I agree, the definitions are quite well thought out, and well explained.
Plot twists are great fun. The strange thing is, depending on your players, you can drive them absolutely nuts.. by doing nothing. It's sometimes too much fun watching them when they realize that the plot twist.. is that it's really, truly a simple task.
Personally, I truly enjoy playing within the spirit of the rules more than the structure. The spirit of the rules is more important -- along with that ever unspoken 'All of the rules are here to make the game play more consistently fun for everyone involved'. When the structure starts to impede that, it's time to take a big old 'Sledgehammer of Correction' to the rules.
Full Version: Ten commandments of interactive storytelling
Plot twists are great! You just have to take great care to mix them up the right way. Always bringing the same two plot twists is boring. Things can be mixed up by leaving plot twists out for once (as has already been suggested) and by fooling your players into thinking that the good old plot twist B is coming up again but it's really a brand new plot twist or just an old one that they didn't expect.
Like, when it looks like the Johnson has framed you once again it's really the Johnson who has been framed or when you think the whole twist about this "simple" courier run was that you're freight wasn't as harmless as advertised you'll be surprised to find out that the freight is indeed harmless, but you didn't know that it was being stolen and now everyone who saw you with it thinks you're the thief: The Johnson framed you!
These examples were indeed a bit lame. Not quite what I anticipated. What can I say, I am tired. ("Thou shalt always have a decent excuse for everything!")
Like, when it looks like the Johnson has framed you once again it's really the Johnson who has been framed or when you think the whole twist about this "simple" courier run was that you're freight wasn't as harmless as advertised you'll be surprised to find out that the freight is indeed harmless, but you didn't know that it was being stolen and now everyone who saw you with it thinks you're the thief: The Johnson framed you!
These examples were indeed a bit lame. Not quite what I anticipated. What can I say, I am tired. ("Thou shalt always have a decent excuse for everything!")
| QUOTE (Phaeton @ Apr 10 2004, 11:19 AM) |
| [12] You shall not include story elements which personally offend the players. The PCs? Oh, easily. That's what RPing is about. But not the players. |
I didn't know he posted that here, but now I feel like I should defend myself, since I was his GM. The majority of the "personally offensive" things he found were relationships. And I mean in any form. To satisfy him, our entire group would have had to exclude falling in love from our character's lives entirely.
I won't go into the reasons behind his issues with this, because that would take up far too much space for an off-topic comment. (edit) And I wouldn't have said anything if not for the fact that at the time, he was posting things about how bad we all were everywhere.
My apologies, Sahandrian: I hadn't realised it wasn't a general recommendation, and I certainly didn't want to further polarise whatever was going on within your group.
Yet it's a trickier question than it seems at first glance, not least because we all have issues or themes we'd rather not go into too deeply. Primary, perhaps, are the GM's objections: for how do you create and run a campaign which has to include within it something you personally can't stand? Enjoyment factor, there, goes straight out the window. (Reference toturi's Zeroeth Law, 2nd page.)
Secondary might be that old maxim that your right to throw your fist ends where my nose begins. (In Shadowrun, that "right" is frequently punctuated with bullets
) In a practical group sense, a character (or player!) should be able to do more or less whatever they want, within the particular campaign structure: so long as it doesn't affect the other characters (or players). Note, however, that different groups have different tolerance levels for independent or even clashing PC action; also that anyone who's ever explored the potential inherent within a web of contacts will have discovered for themselves that what does not affect the other members of one's team/group might be a very small piece of turf indeed.
