Archived post by Mort. I think I agree with everything here...
One of the big questions about gaming groups is what size of group is the correct one?
Of course in the end all it boils down to is personal preferences, if a GM is comfortable with handling a large group, and the players don't mind there's nothing wrong. But I think there are certain points worth talking about. Most of these are obviously my personal opinion on the matter.
First off, I think a good group size is about four or maybe five people, excluding the GM. When I first started playing RPGs and most of my active time I've been in smaller groups, and I've always found the group dynamics to work better with a smaller set of people.
Now, a good group size also depends alot on the game you play, in a heavy combat D&D game you can afford to have a larger group, as long as you tailor the encounters to take this into account, and give each player a suitable challenge. While a heavily involved political Vampire game will bog down into a stalemate with a group larger than four people. However, most games seems to work fine with four to five players.
Now why would you care about group size? Well I personally feel that when I'm playing in a smaller group it's much easier to avoid excessive out of character banter, and if it does happend it tends to involve the whole group. If you have seven players sitting around, chances are that atleast two of these won't be actively involved in what is going on, and might decided to discuss the latest episode of their favourite Sci-fi show, something which can instantly ruin any kind of tension built up by the GM. Also in a smaller group you can sit closer together, which makes it easier to communicate things between players, and the players and the GM. I always feel more "in character" when I'm playing in a small group.
Also, in a small group the GM can spend more time wich each player, making sure everyone gets equal amount of screentime. In a large group it's easy for someone to just sit back and do nothing until he is either confronted directly or involved in a fight. This fosters an attitude of not caring, the forgotten player stops caring about his character, and usually ends up doing something really stupid, or silly, just to get some notice.
So that's my view on the issue, but as I said at the start, sometimes a large group works, but only really if the GM is capable of handling it and the players can accept having less amount of screentime per game.
Wednesday, 29 October 2003
Tuesday, 28 October 2003
A million elves for everyone
The latest Dragon magazine has yet another elven subrace, bringing the total to about 2,500 subraces of elves, each slightly different. I think this is great, for the following reasons:
1) Everyone knows that elves are just humans with pointy ears, so adding another subrace allows people to get access to another different package of powers with a minimum of role-playing required.
2) There is now a subrace for just about every combination of ability score adjustments. Want a sorcerer? There's a subrace especially for you. Want a ranger? Have a subrace...
3) Most games only use a handful of elven subraces, as some players remain reluctant to play them. This new subrace should convert a good one or two players to the elven cause.
As a plan, let's not bother with other races in 4th edition. Lets just have eight different subraces of elves. If we're feeling generous, we might also allow half-elves. However, no full humans will be allowed as PCs, as this can be considered too radical a step to be permitted.
Not that I dislike the proliferation of elven munchkin-races, of course.
1) Everyone knows that elves are just humans with pointy ears, so adding another subrace allows people to get access to another different package of powers with a minimum of role-playing required.
2) There is now a subrace for just about every combination of ability score adjustments. Want a sorcerer? There's a subrace especially for you. Want a ranger? Have a subrace...
3) Most games only use a handful of elven subraces, as some players remain reluctant to play them. This new subrace should convert a good one or two players to the elven cause.
As a plan, let's not bother with other races in 4th edition. Lets just have eight different subraces of elves. If we're feeling generous, we might also allow half-elves. However, no full humans will be allowed as PCs, as this can be considered too radical a step to be permitted.
Not that I dislike the proliferation of elven munchkin-races, of course.
Monday, 27 October 2003
Campaigns that Run Themselves
Some campaigns, notably Vampire at its best, pretty much run themselves. Granted, the GM still needs to be present, to run the NPCs and their plots, and the keep the game balanced, but there's little to no preparation work; the players do most of that for them. To get to this hallowed point in a campaign, certain things need to be done:
1) The players have to have characters they are comfortable playing, have to be interested and involved in the plot, and have to have at least some prospect of succeeding in their efforts.
