I understand that it might be a bit risky to ask about this, but I'd like to hear an opinion. By default, AW Engine comes with no specified setting, it's up to the players to create one, which, depending on whom you ask, might be perceived as one its strongest selling points, or one of major flaws (or both - we're, after all, quite complicated beings).
I'd like to learn whether an established setting makes the experience somehow better for all you people, who don't like the game in its default "blank state". Not "instantly good", mind you, just "enough to consider playing it".
My point of view: I can only say, that I don't like *.World games very much. I find no fun in "building from the scratch", perpetual defining some elements I usually expect to be already established, so if I'm welcomed to play a game and there's a setting included, I find it quite helpful.
Sagas of the Icelanders has an established settings: Iceland as portrayed in the myth (I will not call it Mythic Iceland because that is the title of my friend Pedro's RPG book about Iceland). And it is a good AW hack.
I have always wondered how Sagas would fare if transported to Glorantha, with a Sartarite clan instead of an Icelandic one. In this case, the "build the setting from scratch" refers only to "build the clan from scratch", that is an interactive discovery of the character's specific relationship with the world, not the world itself. This is not incompatible with traditional gaming style, IMHO. You would usually work out with the GM the details of your clain at the start of any game including barbarian characters. Here, the rules are there to guide this process that is mostly freeform in more traditional games.
A few things on building the setting as you go. Established settings are there to help provide a framework to hang stories and character concepts. There are some established setting that are extremely daunting to get in to, I am not a fan of Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms for this reason. Others are open enough that there is breathing room for new stories, like the Champions or Fading Suns (At least from the core rule book) settings. To go back to D&D though, the only setting included core book has been the deities from Greyhawk, not counting 4 or 5e. This put the onus on the players, primarily the DM, to create the world.
Apocalypse World embraces the notion that people use home grown settings and bakes that into the rules. Following the character creation process the players will answer questions about the setting essential to their characters. This allows the players to take ownership of a portion of the world and helps to create a greater level buy in from the players. While not everyone may know everything about the setting each player becomes a subject matter expert on things relating to their character. This has the added effect of taking strain off the MC allowing them to focus more on the flow of the story and keeping things interesting. Remember, the MC shouldn't come with a story prepared just have some things queued up in case people start to get complaint.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886295I understand that it might be a bit risky to ask about this, but I'd like to hear an opinion. By default, AW Engine comes with no specified setting, it's up to the players to create one, which, depending on whom you ask, might be perceived as one its strongest selling points, or one of major flaws (or both - we're, after all, quite complicated beings).
I'd like to learn whether an established setting makes the experience somehow better for all you people, who don't like the game in its default "blank state". Not "instantly good", mind you, just "enough to consider playing it".
My point of view: I can only say, that I don't like *.World games very much. I find no fun in "building from the scratch", perpetual defining some elements I usually expect to be already established, so if I'm welcomed to play a game and there's a setting included, I find it quite helpful.
Not all AW Engine games come with no setting. Saga of the Icelanders has the implied setting of, well, Iceland during the Viking era. Blades in the Dark has a really detailed setting. Even AW itself has an implied setting -- the psychic maelstrom and nature of the opponents and everything basically posits as much as a world as Basic D&D does.
With that said, to answer your question, a detailed setting or a self-designed setting's merits all depend on a) how much the detailed setting matches what I want out of the game, and b) whether my players come up with something cool. I really, really like Blades in the Dark's built-in setting because it's got a weird Georgian spiritualist-steampunk thing going on that I don't see anywhere else. At the same time, I look forward to my players building corporations with The Sprawl.
It all depends on the game, really.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;886309Not all AW Engine games come with no setting. Saga of the Icelanders
Quote from: RosenMcStern;886298Sagas of the Icelanders has an established settings:
Guys, guys, I appreciate the input, but I'm not asking for an example of an established setting, but
whether it helps to have one. Emphasis on people who don't like *.World games. :)
Well, it is not so easy to have a good reply. You should find someone who disliked one or more of the *World games that are without setting, and later had a good experience with Sagas or other games with a setting. That is, someone who knew he did not like *World games but nevertheless took the risk of playing another one, only to find it "clicked" better for him. Anyone here who did this?
Personally, I do not mind having to build the setting interactively in a short narrative arc, but I like the setting to be more established when it comes to long duration games (longer than a *World campaign). I think you will benefit from an established setting in a *World game, if you are a trad roleplayer who prefers to not have such details under player control. The point is: why do you ask? Do you want to give *World a try, or what?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886328Guys, guys, I appreciate the input, but I'm not asking for an example of an established setting, but whether it helps to have one. Emphasis on people who don't like *.World games. :)
Theses kind folks are pointing out what seems to be a flaw in your premise. Games built on/hacked from AW engine are not necessarily without setting. And even in the ones that don't offer a setting, it's certainly not the case that when there is no setting that it is always up to the players to create it. Dungeon World is the first example that comes to mind.
It sounds like you want to ask if people who have played, and didn't like, an AW hack game where they participated in world building, would they have liked it better if they hadn't had to participate in world building?
Quote from: RosenMcStern;886334Well, it is not so easy to have a good reply. You should find someone who disliked one or more of the *World games that are without setting, and later had a good experience with Sagas or other games with a setting. That is, someone who knew he did not like *World games but nevertheless took the risk of playing another one, only to find it "clicked" better for him. Anyone here who did this?
This thread serves exactly this purpose. ;)
Quote from: RosenMcStern;886334The point is: why do you ask? Do you want to give *World a try, or what?
Call it "a professional curiosity". ;)
More seriously: from my experience it is easier to persuade people to play a game they initially dislike, when faced with a possibility to step into a well developed, interesting world (bonus points if it resembles some specific work of fiction they already are in love with). While it works for more "traditional" games, I'm curious whether it's the same for more modern inventions like *.World products.
I think it comes down to GM-trust. There are a *lot* of GM's that think their home-brewed settings are really good, but in fact are just heartbreakers, but that doesn't stop them from attempting to see it realized in their favorite system.
As a Player, you have to believe that this GM is going to 1) create something of interest that you'll find enjoying 2) they will run it in a way that engages your imagination and of course 3) it will all be fun.
As a GM it's hard to cultivate that kinda trust in veteran players, in my experience. Especially if the system is an unknown factor. I fully understand the reticence of players when they hear their GM give their spiel about some setting they crapped out of their head unless that GM has earned some trust that they can produce. And of course all it takes is one botched attempt to lose all that political capital.
Toolkit systems are for those GM's wanting to go "to the next level". It's not easy (as you know). But from a player's perspective I generally say, just be patient and ask to pitch in. Because the best way for you, as a player to get out of a settingless system is to actually have a hand in pitching ideas for the setting you'll be playing in with the GM.
I don't know of *any* GM that wouldn't like that. And the plus side is it becomes your group's setting, not just the ambitious GM who *will* make mistakes or omissions if left to their own devices.
TL/DR - Settings matter if only to sell a certain concept to the players. Settingless systems require trust of your GM. A corollary of that is - help pitch in with building the setting WITH your GM. That way you all get what you want.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;886336Theses kind folks are pointing out what seems to be a flaw in your premise. Games built on/hacked from AW engine are not necessarily without setting. And even in the ones that don't offer a setting, it's certainly not the case that when there is no setting that it is always up to the players to create it. Dungeon World is the first example that comes to mind.
By default, and I spoke specifically about it, *.world game features no setting. I know a few *.World based games, been playing some in the past (with varying results) - I'm not looking for any specific setting, or anything like that.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;886336It sounds like you want to ask if people who have played, and didn't like, an AW hack game where they participated in world building, would they have liked it better if they hadn't had to participate in world building?
Pretty much, yes.
Having a pre-established setting in PbtA games is not a problem in my experience.
Just calibrate the players creative input to conform to the setting you're using. Ie: instead of asking "what's there behind that mountain ?", you could ask "See, acording to our pre-established setting, behind that mountain is the Pict lands, home to barbarian clans and wild beasts. Why don't you tell us which clan you grew up, how life was like in it, and who do you care for that still lives there?" :)
What's important, in my (small) experience with the engine, is, specially during the first session, to let players establish fun facts and elements in the world that they (and her characters) care for (so the MC can poke at them later :D). But they don't need to create whole chunks of "reality" for it, no. If they come up with, say, just a couple elements and why they're important to the character, that's enough.
Quote from: tenbones;886339As a GM it's hard to cultivate that kinda trust in veteran players, in my experience. Especially if the system is an unknown factor. I fully understand the reticence of players when they hear their GM give their spiel about some setting they crapped out of their head unless that GM has earned some trust that they can produce. And of course all it takes is one botched attempt to lose all that political capital.
Ain't that the truth...
While I agree that it works
n general (been there, done that), I simply wonder whether it applies to *.World games too.
Quote from: Itachi;886345Having a pre-established setting in PbtA games is not a problem in my experience.
Is it an advantage?
Quote from: Itachi;886345(...) What's important, in my (small) experience with the engine, is, specially during the first session, to let players establish fun facts and elements in the world that her characters care for (...)
That's legit piece of advice and it's not only applicable, but also relevant to pretty much every game there is. ;)
TBH, I find it problematic when players don't begin to tinker with the world at least on some very basic level. It's not that they need to redefine whole World of Darkness, or force the GM to accept that it's not the Emperor's carcass that's sitting on the Golden Throne of Holy Terra. It's just that it proves their dedication, confirms they have fun and that they feel "at home", when they discuss what kind of beer is the best one in-game, or which city features best brothekls & stuff. ;_
You're curious because Kult: Divinity Lost will be using a *.World type system, aren't you? :)
I wish I could contribute to the thread, but I'm not familiar enough with *.World stuff.
I played Blades in the Dark once, liked it.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886342By default, and I spoke specifically about it, *.world game features no setting. I know a few *.World based games, been playing some in the past (with varying results) - I'm not looking for any specific setting, or anything like that.
Pretty much, yes.
In my experience, the folks who didn't like the various games said their biggest beef was the "loosey goosey" nature of moves and the PC/NPC asymmetry. To a one, nobody griped about their ability to contribute to the setting.
Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;886355You're curious because Kult: Divinity Lost will be using a *.World type system, aren't you? :)
You dirty, little... But how did you... Daaaayum...
Ahem :D
Just joking. Yes, no denying that it's partially because of KULT's reboot, but also because it seems that people agree that it's often better to play one of FATE's derivatives, than "pure" FATE. I'm genuinely curious whether it's applicable to *.World games too.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;886358In my experience, the folks who didn't like the various games said their biggest beef was the "loosey goosey" nature of moves and the PC/NPC asymmetry. To a one, nobody griped about their ability to contribute to the setting.
I see. So, the existence of a predefined setting might be of little/no importance at all. Thanks.
I don't find that the predefined setting makes much difference to how the system works.
Among *World games with detailed settings, I've played Sagas of the Icelanders and Night Witches. The latter in particular has a highly detailed and specific setting - a particular historical regiment and time. But there are always lots details to be filled in.
By comparison, Monsterhearts, Monster of the Week and Apocalypse World were very loose setting.
Okay, the notion that the referee using their own setting makes players 'reticent' to use something the referee 'crapped out of their head' is now going to make me cry so hard I puke.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;886336It sounds like you want to ask if people who have played, and didn't like, an AW hack game where they participated in world building, would they have liked it better if they hadn't had to participate in world building?
Actually, that's the one thing I REALLY HATED about Dungeon World.
"What is the hierarchy of the Paladins of St. Cuthbert?"
"I don't know, what IS the hierarchy of the Paladins of St. Cuthbert?"
"FUCK YOU, YOU ASSMONKEY, YOU'RE THE MOTHERFUCKING REFEREE!!!"
If I'm not the ref, I do not WANT to have to invent the fucking world.
I get all the worldbuilding I can handle when I'm the GM. When I'm playing, I'll build the world the way my character does, with his sword and his wits.
What the hell is the point of declaring as a player that the Silken Veil has the best wenches in town? Hoo boy, that was interesting...not.
Take the tour and find out for yourself where the best ones are, one wench at a time, the way Crom intended.
So much energy thrown into different ways to stuff non-roleplaying into Roleplaying Games.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886388Actually, that's the one thing I REALLY HATED about Dungeon World.
"What is the hierarchy of the Paladins of St. Cuthbert?"
"I don't know, what IS the hierarchy of the Paladins of St. Cuthbert?"
"FUCK YOU, YOU ASSMONKEY, YOU'RE THE MOTHERFUCKING REFEREE!!!"
If I'm not the ref, I do not WANT to have to invent the fucking world.
I largely agree. I kinda don't mind that in one shots that aren't set in some pre-defined setting, but don't care for it otherwise.
For me, this is like forcing a player to speak in first person with a "fantasy" accent. Know your players and don't force it on them if it's not their bag. It's certainly not integral to playing Dungeon World.
"What is the hierarchy of the Paladins of St. Cuthbert?"
"I don't know, what IS the hierarchy of the Paladins of St. Cuthbert?"
"Bow down before your God!"
"..."
"If you don't like my answers, stop asking me to do your fuckng job."
Yeah, some players have some cool ideas to offer, so having a platform to open up player creativity is fine. Does Dungeon World make the GM ask the player every time?
