|
That Sword World Fellows system just screams Dragons Dogma pawns to me. I need to read it.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
Aniodia posted:Interestingly enough, Sword World 2.5 specifically has a very similar concept, called "Fellows"... This was very interesting. Thanks for writing up an analysis. Vadun posted:That Sword World Fellows system just screams Dragons Dogma pawns to me. I need to read it. Pretty much. I wonder if that's where Dragons Dogma got the idea from.  On another note, I've heard some chatter about a game called Out of the Ashes. From the DriveThru description: quote:From Paul Mitchener, the creator of Liminal! Have any of you hear/played it? I'm curious as to how much civilization or community management is involved, or if it's focus is all on community quests.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
It sounds very interesting. If no one's got experience with it, I might grab it and review it so I have a break from the goddamn Planescape modules because, guess what, the next one also introduces a huge new pointless change to the cosmology in the service of a single module rather than just working with what's already there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
Vadun posted:That Sword World Fellows system just screams Dragons Dogma pawns to me. I need to read it. Oh yeah, it's been mentioned in the discord before, it's definitely very similar. Afaik, no one's sat down and done a conversion, but it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. I will say that since it's an unofficial fan translation project, it's something that I don't really want to directly link here. At the same time, you can just Google the subreddit and go from there. I'm also not going to lie, I do have a stake in the game as I've put a lot of time into running the translation project, so there's some bias in saying I really like the system. At the same time, though, it's a really neat system that does address a lot of the issues I have with D&D 5e, while hitting a lot of the same notes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
Aniodia posted:Oh yeah, it's been mentioned in the discord before, it's definitely very similar. Afaik, no one's sat down and done a conversion, but it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. I appreciate Aniodia's modesty, but I wrote this F&F overview of SW2.5 and have no qualms about linking to the Discord (and the translation itself, and the sub-Reddit too). Go nuts, boyos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 16:03
|
|
|
Vadun posted:That Sword World Fellows system just screams Dragons Dogma pawns to me. I need to read it. Needs to be a rule that Fellows are always saying things like “Wolves hunt in packs!” Or “This type enemy ill likes fire” or “What a large tree”
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 02:42
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Needs to be a rule that Fellows are always saying things like “Wolves hunt in packs!” Or “This type enemy ill likes fire” or “What a large tree”
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 03:17
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Needs to be a rule that Fellows are always saying things like “Wolves hunt in packs!” Or “This type enemy ill likes fire” or “What a large tree” if you read mirage's F&F review.... there IS!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 04:04
|
|
|
Oh drat I must have forgotten that detail
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
Sword world sounds kinda odd and MUD-like, but I really wanna give it a try.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 05:28
|
|
|
Do people have an opinion on passive players? It's something I've been thinking about more lately after a game I was in kicked a player for essentially being too passive. When I say passive I'm talking about the sort of player who never really takes initiative to proactively do things in game. They're not necessarily awful at playing a character, they can pay attention to the game, they can make decisions when the decisions are put in front of them, they can follow the instructions of stronger NPCs or PCs when told to do something. But there's rarely a spark of what I'd call drive. They're never the ones pushing the game forward. I know I've always preferred active players, but I don't think I fully appreciated just how draining I find running for passive players. It feels like I have to be the one that's doing all of the work setting up plotlines and hooks for them, using the world to push them around, forcing them into situations where they have to do something, and that's exhausting and I think produces worse results despite all that extra effort. The guy who got kicked wasn't an awful player, he was a perfectly nice guy. But I think the game immediately improved in a fairly noticeable way without him, and it made me more aware of just how much I think that sort of player can suck the energy out of the room by just sort of passively being present without really contributing much. And it's made me strongly consider being more aggressive about pruning that sort of player out of my life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 12:48
|
|
|
I generally feel sorry for passive players, in part because in my experience most of them can open up and be active, but it requires the right sort of push or motivation. Sometimes what makes them passive is because other players are less passive and constantly jump in front of them and hog the limelight, and the passive player doesn't want to shove them aside to get their share, and as a GM it's easy to then keep responding to the "main character" players and let the passive player fade into the background. And once they become more passive, it can be hard for them to stop. I think that most games need a mix of passive and active players, because if there are too many active players they can struggle with what they want to focus on and which direction they want the game to go in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 12:54
|
|
|
As a dm I try not to let players be too passive and put storylines and characters in their way that they have to get involved in. Mostly because it stresses me out if someone isn't feeling it. But also that's why I try and talk with them about it. Edit: there are 4 main characters and you've all got a little something and every session there'll be at least one Big Thing for u
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 13:25
|
|
|
