Print

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

[TCM]

Another thing to note is how the actual forum works. For example, even though I am a novice here, I am a veteran when it comes to RPG forums. However, most of these were either low-energy or medium-energy forums. For example, in low energy, 20 posts might come to the section in a day, whereas in medium-energy in might be something like 50 posts. Bay12 Forums have the highest energy level I've seen, where you might get 50 posts in this section in one hour. This causes me to worry sometimes, as I'm afraid any new RPG's I produce will get shoved down by other RPGs before it even gets a chance. Due to this way of workings, I've had to do something I've never had to do in any other forum: go to the second or third page to catch up in an active RPG.

[Fniff]

Was this ended at a good time?

[FuzzyZergling]

For turn-based games I think a certain amount of organization is needed, even more so for complex games.
For example, if the game is such that each player or even the whole group has a status, that status should be kept as up-to-date as possible by the GM.

One of my all-time favorite games, Cobalt Fortress, had an exquisite amount of organization.

But at the same time, the game has to be simple enough that the GM can keep up.
One of my forum games, Cavern, was well above my own abilities to GM because of the complexity (and also I lost a bunch of important information when my old computer died >:,[ ). I just burnt out and writing up a turn took two hours of misery.

[Fniff]

My lord, am I terrible at that.

Any people who want to write a forum game, do not make it a strategy game. Make it simple, such as a text forum adventure. That is easy to keep track of.

[King DZA]

Was this ended at a good time?

I liked it. Short and sweet.

[Tarran]

Things that I prefer, colored by how critical it is to me (red=more critical):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

A story that is at least somewhat original. And is long enough for me to get a grip on what the world is like.
Give the players customizability for their characters, classes, magic, etc. Let us/me be a dragon, lizardman, or even a hawk if we/I want to.
A game system that rewards and punishes trying things.
Not too much fluff that I feel like I'm reading a story rather than playing the game.
Good format that is quick and easy to read. Even if it sacrifices some amount of style.
A feeling that individually I'm doing something important and my opinion matters (hence why I never play games where you all play as one character).
Some clearish goals, with multiple ways to approach them.
A semi-decent update speed. I recommend a update speed of at the very least once a week if you can help it.
No super-burdening rules. Rules that I can ignore until I need to look at them.

As you can see, I am very RTD oriented as most RTDs contain pretty much all of the above. Hence why I love RTDs. Some miss some of them, of course (for example, hiding rolls in acronyms misses point #5), but for the most part they fit my interest.

[Araph]

Very good insights, everyone; thanks for the responses.

...

I feel like I should have some response to everything that was posted, but I have no clue what to say aside from thanks.

So, thanks!

[TherosPherae]

Well, I do believe that I am fairly experienced in what not to do, so I may as well share what I've learned from that.

GM Tips:
First thing: For the love of god, think your idea through first. Come up with an intended plotline, but be okay if the players decide to smash it into little bits. Make a map - nobody I know likes trying to explore the outer edges of the world likes to run into some random bullshit that was completely made up on the spot. Poorly-thought-out games tend to die quickly, no matter how fun they are.

Second thing: never, ever, ever, ever, ever make too many major changes to your game within a short time. I did this with the art style/update speed in Prince of Toast the first time around, and it pretty much killed it. Which leads me to...

Third thing: Do not obligate yourself to do something you know you won't do well. I tried to update that Prince of Toast game once a day or so, but a bad case of school and lazybastarditis dropped the quality to the point where people were asking what the hell things were instead of making suggestions.

Fourth thing: discuss the idea with experienced players and such first. Even if you've been doing RP since you were 3, it never hurts to get an alternate view on things. Plus, it lets people know that you're going to start a game up soon and that you've actually put some thought into it.

Fifth thing: If you're a first-time GM, do something simple. Use a system that's already been built for you instead of trying to build your own. Learning the general ropes of GMing is hard enough without having to try to balance your own system.

Player Tips:
First thing: Put more than two seconds of thought into a character, suggestions, etc. It contributes a lot to the quality of the game when the characters aren't all "Princess Bob who, uh, likes flowers and shit."

Second thing: Mary-Sues and memes. A small dose of either in a character isn't too bad, but it's like salt. If you add too much, everything is going to taste horrible, and nobody will be able to take the game seriously.

