http://brilliantgameologists.com
March 28, 2017, 12:16:12 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: These boards are now READ ONLY. We've started over! So don't try posting here. Go here www.minmaxboards.com
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Sode 41 - Getting the Group Together and Heading Off Problems Before They Start  (Read 12251 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Josh
Brilliant Gameologist
Grape ape
*
Posts: 1835



Email
« on: May 18, 2009, 03:25:27 AM »

Favorite Season 2 moment:

Josh: They call it a clam, for a reason
Zeke: Faux GenCon
Meg: Birthday episode and Zeke Orgasms

Big changes for season 3, Zeke will be nude.

Walter Cronkite is dead

Two primary situations:
1: You have a group
2: You have a bunch of people to draw a group from


1) You have a group
You need:
-Ideas from everyone
-Everyone needs to be invested and excited
-Do not fixate on your own nuance, explicitly discuss it
-Be open about what means what

2) You have a bunch of people to draw a group from
-Be honest
-Ask everyone explicitly don't assume

low player count,
Group then game
pick a night(figure out game)

high player count
Game then group
pick a game (figure out night)

--

Bounce Your Boobies
Bhu
Zeke likes Songs and fried eggs hanging on a nail

Holly Dolly
emisairy666
Holly Dolly is a Donkey From the country who dreamed of being a big star

Sheeps
Meg's Aunt
The only form of pure art remaining
Zeke makes up some names “Rivers Cuomo” “Barak Obama”

--

The GM tips
-You are not the boss of them
-Do not “dispense wisdom”
-Be honest open and bring everything to the game
-No one is just an asshole, they have a reason for what they are doing
-Don't say “what do you like?” say “what do you want to do?”
-As soon as they start fighting with you, even slightly, figure out why.  T
-Try to make sure people know their chances before they roll the dice
-You want to catch problems before people even know they are problems.
-You must reduce the complexity of the game to the aggregate of the players.
-Do not be afraid to change games, mod games or create house rules. 
-Check to be sure you have the game right before you go changing things.
-Eat the frog

People don't like low magic
people enjoy the presence of something cool
or the absence of an irritant

Poisonous Ideas

There is a persistent idea that adventures should hold to a “realistic” or “balanced” framework.
Adventures ideally should give everyone in the group what they are looking for. 
Anything more is a waste of effort and anything less could be done better.

You know the adage “if you don't know, make it up” gets tossed around? 
Don't listen to them.  Here's why.
The people who say that, say it, because that's what they do and it works. 
Because a)they know the game or b)they don't care about the rules anyway. 

The first guys are just not expending effort and doing it right anyway
The second guys suck.
Cliffhanger
« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 11:11:26 PM by Josh » Logged

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009
bhu
Organ Grinder
*****
Posts: 6783


Convincing the rich whale fat enemas are healthy


« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2009, 05:48:47 AM »

Just listened this evening.

In mah defense there were non animated versions of the song I could find which werent on sites also containing porn Big Grin

And most of the other stuff on youtube was cheezy.  See what I mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRLEZjNd39Y&feature=related

I had some other thought but seem to have forgotten it...

Nice job though.  I must get my group to listen to these podcasts somehow...
Logged

AfterCrescent
Honorary Moderator
Organ Grinder
*
Posts: 4220


Here After

AfterCrescent
« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2009, 10:14:22 PM »

I enjoyed this one, even if my favorite moment of the season coincided with Josh's.  Big Grin

Quote
-Try to make sure people know their chances before they roll the dice
I'm torn on this. I agree in some respects, like the odds of performing most tasks, but I think part of it is system dependent.  While on one hand, a system like Savage Worlds works with a set DC that everyone knows, the same cannot be said of D&D. Burning wheel has varying DCs, but it functions well, I think partially because it ranges in a set area (1-10).  In SW and BW, it doesn't hurt, and indeed helps to know your chances ahead of time for most, if not everything.  Is that the case in D&D, though?

