On 4/8/06, Ben B. Bainton
<ben@...> wrote:
Hmm.
Well, I'm glad they like Wushu, then! Or, rather, I sure hope they will.
Certainly, everyone's welcome to their tastes and preferences. But, nothing can be all things to all people. I have a friend who has bravely vouchsafed to me that he cannot play Wushu, because it doesn't have the shopping-list particularity that he so loves. After a long, depressing while, I realized that there was nothing I could actually do. Changing the game to fit him would have changed it into another game, which would not have been as fun for him as a game focused from the start of its design on what he likes. Changing the person might be possible in the case of people who are knocking it before they tried it, but this is someone who tried it and knows themselves pretty well. Having accepted this, I moved on to playing the game with people who liked it.
I think Wushu is such a great game as to be nearly ideal for me and many, many other people. Some of those people might not even know it yet. But not everyone will be able to play it and have fun at the same time.
Also, do check out the wiki for info on adding a little more crunch to the game. Some of the rules mods are pretty swank.
Ahh. You've hit on it in that last bit. In my games, weaknesses are indistinguishable in their descriptions from any other trait. Actually, I've taken to calling them Distinctions, to leave out the "Can't ever" or "Vulnerable to" that people seem to like to sneak in. Un-entertainingly specific for me. Even leaving the mechanics otherwise untouched, just the name change has made for some much more interesting characters. It got people away from (what I think of as) the Gurps approach to character limitations. Many disadvantages from other systems are entirely uninteresting. King Kong doesn't have the disadvantage "Berserk," he has the Distinction "In All the World, Unique." Only one of these can have a full-length movie of emotional depth based on them.
...And the problem with my saying that is that 'uninteresting' is relative to me. Some people seem to like what I don't. Shocking, I know.
- Nick
I totally agree with you. And, as a GM, I don't really give a rats ass
about what numbers players have written on their sheets. However,
players love juggling numbers. Well, mine do anyway. ;)
Hmm.
Well, I'm glad they like Wushu, then! Or, rather, I sure hope they will.
Certainly, everyone's welcome to their tastes and preferences. But, nothing can be all things to all people. I have a friend who has bravely vouchsafed to me that he cannot play Wushu, because it doesn't have the shopping-list particularity that he so loves. After a long, depressing while, I realized that there was nothing I could actually do. Changing the game to fit him would have changed it into another game, which would not have been as fun for him as a game focused from the start of its design on what he likes. Changing the person might be possible in the case of people who are knocking it before they tried it, but this is someone who tried it and knows themselves pretty well. Having accepted this, I moved on to playing the game with people who liked it.
I think Wushu is such a great game as to be nearly ideal for me and many, many other people. Some of those people might not even know it yet. But not everyone will be able to play it and have fun at the same time.
Also, do check out the wiki for info on adding a little more crunch to the game. Some of the rules mods are pretty swank.
Also, I'd like to keep the number of weaknesses flexible. While a few
positive traits might well be enough to portray different aspects of a
character, I feel that limiting characters' weaknesses to one may not
work in all cases... Depending of course on the style and setting and
how specific you want weaknesses to be, etc...
Ahh. You've hit on it in that last bit. In my games, weaknesses are indistinguishable in their descriptions from any other trait. Actually, I've taken to calling them Distinctions, to leave out the "Can't ever" or "Vulnerable to" that people seem to like to sneak in. Un-entertainingly specific for me. Even leaving the mechanics otherwise untouched, just the name change has made for some much more interesting characters. It got people away from (what I think of as) the Gurps approach to character limitations. Many disadvantages from other systems are entirely uninteresting. King Kong doesn't have the disadvantage "Berserk," he has the Distinction "In All the World, Unique." Only one of these can have a full-length movie of emotional depth based on them.
...And the problem with my saying that is that 'uninteresting' is relative to me. Some people seem to like what I don't. Shocking, I know.
- Nick
Offline 
Send Email