TheRPGSite

First up, don't get me wrong, I love playing with my group. We're all pretty much on the same page about what is fun, how people should go about engaging with the game and so on. We're now getting settled into our second main game (the first was WFRP2e, this one is Mass Effect using nWoD) underway and twenty sessions in I'm having loads of fun.

However, I also like to believe I'm still a GM, even though I haven't run anything in years (and the last thing I did was a one-shot). Pitching a game to my group is proving impossible.

The most recent throwing my hands up in despair incident was with the Exalted-without-Exalts game I'd been talking to them about for weeks, narrowing down onto a premise and starting to elicit character ideas. It finally came out that about half of them were only lukewarm on it because as far as they were concerned, there was no real point playing a game set in Creation if the PCs weren't Exalts. Could have been worse, I could have discovered this after the first few sessions, but it was still frustrating.

Mostly, I think there's a complete mismatch of preferences; I prefer things much more mundane than they do. Which is to say I don't really like magic/superpowers/ultra-tech/whatever, I like more grounded stuff.

You can probably see this in the PCs I play. In WFRP2e, my character was a human peasant who'd been conscripted during the Storm of Chaos and fought beastmen in skirmishes. He morphed into a rabble-rousing revolutionary and leader of light cavalry. The other PCs were a dwarf, elf and Amber wizard. It was a running joke that I was playing The Guy, the identification character you often had in such a tale.

In Mass Effect, I play the Soldier, where three of the other four characters are biotics and the remaining one is a tech genius. My character is tough, deadly in a fight (at any range, doesn't matter if it's sniper rifles at a mile, assault rifles at a hundred yards, shotguns at ten yards or up close and personal with an omniblade or bare hands) and a good small-unit leader.

I've mentioned the upcoming Mage: the Awakening game in another thread, something I sold them on when I was actually attempting a pitch of my own. Ie I was going to run a more mundane game set in 1750s Colonial America, but I suggested it could work as a Mage game. They leapt on the idea which meant I was playing, rather than running since Mage isn't my thing. Sad thing is while some of them also love the period, the sale was "historical Mage", where for me it was "historical game set in 1750s Colonial America". I'm ambivalent about the Mage aspect, I'm not even playing one, even though everyone else is. I'm playing what is basically a slightly magically-enhanced mortal.

Obviously there's always going to be a place for the Badass Normal in most games and it's hardly a disruptive sort of choice, but I think it highlights the fundamental disconnect. I like playing exceptional, but still intrinsically mortal people. I have no interest in playing people with powers.

When it comes to running a game, the things that really appeal to me are games about more mundane, but exceptional people doing action movie-esque stuff. Think the Leverage TV show or The Expendables or the Bourne movies or The Raid: Redemption. There's no magic or monsters or superpowers, just capable people pushing themselves to their limits, aided by action movie physics. Sword and sorcery/pulp fantasy really appeals to me for similar reasons.

But it doesn't seem like my group is really into that at all. I don't even know if that sort of thing actually works with 5 PCs, perhaps it's better with 2-3?

I don't have any more time in my schedule to add another gaming slot and try to find new players. I don't want to stop playing with my current group, because the play is awesome. But it's looking increasingly like I'm not going to get to run anything for them, because we can't find anything that works for everyone.

Have you tried adjusting your preferences?

If they're not going to change, and you don't want to leave sounds like the best solution would be to try and enjoy what you have.

Our preferences are hardly set in stone, expose yourself to more varied media and try to cultivate a new taste.

Quote from: Piestrio;611119Have you tried adjusting your preferences?

If they're not going to change, and you don't want to leave sounds like the best solution would be to try and enjoy what you have.

Our preferences are hardly set in stone, expose yourself to more varied media and try to cultivate a new taste.

Agreed, sometimes the Stephen Stills approach (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH3ruuml-R4) is both practical and an opportunity for growth.

I have the same issues with the group I play with.
They've all mentioned one point or another that RPGs should be about playing 'heroes'... by which I've discerned that they mean characters who are well above the norm of whatever setting. Powers and connections and plot-immunity follows. (I've mentioned elsewhere that no PC has ever met with permadeath in 4 years I've been gaming with them).

Myself? I just about always want much more ordinary 'street level' stuff... if there's magic I want it difficult and dangerous, I want combat to be a last resort. That makes me odd man out... way out.
It's not that I need full on TPKs to make me happy... I'd feel better even if they'd just nerf healing so getting wounded had some consequence beyond having to drink a potion or talk to the cleric.

Quote from: Kiero;611110When it comes to running a game, the things that really appeal to me are games about more mundane, but exceptional people doing action movie-esque stuff. Think the Leverage TV show or The Expendables or the Bourne movies or The Raid: Redemption. There's no magic or monsters or superpowers, just capable people pushing themselves to their limits, aided by action movie physics.

See, even that sounds too jacked up and 'cinematic' to me.
Maybe if I could just play a short campaign with them where we all died a few times I'd feel better and less grouchy about their preferences.

So far my solution has been to find other folks with my sensibilities and play/run (less regular) games with them. But really, I think I'm looking at finding another group. I do have fun with these guys but I'd like a change of menu and I don't see that happening.

Sounds like a pickle.

I've had the same frustrations at times. Nobody else wants to play giant mecha games, like Robotech, Battletech, or Mekton. It took me a long time to get over it, even though I still work on campaigns and adventures in the hope that someday...

Anyway, most everyone in my group GM's a game now. I run Lotfp, another dude runs Savage Worlds Sundered Skies, another dude runs some sort of Savage Worlds Cthulu thing, and another dude ran 4th edition DnD and is getting ready to start a Shadowrun game. We never even try to run long campaigns anymore because none of us has the time to meet up regularly anymore. So, we play whatever someone has ready, with whoever shows up. Along with what I've already listed, in the past 4 years we've played short campaigns of Palladium Fantasy, Heroes Unlimited, Castles and Crusades, ADnD 2, Call of Cthulu, and a few homebrew systems.

Basically, what I'm getting at is this; I think the key is to get the players to play. There are people who are adamant about not playing a particular game; they're assholes. They're usually the type who play a variant of the same fucking elf ranger no matter what system or setting you run. You're not going to change that. So, you have to use finesse and marketing to sell whatever it is you want to run to them. Recognize what they like and incorporate it into your game. Compromise, good sir.

That's all I got.

One group I play with has this problem, the other groups not so much.

Great players, all are gms. But when any of us pitches a game idea, the group goe sinto meltdown mode where everyone has really lame reasons they can't agree about anything.

Once we actually start playing, it's not a problem.


But the reasons for not playing a particular game system or setting are really, lame sometimes.


I favor letting the gm pick.

Quote from: Piestrio;611119Have you tried adjusting your preferences?

If they're not going to change, and you don't want to leave sounds like the best solution would be to try and enjoy what you have.

Our preferences are hardly set in stone, expose yourself to more varied media and try to cultivate a new taste.

I have tried this and it just doesn't work. As a player I can play whatever the group wants to play. As a GM if I'm not really excited about the game that I want to run, then preparing for it ssems like a burden and sooner or later I completely lose interest in running it.

My solution has been to only GM what I'm really happy running, and finding a group that is interested in playing that. I'm preparing to run a GURPS fantasy campaign for a fairly new group. My old group had no interest in playing GURPS and I had no interest in running 4E D&D.

Compromise. Find a middle ground acceptable to you and to them.

Quote from: Piestrio;611119Have you tried adjusting your preferences?

If they're not going to change, and you don't want to leave sounds like the best solution would be to try and enjoy what you have.

Our preferences are hardly set in stone, expose yourself to more varied media and try to cultivate a new taste.

What I enjoy playing and watching/reading is a much broader palette than what I'd actually enjoy running. I'm not going to adjust my preferences, because when it comes to GMing I'm rapidly going to get bored and frustrated with something I don't actually want to run. That's not going to be fun for anyone, least of all me.

Quote from: Simlasa;611124See, even that sounds too jacked up and 'cinematic' to me.
Maybe if I could just play a short campaign with them where we all died a few times I'd feel better and less grouchy about their preferences.

So far my solution has been to find other folks with my sensibilities and play/run (less regular) games with them. But really, I think I'm looking at finding another group. I do have fun with these guys but I'd like a change of menu and I don't see that happening.

My group doesn't have a problem with things being cinematic, from my perspective their problem is an attachment to magic or magic-like stuff in everything.

I have neither the time nor inclination to find other people. I only have one slot a week to play, and I'll take being a perpetual player over all the hassle of trying to recruit afresh just to run games.

Quote from: Bill;611131One group I play with has this problem, the other groups not so much.

Great players, all are gms. But when any of us pitches a game idea, the group goe sinto meltdown mode where everyone has really lame reasons they can't agree about anything.

Once we actually start playing, it's not a problem.


But the reasons for not playing a particular game system or setting are really, lame sometimes.


I favor letting the gm pick.

Our general principle is let the GM pick, as in you pitch something and they'll give it a go. But that only goes so far, trying to run something people aren't actually all that keen about is a waste of everyone's time.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;611218I have tried this and it just doesn't work. As a player I can play whatever the group wants to play. As a GM if I'm not really excited about the game that I want to run, then preparing for it ssems like a burden and sooner or later I completely lose interest in running it.

