So, Pyron is here to bitch about his players, eh? Yes and No.

I have a few questions, and since you guys are the most experienced bunch of people I know:

*My origincal (good) campaign ended because of the incoherency of the group. They kinda ditched it because I couldn't show up for personal reasons. One friend started another 1-session campaign which ended because of friend( :( ) He will hereafter be reffered to as a :( face. Just kidding:). His name is Cody. You have read about him before and is always ready to reak havok upon my life :). Anyway. After my friends Planescape campaign ended because Cody effectivelley killed himself, Cody found a supplement for the "Battletech RPG." I hope that someone knows what that is. I've seen it mentioned on the internet zero times. He basically got all of his friends together to play an RPG he didn't have the rules for and had never seen.
Now, to me, that isn't winging it. It is getting together with a bunch of people with machine guns, shooting up into the air, and hoping that no bullets land upon you. Now get this: He's converting the D6 system to do this. He has had no experience outside of 3rd ed. D&D, and some messed up play with Star Wars D6. Now, I'm not trying to insult him. I really aren't, and I will get to my main point. Hang tight. Now: After the first session (which I refused to play in) only 1 player thought it was stupid and refused to play. They met for a second session, and I decided to give him a chance. I started to roll up a character, but I kept getting bad rolls on my background, and was eventually left with about 8 choices. He said that out of them, I could either be a smuggler or something worse. The second session went on well without me. Every time I asked why they were playing I got the same clique: "It's just for fun." Now, how this relates:

*- I spent numerous hours and ideas from my "Use in case of emergency or really really cool play" folder. I assembled a personal folder, which I created detailed equipment, races, enemies, experience guidelines, ect. I also gathered all usefull data from the internet. I also used the coolest premise I have ever thought of for use of campaigns. Unfortinitelley my players don't know it yet, which is one of my flaws. I can't reveal it here, becaues one of my players browses these forums, but you could (gasp!) PM me, or whatever, if you wanted to request further details. Now then-

(If you really want to hit the back button, I won't hold it against you if you act upon your urge.)

*- We now have two campaigns going on at once. I fully expected his to collapse for several reasons: He's only GMed, um....once before? Twice before? I don't think that any campaign that he's started has gone over two sessions, and that was using a coherent system (or any system at all) and premade adventures. There are GNS conflicts. It's in a universe that only 1 of three players are trully familiar with (and battletech MUST be well known about since the GM has read basically EVERY battletech novel ever created, and stands by the data completelley.) The system/he gave the players no control over their backgrouds, ect. The system and rules have been declared by players to be messed up.

*- Why doesn't it fall apart? I don't know what conflicts in campaigns will erupt, but it doesn't look pretty. I've never come across this before. Will the players side with the serious experienced GM, abandon him for a more relaxed style, or try to do play in both campaigns at the same time?

*- I should have described my campaign better, but I think that I've covered almost every fundimental concept presented here on the forge. Social contract; GNS; system matching premise; no railroading; and every guideline it gives me in the GMing section. I've actually expressed interest in the PC's experiences. Is there a centeral conflict that I've missed?

I have a week and a half to fix this, but I'm just wondering if there is some obvious thing that I'm missing. I relise how long and complex this is, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Pyron wrote: ...Cody found a supplement for the "Battletech RPG." I hope that someone knows what that is. I've seen it mentioned on the internet zero times. He basically got all of his friends together to play an RPG he didn't have the rules for and had never seen.

Pyron wrote: Is there a central conflict that I've missed?

I'm not sure if I should be opening my mouth (because I may need to insert my foot) but it might not be the game. Maybe they just like to game with Cody better than you. Maybe you're too uptight about roleplaying and they just want to relax and shoot stuff. I have no idea since I don't know anybody involved so feel free to tell me to stick my foot in.

