defined in the game world. It really is pretty nebulous because I get a kick out of playing some pretty dungeon-crawly games with minimal characterization, that are still recognizably RPGs or RPG-like. E.g. first-person shooters like Marathon would have far less attraction without the atmospheric dress and narrative continuity.

Put another way, if you give me a completely rudimentary character with no predefined relationships, I'll enjoy exploring "the world" and forming relationships with its inhabitants, as opposed to just seeing them as tools in my pursuit of leveling-up or kicking ass. I enjoy the latter, but without a setting that offers relationships & narrative continuity, I think I'd prefer a board game--basically because board games typically provide more interesting mechanical interactions.

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

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. My relationships are meaningful and significant. Other players' relationships (and especially NPC-NPC relationships) are angsty wankery.

Seriously, I have limited tolerance for playing that stuff out. I'd rather have it in terms of "Oh no, the duke is in prison! He was always cool to us, let's save him!", or "Crap, Nasferdin again! Always complicating things for us".

PC-PC stuff is generally good unless forced. Though frankly it takes a lot of effort to develop distinct PC-PC relations, as opposed to just messing with each other through each others' PCs.

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

Not in the games I've enjoyed most; conversely, the RP games that I've played which do use rules for exploring relationships have been pretty hard to work with.

1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Very, relationships drive the action, the PCs do x to help y, do a to thwart b, the PCs are allies of c, enemies of d, PC e has a budding relationship with npc f and so on.

Relationships are the glue that binds the adventure together by and large, not always, but often.

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

No, they drive the action.  The PCs are friends of the Baron, who is threatened by forces unknown, so for friendship they investigate.  The PCs cut a deal with Carlos Fuentes, but poison his friend Sebastien, because they fear them both but think they can take Sebastien.  The two key motives for action are relationships and advancement (in the in world sense, the acquisition of wealth and power).

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

No, none at all, we don't use rules for relationships and I have no especial interest in doing so.

Feel free to ask questions.

Quote from: blakkieWhat 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?

What 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?  How long would your essay be?  How many rules would they contain?  And 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?

Quote from: GrimGent"Because Adventure is something new and exciting. Whereas relationship problems are the same old same old." (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88508#post88508)

Thank you. So, that clarifies a lot -- I gather that "Adventure" is apparentlly a new term for "What I personally like" and "Thematic" is a new term for "Everything I personally dislike". I come to this conclusion because, using the actual English definition of both words in question, elements of what Settembrini defines as "Adventure" are not precluded from being themes (and, hence, thematic) and vice-versa. This being the case, I'm not certain that there is much to discuss here.

I 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.

Besides, that's its own topic, David has asked quite a good question here and I appreciate it's related, but we don't need to agree with or even understand Set's division to answer David's questions.

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

They are very important in most games; they provide the meaning and context for the action. At the start of the game, we usually have defined

* Relationships between PC's -- often way beyond "you all meet in a bar"
* Relationships between PC's and NPC's -- in many cases game rules allow for the creation of DNPC's, patrons, contacts, etc. In other cases, a player will just say, "My Editor hates me and always sends me on stories that'll get me killed" with no formal rules.
* Relationships between NPC's that serve to explain the starting situation of the game
* Relationships between the characters and the world (status, jobs, history, etc.) -- often specified with game-system stuff where appropriate

Sometimes we play games where they're not so important. The last time I ran D&D (a couple of years ago) the PC's were all completely independent and all met in a bar. But once we started the game relationships arose and eventually drove the action, so even then they became important...

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

I think I kind of see how this could be the case -- if a player defines a relationship that would...

* Separate him from the rest of the PC's for extended times
* Have a dramatic effect on the game in a way that was not interesting or disruptive ("Hunted by Viper" is an example: when Viper shows up, everyone's in a big fight, usually. If that happens *every* scenario, people might start complaining.
* Take a *lot* of attention (this is usually less about the relationship itself and more about how it manifests -- but the nature or number of relationships can impact this)

... I can see there being a problem. In most cases we just downplay (or in extreme cases) ignore the relationship, or talk about the problem before the game starts. I can't, off the top of my head, think about an issue like this in the past several years.

If the question was more about "does human interaction get in the way of killing monsters" then the answer is a kind amused smile. Of course it does.

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

If they were no rules for this kind of thing, would you still have them in your games? [/QUOTE]

The rules can give some structure and formality to the creation of relationships but I find that relationships exist as much in games without rules for them as for games that do.

I'm *ONLY* interested in rules that help to define the existence of a relationship. I probably wouldn't play a game with significant mechanics for interpersonal communication or the like.

Cheers,
-E.

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.

To set the record straight, all my games have social skills, like Convince, Leadership,  Intimidation, and the like. These skills can be used to establish a relationship, but do nothing to maintain it, nor do they define it. I had no idea that was what we were talking about. I think I'm getting confused again, and had better back out. It's not smart to keep going when you don't know what you're actually talking about, especially if you think you know what's going on...

-clash

I don't think thats what was ever being talked about, Clash.

Geez. nearly every game with a skill system has rules for diplomacy or something similar. Even the oldest RPG of all has a charisma stat and a very clear exampe about a character with a high charisma might able to talk his way out of being eaten by a witch or something (Did I recall that right? basic D&D).

Quote from: flyingmiceI had no idea that was what we were talking about. I think I'm getting confused again, and had better back out. It's not smart to keep going when you don't know what you're actually talking about, especially if you think you know what's going on...


-clash

Welcome to my world. Drinks will be served shortly.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWelcome to my world. Drinks will be served shortly.

Regards,
David R

I'll have a Balmore, two fingers, neat.

:D

And thanks, AM, but people were posting about such things all of a sudden, and I didn't get the memo... :P

-clash

Quote from: David RFor 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.

:D

Your original post was quite clear in its questions, but it wasn't focused. If you begin a post with, "since Poster X is a drongo, and thinks silly things about Y, I thought I would ask people about Z," then naturally some of the people are going to blather on about Poster X and ideas Y. Only mention X and Y if you want to talk about them; if you just want to talk about Z, only mention Z.

Rules for relationships can be good.

Quote from: balzacqit's really just a game-mechanical way of listing a resource. "Ally: wife" and "Ally: soulless zombie" are functionally exactly equivalent.