You always tout that D&D is an action game, but with so many mechanics and options, part of the challenge in the strategy aspect comes from, in my mind, not knowing your foe's AC or what defenses he has. Possibly even not knowing a certain modifier (like how unbelievable your lie may seem to the NPC for his sense motive) could add to the 'challenge.' Thoughts?
Logged

The cake is a lie.
Need to play table top? Get your game on at:
Brilliant Gameologists' PbP Forum. Do it, you know you want to.
The 3.5 Cleric Handbook
The 13th Guard - An alternate history campaign idea.
Clerics just wake up one morning and decide they need to kick ass, and it needs to be kicked NOW. ~veekie
veekie
Organ Grinder
*****
Posts: 9034


WARNING: Homing Miko


« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2009, 08:50:13 AM »

I enjoyed this one, even if my favorite moment of the season coincided with Josh's.  Big Grin

Quote
-Try to make sure people know their chances before they roll the dice
I'm torn on this. I agree in some respects, like the odds of performing most tasks, but I think part of it is system dependent.  While on one hand, a system like Savage Worlds works with a set DC that everyone knows, the same cannot be said of D&D. Burning wheel has varying DCs, but it functions well, I think partially because it ranges in a set area (1-10).  In SW and BW, it doesn't hurt, and indeed helps to know your chances ahead of time for most, if not everything.  Is that the case in D&D, though?

You always tout that D&D is an action game, but with so many mechanics and options, part of the challenge in the strategy aspect comes from, in my mind, not knowing your foe's AC or what defenses he has. Possibly even not knowing a certain modifier (like how unbelievable your lie may seem to the NPC for his sense motive) could add to the 'challenge.' Thoughts?
Regarding rolling, and knowing the DCs, I expect static challenges to have fairly obvious difficulties, known both IC and OOC, while players should have a rough idea of how strong a monster is, relative to themselves(at least to the extent of CR > or CR < PCs, for anything above 2 point variance in either direction). Especially for homebrewed critters, when the party gets an extremely impressive description tied to unimpressive stats leaves the PCs jaded and walking into a fight they aren't supposed to be picking yet.
Logged

The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."
Josh
Brilliant Gameologist
Grape ape
*
Posts: 1835



Email
« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2009, 03:11:50 AM »

You always tout that D&D is an action game, but with so many mechanics and options, part of the challenge in the strategy aspect comes from, in my mind, not knowing your foe's AC or what defenses he has. Possibly even not knowing a certain modifier (like how unbelievable your lie may seem to the NPC for his sense motive) could add to the 'challenge.' Thoughts?

In general the players do know their chances. 

Against the average target the fighter will mostly hit.  If the target is armored the chance will be reduced.

Tough critters have good fort saves, smart critters have good will saves.  You know your chances usually.
Logged

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009
AfterCrescent
Honorary Moderator
Organ Grinder
*
Posts: 4220


Here After

AfterCrescent
« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2009, 12:06:47 PM »

Ah, so you meant it in a very vague aspect. I thought you were referring to more concrete chances than "X has a high fort, I should aim for a will save."
Logged

The cake is a lie.
Need to play table top? Get your game on at:
Brilliant Gameologists' PbP Forum. Do it, you know you want to.
The 3.5 Cleric Handbook
The 13th Guard - An alternate history campaign idea.
Clerics just wake up one morning and decide they need to kick ass, and it needs to be kicked NOW. ~veekie
Psychic Robot
Bi-Curious George
****
Posts: 378


« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2009, 03:16:32 AM »

Quote
People don’t like low magic
Yes.  Yes, they do.  In fact, making a blanket statement that "people don't like low magic" is retarded.  It'd be like me saying, "People don't like survival horror games."
Logged
Zeke
Brilliant Gameologist
Bi-Curious George
*
Posts: 540



Email
« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2009, 08:09:33 AM »

Mr. Robot, you misunderstand the point. People don't like horror survival games either, they like what those games do for them. What Josh and I are saying is that it is important to find out what people are after in their choices than to fixate on specific details.
Logged
Psychic Robot
Bi-Curious George
****
Posts: 378


« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2009, 02:21:12 PM »

That sounds like a hefty dose of semantics and doublespeak.

"I like survival horror games."
"No, you like what they do for you."
"...No, actually, I like the entire genre."
"No, you like what the genre does for you."

I don't actually know what you're trying to say here.  I like survival horror.  I like low magic.  I don't particularly like high magic.
Logged
Zeke
Brilliant Gameologist
Bi-Curious George
*
Posts: 540



Email
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2009, 02:43:52 PM »

We're just suggesting a way to think about it. If it doesn't help you don't use it. We are not saying that no one actually likes those things. We said it that way as a means of making a particular point.
Logged
Josh
Brilliant Gameologist
Grape ape
*
Posts: 1835



Email
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2009, 10:19:34 PM »

Quote
People don’t like low magic
Yes.  Yes, they do.  In fact, making a blanket statement that "people don't like low magic" is retarded.  It'd be like me saying, "People don't like survival horror games."
Actually it's like you saying they don't like the survival part of horror games. 

