In the past I have done some play by post between games, we could only meet every 3 weeks and then for 6-12 hours so I did stuff over the net every Tu and Th. It worked out fairly well and based on everyone's other commitments. In general I do not like to play in less then 5 blocks as it dramatically changes the game. Sort of like how tv shows differ from 2hour to 1 hour to 30 min to 15 min to 10 min or 7min blocks.
My suggestion to you is to give players some goal to meet before they are killed and then after the TPK have the adventure the previous characters went through part of the story line for the new group. Tell them that yes this party will end up with a TPK, that is assured however there is a goal that they must accomplish, you can tell them what it is OOC or you can make it a puzzle they have to figure out or something in between, vague warnings from NPC's etc. Make certain that the characters in game are told they are fated to do a certain task.
So if it is bugmen with some insane advantage such as pheremones that charm at such a high DC the bugmen are assured to wipe out entire towns etc. then maybe there is some gem locked in an alter somewhere that is empowering the effect and destroying it eliminates the ability or brings it down to mortal levels from God hood status. So now the bugs can't fly into a city and turn half the populace into thralls in one round etc.
The party is on a suicide mission, a real one, one they will become aware of in game but they will be the only ones that can stop the threat, etc. So, the goal then is to complete the mission . Once that is done you don't even have to play out the TPK, you can narrate it explaining the story of how they faced the horde and were vanquished but then how the bugs or the threat was mitigated or averted. There replacement characters can start out at the level their other characters were plus one and they can have a new goal or be the group that avenges the death of the heroes who allowed them to push back, etc.
So long as the party has a goal to complete they can feel like there is a point to their efforts.
We tried out a variate world (back in 3rd edition when it was OGL), On paper the system looked different and intriguing. Magic was controlled by the Mage Council and the tyrant sorcerer king. They had Mage Finders (classes that were meant to sniff out and hunt any arcane magic). They had devices in all the urban centers which could detect any magic cast in their perimeter of miles and tag the caster with a glowing aura allowing them to be hunted. To undue the aura you had to leave the area of effect of the device which meant the city. The party were revolutionaries and had to constantly watch out to ensure they were not caught casting magical spells.
The problem was the we all got annoyed with the game after a few sessions, even the DM because it felt like Run Away the RPG. It just felt like there was no point as you never got to a point that you could do anything. The premise was great for a novel but terrible for an RPG. This is because the fun of the RPG is accomplishments, winning.
To do what you want to do you have to figure out something that the party can do in order to win that the party can get invested in, then there is a point to the efforts.
For me, I role play to role play. Whatever the situation - traps, puzzles, fights etc. I want to real time interact with people and bounce ideas back and forth etc. What I don’t want to do is write a couple of lines of text and then have to wait 3 days for someone to reply or the dm to say “your attack missed”. That’s mind numbing for me. Some people are okay with it and that’s great but not me.
yeah, as much as pbp can be a nice amenity to have these days, losing roleplay is losing not just a part of dnd, but a pillar of dnd, and arguably one of if not the most important ones (the others being combat and exploration). I have heard of and been in roleplay only games. I've never heard of combat or exploration only games. Therefore, I tend to prize roleplay and stay out of pbp, but that's just me.
Your basic concept sounds interesting but I think it might fall apart in practice.
Players like to be engaged with the game. They also like playing characters, interacting with the world, attaining objectives and victories even if pyrrhic ones. You lay out up front that the campaign will be dangerous and deadly, characters will die but their sacrifice will delay the onslaught and allow some citizens to escape but that ultimately the only success available is to try to reduce the number of civilians killed while the rest flee.
However, when you get down to playing it, you are playing a series of throw away characters with no investment in the characters whatsoever. The players have to invest in achieving a plot goal through a series of random and disconnected characters which in the end will feel pretty pointless for many people who were looking for a D&D game to play. Why bother with a role playing game when the role playing has no meaning, no impact, no significance? The characters will die, the country will be over run and the best outcome possible is that some people, few or none of which will be the PCs, will survive. It's possible that by the time the player's reach this realization they have already played a few sessions, experience the issue, and decided it just isn't fun to play.
In some ways, this approach reduces D&D to a tactical board war game where the players are controlling the forces on one side, the DM the other, and the character sheets just represent the forces currently available for use with the goal of them being deployed as optimally as possible to achieve the overall strategic goals. However, the players aren't playing the characters, they are playing the generals/commanders who are allocating the forces with the scenarios being played out with D&D characters.
That type of scenario isn't really D&D since there isn't much in the way of role playing involved even if the character sheets are used to resolve the encounters. How different is that from a battletech or starfleet battles campaign where one side has overwhelming forces and the other sides objective and victory condition is to deploy their available forces in the best way possible to slow down the juggernaut and allow the survivors to escape off-planet or exit the sector?
I think that if you wanted such a campaign to work, the characters have to have continuity so that the players continue to feel a connection to the characters throughout and that their decisions and role playing matter. Their successes are based on saving towns until the population has time to flee, to protect the shipyards so that enough ships can be built that a significant fraction of the population can escape. Their victories are measured in the number of lives they manage to save - but it has to be the same characters (Or as in your other game, a god provides the continuity for the player if a character dies) - so that the players remain connected and invested with the characters they are playing. Without that connection, it becomes very easy to think "why am I spending time on this, it is grim, we can't win, characters die, and there is no success, why waste my time?"
Anyway, just some thoughts on why some folks might not find the concept enjoyable or workable in practice.
