mega-characters

[Whipsnade]

Ah, I see what you mean. The disparity issue. I joked a bit about this with atpollard in his PbP Traveller game. My character was the least potent in a few ways. However, due to some fun events and persistence, my character is now a political player and has some clout. He's gone from bodyguard to world rescuer in the last year of real time. In game it's just been a few weeks.

So your character is now important because of your in-game choices and actions as a player instead of features you selected in chargen? Congratulations!

Isn't role-ing more fun than roll-ing?

I may have to look for those books you mentioned. I'm trying to figure out how to play a noble. Pointers would be useful.

ACKS stand for Adventurer, Conqueror, King System. It's published by Autarch. The quickest way I can describe it is "Pocket Empires Deluxe for D&D". You start off as a fighter, magic user, cleric, etc. and work your way up leading increasing numbers of followers and controlling increasing amounts of land until you "build" your kingdom.

On the difference between reward based and consequence based, can you expand a little? I understand the words but I thought a reward would be a consequence. So maybe I don't understand quite so much.

Read Dr. Pulsipher's original post here. His blog gives you plenty of links to follow the discussion elsewhere.

 

[Leitz]

Ah, interesting article. While I can't claim nearly the expertise, I'd still probably disagree with some of the tone. A game is a toy; I'm not sure why he seems unhappy with that. Since video games are coded, and hopefully tested, an open game would be an expensive proposition. Not sure it would make money.

On your point of "role" vs "roll" play, I'd like to take the open ended game response. A game is a toy, it is for entertainment. We can also use it for education, business, or all sorts of things, but games are toys. Entertainment. So the value isn't really in the type of game, reward, consequence, or whatever, but in the entertainment of the participants. If everyone enjoys the game, it's fun.

A year or so ago I played in an ACKS game based on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms genre and video game. My character was quite competent and the faction leader. While all characters were good, mine had both good abilities and the role of leader. Because of that, and because the DM was pretty cool, I regularly circled back with the players and the DM to ensure they were having fun. It would have been easy for me as a player to mess up the game so I worked hard not to.

I think a Traveller game could be the same. With all the options for characters, some folks might not want to be the Type A in front person. They would be happy playing a Type B backgrounder, a super NPC.

If people are playing what they enjoy, and everyone is having fun, then it's a good game. It may take a combined effort for diverse characters to all have a good time, but I think it generally can be done if folks try.

Make sense?

I tend to play games for the rewards, but they are consequence games. I just try to play well enough to not get the negative consequence. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes not. I really play for the story, and I prefer a happy ending. There's enough bad news in reality, I prefer entertainment that let's me have fun.

I'm not against folks enjoying games like Call of Cthulhu, I just never really understood it.

 

[Whipsnade]

Ah, interesting article. While I can't claim nearly the expertise, I'd still probably disagree with some of the tone.

In the article Pulsipher is responding to those questioning his remarks at a gaming conference. He's explaining his stated position, not trying to win hearts and minds.

A game is a toy...

Not quite. A game is a type of toy. Look at it this way; All games are toys but not all toys are games.

... I'm not sure why he seems unhappy with that.

He's not unhappy. He's just stating there is a difference between toys and games. Games impose consequences on choices and actions. Putting it perhaps too simplistically, games have winner and losers.

If everyone gets a "participation trophy", they weren't playing a game.

Again, I'm not talking about better or worse. I'm talking about different.

Since video games are coded, and hopefully tested, an open game would be an expensive proposition. Not sure it would make money.

It would be costly to develop and, because consequences would be enforced, hard to sell.

On your point of "role" vs "roll" play, I'd like to take the open ended game response. A game is a toy, it is for entertainment.

Consequences can be entertaining. Testing or measuring yourself and you abilities can be entertaining. Getting a banana sticker for simply trying can be entertaining too.

Games have consequences though. Toys don't.

If everyone enjoys the game, it's fun.

There are different types of entertainment, enjoyment, and fun. Not better, not worse, just different.

I'm not against folks enjoying games like Call of Cthulhu, I just never really understood it.

Consequences aren't binary. They needn't one or zero, up or down, black or white, live or die. CoC has rather dire consequences, you don't win as much as you lose less badly. Railroad Tycoon has less fatal consequences, if the railroad flounders the board votes you out of your chairmanship.

Both are still consequences however.

 

[flykiller]

how to best "mesh" them with more normal characters in the same game.

by running what they have in common.

captain america: what are you without that suit?

tony stark: billionaire genius. playboy philanthropist.

 

[Condottiere]

Consequences means that reaching for your gun, or being overtly aggressive, should not be the first option, and if you act against the social norms, there's some force that will try to bring you to account.

 

[Leitz]

In the article Pulsipher is responding to those questioning his remarks at a gaming conference. He's explaining his stated position, not trying to win hearts and minds.

I have to confess, I read the article again. He's whining.

Consequences are a form of constraints, and contemporary players do not like constraints.

Not quite. A game is a type of toy. Look at it this way; All games are toys but not all toys are games.

Not quite. A game is a toy, a horse is a mammal. Not all mammals are horses, but all horses are mammals. A game is a toy.

He's not unhappy. He's just stating there is a difference between toys and games. Games impose consequences on choices and actions. Putting it perhaps too simplistically, games have winner and losers.

He's whining.

If everyone gets a "participation trophy", they weren't playing a game.

Games have consequences though. Toys don't.

So someone has to "lose" when they play Traveller? Why? If two players face off using Striker or Fifth Frontier War, there's a winner and a loser. That's a game. If the DM sets up a challenging scenario and the players, through their characters, all manage to live and win, that's a game, and no one lost.

If you hear players talking about the awesome stuff they did in the game six months ago, it was even more of a game. It was entertainment, a toy.

We seem to agree that different folks like different power levels, challenges, levels of reality, and mortality in their games. Those are differences and we all have them. Not really better or worse, unless you wanted one type of game and got another.

 

[Whipsnade]

I have to confess, I read the article again. He's whining.

Consequences are a form of constraints, and contemporary players do not like constraints.

He's stating facts and explaining his comments at a panel at a convention. Contemporary RPG players have different needs in their games. Not better needs, not worse needs, but different needs. Anyone designing games today needs to remember that if they want to be successful.

Not quite. A game is a toy, a horse is a mammal.

A game is a type of toy just as a horse is a type of mammal.

He's whining.

Who's whining?

So someone has to "lose" when they play Traveller?

Someone has to risk losing something. Losing does not equate death.

Why?

Because it's a game and not a self esteem building seminar where they pass out participation trophies.

If the DM sets up a challenging scenario and the players, through their characters, all manage to live and win, that's a game, and no one lost.

It's a game because they risked losing in some fashion. It was a challenge because they risked losing something in some fashion.

Again, losing does not equate death.

If you hear players talking about the awesome stuff they did in the game six months ago, it was even more of a game. It was entertainment, a toy.

No. People talk about achievements, not distractions. That game from six months ago was memorable because it challenged the players in some fashion and not because it provided a pleasant diversion. No one talks about a toy which filled their time six months ago.

Toys are diversions, games are challenges. While the level of challenge in any given game varies, that challenge still exists.

We seem to agree that different folks like different power levels, challenges, levels of reality, and mortality in their games.

I notice you listed challenges.

Those are differences and we all have them. Not really better or worse, unless you wanted one type of game and got another.

There are different types and/or levels of challenges in games because challenges are what set games apart from toys. Even cooperative Euro-games like the Cataan series challenges the players in some way. If there were no challenge, Cataan would nothing but a set of blocks.

 

[Leitz]

He's stating facts and explaining his comments at a panel at a convention. Contemporary RPG players have different needs in their games. Not better needs, not worse needs, but different needs. Anyone designing games today needs to remember that if they want to be successful.

He's whining. I'm a contemporary player and I accept constraints. Most of the folks I game with accept constraints. If he's making such broad judgmental and false statements, he's whining.

Someone has to risk losing something. Losing does not equate death.

Because it's a game and not a self esteem building seminar where they pass out participation trophies.

It's a game because they risked losing in some fashion. It was a challenge because they risked losing something in some fashion.

Again, losing does not equate death.

Like video games, each Traveller game can be reset. Either start a new character when one fails a survival roll, or pick up an NPC when the PC dies. There's no real loss to the player unless there was an emotional connection to the story arc. The player cannot lose because there are zillions of new characters to be made. Ergo, by his definition, a game is a toy.

I notice you listed challenges.

My second preferred game style. The first is "story". Doing both is where I really have fun, but I acknowledge that others have different priorities.

I would have to say that there have been times in games I've played in that the distractions were memorable. Probably because of the story arc they contributed to. Three or four real years ago a Mini6 fantasy character quipped something as a half-joke. The game was organic and he wound up getting married to the NPC. A couple years ago a PC was visited by his mother's ghost, she approved of his choice in wife. In the current game here a line tossed out earlier in the year still resonates through the game.

I think I ruined atpollard's day with one line:

"Oh, sorry. Introductions. I'm Angelo. Lily's husband."

On a side note my wife says she should provide "pre game counseling" for anyone considering playing in one of my games. :rofl:

Games are a sub-set of toy. Toys are used for play. One can get a variety of benefit from playing a game, or with a toy.

 

[flykiller]

On a side note my wife says she should provide "pre game counseling" for anyone considering playing in one of my games.

looking over the "character" you submitted for the lu hao game, my first, second, and last reactions were, "no way."