One of the goals of Felltower from back in the day was to end the game in town. As much as possible, we did so.
The goal was really simple - to allow people to drop and out, and play the game, without what happened in our last game - critical players.
We had players who we couldn't play without. The tracker's player missed game? Not a big deal, it's fine, someone could run him. The spearmaster? More complex, but sure. The wizards? Maybe one, but not both . . . especially one of them. The fencer? Yeah, sometimes, but she was often plot-critical.
This game, not so much.
Until now . . . when we've got a few PCs stranded in the dungeon, and a dilemma - a choice between a fight to the death they're losing and surrender. But at least one of the conscious PCs wants to try to escape.
We can't play until this is resolved, because many players are involved in the session, and they block off a big part of the dungeon that hasn't been repeatedly looted and searched and explored. And we can't play without the ones who want to try to escape . . . because no one else wants to be the one to try and fail.
So we're stuck until we can get all of the critical players into a game session, in a summer that has been trash for gaming anyway.
As a result, we're in limbo. I'm unhappy about this because it's what I specifically tried to avoid and yet here we are. Once we get unstuck, I feel like I can get games going again - we only need 2-3 players at a time. It's just we need a specific mix that's been hard to get going.
Ever have this happen, in that you build a game around avoiding a situation yet end up in it anyway?
Yes, but it's never been this situation you're in. Mine were "Let's sandbox so the GM doesn't have to create all the plots and the Players who like to go off the rails can do whatever they want"... only to discover what the "off-railers" wanted was to specifically go off the rails the other Players wanted more structure.
ReplyDeleteOr the inverse, "let's go with a more heavily railed main plt so we don;t get stuck int he weeds of PC subplots forever" only to continually have PC subplots drag us off mission...
Ooh, we've had both of those. My last campaign had a lot of "let's follow the main plot, but carefully and slowly and without revealing what we know to anyone." So they didn't get derailed, but also went as slow as they could until the plot basically forced their hands when they weren't ready, and bad things happened. It wasn't meant to be a plot-heavy game, but the PCs triggered some events and set a plot off and it went from there.
DeleteIs there any reason you couldn't get another group together to play a regular "Murder Hobos R' Us" session and just come back to the group in the bad spot when you can? Don't your players have multiple characters? And don't you have multiple players? Then you could get in a session or two while waiting to resolve the dilemma.
ReplyDeleteIt's been a tough summer in any case to play at all, but even if we played with who is around, the situation is such that the PCs block off a major area of exploration, effectively. So we can't easily play in the same space and not bump into that. That's made it hard to get things going.
DeleteIt's really unfortunate.
The show must go on! I run games as long as at least 3 (of usually 5) players show up. Those who aren't there take up guard duty somewhere or drool along. Other players control them in battle if there is a reeeeally important one going on. I don't care about the plausibility of how we explain that the characters are inactive, I just care about running games regularly because even a 2-week break is enough for me to lose interest in a campaign.
ReplyDeleteWhen I run open table games with more players and attendance that changes from session to session, the characters just phase in and out of existence as their players attend, if necessary. We explain it in-game if possible, but if not I don't fret. The show must go on! Everything else is secondary.
My players would love it if people phased in and out. That would resolve the situation they're stuck in quite nicely without them having to make some hard choices. So while I appreciate the solution it's one that actually would "solve" this problem by taking away consequences. "It was all a dream!" would actually be less generous to the PCs, even the dead one. Heh.
DeleteI do want them to have to make the choices they are stuck with, but man, the trouble this summer of getting those who need to make the choices and suffer the consequences (or reap the rewards) all together at once has been hellish. I wish we'd resolved it on the spot, but it didn't seem like we had scheduling issues coming.
You can also use these rules, they are especially appropriate for your current situation: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2149/roleplaying-games/escaping-the-dungeon
ReplyDeleteI love this! I'll thinkg about introducing something like that for my future open-table games.
DeleteThey're useful for general circumstances, but here it's a little different:
Delete- I know what will happen if they surrender, depending on how they surrender. So I need to know if they surrender or not.
- One person for sure wants to escape. I'm not certain how he'll try. Depending on how he'll try, that will affect whether it will work or not. Neither he nor I will be happy with a die roll to just see if it works or not. He'll be unhappy if he's captured on a die roll, I'll be unhappy if he escapes on a die roll, and I'll be unhappy if he is captured on a die roll and he is thus unhappy.
- What happens after they surrender may be affected by the escape attempt.
What I *really* need is a game time when I can get everyone to show and just resolve this, and put in some guidelines for next time so we don't have this happen again.
The Alexandrian's rules might suit another game, but in these circumstances, I'd be unhappy with the results.