Questioning chirine ba kal

**AsenRG** · 09-01-2015, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Taking things in some sort of order...

Personally, I think your players 'got' Tekumel very quickly because they aren't Americans. We Yanks tend to be culturally illiterate, and pretty narrow-minded and uneducated. See also Gary and Dave on 'evil-good' vs. 'Stability-Change'. Too complicated for 'Murricans, they felt.

Well, I'm not sure I'm buying that Americans are "too uneducated". Sure, we have advantages because of a history of interaction with the Middle East, but that's not quite the same.

Yes; all later editions and products have been commercially insignificant. However, you fix thins by moving the goalposts and putting a spin on the data. Or just ignore the numbers, and talk in platitudes.

...you remember that we don't all have your eidetic memory, right? I misremembered it, yes. If I was doing research, I'd have checked.

Encouragement comes from introductory products, and not being elitist. Tellling a new player or GM that they have to master a language in order to play doesn;t get you any players of GMs; see also The Pundit's comments on this, or the vast commerical success of Harn or Jorune; one of those was explictly modeled on Tekumel, and you had to learn a new vocabulary. Didn't work, despite some really good effort on the part of the authors.

I agree, mostly. Although there are ways around "lots of setting info".

Encouragement does not come from am on-line forum were the routine discussions - when there are any - are all about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It does put people off.

I'd argue that people usually don't even notice discussions like this.

Exactly. Which is why "Playing at the World" has not gone over well with quite a few Big-Name OSR people, Jon told me at Gary Con this past spring.

I'm not surprised.

Yes. People need to know what colors Dave Arneson's plaid shirt was, so that they can 'get it right'. Honest to god - actual question I got from a gamer.

...do you know if he was planning to build a full-size manequin and use him as a GM screen.

Exactly. All I can do is tell you what we did out at Phil's for all those years, and let you take away what you need and can use. I'm an archivist, not a censor. Nor do I feel the need to rewrite history, either, to make myself look more important and enhance my 'prestige'.

And that's why archivists are useful

.

No, All those old games Got It Wrong, and only my new game gets it right. Dave and Gary and Phil were just some guys who just got lucky, according to some of the OSR folks who I've talked to. Only the OSR follows the One True Faith; all others, from all places and times, are big poopies.

...tell them to look up "freeform".

Or so I'm told by my betters, anyway.

Your "betters"?

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Well, I haven't looked carefully at AD&D 1st edition carefully in over 25 years; I've never looked at 2nd edition; I played some Star Wars d20 which I'm told is similar to 3rd edition, and I found the rules horribly restrictive and excessively complicated; likewise for Pathfinder; I spent 10 minutes looking at the free startup 4th Ed and decided "too fucking many rules"; and I've never glanced at 5th ed.

SO I have no idea except by "reconnaissance by fire," based on what those who play it say.

Sometime in there the idea of, to quote Skip Williams, "rules to protect the players from the arbitrary whims of the referee" became popular, at which moment OD&D as I understand it died.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Yep, same here. What with my excessive reading speed, I can read a complete set of rules as I'm standing in the FLGS by the shelf. I've looked at most all of the modern generations of RPG rules as they've come out, and they go right back on the shelf. No sale. As the man says, too many rules.

Yep, I'd agree with the quote, too, and something in me died when I read it.

If you need me, I'll be with the other elderly elephants...

OK, that's the opinion I'd expect most of generation to share.

(And BTW, I only know a grand total of one game which aims to protect the players from the GM, that's Burning Wheel. That's not really the purpose of rules-heavy systems. IMO, the goal of having many mechanics is to have many mechanics to play with).

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Language classes at game conventions? I laughed myself silly when I heard about this one...

I admit my reaction wasn't too dissimilar.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Errant clanspeople will get all the sanctions that you mention for not getting the job done; the clan also has the ultimate sanction of volunteering the wayward clan member for something terribly heroic and noble, like service with a legion that the clan supports - this will either reform the miscreant, or get them killed. Either way, problem solved for the clan.

I'm taking notes, and my players might hate you

.

**Greentongue** · 09-01-2015, 08:34 PM

How often did you encounter "things" instead of people?

In other words were "demons" or "aliens" unusual opponents or were they just one of the mix?

Were most opponents human? Even when they may be the "cultists" for non-humans?

What was the most surprising "thing" that a human opponent was working in cahoots with?
=

**Gronan of Simmerya** · 09-02-2015, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by AsenRG

(And BTW, I only know a grand total of one game which aims to protect the players from the GM, that's Burning Wheel. That's not really the purpose of rules-heavy systems. IMO, the goal of having many mechanics is to have many mechanics to play with).

Somewhere on this very site is a thread talking about Skip Williams saying in as many words that was the design philosophy of 3rd Ed. D&D. I don't have time to look right now.

**Gronan of Simmerya** · 09-02-2015, 09:30 AM

Whoot whooot!

