Has anyone else found that some players have a hard time adjusting their expectations for (primarily fantasy) non-D&D settings? Regardless of the specifics of the game world, they approach it like D&D adventurers.
This has happened with several of my players in two different groups. I'm games ranging from Exalted (1e) through WFRP (2e) and on to Modiphius 2d20 Conan and most recently with Soulbound. In every case, they didn't seem to care much for the nuances of the settings and just made characters like they were playing D&D. Of course, when we discussed it, they didn't want to play D&D, so... ???
I find it particularly noteworthy that this seems to happen more with settings that have a lot of details that the players don't want to be bothered to learn. Most of them will learn the rules enough to get by, but with settings, they seem unwilling to bite into (and with most modern D&D settings, it doesn't seem to matter all that much). The settings I've seen them bite into most are those they know from licensed media (Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy/Angel long ago). Even now, a few are itching to do Fallout 2d20 because of hundreds of hours of playing the video games.
Anyone else having similar issues? Any suggestions on how to get them to buy into non-D&D "Adventurer" fantasy?
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 18, 2021, 02:44:15 PMAnyone else having similar issues? Any suggestions on how to get them to buy into non-D&D "Adventurer" fantasy?
Your players may just not be very 'lorey' kind. I know that in my games some players bit and learn world details (and work off of them) and others just pilot a massive mech to smash things.
In such a case it may be advantagous to get a 'leader' for the more passive (or again more actioney) PCs. Who might like somebody else doing the gruntwork of world exploration, and then tells them when its time to smash.
Most of my players do not care about setting unless it has direct influence. For example, important NPCs, etc. They will remember a rival family if someone from that family interacts with them. They'll remember factions fi they are part of a relevant faction. Etc.
Eric has the right of it; remind them WHEN and WHERE they are - if they're in the middle of a war-torn third world country pre-satellite/internet, then sure, they can still behave basically like murder hobos.
Even in a D&D game, if they're in the middle of fantasy Rome at its height, and make the wrong people upset, they will find themselves fined, harassed, poisoned and inconvenienced at every turn. Then the assassins come. And then they find out that they broke the law defending themselves. Repeat as needed, and at the correct intensity for their 'sins'.
Most players just need to have every innkeeper and merchant in town charge them double or turn them away to start to get the hint.
Comic book superhero games naturally trained me and my gaming group (all of us obnoxious teenagers who had previously mostly played murder-hobos) that it could be fun to behave according to genre logic, not mercenary adventurer logic.
At this point everyone knows the Avengers or some other set of superheroes. If you play a superhero game you can remind any players who fall back on acting like mercenary adventurers that they need to follow comic book logic in their their behavior. The lesson should hopefully carry over to historical games or other genre re-recreations.
The comic book superheroes genre could probably work, again based on non-gaming sources (e.g., MCU). I think that my group just isn't into gaming worlds/settings that don't stem from non-gaming sources. For them, a sci-fi setting would probably have to be described in how it compares to Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, and (for some of them) the Expanse of else they won't look any further (the Modiphius Infinity game just drew blank stares and Coriolis was essentially "like Middle East replacing Old West in Firefly" in one player's words). The relative lack of material makes non-zombie post-apocalyptic settings hard to sell (except Fallout), and all fantasy tends to get looped into LotS and D&D. This seems especially problematic when I try to run a setting with a generic system.
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 18, 2021, 02:44:15 PM
Has anyone else found that some players have a hard time adjusting their expectations for (primarily fantasy) non-D&D settings? Regardless of the specifics of the game world, they approach it like D&D adventurers.
I have definitely encountered this. I have a very narrow idea of what the game "Dungeons and Dragons" is. Hex or Dungeon crawling as freebooters out to find as much money as possible, as fast as they can. Get rich or die trying. Its a very focused genre that requires a pretty focused type of game. Gold as experience is a key factor in that.
This is why my group has never really felt that subsequent editions of AD&D are accurate representations of the original Dungeons and Dragons game. The game became more of a fantasy roleplaying game simulator that was burdened with vestigial elements from the original game. Our attempts to adjust to a different type of a game were always hampered by these elements.
5E has even further divorced itself from the game's original feel and has become more of an epic fantasy adventure game. It does a decent job of achieving this, though we found the game had a lot of problems after the first few levels. The more it tries to focus on dungeoneering, the less it succeeds, imo.
Quote
This has happened with several of my players in two different groups. I'm games ranging from Exalted (1e) through WFRP (2e) and on to Modiphius 2d20 Conan and most recently with Soulbound. In every case, they didn't seem to care much for the nuances of the settings and just made characters like they were playing D&D. Of course, when we discussed it, they didn't want to play D&D, so... ???
I feel your pain there. If your group is most experienced with the typical D&D style it can quite a bit to break players from the D&D style of play.
What were your D&D games like? What about them made them want to recreate the same feel in the subsequent games/worlds?
I know when we play D&D we love to get magic items and levels etc as the the game progresses. You feel a sense of immediate accomplishment. It can be jarring to move from that to a game that you play for the sake of the game itself.
Quote
I find it particularly noteworthy that this seems to happen more with settings that have a lot of details that the players don't want to be bothered to learn. Most of them will learn the rules enough to get by, but with settings, they seem unwilling to bite into (and with most modern D&D settings, it doesn't seem to matter all that much). The settings I've seen them bite into most are those they know from licensed media (Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy/Angel long ago). Even now, a few are itching to do Fallout 2d20 because of hundreds of hours of playing the video games.
Anyone else having similar issues? Any suggestions on how to get them to buy into non-D&D "Adventurer" fantasy?
This is something that I've faced many times in the past, with various different groups. It varies greatly from group to group. The DM almost always finds more joy in the detail of settings and intricate adventures that explore a genre. Players usually aren't DMs because they can't or won't contribute the amount of time and effort that is required. My son (27) has recently become a Dungeon Master, and I've had a few talks with him about this subject. We discussed that some players attention almost always fades the minute you aren't playing the game anymore. They will never be as engaged as you are.
Keeping players engaged through either forums or an active Discord can help bridge the gaps between game sessions. You can include narrative, downtown interactions, all kinds of things to try and keep the players interested in exploring more of the game.
I think the reasons they bite on those existing settings is that they have a common well founded knowledge about them, and it requires less work on their part. Its likely not your fault at all.. its just how players are.
Anyway.. those are my random thoughts and ramblings on the subject. Hope it helped some.
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 18, 2021, 11:46:36 PM
The comic book superheroes genre could probably work, again based on non-gaming sources (e.g., MCU). I think that my group just isn't into gaming worlds/settings that don't stem from non-gaming sources. For them, a sci-fi setting would probably have to be described in how it compares to Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, and (for some of them) the Expanse of else they won't look any further (the Modiphius Infinity game just drew blank stares and Coriolis was essentially "like Middle East replacing Old West in Firefly" in one player's words). The relative lack of material makes non-zombie post-apocalyptic settings hard to sell (except Fallout), and all fantasy tends to get looped into LotS and D&D. This seems especially problematic when I try to run a setting with a generic system.
Have you looked at Shadow of the Demon Lord? Its fairly removed from standard D&D roleplaying games, but is also very fantasy in nature. Its dark, gritty, has a great game system. Its basically D&D meets WFRP, with the best parts of both.
The best part is that the game is expect to be about 10 full sessions, spanning 0-10th level play. I've run several campaigns for veteran D&D players that loved it.
