8-bit Play Session

[Eric J.]

GM: Me

Player: Anthony
Class: Technologist
Superfeat: Can make anything out of anything.
Superhook: Never works right.
Feat:
Hook:
Items: Tessla Rod; Socks
GM's Reaction:  Anthony had a really good idea for his character, but he still doesn't exactly know how the relationship between feat and hook works.  He originally wanted his current Superfeat and wanted his superhook to be that he was afraid of magic.  After that he wanted it to be that he couldn't ever find the right equipment.  After that I had him change it to that it never works right.  This seemed to fit the stereotype perfectly, but he said that it would eliminate the entire ability that his Superfeat gave him.

Player: Charly
Class: Old Coot
Superfeat: Tome of infinite Wisdom.
Superhook: No one understood him.
Feat: Karate master; Can cast cantrips
Hook: Always breaks bones; Believes that he's an allpowerful mage.
Special Item: Cane; Thinking Cap
Reaction: Probably the most memorable character.  Charly came up with most of this himself.  I liked the idea.

Player: Cody
Class: Fighter
Superfeat: Master of Mounted Combat
Superhook: Never leaves a battle if a foe is there.
Feat: Good at pissing people off; -
Hook: Good at pissing people off
Equipment: Horse; Spiffy Equipment
Reaction: This was the same as every character that Cody had ever played.  He tried to maximize in a freeform system, which really shoudn't be easy.  I don't think that he really wanted to play and not much thought was put into his character.

Player: Jesse
Class: Dragoon
Superfeat: Jumping Fiend
Superhook: Always acts like a Jumping Fiend
Feat: -;-
Hook: -;-
Equipment: Super spiffy ultra powerfull and undeniably cool spear of DOOM; Scary mask.
Reaction:  Jesse didn't understand how the system worked at all for about 2 hours, untill I gave him a list of classes.  This seemed to help him and Avery out.  All in all, he was of the most succecful characters.

Player: Avery
Class: Alchemist
Superfeat: Can brew awsome potions.
Superhook: Is obsessed with gold.
Feat:-
Hook:-
(I note at this time that the dashes mean that I don't remember)
Equipment: The "Philosophers Stone" a big supply of lead.

The kingdoms of Nada and Mucho were at war.
I started of in the neutral city of NadaMucho.
Cody is who I started off with.  He was a part of the Nada army, of 14 soldures.  After they started attacking a bunch of hippies presented them with flowers.  Their commander spit in the lead hippy's face and they moved back into the city and closed the gates.  They started to attack it, and it was made of brick, painted brass.  Cody went up to the gate and "relieved himself" on it.

GM: Okay, you relieve yourself of your armor.
Cody: What?!
GM: Hey, it's your biggest burdon.
Cody: Fine.  I piss on the gate.

After that a big Wizard comes up and and brings Cody into the air.
Cody and him have a stupid fight and Cody gets flown at Mach "Something or other" into the sky.

Anyway-

Anthony and Jesse were walking along in what I called the Dragon's Forest.  Jesse wanted to see things so he jumped up.  

GM: You see a fire and there are a bunch of Orks!
Jesse: I shout "Orks!"

Anthony decides to go running through the forest.  After he jumps through a bunch of trees he hits a river.  His Tessla Staff is on so he electricutes everything.

GM: Jesse, you think to yourself, "I probably should have told him that they were only dolphins."

Anthony finds this hilarious(Assume that theres a, "(SP?)" after all of my words" and we get into a long involving discussion on what the joke is.

I think that it would be better if Anthony or Avery, or Cody told the rest.

[Sage of Shadowdale]

Oy... meh. Okay, I of course, was the technologist. My two feats were that I was extremely intelligent and extremely persuasive. The latter of which, if remembered to a better extent by our friendly neighborhood GM, could have changed a few conversations slightly. My hooks were that I was obsessive about my tech stuff, and that I was afraid of magic.

A word or twelve about game balance.

::rant mode activated::

In my opinion, Charly's character was way too powerful. To us in game, he seemed omnipotent. A Tome of Infinite Knowledge? Compared to the ability to make anything out of anything (which was still way too good,) or to be the master of mounted combat? Uh huh. A Tome of Infinite Knowledge can grant its user either of the aforementioned other powers, so there goes Eric's beloved idea of putting the players in power. The ability to make anything also lets its user make a Tome of Infinite Knowledge, yes, but you have to have the materials. (i.e., infinite knowledge.) That was way out of balance, especially when his superhook is that people can't understand what he's saying. According to Eric, the superfeat and superhook are supposed to fit together. How does having a Tome of Infinite Knowlege and having a speech impairment even come close to fitting together?

