DISCLAIMER - This isn't a legal debate but a moral one. The laws are defined by people more powerful than me. When I'm in a position to do something about the laws I'll start making those debates.
Admittedly I have been known to pirate certain things, some of them I feel a small twinge of guilt in doing so, some I feel no guilt whatsoever, and in a few cases I feel my actions are not only warranted but I feel an obligation to encourage others to do the same. I wanted to touch on a bit of this to help work out my feelings on supply, demand and creation.
Music - Since the advent of itunes I have almost stopped pirating music altogether. I can buy songs I like on an individual basis, it's quick and easy for me to support artists I like, and I can download a song at work to listen to on my ipod on my way home. I've heard (but not verified) that artists get a bit better percentage for their works from apple which makes me more inclined to want to use that as well.
I generally hate the RIAA and how it was exploiting recording artists and generally diminishing music as an art form by favoring engineered beats that are designed to get stuck in your head. This arguement has it's flaws I realize but it's an opinion, not a fact. I also didn't care to pay $20.00 for a CD which I only liked 2 songs on. itunes has fixed that, so I no longer have the inclination or feel morally obligated to pirate music.
PDFs - The only PDF's I actively use are RPG PDF's, and admittedly when I pirate these I do feel a bit guilty for doing so. I do a few things to assuage this guilt though. Games that I actually want to play or end up playing will enevitably be bought in dead-tree form by me, and games that I'm enthusiastically involved in I'll usually buy the PDF on the day it's released and then order the dead tree from the bookstore when it becomes available. I don't complain about this, however companies that offer some way for me to get a PDF as a bonus for purchasing a book have my gratitude.
Most PDF's I do actually pirate are games that I just want to peruse, like leafing through one on a bookshelf. Not justification I know, but I feel that perhaps it's a bit better that the book got out there a bit because otherwise I'd have never taken that look.
Warhammer - This is a subset of RPG's that deserves special mention because I feel morally obligated to pirate the shit out of their miniatures. I have a friend who casts silicone molds and though some of the finer warhammer miniatures aren't castable, there's a lot of stuff that is. If he actually had the capability to mold an entire army-line of miniatures I would probably start playing Warhammer again just for the satisfaction of knowing that I was screwing them in my own small way. They over-priced their product long ago, and frankly I find their business model offensive. Given the lack of a viable way to pirate their stuff, I'm more than happy to boycott them, even while living within a block of probably one of the best venues for playing Warhammer in the northern hemisphere.
Movies - I go to the theatre, I buy movies on Blu Ray when they're available, and DVD if they're truly exceptional, and would support them more if more blu ray titles were available where I live, regrettably they're not. TV shows I feel should be legitimized on the torrents complete with advertising. They're easily trackable so ad revenue is simple to get. It's not my fault that the studios aren't capitalizing on this opportunity.
Programs - I don't pirate computer games anymore. Steam makes them quite accessible. Certain microsoft products like older versions of Office seem justified for piracy (older versions of lots of things really). There is still a small black pit of hatred in my heart for antivirus software that I would pirate if I could... but that's an excercise in futility. If you own a PC you have to pay for antivirus, anything less and you're asking to be screwed.
Adobe is another one of those special exceptions. While their creative suite software is extremely expensive, I can't say if it's overpriced or not, I know that I can't afford it, but I like to use it. A slight moral justification is that the pirated versions are teaching me how to use their products which may eventually lead to me buying a legitimate copy. Acrobat however I feel very strongly that EVERYONE should pirate! I really like interactive PDF's for character sheets, but without Acrobat Pro, interactive sheets can't be saved with their changes which is a deliberate withold of functionality that I just cannot forgive. If Adobe included the ability to save interactive PDFs in their reader, my stance would change.
Most of my opinions are independent of quality of product or my opinion of the business ethics of the company. They're strictly based on if I think the product is available easily and for a fair price. Apple I know has some very harsh mandates on it's employees and it's ipod app approval process is bordering on despicable but I will continue to give them my money because they offer a product that meets my expectations for a reasonable price and make it accessible easily.
Lastly, from a moral standpoint copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is taking something from someone so that they don't have it anymore. Copyright infringement takes nothing from anyone and in 90% of the scenarios where the product was pirated, I would have never have payed for that product anyways and of that remaining 10% probably 5% was simply me demoing the product before buying, so it is a very rare case where I've actually deprived any creator of cash they would have otherwise gotten.
I'm interested in hearing what other people's personal stances are on the whole issue. Some of my friends are content creators out there and are trying to make a living doing so, they're people I wouldn't want to hurt by depriving them of cash or creating holes in their business model. There are also questions of availability. If pirated content is easier to obtain than legitimate, isn't that a case of poor market availability?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
New Systems
This weekend I finished up working on Hardkore, I'm a bit sad by this because it's entirely without fanfare and I'm not sure my work will ever see the light of day. Despite this I'm moving on with new ideas. I want to create my own game and the prospects of doing so on my own terms excites me.