It's tricky. You have to work out if they're passive-shy, passive-nervous, passive-too-drat-chill or just passive-disinterested. The latter is problematic, the others might need some coaxing out of themselves or that might just be what they're like. Some people don't like the spotlight and don't like declaring things that "change the game" for other people. Some people are determined to be sidekicks instead of the hero.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 13:29
|
|
|
I had a player once that was wholly disinterested in participating in anything other than combat. He wasn’t rude about it or anything, he just didn’t have anything to say - like he wanted to watch a little live improv before he played his tactics game. It was real frustrating, but I just had to keep reminding myself that he was happy and the others were happy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 13:37
|
|
|
goatface posted:It's tricky. You have to work out if they're passive-shy, passive-nervous, passive-too-drat-chill or just passive-disinterested. The latter is problematic, the others might need some coaxing out of themselves or that might just be what they're like. Some people don't like the spotlight and don't like declaring things that "change the game" for other people. Or passive "decision paralysis", for that matter, which is the umbrella I fall under. If I need to be the active player making decisions in the group, it's going to be the dumbest and bluntest plan possible, that's usually going to gently caress up the game, because I get stuck trying to think of anything better. So for the most part I'm happy deferring to others, until I get forced to do the decision making and things fall apart. Sometimes it's better for a given player to be more passive. e: Also I'm usually the dedicated note taker for the group (memory disorder so I have to write everything down), which interferes as well. SkyeAuroline fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Jun 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 13:39
|
|
|
Some players just genuinely enjoy being passive, letting other people take centre stage, and contributing their dice rolls when they're asked to. It's not necessarily a sign that you're doing anything wrong as a GM, they can be having an absolute ball. But also if that's not something you want of your players, that's okay! If you want to run a sci-fi game, don't invite players who only enjoy high fantasy, and if you want to run a game where all players are strongly committed to the plot, don't invite players who only enjoy wallflowering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 13:47
|
|
|
Whybird posted:But also if that's not something you want of your players, that's okay! If you want to run a sci-fi game, don't invite players who only enjoy high fantasy, and if you want to run a game where all players are strongly committed to the plot, don't invite players who only enjoy wallflowering. Sometimes it can be a challenge, though, when you're opening invitations to a community, and then having to tell someone "sorry, you're the wrong personality type for this game," because sometimes people don't self-sort out of stuff they're not going to engage with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 13:49
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I've never really gotten that, the idea of "planning" my character. Sometimes I have a vague arc in mind for them, but usually that's in terms of story and personality, but even that usually gets derailed by things happening and interactions with other people. Actually making a super elaborate plan like that and sticking with it seems alien. Plus, what do you do when you get to the end? Congratulations, now you can explode everything, also the game is over and done with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 14:25
|
|
|
Splicer posted:In certain catagories of poorly designed games twisting the system into actually representing the character you're playing without also sucking poo poo at the game's core gameloops require jumping through a lot of hoops. I would simply play only good games. Peace.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 14:26
|
|
|
For me, there's a difference between what I think of as "hanging back" and "refusing the call". I have two players in my current group who hang back. They'll rarely jump forward with an idea unless the moment or scene is structured in such a way as to make it clear it's their turn (e.g., their nemesis or mentor shows up). Otherwise, they'll mostly wait until prompted. And that's fine. Because when prompted, they'll step up. "Hey, [player], what do you want to do next?" I get a clear answer. "Hey, [player], how do you think the group should [solve problem]?" I get a creative answer. Being a GM means guiding the spotlight. Sometimes players jump into the spotlight, sometimes you have to shine the spotlight on them. But as long as they step up with clever answers and clear plans when prompted, I'm fine if they're otherwise passive. But refusing the call? Unless they're very, very new, that's a quick exit. Not being able to answer clear questions about plans when prompted, too many shrugs and "I don't knows", and then yeah, that's too passive and not a good fit for the group. I guess what I'm saying is, are the players being passive about stepping into the decision making role (fine), or passive about making decisions once thrust into that role (bad)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 14:29
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I would simply play only good games. Peace. For just $5 a month you can sponsor a player to play another game. Won't you please think of the players?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 14:31
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:Or passive "decision paralysis", for that matter, which is the umbrella I fall under. If I need to be the active player making decisions in the group, it's going to be the dumbest and bluntest plan possible, that's usually going to gently caress up the game, because I get stuck trying to think of anything better.  "The corridor ahead is filled with cultists. How are you guys going to get past them?" "We can charge straight into them or... collapse the entire dungeon" "...we're in the dungeon..." "Could we collapse maybe just that room? Or part of it?" "Hey uh remember that underground stream we passed earlier? I wonder how hard it would be to divert?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 14:43
|
|
|
