« first day (2519 days earlier)      last day (727 days later) » 
00:00 - 19:0019:00 - 23:00

12:00 AM
@JuneShores @Zachiel can I poke either of you to improve the tag's wiki and description? I just created it a few days ago, and just put in some very superficial placeholding description.
 
I only played it once, I don't think I'm qualified. But I will take a look at it.
 
Sure thing, @nitsua60
 
@JuneShores It's all yours
 
@JuneShores Thanks! I'm sure someone who's ever even seen the game can do a better job than I did with 3 minutes' googling =D
 
12:20 AM
@JuneShores yeah -- that's another factor -- my engineering-bent towards technical (vs. social) problems and problem-solving clashes with storytelling's emphasis in focusing on the universal, the human condition if you will
 
12:45 AM
@Shalvenay I don't think that's a fair generalization of it overall, although it could certainly be used that way. There were other ways to make 3.5 less trappy(ironically, 5e took the "balance around weapon focus" approach and made that work). It was more the poor mapping of archetypes to build options, like Miniman said. Gestalt's additional options combined with a rough level of guaranteed viability is fantastic for people who like combining things.
 
1:02 AM
@godskook ah. yeah, gestalt isn't the only way to kludge around 3.5e's trappyiness
 
@Shalvenay The trolls are real?
 
eh?
I was agreeing with you that gestalt isn't the only tack one can take at that problem
(I see the poor mapping of archetypes to builds as part and parcel of the "trap options" problem)
 
@Shalvenay It could also be intentional stylization, though.
 
@godskook oh?
 
Well, for instance, Rogues+Clerics don't "work" in such&such a setting, as well as other combinations. So churches in that setting aren't going to have many strong+devoted cleric+rogues.
 
1:11 AM
@godskook 1. 3.5e spans several settings and many in-character faiths
 
Eberron feels like a very very different setting just by the existence of Artificer and the implications that naturally has on a setting.
 
2. that should be declared upfront if it is a feature of the setting rather than being left as a boobytrap deep in the theorycraft
 
[there's a lot of portmanteaucraft going on here]
=)
 
@Shalvenay And I don't know any of them having a strong Rogue+Cleric archetype, but maybe that's a lack of knowledge on my part, I'm not GREAT on setting lore.
 
I feel like the question of rogue/cleric archetype in fiction was discussed in here a while back...
 
1:13 AM
@godskook Maskarrans much?
 
@godskook Olidammara laughs.
 
oh, it was you.
Aug 3 at 14:49, by godskook
So....I'm trying to come up with an example of a Rogue+Cleric archetype from fiction that's not D&D.
 
@nitsua60 Where? Nobody has called the class a Clogue yet.
 
@nitsua60 I don't remember being very satisfied with the answers I got.
 
Dragonlance had Reorx, who was worshipped by rogues. But I don't recall that the novels had any specific rogue/clerics in them unfortunately
 
1:16 AM
@ACuriousMind "Reric the Clogue, at your service--indulgences for a paltry sum." "I'll take- wait, where's my wallet?" "Oh, hrm, er..."
 
@nitsua60 It's not stealing, it's proactively soliciting donations, right?
 
@jeanquilt Really? Reorx is worshipped by rogues? I only associate him with dwarves. (And kender, gully dwarves, and gnomes, of course!)
 
I'm....not a fan of Kender
 
@nitsua60 Really? There are kender who aren't Rogues?
 
> Portmanteaumancy. You can use Rapport to combine two things into a single thing. Examples including making two people friends, creating a minotaur, and whatever nonsense the Dorito Taco is. The difficulty is based on how alike the things are, how inclined they are to listen to you, and how easy it is to pronounce the name of the resulting thing.
 
1:18 AM
@nitsua60 I don't know that it was talked about often, but I think rogues and gamblers were part of his sphere of influence
 
@godskook [gasp] back onto my Christmas card list! (I can't take you off, since I took you off earlier today.)
@jeanquilt He certainly had a bit of an impish bent, if I'm remembering the graygem story correctly.
 
@nitsua60 Is...this supposed to be a punishment or a reward?....
 
(Hmm... I think I can see Tales from where I'm sitting. Perhaps that's the girls' betdime story tonight.)
 
@nitsua60 something about how they used their skills to "create" their own path in life rather than rely on what was handed to them was the background behind it, I think
 
@godskook I've never actually sent a Christmas card, so take it for what you will.
@jeanquilt I can dig it. Any sources?
 
1:20 AM
OK so, I've got these OSR games that I'm hacking together. One is a Ducktales game that takes out the fighting completely and the other is a Final Fantasy game that tries to make the fighting more fun.
 
@nitsua60 So it is a punishment - you are promising a Christmas card by putting people on your list, then don't send it!
 
They're mostly notions at the moment.
 
@JuneShores Duckfantasy?
 
Clearly it should be titled Final Duck
 
Oh no, not combining them. Sorry. Just house ruling each into existence.
 
1:22 AM
@nitsua60 probably Holy Orders of the Stars? I'd check for sure but I don't have my book stash with me
I think that was the one with the chapter on cosmology
 
@jeanquilt Is that a novel or a campaign/setting book? I don't recognize the name.
 
@ACuriousMind I'm pretty sure Final Duck would be a gritty Howard the Duck horror game. So, basically Howard the Duck.
 
@jeanquilt Though Dougan Whathisname, the avatar, is totally a rogue.
 
@nitsua60 it's a setting book. I don't think it was ever brought up in any of the novels
 
1:35 AM
@nitsua60 hmm... would Shepherd Book from Firefly count? (I thought of Benni from the Brendan Fraser version of The Mummy, for that one scene with all the holy symbols... but since he doesn't have genuine faith, that falls more under either rogue or factotum)
 
@Adeptus Rogue, though? TBH, it's been some years since I watched, so the back-story's a little hazy right now.
 