2) There has to be plenty going on in the setting, and plenty of NPCs to interact with. Granted, this is a lot of prep work, but it should be done before the campaign begins, not between sessions.
3) The factions can't be too monolithic. If there's a clan war going on, there need to be several vampires on each side, each with a subtly different agenda. Some can be turned, and some can't, and some can be trusted and others not. The key thing is that you should never meet a "Red Shirt" vampire, unless he's destined to die in the next hour or two.
4) The NPCs have to be active without PC intervention, but not so overwhelming that they dominate the game. That is, if the PCs just sit things out, things should happen in the setting. However, if the PCs apply their efforts in a particular direction, this should seriously alter the outcome of the game.
5) The game needs secrets. Lots of secrets, and the players need to know that there are secrets, and be motivated to find them out. As a rule, every NPC, every faction, every plotline and every institution should have an associated secret, be it a secret power, a dirty little secret, or an undisclosed alliegance. Perhaps the Ventrue primogen is secretly Blood Bound to the Malkavian primogen's pet childe. Perhaps the Gangrel is secretly a Tzimisce agent, sent to drive the city into chaos?
6) The GM needs to keep a very close eye on the powers and dominions in the game. Make sure the PCs don't get their hands on a method to reliably kill NPCs, or more explosives than you're willing to have them use. Otherwise, the game will rapidly degenerate. It's okay to let them kill their great rivals, but ideally that shouldn't happen until they've put in the leg-work necessary to make him vulnerable.
7) The PCs need to be set against each other, at least to a certain extent. If everything is sweetness and light between the PCs, the likelihood is that they can eliminate any NPC threat with relative ease. This is fine, but it means the GM will have to run the game, rather than have it run itself.
1) The players have to have characters they are comfortable playing, have to be interested and involved in the plot, and have to have at least some prospect of succeeding in their efforts.
2) There has to be plenty going on in the setting, and plenty of NPCs to interact with. Granted, this is a lot of prep work, but it should be done before the campaign begins, not between sessions.
3) The factions can't be too monolithic. If there's a clan war going on, there need to be several vampires on each side, each with a subtly different agenda. Some can be turned, and some can't, and some can be trusted and others not. The key thing is that you should never meet a "Red Shirt" vampire, unless he's destined to die in the next hour or two.
4) The NPCs have to be active without PC intervention, but not so overwhelming that they dominate the game. That is, if the PCs just sit things out, things should happen in the setting. However, if the PCs apply their efforts in a particular direction, this should seriously alter the outcome of the game.
5) The game needs secrets. Lots of secrets, and the players need to know that there are secrets, and be motivated to find them out. As a rule, every NPC, every faction, every plotline and every institution should have an associated secret, be it a secret power, a dirty little secret, or an undisclosed alliegance. Perhaps the Ventrue primogen is secretly Blood Bound to the Malkavian primogen's pet childe. Perhaps the Gangrel is secretly a Tzimisce agent, sent to drive the city into chaos?
6) The GM needs to keep a very close eye on the powers and dominions in the game. Make sure the PCs don't get their hands on a method to reliably kill NPCs, or more explosives than you're willing to have them use. Otherwise, the game will rapidly degenerate. It's okay to let them kill their great rivals, but ideally that shouldn't happen until they've put in the leg-work necessary to make him vulnerable.
7) The PCs need to be set against each other, at least to a certain extent. If everything is sweetness and light between the PCs, the likelihood is that they can eliminate any NPC threat with relative ease. This is fine, but it means the GM will have to run the game, rather than have it run itself.
Sunday, 26 October 2003
So, you're playing a character who has no motivation to get involved?
If there's one thing I hate when running a game (and to a lesser extent when playing) is a player who decides his character has no motivation to get involved in any of the events of the campaign. Also, depending on the campaign, a player who decides his character has no reason to work with the rest of the party. At best, this ties up the GMs time as he is forced to run sub-plots for the awkward PC, at worst it ruins the mood for all concerned due to the player being manifestly bored during the game.
Bluntly, why the hell did you create that character? And if you don't like the way things are going for that character, why not just create a different one for this campaign - play the other character in some other, more appropriate game if you really want to play him?
