Websnark

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at May 5, 2005 5:07 PM

Too many GMs are too nice. They let their players get away with murder (figuratively and literally.) I'm all for a little payback. As in real life, actions have consequences.

I had a player in a mage game declare he was going to "Slide and roll across the floor firing!" his gun. I blinked. I repeated my description of the crack house they were in and asked if he really wanted to. (Being rather stunned and thinking I, as a GM, had failed.) He nods, all excited, dice in hand. I say.. hooookaaay.. Long story short, he got A LOT of needles sticking out of him in the process. (Which HAD been described! Twice!) He ended up with AIDS and a wonderful story on how he dragged the whole group through hell to get it cured magically.

Do I screw over players for no reason? Typically not, unless I need a catalyst and someone's really been getting up my nose. I'll abuse their backgrounds, I'll abuse the stupid things they do (which is wonderful), I'll abuse their flaws and weaknesses (which leads back to the stupid things they do ^_^ ) and I'll even let them make up their own torture devices.

But sometimes.. sometimes it just gets SOoOOOooo tempting to laugh maniacly and say "The world exploded, Thor scoops you up and says 'Find and count all the grains of sand that belonged to the beaches in Wales.'"

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at May 5, 2005 5:15 PM

Once upon a time when I was big into Champions I was told my real-life superhero name was "Loophole," because of my ability to exploit disadvantages. Each time we'd meet I'd show up with an 800 point character. I suspect folks like Wick became what they are at least in part because of folks like me from way back then.

I'm much better now.

Comment from: Montykins posted at May 5, 2005 6:00 PM

Based on the essay you linked, Wick sounds like a jerk. It seems like his players would have to eventually ask for a list of talents that he didn't hate, because being told "Oh, you used Luck? Then a bunch of supervillians kill you" doesn't sound like a satisfying game experience.

I've played a lot of Champions. I've *run* a lot of Champions. There are plenty of ways to keep the cheese down (for example, "I'm sorry, this character is too abusive. Please make it again without X, Y, and Z") without killing characters off just because you hate Code of Conduct or something.

Doing clever things that result in characters being unplayable isn't fun for the players: it limits roleplaying when they have to make brand new characters all the time. A GM should mess with characters, yes, but not to the point of showing off how smart he is at the expense of the game.

Comment from: The Gneech posted at May 5, 2005 7:35 PM

Well, I read the Champions article, and it sure makes him sound like the kind of prick I refused to game with in college, as player or GM. In particular, it reminds me of the annoying little monkey who, when I came up with a clever plan that took out his BBEG quickly and efficiently, threw a tantrum and tossed a dozen other BBEG's at us -- all of whom managed to always hit us for max damage and evade anything we could throw at them.

Yeah, great game that. :-/

Senator, I've met Harlan Ellison. I've talked to him, made him laugh, and shook his hand. And this guy is NO Harlan Ellison.

-The Gneech

Comment from: Alun Clewe posted at May 5, 2005 7:51 PM

Gotta agree with the last two posters on this one; reading that Champions article has left me with little or no interest in anything else this guy has to say.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at May 5, 2005 7:55 PM

Well, I wouldn't say *little* or *no* interest. Some of the meta stories were interesting, and his collusion with a player to kill off a beloved hero sounded like a really cool story arc. But it does sound like I'd have little patience for a long-term game with the guy.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at May 5, 2005 8:06 PM

Hm. There is a pyramid article that needs to be read to put the Champions article in perspective.

That said, I stand by the snark. What else could I do?

Comment from: Alun Clewe posted at May 5, 2005 8:10 PM

Mr. Wright:

Well, hey, you weren't one of the last two posters I was agreeing with. ;)

Seriously, you said that you "suspect folks like Wick became what they are at least in part because of folks like me from way back then." Heck, it seems to me Wick is one of the "folks like [you] from way back then." He's exploiting the rules (or in some cases, like the Luck example, distorting them beyond recognition) to mess with PCs just the same as some players try to exploit the rules to mess with the GM. And it's just as bad when a GM does it as when a player does it. In fact, it's worse, both because the GM should be the main person holding the game together, and because the GM can do whatever the heck he wants anyway and shouldn't need to resort to such blatant powergaming.

I meant what I said about my lack of interest in reading his other work. If that Champions essay is at all representative of his philosophies of role-playing, I really don't care about what else he has to say.

