|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 28, 2013 10:20:46 GMT -6
Everybody got bored with this campaign—including the GM—around the middle or so. I started that whole "write next week" thing because I knew I wasn't delivering the goods, and I was trying to figure out what was missing. Honestly, you can trace all the issues we experienced toward the end to this one fact.
So, I recognize the problem. What I don't quite recognize is the solution.
You know you were bored with the ATE campaign. Tell me why. What was missing? Not enough combat? Not enough social interactions? Not enough drama? Not enough hard choices? Not enough pull toward the next plot point? (It certainly wasn't too railroad-y.) Not enough plot points? Too many restrictions? You were looking for something here, and you weren't getting it.
I realize it's not something you can easily put into words (or maybe it is); it'll require some introspection. I've got my figurative hockey-pads on, so throw all the stones you like; I want—no need—you to. Everything you can think of. Whatever we can glean from this failure will not only help me, but anyone else who GMs.
I officially surrender my right to be offended by anything said in this thread (on-topic, anyway)
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Sept 28, 2013 14:58:19 GMT -6
Zombies weren't my first choice of bad guys, though I was warming up to the angels v demons thing once it was introduced.
Apart from that, let me give it some thought.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 28, 2013 15:18:45 GMT -6
Zombies weren't my first choice of bad guys I thought about that, but if you were to remove the Zekes, I can't imaging the overall campaign being more fun.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Sept 28, 2013 21:41:59 GMT -6
Okay I made a really long list. I put it as an attachment so that I don't hit you with a wall of text. Please note that this isn't supposed to convey a feeling of hostility. I tried to just objectively say what I thought. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 28, 2013 22:47:47 GMT -6
Okay I made a really long list. Too much pregame prep, too much info, got confusedI tried to collect all the important data in one place, specifically to avoid this issue. Were you not aware of it? Did you forget about it? I've gone to great lengths to make sure everyone has all the information they need to make good decisions, but that's clearly not gotten through. How could I have made that better? Too much effort telling what we wanted, not enough actually usedAny specifics? Not exactly sure what you're referring to—what did you expect me to use that I didn't? Also, I'm really surprised you consider it to be that much effort—background info and all that does take some thought, but it always seems like a no-brainer to me—but that's just me. [Edit]Reading through the threads, I came across the whole 3×3 mess; trying to sort all that out was definitely trying, on both sides. Lesson: Don't use the same term for a radically-different concept. Got bogged down, to the point of not wanting to try cool thingsThere was a lot of bogging down on both sides of the screen, and it contributed to my boredom with it as well. So many factors involved there, though, it's hard to lump them together for a solution. Ideas? What did you want to try, but didn't? Need to be less nice about dislikesTotally. If zombies were such a turnoff, I really needed to know that—I knew it wasn't everyone's first choice, but that was really all. Really, I just went with them out of convenience—could easily have been talked out of it. Related questions: - How do you tell when someone's got the wrong definition of something? Like "sandbox" or "player-driven?" Until it's too late, anyway
- I always end up with the impression that people aren't really giving that much time and effort, but you feel you're giving too much? Hard to reconcile the two, if so. I didn't ask for anything but a background, did I? (And didn't require that.) We've had games where the GM created all the characters before (minus Player tweaking), and those tended to work well—rather do that? There are so many ways to make that whole process easier that I can't imagine how we can't find one that works for all of us
- Too much effort /= fun—both sides of the screen—I guess we really need to publicly define, individually, what our boundaries really are in that regard, GM and Player
BTW—that whole list is probably 75% "communication"
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Sept 29, 2013 13:37:59 GMT -6
I tried to collect all the important data in one place, specifically to avoid this issue. Information got lost within the threads themselves. I mean for this campaign we had a pregame discussion thread, a discussion thread, a character thread, a zombie mechanic thread, rules regarding reluctant killer, rules regarding scrounging, rules involving relationships, your blog, and spreadsheets, and others that I can't remember off the top of my head. A lot of things we talked about were covered in more than one of these threads. Like if I wanted to find out about zombies, I would go to the zombie thread, but couldn't find what I was looking for. Then I would have to weed through all the other discussions trying to find what I needed, or I wouldn't be able to find what I needed because it might have been in a place that I wouldn't think to look. What we need is a single page that summarizes the results of game discussions and is constantly updated. That way we know where we stand. So lets say I wanted to know how fast zombies moved. I knew we talked about it, but I can't remember the