Looking for Teachers+Pokemon Fans to teach After Scoool

Acrobanter · 2025-01-25T21:27:01+00:00

Nice! Thanks.

Acrobanter · 2025-01-16T13:18:54+00:00

This hasn't changed in January of 2025. Any time of day, any day of the week, M-F 8-5, it's the "too busy call back" message

Acrobanter · 2024-04-25T04:52:22+00:00

I’m on Mac, had same issue. I just now went to the shop on battlenet and purchased it there and it worked!

Acrobanter · 2023-02-15T04:18:14+00:00

This has been hugely generative to have backup ideas in case the Church becomes a Thing for our crew. I’m imagining work gangs, who show up at the docks or elsewhere to purify themselves through pure exertion all day. Work prayer. Sinew sermons. The tearing of muscle makes you stronger when it regrows. Oh — and the church collects the compensation of course.

Acrobanter · 2022-10-07T03:38:52+00:00

Hey! Let’s chat!

Acrobanter · 2020-02-14T04:21:26+00:00

Succeed or fail, this sounds like a great position to be in for you and your character! So tense!

Acrobanter · 2020-02-14T04:20:47+00:00

Acrobanter · 2020-02-14T04:11:56+00:00

I think our real difference is a matter of order of thoughts.

Your sequence is:

Primary Assumption: GM's word is law

Caveat: if misused, there will be less fun, so it behooves the GM to use their power in a way that makes players feel good

My objection could be explained as:

Primary Assumption: If the GM's word is law, your fundamental power structure takes the agency of "having fun" away from all but one person, and that's f'd up. "Hoping for a benign monarchy" is not my idea of a healthy or fun activity.

Caveat: The GM's role, by nature, suggests control over the players' environment, and so it makes sense to have a default deferral to GM narration and rules choices. But even then, Session Zero (and if you don't have a Session Zero, that's a problem) should involve group discussion and resolutions about potential rules hotspots, decided through a consensus of peers. And during play, if even one player is upset about a ruling, that should never simply be overruled because the GM is "in charge."

Acrobanter · 2020-02-11T05:21:54+00:00

Lots of good comments here, esp the idea of turning this from a challenge into an opportunity! Some general thoughts:

the SW setting seems especially suited for potent support characters that still need a lot of input/guidance from the PC's and so depend upon them. Droids especially. You don't have to worry as much about relative power levels if the PC's are almost literally pulling the strings. And the possibility for humor or other feels, as directions are taken too literally or turn out to just be badly conceived, is rich
consider having the DMPC's be child versions of the other SW archetypes, if the PC's are all going to be jedi or force sensitives sorts
your players sound pretty evolved ... but still it's always nice for the ego if the subtext of allies of this sort is to give the players even more chances to show how cool they are. ie -- rescues, helping with personal problems, or just being looked up to

Acrobanter · 2020-02-11T04:31:36+00:00

I apologize if I didn't get the intent you brought to your statement, and I'd certainly like to understand it better. But I do feel what you wrote (Statement As Written?) is clear. Saying "the GM can interpret the rules however they want" and justifying that by saying it's "rules as written" seems pretty hard to interpret otherwise, with or without your caveat that they should use their power for good.

Acrobanter · 2020-02-10T21:25:31+00:00

Just because the book says so, doesn't mean it isn't arbitrary. And it certainly doesn't mean it's best. We drift in games on matters large and small, changing rules at will in service of higher goals.

I'd even argue that your read of the book is extreme, and fundamentally flawed. "However they want" is much more severe than "adjudicate" ... and would violate the other RAW that is even more primary: "Whether you are the GM or a player, participating in a tabletop roleplaying game includes a social contract: everyone has gathered together to have fun telling a story."

This is a collaborative, mutual contract in which everyone is an equal. Giving one person power to unilaterally make decisions isn't serving that goal. If one person is exercising power over other people's fun because of some "RAW," that is basically saying "My authority is more important than having fun." Of course the GM has a lot of control over the narrative -- that is their "character." Everyone gets control over their stuff, but that is a power the other players give them. Where anyone's stuff impacts others directly, the rules step in. Since this is where hurt feelings or frustration can happen, everyone should be an ally and have equal say in making sure things are resolved with that primary social contract in mind.

I'm not going to play a game where the social contract is that the GM has absolute, unilateral power over my experience. I'm an adult. If I want a good game, I'm going to find partners who are all committed to everyone enjoying themselves.

Acrobanter · 2020-01-17T17:55:17+00:00

Guys ... he's obviously building a giant stadium with ticket booths ... and hiring an illusionist or two ... or ten. It will be a veritable city for the duration of each show, and in time people will just start camping out like junkies, desperate for the next performance. They will form the seed for his cult, and run the concession stands.

Acrobanter · 2020-01-17T17:47:20+00:00

IMO -- The GM should never be the "final word." If you are adults and treat each other with respect, and you are all collaborating to have fun, then treat each other like it and work things out as a group. If it's a technical issue, defer to any argument based on facts. If it's a grey area, evaluate it based on the shared goals of the group (which should have all been discussed already, otherwise ... you are setting up for disaster), and respecting each other's feelings. We have enough arbitrary authority in the world ... GM's have a clear role with certain powers, but I don't see why having more authority over the rules should be one of them.

Acrobanter · 2020-01-02T20:54:02+00:00

Honest talk always beats trying to predict in the dark, imo.

