Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Fisher, Victor" <Victor-Fisher@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Long Range Game Designs [was: Re: We Don't Need No
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:52:26 -0400
Top Cat ranted, standing upon podium, beating chest:
> Design the campaign, work with the players to get the characters to
>mesh,
>then go from there... formula for a perfect campaign.
>
>To which Kohl replys:
> Okay! First off, I've got to say, TopCat, you bring a whole new meaning
>to GM fasism!
> Design the campaign, design out the characters, dictate who goes and
>knows where and what? Why don't you just play all the PCs and NPCs yourself?
> The whole point of the game is to allow the players to run a character
>they LIKE to run, WITHIN REASON. NOT dictate to them what they can and cannot
>have or do!
> I ran into a GM like that during a gaming convention in Buffalo, when I
>was visiting a couple of friends. He had the whole thing laid out to a T,
>with NO flexibility for personalization whatso ever! And it was a tournament
>game slated for 3 nights! having been a Gm for awhile, I can tell someone new
>to the game, so I figured I'd play dumb, like I'd wasn't familiar with the
>game, and just enjoy the ride [OKAY, I'm an EVIL person! Never said I was an
>angel.]
> But as the game went on, it became more apparent that the whole thing
>was just set up so the Gm could see HIS characters played out in HIS story
>HIS way. Having a viscious streak a klick long, I proceeded to use my
>familiarity with the game, mechanics and setting, to 'accelerate'a little
>chaos into the game.
> After the end of the first session, he asked me when we were leaving if
>I'd played before, and I said a little. I suggested he shouldn't be so heavy
>handed in pushing his players, and things would go easier. I was still
>enjoying myself, and thought the storyline was pretty decent.
> The following two days actually were a bit more fun. He allowed the rest
>of the group to tweek their characters to fit how they saw them [NOT power
>wise, but laterally, like a confidence man should have more than 3 Charisma
>and Social Ettiquette, instead of 6 Firearms, etc.]. When it was over,
>everyone had a good time. I ended up being voted, MUCH to my surprise [No,
>really!] best player for the tourney. I'd managed to literally sign a deal
>with the devil, seemingly betray my comrades, and the do an about face, and
>take out the NPC bad guy, escape with my now bewildered comrades [one a troll
>who kept giving me noogies on the top of my head!], and keep the NPC's
>datachip for my self! <pats self on back shamelessly!>
> My self agrandizement aside [What?!? If there's anything around here
>bigger than my ego, I want it found and shot right now!], the point I'm
>TRYING to make is, a GM ruling with an IRON HAND doesn't ensure a MUNCHIE
>proof game, where everyone is compatible and gets along. Try the velvet glove
>instead of the mahogany stick. You might get better results. Of course you'll
>run into powergamers and munchies, it comes with the territory. That's life.
>Taking away a player's free will won't eliminate that.
> The game I'm running now, I set the parameters and pretty much let
>everyone design out their own characters. It was MY job as GM to make a
>scenerio that would eventually unite them in a common cause, and maybe
>forming links lasting long after the story's over. Maybe it will work; maybe
>it won't. But I figure I'd at least try, and if my players like the
>'experiment' I think I did okay.
> DOH! Enough talk. Back to the shadows for this ork. Audi.
>
>Kohl.
Message no. 2
From: TopCat <topcat@***.NET>
Subject: Re: Long Range Game Designs [was: Re: We Don't Need No
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 23:19:32 -0500
At 06:52 PM 7/17/97 -0400, Victor wrote:
>Top Cat ranted, standing upon podium, beating chest:

Now now, Victor, it was all rather logical and nice...

>Design the campaign, work with the players to get the characters to
>mesh, then go from there... formula for a perfect campaign.

>To which Kohl replys:
>Okay! First off, I've got to say, TopCat, you bring a whole new
>meaning to GM fasism!

You forgot the "c" in fascism and no, I don't...

>Design the campaign, design out the characters, dictate who goes and
>knows where and what? Why don't you just play all the PCs and NPCs yourself?

I don't make the characters. I just design the campaign (if I'm running it
that is). The players design the characters, I just provide the campaign
setting and "ok" characters for it. I don't dictate who goes where or does
what either. I do, however play the NPCs. I'm the GM, it's what I do.
Where you getting all this from, Victor? My words are nowhere near what
you've interpreted them as...

>The whole point of the game is to allow the players to run a character
>they LIKE to run, WITHIN REASON. NOT dictate to them what they can and cannot
>have or do!

