I'm not sure why, but every time I make a new thread, 99% responds I get cover things I don't wanna discuss about. Since I'm sober since a few days already I feel like trying one more time. ;)
Anyway, I'll try to keep it as short and as straightforward as possible.
Plenty of settings feature a plot device in form of some Big Threat constantly endangering whole world, civilization, society,
virginity of our women and such. It might be some impending doom, an ancient monster, now dormant but slowly waking up, a giant meteor destined to reduce whole civilization to ashes, hordes of
others, be it drow, enemy kingdom, devil worshipers or other cultist, and so on, and so forth.
I don't want to discuss whether it's useful or not.
My questions are:
- Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
- Do your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
- Did you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat - a thing familiar to your world's inhabitants, that motivates some (PCs) to move their asses and travel across whole world and beyond? A word of explanation: The One Ring from tLoTR setting doesn't match the criteria, since it serves the purpose of getting rid of the Big Threat. The quest to seek Holy Grail would be the better example of what I have in mind. While it might be used as a morale boosting icon for any ruler or general, its purpose isn't to counter any specific Big Threat whatsoever.
Thanks!
Oh, and just for the sake of clarity, the idea for this thread comes from this comment (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?34429-What-do-you-find-when-reaching-the-demi-plane-s-borders&p=898225&viewfull=1#post898225) by DoughDee.
1. Except for my very earliest Fighting Fantasy campaigns (my entry to the hobby), which were dungeon and freedom based, I've always had some kind of large danger appear somewhere in the scheme of things, sooner or later.
2. I think I could run about a half-dozen sessions of exploration with no Big Threat for my current batches of players. After that a Big Threat starts to feel necessary to motivate them and give meaning to their acquisitions and discoveries. Nothing makes you appreciate the value of stuff like a danger to it.
3. I tried a 7th Sea campaign where the players were effectively the Brothers Grimm, roaming the countryside looking for fantastical stories to record for their book. That state of affairs lasted five sessions before they started making supernatural enemies that became the Big Threat. I can't recall if that was more my fault or theirs.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465I'm not sure why, but every time I make a new thread, 99% responds I get cover things I don't wanna discuss about. Since I'm sober since a few days already I feel like trying one more time. ;)
Because its the internet.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465Anyway, I'll try to keep it as short and as straightforward as possible.
Plenty of settings feature a plot device in form of some Big Threat constantly endangering whole world, civilization, society, virginity of our women and such. It might be some impending doom, an ancient monster, now dormant but slowly waking up, a giant meteor destined to reduce whole civilization to ashes, hordes of others, be it drow, enemy kingdom, devil worshipers or other cultist, and so on, and so forth.
I don't want to discuss whether it's useful or not.
My questions are:
- Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
- Do your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
- Did you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat - a thing familiar to your world's inhabitants, that motivates some (PCs) to move their asses and travel across whole world and beyond? A word of explanation: The One Ring from tLoTR setting doesn't match the criteria, since it serves the purpose of getting rid of the Big Threat. The quest to seek Holy Grail would be the better example of what I have in mind. While it might be used as a morale boosting icon for any ruler or general, its purpose isn't to counter any specific Big Threat whatsoever.
Thanks!
Oh, and just for the sake of clarity, the idea for this thread comes from this comment (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?34429-What-do-you-find-when-reaching-the-demi-plane-s-borders&p=898225&viewfull=1#post898225) by DoughDee.
A typical hexcrawl campaign in which the players explore territory and search for treasure doesn't feature any big bad threat in particular and I have run quite a few of those. The motivations as always are to gain fame and fortune, and of course more power.
So many campaigns revolve around saving the world again and again, its refreshing once in awhile to play a game where the world will basically continue to turn no matter what happens and the players are free to pursue personal goals for their characters. Saving the world/kingdom/dorktown over and over again gets stale.
I am running two campaigns currently. One of them is set in Greyhawk and
does feature a big evil threat which needs to be eliminated. The other campaign is set in the old B/X Known World. There are several plots and schemes being hatched by various power players in that campaign but no single terrible evil or doom that must be stopped. In the Known World campaign the players have been dealing with Iron Ring operatives who are in the employ of the Thyatian empire. There are several political schemes going on for the players to get mixed up with but regardless of their involvement, the world just keeps going.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;8984671. Except for my very earliest Fighting Fantasy campaigns (my entry to the hobby), which were dungeon and freedom based, I've always had some kind of large danger appear somewhere in the scheme of things, sooner or later.
Same here.
Quote2. I think I could run about a half-dozen sessions of exploration with no Big Threat for my current batches of players. After that a Big Threat starts to feel necessary to motivate them and give meaning to their acquisitions and discoveries. Nothing makes you appreciate the value of stuff like a danger to it.
Pretty much same here. It usually takes a little more time, but at some point players begin to act a bit clueless (?) and they surely appreciate a tiny push in "right direction".
Quote3. I tried a 7th Sea campaign where the players were effectively the Brothers Grimm, roaming the countryside looking for fantastical stories to record for their book. That state of affairs lasted five sessions before they started making supernatural enemies that became the Big Threat. I can't recall if that was more my fault or theirs.
Fault as in "you find it problematic"?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;898469Because its the internet.
Ah yes, this one I didn't take into account. ;)
QuoteA typical hexcrawl campaign (...)
I realize that even in settings threatened by some menace it's absolutely possible (and common) to have whole campaigns dedicated to something else, but I was specifically interested in settings completely void of some uber-threat. I recall a few, but that's the problem - it's like pretty much every I remember features some global bad thing.
QuoteI am running two campaigns currently. One of them is set in Greyhawk and does feature a big evil threat which needs to be eliminated. The other campaign is set in the old B/X Known World. There are several plots and schemes being hatched by various power players in that campaign but no single terrible evil or doom that must be stopped. In the Known World campaign the players have been dealing with Iron Ring operatives who are in the employ of the Thyatian empire. There are several political schemes going on for the players to get mixed up with but regardless of their involvement, the world just keeps going.
Do you feel that your players miss the feature, or that they are "limited" in any way when there's no "ultimate threat" in their world? Do they complain, or simply share some opinion regarding that?
In a fantasy game, the 'Big Threat' idea makes me puke so hard blood squirts out my ass. Best way to make sure I don't play.
I want a world to explore and go where I wish.
If I use a big threat I usually let my players be the ones who release it. They're good at that.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465Plenty of settings feature a plot device in form of some Big Threat constantly endangering whole world, civilization, society, virginity of our women and such. It might be some impending doom, an ancient monster, now dormant but slowly waking up, a giant meteor destined to reduce whole civilization to ashes, hordes of others, be it drow, enemy kingdom, devil worshipers or other cultist, and so on, and so forth.
I don't want to discuss whether it's useful or not.
My questions are:
- Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
- Do your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
- Did you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat - a thing familiar to your world's inhabitants, that motivates some (PCs) to move their asses and travel across whole world and beyond? A word of explanation: The One Ring from tLoTR setting doesn't match the criteria, since it serves the purpose of getting rid of the Big Threat. The quest to seek Holy Grail would be the better example of what I have in mind. While it might be used as a morale boosting icon for any ruler or general, its purpose isn't to counter any specific Big Threat whatsoever.
First the obvious:
Almost every setting can have a Big Threat added or be played without that kind of meta-plot.
But that is not what you are asking for.
So, I started to see what I games I know that doesn't have one, and that made me wind up with another question:
How big do the threat have to be, in order to be The Big Bad?
How "ever present" does it have to be?
Post apocalyptic games often lack an overarching threat, seeing as the world has already been destroyed and the emphasis can be on rebuilding and exploration.
Our Gamma World games never had huge world-threatening threats... just local stuff, with a general goal of rebuilding civilization and gathering resources.
Earthdawn is post-apocalyptic fantasy but the big bads there, the 'Horrors' are on the wane and major terrestrial threat, the Therans, are just a murmur of distant wars unless you want to engage it head on.
Quote from: Catelf;898495How big do the threat have to be, in order to be The Big Bad?
How "ever present" does it have to be?
Call of Cthulhu has big bads but there's no reason they have to be anything like an immediate threat. They provide an atmosphere of doom but not necessarily any more than knowing the sun will eventually die.
Most of the CoC games I've run, despite the megaplot of the Old Ones inevitable return, focused on low scale stuff... weird crimes committed by cultists, the occasional sorcerer or monster.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;8984651. Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
Yes, frequently. Star Wars is the only notable exception and even in that campaign one of the main player groups were smugglers who were trying to make the vig and payments to their loan shark every month while hoping to find a "big score." The captain was completely mercenary in her aims. A female Han Solo with a heart of lead.
Quote2. Do your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
They seem to. Several seem to prefer a smaller scale of problems and threats.
Quote3. Did you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat - a thing familiar to your world's inhabitants, that motivates some (PCs) to move their asses and travel across whole world and beyond?
No.
- Some campaigns are mission based where the PCs are people who go on missions that other people assign to them e.g. members of the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars or Star Fleet in Star Trek.
- Some campaigns have a smaller focus e.g. one's extended family, or clan, possibly even a tribe. Events weren't about setting ending threats.
- Some campaigns are open ended sandboxes and the PCs are the sort of greedy, selfish bastards that Gronan likes to run who provide their own motivations.
- Or maybe they run nice guys who like to help people. In any world I run there is always some poor, oppressed bastard who needs the help of some altruistic do-gooder. Just like the real world.
- Or the game might be Pendragon which comes with a whole family of motivations for adventure.[/COLOR]
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465My questions are:
Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
Yes to both, since I kinda like Tekumel;)!
QuoteDo your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
The proactive ones tend to like it more:p.
QuoteDid you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat - a thing familiar to your world's inhabitants, that motivates some (PCs) to move their asses and travel across whole world and beyond?
You mean, apart from lust, greed, patriotism, glory-hounding, self-actualization, religion or the lack thereof and non-world-spanning security concerns:D?
My 4 current campaigns:
4e Loudwater - classic Big Threat, as Orcus & Szass Tamm seek to conquer/destroy Faerun.
5e Wilderlands Ghinarian Hills - Empire of Neo-Nerath is a biggish threat, but limited in scope - you could always just leave the threatened area.
5e Shattered Star - has the Runelords of Thassilon on the horizon, though pretty abstract/remote currently.
Classic Karameikos - has the Master of the Desert Nomads.
So I don't have a campaign devoid of a Big Threat, but they're not all world-ending.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465- Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
- Do your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
- Did you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat - a thing familiar to your world's inhabitants, that motivates some (PCs) to move their asses and travel across whole world and beyond? A word of explanation: The One Ring from tLoTR setting doesn't match the criteria, since it serves the purpose of getting rid of the Big Threat. The quest to seek Holy Grail would be the better example of what I have in mind. While it might be used as a morale boosting icon for any ruler or general, its purpose isn't to counter any specific Big Threat whatsoever.
Thanks!
1a: Its not all that common except in modules. where it gets over-used A-LOT. Which is why some of us probably have a slight aversion to such.
Settings I know of without such threats. BX's Known World, O and AD&D's Greyhawk, 2e's Forgotten Realms up untill they totally fucked that up repeatedly. 1 & 2e Gamma World are another example. 3 & 4e not sure on. Alt GW went back to neutral and fuck if anyone can decipher what the hell d20 & 4e D&D GW had. Dark Sun probably counts too. When EVERYTHING wants to kill you, horribly, it is hard to have a big bad. ahem. Spelljammer was another. Thers alot of stuff going on. But the core setting was neutral. Modules and box settings though kept trying to one-up eachother for threat level. Shadowrun is another. Theres no overall threat. They did introduce a few later. But again the start off didnt.
Tekumel also comes to mind.
1b: As a DM I've run two world-ender modules with such a theme and were alot of fun. But as a DM if running my own stuff there is none. There are threats. But not world-enders. As a player I am more or less neutral on it. LEaning to a mild dislike due to over-use by various publishers. Especially when introduced to settings that were up till then neutral. It bugs me a little.
2: I prefer world-ender-less settings/plots as a player and a DM. There may certainly be big threats. But they arent going to end civilization or all life. Though I do occasionally enjoy villains that THINK this is what they are.
3: Yes! Natural disasters, or good old fashioned war. But natural disasters are my go-to for big threats. A volcano thats imminent to blow or lava flows, stopping a flood, famine, pestilence. Famine in Far-Go for GW was one of those where the PCs were sent off to find food. Or no overall threat at all. Just exploration or putting down whatever little incidents crop up.
Quote from: David Johansen;898491If I use a big threat I usually let my players be the ones who release it. They're good at that.
...and there's absolutely no manipulation or concealment on your part? No "roll dice... hmmmm, 19,18,19,19... Nope, the sword looks perfectly harmless, I mean, all things considering. It just lies there, on the altar, glows with bright red runes and there's, like, an aura of total darkness surrounding it, but don't they all look like that?" :D
Quote from: Catelf;898495So, I started to see what I games I know that doesn't have one, and that made me wind up with another question:
How big do the threat have to be, in order to be The Big Bad?
How "ever present" does it have to be?
Let's see... I'm thinking about something threatening whole world. It doesn't mean that everyone is aware of that fact (
"Sra... Sarong... Sauron? Nope, first time I hear that name. Some exotic inn far away from the Hobbiton, I presume?"), but the threat is very real. It doesn't have to mean "total destruction" either. Enslavement, control, the need to leave the place and migrate elsewhere ("Interstellar" movie) are considered "the Big Bad" too.
Whether the cataclysm might be averted is irrelevant.
Quote from: Simlasa;898496Post apocalyptic games often lack an overarching threat, seeing as the world has already been destroyed and the emphasis can be on rebuilding and exploration.
I can name a few post-apo movies or books/comic books where there's no "Big Threat" per se, still I don't recall many games featuring such a setting. Pretty much every one I remember follows the idea of civilization being threatened by "the Wasteland", being a mix of harsh environment and hostile forces (raiders, zombies, mutants, robots and what not).
Any specific title?
Quote from: Bren;898497Yes, frequently.
Are you willing to name some? :)
QuoteThey seem to. Several seem to prefer a smaller scale of problems and threats.
I'd even risk the statement, that "save the world" makes rather poor choice for early adventures, unless players (like those in your SW example) are oblivious to the Big Picture and don't realize initially they are slowly becoming part of massive story.
QuoteNo.
Too bad, I counted on some interesting and unorthodox solutions.
I appreciate the examples, though.
Quote from: AsenRG;898498Yes to both, since I kinda like Tekumel;)!
Kinda? ;)
Side note: Tekumel is mentioned pretty often here. Funny thing is, that I rarely hear about it elsewhere, and I move a lot.
QuoteThe proactive ones tend to like it more:p.
Out of curiosity: does any of your gaming group spent considerably long time in any setting void of "The Big Threat" without succumbing to a boredom? I'm not suggesting its inevitable - I'm interested in other people's experience.
QuoteYou mean, apart from lust, greed, patriotism, glory-hounding, self-actualization, religion or the lack thereof and non-world-spanning security concerns:D?
But uncle Asen, aside of the last one each of your examples make perfect motivation for the Big Bad Evil Guy or war, and they in turn might be/become the Big Threat himself. :D
Quote from: Catelf;898495How big do the threat have to be, in order to be The Big Bad?
How "ever present" does it have to be?
Call of Cthulhu has big bads but there's no reason they have to be anything like an immediate threat. Most of the CoC games I've run, despite the megaplot of the Old Ones inevitable return, focused on low scale stuff... weird crimes committed by cultists, the occasional sorcerer or monster.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898505I can name a few post-apo movies or books/comic books where there's no "Big Threat" per se, still I don't recall many games featuring such a setting. Pretty much every one I remember follows the idea of civilization being threatened by "the Wasteland", being a mix of harsh environment and hostile forces (raiders, zombies, mutants, robots and what not).
Now you're muddying your own waters.
The environment is always a threat if you get stuck out there with no resources. But most any PA setting I know has 'points of light'... even if they are rough and tumble places like Bartertown. Hostile forces are often just local threats... gangs, warlords. Nothing threatening the world that must be dealt with for the sake of humanity. Zombies are an ongoing apocalypse, like alien invaders or a robot plague, not 'post apocalypse' until those factors are under control to a great degree.
Are you asking for settings with no threats at all? Even Candyland has squares that will set you back.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898505Side note: Tekumel is mentioned pretty often here. Funny thing is, that I rarely hear about it elsewhere, and I move a lot.
I think Tekumel gets mentioned here alot because we have at least two major players of the original and friends of the designer. And neither seems to post much of anywhere else. Pretty quiet over on BGG/RPGG for example.
Quote from: S'mon;898499So I don't have a campaign devoid of a Big Threat, but they're not all world-ending.
I see. "World Ending" part isn't that important, I'm thinking about disbanding current global threat from my setting and replace it with... something else, I'm not sure what. I'm looking for some ideas and .
Side note: I'm reading your blogs (I pay closer attention to SS campaign), and I must say that I find it quite impressive that you manage to control 4 quite difficult and complicated campaigns at once.
Quote from: Omega;8985021a:
Some good examples, yay! :)
I'd argue about Darksun (the Desert/Dragons) and Shadowrun (Dragons/Corporations) but I guess it's subjective point of view, so no big deal.
Quote1b: As a DM I've run two world-ender modules with such a theme and were alot of fun. But as a DM if running my own stuff there is none. There are threats. But not world-enders. As a player I am more or less neutral on it. LEaning to a mild dislike due to over-use by various publishers. Especially when introduced to settings that were up till then neutral. It bugs me a little.
Same here. I understand it might give players some purpose, but damn, when you read it for umptenth time, it starts to look like laziness...
Quote2: I prefer world-ender-less settings/plots as a player and a DM. There may certainly be big threats. But they arent going to end civilization or all life. Though I do occasionally enjoy villains that THINK this is what they are.
Megalomaniacs? Yeah, they are fun. I admit of using "reversals" a few times in the past - once a villain joining the ranks of "saviors" upon learning that he and his ambitions are nothing in comparison to really big and nasty stuff.
Quote3: Yes! Natural disasters, or good old fashioned war. But natural disasters are my go-to for big threats. A volcano thats imminent to blow or lava flows, stopping a flood, famine, pestilence. Famine in Far-Go for GW was one of those where the PCs were sent off to find food. Or no overall threat at all. Just exploration or putting down whatever little incidents crop up.
I see. Shifting from macro- to micro-scale. Unless... Hmmmm, did you ever run a campaign/setting where famine and starvation were omnipresent, but not in "Delicatessen"/"Soylent Green" way, but to the point where poeople lacking skills/usefulness/luck were treated purely as food source?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898505...and there's absolutely no manipulation or concealment on your part? No "roll dice... hmmmm, 19,18,19,19... Nope, the sword looks perfectly harmless, I mean, all things considering. It just lies there, on the altar, glows with bright red runes and there's, like, an aura of total darkness surrounding it, but don't they all look like that?" :D
I haven't found any need for manipulation or concealment.
I mean, when their spirits were summoned to the Celestial bureaucracy to meet a bureaucrat, and it went fine. Then somehow, someone stopped their way to the bodies, and an old hermit asked them to bring a certain specific stone with an ominous-sounding name to another hermit, suggesting they would be rewarded.
Because it totally wasn't someone hijacking their spirits to make a counter-offer, you know...who would do that:)?They did as they were asked, and I set up a timer in my notes - time until religious wars start to break out. They'd just released the Demon of Religious Wars. This was the world-spanning threat... we didn't have one at the start.
The same player also entrusted the command of her army detachment to her student, "because she's better with logistics". The same student that she knew lacks compassion, manipulates people, uses her powers for fun and profit, and thinks her Teacher the PC only cares about the results.
Three sessions in, she noticed everybody else in the army has started erecting walls around their camps, and didn't mix with her soldiers. Her mindwiped (she never found that out), controlled by a system of rewards and punishments, soldiers with iron discipline and total lack of compassion... It was great fun when she did find out:D!
That's from the same campaign, BTW.
QuoteKinda? ;)
That might have been a slight understatement.
QuoteSide note: Tekumel is mentioned pretty often here. Funny thing is, that I rarely hear about it elsewhere, and I move a lot.
You hear about what people are playing, and most people play what they hear others had fun with. Play more Tekumel, and others will imitate you. Then you'd hear about it more, too;)!
QuoteOut of curiosity: does any of your gaming group spent considerably long time in any setting void of "The Big Threat" without succumbing to a boredom? I'm not suggesting its inevitable - I'm interested in other people's experience.
All my campaigns that pass the three-session mark last for years. From the last five that have concluded, only one had a Big Bad Evil...something, and that's the one I referred to upthread.
Doesn't seem like they're about to get bored. World-spanning disasters seem to be just a GM shortcut, not something most players want or need.
QuoteBut uncle Asen, aside of the last one each of your examples make perfect motivation for the Big Bad Evil Guy or war, and they in turn might be/become the Big Threat himself. :D
Even if the PCs become the Big Threat, it's not one I've needed to put in the setting;).
And yes, NPCs have those motivations, too. The question is, however, whether any NPC or group has the means to be(come) more than a local threat, and the answer, most often, is a resounding "nope":D!
Quote from: Simlasa;898513(...) Are you asking for settings with no threats at all? Even Candyland has squares that will set you back.
Heavens, no!
It's just that
the Wasteland IS the Threat. See, I can lead my players outside of urban environment in modern-day setting and from the perspective of their PCs, they have absolutely no reason to feel threatened. Sure, the adventure - this particular adventure - might override it (they are hunting a werewolf, be chased by some supernatural force, or even such mundane enemies as police, or some other specific conditions apply), but by default, they have not much to fear while traveling between city X and town Y.
Funnily enough this somewhat applies to plenty of other genres too, including SF and fantasy (except of combat heavy settings/zones) - IF something happens to PCs on the way, it's because the GM wants it to happen, or because they are actively looking for troubles.
Point is, there are craploads of settings quite "safe" by default.
In post-apo settings, leaving any stronghold of civilization is risky. In certain examples the land itself might kill you in addition to roaming hordes of "monsters". You KNOW that outside of "city walls", you're gonna fight for your life.
Quote from: Omega;898514I think Tekumel gets mentioned here alot because we have at least two major players of the original and friends of the designer. And neither seems to post much of anywhere else. Pretty quiet over on BGG/RPGG for example.
Reasonable, thanks for the explanation.
I guess pretty much every RPG site/portal/forum has its own "pet game/system/setting" and since I'm still quite new here, the source of Tekumel's popularity wasn't very obvious to me. :)
Pretty much everything from Japan with a Studio Ghibli look to its cover. They were fun. Would play again.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898518I'd argue about Darksun (the Desert/Dragons) and Shadowrun (Dragons/Corporations) but I guess it's subjective point of view, so no big deal.
Same here. I understand it might give players some purpose, but damn, when you read it for umptenth time, it starts to look like laziness...
Megalomaniacs? Yeah, they are fun. I admit of using "reversals" a few times in the past - once a villain joining the ranks of "saviors" upon learning that he and his ambitions are nothing in comparison to really big and nasty stuff.
I see. Shifting from macro- to micro-scale. Unless... Hmmmm, did you ever run a campaign/setting where famine and starvation were omnipresent, but not in "Delicatessen"/"Soylent Green" way, but to the point where poeople lacking skills/usefulness/luck were treated purely as food source?
1: In SR things like dragons and corps though are not omnipresent overarching threats. They are just one more threat amongst many and again in the early days the setting didnt have huge threats. Just lots and lots of dirty deals, schemes and powerplays that even the dragons got into without threatening all.
2: It depends. It can give a purpose. But it can also be a chore. Played one way, Tyranny of Dragons is a great epic threat. Played another and its a mess. Making sure the players are on board for the concept is absolutely vital. If I pitch a campaign like that and they say no then I move on. The current group I DM for was fine with it as they knew Id be giving them free reign to approach as they pleased. And they did!
3: In a long Gamma World campaign as a player that was essentially what my group became composed of aside from myself. We'd lose crew and pick up a villain along the way who was impressed with how they got beat and joined up.
4: One Oriental Adventures campaign went like that. A famine event hit right as the campaign started and it was pretty brutal. Though in that case the famine wasnt so much the threat as the aftermath and dealing with the people was. The DM rolled a 7 for the duration. So 7 months wherein the population was reduced by 35%. And not all was due to starvation. Then the plague hit and THAT lasted a merciless 12 months! So the survivours were reduced by 60%. Gojira and Gamera wrasslin on main street would have been less devastating.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898525It's just that the Wasteland IS the Threat.
So any setting with expansive wilderness is out? Wilderness is a Big Threat? So no Westerns (Natives, bandits, dangerous critters)? Your thesis requires a tamed countryside where travel is free of danger, excepting maybe known and localized danger... contained... 'don't go in that cave' sort of things?
I use it sometimes, not all the time. My current campaign, for example, is a fantasy sandbox. The PCs are members of The Empire which is surrounded by potential threats. To the east is a lizardman empire which could attack. The the west are nomads in the plains who are getting restless. To the north are Viking-like tribes who want to expand their territory. To the south are pseudo-Christian nations who would love to spread their gospel to the Empire. The players have the choice to poke at any of these threats or none of them. As I noted in the other thread they are currently dealing with a "god of the undead" entity and his roaming extra-dimensional city.
In past campaigns though I have used Big Bads such as enemy nations which threaten Civilization as We Know It. My Robot Warriors campaign in college involved America being attacked by an Islamic union while Earth was being attacked by aliens. Back in high school I ran an AD&D game and the campaign was about saving the nation from various cults and threats which culminated in the Giants and their Drow allies making war on Humans.
We've enjoyed both types of campaigns.
Yes, yes and yes. While my feelings on the subject isn't as pungent as Gronan's -- for one thing, I've used Big Threat plot arcs -- it's a hackneyed, overused trope.
How do you "motivate" players without one? Quite aside from the laundry lists Asen and others have presented, part of it is just having players who don't need to be Saving! The! World! each and every game session. It's a matter of mindset, scale and presentation.
The Enemy Of Your Nation doesn't have to be the Evil Empire, complete with sick and twisted rituals, mass murder, worship of Cthulhu, Sith Lords on the throne, and Heinrich Himmler running their secret police. It can be plain old geopolitics: two countries fighting over the same turf, three wars in the last century, the frontier province that's changed hands after each one, traditional stereotypes, touchy national pride, and military establishments feeling their oats, because without war, how can anyone achieve glory or promotion? And more: neighboring countries that really don't care all that much. Naturally the security of the world hinges on the defeat of a Hitler or a Sauron, but beyond "Well, at least they're not pestering us" or "Hmm, let's see what concessions we can wrangle," what's the stake of a Spain or a Russia in the Franco-Prussian War, say?
That's how you present that sort of plot arc.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898505Are you willing to name some? :)
Sure.
- My original D&D campaign had no world ending (or country ending) threats. Neither did the campaigns of anyone I played with back in the 1970s. Quests to save the world just weren't what we ever did.
- Glorantha, from the point of view of the Hero Wars, might be said to have world changing threats, but back in the Runequest 1-3 days supplements like Apple Lane, Snake Pipe Hollow, Griffin Mountain, Pavis, The Big Rubble, Borderlands, and Trollpak each outlined a world where the threats and challenges for the PCs were far from world ending in scope.
- Some settings have a world ending sort of threat as part of the background, but in practice the PCs often aren't expected to solve that problem in play. Glorantha's Hero Wars, Stormbringer's eventual cataclysmic confrontation between Law and Chaos, and Star Wars Emperor Palpatine all fall into those categories.
- In settings like Star Trek where the TV shows occasionally and the movies nearly always had a save the universe this week plot, we chose to focus play on exploration, lesser threats, and political intrigue. A typical lesser threat would be a threat to the whole ship and crew, but not to a planet, the Federation, a galactic quadrant, or even the entire universe.
One complaint I've heard leveled against Star Trek and against Star Wars (especially some of the novels) is the repetitive and increasingly implausible galactic threats and planet destroying super weapons. Another is the fact that only the USS Enterprise or Luke, Leia, Han, and Chewie seem to be able to stop any of these threats. Everyone else in the universe just seems to sit around on their ass doing nothing too important. I think that my players and I are old enough and jaded enough by the save the world, quest based fiction we've read and seen that games focused on that seem implausible or unattractive to us for one reason or another.
QuoteI'd even risk the statement, that "save the world" makes rather poor choice for early adventures, unless players (like those in your SW example) are oblivious to the Big Picture and don't realize initially they are slowly becoming part of massive story.
Save the world tends to be a poor choice the closer a game is to zero to hero since the zero's aren't capable of stopping a world ending threat and plausibly there should be a some NPC heroes who are at least giving save the world a try. However in a point-buy based system or a game like Barbarians of Lemuria or Honor+Intrigue where PCs start out very competent the lack of PC capability isn't so much an issue. Lack of knowledge (and concern) about the world may still be a concern.
Even in our Star Wars campaign which ran for nearly 10 years, the Rebel PCs never stopped the Empire and were rarely (only twice out of hundreds of sessions) faced with planet destroying threats.
QuoteToo bad, I counted on some interesting and unorthodox solutions.
I see a setting without world ending problem as the norm rather than the exception. So from my point of view there is no need for a solution because there is no problem. In fact I see a really big problem to world ending threats. What happens to all my setting prep when the PCs fail and the world is destroyed?
Is the problem you are experiencing that unless the world is in peril, the players just want their PCs to hang around corner tavern or sit in their living rooms watching holonet dramas? Or is it some other problem?
QuoteSide note: Tekumel is mentioned pretty often here. Funny thing is, that I rarely hear about it elsewhere, and I move a lot.
You have some old geezers on this site whose memory goes back to the early days of the hobby when Tekumel was better known – in part because it was at one time one of the handful of RPGs that existed and the one with the most detailed setting. And some folks here played with the creator. And there is a really long active thread about Tekumel.
QuoteOut of curiosity: does any of your gaming group spent considerably long time in any setting void of "The Big Threat" without succumbing to a boredom? I'm not suggesting its inevitable - I'm interested in other people's experience.
Yeah. We tend to play a lot in each setting. My current Honor+Intrigue campaign has been going on weekly since July 2012. It's not as long lasting as several other campaigns, but it is getting there. Last Friday we played session 203. There has yet to be a world ending threat of any kind. The players don't seem bored.
The only game where world ending threats are the norm that we do play is Call of Cthulhu and there the PCs never end the threat, at best they delay it.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898518I see. "World Ending" part isn't that important, I'm thinking about disbanding current global threat from my setting and replace it with... something else, I'm not sure what. I'm looking for some ideas
I'd replace it with a world without a global threat. A world in which the PCs struggle for success whether that is personal, family, or community against the sort of obstacles: NPCs with conflicting goals and occasionally the environment itself.
- Maybe they save Nottingham and the surrounding area from the depredations of the dastardly Sheriff. He's not planning on killing everyone, turning them into zombies, ushering in the Great Old ones, or even enslaving everyone. He just wants to enforce the Norman status quo and extract the last farthing of unjust taxes from the oppressed Saxon yeomanry.
- Or make the PCs the Sheriff, his deputies, the mayor, and the biggest cattle baron in the county and let them struggle to protect the town from hostile Indians, drought, the nefarious rail baron whose rail line is going to turn their community into a ghost town.
- Or the PCs are a Viking family in Norway or Iceland. Their struggles with the grasping local Jarl, the family in the next fiord over who are their hereditary enemies, the vagaries of sea and storm; leading Viking raids on Scotland, Ireland, England, and France, or trading expeditions to the Baltic.
QuoteI see. Shifting from macro- to micro-scale.
Shifting scale is one approach. Shifting focus from saving the world to maintaining or increasing one's wealth, power, status, and influence is another. Those goals tend to be much less about saving the world. I tend to do both in the games I run.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898525It's just that the Wasteland IS the Threat. See, I can lead my players outside of urban environment in modern-day setting and from the perspective of their PCs, they have absolutely no reason to feel threatened. Sure, the adventure - this particular adventure - might override it (they are hunting a werewolf, be chased by some supernatural force, or even such mundane enemies as police, or some other specific conditions apply), but by default, they have not much to fear while traveling between city X and town Y.
The modern developed world is pretty safe. I've found petty theft, e.g. pick pockets to be a significant threat in some parts of Europe and any country is likely to have some bad neighborhoods, but physical violence is pretty rare in outside those areas. Outside the cities in the developed world we've eliminated animals like wolves, lions, and bears that pose a threat and brigandage is at an all time low. Now if the PCs travel by ship in certain waters piracy is still a valid threat even in the modern world. And in some third world countries anarchy and banditry is still an issue. But I wouldn't expect a modern day police procedural, spy vs. spy, or monster hunters campaign would have game events driven by random monster tables with actual monsters.
QuoteFunnily enough this somewhat applies to plenty of other genres too, including SF and fantasy (except of combat heavy settings/zones) - IF something happens to PCs on the way, it's because the GM wants it to happen, or because they are actively looking for troubles.
I use a lot of random encounters. Not all are dangerous, but brigandage is still an issue in 1620s Europe whether inside or outside of a city. And gentleman all carry swords and a lot of people are pretty touchy about their honor and dueling is a cultural norm. It is worth keeping in mind that the most dangerous thing to man is other men.
QuotePoint is, there are craploads of settings quite "safe" by default.
