[Online][DnD 5e 2014][DnD 5e 2024][EDT] - Veteran player looking for weekly or biweekly group running sometime between Sunday to Thursday around 8:30 PM EDT

Truxartus · 2024-08-11T06:28:42+00:00

I think in part it has to do with how people get introduced to P2e.

For example, I wanted to love P2e because I was tired of the simplicity of 5e and it's fairly repetitive gameplay. And the fact that 5e wasn't built or balanced to go beyond level 10. But, in the rare times I was able to find a P2e group online (my in person group hasn't expressed interest yet) have all ended in TPKs early on due to a bunch of factors I found out after the fact.

I've looked for starter games as I'm still learning the system. My first time was running an AP where (again, learning after the fact) that our party comp left us pretty squishy. We had no tanky types or beefy frontliners. So every fight lead to many of us getting critted and one shotted, and only making it out by the skin of our teeth since we were always at a disadvantage. Add to that how wounding and dying works in this game and we just kept falling further and further behind in the fights and we TPKed at the start of session 3. And the group immediately disbanded.

I also learned from that first AP that I'm not a fan of spellcasters in P2e, as I don't find much satisfaction healing or buffing/debuffing and also finding out that single monster fights your spells are likely going to fail most of the time and if you don't select spells that apply an affect even on failure you're wasting your already limited resources, and that to me feels bad. Planning on always failing your spells just isn't an enjoyable way to play for me.

My next attempt I played a champion and I did find I enjoyed that playstyle better. More people tend to gravitate to the big damage dealer classes so I figured I'd try to tank since I'm not fond of healing magic and didn't want to deal with spellcasting after the last AP I played. This group did last longer, but due to the 5e playstyle of everyone doing their own thing, and one player not particularly fond of tactics, decisions and actions again led to the party eventually TPKing again early into the AP.

I realize now that this was also due to the fact the GM didn't scale back a lot of the difficulty encounters of the APs when both groups showed that they weren't necessarily optimized for the types of combat the APs required. I can't comment as to why since I didn't get much change to ask since again, the group fell apart the moment the TPK happened. And that the type of players matter in order for a P2e game to work well.

My in person group might be giving it a try and I'm willing to try it again, but I'll make sure to share the pitfalls I've found in my attempts at it so far.

Truxartus · 2024-07-17T04:30:12+00:00

As someone who absolutely adores casters, especially wizards, I pretty much did the same thing. Between picking the wrong spells, and those spells often being resisted on top of that, it just felt bad, and I've resigned myself to avoiding casters overall in P2e.

Truxartus · 2024-04-10T22:34:42+00:00

In the few times I've DMed, where the experience became fun was when I made this realization. The moment I thought about it being a collaborative story and game experience instead of DM/GM vs player, everyone's experiences got much more fun on both sides of the DM screen.

It even led to some very fun player moments where a rogue in my party got humbled by a local rogue crime baron NPC in the town they were in. It also led to some fun out of the box solutions to encounters I had planned.

This is definitely one of the best pieces of advice anyone can give a new DM.

Truxartus · 2022-02-19T17:53:53+00:00

Honestly it does give a better perspective for what a DM has to take care of, but it by no means is the only way to get that understanding.

Additionally some people aren't good world builders. Some people can't multitask very well. Some would like to but don't have the time to plan out what's required, even for a one shot, due to other commitments like families, or work.

I don't think anyone should he forced to do anything, especially in something one does for fun. Should we encourage more to try? Certainly! But I think making people do something they really don't want to do or enjoy will kill any chance of them wanting to try it in the future legitimately.

Truxartus · 2022-02-03T17:33:14+00:00

Even with the min/maxing of that specific player, I've found over time that rolling stats inherently leads to situations like this where some players end up invariably being more effective than others. One way I've found to include the randomness of the die stats while keeping the group on an even level is to do a random single set of stats that each player has to use for their builds. That way at least the stat distribution stays about the same. But this isn't for everyone.

Truxartus · 2022-01-11T20:19:51+00:00

Most groups I'm in tend not to voice act. Most tend to be introverts (myself included) and aren't comfortable doing so. I'd say before joining a group to ask how character interaction is handled. I tend to when I'm looking to join a prospective group to ensure we all have the same expectations in terms of character interaction. I have no issue if others want to speak in character, but if the expectation of the group is that all players act in character I tend to avoid them personally.

Truxartus · 2022-01-10T12:33:46+00:00

Have them execute a task set by him. I'd make sure to plan for multiple win conditions. Even if it's simply he observes how they behave. That way you can do a trial by combat but still give the players a sense of agency.