But tertiary is that any existing and established group will already have found a balance with which they are comfortable; and it is the responsibility of any new player brought into the group to find something that works within that balance. No matter how much we're all brought together here by our mutual love of the game and our desire to GM or play within it, sometimes there will be irreconcilable personality or personal value differences that make it absolutely impossible for a particular player to mesh well with the rest of the group. I've had this happen myself: in my first ever experience as a Shadowrun player, after some months of play, I was kicked out of the group; and I've also had to ask players to leave the group I was GMing. All I can say here is to have faith: just as there is no one style of playing Shadowrun, there is also no one common structure of group. In time, anyone who really wants to play and is able to work within a team structure will find a group within which they fit -- and that is true magic
Incidentally, this is the solution the LitS team of GMs came up with (bearing in mind that we do have more than one GM, and thus can accommodate more than one style of preferred play):
Yet it's a trickier question than it seems at first glance, not least because we all have issues or themes we'd rather not go into too deeply. Primary, perhaps, are the GM's objections: for how do you create and run a campaign which has to include within it something you personally can't stand? Enjoyment factor, there, goes straight out the window. (Reference toturi's Zeroeth Law, 2nd page.)
Secondary might be that old maxim that your right to throw your fist ends where my nose begins. (In Shadowrun, that "right" is frequently punctuated with bullets
) In a practical group sense, a character (or player!) should be able to do more or less whatever they want, within the particular campaign structure: so long as it doesn't affect the other characters (or players). Note, however, that different groups have different tolerance levels for independent or even clashing PC action; also that anyone who's ever explored the potential inherent within a web of contacts will have discovered for themselves that what does not affect the other members of one's team/group might be a very small piece of turf indeed.But tertiary is that any existing and established group will already have found a balance with which they are comfortable; and it is the responsibility of any new player brought into the group to find something that works within that balance. No matter how much we're all brought together here by our mutual love of the game and our desire to GM or play within it, sometimes there will be irreconcilable personality or personal value differences that make it absolutely impossible for a particular player to mesh well with the rest of the group. I've had this happen myself: in my first ever experience as a Shadowrun player, after some months of play, I was kicked out of the group; and I've also had to ask players to leave the group I was GMing. All I can say here is to have faith: just as there is no one style of playing Shadowrun, there is also no one common structure of group. In time, anyone who really wants to play and is able to work within a team structure will find a group within which they fit -- and that is true magic
Incidentally, this is the solution the LitS team of GMs came up with (bearing in mind that we do have more than one GM, and thus can accommodate more than one style of preferred play):
| QUOTE |
| Finally, we also ask you to include which plotline themes or types of characters you’d prefer not to directly interact with. We do recognise that some GMs have an extremely difficult time dealing with magicians, or riggers, or the intense contact interaction of highly social characters; and that some thematic elements (eg. religion, sexuality) may have powerful triggers that some GMs may prefer to avoid. While we may be able to accommodate one or two such preferred exclusions: in general, flexibility is encouraged. |
Practically, it comes out to something a bit stronger than "encouraged": we're not going to ask you to introduce elements you hate within a storyline ... but you should also be okay with other GMs running those elements with their players within their storylines.
In general, there's always a fine line between something that can reasonably be excluded from a game for a player's comfort, and something that should not be excluded because someone is uncomfortable with it.
If someone is really uncomfortable with the thought of blowing up oil tankers and so on, then that can reasonably be excluded from the game.
If someone can't stand the thought of women being violent, or targetted by violence, then that can't, and the person must: endure it, get over it, or leave the game.
If people are personally offended by other characters roleplay elements.. well, 'your right to stop me from swinging my fist ends at your nose'. No player has the right to say 'no, you can't have that roleplay, I don't like it'. If they participated in it, helped bring it out, then it's reasonable for them to be stuck with playing it through. The only time they can object is when it's starting, and involves one of their characters.
Now, people could agree not to involve certain story elements.. but that has to be a unanimous decision, or you're doing the exact same thing -- taking away something someone really, truly enjoys in the game is the same as adding something someone truly does not enjoy. Both strip the fun out of the game -- and taking away something, when someone doesn't agree to it, will leave hard feelings. Especially if it's done for someone 'new' to the group.
If someone is really uncomfortable with the thought of blowing up oil tankers and so on, then that can reasonably be excluded from the game.
