|
|
Post by michael on May 16, 2009 18:42:33 GMT -5
Yesterday, I found a site to play DnD online and decided to check it out. We played today, and I just got firsthand experience with horrible GMing. There was zero thought put into anything that wasn't combat, the entire thing was completely on rails, and 75% of the time was spent trying a bunch of different approaches to a problem, looking for the one solution that the GM wanted us to use. The game was also supposed to have six people, but three didn't show up. The GM didn't scale the difficulty, though, so we were all dead five minutes into the first fight. (Which was actually a relief.)
Anyway, just thought I'd come here and voice my frustration a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enric on May 16, 2009 23:32:40 GMT -5
Ugh, that does sound terrible. I know Rabbit and Reefwood have had some success with Groovy Gamers, but personally I've never been terribly interested in online role-playing. I think I might feel differently if it were with folks that I already know, but the idea of playing with strangers has never sounded that attractive to me. By the same token, while I can easily embrace the idea of playing pickup boardgames at a convention or a game day, I can't really say the same for RPGs. A big part of it is probably that yeah, the quality of one's experience can vary so wildly depending on the GM and the other players.
How much do you folks think that would go the other way, though? Would a mediocre session with a group of friends be preferable to a good game with a group of strangers? Or perhaps what I'm really asking is: how much do personal connections matter to your enjoyment of a game?
|
|
|
|
Post by icnivad on May 18, 2009 12:04:35 GMT -5
It seems like online play using groovy has always been frustratingly slow for a full game. I think we've had pretty good success with a hybrid table / online game -- where you meet up for table top sessions like you do in any regular game, but you fill some of the void between sessions with online role playing. Because you're focused on character development, rather than getting important stuff done, there are few rolls, and you can be more descriptive with actions and descriptions and really give a better sense of imagery than you get in a table top session. It's also great for handling cities, where the players might want to break off and do whatever it is their characters like to do. This lets the DM track and deal with each player individually in a way that would take too much time in a session with the other players sitting around bored one player hangs out in a bar talking to an NPC that only they are interested in.
The downside of play like this is that it requires getting all of the players on-board and putting forth a generally equal amount of time into the online portion. Otherwise it's hard to present any real information in the online play because not all of the players might get it and be able to respond.
|
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on May 18, 2009 14:43:25 GMT -5
Yesterday, I found a site to play DnD online and decided to check it out. We played today, and I just got firsthand experience with horrible GMing. There was zero thought put into anything that wasn't combat, the entire thing was completely on rails, and 75% of the time was spent trying a bunch of different approaches to a problem, looking for the one solution that the GM wanted us to use. The game was also supposed to have six people, but three didn't show up. The GM didn't scale the difficulty, though, so we were all dead five minutes into the first fight. (Which was actually a relief.) Anyway, just thought I'd come here and voice my frustration a bit. Playing online can definitely be dicey. Part of it is not knowing the people, so you don't know if you'll enjoying playing with them. Another thing is that some folks can be uber flaky, which is what may have happened with some of the players who signed up for the game you tried. On a similar note, play-by-post (PbP) games usually go slow and sometimes fizzle quickly, so some people sign up to a ton of them but then don't wind up with enough time to play in all of them (and therefore, some games which could have lasted a while wind up fizzling... in a cycle of irony). And of course, real life gets in the way on PbP games as much as table top ones, but sometimes in PbP, you never know that's the reason since the player/DM can disappear w/o a word. I've never had a horrible DM, but I've come across a few that aren't that good or are flaky or are trying to juggle too many games, and all that usually winds up in the game dying early. I've had some luck with PbP on Groovy. Consistency and interest can be hard to keep up, but there's one game that I've been playing in for 1.5 yrs and one that I've been running for a bit longer than that, and there have been breaks in both for as long as a month or so when real life makes playing online difficult or impossible for a while. As for playing with strangers, I immediately think of Lane and Brian H. who were part of my first D&D group (along with Enric & Rabbit). I didn't know either one at all personally when we started, but both their initial characters were a couple of my favorites. I think the importance of personal connections with roleplaying are similar to those with other social activities... such as event organizing & hockey, in my case... it's generally fun to work with people you know, but a good time can be had even with strangers as long as they are on a similar page and act within the outlined rules and are good sports about it. And on Groovy, there's people I don't know at all personally, but I look forward to playing with them in new games that come up b/c I've seen that they've made characters I've enjoyed in past games. |
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on May 18, 2009 15:02:47 GMT -5
It seems like online play using groovy has always been frustratingly slow for a full game. Yeah, like I said above, PbP is a slow pace. Usually 1 post per day (Mon-Fri) by the DM is the fastest rate I've seen kept up consistently, and at least half the time, not all the players keep up for every post. Usually that isn't a big deal but can be difficult for combat... either one PC is left standing around or the DM has to make the extra effort to run her/him... although, players are generally understanding of this and do better at keeping up for combat. I think we've had pretty good success with a hybrid table / online game -- where you meet up for table top sessions like you do in any regular game, but you fill some of the void between sessions with online role playing. Because you're focused on character development, rather than getting important stuff done, there are few rolls, and you can be more descriptive with actions and descriptions and really give a better sense of imagery than you get in a table top session. It's also great for handling cities, where the players might want to break off and do whatever it is their characters like to do. This lets the DM track and deal with each player individually in a way that would take too much time in a session with the other players sitting around bored one player hangs out in a bar talking to an NPC that only they are interested in. The downside of play like this is that it requires getting all of the players on-board and putting forth a generally equal amount of time into the online portion. Otherwise it's hard to present any real information in the online play because not all of the players might get it and be able to respond. I really like the hybrid mix and agree with icnivad. Maybe the online portion of a hybrid game should be best left to the positives mentioned: 1) Interaction between characters (with the DM chiming in when needed) 2) Solo stuff... which perhaps has some impact on the main game but in a way where the other players don't need to be fully briefed on it, just caught up with a sentence or two (i.e. "The Drunken Druid tavern was busted by the militia and is closed for the time being" or "The bridge has been repaired" or "Clerics of Pelor have now banned gnomes from their temples")... and this can also include exploration, like the druid wanting to wander around the forest outside the city while the dwarf investigates caverns underneath. |
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit on May 18, 2009 15:08:41 GMT -5
As for playing with strangers, I immediately think of Lane and Brian H. who were part of my first D&D group (along with Enric & Rabbit). I didn't know either one at all personally when we started, but both their initial characters were a couple of my favorites. Funny you mention Lane and Brian because they popped into my head as well. During that campaign I felt like Lane's character and mine built a bond, which drifted into real life. Even though I hardly see him around town and we only really had DnD to bring us together it is like seeing an old friend. I think the character's good relationship was sparked by our real life chemistry, and vice versa. (and I think everyone that played in those games would agree Lane is a really likable guy) I think the same could be said about when I first played with Troy or Even icnivad. We have a lot more in common now but DnD came first. Troy and I once laughed that 'our friendship started with DnD but was solidified with alcohol.' |
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit on May 18, 2009 16:50:36 GMT -5
HA! And I guess I met everyone else on this board through DnD/gaming, too!  |
|
|
|
Post by Enric on May 18, 2009 18:16:38 GMT -5
Yeah, I guess I met most of you folks through games as well, so it's not as if I think it's impossible to hit it off through playing with new folks. I guess it's the going in blind that I can't swing with online or con games - it's not friends of friends or anything, but pretty much completely random people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enric on May 20, 2009 15:45:27 GMT -5
I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed our Den of Heroes game last night. How did you feel about it, Rabbit? I know things definitely took some unexpected turns, but were you happy with it? What did you think worked, and was there anything that didn't go as well as you'd hoped?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit on May 20, 2009 17:33:12 GMT -5
Thanks enric. I am glad you liked it. I had a lot of fun as well. I get a little nervous killing too many players in one session. It makes me re-exam the scenario and make sure it was not too great a challenge. I think this one was tough, but doable.
Regarding Character Death: icnivad once said; having your first character die in a DnD series can lead to a more dynamic second character (I’m paraphrasing.) I tend to agree. And it is a nice story flavor that only one of you made it back…
Anyways, like so many games it really did not pan out the way I anticipated.
I was depending a bit on the pillaging aspect of adventuring (kill the monsters and take their stuff) to aid you as you progressed in the mines, but that did not really happen. Characters seemed understandably averse to riffling through plague infected belongings. I wish I would have expected that more. On a general note, don’t you think it is interesting as a DM trying to anticipate how characters will react? It can be a challenge because you think, “OK Player X likes to do Action X, so I will plan accordingly…” But then the player is playing a different character with completely different ethical standards and motivations...
A few searches, spots, and clues did not get picked-up or picked-up-on that could have altered a few things, but that is not to say players or I did anything “wrong” or “poorly.”
I am also finding it interesting to now have to go back and figure out the repercussions of this botched adventure (botched in the perspective of the characters and within the universe, I think the game for the players and myself was a success.) So often DMs spend so much time planning Dungeons and their residences only to have the adventurers pass through and dismantle it. So far, I am really enjoying the process of, “OK, THAT just happened…what happens next?”
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 20, 2009 17:57:44 GMT -5
I thought it was a great session. Totally agree that the "botched adventure" really helps the narrative of the whole thing. The difficulty was right on, as well. We died because we lost the will to live as much as anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on May 20, 2009 19:03:14 GMT -5
I had fun last night... enjoyed the setting & story set up and trying out something new with feinting... but between sleepiness setting into me as a player and the baby killing sapping the will of my character, I was pretty tapped out well before the adventure ended.
I'd agree with the "tough but doable" assessment. We probably could have gotten out of there with only one, or maybe none, of our characters dying. It seemed like the half-orc was more bothered that we entered its lair, and once those still standing left, it didn't pursue immediately. If we had retreated and rested and strategized, I bet we could have taken it out with most of us surviving. But that would have been in a more ideal situation, and as things stood with what happened earlier, Parn was pretty down in the dumps and set to either kill the demon or die trying... it was all he could think that could possibly help make up for killing the babies, especially since we was a Good character and planned on letting the surrendered kobolds go... just wanted to make sure they weren't leaving with anything that could help slay the demon... if they just had silver or other mundane valuables, he wouldn't have cared if they took it... but it is good to see how the roleplay aspect can have as much of an effect on how things play out as the numbers.
As for characters dying, it is part of the game. It can be a bummer after putting a lot of work into one, but this one wasn't hard to let go because I thought him up just for a one-shot, maybe even before there was mention of potential carryover into future one-shots... and simply as a result of that, the next character will have a bit more to him... in part because I'm looking at him with the potential of a somewhat longer road in mind, but also because in general, once you play in a setting, it can be easier to create something more tied into the setting and/or adding to the setting.
I've definitely been trying to handle things more like my character would than my player self would. This group was sent to investigate why the miners hadn't returned, but he was the muscle of the group and not particularly skilled at much else (except Intimidate, which he totally botched anyway), so I had him focus on that instead of looking for clues. The dead miner under the cart was obvious, and he wanted to move the cart off the man more out of respect than anything else. Of course, if the guy's head was torn off (again, something obvious), that might have aroused more peculiar suspicion. But as he saw it, something had killed a lot of people, but it could have just been a monster or a maniac as far as he knew (never would have guessed it was someone following the instructions of a demon), and he didn't have any reason to think that the dead miners would have anything useful... especially since they did die... plus, they were all sick & gross... and then with the exploding barrel (I don't know if that blew up anything useful?), that was Parn simply seeing if anything was hiding them... just happened to be that he hit the barrel with kerosene and Duin thought to blow it up (which I think turned out awesome, with both the actual blowing up taking out our enemies AND the hilarity of effort it took to accomplish that)... in fact, that may have been my favorite scene, and in part because that damn weasel was the first thing we came across that actually posed an obvious risk to my character's life.
