Home › Forum › RPG Discussion contd...

RPG Discussion contd...

Gary Yam (40 years ago)

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

I'm all for scheduling but you do have a number of problems:

1. Getting two games going at the same time with smaller groups has become hard because a lot of the time we're either 6 or 7 in number total which leads to games of 1 GM and 3 players. At least D&D can accommodate a 6-8 player group.

2. Scheduling becomes a problem if you get no-shows and games get put back a week or two, so if someone says (like what happened with Dylan's Descent game) "I'm running this game in 3 weeks time would you like to be in it?" and the game your in doesn't finish on schedule then you miss out...unless the other groups show some flexibility.

3. I have realised that I own games that most of the current group don't want to play. The reason we keep coming back to D&D is that it's the only game we can all agree on to play. Now my thoughts on this issue are this: Most genres and rules systems are fine by me and I can count the number of RPG's I WON'T play on the fingers of one hand. They are Shadowrun, Nephilim and Blue Planet and then only because the settings are so dire. There is no rules system I won't play in because rules are there to facilitate and I don't obsess about them as a player. As a GM, I respect the intentions of the designers and use them as a way of regulating action so I don't deviate from them a lot. But I know certain rules systems are deal breakers with some players. I've had games of Traveller, Twilight 2000 and D&D fall apart because one or two players have bitched about the rules to the point that I couldn't run them without complaints.

4. Certain games have an "optimum" player number. I'd say D&D is ideal for a 6 person group. On average, 4 is the best number for most games. Once you work out the game you want to play, that will give you an idea of how many players you can take on.

5. What games to play also comes down to what type of players we have. If combat is your thing, then a game of Star Trek is going to be pretty frustrating. Other players chaffe at being in a campaign world that has them working for the authorities. I personally don't like playing in games where there is no moral core...amoral mercenary and sociopathic settings hold no interest for me.

I'm always happy to run something but it depends if I have something that people want to play and I haven't had a lot of positive responses. If I suggest one game I get two yeses and about 3 nos which nixes the idea.

If we had two more role players on Thursdays, we could easily split groups.

Gary Yam (6 months ago)

Don't know what's happened to the original post here.

Ok, how about this - the current available GMs panel together informally (it can be here on the forum) and put forward what games they want to run, and agree on player limits. The players simply choose which game they want to play in. This gets reproduced with a sign-up sheet taken to club nights for those players that don't use the internet for anything other than pornography. The games with the highest sign-ups get run first, anything else gets the next available slot if it had any interest.

Sure, players won't be able to play in all the games they want to - but its not like its the end of the world.

How about to start, we play it safe? The 1920s Cthulhu is always popular. The campaign already has built-in main characters. If you (Nick Highes) have a scenario suitable for play by 3 players, why not go with that? Any other DM can pick up the remaining players. I can do Delta Green with 2-4 players, D&D 4e with 3-5 and Paranoia with any number over 4 - or I'll go with any better suggestion with D&D always being at the top of my list to play in.

Richard Fisher (6 months ago)

Gary said:

Don't know what's happened to the original post here.

My bad, sorry.

Stefan (6 months ago)

I think my main problem at this exact moment is that I really really enjoy Daves D&D and dont ever want it to end...

That said, when it ends at some point or another, I still have a D&D 4e that I can run. I am not in any way desperate to run it, but am happy to, if there are players who do want to play in it...so yes, lets hold a short meeting before next big roleplaying session (not this Thursday, but next) with all likely DM/GM/Refs and what they can run, and then our great RPG organiser Gary can compile a list that people can sign up to?

I play alot for the system as well as the roleplaying. I like to explore rules (not bend or abuse them!) because of my OCD of analysing everything to bits. And one of the things that bug me most (in D&D) is the \"start at 1st level\" idea, as it only ever lets you experience 1/5th of the game and the potentials of higher levels is lost. Playing level 1 means you get to know every tiny little detail about Kobolds, orcs and goblins...and if you are lucky skeletons and zombies :) but that is a personal thing for me.

Dave Brown (6 months ago)

I certainly think that 'high-adventure-with-lots-of-combat' works well with 6 or so players, and 'sneaky-around-and-figure-out-the-clues' stuff works better with 3-4. Both types of game are great, with D+D most obviously in the first category and CoC in the second.

