Role-Playing Game

[Jerell]

Yes, yes, that is it! Here here, and well said!

I detest games that limit everyone to the same relative potential. Life is not that fair, and thankfuly, neither is Rifts.

I prefer a good story and the characters to be able to impact it in some way at least. Not just a whole bunch of set encounters mathematicaly determined to be appropriate... Bah! I'll take the seat of your pants role playing any day.

That being said, a good GM, and players with an understanding are key to a solid game of Rifts I think.

[Sentinel]

I have no issue with situations, such as Rifts in which a Dragon Hatchling and a Glitter Boy adventure side-by-side with a Rogue Scholar and a Vagabond.
But, I feel that there needs to exist a system and structure for each character archetype, and that the structured system provide some degree of consistency: not uniformity.

There needs to be a balance between the two elements of RPGing.
The Role-Playing part, in which characters interact, and pursue the various aspects of their personality matrix', and the Game part, in which fair and impartial system mechanics determine who dodges, who struck, and when a skill does or does not work.

I personally do not care for situations in which GMs are the determining factor: I prefer to roll my dice, and succeed or fail on the virtue of my characters abilities. The structured rules of character generation will determine the competancy and capability of my character, and now let's leave the dice to be the fair and impartial determiner of everything else.

Obviously, no player wants to get hit with a P-Beam rifle or a Greatest Rune Sword, or whatever. But, being fair, if you rolled a "1", then you are going to get hit. That's what rules are for.

Not to restrict creativity, but to make the field of play fair and unbiased.

[Sentinel]

My feeling on M.D.C. have been made well-known in other topics.

[Natasha]

I take it 1 roll at a time.

And I also try to keep the destiny of a game or PC which is being greatly enjoyed out of the hands of a single dice roll.

[Sentinel]

I prefer not to let dice kill the PC. I let the player do that.

The player may make a bad decision: that's Role-Play.
The players dice might roll an 01 or a Natural 20: that's Game.

I understand the point you're making, and in fact I've even said "GMs don't kill Players: bad role-playing does".
(Unless you're playing 1st edition Cyberpunk: then the GM may well have killed your character).

However, while a single dice roll could spell certain doom for a PC, so too could a single roll be a N20.
Letting the die determine the outcome of the events is more impartial (and thus fair) than GM fiat.

[Killer Cyborg]

I understand the point you're making, and in fact I've even said "GMs don't kill Players: bad role-playing does".
(Unless you're playing 1st edition Cyberpunk: then the GM may well have killed your character).

Hm.
In Cyberpunk, GOOD roleplaying killed us, because we all played badass punks who didn't take crap from anybody, but who liked to mouth off.
So interparty combat usually wiped us out.

Now Paranoia... that was a game where the GM would just flat-out kill us.

[Sentinel]

I understand the point you're making, and in fact I've even said "GMs don't kill Players: bad role-playing does".
(Unless you're playing 1st edition Cyberpunk: then the GM may well have killed your character).

Hm.
In Cyberpunk, GOOD roleplaying killed us, because we all played badass punks who didn't take crap from anybody, but who liked to mouth off.
So interparty combat usually wiped us out.

Now Paranoia... that was a game where the GM would just flat-out kill us.

Okay, I'll go with that.

Although, I thought Paranoia was a better done game system...

[Natasha]

Dice are impartial.
GMs are fair.

[Natasha]

Dice are impartial.
GMs are fair.

That's one way of looking at it.

Happens to be correct way, too.

[Natasha]

Dice are impartial.
GMs are fair.

That's one way of looking at it.

Happens to be correct way, too.

Keep telling yourself that.

Of course. Why I would tell myself something otherwise?

[Natasha]

Dice are impartial.
GMs are fair.

That's one way of looking at it.

Happens to be correct way, too.

Keep telling yourself that.

Of course. Why I would tell myself something otherwise?

At least your delusions are consistent?

Then explain how it's not correct.

[bigbobsr6000]

I have "special" GM dice with either no 1's or no highest number. EX: The d20 has two 20's on it one is in place of the 1 on the die. No Nat 1. Has two Nat 20's.

And I have the reverse. EX: The d20 has two 1's on it one is in place of the 20 on the die. No Nat 20. Has two Nat 1's.

