TheRPGSite

Wherein he goes into the difference between Player driven and GM driven gameplay, and how to break it down. I especially like this quote.

QuoteAngry's Law of Plot Dynamics
GM Driven Adventures provide the players with scenes and events to react to. Player Driven Adventures provide the players with opportunities to plan and resources to use.

http://theangrygm.com/whos-driving-this-adventure-anyway/

QuoteAngry’s Law of Plot Dynamics
GM Driven Adventures provide the players with scenes and events to react to. Player Driven Adventures provide the players with opportunities to plan and resources to use.

False Dichotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

ETA: changed to make my response more specific

Quote from: Tod13;930002False Dichotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Did you read the article?

Quote from: Ratman_tf;930003Did you read the article?

Yes. My response was to the quotation--I fixed my post to reflect it. But, it is typical for my response to this sort of discussion in general.

Quote from: Tod13;930004Yes. My response was to the quotation--I fixed my post to reflect it. But, it is typical for my response to this sort of discussion in general.

I disagree that it's a false dichotomy. It think it's a helpful generalization.

Yeah. That doesnt read right at all?

QuoteAngry’s Law of Plot Dynamics
GM Driven Adventures provide the players with scenes and events to react to. Player Driven Adventures provide the players with opportunities to plan and resources to use.

Thats essentially the same thing. You would need other qualifiers like sandbox vs story or plot hooks vs railroads or such.

Quote from: Omega;930026Yeah. That doesnt read right at all?

Thats essentially the same thing. You would need other qualifiers like sandbox vs story or plot hooks vs railroads or such.

He's defining GM Driven Adventures as the GM having pre-done scenes and events that the players react to and the GM won't allow anything else to happen.

He's defining Player Driven Adventures as the GM having to do a lot of world building to prepare for anything the players do. (Emphasis added by me.)

My belief is he's defining a false dichotomy. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority, at least of active posters, on this site. But I'm OK with that. :p

Quote from: Ratman_tf;929989Another great article from Angry GM

How exactly are you using the word "great" here?

I mean, if we're talking "of a kind characterized by relative largeness," as in 'word count' or 'bombast' or 'concentrated drivel,' then we are in accord.

The GM designs the world and all it's situations, so at the highest level, things are GM-Driven,
But then players choose how to interact with that world, so it's player-driven,
Then the GM, in Playing the World, dynamically adjusts what's happening, so then it's GM-driven,
then the players...etc.

If you're specifically designing for this as a GM that just means you haven't internalized it yet to where it's natural, which means, you still suck.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930035If you're specifically designing for this as a GM that just means you haven't internalized it yet to where it's natural, which means, you still suck.

Mean Green speaks for me.

Shit on toast with cream sauce, I get to use the same C.S. Lewis quote twice in two days.  This time I even looked it up.

"My dear Wormwood,

It seems to me that you take a great many pages to tell a very simple story. "

This guy has the worst case of logorrhea I've seen in years.  More technically, he has diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.

Most of what he says is, in fact, pure blather.  And what isn't blather is drivel, and that which is neither blather nor drivel is simply wrong.

"I've spilled a lot of virtual ink describing the structure of role-playing adventures. I've talked about how every adventure is just a way of joining up a bunch of scenes and then providing a motivation to push the players and their characters to navigate the scenes until they reach a resolution. Right?"

Wrong.  Horribly wrong in almost every particular.

I really should thank Ratso though for alterting me to yet another self appointed expert to avoid.

He lost me when he didn't know the basic plot of The Hobbit.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930040This guy has the worst case of logorrhea I've seen in years.  More technically, he has diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.

Most of what he says is, in fact, pure blather.  And what isn't blather is drivel, and that which is neither blather nor drivel is simply wrong.

Funny story. Opened a ton of different threads on different tabs and thought this was a politics thread — so for a monent there I believed you were talking about the President-Elect. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;930035The GM designs the world and all it's situations, so at the highest level, things are GM-Driven,
But then players choose how to interact with that world, so it's player-driven,
Then the GM, in Playing the World, dynamically adjusts what's happening, so then it's GM-driven,
then the players...etc.

If you're specifically designing for this as a GM that just means you haven't internalized it yet to where it's natural, which means, you still suck.

I'm assuming the quote is about differentiating between the "usual" GM-construct games and those where the GM doesn't necessarily design all the world's situations. Or perhaps he means situations where the GM might do the design from an initial player riff. Having switched to the World series of games, I can see that a lot of where the game is going comes from me reacting to the players, though the initial scenario was designed, in large part by me.  

Anyhoo, perhaps that's what that quote's about?  I couldn't say, honestly. It sure feels like "six of one..." I mean a difference which makes no difference...

*shrug* I liked it.

In my opinion, a GM section should be focused on explaining the themes of the book, illustrating how a GM can use the mechanics in total, adjudication the rules and finally, how to break mechanics apart to house-rule/create new material.

Everything else is outside the scope, unless there are necessary mechanics that directly correlate to how a session is handled, an adventure is told or the campaign is ran.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;930040This guy has the worst case of logorrhea I've seen in years.  More technically, he has diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.

(...)

Wrong.  Horribly wrong in almost every particular.

Those two statements pretty much sum up Angry GM's oeuvre: Massively redundant writing bloated with irrelevant tangents, wrapped in a bunch of flawed premises (most of which have nothing to do with the actual point being made, which is occasionally useful).

For those interested in just getting to the point, here's the edited version of the linked article:

Quote from: Angry GMBasically, there are two different Dynamics that can drive any RPG adventure. (...) GM Driven Adventures provide the players with scenes and events to react to. Player Driven Adventures provide the players with opportunities to plan and resources to use.

In a purely GM Driven plot, the players have no control over the sequence of events in the adventure. As they move from scene to scene, they don't have any freedom to choose which scenes to move to. The simplest example is the obstacle course or gauntlet adventure. The heroes in such an adventure simple deal with each obstacle in turn. Many event-based games are also GM Driven. In those adventures, certain things will happen at prescribed times or under prescribed conditions and the heroes have to deal with or prevent them.

That said, GM Driven plots aren't automatically linear. And this is a really fine distinction, but an important one. Imagine, for example, a plot which branches based on whether the heroes kill the goblin chief or whether the goblin escapes in scene 31-A. The adventure will change based on the characters' actions, it'll changed based on their choices, but that doesn't mean the players are driving the plot. The players are still taking a reactionary role to the events in the adventure.

Just because the players and their characters are changing the outcome, that doesn't mean the players are driving the plot. If the players are basically just reacting to events and outcomes, the GM is driving the plot.

