Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

I have a copy of this papyrus! Somethings never change, I guess...

I'll look it up for you. Watching Cleo at the moment.

And let's not forget that Chinese philosophers were complaining about the old days being better at least since Kun Tzu, better known as Confucius...

(Also, Uncle, sorry - it was me who gave the "thumb down" on this post of yours. I was trying to hit the "thumb up", see - but I was on the road, and my phone shook in the wrong moment).

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Oh! Right! Should I do something like this - my 'daily diary', or something similar?

Yes, definitely - if you have the time, that is.
I know it would be of help to me, at least. When players go to look for someone I didn't expect, I know the hour of the day, but what is he doing right now?
I can improvise, but a diary like this is a better base for improvisation.

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

Seeing as this is the only forum I'm on I can't say that I've noticed this trend, but I sincerely hope that this is not the case. For what it's worth the mechanics have always come second for me, but a couple of my guys have, in the past, been strong mechanics advocates. I largely use "official rules" to appease them, but to be honest 99% is resolved behind my screens on a d20 or d100 roll vs an assigned difficulty rating. I just go through the motions as far as rulesets are concerned to make it look like I'm using a rule book.

I think this might be endemic of the current generations approach to life in general. I hate sounding like the old man, but I'm used to seeing this at work everyday with recent grads and co-op students. They really need to be spoon fed, and getting them to "think creatively" is like pulling teeth sometimes. I know I'm generalising, but your observation seems to support this view. Now in all fairness the youngest member of my group is 44 so I don't know if younger gamers as a whole are like this. I really hope not. I don't think your perspective or world view is obsolete in the slightest. I wish more people had this mind set.

Shemek

Let me weigh for those of us who like to use the "right mechanics".
See, it's about the setting and the feel you want for the game. There's nothing wrong with using a "d100 roll higher" mechanic. I'm still enjoying the campaign we're playing which mostly uses the "roll d110*, add modifiers" with a list of attributes that actually changes* according to what the GM feels is appropriate for the character.
But sometimes, the right mechanics gives ideas to the players - ideas they might not get otherwise.
Let me give you the example with the best OSR game I know, DCC (or at least it's the one with the best representation of the Warrior class). In it, Warriors (and only Warriors) don't have a static number bonus to hit. They roll d20 and another die, the die changing with level (it starts at d3 at first level, but the higher the roll, the better the effect). You add them together, add attribute bonus as is standard for most D&D editions.
However, when the number on the "bonus die" is 3+ and you succeed at the attack, you get to make a Mighty Deed in addition to damage. Disarm, trip, return to better guard to ward off the counter, whatever. I've used it to inflict unbearable pain on a regenerating giant, allowing me to run from it (fire didn't stop the regeneration, so it wasn't exactly a troll, and killing it was a long and bloody process).
Thing is...that's me. A lot of other players seem stumped what warriors do apart from hitting people, and frequently forget about this kind of stuff. So a hint "you can think of something fun now" seems like a good idea for most people.
In the same game, you have mechanics that tempt wizards to sacrifice their blood and to make pacts with spirit patrons...
In short, it's about the setting for me as well. But I find that good mechanics help in emulating the setting, and bad mechanics hinder this.
(For example of "bad mechanics hindering immersion" see the "setting" where no Fighter, no matter how athletic, can climb a wall...because obviously the Climb Sheer Walls skill is Thief-only skill, and the GM just doesn't know that it only applies to sheer walls with no handholds.
Those same 18 Dexterity fighters can't sneak or hide, either, because Hide in Shadows and Move Silently aren't on their class list...I remember Gronan being exasperated at the idea, too.
But the game logic in interpreting the rules is sound: if only one class has a skill, obviously other classes can't do this! Those GMs have merely misunderstood what the skill means).

*No, that's not a mistake. Roll d100, but replace the digits die with a d20, and you have it.
*Only acrobats and martial artists have Agility. Only priests have "(Element) Control". And so on, and so forth.

So...there's two "levels" of mechanics. "Mechanics as reflection of what happens", and "mechanics as guidelines". The more you know about what happens OOC, the less you need mechanics to give you IC guidance, and vice versa. The "vice versa" clause is why wizardry rules are usually longer than rules for fighting, too.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Ah. I think I understand this; I was taken out to see Episode I, back when it came out, and people were doing it in the theater during the movie, much to my amazement. Not frame by frame, but the detailed analysis part. And what I thought was funny was that they were missing all of the jokes that Lucas had put in - went right by these people. I just sat there and wallowed in the fun, and had a big bucket of popcorn. It was a very good night, and I enjoyed myself.