If someone can't stand the thought of women being violent, or targetted by violence, then that can't, and the person must: endure it, get over it, or leave the game.
If people are personally offended by other characters roleplay elements.. well, 'your right to stop me from swinging my fist ends at your nose'. No player has the right to say 'no, you can't have that roleplay, I don't like it'. If they participated in it, helped bring it out, then it's reasonable for them to be stuck with playing it through. The only time they can object is when it's starting, and involves one of their characters.
Now, people could agree not to involve certain story elements.. but that has to be a unanimous decision, or you're doing the exact same thing -- taking away something someone really, truly enjoys in the game is the same as adding something someone truly does not enjoy. Both strip the fun out of the game -- and taking away something, when someone doesn't agree to it, will leave hard feelings. Especially if it's done for someone 'new' to the group.
Knew I forgot something, and it's absolutely core to any stable group:
The players have to trust their GM, and the GM, the players.
I'm not talking things such as do you roll your dice in the open, or whether a given character is likely to backstab yours (providing this fits within the standard tone of group play), or even whether the situation laid out by the GM/Johnson is actually what it seems.
I'm talking about the basic concept that the GM is going to create scenarios for the players, which (almost by definition) they can't know every detail of ahead of time. The players trusts their GM to build these parts of the world for them, and to evolve them in ways they will not expect. And the GM trusts the players to be willing to play within those created scenarios.
Without that basic level of trust, there is no game.
Now, to the next challenging concept, that of compromise
The players have to trust their GM, and the GM, the players.
I'm not talking things such as do you roll your dice in the open, or whether a given character is likely to backstab yours (providing this fits within the standard tone of group play), or even whether the situation laid out by the GM/Johnson is actually what it seems.
I'm talking about the basic concept that the GM is going to create scenarios for the players, which (almost by definition) they can't know every detail of ahead of time. The players trusts their GM to build these parts of the world for them, and to evolve them in ways they will not expect. And the GM trusts the players to be willing to play within those created scenarios.
Without that basic level of trust, there is no game.
Now, to the next challenging concept, that of compromise
| QUOTE |
| Now, people could agree not to involve certain story elements.. but that has to be a unanimous decision, or you're doing the exact same thing -- taking away something someone really, truly enjoys in the game is the same as adding something someone truly does not enjoy. Both strip the fun out of the game -- and taking away something, when someone doesn't agree to it, will leave hard feelings. Especially if it's done for someone 'new' to the group. |
My own feelings are that if the existing group as a whole are willing to continue to try working as a group, then degree of like/dislike of the specific story element should always be taken into account when coming to such decisions. Something that makes a person a bit uncomfortable should be measured differently than something that the person hates to the core of their soul. Similarly, something that a person sort of likes should be measured differently than the primary concept around which a long-term PC was built. Both discomforts and sacrifices can lead to some beautiful character development -- but the degree of challenge here should ultimately be measured, not against what is appropriate to the character, but against what the GM understands of the player and of the group.
Let's face it: if you were playing in an absolutely perfect world, you'd probably be playing by yourself
You're absolutely right Talia, about the trust being on both sides. To go right along with it, is respect.
If the GM respects the players, then he won't go out of his way to brutalize things that they spend karma on, spoil their investments for no reason, and in general deny them any sense of accomplishment.
If the players respect the GM, then they'll accept when he says 'no' to something with good grace. They won't try and sabotage the game.
As to compromise: Yes, you're absolutely right, it does depend quite extensively on the degree of feeling attached. Although you'd be surprised how things develop.. I wouldn't have thought one of the defining things for my Sam would be falling in love and getting involved with the fox shaman, but it is. It's underlying in almost everything about him -- and everyone in the party knows that if something happens to her, what he'll do won't be pretty.