In game mechanics terms, yes. I would hope they're not the same in play :p

Quote from: JimBobOzRules for relationships can be good.

Maybe. But I was..am..also interested in the role "relationships" play in peoples games.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: flyingmiceTo set the record straight, all my games have social skills, like Convince, Leadership,  Intimidation, and the like. These skills can be used to establish a relationship, but do nothing to maintain it, nor do they define it.

I think that's all you really need for mechanics dealing with realtionships.

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

(Now I'm going to define 'relationships' here as they apply to PC=NPC interaction. PC=PC is ALWAYS important in any game I've ever run or played in.)

Depends on the game system for the most part. If you have a group of people who are always on the move, then you don't get a chance to really 'tie down' a lot of NPC relationships. But the ones that you DO, mean that much more.
Though there will always be those that they maintain no matter how far they wander.

In a game where the PCs will be in the same area for a middling to long amount of time, the number rises and their import increases. (They become more useful and it' becomes more dangerous to let them turn sour)

All in all I'd say any relationship my Players deem worthy of maintaining or pursuing will be treated seriously (as will all the ones where they pissed people off)

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

Not that I've ever seen. Sometimes they are responsible for action that would otherwise have never occurred "Attack Bob the Slaughterer's castle? Not for a million GP! We'd never last two seconds in there, forget it." 'Well he kidnaped Joe from the Eazy Hearth Tavern/Coffee Shop...... and he killed Joe's dog when he did it.....' "What? He took Joe AND killed Mr. Wuggles? I loved that dog...... Son of A BITCH. MUST. PAY!!!!"

Only if you're spending too much time on relationships that session could it be a problem (once in a while it's ok, but not every session). At that point, it's time management that's a problem, not the relationship itself. Hell, I've seen shopping trips for gear that held up 'the action'. No one wants to watch other players haggle over every freaking item they buy. FFS torches are 1cp each, don't haggle on the price of a dozen...... cheap bastards.....

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

Only in as far as what flyingmice said. It's all up to the PCs from there. For the record though, I do like to establish a few 'background' npcs when players create characters. After creation, it's up to the Players to establish and maintain relationships. I don't depend on die rolls.

Quote from: David RMaybe. But I was..am..also interested in the role "relationships" play in peoples games.

I already talked about that. I said that relationships play a role in the game if the rules and GM encourage them, and/or the players are keen on them; not so much if they don't.

The role of relationships in my games is to make the action meaningful. It's one thing to lop a guy's head off with an axe, it's another thing to lop his head off, and then find out the person he was about to rape is your daughter. It makes the head-lopping more meaningful :D

Fights have tension, persuasion attempts have the players wracking their brains to figure out what they want to achieve, and so on. Relationships and personality stuff give it all depth, make it fulfilling as well as fun.

Just take everything JimBobOz is saying in this thread and think it's me.  It'll save me time and be much more clearly stated.

Quote from: GunslingerJust take everything JimBobOz is saying in this thread and think it's me.  It'll save me time and be much more clearly stated.

Plagarist! :D

Hey, Jim Bob! You haven't spoken up yet! You ought to listen to this Gunslinger character! He knows what he's talking about! :D

-clash

Quote from: blakkieCuriously 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.]

But the rules never quite get it completely right, do they?  A friend's son has Asperger's and have read quite a bit about autism and related issues.  The mother of the young man with Asperger's doesn't quite have that (she has ADD but I don't think she's been diagnosed on the Autism spectrum) but she does have to think her way social situations more deliberately than other people do.  She role-plays with us sometimes and she finds it incredibly frustrating having to deliberately think her way through social dialog with NPCs and other PCs while the rest of us at the table just "do it" fluidly and naturally.  Yes, she's told me so.

And that actually illustrates my point, I think.  I, and most of the rest of the people in the groups I role-pay with, can just role-play through the social stuff better than any rules or deliberate choices could ever do for me.  I don't need rules for that and when I have tried to use them, they just feel like they are getting in the way.

That goes back to something I've been saying for a while.  Players need rules for things they don't know how to do or can't do as well without the rules.  If they players already know how to do something well, then the rules are either (A) going to tell them what they already know or (B) disagree with what they already know which makes the rules either useless or worse than useless.

By the way, I'm happy to hear that you are doing that for son and happy to hear he's doing well enough that you can do that for him.  It sounds like a great things to do.  Good luck with it but be careful about the assumptions you embed in your rules.

Quote from: blakkieAs long as and as detailed as I decided to make it? As always "scope" be your friend! :).

In order for me to want to use rules, they need to improve on what I already do.  I think you know what that would mean for the "scope".

Quote from: John MorrowPlayers need rules for things they don't know how to do or can't do as well without the rules.  If they players already know how to do something well, then the rules are either (A) going to tell them what they already know or (B) disagree with what they already know which makes the rules either useless or worse than useless.

So if I want rules for social stuff, I must be autistic? If I want rules for personality stuff, I must be a sociopath?

Bollocks. I know how to punch someone in the head, and how to shoot someone or sneak around - did some boxing in the Army, and was in the infantry - that doesn't mean I don't need rules for unarmed combat, for fire combat, or stealth.

We have rules to give structure and consistency in play, and to resolve disagreements about outcomes. In real life, I don't need rules to determine whether I hit someone in the head, or persuade the boss to give me a pay rise - the crack or whoosh of fist, or rustle or silence of cash in my paypacket, will tell me whether I succeeded or not. In an rpg session, absent rules, it goes on GM whim and player argument; with rules, there's some consistency and predictability of results. We don't want everything to be predictable and consistent, which is why we don't have rules for every last little thing. This is just the good old balance between game rules and GM/player judgment.

Not only autistic people want rules for social stuff. Go join the Forge if you want to talk to us like that.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo if I want rules for social stuff, I must be autistic? If I want rules for personality stuff, I must be a sociopath?

No, but clearly you want or need them for something.  What is it?

Quote from: JimBobOzBollocks. I know how to punch someone in the head, and how to shoot someone or sneak around - did some boxing in the Army, and was in the infantry - that doesn't mean I don't need rules for unarmed combat, for fire combat, or stealth.

That's because if you tried demonstrating those skills on your players to resolve actions, you'd be arrested, though some LARPS certainly do go that far and seem to need fewer rules to cover things that the players can just act out.

