2010-07-04 Campaign Feedback Reviewed Part 1

A while back I asked my players for feedback. We had just finished playing through volume four of the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path.

Let’s see...

*Do you like the game?** Most players simply said yes, and that’s great. One player she thought the social aspects (”group feeling and playing together”) could be improved. Hm... Perhaps we’re just too focused on the game? Arrive at 20:00, play, play, 23:00, everbody rushes home? Or we all just focus on our own character, stare at our character sheets, and don’t contribute to an overall positive play experience? (”Making other players awesome?”)

*Weekly, biweekly, monthly?** I missed the intensity of weekly play, and one other player said he liked weekly play (”fond memories of playing once a week, and was a touch disappointed when we switched to bi-weekly”); three players liked it as it is; one player would like to switch to monthly play. Difficult!

*More or less Combat, with or without battlemaps? Rules or rulings?** One player loves combat, rules, and battlemaps. One player would like more high level tactics (”I protect the mage”). Two players liked rules and battlemap but would like less rules discussion at the table. I guess that means rulings only when the rules are not well understood right then and there. I think that’s tricky, because only a discussion will show whether a rule is understood or not. I voted for visualization but no grid, more rulings and high level tacticts because I felt that the level of detail provided by the rules (grids, steps, actions) leads to micromanagement of boring detail. One player wanted less discussion with the DM (”it spoils the excitement”). I agree! And he said that in his old group they had no battlemap and he enjoyed it a bit more because it was tougher and more exciting. Interesting. My players usually start arguing the minute we discover that our fantasy is in fact not shared and has diverged. Again, answers differ a lot.

*Non-core feats & spells?** Right now they are disallowed by default but will be allowed on a case-by-case basis by a consesus decision made via email between games. I personally don’t like it when players start combing the books looking for that extra bonus feat; usually those come without story elements, so that makes them extra boring compared to research and finding stuff placed in the setting by the DM. One player would like more non-core stuff because of the variety it brings; one player is conflicted because it also increases rules uncertainty and is potentially “overpowered”; one player doesn’t care and would allow it for those that do care; another player (who has been denied several things already) feels like we should have clearer guidelines; one player dislikes the arbitrary nature of additions (”like building a building and then changing the foundation”). Difficult. No consensus.

*Switch from D&D 3.5 to some other rules?** One player would have preferred D&D 4E or Pathfinder RPG; two players would maybe try Pathfinder RPG; two players might go along with more radical changes but prefer not to; I want to switch to Labyrinth Lord. I guess I’m in a minority, here.

Continued…

#RPG