Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[sheadunne]

This would be one fo the parts of my setting that would always be fixed and not up for grabs. Further, I would just expect my players to inherently understand that Demon Summoning Tyrants have a weakness for kittens.

No setting I will ever play in will ever have kitten-neutral-Demon-Summoning-Tyrants nor will I allow any players at my table to be uncalibrated on the Demon-Summon-Tyrant powers that kittens can bring to bear. it is a genre conceit that I am unmovable on.

The example, when I wrote it, made me think of Buffy The Vampire Slayer and the demons playing poken with kittens lol

 

[TwoSix]

This would be one fo the parts of my setting that would always be fixed and not up for grabs. Further, I would just expect my players to inherently understand that Demon Summoning Tyrants have a weakness for kittens.

No setting I will ever play in will ever have kitten-neutral-Demon-Summoning-Tyrants nor will I allow any players at my table to be uncalibrated on the Demon-Summon-Tyrant powers that kittens can bring to bear. it is a genre conceit that I am unmovable on.

Badwrongfun! Badwrongfun!

 

[Manbearcat]

The example, when I wrote it, made me think of Buffy The Vampire Slayer and the demons playing poken with kittens lol

I don't know the material but it reads right funny!

Badwrongfun! Badwrongfun!

People that use kitten neutral Demon Summoning Tyrants in their game aren't roleplayers ok?

 

[TwoSix]

People that use kitten neutral Demon Summoning Tyrants in their game aren't roleplayers ok?

Sounds like dirty storygamer fodder to me! Gygax wrote kitten-hating right into his Type LXIX demons and that's good enough for me, now and forevermore!

I have no truck with this, you hear me?! NO TRUCK!!

 

[Manbearcat]

Sounds like dirty storygamer fodder to me! Gygax wrote kitten-hating right into his Type LXIX demons and that's good enough for me, now and forevermore!

I have no truck with this, you hear me?! NO TRUCK!!

This thread needs more parody/satire. I think I'm going to do a satirical play-post of the worst "no myth" nar session possible.

 

[Lanefan]

Think of setting in terms of a resolution continuum.

No myth <<<<<<< - >>>>>.Granular, high res setting (eg FR)

On the far left end, you're literally starting play and adlibbing completely. Everything is up for grabs until its established during play. You're not "exploring", you're "establishing" or "generating" setting through play. Everything that exists is "on-screen".

In theory this sounds really cool.

However, without even trying it in practice I can already forsee one absolutely horrific problem arising: who takes all the notes and records the details so that when you come back to the (newly-established-tonight) village of Newton after a real-time year's play elsewhere (maybe only a month or two in character time, however) the road west still leads to Oldton, the inn still needs repairs to its roof (or is now undergoing such), and the village wisewoman is still named Florene and is in fact a hidden 5th-level Druid - etc., etc., etc. on both a micro and macro scale? Because I agree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] (alert the media, it doesn't happen often! ) in that once something is established through play it is then locked in as part of the game world.

In a pre-built setting, whether it's the DM's own or a pre-canned one e.g. FR, a fair bit of the heavy lifting on the macro level (maps, town names, sometimes history and cultures, etc. etc.) is already done, meaning the note-taking can stop at the micro level and more focus on what the characters do in the world instead of also trying to build the world itself on the fly.

And I can't speak for you lot, but I know that when I'm running a game I usually have to do a lot of talking, and I can't talk and write at the same time. Thus, were I to run such a build-it-on-the-fly game, it would grind to a halt every couple of minutes while I made notes on what was just done and-or established. So much for any flow to the game...

I mean, look at the test example we've seen here with the king and drakes etc.; that'd represent about a page of notes I'd have to make on the fly to cover what arose from a single encounter!

Lan-"but if you can afford to hire a recording secretary none of this matters"-efan

 

[N'raac]

Note, just for clarity, I wasn't playing the rogue.

But, then again, now we're back to, "Well, you can Aid Another, that should be good enough for you". Wahoo, I get to be as useful as a peasant for 9 straight hours. Please, can I have some more?

I only listed off a few things you could do. You chose to zone in on one. To me, this is like complaining that your Ranger's favored enemy does not show up in every scene. The rogue has a special attack ability which works against some opponents and not against others. That means it will not always be usable. Should the other players have demanded traps be removed because only the rogue can deal with them at all?

This gets back to the "one trick pony" issue. The more specialized the character, the more likely he is in a situation his specialty is not suited for.

If I'm summoning demons to get wishes, it's probably not too much of a stretch to think that I'm going to pick wishes that make someone pretty unhappy. That whole evil wizard thing after all. But, then again, it doesn't matter what I'm going to wish for since you're going to provide me with a demon that can't grant wishes anyway. Gee, that was fun.

Well, since only the Wizard summons demons, you're making the Rogue player just sit on his hands while you conjure up wishes. If I run that game, I'm a bad GM by your standard above, am I not?

You've never heard the phrase, "The first hit's free"? The demon is, after all, about trying to corrupt someone and bind them even tighter. Seems like a pretty good way to me.

You're the one asking why we can't play by the rules. The rules say

The demon can use this ability to offer a mortal whatever he or she desires—but unless the wish is used to create pain and suffering in the world, the glabrezu demands either terrible evil acts or great sacrifice as compensation.

