Saturday, Saturday, Saturday night's all right...

[thormagni]

Hey Chris. Had a good time. Looking forward to playing the undead hunters again soon!

I thought I would throw out some of the various non-fantasy D20 campaign books I have, and see if anyone wants to play any of them at some point...

Star Wars.
Traveller (gritty science fiction)
Judge Dredd (be a judge in Mega City One)
Adventure! (pulp era game)
Spycraft (kinda speaks for itself) and Spycraft Archer Foundation which is kinda a supernatural/psionics spy game.
Modern D20 and Urban Arcana (much like Shadowrun)
Silver Age Sentinels (super hero D20)
Mutants and Masterminds (OGL, with some familiar D20 elements and some strange ones.)
Big Eyes Small Mouth D20 (for anime fans including two sourcebooks for the Slayers tv series and Centauri Knights, a Mecha game)
Mecha D20 for giant robots games in BESM D20

And heya, I don't have everybody's e-mail addresses or phone numbers, but mine is jrclarkiii@sbcglobal.net and 376-8667...

 

[Fyrestryke]

On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the best.

4) Star Wars.
1) Traveller (gritty science fiction) (I've heard about this, but not enough to rank it.)
5) Judge Dredd (be a judge in Mega City One)
3) Adventure! (pulp era game)
5) Spycraft (kinda speaks for itself) and Spycraft Archer Foundation which is kinda a supernatural/psionics spy game.
5) Modern D20 and Urban Arcana (much like Shadowrun)
5) Silver Age Sentinels (super hero D20)
5) Mutants and Masterminds (OGL, with some familiar D20 elements and some strange ones.)
4) Big Eyes Small Mouth D20 (for anime fans including two sourcebooks for the Slayers tv series and Centauri Knights, a Mecha game)
4) Mecha D20 for giant robots games in BESM D20

 

[Mark van Dyk]

A question.

I noticed that there is a desire to play lots of different kinds of games here. It made me wonder about campaigns and short adventures. I prefer long campaigns where my character develops and creates things that stick around for a little while after the character is gone. I am not big into one-shot adventures the purpose of which is to just have a little variety and flavor, roll some dice, kill the bad guy and go home. I like variety and flavor, don't get me wrong, but for me, getting to know my character--- and thus some facet of myself--- is more appealing to me than playing an adventure just because the scenery is different.

How about you others? What sort of games do you like best? Do you like long campaigns or short ones that offer more chances to play different characters and different scenarios?

 

[InzeladunMaster]

My preferences in order:

Judge Dredd (be a judge in Mega City One)
Adventure! (pulp era game)
Silver Age Sentinels (super hero D20)
Mutants and Masterminds (OGL, with some familiar D20 elements and some strange ones.)
Star Wars.
Traveller (gritty science fiction)
Spycraft (kinda speaks for itself) and Spycraft Archer Foundation which is kinda a supernatural/psionics spy game.
Modern D20 and Urban Arcana (much like Shadowrun)

I think it would be interesting to play the same character that I use in other campaigns (same stats and personality, different classes and choices in life) in some of these, ala Moorcock's Eternal Champion, wherein Elric, Hawkmoon, Corum and the other characters are all the same person, just in different universes. The last pages of Unearthed Arcana discusses this in a lot of detail.

As to Mark's question, I will draw upon Ruby K. Payne, Ph.D's work, "Hidden Rules of Class at Work", where she shows via research that people who prefer characterization over plot are usually people with low resources available to them, are more apt to blame and accuse people and have outbursts of anger. This fits Robert E. Howard more than it does me. He tended to write episodic stories, often out of sequence, around single characters. He also displayed relationship problems typical of this scenerio, although he certainly had the ability to come up with amazing plots. They bring his characters to life.

Doctor Payne also shows that people who prefer plot over characterization have more resources, are more stable, and are able to maintain resources and relationships better. The latter seems to fit me more than the former, which is probably why I do not mind the one shot adventures - the plots have been fantastic! Although I like good plots, I also adore memorable characters. They bring the plots to life.

Lately, and I think my work on the Conan adventures shows, I have a decided preference for story and plot. Considering that Georges Polti has argued that there are only 36 possible plots in an effective story, a change of background scenery works for me. Besides, if we do not experiment around, how else will we find a setting we really enjoy and, therefore, continue? I like reading one shot novels, and I like reading novel series', so a mixture does well for me. I can enjoy a one shot visit to a campaign world and I can enjoy a full-fledged campaign. If the stories and plots are good, I am enjoying it. If a character dies, so be it, so long as the plot and the story was good. Characters are easy to create. Effective settings and atmosphere are not always so easy.

Of course, Howard could write one-offs just as easy as his could a story in a series, and I certainly love revisiting old characters. Plot and character go hand in hand, I think. If either is absent, then the game is going to be bad. If both are present the game will be good. So, for me, either is good.

 

[thormagni]

That is cool that you mentioned that Vincent. I have toyed with doing that concept over the years myself. And I agree, it would be a blast. Something like, say, "Quantum Leap," where the players each week move to a different genre/setting but with the same basic character. I think one of the true generic game engines (Hero, Fuzion, Gurps, Action!, D20 Modern, etc.) would be really easy to do this in.