There are times when I flat out tell players things along those lines, usually because I have not given it much thought and if they are interested in the world that their character interacts with, I have no qualms about asking for player input.
To me, that's a perk, and if I know a player is not into that kind of creative control, I'm more than happy to fill in the gaps on the fly.
I'm curious how hardcore the "world building" on the player side gets with predefined settings.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;886298Sagas of the Icelanders has an established settings: Iceland as portrayed in the myth (I will not call it Mythic Iceland because that is the title of my friend Pedro's RPG book about Iceland). And it is a good AW hack.
Then your friend deserve all the praise. We used Mythic Iceland as background fro our Sagas game. The book is fantastic.
Quotehave always wondered how Sagas would fare if transported to Glorantha, with a Sartarite clan instead of an Icelandic one. In this case, the "build the setting from scratch" refers only to "build the clan from scratch", that is an interactive discovery of the character's specific relationship with the world, not the world itself. This is not incompatible with traditional gaming style, IMHO. You would usually work out with the GM the details of your clain at the start of any game including barbarian characters. Here, the rules are there to guide this process that is mostly freeform in more traditional games.
Our last Sagas game played out exactly as a King of Dragon Pass (the Glorantha videogame) playthrough. Some players that didn't know Sagas yet got surprised by the resemblance (even calling Tyr Lankhor Mhy and Frey Barntar in some ocasions :D ). So yeah, I think your theory is sound ;)
I really like * World games, so I don't know if I'm the target of the OP's question.
What I can say, is that I prefer games with a defined setting. I doesn't have to be much, (I hate settings with an excess in details, I like to improvise stuff), but as a GM I like to know where my feet stand.
For example, tremulus builds a nice mechanical framework to tell Lovecraftian stories, but also includes a random generator to design your own town filled with plots, which is quite cool to start a game and see where it goes. I can work with that.
There are some established setting books for Dungeon World out there. Plague of Storms, Something Stirs in the Blackscale Brakes, A Sundered World, and The Last Days of Angelkite are all ones I'd recommend.
In my experience playing DW, the advantage of going fully improv is to 1) give the players a sense of buy-in to the world, and 2) avoid the temptation to steer the action towards a preferred resolution. Published settings give you a more defined starting point and structure, if that's what you're comfortable with. So go for it.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886388Actually, that's the one thing I REALLY HATED about Dungeon World.
"What is the hierarchy of the Paladins of St. Cuthbert?"
"I don't know, what IS the hierarchy of the Paladins of St. Cuthbert?"
"FUCK YOU, YOU ASSMONKEY, YOU'RE THE MOTHERFUCKING REFEREE!!!"
If I'm not the ref, I do not WANT to have to invent the fucking world.
But that's not a universal trait. World creation can be a shared task; it can happen outside of the game, or inside it. All this shit is a spectrum, rather than a flat out yes or no proposition.
Sometimes it's just a matter of letting the people with the coolest idea's idea be the one that sticks. We were playing Dungeon-World, and the GM was running a Thieves' World knock-off, and the issue of a Mage's Guild came up. He hadn't planned on the Mage's Guild being a detailed part of the setting, so all he had was this idea that there was a Mage's Guild. When the GM turned the question to us, "Okay, there's a Mage's Guild, what's it like?" we batted ideas around for three minutes and came up with something far cooler than if he'd just had to make shit up on the spot and we ended up doggedly pursuing that thread. It worked real well for us.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886295My point of view: I can only say, that I don't like *.World games very much. I find no fun in "building from the scratch", perpetual defining some elements I usually expect to be already established, so if I'm welcomed to play a game and there's a setting included, I find it quite helpful.
I'm pretty much exactly the opposite. I really enjoy building custom game worlds. Don't get me wrong, I also like running games where a setting is included... Just a few worth mentioning here...
Judges Guild Wilderlands Campaign Setting, Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Lost star clusters, or star spiral arms in
Traveller, like that. I run games and even campaigns in published game worlds, but prefer running homebrew campaigns even more.
I really like including stuff no one else has in their games. Completely new monsters, unique NPCs, unique challenges and traps, new treasures and artifacts... Like that.
It takes plenty of skill as a GM to present a coherent chaotic game world in just the right style, to keep players interested in playing, and to have fun, all while they are learning about new techniques and opportunities for mayhem.
I enjoy having players take an active role in shaping their game world.
Setting up a stronghold, for example, to protect one of their trade caravans.
Stealing a stronghold from an existing group of NPC pirates, thieves, or rogues...
Building an Inn and staffing it, so that they can have a supplementary income, instead of having to trudge to the nearest dungeon, and kill all the critters inside, wash, rinse, and repeat ad nauseam... boring.
Much better to let the players be creative. GIve them opportunities to build a ship, buy one, or steal one. Then run an adventure on that.
No need to have everything all pre-printed or stated out. It is ok though, to build a short encounter list.
Quote from: Future Villain Band;886445But that's not a universal trait. World creation can be a shared task; it can happen outside of the game, or inside it. All this shit is a spectrum, rather than a flat out yes or no proposition.
Well, sure. That's why I said "I do not want" rather than "nobody wants".
Quote from: Future Villain Band;886445But that's not a universal trait. World creation can be a shared task; it can happen outside of the game, or inside it. All this shit is a spectrum, rather than a flat out yes or no proposition.
Sometimes it's just a matter of letting the people with the coolest idea's idea be the one that sticks. We were playing Dungeon-World, and the GM was running a Thieves' World knock-off, and the issue of a Mage's Guild came up. He hadn't planned on the Mage's Guild being a detailed part of the setting, so all he had was this idea that there was a Mage's Guild. When the GM turned the question to us, "Okay, there's a Mage's Guild, what's it like?" we batted ideas around for three minutes and came up with something far cooler than if he'd just had to make shit up on the spot and we ended up doggedly pursuing that thread. It worked real well for us.
Personally I don't like that sort of thing because I like observing the environment, gathering clues about it and then figuring out how to use what I know to my advantage. I can't really do that in this kind of Shroedinger's Setting.
Drove me nuts in Burning Wheel.
Quote from: CRKrueger;886390I get all the worldbuilding I can handle when I'm the GM. When I'm playing, I'll build the world the way my character does, with his sword and his wits.
But how did you get this sword of yours ? A family relic passed down generations ? A prize from the nether plane ? A fragment of a god fingernail ? And how important is it for you ? Does it have a personality of it's own ? Does it fuel you with bloodlust ? Or perhaps it just reminds you of your dear father ?
And your wits, how did you get it ? From the savage lands where the witless are the breakfest of wild beasts ? From the maquiavelic politics of a shadowy guild you grew up in ? Or perhaps that story the elders say about some spark of avatarhood inside you has some truth to it ?
