The Gaming Den

Obviously the first is slightly more useful for some people, but even just having the second can lead to discussion. The problem at the moment is that we only have a small idea which concepts need finalising, which have been finalised already and the various options currently available.

Then ask. Ask if I've figured out whether or not I want much magic or other fantasy elements. Ask if I've figured out how important geography is and how much it varies across the kingdom. Etc, etc.

What I'm bothered by being pestered about is to give answers on what I want to do with those, not in explaining what areas need work and what options are up for consideration.

"What do you need help on?" ought to be - and I mean this earnestly - something like the first or second question when offering to help with something.

Asking that allows the helpee to explain where things are in their head, or what things are missing, and for work to be directed at the areas needing it - but asking fifty questions on "What decisions do you want to/have you already made?" doesn't.

Someone just did ask you a question, and you refused to answer it.

Again.

-Crissa

Elennsar wrote:Then ask. Ask if I've figured out whether or not I want much magic or other fantasy elements. Ask if I've figured out how important geography is and how much it varies across the kingdom. Etc, etc.

I asked. I asked nineteen questions of you and your response to me was to ignore them and shout bullshit. There were no numbers. There was no probability. They were just questions about the general themes you may or may not want to address in your game.

And you didn't answer a single one.

You don't want help. Like your idea of "hero," you want to be the victim of some horrific forum attack and go down in a blaze of glory.

Elennsar wrote:Then ask. Ask if I've figured out whether or not I want much magic or other fantasy elements. Ask if I've figured out how important geography is and how much it varies across the kingdom. Etc, etc.

It's your project, so you take the initiative:

• Tell people what you have and have not figured out.
• Tell people what things you're waffling about.
• Tell people the small and large things.

You keep telling people to ask about what you think. That's so totally the wrong way to go about things that it renders me almost incapable of response. It totally renders people incapable of providing useful feedback, criticism, suggestions, or what have you.

Be a leader and direct people's assistance, because you're the one who cares about your project, and without your direction, people will go their own way. In short, stop whining about being pestered. You have to be the one to provide structure to the conversation.

And before you even start again, telling people to ask about stuff is not direction. It's the absence of direction, because it puts the directional onus on the asker.

Someone just did ask you a question, and you refused to answer it.

Again.

Which? The question that was already answered or the other question that has already been mentioned in the thread?

I asked. I asked nineteen questions of you and your response to me was to ignore them and shout bullshit. There were no numbers. There was no probability. They were just questions about the general themes you may or may not want to address in your game.

And you didn't answer a single one.

Several of those have been answered already. Read the Arturius thread to find out which. As to shouting bullshit, that's on the idea of "that's a theme, not a goal". Having a game with that theme is my goal. Having castles or not, not so much.

You don't want help. Like your idea of "hero," you want to be the victim of some horrific forum attack and go down in a blaze of glory.

No, what I want are people who are actually trying to assist and who are reading the thread on the project - some of the things you mentioned are up in the air, some aren't. I didn't post a thread dedicated to working it on it for the sake of adding to my post count.

Be a leader and direct people's assistance, because you're the one who cares about your project, and without your direction, people will go their own way. In short, stop whining about being pestered. You have to be the one to provide structure to the conversation.

And before you even start again, telling people to ask about stuff is not direction. It's the absence of direction, because it puts the directional onus on the asker.

I don't care if it is direction or not. The rational thing to do when trying to figure out how to help someone on something is to ask them what they need help with. If you don't want to assist, then don't. No one will mind.

"Do you need help with ____?" is useful. "Have you decided whether or not to include ____?" is useful. That is the kind of "ask about stuff" that I want.

I also want any serious efforts at assisting in the thread on Arturius rather than here.

How Arturius crept into this thread is a mystery.[/i]

Maybe you should complete a game design flowsheet and establish a vision of the future, rather than repeatedly tell people you'll answer questions if they ask them, rather than actually answering any of the questions I've posed about vision. .

One is going to do much more for your game than the other.