I have one complete set of each, d6 with no 1's two 6's and with no 6's two 1's. Etc.

[Natasha]

I have "special" GM dice with either no 1's or no highest number. EX: The d20 has two 20's on it one is in place of the 1 on the die. No Nat 1. Has two Nat 20's.

And I have the reverse. EX: The d20 has two 1's on it one is in place of the 20 on the die. No Nat 20. Has two Nat 1's.

I have one complete set of each, d6 with no 1's two 6's and with no 6's two 1's. Etc.

I've gathered you love dice reading through your posts. That's cool stuff. But it also throws the symmetry of the numbers off. The opposite sides of a D6 are supposed to add up to 7.

[Sentinel]

Dice are impartial.
GMs are fair.

Does that mean somehow that Dice are unfair because they are impartial?

[Natasha]

Does that mean somehow that Dice are unfair because they are impartial?

Dice are neither fair nor unfair. They are just impartial.

I'm going to try very hard to explain myself, although I'm afraid I can't do a very good job at it. I don't trust my English to make profound expressions.

I do not believe dice rolls can be dramatic, and I don't care to try to make them so. I hate game shows that attempt to build tension around some random event: did the schlub do good when he pick Door Numba Two, find out after the break... *puke*

Actually, I unequivocally hate game shows...

In any case: Players come and go. Player characters die sometimes. Campaigns are not completed. Plots and side stories are left unexplored. Nonetheless, there are times when a story cannot be allowed to end. It's unfair to the Story, the Players, and the Game Master. That's why I said I eliminate all chances that 1 dice roll will make or break the entire Story and why I said I take each roll 1 and a time because crossing the rickety Suspension Bridge of Insanity may be that point this time but not that time. The impartial Dice do not understand when that point has been reached; however, the Game Master does, and in an act of fairness, fudges the dice roll (or simply does not roll at all) for the sake of a good RP experience.

I rather give a good dramatic explanation how he narrowly cross the Bridge of Insanity rather tell how he fail a Saving Throw and fall into the pool of Glowing Green Goo and drown in 1D4 minutes.... on the other hand, maybe I rather let him fall into the goo. It just depends.

[sasha]

Paranoia was a fun game.

Indeed it was.

[sasha]

Does that mean somehow that Dice are unfair because they are impartial?

Dice are neither fair nor unfair. They are just impartial.

I'm going to try very hard to explain myself, although I'm afraid I can't do a very good job at it. I don't trust my English to make profound expressions.

I do not believe dice rolls can be dramatic, and I don't care to try to make them so. I hate game shows that attempt to build tension around some random event: did the schlub do good when he pick Door Numba Two, find out after the break... *puke*

Actually, I unequivocally hate game shows...

In any case: Players come and go. Player characters die sometimes. Campaigns are not completed. Plots and side stories are left unexplored. Nonetheless, there are times when a story cannot be allowed to end. It's unfair to the Story, the Players, and the Game Master. That's why I said I eliminate all chances that 1 dice roll will make or break the entire Story and why I said I take each roll 1 and a time because crossing the rickety Suspension Bridge of Insanity may be that point this time but not that time. The impartial Dice do not understand when that point has been reached; however, the Game Master does, and in an act of fairness, fudges the dice roll (or simply does not roll at all) for the sake of a good RP experience.

I rather give a good dramatic explanation how he narrowly cross the Bridge of Insanity rather tell how he fail a Saving Throw and fall into the pool of Glowing Green Goo and drown in 1D4 minutes.... on the other hand, maybe I rather let him fall into the goo. It just depends.

It makes perfect sense to me. Which has me worried.

But she's still delusional?

I pretty much agree with her except a dice roll can be dramatic, but that comes from the situation not at all from the nature of the dice.

[Sentinel]

After the dice have made their determination (hit, miss, parry, what-ever), I as the GM then make the description appropriately dramatic.
If the dice rolls are anti-climatic then I'm not being descriptive enough.

[bigbobsr6000]

After the dice have made their determination (hit, miss, parry, what-ever), I as the GM then make the description appropriately dramatic.
If the dice rolls are anti-climatic then I'm not being descriptive enough.

I agree

[Natasha]

That's fine but it's not for me. From my point of view, there is no appropriate dramatic explaination for spoiling a great story.