Are you SURE you don't want to add some neat and fun details like that to our world ? Oh come on, it's just in this first session. After that I promise you will REALLY have to put sword and wits to use if you want to know more. :D
What happened before the game starts is irrelevant. Show, don't tell.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886482What happened before the game starts is irrelevant.
True for more traditional games and playstyles. For more narrativist ones what players bring to the table tend to be pretty relevant. Never played Dungeon World though, so don't know where it falls on the spectrum.
QuoteShow, don't tell.
I prefer the saying
"Play, don't show" myself, as the "show" reminds me of the gratuitous exposition that may happen when GMs get too enchanted with their own stories and settings, a not so rare occurence in traditional games in my experience.
Jesus, we don't really need to do the whole "quote from the AW book" again, do we?
Fucking for Hx and forced PC response...
Hardholders...
Of course if you choose to not play with all that stuff, then fine, Rule 0 Fallacy etc. Most of the time this conversation goes something like this.
"AW is not OOC"
"multiple quotes of rules"
"Well, of course we don't play with any of that"
:banghead:
Quote from: Itachi;886493a not so rare occurence in traditional games run by bad GMs in my experience.
Fixed that for you. I've gone to restaurants and had a steak that wasn't worth eating...didn't become a vegetarian, I just didn't go back to the restaurant after telling the manager he needs a new chef.
Quote from: jhkim;886385I don't find that the predefined setting makes much difference to how the system works.
Wait, wait, you mean "in general" by that, or is it purely from *.World games point of view?
Quote from: CRKrueger;886390What the hell is the point of declaring as a player that the Silken Veil has the best wenches in town? Hoo boy, that was interesting...not.
FOR CROM!Remember
Conan the Barbarian movie? The scene where Conan and Subotai sit, eat some meal and discuss whose god is the stronger, better one?
Some people enjoy this kind of stuff, it makes them strengthen the connection with the setting, treat it as something familiar, what they (at least partially) control, that they helped to shape it not only by their characters' actions, but also as co-demiurges of sorts. Not everyone's cup of tea, I guess, but still, some enjoy it. Others require that.
After all,
you control what you name, isn't that right, Hulk? ;)
Quote from: Maese Mateo;886423For example, tremulus builds a nice mechanical framework to tell Lovecraftian stories, but also includes a random generator to design your own town filled with plots, which is quite cool to start a game and see where it goes. I can work with that.
A player who don't like *.World games is "merely" a bonus. Every voice counts. :)
I'm curious about "Tremulus" - do you think it's good enough to actually deliver the experience similar to games like "Call/Trail of Cthulhu"? Those a few sessions I've had weren't especially good, but there were many factors influencing the outcome.
Quote from: GameDaddy;886459I'm pretty much exactly the opposite. I really enjoy building custom game worlds.
Oh, I have nothing against worldbuilding
per se and from time to time, I'm ok with assembling everything from the scratch. It's just that I don't enjoy starting with a blank state
all the time. I'm thumbs up for filling/changing some details later, but at first I really appreciate some framework, something that tells me where my character lives and gives me some hints regarding who he might be/become.
Quote from: GameDaddy;886459I also like running games where a setting is included...
(...)
Much better to let the players be creative. GIve them opportunities to build a ship, buy one, or steal one. Then run an adventure on that.
No need to have everything all pre-printed or stated out. It is ok though, to build a short encounter list.
So, I take it that while you prefer to build everything, you're also fine with the opposite. Effectively, with or without a predefined setting, you'll have your share of fun. An universalist, eh? ;)
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886482What happened before the game starts is irrelevant. Show, don't tell.
Pardon me, but does that mean that all your characters, no matter what game and genre come with "FU, it's no concern of yours" background? I mean, I know it's an exaggeration, but I can't wrap my head around this style of play. I'm certainly missing something here...
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886555Remember Conan the Barbarian movie? The scene where Conan and Subotai sit, eat some meal and discuss whose god is the stronger, better one?
Some people enjoy this kind of stuff, it makes them strengthen the connection with the setting, treat it as something familiar, what they (at least partially) control, that they helped to shape it not only by their characters' actions, but also as co-demiurges of sorts. Not everyone's cup of tea, I guess, but still, some enjoy it. Others require that.
The difference of course being that if we were in a Hyborian Age
roleplaying game, Crom is a part of the existing setting, as is that fact that Turanians worship Erlik and his prophet the Living Tarim, the Shemites worship Ishtar and a Zamoran thief possibly gives praise to Bel.
We can have one incredibly entertaining roleplaying session (and possibly PvP encounter) discussing religion, none of it being made up by our players creating facts about the cosmology of the world as they do so.
My character can choose to brag for years about the famous royal brothel he snuck into called Ishtar's Sigh in Shadizar the Wicked. It doesn't mean such a thing exists, or even if it did, that I ever went there.
If I have a Cimmerian character who pulls an Arnold and mixes the worship of Crom with that of the Nordheimers , I'm not going to tell the character his character doesn't believe that. But other Cimmerians are probably going to tell him he's off his rocker, because Crom does not live in Valhalla.
If you *need* to be able to create True facts about the Gods, become a GM.
I'm one of those weird fuckers I guess that doesn't feel the need to insert a metric assload of non-roleplaying into a roleplaying session to have fun.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886555After all, you control what you name, isn't that right, Hulk? ;)
BTW, the Hulk thing came from a forum discussion about Marvel Heroic Roleplaying and I called it Hulk in the Vineyard due to the storytelling nature of the game and put up the pic as a joke. Someone pointed me to a Something Awful post where I guess I made it into grognards.txt and an idiot there said because I used The Hulk, I must look like a sumo wrestler with a vagina or something. Well, when someone tells you what bothers them... ;)
Of course, I could say something about a guy who uses a character avatar who has a god-complex having a need to fill in world details
as a player and liking games that let him do that, but that would be just crazy...right? :D
During Wonder Woman Avatar month, I think I had the best one with Tori Black though.
We should do another Wonder Woman Avatar month in honor of Batman vs. Superman.
Quote from: CRKrueger;886556We can have one incredibly entertaining roleplaying session (and possibly PvP encounter) discussing religion, none of it being made up by our players creating facts about the cosmology of the world as they do so.
Of course. I don't claim Conan and Subotai "invented" their gods, or even that players are supposed to do that. I simply assume that they
might do that, that the scene might be the result of two players defining things on the fly. In fact, I think it's pretty much system-agnostic approach. Were I to be the GM I'd see no reason not to include the result of players' creativity into the world.
It's a possibility, nothing else. Some might use it, some might enjoy it.
Quote from: CRKrueger;886556My character can choose to brag for years about the famous royal brothel he snuck into called Ishtar's Sigh in Shadizar the Wicked. It doesn't mean such a thing exists, or even if it did, that I ever went there.