On the other hand, in a purely Player Driven plot, the players have complete control over the sequence of events. The simplest example is the heist adventure. The protagonists are trying to pull off some kind of caper, like infiltrating an enemy stronghold or assassinating someone or robbing a casino. They have a motivation and there is a resolution, but the players are free to gather information, plan the operation, and execute the plan however they see fit. In such an adventure, the sequence of events and the progression of scenes are determined purely by the players. They might decide to scout the site, kidnap the security guard for interrogation, hire the expert burglar, buy a getaway horse-and-carriage, buy black powder from the dwarf to blow open the wall, and so on.

Many Player Driven plots are thus exercises in creative problem solving and the players are free to investigate the problem, determine what resources they need, acquire those resources, and execute their plan.

What's interesting though is that Player Driven plots are not necessarily any more open ended or branching than GM Driven plots.

That said, it is almost impossible to create an adventure that is PURELY Player Driven or Purely GM Driven. By the very nature of RPGs, players can almost always seize control of the plot dynamic just by making a single unexpected choice. (...) Further complicating this whole spectrum is the fact that an RPG has many different levels and each of those levels can have its own dynamic. For example, an individual scene can be GM Driven or Player Driven. When a group of orcs leap out of the underbrush and attempt to murder the PCs, that's a GM Driven scene. The players really have no choice but to react. They are trying to stop the orcs from killing them. End of story. But if the PCs come upon a group of orcs and have the element of surprise, the scene is Player Driven. The players can decide to attack the orcs in combat, assassinate the orcs, sneak past the orcs, or avoid the orcs altogether.

It's an interesting set of terminology, and the conceptual idea of, "Who's driving the session?" might be evocative for some people, but it's not really doing much for me. Both of the proposed "paradigms" are kind of a weird, ill-defined hodgepodge of disparate elements that are being grouped together in what seems to be a fairly arbitrary way. (The primary distinction seems to be reactionary vs. proactive PC actions, but even that isn't really being consistently applied.)

Part of the problem is that the Angry GM is, in general, a GM who preps his plots. He's aware of things like sandboxes and non-linear adventures, but when he tries to talk about them he often comes across like the three blind guys trying to describe an elephant -- there's a lot of groping around and then he kind of bumbles out an "explanation" of them that is virtually unrecognizable to anyone actually familiar with them because it's still so heavily infused with the assumption that they must still fundamentally involve prepping plots. (It's like a guy who's lived his entire life in a desert trying to explain the concept of a river while being fundamentally convinced that yes, rivers are different, but they're still basically made up of sand, right?)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;930089the three blind guys trying to describe an elephant

"an elephant is warm and mushy"

The article's okay. But his "rules" for which is which type of "plot" are not as clear as his main point, which is to explore the question of "who decides what to explore next?" Even so player driven just means they decide which hook to follow. The GM still has to whip of the particulars, as well as arbitrate the results, then extrapolate the consequences. Just because my character sheet has a hook on it doesn't mean I'm driving plot details. It does mean that I'm assigning a task to my GM to whip up the particulars. So, the player seems, to me, to be the producer of the show, while the GM writes the treatment, and then players and GM co-script the final episode. Play to see what happens, in other words.

Quote from: CRKrueger;930035The GM designs the world and all it's situations, so at the highest level, things are GM-Driven,
But then players choose how to interact with that world, so it's player-driven,
Then the GM, in Playing the World, dynamically adjusts what's happening, so then it's GM-driven,
then the players...etc.

If you're specifically designing for this as a GM that just means you haven't internalized it yet to where it's natural, which means, you still suck.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;930039Mean Green speaks for me.

Yeah, Green One put it quite succintly:).

I especially laughed at the assertion that there's nothing wrong with players that don't have ideas what to do unless the GM presents them with something. Not knowing what to do in the game they gathered to play means they need to learn, in my book;).
And that was ironic, given the name of his blog. I mean, since when is an "Angry GM" into giving "stars" just for turning out and not being ready to participate:D?

Still, if anyone finds the delineation he created useful, by all means use it, just don't forget that this one useful thing was indeed mixed with lots of questionable assertions.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;930089For those interested in just getting to the point, here's the edited version of the linked article:

Better, but I was hoping for bullet points.

His blog articles are too long.

There was one thing on which I agreed with the Angry GM, but he rambled on so long I forgot what it was....

I've tried a few times, but failed to want to keep reading through the whole article.

It seems clear though, as he writes himself, that this is a new concept that just dawned on him. Then his writing style (probably from school training) has him over-state his thesis, so we have someone with a new idea trying to apply logic to his new idea in an overstated way even though he knows it's not entirely accurate. He spends time exploring this new-to-him idea and trying to develop it.

So, as with most such writings, it can work if you are willing and able to stay with the way he's thinking about the idea, as far as it goes. But if you don't follow, say from your thinking (new or established) being different, then one might tend to just react with "no no no" or "huh? what? eh?". Or some mix.

Personally, I think what I managed to get through sort of makes sense, but to me it feels like he's trying to hard to define new terms and ideas and like he overstates his ideas, and he's talking about stuff that I have thought of long before and in some cases have different ideas about, so it's kind of frustrating to read, especially with an eye to them trying to comment here in a useful way about it.

Quote from: AsenRG;930111I especially laughed at the assertion that there's nothing wrong with players that don't have ideas what to do unless the GM presents them with something. Not knowing what to do in the game they gathered to play means they need to learn, in my book;).

I disagree, provisionally. I had a player who, whenever I posed the question "What does your character want to do?" would inevitably joke "Take over the world!"
It used to frustrate me a bit, until I realized that my question was really weak. There's no context or specifics for the character to grab onto. Does he want to get the fabled Sword of Kicking Ass to take over the world? Does he want to use politics and take over certain factions? Does he want to put mind-control juice into the water supply? All those ideas assume that there is a Sword, or a faction, or mind-control juice. But I haven't said that there are any such things.

Being proactive in an established setting, like Star Wars or Dragonlance, is easier in that it has a bunch of existing details that players can grab onto to start formulating plans and plots. A homemade campaign might as well, but the GM had better put that information into the game so that players can learn of them.

I don't really have any desire to read that long-ass post. But, out of curiosity: why does this guy label himself as an "Angry GM"? Frustrated geek? Likes to throw in (censored) profanity in his posts? Bitter gamer?

Quote from: K Peterson;930462I don't really have any desire to read that long-ass post. But, out of curiosity: why does this guy label himself as an "Angry GM"? Frustrated geek? Likes to throw in (censored) profanity in his posts? Bitter gamer?

Probably because "Angry GM" is shorter and edgier than "Cranky, and really long-winded Referee."

Quote from: Ratman_tf;930347I disagree, provisionally. I had a player who, whenever I posed the question "What does your character want to do?" would inevitably joke "Take over the world!"
It used to frustrate me a bit, until I realized that my question was really weak.

"OK, how do you do that?"