@nitsua60 Well, the backstory isn't in the show, it's only in a comic book.
But I'd say the rogue part is unquestionable - it's the cleric I'm not sure of.
 
@Adeptus He doesn't really fit any of the Rogue archetypes, within the context of the show, which is what I was aiming for: an easy reference-able character who's Rogue+Cleric. Best I could come up with is Van-Hellsing and Constantine.
 
@nitsua60 Speaking of "everyone gestalted into X class" - Firefly seems like a nice example.
 
@Miniman Which class?
 
1:42 AM
@godskook Rogue.
 
@Miniman I'd say at LEAST Simon is not a Rogue.
 
@godskook I dunno, he gets up to some pretty shady stuff. Rogue/Doctor seems pretty legit.
 
@Miniman Yeah, that'd certainly work. Or in a different system, everyone'd have levels in "mechanic." (Though whatshername would be the only one whose "main" class was engineer.)
Eh, I'm feeling more of a points/skills system for Firefly, honestly.
 
@nitsua60 Yeah, it's not a great match. It just occurred to me cos of what you were saying earlier.
 
Is it "everyone gestalted as a rogue" or "everyone with the criminal background"? (comparing 3.5e with 5e, but whatever)
 
1:46 AM
@Miniman On the one hand, I wouldn't argue with that premise for a game, but on the other, the only ones I'd model with Rogue are Mal and MAYBE Inara.
 
@Adeptus Definitely not "everyone with the criminal background" - Mal and Zoe have the soldier background, Simon and River have the noble background (sort of), and so on.
 
True
 
Zoe+Jayne both seem far better modeled with Gunslinger(if PF) or some sort of Fighter(if I must go more core 3.5/DnD)
Kaylee.....Expert? Some.....mundane Artificer class? Idk, nothing that gave actual good combat stats.
River, first pass: Barbarian, with the flaw "Only lucid when raging"
 
@godskook Cleric of Gond? :P
 
@Adeptus If she was actually religious? Maybe? As it is, she's "better modeled" as a Sorcerer, in as much as I'd be willing to consider "caster" for her, which I'm not :P
 
1:56 AM
@godskook Well, she almost worships machinery...
 
In other news, how should I, as DM respond to:

1. PCs assault an abandoned keep being used as a forward base by a commander of the enemy Horde, killing most, except their leader, Koth. They abandon the keep, leaving Koth in chains but unguarded. This is Day 2. Later that day, Koth escapes with the aid of other Hobgoblins that are just generally roaming the area.

2.They progress deeper, assaulting a Dragon guarding a Bridge the Horde needs to cross, but failing to do any real damage. PCs retreat. Mid day 3, shenanigans happen, and...
 
can't really help you there, definitely not at all my hobgoblins
 
Basically, how much should I reinforce the Bridge by day ~5, when the PCs are likely to end up spinning back around to attempt taking the bridge.
 
@godskook Go back in time (in your mind) and stat up the commander+Horde, the Hobgoblins, the dragon, and whoever's manning the bridge in this fashion: theangrygm.com/schrodinger-chekhov-samus
(And whatever factions/subunits-of-Horde haven't been mentioned.)
 
@nitsua60 I've got some of that.
 
2:02 AM
Cool.
 
Thing is, the Encounter Level of that Bridge was beefy before Koth was able to slink his way back to it.
 
The players don't know how tough it was going to be before... Do you want the players to have a chance of winning, or do you want them to retreat or be captured?
 
@Adeptus Beyond Koth and the current Bridge Garrison, I'm at a liberty to make the game world react "appropriately" to the PC's current set of actions.
 
2:22 AM
@nitsua60 Yeah....on review of that, its a LOT more powerful than what I need. I always enjoy AngryGM, though, so w/e.
 
 
2 hours later…
Ben
4:52 AM
New RP character: Evil Abed. Very high charisma and intelligence, little of anything else (except a high level of skill with crossbows). Also has a gloriously evil goatee
 
@Ben Wait, crossbows?
You mean bonesaws, right?
> Evil Goatee. When you're being Clever, you can improve your Outcome by 1 tier, at the cost of alerting any heroes in the vicinity to the fact that you're evil.
 
@Miniman Nah, they only get a check to sense your evilness.
Because in some parties, ONLY THE BARD WILL KNOW
 
@Miniman Hmmm.
 
5:07 AM
@BESW As always, I apologize for how badly I've probably botched Fate mechanics.
 
No, I like it.
 
@BESW Is there any standard wording for improving an outcome? I was typing out "turn success into success with style, turn failure into success" and so on, but that seemed ridiculous.
 
It's uncommon enough that yeah, there's nothing super standardized to describe it.
I like what you came up with.
 
Ben
@Miniman paintball guns don't exist in base d&d lol
 
@Ben Ah, but Evil Abed never used a paintball gun. He just made them.
 
Ben
5:11 AM
True. To be fair though, he didn't have an overly major role, so a lot bout him still unknown
 
> Secretly Evil. You gain the condition Trying to blend in, which begins with its box checked. You can automatically succeed with style on a single action by unchecking that condition. While it remains unchecked you have the aspect Obviously untrustworthy but get +2 on (choose one when you take this stunt) attacking with creepy weapons, persuading NPCs to follow you, or undermining the heroes' morale.
(A condition is an aspect with an on/off toggle.)
 
@BESW So you can recheck that box at any time?
 
You have to reach a point in the narrative where it makes sense.
You can't suddenly Try To Blend In after making an Evil Speech on national TV.
 