Of course. Then again, you might've just suggested quite a nice plot hook and a potential adventure seed. Some players might want to determine whether your character speaks truth, or is he pulling their legs. While this won't have much impact on predetermined scenario, it works quite well for freeform/FF sandbox type of games, where players are free to determine their own set of goals, agendas and goals.
Quote from: CRKrueger;886557If you *need* to be able to create True facts about the Gods, become a GM.
I'm one of those weird fuckers I guess that doesn't feel the need to insert a metric assload of non-roleplaying into a roleplaying session to have fun.
Hmmmm, yes and... no. ;)
I agree that if you feel the need to co-create the world to such an extent, that you influence its most basic elements (like gods), then you should simply run the game instead of playing it. It's reasonable approach.
Then again, how about a very specific scenario? Let's put *.World games aside and focus on "in general" for a moment, shall we?
Imagine an adventure, where one of players controls a character of anti-clerical class. It might be an apostate, a heretic, or simply a disbeliever, atheist or everything inbetween. I believe there's a similar archetype for PFRPG, and I'm sure something like that exists in D&D (or one of its derivatives/d20 based games).
I'd like to know your opinion whether such a PC should be encouraged to define (in-game, mind you) his set of beliefs, an explanation why he opposes the natural order of things, gods & such, or that "I dunno, I simply don't like gods" would be enough?
Quote from: CRKrueger;886557BTW, the Hulk thing came from a forum discussion about Marvel Heroic Roleplaying and I called it Hulk in the Vineyard due to the storytelling nature of the game and put up the pic as a joke. Someone pointed me to a Something Awful post where I guess I made it into grognards.txt and an idiot there said because I used The Hulk, I must look like a sumo wrestler with a vagina or something.
Weird. I was sure you used Hulk for an avatar because of his most obvious trait - becoming an unstoppable juggernaut when agitated. Then again, I'm new here, I have much to learn. ;)
Quote from: CRKrueger;886557Of course, I could say something about a guy who uses a character avatar who has a god-complex having a need to fill in world details as a player and liking games that let him do that, but that would be just crazy...right? :D
Ahahahahaha, that'd be just plain crazy! Ahahahahaa... ahaahahaa... LOOK! IT'S WONDER WOMAN COPULATING WITH THE INVISIBLE MAN! (
Roll spot: a medium success. You notice suspicious looks and an occasional, nervous coughs. Is he trying to distract you?) :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;886557We should do another Wonder Woman Avatar month in honor of Batman vs. Superman.
Wasn't it Abyssal Maw who started this? Man, I miss that guy.
Quote from: The Butcher;886564Wasn't it Abyssal Maw who started this? Man, I miss that guy.
Heh, wonder if he plays 5e?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562Of course. I don't claim Conan and Subotai "invented" their gods, or even that players are supposed to do that. I simply assume that they might do that, that the scene might be the result of two players defining things on the fly. In fact, I think it's pretty much system-agnostic approach. Were I to be the GM I'd see no reason not to include the result of players' creativity into the world.
It's a possibility, nothing else. Some might use it, some might enjoy it.
Collaborative world-building to me is one of those "Roleplaying+" things you add to roleplaying that I don't need or particularly want. I realize a lot do, I just like to make sure that people realize that is a + thing, not a roleplaying thing, because for some reason weird shit starts happening when people forget things like basic definitions and how things work outside their own preferences. ;)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562Of course. Then again, you might've just suggested quite a nice plot hook and a potential adventure seed. Some players might want to determine whether your character speaks truth, or is he pulling their legs. While this won't have much impact on predetermined scenario, it works quite well for freeform/FF sandbox type of games, where players are free to determine their own set of goals, agendas and goals.
Characters determining their own agendas and goals is good, I don't see a point in roleplaying any other way.
Players determining the truth of the setting through Player will is different, I don't see a point in roleplaying that way.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562I agree that if you feel the need to co-create the world to such an extent, that you influence its most basic elements (like gods), then you should simply run the game instead of playing it. It's reasonable approach.
I must have been having a Baxter moment. :)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562Imagine an adventure, where one of players controls a character of anti-clerical class. It might be an apostate, a heretic, or simply a disbeliever, atheist or everything inbetween. I believe there's a similar archetype for PFRPG, and I'm sure something like that exists in D&D (or one of its derivatives/d20 based games).
I'd like to know your opinion whether such a PC should be encouraged to define (in-game, mind you) his set of beliefs, an explanation why he opposes the natural order of things, gods & such, or that "I dunno, I simply don't like gods" would be enough?
If it's his beliefs, his rationale, his opinion on the gods, sure, why wouldn't I let him know his own mind? When he expects his beliefs to magically and retroactively create an Anti-Church of His Beliefs that he is a contributing member of, that's where he gets off the Player bus and goes and makes his own setting. :)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562Weird. I was sure you used Hulk for an avatar because of his most obvious trait - becoming an unstoppable juggernaut when agitated. Then again, I'm new here, I have much to learn. ;)
Actually, that
is a joke between me an another poster, but that's not how it started.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886562Ahahahahaha, that'd be just plain crazy! Ahahahahaa... ahaahahaa... LOOK! IT'S WONDER WOMAN COPULATING WITH THE INVISIBLE MAN! (Roll spot: a medium success. You notice suspicious looks and an occasional, nervous coughs. Is he trying to distract you?) :D
Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886555Pardon me, but does that mean that all your characters, no matter what game and genre come with "FU, it's no concern of yours" background? I mean, I know it's an exaggeration, but I can't wrap my head around this style of play. I'm certainly missing something here...
To be honest I'd actually prefer this as a DM. I'd far far rather have characters be motivated and shaped by stuff that happens in game rather than stuff they made up, feels more organic and gets everyone on the same page since play is (usually) a shared experience and back stories are (usually) cooked up individually.
To use hyperbole this is often a massive headache:
"As a baby a fortune teller told my parents that I would restore the Azure throne! We've got to go west!"
"But orcs murdered my parents and they're in the west!"
"I can't go west, I was the warlord of the western marches before I was exiled!"
"Well we obviously have to go north, I need to find the water of life that flows from the last glacier to restore my beloved!"
"OK, OK, I'll completely ignore the orcs that murdered my family for another few months, lets head north!"
While this pretty damn easy:
"Stupid kobolds stole our stuff last session!"
"Yeah, let's kill those bastards."
Quote from: Daztur;886574To be honest I'd actually prefer this as a DM. I'd far far rather have characters be motivated and shaped by stuff that happens in game rather than stuff they made up, feels more organic and gets everyone on the same page since play is (usually) a shared experience and back stories are (usually) cooked up individually.