Do many people base campaigns on settings that are quite safe?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465My questions are:
- Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
- Do your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
- Did you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat - a thing familiar to your world's inhabitants, that motivates some (PCs) to move their asses and travel across whole world and beyond? A word of explanation: The One Ring from tLoTR setting doesn't match the criteria, since it serves the purpose of getting rid of the Big Threat. The quest to seek Holy Grail would be the better example of what I have in mind. While it might be used as a morale boosting icon for any ruler or general, its purpose isn't to counter any specific Big Threat whatsoever.
Does it count if I sort of have such a threat, but the point is not to beat it?
My Twilight Dominion setting (totally homebrew, so no product to point you towards) is basically a mashup of Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique, Doyle's Hyperboria, and the world of Den from the Heavy Metal movie. Earth's in it's twilight, the most powerful individual is
The Necromancer, the Empire isn't nice, and hates you, and people cavort with dark powers. And all the plots are personal. One had the players preventing the empress from making a pact with the necromancer, not because it will save them, but because she screwed them over. Another has them swooping into a city about to be destroyed, not to save the town, but to save a love interest of one of the necromancer's minions in exchange for removing a rune the necromancer put on them.
I have a "big threat" in my Traveller campaign, The Black Ships or Guild Droyne, that have conquered part of the frontier. They are alien "transhumanist", higher tech, eschatological crusaders; ie they know "God" is real (Yaskodray), but God is evil. So that they struggle against their deterministic enemies, the "Children of God", eg the colonists. Mostly they are just targets though, the players crew an attack ship, fighting behind the lines as a mixed group of mercenaries. The Black Ships are over extended, and about to be rolled back, but nobody totally knows that. There is an undercurrent of creating over all unity amongst the various states, often which have opposing aims. On top of that there is the old Imperium, now Byzantine, practicing power projection.
Quote from: AsenRG;898521All my campaigns that pass the three-session mark last for years. From the last five that have concluded, only one had a Big Bad Evil...something, and that's the one I referred to upthread.
Doesn't seem like they're about to get bored. World-spanning disasters seem to be just a GM shortcut, not something most players want or need.
So far, I think it depends on both "sides" of the equation - true, good GM should theoretically be able to create vision interesting enough for players to find their own source of satisfaction, determine their own goals and such. Yet, there are parties that (for often different reasons) don't feel like becoming parts of the setting and expect for the GM to place "adventure, this way" signs.
I think it deserves a thread on its own. ;)
QuoteEven if the PCs become the Big Threat, it's not one I've needed to put in the setting;).
And yes, NPCs have those motivations, too. The question is, however, whether any NPC or group has the means to be(come) more than a local threat, and the answer, most often, is a resounding "nope":D!
Sorry, by "they" I meant BBEEG/War, not PCs.
As for the means, well, it's up to the GM, ain't it? Local gangster, a bully really, might become turned by a vampire, find/steal a powerful artifact or simply find himself in right place, right time and become next world conqueror. It happened with a certain painter, after all... ;)
Quote from: Opaopajr;898547Pretty much everything from Japan with a Studio Ghibli look to its cover. They were fun. Would play again.
I'm unfamiliar with that. Gonna check it. Thank you!
Quote from: Omega;8985521: In SR things like dragons and corps though are not omnipresent overarching threats. They are just one more threat amongst many and again in the early days the setting didnt have huge threats. Just lots and lots of dirty deals, schemes and powerplays that even the dragons got into without threatening all.
I've always assumed they are meant to fill the boots of Big Threat, that everything what happens on the global scale is a result of their manipulations, is part of their schemes and that people realize that but no one might tell just what the big picture is.
At least that's how I presented the setting when I still played it.
Side note: I find the differences in the way people explain same settings/lore very interesting. It's actually damn awesome to see same world remade according to alternative power structure. :)
Quote2: It depends. It can give a purpose. But it can also be a chore. Played one way, Tyranny of Dragons is a great epic threat. Played another and its a mess. Making sure the players are on board for the concept is absolutely vital. If I pitch a campaign like that and they say no then I move on. The current group I DM for was fine with it as they knew Id be giving them free reign to approach as they pleased. And they did!
I take it, your campaign involved The Big Threat, but PCs weren't absolutely crucial to deal with it?
Quote3: In a long Gamma World campaign as a player that was essentially what my group became composed of aside from myself. We'd lose crew and pick up a villain along the way who was impressed with how they got beat and joined up.
If I may ask, he joined as a NPC, DMPC, full PC?
Quote4: One Oriental Adventures campaign went like that. A famine event hit right as the campaign started and it was pretty brutal. Though in that case the famine wasnt so much the threat as the aftermath and dealing with the people was. The DM rolled a 7 for the duration. So 7 months wherein the population was reduced by 35%. And not all was due to starvation. Then the plague hit and THAT lasted a merciless 12 months! So the survivours were reduced by 60%. Gojira and Gamera wrasslin on main street would have been less devastating.
Interesting. How PCs approached the challenge? Did they focus on food, or attempted to fix the world, or...?
Quote from: Simlasa;898563So any setting with expansive wilderness is out? Wilderness is a Big Threat? So no Westerns (Natives, bandits, dangerous critters)? Your thesis requires a tamed countryside where travel is free of danger, excepting maybe known and localized danger... contained... 'don't go in that cave' sort of things?
To answer that properly, I'd have to develop a precise definition specifying what it acceptable, and what is not. I'm not looking for that level of precision. Feel free to throw a few settings you consider relevant to what I'm looking for. I'll appreciate any recommendation. :)
Quote from: Doughdee222;898586I use it sometimes, not all the time. My current campaign, for example, is a fantasy sandbox. The PCs are members of The Empire which is surrounded by potential threats. To the east is a lizardman empire which could attack. The the west are nomads in the plains who are getting restless. To the north are Viking-like tribes who want to expand their territory. To the south are pseudo-Christian nations who would love to spread their gospel to the Empire. The players have the choice to poke at any of these threats or none of them. As I noted in the other thread they are currently dealing with a "god of the undead" entity and his roaming extra-dimensional city.
It looks like deadly times to live in. Out of curiosity: how did your players react to such a setting? Did they perceive it as a challenge, a window of opportunity to have truckloads of great adventures, or were they "who, dude, isn't it too much?" In addition, was the overall situation immediately explained, or did they learn about everything on the way, sort of "one threat at a time"?
QuoteIn past campaigns though I have used Big Bads such as enemy nations which threaten Civilization as We Know It. My Robot Warriors campaign in college involved America being attacked by an Islamic union while Earth was being attacked by aliens. Back in high school I ran an AD&D game and the campaign was about saving the nation from various cults and threats which culminated in the Giants and their Drow allies making war on Humans.
We've enjoyed both types of campaigns.
I wouldn't want it to become next politically themed thread, but I'm curious about that USA vs IU campaign of yours. Do you keep some campaign log by any chance?
Quote from: Ravenswing;898589(...) That's how you present that sort of plot arc.
So, a tension, rather than immediate threat.
Out of curiosity: would you rather send a clear message about who is "the worse one", or choose ambiguous solution? You know, "Hitler, that way", or "well, you start in country X, there's a tension on western and eastern borders, but who is right and who is wrong it's up to you to find out, guys".
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;898594Does it count if I sort of have such a threat, but the point is not to beat it?
Precisely, or even more precisely: it's up to the PCs whether they choose to go this way. If they won't then the world stays as it is: threatened, indefinitely balancing "on the verge of destruction" and such.
QuoteMy Twilight Dominion setting (totally homebrew, so no product to point you towards) is basically a mashup of Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique, Doyle's Hyperboria, and the world of Den from the Heavy Metal movie. Earth's in it's twilight, the most powerful individual is The Necromancer, the Empire isn't nice, and hates you, and people cavort with dark powers. And all the plots are personal. One had the players preventing the empress from making a pact with the necromancer, not because it will save them, but because she screwed them over. Another has them swooping into a city about to be destroyed, not to save the town, but to save a love interest of one of the necromancer's minions in exchange for removing a rune the necromancer put on them.
This certainly sounds like Zothique. :)
A word, if I might: does that mean, that in your campaigns players face the Big Threat, but they can't do much about that? Sort of doomed situation where the only reasonable thing to do is to survive and at best, postpone/avoid the inevitable?
Quote from: dragoner;898599I have a "big threat" in my Traveller campaign, The Black Ships or Guild Droyne, that have conquered part of the frontier. They are alien "transhumanist", higher tech, eschatological crusaders; ie they know "God" is real (Yaskodray), but God is evil. So that they struggle against their deterministic enemies, the "Children of God", eg the colonists. Mostly they are just targets though, the players crew an attack ship, fighting behind the lines as a mixed group of mercenaries. The Black Ships are over extended, and about to be rolled back, but nobody totally knows that. There is an undercurrent of creating over all unity amongst the various states, often which have opposing aims. On top of that there is the old Imperium, now Byzantine, practicing power projection.
I rarely hear about anybody using fulls-scale religious conflict in SF environment and the majority of such events come form
Fading Suns players. Quite original, I must say.
Do you plan for PCs to have something more to say about this situation, or are they destined to observe things from the back row, so to speak? Or, even better, do
your players plan to do anything about that?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898518Side note: I'm reading your blogs (I pay closer attention to SS campaign), and I must say that I find it quite impressive that you manage to control 4 quite difficult and complicated campaigns at once.
Wow. Well done. I'm flattered. :cool:
4 campaigns at once is really too many I think; I'm planning to rest the weekly online Ghinarian Hills one (5e S&S) for a bit until I can conclude the fortnightly Loudwater (4e Epic) one in August. I can't rest my weekly Mentzer Classic Karameikos game since I love the players too much & my son plays in it & would kill me. :D Also one of the players is a brilliant instigator, her renegade Claudia Morrigan Thief PC is returning with plans to wreak horrible revenge on erstwhile Cleric PC comrade Roseanna 'the White Dame' and I'm keen to see how that plays out. My 5e Shattered Star game is trucking along nicely fortnightly, wisest thing there is not to mess with it.
To the extent I have a secret for running 3-4 games, it's minimal prep - only the Pathfinder AP ones ever take much work. Taking good post-session notes is the main thing I do. Generally it's just as easy to create material at the table as beforehand, and simple published adventures (eg Basic Fantasy stuff) make just as good a canvas as complicated ones.
Quote from: Bren;898590Sure.
Thank you.
Side note: Glorantha is my weakness. I wanted to play it since time I encountered
The King of Dragon Pass video game, that used Glorantha (or perhaps parts of its lore) for the setting. Unfortunately, I never had the chance. No GMs running them, no players, costly books, different versions/editions... Oh well.
QuoteOne complaint I've heard leveled against Star Trek and against Star Wars (especially some of the novels) is the repetitive and increasingly implausible galactic threats and planet destroying super weapons. Another is the fact that only the USS Enterprise or Luke, Leia, Han, and Chewie seem to be able to stop any of these threats. Everyone else in the universe just seems to sit around on their ass doing nothing too important. I think that my players and I are old enough and jaded enough by the save the world, quest based fiction we've read and seen that games focused on that seem implausible or unattractive to us for one reason or another.
Does it concern RPGs only? If so, then it might come from "sacred canon" phobia. Plenty of GMs I know are afraid to introduce things that might contradict the vision presented in the original work of fiction. Last time I've heard that was not that long ago. A buddy of mine complained on his GM who ran some version of "The Game of Thrones" (aSoF&I). The guy lost control over the game when his players attempted to find and murder Jon Snow. He left everything else and focused entirely on making sure the event won't happen.
QuoteSave the world tends to be a poor choice the closer a game is to zero to hero since the zero's aren't capable of stopping a world ending threat (...)
Out of curiosity: is "Frodo" solution (simpletons of low level coming from dumbfucktown, carrying some anti-threat plot device to place X) popular in the big world?
QuoteI see a setting without world ending problem as the norm rather than the exception. So from my point of view there is no need for a solution because there is no problem. In fact I see a really big problem to world ending threats. What happens to all my setting prep when the PCs fail and the world is destroyed?
Is the problem you are experiencing that unless the world is in peril, the players just want their PCs to hang around corner tavern or sit in their living rooms watching holonet dramas? Or is it some other problem?
Bad choice of words. ;)
It's not that I have a problem to solve, I'm simply looking for interesting, and, if possible, original alternatives to this specific theme.
As for the PCs failing - this isn't applicable to all scenarios, but the doom might be either postponed indefinitely, averted in some other way (
all hail Deus Ex Machina), the result might not be that bad as assumed (the Asteroid reaches the Earth, but it breaks down on multiple pieces, the majority of which land in the oceans - a few cities are destroyed, but nothing really major), or there's jump over shark and the setting becomes post-apo. None of these solutions is very good, but they still might play well.
As for my players - we're playing in the many-world setting, and I think that at least two players feel a bit clueless. It's not the problem of the lack of options, but in their abundance. I might be wrong, but it it seems they don't know which path to follow and they could use a shift from a more or less "sandbox" style of adventuring to some solid story arc. I have absolutely nothing against it, but I'd rather use some alternative to the default Big Threat, hence the thread. :)
Quote(...)Tekumel.
This is weird, you know. I recall way less famous games being mentioned every now and then. I'm not sure why it's like that.
QuoteYeah. We tend to play a lot in each setting. My current Honor+Intrigue campaign has been going on weekly since July 2012. It's not as long lasting as several other campaigns, but it is getting there. Last Friday we played session 203. There has yet to be a world ending threat of any kind. The players don't seem bored.
The only game where world ending threats are the norm that we do play is Call of Cthulhu and there the PCs never end the threat, at best they delay it.
#203? Admirable!
I had similar experience, yet in my case, sooner or later parting the ways with current setting was discussed and rather than simply putting it on the shelf players almost always choose some world-ending campaign.
QuoteI'd replace it with a world without a global threat. A world in which the PCs struggle for success whether that is personal, family, or community against the sort of obstacles: NPCs with conflicting goals and occasionally the environment itself.
(...)
Shifting scale is one approach. Shifting focus from saving the world to maintaining or increasing one's wealth, power, status, and influence is another. Those goals tend to be much less about saving the world. I tend to do both in the games I run.
Those are very good ideas, but that's pretty much how we're playing so far - PCs are acting as field agents to more powerful figures, protectors, defenders, thieves, diplomats and what not. They also build their own power structures and amass personal wealth and influence. Surprisingly, they didn't start to plot against each other, which is very uncommon in this kind of a game.
QuoteThe modern developed world is pretty safe. I've found petty theft, e.g. pick pockets to be a significant threat in some parts of Europe and any country is likely to have some bad neighborhoods, but physical violence is pretty rare in outside those areas. Outside the cities in the developed world we've eliminated animals like wolves, lions, and bears that pose a threat and brigandage is at an all time low. Now if the PCs travel by ship in certain waters piracy is still a valid threat even in the modern world. And in some third world countries anarchy and banditry is still an issue. But I wouldn't expect a modern day police procedural, spy vs. spy, or monster hunters campaign would have game events driven by random monster tables with actual monsters.
Precisely.
Even in considerably savage parts of the world it's not granted that a tiger will leap at you out of friggin' nowhere, or that you're gonna find a poisonous spider in your boots when you get up. There are exceptions, of course, and it doesn't hurt to check first, but there's hardly any need to become paranoid about that either. ;)
QuoteI use a lot of random encounters. Not all are dangerous, but brigandage is still an issue in 1620s Europe whether inside or outside of a city. And gentleman all carry swords and a lot of people are pretty touchy about their honor and dueling is a cultural norm. It is worth keeping in mind that the most dangerous thing to man is other men.
Same here, same here...
Still, using random encounters table/wandering monsters is fully optional, and the GM is free (or rather "urged") to adjust the meeting to his players' capabilities and introduce a twist - what seems to be a party of soon-to-be-XPs goblinoids might as well finish in "help me Obi-Wan, you're my last hope". ;)
QuoteDo many people base campaigns on settings that are quite safe?
I'm not sure, I can only speak of myself and people I know. I assume it's quite common, albeit a little complicated - it all depends on whom you ask: from the POV of world's inhabitants it's hardly a heaven, but all you need to do is to stay out of troubles, avoid certain places and don't express certain opinions too loud around certain people.
Now, adventurers - that's entirely different kind of breed. They actively seek troubles, they thrive on them, so according to them the world might be quite hostile, deadly and the danger might hide behind every corner. Still, it comes with the territory and this is exactly what their players want.
For creating human-scale threats I highly recommend this book - http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16900/DMGR6-The-Complete-Book-of-Villains-2e?it=1
The discussion of Villainous Networks is particularly inspirational, and I'm sure influenced me when creating Neo-Nerath/Black Sun for my Wilderlands campaigns. The Princes of Neo Nerath and their Knights Concordant function as a network of interesting and powerful individuals; taking down one is an achievement but does not destroy the organisation.
Quote from: S'mon;898663Wow. Well done. I'm flattered. :cool:
4 campaigns at once is really too many I think; I'm planning to rest the weekly online Ghinarian Hills one (5e S&S) for a bit until I can conclude the fortnightly Loudwater (4e Epic) one in August. I can't rest my weekly Mentzer Classic Karameikos game since I love the players too much & my son plays in it & would kill me. :D Also one of the players is a brilliant instigator, her renegade Claudia Morrigan PC is returning with plans to wreak horrible revenge on erstwhile comrade Roseanna and I'm keen to see how that plays out. My 5e Shattered Star game is trucking along nicely fortnightly, wisest thing there is not to mess with it.
To the extent I have a secret for running 3-4 games, it's minimal prep - only the Pathfinder AP ones ever take much work. Taking good post-session notes is the main thing I do. Generally it's just as easy to create material at the table as beforehand, and simple published adventures (eg Basic Fantasy stuff) make just as good a canvas as complicated ones.
It might be only me, and I'm not particularly resourceful kind of guy, but still, 4 full-scale campaigns at once... Minimal preps and simple notes can't be the complete answer - the amount of elements, plot seeds, NPCs, items, places, not to mention ideas about where to push the story next must be really staggering.
I'd appreciate learning that your memory is far from "common level" and/or you posses great multitasking capabilities. If not, then I'll have to rethink my opinion about my own Gamemastery.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898668It might be only me, and I'm not particularly resourceful kind of guy, but still, 4 full-scale campaigns at once... Minimal preps and simple notes can't be the complete answer - the amount of elements, plot seeds, NPCs, items, places, not to mention ideas about where to push the story next must be really staggering.
I'd appreciate learning that your memory is far from "common level" and/or you posses great multitasking capabilities. If not, then I'll have to rethink my opinion about my own Gamemastery.
Hah. My memory is crap! :D I often ask players to remind me of stuff; or in the online game minutes pass while I go look stuff up (usually stats). There's a lot of duck-paddling going on too.
A few good resources are important - for Wilderlands that's the Ghinarian Hills campaign page and the NPC stats blog. For Karameikos it's GAZ 1 Grand Duchy of Karameikos. Plus published old school modules for both, simpler the better. The d6 is my friend, rolling to see if something happens - on a '6' X happens, which might be a wandering monster table roll but equally well could be the Griffon Riders of Highaven swooping in to aid the heroes' battle, or interception by the undead war fleet of Neo-Nerath - whatever looks plausible.
There is a lot of not sweating the small stuff, plus a lot of "God I wish I'd taken 30 minutes to do some prep before running this session". :)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898668the amount of elements, plot seeds, NPCs, items, places, not to mention ideas about where to push the story next must be really staggering...
...great multitasking capabilities...
I guess I'm quite good at multitasking, which really means "do X quickly, then stop doing X and do Y" - and only do as much as you need (I usually do too little & too late). I do very little 'push the story', I have some very very broad general ideas about enemy threats, but the main trick is getting into the head of enemy NPCs so they act and react naturalistically in the moment. This means the players are often taken by surprise - the antagonists' agendas rarely focus around the PCs so they often act unpredictably, in pursuit of their own goals. Villains don't just sit there, but neither do I have piles of notes on what they'll do next, I have a very simple basic idea of what eg Warlord Yusan wants and what he'll do to get it.
From practical worldbuilding perspective, a Big Threat, especially of the endless and undefeatable variety, such as Chaos in WFRP, Those....Chaosy things beyond the wall in L5R, evil ghosts in Deadlands, Horrors in Earthdawn (even if waning, they are still basically endless), offers a shortcut for GMs - you always can spawn a minor or major Baddie who's a servant of the Great Big Undefeatable Threat. Myself, I grew bored of such shortcuts, and I especially hate the Endless Evil Beyond The Wall trope.
Myself, I mostly play without overarching great evil, but I did run one campaign specifically dedicated to it - a pseudoancient world with MAGIC and Fantasy Races added, where the PCs were playing out a Judeochristian Messiah facing off against the Pagan Gods (actually devils masquarading as such), with ultimate reveal that it was Satan himself that had to be defeated in order to fulfill the destiny and save the world from being ruled by an Evil Roman Empire. It was quite fun, and I think Great Evils do work well, as long as you make the focus of the campaign fighting them, and you don't make then endless.
QuoteMy Twilight Dominion setting (totally homebrew, so no product to point you towards) is basically a mashup of Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique, Doyle's Hyperboria, and the world of Den from the Heavy Metal movie. Earth's in it's twilight, the most powerful individual is The Necromancer, the Empire isn't nice, and hates you, and people cavort with dark powers. And all the plots are personal. One had the players preventing the empress from making a pact with the necromancer, not because it will save them, but because she screwed them over. Another has them swooping into a city about to be destroyed, not to save the town, but to save a love interest of one of the necromancer's minions in exchange for removing a rune the necromancer put on them.
[/quote]
As a huge fan of both CAS and Heavy Metal stylistics, you'd not have this stashed on a wiki somewhere, would you?
Quote from: Bren;898590In fact I see a really big problem to world ending threats. What happens to all my setting prep when the PCs fail and the world is destroyed?
This is part of the reason I'm militant where player agency is involved.
A crystallizing incident was in a startup combat fantasy LARP I was in for a bit. The organizers had set up an event that wound up with a small party of PCs going off to Solve The Adventure, while the rest of us were holding off the monster hordes from crossing a bridge and getting into the party's rear. I was, at the time, the only PC who was a titled noble (and, as much to the point, a number of the PCs were vassals of mine in another LARP where I was a monarch), and I was leading the defense. A certain point came where we were taking a hammering, and that was the point where the orc horde drew back to "regroup." I was baffled -- they had us on the ropes, and could have punched through.
And then I narrowed my gaze -- the light bulb going on in my head -- and rubbed my chin, and gave the order to pull back to the encampment. The other players were amazed: we're leaving the bridge open, the monsters can get through! Nonetheless ... and then the orcs came in another rush, and rushed at the undefended bridge ... and milled around, confused, peering over towards the camp at us. I suggested to the other PCs that anyone who wanted to do combat practice with the orcs could do it with my good will, and blessings upon them, but I'd be damned if I was going to sweat any more over meaningless make-work combats that were plainly there to give the 4/5ths of the player base who
weren't the Favored Questers something to do. My tent was right there, and my comfortable cushions, and my cook gear, and did anyone else want some beef stirfry?
And yeah, that's part of the problem with Save The World: either you mean it, in which case you have to press the case for the Bad Guys to get the job done if the PCs boot it, or you don't, in which case you're giving them meaningless make-work adventures.
The other problem is in escalation; a term I use for the syndrome is "What do you do the day after Armageddon?" which was the title of a
Legion of Super-Heroes comic issue right after a multi-year apocalyptic plot arc. Great, so in the first movie you blow up the Death Star. Urr, okay, in the third movie you blow up ANOTHER Death Star. Urrr, okay, in the new movie there's a super-uber Death Thingie that can snuff multiple planets at once, from light-years away! Yeah!
So what do you combat next? A weapon that can cause the heat-death of the universe? A tag team of Galactus, Morgoth and Darkseid? If you
start the night's bidding at $10,000 a point, you don't have much scope for upping the ante.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898661Out of curiosity: would you rather send a clear message about who is "the worse one", or choose ambiguous solution? You know, "Hitler, that way", or "well, you start in country X, there's a tension on western and eastern borders, but who is right and who is wrong it's up to you to find out, guys".
I run a sandbox, and it's not any part of my remit to tell players what to do. If the PCs are citizens of Country X, it's up to them to decide how patriotic they are. Some of them are, some of them aren't. I've had groups decide "Hey, we live here, let's pitch in and help defend it." I've had groups decide "Screw this, I'm not dying just so the King can rest easy, I hear Drakanium's nice and warm this time of year." I've had groups decide to
fight for what I would objectively, OOC, deem to be the Evil Aggressor Empire, because they were natives of that realm.
Quote from: S'mon;898669Hah. My memory is crap! :D (...)
I agree that all that helps - a lot, especially helpful, forgiving players are godsend. Still, impressive achievement.
This isn't an empty flattery, I know what I'm talking about: I ran SS for PFRPG, an additional SF scenario and participated as a player in one more, and while none was neither particularly detailed nor complicated, it was enough to keep me occupied for a time being and deplete my creative energies a bit.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898684I agree that all that helps - a lot, especially helpful, forgiving players are godsend. Still, impressive achievement.
This isn't an empty flattery, I know what I'm talking about: I ran SS for PFRPG, an additional SF scenario and participated as a player in one more, and while none was neither particularly detailed nor complicated, it was enough to keep me occupied for a time being and deplete my creative energies a bit.
Shattered Star AP is nice - plays much better than it reads - and blending it with Rise of the Runelords AP will keep it fresh for me, I know upfront I'm not likely to use everything (eg might never use Book 6). Crimson Throne AP was really tough though; read well but really hard to run. Running SS in 5e so I know to ignore most of what's in the stat blocks helps a lot. I am feeling depleted since restarting Loudwater though (plus my non-gaming social life is getting busy) so planning to rest the Wilderlands campaign after one more session. That will leave me with 3 games, 1 weekly & 2 alternate fortnightly, which has been ok so far. I think I'm going to try to keep it to maximum 3 campaigns in future.
Quote from: Bren;898593Do many people base campaigns on settings that are quite safe?
All the people that play urban fantasy, which is set in the modern world, and that's just for a start?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898659So far, I think it depends on both "sides" of the equation - true, good GM should theoretically be able to create vision interesting enough for players to find their own source of satisfaction, determine their own goals and such. Yet, there are parties that (for often different reasons) don't feel like becoming parts of the setting and expect for the GM to place "adventure, this way" signs.
I've said it before on this forum: if you have even a hint of suspicion about your players' ability to find adventure, make them create motivations that they really crave, and put them on their character sheets:).
QuoteI think it deserves a thread on its own. ;)
Start it, then :)?
QuoteSorry, by "they" I meant BBEEG/War, not PCs.
Ah well, I misunderstood. But I'd point out that it's still "a threat I didn't need to put in the setting" (since, in all likelihood, PCs contributed to it, even if only by inaction).
QuoteAs for the means, well, it's up to the GM, ain't it?
I can dispute that. But if it is up to the GM...why would I promote a threat to world-spanning, if I didn't want world-spanning threats in the first place:D?
QuoteLocal gangster, a bully really, might become turned by a vampire, find/steal a powerful artifact or simply find himself in right place, right time and become next world conqueror. It happened with a certain painter, after all... ;)
Or it might not happen, even if those elements are part of the setting, and even if I deemed it likely...because then I threw percentile dice, and it wasn't meant to be. And it's not a given that they're present.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898661Out of curiosity: would you rather send a clear message about who is "the worse one", or choose ambiguous solution? You know, "Hitler, that way", or "well, you start in country X, there's a tension on western and eastern borders, but who is right and who is wrong it's up to you to find out, guys".
My players would really laugh at me if I sent such a message...or assume I'm on drugs, because that would be a drastic change.
Quote from: Ravenswing;898683This is part of the reason I'm militant where player agency is involved.
A crystallizing incident was in a startup combat fantasy LARP I was in for a bit. The organizers had set up an event that wound up with a small party of PCs going off to Solve The Adventure, while the rest of us were holding off the monster hordes from crossing a bridge and getting into the party's rear. I was, at the time, the only PC who was a titled noble (and, as much to the point, a number of the PCs were vassals of mine in another LARP where I was a monarch), and I was leading the defense. A certain point came where we were taking a hammering, and that was the point where the orc horde drew back to "regroup." I was baffled -- they had us on the ropes, and could have punched through.
And then I narrowed my gaze -- the light bulb going on in my head -- and rubbed my chin, and gave the order to pull back to the encampment. The other players were amazed: we're leaving the bridge open, the monsters can get through! Nonetheless ... and then the orcs came in another rush, and rushed at the undefended bridge ... and milled around, confused, peering over towards the camp at us. I suggested to the other PCs that anyone who wanted to do combat practice with the orcs could do it with my good will, and blessings upon them, but I'd be damned if I was going to sweat any more over meaningless make-work combats that were plainly there to give the 4/5ths of the player base who weren't the Favored Questers something to do. My tent was right there, and my comfortable cushions, and my cook gear, and did anyone else want some beef stirfry?
And yeah, that's part of the problem with Save The World: either you mean it, in which case you have to press the case for the Bad Guys to get the job done if the PCs boot it, or you don't, in which case you're giving them meaningless make-work adventures.
I applaud you for calling the bluff:D!
But I must point out that I have, indeed, ended the world. Because a rag-tag group failed to save it.
After the TPK, I suggested that they make characters. My first words after that were "100 years ago, in the Realm of the Shadow, hope is running low and some heroes are urgently needed to spearhead a rebellion":p.
So much for "the GM isn't going to End the World";).
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465...
My questions are:
Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
Yes. Most commercial settings I've seen or played don't have such threats hard baked in. Most settings I've played are not commercial, they are peoples personal creations.
QuoteDo your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
I and my players hate the Big Threat setting. It's trite and limiting. It is fun to play such games and completely ignore the Big Threat and turn the tables on the setting creators idea of how you are supposed to play.
QuoteDid you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat
Why yes. I've used the Big Threat (it's the end of the world) with mixed players (some liked it some not) but it wasn't really. Oh the NPCs thought it was the end of the world, it was just really a bad thing (locally), the world goes on. Not sure how clever it is, just part of my view that even the best intentioned, informed and trustworthy NPCs can be wrong about things. Players should think for themselves.
We had quite a bit of fun with Houses of the Blooded. It does not have any such threat in the setting.
Quote from: Ravenswing;898683This is part of the reason I'm militant where player agency is involved.
A crystallizing incident was in a startup combat fantasy LARP I was in for a bit. The organizers had set up an event that wound up with a small party of PCs going off to Solve The Adventure, while the rest of us were holding off the monster hordes from crossing a bridge and getting into the party's rear. I was, at the time, the only PC who was a titled noble (and, as much to the point, a number of the PCs were vassals of mine in another LARP where I was a monarch), and I was leading the defense. A certain point came where we were taking a hammering, and that was the point where the orc horde drew back to "regroup." I was baffled -- they had us on the ropes, and could have punched through.
And then I narrowed my gaze -- the light bulb going on in my head -- and rubbed my chin, and gave the order to pull back to the encampment. The other players were amazed: we're leaving the bridge open, the monsters can get through! Nonetheless ... and then the orcs came in another rush, and rushed at the undefended bridge ... and milled around, confused, peering over towards the camp at us. I suggested to the other PCs that anyone who wanted to do combat practice with the orcs could do it with my good will, and blessings upon them, but I'd be damned if I was going to sweat any more over meaningless make-work combats that were plainly there to give the 4/5ths of the player base who weren't the Favored Questers something to do. My tent was right there, and my comfortable cushions, and my cook gear, and did anyone else want some beef stirfry?
And yeah, that's part of the problem with Save The World: either you mean it, in which case you have to press the case for the Bad Guys to get the job done if the PCs boot it, or you don't, in which case you're giving them meaningless make-work adventures.
The other problem is in escalation; a term I use for the syndrome is "What do you do the day after Armageddon?" which was the title of a Legion of Super-Heroes comic issue right after a multi-year apocalyptic plot arc. Great, so in the first movie you blow up the Death Star. Urr, okay, in the third movie you blow up ANOTHER Death Star. Urrr, okay, in the new movie there's a super-uber Death Thingie that can snuff multiple planets at once, from light-years away! Yeah!
So what do you combat next? A weapon that can cause the heat-death of the universe? A tag team of Galactus, Morgoth and Darkseid? If you start the night's bidding at $10,000 a point, you don't have much scope for upping the ante.
Hah, I remember a similar situation, except I was playing the Evil Side - we were reborn Order of the Black Dragon (a Teutonic Knights expy). We did all of our plotlines in about 2 hours, so to give players a chance to actually unite (everyone of us had about 2x the HP of a Fighter class, we were relatively well equipped and there was about 20 - 30 of us, united) we had to walk around. I mean literally walk around. Just march around like in Monty Python sketch. For 2 - 3 hours.
Quote from: AsenRG;898691I applaud you for calling the bluff:
But I must point out that I have, indeed, ended the world. Because a rag-tag group failed to save it. After the TPK, I suggested that they make characters. My first words after that were "100 years ago, in the Realm of the Shadow, hope is running low and some heroes are urgently needed to spearhead a rebellion". So much for "the GM isn't going to End the World".
