Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:54:11 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 02:31:30 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:05:33 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 12:42:26 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 08:52:19 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 20, 2021, 08:04:16 PM

Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 20, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
Does that game use the same system as WFRP ? Or is it a totally different type of game?

Totally different. It's a D6 dice pool system with zones instead of ranges and both Toughness (like Palladium SDC) and Wounds (like Palladium Hit Points). Damage is based on weapon (0-3) plus successes and reduced by armor (er, armour).

  Is it like the Wrath and Glory game for WH40k?

Similar in that both use D6s, but very different in how it's all out together. I'm not really up for laying out the entire system or setting, but i m sure there are reviews online to answer those questions.

  I wouldnt expect you to, but I would ask for a judgement, better in play or worse than W&G?

I like a lot of the Soulbound system, but there are some spots that don't appeal to me (having a full tank of Mettle seems too powerful on turn 1 and minion swarms are the poster glass cannon). OTOH, Wrath & Glory didn't appeal to me at all on a read through (and I never played or ran it).

  Fair assessment on the read through IMO, A games rules have to look pretty bad for me to not even be willing to give them a try, and that was what I got from the page with W&G.  If you were at least willing to give Soulbound a shot, that means it must be considerably better in your eyes, and I have a feeling I am likely to agree with that assessment as well.  I will go ahead and pull the trigger on a copy and see if it is for me.

I believe the C7 site still has a discount on the core rules, but you can probably find similar deals on other sites.

Be aware that, while I like Soulbound overall, it does have what I feel are some problem areas. If you (or others) are interested enough, I can start another thread on it.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 04:53:42 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:54:11 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 02:31:30 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 02:05:33 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 21, 2021, 12:42:26 PM

Quote from: oggsmash on September 21, 2021, 08:52:19 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 20, 2021, 08:04:16 PM

Quote from: TheShadowSpawn on September 20, 2021, 07:59:07 PM
Does that game use the same system as WFRP ? Or is it a totally different type of game?

Totally different. It's a D6 dice pool system with zones instead of ranges and both Toughness (like Palladium SDC) and Wounds (like Palladium Hit Points). Damage is based on weapon (0-3) plus successes and reduced by armor (er, armour).

  Is it like the Wrath and Glory game for WH40k?

Similar in that both use D6s, but very different in how it's all out together. I'm not really up for laying out the entire system or setting, but i m sure there are reviews online to answer those questions.

  I wouldnt expect you to, but I would ask for a judgement, better in play or worse than W&G?

I like a lot of the Soulbound system, but there are some spots that don't appeal to me (having a full tank of Mettle seems too powerful on turn 1 and minion swarms are the poster glass cannon). OTOH, Wrath & Glory didn't appeal to me at all on a read through (and I never played or ran it).

  Fair assessment on the read through IMO, A games rules have to look pretty bad for me to not even be willing to give them a try, and that was what I got from the page with W&G.  If you were at least willing to give Soulbound a shot, that means it must be considerably better in your eyes, and I have a feeling I am likely to agree with that assessment as well.  I will go ahead and pull the trigger on a copy and see if it is for me.

I believe the C7 site still has a discount on the core rules, but you can probably find similar deals on other sites.

Be aware that, while I like Soulbound overall, it does have what I feel are some problem areas. If you (or others) are interested enough, I can start another thread on it.

  I buy so many RPG games for inspiration and collection (still kick myself in the ass I did not get Rogue Trader, now the book is insanely priced as a collector item) that I do not love the rules, I say hit a thread on it.   I am not too familiar with the setting (other than a smattering of it being a sort of pocket dimension Sigmar willed into existence, but I could be wrong about that too) but I would take interest at any thread discussing it.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 21, 2021, 03:41:52 PM

Quote from: tenbones on September 21, 2021, 03:23:59 PM
How much of this comes as an emergent quality of class-based gaming?

Eh, I wouldn't say much. People like archetypes and roleplaying an archetype is fun and easy.

A "fighter" is not indicative of anything except a "man at arms" - it's been parsed, diced, sliced, argued to death for decades now, and sub-divided into other classes, sub-classes trying to shave off some pet notion of what "could be a fighting man" vs. what specialization has "fighter-like" traits but "isn't a fighter".

