Poll: How should updates be?
Fast and simple
Slow but detailed
Depends (please elaborate below)
[Show Results]
 
Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Updating (Open)
05-22-2015, 06:04 AM (This post was last modified: 07-17-2015 03:10 AM by Palamedes.)
Post: #1
Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Updating (Open)
Hi all,

Alright, so I've been thinking for a while that we should probably start using this subforum more, given the supposed theme behind our forum as a whole. Furthermore, I've also been thinking that we could really use a place for people who are interested and/or working on bringing a game to fruition but are maybe stuck deciding on some final tweaks or trying to figure out what people would be more interested in, and could use a place to get feedback in a more direct way then the general chats.

This here is going to be that sort of place, where people can bring up concepts, ideas or decisions that they have to make but want opinions and support in choosing the right ones. While the focus will probably be more towards forum based games or projects, I'm certainly open to bringing more general topics regarding design up as well.

Basic forum rules, of course, apply, and here are the specific rules of this thread:

1) Approximately once a week, I will bring up a new topic. Said topic will relate in some way to game design decisions that people can't quite (or don't want to) make on their own. Not sure which game idea you want to try? Want to gauge interest before starting something? Thinking about changing a mechanic? Or are you not quite sure whether or not people would prefer a cyber or bio-punk setting for something you've already got kicking around? Just about anything goes as long as its vaguely related to that.

2) Topics will come from anyone who wants an opinion on something of theirs! Just in touch with me over PMs with what your topic is, and some other basic information (provided below) and I'll put it up at the next available voting period.

3) Discussion is encouraged, but not necessary. The more people talk and ask questions the more of a chance that the decision reached will be the best one. Also, as there will be active polls for every topic (and because the whole point is to serve as a clear concise way to gather opinions) don't forget to vote!

4) Personal opinions are okay.

5) That said, if it's not within the options provided don't make a big stink about it. If someone's looking to figure out a mechanic for a fantasy RPG they want to run, don't go on about how you prefer freeform or sci-fi.

Outline/suggestions for submitting a topic:
- Subtitle for the thread (should involve a concise outline of the vote's purpose)
- Description of topic issue/options (generally the more detail the better, unless stated will probably be posted in full here)
- Poll options (specific choices as well as whether or not you want people to be able to choose multiple options)
- Privacy (do you want your name attached to the topic/do you want people to see who voted for what)
- Urgency (do you want to get things going asap, or are you planning to start at a later time)
- Deadline (is there a reason why you might want/need to shorten or extend the regular voting period)

Current topic: Updating
When it comes to running a game, real life and even other game stuff can often get in the way, as can players being absent for a day or so in a game that relies on everyone posting or updates requiring a lot of detailed background work. So my question is: do you think it is better to update frequently but with less detail and flavour most of the time, or to update more sporadically but with everyone getting some real effort into their responses?

Topic History
Topic One: New Palagame - (Results: Arkham, followed by Mafiesque and Jokestates)
Topic Two: Pedestrians in The Godzilla Threshold - (Results: Add incentives)
Topic Three: RPG Base Player Numbers - (Results: 5-6 players)
Topic Four: Handling Dropped Players - (Results: Add as they leave)
Reply
05-22-2015, 06:08 AM
Post: #2
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
Topic the first (also anything I might ever need in a second post): Which game should I begin preparing to run in the near future?

1) Arkham: A cooperative RPG taking place in a mid sized early 1900s town which, along with the world as a whole, is on the verge of being overrun by the forces of an eldrich deity. A group of ragtag and unexpected heroes arrive to try and stop the vile machinations of the terrible god - will they be able to unite and succeed, or is the darkness just too much for them?

A remake of my old MSPA Arkham game. Based on the Lovecraftian board game Arkham Horror, but far more freeform, lacking as many mechanical rules and allowing for a fair deal of customization in characters and plot. Updates might come with images.

2) The New World: Another cooperative RPG with a bit of a horror bent. This one takes place in Elizabethan era Europe. Along with new advances and discoveries in the natural sciences and exploration, humanity has uncovered something altogether much more menacing and hell-bent on destroying or conquering all in their path. An ancient order is all that stands in their path, but are woefully under prepared and equipped for the horrors they're about to face.

This game will have a supernatural pseudohistorical bent to it, as should be obvious, with takes on real life events coming into play every now and then and players interacting with or even outright altering them in their quest to not die and maybe save the world while doing so. Additionally, play is designed to be fluid with respects to players being able to split into groups and not necessarily being required to be active for every single mission/activity (by having their character go on 'another mission' or act as an NPC with preset reactions, for example). Death is a very real possibility.

3) Mafiesque: In some sort of twisted game, a group of strangers are locked in a confusing maze of puzzles and traps. They've been divided up into teams, the unwitting majority and knowledgeable minority - and only one side will be able to make it out alive.

A longstanding pet project of mine, combining a traditional forum RPG with forum Mafia mechanics to make a terrible hybrid monstrosity. Runs a simple mechanical system built from scratch and playtested with a small group IRL. It's a competitive RPG as opposed to the others, but relies on puzzle-solving, conversation, and brains as much (if not more) than combat. and the scale of the game is much smaller with a definite end ready right from the getgo. Large player number accepted, but don't necessarily expect to live long.

4) Unnamed States game (joke): Will take place in a generally confined area, and will lack all but the most basic mechanical rules in lieu of ridiculousness and roleplay. Major two ideas are a superprison riot and a sequel to DINOSTATES, but other options are being considered. Not meant to be taken seriously. Updates would come with map images.

5) Unnamed States game (real): Will take place in a realistic (no magic), middle ages setting, and will have strict mechanics while still allowing for a good deal of roleplay. Opening will have a heavy military focus and allow for a lot of players killing off NPCs and each other early on, with gameplay becoming more involved after. Requires at least one lovely assistant, to contact me privately if interested. Updates would come with map images.

6) Roll to Die (ish): Explore a derelict wreck as part of a science fiction military task force/mercenary salvagers/poor saps who just got stuck with the shit job. However, don't forget that derelict wrecks aren't built that way - something had to have destroyed an entire space station and killed everyone aboard!

Not going to actually be based entirely on d20 rolls, but expect to die just as often. Maybe it'll be the traps, maybe it'll be monsters, or maybe one of your teammates just isn't who they say they are. Not meant to be super serious. Updates will come with layouts.

7) Christ calm down Pala: Something a good deal less complicated, a forum version of a board game such as Risk or Diplomacy (variants included).
Reply
05-22-2015, 07:08 AM
Post: #3
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
Thanks for taking the time to set up this thread, Pala! Now if only this subforum had a population other than server ghosts.

i uhm, dont actually have anything to contribute right now though. Option 3) sounds like a really cool combination of mechanics if pulled off well, but i dont think i should throw any votes because i wouldnt be planning on joining? mostly im here to comment on mechanics and game design, not concept.
Reply
05-22-2015, 08:23 AM
Post: #4
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
So is the objective here to have a Game Design general discussion topic or a curated study circle run by yourself, pala?
I feel like the former would be easier to maintain.
Reply
05-22-2015, 09:53 AM
Post: #5
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
More the former, sort of brought it up in the General Games forum a little over a week ago. Discussion led by issues that users are having or even just are just interested in and assisted by a poll.
Reply
05-22-2015, 03:08 PM
Post: #6
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
I really like the idea of The new world, as it seems like something that would work perfect on a forum. Also, it has a mechanism for fixing our general problem of real life getting in the way of our adventures, meaning that 1 person disappearing (which isn't uncommon) Won't kill us. My vote goes there for a combination of fun sounding story and mechanics and a system that might actually make it to endgame here.
Reply
05-22-2015, 03:30 PM (This post was last modified: 05-22-2015 03:31 PM by Palamedes.)
Post: #7
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
Fair warning while The New World does have a basic plot outline the ending is not nearly as immediately concise or reachable as Arkham, Mafiesque, or Generic Board Game, which all have clear outlined endings right from the getgo. That said, it is definitely more set than the other three options though, which are generally going to be very free form with respect to how things can end up.
Reply
05-23-2015, 12:55 PM (This post was last modified: 05-23-2015 12:56 PM by Palamedes.)
Post: #8
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
Just realized that I probably didn't make it clear enough: feel free to vote for more than one option if you're torn/don't care between several options.
Reply
05-27-2015, 02:21 AM
Post: #9
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
Option 3 sounds the most intriguing by far in terms of mechanics, but I'm also interested in options 4 and 5 since I've never managed to join a statesgame that went on for a serious amount of time. The only one that even managed to get started was Dog Days which didn't really go anywhere. Then again, the fact that you hosted Dog Days makes me kinda nervous about whether the next try will end the same way.
Reply
05-27-2015, 02:33 AM
Post: #10
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
I voted for Arkham for I love Arkhams. And also for jokestates.