Perhaps your point of the game is this, but if the GM doesn't enjoy running
the game then it's all rather moot, don't you think? It should be enjoyed
by all. A campaign is proposed by a GM. Anyone who wants in it makes a
character. If nobody wants in it, the campaign never gets going and a
different campaign or game is played. If some people want in and others
don't, that's fine and the game gets played while the others play a
different campaign or game.

>I ran into a GM like that during a gaming convention in Buffalo, when I
>was visiting a couple of friends. He had the whole thing laid out to a T,
>with NO flexibility for personalization whatso ever! And it was a tournament
>game slated for 3 nights! having been a Gm for awhile, I can tell someone new
>to the game, so I figured I'd play dumb, like I'd wasn't familiar with the
>game, and just enjoy the ride [OKAY, I'm an EVIL person! Never said I was an
>angel.]

Conventions are not exactly the kind of places to go to find an open-ended
sort of game. Events are designed to be run a certain way and to utilize
certain characters toward a certain end. They aren't wide-open campaigns
nor could they be such as most must fit into a 2-4 hour time slot. Con
tournaments are a really bad example for you to use here. Even
company-sponsored games hand out pre-made characters and have a solid
plotline to follow with little room for one's creative urges. There just
isn't enough time for one to plumb the depths of character.

Also, tournament events are run in a manner where characters gain points
based on how they go through the motions in comparison to other players who
have also gone through said tournament. They have to be run fairly strictly
for that simple reason, the characters have to be static, as do the NPCs.
That's how they work...

>But as the game went on, it became more apparent that the whole thing
>was just set up so the Gm could see HIS characters played out in HIS story
>HIS way. Having a viscious streak a klick long, I proceeded to use my
>familiarity with the game, mechanics and setting, to 'accelerate'a little
>chaos into the game.

So the guy was a "Bad GM" and you chose to be "the annoying player".
Both
are out there and they'll make the game suck for anyone else involved. I
just avoid 'em and I don't emulate them in any way, shape, or form. Boy,
were you WAY off-base here... heh

> After the end of the first session, he asked me when we were leaving if
>I'd played before, and I said a little. I suggested he shouldn't be so heavy
>handed in pushing his players, and things would go easier. I was still
>enjoying myself, and thought the storyline was pretty decent.
> The following two days actually were a bit more fun. He allowed the rest
>of the group to tweek their characters to fit how they saw them [NOT power
>wise, but laterally, like a confidence man should have more than 3 Charisma
>and Social Ettiquette, instead of 6 Firearms, etc.]. When it was over,
>everyone had a good time. I ended up being voted, MUCH to my surprise [No,
>really!] best player for the tourney.
[snip]

Of course they awarded you, it sounds like you singlehandedly did the event
yourself. You also argued to get their characters stats improved and
everyone likes that. You really thought that you wouldn't be voted best
player after doing the latter?

As a person who doesn't sign up for many con gaming events (I tend to head
toward seminars, but there are a few games that I like to hit), I would
never have found myself facing a GM who designed tournament characters
poorly for their purpose and arranged the thing as a showcase for his NPCs.
You, however, did. Now, there are two things that could be true here...

1) The GM really wasn't bad, but you perceived him as such mainly due to the
fact that you're unfamiliar with tournament-style gaming (your description
of what you saw and how it made you feel clearly expresses this).

2) He really was bad and, through your help, he experienced an epiphany and
changed his ways halfway through the event.

My guess is that #1 is true and that the guy just didn't think through his
premade PCs for the event and realized that they couldn't do what they were
required to do in this tournament event without some minor changes. He made
the changes and everything moved on from there.

>My self agrandizement aside [What?!? If there's anything around here
>bigger than my ego, I want it found and shot right now!], the point I'm
>TRYING to make is, a GM ruling with an IRON HAND doesn't ensure a MUNCHIE
>proof game, where everyone is compatible and gets along. Try the velvet glove
>instead of the mahogany stick. You might get better results. Of course you'll
>run into powergamers and munchies, it comes with the territory. That's life.
>Taking away a player's free will won't eliminate that.

I've never taken away a player's free will. If they want to play a
powergame or a munchkin game, they can find another campaign. If they want
in the current game they'll abide by the basic layout of the campaign. They
get to make their own characters, do their own things, and face the
consequences of their actions. I need no "iron hand" and there are no
munchkins in my game. There are powergamers, but the characters they play
aren't powergamed because the current campaign wasn't designed for
powergamed characters. People still get to play what they want to play
within the realm of the campaign.