Hi Pyron,

Basically from what you wrote I get the feeling that you've hit two things that I myself have been thinking about recently. Basically:

* GNS, the Forge, the GM guidelines, etc, etc.. are not a magic checklist that assures that players will enjoy your game. Being familiar with the techniques involved is a plus. But I did what I think you're doing: picking up things like GNS, narrativism, alternate stances, and so on, like shiny new hammers and seeing everything looking like a nail. But it isn't. There are many gamers who play illusionism, or "degenerate" systems, and enjoy themselves and don't become "GNS casualties". I know that those GNS casualties do exist, because I have seen them and I have BEEN one exactly as described by Ron, but it's by no means all-encompassing.

* Getting too serious for the players can kill their interest faster than any sort of GNS error. They quickly fear getting things wrong, don't know how to respond to anything, feel that too much consideration is getting involved, and so on. Getting too serious for yourself can kill your own impetus to run the game, and lead to things being continuously rejected in your head, or lead to you building folders and folders of Really Cool Ideas That You'll Use When... I've been there too. Note that this isn't the same as preparing a game carefully, having ideas, not quoting comedy lines in the middle of Cthulhu, etc.

There's something I want to say here. Something that I realised when I read a particular reply on the TROS forum (the one to do with SAs). But I can't quite put it into words at the moment. It's too late. I'll try and work it out another time. Suffice it for the moment to say that sometimes you do just want to get in a big robot and blow stuff up, as others have said.

Thanks for the responses. Now-

There are a couple of things that I haven't made clear:

I don't really know which campaign that the players prefer. I just want to understand how the players will react to the coming conflict. I do have something that my RPG offers that will be REALLY cool, but I need about two more sessions to pull it off.

Cody's Battletech RPG is different from what I'd expect. He's converted D6 Star Wars to play it, and all the battles thus far have either been entirelley railroaded (4 mechs and a plane destroyed 20 mechs), or gone an entire session without any mech battles (The only thing that they did in session 2 was a beer brawl where no one became injured). It would seem to me that any Mechwarrior or Batletech RPG would need to have wargaming as its focus.


And quozl, I'm desperate for answeres here. If that is the truth, than I will need to deal with it. In such a case as this, the problem may be greator than what I expect or want to deal with. However, I will need to deal with the probelm anyway.
It's just that I'm struggling. I don't understand how an RPG can function if the GM never hands out experience in a sytem where experience exists.

Pyron wrote: I don't really know which campaign that the players prefer.

Pyron wrote: ...all the battles thus far have either been entirelley railroaded (4 mechs and a plane destroyed 20 mechs), or gone an entire session without any mech battles (The only thing that they did in session 2 was a beer brawl where no one became injured).

Pyron wrote: I don't understand how an RPG can function if the GM never hands out experience in a sytem where experience exists.

Hey, Pyron!

I'm going to jump in here and point a couple things out that I noticed in your post.

I don't really know which campaign that the players prefer.

I do have something that my RPG offers that will be REALLY cool, but I need about two more sessions to pull it off.

It would seem to me that any Mechwarrior or Batletech RPG would need to have wargaming as its focus.

I don't understand how an RPG can function if the GM never hands out experience in a sytem where experience exists.

Hi Eric (Pyron),

I fully agree with what Roy said...and would like to had one thing.

The problem may also reside in the fact that you're analysing a lot of thing here, and that this kind of intellectual approch

Being here on the forge, you have come to the habit of analyzing things, reflecting upon your pratices and the "behavior" of your player...and enjoying all of this. IME, it's a very personnal thing. I enjoy too thinking about the technicalities of play (stances, scene framing, GNS inclination, etc.) ; but, while presenting all this to a friend of mine, I discovered that all that analysis, all that seriousness, was clearly way out of his conceptual frame of what is fun in rpgs.
Beside all this, it seems to me that your tastes have changed significantly since your first post here, so too have your goals in rpgs. But maybe those of the other members of your group haven't.

So, you asked for suggestion, here's mine :

You and your fiends have to make sure that you want the same thing out of your rpg sessions AND be carefull about not being too "intellectual" or "analytical" when you're doing so.

