Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal - part II

Originally Posted by Big Andy

Nice vid! Are you one of the guys in the video?

Oh! Good question! I'd like to know, too!!!

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Can't kill the customers, remember my General? To their credit, the rest of the group was pretty open-mouthed, and then somebody told him who I was and who I used to game with. It got very quiet, after that.

I don't go where I'm not invited. Or welcome. I've been burned too many times, over the decades. There's plenty of other fish in the sea, as Fifth Daughter (she was also playing in the game) allowed.

The most disconcerting part, to me, is that the subject he brought up would be a very legitimate conversation for in-character role playing; "do we bring our medic into the firefight, or put him someplace where the wounded might not live long enough to get to him?" Putting it out of character and kyoodling about rules is the sort of thing that kills the fun for me as well.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Probably; I was brought up in the gaming tradition of "anything not specifically forbidden by the rules is permitted", and these days it seems that the philosophy is that "anything not specifically allowed by the rules is prohibited". Things seem to be very game-mechanic-oriented; the constant looking over the shoulder at something called "Adventurers' League" play rules was - to me - disconcerting.

It a consequence of the Adventurers League setup. The basic premise is that by following the rules of the league you can play your character in any league sanctioned game (game store or conventions). That has a lot of appeal for many. There used to be what was called Living Campaigns. Not only does the "league" send out material to be run. The referees were supposed send back a form with a brief summary of the result. The aggregate result was used to set the background of the adventures for the next "season".

The downside of this that to make it "fair" the whole process had to be made more rigid. Something I am familiar with from having ran a live-action roleplaying chapter that was part of a national organization.

Another way to look at is look what it takes to operate a miniature wargame "campaign" like fighting the Napoleonic War. Versus getting together with your friend and deciding on what scenario you would like to fight out. The scenarios for the campaign usually turn out to be more "standard" than than whatever crazy idea two people decide to try. The same with Adventurer's League except multiplied many fold at a national level.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

The most disconcerting part, to me, is that the subject he brought up would be a very legitimate conversation for in-character role playing; "do we bring our medic into the firefight, or put him someplace where the wounded might not live long enough to get to him?" Putting it out of character and kyoodling about rules is the sort of thing that kills the fun for me as well.

Many people in my experience can't or don't make the distinction. In essence when they roleplay it is a version of themselves with the abilities of that character. A tell-tale sign when this an issue is when they take every misfortune that befalls their character personally. But it not as simple as that, some who do the above just shrug it off as being part of the game.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

I just remembered what Uncle and the Glorious General said about experimenting with weapons and tactics and fencing with Phil, in the first part of this thread. So I decided to post a Facebook video.

https://www.facebook.com/83337594673...4163614654320/

The tradition is alive, and recommendations by the more experienced would be more than welcome!

The guy in the white is an idiot. Look at his hands they are moving all of the damn place. I counted several time where they were at head level or another position well away from the center of his body. He was lucky the guy in brown wasn't particularly aggressive. If it was me I would had his legs cut out from underneath him at the -34 second mark. Or taken a head shot at the 33 mark

Open for a Head Shot
headshot.jpg

Open for a Leg Shot
leg_shot.jpg

Originally Posted by estar

Another way to look at is look what it takes to operate a miniature wargame "campaign" like fighting the Napoleonic War. Versus getting together with your friend and deciding on what scenario you would like to fight out. The scenarios for the campaign usually turn out to be more "standard" than than whatever crazy idea two people decide to try. The same with Adventurer's League except multiplied many fold at a national level.

To some extent, perhaps. But most wargame campaigns I've been in the players are making extremely high level strategic decisions that have tactical battles as a consequence, and you get some BIZARRE battle scenarios from that.

Originally Posted by estar

The guy in the white is an idiot. Look at his hands they are moving all of the damn place. I counted several time where they were at head level or another position well away from the center of his body. He was lucky the guy in brown wasn't particularly aggressive. If it was me I would had his legs cut out from underneath him at the -34 second mark. Or taken a head shot at the 33 mark

Neither impressed me a lot. What they're doing bears no resemblance to period manuals; the guy in brown is using rapier techniques, and they are both fanning their blades around wildly.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

To some extent, perhaps. But most wargame campaigns I've been in the players are making extremely high level strategic decisions that have tactical battles as a consequence, and you get some BIZARRE battle scenarios from that.

Sure and probably some one sided battles that would unlikely used in a two player only setup as well. It not a perfect analogy.