This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights 20100727 - Luke and Jared on RPGs

24

Comments

  • edited July 2010
    I'm just glad people are yelling at Rym and Scott and not me. Don't worry, that'll change.
    Post edited by Jared A. Sorensen on
  • We strongly doubt any of it goes in, but we like to feel we're making the effort.
  • I'm just glad people are yelling at Rym and Scott and not me. Don't worry, that'll change.
    I don't know yet, maybe it will, maybe it won't. I'll get around to listening to the episode when I'm done catching up with Tales of the Extraordinary.
    However, I will try to be rather more polite to you than I am to Rym and Scott, at least until you get used to my particular brand of brusque.
  • Churba is just a contrarian.
  • edited July 2010
    Churba is just a contrarian.
    Well played, sir, well played. I can only agree with you.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • Churba is just a contrarian.
    image
  • This was on a earlier podcast but what was the rpg that Rym and Scott played were it did not have a GM. Was that Freemarket?
  • This was on a earlier podcast but what was the rpg that Rym and Scott played were it did not have a GM. Was that Freemarket?
    Freemarket has a "GM." It's the computer. Shock doesn't have a GM. Neither does Fiasco. Lots of RPGs don't, but those are the ones we've discussed recently.
  • FreeMarket has a superuser, analogous to a GM. The people on the space station are the users.

    The computer that runs the space station is the Aggregate.
  • FreeMarket has a superuser, analogous to a GM. The people on the space station are the users.

    The computer that runs the space station is the Aggregate.
    I'm sorry I was not 100% accurate.

    Wait... If the GM is a superuser, and not the Aggregate, is it to be assumed then that they are an actual person somewhere on the donut that can eventually be found and/or fucked with?
  • edited July 2010
    This was on a earlier podcast but what was the rpg that Rym and Scott played were it did not have a GM. Was that Freemarket?
    Freemarket has a "GM." It's the computer. Shock doesn't have a GM. Neither does Fiasco. Lots of RPGs don't, but those are the ones we've discussed recently.
    Shock was the game I was thinking about. I don't play much roleplay games but I've never heard of the GM being referred to before as the Aggregate. Is there a difference?
    Post edited by Josh Bytes on
  • edited July 2010
    Shock was the game I was thinking about. I don't play much roleplay games but I've never heard of the GM being referred to before as the Aggregate. Is there a difference?
    The Aggregate is the name of the computer on the space station "The Donut" in the game of Freemarket. Apparently the Aggregate isn't the GM. The Super User is the GM.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • Shock was the game I was thinking about. I don't play much roleplay games but I've never heard of the GM being referred to before as the Aggregate. Is there a difference?
    The Aggregate is the name of the computer on the space station "The Donut" in the game of Freemarket. Apparently the Aggregate isn't the GM. The Super User is the GM.
    That. Also some games use funny names for GM to enforce the theme or setting of the game. Prime Time Adventures is about television so it has Producer, D&D; is about dungeons so it has Dungeon Master and so on.
  • edited July 2010
    Wait... If the GM is a superuser, and not the Aggregate, is it to be assumed then that they are an actual person somewhere on the donut that can eventually be found and/or fucked with?
    Reread the glossary entry... :)
    Post edited by Jared A. Sorensen on
  • Reread the glossary entry... :)
    Maybe I could if you would mail me my box.
  • edited July 2010
    Oh, if only I had that power!

    To sate your thirst for knowledge:

    Superuser

    When things are going well, users are happy to
    take credit. When trouble rears its ugly head and
    life gets buggy, they blame the superuser.

    Post edited by Jared A. Sorensen on
  • 99.999% of the time, whatever the person is going to point out as some terrible flaw is generally something that could have been solved trivially, often by just either holding a metaphorical mirror up to the player, pointing at their reflection, and saying "Really, seriously now?
    If the rules of the game don't tell you to do just that, and don't give you a specific way to address the problem, then it's a shitty game. Never evaluate a game based on what you as a human bring to the table: ask what the game brings to you. If you solve problems outside of the game's mechanics, why are you using this game over another one?

    As I've said, we have a solid hour of lecture on just this topic. ;^)
    Using that as a guideline, even Burning Wheel has it's faults. Take for example the discussion that has started up again on the burning wheel forums: Why use a sword? The Burning Wheel game system assumes a certain kind of player: one which is more interested in making a fun-to-play character than "winning" the game. Anyone coming to BW with the D&D; additude of "me vs. the GM's monsters" is going to look at the BW mechanics and think they are broken. "But why would I ever want the trait "missing a limb??"
  • Using that as a guideline, even Burning Wheel has it's faults... Anyone coming to BW with the D&D; additude of "me vs. the GM's monsters" is going to look at the BW mechanics and think they are broken. "But why would I ever want the trait "missing a limb??"
    Exactly!

    If you want to play a certain game or make a particular kind of story, use the system that best facilitates that. I don't use Burning Wheel to play my procedural dungeon crawl, and I don't use D&D; to play my love story. If you can bring it to the table, then of what use is the game itself?
  • edited August 2010
    To turn it into a very simple analogy, It's like driving a car - The car has all the stuff a car needs for you to drive. If you drive all over the road, then crash it into a tree, that's not because it's a terrible car, it's because you drove shitty, and caused the car to crash into a tree.
    True, but some cars provide a better driving experience. Additionally, you can't drive every car the same way. Driving a high-peformance supercar is hard as balls, but if you can manage it, nothing else will compare.

    Basically, different games are good at different things and provide different roleplaying experiences. Pick the game that best suits your needs, or try out a new game to get a different experience.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • If Burning Wheel were the be-all end-all of RPGs, why would we be talking about other games like Inspectres or Dread or Fiasco or Freemarket?