QuoteThere's no context or specifics for the character to grab onto. Does he want to get the fabled Sword of Kicking Ass to take over the world? Does he want to use politics and take over certain factions? Does he want to put mind-control juice into the water supply? All those ideas assume that there is a Sword, or a faction, or mind-control juice. But I haven't said that there are any such things.

Well, then you need to have established more background. That's one advantage of using a published setting:).

QuoteBeing proactive in an established setting, like Star Wars or Dragonlance, is easier in that it has a bunch of existing details that players can grab onto to start formulating plans and plots. A homemade campaign might as well, but the GM had better put that information into the game so that players can learn of them.

Yeah, but I was assuming the GM has done that already.
The only time I don't do that is when I say "it's Britain, 43 AD, and the Druids are giving you hell, you dirty Romans" or "It's China, 1674, South China Sea, but martial artists are Qi-powered, and you're martial artists". Then it might be up to the players to study the setting, or to learn it in play.

Quote from: K Peterson;930462I don't really have any desire to read that long-ass post. But, out of curiosity: why does this guy label himself as an "Angry GM"? Frustrated geek? Likes to throw in (censored) profanity in his posts? Bitter gamer?

I suspect that Sir Rantsalot was deemed too joking, or was already taken;).

Quote from: AsenRG;930494I suspect that Sir Rantsalot was deemed too joking, or was already taken;).

Sir Rantsalot. I like that. He hangs out with Sir Cumference and the rest of the Round Table knights.

Quote from: Bren;930549Sir Rantsalot. I like that. He hangs out with Sir Cumference and the rest of the Round Table knights.

And they use the Round Table to play Honour+Intrigue as a form of Sci-Fi escapism:D?

I tried again to re-read it. I'm still not sure what he's going on about. How long has been GMing anyways?

Quote from: DavetheLost;930560I tried again to re-read it. I'm still not sure what he's going on about. How long has been GMing anyways?

Either too long or not long enough. I can't decide which.

http://theangrygm.com/about/

Quote from: Angry GM About PageThe Angry GM is 27-year-veteran of the table-top RPG trenches. His primary passions include running D&D, swearing, killing PCs, killing players, running Pathfinder, trying new game systems, running Savage Worlds, nitpicking, criticizing, swearing, ripping systems apart, pretending he hates Dungeon World, actually hating "storygamers," playing video games, and knitting. He is currently running D&D 5E and Pathfinder, but he runs A LOT of other things as well. So don't think he's just about the d20 s$&%. He'll run anything and he'll run it better than anyone else.

In real life, The Angry GM is called Scott Rehm by his friends and relatives, mainly because they refuse to call him "Angry" despite his insistence. He's a 37-year-old small business accountant from Long Island, New York. Do you really give a s$&% about any of that?

Assuming that he's GM'd for the entire time he's been an "Rpg veteran", is 27 years too long or too little?

Quote from: K Peterson;930675Assuming that he's GM'd for the entire time he's been an "Rpg veteran", is 27 years too long or too little?

Yes.

QuoteThe Angry GM is 27-year-veteran of the table-top RPG trenches. His primary passions include running D&D, swearing, killing PCs, killing players, running Pathfinder, trying new game systems, running Savage Worlds, nitpicking, criticizing, swearing, ripping systems apart, pretending he hates Dungeon World, actually hating “storygamers,” playing video games, and knitting.

It's the first time I find someone making a clear distinction between PCs and players worrying;)!

I've seen some good stuff from the Angry GM - his fix for 5e inspiration was a genuine improvement for example.

Not so sure on this one.

For me, the most important aspect of facilitating the sandbox style/player driven game is the system itself. Ime it has to be a system that is (i) rules lite, (ii) with fast combat, and (iii) is easily improvised/rulings on the fly - otherwise it is not possible to do the off-the-cuff side treks you will inevitably face, or incorporate random encounters (which are vital to the sandbox framework).

Quote from: Psikerlord;930835I've seen some good stuff from the Angry GM - his fix for 5e inspiration was a genuine improvement for example.

Not so sure on this one.

For me, the most important aspect of facilitating the sandbox style/player driven game is the system itself. Ime it has to be a system that is (i) rules lite, (ii) with fast combat, and (iii) is easily improvised/rulings on the fly - otherwise it is not possible to do the off-the-cuff side treks you will inevitably face, or incorporate random encounters (which are vital to the sandbox framework).

Well, rules-lite is not necessary, as long as it fits the other two requirements. But overall, I agree that this is what is most important for a system's point of view.
I'd say that the GM and players being prepared to approach the sandbox in a productive manner is actually more important, though.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;930347I disagree, provisionally. I had a player who, whenever I posed the question "What does your character want to do?" would inevitably joke "Take over the world!"
It used to frustrate me a bit, until I realized that my question was really weak. There's no context or specifics for the character to grab onto. Does he want to get the fabled Sword of Kicking Ass to take over the world? Does he want to use politics and take over certain factions? Does he want to put mind-control juice into the water supply? All those ideas assume that there is a Sword, or a faction, or mind-control juice. But I haven't said that there are any such things.

.

Sweet baby Jeebus!  I stopped asking the damn question... this is what I should have been thinking!   Seriously: I've had too many disconnects with my players because I'm very hardcore about sandboxing and player agency... and yet I've never really thought about how much harder it is for even my regular players, in my regular setting, to get invested enough in the game to meaningfully answer the question.

Talk about a D'oh! moment.

Quote from: AsenRG;930880Well, rules-lite is not necessary, as long as it fits the other two requirements. But overall, I agree that this is what is most important for a system's point of view.
I'd say that the GM and players being prepared to approach the sandbox in a productive manner is actually more important, though.

Yeah actually that is true, rules lite just makes (iii) easier I think. Certainly agree that if the players don't want a sandbox, it wont work, so having their buy in is essential!

Quote from: Psikerlord;931039Yeah actually that is true, rules lite just makes (iii) easier I think. Certainly agree that if the players don't want a sandbox, it wont work, so having their buy in is essential!

Actually, my experience says that it has worked and it will work in the future, too! You just have to make them write down their motivation;).

Then start awarding XP based on their efforts to chase their motivation, and you'll see them runnin through the sandbox you prepared in no time:D!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;930347A homemade campaign might as well, but the GM had better put that information into the game so that players can learn of them.

This is why a campaign setting that's a pastiche of clichés works so well, no matter what pretentious asshats may say (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?29785-Your-dungeon-is-dull-and-tired!). It gives the players an easy handle to grasp.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;931115This is why a campaign setting that's a pastiche of clichés works so well, no matter what pretentious asshats may say (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?29785-Your-dungeon-is-dull-and-tired!). It gives the players an easy handle to grasp.

