Required Reading (silva keep out)

[TheFlatline]

The math creates the outcomes. The math makes the fucking flavor in the actual game.

ubernoob, I would say math is one of the responsible factors for providing flavour to a game, but its far from being the only one.

I will take as example Apocalypse World, a game which oozes flavour for me: the text/way the author communicates oozes flavour, the atributes labels oozes flavour (Hot, Hard, Cool, Sharp, Weird), the directive rules oozes flavor ("Dont pre plots! Play to see what happens!"), the character gear oozes flavor ("Violation Gloves"), the implicit reward cycle oozes flavor (trust in others to improve yourself). Notice I didnt get to its resolution mechanic of rolling 2D6 + atribute (the "math" ). Can you see how it would be perfectly reasonable for a person to like the game for the points cited alone, even if the "math" supposedly had problems ? Got my point ?

Dude you just advocated MTP. Which any 5 year old can play. It's not worth 60 bucks, and frankly it's not worth my time to read someone's "cool fluff" if it's not backed up by a rules system I can use.

[Seerow]

The math creates the outcomes. The math makes the fucking flavor in the actual game.

ubernoob, I would say math is one of the responsible factors for providing flavour to a game, but its far from being the only one.

I will take as example Apocalypse World, a game which oozes flavour for me: the text/way the author communicates oozes flavour, the atributes labels oozes flavour (Hot, Hard, Cool, Sharp, Weird), the directive rules oozes flavor ("Dont pre plots! Play to see what happens!"), the character gear oozes flavor ("Violation Gloves"), the implicit reward cycle oozes flavor (trust in others to improve yourself). Notice I didnt get to its resolution mechanic of rolling 2D6 + atribute (the "math" ). Can you see how it would be perfectly reasonable for a person to like the game for the points cited alone, even if the "math" supposedly had problems ? Got my point ?

Dude you just advocated MTP. Which any 5 year old can play. It's not worth 60 bucks, and frankly it's not worth my time to read someone's "cool fluff" if it's not backed up by a rules system I can use.

Not to mention, novels, tv, movies, etc are all way cheaper than tabletop RPG books. If all you want is the fluff, then there are far cheaper alternatives to get your fix of "New fantasy world we should go explore", and almost all of them are going to be better than your typical RPG book.

[OgreBattle]

RIFTS books arebparticularly fun to read.

[OgreBattle]

RIFTS books are particularly fun to read. But we all know how the rules are to that game

[silva]

Not to mention, novels, tv, movies, etc are all way cheaper than tabletop RPG books. If all you want is the fluff, then there are far cheaper alternatives to get your fix of "New fantasy world we should go explore", and almost all of them are going to be better than your typical RPG book.

But none of them let people actually interact with and create stories and stuff in those fantastic worlds.

[Seerow]

Not to mention, novels, tv, movies, etc are all way cheaper than tabletop RPG books. If all you want is the fluff, then there are far cheaper alternatives to get your fix of "New fantasy world we should go explore", and almost all of them are going to be better than your typical RPG book.

But none of them let people actually interact with and create stories and stuff in those fantastic worlds.

Why do I need a book to let me interact with and create stories and stuff within those worlds?

If I want to play D&D in Roshar, or Scadriel, Randland, Middle Earth, or wherever else, all I need to do as the DM is describe those places. I already know the places, the important people, the factions.

If I'm not going to be using any actual rules and just be relying on magic tea party to resolve the game, why do I need anything more than that plus my imagination? Why bother buying an RPG book that tells me "You can adventure here!" when I can already adventure in other worlds that are far better thought out and more interesting than whatever some hack threw into an RPG supplement.

[silva]

Why do I need a RPG book to let me interact with and create stories and stuff within those worlds? If I want to play D&D in Roshar, or Scadriel, Randland, Middle Earth, or wherever else, all I need to do as the DM is describe those places.

Sure, but without a resolution mechanic to simulate/adjudicate the interaction the experience lacks a minimum of verosimilitude, and would cease to be a game.

[Seerow]

Why do I need a RPG book to let me interact with and create stories and stuff within those worlds? If I want to play D&D in Roshar, or Scadriel, Randland, Middle Earth, or wherever else, all I need to do as the DM is describe those places.

Sure, but without a resolution mechanic to simulate/adjudicate the interaction the experience lacks a minimum of verosimilitude.

So what? I'll make one up. How hard can a resolution mechanic be compared to everything else? Roll a d20, if it's over 10 you succeed. Done. Who needs rules when we can just make shit up as we go along, right?

[silva]

Well, if the group agrees to that resolution mechanic thats ok. Damn, if rock-paper-scissors suit the group, so what ? Let them have their fun.

The point is, though: do rock-paper-scissors as a resolution mechanic helps the group with their intended playstyle and flavour ? I think the response will be negative for the majority of RPG gamers out there.

[TheNotoriousAMP]

RIFTS books are particularly fun to read. But we all know how the rules are to that game

The advantage of converting RIFTS or other games to another system is that you already have a sense of the respective power levels coming in. The fluff is great and the crunch (even if the system is shite) can be adapted, you're not starting from scratch. You know person x is faster than person y, that a glitter boy rolls damage on the "laser based anal violation" scale, ect, you normally aren't MTP'ing it. RPG fluff can be decent, but usually isn't anywhere near up to the standards of a novel (as great as the world may be, RPG's by their very nature need to simplify stories so that players, who are usually gaining information verbally, can keep up). Plus, oftentimes the purpose of the RPG world is to allow greater flexibility of play, not necessarily to make a more intriguing world. In the end, an RPG's worth comes from giving you a framework in which to explore said interesting universe, even in a different system.

[Seerow]

Well, if the group agrees to that resolution mechanic thats ok. Damn, if rock-paper-scissors suit the group, so what ? Let them have their fun.

The point is, though: do rock-paper-scissors as a resolution mechanic helps the group with their intended playstyle and flavour ? I think the response will be negative for the majority of RPG gamers out there.

Go back to the post that started this: You started talking about how you love apocalypse world and want to play in it, but don't care at all about the resolution mechanic, and even admit it likely has a lot of problems.

So why is it once that gets taken to its logical conclusion, you suddenly decide to do a complete fucking 180 and say you want rules? It's because without that you have no way to fucking justify the existence of RPG books in the first place.

[silva]

Go back to the post that started this: You started talking about how you love apocalypse world and want to play in it, but don't care at all about the resolution mechanic, and even admit it likely has a lot of problems.

Nope, I never said that. What I said was that AW oozes flavor from all its pores, not only its resolution mechanic.

The mechanics I admited having problems was Shadowrun´s, not AW.

[Seerow]

Notice I didnt get to its resolution mechanic of rolling 2D6 + atribute (the "math" ). Can you see how it would be perfectly reasonable for a person to like the game for the points cited alone, even if the "math" supposedly had problems ? Got my point ?

Doesn't sound like any edition of shadowrun I ever saw.

[silva]

Well, I didnt intend to mean AW has problems in its resolution, but perhaps my english is even worst than I thought.

[momothefiddler]

As a newbie (I've only been around since September or so) I can definitely say a reading list would have been nice. I've largely been reading reviews and the occasional new thread in IMHO, and there's good stuff linked here and there in those. Still, it was quite a while before I found links to the definition of MTP, a frank discussion of GNS, etc. and I'm still missing some important bits of info from time to time (for instance I'm still not sure what a 'Fighter thread' is - claiming that Fighters work? trying to fix Fighters? any discussion on strictly mundane classes at all?). Some of the links posted in this thread have already been helpful - PL's MC advice thread, for instance, was especially useful because I'm hoping to start a game soon-ish. So I, for one, am all in favor of a reading list.

As a sidenote, I have no problem at all with 'MC'. I easily understood it based on context, I was amused to read its origin story, it's system-agnostic (by virtue of coming from something people haven't played and won't play), and it avoids literal-interpretation power-tripping ('I tell the story', 'I am the master'). Even when confused with Master of Ceremonies, it indicates stage-setting, not deification. And it's cute! So even without nostalgia or parochial background, there's no need to be offended by it on my behalf.

[Chamomile]

trying to fix Fighters? any discussion on strictly mundane classes at all?).

Either/or, because every discussion of strictly mundane classes inevitably ends up being an attempt to fix Fighters, and that is actually a solved problem because we have discussed it over and over again. Unfortunately, the solutions provided do not fully satisfy some people because they want to satisfy the two mutually contradictory positions of "Fighters are mundane" and "Fighters can reliably kill ettins," so sometimes someone drags out another Fighter thread which is really just disguised whining about how either they or their group wants a solution which is conceptually impossible instead of one of the solutions we already have.

[momothefiddler]

Either/or, because every discussion of strictly mundane classes inevitably ends up being an attempt to fix Fighters

So essentially "trying to fix Fighters" but, by extension, also the various topics that are just going to devolve into that anyway. Fair enough. Thanks.

[TheFlatline]

Well, if the group agrees to that resolution mechanic thats ok. Damn, if rock-paper-scissors suit the group, so what ? Let them have their fun.

The point is, though: do rock-paper-scissors as a resolution mechanic helps the group with their intended playstyle and flavour ? I think the response will be negative for the majority of RPG gamers out there.

In a LARP? Actually? It helps.

And we have physical proof. As batshit bonkers as WoD is, live-action MET uses RPS (and bomb... don't ask), and at one point was pretty much *the* non-boffer LARP that you could find. Anywhere. In the world.

Upgrading that to using cards/dice along with the terrible setting like they did in nWOD helped kill off the system completely. Why? Because using props in a LARP pulls you out of the game, while you can quickly throw a RPS challenge and get back to the roleplaying.

Nobody is playing classic MET with the nMET mechanics. They suck donkey balls. It's so bad that the official MET organization totally did a 180 to save their dwindling population and went back to RPS over "other".

But you wouldn't know that since the only think you've played is Attention Whore.

[TheFlatline]

As a newbie (I've only been around since September or so) I can definitely say a reading list would have been nice. I've largely been reading reviews and the occasional new thread in IMHO, and there's good stuff linked here and there in those. Still, it was quite a while before I found links to the definition of MTP, a frank discussion of GNS, etc. and I'm still missing some important bits of info from time to time (for instance I'm still not sure what a 'Fighter thread' is - claiming that Fighters work? trying to fix Fighters? any discussion on strictly mundane classes at all?). Some of the links posted in this thread have already been helpful - PL's MC advice thread, for instance, was especially useful because I'm hoping to start a game soon-ish. So I, for one, am all in favor of a reading list.

The problem as I see it, and occasionally encounter it, is that some of these threads amount to like 50+ pages. It's kind of out there to read hundreds of posts to play catch up on the dozen or two concepts that are core to the Den here.

[Ancient History]

I'm working on the index for my book; I can't commit to any OSSRs 'til that's finished.

[silva]

Well, if the group agrees to that resolution mechanic thats ok. Damn, if rock-paper-scissors suit the group, so what ? Let them have their fun.

The point is, though: do rock-paper-scissors as a resolution mechanic helps the group with their intended playstyle and flavour ? I think the response will be negative for the majority of RPG gamers out there.

In a LARP? Actually? It helps.

And we have physical proof. As batshit bonkers as WoD is, live-action MET uses RPS (and bomb... don't ask), and at one point was pretty much *the* non-boffer LARP that you could find. Anywhere. In the world.

Upgrading that to using cards/dice along with the terrible setting like they did in nWOD helped kill off the system completely. Why? Because using props in a LARP pulls you out of the game, while you can quickly throw a RPS challenge and get back to the roleplaying.

Very interesting point you bring there. I know lots of gamers who find the ideal rules are the ones least obtrusive and that get out of the way/fade to the background as fast as possible ( I hear this a lot from CoC/BRP fans). While this isnt exactly my cup of tea (I prefer rules that "have something to say" instead of mere neutral task resolutors ) I can totally see the appeal. Specially so in the case of LARPS.

[TiaC]

I'm working on the index for my book; I can't commit to any OSSRs 'til that's finished.

Was this supposed to be in the OSSR request thread?

[momothefiddler]

The problem as I see it, and occasionally encounter it, is that some of these threads amount to like 50+ pages. It's kind of out there to read hundreds of posts to play catch up on the dozen or two concepts that are core to the Den here.

Then I'm probably in the minority here, but that seems pretty reasonable to me. The threads that I've encountered through links were, by nature, threads sufficiently worth remembering and discussing that people linked back to them, and that's a pretty good indicator that they're worth reading, if only to be able to take part in the current conversations that reference them.

Obviously there's only so much time, so if linking to a single post conveys the information as well as linking to a 50-page thread, I prefer the post for the reading list. I can read the whole thread from there if I choose.

[codeGlaze]

The problem as I see it, and occasionally encounter it, is that some of these threads amount to like 50+ pages. It's kind of out there to read hundreds of posts to play catch up on the dozen or two concepts that are core to the Den here.

Then I'm probably in the minority here, but that seems pretty reasonable to me. The threads that I've encountered through links were, by nature, threads sufficiently worth remembering and discussing that people linked back to them, and that's a pretty good indicator that they're worth reading, if only to be able to take part in the current conversations that reference them.

Obviously there's only so much time, so if linking to a single post conveys the information as well as linking to a 50-page thread, I prefer the post for the reading list. I can read the whole thread from there if I choose.

People with more in-depth knowledge of the thread could help summarize the thread before linking, with maybe several links pointing to the various key points/pages of a particular discussion.

edit:
Haha, just translated Pán jeskyně (we know it as Mister Cavern) on Google. It comes out to "Lord Cave". xD

[Dean]

I realized that the most efficient way to go about making a collection of good information would be to identify prevalent beliefs in the RPG community that I think are toxic. Below is a collection of those beliefs and an outline of the arguments I will be making against them. Feel free to add any bullshit beliefs you run into a lot and I'll get working on them too. Critiques, barrels of cocks and hentai are all welcome. Shitty beliefs begin...

