GM Lounge - Bartenders Answer All Your Questions

[Lord Drake]

"Escape the room" situations are based on the following premises usually:

- people find themselves in a limited and usually not very big place (not necessarily a room, but it is usually very well defined and delimited)
- people have almost no way (unless it is required by the plot) to know where they are and to communicate with the external world
- people usually do not know why and how they have been put there (again, there may be exceptions)
- all the clues and means to escape are actually in the room, but they are extremely tricky to find and use

as you can see there may be several variations of the game in question.

*hides back under his rock*

[DarkWorld0BrightHope]

Based upon the previous definitions, I would say my aim is to produce it closer to the third sense listed.

Each player would be intially trapped in an area without contact with anyone else, in which they need to learn how to more or less escape the particular location they were put in before any given supplies run out.

The players will intially have subdued memory of their past-not amnesia but rather the effects of being drugged, grogginess mostly. The character sheets will require a lack of biography as I intend on having them recall their history based upon the pc's actions. Some details such name, age, appearance, likes/dislikes and such are still recalled, so yes the player has large control how they think and act as it should be.

If Drake hadn't posited his statement I'd have merely described it as a choose your own adventure type game, as it is an accurate description. If I do this correctly there shall be no railroading had whatsoever. There will be dead end routes, and there will be red herrings.

The true purpose of the game will be revealed later on, after the player has had a chance to get a feel of what is needed of them.

While solving various questions about what is happening is a doable thing, it is not required.

Hopefully I helped clarify better.

[Chrystal]

Ah. That does sound fun. Sign me up.

Incidentally, I'd appreciate it, Dark, if you could take a look at this post: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=128563.msg5933551#msg5933551 in the world building thread.

Because I was toying with the idea of using the setting for a group game, but was stumped for a plot, then you mentioned this "escape the room" idea and it sort-of clicked. I'd appreciate your input?



Separate topic:

GMing One-on-one games.

Do people think this counts as GMing? Personally I do. I have several one-on-ones where I control all the NPCs and my main character and the other player just controls their own character. In fact I had one RP where I didn't actually have a main character.

In this circumstance, you need to know and get on well with your partner, I think, as it is very easy to step over the line between moving the plot ahead and godmodding, but this relates to Thufir's thread about planning ahead, in as much as the player "GM-ing" the story knows what they have in mind, and the other player is watching the plot unfold!

alxnjsh, is this topic worth a separate thread?

[Thufir Hawat]

GMing One-on-one games.

Do people think this counts as GMing? Personally I do. I have several one-on-ones where I control all the NPCs and my main character and the other player just controls their own character. In fact I had one RP where I didn't actually have a main character.

In this circumstance, you need to know and get on well with your partner, I think, as it is very easy to step over the line between moving the plot ahead and godmodding, but this relates to Thufir's thread about planning ahead, in as much as the player "GM-ing" the story knows what they have in mind, and the other player is watching the plot unfold!

alxnjsh, is this topic worth a separate thread?

As stated in the other thread, it's GMing in my book. And I tend to avoid having main characters when GMing, unless the other player or me is looking for a specific pairing, in which case I tend to be accommodating :P.
You're quite right about the GM's character possibly having "inside information". It's possible to separate them, but then it's too easy to go too far in the other direction and have a supposedly smart character that never offers helpful advice. For this and similar reasons, I tend to avoid having my own PC when running a game, or obviously favourite NPCs for that matter.
"Watching the plot unfold" simply doesn't fit into my definition of roleplaying, I guess ;D!

[Chrystal]

As stated in the other thread, it's GMing in my book. And I tend to avoid having main characters when GMing, unless the other player or me is looking for a specific pairing, in which case I tend to be accommodating :P.
You're quite right about the GM's character possibly having "inside information". It's possible to separate them, but then it's too easy to go too far in the other direction and have a supposedly smart character that never offers helpful advice. For this and similar reasons, I tend to avoid having my own PC when running a game, or obviously favourite NPCs for that matter.
"Watching the plot unfold" simply doesn't fit into my definition of roleplaying, I guess ;D!

