I can't die. I'm indestructible! Alway believe in...

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!I avoid buttloads of this stuff by not treating my heroic fiction like, you know, reality unless a common, real-world event adds a subtle flavor or effect.

My general philosophy is that I want to know the realistic option, even if my ultimate consideration leaves me deciding to ignore it for whatever reason, be it smoother play, a more cinematic feel, or whatever.

It's the one big cool bit about designing your own game, is that you get to make those kinds of decisions, instead of some game designer doing it for you.

"This was put here for us to kill it."

Man, that drives me nuts, though as DM it's a little funny watching a group charge to its doom.

"Everything revolves around us."

This one hasn't been an issue for a while, but it drives me nuts when players completely fail to think something through and then get all mad when their lack of foresight bites them in the ass. Example: The party bribes a total scumbag town guardmen to look the other way while they break into a wizard's tower. The next day, the players are outraged that their enemy bribed the same guard for blackmail material against them.

Quote from: Thanatos02they're essentially the gangsters of the high-fantasy world. They sport outrageous bling, carry weapons as if they're entitled to them, and earn massive sums of money by offing competitors. They're filthy rich, so they toss around gold coins. But just because they have a lot of them doesn't make them really common.

excellent observation!

i will now start linking the godfather etc. in all my fantasy games! "families" of adventurers, etc.  

classic

Economics matters to games.

The only time that's true is if you're playing a game about economists. The rest of the time the system is set up to support game play, not reality. I figure it's worked for decades, so it's good enough for me until proven otherwise (and good luck with that, since economics arguments bore me to tears).

Quote from: beeberexcellent observation!

i will now start linking the godfather etc. in all my fantasy games! "families" of adventurers, etc.  

classic

Thanks!

This is all very interesting. I'm trying to figure out a currency system for a new fantasy campaign. I figure there will be both coins and paper notes (like dollar bills), though paper currency will only be available in the more advanced cities and civilizations. I figure flaunting a gold piece will be like waving the equivalent of a hundred dollar bill in someone's face(USA dollar). A platinum piece will be equivalent to $1K, but I haven't figured out "cheaper" stuff like electrum, silver, copper, and other precious metals.  And I don't know if I wanna deal with the intricacies of trade goods.

There's quite a bit to think about.

Quote from: James McMurrayEconomics matters to games.

The only time that's true is if you're playing a game about economists. The rest of the time the system is set up to support game play, not reality. I figure it's worked for decades, so it's good enough for me until proven otherwise (and good luck with that, since economics arguments bore me to tears).

This amuses me largely because last night, while playing a preparatory dungeon before Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, the conversation turned to the fact that two days ago we'd ridden out on a pony, two donkeys, and a farm nag because we couldn't, as first level PCs with equipment and a minor boon from our patron, scrape together enough gold to purchase horses - and now, 48 hours later, we'd just pulled three magic items and more than 3000gp from a hole in the ground. Which lead us to "A fully functioning and feasible economy, as suggested by the implied setting in the Core Rulebooks, is a detriment to a fully functioning and feasible game as suggested by the rules in the Core Rulebooks". So we stopped worrying about that kind of shit.

Quote from: flyingmiceGamers are social misftis and losers who live in their parents basements.

You mean I'm the only one?!
:bawling:

Anyway, we don't put in things like cutting yourself shaving or failing to step into your pants properly, not because we don't want to do lots of dice rolls, but because the results are boring.

Much the same applies to these economic discussions we're having. Some players like action, some like drama, some silliness, others still enjoy messing about with all the rules - but almost no-one is interested in whether it took one step or a step and a stumble for their character to put on his pants that morning. Who cares?

Other things like "vehicles don't need fuel" or "stuff doesn't need maintenance" are simply good or bad GMing; in some games they're good GMing because nobody wanted those kinds of gritty details; in other games they're bad GMing because people did want it.

Quote from: Christmas ApeSo we stopped worrying about that kind of shit.

It certainly is stupid shit for some people, but it's interesting for me. You know, even in D&D. Because it's fun to think of a kingdom, with its limited market, having a few amazingly rich people stumble in after a long night of looting, and just buying shit. It totally destablizes the economy, but all of a sudden this town has a shitload of gold. It might be enough to start a mini-rennaisaince!

And when you take D&D 3.5 and break it down to things like skill checks and monthly incomes for peasants and yeomen, you'd be amazed at just how well the system handles it. Also, the economics is fun from a perspective of gaming ideas. Taxmen running around after the PCs, PCs trying to fence 1000-year old goods like they were a farmer's chicken, ect.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineGMs are responsible for the plot, and need to occasionally "push" the PCs into doing interesting stuff.

