RP Gaming for Fun and RP Gaming for Blood

[Dracos]

Before I begin, allow me to reference the superb article that inspired this.

http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlaytoWinPart0.htm

The above article was written by David Sirlin and focused on the philosophy specifically in context of highly competitive fighting games such as Street Fighter.  However, this philosophy applies equally to role playing as well.  Role playing is simultaneously a cooperative and a competitive game.  Though, as Nash's game theory does tell us, all cooperative games can eventually be broken down into competitive games.  And this brings us to the point of this article:


EDIT: Original article remoed on grounds of being retarded.

Dracos

[RangerShade]

For the curious, here is the log of that game with some analysis and commentary of what went well (or as was more often the case, wrong ^^')

[Adon]

Hm.  I agree, but I don't.

The competitive approach is certainly viable, but to me it feels somewhat limiting at times, because it assumes one particular goal:  in the game sequence mentioned, survival, but it doesn't have to be that necessarily.

Does that make the player who has a character with average or below average intellect, and who plays them that way, a bad one?  I'm not so sure.

I DO think, no offense Drac, that this approach tells us as much about you, personally, as it does about approaches to gaming.  From what I've seen and read, you're an achiever.  You have no tolerance for laziness or sloppiness, and this is reflected in your tastes in gaming.  So it's natural that you'd consider a competitive, goal-oriented style of gaming to be superior.  I just don't happen to share that preference.

Regarding comments on the other games, specifically Kwok's behavior in the Dragomir Omake:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the point where he started mocking the premise was when he and Danax basically threw up their hands and decided that they were hopelessly outclassed.

What Kwok did wrong, in my opinion, is that he chose the wrong forum to voice his discontent with the state of things.  That kind of thing should be done out of game, specifically in either the OOC forum or privately.  I can sympathize to a degree... as a player, I like the feeling that my character matters, and if I started getting the sense that the story would go on no matter what I did, I'd be unhappy myself.

The problem seems to be this, from what I've read:  the PCs are supposedly bodyguards for a character who vastly outclasses them on just about every level.  Presumably, that means that the beings who would actually pose a threat to her would be on a somewhat similar level in power, and would likewise hopelessly overshadow the abilities of the PCs.  In such a situation, it isn't much of a stretch to believe that all the PCs are doing is acting as witnesses to the story the GM has in mind, and that they aren't powerful enough to seriously affect it.  This and the fact that the philosophies of the martial artist characters are being repeatedly mocked for being impractical, and it's possible to see what would motivate some dissatisfaction.

I'm not saying Kwok is blameless.  He did choose to comment on the game IN GAME, thus undermining the GM.  And he does seem to do things at times simply to be disruptive, and see what he can get away with (the chain lightning in the Captain Cliche scenario, for instance). The GM may very well have something planned to shake the status quo, and raise the importance of the PCs.  But that is for discussion out of the game itself.  In the game, it's rude, disruptive, and shows a lack of confidence in the GM.  Not cool.

[Dracos]

I take no offense at it and am glad you give me the opening to comment on unintelligent characters.  What that generally does is cut down on your viable options to successfully maintain good roleplaying while winning (surviving).  Heck, sometimes you can have the most intelligent character in the world but if you stick in environments where strength is more important than quick wits then it's not going to mean much.  The importance of teamwork is even greater for a player when he knows he has weaknesses, and frankly all characters do.  A good party seeks to work to minimize their weaknesses.  The strong ogre might not be proper to come up with clever plans on his own but he can sure help Out Of Character the intelligent mage to develop a plan that can be relayed simply to him to survive.

I do agree there are flaws in the hook structure of that role playing game (Dragomir Omake).  I used it primarily as it was the easiest to grab an example from of his recent role playing.  My selection of Kwok was based on seeing him though act like that for years worth of gaming, particularly in the old Delphi role playing games.   Dragomir rpg, and by extension it's omake, have the difficulty that the GM avatar class given as npc does out class the characters in every fashion.  From a personal perspective while such characters can indeed be great wise mentors to teach random skills as rewards, they make really poor damsels to defend.  This is a conflict that players ought privately take up with the GM.  Still, I think both examples remain valid as examples of bad things to do during role playing.