It is time time
Reply
05-27-2015, 11:05 AM (This post was last modified: 05-27-2015 11:06 AM by Palamedes.)
Post: #11
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
Frankly Druple I told most people (including you) that I had a lot of real life stuff going on, and then lost most of the files I had for the game, and that's why it died. Then, I didn't get enough interest back into it to restart it again.

(Also, you know, note that I did say for the real, work-involved one that I'd be looking for an assistant/partner :P.)

Also, poll is going to be closing in two days, look forward to the exciting conclusion and revealing of our second topic!
Reply
05-27-2015, 01:38 PM
Post: #12
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
I just wanna play some goddamn solitaire

solitaire rpg, i need my fixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply
05-27-2015, 02:06 PM
Post: #13
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
If you can swing it I'll do my best.
Reply
05-28-2015, 04:14 AM
Post: #14
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: new game from Pala (Open Vote)
But i'd be good with jokestates

Edited for Readability and Preservation of Sanity - The Revolution - OP - Chapter 1/2 - Chapter 2/2 (missing maps) - Chapter 2 - Chapter 3 (Ongoing) - Chat
Reply
05-29-2015, 07:05 AM (This post was last modified: 05-29-2015 07:58 AM by Palamedes.)
Post: #15
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
Alright, so the first topic has been concluded! With seven votes, Arkham has won the vote for the next game I should run, followed by Mafiesque with five votes and jokestates with four (so probably the next ones once I'm done/have time to run more games).

Leafsword has provided our next poll, regarding his own plans for an exciting upcoming game. So without further ado, here are the details for topic the second: What should Leafsword do with his pedestrians?

A link to the main Godzilla Threshold thread

In Leafsword's "The Godzilla Threshold", players would be controlling individuals with the power to transform into giant monsters, or kaiju, to defend a city that is almost definitely not Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, or San Francisco from other, evil giant monsters. However, Leafsword is unsure of what to do regarding a specific concern, and is looking for some concrete thoughts and, of course, votes on the matter.

Leafsword Wrote:Currently, the Godzilla's thresholds design means that all players have a pedestrian and a Kaiju they can play. The Pedestrian, about the size of a human being, is functionally identical to a down-sized Kaiju, and people have pointed out this doesn't give a whole lot of incentive to play Pedestrians.

Should I:
1: Use them ONLY for story cutscenes, and have little to no gameplay based on them?
2: Keep them as-is?
3: Add an incentive to play as pedestrians? ((Suggestions would be appreciated :D))
4: Drop them entirely?

Note that you can only accept one option this time around, and the vote is still open (so you can see what other people voted)
Reply
05-29-2015, 07:08 AM
Post: #16
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
Much as I would love to have come up with the idea for that, it actually wasn't me. It was Leafsw0rd :P
Reply
05-29-2015, 07:47 AM
Post: #17
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
Pedestrians can eat anything.