[Jerell]

Is it possible that I feel I'm on the 'same page' as Sentinal and Natasha at the same time? I seem to find both of there points of view equally right.

Let me just say, that I think there's a time to roll dice, and a time not to. I usually sling 'em most of the time.

Bigbobsr6000, I think I need to know where you got such lovely dice from. Those sound way kewl for a GM to have. Especially if my players never find out!

[GreenGhost]

Is it possible that I feel I'm on the 'same page' as Sentinal and Natasha at the same time? I seem to find both of there points of view equally right.

We call that a flip flopper?

[bigbobsr6000]

Is it possible that I feel I'm on the 'same page' as Sentinal and Natasha at the same time? I seem to find both of there points of view equally right.

We call that a flip flopper?

Jerell!! Don't go toward the light, come back it's a trap....."
(Heavy breathing thru a face mask.)
"Come to the Darkside!" (Que Darth Vader's theme song....)

[Jerell]

If I my paraphrase Nicolo Machiaveli, he said something along the lines of, 'A prince should endevour to do good, but know how to use evil should the situation call for it.'

eyes glaze overYes, I shall join you. Then we shall rule the Megaverse as father and son (I get a red beam saber right? )! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Is it possible that I feel I'm on the 'same page' as Sentinal and Natasha at the same time? I seem to find both of there points of view equally right.

We call that a flip flopper?

Or maybe I'm crazy? I prefer 'dynamic.'

RURGA WILLS IT!

[Jerell]

Nope, that's just how we're going to rule the Megaverse. In the same sense that Guan Ping was to Guan Yu durring the Three kingdoms period in China.

[bigbobsr6000]

Yeah! Another tax exemption.

[Natasha]

That's what I was figuring ultimately...guess going back and forth has woken me up ::was about to go back to sleep::

We could try the Zen monk method, and smack you upside the head with a wooden plank.

I just had the mental image of Casey Jones smacking Raphael with a cricket stick.

[Natasha]

Anyone every play Amber Diceless?

It wasn't too bad, though I enjoyed the character creation process more than the actual play.

Some have, yes.

I haven't.

[Natasha]

That's what I was figuring ultimately...guess going back and forth has woken me up ::was about to go back to sleep::

We could try the Zen monk method, and smack you upside the head with a wooden plank.

I just had the mental image of Casey Jones smacking Raphael with a cricket stick.

Better than Casey Jones smacking April with a stick?

I didn't see the NC-17 version, sadly.

[Natasha]

That's what I was figuring ultimately...guess going back and forth has woken me up ::was about to go back to sleep::

We could try the Zen monk method, and smack you upside the head with a wooden plank.

I just had the mental image of Casey Jones smacking Raphael with a cricket stick.

Better than Casey Jones smacking April with a stick?

I didn't see the NC-17 version, sadly.

Well, the acting and writing were better.

Better acting, better writing, better BDSM.
TMNT movies taken to the next level.

[Sentinel]

Anyone every play Amber Diceless?

It wasn't too bad, though I enjoyed the character creation process more than the actual play.

My one experience with Amber was not a good one.
Character creations took a little too long (almost as long as GURPS), while the actual execution was a little too unfocused for me.

[Natasha]

Anyone every play Amber Diceless?

It wasn't too bad, though I enjoyed the character creation process more than the actual play.

My one experience with Amber was not a good one.
Character creations took a little too long (almost as long as GURPS), while the actual execution was a little too unfocused for me.

Must... Roll... Dice...

I joke!

[Spinachcat]

The game aspect is something that once dominated the genre, but has faded in importance as time has gone on.

You obviously don't visit ENWorld.

Good role-playing was not a determination, and even if you came up with a good idea or critical plot, you were living and dying by dice rolls. This was the "game" element at work. Rules were inflexible, and the structure of war-gaming was prevalent.

This was not my experience at all. As games developed more rules, there was less flexibility in game play. The less rules in the games - such as the early versions of D&D, Traveller, T&T - the more flexible because the GM needed to make stuff up on the fly to keep the game moving instead of looking up Rule XYZ in Supplement #234.

Compare the rules pages in the Red Book vs. 3.5 PHB and tell me how which one is "inflexible" - back then, we just did kewl stuff and now you have to have the right skill, right feat, right charm or whatever.

