It's a virtual world (?)

[Steve Blair]

If you can find any of them (okay, "us", and now I'm showing my age....), see if you can recruit any of the first generation of DMs from the early 1970's.

I'd add in the second wave from the 1980s as well, mainly because games had really expanded from the fantasy settings by that time. I ran a number of espionage-based games, as well as stuff set in the Old West and a 1920s Chicago-type setting.

I'd prefer a Second Life-type setting to WoW, simply because SL is customizeable and WoW doesn't seem to be. But yeah, you HAVE to have the human element in as both DMs and players. If you take that element out, it's shorted.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I'd add in the second wave from the 1980s as well, mainly because games had really expanded from the fantasy settings by that time. I ran a number of espionage-based games, as well as stuff set in the Old West and a 1920s Chicago-type setting.

I started DMing back in '74 and running tournaments in '75, so I got to see both the first wave and the second (and 3rd) wave crowd. The first tended to be pretty good, while the second had some great people and some hacks. The third wave didn't impress me at all.

The key difference always seemed to be in how much "support" (read "control") the games tried to establish to "help" the GM. The key variable, at least from what I saw, was the ability to use an active imagination and, if a GM had it, then the rule conventions would be used as mere background mechanics while, if they didn't have it, they became a strangle hold on the players.

I'd prefer a Second Life-type setting to WoW, simply because SL is customizeable and WoW doesn't seem to be. But yeah, you HAVE to have the human element in as both DMs and players. If you take that element out, it's shorted.

I'd prefer SL myself, but I'd like to use a modified VR sensory input with something like a Wii controller.

[Steve Blair]

The first tended to be pretty good, while the second had some great people and some hacks. The third wave didn't impress me at all.

The key difference always seemed to be in how much "support" (read "control") the games tried to establish to "help" the GM. The key variable, at least from what I saw, was the ability to use an active imagination and, if a GM had it, then the rule conventions would be used as mere background mechanics while, if they didn't have it, they became a strangle hold on the players.



I'd prefer SL myself, but I'd like to use a modified VR sensory input with something like a Wii controller.

I was never a big fan of the third generation either, but I think they were in part influenced by things like Magic and the other card games. Agree on the rules...I spent too much time in some games with a DM who couldn't be bothered to read the rules correctly and ended up screwing us about 75% of the time. Rules are important, but they should just provide a framework and never get in the way of the game (at least in ways that don't make sense for the environment).

[marct]

Rules are important, but they should just provide a framework and never get in the way of the game (at least in ways that don't make sense for the environment).

I used to distinguish between rules that define the "world" of the game, and rules that define the "conventions" of the game. Since I am one of the few people who is legally allowed to play a Lawful Good assassin in D&D (after a 5 minute chat with Gary Gygax back in '79), that should give you an idea of how "seriously" I take the "conventions" of the game .

Back when I was in the Improvisational Olympics (that's improv acting, Stan ), we used to have an event where a team would be given a story beginning, middle and end and we would have to improv the scenes to achieve those points. We would be scored on plausibility of arriving at those scenes when we competed - very similar to a good tournament game.

[Steve Blair]

I used to distinguish between rules that define the "world" of the game, and rules that define the "conventions" of the game. Since I am one of the few people who is legally allowed to play a Lawful Good assassin in D&D (after a 5 minute chat with Gary Gygax back in '79), that should give you an idea of how "seriously" I take the "conventions" of the game .

Back when I was in the Improvisational Olympics (that's improv acting, Stan ), we used to have an event where a team would be given a story beginning, middle and end and we would have to improv the scenes to achieve those points. We would be scored on plausibility of arriving at those scenes when we competed - very similar to a good tournament game.

Actually the idea of a LG assassin doesn't seem all that "beyond the pale" to me, provided that it makes sense within the setting of the game. I was always a big setting guy (and remain one to this day with my games), and the conventions of the world were always more important to me than the mechanics. Any set of rules can be tweeked or nudged to make them more workable, but a bad setting is just that...and many of them are impossible to fix (unless you count tossing them out the window and starting from scratch "fixing").

I get deep enough into setting that I reworked the entire RoleMaster rules system (including the magic stuff) to work logically within a world I created. Too much geekiness isn't always a good thing....

[marct]

I get deep enough into setting that I reworked the entire RoleMaster rules system (including the magic stuff) to work logically within a world I created. Too much geekiness isn't always a good thing....

I know that feeling ! I ran my own game design company for five years....