Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5617757" data-attributes="member: 70709">I'm pretty confident the GM is using the Dresden Files rules as the basic source for FATE in our game, so it wouldn't surprise me if he took that idea but chose to go in a slightly different direction.  I should ask him.  I've read some parts of the Diaspora SRD before (I found the ship combat rules very interesting) but I hadn't read about the collaborative setting creation.  (I do vaguely recall reading about phases in character creation in FATE 2e a long time ago, but that strikes me as pretty traditional.) I think Diaspora tends toward hard sci-fi a little bit more than what we want for this particular campaign, but we should definitely keep it in mind for mining ideas.  I know I'd love to run a Diaspora/Eclipse Phase blend sometime.I probably wouldn't do it in Paranoia either.  It's best as a one-shot game IMHO and I think a player pretty much gets that game within 2 clone deaths, or does not.  However, for Call of Cthulu I'd absolutely try it out, perhaps with the caveat that no one can explain mysterious events.  Plus, in a horror game letting the players experience the normal flow of the setting and some of its characters might help make the events requiring investigation later more impactful.  I played a somewhat brief CoC campaign set in 1920s New York, pretty standard CoC setting, but frequently had difficulty because that milieu is not one I have much experience with in fiction, in spite of a reasonably detailed character background, while the DM was extremely well read on that era even beyond the Cthulu mythos.  I think something collaborative early on might have really helped.I think we're on the same wavelength here.  Particularly where providing more information about the setting actually makes the player less willing to engage with the setting.  At first glance it might seem like a paradoxical effect, but the psychology of "I don't know enough and never will" is a sufficient explanation.Aside from some one shots I've never played or run a game where there wasn't some interaction with the setting prior to play.  Writing backgrounds and iterating with the DM at the very least.  The scope of this creation is, in my experience, much more limited than what we did using Microscope.  (Huh, irony.)  And as you say, in what I think of as "traditional" pre-campaign negotiations what the player suggests may inspire the DM, but it isn't necessarily adopted.  (Ideas are cheap, after all.)  This is quite a bit different from what using Microscope was like, where the basic assumption is that ideas aren't suggestions, they are (incomplete) descriptions of reality.  If something needs to be finessed, that is also something done collaboratively rather than behind the scenes.Thank you all for your comments.</blockquote>

Verification