Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 willpell May 19, 2009 4:30:10	This aims to be an exhaustive, yet user-friendly list of questions that a GM can ask a player in any RPG in order to get an idea of what his players want out of the game, minimizing conflicting-styles issues later. Here's what I've got so far. * What are your feelings on having major plot points occur at the expense of your character? (Example: if you were playing Luke in "The Empire Strikes Back", Show would it bother you to lose a hand, assuming there was no guarantee you could get it replaced
#2 annoyinglizardvoice Jun 04, 2009 19:41:32	* What are your feelings on having major plot points occur at the expense of your character? It's only okay if I've agreed to it prior to it actually happening. * Would you rather take the campaign seriously, or mock the more illogical things that happen to you in-character? A bit of messing around is fun, but I like to keep some seriousness and common sense in the game, and hate stuff that's just flat-out against reallity without having a reason to be against reality. * Do you enjoy long, lavish descriptions, or would you rather get on with the action? I like locations to be more that a movement grid, and monsters and npcs to have some detail to them, but there is such a thing as too much detail. * Do you prefer to solve in-game problems with violence, or through other methods? I like to have the choice to use one or the other as the ocasion demands. I prefer to use whichever is the more in-character way to resolve a particular situation. * Do you have any priorities in the course of the game other than collecting XP and loot? My characters always have some form of motivation, and I try to avoid gaming with people who only think in terms of loot and exp when I can. * How good are you at ignoring things you know out-of-character because your character doesn't know them in-character? Depends on how well the situation is DMed * Do you enjoy having magic as just another tool in your arsenal, or would you rather it was something special, something mysterious and difficult to control? Magic must be mysterious, rare and unusual to remain cool. * Do you prefer a game style in which the GM readily fudges dice rolls for the sake of the story, or one in which the universe's rules are its rules and whatever the dice say happens, happens? Do you prefer the assurance that the DM won't waste all your work of building a character by having him suffer a "terminal episode" simply because he blew a critical saving throw, or does the game feel more exciting to you because of the extra danger, thus that you'd prefer to "let the dice fall where they may" for both PCs and NPCs/monsters? The story matters most above all things other than enjoyment, so rolls should be fudged to benefit these things frequently (as long as the players don't know what it fudged and what is not). A good DM never lets the players see rolls anyway, otherwise they might start metagaming too much. * Which is worse to you, an NPC which is flat and wooden or one which is hammily over-acted? Depends what mood I'm in (and how much I've had to drink if I'm DMing)
#3 elondir Jun 05, 2009 8:56:46	This aims to be an exhaustive, yet user-friendly list of questions that a GM can ask a player in any RPG in order to get an idea of what his players want out of the game, minimizing conflicting-styles issues later. Here's what I've got so far. * What are your feelings on having major plot points occur at the expense of your character? (Example: if you were playing Luke in "The Empire Strikes Back", Show would it bother you to lose a hand, assuming there was no guarantee you could get it replaced
#4 sonia Jul 14, 2009 20:50:59	* What are your feelings on having major plot points occur at the expense of your character? It's okay, but I don't like it when I have to keep on getting killed so the other players can have fun. * Would you rather take the campaign seriously, or mock the more illogical things that happen to you in-character Oh, I don't like to be too serious! For example, the favorite attack I used as a barbarian was "I hack a lugie and spit into his face". He has to do a save. * Do you enjoy long, lavish descriptions, or would you rather get on with the action? I would like to have at least some descriptions, but not long ones. We usualy have to talk at least a little instead of just saying "I attack", we say, "sparks fly through the air as I pull out my wand". * Do you prefer to solve in-game problems with violence, or through other methods? I would to prefer to solve problems with methods other than violence such as diplomacy or bluffing. Do you have any priorities in the course of the game other than collecting XP and loot? I like having a chance to level my character up and build up more and more abilities for it. I like to have a lot of choices for things I can do in the campaign. * [b]How good are you at ignoring things you know out-of-character? Pretty good I guess * Do you enjoy having magic as just another tool in your arsenal, or would you rather it was something special, something mysterious and difficult to control? I like having magic as something I use a lot. * Do you prefer a game style in which the GM readily fudges dice rolls for the sake of the story, or one in which the universe's rules are its rules and whatever the dice say happens, happens? Do you prefer the assurance that the DM won't waste all your work of building a character by having him suffer a "terminal episode" simply because he blew a critical saving throw, or does the game feel more exciting to you because of the extra danger, thus that you'd prefer to "let the dice fall where they may" for both PCs and NPCs/monsters?\ I wouldn't mind my GM fudging throws. * Do you believe the GM should have a plot laid out in advance, so that some options are right and some are wrong regardless of which you pick, or would you rather he let you succeed sometimes and fail other times with whatever method you feel like trying? I would like to have options in my plot. It's dumb to have only one action. I remember one time, my DM wouldn't let me leave a ship then blow it up to get rid of the enemy. * Which is worse to you, an NPC which is flat and wooden or one which is hammily over-acted? I don't like flat NPC"s