I dont mind too much what we do, but I favour games with continuity. Campaigns or linked adventures rather than one-offs. I really enjoyed Gary's 4e, as well as the Delta Green (Although out of these 2 I still have a natural preference for D+D :P)and there we played the same characters and got to know each other and got a feel for the background but I don't fancy playing Paranoia or some other game that we only do for a couple of sessions and then bin it for something else.

(note: If there are no long-term games going on then I can perfectly well go and play boardgames, so dont give up on the idea of running a short game just for me!)

My 3.5e is in an already well-established campaign world and has a timeline of events, background, cultural depth etc. so I can easily run that until everyone gets bored of it.

I guess my personal preference is to run games in blocks, (for 5-6 weeks we do one game, then have a break and carry of with X's campaign for 3-4 weeks) rather than doing alternate weeks. This suits me because I can come every week. The problem with this of course is that some players cant make every week.

Russell Bannister (6 months ago)

I have been reading with interest everyone's opinion here and I just want to give mine.
I personally don't like large groups, I think they lead to too much down time for the players. Only one person can be talking to the GM at once and it is difficult to carry on in-character dialogue across the GM speaking to another player. Even ignoring these problems I find that my roleplaying shuts down in big groups, especially with people I don't know very well. With six players I spend half the night reading my character sheet. I believe 1 GM + 3 players is the optimum group size, although I admit this might cause problems for games revolving around tactical combat (which I have little experience of outside the club). I have also seen games work well with 1 GM + 2 players, as these feel like a buddy movie with good interaction between the players.

My preference would be for shorter campaigns with a greater variety of game systems. While I have enjoyed all the club games, I started coming to the club broaden my gaming horizons as my home group tends to stick to the same few systems. As a compulsive book buyer I have a shelf of game systems that I have never played and would really like to. I guess that most people prefer D&D and CoC but my vote would be to do something else. I would also be interested to hear other people's opinions on this. Is D&D a compromise choice (as Nick suggests) or a game of choice?

I do think it is a good idea to plan the games in advance and have some sort of schedule so that people have a good idea what is on and one GM doesn't get burnt-out. Also I think it would be useful to know in advance the campaign premise. I'm not sure if it bothers anyone else but it has a big impact on my enjoyment of the game. For example I don't enjoy CoC normally but I had fun with the Delta Green game as the "low budget X-files" theme put a spin on it that worked for me.
Also I have trouble getting to club every week, and it was much easier for me to make it when we were on an 'every other week' schedule. I appreciate that this probably doesn't suit most people though.
Thanks to Gary for trying to organise things, which I'm sure is like herding cats.

Cheers

Russell

Graham Charlton (6 months ago)

I think what you should do is:

1. Divide the year up into slots of 6 weeks each. Don't forget to skip 2 weeks at Christmas.

2. Publish the list on the website here for reference.

3. If you want to run a game you decide which slot (or slots) you want to run in and publish it on the website along with a player range. (e.g. I'm running a Call of Cthulhu campaign in slots 3 and 6 of 2010, 3 to 4 players).

4. People can then use the website to sign up for the game. Or to say "hey, I don't want to play what's on the schedule for this week so someone else run something please".

A little bit of organisation and a focal point for it all should solve a lot of the problems.

Gary Yam (6 months ago)

See? Leave it up to the RPGers and you end up with a Treaty of Versailles. It takes one of the Guess Who? players to make a sensible suggestion.

Why don't we try this without putting actual dates to the slots (in case the games run over by a week or two). Then we can back it up with a few short games in case the games fall short, so the slots end at the same time to let players change games, and free up GMs.

Can we just start with a list of the games that we have willing referees for (who actually have ready scenarios). List below with the intended player limits; and also a list of games you would like to see/play in.

There can't be any harm in trying. If it doesn't work, we can just go back.

Gary:

Can referee:

4e D&D : 3-5 players
CoC Delta Green : 2-4 players
Paranoia : 4+ players

Would like to play:
4e D&D
Nemesis ORE
Conspiracy X
Cthulhu Gaslight/Cthulhu Rising/Invictus

Jon Burfoot (6 months ago)

Nick said:

2. Scheduling becomes a problem if you get no-shows and games get put back a week or two, so if someone says (like what happened with Dylan\'s Descent game) \"I\'m running this game in 3 weeks time would you like to be in it?\" and the game your in doesn\'t finish on schedule then you miss out...unless the other groups show some flexibility.