It is the player's responsibility to create a character that they want to play, who can sensibly be involved in the events of the game and (possibly) fit in with the rest of the group. If you don't want to play in the campaign at all, either grin and bear it, or leave.
Of course, this does not apply to one-offs, or any other game in which the characters are not generated by the individual player. In such cases, the responsibility for ensuring that the players will get involved, can be useful, and (optionally) work together falls squarely on the GM. If running a combat-heavy game, you have no business letting any player end up with a character who is utterly useless in combat. And you certainly have no business letting someone end up with a character who's only advanced skill is knitting, unless you're going to run Cross-weave d20.
Okay, rant over.
Bluntly, why the hell did you create that character? And if you don't like the way things are going for that character, why not just create a different one for this campaign - play the other character in some other, more appropriate game if you really want to play him?
It is the player's responsibility to create a character that they want to play, who can sensibly be involved in the events of the game and (possibly) fit in with the rest of the group. If you don't want to play in the campaign at all, either grin and bear it, or leave.
Of course, this does not apply to one-offs, or any other game in which the characters are not generated by the individual player. In such cases, the responsibility for ensuring that the players will get involved, can be useful, and (optionally) work together falls squarely on the GM. If running a combat-heavy game, you have no business letting any player end up with a character who is utterly useless in combat. And you certainly have no business letting someone end up with a character who's only advanced skill is knitting, unless you're going to run Cross-weave d20.
Okay, rant over.
Thursday, 23 October 2003
Character Creation
I'm torn over which pisses me off more in character creation: statistical mistakes in character creation, or characters built without personality. So, I'll rant about both.
You'd think creating characters would be quite easy, that there are a huge number of character concepts that can be built without problems with the rules cropping up, and that no experienced player would ever be at risk of creating a faulty character, but no. Apparently, it's too hard to remember that Humanity = Conscience + Self-Control and Willpower = Courage. It's too hard to understand that a character's class determines his class skills, and adding ranks to cross-class skills costs double.
Once again, I should clarify that my ire is not aimed at novice players. If a person makes a mistake out of lack of experience, that's one thing. But when someone has been playing a game for years, it should be fairly safe to assume that they can actually create their own characters.
Anyway, character creation can be monitored by the GM, who can go through the submitted characters and make the necessary corrections, so that's not too bad (I think in future, I'll announce that I'm just going to make what I think are the most likely changes in the case of an error, rather than trying to consult with individual players). However, then there are those characters who are created without any sort of a background or personality.
The annoying thing here is that creating engaging characters is really easy. You need three things: a past, a quirk and a goal.
The past is simply enough a reflection of that character's past. It represents where he's been, and where he's come from. All you need is one single detail to make this work, not the full life's story. So, "he served in 'Nam" works, as does "he used to work in the docks in Glasgow". Or "his parents were gunned down while he watched." Or "he spent many enjoyable summers working in the bars in Majorca". All that is required is one thing.
The quirk is a reflection of who the character is in the present. It reflects some hobby, mannerism, or fear that the character has. Ideally, you want something noticable but not over-powering. So, while "he constantly interrupts any other character" technically works, it's not likely to make you many friends in the group.
Again, all that is required is a single detail: "he constantly smokes", "he fears spiders", "he always wears some item of red clothing".
The goal reflects where the character wants to go in the future. This can either be an attainable goal, such as saving for a flight to Australia to see his dying sister, or unattainable, such as world peace. Either way, it should be something that drives the character, but probably not something that drives the character to the exclusion of all else. You want to be able to justify your character adventuring with the group, after all. Additionally, you don't want the goal to be too trivial, since then you'll need another one. Something that will take months should be the minimal level of challenge the character should set himself.
"He wants to own a Porsche." "She wants to see her name up in lights." "I want to become a Jedi, like my father."
Once you have the past, the quirk and the goal, you're basically set. You might want to expand on just why your chain-smoking ex-gangster wants to become a Jedi, but adding details to this skeleton is basically easy.
