Manic Typist

Re: Enerjutsu So far it seems everyone is making my arguments for me.

Re: Enerjutsu Why not AoE a Trip maneuver? Curious.

Re: How many of you use END outside of magic? and other questions... Something I've been considering doing for END and ammo/charges tracking in the future: Take a cup, fill it with colored beads. They take out the beads as they use up END- a quick way of glancing at how much they've used and how much they have left, and it's not really "math" is it? It's just counting at that point.

Re: Background Story Rewards Oh, yeah, I totally give out 1 XP every now and then to players who can show me session notes/summaries. Very tyrannical of me.

Re: Background Story Rewards Now you're just being silly.

Re: Background Story Rewards Sounds like a solid background to me, which probably helped the GM understand the character. For instance, the GM knew upfront that he didn't have to contrive anything to get the PC to be interested in an adventure hook- all he needed was someone to present the adventure, and this PC would be all aboard! Now he can focus a bit more thought on how he can present the hook so that it seems logical in character that the Knight-Who-Is-Seeking-the-Grail would want to take the bait, even if at first it doesn't seem like it has anything to do with the Grail... Perhaps the most essential element in all roleplaying fun. The way you present "Bob" above and below contrasts with this drastically. These notes sound like a character background to me, and I'm used to having backgrounds leaving things for the GM to define. So, no problem on my end so far. I love how you misconstrue and alter arguments. A socially isolated character background designed to prevent anyone from the past being relevant to current game play will do just that- and that works both ways. The PC can't suddenly try to use his background to justify why he can approach a certain NPC as someone from his past since his entire background was written to preclude that possibility. However, yes, Mr. Gregarious and Friendly does have a justification for saying "Hey, wait, I think I chatted with this guy at the bagel shop once while waiting in line for my lox." That NPC isn't suddenly a contact, but the story doesn't get stuck on "Well, he doesn't know you from Adam." So, Mr. Gregarious and Friendly could ask the GM "Do I know anyone at the Metro Paper?" and have a fair shot at the answer being yes (or no). Mr. Socially Isolated, didn't ever get to know anyone in his life ever and didn't let anyone get to know him, ever? Not so much. He's welcome to go out and try to get to know someone, and we can roleplay that out, but it can't be handwaved (or even fingerwaved) in the same way. Perhaps he could go save someone's life, and they just HAPPEN to be a member of that paper. Of course, know his story (which is being "written" during the campaign) has changed to include a relationship with another human being. It's the one where you are mixing up two different examples and then claiming that the examples are internally inconsistent. Mr. Orphan that Grew up Alone is not the same as Mr. Average Joe that went to Average High. You can. However, it would be nice if the player lays this out for you, just in case they were thinking "He has an INT of 30! He didn't go to high school or college- he just taught himself!" Not going to happen too often since that's an extreme, but lots of smaller things could pop up that could have easily been hashed out in advance. Yeah, that works for me. What's the problem? Once upon a time, there lived a man and a woman. They were born to ordinary parents, raised and educated in the ordinary manner, met and fell in love as ordinarily happened, married like ordinary people do and had an ordinary family. Their ordinary children went to ordinary schools, graduated in the ordinary course, and began ordinary jobs.... [snipped for brevity]....So the ordinary man created a costume to suit his extraordinary abilities [insert 1/2 inch description of costume] and waited for something extraordinary to occur for his debut as a superhero. Actually, this sounds like a really good background. I know he has parents, he has at least one sibling, and that he is (most importantly) waiting for something extraordinary to occur so that he can debut as a superhero. He wants to be a superhero and just needs the opportunity to come knocking. That's very different from the player who wants to play a character who is reluctantly caught up in events far beyond his previous world (a classic bildungsroman). I have a narrative explaining the origin of his powers, the nature of his powers, and how the player imagines the powers working and interacting with one another. Good thing I saw that text so that I could point out that the first way he tried to build the power didn't achieve the effect he was looking for, but this other way does. You added tons! And of course you are playing the character you designed- no on wanted anything otherwise. The background was just fine- I even enjoyed the faintly sing-song manner in which it was told. Great length, plenty of details, I feel like I have a better idea of what you're character will play like. "Uh, no- we haven't started the game yet. I'm saying before we start, this will be one of the campaign requirements, just like I'm not allowing a Casual Killer Complication for this game." "Because the style of game I am going for with this campaign needs a little bit of extra starting detail from the PCs so I can attempt to create an intricately weaved, tightly interwoven plot that hopefully will be a blast for all involved. No guarantees, of course." "Well, you're not the GM this time so you don't get to give them points. However, you could certainly talk to them like an adult..." "I certainly hope that will be the case. Part of that comes from my enhanced knowledge of the PC backgrounds, and that's why I'm requiring this game as opposed to last game." "Actually, in my fictional campaign world, they do, but you keep raising issues that are really outside the scope of this not a big deal we're talking about. You also seem to want to police the other players and their characters, when you really should just leave that sort of thing to the GM." "They do, usually at least. That's why I'm inviting you to the new campaign I'm starting. Of course, if you're not interested in playing in that game, that's fine. We still have Phil's game, and I've got another idea for a future campaign that won't have backgrounds as a campaign requirement, so maybe that will tickle your fancy when we get there." That's certainly what I would have expected from Bob in the initial dialogue, rather than a juvenile whine fest where he criticizes other people behind their backs and raises issues that are inappropriate for the topic at hand. "Why should I fulfill this campaign requirement when Phil smells funny, which is not at all related to campaign requirements?" Uh, what? Laundry Knight- I already answered your question from my experience, but I'll repeat myself: I've used them every campaign (both as GM and as player), and every time they've been wonderful additions to gameplay.