@BESW Yep, I generally assume that's always the case in Fate :) no mechanical requirements, is what I meant.
 
Yes, the next time the story says you're trying to blend in, the condition is re-checked.
That'll usually involve some sort of mechanical hook (like using create advantage to make a new disguise, or overcoming an obstacle to vanish into the crowd) but it doesn't have to.
 
5:19 AM
Hmmm, interesting.
 
Traditionally, conditions are used to replace consequences.
There's a number of different systems that use 'em different ways. DFA uses them for supernatural effects.
For example, if a True Fae is injured with an iron weapon they have to check off Ferroburned, which means they can't heal any other physical injury until it's dealt with--that means resting in Faerie or getting cared for by someone who knows supernatural medicine.
Vampires get a lot of stress boxes on Hungry and mark them off to power vampiric stunts. Unchecking those boxes requires the obvious.
 
6:15 AM
silly vampires
 
Ben
7:11 AM
 
... Ew.
 
7:29 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, bad keyword with email in answer, email in answer, pattern-matching email in answer: What class archetypes can replace a Witch's spellcasting ability? by Pauline S on rpg.SE
 
 
4 hours later…
11:49 AM
@AricFowler, @SlowDog Hi!
 
12:06 PM
hi
 
12:17 PM
hello
 
salutations
 
1:00 PM
Today discussion topic:
I've heard an opinion that in RPG games one of the player characters (and by extension one of the players) is always the center of action, regardless of the intentions of the participants (GM included) or the game designers.
Your opinions?
I'm eager to disagree, to throw a counter-example in the face of the claimant, but I... don't have one. It always happened in groups I've been in.
 
@eimyr Is this the (to me evidently true claim) that at any given moment one of the player characters will be the focus of the action, or the claim that one specific characters will have the focus on them all the time?
 
@ACuriousMind THat's a good clarification question.
 
Are you talking about the thing often called "spotlight"?
 
@ACuriousMind No, it's the idea that in any given narrative one of the players, specifically the one who has achieved the greatest immersion in the game, will tend to become a key element of the experience. The idea is that even if other PCs will have greater plot significance, this player will have the others coalesce around their experience, elevating them and their character to a more central position than originally.
@BESW No, not at all.
 
Ah, a central/pivotal character around whom all others revolve.
 
1:10 PM
@eimyr TV has the same thing - ensemble casts appear hard to keep blended. In many (but not all) cases, they settle down to a smaller number of key characters. Other ensemble characters are featured from time to time, but the bulk of the story is really about two or three of them. Star Trek: The Next Generation, for instance... Picard and Data end up being the two main characters.
 
@BESW Yes, but not quite - a central/pivotal player around whom all other revolve.
 
I'm not sure that's a sign of a problem. It seems somewhat obvious the player most immersed ends up being a focus for everyone else.
 
and yes, these coincide in 90% of the cases
@NautArch I didn't say it was a problem, rather a phenomenon that was pointed out that I'm trying to explore and discuss with you Good Folk.
 
@eimyr So, one player essentially becomes the main protagonist of the narrative created through the game?
 
@Adam Yes, and it happens even if a) all players try to prevent it, b) there is a mechanic reinforcing egalitarian access to the spotlight, c) another PC has more significant relevance to the plot (e.g. Big Bad's sibling, a Chosen One etc.)
 
1:13 PM
@eimyr Does this notion claim that the same player is pivotal for the group across multiple campaigns?
 
@eimyr Ahh. THen yes, I agree with that because generally the most invested tends to lead.
 
and the claim is that the central person will always be the one who has achieved the greatest immersion in the game material
 
nwp
This seems related to some other group dynamics. One person will always be the leader, another will be challenging the leader and so on. And even if you take the leaders from all groups and form a new group the same pattern keeps emerging.
 
@BESW It doesn't, only as much as to say it will happen because it's a social effect, so it may end up being true but not necessarily.
 
@eimyr I've seen that. Part of it is group social... what @nwp just said.
 
1:14 PM
@eimyr I am not huldufólk.... not provably, anyway.
@eimyr I can guarantee this is untrue.
 
Aug 14 '15 at 9:02, by BESW
I am not James Gurney.
 
@nwp exactly, this is group dynamics.
 
@eimyr Well, in that case I can say that that's not really happened in any of my groups.
 
You make those claims, but we're yet to see proof
 
In my games, I'll sometimes pick a player to pivot the game around--often simply because it's the person who shows up the most regularly.
 
1:17 PM
@BESW And do other players follow your pick instinctively?
 
"Instinctively?" mu.
 
How exactly do we define "immersion" in this context?
 
@eimyr Interesting... my knee-jerk reaction was "this is one of those 'players-on-a-continuum' thing, so of course somebody's going to be the most X." But then I'm reflecting back to my recently-concluded ten-month campaign with seven PCs and can't think of one around whom things really pivoted. (Prolly means it was me...?)
 
I'm not entirely certain how the claim interacts with open tables and other mutable attendance groups.
 
Easily and without comment, yes. Instinctive is a claim I can't support either way.
 
1:19 PM
@eimyr Clarification: Is this within an entire campaign or a single session?
 
@Adam I believe the claimant would use the Nordic LARP definition of "bleed" as the measure of immersion.
 
I think a good sign that my groups don't have such a central character is that they are usually unwilling to play as soon as even one (two in the groups with players with more constrained schedules) player is missing, regardless of who it is
 
But even then, it's hard to say if my experiences match your rather vague descriptions.
 
@eimyr I have no idea what that means :p
 
@NautArch within a campaign, as long as the campaign stays relatively the same
 
1:20 PM
Certainly we've had games with wildly shifting spotlights, and plots which pivot around different characters at different times even if one player's character is the pivot more often.
And we've had games where I don't think anybody was really the lynchpin of the experience; our Dresden Files Accelerated beta test comes to mind. There were characters who probably had LESS import, but no single one that stood out beyond all others.
 
