|
Post by Rigil Kent on Apr 11, 2016 10:54:44 GMT -6
Thank you for the reply and honest feedback. It is greatly appreciated. Regarding the things you liked less: 1. Yeah, I was afraid of that ... after the fact. I think I started to suffer from target fixation here and it caused an issue again. Originally, when I first started thinking about this chapter, I expected both Mankiller & Brandon to active characters, which would have made for some very interesting play, what with Mankiller suborned as he was, and then later, right before I started "Death Curse," I really wanted to try and talk at least MikeE back for the final installment with him being aware of my plan, but that fell through with general life and me utterly forgetting to ask him for that final chapter if he could show. Knowing as I do that he was evidently up until 3 doing prep for Meat Meet, well, that would have neutralized the chances of him showing. But it is an issue and I should have found a way to dial that back. Noted for the future. Will definitely work on avoiding that sort of scenario at all costs. 2. With this installment, I'm totally going to throw the other Players under the bus. They just sat there like lumps and made you run things! But seriously, that is an issue I'm going to try and handle better the next time. I'm already leaning toward trying to run "Clean (or Blank) Slate" in such a way that most of the PCs never actually interact because they have their own plots just to see if I can. In the future, though, when I do these player-focused installments, I think what I'm going to do is pick a Primary focus and a Secondary focus which might help. 3. Hmm. How do we do this better in the future? As GM, I have no problem whatsoever with stopping and explaining something in better detail if someone says "Stop. I don't understand X. Does my character grok this? If so, can you explain to me what I'm missing?" I think, as players (and I'm guilty of this as well), we have a tendency to just go along with whatever is happening, regardless of whether we understand WTF is going on. Granted, I could have explained things better - FREX, Mankiller's presence was necessary due as his evil weapon could stabilize the Rift in ... some ... way and Nihancan wanted a stronger, tougher body to jump into once he was done with Solomon. Damn, I really didn't do a good job with explaining that. Mea culpa. So the question remains: how do we improve that? Thanks again for the feedback.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Apr 11, 2016 13:47:34 GMT -6
I haven't read any feedback as I want it to be as impartial as possible as well as give you constructive criticism that you deserve, but it may mean I may repeat someone else's criticism.
First off I want you to keep in mind this feedback is meant to hone your craft, not discourage it. By and large the campaign was great and I hold your GM'ing up as the goal for me to strive for when I run in terms of both consistency and quality.
The biggest problem of this arc was the last two sessions. The penultimate session was a bad day. No big deal. We all have them. The final session was kind of a bigger problem: it was completely out of the PC's hands. Unless I'm mistaken, it felt as though nothing the PC's did could really affect what was going to happen. The healing factor seemed to of meant no matter what we did in terms of shooting or stabbing the BBEG would do anything to him. It took Soloman's final words and Brandon's sacrifice to lock the BBEG away. Climatic? Sure, but at the cost of player agency.
Now, this next bit is all my perception, so it may be completely wrong. I think there is a narrative heavy element in this (and other) campaigns - which as its positive and negatives. The negatives are that things can be quite 'railroady'. I think the powerpoint presentation is kind of evidence of this, when the session starts you know pretty well all of the story beats of the night, so it is possible to make a powerpoint for the session. Now, this is probably a two-fold issue. One is that you're a very prolific writer (and quite a good one) and reader - so you're used to reading and writing controlled narratives. The other is that as a group we tend to be a bit passive and try desperately to look for the GM's "plot clue". These two things kind of feed into one another. We want to help the GM by following the plot and the GM has a solid plot for the players to find.