Exactly. Things I'm actually excited about enough to sustain me as a GM are much narrower and more focused than things I can get excited about enough to play a character.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;611218My solution has been to only GM what I'm really happy running, and finding a group that is interested in playing that. I'm preparing to run a GURPS fantasy campaign for a fairly new group. My old group had no interest in playing GURPS and I had no interest in running 4E D&D.

As before, I don't have any more time in the week to play RPGs, so I may just have to resort to not running anything. I'm still getting good play, which would have ot be enough.

Quote from: One Horse Town;611219Compromise. Find a middle ground acceptable to you and to them.

Exalted-without-Exalts was a compromise. It's a setting with way more magic than I'd normally choose, and they were going to play Godblooded (ie half-divine) characters, but that wasn't enough for them. It really took a lot of prodding to get it out of them that in all honesty they weren't that keen.

Running actual Exalted doesn't appeal at all, and besides our main GM is keen to do a Dragonblooded game at some point (which is about as Exalted as I'd be prepared to go).

I've gotten some of the best games of my life (and some of the worst, but that's a different story) out of joining a Meetup group for roleplayers.  For the best games, it was precisely because you're not playing with all 10 or 20 (or recently, all 30 or 40) members in a 5 player game to begin with, so some specificity, and even a friendly and matter of fact "take it or leave it," can work in your game pitches.  The first game I played where everyone was positively in favor of the premise, rather than having negotiated a compromise, was a surprisingly powerful experience for me.

"Compromise!" is good generic advice, and sometimes the best you can do, but I no longer think its the best there is.  I had enjoyed my previous games where we started with the same group of friends and negotiated the game, but it turns out that negotiating imposes some limitations and sameness of tone on games that I hadn't recognized.

None of which necessarily helps you, since you say you're sticking with the group.  But its something to keep in mind.  Maybe you could keep playing with this group, and GM for another.  Try an online game with Google +, post flyers, sign up for online player locators, or join or start a Meetup group in your area.  Go out in the streets and make them come in and play!

Quote from: Kiero;611110You can probably see this in the PCs I play. In WFRP2e, my character was a human peasant who'd been conscripted during the Storm of Chaos and fought beastmen in skirmishes. He morphed into a rabble-rousing revolutionary and leader of light cavalry. The other PCs were a dwarf, elf and Amber wizard. It was a running joke that I was playing The Guy, the identification character you often had in such a tale.

This is interesting.  I didn't have a name for it, but I've known in a vague way I often have the most normal character in a group.  The upside is, being The Guy has worked out for me.  In those games, I usually end up being the party leader, the lynchpin in terms of character connections, or both.  It can't be personal charisma or leadership because I'm not the most outgoing or forceful person in most games, but when the most outgoing guy is diverting his effort into an "I'm an elf!  See my wacky elf antics!" level of roleplaying, then Human Fightor the 1st has a chance to step up.  So there's a silver lining there in terms of spotlight and game direction.

Quote from: everloss;611126Sounds like a pickle.

I've had the same frustrations at times. Nobody else wants to play giant mecha games, like Robotech, Battletech, or Mekton. It took me a long time to get over it, even though I still work on campaigns and adventures in the hope that someday...

Anyway, most everyone in my group GM's a game now. I run Lotfp, another dude runs Savage Worlds Sundered Skies, another dude runs some sort of Savage Worlds Cthulu thing, and another dude ran 4th edition DnD and is getting ready to start a Shadowrun game. We never even try to run long campaigns anymore because none of us has the time to meet up regularly anymore. So, we play whatever someone has ready, with whoever shows up. Along with what I've already listed, in the past 4 years we've played short campaigns of Palladium Fantasy, Heroes Unlimited, Castles and Crusades, ADnD 2, Call of Cthulu, and a few homebrew systems.

Basically, what I'm getting at is this; I think the key is to get the players to play. There are people who are adamant about not playing a particular game; they're assholes. They're usually the type who play a variant of the same fucking elf ranger no matter what system or setting you run. You're not going to change that. So, you have to use finesse and marketing to sell whatever it is you want to run to them. Recognize what they like and incorporate it into your game. Compromise, good sir.

That's all I got.

Hey Everloss, pm me,I'm running a Robotech pbp over at rpol.net.

Quote from: Kiero;611110I don't have any more time in my schedule to add another gaming slot and try to find new players. I don't want to stop playing with my current group, because the play is awesome. But it's looking increasingly like I'm not going to get to run anything for them, because we can't find anything that works for everyone.

I feel your pain. I've run several mafia games in the past and although the games were successful, my group looked at them mainly as one shots or breaks from the normal kewl powerz style gaming. I wrote Vice Squad: Miami Nights, a 1980s cops/criminals game that was heavily inspired by Miami Vice, and had about the same experience when running that. Same thing with my Old West campaigns. If it doesn't have magic, or zombies, or aliens, other supernatural gimmicks, they don't seem to last as long.

The only other suggestion I have is to start with a mundane premise, but explain that the game will involve supernatural elements. Advise them that you'd prefer the characters learn about the occult stuff as the game progresses, but of course, there will always be that one player who wants to start off as a dabbler, so just scale his starting powers back from what a normal supernatural type character would have.

I did this with one of my mafia games---they ended up running up against a Jamaican posse that was heavily into voodoo. One of the mobsters (an ex-priest) started researching forbidden Catholic lore regarding the occult and started learning spells, setting off an interesting chain of events. I also do this with my Old West games, starting the characters off as cowboys, ranchers, carpetbaggers, etc. and exposing them to supernatural creatures in the wild and Native American magic. I've found that doing this seems to extend the campaign quite a bit.

I wish I had a more clear cut answer for you, but basically, if everyone except you enjoys playing non-mundane games, you're pretty much stuck. I'd love to play a crime/gang game set in New York's 5 Points, but there's no way I'd be able to sell it to my group. . .

Pete

Kiero, do any of your group have an interest in Call of Cthulhu?

Quote from: Kiero;611265I have neither the time nor inclination to find other people. I only have one slot a week to play, and I'll take being a perpetual player over all the hassle of trying to recruit afresh just to run games.

Then you're fucked.

If we can't come to a compromise, then we simply don't play at all.

Over the last year or so, I joined a few D&D games which ended up dying during the middle of chargen.  (ie. We didn't even play the first session).

Overall, nobody would come to an agreement.  I was willing to compromise, but the other players (and DM) were not willing to make compromises with one another.   (ie. My way or the highway).  Typically two (or more) players just got up and walked out when they could not come to an agreement with the DM.

No point in playing rpg games with individuals who either don't like one another, and/or really dislike the DM.

Quote from: pspahn;611370I'd love to play a crime/gang game set in New York's 5 Points, but there's no way I'd be able to sell it to my group.

Oooh, that would be fun... late 1800s? With the Dead Rabbits and the Roach Guard and Lizzie the Dove?

Quote from: Simlasa;611376Oooh, that would be fun... late 1800s? With the Dead Rabbits and the Roach Guard and Lizzie the Dove?

Yup! Unfortunately unless Bill the Butcher was a vampire and Hellcat Maggie a werewolf my group ain't buying it. :-)

Pete

Quote from: Saladman;611267I've gotten some of the best games of my life (and some of the worst, but that's a different story) out of joining a Meetup group for roleplayers.  For the best games, it was precisely because you're not playing with all 10 or 20 (or recently, all 30 or 40) members in a 5 player game to begin with, so some specificity, and even a friendly and matter of fact "take it or leave it," can work in your game pitches.  The first game I played where everyone was positively in favor of the premise, rather than having negotiated a compromise, was a surprisingly powerful experience for me.

"Compromise!" is good generic advice, and sometimes the best you can do, but I no longer think its the best there is.  I had enjoyed my previous games where we started with the same group of friends and negotiated the game, but it turns out that negotiating imposes some limitations and sameness of tone on games that I hadn't recognized.

None of which necessarily helps you, since you say you're sticking with the group.  But its something to keep in mind.  Maybe you could keep playing with this group, and GM for another.  Try an online game with Google +, post flyers, sign up for online player locators, or join or start a Meetup group in your area.  Go out in the streets and make them come in and play!

Indeed, as you say compromise means nobody is happy. Now that position might mean everyone is only a little bit unhappy, but it could also end up so far away from everyone's favoured points that it's worse than just picking something that some people, but not others would dislike.

If I had more free time for gaming, organising another session might be an option, but I don't I'm afraid.

Quote from: pspahn;611370I feel your pain. I've run several mafia games in the past and although the games were successful, my group looked at them mainly as one shots or breaks from the normal kewl powerz style gaming. I wrote Vice Squad: Miami Nights, a 1980s cops/criminals game that was heavily inspired by Miami Vice, and had about the same experience when running that. Same thing with my Old West campaigns. If it doesn't have magic, or zombies, or aliens, other supernatural gimmicks, they don't seem to last as long.

The only other suggestion I have is to start with a mundane premise, but explain that the game will involve supernatural elements. Advise them that you'd prefer the characters learn about the occult stuff as the game progresses, but of course, there will always be that one player who wants to start off as a dabbler, so just scale his starting powers back from what a normal supernatural type character would have.

I did this with one of my mafia games---they ended up running up against a Jamaican posse that was heavily into voodoo. One of the mobsters (an ex-priest) started researching forbidden Catholic lore regarding the occult and started learning spells, setting off an interesting chain of events. I also do this with my Old West games, starting the characters off as cowboys, ranchers, carpetbaggers, etc. and exposing them to supernatural creatures in the wild and Native American magic. I've found that doing this seems to extend the campaign quite a bit.

