Quote from: RPGPundit;1046576Also, I get the feeling certain people are commenting here without having actually watched the video.

Do you use a script you could post with it? I just don't do videos like, it seems, everyone else on the internet does.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1047025Stuff

Man you and I have had radically different sandbox experiences. There's a vast ignored middle between "Sandbox where it's a big playground, characters are temporary and nothing matters" and "There's no world, just characters with flavor in the background"

Like, the entirety of my career as a player, GM and game designer exists in that ignored middle: a living world where actions have consequences and quests outlive characters

The living campaign that Pundit describes in the video is a real phenomena. I'm sad that you seem to have experienced it only through this artificial, "story-warps-reality" approach.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1047025Let's say I'm playing a pickup game.  There is a certain level of randomness I'll accept.  I'll roll for my stats if I get to arrange them how I want.  I'll come up with some kind of background, and work with the GM to make sure we can make it work in his game.  If the GM replies that I must roll randomly for my character's background and traits in order to "force me out of my comfort zone," then I have better things to do with my time than play in his game.  This is a two way street.  If the GM says I don't get to play what I want to play, then I don't have to play his game.  

I don't find world simulation inherently interesting.  While I see the appeal of sandbox gaming, I don't find it engaging in the long term.  I never get immersed in a sandbox.  It's just a playpen, and the sandbox nature as well as the lack of focus on characters creates a situation where everything is merely a playing piece.  It becomes Boxxle.  I'm just moving my character around and pushing "boxes" into position to keep progressing.

For me, RPGs have only been immersive when there is a story being told.  It's only immersive when the focus is on the characters and the world is just the backdrop for their activities.  You say it about world simulation, but story and character immersion is at least as deep.  There comes a point after a while where the characters are so real and their story is so powerful.

I get the impression you prefer large groups of 6 or more players.  I think I've seen you say before that you don't even think RPGs should be played with fewer than 4 players.  I have a completely different preference.  The opinion I've reached is that RPGs are pointless to play if there are 4 or more people present (1 GM and 3 players).  I've reached the point where I strongly believe if you have that many people then do something else like a boardgame or a fighting game tournament.  I feel RPGs are only fun when they are one GM to one or two player activities.  That alone probably accounts for a large portion of such drastically different viewpoints.

I think having to deal with a large number of people and/or strangers is going to lead to different styles of play than two or three very close people having a private game.  There's the automatic element of catherding no matter what else.  Everyone at the table is going to have different motivations for play, and juggling all those may be impossible.   Meanwhile, in a small or very close knit group, the motivations will all be similar, and by definition should all be compatible, so the juggling would be easier.

This is why I say RPGs are not "a game" but a tool that is used in two fundamentally different ways.  

For many, unless exceeding a high frequency threshold where the characters and story are made the focus, "it's just a boardgame".  

Either I'm focusing/prioritizing on one aspect of play, or it's just Sorry! or Parcheesi.  

This is why I do screen for these players - I agree on that point; the two uses of the RPG tool are non-compatible, and hoping the two groups can be mashed together is giving everyone not what they really want.  Because I actively don't want that level of immersion.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046975The difference between a system like Lion & Dragon or Traveller, which has some element of randomness to a greater or lesser extent, is that it places every player on a level playing field.

Whoa hold on, full stop.  'Level playing field'?  Really?  Random Traveler Lifepath rolls can mean one Player gets a ship.  The second Player gets a missing leg.  This is fair?  This 'level playing field', which by the way means balanced?  And you know what?  You HAVE to use the results, because otherwise, why roll?  Why force this on your players if you're going to be a dick about it.

But in a made up back story (let's be nice, and keep it to a single paragraph, MAYBE half an 8x11 tops) doesn't have to be used, as long as you explain to your players (remember communicate!  This is a cooperative experience/game) what you want, the fact that a player is an exiled Elven Prince and the other is an escaped pirate cabin 'girl' don't really have any impact unless the DM wants it to.

It's beginning to sound like people just don't want to talk to players, but rather force their way onto them and screw the rest of the table.  It's beginning to sound like the 'mary sue' accusations are baseless excuses at this point.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047112Whoa hold on, full stop.  'Level playing field'?  Really?  Random Traveler Lifepath rolls can mean one Player gets a ship.  The second Player gets a missing leg.

Absolutely level.

Nothing but loaded dice would give one player and advantage over the other at the start of character creation. No lobbying the GM involved.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047112t's beginning to sound like people just don't want to talk to players, but rather force their way onto them and screw the rest of the table.  

Well, in Traveller that would be Mar Miller's way, actually.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047112But in a made up back story (let's be nice, and keep it to a single paragraph, MAYBE half an 8x11 tops) doesn't have to be used, as long as you explain to your players (remember communicate!  This is a cooperative experience/game) what you want, the fact that a player is an exiled Elven Prince and the other is an escaped pirate cabin 'girl' don't really have any impact unless the DM wants it to.

That's not my experience of extensive backstory PCs. What I see is a lot of "So, when do I get to be Duchess? Like it says on page 78, I'm the True Heir?"

Quote from: S'mon;1047130That's not my experience of extensive backstory PCs. What I see is a lot of "So, when do I get to be Duchess? Like it says on page 78, I'm the True Heir?"

And do you know how much adventure potential that brings up?  I can think up of betrayals, murders, intrigue in general!  Tools for me to ab-, er use on my players.  And in English Peerage, if I remember vaguely, a Ducal title still puts them under a Prince/Princess, so there's adventure potential there.  Or is the other way around?  I haven't looked that up in years.