That being said, I haven't read the Pyramid article Eric just mentioned, so I don't know the full context behind the article. But I have a hard time seeing how any sort of perspective could make it into anything other than a self-satisfied litany of rules abuse.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at May 5, 2005 8:12 PM

Senator, I've met Harlan Ellison. I've talked to him, made him laugh, and shook his hand. And this guy is NO Harlan Ellison.

Gneech -- you are a dear friend and all around good guy.

But wait until you read the RPG work before you decide that. ;) The point is, Ellisons piss you the Hell off, and yet still produce worthy stuff.

Comment from: The Gneech posted at May 5, 2005 8:13 PM

So what's in the Pyramid article?

-TG

Comment from: The Gneech posted at May 5, 2005 8:20 PM

Followup:

Well, I read it. White Wolf already published it ten years ago, and it was junk then, too. (Including, but not limited to, the parts I wrote for them.)

*shrug* Your mileage may vary.

-The Gneech

Comment from: Shaenon posted at May 5, 2005 8:21 PM

I don't think you should be allowed to have a giant rampaging ego if you're A GUY WHO DESIGNS ROLE-PLAYING GAMES.

Shit, that's even lower than drawing comics.

Comment from: Jerivix posted at May 5, 2005 8:26 PM

I gotta say, I'd love to game with this guy sometime. Killing a character takes a lot of guts, and sometimes it just has to happen. The key is doing it right. That involves a lot of things. Beyond the basic GM stuff, you also have to kill of the right characters. Anybody who takes great enjoyment from destroying a well loved, well played, and very personal character is a sadistic bastard. But there are also those characters that need to die. The power-gaming characters. The ones whose player doesn't care about their personality, just their stats. Leave the roleplayers alone, and use a dramatic death through a player's explotation of loopholes to teach a valuable lesson. They won't forget it, and they'll likely become a better player afterwards.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at May 5, 2005 8:34 PM

Gneech -- which WW are you reffing, OOC?

Shaenon -- hey! I have a giant rampaging ego, and I design role-playing games! ;)

Comment from: Joshua Holbrook posted at May 5, 2005 8:35 PM

I agree that his use of luck was kinda cheap. However, some of that other stuff was really engaging story-wise--like the berzerker story, and the end of Mr. Fabulous--that sort of trouble for players seems interesting instead of annoying (except for the berzerker, but it sounded like he might have deserved it). I think his story-making is pretty amazing. That might have actually been a fun game to play... maybe. Or maybe it would have just been fun to watch.

I need to try writing a campaign for something.

OH! And remember that series in Real Life with the guy that got the 3 wishes ring while playing DnD? I think that guy might be worse. :P

Comment from: AuricTech posted at May 5, 2005 8:38 PM

Without stealing thunder from the Pyramid article in question, I ask one question and provide one hint:

The question: Did John Wick (or his NPCs) kill any hero (of those mentioned in the linked column) without the player's prior consent?

The hint: The funeral game session, in which players who had dropped out of the campaign played their retired heroes, was pivotal to the entire campaign.

Comment from: benlehman posted at May 5, 2005 8:42 PM

I don't think you should be allowed to have a giant rampaging ego if you're A GUY WHO DESIGNS ROLE-PLAYING GAMES.

Word from the niche hobbyists.

rpg designer--

--Ben

Comment from: John Bankert posted at May 5, 2005 8:44 PM

I'm not so sure here.

I played in a D&D campaign once where the DM shafted me hard, and I hated it, not so much because I was being shafted, but because it added nothing to the game.

I have to think that the guy does more than just constantly fuck his players over, because if he did, why would the bother to keep coming back?

That said, if it's not a constant thing and it adds to the game experience, why not? The whole point to is for everyone to enjoy themselves, and if that's happening, it's all good, no?

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at May 5, 2005 8:50 PM

Anyone who builds, writes or creates ANYTHING has a big ego. You sort of have to in order to get the job done.

Comment from: The Gneech posted at May 5, 2005 8:50 PM

Mage, pretty much. I was a semi-regular contributor on the first and second editions through "Technomancer's Toybox," 'cos the line developer was a member of my gaming group in college and liked my work. :)

As grateful I was, I actually hated the game, and was frustrated working on it because everything that I thought was good would get edited out or fundamentally changed.

I eventually moved over to their short-lived Street Fighter game, which I loved to death and am actually very proud of my work on ... but the line wasn't a good fit with the White Wolf audience and floundered.

