Back here I posted about the Softrope soundscape program (which I've also used successfully as a live theatre soundboard program). A couple of days ago, I stumbled across something else as well.
It's called Syrinscape, and at first glance it seems really spiffy. They have two programs, actually: one devoted to fantasy gaming, and one to sci-fi/post-modern. It looks fairly polished, and uses algorithms to make the different soundscapes sound more organic rather than like a looping tape. It is already programmed to fade in and fade out certain effects like background music and rainstorms when toggled. Not bad.
But there are a couple of issues:
1) It is entirely self-contained. You cannot add in your own sounds or music files to plug into different soundscapes, so you are limited to what is packaged with the program. Now, in total that may not be terribly restricting, as there is a fair variety of sounds available, but...
2) The majority of the prepackaged soundscapes are unlocked through either a subscription service (which, to its credit, permanently unlocks any new 'scapes released while the subscription is active) or by purchasing them directly. Without one or the other, you are limited to two 'scapes in either the fantasy or sci-fi program.
3) I personally would have preferred they not split the 'scapes into fantasy and sci-fi. Doing so requires that anyone wanting to be fully prepped for, say, Shadowrun has to have both programs up and running, since the Shadowrun setting incorporates both post-modern weaponry and magic.
It seems almost like the Syrinscape creator saw Softrope and thought, "Hey, I could put together sound packages and charge people for the convenience of not having to find sounds and put together their own." And that's not a bad thought, but most gamers I know don't tend to have much expendable income, myself included.
The one aspect of Syrinscape, though, that could really sell the product is something that Softrope doesn't have and, judging by their website that doesn't look like it's changed since I first wrote about them, likely never will: mobile support. Syrinscape is available in both the iTunes app store and on Google Play for Androids, and is intended for tablet use (you can use it on a smartphone, too, but it isn't optimized for it). Being able to take your soundboard with you on a tablet is a nice feature, making it a lot more mobile and less visually distracting than a laptop.
Is that worth $6.50-10.00 per month? For me, not really. I don't tend to have more than one actual tabletop game every three months. I'd be more likely to spend $5-10 getting a Roll20 membership, which would let me use their site on a mobile device as well. It's possible I might decide to pick up a sound pack here and there, but at $4 each or $20 for a six-pack, it still seems a bit pricey. I'll stick with my Softrope.
Showing posts with label Shadowrun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Shadowrun. Show all posts
Friday, February 13, 2015
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Free-Form Featherfall
So, I've scrapped the entirety of my magic system, including the compendium list of spells that I'd accumulated, and replaced it with a free-form system somewhat reminiscent of the casting system in Fabletop or the skill and magic system in Shadowrun. For purposes of nostalgia (and because I'm not ready to scrap my list of weaponry and make all weapons of any given size equal), I still have physical combat within the d20 set-up.
So how does this make things simpler?
I have some basic rules for how spells work, and how adding on different effects increases the cost of any given spell on casting. But by making the magic system entirely free-form I eliminate the need for resource books. No more looking up spell descriptions.
It makes it potentially more powerful, sure. High-powered mages have always been powerful. And there's still the limiter of "I'm the DM," plus the added bonus that a player can't point to the rulebook and say "but, but, but!" Plus, it gives the player an excuse to roll a whole bunch of six-siders, which is always fun.
My test subje-erm... game tester has brought up the concern that it can be easier on the player to have a list of spells to work from, the idea that you can look in your toolbox and see what you've got. And while there is some truth there, if a player wanted to they could write down spells they've used or come up with to refer from later on as well. I think the potential for versatility and accessibility outweighs that particular bonus. Plus, I've already come up with a short list of example spells that simulate well-known effects, so if someone says "well what can I do?" I can hand them that list.
Another aspect of this free-form system is that it means any caster can cast any spell. Healing, direct-damage, buffs/debuffs, whatever, is free game. Because as I've discussed here before, the idea that any given person can't figure out how to make a spell work in their own tradition is a bit weak. So I have two spellcasting traditions, Arcanist and Spiritualist. You can claim the power comes from a potato on a string around your neck, if you like - the only mechanical difference is which of the two spellcasting stats you use for your primary.
This free-form system will also work for psionics, and I have the mechanics in place to support a psionic system, but psionics have always been a bit game-breaking as far as power goes, primarily due to the general non-existence of psionic-resistant monsters. I'm thinking I may keep psionic ability as a rarity, rolled at character generation, as my mother does it.
So how does this make things simpler?
