Paradox: I like to roleplay. I'm a bad actor. At least, a bad improv actor. I don't do funny voices. No one, least of all me, is going to be convinced that I (a short middle-aged nerdette) am Fastlane (a tall male construction worker and part-time superhero). Nor do I want to be (and that's a whole nother paradox... #4, right now). PBeM solves most of this for me; I'm a much better author than actor (whether that brings me up to the level of "good" I dunno; at least my own writing doesn't make me wince, where my acting does). And yet... I like getting friends around the kitchen table and roleplaying. Not much more to this paradox, I guess. Except sometimes I wonder if my tabletop roleplaying would work out better if I narrated it third-person past-tense instead of trying to (verbally, anyway) act it out. I'm pretty sure it would be. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 07:59:00AM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >Paradox: I like to roleplay. I'm a bad actor. > >At least, a bad improv actor. I don't do funny voices. No one, least of >all me, is going to be convinced that I (a short middle-aged nerdette) am >Fastlane (a tall male construction worker and part-time superhero). Nor >do I want to be (and that's a whole nother paradox... #4, right now). One of the best GMs I know has actively got players worried by having an argument with himself (as two separate NPCs). One player said later "I thought it was going to come to blows". He doesn't do voices, but he can project a character like nobody's business. I don't do voices either but I try to do mindset. I'm fairly poor at improvising dialogue, but the content tends to be right; as far as I'm concerned, that's the important thing. I find it easier when I'm GMing, possibly because I've had time to think in advance about what the NPC knows and what his reactions might be to what the PCs can tell him... >Not much more to this paradox, I guess. Except sometimes I wonder if my >tabletop roleplaying would work out better if I narrated it third-person >past-tense instead of trying to (verbally, anyway) act it out. I'm pretty >sure it would be. That works for some players, but in my experience it does tend to give a feeling of detachment, particularly when it's something that could be covered by direct speech. I'm fortunate in my regular groups: we don't have people who need to make formal distinctions between in-character and out-of-character comments, so we can keep a fairly informal flow going. (I'm assuming that you're not playing in a noir game, of course, in which that sort of narration could be entirely in-genre.) R -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Roger Burton West wrote:
RBW>One of the best GMs I know has actively got players worried by having an
RBW>argument with himself (as two separate NPCs). One player said later "I
RBW>thought it was going to come to blows". He doesn't do voices, but he can
RBW>project a character like nobody's business.
I can't project characters, either. Certainly not like that. I'm always
acutely conscious that I'm expecting players to look at me and envision,
say, a seven-foot leonine alien. Ain't workin'. Maybe I underestimate
their ability to suspend disbelief.
RBW>I don't do voices either but I try to do mindset. I'm fairly poor at
RBW>improvising dialogue, but the content tends to be right; as far as I'm
RBW>concerned, that's the important thing. I find it easier when I'm GMing,
RBW>possibly because I've had time to think in advance about what the NPC
RBW>knows and what his reactions might be to what the PCs can tell him...
Sometimes. Sometimes that's harder for me, because I know my PCs better
than J. Random NPC.
RBW>That works for some players, but in my experience it does tend to give a
RBW>feeling of detachment, particularly when it's something that could be
RBW>covered by direct speech. I'm fortunate in my regular groups: we don't
RBW>have people who need to make formal distinctions between in-character
RBW>and out-of-character comments, so we can keep a fairly informal flow
RBW>going.
RBW>(I'm assuming that you're not playing in a noir game, of course, in
RBW>which that sort of narration could be entirely in-genre.)
Many of my characters tend to be very internalized (or something like
that, anyway); I'm interested in their thoughts on things when they
wouldn't necessarily give any evidence of them. So the only way the other
players get to know any of it is in our sort-of-bluebooking interludes
when we catch up on things via the mailing list.
Ditto Bill's character Stalker. When Stalker was introduced, I was
playing a different characters. (No, that's not a typo.) The Pack didn't
care much about Stalker's motivations, and if they'd been told the
"caring" would be through the filter of an alien group mind ("okay, so the
rest of your family was killed, and you're a solitary mind-fragment. How
sad. Would you like us to euthanize you humanely?") And then when I
switched to Fastlane, we glossed the getting-to-know-you out of game, so
until Bill brought it up on the mailing list recently I found out I didn't
really know how wrapped up he was in revenge.
Soooo... then Fastlane happened to capture (offscreen) the guy who gave
the order to kill Stalker's family. And turned him over to the
authorities, to keep Stalker from doing anything he might (or at least
ought to) regret. We sort of played out Fastlane telling Stalker, but it
was really just me telling Bill, and while it could have been an
interesting intra-party-conflict scene, it ended up not being so, because
I really wasn't adequately acting it.
