Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

From AsenRG:
Oh, and happy holiday to everyone in the USA!
(I'm not from the USA, but me can be polite, right?)
And you are, too! Thank you!

OK, but then it might be a Legion of Sarku, too...
Ha! That's funny, especially in Tekumel where you just can't seem to keep a good Undead warrior down...
Seriously, they do take a bit of killing as they go up in level / type. The very best ones are really nasty menaces.

That's true in games, yes.
I'd grant that. I look for different things in games and real life, like I expect most people do, and while I usually am able to set up win-win situations in the latter, I do like a bit of a challenge in the former. Just seems more fun, that way.

Oh, I've met them, too. But then, Chirine has pulled a Timmy in his big battle when he held the centre. And he pulled a Spike on quite a few people - including on a certain nest ship...
Agreed; I did show all those archetypes in the various games - the difference is that I vary the actions in each different situation. What I've seen are gamers who play the same way in every game, no matter what the setting or situation might be.

Yes, but what I was talking about was the lack of maps and the changing place. This meant he can just give you whatever he scratched from inspiration 5 minutes before the campaign, and I'm all for reducing the amount of minimum GM prep!
Oh, sure, that does make sense. All three of them (Gary, Dave, and Phil) had the ability to make something up on the spot during a game session, and then make it part of the world setting in later game sessions. I don't think any of them did heaps and heaps of prep for an individual game session; yes, they did have the backgrounds and settings there, but they - at least in my experience - tended to play off of what the players came up with during the game. It took (and takes) courage; all of them were intellectually honest; there was none of the 'move the ambush into their path' sort of thing with them.

As for the meta-game, they call this a Relationship map today, because it's usually centered on the PCs. But I've noticed that many GMs just make relationship maps that aren't centered on the PCs, but on the main actors in the setting - and that's, more or less, the meta-game...
In 2012, I had a notebook for one of my campaigns where every page detailed 1 or 2 movers and shakers of the game world. Lately, I've been using Excel for that, but I'm not sure it's all that better than the notebook...
Anyway, that's similar to the meta-game. I just have to include the ships on the searoads now, and more detailed notes on the legions!
Fascinating link - it almost seems that what's old is new again, But then, I doubt that the author knew about Phil's meta-game, let alone about Tony Bath's work in how to run a campaign. Very useful link - I'd suggest it to anyone! Good find!
I like the idea of the notebook, too. I think that trying to use Excel would trip me up, and the process would take more effort then the data. Just me, though.

Epic thread. Hope someone is archiving it.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

From AsenRG:
OK, but then it might be a Legion of Sarku, too...
Ha! That's funny, especially in Tekumel where you just can't seem to keep a good Undead warrior down...
Seriously, they do take a bit of killing as they go up in level / type. The very best ones are really nasty menaces.

Err, Sarku used in the same sentence as qeng...talk about "unfortunate implications"!

I'd grant that. I look for different things in games and real life, like I expect most people do, and while I usually am able to set up win-win situations in the latter, I do like a bit of a challenge in the former. Just seems more fun, that way.

Well, I am slightly more risk-averse in real life...though arguable, not by that much.

Agreed; I did show all those archetypes in the various games - the difference is that I vary the actions in each different situation. What I've seen are gamers who play the same way in every game, no matter what the setting or situation might be.

Yes, some people have more varied styles. I don't object either way - as long as they're not interested solely in the mechnics.

Yes, but what I was talking about was the lack of maps and the changing place. This meant he can just give you whatever he scratched from inspiration 5 minutes before the campaign, and I'm all for reducing the amount of minimum GM prep!
Oh, sure, that does make sense. All three of them (Gary, Dave, and Phil) had the ability to make something up on the spot during a game session, and then make it part of the world setting in later game sessions. I don't think any of them did heaps and heaps of prep for an individual game session; yes, they did have the backgrounds and settings there, but they - at least in my experience - tended to play off of what the players came up with during the game. It took (and takes) courage; all of them were intellectually honest; there was none of the 'move the ambush into their path' sort of thing with them.

Yeah, the lack of intellectual honesty is what gets me in some styles...

As for the meta-game, they call this a Relationship map today, because it's usually centered on the PCs. But I've noticed that many GMs just make relationship maps that aren't centered on the PCs, but on the main actors in the setting - and that's, more or less, the meta-game...
In 2012, I had a notebook for one of my campaigns where every page detailed 1 or 2 movers and shakers of the game world. Lately, I've been using Excel for that, but I'm not sure it's all that better than the notebook...
Anyway, that's similar to the meta-game. I just have to include the ships on the searoads now, and more detailed notes on the legions!
Fascinating link - it almost seems that what's old is new again, But then, I doubt that the author knew about Phil's meta-game, let alone about Tony Bath's work in how to run a campaign. Very useful link - I'd suggest it to anyone! Good find!
I like the idea of the notebook, too. I think that trying to use Excel would trip me up, and the process would take more effort then the data. Just me, though.