With no adverse effects.
Reply
05-29-2015, 07:58 AM
Post: #18
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
Sorry, it's been a long day. Not really sure how I made that mistake, but I had a lot of tabs open for various things and think I must have seen you and mixed you up somehow ;-;
Reply
05-29-2015, 10:44 AM
Post: #19
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
I've already commented on this and i dont really have anything further to add. It'd be cool to have some function for a human form, but unless they can serve that function within the game they are better off not being an actual game mechanic.

i mean you could give them a fancy mech or something? not a big punchy one but a small utility one that can repair stuff and jetpack around or something, but unless you have plans to add functionalities supporting something like that, why bother at all?

also the poll appears to still show names from last week and also does not offer multiple options
Reply
05-29-2015, 01:30 PM
Post: #20
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
So apparently I'm allowed to edit and reset the poll itself but not the initial results? Not sure why those two things would ever need to be separate options. Regardless, I just deleted and remade the poll, problem solved (the people who voted will have to revote though). As for multiple options, that is not applicable for this round (note that I mentioned that in post 15), as logically only one option can really be valid in the end.

As for my opinion, I think pedestrian mode could be interesting if you made the whole thing based on a monster-fighting organization. Think X-Com, but with kaiju instead of aliens. Obviously the players would be the top members of said organization and responsible for handling its responses towards threats across the city/globe. Thus, pedestrian mode would be necessary for R&D, as well as seeing what's going on at all locations/calling in support when there are different threats in different places (as opposed to just sending every single player into every single kaiju fight). This would also give players something to do when the monster(s) kicking around are resistant to their damage.
Reply
05-29-2015, 06:14 PM
Post: #21
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
Thats not a bad idea. Something along those lines would also help provide some consistency to the world between different fights, since Leafsword was planning to have new sign ups after each major battle. Previous characters would be able to stick around as npcs running support over radio or something.
Reply
05-30-2015, 12:24 AM
Post: #22
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
So in this case... if i'm following you right...

the Pedestrians of any one mission will generally be at mission control. They could be doing anything from
- Testing how bits and pieces of monsters react to certain elements or sources of damage. May help isolate a weakness. Sometimes they'll be able to get their hands on materials beforehand, sometimes someone's gotta retrieve materials. While on the mission.
- Deploy and manage ScannerBots. These little robots are capable of close-range, in-depth examination of living, breathing kaiju... but they're fragile, so they have to find good opportunities or safe spots to scan from. Successful scans can give useful information, such as weaknesses, resistances, or even weak points or accuracy roll modifiers ((provided Kaiju listen to the data the Scannerbots provide.
- Monitor factors such as damage to relevant structures or objects. Allocate resources for the upcoming mission, or examine results to
- Detect changes in threats or when new threats appear with solid data. Or at least something that seems like solid data.
- Perform smaller-scale matches in the mission control area. Can't risk damaging that data, after all.


I'm now imagining presenting the Pedestrians with
Reply
05-30-2015, 02:31 AM
Post: #23
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
Those are some pretty solid options and if you're still planning on the pedestrian mode to be optional, it shouldnt even bother the players who just want to stomp on things.

you'll need to make sure that whatever options are available to the pedestrians actually have impact, though. As a support type, its really unsatisfying being told that thanks to your efforts the big bad took slightly more damage.
Reply
05-30-2015, 03:10 PM
Post: #24
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
Well, this is based off Kaiju fighting, so there may be a few fights which boil down to "survive until the support team figure out what to do". If I can make that fun.
Reply
05-31-2015, 01:14 AM
Post: #25
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
I also figured the support team could be more active in combat support itself, since presumably they'd have the power and resources of World Government backing them. A specific kaiju is too fast or defended for the frontline team? Send a tank squadron or a few jets to blast it in the face and distract it. Maybe the party can't damage a particularly unstoppable foe, but they could get it outside of city limits and have support drop a bomb on it.