I have some basic rules for how spells work, and how adding on different effects increases the cost of any given spell on casting. But by making the magic system entirely free-form I eliminate the need for resource books. No more looking up spell descriptions.
It makes it potentially more powerful, sure. High-powered mages have always been powerful. And there's still the limiter of "I'm the DM," plus the added bonus that a player can't point to the rulebook and say "but, but, but!" Plus, it gives the player an excuse to roll a whole bunch of six-siders, which is always fun.
My test subje-erm... game tester has brought up the concern that it can be easier on the player to have a list of spells to work from, the idea that you can look in your toolbox and see what you've got. And while there is some truth there, if a player wanted to they could write down spells they've used or come up with to refer from later on as well. I think the potential for versatility and accessibility outweighs that particular bonus. Plus, I've already come up with a short list of example spells that simulate well-known effects, so if someone says "well what can I do?" I can hand them that list.
Another aspect of this free-form system is that it means any caster can cast any spell. Healing, direct-damage, buffs/debuffs, whatever, is free game. Because as I've discussed here before, the idea that any given person can't figure out how to make a spell work in their own tradition is a bit weak. So I have two spellcasting traditions, Arcanist and Spiritualist. You can claim the power comes from a potato on a string around your neck, if you like - the only mechanical difference is which of the two spellcasting stats you use for your primary.
This free-form system will also work for psionics, and I have the mechanics in place to support a psionic system, but psionics have always been a bit game-breaking as far as power goes, primarily due to the general non-existence of psionic-resistant monsters. I'm thinking I may keep psionic ability as a rarity, rolled at character generation, as my mother does it.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Mad RP Skillz
One of the people I follow on G+ linked to this livejournal post by Monte Cook, which started me thinking about things, but it wasn't until I read one of the comments on the post by Bryan Schuder that things started clicking for me. He wrote:
Secondly, it was nice to see that my decision to try and minimize any rules based on movement and grid-style tactics is not necessarily a terrible one. I still enjoy seeing a layout, and I still enjoy having miniatures as character and monster representations, but trying to lock down how fast or far someone can move tends to only slow combat down, and if combat isn't the primary focus of the game then that seems to be a mistake.
Thirdly, while reading through this I was reminded of skill systems in both D&D and Shadowrun, and how the GM's I've played under have handled skill resolution in the past. One thing that really frustrated me (as well as other players) at the Tuesday Game(tm) Shadowrun sessions was that we, the players, were more or less limited to our own experiences and personal strong points in designing characters to play. The GM ran most non-combat skills solely through RP, whether it was a social skill in trying to bluff or negotiate, checking for traps on a closed entryway, even disabling those traps. This depended on the player having knowledge that the character should have had, or been trained for, and it meant you were pretty much incapable if you didn't have player knowledge of how to do these things. If it was combat, or a skill the GM didn't have a personal basis for judgment on, you could just roll the dice.
Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun at the games, and in Shadowrun, but often I would end up feeling like the points I would put into skills were wasted. Most often I played a Face/Negotiator type character, and the points I put into social skills meant I didn't have some of the machine, vehicle, or combat skills that others did. So when it came time for combat, I'd get one pistol shot and had to hope it would hit, as opposed to two or three initiative passes with machine guns or heavy artillery. Even if I took the cinematic route in combat, it still meant I'd maybe put down one baddie in the entire battle. Yet the sacrifice to my combat abilities felt meaningless, because not once did I ever pick up the dice to roll a social skill, despite having amazing dicepools in them. The only times my character would shine were at the beginning and end of a run, when the team had to meet with the contact to get the job and when we got paid, and maybe an occasional social infiltration.
Here's an anecdotal example: The proverbial poo has hit the fan, with the party down on the docks outside a warehouse. Enemy targets are everywhere, including a helicopter. Police forces are on the way, but the gates to the dock are shut and locked. Since my character can't do anything meaningful in combat anyway, I pull back and hustle to the gatehouse to find the key and unlock the gate. The GM rules it will take me X rounds to get to the gatehouse, so I'm investing a lot of time and focus into this action while everyone else is making with the fireworks. I get to the gatehouse, grab the key, and start running for the gate. One of the party members with a heavy gun of some kind manages to disable the enemy helicopter. I reach the gate just as the helicopter crash lands into it, taking the gate down entirely. I'm left standing there, key in hand, having wasted all that time doing less than nothing, rather than even the next-to-nothing I'd have done if I'd stayed in combat with my pistol. I was so invested in trying to do the thing that was seen as most helpful to the situation, that I was unable to come up with alternative methods of involving myself in the scenario which might have had more ultimate effect.