Also, there was no real war-game structure in any RPG. I play war games and there has never been formation rules, obsession of terrain vs. movement, standardized actions or any of the factors that define war games in RPGs. The whole ability to play without counters or a board mean that RPGs have near zero wargame structure since Gygax first sold the white box.

If anything 4th Edition D&D is going to be the closest RPG to the wargame model because it requires a board and minis and will have standardized and defined actions on that wargame board. For all intents and purposes, 4e will be a minis/RPG hybrid.

This is completely different than early D&D gameplay. Go on Dragonsfoot's forum and ask about how many people played AD&D for decades without regularly minis and battlemaps.

And characters certainly lived and more importantly died more frequently.Players invested significantly less time and effort into developing characters, compared to more 'modern' games.

I do not find players in modern games spending time "developing characters" - they are just gaming the system creating builds. It now takes longer to start having fun. Your Commando in Mechanoids took 5 minutes to create and runs around shooting stuff just like your Rifts Headhunter who takes 1 hour to make. That's just 55 minutes less of fun

Also, crunching numbers is not "developing characters". The time spent on personality and background has not changed. It has always been something that depends on the player and GM individually.

Quite obviously, things have changed.

Your data is WAY too limited to make this statement. Many gaming groups still just play RPGs as a game to roll dice and eat Cheetos and don't invoke any drama club fantasies.

Players rarely spoke as their characters, but instead would say things like "My paladin says, somewhat majestically..." and would statically recite their paladins' line. You acted "in-character" when you did something along a narrow path of character class definition, and were "out-of-character" when you deviated from that path. This was restrictive to creativity however, and eventually role-playing pushed back those boundaries.

Again, your data is way too limited to make any such statement. I just came from running 5 RPGs at a local convention and as usual - as it has been since the late 70s when I started RPGs - there are players who talk in character and others who do not. There has be NO evolution of any kind whatsover. Everyone plays as they like to play.

As for "narrow path of character class", that doesn't work. T&T and Traveller and Champions - some of the biggest RPGs in the early 80s, had little or no class definition. As for D&D / Palladium, classes were supposed to be "restrictive" because classes give niche protection to allow each player to shine in the spotlight.

Story-telling became more significant, eclipsing the importance of game structure and adherance to system mechanics. If a rule were found to be an impediment to creative method acting or story telling, it was trampled underfoot, a sacrifice for the art of the story.

Again, you are only talking from what appears to be a very limited personal experience. Back in the early 80s, I met GMs who put system over story and GMs who put story over system. It was normal at conventions to have "rules lawyers" who were an obviously different breed than the mainstream GMs who did not put rules first.

RPGA - the biggest group of organized RPG players in the world - certainly put system ahead of story in order to create a standardized and "fair" experience.

It is important to note that there is no "Story-Gamer" international organization hosting events around the world every month for hundreds of thousands of players.

Characters died less frequently, because the death of a character was anathema to a good story, and certainly, players invested a substantial amount of effort into developing a good character.

Funny, but back when character death was more common and gameplay was more important than ego stroking, our hobby was strong and we had ten times the number of players. Now that we coddle and trade facing challenge for bad improv, our hobby is dying.

Hmm....makes you wonder.

Concepts became more and more grandiose, characters became more complex, and campaign worlds took on a diversity that they never possessed previously.

AGAIN, this is strictly an uniformed personal opinion and it is certainly not backed up with facts.

Instead of opinion, I will point you at Glorantha and Tekumel - both products of 70s/80s gaming and STILL the most complex game settings in the industry.

All this so-called "evolution of gaming" has done NOTHING but kill the hobby and drive sales down to poverty levels where a handful of companies scramble to barely make a living.

[Natasha]

I joke!

Don't worry about Sentinel, he has iron skin that grants him Invulnerability.

It's not him I'm worrying about

[Sentinel]

Anyone every play Amber Diceless?

It wasn't too bad, though I enjoyed the character creation process more than the actual play.

My one experience with Amber was not a good one.
Character creations took a little too long (almost as long as GURPS), while the actual execution was a little too unfocused for me.

Must... Roll... Dice...

I joke!

I laugh at your joke.