The mindsets are just too different, I guess.

BTW, belated thanks for the "friend and good guy" comment. :) Please don't take my different opinion re: gaming styles as a repudiation or anything. ;)

Mostly I was reacting to the comparison to Harlan Ellison more than anything else. Harlan's a maverick, yes, but he doesn't go out of his way to piss people off just because he likes to make people unhappy -- wheras that seems to be exactly what Wick is advocating.

It's like the difference between Bugs Bunny and Woody Woodpecker, y'know? Smart alec trickster who humiliates people who mess with him: funny. Smart alec trickster who just torments random people trying to get by: not funny.

-The Gneech

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at May 5, 2005 8:57 PM

Gneech was involved in the creation of Mage? *She who got suckered into GM'ing Mage more than once narrows her eyes* C'mere Gneech, I have a mallet and a cookie.. One you shall recieve! ^_^

Comment from: The Gneech posted at May 5, 2005 9:03 PM

*gulp, sweatbead*

Did I mention I hated it?

-TG

Comment from: Montykins posted at May 5, 2005 9:05 PM

"The question: Did John Wick (or his NPCs) kill any hero (of those mentioned in the linked column) without the player's prior consent?"

Kill? Beats me. But lines like this:

"Malice retired the very next day and nobody ever bought a DNPC again."

Make it look like he just punished the player for having chosen a DNPC. It has an overtone of "Hooray! Now no one will take that Disad ever again!" If he thinks DNPCs are cheap, he should disallow them, not let them in and then make characters unplayable because of them.

The Immunity thing reads a little ambiguous. It could be a plot hook. Or it could be "Hey! Everyone with Immunity! You have an incurable disease you can't ever get rid of! GOTCHA!"

Now like I say, I'm only judging from the linked article, because I don't have a Pyramid subscription. But it just reads like he's awfully self-satisfied in his ability to kill (or otherwise render unplayable) characters. And that seems antithetical to the source material: you don't like Lois/Jimmy/Aunt May/etc.? Fine, don't allow them. But deciding that anyone who builds their character with a certain thing is going to get hosed for it because you find it cheesy? That's not a good GMing philosophy.

I mean, I'm sure he's exaggerating how often this sort of thing happens in his games. But the fact that that's what he chooses to brag about? It's worrying. I could imagine a long game of dedicated players, though, as long as everyone built to the exact specifications that he'd decided won't anger him.

I glanced at the Discordia RPG, but I gave up after a few pages, since it seemed to be 90% Principia Discordia material. Admittedly, that's because I quit before I got to the game. I'll look at it more when I get home from work (the, um, biggest RPG publisher in the world, which I mention just to give my comments some veneer of respectability)

Comment from: Alun Clewe posted at May 5, 2005 9:14 PM

The question: Did John Wick (or his NPCs) kill any hero (of those mentioned in the linked column) without the player's prior consent?

I don't see how this question is in any way relevant. Are you implying it's okay for a GM to mess with a PC and ruin his "life" as much as he wants, as long as the PC isn't actually killed?

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at May 5, 2005 9:15 PM

I should, at some point, mention I actively like Mage, shouldn't I?

Comment from: The Gneech posted at May 5, 2005 9:27 PM

Heh. :) Well, I won't take it personally if you don't! ;)

-TG

Comment from: Alun Clewe posted at May 5, 2005 9:46 PM

Okay, I've now read the Pyramid article in question. My response?

Eh.

All right, he had a reason for treating the PCs as he did. And I can respect his reason. I'm not bothered by the fact he treated them that way.

What I am bothered by is the fact that he passes it off as knowing "how to use a character's Disadvantages, Powers and Resources against him". Because that's not what it is at all.

The DNPC example: yeah, of course a GM can horribly kill a DNPC. That's kind of the point of DNPCs, that they're always getting in harm's way. But a Champions GM is supposed to have restraint, allow the PCs a chance to save them, to kill off a DNPC only with a very good reason.

Did Wick have a good reason? After reading the Pyramid article, I'd say yes, actually, arguably he did. But that doesn't mean he was making clever use of the PC's Disadvantages. Any idiot GM can kill off a DNPC. What's important is knowing when, if ever, it's appropriate to do so. And that's something Wick didn't touch on at all in that Champions article.