I have even toyed with the in-game rationale for this:

1) The characters are avatars in a computer network, representing real-world computer hackers. This is a staple of cyberpunk fiction, where your plug your mind directly into the computer network and in your mind's eye the various programs and networks are translated into physical objects. Your computer self travels through wildly differing "landscapes" while you hack around in the network. A Japanese company may have an architecture that translates to feudal Japan, while an English company might have an Arthurian setting and a New York based comic book company might have a superhero setting.

2) The Rifts/Torg/Shadowrun sort of world, where a cataclysm has brought all sorts of different realities side-by-side. As you move to a new area of the country or world, the physics/conventions of that genre take over and you gain/lose powers and equipment as you move between worlds.

The cool thing about both of those worlds is that the setting itself takes care of the differences in game rules, even if you were playing, say, D20. Maybe in a fantasy world you have AC, a historic world you have DR and a superhero world you have Damage Reduction. Because you have changed worlds, the rules change.

As for Mark's earlier question... I am just happy to be playing. I like games with a plot and I'm not really sold on playing the same character week in and week out. If the game is entertaining and takes me out of the workaday world for a few hours, I am happy. I am really at the point where there are so many games I want to play, characters types I want to run and rules I want to try out that I would play almost anything. Maybe this week I really feel like playing a spy game, or that week I really feel like playing a super-hero game, but the actual game rules/setting and character don't matter all that much to me.

I think it would be interesting to play the same character that I use in other campaigns (same stats and personality, different classes and choices in life) in some of these, ala Moorcock's Eternal Champion, wherein Elric, Hawkmoon, Corum and the other characters are all the same person, just in different universes. The last pages of Unearthed Arcana discusses this in a lot of detail.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

1) The characters are avatars in a computer network, representing real-world computer hackers. This is a staple of cyberpunk fiction, where your plug your mind directly into the computer network and in your mind's eye the various programs and networks are translated into physical objects. Your computer self travels through wildly differing "landscapes" while you hack around in the network. A Japanese company may have an architecture that translates to feudal Japan, while an English company might have an Arthurian setting and a New York based comic book company might have a superhero setting.

2) The Rifts/Torg/Shadowrun sort of world, where a cataclysm has brought all sorts of different realities side-by-side. As you move to a new area of the country or world, the physics/conventions of that genre take over and you gain/lose powers and equipment as you move between worlds.

Excellent ideas! Both are fantastic. We should try it.

As for Mark's earlier question... I am just happy to be playing. I like games with a plot and I'm not really sold on playing the same character week in and week out. If the game is entertaining and takes me out of the workaday world for a few hours, I am happy. I am really at the point where there are so many games I want to play, characters types I want to run and rules I want to try out that I would play almost anything. Maybe this week I really feel like playing a spy game, or that week I really feel like playing a super-hero game, but the actual game rules/setting and character don't matter all that much to me.

I feel the same way. I have so many things to try out and experience, I am also not sold on playing the same character in the same campaign world all the time. I love Burroughs' Tarzan series, but I would not want to read them all in a row. I keep coming back to them, but I interrupt the series with other books, other settings. I prefer my gaming to be that way.

 

[thormagni]

Strangely, I have never had this desire. I've always considered games to be fleeting things. I just don't have any attachment to the in-game proceeds of my play. My magic sword gets retconned out of existence? No problem. A rule change nixes my favorite spell? Oh well. The mighty in-game empire I built yesterday can be instantly scrapped if I decide tomorrow to start a campaign in a new world with a new character.

It's a common problem of drama that the chase is inevitably more interesting than actually capturing the object you are chasing. Trying to gather wealth and goodies is fun, actually having them is anti-climatic, to my mind.

I mean, I really like role-playing. I'm all about getting into my character's head and rooting around. But I don't mind dipping into one character for a while and then dipping into another one. As long as I have a chance to play SOMEBODY I am happy.

I prefer long campaigns where my character develops and creates things that stick around for a little while after the character is gone.

 

[Mark van Dyk]

Here we go again

Uh-huh

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I have also always felt the chase was more satisfying than the actual ownership.

The varieties of chase also add spice to it all!

One of the things I find myself really enjoying about Conan the Role Playing Game is the impermanent attitude about belongings. Easy come, easy go. If it is needed for this adventure, then the players have it. If it is not needed later, it is simply gone. No muss, no fuss. There is virtually no attachment to favoured things.

I am leaning very heavily toward Judge Dredd or the pulp adventure game right now.

 

[Mark van Dyk]

Curious

Inzeladun Master,

I am curious why you interpreted my original question as a choice between characterization and plot? Never did I mention plot. In fact, I assume in all games that there should be a very strong plot. The question was whether people enjoyed longer campaigns with more character development or shorter ones with less character development. Nowhere is there mention of plot.

I also wondered why you chose to use as your supportive evidence a work that was evidently self published because apparently no one desired to publish the work or acknowledge its validity. At least this is my understanding. It seems that you attempted to ignore certain facets of my post in order to create a platform for your own unrelated thoughts. Is this the case?