Of course you could counter this by punishing the players for doing things that are obviously bad - such as leveling the cities they're trying to protect (more than necessary, anyways), wasting support assets on useless work, or high civilian casualties. After all, they're not just a random vigilante team, they answer to WG.
Reply
05-31-2015, 01:44 AM
Post: #26
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
I'd say that depends on whether Leafsword wants the game to have a roleplaying element to it. Dont punish players for doing what being a kaiju is all about - wrecking things.
Reply
05-31-2015, 03:29 AM
Post: #27
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
Quote:(more than necessary, anyways)

My response. Obviously mass destruction is the name of the game, but they are technically the good guys and unless Leaf wants there to only be a small handful of fights presumably you can't completely level each and every place they go to (especially if it's limited to a single city/area).
Reply
06-08-2015, 10:13 AM
Post: #28
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Godzilla Threshold Pedestrians (Open)
Aaand sorry for the delay, the second discussion poll is closed! A new incentive for pedestrians looks like the clear winner here, and I'd recommend going to The Godzilla Threshold's official page to discuss more on what that should be if you have further suggestions/ideas for Leafsword.

Onto our third discussion, which will be focused on player numbers!

In your typical RP/RPG, there's an eternal dilemma for practically every game runner - how many people should you accept? While I'm sure most people, in a perfect world, would like to accept everyone and get as many people in on their ideas as possible, in practicality it just wouldn't work out, having a ludicrous player number usually just means the mod (and even other players) can have too much to worry about and remember, and can cause the game to stagnate and be dropped early on.

So, what this week will be dedicated to is just getting people's opinions on the matter - with some assumptions being that players do not drop or get kicked out (or, if they are, then a replacement is immediately found), the game is meant to be constantly active with little or no breaks for time to pass for some in-game, and that the mod has some full time occupation (such as work or school) that keeps them from being able to be update at any and every time.

I know that a decent part of this decision can vary wildly on part of the mod and specific game type, but I'm honestly interested in hearing what people think is a good starting point given their own experiences, ideas, etc. I'll probably be taking the results of this poll to heart for my next game, which will hopefully have signups up and running in the next couple of days (unless moving continues to be a disaster for me).

Personally I'm of the opinion that, in a game where you will be constantly dealing with a set player limit (all of whom are at least fairly active), hitting the double digits is a recipe for disaster. Honestly, I do like to go as high as I can (for various reasons, major ones being that it allows you to have teams that aren't completely formulaic and player drama can be more easily brought in without necessitating a group split/faceoff), but I've found that you go too high with that players will want to branch off and form subgroups. Which maybe isn't a problem depending on the game (think Cidellus' Wings of Fury), but if it's even remotely linear and group based a game can fall apart fast under the strain.
Reply
06-08-2015, 12:12 PM
Post: #29
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: RPG Player Limit (Open)
I do enjoy making games with no player limit, but as I have never actually really completed a game, this is probably a sign that I need to start making those boundaries. Although the most players I've had in a game (on this forum) had around 11-12 players. (I Have made

All and all, I very much dislike discluding people when I make my games, because that means I either have to use A) a first come first serve system or B) an audition system, both of which aren't very fair to would be players who are interested in a game.