I wish I had a more clear cut answer for you, but basically, if everyone except you enjoys playing non-mundane games, you're pretty much stuck. I'd love to play a crime/gang game set in New York's 5 Points, but there's no way I'd be able to sell it to my group. . .

Pete

This resonates quite strongly with me.

There might be something in the "you start out mundane (or at most a dabbler), but can learn more in play" route. At least for capping off the most gonzo elements, or shunting them off into the future.

I think even some of the more recent things we've played (such as Mass Effect) are concessions towards myself and the newest player who prefer things a little more grounded. We're both playing humans where everyone else is some variety of alien, and ME is relatively low on the sci-fi weirdness scale compared with, say, Star Wars.

Quote from: Warthur;611371Kiero, do any of your group have an interest in Call of Cthulhu?

No; I don't like either horror or BRP, at one other player dislikes horror at least as much as I do.

However, now you mention it, there might be something I could do with a game set in the 1920s. Several have expressed an interest in a 20s game, which I could set in Shanghai, San Francisco or Paris, depending on what sort of feel we were going for. Maybe add in a little magic and weirdness at the periphery and it might be enough.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;611373Then you're fucked.

Perhaps.

Quote from: ggroy;611375If we can't come to a compromise, then we simply don't play at all.

Over the last year or so, I joined a few D&D games which ended up dying during the middle of chargen.  (ie. We didn't even play the first session).

Overall, nobody would come to an agreement.  I was willing to compromise, but the other players (and DM) were not willing to make compromises with one another.   (ie. My way or the highway).  Typically two (or more) players just got up and walked out when they could not come to an agreement with the DM.

No point in playing rpg games with individuals who either don't like one another, and/or really dislike the DM.

Having different tastes, and liking each other are two different things. There's no issue with finding games I'm willing to play, just with something I'd be willing to run.

I didn't mean "compromise"

I meant start liking different things.

Quote from: Kiero;611417Having different tastes, and liking each other are two different things.

Definitely.

It would be great if I was able to play rpg games with friends.  Though I don't have that "luxury" anymore.

Over the last few years, I've been playing rpg games with individuals whom I did not know previously.  (These days, very few of my close friends are interested in playing rpg games.  So I don't even bother asking anymore).

After awhile, it was easy to tell whether some individuals dislike one another on sight.


I'm at the point where I'm just playing one-shot rpg games once in a while.  It seems like too much of a headache to get a group together to play a regular weekly/biweekly/monthly campaign, which doesn't self-destruct.

Quote from: pspahn;611386Yup! Unfortunately unless Bill the Butcher was a vampire and Hellcat Maggie a werewolf my group ain't buying it. :-)

Pete

It's so sad to see people in an imaginative hobby be so unwilling to stray from set character types.

I think no gaming is better then bad gaming, and if you've been around the block a while, you know what games do it for you and what games don't, but a Gangs of New York campaign seems like a rich roleplaying campaign.  Now if the players said "Too much violent politics", "I couldn't micromanage the contacts a successful player would need", "Too serious", all those are things I can see as valid reasons that you wouldn't like that campaign.  However "unless Bill the Butcher was a vampire and Hellcat Maggie a werewolf my group ain't buying it.", is nore like the OOP's problem with getting people to try Exalted as non-Exalts.  Keep in mind we're not talking about locking yourself into a 5 year campaign, we're talking about making up a character and trying it.  If people can't be bothered to do that, simply because their characters aren't supernatural special snowflakes, then some of the criticism of WW and it's players is striking home here I think.

I like playing with friends and would put up with a lot to do so.  Much more than I would for a pick-up game.  

One thing that I have found is that the more heavily themed the campaign, the harder it is to get initial interest.  But good games come in all shapes and sizes.

I'm not totally sure what the problem is: are the other players stopping you from appreciating the historical parts of a historical/fantasy campaign?

Are they not letting you play "regular guy" while they play mighty metahumans?

RPGPundit

Quote from: ggroy;611375Over the last year or so, I joined a few D&D games which ended up dying during the middle of chargen.  (ie. We didn't even play the first session).

How does this happen in D&D?  Thats just nuts.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;611551How does this happen in D&D?  Thats just nuts.

In one particular chargen session, the DM would not allow any dragonborn or tiefling 4E player characters.  Apparently two players wanted to play dragonborn characters and one player wanted to play a tiefling, and ended up arguing with the the DM for most of the chargen session.  The DM was completely adamant about this, without giving much of an explanation to these  particular players.

In the end, these three players just got up and walked out after about 15 minutes of continuous arguing.  A fourth player also walked out along with these three players.

Quote from: RPGPundit;611525I'm not totally sure what the problem is: are the other players stopping you from appreciating the historical parts of a historical/fantasy campaign?

Are they not letting you play "regular guy" while they play mighty metahumans?

RPGPundit

They're not letting me run games that don't feature metahumans. This isn't a venting about being a player, but being a prospective GM for my group.

Not in an open and direct "I won't play that", but in a much more silent and grudging disapproval that takes a lot of effort to get it out of them that they really want their metahumans.

Anyone who will walk out because they can't play one specific race, is a useless cunt you don't need.

Quote from: CRKrueger;611637Anyone who will walk out because they can't play one specific race, is a useless cunt you don't need.

So if I said, no, I don't want to play in an all-Aslan Traveller campaign, I'm a useless cunt?

Are you sure that's where you're trying to go?

Quote from: Kiero;611635They're not letting me run games that don't feature metahumans. This isn't a venting about being a player, but being a prospective GM for my group.

Not in an open and direct "I won't play that", but in a much more silent and grudging disapproval that takes a lot of effort to get it out of them that they really want their metahumans.

yeah.  It is actually one of the hardest continuums to work through.  

Let me ask a question.  DO they get off on being meta, or on character growth?
still curious.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;611639So if I said, no, I don't want to play in an all-Aslan Traveller campaign, I'm a useless cunt?

Are you sure that's where you're trying to go?

The question is:

- Are the people you game with likely to run an all-Aslan Traveller game?
- Are you good enough friends with them that you'd give it a shot even if you are mildly sceptical about the concept because you want to give your GM friend a chance to have a stab at their idea?

If you're in a week-in-week-out gaming group with people who are very likely to run games you find unacceptable and who you aren't reasonably good friends with I'd say you have to consider your membership of the group to be a temporary/conditional thing.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;611639So if I said, no, I don't want to play in an all-Aslan Traveller campaign, I'm a useless cunt?

Are you sure that's where you're trying to go?

Pretty sure that's not where I'm going since that's not what we're talking about. :D

Saying "Out of all the races you can play, Dragonborn and Tieflings are out." is not the same thing as "Everyone must play Aslan."  Not even close.

The first is cutting out two rare races, the second is forcing everyone to play a rare race (which the Aslan are since Traveller is so human-centric.  Pretty much getting into the "exact opposite" territory.

BUT, if your regular GM who has pulled through on many an occasion says "Dude, I have this awesome idea for a campaign, I know you don't like Aslan but trust me." and you don't at least give him a shot, you're not being a useless cunt, but you are being a bit of a selfish prick.  :D

The following is not directed at Vulmea:
IMO, this whole "pitch me the idea and let's have perfect consensus before I sit down at the table or else we'll have mixed expectations" is one of the legacies of the Forge that needs to die in a fire.  Wake up from your masturbatory fantasy, grab some dice, sit the fuck down and roleplay you whiny shit.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;611551How does this happen in D&D?  Thats just nuts.

Happened to me the first and only time I ever attempted to play 3.5

Quote from: CRKrueger;611637Anyone who will walk out because they can't play one specific race, is a useless cunt you don't need.

indeed.

Quote from: Kiero;611110When it comes to running a game, the things that really appeal to me are games about more mundane, but exceptional people doing action movie-esque stuff. Think the Leverage TV show or The Expendables or the Bourne movies or The Raid: Redemption. There's no magic or monsters or superpowers, just capable people pushing themselves to their limits, aided by action movie physics. Sword and sorcery/pulp fantasy really appeals to me for similar reasons.

But it doesn't seem like my group is really into that at all. I don't even know if that sort of thing actually works with 5 PCs, perhaps it's better with 2-3?

I don't have any more time in my schedule to add another gaming slot and try to find new players. I don't want to stop playing with my current group, because the play is awesome. But it's looking increasingly like I'm not going to get to run anything for them, because we can't find anything that works for everyone.

Exalted without Exalts strikes me as particularly complicated because Creation is so explicitly set up as the Exalts' (specifically the Solars') sandbox. I would half expect Exalts to eventually show up and do epic shit while I, mere mortal, would be relegated to the sidelines like a bad videogame cut-scene. This is not a commentary on your GMing, as I've never played with you and have no reason not to believe you're an awesome GM, but an expectation bred by the nature of the setting. If you specified (say) "Creation 100 years before the Solars return" I'd be more optimistic and more inclined to play this.

I run plenty of "badass normals" games, -- hell, I wish I could invite you over to my game table -- but for some reason I've always found my groups extremely receptive (not sure whether I'm gaming with open-minded, or just like-minded people), so I'm not sure the following advice will apply.

