|
Post by uselesstriviaman on Apr 12, 2016 4:51:34 GMT -8
The point of my "are you in the military?" question was that it sounds to me like he's got a bunch of very casual players. As in, "I don't have anything better to do tonight, so I guess I'll go hang out and roll some weird dice with Manuel" casual.
If that's the case, you're probably shit outta luck with this group. Around these forums we're a bit spoiled with scads of excellent roleplayers who are itching to game, but when you're GMing for your drinking buddies who aren't really into RPGs but just couldn't find anything better to do? You wind up where Manuel is, with a room full of reactive players who are expectantly waiting for the GM to throw down some rails. (Been there, done that. A lot.)
|
|
|
HJRP 1616
Apr 12, 2016 7:47:13 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by ericfromnj on Apr 12, 2016 7:47:13 GMT -8
Yeah, wow, I just finished listening to this episode. Embargo indeed, Stu Venable. LA by Fire is still running and, when last I looked, is running strong. When I no longer had the time to run the game I continued running it until I found someone to take it over, and that person has been doing a bang-up job. But I'm still the site administrator, and the new ST and I touch base now and again over forum and game issues. At some point I'll get back into the game - probably as a co-GM, now that the new ST has been doing such a good job - and I hope that point will be soon. But it is, in fact, still running. Hey Tim you ever going to run that Swords and Wizardry AP?
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Apr 12, 2016 8:05:52 GMT -8
Was I the only person who felt like he was complaining about passive players while also being a bit passive as the GM? I got the impression that by wanting to avoid being the quest giver his world was static apart from anything the PCs interacted with. As Hyvemind pointed out if the players are inactive the GM should be advancing the world / fronts and in the end player actions should be a response to GM actions which are in turn a response to player actions. It sounded like the players have plenty of setup material which the GM should be actively using, not waiting for the players to seek out. I was thinking that as well. I was especially amused by the fact that one of his players starts to show a spark of interest, and he immediately shuts him down.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Apr 12, 2016 9:02:38 GMT -8
Hey Tim you ever going to run that Swords and Wizardry AP? No, not yet. I'm at a bit of a loss on how to proceed with that one. Look, I'll admit I'm no saint; I'm a bit flaky about stuff (ask JiB and Stu about my scheduling woes) and I'm very prone to monomaniacal fits of "I'M ALL ABOUT THIS AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYTHING ELSE AND NOTHING ELSE MATTERS". But I didn't do wrong by LAbF; it wound up being a bigger bite than I could chew at the time, so I found someone to take it over until I could. I'm still in contact with the new ST and I'm still the forum administrator for the game; we were just talking about the city's scourge three days ago or something. Yeah, it was touch-and-go for a bit before I found the new ST, but I kept the game running and it's still running today. I'll take my licks when I fuck up. S&W? Yeah, I fucked up and I deserve it. But I didn't fuck up with LAbF.
|
|
mrcj
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 173
|
Post by mrcj on Apr 12, 2016 12:03:51 GMT -8
A quick note about reactive players.
I've had a few and as a GM you can do a few things to get them moving.
One, world build activity:
Is the campaign setting active or static. I had a group where I could make a city, they had characters who would just go down there and do stuff. They had plans and wants and desires and would act them out independent of me. With other players you could design the setting so that their agency is a required part: they have been hired to find the seven keys, they are on the run from the mob, they are in Warsaw in 1939, the empire is breaking up, their home town is burning down, in 12 days the asteroid will strike the earth...right down to very personal actions like; your father is dead and your mother has married your uncle, you have run out of money, someone has stolen your Turbo Terrific...
The idea is that the characters are not the prime mover, things will happen with or without their participation.
Two, know what the end of the campaign is:
If you know how the campaign ends, then you are not railroading but rather there is a map to follow. You know there is a bad guy, there will be a show down at some point between the characters and him. So this is an NPC with his/her own wants and desires and if they don't stop him what will happen. Then slowly make it happen.
Three, two different kinds of ownership:
One make sure they own their characters, do they care about them, do they know what they want, do they even like them? If they care about their characters they are more likely to act in the world then playing a piece of paper with numbers. It is sometimes hard for MMO players to feel connections with their characters. It sounds like Manuel has them doing some work in this area, but there is also...
Two, make at least one character in the party own something in the world, mayor of the city, lord of the castle, captain of the ship, master of the guard, owner of a 1967 Corvette Stingray, whatever. That ownership should not be static, they (character and player) have to actually want it, to protect it make it grow nurture etc. I think the key here is that the thing has to be interactive (as opposed to mere equipment like a magic ring or sword) so there is activity plot and subplots flowing back and forth to and from it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2016 17:05:43 GMT -8
Was I the only person who felt like he was complaining about passive players while also being a bit passive as the GM? I got the impression that by wanting to avoid being the quest giver his world was static apart from anything the PCs interacted with. As Hyvemind pointed out if the players are inactive the GM should be advancing the world / fronts and in the end player actions should be a response to GM actions which are in turn a response to player actions. It sounded like the players have plenty of setup material which the GM should be actively using, not waiting for the players to seek out. I was thinking that as well. I was especially amused by the fact that one of his players starts to show a spark of interest, and he immediately shuts him down. And I feel like Whodo never read the post that started the thread. Hint: I wrote it. Hint: that was exactly my premise minus all the specifics about a game system which really don't matter in the slightest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
HJRP 1616
Apr 12, 2016 23:35:51 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2016 23:35:51 GMT -8
And I feel like Whodo never read the post that started the thread. Hint: I wrote it. Hint: that was exactly my premise minus all the specifics about a game system which really don't matter in the slightest. Honestly? I probably didn't, the attitude in too many of your posts annoy me so I tend to skim over them to avoid getting into arguments about semantics.
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on Apr 13, 2016 6:54:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Kenigma23 on Apr 13, 2016 11:12:21 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2016 13:21:32 GMT -8
With regards to passive/active players/GMs, something worth considering might be the Adventuring Paradigm of the game/setting. The short description of Adventuring Paradigm is that it's the in-game set-up that causes interesting stuff to happen. Shadowrun, for example, has a very strong Adventuring Paradigm - your party gets hired by someone in a tavern to complete some quest, which you accept because you need the money. Anyone can initiate interesting stuff by just asking for it.
For the game that was described, it didn't sound like there was much in the way of Adventuring Paradigm at all. There was nothing in the game world that would cause interesting things to happen, or cause the PCs to get involved with those interesting thing. It seems more like a failure on the part of the setting than on the part of the players.
|
|
|
HJRP 1616
Apr 15, 2016 12:25:55 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by ericfromnj on Apr 15, 2016 12:25:55 GMT -8
My current Podcast list: Oh and also TV Crimes but that is irregular since both hosts are busy a lot. After listening to some of these I have to say I can't listen to anything other than Happy Jacks and Fear the Boot.
|
|
|
Post by OFTHEHILLPEOPLE on Apr 15, 2016 12:55:02 GMT -8
Yeah, two of them are just starting out and laser focused and one is run over skype by angry people (and JiB). It's good for noise and the unusual tidbit, but so far Happy Jacks is still going strong.
|
|
|
Post by Probie Tim on Apr 15, 2016 13:04:50 GMT -8
I can't listen to anything other than Happy Jacks Happy Jacks is still going strong. YEAH! * to be read in the voice of Stu Venable, had someone just put in a plug for GURPS.
|
|
|
HJRP 1616
Apr 16, 2016 6:11:16 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by ericfromnj on Apr 16, 2016 6:11:16 GMT -8
Yeah, two of them are just starting out and laser focused and one is run over skype by angry people (and JiB). It's good for noise and the unusual tidbit, but so far Happy Jacks is still going strong. Angry does not even begin to describe the non-JiB participants IMHO.
|
|
andreasdavour
Patron (Supporter)
Posts: 257
Preferred Game Systems: M0, Savage Worlds, Over the Edge, Warhammer FRP 1st ed.
Currently Playing: None
Currently Running: Wandering Heroes of Ogre Gate
Favorite Species of Monkey: Llama
|
Post by andreasdavour on Apr 17, 2016 10:46:03 GMT -8
What's that song played at the end of this episode, and what album can it be found on? I really like that tune.
|
|