So I've been working on a system that's very different from Hardkore's principles of simulationism. This one is about accessibility and is designed to use familiar tenants and systems to attract new gamers. This is my first attempt which you may critique.
The foundation of the system is 3d6 and a Texas Holdem-style poker Mechanic.
I'll explain.
Characters have
Stats (standard faire Strength Dex Intelligence etc... ) ranging from 0 to +3
Skills (Also standard, Melee, Archery, Stealth...) ranging from 0 to +5
Equipment (That provides mods) ranging from 0 (no equipment) to +3 (awesome magical stuff)
Basic Action
A basic action is resolved by a 3d6 + Stat + Skill + Equipment Die Roll.
A Resisted Action
A resisted action adds in a Poker-Style Mechanic, here's how it works.
Terminology:
A Turn is a segment of time in which a single rolled action is conducted.
A Round is 4 turns in which a game of holdem poker determines a result in addition to the die roll results of the Basic Actions.
The Action Pool is the modifier number of the basic action the character is doing (Stat+Skill+Equipment) represented as individual points, players draw points from the pool to place bets each action.
The round consists of:
1. The Deal. - 2 Cards are delt to every player involved. The Ante is announced. The ante is the situational difficulty of the conflicts in question and is chosen by the GM. For example, a duel on a slippery rooftop in the rain will have a higher Ante then a duel in an open field. Players pull points from their action pool to place their bets and then the die roll for the action is rolled with the remaining modifiers from the Action Pool.
2. The Flop - 3 community cards are layed down by the GM. The players can again bet a portion of their action pool (minimum of the Ante, but not a multiple of) before rolling their 2nd Action.
3. The Turn - The 4th community card is laid down and another round of betting commences before the players roll their actions.
4. The River - The final community card is laid down and players that have not folded have a showdown, the winner recieves the pot of bets.
Folding means that the PC goes on the defensive for the rest of the round, they get +5 to their Defensive Pool, but cannot take any offensive actions until the Round is over.
During the round any players can choose to flip one of their pocket cards to add the value of that card to their die roll. (Aces = 1, Jacks =11 Queens = 12, Kings = 13). The card remains flipped and in-play assuming the player doesn't fold.
If one player bets more than another player's action pool and the underdog wishes to remain playing the round, she can go All-In (using all her Action Pool and rolling her unmodified Die Roll for her actions), but must go All-In for the remaining actions in the round unless her opponent who forced the All-In folds.
The winner of the round gets the pot. Each subsequent action that PC spends the pot to add a bonus to her die rolls. The number of points spent, (and thus the bonus) is dependent on the winning hand.
High Card = +1
Pair = +2
2 Pair = +2
3 Of a kind = +3
Straight = +3
Flush = +3
Full House = +3
Four of a Kind = +4
Straight Flush = +4.
Health levels at this point will start at 18. If a PC is brought to 12, then she loses a die to all actions. If brought to 6 she goes down to using one die on all actions. At zero she's incapacitated and at the mercy of the GM/other players. Damage is equal to the remaining modifier from an attack after defense is subtracted.
Defense. Weapons will have an offensive and defensive modifier. Defensive actions are unrolled and are 10 + Defensive Pool. If the player folds a round that goes up to 15 + Defensive Pool.
There's the rudiments of my system idea. Comments questions and ideas are always welcome.
So I've been working on a system that's very different from Hardkore's principles of simulationism. This one is about accessibility and is designed to use familiar tenants and systems to attract new gamers. This is my first attempt which you may critique.
The foundation of the system is 3d6 and a Texas Holdem-style poker Mechanic.
I'll explain.
Characters have
Stats (standard faire Strength Dex Intelligence etc... ) ranging from 0 to +3
Skills (Also standard, Melee, Archery, Stealth...) ranging from 0 to +5
Equipment (That provides mods) ranging from 0 (no equipment) to +3 (awesome magical stuff)
Basic Action
A basic action is resolved by a 3d6 + Stat + Skill + Equipment Die Roll.
A Resisted Action
A resisted action adds in a Poker-Style Mechanic, here's how it works.
Terminology:
A Turn is a segment of time in which a single rolled action is conducted.
A Round is 4 turns in which a game of holdem poker determines a result in addition to the die roll results of the Basic Actions.
The Action Pool is the modifier number of the basic action the character is doing (Stat+Skill+Equipment) represented as individual points, players draw points from the pool to place bets each action.
