Print

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

[freeformschooler]

If I did the setting-changing game we would go through all of the Nintendo universes. Also, it sounds exhausting yet fun.

[Tarran]

There's a lot of middle ground between loving something and wanting it to continue forever and hating it and wishing it would end.

I never said there wasn't.

Not everyone who signs up for a steampunk adventure is going to be alright with building a scifi theme park, but a fair number of people who wouldn't bother to sign up for a scifi theme park will keep playing and enjoying themselves so long as they're already there and using a character they like.

I never said they would stop enjoying themselves immediately, or that everyone either dislikes or likes everything the same, I simply said they were going to have 'problems' and that people will eventually hit their limit. Problems can mean anything from slight to major discomfort. Meaning, anything from a slight loss in enjoyment to a utter loss of enjoyment. It is human nature to get bored of old things, so the loss of enjoyment will speed up the time it takes for people to hit their limit, because removing enjoyment gives less stuff for the player to hold interest onto. Especially when the player can't hold onto a "This will get better at X".

Before you use the argument "Well, surely the universe rapidly changing will negate or even reverse the lack of enjoyment?", remember, the inner game will still be there, and the statement assumes that mode of the universe changes will be at least above-mediocre for the player. You cannot guarantee that.

The number of people who are going to burn out immediately, or hang on but be horribly grouchy about it, probably wouldn't be that great.

The ones that burn out immediately definitely aren't going to be great at all. But on the grouchy ones, you'd be surprised how well the internet covers discomfort and boredom, especially when they don't voice it. I've had people quit my game without even knowing they were tired of it (Dermonster, Digital Hellhound). Yes, there could be a lot less people that I think would be effected but aren't, but likewise there could be a lot more people effected than you think.

Before you use that statement against me, I'll concede my points that only 'a few' players won't have problems and I'll replace it with 'some'. Hah!

And players matter in this small RTD community we have. At least I'm pretty sure it's small. At max I'd bet we have 30-60 people that are very active/still active.

The number who would slowly lose interest or enjoyment might be a bit higher, but I wouldn't think that'd be too bad either.

As I mentioned, you'd be surprised how well the internet covers boredom. The number could be a lot higher than you think. And besides that, it's a pretty bad feeling to slowly lose interest in something you liked because of the direction the creator is taking it. You don't know whether you want to stay in or not.

I would play IronyOwl's Setting-Changing game up to the point he considered or tried to make every player character wear frilly dresses. Then I would probably quit.

See, the thing is other players could have different places where they just won't accept it very well. It doesn't have to be frilly dresses.

[lawastooshort]

If I did the setting-changing game we would go through all of the Nintendo universes. Also, it sounds exhausting yet fun.

I'd alternate endlessly between the Speedoverse and a tiny village in Cumbria, northern England, inhabitated solely by postmen and Edwardian gentlemen.

[Dermonster]

I'd play it.

~Derm travels the multiverse! Brought to you by Irony Inc. Coming soon to a hell pit near you.~

As long as there's no 'required' bio. Coming up with an explanation for liking to blow things up is kinda tedious.

[Digital Hellhound]

Hey, I was perfectly aware that Dragon wasn't the thing for me when I quit, Tarran, I just didn't want to say that to your face.

I'm fairly sure you're talking about that, anyhow. I don't think I've been in many of your RTDs.

[Yoink]

As for the 'players eventually getting bored of it' argument, well, how long do RTDs usually last, anyway?
I like the idea. I haven't been in as many RTDs as usual lately, but I would certainly join that!

Also, watching an episode of Power Rangers the other day has re-kindled my desire to start that new RTD I've been planning for ages. Hmm.

[Draignean]

As for the 'players eventually getting bored of it' argument, well, how long do RTDs usually last, anyway?

Same amount of time anything else lasts.
As long as it can.

But, as an answer with less a cloak-blowing-while-I-survey-a-ruined-city temperament, a core sample from 20 dead RTDs indicates that the average RTD will live for 6.55 pages and will last for 18.9 days. More samples are needed to identify the veracity of that conclusion, but I'm too damn lazy to take more than one.

[monk12]

Quite frankly, I don't see it as much of a problem. For one thing, the setting-shifting nature of the game is known up front, so the people who sign up are already the kinds of people who have varied interests, rather than the "I only play space marines" or "I only play mage games" people. For another, even if you assume that every player has a setting they hate so much they would ragequit over it rather than wait for it to change (a supposition I find unlikely,) there are many, many available settings, and odds are they'd get quite a bit of playtime out of the game before they hit the setting that forces them out of the game.

I think the real challenge is making sure there's enough cohesion to make it feel like you're playing one character in a sequence of settings, rather than a series of independent settings with similar characters. Ideally, this would encourage the creation of extremely well-rounded characters so that the way they go about tackling their problems in internally consistent and appears to derive from the same personality. You'd want the Proud Warrior Race Guy to be a Barbarian in the Fantasy setting, Heavy Weapons Guy in the Space Marine setting, aggressive/forthright businessman in the Railroad Tycoon setting, etc, while the Sneaky Git is the Rogue in the Fantasy setting, Sniper in the Space Marine setting, and underhanded jerk in the Railroad Tycoon setting.

