Next Game: Edition Survey

[dmw71]

Out of curiosity, considering my next game will most likely consist of players made up from this group, I'm interested in hearing what edition(s) you would enjoy playing next. For me, it's important that everyone follows the same set of rules (e.g. consistent page numbers for referencing), so feel free to pick from any one of the following:

Basic (Labyrinth Lord)
1E (OSRIC)
2E (Purple Worm)

It'd be helpful for me to know which edition to focus on when ultimately developing my next game idea.

If you guys could each chime in and rank the editions in order of preference, I'd appreciate it.


Thanks,
Dave

[dmw71]

Subject: Resurface! Feedback

1. 1e 2. LL 3. 2e (grumpy old man)

[onlyme]

OSRIC or LL . OSRIC maybe a bit more...
Then 2e...
Much easier to reference at work via the pdfs than internet...

[Starbeard]

I've only played 2e a couple of times long ago, and never read through any of the books (I started gsming in the anti-TSR 90s, and my response to 3rd edition was to get interested in 1st edition & OD&D). That said, now that I'm grown up and don't care about gaming politics, I'm always up for trying something new.

1. 2e
2. 1e
3. Basic

To be honest, playing more Basic sounds really fun, but at the moment I'm more interested in trying out the private forums/secret character records more, and 1-2e sound more condusive to that.

[dmw71]

While not everyone has chimed in, it looks like 1E seems to be the preferred system. While 2E would probably be my preference, I wouldn't have offered 1E as an option if I wasn't okay to run it. For now, assume the game will be run using the OSRIC A5 rules.

Now, to come up with and develop a game idea.

[spanningtree]

I'm very into 2e and 1e but will have fun with anything. 2e can add a ton of depth to a campaign but I have found many times that short sandboxes don't require that many colors in the palette. Instead of the basic edition I prefer LL, but they are pretty much the same thing from what I understand. I'll take a look at the OSRIC link you posted.

[Alethan]

1e
2e
Basic

[dmw71]

1e
2e
Basic

1E it will be.

[Starbeard]

I was thinking about hidden classes in 1e, and how they usually aren't much more hidable than Basic—except for maybe hiding a second/multi class, or if the character is a subclass (is he an assassin or just a thief?), all of the class become pretty obvious once you take a look at the weapon and armour arrangements of the character.

One way to get around it is to give everyone a second class (multi for demihumans and an
abandoned level 1 second class for humans), so that everyone has a something that isn't obvious. Another way is to get rid of at least the weapon restrictions, but treat them as not proficient and maybe with a further -2 to hit. The last way I can see is to simply start everyone out with basic equipment (clothes, sticks or daggers). Of course, as soon as you cast a spell, turn undeed, track, etc. your class becomes obvious, but it would be kind of fun to see if there were some way to give the characters the incentive to hide their class as long as possible.

[dmw71]

I was thinking about hidden classes in 1e, and how they usually aren't much more hidable than Basic...

One way to get around it is to give everyone a second class (multi for demihumans and an
abandoned level 1 second class for humans), so that everyone has a something that isn't obvious.

I really don't think I want to take it that far. My goal, with the private forums and hidden character sheets, is to keep character data private. What alignment your character is. What equipment is stowed inside a backpack. How many hit points you have remaining. It also makes it possible to conceal your character's class if you, as the player, make an effort to actually do so. It should still be difficult to confuse a fighter and a magic user. Or a cleric and a thief. However, if a player wants to try and pull off the fact that their cleric is a fighter, I'd be willing to work with that player. I might be willing to allow them to use a weapon they otherwise wouldn't be able to.... just to help sell the illusion. No, I don't see a case being made where a cleric will be allowed to walk around with a two-handed sword (and maybe no sword at all) but something other than the typical mace or flail that is usually a dead giveaway.

Another way is to get rid of at least the weapon restrictions, but treat them as not proficient and maybe with a further -2 to hit.

I would be more willing to consider something like this, but I'm not sure I want to just open up every weapon to every class. I still think it makes sense that a fighter, who spends a majority of their time learning about and using weapon, would have a greater assortment to choose from. Most likely, this will be something I would handle on a case-by-case basis (e.g. the above example player trying to hide the fact that they're a cleric).

Stopping to really think about it, only demihumans can multi-class, so right away, an elf (or dwarf, or halfling) character is going to viewed more carefully in order to ascertain what profession you think they are. It's only because there are armor restrictions, and weapons restrictions, that you can look at a character and guess what profession they are. I may relax these a bit, upon request, but probably won't outright eliminate them.

I still want hiding a class, or trying to disguise some other aspect of your character, to take effort.

At the same time, I don't want a player to be able to scan every publicly posted character sheet and know exactly every detail about every character.