Quote from: JimBobOzWe have rules to give structure and consistency in play, and to resolve disagreements about outcomes.

I said, "Players need rules for things they don't know how to do or can't do as well without the rules."  If you have disagreements and problems with consistency when you aren't using rules, then you obviously can't do those things as well without the rules, can you?

Quote from: JimBobOzNot only autistic people want rules for social stuff. Go join the Forge if you want to talk to us like that.

Are you reading what I wrote or what you think I wrote?  My group manages to not have problems role-playing through social situations.  Apparently that does cause problems for you and/or your groups.  My group doesn't have a problem, so we don't need rules.  Your group does have a problem, so rules help.  That's pretty much all I said.  If everything is fine, then you don't need rules.  If everything isn't fine, then rules can be a good thing.  But if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Applying rules to a situation that's already working well is like turning the key to start the engine when it's already running -- a pointless exercise that only produces lots of nasty grinding noises.

Quote from: JimBobOzSo if I want rules for social stuff, I must be autistic? If I want rules for personality stuff, I must be a sociopath?

Quote from: John MorrowNo, but clearly you want or need them for something. What is it?

For describing the character in a way the player can or will not perform.  Your social skills and personality are not your characters.  I've always played in groups where we each have our own style to describe what our character is doing.  Some people do this through monologue, others do it through narration, and yet others would prefer to just roll the dice and move on.  I need the mechanics to provide the even playing field.  I don't make my players wrestle to resolve combat.  That'd reaaalllly suck with some of the people I've played with.  The mechanics can ease us through situations that are uncomfortable at the table.  Try roleplaying dialogue for love relationships if you don't believe me (though I'm sure some players can, there's always somebody).

Quote from: GunslingerTry roleplaying dialogue for love relationships if you don't believe me (though I'm sure some players can, there's always somebody).

Uh, I have.  Both as GM and player.  Sometimes with voice and body language and everything (short of touching).  With other men doing the other side.  With both groups I role-play with.

In fact, I still wonder what the woman who drove by one night, as a GM and I were doing some fill-in role-playing outside after the game, thought of our body language, since we were talking romantic relationship dialog to each other in character at the time. :)

Quote from: John MorrowUh, I have.  Both as GM and player.  Sometimes with voice and body language and everything (short of touching).  With other men doing the other side.  With both groups I role-play with.

In fact, I still wonder what the woman who drove by one night, as a GM and I were doing some fill-in role-playing outside after the game, thought of our body language, since we were talking romantic relationship dialog to each other in character at the time. :)

Now that's immersion!  I'd even feel uncomfortable doing that with my loved ones.  

That's the fun of roleplaying for me.  You get to be someone you're not in a place that you are not.  Even Hawaii becomes home after a while.

I don't use relationships nearly as much or as well as I should.  I feel this is because I focus too much on the action.  Sequences of events, set dressing, moving things forward, stuff like that.  Working out the nuances of characters and their relations is something I find boring and difficult as far as prep-work goes, but endlessly fascinating and fun to play off of while playing.

I'm not sure how to get around this, other than to study at the feet of others who are experts at it.

Quote from: John MorrowBut the rules never quite get it completely right, do they?....And that actually illustrates my point, I think.

Yes. And it also illustrates the problem.  You are thinking of more closed and inflexibile rules, the crappy variety. And you are focusing on the limitations. The problems. Instead of the benefits. When you are digging out of prision a spoon is a really crappy shovel. But when you don't have a shovel the spoon is still pretty damn fabulous. :)

QuoteI, and most of the rest of the people in the groups I role-pay with, can just role-play through the social stuff better than any rules or deliberate choices could ever do for me. I don't need rules for that and when I have tried to use them, they just feel like they are getting in the way.

I've seen this. The "oh, we can just roleplay that", the "it's faster without the rules". Only, even when they are just learning the rules if you clock and pay attention to both ways it often isn't. The familiarity with the old has gotten you used to all the problems and you've started ignoring them.

And then when you actually get used to the rules and worked them in and personalized them and built on them? If for no reason it has given everyone something to focus on and a basis to work around. Well wow, they really roar.

QuoteThat goes back to something I've been saying for a while.  Players need rules for things they don't know how to do or can't do as well without the rules.  If they players already know how to do something well, then the rules are either (A) going to tell them what they already know or (B) disagree with what they already know which makes the rules either useless or worse than useless.

If you want every game to have the same tone. *shrug* But what if you want to have a different tone? Or play with different people. Or someone new joins. That's why there are different combat rules and such, to give a different tone. To simulate a different world. But some people seem to have this magical line in their head where it has to stop. Look at Abyssal Maw, the word "relationship" triggered this magical line for him that he didn't even realize that he was categorizing D&D 3e as Thematic. It's like that stereotypical "man" response where the word comes up and they freak out and all the baggage comes tumbling out and the brain shuts off. :rolleyes:  Then he goes around spouting about how I don't understand. :keke:

QuoteBy the way, I'm happy to hear that you are doing that for son and happy to hear he's doing well enough that you can do that for him.  It sounds like a great things to do.  Good luck with it but be careful about the assumptions you embed in your rules.

Thanks. And I certainly am. :) Plus the feedback loop to adjust them is pretty good and I'm pretty good at finding patterns because I'm able/willing to pay attention to and analyze what a lot of people overlook.

QuoteIn order for me to want to use rules, they need to improve on what I already do.  I think you know what that would mean for the "scope".

Sure do. But it seems you don't.  That part about different people all "knowing" but what they "know" is different (and contradictory)? Well when you write it out you can address that. It is a way to address problems, misunderstandings and such. Similar to cognitive behavioral therapy. All those 'rules' in your that you use to evaluate what happens, you pull them out explicitly and examine them. Tune them up, fix those illogical bits that you hadn't noticed before, and then turn it back into practice. Now you have a more solid base to work from and build on.

Or in this case the people that find themselves around a table have solid base to build on and reach further. Most helpful since the world of an RPG is more abstract and imagined than just our everyday lives, often dealing with worlds that we have no personal (or sometimes widely varying amounts or sources of experience).

Quote from: flyingmiceTo set the record straight, all my games have social skills, like Convince, Leadership,  Intimidation, and the like. These skills can be used to establish a relationship, but do nothing to maintain it, nor do they define it.