Hope that it helps,

Fabrice.

Fabrice is right on the money.

I enjoy discussing theory and trying different things out, but my wife and step-son just want to play and not worry about the various nuances.

Roy

Ah. Glad to see you on Eric. I want do join the discussion.

As some of you know, I rpg with Pyron. And yes, I am the single player who out of our small group who agrees with Pyron that Cody is insane. I love Pyron's campaign.. In fact I can't think of a bad one that we had when he has Gamemastered that wasn't Cody's fault. :)

What I want to say is: How do you deal with a person like Cody? He likes blowing things up and refuses to actually role-play which by the way is THE WHOLE POINT TO RPGing! ...

Last night (saturday night) Pyron and I were at our homes doing absolutely nothing while they played battletech. They chose that extremely gamist acting person's modified d6 campaign centered on blowing things up over Pyron's awesome simulationist campaign.

Added:

I would play with just me and him it's just we are sick of throwing away campaigns and we have (had) a successful one going. We have never had one that lasted for more than 6 sessions. I have never gained more than 1 level in any of our D&D campaigns.. So naturally I try to keep campaigns and hate to throw one away that we just started. That is why I need to get the other two players do become enthusiastic about the current one.

This brings me to my question: Can you help us to get people to like Pyron's simulationist campaign over Cody's Battletech campaign?

Hi Scratchware,

Just two thing :

Scratchware wrote: He likes blowing things up and refuses to actually role-play which by the way is THE WHOLE POINT TO RPGing! ...

Scratchware wrote: Last night (saturday night) Pyron and I were at our homes doing absolutely nothing while they played battletech.

Before I respond further to your posts, can you answer a few questions for us?

1) Why is it important that you play with Cody and the players that seem to be enjoying his style of play?

2) What do you (Pyron and Scratchware) want out of your roleplaying sessions?

3) Have you asked the other players what they enjoy yet? What do they want out of your roleplaying sessions?

I'll respond again when I see your answers.

Roy

Hi Eric,

I agree with Roy's questions, which is to say, I'd like to see your answers to them, and I'll add one of my own.

What's the deal with Cody's game, in terms of your attention to it? Why does it matter whether he's GMing at all, or how much people enjoy it? It seems to me that your priority should be focused solely on the enjoyment of your game, regardless of whether he's running another one.

Best,
Ron

Ah, yes. Good question Roy. It is not essential that we have Cody play with us, but it is essential that we have Jesse and Anthony (2 excellent roleplayers and my best friends). It is a lot of fun with them but Cody started his Battletech campaign right after Pyron did therefore taking away 2 of our players.. It just isn't the same without those 2.

Hope that answers your question.

Because, due to curcumstances, we can only play on friday nights. I started this thread ( I think that I started it... Wait, yes I did.) with the thought that I'm having GM competition. I have played in every one of Cody's campaign, if you exclude the most recent one, and found it very dissatisfying. That is not to say that they were bad, but that "I" didn't enjoy them. I'm simply trying to campare them and in how I can incorperate aspects of his campaign into my own, or learn from it or whatever... I guess that I should give a detailed description on what happened at my last session.

Jesse- Defected noble freelance trader.
Problems: His character seems not to be in perfect (to be mild) allignment with his background (2.5 pages by the way.)

Charly(Scratchware [BTW- I still wish that you would change your name :)] )- An ex-slave slicer. We need to work on his background.
Problems: He didn't get his background completed before about 20 minutes before the session so I spent hours on the other players before I was able to introduce him.

Anthony- Chiss Diplomat: Most succecefull in character. He changes his attatudes and even his voice.
Problems: ??? I'm sure that they're there. Charly? You have more insight. You're a player, by God.

