|
Post by LabRat on Jan 31, 2019 14:50:36 GMT -6
I'm throwing this up here in case there is anything that needs to be mentioned about the game or my GM style. I'm not looking for any 'attaboys or anything, but if there is anything I can do that would make the game more enjoyable, then feel free to let me know. If I have something I want to discuss that would benefit from your input, then I can put it here as well.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Jan 31, 2019 15:47:06 GMT -6
Will probably be helpful to go ahead and do a map of some kind. Were it me, I'd probably take a satellite snap of the area and dull/brown out the colors, dirty it up, and use Fallout game icons to indicate stuff.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jan 31, 2019 16:15:15 GMT -6
Will probably be helpful to go ahead and do a map of some kind. Were it me, I'd probably take a satellite snap of the area and dull/brown out the colors, dirty it up, and use Fallout game icons to indicate stuff. Noted. I probably can't get that up before tomorrow, but I can give it a try. If not, then by the following Friday, for sure!
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 31, 2019 17:10:49 GMT -6
Make Daniel do it!
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jul 27, 2019 16:47:00 GMT -6
Thanks to everyone for playing! I've made some notes on things I want to improve on, but I wanted to see if you guys had any criticisms or things that you enjoyed during the campaign. Also, would you like me to continue on with this campaign in the future or put it to bed and try something else?
I'll be working on OP to have a record as to what happened. Thanks for putting up with a new GM for this campaign. I'm sure I'll improve more with experience, but I think the first run went pretty okay
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Jul 27, 2019 17:23:00 GMT -6
I would absolutely like to continue this campaign. I enjoyed the heck out of this game and would love to see what happens next.
|
|
|
Post by CommJunkee on Jul 28, 2019 9:39:23 GMT -6
Quite enjoyable! Lots of fun with playing a mad scientist type with a bent toward bad, but being guided toward doing right.
Cannot wait to see what interesting mad-science shenanigans he can get into with season 2.
|
|
|
Post by CommJunkee on Jul 28, 2019 13:40:51 GMT -6
Something I had considered, but as rather non-important in the grand scheme of things, the inclusion of additional randomness in the encounters ala Fallout.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Jul 28, 2019 21:10:07 GMT -6
Something I had considered, but as rather non-important in the grand scheme of things, the inclusion of additional randomness in the encounters ala Fallout. Not sure what you mean, can you provide an example of what you would like to see?
|
|
|
Post by CommJunkee on Jul 29, 2019 8:40:12 GMT -6
For example, traveling back and forth between locations in any of the Fallout games one has a chance of encountering random beasties, slavers, or otherwise. It seemed we got off easy traveling to an fro. Now, I was not aware of any random encounter generator that might have been used, just that it there seemed to be a lack of dangers between sites.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 18, 2019 15:02:44 GMT -6
This is a bit late, but, things have been busy.
Overall, the few sessions I have been in have been pretty good. Obviously, I get to see a bit more of behind the scenes - so, I will speak to that first: you get very busy from work, stress, etc and have to rely on a lot of improv. You hide it quite well and are still learning your style, but I think you'd feel better with a little more time and structure. Sometimes that can't happen, unfortunately, and maybe you'll find you prefer to be a 100% improv GM, who knows.
Unfortunately, a lot of the advice and feedback I can give is stuff you already know or are learning just from being more experienced. The entire chapter needs to be tightened up a bit to prevent GM burnout, as us PC's tend to be like dogs: always chasing the next shiny car we see. Side quests are all good and fun, but they can also easily get the party desperately off the track and extend what should have been a single session plotline into several sessions or more.
The sessions felt very Fallout, which is great, and I enjoy the action-y feel of Savage Worlds. We as players need to do a better job asking ourselves (as characters) why we are doing things, instead of just getting caught up in whatever is happening in the moment.
Not specific to your campaign, but a general comment is how non-physical stats are resolved. Specifically: my character is very charismatic or very smart - more smooth or more intelligent than I am. It is incredibly difficult to say or think about things you cannot actually do, especially using role-playing. If I am a strong person and I say "I punch that guy" I roll my strength and punch him, I am not asked to describe how I make my fist, the mechanics of using my upper body to create more force as I extend my elbow out at just the right time to do maximum damage. If I had no idea how to punch, it would be difficult to explain that properly, and I'd probably say all the wrong things. Yet we are expected to do just that when we try to convince someone to join us or outwit an opponent with our smarts.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Aug 18, 2019 15:46:41 GMT -6
Not specific to your campaign, but a general comment is how non-physical stats are resolved. Specifically: my character is very charismatic or very smart - more smooth or more intelligent than I am. It is incredibly difficult to say or think about things you cannot actually do, especially using role-playing. I have no idea what that feels like Seriously, though: there's a certain way we have come to expect things to work, regardless of the system, and we do it that way out of reflex. There should be a better way, but I haven't encountered it yet.
|
|
|
Post by CommJunkee on Aug 18, 2019 16:10:33 GMT -6
With regards to social situations: In general I think it works a bit if the player gives at least a general idea how they are going to social the situation. Then give a bonus on the likelihood of such attempt working. A big damn lie, may not grant a bonus, and likely just a straight roll.
