Had a lot of fun on this. But I couldn't help thinking about the game, the mechanics, the balance, where the "good guys" made their mistakes etc etc.
So here are my thoughts
1 - The "realtime" action didn't really work.
I don't think its possible to do it "realtime"
Theres only one DM, and six of us competing for his attention. If someone is discussing something with the DM, I prefer to wait until I can get a word in edgewise (often I'm ignored anyway but hey) Descriptions take time to communicate verbally whereas our "characters" input of the audio/visual info would be much faster. I think realtime is unrealistic.
It also shouldn't go TOO far the other way, and consider a 10 minute tactical discussion (talk talk talk) to be concluded in 30 seconds.
The two extreme examples:
- Going through the gate after Sarah's character. It was my initial immediate reaction, and I don't think I could have responded much faster, but even so it was still 3-4 rounds before I got through the gate.
- The discussion of buffing before the final battle (the other extreme) I think was handled well in the end, even if it did go on for a while.
2 - Note passing and player positioning.
The three "sneaky evil" characters had seats near to the DM to facilitate note passing. Not sure if this was DM's planning, Player planning or probably both. Affect on the game? Probably a bit. Colin would have been most disadvantaged by this, my character didn't really have much of a need for note passing.
3 - Goals and character design.
I for one had no hint to expect betrayal. In hindsight the hints were there but I still designed the character and approached the game as a regular dungeon crawl, whereas other players knew a bit more about what to expect and had abilities/spells designed to take out the other party members. (Appropriate spells prepared, and I also guess feat/skill design etc etc).
Also I was concentrating on getting to grips with a new character and abilities (trying to stay alive in the first fight and failing) rather than on what everyone else was doing. I guess I didn't catch on quick enough that the game had changed.
4 - Player psychology
OOC: After travelling through 2-3 other adventure worlds with you guys, I guess I'm too used to trusting fellow players. Letting the rogue go off and scout is something we normally do (though not to the extent that happened in this game). I guess I was playing very lawful stupid being too trusting. Again it was not catching on quick enough that the game had changed.
Thats more than enough from me for now
Cheers,
Stefan
garyhenson.net
Postgame thoughts - What worked and what didn't
9 posts • Page 1 of 1
Postgame thoughts - What worked and what didn't
by stefan on 20 Aug 2007, 10:33
- stefan
- Small Fry
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 11:53
by gary on 20 Aug 2007, 11:30
Good comments, to which I'll add my 2c.
Realtime
As mentioned, it was only during "tactical discussions" that this was important. And in fact, the entire reason for this mechanic, and the only place in which it was used, was in the portal puzzle. I wasn't keeping track of it anywhere else, and it had exactly the effect I was hoping for.
To that end, in my mind it did work, as it did take you that long to react after I had finished my description of what happened to Marni. I can see it actually being like that in "real life" too, as there would be the surprise element and the clanking up to the portal element.
However, I can appreciate that it is often hard to get a word in. As I reminded you all numerous times that it was on the clock, I hoped to keep out of character remarks to an absolute minimum. This didn't work as well as I had hoped.
Note Passing and Player Positioning
I wanted David sitting closer, as he had the most notes to be sent, but I don't know if any of the others intentionally sat where they did. I suspect they did, as their characters did need to be sneaky.
What I feel was lacking was more notes between the characters themselves.
Goals and Character Design
Dane wasn't supposed to have any hint of a possible betrayal at the start, but both Eadur and Roman did. These two were in a good position of knowing the one person the group that they could trust, being Dane. However, neither of them took this past a "Do you know anything about Marni?" note.
If they had both shared their suspicions with Dane, all three of the "evil" characters would then have been watched much more closely, and the last combat would have been much fairer (without as much buffing on the bad guys).
Player Psychology
This is one of the reasons I wanted to run this scenario. I figured it would be fun to actually have the PCs fight with each other, to the death, as it's something we have never done.
The goals were really focused around more player interaction during the traversal through the castle. I think a lot of our historical bent towards only dealing with the DM with regards to secret matters hurt this part of it.
Balance
Doing a slightly more thorough analysis, the good guys did have better magical equipment, but the bad guys had more overall power on their side. I think compared in two groups of three, it was actually quite balanced, IF the three good guys had figured out they may end up opposing the others earlier.