Welllll ... if it
hadn't been a bluff, and the orcs made a legitimate charge across the bridge to go for the questers, I would've coped well enough -- ordered our
slower runners to overtake the orcs and assault them from the rear, where the woodland path would give maximum play to our heavier-armored front line, while I led the sprinters around the long loop and see if we couldn't take them in the flank. (Not that it would've taken me more than a couple seconds; I'd been leading troops in LARPs for nearly a decade at that point. Not my first rodeo, as my wife says!)
Yeah, I was dead certain it was a bluff -- it wasn't the first
or the second event that came down to a Small Band of Questers and everyone else doing Other Stuff -- but no need for complacency. ;)
Regarding your After-The-World-Ends scenario, I wonder how many GMs have dared to do it all the way: a true "hopeless" campaign, where evil has won, its victory is permanent, and its sway absolute? Where the best the PCs can do before their inevitable deaths is to light a small candle?
Quote from: Ravenswing;898683This is part of the reason I'm militant where player agency is involved.
Great story!
Just one observation: "the Big Threat" doesn't have to involve bad guys. It might be also something along the lines of the force of nature - an army of mindless monsters (zombies), an unstoppable savage beast with bad temper (Tarrasque), a threat from beyond (an asteroid), or simply a thing that must be switched off (the Doomsday Device), etc, etc. Such scenarios allow the GM to postpone the inevitable (zombies wander in different direction, monster becomes trapped in a crater, an asteroid devastates some other celestial body and now the world is threatened by many smaller ones, the Doomsday Device stops the countdown...) - not the perfect, kind of "cheap" moves actually, but still they or their more sophisticated variation might be used.
Side note: around here we address that "escalation" as "Dragon Ball solution". Yes, there's always some bigger, meaner and more powerful guy out there. :D
QuoteI run a sandbox, and it's not any part of my remit to tell players what to do. If the PCs are citizens of Country X, it's up to them to decide how patriotic they are. Some of them are, some of them aren't. I've had groups decide "Hey, we live here, let's pitch in and help defend it." I've had groups decide "Screw this, I'm not dying just so the King can rest easy, I hear Drakanium's nice and warm this time of year." I've had groups decide to fight for what I would objectively, OOC, deem to be the Evil Aggressor Empire, because they were natives of that realm.
I see. A few times I managed to convince my players that local "Mordor" is the land of evil. Then, they had to travel there and to their surprise they learned that it's not that bad, and in some ways it's even better than their PCs' fatherland. I find it quite nice alternative to usual "shades of grey" style. ;)
Quote from: S'mon;898690Shattered Star AP is nice - plays much better than it reads...
Yep, I've heard that about pretty much every Paizo's Adventure Path. The only exceptions are Reign of Winter and The Council of Thieves. I honestly don't know why people hate them so much (providing they hate them). Anyway...
Quote... - and blending it with Rise of the Runelords AP will keep it fresh for me, I know upfront I'm not likely to use everything (eg might never use Book 6). Crimson Throne AP was really tough though; read well but really hard to run. Running SS in 5e so I know to ignore most of what's in the stat blocks helps a lot. I am feeling depleted since restarting Loudwater though (plus my non-gaming social life is getting busy) so planning to rest the Wilderlands campaign after one more session. That will leave me with 3 games, 1 weekly & 2 alternate fortnightly, which has been ok so far. I think I'm going to try to keep it to maximum 3 campaigns in future.
tbh, I still don't know how it's possible to be engaged in such a creative process like GMing on so many fronts at once in addition to real life. I mean, heck, I know people (not counting myself), who played a few separate campaigns in parts, with some of these parts landing on the shell for a month or so. Simultaneously? Nope.
Out of curiosity: what do you feel is the biggest challenge in PFRPG -> D&D 5th conversion? Aside of numbers, of course.
Quote from: AsenRG;898691I've said it before on this forum: if you have even a hint of suspicion about your players' ability to find adventure, make them create motivations that they really crave, and put them on their character sheets:).
The problem might lie in the fact that our setting became... how to put that... too borderless, too unlimited. It's the first time I lead such an inexperienced group that far into "whatever you think about, such a place exists somewhere out there" and they have trouble processing the possibilities, I think.
tl;dr: they still think in micro, rather than macro -scale.
QuoteStart it, then :)?
Naaaaah, I've been already told I'm talking too much. ;)
QuoteI can dispute that. But if it is up to the GM...why would I promote a threat to world-spanning, if I didn't want world-spanning threats in the first place:D?
The error in judgment. I'm afraid that my players might not be ready for exactly this kind of adventures the system/setting encourages. I'm entertaining the idea of "going back to roots" at least for the time being.
QuoteOr it might not happen, even if those elements are part of the setting, and even if I deemed it likely...because then I threw percentile dice, and it wasn't meant to be. And it's not a given that they're present.
Yes. Ultimately it's up to dice. Unless it's a diceless system. ;)
QuoteMy players would really laugh at me if I sent such a message...or assume I'm on drugs, because that would be a drastic change.
I can only guess why. Let's see... Is it because of its directness or because you don't introduce clearly "bad guys"? ;)
Quote from: Xanther;898718Yes. Most commercial settings I've seen or played don't have such threats hard baked in. Most settings I've played are not commercial, they are peoples personal creations.
Care to name some? I feel like revisiting some old places, so to speak. ;)
QuoteI and my players hate the Big Threat setting. It's trite and limiting. It is fun to play such games and completely ignore the Big Threat and turn the tables on the setting creators idea of how you are supposed to play.
Yep, plenty of groups - usually veterans - are that way.
QuoteWhy yes. I've used the Big Threat (it's the end of the world) with mixed players (some liked it some not) but it wasn't really. Oh the NPCs thought it was the end of the world, it was just really a bad thing (locally), the world goes on. Not sure how clever it is, just part of my view that even the best intentioned, informed and trustworthy NPCs can be wrong about things. Players should think for themselves.
I think that it's more "how" rather than "what". The idea doesn't have to be that original, complicated, or like you're saying, clever. It simply has to be believable, entertaining and interesting enough to convince the players to pursue this plot hook (if they have the choice, that is). I've seen very simple and quite overused tropes being used (most recently, "Alien" scenario with a twist) and critically acclaimed.
The End of the World being just a local stuff/superstition? Not bad.
...
Come to think about it, I might use it - what everyone thinks is the end, might be merely a natural process that devastates some parts of the universeand then ceases to progress. Hmmmmmmm... Thanks, man. :)
Quote from: Trond;898721We had quite a bit of fun with Houses of the Blooded. It does not have any such threat in the setting.
Houses of Blooded, Houses of Blooded... My memory is a bit hazy these days. Are you talking about that Wick's Arabian-themed game where players lead lineages rather than separate characters, or am I mistaking it with Burning Sands?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898761Houses of Blooded, Houses of Blooded... My memory is a bit hazy these days. Are you talking about that Wick's Arabian-themed game where players lead lineages rather than separate characters, or am I mistaking it with Burning Sands?
Yes, it's John Wick, but no Arabian Nights theme in this one. It is a bit inspired by the Melniboneans in the Elric stories I think.
It is one of those games where players take part in building the setting and narrative, so maybe not for everyone.
Quote from: Trond;898768Yes, it's John Wick, but no Arabian Nights theme in this one. It is a bit inspired by the Melniboneans in the Elric stories I think.
It is one of those games where players take part in building the setting and narrative, so maybe not for everyone.
...Weird. I'm 100% sure I've been playing HoB a few times, but I have troubles remembering it now. Perhaps it's time to check my facts.
Thanks for the recommendation! :)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465Plenty of settings feature a plot device in form of some Big Threat constantly endangering whole world, civilization, society, virginity of our women and such. It might be some impending doom, an ancient monster, now dormant but slowly waking up, a giant meteor destined to reduce whole civilization to ashes, hordes of others, be it drow, enemy kingdom, devil worshipers or other cultist, and so on, and so forth.
I don't want to discuss whether it's useful or not.
I have used a pseudo threat that isn't in my current science fiction campaign.
The idea is that there is a rumour of AI while actually the "threatening software" is far less intelligent (and making errors that are really stupid when you look those activities in hindsight). Thus players believe there is AI threat and have their characters talk to experts about possibility of AI making some kind of world-ending viral attack come across as idiots. This rises tension in PC group and makes them search the elusive AI even more desperately...
Lots to respond to so this will be long.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898661Out of curiosity: would you rather send a clear message about who is "the worse one", or choose ambiguous solution? You know, "Hitler, that way", or "well, you start in country X, there's a tension on western and eastern borders, but who is right and who is wrong it's up to you to find out, guys".
Depends on the setting.
- In D&D campaigns it was a spectrum of good/neutral/selfish/evil. PCs themselves ran along the spectrum, some were evil, but most tending towards neutral to good.
- In Star Trek and Star Wars campaigns, where the source material is kind of a morality play, there are black hats, white hats, and gray hats. Except for the rare double agent, I don't think I've ever made the difference between white and black ambiguous. It may be unclear though whether they are more white than gray or more gray than black.
- In Glorantha almost everyone is shades of gray who think people from other cultures/religions are all gray to black while people from their own culture are gray to white. Except for most Chaos which is mostly on a spectrum between black and nutso-toxic.
- In Call of Cthulhu the cultists are nearly always clearly black. The PCs are some shade of gray. And the deities are mostly incomprehensible but effectively black.
- In Honor+Intrigue you can't tell until you know someone well. And even if you think you know them they may have secrets or concealed agendas. Opponents may be just as or even more honorable, loyal, patriotic, religious, kind, honest etc. than the PCs. Or they may be cruel sadistic, egomaniacal bastards (sometimes literally). One of the more cruel and sadistic opponents was extremely honorable amongst those of his social class. More honorable I some respects than any of the PCs.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898665Side note: Glorantha is my weakness. I wanted to play it since time I encountered The King of Dragon Pass video game...
I've found it interesting since before Runequest was published. A friend of mine had the original White Bear, Red Moon and Nomad Gods board games and the setting seemed enough different than what I was seeing with other 1970s fantasy settings. So when RQ was published it was a natural fit. It helped that I had one buddy who probably like Glorantha even more than I did. So he was an easy player to recruit and I even got him to GM so I got a chance to play.
QuoteDoes it concern RPGs only?
No. The source material has the problem in spades.
QuoteOut of curiosity: is "Frodo" solution (simpletons of low level coming from dumbfucktown, carrying some anti-threat plot device to place X) popular in the big world?
Not sure what you are asking here. I think the nobody from nowhere is usually some version of a hero's journey. Frodo is an atypical hero whose heroism is focused on morality and martyrdom. I don't think that sort of situation, with that sort of hero is very common. The growth (literally and figuratively) of Merry and Pippin is more typical of the progression seen in most RPGs than is Frodo or Sam.
QuoteIt's not that I have a problem to solve, I'm simply looking for interesting, and, if possible, original alternatives to this specific theme.
It looks like you are finding some ideas that interest you. So that's a win.
QuoteAs for the PCs failing - this isn't applicable to all scenarios, but the doom might be either postponed indefinitely, averted in some other way ...
I find those sorts of solutions unsatisfying. They seem like a cheat. "Oh yeah the big bad that was going to destroy the world...well news of the world's destruction was greatly exaggerated. Nothing really to worry about."
QuoteAs for my players - we're playing in the many-world setting, and I think that at least two players feel a bit clueless. It's not the problem of the lack of options, but in their abundance.
I think that the more expansive the setting is the more difficult it is for the players to care about any particular aspect of the setting. I think there are a lot of reasons for this. Too many options is one problem. Lack of focus is another.
If player A may cares about the Baroness NPC in World-1, while player B cares about this family that runs the Blue Bottle tavern in World-2, while player C cares about the Queen and his pal, the captain of the Queen's guard over in world-3 it is going to be difficult to get the players to focus on anyone of the three worlds, much less brand new World-4. And you need them focused and motivated to more or less work together on the same thing...whatever that thing might be. Narrowing the focus for a while on one of the worlds or even one city on one of the worlds might help alleviate the overabundance of options and possible lack of focus.
QuoteThis is weird, you know. I recall way less famous games being mentioned every now and then. I'm not sure why it's like that.
I can't recall the exact month of publication but OD&D was published in 1974. Tunnel & Trolls, Empire of the Petal Throne, and Boot Hill were all published in 1975. And all but T&T were published by TSR so for really old gamers, there was a period of time where T&T, EPT, and Boot Hill were the only published alternative RPGs to D&D. So for the fanatics who bought RPGs off company catalogs through the mail and later read fanzines those games were all fairly well known. A couple of years later Traveller, Chivalry & Sorcery, and I don't know what all else got published and the hobby became increasingly more diverse.
QuoteI had similar experience, yet in my case, sooner or later parting the ways with current setting was discussed and rather than simply putting it on the shelf players almost always choose some world-ending campaign.
I've never done a cataclysmic ending. I've always put games on the shelf, as it were. Several have been picked up again after a hiatus of one or more years. Call of Cthulhu we've been playing on and off since the 1980s with a large stable of characters and a world shared by 3 regular GMs (Keepers if one is into silly names for the GM) and several occasional GMs. I'm certain we'll pick that up again once someone (possibly me) temporarily runs out of inspiration or enthusiasm for H+I. I don't see a reason to end a campaign – it seems like Doyle's decision to kill Holmes and we know how well Reichenback Falls actually worked. Although I do think it is nice to have the characters in a somewhat settled place or position while the campaign is on the shelf – oh yeah he is the Baron of Black Serpent Tower, he is the steward of the castle, she is a lieutenant with the Black Wolves mercenary company, he's the champion for the King of the Skellani tribe, etc..
QuoteThose are very good ideas, but that's pretty much how we're playing so far - PCs are acting as field agents to more powerful figures, protectors, defenders, thieves, diplomats and what not. They also build their own power structures and amass personal wealth and influence. Surprisingly, they didn't start to plot against each other, which is very uncommon in this kind of a game.
It sounds like the players are interested in the setting. Maybe you just need to focus on the part of the setting where the PCs have power and influence to expand and protect.
QuoteNow, adventurers - that's entirely different kind of breed. They actively seek troubles, they thrive on them, so according to them the world might be quite hostile, deadly and the danger might hide behind every corner. Still, it comes with the territory and this is exactly what their players want.
I seldom run games where the PCs are
adventurers, though they nearly always are
adventurous. One might ask, what's the difference?
When I think of adventurers I think of the sort of rootless wanderers that a lot of D&D assumes. Rootless wanderers are often difficult to motivate based on saving someone or something. Thus the tendency can be to up the stakes to try to get the players and their PCs to care...I try to avoid having to up the ante just to get the PCs off their asses, "Well OK, but it's not just Old Barnjie and his village that are in danger from the Necromancer it's the whole kingdom...I mean the whole world. And nobody but you can stop him!"
Adventurous characters are the sort of people who enjoy, whether consciously or not, adventure or who, when push comes to shove, are the sort who will step up, push back, and say "Here and no farther!" Connections to other people, places, and things are especially important to motivate the latter sort of PCs.
For motivation, I find it is better to play things out first so that players come to care about Old Barnjie and/or his village...or some other village...or the capital city... or the Baron or Baroness...or some one specific person, place, or thing. Then helping, that person, place, or thing is interesting to the players/PCs. You may not need to threaten him/her/it with destruction as they may be motivated to help Old Barnjie and the villagers by helping them enact the ritual of Harmast Barefoot so they get a great harvest this year or leading a caravan to West Bumfrack so they can sell their apples at a premium or winning the tournament so they can have the Baroness crowned the Queen of Love and Beauty at the tournament, etc..
Quote from: Ravenswing;898683And yeah, that's part of the problem with Save The World: either you mean it, in which case you have to press the case for the Bad Guys to get the job done if the PCs boot it, or you don't, in which case you're giving them meaningless make-work adventures.
Yes. Make work is a great description.
Quote from: Ravenswing;898683The other problem is in escalation; a term I use for the syndrome is "What do you do the day after Armageddon?" which was the title of a Legion of Super-Heroes comic issue right after a multi-year apocalyptic plot arc. Great, so in the first movie you blow up the Death Star. Urr, okay, in the third movie you blow up ANOTHER Death Star. Urrr, okay, in the new movie there's a super-uber Death Thingie that can snuff multiple planets at once, from light-years away!
Apocalypse... we've all been there,
the same old trips, why should we care?
Quote from: AsenRG;898691All the people that play urban fantasy, which is set in the modern world, and that's just for a start?
A setting where dozens of vampires stalk every town looking for human cattle on which to feed doesn't strike me as safe and that's just one possible urban fantasy threat. Typically in urban fantasy the protagonists, because they are aware and involved, are in greater danger than the mundane humans who form the mass of the urban population. So for the PCs the urban fantasy city is not a lot safer than the wilderness in your average D&D setting.
Quote from: Ravenswing;898743Regarding your After-The-World-Ends scenario, I wonder how many GMs have dared to do it all the way: a true "hopeless" campaign, where evil has won, its victory is permanent, and its sway absolute? Where the best the PCs can do before their inevitable deaths is to light a small candle?
I used the Mythos wins as an alternate earth setting for time travel/Mirror Mirror universe adventure for Star Trek. The alternate earth had some of the surviving Call of Cthulhu PCs as NPCs for the Star Trek characters to interact with. The Starfleet personnel had to fix the timeline. Since that side of the game was Star Trek, success was likely based on the genre and if they had failed, well it might have been a mirror universe anyways so they only would need to get home rather than save the earth.
Generally, I put in too much work on the setting to be very sanguine about tossing most of it away to reboot the game. And I don't particular want to play in the failed to be saved universe as I don't enjoy distopic settings.
Quote from: Xanther;898718Most commercial settings I've seen or played don't have such threats hard baked in.
Same here, it's usually up to the group as to how immediate and widespread they want the dangers to be. If you don't want bears attacking people in the forest then don't do that.
I don't think urban fantasy settings are any different... you can dial it up or down... have open wars between gangs, dangerous CHUDs coming up from the sewers, weird magics eating entire neighborhoods... or it can all be nice and shiny with pixies and rainbows.
I've never much cared for huge ongoing 'evil empire' stuff so tend not to focus on those, even if they're present somewhere else in the setting. Cthulhu is sleepy and Fu Manchu is on holiday.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898760Out of curiosity: what do you feel is the biggest challenge in PFRPG -> D&D 5th conversion? Aside of numbers, of course.
Grabbing an appropriate monster stat block out of the 5e MM. Sometimes the 5e version is pathetically weak, eg the lemures in book 1 of SS. A bit of variation is ok but a whole dungeon level of trivially weak critters got the players complaining. So I hit em with an ooze/hellhound combo and nearly killed one of them, they shut up then. :)
In general running SS in 5e has been far far easier than running Crimson Throne with Pathfinder. Paizo's tendency to include obscure monsters from Bestiary #5 without bothering with a PF statblock is annoying, considering how much space they waste on other stuff. Eg the Fiendish Seugathi in book 2 has no parrallel in any D&D creature. But this is still a minor issue compared to the brain-scrambling effect of trying to run a 3-page 3e/PF stat block off the page in Pathfinder rules.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898661It looks like deadly times to live in. Out of curiosity: how did your players react to such a setting? Did they perceive it as a challenge, a window of opportunity to have truckloads of great adventures, or were they "who, dude, isn't it too much?" In addition, was the overall situation immediately explained, or did they learn about everything on the way, sort of "one threat at a time"?
I wouldn't want it to become next politically themed thread, but I'm curious about that USA vs IU campaign of yours. Do you keep some campaign log by any chance?
They've reacted well to it, we're having a good time. The players are only vaguely aware of some of these threats. The lizardmen are mentioned on a map I made and in a rumor or two but nothing has been done with them yet. One of the PCs is from the Viking land so they are not perceived as enemies, yet. One adventure thread did deal with the nomads. The southerners haven't even been noticed yet, but I know they are there. Since it's a Runequest 6 sandbox they are free to pick and choose what interests them. (One PC rolled up a slave. He's just happy that he has won his freedom and is now chasing riches. Soon I might have them meet up with some women revolutionaries who are working to free their kingdom from a tyrant. They will work for the "
Salation
Liberation
Unter
Terre.)
Unfortunately I don't have any of my records from the Robot Warrior campaign. That was in the late 80s and was long ago lost in a move.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898661Precisely, or even more precisely: it's up to the PCs whether they choose to go this way. If they won't then the world stays as it is: threatened, indefinitely balancing "on the verge of destruction" and such.
This certainly sounds like Zothique. :)
A word, if I might: does that mean, that in your campaigns players face the Big Threat, but they can't do much about that? Sort of doomed situation where the only reasonable thing to do is to survive and at best, postpone/avoid the inevitable?
Well, it wasn't in my plan
per se. My primary purpose for the Necromancer is to be a mood setting edifice. Vut if they wanted to make a campaign of it, I'd let them. As long as it sounds like a fun game. Just like Zothique, powerful characters that get overconfident are ripe for a fall.
Quote from: Rincewind1;898672As a huge fan of both CAS and Heavy Metal stylistics, you'd not have this stashed on a wiki somewhere, would you?
I don't. I think most of my campaign notes were in a graph paper steno pad. I did have some electronic writeups in the adventure notes, but that's about it.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465I'm not sure why, but every time I make a new thread, 99% responds I get cover things I don't wanna discuss about. Since I'm sober since a few days already I feel like trying one more time. ;)
Welcome to the internet.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465Anyway, I'll try to keep it as short and as straightforward as possible.
Plenty of settings feature a plot device in form of some Big Threat constantly endangering whole world, civilization, society, virginity of our women and such. It might be some impending doom, an ancient monster, now dormant but slowly waking up, a giant meteor destined to reduce whole civilization to ashes, hordes of others, be it drow, enemy kingdom, devil worshipers or other cultist, and so on, and so forth.
I don't want to discuss whether it's useful or not.
My questions are:
- Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
- Do your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
- Did you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat - a thing familiar to your world's inhabitants, that motivates some (PCs) to move their asses and travel across whole world and beyond? A word of explanation: The One Ring from tLoTR setting doesn't match the criteria, since it serves the purpose of getting rid of the Big Threat. The quest to seek Holy Grail would be the better example of what I have in mind. While it might be used as a morale boosting icon for any ruler or general, its purpose isn't to counter any specific Big Threat whatsoever.
Thanks!
Oh, and just for the sake of clarity, the idea for this thread comes from this comment (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?34429-What-do-you-find-when-reaching-the-demi-plane-s-borders&p=898225&viewfull=1#post898225) by DoughDee.
If a Big Threat appears in my games, it is due to Player Character involvement. I usually do not like using The Big Threat because it has been overused so much in published adventures. My Players like it when I pull some thing from their character backstory and use that as the antagonist. So not so much The Big Threat, but several of The Little Threats.
Quote from: David Johansen;898491If I use a big threat I usually let my players be the ones who release it. They're good at that.
The best campaigns are when you give your players enough rope to hang themselves. It's amazing how often they'll do it too.
As for me, if it's a capstone to a campaign, I'll use it. But after three D&D adventure league seasons in which we had Dragons wanting to take over the world, Elementals wanting to take over the world, and then Demon Lords wanting to take over the world, in what seemed to be the span of about 3-5 months of in game/world time? It's a bit much. I'm more of a personal story kinda guy.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898661I rarely hear about anybody using fulls-scale religious conflict in SF environment and the majority of such events come form Fading Suns players. Quite original, I must say.
Mostly it is just self indulgent pretentiousness, I think too much, so I just took chunks of pre-existing canon and rearranged them into something that gives the enemy motivation for what they are doing. The sides aren't exactly black and white, however.
QuoteDo you plan for PCs to have something more to say about this situation, or are they destined to observe things from the back row, so to speak? Or, even better, do your players plan to do anything about that?
The players can interact with it on any level they chose, currently they are satisfied to travel around space and get into space battles with the enemy, occasionally to stop, investigate strange stuff, grift a bit like smuggling. They do have a good ship, with some interesting weapons, as well as the alliance is fooling around with using a weaponized life form called a "Meta-Cym", short for Metastasizing Cymbeline Entity, an electronic virus that wreaked havoc once before across charted space. The alien crusaders haven't encountered this life form before, so they are somewhat defenseless against it.
Kill the transponder and the radio, use a fiber optic backup computer. And start chanting "you're old alone and done for" Virus always had self esteem issues :D
Quote from: David Johansen;898864Kill the transponder and the radio, use a fiber optic backup computer. And start chanting "you're old alone and done for" Virus always had self esteem issues :D
That works until it walks up and plugs itself in.
(http://i2.tcafe.net/1305/8a1172a295a09147bc698baa33087fae_XfqFiviiwC6tsyXuLLiBIinCSEc3e.jpg)
What usually works OK is:
1. Let the players do what they want.
2. The players piss of someone powerful by being themselves.
3. That someone is now the Big Threat to them.
Quote from: dragoner;898870That works until it walks up and plugs itself in.
(http://i2.tcafe.net/1305/8a1172a295a09147bc698baa33087fae_XfqFiviiwC6tsyXuLLiBIinCSEc3e.jpg)
What movie/TV show is that from?
Quote from: Nikita;898775I have used a pseudo threat that isn't in my current science fiction campaign.
The idea is that there is a rumour of AI while actually the "threatening software" is far less intelligent (and making errors that are really stupid when you look those activities in hindsight). Thus players believe there is AI threat and have their characters talk to experts about possibility of AI making some kind of world-ending viral attack come across as idiots. This rises tension in PC group and makes them search the elusive AI even more desperately...
Something along the lines of "it's too stupid for such an advanced foe, therefore it has to be a brilliant tactics only pretending to be stupid, and we're not gonna fall for that, mwahahahahaha!"? Overthinking is a powerful trap, indeed. ;)
Quote from: S'mon;898805Grabbing an appropriate monster stat block out of the 5e MM. Sometimes the 5e version is pathetically weak, eg the lemures in book 1 of SS. A bit of variation is ok but a whole dungeon level of trivially weak critters got the players complaining. So I hit em with an ooze/hellhound combo and nearly killed one of them, they shut up then. :)
In general running SS in 5e has been far far easier than running Crimson Throne with Pathfinder. Paizo's tendency to include obscure monsters from Bestiary #5 without bothering with a PF statblock is annoying, considering how much space they waste on other stuff. Eg the Fiendish Seugathi in book 2 has no parrallel in any D&D creature. But this is still a minor issue compared to the brain-scrambling effect of trying to run a 3-page 3e/PF stat block off the page in Pathfinder rules.
Well, they have to justify their 99$ worth yet-another-monster-pack books somehow. :D
I think I've seen a fanmade attempt to create enemy tables for PFRPG, 3,5 some OSR (I don't recall its title) and most recently 5th. It was a huge Excel spreadsheet where you could select a creature from one system and see some "close enough" alternatives for other systems. Wasn't perfect, but worked just fine. I wonder whether the project continues...
Quote from: Doughdee222;898807They've reacted well to it, we're having a good time. The players are only vaguely aware of some of these threats. The lizardmen are mentioned on a map I made and in a rumor or two but nothing has been done with them yet. One of the PCs is from the Viking land so they are not perceived as enemies, yet. One adventure thread did deal with the nomads. The southerners haven't even been noticed yet, but I know they are there. Since it's a Runequest 6 sandbox they are free to pick and choose what interests them. (One PC rolled up a slave. He's just happy that he has won his freedom and is now chasing riches. Soon I might have them meet up with some women revolutionaries who are working to free their kingdom from a tyrant. They will work for the "Salation Liberation Unter Terre.)
SL... My, my, that's preposterous and degrading towards females. ;)
Anyway, the threat is there, but it's slow to move, and people are mostly oblivious to it. Are you keeping the track of events happening in the background (for example "month #3, Vikings invade a few villages, small tension in northern border arises"), or are you leaving everything as it is and plan to develop everything "prior to the session"/"on the fly" the moment PCs enter relevant territory?
QuoteUnfortunately I don't have any of my records from the Robot Warrior campaign. That was in the late 80s and was long ago lost in a move.
Too bad about that campaign. I hoped to find some nice re-usable elements. Oh well...
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;898844Well, it wasn't in my plan per se. My primary purpose for the Necromancer is to be a mood setting edifice. Vut if they wanted to make a campaign of it, I'd let them. As long as it sounds like a fun game. Just like Zothique, powerful characters that get overconfident are ripe for a fall.
I see. Reasonable. One more thing... There's a free game called "Zothique". How much your setting resembles it?
Quote from: jeff37923;898857If a Big Threat appears in my games, it is due to Player Character involvement. I usually do not like using The Big Threat because it has been overused so much in published adventures. My Players like it when I pull some thing from their character backstory and use that as the antagonist. So not so much The Big Threat, but several of The Little Threats.
Yeah. Well, I think it's not the problem of "the Big Threat" (or plenty of other tropes for that matter) being overused, but that GMs don't put much heart into their originality. It's not impossible to run "Save the World" campaign in such a way that players won't realize that until the very end. ;)
Quote from: dragoner;898863Mostly it is just self indulgent pretentiousness, I think too much, so I just took chunks of pre-existing canon and rearranged them into something that gives the enemy motivation for what they are doing. The sides aren't exactly black and white, however.
I see. Still, quite uncommon. Sure, no galaxy is a stranger to religious conflicts, but it's usually on a local scale only. I think it might be partially because full-scale crusade/Jihad requires a good set of beliefs and GM are kind of dismissive about introducing them, since there's a prospect of religious discussions in the future, and defending/pushing a set of beliefs you don't actually like/follow/know... Well, it's hardly any fun.
Then again, I might be wrong. ;)
QuoteThe players can interact with it on any level they chose, currently they are satisfied to travel around space and get into space battles with the enemy, occasionally to stop, investigate strange stuff, grift a bit like smuggling. They do have a good ship, with some interesting weapons, as well as the alliance is fooling around with using a weaponized life form called a "Meta-Cym", short for Metastasizing Cymbeline Entity, an electronic virus that wreaked havoc once before across charted space. The alien crusaders haven't encountered this life form before, so they are somewhat defenseless against it.
I see. I take it, so far they don't plan to become heroes that's gonna save the universe.
As for the virus - does it attack alive entities or just electronics?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898903Yeah. Well, I think it's not the problem of "the Big Threat" (or plenty of other tropes for that matter) being overused, but that GMs don't put much heart into their originality. It's not impossible to run "Save the World" campaign in such a way that players won't realize that until the very end. ;)
Based on the context you used in describing The Big Threat, I thought you meant that it had to have a focus - like a Big Bad. Now with the context of Save The World, it seems like you are talking about some threat that is unfocussed, diffuse, or pervasive.
Now, lets touch upon Virus in The New Era of Traveller as an example of "Save The World". Virus is an electronic program disease that threatens to destroy the infrastructure of interstellar civilization. A pretty widespread and diffuse threat. How do the Players combat it? By keeping that infrastructure alive - flying their starship around and ensuring that their civilization keeps on chuggin'. However, as threats go, it is too unfocussed. Yes, Virus infected ships may threaten the PCs, but when those ships get destroyed then the overall problem still remains because you are just treating the symptoms. That can become very unsatisfying for Players in a campaign because the threat can never be truly destroyed.
A Big Threat should have a focus in order to be good for adventuring.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898903Well, they have to justify their 99$ worth yet-another-monster-pack books somehow. :D
I think I've seen a fanmade attempt to create enemy tables for PFRPG, 3,5 some OSR (I don't recall its title) and most recently 5th. It was a huge Excel spreadsheet where you could select a creature from one system and see some "close enough" alternatives for other systems. Wasn't perfect, but worked just fine. I wonder whether the project continues...
I generally just pick the closest with similar CR. So eg I use 5e Black Pudding stats where the PF adventure says Gray Ooze, because 5e Gray Oozes have a crappy CR and 5e Black Pudding has a similar CR to PF Gray Ooze. Last session PCs fought a Cave Giant 'CR 6, see monster book XX' - I just looked for a 5e giant with similar CR and decided the 5e MM CR 7 stone giant was close enough for my 5 PC, 5th level group. I could have used hill giant stats if my group was weak.
I think in future I may just substitute entire monsters, eg that CR 8 Seugathi could have been any old demon or devil of similar CR. The trick is to select a monster of similar-ish CR, rather than one that looks the same but is vastly weaker or tougher.
Quote from: Daztur;898897What usually works OK is:
1. Let the players do what they want.
2. The players piss of someone powerful by being themselves.
3. That someone is now the Big Threat to them.
Reasonable.
Unless those bastards find something I, THE NARRATOR (cue drums) wouldn't enjoy. :D
Quote from: Bren;898794Depends on the setting.
I see. Circumstances-depended as usual.
QuoteNot sure what you are asking here. I think the nobody from nowhere is usually some version of a hero's journey. Frodo is an atypical hero whose heroism is focused on morality and martyrdom. I don't think that sort of situation, with that sort of hero is very common. The growth (literally and figuratively) of Merry and Pippin is more typical of the progression seen in most RPGs than is Frodo or Sam.
I'm talking about slightly modified "simpleton saves the world" scenario, in which the fate of the world doesn't rely on any single hero/group/force, but it's a mutual effort. You know, you're not merely a grunt, but you're not a hero either, because there are no such person. In such a story "saviors" aren't required to become especially strong, so there's no "from 0 to hero", and if the group manages to grow in strength, it's just a byproduct, not a prerequisite.
