QuoteNexus and AsenRG go back and forth...

If I may, I think you guys are simply shooting laser bolts blindly.

AsenRG, to Nexus' point you two have not even mentioned the game system yet. Yes, yes, I know in these parts the system isn't supposed to matter. But he's been referencing some very specific concepts that in some game system might be handled very differently than other. Points spent on "Contact" really would be lost and useless if the Player had built a noble about running a planet if he was no longer on that planet.

And Nexus, you are assuming that the setting destroys all of those character build elements, even though we still don't have enough information to know what kind of setup AsenRG is really talking about it. It's all too vague, lacking any of the detail to stitch together the PCs and the premise -- the stitch work that would (and could) be handled upfront before play begins.

The two of you seem to be working from the worst case beliefs about how the other would interpret the hypothetical at hand, rather than assuming that if you sat down together you could easily sort this out in 15 minutes and have a rollicking good time.

It occurs to me that it's not that I dislike genre stuff in my games, it's that I dislike artificial forced stuff in my games (and in my fiction), whether it's genre compliance, railroad plots, or forced outcomes. For example:

* My issue with the forced haunted house investigation is that I think going straight to OOC "my game is borked if you guys burn the house", there were probably many in-character, natural, logical, un-forced ways for the PCs not to choose to burn it down. Or if not, the GM might have noticed that ahead of time and addressed it somehow (or planned different content for the group) in a logical way. I want there to be a natural reason why the PCs are investigating a house, not an OOC/genre forced cause.

* I think over-the-top action & adventure is entertaining, particularly when it seems to make some sense. Alfred Hitchcock is good at this. But some action scenes (or attempted PC actions in games) seem to be over-the-top just to be over-the-top, and even pick nonsensical ways to be over-the-top, apparently because "it's even more over-the-top if it makes no sense".

* In Star Trek (TOS - I didn't get into the later ones), I was frequently annoyed by the extremely frequent encounters with "something is making most/all of our technology not work" scenarios. Especially after getting into the Star Fleet Battles game, I was interested in situation within the setting, where stuff works (e.g. the episode "Balance of Terror" and several others) but it seems like 5/6 of the episodes involve 80% of the technology being unusable 80% of the time for forced hokey reasons. The forced hokeyness is mainly what I didn't like. If they had just designed the setting with common means to jam sensors, shields, communications and transporters, and used those instead of inventing some BS each episode (like, for example, how shields can block phasers - makes sense, fine), I would have found that interesting instead of forced, lazy and lame.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941960If I may, I think you guys are simply shooting laser bolts blindly.

AsenRG, to Nexus' point you two have not even mentioned the game system yet. Yes, yes, I know in these parts the system isn't supposed to matter. But he's been referencing some very specific concepts that in some game system might be handled very differently than other.

Because it's not my example. It's the example in post 46 of this thread, which I found to be either a bad example, or an example of a bad attitude:).
For ease of communication, let's say we're using a game based on the Cepheus Engine.

QuotePoints spent on "Contact" really would be lost and useless if the Player had built a noble about running a planet if he was no longer on that planet.

For a single session.

QuoteAnd Nexus, you are assuming that the setting destroys all of those character build elements, even though we still don't have enough information to know what kind of setup AsenRG is really talking about it. It's all too vague, lacking any of the detail to stitch together the PCs and the premise -- the stitch work that would (and could) be handled upfront before play begins.

Again, not me.

QuoteThe two of you seem to be working from the worst case beliefs about how the other would interpret the hypothetical at hand, rather than assuming that if you sat down together you could easily sort this out in 15 minutes and have a rollicking good time.

Actually, yes, we could, but what would we discuss, then:D?

Quote from: Skarg;941964* In Star Trek (TOS - I didn't get into the later ones), I was frequently annoyed by the extremely frequent encounters with "something is making most/all of our technology not work" scenarios. Especially after getting into the Star Fleet Battles game, I was interested in situation within the setting, where stuff works (e.g. the episode "Balance of Terror" and several others) but it seems like 5/6 of the episodes involve 80% of the technology being unusable 80% of the time for forced hokey reasons. The forced hokeyness is mainly what I didn't like. If they had just designed the setting with common means to jam sensors, shields, communications and transporters, and used those instead of inventing some BS each episode (like, for example, how shields can block phasers - makes sense, fine), I would have found that interesting instead of forced, lazy and lame.

off topic...

