Martial arts affecting your GMing style

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I think from a game designers perspective it is important to read these authors. It gives you an understanding of the influence on D&D. I am not saying a player or even a DM needs to read these authors (although I am sure most of them would enjoy the books). But a designer should.

I think a game designer should research what they want to research. I think it's more important that a game designer do what they want to do how they want to do it rather than taking some pre-established or recommended way.

If the designers of a game decide they want to avoid as much D&D influence as possible then they wouldn't want to read those authors, by your statement.

[snip]

This post is kinda what I'm talking about with Too Much Information. Do I really need to care about how real fighting works this much? Or even half this much?

But if....you take a serious look at real fighting and do good research, you can make a good fast paced system that has the elements of a real fight.

And some of us don't want real stuff in our pretend fights.

Sometimes you don't need to know anything about the real counterpart to your fiction because the whole point is the fictional nature. Real elements would then be counterproductive.

 

[Galloglaich]

I think a game designer should research what they want to research. I think it's more important that a game designer do what they want to do how they want to do it rather than taking some pre-established or recommended way.

You are assuming the reccomendations are arbitrary, as if just based on blind tradition. You sound like a high school kid who doesn't want to read his English assignment, that isn't what this is about. Can you describe a good Fantasy game that was designed without the influence of these authors ?

And some of us don't want real stuff in our pretend fights.

Sometimes you don't need to know anything about the real counterpart to your fiction because the whole point is the fictional nature. Real elements would then be counterproductive.

How, exactly? What makes you think the two don't go together? What makes them mutually exclusive?

I personally would rather not deal with the elaborate and patently ridiculous rules for a spiked chain, or track the effects of a power surge or a thrice per day stun move in my pretend fights, I don't want to be forced to use miniatures or power cards or a battlemat in order to play an RPG (I don't mind any of these as options mind you, I just don't want it to be a requirement). To me that all seems kind of childish, though I could probably get into it, but for my girlfriend or my pals from work who aren't hard core gamers, it seems very Geeky, Klingon or "neckbeard" to use a term somebody else coined in another thread. I just don't want to carry that baggage into my game, I like playing with mostly non-gamers and drinking buddies... I don't want to have to explain a double bladed sword or what a Tiefling or a Dragonborn is and defend these concepts from incredulous players since I don't really buy into these concepts myself.

Maybe it just boils down to different strokes for different folks, you "aren't impressed" with Literature or History, no interest in Mythology and want a game with none of these elements. I prefer a game that is has universal / mainstream appeal and a more 'grownup' feel, which I think is enhanced by good research. Luckily for both of us we can each find games which suit our particular preferences.

G.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

You are assuming the reccomendations are arbitrary, as if just based on blind tradition. You sound like a high school kid who doesn't want to read his English assignment, that isn't what this is about. Can you describe a good Fantasy game that was designed without the influence of these authors ?

No. But that doesn't mean someone deciding to design a fantasy game should automatically turn to those authors, or even any product that has gone before them. The reason it feels to me like the recommendations are arbitrary is that I'm not seeing qualifiers added, no "I recommend these guys for a fantasy game like the kind of stories these guys wrote". If you don't want to design a game to be like those stories then why read them?

I personally would rather not deal with the elaborate and patently ridiculous rules for a spiked chain, or track the effects of a power surge or a thrice per day stun move in a game I'm playing, I don't want to be forced to use miniatures or power cards or a hex table or any of that in my game.

On that we finally agree.

The thing is I worry about "real" combat because of three things: 1) I don't want it to complicate things, 2) I don't want to be afraid of combat because the reality-simulation elements tell me it's going to kill me, 3) I don't want it to take away the wonder of non-real stuff.

To me that seems childish and for my girlfriend or my pals from work who aren't hard core gamers, it seems very Geeky, Klingon or "neckbeard" to use a term somebody else coined in another thread. I don't want to carry that baggage into my game.

Sorry, I don't quite understand you here.

I don't want to have to explain what a Tiefling or a Dragonborn and defend the concepts from incredulous players is since I already think they are kind of retarded myself.

Why? I mean I find "humans, but the look slightly different!" to be even worse because it seems like the exact same thing Xeroxed 5 or 10 times.

Maybe it just boils down to different strokes for different folks, you hate Literature, have no respect for History, no interest in Mythology and want a game with none of these elements. I prefer a game that is logical and grounded in these elements............

I respect history as history, and I'm interested in mythology. But I'm not interested in the real world replacing the fictional world.

.............luckily for both of us we can each find games which suit our particular preferences.

Actually I have a very, very hard time of it. That's why I'm so vocal about this whole issue: those people who want real elements already have their products. Me I still need mine.

 

[Mallus]

I personally would rather not deal with the elaborate and patently ridiculous rules for a spiked chain, or track the effects of a power surge or a thrice per day stun move in a game I'm playing, I don't want to be forced to use miniatures or power cards or a battlemat in order to play an RPG (I don't mind any of these as options mind you, I just don't want it to be a requirement).

Perfectly reasonable...

To me that all seems kind of childish and for my girlfriend or my pals from work who aren't hard core gamers, it seems very Geeky, Klingon or "neckbeard" to use a term somebody else coined in another thread.

...but this is just cheap stereotyping. Gal, please, you post some interesting stuff, can you not mar that with descent into cliched sentiments like this?

Maybe it just boils down to different strokes for different folks, you hate Literature, have no respect for History, no interest in Mythology and want a game with none of these elements.

I game with a PhD in linguistics, a PhD candidate in English Literature currently teaching undergrads, a bibliophile lawyer, a person who's worked in publishing for years, people with an abiding love for the liberal arts. The last thing were looking for is any kind of well-researched accuracy in our Friday night games.

We want a lark, occasionally tarted-up by the somewhat prodigious amount of sh*t we know.

I prefer a game that is has universal / mainstream appeal and a more 'grownup' feel...

Gal, why do you assume you have such a keen insight into mainstream appeal, especially since it seems your tastes diverge significantly from the RPG with the greatest mainstream appeal?

Also, I'm still trying to figure out what 'grownup' means in this context. Is there a particularly mature way to pretend to be an elf? Would said elf need to be drinking a martini? Would the adventures revolve around cocktail parties? (actually, this is a fair description of a lot of the campaign I got my screen name from...).

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

..more 'grownup' feel...

What do you mean by "grownup"?

 

[Galloglaich]

The reason it feels to me like the recommendations are arbitrary is that I'm not seeing qualifiers added, no "I recommend these guys for a fantasy game like the kind of stories these guys wrote". If you don't want to design a game to be like those stories then why read them?

Because these guys wrote the fantasy genre, so if you want to do a fantasy game in that genre, it helps to know the source (and I'd take it a step further, that you really need to look at the Historical and Mythological sources that they did otherwise you make something derivitive and therefore weakened.

The thing is I worry about "real" combat because of three things: 1) I don't want it to complicate things, 2) I don't want to be afraid of combat because the reality-simulation elements tell me it's going to kill me, 3) I don't want it to take away the wonder of non-real stuff.

We want much the same things, I just think you can get to all this easier with a game grounded in realism, go figure.

I respect history as history, and I'm interested in mythology. But I'm not interested in the real world replacing the fictional world.

Me either, I just think the fictional worlds that are fun, from experience, are the ones informed by History and Mythology (deep into it, not just the superficial version you get in high school).

Actually I have a very, very hard time of it. That's why I'm so vocal about this whole issue: those people who want real elements already have their products. Me I still need mine.

It's funny it looks that way to you, because I had so hard of a time finding a realistic RPG combat system I had to write my own. But I did finally find one, albiet in my own printer.

I think what we have mostly in RPG's is fairly complex, unrealistic games with elements of realism crudely and ineffectivley patched on.

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

Perfectly reasonable...


...but this is just cheap stereotyping. Gal, please, you post some interesting stuff, can you not mar that with descent into cliched sentiments like this?

I'm just describing what I have experienced, and I'm talking about the reactions I get from other people. When I try to explain spiked chains or Dragonborn to those folks, that is how they react, they make faces, they say a lot worse stuff than I said in my post.

Whereas they don't seem to have an issue with the RPG concept in general, which seems to have a broad appeal, or even with the idea of Dragons since they get the notion from Mythology and mainstream Literature, or movies like LOTR.

One can love the humanities and not be a prick about it.

I game with a PhD in linguistics, a PhD candidate in English Literature currently teaching undergrads, a bibliophile lawyer, a person who's worked in publishing for years, people with an abiding love for the liberal arts. The last thing were looking for is any kind of well-researched accuracy in our Friday night games.

People seem to keep assuming I'm talking about Detail or complexity, or absolute fidelity down to the smallest element. I'm not. To me if you are playing a game like say, Call of Cthulhu, you are playing a very well researched game, that is still loose and simple enough that you can have a lark.

Gal, why do you assume you have such a keen insight into mainstream appeal, especially since it seems your tastes diverge significantly from the RPG with the greatest mainstream appeal?

Also, I'm still trying to figure out what 'grownup' means in this context. Is there a particularly mature way to pretend to be an elf? Would said elf need to be drinking a martini? Would the adventures revolve around cocktail parties? (actually, this is a fair description of a lot of the campaign I got my screen name from...).

Frankly, yeah why not an elf with a Martini? Look, it's subjective, I have tried to describe it, I guess I have only come across snobby and snarky, not my intent. I put it in three categories of TV shows, 1) Buggs Bunny cartoons (fun for both sexes and all ages) 2) He Man Masters of the Universe (fun for 12 year old boys) or 3) Battlestar Galactica (fun for both sexes and all ages).

I like RPGs which are like #1 or #3 but not like #2. Those don't feel 'grown up' to me. Does that make sense?

G.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Because these guys wrote the fantasy genre, so if you want to do a fantasy game in that genre, it helps to know the source (and I'd take it a step further, that you really need to look at the Historical and Mythological sources that they did otherwise you make something derivitive and therefore weakened.

I'm still not convinced that looking at someone else's work is going to help any with writing your own. They wrote their own when they didn't have them.

History and mythology I've read, but that's what I felt like reading. If people don't feel like doing the research you're risking turning them off to the whole endevour by suggesting that unless they do something they really don't want to do they'll never succeed at what they're trying. Better to just let them fail on their own.

We want much the same things, I just think you can get to all this easier with a game grounded in realism, go figure.

And I don't trust realism because I think it'll tether me to the ground. I think realism should be used if you don't want to float away (and I want to float away).

Me either, I just think the fictional worlds that are fun, from experience, are the ones informed by History and Mythology (deep into it, not just the superficial version you get in high school).

Hey, some of my favorite stuff is superficial. Sometimes the superficial version of something is very informative.

It's funny it looks that way to you, because I had so hard of a time finding a realistic RPG combat system I had to write my own. But I did finally find one, albiet in my own printer.

I'm talking more about settings and whatnot that say that they use "realistic thinking" or something like that. They make it sound like they're doing something unusual, whereas I'm looking around and not seeing the "unreal" stuff.

I think what we have mostly in RPG's is fairly complex, unrealistic games with elements of realism crudely and ineffectivley patched on.

I'd agree. I just don't think emphasis on realism is objectively the best way to fix them.

I put it in three categories of TV shows, 1) Buggs Bunny cartoons (fun for both sexes and all ages) 2) He Man Masters of the Universe (fun for 12 year old boys) or 3) Battlestar Galactica (fun for both sexes and all ages).

I like RPGs which are like #1 or #3 but not like #2. Those don't feel 'grown up' to me. Does that make sense?

Yes, although I wouldn't put #3 in the "grownup" category. I wouldn't put most drama in the "grownup" category, I think it's still too "angsty teenager".

 

[Janx]

If I were to take what I know about fighting, and applied it to GMing, I'd consider the following:

movement: barring a tight space, combatants would be moving constantly. To keep with D&D's heroic feel, I'd make sure moving was rewared, not punished. This might mean using more 5' steps, or making AoO less likely.

HP and AC: As currently defined, they make it hard for players to relate how much damage they take in relation to the type of injury. To support a hit being serious, but not horribly crippling PCs, I'd effectively increase AC (make getting hit less likely, the storm trooper effect), reduce overall HP (they don't ramp up so much), and set a model for damage=side effect. I'd also throw in a healing system that makes it easier to recover.

In any event, the changes would attempt to keep the overall game play the same, but make the stats reflect what's really going on.

One way my experience has altered how I DM, is I created a "dojo" for the monk, that had enough detail based on merging a real style with fiction. The result is a dojo system that fits the rules (no new rules), but supplies all the fluff and advanvement to make it seem realistic. (also available in a past blog entry).

 

[Galloglaich]

If I were to take what I know about fighting, and applied it to GMing, I'd consider the following:

movement: barring a tight space, combatants would be moving constantly. To keep with D&D's heroic feel, I'd make sure moving was rewared, not punished. This might mean using more 5' steps, or making AoO less likely.

HP and AC: As currently defined, they make it hard for players to relate how much damage they take in relation to the type of injury. To support a hit being serious, but not horribly crippling PCs, I'd effectively increase AC (make getting hit less likely, the storm trooper effect), reduce overall HP (they don't ramp up so much), and set a model for damage=side effect. I'd also throw in a healing system that makes it easier to recover.

In any event, the changes would attempt to keep the overall game play the same, but make the stats reflect what's really going on.

One way my experience has altered how I DM, is I created a "dojo" for the monk, that had enough detail based on merging a real style with fiction. The result is a dojo system that fits the rules (no new rules), but supplies all the fluff and advanvement to make it seem realistic. (also available in a past blog entry).

This sounds good to me, I think this is a good example of how you can use realistic data to make your game better.

G.