Things that don't translate to the table top

[nomotog]

You posted you "only spare a token of time" to research.

There's your issue.

It takes many hours of research to translate ideas to rpg ideas. You need to create player choice into a scenario or sequence of scenarios. That takes time. Just from what you have posted, you aren't putting in the effort. That happens often with GMs when they don't focus.

You might take an idea and pile additional ideas onto that idea, building until you have one concrete scenario, rather than spreading ideas across multiple campaigns. Make that next campaign ridiculously complex for the players and they might appreciate the multiple layers of drama.

Token amount for thinking of alternate routs. I tend to spend much much more time thinking about how to translate an idea. What I often do is try to strip down the idea to what I really like about it and see how I can port over that . The thing is that some are just hard to port over. (Not impossible, but hard.)

One example would have been pacific rim. I watched it, i loved it then said lets make an RPG about it. The tricky part came when I realized the big reason I liked it is that it looked really good. The mechs were so detailed and looked so epic on the screen. I could make a mech fighting monster game (and I did end up drawing some ideas up for that.) I just couldn't think of a way to replicate that level of detail and aw.

 

[Oliver Shead]

Yeah interesting point. I think they can translate... sometimes! Depends on how you want to do it. I have certainly played a few adventures back in my 2nd Ed AD&D days, when the DM had a trap mechanism with a certain mechanism to undo it, and if it didn't work quite right then a golem would come active. But those are fairly common to adventures I think. I reckon it depends on how "set in stone" the alternate is - for a trap or a map, that's cool, but for an alternate ending to the whole story...yeah that's virtually impossible unless you want to railroad (in my opinion). Actually, that's what I love about RPGs! Because they're so open, I have NO IDEA how it's going to end.

Visuals are totally hard to replicate unless you use pictures and epic description. But what irks me is when the GM goes on trying to describe every last detail, taking ages...instead of giving a fluid, rich description that allows you to use your imagination. It's more like a book than a video game I reckon - and so it's good to get the players to participate in the imaginings.

Exploring and finding is totally doable with a dungeon that has totally been mapped out, with traps and secret passageways and lots of goodies to find in unusual locations. I do love that aspect of dungeons, even if I find it pretty unrealistic. It's great fun finding stuff and going and exploring. I have even had that sense of exploration and wonder when on an island, where I could go all over the place, finding where the goblins lived, what was at the beach, all the monsters and creatures and secret nooks and crannies. Awesome fun - so this can totally be translated I reckon.

Stealth... that's an interesting one. I usually let the players tell me what they plan to do with their stealth and then get them to roll a varied check with that. Then it has a particular effect depending on what they say.

 

[nomotog]

Yeah interesting point. I think they can translate... sometimes! Depends on how you want to do it. I have certainly played a few adventures back in my 2nd Ed AD&D days, when the DM had a trap mechanism with a certain mechanism to undo it, and if it didn't work quite right then a golem would come active. But those are fairly common to adventures I think. I reckon it depends on how "set in stone" the alternate is - for a trap or a map, that's cool, but for an alternate ending to the whole story...yeah that's virtually impossible unless you want to railroad (in my opinion). Actually, that's what I love about RPGs! Because they're so open, I have NO IDEA how it's going to end.

Visuals are totally hard to replicate unless you use pictures and epic description. But what irks me is when the GM goes on trying to describe every last detail, taking ages...instead of giving a fluid, rich description that allows you to use your imagination. It's more like a book than a video game I reckon - and so it's good to get the players to participate in the imaginings.

Exploring and finding is totally doable with a dungeon that has totally been mapped out, with traps and secret passageways and lots of goodies to find in unusual locations. I do love that aspect of dungeons, even if I find it pretty unrealistic. It's great fun finding stuff and going and exploring. I have even had that sense of exploration and wonder when on an island, where I could go all over the place, finding where the goblins lived, what was at the beach, all the monsters and creatures and secret nooks and crannies. Awesome fun - so this can totally be translated I reckon.

Stealth... that's an interesting one. I usually let the players tell me what they plan to do with their stealth and then get them to roll a varied check with that. Then it has a particular effect depending on what they say.

It's kind of a little odd how often railroading is a thing when RPGs can be this big open thing. Like I recall debates where the argument went along the lines of rail road your players, but don't let them know. Most adventures I have bought are presented in a narrow railroad fashion. I think it's just that the effort needed to make a more open game isn't always rewarded.

I think it was in D&D 3.5, there was like a war on flavor text. It started out being two of 3 paragraphs, but by the end was cut down to a sentence or two. It was a universal thing that players didn't like big long descriptions and they wouldn't even listen.

A map is actually one of the ways I have used to handle exploration in kind of a good feeling way. It's something visual the player can see all their options and get a vague idea about what they mean. The tricky part with exploration is trying to give the player a fair chance to find something without giving it away at the same time.

For stealth, I have a little rulelte that I am toying with. Guards and people and ect have a kind of vision cone. They can only focus on one thing at a time action (card game), object (the door), or area (the garden). They get a hefty bonus to notice things happening with what they are focusing on, but a hefty demerit on noticing anything else. If they are watching, then odds are you will fail, but if they aren't odds are you will win, so the idea is that players are trying to manipulate and move the guards focus.

 

[Oliver Shead]

It's kind of a little odd how often railroading is a thing when RPGs can be this big open thing. Like I recall debates where the argument went along the lines of rail road your players, but don't let them know. Most adventures I have bought are presented in a narrow railroad fashion. I think it's just that the effort needed to make a more open game isn't always rewarded.

I think it was in D&D 3.5, there was like a war on flavor text. It started out being two of 3 paragraphs, but by the end was cut down to a sentence or two. It was a universal thing that players didn't like big long descriptions and they wouldn't even listen.

A map is actually one of the ways I have used to handle exploration in kind of a good feeling way. It's something visual the player can see all their options and get a vague idea about what they mean. The tricky part with exploration is trying to give the player a fair chance to find something without giving it away at the same time.

For stealth, I have a little rulelte that I am toying with. Guards and people and ect have a kind of vision cone. They can only focus on one thing at a time action (card game), object (the door), or area (the garden). They get a hefty bonus to notice things happening with what they are focusing on, but a hefty demerit on noticing anything else. If they are watching, then odds are you will fail, but if they aren't odds are you will win, so the idea is that players are trying to manipulate and move the guards focus.

Too true that, about railroading. To be honest I've moved so far away from that... BUT I have found it is useful for new players (just a bit of "guide and direct" rather than actual railroading though... I rarely know exactly how it's going to end once I get the ball in motion).
That cone concept is an interesting one. It would work best with a hex-based game, and for that it would be awesome I reckon. Really cool.

 

[GMMichael]

Refuse!

...but for an alternate ending to the whole story...yeah that's virtually impossible unless you want to railroad (in my opinion). Actually, that's what I love about RPGs! Because they're so open, I have NO IDEA how it's going to end.

...But what irks me is when the GM goes on trying to describe every last detail, taking ages...instead of giving a fluid, rich description that allows you to use your imagination. It's more like a book than a video game I reckon...

To railroad or not to railroad? (This icon will have to fill in for BARD ATTACKS until [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] finds us a Shakespear emoticon.)

Good GMs can get their desired story endings without railroading. I'll call it: dynamic GMing. Suffice it to say for now that there's something beyond Sandboxing and Railroading, and it requires some abstract encounter planning. (So please have an idea how the story will end!)

GMs would benefit from knowing their strengths and weaknesses. There's no reason why a GM can't describe every last detail...unless he's a bad reader, or the description is poorly written. (Full disclosure: I'm probably in the bad reader category!)

Yes, an RPG is like a book. But it's also like a video game, and I wouldn't say it's closer to one than the other. The ability of players to make decisions, from the video game comparison, is pretty crucial. I'd also like to throw in that RPGs are like plays - so there's a minimum amount of acting involved that you don't really get from books OR video games. You can't expect the words of a book or the free will of a video game to do everything; the GM and players must add some drama!

In case that wasn't on-topic enough...
I'm calling this post "Refuse!" for those of us who are tabletop gamers. And we should refuse to let movies or video games do what our tabletops cannot. Let's come up with subsystems - let's educate our GMs - and let's play Pacific Rim on the RPG table! (If that's your sort of thing, anyway.)

 

[nomotog]

Too true that, about railroading. To be honest I've moved so far away from that... BUT I have found it is useful for new players (just a bit of "guide and direct" rather than actual railroading though... I rarely know exactly how it's going to end once I get the ball in motion).
That cone concept is an interesting one. It would work best with a hex-based game, and for that it would be awesome I reckon. Really cool.

In it's current form it's not a cone. It use to be. I mean I was literally ripping the idea from MGS, but in porting it over to D&D5e (My current platform) I wanted to honor the idea that maps aren't required, so it's based around more general objects rather then precise cones. A cone would actually be a little tricky to use. You would need a map for anytime you want people to sneak and placing guards is a lot more fiddly. Like a guard in a tower is going to have a huge cone that covers almost anything.

 

[Oliver Shead]

To railroad or not to railroad? (This icon will have to fill in for BARD ATTACKS until [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] finds us a Shakespear emoticon.)

Good GMs can get their desired story endings without railroading. I'll call it: dynamic GMing. Suffice it to say for now that there's something beyond Sandboxing and Railroading, and it requires some abstract encounter planning. (So please have an idea how the story will end!)

GMs would benefit from knowing their strengths and weaknesses. There's no reason why a GM can't describe every last detail...unless he's a bad reader, or the description is poorly written. (Full disclosure: I'm probably in the bad reader category!)

Yes, an RPG is like a book. But it's also like a video game, and I wouldn't say it's closer to one than the other. The ability of players to make decisions, from the video game comparison, is pretty crucial. I'd also like to throw in that RPGs are like plays - so there's a minimum amount of acting involved that you don't really get from books OR video games. You can't expect the words of a book or the free will of a video game to do everything; the GM and players must add some drama!

In case that wasn't on-topic enough...
I'm calling this post "Refuse!" for those of us who are tabletop gamers. And we should refuse to let movies or video games do what our tabletops cannot. Let's come up with subsystems - let's educate our GMs - and let's play Pacific Rim on the RPG table! (If that's your sort of thing, anyway.)

Well said Mike. I do very much like the concept of "Dynamic GMing." I've often referred to it in the same terms, so that's really cool that to hear you say that. You're right, it's both like a book and a video game. Also, I think whilst we can always adapt our games to make them do what any computer game or book does, we can also do things in a game that these other mediums cannot! So there's plenty to optimise on there too.

 

[Oliver Shead]

In it's current form it's not a cone. It use to be. I mean I was literally ripping the idea from MGS, but in porting it over to D&D5e (My current platform) I wanted to honor the idea that maps aren't required, so it's based around more general objects rather then precise cones. A cone would actually be a little tricky to use. You would need a map for anytime you want people to sneak and placing guards is a lot more fiddly. Like a guard in a tower is going to have a huge cone that covers almost anything.

Ah right, I see what you mean. That's logical. I personally prefer to do things by logic and not work so much on hexes and maps unless I need to, so I like that