trapcast.com

I agree with Joe. If secret betrayals always fail, what's the point? \

The problem here is two fold:

1) Traditional games that the FtB dudes are accustomed to for the most part don't handle intra-party conflict very well at all. Since most conflicts don't have any mechanical way to come to a compromise, and there's almost no social rules at all, (D&D expressly forbids PC's from using Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy on other PC's) mechanically Player's options are very limited. This usually leads to one of two things: Going to the dice (i.e. combat, which in many games can be quite permanently fatal) or using social pressure to bully people around. Neither are healthy ways to solve the problem.

2) In many games, the GM is supposed to supply adversity and "the story", and this can come off as downright antagonistic. In situations like this if the Players have any kind of agenda; they absolutely need to work together "against" the GM. Inter Party conflicts undermine this solidarity, allowing the GM to screw over everybody and get help doing it.

This second problem can be overcome by simple communication. If everyone knows the betrayal is in the works, and the GM realizes that the players are more interested in that conflict, he needs to set whatever vile machinations he had planned and focus his attention on facilitating this drama. But just hand-waving it to "well if you go against the party accept your fate as doomed" is just asinine. That is, quite frankly, terrible advice.

I feel like the Sith master, proud and frightened by my apprentice's skill.

Hey, I get mentioned ... twice! That's a whole new level of famous!

It was pretty cool meeting Jenn & the Brilliant Gameologists. That Burning Wheel game was a lot of fun, obviously, and it was the first time Tresi had run Burning Wheel. Though, he had run Mouse Guard at the last JiffyCon (which I did not attend) and the rules are similar.

The WTF moment for me, was after I (as the Dwarven Seneschal) had confided in Jenn (who played the Dwarven Warden) that someone was setting me up with false rumours about stealing the gift brought by the Elves. Then, I learn that SHE WAS THE ONE who started the rumour and was actively plotting against me. I swear, she sat there with a totally innocent, "who me? butter wouldn't melt in my mouth!" look the whole time and then ... BAM! Plot revealed.

Jenn, I am very impressed with the whole performance. I don't think any of us saw that coming and it added quite a bit of awesome to the game.

BTW: I haven't listened to TrapCast in some time, but I'm really enjoying this episode. It's very funny and I find myself smiling like an idiot while driving into work; especially at Georges antics. Nice job.

Last night at our game, Vincent (Baker) was talking about how much he loved secrets, and I half-heartedly and briefly argued with him about it, and just now, on the can, it occurred to me he might be talking about secrets differently than I was. He was talking, I think, about GM secrets.

I don't usually have a problem with GM secrets. I'm trying to figure out why, but it's true.

To be clear, though, GM secrets where there's a screen, hidden rolls, secret GM sections on the other hand, I'm still pretty likely to be grumpy about.

I tend to think of GM secrets as not really being secrets. They are more of a buildup to a plot reveal - which, classically, is a large portion of the job of the GM.

It's like a novelist writing a *book... they don't outline the climax and ending for the reader in the first chapter. If that was the case, there wouldn't be much point in reading the book - the experience is lost. The same thing hold true in gaming. The GM can't play his plot-trump-card in the first session - because there isn't much point in the rest of the sessions then, is there?




* No, I'm not saying that a game should be like a novel. I was just using it as a loose comparison.

Well, in the kinds of games I prefer these days, I'd rather not see the GM come with a big plot in mind. I'd also rather not be responsible for coming with a big plot in mind.

However, I'm being a bit of semantic-wringing jerkbag. In games I usually like to play in and GM, there can be stuff that happens to occur to you if you're GMing, and you decide not to say it, to hold on to it, to let it come out later to be more interesting.

I find the whole movement of indie/story/whatever games extremely interesting.

It really has caused a split in the RPG mindset... such that no matter what subject a person is speaking on, he or she always needs to qualify that statement in regards to "classic" gaming vs. "indie" gaming.

Yeah, a thousand souls just screamed in terror and pain at that statement and don't know why, not having heard it.

(There's a backlash backlash among a lot of people who like the kind of games I do where they abhor admitting any difference between one kind of game and another.)

But god damnit there *is* a difference! I see nothing wrong with admitting that and discussing/analyzing that difference.

Where things go sour is when you start saying one is better than the other. Fun is fun, and it’s important to keep that in mind at all times. Remember, if everything was all hunky dory and all players were getting what they wanted, why would there have been an indie movement in the first place? That movement is there to satisfy the needs of different gamers, with different games and philosophies, there's just no way around it.

I honestly think the main point of contention is two fold: First: many traditional gamers are simply unaware that these other philosophies and methods of playing exist. They only see the default gaming culture, and since "everybody" is doing it that way, it *must* be the "right" way to play. Encountering the occasional hippy gamer who spouts all kinds of craziness like "Secrets should be shared!" is likely to result in them just writing that person off.

Second: The hippies, with their "enlightenment" often spout too much, too fast, and then look down on people who don't get it right away, forgetting that it was a slow, difficult process to understand these different ideas. Then they shake their head and deride the "Traddys" for "not getting it." Which, of course, makes the old schoolers just think they're pretentious jerks. And they'd be right. I'm totally guilty of this, btw. Both sides of it.

Denying that there's a difference doesn't do anyone any good. What we have to do is bridge those differences in amicable ways, and respect everybody's fun.

God damn, I'm such a fucking hippy.

It's a whole new level of pretentious when you have a group of people consistently pointing out the difference between column A and column B who also refuse to admit the existence of a difference between column A and B ...

It's like they are saying "recognize us... but not TOO much because then we'll just be mainstream and not be able to show our faces at the next bongo-circle at the local starbucks."