Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Big SD"
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
A game that's actually a 'game', with recognizable objects, objectives, and ways of 'winning'- one that has some sort of underlying mechanical rules system to support the fluff, and where players can accrue resources, materials, or other objects of statistical import alongside their enjoyment of the worldbuilding.** | A game that's actually a 'game', with recognizable objects, objectives, and ways of 'winning'- one that has some sort of underlying mechanical rules system to support the fluff, and where players can accrue resources, materials, or other objects of statistical import alongside their enjoyment of the worldbuilding.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
'''What do you consider some of the best SDs you've played? (please provide likes if able) | '''What do you consider some of the best SDs you've played? (please provide likes if able) | ||
| Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
Sphere, Steam and Sorcery I and II, Lost in Fiction (the one with all the solars)** | Sphere, Steam and Sorcery I and II, Lost in Fiction (the one with all the solars)** | ||
| + | |||
'''Why were they so good? | '''Why were they so good? | ||
| Line 17: | Line 20: | ||
There were things to do, places to go, and stuff to get, and it wasn't just writing a story with no authorial oversight, limitation, or actual incentive. Even the more rules light games still had interesting characters, settings, and other such material that made them fun to play.** | There were things to do, places to go, and stuff to get, and it wasn't just writing a story with no authorial oversight, limitation, or actual incentive. Even the more rules light games still had interesting characters, settings, and other such material that made them fun to play.** | ||
| + | |||
| Line 24: | Line 28: | ||
The kind where the GM continues to invest in the game and does more then just serve as an indexing program that manages resources and tells players "Player 2 won fight Y, player 3 won fight K". One where the GM creates a living world and continues to invest in it and makes it enticing for the players. Presenting quest options, resources, actual NPC actions- that sort of thing. A GM who is invested beyond just making the game 'run'.** | The kind where the GM continues to invest in the game and does more then just serve as an indexing program that manages resources and tells players "Player 2 won fight Y, player 3 won fight K". One where the GM creates a living world and continues to invest in it and makes it enticing for the players. Presenting quest options, resources, actual NPC actions- that sort of thing. A GM who is invested beyond just making the game 'run'.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
'''What keeps you playing an SD? | '''What keeps you playing an SD? | ||
| Line 30: | Line 36: | ||
An SD where the GM works with the players and gives them interesting options to help them advance in the 'game', emphasis of the 'game' part, letting the players do awesome stuff and actually 'matter' in the grand scheme of things. Not requiring players to write 20,000 words after a single Sim.** | An SD where the GM works with the players and gives them interesting options to help them advance in the 'game', emphasis of the 'game' part, letting the players do awesome stuff and actually 'matter' in the grand scheme of things. Not requiring players to write 20,000 words after a single Sim.** | ||
| + | |||
| Line 42: | Line 49: | ||
-Ral | -Ral | ||
| + | |||
'''What do you consider makes a good SD? | '''What do you consider makes a good SD? | ||
| Line 64: | Line 72: | ||
** ~ Kerrus. | ** ~ Kerrus. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''What do you consider makes a good SD? | ||
| + | |||
| + | A game where people actually interact, and where there are reasons for people to engage with the game world and other players, rather than just retreat into their own posts. There should be discernable advantages and incentives to take action. Interactions beyond the diplomatic equivalent of 'Hi. Wanna trade?' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''What do you consider some of the best SDs you've played? (please provide likes if able) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The Steam and Sorcery series (which had players engaging with each other and a GM who got involved), the Fantasy SD (which almost became a light nation game by the end). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Why were they so good? | ||
| + | |||
| + | The GM actually tried to do something rather than lamely sim out player actions, and actually had posts that mattered to the rest of the player base. Players responded and interacted to each others beyond greetings. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''What is the best style of GMing for an SD? | ||
| + | |||
| + | An active style, where the GM actually does things that matter to the greater world and the PCs. A GM who takes player nations and gives them something to play off of, and encourages joint action between players, cooperative or antagonistic. A GM who responds to and rewards players who come out of their post-shell and try to shape the world. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''What keeps you playing an SD? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Players responding and engaging with each other. The GM actually caring what the players do, and this having a discernable effect and reaction from the PCs and NPCs, as well as the setting in general. This encourages me to continue plotlines and keep writing, and to think of new things to try. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | '''Why do you drop an SD? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Put me down for the 'GM quits after two months' category. A world that becomes utterly stagnant after planning, where the NPCs are set in stone and the PCs can't actually do anything. Also, if the other players and NPCs develop feet of clay and refuse to acknowledge anything else, this gives absolutely no reason to post. This leads to players dropping off, and a vicious cycle that kills the SD. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Five typing in allcaps about how he hates long posts doesn't help, either. :p | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Bossmuff|Bossmuff]] 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:28, 3 July 2010
What do you consider makes a good SD?