As a simple example, I present for examination my two most recent characters.
Balthazar was a dwarven ranger from Mithral Hall. He had a past involving the death of a friend, and a period of wandering. I did a 20 page write-up of this (simply to annoy Roger), but it boiled down to the above. His quirk was that he was loud and boorish (quintessentially dwarven). His goal was to get home, to return to the hearth he'd left behind, a goal complicated by his being trapped in Ravenloft.
By contrast, Cathak Dan was a samurai. He was a product of the empire's academy, one of the most promising students. His quirk was that he considered honour to be a personal thing to be earned, rather than a social birthright, a view not shared by the majority of the nobles of the time. His goal was to serve his family with honour, and thus to demonstrate what a samurai should be, rather than what he felt they were.
My current character has a past that I'm keeping mysterious for the moment (this should become clear later). His quirk is that he demonstrates a constant impatience with all manner of authority figures, believeing them all to be incompetent or hypocritical. I haven't decided on a goal for him yet.
You'd think creating characters would be quite easy, that there are a huge number of character concepts that can be built without problems with the rules cropping up, and that no experienced player would ever be at risk of creating a faulty character, but no. Apparently, it's too hard to remember that Humanity = Conscience + Self-Control and Willpower = Courage. It's too hard to understand that a character's class determines his class skills, and adding ranks to cross-class skills costs double.
Once again, I should clarify that my ire is not aimed at novice players. If a person makes a mistake out of lack of experience, that's one thing. But when someone has been playing a game for years, it should be fairly safe to assume that they can actually create their own characters.
Anyway, character creation can be monitored by the GM, who can go through the submitted characters and make the necessary corrections, so that's not too bad (I think in future, I'll announce that I'm just going to make what I think are the most likely changes in the case of an error, rather than trying to consult with individual players). However, then there are those characters who are created without any sort of a background or personality.
The annoying thing here is that creating engaging characters is really easy. You need three things: a past, a quirk and a goal.
The past is simply enough a reflection of that character's past. It represents where he's been, and where he's come from. All you need is one single detail to make this work, not the full life's story. So, "he served in 'Nam" works, as does "he used to work in the docks in Glasgow". Or "his parents were gunned down while he watched." Or "he spent many enjoyable summers working in the bars in Majorca". All that is required is one thing.
The quirk is a reflection of who the character is in the present. It reflects some hobby, mannerism, or fear that the character has. Ideally, you want something noticable but not over-powering. So, while "he constantly interrupts any other character" technically works, it's not likely to make you many friends in the group.
Again, all that is required is a single detail: "he constantly smokes", "he fears spiders", "he always wears some item of red clothing".
The goal reflects where the character wants to go in the future. This can either be an attainable goal, such as saving for a flight to Australia to see his dying sister, or unattainable, such as world peace. Either way, it should be something that drives the character, but probably not something that drives the character to the exclusion of all else. You want to be able to justify your character adventuring with the group, after all. Additionally, you don't want the goal to be too trivial, since then you'll need another one. Something that will take months should be the minimal level of challenge the character should set himself.
"He wants to own a Porsche." "She wants to see her name up in lights." "I want to become a Jedi, like my father."
Once you have the past, the quirk and the goal, you're basically set. You might want to expand on just why your chain-smoking ex-gangster wants to become a Jedi, but adding details to this skeleton is basically easy.
As a simple example, I present for examination my two most recent characters.
Balthazar was a dwarven ranger from Mithral Hall. He had a past involving the death of a friend, and a period of wandering. I did a 20 page write-up of this (simply to annoy Roger), but it boiled down to the above. His quirk was that he was loud and boorish (quintessentially dwarven). His goal was to get home, to return to the hearth he'd left behind, a goal complicated by his being trapped in Ravenloft.
By contrast, Cathak Dan was a samurai. He was a product of the empire's academy, one of the most promising students. His quirk was that he considered honour to be a personal thing to be earned, rather than a social birthright, a view not shared by the majority of the nobles of the time. His goal was to serve his family with honour, and thus to demonstrate what a samurai should be, rather than what he felt they were.