Sure you've got something to maintain them. Certainly at least in a keeping track sort of way. You don't have "write here in ink only" under those relationship blocks, right? :keke: And you don't have something that says a PC can only use Convince the first time they ever meet an NPC? Oh sure it's not really developed that much. Maybe you don't have NPC reaction tables or such with rules to use the skills to adjust the NPC's attitude towards the PC like that damn Thematic D&D does. ;)

Quote from: flyingmiceI had no idea that was what we were talking about. I think I'm getting confused again, and had better back out. It's not smart to keep going when you don't know what you're actually talking about, especially if you think you know what's going on...

-clash

Oh so now this is a board where "not smart" isn't the modi operandi? Huh? :raise: Well damn it looks like a memo need to get circulated or something. :hehe: ;)

Doube your negatives for double the pleasure.

EDIT: Oh, and thanks for the complement a ways back. Yeah I come at things 'sideways' and it can be a long trip to get to me but I do try make it worth the while.  Anyway, I'll catch you later since I just realized this thread has gone waaaay too long.

Quote from: RedFoxI don't use relationships nearly as much or as well as I should.  I feel this is because I focus too much on the action.  Sequences of events, set dressing, moving things forward, stuff like that.  Working out the nuances of characters and their relations is something I find boring and difficult as far as prep-work goes, but endlessly fascinating and fun to play off of while playing.

I'm not sure how to get around this, other than to study at the feet of others who are experts at it.

But how to do this? Maybe you could try to track down somebody and sit in their game and try to decode and decipher what they do and then go back and try to explain it to the people you play with.  If only our society had developed a way to convey experiences and ideas beyond the firsthand. Maybe even communicate them without being present. To give a structured list of directions and actions. To...well lets make up a word for this, call it 'instructions'. Or maybe 'rules'? :eek:

Quote from: blakkieBut how to do this? Maybe you could try to track down somebody and sit in their game and try to decode and decipher what they do and then go back and try to explain it to the people you play with.  If only our society had developed a way to convey experiences and ideas beyond the firsthand. Maybe even communicate them without being present. To give a structured list of directions and actions. To...well lets make up a word for this, call it 'instructions'. Or maybe 'rules'? :eek:

Nah. That's a lousy suggestion. I think advice is probably a much better idea. ;)

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Nah. That's a lousy suggestion. I think advice is probably a much better idea. ;)

Cheers,
-E.

Yeah, and that's a totally different thing! Or not. One of those.

Quote from: blakkieYeah, and that's a totally different thing than instruction! (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/advice)

I see you've linked to the Thesaurus. That's actually not the appropriate reference here: what you really should be linking to is the *dictionary* (if you're not clear on how they're different, I'm sure you could find a reference somewhere that defines what words mean).

According to the dictionary, advice  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advice)and instruction  (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instruction) are, in fact, two different words with two different meanings.

But I would be okay with "instruction" -- my opinion was based on your use of the 'R' word.

Cheers,
-E.

Edited to add: I see you've edited your response to something a little less condescending.

Man, what?

Quote from: -E.But I would be okay with "instruction" -- my opinion was based on your use of the 'R' word.

Indeed. That big fucking brickwall built up. :rolleyes: You really need to join me and Clash on the other side where "rules" are "suggestions". (EDIT:well maybe he's not on the other side exactly, but he's somewhere in the neighbourhood)  It rocks over here! It helps bypass those 'authority' hangups. :pundit:

Quote from: blakkieSure you've got something to maintain them. Certainly at least in a keeping track sort of way. You don't have "write here in ink only" under those relationship blocks, right? :keke: And you don't have something that says a PC can only use Convince the first time they ever meet an NPC? Oh sure it's not really developed that much. Maybe you don't have NPC reaction tables or such with rules to use the skills to adjust the NPC's attitude towards the PC like that damn Thematic D&D does. ;)

Well, you could do the same with a sheet of scrap paper and a pencil - not much of a "tool." :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceWell, you could do the same with a sheet of scrap paper and a pencil - not much of a "tool."

Yes and yes.  But it's there none-the-less.

Quote from: blakkieIndeed. That big fucking brickwall built up. :rolleyes: You really need to join me and Clash on the other side where "rules" are "suggestions". It rocks over here! It helps bypass those 'authority' hangups. :pundit:

It's not so much about my problems with authority (although, I must say -- I fight authority, authority always wins...)

It's more about poor models. I think relationships are too important and too multi-dimensional to be well modeled with RPG rules. I prefer GM-discretion guided by solid advice and maybe some kind of definitional framework (e.g. psychological limitations in games like Hero System and GURPS).

Game rules IME do a good job with physical interactions (combat, chases, drowning, falling), and a much worse job with modeling human interaction and psychology.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.It's not so much about my problems with authority (although, I must say -- I fight authority, authority always wins...)

It's more about poor models. I think relationships are too important and too multi-dimensional to be well modeled with RPG rules. I prefer GM-discretion guided by solid advice and maybe some kind of definitional framework (e.g. psychological limitations in games like Hero System and GURPS).

Game rules IME do a good job with physical interactions (combat, chases, drowning, falling), and a much worse job with modeling human interaction and psychology.

Cheers,
-E.

Oh yeah. It's too important to use aids to stucture it. This is the same pathological crap as John. Oh you can't do it all exactly so you can't do some of it. :rolleyes:  Paralized by pefectionism. When the rest of the world comes to something complex they do things, develop methodologys to try sort thing out. Of course it isn't perfect but it's [done well] a step towards better communicating and organizing. So RPGs are suppose to be the opposite? The important and/or complex things we wing and the less so things we have a bunch of rules for?

What a load of horseshit.  It's like you think you have to turn off your brain when someone sets down rules in front of you.

Quote from: RedFoxMan, what?

It's just the thread being dragged blakkiewards again. He likes to take it away from discussions of real people playing a game and talking to each-other like human beings, "pass the cheetos", and "fuck this game has a crap index, where's the rules for falling and drowning?" and "chainsaw? yeaaaaaah baby, come get some!" and "I think my character should find a husband, will there be some kind of rules for him as an ally or dependent, or what?", away from that normal stuff and into the abstract world of semantics and other nonsense.