Maybe we *should* play it noir...
--
Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 09:35:27AM -0600, Karen J. Cravens wrote: >I can't project characters, either. Certainly not like that. I'm always >acutely conscious that I'm expecting players to look at me and envision, >say, a seven-foot leonine alien. Ain't workin'. Maybe I underestimate >their ability to suspend disbelief. I wish I could do it that well. One of the things I've learned as a GM, though, is that most players won't give me any feedback at all when they're enjoying something, but will get shifty and restless when they're not. A couple of years ago I realised that I had a reputation as a good GM among my friends, but that I had absolutely no idea what I was doing right or wrong. I've been trying to study it since. When I get into a game with improv-theatre types, I get left behind because I just don't come up with stuff that fast. The best bet seems to be for me not to play with those people. But it doesn't sound as though you're particularly out of step with your face-to-face group. >Many of my characters tend to be very internalized (or something like >that, anyway); I'm interested in their thoughts on things when they >wouldn't necessarily give any evidence of them. So the only way the other >players get to know any of it is in our sort-of-bluebooking interludes >when we catch up on things via the mailing list. A side note: I'm thinking about getting a Pendragon game going at some point, and I'm planning to do the "winter phase" activities (including solo adventures) by email rather than taking up limited face-to-face time with them. I haven't tried a hybrid game like this before; has anyone else? -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>I wish I could do it that well. One of the things I've learned as a GM, RBW>though, is that most players won't give me any feedback at all when RBW>they're enjoying something, but will get shifty and restless when RBW>they're not. We're rather more likely to devolve into joking and so forth. Especially me. Displacement behavior, I think. RBW>When I get into a game with improv-theatre types, I get left behind RBW>because I just don't come up with stuff that fast. The best bet seems to RBW>be for me not to play with those people. But it doesn't sound as though RBW>you're particularly out of step with your face-to-face group. I had a fun convention game with a bunch of those types. It was a huge Champions game, a dozen or so people, and mostly I sat back and was entertained. But yeah, none of that here. RBW>A side note: I'm thinking about getting a Pendragon game going at some RBW>point, and I'm planning to do the "winter phase" activities (including RBW>solo adventures) by email rather than taking up limited face-to-face RBW>time with them. I haven't tried a hybrid game like this before; has RBW>anyone else? I've tried that with Carl's game, but he doesn't like PBeM so he keeps vetoing me... -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
> I had a fun convention game with a bunch of those types. It was a huge
> Champions game, a dozen or so people, and mostly I sat back and was
> entertained. But yeah, none of that here.
I was very, very uncomfortable in that game.
It was okay, up to a point... but the situation got to where our space
ship was about to crash into the stadium or something, and people were
yelling at me (the pilot), "jump, jump" and I didn't understand where
I was jumping _to_ or how that was supposed to save my life. Everyone
else had a grasp of where we were and what was happening, and why
jumping was going to save my life (I was the only one on the ship)...
but I'd gotten lost and was very confused and had people shouting at
me. I couldn't even make myself be heard, and nobody was about to
slow down and let me get an understanding of what was going on.
I was extremely stressed and left that game feeling horrible. I can't
even remember what I _did_, besides yell at Karen and get her pissed
off at me. (She was supposed to recognize that I was in distress, not
join in with the others yelling at me.)
Geesh, just trying to remember the details of the event has left me
feeling like crap.
> I've tried that with Carl's game, but he doesn't like PBeM so he
> keeps vetoing me...
I like PBeM... I just don't want the players saving up the "good
stuff" for email and using that as their outlet. I want this stuff to
happen _in the game_ not in email. Fastlane's "we need to be a team"
speech would have been great in person. We're not going to get
comfortable with this stuff if we sit back and are afraid to engage in
roleplay, and then go post 500-word messages about what our characters
say in email.
And I don't have time to run a PBeM in addition to the live game.
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner
[ General RP Discussion -- http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/ ]
If I want your opinion, I'll take you out of my killfile.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>It was okay, up to a point... but the situation got to where our space CDC>ship was about to crash into the stadium or something, and people were CDC>yelling at me (the pilot), "jump, jump" and I didn't understand where Uh... are we talking about the same game? Cause I don't remember a stadium. I just remember a big fight on a big hex map, with the "You can DO that?" lava guy. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
> Uh... are we talking about the same game? Cause I don't remember a
> stadium. I just remember a big fight on a big hex map, with the "You can
> DO that?" lava guy.