That, or "there's a few highly useful ways of organizing your campaign that each generation re-discovers"...

And I'm almost prone to agree with you on the Excel. But it allows for using the Search option, so it saves time when you need to reference it during the game.

Originally Posted by The_Shadow

Epic thread. Hope someone is archiving it.

I agree, preferably in searchable format.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Thank you! I had a great time Saturday, with a bunch of the kind of intelligent and educated people that it's fun to game with or just be with. I had a not so fun time Sunday, when I dropped by my favorite FLGS to pick up the new working portcullis kit from TRE Games; a bunch of people from the huge F/SF convention were in the back game area pontificating about how important they are in local gaming, and it got very tiresome to listen to. I made my purchase, and got the heck out of Dodge. Today has been fun; hoisted out the Bennington flag on the household flagstaff - I have a little flag locker by the front door, and we have a custom of hoisting out the appropriate flag for various holidays, like St. Davy's Day or my (Norwegian) Missus' birthday. I have the next three days off on vacation, one day at work, then the weekend before I start the new schedule and job.

It is a good holiday, if I may say so...

It was absolutely delightful seeing you in person again, in a situation where there was a chance to just talk.

And you're right, the Lamb Vindaloo was wonderful.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

[I]As for the meta-game, they call this a Relationship map today, because it's usually centered on the PCs. But I've noticed that many GMs just make relationship maps that aren't centered on the PCs, but on the main actors in the setting - and that's, more or less, the meta-game...

Thanks for the link. I did a version in PowerPoint for my H+I campaign. Now to see if my players will do their homework.

Originally Posted by The_Shadow

Epic thread. Hope someone is archiving it.

Well, that would be cool. It's something that's outside my skill set, so I'll defer to the technologically able. Happy to help in any way I can, though...

From AsenRG:
Err, Sarku used in the same sentence as qeng...talk about "unfortunate implications"!
The guy who played Qutmu (the Sarku-worshipping general) did it all the time.

Well, I am slightly more risk-averse in real life...though arguable, not by that much.
Oh, true; Chirine takes more risks then I do, but he gets paid for it. I am very risk averse, myself, and always try to set things up to it's an optimal situation.

Yes, some people have more varied styles. I don't object either way - as long as they're not interested solely in the mechnics.
Yes! This is the problem I had with my visit to the local FLGS on Sunday, where when the denizens were not extolling their own virtues they were going on and on and on and on about the nitty-gritty of their game mechanics. Put me right off my feed, it did.

Yeah, the lack of intellectual honesty is what gets me in some styles...
I just can't get my head around the idea that the GM is not being an honest broker. There was one time that a player told one of the other players that he thought I was lying to them, and I stopped the game dead on the spot. I made the distinction between me the GM, and me doing the NPCs, and if he couldn't tell the difference we needed to have a long talk.

That, or "there's a few highly useful ways of organizing your campaign that each generation re-discovers"...
True, I think. It just seems to this old man that each new generation thinks that there's nothing to learn from the past.

And I'm almost prone to agree with you on the Excel. But it allows for using the Search option, so it saves time when you need to reference it during the game.
Understood. I keep track of things in my head, and I tend to just pull stuff off the shelf in the game room - but then, I have the luxury of being able to do so!

I agree, preferably in searchable format.
If somebody can do this, I'm all for it.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

It was absolutely delightful seeing you in person again, in a situation where there was a chance to just talk.

And you're right, the Lamb Vindaloo was wonderful.

It was fun, and the conversation educated and intelligent. I thought that the 'young folks', Ray, Todd, Bob's daughter, and the young lady who was with Todd asked us old veterans a lot of very good questions - it made for a very good time, and I'd love to have them ask me more about our antics back in Ye Olden Dayes. What I found especially delightful was the looks on their young faces as I told stories about our games and adventures and they realized that their parents were really cool people...

I have to say that Sunday's visit to the FLGS to pick up the (working!) portcullis kits was really a sharp contrast. There were a fair number of people in from Convergence (the annual 3,000 - 4,000 member F/SF convention, here in town) and the conversations were all, well, banal in comparison to those on Saturday. It really did put me off my feed; I was looking at the TRE Games 'Pteradon' skyship kit with an eye to using in Barsoom games, when I realized that all the conversations I was hearing were the exact same kind of thing we'd heard for years on the convention circuit manning the booth for Dave and AGI. I had this horrible feeling that if I ever did run a Barsoom game there, nobody would understand what I was talking about, let alone 'get' why there were miniatures being used in an RPG without a grid or battlemat. (I think the latter has a lot to do with D&D 4E, myself.)

