|
Post by WxMAN on Apr 16, 2011 21:08:52 GMT -6
Thinking about the makeup of the group thus far, such as we have, and I'm a little worried about the (non) party mechanic that's developing—maybe unjustified, since we don't have all that much info ATM, but better to be safe. I am not entirely sure if I agree... I mean yes, a group does need to work together, but this is kind of a unique situation... we're not an adventuring party seeking loot or heroic fighters trying to defeat the big bad... we are ordinary joes who don't know each other who are just trying to survive when the shit hits the fan... so I am not sure if we have to be buddy buddy or agree all that often, the thing keeping us all together is the fact we were the only ones in the general area alive when the aliens began to attack and now we are just all fighting for our lives... Though with that in mind, besides us all trying to just stay alive for now - which is why we are willing to set aside our differences and work together, I don't think the character concepts would work together all that well - and if you really want us to become a 'great team' there needs to be some motivation tweaking
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 16, 2011 21:54:11 GMT -6
My thinking: A group of lone-wolfs is not a pack. An adventuring party should be a pack—even if they don't start off as one.
That's why I suggested the Dispensables group in the first place—they have a built-in reason to work together (I'm not pushing that, BTW). With the existing (such as it is) group, there's no clear reason for any of them to stay together—not that I've noticed, anyway. It could be that we just need the "rug that ties the room together" to make it all work.
Let's say the existing individuals are the only survivors of a plane crash in a war zone. The Hero™ says, "We must go that way!" Are the others going to follow? Maybe if the Hero™ is some kind of great leader-type, that could work.
I just think we should build the group first, then the individuals. We've had good success with that method in the recent past. This doesn't mean that the individuals need to know each other at the beginning, just that they end up a tightly-knit team by the end.
My 2¢ anyway
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Apr 17, 2011 15:19:36 GMT -6
You're the GM so you are going to get the final say I just think for now 'survival' is a good reason for everyone to stay in the group... and just b/c two people don't get along or agree, they can still work together and not be a 'lone wolf' Also, if people would rather use their dispendables for this, I'm cool with that... I guess the group needs to say one way or the other...
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 17, 2011 16:26:16 GMT -6
You're the GM so you are going to get the final say Don't let any GM convince you of that. That attitude is counter to a good RPG experience. Granted, it's the normal situation for most, but that doesn't make it right. When the game's on, maybe, but until then, the Players are just as much responsible for the shape of things. I just think for now 'survival' is a good reason for everyone to stay in the group... and just b/c two people don't get along or agree, they can still work together and not be a 'lone wolf' It's not really about agreement. It's about whether or not the characters think that staying together is in their best interests—or can be convinced so by a leader-type. I'm not sure we really have a strong enough leader-type in the group at this point. Rigil's character could be, I suppose, but I know he's been getting a little tired of being "in charge." Personally, I think the "Freeman"-type character (N8's) would do well in that situation—his knowledge can be enough to command others' attention—but he'd have to be geared a bit more toward leadership, enough that he can convince an aging biker, a criminal, a thief, a couple of soldiers, etc., to actually charge into the mother-ship. Of course, he doesn't necessarily need to be trained for it to work—Jack, on Lost was a leader, not because he wanted to be, nor because he knew how, but people just looked to him for whatever reason. Under "normal" circumstances, "the mission" is what ties everyone together. Not the case, here—there's not a defined objective (until the group determines it themselves). Somebody needs to tie the group together. Then, everyone in the group needs to fill their role, cover the bases, etc. Also, if people would rather use their dispendables for this, I'm cool with that... I guess the group needs to say one way or the other... Everybody started coming up with non-Dispensables characters quickly enough that I get the impression that's not where the group, in general, wants to go. In any case, I just want everyone to have the best experience possible. A group of lone-wolfs will not work out too well—seen it plenty of times before. Feels "forced." So, I'll keep stirring the pot until we end up with something better. Anybody got a better approach to the team-building, here? One of the concepts I've been tossing about for a while now, but haven't actually used yet, is that of using an existing cinematic/literary protagonist group as a more-specific model for the characters to pattern themselves after; for instance, using the Serenity crew, or the Lost (primary) survivor group, etc.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Apr 18, 2011 8:52:16 GMT -6
