|
Intent
Feb 7, 2017 13:17:26 GMT
Post by logan9a on Feb 7, 2017 13:17:26 GMT
I'm suspecting I have not done a great job of explaining it.
Essentially, the framework I've come up with would allow me to run any type of campaign I wanted with whatever characters I had.
If the players decide they want to do a fantasy campaign, they can. If they want to ride dinosaurs while hunting down nazis with Martian cannons, they might be able to.
And all with the same characters.
It would also easily allow me to accommodate a group which may change week to week some or all of it's players.
"I'm not really interested in questioning dozens of NPCs about the rules of physics or local laws/culture before we have enough information to act (and certainly not multiple times as we enter new "zones"), and I'm not interested in exploring a jungle/dungeon/swamp just because it's there."
As to that part - questioning dozens of NPC's about physics - I've never thought there was a possibility of getting players to do that - did you?
As to exploring an area because it's there - yeah.. That is one of the possible jobs I've been prepping on; just in case the players wanted to do it. They might, they might not. A different group might want to. It would literally be that group a who is interested in this sort of exploration helps out group b with something they find because one of the players ends up in both groups and can take the info/item between the two.
"I don't see a unifying theme or premise that makes the PCs cool or cohesive." Hope not. I'm trying to keep that part secret. If the TV show Lost came out and revealed it's secrets ahead of time I'm thinking their ratings would have been a bit lower.
"I'm not sold on the "death is temporary" thing; it functionally ceases to be a threat and bad guys will need repeated killing. I understand that all of this is by design, but it me it sounds like it would be frustrating. "
Understanding. I would say that if it didn't make sense to bring some bad guy back I wouldn't. Also, the bad guy may or may not be the bad guy. Again, that makes no sense. Reference 'Lost'.
"but it may not be my cup of tea." Well, fortunately I'm convinced that you will give it a fair chance before making up your mind so I am not yet worried.
The campaign is meant to be be a 'find shit out about the area/world/universe/people' etc. Bigger and niftier than Hudson's trip down a river and that made it into the whole zeitgeist for fucking ages.
|
|
|
Intent
Feb 7, 2017 14:19:52 GMT
Post by bentpaperclip on Feb 7, 2017 14:19:52 GMT
I'm suspecting I have not done a great job of explaining it. Essentially, the framework I've come up with would allow me to run any type of campaign I wanted with whatever characters I had. If the players decide they want to do a fantasy campaign, they can. If they want to ride dinosaurs while hunting down nazis with Martian cannons, they might be able to. And all with the same characters. It would also easily allow me to accommodate a group which may change week to week some or all of it's players. I understand the allure of a "do anything" campaign. I'm concerned it will lead to a half dozen (or more) game sessions of the PCs groping about trying to determine what to do/how to start. Given your proposed timeline, that would be half the first campaign! We ran into this hurdle with Amazingly Lost. It wasn't regarding physics, but there was a large disconnect between what our characters knew and what we knew about the culture of the world that you wanted us to question NPCs about to determine. The issue was that we didn't even know the right questions to ask and so I often felt stymied. Maybe this time will be different - lessons learned and all that, but it's a concern I carry from last time. True. You may have a strong kicker to jump start the campaign and give it direction. That would be super awesome! I have no way of knowing. As a side note, while I enjoyed the first season of Lost, I found the show as a whole nearly unbearably slow and the "what is happening?? OMG!!!" wore thin quickly. I had to shotgun it just to get through (I should have stopped, but I'm a completionist) - it was like tearing off a painful and largely unfulfilling bandaid. That's not a gripe about the upcoming campaign, I just have to speak up when people bring up Lost. I'm still bitter. I understand that it makes sense within the parameters of the game world, and so long as we don't keep getting bitten in the ass by the same guy who we keep having to kill it probably won't be frustrating - but the potential is there. Granted. But maybe hearing my concerns will help you prep.