Fuck off Vulmea, I learned what I needed to from that lesson.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;931115This is why a campaign setting that's a pastiche of clichés works so well, no matter what pretentious asshats may say (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?29785-Your-dungeon-is-dull-and-tired!). It gives the players an easy handle to grasp.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;931116Fuck off Vulmea, I learned what I needed to from that lesson.

Girls, girls!  You're BOTH pretty!

Actually, I think the 'dungeon is a giant tree' you described would be cool as a three or four session adventure hook; your insects would have to be able to communicate with the humans somehow so they didn't just see this giant tree full of bugs and go "ick!  Bugs, Mister Rico!" and burn the tree down at first sight.  But the differences in movement and breathing and communication would be interesting for a bit.  Like I said, three or four sessions, maybe six.

Also, a traditional D&D style dungeon is a great way for new players to learn the game and what works in it, because they have wide choices but within a bounded environment.  But that may be a digression.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931125Actually, I think the 'dungeon is a giant tree' you described would be cool as a three or four session adventure hook; your insects would have to be able to communicate with the humans somehow so they didn't just see this giant tree full of bugs and go "ick!  Bugs, Mister Rico!" and burn the tree down at first sight.  But the differences in movement and breathing and communication would be interesting for a bit.  Like I said, three or four sessions, maybe six.

Yes, in the end I did run such a dungeon, but scaled down from my initial ambitions. It also featured more giant wasps than originally planned (I was a bit inspired by a Dungeon Crawl Classics module*). My players were pleased, immediately got the Legend of Zelda vibe I was going for, and did some creative stuff with it that I don't think would have played out the same in a different scenario.

I suppose I was vindicated to some extent, though I wish I could trade that dubious satisfaction for the comfort of not having a forum enemy.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931125Also, a traditional D&D style dungeon is a great way for new players to learn the game and what works in it, because they have wide choices but within a bounded environment.

I do have a better understanding of this truth nowadays, but it should be noted that a lot of younger players are so familiar with the basics from video games that they can handle more complexity up front.


* This one I think: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/50401/Dungeon-Crawl-Classics-48-The-Adventure-Continues

Depends on how you want the game to play.  Throw kobolds in formation with second rank polearms and using flanking at them and watch the PCs die.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931203Depends on how you want the game to play.  Throw kobolds in formation with second rank polearms and using flanking at them and watch the PCs die.

I shall take your cobold formation, Glorious General, and retreat in order until we get to a corridor without holes in the walls to allow flanking. Then we shall meet them with javelins and flaming oil, and our own polearms set to break their charge:).
Caltrops, too, if we can spread them, and if all else fails, the wizard would cast his Sleep spell;)!

Screw all that nonsense. I use my fluency in the kobold tongue to negotiate a settlement favorable to both parties. "Now, I don't want to kill you, and you don't want to be dead..."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931203Depends on how you want the game to play.  Throw kobolds in formation with second rank polearms and using flanking at them and watch the PCs die.

I'll freely confess I'm not the best tactician and still need to work on that.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;931225I'll freely confess I'm not the best tactician and still need to work on that.

This is well worth talking about with your players, too.  The tactics I want when playing Star Wars are not necessarily what I want when playing comic book superheroes or D&D.  And some people want D&D combat to be like Princess Bride, whereas I prefer something like Game of Thrones except nasty and brutal.

Talk, talk, talk about it!  If you're all having fun you're doing it right!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931226This is well worth talking about with your players, too.  The tactics I want when playing Star Wars are not necessarily what I want when playing comic book superheroes or D&D.  And some people want D&D combat to be like Princess Bride, whereas I prefer something like Game of Thrones except nasty and brutal.

Talk, talk, talk about it!  If you're all having fun you're doing it right!

How do you see the tactics being different between those three choices. I think I have a very good idea of your D&D tactics, so I guess I am asking what's different about tactics in the other two settings.

Quote from: Spike;930969Sweet baby Jeebus!  I stopped asking the damn question... this is what I should have been thinking!   Seriously: I've had too many disconnects with my players because I'm very hardcore about sandboxing and player agency... and yet I've never really thought about how much harder it is for even my regular players, in my regular setting, to get invested enough in the game to meaningfully answer the question.

Talk about a D'oh! moment.

Yep. My approach nowadays is to toss stuff in an adventure and see if the player bite. If they want to join the Asskicking Mercenaries, great! If they don't I drop the Asskicking Mercenaries, (maybe save them for a later adventure) and come up with another idea.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931226This is well worth talking about with your players, too.  The tactics I want when playing Star Wars are not necessarily what I want when playing comic book superheroes or D&D.  And some people want D&D combat to be like Princess Bride, whereas I prefer something like Game of Thrones except nasty and brutal.

Talk, talk, talk about it!  If you're all having fun you're doing it right!

I agree with that message:D!

Quote from: Bren;931230How do you see the tactics being different between those three choices. I think I have a very good idea of your D&D tactics, so I guess I am asking what's different about tactics in the other two settings.

I think I can imagine part of the superheroes answer, and maybe part of the swaschbuckling answer.
But I also want to hear the full answer to that;).

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;931197I do have a better understanding of this truth nowadays, but it should be noted that a lot of younger players are so familiar with the basics from video games that they can handle more complexity up front.

What part of the experience do you feel video games supply? Clearly a lot of them use a bunch of D&D dungeon tropes, and they teach things like "the tactic you used on the monsters in room #1 won't work on those in room #2, be prepared to retreat before you are dead, regroup, and take a guess at the right tactic before going back (if you do at all). Still, the inherent limitation of video games is that you can't say "can I negotiate with the kobolds?" unless that's a mechanic in the game.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931203Depends on how you want the game to play.  Throw kobolds in formation with second rank polearms and using flanking at them and watch the PCs die.

In my earliest games, we had a similar see-the-light situation. The DM had the Bandit King's men (human "tucker's kobolds" in his campaign) use flaming oil (the rest of us not knowing this was a thing you could do with oil, because, y'know, 8 year olds) and TPK'd us. After that, we did a lot of thinking about traps, tactics, negotiation, and not just swinging of swords and casting of spells. I'm guessing if we ran into this specific situation instead of the one we did, we would have 1) died the first time this happened. 2) had a big long (2 minute) fight about how my Halfling can't wield a polearm but kobolds apparently can. 3) realize that the gloves are off and everything is going to try to rip you apart and the DM is going to use a bunch of tactics you hadn't yet thought of, and start playing more cautious.

I think even at that age, and without video games (I guess Adventure, King's Quest, and Zork would have already existed, but we didn't know of them), all it takes is the players and DM being on the same page about what the game is, and then you pretty quickly start discovering what is possible and what works. I think the wide choices in a bounded environment observation is spot on.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;931289What part of the experience do you feel video games supply?

