Author Topic: OOC discussion  (Read 104617 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Brainpiercing

  • Moderator
  • Hong Kong
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #840 on: February 16, 2011, 09:55:18 AM »
Uh... duh... :blush

Omen of Peace

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1053
  • Wise Madman
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #841 on: February 18, 2011, 12:25:13 PM »
I had a bit of a work crunch and then I was away on holiday... I'm back!
The Malazan Book of the Fallen, Steven Erikson

Brainpiercing

  • Moderator
  • Hong Kong
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #842 on: February 18, 2011, 01:19:27 PM »
Good to have you back!

Thistledown Thurbertaut

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
  • Unseelie Fae
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #843 on: February 19, 2011, 05:40:15 AM »
So...I love that this game is so long term...that even with ebbs and flows of posting, and losing several original members, the game goes on.

Unfortunately, I have been feeling rather unispired by own character for awhile now. I talked with BP and he said to stick with it awhile, but the feeling hasn't changed.  Conceptually I find it interesting and unique on paper, and BP worked with me to created a pretty tweaked custom character.  Roleplaying wise I've been a bit lost with it.  Part of it may be tthat we based it off DFA mechanics but I've been playing them for awhile and it may just be time for a change of pace for me.

All that said I'd like to find a way to contribute to and enjoy the game.

Would making up a new character be out of the question?  :blush

Brainpiercing

  • Moderator
  • Hong Kong
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #844 on: February 19, 2011, 07:45:45 AM »
Well... that can happen if you think too much about mechanics, and too little about the character you actually WANT to play.

Now what I would suggest is - if you can muster the enthusiasm - to try fleshing out this one a little more. I gave you lots of options for backstory, but you mostly just went with my - very loose - suggestions. But that obviously means that the character is just a bunch of numbers, when in fact it SHOULD be so much more. OR you think deeper into what the character is thinking, right now. Go a little beyond what he says and does.

So, I think I' going to steal an idea from another game I'm playing in: I'm going to give XP for backstory - and at any time you write any. That shouldn't be a motivation in itself, but it might just add a bit of detail to characters who are otherwise too mechanically oriented. I can't yet say, exactly, how much XP you can get for a chapter of history, but - in order to keep the numbers relevant - I would base the amount on your current level, in some way. For example, if it's a fully fleshed out chapter, you might get one even encounter's worth, or something like that.

OR, if it's the mechanics you are bored with... well, it's in the nature of this game, that I or even you yourself can mess with a character more than normal. Is there another system you might be happier with when using the MARC? He could have some sort of breakdown, in game, and gain new abilitites, while losing the old ones.

One of the reasons I'd like you to stick with this one is that it's very flavourful, very cool, and I doubt you could play it in any other game. Also, I probably don't have the time to hash out another one like it. Any new character would have to be much, much simpler in design. And I fear if we spend so much time again hashing out mechanics, you'll have the same problems again with a new character.

So basically there are these two ways: Make the CHARACTER more engaging, or change the MECHANICS to give you more interesting options. Personally, this should be a character driven game. I know I'm not entirely satisfied with the way things are going - partly because this is a sandbox, and in a PbP that puts a lot of weight on the players to actually bring their characters into the foreground. Also, the strange party matchup is making things difficult. I'm inclined to let this change, basically, I would suggest that in the future only those people stick together who actually share some goals. And then I can try to create more story elements that mesh closer with their personal motivations. Right now we are very concerned with what is basically backdrop: the strange occurances in the desert, but that was in truth only intended to create conflicts which then evolve into world-changing events. And I wanted the character to be driving those events, too. So: You need more information. This is the goal of the current chapter. I'm hoping by the end of it, you'll have some. Then we can split the party into more homogeneous units and you can think about what motivates YOU to become active in that area.

Which brings me to my final point: We've been rushing even after event (no, I've been rushing those), in order to basically keep the game engaging. But that won't keep working. What we need is, that you guys actually talk to one another. You need to have in character conversations, to find out what kind of people you are running around with. You need to get a feel of the other characters around you. Without doing that a game like this simply won't work.

