InzeladunMaster said:
Likewise, I need people to bring something like that to their own characters & goals - or we may as well just be playing a board game. So much of the time, it seemed like many of the players were just "along for the ride" - but no one was actively directing the cart! People who say, "Oh, I don't care; I just want to play" are missing a core ingredient. I need for the players to care. If they don't give a damn, then eventually neither will I. Again, we may as well be playing board games.
For me, I really felt like I dominated the Conan game with Yuri. I became concerned that I was hogging the spotlight, because I know that I have the tendency toward that (you should see me at even staff meetings at work. I am a pain in the ass, I am sure.) So I consciously decided to dial Thorm down. No plotting. No grand schemes. No manipulating or maneuvering. I just played a none-to-smart jock with a too-high opinion of himself.
One of the reasons I resurrected Inzeladun in the first place was the enthusiasm Chris had for the world - and then he stopped coming. All the little hints I threw out that (probably) only he would get were missed because he was almost never there. No one else cared about those little things I threw in.
As far as the inside information and tidbits that were dropped in the game we were just finishing, I have to admit that I had no idea whatsoever what was going on. I felt constantly bombarded with places and names that had no meaning to me, but that were supposed to mean something. So, in that sense I occasionally felt completely out of place. I certainly appreciate the sense of history and place, but all of that went right over my head, for the most part.
I mean, I knew I was supposed to feel, say, bad that a particular place was trashed or interested that a particular person was involved. But I had no idea who they were or what the place was like.
I had a neat idea for a sci-fi setting, but not a single person had a really good idea of the character they wanted to play. Once that became obvious (during character generation, most people were saying, "Oh, I don't really care. Just roll up something. I just want to play"), I had to drop it. I realized I had no storyline wherein I could weave the needs of the characters into my sci-fi setting. The characters had no needs or goals - unless I supplied it.
I would strongly suggest that in a universe as vast as a sci-fi game, that all of the characters need to be given a reason to be together. They need to be designed with the idea of a common goal or a common foe or a common situation. "You are all on the run from the Alliance," or "You are all trying to overthrow the Empire" or "You are part of the crew of a deep-space mining vessel" or "You all work for a corporation trying to recover renegade androids." Or whatever.
Especially compared to, say, D&D, where character classes are by default adventurers, seeking fame and fortune and slaying monsters.
And the few times someone was interested in investigating the world, everyone else would throw out reasons why looking over the next hill or under that rock is a bad idea.
Well, it doesn't help when every time we tried to explore we ended up getting slaughtered in creative ways. I'm just sayin', people are unlikely to charge over the next hill or climb that wall when odds are good they will be dead moments later.
And that is also where D20 fails - it gets too rules-heavy for the most boring part, and makes it last too long. And the character generation emphasizes combat effectiveness - again emphasizing the least interesting aspect of playing the game.
I continue to maintain that a game's rule system directly contributes to the actions players take. In D&D, combat is clearly the preferred method of conflict resolution. That is where the most meat of the system is fleshed out. A game system that relies more on social skill use and less on combat crunch, is a game that will see more people do things outside of combat.
My RQ "knight" stopped wearing armor because the game system made it nearly impossible to be an effective combatant and to wear armor, especially compared to the meager benefit armor gave. it wasn't a character decision, but a player decision that if I didn't want the unarmored and basically unarmed monk to defeat all the villains, I was going to have have Thorm strip to his skivvies. When you set me up with better armor, I went back to wearing armor.
By the way, I think we are old fogies. It appears to me that 4e's main goal is to create even MORE video-game like experiences on the tabletop. One of the playtesters on here said that the new DMG has the best section they had ever seen on how to actually roleplay. I am skeptical, but hope that is true.