Again it's beginning to sound like DMs having a preset path, a railroad if you will, for their players and don't want anything messy like players having a backstory that MIGHT be at odds with their little story they have already planned.  Hmm.

Nope, not for me.  I won't accept a hundred page history, but up to a single page and reason for adventuring is ALWAYS welcome at my table.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047138And do you know how much adventure potential that brings up?  I can think up of betrayals, murders, intrigue in general!  Tools for me to ab-, er use on my players.  And in English Peerage, if I remember vaguely, a Ducal title still puts them under a Prince/Princess, so there's adventure potential there.  Or is the other way around?  I haven't looked that up in years.

Again it's beginning to sound like DMs having a preset path, a railroad if you will, for their players and don't want anything messy like players having a backstory that MIGHT be at odds with their little story they have already planned.  Hmm.

Nope, not for me.  I won't accept a hundred page history, but up to a single page and reason for adventuring is ALWAYS welcome at my table.

From what I recall, my biggest objection was I was running a game about being adventurers and nobles in Karameikos, working their way up, and the player wanted to inherit a much bigger territory in Thyatis, the Duchess of Kerandas, which was outside the scope of the campaign and away from the other PCs. I didn't particularly want to give them an unearned Duchy just because it said so in their backstory, and I didn't want to move the campaign focus to their PC.

I did let players have a bunch of stuff like being a child of human elf or dwarf nobility, but it was '3rd child of the baron' level, they had to work up from there. This player's 80 page backstory felt like an end run around the campaign premise.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047127Absolutely level.

Nothing but loaded dice would give one player and advantage over the other at the start of character creation. No lobbying the GM involved.

Sure, there is equality in opportunity, but some players prefer a bit more equality in results, at least at the start of play and with things that have a large and/or long-lasting effect on play (like ability scores). Others don't care. As long as everyone at the table feels the same way, it's not likely to be a problem.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1047154Sure, there is equality in opportunity, but some players prefer a bit more equality in results, at least at the start of play and with things that have a large and/or long-lasting effect on play (like ability scores). Others don't care. As long as everyone at the table feels the same way, it's not likely to be a problem.

Agreed. I think the GM can always let a player try again if he/she thinks it best. I object to lobbying though. Mainly cos I don't like to see pushy people lord it over the rest of the group.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046975The difference between a system like Lion & Dragon or Traveller, which has some element of randomness to a greater or lesser extent, is that it places every player on a level playing field. Systems that use merits and flaws to build a character in chargen is an alternative but IME it is time consuming and can be mystifying to newcomers. Moreover, it never forces the player to explore new possibilities and I find there is a tendency to get set in your ways.

Then there is the whole "tell the GM who you are" which is favours pushy, attention-hogging prima-donnas that like to call their abrasiveness "being assertive".

I used to think the whole "yes, and" was a good thing until I played with such a person.

Now, I adopt "yes and" with non-pushy people, and the bullies get "no, fuck off".

And that's not just in gaming, either.

"Yes and" and "No but" are another godawful idea.

Quote from: Krimson;1047046I've had cats all my life and I've never seen the appeal of putting them in outfits. I'd rather not cause them stress. Certainly there are cats that are chill enough to not care, but that is not common.

Yeah. There do seem to be some dogs that really like it. But that's part of why I'm a cat person. Dogs are just wolves with no sense of self-respect.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047112Whoa hold on, full stop.  'Level playing field'?  Really?  Random Traveler Lifepath rolls can mean one Player gets a ship.  The second Player gets a missing leg.

It's Equality of Opportunity, the good sort of equality; and not Equality of Outcome, which is a terrible idea.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047245It's Equality of Opportunity, the good sort of equality; and not Equality of Outcome, which is a terrible idea.

Yes, because someone with a couple of 18s in the right stats they wanted, is going to have EXACTLY the same amount of fun as someone whose highest stat is an 8, maybe 9, and in Charisma, in an edition with no Bard class.  Somehow, magically, they're both going to have the same amount of fun!  Because the Dice said so.

Really?  You honestly believe this?  In all my 33 years of gaming and with the small number of people I've gamed with (I've worked it out to about 57, but I may be off as I've forgotten a couple of games, I'm sure of it) they answer is no, they're not.  They might be slightly frustrated, or mildly annoyed, or just bored rather than the assumed 'railing at the stars and vitriol' that people will immediately assume, -because extremes are so much more fun to strawman- but someone with a better outcome ruled, not by choice but by happenstance, tends to enjoy the game more because they are often in better shape to do more.  They get to carry the rest of the team, because they can do more in the game.

It's like people haven't ever played with a badly chanced character before.  I have and I've seen lots of other people do to, and even if you're having fun, being second fiddle...  Well, for me, it's boredom.  'Oh, Bob's got this again.  Don't need to pick up the dice.'  I made a character to play it, not sit back and watch someone else dominate the game.  I'm sure it's fun for some people (I'd be bored if the game became so easy because I had the best stats.  It's that way in video games for me.  I like easy games when I want to de-stress, but after that, I want hard mode!) but that's not for me.

Dice removes player choice, and somehow, this is better?  What is this crazy moon people talk?

The main argument against character backstory seems to be that the players will be given the chance and then run amok with it giving their character ridiculous advantages through background in the game. Yes, this can be a problem, which is why I say again that for character backstory creation the GM must act as editor to make sure that the history doesn't overwhelm the game.