Yes! YES!!! Great Zot, Yes! Now, for the rest of you, Chirine knows that since 1977, the thing I wanted to see more than anything else in a Star Wars movie is what a mature, fully trained Jedi Knight was like. And in the first 15 minutes of Phantom Menace I got all I wanted, as the renowned Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn proceeded to kick butt and take names through a Trade Federation battle cruiser. The movie could have ended when Obi-Wan Kenobi said "You were right about one thing, Master -- the negotiations were short!"

It's okay to not like a movie, but then just say "I didn't like it."

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Like we did at the Bell Museum, the night we first watched Alex save Great Lord Novgorod from the evil Teutonic Knights.

(At this point, it's usual for everyone in the room watching the movie to stand up, salute, and toast Great Lord Novgorod.)

David T. gave me a copy of Alexander Nevsky for my last birthday. Subtitles in English and Korean.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

I think this has been around a bit, too; remember when Phil used to get letters and phone calls with stuff like this? I have to admit being baffled by it; we just used to accept Blackmoor or Grayhawk or Tekumel for what it was, started playing, and generally got on with the adventure. I've seen discussions go by on the Tekumel Yahoo group where they'd spend days having debates over the productivity of farming areas, because they think Phil's estimates of population density didn't fit the proper historical models.

I dunno. Back to the workbench, I think...

I honestly think it may be a case of "too much education and not enough place to use it." People are overeducated in terms of "how much education does their job need." So much like a person with excess physical energy may go out "looking for trouble" while the person working 14 hour shifts as a pipefitter just wants a big meal and a soft bed, somebody with "excess education" has more intellectual energy than they know what to do with.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

Let me give you the example with the best OSR game I know, DCC (or at least it's the one with the best representation of the Warrior class). In it, Warriors (and only Warriors) don't have a static number bonus to hit. They roll d20 and another die, the die changing with level (it starts at d3 at first level, but the higher the roll, the better the effect). You add them together, add attribute bonus as is standard for most D&D editions.
However, when the number on the "bonus die" is 3+ and you succeed at the attack, you get to make a Mighty Deed in addition to damage. Disarm, trip, return to better guard to ward off the counter, whatever. I've used it to inflict unbearable pain on a regenerating giant, allowing me to run from it (fire didn't stop the regeneration, so it wasn't exactly a troll, and killing it was a long and bloody process).
Thing is...that's me. A lot of other players seem stumped what warriors do apart from hitting people, and frequently forget about this kind of stuff. So a hint "you can think of something fun now" seems like a good idea for most people.

Whereas to me, "tactics" means something different. I'm not interested in "mighty deeds" or "dazzling swordplay" (mileage, vary, etc). In my mind the world is based still on the middle ages where every freeman was part of the levy and basic formation fighting was as important as basic sword training. I want a game where I'm using fighters and clerics to hold the line, thieves or light armored fighters as flanking and exploit troops, magic users as my missile contingents, etc.

Now, the OTHER payoff for me is how quick an old style D&D combat goes. I'm currently playing in a Pathfinder game, and if 5 PCs complete more than one combat in a night we're doing good; combat takes for fucking ever. In my OD&D game we can easily have six or seven combats in a single session, plus all the attendant exploration.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

And let's not forget that Chinese philosophers were complaining about the old days being better at least since Kun Tzu, better known as Confucius...

(Also, Uncle, sorry - it was me who gave the "thumb down" on this post of yours. I was trying to hit the "thumb up", see - but I was on the road, and my phone shook in the wrong moment).


Yes, definitely - if you have the time, that is.
I know it would be of help to me, at least. When players go to look for someone I didn't expect, I know the hour of the day, but what is he doing right now?
I can improvise, but a diary like this is a better base for improvisation.