I'm going to try to respond to a lot of posts - while not responding directly to any one, specific, quoted post. So in all likelyhood, I'm responding to you, but in maybe sort of a general way. I promise that I'm not ignoring you =)
Many said that maybe the problem is that this was pbp. Well - actually, I figured that pbp would be an advantage. It's less of an investment on the part of the players, and also I can draw from a much larger pool people, who opt in by choice. Also, my tabletop game are as old as I am, and they're grumpy old bastards who dislike anything new. So it had to be pbp.
Anyways, I could be wrong. But as I've said, the idea attracted a lot of attention, I had players enough willing to give it a try. No, I think my execution was off. Me being the weakest link in any of my plans is basically par for the course. But yea, the rogue-like thing had a lot of people excited.
So, an essential mechanic of the game (the bugmen one) was that ... you can do what you like. You want your character to live? Well, then run away. But there's a cost to that, you're weakening the defence, losing the encounter perhaps. But you're more than welcome to play that guy. Or girl, as it were. Another core mechanic was the investment of forces: They're soldiers, they're there to fight - and potentially die. Position them right, give the right orders, and you will inflict greater losses on the bugmen, winning time - maybe even allowing retreat rather than death.
This worked well for the first encounter, which was a basic fortress defence. The next encounter was a pursuit sort of thing, riding for where the third encounter would be - a pass, thing 300, an easily defensive choke point with elevated archer positions. Encounter 2 wasn't ... I mean, it worked mechanically, but lo-and-behold .. we never got to encounter 3. In retrospect, I do see the weakness there: All three are varieties of defensive actions. Now, they play out differently - but maybe that's not enough.
I should propably have let the players chose. After the first defensive encounter, let them decide: We can push forward, and destroy this bridge (but the team doing so is sure to be surrounded and killed), or we can ... do some other thing. Maybe I should also have made a combo of primary characters (with a greater chance of survival) and throw-away mooks - so, for an actual suicide mission, you don't have to invest your primary. That could go either way, tho.
In terms of investment in character, which has come up in various forms - well, I'm not sure I agree. Sure, it's certainly different. But I've had many dreams over the years of playing a character willing to make a heroic last stand. Well, here's the chance. To play such a character, with a guarantee of actually having that last stand. Also, again, rogue-likes: It's a popular format.
So yea - I'm looking for a type of player who is willing to go through a few characters in the course of a campaign (I'd estimate 3-5 if I got to pull off the entire thing). I don't think that's impossible to find.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I'm going to try to respond to a lot of posts - while not responding directly to any one, specific, quoted post. So in all likelyhood, I'm responding to you, but in maybe sort of a general way. I promise that I'm not ignoring you =)
Many said that maybe the problem is that this was pbp. Well - actually, I figured that pbp would be an advantage. It's less of an investment on the part of the players, and also I can draw from a much larger pool people, who opt in by choice. Also, my tabletop game are as old as I am, and they're grumpy old bastards who dislike anything new. So it had to be pbp.
Anyways, I could be wrong. But as I've said, the idea attracted a lot of attention, I had players enough willing to give it a try. No, I think my execution was off. Me being the weakest link in any of my plans is basically par for the course. But yea, the rogue-like thing had a lot of people excited.
So, an essential mechanic of the game (the bugmen one) was that ... you can do what you like. You want your character to live? Well, then run away. But there's a cost to that, you're weakening the defence, losing the encounter perhaps. But you're more than welcome to play that guy. Or girl, as it were. Another core mechanic was the investment of forces: They're soldiers, they're there to fight - and potentially die. Position them right, give the right orders, and you will inflict greater losses on the bugmen, winning time - maybe even allowing retreat rather than death.
This worked well for the first encounter, which was a basic fortress defence. The next encounter was a pursuit sort of thing, riding for where the third encounter would be - a pass, thing 300, an easily defensive choke point with elevated archer positions. Encounter 2 wasn't ... I mean, it worked mechanically, but lo-and-behold .. we never got to encounter 3. In retrospect, I do see the weakness there: All three are varieties of defensive actions. Now, they play out differently - but maybe that's not enough.
I should propably have let the players chose. After the first defensive encounter, let them decide: We can push forward, and destroy this bridge (but the team doing so is sure to be surrounded and killed), or we can ... do some other thing. Maybe I should also have made a combo of primary characters (with a greater chance of survival) and throw-away mooks - so, for an actual suicide mission, you don't have to invest your primary. That could go either way, tho.
In terms of investment in character, which has come up in various forms - well, I'm not sure I agree. Sure, it's certainly different. But I've had many dreams over the years of playing a character willing to make a heroic last stand. Well, here's the chance. To play such a character, with a guarantee of actually having that last stand. Also, again, rogue-likes: It's a popular format.
So yea - I'm looking for a type of player who is willing to go through a few characters in the course of a campaign (I'd estimate 3-5 if I got to pull off the entire thing). I don't think that's impossible to find.
the problem is you seem to be describing this as open world, do what you want, but also limiting the player's options (i.e., your character IS going to die...) in the same breath. the way you're describing things at the end of the paragraph is fine... IF you can find players who enjoy that style of game. The problem is, I don't think you really can. I personally do not want to invest lots of time and skill into a campaign where I know, out the gate, that my character WILL be killed off. It just gives me no commitment and forces me as a player and by extension my character to just embrace nihilism. That's not fun. Instead of having people just cycle through characters (3-5?!? that'll get old veeeeeery quickly), maybe have them choose a 'primary' as you say, and maybe let them roleplay some npc's on the side? Might be kind of hard to pull off and understand in pbp, another reason I don't suggest that format. And yeah, if you are a sandbox DM, always let the players move the story. You can give hints, plot hooks, side quests, but they are the ones driving it at the end of the day. If there's anything I've learned, it's that things never go exactly as you planned them. So always have a contingency and another way for the players or villains to accomplish a goal.