But yet, my vote goes on 11-12 because there is no way I could ever handle a game with 17+ players that has enough content/interest to attract so many. Maybe if I had a very big game of tic tac toe...
Reply
06-08-2015, 03:52 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2015 03:53 PM by Gorsgan.)
Post: #30
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: RPG Player Limit (Open)
I like the numbers 6-12. I wouldn't go that whole range on every game, but in a very general sweeping way that sounds alright. If it's a game I have to wait for everyone to post before I can update, then that number reaches a diamond hard limit of 10 players, and it has to have some absolutely spectacular characters to break 8. The reason for this is, it really bogs down the game. I can remember things pretty well, I'm known as that insane child in class who only takes notes if the teacher grades your notes. I still do pretty gosh dang well on the finals and normals tests too, so personally the whole remembering everything deal typically isn't a problem... typically. Sometimes I get lores mixed up as I have so many worlds in my mind... I should really play with those just a bit...
But yeah, when you have 10 players, your chances of having that one individual who refuses to post increases dramatically, and that's annoying and unfair to everyone. The more players you have the more strict you must be, the more strict you are the less fun everyone has. Unless of course your players are all part of some tyrannical third-world system, in which case they probably love strict environments.
If you get too small... then you're just being mean. If you have a game with 2 people... you're leaving probably atleast four other applicants out, whoops. You make the game a tad too exclusive. This is an extreme example, but I think a valid one.
Edit: My vote goes 7-8
Reply
06-08-2015, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2015 05:34 PM by ProfessorLizzard.)
Post: #31
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: RPG Player Limit (Open)
Six is the best number where you can still coordinate with your team in an effective manner, and also there is less of a chance that your personal quests will be delayed for too long. Not to mention, above six the player nich├ęs start to really, really blur together. I like to go up to 7-8 though, it is pushing the envelope, but it can and has worked before. Going above 10? That can be really, really busy, unless the parties are separate or keep splitting up all the time. There is also the matter of Waiting For People To Post.

Exceptions: games like City States is more open ended in this regard, because the interaction usually happens in PMs, and the GM has to update once a week. The geographical locations should keep the players split in groups, making it easier to maintain.

In conclusion: I voted for Medium Small, despite usually doing medium.

It is time time
Reply
06-09-2015, 12:12 PM
Post: #32
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: RPG Player Limit (Open)
I don't know, I always thought niches mixing together could be good - I mean one of my major problems with few player games is that players will more often than not be forced into specific roles, which can limit what they want to do. Using typical fantasy as an example, with four players you practically require a fighter, a wizard, a rogue, and a healer to play. With more players, each is allowed to pick something they'd be most interested in. A specific role becomes less necessary to play if nobody's interested in it, and players are encouraged to be more multi-purpose.
Reply
06-09-2015, 07:36 PM
Post: #33
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: RPG Player Limit (Open)
Ont the conversely, I think with less players, you can more freely choose to multiclass from the start, since there is far less chance of an overlap. Even then, there are multiple flavours of fulfilling those roles, creating rather unique roles. I often do this while running Dungeon Fantasies. In many other games I do a different things: I ask for about three roles the player character could fulfill (for example Qregon, Cryptocracy), and I pick from them.

With more players, this approach is still possible, but less effective, as there is a bigger chance that you are fighting for the place under the spotlight with an other player.

I admit I have made games where things were a bit more restrictive (HIVE), but even there the unique mutations hopefully differentiated the things ;-;

It is time time
Reply
06-14-2015, 04:15 AM
Post: #34
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Adjusting Player Numbers (Open)
I've decided to call this vote early, since I'm not sure if I'll be around tomorrow and we have a pretty clear winner. Though I still have my own concerns and reservations, I concede to PL's excellent points and his decision's higher votecount.

On to our fourth topic, which is related to the last - adjusting player numbers to account for dropouts/absentees:

So in this last week we talked about and voted on base player numbers for an RPG, but looking back on it I was left wondering something else. In many forum games, players will sometimes only be able to post sporadically or even have to drop out/disappear, either do to real life constraints or a lack of ideas and interest. Obviously this is less than ideal, especially if you're running a game where you could only select a small number of players out of the total applicants. The obvious solution is to take in more players, but I don't how to best handle doing that.

There are a couple of options that I can think of, each with their own positives and negatives. The first is to just let in new players as old ones drop out. The major problem with this is that it's harder to get into a game that's already started, especially if it's been particularly busy and the original players have all been involved heavily in it. After all, people usually aren't that interested in actively following a game that they're not a part of (and as far as they know won't be a part of). It makes it hard for new players to catch up both in terms of gameplay ability and the plot itself, even more so the longer the game has gone on.

Alternately, you could accept slightly more players than you plan to have when the game is in full swing, anticipating that a few people will leave and you'll be closer to your original player goal. The obvious problem is what to do if not enough people drop out, and a secondary problem is that even in doing this you might still have too many people leaving.