The image of my character standing there with the key in hand, staring dumbfounded at the now destroyed gate, burned itself into the minds of the players there, and everyone else got a big laugh. I grinned and bore it, then, but it has always bothered me. I had accepted the fact my character was more useful in doing this menial task than in trying to fight, and then was essentially told that no matter what I tried to do, my character's actions were entirely meaningless to the scenario. Thinking on that, and looking back now, I have to wonder how much any of the characters' actions in those runs made any difference, whether we actually made a difference to how things went or whether we were all just railroaded through the storyboards in the GM's head.
This is one of the things that I keep in mind when I think about skill systems, and one of the reasons I lean towards a "tight rules" mentality when working out the mechanics of those skills. If my players want to roleplay out a situation, that's great. I would definitely give a bonus to their skill check if I thought they did a good job. But basing the entire result on their RP, and ignoring whatever bonus they actually have to the skill, means that you never actually end up with people roleplaying their characters. Instead, they end up just playing themselves, because that's the only way to progress.
In one of my gaming groups, we had an interesting contrast that occurred that exemplifies why more constraint leads to constraint thought.
One GM started out the campaign in DnD 2nd Edtion, took it to 3.5, and then finally Pathfinder. To give him a break during the big changes and reworkings, I'd get to GM and prototype my game system and setting. My system is designed to be loose and admits to have gaps in coverage, but with the understanding that those are taken care of by things outside the core rules (game master or setting specific rulings). It was a blast, my players got to play all kinds of crazy characters (even players with no real combat skills that actually saved the day many, many times), do wild things (nano-tech infested player hijacks a pre-fall robot to distract and wrestle another robot infested with extra-dimensional bacteria.. while all the other players are trying to gun it down), and they felt their creativity would be greatly rewarded. (You know that hijacked pre-fall robot? They took it with them. It has it's own trailer. They used it to loot plasma cannons off of the turrets they disabled.) I'm an on-the-fly GM, so stick with outlines and let the players fill in the rest.
The interesting part came when we switched back to the other GM's campaign. Finally, in a discussion about tactics, the GM spouted, "Why don't you do crazy stuff in my game like you do in his game?" A player responded, "Well, in DnD there's all these rules and we try to do crazy cool stuff and it never works or we just can't do it." While I had a grin on my face, that statement stuck with me.
If your rules prevent anything outside their explicit domain from happening, players are going to naturally trend towards sticking within them. It's simple game theory; if no reward is had for an action, it will occur with decreasing frequency. Another situation came when our group tried out grid combat. While it allowed everything to be laid out well, our groups tendencies towards cool, creative ideas decreased quite rapidly. This bothered the GM and so we got rid of exact dimensions combat. After some testing, he went with the "not-to-scale minimap" setup. Allows the group to understand the layout, but not feel they are constrained to it any arbitrary movement rules. The creativity came back and all was good.First off, this helps me to realize that it might be okay to not have everything accounted for in the rules. My focus on playtesting was spurred by concerns about powergamers, rules lawyers, and just generally those people who would try to take advantage of any system, no matter how well designed. But honestly, the chances of me ever publishing whatever system I end up with are slim at best, and I don't see my playerbase growing at any point in the near future, so chances are good I can stop worrying about playtesting and just start playing.
Secondly, it was nice to see that my decision to try and minimize any rules based on movement and grid-style tactics is not necessarily a terrible one. I still enjoy seeing a layout, and I still enjoy having miniatures as character and monster representations, but trying to lock down how fast or far someone can move tends to only slow combat down, and if combat isn't the primary focus of the game then that seems to be a mistake.
Thirdly, while reading through this I was reminded of skill systems in both D&D and Shadowrun, and how the GM's I've played under have handled skill resolution in the past. One thing that really frustrated me (as well as other players) at the Tuesday Game(tm) Shadowrun sessions was that we, the players, were more or less limited to our own experiences and personal strong points in designing characters to play. The GM ran most non-combat skills solely through RP, whether it was a social skill in trying to bluff or negotiate, checking for traps on a closed entryway, even disabling those traps. This depended on the player having knowledge that the character should have had, or been trained for, and it meant you were pretty much incapable if you didn't have player knowledge of how to do these things. If it was combat, or a skill the GM didn't have a personal basis for judgment on, you could just roll the dice.
Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of fun at the games, and in Shadowrun, but often I would end up feeling like the points I would put into skills were wasted. Most often I played a Face/Negotiator type character, and the points I put into social skills meant I didn't have some of the machine, vehicle, or combat skills that others did. So when it came time for combat, I'd get one pistol shot and had to hope it would hit, as opposed to two or three initiative passes with machine guns or heavy artillery. Even if I took the cinematic route in combat, it still meant I'd maybe put down one baddie in the entire battle. Yet the sacrifice to my combat abilities felt meaningless, because not once did I ever pick up the dice to roll a social skill, despite having amazing dicepools in them. The only times my character would shine were at the beginning and end of a run, when the team had to meet with the contact to get the job and when we got paid, and maybe an occasional social infiltration.
Here's an anecdotal example: The proverbial poo has hit the fan, with the party down on the docks outside a warehouse. Enemy targets are everywhere, including a helicopter. Police forces are on the way, but the gates to the dock are shut and locked. Since my character can't do anything meaningful in combat anyway, I pull back and hustle to the gatehouse to find the key and unlock the gate. The GM rules it will take me X rounds to get to the gatehouse, so I'm investing a lot of time and focus into this action while everyone else is making with the fireworks. I get to the gatehouse, grab the key, and start running for the gate. One of the party members with a heavy gun of some kind manages to disable the enemy helicopter. I reach the gate just as the helicopter crash lands into it, taking the gate down entirely. I'm left standing there, key in hand, having wasted all that time doing less than nothing, rather than even the next-to-nothing I'd have done if I'd stayed in combat with my pistol. I was so invested in trying to do the thing that was seen as most helpful to the situation, that I was unable to come up with alternative methods of involving myself in the scenario which might have had more ultimate effect.
The image of my character standing there with the key in hand, staring dumbfounded at the now destroyed gate, burned itself into the minds of the players there, and everyone else got a big laugh. I grinned and bore it, then, but it has always bothered me. I had accepted the fact my character was more useful in doing this menial task than in trying to fight, and then was essentially told that no matter what I tried to do, my character's actions were entirely meaningless to the scenario. Thinking on that, and looking back now, I have to wonder how much any of the characters' actions in those runs made any difference, whether we actually made a difference to how things went or whether we were all just railroaded through the storyboards in the GM's head.
This is one of the things that I keep in mind when I think about skill systems, and one of the reasons I lean towards a "tight rules" mentality when working out the mechanics of those skills. If my players want to roleplay out a situation, that's great. I would definitely give a bonus to their skill check if I thought they did a good job. But basing the entire result on their RP, and ignoring whatever bonus they actually have to the skill, means that you never actually end up with people roleplaying their characters. Instead, they end up just playing themselves, because that's the only way to progress.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Intelligence, Classes, and Experience
Multiclassing has faced as well as posed a number of difficulties in D&D. Back in AD&D, the Player's Handbook gave very specific multiclassing options, based upon race. 3rd Edition removed both racial level caps as well as race-based multiclassing, but limited multiclassing through Alignment requirements, as well as arbitrary limitations (Monk and Paladin, I'm looking at you).
After reading through my previous postings, I'm certain most can figure out my thoughts regarding Alignment restrictions on classes. And trying to convince me that you can never gain another level in a certain class because you took one level of something else? No thanks.
The system I grew up on, which had been based out of AD&D, had no multiclassing or alignment restrictions. This worked out just fine for many years, until we ended up with players who started taking four or more classes in order to gain various 1st level benefits and abilities.
Yeah, like that. Only not 1/11th of a class each level, but 11 first level classes all at once.
Our DM decided this was just silly, and so it was ruled that the total number of classes you could have was limited by your character's intelligence. This made sense. Certain classes were considered to be "worth more" than others, like Paladin (because it combined both Fighter and Cleric) and Ranger (Fighter, Druid, and Mage - AD&D, remember). Overall, the system seemed logical and also helped prevent any more Multiclassing Minmaxing. The biggest problem I had with it was the feeling of obligation to "fill up" with the maximum number of classes that the character's Intelligence could support, so as not to waste it.
So over the past few days, I've put together a ruleset on multiclassing for my own system. In this system, your total number of "effective classes" is what determines your experience needed per level. No more taking a class just for one level.
Taking more classes than your Intelligence would allow can be done. Doing so, however, increases the experience needed for each level based upon how many beyond the "maximum" you took, even above what would normally be required just by having the additional classes. As any college student knows, it's much harder to remember everything when you're taking too many classes.
On the other side of the coin, if you take fewer classes than your Intelligence can support, you gain a discount on the experience needed each level, based upon the difference between the number you were allowed and how many you took. You can learn faster, because you're capable of learning more than what is being presented.
