And player: but yes, probably. That's about all I've had the chance to do for years.
> a) you suggest taking "butt-kickers" and
> "tacticians" out of the group. That's fine
> if who is in the group is determined by acting skill and
> interest in role playing.
well... it's determined by "who likes this sort of game". Not if they're any good at it, but if they enjoy it.
> Who's in our group, on the
So it's a social group that happens to game while socialising? Yes, rather different. On the rare occasions when our "known each other for 20 years" groups have a spare evening in common, we don't usually spend it roleplaying.
> For me as a GM it is more a matter of
> knowing what my players want, and making sure they get
> enough of it to be happy, or at least not too unhappy, with
> the game than of compliance with any theoretical model of RP
> gaming.
But you've chosen HQ as the ruleset, presumably? I am assuming that much, and also that you've made the right choice for your group. As a rule, I think groups that choose HQ tend to be more story-based than others, right? Otherwise you'd be using some other ruleset.
> Also, for an F2F game. i'm not sure I could
> find 5 pure storytelling players, or 5 pure method actors,
> if I wanted to.
Maybe this is another difference: I can't remember many PBeM games I've been in that have had as many as 5 active players.
> b) GM's often have at least some butt-kicker or
> tactician in them. The other GM in my game used to be the
> WRG 6th ancients wargame champion in our city;
I've been known to do a bit of wargaming myself....
> As a GM, he's basically a storytelling kind of guy.
Yes, two different sorts of game, and you switch mindset in between.
> On
> the other hand, when our tactics are too bad, he lets us
> lose, because he can only lean so far in our favor before
> losing belief in the reality of his own game.
It does get hard, doesn't it?
Don't know if it helps, but what we've done in the past is to look at the double-mastery the PC or NPC has in tactics, and the way he's just rolled a major victory, and invite the player to describe the tactics they're using, with the note that they are, by definition, an excellent plan that will work, and if any player or GM thinks otherwise, that's because we've only got single masteries in Tactics.
Sometimes when player knowledge and character knowledge clash, and the GM can see it, they can give hints, if the character would have "known better". That's not just tactics, it's all sorts of things.
> c) the point of the healer example was not to argue that
> the problem is insoluble for healers, but to point up a
> simple version of the problem nearly everyone will have
> encountered.
We have indeed. But I still think that players mistreating other players like that is a social problem rather than a gaming one. Anyone can be marginalised if the rest of the group thinks only of the character's usefulness rather than the player's fun.
Hmm, maybe I just answered my own question there? That's how you get "balance" to work. Cooperation and courtesy.
> d) by people who don't care how big their parts are,
> I'm referring to players whose interest in the game is
> not primarily storytelling.
Ah. Gaming-style clash.
> I've run into players who
> cared deeply about how strong their character is relative to
> other characters in the group,
Yes, me too. They generally move to other games if they're in the minority. If that's something they're interested in, then "party balance" must be important in the sense that they're trying to destroy it :( It can work: they get a character that's more powerful than anyone else's and the only problem is if they expect anyone else to notice, much less care. But they tend to also have different expectations of the rest of the group, and that's where problems come in. They make suggestions about how we can "tune" our augments to get more power, and get frustrated when we don't take them, because we're not after power.
> In general, useful rules and useful RPG concepts need to
> address how to deal with a fairly wide variety of
> players. This means a wide varieties of styles,
> motivations,goals, role playing abilities, etc.
If you're doing a social club that happens to game, yes. Or a convention game, where the players are thrown together and you probably don't know what sort of game they prefer until it's all over. Very hard, that.
> To be honest, Jane, I don't think you need rules much.
Me, no, but my players seem to like them, so I use them. "Descriptive rather than restrictive" is my preference, but they do help. Still, in-game power balance isn't dependent on rules. If one PC is the town mayor and another is the newest beggar, we don't need rules to see an imbalance.
> You recruit players who like your style;
Well... yeah. But that's not "me", that's any PBeM game, or forum game, or chat game or.... and the styles they use are all different. You pick the one that fits.
> you could probably get away with just rolling a
> D100, noticing that it looked like a fumble, and describing
> the character losing control of his sword, grabbing for it,
> and impaling himself on the sword of his startled enemy.
You think I'd roll the dice?? (well, maybe) And the player has the fun of describing how his character is heroic, unless he asks me to do it. I do not steal control from them.
> So your games are fun, probably a lot of fun for your
> group(s). Not knocking them, but it is not clear how
> close the problems you face in GMing them are to the
> problems the rest of us face in GMing our gamse.
Depends on what you mean by "the rest of us". If the only difference you're seeing is between PBeM and F2F, then I'll have them in common with a lot of other PBeM GMs.
Powered by hypermail