What's the average lifespan of an RTD(Experiences include both player and GM)? And are there any obvious correlations with long/short lived RTD's such as player interest, RTD complexity, GM motivation,etc.
I will consider that long-runner RTD are not concerned by this question.
Even then, I have difficulties answering to the question. To me the trends would be:
Short-Lived RTDs: average of 2 weeks.
Medium-Lived RTDs: average of 1 month and a half.
The life of a RTD is a whole, but to me the most defining factor is the GM's motivation. Even if the players are motivated, a RTD with a half-motivated GM won't last long. While in the reverse, a motivated GM will try to find ways to breath life into its RTD, or even put it on life-support in extreme cases.
That's another subject though.
Complexity is a bit unrelated to me, as Complexity is subject to player's taste. Simple RTDs will attract certain players, while more complex and thought through RTDs will attract another kind of players.
During the game do you expect additional interaction from the GM towards the players outside of providing turns? If so, what kind?
*looks awkwardly around*
I am pretty sure any player expect the GM to interact with the players about the status of upcoming turns, or possibility of delay.
Everyone wants a GM who communicate with the players, as it means the GM can be trusted. Being left in the dark as a player isn't always enjoyable.
Regarding your preferences in RTD's. What do you look for in an RTD? Good back story, GM fame(Maybe you know the dude), interest(Sci-fi, fantasy, video game subject such as Monster hunter or starcraft, realism), etc.
I'm a sucker for fantasy RTDs.
I don't particularly look for good backstory, but of course it is always a plus in my book. RTDs (and RPGs in general) are very flexible about backstory, so I don't really judge the book according to its cover.
Who know, good surprises could happen anytime.
Do you consider a complex system of stats/combat/status to be off-putting in general or as long as you don't have to do too much yourself?
Seeing a complex system of stats/combats/status makes me first go "woah", then go "mmh".
A complex system means the GM has an idea in mind, and that alone makes it very interesting to me. But a complex system also means more tracking and generally longer turns, which can sometime lead to a GM collapsing over its game's own complexity.
Conclusion: not off-putting. Just worried for GM.
How much do you (dis)like the following?
Class-based systems (EX: DND classes)
I don't mind classes as long as they don't lock/force yourself too much in one role.
I like flexibility and imagination overall, and if I were to make an analogy, I like classes that act as a "template" rather than "box".
Skill-based systems (Where your 'class' is defined by your selection of skills rather than just a class choice.
I like this, it gives flexibility and opens up a lot of possibilities.
No skill systems (Basically you roll a dice for everything and the result rarely changes outside of special occasions)
Mixed feelings. Pure rolling is fine when the setting is whacky and lighthearted, but when there are more serious "stakes" in a game, it feels harsh to know everything could backfire from a single dice roll you have no power over at all.
But there is beauty in that too, and I like that too. How screwy can the dice be.
Race selection (Do you prefer that PC's should all be human for w/e reason or that an extensive list of races should exist)
Depend on the setting of course. I like races when they make sense, it opens up a good amount of roleplaying possibilities.
RTD difficulty (Should the GM be harsh on players if they choose poorly, or should there be always some kind of escape/way out. Or does it depend on the type/setting of the RTD?)
RTD difficulty is a balance the GM must play with according to the setting. In all cases, constant overwhelming odds against the players invariably lead to bad things. Players need to feel they have a chance too, else it turns into a one-sided game with the GM bullying poor Players.
Too easy is generally much less dangerous, but can lead to players becoming less involved in their characters. If they know they don't run a single risk, roleplay will probably rocket right through the roof.
Do you prefer to have to spend long amounts of time (30+ mins) on reading/writing/conversing in a RTD or short? Or does this depend on the RTD setting?
It depends. If I'm in love with the RTD setting and the GM writing style, I wouldn't mind 30min-1h of reading a RTD turn.
Basically, as long as it doesn't feel like a chore, the amount of time doesn't matter. And it depends too, if the GM drops interesting plot and worldbuilding bombs at every corner, I can't help but savor them.
What part of designing your RTD, did you struggle the most with?
I have only ran semi-minimalistic RTDs so I didn't struggle that much during design. The hardest to me would be to adapt custom rules in such a way that the RTD feel doesn't disappear.
When you've provided additional content like extra back story, did you notice that the players made use of this or liked it?
I did, but of course it depends on players. Some are keen on using every bit of lore available to them, while some will just brush it off and continue with their antics.
If you've ever rebooted a RTD, why did you do it?
I did revive my RTD, which could be seen as a reboot in some way.
Because I'm sentimental and overly attached to what I create. And I never really wanted to go into hiatus in the first place, and circumstances forced me to, a bit.
Basically, because of unfinished business. It hurts to leave unfinished business behind, especially after planning a lot of events over.
Author
Topic: Roller's Block (RTD Brainstorming Thread) (HAPPY LATE BIRTHDAY) (Derm is 5k) (Read 744006 times)