The Unseen Servant forums

Hoondatha wrote:And while I'm not furious, I'm getting more and more tired of this game's lack of cohesion. This isn't a group, it's a series of individuals wandering often at cross purposes, and that gets wearying. Honestly, the only reason I haven't had Tarrin do the logical thing as say, "Heck with this, I need to get home," and leave is because I like the character and don't want to stop playing him.

If it's a lack of cohesion...whose fault is that? Mine? The players? The campaign itself?
I guess I could have ran a published module which basically puts everyone in the group working toward a common goal, but I tend to like a little more freeform gaming. I have been flexible enough to allow three different groups/duos/trios - whatever you want to call them - to branch off and do their own thing. I don't see that as a bad thing, but I certainly see where it might be frustrating for some.
I'd like to hear from the other players> if we need to pull everyone back together and regroup and work toward a common goal (like you did with the werewolves), I can arrange it. It won't be easy with Oggle and Lysander in a hole to the south, but the rest of you can manage to get together fairly easily. Nok's player just contacted me and is ready to rejoin. Haven't heard from Bel in awhile; he may be done. Same goes for AQ.

Hedge I love this game and I love the freedom you have given us as players. Dont change a thing!

Hmmm... If you will allow me to speak frankly:

(And, keep in mind, this is simply my opinion and how I see the game thus far... obviously, others will see it differently.)

The game has cohesion. Separate story lines have been drawn together to merge groups by giving them uniting tasks. Tasks have been completed successfully and new paths were set before us. At several points, players chose to make their characters take paths separate from the rest. *shrug* Hedgeknight indicated an accord with such actions, so we can only watch these things play out. When AQ broke off to do his own thing, I had a suspicion that he was going to drop from the game at some point in the near future, because I am in a game he was also playing on another forum and his character there did some strategic "distancing" actions as well. It doesn't do any good to try and convince someone to stay in a game they don't want to play, though, so I didn't say anything to him at the time. It happens. I don't know; maybe he had some significant changes to his personal life that meant he couldn't focus on gaming for a while. I don't carry any negative feelings about it; it just sucks when someone drops without indicating they are doing so. I'd much rather have a DM or player just say, "Hey, life has me down. I need some "me" time for a while. Hope you all understand." Whatever the reason, it makes room for new players who want to join in. Excellent! I try to learn as much as I can from interacting with new people playing new roles (and even from known players in different roles, on occasion).

Anyway... I think the stories and plots provided us certainly have been blended together pretty well. We still have a main task, which, for the time being, is really just a continuation of the shapeshifter task: Relay information back to the elven clan. There is a plot hook of strangers who arrived via a stone portal waiting for us once we arrive (that ties us back to Tarrin's origins into the story, even). New player injected with similar task of searching out unusual magical activity in Neverwinter Woods helps strengthen that and provides a common goal, which helps join said player to existing group. That all sounds very clinical, maybe, but it is how story lines are developed. It's a two-part process, like writing a fiction novel. First you come up with the actions, the events. Then you use imagination to give the events life, tie them together, and make them feel real.

The party, however, does not quite have cohesion. And that is OK! We all have different play styles. We all have different ways of doing things. They rarely are in-sync with everyone else in the party.

C+1 helped me understand (what, about two years ago?) that not every group is going to be chipper and happy-go-lucky and all get along like some Disney movie. I appreciated the lesson and growth. And, for the most part, I'm pretty good with some party contention these days. I don't like to see it get in the way of someone enjoying the game, however. That's when it is good to hash things out in an open manner, figure out what's not working and see what can be done to fix it.

The RPG style I grew up playing was this: you. had. to. kill. everything. you. came. across.

And the one battle tactic of the group I played with was this: attack!

And, through what I like to call "Unfortunately Benevolent GMing", we were rewarded for these tactics (or lack thereof). There were many times when I thought a character of mine should have died; when, by my calculations, an attack should have hit one of the players and killed them or a saving throw should not have been made. I get it. The GM wants players to have fun and nobody likes to see someone's character die.