A game where 20 players don't join and write 50,000 words a day (making it impenetrable to new players) and overwhelm the GM, making him get sick of addressing all our minutia and then quit in two months.
A game that's actually a 'game', with recognizable objects, objectives, and ways of 'winning'- one that has some sort of underlying mechanical rules system to support the fluff, and where players can accrue resources, materials, or other objects of statistical import alongside their enjoyment of the worldbuilding.**
What do you consider some of the best SDs you've played? (please provide likes if able)
LoE, duh.
Sphere, Steam and Sorcery I and II, Lost in Fiction (the one with all the solars)**
Why were they so good?
20 players didn't join right off the bat and the GM didn't quit in two months.
There were things to do, places to go, and stuff to get, and it wasn't just writing a story with no authorial oversight, limitation, or actual incentive. Even the more rules light games still had interesting characters, settings, and other such material that made them fun to play.**
What is the best style of GMing for an SD?
The kind where you don't quit in two months.
The kind where the GM continues to invest in the game and does more then just serve as an indexing program that manages resources and tells players "Player 2 won fight Y, player 3 won fight K". One where the GM creates a living world and continues to invest in it and makes it enticing for the players. Presenting quest options, resources, actual NPC actions- that sort of thing. A GM who is invested beyond just making the game 'run'.**
What keeps you playing an SD?
The GM not quitting in two months.
An SD where the GM works with the players and gives them interesting options to help them advance in the 'game', emphasis of the 'game' part, letting the players do awesome stuff and actually 'matter' in the grand scheme of things. Not requiring players to write 20,000 words after a single Sim.**
Why do you drop an SD?
The GM quits after two months.
The GM quits after two months, or turns into a hermit. An SD that is flat, where the player can't affect status quo, cannot actually achieve anything, and is little more than a glorified fanfic.**
Also, you forgot to ask what makes us want to join an SD. However, considering that the big problem is too many players, I guess that's prudent.
-Ral
What do you consider makes a good SD?
ONE WITHOUT EZE. AND ONE WHERE EVERYONE(LIKE FUCKING EVERYONE) DOESNT WRITE HUGE FUCKING POSTS THAT MAKE IT INPENETRABLE TO NEW PLAYERS
What is the best style of GMing for an SD?
THE KIND THAT DOESNT MAKE WRITING EVERY GODDAMNED POST INTO WRITING A GODDAMNED NOVELLA.
What keeps you playing an SD? THE GM NOT QUITTING AFTER TWO MONTHS.
Why do you drop an SD? THAT SHOULD BE FUCKING OBVIOUS.
-Love, Five.
-Bad Five, no flames! *smacks* -FBH
- ~ Kerrus.
What do you consider makes a good SD?
A game where people actually interact, and where there are reasons for people to engage with the game world and other players, rather than just retreat into their own posts. There should be discernable advantages and incentives to take action. Interactions beyond the diplomatic equivalent of 'Hi. Wanna trade?'
What do you consider some of the best SDs you've played? (please provide likes if able)
The Steam and Sorcery series (which had players engaging with each other and a GM who got involved), the Fantasy SD (which almost became a light nation game by the end).
Why were they so good?
The GM actually tried to do something rather than lamely sim out player actions, and actually had posts that mattered to the rest of the player base. Players responded and interacted to each others beyond greetings.
What is the best style of GMing for an SD?
An active style, where the GM actually does things that matter to the greater world and the PCs. A GM who takes player nations and gives them something to play off of, and encourages joint action between players, cooperative or antagonistic. A GM who responds to and rewards players who come out of their post-shell and try to shape the world.
What keeps you playing an SD?
Players responding and engaging with each other. The GM actually caring what the players do, and this having a discernable effect and reaction from the PCs and NPCs, as well as the setting in general. This encourages me to continue plotlines and keep writing, and to think of new things to try.
Why do you drop an SD?
Put me down for the 'GM quits after two months' category. A world that becomes utterly stagnant after planning, where the NPCs are set in stone and the PCs can't actually do anything. Also, if the other players and NPCs develop feet of clay and refuse to acknowledge anything else, this gives absolutely no reason to post. This leads to players dropping off, and a vicious cycle that kills the SD.
Five typing in allcaps about how he hates long posts doesn't help, either. :p
--Bossmuff 18:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)