Print

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

[Tarran]

That's not really an excuse, though; if it's apparent that someone doesn't understand something that you do, you should probably try to explain it to them, not wait for them to realize they're wrong (possibly through a protracted discussion over all the wrong things) and begin asking the right questions.

But what if I don't notice or am unsure that they're misunderstanding something?

[monk12]

Assume people aren't being jerks for the sake of being jerks, and suddenly perceived attacks become misunderstandings. Works well even when you think they are attacks, since then you come off as the much more reasonable side of the debate.

* Monk would be interested in medieval comedic slapstick, and has enjoyed learning new forumy things today (albeit of marginal use)

[Gatleos]

If you want to make a story where the players don't necessarily make an impact on the big picture, that's fine. In the end, it's all about flavor. Remove all of the reminders to the players that they're just normal soldiers, and they become the focus of the story again.

Did I say they were not going to be the focus of the story? I say in a curious voice because apparently everyone needs that.

No Tirren, you misunderstand me. When I used the word "story", I was referring to the overall story of the setting. If the larger conflict that the players play a small role in is mentioned, then they aren't the main focus of the conflict, even though they're the focus of the RtD itself. If it isn't mentioned, then the players become special and unique in the setting, which isn't what you want. I was pointing out that this change is only a change of flavor, independent of the PCs themselves.

See that second sentence in your post? That's the kind of unnecessary hostility that makes everyone less willing to help you.

* SerCon wonders if Gatleos is perhaps taking reservations on that sidekick RTD he was talking about while also testing the whole 'me' command thing.

I've been resisting starting another RtD due to the looming return of RTRTD, but I think I will go ahead with this one. It'll be simple in game terms and mostly about storytelling (I've already got some great ideas for the setting and characters), so it won't get in Meta Adventure's way at all.

There may be reservations, I just need to figure out how this is going to work out.

[Dermonster]

I heard Gat say the word reservations and I came running.

Quickly now, I can see the stampede.

[BullDog]

* Bulldog asks for a reservation while testing the 'me' function.

[Tarran]

See that second sentence in your post? That's the kind of unnecessary hostility that makes everyone less willing to help you.

It's not like anyone was helping me... Well, maybe one or two people, but they were very minor helps.

Besides, without it, considering what everyone has said about me, they would have read the first sentence in an angry voice anyway. I suppose I could have removed "because apparently everyone needs that", but that would still have projected a negative emotion of some sort, or a bad look about me, so eff it.

Anyway, I'm done. We're just arguing about small things unrelated to the thread now.

[Draignean]

It's not like anyone was helping me... Well, maybe one or two people, but they were very minor helps.

Anyone who takes the time out of their day to tell you how they feel about something is helping you. Everyone on this thread who has taken the time to look at what you are creating and has suggested ways to make it better is helping. This is not an argument unless you let it be one, this is a discussion, the discussion is gift.


Now, for the purposes of reason and the fact that I simply cannot afford to keep spending time here, (I apologize for that Tarran, I would spend more time discussing this if I could.) I will summarize my points.

Misgivings
1. Making the players non-special will greatly increase the lethality of the game. This can be incredibly frustrating in a combat based game. (Example, Arkham, BD getting his ass owned by the ground because I didn't want to make a player exemption in the basic rules.) I do not think it was fun for him to be so easily near-killed.
2. Causing the players to be only casually involved with the story may create a feeling of frustration. Being in a squad in the battle of Narvik would be less exciting than being a squad in the battle Normandy. The feeling would be somewhat akin to those blasted protect X NPC missions that you always get in games. If the NPC dies and you lose because of it, the feeling is far more #*&#^!!! than if you had personally died.
3. People enjoy finding the plot-sword as long as it's done well, I understand you frustration with the trope, but in that case it may actually be for the greater good. A number of important conflicts have been settled IRL by the discovery of the infinity+1 weapon. (Hiroshima and Nagasaki spring to mind)
4. Players enjoy a feeling of power, something that you might endanger be making your plot too rigid. If the players want to sell out their people in a traitorous deal to an alien entity, thus elevating them suddenly to a centrally important plot position and not merely the RTD focus, then they should be allowed. As and aside, I do not believe it possible that you know how far I intend to adapt to the plot around you in D-22, so your earlier comparison to plot stiffness is somewhat confusing.


That's it from me. Every point I've made thus far (relating to RTDs, the philosophy of Assumption is a topic for a different time) stems from those four points. Don't refute them, don't post about how I'm wrong for thinking them, just look at them. From there you can determine whether you think they matter enough to make changes for.

It's your RTD, you have end say about what goes on in it. So if you really don't care what we think about it (and thus far that seems to be the case) you don't have to change anything, you can run it as is, and I guarantee you that you'll have a full house of players within twenty-four hours. 

Assume people aren't being jerks for the sake of being jerks, and suddenly perceived attacks become misunderstandings.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I salute your philosophy.

Edit: Damn migrating custom tags.

[lawastooshort]

I heard Gat say the word reservations and I came running.

Quickly now, I can see the stampede.

I heard it in my sleep and the excitement woke me up!

edit: I meant IN btw. Oh god.

[Darvi]

* Darvi wonders how people could miss this for so long.

[IronyOwl]

That's not really an excuse, though; if it's apparent that someone doesn't understand something that you do, you should probably try to explain it to them, not wait for them to realize they're wrong (possibly through a protracted discussion over all the wrong things) and begin asking the right questions.

But what if I don't notice or am unsure that they're misunderstanding something?

