|
Serf posted:Well it's GURPS, so I guess it's to do with the universal system thing? I'll read through it and see if the cover actually has anything to do with the contents. I mean, to be fair, a machine gun toting elf is positively banal for GURPS
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
Bedlamdan posted:It looks like it's just meant to symbolize two different genres, with the sword clearly being the divider between the two. Sorry to be a downer. Who cares, Elves with M-16s is cooler.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Trollhawke posted:I'm not sure where to ask these questions, but I was wondering: I have a feeling its the same group of people involved in multiple games of Monster Hearts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
I keep the recruitment thread bookmarked just in case a system I've wanted to try pops up but it's mostly monster heart games. I don't wanna be a teenage monster!
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
I'd love to be a teenage monster, but everyone's running games in weird settings when I just want to play vanilla Monsterhearts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Yeah, I made a non-binding New Year's Resolution to try Monsterhearts, but I have a harder time because of all the swerves and also just because the recruitments are really competitive, I think moreso than any other game I've seen on here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Len posted:I keep the recruitment thread bookmarked just in case a system I've wanted to try pops up but it's mostly monster heart games. I don't wanna be a teenage monster! The whole recruitment system is weird to me in general. Unless everyone knows each other and I'm just not aware of it but like, I've found that focusing on novel character ideas instead of player synergy leads to a much less enjoyable game and has characters that end up functioning more as gimmicks than anything. Like if the way to get your character in a game is to make them stand out of course you're going to make their two paragraph introduction explosive (and maybe a bit pandering if you know the GM's tastes) and possibly make their mechanics something weird too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
I dunno, it DOES give you a good take on someone's writing and concept and how it would fit with the game and interact with other characters (Which plus comparing the class/role they play pretty much nails the Synergy thing you were talking of). I still use "reliability" and "able to contact" as the biggest factor but those are really important when I do picks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
That being said when I did Ivalicegame picks my priorities were actually A: People who were good players on my previous dead PTU game, B: People I'm friends with. C: You, Countblanc  .
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Brutal
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:The whole recruitment system is weird to me in general. Unless everyone knows each other and I'm just not aware of it but like, I've found that focusing on novel character ideas instead of player synergy leads to a much less enjoyable game and has characters that end up functioning more as gimmicks than anything. Like if the way to get your character in a game is to make them stand out of course you're going to make their two paragraph introduction explosive (and maybe a bit pandering if you know the GM's tastes) and possibly make their mechanics something weird too. I find it weird too for much the same reason. On the other hand I guess it's good writing practice and learning not to stress out so much about being a terrible writer. Not that I'm getting any better at writing or stressing out any less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Yeah, I made a non-binding New Year's Resolution to try Monsterhearts, but I have a harder time because of all the swerves and also just because the recruitments are really competitive, I think moreso than any other game I've seen on here. 4e games are pretty tough- everyone's always got some really creative and inventive idea, and the two times I was able to submit I was like "Uh... like a half-elf and he's like Bob Hope sorta?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:The whole recruitment system is weird to me in general. Unless everyone knows each other and I'm just not aware of it but like, I've found that focusing on novel character ideas instead of player synergy leads to a much less enjoyable game and has characters that end up functioning more as gimmicks than anything. Like if the way to get your character in a game is to make them stand out of course you're going to make their two paragraph introduction explosive (and maybe a bit pandering if you know the GM's tastes) and possibly make their mechanics something weird too. Something I've noticed after spending time both places is SA's game room is really good about getting games off the ground and rolling (which is a separate matter from ensuring those games don't peter out which is the same just about everywhere including the tabletop in my experience) and I attribute at least part of that to the recruitment process, whereas RPGnet's PbP forum gets way fewer games even started because A). fewer people just stand up and go "I'm running this game with this.premise, starts in seven days, get your apps in, go" and B). A lot of the time when someone does get persuaded into GMing the recruit process stalls out as those interested players dither over who should be what instead of just putting a character out there. "Will you play well with the others and not be disruptive" should be a basic expectation for anyone involved imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
I guess I can never play a pbp game because my character backgrounds are never more than a few sentences, I have zero art ability, and I find most of the fun in tabletop to be improv during the game, not "how can I write 'I cast magic missile' in the most EPIC and IN CHARACTER WAY possible." Which sucks, because my work schedule is a huge issue in getting people together at a table. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Carteret posted:my character backgrounds are never more than a few sentences, I have zero art ability Neither of these are drawbacks in my experience. I see lots of apps get into games without loads of background. And most everyone just GIS-es something in five minutes that looks cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Back when I ran 4e D&D, every recruit initiated a rush of people posting sheets fresh from the charbuilder with no backstory and sometimes even no name to go along with them, but boy howdy were they ever optimised for combat. I think for any upcoming recruits I might do, I'll try to vet players instead of character concepts. Work out a group before organising the game. That seems like the best idea to me. Or I could be wrong and it'll die before page 10 like all my other PbP games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