I'm not sure if I'm explaining it properly, so just for the sake of clarity, the emphasis should be put on "there are NO protagonists". The group will gain some recognition, but it won't be called "the heroes". The catch is that no one else will gain this title. So, Frodo, but not quite.
QuoteIt looks like you are finding some ideas that interest you. So that's a win.
Hell yeah! While I have no problems with twisting and evolving any single idea, I'm very slow to finding it. A gentle push in some direction is often all I need. ;)
QuoteI find those sorts of solutions unsatisfying. They seem like a cheat. "Oh yeah the big bad that was going to destroy the world...well news of the world's destruction was greatly exaggerated. Nothing really to worry about."
Same here. It's more "the last resort" kind of card, one that works well
only if played well. Still, some might say that even crappy solution is better than no solution at all.
QuoteI think that the more expansive the setting is the more difficult it is for the players to care about any particular aspect of the setting. I think there are a lot of reasons for this. Too many options is one problem. Lack of focus is another.
If player A may cares about the Baroness NPC in World-1, while player B cares about this family that runs the Blue Bottle tavern in World-2, while player C cares about the Queen and his pal, the captain of the Queen's guard over in world-3 it is going to be difficult to get the players to focus on anyone of the three worlds, much less brand new World-4. And you need them focused and motivated to more or less work together on the same thing...whatever that thing might be. Narrowing the focus for a while on one of the worlds or even one city on one of the worlds might help alleviate the overabundance of options and possible lack of focus.
We're facing (I assume we are) kind of reverse situation. It seems that some of my players are afraid to sail on open waters and they prefer to stay in safe distance to the port, so to speak.
For example - rather than find/develop separate worlds (Domains), they formed an agreement and now they co-rule one world. I think that some begin to feel a bit bored with that, but they are a bit clueless about what to do.
QuoteI've never done a cataclysmic ending. I've always put games on the shelf, as it were. Several have been picked up again after a hiatus of one or more years. Call of Cthulhu we've been playing on and off since the 1980s with a large stable of characters and a world shared by 3 regular GMs (Keepers if one is into silly names for the GM) and several occasional GMs. I'm certain we'll pick that up again once someone (possibly me) temporarily runs out of inspiration or enthusiasm for H+I. I don't see a reason to end a campaign – it seems like Doyle's decision to kill Holmes and we know how well Reichenback Falls actually worked. Although I do think it is nice to have the characters in a somewhat settled place or position while the campaign is on the shelf – oh yeah he is the Baron of Black Serpent Tower, he is the steward of the castle, she is a lieutenant with the Black Wolves mercenary company, he's the champion for the King of the Skellani tribe, etc..
I'm not sure I explained it properly. It's not that players demand specifically for their worlds to end and their characters dying alongside it, no. They are more interested in some sort of epic, world-is-about-to-end campaign where they attempt to save it. If they succeed, they assume their characters retired and live to the end of their lives as heroes. If they fail, then their world died with them. In either way, a closure of sorts and a blessing to abandon this setting and those characters without any remorse.
This might sound funny, but I recall a few instances of players feeling guilty about some PCs they left behind alongside of some "let's just stop for a time being" campaigns years ago.
Side note: I witnessed plenty of "what are fun ways to kill my character" threads and I'm always strongly against it. For some reason I can't stand such an option, coming obviously from video-games.
QuoteIt sounds like the players are interested in the setting. Maybe you just need to focus on the part of the setting where the PCs have power and influence to expand and protect.
I didn't decide yet. I'd prefer to make them move their asses and explore the possibilities offered by the setting and "threat that forces you to travel a lot" seems to be the most obvious choice. Still, it's not that local problems are mutually exclusive with long voyages. ;)
QuoteI seldom run games where the PCs are adventurers, though they nearly always are adventurous. One might ask, what's the difference?
(...)
Interesting. I knew it intuitively, but I didn't ever bother to define the difference. Come to think about it, it's logical - you (your character) might dislike adventures, but be forced to lead such a way.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm...
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898903I see. Reasonable. One more thing... There's a free game called "Zothique". How much your setting resembles it?
Um, a little? What I assume you are talking about is the free d20 setting book at EldrichDark.com. It has lots of d20 translations of Zothique gods and creatures. Honestly, I'm not that concerned about actually
being Zothique, but building stories in the same vein (as well as more Conan-esque stories.) So I'm not really so concerned about whether the god Mordiggian is in my setting so much as if I could tell stories like Isle of Torturers, Empire of Necromancers, and the Charnel God. But there were lots of other stories swimming around in my head I wanted to make a game out of. Ultimately, I think I distilled the mood I wanted out of:
Zothique Stories (especially Empire of Necromancers, the Charnel God, and The Death of Ilalotha)
Conan stories (esp. The People of the Black Circle)
Conan Movies (the originals)
The Scorpion King
The pre-Cudgel Dying Earth stories (esp. Tsais and Mazirian the Magician)
"Den" and "Taarna" from Heavy Metal ("The Lok-Nar is mine, you stupid bitch!")
Though I didn't use D&D for my setting, the D20 Zothique PDF sort of hit some of the same notes in how it trimmed down the D&D experience. In the Zothique D20 pdf, Barbarians, Rogues, and Fighters were the bulk of characters, with uncommon spellcasters, and classes like Paladin and Bard vanquished. And humans the only playable race.
In my case, I wasn't using D&D but Fantasy Craft, a D20 variant that is a less steeped in many traditional D&D elements. I had to do a lot less trimming of classes because Fantasy Craft didn't use core classes that were so setting informed as Paladins and Bards. Such things became the province of specialties and expert classes, and thus much more easily excluded while leaving more options for character creation.
I did trim races, but went mostly with humans plus the non-D&D races of Fantasy Craft: Saurians (highly customizable lizardman like race) and Unborn (constructs.) I created backstory elements to explain these. Saurians were refugees of a world destroyed when its solar system has a brush with ours (tapping into the far future/Dying Earth feel.) Unborn were the last surviving remnants of an ancient empire (tapping into the feel of both the unhuman empire outliving its creators in Empire of Necromancers as well as the tradition of protectors in Taarna.) Also, for this purpose, I really dig that Fantasy Craft humans are a lot more varied than D&D humans due to the Fantasy Craft talent mechanic, which allowed me to keep a lot of race options open to the players even in the face of significantly paring back the playable races.
Quote from: jeff37923;898898What movie/TV show is that from?
Virus (http://alchetron.com/Virus-%281999-film%29-29568-W) - the one from 1999 year. Not particularly good, but like the majority of "B" movies, might be suitable for RPG scenario.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;898925Um, a little? What I assume you are talking about is the free d20 setting book at EldrichDark.com. (...)
That's the one.
Thanks for the explanation. :)
Quote- Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
More or less. The "big threat" tends to focus on a kingdom, or area. Nothing completely earth-shattering. Never, ever ran anything where the party has to take on the Gods or anything. We DID have one arc that had to do with elimination of a species via a magical virus, through a revenge plot. But we never finished it.
Quote- Do your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
I think they like having an ultimate enemy, but it doesn't have to be a "save the world" situation. We've had plenty of drama with smaller, more personal adventures.
Quote- Did you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat - a thing familiar to your world's inhabitants, that motivates some (PCs) to move their asses and travel across whole world and beyond? A word of explanation: The One Ring from tLoTR setting doesn't match the criteria, since it serves the purpose of getting rid of the Big Threat. The quest to seek Holy Grail would be the better example of what I have in mind. While it might be used as a morale boosting icon for any ruler or general, its purpose isn't to counter any specific Big Threat whatsoever.
Recovery of a broken sword to legitimize a royal claim, in order to prevent civil war. In the process of looking for the broken sword, the party found a lost heir to the throne and brought her back with them.
That storyline was interesting. The new heir assumed the mantle of Queen. Meanwhile, the Knight that recovered the sword was implicated in a plot against the crown while he was off bringing back the heir (I don't remember the details of all this). Ultimately, the knight had to do a "Lt. Worf," and accept discommendation and exile in order to "save" the kingdom from civil war. He sacrificed his honor for his people.
In the end, the sword thing was this lure to get them to find the lost heir. They were also expecting that the Knight would somehow turn out to be the heir. But all the clues that applied to him, also applied to the heir. So, a red herring, in a way, but it led to a fitting conclusion. Said knight had lost almost all his friends in the campaign, including his closest (it was a lethal campaign, in the end). He ended up with nothing, though he did the right thing. The character's narrative became the launch point of the next campaign, in which he set out to recover his honor. Unfortunately, this was a school group. Everyone graduated and that was that.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898659Side note: I find the differences in the way people explain same settings/lore very interesting. It's actually damn awesome to see same world remade according to alternative power structure. :)
I take it, your campaign involved The Big Threat, but PCs weren't absolutely crucial to deal with it?
If I may ask, he joined as a NPC, DMPC, full PC?
Interesting. How PCs approached the challenge? Did they focus on food, or attempted to fix the world, or...?
1: Same here. Even if some peoples interpretations come across as a bit crack-headed or like they never read the material at all.
2: Up until near the end of Hoard the PCs were unaware there was a threat. They were just investigating a cult and trying to find out where all the treasure was going. They came very close to haulting the threat without being fully cognizant of the scope. Part two covered attempts to stall or outright stop the threat from ever happening. And then the final showdown. The party was part of an overall operation. Chance and their own scheeming placed them at the front of the line. Where they DID NOT want to be. heh-heh. They would have been perfectly happy to let someone else handle the final showdown.
3: All of the above. Some were player characters who were introduced via getting beat up. Quite a few were NPCs. One started as an NPC and then was adopted by a player when her character got vaporized.
4: We tried alot of things to slow down the famine. The first big hurdle was convincing the bureaucracy to do more than hole up and hope they dont get eaten. Then trying to organize the various OA casters to combine forces. But we discovered quickly that it was just creating little islands of hope in a sea of suffering. OA lacks the "Create Food" spell of AD&D and Create Spring doesnt do any good for the present. (Did though speed up long term recovery.) And Quickgrowth had simmilar problems due to limitations. We had to deal with a Wu Jen who was using Cloudburst to irrigate his town. Which was accellerating the problem for the surrounding towns as that spell draws on natural moisture in the air. We went searching for a Wu Jen with Control Weather only to find out that it cant fabricate good weather without something to work with. And its very short lived. argh! That took about 7 months of weekly sessions to resolve. Grim would be an understatement.
Then came the plague - as a result of of the famine. I forget the particulars. But the next years event was an ambassador from another country visiting. During the ongoing plague. For over a freaking year too! argh part 2. On the bright side all our efforts to help while desperately trying to keep the ambassador alive impressed her so much that on return home she sent the kingdom alot of aid and became a recurring NPC.
And all of it was just simple natural disasters. No demon plot, no mad wizard did it. One of the things we had to deal with was finding proof that the hengeyokai didnt do it as everyone and there brother was accusing them of being the culprits. And then started pointing at a neighboring kingdom when that proved wrong. argh the 3rd.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898761Care to name some? I feel like revisiting some old places, so to speak. ;)
Wilderlands, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Harn, Runequest, The Fantasy Trip, Dragon Warriors, Bushido, Traveller, Space Opera, Star Frontiers to name a few I can recall.
Quote from: Xanther;898986Wilderlands, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Harn, Runequest, The Fantasy Trip, Dragon Warriors, Bushido, Traveller, Space Opera, Star Frontiers to name a few I can recall.
Star Frontiers had the Sathar. But they were more a problem amongst problems rather than an overarching threat. Even in Knight Hawks they just swept in and then left and after that resumed being a threat amongst threats.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898911I'm not sure if I'm explaining it properly, so just for the sake of clarity, the emphasis should be put on "there are NO protagonists". The group will gain some recognition, but it won't be called "the heroes". The catch is that no one else will gain this title. So, Frodo, but not quite.
What you described in those two paragraphs sounds a lot like real life.
Closest to that style or tone in an RPG would be Call of Cthulhu where the protagonists are often oddballs, but still ordinary people with the same kinds of skills, levels of skills, and hit points as anyone else. Runequest/Glorantha is sometimes close to that. I ran a campaign in Glorantha where the PCs were fairly ordinary members of a clan and there were no heroes with a capital H to be seen, just various ranges of skilled and less skilled farmers, clan warriors, thanes, etc.
QuoteWe're facing (I assume we are) kind of reverse situation. It seems that some of my players are afraid to sail on open waters and they prefer to stay in safe distance to the port, so to speak.
What is it that they are afraid of?
QuoteFor example - rather than find/develop separate worlds (Domains), they formed an agreement and now they co-rule one world. I think that some begin to feel a bit bored with that, but they are a bit clueless about what to do.
Might be worth asking them if they are a bit bored. Also if they'd like a change, whether they would be more interested in having to defend the world they co-rule from some sort of threats or in exploring new worlds.
One option might be to threaten the world they rule with extraterrestrial or extradimensional threats. Then put the McGuffin they need to understand/defeat/counteract/dispel/whatever the bad guys on some other world so they have a reason to want to go there, explore, and find the McGuffin. You could even set it up something like the Argonautica (story of Jason and the Golden Fleece) where they have to go to world A to learn more about the threat. On world A they learn something about the threat and they hear about someone who can tell them how to defeat the threat. This someone lives on world B. The person on world B bargains with them to go get some other McGuffin he/she/it wants or needs from world C before he will tell them how to stop the threat. They get the other McGuffin, he/she/it tells them the secret of the threat and that they can stop it with the Big McGuffin, which is on world D...hopefully you get the idea....
QuoteIf they succeed, they assume their characters retired and live to the end of their lives as heroes. If they fail, then their world died with them. In either way, a closure of sorts and a blessing to abandon this setting and those characters without any remorse.
Next time I'm ready for a change, I should probably ask my players if they'd find that preferable.
QuoteThis might sound funny, but I recall a few instances of players feeling guilty about some PCs they left behind alongside of some "let's just stop for a time being" campaigns years ago.
It doesn't sound funny. It'just not my preference or default idea. I see what you described as being like a story where the protagonist dies or if he succeeds it includes some "happy ever after" resolution. Whereas I see what I described as being like a book series with the same protagonists and where the next book in the series hasn't been written yet.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898903SL... My, my, that's preposterous and degrading towards females. ;)
Anyway, the threat is there, but it's slow to move, and people are mostly oblivious to it. Are you keeping the track of events happening in the background (for example "month #3, Vikings invade a few villages, small tension in northern border arises"), or are you leaving everything as it is and plan to develop everything "prior to the session"/"on the fly" the moment PCs enter relevant territory?
A bit of both. I do have some notes on what is happening in the background but I'm trying not to be too detailed or expansive with it. Also, I'm rather lazy and delaying things, including game writing, far too much in my life.
(And yes, SLUT is preposterous, but also good for some laughs. I was in some used book stores in New Hampshire last summer, the kind of places that have 100K+ books. You can find some interesting old series in them. Back in the 60s there were series of soft-core porn novels with names such as "Lady from L.U.S.T" (about a female spy who tends to solve her cases with sex.) Stupid and comical, but there ya go.)
http://spyguysandgals.com/sgShowChar.aspx?id=568
Quote from: jeff37923;898898What movie/TV show is that from?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898929Virus (http://alchetron.com/Virus-%281999-film%29-29568-W) - the one from 1999 year. Not particularly good, but like the majority of "B" movies, might be suitable for RPG scenario.
Yes, though I think Traveller originally to it from the comic where the movie is from as well, except it sort of became a deus ex machine plot device apocalypse to reset the setting, way too heavy handed.
Good point about B movies though, I often cite Alien: Resurrection as the perfect Traveller adventure for that reason.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898903I see. Still, quite uncommon. Sure, no galaxy is a stranger to religious conflicts, but it's usually on a local scale only. I think it might be partially because full-scale crusade/Jihad requires a good set of beliefs and GM are kind of dismissive about introducing them, since there's a prospect of religious discussions in the future, and defending/pushing a set of beliefs you don't actually like/follow/know... Well, it's hardly any fun.
Then again, I might be wrong. ;)
Mostly in that I don't have much to say about religion, I'm not particularly religious. If I was, maybe Buddhism? Hell, I can't even spell it right. As far as the "big threat", the players could leave the area to where it isn't a big threat, turn full pirate, or even join up with them. They have also sold a nuke to terrorists, if that shows where their morality is at.
QuoteI see. I take it, so far they don't plan to become heroes that's gonna save the universe.
See above. I think the just want to go around and shoot stuff, not exactly murder hoboes is spaaace! But, sort of. Traveller is very grifty of a game, usually. We had a joke about another campaign I was player in, as it was "Mustered out as Murder Hoboes".
QuoteAs for the virus - does it attack alive entities or just electronics?
Electronics first, then uses constructs or machinery it has taken over to attack people, it is a viral AI basically. It isn't like the exsurgent virus from Eclipse Phase that takes over people physically.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898903Something along the lines of "it's too stupid for such an advanced foe, therefore it has to be a brilliant tactics only pretending to be stupid, and we're not gonna fall for that, mwahahahahaha!"? Overthinking is a powerful trap, indeed. ;)
It gets better than this. If the "Rogue AI" threat succeeds, it will start to destroy certain military computer systems. Now this is embarrassing but the real kicker is that as soon as "Operation Palefire" kicks in, the "Rogue AI" starts to transmit in all frequencies that it has accomplished its mission and enemy is on its knees. This is supposed to be the starting alert for a surprise military campaign that will never materialize because country that created this doomsday device no longer exist. However, the public panic that ensues will be staggering...
Quote from: cranebump;898934Recovery of a broken sword to legitimize a royal claim, in order to prevent civil war. In the process of looking for the broken sword, the party found a lost heir to the throne and brought her back with them.
Preemptive action - do X and instead of worrying about fixing event Y, prevent it before it starts. Interesting - I didn't think about it.
I like it very much. Thank you.
Quote from: Omega;8989851: Same here. Even if some peoples interpretations come across as a bit crack-headed or like they never read the material at all.
Ha! Exactly.
There were instances of some people presenting alternate vision of the setting I've been using for years. At first, I was (of course) "wtf, dude, change your drugdealer, the current one sells you some braindamaging crap", because (obviously) I couldn't be wrong. Then, I gave it more thought and I understood that
their vision was quite plausible. Lo, and behold, shitloads of new plotseeds, including "guys, you were Paladins attempting to fix the world, but you were wrong, oh so wrong".
Quote(...) hey would have been perfectly happy to let someone else handle the final showdown.
Wait, wait... How dd you manage to convince them to do "what needs to be done" even if they weren't particularly happy about that? It's not that I wouldn't know how to handle that - I'm simply curious about your solution. :)
Quote4: We tried alot of things to slow down the famine. The first big hurdle was (...)
From the foundation to the roof. Reasonable. Out of curiosity: how long did it take? As in, both session/In-game time.
Quote from: Xanther;898986Wilderlands, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Harn, Runequest, The Fantasy Trip, Dragon Warriors, Bushido, Traveller, Space Opera, Star Frontiers to name a few I can recall.
I'd argue about some (FR being D&D's iconic setting seems like the perfect example of world constantly threatened by something big), but this is kind of subjective judgement I guess. :)
Thank you, I appreciate it.
Quote from: Bren;899021What you described in those two paragraphs sounds a lot like real life.
Life taught me that there's always someone who will at least attempt to steal all the show and elevate himself to the position of "It is I, who single-handedly saved the world". And if not, then some powers that be are gonna produce such a legend, because legends are quite useful in gaining more control over clueless masses, of sheep...
...Hmmm, yeah, it's time for an alcoholic beverage.
QuoteClosest to that style or tone in an RPG would be Call of Cthulhu where the protagonists are often oddballs, but still ordinary people with the same kinds of skills, levels of skills, and hit points as anyone else. Runequest/Glorantha is sometimes close to that. I ran a campaign in Glorantha where the PCs were fairly ordinary members of a clan and there were no heroes with a capital H to be seen, just various ranges of skilled and less skilled farmers, clan warriors, thanes, etc.
How about attempting to achieve it in fantasy? Your group is part of a bigger movement, they meet with other groups at some base, learn what's there to do, perhaps they have the choice which of a few quests to do. When they return, they learn how other groups fared, what's new to do and so on, and so forth, until the threat is finally averted courtesy of mutual effort?
I've been doing it a few times, once with three co-GMs who led their own groups, none more important than others. It was quite fun.
QuoteWhat is it that they are afraid of?
Might be worth asking them if they are a bit bored. Also if they'd like a change, whether they would be more interested in having to defend the world they co-rule from some sort of threats or in exploring new worlds
.
In all honesty, I'm not sure. I study their behavior, observe their body language, pay attention to those tiny signals they send consciously or not. Way I see it, my group is split between players who are eager to do more, and those who... Hmmm... Seem overwhelmed by what they might face. I think they are a bit afraid that its gonna get too complicated, that they are gonna face many parallel story lines, and they are gonna be forced to fix it on their own, rather than work things out together.
I can't simply discuss it with them, because I'm a bit hesitant to send the signal that they are gonna get what they want, that the story will be adjusted to their liking, rather than go in the original direction. Not my style, I'm afraid.
Quote(...) hopefully you get the idea....
Yeah. I've been thinking about something like that. Small steps, clear directions, orders from powers-that-be - at least until the moment they'll feel ready to pick their own destination. The problem is that the group is very mixed. Veterans, beginners, "hit it with axe", "Peytr Littlefinger is gonna f... them all".
Damn, I think I should start a bit different thread, explain stuff in detail...
QuoteNext time I'm ready for a change, I should probably ask my players if they'd find that preferable.
Strong recommendation. "A closure", even if it ends bad is (at least according to my experience) way more satisfying than "a cliffhanger".
QuoteIt doesn't sound funny. It'just not my preference or default idea. I see what you described as being like a story where the protagonist dies or if he succeeds it includes some "happy ever after" resolution. Whereas I see what I described as being like a book series with the same protagonists and where the next book in the series hasn't been written yet.
Yeah.
The thing is that the
SOME readers/players put the book/character on the shelf and rather than go about their business, they feel some remorse, guilt that they prevent the story from continuing. It's classic "Carouser-Prince" syndrome. The Prince wastes the time doing "stuff", rather than attempting to wake up the Sleeping Beauty. ;)
This concerns only a small percentage of players, mind you. I'm not claiming it's serious issue or something.
Quote from: Doughdee222;899049A bit of both. I do have some notes on what is happening in the background but I'm trying not to be too detailed or expansive with it. Also, I'm rather lazy and delaying things, including game writing, far too much in my life.
How well I understand that, oh how well. ;)
QuoteStupid and comical, but there ya go.
I simply hope that the majority of people are reasonable enough to tell the difference between a harmless joke and something that needs to be "fixed".
BTW, I recall "Busty Barbarian Bimbos" using "S.L.U.T." mechanics. ;
Quote from: dragoner;899082Good point about B movies though, I often cite Alien: Resurrection as the perfect Traveller adventure for that reason.
The movie was doomed to fail, at least when fandom is concerned. I believe its biggest problem were actors - it's hard to enjoy a horror movie, where half of the cast act like clowns or perverts.
In spite of it, I agree about its RPG value. Reusable scenario, interesting environment, more than a single entry point for any group of PCs' (clones, smugglers, abducted, scientists, soldiers)...
If you'll ever come across this comic book (providing you don't know it already), you might find it useful. It's very similar to A:R, but 140% less bullshit.
(http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/330823394174-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)
QuoteMostly in that I don't have much to say about religion, I'm not particularly religious. If I was, maybe Buddhism? Hell, I can't even spell it right.
You're already halfway there, then. ;)
QuoteAs far as the "big threat", the players could leave the area to where it isn't a big threat, turn full pirate, or even join up with them. They have also sold a nuke to terrorists, if that shows where their morality is at.
QuoteSee above. I think the just want to go around and shoot stuff, not exactly murder hoboes is spaaace! But, sort of. Traveller is very grifty of a game, usually. We had a joke about another campaign I was player in, as it was "Mustered out as Murder Hoboes".
I see. The Big Threat resembles a force of nature, then - something very real, but far from unavoidable and it's hard to tell whether it's better to attempt and fix it, or simply leave it as it is, in hope it's gonna disappear. This leaves the PCs with helluva choices. The only prerequisite here is that players are veterans, or at least smart enough to determine their own goals and agendas, whereas beginners might find the situation a bit difficult to deal with. Am I correct here?
QuoteElectronics first, then uses constructs or machinery it has taken over to attack people, it is a viral AI basically. It isn't like the exsurgent virus from Eclipse Phase that takes over people physically.
Something along the lines of Mark XIII cyborg from "Hardware" movie?
Quote from: Nikita;899202(...) However, the public panic that ensues will be staggering...
Good job there! :)
This reminds me this certain story, where some angel meets the Death and says that he've heard she had rough night - one city was destroyed in fire, so she had full hands with all those people dying. And the Death responds "naaaaah, I actually harvested only a few, the Fear took the rest". ;)
If I'm understanding it properly, the real problem won't be the enemy itself, but people's reactions. If so, then it's another scenario rarely used. I recall only a few where the story took similar path - they mostly involve a plague in some fantasy worlds.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899212How about attempting to achieve it in fantasy? Your group is part of a bigger movement, they meet with other groups at some base, learn what's there to do, perhaps they have the choice which of a few quests to do. When they return, they learn how other groups fared, what's new to do and so on, and so forth, until the threat is finally averted courtesy of mutual effort?
Haven't done that for fantasy, I've typically done something sandboxy and explorational with no big threats that must be faced though PCs that open the wrong door, enter the wrong cave, or turn over the wrong rock might uncover something pretty bad. Mission based campaigns (which sounds like what you described) is something I've done all the time in Call of Cthulhu and most of the time for Star Trek and Star Wars. I guess my Pendragon campaign was a bit like what you describe and would have been even more so once Arthur established the Round Table which would act as a group with Camelot as a base.
QuoteThis concerns only a small percentage of players, mind you. I'm not claiming it's serious issue or something.
Serious RPG issue is an oxymoron.
Quote from: Bren;898794A setting where dozens of vampires stalk every town looking for human cattle on which to feed doesn't strike me as safe and that's just one possible urban fantasy threat.
It happens a lot in RPGs, because Vampire, but it's not an implacable rule of the urban fantasy genre.
QuoteTypically in urban fantasy the protagonists, because they are aware and involved, are in greater danger than the mundane humans who form the mass of the urban population. So for the PCs the urban fantasy city is not a lot safer than the wilderness in your average D&D setting.
Again, thank White Wolf for that:p.
There are just as many settings where mortals are fair game, but attacking another supernatural is liable to get you killed in a way you're going to hate. "Lost Girl" comes to mind for a recent example.
QuoteGenerally, I put in too much work on the setting to be very sanguine about tossing most of it away to reboot the game. And I don't particular want to play in the failed to be saved universe as I don't enjoy distopic settings.
Shrug. I said that's one way to deal with TPKs, never said you have to like this exact solution.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898760The problem might lie in the fact that our setting became... how to put that... too borderless, too unlimited. It's the first time I lead such an inexperienced group that far into "whatever you think about, such a place exists somewhere out there" and they have trouble processing the possibilities, I think.
tl;dr: they still think in micro, rather than macro -scale.
It's an OOC problem, then. Address it OOC - this applies to more than "he looked at me creepy" problems:).
Meaning, pick a part of the setting that you like, and ask them to keep within it. Map it in some detail, along with the closest environment. Bang, you have borders.
QuoteNaaaaah, I've been already told I'm talking too much.
Who dared say that to you?
And what names did you call him:D?
QuoteThe error in judgment. I'm afraid that my players might not be ready for exactly this kind of adventures the system/setting encourages. I'm entertaining the idea of "going back to roots" at least for the time being.
You're the GM. You decide what would make your life easier.
I'd suggest a compromise solution which was mentioned in the thread: give them a threat, but make it a threat that wouldn't actually change that much (though its proponents probably beleived it would). Whatever they choose to do, they had a direction, and the game wins;).
QuoteYes. Ultimately it's up to dice. Unless it's a diceless system.
Or unless it's a card-based system;).
Much as I like diceless systems and creative RNGs, both are an edge case.
QuoteI can only guess why. Let's see... Is it because of its directness or because you don't introduce clearly "bad guys"? ;)
Well, that, and because I usually deal in shades of grey anyway...:D
Quote from: Ravenswing;898743Welllll ... if it hadn't been a bluff, and the orcs made a legitimate charge across the bridge to go for the questers, I would've coped well enough -- ordered our slower runners to overtake the orcs and assault them from the rear, where the woodland path would give maximum play to our heavier-armored front line, while I led the sprinters around the long loop and see if we couldn't take them in the flank. (Not that it would've taken me more than a couple seconds; I'd been leading troops in LARPs for nearly a decade at that point. Not my first rodeo, as my wife says!)
Yeah, I was dead certain it was a bluff -- it wasn't the first or the second event that came down to a Small Band of Questers and everyone else doing Other Stuff -- but no need for complacency. ;)
Regarding your After-The-World-Ends scenario, I wonder how many GMs have dared to do it all the way: a true "hopeless" campaign, where evil has won, its victory is permanent, and its sway absolute? Where the best the PCs can do before their inevitable deaths is to light a small candle?
Good on you:).
I haven't, though I've entertained the idea. But every time I start thinking about it, something better comes up...
Though I've been in some Exalted games that came close to the description;).
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899212How about attempting to achieve it in fantasy? Your group is part of a bigger movement, they meet with other groups at some base, learn what's there to do, perhaps they have the choice which of a few quests to do. When they return, they learn how other groups fared, what's new to do and so on, and so forth, until the threat is finally averted courtesy of mutual effort?
A lot of my recent games have centered on a 'university' in a fantasy setting where the PCs work for various departments as gofers. Most of the time they're retrieving books for the library that have been borrowed but never returned for various reasons. A lot of the time there's no danger at all unless they let their curiosity get the better of them. Kinda like the missions in Postal 2... such as where you're sent to get a gallon of milk from the store, and it's no problem at all unless you look in the back room and discover it's a hideout for terrorists and there are tunnels leading to an underworld full of demon dogs... or piss off the wrong guy while standing in line... or stop to interact with the weirdos you see on the way there. The missions are just there to provide a reason to go outside into the world.
Quote from: AsenRG;899269Again, thank White Wolf for that:p.
I was thinking of Charles de Lint. In his stories, mortals who can perceive and/or get involved with the supernatural entities and the magical realm are in more danger than the average mundane because they have come to the attention of powers.
QuoteShrug. I said that's one way to deal with TPKs, never said you have to like this exact solution.
Killing the PCs isn't the issue and a TPK isn’t the problem. Destroying the setting as it exists is the issue. And losing most of the world building work I already did is the problem. Your saying, “Well make up a new world after the Armageddon and play in that" isn’t a solution that I don’t like. It just isn’t a solution to the problem.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899215Quote from: Doughdee222;899049Good job there! :)
This reminds me this certain story, where some angel meets the Death and says that he've heard she had rough night - one city was destroyed in fire, so she had full hands with all those people dying. And the Death responds "naaaaah, I actually harvested only a few, the Fear took the rest". ;)
If I'm understanding it properly, the real problem won't be the enemy itself, but people's reactions. If so, then it's another scenario rarely used. I recall only a few where the story took similar path - they mostly involve a plague in some fantasy worlds.
Yes. People generally do not panic as in run screaming but there have been a case where radio theatre about WW3 was taken for real (I myself listened to it) by some people and they did go to a bomb shelter. The real panic is that some other people start to take advantage of the fear and anxiety of general populous. For example by riling people to attack former "space nazis and like". It is for example why responsible and professional security officials avoid alerting people about potential terrorist threats, they know that it would create false alerts which they cannot distinguish from real tips. This naturally creates a fertile ground for additional crises and problems player character group need to deal with.
I generally generate a potential crisis per game session. This way they always have a plate of things to do. A panic for instance would cause situation boil over in a poor country that could end up as a potential genocide (players do not know this threat yet as their characters do not really care about poor foreign people). Thus I do use "big bad" but more as a cause of general problems and instability rather than direct cause of evil in game. It is simply a matter of cause and effect.
Quote from: Bren;899278I was thinking of Charles de Lint. In his stories, mortals who can perceive and/or get involved with the supernatural entities and the magical realm are in more danger than the average mundane because they have come to the attention of powers.
Sure, but we're talking about what is popular in RPGs. I'm sure Vampire has influenced the development of the average urban fantasy setting a lot more than Charles de Lint:).
QuoteKilling the PCs isn't the issue and a TPK isn’t the problem. Destroying the setting as it exists is the issue. And losing most of the world building work I already did is the problem. Your saying, “Well make up a new world after the Armageddon and play in that" isn’t a solution that I don’t like. It just isn’t a solution to the problem.
But it would have been a solution if you liked doing that, wouldn't it;)? Or rather, the problem wouldn't have been a problem, but an opportunity.
I admit I wrote it under the misunderstanding that the TPK was the issue, though.
OTOH, you might like the other suggestion I recommended to JesterRaiin, although it was mentioned in the thread already.