Don't let any GM convince you of that. That attitude is counter to a good RPG experience. True, I guess I meant that I was happy either way so it wouldn't affect my enjoyment of the game despite a minor quibble about the group dynamic preference - in which case I defer to what also makes everyone else and the GM happy... Rigil's character could be, I suppose, but I know he's been getting a little tired of being "in charge" Personally, I think the "Freeman"-type character (N8's) would do well in that situation; his knowledge can be enough to command others' attention, but he'd have to be geared a bit more toward leadership. Well I have no problem stepping up to the plate and playing a leader if no one else wants it - they just can't blame me when the tentacle-rape begins One of the concepts I've been tossing about for a while now, but haven't actually used yet, is that of using an existing cinematic/literary protagonist group as a more-specific model for the characters to pattern themselves after; for instance, using the Serenity crew, or the Lost (primary) survivor group, etc. I really like that idea, as it feels a bit more concrete then the abstract 'magnificent seven' outline, though that may be just because I haven't used it enough to feel it out... either way I am happy, and am excited to do some XCom-like action
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Apr 18, 2011 9:44:31 GMT -6
Sorry its taken me so long to respond but here's what I think:
To me the development of the team would kinda be like jury duty where you have a mix of people participating to reach a common goal. I don't really like the idea of taking the approach of "Wow you are ex-military, so am I. Good thing we remember our combat skills to fight these aliens" ::wink wink, nudge nudge:: I would rather take "the rug that ties the room together" approach than have it be a coincidence that we all have a characteristic that would tie us together to become a team.
Usually in these types of situations people are more likely to listen to a person and follow their leadership when they exhibit a characteristic that is looked upon as a rare commodity. I think that Nate's Character's intelligence could be that commodity and therefore could instill a sense of fellowship. I don't remember Nate's background story but he could have headed a astrophysics project or something where he could have experience in leadership and therefore managing people towards a resolution to a problem or project. Therefore he could use his intelligence to utilize the skills of other people in an attempt at survival.
This would work too. That way they already have that sense of where everyone fits and the common thread that runs between them has been well established. We can still achieve that by using the mag 7 archetypes but we still have some work to do.
Depending on which direction we take I would be totally for this. I could tone down the grit of my character and tweak her a bit. The only thing I suggest is that to prevent having 2 "clone" characters each one would probably have to take different skills that would contribute to our heists. For example one has skills to do security hacking while the other has skills more for swiping things. Think of the traditional two man looting team. One's always doing the stealing while the other one is always in the van.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Apr 18, 2011 10:26:20 GMT -6
Rigil's character could be, I suppose, but I know he's been getting a little tired of being "in charge." Not entirely true, really. I'm amused by it, and sometimes, it does get a little tiresome trying to herd the cats ( ) but I can still take the role as necessary. In fact, this particular character is definitely of the Heroic Mold ... but I don't see him as the guy who gives motivational speeches or tells people to "Follow Me!" but rather, he's the guy who volunteers for stupid, suicidal stuff, or rushes into the firefight to drag the wounded PC out of the line of fire, or jumps on the grenade to save the other characters. So ... hero? Yeah. Leader ... not so much. The thing that I suspect is being missed in this since, at the moment, its mostly been Gigermann, WxMAN and LabRat discussing is that Gigermann is definitely speaking from experience. We've had games that were utterly dysfunctional in the past because the characters sincerely had no reason to actually stay together, so when the opportunity came up for them to go separate ways, they did so because they had their own goals and objectives that didn't track with the group's goals and objectives. As a GM, that's a nightmare to handle and I dunno how MikeE managed as well as he did with that Deadlands game. Other "groups" have disintegrated because of this - one of magman's earliest D&D games was like that, with the characters legitimately not liking one another (which led directly to a TPK), and truthfully, the super hero group in zenwolf's M&M campaign has some of those tendencies as well. Now this doesn't mean the characters should necessarily start out knowing one another and operating as a lean, mean fighting machine, but rather, when they are built, the players should look at building them in such a way that they have the potential to work together. In the past, when we've built the characters with an eye toward them actually working together (regardless of whether they knew each other beforehand), we've had a lot of success. Think of it this way: Batman doesn't play well with a group. He's a loner. Now envision an entire group of Batmen. None of them tell the others what they're doing and they all go off to do their own thing. Now imagine trying to run that group. *shudder*
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 18, 2011 10:39:37 GMT -6
Let's all have a look at this article, and see what we think might be the best solution for the group—we'll assume [N8's] as the "lead" until we determine otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on Apr 18, 2011 12:51:04 GMT -6
geographical location seems adequate.