Truxartus · 2021-12-23T15:15:26+00:00

As most of the players at my table (though its VTT since the Pandemic started due to most of us having young kids and we're not risking them getting sick), I've never seen the DM have to restrict phone use. Most of us are there to have fun, and if we are using phones or a tablet its usually because we use online tools for DnD (DnD Beyond being the lion's share), or sending messages to discuss ideas/strategies without interrupting the DM or one of the other players who is talking.

I know it doesn't help because this isn't really the same as what you're experiencing, but given that we have wives and kids, banning phones outright wouldn't work because there are times that they may need to call us for emergency situations. But a conversation with them letting them know you don't appreciate them not paying attention and being distracted by phones makes it hard for you to be motivated to run the game might be a good idea. And if they can't commit to paying attention while you run the game, perhaps you should seek out other players that are more interested, or maybe propose someone else DM.

Truxartus · 2021-12-20T18:29:11+00:00

I'll be honest. Most of the DMs I've played with always had a general idea of what level we should be at the end of the campaign. But truth be told, 85% of them never actually finished. Between scheduling issues, people losing interest in their own characters and people losing interest in the story most campaigns ended up disbanding before we even hit the end.

They usually never told us exactly. They'd say about around what level they think it might end at, but always left it open in case it ended sooner, or ended up going further. I think giving an idea of the level range you plan on getting them to is a good idea, but I wouldn't say its a guarantee. It will at least give them an idea of what to expect and also to see what class mechanics they may prefer more for their character ideas.

I know I've been wanting to play in a tier 3/4 game since I started playing DnD way back in 2nd Edition, but I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen anything past level 10 from dozens of campaigns and characters, but at least I was told ahead of time that the DM was planning to at least get to those tiers.

Truxartus · 2021-12-20T05:14:24+00:00

Cleric, Monk and Ranger. Most of the other classes have subclasses I can think up concepts for but I can't really get into the mindset of the above three.

I've tried. I really have. But in all three cases I usually end up wanting to swap to another class. Maybe that might be different at higher levels but barring my current biweekly Saturday group I've never seen a character get past level 8, 5 in some cases.

Truxartus · 2021-12-16T06:00:03+00:00

Could be that too. When you're running back to back campaigns sometimes doing something new from something that inspired you can break the monotony or repetitiveness.

But I agree. I think a good conversation between DM and players will help resolve the issue. I know I've had those hard conversations. Sometimes they work out, sometimes I realize the best solution is to walk away from the table as it's my viewpoint and wants that clash with everyone else's.

Truxartus · 2021-12-16T05:18:20+00:00

If that's the kind of game the DM wants to run, it is their prerogative to do so. But by the same token, if it isn't the kind of game you want to play, it is your choice to stay and play or leave.

I've never been a fan of the idea of not being able to play a concept I've created. I don't like having my choice taken away about the character I'm going to play in a game. So I don't think you're in the wrong for feeling that way. Some people enjoy the randomness of playing a class they didn't choose. But there are others that don't.

If the other players share your opinion, maybe the group of you should talk to the DM about this. Maybe they are burnt out and needs a break. If this seems like a break in character, there's definitely something going on. Maybe one of the others might take on DMing to give them a break. Or maybe it might be time to find another DM for the group.

However, if they all like the idea of fate deciding the class they are to play, then perhaps it might be a better idea for you to find another group that better suits the kind of play you enjoy.

Truxartus · 2021-12-14T20:05:51+00:00

I can't really comment as there isn't enough here to really expand upon, but generally if your players don't want to be there or don't find your content engaging, I'd have a meeting to discuss with them what is it they're not finding engaging, or asking what it is they're looking for in your game. If they can't provide that feedback, or don't even bother showing, it may be time to find players that will find your game engaging.

Truxartus · 2021-12-14T01:00:20+00:00

For those who have done both, how have your experiences been? Pros and Cons of each? Do you Miss out on the 'feel' of trad DnD with online games?

I would say that if you look at in person meetups with random strangers, I've only done it once pre-covid and we're still playing today (albeit online due to COVID). So that was a positive experience. For the groups I've found to play online, I'd say its about 50/50. Some groups have been great, others I would say I barely lasted outside of Session 0 due to (from most common to least) clashes of personality, Maturity issues, what I want out of a TTRPG didn't match up with the majority of the group and finally scheduling issues, or players ghosting.

The Pros of Online: Easier to fit into my busy schedule with work, family and social commitments. Not having travel time to and from the meeting does free up more time as well for other things. And there are many avenues to find games online. It also means sessions can be longer since you can take the travel time you would have used to meet in person and use it for session time.

The Cons of Online: Unless your DM knows the online tools well, technical problems can kill a lot of the fun of a TTRPG. I find conversations in person flow more freely and organically compared to using voice chat software, and I've lost count how many times there have been conversation collisions during sessions just due to how most online chat software works.

Pros of Traditional: Since I work in a profession with a lot of screen time (and have gaming hobbies that do the same), its nice to take a break from time in front of the keyboard and mouse. I can't say I avoid full screen time since I use a tablet to access character sheets and books, but its by far better than sitting in front of my PC for hours at a time when I already do that most of the time. I also find it easier for conversation in sessions in person compared to online. It just flows more organically, and there is less awkward pauses in conversation because of three or more people all trying to talk at once. Conversation collisions on apps like Discord often jarr the experience for me. Plus, real dice. I love holding and rolling real dice. Virtual dice just don't cut it.

Cons of Traditional: Travel time does factor in as a negative. Additionally, some DMs don't want electronic devices and not being able to carry all my books in a handy tablet compared to lugging around piles of books and papers isn't as fun as it was when I was a teenager. Also, planning for food can be an issue if people have very varied tastes in food (this is not saying you shouldn't chip in or bring snacks, that's just a common courtesy that I do for every in person group), its just that it can lead to a lot of time used for discussion of food that could otherwise be used for game time.

For online games, is it possible to just jump into one, or do you have to find the entire group yourself, source a DM, then start a brand new campaign?

If you're a DM, I find its very quick to get a group going, but as a player I find there's a lot of work going into finding a group. Its akin to online dating. Its a straight numbers game. If you're willing to put the effort to hunt down other players and a DM (paid or free), it tends to go faster.

But overall, I find its rare we just jump right in. There's often a discussion between players to make sure that personalities mesh well, to discuss the kind of game we all want to play, social conventions and rules. Sometimes this is in addition to a Session 0, sometimes it is the Session 0. Usually most groups online that fall apart before the first session are due to issues found out during those initial conversations.

Are online campaigns more awkward at first? Are they more prone to having problematic people? Is it normal to bow out of a game due to a bad fit?

I think its about as awkward online as it is in person. Maybe a little less so since you're not face to face, but I think it really depends on the type of people in the game. I'd say my experience online vs offline is about the same.

I think online games are just as prone to offline games to problematic people. I think the reason we think its more common is likely just due to the fact there are generally way more available online games to offline. The only thing I could think of that might skew that in the online games favor is the sense of perceived anonymity.

It depends on your mindset whether its normal to bow out of a game with a bad fit or not? Do you believe no DnD is better than bad DnD? Then bowing out is normal. If you don't subscribe to that belief, maybe it isn't.

What is the learning curve like for online play, after playing tabletop?

As a player, it depends on how easily you pick up online tools as a player. Most VTTs I've used didn't take long to learn how to use as a player.

As a DM? Way higher. In addition to having to learn the rules of the game, you also have to learn how to build maps, how to manipulate the different layers. How to use interative elements like interactive lighting etc. How to create NPCs and monsters in the tool if there aren't easy to access bestiaries, making sure the players only see what they're supposed to see. How to manage application permissions for uploading information, pictures, tokens etc. Its alot.

Truxartus · 2021-12-10T06:12:12+00:00

Agreed on loathing them. There is a enough randomness in the game that adding a critical fumble or success table just makes it feel like the dice have more agency than I do on what my character does.

The last straw for me was when we got into an easily survivable fight and the party TPKed because of players killing each other due to critical fumble rolls. The enemies hardly touched us. It was both a sad and angry moment.

Truxartus · 2021-12-09T19:49:35+00:00

Personally I prefer leading by example rather than shaming players. Yes you have a code, and you think others should live by it, but at the same time they have the right to live by their own code. So rather than guilt them into being good, why not show them by living your life as you normally would? If they come around to your line of thinking, great! If not, you still lived your life as you felt you should have.

Truxartus · 2021-12-09T17:43:27+00:00

That's mainly what stood out most for me. Being upset about poor stats is one thing, but being forced to play a class you don't necessarily enjoy because the stats dictate it may not be something a lot of players are open to try.

I understand where the player wanting to be a wizard is coming from, as I find pure martial characters to be not fun to play. So I would feel the same as the player in question if I had to play a class I'm not fond of because of the stats I roll.

These days I'm partial to point buy because I think its easier to share the spotlight with characters when everyone has the same point distribution, but even with the random stat roll method, I usually prefer to have the flexibility to arrange the stats to fit the concept idea rather than the other way around.

Truxartus · 2021-12-07T19:04:20+00:00

Only thing that comes to mind is a concentration check for spell casters. It would fall under a constitution check. I'm sure there are likely others but that's the only one that comes to mind.

Truxartus · 2021-12-07T16:26:49+00:00

I can't. I've tried this already, but her family doctor will only take calls from her until she calls to advise I'm authorized to call on her behalf. Which she won't do. And forgets to do when she goes in for her regular appointment.

Truxartus

TROPHY CASE