Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

[Robyn]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

In those exceptional situations that transcend the concrete rules, each player is entitled to one "3-Minute Argument" in which they state their side of the situation within three minutes.

Then each player gets a "1-Minute Rebuttal" and I weigh and consider as well as taking my own opinion into account and make my final ruling.

This only takes about 10 minutes at a time but it rarely happens anyway.

 

So, each time you do the "player gets 3-minute argument, others get 1-minute rebuttal", it takes 10 minutes?

 

10 minus 3 is 7, but 8 players would be a large group, so I'll assume you take a couple of minutes to think things over; that leaves half a dozen players (a decently-sized group) to take an hour with their statements.

 

They can choose to take less time, right?

[Robyn]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

I'm assuming the noncontroversial "drugs" (aspirin; caffiene) aren't at issue.

 

The drug I spoke of above is usually taken with aspirin, but there has been some controversy over it in recent years

[Robyn]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Ooh! Ooh! I know

 

How about if I brought a little plastic baggie with white powder in it?

 

As the police officer in Feet of Clay (a Commander Samuel Vimes, as I recall) said, that's a highly dangerous substance too.

 

 

 

"It's sugar," [Carrot] said.

"Take too much of it and see what it does to your teeth!" bellowed Vimes. "What did you think it was?"

 

 

 

Sometimes, they even cut that with the black stuff

Molasses. For brown sugar.

[schir1964]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Conflict Resolution has been changed to Ambiguity Resolution Timing.

Apparently Conflict Resolution was being read with a much wider meaning than I intended.

 

I only want to deal with philosophies that apply directly to the game and want to avoid the issues concerning trust, friendship, and personalities. Not to say that these things have no influence or effect on the philosophies.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[arcady]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Purely for curiosity' date=' does this include only illegal substances? What about, for example, tobacco and alcohol (which many games do ban)? I'm assuming the noncontroversial "drugs" (aspirin; caffiene) aren't at issue.[/quote']

 

I can't believe people are arguing this with me... It should be obvious what 'drugs' refers to. Nitpicking it clearly shows an intention on the part of some members of this community to try and create a meaningless argument.

 

That said, I didn't think to mention that I don't welcome alcohol or cigs in my house either. If you bring those - don't use them in my home. If you smoke, you're gonna have to stay outside until the smell washes off.

 

never been an issue though, it's just common decency to assume that with the people I know.

[Alcamtar]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Some of these seemed kind of vague and several posters offered interesting clarifications, that sometimes seemed to break the mold. So I tried to think of examples for each one. Not sure if this is useful or not but it's interesting.

 

AUTHORITY

1) GM

Example: "My way or the highway."

Example: The GM is first among equals and makes the final decision only after everyone has said their peace. The decision is final once made.

Example: The GM is the final authority, but may not contradict a previous ruling.

2) Group

Example: The Group is the final authority but voluntarily delegates to the GM so long as the GM's rulings are fair and not abusive. If a ruling is seen as abusive or unfair the group may override the GM with a vote.

3) Rules

Example: The rules are the final authority and are binding on both GM and players. Official rulings are errata are also binding on all. Outside of official rules the GM has freedom, but if a new official ruling is made the GM must abide with it thenceforth.

Example: The GM is the final authority until a character is threatened with death or a violation of the player's concept. Players have veto power over permanent changes to their characters. But if the group agrees by vote that the player did it to himself or had it coming, the player cannot veto changes.

Example: The GM may make decisions for dramatic purposes as long as the reason is revealed within a reasonable period of time.

Example: The GM and players negotiate on rulings, with the GM acting as arbiter, and group consensus determining when a resolution is fair.

Example: The GM is the final authority but may only violate the rules-as-written with player permission.

 

INTERPRETATION

1) Closed

Clarification: If the rules do not allow something, it is illegal by default.

Example: All stop-sign powers are off-limits.

Example: Experience points cannot be spent without GM permission and in-game justification.

2) Open

Clarification: If the rules do not disallow something, it is legal by default.

Example: All stop-sign powers are allowed.

Example: Players can buy any attack powers they want (if they have enough points).

Example: Experience points may be spent freely as desired.

3) Guideline

Example: Combat situations are Closed, while non-combat is Open.

Example: A house rules document specifies minimum and maximum DC. Players can expect that any DC within that range is allowed, but should expect that anything outside that range is disallowed pending specific permission.

 

GROUP DYNAMIC

1) Membership

2) Public

3) Tournament Rules

Example: The group is open among a certain circle of friends, and closed outside that circle. New players are accepted into the circle by consensus after playing a few games.

Example: The group is public up to a specified minimum, any players beyond that require permission.

Example: First come first served, until the table is full.

 

AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION TIMING

1) Rigid

Example: The GM writes an exhaustive house rules document in advance, based on past experience. The document is always used in preference to a new ruling. If a new rule must be made on the fly it is added to the document for future reference.

2) Freeform

Example: House rules and rulings are never written down. All rulings are on-the-fly and need not be consistent with past rulings.

Example: House rules are not written in advance, but as "important" rulings are made they are written down for future reference.

Example: The GM makes snap judgments during play and allows no arguments. After play any such rules may be discussed and may or may not be added to the house rules.

Example: The GM sets no character creation guidelines, all characters are considered individually and balanced by the seat-of-the-pants.

[schir1964]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Conflict Resolution:

Your examples here seem to be matters of interpretation and not conflict resolution. So let me reanswer interpretation, and then answer conflict.

Yes, it technically is a part of the Interpretation category, but it was distinctive enough to warrant a separate category.

 

I've renamed the category to be more descriptive of the ideas contained.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Some of these seemed kind of vague and several posters offered interesting clarifications' date=' that sometimes seemed to break the mold. So I tried to think of examples for each one. Not sure if this is useful or not but it's interesting.[/quote']

Thanks. I may worded a couple of things a little differently, but you've described the gist of the different categories very well.

 

Repped.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Robyn]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

I can't believe people are arguing this with me... It should be obvious what 'drugs' refers to.

 

Just because people don't immediately grasp what you meant, doesn't mean they're arguing with you. Sometimes you just haven't been clear and they are honestly seeking understanding.

 

Nitpicking it clearly shows an intention on the part of some members of this community to try and create a meaningless argument.

 

Translation: if anyone doesn't see such nitpicking as an intention to try creating meaningless arguments, their perception is simply inadequate to the task of reading correctly.

 

I do agree though that such activities would be meaningless as an argument. Thankfully however there is not anyone here trying to argue with you!

 

Hugh was asking an honest question, and I was turning one (mis)interpretation into a joke so that everyone would see how you couldn't seriously have meant it that way*. Each of us, in our own way, were trying to resolve some of the ambiguity in your wording.

*I also meant it to entertain. Which still isn't an argument

[Wolfgar]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Stop Robyn, please.

 

As "Authority" in this case seems to be rules-authority, then I believe in the GM being the final word on all rules disputes and interpretations. I believe in those decisions not being subject to debate until an approriate grievance period, and even then, the GM is under no obligation to rule otherwise. Don't like it, you run.

 

As far as any unspecified ruling, that's decided on a case by case basis. Each sistuation deserves to be judged according to precedent, logic, play balance, and coolness factor.

 

Membership really is best way to go, period. A come one come all attitude typically results in a game of 15 bored people that rapidly splits into smaller games. Don't let this happen to you.

 

Vague rules situations should not be brought up unless they come up in play naturally, and the GM should quickly and decisively be done with them. The GM should be aware of those potential situations, but in general I don't believe in bogging players down with any more information than is strictly needed.

[Robyn]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Stop Robyn' date=' please.[/quote']

 

Repped when I can, for the rare virtue of actually speaking to the person you'd like to do something and telling them what that is. Your approach is commendable, and will be respected. We need more people like you in the community

 

As "Authority" in this case seems to be rules-authority' date=' then I believe in the GM being the final word on all rules disputes and interpretations. I believe in those decisions not being subject to debate until an approriate grievance period, and even then, the GM is under no obligation to rule otherwise. Don't like it, you run.[/quote']

 

Run your own game, or run for the door? (Either way, I can see the sense of it, I'm just wondering which you had in mind.)

 

Membership really is best way to go' date=' period. A come one come all attitude typically results in a game of 15 bored people that rapidly splits into smaller games. Don't let this happen to you.[/quote']

 

Alternately, and exaggerating from my own experience, it may instead result in a roomful of people sitting around the table, shocked, at the session that killed off all their characters in 15 minutes due to the actions of one stupid person.

 

in general I don't believe in bogging players down with any more information than is strictly needed.

 

A delightful sentiment. Tell me, have you ever run Paranoia?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Conflict Resolution has been changed to Ambiguity Resolution Timing.

Apparently Conflict Resolution was being read with a much wider meaning than I intended.

 

I only want to deal with philosophies that apply directly to the game and want to avoid the issues concerning trust, friendship, and personalities. Not to say that these things have no influence or effect on the philosophies.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

 

Trust, friendship, group rules... this is the Social Contract we've spoken of in the past. All the philosophies you are talking about here are "play dynamic specific" aspects of the larger Social contract.

[schir1964]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Trust' date=' friendship, group rules... this is the Social Contract we've spoken of in the past. All the philosophies you are talking about here are "play dynamic specific" aspects of the larger Social contract.[/quote']

Correct.

 

These philosophical categories can be viewed as different implementations of the Social Contract. So of course these implemetations will work as long as the Social Contract is upheld. Thus the reason for the statement that these presume that the trust between Players and GM will not be violated.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[The Main Man]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

So, each time you do the "player gets 3-minute argument, others get 1-minute rebuttal", it takes 10 minutes?

 

10 minus 3 is 7, but 8 players would be a large group, so I'll assume you take a couple of minutes to think things over; that leaves half a dozen players (a decently-sized group) to take an hour with their statements.

 

They can choose to take less time, right?

There's 8 people in my group (including me) on a consistent basis, and no, they don't have to take up all of their time, this is just their maximum allowed time.

 

Basically, each player is entitled to state a discrepancy once per game and must be able to do it in 3 minutes and then the rest of us get to rebut their point within one minute but we will tend to synergize or else something comes to light and a new House Rule is born.

 

Obviously the GM has the option to take more than a minute if they have to.

 

These are rare because most of the time it is settle in the standard "What the GM says" style but once in a while I see that they player may be on to something and this also really builds up their trust as far as I have observed because they get to have at least some slight say in a matter at least once a game if it comes up.

 

I came up with it because there is a player in the group who if left unchecked will continue to argue a point until Kingdom Come and the one time occurred where he had a halfway decent argument about his character so I consulted the group with the given stipulations and it worked just fine.

 

Eighty minutes of arguments and rebuttals is a Worst Case Scenario and probably means that there are some pretty odd things going on in the game.

 

We almost never have to do this anyway but it's there when it's needed.

[Wolfgar]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Repped when I can' date=' for the rare virtue of actually [i']speaking to[/i] the person you'd like to do something and telling them what that is. Your approach is commendable, and will be respected. We need more people like you in the community

[/Quote]

 

Thank you.

 

Run your own game, or run for the door? (Either way, I can see the sense of it, I'm just wondering which you had in mind.)

 

Run your own game, although in practice it works to be about the same.

 

Alternately, and exaggerating from my own experience, it may instead result in a roomful of people sitting around the table, shocked, at the session that killed off all their characters in 15 minutes due to the actions of one stupid person.

 

In either case, in introduces way too much of an element of chaos into the whole thing.

 

A delightful sentiment. Tell me, have you ever run Paranoia?

 

That information is not available at this time.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Trust' date=' friendship, group rules... this is the Social Contract we've spoken of in the past. All the philosophies you are talking about here are "play dynamic specific" aspects of the larger Social contract.[/quote']Yep, this is how we've always done it. We're all friends first; co-players/GMs second. The GM always has the final word in his scenario, but that's because we all trust each other. That goes a long way towards mitigating or at least minimizing any potential conflicts. None of us, being only human, agree 100% of the time. But we're willing to give our friends the benefit of the doubt.

[Lucius]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Authority:

Conflict:

- If you start a fight, you're out. If you start a debate and its a good one, we'll debate it. If you bring drugs you are out and expect police to show up at your door or maybe even drag you off. If you disrespect the others at the table, you are out. Fight has come up once for me, in a Shadowrun game in 1999. Drug users have tried to get into my games three times... I have and will continue to work with the courts and criminal justice system, and I have had people who work with primary-school children. Neither of those two can tolerate people who bring illegality to the game table. the other's have been non issues as much as I can recall.

 

In the 25+ years I've been gaming, I don't think I have EVER seen drugs (except possibly tobacco) as an issue. I am surprised to hear you say that it's come up three times.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Custom Advantage: Palindromedary

[Dino]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

1) GM: The GM is the final authority on all decisions in the game he alone is running.

Actually, we have two GMs in the group, so whoever's running will usually consult with the other GM, but the current GM has the final say for his game.

 

3) Guideline Rule Interpretation: A set of guidelines are used to show what things fall into Closed Rule Interpretation and/or what things fall into Open Rule Interpretation.

We have house rules that apply to the group as a whole, as well as options set for a given game by the current GM.

 

1) Membership Group: Potential players are excluded until Authorititative Permission is granted.

New players are given a tryout under a particular GM, and all current players have the ability to "black ball" the new player if they aren't comfortable.

 

2) Freeform: The Authority strives to streamline play by only debating rules as ambiguous situations arise during game play. The Authority decides the resolution and the game continues with that decision.

 

Now that I think about it, maybe our group dynamic is more tournament than membership.

 

I think this has potential as a handout similar to the campaign guidlines sheet from the resource kit. A formal way to let new players know what kind of gamegroup they are getting themselves into and what is expected of them. One of the most awkward parts of gaming with new people is teaching them your group's "style" of play.

[Dino]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

If you bring drugs you are out and expect police to show up at your door or maybe even drag you off.

 

Dude, where do you live that you can get the cops to arrest someone just because you say you saw them with drugs?

 

I couldn't get the cops here to show up to my place of business and deal with the six foot six, bi-polar, heroin jonesing street person who was making verbal death threats and trespassing on private property last month.

[zornwil]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

I'll let others classify these as desired...

 

"Authority"

- some games give specific guidelines and I will tend to follow them if so; some games imply one approach versus another; so it varies by game, but on the whole I follow a guideline such as:

- plot/scenario-busting decisions: anything which can seriously harm/alter the plot or scenario as I've designed it I reserve final authority over

- plot/scenario-affecting decisions: anything which can affect the plot or scenario but does not appear to directly alter it we use mutual consent; for example, in a battle in a house, someone might say, "I think there'd be a flowerpot in here, I want to grab the flowers and..."; a quick check that this seems reasonable enough will grant that desire or we might decide "there's no way to really know that, let's just make it random chance, okay?"

- plot/scenario-irrelevant decisions: anything which has no clear/significant impact can pretty much be player-decided; for example, a player whose PC is fully capable of running his own nation via a false identity wanted to take over Suriname, I had no concern so long as it was clear this is "color" that may have some relevance but the player should have no expectation specifically, either, so this decision is the player's

- critical to all above: PCs cannot be deprotagonized in any above decision except by the owning player's own consent/input; generally, if I choose a path which has a serious storyline implication for a PC, the owning player must be involved in that and give consent; as a similar corollary, players' requests for storylines for their PCs must generally be honored in some fashion, negotiated so it makes sense for the overall campaign but the player as final authority over character development must be respected

 

 

"Interpretation"

- I can't really approach this other than case-by-case; group consensus usually dictates the interpretation of rules; guidelines are built by history of shared play or may be established by house rules, again depending on the case being interpreted

 

"Group Dynamic"

Closed

 

"Ambiguity Resolution Timing"

Some things are defined up front, rules debates fall under the Authority and Interpretation "rules" above.

[Wolfgar]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Dude, where do you live that you can get the cops to arrest someone just because you say you saw them with drugs?

 

I couldn't get the cops here to show up to my place of business and deal with the six foot six, bi-polar, heroin jonesing street person who was making verbal death threats and trespassing on private property last month.

 

Police do vary in comptence and willingness by locale. Police where I live are courteous and dutiful, and wouldn't hesitate to bring the full force of the law on someone. Just inside of town, no more than 15 or so miles away, you can't get a cop to get off their ass for love, money or doughnuts.

[Astragaal]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Hi Im new, nice to meet you my reply is in the quote, below.

 

Game Philosophies

 

Authority

1) GM: The GM is the final authority on all decisions in the game he alone is running.

2) Group: The Group is the final authority on all decisions in the game via a voting method.

3) Rules: Rules are created and used to define who has final authority in different circumstances.

 

Astragaal: 3 in the main, occationally 2, but ultimatly 1. I played in a very well versed group, almost everyone ran the hero system (or indeed many others), we all knew the rules backwards and we all enjoyed reaching a satifactory answer. Mostly, when an ambiguity/bone of contension arises the rules are consulted this will usually provide an answer that is biased to one answer over the other. In case where this doesnt happen views are voiced, mechnics that work are i guess judged on economy and elegance usually agreement isnt a contest as one interpretation is fitting, in cse of a tie or over complex ruminations overly disrupting play (a highly subjective time vairable, with correlation to the actions hapening in game. Eg. in combat short pause/discussion no longer than it takes to refill beverages and take a toilet break. To longterm actions which could end up with group working out mechanics/devises to do something esoteric and wise ranging like overthrowing a goverment by market manipulation which may take a game session or more to hammer out. The latter example being extreme for illustrative purposes. If all of that doesnt work the DMs job is to fudge it, and start everyone roleplaying again. His/her fudge is now the campaign fudge and is deemed a rule, to be later fudge and refined through the above process, of gently kicking the system into what works for you and your group. In my expiearance the most time consuming period is character creation as everyone I played with made very detailed, highly crafted, downright obtuse and months could pass before a character was ready for play.

 

Interpretation

1) Closed Rule Interpretation: If the rules do not specify something, it is disallowed pending Authoritative Permission.

2) Open Rule Interpretation: If the rules do not specify something, it is allowed pending Authoritative Restriction.