The round consists of:
1. The Deal. - 2 Cards are delt to every player involved. The Ante is announced. The ante is the situational difficulty of the conflicts in question and is chosen by the GM. For example, a duel on a slippery rooftop in the rain will have a higher Ante then a duel in an open field. Players pull points from their action pool to place their bets and then the die roll for the action is rolled with the remaining modifiers from the Action Pool.
2. The Flop - 3 community cards are layed down by the GM. The players can again bet a portion of their action pool (minimum of the Ante, but not a multiple of) before rolling their 2nd Action.
3. The Turn - The 4th community card is laid down and another round of betting commences before the players roll their actions.
4. The River - The final community card is laid down and players that have not folded have a showdown, the winner recieves the pot of bets.
Folding means that the PC goes on the defensive for the rest of the round, they get +5 to their Defensive Pool, but cannot take any offensive actions until the Round is over.
During the round any players can choose to flip one of their pocket cards to add the value of that card to their die roll. (Aces = 1, Jacks =11 Queens = 12, Kings = 13). The card remains flipped and in-play assuming the player doesn't fold.
If one player bets more than another player's action pool and the underdog wishes to remain playing the round, she can go All-In (using all her Action Pool and rolling her unmodified Die Roll for her actions), but must go All-In for the remaining actions in the round unless her opponent who forced the All-In folds.
The winner of the round gets the pot. Each subsequent action that PC spends the pot to add a bonus to her die rolls. The number of points spent, (and thus the bonus) is dependent on the winning hand.
High Card = +1
Pair = +2
2 Pair = +2
3 Of a kind = +3
Straight = +3
Flush = +3
Full House = +3
Four of a Kind = +4
Straight Flush = +4.
Health levels at this point will start at 18. If a PC is brought to 12, then she loses a die to all actions. If brought to 6 she goes down to using one die on all actions. At zero she's incapacitated and at the mercy of the GM/other players. Damage is equal to the remaining modifier from an attack after defense is subtracted.
Defense. Weapons will have an offensive and defensive modifier. Defensive actions are unrolled and are 10 + Defensive Pool. If the player folds a round that goes up to 15 + Defensive Pool.
There's the rudiments of my system idea. Comments questions and ideas are always welcome.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Bad Games
Lately I've been playing only bad games. (except DIRT for the PS3, which was well worth the $11 I payed for it at EB games) By bad I mean really BAD, especially on the RPG front. Today I want to talk about 2 games specifically because I think they're bad for opposite reasons, Vampire Wars and (all) the RPG games my best friend runs.
To those of you who aren't familiar with Facebook and it's plethora of "apps" which simultaneously ammuse and irritate the majority of it's users, Vampire Wars is a facebook App Game where you "play" (very loose term there) a Vampire. By play I mean that you create a unique vampire character by giving it a name, and then dressing it up in the very tiny handful of clothing options they give you. Then you get a handful of actions to do with this vampire you've just created. You can do "missions" which is basically click on a link and get a reward in exchange for spending a pool of various stat-points that automatically replenish over time. There's no risk in the missions, and nothing fancy or entertaining about them, simply click the link, get the feedback/reward. The missions even have these imagination-inspiring names that make you wish you could actually have your vampire do them a little, like "Defeat a rival vampire." or "Infiltrate the Spider Queen's lair" but after the first 15 seconds you stop looking at their token attempt to dress up which is essentially a slot-machine mechanic without any chance or potential for meaningful reward.
The other main action is "combat" which is more link clicking, but this involves some chance. The factors to win are how many people you've sucked into playing this stupid game with you, and how many little graphically illustrated "abilities" you've managed to accumulate through gameplay. The more of both the better. You fight other players to steal some of their stuff and get bragging rights that's represented by a numerical value.
That's basically all there is to Vampire Wars, they have a revenue generating mechanic that lets you buy a certain kind of rare currency to purchase some of the cooler stuff, but it doesn't change the core gameplay which is so sparse and pointless that I'd laugh if I hadn't been playing this stupid game for 2 weeks now.
The thing is, Vampire wars does one thing for me that keeps me logging on a couple times a day, it inspires my imagination. The game makes me remember the old LARPing days of Vampire the Masquerade when me and my fellow players were trying to plan and execute our schemes to hurt other vampires, influence and feed on mortals and protect our sleeping havens. We had to describe and role-play our actions before our arbitrating GM who would sometimes oppose our attempts and thus we went away unsuccessful as often as not. But it was fun. Vampire Wars reminds me of those fun escapades where we'd screw around and try to pull off things without getting our precious characters killed.