#5 shyxander Jul 15, 2009 16:28:41	* What are your feelings on having major plot points occur at the expense of your character? i would prefer to be consulted first, but as long as my character is not excessively or unfairly hindered i guess it's ok. * Would you rather take the campaign seriously, or mock the more illogical things that happen to you in-character? I guess you could say that I try to keep to the reality of the game while allowing for some light heartedness . like the playing a bag pipe while wielding a weapon in both hands no... but i had a skeletal minion that followed me around with a silver goblet filled with mountain dew and there was a halfling npc who used a rather large fish as a cudgel. Do you enjoy long, lavish descriptions, or would you rather get on with the action? i have a pretty good imagination so i don't need much detail to make a pretty cool picture in my head but i had a dm who had no real plot other than us wandering around and encountering random monsters. everytime we'd come across one of these monsters it was in a flat circular clearing. so it wen like this " you step out of the forrest into a flat circular clearing... (pause for a moment as all the players groan) roll initiative" * Do you prefer to solve in-game problems with violence, or through other methods? this is entirely dependant on my characters personality. i usually do what he would want to do. Do you have any priorities in the course of the game other than collecting XP and loot? all i really want is my character to be as bad ass as possible and to as closely embody the concept from which he was concieved as possible. usually xp and loot are just a means to this end. * How good are you at ignoring things you know out-of-character because your character doesn't know them in-character? i'm fairly good at it. i wanted to play for a while but couldn't find anyone to play with. finally i convinced some guys at work to play but had to teach them how. i wanted to be a player but (as they didn't know how) i also had to dm, leading to the dreaded dmpc. but i pulled it off. i was able to play my character as if he had no knowledge of anything beyond his perpective and used him to help guide and provide an example of how to play for the other players with out allowing him to overshadow them. * Do you enjoy having magic as just another tool in your arsenal, or would you rather it was something special, something mysterious and difficult to control? definitely a tool. D&D has never struck me as making magic all that mysterious. it seems like learning a trade. you go to school, study, practice, with a sufficient intel score bam! you to can cast spells. now granted it'd up to the dm how all of that actually plays out but thats just how it seems to me. * Do you prefer a game style in which the GM readily fudges dice rolls for the sake of the story, or one in which the universe's rules are its rules and whatever the dice say happens, happens? i look at the rules as being somewhat like the physics of the gameworld. accidents happen, one of our party once got decapitated in one hit on a like critical by the scythe of an entropic reaper, x4 crit mod, he was done for. we had to pledge ourselves to the service of a high enough level cleric to get him brought back as none of us could do it. then there is the other example of when a dm threw a mummy bbeg at my fifth level wizard in a solo campaign. my spells where nearly exhuasted and i had no hope of escaping so i tricked it into following me into a hallway with a pit trap i had found previously. i cast a grease spell as it ran towards me and it slid right into the pit. from there i just fired cheap shots down at him with my cross bow. i almost killed him when my dm had so weird reality warp take him away. i felt cheated that dispite being way over matched i outsmarted his boss and he stole my victory. between the two i prefer the first scenario. * Do you believe the GM should have a plot laid out in advance, so that some options are right and some are wrong regardless of which you pick, or would you rather he let you succeed sometimes and fail other times with whatever method you feel like trying? definitely the second one. what i like about tabletop rpgs is the level of freedom unavailable in a videogame. you can go where you want and do what you want and if your not smart you might get yourself killed. a strict storyline only gives the illusion of freedom and sometimes not even that. where's the fun in that? i'll just go play morrowind. * Which is worse to you, an NPC which is flat and wooden or one which is hammily over-acted? definately wooden. my first dm was always very expressive with his npcs and it was hilarious. a later dm had npcs that wouldn't even talk. here is an example: 4 adventurers approach a villager after stumbling upon a town after trudging through and extensive forrest inexplicably filled with flat circular clearings. "good day sir," say's our party's face "hey" say's npc "sooo.... whats the word about town? have there been any troubles recently?" "nope" "so there's no horrible monster's, or evil wizards, or terrible demons terrorizing the night?" says party face disparately seeking a plot hook. "nope" say's npc.. i think his name was steve or something. "oh.... ok.... well i guess i'll just be going then." party then wanders around town for a day or so. nothing happens. moves on.
