I've run Gestalt before as well as a "1.5 gestalt" where the secondary class advanced at 1/2 progression. I have no problems with the system, though it sometimes makes standard encounters trivial and requires more effort on the part of the GM to make things challenging. It also leads to less "holes" in the party comp for the GM to exploit for fun and drama. :)
gestalt 1.5
Edit: First post, second page!
On Rotating GM's:
I actually like this a lot. I was involved in a project that was essentially the inverse of this with the Loom of Fate project with Feral (whom I haven't seen in TEN YEARS!! *Old man wheeze*).
Anyway, it was a very interesting project because it, in theory, allowed for a kind of enhanced "living world" where players could effect other games. Paizo themselves did a Society scenario akin to this, The Sky Key Solution, but the interaction was limited.
So I've had some experience with a variable table. I love it. Having the same GM all the time can get stale, whether the characters are interacting actively or not. That change in style over the timeframes common to PbP (months, easy) is refreshing.
Another ongoing campaign I'm in set in Warhammer 40k has us players occasionally switching to other squads of troopers, letting us play different roles and builds without so much as disrupting the overall story of our Regiment. I've been thinking of adapting this to a PF campaign, but haven't had the time yet.
In the end, getting a group of people together who are all wiling to GM is incredibly rare, I feel. Maybe less so here on the boards, but participating in a project like this would be great fun!
Hey Ebon, hey stormraven! I enjoyed playing in Mott's Fire Over Blackcrag with you, back in the day. I was "Big Al", the halfling cavalier...and my most memorable scene there was When she died in the jaws of a mythic tyrannosaur (the drama starts with this post, and goes on as the party tries heroically to save her...ends with her being swallowed...and then miraculously--thanks to Nic/Ebon (and a healthy dose of DM Fiat)--Big Al is brought back to sail through the end of the adventure.
A few sample Player posts
I'm proud to have completed Rise of the Runelords on the boards, from start to finish. Here's an example post from it, at the end of a tough fight. ..and another when she got distracted in a fight, while sharing insight from a knowledge roll.
I'm currently playing in a WotR campaign that has some of the most marvelous RP I've experienced. I'm playing the clan-liege of a Sarkorian tribe from a hidden valley where dinosaurs live...or did until the Wound opened. At this Example post she has recently awakened from a hundred years trapped in ice, and is wrestling with her failure to stop the destruction of her people's village.
Here's me introducing a ratfolk witch (and his obnoxious man-faced ratling familiar named Aroden), as they joined an ongoing Reign of Winter campaign.
And finally, introducing a cleric of Abadar, who replaced a character I retired in a game.
I've done a bit of DMing, but none of it on the forums. I understand if that disqualifies me, but I believe that a setup like this--with other great players, who love to RP--would be a great first place for me to bring my DMing online.
Build Rules
I've really been impressed with the way Spheres of Might and Power enable cool concepts, without breaking the game. I'd give a plug for considering them.
I'm fine with gestalt, or not. My fave version of gestalt picks one side of the build for the Saves/BAB/Skill Ranks, so that we don't end up with a party full of full casters with full BAB and all good saves. If we go for full gestalt, my preference is to encourage folks to build around a theme and still leave weaknesses in their builds. I *like* depending on one another. It can be fun to play support, or a tank...but if noone needs defending, or boosting, then the game loses a bit of shine for me. (The thing I love with gestalt is concepts like "Cleric of the God of Thieves", that's hard to do generally...though I'll note that I think the latter is much more possible when single-classed with the Spheres system's flexibility.)
GM Qs
Alignment: I care less about "adhering strictly to their alignment" and more about players getting to breathe life into a character who has to make tough choices. I *LOVE* seeing characters grow through their faults, and change over time...or (for sadder arcs) lose their way, over time. Sometimes either of those leads to an alignment change.
I think there are many ways/expressions of being Lawful Good (or a servant of a particular god). I want players who serve a god to think about what that really means for their character...and if it doesn't fit alignment neatly, that's less important.
Morality: I've enjoyed both black/white and shades of grey. There IS a certain simplicity built into a world where everyone has an objectively measurable alignment, and that alignment has mechanical effects...but even within that there's clearly room to play. As with above, I love a world/game where folks can feel surprised and challenged, and where their characters can grow over time as people.