consensus. I could go to that thread and go to the entry about Zombies and it would say that they are shambling with a speak of X. I think the main issue is that you wanted us more involved in making decisions typically fielded by Gms of the past, there was a lot more discussion about certain things so the results were probably forgotten due to things being long in the shuffle. What did you want to try, but didn't? I can't remember everything, most of them were things that maybe were more entertaining but weren't integral to the plot. One of them was when we were talking about jumping on that radio transmitter, that would electrocute us if we touched the ground and therefore it would become a zombie bug zapper. Another would be that when Nick expressed interest in studying the zombies, Ann would use her trapping skills and try to snare one alive so that Nick can have a live specimen to do whatever he wanted to with it. Ideas regarding boggyness I think that we just need to be more aware of how much time we spend on a certain thing. Rules regarding mechanics are good but I think a lot of things could be assumed or decided by the GM that wouldn't require to look up every single thing. And a lot of the time, looking up a rule would instigate more debate, so it would be half a hour before anything would be done. I am not saying we need to set a timer, but if it has been around five minutes without an answer, then the GM just needs to make a call so we can move on. Now take that with a grain of salt, if we are planning a really big plot point, I know that can take a while. But if we doing mundane things, then it doesn't need to take very long at all. And in some cases, time got away from us. Maybe if there is more than one chart, rule, table etc. we can delegate the looking of stuff up. Most of the time it was just the GM doing it, so we would have to wait. If more than one player helps, it might go more quickly. On the flip side, players need to be ready so that they can jump in with a half way hashed out plan. Or if they are going to attack someone, start figuring out your penalties, etc. How do you tell when someone's got the wrong definition of something? Like "sandbox" or "player-driven?" Until it's too late, anyway It is difficult but as I said, find something relatable that people can identify with. If you notice, I try to give an example of every point I make so that I can relate better to you. Going back to my previous example... saying you want a GTA sandbox vs. saying you want a Minecraft sandbox paints two very different pictures in my mind. You can only do so much, but it does help providing examples of what you would expect in gameplay. Now this doesn't have to be a running theme. We will understand what you mean by sandbox or player driven. Our problem was this was our first experience with it, and it could be left open to interpretation. I always end up with the impression that people aren't really giving that much time and effort, but you feel you're giving too much? Ideally you would want us to write next week for the GM, have personal goals for yourself, have a critics corner on you blog, do diary entries, as well as participate in group exercises and discussions in order to correct the disconnect. Personally, if I were to do all of these, I would be looking at a minimum of 4+ hours a week. Now you didn't demand that per se, but you would call us out on lack of participation, and sited this as a reason why this campaign failed. It was hard to put all that time and energy into a campaign that I didn't really connect with, especially since this was supposed to be minimum prep for the GM. I think the main reason why we are feeling overloaded is because of how you get your inspiration. You like to listen to other people's ideas so that you can create your own. That article you posted a few days ago helped drive that point home. I didn't understand that at the time. So to me it looked like that you created a world you wanted to create without listening to our input, wanted to put minimal time into it, and then wanted us to supply you with all the answers so that you could keep the campaign going. It started to create feelings of resentment. Now I understand why you were doing it, and so I could be more understanding. We come from two very different schools of inspiration, so it was difficult for me to understand your point of view until towards the end. I am not bringing this up to cause a debate or anything, but until my own enlightenment that was how I felt. The same feelings may have risen in other players BTW—that whole list is probably 75% "communication" Couldn't agree more. Another thing is the fact that we never have full participation from everyone. It is always the same four people talking and trying to figure out the best solutions. It is difficult to make a consensus when 1/3 of the thoughts and opinions are missing, so maybe certain things aren't getting addressed that should be. I think I also figure out our confusion with the survival/action angle. Here is a quote from when you pitch the idea initially : 'Modern post-apocalypse survival campaign' and here is a quote from the general campaign thread for the campaign concept: " A survival-themed post-apocalypse sandbox/hex-crawl, featuring zombies (for starters), with a mysterious cause." Now your next sentence does say that it would be more action than horror but I think since we saw the term survival theme twice, it was already engrained in our heads that it would be more survival than action. That may not be the case with everyone, but I could safely say that is where I see myself getting the wrong idea.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 29, 2013 15:48:42 GMT -6
