Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

Originally Posted by Greentongue

To diverge this discussion ...
It is practical to try to run a game in the style of days gone by if the players didn't play in those times?

Are there just too many "modern" expectations to overcome?
Is a 'hostile world" no longer acceptable to modern players?
Do the player characters always have to be given a "pass" when they don't assume things will go against them? The assumption being...
"We are the Heroes. Of course we will Win in the End."
=

MMmmmmmaybe....

Paul Hughes in his "Blog of Holding" says that my OD&D New York game was a "Hard Mode" game.

http://blogofholding.com/?p=7002

If you read his whole series on that game, I tried to play pretty much "by the book." Interestingly, he says the game was "hard mode" but I felt it was more like "medium."

The key to success is careful management of expectations. I'm still working on a really good survey/quiz for this sort of thing.

I am going to throw in my 2 Qirgals worth. I get the feeling that this was a conscious decision by Phil to allow this behaviour because he felt that the �integrity� of the game milieu was, more important than the gaming milieu. Because, as I believe Chirine has said in earlier posts, gaming on T�kumel was primarily about helping to develop the world, and ultimately develop plot lines for Phil�s novels. Did unscrupulous individuals manipulate the situation? Probably. Should Phil have stepped in? Most certainly.
Even though I haven�t been gaming as long as the Glorious General or Lord Chirine, I have been gaming for about 36 years. I first �discovered� D&D in 1980-81, and started my campaign in 1982-83. As I mentioned in an earlier post I didn�t allow this type of PvP behaviour almost right from the get go. Even as a �freshman� in High School it quickly became evident to me that this type of game play could only lead to bad feelings or open animosity. I think, from what the Glorious General and Chirine have said, this type of mind set seems to have been (still is?) especially prevalent in the Minneapolis area. I can say with certainty that amongst my gaming group, and the circles of other gamers that we knew back in the early 80�s, this style of gaming quickly disappeared. Usually after a couple of games the DM�s who allowed or encouraged this type of game would find their groups getting smaller and smaller as players gravitated towards groups where this behaviour was not present. Now don�t get me wrong, there have been numerous cases over the years in my games when characters were pitted against each other. This however, was due to specific in-game reasons, as a means of developing or advancing the plot, not because of some outside vendetta. Furthermore, I made sure that it stayed at the level of rivalry, and not antagonism. Fortunately, the guys liked this style of play over the "constantly having to watch your back" style. Besides, as one of my veteran players said last night when I mentioned what happened to Vrisa: �We have enough to worry about with the monsters, and your NPC�s. Who needs the other bullshit thrown in?�
Although being a totally neutral arbiter is of paramount importance when DMing you sometimes have to be the dictator as well. As I said, just my 2 Qirgals worth.

Shemek

Originally Posted by Greentongue

To diverge this discussion ...
It is practical to try to run a game in the style of days gone by if the players didn't play in those times?

IMO, yes. I wasn't even born at the time, nor any of my players.

Are there just too many "modern" expectations to overcome?

Depends on the player. I find the "modern" expectations unintuitive.

Is a 'hostile world" no longer acceptable to modern players?

Probably it is to some. Probably it was to some others in the past, too.
Screw that. Make it clear what kind of game you're running, and make it clear that anyone who doesn't want to play, doesn't need to join.

Do the player characters always have to be given a "pass" when they don't assume things will go against them? The assumption being...
"We are the Heroes. Of course we will Win in the End."

...no "dirty hippy indie narrativist game" assumes this, to my knowledge. Why would you assume it in a regular RPG?
If that's the assumption, why even have rules for success and failure? Just roll about success, success with complication and success with a bonus. You can do that with a d6, 1 and 6 being complication and bonus, respectively. Or use 1-3 complication, 18-20 gives you a bonus on top of your fries success!

Sweet Tits of Dlamelish, I sound like a grognard!

Originally Posted by Greentongue

To diverge this discussion ...
It is practical to try to run a game in the style of days gone by if the players didn't play in those times?

Are there just too many "modern" expectations to overcome?
Is a 'hostile world" no longer acceptable to modern players?
Do the player characters always have to be given a "pass" when they don't assume things will go against them? The assumption being...
"We are the Heroes. Of course we will Win in the End."
=

I hope that this is never the case. All I can say is that anyone who assumes they "will Win in the End", because they are the heroes, will be rolling up a lot characters in on one of my games. I never go out of my way to "get" the players. Now I have been known to fudge a roll once in a Blue Moon in favour of the characters, but man they better be sharp the other 99.9% of the time. For me being a hero is not something that someone "just is", it's something that someone becomes. Getting there aint easy.

Shemek

Another thing to consider is that Dave Wesley, Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax, Phil Barker, and many of us original players, were wargamers first.

Wargames ARE PVP. That's what they ARE. And a lot of those expectations carried through. Not that they always should have, but they did. Wargame referees absolutely do not intervene except in questions of rules interpretation.

"The past is a different place."

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Wargame referees absolutely do not intervene except in questions of rules interpretation.

True. However unlike wargame referees, DMs/GMs both create and control the vast majority of the enemy forces arrayed against the PCs. The role of DM/GM requires a different type of fairness than the role of a simple wargame referee.

Originally Posted by Bren

True. However unlike wargame referees, DMs/GMs both create and control the vast majority of the enemy forces arrayed against the PCs. The role of DM/GM requires a different type of fairness than the role of a simple wargame referee.

Yeah, and it took quite some time for some people to figure that out, and some never did.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Another thing to consider is that Dave Wesley, Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax, Phil Barker, and many of us original players, were wargamers first.

Wargames ARE PVP. That's what they ARE. And a lot of those expectations carried through. Not that they always should have, but they did. Wargame referees absolutely do not intervene except in questions of rules interpretation.

"The past is a different place."

Really? The 40k, WarmaHordes, historical, et al wargame tournaments I sa5 at still had some decorum rules about sportsmanship and out of game collusion/cheating. How much of a free for all melee was wargaming back then?

Originally Posted by Opaopajr

That's an extraordinarily generous offer and makes me regret the distance we live apart. I hope genuinely kind and appreciative people take you up on your offer.

You're welcome! Do feel free to drop by, if you ever make it up this way.