I'm sorry you're feeling frustrated, but I think it would be a mistake to drop this issue. Clearly we've been hashing out problems for months now with no resolution in sight and we seem to be in a vicious cycle of frustration. In my experience the only way these kinds of situations end are either by talking things out and reaching a consensus, or a breaking point is reached and people start burning bridges. I would prefer to avoid the latter if at all possible.
This is how I'm perceiving things from my end: I feel as if I'm criticized for either making things too hard and the results hard to quantify, or I'm criticized for making things too easy and the answers fall into your laps. I've had much the same conflicting feedback on how much your personal choices played into this, as Akropash you took complete control over but Grastle Hollow had a pretty pre-determined set of events yet both missions were met with a certain level of frustration. What I'm saying is that from my perspective I feel I'm being asked to walk a very thin line and that I have very little leeway to make events that aren't responded to with frustration and heavy criticism. The only mission that seems to have universal approval is the first one, even though that was a heavily railroaded introductory mission.
I gave up on this discussion months ago because it was clear we weren't making any progress. Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I'll give it one more try.
I don't think anyone has ever complained that you made things too easy. As I mentioned previously, we're frustrated that our efforts never yield results and the story only ever progresses because the solution is given to us. No, that doesn't mean we don't want the solution dropped in our laps once we've been spinning our wheels for a while - it means we don't want to feel like we're spinning our wheels to begin with. If you're committed to a handful of solutions and/or our efforts are simply going the wrong direction, point us in the right direction and be direct about it.
You say the first mission was railroaded but it certainly didn't feel like it as much as most of the rest of the campaign. We were given a task and took efforts toward said task (yielding tangible results). Eventually we found our way into the king's castle and killed him. If that is what you believe railroading to be, I don't think anyone would complain about more of it.
Was it necessary to put Crajun's presence in town up to a die roll? Would it have hurt the story for Dalton and Takarel's information gathering to have succeeded? Yes, it was fruitless. In order for them to have borne fruit, that information would have to prove useful - it did not. You mentioned this was a side mission and wanted to get it over with. Why throw a wrench in our progress? If Crajun had been present we could have set up an ambush, captured him, and been done with this already.
Bjorkus made a significant effort to conceal his presence in town which was apparently pointless because the NPCs immediately recognized his ship. You didn't describe the docks but if the town was that small that the ship would be in plain sight, Bjorkus would have anchored at sea. Later, Bjorkus sent his best swimmer out to capture the spies before they could report back to their boss. Why decide that should fail? If Kal had captured the spies, we could have arrived at the same conclusion - a meeting with Crajun - but it would have left me feeling like I had some agency in this story. Once again, we've spent several days spinning our wheels only to move things along because the NPCs decided it's time to move the story along.
Something like this would have been significantly better:
Captured Prisoners: Hey, you're Bjorkus. Why did you sabotage our ship?
Bjorkus: Because we're trying to get a hold of your captain.
Captured Prisoners: Oh, sure. Let us go and we'll set up a meeting.
Sometimes agree to disagree is the best way to leave a conversation, but since this is about the nature of the game itself I don't think we can leave it be.
Grastle Hollow was intentionally designed to make you feel like you were spinning your wheels. There was a purpose to that, but clearly it was overridden by the frustration it caused. I realize my mistake there. But I think you're projecting that experience onto other events.
The first mission was absolutely railroaded, and the rest of the campaign has been very open ended. It was quite literally an example of an open-world game with a tutorial. So I don't think the frustrating is being articulated well, because I don't think it's about autonomy.
I think this may be the issue: You guys appreciated the direct "This is the mission, go do it" kind of story, with very insulated cause-and-effects and a lot of dues-ex-machina and very tangible successes. Very much like most adventure paths. However that's nothing like the game I'm intent on running. Probably the biggest thing about me as a GM is that I like playing with a lot of moving parts to create as dynamic a world as possible. Not only am I dedicated to giving my players full autonomy, I'm also dedicated to giving NPCs full autonomy, and the world in general.
I think that in particular has lead to most of the frustration on your part. It seems you take an action with a stated objective, but when NPCs don't fall into what you want to happen, it frustrates you.
No it was not entirely necessary to put Crajun's presense in town up to a die roll, but I felt it the most realistic way to represent how he spends his time (a strategy I learned from a number of APs: using die rolls to determine where a person is who's spending their time in one large place). Takarel's gather information roll was successful, and indeed with the high roll even gave you information that I wasn't planning on you having at all. But you chose not to act on it. Which is fine, that's totally up to you (re above: autonomy). But please don't choose not to act on certain information and then claim it's useless.