Information got lost within the threads themselves. Can't imagine why you needed to go back over all that—honestly, most in the group just ignore all that anyway Something to consider, though; have to pay attention to what might need to be accessed later I can't remember everything, most of them were things that maybe were more entertaining but weren't integral to the plot. The radio tower was a kinda weird situation—the rule is you don't start making rolls unless you know what failure means, and I had no way of knowing. The "snare" would have been easy enough, though, I think. I think that we just need to be more aware of how much time we spend on a certain thing. That's an old nemesis—used to be any sort of "mission planning" would take up an entire night, so much that I try to avoid that sort of thing entirely. I brought an egg-timer for a while, but I never used it. It would be helpful to know how long we've been off-topic, but someone's got to start the clock… On the flip side, players need to be ready so that they can jump in with a half way hashed out plan. I try to wrap things so that lengthy planning can occur between sessions; there are other mechanics to speed up this sort of thing, too—planning points being one (separate discussion, if required) It is difficult but as I said, find something relatable that people can identify with. Communication/terminology issues. To quote the Middleman, "Specificity is the soul of all good communication." Ideally you would want us to write… If this stuff was taking 4+ hours, you're spending way too long on it—which is why I have such a hard time understanding why it's so much "work"; maybe we're not connecting on what constitutes and adequate response to a question? Even "write next week" shouldn't have taken five minutes. how you get your inspiration. That article communicated what I have been trying to say for years; can't figure out why I could never say it in a way that the rest of you could understand. That's why I pointed everyone to it. Another thing is the fact that we never have full participation from everyone. The current group is far better about that than we have been, historically. I was really impressed that, before the first hiccup, everyone was participating I think I also figure out our confusion with the survival/action angle. Terminology again. Have to figure out how to fix this issue. (Speaking of which, you have referred to your campaign as part-sandbox—probably should define that as you mean it.)
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 29, 2013 17:55:06 GMT -6
A couple of points of my own: - Everybody voted for 150pt characters. When it came time to make them, some of you were taking any Disad you could find to squeeze out a few more points—which is legal, and fine. However, raising the point-level to reduce the need for it would have been better, I think. That said, the decision for 150pts was likely a result of the oft-mentioned misunderstanding of "action vs survival." Less than optimal character=frustrated.
- Combat is 50% of the typical RPG, and I favor that side quite a lot (in case you hadn't noticed). I get a little antsy when there're no minis on the table. When you guys started getting "avoidy," I started getting worried about what to do (hence the initial "action" pleas), and later, bored after mostly-accepting the situation—your reasons were all logical and understandable. Kept trying to work it in, but there was never a good time, it seemed.
- The "Reluctant Killer" thing was perfectly appropriate, but I intended for it to be bought off fairly quickly—unfortunately, I didn't plan on it taking so long to get through the first 48 hours, or at least, doing a lot more fighting to justify its removal. Won't make that mistake again.
BTW: Apparently what you guys are calling "survival" I was referring to as "horror"—I said "more action than horror," and only meant "survival" to mean that the focus was on staying alive (as opposed to accomplishing some mission, wiping out the Evil™, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Sept 29, 2013 19:09:26 GMT -6
Disclaimer: Besides the OP, I have not read anything else as to not bias me toward or against anything. These are also in no particular order as my brain has random-access memory. - Communication is obviously a big problem. This isn't any one persons fault and it is just natural when you have different people reading the same thing. More specifically in this campaign:
- Originally this campaign was a "survival" but it was also called a "action". These two things really don't go together and at least 2/5 made characters more focused on non-lethality. Obviously I picked up on the survival over action while the GM meant to focus on action. This isn't anyone's "fault" just an example of miscommunication by the player and GM
- Zombies. 3/5 expressed great dislike for zombies in general, but we still went with them.
- Especially with your campaigns you tend to make a lot of threads about stuff pre-game. While getting input from players is great, sometimes things become very fragmented and it is hard to remember exactly what everything was settled on. A google doc or post that has the 'campaign bible' or whatever would likely be really useful
- There is inspiration, homages, and ripoffs. It always feels like you aren't inspired by anything in particular so instead you wholesale take some other TV series, movie, etc and just rip it off. During the round robin is was LoTR. ATE was Jericho and BSG. I know there is no original idea in the world left but beat by beat copying something else is just boring.