Maybe you should offer assistance in answering the important questions rather than chanting the praises of the flowchart.

Dude, I don't have the vision for the game. YOU have the vision for the game. I can give you assistance in articulating it, but it is impossible for me to articulate it.

The tool just gives you a framework to structure your thoughts, (because they are your thoughts not my thoughts.)

You could use other tools of course, but this one is handy, and resonates with your target audience.

So seriously, I am offering assistance.


Situation, Complication, Question, Answer

Situation - You don't have a clearly articulated vision

Complication - you need input from multiplate participants, which means you need to articulate your vision to them

Question: How do we articulate your vision to effectively enable you to work with the gaming den and source meaningful input

Answer: You let franktrollman facilitate you articulating your vision via the game design follow sheet.

Dude, I don't have the vision for the game. YOU have the vision for the game. I can give you assistance in articulating it, but it is impossible for me to articulate it.

And it is not impossible for you to ask about the vision and make suggestions rather than suggest I fill out Twenty Questions That You May Or May Not Have Any Idea What the Answers Should Be.

Sure, and I'm asking those 20 questions, so you can fully articulate your vision, and everyone can understand where you are at.

If you cannot answer some of the questions, say so! If you want input against a specific question thats week - say that too. If you feel some answer are locked in place because they are core to your vision, you need to say that as well.

Just give it a go. Do the sheet. It will help a lot.

Sure, and I'm asking those 20 questions, so you can fully articulate your vision, and everyone can understand where you are at.

These kind of 20 questions:

"Do you think there will be magic in the setting?"

Or these kind of 20 questions: "How often will people succeed at hitting others of the same skill level?"


Also, one thing on the flow chart I am just plain laughing at.

Remember that it is entirely possible that you'll have 6 players or more at the table. If there is a structural impediment to the way you've designed the character "classes" such that you can't fit six players into a whole where each contributes, it's not going to work as an RPG.

Since when do we play with baseball teams?

I am playing in a group right now that has 8 people. I also regular play in groups of about 4-8 people. So you are laughing at something that isn't funny.

You need to answer A before you can answer B. Also, lots of people have 6 players at a table, you can check the 'Group Size' polls at WoTC. But question the assumptions - if you don't want to accept that assumption, say that, then clearly state it.

Anyway, lets go - give it a throw.

I am playing in a group right now that has 8 people. I also regular play in groups of about 4-8 people. So you are laughing at something that isn't funny.

I am laughing at the idea that we need to design around large groups or the game plain doesn't work.

Not at the idea of having a large group.

Anyway, lets go - give it a throw.

Let's not and say we didn't. Because in all honesty, I don't think Frank's flow chart helps explain anything about Arturius just by saying that there's the "'normal' guy, and then there's the leader, and then there's the champion (one on one)", which are the only three definate distinct roles I can think of.

Honestly, I think that is one of the key problems you've got with your concept. But if you articulated the problem and said 'Look guys, I'm short three roles, what else fits into my concept of an artuaian warband' you'll get some good answers, the obvious one being an Odyessus like character.

That and your unwillingness to actually articulate it at all.

Lastly: What? Frank wants you to design around a large (6 man) AND small (3 man) group, which is entirely reasonable. Key to developing a concept in groups is having a relevant concept to the group. If your game only works for 3 players max + GM, then anyone with more players is just not going to find your game relevant for them, and thus not participate.

1.) What is your game about?

2.) What do the characters do?

3.) What do the players (including the GM if there is one) do?

4.) How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

5.) How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

6.) What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

7.) How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

8.) How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

9.) What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

10.) What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

11.) How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

12.) Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

13.) How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

14.) What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

15.) What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

16.) Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

17.) Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

18.) What are your publishing goals for your game?

19.) Who is your target audience?

What I really don;t get is, you told me to ask you questions: So I did

Step 1: Name the PCs

Step 2: Write up a Six Person Party


Step 3: Write up a Three Person Party


Step Four: Outline an Adventure


Step Five: Write out a campaign


Step Six: Choose a Base System

Step Seven: Do the Math

And you won't answer it. It is frankly bizarre.

