Quote:
|
Originally Posted by daMoose_Neo
1) "GM'ing by Commitee" isn't impossible, in my opinion its more practical, so long as faith is actually placed in the system. A human GM can be swayed, hold personal grudges, etc. but a system is a system, which is entirely more arbitrary than a live GM, as evidenced by the debate raging here.
2) Why are the supers more important than the police chief? Why should two players blow past another's wishes? In GBC (I like short!), all players have the chance to voice their concepts and mechanical muscle of equal footage to see it through. If you just want mindless beatdown then no, maybe this isn't the game for you.
I've seen Capes in practice, I've seen it work, and it works quite well. My cohort in game design picked it up last year at GenCon and dearly loves it. I've seen Tony play it, and it works very well. And whats more, I've written my own GBC game and everyone who grasps whats happening loves that~
3) The thing is, a lot of people enter RPG'ing with the presumption you're playing out some kind of grand novel with a definite beginning, middle, and end. You think you're playing and making your own decisions, but you're filling in color to a set of events predefined by a GM a good 80-90% of the time (re: prep work).
4) A GM-less or GM-by-committee title, on the other hand, isn't burdened by hours of prep- throw open the rules and see where they take you. (On a positive note, that means random games are easier to pick up and run with).
If you walk into Capes expecting it to flow like a predefined story or have specific landmarks you can grasp, you will miss it. Everyone has the authority to do as they will, so long as they can use the system to do it. If they want something, they have to give something up first. You have to be flexable, able to roll with the flow~
|
1) Okay, so you have a system that makes GMing by Committee work, somehow...
that's very nice, and I'll believe it, if and when I see it! But, I was raised with the precept that "An Elephant is a Mouse designed by a Committee", and I remain skeptical....
I have a friend who I've known for decades, who would dearly like to co-GM a game with me, and vice-versa. We've been considering the idea since the mid-1980s, and have still not been able to achieve enough agreement to make such an arrangement work!
Now, I'm supposed to be able to make this work with more than one person, when I don't know them half so well?
Perhaps you believe in miracles, but I'm afraid I'm a hard sell...
2) I'm not looking for mindless beatdown, thank you very much! My very first 'RPG' was Avalon Hill's "PanzerBlitz" {WWII tactical board game}, and I can always go back to that, if I want...
What I want is a clear, consise set of rules that lets me simulate what's going on with a minimum of fuss and bother, and enough detail that I can get a feel for the World I'm gaming in, rather than having to deal with "He shoots you with a Gun! All Guns are the same, right?"...
I don't see Capes offering anything in the way of either Clarity or Detail, I'm afraid...
It seems to have a 'gimmick', and that 'gimmick' impresses me as a 'MetaGame' feature that gets in the way of the role-playing...
I can't stop to think how my Character would reply to the Villain's taunt, because I know that the GM is going to change everything the minute I 'turn the page'!
If the person playing the villain is going to be somebody else, and is going to play him in completely different fashion, from one 'scene' to the next, how do you establish continuity?
I've quite had my fill of the "Crisis of Infintite Crises", thank you very much!
3) Okay, maybe in D&D, this happens...
But, from the day Superman first chose to fight the "Never Ending Battle for Truth, Justice, and the American Way", Comic Books were different...
Far from having a 'definite end', they go on forever, and have Villains and Supporting Cast that return again, and again...
If you've got a decent level of Continuity, this can be a real joy.
If, like today's hacks, you decide to change the fundamental nature of every character you write every two years, or so, this can be maddening!
Capes, as I've seen it presented here, seems to have a 'new creative team' come on board about three times an issue, with no Editor, and only one, pre-game, bullpen session to determine the ground rules...
If I've got this much right, then how can you possibly make it work, as an ongoing campaign?
{I don't much care for 'one-off' pickup games, I'm afraid...}
4) Young man, don't lecture me about running without tons of preparation! {Puts down his cane, strokes his beard, and turns up his hearing aid...}
I ran "off-the-wall" D&D back in 1975, for our mutual amusement, and I've taken several stabs at the idea since then!
For that matter, over on the UGO HeroMachine forums, I've run several campaigns that way, where it's simply not practical to get weighed down by rules...
{All of which are currently in the 'crashed and burned' state, though some ran for quite awhile...}
I've had to take over such a campaign from another GM who had to leave...
and had immediate difficulties with the Players wondering what I was doing, since the previous GM had done them differently!
Now, if it had been possible to synchronize with the other GM, perhaps I could have done a better job of it...
but he wasn't around to do so!
Capes, to me, seems a lot like this, only with the role of GM being passed on two or three times every session, and zero time to work things out from one 'cut-scene' to another!
Sorry, but I still don't 'get it'...