Sounds like a great idea, and I'd love to try something like that. Unfortunately, the combat in the WFRP system is so punishing that casual fights just can't happen. You can get an injury with one attack from a basic 0-level brigand that sidelines you for weeks of the campaign (if not permanently debilitating you or killing you outright). As a system, you just can't use it for action-based games like Pathfinder or D&D.
How Do You Tell a Group: "Maybe This Isn't for Us?"
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
No. This is a different group. This is the group that really enjoyed Curse of Strahd, but a "meh" experience with Frostmaiden (if you've read my Adventure Post-Mortems). This group has never tried PF2, but I think it might be something they would enjoy, actually.
Like all forms of art, sometimes something can be praised as exemplary of the genre, but it's not the right thing for a specific person at a given time. For example, I know the Godfather is supposedly an excellent movie - but instead of watching it, I'd rather watch Guardians of the Galaxy. I like the idea of masterful cinematography, brilliant writing, emotional acting, etc., but at the end of the day, most of the time I want to tap my feet to 70s pop rock hits and watch Starlord shoot alien robots.
So I sold "The Enemy Within" as one of the most highly regarded campaigns ever written with a richly detailed setting built on decades of lore; deep, interwoven plots; near infinite opportunities to roleplay and forge alliances; with one of the staples of political intrigue writing in the gaming world. I think many players want to be in a campaign like that, and many GMs want to run a game like that. But in practice, a lot of people get home from work, cook dinner, put the kids to bed, then they have enough mental bandwidth to disarm some traps, belch a profanity at an attacking kobold, and count a few gold pieces of treasure.
Many players don't want the Godfather, and I get that. I can't blame anyone for being enticed by saying "yes" to something they think they should want.
Hmm, is my memory wrong but I seem to remember that you had problems with Rime of the Frostmaiden also? i wonder are you expecting your players to be more proactive than they actually comfortable with being. Sounds like they may prefer a more casual type of game.
Now its 25 years or so since I tried to run "The Enemy Within" and the group broke up before the end of the first phase.
It might be worth inquiring if they group have any strong feelings about rail roading, or spoon feeding with suitable disguise on the spoon or the tracks. Try that for a session or two and see how it goes.
Talk to them.
Otherwise, do a recap before each session of the highlights of the previous one. Have players do intelligence checks to remember the more obscure details. Tell them stuff their characters should remember.
Have some one drop dead at their feet after asking for a location or person. Have some one hire them to find some one plot relevant. Have some else looking for information about who ever hired them.
Have some one try to kill them if the come across the main bad guys and not notice and have a trail back.
If none of that sounds fun to you then may be do something else, talk to them anway.
I actually ran a short Monster of the Week campaign for another group recently, and I think we all enjoyed it pretty well. It wrapped up about a month ago.
I would be concerned with any of the PbtA games with this group, because they need the rules and what they can do on any given turn to be specifically written out.
Yes. This is the same group I ran with Rime of the Frostmaiden. This campaign was a direct response to them not liking Frostmaiden. But it seems we didn't address the actual real reason they didn't like Frostmaiden, which I think is what you bring up here.
I think straightforward, basically led by the nose is a good idea for them.
I'm not trying to be critical of them, but I think they need guidance to have a good time. Or else, very clear goals and limited options. Otherwise, it's decision paralysis.
It can be fun, I have spent so long running games for a group that like a nice solid railroad under their feet that now a days I am not sure I could run an effective sandbox.
It is a perfectly legitimate playstyle, like your comments on Guardian of the galaxy some people want to put the brain in neutral and play the game the DM presents.
payn
Glory to Marik
When people think of The Godfather they think about Michael reaching for a shooter in the commode at Luna's, or Sonny getting jammed up at the toll booth. I know you haven't seen the film so these don't mean much, but they are violent crescendos that propel the plot forward of the movie. What they don't talk about is the amount of exposition that goes into setting up these scenes for the audience. Again, using your example, Guardians of the Galaxy is non-stop action sequences that move the plot along at breakneck speed in comparison.
It's a matter of taste, of course, but the two are very different speeds and deliver disparate experiences. Often, folks think they want to try The Godfather on for size, but only think about the best bits. You really have to love the exposition, the build up, and you have to have the patience for the payoff. Sometimes folks bite off more than they can chew.
(I only skimmed after the initial post, so apologies for what i'm sure someone else already said in better words...)
Aside from straight out asking them, if you want to TRY and continue at least for a little bit, one of the frustrations seems to be not knowing how to proceed. So perhaps find some way of at least jump starting the investigation via a new and obvious clue. OR do it from the -player- side and write up a little worksheet for them with a section for 'suspects and their motives' and 'facts so far' inferences/theories so far' and that gives players a little more codified way to work through problem solving if you didn't want to do it from the character route of extra clues. Either method takes certain types of players to react to it so YMMV.
But if you really are just ready to say "not for us" then flat out tell them "this doesn't seem to be clicking for our group. let's try a regular style campaign again but let's shake it up with a different setting. Or some different gimmick (maybe there is a base they have; maybe they are secret agents for a government agency exploring the strange and unusual magical creature appearances that have suddenly been showing up - that gives straight forward combats and a little mystery as to why these creatures are suddenly showing up now and so on)
Aside from straight out asking them, if you want to TRY and continue at least for a little bit, one of the frustrations seems to be not knowing how to proceed. So perhaps find some way of at least jump starting the investigation via a new and obvious clue. OR do it from the -player- side and write up a little worksheet for them with a section for 'suspects and their motives' and 'facts so far' inferences/theories so far' and that gives players a little more codified way to work through problem solving if you didn't want to do it from the character route of extra clues. Either method takes certain types of players to react to it so YMMV.
But if you really are just ready to say "not for us" then flat out tell them "this doesn't seem to be clicking for our group. let's try a regular style campaign again but let's shake it up with a different setting. Or some different gimmick (maybe there is a base they have; maybe they are secret agents for a government agency exploring the strange and unusual magical creature appearances that have suddenly been showing up - that gives straight forward combats and a little mystery as to why these creatures are suddenly showing up now and so on)
Similar Threads