So yea - I'm looking for a type of player who is willing to go through a few characters in the course of a campaign (I'd estimate 3-5 if I got to pull off the entire thing). I don't think that's impossible to find.
Impossible no, but certainly difficult. Like I said in my post I certainly found the idea appealing to begin with but not as a play by post. I’d rather scoop my kidney’s out with a desert spoon than do a play by post game. So yes you probably will get a lot of interest initially but I’m not surprised that it wanes very quickly simply because of that reason.
the problem is you seem to be describing this as open world, do what you want, but also limiting the player's options (i.e., your character IS going to die...) in the same breath. the way you're describing things at the end of the paragraph is fine... IF you can find players who enjoy that style of game. The problem is, I don't think you really can. I personally do not want to invest lots of time and skill into a campaign where I know, out the gate, that my character WILL be killed off. It just gives me no commitment and forces me as a player and by extension my character to just embrace nihilism. That's not fun. Instead of having people just cycle through characters (3-5?!? that'll get old veeeeeery quickly), maybe have them choose a 'primary' as you say, and maybe let them roleplay some npc's on the side? Might be kind of hard to pull off and understand in pbp, another reason I don't suggest that format. And yeah, if you are a sandbox DM, always let the players move the story. You can give hints, plot hooks, side quests, but they are the ones driving it at the end of the day. If there's anything I've learned, it's that things never go exactly as you planned them. So always have a contingency and another way for the players or villains to accomplish a goal.
I already did find those players - twice. They did drop out, but finding them wasn't hard. Frankly, recruitment was easy.
And ... players are welcome to do anything they please, it really is open world. But ... you're entering into it with open eyes: You know the game isn't about defeating the bugmen, and by design it also isn't about how you ran away to Vegas and lived there for two weeks, before the bugmen ate it. But you can. But you really shouldn't sign up, if that's what you want.
Actually, since you brought it up: Open world is much harder. Much harder to recruit for - much harder to play. Without a trail of breadcrumbs to follow, 95% players have no idea what to do, and just ... ghost.
Impossible no, but certainly difficult. Like I said in my post I certainly found the idea appealing to begin with but not as a play by post. I’d rather scoop my kidney’s out with a desert spoon than do a play by post game. So yes you probably will get a lot of interest initially but I’m not surprised that it wanes very quickly simply because of that reason.
Eh - I think you're propably wrong. I've had absolute tons of fun with pbp. It's different, tho. I get to have time to ponder each post - my characters actions and conversations. It drastically improves certain things, while sadly losing others entirely. But with a good group, it is way better than tabletop with anyone but close, personal friends.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
the problem is you seem to be describing this as open world, do what you want, but also limiting the player's options (i.e., your character IS going to die...) in the same breath. the way you're describing things at the end of the paragraph is fine... IF you can find players who enjoy that style of game. The problem is, I don't think you really can. I personally do not want to invest lots of time and skill into a campaign where I know, out the gate, that my character WILL be killed off. It just gives me no commitment and forces me as a player and by extension my character to just embrace nihilism. That's not fun. Instead of having people just cycle through characters (3-5?!? that'll get old veeeeeery quickly), maybe have them choose a 'primary' as you say, and maybe let them roleplay some npc's on the side? Might be kind of hard to pull off and understand in pbp, another reason I don't suggest that format. And yeah, if you are a sandbox DM, always let the players move the story. You can give hints, plot hooks, side quests, but they are the ones driving it at the end of the day. If there's anything I've learned, it's that things never go exactly as you planned them. So always have a contingency and another way for the players or villains to accomplish a goal.
I already did find those players - twice. They did drop out, but finding them wasn't hard. Frankly, recruitment was easy.
And ... players are welcome to do anything they please, it really is open world. But ... you're entering into it with open eyes: You know the game isn't about defeating the bugmen, and by design it also isn't about how you ran away to Vegas and lived there for two weeks, before the bugmen ate it. But you can. But you really shouldn't sign up, if that's what you want.
Actually, since you brought it up: Open world is much harder. Much harder to recruit for - much harder to play. Without a trail of breadcrumbs to follow, 95% players have no idea what to do, and just ... ghost.
Impossible no, but certainly difficult. Like I said in my post I certainly found the idea appealing to begin with but not as a play by post. I’d rather scoop my kidney’s out with a desert spoon than do a play by post game. So yes you probably will get a lot of interest initially but I’m not surprised that it wanes very quickly simply because of that reason.
Eh - I think you're propably wrong. I've had absolute tons of fun with pbp. It's different, tho. I get to have time to ponder each post - my characters actions and conversations. It drastically improves certain things, while sadly losing others entirely. But with a good group, it is way better than tabletop with anyone but close, personal friends.