I find it easier and faster to set up scenes for players who already have a large library of "dungeon and dungeon-like scenarios" in their heads. This allows me to jump into new/weird/complex stuff sooner and more often.

Quote from: Bren;931230How do you see the tactics being different between those three choices. I think I have a very good idea of your D&D tactics, so I guess I am asking what's different about tactics in the other two settings.

Look at the source material.  In 4 color superhero Comics Code comics, which is what I think of when I say "comic book superheroes," basically you have everybody ganging up on Ultron or Doctor Doom or something, OR you have a series of one-on-one duels between super types.

In my head D&D derives directly from CHAINMAIL mass combat; I want tight formations, watching the flanks and rear, positioning, etc.

Star Wars is closer to superheroes than D&D; the PCs kick ass until they run into the tough villian.

That's a preliminary sketch, I can probably explain further if this inspires questions.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;931332I find it easier and faster to set up scenes for players who already have a large library of "dungeon and dungeon-like scenarios" in their heads. This allows me to jump into new/weird/complex stuff sooner and more often.

Not if your world doesn't work like a video game.  If the PCs try to "pull" one guard from a group in my game, they will be very unhappily surprised when the guard falls back and sounds the alarm.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931506Not if your world doesn't work like a video game.  If the PCs try to "pull" one guard from a group in my game, they will be very unhappily surprised when the guard falls back and sounds the alarm.

:D
I was going to say that nobody is that stupid. But knowing the world doesn't work like that, I'd say instead that nobody I've played with has been that particular strain of stupid:).
Some players have referred jokingly to trying to "pull aggro", but they got the hint when I, as the Referee, answered "this game ain't got an AI to exploit, I'm running it with Natural Intelligence";).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931505That's a preliminary sketch, I can probably explain further if this inspires questions.

So is the expectation that the GM and the players will have their characters use genre appropriate tactics rather than running genre savvy characters who subvert the tropes and typical tactics of the genre to increase the probability that they succeed/defeat their opponent/i.e. win?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;931116Fuck off Vulmea, I learned what I needed to from that lesson.

Did you really?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;931197I suppose I was vindicated to some extent . . .

Were you now? The adventure was better simply because you set it in a giant fucking tree?

Or was it because of this?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;759843Nothing you clowns are describing is hard. Doing it well can be. But the thing is, the exact same thing is true of working with familiar tropes. Fun is fun, and boring is boring, no matter how you dress it up. . . . Until you understand what makes a great game-setting great, none of the rest of this shit matters, and if you do understand what makes a great game-setting great, then it matters even less.

That should've been the take-home lesson from that thread. I have my doubts that's what you learned, if you're claiming to be "vindicated."

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;931197. . . though I wish I could trade that dubious satisfaction for the comfort of not having a forum enemy.

GROW. THE FUCK. UP.

Quote from: Bren;931587So is the expectation that the GM and the players will have their characters use genre appropriate tactics rather than running genre savvy characters who subvert the tropes and typical tactics of the genre to increase the probability that they succeed/defeat their opponent/i.e. win?

Elucidate please.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931613Elucidate please.

It's difficult to explain to you in greater detail what is my guess about how you play games that aren't D&D based on brief statements and no examples. But I'll give it a shot.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931505Look at the source material.  In 4 color superhero Comics Code comics, which is what I think of when I say "comic book superheroes," basically you have everybody ganging up on Ultron or Doctor Doom or something, OR you have a series of one-on-one duels between super types.

A genre savvy character would not follow the convention of each PC having a unique one-on-one duels. Instead a genre savvy group would take advantage of the villains being spread out individually to combine forces or concentrate their efforts to outnumber, overwhelm, and defeat each villain sequentially and in detail. So what happens if you are playing supers and the PCs try to do that?

QuoteStar Wars is closer to superheroes than D&D; the PCs kick ass until they run into the tough villian.

Its sounds like you are suggesting a style of play where (Stormtroopers or other villain minions) << PC Heroes << The Big Bad Villain where "X << Y" means X is significantly weaker than Y. So each individual hero easily defeats multiple villain minions, but the Big Bad can easily defeat any one hero.

How is that different than Chainmail where a Hero can easily defeat multiple normal figures and a Superhero can (relatively) easily defeat one Hero?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931505Star Wars is closer to superheroes than D&D; the PCs kick ass until they run into the tough villian.

Star Wars describes the way I have always experienced D&D. A small band of heroes kicking the asses of faceless goons until they hit the Big Bad. With some scenes where problems are solved by talking or judicious use of magic (the Force).

We never really played with parties large enough for proper unit tactics. If we hit ten in a party including hirelings that was huge. We usually averaged around five.

Quote from: Bren;931622It's difficult to explain to you in greater detail what is my guess about how you play games that aren't D&D based on brief statements and no examples. But I'll give it a shot.

A genre savvy character would not follow the convention of each PC having a unique one-on-one duels. Instead a genre savvy group would take advantage of the villains being spread out individually to combine forces or concentrate their efforts to outnumber, overwhelm, and defeat each villain sequentially and in detail. So what happens if you are playing supers and the PCs try to do that?

Its sounds like you are suggesting a style of play where (Stormtroopers or other villain minions) << PC Heroes << The Big Bad Villain where "X << Y" means X is significantly weaker than Y. So each individual hero easily defeats multiple villain minions, but the Big Bad can easily defeat any one hero.

How is that different than Chainmail where a Hero can easily defeat multiple normal figures and a Superhero can (relatively) easily defeat one Hero?

I once saw a wizard in Chainmail killed by three ordinary halberdiers. Four men with greatswords have a good chance of taking down a Hero.

On the other hand, put the hero in with a unit of troops and together they are far tougher than individually.

And I personally would be delighted to see PCs in a comic book or any other game play smart.  I'm so sick of "We're the player characters! CHARGE!" that I could puke so hard blood squirts out my ass.


I'd be delighted if players tried playing smarter than the genre.  I'm sick of players being stupid.

Quote from: DavetheLost;931638Star Wars describes the way I have always experienced D&D. A small band of heroes kicking the asses of faceless goons until they hit the Big Bad. With some scenes where problems are solved by talking or judicious use of magic (the Force).

We never really played with parties large enough for proper unit tactics. If we hit ten in a party including hirelings that was huge. We usually averaged around five.

Playing sandbox rather than module is a very different experience.  You can be surprised by four Balrogs in the wilderness.

Four Balrogs in the wilderness is when you talk or RUN!

I have played very few modules. We rolled our own long ago as we didn't have access to modules, and once we got in that habit modules just felt kind of unfulfilling.

I should also say that if you can be surprised by four Balrogs in the wilderness your game world is probably quite different to mine. In my worlds if there are four creatures anything like as powerful as Balrogs anywhere in the region you probably know about them. In fact it is probably an event of some significance. Very few apex level creatures in my game worlds, be they monsters or NPCs.

