General OOC

I went in a kind of unusual direction with my description of the bridge (i.e. small and cramped). Hopefully that's OK with everyone. If the group wants a bridge the whole crew could fit in at the same time, let me know and I can retcon it.

Also, I thought I'd start a new OOC thread so that we wouldn't keep using the Session Zero thread for that.

Thanks for starting the new thread, @timplausible.

Something I haven't got a sense or preference for here yet on GP/PbP is when to add stuff with OOC tags in the 'story' thread, and when to post things in a seperate OOC Thread like this one.

How do you choose between those options? How do you prefer that people post OOC content?

Usually, I will use OOC tags in the IC thread for things that are relevant to the IC post I'm making. Everything else I post in OOC. Some GMs like to really minimize OOC discussion in the IC threads, others don't mind so much.

My post above is kind of a toss-up. It's relevant to my IC post, but I thought it might spark an OOC discussion. That's why I put it here.

Thanks for sharing your preferences and experiences on that, @timplausible - I think (for me at least) I'll aim for the "will it cause a discussion?" as the guiding principle.

Is it a problem for you @RageRed that the ship has ended up looking like this? I'm OK to retcon and build a ship that works better for your character if the others are.

I want the setting to work for ys all, and for us all to be having fun.

I'll wait until we hear from you about this, @RageRed, before moving forward with the game - if we are going to change things up, I'd rather do it as soon as possible and with as little pre-existing narrative to ret-con.

I'm happy to change up the ship to being smart and shiny, and to have the cows delivered and you now be with a different cargo, if that works for all of us.

Other players - would you be up for editing your first in-game posts to reflect a different kind of ship and cargo? I'd also edit my initial post to reflect that?

My call is that if we are all OK with that change, we'll make it. If not, then things will stay as they are, and totaly understand, @RageRed, if that's then not a game you'd want to play in.

I think you changing your character isn't a good option here, @RageREd - as the Session Zero stuff already has her integrated into it.

Trying to strike a balance here between all of us being able to enjoy the game, while respecting the investment in time that people have already put into it, and knowing that it can be impossible to find a way forward that works for everyone.

It's early in the game, so I'm okay with retconning the start of things.

I'm OK either way. If we retcon, please delete my previous post in the game thread, so I can write a new one considering the changes and previous players messages, in the new order.

I'm totallly ok with a retcon. Also, this reminds me of an actual-play podcast I listened to.

Can't remember the name of the podcast (though I could figure it out if folks wanted to). It was an FFG Star Wars game. The crew had to make an escape by stealing a ship, and the ship became their ship for the rest of the campaign, so very similar. But also different, because...

They stole a luxury yacht. This was both cool, but also hindered them in other ways. It was slow and the opposite of nimble. It was bigger than they needed - sometimes too big for some situations. And it was visually pretty memorable, which is not great for being outlaws. Also much of that extra space wasn't very useful: large dining areas. A dance hall. Etc. It also provided the GM and players opportunities to "discover" other odd things in the ship throughout the game. "Wait... there's a hot tub under the floor?" "That button causes a disco ball to descend from the ceiling." So, it wasn't run down, but it also still wasn't the sleek ship that would be useful to smugglers/outlaws.

Another idea is that it could be a top-of-the-line, new frieghter, but it also has top-of-the-line security that we haven't fully cracked yet. So, like, maybe we have access to the main hold, but we haven't been able to get itno the high-security "vault" hold yet. Maybe it's got one engine for normal ops, but then a second high-power engine for emergency bursts of speed - but that's also locked behind some security features we haven't broken. The ship might also be so new that people notice and remember it. Making it look more run down than it is could be a constant concern of our. "Captain, we lost the debris we bolted to the hull during our last jump. We actually look like The Ballerina again."

I really like that second idea @timplausible.

For a luxury yacht docking with the prison station, it could be a music star come to make a performance for inmates (I'm thinking of Jonny Cash and Folsom prison here).

Or - you're not locked up for the worst-of-the-worst crimes, so not necessarily a super-high-security prison - it could be the prison you were in was part of a larger station. And you escaped into the docks on the other part of the station.

You could also have escaped on a ramshackle ship, gone somewhere else, and ended up with a fancier one.

We can choose a different ship name and so on if you want.

I'm prepared to totally change my plans for the situation you find yourselves in, to make this fun for as many of us as possible. And I'd like us to work together constructively and collaboratively to build a new set-up. In particular that we aim to make our contributions "yes, and" when possible - focusing on affirming each others contributions and building on them.

