Goodness

Monday, May 22, 2006

I haven't been inspired with a topic for the blog lately, so here are some good things from around the neighborhood:

The Durham 3 Podcasts
Clinton, Jason, and Remi are making these amazing podcasts. They talk about the game they're playing, usually before and after the session. They're short, punchy, and full of wisdom. Check 'em out.

Ron Speaks Wisdom
Ron has some really good D&D threads at the Forge now (one and two). They're well worth a read. Here's one really cool thing from the second thread. Ron's talking about how the DM might handle an Intimidation roll against an NPC called Ugly Pig the Bandit:
Ugly Pig's mind is as stubborn or as pliable as the DM fancies him ... and that fanciful quality may not be subject to revision. If the DM deems him "stubborn as an ugly pig," then dude, you're shit out of luck - because the DM may be working from intended results rather than parameters for conflict.

It's the last bit that is particularly awesome. I bet some of you are nodding your heads ruefully right now. How many GMs have we had that did that? How many times did we do it ourselves? Working from intended results... yep that was what happened, and how painful it was.

UPDATE: I totally forgot one of the links! Doh.

Breaking the Ice: Bruce and Clark
I've always loved Batman/Superman crossover stories, but generally dislike "slash" fiction. However, this game of BtI that Alexander posts about is just downright amazing, on several levels -- mainly that a fun and functional RPG can really produce awesome relationship/dating stories, with limitless variations.

Labels: ,

4 Comments:

Blogger milo says:  

Wow- a lot is covered in those threads. Thanks for pointing them out.

But something seems clear to me now- Ron Edwards Moderator Stance is really, really Gamist. It frequently felt like he was out to win...something.

Not looking to start trouble, that was just my feeling for a lot of it.

Best,
milo



Blogger John Harper says:  

For the record: Ron clarified his point after I posted this, and I think I misunderstood him a little.

I like my misunderstanding, though.



Blogger milo says:  

Actually, I liked your misunderstanding too, and it did seem like that point was pulled back from in the forum. Although I also think the quote could be taken to the next level, as it were- isn't it possible to abuse the scope/parameters of the conflict as well? Are most Nar games just too young to have had that happen much?

Maybe there are some built in safeguards I'm not thinking of (beyond Social Contract, I mean).

Regarding the Moderator stuff, to be clear, I was drawing from the 15 pages or so of the 3 posts, not just the quote you had pointed out. Lots of game mechanic stuff was discussed, but I mention the style because it was the neccesarily consistent throughout, so I kept noticing. I didn't say before that he certainly seems quite good at this style, and of course part of being a good Gamist is knowing what you're talking about, so a lot of good discussion was generated.

Anyway, that's more than enough on that.

So, John, does this interest mean you are inspired to revisit your d20 Danger Patrol scenario?

Just Kidding
(But I Bet There's Money In It),
milo



Blogger Remi says:  

Hey John,
Thanks so much for the link. We really enjoy putting the podcast together, and it's nice to see that it's being listened to and appreciated by awesome folks.



Post a Comment



<< Home