The archetypes themselves have become boiled down to the game-mechanics being the game itself. MMO's took it and ran. Tanks, DPS, Healers, Controllers etc. etc. You see players making "builds" free of any gaming context.

So when you step back and look at "Adventurer Mindset" - its literally just means to categorize people based on the mechanical functions within the group. That they might appear archetypal (which is not something I'm arguing against, since archetypes exist for a reason) it's that the classifications are the surface which most players engage with the game. Its only slightly deeper than playing the Shoe or Wheelbarrow in Monopoly, the moment you put some kind of mechanical stat to those choices then that's where people will engage the game. The notion that the Adventurer Mindset is real - which I believe it is, it means players are literally coming to the table with a table-top *mechanical* mindset in place even before "classes" (or roles if you prefer) are even chosen.

I'm willing to believe that MMO's have massively reinforced this over D&D, but MMO's took this from D&D.

The Adventurer Mindset needs to be broken by emphasizing things that aren't "basic" adventuring. You need more RP, more Social scenes, more character background interaction within the game. etc. etc.

Classes/Roles etc. are just handholds players cling to in lieu of deeper gaming. GM's are the only ones with the power to break that grip by varying the context of gameplay by making those ineffable qualities of the game and the PC's matter as much as throwing dice.

Quote from: tenbones on September 21, 2021, 05:47:46 PMClasses/Roles etc. are just handholds players cling to in lieu of deeper gaming. GM's are the only ones with the power to break that grip by varying the context of gameplay.

Im not saying I wouldn't like more engagement from players. Its just 'roleplaying' is literally quite difficult for many of them. Not everybody starred in a play in high school (Like I did  ....Thats not really anything brag worthy).

'I am guy who deals damage' is some form of grasping at reality for some players. Including some with psychological hinderances (I have 1 guy who has issues visualizing anything in his head).

Quote from: tenbones on September 21, 2021, 05:47:46 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on September 21, 2021, 03:41:52 PM

Quote from: tenbones on September 21, 2021, 03:23:59 PM
How much of this comes as an emergent quality of class-based gaming?

Eh, I wouldn't say much. People like archetypes and roleplaying an archetype is fun and easy.

A "fighter" is not indicative of anything except a "man at arms" - it's been parsed, diced, sliced, argued to death for decades now, and sub-divided into other classes, sub-classes trying to shave off some pet notion of what "could be a fighting man" vs. what specialization has "fighter-like" traits but "isn't a fighter".

The archetypes themselves have become boiled down to the game-mechanics being the game itself. MMO's took it and ran. Tanks, DPS, Healers, Controllers etc. etc. You see players making "builds" free of any gaming context.

So when you step back and look at "Adventurer Mindset" - its literally just means to categorize people based on the mechanical functions within the group. That they might appear archetypal (which is not something I'm arguing against, since archetypes exist for a reason) it's that the classifications are the surface which most players engage with the game. Its only slightly deeper than playing the Shoe or Wheelbarrow in Monopoly, the moment you put some kind of mechanical stat to those choices then that's where people will engage the game. The notion that the Adventurer Mindset is real - which I believe it is, it means players are literally coming to the table with a table-top *mechanical* mindset in place even before "classes" (or roles if you prefer) are even chosen.

I'm willing to believe that MMO's have massively reinforced this over D&D, but MMO's took this from D&D.

The Adventurer Mindset needs to be broken by emphasizing things that aren't "basic" adventuring. You need more RP, more Social scenes, more character background interaction within the game. etc. etc.

Classes/Roles etc. are just handholds players cling to in lieu of deeper gaming. GM's are the only ones with the power to break that grip by varying the context of gameplay by making those ineffable qualities of the game and the PC's matter as much as throwing dice.

Conversely, in Soulbound, the archetypes are not just game mechanics. If you're playing a Witch Aelf, you're a fanatical cultists to the Aelven god of murder/war. You're really supposed to play up the roleplaying aspects of the archetypes as much as the mechanical bits. This is actually a cause of friction with players in the D&D mindset that "only the mechanics matter and you can just roleplay the character however you like."

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 18, 2021, 02:44:15 PM
Anyone else having similar issues? Any suggestions on how to get them to buy into non-D&D "Adventurer" fantasy?