I didn't mean "Watching the plot unfold" in quite the way it sounded. What I meant was that the player has no clue what is coming next and is very much in a submissive role in the story (even though their character may be the brutal dominant one). Obviously, their posts will affect how the story unfolds, but they don't know how they affect the story.

One thing I'm always very wary of, having seen multiple examples of it in films, TV shows and books, is the delicate balance between a character knowing too much and not knowing enough.

Having a character make a leap of logic that is just impossible can be very off putting in a story, but at the same time you don't want your readers (or other players) screaming "Oh come ON! It's OBVIOUS!" I find the over-cautious author to be more frustrating that the one that maybe has the hero work things out a little too soon. This can be made more complex if your RP partner likes having her characters kept hopelessly ignorant of what is happening! (She knows who she is, I doubt she will read this, and I love her to bits!)

The obvious compromise is to have one character work it out on schedule and have the other simply refuse to listen.

[HairyHeretic]

"Escape the room" situations are based on the following premises usually:

- people find themselves in a limited and usually not very big place (not necessarily a room, but it is usually very well defined and delimited)
- people have almost no way (unless it is required by the plot) to know where they are and to communicate with the external world
- people usually do not know why and how they have been put there (again, there may be exceptions)
- all the clues and means to escape are actually in the room, but they are extremely tricky to find and use

as you can see there may be several variations of the game in question.

*hides back under his rock*

I played one of those once.

It was a Call of Cthulhu con scenario.

Surprisingly we all came out of it alive, sane and with the same number of limbs we started with :)

[Lord Drake]

Surprisingly we all came out of it alive, sane and with the same number of limbs we started with :)

Well, if you had to add "surprisingly" it means that at least the scenario was done well!

[HairyHeretic]

Surprisingly because it was a Call of Cthulhu scenario :P

The previous one I'd played in, I was the only survivor and was insane at the end of it.

I got better though.

Eventually.

[Sasha]

Sanity is so over rated .....think some of my favorite characters to lay have been slightly off their rocker . Not sure if that is a reflection of the player or not ....but will just leave one to wonder anyways .

Giggles ....the idea proposed does sound interesting . Kind of like the cube ....always found movies like that intriguing but part of me knows I am not that good with puzzles and mathematics . So ..I don't think I would make it very far . Unless it was a dice game and I happened to appease the goddess of the dice and she took mercy on me . I be a goner for sure , who am I kidding . 

[DarkWorld0BrightHope]

Ah. That does sound fun. Sign me up.

Incidentally, I'd appreciate it, Dark, if you could take a look at this post: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=128563.msg5933551#msg5933551 in the world building thread.

Because I was toying with the idea of using the setting for a group game, but was stumped for a plot, then you mentioned this "escape the room" idea and it sort-of clicked. I'd appreciate your input?



Separate topic:

GMing One-on-one games.

Do people think this counts as GMing? Personally I do. I have several one-on-ones where I control all the NPCs and my main character and the other player just controls their own character. In fact I had one RP where I didn't actually have a main character.

In this circumstance, you need to know and get on well with your partner, I think, as it is very easy to step over the line between moving the plot ahead and godmodding, but this relates to Thufir's thread about planning ahead, in as much as the player "GM-ing" the story knows what they have in mind, and the other player is watching the plot unfold!

alxnjsh, is this topic worth a separate thread?

I've GM'd precisely one one-one-one game. It lasted for about a year and it was a regular activity of me and my partner.
We both had our fair share of characters.
It was a mix between slice of life and fantasy adventure, with tosses of SRP elements every once in a while. It was fairly easy to play and GM given it was meant to be a form of virtual playing house, so it was a rather intimate form of RPing, which was intentional.
Sometimes we swapped roles as the story moderater, as we both had a lot to add to the lore of our virtual world. Each of the characters had a special place in the RP, both major and minor, though the youngest character got a primary role from start to finish.

There were dull moments from time to time certainly, but there mostly was always a new adventure to be had, even within my planned arcs. The inconsistencies may have become prevalent over time, but a lot of the work was forgotten as it was over time as there was no saved records of many of the events.

The one thing it has in common with all my other rps... is it being designed to be tailor made for the players, so that everything the player did affected the way the story played out. I'm particularly fond of that ability.



I'll have to look it over more and see what I can offer you in terms of opinion, but I should be able to come up with a little extra for it anyhow. So far it is intriguing.

[HockeyGod]

Separate topic:

GMing One-on-one games.

Do people think this counts as GMing? Personally I do. I have several one-on-ones where I control all the NPCs and my main character and the other player just controls their own character. In fact I had one RP where I didn't actually have a main character.

In this circumstance, you need to know and get on well with your partner, I think, as it is very easy to step over the line between moving the plot ahead and godmodding, but this relates to Thufir's thread about planning ahead, in as much as the player "GM-ing" the story knows what they have in mind, and the other player is watching the plot unfold!

alxnjsh, is this topic worth a separate thread?

I think that is a form of GMing, I was in a game where basically I was the main character and the GM created scenarios for my character. It was interesting and unfortunately didn't last.

I think that the purpose of this sub-board was originally based on GMing of group games and giving GMs an opportunity to learn how to use Elliquiy technology (such as moving threads and such) as well as getting advice from other GMs.

That said, we're an organic community and if the conversation goes there we should embrace it  ;D

[Thufir Hawat]

I didn't mean "Watching the plot unfold" in quite the way it sounded. What I meant was that the player has no clue what is coming next and is very much in a submissive role in the story (even though their character may be the brutal dominant one). Obviously, their posts will affect how the story unfolds, but they don't know how they affect the story.

Yeah, I got it that you mean that. But I think maybe you haven't played with many "torpedo-style" players ;D? These ones thrive best in sandbox stories, and "submissive role in the story" is at most a temporary state for them, unless they really rein themselves in!
It's true I haven't noticed this style much on E., but that's for the other thread.
Let me just say that I call this style "torpedo" because, you guessed it, its adherents tend to torpedo any plot unless they find it would be something their characters care about. Then they set their own objectives and work on achieving them ;)! I'm sure you can see already why they thrive best in sandbox or character-focused games >:)!

One thing I'm always very wary of, having seen multiple examples of it in films, TV shows and books, is the delicate balance between a character knowing too much and not knowing enough.

Having a character make a leap of logic that is just impossible can be very off putting in a story, but at the same time you don't want your readers (or other players) screaming "Oh come ON! It's OBVIOUS!" I find the over-cautious author to be more frustrating that the one that maybe has the hero work things out a little too soon. This can be made more complex if your RP partner likes having her characters kept hopelessly ignorant of what is happening! (She knows who she is, I doubt she will read this, and I love her to bits!)

The obvious compromise is to have one character work it out on schedule and have the other simply refuse to listen.

I've had one of my players making an impossible leap of logic. It turned out his logic wasn't even correct, but he reached a correct conclusion through it.
So I just rolled with it, and while they soon discovered that no, their assessment of the murderer's motives was wrong, they have still intercepted one of his hits.
And the eternal conflict between giving too much information and not enough of it is even harder in roleplaying. Sometimes, what we as GMs think is obvious isn't quite so for the players. And sometimes, what we consider a clever twist, they see coming from a mile away and react accordingly 8-)!
I've seen exactly two possible solutions about it.
First, make sure they have all the relevant info, and let them think what it means. It helps if they can check their theories.
Second, allow them to establish facts about the setting, if they make a good case for them and don't contradict what's already established. Then roll with that.
Either one can be fun, and has its adherents. Personally, I like them both, just for different stories.

[Aiden]

*Just walks in and wants to have a beer with his local GMs* 

[Fenrisulfr]

This is a reply to a question I made that now are into Roleplaying Theory thread.

There is another question that I have. Unless I'm also a player of the game, and want to offload the GM to increase the odds the game wills survive/take off from the ground, I wouldn't be interested in being a Co-GM. So I'm curious of what drives other to be a Co-GM; what is the motivations. :-)

In my own opinion do ideas around game management and motivations fit into the theory thread. But as a theory thread can be a bit intimidating or uninterested to some, I am still interested in this thread to hear about why people are willing to be a Co-GM. I was 35 before figuring out there are people who are submissive; it would annoy me to if I find out at 70 that I haven't fully used Co-GMs because I have missed a useful motivation and kept something I find boring because I ignorantly think everyone finds it boring.