The advice I have to offer is don't compromise. Or at least, not to the point that kills your enthusiasm. Player enthusiasm fuels a campaign, but GM enthusiasm is its fucking oxygen. If you're not excited about what you're running it's going to become a fucking chore and you'd rather be doing something else. If you want to run a mortals game, run a mortals game, and if no one shows up let someone else run something.

As a player, I'll give almost anything a shot, except obvious crap like FATAL or WoD: Gypsies. Or RM which, while not in the same league of crapiness, makes me grit my teeth with the 3-hour-long character creation. When the GM establishes limits like "no dragonborn" I don't fucking whine about how I'm being robbed of my special unique snowflakiness and happily roll a dwarf fighter, Scottish brogue and all. As long as I'm having fun, I'll cut the GM all the slack in the world and generally make his life easier.

Hope that helps.

And yeah, Call of Cthulhu would be a great start, especially if you can keep it pulpy a la Masks of Nyarlathotep.

I think there's a huge difference between (1) a difference in expectations in regards to basic aesthetics, the feel of the world and the like, for instance whether there are non-human races available to play and the like, and (2) differences in expectations in regards to the actual game play and core world vision, i.e. the baseline of the PCs versus the rest of the world, whether the game is a "story" or an emulated world one immerses in, these kinds of things.

The former (1) is much easier to deal with, in that you can have a session 0 where you throw ideas against the wall and gather the players' tastes and expectations and from there, can craft a custom setting with custom rules options that answer to particular tastes individually. For instance having Vancian magic for those that like it and alternate classes like the Sorcerer, Warlock, etc in 3rd ed for those that want them.

The latter (2), however, is much harder to deal with because it goes to the core of the game play and game design of each particular universe and campaign. Either you have PCs that are on par with the rest of the world, or they are already a cut above the rest, for instance. In these particular cases I think it's important to not restrain yourself on a single role playing game, and not have a precise campaign idea you're stuck on at the start of the brainstorm/session 0.

Let's say you have some people who like to be on par with the rest of the world for instance and some people who like to play heroes from the get go. My advice there is to not try to get stuck on D&D or whatever type of role playing game like this, and try to find a middle ground that's out there. In Nomine Satanis Magna Veritas for instance posits that you are Angels and Demons incarnated in human corpses/devouts, a cut above the rest of the world, but a Grade 0 or Grade 1 Angel/Demon is fairly weak and has to use a damn lot of player skill to make it in most complex scenarios of the game. James Bond 007 also comes to mind as a sort of middle ground in that regard. Likewise playing Vampire neonates in the Masquerade, or Requiem: you want to manipulate herds and ghouls and blood-bonded humans? Go for it. You want to play the hard game of politics and go after your betters, elders and primogen? You can as well. And so on.

So having a wide range of games and options and trying to think outside of the box when coming up with the basic game pitch based on the players' tastes and expectations is paramount, in my experience.

Quote from: The Butcher;611688Exalted without Exalts strikes me as particularly complicated because Creation is so explicitly set up as the Exalts' (specifically the Solars') sandbox. I would half expect Exalts to eventually show up and do epic shit while I, mere mortal, would be relegated to the sidelines like a bad videogame cut-scene. This is not a commentary on your GMing, as I've never played with you and have no reason not to believe you're an awesome GM, but an expectation bred by the nature of the setting. If you specified (say) "Creation 100 years before the Solars return" I'd be more optimistic and more inclined to play this.

Just to be clear, this was never a "you can't be Exalts, but there are Exalts around" pitch. It was deliberately set before the return of the Solaroids (six years, specifically), with the express intent that I'd completely ignore the Exalted altogether. They were also playing God-Blooded, not Heroic Mortal PCs. Point was I didn't want to have to deal with the Exalts at all, not as PCs not as NPCs either.

Hell, I also had an alternate pitch set before Exalts of any kind even existed, so there wasn't even the off chance a Dragonblooded NPC could turn up to ruin their shit.

From their side of things it wasn't a fear they'd be overshadowed by NPCs. It was that, as expressed by at least two of them, they didn't see the point (and found little appeal) in a game set in Creation where they weren't playing Exalts.

Quote from: The Butcher;611688I run plenty of "badass normals" games, -- hell, I wish I could invite you over to my game table -- but for some reason I've always found my groups extremely receptive (not sure whether I'm gaming with open-minded, or just like-minded people), so I'm not sure the following advice will apply.

The advice I have to offer is don't compromise. Or at least, not to the point that kills your enthusiasm. Player enthusiasm fuels a campaign, but GM enthusiasm is its fucking oxygen. If you're not excited about what you're running it's going to become a fucking chore and you'd rather be doing something else. If you want to run a mortals game, run a mortals game, and if no one shows up let someone else run something.

As a player, I'll give almost anything a shot, except obvious crap like FATAL or WoD: Gypsies. Or RM which, while not in the same league of crapiness, makes me grit my teeth with the 3-hour-long character creation. When the GM establishes limits like "no dragonborn" I don't fucking whine about how I'm being robbed of my special unique snowflakiness and happily roll a dwarf fighter, Scottish brogue and all. As long as I'm having fun, I'll cut the GM all the slack in the world and generally make his life easier.

Hope that helps.

Appreciate the offer. :)

They say they'll give anything a try if I'm going to run it, and I believe that they would. People aren't in the habit of just not showing up. But I know they wouldn't be enjoying themselves as much as they might with something else and that the game would fizzle out after a few sessions.

I've already seen the results of a game my group wasn't fully engaged with, and compared to the way things are when they are, it isn't worth it for anyone concerned.

I do agree with you on the no compromise bit, though. If I'm not jazzed about what I'm running, it'll rapidly become a game no one else is enjoying.

Quote from: The Butcher;611688And yeah, Call of Cthulhu would be a great start, especially if you can keep it pulpy a la Masks of Nyarlathotep.

I don't like either CoC or the BRP system, and I'm not the only person in my group who doesn't have any time for horror. We might use nWoD as our default system, but we don't engage the "personal horror" trope at all.

However, as I said upthread, a pulpy 20s game might work.

Quote from: Benoist;611706I think there's a huge difference between (1) a difference in expectations in regards to basic aesthetics, the feel of the world and the like, for instance whether there are non-human races available to play and the like, and (2) differences in expectations in regards to the actual game play and core world vision, i.e. the baseline of the PCs versus the rest of the world, whether the game is a "story" or an emulated world one immerses in, these kinds of things.

The former (1) is much easier to deal with, in that you can have a session 0 where you throw ideas against the wall and gather the players' tastes and expectations and from there, can craft a custom setting with custom rules options that answer to particular tastes individually. For instance having Vancian magic for those that like it and alternate classes like the Sorcerer, Warlock, etc in 3rd ed for those that want them.

The latter (2), however, is much harder to deal with because it goes to the core of the game play and game design of each particular universe and campaign. Either you have PCs that are on par with the rest of the world, or they are already a cut above the rest, for instance. In these particular cases I think it's important to not restrain yourself on a single role playing game, and not have a precise campaign idea you're stuck on at the start of the brainstorm/session 0.

Let's say you have some people who like to be on par with the rest of the world for instance and some people who like to play heroes from the get go. My advice there is to not try to get stuck on D&D or whatever type of role playing game like this, and try to find a middle ground that's out there. In Nomine Satanis Magna Veritas for instance posits that you are Angels and Demons incarnated in human corpses/devouts, a cut above the rest of the world, but a Grade 0 or Grade 1 Angel/Demon is fairly weak and has to use a damn lot of player skill to make it in most complex scenarios of the game. James Bond 007 also comes to mind as a sort of middle ground in that regard. Likewise playing Vampire neonates in the Masquerade, or Requiem: you want to manipulate herds and ghouls and blood-bonded humans? Go for it. You want to play the hard game of politics and go after your betters, elders and primogen? You can as well. And so on.

So having a wide range of games and options and trying to think outside of the box when coming up with the basic game pitch based on the players' tastes and expectations is paramount, in my experience.

Again for clarity, I don't have any interest in running games where the PCs are schlubs who are little better than anyone else. They're always a cut above the rest of the world, but what I'm trying to avoid is yet another game where most of the PCs have magic/superpowers/psionics. I want the PCs to be some of the most exceptional people in the world - without having to be mages or psychics or mutants or vampires or whatever.

What we have here is not a mismatch in terms of me wanting to run a game where they're less (or for that matter more) than they expect. All our games have PCs who are a cut above, and my intent here is no different.

This is likely to be for a short game, so crafting a setting from the ground up doesn't really appeal to them. Every time I've floated the notion of collaboratively generating something to fit, or introducing a licensed property they're not already familiar with I've gotten demurral and general disinterest.

We've also got a number of games already in the mix, which means I don't want to just repeat something that we're doing.

Quote from: The Butcher;611688Or RM which, while not in the same league of crapiness, makes me grit my teeth with the 3-hour-long character creation.

I would be willing to play a one-shot evening game of Rolemaster, if the DM already has some premade characters.

Quote from: ggroy;611629In one particular chargen session, the DM would not allow any dragonborn or tiefling 4E player characters.  Apparently two players wanted to play dragonborn characters and one player wanted to play a tiefling, and ended up arguing with the the DM for most of the chargen session.  The DM was completely adamant about this, without giving much of an explanation to these  particular players.