#6 willpell Jul 16, 2009 20:30:51	i'm fairly good at it. i wanted to play for a while but couldn't find anyone to play with. finally i convinced some guys at work to play but had to teach them how. i wanted to be a player but (as they didn't know how) i also had to dm, leading to the dreaded dmpc. but i pulled it off. i was able to play my character as if he had no knowledge of anything beyond his perpective and used him to help guide and provide an example of how to play for the other players with out allowing him to overshadow them. It occurs to me that the ideal DMPC is a cleric...when has a cleric EVER overshadowed his partymates? (Well okay, maybe if the campaign is really huge on undead.) definitely a tool. D&D has never struck me as making magic all that mysterious. I personally view D&D's magic system as an embarrasing oversimplification, which I tolerate only because coming up with a better one would be far too much work. But I definitely am inclined to encourage anyone who can supply an alternative to treating your spells like so many grenades carried on your person which you can throw down to release various effects. If nothing else, extra descriptive text which individualizes your version of the spell is always preferred; the fact that wizards tend to resemble each other is intolerable to me, as magic should be the very essence of individualization.
#7 shyxander Jul 17, 2009 5:42:57	It occurs to me that the ideal DMPC is a cleric actually he was a cleric/wizard gestalt. i chose to gestalt so that the party would be a bit more powerful, since they were new to the game i didn't want them to get knocked around too badly and learning the gestalting rules aren't much more difficult than learning the normal ones. i figured with the wizard/cleric i could handle the support roles with buffs, healing, and battlefield control. my players found the idea of spell preparation somewhat intimidating so this also to that pressure off of them too. all and all i think it worked out quite nicely. I personally view D&D's magic system as an embarrasing oversimplification, which I tolerate only because coming up with a better one would be far too much work. But I definitely am inclined to encourage anyone who can supply an alternative to treating your spells like so many grenades carried on your person which you can throw down to release various effects. If nothing else, extra descriptive text which individualizes your version of the spell is always preferred; the fact that wizards tend to resemble each other is intolerable to me, as magic should be the very essence of individualization. i completely agree. inmost fantasy books or movies i've read it always seemed that the spell caster drew upon his internal source of power and shaped the spell in the moment and then released it. like in the david eddings books the wizards visualized the effect and then through their will made it reality, or in terry goodkind's sword of truth series wizards simple reached out with their gift and made things happen. when first learning the d&d system of magic i had a hard time understanding how a wizard could only learn specific spells instead of being able to cast all of the wizards spells. i get it now but it still seems restrictive that if i can cast a fire ball it'll always be a 20 foot radius i can't instead choose to create a bolt of fire or a cone and so on. it makes sense for the game but i guess i kinda imagine magic working differently. i skimmed over the books for mage the awakening and it seems like they kinda have a better way of handling spell casting. the way it works for them is a little bit like how epic spells work where you decide what effect you want to create and then calculate the difficulty of casting that spell then roll the dice and see how effective your spell was. what do you think about a system more like that?