Quote from: AsenRG;899299Sure, but we're talking about what is popular in RPGs. I'm sure Vampire has influenced the development of the average urban fantasy setting a lot more than Charles de Lint:).
I've never played it, so I bow to your superior knowledge of Vampire the Masquerade.
QuoteI admit I wrote it under the misunderstanding that the TPK was the issue, though.
I have a superior knowledge about what things I find to be problems in gaming. ;)
Here though is one campaign we did that had zero threats.
A Star Frontiers campaign I actually for once got to be a player in. For once I was also not the group negotiator. The group instead of going out exploring and troubleshooting went out and set up a trade business. We pooled funds and wrangled a loan on a freighter and then toured the tradelanes making an overall steady profit as one of the players was really into the trade part and uncanny good at estimating or guessing where would be a good sale point. We took longer, but safer routes usually and if there were pirates out there we never saw a one. In part I think because we kept a low profile.
We invested in gradually larger ships and eventually bought a mining ship to expand the business. Probably one of the most sedate and overall uneventful campaigns Ive played. Ive heard that some play Traveller solitaire like that too?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899215If you'll ever come across this comic book (providing you don't know it already), you might find it useful. It's very similar to A:R, but 140% less bullshit.
http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/330823394174-0-1/s-l1000.jpg
Thanks, I'll check it out.
QuoteYou're already halfway there, then. ;)
Then we can talk about how reality is just a simulation run by a Kardashev type V being. :)
QuoteI see. The Big Threat resembles a force of nature, then - something very real, but far from unavoidable and it's hard to tell whether it's better to attempt and fix it, or simply leave it as it is, in hope it's gonna disappear. This leaves the PCs with helluva choices. The only prerequisite here is that players are veterans, or at least smart enough to determine their own goals and agendas, whereas beginners might find the situation a bit difficult to deal with. Am I correct here?
Veterans and beginners, it all sort of coalesces into a glorious disaster, though my campaigns always sort of wander back into sci-fi horror, with just military or trade as frosting.
QuoteSomething along the lines of Mark XIII cyborg from "Hardware" movie?
Always. A totally underrated classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMaVIAlJlnw
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465- Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
Yeah. Superhero-type settings are pretty good for this. Honestly, you can have 'the great evil' and kick the piss out of it... then go on to fight another.
Fun short story- we played a superhero setting where I got booted from the group for a silly reason. The GM made a very blatant Mr. Rictus/Vandal Savage hybrid knock-off character that was behind all kinds of horrible shit. The GM didn't even have a decent motivaton for the guy. We just kept fighting him or his goons, put him in Super-Max, and he'd get out for some other plot like it was some silly old-school Batman/Joker thing. So when we 'defeated' him, my character actually tried to kill the guy. My IC reason was 'he kept getting out and doing bad shit'. My OOC reason was 'I'm tired of fighting this same old dude'.
Never liked the 'prime threat' as a physical, tangible thing.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465- Do your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
My problem is when you have the 'big bad evil', then everything is focused on that one big bad evil. Players tend to not want to go toward anything that isn't directly tied to stopping the threat. Which makes sense- you'd prioritize it as "this thing is bad and a threat to all of mankind/people/virginity, we should focus on this!"
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465- Did you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat
Well, yes and no. I don't like the 'prime threat' being something you can put hit points on. It's honestly why I tread with caution any time someone mentions 'Lovecraftian horrors' in an RPG setting. There's things that I've seen done that work well.
In superhero settings, there are multiple villains with various agendas- and in the right circumstances, any one of them can be a 'big bad' for a story arc and then the next can be completely different. This is especially fun because one group I played with went from fighting an evil organization that wanted to resurrect/genetically re-engineer the Nephilim (and we had to actualy fight one) to trying to shut down a powerful crime syndicate and investigate their crimes.
Another thing can be something as intangible as the war on terror. Your sci-fi heroes can be against the prime threat of a growing cult that's spread across various species and manifests itself in different ways. Or you can be focused on something like trying to preserve your colony fleet's people and encountering various threats on their way to settle a planet (like Battlestar Galactica) and then still be faced with the challenges of threats once you find a new 'home'. Even a fantasy setting- the most fun one I've ever played (which, TBH I do very little straight-up fantasy)- we were all former 'party members' of a particular Lord that'd been crippled in battle, and he called upon us to help him with various things across his lands... which led us to working with other Lords and the like.
So I suppose the short answer is that the best alternative is "A bunch of evils at any given time instead of one", or "An overall 'constant' state of vigilance/response instead of a focused threat".
Quote from: Omega;899311Here though is one campaign we did that had zero threats.
A Star Frontiers campaign I actually for once got to be a player in. For once I was also not the group negotiator. The group instead of going out exploring and troubleshooting went out and set up a trade business. We pooled funds and wrangled a loan on a freighter and then toured the tradelanes making an overall steady profit as one of the players was really into the trade part and uncanny good at estimating or guessing where would be a good sale point. We took longer, but safer routes usually and if there were pirates out there we never saw a one. In part I think because we kept a low profile.
We invested in gradually larger ships and eventually bought a mining ship to expand the business. Probably one of the most sedate and overall uneventful campaigns Ive played. Ive heard that some play Traveller solitaire like that too?
Sometimes, it depends on how you run your Traveller solitaire. You can do this if you are running Traveller solitaire with Star Trader from Zozer Games (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/118337/Star-Trader).
(Yes, that is a plug for Star Trader, it is an excellent resource. )
Quote from: Bren;899218Haven't done that for fantasy, I've typically done something sandboxy and explorational with no big threats that must be faced though PCs that open the wrong door, enter the wrong cave, or turn over the wrong rock might uncover something pretty bad. Mission based campaigns (which sounds like what you described) is something I've done all the time in Call of Cthulhu and most of the time for Star Trek and Star Wars. I guess my Pendragon campaign was a bit like what you describe and would have been even more so once Arthur established the Round Table which would act as a group with Camelot as a base.
I see.
Well, it's pretty easy to launch, it gives players the purpose and clear set of goals, and if they feel they are fed up with all this, they might leave without worrying about the big picture. After all, they are parts of machine, only. They will be missed but they aren't irreplaceable. ;)
I feel it's quite useful style, especially when players are either newcomers or start their career in totally unknown setting/game. I wouldn't recommend playing in such a way too often, since players might become
QuoteSerious RPG issue is an oxymoron.
But uncle Bren... Everything what generates serious money is serious business. ;)
Just joking. Sure, it's not that I'm gonna sleep any less because some people might feel bad about any part of RPG hobby, still, when I'm playing, I like it to be nice & smooth experience, so sometimes trivial matters had to be addressed almost like real-life issues, I guess...
Quote from: AsenRG;899269It's an OOC problem, then. Address it OOC - this applies to more than "he looked at me creepy" problems:).
Meaning, pick a part of the setting that you like, and ask them to keep within it. Map it in some detail, along with the closest environment. Bang, you have borders.
I was thinking about that, but I'd rather leave it as the last resort solution. I'd rather deal with it via in-game solutions.
QuoteWho dared say that to you?
And what names did you call him:D?
I hear them at night... Scratching in the wall opposite of my bed. I see shadows and hear their silent whispers... "
Redrum, redrum..." I named them "whisperers in darkness".
The horror... The horror... ;)
On an unrelated story, I decided to give up sobriety. It doesn't work that well for me. :D
QuoteYou're the GM. You decide what would make your life easier.
I'd suggest a compromise solution which was mentioned in the thread: give them a threat, but make it a threat that wouldn't actually change that much (though its proponents probably beleived it would). Whatever they choose to do, they had a direction, and the game wins;).
Yep, this seems like the best choice. A threat with a twist.
QuoteOr unless it's a card-based system;).
Much as I like diceless systems and creative RNGs, both are an edge case.
Yeah. I don't know why. Diceless games are usually acknowledged, but hardly any discussed. What a pity.
QuoteWell, that, and because I usually deal in shades of grey anyway...:D
But more than 50 shades of Grey, I presume? :p
Quote from: Simlasa;899271A lot of my recent games have centered on a 'university' in a fantasy setting where the PCs work for various departments as gofers. Most of the time they're retrieving books for the library that have been borrowed but never returned for various reasons. A lot of the time there's no danger at all unless they let their curiosity get the better of them. Kinda like the missions in Postal 2... such as where you're sent to get a gallon of milk from the store, and it's no problem at all unless you look in the back room and discover it's a hideout for terrorists and there are tunnels leading to an underworld full of demon dogs... or piss off the wrong guy while standing in line... or stop to interact with the weirdos you see on the way there. The missions are just there to provide a reason to go outside into the world.
May I ask what game you're playing? Your description would work great for Laundry, Ars Magica, or WoD:Mage, I think.
Quote from: Nikita;899298Yes. People generally do not panic as in run screaming but there have been a case where radio theatre about WW3 was taken for real (I myself listened to it) by some people and they did go to a bomb shelter.
At first I thought you were talking about that old "Martians are coming" show, but then I remembered what age we're living in.
Any details? It seems like an interesting happening and I'm sure I didn't hear about it before.
QuoteThe real panic is that some other people start to take advantage of the fear and anxiety of general populous. For example by riling people to attack former "space nazis and like". It is for example why responsible and professional security officials avoid alerting people about potential terrorist threats, they know that it would create false alerts which they cannot distinguish from real tips. This naturally creates a fertile ground for additional crises and problems player character group need to deal with.
I recall this other movie titled "Mist", where people land in a market and attempt to survive a horrific menace. Almost immediately "leaders" start to emerge, and they manage to gain followers... We seem to be hardwired to follow strong characters (or manipulative enough).
QuoteI generally generate a potential crisis per game session. This way they always have a plate of things to do. A panic for instance would cause situation boil over in a poor country that could end up as a potential genocide (players do not know this threat yet as their characters do not really care about poor foreign people). Thus I do use "big bad" but more as a cause of general problems and instability rather than direct cause of evil in game. It is simply a matter of cause and effect.
Reasonable.
Out of curiosity: WHEN do you introduce such "side-threats"? Slowly, but inevitably, or only if players are clueless about what to do...?
Quote from: dragoner;899342Thanks, I'll check it out.
Strong recommendation. Fun fact: pretty much every movie from
Alien franchise released after Cameron's
Aliens featured some themes or plot seeds taken from some comic books. Even the latest,
Promethean branch continues to do so.
QuoteThen we can talk about how reality is just a simulation run by a Kardashev type V being. :)
Hell yeah!
In addition to Kardashev's civ scale, I recall a similar one, discussing the evolution of AI. It speculated that AI of a certain level would use pretty much ANY material objects as a storage device, or any type of "brain" as a processing unit. If this would be truth, we're a global consciousness-CPU and what we take for reality glitches or "damn, I feel so mentally tired for no apparent reason" are effects of our consciousness using our neurons a bit too much. ;)
In such a scenario, the reality we know would be just a simulation dedicated to the purpose of keeping us in shape, maintain the evolution of our brains and such.
I've heard a similar idea was meant to be used in original
Matrix movie, but it was abandoned for no apparent reasons. I'm not sure whether it's truth, and if so, then why it was turned down in place of this ridiculous "we're batteries, man" concept. Perhaps it was a bit too disturbing? ;)
QuoteVeterans and beginners, it all sort of coalesces into a glorious disaster, though my campaigns always sort of wander back into sci-fi horror, with just military or trade as frosting.
Always. A totally underrated classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMaVIAlJlnw
Heh. I feel the same. Too bad it didn't have a bit bigger budget, or wasn't released in HD resolution.
BTW, some additional classics that deserve a bit more recognition, I think:
Spoiler
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51P6VJPXQDL.jpg)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mGF-WzFZL.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dBuu_ZLk1lk/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote from: Crüesader;899343Yeah. Superhero-type settings are pretty good for this. Honestly, you can have 'the great evil' and kick the piss out of it... then go on to fight another.
Dragon Ball solution, eh? ;)
Out of curiosity: imagine an universe where there are countless worlds. Whichever you think about, (for example, a hellish-like landscape where Earth's iconic characters turned vampires wage eternal war against other supernatural creatures) it exists somewhere out there. All you need to do is to travel until you'll find correct doors to it.
So, each of such worlds come with its own history, conflicts. Effectively, none is more important than others. Well, perhaps some are, since there's where some truly powerful guy chooses to spend his time, but it's his presence alone that makes this specific world "important".
Questions: what would make you skip the Big Picture and focus your energy on becoming the defender of this specific place? How would you convince your group to spend their resources and protect this place, even if there are countless similar ones out there?
QuoteNever liked the 'prime threat' as a physical, tangible thing.
Well, me too, with the exception of Tarrasque. He is my kryptonite - I think I implemented him in pretty much every genre or setting I've been running.
QuoteMy problem is when you have the 'big bad evil', then everything is focused on that one big bad evil. Players tend to not want to go toward anything that isn't directly tied to stopping the threat. Which makes sense- you'd prioritize it as "this thing is bad and a threat to all of mankind/people/virginity, we should focus on this!"
Yes... and no. :)
It's truth, when the Big Threat is threatening the existence of the world and it seems imminent, then (providing there's no one better to get the job done), players have no choice but to do something about that. Yet, there are a few ways to deal with it. "Joint effort", as suggested early in this thread is one. Pre-Big Threat, or "the effort to prevent the Big Threat from happening" is another. Postponing the inevitable, pushing it to the future (years from now on) might also work.
Quote(...)So I suppose the short answer is that the best alternative is "A bunch of evils at any given time instead of one", or "An overall 'constant' state of vigilance/response instead of a focused threat".
I see. So you'd rather play "agency fighting supernatural" than "unlikely heroes saving the world"?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899432May I ask what game you're playing? Your description would work great for Laundry, Ars Magica, or WoD:Mage, I think.
It's just my long-standing homebrew setting, using Magic World these days. A bit post-magic-apocalypse, no Big Bads (unless you go looking for them), a haunted underworld no one has visited yet, small wars but nothing world-shattering.
QuoteI recall this other movie titled "Mist", where people land in a market and attempt to survive a horrific menace. Almost immediately "leaders" start to emerge, and they manage to gain followers... We seem to be hardwired to follow strong characters (or manipulative enough).
People followed the woman in the Mist because they were scared and desperate for answers to a situation that didn't make sense. In a mundane disaster, like an earthquake, no one would have listened to her nonsense that God was demanding a sacrifice.
Once upon a time I was deep in the forest (with thousands of other people, Rainbow Gathering) when a big fire broke out. Most people took action, formed a bucket brigade or gathered their stuff and left the area... but there were scattered idiots who lept at the opportunity to proclaim to us that they were 'in charge' (no one was in charge) and started screaming at us about the danger and what we had to do. I didn't see a single person pay them heed, because they were obviously nuts.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899432At first I thought you were talking about that old "Martians are coming" show, but then I remembered what age we're living in.
Any details? It seems like an interesting happening and I'm sure I didn't hear about it before.
Out of curiosity: WHEN do you introduce such "side-threats"? Slowly, but inevitably, or only if players are clueless about what to do...?
That was in early 1980's. I prefer not to discuss it further but my father who worked in radio broadcasting told me that they received new guidelines to clearly state they are doing radio theatre at be beginning, middle and end of theatre to prevent people in tense situation making false conclusions. It is a same thing as why military exercises are announced beforehand; people tend to be a bit worried when they suddenly see tanks and troops in capital city alongside underground tactical movement and military jets flying overhead.
In my game side-threats are problems that I imagine at the speed of one problem per game session. Players learn about this by either watching news or by predictive computer program that their employer uses to predict crises. However, if players do not actively search news I'll tell them in about 2D6 game sessions later that the crises has exploded in to next level and so on.
Thus I have 2 to 4 levels of crisis planned beforehand and they are each triggered eventually unless players prevent it. In the genocide example it goes as this:
1 - Country is awash with guns and paranoia. Thus ambitious politicians start to talk hatred for real.
2 - Violence starts with riots, demonstrations and harsh talk in negotiation table.
3 - Lynch mobs are being formed, occasional gunfire, open armed militia.
4 - Full scale ethnic cleansing starts and it eventually escalates to genocide.
Quote from: Nikita;899476It is a same thing as why military exercises are announced beforehand; people tend to be a bit worried when they suddenly see tanks and troops in capital city alongside underground tactical movement and military jets flying overhead.
When they were filming parts of Con Air here in Vegas there was an afternoon of helicopters chasing a cargo plane that kept going round and round over our neighborhood. People were out in the street, wondering what the fuck. If there were warnings that it was 'just a movie' no one heard them. Nobody freaked out but (Nellis AFB is nearby so there was the possibility of something real going on), but it would been nice to know it was just nothing.
Quote from: Bren;899306I've never played it, so I bow to your superior knowledge of Vampire the Masquerade.
No need for the bowing, but it's appreciated:).
Though I was talking more about all the settings that carried the same assumption, strangely enough written after V:tM appeared.
QuoteI have a superior knowledge about what things I find to be problems in gaming. ;)
That I don't dispute. But given that I misunderstood what you find to be a problem, I couldn't reply otherwise;).
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899432I was thinking about that, but I'd rather leave it as the last resort solution. I'd rather deal with it via in-game solutions.
Sure, different solutions were suggested.
I'm wondering why you'd prefer in-game solutions, though;).
QuoteI hear them at night... Scratching in the wall opposite of my bed. I see shadows and hear their silent whispers... "Redrum, redrum..." I named them "whisperers in darkness".
The horror... The horror... ;)
On an unrelated story, I decided to give up sobriety. It doesn't work that well for me. :D
It's clearly for the better:D!
QuoteYep, this seems like the best choice. A threat with a twist.
Uuuuse eeet! You know you want to...QuoteYeah. I don't know why. Diceless games are usually acknowledged, but hardly any discussed. What a pity.
Because apart for the lack of dice, they aren't all that different, IMO?
QuoteBut more than 50 shades of Grey, I presume? :p
I admit to never having counted them:p!
But I assume there are probably more than 50, indeed;).
Quote from: Simlasa;899475People followed the woman in the Mist because they were scared and desperate for answers to a situation that didn't make sense. In a mundane disaster, like an earthquake, no one would have listened to her nonsense that God was demanding a sacrifice.
Once upon a time I was deep in the forest (with thousands of other people, Rainbow Gathering) when a big fire broke out. Most people took action, formed a bucket brigade or gathered their stuff and left the area... but there were scattered idiots who lept at the opportunity to proclaim to us that they were 'in charge' (no one was in charge) and started screaming at us about the danger and what we had to do. I didn't see a single person pay them heed, because they were obviously nuts.
The woman wasn't the only one gaining followers in that movie. Remember that black guy (judge?) who managed to convince a few people to leave the market and seek the way out. It didn't end well, but that's not the point - people lean towards following those who seem to know what's happening and are competent enough to control the situation.
Your example (btw, kudos for helping in extinguishing the fire) kind of supports that: people didn't hear those "idiots", because talk was all they had. There was no sign of them actually knowing what to do and how (scattered) and they obviously didn't have enough charisma to at least pretend they have (screaming). Were they to organize some line first, ask reasonable questions, perhaps show that they aren't above the dirty work themselves, people would probably follow them.
Quote from: Nikita;899476That was in early 1980's. I prefer not to discuss it further but my father who worked in radio broadcasting told me that they received new guidelines to clearly state they are doing radio theatre at be beginning, middle and end of theatre to prevent people in tense situation making false conclusions. It is a same thing as why military exercises are announced beforehand; people tend to be a bit worried when they suddenly see tanks and troops in capital city alongside underground tactical movement and military jets flying overhead.
...and in spite of that people still thought it's for real...
I'm not sure what to think about it. On one hand, people should've know better, after all it's not the first time things like that happened. On the other, it's actually impressive. Around here people would refuse to move their asses even if they'd see tanks on the streets. I'm 140% sure some drivers wouldn't even bother to make way, because
screw you, nobody's gonna tell me what to do.QuoteIn my game side-threats are problems that I imagine at the speed of one problem per game session. Players learn about this by either watching news or by predictive computer program that their employer uses to predict crises. However, if players do not actively search news I'll tell them in about 2D6 game sessions later that the crises has exploded in to next level and so on.
Thus I have 2 to 4 levels of crisis planned beforehand and they are each triggered eventually unless players prevent it. In the genocide example it goes as this:
1 - Country is awash with guns and paranoia. Thus ambitious politicians start to talk hatred for real.
2 - Violence starts with riots, demonstrations and harsh talk in negotiation table.
3 - Lynch mobs are being formed, occasional gunfire, open armed militia.
4 - Full scale ethnic cleansing starts and it eventually escalates to genocide.
I see. This system is quite reasonable and wouldn't be hard to implement to pretty much every non-exotic genre/setting.
One more question, if I may: do you inform players (in any way) that they might do something about the situation, or do you prefer for them to find it out on their own (and perhaps miss the opportunity)?
Sure, different solutions were suggested.
I'm wondering why you'd prefer in-game solutions, though.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't want to give my players the impression that I want them to play in any certain way (even if I want), or that they are playing it "wrong", because they don't. It's entirely acceptable to never move outside of safe boundaries of their homeworld and skip the Big Picture. Yet, I'd like them to give it a try, know more about the setting and such.
QuoteIt's clearly for the better!
Time will tell. So far I stopped making notes on political, religious and sexual preferences of other users, so I think it was the right choice. :D
QuoteUuuuse eeet! You know you want to...
Begone, Satan, your dirty tricks won't work on me, 'cause I'm the servant of the Lord!
Vade Retro! ;)
QuoteBecause apart for the lack of dice, they aren't all that different, IMO?
It depends on the perspective. For me, they are totally different. There's no element of randomness, so whatever happens, it happens for a reason. There are no random monster tables, no random encounters, no random treasures. Players face exactly what the GM wants them to face. And since everything depends on giving a good description of what's happening around you, it's quite immersive experience, one that treats RPing and combat in exactly same fashion.
QuoteI admit to never having counted them!
But I assume there are probably more than 50, indeed.
Good on ya. I recognize only three colors. Black, white and .... damn, what was it called again... Damn...
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899437Dragon Ball solution, eh? ;)
Ew. Just fucking ew. You have no idea how much that show disgusts me. But I lol'd while I cringed.
But yeah, that kinda works. I'd say it describes the most simple version. Except different bad guys have different motivations, goals, targets, etc.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899437Out of curiosity: imagine an universe where there are countless worlds. Whichever you think about, (for example, a hellish-like landscape where Earth's iconic characters turned vampires wage eternal war against other supernatural creatures) it exists somewhere out there. All you need to do is to travel until you'll find correct doors to it.
So, each of such worlds come with its own history, conflicts. Effectively, none is more important than others. Well, perhaps some are, since there's where some truly powerful guy chooses to spend his time, but it's his presence alone that makes this specific world "important".
Questions: what would make you skip the Big Picture and focus your energy on becoming the defender of this specific place? How would you convince your group to spend their resources and protect this place, even if there are countless similar ones out there?
Well, that would depend on the character. My character was significantly 'pro-human' in the superhero setting. 'Humanity first' was his mantra (yes, he was a bit sketchy but he wasn't anti-meta/mutant/preta/whatever, he just believed mankind came first). Most of us believed in protecting 'home'.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899437Well, me too, with the exception of Tarrasque. He is my kryptonite - I think I implemented him in pretty much every genre or setting I've been running.
Well, that'd be a fun threat in any setting- giant, unstoppable, terrifying monster!
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899437It's truth, when the Big Threat is threatening the existence of the world and it seems imminent, then (providing there's no one better to get the job done), players have no choice but to do something about that. Yet, there are a few ways to deal with it. "Joint effort", as suggested early in this thread is one. Pre-Big Threat, or "the effort to prevent the Big Threat from happening" is another. Postponing the inevitable, pushing it to the future (years from now on) might also work.
There's always the 'everyone is at each others' throats, so we need to un-fuck their problems so we can get their help focusing on the big threat' approach to keep the 'big threat showdown' from being delayed by something other than 'we need to level up'.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899437I see. So you'd rather play "agency fighting supernatural" than "unlikely heroes saving the world"?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]76[/ATTACH]
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465Plenty of settings feature a plot device in form of some Big Threat constantly endangering whole world, civilization, society, virginity of our women and such. It might be some impending doom, an ancient monster, now dormant but slowly waking up, a giant meteor destined to reduce whole civilization to ashes, hordes of others, be it drow, enemy kingdom, devil worshipers or other cultist, and so on, and so forth.
Fuck. That. Noise. (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/08/saving-little-piece-of-world.html)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899590I wouldn't want to give my players the impression that I want them to play in any certain way (even if I want), or that they are playing it "wrong", because they don't. It's entirely acceptable to never move outside of safe boundaries of their homeworld and skip the Big Picture. Yet, I'd like them to give it a try, know more about the setting and such.
You are wrong, sorry:).
I mean, there is such a thing as "playing the game wrong". Yes, it's a game. There's also a way to play that will make me bored when I'm running it, and ulitmately lead me to cancel the whole thing.
If that's not wrong, I don't know what is.
And if you're ever at that point, you should talk to them and nudge them strongly towards exploring.
QuoteTime will tell. So far I stopped making notes on political, religious and sexual preferences of other users, so I think it was the right choice. :D
I wonder what you'd noted about my sexual preferences...:D
QuoteBegone, Satan, your dirty tricks won't work on me, 'cause I'm the servant of the Lord! Vade Retro! ;)
*Steps forward*
QuoteIt depends on the perspective. For me, they are totally different. There's no element of randomness, so whatever happens, it happens for a reason. There are no random monster tables, no random encounters, no random treasures. Players face exactly what the GM wants them to face. And since everything depends on giving a good description of what's happening around you, it's quite immersive experience, one that treats RPing and combat in exactly same fashion.
Which is to say, it's exactly how a good game should be played, whether it includes dice or not. And I am going to use a random table if I want to, even for a diceless game - that only means I want you to meet whatever I roll on it;).
QuoteGood on ya. I recognize only three colors. Black, white and .... damn, what was it called again... Damn...
Is it red or gold?
I have played in campaigns with a Global Big Bad that were horrible. Largely because we as PCs were given no reason to care about teh Big Bad beyond that it was the Big Bad. Evil Wizard wants to kill all the elves in the world. Are any of the party elves? No. I'm a dwarf and I think "good riddance." Can we have a different campaign driver, please?
My own campaigns will often feature regional threats. In one there is a slumbering dragon which could awake and devestate the country side. One of the PCs is actually a distant descendant of the dragon. There is also a large city-state with dreams of empire. Both of these have great potential to reshape the world of the PCs, but neither are the focus of the campaign.
I have also run plenty of games with no great existential threat at all. In fact I really prefer them. If the players in a game with an existential threat decide not to go after it, what then? Do you follow through and destroy the world anyway?
BlackVulmea, there's a part in your blogpost I totally disagree with.
Namely, it's the sentence: "From reading intreweb forums, I gather that some gamers cannot enjoy themselves if they're aren't saving the world, but in the campaigns I run, rarely will you find anything so elaborate."
But...most "World Is In Danger By Menace Of The Week" plots are anything but elaborate:D! Seriously, the majority are just a power disparity with the bad guys having too much power...
That's not "elaborate". It hardly rates as "interesting". It's like people calling the plots in GoT "elaborate"...when realistically, they're about as elaborate as high-school intrigue (apart from Littlefinger, and even that's only partly elaborate).
Compare and contrast with Richelieu's plans to start a war by ruining a queen's reputation by means or talking the king to request her to wear a certain jewel...Now,
that is elaborate.
Of course, I've seen elaborate plans for ending the world, too. I've made a couple or two, myself. Like my plot for ending a world who had discovered magical steam engines.
But that's unimportant. The thing is, most just think "LotR", and give the Big Bad Evil Mastermind hordes of minions.
[SBLOCK]The steam engines were killing it, and not by draining resources. No, they were just importing water from elsewhere to produce the heated steam, thus constantly raising the concentration of water vapours in the athmosphere. And they were at the point where their polar ice caps were threatening to melt away...
Well, killing by adding usually harmless stuff instead of taking it away isn't really elaborate, but then the players weren't exactly thinking of the steam cars and dirigibles as weapons of mass destruction. And that's enough for a forum game, which is where I ran it.[/SBLOCK]
Quote from: DavetheLost;899609I have played in campaigns with a Global Big Bad that were horrible. Largely because we as PCs were given no reason to care about teh Big Bad beyond that it was the Big Bad. Evil Wizard wants to kill all the elves in the world. Are any of the party elves? No. I'm a dwarf and I think "good riddance." Can we have a different campaign driver, please?
I have also run plenty of games with no great existential threat at all. In fact I really prefer them.
I just might have had a dwarven PC signing in:).
And I also prefer games without existential threats;).
Quote from: Crüesader;899597Ew. Just fucking ew. You have no idea how much that show disgusts me. But I lol'd while I cringed.
But yeah, that kinda works. I'd say it describes the most simple version. Except different bad guys have different motivations, goals, targets, etc.
;)
Yep. Plenty of GMs use DBZ/the Escalation. It's not that bad idea, providing one knows when to stop. Personally, I went as far as to 3rd degree with a twist - there was a bad guy, and then even meaner guy stepped in, but upon his defeat he admitted to be merely a servant of even worse one. Finally it turned out, that the ultimate bad guy was in reality the first one, who only pretended to be merely a sub-boss or something, while in he was the mastermind behind it all.
Anyway, I take it, you'd rather use different evildoers threatening the world instead of a legion of bad guys connected in some way one to another. As in "monster of the week" rather than a single story arc such as the infamous DBz?
QuoteWell, that would depend on the character. My character was significantly 'pro-human' in the superhero setting. 'Humanity first' was his mantra (yes, he was a bit sketchy but he wasn't anti-meta/mutant/preta/whatever, he just believed mankind came first). Most of us believed in protecting 'home'.
I see. I observed for "it's personal" works great, especially when delivered via a guy connected to the Big Threat who targets the PC(s). You know, a guy does something to players, steals from them, limits them in some way, they pursue him and find out that he was an agent of something bigger, that is now aware about the players and things/places dear to them.
Crude, unsophisticated, old but it works.
QuoteWell, that'd be a fun threat in any setting- giant, unstoppable, terrifying monster!
Don't forget "almost unkillable" and "regenerating faster than catholic rabbits breed". :D
QuoteThere's always the 'everyone is at each others' throats, so we need to un-fuck their problems so we can get their help focusing on the big threat' approach to keep the 'big threat showdown' from being delayed by something other than 'we need to level up'.
...
That's a good solution too, actually.
Quote[ATTACH=CONFIG]76[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]77[/ATTACH]
Quote from: AsenRG;899602You are wrong, sorry:).
I mean, there is such a thing as "playing the game wrong". Yes, it's a game. There's also a way to play that will make me bored when I'm running it, and ulitmately lead me to cancel the whole thing.
If that's not wrong, I don't know what is.
And if you're ever at that point, you should talk to them and nudge them strongly towards exploring.
I meant back then, that I don't want to impose my own standards. There's nothing wrong in their gaming style, it's just that they stay too long in the sandbox, while there's an infinite universe to discover.
QuoteI wonder what you'd noted about my sexual preferences...:D
Lemme check...
*user:AsenRG. Accessing data file*...
Hmmm, sorry, Uncle Asen, there's "a man of wealth and taste, who've been around for a long, long year" written next to your username. And then there's a bunch of incomprehensible crap in what seems to be some variation of ancient Sumerian. Hmmm, corrupt file, obviously. :cool:
Quote*Steps forward*
Oh snap... M'kay, what can I get in exchange for my soul?
QuoteWhich is to say, it's exactly how a good game should be played, whether it includes dice or not. And I am going to use a random table if I want to, even for a diceless game - that only means I want you to meet whatever I roll on it;).
That's acceptable too, but it's changing the dynamics of the game.
I'm not sure how to properly explain this, but in typical game if players are aware about the existence of randomness, they understand that not everything is an important part of the story. With a bit of experience they are able to tell the difference and perceive what they are facing as merely an intermission. This in turn might influence their behavior, choices.
Yes, I know it's an oversimplification, that it's up to the GM to use random tables, or to inform players that he chooses to do so, that there are truckloads of ways to conceal which event was randomly rolled, which is there on purpose, etc, etc.
I'm not challenging these facts. Point is: players are aware that certain parts of the adventure are merely "fillers".
Anyway, in these certain diceless RPging, there's no difference between events - combat isn't different to RP part and the other way around. There are no easily recognizable intermissions, and it's almost impossible to say which part of the scenario is a filler, and which isn't until the very end. This demands for more attention on players' part. Disregarding any element of the scenario, no matter how small and irrelevant it seems is risky.
I find it an enormous difference.
Each style has its strengths and weaknesses, each is better suitable for certain groups/stories, each features its own peculiarities (
Quantum Ogre being one), and so on and so forth. Because of that neither might be perceived as better/worse than the other one. They are simply different.
QuoteIs it red or gold?
Stop messing with my head! :eek:
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899437Hell yeah!
In addition to Kardashev's civ scale, I recall a similar one, discussing the evolution of AI. It speculated that AI of a certain level would use pretty much ANY material objects as a storage device, or any type of "brain" as a processing unit. If this would be truth, we're a global consciousness-CPU and what we take for reality glitches or "damn, I feel so mentally tired for no apparent reason" are effects of our consciousness using our neurons a bit too much. ;)
In such a scenario, the reality we know would be just a simulation dedicated to the purpose of keeping us in shape, maintain the evolution of our brains and such.