In the end, these three players just got up and walked out after about 15 minutes of continuous arguing.  A fourth player also walked out along with these three players.

Ok so its got nothing to do with the character creation system, its all about people with bad attitudes unwilling to get along and have a good time.

Do you by chance game with members of congress? :p

I am curious why the gm did not want to allow those two races.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;611819Ok so its got nothing to do with the character creation system, its all about people with bad attitudes unwilling to get along and have a good time.

Do you by chance game with members of congress? :p

I don't know where the hell ggroy gets his players, but I think most of them could pass as extras on Sons of Anarchy (or actually serve as consultants).

Quote from: Bill;611849I am curious why the gm did not want to allow those two races.

I didn't bother asking.

(Didn't want to add more fuel to the fire, after the players walked out).

Quote from: Kiero;611789Just to be clear, this was never a "you can't be Exalts, but there are Exalts around" pitch. It was deliberately set before the return of the Solaroids (six years, specifically), with the express intent that I'd completely ignore the Exalted altogether. They were also playing God-Blooded, not Heroic Mortal PCs. Point was I didn't want to have to deal with the Exalts at all, not as PCs not as NPCs either.

Hell, I also had an alternate pitch set before Exalts of any kind even existed, so there wasn't even the off chance a Dragonblooded NPC could turn up to ruin their shit.

From their side of things it wasn't a fear they'd be overshadowed by NPCs. It was that, as expressed by at least two of them, they didn't see the point (and found little appeal) in a game set in Creation where they weren't playing Exalts.

The pitch looks good to me and your players' excuse makes no sense to me. Could you elaborate on what they said?

Quote from: Kiero;611789They say they'll give anything a try if I'm going to run it, and I believe that they would. People aren't in the habit of just not showing up. But I know they wouldn't be enjoying themselves as much as they might with something else and that the game would fizzle out after a few sessions.

I've already seen the results of a game my group wasn't fully engaged with, and compared to the way things are when they are, it isn't worth it for anyone concerned.

I do agree with you on the no compromise bit, though. If I'm not jazzed about what I'm running, it'll rapidly become a game no one else is enjoying.

Some games do take a bit more time to hit it off. I sometimes feel there's a marked trend towards more immediate gratification in more recent games. I see it in D&D 4e for example; people want to kick ass right out of the gate and do away with what is generally perceived to be the "grind" at low levels. and I respect that some people don't want to engage the lower ends of power and influence, but I feel the hobby's poorer for it. For me, the journey "from zero to hero" is as much fun (if not more so) than actually being the ass-kicking, world-shaping "hero."

Quote from: Kiero;611789I don't like either CoC or the BRP system, and I'm not the only person in my group who doesn't have any time for horror. We might use nWoD as our default system, but we don't engage the "personal horror" trope at all.

More's the pity. CoC (and its growing brotherhood of non-BRP variants) is essentially about esssentially ordinary people sacrificing their lives and their minds to save the world from cosmic threats, and I think RPGs don't get more "badass normals" than this.

Quote from: Kiero;611789Again for clarity, I don't have any interest in running games where the PCs are schlubs who are little better than anyone else. They're always a cut above the rest of the world, but what I'm trying to avoid is yet another game where most of the PCs have magic/superpowers/psionics. I want the PCs to be some of the most exceptional people in the world - without having to be mages or psychics or mutants or vampires or whatever.

Again, I have a hard time understanding the nature of your players' opposition to playing non-superpowered humans. Maybe that's worth clarifying with them?

Quote from: CRKrueger;611852I don't know where the hell ggroy gets his players, but I think most of them could pass as extras on Sons of Anarchy (or actually serve as consultants).

For this particular group, it was from answering an ad looking for 4E players.  I didn't know these particular individuals before, and haven't seen any of them since they walked out.

Quote from: ggroy;611808I would be willing to play a one-shot evening game of Rolemaster, if the DM already has some premade characters.

I'd be good with that too.

Quote from: ggroy;611867For this particular group, it was from answering an ad looking for 4E players.  I didn't know these particular individuals before, and haven't seen any of them since they walked out.

I suspect these particular fellows expected 4E as RAW.

As in, the GM has no say in anything; the rulebooka are the GM.

Hmm, you already give players human PCs that are not just a cut above the rest, but exceptional specimens of humanity. And yet this is not enough.

And when trying to play people w/ SPESHUL POWERZ!1!! you're not holding them to exploring the setting counterbalancing weaknesses (the "personal horror" or "social restrictions," etc.). And yet this is not enough, too.

The only thing they will tolerate is either a) having SPESHUL POWERZ!1!! among mere mortals. Or, if there's others w/ supernatural powers but of a lower grade, b) having TEH MOSTEST SPESHUL POWERZ!1!! OV ALL!

They have fixed power demands (I'd say 'issues' from what little you've expressed of them, but meh whatever I don't know them personally). You have a wider variety of, but still flexible, power demands. The twain shall never meet unless you concede.

And you can't find new players by expanding your circle of friends. These people are the only ones you'll spend your time with. You have no extra time, nor extra effort, to change this; this is the only pool you can work with.

... Well, yeah. You're fucked. Sounds self-made, but whatever, you still sound fucked. Seems like you already knew this answer, but I guess you want commiseration, so: "My condolences. It can be hard to engage in social activities with people who are rather stuck in a rut. If only one day you could find those with similar interests. Until then endure your suffering with grace."

In the off case you actually want a solution, the best I can suggest is play Amber or Lords of Olympus with them -- and just throw waves of mortal 'ants' at them to be crushed endlessly -- until their power fantasies get satisfied? I don't know if 'ant crushing' even relates to those games, but playing aspects of gods might be appealing to them at some level.

Quote from: The Butcher;611865The pitch looks good to me and your players' excuse makes no sense to me. Could you elaborate on what they said?

It's not Exalted without Exalts to some of them. The entire draw of the setting is setting what Exalts do to the status quo and going beyond the usual scale of fantasy adventures.

Quote from: The Butcher;611865Some games do take a bit more time to hit it off. I sometimes feel there's a marked trend towards more immediate gratification in more recent games. I see it in D&D 4e for example; people want to kick ass right out of the gate and do away with what is generally perceived to be the "grind" at low levels. and I respect that some people don't want to engage the lower ends of power and influence, but I feel the hobby's poorer for it. For me, the journey "from zero to hero" is as much fun (if not more so) than actually being the ass-kicking, world-shaping "hero."

Doesn't really track for us, we started a D&D4e game at 7th level and it's been awesome. Our Mass Effect game started out with pretty competent, experienced characters and that's been loads of fun, too.

The last time I "started at 1st level" was with WFRP2e and frankly the early sessions weren't much fun any time we got into combat and knew we could get one-shotted. Things were much better once we all had a career under our belts.

Quote from: The Butcher;611865More's the pity. CoC (and its growing brotherhood of non-BRP variants) is essentially about esssentially ordinary people sacrificing their lives and their minds to save the world from cosmic threats, and I think RPGs don't get more "badass normals" than this.

Categorically no interest in what essentially ordinary people get up to. That's not Badass Normal, part of the requirement of that trope is that they're exceptional, just not powered.

Quote from: The Butcher;611865Again, I have a hard time understanding the nature of your players' opposition to playing non-superpowered humans. Maybe that's worth clarifying with them?

I've clarified some more, they want something unusual to hang the idea on. This isn't about power levels, it's about mundanity.

Quote from: Opaopajr;612027Hmm, you already give players human PCs that are not just a cut above the rest, but exceptional specimens of humanity. And yet this is not enough.

And when trying to play people w/ SPESHUL POWERZ!1!! you're not holding them to exploring the setting counterbalancing weaknesses (the "personal horror" or "social restrictions," etc.). And yet this is not enough, too.

The only thing they will tolerate is either a) having SPESHUL POWERZ!1!! among mere mortals. Or, if there's others w/ supernatural powers but of a lower grade, b) having TEH MOSTEST SPESHUL POWERZ!1!! OV ALL!

They have fixed power demands (I'd say 'issues' from what little you've expressed of them, but meh whatever I don't know them personally). You have a wider variety of, but still flexible, power demands. The twain shall never meet unless you concede.

And you can't find new players by expanding your circle of friends. These people are the only ones you'll spend your time with. You have no extra time, nor extra effort, to change this; this is the only pool you can work with.

... Well, yeah. You're fucked. Sounds self-made, but whatever, you still sound fucked. Seems like you already knew this answer, but I guess you want commiseration, so: "My condolences. It can be hard to engage in social activities with people who are rather stuck in a rut. If only one day you could find those with similar interests. Until then endure your suffering with grace."

In the off case you actually want a solution, the best I can suggest is play Amber or Lords of Olympus with them -- and just throw waves of mortal 'ants' at them to be crushed endlessly -- until their power fantasies get satisfied? I don't know if 'ant crushing' even relates to those games, but playing aspects of gods might be appealing to them at some level.

While I'm sure it was fun to beat that straw man, you're way off of this.

It's not about being exceptional for them, but not being mundane. As a good example, we're playing Mage: the Awakening set in 1750s America. They're all playing starting mages, meaning in essence normal people with magic. By contrast, I'm playing a Proximus, an exceptional individual who isn't a mage.