I don't expect the players to be as charismatic as their characters, only to give me some idea how they are going to social their way around a given social encounter. I flirt, intimidate, baffle, or pretend. I am even likelier to give higher bonuses if there is some bit of RP on the players part.
Player: I want to lie about who I am and get access... GM: give me an acting roll
Player as PC: "GOOD SIR, do you not know who I am?! I am the regional inspector for all the facilities in New England. You will let me pass." GM: Ok, an acting roll +2 (or some such...)
Though while I say such, I do have a problem forgetting to apply, or more likely stating that a bonus is applied. If the PC misses said roll by a slim margin, I will likely still give the success, if only to encourage more active RP.
Intelligence test: For the most part, if the PCs are floundering, I like to give them an opportunity to roll, or if their skill is high enough in a general sense, just allow them to have such knowledge.
IE, A PC doctor is likely to know about various medical organizations. The general medical skill of a given region/country. Thus, why have them roll and fail, and watch the frustration ensue?
Now, that isn't to say, I would allow the best BS artist to run roughshod through my campaign, one example that comes to mind is a player's attempt to seduce an enemy while that same enemy was trying to kill everyone. Even with the best of rolls the GM didn't go for it (Rigil). Which to me is realistic.
I know I could do better giving intelligent and charismatic characters their time in the spotlight.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Aug 18, 2019 16:12:55 GMT -6
I don't expect the players to be as charismatic as their characters, only to give me some idea how they are going to social their way around a given social encounter. I think the point that we don't expect the player to give a description of how their character swings his sword when he attacks is a valid one. I'm not saying we should do away with the usual handling, though, I'm just in agreement that it might be worth investigating a better way.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Aug 18, 2019 20:11:49 GMT -6
I think I ask for more detail about a character making a charisma check is because that is where the roleplaying is coming from. We know what happens when you swing the sword. The mechanics are well known. With social situations there are a million outcomes based on how the PC wants to present the situation. I'm going still give you your roll and determine the outcome based on that roll but it really helps with the RP if there is PC/GM interaction, and it is hard to do that when the player says I'm doing a CHA roll to do the thing!
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Aug 19, 2019 12:54:12 GMT -6
This is very good advice and I need to apply it better when I GM.
I do tend to do this, though the problem with this and the above advice I will address below.
To a point, yes, but I'm sure to someone who knows how to fight with a sword, there is much more complexity than that. A swordsman would want to know are you using the point or blade, where are you targeting, are you going for a quick cut or serious damage, etc etc. Basically swordfighting is likely as complex as speech in a lot of ways, but it is perfectly acceptable to say "I use my sword on him" but not "I use my words on him".
Furthermore, a problem with the advice CJ gave above (which is a very good way to handle things that I need to incorporate better) is either approaching the problem completely wrong, or, at the very least not nearly as good as someone with charisma/intelligence as the character has. As an example, I shall use Jonathan's "infiltration" of the water plant in the final session of the Fallout: Oklahoma campaign. I completely fumbled my way from encounter to encounter, likely completely making a hash out of ways to approach the convincing of people. Now, I "succeeded", but mainly on the back of good rolls and GM kindness - the problem is I felt like an idiot being granted mercy instead of a charismatic wizard. Now, this issue is likely not anything the GM can do better (or none that I have thought of), but that is where the advice of prompting the user to how they wish to approach the situation fails: a player can keep choosing poor choice after poor choice due to their lack of charisma/intelligence, whereas their character would be much superior to those choices.
Edit Note: A lot of this is just me trying to work out in my head exactly what I hate about the non-physical attributes and encounters for a way to solve them through GMing or system design.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Aug 20, 2019 15:11:29 GMT -6
Something I don't think we (overall, not just here) tend to acknowledge: not every scene deserves the same treatment. Some interactions probably don't deserve more than a die-roll-and-get-on-with-it. You see this in cinema as well: guy walks into the biker bar to tell them what's what, then cut to guy fleeing the bar—clearly not a success. You lose nothing by not showing what happened.
Kinda like die-rolls in general. If it's not a dramatic moment, or the plot doesn't hinge on it, then it doesn't deserve the full treatment. Only do it when it matters.
|
|