Who pilots our ship? Is it the captain, or someone else?

It's not Gloop, I know that much.

I rewrote my post on the bridge. I kept it small, but I undid the mess. I left the details vague, but I did look at the ship picture again and decided where I thought the bridge should be. I put it in the middle, behind what I am interpreting to be windows.I hope that this post leaves things more open-ended with respect to how the interior of the ship looks in general.

If we've already delivered the mega-cows, what's our current job entail?

I'm kind of lost. Are we going to reboot? GM, what are our next steps?

Hi @htech - was just sitting down with the various posts to try and choose a way to move forward on this.

Plan to post about that in some detail later today. Sorry for the delay.

I'm teaching this week - that has me getting up at 5 and being busy all the way through to like 8 each night. Was hoping I could get this done in breaks today, but was too much going on and am now too tired to concentrate on it. Sorry for the delay, will try and get this done tomorrow.

No problems! Take your time, it's clear what are the next steps now. :)

So, I guess I'm learning that playing PCs on days I'm training is doable, but organising and synthesising posts and writing something in response to them as a GM seems to be too much. Sorry again for the delay. Am going to assume I'll be too tired again tomorrow, but that Friday I'll get this post up.

I've read through the OOC and in-game posts and propose moving forward like this.

The issues are around the kind of tasks/jobs the ship takes on, the feel and properties of the ship, and the general purpose of the ship. It will still be a ship you stole just after escaping prison. And the prison can have been a low-security one that was on a station with other kinds of activities on it - such that the station could have had any kind of ship docked to it (and thus available for you to steal). We're doing it like this, so that we have more flexibility to find a ship concept that we're all OK with.

Based on previous messages, lines for the ship will be

- no mega-cow cargo
- the ship will not be ugly, run-down, or torn-up
- the ship will have some defences

With this in mind, I would like your votes/contributions on the following topics. I'm not going to make these decisions on my own, as the point of doing this is to try and find a way forward that we are all happy with - and I feel that's both slower, but also more likely to work, if we do it collaboratively.

For each of the categories, please indicate either "YES", "NO", or "OK" - hoping we can find a selection of choices which are either "YES" or "OK" for everyone. The resulting ship and story might not be a very logical fit of characteristics, but I accept that potential narrative dissonance in the interests of finding something we are all OK with. I may look for another image for the ship, depending on what we decide here.

I also want to know/have your vote on how you'd like to move forward once we have this input from you all.

If any of you don't want to go through this process, I totally understand. I know it's slowing things down - but I know won't enjoy this game if I have the feeling that some of the players don't want to be playing in the scenario as it's written. If you don't want to keep going, just let us know, and hopefully we'll have fun playing together in some other game.

So, your choices:

Descriptors/characteristics of the ship
fancy-looking and obvious
non-descript

large
small

offence systems
no offence systems

fast
slow

manoeuvreable
cumbersome

Class/type of ship
luxury yacht
cargo transport ship
fighter/assault ship
courier ship
military cruiser/warship
passenger transport ship

Moving forward to finalise ship integrating the above input
GM decides unilaterally the details of the ship
GM proposes options and we vote on them to choose one
Players and GM propose options and we vote on them

So, for example, your response to the above post might be:

Descriptors/characteristics of the ship
fancy-looking and obvious YES
non-descript OK

large YES
small YES

offence systems YES
no offence systems NO

fast YES
slow NO

manoeuvrable YES
cumbersome OK

Class/type of ship
luxury yacht YES
cargo transport ship OK
fighter/assault ship YES
courier ship OK
military cruiser/warship NO
passenger transport ship NO

Moving forward to finalise ship integrating the above input
GM decides unilaterally the details of the ship YES
GM proposes options and we vote on them to choose one OK
Players and GM propose options and we vote on them YES

Descriptors/characteristics of the ship
fancy-looking and obvious YES
non-descript NO

large YES
small NO

offence systems OK
no offence systems OK

fast OK
slow OK

manoeuvreable OK
cumbersome OK

Class/type of ship
luxury yacht YES
cargo transport ship YES
fighter/assault ship NO
courier ship OK
military cruiser/warship NO
passenger transport ship YES

Moving forward to finalise ship integrating the above input
GM decides unilaterally the details of the ship OK
GM proposes options and we vote on them to choose one YES
Players and GM propose options and we vote on them NO