To use hyperbole this is often a massive headache:
"As a baby a fortune teller told my parents that I would restore the Azure throne! We've got to go west!"
"But orcs murdered my parents and they're in the west!"
"I can't go west, I was the warlord of the western marches before I was exiled!"
"Well we obviously have to go north, I need to find the water of life that flows from the last glacier to restore my beloved!"
"OK, OK, I'll completely ignore the orcs that murdered my family for another few months, lets head north!"
While this pretty damn easy:
"Stupid kobolds stole our stuff last session!"
"Yeah, let's kill those bastards."
Heh, sounds like Fallout 4. There's all this great post-apocalyptic rebuilding of towns, getting involved with factions, setting up trade routes, and I feel like a total fucking asshole for liking any of it because I got saddled with the backstory of SOMEONE TOOK MY SON! The writers at Bethesda were not talking much to the coders.
Quote from: Daztur;886574To be honest I'd actually prefer this as a DM. I'd far far rather have characters be motivated and shaped by stuff that happens in game rather than stuff they made up, feels more organic and gets everyone on the same page since play is (usually) a shared experience and back stories are (usually) cooked up individually.
To use hyperbole this is often a massive headache:
"As a baby a fortune teller told my parents that I would restore the Azure throne! We've got to go west!"
"But orcs murdered my parents and they're in the west!"
"I can't go west, I was the warlord of the western marches before I was exiled!"
"Well we obviously have to go north, I need to find the water of life that flows from the last glacier to restore my beloved!"
"OK, OK, I'll completely ignore the orcs that murdered my family for another few months, lets head north!"
While I totally see where you're coming from here, the PbtA games I've played have the GM mediating the players creative input in a way that links them between themselves and to the situation right now. A good example would be, say, player Joe introducing a battle scar, then player Zak introduces his biker gang (Pam, Tun-Tun and Vox), and then GM immediately pivots back to Joe asks "so Joe, looking from here, that scar of yours kind of matches Tun-Tun machete. Do you have a story to tell ?". And this works for PbtA games because they are usually about local communities instead of overarching epic plots or something. (though, again, I've never played Dungeon World, or Tremulus). I'm not saying the kind of dysfunctional (and useless) team motivations you describe couldn't happen, it sure could happen to any game, but PbtA games have a method in place to facilitate functional and instantly gameable (and messy!) relationships and cross-motivations between players. It's not infallible though, nothing is.
QuoteWhile this pretty damn easy:
"Stupid kobolds stole our stuff last session!"
"Yeah, let's kill those bastards.
Oh I know that. My groupe always go back to some good old D&D and Shadowrun where we can sideline the world building and focus our creative juices on problem solving and CQC tactics. :D
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886555Pardon me, but does that mean that all your characters, no matter what game and genre come with "FU, it's no concern of yours" background? I mean, I know it's an exaggeration, but I can't wrap my head around this style of play. I'm certainly missing something here...
The longest character background I ever wrote was "son of a landless knight." I don't write character backgrounds, period. I don't care where my character came from, I care what my character is doing.
I also don't expect the referee to create a world to cater to my character. I want an open map where I can go wherever the whim takes me. I want to wander around an interesting setting and see interesting stuff.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886587The longest character background I ever wrote was "son of a landless knight." I don't write character backgrounds, period. I don't care where my character came from, I care what my character is doing.
I also don't expect the referee to create a world to cater to my character. I want an open map where I can go wherever the whim takes me. I want to wander around an interesting setting and see interesting stuff.
Fair. :)
First of all, I must say that I liked HULK's avatar better. I feel like I need to recreate my worldview now. Damn! :(
Quote from: CRKrueger;886572(...)weird shit starts happening when people forget things like basic definitions and how things work outside their own preferences. ;)
True, true. Fun fact: I observe it in many different aspects of reality. People jump straight into advanced stuff without learning the basics. It's like they start with "break the rules" without knowing them.
Age of Aquarius & shit. :rolleyes:
Quote from: CRKrueger;886572I must have been having a Baxter moment. :)
Can't say I'm familiar with the term. An outsider here, hello! :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;886572If it's his beliefs, his rationale, his opinion on the gods, sure, why wouldn't I let him know his own mind? When he expects his beliefs to magically and retroactively create an Anti-Church of His Beliefs that he is a contributing member of, that's where he gets off the Player bus and goes and makes his own setting. :)
I see... One more question, just for the sake of clarity: there's no problem with said player actually starting his Church in addition to whatever the adventure is supposed to be about? I mean it's that "retroactively" part that's important here, isn't it?
Quote from: Daztur;886574To be honest I'd actually prefer this as a DM. (...)
I understand where it comes from and it's reasonable. I can't say I have some fixed preferences concerning this - for me things tend to change according to the game/system/genre/scenario's length/players... Sometimes it's ok, sometimes it's actually useful to have a guy with 10 pages long background.
Well, as long as he doesn't bitch about everyone else memorizing it and demands for his story to be part of each and every session. :)
Side note:
Spoiler
Cheers! ;)
(http://kororoweszyszki.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Sample-000311.jpg)
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886587The longest character background I ever wrote was "son of a landless knight." I don't write character backgrounds, period. I don't care where my character came from, I care what my character is doing.
I also don't expect the referee to create a world to cater to my character. I want an open map where I can go wherever the whim takes me. I want to wander around an interesting setting and see interesting stuff.
I see.
I envy you the group you're playing with. Usually it takes some time to find people who either accept or adjust to your gaming style (especially if there's a slight nonconformism involved). :)
Quote from: JesterRaiinI understand where it comes from and it's reasonable. I can't say I have some fixed preferences concerning this - for me things tend to change according to the game/system/genre/scenario's length/players... Sometimes it's ok, sometimes it's actually useful to have a guy with 10 pages long background.
Yep, this is where my preferences fall too. :)
Quote from: Itachi;886608Yep, this is where my preferences fall too. :)
Spoiler
(http://independent.md/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/desc%C4%83rcare-1.jpg)
I understand it's complicated and that there are truckloads of possible scenarios (for example, I know a guy who has been running RPGs for ONE SINGLE player for almost 10 years), but way I see it, it's very hard to maintain one and the same approach, same attitude "no matter what".
I mean, you don't run and play D&D just like you do with Call of Cthulhu, or Fading Suns... Some things have to change,
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886587The longest character background I ever wrote was "son of a landless knight." I don't write character backgrounds, period. I don't care where my character came from, I care what my character is doing.
I also don't expect the referee to create a world to cater to my character. I want an open map where I can go wherever the whim takes me. I want to wander around an interesting setting and see interesting stuff.
For you or anyone who feels this way, are you still interested in background for NPCs, places, and so forth? i.e. An important NPC whose family was killed by orcs, or a town where the last mayor robbed all the local treasury, etc.
Or should NPCs, places, and such also have only a bare minimum of background?
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886605First of all, I must say that I liked HULK's avatar better. I feel like I need to recreate my worldview now. Damn! :(
He'll come back, don't worry.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886605Can't say I'm familiar with the term. An outsider here, hello! :)
I meant Banner moment.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886605I see... One more question, just for the sake of clarity: there's no problem with said player actually starting his Church in addition to whatever the adventure is supposed to be about? I mean it's that "retroactively" part that's important here, isn't it?
Yeah, you want to start a church, create a country, found a dynasty, exterminate all gelatinous cubes, do it
with your character during the game, not
as a player before or outside the game.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886605I understand where it comes from and it's reasonable. I can't say I have some fixed preferences concerning this - for me things tend to change according to the game/system/genre/scenario's length/players... Sometimes it's ok, sometimes it's actually useful to have a guy with 10 pages long background.
If it's a one shot or a convention, who cares - yeah you're the real exiled King of Siam, cool, whatever.
In Apocalypse World, where there is no setting outside of what's being collaboratively built by the players at the time, again, who cares? I acquire a hardhold, it appears in thin air. Whatever.
I've never seen a 10-page backstory come from anything other than a complete and total jackass unless
1. That person knows a lot about the setting, ie. an established player
2. Clears the the crap they're declaring with the gm (and the tenpagers are always declaring all kinds of things)
3. We're doing some weird alt-rpg thing.
I've been trying to figure out how the hell to get Primator Double 24 in the US.
Quote from: CRKrueger;886639He'll come back, don't worry.
YES!
Quote from: CRKrueger;886639I meant Banner moment.
CRKrueger: usually he is a brave, colossal machine of destruction, but sometimes he calms down and becomes a savage Barbarian accompanied by mostly naked chicks...Erm... I think there's a potential for an interesting PC. :hmm:
Quote from: CRKrueger;886639Yeah, you want to start a church, create a country, found a dynasty, exterminate all gelatinous cubes, do it with your character during the game, not as a player before or outside the game.
We're on pretty much same page then. Thanks. :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;886639I've never seen a 10-page backstory come from anything other than a complete and total jackass unless (...)
I admit that "10 pages" is a bit of exaggeration, but yes, pretty much.
I'll add #4: there are certain games that, if not centered around longish, detailed writing, certainly encourage it. One of my most favorite ones,
De Profundis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Profundis_%28role-playing_game%29) belongs to this categorythough I'd be reluctant to call it "a tabletop RPG".
Quote from: CRKrueger;886639I've been trying to figure out how the hell to get Primator Double 24 in the US.
Finally! People who appreciate manly stuff! I knew it'd be good to register an account here. :hatsoff:
Unfortunately, I don't know how to help. It's damn expensive to send stuff across the ocean...
Side note:
I know better beers than Primator, but heck, they don't sell worldwide either.
Spoiler
(http://kororoweszyszki.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/DSC0731.jpg)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886295My point of view: I can only say, that I don't like *.World games very much. I find no fun in "building from the scratch", perpetual defining some elements I usually expect to be already established, so if I'm welcomed to play a game and there's a setting included, I find it quite helpful.
I like both. Or more aptly I like a median between the two ends. BX's Karameikos as it was originally presented was a map and a few place names and terrain features. The rest was up to you to flesh out as you pleased. That is the sort of setting I like. One where some basics are worked out and the rest is up to me.
I do though enjoy world building from scratch. Though obviously depending on the system that can be alot of work. But I enjoy it.
I also like firmly established settings. As long as they dont get absurdly crowded. Mystara for BECMI and the gazeteers were not to my liking as they cluttered up the world too much. Greyhawk felt more balanced and less cluttered on the other hand.
Others seem to really like super cluttered settings like Mystara or what Forgotten Realms eventually became.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886555I'm curious about "Tremulus" - do you think it's good enough to actually deliver the experience similar to games like "Call/Trail of Cthulhu"? Those a few sessions I've had weren't especially good, but there were many factors influencing the outcome.
I GM'ed a
Call of Cthulhu game for some friends a couple of years back, we played for a few months (it was quite fun). A while afterwards, I GM'ed
tremulus to the same group, and we had quite fun as well. One of my friends prefered CoC, the other prefered
tremulus, but we enjoyed both.
The key difference, I think, was that the player who prefered CoC liked more action-packed scenes (which are easier to pull off in CoC, IMHO).
If I had to GM a new Lovecraftian campaign, I don't which one I'll choose. I like CoC because the system is more "classical", but on the other end I like the experience
tremulus offers as well. I'll probably choose the system based on the kind of story we'd want to play (if it involves action, crazy books and spells probably CoC, if it more about investigation and characters dying against the supernatural without hope, then
tremulus).
Ah, fuck it... *puts on beer nerd hat*
Baltic Porters are great beers but a lot of commercial examples are either too sweet (edging towards dopplebocks) or just don't have the massive punch of flavor you want for the style (like the Baltika one which is just OK). On the other hand you don't want punch in the mouth bitterness like with an American RIS. So how to put together one that'd taste better than the ones people are posting pictures of?
Base malt:
Traditional Pilsner/Munich split is fine. Just avoid American Munich as that tends to be too sweet which is something you want to avoid in a big beer like this. If I wanted to be untraditional I'd just use a bunch of Vienna malt because Vienna malt is awesome.
Shoot for about 1.080 Original Gravity. Dealing with the fermentation of beers bigger than that is a pain and they tend to require aging which is also annoying.
Specialty malt:
A lot of Baltic porter recipes I've seen use a shit ton of one some kinds of Caramunich, perhaps a pound in five gallons which gives them their caramelly-sweet malt taste. Screw that. Get some really dark crystal and then only use a little bit, maybe 6-7 oz. English C120 for a more burnt sugar taste or German Caraaroma or Belgian Special B for more of a dark fruit taste. That shit is powerful so a little goes a long way so you'll get plenty of flavor without toooooooo much sweetness.
One thing I've never seen Baltic Porter recipes use is brown malt, which was the standby in the old old English porter recipes that inspired Baltic porters before people got cheap and started using lots of pale malt with just enough black patent malt to turn it black. Brown malt is great stuff so I'd put in a good bit of that, probably Carabrown as it's less bitter than more heavily toasted English brown malt so you won't get the kind of bite that'd more in keeping with a modern American stout. Gives a lovely toasty undertone to a beer. Bit sweet but that's OK.
Then to make the beer black the standard German Carafa malt or the American equivalent (dark chocolate malt) is fine. Just don't cheat and use that debittered shit, it's got to have SOME roast. If you're not using much or any of really bitter shit like roasted barley or black patent malt it won't be too bitter or taste like charcoal.