1: Gygax was a great man
Gary Gygax was a dishonest asshole. He was an insecure braggart who hated every aspect of RPG's you enjoy or love. His propaganda of what the game was has done more damage to the RPG community than any other designer and he is personally responsible for most of the bad beliefs listed below.
NOTE: (I'd like to talk more about D&D History and Arnseson. Talk about Gygax's power hoarding and terrible beliefs. I have made these arguments many times but I've always found Franktrollman to write very well about exactly why Gygax was poisonous to the potential future of D&D and if Frank were willing to write or copypasta a few paragraphs about Gary I would use that)

2: The DM is God
No they aren't. That's pure gygaxian legacy bullshit where he told you that the person in one chair (the one Gygax sat in) was more important than anyone else, had limitless power over the people around him and couldn't be questioned. These are obviously much more in line with the statements of an insecure narcissist than advice on how to have a fun evening with friends. Now many groups do still run themselves on those ideas and those groups, most groups sadly, are basically cults of personality of between 4 and 6 people. They have an established Alpha male and will eventually self destruct when egos clash and will either disband entirely or will reform into a smaller group that still acknowledges the Alpha's leadership status.
In reality this is a very unhealthy way to behave. As a Dm you are just another player in a shared story. You have no powers and no authority and deserve no additional respect. Your measure as a DM is how much time the people around you spend enjoying your games, and how few arguments stem from your them.
NOTE: (I would like to add selections from PL's How to be a GM into here)

3: You should play the game, not the rules. A good DM can just change any rules that don't work.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gary Gygax
"Gary Gygax was dishonest asshole" Me earlier
The rules are the game. The game doesn't exist except as a collection of rules bound together in a book interspersed with genre appropriate art. That is all the game is. Games are collections of rules. Telling someone to "Play a game but not it's rules" is like saying "Add 4 but not as a number".
NOTE: (I have the most work to do here. I think this would be a good spot to put Franks MTP speech)

4: Why does everything have to be balanced, not everything has to be strong. Showing off your characters weaknesses shows who's a true roleplayer.
It's not a story it's a fantasy. The reason you play fantasy games is to live out fantasies and no ones fantasy is to be worse than everyone around him. The problem with classes being drastically unequal in power is it's basically false advertising. If someone signs up to be a Pirate in a Fantasy game they expect to be fantastically good at Pirate things. If it turns out the Pirate sucks, and the other player at the table who's a Knight is actually vastly better at swashbuckling, shooting, and leading men then it demonstrates to the player that by choosing the class they chose they did not get to do the only thing they wanted to do. That is be recognized as being strong at the area they chose to be strong at.

This is the problem with all the great class imbalances in RPG history. The reason the D&D Wizard being a thousand times better than the Fighter was a problem was not because all the D&D tournaments were being won by Wizard players. The problem was there were people sitting at tables justifiably feeling bad because their Fighter was bad at Fighting.

Let me repeat this point: The reason you, or anyone, plays RPG's is to express power fantasies. Deal with that knowledge. You play fantasy games to live out fantasies and everyone's fantasy is to be powerful and that's fine. People have a really negative reaction to this idea because it makes roleplaying seem almost fetishistic, perhaps even bordering on sexual with the importance it places on expressing and playing your fantasies. But there is absolutely no reason to feel shame associated with wanting to feed your power fantasies because everyone does it. Anyone playing HALO and killing alien armies or reading a comic where Superman lifts a bus above his head or watching James Bond seduce beautiful women is doing the same thing. It feels good to imagine having power and entertainment lets us feel that vicariously. In an RPG you're one step closer because you get to pretend it's you killing aliens and throwing trains and seducing russians. It's actually one of the coolest things about RPG's that they let you get a psychological insight into the people you play with and what they deeply want in their heart of hearts.

5: Balance doesn't matter. In an RPG the story is all that matters.
The people who say that the story comes first are in deep denial of real failings they have as people, and that is not hyperbole. When a DM tells you he is a "Story First" DM he is telling you that he doesn't value your input to the game, will make combative ad hoc rulings to circumvent your attempts to impact the game, and does not possess enough knowledge of the rules to play fairly and will resort to cheating or declaring character death on a moments notice. A DM who tells you they are story first is saying "I plan on treating the people at this table in a way that feeds and supports my personal power fantasies." Players who repeat these story-first beliefs are generally players who have played in "Story First" DM's tables and have basically developed Stockholms syndrome. They have been playing in an environment where they are totally powerless and can only come to take enjoyment when bad things happen to other people at the whims of their group's Alpha male DM. Nothing makes a group of Grognards happier than seeing -their- DM tear up somebody's sheet for not following -their- DM's unquestionable rules and seeing him express the wrath of his iron hand. That is because these people are damaged, and the only power they can feel at this table is vicariously through the person who has told them he is their tiny group god.