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 19, 2021, 12:17:56 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 18, 2021, 11:46:36 PM
The comic book superheroes genre could probably work, again based on non-gaming sources (e.g., MCU). I think that my group just isn't into gaming worlds/settings that don't stem from non-gaming sources. For them, a sci-fi setting would probably have to be described in how it compares to Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, and (for some of them) the Expanse of else they won't look any further (the Modiphius Infinity game just drew blank stares and Coriolis was essentially "like Middle East replacing Old West in Firefly" in one player's words). The relative lack of material makes non-zombie post-apocalyptic settings hard to sell (except Fallout), and all fantasy tends to get looped into LotS and D&D. This seems especially problematic when I try to run a setting with a generic system.
Have you looked at Shadow of the Demon Lord? Its fairly removed from standard D&D roleplaying games, but is also very fantasy in nature. Its dark, gritty, has a great game system. Its basically D&D meets WFRP, with the best parts of both.
The best part is that the game is expect to be about 10 full sessions, spanning 0-10th level play. I've run several campaigns for veteran D&D players that loved it.
Funny you should mention SotDL. I was discussing it with them tonight after the Soulbound game ended in a TPK.
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 19, 2021, 12:41:27 AM
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 19, 2021, 12:17:56 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 18, 2021, 11:46:36 PM
The comic book superheroes genre could probably work, again based on non-gaming sources (e.g., MCU). I think that my group just isn't into gaming worlds/settings that don't stem from non-gaming sources. For them, a sci-fi setting would probably have to be described in how it compares to Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, and (for some of them) the Expanse of else they won't look any further (the Modiphius Infinity game just drew blank stares and Coriolis was essentially "like Middle East replacing Old West in Firefly" in one player's words). The relative lack of material makes non-zombie post-apocalyptic settings hard to sell (except Fallout), and all fantasy tends to get looped into LotS and D&D. This seems especially problematic when I try to run a setting with a generic system.
Have you looked at Shadow of the Demon Lord? Its fairly removed from standard D&D roleplaying games, but is also very fantasy in nature. Its dark, gritty, has a great game system. Its basically D&D meets WFRP, with the best parts of both.
The best part is that the game is expect to be about 10 full sessions, spanning 0-10th level play. I've run several campaigns for veteran D&D players that loved it.
Funny you should mention SotDL. I was discussing it with them tonight after the Soulbound game ended in a TPK.
TPK.. rough. SotDL can be deadly, buts its the most mathematically balanced game I've ever played. The standard setting really is decent, and the book has great ways to choose various ways to play out the "end of the world" scenario.
I have the opposite problem with non-D&D genres. I get genre paralysis and think "But... what do the PCs actually do?!"
Until I realise I can just run it like D&D. ;D
Yes I have definitely seen this. Best example was a group we had years ago where we tried to play in the Silmarillion-setting using a modified high-power Basic Roleplaying (where I had added some rules for oaths and curses). Two of the players could not stop talking about D&D tropes and jokes throughout the whole thing.
My tendency is to run on classic comic-book and pulp hero (more Flash Gordon/Indiana Jones, less Conan) tropes and mentality by default and drag that into D&D games rather than dragging any sort of money-grubbing murder-hobo tendencies into other settings. As such, my tendency is to try to outsmart or otherwise subdue opponents rather than leaving them bleeding out and full of holes. If a system has a non-lethal option to it, my PCs tend to specialize in those (the Taser in Spycraft remains one of my favorite weapons). Parties have gotten annoyed at me for taken the time to bind the wounds of dying enemies once a battle is over and insisting on turning bandits over to the proper authorities instead of just summarily executing them.
As one person put it, I'm one of the only people he knows who can play a paladin unironically.
The thing I've noticed over the years is that a Paladin mindset crosses genres very easily; working as easily in the modern day and far future, and even to an extent in criminal focused games (the honorable thief who doesn't like guns and only steals from the corrupt and other criminals) as it does in Fantasy.
My biggest issue presently is that most of the other people I am currently playing with tend to lean more Punisher and Deadpool in their view of "heroics."
Great topic. I think it can be important to figure out what the "goal" is. What's the the goal of the game? What is the goal of the group? What is the characters goal?
Games that have mechanics like "passions" or "aspirations" can help with this, but I do think these still some times lack some focus in terms of what the game and group goal are.
Free Spacer has a nice central context of improving ship and yourself, with a laser focused end goal of retiring from Free Spacing -- hopefully with a nice cushy position as someone important in your Faction. And retiring has it's own devoted mechanics that you work through after every "contract" you complete.
Finding a way to reinforce the two main goals -- the goal of the game (what is playing this game actually about/what do you do) and the goal of the group could help in shifting players approach to the experience.
Quote from: Chris24601 on September 19, 2021, 02:27:33 PM
The thing I've noticed over the years is that a Paladin mindset crosses genres very easily; working as easily in the modern day and far future, and even to an extent in criminal focused games (the honorable thief who doesn't like guns and only steals from the corrupt and other criminals) as it does in Fantasy.
My biggest issue presently is that most of the other people I am currently playing with tend to lean more Punisher and Deadpool in their view of "heroics."
I'd agree on this, and write a little about it in my Superhero game. The short version is the more good and the more lawful your character is the more potential conflict there is for you. You can end up opposed to any kind of villain . . . you care about stopping the petty thief, you care about stopping Punisher or Deadpool. Heck you care about stopping Robin Hood, or Lock-Up*.
So be the hero. Not the kind of character that other heroes try to stop :)
One challenge of the Superhero genre is that superheroes are fundamentally re-active, and protect the status quo. They foil the villains plans, they don't work on their own plans. This isn't necessarily bad for gaming, lot's of players like this approach. But you don't have much overall goals besides: become a better hero, protect the innocent/your city.
I think the movies tend to focus way to much on personal conflict between villain/hero. You not a "good" superhero if all you do is fight people whom you have a personal vendetta with. Your just a couple of blokes with super-powers who hold grudges against each other causing collateral damage. There needs to be foes you fight just because it's your job/the right thing to do.
I've been thinking of writing a chose your own adventure supers book, with some mechanics from my game, but the only way I can conceive of that working is if you are a Villain with a grand plan. You'd be faced with a series of supers trying to foil you. This is the pro-active / reactive issue.
*Lock-Up is a Batman villain who literally captures criminals and locks them up in his own personal prison. That's it. Batman fights him because hey, that isn't proper due process.
Each genre of gaming has it's own conceits that have to be learned and mastered to pull off effectively.
The "Adventurer" mindset exists because most people only play "D&D style games". And for GM's that venture into other territories, even *within* the fantasy genre that aren't necessarily "D&D" specific, the conceits that need to be obeyed to pull off the immersive feel intended will run afoul of the "Adventurer" mindset if the GM hasn't spent a little time thinking about it.
Mostly its an experience thing.
"Goals" in TTRPG's tend to be things I don't concern myself with, due to the way I run things (Sandbox). I'm trying to make the setting "feel" the way I intend it to feel, and let the PC's (and the players) experience it as naturally as possible. During my Session 0's I'm laying down the basic assumptions where I convey the "tone" of things, but I don't tell my players how to play. The best way to break the "Adventurer's Mindset" is to simply let it happen and react naturally.
In my fantasy games I'm really big on social contracts of pseudo-medieval society and enforcing them. Adventurers will be barred from going into places fully armed to the teeth, or wearing armor in places where such things are found as "rude" nets them appropriate reactions from the NPC's that care about such things (which is most of them usually). Again it's about understanding the conceits of the setting and its presentation. I find that players will usually learn to toe the line, and hopefully will indulge themselves in it if you give them the opportunity.
Quote from: Thondor on September 20, 2021, 08:20:56 AM
One challenge of the Superhero genre is that superheroes are fundamentally re-active, and protect the status quo. They foil the villains plans, they don't work on their own plans. This isn't necessarily bad for gaming, lot's of players like this approach. But you don't have much overall goals besides: become a better hero, protect the innocent/your city.