Just a little addendum on something that I bet is crossing at least a few peoples minds is the aspect of "Playing in Character" versus "Playing to Win".  The truth is that there should never be a difference between the two.  Your options you ponder in order to win should always be restrained by the limitations, quirks, and design of your character.  A player that has to step out of character to survive should be eliminated.  I, as a GM, always try and convey this to my players.  The optimal role playing situation is one where you manage to both fulfill your character as well as surviving the adventure.   It's my belief that every good GM gives a way for the players to win, defined again as surviving until the next adventure, while playing in character.  A GM who does not quickly loses players as it becomes very 'unfun' to play in an environment where survival is not possible.  Additionally, all other aspects of good role playing usually tie in with surviving in a good campaign.

If ye still disagree with me Adon, please share some more of your thoughts.  I think this could be highly beneficial to provide alternative gaming philosophies here.

Fearless Leader

[Adon]

Hey, discussion is what the forum is for, right?

Okay, first, regarding unintelligent characters: I think their survivability is based on a couple of things, but chief of which is what kind of game they're playing.  In a comedy game, stupidity isn't really a flaw... if it's funny, it should even be encouraged.  In your sort of game, though, I suspect their survivability has mostly to do with how well they mesh with the rest of the party: if they have abilities which compensate for their lack of brains, like superior fighting ability or the like, and if their weaknesses are covered by the party: making sure that the less than bright guy follows the lead of the others.

I think my disagreement boils down to preference: what does one want to get out of a game?  If it's challenge and a sense of accomplishment, your approach is ideal.  But there are others, which I don't consider less viable.

Okay, time to get specific.  A newsgroup called rec.games.frp.advocacy spends a great deal of time discussing different styles of play.  One manner of thinking is something called the Threefold Model.  This approach is that the sensibilities of a group tend to fall somewhere within three axes, which are as follows:

Gamist
The word "Game" is the most important thing in a Role-Playing Game at this axis.  The Gamist approach emphasizes challenge, overcoming obstacles, and having consequences happen commensurate to what the players do.  The Tomb of Horrors module is a classic Gamist exercise.  In its original form (the copy I own), the Tomb seemed to exist solely as a challenge to be overcome.  There was no pressing reason to enter it for good aligned characters: no monsters were swarming out of it, and the big bad at the end would sit there doing nothing unless it was disturbed.  But that wasn't the point.  The point was to see if you could overcome the traps and tricks in this extremely dangerous dungeon, and the hefty amount of treasure at the end was meant to be a reward for those who managed to survive all the obstacles thrown their way.  It should be noted that Gary Gygax is mostly a gamist.

Simulationist
The best way to describe this axis is to say that while the Gamist is about challenge, and Dramatist is about story, Simulationist is about world, genre, and consistency.  The goal here is to create a sense of "you are here" called immersion, and where the adventures (or lack thereof) depend largely on the choices one makes and the environment one is in.  If you've played any of the Elder Scrolls games, notably Morrowind, it becomes clear that the writers prefer a simulationist approach.  This type of game is, not surprisingly, very freeform.  The Simulationist approach at its extreme doesn't care about challenge: what would be reasonable to happen at a certain place at a certain time is what matters.  If you go into a dragon's lair at low level, you die.  If you go into a goblin lair at a high level, you likely have an easy time of it and haven't pressed your ability at all.  It also doesn't care about drama: what you do might make for a good story, but there isn't any hand out there making sure of it.

Dramatist
Gamism is about challenge.  Simulationism is about immersion.  Dramatism is about telling a story, where the player characters are the protagonists.  Role-play tends to be emphasized on this axis, and the events that occur are primarily dictated by what would be dramatically appropriate.  So killing the major villain with a lucky shot early in the adventure just isn't going to happen in a mostly Dramatist game -- that would be an anti-climax.  Done well, Dramatist games can be gripping, where the players and the GM are eager to watch what happens next.  Done poorly, the accomplishments seem artificial, and the victories and defeats meaningless.  White Wolf games (Vampire: the Masquerade and the like) are examples of games that advocate strong Dramatism.

It should be pointed out here that these are axes on a sort of triangle, and that players and GMs tend to fall somewhere in the middle.  *Nobody* is a pure Gamist, or pure Simulationist, or whatever, though they can lean heavily towards one or the other.  Dracos, according to this model, would probably be fairly close to the Gamist axis based on what he has stated are signs of good gaming.  I tend to lean more towards Dramatist than the others, but like everyone else I would find one style without elements of the other two to balance it unappealing... immersion and challenge are both important to me, but not AS important as story.