On a previous topic, I asked my wife how she viewed magic users in D&D - whether the power was coming from within, being channeled, or simply using ambient energy, or even something completely different. She reminded me of how Steven Brust has things set up in his Jhereg series: Dragaeran sorcery is more or less grabbing available energy and tossing it, while Eastern witchcraft is mentally and physically taxing on the practitioner. And then there's Pre-Empire sorcery. Let's not get into that.
Taking that into consideration, I see a correlation between Brust's witchcraft and Druids, so I would most likely leave Constitution as the power source for them. Equating Dragaeran sorcerers with Mages, however, still doesn't give me a well-defined source of power. The Dragaerans pull energy through their link with an artifact-level magic item, which basically gives them an inexhaustible supply of mana. I can't really have that.
I've tinkered with a number of options: Base mana off of Cunning, to represent craftiness through the handling and redistribution of ambient mana. Base it off of Perception, to represent the ability to see or notice the surrounding power in order to use it. Base it off of Luck, to represent the idea that ambient power levels can vary from location to location. I've even considered the option of reworking Shadowrun's system of magic, where spells don't take mana, but instead have a chance of draining you when you cast one. Fail too many "Drain" checks, and you're unconscious. Trying to balance that in a d20 system, though, would take a great deal more work than I'm willing to expend on just this one aspect right now, and still leaves Mages with a potentially inexhaustible supply of power.
I briefly considered making each Mage subclass (Illusionist, Transmuter, Evoker, etc.) have a different stat that it uses for power, but I think that would just make things far too complicated and confusing. And it still wouldn't answer what stat to have Mages use. At this point, I'm tempted to either stick with Constitution, or assign it to Perception, the latter mainly because I don't have a lot tied to that stat yet.
Suggestions?
After reading through my previous postings, I'm certain most can figure out my thoughts regarding Alignment restrictions on classes. And trying to convince me that you can never gain another level in a certain class because you took one level of something else? No thanks.
The system I grew up on, which had been based out of AD&D, had no multiclassing or alignment restrictions. This worked out just fine for many years, until we ended up with players who started taking four or more classes in order to gain various 1st level benefits and abilities.
Yeah, like that. Only not 1/11th of a class each level, but 11 first level classes all at once.
Our DM decided this was just silly, and so it was ruled that the total number of classes you could have was limited by your character's intelligence. This made sense. Certain classes were considered to be "worth more" than others, like Paladin (because it combined both Fighter and Cleric) and Ranger (Fighter, Druid, and Mage - AD&D, remember). Overall, the system seemed logical and also helped prevent any more Multiclassing Minmaxing. The biggest problem I had with it was the feeling of obligation to "fill up" with the maximum number of classes that the character's Intelligence could support, so as not to waste it.
So over the past few days, I've put together a ruleset on multiclassing for my own system. In this system, your total number of "effective classes" is what determines your experience needed per level. No more taking a class just for one level.
Taking more classes than your Intelligence would allow can be done. Doing so, however, increases the experience needed for each level based upon how many beyond the "maximum" you took, even above what would normally be required just by having the additional classes. As any college student knows, it's much harder to remember everything when you're taking too many classes.
On the other side of the coin, if you take fewer classes than your Intelligence can support, you gain a discount on the experience needed each level, based upon the difference between the number you were allowed and how many you took. You can learn faster, because you're capable of learning more than what is being presented.
On a previous topic, I asked my wife how she viewed magic users in D&D - whether the power was coming from within, being channeled, or simply using ambient energy, or even something completely different. She reminded me of how Steven Brust has things set up in his Jhereg series: Dragaeran sorcery is more or less grabbing available energy and tossing it, while Eastern witchcraft is mentally and physically taxing on the practitioner. And then there's Pre-Empire sorcery. Let's not get into that.
Taking that into consideration, I see a correlation between Brust's witchcraft and Druids, so I would most likely leave Constitution as the power source for them. Equating Dragaeran sorcerers with Mages, however, still doesn't give me a well-defined source of power. The Dragaerans pull energy through their link with an artifact-level magic item, which basically gives them an inexhaustible supply of mana. I can't really have that.