There needs to be "a plot" that everyone works on instead of many little things going on at once that diverge and converge into scenes, arcs and stories.

I think the first quoted here is simply convenience for most people, but that plenty depart from it.

The second one I quote I think is a fiction, I think the way I game is actually quite common in which one sets up situations, adds PCs and sees what happens.  In my experience opponents of plot talk a lot about how everyone else thinks it's an absolute requirement, but I think it's a straw man with little relation to how a great many people play their games.

I also think for those who do follow the plot model, most do it because the players actually want a plot and want to be the protagonists in that plot, I think the impossible thing before breakfast is not only not impossible but is actually precisely what an awful lot of people play for.

The one that is common and that only Kyle and Godlike have ever really addressed is the notion that killing people is psychologically easy, which is bollocks on my understanding.  Common and I think rather pernicious.

Reading this thread makes me appreciate the awesomeness of Spirit of the Century.
 
For example, on the issue of equipment reliability - give some of your items the Aspect "Poor quality" and suddenly that's something a clever opponent can take advantage of and "tag" for effect.  Depending on your setting, all equipment might be deemed to be poor quality unless crafted by an expert.  And even well crafted items might received the temporary Aspect "Well worn" if it isn't explicitly maintained by the player.  A particularly nasty GM might even keep this secret from the player.  But an observent opponent might notice worn equipment and try and take advantage of it.
 
And yet at the same time, you can play a campaign where none of these things are important.

Quote from: BalbinusThe one that is common and that only Kyle and Godlike have ever really addressed is the notion that killing people is psychologically easy, which is bollocks on my understanding.  Common and I think rather pernicious.

As well as in d4-d4, it's also mentioned in GURPS and Unknown Armies. GURPS offers a Disadvantage called "Reluctant Killer" - you become a horrendously bad shot or stabber if you can see a human face, but can still happily smack them around by hand; the text suggests that in a realistic game, the GM insist that all PCs take it. So it's not forced on the PCs, but it's there as an option for the group.

Unknown Armies has a little piece at the beginning of their combat chapter which says that killing someone is a really freaky thing to do, and you should look for any option but that. Combined with their hardened/disturbed stress meter for "violence", you could have a PC who kills spiralling into sociopathy or mental distress. But right after that page there are 97 different types of firearms and ammunition, so I'm not sure exactly what their message is. Plus the firearms do shitloads more damage than anything else in the game, and there are some pretty bloody forms of magic. Basically the text seems to be saying, "Violence is wrong! But fuckin' cool! And it'll make you crazy! But that's cool, too!" It's all rather Quentin Tarantino.

So at least two other games do address the issue of normal humans killing one another only reluctantly and then feeling bad about it afterwards; but one offers it as a Disadvantage, a deviation from some heroic adventurous norm (given movies and books are most people's models for rpg sessions, this seems reasonable), and the other treats it in a way which purports to be deep but is actually pretty shallow.

d4-d4, by the way, treats it as a "will to kill" roll; it's harder in some circumstances - harder to kill a crippled begging child right in front of you than some guy shooting at you on the battlefield from fifty yards away - and it gets easier after you succeed, and harder after you fail. In addition, certain traits can affect this, for example being a Combat Veteran makes it easier to kill in combat, but harder to do murder of unarmed people. The text notes that in fact when people kill, almost always there are psychological effects afterwards, but that as post-traumatic stress disorder would be no fun to play, rules for it aren't presented.

So I think we can say that while at least three or four games do mention the issue of normal humans killing one another, none deal with it fully. The game supplement Conflict, and a Person's Place in it talks about it generally but offers no game mechanics. So basically we can agree with Balbinus' point that rpgs don't deal with this stuff.

I'll give you Gurps Kyle, though making it a disadvantage makes it exceptional which is still not at all correct, but UA to me doesn't really address the issue.

If you pull the trigger sure you get a violence check and that may have consequences, but the game is about being fucked up so at the player level that's fine and it doesn't at all stop you pulling that trigger.  Also, I think the game does have a bit of a Tarantino feel.

D4-D4 and Godlike are the only games I know of that put this right front and centre (well, in an annex in Godlike actually), and which reflected the fact that the average person will struggle to pull that trigger.

You know that scene in movies where the protagonist has a gun on the bad guy and the bad guy says "you can't pull that trigger" and most of the time he's right?  In an rpg he's just committing suicide because even a PC who up until that point has never been in a fight in their lives will pull that trigger, roll the corpse and if necessary gun down some cops on their way out so they can get away.  The level of casual violence in the average rpg is extraordinary, and far more unrealistic than any dragon or elf could ever be.

On killing in rpgs...

I... hmmm, I think this deserves another thread

Edit: done. On killing in rpgs.