Make sense?

[Alethan]

I viewed the hidden character class as secondary to people not knowing your alignment, hit points, stat scores, and inventory. It's just a bit of fun. But hiding your character class shouldn't be a primary goal.

I tried to play Abelard as the guy who got caught up in an adventure, but adventuring isn't something he would normally do. So I downplayed his profession. But I didn't try to actively keep others from knowing what his class was.

Obviously, all just my opinion and your thoughts probably differ.

[onlyme]

I was tempted to play Kernodle as a short, stocky elf with a mustache.

I agree with Alethan regarding the primary purpose of hiding. (HP, To-hit#, inventory) I liked the challenge of trying to figure out how to call for help with Kernodle's depleted HPs. (How he didnt die is beyond me... hit 3 times at first level and still was vertical.) Also, though it didnt come into play in this game... is hiding the backstory. That way any hooks or oddball behavior can randomly occur without folks figuring it out immediately.


Sure in 1e, there are many more ways to hide class. But, the moment someone starts mumbling over an unconscious warrior who magically wakes up...pretty sure they have some clerical skills.

[Starbeard]

I think I agree, actually. On the one hand, it makes sense logically that a Fighter and Magic-User would be very hard to confuse, since the Magic-User would most likely betray the fact that he had no idea how to use a battle axe as soon as he picked it up. As far as why the Magic-User would want not to be known as one—that's entirely within the confines of the adventure at hand, and may or may not be appropriate. For the same reasons why a CE character might not want to go blabbing about the fact with LG characters in the party, a Thief or Assassin might not want to advertise his class either, depending on who's in the party (that is, if the players are all okay with the Thief/Assassin acting within his own best interests at the expense of the party). So, in general, I think hiding class can be a really great way to play, but: 1) it is really only pertinent to a few classes, and 2) it only works if the group enjoys having their characters not necessarily wanting to fully cooperate with each other.

But I agree: hiding everything is only useful in some game scenarios, but even in fully cooperative play, hiding the other character statistics is far more useful. If only monster stats could be the same way!

Edit: I guess my fascination with the hidden character information concept is in how it reminds me of the old commercial play by mail games. When you came across another character, you had no idea if a) they were a PC or NPC, b) anything about them beyond their physical appearance, what they tell you, and what they do, and c) whether or not they had it in for you. In a normal game, where the party is all together and intent on 'beating' the scenario, none of that really comes into play. If all of the players were set down individually and let loose, each with a goal that may or may not coincide with any other PC or NPC goals, the double-blind thing is awesome. But it would probably be so much work for the DM that it just isn't feasible.

[Alethan]

Edit: I guess my fascination with the hidden character information concept is in how it reminds me of the old commercial play by mail games. When you came across another character, you had no idea if a) they were a PC or NPC, b) anything about them beyond their physical appearance, what they tell you, and what they do, and c) whether or not they had it in for you. In a normal game, where the party is all together and intent on 'beating' the scenario, none of that really comes into play. If all of the players were set down individually and let loose, each with a goal that may or may not coincide with any other PC or NPC goals, the double-blind thing is awesome. But it would probably be so much work for the DM that it just isn't feasible.

We tried something like that with the last iteration of Dave's game. You did everything your private forum and you had no idea if the person you were interacting with was a PC or an NPC.

The biggest problem with it was that it SEEMED like the old play by mail games. Updates took a long time because Dave had to make them for four players, each of them either very different or at least somewhat different from all of the others. I think it was really a whole lot of work on the DM's end.

I think it was a great learning experience to be a part of, but I think we would probably call the game "not successful".

[Starbeard]

Edit: I guess my fascination with the hidden character information concept is in how it reminds me of the old commercial play by mail games. When you came across another character, you had no idea if a) they were a PC or NPC, b) anything about them beyond their physical appearance, what they tell you, and what they do, and c) whether or not they had it in for you. In a normal game, where the party is all together and intent on 'beating' the scenario, none of that really comes into play. If all of the players were set down individually and let loose, each with a goal that may or may not coincide with any other PC or NPC goals, the double-blind thing is awesome. But it would probably be so much work for the DM that it just isn't feasible.

We tried something like that with the last iteration of Dave's game. You did everything your private forum and you had no idea if the person you were interacting with was a PC or an NPC.

The biggest problem with it was that it SEEMED like the old play by mail games. Updates took a long time because Dave had to make them for four players, each of them either very different or at least somewhat different from all of the others. I think it was really a whole lot of work on the DM's end.

I think it was a great learning experience to be a part of, but I think we would probably call the game "not successful".