See for me I don't care about having magic, I don't want to play an ordinary person. I'll quite happily be the (relatively) mundane dude while getting to be the action hero.

so once again...

for the other players...

how much of their motivation is based on their character growth speed/rate
vs
How much is being more powerful than a normal person?

Quote from: Kiero;612194Doesn't really track for us, we started a D&D4e game at 7th level and it's been awesome. Our Mass Effect game started out with pretty competent, experienced characters and that's been loads of fun, too.

The last time I "started at 1st level" was with WFRP2e and frankly the early sessions weren't much fun any time we got into combat and knew we could get one-shotted. Things were much better once we all had a career under our belts.

Why's that? What did you dislike about playing a low-level adventurer?

Quote from: Kiero;612194Categorically no interest in what essentially ordinary people get up to. That's not Badass Normal, part of the requirement of that trope is that they're exceptional, just not powered.

I'm going to go to CoC again for example's sake because it's a game I've played and run a lot. Why can't Professor Alfred Hieronymus Crowhurst, your out-of-shape (DEX 7) but brilliant (INT 16, EDU 17) 1920s Boston Brahmin scholar be considered "exceptional" for his Library Use 95% and Language (Chaldean) 90%, when these are the skills that allowed him to banish Rhan-Tegoth back to the starry abyss beyond, and save our pitiful world? Chaldean-literate scholars don't grow on trees, let alone someone with 90% (probably the most fluent Chaldean student in the modern world). He might not be Batman but he's an exceptional individual and an intellectual badass.

Quote from: Kiero;612194I've clarified some more, they want something unusual to hang the idea on. This isn't about power levels, it's about mundanity.

Being a normal person is not synonimous with mundanity. Mythos investigators, nWoD hunters (from Hunter: The Vigil) and just about every Traveller character out there are ordinary people thrust into extraordinary and supramundane circumstances. I don't think this is a fitting justification for your players' refusal, or an accurate explanation for your problem. Unless your players and/or you have zero experience with playing normal humans and are massively prejudiced to boot, which I have no reason to assume.

Quote from: Kiero;612194See for me I don't care about having magic, I don't want to play an ordinary person. I'll quite happily be the (relatively) mundane dude while getting to be the action hero.

Again, I really, really wish I could invite you (and everyone who has similar problems) over to my game table. I m a firm believer in "show, don't tell" and while I'm trying my best to understand your plight and come up with a solution, I'm not sure I'm (1) actually reaching out to you and (2) not sounding like a dick. Let me know if this is being of any help.

Quote from: Kiero;612194While I'm sure it was fun to beat that straw man, you're way off of this.

It's not about being exceptional for them, but not being mundane. As a good example, we're playing Mage: the Awakening set in 1750s America. They're all playing starting mages, meaning in essence normal people with magic. By contrast, I'm playing a Proximus, an exceptional individual who isn't a mage.

See for me I don't care about having magic, I don't want to play an ordinary person. I'll quite happily be the (relatively) mundane dude while getting to be the action hero.

No. You either do, or do not, have a problem.

If the above you just now said is true and you are happy with this arrangement from now until forever, you do not have a problem. And then there's no purpose to this topic.

If you really do have a problem with this arrangement, and did want an answer beyond commiseration, then you're seeking solutions. However you have set up conditions that no viable solution can be reached. Thus you're fucked. And therefore again there's no purpose to this topic... and further you knew this before starting this topic.

You know you can't change others. And you declare impossibility to change your situation yourself. And yet you still write this seeking... advice?

It cannot be. You sound far too intelligent for this emotional game. Unless you are seeking commiseration, there is no strawman here except your examples I'm afraid.

This is an old story with examples in every calcified circle of friends. You can't share all your interests with the same circle. You tried, they said no, you have your answer. You now either adapt to your circle or develop an additional one.

Quote from: Kiero;612194Categorically no interest in what essentially ordinary people get up to. That's not Badass Normal, part of the requirement of that trope is that they're exceptional, just not powered.

Sounds like you want something close to pulp.

IMO what you need to do is draw a bright line so people don't weasel back into thinking that the game is about "powerz." For this, you have to start by ditching any hope of playing in Creation.

Then you can look at another setting, either one that they aren't familiar with and so can "power down" as necessary, or one of your own devising.

Finally: a system.

In spite of your anti-BRP feelings, I'd still suggest you have a look at the settings which have been made for BRP and RQ/Legend. Specifically: Age of Treason, or possibly Swords of Cydoria, or even one of the historical books such as Crusaders of the Amber Coast. I'm sure there are other settings out there; I'd consider Legends of Steel if I were looking.

For system, again BRP or RQ are probably suitable; the trick is to make beginning PCs powerful enough that they start taking advantage of the special tricks available in the system. I.e., at the low end of complexity, BRP has special and critical hits which are devastating; highly skilled characters can also make multiple attacks and (depending on options) may give them the ability to "riposte" on a good parry roll. At the higher end of complexity, Mongoose RQ/Legend, and RQ6, add combat maneuvers which let you do special things when you roll well. Against and among ordinary people, the PCs will still kick ass. I should note that the old Elric!/Stormbringer deliberately made beginning characters more competent than in Runequest, and that's probably still a difference in the various books published now (e.g., I wouldn't reject Legend without looking at Mongoose's Elric of Melnibone, and I wouldn't reject BRP without looking at the upcoming Magic World supplement, which is based on the old Elric!).

But that isn't necessary. If you like Exalted, then use the rules from Exalted. Just don't call them Exalted. Call them "The Rules" and present them as a naive set of custom rules for your strong personal vision, as if you'd never seen anything other than Exalted and believed, therefore, that your modifications were a set of radical innovations. (In short, make an Exalted heartbreaker and don't be shy about it.)

OK, Kiero, so you want a game which doesn't revolve around supernatural powers but at the same time is about "Badass Normals", who are beyond ordinary people to an unspecified but notable degree.

Flippant response: Well, if they're doing shit that is beyond the capability of real human beings - as "Badass Normal" (ugh, TVTropes) action heroes do all the time - isn't that supernatural?

Non-flippant response: Earlier in this thread, it sounded to me like you had a broad range of characters in mind for games you want to GM, but now you have clarified this point it seems to me that your tastes here are actually narrower than the other players'. After all, even if they aren't willing to play characters without supernatural powers that still leaves scope for everything from street-level occultists to full-blown Exalts and everything in between, whereas what you want to play and run games for seems to cover a very narrow power level indeed.

So, level with me mamajama: why don't you want to GM for PCs with supernatural powers (beyond the quasi-supernatural power of being a "Badass Normal")?

Quote from: LordVreeg;612220so once again...

for the other players...

how much of their motivation is based on their character growth speed/rate
vs
How much is being more powerful than a normal person?

None of those are relevant, this isn't what their objections are based on. Primarily (I'm guessing), they want the escapism of playing people who aren't possible in real life.

Quote from: The Butcher;612313Why's that? What did you dislike about playing a low-level adventurer?

It's tedious and doesn't interest me in the slightest. How about we come back when they're actually competent people?

I will never, ever play a 1st level character in a D&D game again. It's a redline for me. Fortunately my group aren't all that attached to the notion that you have to start at the beginning and work your way through.

As a counterpoint, I don't have any interest in the upper levels of D&D either. My sweet spot is something like 5th to 10th, outside that range I don't really want to be involved.

Our D&D4e game which started at 7th has had two runs so far, the third and final might end with us hitting 10th level, though that's not guaranteed. The PCs are 9th right now.

Quote from: The Butcher;612313I'm going to go to CoC again for example's sake because it's a game I've played and run a lot. Why can't Professor Alfred Hieronymus Crowhurst, your out-of-shape (DEX 7) but brilliant (INT 16, EDU 17) 1920s Boston Brahmin scholar be considered "exceptional" for his Library Use 95% and Language (Chaldean) 90%, when these are the skills that allowed him to banish Rhan-Tegoth back to the starry abyss beyond, and save our pitiful world? Chaldean-literate scholars don't grow on trees, let alone someone with 90% (probably the most fluent Chaldean student in the modern world). He might not be Batman but he's an exceptional individual and an intellectual badass.

He's exceptional in a way that really doesn't matter for the sorts of games I'd want to play. I certainly wouldn't want to play Professor Alfred, and I wouldn't be impressed at having him in a game I was running.

Quote from: The Butcher;612313Being a normal person is not synonimous with mundanity. Mythos investigators, nWoD hunters (from Hunter: The Vigil) and just about every Traveller character out there are ordinary people thrust into extraordinary and supramundane circumstances. I don't think this is a fitting justification for your players' refusal, or an accurate explanation for your problem. Unless your players and/or you have zero experience with playing normal humans and are massively prejudiced to boot, which I have no reason to assume.

Except it is to them, which is all that really matters. This isn't an issue that can be resolved by arguing semantics with them.

As a GM, ordinary people aren't a constituency I want to run a game for. They bore me.

Quote from: The Butcher;612313Again, I really, really wish I could invite you (and everyone who has similar problems) over to my game table. I m a firm believer in "show, don't tell" and while I'm trying my best to understand your plight and come up with a solution, I'm not sure I'm (1) actually reaching out to you and (2) not sounding like a dick. Let me know if this is being of any help.