I've heard a similar idea was meant to be used in original Matrix movie, but it was abandoned for no apparent reasons. I'm not sure whether it's truth, and if so, then why it was turned down in place of this ridiculous "we're batteries, man" concept. Perhaps it was a bit too disturbing? ;)
The Matrix always seemed to take the sillier solution to everything, I liked the movies, but they weren't all that.
Hawking recently wrote that Black Holes actually capture matter/information, and could be thought of as vast storage devices. Run that through relativistic equations, where time slows and mass and energy infinitely expand ... How many simulations would needed to be run when the universe only objectively lasts less than a second? Running them in less than a second, feels real, is "rilly rill" subjectively, but trying to divine motivations to a being that exists outside of reality? Ha!
Your AI idea is cool, there are a thousand ways to look at the idea, and the science is all in, and batshit crazy too.
QuoteHeh. I feel the same. Too bad it didn't have a bit bigger budget, or wasn't released in HD resolution.
BTW, some additional classics that deserve a bit more recognition, I think:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51P6VJPXQDL.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mGF-WzFZL.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dBuu_ZLk1lk/maxresdefault.jpg
Just when I thought I have seen every cheesy movie, thanks, I'll check them out. Hardware did great for what it was, it didn't really need that much of a bigger budget, it was just genre breaking in that the hero dies (Dylan McDermott) in a fairly non-heroic manner, and a bunch of underground cameo's: Iggy Pop is Angry Bob, Lemmy the Cab/Boat driver, Monte Cazzaza as the government official/General or whatever on TV. As released it was rated X for gore, which I find hard to believe, I think it was just the subject matter.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899614Point is: players are aware that certain parts of the adventure are merely "fillers".
Those elements are only 'filler' till someone pays attention to them. If I'm running a game and the PCs decide to talk to a barmaid at the tavern then at that point she steps into the foreground. I'll go as deep with her as they want... she's got a life and problems and maybe could use some help on some gambling debts her husband has hanging over him. Maybe she knows a guy who knows a guy. Maybe she's good at picking locks or throwing daggers.
Point is, she's not 'filler' anymore.
Quote from: dragoner;899637The Matrix always seemed to take the sillier solution to everything, I liked the movies, but they weren't all that.
My thoughts exactly. I felt like its directors sat one day, told to themselves "hey, let's make a movie that's gonna bluepill the shit out of people". Then, when LSD finally stopped to work, they looked at the script and said "whoa, this shit is waaaay to heavy for people to accept. Let's replace 50% of content with cool kung-fu moves".
And so they did. ;)
QuoteHawking recently wrote that Black Holes actually capture matter/information, and could be thought of as vast storage devices. Run that through relativistic equations, where time slows and mass and energy infinitely expand ... How many simulations would needed to be run when the universe only objectively lasts less than a second? Running them in less than a second, feels real, is "rilly rill" subjectively, but trying to divine motivations to a being that exists outside of reality? Ha!
Heh.
Heheheheh.Let me answer it in my own way: some time ago I was asked a question "what is 'time'?". To this day I can't answer that and frankly, I'm not sure that it can be answered. I mean, we measure it in seconds and similar units, but what exactly do we measure is hard to put in non-recursive (is that the proper word?) definition. So, as far as I'm concerned, what exactly happens between "seconds" - we can only speculate.
Now, one might ask "wtf has it to do with RPGing?" And the answer is simple. It's an awesome plot seed. Imagine a criminal mastermind, who finds the way to exist between objective time (an idea I had to deal with quite recently). Imagine a fortress of doom, where such a criminal might step in at will, leaving the world and time behind and plan, and plan, and plan... And develop all the stuff he needs to counter PCs' powers... ;)
BTW, since we're entering one of my favorite fields of discussion - fringe science... There's this awesome thing called The Law of Conservation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law). It seems to govern pretty much everything, no matter what scale, from quantum to astronomical. Yet... Did you ever pay attention to "isolated" part? :D
This is RPG-relevant too. After all, if you entertain the idea, then pretty much every game that deals with mana/energy/resource-based magic should be rewritten.
QuoteYour AI idea is cool, there are a thousand ways to look at the idea, and the science is all in, and batshit crazy too.
Thanks, but it isn't mine. I think I've read that in late 90s on some alt. group dedicated to RPGing in a cyberpunk thread or somehwere... Point is, it's an old idea.
QuoteJust when I thought I have seen every cheesy movie, thanks, I'll check them out. Hardware did great for what it was, it didn't really need that much of a bigger budget, it was just genre breaking in that the hero dies (Dylan McDermott) in a fairly non-heroic manner, and a bunch of underground cameo's: Iggy Pop is Angry Bob, Lemmy the Cab/Boat driver, Monte Cazzaza as the government official/General or whatever on TV. As released it was rated X for gore, which I find hard to believe, I think it was just the subject matter.
My pleasure. I have truckloads of similar "masterpieces" to watch.
Anyway. When I said that "Hardware" deserves more budget, I meant that I'd love to see it in a bit higher resolution and it could use better lightning. The rest - I have no problem with. :)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;899598Fuck. That. Noise. (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/08/saving-little-piece-of-world.html)
Holy Shit, the Prodigal Son returns. Welcome back!
Quote from: Simlasa;899644Those elements are only 'filler' till someone pays attention to them. If I'm running a game and the PCs decide to talk to a barmaid at the tavern then at that point she steps into the foreground. I'll go as deep with her as they want... she's got a life and problems and maybe could use some help on some gambling debts her husband has hanging over him. Maybe she knows a guy who knows a guy. Maybe she's good at picking locks or throwing daggers.
Point is, she's not 'filler' anymore.
But Pipi (seriously, man, I miss your old avatar very much), I'm not denying it.
Look here:
"
Yes, I know it's an oversimplification, that it's up to the GM to use random tables, or to inform players that he chooses to do so, that there are truckloads of ways to conceal which event was randomly rolled, which is there on purpose, etc, etc. I'm not challenging these facts. Point is: players are aware that certain parts of the adventure are merely "fillers"."
...And this is what I really mean. I'm not denying you can't transplant diceless-level immersion to non-diceless RPGs and the other way around - that you can't introduce the randomness factor to a diceless RPGing. It's just that by default it's easier to say which part is "a filler" in typical RPG. It's not a weakness, and certainly not a problem. It simply is like that.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899614I meant back then, that I don't want to impose my own standards. There's nothing wrong in their gaming style, it's just that they stay too long in the sandbox, while there's an infinite universe to discover.
Yes, got that - but ultimately, you'll have to, if it comes to preventing the thing I'd mentioned...:)
QuoteLemme check...
*user:AsenRG. Accessing data file*
...
Hmmm, sorry, Uncle Asen, there's "a man of wealth and taste, who've been around for a long, long year" written next to your username. And then there's a bunch of incomprehensible crap in what seems to be some variation of ancient Sumerian. Hmmm, corrupt file, obviously. :cool:
Wealth? Me:D?
I'd say the Ancient Sumerian is strangely fitting, though, given the question:p.
QuoteOh snap... M'kay, what can I get in exchange for my soul?
My spiritual guidance, mortal, which will let you ling love and prosper! And a 20% discount to my "How to Play PCs Right" seminars...QuoteThat's acceptable too, but it's changing the dynamics of the game.
I'm not sure how to properly explain this, but in typical game if players are aware about the existence of randomness, they understand that not everything is an important part of the story. With a bit of experience they are able to tell the difference and perceive what they are facing as merely an intermission. This in turn might influence their behavior, choices.
Yes, I know it's an oversimplification, that it's up to the GM to use random tables, or to inform players that he chooses to do so, that there are truckloads of ways to conceal which event was randomly rolled, which is there on purpose, etc, etc. I'm not challenging these facts. Point is: players are aware that certain parts of the adventure are merely "fillers".
Anyway, in these certain diceless RPging, there's no difference between events - combat isn't different to RP part and the other way around. There are no easily recognizable intermissions, and it's almost impossible to say which part of the scenario is a filler, and which isn't until the very end. This demands for more attention on players' part. Disregarding any element of the scenario, no matter how small and irrelevant it seems is risky.
I find it an enormous difference.
But here's the thing: my players know that disregarding any part of it, no matter how small or irrelevant, can kill PCs faster than a fingersnap. That's my default assumption:).
QuoteEach style has its strengths and weaknesses, each is better suitable for certain groups/stories, each features its own peculiarities (Quantum Ogre being one), and so on and so forth. Because of that neither might be perceived as better/worse than the other one. They are simply different.
Yeah, fuck the quantum ogre:D!
QuoteStop messing with my head! :eek:
Listen ye, listen ye! I managed to get JesterRaiin to admit I'm messing with his head!Woe is my foes;)!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;899598Fuck. That. Noise. (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/08/saving-little-piece-of-world.html)
Interesting post. It's hard to imagine a true End of the World scenario, I can only think of a couple (aside from CoC stuff, but even then most of it isn't Stars Are Right kind of deal). However, world-altering events are something else. I remember once when I was in a Greyhawk campaign, we made the choice to overlook a side quest involving a possible temple out in a swamp. We had already gotten what we were there for, we were totally messed up, so we pulled out and called it even. Then we made the mistake of not going back. Anyway, maybe a couple years later campaign-wise, we found ourselves back in that part of the world. We were talking to the mayor of the town and noticed that they had a painting up on the wall commemorating a group of adventurers who had saved the town from lizardmen (this is in Gran March/Rushmoors area). The painting was all humans, the demi-humans had been altered. The Elf was short and thin, the Dwarf was short and burly, the half-ogre was a Hulk Hogan looking dude, etc. Some of us knew some of those characters, so we definitely knew things were off. Anyway, it turns out that there was a full court press by Asmodeus involving Wastri, Hextor etc. to try and undermine Nerull so that Tharizdun would stay asleep and chained. By the time we figured things out, war was breaking out all over. Long story short, the L/E guys won, the world was "saved", but by the Bad Guys who now controlled a huge chunk of Greyhawk.
So that's definitely a case of "missing something in a sandbox potentially causing the End of the World". Usually though, End of the World really just means, whole lot of bad stuff happens and the landscape of the campaign is altered.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899653But Pipi (seriously, man, I miss your old avatar very much), I'm not denying it.
What I'm saying is that it's pretty much ALL filler... till someone chooses a direction or talks to the weird guy under the tree or opens that box that says 'do not open!'.
Also, just for you...
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899614I'm not sure how to properly explain this, but in typical game if players are aware about the existence of randomness, they understand that not everything is an important part of the story. With a bit of experience they are able to tell the difference and perceive what they are facing as merely an intermission. This in turn might influence their behavior, choices.
Yes, I know it's an oversimplification, that it's up to the GM to use random tables, or to inform players that he chooses to do so, that there are truckloads of ways to conceal which event was randomly rolled, which is there on purpose, etc, etc. I'm not challenging these facts. Point is: players are aware that certain parts of the adventure are merely "fillers".
Randomized doesn't necessarily mean random. If the players are traveling somewhere, and run into bandits, that's because bandits are in that area, they have a hideout, contacts in various towns, etc... similarly an Orc warband is going to have a lair somewhere. I may roll the dice to see what the players encounter on the road to Altdorf, but if they encounter a coach with a nobleman, I know which one and my long-term players know it might benefit them to talk to him, or not. If there's no Ogre in the forest, then you can't roll one up in an encounter. I might roll percentage dice, but there may only be three things on the table because nothing else there would be dangerous or worth noting, most of it standard flora and fauna.
Hell, many times I've populated a D&D area by starting blank, then rolling random encounters (with the MM2 tables broken down by geography), then figuring out where they fit in to the area and then as I start filling in the threats, I get more ideas about the people who live there.
Setting not Scenarios.Most of the time, my players are never on "the adventure", they're following the path they chose out of multiple paths. If their goal is to find X in a forest, Y and Z aren't "filler", they are things that could be equally important, even if tangential to the immediate short-term goal. If you get a good World in Motion campaign up and running, there is no filler.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899648Heh.
Heheheheh.
Let me answer it in my own way: some time ago I was asked a question "what is 'time'?". To this day I can't answer that and frankly, I'm not sure that it can be answered. I mean, we measure it in seconds and similar units, but what exactly do we measure is hard to put in non-recursive (is that the proper word?) definition. So, as far as I'm concerned, what exactly happens between "seconds" - we can only speculate.
Now, one might ask "wtf has it to do with RPGing?" And the answer is simple. It's an awesome plot seed. Imagine a criminal mastermind, who finds the way to exist between objective time (an idea I had to deal with quite recently). Imagine a fortress of doom, where such a criminal might step in at will, leaving the world and time behind and plan, and plan, and plan... And develop all the stuff he needs to counter PCs' powers... ;)
BTW, since we're entering one of my favorite fields of discussion - fringe science... There's this awesome thing called The Law of Conservation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law). It seems to govern pretty much everything, no matter what scale, from quantum to astronomical. Yet... Did you ever pay attention to "isolated" part? :D
This is RPG-relevant too. After all, if you entertain the idea, then pretty much every game that deals with mana/energy/resource-based magic should be rewritten.
As an engineer, I am very familiar with the Laws of Conservation, and RPG wise, the conservation of energy and momentum should be important (people don't pay attention to them though). They all have a nice symmetry, esp with energy curves and graphing the equations. Then again when people make a statement about mass, they don't want the reply to be "which mass" as it has multiple states.
Magic, bleh, but I see various problems, such as scaling, and once it becomes powerful enough, all ruling. Even if it's just another "to hit" roll to use, how is the higher powered magic handled?
Time is an interesting subject, measured in various ways, and as the science shows, the universe simply does not care, not even about causality. It's all in the frame of reference. So sure you can have your criminal mastermind, big threat, but reality wise, it's just existential dread. We're not even a dust mote, we're a dust mote on a dust mote, and Horton doesn't hear a who because vacuum prevents the sound to travel. In a deterministic universe, which the recent Scientific American article on (the lack of) Free Will supports, all the big damn heroes were and will be meaningless. So are the "big evils", so all it really is that feeling of existential dread, which one way or another, this to will pass. I guess that sort of gives import to people wanting to play the big damn heroes in RPG's, or reinforces what was all ready known. I want a hard edge sci-fi RPG to actually confront the more fringe parts of science in a direct manner. I'm working on some, including dealing with magic, drawn by some strange ritual that has meaning to an alien AI on a world under a red sun, such as Vance's Dying Earth. Not of course magic as it would be typically understood, and of course the alien AI could say no to various technology, imagine landing there and then suddenly: "Hey, why did everything stop working?"
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899614I'm not sure how to properly explain this, but in typical game if players are aware about the existence of randomness, they understand that not everything is an important part of the story. With a bit of experience they are able to tell the difference and perceive what they are facing as merely an intermission. This in turn might influence their behavior, choices.
Yes, I know it's an oversimplification, that it's up to the GM to use random tables, or to inform players that he chooses to do so, that there are truckloads of ways to conceal which event was randomly rolled, which is there on purpose, etc, etc. I'm not challenging these facts. Point is: players are aware that certain parts of the adventure are merely "fillers".
Randomized doesn't necessarily mean random. If the players are traveling somewhere, and run into bandits, that's because bandits are in that area, they have a hideout, contacts in various towns, etc... similarly an Orc warband is going to have a lair somewhere. I may roll the dice to see what the players encounter on the road to Altdorf, but if they encounter a coach with a nobleman, I know which one and my long-term players know it might benefit them to talk to him, or not. If there's no Ogre in the forest, then you can't roll one up in an encounter.
Hell, many times I've populated a D&D area by starting blank, then rolling random encounters (with the MM2 tables broken down by geography), then figuring out where they fit in to the area and then as I start filling in the threats, I get more ideas about the people who live there.
Setting not Scenarios.Most of the time, my players are never on "the adventure", they're following the path they chose out of multiple paths. If their goal is to find X in a forest, Y and Z aren't "filler", they are things that could be equally important, even if tangential to the immediate short-term goal. If you get a good World in Motion campaign up and running, there is no filler.
Quote from: Simlasa;899662What I'm saying is that it's pretty much ALL filler... till someone chooses a direction or talks to the weird guy under the tree or opens that box that says 'do not open!'.
Or if you want to look at it this way, this works too.
Quote from: CRKrueger;899661Interesting post. It's hard to imagine a true End of the World scenario, I can only think of a couple (aside from CoC stuff, but even then most of it isn't Stars Are Right kind of deal).
I GMed the playtests wayyyyyyyyy back for the CoC setting called End Times. The stars were right. All hell breaks loose. Everywhere.
Spoiler
Things went badly. How badly? Of the four scenarios. The group lived through none. But did through some of their actions buy time for those escaping. The setting them picks up with the last of humanity on Mars...
Addendum: By the way. The actual wrap in SPOILER button when making a post is missing?
Quote from: Black Vulmea;899598Fuck. That. Noise. (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2013/08/saving-little-piece-of-world.html)
Are you back for a while, or just teasing us?
Quote from: CRKrueger;899666If their goal is to find X in a forest, Y and Z aren't "filler", they are things that could be equally important, even if tangential to the immediate short-term goal. If you get a good World in Motion campaign up and running, there is no filler.
Z or Y may end up being
more important than X. They might even decide to stop looking for X and do Y or Z instead.
Quote from: AsenRG;899660Yes, got that - but ultimately, you'll have to, if it comes to preventing the thing I'd mentioned...:)
Well, since like pretty much everyone I know I too have a serious problem with authority, I prefer to treat Out-Of-Game solutions as a last resort.
QuoteWealth? Me
Ha! Look at the plebeian, who doesn't realize that beggars might be more wealthy than rulers of the world. Look at him, and laugh! Ha! :D
QuoteI'd say the Ancient Sumerian is strangely fitting, though, given the question:p.
...Hmmmmmm, time to polish my ancient Sumerian (12%) skill. :p
QuoteMy spiritual guidance, mortal, which will let you ling love and prosper! And a 20% discount to my "How to Play PCs Right" seminars...
Ad a set of "always the best score" dice and you have the deal. Btw, did I tell "ancient Sumerian exorcisms"? Ahahahahaha, sir, you must've misunderstand me. I meant "Asian spicy cuisine", ahahaahahaa.
QuoteBut here's the thing: my players know that disregarding any part of it, no matter how small or irrelevant, can kill PCs faster than a fingersnap. That's my default assumption:).
What can I say.... I'm called "the Forgiving One" for a reason.
Just joking. I neither forget nor forgive forgive. Ever. Beware.
Ahem.Aaaanyway, I'm not sure we're on the same page here. I'm not saying that people are free to marginalize goblin party attacking their camp by night. Those tiny vermin might be quite efficient and kill them, so no being too cocky, people! It's just that they usually realize it's merely "a wandering monster". They killed it, had to runaway, parlay or something, but once they finish this encounter, it's gone, never to return.
UNLESS it's part of the scenario, but since they arrive at city gates and spend the rest of the game there, they don't have to remember about this incident anymore.
In diceless? Well, there are no goblins, but relatively unimportant "combat encounter" at the beginning of the scenario might as well be a harbinger of troubles, part of some bigger plan. They don't show up there just to make players' blood boil. They have their purpose and players' choices doesn't determine that.
The difference lies, I think, in the way players are supposed to treat each thing by default.
QuoteYeah, fuck the quantum ogre:D!
With a quantum penis, that is!
...Well...
Damn... No, I don't want to pursue this path. ;)
QuoteListen ye, listen ye! I managed to get JesterRaiin to admit I'm messing with his head!
Woe is my foes;)!
Dohohoho, uncle Asen, don't forget that years of heavy drinkin' taught me how to operate well in spite of confusion. :p
Quote from: Simlasa;899662What I'm saying is that it's pretty much ALL filler... till someone chooses a direction or talks to the weird guy under the tree or opens that box that says 'do not open!'.
So, everything is pretty much in "quantum" state - certain things aren't important, unless players decide to take that path.
In diceless games I've been playing, it's exactly the opposite of that. If they show up, things, NPCs, even treasure players find, have their meaning by default. Players don't know just how important these things are, but the reasonable assumption is that since it's there, it might be important, even if it's an equivalent of "goblin party attacking the camp by night".
It's "whether the glass is half-empty, or half-full" really. Still, as far as I'm concerned, it's tremendous difference.
QuoteAlso, just for you...
Jesus friggin' Christ! You made an old man happy. Thank you, Simlasa, you're really cool guy! :)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]78[/ATTACH]
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899682So, everything is pretty much in "quantum" state - certain things aren't important, unless players decide to take that path.
NO! None of that 'quantum' shit... oh, wait... you don't mean... OK, kinda, yeah. No. I mean, I just respond to what the PCs do... make things up, roll on charts of stuff I made up earlier, or maybe get lucky and they choose to go somewhere I've already mapped out in detail. It's all fun.
Quote from: CRKrueger;899666Randomized doesn't necessarily mean random.
Quote from: Simlasa;899689NO! None of that 'quantum' shit.
Guys, guys...
This is really the matter of whether the glass is half-empty or half-full, and whether it's important, to what extent and to whom. Well, I'm not here to discuss it, since this isn't the relevant thread and I already stated that I realize I'm simplifying things...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]81[/ATTACH]
...so please, respect that, or if you really want to discuss this off-topic, start a separate "random vs random-less RPGs" thread. :)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899590I see. This system is quite reasonable and wouldn't be hard to implement to pretty much every non-exotic genre/setting.
One more question, if I may: do you inform players (in any way) that they might do something about the situation, or do you prefer for them to find it out on their own (and perhaps miss the opportunity)?
My campaign is built on idea that players are crisis defusion oriented team they get a lot of intel and they do get heads up on everything. However, since their time and resources and interest are limited they often drop out those crises they are not interested about. Thus for instance the genocide track is moving forwards with players giving it little notice.
However, there is also the general news cycle which kicks up news that are related and newsworthy by news bureus and public in general. For instance formation of armed militias and burned police stations (level 3) is something that players are told even if/when they actively ignore crisis. However, some crises do not rise to news cycle easily and some kick up very easily depending on campaign and who are working on it.
My system comes from the campaign premise. If I was working on different campaign these crises would probably only come to players mind if they reach their last level or players accidentally/knowingly search for information for something odd/strange/newsworthy/alarming. The second way (where players react and find/miss these actions are relevant if players do not normally get all details and all news). For instance, the player military unit would be alerted to quell riots or restore order or occupy some country if they were playing soldiers. They would not get alert until crisis had "exploded".
Yes, the importance of the whatsit, to the PCs at that point in time, is 'quantum'... at least as I imagine you to be using it. The whatsit itself is not.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899682Aaaanyway, I'm not sure we're on the same page here. I'm not saying that people are free to marginalize goblin party attacking their camp by night. Those tiny vermin might be quite efficient and kill them, so no being too cocky, people! It's just that they usually realize it's merely "a wandering monster". They killed it, had to runaway, parlay or something, but once they finish this encounter, it's gone, never to return. UNLESS it's part of the scenario, but since they arrive at city gates and spend the rest of the game there, they don't have to remember about this incident anymore.
I have two kinds of random encounters.
(1) Someone or something that I have already located, written down, statted up, etc. Sometimes I create custom tables that include results for existing people. Other times I just roll percentile dice against a relevant list of NPCs. I may be randomly determining which of the regulars at a tavern is there (some taverns and other locations have their own encounter chart), which important noble the PCs ran into while hanging around the Louvre in Paris (here I'll just roll percentile dice and count down through my NPC records for Paris nobles), or which of several notorious highwaymen they've encountered in the countryside around Paris (I've created a few bandit bands in the area. The PCs have run into a couple of them already.) Obviously in either case it matters if they kill this person. Equally obviously it may matter if they help them, harm them, or just plain annoy them.
(2) Someone (or something) that I have NOT already located, written down, statted up, etc. An example might be a band of bandits or a wealthy merchant in a coach encountered while traveling along a highway or byway. In this case, if they don't kill the person, I'll write them up (add a name if one was not already created) and add them to my NPC folder or subfolder for the appropriate location. Someone like the rich merchant may also be traveling and so I'll check where they are from - possibly they are from the same place as the PCs and are likely to turn up again. These sorts of random encounters have ended up as friends, allies, and enemies of the PCs. Even killing the NPC doesn't avoid consequences as the killing may have been witnessed, the victim may have family or friends who want revenge, or enemies who now consider the PC an ally.
While the players can often, though not always, tell which NPCs are type 1 and which are type 2, especially in face-to-face play, the fact that a random encounter doesn't just disappear into a poof of dust at the end of the session prevents the players from completely discounting them. From my perspective, I'm not trying to write a screenplay or tell a story so one NPC is as meaningful (or meaningless) as any another.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899682Well, since like pretty much everyone I know I too have a serious problem with authority, I prefer to treat Out-Of-Game solutions as a last resort.
OOG=/=Appeal to authority.
QuoteHa! Look at the plebeian, who doesn't realize that beggars might be more wealthy than rulers of the world. Look at him, and laugh! Ha! :D
In a spiritual sense, maybe...
Quote...Hmmmmmm, time to polish my ancient Sumerian (12%) skill. :p
Go ahead.
And if it turns out it's only tangentially related...well, at least you get a nice job teaching it to others.
QuoteAd a set of "always the best score" dice and you have the deal.
Here.
It is settled!
QuoteBtw, did I tell "ancient Sumerian exorcisms"? Ahahahahaha, sir, you must've misunderstand me. I meant "Asian spicy cuisine", ahahaahahaa.
Yes, of course it was a simple misunderstanding...
QuoteWhat can I say.... I'm called "the Forgiving One" for a reason.
Just joking. I neither forget nor forgive forgive. Ever. Beware.
Ahem.
Good to know.
QuoteAaaanyway, I'm not sure we're on the same page here. I'm not saying that people are free to marginalize goblin party attacking their camp by night. Those tiny vermin might be quite efficient and kill them, so no being too cocky, people! It's just that they usually realize it's merely "a wandering monster". They killed it, had to runaway, parlay or something, but once they finish this encounter, it's gone, never to return. UNLESS it's part of the scenario, but since they arrive at city gates and spend the rest of the game there, they don't have to remember about this incident anymore.
In diceless? Well, there are no goblins, but relatively unimportant "combat encounter" at the beginning of the scenario might as well be a harbinger of troubles, part of some bigger plan. They don't show up there just to make players' blood boil. They have their purpose and players' choices doesn't determine that.
The difference lies, I think, in the way players are supposed to treat each thing by default.
That's exactly what I'm telling you for three posts or so. I understood what you mean by "diceless", your explanations only confirm this. My players are expected to always react in this way.
QuoteWith a quantum penis, that is!
No.
Doesn't matter, if it's quantum anything, fuck it. It has no place in RPGs as far as I'm concerned.
I want to remind you that my title on TBP is "Member #2 of the Anti-Illusionism Squad".
Quote...Well...
Damn... No, I don't want to pursue this path. ;)
Too late:p!
QuoteDohohoho, uncle Asen, don't forget that years of heavy drinkin' taught me how to operate well in spite of confusion. :p
Good. You're going to need it;)!
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899614;)
Yep. Plenty of GMs use DBZ/the Escalation. It's not that bad idea, providing one knows when to stop. Personally, I went as far as to 3rd degree with a twist - there was a bad guy, and then even meaner guy stepped in, but upon his defeat he admitted to be merely a servant of even worse one. Finally it turned out, that the ultimate bad guy was in reality the first one, who only pretended to be merely a sub-boss or something, while in he was the mastermind behind it all.
Anyway, I take it, you'd rather use different evildoers threatening the world instead of a legion of bad guys connected in some way one to another. As in "monster of the week" rather than a single story arc such as the infamous DBz?
Those bad guys may be loosely connected. They may have an alliance, they may simply have the same goal, etc. and so forth. It all depends. There's no all of one or all of the other. They may also be working on behalf of a secret big bad guy, sort of like a Vandal Savage type enemy.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899614I see. I observed for "it's personal" works great, especially when delivered via a guy connected to the Big Threat who targets the PC(s). You know, a guy does something to players, steals from them, limits them in some way, they pursue him and find out that he was an agent of something bigger, that is now aware about the players and things/places dear to them.
Crude, unsophisticated, old but it works.
I've noticed that just because things are used quite often, doesn't mean they're bad. Quite the opposite, usually.
Quote from: Nikita;899697(...)For instance, the player military unit would be alerted to quell riots or restore order or occupy some country if they were playing soldiers. They would not get alert until crisis had "exploded".
I see. Thank you.
Quote from: Bren;899701I have two kinds of random encounters.
Reasonable. Usually I determine random elements prior to the session, and only if I don't feel like inventing everything on my own. People I've been playing with react negatively when they hear "you enter left corridor and you meet *roll* a tactical encounter X".
Quote from: AsenRG;899704OOG=/=Appeal to authority.
Only in theory, uncle Asen! In reality it might go both way. Just like pretty much everything else - nothing is simple, there are many variables determining the outcome, even if "what kind of pizza you want" is asked. ;)
QuoteIn a spiritual sense, maybe...
...you have a bunch of nice people to play with. This isn't spiritual, it's social, and it's a luxury truckloads of other people could only dream about.
QuoteGo ahead.
And if it turns out it's only tangentially related...well, at least you get a nice job teaching it to others.
...I'll also write "Ancient Alyums: the true story" and become next Daeniken or such. Money, fame & lusty bitches, here I come!
QuoteHere.
It is settled!
Next stop: LAS VEGAS!
QuoteYes, of course it was a simple misunderstanding...
Of course!
Whew, that was closeQuoteThat's exactly what I'm telling you for three posts or so. I understood what you mean by "diceless", your explanations only confirm this. My players are expected to always react in this way.
Good, good. I can't ever be sure that I'm understood correctly. Strangely enough, this applies to my own language too.
QuoteNo.
Doesn't matter, if it's quantum anything, fuck it. It has no place in RPGs as far as I'm concerned.
It's not
what, but
how. ;)
Like many different moves and accessories in GMs "workshop"
Quantum Ogre is bad only when played bad. In certain situations it's very useful, or even crucial to maintain the continuity of the story. To avoid it just because it is what it is... Well, it's kind of self-limiting for no good reason.
QuoteI want to remind you that my title on TBP is "Member #2 of the Anti-Illusionism Squad".
I've seen the world without a few illusions. It's not a nice picture. :p
QuoteToo late:p!
Dammit!
QuoteGood. You're going to need it;)!
I'm ready, bring it on!
Quote from: Crüesader;899725Those bad guys may be loosely connected. They may have an alliance, they may simply have the same goal, etc. and so forth. It all depends. There's no all of one or all of the other. They may also be working on behalf of a secret big bad guy, sort of like a Vandal Savage type enemy.
I see. I'm asking, because usually if PCs come into conflict with a guy who is "a representative" of some society/agency/union/etc then it's reasonable to expect that the same construction will now target PCs, perhaps seek revenge and such.
QuoteI've noticed that just because things are used quite often, doesn't mean they're bad. Quite the opposite, usually.
Precisely. So what that it's "it was dark and stormy night..."? Let me adjust it a bit, present in a bit different way and it's gonna work fine, just fine. :)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899693This is really the matter of whether the glass is half-empty or half-full, and whether it's important, to what extent and to whom. Well, I'm not here to discuss it, since this isn't the relevant thread and I already stated that I realize I'm simplifying things...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]81[/ATTACH]
...so please, respect that, or if you really want to discuss this off-topic, start a separate "random vs random-less RPGs" thread. :)
Or, you could have actually read the paragraph instead of stopping at the headline. Then you would have found out that I wasn't talking about what you said you weren't challenging, I was specifically responding to your own words about "Adventure Filler", contesting the point that players are always going to know the difference between Adventure and Non-Adventure, and dice exacerbate that problem. Bren responded with something similar to what I said about random encounters, you just read that one. :p
Don't accuse me of threadjacking your thread when I'm responding to your words on the topics you brought up. It's an insult to my real threadjacks. :D
Quote from: crkrueger;899795(...) don't accuse me of threadjacking your thread when i'm responding to your words on the topics you brought up. It's an insult to my real threadjacks. :d
;)
[/quote
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899792I see. I'm asking, because usually if PCs come into conflict with a guy who is "a representative" of some society/agency/union/etc then it's reasonable to expect that the same construction will now target PCs, perhaps seek revenge and such.
Sometimes the fun is trying to find out who and what is connected. We had a few different organizations and alliances of bad guys. Sometimes it's less one big enemy threat, and more like a circular fist-fight between several.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899792Precisely. So what that it's "it was dark and stormy night..."? Let me adjust it a bit, present in a bit different way and it's gonna work fine, just fine. :)
Sometimes 'generic' can be beefed up just so it becomes 'comfortable' and 'fun'. Sometimes, things that are 'sorta like that other thing' are fine and dandy. Not every story has to be groundbreaking.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899792Only in theory, uncle Asen! In reality it might go both way. Just like pretty much everything else - nothing is simple, there are many variables determining the outcome, even if "what kind of pizza you want" is asked. ;)
Good. Then make sure it goes the other way.
Quote...you have a bunch of nice people to play with. This isn't spiritual, it's social, and it's a luxury truckloads of other people could only dream about.