Brainpiercing

  • Moderator
  • Hong Kong
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #845 on: February 19, 2011, 10:32:30 AM »
Addendum: In line with what I've said above, I think we might do a few things in parallel. In order to not delay progress of the action for too long, we can do IC conversation scenes at the same time. How I envision this: We simply make another thread which contains only conversations. People can call for a scene, and those present can interact. For example:

At the campfire:
In the evening after whatever other scene, for example, right now, the evening before this battle at the oasis, the group gathers around the campfire. Or some might make a point to not stay near it. And then you just get into the heads of your characters a bit, and make some conversation.

At the same time, the action can run on in the main game threads. That way, you can use all your cool mechanical abilities and still roleplay more.

The other thing I wanted to add:
Of course not only you should add more to the game, obviously the main responsibility falls on me. I should work with you to create better plot hooks and more enticing story elements, tailored to YOUR characters.

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #846 on: February 19, 2011, 03:36:32 PM »
I like it
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]

Sohala

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
  • Hammer Smash Good
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #847 on: February 19, 2011, 04:19:31 PM »
@TT

From what I have seen of your background, you could take almost any direction in writing it. Big thing working for you is that you have established that the land was fertile last you knew, before it was made barren (LONG time ago). Two option are open from there, last you knew there was no human empire of floating cities, which seems like the easiest and most open to you, or you can decide you want to have some knowledge of the cities, in which case you may have seen the rise of the empire, but most likely not the down fall. In this case you could have your 'end' be tied to them seeking some sort of magic from you, in alliance with those that assaulted the base/temple.

@BP

XP for fluff you say? What would you like better fleshed out?

As I stated Torgthen would have been reserved with discussion before sleep, so I will admit I was somewhat relieved and disappointed with the skip to the dawn. I would have had some things to add, but I am more looking forward to discussion after an answer has been received.
"You think I'm talking about breaking the rules?"
"No I'm just trying to figure out how far you want them bent."
[spoiler]
Characters
Ixen-Elemental Mage Test Game
Torgthen-The Darkening
Eldak-The Neverending Dungeon
Games
Dungeon Delver's Delight
Adventures in Eberron
Town of Terror
Working Progress
[3.5] Mana Mage

Thistledown Thurbertaut

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
  • Unseelie Fae
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #848 on: February 19, 2011, 05:04:05 PM »
Well yeah, I think the random nature of the party is definietly contributing.  The most successful games I've seen have been ones where at least some of the characters had preexisiting ties or reasons to work together.

But I think you are not hearing me.

At the time I thought of it, the idea of a robot out of time sounded fun.  Now that I've had a chance to play it, I'm drawing a blank.  It is affecting my posting, my interest, and to be quite honest I don't have time to play a character I am less than stoked about.

I -could- flesh out the backstory more, but I'm not feeling particularly driven to do so.  Part of it is that I am only familiar with the setting in passing. I read a couple Harper novels once and one of the Elminster ones, and the Dark Elf and Icewind Dale trilogies, but that was half my life ago.  That's not the biggest issue for me though. It's more the fish out of water idea, which sounded great in concept but which is unsatisfying to me in practice.  It's not necessarily something I see going away in the course of play either.

I -do- have another idea in mind, and one that I think grabs me quite a bit more.  It is far simpler, in that it would be single classed, though it is a homebrewed class.  It would be very easy to write up, but more importantly I feel like I would have a more enjoyable time slipping into it's skin and interacting with the others.

Brainpiercing

  • Moderator
  • Hong Kong
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #849 on: February 19, 2011, 05:32:51 PM »
Ok, Thistle, PM me with what you're thinking of, I'll take a look.

I do get the "fish out of the water" feeling. Well... I have to say I absolutely dig the MARC, no matter what you may feel. I probably won't NPC him, if you drop him, but still. I dug the entire thing so much I started writing out a Little Mecha/Powered Armour TC for D&D :). It'll be posted on these boards when it's reached at least a postable alpha stage.

