Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal - part II

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

I would certainly be on board for this. Would it be feasible to perhaps have a monthly post on the Workbench?
Of course it will be unofficial Tekumel, mustn't upset any muckety-mucks.

Shemek

We could; I'd been planning on reinventing the Workbench into more of a campaign newsletter to report on my PBM campaign, with both updates on the Workbench itself and on the campaign news. I'm looking at this very hard, with the idea of getting the campaign going again - new miniatures always get the tired old blood circulating again, and the Three Sisters have all 'requested' their own armies to go with their personality figures. Being an indulgent parent, I am obliging them; went out with Third Daughter to get her her weekly ration of comics, and she 'persuaded' me to get some of the new Shield Wolf Miniatures 'Shieldmaiden' figures for herself and her middle sister.

(The eldest has the Ral Partha Amazons, as befits her classical education. Catering for my two sons-in-law will be interesting; one will be classical Chinese, and the other Native Americans from the northern Great Plains. The things a father has to do to keep his kids happy, I tell ya... )

I mean, I have all the figures, scenery, terrain, and maps handy so why not actually run a campaign in the classic Twin Cities style for people to experience?

Originally Posted by Baron

IMO, what you're describing are two unrealistic extremes at either end of a continuum. I doubt either extreme play style existed in any kind of statistically-significant way "back in the day," and I think the Dragonlance series of modules, meant to play through a set story, were the first major example of what is today termed "railroad." And that was a specific product with a specific goal: play along with the novels.

As the decades went on, specific games were written up that were, in fact, player-driven. That type of game attracts a very specific type of player, and honestly I don't really think it even sits in the same category of game as D&D, Runequest, Traveller or Star Wars. Our rpg games were conceived of with a game master who creates and runs adventures in his world. Players have a very different role, in that they are reacting to what he describes, and his interpretations of their actions. They may develop a personality for their characters with specific character-growth goals (become the King's Magician, take over control of the Temple of Odin, establish a colony on the moon), and upon arriving in a town they may say "I'm shopping for a Japanese katana, and looking for a date with a barmaid," but when the game master blots out the sun and a horde of undead attack the town, one expects the player's character to react according to his stated nature (or "alignment"). The game master sets the scene, the players improvise their dialogue. Now roll the dice.

We have literally thousands of adventure modules, still being happily written and played to this day, no complaints heard. That is not player-driven. Each one describes a setting, npcs, and usually, a plot or goal for the players to achieve. When there is no provided objective (such as save the princess, end the threat to the town, or kill the lich), the product is usually marketed as a "setting" rather than an "adventure module." Although there is a subset of players who appear to like the term "sandbox" instead. C'est la vie.

I'll reiterate what I said when reacting to Chirine. The topic never really came up, because it wasn't an issue. We just played. The internet, like our 24/7 news, has changed people's perception. But I managed to go through forty years of role-playing without ever actually gaming with anyone who had an issue about wanting a player to dictate the course of a game. Ever. And I've played with lots of people, in lots of different groups, in lots of different cities, at conventions, game stores and private homes. I've even played a decent amount of time online in recent years. So while there may be gamers who are passionate about this particular topic, they're not in any way a part of my life. And I don't care what games they play, it's none of my business. I just play rpgs.

I like this, I really do. I'm Chirine ba Kal, and I approve this message.

Originally Posted by Voros

People like to use DL as a shortcut for railroad but it isn't really true outside of the first 2-3 modules.

I'm only familiar with first couple of modules, so my perception might be skewed somewhat. From what I remember I really did like the premise behind the DL saga, just not its execution.

Shemek

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

Maybe I don't really, fully understand the differences between the two styles, and I may be misusing the terminology. When I speak about "sandboxes" I am referring to a type of game where the decision as to where and how to adventure is made solely by the players. My job as DM is to come up with a series of encounters and perhaps ultimately some type of dungeon. But at the end of the day the group will drive the outcome, not the DM. Whereas, when I talk about "railroads" I am referring to a series of events and encounters, carefully orchestrated by the DM, and really unavoidable for the most part, put in place so that the party can get to the "dungeon," and perform some type of heroic action(s), in order to accomplish some "preordained" event. They really have no final agency, and only a limited type of autonomy. Is this what is generally understood to be the case by gamers when one talks about "sandbox" and "railroad" games?

Shemek

Ofcourse the DM can only be prepared for so many possible encounters. To expect otherwise is folly.
"Railroad" is when you can really tell the DM is leading you towards something.
"Sandbox" is when you can't.

In most campaigns there is always some combination of player driven and DM driven - Player actions will always inspire the DM in some way - even if it's not obvious.

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

I had forgotten about the old "Imperial Dispatches."
In keeping with this theme, how many people on this thread have active Tekumel games/campaigns that they are part of, either as a player or a GM?
Can you share a bit of what's happening in your game with rest of us?

Shemek

My Tekumel campaign is on hold, because I felt the urge to be a player. Both of my core players agreed it's only fair, and started their own campaigns.

Still, there are some things you might find amusing.
http://storiescharactersandsystemsin...-campaign.html

Originally Posted by Baron

I agree with your comment. These days, with the internet, I often see posts and blogs with people discussing railroads and sandboxes (often with great emotion), but it took me a while to catch on to what they were even talking about. Having begun gaming in the 70s, we just sat down and played. The game master created the setting, told you what sort of characters were available in his game, divulged any house rules, and wrote up exciting places for you to adventure in. There was no 'analysis' of play styles. Certainly, players were free to express preferences, and game masters were free to work with them, or they could go play with somebody else if they were that bored (assuming that was an option). But generally, we wanted to play, and were playing with friends, so there was little drama. Really, do poker players go through all that drama? Chess players? I don't get it.

Regarding chess player, yes, we do!
I mean, did you seriously claim there was no analysis of playstyles in chess, or was that just a joke, or a slip of the keyboard?
And oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth after you squash a casual player who never bothered to learn any basics beyond the rules!

Originally Posted by Big Andy

Do all the various nations/races use the same names for everything? For example, does everyone call the planet Tekumel and the Tsoly�nu Empire the Empire of the Petal Throne? Like how it may be Earth and Germany in the US but is Erde and Deutschland in Germany. What is the name on the invoice for the planet the Hokun (and you) have?

In Phil's campaign, everybody used pretty much the same terms - in their language of course. I think this is because of the common Engsvanyali roots of the Five Empires, as is discussed by Phil in his book on the Priest-kings.

Don't know, actually - I'd better get it out and translate it, then! My guess is Tekumel, which it always has been in everything Phil's done since the 1950s.

A quick note; I'm having a great time with the Shield Wolf figures; of the 44 I have, no two will be the same - which I think is pretty cool! Already getting out the 3x5 index cards to roll them all up with stats, too...