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.

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.  

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?

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?

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.