Realtime
As mentioned, it was only during "tactical discussions" that this was important. And in fact, the entire reason for this mechanic, and the only place in which it was used, was in the portal puzzle. I wasn't keeping track of it anywhere else, and it had exactly the effect I was hoping for.
To that end, in my mind it did work, as it did take you that long to react after I had finished my description of what happened to Marni. I can see it actually being like that in "real life" too, as there would be the surprise element and the clanking up to the portal element.
However, I can appreciate that it is often hard to get a word in. As I reminded you all numerous times that it was on the clock, I hoped to keep out of character remarks to an absolute minimum. This didn't work as well as I had hoped.
Note Passing and Player Positioning
I wanted David sitting closer, as he had the most notes to be sent, but I don't know if any of the others intentionally sat where they did. I suspect they did, as their characters did need to be sneaky.
What I feel was lacking was more notes between the characters themselves.
Goals and Character Design
Dane wasn't supposed to have any hint of a possible betrayal at the start, but both Eadur and Roman did. These two were in a good position of knowing the one person the group that they could trust, being Dane. However, neither of them took this past a "Do you know anything about Marni?" note.
If they had both shared their suspicions with Dane, all three of the "evil" characters would then have been watched much more closely, and the last combat would have been much fairer (without as much buffing on the bad guys).
Player Psychology
This is one of the reasons I wanted to run this scenario. I figured it would be fun to actually have the PCs fight with each other, to the death, as it's something we have never done.
The goals were really focused around more player interaction during the traversal through the castle. I think a lot of our historical bent towards only dealing with the DM with regards to secret matters hurt this part of it.
Balance
Doing a slightly more thorough analysis, the good guys did have better magical equipment, but the bad guys had more overall power on their side. I think compared in two groups of three, it was actually quite balanced, IF the three good guys had figured out they may end up opposing the others earlier.
-
gary - Site Admin
- Posts: 230
- Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 16:28
by sarah on 21 Aug 2007, 08:27
Firstly, I'd like to thank Gary for DMing the campaign. I know he put a lot of work into it and I had a lot of fun.
Like Stefan I also had to get past the usual 'players work together' psychology, even going so far as checking with Gary before the final battle that it was ok for me to shoot everyone else with sneak attacks. Playing a chaotic neutral character was also interesting, and hopefully I did a reasonable job of it.
My seat position was actually dictated by the fact I wanted to be able to get up and down easily and thus I wanted to be near the door. Being able to easily pass notes to Gary was a happy side-effect of that.
Like Stefan I also had to get past the usual 'players work together' psychology, even going so far as checking with Gary before the final battle that it was ok for me to shoot everyone else with sneak attacks. Playing a chaotic neutral character was also interesting, and hopefully I did a reasonable job of it.
My seat position was actually dictated by the fact I wanted to be able to get up and down easily and thus I wanted to be near the door. Being able to easily pass notes to Gary was a happy side-effect of that.
-
sarah - Rookie
- Posts: 120
- Joined: 17 Jul 2006, 13:24
by david on 21 Aug 2007, 13:30
I had fun too. However my extra knowledge would have helped with making it more enjoyable. I was watching everything going on with a vested interest in everyone else's abilities, the damage they took, spells they wasted etc... an extra layer which the good team were lacking because of their missing knowledge.
In terms of balance that knowledge was fairly important. Firstly it meant I could make my character with a view to fighting other characters. TBH I don't think this mattered that much. I was trying to pick the sort of spells/feats an Evil Sorcerer who controlled a town for years would take. In that context Suggestion, Mass and Dominate Person were obvious spells. Perhaps the only one I might not have picked without prior knowledge of inter-party conflict is Mislead... although even then I might have as it is a very nice spell (sufficiently so that I noticed Chris memorized it for his cleric).
Secondly it meant I could plan for the inter-party battle. I could just sit back and as soon as it looked like we had the current castle occupants under control I could let lose. That made a much bigger difference IMO. I was Invisible, had See Invisible cast and was guaranteed a roundsof pre-emptive strike against my biggest threats.
However the biggest problem was probably the Greater Invisibility I had. It is no secret that I think Greater Invisibility is insanely good (hence no one has it in Ithica
. I guess from WotC's point of view it is meant to be balanced by the spell counters (eg See Invisible, Dispel Magic, True Seeing) or by Blind Fight/Scent, etc, but that still leaves monsters without these abilities completely screwed in an encounter against even one greater invisible PC.
In this scenario I was surprised that neither of the two spell casters on the good side had any anti-invisible spells. This could be partly because of a lack of experience with Invisibility in Ithica, although everyone should still remember invisible Drusilia dominating in Ravenloft. Even if it had been a straight scenario with the Evil Sorcerer waiting for us in the castle the chances are good he would have resorted to invisibility.
Anyway, I thought the concept of the scenario was excellent and I really enjoyed it. I suspect the good characters didn't enjoy it so much but I would be keen to do another similar scenario some day with everyone being a bit more clued in. I even have an idea for such a thing but it will have to percolate for a while... maybe in 2008
Cheers.
In terms of balance that knowledge was fairly important. Firstly it meant I could make my character with a view to fighting other characters. TBH I don't think this mattered that much. I was trying to pick the sort of spells/feats an Evil Sorcerer who controlled a town for years would take. In that context Suggestion, Mass and Dominate Person were obvious spells. Perhaps the only one I might not have picked without prior knowledge of inter-party conflict is Mislead... although even then I might have as it is a very nice spell (sufficiently so that I noticed Chris memorized it for his cleric).
Secondly it meant I could plan for the inter-party battle. I could just sit back and as soon as it looked like we had the current castle occupants under control I could let lose. That made a much bigger difference IMO. I was Invisible, had See Invisible cast and was guaranteed a roundsof pre-emptive strike against my biggest threats.
However the biggest problem was probably the Greater Invisibility I had. It is no secret that I think Greater Invisibility is insanely good (hence no one has it in Ithica
. I guess from WotC's point of view it is meant to be balanced by the spell counters (eg See Invisible, Dispel Magic, True Seeing) or by Blind Fight/Scent, etc, but that still leaves monsters without these abilities completely screwed in an encounter against even one greater invisible PC.
In this scenario I was surprised that neither of the two spell casters on the good side had any anti-invisible spells. This could be partly because of a lack of experience with Invisibility in Ithica, although everyone should still remember invisible Drusilia dominating in Ravenloft. Even if it had been a straight scenario with the Evil Sorcerer waiting for us in the castle the chances are good he would have resorted to invisibility.
Anyway, I thought the concept of the scenario was excellent and I really enjoyed it. I suspect the good characters didn't enjoy it so much but I would be keen to do another similar scenario some day with everyone being a bit more clued in. I even have an idea for such a thing but it will have to percolate for a while... maybe in 2008
Cheers.
- david
- Rookie
- Posts: 164
- Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 18:05
by chris on 24 Aug 2007, 11:10
I think my character suffered from my own lack of experience playing high-level characters: stocking up on Dispell and anti-invisibility spells certainly seems to be the obvious thing to do now that I've seen the consequence of not doing so: the outcome might have been very different had I had that foresight.
I suspect that if we tried a similar thing again there might be an unrealistic level of mistrust between the characters: This time the way I played Roman was borne of not having any strong reason to distrust the other characters, and hence defaulting to a Mister Team Player Cleric which tends to be what clerics do best. Next time I might get murderous at a much earlier juncture...
Maybe next time we'll need something else to mess with our heads?
Also: I would like to add my thanks to others' to Gary for putting in the preparation and DMing for us. It can't have been easy looking after three invisible characters with various different spell effects and motives.
For what it's worth, I quite liked aspects of the real-time experiment: it's a little more realistic, and hence more exciting, if we can't spend minutes on end each round making what would be "instantaneous" decisions. I think it's a train of thought worth persuing: perhaps during combat we should at least apply the "within reason" aspect of the free action rules.
I suspect that if we tried a similar thing again there might be an unrealistic level of mistrust between the characters: This time the way I played Roman was borne of not having any strong reason to distrust the other characters, and hence defaulting to a Mister Team Player Cleric which tends to be what clerics do best. Next time I might get murderous at a much earlier juncture...
Maybe next time we'll need something else to mess with our heads?
Also: I would like to add my thanks to others' to Gary for putting in the preparation and DMing for us. It can't have been easy looking after three invisible characters with various different spell effects and motives.
For what it's worth, I quite liked aspects of the real-time experiment: it's a little more realistic, and hence more exciting, if we can't spend minutes on end each round making what would be "instantaneous" decisions. I think it's a train of thought worth persuing: perhaps during combat we should at least apply the "within reason" aspect of the free action rules.
-
chris - Greenhorn
- Posts: 79
- Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 12:31
by gary on 24 Aug 2007, 11:20
I don't necessarily think that there would be more distrust, not to a stupid level anyway, but it would definately make people wonder who they could trust.
And that is the point: Character/Player Interaction. Talk amongst yourselves and figure out who is who. Look for clues in behaviour etc. The DM is not the only source of answers in this scenario, he's only there to provide the world, and play NPCs.
It's basically a role-playing version of Bang.
And that is the point: Character/Player Interaction. Talk amongst yourselves and figure out who is who. Look for clues in behaviour etc. The DM is not the only source of answers in this scenario, he's only there to provide the world, and play NPCs.
It's basically a role-playing version of Bang.
- Everyone knows who the sheriff is.
The sheriff has two "deputies".
There is one renegade.
There are two "outlaws" (in a manner of speaking, the difference is they are "helping" the renegade".
-
gary - Site Admin
- Posts: 230
- Joined: 27 Jun 2006, 16:28
by chris on 24 Aug 2007, 11:50
The major difference is that in Bang everyone knows from the start that there is a sheriff, two deputies, two outlaws and a renegade. In our game the good guys had to figure that out. Perhaps as a result, next time the players would come to the table with that idea readily implanted (be it true or not). This is just speculation.
On the other hand: In Bang, of course, the first thing that happens is that people try to kill one another. Of course, other options don't really exist in Bang, but I don't suppose players would waste much time with them even if they did. Same would probably go if we had too much suspicion from the start in a PvP D&D game: it would have been one big punch up from the first whistle, and we might not even have reached the castle!
I guess there's a balance to be found somewhere, but I think that this time the good guys had something of a disadvantage in that we had to figure out that there were evil players at all before we could really start working towards our goals. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the day, which is really what it's about.
On the other hand: In Bang, of course, the first thing that happens is that people try to kill one another. Of course, other options don't really exist in Bang, but I don't suppose players would waste much time with them even if they did. Same would probably go if we had too much suspicion from the start in a PvP D&D game: it would have been one big punch up from the first whistle, and we might not even have reached the castle!
I guess there's a balance to be found somewhere, but I think that this time the good guys had something of a disadvantage in that we had to figure out that there were evil players at all before we could really start working towards our goals. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the day, which is really what it's about.
-
chris - Greenhorn
- Posts: 79
- Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 12:31
by david on 24 Aug 2007, 15:34
Yeah, there was some talk about this after the game. If people are given too much reason to distrust each other then it could be all out war from the start.
On the other hand most people needed the current occupants of the castle killed (even my character) and I know I was working on the assumption that I would need everyone elses help in order to achieve that goal. So I had to balance between having the party too weak and failing to kill the current occupants, and having the party too strong and being unable to kill them when I backstab.
Remember I didn't know that two others in the party would back me once they worked out who I was so it was a LOT riskier proposition from my point of view than it turned out to be. In fact even with my pretty good start to the backstab (albeit pointless since the Feeblemind was undone) and no one being able to see me I think there is a good chance I would have lost if Sarah and Matt's characters had been against me as I was assuming!
My tentative idea for how to structure another take on this one day scenario involves a wider variety of goals, some in conflict, some not, so that there are potentially more than two sides but at the same time some sides can get partial victory without eliminating the other. Of course its all very rough at this stage and I haven't written any of it down but I'll get to it...
If anyone else wants to have a go and come up with a scenario I would also be keen to be a player again.
On the other hand most people needed the current occupants of the castle killed (even my character) and I know I was working on the assumption that I would need everyone elses help in order to achieve that goal. So I had to balance between having the party too weak and failing to kill the current occupants, and having the party too strong and being unable to kill them when I backstab.
Remember I didn't know that two others in the party would back me once they worked out who I was so it was a LOT riskier proposition from my point of view than it turned out to be. In fact even with my pretty good start to the backstab (albeit pointless since the Feeblemind was undone) and no one being able to see me I think there is a good chance I would have lost if Sarah and Matt's characters had been against me as I was assuming!
My tentative idea for how to structure another take on this one day scenario involves a wider variety of goals, some in conflict, some not, so that there are potentially more than two sides but at the same time some sides can get partial victory without eliminating the other. Of course its all very rough at this stage and I haven't written any of it down but I'll get to it...
If anyone else wants to have a go and come up with a scenario I would also be keen to be a player again.
- david
- Rookie
- Posts: 164
- Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 18:05
9 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest