Battle Royale of the Gawds continuation

[reapersaurus]

you make a very good point of order:
that publicizing the ffects that are on a character does completely change the strategies involved.

I actually think it reduces the fun factor, in that it's less scary to attack someone when you know exactly what effects are on.

I don't know about you, but even when I'm pretty sure I have the upper hand (say, with Therron on full buff and in position), if I don't know what effects or powers a opponent has, it's awfully scary to just up and attack someone. You never know what a player might have up their sleeve.

That's one of the reasons why I wanted a Shield-Charger this Game, so there could be some quick kills early on. I was going to start attacking the second round, and keep going till I was dead.
That's what made it even more unfortunate when of all people, Therron was Mazed. This in a GoD that people always say takes too long, and has people buffing when they should be fighting.

One of the tough questions to answer for any GoD (I would think) is How much metagaming is acceptable?
Unless we see a custom map, that only shows us what our character would see and hear (which would be impossible), than we will know more than our characters do.

 

[Number47]

I don't think there is one best way to run a Game of Death. The DM simply has to make clear how he is running it, and people who find that appealing play in it.

 

[reapersaurus]

clockwork - you're right in most of that last post, and those are some valid points (except Sohei is not a critical part of the build, and I'm positive you OK'd it, and Iajutsu is part of the Singh PrC and you never apologized, nor was I looking for one), but we should probably just drop that...

I could have exercised more self-restraint, yes.
When I take up a challenge, though, I do it the best I can, and I consider it my responsibility to satisfy the requirements of the role I take up.
My role as a player was to compete effectively, try to kill people spectacularly, try to make entertaining posts, and have my actions ready when it's my turn, and provide feedback to the DM and spur on discussion from other players to share opinions and heighten involvement, so as to not have the Game flounder.

Just for edification's sake, I'll list what I believe to be the DM's role/responsibilities:
Don't dominate the game play: It's your responsibility to arbitrate as fairly as possible, and know or research the rules that are involved, so as to allow for an epic battle between min-maxed opponents.
The combatants should be the ones that dictate whether their characters live or die, not the vagaracies of DM guesses.
It is paramount that whatever happens, the game goes on. Have a reasonable turn-around time, whatever is reeasonable for that particular Game, but make sure there are no extended, repeated lapses. If a player does not respond in time for his turn, move on quickly.

One question:
Could someone explain to me this repeated opinion of GoD's that people have mentioned - "You have to keep things volatile, or it gets boring."
I don't underatand that, because the GoD's that I've experienced were not boring in any way shape or form. As long as my character is alive, there's tons of danger and things he can do.
Just because there were some stalemate-positions late in a Game or 2 doesn't mean that that's the default behavior of a GoD.
I think that if you affect the early-to-mid rounds with volatileness that is intended to stop late-round situations, you are improperly influencing the competition that is raging early.

 

[clockworkjoe]

I apologized in a thread at some point over the amount of time you had to spend on revisions, i would find it if I could search but i don't have that ability.

 

[Number47]

I can't believe my wife had to be the one to remind me! I ran a Game of Death, too! Admittedly, it was a little forgettable. Does anyone still remember commoner vs. cat?

I think there might be a perception that people are getting bored because the discussion stops. I personally checked the game four or five times a day. I think we all just ran out of things to say, is all. Just because we are hanging back quietly and waiting for our turn doesn't mean that we aren't watching avidly.

 

[green slime]

reapersaurus posted
Unless we see a custom map, that only shows us what our character would see and hear (which would be impossible), than we will know more than our characters do.

Believe it or not, that was my intention with my game of death, the one were I got feed up waiting for certain "players" to respond.

Agladan could confirm that, as I had discussed certain aspects of how I feel a game should be run with him.

 

[green slime]

reapersaurus stated
Could someone explain to me this repeated opinion of GoD's that people have mentioned - "You have to keep things volatile, or it gets boring."
I don't underatand that, because the GoD's that I've experienced were not boring in any way shape or form. As long as my character is alive, there's tons of danger and things he can do.
Just because there were some stalemate-positions late in a Game or 2 doesn't mean that that's the default behavior of a GoD.
I think that if you affect the early-to-mid rounds with volatileness that is intended to stop late-round situations, you are improperly influencing the competition that is raging early.

There has been a tendency for staleness right towards the end, this is probably due to many factors:

The DM wants to get it over and done with (understandable, after 6 months intensive "work") Perhaps DMs should work in teams? They'd have to located geographically together, and would perhaps even have to share an email address. This would speed up certain aspects. In the last game, seperate DMs could have handled the seperate map areas, and it is always good to have someone to discuss a ruling with. It would also make meshing in with real life much easier. But Where are these two dream DMs?