And yet here you are complaining about how both times you tried to run this, the game fell apart…… I mean it fell apart for a reason, and I’m beginning to think I can see why.
the problem is you seem to be describing this as open world, do what you want, but also limiting the player's options (i.e., your character IS going to die...) in the same breath. the way you're describing things at the end of the paragraph is fine... IF you can find players who enjoy that style of game. The problem is, I don't think you really can. I personally do not want to invest lots of time and skill into a campaign where I know, out the gate, that my character WILL be killed off. It just gives me no commitment and forces me as a player and by extension my character to just embrace nihilism. That's not fun. Instead of having people just cycle through characters (3-5?!? that'll get old veeeeeery quickly), maybe have them choose a 'primary' as you say, and maybe let them roleplay some npc's on the side? Might be kind of hard to pull off and understand in pbp, another reason I don't suggest that format. And yeah, if you are a sandbox DM, always let the players move the story. You can give hints, plot hooks, side quests, but they are the ones driving it at the end of the day. If there's anything I've learned, it's that things never go exactly as you planned them. So always have a contingency and another way for the players or villains to accomplish a goal.
I already did find those players - twice. They did drop out, but finding them wasn't hard. Frankly, recruitment was easy.
And ... players are welcome to do anything they please, it really is open world. But ... you're entering into it with open eyes: You know the game isn't about defeating the bugmen, and by design it also isn't about how you ran away to Vegas and lived there for two weeks, before the bugmen ate it. But you can. But you really shouldn't sign up, if that's what you want.
Actually, since you brought it up: Open world is much harder. Much harder to recruit for - much harder to play. Without a trail of breadcrumbs to follow, 95% players have no idea what to do, and just ... ghost.
Impossible no, but certainly difficult. Like I said in my post I certainly found the idea appealing to begin with but not as a play by post. I’d rather scoop my kidney’s out with a desert spoon than do a play by post game. So yes you probably will get a lot of interest initially but I’m not surprised that it wanes very quickly simply because of that reason.
Eh - I think you're propably wrong. I've had absolute tons of fun with pbp. It's different, tho. I get to have time to ponder each post - my characters actions and conversations. It drastically improves certain things, while sadly losing others entirely. But with a good group, it is way better than tabletop with anyone but close, personal friends.
I think you're misunderstanding. We're not saying finding players is necessarily hard. You find them, but then they drop out, because the issue is they're characters are doomed from the start. That is the main issue.
I think you're misunderstanding. We're not saying finding players is necessarily hard. You find them, but then they drop out, because the issue is they're characters are doomed from the start. That is the main issue.
Not sure it is.
Frankly, no - I believe that isn't the problem at all. Sure, if I picked some random roleplayers and dropped them into a game like this, it would be. But when a good number of people apply for a game like this, knowing full well, in advance, what it is they're opting into - that's not the issue.
I think the problem is ... well, me, but I'm not going to take it personally. I think my encounters were poorly designed. I think I made them too kinda-sorta samey. I think I presented too little choice, and propably too little feedback on how their actions helped stem the tide of the bugmen.
I should propably have gone with 5x2 encounters - each time with a choice to do A or do B. 5 encounters, and offer an achievement for having a character survive all 5, or another for having a new character for all 5. And made some specifically offensive encounters.
For a game like this - if I were the player - I'd just an auto generator to spit out 5 random guys, and I'd just edit until I liked them, then go to town. And I promise I'd have fun with it. Also, I think I'd get the 2nd of the above achievements.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Past Players and Game Break UP: Why did the game break up? Why do the player think so and why do you think so? Are they the same?
Once you know why it broke you have a much better chance to fix it...if possible. What? Well the players might think it is a flaw and you think it is a feature. Note other players may agree with you and you just have not found them yet.
Past Players and Game Break UP: Why did the game break up? Why do the player think so and why do you think so? Are they the same?
Once you know why it broke you have a much better chance to fix it...if possible. What? Well the players might think it is a flaw and you think it is a feature. Note other players may agree with you and you just have not found them yet.
Well - sadly I don't know, I have only guesswork. I did ask for feedback, but either didn't get any, or got the standard 'RL too busy' thing. I guess people are just too polite to come out and say 'I think your idea sucked, and you such as a GM!' =D
I have only ever had the nicest feedback from players - which is funny because I really am just a fairly mediocre GM. But a very decent storyteller.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Past Players and Game Break UP: Why did the game break up? Why do the player think so and why do you think so? Are they the same?
Once you know why it broke you have a much better chance to fix it...if possible. What? Well the players might think it is a flaw and you think it is a feature. Note other players may agree with you and you just have not found them yet.
Well - sadly I don't know, I have only guesswork. I did ask for feedback, but either didn't get any, or got the standard 'RL too busy' thing. I guess people are just too polite to come out and say 'I think your idea sucked, and you such as a GM!' =D
I have only ever had the nicest feedback from players - which is funny because I really am just a fairly mediocre GM. But a very decent storyteller.
I do not know you or your game but in general this would say to me that I did something so wrong that the players would not even talk to me about it But again that is me guessing from your posts and my experience RPing for 40+ years....but again I do not have magical powers to analyze your issue.
Maybe when you run the game again you do an assessment/questionnaire after each encounter so you are constantly getting feedback.
I can say that I have posted with someone who said they were playing in a play by post game and there was too much politics, cussing and other things I will not mention here that really turned them off, so they quit. At first they simply ignored it and then it became too much of an issue to continue. I do not know them personally so I do not know if what they said was true or not but they did seem convincing in there tone and arguments.
Past Players and Game Break UP: Why did the game break up? Why do the player think so and why do you think so? Are they the same?
Once you know why it broke you have a much better chance to fix it...if possible. What? Well the players might think it is a flaw and you think it is a feature. Note other players may agree with you and you just have not found them yet.