With Dylan\'s Descent campaign, we opted to run it outside of club for that one week, which was not a major issue. We all got to play something else on the Thursday, too!

:-)

(And why does Gary's original post says '40 years ago'? LOL)

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

Nick H.

Will GM:
1. Traveller (5 players)
2. Champions (5 players)
3. AD&D 1.5 ed (8 players...yeah, I know but I can handle it)
4. Dr. Who Time Lord (3 players)
5. Star Trek (FASA) (6 players)
6. Top Secret (4 players)
7. Western Hero (4 players)
8. Privateers and Gentlemen (5 players)
9. Recon (6 players)
10. Call of Cthulhu (1920s) (4 players)
11. Space: 1889 (4 players)
12. James Bond RPG (1 player for a 00 game, 4 for a rookie game)
13. Lords of Creation (4 players)
14. Pendragon (4 players)

Would like to play:
All of the above plus...
Bushido
Other D&D
Runequest
Other era Call of Cthulhu
Deadlands
Most other RPGs except...

Will NOT play:
Shadowrun
Blue Planet
Nephilim

Stefan (6 months ago)

Will GM
D&D 4e eberron (3-4 players +hotseat)
MI5 game, fighting terror. (4 players)
(the MI5 game is not in any particular system, the system it is in at the moment is a basic storyteller, as that was what preferred last time)

Wouldd like to play any campaign in:
D&D 3.5 and 4e
Deadlands
Shadowrun (best game in the world!)
Rogue Trader
anything but gurps really.

Dave Brown (6 months ago)

I can DM:

1) D+D 3.5e Greyhawk campaign
2) D20 system Sci-fi
3) Judge Dredd

Happy to play most things. Have never tried a superhero game and would fancy that sometime.

Jon Burfoot (6 months ago)

Will play:

Pretty much all those mentioned above (although I have heard that the d20 Deadlands sucks horribly).

As for running games, I've not DM'd in an age, and am really loathe to try it for now.

:-)

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

There's a D20 Deadlands? I thought the original game worked well. Ah, the curse of trying to impose a house system on a game has struck again!

Jon Burfoot (6 months ago)

Nick said:

There's a D20 Deadlands? I thought the original game worked well. Ah, the curse of trying to impose a house system on a game has struck again!

I totally agree, but the original system has been out of print for quite some time, now.

:-(

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

An out of print game has never stopped me before.

Jon Burfoot (6 months ago)

Me either, but getting hold of it is a pain in the proverbial!

:-(

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

I don't own a copy of Deadlands so I won't be running it. I do have Western Hero which is a straight Wild West game without the magic and monsters.

Stefan (6 months ago)

I only know one guy here in Denmark who have it, and I think it would be easier to start WW3 than to pry it from his hands (leatherbound, signed by the authors rulebook)

But I really like the initial system...would it be possible to use Savage World for it? I have only just heard about it this week, and already like what I hear about the system, and might try and procure it when I return from the continent. Sounds like a good simple catch all system.

Russell Bannister (6 months ago)

I haven't played the original Deadlands or the Savage Worlds version, but I have several of the other Savage Worlds settings and it is a great little system. It is a quick and simple system that works well and fades into the background during play. Plus the core rules (the Explorer edition) are only £6.

Although I am biased as it is top of my list of systems I'd like to play.

Ian Pearson (6 months ago)

When I have the time (i.e. my workload gets a LOT better) I might DM

Bushido (again)
Aftermath
Renagade Legion RPG
(underrated in my opinion - just enough carnage and intrigue to be dangerous without every firefight being completely lethal if the players get it wrong! Also it has the ability to do set battles VERY well.)

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

Like I said, if it's settings that people want then I can run Western Hero. If the system is more important and people don't like Hero, then let's see if we can find some other game with a western setting to play.