Just ignore the silly drongo, and carry on as if he'd never stepped in and talked, as if the thread still had some relation to its original post. You'll find you get 10-20 posts of clarity and interest before he pops in again with his abstract shit. Just think of it as like driving a truck which has a natural drift to one side into the ditch. You just have to correct its direction from time to time - but it'll always drift, unfortunately, so long as it's got that blakkiewards bias. If you don't correct it, then it eventually rolls into the ditch, gets hopelessly stuck, and you have to abandon it and hitch a ride into town to get yourself a new ride.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's just the thread being dragged blakkiewards again.

You know what? Fuck you Bob. Fuck you and your little dog too.

Oh yeah. It's so bad to question "oh everyone knows THIS" statements. Ones where the 'obvious' actually is, well, wrong.

I don't have a little dog, so you'll have to settle just for me, though if you prefer small furry animals I'm sure we can find at least a webforum for you. But I insist on dinner first, and you must promise to cuddle afterwards.

The problem is not that you question "this is obvious" statements, but that you drag things into useless abstraction and semantics, missing the main point. It happens again and again. Conversations with you are like when a politician's being interviewed. "That's an interesting question, you know, and I'm not going to answer it, but here's this other thing I wanted to talk about..."

Quote from: blakkieOh yeah. It's too important to use aids to stucture it. This is the same pathological crap as John. Oh you can't do it all exactly so you can't do some of it. :rolleyes:  Paralized by pefectionism. When the rest of the world comes to something complex they do things, develop methodologys to try sort thing out. Of course it isn't perfect but it's [done well] a step towards better communicating and organizing. So RPGs are suppose to be the opposite? The important and/or complex things we wing and the less so things we have a bunch of rules for?

What a load of horseshit.  It's like you think you have to turn off your brain when someone sets down rules in front of you.

My position's not quite as extreme as you think it is:

Bad rules are bad. Good rules are better. I don't think anyone disagrees with that -- but IME most rules for resolving conflicts like relationships (e.g. "social combat" rules) tend (IMO) to be "bad."

So I don't find them helpful.

I *do* like rules that help to define relationships (e.g. DNPC rules in Champions) and measure some kind of cost depending on how valuable the relationship is to the character (e.g. the pay-for-advantage system most point-based games use).

But if someone (RedFox) was saying that he wanted relationships to be more useful in his games, I wouldn't immediately turn to game rules -- but that's because the rules sets I'm aware of are poor for that kind of thing... and I currently have a hard time believing any set of rules would be "good."

I've been wrong before, though...

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: RedFoxI don't use relationships nearly as much or as well as I should.  I feel this is because I focus too much on the action.  Sequences of events, set dressing, moving things forward, stuff like that.  Working out the nuances of characters and their relations is something I find boring and difficult as far as prep-work goes, but endlessly fascinating and fun to play off of while playing.

Redfox what do you mean by relationships? The reason I ask is because if you read some of the answers here, a lot of folks talk about relationships - and I understand what they mean but nobody has really defined what they mean by relationships...okay some have - but I would like to know, how you define relationships.

One of the reasons I don't really dig rules for this kind of thing, is because to me relationships most often is about roleplaying - interactions between characters, which rules sometimes gets in the way of.

IME if players are not interested in this kind of thing, there's very little you can do as a GM to make them interested. Also what would you like relationships to do in your games?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: blakkieYou know what? Fuck you Bob. Fuck you and your little dog too.

Oh yeah. It's so bad to question "oh everyone knows THIS" statements. Ones where the 'obvious' actually is, well, wrong.

Jim-Bob is right, you're just fucking up the discussion, you're not questioning everyone knows this statements, you're playing semantic games until the whole thing becomes impossible to talk about.

You redefine words without saying you're doing it, play rhetorical tricks, utterly derail things so we can't discuss an interesting topic without this bullshit.

And why?  It's fucking pointless, all you do is mess up the thread when you pull this shit, and you know precisely what you're doing.

When people talk about rules they're talking about codified game mechanics written down in the game books, you know that, you're just creating your own definition that nobody else uses so you can score bullshit points.

I really don't get this behaviour, you've done the same in threads I've started where in the end I just had to give up on the discussion because you were intent on winning in some kind of phony debating contest.  Please stop it.

Quote from: blakkieOh yeah. It's too important to use aids to stucture it. This is the same pathological crap as John. Oh you can't do it all exactly so you can't do some of it. :rolleyes:  Paralized by pefectionism. When the rest of the world comes to something complex they do things, develop methodologys to try sort thing out. Of course it isn't perfect but it's [done well] a step towards better communicating and organizing. So RPGs are suppose to be the opposite? The important and/or complex things we wing and the less so things we have a bunch of rules for?

What a load of horseshit.  It's like you think you have to turn off your brain when someone sets down rules in front of you.

Pathological?  God forbid people should have different tastes to you.  Some of us find that rules don't make this part of play fun.  You could, were you interested, learn more about that and how people approach games in different ways.  But, instead, you insult people because you can't bear that we don't adopt your play preferences.

You're proselytising, your posts aren't part of a discussion, they're a monologue.  Once again we come down to you telling us that we don't enjoy what we think we do and that we don't understand what works for us and what doesn't, that's the horseshit.

Quote from: blakkieYes. And it also illustrates the problem.  You are thinking of more closed and inflexibile rules, the crappy variety. And you are focusing on the limitations. The problems. Instead of the benefits. When you are digging out of prision a spoon is a really crappy shovel. But when you don't have a shovel the spoon is still pretty damn fabulous. :)

What are the benefits, exactly?

Quote from: blakkieI've seen this. The "oh, we can just roleplay that", the "it's faster without the rules". Only, even when they are just learning the rules if you clock and pay attention to both ways it often isn't. The familiarity with the old has gotten you used to all the problems and you've started ignoring them.

What are the problems that you think I'm ignoring?

Quote from: blakkieAnd then when you actually get used to the rules and worked them in and personalized them and built on them? If for no reason it has given everyone something to focus on and a basis to work around. Well wow, they really roar.

And what makes you so sure we aren't "roaring" now?  When I've asked people what makes Forge games so intense and good, I've been told to read actual play threads and to be perfectly honest, my reaction has been, "My groups' games already play like that."

Quote from: blakkieIf you want every game to have the same tone. *shrug* But what if you want to have a different tone?

What makes you think that our games have the same tone?  What kind of tone changes are you looking for?

Quote from: blakkieOr play with different people. Or someone new joins.

I've started playing with another extended group recently and the experience with that group has not been all that different than the experience with my existing group.  I've even had good social role-playing experiences in convention games when the group is into it.

Quote from: blakkieThat's why there are different combat rules and such, to give a different tone. To simulate a different world. But some people seem to have this magical line in their head where it has to stop.

You seem to be assuming that the players are unable to adjust to different tones, genres, and situations without rules telling them how to do it.  Why?

Quote from: blakkieLook at Abyssal Maw, the word "relationship" triggered this magical line for him that he didn't even realize that he was categorizing D&D 3e as Thematic. It's like that stereotypical "man" response where the word comes up and they freak out and all the baggage comes tumbling out and the brain shuts off. :rolleyes:  Then he goes around spouting about how I don't understand. :keke:

Going back by my point that, "Players need rules for things they don't know how to do or can't do as well without the rules," we can and do use social rules for a handful of things that are difficult to role-play, largely relating to willpower (because the player doesn't feel the pain that their character feels), lying (because that doesn't always come through the player's or GM's portrayal properly), we use things like Charisma to color the way characters hear what a character is saying, and we sometimes use whatever social skills come with the system we are using to fast-forward over scenes that are not terribly important but would take too long to role-play out.  But I consider most of those "necessary evils" and not things I want more of.

Quote from: blakkieSure do. But it seems you don't.  That part about different people all "knowing" but what they "know" is different (and contradictory)? Well when you write it out you can address that. It is a way to address problems, misunderstandings and such. Similar to cognitive behavioral therapy. All those 'rules' in your that you use to evaluate what happens, you pull them out explicitly and examine them. Tune them up, fix those illogical bits that you hadn't noticed before, and then turn it back into practice. Now you have a more solid base to work from and build on.

Sure.  If the rules help you do something better than you can do it without the rules, then use the rules.  My problem is with the assumption that the rules always make things better.  Often they don't.

Quote from: blakkieOr in this case the people that find themselves around a table have solid base to build on and reach further. Most helpful since the world of an RPG is more abstract and imagined than just our everyday lives, often dealing with worlds that we have no personal (or sometimes widely varying amounts or sources of experience).

You keep talking in vague terms like "reach further" and 'helpful".  What kinds of rules are you talking about and what are the specific benefits that you expect a group to get from them.

Since this thread has well...

Quote from: John MorrowWhen I've asked people what makes Forge games so intense and good, I've been told to read actual play threads and to be perfectly honest, my reaction has been, "My groups' games already play like that."

John, this is a very good point. When my current group played DiTV- they only ever played TSR games and d20 before I showed up - they said more or less the same thing. "How is this game different from the kind of games you normally run?" Which is why I think that play defines the reality around the gaming table not the game...if this makes any sense at all.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RSince this thread has well...



John, this is a very good point. When my current group played DiTV- they only ever played TSR games and d20 before I showed up - they said more or less the same thing. "How is this game different from the kind of games you normally run?" Which is why I think that play defines the reality around the gaming table not the game...if this makes any sense at all.

Regards,
David R

Ditto, the actual play reports on the Forge don't sound that special to me either, but I think a great many posters there and folk like Blakkie are persuaded that we're having shitty games (though we may not realise it).  The alternative, that our games are also great, is threatening because it implies you don't need to adopt entirely new approaches to have fun.

Which you don't, the reason to play Forge-style games is because they're good games (when they are), nothing more or less than that.

Otherwise, I think here you're essentially saying that system doesn't matter, or at least that system doesn't matter nearly as much as the people at the table.

Apologies for my part in derailing the thread, I lost my temper a bit.

Quote from: blakkieOh yeah. It's too important to use aids to stucture it. This is the same pathological crap as John.

Yet another internet psychologist chimes in.  Where, exactly, do you get the degree that qualifies you to make psychological diagnoses over the Internet?

Quote from: blakkieOh you can't do it all exactly so you can't do some of it. :rolleyes:  Paralized by pefectionism.

What makes you claim that a perfectly functional group that's having fun is "paralyzed"?  Do we do "some of it" with rules and dice rolls?  Sure.  But our approach is minimalist -- as I've stated, only use rules where they are really necessary.  That doesn't seem to be the approach you are pitching.  Do you support the minimalist use of social rules or are you advocating a more expansive use of them than d20, say, or Hero?

Quote from: blakkieWhen the rest of the world comes to something complex they do things, develop methodologys to try sort thing out. Of course it isn't perfect but it's [done well] a step towards better communicating and organizing.

How is that supposed to improve my role-playing experience in a specific way?  

Quote from: blakkieSo RPGs are suppose to be the opposite? The important and/or complex things we wing and the less so things we have a bunch of rules for?

No.  We have rules for things that we can't do without rules.  We don't need rules for things that we can do without rules.  Since role-playing consists of sitting around and talking, I think there is less of a need for rules covering sitting around and talking than, say, climbing a cliff or flying a spaceship.

Quote from: blakkieWhat a load of horseshit.  It's like you think you have to turn off your brain when someone sets down rules in front of you.

No.  The problem is that you have to think about the rules.  Like I said, if a person is doing fine without the rules, the best the rules will do is tell them something they already know and in the worst cases, it will tell them the wrong thing and make the game worse.  So, at best, unnecessary rules get in the way and at worst they make the game worse.

Why are you telling me to put training wheels on my bicycle when I already know how to ride?  How are they going to make me ride a bicycle any better?

Quote from: BalbinusThe alternative, that our games are also great, is threatening because it implies you don't need to adopt entirely new approaches to have fun.

I wouldn't even go that far.  For a hobby full of people convinced that they are more imaginative than the general population, we all (myself included) seem to have trouble imagining other people doing things that we can't do.  We'd rather believe that something is impossible than accept that someone else can do something that we can't.

Quote from: BalbinusWhich you don't, the reason to play Forge-style games is because they're good games (when they are), nothing more or less than that.

We'll, for people whose games aren't great, adopting a new style of play via Forge games might help them have great games that they couldn't have otherwise.  The problem comes from the assumption that people can't possibly be having great games using conventional systems like d20 or without special rules to force the game to be great.

Quote from: BalbinusOtherwise, I think here you're essentially saying that system doesn't matter, or at least that system doesn't matter nearly as much as the people at the table.