One conclusion that WAS reached on the newsgroup is that no approach is inherently superior to another.  One may prefer a heavily Simulationist game, but it would be out of line for such a person to deride those who do not prefer that kind of play.

I guess that's all I'm trying to say.  You may prefer a game where challenging the players is the most important thing, and more power to you.  Just don't dismiss those who have different goals.

[Adon]

A quick piggyback for what I just posted -- one thing I think that Dracos will agree with is that whatever approach you prefer, you should go out of your way to do it well.  So if you prefer Simulationism, using out of character knowledge or acting in a manner not consistent with your character's environment are both examples of poor playing.  You get the idea.  In that, I think Dracos and I will agree -- whatever your goal is in gaming, don't be half-assed in going about it.

[Anastasia]

Okay, I'm going to comment on this, as I finally got around to reading it.  

As you might have guessed, Drac, I really don't agree with a good part of what you said here.  I game for fun.  Sure, I want to do well and I make an effort to improve my characters from experience, but I'm not uberreligious about it.  But, what it comes down to is that I RP to enjoy myself, not in a fanatical obsession to do my best in every element of the RP.  This 'fanatical obession' seems to suit what you define as a good player, which I strongly disagree with.  You are taking one trait of a good player and blowing out of proportion.

To be completely honest, your bit about Champion Players and it being 'The road of kings' sounds like you are missing what I feel the point of RPing is, to have fun.

This attitude kind of ruined Tomb for me as it went on.  The mentality of 'one mistake and it's over' along with a DM whom I felt at times was too kill hungry turned it into an exercise in hoping you survive, not an RP.  I'm not trying to insult you, Drac, but I feel that you played the death card to the point of killing off(ha) any enjoyment that could be gleamed from the tomb.  Granted, Tomb is supposed to have a good deal of deadliness, but you carried it too far.

I suppose it's just a clash of RPing viewpoints, but still.

Oh, and you managed to offend the hell out of me by classifying anyone who plays 'for fun', as you so nicely put it, as a scrub.  Congratulations.

</rant, unproofread>

[Dracos]

Well, disagreement is fine, this is a discussion board after all ^^.

First off, a few intepretational things...  
A)There IS gray area between the two extremes...  if you enjoy gaming and enjoy improving, odds are you are well along your way to being a gamer for blood.  Being one of the top dog gamers in whatever style you play in.  You might be in the middle...but the definition I used for "Gamer for Fun" included that basically improvement was never even an issue.  It just didn't happen.
B)Having 'fun' is a key point to gaming.  If you aren't having fun, you've missed it.  I'll absolutely agree with that.  You should be the best player you can be...but if along that course you stop having fun, then you've lost sight of what gaming is really all about.


For Tomb, I think I was far from kill hungry.  Most of the problems stemmed from players who simply didn't want to work together.  It was an extremely deadly campaign to play in from the get go...  but more deaths have occured from failing to follow the simple ground rules I laid out at the beginning of the game then actual encounters with Tomb.  I was serious when I laid them out and they each were for important reasons.  Without impetus to continue moving the game...a single person could hold up the entire group (Which often results in the entire group quiting from the single person's negligance) therefore the rule that if you neglected to play for two days without notifying the gm, you were out.  The next was the combat rules...  which weren't hard to follow but apparently they were.  *Shrugs*  Of the group, only one really got to the point where the deadliness of tomb was against him.  And that was Figment who made it two rooms now while continuing to post and making sure to let the gm answer him when he's posted.

This may be a clash of RP'ing viewpoints, if so, then I do hope ye continue rebutting me.  I think in having a collection of different viewpoints avaliable, people will be better able to pick and choose what suits their idea of gaming...or perhaps decide to try a different philosophy of playing.

Finally, again, I believe it's a misinterpretation to take my earlier part as deeming "If you have fun, you are a scrub."  I specifically tried to note that wasn't the case.  The examples were far more important in my eyes then the actual beginning comments.  *Shrugs*

If you have an opposing philosophy Dune, please do share it.  This is for the benefit of everyone to be able to consider multiple views on gaming.

Fearless Leader

[Anastasia]

First off, a few intepretational things...  
A)There IS gray area between the two extremes...  if you enjoy gaming and enjoy improving, odds are you are well along your way to being a gamer for blood.  Being one of the top dog gamers in whatever style you play in.  You might be in the middle...but the definition I used for "Gamer for Fun" included that basically improvement was never even an issue.  It just didn't happen.