What you could do, is have a class system based on generic Archetypal Characters, with their indivudual flavors/abilities altering based on sub-tropes of their new setting. This results in characters with a high amount of internal consistency, but also means that those characters are rather static. It also requires quite a bit of work on the part of the GM to try and get archetypes that are generic enough to translate to any setting, while remaining interesting enough to be worth playing- more troublesome is that some archetypes are rather genre-specific and difficult to translate, and that genre wouldn't be the same without the inclusion of at least one character of that kind.

Another way you could tackle it is to have "Player Adjustment" phases, which are just a couple turns of mostly-RP where the player characters try to adapt to their new situation- the way they react determines what new abilities they gain. This allows for more dynamism in characters, at the cost of some continuity.

Alternately, we could just roll with the Fish out of Water scenario, and introduce a mechanic to gain new abilities without losing old ones. Abilities could be entirely genre-specific, with the only transference between genres being the player's ingenuity (The Barbarian lacks anything approaching management skills, so when thrust into Railroad Tycoon Land he compensates by using his strength to lay all the rails himself.) Abilities could be tied to a generic skill tree, with flavor adjusting on a setting by setting basis.

Perhaps best-case, Abilities would be a combination of the two. Players are spirits hopping from body to body at the whim of some cruel fate/curse- they gain innate benefits depending on their host (magical ablities, great strength, wealth, etc) that are tied to the specific host, and do not transfer between bodies. Certain mental/spiritual abilities, however, would carry over from situation to situation (business acumen, battle expertise, talent at making things.)

And now that I've been thinking of it for a while, nested random setting tables! Roll on the Main Table, then roll on the indicated tables.

Spoiler: Whee random tables! (click to show/hide)

Main Table
1- Fantasy
2- Historical
3- SciFi
4- Adventure
5- Western?
6- Roll Twice

Fantasy Table
1- Grimdark Fantasy
2- Fantasy Medieval Europe
3- Magic Land (fairies and Discworlds)
4- Wuxia
5- Horror (Fantasy Lovecraft)
6- Epic Fantasy

Historical (alternate or otherwise)
1- Pre-History
2- Ancient Times
3- Medieval Times
4- Age of Sail
5- Industrial Era (American Civil War-WWII)
6- Modern/Future

SciFi
1- Steampunk
2- Cyberpunk
3- Planetary Romance
4- Space Opera
5- Time Travel
6- Post-Apocalypse

Adventure
1- Swashbuckilng Pirates
2- Safari
3- Tomb Raiding
4- Airship
5- Gangsters
6- Roll again, and also roll on Main Table again- merge results

Western
1- Old West
2- Samurai Western
3- Space Western
4-6  Others I guess?

Alternately, I pitched a Mad Lib idea a while back, and it would be amusing if waitlisters supplied the words.

[10ebbor10]

Maybe you should also at a roll table with RTD universes (used with permision of course)

[Tarran]

Hey, I was perfectly aware that Dragon wasn't the thing for me when I quit, Tarran, I just didn't want to say that to your face.

I'm fairly sure you're talking about that, anyhow. I don't think I've been in many of your RTDs.

Yes I'm talking about that. And that's exactly what I mean: I had no idea that you were in discomfort until you quit. I had no idea through your posts that you were getting tired. At least as far as I can remember.

As for the 'players eventually getting bored of it' argument, well, how long do RTDs usually last, anyway?

Usually less time than the players.

My argument assumes that it will last longer, since the length of the RTD is kinda besides the point and I am not arguing against it.

For one thing, the setting-shifting nature of the game is known up front, so the people who sign up are already the kinds of people who have varied interests, rather than the "I only play space marines" or "I only play mage games" people.

I know, I said that only the ones who will play anything at any time would be able to play at all without any 'problems' on my first post 'against' the idea. The arguments are about the other people, the ones that have less varied interests.

For another, even if you assume that every player has a setting they hate so much they would ragequit over it rather than wait for it to change (a supposition I find unlikely,) there are many, many available settings, and odds are they'd get quite a bit of playtime out of the game before they hit the setting that forces them out of the game.

I never really argued that a lot of people would quit due to a single setting they don't like, right after the second quote of my last post. I only argued that a lot would have 'problems' and they would reach their limit faster, and a series of settings that the player doesn't like could force them to their limits.

[Dermonster]

I'm throwing my money at the screen but nothing is happening.

[Tarran]

You need to throw it harder. HARDER YOU WIMP!

[Digital Hellhound]

Ah, durr, I misread that. And I guess not, though I do remember taking my sweet time before posting. But I do that everywhere anyhow, so.

[lawastooshort]

I know, I said that only the ones who will play anything at any time would be able to play at all without any 'problems' on my first post 'against' the idea.

I think some people would play anything depending on who the GM is.

[ExKirby]

I'm sorry but I'm derailing this discussion

a tiny village in Cumbria, northern England, inhabitated solely by postmen and Edwardian gentlemen.

How do you know where I live

And what happened to my punctuation

Does full stop hate me as well now