OOC I

[Zhym]

Man this island DM is evil do we ever stand a chance of ever encountering something we can actually defeat?

FTFY.

[GreyWolfVT]

Well you know.. Dave isn't an evil dm....
I just think he is like the crypt keeper....

[dmw71]

I have some thoughts for this game, but not the time at the moment to fully commit them to typed out words. I also need to sort out a few details.


Expect an announcement of sorts soon.

[dmw71]

Expect an announcement of sorts soon.

I think we're all in agreement that this game, in its current state, is in a bit of trouble. This island is set up to present challenges for a party at full strength, and, I won't lie, will be extremely difficult for just two characters.

While I already took the time to type out a lengthy, detailed post, I scrapped it all and have a simple question for you guys:


Would you guys be receptive to rebooting this game and updating the ruleset from BX to 2e?

• If no, I am fully prepared to run this game in its current form to its natural conclusion, but will volunteer that I've been leaning against artificially prolonging it by adding new (or returning) players into the mix.
  
  If yes (and we can work out all the details of converting easily enough), I would definitely be willing to recruit new players and inject more life into the game.

What do you guys think?

[Zhym]

I'm definitely up for continuing under 2e with additional players.

By "rebooting," do you mean starting over, or just playing on from where we are now under the new ruleset?

[dmw71]

By "rebooting," do you mean starting over, or just playing on from where we are now under the new ruleset?

Either.

A ship with the newly added players could pass by, be flagged down, and the group could be rescued and dropped off in another port city where something will happen (and it will be less "you're free to do whatever you want" since that tends to lead to long periods of nothing happening).

Or, the new players would have already been on the island and the current players encounter them (and they collectively must deal with the island, and getting off it... or not).

[AleBelly]

I have personally enjoyed the grittiness of the B/X rules. I've also become much more busy IRL. These two factors make me less inclined to play another 2e game...I'm really enjoying dave's 2e sandbox but may bow out of another.

Dave, I think you should run the game you want to. If you want to transition to 2e, I suggest you do so. It's hard enough to DM a game, let alone one that isn't using the rule set you prefer.

[GreyWolfVT]

Dave I am up for either. I love 2e and have no problems rebooting into a 2e setting. I also have no issues finding my grizzly fate in B/X then rebooting.

[dmw71]

Okay, the game will continue as is, though I'm thinking I might relax the expected posting rate a bit -- maybe four times per week, instead of the current five (or more). I still want everyone to strive to post as frequently as possible, but if we miss an occasional day or two, so be it.

I'm expecting at least two new characters to join Bingus and Dorin, and plan to kick things off again on Monday.

[Zhym]

Hey, folks. Dave and I have been engaging in a discussion in my private forum and we thought it made sense to move the conversation here so everyone could chime in.

I think there's a question of whether there's a long-term future for this game or if we're just "playing it out."

My preference would be for this to become a game that you enjoy running, Dave, not something that you're continuing on a limited basis out of a sense of obligation. What you're doing right now seems like a half-measure: by allowing existing players to roll new characters but not opening the game to new players you aren't really killing the game but it doesn't seem like you're injecting new life into it, either. It's more like you're agreeing to keep it on life support for a while longer.

I was actually pretty excited about the 2e conversion: you'd enjoy running the game more (it's always good when a DM is into his own game), we'd get an influx of new players—heck, maybe even a waiting list like your other 2e game has—and Lúthon (the backup character I rolled a while back) would kick serious amounts of butt as part of a larger, viable group. Instead you're saying you'd rather keep this game going the way it had been going. But the way it had been going was trickling players away and heading towards an inevitable death. It seems to me, anyway, that all you're doing by adding one more player is slightly prolonging that death. There may be fun to be had on the way, of course, but there's a different feeling in bringing in a character that you know is going to die soon vs. one you think might be able to retire rich at some point after his adventuring career is over.

For what it's worth, I see two reasonably good options. In order of my personal preference:

1. Convert the game to 2e and open it to new players (not just new characters for existing/previous players). I like B/X and don't want to lose AleBelly, but I think it's paramount that the game needs to be in a system you enjoy and are comfortable running. I also think it's important for the health of the game that it get new blood to replace spilled blood.
2. Leave the game as B/X and open it to new players. Like I said, I enjoy B/X. With this option, we'd (presumably?) get to keep AleBelly in the game and the game would go on "as advertised." The reason I don't have it #1 in my list is that even as an opened-up game I don't know how much future it would have if you don't really enjoy running B/X.

After that, the options aren't that good IMO. Leaving it B/X with three or four PCs, as I explained above, seems like it just prolongs the inevitable. We might have some fun along the way (or the new PCs might die almost as soon as they're introduced). I'm not sure, but if that's the only other option I think it might actually be better just to close this game down and let those of us who aren't already in your other 2e game join that one (maybe with our characters here converted to 2e).