That's just my experience, take it as you will. ;)

Sounds like two votes (three of counting my theoretical one) on "I Co-GM to help out the main GM because I'm interested in the game." :-)

I definitely get why one want to have Co-GM on board. I have a bunch of ideas of game that I would consider setting up as a group game at some time. But I would not do it without having at least one Co-GM.

EDIT: Changed the the post to make more sense after the thread split

[Miss Lilly]

Hi guys!  *waves*

I have a quick question, and wasn't sure where to ask it...so I hope it's okay to pop it in here.

Is it considered poor form for someone to approach most of the writers on an existing group game and invite them to join another, quite similar, group game that he's trying to get going?

[Miss Lilly]

Oh...I forgot to mention that he referred to my very much alive game as "former", which has really bugged me!

[Josietta]

Its not poor form at all!  I find that about 90% of the group games I play in/GM have a lot of the same players. Group players that play well together tend to gravitate together from game to game. So in no way shape or form is it bad form to invite others to join another game you/anyone wants to run. :)  I'd just be careful not to let the new games discussion overrun the current games mojo so to speak. ;)

In the end, its essentially up to the players on whether or not they'd join in the other game or not. I wouldn't take offense to it at all. I'd consider it flattering that he liked your idea enough to want to copy it. ;)  He can try to mimic it but can't truly copy the genuine essence of what you create. That is all you. So now that I get what you are saying or where you are coming from with that line of questioning, I can just say that I still stick to my previous comment above, but also say that, you should not feel threatened at all by it. If your game is successful its because you make it so and your players enjoy it. If for some reason it dies out, then I wouldn't take it too much to heart. Games do have a tendency to do that at times. It just leaves you more room for further exploration. If you want more ideas on keep up interest, I'm sure myself and my fellow GMs could help you out there as well, if you're interested. :) *hugs tight*  Chin up buttercup!  It'll be all good. ;)

[Miss Lilly]

*huggles Josi up good*

I think I'm taking exception to his reference to my game as 'former', when it's very much alive and being thoroughly enjoyed by not just us writers, but about half a dozen people I know who are reading it! And he's been here all of five minutes! *mutters darkly*

[Haibane]

Hi guys!  *waves*

I have a quick question, and wasn't sure where to ask it...so I hope it's okay to pop it in here.

Is it considered poor form for someone to approach most of the writers on an existing group game and invite them to join another, quite similar, group game that he's trying to get going?

It depends how they are approached. I would consider that VERY poor form, unless the first GM gave permission, if its done in that group games interest check or OOC threads. I consider that to be trying to poach players and would firmly tell the person where to take their poaching if they did it in one of my games. Then I'd report them to staff and ask a staff member to remove their post.

If it was done by PMs no-one would know so no-one would be any the wiser, but if it caused players to actually quit the existing game in favour of the new one I would consider it not good form at all.

Generally I think its the wrong thing to do because it can result in players leaving the first game.

[Josietta]

*huggles Josi up good*

I think I'm taking exception to his reference to my game as 'former', when it's very much alive and being thoroughly enjoyed by not just us writers, but about half a dozen people I know who are reading it! And he's been here all of five minutes! *mutters darkly*

If the evidence of your gaming still having a pulse and fully alive and breathing is out there to your players and audience then it really only makes it seem a bit insensitive to place a title like that on your game. Again, I wouldn't let it bother you too badly. If it truly hurts your feelings enough that its causing you stress, I'd send him a polite PM explaining how you feel about it and ask him to kindly not speak of your game in such terms. Its always better to communicate your concerns or feelings on a matter to others. He may not realize he's doing it, or he may not realize he is hurting your feelings by doing so.  Some people just need that clue to understand. :)  And in the end it may help you feel better to let that be known as well. Sort of a weight off your shoulders thing. I know when I'm upset about something if i don't talk to the person about it, it festers and gets me more worked up and upset. In the end its better to discuss it and if it turns out for the better then great! If not then at least you know and the other person knows, instead of letting it bother you to no end.