But again, you still miss the point.  So let just say you are right.  It is just a semantic dodge.  You win.
What did you accomplish?  Absolutely nothing.  People still feel the same way, and you simply miss attribute that. 

Lets say then that the semantics are important.  People don't like "low magic" they like something else about the setting.  Now you can focus on what they actually like instead of happening to hit it by accident.

The refutation of the argument "people don't like low magic" is actually "people do like low magic."  And then you could site a unique quality of low magic that people like.
Logged

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009
Lakira
Ring-Tailed Lemur
**
Posts: 44



« Reply #11 on: July 20, 2009, 08:28:36 PM »

Is it fair to say that that the silent ending of "People don't like low magic" is "for low magic's sake"? That is, it's not "low magic" or "survival horror" or "beef jerky" that's likable in and of itself, but qualities of "low magic" (ie: focus on inherent skills rather than objects of power) or "survival horror" (ie: the thrill of overcoming overwhelming adversity) or "beef jerky" (ie: salty salty goodness) that are likable.
Logged
Josh
Brilliant Gameologist
Grape ape
*
Posts: 1835



Email
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2009, 12:55:57 AM »

Except for the beef jerky.  But yes, low magic-ed-ness is not something you can hang a hat on.  But, inherent (non magical) skills is.

People don't like surviving, they like telling a story or overcoming adversity.

So nail on the head.
Logged

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009
Caffeinemage
Member
Ring-Tailed Lemur
*
Posts: 23


Email
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2009, 10:03:37 PM »

I thought this was a really good episode in general.  A lot of that advice (especially the scene skipping advice) is stuff new GMs could stand to hear. 

However, it left me with this question: What do you mean by velvet roping?  You say don't do it, but it seems like you advocate exactly that  (X won't get along with Y, so we cant invite one of them). Can you be more specific with what you do and don't think is appropriate in choosing players?
Logged
Josh
Brilliant Gameologist
Grape ape
*
Posts: 1835



Email
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2009, 11:30:00 PM »

I thought this was a really good episode in general.  A lot of that advice (especially the scene skipping advice) is stuff new GMs could stand to hear. 

However, it left me with this question: What do you mean by velvet roping?  You say don't do it, but it seems like you advocate exactly that  (X won't get along with Y, so we cant invite one of them). Can you be more specific with what you do and don't think is appropriate in choosing players?

Velvet roping is the act of excluding people to make yourself seem cool.  Like those clubs where the doorman only lets you in if you look good enough.  A very sort of high school behavior. 

The litmus test of velvet roping is: would you feel comfortable telling them face to face?

If you say "look, when we play we just don't get along."  That is not velvet roping. 

Logged

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009
Lakira
Ring-Tailed Lemur
**
Posts: 44



« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2009, 02:36:20 PM »

Except for the beef jerky.  But yes, low magic-ed-ness is not something you can hang a hat on.  But, inherent (non magical) skills is.

People don't like surviving, they like telling a story or overcoming adversity.

So nail on the head.

Okay, good to know I'm starting in the right area.

So, it occurs to me that the payouts episodes are good, especially when you have a low player count (you can ask the players "What do you want to do" and figure out payouts etc), but less useful with a higher player count since it's a game-then-group scenario. As I recall (and I could be out of my mind - it's been a while since I listened to the payout eps), there wasn't a strong "things games can provide and how they can do it well" perspective. So, if a game says, "If you love low magic, you'll love me!" how do you figure out what the game actually gives you?

As far as I can tell, there's reams and reams of text on the 'net devoted to this to some extent or another, but I don't recall a BG opinion.
Logged
Josh
Brilliant Gameologist
Grape ape
*
Posts: 1835



Email
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2009, 02:25:06 AM »

Except for the beef jerky.  But yes, low magic-ed-ness is not something you can hang a hat on.  But, inherent (non magical) skills is.

People don't like surviving, they like telling a story or overcoming adversity.

So nail on the head.

Okay, good to know I'm starting in the right area.