@Adam Er... in short, Bleed is a name for when a player starts experiencing emotions of the character. Tehre is more to it, but I'm not sure of the proper definitions myself.
 
@eimyr Then, no. Bleed has never been an element of this in any of my games in the last... five years, that I'm aware of.
 
Hmm, maybe this isn't a group dynamic thing, then. I was thinking more session related than campaign.
I want to say that if a PC/player is focused on to become a 'leader' that is from the DM, not the player.
 
Over two decades of gaming, I've never had much luck trying to force the spotlight. I start the campaign with an idea in mind, but I let it settle where it settles... then run with it. I've even done stuff like having every player create more than one character; it alway seems to settle down to one character being the most important.
 
@T.J.L. I let my players make multiple characters for the most recent campaign. most of the players have one primary character that they want to play, and any of their other characters are just mindless zombies that they keep around for the mechanical benefits they offer.
 
1:24 PM
Although there's often one character in a campaign who winds up being the primary focal point of the plot, it has nothing to do with system mastery or immersion. It has to do with regular attendance and a willingness to respond to the story.
 
@BESW Makes sense
 
Interaction with the story does not mean blending one's identity or experience with that of one's character.
 
Case in point, one player made a cleric, because the party was missing a cleric. The cleric does not really speak, nor does the player roleplay through the cleric all that often. The only reason the cleric exists is to heal people, cast buffs, and make religion checks.
 
@BESW In my experience, it isn't always the same player, and it isn't always the "leader" character, but it always seems to happen. System master and immersion both appear to have an influence, though. The players who like the system and like the setting tend to get deepest into their character, and that seems to prove the experience for everybody.
 
I'd like to see the concept tested against games where character interaction is minimal or non-existent and only explicit player-to-player interaction can lead to the game being influenced more by one player.
Like, for example, A Penny For My Thoughts or a split-the-party game of Don't Rest Your Head.
 
1:27 PM
@BESW It might be that the claim only works in relation to story games where bleed is a desired and sought-after state.
 
@Adam In the scenario I was referring to, its only ever one character a time. In the two most recent instances, one was two entirely separate casts on opposite sides of a conflict - I decided which group was in play for the given episode. In the other, it was Shadowrun, so one person got the contract and called up the characters they thought would be useful - but only one per player.
 
Ah, well then, my comment missed the point fantastically! Many Apologies!
 
@eimyr I think the last time we explicitly went for bleed was My Life With Master, and the group quit before the end of the campaign in part because bleed wasn't a thing they wanted to go for.
I've got an upcoming game that WILL have bleed for one of the players, because of her character choices. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.
 
Ben
Just started playing Savage Worlds. My character is Alcoholic Spiderman
 
@Ben which version of SW?
 
Ben
1:31 PM
Not sure, but there were multiple books
 
@Ben Well, that explains One Last Day at least.
 
@Ben So he shoots booze from his wrists?
 
@Ben I built two characters for what seems to be never-forming group for The TOmorrow Legion
 
@BESW I'm pretty sure your group is quite bleed-averse in general, and that's one of the reasons why Fate with its pronounced player - story divide and dissociation of player and character works so well for you folks.
 
@NautArch Actually, while that is the title of the book, the system is SW:Rifts afaik
 
Ben
1:33 PM
@Szega haha, no. He's Spiderman, just an alcoholic. Like Hancock
 
@Szega Yes, it's Savage Worlds: Rifts - the tomorrow legion
 
It'll never not annoy me that Stack's text-parse for questions/answers ignores linebreak whitespace when formatting one's answer.
 
Ben
@BESW ...the video game?
 
nwp
@godskook Have you tried 2 spaces before the line break?
or maybe I didn't understand that right
 
@nwp Yes, but that's what annoys me. I have to use a -workaround- to get LINEBREAK
 
nwp
1:39 PM
Meh, at least there is a workaround. There are enough issues that do not have a workaround.
 
@Ben Sorry, One More Day. That'll teach me to make off-hand jokes about things I just barely care about.
@godskook See also <br>
 
@nwp I'm not advocating a priority, just stating my annoyance.
 
@eimyr I have bleed-positive players, but yeah my groups as a whole haven't been bleed-positive since about 2007.
 
@BESW That's pretty specific, and for that reason I'll refrain from asking.
 
Eh, no secret. 2007 is when I moved from South Carolina back to Guam.
 
1:42 PM
@BESW bleed?
 
nwp
21 mins ago, by eimyr
@Adam Er... in short, Bleed is a name for when a player starts experiencing emotions of the character. Tehre is more to it, but I'm not sure of the proper definitions myself.
 
@godskook [gestures at ongoing conversation above]
@Z.Lin [wave]
 
nwp
No respect for lurkers.
I wonder if the expression "lurker" referring to people observing and not interacting comes from starcraft. It probably doesn't.
 
@eimyr Seriously though, the amount my groups desire bleed is directly proportional to the amount of theater majors in my groups.
 
@nwp Its just a common conjugation of a normal english word.
 
1:52 PM
@nwp what? I have great respect for lurkers.
 
nwp
Did you suicide your marines into them? :P
 
@BESW Again, that makes sense, almost explains itself.
@nwp OH. I thought you meant like forum lurkers.
 
nwp
@eimyr I did, and it was directed at BESW who pinged a lurker.
 
But then, I used lurkers more than 'rines, so that's true as well
@nwp well then, Be Nice please, we want people to participate in a way they are comfortable with. Lurking is just as fine as talking.
 
nwp
Uhm... yeah... Full agreement, yet no understanding.
 