Uh... since when? A majority of the episodes are the tech working fine. Some piece might give out, be jammed, or be damaged. But overall 5/6th of the episodes were not "most of our technology wont work" Out of 79 episodes only three, maybee 4 have most of the tech failing. Some have aliens that blockade one or more bits of tech. But even then it works fine on everything else. And sometimes the puzzle is how to use what you have to beat them. Or just out think them. Or solve the problem non-violently.

Comparing it against wargame is worse than erroneous. History has shown time and again that tech can be stonewalled, or just up and fail miserably, or simply succomb to good ol mother nature.

Quote from: Omega;941971off topic...

Uh... since when? A majority of the episodes are the tech working fine. Some piece might give out, be jammed, or be damaged. But overall 5/6th of the episodes were not "most of our technology wont work" Out of 79 episodes only three, maybee 4 have most of the tech failing. Some have aliens that blockade one or more bits of tech. But even then it works fine on everything else. And sometimes the puzzle is how to use what you have to beat them. Or just out think them. Or solve the problem non-violently.

Comparing it against wargame is worse than erroneous. History has shown time and again that tech can be stonewalled, or just up and fail miserably, or simply succomb to good ol mother nature.

Ok I'll start a new thread to discuss TOS. My point here was just to give an example of the issue of forced stuff versus genre.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941789As opposed to a narrow minded, opinionated shit?

'Disagreeing' != 'narrow-minded.'

I've had very productive, informative, intersting discussions with gamers with whom I don't share the same interests. The difference is, they're not complete idiots.

Quote from: rgrove0172;941789Genres have certain tropes one expects when playing them. Minus the tropes, are you even playing the genre, truly?

And again I ask, when did crashlanding on a backward planet cease to be space opera?

Quote from: rgrove0172;941789I want to play an investigation game but the gm doesn't present a mystery.

I want to play an old west game and the gm.sets the scenario in eastern europe.

I want to play supers but the gm declares a meteor strike has robbed everyone of their powers.

Look out, here they come again!



If you were A Real Boy, I would expect you to understand the difference between the campaign premise and 'what we are playing Tuesday night.'

And by the way, I played something like that "scenario in eastern europe (sic)" - a Flashing Blades game for which I created a destitute count who came to Paris searching for a commission in the guards and a magistracy to rebuild his fortunes, and instead ended up off in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in a campaign loosely inspired by With Fire and Sword. It was as fucking awesome as awesome could be.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;941980And by the way, I played something like that "scenario in eastern europe (sic)" - a Flashing Blades game for which I created a destitute count who came to Paris searching for a commission in the guards and a magistracy to rebuild his fortunes, and instead ended up off in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in a campaign loosely inspired by With Fire and Sword. It was as fucking awesome as awesome could be.

I bet it was but as my example was directed at an assumed Old West game - yours didn't have cowboys, ranchers, saloons, Indians, stagecoaches, trail drives, mountain men or anything else most would associate with the genre so I don't think it qualified as an Old West game no matter how awesome it is.

And therein lies my point. If one or two scenarios out of dozens of a science fiction game presents some weird situation where all the normal trappings of the genre are removed... FINE - kinda cool even. But the vast majority should at least reflect the common perception. If the GM decides to lay these aside for a different type of experience, I don't have a problem with it at all. If the players dont like it, they can quit, easy enough. If however the players force this situation on the game through their own actions, I think its ill advised and the GM has every right to warn them off or just cancel the game. The GM is playing too and should feel free to not spend time and energy on a game he isn't interested in.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941960If I may, I think you guys are simply shooting laser bolts blindly.

AsenRG, to Nexus' point you two have not even mentioned the game system yet. Yes, yes, I know in these parts the system isn't supposed to matter. But he's been referencing some very specific concepts that in some game system might be handled very differently than other. Points spent on "Contact" really would be lost and useless if the Player had built a noble about running a planet if he was no longer on that planet.

And Nexus, you are assuming that the setting destroys all of those character build elements, even though we still don't have enough information to know what kind of setup AsenRG is really talking about it. It's all too vague, lacking any of the detail to stitch together the PCs and the premise -- the stitch work that would (and could) be handled upfront before play begins.