I'm curious what others think about options for this game's future.

[dmw71]

I think there's a question of whether there's a long-term future for this game or if we're just "playing it out."

That question was a legitimate one. Two characters on this island -- one, a magic-user with no spells -- admittedly don't stand much chance. My initial thought when the group was effectively "losing" the battle against the armored guards beneath the lost city, was to end the game. When Bingus, Pendleton, Phineas, and Sasha all survived, the game kept running as normal. It wasn't ideal with only four characters, but it also was far from a lost cause. Then Phineas disappeared into the woods... so I added Dorin. The current group was reduced to two very recently, and I'm looking to add more players into it, and it appear(ed) as if the party would be brought back up to four again. I attempted to add a fifth, but that player declined.

My preference would be for this to become a game that you enjoy running, Dave, not something that you're continuing on a limited basis out of a sense of obligation.

For the record, I don't dislike BX. My preference is just 2e.

What you're doing right now seems like a half-measure: by allowing existing players to roll new characters but not opening the game to new players you aren't really killing the game but it doesn't seem like you're injecting new life into it, either. It's more like you're agreeing to keep it on life support for a while longer.

A few things to this point.

1. I have always had reservations about adding new players on an uncharted island. How many times can you keep doing it and make it believable? I suppose indefinitely, as long as players are willing to continuously suspend their disbelief, but there is that.
2. I would be much more receptive about adding more players into the game if I had the ability to spin up new private forums myself. I don't. The only person that has the capability is Greg, ToniXX. The issue isn't whether he would do it -- he would if asked -- it's also other little factors as well.

Namely time.

Time to publicly post about openings and field responses (if any). Time to reach out to recommended players to recruit them outside of the "normal" means, wait for their responses, answer any questions, etc.... I need to do all of this in addition to running the two games I am, plus my real life stuff, including family and work.

Then, only after successfully getting new players to agree to join the game, I need to reach out to Greg. He is normally pretty awesome about spinning up new requests pretty quickly, but it takes time.

Yes, I have limited the addition of new characters to existing players, but that is only because of the reasons listed above, and not a matter of my half-assing it. I do understand how it may seem like that, but hopefully now anyone that might have felt like that can appreciate some of my reasons.

I was actually pretty excited about the 2e conversion: you'd enjoy running the game more (it's always good when a DM is into his own game)

I'm still into this game. I'm excited about the ruins of the lost city... and the island itself. They're both challenging, though. I expect players to realize that.

I'm aware of my reputation, and, quite honestly, I'm okay with it. I'm not a push over DM, and won't be. I also exclusively run entry-level characters to start, whom are quite vulnerable. Perhaps more so in a BX game?

we'd get an influx of new players—heck, maybe even a waiting list like your other 2e game has

Maybe? But maybe not. I haven't actively recruited for my 2e game since... well, probably since it started, but I get very few requests to be added to the waiting list.

And, I want to preface my next statement to make sure it is made abundantly clear that my next point is not an attempt at a guilt trip, or even anything remotely similar, but there is a current player (an excellent one at that) that hinted they would not be interested in making the switch to 2e. I don't like 2e that much more to even risk losing a quality player like that. So, BX it is.

It can't even really be considered a compromise, or a sacrifice. This is what I signed up to run, and have been running it. Not unhappy so.

It just felt like, if there was going to be a significant influx of new characters (I was hoping the party would more than double in size) that it 'might' feel like a "new" game. And, if I was going to start a "new" game, it would be 2e. I am fine to keep running this game, as a BX game, for as long as necessary.

Depending upon player decisions, luck of the dice, and other factors, the length of this game could be as short as the next encounters or years. It all depends.

Lúthon (the backup character I rolled a while back) would kick serious amounts of butt as part of a larger, viable group.

Well, the current group of two could certainly use Lúthon, and the character Inferno has agreed to create in order to rejoin the game. That is your call, though.

And, yes, I named names. This next introduction will not be more transparent than normal.

Instead you're saying you'd rather keep this game going the way it had been going. But the way it had been going was trickling players away and heading towards an inevitable death. It seems to me, anyway, that all you're doing by adding one more player is slightly prolonging that death.

You're right, I do partially want to keep the game going as it has been. As previously addressed, a party of two probably does not stand much of a chance, but the odds significantly better for a party twice that size.

Unless everyone agrees to put the game on hold indefinitely while:

• I work through the recruitment process for new players,
• We wait for the new private forums to be spun up once these new players have been identified,
• We wait for the new characters to be generated, and questions asked and answered,
• And so on...

