|
Post by jazzisblues on Jul 11, 2013 5:43:12 GMT -8
More specific conversation on porting a campaign over to a new system. I know you've done this before, Stu, actually a couple of times, I think; but I'd like to hear about everything that was involved - the good, the bad, and the ugly. The GM side, the player side. Prep, play, how you determine if a system is compatible, etc. Fate = the new hotness. I can soo see this happening in at least one of the campaigns I'm playing in. It did actually occur to me to port Sturmgeist to Fate. So much of the Ghost River game is wrapped up in the Deadlands mechanics that I don't know that it would translate well. We should discuss this as a group. JiB
|
|
|
Post by gina on Jul 11, 2013 5:51:42 GMT -8
More specific conversation on porting a campaign over to a new system. I know you've done this before, Stu, actually a couple of times, I think; but I'd like to hear about everything that was involved - the good, the bad, and the ugly. The GM side, the player side. Prep, play, how you determine if a system is compatible, etc. Fate = the new hotness. I can soo see this happening in at least one of the campaigns I'm playing in. It did actually occur to me to port Sturmgeist to Fate. So much of the Ghost River game is wrapped up in the Deadlands mechanics that I don't know that it would translate well. We should discuss this as a group. JiB Wasn't specifically talking about Sturmgeist, though it'd be an interesting experiment to play 1 game of the SW Sturmgeist game as a 1-shot in Fate. Thing is, I think we, as a group, really enjoy the SW system for our pulpy Nazi game. (This is probably more of an off-forum topic. I'd still be I interested in this as a podcast topic though.
|
|
|
Post by Luckstrider on Jul 16, 2013 12:06:23 GMT -8
How would you try to bring out the role player from a shy, power gaming, munchkin? He is a fantastic combat monkey and seems to enjoy sessions but he is silent (and I would guess shy) during role playing portions of the game.
|
|
|
Post by suboptimal on Jul 16, 2013 23:50:34 GMT -8
How about foreign RPGs? I heard the term "german boardgame" a couple of times & it seems like they have some kind of a unique style / feel? Does something similar exist for rpgs? Ever played a system that was created in another country, was it a different experience? Did you ever have to translate a foreign game (at least the most important parts) since there was no official english translation? (I did this for some players in our group with D&D 3.0 when it launched).
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Jul 17, 2013 1:34:51 GMT -8
Let's do a show about crunch in game systems.
What do all you new guys think??
*pokerface*
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Jul 17, 2013 5:49:48 GMT -8
How about foreign RPGs? I heard the term "german boardgame" a couple of times & it seems like they have some kind of a unique style / feel? Does something similar exist for rpgs? Ever played a system that was created in another country, was it a different experience? Did you ever have to translate a foreign game (at least the most important parts) since there was no official english translation? (I did this for some players in our group with D&D 3.0 when it launched). Don't look at DSA, you'll just conclude Germans are the best at keeping track of and administrating minutiae. I tried to recreate the pre-gens in the starter book of the latest edition (100s of pages) and failed to do so over three consecutive afternoons. I never figured out what went wrong, but I'm still a German citizen.
|
|
|
Post by suboptimal on Jul 17, 2013 8:31:09 GMT -8
>guitarspider
I don´t mind DSA. We played it for a while (old & new editions) & it was fun. We even attended DSA-LARPs & these were some of the best we ever played. BUT i would never GM it. I just don´t know anything about the world of Aventurien. At least it feels that way. All this background can be a huge help & inspiration, but to me it´s just intimidating.