Or maybe this is how mdules are set up? I really wouldn't know. I played a couple of Call of Cthulhu modules at a convention a year or two ago and wasn't impressed. Before that I think I have to go back to 1980 or so.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931647And I personally would be delighted to see PCs in a comic book or any other game play smart.  I'm so sick of "We're the player characters! CHARGE!" that I could puke so hard blood squirts out my ass.


I'd be delighted if players tried playing smarter than the genre.  I'm sick of players being stupid.

This sounds like the same style of play as Chainmail. Now I'm not seeing how you see play as different in different genres or settings. Can you think of an example of play for similar situations from the three settings you listed, i.e. (i) Chainmail/OD&D, (ii) 4 Color Supers, and (iii) Star Wars?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931648Playing sandbox rather than module is a very different experience.  You can be surprised by four Balrogs in the wilderness.

Who want to sell you some magic items because you lucked out on the reaction roll. (Test the items for curses once they are gone... just to be sure...)

One of the funniest was being surprised in BX by a dragon out in the wilderness. Dragon promptly turned tail and fled. Wha??? All we could figure was that we'd surprised it as well and/or it failed a morale check and thought we were some more powerful party.

Hehe. The article states things that are true since ever as if it were some new big revelation. I think he never heard about Griffin Mountain, Wilderlands of High Fantasy or the bazillion new player-driven games out there like Apocalypse World or Mutant Year Zero.

Where this guy live ? In an island ? :D

Quote from: Black VulmeaWere you now? The adventure was better simply because you set it in a giant fucking tree?

I was going to try to give a nuanced and detailed explanation of how things play out at my particular table, but you know what, screw it, you'd just twist it up again and use it to bludgeon me some more.

Quote from: Black VulmeaGROW. THE FUCK. UP.

Hilarious coming from the internet tough guy who keeps coming back to a forum he loudly proclaims to be beneath him, then pointlessly restarts a two-year-old feud in this very thread.

You do realize it's possible to make your points or even deliver a firm rebuke without being an asshole, right? Or do you really think we are so benighted that only brutal putdowns can reach us? In which case, why even waste your time?

But hey, like I said in the other thread, I'll dance with you like this as long as you want to. You want it to stop, just put me on the ignore list and don't bring up ancient shit.

(http://i.imgur.com/MG02ZzY.gif)

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931647I once saw a wizard in Chainmail killed by three ordinary halberdiers. Four men with greatswords have a good chance of taking down a Hero.

On the other hand, put the hero in with a unit of troops and together they are far tougher than individually.

And I personally would be delighted to see PCs in a comic book or any other game play smart.  I'm so sick of "We're the player characters! CHARGE!" that I could puke so hard blood squirts out my ass.


I'd be delighted if players tried playing smarter than the genre.  I'm sick of players being stupid.

You could try running some TFT. Stupid PCs soon are the ones with the blood squirting out...

Quote from: Itachi;931719Where this guy live ? In an island ? :D

Yeah. Griffon Island.

Quote from: Bren;931669This sounds like the same style of play as Chainmail.

I'm sorry, I am genuinely unable to understand this.

Quote from: Bren;931669Now I'm not seeing how you see play as different in different genres or settings. Can you think of an example of play for similar situations from the three settings you listed, i.e. (i) Chainmail/OD&D, (ii) 4 Color Supers, and (iii) Star Wars?

I can't imagine anything in a CHAINMAIL battle being anything like a superhero comic.  But part of it is "In melee close up; in the face of missile fire,  or area effect, spread out."

I see people playing OD&D like a superhero game much more than vice versa. I run my OD&D games so that tactics are real.

I don't know, maybe you'd have to be there so I could point and screech "SEE?  SEE?  STUPIDITY!!  KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!"

Maybe it boils down to "I don't see stupidity being punished enough in fantasy medieval RPGs."

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931793Maybe it boils down to "I don't see stupidity being punished enough in fantasy medieval RPGs."

Had you added "depending on system and GM", I'd have said that truer words haven't been spoken in this thread;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931505Look at the source material.  In 4 color superhero Comics Code comics, which is what I think of when I say "comic book superheroes," basically you have everybody ganging up on Ultron or Doctor Doom or something, OR you have a series of one-on-one duels between super types.
.

That's a pretty accurate observation. I've noticed that their tends to be more team work in super rpgs than in the source material at least beyond the basic "cover each other's backs level". There are exceptions (and different styles of comics) and teams that coordinate get reputations for being dangerous but clustered duels is usually the rule.

Part of it might be that my introduction to medieval RPGS was old school D&D in a sandbox; there was NEVER any idea of "mook, captain, boss".  You went as deep into the dungeon as you dared because the rewards were richer, and outdoors you never knew if you'd run into three ogres, four Balrogs, or an orc city.  You pretty much always needed to be ready for anything at all times.

Quote from: DavetheLost;931665I should also say that if you can be surprised by four Balrogs in the wilderness your game world is probably quite different to mine.

I am (always) talking about OD&D in a sandbox environment.

Yes, 0D&D in a sandbox according to the RAW plays quite differently to the way I play. I tend not to have as much random shit popping up in play. There are days when I think I have lost something by having a tamer, more "civilized" world. Perhaps some day I will run truly old school again.

If it needs to be said I was not meaning to imply that your way of playing is in any way "wrong". Just different is all. It surprised me to reflect and realize how much the way I play and run games now has changed from the way I used to.

Quote from: DavetheLost;931934Yes, 0D&D in a sandbox according to the RAW plays quite differently to the way I play. I tend not to have as much random shit popping up in play. There are days when I think I have lost something by having a tamer, more "civilized" world. Perhaps some day I will run truly old school again.

If it needs to be said I was not meaning to imply that your way of playing is in any way "wrong". Just different is all. It surprised me to reflect and realize how much the way I play and run games now has changed from the way I used to.

This Christmas I'm going to run my brother through a series of 1 GM 1 player games* of 5e in an effort to re-live and re-examine the way we got into tabletop RPGs in the first place: Fighting Fantasy choose-your-own adventure gamebooks and the rudimentary tabletop systems that grew out of them. Like you, I hope to see if there's anything I've lost that might be worth reclaiming. I'm especially curious to see if this format might be a better solution for online play, as I've been very dissatisfied with online games involving even average-sized groups.

* I was inspired by this podcast of miscellaneous 1 on 1 RPG sessions: https://soundcloud.com/partyofonepodcast

Quote from: DavetheLost;931934Yes, 0D&D in a sandbox according to the RAW plays quite differently to the way I play. I tend not to have as much random shit popping up in play. There are days when I think I have lost something by having a tamer, more "civilized" world. Perhaps some day I will run truly old school again.