I think another possible reason is that outside combat the rules and world are less defined and some players may be less comfortable with the increased social negotiation that becomes involved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:Or passive "decision paralysis", for that matter, which is the umbrella I fall under. If I need to be the active player making decisions in the group, it's going to be the dumbest and bluntest plan possible, that's usually going to gently caress up the game, because I get stuck trying to think of anything better. So for the most part I'm happy deferring to others, until I get forced to do the decision making and things fall apart. This is the kind of "passive" player I've run into most often, yeah. I don't have a good solution for it, either, because I've found that putting the limelight on them can lead to panic and unhappiness. I think it's probably okay to let a player who doesn't want to be in the spotlight just hang out in the background, although def talk to them about it and make sure that's what's going on rather than any of the other reasons they might not be speaking up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
In my group, we have (generally) one very passive by being indecisive (but loud) player, one passive but trying his damnedest to become more active, one passive wanna-be loner, one three middle-of-the-road types, one active but super quiet, and two very active. I'm usually the GM and my greatest success story is bringing that one passive to the front and center so he's becoming active even in games I'm not running.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 16:17
|
|
|
I have a tangentially similar problem in that one of my players LOVES to play big strong simpletons. The player himself is plenty smart and clever, but getting his characters to engage in anything other than combat is difficult because their vocabulary is mostly "Yeah. Naw. I dunno 'bout dat stuff. Where's da next fight?" I guess he's having fun, and the rest of the group seems to be okay with it, but I wish he'd play someone more outgoing sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Agreed that there’s a big difference between players who are passive from being shy or preferring to watch others in the spotlight vs passive from being bored or disengaged. The former is totally fine and valid. The latter is the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Playing a big, dumb, illiterate barbarian was my favorite character. I could just go completely on emotion and my immediate first inspiration. I got so many inspiration points from just being stupid and going for whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Mirage posted:I appreciate Aniodia's modesty, but I wrote this F&F overview of SW2.5 and have no qualms about linking to the Discord (and the translation itself, and the sub-Reddit too). Go nuts, boyos.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:Playing a big, dumb, illiterate barbarian was my favorite character. I could just go completely on emotion and my immediate first inspiration. I got so many inspiration points from just being stupid and going for whatever. Same but I also like to mix it up a bit and have stuff like Gronk having high scores on certain niche skills.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Mirage posted:I have a tangentially similar problem in that one of my players LOVES to play big strong simpletons. The player himself is plenty smart and clever, but getting his characters to engage in anything other than combat is difficult because their vocabulary is mostly "Yeah. Naw. I dunno 'bout dat stuff. Where's da next fight?" If you usually spend a lot of time in your head, it can be really fun to play a dumb murderbeast with biceps for brains. Usually with some subversions in there for color, but there's nothing wrong with playing it straight either. You can talk to him if you want, but it's entirely possible that's just his honest preference. Probably should mix it up ; variety and life-spicing thereof and all that. But it's fundamentally a question of personal taste so you kinda gotta just let people like what they like. (I like playing a big hulking murder beast a lot.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:If you usually spend a lot of time in your head, it can be really fun to play a dumb murderbeast with biceps for brains. Usually with some subversions in there for color, but there's nothing wrong with playing it straight either. I enjoy playing morons, because being a moron, especially one with a huge ego, can lead into a lot of fun situations as they're convinced they've got a great idea that a more sensible character would never try. And sometimes, especially if the GM is cooperative and like fun things that are fun, it'll even work out (even if only partially) kind of like it was envisioned. If you play an intelligent and reasonable character you often end up solving things in much the same ways because reasonable low-risk solutions tend to look a lot alike. But solutions from morons who think they're geniuses? So many variations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 19:28
|
|
|
Some players play TTRPGs just to "touch things". Sometimes called Gamma players, they don't care if their character has an arc or what really happens around them. They just want to be there. You also get players who have an idea for what they want to do with their character but the world the GM presents does not really encourage that. The wizard who wants to make flying carts in 2 levels does not really give a crap if the Baron's son-in-law is a vampire, what that means for the kingdom, or what they should do about it. They may not even care if they just talk it out or roll for initiative. ninjoatse.cx fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jun 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I enjoy playing morons, because being a moron, especially one with a huge ego, can lead into a lot of fun situations as they're convinced they've got a great idea that a more sensible character would never try. And sometimes, especially if the GM is cooperative and like fun things that are fun, it'll even work out (even if only partially) kind of like it was envisioned. If you play an intelligent and reasonable character you often end up solving things in much the same ways because reasonable low-risk solutions tend to look a lot alike. Person with neither morals nor brains is my go to Fiasco character. Bumbling around trying to do A Crime is so easy to make a story with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:For me, there's a difference between what I think of as "hanging back" and "refusing the call". There's two people I'm talking about. The first guy was a player in a Star Wars game I'm playing where we're Imperial secret agents getting sent out into the galaxy on missions to