Yeah, that's what I figured would happen. There's a reason those old games were all commercial enterprises. I'd imagine it would turn into a part-time job for anyone running a game with even a handful of folks. Adding extra DMs each with an area of jurisdiction might alleviate some of the problems, but once several players wander into a given DM's area the game would grind to a halt pretty quickly.

[dmw71]

Edit: I guess my fascination with the hidden character information concept is in how it reminds me of the old commercial play by mail games. When you came across another character, you had no idea if a) they were a PC or NPC, b) anything about them beyond their physical appearance, what they tell you, and what they do, and c) whether or not they had it in for you. In a normal game, where the party is all together and intent on 'beating' the scenario, none of that really comes into play. If all of the players were set down individually and let loose, each with a goal that may or may not coincide with any other PC or NPC goals, the double-blind thing is awesome. But it would probably be so much work for the DM that it just isn't feasible.

My first attempt at running a game with the private sub-forums was probably a miserable fail. Alethan, onlyme and spanningtree can share their honest feedback. I know what it was. More on this in a bit...

I've come to realize that I am terrible DM'ing when the characters are free to roam about town. Again, ask Alethan, onlyme or spanningtree, but it probably took weeks for them to make it from one end of the town to the other because I played out each and every turn. It was stupid. I was stupid. But I did it that way because none of the players knew who anyone else was, and there was a chance they could run into each other at any step.

In fact, two players did meet pretty early on and "adventured" together for most of the game. The other two players also met, later, but also spent a fair amount of time together. I, honestly, have no idea if any of the players involved knew at the time (or even until I just revealed it) they were paired (or grouped) with another player or were interacting with a NPC? Though, because all four players did meet another player during that game, and because three of the four in that game were also in this 'Resurface!' game, it means that two of you were gaming together at some point in that failed game as well. Any ideas, guys?

Hindsight is 20/20, but I could have (and should have) just sent them all to their destination once they decided where they were going and let them run into each other (if they were bound to) there. It would have saved a TON of time and effort.

That said, I do see how it could still work. Knowing what I know now, I'm more confident (but not positive) I could DM it better. The goal was then to have all the players begin the game completely in their private sub-forums and graduate into the public forums once they ran into each other and were introduced. Greg (ToniXX) set me up with a public forum and a private sub-forum for each player, but what happens when only two of the party members meet up and are introduced? I suppose I could have quickly sent Greg a PM and had him create another private sub-forum where just those players that met had access (not the rest of the party), but what happens when that pair meets a third player? I'd need another private sub-forum. I'm not a math person and I don't know how many different possible permutations of players meeting there could be, but enough that I didn't want to trouble Greg with that extreme of a request. If I had access to spin up private sub-forums on my own, I'd attempt it again in a second. Realistically, though, there's still a better than average chance that the ends won't justify the means, because it's a lot of work on the DM.

It was a TON of work! Short term, it's doable, and I don't remember how long the game actually lasted but I was running four daily post games at the same time and couldn't keep up. I probably could have (and maybe should have) made a decision to just move the game public instead of putting it on hiatus, but it was a complicated because.... two of the players knew each other while the other two players knew each other, the different groups weren't in the same place and, perhaps most importantly, I was completely burnt out. Besides, if I didn't put that original game on hiatus, this 'Resurface!' game wouldn't have happened, and I think I needed the success of this game to keep going.

---

Edit, I see that Alethan already weighed in while I was composing the above post.

I think we would probably call the game "not successful".

Agreed. Definitely crappy game management on my part.


Speaking of which, that game really never got off the ground. It did get dangerously close to the next day in game -- the day of the festival -- the day when the game really started, so I'd by lying if I said was I wasn't at least tempted to pick that game up with the current players and have you start where the original group left off. I'd run it exactly like I did 'Resurface!' here from the start, so it would have a much higher chance of succeeding, and could probably allow me to get the game up and running more quickly.

If not that, my other plan is to do what I did with my Foxmoor game -- literally just start the game, offer up a handful of story hooks, and let the group just do whatever they want to do. Sandbox it all the way. The only "problem" with that is it takes a while to build out maps in Google Drive like I did for Resurface. Doing that on the fly would not be easy, or fun, so I'd want to make as many of them up as I could in advance. Having that prep work already done makes a huge difference in the amount of effort it takes to run a game.

Train arriving now... gotta run.

[onlyme]

Dave,
You are far too critical of your DM management. But if you feel the need to keep running successful games to gain more confidence, then so be it.

I didnt have a problem with the Sandpoint game. My PC was on his own for the first little bit, so I only saw the delays there at the end. Maybe I would have had different opinions had I met the other PC sooner.

I assumed Ludorus was adventuring with an fellow PC, only because of the mentioned delays. Had it been an npc, the DM can quickly make the decisions/moves, whereas another PC takes time to bounce back and forth dialog.