I think folks writing "explosive" apps is probably partly an attempt to catch the GM's eye but also partly a result of them getting hype for the game. I mean, I don't usually app to games I'm not at least halfway excited about in the first place, but I generally take it as a sign of enthusiasm instead of trying to game the selection process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
I think it's mostly just enthusiasm. People are really happy their favorite game setting is getting screen time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Eh, there are as many different motivations as there are players. There's enthusiasm for a given setting or campaign concept, pandering as a measure just to get in a game at all, pet character concepts that people want to play regardless of setting, pet settings that people want to play regardless of character, pet systems, favored GMs, etc etc etc. It's far from perfect, but it's probably the best public recruitment method for the format.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:28
|
|
Countblanc posted:The whole recruitment system is weird to me in general. Unless everyone knows each other and I'm just not aware of it but like, I've found that focusing on novel character ideas instead of player synergy leads to a much less enjoyable game and has characters that end up functioning more as gimmicks than anything. Like if the way to get your character in a game is to make them stand out of course you're going to make their two paragraph introduction explosive (and maybe a bit pandering if you know the GM's tastes) and possibly make their mechanics something weird too. Speaking as the kind of dude that thinks a lot about how to GM well, it's much easier to do it when you understand what the other players are going to find appealing, turn-offs, etc., at least on a basic level. Lengthy backgrounds aren't much of a substitute.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Personally my criteria for apps is "just don't have two characters whose names share the first letter". I get that it might be cooler to do something like have a set of players that all form a party around a shared theme, or maybe even a One Last Job kind of thing where the first player pulls in the next for a specific purpose, but you have to have something to go on besides "yes I'm interested" Or maybe you don't? Now the wheels are turning again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
From the sound of things, it might be an idea to experiment with PBP recruitment where you deliver the concept and then, instead of taking character apps, give players a short app form/quiz thing to find the best combination then say "you guys, work together to build a party, 5 days, go"? But I imagine you'd have to be a pretty well established GM not to be laughed out of the forum, or running a system with such demand people line up for it. Also, people may lie to get in, so that'd be a factor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
I mean most people who regularly post to SA tradgames enough to want to run and/or play in a PbP game are probably going to at least be passingly familiar with other SA tradgames regulars to the point where GMs can make an educated guess over who they think they'll click with and/or will play well off of the others.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:That being said when I did Ivalicegame picks my priorities were actually A: People who were good players on my previous dead PTU game, B: People I'm friends with. C: You, Countblanc Also I was reading the PTU document and there's no rules for being a Ranger that I saw, I was kinda surprised since it's actually combat-related unlike some stuff in there but still unique from normal trainer stuff. Or did I just miss it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Also I was reading the PTU document and there's no rules for being a Ranger that I saw, I was kinda surprised since it's actually combat-related unlike some stuff in there but still unique from normal trainer stuff. Or did I just miss it? There's nothing to miss, since there's no Ranger class. From what I heard, it's more of an organizational thing, so having a class for it doesn't work the way the devs wanted. If you're a Ranger you get a badge or paperwork or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Speaking as the kind of dude that thinks a lot about how to GM well, it's much easier to do it when you understand what the other players are going to find appealing, turn-offs, etc., at least on a basic level. Lengthy backgrounds aren't much of a substitute. Very much so. Shorter broad-strokes backgrounds are probably easier to work with if anything, filling in details as you go as you see the party and decide what kind of game you want it to end up being and what kind of character you want to be playing is a good practice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
01011001 posted:Very much so. Shorter broad-strokes backgrounds are probably easier to work with if anything, filling in details as you go as you see the party and decide what kind of game you want it to end up being and what kind of character you want to be playing is a good practice. I generally favor this approach as someone on the player side of things myself, but I'm also realistically aware that the average PbP doesn't last long enough to really get to the point of incorporating finer details and interpersonal relationships between the characters...hell, most of my face-to-face games never went that far either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
NachtSieger posted:There's nothing to miss, since there's no Ranger class. From what I heard, it's more of an organizational thing, so having a class for it doesn't work the way the devs wanted. If you're a Ranger you get a badge or paperwork or whatever. Also back when it was a class, Ranger had different mechanics based on using a swirly thing to befriend Pokémon and stuff and turns out they didn't really fit that well with the party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