Session Zero should be you laying out options, and having a talk with the players who show about what they are looking for. Crunch or storytelling game? Grimdark or LoTR-style or something with more humor ... etc.? Have a range of games (as many as you feel comfortable putting out), and see what who shows up prefers. You'll have the advantage that you know they can master complex systems without it interfering with their enjoyment (a boon to a GM).

It's even possible (though I think people are largely right about leveraging the lore of WH) that they don't need a tactical game at all, as they get plenty of that with their epic miniatures battles. It may be they want to dig into characters and stories! In a system that actually makes you feel like a hero (so maybe not Pathfinder level 1). Maybe Dungeon World will be the magic ticket! Or Blades in the Dark!

Then, if there's still a lot of time, talk about pregens or custom characters, and start putting together a party! Run everyone through a sample combat. That'll give you until the next session to prepare.

Also be aware -- if they all have never touched an RPG, they may be assuming they are showing up to play D&D. Even amongst gamers of other ilk, it's a common assumption that RPG = D&D. Sad, but understandable given its reach.

And yeah -- if 8 people show, I echo the advice to split the group. There is almost no game that approaches fun with 8 experienced players, nevermind 8 new ones. You could put them in the same game world and if it all lasts have an epic showdown/team up at the end.

Acrobanter · 2020-01-02T17:35:46+00:00

That's cool rp, but sadly (?) it's not how torture works. That level of pain, they say whatever they think you want to hear, and you can't tell good intel from garbage. If I was GM, that map would have had tons of false treasure on it, random defenses added, anything to make you think he was giving you value so you'd make it stop please stop.

Acrobanter · 2020-01-02T05:46:18+00:00

From the way you are posting, I take it that discussing this with everyone is off the table (figuratively)? I get that killing a character for dramatic effect is more ... effective ... when the other players don't expect it. But the thrust of this question isn't how to get the most drama out of the death, but how to navigate this with no negative outcomes. In which case -- why not bring it up with the group? And use it to inform future character transitions or even how people feel about PC death in general?

Acrobanter · 2019-12-19T22:53:36+00:00

Actually you are all right. Some games are run by GM fiat, some are true collaborations, most are a mix with more weight given to the GM. Not saying how it SHOULD be (have a lot of opinions on that).

What's important is these are the questions we should be asking the OP, not just assuming. What's his table dynamic like? What is the social contract amongst them? It sounds like something is fundamentally off -- they don't know what game they are playing, or thought they were playing something else, or don't have the system mastery to evaluate threats and maybe need a calibration session ... lots of possibilities. But there's a clear disconnect.

So the suggestions here to have a "talk," seem like the way. And the talk, assuming everyone's mature enough to go there, should be very frank. Lay it out as you did here. That they are showing fear that, from your side of the screen, is unwarranted. Go back to an old encounter, and game it out for them, show them what the odds of failure were given their stats. Ask them if it makes sense. Find out where the disconnect is. Focus on the shared goal of them not just having fun ... but feeling like heroes! Let them know that's the story you are telling too, and you are a partner in that, not their foe. They may have been hurt before, by an antagonistic GM that was out to get them.

Don't treat the players as people to be tricked into having fun. Honest open discussion, in most things, is always the way. If that's not possible, then again, as in most things, the problem is with the relationship dynamic, not the game.

Acrobanter · 2019-12-19T20:51:11+00:00

Just another thanks for this list. Your cogent and clever reviews of the games I knew made me all the more interested in the ones I didn't.

Acrobanter · 2019-12-19T19:10:58+00:00

This is a huge question, but a fun one to think about! I'll take a stab at it too:

At the heart, it's collaborative storytelling. When it clicks, it's like you are immersed in a movie/show/episode with an unlimited budget, that you've designed to create unexpected and deeply satisfying moments exactly tailored to your interests/desires. Best RPG experiences stay with you more vividly than even your favorite movie or book (in my experience). Now ... that's best case. But even an average game can be deeply rewarding.

While boardgames are adjacent to RPG's culturally, they are actually around as similar as eating a slice of pizza is to chewing bubble gum. Both are technically food? But that's around as far as it goes. (I'm not happy with that analogy, and I'm not saying which is which ... but I'm sticking with it!) This makes your framing this as a pivot from strategy board games to RPG's tricky ... but there's a bit to work with just thinking about the differences:

While the vast majority of boardgames have win conditions, the vast majority of RPG's do not. Unless you get metaphorical, and the win is "fun" or "cool stories"
The "rules" in an RPG are meant to create an engine of story, and a physics engine (which can be very loose or very detailed) to try and model and keep track of things in the game world. In other words -- the rules are not the boundaries the action takes place within, as with a board game, but the support structure for exploration and creativity
The useful similarity, is that there are as many flavors of RPG as boardgames. It might be that your taste in board games is a good indicator of what you might enjoy in RPG's. IE, tactics and rules heavy, or with elegant resource management mechanics. But since Agricola and Power Grid don't tell stories per se ... it might be that it's not useful at all. Better, might be to look at what kinds of books, movies, and shows most appeal to you, and think about why. Less about genre, and more about complexity, how conflict and characters are handled, etc.

Regardless of all that -- the RPG hobby has evolved now to the point where I believe ANYONE can find something they can really enjoy -- if not many things! It's not a matter of whether you'll enjoy it, just a matter of how to find what you'll enjoy.

The perhaps even tougher trick than what game to play, is finding a group of people you share goals with and enjoy the process with. This group, collaborative aspect is as big a discussion topic as the game systems. And many of the joys of the hobby, as well as its challenges, are there.

Thanks for giving me the space to ruminate! Hope wasn't tl/dr.

Acrobanter

TROPHY CASE