'Look guys, I'm short three roles, what else fits into my concept of an artuaian warband' you'll get some good answers, the obvious one being an Odyessus like character.

Which doesn't particularly -fit- as a knight-type.

Odyessus was awesome. And "Big Damn Hero" is broad enough that you do want his type.

"King's Knight" is not. You don't face challenges where being sneaky and cunning is important for the party to handle in Arturius, so adding in a role for that type doesn't fit at all.

Lastly: What? Frank wants you to design around a large (6 man) AND small (3 man) group, which is entirely reasonable. Key to developing a concept in groups is having a relevant concept to the group. If your game only works for 3 players max + GM, then anyone with more players is just not going to find your game relevant for them, and thus not participate.

You can probably have a couple of the 'normals' (no one really gets any -good- abilities vs. groups here, or that would be their niche) and another couple of the 'champions', so that's five players right there.

As for not particapting: Gee, and I was hoping to get more people playing.

And you won't answer it. It is frankly bizarre.

Because none of those actually help create -anything-.

One of the things being done in Arturius at them moment is building the setting. If I was basing this directly on the Dux or Aelfred, it would be over already, but it isn't.

So when the setting is decided, maybe there will be other things as part of the King's Most Trusted Followers, maybe not.

Bash out the entire flowsheet ( excpet the last question). highlight weakpoints: like a lack of differentation between character concepts. You'll get much more input.

The key to collbrative projects is lowering the barrier of entry as much as possible- which involves clearly giving prospective participants as much infomation as conscisely as possible up fornt.

The only reason that's a weak point is if you want to play people who are significantly mechanically distinct.

Personally, I'm not nearly as worried.

You'll find it is a problem in implementation.

Not necessarily. There are ways for PCs to be interestingly distinct without significantly different skill sets.

(belated) Angel: If those are serious questions, could you repost them in the thread on the subject?

If they are distictly different, you've got different archtypes for players to fill, and thus have 6 classes. Seriously, run through the flow sheet.

Elennsar wrote:The only reason that's a weak point is if you want to play people who are significantly mechanically distinct.

Personally, I'm not nearly as worried.

um...
so, so far, Arturious has PCs which; 1. aren't expected to make strategic level decisions (the dux makes those) 2. will not be mechanically distinct from one another , 3. WILL die over the course of a campaign barring extremely unlikly odds, Especially if they play it "right" (which in all likly hood means that making them distinct in an RP sense will only happen on the level of guys who write Chapter historys for their space marines.) 4. Will more often go into battle leading an army rather then going alone (the "real chance" of death against "meaningful opposition" means that the small number of PCs won't win any fights of military siginficance without it) 5. do all this in a setting primarily defined by the ongoing war

explain to me why this is an RPG and not a WarGame?
Because I think if you refer to it as such you'd encounter less resistance here.

explain to me why this is an RPG and not a WarGame?
Because I think if you refer to it as such you'd encounter less resistance here.

Because this is about playing individual "knights", not about playing GIANT HEROES whose are more important than the entire rest of their side put together (which seems to be the only thing Denners are willing to accept for games where they're supposed to be playing heroic fighters) or about simply leading company level missions.

As for the setting: Not the setting overall, the setting for the particular campaign being done - there are other periods of time than the one covered, this happens to be the one relevant.

Also, the accuracy of 1-5 is limited in some regards, if you want to discuss it, move it to the thread.

If you don't want to play a game where the PCs are going to look at Seven Samurai like odds and come out of it with Seven Samurai like results, assuming equal ability and such (I imagine your defenses will be a bit better - among other things, armor doesn't seem to have helped in Kurosawa's movie, at least not for the samurai), then don't play it.

Really, I think I'd encounter less resistance if people actually accepted that I'm not trying to make a game where being a PC and a hero makes you some giant who doesn't have anything to fear in combat and that they have no obligation whatsoever to pay attention to it if they don't want to.