better gaming through chemistry

jim pinto · Nov 5, 2005

jdrakeh said:
Jim,

As I said elsewhere on this thread, I'd be interested in contributing a section about social contracts and playing to expectations (as defined therein) - but for some reason I can't send a PM to you. So, if you would, please drop me a line at jdrakeh [at] softhome [dot] net

Thanks much.

can someone explain why post 124 has my signature on it, but post 147 does not?!?

j-drake... e-mail me whenever

and yes, anything you'd like to contribute would be awesome

LostSoul · Nov 5, 2005

jim pinto said:
can someone explain why post 124 has my signature on it, but post 147 does not?!?

Only one .sig per page.

jdrakeh · Nov 5, 2005

jim pinto said:
can someone explain why post 124 has my signature on it, but post 147 does not?!?

That's what threw me!

Lonely Tylenol · Nov 5, 2005

jim pinto said:
yes. if any books have touched on this subject at all, its the player's guides to the various worlds of darkness.

but two pages in the back of player's guide to mage does not exactly address the level of responsibility player's should show to help create a more co-operative environment.

awkward? do you want to contribute?

If there were two of me, sure. But despite the volume I post here, I actually have very little time to do anything but work these days. I've got time to spend 15 minutes here and there emptying my head onto a message board, but not the time to write any polished essays or guides. Thanks for asking, though, and feel free to rip anything you like from anything I post.

edit: If you ever do that, and would like to credit me, just let me know and I'll send you my real name. (I don't care about being credited, for the record)

If this project doesn't see daylight until the summer, my tune might change, since that's when I get free time.

jim pinto · Nov 5, 2005

LostSoul said:
Well, that's my opinion. What do you think? I'm really interested to hear from someone who disagrees.

i think this was addressed before, but essentially this is a bad background concept. its scope is so limited, that i as DM would make you find the orc dead on the side of the road on the way to town, your wife, miraculously alive.

creating a limited revenge background (unless all the pcs are on the same revenge adventure) is short-sighted. it limits campaign potential and it limits your own choices... why would anyone make a character that only wants to do one thing?

certainly railroading adventures are bad for a player like you, but railroaded PCs are equally bad for a DM like me.

i grow weary of players that showing up demanding i entertain them, with a 20 str half-orc that only wants to get drunk and kill peasants.

a better background is this... my wife and son were killed... i have nothing else to live for. so i'm packing up my mule, rake, and +2 shovel and seeing what lies beyond the horizon... i want to see the world before i die kind of character.

your version of the PC has no need to adventure once your kid and wife are safe.

'BAM! you win.'

jim pinto · Nov 5, 2005

Dr. Awkward said:
If there were two of me, sure. But despite the volume I post here, I actually have very little time to do anything but work these days. I've got time to spend 15 minutes here and there emptying my head onto a message board, but not the time to write any polished essays or guides. Thanks for asking, though, and feel free to rip anything you like from anything I post.

i will steal from you liberally without guilt

LostSoul · Nov 5, 2005

jim pinto said:
i think this was addressed before, but essentially this is a bad background concept. its scope is so limited, that i as DM would make you find the orc dead on the side of the road on the way to town, your wife, miraculously alive.

This is very strange to me. You've got something that you can play with for a long time. I hunt down the orc. Oh, he's working for the Bandit King? I hunt him down too. I find him? Who's to say that my wife will be just like I remember?

There are a ton of ways to play out that basic concept.

Whereas... "I'm an adventurer" is nice to hear, when you're the DM, because then you don't have to do anything different. Okay, well, we can play this module, or that module, or Dragonlance, or whatever. He'll like them all.

And you know what? If I do find my wife and kid, and "BAM! I win!" happens, I can always make a new character. I did what I wanted to do, I'm happy.

But forget about that concept. It was a simple one-liner I came up with on the spot. Is it that you don't like a player to tell you what he wants to do at the beginning of the game? Or is it that my example sucked ass? If the latter, tell me what kind of characters would work for you.

LostSoul · Nov 5, 2005

Oh, and:

jim pinto said:
i grow weary of players that showing up demanding i entertain them, with a 20 str half-orc that only wants to get drunk and kill peasants.

Players have a right to be entertained. Just like the DM has a right to be entertained. If it's the 20 STR half-orc that wants to kill peasants that bothers you, tell the guy that you don't want to play like that (which is pretty much the same as saying, "We play D&D" or "We play Vampire").

jim pinto · Nov 5, 2005

LostSoul said:
This is very strange to me. You've got something that you can play with for a long time. I hunt down the orc. Oh, he's working for the Bandit King? I hunt him down too. I find him? Who's to say that my wife will be just like I remember?

There are a ton of ways to play out that basic concept.

Whereas... "I'm an adventurer" is nice to hear, when you're the DM, because then you don't have to do anything different. Okay, well, we can play this module, or that module, or Dragonlance, or whatever. He'll like them all.

And you know what? If I do find my wife and kid, and "BAM! I win!" happens, I can always make a new character. I did what I wanted to do, I'm happy.

But forget about that concept. It was a simple one-liner I came up with on the spot. Is it that you don't like a player to tell you what he wants to do at the beginning of the game? Or is it that my example sucked ass? If the latter, tell me what kind of characters would work for you.

this IS a great setup, if you work it out with the DM a week ahead of time... if he knows about it before the game starts. i apologize if i assumed you were dropping it on him.

i think DMs that have hit snags come up with smarter starts to campaigns anyway though...

instead of... make some characters for next week, we're playing DnD... instead they do something like... all of you are lawful neutral or neutral good characters ... eagerly trying to become paladins in the "church of banana hammock" (in a game world where paladin is a prestige class, not a base class)....in order to prove your worth to the church, you'll be going to the village of robot junction to uncover the source of a plague that could hurt the kingdom if it spreads (pcs receive one potion of cure disease each).

now the DM has told the pcs GENERALLY what the campaign (or at least the first adventure) is about. anyone making a character that wants to avenge his wife needs to understand that this first adventure takes precedence. he shouldn't complain if his personal story isn't catered to in the early acts of the "story."

so.

in retrospect, your example fails if there's no planning on either side of the screen, but succeeds if the PC is flexible enough to follow the trail of the orc into the sewers.

(btw) the DM would be wise to put the PCs in a situation where someone saves the orc-hunter's life.... strengthening the bond of the party.