My current character has a past that I'm keeping mysterious for the moment (this should become clear later). His quirk is that he demonstrates a constant impatience with all manner of authority figures, believeing them all to be incompetent or hypocritical. I haven't decided on a goal for him yet.
How to Ruin a Campaign
Just for laughs, here are a few of the means by which RPG campaigns can be ruined for all concerned, or that just plain piss me off. Some of these are GM faults and some player faults. Many of them are things I have done.
1) Take forever to resolve your action.
This pisses me off to no end - you're in a large combat with tons of stuff going on, everything is going quite nicely, and you turn to a player and ask what they're going to do. And wait. And wait.
Firstly, they dither over exactly what to do. Then they require the situation clarified. Then they painstakingly calculate just where to aim an attack for maximum effect (or to not hit allies). Then they roll the dice one at a time. If you're not lucky, they have to ask how to resolve the attack for the 500th time...
Just get on with it! You should be paying attention, and know the situation. You should have a fairly good idea of what to do before you even start. And you should know the rules by now! As for calculating the optimum placement of grenades/spells/whatever, if your character doesn't have time to measure out the distances, you shouldn't do it either. You should have a fairly good idea of how big your fireball is going to be, and point to a spot on the grid. That's it.
That said, I have no problem with new players taking their time, and at the start of the campaign my patience is necessarily extended. But, by the third week, you should know what you're doing.
2) Under- or over-play your character.
If your character is just an extension of you in the game, or worse has no personality at all (having all the wit and charm of the bishop in chess), you're doing the game a disservice. The days of "Bob the Fighter" should be long behind us - give us something to make him interesting. It's not hard.
By contrast, the goofy Malkavian, the compulsive thief and, yes, the drunken dwarf are equally old and annoying. If you over-play your character in this manner, all you're doing is declaring that the "Stephen Show" is more interesting than whatever your GMK has come up with. (Naturally, I admit to this one - my behaviour in Roger's game, particularly the first session, was disgraceful.)
3) Don't bother with description.
This is more for the GM, but can also apply to players. If there's "a guy" at the door, there's something wrong. Is he tall? Short? Well-dressed? Smelly? Again, give me one detail to bring the character to life. If I'm in a room, what colour are the walls?
This is particularly important in (potential) combat situations. If I'm to have my action ready to go, I need to know how many opponents I see. I need to know the general layout. And I need to know if there are police sirens in the background.
4) Don't bother to learn the rules.
If you're playing a typical D&D campaign, you have exactly 2 sessions to learn that you make an attack roll by rolling d20 and adding modifiers. After that, I start to lose patience. Similarly, in Storyteller, you need to know that you have to roll a bunch of d10s and try to get high numbers.
Ideally, the GM should know the rules of the game well before the campaign begins. The players need not, but need to make the effort to remember what to do from minute to minute. And they need to learn what their various powers do within a few sessions.
And that's not to say you need to know every detail of the rules. I'm not going to get upset if you don't know how to calculate magic item creation costs off the top of your head, no matter how long the campaign lasts. But I will get pissed off if you don't know what a Base Attack Bonus is after 5 months of d20.
5) Don't make it clear which rules are in use, or change the rules midstream without notice.
Many games start with a functional rulebook, then add supplements that progressively make characters of a particular type more powerful than others. Under such a game, I need to know which supplements I can use before creating a character. And if I am led to believe it's core book only, and some other player is told to use whatever he wants, be ready to see me walk out the door.
New editions of games can change things around a lot, and can have changes that seem subtle but are actually powerful. If there's a new edition, it should not be introduced to an ongoing campaign without discussion in the group.
6) Ignore PC knowledge and powers.
If one of your PCs can cast detect evil, your adventure needs to take that into account. You need to either find a reason for it to not work or, better still, build the adventure on the assumption that it will be used. If you don't do either of these, your game will suck.