On the other end of the spectrum are the RPG games my friend tries to run, which I've all but sworn off of, despite the fact that he's my best friend, and I really really want to play more games right now. His games are steeped in complexity but for all his efforts they don't inspire anything in me but frustration. Where Vampire Wars is simply an advancement of an avatar that's conceptually so flimsy to barely even be there, his games are entirely concept with hardly any mechanical structure to gain purchase to. His games are all story, but the story is meant to be made by the players, but he doesn't like to give the players the means or inspiration to strive for anything, because those would be things that we could exploit, and exploiting things is the death of all RPG's it seems. I'm sure he'd say that I'm way off base, but I've spent the last 5 years trying to understand his games and that's the best I've figured.
I wish I could combine the strengths of both of these bad games and get to play a good game, but my magic lamp and genie is taking it's time arriving. Maybe I'll figure something out in the interim.
To those of you who aren't familiar with Facebook and it's plethora of "apps" which simultaneously ammuse and irritate the majority of it's users, Vampire Wars is a facebook App Game where you "play" (very loose term there) a Vampire. By play I mean that you create a unique vampire character by giving it a name, and then dressing it up in the very tiny handful of clothing options they give you. Then you get a handful of actions to do with this vampire you've just created. You can do "missions" which is basically click on a link and get a reward in exchange for spending a pool of various stat-points that automatically replenish over time. There's no risk in the missions, and nothing fancy or entertaining about them, simply click the link, get the feedback/reward. The missions even have these imagination-inspiring names that make you wish you could actually have your vampire do them a little, like "Defeat a rival vampire." or "Infiltrate the Spider Queen's lair" but after the first 15 seconds you stop looking at their token attempt to dress up which is essentially a slot-machine mechanic without any chance or potential for meaningful reward.
The other main action is "combat" which is more link clicking, but this involves some chance. The factors to win are how many people you've sucked into playing this stupid game with you, and how many little graphically illustrated "abilities" you've managed to accumulate through gameplay. The more of both the better. You fight other players to steal some of their stuff and get bragging rights that's represented by a numerical value.
That's basically all there is to Vampire Wars, they have a revenue generating mechanic that lets you buy a certain kind of rare currency to purchase some of the cooler stuff, but it doesn't change the core gameplay which is so sparse and pointless that I'd laugh if I hadn't been playing this stupid game for 2 weeks now.
The thing is, Vampire wars does one thing for me that keeps me logging on a couple times a day, it inspires my imagination. The game makes me remember the old LARPing days of Vampire the Masquerade when me and my fellow players were trying to plan and execute our schemes to hurt other vampires, influence and feed on mortals and protect our sleeping havens. We had to describe and role-play our actions before our arbitrating GM who would sometimes oppose our attempts and thus we went away unsuccessful as often as not. But it was fun. Vampire Wars reminds me of those fun escapades where we'd screw around and try to pull off things without getting our precious characters killed.
On the other end of the spectrum are the RPG games my friend tries to run, which I've all but sworn off of, despite the fact that he's my best friend, and I really really want to play more games right now. His games are steeped in complexity but for all his efforts they don't inspire anything in me but frustration. Where Vampire Wars is simply an advancement of an avatar that's conceptually so flimsy to barely even be there, his games are entirely concept with hardly any mechanical structure to gain purchase to. His games are all story, but the story is meant to be made by the players, but he doesn't like to give the players the means or inspiration to strive for anything, because those would be things that we could exploit, and exploiting things is the death of all RPG's it seems. I'm sure he'd say that I'm way off base, but I've spent the last 5 years trying to understand his games and that's the best I've figured.
I wish I could combine the strengths of both of these bad games and get to play a good game, but my magic lamp and genie is taking it's time arriving. Maybe I'll figure something out in the interim.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Understanding Power
Power. A lot of people don't understand what is real power or how to attain it. If you ask most people what makes you powerful, they'll tell you "money".
"Money is Power" we've probably all heard that mantra at one time or another, but it's not true.
Not true power. Money is an illusion created by the truly powerful to control people, it's a goal for regular people to strive to so they don't actually see what causes others to have true power over them. Money is only a bi-product of power, and it is in the best interests of those who actually have power to keep people striving to attain it.
There are actually 7 paths to true power. These paths are rooted in the basic needs of humanity, control any one of these paths, even a small bit of one and you control people. Control all of one whole path and you effectively have control over all people. A being that controls all 7 paths can only be a god.
1. Information
2. Food
3. Sex
4. Land
5. Water
6. Energy
7. Death
You won't find that list in any manual for global domination, but nonetheless it's the truth and it's been that way for thousands of years. There are a few points to consider about each of these keys.
- Controlling information controls how people think, but also grants a form of omniscience as well as omnipotence.
- Controlling food allows someone to eventually control life and how it evolves and if it survives. There is far more genetic modification happening in the food we eat then most people realize.
- Absolute control of sex has proven difficult it generally controls us more than we can control it. Control of reproduction is possible and done so in many alarming ways, but controlling the drive for sex without catastrophic consequence has proved much more elusive.
- By and large, governments control Land they use this control to have power over the citizens.
- Water is far easier to control than most people would believe. It's necessary and disturbingly easy to withhold from people but also easy to add drugs and chemicals to as well. It is increasingly difficult to find water without fluoride in it.
- Energy comes in many forms starting with gravity and the sun. The types that people can control grant massive amounts of power to those who do.
- Death is far more of a necessity than most believe. It is both essential and inevitable, and every spiritual organization ever conceived of has existed to control it.
Those of you who want power best study these 7 paths and work to master them, but also guard against those who would master too much of any path. More on these paths, and those who follow and abuse them in future posts.
"Money is Power" we've probably all heard that mantra at one time or another, but it's not true.
Not true power. Money is an illusion created by the truly powerful to control people, it's a goal for regular people to strive to so they don't actually see what causes others to have true power over them. Money is only a bi-product of power, and it is in the best interests of those who actually have power to keep people striving to attain it.
There are actually 7 paths to true power. These paths are rooted in the basic needs of humanity, control any one of these paths, even a small bit of one and you control people. Control all of one whole path and you effectively have control over all people. A being that controls all 7 paths can only be a god.
1. Information
2. Food
3. Sex
4. Land
5. Water
6. Energy
7. Death
You won't find that list in any manual for global domination, but nonetheless it's the truth and it's been that way for thousands of years. There are a few points to consider about each of these keys.
- Controlling information controls how people think, but also grants a form of omniscience as well as omnipotence.
- Controlling food allows someone to eventually control life and how it evolves and if it survives. There is far more genetic modification happening in the food we eat then most people realize.
- Absolute control of sex has proven difficult it generally controls us more than we can control it. Control of reproduction is possible and done so in many alarming ways, but controlling the drive for sex without catastrophic consequence has proved much more elusive.
- By and large, governments control Land they use this control to have power over the citizens.
- Water is far easier to control than most people would believe. It's necessary and disturbingly easy to withhold from people but also easy to add drugs and chemicals to as well. It is increasingly difficult to find water without fluoride in it.
- Energy comes in many forms starting with gravity and the sun. The types that people can control grant massive amounts of power to those who do.
- Death is far more of a necessity than most believe. It is both essential and inevitable, and every spiritual organization ever conceived of has existed to control it.
Those of you who want power best study these 7 paths and work to master them, but also guard against those who would master too much of any path. More on these paths, and those who follow and abuse them in future posts.
For Those Who Hate Twitter But Haven't Tried It...
I was there with you, didn't see the point, hating the idea of a digital leash, a bunch of online stalkers stalking each other... I thought, "Nah! I like blogging, I enjoy conversing with people online but Twitter... that's too much, that shit's for crazy folks."
Here's the thing, contrary to first impressions, Twitter isn't a peep hole into everyone's private lives. No one I follow Tweets "Eating now" or "Bored at work", if they did I wouldn't follow them. They tweet interesting things, or if they're not interesting, they make them interesting by adding personal insight or humorous quip, or something else that makes the post dynamic and interesting enough to waste the 2 seconds it takes to read it. If the tweet strikes a chord with someone, they might @reply you and a conversation is started.
Pretty creepy huh. Fuckin stalkers.
A couple of my old Vox peeps amuse me with their adamant avoidance of Twitter, it's amusing because they're exactly the sorts of people that enjoy Twitter the most. They carry on huge threads of conversations in the comment space below their blogs, engaging nearly everyone and making them feel like they're interesting and contributing something too. These are the great social butterflies of the internet that I will strive to be like, making people feel good to be in their presence, happy to call them friend. These people always seem to be able to make time for even the geekiest introvert, and for that they deserve the praise they inevitably receive.
Twitter embraces these sorts of people, they're the best contributers to the network and take the most from it, it's not a one-way relationship, if it were no one would use it.
I don't criticize people who don't use twitter, not everyone is meant to, just like not everyone is meant to blog, or write, or draw, or be a public speaker. Some people would get a lot out of it but simply don't have the time, or can't afford yet another distraction, I can't fault anyone for that either. But for those who see it as a senseless waste of time they'll get bored with, when they write the best blogs and interact heavily in comments; they I can only educate, and after being shown what they're missing they're only missing out on a way to reach and interact with more people. If you want to keep things small and intimate, then yeah, don't use Twitter, but if you want to reach a wider audience, meet more people, get more information about the stuff you're interested in and have a better network of contacts and friends... then you owe it to yourself to give it a try for at least a few months.
...and if and when you do, follow me.