I think that is the biggest 'problem' I have with the campaign thus far. I'll be interested in what you think about this and if I'm completely off base with how I perceived things. Hopefully what I wrote made sense and was reasonably well thought out, because I do enjoy being in your campaigns very much and would like to see them get even better.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Apr 11, 2016 14:05:46 GMT -6
No, you're mostly right, I think. As I stated to LabRat, I pled mea culpa to the final session being not as strong as it could have been. The PowerPoint thing is actually a really valid example and I think, in the future, I'm going to start trying to find a way to cycle away from using it quite as much as I do. I think it still has its uses, especially to set moods or show images, but I've started relying on it a little too much and that's lead to gaming narratives that are far too linear. Case-in-point: the final session which would have been far more dramatic or effective if A. an actual PC or a returned player/PC made that call or B. I found a way to empower you guys a bit more. Although to be fair, you did roll 2 crits at appropriate moments. But yeah, I do see and concede your point. One good thing: I have no idea what comes next in the campaign so there's that at least. Which leads to the important question: how do we get everyone more actively involved? The group being passive is a long-term problem, regardless of who the GM is, but it does lead to some fairly "all aboard the Narrative Express!" kinds of adventures. Thoughts or recommendations? ETA: Forgot this part - "Thank you for the reply and honest feedback. It is greatly appreciated."
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 11, 2016 14:34:50 GMT -6
Even a campaign that's on rails is no match for PCs that won't stay on them. In that way, I suppose, railroading is the players' fault (unless the GM actually enforces it). Railroading/linear-narratives have been a problem for me in the past, to the extent that I now tend to avoid having any clue at all.
Shifting focus, here's a microcosm of the GHD issue: space trader games, when there's ship-based action happening. It becomes all about the pilot, and everyone else is along for the ride—it's exactly the same problem. How to fix it? Make sure everyone else is actively trying to accomplish something else at the same time, even if it's not terribly important. The engineer needs to have a fire to put out; the gunner needs enemy to shoot at; the commander needs someone to organize; the medic needs an injured person to fix; etc. But it does tend to come down to the player to make that happen if the GM doesn't hand it to you. I think that's the beauty of the "Make Everyone Useful" section in the GURPS genre books (MH, Action, etc.).
In the GHD scenario, the non-Sophias had no immediate goals but to find out where this goes. (And I don't always have a problem with it—I didn't find the GHD situation necessarily awkward that way.)
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Apr 11, 2016 14:38:58 GMT -6
Heh. Rigil Math:
Where Giger = player and "railroading is the players' fault" then "This was all Giger's fault. All of it."
Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 11, 2016 14:45:47 GMT -6
Giger's character not doing anything of substance was certainly Giger's fault—he failed to assert himself. I can admit when I suck. I can see how that might have sounded more accusatory than I meant it to
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Apr 11, 2016 14:51:02 GMT -6
Nah, I got what you meant. Besides, we're focusing on my failings at the moment as GM, not yours as a player. So stop trying to make it about you! This is my time to suck, dammit!
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Apr 11, 2016 15:02:22 GMT -6
Nah, I got what you meant. Besides, we're focusing on my failings at the moment as GM, not yours as a player. So stop trying to make it about you! This is my time to suck, dammit! Ladies, relax. You're both pretty
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 11, 2016 15:06:12 GMT -6
I'm trying to think of how I would have, as GM, made Lee more of a factor…
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Apr 11, 2016 15:18:01 GMT -6
Yeah, ideally, I'd like Volume VI to very player driven if at all possible. Which, given our respective schedules, is admittedly harder than it sounds.
"Help me help you." Or something.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 11, 2016 15:22:35 GMT -6
For the record, I would not forsake the PowerPoint stuff. It is very helpful to have those establishing-shots. And it's really hard to communicate the visuals of a situation without graphics—even with the sat-maps at the oil-field, we still had trouble getting on the same page regarding the layout/dimensions of the spell area.
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Apr 11, 2016 15:34:58 GMT -6
As far as recommendations as to how to fix a passive player problem. That is hard - I don't even know if it is something entirely solvable. There is probably a false dichotomy I am forcing in this, thinking things are either railroad w/ passive players or open w/ active players. Obviously this isn't the case, but I think I was thinking too binarily before. I try to be active if I can think of something to do that is useful - some days I can't think of anything and get quiet. I also worry about sharing the spotlight (something you've done very well as a GM, specifically mentioning that you wanted McN to be more spotlighted than he currently was) as a player, making sure I'm not hogging the GM's time or the focus of the story, be it just in the moment or the entire arc.