But by not letting us make mistakes (best summed up by Gelatinous Q's signature, "Failure is always an option."), and by shielding us from certain consequences of our actions, we never really developed properly as players.

Over the last four years of PbP gaming, however, my views have changed drastically. One game that really made me rethink my style was an OD&D retro game based on exploring the mines of Moria. One of the big differences was this: We got no XP for what we fought/killed. That was completely incidental. We were rewarded XP for each square/hex mapped and for each gold coin recovered. So if we could figure out how to sneak past a family of cave trolls and leave them behind, then great! That was one less (huge) battle we had to fight. That game made me begin to realize that trying to kill everything we came across wasn't always the best way to do things and that sometimes finishing the task at hand meant using avoidance tactics (er... that's a nice way of saying, "running away").

Playing more old-school games over the last four years, with similar experiences (experience rewarded for avoiding an unnecessary fight or not finishing a mission because we didn't do enough to avoid a fight, etc.), has left me playing a game far different from what I played 30 years ago. Or even 4 years ago.

Those are just my gaming experiences. Everyone has their own RPG history, from versions played to tactics learned, and so everyone has different ideas of how to go about doing something.

But one constant we all have to keep in mind is that the actions we make for our character have consequences, in the GM's world and in party dynamics. People are going to react to those actions in their own way. Just something we have to figure out how to deal with.

In this, it is very much like the really real world.

(Apologies if the response got choppy towards the end. Trying to write between doing things at work. Didn't end up working out so well as I kept losing my train of thought. Think I got the gist of it, though...)

Alethan wrote: C+1 helped me understand (what, about two years ago?) that not every group is going to be chipper and happy-go-lucky and all get along like some Disney movie. I appreciated the lesson and growth. And, for the most part, I'm pretty good with some party contention these days. I don't like to see it get in the way of someone enjoying the game, however. That's when it is good to hash things out in an open manner, figure out what's not working and see what can be done to fix it.

And I learned quite a bit about role playing and when to dial it back in a game where a snooty mage of mine was knocked out cold by a fighter for having a verbal exchange with a drunk priestess. I was shocked, annoyed and upset that another PC would take things to violence but it taught me a good lesson about a balance between role play and having a character speak when they should be quiet for their safety.

I know I like my D&D like I like my beer- Full flavored, with a bit of bitterness

Computer +1 wrote: I know I like my D&D like I like my beer- Full flavored, with a bit of bitterness

Oh, completely off-topic at this point, but...

http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2013/09/g ... lease.html

It came out this last week. Mmmmmm... If you're a 'stout' man, definitely worth trying. If you want to try it, better start looking now because it isn't going to last long. Try local businesses who specialize in wine/beer sales.

Sounds good! A buddy of mine owns a fancy beer specialty place in the city, I will hit him up!

I'll "take the black"
Can't wait to get a taste of it!

Ned Stark's review -"Worth losing your head over!"
King Robert's review- "Hits you like a tusk in the gut!"

Computer +1 wrote:Ned Stark's review -"Worth losing your head over!"
King Robert's review- "Hits you like a tusk in the gut!"

Argh!!!

Sir Ilyn Payne's review - "..."

Viseryth Targarian's review - "I'd give my gold crown for another bottle of Take The Black Stout!"

Game Update (9/30/13)

"New players, old players, and departing players" is the theme of this update. We'll start with the new. A big welcome to Argennian (Mitch) to the game! His character, Purvan, has already been introduced, and has joined up with the Neverwinter Woods group.
As for "old" players, rtdersch (Ray) is back with us! His schedule has lessened and he is ready to bring Nokrugh back into action.
And we say goodbye to Belkregos (Octavio) and AQuebman (er...AQ) who will be leaving the group. Belkregos is swamped under at work and AQ has been AWOL for weeks, so I am taking over ownership of Oggle Steambottle, whose fate shall be made known very soon.