I've had some further information on this very question after asking them directly. They go:
1) I need something unusual about the game world or PCs to hang my imagination on, or it won't really appeal for anything other than a short game.
2) If the PCs are more than ordinary people, I'll give something a go.
3) I really like magic, it's one of my favourite things in RPGs and really engages my imagination, but I could try something without it for a short game. Preferably not another historical game now we're set for one.
4) Two others haven't responded yet.

Note this is only going to be a short game (6-12 sessions), though we might come back to it if people enjoy themselves.

So I'm now thinking something contemporary/modern or near-future.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;612417Sounds like you want something close to pulp.

IMO what you need to do is draw a bright line so people don't weasel back into thinking that the game is about "powerz." For this, you have to start by ditching any hope of playing in Creation.

Then you can look at another setting, either one that they aren't familiar with and so can "power down" as necessary, or one of your own devising.

I like pulp. That's a pretty strong inspiration for the sort of thing I'm after, along with action movies.

I've already given up any hope of playing a game set in Creation because they were quite adamant that no Exalts = no interest.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;612417Finally: a system.

I don't need one; the simplest one to use is my group's default which is nWoD.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;612417In spite of your anti-BRP feelings, I'd still suggest you have a look at the settings which have been made for BRP and RQ/Legend. Specifically: Age of Treason, or possibly Swords of Cydoria, or even one of the historical books such as Crusaders of the Amber Coast. I'm sure there are other settings out there; I'd consider Legends of Steel if I were looking.

What's cool about those settings? Are they low- to no-magic?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;612417For system, again BRP or RQ are probably suitable; the trick is to make beginning PCs powerful enough that they start taking advantage of the special tricks available in the system. I.e., at the low end of complexity, BRP has special and critical hits which are devastating; highly skilled characters can also make multiple attacks and (depending on options) may give them the ability to "riposte" on a good parry roll. At the higher end of complexity, Mongoose RQ/Legend, and RQ6, add combat maneuvers which let you do special things when you roll well. Against and among ordinary people, the PCs will still kick ass. I should note that the old Elric!/Stormbringer deliberately made beginning characters more competent than in Runequest, and that's probably still a difference in the various books published now (e.g., I wouldn't reject Legend without looking at Mongoose's Elric of Melnibone, and I wouldn't reject BRP without looking at the upcoming Magic World supplement, which is based on the old Elric!).

Categorically not going to use BRP. I don't like percentile systems, it's far too complicated for my tastes (how many skills?), and my group is not likely to go about learning a new system for a short game.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;612417But that isn't necessary. If you like Exalted, then use the rules from Exalted. Just don't call them Exalted. Call them "The Rules" and present them as a naive set of custom rules for your strong personal vision, as if you'd never seen anything other than Exalted and believed, therefore, that your modifications were a set of radical innovations. (In short, make an Exalted heartbreaker and don't be shy about it.)

Apologies, but actually using Exalted's system is possibly the worst suggestion ever. It's truly awful. The only way I was ever going to run Exalted (and they were in full agreement, having suffered the native system) was with something else.

Quote from: Warthur;612559OK, Kiero, so you want a game which doesn't revolve around supernatural powers but at the same time is about "Badass Normals", who are beyond ordinary people to an unspecified but notable degree.

Flippant response: Well, if they're doing shit that is beyond the capability of real human beings - as "Badass Normal" (ugh, TVTropes) action heroes do all the time - isn't that supernatural?

Flippant response: no it isn't supernatural. More to the point, it's nothing like having magic/psionics/superpowers that are actively controlled by the players and are visible in the gameworld. And also possessed by their antagonists actively using them in response.

Quote from: Warthur;612559Non-flippant response: Earlier in this thread, it sounded to me like you had a broad range of characters in mind for games you want to GM, but now you have clarified this point it seems to me that your tastes here are actually narrower than the other players'. After all, even if they aren't willing to play characters without supernatural powers that still leaves scope for everything from street-level occultists to full-blown Exalts and everything in between, whereas what you want to play and run games for seems to cover a very narrow power level indeed.

So, level with me mamajama: why don't you want to GM for PCs with supernatural powers (beyond the quasi-supernatural power of being a "Badass Normal")?

For the Exalted game, they were going to play God-Blooded characters. They have powers, they're just not in the Exalt scale.

I don't want to GM for PCs with supernatural powers for several reasons. Firstly, ever other game we've played has featured them (WFRP2e, 40k and Star Wars hacks for Fate, D&D4e, DFRPG, nWoD Mass Effect and the upcoming Mage: the Awakening). Secondly, magic and magic systems bore me (I never play magic-using characters for that reason), having to ajudicate them as a GM even moreso. Thirdly, having to be constantly thinking about how magic-using NPCs might be reacting to the PCs is even more tedious.

Examples of the sorts of shows I'm thinking about when considering PCs: Burn Notice, The Unit, Leverage. Capable people in their fields, but still very much human beings who have to worry about things like being hurt and having to eat.

Quote from: Kiero;612620Examples of the sorts of shows I'm thinking about when considering PCs: Burn Notice, The Unit, Leverage. Capable people in their fields, but still very much human beings who have to worry about things like being hurt and having to eat.

So why the heck won't you pitch a Leverage game for them? Using the Leverage RPG (http://www.margaretweis.com/shop#!/~/product/category=2262009&id=9555048) or any other system you care to use.

Or if they must have supernatural stuff to shoot at, I say Night's Black Agents (http://www.pelgranepress.com/?p=1081) would be a damn fine choice.

Yeah, use Leverage. Not that I even know what that is, but it's what you're looking for.

To answer your reply,

I didn't know you hated the Exalted system. If you hate percentiles then BRP is also obviously not suitable, but the # of skills is typically in the range of 30, most of which will default. Take a look at the free (non-illustrated) version of
Openquest if you're curious. But it sounds like you're set with nWoD.

As for the settings, these are all S&S settings, except Crusaders of the Amber Coast, which is historical. They all have magic at least as an option but by their nature the magic can be excised just as you seem to have planned doing with Creation.

So, Kiero, what I'm now hearing is that you really don't want to engage with magic systems at all as a player or as a GM, but a) you want to play exceptional people who happen to be just about within the bounds of what is humanly possible if you squint and let action movie physics and biology apply, and b) the other members of your group want to play people who can do shit normal people can't do.

On this basis I can see why the Exalted-without-Exalts game didn't fly - I agree with your players that there's not much point playing in the Exalted setting unless the Exalty magic powers are in play. Rather than starting with a game which gave you what you wanted and your players what they wanted, you started with a game which gave the players what they wanted and then gutted it until it more resembled what you wanted.

I second the recommendation of seeking out the Leverage RPG - or, hell, any other game which is based around action movies. There's not a hell of a lot of options out there because what you're aiming at is a fairly narrow level of escapism, but you have options. And see about meeting your players halfway. Pitch the game specifically as an action movie-type game and make it clear that the PCs will be shit-hot cream of the crop dudes who will be able to pull off eye-watering stunts at the cutting edge of what is humanly possible. Reassure them that they will get their escapism because they'll be doing stuff which is well beyond the scope of what normal people do - they'll be doing things only intensely trained professionals could even hope to attempt. Moreover, emphasise what the PCs will be able to do rather than what you're not offering. Nothing saps enthusiasm more than a pitch which spends more time talking about what you can't do in the campaign than it does talking about what you can do.

Quote from: Kiero;611635They're not letting me run games that don't feature metahumans. This isn't a venting about being a player, but being a prospective GM for my group.

Not in an open and direct "I won't play that", but in a much more silent and grudging disapproval that takes a lot of effort to get it out of them that they really want their metahumans.

Huh. You've got a difficult problem there.  I guess the question would be WHY; what are they afraid will happen in those kinds of campaigns? High mortality? boredom? Loss of "protagonism"?

Figure out what it is that's given them this impression that playing ordinary characters is somehow going to be a bad experience.

RPGPundit

Sounds to me like Kiero just doesn't want to play D&D and instead would be much happier playing some other fantasy game without level and shit, like RuneQuest or Exalted or whatnot. At some point I think it's just best to realize just that to move on to greener pastures. YMMV.

Quote from: RPGPundit;612949Huh. You've got a difficult problem there.  I guess the question would be WHY; what are they afraid will happen in those kinds of campaigns? High mortality? boredom? Loss of "protagonism"?

Figure out what it is that's given them this impression that playing ordinary characters is somehow going to be a bad experience.

RPGPundit

I suspect boredom, in that without something unusual there's no hook for them.

Quote from: Benoist;612959Sounds to me like Kiero just doesn't want to play D&D and instead would be much happier playing some other fantasy game without level and shit, like RuneQuest or Exalted or whatnot. At some point I think it's just best to realize just that to move on to greener pastures. YMMV.

You caught the bit where our recent games were WFRP2e, 40k and Star Wars hacks for Fate, D&D4e, DFRPG, nWoD Mass Effect and we're gearing up for a historical Mage: the Awakening game, right?

Quote from: Kiero;613015I suspect boredom, in that without something unusual there's no hook for them.

If they really can't get into anything which isn't fantasy or SF or horror or some other thing on that spectrum them the only solution may be "find friends who are not stunted children when it comes to their personal tastes".

If they are willing to read books or watch movies or whatever which aren't SF/horror/fantasy, it might be worth having a conversation with them as to why they won't extend the same breadth of interest to RPGs.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;612657Yeah, use Leverage. Not that I even know what that is, but it's what you're looking for.