I've had this problem running historically authentic games. E.g.: PC shoots at someone with his bow in the middle of town. He's accosted by a group of citizens, arrested, and thrown into jail. Sometimes the setting needs to hit back.

I do a couple things regularly that seem to work:

1. Little set pieces for the PCs to stumble upon, no more than 1-2 minutes of description. I design these to "show off" the setting and remind the players that we're not in Kansas any more. E.g., A witch burning that was as historically accurate as I could muster, complete with a crowd that as really into it who booed when they caught the executioner strangling the woman before the fire was lit.

2. Tavern stories. Any time the PCs are talking with random NPCs, they might get a drunk or talkative sort who gives them a 1 minute story that highlights the setting, nothing to do with the task at hand or the PC's quest, just a random vignette.

Yeah, maybe this is just GMing, but I think where it differs is that they can be pointless and totally unrelated to what the PCs are doing. Little lore nuggets, if you will. I sometimes just straight rip off setting fluff from the book. If someone catches me, then good! Now I know you're reading the book!

You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.

Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.

Conceit Buy-In is critical. It really helps to clarify why people gather for the fun (and what's their flexibility to each other) to baseline a shareable experience. I personally do surveys to get the session zero conversation rolling for games that don't come with easy to assume premises (e.g. D&D dungeon crawls, Shadowrun mission, Pathfinder fanfic tours, I mean, Adventure Paths...).

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 09:02:22 AM
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.

Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.

Conceit Buy-In is critical. It really helps to clarify why people gather for the fun (and what's their flexibility to each other) to baseline a shareable experience. I personally do surveys to get the session zero conversation rolling for games that don't come with easy to assume premises (e.g. D&D dungeon crawls, Shadowrun mission, Pathfinder fanfic tours, I mean, Adventure Paths...).

Yeah very much this.

It's really where the rubber hits the road for a GM that means to go the distance. This observation is what has driven me as a GM - I'm always seeking ways to engage my players. I have some players that can't figure out what their character is about until they start playing, and I have players that love session zero, working on contextual backstory that goes completely to hell once the game starts. And I have those that play their concepts on the nose, adjusting normally as the campaign unfolds.

There is an inversion of the Adventurer Mentality though - which makes players demand in-game cohesion only if it's "realistic". My players can't stand it when another player assumes just because their playing (and acting like an asshole) their PC automatically has to be included in the "party". It's another tricky issue to deal with.

Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2021, 09:27:11 AM

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 09:02:22 AM
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.

Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.

Conceit Buy-In is critical. It really helps to clarify why people gather for the fun (and what's their flexibility to each other) to baseline a shareable experience. I personally do surveys to get the session zero conversation rolling for games that don't come with easy to assume premises (e.g. D&D dungeon crawls, Shadowrun mission, Pathfinder fanfic tours, I mean, Adventure Paths...).

Yeah very much this.

It's really where the rubber hits the road for a GM that means to go the distance. This observation is what has driven me as a GM - I'm always seeking ways to engage my players. I have some players that can't figure out what their character is about until they start playing, and I have players that love session zero, working on contextual backstory that goes completely to hell once the game starts. And I have those that play their concepts on the nose, adjusting normally as the campaign unfolds.

There is an inversion of the Adventurer Mentality though - which makes players demand in-game cohesion only if it's "realistic". My players can't stand it when another player assumes just because their playing (and acting like an asshole) their PC automatically has to be included in the "party". It's another tricky issue to deal with.

What I really hate are the player characters based on coming a faction of assholes that worship/emulate the god(dess) of true ultimate assholism and has special training in being the biggest assholes around... And then the player says, "I want to play one with all of those great features, but not, you know, be considered an asshole."

Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2021, 09:27:11 AM
There is an inversion of the Adventurer Mentality though - which makes players demand in-game cohesion only if it's "realistic". My players can't stand it when another player assumes just because their playing (and acting like an asshole) their PC automatically has to be included in the "party". It's another tricky issue to deal with.

The trick I came up for this was I always start my campaigns post group meetup and one of the purposes of the chargen session is to establish how the PCs know each other and why they're a team before the first step along the road to the first adventure is taken.