Well - sadly I don't know, I have only guesswork. I did ask for feedback, but either didn't get any, or got the standard 'RL too busy' thing. I guess people are just too polite to come out and say 'I think your idea sucked, and you such as a GM!' =D
I have only ever had the nicest feedback from players - which is funny because I really am just a fairly mediocre GM. But a very decent storyteller.
I do not know you or your game but in general this would say to me that I did something so wrong that the players would not even talk to me about it But again that is me guessing from your posts and my experience RPing for 40+ years....but again I do not have magical powers to analyze your issue.
Maybe when you run the game again you do an assessment/questionnaire after each encounter so you are constantly getting feedback.
I can say that I have posted with someone who said they were playing in a play by post game and there was too much politics, cussing and other things I will not mention here that really turned them off, so they quit. At first they simply ignored it and then it became too much of an issue to continue. I do not know them personally so I do not know if what they said was true or not but they did seem convincing in there tone and arguments.
Again good luck.
Feedback from strangers is rarer by far than unicorns. Simply put, people are conflict averse by nature and avoid saying anything useful for fear it might be misunderstood.
I have played RPG's slightly shorter - only 35+ years - and pbp for maybe 10 years. I've never experienced much in the way of politics or language. There was this one guy ... I told him well before starting a Dark Heresy game that this would be a low power game, and to not expect any weapons more powerful than a bolter. Later, he insisted his tech priest should have 4 mechadendrites, each with a multilaser. When I denied this, he posted in-game that his character would go blow up the ships reactor, killing everyone.
But that's the only example.
But mileage may well vary. The point is, feedback is an illusion. No one wants to give any - except when it's happy feedback, 'you're the best GM I ever had', which is nice to hear, but basically useless =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
But mileage may well vary. The point is, feedback is an illusion. No one wants to give any - except when it's happy feedback, 'you're the best GM I ever had', which is nice to hear, but basically useless =)
This is an excuse, not a fact. The reality is that most individuals are open to providing constructive criticism if they are in an environment where they feel their criticism will be listened to. As I said before, you do not take criticism well—you have been overly defensive against folks trying to help you on this thread and have been resistant to admit you have any flaws (and, even when you “admit” flaws, you say things like you are “mediocre” but do other things well, so it isn’t really an admission). There have been numerous times you have doubled down on wrong readings of criticism (“but I have found players you are wrong” in response to “you have not found players who would stick with you”—which you have not found).
I repeat this not to be rude, but because you did ask for advice and feedback, and every data point - both your own facts about players not providing constructive criticism and your posts here - point to this being the advice and feedback you require. There are few things worse than a DM who will not take feedback. This also does not always mean a DM who is openly hostile to feedback—a fragile DM who cannot handle feedback, a standoffish and unapproachable DM, someone who just does not listen to the criticism, etc. there are dozens of ways one can dissuade players from providing valid criticism.
Now, I also feel confident in saying your gut reaction is going to be posting a long “but I do promote feedback, I just don’t get it!” post. But, rather than go with your gut reaction, I challenge you to think critically about yourself and really think about how you present to players and how you receive criticism.
To be honest I don’t think this is going to go anywhere. I mean, he had the temerity to tell me (a veteran player and dm in multiple different game systems of around 35 years) that I was wrong in not liking play by post games. I’m pretty sure I am old enough and experienced enough to know what style games I enjoy. That pretty much sums up all you need to know about why his games fell apart.
I do, though. I just happen to not agree with you. You are more than welcome to level any type and measure of criticism at me, in any way short of personal attack you please.
But if I disagree with you, then that's that. I'm listening, but I have absolutely zero obligation to agree with you.
Thank you kindly for your feedback.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To be honest I don’t think this is going to go anywhere. I mean, he had the temerity to tell me (a veteran player and dm in multiple different game systems of around 35 years) that I was wrong in not liking play by post games. I’m pretty sure I am old enough and experienced enough to know what style games I enjoy. That pretty much sums up all you need to know about why his games fell apart.
If that was me I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that some themes and situations do not work well in play by post, from my experience in playing in them. Quick action encounters can stretch out over days and or weeks due to players taking multiple small actions that have to interact with each other. Where as when you play in person or live those interactions can be easy(er) to deal with in a much more timely manner.
Your post reminds me of two other I have seen, one was a zombie survival game and the other I am less sure of the theme but also involved a lot of quick action and combat (from my memory). Both were a slow medium (post) for fast action and one was an author trying to write a book and hiding the fact from the players.
Calm voice:
This discussion seem to be the same as your first post about your issue and is going the same way. And if people only provide positive feedback that can be a problem and if people only provide negative feedback that can be a problem. You said you ran the game twice and they stopped in almost the same place twice, to me that says there is a problem and or issue at that point (possibly due to many factors).
Last time I also posted about a game I played in at a Con in which the GM had run the adventure around 8 times and only 2 times did the group "win" and most of the other times one or more PC's died and cased party wipe or missed important clues and the game could not progress. After talking to him about with him to me it sounded like his design had very tight railroad sections and then sections that had more freedom, and if a player deviated from his railroad tracks it was very problematic. Note I am not saying players should be allowed to solve issues by saying my PC solves it or I distract them with rubber ducks and sponge bob videos and we win.
How was the game different then last time you ran it? What was the same?
You might want to send a direct message to the past participants asking them directly Why did my game not run longer as I want to try and complete my series of campaigns? and other such direct questions.
Note: This also reminds me of a file about roleplaying in which a GM also lamented the fact his campaign did not reach the end and players got tired of what he was trying to do. They did not mind it at the beginning but over time it became tedious and that killed their interest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In the past I have done some play by post between games, we could only meet every 3 weeks and then for 6-12 hours so I did stuff over the net every Tu and Th. It worked out fairly well and based on everyone's other commitments. In general I do not like to play in less then 5 blocks as it dramatically changes the game. Sort of like how tv shows differ from 2hour to 1 hour to 30 min to 15 min to 10 min or 7min blocks.
My suggestion to you is to give players some goal to meet before they are killed and then after the TPK have the adventure the previous characters went through part of the story line for the new group. Tell them that yes this party will end up with a TPK, that is assured however there is a goal that they must accomplish, you can tell them what it is OOC or you can make it a puzzle they have to figure out or something in between, vague warnings from NPC's etc. Make certain that the characters in game are told they are fated to do a certain task.
So if it is bugmen with some insane advantage such as pheremones that charm at such a high DC the bugmen are assured to wipe out entire towns etc. then maybe there is some gem locked in an alter somewhere that is empowering the effect and destroying it eliminates the ability or brings it down to mortal levels from God hood status. So now the bugs can't fly into a city and turn half the populace into thralls in one round etc.
The party is on a suicide mission, a real one, one they will become aware of in game but they will be the only ones that can stop the threat, etc. So, the goal then is to complete the mission . Once that is done you don't even have to play out the TPK, you can narrate it explaining the story of how they faced the horde and were vanquished but then how the bugs or the threat was mitigated or averted. There replacement characters can start out at the level their other characters were plus one and they can have a new goal or be the group that avenges the death of the heroes who allowed them to push back, etc.
So long as the party has a goal to complete they can feel like there is a point to their efforts.
We tried out a variate world (back in 3rd edition when it was OGL), On paper the system looked different and intriguing. Magic was controlled by the Mage Council and the tyrant sorcerer king. They had Mage Finders (classes that were meant to sniff out and hunt any arcane magic). They had devices in all the urban centers which could detect any magic cast in their perimeter of miles and tag the caster with a glowing aura allowing them to be hunted. To undue the aura you had to leave the area of effect of the device which meant the city. The party were revolutionaries and had to constantly watch out to ensure they were not caught casting magical spells.
The problem was the we all got annoyed with the game after a few sessions, even the DM because it felt like Run Away the RPG. It just felt like there was no point as you never got to a point that you could do anything. The premise was great for a novel but terrible for an RPG. This is because the fun of the RPG is accomplishments, winning.
To do what you want to do you have to figure out something that the party can do in order to win that the party can get invested in, then there is a point to the efforts.
Just my thoughts!
yeah, as much as pbp can be a nice amenity to have these days, losing roleplay is losing not just a part of dnd, but a pillar of dnd, and arguably one of if not the most important ones (the others being combat and exploration). I have heard of and been in roleplay only games. I've never heard of combat or exploration only games. Therefore, I tend to prize roleplay and stay out of pbp, but that's just me.
Updog
Your basic concept sounds interesting but I think it might fall apart in practice.
Players like to be engaged with the game. They also like playing characters, interacting with the world, attaining objectives and victories even if pyrrhic ones. You lay out up front that the campaign will be dangerous and deadly, characters will die but their sacrifice will delay the onslaught and allow some citizens to escape but that ultimately the only success available is to try to reduce the number of civilians killed while the rest flee.
However, when you get down to playing it, you are playing a series of throw away characters with no investment in the characters whatsoever. The players have to invest in achieving a plot goal through a series of random and disconnected characters which in the end will feel pretty pointless for many people who were looking for a D&D game to play. Why bother with a role playing game when the role playing has no meaning, no impact, no significance? The characters will die, the country will be over run and the best outcome possible is that some people, few or none of which will be the PCs, will survive. It's possible that by the time the player's reach this realization they have already played a few sessions, experience the issue, and decided it just isn't fun to play.
In some ways, this approach reduces D&D to a tactical board war game where the players are controlling the forces on one side, the DM the other, and the character sheets just represent the forces currently available for use with the goal of them being deployed as optimally as possible to achieve the overall strategic goals. However, the players aren't playing the characters, they are playing the generals/commanders who are allocating the forces with the scenarios being played out with D&D characters.
That type of scenario isn't really D&D since there isn't much in the way of role playing involved even if the character sheets are used to resolve the encounters. How different is that from a battletech or starfleet battles campaign where one side has overwhelming forces and the other sides objective and victory condition is to deploy their available forces in the best way possible to slow down the juggernaut and allow the survivors to escape off-planet or exit the sector?
I think that if you wanted such a campaign to work, the characters have to have continuity so that the players continue to feel a connection to the characters throughout and that their decisions and role playing matter. Their successes are based on saving towns until the population has time to flee, to protect the shipyards so that enough ships can be built that a significant fraction of the population can escape. Their victories are measured in the number of lives they manage to save - but it has to be the same characters (Or as in your other game, a god provides the continuity for the player if a character dies) - so that the players remain connected and invested with the characters they are playing. Without that connection, it becomes very easy to think "why am I spending time on this, it is grim, we can't win, characters die, and there is no success, why waste my time?"
Anyway, just some thoughts on why some folks might not find the concept enjoyable or workable in practice.
I'm going to try to respond to a lot of posts - while not responding directly to any one, specific, quoted post. So in all likelyhood, I'm responding to you, but in maybe sort of a general way. I promise that I'm not ignoring you =)
Many said that maybe the problem is that this was pbp. Well - actually, I figured that pbp would be an advantage. It's less of an investment on the part of the players, and also I can draw from a much larger pool people, who opt in by choice. Also, my tabletop game are as old as I am, and they're grumpy old bastards who dislike anything new. So it had to be pbp.
Anyways, I could be wrong. But as I've said, the idea attracted a lot of attention, I had players enough willing to give it a try. No, I think my execution was off. Me being the weakest link in any of my plans is basically par for the course. But yea, the rogue-like thing had a lot of people excited.
So, an essential mechanic of the game (the bugmen one) was that ... you can do what you like. You want your character to live? Well, then run away. But there's a cost to that, you're weakening the defence, losing the encounter perhaps. But you're more than welcome to play that guy. Or girl, as it were. Another core mechanic was the investment of forces: They're soldiers, they're there to fight - and potentially die. Position them right, give the right orders, and you will inflict greater losses on the bugmen, winning time - maybe even allowing retreat rather than death.
This worked well for the first encounter, which was a basic fortress defence. The next encounter was a pursuit sort of thing, riding for where the third encounter would be - a pass, thing 300, an easily defensive choke point with elevated archer positions. Encounter 2 wasn't ... I mean, it worked mechanically, but lo-and-behold .. we never got to encounter 3. In retrospect, I do see the weakness there: All three are varieties of defensive actions. Now, they play out differently - but maybe that's not enough.
I should propably have let the players chose. After the first defensive encounter, let them decide: We can push forward, and destroy this bridge (but the team doing so is sure to be surrounded and killed), or we can ... do some other thing. Maybe I should also have made a combo of primary characters (with a greater chance of survival) and throw-away mooks - so, for an actual suicide mission, you don't have to invest your primary. That could go either way, tho.
In terms of investment in character, which has come up in various forms - well, I'm not sure I agree. Sure, it's certainly different. But I've had many dreams over the years of playing a character willing to make a heroic last stand. Well, here's the chance. To play such a character, with a guarantee of actually having that last stand. Also, again, rogue-likes: It's a popular format.
So yea - I'm looking for a type of player who is willing to go through a few characters in the course of a campaign (I'd estimate 3-5 if I got to pull off the entire thing). I don't think that's impossible to find.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
the problem is you seem to be describing this as open world, do what you want, but also limiting the player's options (i.e., your character IS going to die...) in the same breath. the way you're describing things at the end of the paragraph is fine... IF you can find players who enjoy that style of game. The problem is, I don't think you really can. I personally do not want to invest lots of time and skill into a campaign where I know, out the gate, that my character WILL be killed off. It just gives me no commitment and forces me as a player and by extension my character to just embrace nihilism. That's not fun. Instead of having people just cycle through characters (3-5?!? that'll get old veeeeeery quickly), maybe have them choose a 'primary' as you say, and maybe let them roleplay some npc's on the side? Might be kind of hard to pull off and understand in pbp, another reason I don't suggest that format. And yeah, if you are a sandbox DM, always let the players move the story. You can give hints, plot hooks, side quests, but they are the ones driving it at the end of the day. If there's anything I've learned, it's that things never go exactly as you planned them. So always have a contingency and another way for the players or villains to accomplish a goal.
Updog
Impossible no, but certainly difficult. Like I said in my post I certainly found the idea appealing to begin with but not as a play by post. I’d rather scoop my kidney’s out with a desert spoon than do a play by post game. So yes you probably will get a lot of interest initially but I’m not surprised that it wanes very quickly simply because of that reason.
I already did find those players - twice. They did drop out, but finding them wasn't hard. Frankly, recruitment was easy.
And ... players are welcome to do anything they please, it really is open world. But ... you're entering into it with open eyes: You know the game isn't about defeating the bugmen, and by design it also isn't about how you ran away to Vegas and lived there for two weeks, before the bugmen ate it. But you can. But you really shouldn't sign up, if that's what you want.
Actually, since you brought it up: Open world is much harder. Much harder to recruit for - much harder to play. Without a trail of breadcrumbs to follow, 95% players have no idea what to do, and just ... ghost.
Eh - I think you're propably wrong. I've had absolute tons of fun with pbp. It's different, tho. I get to have time to ponder each post - my characters actions and conversations. It drastically improves certain things, while sadly losing others entirely. But with a good group, it is way better than tabletop with anyone but close, personal friends.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
And yet here you are complaining about how both times you tried to run this, the game fell apart…… I mean it fell apart for a reason, and I’m beginning to think I can see why.
I think you're misunderstanding. We're not saying finding players is necessarily hard. You find them, but then they drop out, because the issue is they're characters are doomed from the start. That is the main issue.
Updog
Not sure it is.
Frankly, no - I believe that isn't the problem at all. Sure, if I picked some random roleplayers and dropped them into a game like this, it would be. But when a good number of people apply for a game like this, knowing full well, in advance, what it is they're opting into - that's not the issue.
I think the problem is ... well, me, but I'm not going to take it personally. I think my encounters were poorly designed. I think I made them too kinda-sorta samey. I think I presented too little choice, and propably too little feedback on how their actions helped stem the tide of the bugmen.
I should propably have gone with 5x2 encounters - each time with a choice to do A or do B. 5 encounters, and offer an achievement for having a character survive all 5, or another for having a new character for all 5. And made some specifically offensive encounters.