I have a lot of thoughts on this. I've heard a lot of people say this about Supers and I disagree with it for one significant reason, I've found that most Supers games concern themselves more with the Hero-identity of the character than the civilian side. There is this knee-jerk reaction to react to problems as a hero vs. playing the game where the fullness of the character matters, arguably the civilian side *more* than the costumed hero side.
That's the secret-sauce of running Supers in Sandbox-mode. Peter Parker has school issues, girlfriend problems, work problems, family problems - Spiderman doesn't (generally). The key to making Supers non-reactionary is weaving the civilian identity and what the PC has to *do* actively that creates situations where the player is constantly being tempted to resolve the issues as the Super. I think a lot of supers GM's focus "too much" on the Super's side vs. the civilian side (which gets lost in the shuffle). I've had a LOT of players over the years act reactively - sitting around in their costumes waiting for shit to happen, which is fine, but unless you have some modus-operandi that lets you know what dastardly deeds are afoot, you're gonna wait a long time.
Even Mr. Incredible during his "retirement" listened to the Police Scanner to do clandestine missions. Most passive players don't even do that, expecting the GM to throw things at them while they "wait around" to do Superheroics. I challenge them as civilians to get them moving with "mundane" stuff that breeds adventure hooks for the real shit. It creates creative complexity that adds depth.
This is true of any genre of gaming as long as the GM gives it consideration. A "day in the life" within the setting should give a GM a good feel for where and how they want to present the world. Then dialing in those parts where things can be interesting for the PC's can get tuned up/down as needed to create those sparks of action.
If you have passive players then yeah, you'll have extra work to consider, but that's where you gotta use your NPC's to good effect to nudge them into doing things that may get them interested in possible hooks.
I think the movies tend to focus way to much on personal conflict between villain/hero. You not a "good" superhero if all you do is fight people whom you have a personal vendetta with. Your just a couple of blokes with super-powers who hold grudges against each other causing collateral damage. There needs to be foes you fight just because it's your job/the right thing to do.
Quote from: Chris24601 on September 19, 2021, 02:27:33 PM
As one person put it, I'm one of the only people he knows who can play a paladin unironically.
The thing I've noticed over the years is that a Paladin mindset crosses genres very easily; working as easily in the modern day and far future, and even to an extent in criminal focused games (the honorable thief who doesn't like guns and only steals from the corrupt and other criminals) as it does in Fantasy.
My biggest issue presently is that most of the other people I am currently playing with tend to lean more Punisher and Deadpool in their view of "heroics."
I think that's because many people think of Paladins as simply "Dudley Do-Rights" rather than looking at the complexity of character it takes to be "Good" in an often more complex and morally fubarred world. It doesn't help that players avoid Paladins and "Lawful Good" alignment like the plague because of the misconception of how these things can be expressed at the table.
They tend to go hyperbolic Inquisition-mode or passively deciding the easiest way to do "good" as it presents itself without risk. It's a shame people tend to look at Paladins like this. Players that can do it well and be nuanced without sacrificing their principles in play, are a rare breed or player.
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 19, 2021, 12:44:28 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 19, 2021, 12:41:27 AM
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 19, 2021, 12:17:56 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 18, 2021, 11:46:36 PM
The comic book superheroes genre could probably work, again based on non-gaming sources (e.g., MCU). I think that my group just isn't into gaming worlds/settings that don't stem from non-gaming sources. For them, a sci-fi setting would probably have to be described in how it compares to Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, and (for some of them) the Expanse of else they won't look any further (the Modiphius Infinity game just drew blank stares and Coriolis was essentially "like Middle East replacing Old West in Firefly" in one player's words). The relative lack of material makes non-zombie post-apocalyptic settings hard to sell (except Fallout), and all fantasy tends to get looped into LotS and D&D. This seems especially problematic when I try to run a setting with a generic system.
Have you looked at Shadow of the Demon Lord? Its fairly removed from standard D&D roleplaying games, but is also very fantasy in nature. Its dark, gritty, has a great game system. Its basically D&D meets WFRP, with the best parts of both.
The best part is that the game is expect to be about 10 full sessions, spanning 0-10th level play. I've run several campaigns for veteran D&D players that loved it.
Funny you should mention SotDL. I was discussing it with them tonight after the Soulbound game ended in a TPK.
TPK.. rough. SotDL can be deadly, buts its the most mathematically balanced game I've ever played. The standard setting really is decent, and the book has great ways to choose various ways to play out the "end of the world" scenario.
It was session 3 and I was running the free introductory adventure, Crash & Burn. The final encounter had a rather powerful grot spellcaster riding upon the shoulders of a dankhold troggoth. The two had several abilities that synergized to make them very bad news together, and they bulldozed the PCs. TBH, I'm not sure if I'm going to stick with Soulbound at this point.
Does that game use the same system as WFRP ? Or is it a totally different type of game?
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 20, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
Does that game use the same system as WFRP ? Or is it a totally different type of game?
Totally different. It's a D6 dice pool system with zones instead of ranges and both Toughness (like Palladium SDC) and Wounds (like Palladium Hit Points). Damage is based on weapon (0-3) plus successes and reduced by armor (er, armour).
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 18, 2021, 02:44:15 PM
Has anyone else found that some players have a hard time adjusting their expectations for (primarily fantasy) non-D&D settings? Regardless of the specifics of the game world, they approach it like D&D adventurers.
This has happened with several of my players in two different groups. I'm games ranging from Exalted (1e) through WFRP (2e) and on to Modiphius 2d20 Conan and most recently with Soulbound. In every case, they didn't seem to care much for the nuances of the settings and just made characters like they were playing D&D. Of course, when we discussed it, they didn't want to play D&D, so... ???
I find it particularly noteworthy that this seems to happen more with settings that have a lot of details that the players don't want to be bothered to learn. Most of them will learn the rules enough to get by, but with settings, they seem unwilling to bite into ...
Anyone else having similar issues? Any suggestions on how to get them to buy into non-D&D "Adventurer" fantasy?
Most players don't care too much about setting differences unless they can affect them during play.
In my experience combat is usually the one thing that will snap them out of "D&D mode".
It is a matter of consequences. How are the consequences different for the PC as opposed to what would happen to them in a game of D&D?
If there is no significant differences in consequences in combat or more social role play, then they will continue to act like D&D PCs no matter what else is thrown there way.
Why should they change their behavior playing in a different setting when the consequences are no different?
Quote from: S'mon on September 19, 2021, 08:55:48 AM
I have the opposite problem with non-D&D genres. I get genre paralysis and think "But... what do the PCs actually do?!"
Until I realise I can just run it like D&D. ;D
In truth all RPGs are wargame derivatives. And the PC groups are just spec-ops teams that band together to accomplish goal x...
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 20, 2021, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 20, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
Does that game use the same system as WFRP ? Or is it a totally different type of game?
Totally different. It's a D6 dice pool system with zones instead of ranges and both Toughness (like Palladium SDC) and Wounds (like Palladium Hit Points). Damage is based on weapon (0-3) plus successes and reduced by armor (er, armour).
Is it like the Wrath and Glory game for WH40k?
I agree with previous posters to a degree. Rather than changing the goal, change the method:
Run Call of Cthulhu. It's investigative so the PCs can't just kill or intimidate every NPC. They need information from the NPCs so they have to play nice somewhat.
As the ref, you have to present them with situations that they can't Murderhobo™. When they realize they can't use combat for everything, they'll grow as players and you as GM can run adventures of different colors.
