MrBrown

I always played IWD with: Paladin Fighter/Druid Cleric/Ranger Fighter/Mage Fighter/Thief Bard Can't really imagined playing it any other way.

Hmm. Well, I'm not Kaftan's teacher, but I can imagine one such thing that would annoy me if I was the creator of a PnP RPG product. Without going into why it is so, alot of RPG players and groups have a very narrowly defined way to play RPGs. That is to say, they consider those ways to be good roleplaying, and while they might agree that other preferences exist and respect them, they don't consider those equal to their way. In other words, to them, all the differences between RPG products are just differences in ways to achieve the same thing. So when they try a new product, they don't try to find new "things" to achieve with it, but rather attempt to employ it for the same thing they did the previous one. I could see how this would be vexing for the creator, if he meant the product for a different "thing". Absolutism over rules is no solution in any case. <_<

Yes, well, turn-based systems involve this "time stop" thing in any case. I think you'd have to look at other advantages in a TB system than plausibility. Such as tactical choices. Obviously, true realtime just doesn't work for PnP games. I think that if you want to go realistic and still retain playability in PnP RPG combat, you'd go with some kind of concurrent action system.

Well, alot of people prefer to have PCs and NPCs work by the same rules because they prefer world consistency or some such; not necessarily because they dislike the GM changing rules on the fly. This is one of the reasons why I'd separate the "same rules for PCs and NPCs" from the "authority over game rules" -discussion.

Yes. You still keep talking about two different things like they were the same. For instance, many RPG systems give the players a metagame resource (Fate, Luck, Void, it has a lot of names) they can use to re-roll dice, exceed their typical creative authority (GM: "The NPC does this..." Player: *Uses Luck point* "No he doesn't"), etc. Many (not all) games that use this kind of mechanics only give it to the players, not the NPCs. This is an example of PCs and NPCs working by different rules, but not necessarily with any GM authority over the rules. #2 without #1, that is. Though, from your posts, it's obvious that your real problem is with #1. I agree with you, and your teacher. I don't see how it matters whether you're playing the "original" game or not, though.

I think you're confusing a couple of things here. First, you say that the GM changing the rules on the fly is bad. Then, to cure this, you say that "all parties must play by the same rules". Basically: 1. GM authority over rules; does it exist? 2. Do the same rules apply to NPCs and PCs? You can very well have a game where the GM has no singular authority to change rules (personally, I'd consider that necessary for any RPGs), but the PCs and NPCs still operate by different rules.

I've found that quickness of getting into play from the "starting point" is more about how far detached the setting is from the real world, and the number of options in character generation, while quickness in actual play is more about how often you have to refer to the rules book. Quickness of the latter kind is often desirable, IMHO. The former depends on more factors, so I'm not so sure. In any case, out of the ones mentioned, d20 is the only one I've actually GMed, and I'd say it's pretty slow on both accords. I don't think it's desirable to have a specific rule for many specific cases. All you get is a rules bloat, which also makes a game alot slower. IMHO, it's better to have a generic resolution system applicable to any situations which aren't covered by other rules. AFAIK, none of the systems mentioned do that. I think there are two kinds of (working) "realism" approaches to RPGs- Systems that focus on one specific situation, and tries to depict that as well as possible. - Systems that create their own kind of "reality", encompassing the whole word in the system. AFAIK, GURPS is of the 2nd kind. EDIT: In any case, I don't think realism itself is very desirable of a rules system, since it doesn't itself include player choice, only the "result" of the system. As a secondary priority, it can work. Does it matter? For innovativeness these days, you'd have to look at indie-RPGs... Whether that means they're also good is up to opinion. Most commercial RPGs basically recreate the same thing, over and over again. I think it's more about actual play than the systems itself. Most (commercial) systems work, if you know how to use them, and what to use them for. I don't think it's about genres, as much as it's about playing styles.

Hmm. I might get them, depending on mod-compatibility. Does the IWD one come with Trials of the Luremaster (or whatever it was called)?