If it needs to be said I was not meaning to imply that your way of playing is in any way "wrong". Just different is all. It surprised me to reflect and realize how much the way I play and run games now has changed from the way I used to.

Right, I got that.  No worries.

QuoteHere's the thing: lots of GMs who are very good at GMing just sort of do things by accident. They have an unconscious understanding of things like story structure and game mechanics and balance and all of that other crap. They run good games, and they can feel the difference between a good game and a bad game in their gut, but if you asked them to explain WHAT they were doing or WHY, they'd have trouble answering.

This. All of this. You just kind of do it. But then again, I use the Menzter table often to determine my mood. :D No seriously do this, roll 2d6 a few times and say to yourself, "How sadistic am I feeling today?" and then enjoy the players' expressions.

I love doing Player driven stuff. Yes it is a lot of work and it works best when the player has some idea of the direction they want to go. I find that I am most agreeable when the player adds some form of creativity or artistic ability. Like the time the one fellow brought a cardboard tube, and then pulled out a four by two foot map of an island he drew, accompanied by "I have this idea for my character..." And I'm like, "Well since the map is right here and all..." Mind you the usual player driven stuff is more along the lines of wanting a certain magic item or weapon, and making an adventure based on that. Or maybe the character wants to set up a business, or take over a kingdom, or flee from a sentence to kinghood. Maybe they just want to jump on horseback or a ship and go somewhere. Maybe they know where, maybe they don't. A lot of that is going to be of the hybrid variety anyway because their still playing in your sandbox.

The GM driven stuff is good for inexperienced players, players who have no idea what they want to do but they showed up which includes unexpected players showing up for a game, roll players or some mixture thereof. If you think using the Menzter table to determine my mood is bad, wait until I pull out Dungeon Dice to map out air vents in an Imperial Star Destroyer in a Star Wars game. I'm not a big plan of meta arcs per se. Rather than come up with storylines I prefer to just come up with well developed NPCs. I work out their motives and then I'll bullet point plot seeds that I can do with them.

I have to admit that in the last 20 years my GMing style has changed. I've played a LOT of Neverwinter Nights, mostly online on Persistent World servers, some good some not so much. So some of the cliches can carry over. My one 5e game on Sigil has the characters clearing out ice penguins from the basement because there's a portal to the elemental plane of ice. It's typical clear out the basement stuff but that translates really well to pen and paper. Next, they'll be going into the sewers because the Sigil server I played on in NWN2 had sewers, which may lead to Undersigil. It's still all sandbox, and there is a lot of room for player curiosity. I'll run players through modules but I read through the module first and try to get a grasp on the NPCs motivations. I mean, if there are bad guys undefeated afterwards they don't just disappear because the module is over.

It was mentioned that in a dungeon the players might think they are in control but they aren't. Well, that's underestimating the players for one. Yes, for the most part dungeon delving is a reactive endeavor. Ultimate the GM is coming up with the content. Now if they players are more proactive, you can do the reverse. Use your NPCs to react to the character's actions. Which is why I use the Mentzer Table all the time for everything and I don't care if that's not what it was intended for. It's damned useful. :D

Quote from: CRKrueger;930035The GM designs the world and all it's situations, so at the highest level, things are GM-Driven,
But then players choose how to interact with that world, so it's player-driven,
Then the GM, in Playing the World, dynamically adjusts what's happening, so then it's GM-driven,
then the players...etc.

If you're specifically designing for this as a GM that just means you haven't internalized it yet to where it's natural, which means, you still suck.

"... and all it's situations" I think that would be the point of failure right there. Or maybe not so much failure as poor allocation of free time. I mean, if you are doing that much detail for the sake of doing it or because you just love your world than there's nothing wrong with that. But if you are doing it because you want to prepare for any action your player's characters will make then therein lay the fail. My general rule of thumb is to calculate just how far the characters can possibly travel in a session and then familiarize myself with everything in that circle. This only works at low levels but by the time they can suddenly decide to go scavenge for spare parts in Automata the GM should be on the ball. Ultimately I prefer an interactive approach to reactive. On a metagame level I want to know what they players are looking for in the game, some of them will have specific goals. And a good chunk of the time I just make it up on the spot, including NPCs. Though I often recycle personas from game to game. Fantasy, Modern, Sci-Fi. Same NPCs, different stuff.

The way I see it, if I don't expect the players to break my shit there's no point in complaining when they break it. If I have a character come up against the Big Bad and roll a bunch of 20s right in front of me, or if they come up with some way to stop the Big Bad's plan that I didn't think of then I roll with it. If they are unable to disarm the Blackmoor device in time and half the continent gets wiped out well then I have some work to do. :D

I don't even know what I GM would need to internalize. The game does not exist without both a GM and players. Well... Okay. Funny thing is if you were to define a purely GM driven game that minimized player agency to encounters, then you wouldn't actually need a GM. It would be like a Choose your own Adventure book or a bunch of random map and encounter tables ala the 1e DMG or some combination of both, which could be pretty awesome. Of course the problem with that is that your characters are basically playing a board game and in a vacuum. I suppose you're right, player agency and it's effect on shaping the game world is something the GM should accept as happening because it will. If there is a way players can do something that will have far ranging repercussions or change the course of history, they will do it. Never show them anything you aren't prepared for them to attempt to take, and succeed. I still remember the reaction from the DM when we killed the monster named The Unkillable Beast.

I think if you want to have a GM focused game, then you just have to make things interesting. If you have a plotline or railroad you want to attempt, make it compelling. By compelling I mean entice them with loot. Mind you when I railroad characters I prefer to put them on an actual train, which is why most of my D&D worlds have tech upgrades to Gaslight Fantasy with some Steampunk, because I like trains. Trains are great for lineal adventures because the players are expecting it. If I have them take the Kara Tur Express to Shou Lung from Waterdeep I can pretty much have canned encounters for the whole thing unless they get board and decide to get off in the middle of the continent. Setting adventures on a ship, or caravan can work the same way. The GM has a lot of control over what happens. The train works great because they can't just stop it to set up an ambush for the Tuigan who are trying to ambush them first like they could in a caravan. Ships are nice because you're in the middle of the water and there's always some fool in heavy armor to make an example of. If you want to make a game where the GM has a lot of control there are ways to do this, and players will often go along with it.

So basically using lots of words to say everyone has a different play style.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931793I'm sorry, I am genuinely unable to understand this.

I know the feeling. That's where I seem to be in this conversation.

QuoteI can't imagine anything in a CHAINMAIL battle being anything like a superhero comic.  But part of it is "In melee close up; in the face of missile fire,  or area effect, spread out."

And either that is a factor in combat in other settings or it is ignored for some reason in other settings. I honestly have no idea which is the case when you are playing.