7) Let the PCs away with anything/screw the PCs over
The GM must take control of the game, but at the same time must accept that the players are the centre of the game. If the GM let's the PCs do whatever they want, the game loses all its challenge, and there ceases to be a point. But, if the PCs are denied knowledge that they rightly should have, are forced down a pre-generated plot, or otherwise feel unfairly treated, the game similarly becomes a farce. You have to keep a balance here.
I've gone on too long, so I'll stop. Any others?
1) Take forever to resolve your action.
This pisses me off to no end - you're in a large combat with tons of stuff going on, everything is going quite nicely, and you turn to a player and ask what they're going to do. And wait. And wait.
Firstly, they dither over exactly what to do. Then they require the situation clarified. Then they painstakingly calculate just where to aim an attack for maximum effect (or to not hit allies). Then they roll the dice one at a time. If you're not lucky, they have to ask how to resolve the attack for the 500th time...
Just get on with it! You should be paying attention, and know the situation. You should have a fairly good idea of what to do before you even start. And you should know the rules by now! As for calculating the optimum placement of grenades/spells/whatever, if your character doesn't have time to measure out the distances, you shouldn't do it either. You should have a fairly good idea of how big your fireball is going to be, and point to a spot on the grid. That's it.
That said, I have no problem with new players taking their time, and at the start of the campaign my patience is necessarily extended. But, by the third week, you should know what you're doing.
2) Under- or over-play your character.
If your character is just an extension of you in the game, or worse has no personality at all (having all the wit and charm of the bishop in chess), you're doing the game a disservice. The days of "Bob the Fighter" should be long behind us - give us something to make him interesting. It's not hard.
By contrast, the goofy Malkavian, the compulsive thief and, yes, the drunken dwarf are equally old and annoying. If you over-play your character in this manner, all you're doing is declaring that the "Stephen Show" is more interesting than whatever your GMK has come up with. (Naturally, I admit to this one - my behaviour in Roger's game, particularly the first session, was disgraceful.)
3) Don't bother with description.
This is more for the GM, but can also apply to players. If there's "a guy" at the door, there's something wrong. Is he tall? Short? Well-dressed? Smelly? Again, give me one detail to bring the character to life. If I'm in a room, what colour are the walls?
This is particularly important in (potential) combat situations. If I'm to have my action ready to go, I need to know how many opponents I see. I need to know the general layout. And I need to know if there are police sirens in the background.
4) Don't bother to learn the rules.
If you're playing a typical D&D campaign, you have exactly 2 sessions to learn that you make an attack roll by rolling d20 and adding modifiers. After that, I start to lose patience. Similarly, in Storyteller, you need to know that you have to roll a bunch of d10s and try to get high numbers.
Ideally, the GM should know the rules of the game well before the campaign begins. The players need not, but need to make the effort to remember what to do from minute to minute. And they need to learn what their various powers do within a few sessions.
And that's not to say you need to know every detail of the rules. I'm not going to get upset if you don't know how to calculate magic item creation costs off the top of your head, no matter how long the campaign lasts. But I will get pissed off if you don't know what a Base Attack Bonus is after 5 months of d20.
5) Don't make it clear which rules are in use, or change the rules midstream without notice.
Many games start with a functional rulebook, then add supplements that progressively make characters of a particular type more powerful than others. Under such a game, I need to know which supplements I can use before creating a character. And if I am led to believe it's core book only, and some other player is told to use whatever he wants, be ready to see me walk out the door.
New editions of games can change things around a lot, and can have changes that seem subtle but are actually powerful. If there's a new edition, it should not be introduced to an ongoing campaign without discussion in the group.
6) Ignore PC knowledge and powers.
If one of your PCs can cast detect evil, your adventure needs to take that into account. You need to either find a reason for it to not work or, better still, build the adventure on the assumption that it will be used. If you don't do either of these, your game will suck.
7) Let the PCs away with anything/screw the PCs over
The GM must take control of the game, but at the same time must accept that the players are the centre of the game. If the GM let's the PCs do whatever they want, the game loses all its challenge, and there ceases to be a point. But, if the PCs are denied knowledge that they rightly should have, are forced down a pre-generated plot, or otherwise feel unfairly treated, the game similarly becomes a farce. You have to keep a balance here.