My unofficial rule is that each PC needs an established relationship with two other PCs in the party and they can't be closed triangles (i.e. three PCs have established relationships with each other and none with the other PCs who will be in the party). They don't have to like each other, but they do need a reason why they're all on the same path.

Sometimes it's tenuous, other times a group will hit on something rock solid (ex. the players decided they were locals starting a gang in one of the worst ghettos in the city; the fighter was the muscle, the rogue was a burglar/pickpocket and the bard was a con man; and so their adventures centered around hitting rival gangs, various crimes, and securing territory and recruits to expand.

But the main thing it did was require even the guy (or gal in several cases) who wanted to play the edgy lone wolf type to have some reason to be involved with the party.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 22, 2021, 11:36:16 AM

Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2021, 09:27:11 AM
There is an inversion of the Adventurer Mentality though - which makes players demand in-game cohesion only if it's "realistic". My players can't stand it when another player assumes just because their playing (and acting like an asshole) their PC automatically has to be included in the "party". It's another tricky issue to deal with.

The trick I came up for this was I always start my campaigns post group meetup and one of the purposes of the chargen session is to establish how the PCs know each other and why they're a team before the first step along the road to the first adventure is taken.

My unofficial rule is that each PC needs an established relationship with two other PCs in the party and they can't be closed triangles (i.e. three PCs have established relationships with each other and none with the other PCs who will be in the party). They don't have to like each other, but they do need a reason why they're all on the same path.

Sometimes it's tenuous, other times a group will hit on something rock solid (ex. the players decided they were locals starting a gang in one of the worst ghettos in the city; the fighter was the muscle, the rogue was a burglar/pickpocket and the bard was a con man; and so their adventures centered around hitting rival gangs, various crimes, and securing territory and recruits to expand.

But the main thing it did was require even the guy (or gal in several cases) who wanted to play the edgy lone wolf type to have some reason to be involved with the party.

Do you require them to have ties to NPCs/organizations/locations too, or just other PCs? I don't find that they have any problems tying together with other PCs, but the other stuff is usually WAY down on their list.

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 09:02:22 AM
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.

Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.

Conceit Buy-In is critical. It really helps to clarify why people gather for the fun (and what's their flexibility to each other) to baseline a shareable experience. I personally do surveys to get the session zero conversation rolling for games that don't come with easy to assume premises (e.g. D&D dungeon crawls, Shadowrun mission, Pathfinder fanfic tours, I mean, Adventure Paths...).

Most players are Normies, and Normies will not--and have never--put in work for their entertainment. The terms are polar opposites to Normies. Accept this, adjust accordingly, and thrive. RPGs really are a lot easier to pitch, run, and enjoy when you cater to Normie sensibilities for entertainment by removing all expectation of them putting in work, either in learning the rules or the setting; if it's not directly and immediately relevant, they don't care and you can't make them- they'll bail for Netflix (or whatever) because they have endless alternatives if one doesn't satisfy their expectations.

Quote from: HappyDaze on September 22, 2021, 11:41:26 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 22, 2021, 11:36:16 AM

Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2021, 09:27:11 AM
There is an inversion of the Adventurer Mentality though - which makes players demand in-game cohesion only if it's "realistic". My players can't stand it when another player assumes just because their playing (and acting like an asshole) their PC automatically has to be included in the "party". It's another tricky issue to deal with.

The trick I came up for this was I always start my campaigns post group meetup and one of the purposes of the chargen session is to establish how the PCs know each other and why they're a team before the first step along the road to the first adventure is taken.

My unofficial rule is that each PC needs an established relationship with two other PCs in the party and they can't be closed triangles (i.e. three PCs have established relationships with each other and none with the other PCs who will be in the party). They don't have to like each other, but they do need a reason why they're all on the same path.

Sometimes it's tenuous, other times a group will hit on something rock solid (ex. the players decided they were locals starting a gang in one of the worst ghettos in the city; the fighter was the muscle, the rogue was a burglar/pickpocket and the bard was a con man; and so their adventures centered around hitting rival gangs, various crimes, and securing territory and recruits to expand.

But the main thing it did was require even the guy (or gal in several cases) who wanted to play the edgy lone wolf type to have some reason to be involved with the party.