In the campaign I ran, I saw the players go in all kind of different directions than I had planned. It's kind of fuzzy in mind right now, but I remember one or two times I had some clues set up in a town to help them find the trail of the missing people, but then they just passed through town without investigating. In fact, I even had tweaked versions of their old characters the first campaign I played with them mixed into the story, but that was tied into the clue-finding, which they didn't really do. Although, later in one of those sessions, or the next session, they did ask around in another town, that wasn't set up to give them much info, but something that came up casually (and without intent to get them on the previous track... someone asked in a shop what the missing people bought, and one of the items I listed off the top of my head was bedrolls, and that made them think they were camping), did send them off into the woods like I hoped.... and if they didn't go through the woods, it wound have just taken longer to find the missing people, and more of them could have died before being rescued, but they still would have gotten there, so it wasn't going to derail the campaign.
Going back on track to what Rabbit mentioned, I have players pass up on valuable items by missing them or not even looking... and in the campaign I mentioned, sometimes things that were set up as useful early on to be found later, are no longer of interest to the player because the PC was progressing in a different direction by that point or had been killed and a new PC was in play who didn't want/need the same things.
I've had players gain items that I hadn't expected them too, but that was through good ingenuity, so they totally deserved it! Long story short, they were fighting a bunch of gnolls, including a pair that were part demon... one of which could fly and was just going to rain down some serious hurt until the rest were vanquished and then fly off... but the players had rings which let them fly a few times (given when they boarded an airship earlier in the campaign) and some still had a charge or two remaining, so they took to the air after the flying demon gnoll, dragged it down with a net, and totally killed it. I actually didn't think they'd be able to kill this creature, and they got some great items out of it.
And I would like to see more gaining of stuff through methods other than the "kill it and take their stuff" standard.
I think it'll be particularly interesting if we go back to the mine because as players we've already experienced it, but it'll be a brand new scene to most of our characters... but also, our player minds will already know what happened last time and probably figure it won't all be the same... and maybe even have some ideas on how it'll be different... so keeping all that in check is something that I think will be important. I guess it helps that there is one survivor to help us find an appropriate middle ground between the old player / new character minds.
And... there was something else I wanted to mention, but after all the rambling, it has slipped my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit on May 20, 2009 19:25:06 GMT -5
And... there was something else I wanted to mention, but after all the rambling, it has slipped my mind. was it that you like pie? |
|
|
|
Post by reefwood on May 20, 2009 19:28:22 GMT -5
And... there was something else I wanted to mention, but after all the rambling, it has slipped my mind. was it that you like pie? I do like pie... and it's been a while since I've had some... but something else I wanted to mention is that I really enjoyed that most of us wound up deaf. It was fun, and even as a player, I didn't expect the mine cart to be booby-trapped. Totally caught me off guard, but once we learned that these creatures were kobolds, it totally makes sense! |
|
|
|
Post by icnivad on May 21, 2009 16:53:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I tend to agree with what's been said. The challenge was great, and while doable, it was really difficult and we didn't quite rise to the challenge. I don't think that it was "too hard" at all, and would be disappointed if the DM dumbed it down, or didn't properly scale it up for second level characters. I think failing at things makes eventually succeeding at them so much more rewarding. Rabbit did an excellent job of creating a realistic, complex situation and one of our biggest flaws as players was our metagaming a little too much. Freud once said "Sometimes a kobold is just a kobold". Or maybe I'm misremembering that a little. Anyway, I think that we all thought that the kobolds were "up to something devious", when in hindsight, while they were up to something, it was a harmless something. We can all learn a little from this.
|
|
