|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 1, 2013 21:21:38 GMT -6
Well we need to establish what these good folks know, what they have... assist as necessary... swap business cards and then go scrounging for food....
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Aug 2, 2013 11:39:18 GMT -6
and are looking for a rumored safe-haven. What rumored safe-haven? That'll be one of my first questions, I think. So, I guess our objectives should be: - Introduce ourselves - we're the Good Guys. Smile.
- Smooth over some ruffled feathers for bringing the jerks back.
- Start lending assistance immediately - having a trained nurse should definitely be a big plus in our favor.
- Determine exactly what level of supplies they have and why they're out - if their numbers are down 66%, they should have considerably more at their disposal.
- Offer any additional assistance we might be capable of providing - we've got a good mechanic, a carpenter, a survivor chick, a smart guy ... and my character. Plus, there's that Rush guy.
- Find out how they were planning on reaching the rumored safe-haven - do they have functioning vehicles? Can our mechanic get them running if not? Etc.
- In general, we need to be shining paragons of awesomesauce in the hopes others will follow our example...
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Aug 2, 2013 12:14:46 GMT -6
For Session 105- ChrisIII +1
- N8 +1
- Rigil +1
- ShLE +1
- SQ +1
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Aug 2, 2013 12:15:34 GMT -6
A good question to answer here is, "under what conditions would you stay with this community, and what conditions would prevent you from doing so?"
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Aug 2, 2013 12:40:27 GMT -6
Stay? Starbuck. Leave? I get to know these people and they're the same jerks we saw on the show.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 2, 2013 12:48:39 GMT -6
Stay? These are the same people on the show (less 6 and Baltar). They will survive and will make a hard decision when necessary.
Leave? A two-faced "paragon of awesomesauce" leads this group (see: Baltar)
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Aug 2, 2013 12:55:33 GMT -6
If he's two-faced, he can't be a paragon of awesomesauce.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 2, 2013 13:02:45 GMT -6
He'll tell you he is... and you'll believe him
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Aug 2, 2013 13:15:03 GMT -6
Looking at the wildly different responses between the two respondees thus far (and the differing preferences in faction), GM should probably plan/be prepared for a party split at some point.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 2, 2013 13:52:46 GMT -6
Obviously I will stick with the group for "reasons" and I think you'd reciprocate...
I was just also pointing out the BSG crew survived in a situation worse than this and did so by making hard choices - some of us don't think them "jerks" for being human
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Aug 2, 2013 13:55:29 GMT -6
Not getting into this argument again. I will endeavour to be more precise with my language in the future.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 2, 2013 14:02:34 GMT -6
Man of Steel.... was not inspiring.... PEACE! I'M OUT! I'M BATMAN!
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Aug 2, 2013 14:13:31 GMT -6
And The Dark Knight Rises was incoherent. Different strokes.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 2, 2013 14:14:50 GMT -6
... I was just quoting HISHE... I thought you would think it was funny.... now I am le sad
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Aug 2, 2013 14:24:34 GMT -6
Not your fault. My brain feels like it's firing on one of six cylinders today. I blame ... ninjas. And maybe pirates.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Aug 2, 2013 14:27:26 GMT -6
Side note, notice: [atrb=border,0,true] | <-----> | |
Back on-topic: Hard calls /= Jerk, but Jerks can more-easily make hard calls. It's been long enough now that I don't remember the whys and wherefores of who turned jerk. At any rate, I'm thinking of Season 1 only—the jerkiness didn't start setting in till later
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 2, 2013 14:31:36 GMT -6
It looks like Superman is going to kill Perciface! Run Percifice! Save yourself!