Re: Background Story Rewards As an aside, give our previous conversations, why would you even offer points for Complications? They really are just story hooks meant for the GM to use to enhance fun, so any play who wants fun should do that without any point incentive. Further, I've seen players be more resentful of the act of taking Complications than writing backgrounds (of course it's silly for them to be resentful- they don't have to take the Complications! But they want those points.... yet if I call them "bonus" points it somehow becomes more acceptable. Maybe because they are already taking Complications so the background is just a continuation of the same act). The limitation is what I've already described- the character's history has been more defined, and is consequently more rigid. Your orphan who didn't form any particular attachments to anyone and is now seeking his fortune- nope, that teacher doesn't even remember him. He didn't really interact with anyone, remember? Oh, you want Mr. X to be a guy you know at the deli? You may have seen him there once, but there's no way you guys ever had a conversation. There's no indication for anything like that in the background. I don't remember a "fellow who attended high school" example, but just from the name of it- that IS the sort of thing that would allow new developments to arise mid-game. Suddenly the hostage is the bank isn't Mr. Generic By-Stander: it's your old chem teacher, or that strutting jock, whathaveyou. It offers the potential for flavor and enrichment. I don't need you to ever say that there was a strutting jock- it can be easily and REASONABLY interpreted in the narrative by the GM. I wouldn't as GM automatically say "He used to shove you into your locker, remember?" I would leave the details of the relationship to be filled in by the player, and all I would say is "He was a jock at your school- real sense of entitlement, liked to lord it over the other students." Then the player can run with it (or not) as he or she pleases. A 1 page background does plenty to offer structure and, well, background. Juxtapose this: With this: And we get: "Well, Bob, couple of points. One, I'm not quite sure how you get to something "that annoys us removed" except maybe the foul taste exaggeration I made. Regardless, what I'm talking about is a campaign requirement and what you're talking about is an interpersonal issue that, frankly, you could have addressed in a much more mature way. If Jim's gum chewing bugs you then you need to talk to Jim, since so far you're the only one who has expressed being bothered by it. Tim's smoke breaks haven't proven disruptive to the game so far, he only takes one or two a game and that's when everyone uses the bathroom anyway. My wife put her foot down regarding Phil and he's promised to do better about it. And now that I know my dietary habits bother you, I will try to reasonably accommodate that because you're my friend and my guest. But, again, you've raised completely irrelevant concerns- we're talking about a campaign requirement. If you don't want to play, that's fine, but that's about you and not anyone else. I bowed out of the World of Darkness game that Phil ran because I didn't like some of his campaign requirements- not because he didn't insist that you drop your belittling sarcasm." However, you never did address whether or not players who enjoy writing background should receive any CP while only those who don't should (which has essentially been reformulated into "Why even give CP for Complications at all?"). Seriously. Why not just raise the points expectations but divorce points from Complications?

Re: Background Story Rewards That might be true, but that has nothing to do with whether a player freely chooses to take (or not take) Complications or write a background. Now, I suppose it is a penalty that the GM forbids Casual Killers and sci-fi origins in his low fantasy game, at least by that definition. Agreed, and that applies to the background. Every background I've read has contained within additional hooks or unlabled Complications that could be invoked. Regardless, even if it just "tie together" all the bits of the character- the tradeoff is that there is now no wiggle room on certain details of the character. You can't suddenly define an aspect of your character's past mid-play that had previously been undefined or vaguely defined- it's been established. "Hey Bob. I know you really hate writing backgrounds, but I really enjoyed gaming with you in the last campaign, and you seemed to enjoy gaming with the rest of us too- for the next game I'm running, I'm afraid I'm going to require a short background for your character. Around a page, and it's mandatory if you're gonna play. Tell you what though- I'll give you another 10 CP to offset some of the foul taste, eh?" However, should the players would would write the background anyway NOT receive the 10 CP because it wasn't something they disliked doing? Complete non-sequitur, and it seemed to ignore the points of the post. You don't get any points for a name. You get points for wanting to play the game.

Re: Background Story Rewards Again, no. You're inventing the "that guy" narrative. Assigning malicious intentions where there are none. If the decision is made "because I find Complications/backgrounds useful in running the game" then that motive doesn't exist, even if "that guy" does. I "expect" a background in the same way that I expect players to come up with the Complications offered (and then I'm usually not surprised that they've come up with more, and accept that they are 0 point Complications). I don't require it, but I'd just be a little startled it if I didn't see it- just like I expect the character to have a name on the top of the sheet. "No, my character literally has no name. He doesn't even understand how to refer to himself yet- that's what I want to explore." I wouldn't reject a character out of hand for not having a name, no taking all 50 in Complications, or not having a background (which is, apparently, just another type of Complication).

Re: Background Story Rewards Why not? It's just an extra complication when you put it that way. Or heck, it's just a narrative tying the complications you already have together. So, fine, regard the background as a soft expectation. Write or or not, just don't claim to be penalized because you didn't do it.

Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... Did we get the quotes from Episode 1 of that Deathwatch game? I don't recall mention of a Emperor's Ghost Space Marine before, you see.

Re: Star Hero Setting: The Fires of Heaven .... you know what? This sounds interesting enough that I could actually buy it. Best compliment a customer could make, I guess.

Re: Background Story Rewards It could absolutely be relevant to the STORY, though. I'm not talking anything as concrete as a Complication being triggered.... just a tie in that a player would appreciate it, would note. They may or may not anticipate the GM utilizing that detail, but for perhaps a more concrete example.... A PC from a former game of mine grew up on the street as an orphan (Fantasy setting). He amassed a small gang of close confidants, and was recruited by a master of assassins type. To make a point, their recruiter executed one of the band of four (named Owl) during their initiation/acceptance into the organization. This was very traumatic for the PC, but as a part of this ritual he had received an earring which granted him some magical protection (5th edition, some invisible Armor that was always active. Just a few points, but very useful in a city of duelists). Now, the PC already had a Watched on his sheet (since the Master of Assassins was his boss), and he did a fine job on his own roleplaying out his tension with the man. However, that detail better enabled ME to participate in that effort. For instance (this never came up), I could have had the Master of Assassins require that the PC tug on his right earlobe as the secret sign for a particular meeting.... the same ear that had the earring. It's a detail that requires no extra time, doesn't take the spotlight from the other PCs, but it is something that THAT PLAYER might smile and say "You bastard."

Re: Background Story Rewards See, I suspect questionnaires to be a bit restrictive/limiting (though still better than nothing). I worry that a player would only focus on those questions (and not work beyond them), and that they would give answers like "My parents were killed when I was a young boy" instead of "One day, when out picking apples, a group of bandits waylaid my family..." The latter gives the GM and player all sorts of ammo for fun. Does he always have an unpleasant flashback when he sees an apple? Perhaps an NPC could accidentally or on PURPOSE use this during a conversation.... or perhaps the GM could opt to set an important fight in an apple orchard, as a nod to the PC's backstory. I find questionnaires can be useful as before/during character creation, however. I'd still welcome a backstory on top of it though, to paint a picture. And you're right: the real reward is in the player having fun with it. Though I can't imagine how a background would limit a GM...unless he didn't realize he could say no to a particular element of that story.

Re: Background Story Rewards

Re: Background Story Rewards Perhaps those players should grow up? Regardless- I do it, it's always worked extremely well (hell, by the end of it I think they usually care less about the extra points and more about their character's backstory, which is great). In a heroic level game, I offer 5 pts for a 1 page background, with MAYBE another point for going beyond that. That usually didn't come up, so I have to think about it. With the transition to 6th, I'd probably up that to 10 pts to reflect the inflation of CP. I also offer another 5 points for a decent quality character image. Rough guidelines, to be sure.

Re: Creepy Pics. ....what the hell is that from?

Re: Superheroic fantasy Yeah, I'm sure nothing went wrong with that.....

Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... So.... what is the Logician faction all about? (Awesome stuff, btw).

Re: Well this just sucks. (Commercial rocket aborts on launch.) Huh. I thought it might be something like that. Thanks.

Re: Well this just sucks. (Commercial rocket aborts on launch.) Ok, that explains that.... what were they poking the bags for, with the (I presume) little metal reader? (See, my audio situation isn't the best right now, so I couldn't hear the explanations).

Re: Well this just sucks. (Commercial rocket aborts on launch.) ....in the opening of the capsule video.... what are they doing???? And why are they wearing masks? At first I thought maybe it was to reduce the risk of germ contamination from Earth (after all, they've been stuck up in space with a very limited supply of them).... but that didn't seem to make much sense on second thought because they still have to interact with everything in the capsule, so the germs (if there are any) are coming into the station anyway.

Re: TUALA MORN -- Interested In More Stuff? I'd be interested in all of it.

Re: Facing and Passing Perfect, Markdoc (IMO). JamesG- I feel the reverse: I see yours as an ad hoc (or perhaps carefully formulated but still formulated as an addition to the rules), whereas I see the use of Acrobatics/STR (depending on the situation) as natural extensions/legitimate interpretations of the rules, since they already exist and speak to either these exact issues or issues very similar to them (namely, moving between/around objects under less than ideal circumstances).

Re: Facing and Passing It seems less like house rules than what you proposed. Not that there is anything wrong with house rules to clarify an issue.