The contrast, as I say, was startling. It's like the people on this forum or at Gary Con and the people at Con of the North or Convergence. The former are our Saturday, and the latter my Sunday.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

From AsenRG:
Err, Sarku used in the same sentence as qeng...talk about "unfortunate implications"!
The guy who played Qutmu (the Sarku-worshipping general) did it all the time.

Eww!
I had the unpleasant experience of playing with people like that a few times. The last time was a guy who desperately wanted to know, in a game about dragon riders, the consistency and quantity of the dragon poop in the homebrew setting. He's now forbidden from ever applying for a session with me (or rather, people that know us both are forbidden from bringing him to play).

Well, I am slightly more risk-averse in real life...though arguable, not by that much.
Oh, true; Chirine takes more risks then I do, but he gets paid for it. I am very risk averse, myself, and always try to set things up to it's an optimal situation.

Well, if I wanted to play myself all the time, I wouldn't need dice...

Yes, some people have more varied styles. I don't object either way - as long as they're not interested solely in the mechnics.
Yes! This is the problem I had with my visit to the local FLGS on Sunday, where when the denizens were not extolling their own virtues they were going on and on and on and on about the nitty-gritty of their game mechanics. Put me right off my feed, it did.

I know the feeling.
Me: "Tell us a story of your PCs being epic".
Someone: "There was one time I rolled a critical and dealt over 100 damage..."
Me: "That's not what 'epic' means".

Yeah, the lack of intellectual honesty is what gets me in some styles...
I just can't get my head around the idea that the GM is not being an honest broker. There was one time that a player told one of the other players that he thought I was lying to them, and I stopped the game dead on the spot. I made the distinction between me the GM, and me doing the NPCs, and if he couldn't tell the difference we needed to have a long talk.

You and me both.
Watch out for the players that demand that you lie to them. "What, the GM isn't going to ensure our success? We're here to achieve epic deeds" is...disturbingly popular.
Many people don't realize that my default answer "I don't think me and you are looking for the same things in an RPG" is actually the diplomatic way of saying "get lost".

That, or "there's a few highly useful ways of organizing your campaign that each generation re-discovers"...
True, I think. It just seems to this old man that each new generation thinks that there's nothing to learn from the past.

Well...it might be that this is a weakness of every new generation (except ours).

And I'm almost prone to agree with you on the Excel. But it allows for using the Search option, so it saves time when you need to reference it during the game.
Understood. I keep track of things in my head, and I tend to just pull stuff off the shelf in the game room - but then, I have the luxury of being able to do so!

You're rumoured to have better memory than most of us, too.

I agree, preferably in searchable format.
If somebody can do this, I'm all for it.

Hear, people?

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

The contrast, as I say, was startling. It's like the people on this forum or at Gary Con and the people at Con of the North or Convergence. The former are our Saturday, and the latter my Sunday.

Personally, I'm honoured to be compared to the Saturday Night Group!

From AsenRG:
Eww!
I had the unpleasant experience of playing with people like that a few times. The last time was a guy who desperately wanted to know, in a game about dragon riders, the consistency and quantity of the dragon poop in the homebrew setting. He's now forbidden from ever applying for a session with me (or rather, people that know us both are forbidden from bringing him to play).
All righty, then; we'll just cross him off our 'welcome' list, shall we...

Well, if I wanted to play myself all the time, I wouldn't need dice...
Understood. I do it in real life; you'd be amazed at just how many people don't realize that I'm applying classic game theory to situations.

I know the feeling.
Me: "Tell us a story of your PCs being epic".
Someone: "There was one time I rolled a critical and dealt over 100 damage..."
Me: "That's not what 'epic' means".
Gods, yes! If I wanted to hear about number crunching and dice-rolling, I'd let one know; I want to hear about 'adventures'...

You and me both.
Watch out for the players that demand that you lie to them. "What, the GM isn't going to ensure our success? We're here to achieve epic deeds" is...disturbingly popular.
Many people don't realize that my default answer "I don't think me and you are looking for the same things in an RPG" is actually the diplomatic way of saying "get lost".
Agreed. There are days - like Sunday - when I really and truly despair for the hobby. I've been told over and over again - usually by OSR people - that I have no idea what 'the modern gamer' wants. Okay, I'll grant that - but it's not what I want, so parting company is probably the best option.

Well...it might be that this is a weakness of every new generation (except ours).
This could very well be true; I get the feeling that there's so little known by 'modern gamers' about the past history of the hobby that they simply don't know that a lot of these things have been looked at in the past and possible solutions devised. There are a lot of 'forgotten sages', I think...

You're rumoured to have better memory than most of us, too.
True. I just need to write faster...

Hear, people?
Like I say, I'd support it; it's just outside my skill set.

Personally, I'm honoured to be compared to the Saturday Night Group!
You're welcome! It was a very intelligent and clever bunch of people, much like the folks around here, and it was a joy to be there.