|
|
|
Intent
Feb 7, 2017 18:16:41 GMT
Post by logan9a on Feb 7, 2017 18:16:41 GMT
I'm suspecting I have not done a great job of explaining it. Essentially, the framework I've come up with would allow me to run any type of campaign I wanted with whatever characters I had. If the players decide they want to do a fantasy campaign, they can. If they want to ride dinosaurs while hunting down nazis with Martian cannons, they might be able to. And all with the same characters. It would also easily allow me to accommodate a group which may change week to week some or all of it's players. I understand the allure of a "do anything" campaign. I'm concerned it will lead to a half dozen (or more) game sessions of the PCs groping about trying to determine what to do/how to start. Given your proposed timeline, that would be half the first campaign! I think you under estimate the players. Plus, honestly if they are having fun figuring out what they want to do, great. If not, I have complete confidence that the players can 'dry hump it into submission'. We ran into this hurdle with Amazingly Lost. It wasn't regarding physics, but there was a large disconnect between what our characters knew and what we knew about the culture of the world that you wanted us to question NPCs about to determine. The issue was that we didn't even know the right questions to ask and so I often felt stymied. Maybe this time will be different - lessons learned and all that, but it's a concern I carry from last time. Understandable however I believe that my mindset at the time (hell I don't even *remember* that campaign. Like at all) may have been what fucked the campaign. True. You may have a strong kicker to jump start the campaign and give it direction. That would be super awesome! I have no way of knowing. As a side note, while I enjoyed the first season of Lost, I found the show as a whole nearly unbearably slow and the "what is happening?? OMG!!!" wore thin quickly. I had to shotgun it just to get through (I should have stopped, but I'm a completionist) - it was like tearing off a painful and largely unfulfilling bandaid. That's not a gripe about the upcoming campaign, I just have to speak up when people bring up Lost. I'm still bitter. You and all the other fans. Believe me, I'm wanting to have a better show than lost was. What the fuck was it with all those goddamn flashbacks? My flashbacks are under one minute if someone gets one. What I'm working on doing while I'm lost in the wilds of Portugal and the USA and maybe SE Asia between now and OCT (keep in mind this is if Matt gets his end together - otherwise it will very quickly go the realm of 'some day' until I get another rich patron)... Fuck that was a run on sentence. Anyway, I'm working on trying to get a cohesive world together. I want to plant stuff in different...let's call them 'zones' (I played too much EQ) that has shit to do with the other stuff. First few sessions (hell it might even be the first year - it's up to the PC's. Could be the first couple sessions only - I don't know) will be 'exploring around to find options, resources, friends, enemies, etc. After that, it's up to the PC's. If they (for example to use a current TV show) found a 'Westworld place' and then tell the GM "If you don't have shit ready for this, we'll keep exploring but otherwise during the three months of your downtime we want you to do nothing but prepare western adventures because we fucking love western adventures and think three plus decades of exploring that genre on TV is not enough." (Note - at this time I do not have a 'westworld place' zone. Yes, I can make one if wanted but I don't think the PC's are all that fond of the western genre.) But that's how I'm going to roll. If the groups find something they like, they can get in there and make stuff happen. If they want to explore, I want to have shit ready for them to explore. Deeper plots will come later (after the first 10-12 sessions) after I find out what the PC's want more of. I'm working on making some stuff now. Yes, if the PC's want a certain place (let's use Westworld again because I don't think it's a place anyone wants) they may have to explore let's say Conan's world (which I also don't have) to find out how to get there. They may not be fond of Conans' world but it may I think I'm starting to give away too much so will stop mid sentence there. But right now I'm working on the overarching plots. After the first break, more of what the PC's want plus plots that deal with what they did before that will have repercussions later. Like pissing off the indestructible cowboy robot guy who begins to hunt down the PC's from Westworld or whatever.[/quote] I understand that it makes sense within the parameters of the game world, and so long as we don't keep getting bitten in the ass by the same guy who we keep having to kill it probably won't be frustrating - but the potential is there. Granted. But maybe hearing my concerns will help you prep. I can think of nothing worse than 'cheapening victory'. I can't imagine doing it unless there was a good reason - one that gave heightened victory later comes to mind. But yeah. I really don't see a point in "Let's keep having the PC's fight the same fight" unless there is a clue in it or a plot thing. Like when Marty (Back to the Future) kept going back to fight Biff. That makes sense there.
|
|
|
Intent
Feb 7, 2017 18:25:38 GMT
Post by bentpaperclip on Feb 7, 2017 18:25:38 GMT
I think it would be funny if all the PCs just B-lined back to the world with the KBC and started solving crimes - very possible if players choose to "reincarnate" previous characters as you've mentioned, especially since many of them have families that they care about.
|
|
|
Intent
Feb 7, 2017 18:34:03 GMT
Post by bentpaperclip on Feb 7, 2017 18:34:03 GMT
I think you under estimate the players. Plus, honestly if they are having fun figuring out what they want to do, great. If not, I have complete confidence that the players can 'dry hump it into submission'. I'm not saying it won't be playable. I'm not saying players won't have fun. I'm saying that "figuring out what to do" may not be my cup of tea, and "humping it into submission" sounds a lot like level grinding. I'm not sure much more discussion on this will yield results. We'll just have to see how things develop. We may have different ideas of what is fun in this instance. That is exactly what I described in my previous post! That you disagreed with! ME: "I understand the allure of a "do anything" campaign. I'm concerned it will lead to a half dozen (or more) game sessions of the PCs groping about trying to determine what to do/how to start. Given your proposed timeline, that would be half the first campaign!"
|
|
|
Intent
Feb 7, 2017 19:02:35 GMT
Post by logan9a on Feb 7, 2017 19:02:35 GMT
I think you under estimate the players. Plus, honestly if they are having fun figuring out what they want to do, great. If not, I have complete confidence that the players can 'dry hump it into submission'. I'm not saying it won't be playable. I'm not saying players won't have fun. I'm saying that "figuring out what to do" may not be my cup of tea, and "humping it into submission" sounds a lot like level grinding. I'm not sure much more discussion on this will yield results. We'll just have to see how things develop. We may have different ideas of what is fun in this instance. That is exactly what I described in my previous post! That you disagreed with! ME: "I understand the allure of a "do anything" campaign. I'm concerned it will lead to a half dozen (or more) game sessions of the PCs groping about trying to determine what to do/how to start. Given your proposed timeline, that would be half the first campaign!" I am convinced that a) you will have fun b) you will say "Jesus Logan you fail at explaining stuff and c) you will level grind your hump into submission into submission. Where the hell do we get level grinding? I don't know. But yeah. Exploration. Important. Find something you like or figure out what is going on. Or just wander around. But I think you will like it. Yes.
|
|
|
Intent
Feb 7, 2017 20:27:12 GMT
Post by bentpaperclip on Feb 7, 2017 20:27:12 GMT
Did you notice my post prior to the one you responded to?
|
|
|
Intent
Feb 7, 2017 20:31:36 GMT
Post by logan9a on Feb 7, 2017 20:31:36 GMT
Did you notice my post prior to the one you responded to? ...well, I am drinking rather heavily this evening. You mean this? ? If so, yes, possible to do so but honestly I am working on making a 'marketable product' so I'd need to write the cases. I've done a few in the past but most of them were stolen from CSI type programs.
|
|
|
Intent
Feb 9, 2017 0:24:09 GMT
Post by Fantômas on Feb 9, 2017 0:24:09 GMT
<snip> I understand that it makes sense within the parameters of the game world, and so long as we don't keep getting bitten in the ass by the same guy who we keep having to kill it probably won't be frustrating - but the potential is there. <snip> I'm sure we could come up with several ways to deal with someone in this situation. Depending on how 'good' the PCs are we depend on the nature of this.
|
|
|
Intent
Feb 9, 2017 10:57:29 GMT
Post by logan9a on Feb 9, 2017 10:57:29 GMT
Pete - what do you think of the intent of the campaign, goals, parameters and stuff?
|
|
Scott
DORA
(Scott)
*Sigh*
Posts: 1,919
|
Intent
Feb 9, 2017 19:56:20 GMT
Post by Scott on Feb 9, 2017 19:56:20 GMT
I do. I'm very happy that you're excited about getting back in the GM chair, but I'm not excited about this campaign. The more I learn about it, the less excited I am. I'm not really interested in questioning dozens of NPCs about the rules of physics or local laws/culture before we have enough information to act (and certainly not multiple times as we enter new "zones"), and I'm not interested in exploring a jungle/dungeon/swamp just because it's there. I don't see a unifying theme or premise that makes the PCs cool or cohesive. I'm not sold on the "death is temporary" thing; it functionally ceases to be a threat and bad guys will need repeated killing. I understand that all of this is by design, but it me it sounds like it would be frustrating. I don't mean to be a downer. I'm sure that many people will be thrilled by the campaign, but it may not be my cup of tea. Sandbox is a legit playstyle, but it doesn't generally involve mysteries about personal identity or group identity or the setting.
|
|
thad
Senior Staff
No soy mexicano
Posts: 2,386
|
Post by thad on Feb 11, 2017 1:46:10 GMT
Question: what world do we start in? Do we wake up with amnesia again? Or do we have the current cultural baggage? Etc...
As for the sandpit, I need a goal to go for. That's why I had trouble with Amazingly Lost and the Cubical Jungle, just exploring/surviving isn't my thing.
|
|
|
Intent
Feb 13, 2017 2:36:09 GMT
Post by Fantômas on Feb 13, 2017 2:36:09 GMT
I agree with what the others are saying in regards to sandbox type games. There still needs to be stuff going on that the PCs can get involved in (or not). A reason for the PCs to do something. Travis' Genesis game is a good example. There was backstory that could be looked into and stuff going on in the world that the PCs could get involved in or ignore. At the same time the PCs could wander around if they wished to.
|
|
|
Intent
Feb 13, 2017 10:29:49 GMT
Post by logan9a on Feb 13, 2017 10:29:49 GMT
Yes. I'm working on making stuff going on whether the PC's want to get involved with it or not.
Clearly (like every other campaign I've ever run) several sessions will be the 'shake down voyage' part. After that, we are completely unsinkable. Aside from icebergs.
|
|