[Sentinel]

Funny, but back when character death was more common and gameplay was more important than ego stroking, our hobby was strong and we had ten times the number of players. Now that we coddle and trade facing challenge for bad improv, our hobby is dying.

There are also more competing diversions, such as on-line gaming and live-action gaming, which early games did not have.

[Natasha]

I joke!

Don't worry about Sentinel, he has iron skin that grants him Invulnerability.

It's not him I'm worrying about

Oh. Well, can I punish you for it?

[Natasha]

Yes I am villainous.

And my experience mirrors Sentinel's somewhat.

I do not know if it was evolution or changing players but my first game was very stabby. Then I meet the Healer O.C.C.

Never looked away from Palladium Books since.

[bigbobsr6000]

"My Mama used to say, 'Evil is as evil does.' That's Mama used to say."

[Natasha]

I don't think speaking in character is 1) drama club membership or 2) too much to ask from a player.

I know people are uncomfy with it, but with some time maybe they ease into it.

It's just so much a better game. I'd say so anyway.

[Natasha]

I agree with you Natasha, it is better when everyone gets used to it.

But I won't enforce it, or penalize people for not doing it, as long as they are still actively playing their character and it's abilities it's all cool with me.

:ok:
Sounds good to me.

[Jerell]

Funny, but back when character death was more common and gameplay was more important than ego stroking, our hobby was strong and we had ten times the number of players. Now that we coddle and trade facing challenge for bad improv, our hobby is dying.

There are also more competing diversions, such as on-line gaming and live-action gaming, which early games did not have.

I whole heartedly agree with that. On-line gaming has effectively taken my main Rifts GM out of GMing. Or at least he spends time on-line gaming that he used to use preparing adventures and stories. And when game night used to roll around, he'd keep saying he didn't have anything prepared and someone else should run their campaign.

However that being said, my circle of friends that enjoy Palladium RPGs has steadily been growing over the last 15 years or so. No signs of dying out with my group of gamers. I just struggle to get some of them to stop WoW now and then.

[Sentinel]

Many of my own experiences and observations were drawn from gaming conventions (including Evecon, Castlecon, Balticon, Disclave, Chicago Comic-Con, Dallas Fantasy Fair, Galaxy Con, and Atlanticon) from around 1987 to about 1996 (after which I chose to no longer attend conventions).

Several retailers and myself had lengthy conversations during retailer seminars and trade conventions (many of which were attended by TSR, Games Workshop, R. Talsoran, and Iron Crown Enterprises/Hero System, among others). We discussed such topics as game content, trends in marketing, and generally how better to support the industry. For my part, I tried to encourage support from comic book retailers, pointing up to connections of source material to game books.
In my own store(s) at the time, I saw a strong showing by White Wolf, but also by Palladium, as Rifts was selling powerfully at the time, eclipsing sales of D&D and AD& D (both of which were in Second Editions). I seized the opportunity to cross-ell other Palladium Books, pointing out that Rifts (at the time) had only two books as support material (Source Book One and World Book One). Thus I was able to sell Heroes Unlimited, Palladium Fantasy, Beyond the Supernatural, and of course TMNT and Robotech to early Rifts' buyers.

I had begun gaming with D&D, moving to AD&D, Superhero 2049, then V&V, Champions and Marvel Superheroes and DC Heroes. Along the way, I joined in Timemaster, Citystate of the Invincible Overlord, and Battle-Tech and Mech-Warrior. Bushido, Twilight:2000, Traveler and Mega-Traveler, Ars Magica, and GURPS I dabbled with as both player and GM, as well as Shadowrun, Teenagers from Outer Space, Mekton I & II, and most of the TSR line (Top Secret and Top Secret S.I., Star Frontiers Alpha Dawn and Knight Hawks, Gammaworld), Cyberpunk, and both Star Wars and Star Trek. I discovered my love for Palladium ( I was familiar with several books before I actually played the system), and here I am today.

While I have continued to examine other products, like Battlelords of the 23rd Century, Aberrant, Godlike, Amber, Silver-Age Sentinels (how could I resist?) and others, I am pretty much a die-hard Palladium fan.

[Noon]

Rules limit the imagination....And please, don't try to sway me on this issue. No matter the aguements or facts, this is my belief. And I have felt this way ever sense I could remember.