Ben
1:55 PM
@BESW well, that is exactly what I was going to base the characters back story on
 
@eimyr He was saying I'm disrespectful of lurkers for saying "hi" to someone when they enter chat rather than waiting for them to say "hi" first.
 
@BESW I totally did not understand that at all. Not a iota.
Partly because regulars greeting arriving guests first is the opposite of disrespect to me.
anyway, let's leave it, it seems I'm the only one confused by it
 
Ben
[Obliviously plotting out backstory for a Spiderman/Hancock crossover]
 
@eimyr Yeah, bleed affinity is definitely something related to why a person chooses to RP in the first place.
My groups now are mostly looking for a comfortable, creative way to relax and unwind with friends. Forging empathetic bonds with fictional characters is liable to be... neither relaxing nor comfortable.
That's one reason I had us play Dog Eat Dog on a different day, at a different time, in a different place.
Kinda the RP equivalent of sleep hygiene.
 
BTW you accepted the term more easily than I did
 
Ben
2:02 PM
@BESW how so? I think I get what you mean... just want to clarify
 
Bleed, you mean? Eh, if there's a word for a thing I'll try it on for size and see how it fits.
 
Ben
And if I do understand, I would also agree
 
@BESW That attitude (expressed by various people, not just your group) is also the reason why I STILL haven't played Dog Eat Dog
 
@Ben Bleed, as I understand it, is a kind of immersion in which the emotions one's character feels are also experienced to some extent as real emotions owned by the character's player. And characters in RPGs tend to go through the wringer, emotionally.
If you transfer a character's emotions to the player, the player's gonna feel sad, betrayed, excited, scared... and even if that wasn't going to leave you drained and tense, there's a lot of pressure on the whole group to "play right" in order to not BREAK the immersive effect which allows the bleed.
 
Ben
Riiight. Yes. I have had one player that did that. They developed relationships with other PCs, based on their relationship in rl
Sort of the same thing, just in reverse.
 
2:06 PM
@BESW I think the latter is only true for a certain style of gaming. If a group tends toward the light-hearted and comedic, bleed is much less emotionally taxing than in other cases.
 
'struth.
 
@Ben Not really. Bleed is supposed to be separate from IRL relationship building.
To give you an example, I experienced some bleed during a Night Witches campaign, I was pretty invested in the narrative, but we recognised very well the difference between our characters and ourselves, and the relations IRL were completely separate from the ones in game, bleed had nothing to do with it.
 
But even for light-hearted games, I've played in groups where we all have to be really careful not to speak out of character too much, or dwell too much on mechanics, and we have to time the pizza delivery so it doesn't break immersion. It's an extra level of pressure and tension that I never felt was worth the reward.
 
I believe it's important to distinguish (and I'm sorry for not providing a more accurate definition) between bleed and player self-insertion.
 
@BESW By that definition, I'd say bleed is a bad thing. While being invested in your character is good, and being invested in the story is good, actually allowing your emotional state to be manipulated by a game does not seem healthy.
@eimyr Didn't you say the original term was from a LARP, where player self-insertion is kind of the whole idea?
 
2:09 PM
Especially since it tends to ALSO lead to Old Man Henderson style frustrations because the pressure to maintain the immersion enforces a reluctance to communicate about important table-level subjects.
 
@T.J.L. Ever felt sad after a movie or scared in a video game? That's bleed, different medium. As long as it's not out of control it's not unhealthy
 
nwp
@T.J.L. I thought that was the point of games. To escape the dullness that is reality.
 
@eimyr Not really, no.
 
@BESW I'm pretty sure the Story Game community puts heavy emphasis on game-driven in-character interactions and guiding everyone to a very sharply focused style and content.
@T.J.L. I... can't really agree. Are LARPS about roleplaying yourself? Really? I've never seen a LARP before then.
 
@eimyr To greater and lesser success. Forge-era games tended to leave a lot of that unspoken as an exercise for the group.
 
2:12 PM
@BESW Up to this message, I thought bleed and continuous immersion were different things. If the scenes are gripping and immersive, it doesn't really matter if you order pizza in-between, imo.
Maybe I just have much lower standards of immersion, though :P
 
@eimyr Should they be? Probably not. Is that what they end up being? Usually, because they heavily blur the character/player line.
 
@ACuriousMind Well, again, I'm working with a term I just learnt earlier in this conversation.
But in trying to understand it I'm drawing on, for example, the insights on horror gaming found in Nightmares of Mine.
 
@T.J.L. Aaaand that's precisely why in story game circles Nordic Larp is a different beast, as it speficically tries to achieve heavy bleed through careful characterisation, narrative and system
 
@BESW I found the games written by textbook authors :P
 
@eimyr Yeah, which could be cool, if it works... That said, all of the LARPing I've seen and/or experienced as pretty much been "player personality + character powers". The jerks always end up playing jerks, the wallflowers always end up playing wallflowers, so on and so forth.
 
2:17 PM
These lightning strike are waaay too close for comfort. I'm unplugging the computer.
@T.J.L. you should talk with Emrakul some time, maybe.
 
The presence of the table itself in non-LARP RP gives a bit of extra freedom, gives more allowance for character to be separate from player. A non-LARP that has "bleed" has somehow worked its way through that abstraction layer sounds like manipulation, not investment.
Mind you, I've had games where players feel for the characters, but as the characters. Things that are good for the story can be bad for the character... but good for the story also means good for the player.
 
@T.J.L. I'm pretty sure that some playstyles go against bleed so much that it can't be of any benefit. Perhaps your playstyle is one of those.
 
@eimyr I fail to see how "bleed" can be a benefit. When something happens to a character, the player's thought should be "How would the character react to it?" not "How would I react to it?". If the character's reactions are the player's reactions, you're not playing the character - you're self-inserting. Self-insertion is not immersion or investment.
 
nwp
For me it is the opposite. I identify with my character and want it to be successful through whatever means I can. The notion of "grinning how terrible this decision is" but at the same time being happy that it makes for an interesting story is completely foreign to me.
 
If you identify with your character, or try to play vicariously through your character, then I could see how trying to sync your emotions to your character's emotions could be a very fulfilling experience.
 
2:28 PM
@nwp It's not a question of how "terrible" the decision is; it's a question of how authentic to the character's personality it is. Sometimes people make stupid decisions for internal reasons of their own; why would a character be any different?
 
@T.J.L. How does self inserting preclude investment or immersion?
 
To be fair, there are definitely some genre-specific factors to take into account. What is reasonable behavior (or, understandingly unreasonable) in one setting may not be reasonable in another.
@Adam I never said that one precluded the others. I just said they're not the same thing.
 
nwp
@T.J.L. There is a difference between accidentally stupid and purposely stupid. While the character has some weaknesses that would make it behave suboptimal I wouldn't have my character "punch a dragon because that's funny". That might be a style or experience thing thought. I guess after you played yourself so many times you get bored and start playing other people and don't care if they fail.
Also the definition of "fail" might differ. I would consider punching a dragon failing. Others might consider it succeeding at having fun playing a game.
 
@nwp Who said anything about "not car[ing] if they fail"? Unless the story is some sort of heroic (as in the old Greek stories, or most Hollywood action flicks) fantasy (as in something implausible), failure is bound to happen. If there is no chance of failure, there's no chance of excitement.
 
@nwp I think for many of my players, "playing someone who acts differently from what I would do" is a large part of the appeal of roleplaying.
While your style seems to be more like "playing myself but with magic/superpowers/whatever", which is a very different style.
 
2:38 PM
@ACuriousMind Isn't that the whole point? I mean, anything else usually turns into "What could I get away with if I had special powers"... which is what I said about most LARPs I've seen: player personality + character powers.
 
nwp
This attitude for example doesn't work for me at all. There seems to be no pressure to "play well", or, better put, the understanding of good play is incompatible my understanding.
 
OK, OK, folks. This is going way beyond the scope of what I intended to discuss, and you're totally ok to continue, but I thought it's necessary to clarify some things I thought were assumed by all. So, certain people play RPGs in order to explore various situations and see in what kinds of relationships would be formed by these situations. Part of this is having the relationships (e.g. between PCs) be emotionally charged.
There are whole games written solely for that purpose, and they use a variety of tools, such as mechanic-driven PC interactions, relationship-focused play, narrative and creative constraints and yes, in fact, Bleed as well. In that constellation bleed can be useful and beneficial to the overall playing experience.
Of course bleed is not universally beneficial or desired, in many playstyles it's nothing but a drawback and in some it's impossible to achieve or irrelevant. In fact, Nordic LARP which coined the term is so much different from regular LARPs that their creators don't really align themselves with traditional LARP events.
So all I wanted to say is "assuming that bleed exists, and it's part of the gaming experience, is that influencing immersion-driven emergence of central players, assuming it's a thing" and we discussed that.
 
@NautArch Iam out of town with nearly no wifi, so I am not of much use on any questions a while. Thanks for the nod. Hope all are well.
 
I'm not entirely convinced there is merit in discussing the benefits and drawbacks of bleed in absence of a very much focused story game context, as it's such a constrained phenomenon, that it might need heavy redefinition to even be applicable to other RPG fields.
 
@nitsua60 For nitsua, yes, i served on four different aegis cruisers, and they were bringing the Burke's on line as I was leaving the fleet and becoming a staff puke. Am quite familiar with SPY 1A, SPY 1B ops, but the more recent variants and updates I am not very good about. Just too out of date
@nitsua60 I was also involved in a few projects for setting up regional BMD capability, but that is well over a decade out of date, so what they've done lately I have to discover by the usual research
Open sources, etc.
 
2:50 PM
@KorvinStarmast all is...enjoy Marfa (If i remember correctly?)!
 
@eimyr Bleed seems to be, to various degrees, a phenomenon shared by all RPGs, even cRPGs, in as much as I understand the concept.
 
I do wonder how much Actors influence their roles with their own personality. I'm guessing since their drawing on themselves as much as the role, it happens frequently.
 
@godskook Possibly, but the definition suited for story games and nordic larp reduces it's usefulness as a game element in discussions lacking this context, methinks
@NautArch I believe it does. There are also stories about the role eliciting emotional burden on actors, especially method actors. You could say method acting is a very visceral attempt to create maximum bleed.
 
@eimyr which then makes me think that bleed is expected and normal
 
@NautArch Possibly, but there are evidently playstyles which favour minimal bleed or avoid it entirely.
 
2:57 PM
if anything, I see less of a problem with bleed at my tables (probably because of the little amount of RP we do) and more of a problem with metagaming actions
@eimyr What I"m saying is that it can't be avoided. That even trained actors do it, and when an untrained actor (aka roleplayer) does it, it's definitely going to happen.
 
@NautArch possibly, though I recognise that some players might see it as a detrimental effect
 
nwp
@NautArch But actors train to be in character as much as possible to be as authentic as possible. If they have to play a character that stutters they will be stuttering weeks in advance to practice. They would never even think of avoiding getting into character.
 
I'm not sure if the opposite is possible
 
Using this:

https://nordiclarp.org/2015/03/02/bleed-the-spillover-between-player-and-character/

definition, I don't think there's anything inherently "Nordic Larp"-oriented about the concept, such that it would inhibit useful discussions for those of us lacking that context.
 
@godskook I'm not very familiar with the theory behind bleed, its definitions etc. if you read that, you probably know more than me at this point
 
3:01 PM
@nwp The canvas always changes the painting, and so too, the Actor changes the portrayal.
 
nwp
And you could avoid it by, for example, rotating the character everyone plays. It avoids emotional attachment because the next person will ruin whatever you wanted the character to be anyways. I just don't think avoiding emotional attachment is at all desirable.
@godskook Yeah, that is an error that actors try to minimize.
 
@nwp I'm not saying that bleeding is avoiding getting into character, but that the character is influenced by the actor.
 
@nwp I disagree. The Sherlock Holmes that both RDJ and Penoftin Clap'n'snap could both play would not POSSIBLY be as good as the more personalized portrayals either actor has already put to screen.
 
nwp
Actors get paid, so nobody cares about their fun. It is their job to portrait the character as closely as possible. RPGs are different. Here you want to bring your personality into the game. Otherwise it wouldn't even matter who plays which character.
@godskook I think that is just an artifact of the fact that there are different disagreeing ideas about how Sherlock Holmes behaves. Each actor played the version that fit to that story's/producer's vision of him.
Maybe some producers don't really have an idea of how a character should be and just go with whatever the actor gives them, but I wouldn't consider that a feature either.
 
@SevenSidedDie About the comment on the dragon question: I voted to close and presumed I will have no way to post a full answer, yet wanted to help him out. He does not have enough rep to chat. What should I have done?
 
3:13 PM
1.I care, please don't speak for me.

2.Why are you saying this? It seems disjointed from the conversation....

3.Its their job to portray the character as *well* as possible, not as *closely* as possible. Actors are praised when they can augment a Producer's or Director's vision for the character.
@Szega If you upvote, he'll now have enough Rep to bring to a chat room.
 
@godskook Im not a big fan of such a technical upvote...
 
@Szega Room owners/moderators could grant the user write access to the room even if their reputation is too low.
We've done it a few times on Physics, no idea if this room/site would be in favour of that.
 
@ACuriousMind Would be a good option, but my chat-mod-fu is weak
 
@NautArch Agreed. I suspect it will come in handy.
 
nwp
3:24 PM
@godskook 1. Really? You would like to have RDJ have fun at being a terrible Sherlock Holmes? That goes against the goal of making a Sherlock Holmes movie. 2. Because we were talking about characters bleeding into actors and actors bleeding into characters. The distinction between actors and RPG players seemed relevant. 3. I don't see the difference between well and closely here. Fleshing out a character can be well done by an actor, I agree.
 
@nwp @1 That's not within the context discussed so far, so I'm not answering it. And RDJ not having fun goes against the goal of making a good Sherlock Holmes movie starring him. @2 Not that you've convinced me, but I'm not sure how we can distill it, into a discussable point. Cest le vie. @3 Closely implies an objective measure of success and a singular target. Well implies an at least semi-subjective measure, such that two portrayals, with conflicting takes on the source material
can both qualify as "well"
 
3:41 PM
@NautArch You know, i came here to point that out, but I'm glad to see someone being there first.
Excellent question!
 
nwp
@godskook I guess you are right with 3. I was thinking about having a fictional character that needs to be played by an actor who should better do it correctly, as in according to the fictional character. But I see your point that saying "give me your best Sherlock Holmes impression" and then going with whatever seems good even if it contradicts the fictional character is also a valid way to make a good movie.
 
And answer.
 
hopefully that gets 100s of rep votes :)
 
3:59 PM
@NautArch Yeah, though I'm kicking myself a little for not posting it the other night. I was just so tired of talking about it by that point, though....
 
@nitsua60 Sadly, I didn't even think to ask/answer it. But good for a new user to do it.
 
Yeah, they'll get a couple of nice badgers from it, and then they'll be hooked!
 
4:29 PM
@nitsua60 Can't get enough badgers
 
@nwp Its why I referenced RDJ and Back'n'forth With'mah'staff. They both do EXCELLENT Sherlock portrayals. But they also both do DIFFERENT portrayals, in a way that I think would be made worse if we tried to get both of them to homogenize to the "same" portrayal.
 
nwp
The point was not that they need to portrait the same thing, the point was that they should portrait the envisioned character by whoever is making the movie.
But the point is moot anyways since that clearly isn't how good movies are made.
 
Also, did not realize that commercial airliners traveled at sub-mach speeds. TIL
 
nwp
Rip concorde.
Today I thought of the wrong kirby‌​.
I understand almost nothing in there.
 
4:50 PM
@nwp Too much smash brothers?
 
nwp
Kirby Superstar Ultra actually. "We share power ups! With a kiss!"
 
@nwp Same Kirby, different game :P
 
@Szega Just not try to help solve their problem in a comment at all. It's not what comments are for, and defeats the point of the hold system and all the site's other peer-review tools.
10
Q: Should users refrain from answers (or partial answers) in comments?

YasskierThere are situations, when you know SOMETHING that is related to the question but its insubstantial to be a proper answer, in example lets imagine a question: In which edition of game X dwarves are allowed to play as mages? Now lets say that I know a bit of game X, but I haven't played a wh...

 
5:23 PM
@GreySage badgers? We don't need no stinking badgers.
 
@SevenSidedDie Is there any way I can write a private message to a SE user? If I am not welcome to help in a comment, I would still like to do it another way.
A separate chatroom seems overly complicated
 
@Szega Invite them to Discord?
Once they're on Discord, you can private message them just fine.
 
I wanna tell them one simple sentence, not start a beautiful friendship
 
Then block them after you're done?
Cause afaik, Stack doesn't "do" private.
 
