I’d much rather play in Derek’s game that the one you describe.
Personally for a laugh I wouild like to play the crazy celtic beserker with no care in the world out to destroy everything too and this Dereks game would be fun to play in.
But i would also love to play a game with structure, goals and accumulation of experience marking a journey from something to something else. Whatever my characters goals and ambitions are.
Personally I think the one I describe would have much more longevity and less likely lead to player chaos.
If you are just trying to simulate real life combat with latex weapons why not just incorporate them into the SCA you already have the framework there. But then again the SCA is not a “Fantasy” it is Real life re-enactment
Oh, I remember that! That was hilarious! And then later that night, he was stuck outside, lost, when we all legged it after summoning Jack. So he was wandering around, blind, going “Hello? Is anybody there?” with the undead serial killer on the loose.
And just to keep things on topic, I agree with Derek’s post above. Character failure can be as much fun (if not more) to play as character victory. I’ve noticed Derek cite Nightmare Circle a fair few times in the rules discussion at the moment (there’s a few around the forums at the moment, I think) because Nightmare Circle has a brilliant approach to rules - they’re not so much rules, as guidelines. The game is entirely guided by roleplaying and story, with the rules providing sort of a loose framework to start from.
I have said it before and I will say it again.
[size=150]There is a reason why Dungeons and Dragons is still going and still successful.[/size]
When you understand the above statement, then you will understand the average role player and understand why the system proposed will do fair to middling.
[quote=“ninja123”]But i would also love to play a game with structure, goals and accumulation of experience marking a journey from something to something else. Whatever my characters goals and ambitions are.
Personally I think the one I describe would have much more longevity and less likely lead to player chaos.[/quote]
What you’re describing is a larp with a Power Up framework. Not all larps have to have this. You can take it away, and replace it with other reasons to interact. Some people much prefer a larp without Power Up, or where it’s a minor consideration. It’s all a matter of personal preference.
If you took the mission from Quest and used any of Derek’s suggested simple systems in them it probably wouldn’t work terribly well. But it would work perfectly well in another context.
As for “chaos”, I consider it a good design objective for certain sorts of larp. In the sense used in chaos theory, that is: actions have reactions and it’s hard to predict where the chain of interaction will end up.
There is a large pool of larpers who want nothing to do with tabletop role-playing, precisely because of its typical high-complexity Power Up focus.
They are interesting in the intrigue, or the immersion, or the drama, or some other thing that doesn’t require powering up and “game balance”.
I understand. It’s like the MMORPG mentality. Can’t log off 'til I hear the ding of leveling up. Try to hit all the best spots for getting XP as fast as possibly. Lots of goals. Very addictive.
Just don’t try actually role playing in a MMORGP, they’ll boot you out of the party before you can say “but why are we murdering goblins, don’t they have a right to live as well?”
There is a large pool of larpers who want nothing to do with tabletop role-playing, precisely because of its typical high-complexity Power Up focus.
They are interesting in the intrigue, or the immersion, or the drama, or some other thing that doesn’t require powering up and “game balance”.[/quote]
[quote=“Derek”]I understand. It’s like the MMORPG mentality. Can’t log off 'til I hear the ding of leveling up. Try to hit all the best spots for getting XP as fast as possibly. Lots of goals. Very addictive.
Just don’t try actually role playing in a MMORGP, they’ll boot you out of the party before you can say “but why are we murdering goblins, don’t they have a right to live as well?”
[/quote]
You miss the point. The above may be the reason that some people play some Role Play Games, but to reiterate
[quote=“Alista”]I have said it before and I will say it again.
[size=150]There is a reason why Dungeons and Dragons is still going and still successful.[/size]
When you understand the above statement, then you will understand the average role player and understand why the system proposed will do fair to middling.[/quote]
Perhaps you should state the point less cryptically. What is the reason, in your opinion, that D&D has been successful? And how does that relate to larp design?
Of course all games are about roleplaying but for some people the thrill of accumulating experience is just as important. Otherwise it would just be improv theatre
Alista, repeating yourself doesn’t make your message any clearer. Why don’t you explain what you mean by your statement, and why you conclude that the system (which I assume means Derek’s proposal) will do “fair to middling” ?