There may be fun to be had on the way, of course, but there's a different feeling in bringing in a character that you know is going to die soon vs. one you think might be able to retire rich at some point after his adventuring career is over.

Show of hands: How many players expect their characters to reach immortal levels?

I jest. A little.

There are inherent risks in creating a brand new, 0 xp character. More so when using the basic rules. And maybe even more so in a game I DM.

That said, spinning up a new character in the BX game is not that difficult (it is nothing compared to a Pathfinder character, or even a character in the 2e game). Is it sad if a character dies, after you've invested time in creating them? Sure.

Perhaps my perspective is skewed by the fact that, as a kid playing the game, I rarely -- rarely -- had characters reach even 2nd level. My brother and I would just grind them out and run them through the revolving door of monsters to challenge. It was awesome!



Okay, yes, as I player (that probably didn't play the same way I did when I was a kid), I can understand how one might feel a lot better about their chances if they were joining a party that was going to be five or six players deep (six is the largest party size I like to run in a play-by-post game (even if my 2e game currently has seven)) instead of four, but, again, unless everyone wants to put this game on hold, that can't realistically happen.

And, yes, the game would need to be put on hold. The process of bringing new players on board (from recruitment to character generation) will realistically take a week. A lot of very bad things can happen in a weeks time, or not. Still, I wouldn't want to risk it.

For what it's worth, I see two reasonably good options. In order of my personal preference:

1. Convert the game to 2e and open it to new players (not just new characters for existing/previous players). I like B/X and don't want to lose AleBelly, but I think it's paramount that the game needs to be in a system you enjoy and are comfortable running. I also think it's important for the health of the game that it get new blood to replace spilled blood.
2. Leave the game as B/X and open it to new players. Like I said, I enjoy B/X. With this option, we'd (presumably?) get to keep AleBelly in the game and the game would go on "as advertised." The reason I don't have it #1 in my list is that even as an opened-up game I don't know how much future it would have if you don't really enjoy running B/X.

Your points are noted, but have largely been addressed already.

Again, if the players involved -- AleBelly, GreyWolfVT, Inferno, Zhym -- all agree that it's worth putting the game on hold to add new players, I will. If not, unless another former player, whom already has a private forum, and is familiar with my house rules, and comfortable using private forums, is interested in joining the game, the party will be what it is.

Then it's just a matter of whether Lúthon wants to join Bingus, Dorin, and the character Inferno is generating? Of, if you're concerned about Lúthon specifically, and would rather convert him into a 2e character and save him for the waitlist in my 2e game, that's fine, too. Feel free to create a new BX character ---


Oh.

Again, going back to my childhood gaming experience, most of the time it was just my brother and I. One would DM and play, the other would play. Almost always, we would control two characters each. If party size is a concern, but the effort of adding new players is the biggest obstacle, I would be fine if the players in the game would each control two characters at the same time.


I would have some rules about that (e.g. don't combine updates; each character would require their own update, etc...), but that is an option the group could entertain as well.


Just a thought.


Good discussion.

I really do not mind players voicing their opinions like this, and welcome feedback. Even if I do not always agree to every request, I am always receptive to it.


Thoughts?

[AleBelly]

I'm happy either way. A week's wait to get going again is fine with me. But I'm also happy to continue with a small group. We just have to be willing to run if something looks too tough.

Good discussion.

[Zhym]

Show of hands: How many players expect their characters to reach immortal levels?

What's that—Immortal? Don't talk to me about—Immortal? You kidding me? Immortal? I just hope my character can make it to 2nd level!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7fjDS0jKiE#t=12s



From what you wrote, it sounds like the main issue is whether to open the game to more players. It also sounds like that's mostly an issue of the time it would take to get new players ready. IMO, you wouldn't have to put the game on hold to do that. We could continue on with the four PCs we have and add new characters as they become ready. We'd have to play cautiously until the new PCs arrive, but we'd also know that help would be coming.

Some other specific comments:

Yes, I have limited the addition of new characters to existing players, but that is only because of the reasons listed above, and not a matter of my half-assing it.

Just to be clear: calling the current plan a "half measure" doesn't mean I think you're half-assing it. It just means that the current plan is halfway between shutting down the game and opening it up to new players.

I'm still into this game. I'm excited about the ruins of the lost city... and the island itself. They're both challenging, though. I expect players to realize that.

Oh, we do, we do. Which is why (1) we avoided going back when a full party of six had their asses handed to them, and (2) it's important that we have plenty of players, IMO. If the monster level won't change and the PCs won't get any more individually powerful, the most we can hope for is to have enough characters to stand a fighting chance. That's all I'm asking for, anyway—for the party to have a fighting chance.