Finally, there's the idea that opposes the entire notion of replacing - you can just let players leave and keep going with who's left. I personally don't care too much for this option, because you lose out on a lot of player interaction if you only have a couple of people remaining to play.

I'm positive there are other alternatives that I'm not thinking of, and will add them to the poll as people bring them up.

Also, as a side note, this is related to another thing I'm interested in regarding player numbers: how should you handle things if you want to, at some point, increase the number of players later on, given the problems that could arise? I don't want to make the next topic this because it's pretty related to this topic and the one before, but if anyone has ideas and opinions I'd be interested in hearing and discussing them.
Reply
06-16-2015, 03:57 AM
Post: #35
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Adjusting Player Numbers (Open)
My method used to be waiting a month to see if they post and then begin to cry.

Recently I started doing "Just leave it as it is and play with who's left." and it seems to be working, but only because of the light format of Lootcaps...

It is time time
Reply
06-16-2015, 06:57 AM
Post: #36
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Adjusting Player Numbers (Open)
I'd be interested to hear how the people voting for option one (well, everyone really) can deal with the inherent problems with trying to hunt for new players. Maybe it's just my experience with mafia games talking, but I notice that once a game gets to be several pages long, it can be next to impossible to get new people interested enough to read through everything.

Of course, like PL said, in lighter formats you can just let it be and continue on sans a player, and in flexible ones you can adjust what's going on for fewer players. However, more rigid or complex games can't really just do that, at least not while maintaining the same level of complexity/interest.
Reply
06-16-2015, 08:06 AM
Post: #37
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Adjusting Player Numbers (Open)
I mostly try to add in new players to replace old ones. Usually by bothering people on IRC or other forms of communication, since just writing "SIGNUPS OPEN" in the title of a long-running thread may not produce much in the way of results.
Reply
06-16-2015, 12:15 PM
Post: #38
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Adjusting Player Numbers (Open)
Generally, i think as long as you have an adequate amount of players who sign up and don't get in, you can grab from that pool later :P
Reply
06-16-2015, 12:57 PM
Post: #39
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Adjusting Player Numbers (Open)
Just because they signed up early doesn't mean they'll remain interested weeks or even months later though.
Reply
06-17-2015, 02:20 AM
Post: #40
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Adjusting Player Numbers (Open)
I think trying to get new players should be the first angle of attack. If that fails, then you could try other methods, like continuing to play with the current playerbase.

Accepting more people than you want, just to handle dropouts, seems like a risky idea at best. You're gambling both on your ability to handle that many players, and that you'll only have a certain number of dropouts.

Actually, you could also make sure everyone knows what happens if a player becomes inactive for a certain amount of time. If you've already planned for how you would accomodate for it in-game, then perhaps it wouldn't be quite so disruptive as someone dropping out while you're unprepared.

The one, the only, Vancho!
Reply
06-17-2015, 10:15 AM (This post was last modified: 06-17-2015 10:20 AM by chimericWilder.)
Post: #41
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Adjusting Player Numbers (Open)
Its something that depends a lot on the type of game you want to run, i think. You should adapt how you go about recruiting/replacing people to whatever you're trying to run - sometimes that involves not replacing your players.

Depending on how it turns out, i'd probaby accept a relatively small group of players at first for the game i am planning, then add a few more along the way, either when previous players die off or when i feel comfortable enough with the workload to dial it up a bit. As the game progresses though i would stop accepting replacements for dead players, and let them die off on their own. Depending on what secrets they had found along the way, maybe that would leave me with a single 'winner'. Or everyone could die horribly. I would ofcourse be certain to time this relative to when i think most of the content i had prepared had been visited in some form or another.
Reply
07-16-2015, 12:01 AM
Post: #42
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Adjusting Player Numbers (Open)
Would a game where there is a queue of players replacing each other after some time work? The idea was a kingdom, with one player being the leader, and they would be replaced by a new player, a heir. Right now I am a bit skeptical of idea, since it makes getting attached to the game a bit hard, and would end up like just a really slow One Sentence Story game.