I've tinkered with a number of options: Base mana off of Cunning, to represent craftiness through the handling and redistribution of ambient mana. Base it off of Perception, to represent the ability to see or notice the surrounding power in order to use it. Base it off of Luck, to represent the idea that ambient power levels can vary from location to location. I've even considered the option of reworking Shadowrun's system of magic, where spells don't take mana, but instead have a chance of draining you when you cast one. Fail too many "Drain" checks, and you're unconscious. Trying to balance that in a d20 system, though, would take a great deal more work than I'm willing to expend on just this one aspect right now, and still leaves Mages with a potentially inexhaustible supply of power.
I briefly considered making each Mage subclass (Illusionist, Transmuter, Evoker, etc.) have a different stat that it uses for power, but I think that would just make things far too complicated and confusing. And it still wouldn't answer what stat to have Mages use. At this point, I'm tempted to either stick with Constitution, or assign it to Perception, the latter mainly because I don't have a lot tied to that stat yet.
Suggestions?
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Confessions of a Gamer Parent
I love my son. He is intelligent, curious, creative, and adorable. He is frequently well-behaved, despite being in the "Terrible Twos" range. As much as he may frustrate me at times, I am deeply proud of him and am, daily, glad of the fact that he is in my life. I would not give him up for anything...
But I would appreciate the option of paying someone to watch him for a few hours, maybe twice a month.
At present, that's just not an option for financial reasons. Even when I do have some spare cash, though, I simply do not know any babysitters in our area. The nearest relatives are an hour away, and have enough physical difficulties that it would be, at best, hard on them to keep up with a toddler.
This comes about because: for the past couple of months I have been making the 1.5-2 hour drive, every other week, to play Shadowrun with the old Tuesday Group(tm). But as much as I enjoy seeing the guys, and getting out for a game, this is just not a sustainable situation for a few reasons.
1) Again, money: Gasoline is not cheap. Purchasing nothing else, a round trip costs about $13. That may not sound like much, but seeing as how my current job is giving me no work, has not given any work for about two weeks, and doesn't expect to have any additional work until the middle of the month, I'm counting every penny.
2) Time: The game goes from 7pm to 10pm - three hours. Often, I'll end up spending another hour just talking with my friends, reviewing the game, making plans for the next one, etc. But the game itself is three hours, which means I'm spending at least as much time on the road as I am at the table. This also means I'm leaving home at around 5pm and not returning until midnight or later.
3) Fairness to my wife: She's been wonderful and sweet, and was the one who insisted I start going to the games, but there is no equal and opposite reaction here. I go off and have fun in tabletop gaming, leaving her to watch our son. She does not have a group of friends to go hang out and game with for hours at a time, and so I have no way to reciprocate the favor.
Ideally, we'd love to find a local gaming group that both of us can participate in together. I actually do know of a couple of people in the area who are gamers, and would most likely welcome us to the table.
But our son, as bright and talented as he is, is still a toddler. He is not going to sit still on a lap for several hours while Mommy and Daddy are bashing goblins. While he is getting close to the point where he might enjoy similar pursuits, he most likely will not have the attention span to maintain that interest for an extended period of time. For the moment, then, unless we game in our own home (and oftentimes even then) we will expend more time and energy trying to wrangle with him than with monsters.
The experience has given me a new appreciation for what my parents must have gone through while raising me, and adds a new perspective to the memories I have of their tabletop games during my early years. I could argue that they had an advantage in the fact that my mother was frequently the DM, since I imagine a lot of players would be more willing to put up with having a kid around (alternately wanting to play, seeking attention, making noise, and then running off when focus is lost only to return five minutes later wanting to play the game again) if it meant that they didn't have to run a game themselves, and the DM is generally more forgiving of having the game they've put together interrupted when the disturbance is caused by their own child. Still, I imagine they may have lost some players, or simply had fewer of them, due to my presence. And I'm certain I kept them from playing as often as they may have liked.
Maybe I'll see about trying to run a local game myself. I've been working on a system, and looking for opportunities to playtest it, but I've currently got absolutely zilch as far as campaign ideas go. I'd also have to overcome my anxiety of inviting strangers into my house, since there really isn't any local gathering place I'm aware of that would look too kindly on playing D&D, no matter what version or variant. And, of course, there's the cleaning to do.
*glances around*
Maybe we could try the local Hardees instead. They ARE open 24 hours...
But I would appreciate the option of paying someone to watch him for a few hours, maybe twice a month.
At present, that's just not an option for financial reasons. Even when I do have some spare cash, though, I simply do not know any babysitters in our area. The nearest relatives are an hour away, and have enough physical difficulties that it would be, at best, hard on them to keep up with a toddler.