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Aug 2, 2013 16:24:05 GMT -6
I think a lot of the stay/go argument will depend on how receptive the group is to us
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Aug 3, 2013 12:59:27 GMT -6
About last night… The game's being cut short was the result of a number of factors: - Primarily, a sudden case of severe lethargy—no idea what caused that, so I can't promise it won't happen again
- The game has become something I didn't intend. I intended it to be an "action" game, and there's been hardly any action to speak of. Part of it is your "fault" (I use that term loosely) for playing up the pacifism and avoiding combat. Part of it is my fault for not making it happen—and I feel like a schmuck if I try to force it. Part of it is the fault of the system I'm using, which isn't turning out the way I wanted. Obviously, something needs to change—I'm starting to get really bored. OTOH, I don't want to get into a prep-heavy situation, as that will result in burnout in a hurry, especially these days
- I realized after-the-fact that I've made a huge mistake by introducing/allowing the Harveyville thing—if my experience has taught me anything, it's that this sort of situation puts players in a "passive mode," where you just ride along with the crowd and react to whatever I spoon-feed you, instead of being more proactive. BTW, this has nothing to do with the BSG thing—that's an old idea I've been wanting to do for a long time
- I never really established a carrot-v-stick to motivate the PCs, and the makeup of the PCs themselves didn't lend themselves to one on their own. Nobody's looking for their loved ones, trying to get home, etc—I keep pushing the "goals" thing, but it just hasn't materialized into a satisfactory motivator. Even a quest for the last Twinkie would be cause to force you to go into a zombie-infested building on the chance they might be there (you'll recall the Sheriff's offices that you guys just said to Hell with rather than attempt to get in)
This is not an indication that I'm planning to bail. I'm just rethinking things. You're welcome to chime in on ways to improve things (in fact, I've been trying to coax that out of you since before the game started )
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Aug 3, 2013 15:35:44 GMT -6
Dude. Bus full of sick people. Zombies. Then everybody's dead. ETA: That could be a good way to start next week, actually. Screams wake everyone up and suddenly, there's a zerg rush of zombies. How did they get here? Ah!
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 4, 2013 10:19:13 GMT -6
The game has become something I didn't intend. I intended it to be an "action" game, and there's been hardly any action to speak of. Part of it is your "fault" (I use that term loosely) for playing up the pacifism and avoiding combat. Part of it is my fault for not making it happen—and I feel like a schmuck if I try to force it. When we were making our characters you should have been more specific about what you as a GM wanted. I was reading this campaign as survival/horror, not action. A good portion of the people were taking very passive/survival-based traits and that should have been a clue we weren't on the same page. Part of it is the fault of the system I'm using, which isn't turning out the way I wanted. GURPS is a very deadly system. Combat should be avoided at all costs as someone is likely to die, especially when we are not given access to 'action-star' advantages, etc Obviously, something needs to change—I'm starting to get really bored. OTOH, I don't want to get into a prep-heavy situation, as that will result in burnout in a hurry, especially these days You wanted an open world, player driven story. That is what we've given you, now you don't like it. Maybe this informs you as to what games you should or should not run? I realized after-the-fact that I've made a huge mistake by introducing/allowing the Harveyville thing—if my experience has taught me anything, it's that this sort of situation puts players in a "passive mode," where you just ride along with the crowd and react to whatever I spoon-feed you, instead of being more proactive. BTW, this has nothing to do with the BSG thing—that's an old idea I've been wanting to do for a long time We've just met them. There is a pretty good chance we will split from them in the next session assuming things are made so our goals are a bit different. Introducing them is fine, just allowing us to be instantly part of their group when the GM doesn't want that is on the GM - give the players a reason not to. Nobody's looking for their loved ones, trying to get home, etc—I keep pushing the "goals" thing, but it just hasn't materialized into a satisfactory motivator. For our characters it has been only 24 hours of terror. We've been introduced into the zombie apocalypse, not slept, killed, and tried to get enough things for immediate survival. If we want to accomplish any 'goals' that takes place after we get a foothold on living for the next 24 hours. Even a quest for the last Twinkie would be cause to force you to go into a zombie-infested building on the chance they might be there (you'll recall the Sheriff's offices that you guys just said to Hell with rather than attempt to get in) That is a risk vs reward problem. We knew that a horde