Shawn and I had a conversation earlier today that has fascinating ramifications to me.
I am really into the narrative aspect of GMing,I've said that before. I also enjoy the simulation aspects of the game. That's why I like robust rulesets that can accomodate some of that. Anyway.
Shawn and I were discussing how he is busy and our first session of over the net gaming is getting pushed back due to schedule conflicts. We're all busy folks with lives and whatnot, and there is a three hour time difference between the two halves of the gaming group. It is proving really difficult to get a two or three hour trial session in. Now, I have this rote response, kind of a defense mechanism, that I respond with when people start complaining about the trials and tribulations of GMing and I launched into it without thinking. Shawn started saying something to the effect of "Hey, I really want to do this, its just hard to get time. We'll get there." But I believe I had overtalked while he was talking and said something to the effect of "Unless I just rerun my current campaign with you guys."
I think he said some stuff, but at the point my mind had been blown and I was standing in the middle of the wash bay at work spraying a random wall with the hose and staring off into space.
I mean, fucking a. I've said before that I love the narrative aspect of the game and watching what the players do with my story. How fucking crazy would it be to contrast and compare how two separate groups went through the same storyline? Where would they diverge? How would they diverge? I mean, the spot in the first scenario where the group either chooses one of the nine npcs or goes their own route could lead to massive differences in direction. Would they delve into Whurent like Kothos asked them to? Would they have stayed in Kusseth and become lawmen or bards? My mind just ran like a hamster wheel going over everything in my head, it was insane and fascinating. It would become a divergent reality.
I don't even know how to properly express my thoughts and fascination with this concept here. I just, I really dig the concept of running a campaign multiple times and seeing what different groups of players/characters do with it. It would be like making a flowchart of one of those old choose your own adventure books and tracking every which way the plot could go. I find this shit interesting and find myself unable to properly expresse it in words.
I also started on my "Why I Like Pathfinder" essay in preparation for when we discuss switching systems. I honestly don't know how to write it, I've been mostly gushing for paragraphs at a time about how it is swell. I'm not sure if I should compare and contrast it to 4th Edition, which I might end up doing. I know Eric wants to do GURPS, maybe? So maybe I should contrast and compare it to that. I haven't talked gaming with him in a while though, so who knows. I'm sure John wants to go back to 2nd Edition or 3.5 Edition, but I can't imagine him coming up with a well thought out case for either of those editions, he's not exactly talkative and tends to go along with everyone else. I know Fred likes 3.5, but I think he was interested in Pathfinder too, as is Jeremy. If Jeff keeps gaming, he'll probably bow out of the discussion, since he only knows 4th Edition and isn't too big on the whole P&P RPG scene to my knowledge.
To me, that paragraph reads like "Pathfinder wins." Pathfinder is 3.5, but better with more refinement and more cool shit. Heh, maybe that should be my argument. I dunno, I just can't see Eric pulling out a well thought out argument for GURPS over other systems. I see him saying "GURPS is awesome because you can do stuff in it." Which, you know, is true. GURPS is cool, but he knows almost nothing about it, and I'm too burnt out from this last year of being fixated on it to give a shit about it. I dunno, if you read this anymore Eric, prove me wrong. Go to the mat for what you like and stick to your guns. Be impassioned and convince us.
We'll see what happens I guess.