The two of you seem to be working from the worst case beliefs about how the other would interpret the hypothetical at hand, rather than assuming that if you sat down together you could easily sort this out in 15 minutes and have a rollicking good time.

Well, as far as I could tell, AsenRg point was to counter rgrove's about playing Space Nobles then immediately taking away their nobility as being disappointing to the players involved. Though with all examples, counter examples and "You'll be wrong no matter what you say!" flying around the thread its getting difficult to track.

Game system is only part of my concerns on "I want to play a Space Noble" being"surprise you're overthrown and in exile as I was planning all along". That, IMO, is a major conceptual shift from what most would assume from the premise of "playing Space Nobles" and should be something covered in the initial discussion of the campaign. IF it also cost character resources to be a "noble" its probably going to be more aggravating. But in either case, it kind of guts parts of the concept (or would to to many folks) even if there is some fiction were Space Nobles are over thrown immediately,. Its something I would discuss with my players if I intended to have something like that happen as just part of the "metaplot" and not a potential consequence of their actions. It would be akin to having a PCs theif-acrobat shot in the spine by random sniper in the first session for reasons beyond their control/not a consequence of their actions in the first session. Its going to be let down for most players even if they can immediately reallocate any lost points.

Well, I know I would be disappointed.

As for "Space Opera" if the intention was getting stranded on a primitive planet for the entire campaign... again neutralizes much of what people would consider "Space Opera" but could be fine as a story arc. Like I said much of it depends on intent. That's why I've been saying communication is vital.

But Hell, I've admitted my biases and how I'm looking it.

Quote from: AsenRG;941967Because it's not my example. It's the example in post 46 of this thread, which I found to be either a bad example, or an example of a bad attitude:).
For ease of communication, let's say we're using a game based on the Cepheus Engine.

I've never even heard of the system.

Edit: And like I said, it does matter if "being a noble" requires some kind of dedicated build or is just something you write down on the character background at the other extreme.

QuoteFor a single session.

Which you did not make clear and that's not even what the original example you were trying to counter was talking about.

The situation described seemed to strongly imply the situation was longer than a "singe session". The context of the example was the entire game it seems reasonable to assume the context of a counter example was the same thing. Rgrove didn't say your character concept being off for a session would be terribly disappointing but that it being negated for the entire game by gm fiat (changing the locale, for example) would be disappointing. That I agree with. The shift in context wasn't clear and I can't read people's minds.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941945As for rgrove's almost failed haunted house, all the was needed (I think; context is still slight) is for each PC to have some emotionally staked reason to go into the house and find/discover/recover proof of something. That is, destroying the house would not at all help them, since they could only get what they really wanted by entering the house and dealing with the contents.

I think I disagree (context would be nice, I agree.) If the referee says "I want to run a one-shot about exploring a haunted house," and everyone agrees, then "Let's burn down the haunted house" once the game starts seems like a dick move.  This isn't PCs needing an emotional connection, this is players not being utter douchenozzles.

And I would have indeed said "Okay, the haunted house burns down, you're all arrested for arson, and I'm going home."

Because it really seems like the players didn't actually want to play the game I offered.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;941960If I may, I think you guys are simply shooting laser bolts blindly.

"Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise."

Quote from: rgrove0172;941999I bet it was but as my example was directed at an assumed Old West game - yours didn't have cowboys, ranchers, saloons, Indians, stagecoaches, trail drives, mountain men or anything else most would associate with the genre so I don't think it qualified as an Old West game no matter how awesome it is.

And therein lies my point. If one or two scenarios out of dozens of a science fiction game presents some weird situation where all the normal trappings of the genre are removed... FINE - kinda cool even. But the vast majority should at least reflect the common perception. If the GM decides to lay these aside for a different type of experience, I don't have a problem with it at all. If the players dont like it, they can quit, easy enough.

Exactly. I gathered from the beginning you were talking about game length changes and radical shifts in the overall setting. In a superhero game losing your powers for a session or two or because you were defeated by Power Eater Man and have to get them back? Great, a fine adventure or series of adventures that's been done often in the example fiction.

Starting the game with the GM fiat explosion of the Null bomb that removes everyone's powers from then on...not so much in most cases.

QuoteIf however the players force this situation on the game through their own actions, I think its ill advised and the GM has every right to warn them off or just cancel the game. The GM is playing too and should feel free to not spend time and energy on a game he isn't interested in.