I can't really vision any kind of RPG product line that wouldn't start to decline after about 5 books. I think RPG producers would be better of trying to make several products that are more specific, but similar in presentation, rather than one Big product that everything else is then based upon. I think WW's WoD has kinda got it, though I can't personally say anything about the quality of their products.

Ginthaeriel, I agree with you. I think CRPGs (and PnP RPG products as well), have generally lost the basic idea of "let's do a game that is fun to play", instead relying on doing things the way others have done before, or relying on outside definitions on what an RPG "should" be. I do think there is potential in the genre as such, I just don't think most games are close to it, at all.

For me, the issue is simply about boredom. In the BG games for instance, if your Cleric died, then you had to tromp through the countryside to the nearest temple and then back to whatever you were doing (not to mention the inventory management to carry all their stuff). This could be 5-15mins of boredom, depending on where you were. And yes, it was annoying. Death didn't bother me in games like some Final Fantasies for instance, where having enough phoenix downs would be enough. There death was just a statistical set back, not a gateway to boredom. This isn't really a problem with PnP, where you can just say "okay, you're at the temple" and "okay, you're back at the 34th level of the dungeon".

"Total party wipeout". It always annoyed me in many squad/group/party -based games how the death of one character/unit, a specific one or any, meant loss in combat.

Yay, another "why can't I get moral decision-making by making a setting" -thread! Rantrantrantrant... Seriously, your situations sounds almost identical to Gromnir's, so read that thread: http://forums.obsidianent.com/index.php?showtopic=41601 I agree with Eldar on that RPGs require a contract between the participants. I'd go a step further though and say that the contract should be about the "point" of the game (the thing that is fun, assuming the game succeeds). If the participants agree that the game is about "moral decision making" (whatever that is), then the game is about that. The end. And the guy who makes a crazy pirate PC gets a spanking.

Why did you show up, seriously. I recommend just telling him what you think is wrong with this whole thing, and leaving. No reason for you to start acting like idiots as well, like some here seem to suggest. At first, I thought the whole hobo-thing was the result of the random tables as well... Pretty wacky tables at that. I've sometimes found players (occassionally myself included) really eager to use such tables though. They can be pretty fun, if they're not too extreme. Or, as an introduction to a different setting.

"Judgement" is such and abstract term that I can't really know what kind of things you're thinking of there, so I'll leave that general statement unanswered. Well, the only thing I can say is, I've found them ridiculously easy. Just one more thing: The kind of play I'm advocating here with the alignment stuff, is one where the competitiveness (actually, I prefer the word "challenge") is top priority is and "staying in character" secondary. It's the type I think works best in D&D, and that I personally try to get my groups to play if we play D&D. I recommend to keep trying. I don't think D&D is (that) bad or anything, but playing only one system can easily get you stuck in thinking it's the world, and other systems are just providing them same thing in a different package. As for the last comment, I think there's 2 groups of people in this case: people who have a specific type of playing and try to fit that into any system they encounter, and people who try to play by a system first and see where it takes them. It might be pretty obvious from what I've written, but I highly prefer the second approach.

There is nothing wrong with competitiveness as such. It's a goal in playing as much as "staying in character" or "drama" can be. There is no universal "good game", and it doesn't happen without talking about it and recognizing it. As a sidenote, my posts in the Dead Horse: The Beating -thread were mainly about D&D having rules that encourage competitiveness, and thus causing D&D play to often "drift" from other kind of goals (such as "staying in character") to creating competitiveness. This is usually a bad thing, as at least some participants probably don't want it to. There is no need for GM arbitration in such matters, as long as the group agrees on the goal of play, and use a system that supports it and doesn't cause "drifting" from it. Most of the comments like "players try to get away with anything" and "the GM needs to arbitrate the game" come from people who try to GM D&D (or other competitiveness -oriented games) without competitiveness, only to find their play drifting to it, and thus feeling a need to scold the players for their "bad behaviour" Penalties to the player, not the character. Character "power" is important, because that is how the player affects the game world (in D&D, and many other games, but not all). If the player's character has no power, that player is as good as impotent. If something the player does in the game makes him lose his power, then naturally he strives not to lose it. If, in the case of the paladin, the paladin changing alignment means the player loses his power (by not being able to atone, not being able to create a new character, etc etc), then the player will strive not to change alignment. This is where the "GM-arbitrated alignment" makes itself "necessary". If you feel a need to punish the player for not "staying in character", then of course someone needs to arbitrate it. If you take player punishment out of it, then the player can make his paladin fall when he feels like he did something to cause that, and the player can make it by his own accord. And, there is no need for GM-arbitration. There's nothing uncommon about having disagreements about rules. To connect it with my previous paragraph, these are disagreements on the system. Just don't mistake them for disagreements on the goal.