So I'll just make a "Campfire" thread, anyway, which should currently take place after climbing out of the hole, but will probably shift focus as soon as the current scene is done.


Thistledown Thurbertaut

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
  • Unseelie Fae
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #850 on: February 19, 2011, 05:49:58 PM »
What's a TC?

Omen of Peace

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1053
  • Wise Madman
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #851 on: February 19, 2011, 08:58:15 PM »
More PC interaction is good, as always. But then it'll force me to upgrade this game from low-maintenance to high-maintenance... ouch. My fault though, I joined too many games. ;)

In my experience, sandbox games work much better face-to-face than in PbP: I've seen the games where the DM drives the story work better and last longer than the sandbox ones - sometimes at the cost of a little railroading, but you get used to it. Part of the reason is probably that the barriers to player communication make it really easy to waffle around (face-to-face you can switch easily between IC and OOC talk, and the talk is rapid-fire).
The Malazan Book of the Fallen, Steven Erikson

Thistledown Thurbertaut

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
  • Unseelie Fae
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #852 on: February 19, 2011, 09:36:22 PM »
Also given how...wierd...all of our characters are, just throwing us together and hoping we'll stick is not the best route.  What works MUCH better is if we have a solid, in game reason to both travel and trust each other and have similar goals.  Otherwise it just ends up feeling rather contrived which is also a dampener.

Brainpiercing

  • Moderator
  • Hong Kong
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #853 on: February 20, 2011, 08:20:30 AM »
Now I have the totally opposite experience: My first PbPs were freeform roleplaying. No rules, basically, and mostly, no GM. JUST sandboxing, all the time, and they ran VERY long, and very well. Also, in my experience table roleplaying can NEVER reach the depths of PbP, because I for one can never stop seeing the person sitting there, and a single joke will ruin the mood - and let's face it, most games run with tons of jokes in between.

Now don't feel too pressured by this new idea. You don't need to write a novel, just a few lines of IC conversation.

@Thistle: A TC is a total conversion, or mod. Whatever.

Omen of Peace

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1053
  • Wise Madman
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #854 on: February 20, 2011, 10:43:09 AM »
Freeform is a different beast entirely. I was talking about D&D PbP.

(So when is your aranea joining us in that other game??)
The Malazan Book of the Fallen, Steven Erikson

Brainpiercing

  • Moderator
  • Hong Kong
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #855 on: February 20, 2011, 11:42:40 AM »
Oh, believe me, I'm waiting for him to join. BUT... Paul has plans, so...

Thistledown Thurbertaut

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
  • Unseelie Fae
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #856 on: February 20, 2011, 11:48:37 AM »
PM to BP. RSVP ASAP. YMMV, TYVM, TTYS.  :twitch  (ok I'm going to sleep now...)

Thistledown Thurbertaut

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
  • Unseelie Fae
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #857 on: February 20, 2011, 08:12:06 PM »
BP did my PM go through?

Also just realized Snizor changed characters too... can we have an entry for Daelric? Actually might be good to start a fresh profile thread just for active characters and/or move the inactive ones to an archive thread.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 08:25:30 PM by Thistledown Thurbertaut »

Brainpiercing

  • Moderator
  • Hong Kong
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #858 on: February 20, 2011, 09:05:18 PM »
I believe Snizor's public sheet is sort of an oversight on his part. I'll leave that to him.

I'm not sure, you sent me one PM with the request/link. I haven't looked it over in detail. I had meant to reply a couple of times today, but then I got distracted.

Thistledown Thurbertaut

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 259
  • Unseelie Fae
    • Email
Re: OOC discussion
« Reply #859 on: February 20, 2011, 09:16:05 PM »
That's the one.

What do you say about cleaning house around here and gettng the current PCs sorted in a more easy to read manner.  We have so many dropped players, and looks like we are getting a few new ones.  Last I checked we are going to have...9? players on board?