Oh, you're talking about the game Scott Heine ran, which really didn't
get very far. I enjoyed it because it was people acting funny, but
not because there was any real roleplaying going on.
I'm talking about the "it's not really Hero System, we just call it
that, and it's not 'live action' because GenCon doesn't allow that
(wink, wink), but we're going to line up our chairs like they were a
starship cockpit, and our only rule is we've got these three
stuffed-fabric dinosaur dice with a lobster (a lobster's a dinosaur!)
and 'other dinosaurs' on them, and rolling the dinosaurs is good."
The one where I told you (under extreme stress and entirely in
unthinking reflex) to "shut up" and you bascially implied that if I
ever did that again you'd rip my head off and shove it down my neck.
You probably don't remember it still, and it stands out as the most
tramautic roleplaying experience I've ever had.
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner
[ General RP Discussion -- http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/ ]
Shell to DOS....come in DOS...Do you copy?
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>Oh, you're talking about the game Scott Heine ran, which really didn't CDC>get very far. I enjoyed it because it was people acting funny, but CDC>not because there was any real roleplaying going on. Yup, very "lite." I like convention games like that, though. As an onlooker, anyway. (And yeah, I was technically playing in it, but that was just so I'd have a seat at the table...) CDC>I'm talking about the "it's not really Hero System, we just call it CDC>that, and it's not 'live action' because GenCon doesn't allow that CDC>(wink, wink), but we're going to line up our chairs like they were a CDC>starship cockpit, and our only rule is we've got these three CDC>stuffed-fabric dinosaur dice with a lobster (a lobster's a dinosaur!) CDC>and 'other dinosaurs' on them, and rolling the dinosaurs is good." Oh. That. The one where I said "Neato, so you decided to *not* warn us this was a LARP, and here's me in my hip-to-ankle brace with a shredded knee. Thank you, Mr. GM." And somehow, we let him talk us into staying. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>It's the whole thrust of the Story Now movement on The Forge. See, CDC>they've figured out that some of us enjoy working out all kinds of CDC>information about our characters before the game actually starts... CDC>and they think that's Hurting Wrong Fun, because that's pre-loading CDC>the story and telling it outside of the game and depriving the group. CDC>They want to just drop into the game with _nothing_ and start the CDC>story, and develop characters as they go. Quit pussy-footing around CDC>with all of that pre-game BS and just play the game. Tell the Story CDC>Now, instead of before hand. Well, I do think there are problems with Lots of Stories Then... that is, where all the players come to the table with their characters all built, and all their disparate stories. That's kind of where I'm going with the Gavilan [1] campaign guidelines, and the interrelatedness of the characters. Executive summary: sf campaign (Traveller/Firefly/Cherryh mashup), PC's are a tramp freighter crew (and passengers, if anyone can come up with a reason to stay long-term), and I'm so far thinking I'll require each character to have something that ties them to each other, and something that brings them into conflict, and ideally the overall balance should keep the crew together, but only *just*. It's going to require some negotiation. And it's going to require some Story Then, but at least it should be *one* Story. Multithreaded and complex, yeah, but still unified. (And yes, it'll likely be a PBeM, since we can't wedge another game into the schedule. But if PBeM, then not until after Gamehawk launches. In fact, it'll probably be the beta game on That Other Site.) -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
> At least, a bad improv actor. I don't do funny voices. No one, least of
> all me, is going to be convinced that I (a short middle-aged nerdette) am
> Fastlane (a tall male construction worker and part-time superhero). Nor
> do I want to be (and that's a whole nother paradox... #4, right now).
Our entire group is pretty much in the same boat here... I don't
understand why we feel such a "pressure to perform" when all of us
know we're "not any good" at it and we can only get better through
practice.
I'll admit to being able to do "funny voices," though I tend to fall
out of them if I have to think hard about the dialog or plot
implications. Having a child helped with this a lot... I read short
stories in voices, though I have trouble with longer books because I
have trouble remembering what all the characters sounded like last
time.
And this is something you can practice without anybody else around...
I talk in funny voices when I'm alone in the truck.
I'm listening to an audiobook with a lot of different readers...
the reader changes even when the speaking characters don't, so it's
interesting to hear all these _professional voice actors_ giving their
takes on these characters.
> Not much more to this paradox, I guess. Except sometimes I wonder if my
> tabletop roleplaying would work out better if I narrated it third-person
> past-tense instead of trying to (verbally, anyway) act it out. I'm pretty
> sure it would be.