Ditto most of the other examples. These aren't tips on how to use PCs' Disadvantages against them. Any GM can use the PCs' Disadvantages against them. That's what they're for; that's why they're "Disadvantages". But the key is to know when to use them against the PCs, and when to stop, and when you're going too far. In those specific circumstances, arguably Wick wasn't going too far for what he was going for in that campaign. But none of that comes out the way he wrote the article; it comes across as just tips on how to make the PCs' lives miserable, as if this was something GMs should always want to do.

(The Luck example...okay, there's just no excuse for that. That's not just bending a rule; that's breaking it and remolding it into something entirely different. The whole point of the Luck Advantage is that it's supposed to help the PC get out of bad situations; I don't buy the rationalization that technically it got the PC out of one bad situation by getting him into a worse one. If it does that, it's not Luck anymore. But that's just one example, and not the main thrust of the article, so I won't harp on further about it right now...)

So, after reading the Pyramid article, okay, I don't have a problem with the way Wick ran that campaign. He was hard on the PCs for a reason; the players went into it with the expectation that he'd be hard on them; and there was a point to it all. But I still have a big problem with the "Hit 'Em Where It Hurts" article. Because it doesn't address the fact that there has to be a point to it; because it's written as a gleeful instruction book about how to hurt PCs, without a word as to when it is and isn't appropriate to do so.

Do I stand by what I said about having "little or no interest in anything else in anything else [Wick] has to say"? Well...maybe not entirely, but I don't entirely take it back, either. Even if he's a great role-player, I'm still leery that he could write an article like that. Even if he did have a point behind the PC-torture in his own campaign, the fact that he would write an article that seemed to encourage it without regard for such deeper reasons gives me pause. Maybe he just wasn't thinking when he wrote that article, but that someone in the role-playing industry could, even in a weak moment, write an article that seems to embrace the philosophy that the GM should in general use every means in his disposal to torment the PCs...well, that's still a little disturbing, and still leaves me with concerns about his writing ability, if not his ability as a GM.

Eh. Maybe I'll give him another chance and read some other things he's written. But as of right now, I remain decidely unimpressed.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at May 5, 2005 10:53 PM

My problem with that article is that Wick seems perfectly willing to actually twist the rules.

As Alun pointed out, Luck shouldn't work that way. Unluck, or Jinxed, or something along those lines could work that way. But Luck shouldn't resort in putting you in worse danger.

Moreover, Wick deliberately breaks the rules of Immunity to screw with it. You're supposed to be immune to any disease... so he gives you a disease to screw with it? Did he miss the memo or something?

He may have had his reasons... but by presenting the stories like this, he seems to want people to think he's a jerk that no right-minded person would want to game with.

Comment from: miyaa posted at May 5, 2005 11:13 PM

The PDF and the Pyramid article read a lot like the "classic" GM book, Principia Discordia: Or How I Found Goddess, and What I Did to Her When I Found Her, and what I've read in this one is very similar to that strange book. It also reminds me of the whole The Book of the Subgenius series. In fact, this whole genre has a Jack Chick-ish kind of feel to it, if Chick ever had written a book.

Personally, I don't know why these guys go to so much trouble in killing off player characters just to show that they're in control. Hell, the players will often do enough stupid thing, or just plain bad luck, to end up potentially having their characters killed. I once played in Shadowrun game as the daughter the Yakuza Mafia Godfather, and I went to the Japanese Consulate to see about getting me out of Atlanta because some goofball possum redneck was wanting to kill me for thwarting their plan for complete control of the city. I didn't realize ('cause I didn't figure otu all of the hints) that the Consulate had figured out who I was, and I ended allowing the another Yakuza clan to kill me off to throw everyone else off. I've also had myself killed because of doing really dumb things, like casting a maxed out fireball spell in a room full of explosives. I mean, really dumb "Hey, watch this!" kind of stupidity. What Wick seems to be advocating to me is the DM/GM equivalent of Munchkinism, that is using the rules of a game to max/min your abilities, game situations, etc. to the upmost absurd end, all in the name of showing off to everyeone else in the group why you are the man. This is so completely immature.

I thought the whole point of playing an RPG is to experience a situation such as, "You/one of your party members has been kidnapped by an evil and ugly princess for the sole purpose of marrying you/him and to have kids that would grow up to rule the world." Then you let your party make decisions as to how to go solve the problem, and continue to play out the situation until the decisions come to a revelant solution, such "You save your party member and kill the Princess and her many minions." None of this "let's screw with with player's characters/DM's npcs to the point where no matter what they/he tries, I win."

