-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
[FULL] OOC: Dichotomy's Age of Worms Redux [FULL]
- Thread starter Dichotomy
- Start date
Dichotomy said:
I have already (maybe exhaustively) pointed out that 5 case studies hardly equal a rule. Add to that ENWorld's botched backup fiasco and I think that the fact that we managed to hobble to a TPK is pretty impressive. I'm also a interminable optimist about such things. Have we seen definite trends towards flakiness in the PbP world? Absolutely! Will things probably go better and last longer if we included another person we know instead of a stranger from the board? Almost certainly, if for no other reason than we all know where to physically track down an errant poster (even if it could take a few hours to get there).
I do think that having an outside influence on our sessions wouldn't really be all that bad. If WE can keep the momentum and interest of the game going, then bringing in a 5th would have fewer risks since they theorhetically would be interested. From your stories, breakdown comes during times of lull (e.g.'s the pause between recruiting and startup, the pause of replacing a character with a legitimate reason to leave, the pause of trying to locate the adventure using google's caches) so if we minimize lulls we stand a better chance of keeping the adventure moving. Hey Worthley! Where's the new character? You have an anniversary every year, you only die once. Wait, that's probably not accurate here...
If we bring in someone new, it should probably be done before the new character is made, so as to provide options. If we DMPC ::shudder:: that should get worked out between Dichotomy and Worthley :: only slightly less of a shudder::.
I'm only addressing this part of the issue because I think the options of making the monsters easier or us tougher are even more reprehensible than a DMPC.
Switching topics...
Alot of dumb stuff can easily be chalked up to good role playing. Boldak's a brash hot head and therefore grouped up in hopes of oil and charged off after green "lights". What are the odds that Alexis knew to think about a potential charge? Breth and Shavora just met, why not have her fight? On the other hand, dying sucks and we have to base our characters with some basic amount of game mechanics knowledge in order for them to live. I don't think that saying "Don't do dumb stuff!" is an actual solution, because inexperienced adventurers would do dumb stuff, and have a high mortality rate because of that.
Nav died, I had a huge understanding of who that character was in my head, but he didn't (and wouldn't have) run when he should have and therefore died. With Breth, I added some basic knowledge and opportunity into his backstory and we now have burning hands and alchemist fire (things I couldn't justify giving Nav, even though I KNEW that it'd help against swarms). Dumb things have been done so far in the game, but I don't think that any of them can be said to be 'out of character-ally stupid'. That I think should be looked as a good thing that we should keep avoiding, as much as 'out of character-ally smart'.
Right now we have 2 characters who have an opportunity to learn from a few past mistakes, and one character who has second hand knowledge along with some first hand (don't have your bird attack...)
So, I advocate keeping the game waaaay stronger on role playing than mechanics and am willing to make more characters as the result. That being said, let's do try to keep the PC body count low through IC mistake learning. I'll probably draft a post to that effect here before night falls too.
Discussion?
It's not my intent to get us all worked into a tizzy about this, but I'd like to clarify a bit.
I don't point all this out simply to be contrary or whatnot, but rather because I don't want us to make any decision (even if colored by certain people's optimism/pessimism) based on inaccurate data.
I also don't say this in an attempt to "rule out" adding someone. I am willing to do it if that is what we decide is best. I just want to make it known there are issues that we may face.
I'm I correct in inferring from the tenor of your post that you'd prefer to add a real person rather than a DMPC? I also am not sure if it is your position that we even should add a 5th character at all. Is it? I figure that if we are going to have a discussion, we might as well get on the same page.
And, in case it wasn't obvious, I'd also like to know what o3 and worthley think about the whole thing.
As for the whole tactics thing, I'm gonna keep my nose out of it for the time being. I'd like to see what you guys think about that.
I think you took what I said out of context and/or completely misunderstood what I said.TiCaudata said:
Emphasis added. If what I said suggested that I was basing the "rule" off of only my original attempt at this adventure, I apologize for miscommunicating. What I intended to convey (which I thought was obvious) was that from the totality of my experience on these boards (which is somewhere around 8 or so games with varying players involved, as well as more than once seeing threads devoted solely to people saying things like "do any of YOUR games survive past a few weeks?") unreliability is the rule.I said... said:
While that has certainly been true in some cases, in almost every instance I've encountered such breakdown (excluding the previous incarnation of this game) the breakdown, oddly, occurred in midstride (like in combat, or in the middle of the dungeon, etc.).TiCaudata said:
I don't point all this out simply to be contrary or whatnot, but rather because I don't want us to make any decision (even if colored by certain people's optimism/pessimism) based on inaccurate data.
I also don't say this in an attempt to "rule out" adding someone. I am willing to do it if that is what we decide is best. I just want to make it known there are issues that we may face.
I just KNEW we'd agree on something.TiCaudata said:
I'm I correct in inferring from the tenor of your post that you'd prefer to add a real person rather than a DMPC? I also am not sure if it is your position that we even should add a 5th character at all. Is it? I figure that if we are going to have a discussion, we might as well get on the same page.
And, in case it wasn't obvious, I'd also like to know what o3 and worthley think about the whole thing.
As for the whole tactics thing, I'm gonna keep my nose out of it for the time being. I'd like to see what you guys think about that.
Dichotomy said:
We always do.
Sorry for the mix up here, I'm pretty sure it probably lies more in my miscommunications (go figure) than yours. I don't know the boards well or in great depth, but I actually was referring to your number of direct experiences. In some ways I am saying this to be contrary, but here's my main point:
This site is HUGE with lots of (snow?)flakes drifting down in the midst of it all. Even with 8 games with multiple different people in each game and even including reading a number of threads that deal with this very issue, we don't have a decent cross section of the site. There are 1500+ people on right now with 2600+ IC threads. This site would not be this popular if it always failed. I'm not denying that flakes exist or even that we might run into more than a few if we open up a 5th position. I am also not trying to belittle your direct experience. However, I really do think that with a good amount of filtering on your behalf we ended up with a decent crowd last time and made it through some big hurdles before we disintegrated when only 2 original PC's were left. The case I'm making for this time is that with 4 pretty dedicated PC's keeping a 5th interested is way more likely. Add in that I'm backing the pages up personally and I believe we can definitely finish this adventure and maybe start into the next one without much difficulty. Again, eternal optimist viewpoint here...
To solidify my view. I'm all for 5th character inclusion. I think it would be a good way to handle the increased difficulty of this adventure. I'd prefer that 5th character to be someone else.
Someone we knew would be better, but we don't know anyone else with 3rd edition knowledge. (hell I don't even have all that much 3.5 knowledge)
Someone on the boards is possible, but only with a really good (and maybe slightly rigorous) filter applied to them for flakiness. A potential filter should be sure and notify them that we really do expect them to stick with the game for awhile and post at least once per day as a bare minimum starter.
DMPC is a last resort, and I see it as having only a slight advantage over 4 person party. (That advantage being wholesale total hp count.)
stonegod
Spawn of Khyber/LEB Judge
Let me add my (totally unsolicited) two cents, if folks don't mind. If they do, feel free to ignore me. FYI: I'm running AoW in RL and have done so for quite some time. I've also been on ENWorld for over a year now and in several games (some which are even still going!)
Point the First: AoW is a meat-grinder, especially at the lower levels. While I agree that RP reasons can explain initially rough tactics, it can bite you in the rear at the end. The Paizo board has over 20 pages of obits, most of them from the Whispering Cairn.
Point the Second: AoW is not really designed for four players. Even though Paizo states it is, all their playtesting was with six. Adding a fifth character is probably a good idea.
Point the Third: I will echo Dichotomy's point on the flakiness of the board. People leave at random times---sometimes before game begins, sometimes in lull, sometimes in the middle of combat. Another reason you'll see may folks take six or so players in a game here is that a 1/3 drop out rate is not uncommon.
Point the Fourth: On the flip side, however, there are some very dedicated players on the board. Access time, post count, frequency in other threads (not always represented in post count) all help to assess this. It isn't an art, however. Asking for post frequency info, list of other games, etc. can help a lot for a "filter".
Final point: I like what I've read of the IC thread. Hope everyone continues to have fun!
FYI: I'm running AoW in RL and have done so for quite some time. I've also been on ENWorld for over a year now and in several games (some which are even still going!)Point the First: AoW is a meat-grinder, especially at the lower levels. While I agree that RP reasons can explain initially rough tactics, it can bite you in the rear at the end. The Paizo board has over 20 pages of obits, most of them from the Whispering Cairn.
Point the Second: AoW is not really designed for four players. Even though Paizo states it is, all their playtesting was with six. Adding a fifth character is probably a good idea.
Point the Third: I will echo Dichotomy's point on the flakiness of the board. People leave at random times---sometimes before game begins, sometimes in lull, sometimes in the middle of combat. Another reason you'll see may folks take six or so players in a game here is that a 1/3 drop out rate is not uncommon.
Point the Fourth: On the flip side, however, there are some very dedicated players on the board. Access time, post count, frequency in other threads (not always represented in post count) all help to assess this. It isn't an art, however. Asking for post frequency info, list of other games, etc. can help a lot for a "filter".
Final point: I like what I've read of the IC thread. Hope everyone continues to have fun!
michael_noah
First Post
Lots of thoughts coming. Stay tuned:
1) While 8 samples is pretty small, statistically speaking, it is *very* unlikely that 8/8 samples would produce flakiness if there was not a high occurance in the general population.
1b) Your point stands that there must be some folks that are dedicated, else there would be no games on which to flake out.
2) I think I've got a different feeling about the inexperienced adventurers/roleplaying/tactics issue than you, Ti. Inexperienced adventurers might very well make mistakes from time to time, but if they always do, then there will never be experienced adventurers. Also, the DnD world is such that mistakes do lead to death all the time, so adventurers (who are even more likely to make mortal decisions) would be very inclined to not make mistakes. It's not as though a decision to cast a certain spell will make you lose a test. It will make you dead. Because of this I think in the DnD world you'd see a lot less mistakes, and a lot more planning, tactics, etc. We don't always play this out in the game because we're impatient, or because we don't know exactly how, but I'm relatively certain that the characters would. Those that did not, whether it be because their personality dictates it or not, would simply not live. Perhaps the way to explain this is this: Tasselhoff is purely fiction - such a character would never survive without the intervention of the gods (which I suppose is also possible).
3) There is no reason that good roleplaying should ever make it impossible to have "good mechanics". See the Stormwind Fallacy.
4) It is incredibly encouraging that there are others on the board reading and enjoying what we're doing, and that they care enough to give us some advice. Thank you, stonegod.
1) While 8 samples is pretty small, statistically speaking, it is *very* unlikely that 8/8 samples would produce flakiness if there was not a high occurance in the general population.
1b) Your point stands that there must be some folks that are dedicated, else there would be no games on which to flake out.
2) I think I've got a different feeling about the inexperienced adventurers/roleplaying/tactics issue than you, Ti. Inexperienced adventurers might very well make mistakes from time to time, but if they always do, then there will never be experienced adventurers. Also, the DnD world is such that mistakes do lead to death all the time, so adventurers (who are even more likely to make mortal decisions) would be very inclined to not make mistakes. It's not as though a decision to cast a certain spell will make you lose a test. It will make you dead. Because of this I think in the DnD world you'd see a lot less mistakes, and a lot more planning, tactics, etc. We don't always play this out in the game because we're impatient, or because we don't know exactly how, but I'm relatively certain that the characters would. Those that did not, whether it be because their personality dictates it or not, would simply not live. Perhaps the way to explain this is this: Tasselhoff is purely fiction - such a character would never survive without the intervention of the gods (which I suppose is also possible).
3) There is no reason that good roleplaying should ever make it impossible to have "good mechanics". See the Stormwind Fallacy.
4) It is incredibly encouraging that there are others on the board reading and enjoying what we're doing, and that they care enough to give us some advice. Thank you, stonegod.
Last edited:
Good read, but I wasn't intending to imply that either rules or roleplaying. I don't think that I would enjoy free form or high consent formats nearly as much as a standard format. I do however think we need to make sure that our characters don't "magically" posses knowledge that they would have no reason to know, even if that means mortality. I think that we NEED to make sure the roleplaying is as tight as the mechanics at the very least. (The implication being that there are holes in the mechanics from time to time.)
Also...
Thanks for the post stonegod. It is indeed encouraging to know that others might be paying attention.
Also...
Thanks for the post stonegod. It is indeed encouraging to know that others might be paying attention.
To echo a little bit, I also appreciate your input, stonegod. Thanks much. Although, now I'm slightly intimidated that people are actually reading this stuff... 
Ti, thanks for making your opinion blantantly obvious for me. I'm going to email o3 and worthley to make sure that they are still around. I'd like to know what they think about this so that we can get going ASAP.
Ti, thanks for making your opinion blantantly obvious for me. I'm going to email o3 and worthley to make sure that they are still around. I'd like to know what they think about this so that we can get going ASAP.
michael_noah
First Post
Ti,
I think that we're actually in agreement for the most part. I see a difference, though, between using out-of-game knowledge that characters shouldn't have, and using game/world knowledge that I would assume all characters to have. Every character should know the charging rules, how long it takes to light a torch, etc. They should even know some things that don't make real-world sense but are needed to know to survive in the game-world, like exactly how far they can move in 6 seconds, or the exact moment that it gets dark enough to hide. We need to make sure we make use of that knowledge, and to your point, that we limit it to the things the characters actually should know. I guess that's the difficult part.
I think that we're actually in agreement for the most part. I see a difference, though, between using out-of-game knowledge that characters shouldn't have, and using game/world knowledge that I would assume all characters to have. Every character should know the charging rules, how long it takes to light a torch, etc. They should even know some things that don't make real-world sense but are needed to know to survive in the game-world, like exactly how far they can move in 6 seconds, or the exact moment that it gets dark enough to hide. We need to make sure we make use of that knowledge, and to your point, that we limit it to the things the characters actually should know. I guess that's the difficult part.
First off, I would like to thank Stonegod for the outside comments. I think that an outside view is very helpful. I also find it interesting that people are finding what we are doing entertaining enough that the are continuing to read, and willing to post their opinions.
I do think that the right course of action is to find another player. I think if we spent a decent amount of time, we could find someone here that has a very low flake-out percentage. I think that everyone we know in real life might be a very big longshot to play in a productive manner.
To find a new player, I think that we could make a post here and/or in the IC thread asking for people to express their interest in the OOC thread. This would give us responces from people who already have an interest in what is going on with our story, and probably solve some of the flake-out issues.
I do think that the right course of action is to find another player. I think if we spent a decent amount of time, we could find someone here that has a very low flake-out percentage. I think that everyone we know in real life might be a very big longshot to play in a productive manner.
To find a new player, I think that we could make a post here and/or in the IC thread asking for people to express their interest in the OOC thread. This would give us responces from people who already have an interest in what is going on with our story, and probably solve some of the flake-out issues.
Similar Threads