I tend to write big apps, mainly because when I'm inspired on a character I can just write and write and write, but I always feel guilty about that. Partially because it might turn out to be a waste of my time (of which I spend too much on that sort of thing already), and partially because I prefer pithy stuff that sums up my concept. It's weird, though. Sometimes apps I force out get a lot of enthusiasm and sometimes stuff I think is spun gold doesn't make it. It's hard to predict what a GM will like, but I'm getting some tricks down in that regard. I get into games more often than not, though, probably because I work too hard on them... given the lifespan of most games, as mentioned. I've actually gotten passed up for games due to getting into a lot of games and having that get noticed. So it can be double-edged. As for enthusiasm vs. trying to game the system, is there a difference, really...? Grassy Gnoll tried a thing a little while back where people just did elevator pitches rather than full character sheets and backgrounds, and I'd really like to see that picked up again by more games, especially those with involved character creation processes. There are a lot of games where just working out the sheet or learning the system can be a real chore and I'd rather not have that hard work go to waste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Also back when it was a class, Ranger had different mechanics based on using a swirly thing to befriend Pokémon and stuff and turns out they didn't really fit that well with the party. That makes sense. I appreciate that the book mentions that smaller party sizes are ideal for the game too, it's easy to forget that the 4-6 party dynamic isn't the only option sometimes. It seems like a pretty overwhelming system to just get started with though, and I say that as someone who has played pokemon, comp and casual, since the games came out. It's hard to look at a lot of the trainer things and say "yeah this sounds useful (or bad)". Still, it'd probably be neat to try.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Grassy Gnoll tried a thing a little while back where people just did elevator pitches rather than full character sheets and backgrounds, and I'd really like to see that picked up again by more games, especially those with involved character creation processes. There are a lot of games where just working out the sheet or learning the system can be a real chore and I'd rather not have that hard work go to waste. As someone who's apped to Shadowrun and higher XP 40K games this is true, that said it's also helpful to know in advance whether your elevator pitch actually meshes with what the system allows you to make or if it's going to be a case of "well I have a great concept but now I have to tie it into a pretzel to actually make it work in practice or go back and change some stuff."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Grassy Gnoll tried a thing a little while back where people just did elevator pitches rather than full character sheets and backgrounds, and I'd really like to see that picked up again by more games, especially those with involved character creation processes. There are a lot of games where just working out the sheet or learning the system can be a real chore and I'd rather not have that hard work go to waste. I think I will try this! Especially since the system(s) I'm eyeing to run are fairly crunchy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:As someone who's apped to Shadowrun and higher XP 40K games this is true, that said it's also helpful to know in advance whether your elevator pitch actually meshes with what the system allows you to make or if it's going to be a case of "well I have a great concept but now I have to tie it into a pretzel to actually make it work in practice or go back and change some stuff." There are similar issues with stuff like *World games where if two people app the same playbook, only one is going to get in, and having it just be a quick pitch would soften the blow for that kind of dilemma. There's kind of a "honor among appers" where two people rarely do face off for a playbook or class anyway, so it's not a huge issue, but- well, complaining about that is a whole other can of worms to open up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:There are similar issues with stuff like *World games where if two people app the same playbook, only one is going to get in, and having it just be a quick pitch would soften the blow for that kind of dilemma. There's kind of a "honor among appers" where two people rarely do face off for a playbook or class anyway, so it's not a huge issue, but- well, complaining about that is a whole other can of worms to open up. Eh, I think it's better for people to pitch what they want even if it overlaps and let the GM decide who they want. One of the things that kills the inertia behind any game that looks like it's attracted a GM on RPGnet's PbP recruitment forum is people going in a circle about "well I want to be this archetype, oh I guess that means I'll be this one, but wait I wanted to be that one, well I have the following three concepts in descending order of priority, actually I think I'll go back and change my character, but I changed mine too, etc."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Eh, I think it's better for people to pitch what they want even if it overlaps and let the GM decide who they want. One of the things that kills the inertia behind any game that looks like it's attracted a GM on RPGnet's PbP recruitment forum is people going in a circle about "well I want to be this archetype, oh I guess that means I'll be this one, but wait I wanted to be that one, well I have the following three concepts in descending order of priority, actually I think I'll go back and change my character, but I changed mine too, etc." It's better, but it doesn't stop the feeling of wanting to app something that isn't taken until all the major classes/playbooks/what have you are taken. And really, that's almost a fault of rpg design where players will ask themselves "Yeah, but why would we need TWO rogues" despite the characters maybe not being very similar at all in concept.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Potsticker posted:It's better, but it doesn't stop the feeling of wanting to app something that isn't taken until all the major classes/playbooks/what have you are taken. This is true and it's happened in face-to-face games I've played in too, the idea that everybody's gotta be their own unique thing with minimal overlap. Part of it is that a lot of games favor specialists over generalists and if you have folks doubling up then you wind up with "gaps," but then again more games could stand to discuss modifying the sorts of challenges to throw at players if they don't have a rogue or a hacker or whatever and how it's fine if you have two people who want to be The Whatever (though a lot of games also don't give you enough tools to make two nicely differentiated versions of the same schtick/archetype/class/whatever too so there's that I guess).
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Now that you mention it, the GUMSHOE games sort of stood out to me in that regard because the amount of "character points" you get actually depends on the number of people playing, and you're flat-out told that every investigative skill has to be covered by at least 1 point from at least 1 player.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:This is true and it's happened in face-to-face games I've played in too, the idea that everybody's gotta be their own unique thing with minimal overlap. Part of it is that a lot of games favor specialists over generalists and if you have folks doubling up then you wind up with "gaps," but then again more games could stand to discuss modifying the sorts of challenges to throw at players if they don't have a rogue or a hacker or whatever and how it's fine if you have two people who want to be The Whatever (though a lot of games also don't give you enough tools to make two nicely differentiated versions of the same schtick/archetype/class/whatever too so there's that I guess). The Shadowrunner problem (TM) I do like the elevator pitch idea for characters. I think the responsibility is really on the GM to say not only what kind of game it is (Dungeon Crawl/ Political/ West Marches/ Whatever) but to really specify what type of party composition they are looking for. This is a D&D game but you are all wizards so someone should have knock/invisibility. Welcome to Cthulhu, have any skills you want but high interaction and perception skills are more important than firearms. Welcome to D&D 4th ed, any composition but no healers. Etc. Edit: I realized after what I'm saying is that the Gamemaster needs to exercise clear communication and good management. 
Helical Nightmares fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 08:00
|
|
|
Helical Nightmares posted:The Shadowrunner problem (TM) I mean like a lot of things elfgame it traces back to D&D...someone's gotta be the Cleric after all. Though Shadowrun does highlight the fact that even games that pride themselves on "we don't have classes, build whatever you want!" often nudge people in the direction of classes in all but name anyway ("You'll want a street sam, a decker, a mage, a face, and maybe a ninja.") re: clear communication and management, this is another thing I think SA Game Room gets right because it's frequently not "I wanna run D&D4E, who's in?" it's "I'm going to run a 4E game in the vein of XCrawl, make flashy characters out to cut promos and score endorsement deals, decide if you're a face or a heel" or "Ars Magica, set in this particular location during this time period, with the following themes being highlighted." A lot of places leave that stuff up in the air to be determined after the fact which makes character creation a nebulous process at best. And laying down a framework also helps make your job easier as a GM simply by virtue of the fact that you can tell who's paying attention and who isn't. In a long-running PbP over at RPGnet with an excellent and reliable group of players the GM once informed me that he made his selection based on the fact that we were the only people who submitted characters in line with the pitch he put out, everyone else just submitted generic characters without any concern for what was going on. Kai Tave fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:42 |
|
|
Reading the Burning Wheel again in anticipation for running a campaign set in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and I realized something pretty cool about dwarves: their implicit social structure (with the social classes being Clansmen, Traders, Artificers and Nobility) is pretty much a one-for-one analogue of the Confucian ideal of social structure that also influenced Japanese social hierarchy in the Edo period. I kind of want to scrap my original idea and run a campaign with just dwarves with faux-Japanese trappings. I mean, it's almost a perfect fit down to the fact that you have noble axe bearers as a type of samurai analogue. I'm not sure if this was Luke Crane's intention or just a happy accident, but I think it's pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 09:25
|
|