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at May 6, 2005 12:26 AM

Back when I used to RP (Rifts), I liked the fact that our GM let us screw OURSELVES over with the fact that our characters were all rather stupid and never paid attention to anything. Like that time we all picked the biggest, loudest weapons for what turned out to be a STEALTH mission on some vampire fortress or something. As I recall, it all went very badly and we all ran away. It was like a post-apocalyptic version of Slayers half the time. And also a total blast.

Comment from: Prodigal posted at May 6, 2005 2:22 AM

Are you implying it's okay for a GM to mess with a PC and ruin his "life" as much as he wants, as long as the PC isn't actually killed?

If the player of the PC in question enjoyes it, I say yes.

I co-GM'd a GURPS: Supers game for a few years back in the late 80s and early 90s, and I would throw all kinds of stuff at them that would get them fearing for their characters' lives - with a handful of exceptions (one of which was due to an underestimation of a power's range,) I never killed any characters. But I did make the players work to keep that from happening, and they always wound up enjoying themselves.

Comment from: Alun Clewe posted at May 6, 2005 2:33 AM

If the player of the PC in question enjoyes it, I say yes.

Obviously. But that's true of killing PCs as well...as long as the player's having fun, sure, it's all okay. I just don't think it's reasonable to draw a line saying that anything the GM wants to do is fine as long as the PC isn't killed, which seemed to be what AuricTech's question was implying. No; ruining the PC's "life" in other ways can be just as bad as killing him. Certainly if the player's enjoying it, that's fine, but that's not the point here; I was just reacting to AuricTech's question about Wick's having killed the PCs, which seemed to imply that it didn't matter what he did to them--or whether the players were okay with it or not--as long as he didn't actually kill the characters.

(In the case of Wick's campaign, the Pyramid article seems the players were enjoying it, and that he was working their characters over for a reason. So, as I said, my issue isn't with the fact he tormented the PCs. That went along with the theme of the campaign; the players were expecting it and were fine with it; and there's nothing wrong with it under those circumstances. My issue is with the article and the way it comes across. But I've already covered that in my last post, so there's no point in rehashing it here.)

Comment from: Alun Clewe posted at May 6, 2005 2:39 AM

the Pyramid article seems the players were enjoying it

Er...that should be "the Pyramid article makes it seem". Dagnabbit. I usually preview things before I post them, but the fact that the Preview here runs all the paragraphs together--not to mention the fact it clears the URL field for some reason--makes it annoying enough that I skipped it. (Well, and to be honest sometimes even when I do preview a post I miss a typo until it's actually posted...)

Comment from: arscott posted at May 6, 2005 3:30 AM

It seems like wick is teaching DMs to be nasty.

There are other places a DM can learn to be nice.

Unless the DM uses a bit of each, a campaign can't be fun, IMO.

Comment from: Jeff Cuscutis posted at May 6, 2005 9:17 AM

I think many people miss the point of his Playing Dirty columns. They were not meant to be taken as straight up gaming advice. They were meant to push buttons and make people think and get them talking.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at May 6, 2005 9:27 AM

I'd like to officially disagree with the general consensus that his use of the "luck" thing is a misapplication of the rules.

This comes as a guy whose favorite, absolute favorite Champions character was a luck-based hero... anyway, I always viewed luck as having two purposes:

1. It could be used situationally, in order to get you out of a specific jam (hopefully in a creative and amusing way), or

2. It can be used on a meta-game level, to further advance the story.

The "out of the frying pan, in to the fire" scenario might actually turn out to be a "long-run, good thing" for the hero, because in the process of getting beaten up or arrested or what have you, he or she learns something absolutely necessary to continued long-term survival that might not have been learned had the entire situation been avoided.

Any power with "luck" stamped on it is going to be pretty much something that works completely at the mercy of the GM anyway.

Comment from: William_G posted at May 6, 2005 11:44 AM

Funny you mention Harlan Ellison, because I totally want to be him when I grow up.

Do you know why?

I may be misremembering this quote, but: "I wouldnt trade in the best hour of Star Wars for the worst five seconds of Star Trek"

A total double dis that made me realize that there are better things than being a fan.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at May 6, 2005 12:06 PM

Harlan would think better of Star Trek had they not rewritten "City on the Edge of Forever."