Before I say anything else, I think this would go down better if you used a term for the 'scrubs' besides Gamer for Fun.  I think that is a....poor word choice.  Anyway...

Granted, I do try and improve, but it's a low, low priority.  Even if a gamer doesn't improve, that automatically doesn't make him a 'bad' gamer.  So what if they play the same type of character over and over?  As long as it works for them and anyone they are playing with, I fail to see a problem.  

B)Having 'fun' is a key point to gaming.  If you aren't having fun, you've missed it.  I'll absolutely agree with that.  You should be the best player you can be...but if along that course you stop having fun, then you've lost sight of what gaming is really all about.

I think it's the point to gaming, myself.

For Tomb, I think I was far from kill hungry.  Most of the problems stemmed from players who simply didn't want to work together.  

Yeah, not all the blame is on you, by far.  All the players deserve some flak for that.  But, on the other hand, I do think you overplayed the deadliness factor of Tomb.  From the beginning, I felt the attitude was one of 'one mistake and you're dogfood.'  Sure, punishing mistakes is all well and good, within reason.  

However, as I said, I felt like the impression and example set was that you had to be flawless super gamer to make it far. What really cemented it for me was Mousse's death.  He did a IC action that was logical and the one flaw in the plan would likely not be known to him. I doubt the NWCers know that stone golems are resistant/immune to non magical weapons.  For that, you slaughtered him.  Not only do I feel that was a unneeded and excessive frag, I felt it really shortchanged Mousse.  To quote you...

OOC: Wow...an intelligent action...reminding you guys how powerful end canon characters are!

Yet, Mousse can't take one stone golem punch without turning into brain salsa?  The group that can take mallets to the head with minimal damage dies from one golem smack?  I have to disagree with that on a consistency basis as well.  

Anyway, even the description of Tomb cements the 'uber deadly' mentality...

Deep in the bowels of El Diablo... Gamers circle around a table... to survive the unsurvivable.

It was an extremely deadly campaign to play in from the get go...  but more deaths have occured from failing to follow the simple ground rules I laid out at the beginning of the game then actual encounters with Tomb.  

Yeah...I'll agree that our group didn't win awards for awesomeness at points....

Of the group, only one really got to the point where the deadliness of tomb was against him.  

...And stone golems and giant spiders aren't deadly?  Just noting that.

*Will continue this in the next post*

[kpjam]

a couple points.

If this is going to be a debate about tomb, maybe it should be somewhere else.  Just a though.  Since I would like to read and try and contribute a couple points on the different styles of possibilities of gaming.

Now to a few select points.

I have to agree, that maybe Drac's choice of words was a bit harsh for the 'non' uber-competative side.  Which I'm probably closer to than the other.

I think maybe Drac just confused "Gaming for Fun" people a bit.  ALthough I'm not trying to put words into his mouth.  And/or Kwok was a bad example to illustrate the words he used.  As everyone has noted, gaming for fun is done by all.   So how does that distinguish the difference Drac was getting at.  He defined that poorly, which, along with his wording which painted a lot of us as 'scrubs' came across poorly.  So, maybe Drac could restate his point a little differently.  From his examples, the main gist I got was a difference in seriousness and consequences.  The "For Blood" group, takes the adventure seriously, and tries to simulate a somewhat plausible 'real life' simulation.  The "For Fun" group, is a no holds barred free-for-all without consequences.

Drac:  Am I close?

1)  While I consider myself -- even though I did at one time play RL RPG's extensively years ago -- a person who games for fun.  If I'm going to take the time to post and keep up with something, I'm going to participate in something that challenges me to think and has consequences good/bad for my actions.

If I do something stupid I should be punished, and good actions should be rewarded.

Now, to Drac's GMing style as I've seen it.  
Drac: You are a bit too harsh.  ^^  I think Dunefar's complaint has some validity.  A bad action should be punished, but ther does exist in the world the oportunity to survive and flourish from a bad action.  Alternatively, a good actions, can have bad caonsequencess.  That's the random part of RPG's that the silly dice do a nice job of.  An example would be from the online real-time RPG.  I read the log a couple days ago and it was fun.  This is pertaining to CY's demise and a way I think *you* could add more flavor to a campaign.  When Cy gave up his position and was attacked, it was basically, well, you were attacked and are now dead.  It would have been more interesting if CY had some warning that his position had been exposed.  The creatures aren't that silent.  And he could have been afforded a slim chance of coming up with some escape.   It may not fit the actual happenings perfectly, since I'm going from memory.  But hopefully the small trace of a point is made.  Mistakes, should cost, but the real flavor in life comes from overcoming obstacles, which are usually placed in front of ourselves.^^

Anyway.  I'll try and find this thread again to give my silly opinons on occasion.  And I do look forward to campaigning with.against you-p

And Dunefar.  You have a lot of nice points.  Ja.

