First of all, KL, I feel I would have shortchanged you the time and the effort that you put into this roleplaying session if I didn't offer feedback when it was desired.
I know I said it before when I posted in the IC thread following the epilogue, but I feel like I have to say it again: That was a phenomenal GM'ing job.
I'm not offering undue praise here, either. I have pretty much been the de facto GM/DM for a small group of family and friends that I have been RP'ing with for over twenty years now, and I know firsthand the effort, joys, and headaches that go into the role. Still, like you probably, I wouldn't have it any other way. There is a joy that comes when everything is going well in a game and everyone is in the moment that is hard to describe. I enjoyed seeing it happen from the other side of the screen for a change.
To give you some perpspective, I have probably GM or DM'ed 20-30+ different campaigns over the last fifteen years, with any number of one-shots, but the last time I had the opportunity to play was when my Expert Set D&D 6th level halfling, "Bullroarer Took" (Yes, I know, I was young) braved the cannibal orcs of
Drums on Fire Mountain sometime in the late 80's in my cousin's slap-dash campaign. Needless to say, I have a sense of the DM's side of things.
Forgive me the headers, Sergio Leone's masterwork has been on repeatedly in the past few days,
:
The Good:
1. Your storytelling technique. In a word, superb. The period setting, the characterizations, it was all excellent from the beginning. One of the reasons I have played very little is because of unrealistic expectations of what GM's should be able to do in a game. I guess it is because I am a perfectionist and my players expect as much from me now. Needless to say, I feel I learned a lot about the craft from a very talented peer.
2. The story itself. I realized as we were playing in the later half of the game that we hadn't scraped even the tip of the iceberg when it came to the investigative side of the game. As you said, it was the unlucky draw of having too many non-investigative type characters and a surplus of 'muscle'. Had I chance to do it again, I would have lobbied harder to make some manner of scholar to play, but I was so intent on getting into the game I figured the 'red-shirt' militiaman was my best ticket in. Thomas Sykes was no Harvey Walters however, and in an effort to keep from straying from his true character I probably missed some really cool story elements along the way. As it was, I feel like I made him too much of the 'thinking-man's militiaman' before the end, but that was solely for the purpose of keeping a game I was deeply enjoying from ending prematurely. Sykes was originally born of a kernel based on Seth Bullock from Deadwood, by the end he was a bit more, umm... erudite, than he should have been. In summation, great storyline.
3. Your patience. You, my friend, are Job's descendant. In the face of six, yes
six character defections/disappearances (including a pair of Scotsmen: I will never, ever, on principle make or allow another Scottish character in a campaign as long as I live for this reason), a full server crash that ghosted most of what we had posted, and some long lapses in player responses, you never deviated from being polite and focused on the game. You should pat yourself on the back for this, very few would have retained such equanimity and dignity when put into that situation.
The Bad:
1. The Defectors. At times I found the players that left the game with such nonchalance to be frustrating, the long delays from some with their responses (myself included at times) could be irritating. These things do not reflect on you, but I have come to understand are just the nature of the beast with play by post games. Even still, I can't help but feel that people who go so far as to
ask to be in a game, and then leave for reasons that are not out of their control (I know some in this game had such reasons) are disrespectful of the person running the game. You are likely unwilling to say it KL, but that is the truth, and all I can say is that those who left prematurely really did miss out.
2. Those who don't take hints. I'm raising my hand on this one. What you said about oblique references to interrupting the ritual rather than facing down Cale in a bloodbath should have been discerned and acted upon. I have always wondered why my players sometimes just can't "take the hint" and now I know. Without the omniscient GM info in the back of your head already, the sensible path just isn't always apparent. I feel I owe a few of my players over the years an apology for not seeing the obvious when I felt it was perfectly clear. It truly is different on the other side of things. Just the same, I am thrilled to have the ability to now say that I have met a gruesome end as a character in a CoC game.
The Ugly:
1. Just one thing here: Surean Sikapanderijin. The Indian manservant in the Indian (Native American) land. Dr. Zombie stopped before he even started, and I think for the sake of everyone's sanity that was a good thing. Wow, LOL.
I can't say when I will have my Civil War scenario ready to go (my soon to be one year old is keeping me pretty busy right now...he was just home from the hospital when we started!), but I will be sure to drop you both a line when it does get posted. For now, think pleasant thoughts of Georgia bayous, Sherman's March to the Sea, and
"Bad Moons Rising".
Thanks again for the great game KL, and I hope my rambling just now gave something back that you can use.
-Rook
): Move up tonight. I got very sidetracked over the last four days.