Funny thing is, while I certainly understand the fact that he hates when people screw around with his work, I tend to like a lot of very same butchered adaptations that he despises. For example, "A Boy and His Dog" is my absolute favorite movie of all time.

Which is why we must never meet. Because at some point I would feel compelled to confess that, and then he would kill me. A lot.

Comment from: Montykins posted at May 6, 2005 12:56 PM

"I think many people miss the point of his Playing Dirty columns. They were not meant to be taken as straight up gaming advice. They were meant to push buttons and make people think and get them talking."

Well, and it worked. But he doesn't get to write purposely-controversial things for the sole purpose of getting people (like me) to comment on them and then distance himself by saying "it's not really gaming advice".

The non-Pyramid article says "This article is designed to show Game Masters how to use ..." so it's clearly phrased as gaming advice. If he has a secondary goal of stirring things up, that's fine, but it takes away the option of saying, "Gosh, why are people so hostile to my column?"

Not that Wick necessarily said that; he strikes me (again, wildly overgeneralizing on the basis of the one column) as somebody who doesn't back down in the face of public outcry.

Comment from: Alun Clewe posted at May 6, 2005 2:11 PM

The "out of the frying pan, in to the fire" scenario might actually turn out to be a "long-run, good thing" for the hero, because in the process of getting beaten up or arrested or what have you, he or she learns something absolutely necessary to continued long-term survival that might not have been learned had the entire situation been avoided.

But that's not what Wick's talking about. He specifically refers to using Luck against the character. And that's not how Luck works. If it's making the character's situation worse, it's not Luck. (I can understand your idea about its being worse in the short run but better in the long run...okay, I can buy that..., but again, Wick doesn't seem to be saying anything of the sort. He's just talking about using Luck to make things worse for the hero, period.)

I stand by my opinion of his article. I don't think it can be defended on the grounds of "teaching DMs to be nasty". GMs don't need any lessons there; they have total control over the gameworld anyway. They can be nasty without exploiting the rules, and his discussion only makes it seem that GMs should exploit the rules at every opportunity to torment their PCs, that this justifies nastiness regardless of other circumstances. GMs don't need a lesson how to be nasty--if anything, they need a lesson in when to be nasty. (And yes, this goes for GMs who are too "nice", as well...it's not that they don't know how to be nasty; it doesn't take much imagination to think up ways to mess with the PCs. It's that they are too "nice" because they don't see why they should be "nasty"--which Wick's article doesn't address.) There's nothing easier than making PCs' lives miserable; the important point is knowing when it's appropriate to do it, and when it's going too far; when it adds to the players' enjoyment, and when it detracts from it. Based on the Pyramid article, it looks like Wick may indeed know when it's appropriate--but none of that comes across in the article. It just reads like a general endorsement of torturing PCs by any means possible.

As for the Playing Dirty columns being "meant to push buttons and make people think and get them talking"--well, I haven't read the Playing Dirty columns, so I can't comment on those, but in reference to the original "Hit 'Em When It Hurts" article I don't think that's a valid justification. Note that this is the same justification that internet trolls frequently use when they're caught--that they just wanted to start a discussion. The thing is, trolls seldom if ever cause a discussion of anything constructive or worthwhile. I don't see Wick's "Hit 'Em Where It Hurts" essay doing that either.

As I said, I haven't read the "Playing Dirty" columns, or any of Wick's other writing (aside from that Pyramid article); for all I know everything else he's written is brilliant and insightful and thoroughly thought through. I'm only commenting on that one "Hit 'Em Where It Hurts" article; I don't know how representative that article is of Wick's output as a whole. But that article is an absolute piece of junk.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at May 6, 2005 2:48 PM

Sorry, Gneech, I love Mage too. Granted, I was a 16-year-old girl when I got introduced to it and mostly liked the pretty pictures and lack of "thaco," but it was the first rpging I had done since elementary school D&D (yes, I see the contradiction with the thaco comment. My friend's younger brother ran the games and didn't make me use dice), and so it will always be special for me.

So nyah. Good job.

Comment from: admanb posted at May 6, 2005 6:05 PM

Anyone with experience with the taking risks/advantage system have any advice on running the system? It seems difficult for the PCs to survive through anything you throw up against with the very limited "skill" selection they have.

Comment from: Amadan posted at May 6, 2005 8:15 PM

I think John Wick's GMing advice was generally awful, though he does have flashes of brilliance and some of his tips were cool. Mostly, though, he followed the Erick Wujick school of GMing: "If you make the players (not the characters -- the *players*) suffer, it's dramatic roleplaying!"