I guess it comes down to people involved. Sometimes it's an exceptionally strong hatred for any restrictions on roleplay. That would be where I stand.. I hate having restrictions on how stories can develop. Utterly. I can appreciate other people not being comfortable with it -- I've had it happen before. Once with a roleplay sweet and sappy enough to choke people, once with a very angry roleplay. Both times it was people that I was (or am) friends with at the time that it bothered -- was freeform, and they weren't involved, but they saw the roleplay. Really bugged me to have to censor roleplays -- especially when most people weren't bothered either way.
If the GM respects the players, then he won't go out of his way to brutalize things that they spend karma on, spoil their investments for no reason, and in general deny them any sense of accomplishment.
If the players respect the GM, then they'll accept when he says 'no' to something with good grace. They won't try and sabotage the game.
As to compromise: Yes, you're absolutely right, it does depend quite extensively on the degree of feeling attached. Although you'd be surprised how things develop.. I wouldn't have thought one of the defining things for my Sam would be falling in love and getting involved with the fox shaman, but it is. It's underlying in almost everything about him -- and everyone in the party knows that if something happens to her, what he'll do won't be pretty.
I guess it comes down to people involved. Sometimes it's an exceptionally strong hatred for any restrictions on roleplay. That would be where I stand.. I hate having restrictions on how stories can develop. Utterly. I can appreciate other people not being comfortable with it -- I've had it happen before. Once with a roleplay sweet and sappy enough to choke people, once with a very angry roleplay. Both times it was people that I was (or am) friends with at the time that it bothered -- was freeform, and they weren't involved, but they saw the roleplay. Really bugged me to have to censor roleplays -- especially when most people weren't bothered either way.
| QUOTE (Talia Invierno) |
| My apologies, Sahandrian: I hadn't realised it wasn't a general recommendation, and I certainly didn't want to further polarise whatever was going on within your group. |
Don't worry about it. He left the group after spending a week or two demonizing us on various forums. I just get annoyed whenever I come across one of those posts.
| QUOTE |
| The majority of the "personally offensive" things he found were relationships. And I mean in any form. To satisfy him, our entire group would have had to exclude falling in love from our character's lives entirely. |
Oh, jeez, he'd so revile me then. Ah well, my regrets about this. Well, he should heed #19 through 21 and just find himself people who think likewise, instead of being a dick about others being different from him.
Besides, a character without romantic engagements or at the very least the longing for those deep inside (or just the occasional "I hit the clubs and shag the first hooker that crosses my way" stress relief) feels just damn incomplete to me, but hey, different people, different playing style.
| QUOTE |
| The players have to trust their GM, and the GM, the players. |
YES. And moreso, the group has to have the goal people enjoy themselves (this goes especially t the GM). Any GM who thinjks it's his mission to make players roll as often as possible without any reason for it, is as keen about players keeping to every rule ever written as a German taxiation agent, or thinks he is the players' 'enemy' and killing as many PCs as possible is the way to go because, hey, that's realistic, got it wrong.
Yes, the world isn't nice, and firefivghts are extremely deadly, and in the real world, one mistake, even when done because you didn't have all the facts, might kill you, just like that.
Chill. It's escapism we're doing here, that's what roleplaying is al about. I am all for maintaining a degree of realism in my games too; if not all of my players had gotten shots for tropical diseases before going to the amazon, I WOULD have gotten one a sickness of some kind. But I won't play thw world out as hostile as it should realistically be. Even when maintaining an atmosphere of believability, in the end, it's about storytelling and fun, and when realism disturbs that, it's best cut back on it, rather than on the fun factor.
Just wanted to comment on that last paragraph by saying that roleplaying is not necesarily always escapism. In games like Shadowrun this is certainly the case for most people but there are also these other people (like me, partially), who use the game (and other RPGs) to explore some aspects of themselves and of others that wouldn't be possible to be looked at in other environments. These games are about very real human issues and not about escaping reality and all its problems at all. And believe it or not, these games are fun, too! Just in a more intellectual way. Kinda like watching the Matrix trilogy for the philosophical content and not the cool effects and action scenes.