EDIT: I don't mind the topic as such... I just don't want start it from the beginning, again. Ok. Well, let me add this: For the kind of playing I described in the d&d forums post, there should be no penalty to the player for changing alignment, in any instance. That is to say, if the player of the paladin decides that his paladin has now changed alignment and loses all paladin powers, then the GM/system/the whole game as such should provide (not force) him with means to gain back his original power almost immediately. Whether that means atonement, a new character, turning into an "anti-paladin" (using any of the several rules for such out there; I find the Unearthed Arcana variant Paladins to be the best), or something else. Without this, the system only works when "staying in character" is top priority. Which is rather hard to maintain in D&D, due to the competitiveness of the rules (to use theory jargon: the rules of D&D make it so easy to drift from "staying in character" to competitiveness, willingly or not). Get away from.... What? If there are no penalties for changing alignment and being of any specific alignment, the players don't need to "get away" with anything.

Oh, I don't mind alignment as such. I know D&D doesn't work without alignment. Like I said, the example I provided doesn't really work (EDIT: in D&D that is, because D&D has alignment); it's just an example of how things could be done. Yeah yeah... Read the link I provided. Sorry, but I really don't want to get into this discussion again; it's repeated ad nauseum (sic) at the D&D boards. It is not a "roleplaying" mechanic. It's a drama driving mechanic. It isn't telling the players how or what they should play; the players change it according to how they play.

These are really problems of bad (or inexperienced) GMs. The only things you need to do is discuss PC agenda before play, or provide it if the players do not want to co-create it, and get the players to agree to have the PCs pursue that agenda. Then the GM just needs to provide the adversary and their actions.

The Paladin has no inherent benefit (by the rules anyway, dunno about your houserules), so why would you need to watch over it? And no, you really don't need to judge player's alignment through their actions, because in 3ed D&D, there really isn't any inherent benefit in having one alignment over the other (unless you put one there, of course). I'm too bored to go over this since I've just done it on the official d& forums (last posts on the thread): http://boards.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=628618&page=2 I can give further opinions on it though, if anyone's interested. And finally, alignment is "staying in character". It won't bring about moral decisions, or even drama. It's hardly a carrot/stick method. Obviously, it comes with assumption that any spiritual attributes the players assign to their characters will come into play, AND that the players themselves want it to happen. Like I said before, world simulation doesn't bring about drama (or moral decisions).

Oh, I agree completely with that. I guess I worded my original post badly. It's more about getting to the (agreed-upon) "point of the game" and avoiding drifting, than forcing something to someone. Just for the record, I didn't suggest so (and never would; I consider GM judgement of player decisions to be pretty bad form in just about any case.)