I think that PBeM works out better for you because you don't feel
pressure to articulate everything on the spot... you've got time to
consider what you're going to say and do. So I'm curious why you
think narrating your character third-person, past-tense would make a
difference, unless you think you'd be allowed more time to think about
it in this case.
I think this is where some of the indie games derive their "negotiate
the scene, then act it out" mechanics. You don't have to come up with
great dialog on the spot... you get to pre-plan how the scene is going
to go, then play your part. Not my cup of tea, though.
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner
[ Fudge Factor Webzine -- http://www.fudgefactor.org/ ]
ANY system works with enough hammer thumps.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>Our entire group is pretty much in the same boat here... I don't CDC>understand why we feel such a "pressure to perform" when all of us CDC>know we're "not any good" at it and we can only get better through CDC>practice. Yeah, that's kind of funny. CDC>And this is something you can practice without anybody else around... CDC>I talk in funny voices when I'm alone in the truck. Uh, it's a car. CDC>I think that PBeM works out better for you because you don't feel CDC>pressure to articulate everything on the spot... you've got time to CDC>consider what you're going to say and do. So I'm curious why you CDC>think narrating your character third-person, past-tense would make a CDC>difference, unless you think you'd be allowed more time to think about CDC>it in this case. It's not *just* the time thing. I'm a bad actor. Did I mention that? CDC>I think this is where some of the indie games derive their "negotiate CDC>the scene, then act it out" mechanics. You don't have to come up with CDC>great dialog on the spot... you get to pre-plan how the scene is going CDC>to go, then play your part. Not my cup of tea, though. I don't mind *some* of that. With the mentioned Fastlane-tells-Stalker scene, I'm thinking I should have pre-warned Bill, and then we could have played our parts better. Not quite the same thing, but similar. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: > > CDC>I think that PBeM works out better for you because you don't feel > CDC>pressure to articulate everything on the spot... you've got time to > CDC>consider what you're going to say and do. So I'm curious why you > CDC>think narrating your character third-person, past-tense would make a > CDC>difference, unless you think you'd be allowed more time to think about > CDC>it in this case. > > It's not *just* the time thing. I'm a bad actor. Did I mention that? A partly not-so-serious answer, but anyway - There are RPGs that are easier to play if you do not take them that seriously. Bad acting can be a plus in, e.g., It Came from the Late Late Late show, Tales from the Floating Vagabond and Toon. /Ola -- Ola Ågren * corps@acc.umu.se * ola@cs.umu.se General Preprocessing Perceptron - How to put an awful lot of "knowledge" in a weighted sum. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Ola Ågren wrote: Og>A partly not-so-serious answer, but anyway - There are RPGs that are Og>easier to play if you do not take them that seriously. Bad acting can be a Og>plus in, e.g., It Came from the Late Late Late show, Tales from the Og>Floating Vagabond and Toon. I've got the latter two, and my take on those is "fun to read, not my thing to play." That's kind of the problem... I'm a bad actor, but I like games in which well-acted (or well-written) characters belong. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>Fastlane's the kind of character that would tell his story in a TV CDC>show in past-tense, spinning out the narrative in voice-over, like a CDC>noir detective movie. Maybe. He wasn't originally intended to be, though. CDC>I'd like to find a way for more of this to come out in the game, but I CDC>can't see any of you being comfortable with narrating your characters' CDC>internal struggles, etc. You might be surprised. CDC>Problem there, is I'm reminded of _bad_ experiences... Holly and her, CDC>"Oh,is so, ANGRY. You can see it on her face, she CDC>could just KILL that guy." And I'm thinking, "Don't tell us you're CDC>angry, _be_ angry." I don't remember that. CDC>I think we need to play a game with characters that are more CDC>transparent... who speak their minds and let their emotions show. CDC>Exaggerated characters that lend themselves to a more outward roleplay CDC>instead of contemplative characters who are all internal. I could bring back... HIM! -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > CDC>Problem there, is I'm reminded of _bad_ experiences... Holly and her, > CDC>"Oh,is so, ANGRY. You can see it on her face, she > CDC>could just KILL that guy." And I'm thinking, "Don't tell us you're > CDC>angry, _be_ angry." > > I don't remember that. I'm doing a poor job of remembering it, but it involved hand-flapping and "oh, oh" as well. Getting all excited and telling us what her character was feeling because she didn't know how to act angry or something. I don't have the dialog right, but it was something like that... probably less coherent. > CDC>Exaggerated characters that lend themselves to a more outward roleplay > CDC>instead of contemplative characters who are all internal. > > I could bring back... HIM! He could be very therapeutic. But HE certainly wouldn't fit into the tone that our game has taken. For those not in the know, HE is Captain Cannonball... a direct take-off of Dom Deluise's character in _Cannonball Run_. Except CC had real powers... they just weren't the powers he _thought_ he had. He had super luck, which caused everything to go right for him... he'd swing at a bad guy, miss entirely, hit the wall, causing a board to swing loose and knock a flower pot on the villian's head. He'd see a dandelion and bend over to sniff the flower, causing the villian that he never saw to miss him with the Destruct-O-Ray. He even thinks he can fly... fortunately, he never needs to fly when there aren't friendly flying characters about to grab his cape and give him a tow. He sure wouldn't fit into the "play like you mean it" camp. He's a shallow character, and it wouldn't be any fun at all to get into the character's psychosis and deal with it as if it were really a problem. He got retired when I, a much less experienced GM, started a major plot thread that turned dark and it clashed with CC's world view, making him no fun to play. -- Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner [ General RP Discussion -- http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/ ] It's not just a mistake, it's an adventure! ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>I'm doing a poor job of remembering it, but it involved hand-flapping CDC>and "oh, oh" as well. Uh, sorry, we're talking about Holly; that really doesn't narrow it down. CDC> Getting all excited and telling us what her CDC>character was feeling because she didn't know how to act angry or CDC>something. I don't have the dialog right, but it was something like CDC>that... probably less coherent. I'll take your word for it, on account of I actually can't remember a single bit of any game in which Holly was. In fact, I forgot she gamed with us ever. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > I can't project characters, either. Certainly not like that. I'm always > acutely conscious that I'm expecting players to look at me and envision, > say, a seven-foot leonine alien. Ain't workin'. Maybe I underestimate > their ability to suspend disbelief. Hey, we can't remember to call Fastlane "he." Thing is, we _know_ he's a guy, but we identify too strongly with the player and call the character "she." As a GM, I think the best characters I've done have had strongly exaggerated personality traits that affected the way they talked. "Subtle" is probably a bad thing in roleplaying, yet I think players tend to want to play subtle nuances of their characters... and those just don't come across. > Many of my characters tend to be very internalized (or something like > that, anyway); I'm interested in their thoughts on things when they > wouldn't necessarily give any evidence of them. So the only way the other > players get to know any of it is in our sort-of-bluebooking interludes > when we catch up on things via the mailing list. Fastlane's the kind of character that would tell his story in a TV show in past-tense, spinning out the narrative in voice-over, like a noir detective movie. I'd like to find a way for more of this to come out in the game, but I can't see any of you being comfortable with narrating your characters' internal struggles, etc. Problem there, is I'm reminded of _bad_ experiences... Holly and her, "Oh,is so, ANGRY. You can see it on her face, she could just KILL that guy." And I'm thinking, "Don't tell us you're angry, _be_ angry." I think we need to play a game with characters that are more transparent... who speak their minds and let their emotions show. Exaggerated characters that lend themselves to a more outward roleplay instead of contemplative characters who are all internal. > until Bill brought it up on the mailing list recently I found out I didn't > really know how wrapped up he was in revenge. Hey, as GM, _I_ didn't know. I'm going to guess that even Bill himself really didn't know until he started digging into what his character was about. > We sort of played out Fastlane telling Stalker, but it was really > just me telling Bill, and while it could have been an interesting > intra-party-conflict scene, it ended up not being so, because I > really wasn't adequately acting it. I was hoping that would come out differently... but it was an awkward flash-backish summary of something that was resolved off-screen. -- Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner [ My Roleplaying Blog -- http://raven.phoenyx.net/mutterings/ ] I buy you sigs, and I buy you sigs, but all you do is eat the bits! ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote: > > Hey, we can't remember to call Fastlane "he." Thing is, we _know_ > he's a guy, but we identify too strongly with the player and call the > character "she." _I_ remember. :P >> Many of my characters tend to be very internalized (or something like >> that, anyway); I'm interested in their thoughts on things when they >> wouldn't necessarily give any evidence of them. So the only way the other >> players get to know any of it is in our sort-of-bluebooking interludes >> when we catch up on things via the mailing list. > > Fastlane's the kind of character that would tell his story in a TV > show in past-tense, spinning out the narrative in voice-over, like a > noir detective movie. That could be interesting, but I don't know if it suits what we're playing now. I'm sure it wouldn't work well for Stalker. > I'd like to find a way for more of this to come out in the game, but I > can't see any of you being comfortable with narrating your characters' > internal struggles, etc. > > I think we need to play a game with characters that are more > transparent... who speak their minds and let their emotions show. > Exaggerated characters that lend themselves to a more outward roleplay > instead of contemplative characters who are all internal. > >> until Bill brought it up on the mailing list recently I found out I didn't >> really know how wrapped up he was in revenge. > > Hey, as GM, _I_ didn't know. I'm going to guess that even Bill > himself really didn't know until he started digging into what his > character was about. Yeah, pretty much. When I made the character, I spent most of that time working on his powered suit rather than the person wearing it. What characterization I did do was incidental to explaining how he ended up with the suit. Since then, I've felt like I am making the character backwards, figuring out the motivations behind his actions after he acts. -Bill Hamilton ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Bill Hamilton wrote:
> Since then, I've felt like I am making the character backwards,
> figuring out the motivations behind his actions after he acts.