Anyway-

The session starts as Jesse is moving towards Zemph station with a cargo load of organtics. Jesse has this wierd ability to extrapolate stuff from little information, demonstrating a plot destruction device and a gift of in game knoledge use, and figures out that there're pirates in the nebula that's close to the station. Anyway it starts as a chase scene between him and the pirates. His ship is faster so he easily maneuvers himself out of almost all of his blasts. Anyway he's approaching the station and he is critically hitted. His ship is heading towards the hanger bay and it nearly explodes. He gets inside and is rescued by some freaky zealot who has no implication to the story. He moves towards the elevator and is taken into custody. Anyway- Anthony is his attorney. I gave Antony the spotlight and he did some stuff, showing that there is a plot by the Verenian pirates to convict Jesse for his crimes (plowing into the station with a reactor breech). I tried to include Jesse by having conversations with Anthony from his cell. That sequence took about an hour. The trial came up and Antony's commander was the prosecutor. Anthony and Jesse win the trial. It's more compecated than that, but you know. It wasn't as simple as I made it out to be. Anthony goes to bed and is awoken by his commander. They have a brief conversation and Anthony is knocked out. He is taken to the their ship in a docking bay. Jesse convinced himself to sleep in his ship that night. I think that I orchestrated this fairly creatvielley. Anyway- Jesse is awoken and tries to stop Anthony's former diplomatic commander. This entails the first groundbased combat scene. Jesse is matched by two Chiss pirates, who have BLASTERS. Jesse only has his regulare firearm (slugthrower). Anyway, Anthony achieves conciousness and joins the fight. After they drop the two Chiss pirate goons, they have to fight the Chiss diplomat commander. He has a portable energy field. This is VERY high technology, and they are unable to deal with it so they flee with their ship. /Pause I should mention now, that they had taken to calling the Chiss diplomat commander a "Stravog". I don't know WTH it means in battletech but I don't have a clue. They assured me that they would always call the most powerful boss that, and I've been discuraging it ever since. /Unpause The Diplomat chases after them in his own ship and critically hits their hyperdrive, so they take their ship down to the planet. Who happens to be bored out of his mind and about to have a ship almost hit him in the head? Charly! Anyway, Charly fails to roleplay very well (he will admit it.) and we all go downstairs to watch tLotR SE. Charly decides that he really wants to roleplay half-way through, and we go upstairs to play again. Charly is much better, and he takes them to meet his master, who is kinda a cook. I was able to manipulate his voice to where the character himself was fairly ammusing, and they go on a side quest (which was all very humerous) where they have to get 100 credits from this guys brother (who lives next door). After that they explore the city and come upon a bar. I nearly force them into going in it, displaying the most apparent railroading since the intercontinental railroad was first constucted. Anyway, it kinda ends there.

Problems: I railroaded too much (but it's Star Wars! [Shh... be quiet]). I had a 24 pack of pepsi, and nearly infinite snacks. I had our favorite music, and the appropriate track constintly. Uhmm... Why does Jesse favor Cody's?

There are some obvious answeres that it could be, but I've been able to eliminate a few.

Example: I don't think that Cody protagonises his characters. He maimed one of them, and they are all getting "their ass whooped" by an alien force (the clans). All to country music... which is fine, but I don't think any one (besides me, who is partial to bluegrass) of Cody's players like it.

There is also the: "Let's screw around, and have fun" factor (TM[J/k]). I find this the leading possibility, but I question it nevertheless.

So, a big long rambly post. Any more questions? I would really like to clarify to avoid missinterperotation.

Just to add...

*Charly, I'm not one of your best friends? );.

* One of the main reasons that I'm anylizing both sides is because I'm expecting GM vs. GM conflict with player needs.

* I've inadvertantly been misleading every one. One aspect is that I've not allowed Cody to play in my campaign. This is because of conflicting priorities in goals, and the fact that Cody has a seperate gaming group, something that none of my other group members has. With all of the talk of friends don't have to roleplay together, I decided to try it out. Cody wants to play, but the premise would destroy any hope of functional play.
Cody invited me to play in his campaign, but after seeing the linearity of character generation, and of the dissfunctional play in general I decided not to.