Russell Bannister (6 months ago)

Here are my game preferences in the same format as everyone else

Would like to play

Savage Worlds (any setting but especially Weird Wars or Triple Ace Games’s Daring Tales)
HeroQuest (second edition)
Primetime Adventures
Mythic Russia
EsoTerrorists
Castles & Crusades
Starblazer adventures
Burning Wheel
Dogs in the Vineyard
DnD 4e
3:16
Barbarians of Lemuria
Donjon
The Pool
Hellas
Spirit of the Century
Lashings of Ginger Beer
Mortal Coil
Top Secret
Privateers and Gentlemen
Space 1889
James Bond
(I haven’t read the last 4 but would like to play them based on Nick’s descriptions)
Nemesis
Conspiracy X
CoC Invictus
(I haven’t read the last 2 which are from from Gary’s list, but seem interesting from a quick internet review)

Will play
D&D other editions
Pendragon
Bushido (to find out what it is like)
CoC Cthulhu Rising / Delta Green
Seventh Sea
Rogue Trader
Star Wars
Mongoose Runequest (second edition)
Reign
Dirty World
Don’t Rest Your Head
The Shadows of Yesterday
I will play anything else that is rules light and doesn’t fit into the genres listed below

Would prefer not to play
Traveller
Other CoC settings
Warhammer fantasy roleplay
GURPs
Legend of the Five Rings
Paranoia
Burning Empires
All Flesh Must Be Eaten

Or any thing involving Superheroes, Anime, Zombies or Horror

I am not sure my GMing is up to the club standards but in the unlikely event there was a call for it I would run Savage Worlds (Daring Tales of Adventure/Chivalry/the Space Lanes/the Sprawl) or Castles and Crusades.

Russell Bannister (6 months ago)

And I'll play Stefan's MI5 game which I didn't see before or a Wild West game as long as it had a rules light system.

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

Western Hero is rules light; lighter than Deadlands because it doesn't have a magic system to deal with. I have two espionage RPGs, James Bond is very rules light and Top Secret....isn't, but it's been a while since I've run it so I don't know if it's heavy on the GM or heavy on the players.

I think there is interest in either a 1920s Call of Cthulhu or a superhero RPG, probably Champions. After recent attempts to get various games up and running at the club I'm going to run games along these lines.

1. Character generation. Tell me what kind of character you're looking to play and I'll generate it. This is what we've been doing for D&D anyway. After the Traveller game, I don't want people all designing their characters at once and in isolation leading to unbalanced groups.

2. The characters should compliment each other: Too many characters of the same type all doing the same thing will inevitably lead to the veterans of a particular game doing better at the others' expense and also leave the party short of vital skills. Again, we had that problem with Traveller and to a lesser extent, Champions.

3. To begin with, keep it simple. The last two attempts at running Champions at the club saw the experienced players scaring the inexperienced players not with the rules that were needed...but rules that could theoretically be needed in entirely different situations. Now imagine in a D&D game two players talking about monsters way above them in levels, who aren't even there, and how to defeat them with spells and abilities they don't even have yet. So for the novices, simple characters who do a few things and then with experience max out on the groovy stuff.

4. Background crib sheets. If I'm running a game, I'll send out 1 or 2 page documents that detail the game background and the important things you need to know about the game and its system.

Gary Yam (6 months ago)

Ok, lets try shortlisting the games and working toward some slots.

I'd run Cthulhu Invictus, but it seems to be OOP already. Seems to be a lot of interest in SW Deadlands, but no DM.

So as not to be too ambitious, lets work on the assumption that Dave's 3.5e game has some way to go - at least 4 weeks.

How about planning the next two sets of slots (2 x 6 weeks)?

NickH clearly wants to do a Champions, can this be done with 3-4 players? There's also CoC 1920s

If so, I can go with a small 4e D&D group (again 3-4 players) or a small CoC group in a new setting - maybe Dark Ages or Rising.

Then Stefan has 4e Eberron for 3-4 or MI5......

How about:

Slot 1a: Champions
Slot 1b: D&D 4e (Eberron or Wretched Earth)

Slot 2a: CoC 1920s
Slot 2b: CoC Rising or d20 SciFi

The first set will run as soon as the 3.5e is finished, Champions will run at the same time as the 4e game (DM/setting to be decided by popular vote)

Second set will run after the first set ends, again 1920s will go up against Cthulhu Rising or d20.

Any impro

Russell Bannister (6 months ago)

The Cthulhu Invictus book is available for sale from the Chaosium website as a pdf. I have no problem buying a copy if it is the difference between this game running or not.

I hope I am correct in understanding the meaning of OOP as Out of Print, I am not too good with Internet jargon.