- IMHO, I'm always concerned a bit with your inspiration/motivation. Being excited and enthusiastic will make up for a questionable setting/mechanic/enemy. This is probably just my perception, but I'd feel a lot better, if you were excited to run something where you had a good handle on what you wanted. Terra Nova seemed to be a good example. You really seem like you'd really like to run it. So I am excited for that campaign. Passion and excitement is infectious.
- GURPS is crunchy. I love me some crunch. However sometimes it is best to just make an GM decision as opposed to looking up 10 obscure rules in 20 books which just nose dive the momentum of the campaign, this is especially true when it isn't a 'life or death' scenario and can just be GM fiat'ed in and go on.
- A number of technical issues occurred during this campaign. Especially in Google Earth. That's fine, it happens, but dicking with it for a long time and being (reasonably) upset is a momentum killer. If something is absolutely needed, test it before hand, if not and it breaks, ditch it for the night if it isn't immediately obvious what needs fixed.
- Personally, even in a player driven story I think the first few sessions is the GM introducing the players to the world and showing them some of the stuff going on. Think tutorial. Then the GM begins to slowly hand off stuff to the players until it is purely being player driven. ATE felt much more clunky with no smooth transition to a hand off. It was "alright your out of your cage, what do you do"
- Just as excitement and enthusiasm is contagious, so is frustration and irritation. If this is a sandbox and the players decided to open a brothel, fine, so be it. But in the beginning when we were scraping stuff together to survive and avoiding combat completely the GM said "I'm bored of this" which translates to me as "You're doing this wrong". In a sandbox this is not possible, so either it is a sandbox where the GM lets the players go wild or it is something else wherein the GM nudges the players down the path he wants. It can't be both. So when something we were doing that was proactive to me was called "wrong" there is frustration and makes me more passive to see where the GM wants us to go.
I think that is a good start for now... I'll read everyone else's replies and see just how similar/off I was and reply to any further questions you have or if I can think of other things
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Sept 29, 2013 20:40:07 GMT -6
A google doc or post that has the 'campaign bible' or whatever would likely be really useful Had a post already, but I think everyone forgot about it. Google may not be a bad idea, though. Or maybe a top-level link to the bible-stuff. It always feels like you aren't inspired by anything in particular so instead you wholesale take some other TV series, movie, etc and just rip it off. To be fair, you've been in one "real" campaign and one short one of mine—I don't always do that, or at least, not always so obvious. Point taken, though Being excited and enthusiastic will make up for a questionable setting/mechanic/enemy It's true that I wasn't as excited as I should have been about this one—not sure why, though; maybe just because I compromised a little too much (not with the players, so much, but with my own preferences—using zombies being an example) However sometimes it is best to just make an GM decision as opposed to looking up 10 obscure rules in 20 books which just nose dive the momentum of the campaign, this is especially true when it isn't a 'life or death' scenario and can just be GM fiat'ed in and go on. This is obvious, of course. Since it's been mentioned more'n once now, though, I wonder if you (all) can point to some specific instances where I should have, but didn't—I ask because I can think of several where I did.A number of technical issues occurred during this campaign. Especially in Google Earth Definitely got tunnel-vision there; totally my fault—I know better Personally, even in a player driven story I think the first few sessions is the GM introducing the players to the world and showing them some of the stuff going on. Think tutorial. Then the GM begins to slowly hand off stuff to the players until it is purely being player driven. Probly a good idea Just as excitement and enthusiasm is contagious, so is frustration and irritation. Definitely, and my fault for showing it—should have made corrections without showing my own frustration
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 1, 2013 20:43:45 GMT -6
Another point regarding the original "boredom" question: I think we (all) shot ourselves in the foot by insisting on the "slow" zombies—it was my original plan as well. "Fast" zombies are a far more dire threat, and would have changed the landscape considerably—and definitely would have justified staying well clear of them.