So, it occurs to me that the payouts episodes are good, especially when you have a low player count (you can ask the players "What do you want to do" and figure out payouts etc), but less useful with a higher player count since it's a game-then-group scenario. As I recall (and I could be out of my mind - it's been a while since I listened to the payout eps), there wasn't a strong "things games can provide and how they can do it well" perspective. So, if a game says, "If you love low magic, you'll love me!" how do you figure out what the game actually gives you?

As far as I can tell, there's reams and reams of text on the 'net devoted to this to some extent or another, but I don't recall a BG opinion.

When I first pitched this podcast the list of things were were not going to do included product reviews.  It seemed like every podcast was doing them.  Here's what happened, I tried to find out some information about some games.

Without belaboring the issue, there is no good source.  Until we make one.

Logged

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009
Lakira
Ring-Tailed Lemur
**
Posts: 44



« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2009, 10:12:45 AM »

When I first pitched this podcast the list of things were were not going to do included product reviews.  It seemed like every podcast was doing them.  Here's what happened, I tried to find out some information about some games.

Without belaboring the issue, there is no good source.  Until we make one.



I'd argue that there's probably no good central resource, but I suppose it really depends on what you mean by "good source".

I wasn't necessarily thinking about product reviews, but I guess product reviews are the easiest way to illustrate what you might mean. I'm kinda wandering into theory-land and I get the impression the BGs want to pull back from too much theory. The breed standard metaphor might be a good place to start, though. Gamers tend to talk about certain kinds of games more often than not: rules-light, survival horror, kill-'em-and-take-their-stuff, etc. Sometimes it refers to a genre, sometimes it refers to mechanics. But when gamers talk about, say, rules-light, it means they're looking often for certain kinds of things, not just "not many rules." If it meant "not many rules", we'd all be playing D02. If a game says "rules-light", does it actually offer the underlying things gamers expect? Or is it "rules-light" because the number of rules happens to be small?

Hrm.... Going for "rules-light" as an example may not be the best one. Genre stuff, I think, is easier to pin down but when you wander into mechanics the wankery can get crazy.
Logged
Josh
Brilliant Gameologist
Grape ape
*
Posts: 1835



Email
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2009, 03:36:40 AM »

Here is what I mean by "good" source: a resource on RPG's that is flat out good and needs no analasys by the reader/viewer/listener. 

Most reviewers of RPGs are mostly wrong (there are exceptions).  But I don't want to waste my time on them, I would rather just try to fix the problem.

Sometimes it refers to a genre, sometimes it refers to mechanics. But when gamers talk about, say, rules-light, it means they're looking often for certain kinds of things, not just "not many rules." If it meant "not many rules", we'd all be playing D02. If a game says "rules-light", does it actually offer the underlying things gamers expect? Or is it "rules-light" because the number of rules happens to be small?

Rules lite is a good example. 

Less rules means less the game can do.  If it is a good game to start with. 

So do people mean "not a crap game?" 

Burning wheel has more rules than WoD but it does more and is easier to play.   

And so on.  Nothing can be rules lite because rules lite is nothing
Logged

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009
Lakira
Ring-Tailed Lemur
**
Posts: 44



« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2009, 12:31:43 PM »

Here is what I mean by "good" source: a resource on RPG's that is flat out good and needs no analasys by the reader/viewer/listener. 

I'm assuming an unspoken "good at/for what it advertises it's good at/for" in this. Am I correct in that assumption?

Most reviewers of RPGs are mostly wrong (there are exceptions).  But I don't want to waste my time on them, I would rather just try to fix the problem.

Are your exceptions individual reviews or individuals? Because if it's individuals, I'd love to know who you think reviews games properly.

Rules lite is a good example. 

Less rules means less the game can do.  If it is a good game to start with. 

So do people mean "not a crap game?" 

Burning wheel has more rules than WoD but it does more and is easier to play.   

And so on.  Nothing can be rules lite because rules lite is nothing.

While I don't want to get too hung up on the example of rules light, I recall a podcast where you said there's no point in going beyond the maximum amount of fun your group can have. So if the game does exactly as much as it needs to do to ensure maximum fun for your group even if it has few rules, then the fact that it does less shouldn't count against it. If it claims to do as much as a "rules heavy" game, then there's a problem in the advertising, certainly.

It's been my experience with rules light that what is meant is "more abstraction". Whether this is accomplished well or poorly depends on implementation.

Do the BGs intend to talk about game mechanics at all (not necessarily of specific games but more generally) or is the intention to ground everything in products?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!