Descriptors/characteristics of the ship
fancy-looking and obvious OK
non-descript OK

large OK
small OK

offence systems OK
no offence systems OK

fast OK
slow OK

manoeuvrable OK
cumbersome OK

Class/type of ship
luxury yacht OK
cargo transport ship OK
fighter/assault ship OK
courier ship OK
military cruiser/warship OK
passenger transport ship OK

Moving forward to finalise ship integrating the above input
GM decides unilaterally the details of the ship YES
GM proposes options and we vote on them to choose one NO
Players and GM propose options and we vote on them NO

Descriptors/characteristics of the ship
fancy-looking and obvious: OK
non-descript: OK

large: OK
small: OK

offence systems: OK
no offence systems: OK

fast: OK
slow: OK

manoeuvreable: YES
cumbersome: OK

Class/type of ship
luxury yacht: OK
cargo transport ship: OK
fighter/assault ship: OK
courier ship: OK
military cruiser/warship: NO
passenger transport ship: OK

Moving forward to finalise ship integrating the above input
GM decides unilaterally the details of the ship: OK
GM proposes options and we vote on them to choose one: OK
Players and GM propose options and we vote on them: OK

I realize that the above kind of amounts to "whatever", so it may not be very helpful. But I can have fun with any ship.

All good, @timplausible. Exactly the info I'm hoping for! I think also good for us all to get a sense of what's important to the others.

I find it helps me to be reminded of how different what we want and don't want, can be for different people.

Thanks for responding to the questions - your responses and the combined outcomes are described below. I'm not taking any option for which there is even one "NO".

On the basis of this, I'm now going to re-write the Character Sheet for The Ballerina. Then I will re-write the first post for the in-character play. I'll then ask each of you to check your initial post, and if you feel it needs any changes on the basis of the changed ship and first post, to make them.

Then hopefully we are all synchronised, all OK with the scenario, and all good to move forward.

fancy-looking and obvious YES OK OK OK
non-descript NO OK OK OK
LOOK: FANCY-LOOKING AND OBVIOUS

large YES OK OK OK
small NO OK OK OK(just not cramped and crowded)
SIZE: LARGE

offence systems OK OK OK YES
no offence systems OK OK OK NO
OFFENCE SYSTEMS: YES

defence systems YES
no defence systems NO
DEFENCE SYSTEMS: YES

fast OK OK OK YES
slow OK OK OK NO
SPEED: FAST

manoeuvrable OK YES
cumbersome OK NO
MANOEUVRABILITY: HIGH

Class/type of ship
luxury yacht YES OK OK NO
cargo transport ship YES OK OK OK
fighter/assault ship NO OK OK OK
courier ship OK OK OK NO
military cruiser/warship NO OK NO NO
passenger transport ship YES OK OK OK
SHIP CLASS: choice between CARGO TRANSPORT or PASSENGER TRANSPORT

Moving forward to finalize ship integrating the above input
GM decides unilaterally the details of the ship OK YES OK OK
GM proposes options and we vote on them to choose one YES NO OK YES
Players and GM propose options and we vote on them NO NO OK OK
NEXT STEP: GM DECIDES UNILATERALLY DETAILS OF SHIP BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM THIS SURVEY

If we get to choose I would like a cargo vessel over a passenger ship.

Got me in time, @JoshuaMabry - cargo vessel it is :)

I've updated The Ballerina character sheet, and edited the initial post to the Day 1: Everything's shiny, Captain thread.

I felt it was OK to make only a few changes to the initial post, but please still check back at what you posted previously, make any edits you feel are needed to retcon to the new version of the ship and the situation, and let me know when you've done so. Once I've heard that everyone has done that, we'll start moving forward with the situation again.

Please give me a little time. I think I need to do a total rewrite as I based my post on the now defunct mega-cow mission.

I'll leave my post as is, didn't need to change it.

Thanks for checking in so quickly @htech and @JoshuaMabry.

Normally I'd go by the default of three days waiting for people to post before we move forward without them. And when that happens if possible we'll just assume their PC passively follows the others - or if something impacts them directly, I'll take over their response.

But this time, given how much time we've all invested in this set-up already, I really want us all to have a chance to move forward together, so am OK for you to have a few days longer than that to write a new post.

I'll be chucking my entire original posts and writing something new. I'll get that done later today.