To answer your reply,

I didn't know you hated the Exalted system. If you hate percentiles then BRP is also obviously not suitable, but the # of skills is typically in the range of 30, most of which will default. Take a look at the free (non-illustrated) version of
Openquest if you're curious. But it sounds like you're set with nWoD.

As for the settings, these are all S&S settings, except Crusaders of the Amber Coast, which is historical. They all have magic at least as an option but by their nature the magic can be excised just as you seem to have planned doing with Creation.

Quote from: Warthur;612728So, Kiero, what I'm now hearing is that you really don't want to engage with magic systems at all as a player or as a GM, but a) you want to play exceptional people who happen to be just about within the bounds of what is humanly possible if you squint and let action movie physics and biology apply, and b) the other members of your group want to play people who can do shit normal people can't do.

On this basis I can see why the Exalted-without-Exalts game didn't fly - I agree with your players that there's not much point playing in the Exalted setting unless the Exalty magic powers are in play. Rather than starting with a game which gave you what you wanted and your players what they wanted, you started with a game which gave the players what they wanted and then gutted it until it more resembled what you wanted.

I second the recommendation of seeking out the Leverage RPG - or, hell, any other game which is based around action movies. There's not a hell of a lot of options out there because what you're aiming at is a fairly narrow level of escapism, but you have options. And see about meeting your players halfway. Pitch the game specifically as an action movie-type game and make it clear that the PCs will be shit-hot cream of the crop dudes who will be able to pull off eye-watering stunts at the cutting edge of what is humanly possible. Reassure them that they will get their escapism because they'll be doing stuff which is well beyond the scope of what normal people do - they'll be doing things only intensely trained professionals could even hope to attempt. Moreover, emphasise what the PCs will be able to do rather than what you're not offering. Nothing saps enthusiasm more than a pitch which spends more time talking about what you can't do in the campaign than it does talking about what you can do.

I suspect there might be mileage in a Leverage-style RPG (using nWoD is an easier sell than it's native system, which might be a bit too strange for them). If only I could sit them down in front of the pilot. One of the players likes Burn Notice, so I know they'd enjoy it at least.

It's a pretty perfect example of a modern, magic-free, PC party where everyone has a useful role to play.

Quote from: Kiero;613015I suspect boredom, in that without something unusual there's no hook for them.

Well can you do something "unusual" without being supernatural? Or at least without being superpowerful?

RPGpundit

General consensus is now not-historical, possibly contemporary. I pitched these three:

Assassin's Creed: Modern Assassin - A complete inverse of the usual situation in the games where the present doesn't really matter that much. Indeed there's going to be somewhere between little and no Animus-time because that's quite individual-centric in a way that doesn't work so well for an ensemble PC group. Instead the idea here is we have a bunch of capable people; Assassins, ex-Templars, prodigies with a high concentration of First Civilisation DNA, and so on. They hop around the globe dealing with issues relating to Abstergo/Templar organisations, finding Precursor sites/tech, saving the world, that sort of thing. There's a whole premise around being set post-AC3's ending, but I won't spoil it for those still waiting to play. By the time we do come round to this, you'll probably have played it.

Mass Effect: First Contact - It's 2154 and humanity has recently experienced an explosion in it's technological capabilities courtesy of the xenoarchaeological find on Mars. The Systems Alliance is a military organisation largely subservient to the desires of the nations who make up it's command structure. But some within it's halls dream of it becoming a political movement in its own right. With that in mind, they've managed to put a team of highly skilled specialists from a range of nations together with the most advanced explorator ship in the fleet with one mission in mind: to seek out extraterrestrial life. Everyone believes the first contact humanity had with a sapient alien species was in 2157 when they encountered the turians for the first time. What they don't know is what is contained in classified files from an incident three years earlier...

Hazardous Outcomes - Outcome is a black bag CIA project which has been uncovered by recent revelations from a whistleblower high up in the military-industrial complex. It began as a supersoldier program in the 1970s that morphed into one utilising sleeper operatives who might be spies, assassins or saboteurs. While Outcome hasn't been directly compromised yet, the people at the top are cleaning house. Everything and everyone connected to Outcome is being quietly liquidated, and that includes the PCs. Yes, if you've seen the Bourne films, this is exactly the sort of techno-thriller premise I've got in mind for this.


Middle one was discounted by everyone pretty quickly because we're already playing Mass Effect for our main game and we might get similarity-fatigue.

So far it's mixed whether people prefer the first or third; I might aim to bring the two together somehow.

No one has ever been talked out of a preference.

You'll just need to find players more suited to the preferences you have, or find some common ground. You can't really do anything else.

I think you're giving out too much information in your pitches.  They don't need to know what the basis of the story is, just the ruleset and the basic gist.

Too many choices and too much democracy as far as choosing a game will always yield this result.  If you are the DM, you choose the game.

For our own club, we have focus groups every year or so.  We talk about potential games with everyone present, but my approach is different.  I'll write every ruleset we possess down, and just leave it at that unless there's something else required.

For example, there would usually be a lot more but I will use five.

• Rifts - Starting Rifts Earth characters from the main book.
• Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - All standard characters, beginning from Wissenland.  Any miniature you own can be the basis, avoiding the random career roll.
• AD&D 1st Edition - All supplements allowed, Greyhawk or Dragonlance originals.
• Shadowrun 4th Edition - 2070 characters, 2050 original adventures
• World of Darkness - Mortal characters.  Dogs of War, Second Sight and 13th Precinct supplements.

Not a lot of game information other than what they need to make characters

Write down everything you want to run, but don't give story information away.  Just ask what game rules they want to play and then run the game you want to run.

Note that the choice you make won't be unanimously agreed upon by your players.  I've been accused of ignoring women and the handicapped lobby during these focus groups.

Quote from: Blackhand;613864I think you're giving out too much information in your pitches.  They don't need to know what the basis of the story is, just the ruleset and the basic gist.

Too many choices and too much democracy as far as choosing a game will always yield this result.  If you are the DM, you choose the game.

For our own club, we have focus groups every year or so.  We talk about potential games with everyone present, but my approach is different.  I'll write every ruleset we possess down, and just leave it at that unless there's something else required.

For example, there would usually be a lot more but I will use five.

• Rifts - Starting Rifts Earth characters from the main book.
• Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - All standard characters, beginning from Wissenland.  Any miniature you own can be the basis, avoiding the random career roll.
• AD&D 1st Edition - All supplements allowed, Greyhawk or Dragonlance originals.
• Shadowrun 4th Edition - 2070 characters, 2050 original adventures
• World of Darkness - Mortal characters.  Dogs of War, Second Sight and 13th Precinct supplements.

Not a lot of game information other than what they need to make characters

Write down everything you want to run, but don't give story information away.  Just ask what game rules they want to play and then run the game you want to run.

Note that the choice you make won't be unanimously agreed upon by your players.  I've been accused of ignoring women and the handicapped lobby during these focus groups.

You nailed my problem. I was not seeing it clearly.

The one gaming group of mine that goes into crisis mode when selecting the system and setting does it because everyone dissects and bitches about every last little detail.

My other groups all let the gm run what they please, and the players may join or not.

Quote from: Blackhand;613864I think you're giving out too much information in your pitches.  They don't need to know what the basis of the story is, just the ruleset and the basic gist.

Too many choices and too much democracy as far as choosing a game will always yield this result.  If you are the DM, you choose the game.

For our own club, we have focus groups every year or so.  We talk about potential games with everyone present, but my approach is different.  I'll write every ruleset we possess down, and just leave it at that unless there's something else required.

For example, there would usually be a lot more but I will use five.

• Rifts - Starting Rifts Earth characters from the main book.
• Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay - All standard characters, beginning from Wissenland.  Any miniature you own can be the basis, avoiding the random career roll.
• AD&D 1st Edition - All supplements allowed, Greyhawk or Dragonlance originals.
• Shadowrun 4th Edition - 2070 characters, 2050 original adventures
• World of Darkness - Mortal characters.  Dogs of War, Second Sight and 13th Precinct supplements.

Not a lot of game information other than what they need to make characters

Write down everything you want to run, but don't give story information away.  Just ask what game rules they want to play and then run the game you want to run.

Note that the choice you make won't be unanimously agreed upon by your players.  I've been accused of ignoring women and the handicapped lobby during these focus groups.

I want willing and active engagement with the premise, buy-in before I start. Not people who are showing up out of obligation and might be looking fondly forward to when the game is done so they can do something else. I'd rather all the pain up-front before I've even invested in something, than down the line as the game disintegrates as all the differing, but unspoken, expectations worm their way out of the woodwork.

Previous games have worked perfectly fine with a collaborative setup, I see no reason to change that now. I'd much rather run something people are enthusiastic about than something they're just participating in to humour me.

Quote from: Kiero;613947I want willing and active engagement with the premise, buy-in before I start. Not people who are showing up out of obligation and might be looking fondly forward to when the game is done so they can do something else. I'd rather all the pain up-front before I've even invested in something, than down the line as the game disintegrates as all the differing, but unspoken, expectations worm their way out of the woodwork.

Previous games have worked perfectly fine with a collaborative setup, I see no reason to change that now. I'd much rather run something people are enthusiastic about than something they're just participating in to humour me.

These are some of the big reasons as to why some past rpg games I've played in, ended up collapsing.