Let me weigh for those of us who like to use the "right mechanics".
See, it's about the setting and the feel you want for the game. There's nothing wrong with using a "d100 roll higher" mechanic. I'm still enjoying the campaign we're playing which mostly uses the "roll d110*, add modifiers" with a list of attributes that actually changes* according to what the GM feels is appropriate for the character.
But sometimes, the right mechanics gives ideas to the players - ideas they might not get otherwise.
Let me give you the example with the best OSR game I know, DCC (or at least it's the one with the best representation of the Warrior class). In it, Warriors (and only Warriors) don't have a static number bonus to hit. They roll d20 and another die, the die changing with level (it starts at d3 at first level, but the higher the roll, the better the effect). You add them together, add attribute bonus as is standard for most D&D editions.
However, when the number on the "bonus die" is 3+ and you succeed at the attack, you get to make a Mighty Deed in addition to damage. Disarm, trip, return to better guard to ward off the counter, whatever. I've used it to inflict unbearable pain on a regenerating giant, allowing me to run from it (fire didn't stop the regeneration, so it wasn't exactly a troll, and killing it was a long and bloody process).
Thing is...that's me. A lot of other players seem stumped what warriors do apart from hitting people, and frequently forget about this kind of stuff. So a hint "you can think of something fun now" seems like a good idea for most people.
In the same game, you have mechanics that tempt wizards to sacrifice their blood and to make pacts with spirit patrons...
In short, it's about the setting for me as well. But I find that good mechanics help in emulating the setting, and bad mechanics hinder this.
(For example of "bad mechanics hindering immersion" see the "setting" where no Fighter, no matter how athletic, can climb a wall...because obviously the Climb Sheer Walls skill is Thief-only skill, and the GM just doesn't know that it only applies to sheer walls with no handholds.
Those same 18 Dexterity fighters can't sneak or hide, either, because Hide in Shadows and Move Silently aren't on their class list...I remember Gronan being exasperated at the idea, too.
But the game logic in interpreting the rules is sound: if only one class has a skill, obviously other classes can't do this! Those GMs have merely misunderstood what the skill means).

*No, that's not a mistake. Roll d100, but replace the digits die with a d20, and you have it.
*Only acrobats and martial artists have Agility. Only priests have "(Element) Control". And so on, and so forth.

So...there's two "levels" of mechanics. "Mechanics as reflection of what happens", and "mechanics as guidelines". The more you know about what happens OOC, the less you need mechanics to give you IC guidance, and vice versa. The "vice versa" clause is why wizardry rules are usually longer than rules for fighting, too.

No problem.

I'll get the 'diary of a sorcerer' written up and posted here.

Loved your post. This is really good, and is what I'd call 'mechanics to help run the game'; I like this, and it's really a good - in my opinion - design philosophy. (I used it in my own "Qadardalikoi".) What I've been startled by is the philosophy of 'the game is there to help run the mechanics' that I've been seeing when looking over peoples' shoulders at the FLGS and events. I mean, 'Tractics' is very mechanics heavy for example, but we managed to run games pretty smartly.

Fascinating, on several levels.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Yes! YES!!! Great Zot, Yes! Now, for the rest of you, Chirine knows that since 1977, the thing I wanted to see more than anything else in a Star Wars movie is what a mature, fully trained Jedi Knight was like. And in the first 15 minutes of Phantom Menace I got all I wanted, as the renowned Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn proceeded to kick butt and take names through a Trade Federation battle cruiser. The movie could have ended when Obi-Wan Kenobi said "You were right about one thing, Master -- the negotiations were short!"

It's okay to not like a movie, but then just say "I didn't like it."

David T. gave me a copy of Alexander Nevsky for my last birthday. Subtitles in English and Korean.

I honestly think it may be a case of "too much education and not enough place to use it." People are overeducated in terms of "how much education does their job need." So much like a person with excess physical energy may go out "looking for trouble" while the person working 14 hour shifts as a pipefitter just wants a big meal and a soft bed, somebody with "excess education" has more intellectual energy than they know what to do with.

Agreed. I just like the fun, not the 'over-thinking' and 'detailed analysis' that I keep seeing.

They've asked me to do my 'play by play' translation of the dialog.

I think you may have hit on something, here. Fascinating, like I said to Asen.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Whereas to me, "tactics" means something different. I'm not interested in "mighty deeds" or "dazzling swordplay" (mileage, vary, etc). In my mind the world is based still on the middle ages where every freeman was part of the levy and basic formation fighting was as important as basic sword training. I want a game where I'm using fighters and clerics to hold the line, thieves or light armored fighters as flanking and exploit troops, magic users as my missile contingents, etc.

Now, the OTHER payoff for me is how quick an old style D&D combat goes. I'm currently playing in a Pathfinder game, and if 5 PCs complete more than one combat in a night we're doing good; combat takes for fucking ever. In my OD&D game we can easily have six or seven combats in a single session, plus all the attendant exploration.

Which is what Phil did in his games, and what I still do in mine; individual tactics for individuals, group tactics for groups. We'd flow back and forth between the two all the time; I see it is a spectrum, not a dichotomy.

I read that second paragraph and just cringed. I've looked over the shoulders of a lot of Pathfinder games at the FLGS and at events, with an eye towards using it for Tekumel and Barsoom, with the notion that if I use a 'name brand game', then maybe I might be able to attract some players to a game or two - mentioning either Tekumel or Barsoom earns me blank looks, as just about all of the people I've talked to in these locations have no idea what I'm on about. I've found that I have to speak the name of a Big Name Brand Game before comprehension dawns, and using a 'non-standard' setting seems to confuse and bring on anxiety. FATE seemed to be just like Pathfinder, when I saw it run here at the house..

