Latest revision as of 23:28, 6 February 2007

Ok everybody, its a new year and we have had a little turnover, losing Justin, and some erratic time off for the holidays. Its time we put some concrete things down as to what everyones opinion is for the future. Post it all here, I suggest we do it all anonymously. Lets just talk frankly about who likes what, where we want to go, and how we should get there.

Important Questions

Do we continue WHFRP after this arc?

I believe WHFRP is beginning to heat up. I dont know how unified our prupose is, but I think it needs at least a few more sessions before we decide to scrap it.

I think that WHFRP was in a rut for a while: basically from our departure from Athel Loren through our capture of the brothers, but I think last session was very good: "Intrigue" whatever that means, has always struck me as something difficult to run, but Matt pulled it off nicely last session. The bottom line is that I think that WHFRP is taking off nicely, and we should definitely continue with it.

--Edmiao 16:38, 16 January 2007 (MST) I'm not feeling the groove with WHFRP. seems like we finished a large arc in Athel Loren and since then we have been wandering aimlessly. I think that Ambrose was a major plot motivator in the game and we lack direction without him. Heck, we are settling down on a farm! Maybe I'm just bored with my character. I would vote to end the game after the current arc. Before the game ends, i would like to see the following characters run out of fate points and die for poetic reasons: vonTeumar, Robert, the Northman. Maybe they can all jonestown it.

--Matts 19:07, 16 January 2007 (MST)I am game for canning WHFRP, but I'm also game to continue it. I'll warn you guys that the end of the next arc is coming soon, and is a big cliffhanger, but I was going to change a bunch of things after that anyways. I'll do this: we'll finish up the next arc, hopefully next session, and the session after that we'll start the 'next' one, and if you guys don't dig it or think it's a good time to stop, we'll switch to something else.

--Dieter the Bold 21:04, 21 January 2007 (MST) I'm leaning towards keeping WHFRP, but I'm withholding final judgement until after the trial plays out. For me the trial seems like a possible campaign shaking event. If the group plays it well, we can come out really far ahead. If we 'eff it up, we've got more enemies than friends, and with many allies and a long reach. As a character more in a support role, I'm interested in having a secure main base. Granted there's a fuckload of politics in this wretched hive of scum & villainy, but so long as we stick together, keep our heads up and stay loyal to whichever horse we pick, then I think we can set up a nice life for ourselves. I also think Matt is figuring out the mistakes he's made in the campaign and things are going to smooth out alot more.

Gabe - Well my views on this are kinda Jaded. While I really enjoy playing WHF, the plot went bye bye a long time ago as far as Robert is concerned. Actually it seems besides the wizards, most players don't have as much drive. Its kinda like the wizards are like... Hey you guys, go kill that, its bad. Okie! Which I don't mind, but still I feel even our main purpose is gone. I wouldn't mind scraping it after the big Skaven/Court Room showdown. However, I also wouldn't mind maybe starting a new game in the same world.

Do we continue PA after this arc?

PA has become very convoluted, everyone is separated and arcs are having trouble resolving because of attendance issues. This is not fatal as long as everyone is committed to it.

I agree that PA is scattered, and although this wasn't accidental or without purpose, it has put the game in a rather rocky spot. If we can one of the two games in the near future, my vote right now goes to canning PA.

--Edmiao 16:38, 16 January 2007 (MST) I have always liked PA and continue to enjoy it. This new split has proved interesting with the added alt characters to spice up the game. there was the problem that Sarah was integral to the plot at a time when Gabe turned into a pussy (or was more interested in pussy). I think there is a potential for the implementation of the flexible group system that Jason has mentioned before, where each person has multiple characters and uses one at a time in each story arc.

--Matts 19:14, 16 January 2007 (MST)I've had some trouble with PA, mostly because of my character; he sits around and broods a lot of the time. See my comments below.

--Dieter the Bold 21:12, 21 January 2007 (MST) PA's come a long way and while it has gotten overly convoluted of late, I think that's just an artifact due to the entire group fragmenting into separate pairs and specific characters being absent who are crucial to plot advancement. I think this campaign still has real legs on it and can go and go. Plus Jason is getting some ideas for a new arc and I'd like to see how that runs.

Gabe - B'ah, no tag for me! I'm actually really enjoying my character, and that meaning Sarah. I don't really care about these mutants. If possible I'd actually really like to continue it. I think it'd be nice if we could have something to really bring all the characters together in a purpose. Regardless I'm liking it a lot and think there is a lot of potential. Jason and Ben put a lot of time into the world. I think one centered in one of the larger cities could be a lot of fun.

Players

Do we find someone to replace Justin, or is our current level ok?
I think we have enough players.

I agree that we have enough players: besides, justin comes back occasionally. I would add that if Brandon (who has one-shotted with us a few times) requested to join, I would be for welcoming him in: he's an excellent role player and a really nice guy.

In a few months when Matt#2 moves up here I am going to start gaming with him, whether he joins this group or I start a second group with him I dont know.

--Edmiao 16:38, 16 January 2007 (MST) I agree that we are fine and don't need to actively recruit, but there is room for one more.

--Dieter the Bold 21:22, 21 January 2007 (MST) I love having the interaction of more players, but I wouldn't want to add more unless we can be sure that all the GMs can handle it. I think some of the issues we've been having in PA have been due to the lack of secondary GMs.