Develop In Play, vs Design At Start.
It's the whole thrust of the Story Now movement on The Forge. See,
they've figured out that some of us enjoy working out all kinds of
information about our characters before the game actually starts...
and they think that's Hurting Wrong Fun, because that's pre-loading
the story and telling it outside of the game and depriving the group.
They want to just drop into the game with _nothing_ and start the
story, and develop characters as they go. Quit pussy-footing around
with all of that pre-game BS and just play the game. Tell the Story
Now, instead of before hand.
They've taken one extreme of a spectrum and decided it's a holy grail.
In a way, it's coming from the same point that I am when I tell Karen,
"No PBeM in this face-to-face game." I want the roleplaying part to
happen at the table, not in email. But I don't think players
shouldn't be able to write about their characters during the
down-time. My main objection to the PBeM is keeping the characters
from interacting in email when I want them to do that interaction
face-to-face.
If I had time, I'd do some sub-plots in email... but I just don't have
the time for it.
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner
[ General RP Discussion -- http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/ ]
"I'm wearing Boots of Escaping, I'm wearing Boots of Escaping..."
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: > It's the whole thrust of the Story Now movement on The Forge. See, > they've figured out that some of us enjoy working out all kinds of > information about our characters before the game actually starts... > and they think that's Hurting Wrong Fun, because that's pre-loading > the story and telling it outside of the game and depriving the group. > They want to just drop into the game with _nothing_ and start the > story, and develop characters as they go. Quit pussy-footing around > with all of that pre-game BS and just play the game. Tell the Story > Now, instead of before hand. So, in short, they want board games that look like role-playing games. In some ways, I see the point. If we had started out with blank slates and developed our characters in play, we would probably have more cooperative character concepts. On the other hand, we would also have less _interesting_ character concepts, because we would be trying to create logical, consistent characters on the spur of the moment instead of having time to think about them. -Bill Hamilton ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Bill Hamilton wrote: BH>In some ways, I see the point. If we had started out with blank slates BH>and developed our characters in play, we would probably have more BH>cooperative character concepts. On the other hand, we would also have BH>less _interesting_ character concepts, because we would be trying to BH>create logical, consistent characters on the spur of the moment instead of BH>having time to think about them. On the one hand, I sort of like game systems in which you build the PC group as a group. Except I always get all introspective when I'm thinking creatively, so I don't actually work well with a group that way, and I wouldn't want to do it "in play" as such. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Bill Hamilton wrote: > So, in short, they want board games that look like role-playing games. Polaris borders on that. I don't think it's quite roleplaying... I think it's a storytelling game, and I think it could be a lot of fun. But the rules are all about who controls the story, and the player doesn't play a role so much as he tells a story about his character. > In some ways, I see the point. If we had started out with blank > slates and developed our characters in play, we would probably have > more cooperative character concepts. On the other hand, we would > also have less _interesting_ character concepts, because we would be > trying to create logical, consistent characters on the spur of the > moment instead of having time to think about them. I don't think I've ever played with a group where the "sit down and make up characters in the first session" method worked... everybody wanted to talk about the setting and the expectations of the campaign, and then go home and work out what kind of character they wanted to play, toy with a lot of ideas, and so on. I think it can take us at least a couple of weeks just to get characters ready to play. Doing it all on-the-fly wouldn't work as well for us. I can see situations where it could... but I wouldn't want to play that kind of game exclusively. -- Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner [ My Roleplaying Blog -- http://raven.phoenyx.net/mutterings/ ] Don't do dat, it hurts my wittle bwain. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
> I don't think I've ever played with a group where the "sit down and > make up characters in the first session" method worked... Just to bring in a voice of disparity - the best campaigns I've ever played have worked that way. My current D&D campaign (ending soon, alas, after 4 years), had most of the characters developing together from 1st level. We did, very literally, sit down together and develop our characters together. It's *not* less interesting - the characters still have their own personalities, quirks and agendas. What we do have is the most incredible sense of camaraderie. The characters are a team; a family. Despite the engine (the wargamey 3.5 D&D) the story is rich and multi-layered, and it breaks my heart that it is ending. The GM is finally tired out - another of us will be picking up with a new group of characters and a new story, and our GM can now play. Jae Walker ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 09:37:46AM -0600, Jae Walker wrote: >[Carl wrote] >> I don't think I've ever played with a group where the "sit down and >> make up characters in the first session" method worked... >Just to bring in a voice of disparity - the best campaigns I've ever played >have worked that way. I like the _idea_, but: (a) we don't have much gaming time - the Cambridge group has about 3-4 hours once a week, the two London groups about the same once a month - and some of us have a fair way to travel to get to the group. So we tend to want to spend the time with everyone in the same place on _gaming_. (b) mostly we play/run GURPS, and while some people are happy to make up GURPS characters without computer assistance I'm usually not one of them (and several of my players are much less experienced with GURPS than I am). As far as I'm concerned this is the biggest problem with GURPS (though not fixable without losing many of the advantages): you don't start as a first-level nothing-special, but instead you can have a full range of skills in pretty much whatever you choose to be good at. Lots of choices, all of them up front. Contrast D&D which is basically "arrange stats, choose class, choose weapon/armour/spell" with the complexity being loaded on later. R -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Roger Burton West wrote: RBW>As far as I'm concerned this is the biggest problem with GURPS (though RBW>not fixable without losing many of the advantages): you don't start as a RBW>first-level nothing-special, but instead you can have a full range of RBW>skills in pretty much whatever you choose to be good at. Lots of RBW>choices, all of them up front. Contrast D&D which is basically "arrange RBW>stats, choose class, choose weapon/armour/spell" with the complexity RBW>being loaded on later. Carl and I have discussed the differences in these two paradigms before. I'm old-skool Traveller, which is of course famous for not having an advancement system a-tall, so I'm not sure this has influenced me or not... but I like to have characters who start competent. In fact, I like to be pretty static, which I guess is one of those evil things for a lot of the high-lit types. Characters are supposed to change in stories, and all. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Karen J. Cravens wrote:
> Carl and I have discussed the differences in these two paradigms before.
> I'm old-skool Traveller, which is of course famous for not having an
> advancement system a-tall, so I'm not sure this has influenced me or
> not... but I like to have characters who start competent.
I started out playing D&D, and I really prefer competent characters.
I think that's why Champions appealed to me so much when I encountered
it... competent characters, and I get to _pick_ my abilities instead
of following a class progression or rolling them randomly. :)
> In fact, I like to be pretty static, which I guess is one of those
> evil things for a lot of the high-lit types. Characters are
> supposed to change in stories, and all.
I dunno... James Bond doesn't really change. Does Indiana Jones? I
think that characters are supposed to change in certain kinds of
fiction... or maybe it's certain characters need to change and others
don't.
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner
[ Trim Your Quotes! ]
Hey! Don't pick up that Dog! !@#$*!?% NO TERRIER
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Jae Walker wrote: > Just to bring in a voice of disparity - the best campaigns I've ever > played have worked that way. My current D&D campaign (ending soon, > alas, after 4 years), had most of the characters developing together > from 1st level. We did, very literally, sit down together and > develop our characters together. Nobody's saying that you can't produce an enjoyable campaign without pre-planning the characters outside of the game, which is what you seem to have argued against. And we're not saying that pre-planning characters doesn't involve cooperation among the players and gamemaster to achieve a good fit between personalities and agendas. It's just about pre-planning versus creating characters during the first game session. The strongest "Story Now" people come at it almost as if you're doing something wrong if you're pre-planning... that you're stealing from the other players' enjoyment by "hiding" part of the story from them. My main point is just this: no one way is the best way for everybody. Neither way is wrong... they both have advantages and disadvantages, and some ways fit some groups of people better than others. But to compare our experiences a bit... Creating starting D&D characters can be rather different from creating starting characters in other games. Mechanical choices aside, you're limited in your options... every characters starts out pretty much as a nobody without any significant past. (Or, they can't have much significant past and still explain why they can be killed by rats, unless you're starting a middling-level instead of 1st.) In a way, D&D fits the "Story Now" model rather well, because you don't need much back story for a starting character in D&D. You can't believably start with a 1st level character who's a general of the King's army, with a hundred campaigns under his belt, and twenty powerful enemies who want him dead. So there's a vast number of options you're cut off from, and that makes character creation simpler. In most D&D games I've experienced, you didn't need any backstory at all... you just needed a set of stats, and the most difficult decision you made was which class you were going to play. Not to say that this was the case with your group, but it's been my