I would recommend the PCs have a very specific purpose for being in town, so that the meetups are much more likely to occur and faster. I could see how frustrating the open visit to town could be, if we continually met stray NPCs and forever ran our own private adventures without meeting up actual PCs.

As far as sandbox suggestion... As long as you keep the list of participants at 4-5, that sounds fine, too. The one issue I had with Foxmoor was that with 10 or so PCs it became much more difficult to get consensus and manage the game even from a player. I cant imagine the work the DM must do to keep everyone engaged and fighting an equitable opponent.

[dmw71]

You are far too critical of your DM management. But if you feel the need to keep running successful games to gain more confidence, then so be it.

I call it like I see it, and still feel like I'm responsible for blowing that failed game. The game wasn't working, and how could the blame possibly fall on the players?

Foxmoor was really the first time I ever really DM'd anything other than a revolving door of monsters back when I played as a kid, so I had no idea how/if I'd be able to do it. Admittedly, that fact factors into my labeling the game as a success (with "success" translating into fun, not necessarily survival). It also taught me that I enjoy DM'ing, and I do want every game to be successful. Hopefully, the more experience I get, the better I'll become.

I didnt have a problem with the Sandpoint game. My PC was on his own for the first little bit, so I only saw the delays there at the end. Maybe I would have had different opinions had I met the other PC sooner.

I assumed Ludorus was adventuring with an fellow PC, only because of the mentioned delays. Had it been an npc, the DM can quickly make the decisions/moves, whereas another PC takes time to bounce back and forth dialog.

Yes and no. Yes, some of the delays were timing issues (e.g. Your character would act. I'd relay that action to the other player. They'd respond. I'd pass their response onto you), but I'm sure some of the delays stemmed from my becoming burnt out as well.

I would recommend the PCs have a very specific purpose for being in town, so that the meetups are much more likely to occur and faster.

Agreed. Every character learned that the first inn was at capacity so their only other option was the other in on the far side of town. My self-criticism stems from the fact that I should have just fast-forwarded the action once a character knew where they were going to go instead of dragging it out for however long I did. Granted, the meetups that did occur did take place while the characters were travelling to the other inn, but they could have just have easily taken place in the inn.

I could see how frustrating the open visit to town could be, if we continually met stray NPCs and forever ran our own private adventures without meeting up actual PCs.

That's the thing, how would you, as a player, ever know?

I guess I really didn't think it through before launching the game because the only way the game could realistically go public, the way it was set up, was if all four players met and agreed to join each other. What are the odds of that happening? At least right away.

As far as sandbox suggestion... As long as you keep the list of participants at 4-5, that sounds fine, too. The one issue I had with Foxmoor was that with 10 or so PCs it became much more difficult to get consensus and manage the game even from a player.

Wow. I just looked back and there were 11 characters operating at the same time in Foxmoor. I definitely learned my lesson there and won't grow a party out that large. There were 6 characters to start: Jareth, Gwillt, Garth, Shannigans, Ewell and Kaltar.

That was a comfortable number. I think we were still good once we added Alordan. Beyond that is when things probably started to get crazy.

My cap will be 7. That's a lucky number, right? It's actually kind of perfect, too, because there are the 5 current players from 'Resurface!,' plus, I've had requests to join my next game from 2 other players. If, once my next game officially starts, everyone is still interested in available, we'll be at the cap. If any number of players decide they can't or don't want to join, we'll still have 5 or 6 players which will still be a good size.

---

Edit
I think Foxmoor still ran pretty well when Epsilon was added, which made a party of 8. I'm still going to keep the party size capped at 7, but wanted to point out that a game can still run smoothly with a party that size.

[onlyme]

... For now, assume the game will be run using the OSRIC A5 rules.

1e
2e
Basic

1E it will be.

Just confirming... OSRIC is the go-to guide, correct? there are some subtle differences between it and 1e (like the silver piece is a dime in one and a nickel in the other and a few rules interpretations)

[dmw71]

Just confirming... OSRIC is the go-to guide, correct?

Yes.

When I DM, I intentionally plan on using a set of rules that are freely available. For 'Resurface!,' I wanted to use the Rules Cyclopedia, but went with Labyrinth Lord instead since it was free (and, yes, I realize Labyrinth Lord is the OSRIC equivalent for BX, not BECMI, which was repurposed as Dark Dungeons). Anyway, I'm of the opinion that every player should be on the same page - literally. If a rule interpretation is requested, I want to be able to quote a specific page number and every player will be able to find it. So, instead of using the actual Player's Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide (each of which have been reprinted multiple times, and neither of which I actually own any longer), I'll default to the freely available OSRIC equivalent.