Sure, the target market will have to be comfortable with a game that has limited Power Up. So what ? Power Up isn’t everything, and the game might be awesome because of other factors. If it’s fun to play, and we market it correctly, I don’t see why it can’t be successful.
I happen to like Power Up. I like having stark capability differences between characters in a larp. If done correctly, it spurs co-operation, and I like that. It can also give you the fear of “ZOMG, it’s just too powerful ! Run away !” and I like that too.
And to add some info on the Invulnerable Armour rule. We playtested it while back and I think it worked OK. Combat was brutal, and keeping your distance was a good tactic. I concluded it was very workable.
I reckon you should accept that LARP is a manifold hobby. If you have 5 people, you will get 6 or 7 different ideas of LARP. An agreement is impossible! Thus everybody should search the game he wants to play at.
If you have a manifold offer of games (and you have it, I think), everybody can choose.
Sometimes I like to play at roleplay-only-events (like taverns or that), without any fights and sometimes I want to have a nice fight in WYSIWYG-system, and sometimes I want to gain my EXP…
Perhaps you should state the point less cryptically. What is the reason, in your opinion, that D&D has been successful? And how does that relate to larp design?[/quote]
There a certain zen at this juncture.
Let us put it this way.
Why, of all the Role Playing Games and Fantasy Role Playing games in the world is D&D the most successful?
Clues :
It is not because it is the best system.
It is not because it is the best campaighn world.
It definately isn’t because of the management or marketing.
D and D appeals to those people that like defined goals like to roleplay, like rules to structure their games. Otherwise we would all be actors doing improve.
Name me one successful roleplaying game that has virtually no rules?
If you go away from that you may be removing the possible appeal of live “Roleplaying”
Mike :
Repeating oneself while adding refinement should help make things easier. Please say you could tell what the refinement was>
Is the aim to make another boutique game to go with other 14 currently on offer in Auckland?
Isaac :
Agree whole heartedly. if you have two Live Role Players you have three opinions. I think when you go above 2 players it is a factorial function not an arithmetic one.
Ninja123 :
Really good point, but again this is more to do with Role Play per se rather than D&D in particular.
[quote=“Alista”]
Why, of all the Role Playing Games and Fantasy Role Playing games in the world is D&D the most successful?
…
It definately isn’t because of the management or marketing.[/quote]
I disagree. It was one of the first RPGs and the marketing and management was better than anyone else. The glossy covers helped, and so did the vast wealth of support material.
My whol function in this argument is to increase player base like it or not. And hey if Dereks style of game attracted the most players I would run with it. L:ike I said I would love to play a psycho Celt but then i am more interested in the roleplaying element than the mechanics 20 + years of roleplaying does that.
However, I do not think it will attract the most players (the players that currently only do tabletop roleplaying and would be interested in larp if the marketing was there but a lot need rules to simulate the world)
[quote=“Derek”][quote=“Alista”]
Why, of all the Role Playing Games and Fantasy Role Playing games in the world is D&D the most successful?
…
It definately isn’t because of the management or marketing.[/quote]
I disagree. It was one of the first RPGs and the marketing and management was better than anyone else. The glossy covers helped, and so did the vast wealth of support material.[/quote]
It is the only RPG with marketing, management and a glossy cover and support material? people still play Basic D&D, so the above applies how?
The reason marketing has gotten involved is because it was successful anyway?
Question stands, why was and is D&D so successful?
[quote=“Alista”]Mike :
Repeating oneself while adding refinement should help make things easier. Please say you could tell what the refinement was>[/quote]
Alista, you simply copied you post verbatim. That is what I call “repeating”.
This whole “I’m not going to explain my opinion” might be zen to you, but it is getting tiresome to me. If you aren’t going to answer my questions, then just say so.
I don’t understand. Larp isn’t just Dungeons and Dragons standing up. Larp is more like Dungeons and Dragons done by improv actors.
As far as I understood, “roleplaying” was about “playing” a “role”, and XP, loot, and skillz was secondary to the part where you play a character and tell a story.