I guess it may be a bit more of hiding the tracks, and/or widening them in some way. Things like the powerpoint (while useful for getting across what you're seeing as a player, maps, etc) where plot point for plot point is laid out already, "cutscenes", and situations where the NPCs are the only people who can solve things are just signs to the players that the game is a lot less open than they think and it breaks immersion into the world.
Before we get too much onto this, I think it is important to remember I think you did d a great job and really loved how you are making sure each character has their own progression and stories and talk with us outside of the game. Not to mention your recaps are extremely helpful and I read each one the day of or the day before the game to get my mind back right where we were. So, while we're writing paragraphs about this, I think it is a small issue that, from my perspective, is the area that you could work on the most to be even better. I wish I could be as consistently good and smooth as you are when you're running, so be sure to keep it in perspective that this is like a 100 question test where you missed two or three answers on. Everything else is great, and there is some small areas of improvement that I have complete faith in your ability to do - and we as players need to help by being more active because a less linear GM can't do anything if his players sit there like baby birds waiting for momma bird to feed them.
As far as the space trader issue goes - man, if you want something I've puzzled about off and on for years is how to fix the space combat issue and I still haven't figured it out. It tends to be one or two character-centric scenes where options are entirely limited. "I shoot him" *rolls* "I hit/miss". "I pilot the ship" *rolls* "I did good/bad". It is a big issue in the scifi genre of roleplaying - and if I ever have some idea how to alleviate it I'll let you know
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 11, 2016 16:28:54 GMT -6
Well, the short, overly-ambiguous answer to both situations is to make sure everyone has something to contribute. A step in that direction would be to stop before introducing a new situation and ask yourself if everyone has something to contribute to this—my Traveller one-shot with the Sat group was certainly a success for me, but if I had done that, I would have recognized that I was sorta leaving one of the characters out. After that is harder, though, obviously, and moreso if the incident is not pre-planned—but I'm sure there are ways. I do have one possible change to the GHD, though: As it was, we started the GHD more-or-less en route to Sofia. It would have been reasonable, and maybe more interesting, to swap that around, and make Sofia come to everyone else, only they are all still "working"—Lee is kicking in doors with a SWAT team or something; Mat is working some breaking situation downtown, etc. Then, every time Sofia shows up and "intervenes" something changes, and the next time is a little different, or they encounter another incident instead. Fairview could have been an OSBI op from the start, for example, relating to the attacks. Then you could "weight" that front part a little more, and lighten the back-at-wizard-house pre-prep/transit stuff. Since the detail of those encounters isn't really relevant to the end-goal, they don't require as much management. The boss fight is another matter. For the record, though, I was actually kinda enjoying repeating myself
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Apr 11, 2016 16:38:47 GMT -6
I do have one possible change to the GHD, though: As it was, we started the GHD more-or-less en route to Sofia. It would have been reasonable, and maybe more interesting, to swap that around, and make Sofia come to everyone else, only they are all still "working"—Lee is kicking in doors with a SWAT team or something; Mat is working some breaking situation downtown, etc. Then, every time Sofia shows up and "intervenes" something changes, and the next time is a little different, or they encounter another incident instead. Fairview could have been an OSBI op from the start, for example, relating to the attacks. Then you could "weight" that front part a little more, and lighten the back-at-wizard-house pre-prep/transit stuff. Since the detail of those encounters isn't really relevant to the end-goal, they don't require as much management. Damn. I actually wish I'd thought of that. Would have been a bit more work on my end (figuring out the butterfly effect from her intervention) but yeah ... that would have been better...
