Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaximumZero]

If you made one, I would like to be in on it. I suspect it would attract a certain group of B12'ers who I would enjoy playing with.

Hear hear!

[Truean]

This is an odd one.

Yeah, but to be fair I did tell you in the first line, first post.

In general, I'd echo freeformschooler's advice that when in doubt, just go for it. Practice makes perfect, and all. Plus, sometimes the only way to figure out what you're after is to actually see it in action.


More specifically, I tend to go for more mechanical, less RP-y games, so my expertise is of somewhat limited use here, but I can offer a few suggestions.

First of all, if possible, I'd suggest getting a default resolution mechanic that covers every possibility. This can be as simple as "the GM makes something up" or "attribute check using whatever's closest to relevant," and it can be overridden whenever necessary, but having something in place for those things you never thought of can be handy. Trust me, players will get weird.

Secondly, try to have concrete mechanics in place for things that really matter. Lacking clear, hard numbers is an invitation for something to either not matter at all, or be too vague for players to really understand the consequences of.

Third, just spend some time considering what you want to happen or how you want certain things to work, and figure out how the mechanics or GMing style should reflect that. Actions that give loot or experience tend to be more intrinsically rewarding than those that don't, for instance, so you'll tend to see behaviors leaning in those directions where there's a difference.

Hope this helps.

I dunno though. I can appreciate the "just shut up and do it" approach. On the other hand, I think a little prep might be in order (Hence the thread ).

Suggestions? Ideas?

This thread might possibly contain useful information about what not to do.

God damn hilarious, and exactly what I don't wanna have happen. Again, hence the planning.
______________________________________________________________________________________

So I'm seeing a sort of anatomy to these things, and it can be good, bad, or only good or bad in certain parts.

The GM: The person running the show and as far as everyone's concerned, the one who is responsible for this crap being fun. It's a lot of work and unfortunately there's often little credit.

The Players: These run the gambit from seasoned vets to the 13 year old who stumbled in. Different playstyles, maturity and schedules/amounts of time to put in can lead to the traditional 12 bay definition of "Fun," often.

The question essentially becomes how do you attract, recruit, and retain the types of players you want and who will want to be there.

The Setting: This is where things happen, arguably. It's where you pretend things happen anyhow. More importantly, the setting has to have spaces that are clearly defined (so you can imagine it) possible to change (so you can do stuff in it), and able to be communicated (drawings, maps, descriptions, something transferable/viewable). This is much harder than you'd think, because you go on a scale from awesome graphics and no ability to edit, to no graphics (text) and totally editable. You need to make places the players might actually go (or else you're designing stuff for nothing) with things for them to potentially do (not always, the entire world isn't about them, but yeah)

The Character Actions: (NOT the player actions). The most common question asked in these things is "what do you do?" So what are the possible answers? Can you alter certain parts of the setting? Which ones? How? How much? What restraints are there on that? What if someone else (another player, NPC or even the GM sometimes) doesn't want that change? Can anybody do this thing, equally well? Keep in mind that the setting is presumably populated by things that don't want the players to do just whatever they want.

Posting Schedules and Content: How often you post.... Real life is a pain and can get in the way here. It isn't just how often you post, but what do you do when someone can't post for a while, or if they just bug out and leave? Then there's what people post. "I attack the darkness," is universally met with calls from GMs everywhere with "You bastard." (Might be funny the first couple times, but after that, gets old quick).

The DM has to give the player something to work with and the player should give the DM something to work with. "I attack the orc." That paints exactly no picture in my mind to work with. "I try to duck under the orc's spear thrust and shove the point of my sword into his armpit, then pull it out and go to the left of him." <--- Bonus points.

Player and GM Goals: Why do people keep on coming back? What are they looking forward to? [defeat certain bad guy here] will only work so far, because video games have sorta played that one out. If we're dealing with the equivalent of fort building, then personal character things are sorta gonna be important. Housing and customization of it might be important. Characters could chose a more peaceful path and end up running a business/guild, or trade thing. A more martial path would easily end up on the adventurer path, etc. Eitehr one of these could end up running some part or all of politics for some area. Same thing with weapon and armor personalization etc. Essentially, you could have some virtual space/goals of your own and it's possible to get it done.

Viewers: People who may watch but are not currently players or otherwise part of the thing. These are your potential pool of people who may either begin a new player or take over an existing one if a current player bugs out (replacement). It is basically your pipeline for future business here.

DM PCs: These are a double edged sword and can cut both ways. On the one hand, these are the things of railroading and taking away player choice. On the other hand, if the game gets stuck, if the players need help to do something or to make things better for them, or to just make things simplier, then they can be a powerful tool in the GM's tool belt. It also might let the DM have a little something of a reward for his/her own massive work.

Not entirely sure how to go about this. Ideas, questions, comments?