What do we want? or Waxing philosophical about gaming

What do all of you want to see from a game? This can be as specific or as general as you wish. Also see the previous Questionairre

--Matts 19:32, 16 January 2007 (MST)I want to play in a game where everyone's interested in the setting and their characters, because I don't think it's happened much in the past. There's always someone (or a few people) who wind up not being as intricately bound up in the plot or world or story as others, and it makes it difficult to play. In Space Opera, for instance, Antares Darkeye was sort of a quintessential space pirate, so any kind of space piracy fits him like a lotioned glove. In WHFRP, Gabe's characters have had a hard time gaining traction, while Ben's has fit right in. It's a difficult balance; not only do you need to feel comfortable enough with the setting (something that's tough in WHFRP, and that I regrettably made tougher by throwing out established lore) so that you can make an appropriate character, but the settting needs to mean something to you personally so that you'll actually be able to play your character.

I think I make this hard for myself sometimes, since I deliberately choose character concepts that I'm not sure I can play well. Antares was a success, but Wik, so far, hasn't been so much of one, at least to me.

We've been trying to capture not-easily-roleplayed themes in our games as well: Robert went insane, and I didn't do a good job of establishing drama for that. We could have asked, "what does this matter to robert or the group?" and turned it into a story-arc of its own, but I was too concerned with advancing my plot, giving you guys a scare, and honestly, "making an example" (something I never should have done) of Gabe's character for breaking the rules.

Something I lose sight of as a GM is that the game is fundamentally about the players, and that no matter where the players take the game, there's worthwhile gaming to be mined from it. If they 'break' the game (see "submarine plane" and "sub-zeppelins" and "nazi hunting"), then it's up to the GM to decide if he wants to continue or not, but I think it'd be better if we were less afraid of breaking games, even if it meant consistently pushing them to the limit. The players need to get comfortable and to a place where the game means something to them.

Fundamentally, gaming is the most fun when everyone is interacting and interested - it means more roleplaying, more high-drama moments, and more cool moments. Anything we can do to get people involved is a plus in my book.

--Dieter the Bold 21:53, 21 January 2007 (MST) I'd like to see a little more collective character design. I think a lot of the issues that come up within groups is a lack of connection between the characters. I think we all do pretty good on niche protection, i.e., having each of our characters with a unique specialty, but I think we really fall down in focusing our characters as a group. That doesn't mean we can't have intrigue and diabolical double-crossing among each other, but I think we need at least 2/3 of short/medium and long-term goals in common or something.

--Matts 18:20, 5 February 2007 (MST)I talked with Jason extensively about this, and I think something our games lack is tension or challenge. The evidence for this is pretty apparent; the players have only really lost a few times (recently in PA and arguably the Trial in WHFRP). Something I'd like to do for future games I run is a) establish a stable of antagonists who offer challenge to the PCs in myriad and tricky ways and b) make sure that the players are moving involved in tricky situations most of the time.

The key is to think, 'what's fun about roleplaying?' and keep the game moving there. Frustration and failure are a key part of the fun; without the threat of failure and the tension associated with it, and without a few defeats to motivate the players, it becomes a paint-by-numbers exercise.

As a GM, in the future I want to keep things moving, keep the events happening relevant to both the players and the game as a whole, and make sure that, without treating the players unfairly, they're challenged and able to draw on their failures for a richer experience.

--Gdaze - While challange is nice, I don't know if I like the idea of almost ALWAYS being in tricky situations, or ones where we can't trust anyone. In Warhammer we have actually gotten our ass kicked a lot. And we couldn't trust anyone. It got so bad though, that we just ended up trusting almost anyone cause... at least I saw it this way, we would have gone insane. In reality in warhammer, everyone who we got alone we should have just killed. One less person to tell the witch hunter where we went. Course he could have just followed the trail of bodies... anyway! Frustration and failure are only so much fun I feel. I would say a bigger problem then challange, is motivation. Or rather what is mroe important. Yes there should be failure, and yes it should be a treat, but I don't feel that it is more important then motivation.

--Matts 01:21, 6 February 2007 (MST)What I was saying is that failure (not constant, or even frequent failure, but concrete failure nonetheless) provides motivation. As a GM you've got several options; one is to say, "hey, go get this thing, it's over here," which provides for a certain amount of grudging acceptance from the players. Another is to say, "hey, this guy just took this thing from you and went over here," which I believe gets people more involved. Finally, you can say "hey, your best friend from the second grade stabbed you in the back, took your girl, and is now selling your shit out of the basement of the house he evicted you from." Not saying that to laugh at the players, but more of a 'go git im!' kind of a thing. If the players succeed in such a personal battle, the payoff is better than if it was just random bandits.

--67.183.58.127 11:59, 6 February 2007 (MST)I cant see what Gabe was talking about. I cant remember a single time we were even close to losing a combat. The one time we probably should have had a major threat we got super lucky with our first two hits. We took damage now and again, but getting our ass kicked? No way.

--Gdaze Well granted my views on how hard Warhammer was... is pretty Jaded as Robert was crited... many... many times. I actually fealt that in PA we were pretty tough, although those dogs messed us up... I agree that challanges and stuff are nice though. And if things get too easy going players can lose interest. Hmm you know.. I guess we did kick ass in warhammer a lot... I just didn't notice cause I was busying getting crit'd!

Games on Deck

A listing of future games ideas

Jin Dynasty (Ed)
Exemplars (Jason)
Space Opera: Redux scroll down to bottom of page (Jason)
space marines of the 41st millenium (Matt)
PA Faux Reboot
Bens ideas are here: User:BenofZongo