Many are actually slow to start the slaying, due to overcautious behaviour during round one and two (which, because of the number of participants and the medium can take like a month or two). I fall into this category. For me, survivability is premium. Should this strategy be shunned?

During the latter part, there can be a tendancy/desire to wait until a certain spell effect wears off, before tackling the last opponent on the field. While understandable, it makes for slow moving end game. This could probably be speeded up by requiring each of the participants to send in actions more frequently (daily, twice daily?)

But you are correct in your basic assumption that during the early to mid rounds, that there is little need to interfere with the tension. Someone usually has a nerfarious plot up their sleeve.

As a player there is far more tension, and guesswork going on than could possible be understood from an outside observer. (As soon as I saw the nimblewright illo, I thought: There's Norman!)

Some people see the GoD for its spectator value. I know Agladan feels this way. Perhaps I can convince him to post here. He likes the spectaculor changes and unpredicatable events.

BTW number47, when will we be seeing your GoD? You sort of suggested yourself as DM for one during this summer. Nearly summer now you know...

 

[reapersaurus]

For me, survivability is premium. Should this strategy be shunned?

Very good post.

Actually, yes, for me that strategy should be shunned, for the good of the Games.
I made it quite clear multiple times to clockwork that the only thing I wanted to do in this Game was clock ONE PERSON right away with a Smackdown-Charge, thus creating a memorable GoD play for all involved.
I didn't care if I won, I wanted to speed up the carnage and fun factor.
Then the only guy in the Game with Maze memorized 'randomly' popped up right next to clockwork's least favorite character.

But that was my approach with this particular GoD -
I totally understand someone wanting to come out on top.
I think my character(s) in seasong's GoD have a good chance at winning it all, unless someone does something unexpected (which is almost guaranteed).

47 : I agree that just because there's not much talking, it doesn't guarantee that there's a lack of interest in the Game, but it is a pretty good barometer IMO as to the player's intererst level.
It has held up in every GoD I've seen so far: when there are many posts, the Game is healthy and not in danger of stopping, when there are few posts, it indicates a problem.

And I certainly noticed your continual pushing of the Game, and was glad that you never gave up, repeatedly bumping the Game and doing what you could.
I was glad you bumped as much as you did, saving me from having to look even pushier (there must have been 5 different occasions I was going to bump, or ask what was up, but when I pulled up the thread, you'd already done so).

 

[green slime]

Actually I disagree, as that would totally nerf the spellcasters: they NEED to get their short term buffs up to even stand a chance to survive.

The previous one hosted by Macbrea proved that the idea of poor, weak fighters being helpless targets for wizards was ludrious at best. (and that bards shouldn't be allowed to own scrolls to no.47)

Forcing people into narrow strategic options is only going to reinforce certain character types (most dominantely, the fighter types, of which a buffed Cleric should be included, except even the cleric character falls by the wayside according to your reasoning).

I believe we should try to embrace as many different character concepts as possible in order to have a varied and interesting battles, as opposed to battles between similar builds. Would you really like to play in a game where 50% of the participants were Forsakers and the rest multiclassed Fighter/Ranger/Rogue/Barbarian types or shield bashing paladins?

This includes making an effort to keep the spellcasters in as well, classes which require more forethought in strategy (but not necessarily requiring more expert handling), as they are less likely to recover from a mistake or miscalculation, their resources are more limited.

As a fighter, surely nothing can possibly give more satisfaction than watching the smug grin on the arcane spellcasters face turn to horror as you split is spinal column with a single well-placed blow?

 

[Victim]

While magic items and spells account for a large amount of the complexity in the game, I think they also add much of the strategy. Going off class abilities, most melee characters have very few options, or at least few effective options. While magic items can sometimes overshadow innate abilities, they essentially are part of the character, especially in a GoD where you won't be caught without your items.

I'd imagine that part of Therron's problem was that you sometimes seemed to purposely antagonize other players. If you say that your character is an unstoppable death machine, then don't be too surprised when people try to stop you or slow you up with their best spells or abilities. It's not in most other character's best interests if Therron goes on a killing spree, after all. Each character you kill depletes everyone else's potential score. If Maturak had started near Therron, I'd want to contain Therron as well.

Even though your character was approved, reapersaurus, I still think asking for an exception to the normal rules awas bad sportmanship or something. Imagine if everyone had asked for, and was granted, an additional book they could use. It's not as if Singh Rager is necessary to deliver a nasty shield charge attack. Looking at your current build, the single attack from a normal charge would deal about 150 points of damage after multipliers. That's enough to severely hurt most characters. Since Therron would be hasted of course, he'd probably have additional actions to finish off the opponent. In that round. God forbid that you need 2 or GASP! more rounds to kill someone. Of course, one round kills are pretty ideal.