Ok, a Riddle of Steel Spiritual Attributes conversion to d20... This thing doesn't really work, it's just an example. 1. Get rid of other experience awards. Totally. Shoo shoo. And tune down the loot, maybe 2. Get rid of alignment. Alignment is "staying in character", and is only in the way of moral judgementing. Define a set of Spiritual Attributes for each character. RoS has 4, picked from several types, mainly Destiny, Drive, Faith and Passion. They need further definition, such as a specific character might have "Drive: Become a general of the Army", or "Passion: Love for his family". Each attribute has a score from 0 to 5, starting at maybe 1 or 2 for each. They work like this: 1. Whenever the PC does something that any of the spritual attributes "apply" (to be defined, but for instance the love-for-family guy defending his family) to, the player adds the attributes as a bonus to his rolls (in D&D, mainly to-hit, skills, damage, AC, saves and spell DC). If more than one apply, they stack. 2. Each "scene" (to be defined) that the above happens, the player adds a single point permanently to all all SA's that applied. If the PC does something against his SA, it is lowered by one point. 3. The player can, at any time, permanently take a point away from any SA and gain an amount of experience (maybe 100 to 200) that applies immediately. 4. Whenever an SA is at 0 (such as from the use of #3), the player can change it. For instance, Passion: Love for family to Passion: Love for homeland. #3 and #4 are crucial. In actual play, you do this: Let's say you have two characters with the following SAs: John: Faith: The King. Passion: Love for Maria, the daughter of Baron Vodstok. Bob: Faith: The King. Drive: Become a noble. Then in play, the GM does something like these: - The King orders Baron Vodstok and his immediate family beheaded for treachery. - The King disbands all nobility, and turns to true dictature. - Baron Vodstok offers to take Bob as part of his family, if he takes his daughter in marriage. ...And what you get is mechanically supported decision making that completely defines the reward system. Or more appropriately, a drama-driving mechanic. In each of those examples, the characters must make a choice between their SAs, AND they get points no matter what they choose... As long as they DO make the choice. And in Gromnir's setting... Tiki-tiki Too-too the Thri-Kreen has: Faith: Unethically Produced Commodities are of the Devil, and not-to-be-used. Passion: His pack. And then Gromnir says: "Someone in your pack has a disease that can only be cured with UPC!". And Tiki-tiki must choose whether to abandon his morals or his love, AND he gets points whichever he does. What the GM does here is called a "bang", btw. In these kinda of games, the GM just needs to keep banging.

If I did think those points were already clear, I wouldn't make them, would I? The key point here is moral judgement; it's not "just" player decisions. But... But... Theory is too beautiful to be soiled by actual play! Seriously, I don't see much to make specific examples about. Gromnir's problem: "Players do not make moral judgements". The answer: "Reward them for it, and they will". Duh. Unfortunately, I don't remember any related reward systems that would be free and online... I'll need to dig up, or maybe make a crude d20 version of the Riddle of Steel one. Oh, one thing though. Watch out for "Over before it even started": Making the moral judgement the game is supposed to be about (or is it? At least I'm assuming it is, from the post) seems to take 5 seconds time, and that's before Gromnir gets to say "you're at this tavern...". Gromnir: "The world is completely dependant on the Unethically Produced Commodity. But, a revolution is starting, to rid the world of this past. Which side do you choose?" *5 seconds* Players: "Ok, were the revolutionaries!". *End moral decision making, begin "staying in character".*

To get player's to make moral decisions, you need to: - Reward it uniquely. That is to say, no other mechanic brings the same rewards as making moral decisions does. Or, make it the only reward system. - Take GM judgement out of it. Player's can't make moral judgements if some outside authority dictates one is "right" and some other is "wrong". This applies to reward mechanics as well as in-world events. A few more points: - Reward systems are what RPGs are about. Determine your focus, and then wrap the reward system around it. Besides increase in character effectiveness, rewards can also be narrative power, or social ones. - World/physics simulation doesn't lead to moral decisions. You need a system for it. Seriously. At least a reward one. - "Roleplaying", as it is commonly understood as "staying in character", does not lead to making moral judgements. "Staying in character" is being static; moral judgement is all about change. For an example of reward systems and mechanics on "moral judgement", you could check out the Spiritual Attributes in The Riddle of Steel. They're all about answering "what is worth fighting for?".

Agree with the above. Happens to everyone, IMO. Another pit trap is to start thinking "why can't they make great games like game A anymore", always comparing new games to that game, not willing to accept how some new game might be great in it's own way.