Always a bridesmaid, never a bolded response.

Quote from: Aos;322245Always a bridesmaid, never a bolded response.

You're so emo....

/cries.

Spike, the kind of thing you are talking about isn't for everyone. Its like the Blair Witch Project. People with open minds for that kind of film liked it. People that thought it looked like shit or couldn't be impressed by its emotional quality hated it.

You can't generate emotional responses in people that don't feel like having them. People that come to the game wanting to have them will always have them if the gm puts in regular good work. There isn't a formula for making something memorable. It just will be if the people involved want it to be.

Quote from: Aos;322249/cries.

Oh, go cut yourself already.

Quote from: Spike;322236The Shaman: who said anything about suave and angsty? Remember, I even advocate taking away the 'excuse' of 'needing to feed' in favor of simply becoming something that kills because it can.

Yes, and I was agreeing with you.

Quote from: SpikeBut then, it does sound like you've already got a handle on this sort of gaming, so who am I to teach you to suck eggs?

Satori.

Aos:  Just for you, buddy.

Cranewings: While it is certainly true that the players don't have to take the bait and be horrified by the Monster in question, not making it available detracts from those players who WILL get something from it, while providing it doesn't change the fun in the fighting for the XP grinders.  Again, I can refer you to the 'Actual Play' example: I am almost 100% certain at least two of our players got nothing from it, and truly I can only speak for myself as to those who DID get something out of the extra details.  So what: Should the apathetic xp grinders lack of concern ruin my actual enjoyment of events?  My enjoyment cost them nothing, regardless of metrics. They still got to kill the Vampire, though yes, us bastard RP'rs insisted that his cool magic sword get returned to his heirs... that's a seperate issue all together.

Quote from: Cranewings;322250Spike, the kind of thing you are talking about isn't for everyone. Its like the Blair Witch Project. People with open minds for that kind of film liked it. People that thought it looked like shit or couldn't be impressed by its emotional quality hated it.

You can't generate emotional responses in people that don't feel like having them. People that come to the game wanting to have them will always have them if the gm puts in regular good work. There isn't a formula for making something memorable. It just will be if the people involved want it to be.

That may be the most pretentious thing I've ever seen written about that film.

What the fuck is the "emotional quality" of some rich cunt screaming for 2 fucking hours, before a pointless deus ex machina kills them all?  The only fucking emotion that piece of hacky trash incites is schadenfreude.  

It's not a matter of having an "open mind", it's a matter of not being a dumb tasteless shithead who bought into the marketing hype, and realizing the film for what it is:  a painfully amateur home video of some dumb white kids screaming in the woods.

Luckily I can exempt myself from this side debate because I have never seen the movie and have very little opinion of it aside from: not interested.


-Spike, who suddenly feels all superior and shit.

Namings and history go together.

Your OP description of the King is not just giving him a name, but giving him a background.  One of the big problems I have with many GM's (not to mention rule systems with minions) is that the game becomes a collection of encounters as opposed to an exercise in roleplaying, and the more a GM makes the opposition faceless and undetailed, the faster this decline happens.
I run a slow-ass, skill based roleplaying game.  So I like my encounters to matter.  This includes speccing out individual creatures on individual sheets, so that the players can differentiate who they are fighting and get into the combat more.

More important, I like giving any leadertypes a little background, a 'something' that I can latch onto.  I remember very vividly giving a breakdown of a session on the CBG site and many people responded about a detail I considered trivial, that the wights were a human, a halfling, and a dwarf.  

Maybe I go too far in the other direction.  But the point is a good one.