Bjorkus I promise you I'm not trying to be difficult or intentionally throw wrenches into your path. I set the situation up, took note of what Crajun was aware of, designed a particular personality for Crajun, and have been acting accordingly to that in response to your actions.
I did assume you were anchored at sea, for that exact reason.
I did not 'decide' that should fail (is that even a failure considering Bjorkus got what he wanted?). The spies had a head start so Kal caught up to them on his own, tried to slow them down so that backup could arrive, and in that time was told about how Crajun was interested in talking (despite being upset at the sabotage of his ship). I rolled a sense motive for Kal and a diplomacy for Crajun's first mate, Kal sensed no depections and Crajun's first mate rolled very well, so Kal believed him and made the judgement call to try diplomacy. Again: autonomy. And everything has been a result of your autonomy and the decisions you have made. But that doesn't mean I strip the autonomy of everybody else to react in character to what you do.
I'm not sure how exactly to address this issue. I like a dynamic world with a lot of moving parts. You seem to want a more predictable world. Perhaps I'm not articulating that well, but that's what I'm getting.
I will add my two cents about this later after work, but the short of it is I feel, Omen, while you like the moving parts, making their inter-dependencies which should be overtly known to the players isn't happening as well as it could be. This is due in no small part to the facts (1) they are myriad and (2) being undercover requires a lot of transposing in an already complex composition.
I think that may be the issue. The problem is I'm not sure how to reconcile showing you guys all the moving parts while also keeping player/character knowledge separate and keeping the subterfuge aspect of the game. The point is that your actions have all sorts of consequences and ripples and domino effects, and you're not always aware of what they are. For instance, killing Nuro may have initially seemed simple but now you've learned of the problems it's caused due to the power vacuum. Taking back Bjorkus' ship has shifted powers and alliances within the political sphere of the pirates. Putting Alziver back in charge has shaped the future of Grastle Hollow forever. Replacing Targ with Sinafo has dramatically altered the power structures of Yenrick. You guys have mobilized hundreds of thousands of people, entire nations, over half the continent. And it's not all just the big events. Clearly Geoffrey is having personal issues and your conversations with him has shaped his outlook on the world. Marcus the Dog is now serving Andril. Koriat has gotten to talk to his son. And the Hand's Council has had all sorts of difficult moral problems thrown at them.
Perhaps the question shouldn't be "Let our decisions matter" and more "Let us know about the effects of our decisions". The only question would be how much and what to tell, because it is a campaign about subterfuge and lies and secrets.
Context is king.
Dalton isn't wrong that there have been several things recently that felt flat or paper thin.
I would frame it as player engagement.
Player does X.
GM reveals through dialogue, setting, and development of plot the branching consequences of X.
Player runs with X (sub-set.) More consequences result.
It's like a seduction. Use your story-telling to draw us in further and further.
It's odd to me, since I've seen you do compelling story before, why things feel so stilted and arbitrary over the past year.
You really do not need to reveal all secrets and lies, but rather make some pay off to our actions with which we can engage.
Recently without a doubt. But I'm not sure how much of that is due to this issue, or is instead a product of this frustration and me trying to push some life into the campaign. I've certainly had days where I'm in the mindset "Well all my players hate everything I'm doing but I should post something otherwise they'll complain about me not posting too".
I think it's a vicious cycle at this point. You're just waiting for me to fail and I'm just waiting for you to yell at me.
As far as pay off to your actions, I don't understand how what just happened isn't just that. Bjorkus did something. Now you have a conversation with Crajun as a direct result of your choices.
I'm also unsure how you want to resolve this mission, because Bjorkus seems uninterested in doing anything else with it.
That is not a healthy cycle. Not for you and not for us.
I cannot speak for the others, but I do not want you to fail. It brings me no joy. Crafting stories with people I enjoy brings me joy. However, I do admit that having felt like I have been burned before, I keep waiting to feel the fire again. This perception makes your mindset resonate with me.
I'm not really sure what to do to subvert this cycle. Brute forcing it seems like a bad call. Ignoring it seems worse.
But to address you other point of confusion, from my point of view it's something like this:
The characters decided to search for Crajun.
They do several things in pursuit of that goal.
An NPC makes a choice, and the conflict (writ-small) is rendered moot.
It's like expecting the butterfly whose flapping wings caused a hurricane to take pride in its contribution to the storm.
The PCs made choices but their choices were not the pivot of the resolution.
Now if our scouts had managed to capture theirs and brought them back, those captured scouts could have made their case. Kal could have urged Bjorkus to hear them out. Then the meeting would have been a result of Bjorkus's choices, highlighting his narrative as captain.