Well yes, but I don't consider it wealth, in the strict sense:). Then again, I also don't use the strictest sense of words.
Quote...I'll also write "Ancient Alyums: the true story" and become next Daeniken or such. Money, fame & lusty bitches, here I come!
Good plan! I want an autographed copy!
QuoteNext stop: LAS VEGAS!
Remember: the sooner a mob shoots you, the sooner I collect on the soul...;)
QuoteOf course! Whew, that was close
*Nods sagely*.
QuoteGood, good. I can't ever be sure that I'm understood correctly. Strangely enough, this applies to my own language too.
To all languages, IME.
QuoteIt's not what, but how. ;)
Like many different moves and accessories in GMs "workshop" Quantum Ogre is bad only when played bad. In certain situations it's very useful, or even crucial to maintain the continuity of the story. To avoid it just because it is what it is... Well, it's kind of self-limiting for no good reason.
Nope. Here, I disagree strictly.
Drugs are also what they are. I avoid them for what they are.
The Quantum Shit is drugs for GMs, makes them think themselves smart, powerful and brings their downfall.
QuoteI've seen the world without a few illusions. It's not a nice picture. :p
Why? I like it better that way.
QuoteDammit!
Shit is what it is.
QuoteI'm ready, bring it on!
Cue sound of drums.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]82[/ATTACH]
"It has begun!"
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899792Reasonable. Usually I determine random elements prior to the session, and only if I don't feel like inventing everything on my own. People I've been playing with react negatively when they hear "you enter left corridor and you meet *roll* a tactical encounter X".
It helps if you skip the part where you say, "*roll* a tactical encounter X". ;)
Even if I have already created whatever it is they encounter it may take me as long to find it in my notes as it takes me to look up and see that a 17 on a D20 for the “Encounter at a Marketplace” chart means they encounter a fortune teller, that a 2 on a D8 and a 14 on a D20 for the multi-table “Benign Urban Encounters” chart means they encounter a large insect buzzing around their head. Or that a 169 on a D500 on the Random City Encounters chart means they encounter “Three friends having a sing-while two other tone-deaf friends stand and watch.” (I just randomly rolled those three encounters.)
For the first encounter I'll do some other rolling. Since the second encounter is supposed to be benign, it is almost impossible for the buzzing insect to be other than a buzzing insect - it might be a subtle clue that their is a corpse down that alley, but that starts to move away from the encounter being benign - so it's just a fly or a beetle. For the third encounter I'll again do some rolling. Sounds like this is Very Likely to be average locals enjoying themselves, but if not I'll need to determine who and what they are - maybe a group of drunken Musketeers. Interrupt their singing and you might get in a duel, join them and you might make friends, or end up paying their bar bill. Let's go back to the first encounter.
For the fortune teller, I’d probably roll something (the GameMaster Emulator table works nice for this) to determine if the fortune teller was one of the three existing NPC fortune tellers or someone new (I give a known fortune teller a “Very Unlikely” on the GM Emulator). Then I’d roll to determine if the fortune teller was a fraud or not (since my H+I campaign is no to low magic that would be at best “Very Unlikely”). Or if I felt lazy I’d use a stock gypsy fortune teller.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899792Like many different moves and accessories in GMs "workshop" Quantum Ogre is bad only when played bad. In certain situations it's very useful, or even crucial to maintain the continuity of the story. To avoid it just because it is what it is... Well, it's kind of self-limiting for no good reason.
”Continuity of the story” can die in a fire. I’m running a world, I’m not telling a story.
If the players realize that a random encounter may be as meaningful as a planned encounter they are less likely to be too concerned about detecting how the encounter was generated. I think the style of play that lends itself to player concern is when there is a planned quest. And during the quest all encounters along the way are predetermined to contain significant clues or are just meaningless, minor obstacles that are only there to erode resources (de-buff PCs, use scare spells, cost hit points or healing resources) and fill up time at the table so the planned confrontation with the Big Bad for this adventure doesn’t happen before [strike]the first or second commercial break[/strike] everyone’s played for a couple of hours first.
QuoteI see. I'm asking, because usually if PCs come into conflict with a guy who is "a representative" of some society/agency/union/etc then it's reasonable to expect that the same construction will now target PCs, perhaps seek revenge and such.
That is a reasonable expectation. But I wouldn’t make it a certainty. Play (and the game world) is more interesting if attempts at revenge are not automatic. A villain who was running a slavery ring was captured and imprisoned by the PCs. Later he escaped from jail. After some rolling on the GM Emulator, I determined that rather than try to get revenge, he had sworn to do everything he could to avoid the PCs. I like the idea that they might run into him somewhere later and get to hear him say, “Why do I keep running into you guys? I must be cursed. I left Burgundy and went into a totally new business to avoid you and yet here you are again! I think God must hate me.”
Now wanting revenge is more unlikely. After hundreds of sessions, some of the PCs in my Honor+Intrigue campaign are extremely dangerous or deadly and known to be so. In the past they have brought down two organizations that targeted them. So at this point, some NPCs and/or organizations are going to decide that discretion is the better part of valor and avoid, rather than confront, the PCs.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899614. . . in typical game if players are aware about the existence of randomness, they understand that not everything is an important part of the story. With a bit of experience they are able to tell the difference and perceive what they are facing as merely an intermission.
And fuck 'The Story' as well.
The 'story' in my campaign is whatever the hell the adventurers are doing right now. There is no 'filler.' My campaign-world is a sandbox (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/02/swashbucklers-sandbox-part-2.html) with content generated from behind a veil of ignorance (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/08/tailor-made.html). Chance encounters are how the game-world presents itself to the adventurers (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/12/random-encounters-that-dont-suck.html), with continuing random inputs so that even I don't know what direction events may take (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2012/03/using-mythic-game-master-emulator-as.html).
Maybe you have a problem with
your players "succumbing to a [
sic] boredom" (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?34503-quot-an-ancient-evil-has-awoken-quot-or-the-Big-Threat-plot-device&p=898505&viewfull=1#post898505) without 'The Story' or 'The Adventure,' but from your posts I'd suggest that the problem isn't on their side of the screen.
Quote from: AsenRG;899810Good. Then make sure it goes the other way.
No. I'll attempt to fix things my way. :cool:
QuoteWell yes, but I don't consider it wealth, in the strict sense:). Then again, I also don't use the strictest sense of words.
Who knows, perhaps there's an old cellar underneath of your house, filled from the bottom to the top with Byzantine gold?
...or perhaps there are bones of a doom-cult who committed mass suicide in the year 666? Heard any strange noises lately? ;)
QuoteGood plan! I want an autographed copy!
The position of official spokeperson (aka "Bulldog") is free to take.
Requirements: crazy haircut, high self-meme generating skills, being able to present bullshit in plausible way.
High salary, exotic vacations, interesting job, unorthodox career, fame & bitches...
QuoteRemember: the sooner a mob shoots you, the sooner I collect on the soul...;)
But Carlito, I AM THE FAMILY!
Quote*Nods sagely*.
*tips grey pointy hat*
QuoteTo all languages, IME.
Don't ever apply for the position of a programmer in nuclear powerplant, please!
QuoteNope. Here, I disagree strictly.
Drugs are also what they are. I avoid them for what they are.
The Quantum Shit is drugs for GMs, makes them think themselves smart, powerful and brings their downfall.
I disagree strongly based on my own experience.
...this applies to drugs as well. ;)
QuoteWhy? I like it better that way.
(http://media.new.mensxp.com/media/content/2014/Apr/reasonswhygameofthronesissuchabigdeal142_1396620215.jpg)
QuoteCue sound of drums.
"It has begun!"
I ran a campaign taking place in MK's setting. Then those f.... I mean nice guys stole my idea and released MK X. I swear, the gunslinger mercenary was my invention.
Quote from: Bren;899852It helps (....)
...perhaps you're better GM than me. Perhaps your players are less perceptive than mine and can't see through your GM's screen, so to speak. Perhaps they see, but don't mind. Perhaps mine dislike it more than yours and are vocal about that. Perhaps it's a mix of all above. Perhaps there are truckloads of different factors determining the result. Perhaps... ;)
Point is: I don't think things are that bad around here. Thanks for the suggestions though.
Quote"Continuity of the story" can die in a fire. I'm running a world, I'm not telling a story. (...)
Well, good for you and if your players are happy with that, then congrats to all of you.
Around here things are a bit different. Sometimes we play openworld-sandbox, and sometimes we tell the story. Sometimes it's interesting enough - apparently - that my players enjoy it and pursue it. And, unfortunately, because of many different factors it sometimes gets stuck. That's when various tools of trade come into play and make the circus play again.
Point is: there are no bad solutions, I guess. Only bad applications. A banality: what doesn't work for you, works great for me, and the other way around.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;899865And fuck 'The Story' as well.
The 'story' in my campaign is whatever the hell the adventurers are doing right now. (...)
To each his own, I guess. Certain people enjoy when players take the control, lead and initiative, create the story on their own. Other GMs - not so much and truckloads of people prefer something inbetween. No approach is universally better than other, so it's all along the lines of
de gustibus...QuoteMaybe you have a problem with your players "succumbing to a [sic] boredom"without 'The Story' or 'The Adventure,' but from your posts I'd suggest that the problem isn't on their side of the screen.
There's no problem, at least I don't see it that way. There's an opportunity, territory to claim, so to speak. I sought interesting solutions and I got my answers.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899943To each his own, I guess. Certain people enjoy when players take the control, lead and initiative, create the story on their own. Other GMs - not so much and truckloads of people prefer something inbetween. No approach is universally better than other, so it's all along the lines of de gustibus...
Well, see here's where you are completely missing the point of what Bren and Vulmea are saying. Usually when there is a "story" it's because the GM have given them one. Now as you see it, the players take up that mantle and deal with the situation, therefore it's "their story". But what we're saying is, there is no story, anymore than what you do tomorrow when you wake up is a story. When you come to the forums later and say, "You'll never believe what happened..." that's a story.
So you present a false dichotomy. Because we say there is no story, doesn't mean the players aren't in control. Actually it does in a way, because in fact, the characters are in complete control. We don't set the stage, unless by stage you mean the world, country, city etc the players are in. A good World in Motion setting is not full of stories, it's full of lives.
You're right in that de gustibus... but the difference is, when you're talking about story, the players are taking control. When we're talking about a World in Motion sandbox, the characters are taking control. That's where the difference in taste or understanding lies, the notion that the OOC metalayer of "we're creating a story" is not how everyone plays, not by a long shot.
Now maybe you're thinking "that's not how I meant story, I really just meant situation", but your concern with Adventure vs. Filler definitely points to OOC metagame thinking.
OOC metagame, or "campaigns as stories" might give you player-based agency, but a World in Motion sandbox is what gives you character-agency.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899943No. I'll attempt to fix things my way. :cool:
Go ahead. But keep in mind that option, too, in case it doesn't work.
It's not me who said that "there are no bad options", right:p?
QuoteWho knows, perhaps there's an old cellar underneath of your house, filled from the bottom to the top with Byzantine gold?
...or perhaps there are bones of a doom-cult who committed mass suicide in the year 666? Heard any strange noises lately? ;)
If it was gold, we'd be having this conversation on another site, which I would have purchased:).
Bones, you say...*coughwhotoldyouaboutthiscough*...sorry. I mean,
there are no bones:D!QuoteThe position of official spokeperson (aka "Bulldog") is free to take.
Requirements: crazy haircut, high self-meme generating skills, being able to present bullshit in plausible way.
High salary, exotic vacations, interesting job, unorthodox career, fame & bitches...
I've got long hair, can paint it in a weird colour if the pay is good. What was this about money, vacations and bitches again;)?
QuoteBut Carlito, I AM THE FAMILY!
[video=youtube;YZoQ_E8GHsk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZoQ_E8GHsk[/youtube]
I am not Carlito!QuoteDon't ever apply for the position of a programmer in nuclear powerplant, please!
I should have added that this is only a problem when talking to humans, right? Now are you going to look for me and talk to my boss?
QuoteI disagree strongly based on my own experience.
...this applies to drugs as well. ;)
Evidently, our experiences vary.
Quote(http://media.new.mensxp.com/media/content/2014/Apr/reasonswhygameofthronesissuchabigdeal142_139662021%20%205.jpg)
Of course, it's safe to ignore what I said.
(http://www.getagriptraining.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/do-you-feel-lucky-punk1-300x230.png)
QuoteI ran a campaign taking place in MK's setting. Then those f.... I mean nice guys stole my idea and released MK X. I swear, the gunslinger mercenary was my invention.
Plagiarism sucks, doesn't it?
Quote from: CRKrueger;899958Well, see here's where you are completely missing the point of what Bren and Vulmea are saying.
I feel left out of a list despite having said the same thing:p.
Quote from: CRKrueger;899958OOC metagame, or "campaigns as stories" might give you player-based agency, but a World in Motion sandbox is what gives you character-agency.
That's an interesting way to put it and deserves more deliberation.
What CRKruger said and also this.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899943Around here things are a bit different. Sometimes we play openworld-sandbox, and sometimes we tell the story. Sometimes it's interesting enough - apparently - that my players enjoy it and pursue it. And, unfortunately, because of many different factors it sometimes gets stuck. That's when various tools of trade come into play and make the circus play again.
I run a lot of stuff that isn't a sandbox. I run a lot of what I call mission-based campaigns. But I don't run stories. The difference is with a mission – the PCs/players are given* a problem. How they solve it and if they solve it, is up to them and the dice. I play to find out what happens, even when I am the GM.
Intermingled in any mission-based campaign will also be various hooks and encounters that the players are free to pursue or to ignore (assuming the hook or encounter let's them ignore it). This might be a damsel or dude in distress, some guy with a dagger in his back who gasps out a few last words before dying in their arms, something odd the PCs notice e.g. job posting, wanted poster, weird story in the paper, strange meteorite in their back field, dead body drained of blood in an alley, old deed hidden inside the hilt of the used sword they just bought, or it might be the random encounter they meet e.g. a fortune teller, a big fly buzzing around their head, or some guys having a sing-a-long. They are free to interact or try to not interact with those things however they choose, because there is no story. There is just whatever happens.
* How they are given the problem varies based on the campaign, the PCs, and the particular set up.
- In a military type of campaign e.g. Star Trek or Star Wars Rebels command gives the PCs the mission. Organizational themed campaigns are similar, you are a member of an organization and your boss(es) give you stuff to do. That stuff is your mission.
- In a mystery campaign (a lot of Call of Cthulhu is like this) someone comes to them to ask for their help e.g. a friend or relative, a client, the old man who lives next door, or someone who has heard of their prowess in investigating weird shit, etc. One could call this a hook rather than a mission, but typically everyone knows that the PCs are "investigators" who are supposed to investigate weird shit, so the hook isn't really optional.
- In a patron type of campaign the PCs are a client of a more important and powerful person who will ask them to take care of something. So the patron gives them the mission.
Quote from: CRKrueger;899958Well, see here's where you are completely missing the point of what Bren and Vulmea are saying. (...)
My dear Hulk, it's not whether I miss the point or not. It' just that I'm not very interesting in this small railroad and a half-hearted "m'kay" comments are what you're gonna get. To continue this off-topic, I'd have to put some more effort into that, specify some scenario, make some claim, define things a bit - it all deserves a separate thread and I'm not interested in that at this time. Without that it's all academics.
Take it, leave it, I'm not gonna be your GM today. ;)
Cheers
Quote from: AsenRG;899969Go ahead. But keep in mind that option, too, in case it doesn't work.
It's not me who said that "there are no bad options", right:p?
...only bad application. Yeah. ;)
QuoteIf it was gold, we'd be having this conversation on another site, which I would have purchased:).
MySpace? :D
QuoteBones, you say...*coughwhotoldyouaboutthiscough*...sorry. I mean, there are no bones:D!
DIG DEEPER!
QuoteI've got long hair, can paint it in a weird colour if the pay is good. What was this about money, vacations and bitches again;)?
I'm big, muscular, take no shit from no one and enjoy leather masks...
...SORRY, WRONG WINDOW! WRONG WINDOW!
QuoteI am not Carlito!
Oh, you're gonna confess!
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/242/214/be4.jpg)
QuoteI should have added that this is only a problem when talking to humans, right? Now are you going to look for me and talk to my boss?
Well now... Bring him on. DEUS VULT!
QuoteEvidently, our experiences vary.
Ayup. Take drugs. They vary in strength and effect. I didn't fell down the rabbit hole deep enough, but what I've tried is more along the lines of "hipster shit, people make more drama about than it's really worth", than something to be avoided at all cost. Seriously, I made more problems when heavily drunk. Not that I'm particularly proud of it...
QuoteOf course, it's safe to ignore what I said.
(http://www.getagriptraining.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/do-you-feel-lucky-punk1-300x230.png)
I counted. You have no bullets left, compadre!
QuotePlagiarism sucks, doesn't it?
Kind of, but not that I feel bad about them using same idea. I feel bad because
I've got an idea that was fine and I allowed it to slip off my fingers. Oh well...
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898465- Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
- Do your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
- Did you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat - a thing familiar to your world's inhabitants, that motivates some (PCs) to move their asses and travel across whole world and beyond? A word of explanation: The One Ring from tLoTR setting doesn't match the criteria, since it serves the purpose of getting rid of the Big Threat. The quest to seek Holy Grail would be the better example of what I have in mind. While it might be used as a morale boosting icon for any ruler or general, its purpose isn't to counter any specific Big Threat whatsoever.
1. Yes. Most of the settings I've run, played, or consider running, tend not to have one big threat. There are generally some groups or people who threaten others, but not usually one big one, nor are big threats usually a ubiquitous motivator. If they are, then more often than not, the game is a one-off or limited to that context, and/or is more or less railroady, at least in that way. Examples? TFT Cidri, most homebrew campaigns I've run or played in, Traveller, most GURPS settings, especially historical ones.
2. Yes. When fed a required opponent/threat, it removes choice and engagement and limits room for players to find/create their own interest. However it can be possible for a "big threat" to help enjoyment, if a group is having trouble caring about the game otherwise, but that doesn't tend to be the case in the games I've been in or run. I see a required big threat as a limiting convention, to force a focus, which can be ok, but only is needed if the GM/players are struggling to find interest without it.
3. My players, and players I've played with, tend to be pretty good at finding interests and pursuing them without obvious hooks. More often, they tend to avoid obvious hooks unless they look a lot like what they're already interested in. Overall, I would say that what I do is fill my setting with stuff that I think is interesting, figure out its history and how things relate and other details, and then let players explore and discover what they're interested in. Expectations about what they should be interested in tend not to be nearly as interesting to them as things they discover or invent themselves. If a game finds itself someplace where the setting/situation seems dull, that tends to motivate them to move on, and/or I start thinking about what other details to add to where they are. I think it helps a lot to not over-explain the setting, and to require them to get information through their characters, and to not show them fully detailed/accurate/complete maps, so being in the world and exploring it could always produce something interesting.
We were playing RPGs before they started trying to model epic fantasy sagas. So saving the world has rarely been on our agenda, except in a couple published campaigns. And even then, the stuff that really engaged the players was exploration and discovery. It seems to me that's what's lacking in the more modern modern approach to adventures - a lack of interest in exploration of exotic and dangerous places for its own sake.
I don't really care what other people do in RPGs to get their kicks. But it does irk me that RPG publishers can't think of any way to craft a campaign or adventure except to have a big bag threaten to destroy the town/kingdom/world. Show some frickin' imagination instead of relying on lowest-common-denominator cliches.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899943Certain people enjoy when players take the control, lead and initiative, create the story on their own.
Yes, some gamers enjoy when players take control of the game. Usually they're the ones who don't say shit like this.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;898668Minimal preps and simple notes can't be the complete answer - the amount of elements, plot seeds, NPCs, items, places, not to mention ideas about where to push the story next must be really staggering.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899212I can't simply discuss it with them, because I'm a bit hesitant to send the signal that they are gonna get what they want, that the story will be adjusted to their liking, rather than go in the original direction. (emphases added - BV)
Are you using 'story' differently from the generally accepted usage by many other gamers?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;899943There's no problem, at least I don't see it that way.
You've said in at least two posts that you
do have a problem with your players, and you're looking for ways to "push the story" other than the most obvious, hackneyed cliché.
Quote from: Bren;899972I run a lot of stuff that isn’t a sandbox. I run a lot of what I call mission-based campaigns. But I don’t run stories. The difference is with a mission – the PCs/players are given* a problem. How they solve it and if they solve it, is up to them and the dice. I play to find out what happens, even when I am the GM.
Sometimes I like to create a story where things happen their own way, and players have absolutely zero possibility to change it. They aren't heroes of such stories, they are passengers. They are free to try and attempt things, but everything's gonna end just like it's destined to end. Survival, escape, witnessing certain events - such stories have their charm too.
An example... Hmmmm...
"Paranormal Activity" movies, as opposite to
"Poltergeist". In the latter protagonists find a way to combat evil, and "win". In the former, no matter what they do, no matter how useful and reasonable it might seem, they are already doomed and in the end they are gonna face the predetermined outcome. Now, it's not that they are gonna die, it's just that their struggle is futile - things are gonna happen no matter what they'll do. A bit hardcore Call of Cthulhu basically.
Now some GMs might think the idea unacceptable, but it looks worse than it truly is: players don't realize they are participating in such a scenario. They get an interesting - I hope - story in exchange of playing along.
And the funniest part? They usually go back to this place after a while, now tasked with actually solving the problem. Re-visiting, seeing bones of their former characters, or witnessing them being chained to walls, blabbering incoherently... Heh, heh...
Anyway, that's a story in action. It has its place, it serves its purpose.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;900049Yes, some gamers enjoy when players take control of the game. Usually they're the ones who don't say shit like this.
I feel bad vibes. Any personal bad experiences?
QuoteAre you using 'story' differently from the generally accepted usage by many other gamers?
I'm not sure. Coming from beyond the Angolsphere I might be connecting certain words with a bit different meanings than usual. Feel free to ask additional questions if that's bothering you in any way. :)
QuoteYou've said in at least two posts that you do have a problem with your players, and you're looking for ways to "push the story" other than the most obvious, hackneyed cliché.
I didn't said I have the problem with my players. I had a bit of a problem with what to do next. And I got my answers already.
Quote from: CRKrueger;899958Well, see here's where you are completely missing the point of what Bren and Vulmea are saying. Usually when there is a "story" it's because the GM have given them one. Now as you see it, the players take up that mantle and deal with the situation, therefore it's "their story". But what we're saying is, there is no story, anymore than what you do tomorrow when you wake up is a story. When you come to the forums later and say, "You'll never believe what happened..." that's a story.
So you present a false dichotomy. Because we say there is no story, doesn't mean the players aren't in control. Actually it does in a way, because in fact, the characters are in complete control. We don't set the stage, unless by stage you mean the world, country, city etc the players are in. A good World in Motion setting is not full of stories, it's full of lives.
You're right in that de gustibus... but the difference is, when you're talking about story, the players are taking control. When we're talking about a World in Motion sandbox, the characters are taking control. That's where the difference in taste or understanding lies, the notion that the OOC metalayer of "we're creating a story" is not how everyone plays, not by a long shot.
Now maybe you're thinking "that's not how I meant story, I really just meant situation", but your concern with Adventure vs. Filler definitely points to OOC metagame thinking.
OOC metagame, or "campaigns as stories" might give you player-based agency, but a World in Motion sandbox is what gives you character-agency.
[video=youtube;EQnaRtNMGMI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI[/youtube]
Quote from: JesterRaiin;900152Sometimes I like to create a story where things happen their own way, and players have absolutely zero possibility to change it. They aren't heroes of such stories, they are passengers. They are free to try and attempt things, but everything's gonna end just like it's destined to end. Survival, escape, witnessing certain events - such stories have their charm too.
An example... Hmmmm... "Paranormal Activity" movies, as opposite to "Poltergeist". In the latter protagonists find a way to combat evil, and "win". In the former, no matter what they do, no matter how useful and reasonable it might seem, they are already doomed and in the end they are gonna face the predetermined outcome. Now, it's not that they are gonna die, it's just that their struggle is futile - things are gonna happen no matter what they'll do. A bit hardcore Call of Cthulhu basically.
Now some GMs might think the idea unacceptable, but it looks worse than it truly is: players don't realize they are participating in such a scenario. They get an interesting - I hope - story in exchange of playing along.
If I feel like creating a story than I sit down and write one.
As a GM, trying to trick a bunch of friends into playing along with my story without actually telling them they are acting out the roles in a scripted play where I am the director and author looks like it would be frustrating for the GM. As a GM knowing how the play ends before it starts looks boring since I play stuff to find out what happens...even when I am the GM. Knowing the end is like watching the last 2 minutes of a sporting event first and then watching the rest of the sporting event after. As a player, being tricked or fooled by the GM into playing a passive role in his drama looks deceitful and boring as all get out. So I really hope it looks worse than it truly is because it looks really, really terrible.
Would I ever run something where I know how it will end? I might, as a change of pace one-shot adventure. I might do that as an unusual introduction to a monster or horror adventure where the players first play the poor victims who fall to the monster. They'd know going in that this was the lead-in to the real adventure though. I haven't done that yet, but I might.
I have run several scenarios from "Blood Brothers 2" for Call of Cthulhu. Each scenario is based on a different B-movie horror film genre and as such, each has certain genre expectations that the players are supposed to play along with and the ending in some films may be predictable. The players use pregenerated PCs designed with the genre of film in mind. But the two big differences are that this is a one shot not the mainstay of play and no one has any illusions about the game that we are playing. The players all know its genre emulation of a film going in and play is enhanced rather than harmed if the players are familiar with the genres.
As an example, if I told you that one of the scenarios is based on teen slasher films like those in the 1980s, you could probably predict that most of the teenaged pregen PCs will die and the only ones likely to survive until the end of the film are the two pregen characters named “Final Boy” and “Final Girl” - there's a subtle hint for you. And would anyone be shocked to learn those two PCs are virgins?
Quote from: Bren;900197(...) As a GM, trying to trick a bunch of friends into playing along with my story without actually telling them they are acting out the roles in a scripted play where I am the director and author looks like it would be frustrating for the GM. As a GM knowing how the play ends before it starts looks boring since I play stuff to find out what happens...even when I am the GM. Knowing the end is like watching the last 2 minutes of a sporting event first and then watching the rest of the sporting event after. As a player, being tricked or fooled by the GM into playing a passive role in his drama looks deceitful and boring as all get out. So I really hope it looks worse than it truly is because it looks really, really terrible. (...)
I understand where it comes from, but I assure you, it's not as bad as it seems.
See, even if the story follows a certain script and ends in specific, predetermined way, there's still plenty of room for players to dick around and for GM to introduce slight changes, twists, use additional plot seeds, etc. This isn't
NO IMPROVISATION, GODDAMMIT kind of story, after all. It's just that certain parts of it are gonna happen, no matter what.
Spoiler
The best example would be WHFRP story taking place in snowy-covered Kislev. PCs were soldiers defending an outpost and their order was to keep it no matter the cost. Their position was similar to that of the defenders of Pavlov's House during the battle of Stalingrad, Travis' companions in Alamo's siege, or if you prefer fantasy - the defenders of Helm's Deep/LotR. They had to deal with a few different hardships on the way - securing some food, gathering weapons, protecting a few "civilians", participation in wild raid during which they destroyed a powerful siege weapon... It all lasted for a week, after which powerful forces of the enemy marched in and finished the job.
The Keep was to be destroyed alongside of its defenders, and so it happened in spite of their best efforts.
Yet, it was a good story. Players got the scene about their PCs being posthumously awarded, named "heroes of the land" and such.
I ran this story three times for three separate groups. Each time it was slightly different, and I didn't hear a word of complaint.
Oh, and thanks for keeping an open mind, even if you disagree with what I've been saying. It's a rare approach in the Net'. I appreciate it.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;900218This isn't NO IMPROVISATION, GODDAMMIT kind of story, after all. It's just that certain parts of it are gonna happen, no matter what.
Anecdote time!
One of my worst gaming experiences, ever, was with one of the better GMs I've played with. He had this GMNPC... which I'd subtly complained about from time to time but he didn't take the hint. So eventually it came time to confront the BBEG... a scene the GM had planned for long in advance... and we stumbled on him not quite ready enough... and we botched. All of our PCs lay bleeding out on the floor of the ritual chamber. Should have been a TPK. I would have been fine with that. But nope, the GM had his GMNPC there and he'd planned for how this was going to go down regardless of our input. So he started up the theme music (yes, he'd picked a particular Adele song to play during this) and launched into his 'epic' climax as the GMNPC put down the BBEG with the help of higher powers our PCs had no awareness of.
He seemed quite happy with it. I thought it fucking sucked.
This idea of following some sort of script is the sort of thing that would have me quitting the group, pronto.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;900218I understand where it comes from, but I assure you, it's not as bad as it seems.
True it may look different from the inside. Using the word "story" and talking about needing to do things to make things happen a certain way are red flags for many, me among them.
On the other hand, I don't expect, nor do I particularly want, to play an RPG where the PCs, who are riflemen at Omaha Beach, will single highhandedly end WWII in the fall of 1944 by punching Hitler in the face and taking him prisoner. Even Captain America doesn't do that and he's no where near an ordinary rifleman. Similarly, if the several Imperial Star Destroyers suddenly drop into orbit over the PCs rebel base and start an assault across the snowy tundra, I don't expect the PCs to personally destroy the assault force, then climb into their X-wings and shoot down the three Imp Star Destroyers.
What I expect is for the players to get to make decisions that are meaningful at their level or scope of activity. So the riflemen determine how their squad does and what happens to it - do they take out the machinegun nest, defeat a rival patrol, successfully perform their recon mission? The riflemen often have a significant impact on how their platoon does and what happens to it - do they take out the pillbox, capture a prisoner with some information? Sometimes they have an impact on how their company does and on what happens to it - do they destroy an enemy observation post, act as forward observers for their own artillery? And only rarely do a handful of riflemen have an impact on how their battalion does and what happens to it, etc. Similarly for the Star Wars rebels, I expect their efforts will effect how long it takes the Imperial assault to succeed so success allows the Rebels more time to evacuate in the face of the overwhelming Imperial assault and failure means more Rebels are captured or killed. And their efforts in the X-wings will effect how many fleeing transports get shot down by TIE fighters. Some amazing flying might get a critical hit on the bridge of one of the SD's. I expect more heroic actions in a Star Wars game it being Star Wars and not Saving Private Ryan or Combat!
QuoteOh, and thanks for keeping an open mind, even if you disagree with what I've been saying. It's a rare approach in the Net'. I appreciate it.
Internet conversations tend to be fraught with misunderstanding and filled with ire. Occasionally I prefer a different approach.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;900152Sometimes I like to create a story where things happen their own way, and players have absolutely zero possibility to change it. They aren't heroes of such stories, they are passengers. They are free to try and attempt things, but everything's gonna end just like it's destined to end. Survival, escape, witnessing certain events - such stories have their charm too.
Do you at least have the decency to first warn your players that you're about to masturbate on the tabletop?
Quote from: JesterRaiinNow some GMs might think the idea unacceptable, but it looks worse than it truly is: players don't realize they are participating in such a scenario.
No, you just whip it out and stain the linens. What an asshole.
I fucking loathe this shit. This right here is just about the worst of what this silly hobby has to offer.
Quote from: Bren;899676Are you back for a while . . . ?
I doubt it. Pundejo's marketing strategy of aggressively pursuing the too-stupid-to-avoid-getting-banned-at-Big-Purple crowd only succeeded in bringing in a lot of abject fuckwits without a gawddamned thing to say worth listening to, and the signal-to-noise ratio went to shit.
As far as this thread goes, it was pretty easy to read between the lines of this smarmy douchebag's posts that he's a fucking illusionist asshole who yanks his players around by the shorthairs then wonders why they seem bemused when faced with (the appearance of) actual options. Of course they don't know which way to go - they've never made a meaningful decision in the game thanks to this crapjound's narcissistic compulsion to feed them his spooge.
As I've said many times, I can't quite bring myself to use the word 'hate' to describe anything to do with something as breathtakingly trivial as roleplaying games, but this comes about as gawddamned close as it gets for me.
So I guess this thread pissed me off enough to wave my dick around, 'cause, y'know, that's my particular brand of assholishness.
It's good to see you, Black Vulmea. :)
"Story" is still a trigger word around here, and this topic seems to be an excuse to multi-quote and speak in image memes as substitute for witty reparteé. So you can see we're all doing fine per usual, plus ça meme chose, and all that.
So what are your thoughts on my roleplaying the setting Fallen Empires of Magic the Gathering where the coming ice age is the catalyst for civilization's entropic decay, and play hinges around the desperate bid to find personal meaning in the scramble for survival? It is still a fait acompli, but the doom is so slow and cosmic that the stakes shift from creating one's heroic legacy to one's tragic account.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;900152Sometimes I like to create a story where things happen their own way, and players have absolutely zero possibility to change it. They aren't heroes of such stories, they are passengers. They are free to try and attempt things, but everything's gonna end just like it's destined to end. Survival, escape, witnessing certain events - such stories have their charm too.