Here's the thing, contrary to first impressions, Twitter isn't a peep hole into everyone's private lives. No one I follow Tweets "Eating now" or "Bored at work", if they did I wouldn't follow them. They tweet interesting things, or if they're not interesting, they make them interesting by adding personal insight or humorous quip, or something else that makes the post dynamic and interesting enough to waste the 2 seconds it takes to read it. If the tweet strikes a chord with someone, they might @reply you and a conversation is started.
Pretty creepy huh. Fuckin stalkers.
A couple of my old Vox peeps amuse me with their adamant avoidance of Twitter, it's amusing because they're exactly the sorts of people that enjoy Twitter the most. They carry on huge threads of conversations in the comment space below their blogs, engaging nearly everyone and making them feel like they're interesting and contributing something too. These are the great social butterflies of the internet that I will strive to be like, making people feel good to be in their presence, happy to call them friend. These people always seem to be able to make time for even the geekiest introvert, and for that they deserve the praise they inevitably receive.
Twitter embraces these sorts of people, they're the best contributers to the network and take the most from it, it's not a one-way relationship, if it were no one would use it.
I don't criticize people who don't use twitter, not everyone is meant to, just like not everyone is meant to blog, or write, or draw, or be a public speaker. Some people would get a lot out of it but simply don't have the time, or can't afford yet another distraction, I can't fault anyone for that either. But for those who see it as a senseless waste of time they'll get bored with, when they write the best blogs and interact heavily in comments; they I can only educate, and after being shown what they're missing they're only missing out on a way to reach and interact with more people. If you want to keep things small and intimate, then yeah, don't use Twitter, but if you want to reach a wider audience, meet more people, get more information about the stuff you're interested in and have a better network of contacts and friends... then you owe it to yourself to give it a try for at least a few months.
...and if and when you do, follow me.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Making Things More General
Hi folks. I'm writing this directly onto the internet text field, hence the ugly font.
I'm starting to get frustrated that I'm not writing as much as I once was so I'm going to eliminate the self-imposed restriction of "just RPG" content here so that I write more stuff that just comes to mind. My Vox blog was originally for this purpose but Vox is sliding into the same pit that Geocities was lost into and I have no desire to ride it down.
So hopefully this marks a new surge in content here.
Now something really cool from G, who is a fucking fantastic dude and also a Martian, and if you don't have his blog on your RSS reader right now then fix that shit.
I'm starting to get frustrated that I'm not writing as much as I once was so I'm going to eliminate the self-imposed restriction of "just RPG" content here so that I write more stuff that just comes to mind. My Vox blog was originally for this purpose but Vox is sliding into the same pit that Geocities was lost into and I have no desire to ride it down.
So hopefully this marks a new surge in content here.
Now something really cool from G, who is a fucking fantastic dude and also a Martian, and if you don't have his blog on your RSS reader right now then fix that shit.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Helmsman's RPG Preferences
In response to a neat little rundown by Stuart at Robinson Games about preferences in playstyle. His focus was on the various versions of D&D but I believe they're relevant in most any RPG, so like many others I've decided to post my preferences.
Comprehensive Rules(1) vs. Minimal Rules(10)
5.
I want solid fundamentals that make sense. That means comprehensive, but a good game system maintains simplicity through good fundaments. An example of this would be having a good system for weapons rules with a bit of mechanical leeway included. A system like this a player can pick up a fence-post and swing it around and the GM simply rules that it's roughly the same stats as a quarterstaff only with less accuracy and slightly more damage. The rules didn't have to include "fence post" in the weapons listing which would have just been pointless bloat but allowed for that scenario simply by way of solid fundamentals.
High Power Fantasy vs. Low Power Fantasy
Depends on the game.
There are some games that I've absolutely loved the idea of finding a dungeon and literally approaching it like some medieval archeologist/grave-robber hybrid.
"Shiny runes on the walls you say? Well let's get out the ol' chisel and remove this section of the wall. I know lots of rich folks who'll pay big money for this kind-of wall treatment." This requires an exceptionally low-power design but can still be fun if the game allows for tricky solutions like creating cave-ins on monster's heads and that sort-of thing.
The other side of the road is Exalted, which is one of my favorite games, and you don't get any more high-powered than Exalted. However, there's a caveat to that. Exalted incorporates setting assumptions and responses to that power level which most fantasy games don't. The setting doesn't disassociate that power-level, so the lowly NPC's that are obviously less powerful than the PC's are OBVIOUSLY less powerful. This means social structures assume this rather than some elderly inkeep treating level 25 adventurers like he would treat any other armed mercenary that walked in. No. If you're a guy that can beat-up gods literally then you are treated as such, and that makes for interesting gameplay and moral relativism. I like that too.
Narrative Mechanics(1) vs. Simulation Mechanics(10)
7.
I almost always prefer simulation mechanics because simulation mechanics arbitrate conflicts more effectively. However Narrative mechanics have a place as well, mechanics like character backgrounds which grant the character a monetary source even though he might not role-play gathering that money every game. Or saying the character has a friend who can help, even though there might not have been any prior in-game interaction with that friend. These are narrative mechanics that have meaning and value in any game.
Strategic Chargen(1) vs. Simple Chargen(10)
2.
I'm generally a fan of more options and toys to play with to tweak and fiddle with a concept.
Tactical Encounter(1) vs. Strategic Adventure(10)
7.
This is just personal preference on the way I run things rather than a statement on the validity of either approach which I consider both quite valid. I run games with story and dramatic feeling first and the actual cut-and-thrust of combat second and I find too much reliance on tactics in combat bogs down the game. Plus I don't prescribe to some arbitrary notion that all the critters in the world are automatically an appropriate challenge for the PC's. Some of the best games I've ever run and played in are games where the PC's took on a vastly more powerful adversary and won the day through cunning, be that by enlisting allies, cleverly evading or luring the adversary elsewhere to achieve the objective. My players have indicated that they enjoy this as well.
Combat Balance(1) vs. Adventure Balance(10)
Neither.
I advocate simulationist sandboxes which I use story and various lures to manipulate my PC's into doing fun stuff, but for the most part I let them choose what to wade into. If a PC get's fixated in the princess at the top of a tower around which a known psychotic baron utilizes an infamous and deadly army, I'm not going to suddenly decrease the army's capabilities to match the PC group's. The player knows what he's going up against and should plan accordingly or do something else. The same goes for fighting a powerful dragon, I don't just inexplicably put a dragon somewhere to stumble across, I leave clues in the narrative that THERE'S A DRAGON here. If the land for 30 miles around the dragon's lair is charred and uninhabited then the Players know what they're getting into, if they choose to continue fine, but I'm not balancing the encounter to counter their expectations.
On the flip side, I believe it is the responsibility of the GM to be trustworthy. Throwing a vastly overpowered ambush at a party with no chance of escape better have narrative justification that promises greater reward in the future as the PC's are captured and taken before some evil dickhead. Otherwise the GM is simply being an asshole and deserves to have his game abandoned.
Balanced Encounter vs. Balanced Adventure
Neither. See above-two reasons.
Wargame Combat(1) vs. Abstract Combat(10)
2.
Combat is fun and abstractions often create inconsistencies which to me are unfun. I want my players to feel they have the opportunity to attempt most anything and the system should be able to tell them if they pull it off rather than some arbitrary ruling of the GM who might not know anything about guns or swords, or armor or anything to do with the game setting. Abstractions of course have to exist to a certain degree in all RPG's, but having to justify why or why-not something works because of my personal beliefs to my players is something I generally try to avoid.
GM as player(1) vs. GM as referee(10)
2.
I prefer the GM to be the guy telling the story and the system it's self to be the referee. Doing things in this way I believe empowers the players to use the system to find their own solutions to the obstacles the GM places in their way using the system.
Fantastic Characters vs. Common Characters
Again depends on the game. I like fun. Sometimes a common game with a compelling story is fun, and sometimes riding on the bow of an airship while juggling vorpal swords is also fun.
Established Setting(1) vs. DIY Setting(10)
1.
I do write my own settings... but I don't really prefer to run them which is messed up.
Resource Optimization(1) vs. Creative Problem Solving(10)
9.
I really don't find resource tracking fun at all, but find creative problem solving to be hugely rewarding as both a player and a GM. However you do need resources to solve things creatively, and those resources have to be effective, but I like enough versatility that the resources I have access too can fit a concept long before I examine it's overall effectiveness within the game.
So those are my current preferences which for the most part are subject to change at my whim. Maybe someday they will be something official and be taught in RPG schools as would be befitting of my future greatness. As it is now, I hope they're legible and not too terribly boring a read.
Comprehensive Rules(1) vs. Minimal Rules(10)
5.
I want solid fundamentals that make sense. That means comprehensive, but a good game system maintains simplicity through good fundaments. An example of this would be having a good system for weapons rules with a bit of mechanical leeway included. A system like this a player can pick up a fence-post and swing it around and the GM simply rules that it's roughly the same stats as a quarterstaff only with less accuracy and slightly more damage. The rules didn't have to include "fence post" in the weapons listing which would have just been pointless bloat but allowed for that scenario simply by way of solid fundamentals.
High Power Fantasy vs. Low Power Fantasy
Depends on the game.
There are some games that I've absolutely loved the idea of finding a dungeon and literally approaching it like some medieval archeologist/grave-robber hybrid.
"Shiny runes on the walls you say? Well let's get out the ol' chisel and remove this section of the wall. I know lots of rich folks who'll pay big money for this kind-of wall treatment." This requires an exceptionally low-power design but can still be fun if the game allows for tricky solutions like creating cave-ins on monster's heads and that sort-of thing.