So why are we not supposed to play by the rules now?

 

[sheadunne]

In theory this sounds really cool.

However, without even trying it in practice I can already forsee one absolutely horrific problem arising: who takes all the notes and records the details so that when you come back to the (newly-established-tonight) village of Newton after a real-time year's play elsewhere (maybe only a month or two in character time, however) the road west still leads to Oldton, the inn still needs repairs to its roof (or is now undergoing such), and the village wisewoman is still named Florene and is in fact a hidden 5th-level Druid - etc., etc., etc. on both a micro and macro scale? Because I agree with [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] (alert the media, it doesn't happen often! ) in that once something is established through play it is then locked in as part of the game world.

In a pre-built setting, whether it's the DM's own or a pre-canned one e.g. FR, a fair bit of the heavy lifting on the macro level (maps, town names, sometimes history and cultures, etc. etc.) is already done, meaning the note-taking can stop at the micro level and more focus on what the characters do in the world instead of also trying to build the world itself on the fly.

And I can't speak for you lot, but I know that when I'm running a game I usually have to do a lot of talking, and I can't talk and write at the same time. Thus, were I to run such a build-it-on-the-fly game, it would grind to a halt every couple of minutes while I made notes on what was just done and-or established. So much for any flow to the game...

I mean, look at the test example we've seen here with the king and drakes etc.; that'd represent about a page of notes I'd have to make on the fly to cover what arose from a single encounter!

Lan-"but if you can afford to hire a recording secretary none of this matters"-efan

You are 100% correct. It's a bastard and I hate it. I also hated taking notes in school and I hate doing it at meetings. Thankfully most groups I've gamed with, regardless of the play style, have been fairly tolerate of forgetting or misremembering and usually someone at the table remembers correctly.

Back when I used XP I used to give out party bonuses based on the number of likes and dislikes from the last session as a way of remembering everything that happened. Players started taking notes to maximize their XP bonus lol.

But anyway, I'm a fairly lazy DM and a horrible note taker so I'm in complete agreement that it's a more difficult play style in that regard.

Still, it beats being the player who had to draw out the dungeon on graph paper as we played . . .

 

[Manbearcat]

In theory this sounds really cool.

However, without even trying it in practice I can already forsee one absolutely horrific problem arising: who takes all the notes and records the details so that when you come back to the (newly-established-tonight) village of Newton after a real-time year's play elsewhere (maybe only a month or two in character time, however) the road west still leads to Oldton, the inn still needs repairs to its roof (or is now undergoing such), and the village wisewoman is still named Florene and is in fact a hidden 5th-level Druid - etc., etc., etc. on both a micro and macro scale? Because I agree with @Hussar (alert the media, it doesn't happen often! ) in that once something is established through play it is then locked in as part of the game world.

While I certainly get the gut-instinct, I think you might be surprised on this one.

For the same reason that GMs of sandbox settings, how have mastered their canon, can recall things in excruciating detail, I find that the same rationale applies to players with respect to their authorship. I've found that "the more of the plot/setting they own", the easier it is for them to remember the related bits of color, seminal events, etc that stem from their authorship (and thus become more capable of a commitment toward a coherent whole).

For instance, I would guarantee that my player (the Ranger) whom I put on the spot to tell us what is under the cover (the tribute; baby/treasure), thus propelling the scene and fictional positioning forward around that fulcrum, will remember that moment more keenly than any number of moments in the past where I "plot dumped" him in one of our AD&D 2e or CoC games. And this was just 25-40 minutes of our time on a play-post for the internet (of which he had no long term investment in). I think its just classic behaviorism that people commit (to memory, to regime change) what they enact/author (and repeat) themselves.


In other news, we're going to do another chamberlain/king scene tomorrow night before we play. This time with a Wizard, a Fighter and a to be determined 3rd. It may involve a Transition Scene before the Action Scene.

I'd like to do one purely online (play by post), and @pemerton has kindly offered his capable services, but we would need 2 others.

 

[sheadunne]

While I certainly get the gut-instinct, I think you might be surprised on this one.

For the same reason that GMs of sandbox settings, how have mastered their canon, can recall things in excruciating detail, I find that the same rationale applies to players with respect to their authorship. I've found that "the more of the plot/setting they own", the easier it is for them to remember the related bits of color, seminal events, etc that stem from their authorship (and thus become more capable of a commitment toward a coherent whole).

For instance, I would guarantee that my player (the Ranger) whom I put on the spot to tell us what is under the cover (the tribute; baby/treasure), thus propelling the scene and fictional positioning forward around that fulcrum, will remember that moment more keenly than any number of moments in the past where I "plot dumped" him in one of our AD&D 2e or CoC games. And this was just 25-40 minutes of our time on a play-post for the internet (of which he had no long term investment in). I think its just classic behaviorism that people commit (to memory, to regime change) what they enact/author (and repeat) themselves.


In other news, we're going to do another chamberlain/king scene tomorrow night before we play. This time with a Wizard, a Fighter and a to be determined 3rd. It may involve a Transition Scene before the Action Scene.

I'd like to do one purely online (play by post), and @pemerton has kindly offered his capable services, but we would need 2 others.

I could be up for it. It would be nice to see how it played out