That said, I tend to prefer Good/Neutral parties, unless the player(s) playing Evil characters are very mature and committed to the game. I've seen it work well...but Evil characters are often selfish and untrustworthy, and that can make it hard to build a thriving party. (As I write, I realize a party that coordinates well and takes care of each other is a BIG motivator for me in PbP. I can enjoy some tension between characters--especially when it's planned/desired by both players--but mostly I want the party to grow to really work together.
Discord
100% in favor. My most successful games on the forums now use Discord, and I find it keeps things moving and also enables brainstorming between players.
A question from me: How do you feel about tabletalk?
I'm flexible on this. I've played a very "hard mode" in person game where the DM really wanted to model the mistakes we make under stress, so we disciplined ourselves not to remind each other about info during combat, and had a very quick time-limit within which to declare our actions. It was brutal, but very interesting. Many costly mistakes were made!...but he scaled encounters accordingly (and injected logical errors in stressed foes as well).
In PbP, I mostly play where it's fine for the players to keep each other on track, or share info freely...but I think it's good to decide what's on/off limits in terms of discussing strategy during a fight.
Choon wins the prize! I have no idea what the prize is... but you won it!
Just to be clear, gestalt play isn't a foregone conclusion. We are just 'noodling it' at the moment. We appreciate everyone's willingness to roll with this particular 'twist', if it comes to pass.
As you guys have pointed out, it does require a bit more effort from the GM. The advantage of it (according to our noodling) is what you've pointed out as well. It gives the group more 'court coverage'. And that could be super helpful to the PCs when you realise that each GM can grab diverse adventures (overland, urban, thieving, combat slogs, diplo-heavy, hostile environments, undead, outer-planar, etc.) and drop them on a recurrent team that has to 'make it work' whatever the situation. :)
"Whaddaya mean we're stuck on the Plane of Shadow and no one has a light spell?!? I wanna know what's eating me!"
1.5 gestalt is an intriguing way to play it. Personally, I believe in limited forms of gestalt because 'no rules' seems to lead to abuse by some min/maxers and creates a real headache as a DM. Again, those are my personal thoughts, not a reflection on what the game parameters will be.
Hey Gyrfalcon, good to see you again. Thank you for applying and for the in-depth post. O.O Typed your fingers off on that one!
Eben and I will read it and fire off any questions we have.
Hehehehehehe. I started pulling together some sample posts...and then wanted to answer the super rich Qs / discussion so far.
I'm looking forward to more!
How do you feel about tabletalk?
Eben can chime in here as well, but I think that will be an expectation that each GM can set for their own adventures when they are 'in the chair'.
In my games, I encourage it. I do some tough fights that will roll the party up like a rug without at least a modicum of coordination. As a GM, I don't need much more of an 'advantage' than setting up a really nasty encounter. So, I am very happy when the players jump into the OOC to establish a strategy and try to pwn my DMing ass. :) I'd rather the Gameplay thread not become a wall of blue text, however, but I don't rebuke players when that happens. And short blue comments in the gameplay thread ("Bob you forgot to add the bonus from Bless on that roll"} are totally great.
OK, this is a bit 'in the weeds' but since we are talking here... the reason I like the players working out strategies and reminding each other of bonuses, even 'ganging up' on the DM, etc. is because it strengthens relationships. Characters interacting builds bonds in game. Players interacting builds bonds across games. OK, getting off my soapbox now.
OK, this is a bit 'in the weeds' but since we are talking here... the reason I like the players working out strategies and reminding each other of bonuses, even 'ganging up' on the DM, etc. is because it strengthens relationships. Characters interacting builds bonds in game. Players interacting builds bonds across games. OK, getting off my soapbox now.
This is very true. This is also why I like Discord for discussion and ooc stuff. It's faster, easier to know when you're attention is needed, and you can easily set up as many channels as you need, including secret channels. The 40k game uses discord to ping all when a new post goes up, which I love. I'm a busy person and that little reminder goes a long way.
the reason I like the players working out strategies and reminding each other of bonuses, even 'ganging up' on the DM, etc. is because it strengthens relationships. Characters interacting builds bonds in game. Players interacting builds bonds across games. OK, getting off my soapbox now.
YES! You captured something I wasn't able to articulate. I think the "hard mode" has it's place in F2F games...but I think building those bonds is harder in PbP without something like this. (It's part of why I want Discord too. We can humanize ourselves a bit more there.)
EDIT : Ha! Choon, you said everything I wanted to say in reply. Thanks!
On the topic of "table talk", I'm fine with it. I understand "hard mode", but that's just not the kind of game I run. Some of my In-person players have described me as a Neutral Good GM. I generally want the players to win, but if you do something dumb, it's on you and the dice may kill you.
I feel that this approach leads to a table where you can make mistakes Intentionally. You can play your character as forgetting, even if the table as players don't. OR you can play a character that can clearly see that his is a Bad Idea, but just doesn't care.
EDIT : Ha! Choon, you said everything I wanted to say in reply. Thanks!
You're welcome! *starts humming like Maui*
Sorry, I have daughters. I can't help but have Disney flake off of me wherever I go.
|
On the subject of table talk, it's always been present in games I've played and I've never seen it be a detriment. I'm very much a 'squad tactics' or 'party coordination' kind of player and compared to when I used to play in-person PFS, there just inn't much of it in the PbP games I've seen.
At a glance that seems counterintuitive, the extra times should mean more planning. But I think given differences in posting speeds among players, people being rushed to get a post up, the delay of posting over a day or two, etc. causing people to forget the details of previous posts, and any number of other things, including text being fairly low bandwidth for communication, parties have a harder time pulling off things of any real complexity.
I think active tablet talk is less an extra advantage than some compensation for the medium. That said, only one PbP I've played in used Discord, and it didn't last long enough to get a feel for whether Discord could make a difference. I'd be happy to try it our more thoroughly to see how it changes things.
Sorry about the short post. Just have a few minutes between kiddo pickups.
Table talk: generally it doesn’t bother me. Some kinds of discussion could/should happen IC. But sometimes it’s just far quicker/simpler to make a few blue text sentences to quickly get your thoughts to the group. And like a few of you have said, it can build community a bit.
I guess there could be situations where it’s important for players to ONLY communicate through their characters, but I’d think those would be pretty specific and rare. /shrug
Kiddos + Disney
Duuuuuuudddeeee … I feel you. I’m up to my eyeballs in “we don’t talk about Bruno” right now.
I know, right. That soundtrack was on loop for about a month in my house.
WE DON'T TALK ABOUT BRUNO! ... but *proceeds to show everyone in town totally talking about Bruno* XD
Enneagram works too and is maybe a bit faster, but I prefer the "mix and match" way the four Meyers-Briggs components workYep. Enneagram's my go-to method. :)
Hmmm... I just lower my meds and start listening to all the voices in my head.
Sorry, did I say that out loud? That was supposed to be my inner monologue.
I'm thinking about the table talk thing. Every group I've been a part of has had quite extensive table talking. Meta-gaming is typically frowned upon, but there's a certain (small) level of it that really helps drive things forward, and helps parties avoid getting totally bogged down in the weeds. "You're being attacked by stirges? It's lucky that I just happened by to give you my leftover food. What a lucky coincidence!" I'd really rather not play hardmode, but it's not a deal breaker for me.
In terms of Gestalt, I've tried all sorts of strange concepts before, mixing and matching. In all honesty, I am one of those min/maxers that stormraven mentioned, but before you get your torches and pitchforks, let me try and redeem myself slightly. I love RP, but I'm afraid that I just don't have it in me to read a MBTI, and make a whole character. Instead I find a group of cool powers that really speak to me, and then try and figure out what kind of person might have those powers. What's their story, and what lead them to becoming the character that they are now. Think of it like making a pot instead of carving a statue, I can't take a blank block of marble and carve a character out of it, but I can take clay, and build it up into something. I hope that this isn't enough to disqualify me? Anyway, this is a long winded way of saying, I am able to do gestalt, no gestalt, variant gestalt, or some other option that hasn't been discussed yet. One thing I've seen thrown around is giving all the characters a free variant multiclass, but not all VMC's are created equal.