Or, perhaps, Kal doesn't trust Bjorkus and this is hint of some brewing mutiny. (Bjorkus would hate that. He has believed since Akropash -- and all that torture -- that the world is out to get him.) But the mutiny would need more set up the characters fleshed out more. It would suck, but it would be a believable story and tie back directly to previous choices. (The choice to stay a PC.)
The resolution that has happened thus far is one that undercuts Bjorkus' authority as captain and also doesn't center the agency on the PCs.
At least that is what I got from Bjorkus' last post.
Yes that's a good clarification, I don't think anybody here is hoping for failure. Rather, as you describe, it's becoming more of an expectation and people are unconsciously looking for things to meet their expectations.
So one purpose of my games is to break the meta of "You're PCs, everybody else is an NPC". As such I avoid dues ex machina and other common story telling tropes that kind of bend reality in order to lend the idea that the PCs are the "main characters". However make no mistake I have things of great legend planned for the PCs.
I think Toarmin got most of what I was going to say.
So one purpose of my games is to break the meta of "You're PCs, everybody else is an NPC". As such I avoid dues ex machina and other common story telling tropes that kind of bend reality in order to lend the idea that the PCs are the "main characters".
The description of this town implied the opposite though; it was featureless, and the terse knowledge of the character's surroundings made them look inward for the next step, pushing a character-centric viewpoint, not what you mention above.
Yes I failed there, it was a town I hadn't fleshed out yet and I wanted to avoid stalling the game any further so I pushed things along hastily. I understand my mistake there and I know how to address it.
I don’t know where to start. Please bear with me as I try to formulate some thoughts. I’ve said it before, but it needs repeating: this is one of the most successful game I’ve been in. I don’t want anyone in this game to fail. Especially you DM Omen.
This story belongs to us. As four players and one GM. It’s a collaboration to tell a story better than each of us could tell it separately. Sure, there’s a slight adversarial role to the GM, but I like to view it like rivals in anime; there’s respect (friendship even) as we push each other to be better. Granted this situation isn’t completely analogous, but I’m sure you understand what I mean.
I need to think about this more, in terms of how to proceed in-game.
It’s not just this game, but in all text based collaborative games, indeed pretty much in any situation online or offline, everyone has different assumptions about unsaid details, the context, and our expectations of future events are based on those assumptions. How do we get our comprehension to be more in sync? I’m not totally sure.
Okay, that’s all for now. I’ll write more later tonight if anything else should bear fruit in my mind.
I suggested that you narrate the conclusion to this side quest. Put it up to a dice roll if you need to.
As a GM, your greatest strength is your world building. The world you've crafted and most of the NPCs that populate it (sans the villains) are compelling in a way that I want to participate and be part of it. The problem is, every time I try I immediately regret it. Almost every major action Bjorkus has taken throughout the campaign has encountered excessive roadblocks or arbitrary failure resulting in, at best, an unsatisfying narrative and, at worst, frustration. The 'dice did it' is not a valid excuse. You're the GM and sole determiner on what does or does not work. You determine the results of any given action. This isn't a hard-coded video game. I find myself enjoying this campaign the most when I'm a passive participant and I don't think either of us want that.
The best comparison to the way I've grown to feel about this campaign is the same way I feel about HBO's Game of Thrones. It's great entertainment built around an incredibly well-fleshed out world with compelling characters and an interesting metaplot. That said, I would never want to play a game set in that world because 1) It's guaranteed that your character will not matter in the grand scheme of things and you're mostly there to pad the run time of the episodes, 2) Most of your efforts through any given season are pointless and will end in failure so that the season finale is suitably exciting, and 3) It's just a matter of time before your character is tortured and/or violently raped and/or murdered.
I know we've had this discussion a dozen times over the 3.5 years this campaign has been going but I have tried giving you pertinent suggestions when this conflict has come up before and you always deflect them. If you're really committed to improving the experience for your players (and yourself by extension), rather than shoot them down because 'NPC X was already prepared for all your plans!' or because 'You rolled on a chart and it came up FAILURE', try taking those suggestions and working with them? If you're having a hard time agreeing with the concepts we're bringing up, why not try learning through doing?
Possibly-problematic suggestion:
When we players feel the need to ask for explanation on events that don't seem to add-up, we do. Right away. When we players feel the need for additional exposition to provide deeper interaction from our characters, we request it. Right away. The onus there would be on us. Presently, I believe we've waited a bit to hope things work themselves out. That is not working.
Here is the problem I expect to have happen though: The information needed will become overwhelming and stultify the game with its delay.