Time to get up and go to work
time to get up and go to work
time to get up and go to work

**Gronan of Simmerya** · 09-02-2015, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Greentongue

How would a powerful clan put pressure on a lower clan?
To hush them up for example.

What about two of about equal power?

Is it common that a clan would use their connections to call on a higher clan to apply pressure on a competitor?
How would that work?
What type of favors would need to be done to repay?
=

A lot of these sorts of questions, honestly, are answered by "the same way large families do in parts of Asia today" or "the same way English nobility did during the Livery and Maintenace period" or "the same way it was done in the Italian City States."

Or even, "read Romeo and Juliet and notice what happens BESIDES the two lovers."

Tekumelyani humans are, after all, human, and humans have been solving these problems for centuries. "Clans" are just extended families, and similar structures have been around for years.

Even the "Life in a Medieval Castle/Village/Times" series would be a huge help, as would "Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England."

Your typical D&D world is late 19th century England dressed up for a costume ball; it's about as "medieval" as the Beefeaters at today's Tower of London. Running your clans like a bunch of families of feudal nobility will not be far off the mark, and it will be as alien to your players as can be.

**chirine ba kal** · 09-02-2015, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by AsenRG

Well, I'm not sure I'm buying that Americans are "too uneducated". Sure, we have advantages because of a history of interaction with the Middle East, but that's not quite the same.

...you remember that we don't all have your eidetic memory, right? I misremembered it, yes. If I was doing research, I'd have checked.

I'd argue that people usually don't even notice discussions like this.

...do you know if he was planning to build a full-size manequin and use him as a GM screen.

Your "betters"?

OK, that's the opinion I'd expect most of generation to share.

You haven't been to Middle America, have you?

It's a lot more basic then that; quite a few Americans are unaware that Canada is an independent nation-state.

No problem; I've been living with the thing for thirty-five+ years.

Um, I get quite a few e-mails from people who do pay attention to what's being said on the Internet, and how they perceive the discussions. It may very well be atypical, but it does happen, at least in my experience.

The OSR. are my betters; just ask them.

I'm not sure about the 'generation' in your comment. I personally prefer fewer rules, myself, but that's me. I don't think I can speak for my generation of gamers; besides, most of them are dead.

**chirine ba kal** · 09-02-2015, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Greentongue

How often did you encounter "things" instead of people?

In other words were "demons" or "aliens" unusual opponents or were they just one of the mix?

Were most opponents human? Even when they may be the "cultists" for non-humans?

What was the most surprising "thing" that a human opponent was working in cahoots with?
=

Most of the time. Hostile people are a hazard of military life and traveling, usually, so hostile encounters were normally wildlife or the hostile non-humans.

No; we rarely encountered 'demons' or 'aliens'; most of the time, it was wildlife, the hostile non-humans, an enemy army or skirmish force, or an opposing political faction, pretty much in that order. Other-planar beings were usually more on the order of SNS, with Phil. We'd also occasionally run into one of the Undying Wizards, but that was a special event as well.

Not really; it changed over time as the campaign evolved over the better part of fifteen years. We first had a lot of run-ins with underworld creatures, then the hostile non-humans, and then the political parties; later, when we all went off the the wars, it became more organized and from the human armies. It all depended, really, on what story arcs Phil had in mind, and then what he might roll if he was looking at using the encounter tables.

The Hokun.

**chirine ba kal** · 09-03-2015, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by AsenRG

...do you know if he was planning to build a full-size manequin and use him as a GM screen.

I'm sorry; I messed up, last night, and didn't answer this for you.

No, the guy insisted that he had to know the colors of Dave Arneson's plaid shirt so he could get one for himself, and then wear it while he was running his games "so that he could get it right."

I pointed out that Dave's play style had nothing to do with what he wore while gaming, and the guy was incensed about this; he insisted that a reallly serious gamer would get everything right, including the proper attire for the GM.

"Well, ok," I said, "but that's not was important to Dave's play style. You should look at his interests in reading and films, as that would give you a better handle on what he was thinking..."

Not an acceptable answer, I was told, and that was the last of that conversation.

Again, sorry about missing this last night...

**Ravenswing** · 09-03-2015, 03:44 AM

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Your typical D&D world is late 19th century England dressed up for a costume ball; it's about as "medieval" as the Beefeaters at today's Tower of London. Running your clans like a bunch of families of feudal nobility will not be far off the mark, and it will be as alien to your players as can be.

Yeah, absolutely. Read through accounts of the 14th century, and it's rather like Game Of Thrones, only not nearly as warm and cuddly.

**Bren** · 09-03-2015, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by Ravenswing

Yeah, absolutely. Read through accounts of the 14th century, and it's rather like Game Of Thrones, only not nearly as warm and cuddly.

And more sibling, parent, and child murder. Ah...ye good ole days.

Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions