Gaming Group Struggles

[Zhaleskra]

I made sure to read most of the posts and skim the remainder before responding. Why do you need specific niches filled if it's political intrigue over combat? Is there more combat than anticipated? Class as niche isn't what I think's causing the problem here, it's "niche as tactics" as I see it. You can have a party without roles filled, it just requires different tactics. Which circles me back to my questions.

 

[Retreater]

I made sure to read most of the posts and skim the remainder before responding. Why do you need specific niches filled if it's political intrigue over combat? Is there more combat than anticipated? Class as niche isn't what I think's causing the problem here, it's "niche as tactics" as I see it. You can have a party without roles filled, it just requires different tactics. Which circles me back to my questions.

It's been both issues.
First, we have been missing out on key personalities involved in the intrigue. For example a player created an elaborate backstory about his brother leaving the family and siding with the enemy kingdom. The session they were going to visit the brother, the player didn't come. He was going to miss the climax of an entire arc.
Of course we have combats, and the ones we do have are usually elaborate and well planned (and important to the story). And then trying to play without the healer. Or without the fighter. Or sometimes you don't have enough people to do any combat. Like the dragon encounter you planned for 5 players now has to be done by three people, without any access to healing, without high AC or damage potential.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Okay, dude, let it go. That post was not about you, so stop trying to take it personal. I don't even know who the hell you are and wouldn't waste my time calling you anything, implied or otherwise.

Groovy. So just chill out.

You posted something on a public forum that I took issue with. You don't want people commenting on what you post, don't post it. I addressed it and I moved on.

Someone then quoted me and I, um, addressed that. That post was not talking to you. I was obviously addressing someone who quoted... um... me, ya know?

So the only one taking it personal is apparently you.

And that right there is what make us the fracking Elite.

Uh, sure, dude. Whatever.

Seems to me, from the multitude of threads that are about sucky GMs around here and other boards, that, while only "1-in-20 players may have the skills to be a halfway decent GM', only about 1-in-20 GMs have the skills to be a halfway decent GM.

I could, quite possibly, be one of those 19 sucky GMs. So there is that.

You're welcome to keep yelling "King Kong ain't got nothing on me!" at me and pounding on your chest, if it'll make you feel better. But I'm done listening to someone yell at me because I dared to take issue/disagree with a point they made about a game of make believe.

That's not elite. That's just irritating.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Anyway, to address the thread, I run/ran an online game using FG from time to time. Less now than before, but I hope that'll change. What I've done is get a fairly large stable of players (last group was about 8) and just run one-shots that are loosely tied together into an overall plot.

In fact, I advertised the game as for "Working Adults who can't commit to a regular gaming schedule!" I actually had to turn down players. I also seldom had more than 4 or 5 show up to each game session.

In addition, I ran it the same night (Wednesday) every other week at the exact same time. If it fell on a holiday or during a vacation or some such, we'd just skip the week but NOT adjust the calendar of when it was going to take place. I had a google calendar set up to populate the day every two weeks. This allowed the players to sort of plan their gaming/lives together as much as possible.

Then I just ran my one-shots. At the next session, I gave a brief summary of what happened and then let whoever was there that time go on. It might have been, and probably was, a bit disjointed, but the players stated that they appreciated the fact that they didn't have to be at every game session to see the campaign progress.

It was sort of like a lot of episodic television shows that are stand-alones but still advance the plot of the series. Like Supernatural, ST:TNG and Firefly did.

(I did have a rule that if you missed more than you made that you'd be dropped from the group.)

It did mean, though, that I had to be fairly fast and loose with adventure creation. Basically having a location, bad-guy and goal in mind, but keeping everything else very fluid, which may not be at all to your liking.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

It's been both issues.
First, we have been missing out on key personalities involved in the intrigue.

Ugh. Ok. I can see where that would be a real problem.

For example a player created an elaborate backstory about his brother leaving the family and siding with the enemy kingdom. The session they were going to visit the brother, the player didn't come. He was going to miss the climax of an entire arc.

Is it possible for you to "play" the character so that the plot continues, but becomes more focused on the other player characters? Sort of a GoT thing when the Hound and Arya were on screen instead of Daenerys and John?

Hmm. That may be a bit more work than you'd want though.

Of course we have combats, and the ones we do have are usually elaborate and well planned (and important to the story). And then trying to play without the healer. Or without the fighter. Or sometimes you don't have enough people to do any combat. Like the dragon encounter you planned for 5 players now has to be done by three people, without any access to healing, without high AC or damage potential.

Yeah, I could see where that would also be a problem. Do you think you could adjust future adventures in a way that they become more appropriate to the group on hand? Such as taking that dragon and changing it from (for example) an ancient Black Dragon to a young Black Dragon or some such? So, same basic adventure just the DC of it is reduced.

 

[aramis erak]

Okay, dude, let it go. That post was not about you, so stop trying to take it personal. I don't even know who the hell you are and wouldn't waste my time calling you anything,

Barley 1 in 20 players ever gets the skills to be a halfway decent GM. Fewer than 1 in 1000 ever master it. And that right there is what make us the fracking Elite.

That is what the Players at my table expect from me, and they in return give me the respect that I have earned from them. And any Casual that doesn't like it can go play Hello Kitty Online for all I care, because he's got no business sitting in the company of real Players.

I'd say considerably more than 1 in 20. And I'd put the "halfway decent" as generating an enjoyable game.

Good GM's aren't elite, they're just skilled. There are great GM's. They are rare... but hardly 1 in 1000. Maybe 1 in 100...

Further, hyperbole of the type you've done discourages players from trying... It's not good for the hobby.

 

[Zhaleskra]

So, there's more than one way to take on a dragon. To take a lesson from HARP, if the players come up with a good plan, let that plan play out. Sure, it's not as exciting as a pitched battle, but it rewards the players for their ingenuity if it works and provides interesting complications if it doesn't.

 

[Imaculata]

It's been both issues.
First, we have been missing out on key personalities involved in the intrigue. For example a player created an elaborate backstory about his brother leaving the family and siding with the enemy kingdom. The session they were going to visit the brother, the player didn't come. He was going to miss the climax of an entire arc.

If you run into these sorts of complications, then a political intrigue campaign might not be the right fit for your group. It may be better to run more simple one-off adventures that are not connected to the backstories of the characters, and don't rely on specific characters to be present.

Of course we have combats, and the ones we do have are usually elaborate and well planned (and important to the story). And then trying to play without the healer. Or without the fighter. Or sometimes you don't have enough people to do any combat. Like the dragon encounter you planned for 5 players now has to be done by three people, without any access to healing, without high AC or damage potential.

I think combat difficulty does not have to be quite as much of a problem. You can send an npc healer along to provide support, or tone down the encounter by a few minions, or reduce the HP of the enemies. As for a big boss battle, you can always provide alternate means for the party to defeat the dragon. For example, some sort of artifact or powerful weapon that the dragon is guarding. This would make the encounter focus less on DPS and more on stealth and cunning.

 

[Lanefan]

Elitist? Damn right it is. Let me tell you something you already know = A player runs one character. He reacts to situations and improvises his way through. And when he gets stumped or is just having a bad night, the other players can take up his slack.

But the GM runs the entire universe and everything and everyone in it, even down to how the laws of nature work. He has to run dozens, sometimes hundreds of NPC's that are above the level of movie-extra quality. And he's got to have a plan to deal with every squirrely thing that the players will come up with to overcome the days or weeks of planning he's sunk into a single game session. Improvisation only gets you so far, so a GM better have a dozen backups ready to go. GM's aren't allowed an off-night or to get stumped, and there is no one to pick up his slack. A GM is expected to be on time and on target from beginning to end. And he has to do all that in such a way that he can work with the players to help them tell a heroic story of derring-do.

Barley 1 in 20 players ever gets the skills to be a halfway decent GM. Fewer than 1 in 1000 ever master it. And that right there is what make us the fracking Elite.

That is what the Players at my table expect from me, and they in return give me the respect that I have earned from them. And any Casual that doesn't like it can go play Hello Kitty Online for all I care, because he's got no business sitting in the company of real Players.

Why does this post make me think of the band Manowar?

And if but 1 in 20000 who ever play D&D have what it takes to be a good DM then we're in bigger trouble than I thought. But we're not, as IMO the ratio is more like 1 in 20 or even lower; with about 1 in 5 meeting the 'halfway decent' threshold.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is not a problem about D&D. If you can run an RPG under these conditions, you can run D&D. Make it more episodic. Work with players to give their character responsibilities that takes them away, or make them part of a larger organization that picks groups and the same people aren't always available.

Those are good ideas in terms of story flow and rationalization. I recall one D&D group I heard about, "The Band of the Red Band" who were under a curse, and individuals would vanish and re-appear unpredictably. And, that does work for any game to make a more episodic story that bends to the realities of getting a group of busy people together.

But as far as the system goes, yes, D&D is not nearly as flexible as it's sometimes given credit for, if you're not willing to just toss it out the window and run on fiat - and the insistence of some of the players on playing D&D, specifically, seems to suggest that might not go over well.

D&D has classes that are each very different, somewhat specialized, and bring different levels of power & flexibility to the table (some editions more extreme or formal than others, that way). 5e is one of the less formal, and not exactly the least extreme. A scenario that might be a speedbump for a Wizard, Warlock, Cleric, Rogue, & Fighter, for the Fighter & Rogue, alone, might prove impossible. Another, for the Wizard, Warlock & Rogue, by themselves suddenly much stealthier & more mobile, might be a cakewalk.

It's been both issues.
First, we have been missing out on key personalities involved in the intrigue. For example a player created an elaborate backstory about his brother leaving the family and siding with the enemy kingdom. The session they were going to visit the brother, the player didn't come. He was going to miss the climax of an entire arc.
Of course we have combats, and the ones we do have are usually elaborate and well planned (and important to the story). And then trying to play without the healer. Or without the fighter. Or sometimes you don't have enough people to do any combat. Like the dragon encounter you planned for 5 players now has to be done by three people, without any access to healing, without high AC or damage potential.

One option is to have a stable cast of characters, even if the cast of players isn't stable. For each character have an alternate, simplified, henchman-style version available for someone else to run secondary to their own character (or you to run as an NPC). 1e had orange half-sheets for that purpose. 4e had Companion Characters.

Don't worry about radically re-balancing a challenge because one player showed up instead of another.

For character-specific events, just don't set them up in one session and finish them in another. Take the advice you've gotten several times in this thread and run in a more episodic style: keep such development complete w/in episodes where the appropriate player is in attendance.