Enneagram works too and is maybe a bit faster, but I prefer the "mix and match" way the four Meyers-Briggs components workYep. Enneagram's my go-to method. :)Hmmm... I just lower my meds and start listening to all the voices in my head.
Sorry, did I say that out loud? That was supposed to be my inner monologue.
I have never done this, but I think I'll try it out!
Just wanted to pop in to say "Hi!".
Hi!
I have my EC game tonight, but will endeavor to answer those questions...
I’ve got one more question for the panel:
Q3: What ‘maturity’ level are you comfortable playing at — G, PG, R, or Disco! ?
Wow … skipped right past PG-13, huh? :D
But seriously, good question.
I also skipped NC-17… cuz I scribble outside the lines!
Q3: I don't think exactly in those terms. If you needed an answer, I'd say PG or R both work for me...but let me answer differently:
* I enjoy games where failure is a possibility, and characters sometimes die. (Not that I begrudge a game where the party always succeeds!)
* I've enjoyed games where all violence is elided, anywhere to ones with a lot of explicitly described grit and gore. In the latter, I think it's worth seeing if anyone has any "lines and veils" (in a very informal way, or more explicitly, depending on the group's preferences). For instance, I have a lot of room for things like death of loved ones, character death, gore, and necromancy...but I'd rather no sexual violence in a game (or at least have it heavily veiled). I think the conversation around slavery has been thought provoking too. I think that it can come up in an RPG, in a way that's respectful, or that explores issues the table wants to explore...but I think going forward as a DM I'd avoid slavery in my games without an explicit discussion first.
. . .
Aside, I'm loving the thoughtful and amusing discussion in this thread.
One Q back from me. You said "we are prepared to chat with folks for as long as it takes to find the right people". That seems very fair! Now that the conversation is underway, do you have a better sense of timeline/process on yall's end?
Stormy 'consults' the Recruitment Magic 8-Ball after a good healthy shake... Answer unclear. Ask again tomorrow.
Eben and I have been chatting with the folks here, reviewing notes, combing through campaign threads, and constantly shotgunning opinions and strategies at one another for the last couple days.
Overall, we've gotten more responses and more strong candidates than either of us expected. That said, we are working towards IDing the team as quickly as possible because we know waiting on a decision sucks it.
Barring any wild conversational twists with you guys tomorrow or some amazing last minute candidate dropping out of the sky... we'll probably have a decision tomorrow night or (at latest) Wednesday morning.
Meta-gaming is typically frowned upon...
Oh, metagaming... how you make me smile.
>:D <-- sinister DM grin
|
|
So those questions.
Q1: Alignment isn't something that I think about consciously most of the time. It's a character decision I make at the beginning and then I mostly treat it as a baked-in aspect of the character's personality rather than an external structure or set of rules they consciously adhere to. That said, I don't play Paladins where the various oaths and codes are formalized. I'm generally playing in the NG - CG band of the spectrum as well, which tends to be pretty easy to inhabit without worrying about crossing too many lines.
I did play in an evil campaign briefly but it never really gelled for me. I didn't find the change of pace or the freedom to be nasty interesting. I guess I never really bonded with the character.
In games I've never seen a GM force an alignment change or anything of the sort. Nor have I seen other characters show patterns of behavior at real variance from their listed alignments, barring the isolated action or or there, usually in unusual circumstances or due to limited options. It's all been very low key with alignments, which is fine with me.
Q2: I suppose if 'shades of gray' is distinguished from 'gritty' or 'grimdark' then I've only played in campaigns that are of the shades of gray variety. Strict Black/White distinctions are rare, though of course good and evil do exist, and some creatures are inherently good or evil. In other words, although we didn't through out canon planar stuff and monster alignments weren't altered, characters need to figure it out for themselves.
Sometimes characters have done things they regret, or feel guilty about, about usually circumstances didn't allow for other better options. I can't think of any times when anyone has cheated the system just because they would suddenly be declared evil or whatever. Characters just have to live with the self-imposed burden. In the few occasions when it's come up, the players in question have handled it honestly and well in playing their characters.