My dislike for Wick came not from his GMing advice, but from his hissy-fits on Pyramid and every other board where he was a participant. Notably, he went on flaming tirades cursing out anyone who criticized anything he wrote, claiming that non-creators had no right to criticize a creator's work.

I gotta admit, I laughed my ass off when he got a computer virus that wiped out one of his Orcworld drafts, and he started screaming that someone had deliberately hacked his machine just to sabotage Orcworld, and he was going to sic the FBI and the Secret Service and God knows who else on the perpetrator and make sure he did hard time....

I disagree that nasty pieces of work like Wick are "necessary." There are plenty of brilliant, talented creators who *aren't* assholes. I see no need to give my time or attention or money to those who are.

Comment from: Zerthimon posted at May 7, 2005 3:13 AM

I love doing nasty things to my characters. I create backgrounds that say "Plot hook imbedded in flesh. Please pull.". Some of the stuff I've done with my characters make his little tricks look rather tame.

There was the former diabolist who was raped repeatedly (resulting in pregnancy). Since she was a mage, and her rapist was holding her captive, her hands were cut off. There was the manic-depressive/combat fatigued character I ran in a medevial setting. Poor boy. All that and gay too. (I did research, I swear!). There's my current Star Wars character, who is a dishonest little bundle of Hutt influence, f'ed up family, and doomed love with feet. I eat this stuff up. I'm happy to sacrifice my characters' well-being for plot.

But I think I'd hate playing under Wick, because I'm pretty much dead certain that, unlike my wonderful, wonderful DM, he wouldn't take the time to talk things through with me before he sprung them on me in game. And I know myself well enough to say that I really could not handle that. You never know what will disturb people-especially in very tense moments when everyone is deeply immersed in their character-unless you ask.

I have limits. Pushing me past them denies you of a lot of plot hooks and denies you of time you could have spent RPing as you deal with an angry, hurt player.

People have hangups in weird places-I have no problem with noncon, I HATE roleplaying mundane breakups. My character can take any amount of punishment from her *foes*, but please do not have me help you with an NPC, let me imagine their past relationship, then have her get betrayed by said NPC (Actually, my Star Wars DM is getting away with this one. Because he actually talked to me about it).

Plus I get the impression that he smirks, and I HATE smirking DMs.

Comment from: kafziel posted at May 7, 2005 4:29 AM

The thing with Luck ... well, that's low, but certain doom to uncertain doom is still an improvement. The thing with Immunity, I read as the character being perfectly healthy while everyone around them starts dying, which any number of books and movies and such can tell you is a great opportunity for a really desperate situation, and that seems fine (if, and I stress IF, your players want that sort of horror-type game).

The part that really sickened me, though, was his discussion of Find Weakness. He seems really proud of the fact that if one of his players DARED to take an ability that makes them better in combat (something probably kinda important, given the superhero genre), he completely screws them over without warning, and Ha Ha on them. His little Jefferson "Mary Sue" Carter may be the sort of guy who'd do something like that, but that doesn't make it a kosher move from the GM; unexpectedly ruining someone's character because they took an ability you don't like ... that's just a really shitty thing to do to a player. If you don't want them using Find Weakness, tell your players ahead of time. Don't keep quiet about it, then dick over those who take it. And DEFINITELY don't leave them feeling impotent and useless just because they couldn't read your mind.

Admittedly, I haven't read a lot of Wick's more crazy stuff, postings on boards and such. I read the Game Designer journals back when he was doing those (never played Orkworld, but from his discussion of it, it doesn't really seem like something I'd ever want to play anyway), and his L5R and 7th Sea stuff, but one common thread I found was about his GMing style. He seems to go into the game with an idea of what sort of game he wants it to be (horror, politics, high adventure, whichever), keeps it secret, and punishes the PCs that weren't built to conform to it. I remember the old L5R GM's screen book, where he brags about the time one of his players made a Hida Berserker who was heavily geared towards combat but crappy at social stuff, which frankly I don't see as a problematic character; big, quiet yojimbos are commonplace in the Rokugan he describes, and someone who's bad at social intrigue is a great way to spin off some plot threads. He didn't like the fact that one of his players DARED to make a character that was really good at fighting, so he cooked up an adventure that was centered around lots of combat in the Shadowlands, exactly the sort of thing that character would be great at and the player obviously would enjoy ... and then didn't let the Berserker come. He had some Scorpion NPC step in and say "That guy's not trustworthy for this mission", and made the guy roll some contested social check to see whether he could talk his way into being included - it was something like 8k4 versus 1k1, so the Scorpion handily outtalked him, and the player just had to sit that adventure out. That strikes me as enormously juvenile and petty. It might be fun to play in his game (anything's possible), but it seems to me that you'll always be guessing what it is he wants you to be doing, and if you get it wrong, you're dead. And he'll laugh at you.