I'm intervening here because I think statements like these ("It's escapism we're doing here, that's what roleplaying is all about") give our hobby a great deal of its bad reputation and makes us gamers look like some nerds who can't cope with reality.
I'm not saying that escapism in roleplaying is a bad thing. If you're using SR for escapism, cool! Please continue to do so! Other people use movies or books for the same purpose. However, there are also a lot of people who use books and movies to educate themselves and to get themselves thinking and all those other intellectual activities. This - among other things - gives books and movies a far better reputation than roleplaying games, I believe.
I've had people cringe and take a step back like I was infected with a contagious disease once I told them that I roleplay. This has never happened to me when I tell people that I like to read or go to the movies.
I'm intervening here because I think statements like these ("It's escapism we're doing here, that's what roleplaying is all about") give our hobby a great deal of its bad reputation and makes us gamers look like some nerds who can't cope with reality.
I'm not saying that escapism in roleplaying is a bad thing. If you're using SR for escapism, cool! Please continue to do so! Other people use movies or books for the same purpose. However, there are also a lot of people who use books and movies to educate themselves and to get themselves thinking and all those other intellectual activities. This - among other things - gives books and movies a far better reputation than roleplaying games, I believe.
I've had people cringe and take a step back like I was infected with a contagious disease once I told them that I roleplay. This has never happened to me when I tell people that I like to read or go to the movies.
| QUOTE (MrSandman666) |
| Kinda like watching the Matrix trilogy for the philosophical content and not the cool effects and action scenes. |
Philosophical content? In the Matrix trilogy?
That went out the window after the first one...along with the aesthetics. Oh well.
| QUOTE |
| aspects of themselves and of others that wouldn't be possible to be looked at in other environments |
Sounds like escapism by another name to me - doing things in your imagination that aren't possible in another context.
| QUOTE |
| I'm intervening here because I think statements like these ("It's escapism we're doing here, that's what roleplaying is all about") give our hobby a great deal of its bad reputation and makes us gamers look like some nerds who can't cope with reality. |
Reading books or going to the movies for entertainment is also escapism.
Sure, roleplaying isn't all about escapism. But roleplaying games certainly are escapist.
The point of roleplaying as a hobby is that it's a social activity that you undertake with group of other people - often enough, with your friends.
Hence, as Toturi said, the most important part of the experience is that everyone enjoys it.
Spoiler because I'm going way OT here...
[ Spoiler ]
| QUOTE |
| Just wanted to comment on that last paragraph by saying that roleplaying is not necesarily always escapism. |
Argh. That's where it shows where I'm not a natuive, I guess.
Okay, bad use of the word ... I only wanted to stress the point that games are for fun and communal storytelling, and secapism seemed like a good word to sum that all up in. | QUOTE |
| In games like Shadowrun this is certainly the case for most people but there are also these other people (like me, partially), who use the game (and other RPGs) to explore some aspects of themselves and of others that wouldn't be possible to be looked at in other environments. |
To a degree, this is what I do too (add to that, though, that I tend to play characters who are very different in personality from me, so I try out acting in a way different of how I would act). But the whole cinematic action and sneaking and spying thing also plays a role.
| QUOTE |
| These games are about very real human issues and not about escaping reality and all its problems at all. And believe it or not, these games are fun, too! Just in a more intellectual way. Kinda like watching the Matrix trilogy for the philosophical content and not the cool effects and action scenes. |
I fail to see where Matrix has more philosophical issues worth pondering than Star Wars, but yeah, I get the idea. Like I said before, not how I intended to bring this across. My point was, mainly, that fun precedes over realism or anything lese. If you like ultra-realist systems, play Shadowrun using CP2020 damage rules (those are NASTY!), but as it is, Shadowrun has, while maintaining a wide distance from supers-style powergaming, a certaion cinematic element, and that's part of an escape from reality, which won't permit many of us cinematic style heroic combat scenes.
I could actually argue that the first part was the least philosophical one in the matrix trilogy. I'm actually pretty stunned that you think so. If you say the aesthetics went out the window, ok. But the philosophy???
Anyways, enough of this. I don't think this is to be discussed here. If you want to continue this discussion, please PM me. I'm derailing this thread enough as it is already.
As for escapism (taken from Meriam Webster online dictionary):
Anyways, enough of this. I don't think this is to be discussed here. If you want to continue this discussion, please PM me. I'm derailing this thread enough as it is already.
As for escapism (taken from Meriam Webster online dictionary):
| QUOTE |
| Main Entry: es·cap·ism Pronunciation: is-'kA-"pi-z&m Function: noun : habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine |
My concept of escapism is indulging oneself in fantasy in order to escape (hence the name) from reality and all the problems that are connected to reality.
What I'm describing in my last post is not an escape from reality but using your imagination and the social context to examine parts of reality that you don't usually have access to (not without breaking the law, at least). This is something totally different.
To make the difference even more clear: it's "escaping reality" vs. "dealing with reality". BTW: please don't make the mistake to mix up escapism with distraction or diversion - one can seek diversion in things that are totally in touch with reality.
Are we on the same page now, concerning terminology?
| QUOTE |
| Reading books or going to the movies for entertainment is also escapism. |
I never said anything different. Actually, I said exactly that, if you mind to go back and check my last post.
| QUOTE |
| Sure, roleplaying isn't all about escapism. But roleplaying games certainly are escapist. |
You're making a distinction here that I didn't make. Partially my fault. When I talk about troleplaying I almost always (unless explicitly stated) talk about roleplaying games. So, my statement still stands: roleplaying games are not necesarily all about escapism.
They can be, for sure. Most of the time they are, which is just fine. I just have a problem when someone is pushing the hobby into such a tight corner, saying "all RPGs are all about escapism, all the time!", which detracts a lot from the respectability of our hobby.
| QUOTE |
| The point of roleplaying as a hobby is that it's a social activity that you undertake with group of other people - often enough, with your friends. Hence, as Toturi said, the most important part of the experience is that everyone enjoys it. |
I never said anything against that either. In your argument you seem to propose that non-escapistic (is that a word?) activities can not under any circumstances be fun. I believe (hope?) that you don't really mean it like that but that's certainly how it comes across.
Just noticed your post, hermit...
And I have to agree with you that, yes, fun precedes over everything else. It's a hobby after all. The use of the word escapism as an antipole to realism is somewhat awkward but I don't want to know in what ways I'm abusing the English language without even noticing it!
Aaaanyways, I think I'm derailing the thread far beyond the acceptable boundaries again so I would hope that this discussion can either be brought to an end quickly or moved to another venue (PM, other thread, email... I don't care. You pick one.)
[ Spoiler ]
Well. I was going more for escapism as escaping from routine, the day-to-day stuff we all do, for something exciting we don't have access to (much like you described it). Also to kick back and relax, and thus, to some degree, escape reality, but hey, that's also what I do when watching TV, reading a book, writing a poem, drawing a picture, playing a video game or, hell, going out to shop for clothes. Certainly, my idea wasn't the reclusive, basement-dwelling nerd who only crawls out of his little dungeon t fetch a frozen pizza he will let thaw and eat unbakedwhile indulging completely in some form of shutting out reality (or, for that matter, the ultimate in escapism - hard drugs). So I guess we'tre on the same level here.
My point, I reiterate, was mainly that, in an RPG, realism, especially according to 'petty' parts (deadlyness of firearms, healing time, disease, and so on) sometimes needs to be taken back for the Golden Rule of Gaming: Thou shalt have fun. That was what I really was thinking when writing my (ill-formulated) post.
My point, I reiterate, was mainly that, in an RPG, realism, especially according to 'petty' parts (deadlyness of firearms, healing time, disease, and so on) sometimes needs to be taken back for the Golden Rule of Gaming: Thou shalt have fun. That was what I really was thinking when writing my (ill-formulated) post.