Third thing: GMs are people too. They will make mistakes, the will miss things, and it is your job as a player to not hate them for it. Poke them a bit, show them what you think was wrong, and leave it at that. Do NOT try to convince the GM that they were wrong, because it usually ends with rocks falling. Or thirty-page-long arguments about the logistics of quantum acceleration in a pseudoscience game.

and one last general tip:
Spellcheck and the enter key are your friends. I've seen both GMs and players try to play without either, and it gets ugly.

So this doesn't answer the original question of the thread at all, but it seems like the right place to put it.

[Tarran]

Make a map - nobody I know likes trying to explore the outer edges of the world likes to run into some random bullshit that was completely made up on the spot. Poorly-thought-out games tend to die quickly, no matter how fun they are.

Oh yeah, I forgot that.

You're right, maps are also important. I like knowing where I am and what I'm missing. If I don't know either, then you'd better be ready for questions or uncertain actions from me.

Fifth thing: If you're a first-time GM, do something simple. Use a system that's already been built for you instead of trying to build your own. Learning the general ropes of GMing is hard enough without having to try to balance your own system.

Well, using a system from someone else has it's downsides. For one, you did not create it yourself and thus you might feel a nagging feeling in the back of your head wishing you had made a system. Another is that, should you need to expand it, you will likely not really know the exact way the system was made to work, or at the very least your expansion will mess around with the original system more than it should.

...What I'm saying could be complete bullshit, of course. It depends on the reader.

Spellcheck and the enter key are your friends. I've seen both GMs and players try to play without either, and it gets ugly.

Agreed. It's painful to even try and read things that are misspelled, not capitalized when they should be, or bricks of text.

Also use Bold when listing things in rows. It makes things easier to read.

So this doesn't answer the original question of the thread at all, but it seems like the right place to put it.

No, I believe it does. It shows your opinion on the matter, which is what this thread is all about.

[TherosPherae]

Fifth thing: If you're a first-time GM, do something simple. Use a system that's already been built for you instead of trying to build your own. Learning the general ropes of GMing is hard enough without having to try to balance your own system.

Well, using a system from someone else has it's downsides. For one, you did not create it yourself and thus you might feel a nagging feeling in the back of your head wishing you had made a system. Another is that, should you need to expand it, you will likely not really know the exact way the system was made to work, or at the very least your expansion will mess around with the original system more than it should.

...What I'm saying could be complete bullshit, of course. It depends on the reader.

Well yes, a custom system provides an amount of... well, customization that a non-custom system does not. However, it is incredibly hard to come up with a balanced system without ever having run one, and, since we're discussing new GMs, they're probably better off running something simpler just to get the hang of things, knowing what's balanced and what isn't, etc.

[IronyOwl]

First thing: For the love of god, think your idea through first. Come up with an intended plotline, but be okay if the players decide to smash it into little bits. Make a map - nobody I know likes trying to explore the outer edges of the world likes to run into some random bullshit that was completely made up on the spot. Poorly-thought-out games tend to die quickly, no matter how fun they are.

I think mechanics are more important than plot, especially when you add "but also be prepared for anything OTHER than said plot." Thinking whatever it is through is definitely important, though. If nothing else, if you're not willing to think it through, you're probably not willing to stick with it very well.

As for maps, that varies heavily by game. Maps could be helpful more often than they're used, but I don't think this is on par with "don't go too fast or you'll burn out and stop updating and your game will die!" style advice.

Second thing: never, ever, ever, ever, ever make too many major changes to your game within a short time.

While I agree that rapid, severe changes are usually a bad thing, I'd also argue the opposite: Radically changing a game is better than letting it die because things work like X and that can't be changed no matter how much trouble that's causing. If you feel the need to make a change your game won't survive, it's probably not going to survive anyway.

Third thing: Do not obligate yourself to do something you know you won't do well. I tried to update that Prince of Toast game once a day or so, but a bad case of school and lazybastarditis dropped the quality to the point where people were asking what the hell things were instead of making suggestions.

Knowing your limits is definitely important. I would apply this more to complexity and bookkeeping than update speed or what have you, but it's true across the board.

Fourth thing: discuss the idea with experienced players and such first. Even if you've been doing RP since you were 3, it never hurts to get an alternate view on things. Plus, it lets people know that you're going to start a game up soon and that you've actually put some thought into it.

I'm kind of torn on this. On the one hand, it's sensible advice and usually doesn't cost you anything, and if absolutely nothing else the effort of writing your plans out in a format others can understand can be a handy thought exercise.