[Josietta]

It depends how they are approached. I would consider that VERY poor form, unless the first GM gave permission, if its done in that group games interest check or OOC threads. I consider that to be trying to poach players and would firmly tell the person where to take their poaching if they did it in one of my games. Then I'd report them to staff and ask a staff member to remove their post.

If it was done by PMs no-one would know so no-one would be any the wiser, but if it caused players to actually quit the existing game in favour of the new one I would consider it not good form at all.

Generally I think its the wrong thing to do because it can result in players leaving the first game.

While it would be poor form to do something of that line in the current games OOC or Interest thread, I don't agree with it being poor form to start a game of a similar making. And I don't think you can really "poach" players. Its inevitably the players decisions to join a game or leave it.  I have seen multiple group games of a similar interest/idea being started and some at the same time with the same basic concept. You can't exactly copywrite your idea or hold it up and say you own it on a forum like this.

Also on the note to asking staff to remove posts. I'd talk to the person first. Sometime they will remove their own post if you ask nicely enough. There really is no need to get staff involved unless someone is being uncivil. We are adults and should be able to discuss things as such. If one person or the other can't abide by that then unfortunately a staff member would be needed.

[Haibane]

I have no problem with four "High School of the Deads" all being promoted simultaneously on the Players Wanted threads, but players should be allowed to read the threads and make up their own minds which they want to join. Deliberately approaching players in one game and asking them to join another is poaching, plain and simple and a person who did that to my players will be reported to staff. I think its extremely rude, or as you put it "uncivil".

Its not so much a case of the affronted GM talking by PM to the poacher, its a case of the poacher should always approach a GM first before asking if they can canvas their players to see if any would want to join a similar game.

Each game should be promoted on its own merits and players should be allowed to join or not as they choose.

[TheGlyphstone]

Its not so much a case of the affronted GM talking by PM to the poacher, its a case of the poacher should always approach a GM first before asking if they can canvas their players to see if any would want to join a similar game.
...
Each game should be promoted on its own merits and players should be allowed to join or not as they choose.

Just saying, but aren't these mutually exclusive ideas? If the players should be allowed to join or not as they choose, why would their current GM deserve a veto right before those players are given the option?

Plus, it'd be poaching if they were asking players to leave your game and join theirs, but seeing players in, say, a zombie game and asking them if they'd like to join another zombie game is nothing more than targeted advertising to a group you already know is interested in that genre, rather than a blind all-call.

[Miss Lilly]

He pm'd four out of five of my players...three of us on the same pm. I message him back saying that I'd hardly call my game 'former', and given he's approached four of my writers I felt a poaching coming on. I then invited him to read my game, telling him he owed me that much, seeing as he was trying to steal my players. I kept it light hearted and used lots of smiles, but i think my message was quite clear. Hopefully he'll get the hint.

I must admit that I was incensed, like you mentioned, Haibane. But ultimately, Josi's right...we're adults, and I'm hoping he'll behave accordingly, get the hint, and back off on his own. If he doesn't, I'll consider reporting him. I don't think I'll lose any of my writers anyway...they're all having too much fun!

[Haibane]

Glad to hear that Water Lilly and I think you were right to tell him to back off. I do think you ought to mention this to staff. Not so much as to rant about how rude he was but simply because that may be acceptable practice on a site he's used to and I think its unacceptable here and staff may simply wish to be aware of it and politely talk to him.

@ Glyphstone - Not at all.

We have a Players Wanted thread for Group Games. Each GM promotes their ideas there and everyone on the site is free to join any game they wish. People may even have a private list of players they've played with before whose style and reliability they appreciate and send out PMs. I do this often.

This is not the same as a GM going among another GMs players, already in a game, publicly and trying to get them to join their new game, especially in the case with Water Lilly where the other GM was apparently labelling her game as a "former" game implying it was dead/dying. That's disingenuous, and uncivil. if you'd like to use that term.

As Josietta said, we're all adults here and as adults we should be capable of writing game announcements that seem so good that people want to join them, on their own merits, without doing things that might cause players to leave other games.

That's my key point - of doing something that could cause another GMs game damage, even fatal, by people leaving it and going to a similar game as a result of poaching.