As someone seeking out advice on "how to be a good GM", this is probably one of the best places to look. Especially considering that there wasn't just one person making the suggestions. 
I should really stop by this forum more often...
I should really stop by this forum more often...
I fall under that group of people who feel that while the philosophy in Matrix 2 and 3 hadn't been reduced, the integration and "flow" extrapolation of it had been. Additionally, I think the brothers took the easy way out. All of which, together, adds up to a moment of mourning for what the Matrix trilogy could have been.
Ceres: I'll hope so. [Edit: especially because there's other people making the suggestions! It's a living check and balance] But like most practical philosophy, the useful guidelines rarely come handed down from on high. Rather, I've had to live through life and experience and hopefully occasionally learning until I came around and met what I've written here through the "back door", so to speak. I'm speaking only for me, here: I don't know whether others have had the same experience.
Re diversion/escapism/gaming:
I'd say that it's that concept of escaping from life/reality that might be the point of intersection of all definitions of escapism -- but, as was tangentially pointed out earlier, few people would consider it an escape from reality to open up the television or a good book.
Another two points I'd quickly like to raise (running out of time) is that of active involvement vs. being passively entertained; as well as that of learning through the roleplaying structure.
Ceres: I'll hope so. [Edit: especially because there's other people making the suggestions! It's a living check and balance
] But like most practical philosophy, the useful guidelines rarely come handed down from on high. Rather, I've had to live through life and experience and hopefully occasionally learning until I came around and met what I've written here through the "back door", so to speak. I'm speaking only for me, here: I don't know whether others have had the same experience.Re diversion/escapism/gaming:
I'd say that it's that concept of escaping from life/reality that might be the point of intersection of all definitions of escapism -- but, as was tangentially pointed out earlier, few people would consider it an escape from reality to open up the television or a good book.
Another two points I'd quickly like to raise (running out of time) is that of active involvement vs. being passively entertained; as well as that of learning through the roleplaying structure.
Oh, sure Talia, you had to go and start this plot thread when I was away on vacation. How I would love to have gotten onto the ground floor with this one. Brava!
What's... What's stopping you from contributing now?
XIIVI: Tho shalt make sure to get a reasonable charcter from all players.
The number of games I have run (reguardless of system) that I have been handed nothing but stats for, with no hint, either explained during conversation, or in writing, as to the CHARCTER part of a PC is repulsive. The last SR game I ran.. the last SR campaign I ran (thats sounding better), I wanted charcter write ups from all my players. After 3 months of games, I had only had one of them discuss the charcter history, motivations, or anything as such. And the all compligned that it wasent an enguaging game for the PCs. Im gonna go back to running games for 16 year olds, they are at least semi predictible.
The number of games I have run (reguardless of system) that I have been handed nothing but stats for, with no hint, either explained during conversation, or in writing, as to the CHARCTER part of a PC is repulsive. The last SR game I ran.. the last SR campaign I ran (thats sounding better), I wanted charcter write ups from all my players. After 3 months of games, I had only had one of them discuss the charcter history, motivations, or anything as such. And the all compligned that it wasent an enguaging game for the PCs. Im gonna go back to running games for 16 year olds, they are at least semi predictible.
I'm told, belatedly, that there are reasons for congratulations, Dog. How goes the new life?
(Should we add a commandment in there about PCs and NPCs alike having the drive and the desire to be social creatures beyond the scope of the resource value of the person's skills and knowledge? Or should I just link in a thread on character development?
(Should we add a commandment in there about PCs and NPCs alike having the drive and the desire to be social creatures beyond the scope of the resource value of the person's skills and knowledge? Or should I just link in a thread on character development?
Hey Crimsondude 2.0, I guess I just did! (Actually I'd have little to say that hasn't already been said, I guess. All the good stuff's been done.)
T.I. Married life is really no different than our previous four years together. Which is to say: it's great. Thanks.
T.I. Married life is really no different than our previous four years together. Which is to say: it's great. Thanks.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.