I'll invite you to my next one, Truean. I can't guarantee an immediate play spot, because those will be random, but yeah.

If you made one, I would like to be in on it. I suspect it would attract a certain group of B12'ers who I would enjoy playing with.

Hear hear!

Awww thank you.

[Criptfeind]

You have clearly thought more about then then 99% of other GMs, even successful ones.

And you have left out that the players will fuck it up. Always. Without fail. I know it sounds like a joke, but in reality the players are the enemy in many ways. Can't stress this enough.

[Truean]

You have clearly thought more about then then 99% of other GMs, even successful ones.

And you have left out that the players will fuck it up. Always. Without fail. I know it sounds like a joke, but in reality the players are the enemy in many ways. Can't stress this enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBEka-RIy1Y

Yes, very yes. Give people unlimited potential and they attack the darkness. Damn it....

[GlyphGryph]

Also, not every game requires players! Cutting out the players certainly streamlines certain things, let me say. That's the method where you create characters, and then let the viewers control their actions. Though your ideas probably would probably require actual players.

Anyway, upon reflection, the mentoring idea was probably pretty stupid unless you end up wanting to make some sort of puzzle game (like Mafia!). A slightly better suggestion, perhaps, might be to try an RTD. I find they are good for practice since they have a core structure to work with, simple as it may be, that makes it a bit easier to get ones feet. They tend to leave a lot of control in your hands at the same time.

[MaximumZero]

Note: RTDs are pure chaos.

[Xantalos]

Note: RTDs are pure chaos.

YOU AT FINAL BOSS being a prime example.

[GlyphGryph]

RTDs do NOT have to be pure chaos. I do, however, think they are wonderful learning experiences.

(Though pure chaos is definitely the most common state for them.)

[MonkeyHead]

More than one of my own has been forced to end by giving players too much control as if as a GM I was there to pander to thier wants rather than there to kill and main them horribly. Roll to Fight Club 1 kinda went this way and died an early death as a result. Roll to Fight Club 2 will not feature such mistakes.

Yea, you dont have to do what you think the players want you to do to keep them happy - its your game, after all.

[Sensei]

My RTD's are pure chaos.

Anyway, for "a forum game" in my opinion the single biggest decision to make is whether you want players to have characters or not. The alternative of course being a suggestion game. I'll say, keeping track of what's going on with characters, especially if they have any kind of 'stats', can add up to some paperwork.

Speaking of paperwork, keep a notepad document or literal piece of paper for notes. Who's who and their status, where you left off, and most of all secrets you have planned out.

[Virex]

For many games, player interaction is like the liver of the game. Damage it and the game will take on an ill color and feel bad. It also helps the DM a lot if he or she doesn't have to provide the bulk of the entertainment on her own.

[Truean]

Hum, some observations.

No players = more of a "story." That's not necessarily bad, but still.... Same idea with limited player input. (not that they should be able to do ANYTHING but yeah). I dunno. On some level, "players" will alter, if not "screw up" things. Though I don't necessarily think I want to write another book. I've done that a few times. It's a solitary activity for the most part. [shrugs]. I think like so much else, the proper amount of regulation is required.

Roll to Dodge = RTD? Can't say I'm very familiar but I'd listen.

More than one of my own has been forced to end by giving players too much control as if as a GM I was there to pander to thier wants rather than there to kill and main them horribly. Roll to Fight Club 1 kinda went this way and died an early death as a result. Roll to Fight Club 2 will not feature such mistakes.

Yea, you dont have to do what you think the players want you to do to keep them happy - its your game, after all.

Yeah, I've seen this, sadly. I think there sorta has to be a balance, though I'm always in favor of that balance being shifted towards the GM. Simply, it's about how much skin/time you have in the game. The Player maybe made a character.... K.... The GM made the whole freaking world and has probably put in 10 x the amount of time into things and he did it, largely, for the players....

I think the GM does have to give the players some reason to continue to play, but that has to be bound by reasonableness. Very sick of "I wanna smash the whole world!!!!!1111!!!" Because, really, if you think about it, that world the player wants to smash, is the one the GM built.... Yeah.... See the conflict here? I think it would be better if the player wanted to be a part of that world rather than rip it apart. This has been dealt with before a couple of times, through ownership, possession or control of various things: property, housing, transportation, valuables, etc. I think a decent way to easy players into this sorta thing is to have them manage rather than own something for a while (a building, a ship, etc) because somebody else owns it at first. They get the idea of how the rules and things of what they're managing work and THEN it becomes theirs. The problem with letting them own something big outright from the beginning is that they immediately abuse the new toy..... [sigh]. "God damn it, if one more airship crashes into the middle of town, I will turn this final fantasy around!" ~Points if you guess the reference.