The other side of the road is Exalted, which is one of my favorite games, and you don't get any more high-powered than Exalted. However, there's a caveat to that. Exalted incorporates setting assumptions and responses to that power level which most fantasy games don't. The setting doesn't disassociate that power-level, so the lowly NPC's that are obviously less powerful than the PC's are OBVIOUSLY less powerful. This means social structures assume this rather than some elderly inkeep treating level 25 adventurers like he would treat any other armed mercenary that walked in. No. If you're a guy that can beat-up gods literally then you are treated as such, and that makes for interesting gameplay and moral relativism. I like that too.
Narrative Mechanics(1) vs. Simulation Mechanics(10)
7.
I almost always prefer simulation mechanics because simulation mechanics arbitrate conflicts more effectively. However Narrative mechanics have a place as well, mechanics like character backgrounds which grant the character a monetary source even though he might not role-play gathering that money every game. Or saying the character has a friend who can help, even though there might not have been any prior in-game interaction with that friend. These are narrative mechanics that have meaning and value in any game.
Strategic Chargen(1) vs. Simple Chargen(10)
2.
I'm generally a fan of more options and toys to play with to tweak and fiddle with a concept.
Tactical Encounter(1) vs. Strategic Adventure(10)
7.
This is just personal preference on the way I run things rather than a statement on the validity of either approach which I consider both quite valid. I run games with story and dramatic feeling first and the actual cut-and-thrust of combat second and I find too much reliance on tactics in combat bogs down the game. Plus I don't prescribe to some arbitrary notion that all the critters in the world are automatically an appropriate challenge for the PC's. Some of the best games I've ever run and played in are games where the PC's took on a vastly more powerful adversary and won the day through cunning, be that by enlisting allies, cleverly evading or luring the adversary elsewhere to achieve the objective. My players have indicated that they enjoy this as well.
Combat Balance(1) vs. Adventure Balance(10)
Neither.
I advocate simulationist sandboxes which I use story and various lures to manipulate my PC's into doing fun stuff, but for the most part I let them choose what to wade into. If a PC get's fixated in the princess at the top of a tower around which a known psychotic baron utilizes an infamous and deadly army, I'm not going to suddenly decrease the army's capabilities to match the PC group's. The player knows what he's going up against and should plan accordingly or do something else. The same goes for fighting a powerful dragon, I don't just inexplicably put a dragon somewhere to stumble across, I leave clues in the narrative that THERE'S A DRAGON here. If the land for 30 miles around the dragon's lair is charred and uninhabited then the Players know what they're getting into, if they choose to continue fine, but I'm not balancing the encounter to counter their expectations.
On the flip side, I believe it is the responsibility of the GM to be trustworthy. Throwing a vastly overpowered ambush at a party with no chance of escape better have narrative justification that promises greater reward in the future as the PC's are captured and taken before some evil dickhead. Otherwise the GM is simply being an asshole and deserves to have his game abandoned.
Balanced Encounter vs. Balanced Adventure
Neither. See above-two reasons.
Wargame Combat(1) vs. Abstract Combat(10)
2.
Combat is fun and abstractions often create inconsistencies which to me are unfun. I want my players to feel they have the opportunity to attempt most anything and the system should be able to tell them if they pull it off rather than some arbitrary ruling of the GM who might not know anything about guns or swords, or armor or anything to do with the game setting. Abstractions of course have to exist to a certain degree in all RPG's, but having to justify why or why-not something works because of my personal beliefs to my players is something I generally try to avoid.
GM as player(1) vs. GM as referee(10)
2.
I prefer the GM to be the guy telling the story and the system it's self to be the referee. Doing things in this way I believe empowers the players to use the system to find their own solutions to the obstacles the GM places in their way using the system.
Fantastic Characters vs. Common Characters
Again depends on the game. I like fun. Sometimes a common game with a compelling story is fun, and sometimes riding on the bow of an airship while juggling vorpal swords is also fun.
Established Setting(1) vs. DIY Setting(10)
1.
I do write my own settings... but I don't really prefer to run them which is messed up.
Resource Optimization(1) vs. Creative Problem Solving(10)
9.
I really don't find resource tracking fun at all, but find creative problem solving to be hugely rewarding as both a player and a GM. However you do need resources to solve things creatively, and those resources have to be effective, but I like enough versatility that the resources I have access too can fit a concept long before I examine it's overall effectiveness within the game.
So those are my current preferences which for the most part are subject to change at my whim. Maybe someday they will be something official and be taught in RPG schools as would be befitting of my future greatness. As it is now, I hope they're legible and not too terribly boring a read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)