clean up problems for the Empire. It's a spy game so we all have subtle personal motivations along with the official ones, like being associated with a criminal syndicate on the side, that sort of thing. Everyone has their own. To touch on a few things of note to me. On the first mission we got sent on we hit ground, got established with a safe house, made a few basic possible plans to destabilize the local government, and then split off on our own and went our separate ways to do separate things. This guy decided to sit in the safe house, watch the news, and provide tech support when requested. The only thing I remember him doing was when I dragged him along on one of my projects to blow up a refinery. Everyone else in the game has had multiple big standout scenes that I can remember very clearly months later. I can think of one good moment from this guy, executing an NPC that a teammate was begging him not to, because "they had to go, now". And I partially chalk that up to me being on comms yelling at them to move now because the gunship was coming. There just felt like a lack of passion or action from this character, he was kind of a wet noodle of a person. Everyone agreed, including the player, that he felt kind of underdeveloped, so we all made an effort IC and OOC. We picked a mission that would highlight his technical expertise, and basically said "Okay, you're in charge of this mission, we'll follow your lead". He came up with a pretty risky insertion plan. And then seemed to maybe lose track of the plan and tried to bring a bunch of civilians along in a way that was basically guaranteed to get all of them killed for no reason, which the rest of the group sabotaged. One of the other characters delivered a fantastic impassioned lecture at him, ranting at him for basically a minute about how he was loving up and needed to get his act together, then there was an awkward pause for like five seconds followed by a limp "I guess I messed up" and a vague description of him acting like a scolded child. The energy of the scene just instantly dropped, because one person basically just wasn't there. We get to the mission proper, it's basically crafted to highlight his areas of expertise, we give him the lead, and he does next to nothing with it. We sort of drift aimlessly around for some hours until he blows our cover by misreading the mission briefing and telling something to an NPC he shouldn't have told something to. The GM ends up kicking him after that week and I guess it's too early to say for certain, but the next session instantly felt much better. ------- All of that to say it's made me think more about a player I've been running things for for a few years. Like the first guy, he's not actively terrible or anything. He can play a (kind of flat unmotivated) character. I can think of a few standout moments from him, but every one I can think of comes from putting him in the company of much stronger characters that force him to do things. He's just kind of along for the ride. He gets plot elements dropped in his lap that are specifically crafted for him, and just kind of looks at them and shrugs and goes back to doing what other people tell him to. It was less of an issue when he was put in situations where he was surrounded by strong characters bossing him around, but it became a much more glaring problem when he was put in roles where he didn't have that framework, and starting feeling much more aimless and unfocused. What's really stood out for me is a game we're doing where the world is a messed up, cynical, and gritty place. Everyone else made characters playing with aspects of that premise. He made a character that was from a different more civilized time, which is awesome. I think that sort of inherent conflict has a lot of promise. Does the rest of the group end up crushing his idealistic spirit? Does he end up making the rest of the group better? That's good material. But what we actually got is when the rest of the group does something hosed up he gets upset and runs away and then comes back another time acting like nothing's changed. There's no push for development there, one way or another. He just seems like a non-entity in the game, which is a much bigger problem when he's sort of responsible for holding up a thematic pillar of the game. And all that has made me think back on previous games with him. And I think in retrospect I find running games for that sort of non-entity character really draining. I find it very easy to craft plotlines for stronger characters, because they tend to have clear motivations and hooks to play with. And then I get to this guy and I sort of sigh and lose all my energy and spend twice as long thinking of things that are half as compelling. It's a drag. And I think it's something that's hard for me to pinpoint because he's never actively terrible. It's just sort of a vague feeling of dissatisfaction. I don't know if there's a good answer to any of this other than kicking the guy out, which would be a shame because he's a perfectly nice guy, and it's not really his fault that he's what I'd consider to be a weaker player.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:If you usually spend a lot of time in your head, it can be really fun to play a dumb murderbeast with biceps for brains. Usually with some subversions in there for color, but there's nothing wrong with playing it straight either. Yeah, this honestly only becomes a real problem when the player who sticks to this sort of singular character archetype is, for lack of a better description, really bad at playing that archetype. An example that immediately comes to mind is someone I used to play with who really like playing face characters, but didn't seem to understand how those types of characters are supposed to function on a fundamental level? Like she would have her character make big, condescending speeches to NPCs and, when those NPCs didn't react well would just sort of keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
Plutonis posted:Same but I also like to mix it up a bit and have stuff like Gronk having high scores on certain niche skills. For sure, I ended up bumping charisma and became an apostle for Lathander, God of War. It's easier to run with dumb impulses to really change stuff because you don't overthink it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2023 21:25
|
|
|
I've been having the most cursed desire to run a game of the Middenarde beta I was almost sued for reviewing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 11:56 |
|
|
it's like a medieval fantasy minus the fantasy!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2023 00:15
|
|