Quite the opposite, I agree.

Without rules limiting my imagination, I'd just be imagining as normal. And I can do that any old time. No, limits are good, because then you have to get creative in ways you'd never have done so when you had no limits.

[bigbobsr6000]

If you strictly go by the rules, then what you imagine beyond the rules can not be used. And their are those who can not imagine beyond what the rules say. Rules limit what one can do in a "fantasy" game, unless you are not limited by those rules, then your imagination can flourish.

Rules have never inspired my imagination nor the absence of rules cause me to imagine as "normal". I have always imagined far beyond anything. I "What if" everything to death then again. Ever since I could remember my thought has always been "there must be a better way" on everything. How does this work, why can't we do it this way, where did that come from, why?

Just some thoughts from my brain....

[Sentinel]

As a long time super-hero gamer, I am one to constantly push barriers and boundaries, and see new ways to combine things that make for a rich and complex game campaign.

In super-hero games, wizards and sorcerors adventure side-by-side with mythic warriors from ancient pantheons, armoured high-tech warrior/scholars, and living legends of WWII ( ).

The field of role-playing provides an opportunity to explore elements of creative imagination in ways not possible in other venues.

I strenuously support the mixing and matching of wild and diverse elements of fantasy, science fiction, and action drama (along with comedy, melodrama, and romance).

I just like to have a structure of how to do so in a fair and unbiased manner so as to create a fun enviornment for all involved.

[Noon]

If you strictly go by the rules, then what you imagine beyond the rules can not be used. And their are those who can not imagine beyond what the rules say. Rules limit what one can do in a "fantasy" game, unless you are not limited by those rules, then your imagination can flourish.

Well, for a start, that's a rule in itself - the rule being don't be held back by rules.

Try throwing that rule away once in a while

Rules have never inspired my imagination nor the absence of rules cause me to imagine as "normal". I have always imagined far beyond anything. I "What if" everything to death then again. Ever since I could remember my thought has always been "there must be a better way" on everything. How does this work, why can't we do it this way, where did that come from, why?

Mmmm, no. I wont try to argue you into it beyond this post, but thats you imagining as normal. I mean, I'll believe you that you don't imagine like the vast majority of people do. So perhaps you think you don't imagine normal, since it's different from all those people.

But when I said breaking away from imagining as normal, I didn't mean breaking away from most other people imagine normally. That's actually not to hard to do.

No, I meant breaking away from myself and how I normally imagine. That's hard (perhaps impossible), without rules. Because if you keep breaking away by yourself - then breaking away just becomes normal imagining for you.

[Sentinel]

Thinking outside your own box.

[bigbobsr6000]

If you strictly go by the rules, then what you imagine beyond the rules can not be used. And their are those who can not imagine beyond what the rules say. Rules limit what one can do in a "fantasy" game, unless you are not limited by those rules, then your imagination can flourish.

Well, for a start, that's a rule in itself - the rule being don't be held back by rules.

Try throwing that rule away once in a while

It's not a rule, it is a way of life and thought process for me. Thanks for your input, though.

Rules have never inspired my imagination nor the absence of rules cause me to imagine as "normal". I have always imagined far beyond anything. I "What if" everything to death then again. Ever since I could remember my thought has always been "there must be a better way" on everything. How does this work, why can't we do it this way, where did that come from, why?

Mmmm, no. I wont try to argue you into it beyond this post, but thats you imagining as normal. I mean, I'll believe you that you don't imagine like the vast majority of people do. So perhaps you think you don't imagine normal, since it's different from all those people.

But when I said breaking away from imagining as normal, I didn't mean breaking away from most other people imagine normally. That's actually not to hard to do.

No, I meant breaking away from myself and how I normally imagine. That's hard (perhaps impossible), without rules. Because if you keep breaking away by yourself - then breaking away just becomes normal imagining for you.

To me, there isn't any "normal" imagination. Each person's imagination is uniquely unto themselves. Just some are better than others. To borrow a phrase from the movie, Forrest Gump, and to change it a bit:

"Imagination is as imagination does."

Thanks for your insite on this matter.

[bigbobsr6000]

As I have said in other places "It is the group that makes playing fun not the gaming system."

I agree .