Example: The workings of Grastle Hallow. Toramin hit on it in many of his posts, but there are some inconsistancies with city realities in that place. I'm not expecting things to be perfect, but when players must make assumptions for realities their characters see, find-out these aren't the case, yet would never have had their characters take actions/draw conclusions they did in the first place, there becomes a long strand of retro-fitting necessary to remedy things. We don't expect you, Omen, to know everything about everything. Nobody does. The problem with situations like that one and this one now is (especially with clandestine nature) you can only describe so much before revealing secrets you need to keep from us as the GM.
Example: Dalton walks into a crowded market square and uses detect thoughts. This is a level 2 spell, so it's not über-magic problems or anything.. In what I consider to be rule -1, Don't-be-a-Dick, I'm not likely to ask for the thoughts of 200 people over the course of half an hour unnecessarily. However, especially in a clandestine game with double-agents and whatnot, it can be quite relevant to know what each person in a room is thinking. To do otherwise is unwise and would, frankly, be out of character. It does circumvent a situation you likely took a while to create ... by providing a solution you'd have to take a while to create (the thoughts).
Thus, there is some Goldilocks window here where you need to provide enough material to get us to get the gears turning, but not so much where the work is done for us already. Like Toramin said, it's like a seduction. Too easy, and there's no teeth to the challenge. Too hard, and they call you a creep and slap a restraining order on you.
Here is another point where I fear we maybe speaking past each other. We say things like "player engagement" and you hear something like "we are the main characters were are all our perks!!!!???"
All we want is to be active participants in the story.
Consider your audience.
Each of us is writing for an audience of four other people.
When your writing and your choices minimize the ways we can react to your story, you are not writing to your audience well. We are the PCs not because our characters are "more important" on a cosmic scale than other characters but because they are our only access to engage in this story. Ostensibly, you want us to write in a way that pulls us in further into the story. That means that even when things are happening behind the scenes you do not want us to feel like we are spinning our wheels until you usher us along. So, please, engage us.
Well I've certainly been given a lot to think about. I'll see what I can do about implementing some changes, and maybe we'll come back and reevaluate if we need to. For now I'm going to push the story along, and at Bjorkus's suggestion I'm going to narrate past it.
Working on a write up. Who else is interested in going with Ianna to see Geoffrey?
Toramin.
Dalton and Takaral will attend.
Please describe the locale of Moultrie, its system of governance, and how it fits into the region as a whole. I was rolling for possible incognito work Takaral may have done in his past, and that rough area came up.
Rilka, Bjorkus?
Bjorkus will pay Geoffrey a visit but he isn't interested in any formal dinners.
Rilka will attend. Sorry for the delay.
Dalton and Takaral will attend.
[dice=P]1d100
[dice=C]1d100
[dice=D]1d100
[dice=R]1d100
Please describe the locale of Moultrie, its system of governance, and how it fits into the region as a whole. I was rolling for possible incognito work Takaral may have done in his past, and that rough area came up.
Relevant for Takaral in this situation with Geoffrey.
Ah I missed that. I'm at work and blanking, what was Moultrie again?
Ah I missed that. I'm at work and blanking, what was Moultrie again?
One of the settlements on your map of Erandor.
By chance do you mean Maunie?
By chance do you mean Maunie?
No. In Gethsil by the Southern lake.
Wow I literally checked the map four times looking for it. I need to change that text to white.
I'll get my notes in the morning and give you details!
~Moultrie~
Moultrie is a large coastal city. Much of Yenrick's trade is reliant upon their large coast, and Moultrie is the center of this trade. It is known by many as "The Crossroads". A city with a very diverse population (even for Yenrick) and all sorts of exotic people and goods coming and going.
Moultrie has had a long history of violence. Due to the powerful position of the city, Slave Princes are always vying to gain power over the important location. In addition the amount of slaves that go through the city make it a good target for freedom fighters. As such whoever is in charge usually rules with an authoritarian fist, and there's always a large military force within the city.
Let me know if that gives you what you need Dalton!
~Moultrie~
Moultrie is a large coastal city. Much of Yenrick's trade is reliant upon their large coast, and Moultrie is the center of this trade. It is known by many as "The Crossroads". A city with a very diverse population (even for Yenrick) and all sorts of exotic people and goods coming and going.
Moultrie has had a long history of violence. Due to the powerful position of the city, Slave Princes are always vying to gain power over the important location. In addition the amount of slaves that go through the city make it a good target for freedom fighters. As such whoever is in charge usually rules with an authoritarian fist, and there's always a large military force within the city.
Let me know if that gives you what you need Dalton!
That is the entry for Moultrie, not Maunie?