And a semi-related point: It occurred to me as I mused that we had a similar experience when I ran FGLE, the LotR bit: I had intended for everyone to buck the linear "literary" track and do something off-the-wall, but everyone just played along. In that instance, though, you had no way of knowing that was my intent, and I had no way to really communicate it—at least, not that I can think of—so I don't blame anyone. It's human nature, IMO, if there's a road pointed in the direction of travel, to walk on it. Had the same problem with the Crusade game: it was meant to be a sandbox, but everyone just followed the NPC leader—and why not? Not sure how you fight that tendency without just coming out and saying, "I want you to do something other than the obvious," which just feels weird.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Oct 2, 2013 11:00:08 GMT -6
Another point regarding the original "boredom" question: I think we (all) shot ourselves in the foot by insisting on the "slow" zombies— I think it would have helped maybe on the 'action' feel. I mean if something is hurtling towards you, you are much more inclined to shoot it. Slow zombies are more of a constant unending threat, so they are good psychologically, and they put the pressure on tempting people to take stuff and run, rather than stick around and fight it out. I think both could be done effectively, but I agree maybe fast zombies would have probably fit you campaign better. Ah well, hindsight being 20/20 and all that. And a semi-related point: Not sure how you fight that tendency without just coming out and saying, "I want you to do something other than the obvious," which just feels weird. To me this is about what you are willing to do to enhance your gaming experience. I personally don't have a problem with hinting that they don't have to follow the story line. I probably wouldn't just straight out say it, but I would try to find some way to do it creatively. I think it is worth it, because it lets your players know that they can be unorthodox, and that can be wildly entertaining. On the other hand, what do you really lose by hinting that they can go off the rails? To me, it isn't much, especially if it means that if you don't say anything, we spend the next 5-8 weeks hashing out a story that we already know. It is all about what you give up vs. what you gain. As a player, if a GM rips off a story line then that signals to me that they want to play that story. If they didn't want to, then they would have chosen to run something else. Now that may be wrong of me to assume, but I think that a lot of players thought the same thing, and so they were more willing to go down that path to humor the GM.
|
|
|
Post by thedefiantbudah on Oct 2, 2013 16:09:39 GMT -6
I think that a mix of slow and fast zombies would make things interesting...you can't run because they would potentially catch you, but you can't stand still and fight because the others will sneak up on you...In all honesty, I had the mindset that this was going to be more TWD than it was ...so it was a bit confusing because I was thinking that (OOC) we needed to kill all of these things...but (IC) I had to restrain and think about them as people and not wanting to "kill'em all and let God sort them out" ...
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Oct 3, 2013 8:04:09 GMT -6
The reason I voted for shamblers was they are the prototypical "Zombie". I was also in the mindset of "survival" not "action" or "horror", incorrectly as we've gone over.
Fast zombies seem to deviate pretty heavily from the purpose of a zombie to begin with, which is fine I guess, but I think when you have a monster with as much cache as a zombie, twisting it outside of its original purpose should be done with a lot of caution and a different monster may have been better suited to the right "feel" the campaign desired
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 3, 2013 8:19:07 GMT -6
The reason I voted for shamblers was they are the prototypical "Zombie". I was also in the mindset of "survival" not "action" or "horror", incorrectly as we've gone over. Fast zombies seem to deviate pretty heavily from the purpose of a zombie to begin with, which is fine I guess, but I think when you have a monster with as much cache as a zombie, twisting it outside of its original purpose should be done with a lot of caution and a different monster may have been better suited to the right "feel" the campaign desired I know why you guys chose shamblers. For the record, there are as many movies with fast-types as slow, but people do tend to associate zombies with slowness. But that's not really my point. My point is that one of them (the fast ones) is more of a "threat" than the other, and we chose the lesser threat, which contributed to the mehness of the game—all you ever needed to do was go around them. The takeaway here is to be sure, when we make choices like that, we're thinking ahead at the big picture.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Oct 3, 2013 10:50:27 GMT -6
I think it is more that we chose the threat more appropriate for the campaign we thought we were in.... so the takeaway to me is (again) communication. Had I of known the direction was to be action over survival I would have voted for the faster moving ones. So when voting I did think of the big picture, it was just not the big picture the GM intended
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 3, 2013 10:51:45 GMT -6
I think it is more that we chose the threat more appropriate for the campaign we thought we were in.... so the takeaway to me is (again) communication. Had I of known the direction was to be action over survival I would have voted for the faster moving ones. So when voting I did think of the big picture, it was just not the big picture the GM intended Fair enough
|
|