What type of Game....and other questions...

[Serious Paul]

Slight change of subject; What type of game do you enjoy? Fantasy? Sci-Fi? Modern? Near future? And what is it about a game that takes precedent over all other aspects of it? Mechanics? Atmosphere? Availability of information?

Oh, and perhaps we should move this to WWE.

Good idea!

[Serious Paul]

What type of game eh? I love Shadowrun but lately I have wanted to play some Dungeons&Dragons pretty badly. Not DM but play. Unfortunately I am not sure how stable my current group is. We all want to play-but finding a time when we all can play is damned difficult.

Quite simply I need to move to GR and all my problems will be solved.

There is no one type of gaming system I prefer. I'd happily play just about whatever. I own copies of everything from the Amber diceless to a battered copy of Bunnies and Burrows.

Aspect wise we try and blend a little bit of everything.

[Anguirel]

My preferred games need a mystical quality in them. Anytime I've tried playing games that are purely mundane, I inevitably end up not liking them as much. This need not be directly magic, but it usually is. Essentially, I game as escapism (well duh) and I want the game to literally be larger than life, to expand beyond the situations available in normal life.

I like Sci-Fi and cyber-punk, but there's a distinct problem with them -- they're in the future and therefor ethey use technology we don't -- or they fail to use technology we have (unexpected breakthroughs in various fields have obsoleted all sorts of previous Sci-Fi plots). Either way, things get screwed up. That basically means that I can't fully encapsulate what's going on. When a character shoudl be able to easily handle something, but the player hasn't got a clue... you toss in a random technology ("Of course, we can just use the transvector freon converter to solve this problem!") or you fudge the details to get on with the story ("You fiddle with the controls and suddenly the teleporter is working again. *poof*"). That just doesn't sit well with me.

Thus, I really prefer semi-historical settings. There's still occasions when character knowledge exceeds player (or GM) knowledge, but if you have the time you can look it up. How did the greeks navigate? How do you cut out large blocks of stone for major construction without explosives? What do you drink when the water is generally too filthy (remember that alcohol is used as a disinfectant. )? All of that is known, it's available, it's possible to research it if you feel the need for realism, and it can still be fudged over if you don't care at that time...

As for atmosphere -- I find overly dark and gritty realism... to be it's own kind of work. You need to slog through it, and it's fun on occasion, but like I said, I game to escape dark and gritty. I want things to be a little brighter, a littel more vibrant than they, perhaps, should be. I like having small cliches tossed in, little bits of meta-game humour over the top of the story even if it doesn't strictly make sense. A touch of campiness, if you will. Not constant, not full on, but available for use and acceptable.

The final aspect is in mechanics... I like having good mechanics to handle some things. There are occasions when I don't want to try to do (or think through) everything my character does. It just doesn't matter to me. Sometimes I want to be able to roll a die and say, "Ok, I talk my way past the guard," without having to figure out what the hell my character should should say. I don't know... but my character does. There are occasions when I want to be able to fight epic battles without worrying about footing or grip or placement... Anbd there are mechanics that support that. Other times, I want to know how many guys are around me... I want to play with tactics and figure out how best to make them work against eachother. That means I need fairly flexible mechanics...

The first set I found that met up with this was BESM, extended to Tri-Stat dX. Essentially, the mechanics were as heavy as you wanted them to be. You could run most of the game without ever rolling based purely off the sheet, or you could roll for everything... Some of that is teh group, natually, but the BESM system really felt like it was meant to be flexible (as opposed to, say, D&D 2nd, or SR where bullets should be counted). However, Tri-Stat is.. almost too loose. It's difficult to find an easy balance in it. I'm starting to like Exalted more, primarily for the Stunt mechanic (essenitally a bonus on your roll for a good description).

Stunting is more than a way to invite good descriptions... It's a way of dramatically expanding and collapsing sections of the game. Is it critically important that you do something? If not, you just roll and move on. If it is, you describe it more verbosely, extend the moment, and in describing it you approach some aspects of playing without dice -- if you can figure out how to do something really well, you get more dice, and that makes the action easier to do from a mechanics stand point.