I think that how much system matters can also depend on the people at the table.  My group has always just ignored rules that we don't need or which get in the way, which is why our combats run pretty fast, even using systems like Hero and d20.  When I was on the Fudge mailing list, there were people who stridently opposed adding crunchy rules to Fudge because their experience was that if the game contains a rule, the group is going to push to use it.  Where my group strips heavy systems down to make them light, the experience other people have is that if the rule exists, the group will insist on using it.  So system will matter a lot less for my group than for those other groups.

And I think that goes into a broader issue of what purpose the rules serve in the game.  In my own opinion, the rules serve the game and the game doesn't serve the rules.  When the rules try to control every aspect of the game, that's the tail wagging the dog as far as I'm concerned.

John, I agree with everything in your post quoting mine, including the qualifacations to my comments that you added.

So, bit of a me too post, but I wanted to acknowledge your comments which I thought were pretty much spot on.

Quote from: David RRedfox what do you mean by relationships? The reason I ask is because if you read some of the answers here, a lot of folks talk about relationships - and I understand what they mean but nobody has really defined what they mean by relationships...okay some have - but I would like to know, how you define relationships.

One of the reasons I don't really dig rules for this kind of thing, is because to me relationships most often is about roleplaying - interactions between characters, which rules sometimes gets in the way of.

IME if players are not interested in this kind of thing, there's very little you can do as a GM to make them interested. Also what would you like relationships to do in your games?

Regards,
David R

In my case, I mean relationships in the way of "relations."  Meaningful connections between characters.  I take a minimalist view on mechanics.  Enough to get the job done is fine by me, and I don't need any fancy social combat mechanics or other such wonky stuff because I find that it gets in the way of good ol' human interaction.

To see what I want to get at, scroll up quite a ways and look at Silverlion's post.  I want that.  Interesting NPCs that work fine outside of the context of "the plot" or "the action" and really draw the PCs into caring about them.

Quote from: BalbinusDitto, the actual play reports on the Forge don't sound that special to me either, but I think a great many posters there and folk like Blakkie are persuaded that we're having shitty games (though we may not realise it).  The alternative, that our games are also great, is threatening because it implies you don't need to adopt entirely new approaches to have fun.

Or....they aren't actually "entirely new" approaches! That this "traditional" and "non-traditional" divide is a bunch of fucking hogwash. There has just been a evolving and refining proccess of RPGs so they are being written the way they have actually been used. That the rules are implementing much closer to a practical usable form what often took years of experience and distilling some abstract essays (and then only hit and miss, but sometimes faster for a few gifted people). For example ditching that oft not used NPC reaction table for a more functional and useful replacement form.  That we are seeing games that are a more natural fit for different purposes.

So RPGs aren't like a cross between a jigsaw puzzle and Ikea furniture (sans assembly instructions) requiring a crapload of assembling just to get it functioning. Oh sure there are people that would like taking a few days to assemble a chair. A sizable percentage of the people here likely. Past products tends to weed out those that don't put up with that sort of thing. But you don't think there are a lot of people out there that upon buying a chair would just like a fucking chair to sit their ass in? Or at least a chair you can put together in 10 minutes or less. Lower the barrier! The really kickass good news is that at least some of the people that got turned off come blazing back, and bring new customers with them, when you address some of the worst of the problems that drove them off and then get the word out about fixing it. If D&D 3e and more recently SR4 showed anything it was that.

Oh, and a nice wide variety of chairs too. Chairs of all sort and shapes and sizes. That'd be nice I think. Even of the types I don't like much! (but I'll play too sometimes, like I'll listen to country music when I'm in the right mood)

P.S. Fuck your little dog too. :p

Quote from: RedFoxTo see what I want to get at, scroll up quite a ways and look at Silverlion's post.  I want that.  Interesting NPCs that work fine outside of the context of "the plot" or "the action" and really draw the PCs into caring about them.

I should have just asked you which response you found to your liking :D  

Silverlion, tell us how you do it .

Regards,
David R

@John Morrow

I'm looking through your response and I think we are talking way crosswise here....again. I'm not talking about your table and it seems like you are talking about your table (Which sounds like a rocking LARP-Lite manbreast grabfest :win: ....I jest, I jest!), and reading my stuff from that POV too. It looks like it's really getting some stuff crossed up so you find some things personally insulting? *shrug* Ain't my intention.

Anyway, I really have to go now. So long everyone and goodbye ..... *waves*

Quote from: David RI should have just asked you which response you found to your liking :D  

Silverlion, tell us how you do it .

Regards,
David R

I introduce them into play usually through "events" (from being victims, to getting caught up in the same line waiting to register for school, to being thrust together in whatever weird situation happens along.). Then I have them act like, well people. Different personalities, different goals and dreams, and levels of patience. I also sometimes twist expectations up. For example the "smart" member of a pair of Twin Creesh (Catperson) girls is the one who has problem with magic and actively expressed her worry about the "magic test" required to decide who teaches them and how much work they'll have to do.  

I've got characters who flirt shamelessly, a character who is shy and blushing,one who has lost a child and mourns still for that loss---in short, I try and have them face the same emotional possibilities as the players in game, on screen. That gives them common ground, and common connections. I also try and watch the players reactions and give them a chance to shape their connection to the other characters.

For example: In my OVA (Uresia Setting, Majestic Wing Excelsior Campaign), Hadric is a well known prankster whose in training to be a Gryphon-Knight along with the PC's. He doesn't take a whole lot seriously. But one of the PC's entrusted him with a quite precious task--watching the "Gryphon Egg" they'd earned during one of their past tests, and are expected to treat almost as a baby. What will the prankster do? How will he act to have been given a degree of rather exceptional trust, in spite of his past behavior?  

I know what he'll do because I've thought about several core bits to every NPC's persona: What matters to them, How will they achieve their goals, and what are they willing to risk for those goals?

I also don't just run 'adventures', admittedly I LOVE excitement and adventure, but a lot of those seat of the pants trying make it through and live, doesn't give time for exploring the emotional connections between characters in the game. So I sometimes have moments where they explore, in part, mundane things--from helping the alcoholic chef who once dreamed of being a master alchemist out when he's passed out and left things unfinished in the kitchen, to simple study time where the interact and talk. Or playing out scenes where they simply have a meal together, with all the noise, mad conversations, and tensions of sitting across the table from a love interest, or  at an adjacent table to an enemy.