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Jul 17, 2013 9:59:33 GMT -8
Aventurien is gargantuan indeed. Imho only option for the GM is to ignore most of it, else no game because the GM drowns in lore. I mean, they're down to detailed histories of villages now. <.< Our failure as a group to get the newest version running may just have been down to not having an experienced player who could help us across the initial hump. We just went back to first edition, which is kind of like D&D 1st, only with some skills. Also, the rules of first edition demand that the wizard actually say things like "Plumbumbarum Narretei" and "Difar, Braggu, Zant" to cast anything. A win in my book.
|
|
|
Post by suboptimal on Jul 17, 2013 12:09:37 GMT -8
Yes, you definatly have to dive into DSA lore slowly. But even if i concentrate only on a small village & the sourrounding area i feel like i´m drowning in details. The calender, the gods, the way you address certain people (like priests ect), the effing names for days, holidays, specific costumsin that area...*drowning* I think it´s quite an awesome achievement, but for me it´s often way too much. And yes, actually speaking the magic formulas is a huge ( and fun) thing in DSA. And if you think it´s fun at the table you should try a DSA LARP
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jul 17, 2013 12:45:55 GMT -8
Let's do a show about crunch in game systems. What do all you new guys think?? *pokerface*I'll meet your bluff and raise you: 'AC/DR Crunch in game systems' *sunglasses firmly in place, hat down drinks slowly from a glass* Aaron
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2013 9:34:30 GMT -8
Thanks to the cast for covering my topic - it gave me some good ideas for when the doucheba...I mean PCs don't show up for a session.
I think that having a couple side adventures handy is my newest preferred method. Playing board games is the backup - backup plan (really want to try Lords of Waterdeep).
Thanks again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2013 17:52:37 GMT -8
Hi guys. New to the podcast and also new to tabletop RPGs. I'm about 5 or 6 sessions into my first pathfinder adventure. The group is very welcoming, I'm having a blast, and I'm learning a lot.
My interest in RPGs has been piqued and now I'd like to share that with more of my friends who have never played. This will also be my first go as DM.
It would be great if you guys could discuss some tips for a first time DM, and also suggest some noob friendly one shots I should look into. I've been looking into Call of Cthulu because I've heard the system is really one shot friendly. That being said, I would like to stick to a simple/rules light system. I've only played d20 systems but I am aware that there are other systems out there that might be more friendly to the unexperienced. I was thinking that I'd like to stick to a high fantasy setting for the sake of familiarity and for the fact that as the DM I might want to utilize "magic" as a deus ex in case I need it.
Oh and if this topic has already been discussed would you point me in the direction of which episode so I can dig through the archives?
Thanks and keep up the good work on the show!
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Aug 13, 2013 14:24:28 GMT -8
Hi guys. New to the podcast and also new to tabletop RPGs. I'm about 5 or 6 sessions into my first pathfinder adventure. The group is very welcoming, I'm having a blast, and I'm learning a lot. My interest in RPGs has been piqued and now I'd like to share that with more of my friends who have never played. This will also be my first go as DM. It would be great if you guys could discuss some tips for a first time DM, and also suggest some noob friendly one shots I should look into. I've been looking into Call of Cthulu because I've heard the system is really one shot friendly. That being said, I would like to stick to a simple/rules light system. I've only played d20 systems but I am aware that there are other systems out there that might be more friendly to the unexperienced. I was thinking that I'd like to stick to a high fantasy setting for the sake of familiarity and for the fact that as the DM I might want to utilize "magic" as a deus ex in case I need it. Oh and if this topic has already been discussed would you point me in the direction of which episode so I can dig through the archives? Thanks and keep up the good work on the show! It's actually been discussed several times, so I will put my thoughts on the topic here for your benefit. My go to system for quick games is Savage Worlds. Simple high energy rules, loads of fun and they have published 2 page adventures for most every genre and setting they have available for free download from their website. www.peginc.comCheers, JiB
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Sept 21, 2013 10:29:10 GMT -8
My initial thought, based on an issue that I've been having, was how to deal with players who are highly argumentative and constantly accusing you of railroading. This would be the counter-perspective to this idea: How about how to deal with a game that everyone enjoys playing, but the GM puts the players in situations wherein no matter what they try to do the GM will stonewall them and allow them to succeed (a lack of "yes and", or more appropriately when the "and" part of the of it creates a nigh catastrophic situation for those you are trying to save) This is a situation that comes up regularly in the the Teenagers from Outer Space game i'm involved. The game itself is a lot of fun, but we end up in "un-winnable" situations where literally all ideas (good or bad) are met with an extremely negative consequence. I am in the opposite position with my "bad" group (my friend's term based on his observaation of mid-round off-topic chatter, constant f-footbal playing, and argumentativeness). It's partially my fault, but I want to be better. I'm trying, but I fear that the ship has sailed. The problem I am having is that players feel like I'm railroading them, even when I deliberately haven't thought of the solution that I want, or when I interpret a rule as I've learned to from the books and forums. Any time they want to do something and it doesn't work as they want, they become hostile. You'll see below that I had a part in it, but I'm trying to change. They don't seem interested though. How to deal with this? Here's some back story in case it is relevant. You don't have to read the following exposition unless you are interested:
Its possible that this should be in a different thread, but it came out of my show idea. Any ideas which board I should move it to? We run games on a cycle, with each DM having a "season" of 6-8 sessions. In my second season gritty post-apocalyptic WoD game, most of the players awakened to become mages. The exceptions were a player that acknowledges she can be there only half the time. I had her set up as a sleepwalker. Two hours before the awakening session, a player who had been gone from the group for six months announced that he was coming back. I basically made him a hunter and gave him some badass equipment. That gave us seven players. Kill me. Here's what happened. Over the course of the next six sessions, I and my players all (well mostly all) became increasingly frustrated. The hunter character was constantly bitching about not being as powerful as the mages. The mages were constantly bitching about not being able to do the improvised magic they wanted to (it was very clearly overpowered for their skill level). I was doing an admittedly dangerous amount of railroading as I attempted to teach them the mage rules while trying to lead them through a story. I began having to defend every roll penalty or attack I made. If a player took an action and it didn't have the effect that he thought it should have, an argument would ensue (him: all headshots should be instant kills. Me: you did one point of damage. It's double damage and he's stunned. That's more than is in the book). We all fucked up. I finished and took a break from DMing. for a while. Maybe it was just the wrong type of game. Maybe I railroaded them too much. Then I started a second group with all different players (the so-called "good" group). We were playing savage worlds. I created a very sandboxy world. I bought the adventure deck and left in all the cards to make it even harder for me to subconsciously railroad them. I did everything I could in both prep and gameplay to not railroad. My players enjoyed it. After several sessions, I asked them if they thought I was railroad-y and they said no. We kept playing and I felt good about it, we were all having fun. I recently ran a savage worlds one-shot for my first (bad?) group. I used the adventure cards. I wasn't committed to any particular course of action for the players. It was designed to be a pulpy space-opera. It was the same story. Mid-session accusations of railroading. Arguments about rules and the cards (the vocal half of my players were determined to interpret a card in a very strange way, while the quieter ones eventually piped up that I was probably right about the wording). Groans at every -1 or -2 that they had to take on a die roll. I basically gave up and let them do whatever they wanted for the last hour. It was super discouraging. And this is where it gets interesting: three days later I ran the exact same scenario with my other group. And you know what. We had a fucking blast! The combats were great. The players worked well together. They asked questions about the milieu of the scenario and accepted the answers. They came up with shit I never imagined and I let them get away with it. They used the cards to great effect, throwing all sorts of exciting wrenches into my plans in ways that made it more interesting for everybody. One player even got the same card that had sparked such an argument before. No problems. So the questions are: Did I break my first group or are they just being dickholes? Can I fix it? Can we fix it? Should we try? If it's fixable, what do I do? Should I just try to play more with my second group? Grog
|
|
maxinstuff
Supporter
Posts: 1,939
Preferred Game Systems: DCC RPG, Shadowrun 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS 4e, HERO 6e, Mongoose Traveller
Favorite Species of Monkey: Proboscis
|
Post by maxinstuff on Sept 21, 2013 20:09:05 GMT -8
My initial thought, based on an issue that I've been having, was how to deal with players who are highly argumentative and constantly accusing you of railroading. This would be the counter-perspective to this idea: How about how to deal with a game that everyone enjoys playing, but the GM puts the players in situations wherein no matter what they try to do the GM will stonewall them and allow them to succeed (a lack of "yes and", or more appropriately when the "and" part of the of it creates a nigh catastrophic situation for those you are trying to save) This is a situation that comes up regularly in the the Teenagers from Outer Space game i'm involved. The game itself is a lot of fun, but we end up in "un-winnable" situations where literally all ideas (good or bad) are met with an extremely negative consequence. I am in the opposite position with my "bad" group (my friend's term based on his observaation of mid-round off-topic chatter, constant f-footbal playing, and argumentativeness). It's partially my fault, but I want to be better. I'm trying, but I fear that the ship has sailed. The problem I am having is that players feel like I'm railroading them, even when I deliberately haven't thought of the solution that I want, or when I interpret a rule as I've learned to from the books and forums. Any time they want to do something and it doesn't work as they want, they become hostile. You'll see below that I had a part in it, but I'm trying to change. They don't seem interested though. How to deal with this? Here's some back story in case it is relevant. You don't have to read the following exposition unless you are interested:
Its possible that this should be in a different thread, but it came out of my show idea. Any ideas which board I should move it to? We run games on a cycle, with each DM having a "season" of 6-8 sessions. In my second season gritty post-apocalyptic WoD game, most of the players awakened to become mages. The exceptions were a player that acknowledges she can be there only half the time. I had her set up as a sleepwalker. Two hours before the awakening session, a player who had been gone from the group for six months announced that he was coming back. I basically made him a hunter and gave him some badass equipment. That gave us seven players. Kill me. Here's what happened. Over the course of the next six sessions, I and my players all (well mostly all) became increasingly frustrated. The hunter character was constantly bitching about not being as powerful as the mages. The mages were constantly bitching about not being able to do the improvised magic they wanted to (it was very clearly overpowered for their skill level). I was doing an admittedly dangerous amount of railroading as I attempted to teach them the mage rules while trying to lead them through a story. I began having to defend every roll penalty or attack I made. If a player took an action and it didn't have the effect that he thought it should have, an argument would ensue (him: all headshots should be instant kills. Me: you did one point of damage. It's double damage and he's stunned. That's more than is in the book). We all fucked up. I finished and took a break from DMing. for a while. Maybe it was just the wrong type of game. Maybe I railroaded them too much. Then I started a second group with all different players (the so-called "good" group). We were playing savage worlds. I created a very sandboxy world. I bought the adventure deck and left in all the cards to make it even harder for me to subconsciously railroad them. I did everything I could in both prep and gameplay to not railroad. My players enjoyed it. After several sessions, I asked them if they thought I was railroad-y and they said no. We kept playing and I felt good about it, we were all having fun. I recently ran a savage worlds one-shot for my first (bad?) group. I used the adventure cards. I wasn't committed to any particular course of action for the players. It was designed to be a pulpy space-opera. It was the same story. Mid-session accusations of railroading. Arguments about rules and the cards (the vocal half of my players were determined to interpret a card in a very strange way, while the quieter ones eventually piped up that I was probably right about the wording). Groans at every -1 or -2 that they had to take on a die roll. I basically gave up and let them do whatever they wanted for the last hour. It was super discouraging. And this is where it gets interesting: three days later I ran the exact same scenario with my other group. And you know what. We had a fucking blast! The combats were great. The players worked well together. They asked questions about the milieu of the scenario and accepted the answers. They came up with shit I never imagined and I let them get away with it. They used the cards to great effect, throwing all sorts of exciting wrenches into my plans in ways that made it more interesting for everybody. One player even got the same card that had sparked such an argument before. No problems. So the questions are: Did I break my first group or are they just being dickholes? Can I fix it? Can we fix it? Should we try? If it's fixable, what do I do? Should I just try to play more with my second group? Grog It sounds to me like you have performed the test that was required, and your friend's description appears to be accurate. Bad group. Edit: with 'bad group' you should ask for one of them to GM for a while so you can see how not to railroad *trollface*
|
|