Forums of the Megaverse®

This question is asked of players. A general question, but within a Palladium Fantasy context, how fast should it take for the GM to get to the good stuff? (The combat and/or intensive skill rolling).

Or asked another way possibly, how much initial setup and exposition story wise should the game have before engaging the first bad guy, obstacle, etc. I don't want the opinion of Game Masters. (if they play too then answer as a player, not a GM).

I edited this poll once and it reset the results. You should be able to revote though.

Right away. Everybody wants to see what their characters can do.

I voted with in the 1st session.
However, "action" as I seeing it is getting into the plot stuff. As in, get the introductions over with and into the plot with in the 1st session. Which does not necessarily mean their 1st battle together.

I'm all about getting stuff done and combat is the slowest way to get stuff done since 15 seconds of game time burns a ton of real time.

--flatline

Like most polls I didnt vote but I wanted to add that, for me this alters with the game.

PFRPG - setting first, wander the town, feel the culture etc.
NB - straight to plot but not necessarily combat
HU - combat like the James bond example (always starts with a bank robbery or such and you are ready at the scene!)

The Dark Elf wrote:Like most polls I didnt vote but I wanted to add that, for me this alters with the game.

PFRPG - setting first, wander the town, feel the culture etc.
NB - straight to plot but not necessarily combat
HU - combat like the James bond example (always starts with a bank robbery or such and you are ready at the scene!)

I agree, as usual, with DE- Fantasy is about setting, HU is combat, and for me, Rifts you need it in the first session.

Take time to build a plot!!! This isn't Rifts we are talking about. Unless you are gaming with hack and slashers. But still, I do it in the 2nd maybe the 3rd game. I want to establish a character interaction base, and plots before I do any major action. I do some minor actions in the first game but usually that's usually a random encounter on the road or in town.

This is both as player and as GM.

If I'm not hacking and slashing in every session, I'm finding a new GM.

Spinachcat wrote:If I'm not hacking and slashing in every session, I'm finding a new GM.

me too.

Spinachcat wrote:If I'm not hacking and slashing in every session, I'm finding a new GM.

My characters have goals and I want to see them make progress towards those goals. Said progress does not have to come as the result of combat.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Spinachcat wrote:If I'm not hacking and slashing in every session, I'm finding a new GM.

My characters have goals and I want to see them make progress towards those goals. Said progress does not have to come as the result of combat.

--flatline

You play your way, which is fine. You have your niche, we have ours. I know for myself combat would seem empty without a story. I still believe one can have both.

gdub411 wrote:

flatline wrote:

Spinachcat wrote:If I'm not hacking and slashing in every session, I'm finding a new GM.

My characters have goals and I want to see them make progress towards those goals. Said progress does not have to come as the result of combat.

--flatline

You play your way, which is fine. You have your niche, we have ours. I know for myself combat would seem empty without a story. I still believe one can have both.

You can definitely have both.

--flatline

Yes, agreed...You can have both. I just like to have a clue what the plot is before any major combat happens, and be totally emerged within a plot by the end of the 2nd session; if I'm not there by the first. I'm against pointless battles and things that have nothing to do with the plot. However, I like short side adventures that do have to do with the a plot. For example freeing a village from an evil overlord, who is in league with the same bad major bad guy as opposed to fighting an Orc witch turned vampire via magical ritual who had created a small group (25) of vampires, and is sucking the youth and beauty from elves...Because that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot. That game was just for the undead hunter who had joined us for about 10-15 games, then left us when he got what he had asked for...A game with vampires. Just because they weren't the averaged vampires that he was used to doesn't mean that he should up and leave the game. That truly really made us all mad! But we finished that side adventure. Found a few useful items. Like a star metal detector, which helped us tremendously in that campaign.

pblackcrow wrote:Yes, agreed...You can have both. I just like to have a clue what the plot is before any major combat happens, and be totally emerged within a plot by the end of the 2nd session; if I'm not there by the first. I'm against pointless battles and things that have nothing to do with the plot. However, I like short side adventures that do have to do with the a plot. For example freeing a village from an evil overlord, who is in league with the same bad major bad guy as opposed to fighting an Orc witch turned vampire via magical ritual who had created a small group (25) of vampires, and is sucking the youth and beauty from elves...Because that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot. That game was just for the undead hunter who had joined us for about 10-15 games, then left us when he got what he had asked for...A game with vampires. Just because they weren't the averaged vampires that he was used to doesn't mean that he should up and leave the game. That truly really made us all mad! But we finished that side adventure. Found a few useful items. Like a star metal detector, which helped us tremendously in that campaign.

I would call them campaign threads and probably(eventually), what seems like an unrelated adventure would intertwine with the main story. Don't get too linear in the whole campaign build-up. Nobody likes to be led around on a leash. Also, I am not opposed to side adventures. It is actually more realistic and fun. I know as a GM, I like to have my Halloween and April Fools episodes, which are ALWAYS unrelated.

Players do get bored if they're usually not involved in a fight but I've also found out that I don't
like being "plot trained" into the fight but I choose to involve myself in the fight. As a G.M. I try to
follow this path as well unless I'm itching to try out a "new critter" on my test subjects .

Reagren Wright wrote:Players do get bored if they're usually not involved in a fight but I've also found out that I don't
like being "plot trained" into the fight but I choose to involve myself in the fight. As a G.M. I try to
follow this path as well unless I'm itching to try out a "new critter" on my test subjects .

Agreed, however, I make it a point to use the bad guys in relation to the creature.

I've started a game where the players were trapped in a besieged city and the walls just fell. Instant action...was very cool, the game hit the ground running. Much better than the good old meeting in Ye Olde Cliche' Tavern.

A prison break or escaping a chain gang are two other interesting game starts I've considered.

I voted first session, preferring high adventure.

When I'm playing a proper campaign, I want that dang exposition. It's important to figure out where you are in the world, have time to plot and scheme, figure out motivations, etc. I don't mind a bit of a scrap if it is part of the exposition itself, necessary for setting the background, but I really prefer not to be forced in to a battle I don't even understand the context of. That's all about the roll instead of the role, in my mind.

If it's a one-off adventure then obviously I'm a bit more willing to leap right in, as it's assumed that the background and such have already been established for you, and the motivations of your character are pre-assigned. Those are exceptions though, not the rule.