Thanks for that @timplausible

FWIW I feel I've learned some useful things here about GMing PbP. In particular, a better understanding of:

1. the kinds of issues, topics, expectations that can influence whether or not people will enjoy playing a game - and that it is thus worth including in the recruitment post (even though that makes it longer) to make it more likely that player and GM expectations align

2. the amount of time, work, concentration, attention it can take to adjust course in a story/scenario

3. tools, possibilities, that can help collect input from players

If I run this again, I'll make quite a few changes with how we start things off.

Thank you for bearing with it as we find our way through this. I appreciate your forebearance and support and collaboration.

No problem. Still looking forward to the game.

Done :)

It looks to me as though the initial posts of @RageRed @timplausible and @htech are all consistent with the updated initial post (bigger, less squalid, more effective ship; mech cargo instead of mega-cows).

Thus, I'll move things forward with a post on Friday this week (15 December) - or maybe earlier depending on when @JoshuaMabry updates their post. No complaint about timing here @JoshuaMabry - I'm waiting longer than usual for this post, and I know it's difficult to shuffle lots of games. If you don't get to update before Friday, then you can edit it later I think, as the initial PC posts aren't so much about actions/moving plot.

Hey all, between the other games I have going here and outside life I’m finding I don’t have time to keep a reasonable pace in this game. I’ll be dropping out. Thank you all for the chance to play with you.

Sorry you won't be joining us for the rest of this, @JoshuaMabry - and thanks for letting us know. Wishing you lots of fun in your other games (and elsewhere!) and hope to play with you again sometime.

I'll talk with @JoshuaMabry about how we'll move forward with Hank no longer as a PC - it may be best to keep him as an NPC given how his story is already entwined with the other PCs, but also he's @JoshuaMabry's creation and I want to find a way forward that works for him too. I'll let you know by Friday how we'll move on with that.

Hey @BeardHare and everyone! Since we haven't kicked off yet (our characters interwined with predetermined sentences and not as part of an adventure) and with JoshuaMabry already leaving the game, plus with the upcoming holidays, when my posting rate will be a bit reduced... Considering all that, unfortunately my excitement has waned, so I've also decided to bow out. 😞

I'd suggest reopening the recruitment thread since there was a lot of interest before. Wishing you all tons of fun in your game (and beyond!), and hopefully, we'll cross paths again in the future. 😃

Thanks for the heads-up @htech - have fun with your games and yes hope we play together some time :)

@RageRed @timplausible how do you want to proceed with this?

I think we have now a better idea of the time/effort that goes into setting things up for this game, to bringing characters into it. I also hope that lessons learned mean that bringing new players in can be quicker and more focused than we've been so far.

I'm happy to play with just the two of you if you prefer to get going now.

Or to drop the game entirely if you've had enough of this.

Or to recruit more players.

Now, more than ever, I think it's important that if we go forward, it's in a way that we are all enthusiastic about.

I was looking forward to this game. I'm interested in seeing the rules play out.

Here's my idea:
1. We archive everything that has happened so far and start from scratch (except as noted below). None of that ever happened. I will still play Gloop. @RageRed can stick with their character or change, as they wish.
2. We keep the new Ballerina design.
3. @BeardHare recruits new players. The recruitment thread can give a quick overview of the Ballerina to set new player expectations. And let potential players know that 2 playbooks are already taken.
4. We start over with the various session zero questions as if we'd never answered them previously. I think we kinda have to.

Basically, we start over, but keep our PCs if we want and keep the ship since it took a while to get there.

I agree with @Timplausible,

We keep the new ship design and start over, deleting all threads back to their opening posts.

I've copied Nova's profile and opening IC post in her character sheet for safe keeping for now.

Ah great there's a way forward we are all interested in.

I'd go for 2 extra players - unless you're both keen to add three new people?

I'll start re-setting the forums etc, maybe reach out to people on recruit thread tomorrow or Thursday. Will look for two new people then unless you let me know before then that you prefer three.

I have no preference between 2 or 3 new players.

Two or three. Doesn't matter to me either way.

I'll invite two people.

I'm on a work trip starting tomorrow all the way up until Xmas, so it's unlikely I have time to make these changes before then. Hoped to do it this week, but prep for the work trip has been too much for me to have time for it.

Thus, I'm going to expect to start on this only once we get to 2024. Maybe I have time before then, but I wanted to flag this up to you both already now.

Sounds good. Will await relaunch in the new year.