*Charly, I don't think that Cody is insane! Stop saying insane! You're making ME insane! Cody doesn't harbor any dissalusions that what he is doing is functional, nor does he think himself more diserving of players. The only criticicm that I place upon his attitude with GM-player relationships is that he minimilizes the importance of players. (Much like how he treated your character when you decided to give up.)

O.K., I'm going to give advice and here's the disclaimer. It may not be good advice or even close to accurately assessing the situation since I'm only reading what you wrote and guessing. You did say you wanted to face the truth so here it is, bluntly:

I think you might be a control freak.

I think you might be so much of one that it isn't fun to be around you when you assume command.

I don't think your GMing is not as good as Cody's. In fact, I think they might be settling for Cody while you take time to cool off.

Do it. Cool off the control freak tendencies. Mellow out.

Then tell them. Tell them you might've been a little too controlling and you're willing to try something new. Ask them what they want to do in a campaign and then give it to them.

I really hope this doesn't sound too harsh. I hope it helps.

Hi all,

Quozl: "Control Freak" only invites an angry response. Can you be more specific? I'm not sure there's enough evidence, because Pyron really hasn't given much detail about his own behavior. Also, his report may be colored by the level of his feelings on the subject and not really reflect the outside situation.

Pyron: I know you've posted some information (You can only play on Friday; you're keeping Cody out of your game) but key things seem to be missing - in particular, your own desires and objectives.

I think the answers to Roy and Ron's questions would really help us help you. Can you address them in a few sentences? Maybe take some time to compose answers before posting?

Roy2) What do you (Pyron and Scratchware) want out of your roleplaying sessions? [What elements have to be present for you to have fun?]

Roy3) Have you asked the other players what they enjoy? What do they want out of your roleplaying sessions? [What elements have to be present for others to have fun?]

Roy1) Why is it important that you play with Cody and the players that seem to be enjoying his style of play?

Ron) Why does it matter whether [Cody]'s GMing at all, or how much people enjoy it?

Hello, everyone. I'm Anthony, and supposedly a good role-player. Oy... where to start? This is going to be fairly difficult to explain, but I'll try.

First of all, Eric's campaigns are usually great. This last Friday, I GMed a Planescape session (my favorite campaign setting BTW, for many reasons, but I hate D&D overall,) because we weren't expecting one of our players (Jesse) to be around who was necessary for Eric's Star Wars campaign to continue. Later, he came, but we were already engaged in Planescape, so we stuck with it. For various reasons it took a while to get going, (character creation took until 1:00 A.M.) but we played until 5:00. This does have a point, which I will get to, though I would like advice from my players for my Planescaping. (Not on the Forge, though, as it wouldn't be relevant to be posted here.) The point of that paragraph is that I do like and want to play Eric's campaigns, but usually something interferes.

Eric, I will attempt to explain my reasoning for still continuing MechWarrior with Cody. First of all, it's fun. While not as much of a role-playing challenge, it provides more action than your campaigns usually do. Not necessarily combat (though it is a major part, being BattleTech,) but activity and action. My character is the leader of a mercenary group, and I find it to be a rather interesting role. Jesse is learning the universe through the books, so he wants to try it in an interactive format, and Avery plays for the same reason he plays D&D, it's simply the style of role-playing he likes. We do have a great deal of control over our actions, Eric, but at the end of this session it appears we are in deep trouble. Big deal, it happens all the time. We'll either get out of it or we won't. The Clans have a very interesting culture.

BTW, "stravag" is actually Russian, I believe, and means "free birth," used by the Clans as a great insult. Ask Cody for more info. The Country music works for the setting, so I accept it, but the occasional Rap Cody uses for battles is quickly complained against.

Cody can be disruptive to campaigns of Eric's style, but that does have a lot to do with the conflict between the styles themselves, and not necessarily any intentional behavior upon Cody's part.