|
|
|
Post by zenwolf on Apr 18, 2011 13:10:24 GMT -6
Really it depends on the plot and what the heroes goal is. If its alien invasion survival and the goal is to evacuate to safety/live to fight another day then motivational neccesities are minimal. However if the goal is to storm the mothership(something you mentioned) we need more info to establish motivations. Either a character will need to be highly skilled or they need to be close to at least one person involved.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 18, 2011 13:52:56 GMT -6
geographical location seems adequate. Normally, yes, but in this case, without a specific mission (other than survival in general), the individuals can't be the sort that would rather go it on their own. Really it depends on the plot and what the heroes goal is. If its alien invasion survival and the goal is to evacuate to safety/live to fight another day then motivational neccesities are minimal. However if the goal is to storm the mothership(something you mentioned) we need more info to establish motivations. Either a character will need to be highly skilled or they need to be close to at least one person involved. I keep bringing up the mothership because Chris brought it up in the Trailer thread. What would you rather your ultimate goal (short-term or otherwise) be? Beeline to the nearest safe-zone, or kick the Alien Menace™ in their proverbial Jimmy?
|
|
|
Post by zenwolf on Apr 18, 2011 19:11:30 GMT -6
I think finding the goal is the key to making the characters work together. Until we figure that out the rest of it is moot. Most of the characters are loosely defined at the moment and a range of motivations can be attributed to them, so it seems fixable.
I like the idea of the fist goal being survival. It allows a disparate group of people to band together. Especially if most if not all of us are in unfamiliar surroundings. Also, If whoever is the "leader" is from the area it lends him/her immediate credibility.
After that our goals could be recon on the aliens, trying to find a way to beat them, cook up some nasty chemical weapon to use against them, and maybe even attacking the aliens or rescuing people who have been captured by the aliens.
Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 18, 2011 19:44:58 GMT -6
I like the idea of the fist goal being survival. It allows a disparate group of people to band together. Especially if most if not all of us are in unfamiliar surroundings. Also, If whoever is the "leader" is from the area it lends him/her immediate credibility. Let's consider Point-A-to-Point-B to be "survival," and deal with Point-C later. Probably something along the lines of "get to the nearest military facility." The military types in the group would strongly suggest that, at least, especially if they military is seen to be putting up a fight; I'm guessing that as we develop the individual characters, something more definite may emerge. Once the group arrives at wherever-they're-going, they should be a well-oiled machine (no doubt, greased with the blood of the Alien Menace™). I'm thinking that, since we're leaning toward the Science! Guy being the "leader," someone else should be from Chicago—that ties two of the characters together, as a "smart cookie" will easily realize that knowledge of the area is a good thing to have. So, who will take up that mantle? The military types will naturally stick together. The Science! Guy will want the military guys around for obvious reasons; if he seems to have his shit together, they'll probably go along with it. If we've got another as "navigator," then we've got the greater half of the group "connected." Everyone will want the Medic around, especially after someone takes a bullet—just a matter of convincing him to stick with the team. It's starting to form into something, here.
|
|
|
Post by zenwolf on Apr 18, 2011 20:03:29 GMT -6
Sounds good. Not to speak for her but Lab Rats character was geared at least partially towards urban survival so knowing the lay of the land in Chicago could be an easy enough role for her to fill. That is of course depending on if she wants to research chicago as you suggested.
As for me, I am ex military so I fit in somewhat with the military types. I am also batting around the idea that he is in town to reconnect with his estranged daughter. Perhaps the last I heard she was at "DestinationTM" Then either
a.) I meet up with her and she joins up with the cause because she has some capability we need
or
b.) she is killed by the alien menace and I swear Vengeance! since i have nothing else to live for.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Apr 18, 2011 20:21:46 GMT -6
Works for me. I think we may be on to something here. Who do we have left to "fit into place"?
|
|
|
Post by Mike E. on Apr 18, 2011 21:39:55 GMT -6
Could I be a Mexican drug dealer?
Every "movie" has to have one.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 19, 2011 7:58:48 GMT -6
Could I be a Mexican drug dealer? Every "movie" has to have one.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 19, 2011 8:35:57 GMT -6
Who do we have left to "fit into place"? Here's where we stand thus far, subject to change: N8 | Science! Guy with the Answers™, and a mad-on for aliens | Primary Hero | Rigil | "Brains" of Brains & Brawn Security Team, Inc. | Lancer | McN | "Brawn" of Brains & Brawn Security Team, Inc. | Big Guy | Josh | "The Outdoorsman-Guy," Security Team Groupie | Old Guy | ShLE | Scrappy chick, "The Navigator" | ? | SQ | Medic? | ? | ChrisIII | ? | ? | |
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Apr 19, 2011 8:41:04 GMT -6
Jeeeeezus.... If the characters continue as it is... my SCIENCE! guy is going to have to really dumb down things for you thugs to understand... I may need to pack some crayons, drawing paper and maybe some puppets to make what we need to do clear...
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 19, 2011 10:39:53 GMT -6
@character Creation:+1 to +3 CP for Background Story +1 CP per "designated" pregame poll/question fully participated in Phobia (Entomophobia) will not count toward Disad limit
|
|
|
Post by zenwolf on Apr 19, 2011 10:53:21 GMT -6
So Rigil has an ally filling in the old guy spot? Hmm. I guess I will have to think of something else then. And you forgot to put my name on the list there. @character Creation:Phobia (Entomophobia) will not count toward Disad limit Oh great! Ticks are to zenwolf as snakes are to Rigel.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 19, 2011 11:25:25 GMT -6
I was thinking of the character in terms of being ex-military (Vietnam was ~40 years ago, so it's been a while), and more the "Wilderness Survival Guy" (which could come up, later, at least). That said—if you have a better idea, go for it. And you forgot to put my name on the list there. You're imagining things
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Apr 19, 2011 12:00:54 GMT -6
Did I miss something there? Jeeeeezus.... If the characters continue as it is... my SCIENCE! guy is going to have to really dumb down things for you thugs to understand... I may need to pack some crayons, drawing paper and maybe some puppets to make what we need to do clear... Yeah ... and then, one of us may accidentally shoot you. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Apr 19, 2011 12:20:33 GMT -6
I've been looking at the rest of the mag 7 archetypes and the ones that are left aren't really a great fit for my character. I was wondering if I could be the "smart guy" but tweak it so instead of book smarts, its street smarts. Would that work?
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 19, 2011 12:40:49 GMT -6
I've been looking at the rest of the mag 7 archetypes and the ones that are left aren't really a great fit for my character. I was wondering if I could be the "smart guy" but tweak it so instead of book smarts, its street smarts. Would that work? That's just a guideline—the intent is to get a good group mechanic going, not to match that one exactly (different story if we were doing a TV/Movie game). Don't sweat it, if you're satisfied with the character concept as it is.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Apr 19, 2011 12:51:48 GMT -6
Yeah ... and then, one of us may accidentally shoot you. Just saying. Bring It!
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Apr 19, 2011 12:59:53 GMT -6
I'm totally cool with it, I just didn't know how badly we needed to have all of the bases covered, but if its just a guideline then I'm ready to roll. Up next, background story!
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Apr 19, 2011 13:13:38 GMT -6
Jeeeeezus! (needs exclamation, if using ellipses only use three). If the characters continue as (they are) (removed ellipses) my science (no need for all caps and extra punctuation) guy is going to have to really dumb down things for you thugs to understand (needs period) I may need to pack some crayons, drawing paper (needs comma) and maybe some puppets to make (sure) what we need to do (is) clear (needs punctuation)Hey smart guy, if you're going to insult us make sure you do it with adequate grammar and punctuation
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 26, 2011 8:01:24 GMT -6
I think I'm going to go ahead and make it official: Just because I think it'd be a fun addition to the party, +10CP to whomever will play the photo-journalist (Ref:Frank West—Dead Rising). This is aimed, primarily, at those whose characters are not currently well-defined (SQ & Chris—mostly SQ, who would fit the character well, and, I expect, has played Dead Rising)
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Apr 30, 2011 15:55:38 GMT -6
you...would be right
|
|