Do you require them to have ties to NPCs/organizations/locations too, or just other PCs? I don't find that they have any problems tying together with other PCs, but the other stuff is usually WAY down on their list.

Depends on the genre.

D&D wandering adventurers don't get much from prior ties because they're rarely in one place long enough for it to matter.

Most of the other systems I run generally either have built-in rules for establishing and encouraging NPC ties (ex. Backgrounds in World of Darkness games which provide mechanical benefits to having allies, contacts, fame, influence, status, etc.) or are settings where NPC/organizational ties are part of the base setting (ex. Star Trek PCs generally have a small town's worth of NPCs aboard ship with needed specializations they're probably lacking themselves and personalities you can play with).

Probably the hardest one for establishing extensive NPC ties was Mutants & Masterminds, but I attribute that more to the rather extreme difference in perspective between my Silver-Age sentiments (including several complications based on relationships with families and friends and quickly establishing a working relationship with the authorities because no-kill heroes who try to minimize property damage, stop natural disasters as often as supervillains and stick around to help fix things after the crisis has passed), my fellow players' Punisher/Deadpool sentiments (tragic loner backstories and lots of bodies and destruction).

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 09:02:22 AM
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.

Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.

I partly agree with this -- but I think it's mostly a question of how much fun it is to learn. If I'm running a game in Star Wars or Middle Earth, the players can learn a lot about the background by watching fun some well-produced movies or reading engaging books. Learning all the details about a setting like Exalted means wading through a bunch of White Wolf writer text, which compares poorly to reading well-written novels like Lord of the Rings.

I'm happy to invest in a setting if I enjoy learning about it, but if it feels like a boring slog to get through, then I'm much less interested.

Most of my games use relatively popular or already well-known settings as a result.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker on September 22, 2021, 01:18:19 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on September 22, 2021, 09:02:22 AM
You're fighting a "I'm on my downtime, gimme beer 'n pretzels" mentality. It has zero to do with mechanics of any sort. Instead it has everything to do with willingness to invest into the fictive setting, breathing its life and respecting its consequences.

Settings seem the same if you're just there to sling some dice and go "woohoo, crit!" Just like movies will seem the same if it's just some genre that glazes your eyes over and will likely nap through. Yes, I am calling out 'role play, not roll play' but I am not targeting any system's mechanics inducing this disregard. I am targeting the players' approaching attitude to the social gatherering.

Conceit Buy-In is critical. It really helps to clarify why people gather for the fun (and what's their flexibility to each other) to baseline a shareable experience. I personally do surveys to get the session zero conversation rolling for games that don't come with easy to assume premises (e.g. D&D dungeon crawls, Shadowrun mission, Pathfinder fanfic tours, I mean, Adventure Paths...).

Most players are Normies, and Normies will not--and have never--put in work for their entertainment. The terms are polar opposites to Normies. Accept this, adjust accordingly, and thrive. RPGs really are a lot easier to pitch, run, and enjoy when you cater to Normie sensibilities for entertainment by removing all expectation of them putting in work, either in learning the rules or the setting; if it's not directly and immediately relevant, they don't care and you can't make them- they'll bail for Netflix (or whatever) because they have endless alternatives if one doesn't satisfy their expectations.

Absolutely. I've met many a person, let alone gamers, who go into anaphylactic shock at the idea of reading or learning anything for their fun. If you are wanting to include this type of guest to your table you already understand it is you who will be bending to accomodate their fun.

There is nothing wrong curating your table to a different type of fun. I know it calls back to the Geek Fallacies, but there is truth to that old discussion. A lot of people who are socially... inexperienced?... assume everyone deemed my friend must be welded to the hip. But the truth is not everyone needs an invitation or should attend every event, and your friendship is not shattered by the absence.

Which is something that maturity helps one grow out of. We are different people and are allowed to like different things -- that includes curating guests for a more like-minded, higher concept, gathering. You are not rejecting a friend from the in-group who cannot/will not relate to said event. Instead you are delving deeper into each other's more specialized interests and giving breathing room to ripen friendships in ways away from you.

I know these are just words, but I hope it helps someone younger (or less adroit) out there to be bolder and more resilient in their socializing. It's OK and normal to have multiple circles, interconnected yet not the same.