The truth is that I like both styles. I was a computer adventure gamer from age six, so the analytical style appeals to me, but Cody's more... "active" style also is simply great fun. My choice simply depends on the situation with everyone else. I will play anything put in front of me with few exceptions, and I will play to fit the setting. Also, Eric knows little about our MechWarriors' more recent adventures, and even through telling him is not the same as experiencing all of the session by being there. I am also probably the most "neutral good" person you could ever find, so I also like to include people in some manner, so I play everything.

I hope that explains something, and for Eric and Charly, please give me your ideas about Planescape, I do know some of my problems, but they are for a different topic entirely. If anyone needs further information, please ask.

Hey, Anthony! Thanks for your response. I was just about to give up on the thread!

The more I read on this, the more I believe it's a case of GMs with differing styles that are competing for the same group of players.

I would suggest that Cody and Eric just take turns running games on alternating weeks so the players aren't forced to choose GMs.

Eric, if you feel Cody is disrupting your group, take him out for a bite to eat and talk about it.

Good luck with your gaming. And if there's something more specific we can do to help, let us know.

Roy

Well, I've put off making a response to this thread long enough. Anthony, you actually posted on the Forge. Good job, and I'm sorry you were that board :). (Sorry it's an inside thing.)

Well, you say that Cody's campaigns are more "active." I can accept this, but cannot understand it. This is exactly the thing that I want you to tell me when I ask you how the session went. I just want to know how so. It seems to me that more conflict happened in my session than in any of the sessions that you described with Cody. The first session you went through a pre-aranged combat encounter, and another one was almost entirelley dominated by a single "beer brawl." I'm not arguing against you. I'm simply trying to illistrate how my view and your view could potentially differenciate.

Jesse's response to the last questions was "I don't know." BTW. I would be interesting to your response, Anthony, and your response Charly. Please post again.

Note: This post was written with an evolving concept in mind through its course of writing. Please follow it through.

The "activity" of Cody's sessions is difficult to describe, it has something to do with Cody's style of play. I would really like to be able to describe it, but you really do have to experience one of the sessions to see what I mean. I may try to explain it again in a later post, if I can figure it out.

We have done a great deal in our sessions beyond what Eric knows, especially in our last session. It's MechWarrior and we're mercenaries. Wow. Of course our missions are going to have to be pre-designed in some manner. We have contracts. We do the job and get paid. That's how it works. I have nothing wrong with the mssion style, because we do have a choice over what we take. Cody has several missions available for us to try. It is us players that do make the final decision, and Cody can use any one of them he wants, since he doesn't know what we are going to pick. (I hope that makes sone kind of sense.) If something out there (like the Clans) is specifically concerned about us, then they'll find us anyway.

However, in our last mission we inadvertently picked on the Clans, so they decide to retaliate. Our characters may be in deep trouble, yes, but we still have a path to proceed in. In this case, some would consider it a fate worse than death to be captured by the Clans, but I'm going to play out the scenario. In the session Eric refers to as a "beer brawl," our mercenary company was established (a complicated procedure,) as well as hiring of staff and other important issues to our characters. The fight came up as a result of the feelings of another mercenary group who lost a contract because of an employers choice of us over them. The aforementioned group did not like the loss very much, and decided to take out their frustrations on our mercenary company. The fight had a reason and we were the defenders. In the first session, we reinacted a battle that took place as canon in the BattleTech universe and had a specific outcome, yes, but is that any different than a Civil War battle reinactment?

Eric and Charly have both attempted to play MechWarrior with us, but have failed to like it. Eric has a different style of play than Cody and I'm really not sure about Charly. (Please post again.) His character (a Technician) did have little to do in the beginning, but neither did I. At this point in the campaign, a Tech would have been *very* useful, and Cody worked around that problem by providing an NPC Clanner (who we captured) to fill in that gap. A MechWarrior is probably more exciting to play as, but the Technician was Charly's choice. (The MW life paths are specific, but you do have a decent amount of choice over what your character is.)