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Apr 11, 2016 22:03:52 GMT -6
As far as recommendations as to how to fix a passive player problem. That is hard - I don't even know if it is something entirely solvable. As I was thinking about how this run could have been improved, I reflected on some of my own "performances" of late, in both groups, and I feel—to a degree—like I've "failed" to really assert my character(s) into the story. This isn't the GM's story, it's everyone's, and we're all responsible for its content. Our characters should be awesome (even in failure), and the story should be awesome for their presence in it. Of course, it's easy to say that when you aren't in the middle of it…
|
|
|
Post by WxMAN on Apr 12, 2016 10:10:14 GMT -6
I agree, it is definately a two way street. I know that I personally get "choice paralysis" when confronted by the prospect of "do absolutely anything you want, any way you want", which makes it easier for me as a player to use the GM's plot as a crutch and just go along with things. It takes encouragement of exploration of the setting by the GM and players who are active and willing to do so
This discussion. Has moved beyond critique of Rigid and into GMing as a whole, so I'm not sure if we need to move some of this or continue it elsewhere but the GM has a near impossible job if they are running "without rails", they have to have a setting fleshed out enough that players feel like it is real and living but not artificially restricted, while at the same time avoid obvious major improvisations where it feels as though the world only exists where the PCs are and stops just outside of their horizon. This is a really hard balance and no one can get it perfect all the time, but it is something I consider an ideal and what I'd like to strive for while running, eventually.
|
|
|
Post by LabRat on Oct 15, 2017 13:39:24 GMT -6
First off, I want to say that I am enjoying this campaign and I am curious to see what the climax is going to entail next week. There was something that I wanted to touch on and I guess you can say this at worst some constructive criticism, and isn't intended to come off a being negative. Before you left on Friday, you said something to McN that was essentially (and I'm paraphrasing here) that you apologized for him not doing as much with his character this week because he has so much screen time with his fights in previous weeks. I think that overall this could be the downside of having such a split party for so long during a campaign. You tend to chance having very lop sided sessions in terms of character play. I do like the idea of character going off a doing their own thing for a session or two, but I think that characters need to come together sooner than later so that they can have more time to play...well their characters. While playing mooks is fun and you can do some off the wall things with them, to me this campaign chapter is a bit lacking when compared to the other ones because I have spent more time playing a mook or another NPC than I have playing Sophia. I'm sure some of that is my fault because I've thrown you off with my absences and you've had to work around that, but I think in terms of this chapter the party has been split for too long. YMMV and other players may have a different opinion, but since you welcome feedback, I thought I would bring it up.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 15, 2017 16:24:55 GMT -6
Nah, that's a valid point. As I stated at prior to actually starting "Clean Slate," this was a bit of an experiment. In the future, I don't intend on trying to keep the PCs apart for this long.
|
|
|
Post by Rigil Kent on Oct 21, 2017 0:20:55 GMT -6
Well, that sucked. I thought 6.06 was a mess and a failure on my part. Mediocrity on parade. I got locked onto some things and tried to force them into place ... without actually attempting to use force. So many mistakes ... Woo's jump kick, FREX. He rolled 1d+5 cr for the kick ... but this was an "iron fist" - he should have rolled 5d. The OSBI guys didn't have an actual reason to sneak in, yet the plan required them to do so which is another fail on my part. And for some equally inane reason, I kept wanting to split the PCs up so they could each have an individual encounter (Sofia with Eduardo, Woo with Jade Court, etc.) ... despite that not making a lick of sense in this context. What should have been a tense, dangerous situation where the characters are in mortal danger turned into "Meh."
This is twice now that I've Worfed poor Eduardo. He's going to have to do something really nasty to get out of this villain decay.
Sorry about that. Will work on doing better and trying to (once again) ease back so the players can drive the narrative more. After what I thought to be five pretty decent sessions, this one felt like a flop to me which wouldn't be as much of an issue if it wasn't the climax of the adventure. Blech.
"Enhance your inner calm, Rigil. Put it behind you and concentrate on sucking less the next time..."
Just ... blech.
|
|
|
Post by Gigermann on Oct 21, 2017 10:05:50 GMT -6
I recognize and acknowledge (and sympathize) with the "mess," but at the same time, it was fun—maybe because we made it fun, but that's everyone's job, too.
|
|