I own copies of everything from the Amber diceless to a battered copy of Bunnies and Burrows.

"I own everything from A to B"

[Kai]

Generally I prefer thematic wise anything that lets the players have a free hand in their actions and doesn't require extensive research on their own time. Whethere its a non module D&D or Shadowrun game or BESM where there isn't even a defined setting, I feel moe comfortable when there isn't really even a path unless you want one. Consequently I almost universally dread historical anything. I want to mess with the new technology/magic that I as a player don't fully understand, I don't care how muskets were loaded and what you could do with them, if I wanted a research paper I'd go write one.

I think the games I appreciate the most are ones based on but not requiring a source. The fact that you can play the Star Wars RPG for example with only basic knowledge of the universe is cool. If you read some books or looked at tech manuals it was cool, but you weren't at a severe disadvantage if you only ever seen one of the movies or such. I get the impression Delta Green is like that, knowing Lovecraft helps but isn't required.

Mechanics-wise, keep it simple. If it requires a grid, its too complicated. If one simply help, thats good. If you have more exceptions than there are rules, no. but generally I'm willing to try anything so long as everyone else doesn't start harping on me because I can't off the top of my head remember line 6 of table 12 and the exact effects of every action I can do.

Atmosphere, I admit I like my games cinematic. Doesn't mean it isn't dark at times, but I like the feeling of the PCs being part of something much larger than they are, but still important. I guess its kind of the same attraction as I have to Babylon 5, a lot of mundane and being no one and being just another cog, but every once in a while you are the center of the universe, even if no one else notices.

[MooCow]

What type of game do you enjoy?

The kind played with my friends.

Fantasy? Sci-Fi? Modern? Near future?

Yes.

My two favorite games are Shadowrun and World of Darkness. I really don't see alot of similarities there.

And what is it about a game that takes precedent over all other aspects of it? Mechanics? Atmosphere? Availability of information?

The story. The story, or perhaps more accuratly the setting, has to be engaging. I like games with Meta-Plots.

For mechanics I like games that I moderatly heavy mechanics that I can then throw out. Yeah, if I'm going to throw them out, why have a mechanics heavy game? Because intricate mechanics help to spell out the relationship between different aspects of the game. Once I understand that relation, I don't need the numbers.[/quote]

[Reika]

Types of game...anything that isn't too heavily based on reality. Like Ang, I game for escapism, my life is crappy and depressing, I don't need what should be recreational to add to that. That doesn't mean I won't play modern settings, but they have to be modern with a twist, like World of Darkness (but not played with the total hopelessness).

It's not so much mechanics that's the major influence (though sometimes it is, if I hear it's Chart, erm RoleMaster, I'll run screaming the other way) but the main theme/story/setting of the game will make up my mind. I'd have to say mechanics wise, my favorites are BESM d20 and Exalted, since they aren't overly complicated and are very flexible.

[DV8]

I get the impression Delta Green is like that, knowing Lovecraft helps but isn't required.

I'd go so far as to say that with DG and CoC it's a disadvantage.

[lordhellion]

I'm a Shadowrun nut all the way. I like adventures and storylines to be on a "Grand-Epic" Scale, and the connection of the Sixth World to the Fourth World fulfills that time-spanning cause and effect that I feast on.

I also appreciate D&D, though I've never had a DM who had the Grand-Epic thing down, but then I suspect my adoration of it is in the minority. In my younger years I also played a lot of the Palladium games, but most people in the area wanted to play R.I.F.T.S., and that was a bit too far gone for me.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't play for escapism--I play more as an exploration of possibilities. I'm notorious for making my characters, be them pen & paper or of a video-'put-yourself-in-the'-game persuation, as much like myself as possible, but tweaking it to fit into the world the character inhabits.

I don't know about the crews you lot play with, but most of my associates try to make thier characters into one-man-jack-of-all-treades-armies. I like to make sure that my character has some very deliberate weaknesses that I have to keep in mind while playing.

This blows most of my buddies minds: "Dude, you'd better get some better armor--you're in deep shit if someone pulls anything bigger than a pistol." "Yeah. I'll just run away if I that happens."

