LFP Borderland - An Open Table West Marches-style Game

[Rardian]

Due to a family emergency, I need to cancel tomorrow's game. Please accept my apologies!

Wishing you well, Jochen! Don't worry about us.

 

[Morvar]

Do at least two people, who are not in the tower, still want to hunt with Benedict in wood Lindeck Hehl priest?

 

[Rardian]

What are you proposing? When will the Tower session continue?

 

[Morvar]

We can't visit the tower this week because Knoppi is missing.
Therefore this alternative.

 

[Morvar]

Okay, since no one seems to be able to, I look forward to next week and the tower!

 

[knoppi]

Hey, next week I'd prefer tuesday or thursday over wednesday for the same reason as Morvar had last time. My girlfriend is leaving on thursday and we'd like to spend the evening before together.

 

[Morvar]

... The Girls!

 

[Rardian]

Hey, next week I'd prefer tuesday or thursday over wednesday for the same reason as Morvar had last time. My girlfriend is leaving on thursday and we'd like to spend the evening before together.

Thursday is not an option for me and Tuesday currently is a maybe for me.

 

[Stephan Hornick]

Next week:
Tuesday will probably not be possible, unless people of another group (Earthdawn) cancel or it is rescheduled to another day.
Wednesday is reserved for this (Dungeon Fantasy) group, so totally possible.
Thursday is ok for me (shifting the Thursday group to Wednesday shouldn't be a problem).

 

[JochenL]

Due to a family emergency, I need to cancel tomorrow's game. Please accept my apologies!

I have been asked how I am faring. Thanks to everyone asking! The situation has normalized and my mother-in-law is well again.

 

[Morvar]

Hmm... Thursday: Raidin no
Tuesday.: Stephan and Felix no
Wednesday : Knoppi no.


Shiiiiiiiit

 

[Stephan Hornick]

I'll try and see if we can move our Tuesday group to some other day. When will you be able to estimate whether you can attend on Tuesday, @Rardian?

 

[JochenL]

For next week I am now limited to Tuesday. In the two following weeks, I will be on vacation. The next available dates would be Sept 21, 22, 23 & 28, 29, 30.

 

[Rardian]

For next week I am now limited to Tuesday. In the two following weeks, I will be on vacation. The next available dates would be Sept 21, 22, 23 & 28, 29, 30.

Well, have fun next week then. :/
And even more in your holidays.

 

[Stephan Hornick]

So, to summarize...
We can play Borderland next week on Tuesday, Aug 31, but not Lonely Tower as Björn will not be available.
Who else would be available and would like to play with other characters?

Can we continue the Lonely Tower on Wednesday, Sept 22?
Can we reserve Wednesday, Sept 29, for a campaign (in the literal sense) against the Blackfang Orcs? Or are there other suggestions?

@JochenL: Have fun in your non-RPG holidays!

 

[Rardian]

So, to summarize...
We can play Borderland next week on Tuesday, Aug 31, but not Lonely Tower as Björn will not be available.

And Felix, too, Morvar said. So I don't really know why we skipped day.

 

[Stephan Hornick]

You can't know of course. Sorry. Sebastian just knew that regarding Tuesday Felix and me play in the same group Earthdawn. And if I'm able to move that group to Friday (still depending on one vote), then we would both be available to play.

And regarding your indirect question: We skipped this week's Wednesday, because Jan was not available. Next week Jan can't make it on Wednesday, but that's the day, you Björn, can make it. Jochen can only play on Tuesday, but you, Björn, can't make it on Tuesday. And as we apparently don't want to play Lonely Tower with one player (or GM!) missing, as I understand each of you, I hope to play at least on Wednesday Sept 22 with a full party (or with those players that will eventually be available then). 🤷‍♂️

Personally, I would appreciate two groups of 3 players each instead. More time for roleplaying and not so much trouble finding a date.

So, Jochen, is it ok for you to GM on Tuesday for a different cast of characters? Who wants to play?

 

[JochenL]

So, Jochen, is it ok for you to GM on Tuesday for a different cast of characters?

Yes, it is OK.

 

[Stephan Hornick]

My experience with West-Marches style games

Dear all,
Some of you already know that I have already GMed a kind of West Marches style game in the past (although at that time I didn't know that it was called West Marches). Anyway, I think we experienced several of the typical stages and problems there and tried many ideas to cope with them. In the end, I must confess, that I wasn't able to find a solution to the underlying problems. Now, I want to tell you about it, to point possible risks out so that we are all aware of them and hope we will be able to find a solution together as they are gradually becoming evident again.

1 GM for 10 Players | At first there is 1 GM for a couple of players. As the number of players increases, we come to different problems connected with this.

• Sufficient number of players | At first it worked out great. When 1 or 2 players can't make it, there are always alternatives and it seemed almost guaranteed that a session could be run with enough players. Also, the new group constellation was always an interesting point for roleplaying.
  