Q3: This is the toughest of the questions because any given choice has to cover a lot of different possible things that, if broken apart, might receive different ratings. Also, it's the question that will probably see the greatest differences between players in ratings.
I'm not easily offended myself, But I am concerned that other players are comfortable and not offended. Since I'm not really inclined to ask for any particular rating for myself, I'll answer it from a different angle that I think is valuable. Does the content in question serve character development, or further the plot?
For example, there may be times when graphic violence serves a particular narrative purpose, that's fine. While I'm not offended by graphic violence, if it's used continually it stops having an impact. It's just more of the same as always. Less in general can be more because it allows more extreme violence to be impactful when or if it does appear.
I do like playing my characters as fully formed people, and people have romantic and sexual desires. I've had a few characters who were involved with others characters or NPCs, but that never required any particularly graphic content. The message can be delivered without it. The standard 'fade to black' rule works just fine. (As an aside, I heard that the default rating for PbP on the Paizo boards is supposed to be PG-13, but I don't know if that's true or just hearsay. Even if it's true, I don't know what it means in concrete terms, or whether Paizo actually cares enough to police the games).
This said, I do think there are subjects that have no value being included. Sexual violence is one of them. Anything that could be accomplished by included it can be done just as effectively by other means. I'm sure there are other things that can be added to this group as well.
Right. That's a tricky question. I think that graphic violence should be used, but sparingly, and as an emphasizer. I've played in games where our default questioning technique was torture, and to be honest that made me feel pretty uncomfortable. I'd much rather that the graphic violence is relegated to bad guy NPC's, and for important character moments, as opposed to a casual Tuesday. (Stuff like finding the guy who killed your parents, turned you into a frog, or other vengeance motivators. Or I suppose greater good motivators? Most of my characters would be conflicted if they actually had it in them to torture someone to save a greater good, but they would feel perfectly fine making lots of intimidate checks.)
I'm totally fine with fade to black stuff, in fact I like a little bit of romance in my games. Totally chaste has never really been my forte, and I'm a sucker for old Zelazny Chronicles of Amber novels, and those definitely have their racy moments. So I guess I'd say R, because you can always dial it back, and it's harder to dial it up?
What would a G rated D&D game look like? I ran a few My Little Pony themed games for my little sister, and her friends, and I used to work at a LARP themed summer camp, but even those had violent themes. I'm kind of curious just for the novelty of it. No blood, no permanent injuries, no death (after the prologue?), nothing disturbing/graphic, no sex, drugs, or rock and roll? I guess my characters might be happier if they lived in a G rated D&D universe...
Question 3: I think the intent is really important in the subject matter. Darkness, evil, gore, corruption, racism, slavery, and many other subjects can be totally appropriate in a game...but if someone handles them in a less than respectful way, it can feel it's there just for shock value.
I often feel this in my industry. Writer's who think they are Tarantino because they swear, have lots of violence and random crazy behavior. They 100% are not, and they will never understand why they don't get the same accolades he does.
A lot of people point to Critical Role to justify their behavior. "They are playing not good characters, they are murder hobos, they are doing crazy behavior." The issue is every single one of them is good at story-telling, and acting, and has an arc where their character will change, and the group knows and trusts each other. Under all that stuff is really well-written character.
I think the issue with "R-rating" and above is we don't know everyone at the table. We don't know how gracefully and respectfully they can handle really difficult, mature subjects, or how they might handle someone being made extremely uncomfortable at a table.
I tend to go R-rated. Blood, descriptive injuries but trying not to be horrific and gratuitous. Sex is behind a veil because honestly zero of us could write it well and most wouldn't actually want to read it if they could. Racism, slavery, etc. needs a solid character motivation, not just because it is shocking.
At a table where trust has been built and we know everyone is respectful and considerate and skillful? Gloves are off, lol.
I shall complete the questions after work.
Dorian: no, that’s not something we’re specifically looking at (as there could be any number of reasons for that). :)
We're all GMs here so I'm tempted to breezily reply, "Which GM?" :D
Eben and I briefly looked at candidate 'bandwidth' (the number of active games) and ruled that out as a factor to consider. We believe that you guys know your limitations and we have no business questioning that. If you can handle a half dozen games at once - more power to you. Welcome to the adult table... no one is cutting your food here!