The way I see it, if you give yourself an obvious weakness that you are aware of and know how to handle, then you got a better chance of not being caught with a weakness you didn't notice until it's too late.

[Serious Paul]

We prefer our escapism to have some order to it. So we try to make characters with the total package concept: What skills and attributes would they really have? What sort of weaknesses, flaws or edges are really applicable? What fits?

Most of our characters are pretty well rounded. In my last campaign we had a Troll (Gyro) who was excellent at what he did (Violence) but had memory problems, and a short attnetion span. He often found himself confused and upset for being confused. He cared deeply about his adopted family (One of the other characters family) and all in all was pretty intresting. he had emotion, power-feeling.

Another was a father of three-his life in the shadows was a constant struggle between raising his childern and protecting them from his secret life.

Another was a escaping a life he couldn't lead anymore....

We like balanced games and characters.

[lordhellion]

Man I wish I played with people like that, Paul...

[Anguirel]

I also appreciate D&D, though I've never had a DM who had the Grand-Epic thing down, but then I suspect my adoration of it is in the minority.

I usually try to GM Grand-Epic games for D&D, but generally they never go long enough to make it that far.

[Kai]

We should start up a PB3 game then for ya LH. A lot of us have characters with issues, problems and realism within the context of the game. They're good at their focus but have real flaws and difficulties that hamper them in game from doing the safest/best/right thing

[Sykoholic]

I like just about any genre except historical. I prefer settings that don't have a well-known established source, for much the same reason I dislike historical games. A players lack of familiarity can hamper their ability to play while a player's over-abundant familiarity can just be plain irritating. "That doesn't work that way", "So-and-so is actually this-and-that", and so on. Damn irritating. Oddly enough, as much as this annoys me, I'm also one of the most guilty of it.

As far as mechanics go, I prefer dice pools because even though you may fail a roll, your effort still counts. One of my biggest complaints about most systems is the "Save" rule. Even though I made my attack roll, if my opponent makes their save roll, my attack is ineffective....despite the fact that I made a successful roll. Dice pools are simple. Whoever rolls the most of a particular number, wins yet at the same time, the "loser's" roll can still affect the outcome. The best of both worlds.

I prefer story over anything else. If it's a good story, I can sit and listen for hours without ever actually being involved.

While the "Grand Epic" thing is fun on occassion, it gets old after a while. Several years ago, my gaming group was into Warhammer FRP. It seemed that every story centered around some growing threat to the world. So.... off our character's would go to save the world AGAIN. I much prefer low-level play that is kept simple with the occassional "Grand Epic" thing thrown in from time to time to spice it up.

It's 2:00 AM and I'm rambling but saying nothing worthwhile. I'll shut up now.

[Anguirel]

While the "Grand Epic" thing is fun on occassion, it gets old after a while. Several years ago, my gaming group was into Warhammer FRP. It seemed that every story centered around some growing threat to the world. So.... off our character's would go to save the world AGAIN. I much prefer low-level play that is kept simple with the occassional "Grand Epic" thing thrown in from time to time to spice it up.

Grand-Epic, as faras I'm concerned, is not necessarily your characters going to save the world (though they might). It's your characters doing their own thing and some major events happening in the world around them that they can alter if they want to get into it, and probably will alter accidentally even if they don't, but they aren't necessarily the heroes who are key to stopping the entire thing. This isn't Dragonlance Chronicles, these characters are not just going to happen to walk into pivotal roles. However, they can be part of the battle, they can win their small battles and those actions will help or hinder a given major plot thread.

This sort of concept shows up fairly often in Shadowrun, and it can be done very effectively in D&D - particularly given the complete lack of information dispersal, even with magic, its easily possible the characters could stumble over an army -- they are unlikely to be able to fight it alone (and if they can, they're: exceptionally high level; you've handed out too much magic; you aren't playing the enemies to the best of their abilities), but they could sabotage the army's supplies, maybe, or warn someone who can raise an opposing force, or otherwise slow the army down... or, I suppose, they could go join it.

In any case, they are in a position to make a difference without directly winning the entire war, necessarily.