  
• Too many players per session |But then, there comes the point that more players are available for a session than was anticipated.
  • Play anyway | We tried to play with an increased number of players (basically because I couldn't say no). After all, what is one player more?
    For me and my players, it changed a lot. Of course every person has their own "comfortable zone" on how many players there should be, it is not only dependend on how many players a GM can possibly serve / juggle simultaneously. It changes the game altogether for all players.
    For every additional player, each player and GM should be aware that...
    • The number of scenes / encounters in a game session will be reduced. A GM must drastically reduce the encounters during session prepping to cope with this.
    • Less of that adventure will be completed.
    • The game will feel slower and it is harder for the GM (and players!) to maintain a good pacing. This is not the fault of the GM, mind you!
    • The chance of mid-adventure session endings is increased.
    • The chances are higher that only a part of the well-planned session balance (combat, roleplaying, puzzle, exploration, etc.) will be played. Thus it could lead to a complete session without the thrill of combat or without the feeling of accomplishment or relieve at the end. This can lead to frustration on both sides of the screen.
    • The chances are higher that only a part of the well-planned character limelight balance (either individually, or separated between classes / professions) will be played. Thus it could lead to a complete session only for the mages, or for the warriors, etc. which might feel like ill-will or bad design by the GM, but is probably not!
    • As having 1 player reduces party discussions to zero, 2 players will make for an easy partnership, but could also lead to an easy stalmate. A third player will make discussions more interesting. A fourth player can lead to factionizing. A fifth player almost always creates the necessity for a leader, as discussions tend to walk in circles. A sixth player will - in my experience - often lead to a chaotic speaking over each other.
    • Although there are many more players to roleplay with, there is usually less roleplaying involved. Ex: Two characters have their own argument, one player wants to do his own stuff, one player tries to voice his character but never feels as if he has the chance, and the fifth player speaks up but nobody listens. It is of utmost importance that players are aware of each player's circumstances in the game (I'm not talking about the characters!) and let others play their characters also and even better, play them the ball to play their characters instead of playing their own characters. Else it becomes a degradation of relationship between characters instead of an increase in depth.
    • Some players will want to focus on the story, some will want to focus on the roleplaying. Both can become frustrated the more players there are.
    • A big group of players can only work if they meticulously watch each other's opportunities and give the others their opportunities to play and when the players concentrate their characters on the joint party goal.
    • Some character traits are extremely hard to integrate into larger groups of players, namely rebellious attitudes or loner-types.
  • Turn some players down | If you in contrast turn players down with rules like "the first 4 players get the seat at the table" (in the impression to make it fair) some people will get frustrated and feel left outside. It is very difficult in my experience to create fair rules for everyone.
    • Often it is the same people that are often available and the same people that have not so much time (to show up or read posts or whatever). Some might feel unjustly punished for their life circumstances.
    • Also, some people prefer to play with some players and not so much with other players. Factionizing begins. And this led in the past to some players dropping out altogether, being bullied or discuss appointments behind the back of others. At least the GM must stay away from that kind of stuff. Of course, no one wants it and I was surprised in the past, how easily it came to such situation, but once it is there, it is hard to get rid of.
      
• Coordinating Appointments |Even if the date of the game is clear to all, there are always real life appointments that might get in the way for players or GM. This is nothing unusual, but it becomes a major problem in big player groups in the following cases:
  • Inter-Player problems | When some players can't play with other players, someone (usually the GM) needs to watch over who to combine with whom. This is my personal no-go. I never want to do this again.
    • And it is also a false impression that the GM could himself pick those players that work good with each other to create at least one functioning group.
    • This increases the problem with the other players instead of shuttng it down.
    • This could lead to going back to the "normal" way of playing, i.e. only a couple of specific players and a GM. Experiment failed.
  • Inter-Character problems | Should the GM or the players really look out for no overlap between character classes / skills? I think not.
  • Characters are bound in an adventure | More often than not, adventures will not end in one session, especially if the group is too big for that to happen. Then - apart from coordinating difficulties that are already there - some characters cannot be used by players although they themselves are available to play.
    • Will you ignore that a player is not there and play nonetheless "taking the PC along with the party"?
      Seems to be the best way, but I was never able to do that as a GM.
    • Will you wait for the appointment that everybody can?
      Weeks or even months will go by and then in the last minute a player drops out regardless.
      • Will you then make a different adventure available as a GM for the players that can - as a oneshot or as a regular other group? Will you create new characters and new stories for the players whose main characters are bound in an adventure?
      • This would lead - in my experience - to many open adventures that are never closed. Many open stories, so many that not only the GM, but also the players themselves get frustrated by those too many quests. Who will keep track of it all (if not me)? The stories and even the setting get's frayed.
      • In case there is an overlap in characters that are new and characters that are old, timelines become important and characters that are already "in the future". It becomes very complicated.
    • How will you decide whether to go for a Tuesday where Player A can make it, or to go for a Thursday where Player B can make it?
      The only possible way seems to me that the GM sets a date and sticks to it. No exceptions.
  • Parallel groups get created | To get all players to eventually play, the GM might decide to set another day for a group.
    • Again, this setting of a date should only be dependend on the GM.
    • There should be a fixed rule on whether players can attend both appointments or whether they need to choose. The latter seems more appropriate as the whole reason to create a parallel group is to make at least one day available for every player.

Let's stop here. For me, it was already helpful to write this all down. Basically I could reduce it to two main problems and I seem to have already found some answers for me:

1. As a GM I would limit the number of players per session to say 3-4.
2. As a GM I would set a fixed day of week to play for group 1 and a fixed day of week to play for group 2.
3. Although players can choose to swap days, a player can only play in one group per week.
4. If a player can't make it, we play nevertheless.

The above is just my perception and my experience so far. I don't want to set any rules here. The above 4 points are a suggestion to us, nothing more. Of course, the one to decide this if he wants to is Jochen.
But I personally found 6 players way too much last time.

 

[JochenL]

As a GM, I would limit the number of players per session to say 3-4.

I totally agree!

[...] group 1 and [...] group 2

The basic idea is that players organize the grouping and mission. So if they find themselves in a comfort zone playing only with certain people, that is totally OK for me!

If a player can't make it, we play nevertheless.

I am totally OK with finishing the tower on Tuesday. That would make my life easier as I don't have to prep for that.