QuoteI see people playing OD&D like a superhero game much more than vice versa. I run my OD&D games so that tactics are real.

Are you saying tactics aren't real in 4-color Supers or Star Wars when you play them? And if not, how not? Examples would be nice.

Quote from: Bren;931979Are you saying tactics aren't real in 4-color Supers or Star Wars when you play them? And if not, how not? Examples would be nice.

I don't want to speak for Gronan but I think it would closer to sat the tactics in a classic 4 color superhero battle are different than in a gritty D and D fight but not non existent.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;931941Right, I got that.  No worries.

Sorry to disappoint everyone who was hoping for a Battle of the Crusty Grognards Old School Throwdown Cage Match. Maybe next time ;)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;931197. . . a forum enemy.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;931720. . . a two-year-old feud . . .

Careful ShipLock, you're turning into Brian Gleichman.

The harsh reality of this is you are nothing to me but a screen-name attached to some usually laughably-stupid words on a website. Beyond what's posted here, your don't exist to me. The idea that I think of you as an "enemy," or that I think we have a "feud," completely misses the fact that I don't think of you at all.

Quote from: DavetheLost;931984Sorry to disappoint everyone who was hoping for a Battle of the Crusty Grognards Old School Throwdown Cage Match.

Pussies.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;932021The idea that I think of you as an "enemy," or that I think we have a "feud," completely misses the fact that I don't think of you at all.

Good, then let it go already, and never talk to or about me again. I'll return the favor.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;932035. . . never talk to or about me again.

Try to get this through your head: if I bring up something you wrote on the boards, it's because it's either a good example or a cautionary tale, no more, no less. You personally don't enter into it.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;932035I'll return the favor.

I don't for a moment give a fuck what you do or don't do.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;932039Try to get this through your head: if I bring up something you wrote on the boards, it's because it's either a good example or a cautionary tale, no more, no less. You personally don't enter into it.

:D Yeah, sure, a two-year-old thread that I just so happen to have started and that you pointlessly escalated into ugliness was absolutely the best example of this broadly-discussed principle that you could find on the internet. I'm sure that choice had absolutely nothing to do with my calling you a sexist asshole in another thread recently, no siree.

Face it, you're not the wise brahmin here. If you were, you would have dropped this whole thing several posts ago and gone on with your life.

Hey now...it's the Age of Trump. We're obliged to respond to every single tweet, regardless.:-)

Quote from: cranebump;932047Hey now...it's the Age of Trump. We're obliged to respond to every single tweet, regardless.:-)

Yet I'm pretty sure the first of them who can muster the willpower not to respond to the other one wins. :-)

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;932046Yeah, sure, a two-year-old thread that I just so happen to have started and that you pointlessly escalated into ugliness was absolutely the best example of this broadly-discussed principle that you could find on the internet.

It's an example with which I'm personally familiar and that I felt covered the topic pretty thoroughly, through different voices - was I supposed to go searching on other forums to find a 'neutral' (read: one that doesn't hurt ShipLock's oh-so-delicate fee-fees) example?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;932046I'm sure that choice had absolutely nothing to do with my calling you a sexist asshole in another thread recently, no siree.

You've called me names in numerous posts, as have many others - I haven't lost even a millisecond of sleep over any of them, and if anyone takes anything I write about them seriously, they should invest in some industrial strength psychotherapy, because why in the name of all that's unholy would you allow an anonymous stranger on the intrewebs make you feel bad?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;932046Face it, you're not the wise brahmin here. If you were, you would have dropped this whole thing several posts ago and gone on with your life.

At this point it's that weird staring-at-a-car-crash phenomenon watching you descend into complete delusion.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;932048Yet I'm pretty sure the first of them who can muster the willpower not to respond to the other one wins. :-)

Joke's on you  - y'all spectating are the losers in this inane sideshow.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;932050Joke's on you  - y'all spectating are the losers in this inane sideshow.

Hard to disagree that following the back and forth isn't a losing proposition--for all involved.

(But seriously--block button maybe?)

Quote from: Bren;931979I know the feeling. That's where I seem to be in this conversation.

And either that is a factor in combat in other settings or it is ignored for some reason in other settings. I honestly have no idea which is the case when you are playing.

Are you saying tactics aren't real in 4-color Supers or Star Wars when you play them? And if not, how not? Examples would be nice.

I'm not sure I know either.

All I know for sure is that I get less unhappy in Star Wars or superhero games than I do in D&D.

I know, that doesn't tell you shit.  Sorry.

Genre emulation perhaps? Han Solo is supposed to recklessly charge the group of stormtroopers down the hallway (and survive when they hit a dead end and turn and shoot at him) whereas a character in D&D would end up dead if they did something so suicidal?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;932050Joke's on you  - y'all spectating are the losers in this inane sideshow.

Indeed. Ignore is better than this.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;932133Genre emulation perhaps? Han Solo is supposed to recklessly charge the group of stormtroopers down the hallway (and survive when they hit a dead end and turn and shoot at him) whereas a character in D&D would end up dead if they did something so suicidal?

Heh. Now I'm imagining the Death Star as a killer GM's dungeon. :)

Quote from: Willie the Duck;932133Genre emulation perhaps? Han Solo is supposed to recklessly charge the group of stormtroopers down the hallway (and survive when they hit a dead end and turn and shoot at him) whereas a character in D&D would end up dead if they did something so suicidal?

IMO, that's a big part of the difference. What's cool and heroic in Three Musketeers will get you killed in Game of Thrones (there are exceptions. :) )

Quote from: Ratman_tf;932167Heh. Now I'm imagining the Death Star as a killer GM's dungeon. :)

Well, there are pits and nonsensically trapped rooms (including one with walls that come in to crush you). Disguising yourself and enemies. Swinging around on rope grapples. Prisoners' cells. The high-level paladin has to go turn a lever in some far off location before they can get back out. The paladin and the 1st level newb are there to rescue the prisoner, but the thief and his bugbear ally are in it for the gp. You can tell when the thief failed his bluffing at the prinsoner wing control console that he didn't just role a 1, he failed to roleplay out that bluff. I'm a little creeped out by the chemistry the farm boy and princess had, given that the Players that played them were siblings. :p

Quote from: Willie the Duck;932133Genre emulation perhaps? Han Solo is supposed to recklessly charge the group of stormtroopers down the hallway (and survive when they hit a dead end and turn and shoot at him) whereas a character in D&D would end up dead if they did something so suicidal?

Could be.  Could well be.

Quote from: Nexus;932185IMO, that's a big part of the difference. What's cool and heroic in Three Musketeers will get you killed in Game of Thrones (there are exceptions. :) )

Depends on whether you mean the movie or Dumas' book;).