    Burning Wheel is really only good if you want to tell a story about Tolkien-esque elves, dwarves, humans, and/or orcs that is rife with emotional and physical conflict. If you don't wan to play that, Burning Wheel is not ideal.

    I think people's problem is that they are currently using D&D for every game, no matter what the game is about. Thus, if you say some game is better than D&D, then they assume that other game must be used for everything. The fact is that each RPG is only good for a specific kind of game. GURPS might handle a wide variety of settings, but it really only works on one kind of story in those settings. This is why you need a whole toolbox of RPGs for every kind of story you might want to tell.

    The thing is, most people who do play tabletop RPGs are actually trying to tell Tolkien-esque fantasy tales of humans, elves, dwarves, and/or orcs that are rife with emotional and physical conflict. Thus, Burning Wheel is the game of choice.
  • Rym said "I don't use Burning Wheel to play my procedural dungeon crawl, and I don't use D&D to play my love story. If you can bring it to the table, then of what use is the game itself? "

    Actually you want to use Burning Wheel for a procedural dungeon crawl. You'd only need like one or two rooms max per night and you can relax and drink beer and pretzels while the players stab each other ;-p
  • This is why you need a whole toolbox of RPGs for every kind of story you might want to tell.
    I'm not sure you need a different game for each story, but I get what you mean. Most games can have a bit of tweaking room. GURPS and Palladium especially. D&D; gives you a solid mix of customization and core storytelling content.

    BW, Burning Empires, Mouse Guard, Dread, Fiasco and Freemarket are designed to have very little to no room for tweaking. This lets you put more focus on certain aspects of the one type of game you want to play, but you loose the ability to use it as a multi-use RPG system.

    EX: BW is a razor edged sushi knife shaped perfectly to thinly slice blow fish and only blow fish. You don't use it to chop tomatoes.
    D&D; is a sturdy 8inch chef knife. You use that for everything.
  • When I saw the phrase "procedural dungeon crawl", I was reminded of a D&D game I played with a college group back in 1985. The premise was that people were being murdered by something in the nearby dungeon and we were hired by the captain of the guard to investigate.
  • edited August 2010
    GURPS and Palladium especially.
    GURPs gives you a lot of tweaking room in terms of setting. Outer space? Ok. Ancient history? Ok. It doesn't give you a lot of tweaking room in terms of the kind of story you are going to tell. Suspense, intrigue, comedy, action, procedural, psychedelic, mystery, how many of these does it cover? It doesn't cover that many, since most of the rules are about fighting and such. It's basically the same as D&D.; They sell more books with more different settings, but all the books are the same game.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • Suspense, intrigue, comedy, action, procedural, psychedelic, mystery, how many of these does it cover?
    All of them. The setting changes the flavor of the game and helps to set the mood. The type of story told in that setting is still left up to the GM.
  • All of them. The setting changes the flavor of the game and helps to set the mood. The type of story told in that setting is still left up to the GM.
    That's a pretty big contradiction there. The type of story told is up to th GM. In other words, it's the GM telling the story, not the game. Any GM can tell any story, but we don't care about that. We care about what kind of story the game itself can tell. D&D;, and its friends, can only tell a story of fighting and getting loot. If the GM happens to tell a different kind of story at the same time, that has nothing to do with the game. I could tell you a romance story while you sit down and play Nethack, that doesn't mean that Nethack has anything to do with romance.

    Dread tells a horror story. That's all it tells. The GM doesn't make it that way, the game makes it that way. The Jenga tower builds suspense and releases it with player death. The game itself is telling that kind of story. That's the whole point. If your story is just going to come from the GM or the players, then what do you need the game for at all? The game isn't doing anything but getting in the way. The game should tell the story, and help you make it more awesome.
  • If your story is just going to come from the GM or the players, then what do you need the game for at all?
    The games sets the guide lines for the story. It's the "physics" engine and walls of the sand box. The GM makes castles out of the sand and the players move their actions figures around inside that box. Any games is only as fun as you make it. "The Sword" is just about getting loots. It's got some bells and whistles, but that's it. The story and fun of any game comes from the player, GM and the interactions between them.
    Dread tells a horror story. That's all it tells.
    Yup. It tell one type of story. You might as well read a book. I'll go play in my sandbox.
  • I'll go play in my sandbox.
    If you want a sandbox, you can just get some friends together and sandbox your brains out without any game whatsoever. If a sandbox is what you want, then why have a game at all? What is the purpose of an RPG?
  • Yup. It tell one type of story. You might as well read a book.
    One type of story, not one story.
    I'll go play in my sandbox.
    D&D;, as a sandbox, is an empty one. Just about everything that makes your story great comes from the players themselves: the system provides almost nothing beyond a backdrop of combat. It provides little currency and no true incentives.

    So, why not play in a sandbox all the same, but one where the few tools and toys that are there are interesting and useful.

    The whole point of "Beyond Dungeons & Dragons" is simply that you should never evaluate a game system on any merits but the rules themselves. They're the whole of the system. If you're the one bringing the story to the table, and you're bringing it well, D&D; isn't helping you: it's just there.

    D&D; is a hammer. Burning Wheel is an awl. GURPS is a hammer with a different label on it.

    If you want to hammer a nail in, D&D; is perfect. GURPS is equal, but with a different look. Burning Wheel doesn't serve the purpose very well.

    If you want to make a hole in some leather, Burning Wheel is perfect. D&D; and GURPS completely suck. Your argument is the equivalent of saying "A hammer does a great job of putting a small hole in leather if I also bring my own awl with me and use that."
Sign In or Register to comment.