Hops:
Most Baltic porters don't really have much hop presence. Again, screw that. That said, you don't want it to be an American style grapefruit bomb either. I'd go with Polish Junga hops which are a cross between Northern Brewer (a good solid workhorse hop that's mostly out of style these days) and Marynka (old school Polish hop that's a bit like Czech hops such as Saaz) and put big giant fistfuls of it in late in the boil and then not really bother with flameout/whirlpool/hopstand hops or dry hops. Those tend to work better with American hops that have a lot of hop oils that boil off really easily while more old world hops tend to have oils with higher boiling points (myrcene IIRC) so boiling them enough to get the oils out without evaporating the oils seems like a good plan.
Junga hops are said to have a good earthy flavor which would be perfect here.
Fermentation:
To be authentic I should use lager yeast but with a beer this flavorful using a clean ale yeast is probably going to be pretty damn indistinguishable. Lagering is a pain so would probably use good old US-05/1056, i.e. Chico yeast the stuff that Sierra Nevada uses as that's a good solid workhorse yeast. Either that or Nottingham depending on whether the temperature might get too hot (US-05) or if the weather might get too cold (Notthingham). Will pitch shit tons of yeast since US-05 is a bit of a slow starter and I get really nervous when the yeast is lazy.
US-05 is a good attenuator (eats lots of sugar) which is a good thing here. It also has great alcohol tolerance, wonderful yeast (except a bit slow and not the best flocculation, i.e. yeast doesn't clump to the bottom that well).
Northern Brewer is out of style? Man, it HAS been a while since I was looking at homebrewing!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886783Northern Brewer is out of style? Man, it HAS been a while since I was looking at homebrewing!
The hops that pushed Northern Brewer out of style are now out of style.
Quote from: jhkim;886634For you or anyone who feels this way, are you still interested in background for NPCs, places, and so forth? i.e. An important NPC whose family was killed by orcs, or a town where the last mayor robbed all the local treasury, etc.
Or should NPCs, places, and such also have only a bare minimum of background?
Great question and I hope this turns into a long subthread.
Briefly because I don't want to type "WALL O' TEXT" to give all my thougths...
It depends. The referee can put in as much background as he or she wishes, but they should not necessarily expect me to care. Now, both those examples sound like adventure hooks to me, so as a player I'd usually want to know a bit more, yeah. But if all I'm getting is a sob story, no thanks.
"A sad story. Is it true?"
"No. There is a song as well."
Using my usual list of adventure hooks, if we take, oh, the gargoyles attacking the town of Post Hole, I will have some local person who knows about this, and cares, and can give the players enough info to start the quest. I do this for pretty much all my adventure hooks I leave lying around; I have a one paragraph summary and enough detail for a session or two. If players bite at it I can always expand, but if they don't bite I haven't wasted a lot of time.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;886785Using my usual list of adventure hooks, if we take, oh, the gargoyles attacking the town of Post Hole, I will have some local person who knows about this, and cares, and can give the players enough info to start the quest. I do this for pretty much all my adventure hooks I leave lying around; I have a one paragraph summary and enough detail for a session or two. If players bite at it I can always expand, but if they don't bite I haven't wasted a lot of time.
Out of curiosity: did you ever play
Beyond the Wall and other Adventures?
Quote from: Daztur;886766Ah, fuck it... *puts on beer nerd hat*
Baltic Porters are great beers but a lot of commercial examples are either too sweet (edging towards dopplebocks) or just don't have the massive punch of flavor you want for the style (like the Baltika one which is just OK). On the other hand you don't want punch in the mouth bitterness like with an American RIS. So how to put together one that'd taste better than the ones people are posting pictures of?
Tips fedora. ;)
Soooo... OT, but f.. it. My thread, I'm gonna discus whatever shit I want here.
Story time. :p
I assume my people still have the opinion of being heavy drinkers and vodka/cheap alcohol abusers (depending on social class/status, of course). I'm not sure why. While heavy drinking is one of our national treasures and drowning your sorrows in an alcohol is pretty much a sport discipline, there are also plenty of countries that put our successes in both these fields to shame.
Anyway. Enter last 15-20 years.
Beer industry becomes stronger than ever. Small, local breweries multiply like catholic rabbits. There's probably no bigger city without its own beer. There are cases of recipes being stolen, breweries fighting each other, marks being taken over.
Add one of our national traits: we love to tweak, tinker, find workarounds and combine things from unexpected elements. Because of that, you can often find beers unlike any other.
Not that I assume that only us experiment with beerbrewing - I simply observe that we
too experiment, add spices, herbs, try new approach and therefore produce tastes that are our own and hardly match universally accepted styles.
Take Baltic Porters. Sure we produce them, and we call truckload of beers "Baltic Porters", but in all honesty, when the taste is discussed, they don't really match the criteria and aren't that similar to what you would expect.
So, I'm 100% sure I'd find something more relevant to your taste if "not quite sweet/not that bitter" is what you seek. :cool:
Spoiler
(http://piwolucja.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/lwowek-porter-18-recenzja-piwa.jpg)
Side note: We have a family recipe for porter-based vodka. It's one of those beverages that switch off your higher cognitive functions with no warning. It's... An interesting process, to say the least. It shows your true character.
In piva veritas est. ;)
Quote from: JesterRaiin;886825Add one of our national traits: we love to tweak, tinker, find workarounds and combine things from unexpected elements. Because of that, you can often find beers unlike any other. Not that I assume that only us experiment with beerbrewing - I simply observe that we too experiment, add spices, herbs, try new approach and therefore produce tastes that are our own and hardly match universally accepted styles.
I think that's often the problem with American beer nerds, trying to box foreign styles into narrow (and often artificial) categories based on just a few commercial examples while ignoring the diversity on the ground. Mea culpa.
It's interesting seeing the Korean craft beer scene just explode after the distribution laws were relaxed in 2014 (before that there was a law setting a VERY high minimum production for beer to be legally distributed so you had some brew pubs but none of them could sell their beer anywhere by on premises). Imported beer is also booming massively, apparently imports of Belgian beer have gone up by 60% a year for most of the past decade.
It'll take some for the local scene to get its act together since a lot of the imported stuff is incredibly boring continental mass market stuff, the imported craft beer is stupidly expensive and the local craft beer is still mostly bad knock-offs of California beer instead of something original.
The interesting thing is the local craft beer scene seems to be 60-70% female, with late-twenties yuppies with expensive handbags predominating. That and there seems to be a lot of malty pale ales with a lot of American hop flavor and not that much bitterness. Delicious, beats the current American trend of making beers that taste like hop tea with a shot of vodka.