This comes about because: for the past couple of months I have been making the 1.5-2 hour drive, every other week, to play Shadowrun with the old Tuesday Group(tm). But as much as I enjoy seeing the guys, and getting out for a game, this is just not a sustainable situation for a few reasons.
1) Again, money: Gasoline is not cheap. Purchasing nothing else, a round trip costs about $13. That may not sound like much, but seeing as how my current job is giving me no work, has not given any work for about two weeks, and doesn't expect to have any additional work until the middle of the month, I'm counting every penny.
2) Time: The game goes from 7pm to 10pm - three hours. Often, I'll end up spending another hour just talking with my friends, reviewing the game, making plans for the next one, etc. But the game itself is three hours, which means I'm spending at least as much time on the road as I am at the table. This also means I'm leaving home at around 5pm and not returning until midnight or later.
3) Fairness to my wife: She's been wonderful and sweet, and was the one who insisted I start going to the games, but there is no equal and opposite reaction here. I go off and have fun in tabletop gaming, leaving her to watch our son. She does not have a group of friends to go hang out and game with for hours at a time, and so I have no way to reciprocate the favor.
Ideally, we'd love to find a local gaming group that both of us can participate in together. I actually do know of a couple of people in the area who are gamers, and would most likely welcome us to the table.
But our son, as bright and talented as he is, is still a toddler. He is not going to sit still on a lap for several hours while Mommy and Daddy are bashing goblins. While he is getting close to the point where he might enjoy similar pursuits, he most likely will not have the attention span to maintain that interest for an extended period of time. For the moment, then, unless we game in our own home (and oftentimes even then) we will expend more time and energy trying to wrangle with him than with monsters.
The experience has given me a new appreciation for what my parents must have gone through while raising me, and adds a new perspective to the memories I have of their tabletop games during my early years. I could argue that they had an advantage in the fact that my mother was frequently the DM, since I imagine a lot of players would be more willing to put up with having a kid around (alternately wanting to play, seeking attention, making noise, and then running off when focus is lost only to return five minutes later wanting to play the game again) if it meant that they didn't have to run a game themselves, and the DM is generally more forgiving of having the game they've put together interrupted when the disturbance is caused by their own child. Still, I imagine they may have lost some players, or simply had fewer of them, due to my presence. And I'm certain I kept them from playing as often as they may have liked.
Maybe I'll see about trying to run a local game myself. I've been working on a system, and looking for opportunities to playtest it, but I've currently got absolutely zilch as far as campaign ideas go. I'd also have to overcome my anxiety of inviting strangers into my house, since there really isn't any local gathering place I'm aware of that would look too kindly on playing D&D, no matter what version or variant. And, of course, there's the cleaning to do.
*glances around*
Maybe we could try the local Hardees instead. They ARE open 24 hours...
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Zingers of Mass Destruction
In the hopeful eventuality that someone other than myself reads this blog, I suppose it might be a point of interest to know where the name comes from. It arose out of a night around the table playing Shadowrun, back when I went to a regular Tuesday game.
The atmosphere at those games was very relaxed, and there was the usual banter and friendly barbing common to a group of guys. The GM would often give out an extra character point to a player who managed to amuse him with out-of-game antics. I'm generally more of an observer type, and didn't really get into the banter as much. When I would get an extra point, it was usually due to some otherwise witty remark or music reference.
My best friend and his brother were also regular players at the Tuesday Game(tm), and because they were brothers and lived with each other, they seemed to relish the ability to go at each other's throat, verbally. They also were able to go a bit further with each other, comfort-level wise, because they were brothers.
I can no longer remember the words which were said that night, nor can anyone else who attended. The two brothers were going back and forth at each other with insults, rapid-fire style, and the rest of the players were watching the show as each tried to "zing" the other. It came as a surprise to everyone (myself included) when I stepped in and tossed down a line that managed to insult and top both of them at once, stopping the crossfire. Everyone broke up laughing, and a good time and memory was had by all.
It was because of this that later on, whenever something potentially worthy was said, it would get written down, Top Ten List style, on the whiteboard by the table. And after I'd stopped being a regular player, due to moving away, I came back to visit to find that one of the players had printed up business cards for everyone who had a permanent spot at the table, reflecting what they were known for, a nickname or tagline that best represented them. Mine stated:
The Bard
Zingers of Mass Destruction
They're standing in line
And now you know the rest of the story.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
New Shadowrun Campaign
Several years ago my best friend invited me into a group of table-top gamers that played every Tuesday evening. They were playing 3rd edition D&D at the time (which I had boycotted for quite a while, but relented in the interests of playing anything at all). They had been meeting at a gaming shop, but moved their location to the home of one of the players. Yes, we did play in his basement, but 1) he owned the house, is married, and is 10-20 years my senior, and 2) the basement was huge, well lit, and decked out with all the gaming necessities, including generic reference material and snacks.