If you don't notice it at first, the argument/misunderstanding will drag on a bit longer than if you'd picked up on it right away. Not usually a big deal, and aided greatly by following monk's wise advice.

If you're unsure, either ask or err on the side of caution (or benignness, as monk suggested). Even if you're wrong, ideally that should prompt them to explain what the actual issue is.

It's not like anyone was helping me... Well, maybe one or two people, but they were very minor helps.

As Draignean pointed out, everyone who responded was trying to help you, it just wasn't the feedback you felt you needed. Often if you're not getting the right answers, it's because you're not asking the right questions.

Other times people are just distracted by shiny objects or don't have anything to say, but it still helps to review what you've asked/said, what you were looking for, and how/why you were hoping the two would connect.

There may be reservations, I just need to figure out how this is going to work out.

In!

[Tarran]

Often if you're not getting the right answers, it's because you're not asking the right questions.

It's kinda interesting mentioning that, since a decent bit mine were never answered at all. At least I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, I'm not sure how much that applied to the situation because I was... never really asking for feedback in the first place. Just asking to see if anyone's interested in the ideas. I don't think that can possibly be a wrong question.

[IronyOwl]

Often if you're not getting the right answers, it's because you're not asking the right questions.

It's kinda interesting mentioning that, since a decent bit mine were never answered at all. At least I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I didn't explicitly notice any, but a lot of that conversation seemed to run together into a big blob I didn't bother to read especially thoroughly, so it wouldn't surprise me. It's also possible people tried to answer you but the same problem happened in reverse.

Anyway, I'm not sure how much that applied to the situation because I was... never really asking for feedback in the first place. Just asking to see if anyone's interested in the ideas. I don't think that can possibly be a wrong question.

Well, any kind of a response is feedback.

Anyway, have you heard of being upstaged (or upstaging yourself)? The basic idea is that if you're not the most interesting thing there, people will pay more attention to the shiny object than you, and you'll lose a lot of the intended effect. As an example, if you're trying to give a lecture on business practices while a howler monkey takes out and examines objects from a box right next to you, nobody's going to hear a word you say because howler monkey with a salt shaker.

In this case, the issues over one of the game's premises kind of eclipsed the simple question of who prefers what. There was also the fact that since you didn't explain them very well (both in terms of being a bit vague and the hero/nothero thing), it was kind of hard for people to know if they were interested or not (though, technically you did get a lot of "players won't like that" style feedback from the discussion that resulted instead).

[Tarran]

I didn't explicitly notice any, but a lot of that conversation seemed to run together into a big blob I didn't bother to read especially thoroughly, so it wouldn't surprise me.

Use your browser's search function, and search for '?'. You'll find that I had... surprisingly few questions towards me and a lot from me. At least as far as I remember or I could see.

It's also possible people tried to answer you but the same problem happened in reverse.

Hm, that's possible too. But I didn't see many quoted responses to questions by me when I searched. I think only you responded, and I don't even think directly.

Well, any kind of a response is feedback.

Well, online dictionary agrees with you so you are correct. I guess.

In this case, the issues over one of the game's premises kind of eclipsed the simple question of who prefers what. There was also the fact that since you didn't explain them very well (both in terms of being a bit vague and the hero/nothero thing), it was kind of hard for people to know if they were interested or not (though, technically you did get a lot of "players won't like that" style feedback from the discussion that resulted instead).

As I mentioned above, I didn't get many questions.

Anyway, on topic, regarding vagueness, I remember only getting a very small sample on things I barely even invented or thought of yet (hey, I never mentioned I had it fully thought out the RTD), so me being vague is only from a small sample. Of course, I could be wrong, once again. But I'm pretty sure you all asked questions I could not directly respond to.

And the hero was just a quick way to say 'the best soldiers around'. I had thought that people would view 'hero' as 'the best soldier around'. I was wrong. I need to check up on dictionaries more. Please, stop knocking me on the upside of my head for that.

[IronyOwl]

Use your browser's search function, and search for '?'. You'll find that I had... surprisingly few questions towards me and a lot from me. At least as far as I remember or I could see.

Most of the ones I could find seemed rhetorical.

Anyway, on topic, regarding vagueness, I remember only getting a very small sample on things I barely even invented or thought of yet (hey, I never mentioned I had it fully thought out the RTD), so me being vague is only from a small sample. Of course, I could be wrong, once again. But I'm pretty sure you all asked questions I could not directly respond to.

That's understandable, but the fact remains that if you've got a vague pitch, you're probably going to get vague answers. And among other issues, when people only have vague answers they have a tendency to not bother to state them.

And the hero was just a quick way to say 'the best soldiers around'. I had thought that people would view 'hero' as 'the best soldier around'. I was wrong. I need to check up on dictionaries more. Please, stop knocking me on the upside of my head for that.

I wasn't trying to knock you around for it, I was just pointing out that it was involved in a lot of the reactions you got not working as intended.

[Tarran]

Use your browser's search function, and search for '?'. You'll find that I had... surprisingly few questions towards me and a lot from me. At least as far as I remember or I could see.

Most of the ones I could find seemed rhetorical.

Only about... one or two at max were rhetorical.

The rest, I think I would have actually expected a response.

That's understandable, but the fact remains that if you've got a vague pitch, you're probably going to get vague answers. And among other issues, when people only have vague answers they have a tendency to not bother to state them.

I... hurh? Vague answers from who? I didn't ask any vague questions... I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I wasn't trying to knock you around for it, I was just pointing out that it was involved in a lot of the reactions you got not working as intended.

Just because you didn't try doesn't mean you didn't. D:

Well, at least in my eyes.