A new idea has just arisen... Cody's style of play is very dynamic and interesting, and there are actually similarities between it and Eric's. The "missions" (I use the term loosely) Eric and Cody create many similar elements, such as in many cases, sending us through compounds and facilities, which one might say is similar to running through a dungeon in D&D, but in a sci-fi setting. (That is only one example, and there are also differences as well.) Eric encourages more role-playing overall, but there are many times in which Cody demands we dynamically role-play a situation as well. I am starting to think that Eric and Cody really are doing the same thing, but with a slightly different approach to it. Cody has been influenced by (A)D&D and Eric by Star Wars. All GMs are essentially trying to do the same thing (play a role-playing game,) and Eric and Cody's styles may actually be much more similar than either of them realize. (Eric, Charly, please don't use combat as a difference, because it really isn't between the campaigns. Cody's takes place in a warring universe. Star Wars in the Rebellion period would be a very similar environment, though Eric's does take place in a not-so-warring time.)

(I once again ask for advice on Planescape from Eric and Charly, just so they don't forget.)

I hope this made enough sense to help explain further in some manner the situation. I may be totally wrong here, but I do think it may be a case of similarity instead of difference. Cody started playing RPGs because the rest of us play, and who GMed most of Cody's early playing experiences? Eric. Much of this post is designed to help Eric understand our BattleTech scenarios, but if anyone knows of a similar situation in their RPGing, (in the way of the styles,) please post. We may actually be getting somewhere.

Aha! This is a very special post for me, for it is my first post with... CABLE INTERNET! My dream for over a seventh of my life...

Anyway-

Anthony, would you please give more specific examples with your depiction that our play styles are similar. This intrigues me, but I have little evidence to draw upon.

I'm very glad to see you guys are talking about it. Just remember to keep an open mind and really think about it without getting defensive. And let us know if there's anything you need help with.

Roy

The similarities are there, but I can't give direct examples, because it's much more in the way things are done than what is done, and I'm not really sure how to explain it.

I have a few questions for Eric and my own opinions on them that may help me develop this further:

-Why did you find the MW character creation linear?

While it goes from path to path, you do have a decent choice. Are you sure that that character simply wasn't a fluke of the system? My character, as well as Jesse's and Avery's turned out well and how we wanted them to. The dice rolls control events you have no control over.

-How was our MW play dysfunctional?

I'm not sure how you consider it to be so, and any information on this would help. It is true that the way we play (not necessarily Cody's style, though... it's hard to explain,) is very different, but does different make dysfunctional? When has Cody said what we were doing was dysfunctional? We may not have expected it to get to this point, and played "just for fun," but it has worked and it's going somewhere.

-How does Cody cut power from our characters?

Cody did the only thing he knew how to do when a player left. He cut him out of the campaign. What are you supposed to do? To my knowledge, you have had players not be able to come for a session, but never totally quit all together. What do you do, Eric? As I have stated, our characters have the power we feel they need.

Those are the questions I still need answered.

To be frank, on occasion, you do seem to get a bit controlling of the campaigns and the situations. MechWarrior started to work around your schedule, and now they interfere, since we can only play on Fridays and the conditions of your schedule have changed again. The problem is that we like playing MW, and so exists the conflict.

You do (in my opinion) railroad too much, (caused by a need for some kind of control over what's going on in the situation?) such as your almost "Hitchhiker-y" (the Infocom game) forcing of us into the bar. It all goes back to the situation of the Star Wars D6 Intro Set and the bounty hunter's ship. (For those who don't know it, it involves the players doing the exact opposite of what the GM intended and getting away with it.) There are several times in the past where it has felt that our characters in your campaigns have had no power at all, and not just when in the influence of some greater force, etc.

On a side note, I think that you should let other people GM a little more. Charly has a campaign available, and while he has GMed little, he won't get better if he doesn't try. Also, I don't GM as much as I used to, and it seems I only get to as a last resort anymore. I like GMing, especially Planescape, and I can't improve either if I don't GM and don't get advice from my players. Most of the time we just go to bed after ending one of my sessions. Like you ask for advice, I could really use it, too. You may also be placing too much control on the "GMship."