#8 willpell Jul 17, 2009 9:01:48	i completely agree. inmost fantasy books or movies i've read it always seemed that the spell caster drew upon his internal source of power and shaped the spell in the moment and then released it. like in the david eddings books the wizards visualized the effect and then through their will made it reality, or in terry goodkind's sword of truth series wizards simple reached out with their gift and made things happen. when first learning the d&d system of magic i had a hard time understanding how a wizard could only learn specific spells instead of being able to cast all of the wizards spells. i get it now but it still seems restrictive that if i can cast a fire ball it'll always be a 20 foot radius i can't instead choose to create a bolt of fire or a cone and so on. it makes sense for the game but i guess i kinda imagine magic working differently. i skimmed over the books for mage the awakening and it seems like they kinda have a better way of handling spell casting. the way it works for them is a little bit like how epic spells work where you decide what effect you want to create and then calculate the difficulty of casting that spell then roll the dice and see how effective your spell was. what do you think about a system more like that? I have a Mage: the Awakening book, but I've never read it. I'm an old-school fan of its predecessor, Mage: the Ascension, but the two have wildly different premises and methods, having in fact almost nothing in common from what I've heard. In Ascension, your character has certain areas of magical aptitude, plus a "paradigm" which defines his view of how reality should operate (an example paradigm could be "by invoking the names of my ancestors, I call the power of the gods from the spirit world to invoke deeds worth of legend", or "with the Words of Power in the language of the ancient Atlanteans, I can rewrite reality itself as if I were scribbling in a book, such as this tome which I use to focus my concentration as I recite the Words"). Within the limits of these two defining factors, the Mage can do anything. If he has the sphere of Matter at a certain level, he can transform any kind of matter into any other kind, so long as he uses some "technobabble" appropriate to his paradigm to justify why it should work. His success or failure is determined by a characteristic roll, but a good Storyteller (Gamemaster) will give him bonuses to the roll if he describes his methods well and is acting within a consistent paradigm, while penalties will be levied if he's trying to do something that's out-of-character for how his paradigm has been explicitly stated in the past, unless he justifies it somehow. (White Wolf's games, at least in the old line, always emphasised good storytelling over mechanical gameplay...which proved to be both a weakness and a strength, since the games were mythically awesome when they worked, but often got a little bogged down or fudge-heavy when there wasn't a good rule for a scenario and the GM had to make up something without any real guidelines to keep it realistic-seeming. Imagine trying to figure out how much damage a dropped space shuttle should inflict and you have an idea of why sometimes, more rules are a good thing. But only sometimes.) I'm also an old-school Magic player (probably "ex-" given the recent changes), and Magic's style of spellcasting tends to appeal to me...there are specific spells and you learn them in fashions which are not well explicated, but in all cases you power them by drawing energy from the land. Various books I've read often have interesting spell systems, but many of them are too restrictive for my tastes. I just started reading LeGuin's "Wizard of Earthsea", and while I don't have a real taste for the way she handles magic as yet, what little I've seen just doesn't quite resonate with me. Eddings' stuff might have been okay, but I don't recall for sure; I considered those books deeply forgettable, since their plot was basically "we hear a prophecy, the prophecy comes to pass exactly as planned, the end" with a whole lot of dialogue and description but no real suspense along the way. Vancian magic definitely seems one of the more dubious systems, though it does have advantages in terms of pick-up playability, which means it was probably the right choice for the very FIRST roleplaying game. At least in its infancy, that is. From what I hear, 4E has moved to a slightly different model in which some minor spells can be cast as often as you choose, which is a little more reasonable, but one of the few good things I've heard of, and still not much of an improvement on the "spells are like objects" issue. I actually had a neat thought on how to spice up the Vancian version just a little...I'm thinking that the next time I play a wizard, I'm going to describe each of his spells as a geometric abstract which he has to visualize and hold in his mind, like a Rubik's Cube where he has to remember exactly what order the colors were in, because that's what determines what the spell is. My thought was that metamagic consists of altering the configurations of these "shapes" in certain parallel ways, and that the schools of magic also tie into the "shape" system. Either way, it makes a bit more sense now why you only get certain spells - you can only keep so many shapes floating in your head before you forget about their salient details due to brain overload, and the more complex the shape is, the fewer of them you can keep track of.
#9 shyxander Jul 18, 2009 21:26:53	actually the geometric abstract idea makes alot of sense. i don't remember much of the eddings books myself. i read earthsea a while back i just don't like the idea that some secret words and weird gestures have any kind of magical power. i prefer to think of it as it's the wizards belief in the words and gestures that actually give them power. but i guess earthsea is a little bit more like true naming from tome of magic. out of everything i think i prefer the psionics system the best. i don't quite get what they're doing with 4e. it looks like they got rid of spells all together and replaced them with spell like abilities.