The GSL has been released. Haven't had a chance to look at it indepth yet...

Ok, GTA4 fans, you have to help me. I cannot for the fucking LIFE of me fly the damned helicopter in the Paper Trail missing. I keep losing the target--not that I ever could see the other helicopter in the first place. Clearly I do not get the controls. Please help me. I'm ready to break the game in half. I've been stuck here for a day.

Kristin, on the PS3, using the left and right triggers controls the rudder on the helicopter - that gives you a lot sharper turning control than using the analog sticks to bank left and right. I'm not sure if it's exactly the same on the 360, but it should be similar. As for finding the other heli, use your camera controls to spot it and then get as close to it as you can quickly, and then it gets easier to follow.

Finally! Thanks, amych.

hmm. the comments area seems kind of sparse on this particular (& particularly pejorative) post at Wired.... [link]

I, of course, feel that a human DM brings creativity to the table. He or she makes judgment calls, adapts the adventure on the fly or between sessions to make it more fun for the players, and breathes life into the NPCs. Because I'm like that, I've never understood the players who think their job is to beat the DM. Dude, I'm the DM. Rocks fall from the sky and crush you all.

BWAH! Our group has that "DM as God" that we shorthand as "Cow from space". As in, "Fine, to show my ultimate control over reality at this here gaming table, a COW plunges flaming through the atmosphere and strikes you dead."

In my experience most RPGs are, essentially, a combat system with other stuff built around it. I think the only one that might defy that argument (that I've played) is the Serenity RPG, which seems to give equal treatment to all uses of skills with its "Appropriate Attribute (as determined by GM) dice + Skill dice".

Shadowrun, CP: 2020, GURPS, Champions... all seemed to be primarily about the combat. Which kind of formulated my philosophy as a player and GM; that role-playing is something I have to provide. The gaming system is there for suggestions as to which dice I roll when I'm done role-playing.

I don't mind haggling for dinner prices or, as a GM, letting the players haggle for them. Like Raq's experience with Cthulhu and Denny's, I once ran a Shadowrun game wherein I, as GM, set the goal and the players spent the entire session planning. Easiest session I ever had. I didn't mind at all. And when all was said and done they came up with a fairly nifty plan.

I assume Champions hasn't fundamentally changed since I played regularly mumblety years ago. I found it easy to use the system to create any sort of character you wanted -- I once turned a strongly pacifist friend into an NPC whose big power was the ability to heal.

The books assumed that the players would be doing a lot of combat. But as a player who was more a frustrated actor than anything else (my Champions circle described my trademark character as "an ordinary guy with powers"), I never had any trouble creating characters with non-combat lives reflected on the character sheets.

On the other hand, my first gaming circle included someone who turned Runequest into a universal RPH system. His Indiana Jones campaign flopped, mostly because there were too many players.

. . . then there was the D&D campaign where the DM thought he was the next Weis and/or Hickman, and we were working out his plot points and themes. He had us spend an entire session working out fully fleshed characters with backgrounds and all, then threw us through a dimensional warp where those backgrounds and relationships didn't matter and we didn't know anyone in the party. Plus he finally admitted that the monsters were designed to kill as many characters as possible and that "it will all make sense in a few weeks, when we get to the next stage." I went through 12 characters in 6 weeks and eventually stopped creating new ones, just cycling through three variants.

I stopped showing up, and so did everyone else not log after.

. . . then there was the D&D campaign where the DM thought he was the next Weis and/or Hickman, and we were working out his plot points and themes.

I had a GM like that running a home-brewed system. Eventually we players were just adding witty banter and rolling dice on occasions. We got bored of his NPCs running things that we wouldn't even pay attention and be all confused when he would introduce the next encounter.

"And then the Kraken rears its head from the water..."

"Wait, what? In a desert?"

"You're on a boat. You've been on a boat for nearly a week."

"We have? Was I drunk?"

I think I'd have a hard time placing myself on a narrativist/gamist scale -- in general, I tend narrativist, preferring immersion in my character as a player, or for my players as a DM.

But the stories I like to immerse myself or my players in do tend to involve a lot of fighting.

I go back and forth on tactical minis combat, too. In general I dislike them. Or, that is....

....I like my combats to *be* tactical, but I like an immersive tactical. I want my (or my player's) tactics to be based on the combat situation, not the position of the minis. And sometimes, those two things are not the same. I think D&D tactical minis, combined with the rules for their use, produce unlikely, and even ridiculous tactics (and yes, I know the existence of magic changes things).

Hmm... I think I'm kind of rambling and unfocused this morning. I'll have to collect my thoughts and try again later.