[Dracos]

First off, a few intepretational things...  
A)There IS gray area between the two extremes...  if you enjoy gaming and enjoy improving, odds are you are well along your way to being a gamer for blood.  Being one of the top dog gamers in whatever style you play in.  You might be in the middle...but the definition I used for "Gamer for Fun" included that basically improvement was never even an issue.  It just didn't happen.

Before I say anything else, I think this would go down better if you used a term for the 'scrubs' besides Gamer for Fun.  I think that is a....poor word choice.  Anyway...

If ye glance at the article which inspired this, you'll understand why I used it.  It wasn't designed to offend, merely to use the same definition that it was defined as in the previous article.

Granted, I do try and improve, but it's a low, low priority.  Even if a gamer doesn't improve, that automatically doesn't make him a 'bad' gamer.  So what if they play the same type of character over and over?  As long as it works for them and anyone they are playing with, I fail to see a problem.  

It's the difference between little league football and pro sports though, which is what I'm getting at.  If ye want to stay in the little leagues all your life, cool, game on.  But the philosophies of those who go beyond that are very different.  Someone who takes joy at pushing themselves to be a better gamer...to be the best gamer they can be will, undoubtably, play in a whole 'nother league then someone who simply plays the same character all the time and doesn't improve.

This isn't an instanaeous(sp?) process...it takes time and their are thousands of shades of gray between a scrub gamer and a top dog gamer.  It is my opinion though that as you expand yourself as a gamer the game becomes more fun, not less.  The enjoyment of the cooperative-competitive environment that exist in a game like JLOT is nothing compared to the experience of a LARP game.  It's merely more intense and the level of role playing all around is just at a whole different level of play.

B)Having 'fun' is a key point to gaming.  If you aren't having fun, you've missed it.  I'll absolutely agree with that.  You should be the best player you can be...but if along that course you stop having fun, then you've lost sight of what gaming is really all about.

I think it's the point to gaming, myself.

And you are entitled to your opinion.  But I believe that RP'ing contains a far more varied experience then just mere 'fun'.

For Tomb, I think I was far from kill hungry.  Most of the problems stemmed from players who simply didn't want to work together.  

Yeah, not all the blame is on you, by far.  All the players deserve some flak for that.  But, on the other hand, I do think you overplayed the deadliness factor of Tomb.  From the beginning, I felt the attitude was one of 'one mistake and you're dogfood.'  Sure, punishing mistakes is all well and good, within reason.  

The thing was, as I did make perfectly clear at the beginning, that was the type of campaign it was.  I don't run every one of my campaigns like that, but I was running tomb at a very high level of difficulty.  I wasn't going to lie to you and say "Hey, don't worry, I'll ignore it when you make a mistake," instead I made it very clear the type of game I would be running there.  I don't believe I ever misrepresented the type of game it was.

However, as I said, I felt like the impression and example set was that you had to be flawless super gamer to make it far. What really cemented it for me was Mousse's death.  He did a IC action that was logical and the one flaw in the plan would likely not be known to him. I doubt the NWCers know that stone golems are resistant/immune to non magical weapons.  For that, you slaughtered him.  Not only do I feel that was a unneeded and excessive frag, I felt it really shortchanged Mousse.

But that's the thing...there are IC actions that won't always lead to success.  The most obvious IC action is not always the one that will lead to victory.  Characters, and players, always have a range of choices they can explain themselves acting on.  The deeper you feel with your character the easier you can explain them.

In the scenario above Mousse didn't know that the Stone Golems were magical entities fully capable of taking any purely physical strike and dealing back brutal amounts of damage.  He took a swift action...and ended up putting himself in a scenario where that monster was fully capable of killing him.  Those golems were not particularly fast by any measure...but they damn well hit harder then any mallet.  Personally, if I was him I would have checked to see if the breaking point was within my allowable realm of attacks (And yes, it was for all amazons in that game) and used that.  Even without using it, it's typical in games that most people who charge in without figuring out what the enemy is capable of tend to get killed.  And that's exactly what happened here.

To make more clear why I see nothing wrong with him dying from an IC action, I will mention a later trap room in it where there are a group of about a dozen succubuses.  Now it would be perfectly IC for happosai to get suckered into entering that room, and promptly have all his lifeforce drained out of him while he happily gropes them and gets hugged to one of their chests.  Would there be anything wrong with him dying from that IC action?  In my opinion, not at all.  If you differ with me on this (and feel free to), I believe it comes down to differences in core gaming philosophy.

 To quote you...

OOC: Wow...an intelligent action...reminding you guys how powerful end canon characters are!

Yet, Mousse can't take one stone golem punch without turning into brain salsa?  The group that can take mallets to the head with minimal damage dies from one golem smack?  I have to disagree with that on a consistency basis as well.  

The thing is you are assuming the powers of the monsters.  Just because they came apart handily under the special attacks of the party, doesn't mean they weren't genuinely deadly creatures.  They were.  Every creature in that dungeon has the capability to kill you.  Those golems hit VERY hard.  You only got to see two blows from them, one glancing hit which sent Ranma flying out into the mists never to be heard from again... and another clean strike right into Mousse's cranium.  Needless to say, Mousse's cranium wasn't up to taking the level of abuse that monster could give out.  The spider that died rather easily was equally deadly in it's own way... a single strike from it's poisonious maw would have been the death cry for any of you.  I don't hear any complaints about that though...why?  because you dealt with it appropriately.  You could have, IC, walked right into it's trap, gotten caught in it's pincers and bitten before you had a chance to react...  and then you would have died a miserable death.  This happens in the game.  Not every campaign I run is like this, but Tomb definitely was.  As I said, I felt I gave very fair warning of it before the game began of what to expect.

Anyway, even the description of Tomb cements the 'uber deadly' mentality...

Deep in the bowels of El Diablo... Gamers circle around a table... to survive the unsurvivable.

It was an extremely deadly campaign to play in from the get go...  but more deaths have occured from failing to follow the simple ground rules I laid out at the beginning of the game then actual encounters with Tomb.  

Yeah...I'll agree that our group didn't win awards for awesomeness at points....

Well figment has.  But as a group you neglected to work together, didn't seem to be communicating and planning your actions as a group, looking for ways to handle things in better fashions and, for many of you, trying to survive.  Literally, there was a point where the players had, by virtue of not following the guidelines or backstabbing each other, negated a good half of your party before you entered a single room.  Through needlessly antagonizing your partners, the team fell apart before you (And by you I speak to the team) even got to the first door.

Of the group, only one really got to the point where the deadliness of tomb was against him.  

...And stone golems and giant spiders aren't deadly?  Just noting that.

Sorry, you are right.  What I meant more was he has finally started getting to the real game...which is traversing Tomb.  I don't truthfully count lasting up to the first room traversing Tomb.

Fearless leader

[Dracos]

a couple points.

If this is going to be a debate about tomb, maybe it should be somewhere else.  Just a though.

Kp is right.  Dune, if you have more specific comments on tomb, please make a thread on it in tomb.  This is getting a little tomb centric...  let's pull this back to gaming in general.

 Since I would like to read and try and contribute a couple points on the different styles of possibilities of gaming.

Now to a few select points.

I have to agree, that maybe Drac's choice of words was a bit harsh for the 'non' uber-competative side.  Which I'm probably closer to than the other.

I think maybe Drac just confused "Gaming for Fun" people a bit.  ALthough I'm not trying to put words into his mouth.  And/or Kwok was a bad example to illustrate the words he used.  As everyone has noted, gaming for fun is done by all.   So how does that distinguish the difference Drac was getting at.  He defined that poorly, which, along with his wording which painted a lot of us as 'scrubs' came across poorly.  So, maybe Drac could restate his point a little differently.  From his examples, the main gist I got was a difference in seriousness and consequences.  The "For Blood" group, takes the adventure seriously, and tries to simulate a somewhat plausible 'real life' simulation.  The "For Fun" group, is a no holds barred free-for-all without consequences.

You may very well be right on that note.  I extended off of an article that was written primarily to those who wanted to be the champs, not to those who wanted to just have fun.  Kwok was close to an epitome of playing 'JUST' for fun.  A munchkin plays 'JUST' for fun (In fact, I'd argue that the munchkin is the polar end of Playing just for Fun...  where your own enjoyment comes above anything).  With no discretion for the other aspects of the game or the other players.  The more you take into account those other components and aspects of the game...  the less the game becomes about just having fun... does it mean it becomes less fun?  No...it becomes more.  It extends into being a social event...  into working as a group...into developing cunning gaming skills and impressing each other as you play.  All of these having realms of gray in them.  But, IMO, there are the two extremes...  those who play Just For Fun... and those who play for Blood... really learning the game and getting to appriciate the deeper aspects of roleplaying.  And between these two there are ranges of gray...  and there's nothing wrong with falling within them.  It's simply the intensity and range of the game you play.

Drac:  Am I close?

Fairly close.

1)  While I consider myself -- even though I did at one time play RL RPG's extensively years ago -- a person who games for fun.  If I'm going to take the time to post and keep up with something, I'm going to participate in something that challenges me to think and has consequences good/bad for my actions.

If I do something stupid I should be punished, and good actions should be rewarded.

Amen!

Now, to Drac's GMing style as I've seen it.  
Drac: You are a bit too harsh.  ^^  I think Dunefar's complaint has some validity.  A bad action should be punished, but ther does exist in the world the oportunity to survive and flourish from a bad action.  Alternatively, a good actions, can have bad caonsequencess.  That's the random part of RPG's that the silly dice do a nice job of.  An example would be from the online real-time RPG.  I read the log a couple days ago and it was fun.  This is pertaining to CY's demise and a way I think *you* could add more flavor to a campaign.  When Cy gave up his position and was attacked, it was basically, well, you were attacked and are now dead.  It would have been more interesting if CY had some warning that his position had been exposed.  The creatures aren't that silent.  And he could have been afforded a slim chance of coming up with some escape.   It may not fit the actual happenings perfectly, since I'm going from memory.  But hopefully the small trace of a point is made.  Mistakes, should cost, but the real flavor in life comes from overcoming obstacles, which are usually placed in front of ourselves.^^

That should have been done slower yes, but that was a hastily thrown together on the spot game.  Not a true excuse but...*Shrugs*  Anyhow, I'm not always a harsh GM, it's more though you are seeing a cross-section of only a small range of games.  Anyhow, this isn't on me.  ^^  If ye want to critic Drac's gm'ing style, feel free to open a topic for it.

Anyway.  I'll try and find this thread again to give my silly opinons on occasion.  And I do look forward to campaigning with.against you-p

Aye.  Let's see if we get enough to make designing another tomb worth my while ^^

Kind Fearless Leader

[Anastasia]

If ye glance at the article which inspired this, you'll understand why I used it.  It wasn't designed to offend, merely to use the same definition that it was defined as in the previous article.

Perhaps, but I still think it's a horrid turn of phrase.  In this case, I think consistency should be usurped by a bit of tact.  I still think a different term would serve your case better, as the current title puts you one down from the very start.

And I fully understand that it wasn't meant to offend, but I think it failed in that objective. :(

It's the difference between little league football and pro sports though, which is what I'm getting at. If ye want to stay in the little leagues all your life, cool, game on. But the philosophies of those who go beyond that are very different. Someone who takes joy at pushing themselves to be a better gamer...to be the best gamer they can be will, undoubtably, play in a whole 'nother league then someone who simply plays the same character all the time and doesn't improve.

I disagree that one form is superior to the other, as you've implied with that comment.  I feel that if you are having fun with the group how well you play isn't that big a deal.  So what if you are a so so player you and the group and enjoying yourselfs?  Does that mean that you are a 'scrub' player?  I don't think so.  I think the only scrub player is one that doesn't have fun RPing or that drains all the joy out of a campaign for the others.

And you are entitled to your opinion.  But I believe that RP'ing contains a far more varied experience then just mere 'fun'.

'Mere' fun?  Sure, it carries a varied experience, but I feel fun is the main element of it.  Otherwise, why put in all the effort if you aren't having fun?

Kp is right.  Dune, if you have more specific comments on tomb, please make a thread on it in tomb.  This is getting a little tomb centric...  let's pull this back to gaming in general.

The tomb comments will be addressed in a topic on that board, so I'll omit those from my response here.