Thank you for letting us know that you aren't as pressed for game time as you might otherwise appear.
Doh! Ninja'd by the quiet guy in the corner.
It's always the quiet ones...
I like you two already...lol.
Doh! Ninja'd by the quiet guy in the corner.
It's always the quiet ones...
Well, it's definitely always not never the quiet ones, am I right?
Uuuhhhh... right? Sure, let's go with 'right'!
Disco! Definitely Disco! I mean what else am I gonna do with these platform shoes?!?!
I gotta say... I like your style, Nick. :D
You could probably use a paisley shirt with a collar that doubles as an airplane wing to go with those shoes.
*chuckles*
Old clothes are funny.
Consults his watch... and ponders why a bird would wear a watch.
We have closed the door on any new applicants to this game.
We'll be busting out the cigars, brandy, and leather wing-back chairs this evening to discuss our choices and stub out cigars on one another.
Thank you all for your participation in the process and your patience.
Wheezing and shaking from his sprint to the finish line, our hero finds himself stranded on the dock, looking out forlornly at the boat departing the harbor.
Shrugging his shoulders, licking his fingers (aww! Why? Why do people lick their disgustingly dirty fingers?), and mixing in a few stretches, our late arrival begins to....
....if you thought run to catch the boat; you are incorrect. What would happen is our hero would go the the closest dock tavern, meet a stern-faced woman captain, and sweet talk himself a ride!
Q1: How much do you care about the PCs behavior adhering strictly to their alignment?
For instance, if a player has a LG character and you GM-grumble when they behave chaotically once or twice... I'd call that 'strict'.
Q2: As a GM, what do you prefer in your world... a simplified, black/white version of morality OR something more nuanced where there are grey moral areas?
I feel like you may have already gotten your answers....lol!
Thank you!
Psst... Dorian.
We are still accepting responses from heroes in the thread already. We just aren't accepting anyone 'new' to the thread.
Wait Dorian, the boat already left, why would you be running to catch it instead of swimming? Unless... you can run so fast that you run on the water? But that just begs the question, why would you need a boat? Unless your legs get tired?
It’s a dirty job but someone has to do it…
That was just my (apparently) poor attempt at humor. Alas, dear Oreo, I knew him well.
I was actually using that little scene to answer your Morality questions.
Q1: How much do you care about the PCs behavior adhering strictly to their alignment?
To be perfectly honest; unless the Player actually announces it, the Table usually isn't aware of others' alignments. Weird, I know. But that has been my experience at PFS tables.
Do I care? As a player; I tend to follow the actions of the character each week, as opposed to pointing fingers if they at out of alignment.
If the character has been ruthless since 1st (and the group obviously has gone along with it), then I am not too surprised if said character did something ruthless.
Play your character how you want; if it negatively affects the Table...well...we may need to chat.
For instance, if a player has a LG character and you GM-grumble when they behave chaotically once or twice... I'd call that 'strict'.
Q2: As a GM, what do you prefer in your world... a simplified, black/white version of morality OR something more nuanced where there are grey moral areas?
As a DM, I tend to the same outlook.
There was also something about Ratings? Whatever is agreed upon by the Table. I'm easy...lol. (Pun intended).
By the way, you would need to get used to my great jokes too....hehe!
@ Kazmanaught he doesn't want to get his new attire wet. Sea salt is just the devil to get out of silk!
OK, guys, time to yank the bandage off…
Eben and I were impressed with the thought you all put into your posts and our decision came down to the smallest of factors and ‘gut feel’ at times. Thank you, sincerely, for investing your time and efforts in our idea. We regret we cannot take more of you.
Would the following folks please join us in the Discussion thread for the next steps:
Choon
Dinketry
Nickadeamous
Best of luck! Hope you have a wonderful adventure!
Hey, everyone. I just wanted to echo Stormraven's post. We've appreciated all of the engagement and discussion. It was a tough choice. :)
Happy gaming, everyone.
Thank you for the opportunity. Happy gaming all!