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

Gary, that sounds like a good idea. I know Jon is always up for Champions (although with the Formule De season starting, that might come into question), and Nick C and Dave have expressed an interest. I have room for 1 more.

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

By the way, I haven't even heard of any of the games on Russell's list.

Jon Burfoot (6 months ago)

I've heard of most of the ones that Russell has mentioned (thanks to some extended visits to Leisure Games etc) and have even read through a few. I am yet to play any of the less well known ones (3:16 et al).

Seems like we have a plethora of games to chose from!

:-)

(I also suspect that the FD season maybe shorter, this year, to bring in more drivers. That's going to be up for discussion, soon.)

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

PS, it's not that I CLEARLY want to run Champions, but it is a game I know well and can easily and happily run. I'm happy to run any of my games.

Gary Yam (6 months ago)

So lets confirm Slot 1a as Champions.

Slot 1b will be 4e D&D? Shall we go with the Eberron, since that's been waiting a while? What's your time commitment like, Stefan? Are we ok to go with 3-4 players? If not, I'll do the 4e again.

Moving on to Slot 2 - NickH, are you ok to do two refereeing jobs in a row? If so, would you be doing another installment of the Blake Maddox thing?

I can take up the other slot with Cthulhu Invictus, which will get going one way or another.

Again, any other referees, please step up if you want to run stuff.

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

As long as the players are happy for me to run things, that sounds good. I might be away on a film in March and April but I'll give people plenty of advance warning as to my availability.

20s Cthulhu is fine as well; There are some good characters in the game already, I have plenty of adventures and always room for new players.

Stefan (6 months ago)

Yes, I am very much up for running the Eberron 4e, and should be able to make every week over the closer foreseeable future. And 3-4 players with the added hotseated character if anyone wishes to join in once in a while.

Gary Yam (6 months ago)

I'll play 4e Eberron.

Russell Bannister (6 months ago)

As is probably obvious from my earlier post, please put me down for Cthulhu Invictus if there is a space free.

Dave Brown (6 months ago)

Sounds like lots of promise there!
I do fancy havin a go at champions. I have 2 character ideas that are my characters from City of Heroes and Champions Online. (MMORG's that I have discontinued but still have an affection for the characters)
I also fancy a wild west game sometime. I have 2 skirmish rules systems - 'The rules with No Name' and 'a fistfull of dice', and lots of cowboy era figures that havent been used for a while.

Having said that, Im in for anything. I had a big sort through my figures/games collection at the weekend and had my enthusiasm for all sorts of stuff peaked!

Gary Yam (6 months ago)

Below is a sign-up sheet for the next two slots. I won't be at club on Thursday, but I'll email a "latest" copy to....Nick Hughes (if that's ok) for a hardcopy sign-up sheet for those that don't use the club website.

Slots starting approx mid-March, after current 3.5e scenario DM'd by Dave Brown.

Slot 1a: Champions
Referee : Nick Hughes
Players: Dave Brown, Jon, Nick Coult (?)

Slot 1b: D&D 4e Eberron
Referee : Stefan
Players : Gary, Alex

Slots starting mid-end April

Slot 2a: Call of Cthulhu 1920s
Referee : Nick Hughes
Players:

Slot 2b: Call of Cthulhu Invictus
Referee: Gary
Players: Russell

Nick Hughes (6 months ago)

Dave, if you tell me your character ideas I'll write them up into Champions characters.

Alex Dickinson (6 months ago)

Hi all!

I'm a long way off DMing anything at the moment - v., v. rusty. I'm happy to play whatever's going, but prefer Fantasy 1st, sci-fi 2nd, and am more comfortable with modern than historical settings. Least keen on superheroes, oriental and wild west. Favourite = D&D, but would be interested to try other fantasy systems (D&D's the only one I've tried). Have played a lot of Traveller, but a long, long time ago in a universe far, far away. I prefer playing in long-running campaigns where the characters have time to develop... this not unrelated to the long time it takes me to 'get into' a character (and then I identify with them too closely and get upset when they die!)

Summary: would definitely like to be included in Stefan's Eberron.

Nick: re. your query about Top Secret - from my experience it was only rules-heavy for the GM, not the players. I played it several times and never even read the rulebook; not sure if any of the other players did either. Though that might have just been due to us playing 1st ed and only having the one set of rulebooks.