This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Campaign Lethality and Script Immunity

Started by Nexus, September 17, 2014, 07:01:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11
User actions

Bren

#75
September 22, 2014, 10:52:24 PM
Quote from: LordVreeg;788187My main campaign has 2 players lost to play due to imprisonment, one in a gulag, another who blabbed important info and who was taken.
Wow, Boston has changed a lot since I was there last.
Currently running: Runequest in Glorantha + Call of Cthulhu   Currently playing: D&D 5E + RQ
My Blog: For Honor...and Intrigue
I have a gold medal from Ravenswing and Gronan owes me bee

Ravenswing

#76
September 23, 2014, 12:56:50 AM
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;788132I understand having a preference here but do not understand the need to frame it as an outgrowth of one's personal character or as a moral failing of those who don't share your preference.
No kidding.  It's a game.  Different games have different styles.  The same games have different styles.  I mean, let's get this straight: is anyone seriously stipulating that the rate at which made-up make-believe sheets of paper get used up is a test of manhood?  (Hell, is anyone seriously under the delusion that there aren't a few hundred million people around who'd point and laugh at ALL of us for playing such childish make-pretend games in the first place?)

I would no more jeer at someone for having a different preference than mine than jeer at someone and call him a pussy for preferring baseball to a more "manly," rugged sport.
This was a cool site, until it became an echo chamber for whiners screeching about how the "Evul SJWs are TAKING OVAH!!!" every time any RPG book included a non-"traditional" NPC or concept, or their MAGA peeners got in a twist. You're in luck, drama queens: the Taliban is hiring.

LordVreeg

#77
September 23, 2014, 12:55:23 PM
Quote from: Bren;788221Wow, Boston has changed a lot since I was there last.

I play with a rough crowd.
:)
Currently running 1 live groups and two online group in my 30+ year old campaign setting.  
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/
Setting of the Year, 08 Campaign Builders Guild awards.
\'Orbis non sufficit\'

My current Collegium Arcana online game, a test for any ruleset.

Nexus

#78
September 23, 2014, 05:04:21 PM
Quote from: Ravenswing;788238No kidding.  It's a game.  Different games have different styles.  The same games have different styles.  I mean, let's get this straight: is anyone seriously stipulating that the rate at which made-up make-believe sheets of paper get used up is a test of manhood?  (Hell, is anyone seriously under the delusion that there aren't a few hundred million people around who'd point and laugh at ALL of us for playing such childish make-pretend games in the first place?)

I would no more jeer at someone for having a different preference than mine than jeer at someone and call him a pussy for preferring baseball to a more "manly," rugged sport.

I think it boils down to general human tribalism and the streak of insecurity that plagues the gaming community to some extent.
Remember when Illinois Nazis where a joke in the Blue Brothers movie?

Democracy, meh? (538)

 "The salient fact of American politics is that there are fifty to seventy million voters each of whom will volunteer to live, with his family, in a cardboard box under an overpass, and cook sparrows on an old curtain rod, if someone would only guarantee that the black, gay, Hispanic, liberal, whatever, in the next box over doesn't even have a curtain rod, or a sparrow to put on it."

Ravenswing

#79
September 23, 2014, 08:17:19 PM
Quote from: Nexus;788291I think it boils down to general human tribalism and the streak of insecurity that plagues the gaming community to some extent.
No disagreement here.  I'm so convinced of the primacy of tribalism in so much of what we do that I preached a sermon on the subject in our church last year.  :pundit:
This was a cool site, until it became an echo chamber for whiners screeching about how the "Evul SJWs are TAKING OVAH!!!" every time any RPG book included a non-"traditional" NPC or concept, or their MAGA peeners got in a twist. You're in luck, drama queens: the Taliban is hiring.

dragoner

#80
September 23, 2014, 11:02:58 PM
Yes, because the social networking allowed by a big brain is a more successful survival technique than large canine teeth (fangs). Tribalism is just forming and reinforcing social groups.
The most beautiful peonies I ever saw ... were grown in almost pure cat excrement.
-Vonnegut

Beagle

#81
September 24, 2014, 05:12:09 AM
The way I run my games, the result of any die roll is sacrosanct, and if that means that a PC is crippled or killed, than that's what happens. I don't like or use purely meta-gamey mechanics like fate points or the like and in almost no system I play, there is a realistic chance to ressurrect dead characters.
However, I usually don't try to kill any PCs and usually leave them with an option or so to flee or to surrender.
I guess that's a "3" on this scale.

Rincewind1

#82
September 24, 2014, 09:33:21 AM
3 - 4ish I'd say. I don't want the players to feel completely detached from their characters, afraid they'd drop at any moment, and I don't want them too safe, though I often also utilise less than deadly tactics by the opponents - throw them in prisons, rob them and leave for dead, etc. etc. Of course, this depends - if they kill too many of the robbers, they might just slit throats sour over their killed companions, etc. etc.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed

Omega

#83
September 24, 2014, 11:40:58 PM
Yeah. If the players think they are in a meat grinder then they arent as likely to invest much in the new characters or even whats going on overall.

Finding what an individual group leans to more is the oft bitchingly hard part at first.

Ravenswing

#84
September 25, 2014, 02:29:14 AM
Quote from: Omega;788469Finding what an individual group leans to more is the oft bitchingly hard part at first.
And something that causes so much freaking grief in this hobby.  I swear, a third of the posts in all the gaming forums would vanish tomorrow if GMs stated, right up front, "This is what my campaign's about.  This, that, and that are the styles I expect.  This, that and such are key expectations of my current players.  All that okay with you?  Great!  Let's get your character started."

And were honest and accurate about it.
This was a cool site, until it became an echo chamber for whiners screeching about how the "Evul SJWs are TAKING OVAH!!!" every time any RPG book included a non-"traditional" NPC or concept, or their MAGA peeners got in a twist. You're in luck, drama queens: the Taliban is hiring.

Gronan of Simmerya

#85
September 25, 2014, 03:16:46 AM
It's not any "test of manhood" shit.

A game you can't lose isn't a game.  It's a pastime, not a game.  Model railroading is a pastime.  I cannot "lose" at running a train.

I get different things out of running trains with friends than I get out of playing games with friends.  I want a game, including an RPG, to be a "game," and that means there has to be a way to lose.

And "complications" aren't losing; the game is about having adventures, and adding complications means that the player characters have MORE adventures.  So instead of "losing," you reward the players (which is not the same as the player characters) for losing by "adding complications."
You should go to GaryCon.  Period.

The rules can\'t cure stupid, and the rules can\'t cure asshole.

Omega

#86
September 25, 2014, 03:24:44 AM
Quote from: Old Geezer;788487I get different things out of running trains with friends than I get out of playing games with friends.  I want a game, including an RPG, to be a "game," and that means there has to be a way to lose.

Its not real trains unless you blow up a bridge... or tie someone to the tracks... Head on collisions are good too...

ostap bender

#87
September 25, 2014, 05:58:00 AM
maybe game where you can lose without dying (like sid meiers pirates) could be fun.

Exploderwizard

#88
September 25, 2014, 08:39:36 AM
Quote from: ostap bender;788496maybe game where you can lose without dying (like sid meiers pirates) could be fun.

That can happen all the time. PCs can flee unwanted encounters and they "lose" that engagement.

In your scenario, if you lost without dying would the game still be over?
Quote from: JonWakeGamers, as a whole, are much like primitive cavemen when confronted with a new game. Rather than \'oh, neat, what\'s this do?\', the reaction is to decide if it\'s a sex hole, then hit it with a rock.

Quote from: Old Geezer;724252At some point it seems like D&D is going to disappear up its own ass.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;766997In the randomness of the dice lies the seed for the great oak of creativity and fun. The great virtue of the dice is that they come without boxed text.

Rincewind1

#89
September 25, 2014, 11:26:24 AM Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 11:28:30 AM by Rincewind1
You must be playing some pretty boring wargames, if extermination is the only victory condition.

Quote from: ostap bender;788496maybe game where you can lose without dying (like sid meiers pirates) could be fun.

If only we had the imagination to not make every conflict necessary about death! Could it be that perhaps the PCs would loose the kingdom they recently conquered, rather than THEIR LIVES AND EVERYONE THEY LOVE each time a challenge appears? Sure, they might take an arrow to the knee as they ride out to lead their men into battle, but chances of dying are very, very low as compared to the usual hike in the Tomb of Grotesque Horrorific Truly Doomsdayic Devices.

Not all words need to be designed by Games' Workshop, come on.
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don\'t Like You thread should be closed
Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11
User actions