Man I am seriously out of it. Sorry Dalton, I'll get the correct one up shortly.
~Correct Entry~
Moultrie is a medium-sized civilization deep within the forests of Gesthil. It's about as wild and uncivilized as a named spot on the map can be north of the great elven forest. The civilization is built into the nature itself, trees grown and shaped into shelters. It is said that one without sharp eyes can walk through without even realizing Moultrie is there.
But there is still a sense of order there, which is why it's been given a name and marked on the map. A complex but thriving ecosystem keeps Moultrie alive, as well as a strong sense of community. Although it is mostly isolated from other nations, Moultrie is not safe from conflict. Most of Moultrie's threats come from the nature around it, particularly when the beasts of legend come wandering in from the south. Moultrie also has a small but notable population of wild elves from the south; the only marked area north of the forest where one can reliably find wild elves.
I am going to write Takaral in - pending objection from you - as an apt hunter from such an area, ensconced enough to be a weighty voice in one of the elven tribes without being one of their political leaders. He will appear as this form while on the trip to Geoffrey. While it is a disguise, the experience is authentic, one of his many dabblings with humanity - or elvenity, as it were.
That's fine except that Takaral would only know individual elves who venture to the north. The wood elves are very reclusive, borderline xenophobic.
That's fine except that Takaral would only know individual elves who venture to the north. The wood elves are very reclusive, borderline xenophobic.
Perhaps I was unclear. In his curiosity of mortalkind, Takaral took on the identity of such an elf in its native state, living as such for years. While he may have known a few elves which ventured into more "civilized" territory, the main idea is Takaral was himself known to be one of these wild elves ... though even they did not know him as Takaral.
Isn't Gesthil the nation with everybody in it? Like all the random pc races? Isn't it known for its cosmopolitan ways?
Don't the xenophobic elves live in the woods to the south?
Yes it's totally fine to have an elven alias and have a background and setup in Gesthil, I thought Dalton meant was a setup with the wood elves to the south.
So yes, that's alright Dalton!
Also I'm not sure what we're waiting on in gameplay.
Yes it's totally fine to have an elven alias and have a background and setup in Gesthil, I thought Dalton meant was a setup with the wood elves to the south.
So yes, that's alright Dalton!
Also I'm not sure what we're waiting on in gameplay.
Well, as Dalton and Takaral are there, they'll need to chime-in to the interactions with Geoffrey. I would've done so earlier, but I had to know the auspices under which Takaral would be appearing, and that posting line has been going since Monday.
Well, I am waiting on Dalton to post something because I don't want to give you the impression I'm trying to run away with the dialogue. I imagine that Dalton wanted to get the information he had been asking about for his own purposes.
Ah I apologize than, on with the show!
And now you will all learn about my wine habits ;)
I'm moving over the next couple days so my posting may be a bit spotty. I've have my phone but I don't know that I'll have a ton of time to check on PBPs. Please NPC me as necessary.
Thanks for the heads up Bjorkus.
Rilka you interested in chiming in?
Does the queen say anything else to the dwarven siblings? This isn't a complaint or a rush. I just want you to know that I'm reading and engaged, but since she is their social better the pace of the conversation is hers to set.
Just trying to get the others involved a bit. I'll have her respond shortly.
Are there any in world holidays coming up that Andril especially celebrates? Or something interesting but not scandalous that has caught the nobility's collective eye? Ianna wants to transition the discussion to safer waters, but doesn't want to throw Geoffrey to the wolves and start discussing his romantic prospects.
2 cp says Heff is secretly courting Geoffrey in one of his disguises and keeps toying with his emotions as a way to keep him just effective enough while keeping tabs on him. It explains why Geoffrey was looking like he was dying of something chronic and why he would want to get away to something that would provide an excuse for distance from this "romance" that he otherwise cannot exclude himself from.
3 cp says Heff would break it off by saying "It's not you, it's me." - perhaps after Geoffrey has an affair while deployed, revealing his identity in the process.
That hussy thinks she can steal Geoffry from Darla?! Joke's on her - he never had 'Darla' to begin with!
I hadn't put much thought into holidays, but the gods are the same as in Golarian and we're currently in early winter, so maybe we can find something appropriate (Andril celebrates most good and neutral deities, and has a tolerance for a few evil deities as well (Asmodeus being the most prominent one)).
Oh no, Dalton has peeked behind the curtains!
In world, the campaign started in the early fall. This means that the original party has been together over a year.
As for early winter holidays, we have, in order:
Crystalhue (solstice, devoted to Sheyln)
Vault Day (Abadar, not sure what it is about)