For a game like this - if I were the player - I'd just an auto generator to spit out 5 random guys, and I'd just edit until I liked them, then go to town. And I promise I'd have fun with it. Also, I think I'd get the 2nd of the above achievements.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Past Players and Game Break UP: Why did the game break up? Why do the player think so and why do you think so? Are they the same?
Once you know why it broke you have a much better chance to fix it...if possible. What? Well the players might think it is a flaw and you think it is a feature. Note other players may agree with you and you just have not found them yet.
Well - sadly I don't know, I have only guesswork. I did ask for feedback, but either didn't get any, or got the standard 'RL too busy' thing. I guess people are just too polite to come out and say 'I think your idea sucked, and you such as a GM!' =D
I have only ever had the nicest feedback from players - which is funny because I really am just a fairly mediocre GM. But a very decent storyteller.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I do not know you or your game but in general this would say to me that I did something so wrong that the players would not even talk to me about it But again that is me guessing from your posts and my experience RPing for 40+ years....but again I do not have magical powers to analyze your issue.
Maybe when you run the game again you do an assessment/questionnaire after each encounter so you are constantly getting feedback.
I can say that I have posted with someone who said they were playing in a play by post game and there was too much politics, cussing and other things I will not mention here that really turned them off, so they quit. At first they simply ignored it and then it became too much of an issue to continue. I do not know them personally so I do not know if what they said was true or not but they did seem convincing in there tone and arguments.
Again good luck.
Feedback from strangers is rarer by far than unicorns. Simply put, people are conflict averse by nature and avoid saying anything useful for fear it might be misunderstood.
I have played RPG's slightly shorter - only 35+ years - and pbp for maybe 10 years. I've never experienced much in the way of politics or language. There was this one guy ... I told him well before starting a Dark Heresy game that this would be a low power game, and to not expect any weapons more powerful than a bolter. Later, he insisted his tech priest should have 4 mechadendrites, each with a multilaser. When I denied this, he posted in-game that his character would go blow up the ships reactor, killing everyone.
But that's the only example.
But mileage may well vary. The point is, feedback is an illusion. No one wants to give any - except when it's happy feedback, 'you're the best GM I ever had', which is nice to hear, but basically useless =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
This is an excuse, not a fact. The reality is that most individuals are open to providing constructive criticism if they are in an environment where they feel their criticism will be listened to. As I said before, you do not take criticism well—you have been overly defensive against folks trying to help you on this thread and have been resistant to admit you have any flaws (and, even when you “admit” flaws, you say things like you are “mediocre” but do other things well, so it isn’t really an admission). There have been numerous times you have doubled down on wrong readings of criticism (“but I have found players you are wrong” in response to “you have not found players who would stick with you”—which you have not found).
I repeat this not to be rude, but because you did ask for advice and feedback, and every data point - both your own facts about players not providing constructive criticism and your posts here - point to this being the advice and feedback you require. There are few things worse than a DM who will not take feedback. This also does not always mean a DM who is openly hostile to feedback—a fragile DM who cannot handle feedback, a standoffish and unapproachable DM, someone who just does not listen to the criticism, etc. there are dozens of ways one can dissuade players from providing valid criticism.
Now, I also feel confident in saying your gut reaction is going to be posting a long “but I do promote feedback, I just don’t get it!” post. But, rather than go with your gut reaction, I challenge you to think critically about yourself and really think about how you present to players and how you receive criticism.
To be honest I don’t think this is going to go anywhere. I mean, he had the temerity to tell me (a veteran player and dm in multiple different game systems of around 35 years) that I was wrong in not liking play by post games. I’m pretty sure I am old enough and experienced enough to know what style games I enjoy. That pretty much sums up all you need to know about why his games fell apart.
I do, though. I just happen to not agree with you. You are more than welcome to level any type and measure of criticism at me, in any way short of personal attack you please.
But if I disagree with you, then that's that. I'm listening, but I have absolutely zero obligation to agree with you.
Thank you kindly for your feedback.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
If that was me I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that some themes and situations do not work well in play by post, from my experience in playing in them. Quick action encounters can stretch out over days and or weeks due to players taking multiple small actions that have to interact with each other. Where as when you play in person or live those interactions can be easy(er) to deal with in a much more timely manner.
Your post reminds me of two other I have seen, one was a zombie survival game and the other I am less sure of the theme but also involved a lot of quick action and combat (from my memory). Both were a slow medium (post) for fast action and one was an author trying to write a book and hiding the fact from the players.
Calm voice:
This discussion seem to be the same as your first post about your issue and is going the same way. And if people only provide positive feedback that can be a problem and if people only provide negative feedback that can be a problem. You said you ran the game twice and they stopped in almost the same place twice, to me that says there is a problem and or issue at that point (possibly due to many factors).
Last time I also posted about a game I played in at a Con in which the GM had run the adventure around 8 times and only 2 times did the group "win" and most of the other times one or more PC's died and cased party wipe or missed important clues and the game could not progress. After talking to him about with him to me it sounded like his design had very tight railroad sections and then sections that had more freedom, and if a player deviated from his railroad tracks it was very problematic. Note I am not saying players should be allowed to solve issues by saying my PC solves it or I distract them with rubber ducks and sponge bob videos and we win.
How was the game different then last time you ran it? What was the same?
You might want to send a direct message to the past participants asking them directly Why did my game not run longer as I want to try and complete my series of campaigns? and other such direct questions.
Note: This also reminds me of a file about roleplaying in which a GM also lamented the fact his campaign did not reach the end and players got tired of what he was trying to do. They did not mind it at the beginning but over time it became tedious and that killed their interest.