And I think this is where we're running into the hang up. Its highly situation based on the nature of the game, the playstyle, intent of the players and gm, etc. Somdtimes the players being "creative" is just that and sometimes there are other issue going on. Talking it out seems like the best approach to me.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;942008I think I disagree (context would be nice, I agree.) If the referee says "I want to run a one-shot about exploring a haunted house," and everyone agrees, then "Let's burn down the haunted house" once the game starts seems like a dick move.  This isn't PCs needing an emotional connection, this is players not being utter douchenozzles.

I get what you're saying.

But as a matter of habit this days, even for a one-shot (especially, perhaps, for a one shot, where the whole thing is compressed) I will always try to tie the characters into the adventure in one way or another.

If I'm expecting the characters to enter a haunted house I'm going to make sure they have reasons to keep poking around once the weird shit pops up.

Note I'm not even talking about trying to prevent the characters from not even entering the house. I'm saying, "Any sane person would leave once the ghosts arrive. So why do they stay?"

For example, in OD&D and B/X D&D PCs get XP for hauling treasure out of places where there are horrible beasts. I know why the PCs hang out in dungeons even when the monsters arrive -- the XP system makes it make sense that they do!

For a haunted house scenario if I don't have something like that to explain why human beings would stay even if there's every reason to flee I would say the group is setting itself up for complications later. If only because you're asking the group to deny their human instincts.

That said, I get it. The group said they wanted a haunted house. A haunted house was made. One should be able to expect the Players to tough it out and put their characters in a haunted house. My only point is that I've learned to go that one extra step and make sure there's a solid reason to do any one-shot adventure.

For example, for a one shot for a Classic Traveller game for a convention I built:

The Player Characters are all formers members of various branches of the military. They’ve struck out on their own (for whatever reasons) and ended up at a dead end star system where a small mining station collects and processes dense metals from a massive asteroid belt. As the scenario begins the Player Characters are just scraping by. Whatever dreams they have had about finding a fortune or settling into a more comfortable life have come to a close. But each one of them has picked up clues about a possible ruin of an ancient civilization within the asteroid built. Recognizing each other as men and women of capable qualities, they have set up a side project on the space station, comparing notes, doing more research, and building a plan. Securing an spacecraft used for repairing drones in the asteroid belt under false pretense, they head off for the location they think a fortune might wait…

So, its basically a dungeon crawl in space. But why do they go? It is my hope the setup offers the pretense they need to justify the situation... even if things start going south they'll be all in.

Do I need it? Can't I just say. "Traveller. Characters. Asteroid. Explore."

Sure I can. But I have found, in my experience at least, it's better to offer up some sort of framework that lets the PCs orient themselves to the situation and have a need of some sort.

I suppose just to revisit the actual topic of the thread I would have to say "It depends"

I am pretty adept at generating content on the fly to better flesh out the setting, lend depth to NPCs, adjust to the decisions and actions of the Players but I do draw a line at some point if the players stretch the premise of the game too thin. If by their choice the plot would take off in a direction I deem beyond the limits of the game we intended to play, I call uncle. I don't want to run a completely random game where the players just run amok. Typically our games have a sort of assumed arc - even in long campaigns they are a series of arcs. Deviating completely from the current arc isn't heresy but it will no doubt postpone the game and perhaps end it.

As I was relating to one of the members in private...

A few years ago I ran a circa 1900 adventure in San Francisco. The game involved a murderous Chinese cult, supernatural elements, a mystery to solve etc. Had the players elected to take a ship to Shanghai I would have reminded them that the game was about the events in San Fran rather than fabricate some railroady reason they had to stay. If they had insisted I would have let them but called the game done until which time I was prepared to continue the adventure in the new direction..IF I even wanted to.

Right. See my previous comments on presenting a premise, or worse - the players asking for a premise. The players agreeing to the premise. And then ignoring it or actually trying to screw it up.

Dont waste my time.

Now if Im presenting something open ended then I really dont care what they do as long as it isnt blatantly meta or being smart asses at my expense. But once they commit to a course I kind of expect them to see it through rather than hieing off to who knows where right in the middle just because. Sure I can change gears. But leaving things half done can also end up being just wasting my time and now I have to switch gears and follow this new route they are on? Situational of course.