I've gone on too long, so I'll stop. Any others?
Monday, 20 October 2003
"Sorry, it's the rules"
I had to bite my tongue on Saturday when the storyteller made the ruling that led to this particular comment. It was fortunate that I didn't really care enough to correct him, because:
1) The ruling involved a Self-Control roll to allow my character to light a cigarette. Should have been a Courage roll.
2) The difficulty of the roll was a mere 3, and I had 5 dice in Courage (this being one of Roger's characters). So, per the rules, I qualified for an automatic success.
There are two morals I wish to draw from this little rant:
Firstly, if the GM wishes to appeal to the rules to justify a ruling he makes during the game, it's fairly important that the ruling actually be correct. This means knowing the rules of the game very, very well. Otherwise, an unkind player is liable to correct him, leading to potentially significant advantage.
Secondly, and more importantly, the GM should never resort to saying, "it's the rules", to justify himself. Better just to say, "you'll need to make a Self-Control roll", and leave it at that. Otherwise, he opens the door for the rules lawyers to come out to play.
In other news, my name is Stephen, and I'm a rules lawyer...
1) The ruling involved a Self-Control roll to allow my character to light a cigarette. Should have been a Courage roll.
2) The difficulty of the roll was a mere 3, and I had 5 dice in Courage (this being one of Roger's characters). So, per the rules, I qualified for an automatic success.
There are two morals I wish to draw from this little rant:
Firstly, if the GM wishes to appeal to the rules to justify a ruling he makes during the game, it's fairly important that the ruling actually be correct. This means knowing the rules of the game very, very well. Otherwise, an unkind player is liable to correct him, leading to potentially significant advantage.
Secondly, and more importantly, the GM should never resort to saying, "it's the rules", to justify himself. Better just to say, "you'll need to make a Self-Control roll", and leave it at that. Otherwise, he opens the door for the rules lawyers to come out to play.
In other news, my name is Stephen, and I'm a rules lawyer...
Thursday, 9 October 2003
Vampire Boredom.
Archived thread started by Mort:
I've been struggling the last week trying to come up with a decent character concept for Craigs Vampire game, only to realise I don't have any inclination what so ever to play in a Vampire game. I've tried to motivate myself to no avail. I'm not sure why this is, maybe Underworld has forever ruined my chances to enjoy Vampires again?
No, on a more serious note, it could be the whole WOD that's annoying me, it's all dark and dreary and woe and sorrow and god knows what else. I'm in the mood for some Sci-fi, or fantasy. This is likely to change of course, but I don't know how soon.
I think I might have to withdraw from the Vampire game, unless I can re-motivate myself.
I don't want to start playing a game I won't enjoy...
I've been struggling the last week trying to come up with a decent character concept for Craigs Vampire game, only to realise I don't have any inclination what so ever to play in a Vampire game. I've tried to motivate myself to no avail. I'm not sure why this is, maybe Underworld has forever ruined my chances to enjoy Vampires again?
No, on a more serious note, it could be the whole WOD that's annoying me, it's all dark and dreary and woe and sorrow and god knows what else. I'm in the mood for some Sci-fi, or fantasy. This is likely to change of course, but I don't know how soon.
I think I might have to withdraw from the Vampire game, unless I can re-motivate myself.
I don't want to start playing a game I won't enjoy...
Friday, 3 October 2003
Underworld.
Archived thread by Mort:
Slightly off topic, but still close enough to be somewhat on topic. (Hey, it's got Vampires and Werewolves in it.) I thought I'd take the chance to pimp my review of Underworld. It's available here.
Yes, Underworld is crap.
Slightly off topic, but still close enough to be somewhat on topic. (Hey, it's got Vampires and Werewolves in it.) I thought I'd take the chance to pimp my review of Underworld. It's available here.
Yes, Underworld is crap.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)