experience. (I've also played in only one D&D game in the last fifteen years or more. In that one game, I was almost punished for having a backstory because it caused sub-optimal behavior. My character hadn't take the "right" mix of skills and feats, because they didn't fit his backstory.) > It's *not* less interesting - the characters still have their own > personalities, quirks and agendas. Four years later, you're saying "it's not" and not "it wasn't." What was it like four years ago, when you started the game? It may be hard to separate four years of enjoyable history from what the game was like during the first few sessions. But how fully-developed were those characters in the first session? How sketchy were their histories and personalities? In part, we're dealing with the divide between players on the Internet and the great difficulty in conveying how we game and what we mean when we say things like, "we developed our characters together." To one group, that means making sure that personalities and character agendas will not clash in a problematic matter. In another group, that means making sure that we've got a fighter, thief, cleric and wizard, and somebody remembers to buy torches and iron spikes. :) -- Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner [ My Roleplaying Blog -- http://raven.phoenyx.net/mutterings/ ] PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER!...ittybittylivingspace... ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 09:04:23PM -0600, Carl D Cravens wrote: >It's the whole thrust of the Story Now movement on The Forge. See, >they've figured out that some of us enjoy working out all kinds of >information about our characters before the game actually starts... >and they think that's Hurting Wrong Fun, because that's pre-loading >the story and telling it outside of the game and depriving the group. Some people can definitely come up with better characters if they have time to think about them a bit. This is especially true of historical games if the player wants to do some research. (And gaming time is precious enough that we don't usually like to have a "character generation session" anyway - the standard of late has been to sort out characters by email, with the GM acting as coordinator for the group to make sure the concepts will go together.) R -- Roger, gaming grognard Lots of role-playing stuff: http://tekeli.li/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Roger Burton West wrote:
> generation session" anyway - the standard of late has been to sort out
> characters by email, with the GM acting as coordinator for the group to
> make sure the concepts will go together.)
That's what we've been doing for years. As early as 1968, our entire
gaming group has been connected by email. I'd be very reluctant to
let someone into the group if they didn't have email.
This most recent campaign, the characters don't not fit together, but
they could fit together a little better. We had a lot of discussion
over the characters, for the most part. (One player just doesn't read
his email much, and we worked on his character face-to-face... but
he's got a bundle of sleeping disorders and the drugs they were trying
out at the time had him in a fog all the time. And he's the guy who's
new to roleplaying, and his character's a bit goofy and
two-dimensional, but I couldn't steer him away from it. Last session,
we introduced his new character which I think is going to work out a
lot better.)
--
Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) Gamers List Owner
[ Trim Your Quotes! ]
Don't do dat, it hurts my wittle bwain.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>That's what we've been doing for years. As early as 1968, our entire CDC>gaming group has been connected by email. That'd be "1986" in case anyone was trying to figure out if we were using IBM 360 email or something. (And before birth, in some cases.) -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
Karen J. Cravens wrote: > On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: > > CDC>That's what we've been doing for years. As early as 1968, our entire > CDC>gaming group has been connected by email. > > That'd be "1986" in case anyone was trying to figure out if we were using > IBM 360 email or something. > > (And before birth, in some cases.) > Wow! Even 1986 is about four or five years before I ever HEARD of email, much less had it. It'd be off-topic, but I'd love to hear the story behind that. Guy Hoyle, Lurker-At-Large ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Guy Hoyle wrote: GH>Wow! Even 1986 is about four or five years before I ever HEARD of email, GH>much less had it. It'd be off-topic, but I'd love to hear the story GH>behind that. You're soaking in it. The Phoenyx started out in 1986 (1985, IIRC, but it wasn't public for a few months) as a dialup BBS. Before that, we all hung out on a plethora of local BBSi; the Phoenyx (originally Old Phoenix Bar & Grill) started up when the Lone Wolf sysop got all grumpy because I wouldn't let him bring his active-duty Navy commander and two battleships into a tramp-freighter Traveller game. Of course, we didn't call it "email" back then, it was just "private messages" on any given BBS. -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
Karen J. Cravens wrote: > > Of course, we didn't call it "email" back then, it was just "private > messages" on any given BBS. > Ah, BBSes I'm familiar with. I ran up some spectacular long-distance bills dialling into Bob Quinlan's old Red October board. (In Texas, it costs more to dial long distance inside the state than it does outside... go and figure it!) Guy ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