I also exclusively run entry-level characters to start, whom are quite vulnerable. Perhaps more so in a BX game?

Quite probably. Plus, the whole no-clerics experiment may not help, although the jury is out on that one. It's so easy to one-hit kill a 1st-level character that I'm not sure a cleric would have made a difference in most of the deaths so far.

You're right, I do partially want to keep the game going as it has been. As previously addressed, a party of two probably does not stand much of a chance, but the odds significantly better for a party twice that size.

We probably have different opinions of the chance of success a four-person party has. A four-person party was just cut in half by a single big damn crab. Worse, there was nothing we could have done about it: we lost initiative, so even running wouldn't have helped. Of four PCs, only two escaped and one of those was by the luck of a roll. One crab, and it was almost a TPK.

Any four-person party of PCs interested in their own survival would just hide in the Mistress until rescue came.

Perhaps my perspective is skewed by the fact that, as a kid playing the game, I rarely -- rarely -- had characters reach even 2nd level. My brother and I would just grind them out and run them through the revolving door of monsters to challenge. It was awesome!

We also have different definitions of "awesome."

When we were playing AD&D back in junior high school, our characters tended to have twenty-something levels and a hoard of magical items. Okay, so that was way too munchkiny, but almost never getting to 2nd level seems like it goes too far in the opposite direction.

(six is the largest party size I like to run in a play-by-post game (even if my 2e game currently has seven))

Why is that? My impression was that old-school RPGs tended toward larger numbers of PCs. The Keep on the Borderlands, for example, says it was designed for 6-9 1st level PCs. The Lost City (B4) says it's for 6-10 PCs. And the Basic set rulebook (p. B19) says that "The best size for an adventure party is 6-8 characters, enough to handle the challenges [that] will be faced, but not too many to become disorganized or to ruin chances to surprise the monsters." Everything in ODD seems to say that six PCs is the minimum force you should consider setting out with. It might drop below that out of necessity sometimes, but four PCs probably shouldn't be considered sufficient numbers unless the monsters are adjusted accordingly.

If party size is a concern, but the effort of adding new players is the biggest obstacle, I would be fine if the players in the game would each control two characters at the same time.

This is a great idea. We might even do it in combination with letting some new players into the game: we go with two PCs each right away, then new players could join as our existing PCs inevitably die off.

BTW, have you ever considered running a Paranoia game? I think the built-in mortality rate would suit your style.

[GreyWolfVT]

too many thoughts the only part I am adding to is I am all for 2e as I previously stated.

[Zhym]

Here's the tl;dr version.

The only official question before the panel at the moment, AFAIK, is whether each of us would be willing to have the game pause while Dave tries to add new players. AleBelly said a week is fine (and that getting going with a small group is also fine). I'm also okay with a pause, but I also think we could get started and recruit new players in parallel.

There's also a possibility of having two PCs per player. I imagine thoughts on that would also be welcome.

[GreyWolfVT]

A pause is fine by me to give the time to drum up players as well so long as it doesn't end up being a month.

[Inferno]

Hi
I'm fine with pausing a week, if everyone else really wants to.

I'm against having two characters. I barely have time for one. But that shouldn't stop anyone else from having two.

If you three want two characters, then that makes 7 in the party. At that point do we need more players?

Also, is onlyme still on the wait list?

[dmw71]

I know Zhym is creating a second character, which would bring the party up to five.

If one other player wants to create a second, that would bring the group up to six, which would be enough. If not, I will recruit to add one or maybe two new players.

Also, is onlyme still on the wait list?

I forgot I even had a wait list for this game. Yes, he apparently is.

I will reach out to him. Maybe he would be interested in joining, with one or two characters, and that would give us six or seven.

(six is the largest party size I like to run in a play-by-post game (even if my 2e game currently has seven))

Why is that? My impression was that old-school RPGs tended toward larger numbers of PCs.

I put the emphasis on "play-by-post" games. I'm sure, in a face-to-face game, having that many players would be fine, and decisions can be hashed out quickly. However, I have found, when you're dealing with a large number of players in a play-by-post game, each checking in a different times throughout the day, the game tends to bog down, and it takes significantly longer for decisions to be made.

I had a very solid group of players in my Foxmoor game, and even then I felt it bog down a bit once I added more than six or seven players. I'm feeling the pain a bit now in my 2e game where days are being spent talking and not acting. The games just bog down.

Another reason I'm kind of liking the multiple characters per player idea. I'm okay with a larger party size if I can keep the number of players and actual decision-makers in check.

[Inferno]

PS: I prefer BX over 2e.

[GreyWolfVT]

I'm not opposed to running two characters. Granted I know with my inability to post at work you often are waiting on me.