Quote from: Theory of Games on September 21, 2021, 10:33:47 AM
Run Call of Cthulhu. It's investigative so the PCs can't just kill or intimidate every NPC. They need information from the NPCs so they have to play nice somewhat.
As the ref, you have to present them with situations that they can't Murderhobo™. When they realize they can't use combat for everything, they'll grow as players and you as GM can run adventures of different colors.
I enjoy Call of Cthulhu and have played a lot, but the same is possible in lots of other systems. I would say the most important thing is to make being non-adventurer-ish fun. When the PCs have social connections and interactions, make sure that they're both entertaining and useful. If the PCs have a choice to handle a situation by social interaction or by combat, they should get that social interaction works better tactically.
Even in Call of Cthulhu, I've played in games that had a lot of murderhobo behavior of breaking into places with flashlights and shotguns. That's mostly because social interactions in those games didn't get us anything other than cold shoulders and vague hints, while breaking into places got us documents and artifacts as well as murdered cultists and monsters.
I think sometimes GMs have a bias that social interaction is "free" - and giving away useful stuff without a fight is being a softie. If the players just walk in and get a bunch of useful stuff simply by talking to people, then the adventure is a cakewalk and not challenging. That obviously leads to more violent behavior. I think there are ways to make sure the adventure is both challenging and social. One part is having social consequences, but a big part is social rewards. There needs to be a carrot as well as a stick, I'd say.
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 08:52:19 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 20, 2021, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 20, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
Does that game use the same system as WFRP ? Or is it a totally different type of game?
Totally different. It's a D6 dice pool system with zones instead of ranges and both Toughness (like Palladium SDC) and Wounds (like Palladium Hit Points). Damage is based on weapon (0-3) plus successes and reduced by armor (er, armour).
Is it like the Wrath and Glory game for WH40k?
Similar in that both use D6s, but very different in how it's all out together. I'm not really up for laying out the entire system or setting, but i m sure there are reviews online to answer those questions.
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 12:42:26 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 08:52:19 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 20, 2021, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 20, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
Does that game use the same system as WFRP ? Or is it a totally different type of game?
Totally different. It's a D6 dice pool system with zones instead of ranges and both Toughness (like Palladium SDC) and Wounds (like Palladium Hit Points). Damage is based on weapon (0-3) plus successes and reduced by armor (er, armour).
Is it like the Wrath and Glory game for WH40k?
Similar in that both use D6s, but very different in how it's all out together. I'm not really up for laying out the entire system or setting, but i m sure there are reviews online to answer those questions.
I wouldnt expect you to, but I would ask for a judgement, better in play or worse than W&G?
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:05:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 12:42:26 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 08:52:19 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 20, 2021, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 20, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
Does that game use the same system as WFRP ? Or is it a totally different type of game?
Totally different. It's a D6 dice pool system with zones instead of ranges and both Toughness (like Palladium SDC) and Wounds (like Palladium Hit Points). Damage is based on weapon (0-3) plus successes and reduced by armor (er, armour).
Is it like the Wrath and Glory game for WH40k?
Similar in that both use D6s, but very different in how it's all out together. I'm not really up for laying out the entire system or setting, but i m sure there are reviews online to answer those questions.
I wouldnt expect you to, but I would ask for a judgement, better in play or worse than W&G?
I like a lot of the Soulbound system, but there are some spots that don't appeal to me (having a full tank of Mettle seems too powerful on turn 1 and minion swarms are the poster glass cannon). OTOH, Wrath & Glory didn't appeal to me at all on a read through (and I never played or ran it).
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:05:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 12:42:26 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 08:52:19 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 20, 2021, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 20, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
Does that game use the same system as WFRP ? Or is it a totally different type of game?
Totally different. It's a D6 dice pool system with zones instead of ranges and both Toughness (like Palladium SDC) and Wounds (like Palladium Hit Points). Damage is based on weapon (0-3) plus successes and reduced by armor (er, armour).
Is it like the Wrath and Glory game for WH40k?
Similar in that both use D6s, but very different in how it's all out together. I'm not really up for laying out the entire system or setting, but i m sure there are reviews online to answer those questions.
I wouldnt expect you to, but I would ask for a judgement, better in play or worse than W&G?
I like a lot of the Soulbound system, but there are some spots that don't appeal to me (having a full tank of Mettle seems too powerful on turn 1 and minion swarms are the poster glass cannon). OTOH, Wrath & Glory didn't appeal to me at all on a read through (and I never played or ran it).
Fair assessment on the read through IMO, A games rules have to look pretty bad for me to not even be willing to give them a try, and that was what I got from the page with W&G. If you were at least willing to give Soulbound a shot, that means it must be considerably better in your eyes, and I have a feeling I am likely to agree with that assessment as well. I will go ahead and pull the trigger on a copy and see if it is for me.
How much of this comes as an emergent quality of class-based gaming?
Quote from: tenbones on September 21, 2021, 03:23:59 PM
How much of this comes as an emergent quality of class-based gaming?
Eh, I wouldn't say much. People like archetypes and roleplaying an archetype is fun and easy.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 21, 2021, 03:41:52 PM
Quote from: tenbones on September 21, 2021, 03:23:59 PM
How much of this comes as an emergent quality of class-based gaming?
Eh, I wouldn't say much. People like archetypes and roleplaying an archetype is fun and easy.
Yes, classes/archetypes are not the issue.
IMHO, it has mainly to do with these:
1: D&Ds combat norm of 'balanced encounters' + HP bloat = Combat is fun, not dangerous. Risk of death is actually rather minimal after a few levels. And as PCs only get 'level appropriate' enemies, it cultivates a sense of 'we can kill anything' amongst long time players. Yes there can be consequences for combat but death is usually not one of them. And once the PCs get to higher levels the magic users have an app for that as well.
2: The RenFaire / Wild West social assumptions of many D&D settings. Social class is basically not a thing in D&D. In fairness it has kind of been that way since the beginning of the game. But along with the way combat typically plays out, it does seem foster among some players a bit of a:
"Just try me bitch. I dare you!" attitude whether they are talking to a back alley assassin, or a King...
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:54:11 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:05:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 12:42:26 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 08:52:19 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 20, 2021, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 20, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
Does that game use the same system as WFRP ? Or is it a totally different type of game?
Totally different. It's a D6 dice pool system with zones instead of ranges and both Toughness (like Palladium SDC) and Wounds (like Palladium Hit Points). Damage is based on weapon (0-3) plus successes and reduced by armor (er, armour).
Is it like the Wrath and Glory game for WH40k?
Similar in that both use D6s, but very different in how it's all out together. I'm not really up for laying out the entire system or setting, but i m sure there are reviews online to answer those questions.
I wouldnt expect you to, but I would ask for a judgement, better in play or worse than W&G?
I like a lot of the Soulbound system, but there are some spots that don't appeal to me (having a full tank of Mettle seems too powerful on turn 1 and minion swarms are the poster glass cannon). OTOH, Wrath & Glory didn't appeal to me at all on a read through (and I never played or ran it).
Fair assessment on the read through IMO, A games rules have to look pretty bad for me to not even be willing to give them a try, and that was what I got from the page with W&G. If you were at least willing to give Soulbound a shot, that means it must be considerably better in your eyes, and I have a feeling I am likely to agree with that assessment as well. I will go ahead and pull the trigger on a copy and see if it is for me.
I believe the C7 site still has a discount on the core rules, but you can probably find similar deals on other sites.
Be aware that, while I like Soulbound overall, it does have what I feel are some problem areas. If you (or others) are interested enough, I can start another thread on it.
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 04:53:42 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:54:11 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:05:33 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 12:42:26 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 08:52:19 AM
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 20, 2021, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 20, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
Does that game use the same system as WFRP ? Or is it a totally different type of game?