I will eventually be able to figure this out, I hope, but I need Eric's response, (and Charly's, and anyone else's) on this post. Thank you for your time.

Now, I may come off as a little defensive. This is because I am being defensive. Thank you for tollerating it in advanced.

-Why did you find the MW character creation linear?

-How was our MW play dysfunctional?

You do (in my opinion) railroad too much, (caused by a need for some kind of control over what's going on in the situation?) such as your almost "Hitchhiker-y" (the Infocom game) forcing of us into the bar.

On a side note, I think that you should let other people GM a little more. Charly has a campaign available, and while he has GMed little, he won't get better if he doesn't try. Also, I don't GM as much as I used to, and it seems I only get to as a last resort anymore. I like GMing, especially Planescape, and I can't improve either if I don't GM and don't get advice from my players. Most of the time we just go to bed after ending one of my sessions. Like you ask for advice, I could really use it, too. You may also be placing too much control on the "GMship."

hello my name is cody who you have been hearing so much about. i just learned the adress for this forum today at lunch im one of the almost constant arguments with eric(pyron) i really dont get why you seem to hate my MW campain, we only started because you were not able to play one friday and i saw a supplement to the mechwarrior RPG at hobby town and saw that i might be able to convert it into D6 starwars. and so far it has worked pretty well ( for my second try at DMing) we have gone longer than most of your campains go for. dont get me wrong i like playing in your campaigns but there is only one problem i have with them and i say it almost everyday YOU ARE TOO DAMN SERIOUS ABOUT IT GAMES ARE MEANT TO BE PLAYED NOT ENDURED AND SOME OF THE TIME YOU COULDENT SHOVE A GREASESD BEEBEE UP YOUR ASS what im trying to say is that you should loosen up a little i like all the things you do with the system with few exceptions your just too up tight and i think thats why the other s let me GM thay need some unrestricted fun one and a while and that its good to blow shit up once and a while.

i dont want to compete with you for players if the jesse anthony avery and charlay want to play your campain and scrap mine im fine with it i dont care about comeptition i just want to have fun playing at things i like.
_________________
That whitch does not kill me had better be able to run damned fast.

When reason fails, Force prevails

Hello IF_Kahn_Storm and welcome to the Forge!

I don't want to tear apart your post to dissagree with sectiobns, but it would seem the best way to respond in this case.

i really dont get why you seem to hate my MW campain

we have gone longer than most of your campains go for

eric, ill fight wit h you tommow at school and i am NOT trying to start a war with you. WE ARE AT WAR and its not about rpg's most of the time you argue about EVERYTHING and every one of us hates it. so if you would plz stop dorping sugestions about banning me this is only my 2nd post

Hello gentlemen,

Fascinating as all this is, I'm sure you can both see that the Forge isn't the place for it.

I look forward to future threads and posts. But this one, I'm afraid, is now closed.

Eric, earlier in the thread, Alan posed some useful questions for you which you didn't answer. Please feel free to consider them and to answer them in a later thread.

Best,
Ron

No, forge members. This is not my attempt to masscarade as Cody.

Just a couple of things:

-Why are we at war?

-At school I jokingly said that you would be the first to be banned. I did not do this on the forge and my intention, at the time, was not to repeat it here. However, in truth, the Forges policy wouldn't allow that for several reasons which are obvious. This is a place for discussion and our personal feud should not be included (even if it existed before you stated that it did). I invited you onto the forums so that you could enlightent the discussion, not to flame myself out.

Sorry for posting. If you view when I posted this you will be able to understand that I created this before I saw Ron's post up.

Hi Eric,

Evidently you cross-posted with me, which is fine. However, this message is intended to be the final, last, and totally not-to-be-added-to message on this thread.

Best,
Ron