Thankfully, I have an entire group of intelligent players who can handle, as
well as appreciate, a variety of campaigns within a variety of games. There
are always other games to play. If they don't want to play mine, they play
someone else's. If I don't want to play their's, I play someone else's.
Everyone gets to do what they want how they want to do it. No player is
forced into something he doesn't want to do, no GM is forced into running
something he doesn't want to run. See how this works? Gaming Utopia...

> The game I'm running now, I set the parameters and pretty much let
>everyone design out their own characters. It was MY job as GM to make a
>scenerio that would eventually unite them in a common cause, and maybe
>forming links lasting long after the story's over. Maybe it will work; maybe
>it won't. But I figure I'd at least try, and if my players like the
>'experiment' I think I did okay.

I find it positively hilarious that you say "I set the parameters" (which is
all that I do and all that I stated that I do) and yet, you don't set the
parameters at all because you claim to let everyone design their characters
pretty much at will. You don't set the parameters because there's a good
chance that they might come from places all over the world and would have no
reason to be anywhere near each other let alone working with each other.
You could have characters that, due to their backgrounds, despise each other
and they'd kill or refuse to work with each other from the very start. You
could have to set up opposition to combat powergamed characters that will
instantly obliterate the characters that aren't powergamed or you could have
to set up the opposition at the levels of non-powergamed characters and
watch as the powergamers kill them all before they get to act. Sounds like
a terrible start to a campaign to me...

Characters should have a location in common, similar power (not combat,
power... there is a difference) levels, and should have a campaign premise
that they fit into. Once they have that, the campaign can begin. Contacts
in common help a great deal as do similar backgrounds, but neither is required.
--
Bob Ooton
topcat@***.net
Message no. 3
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Long Range Game Designs [was: Re: We Don't Need No
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 20:17:13 +0100
In message <c=US%a=_%pÞSHAW%l=MSBOSTON1-970717225226Z-10134@*********.
boston.deshaw.com>, "Fisher, Victor" <Victor-Fisher@******.COM> writes
>Top Cat ranted, standing upon podium, beating chest:
>> Design the campaign, work with the players to get the characters to
>>mesh,
>>then go from there... formula for a perfect campaign.
>>
>>To which Kohl replys:
>> Okay! First off, I've got to say, TopCat, you bring a whole new meaning
>>to GM fasism!
>> Design the campaign, design out the characters, dictate who goes and
>>knows where and what? Why don't you just play all the PCs and NPCs yourself?
>> The whole point of the game is to allow the players to run a character
>>they LIKE to run, WITHIN REASON. NOT dictate to them what they can and cannot
>>have or do!

I tend towards TopCat's position here. I don't think he hands out
character sheets and says "play this or else": if I were joining his
game I guess I'd describe what I wanted to play, and then he and I would
negotiate how to achieve it.

Bob seems to favour small guns: fine, we'll discuss that. Maybe in my
last game SMGs were fairly common: but playing with TopCat they're heavy
artillery and all my PC needs is a pistol or a Defiance T-250.

I don't see that as fascism, I see it as a GM helping his players to
enjoy the campaign better.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 4
From: John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Long Range Game Designs [was: Re: We Don't Need No
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 1997 00:28:33 -0500
>> After the end of the first session, he asked me when we were leaving if
>>I'd played before, and I said a little. I suggested he shouldn't be so heavy
>>handed in pushing his players, and things would go easier. I was still
>>enjoying myself, and thought the storyline was pretty decent.
>> The following two days actually were a bit more fun. He allowed the rest
>>of the group to tweek their characters to fit how they saw them [NOT power
>>wise, but laterally, like a confidence man should have more than 3 Charisma
>>and Social Ettiquette, instead of 6 Firearms, etc.]. When it was over,
>>everyone had a good time. I ended up being voted, MUCH to my surprise [No,
>>really!] best player for the tourney.
>[snip]
>
>Of course they awarded you, it sounds like you singlehandedly did the event
>yourself. You also argued to get their characters stats improved and
>everyone likes that. You really thought that you wouldn't be voted best
>player after doing the latter?
>


You where not at the game, how do you know why they did or didnt vote him
best player. Sounds to me like you are being argumentative.

Seems to me that you two are arguing for arguments sake and have lost sight
of your points. What are your points? I see nothing but bickering in this
thread. I dont know about everyone else, but I'm tired of seeing a bunch of
discussions where neither side remembers what idea theyre supporting.

Oh well, so much for my 2 cents.

John

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Long Range Game Designs [was: Re: We Don't Need No, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!