3) Guideline Rule Interpretation: A set of guidelines are used to show what things fall into Closed Rule Interpretation and/or what things fall into Open Rule Interpretation.

 

Astragaal: Not sure I grasp this point clearly, but as far as interpretation if it is unambiguous there is no need to interpret, although it is still possable to disagree. If there is an amiguity, it needs dealing with. I suppose the authority answer would be the guideline for doing this.

 

Group Dynamic

1) Membership Group: Potential players are excluded until Authorititative Permission is granted.

2) Public Group: Potential players are included until Authoritative Permission is denied.

3) Tournement Rules: A set of rules determines who is excluded or included.

 

Astragaal: Highly variable according to the circumstnces, but never 3 and for the most part 2, the more the merrier. Ultimatly the IC group dynamics are often much for influential in this point than the OOC group dynamics.

 

Ambiguity Resolution Timing

1) Rigid: The Authority strives to streamline play by reducing as many rules debates as possible by specifying the rules up front. The Authority decides the resolution and the game continues with that decision.

2) Freeform: The Authority strives to streamline play by only debating rules as ambiguous situations arise during game play. The Authority decides the resolution and the game continues with that decision.

 

Astragaal: Id have to say both, and my answers above I think cover this. But 1, modified by 2 when nessecary. In that the rules up front as the group I play in knows the rule, these remain hard and fast until they dont work. Discuss, then rule and back to gaming.

 

The philosophies presented presume that there is a trust between the Players and GM and that trust will not be violated by either Players or GM.

 

I am sure there are others I'm missing so I'll add any that people bring up for discussion.

 

What philosophies do you follow?

 

Astragaal: My Philosophy of gaming would be: If it aint broke dont fix it, if it is broke fix it. If it cant be fixed, fudge it. If it cant be fudged, ignore it. If it cant be ignored, roll a die. When playing listen IC, react IC, think IC, live IC. When Dming listen to their characters, react to their characters, think of their characters, and let the world/game live through their chracters.

Ultimatly although connected discussing game mechanics and roleplaying are sperate I/we just enjoy both, but roleplaying is the goal, the rules are just the pitch on which we play.

By that I include both DMing and playing wether be those in the book or those house rules that are in effect, if a player or Dm wants to alter the "Rules" a justification is required, yes even the Gm must justify him/her self, in the Dms case this can be as simple as "because I say so." Out of game play this is likely to be accepted, but may be disagreed with. If in play the "bacause I said so." line would not be so accepted and depending on the magnitude of the change and the arbitrariness of the rules change and the circumstance of the rules change, especially if the said rule dramatically changes the outcome. Face may end up smiling, shrugging, get bent out of shape, reddened or even remove themselves.

 

Lastly, Im old, not so much in years, but certainly in spirit, I tend to ramble on so I hope that made some sence. As Im new to these boards Im sure theres a wwole level of "inness" Im not privy to so I'll clarify and and ramble til I get a feel for the place, although from what I read I feel strangly at home, gaming philosophy wise and weird arcane geekness wise.

 

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Updated Original Post.

 

Added the following:

 

Campaign Focus

1) Characters: The characters are the focus that the story is built around. Each character will have the spotlight that is due them at some point. The story reacts to the characters successes and failures.

2) Story: The story is the focus which the characters are caught up in. The characters are presented goals to attain via the story. The characters are expected to succeed for dire consequences are pre-written and set in stone if the characters fail.

3) Goal: The focus is centered around specific goals each character may attain. Successfully attaining the goal rewards the character while failure punishes the character. Attained goals are replaced with new ones. This theme may be viewed as the Hack-n-Slash type scenarios.

 

Character Building

1) Points: Most players are more focused on getting more value from the points regardless of concept. Players will tend to build character concepts that are more point efficient (more bang for less bucks) and will tend to not build character concepts that are less point efficient (less bang for more bucks).

2) Concept: Most players are more focussed on building a character concept regardless of point efficiency of the concept. Such players will tend to play thier characters to concept regardless of the characters true effectiveness pointwise.

3) Amalgamation: Players are a mixed bag with each having different expectations of what they want from the game. Players of similar attitude will eventually atract one another and end up in the same game.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Just wanted to welcome Astragaal to the boards.

 

I think you will find most people here very friendly.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Astragaal]

Re: Opinion Fluff: Game Philosophies

 

Hi Schir,

Thanks nice to be here so far, looking forward to talking about the hero system again, even if its not 5th ed.

 

Just wanted to welcome Astragaal to the boards.

 

I think you will find most people here very friendly.

 

- Christopher Mullins