Now, some questions for the group > since we are down to six players, should we attempt to recruit 1-2 new players or continue forward with our current line up?
For rtdersch, you can head west to Neverwinter Woods and hook up with the rest of the group, or head south through the Griffin Hills and try to find the whereabouts of Oggle. Got a preference?
For Fearghus, you're about to come to the end of your adventure - thoughts about where you wish to venture next?

I'd like for the group to eventually make its way back together...and see what we can accomplish again as a large force for the good of the Realms.

However you want to spin it, I'm good. At the very least, I think two groups would be good, but one group would be great, too.

Yeah, two groups is about my limit > I don't want to end up with 3-4 "groups" going off and doing their own thing. D&D is a group game after all.

Sorry Hedge but you can't get what you want. I rolled up 25 characters yesterday and they are all branching off on various quests.

Okay, sorry for taking a bit to respond; yesterday was kind of crazy.

So. The thing I most enjoy about D&D is the aspect of meeting and overcoming challenges as a team. Yes, personal power is cool, and getting magical loot is nifty, but I can get that from a computer game. It's the cooperative part of D&D that is most fun for me, whether "overcoming" means killing or outwitting or sneaking around.

But this group isn't a team. (I keep hearing Mark Ruffalo from the Avengers going, "We're not a team.") We're a group of individuals who happen to sometimes be walking in the same direction. I can't count on any of you to have my back, and even our biggest combat to date, at the werewolf den, was much more a combat of individuals than a team effort. And like I said before, that's wearing as a player, and infuriating for my character.

And yes, Hedge, in answer to your question, it is partially your fault. You've encouraged a feel of "Do whatever you want, I'll accommodate it." Which is good in some respects, but which has also directly led to the disintegration of the group. Take for instance the difference saying something like: "Congratulations on defeating the werewolves. I would like for the group to stick together; let's discuss ideas for where to go next."

Same player flexibility and ability to comment, but makes it clear that this is a group, a budding team, and not just individual PC's that are going to scatter to the winds. Because if I'd wanted to play a one-on-one, I would have joined one.

Computer +1 wrote:Sorry Hedge but you can't get what you want. I rolled up 25 characters yesterday and they are all branching off on various quests.

Hoondatha wrote:And yes, Hedge, in answer to your question, it is partially your fault. You've encouraged a feel of "Do whatever you want, I'll accommodate it." Which is good in some respects, but which has also directly led to the disintegration of the group. Take for instance the difference saying something like: "Congratulations on defeating the werewolves. I would like for the group to stick together; let's discuss ideas for where to go next."

Well, fuck me for trying NOT to run a "railroad" game like you get with most modules and homebrew campaigns. You know, where the DM tells you what you are going to do and you by God do it! Hell, he might even roll the dice for you like some of the games on this forum.

Because if I'd wanted to play a one-on-one, I would have joined one.

Well basically, you did a one-on-one encounter with your reaction to the hill giant. W/o consulting the other two members of your group, you decided to confront it and with the luck of the dice, managed to not only entangle it, but kill it. I don't care that you did that, I'm just pointing it out as an example that EVERY character does a little bit of solo adventuring now and then, even when they are part of a group...which you say you're not a part of.

I'm not going to apologize for the state of the game as it is currently. I'm not. It evolved into what it is and I'm cool with it. If anyone is not cool with it, then now's a good time to either speak up or go find another game that fits more of what you are looking for.

There's a difference between railroading and providing a bit of structure. Choosing to stand back and let anything happen is still a choice, and it still affects how the game evolves. You said earlier that, "D&D is a group game after all," but there seems to have been very little effort given to actually keeping that group together.

You're right, I did say that and guess what? You're part of a group! There were just three of you and now there are four with Argennian's character (Purvan) - five if you count Thaleese the NPC. And soon there might be six or seven, once Lysander finishes up and Nokrugh joins in.
Dude, I'm not sure what you're complaint is about.