The part of me that appreciates the romantic allure of worldbuilding rarely shows up to the game table. When it comes time to roll dice I need a board the players can move their pieces across more than a dreamscape for shared hallucination.
Would chess be less popular without the fluff of kings and queens and their servants going to war? What if the knight wasn't shaped like a horsey or the rook like a tower?
A simple rule that approximates the desired effect is often better than a complex rule that hits the nail squarely on the head.
For every Gygax quote there is an equal and opposite Gygax quote.
Joe the Fighter and Bob the Magic-User fight orcs and giant rats in the Generic Dungeon of Randomized Peril. If everyone had a good time, would it necessarily have been better if the setting was less vanilla? If the session was a dud, would anything have been gained by glitzing up the joint?
.jpg)
%202.png)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"If everyone had a good time, would it necessarily have been better if the setting was less vanilla? If the session was a dud, would anything have been gained by glitzing up the joint?"I suppose that has more to do w/ the DM running the show than the setting as it exists pre-play (or in a void, if you will). Just to hazard a guess, I'd bet dollars to cents that most DM's fly by the seat of their pants when it comes to "detail". They play to their audience, as it were.
ReplyDelete*previous post deleted due to poor formatting. ;-)
For me the return of investment into situation/world building is when the players start to plan & theorize. Sentences that show the are totally within the frame of reference I set up are just awesome.
ReplyDelete"No, Fred! We can´t do this. If Col. Stroud finds out, he´ll court-martial us, and we´ll never ever se spare parts for our Mechs again; especially for your I´m-so-special-LAM. And I want to find out what those scientists are up to in the first place. So many Professors with such weird disciplines, and they are all gone? Smells fishy to me. Oh, and don´t worry about the Death Commandos. They just got lucky with having met dunderheaded Col. Stroud. We can handle them.
Letßs take a look at the map...how fast did you say a Union-Class is in atmosphere...?"
"A simple rule that approximates the desired effect is often better than a complex rule that hits the nail squarely on the head."Quoted For Truth.
ReplyDeleteAs I am writing my own RPG, this is the sort of mantra that keeps running around in my head over and over again. Designing rules that emulate the Spirit of what you want to achieve seems far more appropriate for a "high adventure" type RPG than trying to crunch out exactitudes and just causing more work for everyone.
Simple rules that approximate are what I aim for, but for me it's hard: there's always that teensy-weensy tweak I could make that would get all this extra bang for the buck...except the accumulation of them can destroy the simplicity before I know it. Then I have to scrape off the cruft and start again, but now with the niggling knowledge that I had found a hole or shortcoming in the original rule.
ReplyDeleteIn tonight's episode, guest commenter, Timeshadows will be playing the Devil's Advocate:
ReplyDelete---
I agree completely with the need to eliminate all fluff from RPG. Next, we'll excise the RP in the game, as we move toward the clean, simple lines of a 5' grid for combat, where there is essentially no reason -- save loot -- for any of these pre-made character archetypes (all data on handy cards with nothing to look up in the books) to explore these generic settings:
* A dark forest full of mischievous fey
* An ogre cave
* An anomalous Egyptian pyramid in a convenient dessert area
* A mean city full of thieves
We have determined that little start-up, no complicated plot, and no attraction to build enduring characters (apart from levelling them), is the best business plan for miniature combat games.
...now, to get rid of the table-top and dice, and make this an e-only cash-cow.
---
;p
There's all kinds of variation on good time. Some people may enjoy a bash down a dungeon, others may like something a bit more involved.
ReplyDeleteApproximation is good, as long as you accept it's an approximation and don't demand 'gritty realism' out of it.
There's no one way to play - both Quake and Final Fantasy (the next one) are video games. Both are a wee bit different.
I'm now going to look for a pyramid in the local patisserie... (winks to Timeshadow on the way out)
a dreamscape for shared hallucination.
ReplyDeleteBecause you can use language like that I think you are achieving something lesser than you could by dwelling on the simpler amusements in gaming.
If I was a player in a game of yours I would be pushing you to stretch yourself (and me) more.
Those who play chess groan when they see overelaborate pieces so what you call fluff is merely sufficient differentiation.
The part of me that appreciates the romantic allure of worldbuilding rarely shows up to the game table.
Many DMs can't sustain the illusion of their setting in real time but those who use language well have a better chance.
Me, I'm a big fan of generic cliched settings.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think part of it is that the players want to play play in something like what they are used to. They want to 'live' as Conan or Gandalf. They want to experience the things they have seen a million times in books or movies. Playing as sentient amoebas might be ground breaking, but doesn't really have that archetypal thrill of swinging a sword and cutting down orcs.
For another reason, the most fun I have had as a player is when I do something new and exciting, sitting back a passively watching the DM cleverness or acting ability just kind of makes me wait impatiently for him to be done so I can do my thing.
Also, even in a very generic setting, I have found that it tends to take on a life all on its own over time. Most of the games I have played in, the NPCs that end up memorable and interesting started off as some off the cuff NPC the DM made up to handle some weirdness the players came up with.
Which is not to say that something weird is bad, just that the same old same old is a hell of a lot of fun too, and, usually, unless the DM is REALLY clever, its usually more fun.
@ satyre,
ReplyDelete> winks and nods with a smile as I continue eating my éclair <
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm a huge advocate of vanilla fantasy because, for me, the trappings of the genre are the language, rather than the content, of the game.
ReplyDeleteBy speaking in a familiar, accessible language, I can get to the content faster, pursue the content more deeply, and enjoy the content more thoroughly. And my games tend to be about things other than magic wands and Dwarves: my games are about things like fighting against oppression, seeking wealth and fortune, or the pleasures and comforts of fellowship in times of stress and danger. Given that my games are about things like that, it just makes sense to use accessible language and familiar props (Dwarves, Beards, Axes) to get there faster and dive into the meat of the matter. Having strangely-named races and complex alien cultures would distract from, rather than enhance, the actual subject matter of the game.