Charly's character even bypassed the power of the "camera," meaning the current group of people the GM is actively working with when we're all split up. He went from one place, "past the camera," to a scene where Cody and Avery were fighting. I later stated that it was unfair for Charly to be able to teleport, and Eric and Charly both said "When did I/he teleport?" I was speechless. I'm most amazed that Eric allowed all of this.

Charly's character was memorable, yes, but also omnipotent, and surpassing the power of all of the other characters infinite-fold.

If this is the way a freeform system is supposed to work, then I don't think it's worth playing. At all.

::rant mode deactivated::

[Eric J.]

<Rant>

Wow.  What an entirelley uh... rantish rant.  I'm confused.  You really liked the game while/after playing it.  You say that you would REALLY like to play the game before the game.  After I asked you how you would change the game directly afterwords you tell me: "I don't know."  
You tell me that it was fun 95% of the time.

It therefore seems to me that a statement like:

If this is the way a freeform system is supposed to work, then I don't think it's worth playing. At all.

has little basis and contradics the vast majority of your opinions on the subject.

I'm not getting defensive, but I am kinda' scrathin' my head a bit.

[Mike Holmes]

No, that's not te way that a Freeform game is supposed to go. Which is to say that your group's need to compete will never work with this. It starts with the GM's competition with the players. The episode where you make Cody's character do something that the player didn't want may have been funny to you, but for almost all styles of play, that sort of action is considered dysfunctional. It should never happen in most games, and never in a Freeform game.

But it's not just the GM. The players are obviously far too concerned with competing aganist each other. Tell you what, I'll take a character who has some comparably wimpy feats, and I'll have more fun than all of you. Well, not if I'm playing with you guys. But the point is that Freeform systems can't work with players who are concerned with player power derived through their characters. Normally people who play freeform don't have any such concern.

This goes to your group's insular composition. You have all only played with each other, so you really have no idea what other modes of play look like. You all talk about how one player is Sim and another Narrativist. What you all are is Gamist. You are all looking for some way to control the game. And that's because the other players are playing that way. If some of you got out of that group, then maybe your play might change to the modes that you claim (maybe) But as long as you have some members competing against each other, play is not going to change in this group.

If you really want to try Freeform, then do it right. The system you are using is for more advanced Freeformers, really. Try this game out:

1. No GM.
2. Each player makes up a character by writing a one-hundred word essay (or so).
3. Each player takes turns describing what happens in the game world.

The only rule is that you cannot make other PCs do anything, and when you do stuff that affects other PCs you have to make them look good. That's right. It's not only do you have to be concerned with your own character's coolness, you have to be worried about others. If someone objects to something that another player has done, he should discuss it with the other player until there is an agreement. If you can't come to an agreement, then you are both out of the game.

Now I'll go and do something that I'm not supposed to do. I'll tell you that I think that your competitive natures are part of your age. Just my opinion, but when I read your posts, all I see is several teenagers squabling like teenagers (I love how you guys attack each other emotionally, "You're ranting!", "No, you're ranting!"). Which I suppose is natural. And if you just accept this part of your personalities as is, then you can just continue with the same type of play until you grow up, or find new groups to play in. This means not just Gamist games, but dysfunctional Gamist games. See the GM can almost never compete with the players (but maybe you guys should try Rune where you take turns being GM and trying to smack the other players).

But what I susect is that you are all smart enough that if you really wanted to play in other modes that you could do so. It would just take a bit of willpower to change your mental attitudes. I say this all realizing that I had exactly the same problems when I played at your age. Your biggest hurdle in achieving other styles is that I'm sure that none of you have ever seen what another mode of play looks like. That, and I think some of your players will always prefer Gamism (which is in no way dysfunctional, and shouldn't be dismissed as a preference). So, as many have said before me, I think that your current group may just be doomed to dysfunctional play.

I'll go out on another limb here, and say that the reason that you don't go out and play with other people than your current group is for social reasons. That is, you feel like playing with your friends, and you're afraid to meet strangers. Which again is natural for your age. All protestations to the contrary, this is very much what it seems. I may be way off, I don't really know you personally. But just consider the possibility. And the ramifications.

Mike

[Sage of Shadowdale]

1. My response to Eric's post.

Yeah, I know. It takes time for me to look back at it and figure out what I didn't like about the session. You ask me at 3:00 A.M., when I've been up for a long time, and you expect me to give a decent answer? Some of us can't think too well without sleep. I figure things like the previous rant out after I've had time to think about it, and the Forge is a good place to give this type of information. In other words, Eric, from now on, don't ask me about the session until at least the following day, or even wait for a Forge post. I need time and sleep to look at something like this with a semi-clear mind.

The actual dialog and character interaction was great, and the humor element involved with the characters was great, too. The characters just had no balance with each other.

2. My response to Mike's post.

I don't really have a need for competition, just a need for balance. To me, Black Mage's spiffy Hadoken and Red Mage's stat-swapping abilities are roughly equal, and neither conflicts with each other at all. Even if Red Mage stat-swaps, he still can't cast a Hadoken, he doesn't know how. He can learn, yes, but he has no way of doing so, and there probably isn't one, outside of being Black Mage himself. It's Black Mage's special ability. It's balanced.

On the other hand, as I said in my previous post/rant, Charly's characters has every ability to do everything in my superfeat, while I cannot do his, without obtaining infinite knowlege, an extremely unlikely situation. That just doesn't seem balanced.

According to Eric, if you're supposed to "level up," (in a not-so-exact sense,) by the class change, then how come Charly gets to play a character at the start that feels like he's been through four or five of them already? Something is telling me by the way Eric is setting up the mechanics, that this isn't really all that Freeform. Of course, I could be wrong. It appears I usually am.

Just a question.

[Eric J.]

1. Response to Mike's post:  Gamist prefference is probably one of my groups biggest problems and it all comes down to incompatability.  I thought that changing the objective to humor and then reinforcing it would help.  I clearly stated before the game began (numerous times) that you only get points for being comical and that your characters are supposed to end up wonderfally incompetant.  This is supposed to be Nar/Sim play.  Nar. since it is playing a character so that they achieve a certain premise (Comic ones) and sim. because it is the exploration of the 8-bit theater feel.  I am confused, personally, with Anthonies resentment of Charlie's character's abilities.  He laughed at him during the game.  I don't see how his superfeat disbalanced the game at all.  From a game design standpoint, I don't see how nearly ANY superfeat can disbalance the game, unless it limits the other players' options.  Anyway-  About the other group thing.  I would find another group experience to be invaluable.  However, besides internet play I find limitations based upon my area.  Could you please present some ideas?

2. 1st Response to Anthonies post:

Umm... If you can't adequitlley review a session after one because of sleep detering you abilites, why do you insist on roleplaying at thoes same times?  It also confuses me for you to say that your after game assesment was invalid because you were tired.  If you were having fun, what's the problem with a little chaos?

On a seperate note:  What makes you think that you have less gamist preference?  From your resentment of Charlies abilities, it would seem that gamist was an acurate term to describe your mindset when you felt that way.

[Scratchware]

Hm... I feel I need to get something said that is rather important..

First of all, Mike Holmes, I was not gamist at all during the session and rarely have a gamist mindset at all. I created the old coot for the fun of roleplaying him. Old coots are very funny. I did not want to play him for the fact that he 'is omnipotent'.

Second of all, he is not omnipotent. I created a very creative/detailed character while explaining why I get certain feats.

This is how the creation of my character went:
I asked Eric to come into the next room with me, away from the other people who were thinking very loudly about their pathetic attempts to make a character. When we arrived in the next room, I told Eric "I want to be an old coot. You know, the crazy old coots that usually make good mages." He said: "Hm, that is an excellent idea Charly, though it might not work well.." I sat down at the 1.5 foot tall coffee table and wrote down my super feat and super hook with the idea of humor in mind. I scoured my brain to the very depths were it is dark and wet and came up with a very wise (NOT knowledgeable) character that broke his bones easily (the hook to being a karate master) and mumbled when he talked (the hook to the tome of infinite WISDOM).

I had a very humorous experience in the creation of my character and Eric and Avery were both laughing at the idea (Avery entered the room in search of help with his character due to his lack of knowledge about the system). I don't see how I had a gamist mindset at all during the session.

A note about the passing of the camera and my so-called omnipotence:
At the point when Eric stated that my character had arrived on the scene where Jesse and Anthony were entering a cavern, I was laughing extremely hard. I thought it was a nice touch to the session.

[Eric J.]

Thank you Charly.  Most of that was entirelly accurate.  However, I would like to correct part of it.

I scoured my brain to the very depths were it is dark and wet and came up with a very wise (NOT knowledgeable) character that broke his bones easily (the hook to being a karate master) and mumbled when he talked (the hook to the tome of infinite WISDOM).

Actually, you came up with infinite knoledge, but I changed it to infinite wisdom.

BTW- I hope that my group hasn't scared everyone out of the Actual Play Forum.

[greyorm]

I don't really have a need for competition, just a need for balance.

That, however, is competition: "He can't be more powerful than (fill in the blank)." The only reason game balance exists is to enforce a fair playing field between players; the only reason you need a fair playing field is if you're competing.

[Eric J.]

I would agree.  Game balance's importance to gamismn is firmly established by Ron's essay.

[Sage of Shadowdale]

Well, since it appears that even I don't know what I was/am talking about any more, I think I will just desist. So long, and thanks for all the fish. Or not.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hey, I think this an interesting question, touched on in various ways at the Forge before but maybe not directly adressed - does balance serve anything other than establishing an even playing field for competition?

But in this thread, let me phrase it this way - Anthony, you don't neccessarily "not know what you're talking about."  I doubt we know exactly what you mean when you say "not competition, just balance" - help us out here.  Why do you you want balance?  I can think of a number of good things about it, though it does seem to me that it's only ESSENTIAL in competition (including cooperative competition).  But what's your reasoning?  Why was it a problem in this play session?

(We may need to get a beter handle on what we mean by "balance", too - like are we talking PLAYER balance or CHARACTER balance - but let's set that aside for now)

Gordon

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Oh God - "balance."

The first thing to recognize is that "balance" is undefined. I have a very long list, in Chapter 5 of my essay, of things that people refer to with the term. Maybe people can check that out before continuing? The thread Game balance would be good to review as well.

The second thing is to focus a bit more on the nature of this thread. What's going on? Eric, what questions are we dealing with, do you think?

Best,
Ron

[Eric J.]

Well, actually that's what I reffered myself to when Anthony first made his most recent post.  (Your GNS essay, not the thread)

My intuition says that he wants the characters balanced because he wants everyone to have comperable abilities when dealing with problems.  What I don't think he relizes is that the Game is for character interaction where the setting is the catylist.  He may have percieved that my "teleportation" of Charly's character was with his ability, not as something to clean up Cody's and Avery's PvP conflict.

This is an example of gamism on a fundamental level.  Personally, I think that all parts of GNS work in every RPG on SOME level.   I think that balance is important in my RPG, but only to the point where Characters abilities imapct the options of other characters.

Anthony, himself, has a case of GNS confusion at parts.  I think, for example, that he confuses "Story" and Narrativist together.  However, I don't wish to speak for him.

I'll try to get Anthony to post on this thread again.  Thanks.

[Balbinus]

Two things here which concerned me slightly.

GM: Me

GM: Okay, you relieve yourself of your armor.
Cody: What?!
GM: Hey, it's your biggest burdon.
Cody: Fine.  I piss on the gate.

After that a big Wizard comes up and and brings Cody into the air.
Cody and him have a stupid fight and Cody gets flown at Mach "Something or other" into the sky.

GM: Jesse, you think to yourself, "I probably should have told him that they were only dolphins."

Anthony finds this hilarious(Assume that theres a, "(SP?)" after all of my words" and we get into a long involving discussion on what the joke is.

I think that it would be better if Anthony or Avery, or Cody told the rest.

I've seperated them out hopefully to make reading this a little clearer.  The concern is the same in both, you're playing people's characters for them.

In the first example you tell Cody what his character is doing.  Cody then behaves in a dumb and unrealistic fashion.  But what else is left for him to do?  You're already taking his character's decisions for him.  By doing dumb stuff he reasserts control over his character, even if only briefly before you kill it for not acting as you wish.

The second example is similar.  You tell Jesse what his character thinks.  Again, what does that leave for Jesse to do?  You're playing the character at that point, not him.

It's the same issue in two different ways.  In an rpg with traditional GM/Player split the only thing the player controls is their own character, that character's thoughts and actions.  Once you dictate those you turn the players, however briefly, into spectators and most players will not accept that happily.

I'd suggest letting go, don't tell people what their characters are doing or thinking, let them tell you.

Also, I know this is the Forge and all but I've read a number of these posts and I'm not sure GNS theory is helping your group.  GNS is a tool, nothing more, and it's not always the right tool.

I'm not saying GNS is irrelevant, but I'm not sure arguing about who's gamist is very productive.  I think if you simply cut people a little slack, let them play their characters without your input and let them try out their own ideas many of these problems would reduce.

I write this having just read the LotR thread, where I'm afraid my sympathies were firmly with Cody.  He was buzzed, wanted to run a game, but got shot down on the basis he might not get everything right.  Relax, ultimately it is a game and we do it for fun.  If not everything is right, even if Tolkein returns from the grave to wreak vengeance for the atrocious portrayal of his world, if people have fun it's still a good game.