Totally different. It's a D6 dice pool system with zones instead of ranges and both Toughness (like Palladium SDC) and Wounds (like Palladium Hit Points). Damage is based on weapon (0-3) plus successes and reduced by armor (er, armour).
Is it like the Wrath and Glory game for WH40k?
Similar in that both use D6s, but very different in how it's all out together. I'm not really up for laying out the entire system or setting, but i m sure there are reviews online to answer those questions.
I wouldnt expect you to, but I would ask for a judgement, better in play or worse than W&G?
I like a lot of the Soulbound system, but there are some spots that don't appeal to me (having a full tank of Mettle seems too powerful on turn 1 and minion swarms are the poster glass cannon). OTOH, Wrath & Glory didn't appeal to me at all on a read through (and I never played or ran it).
Fair assessment on the read through IMO, A games rules have to look pretty bad for me to not even be willing to give them a try, and that was what I got from the page with W&G. If you were at least willing to give Soulbound a shot, that means it must be considerably better in your eyes, and I have a feeling I am likely to agree with that assessment as well. I will go ahead and pull the trigger on a copy and see if it is for me.
I believe the C7 site still has a discount on the core rules, but you can probably find similar deals on other sites.
Be aware that, while I like Soulbound overall, it does have what I feel are some problem areas. If you (or others) are interested enough, I can start another thread on it.
I buy so many RPG games for inspiration and collection (still kick myself in the ass I did not get Rogue Trader, now the book is insanely priced as a collector item) that I do not love the rules, I say hit a thread on it. I am not too familiar with the setting (other than a smattering of it being a sort of pocket dimension Sigmar willed into existence, but I could be wrong about that too) but I would take interest at any thread discussing it.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 21, 2021, 03:41:52 PM
Quote from: tenbones on September 21, 2021, 03:23:59 PM
How much of this comes as an emergent quality of class-based gaming?
Eh, I wouldn't say much. People like archetypes and roleplaying an archetype is fun and easy.
A "fighter" is not indicative of anything except a "man at arms" - it's been parsed, diced, sliced, argued to death for decades now, and sub-divided into other classes, sub-classes trying to shave off some pet notion of what "could be a fighting man" vs. what specialization has "fighter-like" traits but "isn't a fighter".
The archetypes themselves have become boiled down to the game-mechanics being the game itself. MMO's took it and ran. Tanks, DPS, Healers, Controllers etc. etc. You see players making "builds" free of any gaming context.
So when you step back and look at "Adventurer Mindset" - its literally just means to categorize people based on the mechanical functions within the group. That they might appear archetypal (which is not something I'm arguing against, since archetypes exist for a reason) it's that the classifications are the surface which most players engage with the game. Its only slightly deeper than playing the Shoe or Wheelbarrow in Monopoly, the moment you put some kind of mechanical stat to those choices then that's where people will engage the game. The notion that the Adventurer Mindset is real - which I believe it is, it means players are literally coming to the table with a table-top *mechanical* mindset in place even before "classes" (or roles if you prefer) are even chosen.
I'm willing to believe that MMO's have massively reinforced this over D&D, but MMO's took this from D&D.
The Adventurer Mindset needs to be broken by emphasizing things that aren't "basic" adventuring. You need more RP, more Social scenes, more character background interaction within the game. etc. etc.
Classes/Roles etc. are just handholds players cling to in lieu of deeper gaming. GM's are the only ones with the power to break that grip by varying the context of gameplay by making those ineffable qualities of the game and the PC's matter as much as throwing dice.
Quote from: tenbones on September 21, 2021, 05:47:46 PMClasses/Roles etc. are just handholds players cling to in lieu of deeper gaming. GM's are the only ones with the power to break that grip by varying the context of gameplay.
Im not saying I wouldn't like more engagement from players. Its just 'roleplaying' is literally quite difficult for many of them. Not everybody starred in a play in high school (Like I did 8) ....Thats not really anything brag worthy).
'I am guy who deals damage' is some form of grasping at reality for some players. Including some with psychological hinderances (I have 1 guy who has issues visualizing anything in his head).
Quote from: tenbones on September 21, 2021, 05:47:46 PM
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 21, 2021, 03:41:52 PM
Quote from: tenbones on September 21, 2021, 03:23:59 PM
How much of this comes as an emergent quality of class-based gaming?
Eh, I wouldn't say much. People like archetypes and roleplaying an archetype is fun and easy.
A "fighter" is not indicative of anything except a "man at arms" - it's been parsed, diced, sliced, argued to death for decades now, and sub-divided into other classes, sub-classes trying to shave off some pet notion of what "could be a fighting man" vs. what specialization has "fighter-like" traits but "isn't a fighter".
The archetypes themselves have become boiled down to the game-mechanics being the game itself. MMO's took it and ran. Tanks, DPS, Healers, Controllers etc. etc. You see players making "builds" free of any gaming context.
So when you step back and look at "Adventurer Mindset" - its literally just means to categorize people based on the mechanical functions within the group. That they might appear archetypal (which is not something I'm arguing against, since archetypes exist for a reason) it's that the classifications are the surface which most players engage with the game. Its only slightly deeper than playing the Shoe or Wheelbarrow in Monopoly, the moment you put some kind of mechanical stat to those choices then that's where people will engage the game. The notion that the Adventurer Mindset is real - which I believe it is, it means players are literally coming to the table with a table-top *mechanical* mindset in place even before "classes" (or roles if you prefer) are even chosen.
I'm willing to believe that MMO's have massively reinforced this over D&D, but MMO's took this from D&D.
The Adventurer Mindset needs to be broken by emphasizing things that aren't "basic" adventuring. You need more RP, more Social scenes, more character background interaction within the game. etc. etc.
Classes/Roles etc. are just handholds players cling to in lieu of deeper gaming. GM's are the only ones with the power to break that grip by varying the context of gameplay by making those ineffable qualities of the game and the PC's matter as much as throwing dice.
Conversely, in Soulbound, the archetypes are not just game mechanics. If you're playing a Witch Aelf, you're a fanatical cultists to the Aelven god of murder/war. You're really supposed to play up the roleplaying aspects of the archetypes as much as the mechanical bits. This is actually a cause of friction with players in the D&D mindset that "only the mechanics matter and you can just roleplay the character however you like."
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 18, 2021, 02:44:15 PM
Anyone else having similar issues? Any suggestions on how to get them to buy into non-D&D "Adventurer" fantasy?
I've had this problem running historically authentic games. E.g.: PC shoots at someone with his bow in the middle of town. He's accosted by a group of citizens, arrested, and thrown into jail. Sometimes the setting needs to hit back.
I do a couple things regularly that seem to work:
1. Little set pieces for the PCs to stumble upon, no more than 1-2 minutes of description. I design these to "show off" the setting and remind the players that we're not in Kansas any more. E.g., A witch burning that was as historically accurate as I could muster, complete with a crowd that as really into it who booed when they caught the executioner strangling the woman before the fire was lit.
2. Tavern stories. Any time the PCs are talking with random NPCs, they might get a drunk or talkative sort who gives them a 1 minute story that highlights the setting, nothing to do with the task at hand or the PC's quest, just a random vignette.
Yeah, maybe this is just GMing, but I think where it differs is that they can be pointless and totally unrelated to what the PCs are doing. Little lore nuggets, if you will. I sometimes just straight rip off setting fluff from the book. If someone catches me, then good! Now I know you're reading the book!
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.
Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.
Conceit Buy-In is critical. It really helps to clarify why people gather for the fun (and what's their flexibility to each other) to baseline a shareable experience. I personally do surveys to get the session zero conversation rolling for games that don't come with easy to assume premises (e.g. D&D dungeon crawls, Shadowrun mission, Pathfinder fanfic tours, I mean, Adventure Paths...).
Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 09:02:22 AM
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.
Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.
Conceit Buy-In is critical. It really helps to clarify why people gather for the fun (and what's their flexibility to each other) to baseline a shareable experience. I personally do surveys to get the session zero conversation rolling for games that don't come with easy to assume premises (e.g. D&D dungeon crawls, Shadowrun mission, Pathfinder fanfic tours, I mean, Adventure Paths...).
Yeah very much this.
It's really where the rubber hits the road for a GM that means to go the distance. This observation is what has driven me as a GM - I'm always seeking ways to engage my players. I have some players that can't figure out what their character is about until they start playing, and I have players that love session zero, working on contextual backstory that goes completely to hell once the game starts. And I have those that play their concepts on the nose, adjusting normally as the campaign unfolds.
There is an inversion of the Adventurer Mentality though - which makes players demand in-game cohesion only if it's "realistic". My players can't stand it when another player assumes just because their playing (and acting like an asshole) their PC automatically has to be included in the "party". It's another tricky issue to deal with.
Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2021, 09:27:11 AM
Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 09:02:22 AM
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.
Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.
Conceit Buy-In is critical. It really helps to clarify why people gather for the fun (and what's their flexibility to each other) to baseline a shareable experience. I personally do surveys to get the session zero conversation rolling for games that don't come with easy to assume premises (e.g. D&D dungeon crawls, Shadowrun mission, Pathfinder fanfic tours, I mean, Adventure Paths...).
Yeah very much this.
It's really where the rubber hits the road for a GM that means to go the distance. This observation is what has driven me as a GM - I'm always seeking ways to engage my players. I have some players that can't figure out what their character is about until they start playing, and I have players that love session zero, working on contextual backstory that goes completely to hell once the game starts. And I have those that play their concepts on the nose, adjusting normally as the campaign unfolds.
There is an inversion of the Adventurer Mentality though - which makes players demand in-game cohesion only if it's "realistic". My players can't stand it when another player assumes just because their playing (and acting like an asshole) their PC automatically has to be included in the "party". It's another tricky issue to deal with.
What I really hate are the player characters based on coming a faction of assholes that worship/emulate the god(dess) of
true ultimate assholism and has special training in being the biggest assholes around... And then the player says, "I want to play one with all of those great features, but not, you know, be considered an asshole."
Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2021, 09:27:11 AM
There is an inversion of the Adventurer Mentality though - which makes players demand in-game cohesion only if it's "realistic". My players can't stand it when another player assumes just because their playing (and acting like an asshole) their PC automatically has to be included in the "party". It's another tricky issue to deal with.
The trick I came up for this was I always start my campaigns post group meetup and one of the purposes of the chargen session is to establish how the PCs know each other and why they're a team before the first step along the road to the first adventure is taken.
My unofficial rule is that each PC needs an established relationship with two other PCs in the party and they can't be closed triangles (i.e. three PCs have established relationships with each other and none with the other PCs who will be in the party). They don't have to like each other, but they do need a reason why they're all on the same path.
Sometimes it's tenuous, other times a group will hit on something rock solid (ex. the players decided they were locals starting a gang in one of the worst ghettos in the city; the fighter was the muscle, the rogue was a burglar/pickpocket and the bard was a con man; and so their adventures centered around hitting rival gangs, various crimes, and securing territory and recruits to expand.
But the main thing it did was require even the guy (or gal in several cases) who wanted to play the edgy lone wolf type to have some reason to be involved with the party.
Quote from: Chris24601 on September 22, 2021, 11:36:16 AM
Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2021, 09:27:11 AM
There is an inversion of the Adventurer Mentality though - which makes players demand in-game cohesion only if it's "realistic". My players can't stand it when another player assumes just because their playing (and acting like an asshole) their PC automatically has to be included in the "party". It's another tricky issue to deal with.
The trick I came up for this was I always start my campaigns post group meetup and one of the purposes of the chargen session is to establish how the PCs know each other and why they're a team before the first step along the road to the first adventure is taken.
My unofficial rule is that each PC needs an established relationship with two other PCs in the party and they can't be closed triangles (i.e. three PCs have established relationships with each other and none with the other PCs who will be in the party). They don't have to like each other, but they do need a reason why they're all on the same path.
Sometimes it's tenuous, other times a group will hit on something rock solid (ex. the players decided they were locals starting a gang in one of the worst ghettos in the city; the fighter was the muscle, the rogue was a burglar/pickpocket and the bard was a con man; and so their adventures centered around hitting rival gangs, various crimes, and securing territory and recruits to expand.
But the main thing it did was require even the guy (or gal in several cases) who wanted to play the edgy lone wolf type to have some reason to be involved with the party.
Do you require them to have ties to NPCs/organizations/locations too, or just other PCs? I don't find that they have any problems tying together with other PCs, but the other stuff is usually WAY down on their list.
Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 09:02:22 AM
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.
Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.
Conceit Buy-In is critical. It really helps to clarify why people gather for the fun (and what's their flexibility to each other) to baseline a shareable experience. I personally do surveys to get the session zero conversation rolling for games that don't come with easy to assume premises (e.g. D&D dungeon crawls, Shadowrun mission, Pathfinder fanfic tours, I mean, Adventure Paths...).
Most players are Normies, and Normies will not--and have never--put in work for their entertainment. The terms are polar opposites to Normies. Accept this, adjust accordingly, and thrive. RPGs really are a lot easier to pitch, run, and enjoy when you cater to Normie sensibilities for entertainment by removing all expectation of them putting in work, either in learning the rules or the setting; if it's not directly and immediately relevant, they don't care and you can't make them- they'll bail for Netflix (or whatever)
because they have endless alternatives if one doesn't satisfy their expectations.
Quote from: HappyDaze on September 22, 2021, 11:41:26 AM
Quote from: Chris24601 on September 22, 2021, 11:36:16 AM
Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2021, 09:27:11 AM
There is an inversion of the Adventurer Mentality though - which makes players demand in-game cohesion only if it's "realistic". My players can't stand it when another player assumes just because their playing (and acting like an asshole) their PC automatically has to be included in the "party". It's another tricky issue to deal with.
The trick I came up for this was I always start my campaigns post group meetup and one of the purposes of the chargen session is to establish how the PCs know each other and why they're a team before the first step along the road to the first adventure is taken.
My unofficial rule is that each PC needs an established relationship with two other PCs in the party and they can't be closed triangles (i.e. three PCs have established relationships with each other and none with the other PCs who will be in the party). They don't have to like each other, but they do need a reason why they're all on the same path.
Sometimes it's tenuous, other times a group will hit on something rock solid (ex. the players decided they were locals starting a gang in one of the worst ghettos in the city; the fighter was the muscle, the rogue was a burglar/pickpocket and the bard was a con man; and so their adventures centered around hitting rival gangs, various crimes, and securing territory and recruits to expand.
But the main thing it did was require even the guy (or gal in several cases) who wanted to play the edgy lone wolf type to have some reason to be involved with the party.
Do you require them to have ties to NPCs/organizations/locations too, or just other PCs? I don't find that they have any problems tying together with other PCs, but the other stuff is usually WAY down on their list.
Depends on the genre.
D&D wandering adventurers don't get much from prior ties because they're rarely in one place long enough for it to matter.
Most of the other systems I run generally either have built-in rules for establishing and encouraging NPC ties (ex. Backgrounds in World of Darkness games which provide mechanical benefits to having allies, contacts, fame, influence, status, etc.) or are settings where NPC/organizational ties are part of the base setting (ex. Star Trek PCs generally have a small town's worth of NPCs aboard ship with needed specializations they're probably lacking themselves and personalities you can play with).
Probably the hardest one for establishing extensive NPC ties was Mutants & Masterminds, but I attribute that more to the rather extreme difference in perspective between my Silver-Age sentiments (including several complications based on relationships with families and friends and quickly establishing a working relationship with the authorities because no-kill heroes who try to minimize property damage, stop natural disasters as often as supervillains and stick around to help fix things after the crisis has passed), my fellow players' Punisher/Deadpool sentiments (tragic loner backstories and lots of bodies and destruction).
Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 09:02:22 AM
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.
Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.
I partly agree with this -- but I think it's mostly a question of how much fun it is to learn. If I'm running a game in Star Wars or Middle Earth, the players can learn a lot about the background by watching fun some well-produced movies or reading engaging books. Learning all the details about a setting like Exalted means wading through a bunch of White Wolf writer text, which compares poorly to reading well-written novels like Lord of the Rings.
I'm happy to invest in a setting if I enjoy learning about it, but if it feels like a boring slog to get through, then I'm much less interested.
Most of my games use relatively popular or already well-known settings as a result.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker on September 22, 2021, 01:18:19 PM
Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 09:02:22 AM
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.
Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.
Conceit Buy-In is critical. It really helps to clarify why people gather for the fun (and what's their flexibility to each other) to baseline a shareable experience. I personally do surveys to get the session zero conversation rolling for games that don't come with easy to assume premises (e.g. D&D dungeon crawls, Shadowrun mission, Pathfinder fanfic tours, I mean, Adventure Paths...).
Most players are Normies, and Normies will not--and have never--put in work for their entertainment. The terms are polar opposites to Normies. Accept this, adjust accordingly, and thrive. RPGs really are a lot easier to pitch, run, and enjoy when you cater to Normie sensibilities for entertainment by removing all expectation of them putting in work, either in learning the rules or the setting; if it's not directly and immediately relevant, they don't care and you can't make them- they'll bail for Netflix (or whatever) because they have endless alternatives if one doesn't satisfy their expectations.
Absolutely. I've met many a person, let alone gamers, who go into anaphylactic shock at the idea of reading or learning
anything for their fun. If you are wanting to include this type of guest to your table you already understand it is you who will be bending to accomodate their fun.
There is nothing wrong curating your table to a different type of fun. I know it calls back to the Geek Fallacies, but there is truth to that old discussion. A lot of people who are socially... inexperienced?... assume everyone deemed my friend must be welded to the hip. But the truth is not everyone needs an invitation or should attend every event, and your friendship is not shattered by the absence.
Which is something that maturity helps one grow out of. We are different people and are allowed to like different things -- that includes curating guests for a more like-minded, higher concept, gathering. You are not rejecting a friend from the in-group who cannot/will not relate to said event. Instead you are delving deeper into each other's more specialized interests and giving breathing room to ripen friendships in ways away from you.
I know these are just words, but I hope it helps someone younger (or less adroit) out there to be bolder and more resilient in their socializing. It's OK and normal to have multiple circles, interconnected yet not the same.
Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 07:26:18 PM
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker on September 22, 2021, 01:18:19 PM
Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 09:02:22 AM
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.
Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.
Conceit Buy-In is critical. It really helps to clarify why people gather for the fun (and what's their flexibility to each other) to baseline a shareable experience. I personally do surveys to get the session zero conversation rolling for games that don't come with easy to assume premises (e.g. D&D dungeon crawls, Shadowrun mission, Pathfinder fanfic tours, I mean, Adventure Paths...).
Most players are Normies, and Normies will not--and have never--put in work for their entertainment. The terms are polar opposites to Normies. Accept this, adjust accordingly, and thrive. RPGs really are a lot easier to pitch, run, and enjoy when you cater to Normie sensibilities for entertainment by removing all expectation of them putting in work, either in learning the rules or the setting; if it's not directly and immediately relevant, they don't care and you can't make them- they'll bail for Netflix (or whatever) because they have endless alternatives if one doesn't satisfy their expectations.
Absolutely. I've met many a person, let alone gamers, who go into anaphylactic shock at the idea of reading or learning anything for their fun. If you are wanting to include this type of guest to your table you already understand it is you who will be bending to accomodate their fun.
There is nothing wrong curating your table to a different type of fun. I know it calls back to the Geek Fallacies, but there is truth to that old discussion. A lot of people who are socially... inexperienced?... assume everyone deemed my friend must be welded to the hip.
Which is something that maturity helps one grow out of. We are different people and are allowed to like different things -- that includes curating guests for a more like-minded, higher concept, gathering. You are not rejecting a friend from the in-group who cannot/will not relate to said event, instead you are delving deeper into each other's more specialized interests and giving breathing room to ripen friendships in ways away from you.
I know these are just words, but I hope it helps someone younger (or less adroit) out there to be bolder and more resilient in their socializing. It's OK and normal to have multiple circles, interconnected yet not the same.
Wondering out loud: how much of the real-world "circle of friends joined at the hip" mentality has been influenced by the RPG "adventuring party joined at the hip" mentality?
Another Normies-as-Gaming note: Normies see entertainment of all sorts as pastimes, not hobbies. Hobbies require work, which is not fun for Normies. Pastimes don't. They see entertainment, when done with others, as nothing more than a pretext for their real reason for getting together: socializing. They don't grill because they're outdoor food gourmets; they grill because it's an easy thing to do while shooting the shit with the others attending. Same with bowling, golf, Poker night, stitching circlers, afternoons or evenings watching Football (either kind).
Now put a complex and fiddly game in front them. Suddenly they have to focus their attention on the game and working the fiddly bits instead of talking about Randy Red and her adorable puppies. Ask them to do more than 3rd grade arithmetic and they fast approach their Quit Moment, and that's before all of the other things that compete with RPGs for their time and attention: increased work demands on their time, simpler and easier substitutes (especially if they can't get together as much), etc.
Yes, Performative Wokeness is just such a thing that works against Normies playing the game; WOTC (et. al.) trying their hardest to freeze out or black out non-Woke alternatives (primarily by keeping them out of media spaces Normies flock to) ramped up as awareness of this being a liability hit is tacit admission that this is real.
This is why, of all the alternatives out there, the one I use as a go-to is Basic Fantasy; free and legal in digital, Normie-friendly, and dirt-cheap in print while being available as the biggest Normie shopping option: Amazon. Normies don't balk at $5 for a paperback copy of a complete game, and a little over $10 for that, a monster book, and a ready-made adventure to run. They sure as Hell balk at what WOTC wants for the same thing. Simple, easy, cheap, and thus very Normie-friendly.
The rest is all meeting Normie expectations of gaming-as-casual-social-engagement.
Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2021, 03:11:35 PM
... Learning all the details about a setting like Exalted means wading through a bunch of White Wolf writer text, which compares poorly to reading well-written novels like Lord of the Rings.
Most of my games use relatively popular or already well-known settings as a result.
Well known IP and Classic tropes just plain work. 'Original' does not = Quality, or "Better".
Popular and Relatable for the win.
Emphasis on the Relatable part.
There is a reason why these fantasy properties have broken through with normies.
Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Conan, and The Witcher. All very humancentric, and low(er) magic by comparison to the standard WOTC D&D setting.
I've played with people who push for fantastical setting elements because they think it adds something to the game... And when I finally managed to get grudging agreement to play in a more grounded 'vanilla' setting; It didn't change the way they played at all, but our GM had a much easier time integrating things during play.
Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 07:26:18 PM
I've met many a person, let alone gamers, who go into anaphylactic shock at the idea of reading or learning anything for their fun. If you are wanting to include this type of guest to your table you already understand it is you who will be bending to accomodate their fun.
There is nothing wrong curating your table to a different type of fun. I know it calls back to the Geek Fallacies, but there is truth to that old discussion. A lot of people who are socially... inexperienced?... assume everyone deemed my friend must be welded to the hip. But the truth is not everyone needs an invitation or should attend every event, and your friendship is not shattered by the absence.
...
There are two ways people approach playing and running RPGs.
1: RPGs for fun.
2: RPGs as a hobby.
For the first way: These are the casual players, the ones who won't learn anything beyond the game they were introduced to (generally D&D) and they view playing RPGs more of a social activity they are doing with friends. Like going out to mini-golf, or a theme park, but it just happens to be playing in an RPG group within their circle. They will not 'work' for their fun. This is the majority of the RPG player pool. Which is the main reason why there will always be a big GM to Player disparity.
For the second: These are the guys who like to homebrew, try out different systems, post on message boards, etc. Reading rules and writing homebrew material is not work because it is an enjoyable part of the hobby for them. They are also there to have fun and enjoy the social aspects of roleplaying, but they tend to prioritize participating in a good RPG group over a gaming group based on pure friendship. Like model trains, model building, or racing RC cars, playing and running RPGs is their hobby, not just another fun thing they can do.
Re Normies vs Hardcores (? hobbists), it occurred to me that my most engaged players are also GMs in other games, regardless of system. Now I'm wondering what would happen if I asked one of my Normie players to GM a one-shot. Make it super easy and help them with the rules. Might it convert them?
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 23, 2021, 04:21:27 PM
Re Normies vs Hardcores (? hobbists), it occurred to me that my most engaged players are also GMs in other games, regardless of system. Now I'm wondering what would happen if I asked one of my Normie players to GM a one-shot. Make it super easy and help them with the rules. Might it convert them?
No. You will give them a nervous breakdown.
I am joking. I agree though that players sometimes sort of take reading the books they own to learn how to play their character as a chore.
Quote from: oggsmash on September 23, 2021, 05:54:57 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 23, 2021, 04:21:27 PM
Re Normies vs Hardcores (? hobbists), it occurred to me that my most engaged players are also GMs in other games, regardless of system. Now I'm wondering what would happen if I asked one of my Normie players to GM a one-shot. Make it super easy and help them with the rules. Might it convert them?
No. You will give them a nervous breakdown.
This has been my experience MULTIPLE times.
When it happens I try to explain not to emulate me, just keep it simple - run a one-shot, and see where it goes. Do a module, a basic dungeoncrawl - use pre-gens. Don't even think of campaigning...
It has never worked longer than 3-to-5 sessions tops. And most of the time it's because they immediately bite off *way* more than they can chew because they've been playing in my campaigns. When I try to help - they get resentful about it. But I always tell them not to do what they think I'm doing.
And it's largely because when they see me GMing, I show up, turn on my laptop, organize my material - battle mats, screens when I feel sexy and mysterious, dice, notepad, pencil. Then it's on with the show.
What they don't see is the amount of time I spend in the evenings working on ideas for my own self-interest that I intend on using in the game longterm. Collating information from other sources and repurposing material. Working on gazeteers for locations we might one day visit if the game takes us there (usually they don't). Working on setpieces, statting up NPC's and making basic skeleton plot-point quests that could lead to larger things.
It's stuff I do because as a longtime GM it's important for me to know - even if it never comes up. But for Normies and new GM's most of this stuff would never cross their mind, because for them the game exists only as far as the module in front of them says so.
There is no box in the room that exists outside of what the flavor text says. There is no extemporaneous context to the world outside of the prescribed adventure. And thus, the Adventure Mindset is the training wheels for Normies and basic-level hobbyists to engage in TTRPG's.
This is why I'm a GM advocate - it takes a GM that *wants* to do this to raise the quality of the game beyond "running adventures". We need GMs. Adventures for my table are *always* happening even when nothing is apparently going on. There is ALWAYS something to do. You can have your PC walk around his room and I'll describe anything and everything they want to examine. They can open up every drawer in their room and I can tell you what's in it - and make it into a mystery that creates "adventure".
"Adventure" is making anything transcend the mundane and making the mundane interesting in context to the limit of your GMing bandwidth. That's the job of the GM to eke out the novelty of their setting in order to make it as real as it can be. To break out of the flavor-text box and let the world breathe.
Quote from: tenbones on September 23, 2021, 06:46:08 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 23, 2021, 05:54:57 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 23, 2021, 04:21:27 PM
Re Normies vs Hardcores (? hobbists), it occurred to me that my most engaged players are also GMs in other games, regardless of system. Now I'm wondering what would happen if I asked one of my Normie players to GM a one-shot. Make it super easy and help them with the rules. Might it convert them?
No. You will give them a nervous breakdown.
This has been my experience MULTIPLE times.
...
"Adventure" is making anything transcend the mundane and making the mundane interesting in context to the limit of your GMing bandwidth. That's the job of the GM to eke out the novelty of their setting in order to make it as real as it can be. To break out of the flavor-text box and let the world breathe.
All very true. A GM like that makes all the difference.
Though, I wasn't suggesting to mint fresh GMs. My comment was more about making better players. In your experience, did the taste of GMing make anyone a more engaged player?
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 23, 2021, 07:18:09 PM
Quote from: tenbones on September 23, 2021, 06:46:08 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on September 23, 2021, 05:54:57 PM
Quote from: rytrasmi on September 23, 2021, 04:21:27 PM
Re Normies vs Hardcores (? hobbists), it occurred to me that my most engaged players are also GMs in other games, regardless of system. Now I'm wondering what would happen if I asked one of my Normie players to GM a one-shot. Make it super easy and help them with the rules. Might it convert them?
No. You will give them a nervous breakdown.
This has been my experience MULTIPLE times.
...
"Adventure" is making anything transcend the mundane and making the mundane interesting in context to the limit of your GMing bandwidth. That's the job of the GM to eke out the novelty of their setting in order to make it as real as it can be. To break out of the flavor-text box and let the world breathe.
All very true. A GM like that makes all the difference.
Though, I wasn't suggesting to mint fresh GMs. My comment was more about making better players. In your experience, did the taste of GMing make anyone a more engaged player?
I say overall - no. I do know it's made them respect, even fear, the GM chair.
But anyone that's in this hobby for the long run has to be a "special" kind of odd to GM for a length of time. I definitely believe it's a craft, and there is a mindset that you need to develop that only real creative people tend to have - an obsessiveness that goes beyond "hey lets play a game".
Let me give you an example - the Normies I know that try to GM are intensely fearful of what the others at the table "think" of their GMing skills. They're terrified of failing. They're scared of making mistakes. They're horrified that we'll think less of them.
They're so fearful it gets in the way of doing their job.
Veteran GM's - they know they're going to fail. They know mistakes will be made. They know there is always some new skill they can be working on to produce better results. They don't care about what their players think of them, because they're too focused on making the game as good as it can be. Everything else then falls into place - or not. Then it's time to figure out what went wrong and try not to make that mistake again next time.
This is true of most crafts which requires social input and feedback. I try to tell these new GM's not to worry about it. Just pick yourself up when you eat shit - and you *will* eat shit - dust yourself off, and get back in the GM saddle. That's how you get better. And so it goes.
Most Normies are dabblers in everything, which can be a good first step. But commitment is what is required in anything to become good at it. Even being player.
Which is an element of what we're really talking about here - level of commitment to playing your character and concept.