Setting:

Just as important as what the Players can do is where the crap they can do it. The places they are pretty much HAVE to determine what they can do. It's a pain to keep track of things in the real world, much less imaginary stuff. This includes everything from world, continent, region, country, culture, to the individual area they are occupying. That's one of the beautiful thing about DF as a sandbox game. You know exactly where things are in relation to one another. Sure it's klunky and awkward at times (often, I'm looking at you dworfs with your being on the wrong side of the wall...), but you know graphically where things are. That's HUGE.

It needs to be something you can picture (even if only in consistent descriptions) for players to give a damn about the world and buy into it mentally. That also helps when you think about altering that world. This is one area where having a DM PC or other NPCs come into play is incredibly helpful. In that case, the NPC does the actual altering, even if it is generally to do something the player wants. The reason for this is simple: the player doesn't have to draw the change and often can't.... This way the GM can.... This is why even MMOs like LOTRO have houses that are premade and that players can buy (really rent) and to a LIMITED degree customize, usually with prebuilt, standardized furniture. Even Skyrim does this, selling you entire packages of furnishings and items for given rooms/spaces in the houses you get (for all its customization, Skyrim realized the nightmare that is total customization and avoided it like the plague even with its massive graphical and data capability).

There are a couple of problems here to get around:

a.) The sheer potential volume of space we're talking about, especially the stuff the players may not end up visiting.... You could graph/draw this all out, but then you'd have no time for anything else. Given that the players will likely never visit a fair deal of the stuff you map out if you do it this way, then there's potentially little reward. This may lead to a generalized map of areas with specific maps being made for certain sites of importance when players either alter the area, or fight on it or who knows. The problem with that one is, you never know exactly when one of those areas is going to pop up in advance without some railroading (how do you know to map out that exact spot in detail?). This is why minecraft is so damn groundbreaking (though I've honestly never played it, I've seen it). How the crap do you have some recorded (written or drawn or whatever) version of a make believe place in a shared fantasy, effectively, especially when you've got a lot of those places?

b.) [repeat stuff about exactly how/if/how much the players can alter things]

c.) The sheer amount of work updates (nevermind the initial planning) takes.

Hum, ideas here?

Edit: It would be so awesome if DF had a map editor where you could place tiles and fully edit things, especially in stonesense.

[Sensei]

Don't overthink it. I often do my best work just making something up, at least on the detail level, when the players encounter it. Make up vague things ahead of time, and if it's a location, it's okay to occasionally fib something like "The spike dungeon is going to be in the jungle or the desert, whichever they go to first."

I usually let my players do more or less whatever they want. However, always lead them a clear hook. If you give them a world and a setting and say "Do something!" They often say "I have a tea party with a squirrel!" because they don't know what to do. However, if a player has a clear agenda, let them pursue it. Most of the time it's best to suggest an agenda for them, though. The first really successful game I did was an RTD where every player had a unique objective. However, if they decided they wanted to do something else, I'd let them pursue that instead. I'd write more but I'm being pestered now so just look at Roll to Dodge a Song in my sig.

[Criptfeind]

A: For this, I would suggest that even if players don't go the the area you want, you should keep it and use it for something else. I mean, a quick color swap and the tomb of the undead kings of Ki'jet becomes the ancient ruins of the lizard person civilization. I have done this in D&D games I run, and it works fairly well. Even for monsters that have stats it is normally fairly easy to quickly refluff them to something on the side.

B: This one is harder. I think the best way to exercise control over what they change in the game world is to have realistic consequences. If they crash a airship in the middle of town, arrest their sorry asses. You don't always have to give them a premade way out as well (which is a thing that I think some GMs do not realize.)

Furthermore, as a GM you need to take responsibility for the power you give them. If you don't want them toppling the local power structure, don't let them become powerful enough. And if you do, accept that they might do it.

C: I don't see a way to help here.

Edit: I might want to make clear here: I don't run RTDs or RPs or whatever. I run crunchy rules based games like D&D, so not everything I say might have bearing on you if you plan to run a softer game.

Edit: I used to have a program that allowed you to make ASCII things that looks very DFisy. Fuck me if I know where it went though.

[Robocorn]

Make stuff up, obfuscate rules, redefine things your players thought were constants. Provide as little background as possible,
keep them on their toes. Provide as little crunch as possible and be aware beforehand how to best exploit it, if not change it
completely midway through the game. Sure it might be confusing now, but you're not playing a rp on a forum that meticulously
records every post because you want to have fun now, you could just play a videogame. You want to do something memorable
You want your forum game buddies to think back and say "Hey remember Truean's game? That shit was dope!". Nobody reminisces about
the game-where-five-perfectly-reasonable-friends-cooperated-and-efficiently-overcame-every-task-with-minimum-losses. I fell
asleep just writing that. Don't give your players what they think they want (winning and rules) Give them what you know they don't think
they know they want yet. (failure and imagination).

Source: I've been GMing this way for years with no adverse effects