2010-07-04 Campaign Feedback Reviewed Part 2
This is a continuation of part 1. I’ve changed things around a bit and omitted the two boring questions regarding where to game and the size of the gaming table.
part 1
- *More atmosphere?** One player would like a bit more description but is afraid that more description will distract players. One player has no preference. One player likes it but within reason. Two players want more. I guess a bit more time spent on descriptions and atmosphere would be a good thing!
- *More NPC interactions?** One player thinks we have enough interactions. One player thinks the D&D 3.5 skills make sure only bards get to be useful at it. I guess being “effective” at it wasn’t on my radar when I wrote the question. Some people just like the roleplay opportunity afforded by the interaction. One player likes it the way it is. One player wants more interactions but is afraid of “weakening the bard.” One player thinks the bard is overpowered in social situations (”shines like the sun and we try not to cast any shadows”). All in all I’m not sure what to make of it. I guess I won’t change anything for the moment.
- *More riddles?** Practically every player wanted more riddles. Right now we have none, I guess. Some of the players explicitly said that they preferred riddles to be in-game. I just find it them hard to provide in-game. Any ideas? I’d like to add something every now and then.
- *More setting exploration?** One player says yes, others like the adventure path as it is. I guess that means no change.
- *Is the adventure path too linear? More sandbox?** I would like more sandboxes. They mean more surprises and more flexibility for the DM. Two players would like a bit more freedom. One player doesn’t mind. Three players like the linear setup (”it’s called Dungeons & Dragons not Wilderness & Goblins”). The table is split.
- *Tougher combat?** Several players said it was about right. One player said that easier fights were preferred. Two players disliked mid-level increase of save-or-die situations. Two players want it to be tougher. Again, no clear answer emerges.
- *Less combat?** Two players answered no, another answered a bit less maybe. I’d like combat to be much shorter! One player said that maybe an occasional smaller (easier?) fight would be nice. I find myself in a minority position.
- *Stuff being nerfed?** Nobody offered anything, but the bard discussion was picked up again by two players.
- *Number of players?** Most people like it the way it is with four players being preferred and six players being the upper limit; my upper limit being seven players. We are currently six players. Thus, I won’t be looking for more!
- *Want to run some sessions?** Two players would like to try! Hurray!
- *Did I forget anything?** Apparently I did not.
Hm... What should I make of it? Apparently we have very divergent ideas in some areas, with no clear measures for me to take. 😟
There are a few areas where we can *improve the game*, however:
1. *more descriptions*
2. *more riddles* – but they have to be in-game (which is tough)
It’s also worth noting that things which bothered us in the past no longer show up:
1. nobody complained about the time it takes to resolve one round of combat
2. nobody complained about the rules being too complicated (some people just felt that we don’t need to look everything up at the table right then and there)
#RPG
Comments
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
Overall this sounds like you’re doing a good job and there’s nothing radical to change – unless you as GM feel uncomfortable with things. Consensus is a fine ideal, but sometimes one has to step up for themselves.
– Harald Wagener 2010-07-03 09:04 UTC
Harald Wagener
---
Although in-game riddles are fun, I don’t think that they have a place in 3.x/4.x systems that rely on a skills mechanic. Riddles are played similar to traps and social settings in these new systems, which basically means a dice roll. You can’t have both worlds. Either the players must eschew skills for “Search” and “Disable Device” and “Bluff” and “Knowledge” (which would be used for solving riddles), or you turn a riddle into a dice roll.
– TimmyD 2010-07-05 09:32 UTC
TimmyD
---
I think in-game riddles can still work, but they cannot be the kind of traditional, verbal riddles. Assume the party arrives in a village, there are five people there, each reporting a facet of a murder mystery. Now the party can think it through and identify the murderer without requiring spells or skill checks. I just find it hard to set something up like that.
– Alex Schroeder 2010-07-06 11:34 UTC
Alex Schroeder
---
I don’t know... I think that in a skill-based game, the players will inevitably cry out that “My character would know how to figure this out” and demand a skill check. The role-playing and player/dm interaction is irrelevant.
Check out this short article about Don't Roll, Think! where the author picks on the “Spot” skill. This can equally apply to riddles and problem-solving in game.
Don't Roll, Think!
– TimmyD 2010-07-07 11:31 UTC
TimmyD
---
I guess that’ll be the point where I draw the line, then. 😄
– Alex Schroeder 2010-07-07 12:00 UTC
Alex Schroeder