There are days when I despair, I really do. Once people try my ancient style of games, they seem to enjoy themselves, but getting them to try 'something different' is a major hurdle. Add in the continued condition that everything has to take place at the FLGS during normal business hours, or at conventions here and there, and it gets pretty discouraging. At this point, I'll keep building stuff because I like to do it, but I am expecting a very quiet future for the game room.

<shrug> So it goes; I've had these 'dry spells' before, and they do pass. Patience seems to be indicated.

As C.S. Lewis said in The Screwtape Letters, humans are subject to the Law of Undulation; everything in our lives has peaks and troughs.

My biggest quarrel with games these days is, to quote the late Dave Arneson, "Games nowadays have too many rules." I recently saw an ad for a new RPG "complete in one volume" -- 457 pages! CROM! If you took the original brown box D&D and made it full sized pages, it would fit in 64 pages with room to spare.

I must admit it warmed the cockles of my black withered old heart when a young friend of mine tossed over his modern games and bought a reprint of OD&D and started running that after playing in my OD&D game. To quote him, "I just like that I can say I want to sneak up behind the guard and knock him out, you roll dice, it happens or it doesn't, and we get on with the damn game."

All hope is not lost.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Yes! YES!!! Great Zot, Yes! Now, for the rest of you, Chirine knows that since 1977, the thing I wanted to see more than anything else in a Star Wars movie is what a mature, fully trained Jedi Knight was like. And in the first 15 minutes of Phantom Menace I got all I wanted, as the renowned Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn proceeded to kick butt and take names through a Trade Federation battle cruiser. The movie could have ended when Obi-Wan Kenobi said "You were right about one thing, Master -- the negotiations were short!"

Isn't that "New Hope"? I mean, Obi-Wan Kenobi was a fully trained, mature Jedi, right?

I honestly think it may be a case of "too much education and not enough place to use it." People are overeducated in terms of "how much education does their job need." So much like a person with excess physical energy may go out "looking for trouble" while the person working 14 hour shifts as a pipefitter just wants a big meal and a soft bed, somebody with "excess education" has more intellectual energy than they know what to do with.

Not a bad analogy.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Whereas to me, "tactics" means something different. I'm not interested in "mighty deeds" or "dazzling swordplay" (mileage, vary, etc). In my mind the world is based still on the middle ages where every freeman was part of the levy and basic formation fighting was as important as basic sword training. I want a game where I'm using fighters and clerics to hold the line, thieves or light armored fighters as flanking and exploit troops, magic users as my missile contingents, etc.

...sure, but how exactly this contradicts anything I said?
For a start, Gronan, I didn't say "tactics". I just used an example with tactics. But in the same post, I gave the example with the sorcerers being able to sacrifice their lifeblood to succeed, too. That's also in-genre for S&S games, and is a hint to the players: Yes, you can do that. You can summon your patron when in dire straits. He might want payment, though.

Now, the OTHER payoff for me is how quick an old style D&D combat goes. I'm currently playing in a Pathfinder game, and if 5 PCs complete more than one combat in a night we're doing good; combat takes for fucking ever. In my OD&D game we can easily have six or seven combats in a single session, plus all the attendant exploration.

PF combat is too long for me as well. Length of combat has nothing to do with what I was talking about, however.
In fact, Pathfinder is an example of a game that helps you imagine, run, and play in a coherent setting less than OD&D or DCC. O

You know which game has probably one of the top 5 best "guides for playing baked in the mechanics"? Pendragon. Is combat in Pendragon long? We both know it's not. Opposed rolls, compare degrees of success, roll damage, maybe roll a check if you rolled damage and if it was a major wound. Next round!

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

No problem.

I'll get the 'diary of a sorcerer' written up and posted here.

Great!

Loved your post. This is really good, and is what I'd call 'mechanics to help run the game'; I like this, and it's really a good - in my opinion - design philosophy. (I used it in my own "Qadardalikoi".)

Indeed, it's nice. And the thing is, you don't need this philosophy...if your group reads the same books, like you did. They might still help, because the mechanics tell you "that's how things work in this setting: prepare a resting place, sacrifice lots of your own blood, and you're going to impress the spirit patron you want to strike a deal with". This helps people to be clear at least on two accounts: all magic in this setting is a force of chaos and can be supercharged by blood, and patrons draw power from your suffering. At this point anyone who was thinking to play a good-natured sorcerer, is probably aware that this isn't going to fly.

So no, you don't need them. But they help.

And if one of us thinks "fantasy" means vampires in an urban setting, another thinks it's Conan, another thinks it's about a group of elves, dwarves, hobbits and men on an epic quest, another thinks it's about an inspector on the toxicity of industrial magic, and yet another believes it's about hunting werewolves with silver bullets and throwing grains behind you when chased by a vampire...well, we'd better hope the game gives us some guidance.

What I've been startled by is the philosophy of 'the game is there to help run the mechanics' that I've been seeing when looking over peoples' shoulders at the FLGS and events. I mean, 'Tractics' is very mechanics heavy for example, but we managed to run games pretty smartly.

That's an attitude that's not even related to how mechanics-heavy the thing is.
Though I admit it's more prevalent between "followers" of D&D 3-5 and Pathfinder.

Fascinating, on several levels.

Sometimes, yes.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Which is what Phil did in his games, and what I still do in mine; individual tactics for individuals, group tactics for groups. We'd flow back and forth between the two all the time; I see it is a spectrum, not a dichotomy.

+1
And lots and lots of game do that. Mass combat mechanics are a standard part of many systems.

I read that second paragraph and just cringed. I've looked over the shoulders of a lot of Pathfinder games at the FLGS and at events, with an eye towards using it for Tekumel and Barsoom, with the notion that if I use a 'name brand game', then maybe I might be able to attract some players to a game or two - mentioning either Tekumel or Barsoom earns me blank looks, as just about all of the people I've talked to in these locations have no idea what I'm on about. I've found that I have to speak the name of a Big Name Brand Game before comprehension dawns, and using a 'non-standard' setting seems to confuse and bring on anxiety. FATE seemed to be just like Pathfinder, when I saw it run here at the house..

...I wonder what those Fate games were like, but whatever. No, wait, I can imagine.

There are days when I despair, I really do. Once people try my ancient style of games, they seem to enjoy themselves, but getting them to try 'something different' is a major hurdle.

"You can bring the horse to the water, but you can't make it drink".

Add in the continued condition that everything has to take place at the FLGS during normal business hours, or at conventions here and there, and it gets pretty discouraging. At this point, I'll keep building stuff because I like to do it, but I am expecting a very quiet future for the game room.

<shrug> So it goes; I've had these 'dry spells' before, and they do pass. Patience seems to be indicated.

Totally agree with the patience suggestion.

Originally Posted by AsenRG

And if one of us thinks "fantasy" means vampires in an urban setting, another thinks it's Conan, another thinks it's about a group of elves, dwarves, hobbits and men on an epic quest, another thinks it's about an inspector on the toxicity of industrial magic, and yet another believes it's about hunting werewolves with silver bullets and throwing grains behind you when chased by a vampire...well, we'd better hope the game gives us some guidance.

That's why I do this outrageous thing called "talking."

As in so many things, the key to success is careful management of expectations. Which is why when I pitch a game I try to make it as explicit as I can in about half a page what the game is about and what kind of characters will work best. And I ask questions of the referee before I play.

Of course, consistent terminology helps. I remember one game where a friend said she wanted to play in an "evil" campaign. After a year or so the campaign ended, and she talked afterward about how disappointed she was. Turned out she didn't want "evil," she wanted "anti-heroes" in the mold of Flashman, Han Solo, and The Three Musketeers.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

That's why I do this outrageous thing called "talking."

How dare you!

Also, talking risks missing something important. A system often grants you the answers to questions you didn't remember to ask.

As in so many things, the key to success is careful management of expectations. Which is why when I pitch a game I try to make it as explicit as I can in about half a page what the game is about and what kind of characters will work best. And I ask questions of the referee before I play.

Which means you're doing the same, just in non-rules codified ways.
But let's take your example of "Middle Ages where all peasants are part of a levy". What's the difference between this and saying "all peasants have a basic minimum of Fight and Formation skills"? Except that one gives clear indications of what that means, understandable even to people that don't know what a peasant levy is and what it does apart from being slaughtered by evil knights?

Of course, consistent terminology helps. I remember one game where a friend said she wanted to play in an "evil" campaign. After a year or so the campaign ended, and she talked afterward about how disappointed she was. Turned out she didn't want "evil," she wanted "anti-heroes" in the mold of Flashman, Han Solo, and The Three Musketeers.

Well, that's her fault, or rather the fault of whoever taught her that all PCs that aren't walking do-gooders with a violent streak are "evil".
But that's just an example of how "natural language" often trips us without meaning to, and why people in a common hobby often use slang. It just so happens that in RPGs, said slang might well include mechanics.