For the first few sessions, it seemed people were taking turns being DM. I'd come in on the last session run by their usual one, since he was moving out of the area. After that, the host ran a couple, then passed it over to one of the other players to run a campaign. It's a workable system, allowing everyone a chance to be a player and partake of the pleasure in gaining loot and experience. About five sessions in, though, we discovered the major flaw in the plan.
The DM screen passed to an older player, probably an additional 10-30 years older than the host. He was known for playing the Paladin, and in some ways was regarded as being a real "Boy Scout" type in real life, too. So, he didn't play far from what he knew, basically. I don't personally think he understands what it really means to be a Paladin, or the alignment table. He played more of a fanatical crusader than a Lawful Good anything.
But, he was the DM this time 'round, and it started out with the party being ambushed in the night, and all our equipment being stolen. All the treasure, the magical items we'd managed to either create (taking precious gold and exp) or acquire (with difficulty), everything we'd worked our butts off to gain was taken from us. No dice rolls, no chance to hide anything, do not pass go, do not collect 200 gold pieces. One of the players even lost a special ability he'd given up other class abilities to gain, with prior DM approval, because the new DM didn't understand the ability.
The table took a break, that lasted an hour or two. The DM went outside and took a smoke break while the players, including me, had a long debate over what to do with the situation. Would we pack up and go home, rejecting this campaign, or would we give him a chance, to see if the rewards of this campaign of his would outweigh the up-front frustrations and irritations?
I was the newbie, so I didn't feel comfortable trying to pass judgment on anyone at the table, especially someone I didn't know. The host, however, insisted that I be heard. I was there, I was a player, I had a vote.
I was the only person who spoke up in defense of the guy.
Everyone else was prepared to just call it quits. I played devil's advocate, and even admitted as much, but I can't let a situation I'm involved in go on without at least acknowledging the possibility of other viewpoints. We ended up continuing the campaign, though there were some tense moments early on (The DM continued by having us join up with a military force that was tracking down those that had ambushed us, and insisted that our characters participate in the drills and training structure, effectively being drafted into this army. This didn't sit well with those of us playing Chaotically-aligned characters.), and eventually had some fun with it. But the problem with having a rotating DM had reared its ugly head, and left a really nasty taste in our mouths.
The next campaign was run by our host. He had us roll up new characters, because we weren't playing D&D anymore, but something he'd had 10 years experience with: Shadowrun.
I was skeptical. I'd just poured a lot of mental energy into learning 3rd edition D&D, and now I was going to have to learn a completely new system with new terminology, and an entirely different magic system. And I'd been raised on fantasy, so this cyberpunk stuff was unknown territory to me.
I shouldn't have worried.
I eventually moved away, and couldn't participate anymore, but the "Tuesday Group" became a group of friends, and I always have a spot saved for me at the table, should I be able to visit. This invitation extends, now, to cyberspace.
The host/GM started up a play-by-post group, and I just got my character for it finished. I'm hoping I get to play this one longer than the last one, which ended because he had a change of financial situation and had to get another job. That one was set in Louisiana, "N'awlins", and my character was a DJ from St. Louis who had moved to New Orleans to find a less competitive market. Oh, and he was a Cat Shaman, too.
Unfortunately this new campaign is apparently a low-magic setting, so I can't dust him off and try again. This time, I'm playing the daughter of a Yakuza member who was shooting for an advisory position. Someone else wanted it to, though, and tried to 'discourage' him from getting it. One of these 'discouragements' was kidnapping my character and dropping her in a bunraku parlor, where she was given a complete cosmetic makeover. When they tried to install the personafix chip, though, something went awry and it didn't take, her system getting partially fried in the process. They dumped the body, leaving the still alive but pretty much comatose chummer to rot. She was picked up by a passing poser-gang member, nursed to health, and woke up with no memory of her identity or what happened to her.
So she's now an Adept with no memory of her past life, finding a sense of community in a poser gang. Are her parents still alive, or did her father's competitor take him out? Is someone looking for her? With no resemblance to her previous appearance, the only way to check her id would be with DNA, if her previous life's info (SIN) even still exists.
I think it's pretty nifty. I'm still waiting on approval from the GM, but I'm excited about playing again. Here's hoping for a good run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)