Player with D&D Game Problem - Advice requested!

[XO]

Hubris & A Degree of Separation

No, a paladin will NOT always win the day... And they'll often die trying :\

Some people have mentioned the "character is not the player" (several posts back).

Keep in mind that few players can / will play an Int of 6-9 (except occasionally and farcically). Few players can / will play a Wis of 6-9 (short tempered, brash, etc). The opposite end is true: few players can play an Int of 14-20 (not everyone around the table is a genius).

What am I driving at with this comment ? Well, a degree of separation between player and character is more readily accomplished when it is regularly exercized. The DM shoudl see to that. Reactions to the commanding leadership presence of the paladin should occur w/o prying, intelligent solutions should come to the wizard (in spite of the struggling 13 year old playing the wiz), brash ideas should come to barbarians (who can then take commensurate action, punching out the camel... Conan and all).

Now in specific terms, did you Detect Evil ????

 

[sniffles]

The group is already rather large (7 players) and game time limited - we try to play twice a month for 4 hours. The group also tends towards chaos as it is, and it's hard to find time for all of the characters to do what they want while we're generally doing the same thing - I don't think trying to run two concurrent events with the party split in half is anything that the GM or players are really wanting to attempt. I'm not even sure I'd want to attempt it. I just can't see how this would be satisfying for either group if it lasted more than a session, which it certainly would.

/ali

That would definitely be the right of it. In general our group isn't much fond of splitting up the party. It tends to leave half the players with nothing to do for hours at a time, and puts a lot of stress on the GM to manage two groups.

And interestingly enough, this is the first time Jubilee has played in one of her husband's long-term campaigns. About half of the group was in a continuing campaign with him for several years, and based on that experience we're all anticipating an exciting conclusion to the story somewhere down the road. Jubilee hasn't had enough experience of Devo's GM style to know what to look forward to - or what to fear.

 

[Zora]

"No, seriously, guys - don't get emotionally attached to anything in this campaign. [DM Joe] totally loves to just smash it to pieces as soon as you've found a connection in his world."

In other words, yes, doing this can instantly hook your players into a campaign / adventure. Do it too often, though, and you'll breed cynicism and detached players.

Yes, but this is the first time it's happened. Some of us have prior experience with something similar with this GM, so as we're not surprised, but we are still shocked. :\

Trust me, if this happened to everything and everybody in the game we might get attached to, he would have an empty table....

@XO: I believe Jubilee did detect evil. However, that does not give cause to outright slaughter somebody. Watch them a little, yes. But we can't go through the campaign following everybody that detects evil and wait for them to do something... :\

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yes, but this is the first time it's happened.

The problem, however, is that while it may be the first time it happened to this particular group of PCs in this particular campaign, it's unlikely that it's the first time it's ever happened to a particular player (as you largely mention).

 

[Hedrin]

The problem, however, is that while it may be the first time it happened to this particular group of PCs in this particular campaign, it's unlikely that it's the first time it's ever happened to a particular player (as you largely mention).

Maybe not. I have character sheets older than her!

 

[Raloc]

That would definitely be the right of it. In general our group isn't much fond of splitting up the party. It tends to leave half the players with nothing to do for hours at a time, and puts a lot of stress on the GM to manage two groups.

And interestingly enough, this is the first time Jubilee has played in one of her husband's long-term campaigns. About half of the group was in a continuing campaign with him for several years, and based on that experience we're all anticipating an exciting conclusion to the story somewhere down the road. Jubilee hasn't had enough experience of Devo's GM style to know what to look forward to - or what to fear.

I definitely understand this. I don't think I'd want to split up my RL playing group and try to DM both of them. I'm very used to playing with my group that I've known on IRC for 7 years (we have all met in person, in Switzerland last March, but mainly play on ORPG). We tend to be able to swing something like two separate groups playing because we can all usually meet for at least one ~12-14 hour session on the weekend. The campaigns we do go along at quite a fair pace due to how much we get done in game vs. an RL game (even our own in RL was much slower). So if the party splits up, it's usually resolved much more quickly than in a group that met twice a month or so in RL.

 

[Devo]

The problem, however, is that while it may be the first time it happened to this particular group of PCs in this particular campaign, it's unlikely that it's the first time it's ever happened to a particular player (as you largely mention).

For the record, though, this campaign started back in February of '03. That's nearly three years before this singularly horrific event occured.

And believe me, this is the last time something like this will happen.


D.

 

[Devo]

... it looks like this quest will take us all over the map! To the Lake of Steam next, Calimshan, and then Athkatla in Amn. Oh yeah, none of the rest of my party know about that last one yet.

*Pst! Don't tell my players this, but they don't know they'll be going to another plane, too! It will just be our little secret, right? *


D.

 

[Devo]

We've split the group before in my game. (Not this one -- my last game.) If the group decides to split up, then everybody makes a secondary character, a few levels lower than their current PCs. We follow one story at a time, maybe jumping back and forth from time to time. Players who aren't playing thier primary PCs are playing their secondary characters. That keeps everyone busy, but keeps the focus on the "original" PCs.

I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, though. To that end, instead of glossing over the trip and picking up in the Border Kingdoms next session, I'm going to have to add in an intermediary story. Something that will let me meet Jubilee and the other players half way -- try to give them a little bit of resolution to this plotline.

Not all of my players had heard that, yet. But now you have: congratulations! You're in the loop!

D.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

For the record, though, this campaign started back in February of '03. That's nearly three years before this singularly horrific event occured.

And believe me, this is the last time something like this will happen.

Well, sounds like you're doin' it the right way, then. Sounds like a great campaign!