@godskook TBH, I can see the point, but this way...
Our main weapon is ruthless efficiency
 
5:34 PM
Yep, everything on SE happens in public, for the same peer-review reasons. Specific to the current situation: SE doesn't ever let one person claim that their help is right, only offers ways for someone to submit help for peer review, and lets others decide which help is right. That's why there's no private help, and comments aren't for help.
If the question is Primarily Opinion-Based, to help solve it, first help it not be opinion-based; If the question's off topic, it's off topic and the fastest way to help is to direct them to a place where it's on topic (such as a forum).
 
@Szega No, that's against Be Nice, can't have ruthlessness around here.
 
@Szega Yeah, ruthless efficiency is about right. All the restrictions are designed to force people to do the useful things that help the site help others better, so no answers in comments forces people to see if the question can be fixed up, in order to help with an answer, or whatever else is needed to do before helping them. Then the result is a long-term useful resource for everyone, rather than just one person.
 
@nitsua60 you say Attack is a defined game term, but it isn't actually defined, right? It's definition is a product of usage.
@SevenSidedDie this is where i went wrong when attempting a question on a different stack :) Needing something that was mainly just for me and not for everyone.
 
@SevenSidedDie Yeah, I get it and gonna drop it.
@NautArch The programmers SE did something like create a new site for individual case problems. Maybe it could work here too?
 
@Szega I'm not sure. I think I've resolved it (enough), but mainly didn't know how much experience to look for in a dev.
 
5:40 PM
I think there is potential for that question to be edited to fit the site. Its main issue is that it's looking for ideas (“ I was wondering what else I could do…”), which is a PoB problem, but often questions like that can be edited to not invite ideas, and better focus on describing the problem to be solved.
 
@godskook Some of the latest ones not very sub sub-Mach, but yes. Supersonic flight is uneconomical in many ways.
 
@SevenSidedDie I was looking for a way to do that, just have not found any yet.
 
@Szega Area 51 is where proposed new sites like that are suggested & developed. The hurdle I see is whether there are enough people interested in such a site. There might be.
@T.J.L. AFAIK, the only uneconomical part is that super-sonic speeds are banned above populated areas in the US (and probably Europe, but I don't know about that part), which made the Concord a great idea that would have worked fine, but hampered by the inability to use it for many routes. Being confined to the Atlantic route was a regulatory necessity, not a technical one. I know there are technical costs too, but IIRC the route limits were the big economical problem.
 
@SevenSidedDie Thanks. I might write a proposal.
 
5:56 PM
Hey gang. Just popping in to congratulate @nitsua60 and @Miniman on an amazing discussion of Attack vs. attack.
Choice quotes: "I know people say Ranger needs a buff, but giving them an infinite number of attacks each turn might be a shade too much." "Worked for Salvatore!" and "Should be going to bed. Wife will (rightly) be annoyed at how much time I've spent on one letter. Should be going to rabbinical school if I want to get this deep into textual construction." XD
 
@SirTechSpec truly a great discussion - just not sure that the OP got it.
 
Also, y'know, the thoughtful attempt to discuss the point. I think having an official QA makes sense.
 
It's possible that I've had that conversation a few dozen times in meatspace. Frankly, though, I'm fine with anybody who's confused by it and blame WotC for not picking a distinctive name for the action.
"Default to Violence," or something.
 
the term meatspace still gives me the willies
 
"What are my choices, again?" "Well, you can Dodge, Help, Hide, Dash, or just Default to Violence."
 
6:00 PM
@nitsua60 They seem to have inherited TSR's lack of thesauri. giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html
LOL @"Default to Violence"
 
@SirTechSpec I'll admit, Playing at the World is giving me a new, grudging, acceptance of how the "level" thing came about.
It's still annoying in practice how it's all worked out, but it makes more sense.
 
@NautArch That's what I like about it; it sounds so wonderfully dystopian. It's also much more accurate than the more-common "IRL", which to me suggests that online interactions aren't real, which I think unfairly minimizes both the positive and negative consequences of online social interactions.
@nitsua60 I should really read that, especially as I start to consider myself a quasi-professional gamer.
 
@SirTechSpec It's... impressive. About every few pages I come across something that makes me want to throw a QA up here. Recently it'd have been "Q: where did the term "role-playing game" (or "roleplaying game") originate? A: it seems to have been coined by a staffer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussing the suggested changes to kriegsspiel practices that RAND proposed for a world of mutually-assured destruction...."
 
@nitsua60 O__O
 
I can see why Mike Tresca drops an article on ENWorld every few weeks that just seems to be summarizing a two-page part of the book. It's really that good. And dense--a few pages per fortnight is about my "fast" pace.
 
6:37 PM
@NautArch I think one thing is missing from your answer: explicitly asking for communication. You're at the edge of it ("start with... an opportunity to discuss") but don't quite come right out and say it the way I would. For instance, I try to make a habit at the end of sessions of saying "please let me know if anything bothered you, if there're any questions, anything you liked or didn't, anything you want more or less of..." I also explicitly ask for feedback offline between sessions.
 
6:53 PM
@nitsua60 my concern with that is explicitly asking doesn't necessarily give you a response. I've explicitly asked for feedback from my table when I've DM'd and gotten none (but our table generally doesn't communicate like that because we haven't/don't do the things I listed)
FOr me, it's more important to create an environment where you can talk like that. The session zero and following up sections provide the specific opportunity to talk.
 
Fair--just throwing it out there =)
 
but...I am adding a bit. Found a place for it :)
added it in the first paragraph of following up. Debating on the comment from Jeff and if i should try and find a spot for that, too.
 
00:00 - 19:0019:00 - 23:00

« first day (2519 days earlier)      last day (727 days later) »