Besides, while he's good at stealing historical cultures and assembling them into interesting game worlds, the man should be kept far away from any kind of mechanics. At gunpoint, if necessary. Didn't Orkworld have some sort of "Make up your own skills, and better hope they end up coming in handy, since there's no way to know what you'll need to do, and that you didn't forget something, since there's no list or anything of what skills are used a lot, and that the GM doesn't decide that what you took isn't applicable to what you're doing, because you have no control over that" setup?

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at May 7, 2005 1:38 PM

That said, E. Gary Gygax is reknowned for his deliberately putting characters in situations that hose them for no real reason (not that this is a excuse, just saying there are alot of them out there). Query: is there something about Minneapolis that makes it gamer friendly? I know Tekamul and the Arneson half of D&D were invented here, but it's not like the Conventions or publishing companies have stuck around. Is there some reason all these campaigns people talk about in articles are so Minneapolitan?

Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at May 7, 2005 1:42 PM

I just noticed this. Is there something about Minneapolis that is conductive to gaming writers? I realize that Empire of the Petal Throne and the Arneson half of D&D were invented here, but it isn't like the conventions or publishing companies have stuck around. Is there some reason all these campaigns and things I see have some small Minneapolitan reference?

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at May 7, 2005 1:51 PM

Well what else is there to DO in Minneapolis? :D

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at May 7, 2005 1:54 PM

Well, you could turn the world on... with a smile. You could take a nothing day, and suddenly make it all seem worthwhile....

Comment from: Wednesday posted at May 7, 2005 8:46 PM

What is being said to you, Eric, is that Mary Tyler Moore was lying to us.

Comment from: The Matt Who Is posted at May 22, 2005 9:18 PM

I'm reading between the lines here, but my basic impression is that if we could keep the Nasty in our GMs, but leave out the Petty, then we'd all be enjoying our games more. If that's a lesson we can take from Wick's article, then not a word was wasted.

But dude... you will NOT catch me playing in one of his games. Assuming by some twist of fate it's an option. I love it when the GM challenges me, yanks my chains, takes advantages of my character's weaknesses. It's more fun if it's a challenge and, more to the point, if it isn't safe.

There's no reason to really screw with people, though. Sure, you want to discourage (or even punish) loophole abuse, but if it gets to the point where you have to take Drastic Measures to get your players under control then the important battle is already lost.

So-- bonus points to Wick for pissing people off. That's a good and wholesome activity, in its fashion. This conversation, on the whole, is a productive one, so the article has forced us to think. Next time I GM, though, I'm still not making Becky's favorite rifle blow up in her face just because she's too good with it. In the end, I think it's possible to be creative and challenging without being mean.

Matt

Comment from: Parfait posted at June 6, 2005 2:36 AM

Oh what the hell, I'll jump in. A little late perhaps, but...

The issue with Wick is deeper than just being an asshole or a mean DM. I believe he suffers from a serve and yet very sublte emotional disorder called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). If you've ever spent time around him and read the literature, it's quite uncanny. He's a textbook case. Part of that means that he enjoys creating controversy because it makes people pay attention to him (like I'm doing now, huzzah!). It also means he needs to validate his self-esteem in bizarre and frequently infuriating ways. He's an excllent writer, in part because he's a very good storyteller. He's also a very good liar and often doesn't care who his lies hurt. It's cost him a lot of friends, a lot of jobs, and a lot of opportunities. Those of you irritated by his antics rest assured he's paid for them÷ and will continue to do so for as long as they persist.

Are his articles useful? Perhaps. They're certainly well written, and they promote some interesting notions about gaming. But they're also self-aggrandizing and needlessly hurtful. Unfortunately, that's part and parcel of his sickness. The worst thing about NPD is that those who suffer from it rarely get over it. It's the very thing which makes Wick such an interesting game designer. If only it didn't make him such a piss poor human being.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: