[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: (TFT) SciFi TFT, was: What happened to the TFT list ?
On Mon, February 4, 2008 3:55 pm, Ray Rangel wrote:
> What I probably should have said is that RPGs are terribly inaccurate
> simulators. But they don't have to be to be entertaining and fun. Which
> answers your question, "Why play?"
Hmm. Personally, I agree that MOST RPG's are terribly inaccurate
simulators. TFT is not nearly as terribly inaccurate as most, which is a
big part of why I and my friends chose it and enjoyed it. And when we
started getting dissatisfied with some of the realism aspects, we started
redesigning it, and moved to GURPS, and then added some
detail&realism-oriented house rules to that...
>> If your gonna force me to fit my character into YOUR view of your
>> world, I figure that's an NPC.
Really? Well the characters may be "Non-Player" in a sense, during periods
where for whatever reason, things aren't played out. I might say though
that RPG's are "collaborative storytelling, where everyone contributes and
is advanced when the group accepts someone's contribution, be they GM or
player. I don't see the GM controlling some aspects to invalidate this,
though where the lines are drawn will vary from group to group and moment
> Many adventures are written is such as way as to lead the players through
> various encounters to a climatic conclusion. No matter what choices the
> party makes, they will all end up, one way or another, in the same place.
> Many adventures offer obvious choices which are diverging paths that may
> contain different encounters and NPCs, but the paths will rejoin and
> continue on toward the plot's conclusion.
Yes, though personally, I would agree with Jay that games designed this
way are removing the game from the story, because those elements are not
interactive. The more constrained the possibilities, the less interaction
and collaborative creation there is - the more it is just fixed
storytelling and the less it is a game.
And personally, in general, I prefer my games to be dynamic and
interactive at a deep level. I find RPG's far more interesting when what
the PC's do really drives what happens in unpredictable ways. That's when
a story is created in the playing, and not merely told.
> As for conforming to the GM's story, well of course they have to
> conform...that's why they are playing the game. The players want to
> participate in the GM's story or they wouldn't be sitting at the table. If
> the game takes place in a space station, I don't expect people to generate
> dwarves with crossbows and axes. I expect them to arrive with characters
> that are compatible with the game that everyone else is expecting to play.
Those examples are about conforming to the GM's game universe, which is
different from conforming to the story.
> A good GM can weave a tale that sucks involves the PCs and manipulates
> so that the plot is furthered without obvious strain. Events and decisions
> appear natural. logical and keep the players moving toward the culmination
> of the adventure or campaign.
He could. Another good GM could allow the players to alter events and
arrive someplace he hadn't predicted. I'd much rather be in the second
good GM's campaign, personally.
> I don't take any of this give-and-take personally and hope no one else
> either. It is beneficial to exchange views and to disagree with them. It's
> ok if you call the opinions I express bunk, foolish, or even stupid and
> silly. I realize that you are talking about the idea expressed and not me
> personally. I sincerely hope that you and other readers are of a similar
> mind set.
Post to the entire list by writing to email@example.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org with the message body