I try, in short to make use time to build upon the people, and make them interesting and entertaining, and most of all, I remember that they CAN change.

Am I any good at doing it? I don't know. But I do try to remember what makes fun TV shows, fun books, fun comic books and try and keep those bits in mind when I create scenes for my games.

Keeping to older games here, since some of the newer stuff I've been playing puts this in from the beginning:

1. How important are relationships in your games ?

Not very at the beginning, but they quickly get more and more so until they become one of the central features of play. Most of my players, even those who are focused on combat, get interested in NPCs, so I bring them back for more, and then they're recurring, and they sometimes become friends or lovers, and this becomes pretty central over time.

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

No.

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

No. (Except when I play games like the one reviewed in my sig.)

Quote from: SilverlionI know what he'll do because I've thought about several core bits to every NPC's persona: What matters to them, How will they achieve their goals, and what are they willing to risk for those goals?

You make your NPCs with the same level of depth you want to get out of your PCs.  You make your setting, so the PCs are part of more than just a place.

Quote from: John MorrowFor a hobby full of people convinced that they are more imaginative than the general population, we all (myself included) seem to have trouble imagining other people doing things that we can't do.  We'd rather believe that something is impossible than accept that someone else can do something that we can't.

I don't think I'm more imaginative (or intelligent, for that matter) than the average person, taking all aspects of intelligence and imagination into consideration. There are plenty of playstyles I can understand others enjoying, even if I don't, though some stuff like the deep immersion you describe just flummoxes me - but no more than that people enjoy golf, for example.

Doesn't mean I go around writing abuse to golfers, though. Not understanding =/= "my hat know no limit!"

Quote from: JimBobOzDoesn't mean I go around writing abuse to golfers, though. Not understanding =/= "my hat know no limit!"

Your hat encompasses the universe? Damn, that's quite the sombrero!

Quote from: blakkieThere has just been a evolving and refining proccess of RPGs so they are being written the way they have actually been used. That the rules are implementing much closer to a practical usable form what often took years of experience and distilling some abstract essays (and then only hit and miss, but sometimes faster for a few gifted people). For example ditching that oft not used NPC reaction table for a more functional and useful replacement form.  That we are seeing games that are a more natural fit for different purposes.

The problem is that the way RPGs have "actually been used" varies from group to group.  And while I think there are some great general ideas and advice embedded in may of these games, once you wrap a bunch of rules around them and make them mandatory or express them in the context of a single situation, they stop being optional or adaptable.

Quote from: blakkieSo RPGs aren't like a cross between a jigsaw puzzle and Ikea furniture (sans assembly instructions) requiring a crapload of assembling just to get it functioning.

The problem with both of those analogies is that they can build only one thing (you can solve the puzzle and build the chair).  A better analogy is a pile of lumber and a woodworking toolkit.  And if you want to add cushions, maybe you'll need to buy or make those yourself.

Quote from: blakkieOh sure there are people that would like taking a few days to assemble a chair. A sizable percentage of the people here likely. Past products tends to weed out those that don't put up with that sort of thing.

To a degree, that's correct.  But by that measure, most people don't want to create stories, either.  They want to read or watch them, which is why there are many more people who read novels and watch movies than there are who write novels and make movies.  If you really want to reach a broader audience, wouldn't appealing to and improving the much-maligned GM who imposes a story on his or her players be the way to go rather than trying to turn everyone at the table into a storyteller, assuming that they are all frustrated GMs looking for a piece of the action?

Quote from: blakkieBut you don't think there are a lot of people out there that upon buying a chair would just like a fucking chair to sit their ass in? Or at least a chair you can put together in 10 minutes or less. Lower the barrier!

Yes, but now I have that one chair.  If I want something else, I have to buy a different chair.  If I don't like that chair, I'm out of luck.  I haven't learned how to build chairs.  I've learned to use a chair I've been given, that's been crafted to be used only one correct way.

At that point, we aren't talking about an evolution or development but about something entirely different.

Quote from: blakkieThe really kickass good news is that at least some of the people that got turned off come blazing back, and bring new customers with them, when you address some of the worst of the problems that drove them off and then get the word out about fixing it.

Have you read the explanations that I posted elsewhere, from Ryan Dancey, where he explains how D&D 3e brought people back?  It has almost nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Quote from: blakkieIf D&D 3e and more recently SR4 showed anything it was that.

D&D 3e is still a pile of lumber and a set of instructions.  The advice is better and the tools a little nicer, but that's still what it is.  It doesn't force you to go dungeon delving or play a certain type of game.  Yes, it's designed with certain assumptions about how people play, but it doesn't force you to adopt those assumptions, nor does it even explain all of them.

Quote from: blakkieOh, and a nice wide variety of chairs too. Chairs of all sort and shapes and sizes. That'd be nice I think. Even of the types I don't like much! (but I'll play too sometimes, like I'll listen to country music when I'm in the right mood)

Yes, but instead of having that single pile of lumber and instructions, you need to buy a new chair every time you want something different.  There is a reason why universal systems gained a certain amount of popularity.  At least two decades ago, people got sick of having to learn a whole new set of rules just to play a game in a different setting or genre, thus the idea of universal systems was born.  Now we've come full circle and have people creating games not only for one particular setting or genre but one particular situation.

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

Player: Less than zero; they get in the way of the job, which is what I'm doing when I'm at the table.  Save that for the shared-world writing forums, where that stuff actually matters.  So long as there are no alignment fights, I don't care.

GM: Don't care; that's defined by the players.  They wanna play Little Keep on the Borderlands?  Fine by me.  I can roll with that.

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

Hell yes they do!  Table time = Action Time; downtime at the table is To Be Avoided/Minimized.  Talk less, hack more.

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

In absolute terms, no.  In practical terms, yes.  I'll go no further in defining a relationship in legal terms than necessary.

1. How important are relationships in your games ?
I think relationships have always been very important to me (they were in my original primary source material), and I've just got better over time at using them.

2. Do these relationships get in the way of the "action"?
I find that question almost meaningless. I guess that clumsy attempts to insert 'relationship stuff' into an action-adventure game might feel a bit out of place; like when you see Van Damme try to act romantic.

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