Perhaps a round robin could work, with only 4 players or so?

It is time time
Reply
07-16-2015, 12:31 AM
Post: #43
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Adjusting Player Numbers (Open)
It might work if you made the game fast paced enough and let people replace in more than once, sort of like Mookland, but for royalty.

Otherwise it would probably be difficult to keep up player interest for very long.

Tumblr/Steam
Reply
07-16-2015, 01:45 AM
Post: #44
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Adjusting Player Numbers (Open)
Hm, in that case, a four player quick round robin is a much better idea indeed. Perhaps let the players whose turn is not on to be Hamlet's Dad-esque ghosts to have effects on the world.

It is time time
Reply
07-17-2015, 03:13 AM (This post was last modified: 07-17-2015 03:13 AM by Palamedes.)
Post: #45
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Updating (Open)
Agree with Coldblooded on that point. You could probably design it so that the current ruler is much harder to kill to promote actively going for it instead of cowardly hiding in hopes of staying in the game full time instead of contributing (think of what some people did in Mookland). A round robin sort of game would be interesting too, but again I think you'd have issues keeping people who weren't playing engaged (since best case scenario they'd just know when their round would be and will maybe show up for that and then you might have to readjust the brackets).

Anyways, I'm sorry for letting this slip, but I was having a hell of a time in RL and couldn't think of a topic that would properly gather some discussion. But, much like the Grinch I forgot that it's about the spirit of Christmas having a regular topic to talk about. So something simple:

When it comes to running a game, real life and even other game stuff can often get in the way, as can players being absent for a day or so in a game that relies on everyone posting or updates requiring a lot of detailed background work. So my question is: do you think it is better to update frequently but with less detail and flavour most of the time, or to update more sporadically but with everyone getting some real effort into their responses?

If I had to pick one myself it'd be the latter - a big problem I have with fast-posting games is that often someone might be away for a critical hour or two and get so far thrown from the game that they have difficulty recovering and getting properly back into it. This is especially true if it happens later in the game when there's more detailed stuff going on, or when something critical is going on like an investigation or a fight. That said, I don't think waiting for days on end is a great solution either, since that was a major factor in what killed basically every game I've tried to run on a forum.
Reply
07-30-2015, 12:17 AM
Post: #46
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Updating (Open)
I voted for Depends. It really depends on the game. Citystates can take a while to update, and there needs to be ample time for hidden discussions, while a combat game needs quick updates. However, that has further details: a tactical game might need map updates, or long descriptions.

It is time time
Reply
07-30-2015, 01:37 AM
Post: #47
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Updating (Open)
That makes sense. I was trying to imply that the time constraints were based on the type of game (so a slowly updated combat game would still be faster than a quickly updated states one), but I don't think I was entirely clear there.

It does seem like your second point still stands. There could be different details to a type of game that could increase the length required for updating, and thus the amount of time players should have to wait. I remember there being larger, open discussions in states games that would necessitate faster updates (if the GM was needed at all) as well.
Reply
07-30-2015, 04:23 AM
Post: #48
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Updating (Open)
Some games rely on momentum to keep them going, more than actual quality of content. The two new godmodder threads that have appeared are excellent examples of that; they're games that work entirely based on stuff happening quickly enough to keep people interested. The reverse is true for more detailed games of course, which should offer loads of viable options and compelling choice to keep players interested in making the right choice, but coming at the cost of the GM's time/effort.
Reply
07-31-2015, 04:43 AM
Post: #49
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Updating (Open)
So I guess it's more of a question of what sort of game style do you prefer then.
Reply
07-31-2015, 10:00 PM (This post was last modified: 07-31-2015 10:00 PM by chimericWilder.)
Post: #50
RE: Games Polling Station - Current Topic: Updating (Open)
That is my opinion, yes. Either update style could work depending on how you handle it as a gm, i think. Maybe harder for some combinations? I dont know.
Reply


Forum Jump: