A Study in the Logic of Gaming

[rayner23]

Are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!?!

Wait a second . . . did I travel back in time . . .

Nope. It is still 2009. Sorry, but I thought I accidentally travelled back to the year 2000. *whew* Good.

[Tadanori Oyama]

I've actually found the New World campaign to be pretty straight forward, compared to alot of settings I've seen. There's the obsession of the players over the Garipalli but aside from some of the more out of character comments (like wanting to kill every major NPC) the in character elements have made a great deal of sense given the available facts. Not to say it's without it's moments (see Cody's example).

So, that might just be me. I mean, it's perfectly possible my games are just so bad it looks normal.

[rayner23]

Even though some of our antics in New World can be a little wacky, we still try our best to stay true to our characters. I'm proud of it.

[jonnygadfly]

Any course of action, plan or stunt seen in a movie, particularly an over-the-top action movie, is an appropriate course of action for the characters even if said action is wholly inappropriate and even contrary to the tone of the game.

[clockworkjoe]

Any course of action, plan or stunt seen in a movie, particularly an over-the-top action movie, is an appropriate course of action for the characters even if said action is wholly inappropriate and even contrary to the tone of the game.

In fact, it is almost always the inappropriate action for the genre. Players in a realistic tactical game will dual wield desert eagles, firing wildly at the enemy while charging them and screaming while characters in cinematic games will hide and refuse to try anything remotely dangerous.

[Setherick]

Any course of action, plan or stunt seen in a movie, particularly an over-the-top action movie, is an appropriate course of action for the characters even if said action is wholly inappropriate and even contrary to the tone of the game.

In fact, it is almost always the inappropriate action for the genre. Players in a realistic tactical game will dual wield desert eagles, firing wildly at the enemy while charging them and screaming while characters in cinematic games will hide and refuse to try anything remotely dangerous.

Having dual wielded gold plated desert eagles with platinum bullets in a Monsters and Other Childish Things game, I protest.

In all actuality, I think that cinematic games are the most difficult to run because it forces the players to think in a radically different mindset. Sure, I'm playing an elf with a sword, but my basic life functions are the same. But if I'm playing an elf shadow dancer with crazy rapier skills that require me to always think of the most cinematic way to respond, it gets a bit harder.

[codered]

 Player logic. fully clad warrior in front of the canyon 100 feet across to the other side he pulls out a immoveable rod his only one and gets a running jump right at the point when he starts to fall activates the rod. starts to swing deactivates moves a little more and activates I start moving closer to the other side.

see guys, he said I'm not a stupid warrior I'm going to make it on my own

4 checks later almost there I roll a 1 on my check and fall to my death, the  mage feather falls to my corps and loots my body and the group goes on its way.


I thought it was a good idea at the time ....now I try to get 2 immovable rods lol..

[Maze]

the mage feather falls to my corps and loots my body and the group goes on its way.

... classic. 

[rayner23]

There are no good powerful NPCs. All of them are evil with intentions of destroying the world.

In D&D jr., my students finally found an incredibly powerful religious figure that has been helping them through their adventures thus far. Sure enough, they all think he is evil and he has to die.

[Tadanori Oyama]

Powerful NPCs are never capable of direct action in the favor of the players unless they have a specific item which they need fetched by the PCs.

[Maze]

If they do the above, they're a "Mary-Sue" or a "Marty-Sue" that has to die.

[Mason]

one of the biggest problems I have with my group is them remebering details. I'll give an example. I was running a star wars game with my friends and one of them was a wookie. as the game goes on he gets captured and has an explosive collar put on. if he goes past the front door of this building his head will get blown off. well the rest of the group dive in head first to rescue him. they kill everything that moves including the secritary at the front desk. once done they bring there ship in to fly off. the wookie completely forgetting about the collar runs out to the ship. I told him as soon as he steps out of the door he hears a slight beep then an explosion. he was dead. all the players railled against me saying it was bull that he was killed and such. eventually I had to give and say that it was a force premonition that one of the jedi had.

now do you guys run into this type of problem to?

[Maze]

Well, that's very similar to what I said. You gotta take in considerations that a player isn't living with whatever problems his character has. Joe working at retail has only so much attention to spend about Chewbaker, the one-armed wookie with down syndrome and sometimes, what happens in the span of 2 days game time takes about 3 weeks real time.

I personally think the best way around it is to tell the player "Uh, remember the collar? Your head will blow up." It avoids this kind of conflict because of player-logical choices.

(Hm...we should make a small glossary for gamers too.)

[clockworkjoe]

Yeah, players have the memory and attention span of a kid with ADD and hopped up on mountain dew. I constantly remind them of various important facts.

Anyway, moral dilemmas are always fun for players. Last night in the new world campaign, I introduced a new NPC, Cortez the Builder. Cortez was a paladin from the old world who discovered the New World a long time ago. He now rules over many tribes like Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now/Heart of Darkness. He has built a mine and enslaved the tribesman to work in it and wants to provide the colony with valuable ore. In exchange, he wants to be recognized as a legitimate ruler so he won't be overthrown or killed. He's also a brutal tyrant who executes dissidents with the bag of devouring.

Some players (Jason and Tom) wanted to fight him immediately, others thought the ore was too valuable to disrupt the mining and others wanted to learn more about what was going on before making a decision. It's quite fun from my perspective.

[Tadanori Oyama]

I like to use a little weapon I call "Are you sure?" when players forget things. When I ask a player that it makes all the other players snap to attention and check their notes for details they forgot. I like to give them a chance.

Must be nice for Tom to have somebody agree with him, eh? Has he started using his Expliots yet? Whenever listen to the Actual Plays I only hear him throw out basic melee attacks.