[Adon]

If I may chime in here, I think what Dracos is trying to get at is that there is a difference between a casual game and a game well-played, so to speak.  He's used Kwok as his example of "Gaming for Fun", which is both accurate and not, because Kwok represents the extreme of "Playing for Fun" -- to the point that he doesn't really care what's going on, how much he's messing things up for anyone else, or much of anything other than his amusement at that particular moment.  It isn't good to assume that people who play mainly for fun are all like Kwok, though.  I assume most people who play for fun are at least somewhat courteous gamers who don't go out of their way to screw things up for everyone just to see what will happen, you know?

Maybe it's snobbery, maybe it's being jaded, or maybe it's having had one's tastes refined, but I believe that what Drac is getting at is the difference between, say, checkers and chess.  Both are fun, and require strategy, but a well-played game of chess is one of those things that's much more fulfilling when it involves skilled players who are doing their best.

I still dislike the term "Gaming for Blood", in part because I disagree that a very competitive style of play is the only one that's fulfilling.  That's why I never signed on for the Tomb of Horrors in the first place.  I didn't like it back when it was first published, and I don't like that "wrong move you're dead" style of play now, unless it's in a rousing game of Paranoia.  I also think that there is very much a place for kicking back, relaxing, and not taking things so seriously from time to time.

Can the two styles meet somewhere in the middle?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  If I'm playing a deep role-playing style of game, with a grim, spooky atmosphere, breaking character to do something silly would be frowned upon for the most part, and probably rightly so.  It may be frustration with folks like Kwok who cheerfully do just that which is getting Drac frustrated in the first place.

[Dracos]

The reason last time I didn't respond to Adon's comment was I felt it said it all very soundly.  While I did use a gamer for the gaming for blood...  I meant more one who tries to game the best they can.  Whether it is in a simulation, a drama game, a toss around spam joke fest, or something like tomb.

I do believe there is ranges of play...  and I do believe that at the higher ends it's far more fulfilling to game.

The terminology I used, in hindsight, was obviously flawed...but the core meaning being that a philosophy of learning the game(whatever type of RP game it is) and trying to do your best is the true route to being a great gamer.

Gaming for blood isn't necessarily one mistake kills, it's merely playing the game at the highest levels it is meant to be played at that is within your capabilities to play.  If you are playing a game like tomb, it's paying attention to every detail and being as creative as possible to avoid dying.  If you are playing a more typical multisegment adventure it's more then that, often especially focusing on how well you work with your comrades.  If you are playing an intrigue game, it's learning how to think faster and better in order to play the game better.

Anyhow...as I said earlier...there are ranges between the two 'extremes'.  Every one of us fall between those extremes.  If we didn't we'd probably be making a living gaming ^_~.  It is MY opinion that it's better to try and go closer to the playing it seriously extreme then it is to not giving a damn about anything besides your own amusement at the moment extreme.  I know, from observation, you can find a group that will fit you no matter what your 'style' is.  Even if you are the type that will never progress beyond munchkining for some reason...there are groups of nothing but munchkins out there for you.  Find where you are and where you 'want' to be....and play to be there.  There's nothing wrong with gaming at any of the thousands of levels of play with any style of RPG...  It is though my premise that there are those who will naturally game better in any RPG they play...  and I believe it's from the approach.  A player who takes a game seriously, studies it, and tries to be the best they can at it will, indubitably, do better then one who says "Darn...what's with actually paying attention...OOH SHINY!"

And, as a slight breakoff in my rambling, yes, while that wasn't the real point of my original article...it is true.  When you have gamers of different levels of play playing together it can often get annoying.  It isn't so bad when you are willingly training someone who wants to learn to play a given RPG better but mix a group of people of vastly different abilities of gaming and it's, unfortunately, the exception to the rule when a game runs smoothly for a long time.

DoD is a mid-ranged difficulty campaign with an anime SI theme from what I've read.  You can have fun while punishing mistakes non-fatally....  But I DO agree of the importance of any GM honestly setting out beforehand what type of game they intend to run.  If you join a game you don't want of play after the GM has taken the time to explain what type of game they will be running you have only yourself to blame.  While a GM should adapt to his/her players... the integrity of the game they want to run shouldn't have to be comprimised.  Thus it is very important to set out for any game a clear indication of what you will be running, how it will go, etc.  So that RPG'ers aren't surprised when they find it's comically based or deadly as hell or any of the other shades of gaming.

Fearless Leader