On the other hand, I tend to find it really doesn't accomplish anything unless you've got a very specific problem you'd like a second opinion on. Just saying "Hey guys what about this game where everyone's a leper?" isn't really going to tell you much.

Fifth thing: If you're a first-time GM, do something simple. Use a system that's already been built for you instead of trying to build your own. Learning the general ropes of GMing is hard enough without having to try to balance your own system.

Eh. A first-time GM should probably be using a simple enough system that there's not a whole lot to steal or screw up either way, I'd think.

Also, that personal touch probably is important for keeping interest and investment in the game. That part varies depending on everything, though.

Third thing: GMs are people too. They will make mistakes, the will miss things, and it is your job as a player to not hate them for it. Poke them a bit, show them what you think was wrong, and leave it at that. Do NOT try to convince the GM that they were wrong, because it usually ends with rocks falling. Or thirty-page-long arguments about the logistics of quantum acceleration in a pseudoscience game.

I disagree. There's a point for dropping everything, but if the GM feels the need to enforce edicts by murdering dissidents or professing knowledge of real-world theoretical particle physics, something's probably direly wrong.

So this doesn't answer the original question of the thread at all, but it seems like the right place to put it.

I'd say so.

[monk12]

Most of what needs to be said has been said (although I think the "write well" admonishment bears repeating,) but I will throw one thing out there in regards to GM Interest. Take the amount of effort you think running this game will cost you. Double it. Do you still want to run this game? If not, then regardless of how good your game is, it isn't likely to be a long-runner.

You will get writer's block, you will start keeping track of more things than you thought you'd need to, you will get sick or suffer any number of other IRL interruptions, and you will have any number of these things going on at once. If your game already takes all your effort to update, then your rough patches are going to kill it. It is a lot easier to add complexity to an ongoing game, and your audience probably isn't going to mind, especially if it's in small doses.

[TherosPherae]

I think mechanics are more important than plot, especially when you add "but also be prepared for anything OTHER than said plot." Thinking whatever it is through is definitely important, though. If nothing else, if you're not willing to think it through, you're probably not willing to stick with it very well.
As for maps, that varies heavily by game. Maps could be helpful more often than they're used, but I don't think this is on par with "don't go too fast or you'll burn out and stop updating and your game will die!" style advice.

True, but it helps to have an intended path if your players tend to be the less self-guided kind. Which probably doesn't apply well here
And yeah, I guess I was a bit too harsh about having a map. But it really is a good thing to have around when GMing, especially if your players like to travel the globe, teleport, and other odd things like that.

I disagree. There's a point for dropping everything, but if the GM feels the need to enforce edicts by murdering dissidents or professing knowledge of real-world theoretical particle physics, something's probably direly wrong.

Well, I was speaking mostly from experience from a different forum when, in a sci-fi game, a certain player decided that his weapon wasn't powerful enough and tried to convince the GM to buff it by way of Wikipedia science. The argument went for many pages discussing in-detail things about electrical engineering that most people really don't know, and ended with myself and the few other players still playing saying 'this is pseudoscience, nobody gives a shit, move on.' I'd just... really, really like to not see that sort of thing over here, to the point of preventative measures. Sorry if it came off a bit strong, though.

[IronyOwl]

Well, I was speaking mostly from experience from a different forum when, in a sci-fi game, a certain player decided that his weapon wasn't powerful enough and tried to convince the GM to buff it by way of Wikipedia science. The argument went for many pages discussing in-detail things about electrical engineering that most people really don't know, and ended with myself and the few other players still playing saying 'this is pseudoscience, nobody gives a shit, move on.' I'd just... really, really like to not see that sort of thing over here, to the point of preventative measures. Sorry if it came off a bit strong, though.

That sounds like more of a problem with a player being an irrelevant, powermongering jackass, and presumably the GM not promptly informing him of such.

[TherosPherae]

That sounds like more of a problem with a player being an irrelevant, powermongering jackass, and presumably the GM not promptly informing him of such.

It.... yeah, pretty much. The sad thing is, that longest conversation about this sort of thing was his third one. So he knew full well that the game was pseudoscience, and yet... he still didn't get it.

On a totally irrelevant note, the way you phrased this makes it seem like the player was uninformed of his jackassery, as in
GM: You're a jackass.
Player: Oh my goodness! I am so sorry, I was not informed of this until now!

It gave me a pleasant chuckle.