So then, why have it be a role-playing game if the Players have no ability to interact meaningfully with the setting and the events?
Quote from: Bren;900246True it may look different from the inside. Using the word "story" and talking about needing to do things to make things happen a certain way are red flags for many, me among them.
Yep, it's hard to miss. :D
QuoteOn the other hand, I don't expect, nor do I particularly want, (...)
It's reasonable approach. I recall times when players neither demanded "win" condition, nor were they convinced that everything is solvable via punching the problem in its teeth, no matter whether it's "merely" the Sheriff from Nottingham, or Cthulhu himself. Nowadays... It happens. Quite often, dare I say.
I'm not sure when exactly did it begin, but I'd like to learn what caused it, providing there's some single "thing" to blame.
QuoteInternet conversations tend to be fraught with misunderstanding and filled with ire. Occasionally I prefer a different approach.
Ha! I consider myself lucky, then. :)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;900365Do you at least have the decency to first warn your players that you're about to masturbate on the tabletop?
Of course not. The element of surprise is crucial to my satisfaction.
Now, since I satiated your curiosity concerning the sexual aspect of my existence, be so kind and return the favor. Tell me please, is that "
black vulva" callsign of yours somehow related to your genitalia, or was it merely the first thing that came (ahaahaha, pardon the pun) to your mind? I won't lie, I'm very into females of color, so each time you address me, certain part of my imagination gets stimulated.
QuoteNo, you just whip it out and stain the linens. What an asshole.
Shhh, sweetie. Adults are talking. :cool:
Quote from: jeff37923;900415So then, why have it be a role-playing game if the Players have no ability to interact meaningfully with the setting and the events?
I don't understand the question.
I think I made myself clear how does it look like, when I said, that...
See, even if the story follows a certain script and ends in specific, predetermined way, there's still plenty of room for players to dick around and for GM to introduce slight changes, twists, use additional plot seeds, etc. This isn't NO IMPROVISATION, GODDAMMIT kind of story, after all. It's just that certain parts of it are gonna happen, no matter what.
Quote from: jeff37923;900415So then, why have it be a role-playing game if the Players have no ability to interact meaningfully with the setting and the events?
I don't understand the question.
I think I made myself clear how does it look like, when I said, that...
See, even if the story follows a certain script and ends in specific, predetermined way, there's still plenty of room for players to dick around and for GM to introduce slight changes, twists, use additional plot seeds, etc. This isn't NO IMPROVISATION, GODDAMMIT kind of story, after all. It's just that certain parts of it are gonna happen, no matter what.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;900418See, even if the story follows a certain script and ends in specific, predetermined way, there's still plenty of room for players to dick around and for GM to introduce slight changes, twists, use additional plot seeds, etc. This isn't NO IMPROVISATION, GODDAMMIT kind of story, after all. It's just that certain parts of it are gonna happen, no matter what.
Thats the problem. You've just described a particular type of railroad session.
Its the difference between running Tyranny of Dragons and on one side you have a DM who allows the PCs every chance to stop the whole villain plan in any number of ways. If they enguage the main track. Fine. If not. Fine.
While on the other side the DM allows NO deviation from the way key events are written. The PCs WILL follow the merchant trail. They WILL get to the keep. They will board the castle. Tiamat WILL get released and so on and so fourth.
Players pick up on this alot more readily than alot of DMs would love to believe.
Thing is. Some players enjoy a more tight adventure like that. Some even prefer it. For others though it is a deadly poison.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;900418I don't understand the question.
That does not surprise me at all.
If the end result of any action has already been predetermined to happen in your games, then why bother with trying to change the circumstances? I guess that it escapes you that one of the major attractions of role-playing games is that the characters have a chance to interact with the environment and change events to their preferred outcome. The PCs are not always going to be successful, but they still have a chance to make the attempt. Your "illusion of choice" you present to your Players are nothing but puppet strings designed to make them dance to your own personal choreography. That may be great fun for you, but it is a real dick move for the Players.
Quote from: Omega;900421Thats the problem. You've just described a particular type of railroad session.
Its the difference between running Tyranny of Dragons and on one side you have a DM who allows the PCs every chance to stop the whole villain plan in any number of ways. If they enguage the main track. Fine. If not. Fine.
While on the other side the DM allows NO deviation from the way key events are written. The PCs WILL follow the merchant trail. They WILL get to the keep. They will board the castle. Tiamat WILL get released and so on and so fourth.
Players pick up on this alot more readily than alot of DMs would love to believe.
Thing is. Some players enjoy a more tight adventure like that. Some even prefer it. For others though it is a deadly poison.
True, true.
There are many tools and accessories any GM might put to use. Some are sophisticated, some are crude. Thing is, there's a place and time for each and any. Unfortunately, plenty of GMs used certain solution in wrong way, repeated same patterns ad nausea, allowed for otherwise good ideas to become generally hated. "
Oh, look, another DMPC to save the day, how original (rolling eyes)". "
Geeee, I wonder why all roads aside of that particular one are blocked (sigh)". "
We meet at the inn. Right. (yawn)", etc, etc. Because of that mere mentioning certain keywords is enough for some people to act like someone just defecated on their favorite deity's altar.
I find it a bit silly, tbh. There's absolutely no problem in any solution, as long as it's used properly. So, yeah, if it serves the purpose, I'm not below using a little railroading. Do I consider it a problem? No. Thing is - I don't recall anyone complaining about it either, and in the end mutual satisfaction (or the lack of it) is the only thing determining whether something is "a problem" or not.
So it's just like you're saying: it all comes down to people and whether they enjoy this specific kind of stories.
Quote from: jeff37923;900422That does not surprise me at all.
If the end result of any action has already been predetermined to happen in your games, then why bother with trying to change the circumstances? I guess that it escapes you that one of the major attractions of role-playing games is that the characters have a chance to interact with the environment and change events to their preferred outcome. The PCs are not always going to be successful, but they still have a chance to make the attempt. Your "illusion of choice" you present to your Players are nothing but puppet strings designed to make them dance to your own personal choreography. That may be great fun for you, but it is a real dick move for the Players.
"Any"? As in "any single one, no matter how big or small"? Entertain this poor simpleton: the idea of ANY in-game action with already predetermined outcome is enough to rustle your jimmies?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cg7kp4eWYAAOgSR.jpg)
...Oh my... :D
One day, you're gonna die, my friend. Everyone you know is gonna die. Eventually, everything you know will perish. There's absolutely nothing you can do about that. According to your logic, all actions are meaningless, since it's all "illusion". Let's lie on the floor and spend the rest of our time wallowing a vortex of depression and emotions. Woe is us.
Just joking.
What you're doing here, Jeff, is inflating a spherical cow. You're inflating the poor creature, and once it's big and round, you kick it into the void, where it stays, slowly but steadily drifting away until it no longer resembles even remotely the thing it is supposed to resemble, meaning: my sessions. ;)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;900435What you're doing here, Jeff, is inflating a spherical cow. You're inflating the poor creature, and once it's big and round, you kick it into the void, where it stays, slowly but steadily drifting away until it no longer resembles even remotely the thing it is supposed to resemble, meaning: my sessions. ;)
Your sessions sound like the premise for a game of
Poison'd.
Quote from: jeff37923;900442Your sessions sound like the premise for a game of Poison'd.
See, Jeff, I realize there's some meaning behind those words, but since it's first time I hear about Poison'd, it's all Chinese to me - I can't tell whether it's a bit more sophisticated way to say "I wouldn't piss in your mouth even if it was on fire", or perfectly harmless observation. Sure, I could read the description of the game, try to make up my mind about it, decide whether it's good or bad, but there's high chance I wouldn't understand it like you do.
And that's the problem we're facing here. You're triggered (there goes another word stolen from the realm of neutrality) by certain words and/or ideas, and you react in specific way, because you expect they are connected with certain scenarios, people etc, etc.
Well, nope.
I'm a product of entirely different branch of RPG evolution and its "global" history doesn't apply to me, it had little to add to the process of shaping the way I perceive "things" and what I think about them. Your monsters, dangers and taboos are meaningless to me and where you refuse to walk because it's
not kosher, I wouldn't mind taking a dump and call it "quite refreshing, peaceful experience, quite idyllic, 7/10 would do it again".
So, as long as you decide to treat me as part of whatever happened between whatever side you're representing and its opposition in some Great Old Conflict Of Ours, then there's no other outcome - you're gonna perceive me as (I'm guessing here) an agent of the enemy with unconfirmed mental condition, while I'll continue to wonder whether you're playing RPGs and if so then with whom, since that level of mental inflexibility would be too much even for VTNL's GM. ;)
I think we're done here, since there's not much of anything productive to add to this thread at this point, so be seeing you. Until then, just keep in mind that what
it is and how
does it sound like, or more precisely "what you think it is based on a sketchy description" aren't always one and the same, and all will be fine and dandy. :)
tl;dr: not all is at is appear to be.
Seems much more interesting to me when the GM relates to the game as "let's see what happens" and not "this will happen, no matter what". My favorite play sessions tend to be those where no one knows or predicted what would happen, and unexpected things happen that no one expected.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;900518See, Jeff, I realize there's some meaning behind those words, but since it's first time I hear about Poison'd, it's all Chinese to me - I can't tell whether it's a bit more sophisticated way to say "I wouldn't piss in your mouth even if it was on fire", or perfectly harmless observation. Sure, I could read the description of the game, try to make up my mind about it, decide whether it's good or bad, but there's high chance I wouldn't understand it like you do.
And that's the problem we're facing here. You're triggered (there goes another word stolen from the realm of neutrality) by certain words and/or ideas, and you react in specific way, because you expect they are connected with certain scenarios, people etc, etc.
Well, nope.
I'm a product of entirely different branch of RPG evolution and its "global" history doesn't apply to me, it had little to add to the process of shaping the way I perceive "things" and what I think about them. Your monsters, dangers and taboos are meaningless to me and where you refuse to walk because it's not kosher, I wouldn't mind taking a dump and call it "quite refreshing, peaceful experience, quite idyllic, 7/10 would do it again".
So, as long as you decide to treat me as part of whatever happened between whatever side you're representing and its opposition in some Great Old Conflict Of Ours, then there's no other outcome - you're gonna perceive me as (I'm guessing here) an agent of the enemy with unconfirmed mental condition, while I'll continue to wonder whether you're playing RPGs and if so then with whom, since that level of mental inflexibility would be too much even for VTNL's GM. ;)
I think we're done here, since there's not much of anything productive to add to this thread at this point, so be seeing you. Until then, just keep in mind that what it is and how does it sound like, or more precisely "what you think it is based on a sketchy description" aren't always one and the same, and all will be fine and dandy. :)
tl;dr: not all is at is appear to be.
I do not find you to be an "agent of the enemy" (which is delightfully hyperbolic BTW), but I think what you have described as "fun" for you would cause the average Player in one of my games to justifiably leave and never return.
Black Vulmea nailed it upthread. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might have something worthwhile to say and I was mistaken.
I have this idea for a game where the big threat is magic.
You have this kingdom that is landlocked and surrounded by other kingdoms, none of the other kingdoms really like one another, but none dare go through the central kingdom because it is home to the font of magic, via 4 ancient temples. Thanks to this kingdom and it being home to the temples that provide magic, the nations are all at peace (mostly) and able to trade with one another.
Every 1000 years or so, the four idols have to be collected from the four altars in the four temples, transported to the castle (which is built on the ruins of a fifth temple) to be 'recharged' and blessed by the various priests and archmagi, and then taken back to the temples.
This year something went wrong. One of the nations decided that the magic wasn't worth it, and wants to take over the continent, so it sends out assassins / thieves to prevent the idols from being returned to the temples. (Transporting the idols to the castle is always done with much fanfare, but the return is done in secret so that no one knows exactly what needs to be done, so the kingdom keeps its control of magic)
So, as magic is running out, and the nations are chomping at the bit to invade the central kingdom and start killing one another, adventuring parties are sent out to find the idols, collect them, and take them to the temples.
The PCs of course, are the ones who find the thieves, get the idols back, and take them directly to the temples.
Each idol, and its corresponding temple follow the themes of the four elements, Earth, Fire, Air and Water. Because of the link the temples have to one another, as soon as an idol is placed on an altar, a portal to the next temple in the cycle is opened. Which temple you start at doesn't matter, but they all have to be visited and have the idol placed to open the way to the next temple.
Each temple is also left abandoned, lots of dust everywhere. The only time the temples are accessible (other then through the portals) is when the idols need to be recharged, except by anyone who places an idol on the altar.
So, the PCs are carrying the idols, and are being chased by, if not the thieves, then by the army that sent the thieves, so they aren't really given a whole lot of time to see what is going on around them, and they need to place the idols on the altars.
This is where if I were running this, would play dirty, I would allow them to make a perception check to notice the dust, and the shape of the base of the idols. I would mention the shapes of the idols several times as they carried them, and make special mention of how dusty the temples were, but I wouldn't ask them to make a check. (I'll get to why in a bit)
This is where the campaign can go one of 2 ways, it can end fairly quickly, or go for a while longer and get into the meat of the story.
IF they notice the dust, they will see that the dust void on the altar does NOT match the base of the corresponding idol (say the temple they have entered is the earth temple, the void matches the fire idol). If they notice, the portal to the next temple opens and they step through. (maybe there are guards at the other temples maybe not) and when they complete the cycle, things return to normal, and they home army calls the adventurers forward and hails them as heroes of the realm. Then run your fairly standard fantasy setting.
HOWEVER, if they put the earth idol on the earth alter, the portal opens to the next temple in the cycle, and when all four idols are in place, there is a massive earthquake that shakes the kingdom.
The fifth temple rises up out of the ground, causing the castle to crumble to rubble, revealing that the temple was a temple to the lords of hell, and the PCs have just opened the gate allowing the old gods of evil to run rampant across the face of the world.
It turns out many, many years ago, the demons ruled the world, and the 4 temples were the key to their control of the world, having the 4 idols in their appropriate temples allowed enough magic to flow out of hell to make it so demons could survive in our world, having the wrong idol in the temple, cut the magic level down by half. Humans could magic, and occasionally call forth demons and such, but they couldn't stay long. Having the opposite idol Earth <--> Air, Fire <--> Water cuts off the flow of magic all together.
This is the BIG secret that only a trusted few know, for security's sake, and why only the most trusted are allowed to transport the idols each way.
So now, there are magic shields surrounding the 4 temples, demons are running around, looking for the PCs because they are the only ones who can undo what has been done for the next 1000 years.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;898489In a fantasy game, the 'Big Threat' idea makes me puke so hard blood squirts out my ass. Best way to make sure I don't play.
I want a world to explore and go where I wish.
Exactly.
My favorite Bond movies were
From Russia With Love, Thunderball, For Your Eyes Only and
Casino Royale. Only one of these involved any real danger of atomic weapons being used. Even for James Bond, saving many millions of people from being killed on a regular basis cheapened the threat, which is why
Austin Powers was so successful at spoofing the series.
I find it much more interesting when there all kinds of smaller threats. Not every band of orcs that goes about looting and burning has to be the vanguard of some demi-god's plot to take over the charred remains.
Maybe that's the the White Walkers and the threat they pose is -for me anyway- the second least interesting part of
Game of Thrones. Villains like Joffrey, the Boltons, Craster, Littlefinger, The Mountain, Cersei and Tywin are far more compelling. Aside from the episode where the wights attacked the town by the sea and the one two weeks ago ("Hold the door!), I find the whole ice monster thing almost as tedious as the parts with Dragon Girl.
Quote from: Elfdart;901000Aside from the episode where the wights attacked the town by the sea and the one two weeks ago ("Hold the door!), I find the whole ice monster thing almost as tedious as the parts with Dragon Girl.
I REALLY like how the undead hordes are done on the show... but yeah, that bit of impending doom (along with Dragon Girl) is nowhere near as interesting as all the political interplay going on elsewhere. There are plenty of smaller villains and causes to join.
I guess it is all in how you play it, even if there is a big threat, what does it all mean to the players? In my campaign, I can say a lot, except it is just August 1942, that is the basis, it's Star Wars. While the players are ostensibly "resistance", there is nothing stopping them from going over to the other side, or playing both sides. There is an NPC crewmate that might stand in their way, she'd have to be dealt with, not that it would be that difficult, other than the players like her. Not like the whole playing both sides for profit doesn't have many examples, Henry Ford, Prescott Bush, many made millions or billions doing it, and former enemies were quickly rehabilitated post war as allies:
(http://www.beim-alten-bgs.de/Zu_den_Kameradenseiten/Lothar_S_/Vereidigung_1962/Grenzschutz0025.jpg)
Quote from: Elfdart;901000Maybe that's the the White Walkers and the threat they pose is -for me anyway- the second least interesting part of Game of Thrones. Villains like Joffrey, the Boltons, Craster, Littlefinger, The Mountain, Cersei and Tywin are far more compelling. Aside from the episode where the wights attacked the town by the sea and the one two weeks ago ("Hold the door!), I find the whole ice monster thing almost as tedious as the parts with Dragon Girl.
It was the explicit motivation for Joss Whedon to leave "aliens" out of
Firefly. His take was that aliens made it too easy for a SF audience to identify The Enemy and promptly demonize it: oh, they're
Klingons (Cylons, Bugs, Cardassians, Others, Puppet Masters), so of course they're
evil. Everyone being human made for much more moral ambiguity.
Quote from: Ravenswing;901169It was the explicit motivation for Joss Whedon to leave "aliens" out of Firefly.
Similar to my reasoning for not having any non-human races in my primary fantasy homebrew. I've yet to find any compelling needs that some faction/culture of people can't fill. My 'orks', 'elves', and 'dwarves' are signified by cultural, not biological, differences.
Quote from: Ravenswing;901169It was the explicit motivation for Joss Whedon to leave "aliens" out of Firefly. His take was that aliens made it too easy for a SF audience to identify The Enemy and promptly demonize it: oh, they're Klingons (Cylons, Bugs, Cardassians, Others, Puppet Masters), so of course they're evil. Everyone being human made for much more moral ambiguity.
But, weren't
Reavers a pretty clear 'alien' threat that were demonized by most everyone in the series? They might not have had the features associated with most space opera aliens but there was no moral ambiguity about them. Brutal space savages that were universally feared - cannibals, rapists, murderers - a very clear "Enemy".
- Do you know/play some settings void of such a threat?
Yes, the threats in the 7th Sea campaign I'm playing in are directly addressing the PCs and are not global threats at all. In games I run, I tend to run things in a sandbox, letting the PCs focus on what interests them. There are always threats, global threats can be interesting, especially in Call of Cthulhu, in my opinion. In other games, I prefer to focus on the PCs, so minor threats that are very important to them.
- Do your players/yourself enjoy them as much as ones with such a feature?
I think it really depends on the game and setting. As a player, as long as my character is interested and invested in dealing with whatever threat, the scale of the threat itself is irrelevant. I think that what this thread addresses is the feeling of cheap involvement that can arise from a BIG THREAT. I've experienced it before and it caused a bit of a rift, a disenchanted attitude that developed overall with that campaign. Essentially, we kinda stopped caring even though we knew we had to do it (i.e. deal with the Big Threat).
- Did you develop some clever alternative to the Big Threat
Well, simply put, yeah. Focus on the PCs, their backstories, what they care about now, etc. Make the players care. As I mentioned earlier, I tend to create sandbox-y environments especially at the beginning of the game, and by the 5th or so session, I can see threads weaving themselves together to bring the PCs together on an important quest: a common goal they wish to accomplish. Sometimes, interacting with different opposing factions in a rich setting is more than enough, and I like the idea of PCs dealing with a "monster of the week" situation, mimicking the early seasons of BuffyTVS or Supernatural. Eventually, it's also nice to introduce a big bad, or twist things with a revelation of something that may have been bigger than they originally thought, but it kind of depends on the players as well.
Quote from: K Peterson;901236But, weren't Reavers a pretty clear 'alien' threat that were demonized by most everyone in the series? They might not have had the features associated with most space opera aliens but there was no moral ambiguity about them. Brutal space savages that were universally feared - cannibals, rapists, murderers - a very clear "Enemy".
That's true, and if I recall correctly, it went beyond that. They were victims too and were chemically made into Reavers. So while they were not a BIG THREAT, they were a threat everyone had to deal with. Their origin was a nice twist which further amplified the Alliance as the BIG BAD.
I'm not all that impressed with Whedon as a writer. Personally, any wild west in space leaves me cold, largely due to the fact of that Texas was the first place I lived when we moved here. Not being able to represent aliens as anything other than targets? Hello? In Serenity, no aliens ... who is the nemesis again? I was rooting for him, I kinda hate Fillion. I wouldn't have watched any of it if it wasn't for my ex-wife, she dug westerns, but really just for the horses as we owned horses. In reality, most powerful nemesis type aliens would probably be left over AI's, the time scale is just too vast to have multiple competing species with equivalent technology. Low tech, they wouldn't be threatening. Part of a big nemesis is that it is a easy way to do 'Against A Dark Background', Ethos standing out against Pathos, English 101 kind of stuff. Even if aliens are alien-y, natural equilibrium would force a balance over time, depending on a variety of factors.
Here's a problem I have with the 'big bad' and save the world scenarios: In published adventures, the big bad is rarely all that bad. Take the latest 5E adventure book, the Storm King's Thunder. It seems giants are stealing grain and livestock, and press-ganging humans into labouring for them. Ooh, how awful. Clearly, these giants need to be hacked to pieces and exterminated (which is the default way of dealing with threats in D&D).
Want to make the big bads more dangerous and dramatic (and worthy of extermination)? Make them bad. They flout the gods, they destroy civilization, they rejoice in cruelty. They eat people. Raiding livestock and burning farms? That's really the best you can come up with?
Quote from: Haffrung;901270Raiding livestock and burning farms? That's really the best you can come up with?
That sounds like the neighbors in a lot of setting.
Quote from: Ravenswing;901169It was the explicit motivation for Joss Whedon to leave "aliens" out of Firefly. His take was that aliens made it too easy for a SF audience to identify The Enemy and promptly demonize it: oh, they're Klingons (Cylons, Bugs, Cardassians, Others, Puppet Masters), so of course they're evil.
That's just because Whedon's not a very good writer. Rockne S. O'Bannon had no problem doing it in Farscape.
Quote from: HaffrungIt seems giants are stealing grain and livestock, and press-ganging humans into labouring for them. Ooh, how awful. Clearly, these giants need to be hacked to pieces and exterminated (which is the default way of dealing with threats in D&D).
I think some of this is the "Ren Faire with Magic" nature of most D&D settings, where the fact that survival in the vaguely-Dark-Ages-Europe setting ought to be a great deal more precarious than it is is elided. They're stealing your grain and livestock? Well, then you and your family are
going to starve to death. Those of you who weren't carried away and
enslaved to be worked to death. Yeah, that's awful. And since we can't exactly phone up the local constabulary to pop round and sort them out, you're damn right that murdering the fuck out of those giants is the best way to ensure that a) they never do it again, and 2) nobody else gets the same idea.
Quote from: daniel_ream;901308That's just because Whedon's not a very good writer. Rockne S. O'Bannon had no problem doing it in Farscape.
I think some of this is the "Ren Faire with Magic" nature of most D&D settings, where the fact that survival in the vaguely-Dark-Ages-Europe setting ought to be a great deal more precarious than it is is elided. They're stealing your grain and livestock? Well, then you and your family are going to starve to death. Those of you who weren't carried away and enslaved to be worked to death. Yeah, that's awful. And since we can't exactly phone up the local constabulary to pop round and sort them out, you're damn right that murdering the fuck out of those giants is the best way to ensure that a) they never do it again, and 2) nobody else gets the same idea.
Sure. But if orcs, goblins, giants etc. know that the human response to raids on their livestock and farms is extermination, why not just wipe out those farmers and villagers in the first place? And again, in my world
monsters eat people.
You're being facetious, but I'll answer straight because it makes for a better thread.
Quotewhy not just wipe out those farmers and villagers in the first place?
For the same reason border raids, Viking raids and cattle raids have existed since time immemorial: because you don't think you're going to get caught. The human response to raids is extermination when they can get their shit together and there happens to be a powerful enough force within riding distance that can do something about it. Think of the PCs as the US 7th Cavalry responding to an Indian raid: sure, they're going to respond with overwhelming genocidal force, but that's actually a pretty rare occurrence from the POV of both the settlers and the local tribes. To the tribes, it's an acceptable risk. If what a monster wants is an easy source of food and slaves, it's much easier to let the soft humans do all the work and then take what you want, and leave them somewhat intact so you can come back later. Again, there's tons of historical precedent for this. And lastly, wiping out a farmstead probably isn't going to keep the 7th Cavalry from hunting you down eventually.
If in your world monsters eat people, then great - that's reason enough for wiping them out. My point is that raiders that steal your food supply and your kin are just as much an existential threat
Quote from: Haffrung;901270Here's a problem I have with the 'big bad' and save the world scenarios: In published adventures, the big bad is rarely all that bad. Take the latest 5E adventure book, the Storm King's Thunder. It seems giants are stealing grain and livestock, and press-ganging humans into labouring for them. Ooh, how awful. Clearly, these giants need to be hacked to pieces and exterminated (which is the default way of dealing with threats in D&D).
Want to make the big bads more dangerous and dramatic (and worthy of extermination)? Make them bad. They flout the gods, they destroy civilization, they rejoice in cruelty. They eat people. Raiding livestock and burning farms? That's really the best you can come up with?
You mean, "they're going to make those peasants die from starvation in the winter" isn't enough for you?
I don't know if that's what the adventure assumes, but that would be my assumption if I hear that line, knowing that preparing for winter was a full-time activity for most villages. Of course, if it's clear from the adventure that this isn't the case, most of my PCs probably wouldn't go for the lethal options.
Quote from: Haffrung;901377Sure. But if orcs, goblins, giants etc. know that the human response to raids on their livestock and farms is extermination, why not just wipe out those farmers and villagers in the first place? And again, in my world monsters eat people.
There has to be some villagers left to raise livestock and plants for food, otherwise there is nothing to raid. If the humanoids are smart, they will have a protection racket going. A small tribe comes in and protects the village from any other raiders - just to make sure that the threat is tangible, another aligned small tribe conducts occasional raids against homesteads that do not get along with the first tribe. The "defenders" drive off the "attackers", but never before the defiant homesteaders are killed in a gruesome manner.
Quote from: David Johansen;898491If I use a big threat I usually let my players be the ones who release it. They're good at that.
Quote from: K Peterson;901236But, weren't Reavers a pretty clear 'alien' threat that were demonized by most everyone in the series? They might not have had the features associated with most space opera aliens but there was no moral ambiguity about them. Brutal space savages that were universally feared - cannibals, rapists, murderers - a very clear "Enemy".
They were Space Vampires, he hadn't figured out how to make a show different enough from his hit series.
Seems to me actual human cattle raids are a tradition of mild theft and balance, and have little or nothing to do with wiping anyone out. Tribal people generally don't exterminate each other. It's when agriculture brings kings that people start wars in earnest, fighting to the death or last man, sowing the ground with salt, etc. I wouldn't say that's because they always wanted to do that, but lacked the resources. It's more about being able horde and protect wealth and land ownership with farms, fences, walls and forts, and having hereditary kings and trying to dominate and control everything based on land. Yes agriculture and kings and armies lead to more resources and destructive potential, but I'd say it's more about land ownership and running out of resources. Using up and dominating the land leads to more stocks but also more population and limits to abundance, so actually more scarcity in the end because the needs keep growing and available land runs out.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;901670They were Space Vampires, he hadn't figured out how to make a show different enough from his hit series.
No, they're Cherokee. Firefly is a Western.
EDIT: Agents of SHIELD. ironically, is Firefly 2.0.
People have a tendency to flee, so that they aren't automatically killed when raiders attack, that's the root of refugees and such like.
Quote from: Skarg;901899Tribal people generally don't exterminate each other. It's when agriculture brings kings that people start wars in earnest, fighting to the death or last man, sowing the ground with salt, etc. I wouldn't say that's because they always wanted to do that, but lacked the resources.
They dont? Native American history has ample tales of tribes pretty much exterminating and/or capturing other tribes to the point they effectively ceased to exist. And that was before europeans arrived.
Quote from: Omega;901962They dont? Native American history has ample tales of tribes pretty much exterminating and/or capturing other tribes to the point they effectively ceased to exist. And that was before europeans arrived.
I'm not sufficiently familiar with that situation to comment on it, but no, generally, they don't. There are some exceptions, but they tend to raid to take things and assert themselves, not to murder their neighbors. There's usually no worthwhile reason to risk pitched battles. Raiding provides one way to balance scarcity and overabundance.
Even medieval European raids and even some battles were generally about taking stuff and balancing power, rather than wiping people out. After all, the leaders were all of a class and inter-related - the guys in armor who tend to be ransomed rather than killed.
The real issue is that what we call a tribe these days is a geographically dispersed population with tenuous connections at best. It would be extremely difficult for one native tribe to completely exterminate another simply because the logistics make it unfeasible to roam all over a wide territory finding every last village of people that might be interrelated.
But there's certainly ample evidence of native tribes in the North Americas completely exterminating entire villages of rival tribes down to the last child, which is as close to genocide as you can get given Neolithic technology.
Yes, thats what I mean. Total extermination of villages. Wiping out whole tribes was not as common far as I've been told due to the aforementioned dispertion. Though apparently not for wont of trying. Why? I have no clue. I assume over competition for hunting grounds mostly. At other times it seems like a tribe would go out of their way to exterminate a village/tribe.
Make of it what you will. Stuff like this can be interesting when applied to campaigns and finding out WHY this tribe is doing this, or trying to stop them, can become a major quest.
Quote from: Omega;902224Why? I have no clue.
As if any cohesive group of people ever needed much of an excuse to hate another group of people... "Them fuckers over there, we hates them, lets go kill them and take their stuff!"
As I recall the Old Testament had a few tales of one group eradicating another group.
Quote from: Simlasa;902269As if any cohesive group of people ever needed much of an excuse to hate another group of people... "Them fuckers over there, we hates them, lets go kill them and take their stuff!"
As I recall the Old Testament had a few tales of one group eradicating another group.
The excuse was that god told them to do that.
QuoteOnly in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,
Quote from: Bren;902278The excuse was that god told them to do that.
I guess it's nice to have a god that tells you to do stuff you were probably already inclined to do anyway.
Quote from: Omega;901962They dont? Native American history has ample tales of tribes pretty much exterminating and/or capturing other tribes to the point they effectively ceased to exist. And that was before europeans arrived.
Yeah. Steven Pinker 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' has some enlightening info on this. It's actually pretty common for hunter-gatherer inter-group warfare to culminate with the annihilation of one of the groups, whenever there is resource scarcity. The widespread contrary belief seems more due to Rousseau-ean Anthropologists (sp?) seeing what they wanted to see, & then spreading myths to that effect. Chimps and other hunter or hunter/gatherer group animals do the same.
Quote from: Skarg;902124I'm not sufficiently familiar with that situation to comment on it, but no, generally, they don't. There are some exceptions, but they tend to raid to take things and assert themselves, not to murder their neighbors. There's usually no worthwhile reason to risk pitched battles. Raiding provides one way to balance scarcity and overabundance.
They don't wipe each other out in pitched battles. One side typically launches a big dawn raid/massacre to wipe out the other side while they're sleeping.
Seems to me people actually do need reasons for kill other people. Wiping out other tribes when there's a great scarcity of food and attacks and retribution are escalating is very different from just deciding to kill all the people in another village just because.
There are of course different situations and different levels of conflict. However there is definitely a common class of livestock raid (which is I would say by far the most common overall) which is not about trying to kill the neighboring people.
Quote from: S'mon;902309It's actually pretty common for hunter-gatherer inter-group warfare to culminate with the annihilation of one of the groups, whenever there is resource scarcity.
That's one of the justifications in the ancient world for slavery being the lesser of two evils.
Quote from: Skarg;902379Seems to me people actually do need reasons for kill other people.
Not just reasons, but the right circumstances. Col. Dave Grossman has done a fair bit of research on this topic. His 1995 book
On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society is pretty enlightening. It has one of the most interesting, and to my mind reasonable, explanations for why guns supplanted bows and crossbows despite guns being inferior in rate of fire and accuracy.
Quote from: Skarg;902379Seems to me people actually do need reasons for kill other people. Wiping out other tribes when there's a great scarcity of food and attacks and retribution are escalating is very different from just deciding to kill all the people in another village just because.
There are of course different situations and different levels of conflict. However there is definitely a common class of livestock raid (which is I would say by far the most common overall) which is not about trying to kill the neighboring people.
With NA tribes at least in the Ohio region it seemd there was an inordinant amount of territory wars and wars just because they didnt like some other tribe for reasons other than food. There was at least one period where I believe the Iriquois swept through and effectively depopulated the whole Ohio region. Some tribes fled to other regions. Others were wiped out or close enough. Why? Apparently just to get rid of them. The region wasnt settled by anyone for a long time after.
This was actually one of the reasons given in a campaign for why a whole region was nearly devoid of settlement. In ages past the area had been swept of just short of all civilization and what was left were a-lot of ruins above and below.