[Steampunk Crescendo] Out on a limb
David Berg:
Oh, you don't need to succeed to make Goal progress, and you can lose Goal progress? Hmm. Well, tell me this, from your experience playing it, how do players tend to feel about their world-changing Goals?
Do they feel like they need to strategize or otherwise "play well" in order to earn those Goals? Is simply completing a Goal a challenge, and an achievement to be proud of?
Or it is a matter of "I'll get my Goal whenever I want to after my 4th turn" and the challenge is to work that Goal into the fiction in a satisfying way?
Is it "see if you can" or "see if you can make it awesome" (or "see how awesome you can make it")? Or "see how little Drawback you can accrue while achieving your Goal", or something else?
I'd pitch these differently from each other.
dindenver:
So, it really is player driven. I had one player who wanted to hit their Goal on all cylinders, but didn't read the character sheet, the rules or ask me how. They struggled pretty badly. I had another player get it and march incessantly (even taking penalties to short term Intentions) to get their Goal (And they did it too).
Typically though, about 1/2 of the players or so go after their goal at all, with about 2/3rds of them accomplishing at least one Goal before the games ends (whether campaign or one shot).
The value of decreasing Goal and Gaining Drawback is that you can then use Drawback to give yourself a bonus.
There is nothing the GM can do to stop or force players towards their Goal. Verbal encouragement is there, but there are no mechanics behind it. Even if the GM says "If you complete your Goal the game is over because my ideas all revolve around it being unaccomplished," there is nothing the GM can do to prevent the player from actually getting their Goal mechanically.
I included rules for changing your goal, but I was never able to see a player use that in practice. I wonder if that was better advertised in the rules, if more players would pursue their Goals after they got to know their character better?
Generally in play, it is a creative process, how to figure out what the next step is and how to integrate that into what is happening at the table. I have seen some Goals bring the awesome while others were just Cool stuff that happened. Both versions are equally satisfying to me.
David Berg:
I'd previously parsed "player driven Goals" as "players do take the initiative", not "players might take the initiative". If only half of them are really going for a Goal, then I guess "play is about going for your Goal" is not part of your pitch to new players, eh? Is it more like, "react to the GM's situation, and oh if you feel like going for a Goal you can do that too"?
I feel like I understand the list of things this game does, but I'm having trouble seeing which ones compromise the biggest incentives in play and thus the key selling points. So that's what I'm trying to tease out here. Sorry for the barrage of questions.
dindenver:
I love answering questions, barrage away.
So, the players set the scenes most of the time. It is definitely not about the players reacting to the GM. Basically, all of the players, including the GM, take turns settings scenes.
Setting a Goal is part of the character creation process. I think the players that didn't go for their goals represent passive players, players with a creative block and players that just didn't understand the rules.
Oh, if I describe the first session, this will all gel better:
1) Players brainstorm what they like/don't like about steampunk, Victorian, vampires, magic and gadgets.
2) The GM is selected from the players
3) The GM comes up with the idea for an Antagonist and describes to the players what that Antagonist is doing right now (the GM has to describe what the players know about what actions the Antagonist is doing, but not necessarily their Goals, hidden or otherwise).
4) Players make characters that are opposed to that Antagonist
5) GM creates the Antagonist character with the current PCs in mind.
6) One of the players set the first scene.
Generally, this setup makes for cohesive PC groups, cohesive PC activities/story and fun adventures.
So, what problems does this solve:
1) PCs can't really affect the setting
2) Lucky rolls can break the game
3) One Stat/Skill to rule them all
4) PCs that are not united against any common enemy
5) Accomplishing big/small goals without violence
6) Powering up without leveling up
7) No moral grey areas
8) No focus on equipment/gear
These are stated negatively, and I am not sure how to re-phrase these with a positive tone without falling back on RPG cliches...
David Berg:
Do you have a specific intent regarding the relationship between PC Goals and the PC-Antagonist conflict? Is "to defeat the Antagonist" a perfect Goal or a horrible one?
If I was playing:
(a) Am I probably going to have to choose, at any given moment, whether to pursue my Goal or my fight vs the Antagonist?
(b) Or will I be simultaneously be doing both?
(c) Or is it my choice whether I wind up with (a) or (b)? (And if so, what should guide my choice on the matter?)
Quote from: dindenver on January 20, 2012, 07:35:50 AM
I think the players that didn't go for their goals represent passive players, players with a creative block and players that just didn't understand the rules.
Okay, gotcha. I'll assume your target audience is active, creative players, then.
Quote from: dindenver on January 20, 2012, 07:35:50 AM
So, what problems does this solve:
This illustrates to me that I phrased my earlier question poorly. What I meant by "What problem does your game solve?" was not about comparison to any old flaws of any old games. I more meant, that if anyone's going to buy Steampunk Crescendo, there must be something that they want that they can't currently get out of any other game on the market. Let's assume they've played every RPG ever. They've already seen good techniques for solving some of the specific problems you solve. They're not just looking for a game that meets a disparate 12-point checklist. They're looking to scratch a more singular itch, like "rules-lite supernatural horror with superpowers" or "dystopia-ending heroic action". I think you've got to catch their attention first with that, and then you can tell them about the fuller list of features.
So when asked about solving a problem, what I had in mind was something like: "All current dystopian RPGs are either highly person emo drama or tactical skirmish simulators. Anyone who wants to really fight the struggle and win doesn't have a system to support them. Well, now they do!" You know? What's the niche and desire that's out there going unfulfilled, that Steampunk Crescendo is here to satisfy?
If that's all too abstract, I guess you could just pick your personal favorite aspects of the game, guess which three will appeal to the most players, and paste 'em together in a sentence.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page