of zombies were inbound. We knew it would take time to get into that police station and likely resources to get back out (we'd likely have to fight our way out). What was in the police station? UNKNOWN. So you wanted us to take a huge risk for unknown reward. This isn't a movie script, no intelligent person would take that risk unless extraordinarily desperate. You could have changed the balance of the equation by saying "One of you peers through a window and sees a reasonable size cache of food". Now we know the potentially very useful reward. So the equation becomes high reward for high risk and we may actually take that bait. If you want an action game you chose the wrong system (or at least the wrong 'rules' as far as what is allowed), the wrong initial motivation, and have made survival too much of an issue where the characters are unwilling to expend resources unless there is a known advantage to be gained.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Aug 4, 2013 12:27:04 GMT -6
For the record: - I'm not blaming anyone or finger-pointing (except at myself); just stating the facts as I see them—nobody should be taking any sort of offense here (assuming there is any being taken)
- My intention was not to push the PCs in any direction, but to take that direction from the Players—and that direction is starting to bore me; could be the result of a misunderstanding or miscommunication, but that's not relevant to the solution
- Deadly as the system is or isn't, you should remember that no matter how I've tried, I have never successfully killed a PC in any of my games—plus, the Plot Points make up for any immediate threat, almost to a fault
When we were making our characters you should have been more specific about what you as a GM wanted. Note the following, that was stated at the earliest point, the decision to move ahead with the campaign [/li][li]This campaign will be "Action™-heavy," so don't make too much of a weenie character [/li][li]Backup characters are not required, but I do suggest you, at least, have some ideas, just in case—won't be pulling any punches[/quote]But then, nobody ever reads what I've written… That said, you can hardly find a zombie movie that doesn't feature "nobodys" as their characters, but they still fight. The purpose of the Reluctant Killer thing was to keep it real, not to prevent you from killing—I expect that to be bought off, likely soon. Again, the lack of "action" here isn't really anyone's "fault" (but mine) except as you've interpreted the situation—the police station wasn't important, and it was a bad gamble to try to get in, but what does that leave me with? At the radio office, every time I said there were a few zombies at the door you were trying to get in, I got those "Aw, come on!" looks—that's not the characters avoiding the action, that's the players.So I feel like I need to ask this question again, for the eleventybillionth time— what do you want?
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 4, 2013 12:56:08 GMT -6
nobody should be taking any sort of offense here (assuming there is any being taken) None here, just trying to give honest feedback the way I see it - to help you out My intention was not to push the PCs in any direction, but to take that direction from the Players—and that direction is starting to bore me; Here is the problem: you can't have it both ways. Either let the players have control or don't. You can't complain when you let the players have control but then say you don't like it. Deadly as the system is or isn't, you should remember that no matter how I've tried, I have never successfully killed a PC in any of my games—plus, the Plot Points make up for any immediate threat, almost to a fault True, but I still put forth that if you want more action you need to have survival be a less immediate threat. Unfortunately survival is problem #1. This campaign will be "Action™-heavy," so don't make too much of a weenie character [/li][li]Backup characters are not required, but I do suggest you, at least, have some ideas, just in case—won't be pulling any punches But then, nobody ever reads what I've written…[/quote] No. I read it I just don't have an endemic memory - sorry. I will gladly redo my character and make him a meathead, hoo-ra army macho man with more guns than brains. the police station wasn't important, and it was a bad gamble to try to get in, but what does that leave me with? If you don't "blame" us for making what you agree is a horrible risk then make the rewards higher with higher risks... Don't expect us to take big risks for unknown rewards So I feel like I need to ask this question again, for the eleventybillionth time— what do you want?And we've answered - you just don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Aug 4, 2013 13:04:47 GMT -6
I really can't do this shit anymore
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 4, 2013 13:21:23 GMT -6
AAAARRRRGGGGGG... This is why I ask what you want... because I don't care, I'll play whatever.... you are the critical path
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Aug 4, 2013 18:04:06 GMT -6
I really can't do this shit anymore Okay, so the question then goes to "What do YOU want to see?" I thought we were doing okay, barring oddities like Friday, what with all players actually participating (at least a little bit!) on the boards (which is honestly better than what we see on the Saturday game) and was expecting you to pull out a twist this coming Friday. WxMAN has a point: it's been barely 24 hours since we emerged into the Zombie Apocalypse so our characters are (whether they really realize it or not) still in shock. We've been threatened and chased and freaked ... so it seems only logical that they would be stumbling around without a clue. I will agree that we, as characters, really need to develop some sort of goals/intention, but this is the end of Day One. I guess I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for here. I thought that we had determined on Friday that we were, as a group, going to try and lead this ragged band toward that army base, with the PCs (naturally) acting as forward scouts of some sort. We (as a group) still don't have any actual, verifiable, actionable information - everything we've gotten from people is "I heard..." and "I think..." so I'm not sure how we proceed there. As to the Action v Horror, I will admit that I did read "This campaign will be "Action™-heavy," so don't make too much of a weenie character" but had forgotten about it and was thinking more along the lines of a horror game. Given our current location, it seems logical to simply have a zombie zerg rush on the town if you want to do that, though you should expect the characters to automatically seek to escape - none of the characters as they are currently constructed (except maybe budah's guy due to that Quirk-level Bloodlust toward zombies) are likely to want to stand and fight. Which means they really need to be backed into a corner. Off the top of my head, I can think of several opportunities there in Harveyville: - The thugs led by Jack-El decide to steal some vehicles and abandon everyone. This leads to a fight because they just start opening fire, which then draws zombies.
- There's a bus full of sick people. Some of them croak, turn into a zombies, and suddenly, there's an infestation right there in the middle of town.
- Maybe the townies are lying liars with black and terrible secrets that a Curious PC might stumble on. No food? Well guess how they avoided starving. And this leads to a fight.
Etc. I think we all need to revise and evaluate expectations. It appears that the GM was anticipating a more action'y game and that somehow was missed by the players who were clearly thinking more along the lines of survival horror. So the question that comes to mind for me is "how do we make this less boring and more fun for you, the GM?" What do we need to do?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Aug 5, 2013 8:29:35 GMT -6
It's pointless for me to try to explain anything, since that's continually the issue I keep running into—nobody understands what I'm saying, either because they aren't listening or/and they just don't speak my version of English. It's not just you. It's not just gaming. I just don't know what to do.
Remember the 3×3 fiasco? I explained that at least three times, and still got "wrong" responses. You're probably still asking yourself what was wrong.
I think the best example is the Saturday group, when I decided to run the Terra Nova game. I said it was going to be a covert military/gov't operation to infiltrate the colony and root out a terrorist. What does someone suggest for a character? A friggin character from Gilligan's Island. He was serious. Complete disconnect. Not to mention, over there, we've been playing the Traveller game for 15 weeks (counting breaks) and we still don't have a fucking name for the ship, because nobody will make a fucking decision or acknowledge that one has been made (but me).
I'm not frustrated because you're avoiding combat. I'm frustrated because I don't understand what's going on, so I can't adapt to it.
Here's what we're going to do now: I want you to write the next session. Each of you. Don't try to guess what I want. Don't try to make me happy (fat chance). Tell me what you want to happen, like you're writing my GM notes for me.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Aug 5, 2013 9:39:37 GMT -6
I will try and get this written today.
To make the TN worse, the person in question's next character concept was a paraplegic. And again, he was serious. But then, he's the guy who wanted to play a priest with a vow of silence who was teaching people to read in Giger's Crusade game (still haven't figured that one out) and ended up with a blacksmith who was both a pacifist and a berserker.
I did acknowledge the ship name post and replied, BTW, so it isn't entirely accurate to say no one...
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Aug 5, 2013 9:50:57 GMT -6
To make the TN worse, the person in question's next character concept was a paraplegic I was really excited about that game—hard to explain—and he just took the wind right out my sails. I still want to do that one, but definitely not with him. Of course, he's a "problem child" anyway—maybe the worst I've had to deal with (which means I've likely had it easy over the years; I know there are much, much worse).
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Aug 5, 2013 10:36:59 GMT -6
I'll try to get this out today but it may take me a bit to figure out a plot. Zombies aren't my strong suit so I need to do some background research first.
|
|