General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Perhaps for you.
Many different people play RPGs many different ways. No particular way is "right" or "wrong". If it works for that group, then great, more power to them, whether I agree with that manner of playstyle or not.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
This has nothing to do with good or bad, fun or unfun, my playstyle/your playstyle RPGs or acting games. The difference between acting and role-playing exists beyond what happens in the RPG hobby and acting communities. Internal misunderstandings, confused theories, and ill-defined terminologies don't change the realities in the greater world. Saying something ridiculous like "I told my kids a bedtime RPG before they went to sleep" or "D&D is a fun form of literature" is only going to get one laughed at in normal society.
Saying there is no wrong way to play RPGs is obviously wrong. There are fun and unfun ways to play RPGs. Believing one can define what is "fun" is what I believe you're trying to convey. That it is possible to play an RPG, play an acting game, or not play either is just a matter of reality. Playing one and calling it another or saying anything one does qualifies as playing an RPG will only get you confused looks by those who aren't already confused. Saying you are playing an RPG when you're not or asking for RPGs to have qualities they do not is a confusion between right and wrong. That's what I was helping the OP with. Does that clear things up for you?
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
This has nothing to do with good or bad, fun or unfun, my playstyle/your playstyle RPGs or acting games. The difference between acting and role-playing exists beyond what happens in the RPG hobby and acting communities. Internal misunderstandings, confused theories, and ill-defined terminologies don't change the realities in the greater world. Saying something ridiculous like "I told my kids a bedtime RPG before they went to sleep" or "D&D is a fun form of literature" is only going to get one laughed at in normal society.
Saying there is no wrong way to play RPGs is obviously wrong. There are fun and unfun ways to play RPGs. Believing one can define what is "fun" is what I believe you're trying to convey. That it is possible to play an RPG, play an acting game, or not play either is just a matter of reality. Playing one and calling it another or saying anything one does qualifies as playing an RPG will only get you confused looks by those who aren't already confused. Saying you are playing an RPG when you're not or asking for RPGs to have qualities they do not is a confusion between right and wrong. That's what I was helping the OP with. Does that clear things up for you?
In the greater world? Laughed at in normal society? Seriously, what are you talking about? And how is it relevant?
Yes it clears up that you think there's a one true way to play RPGs. That's fine. I don't feel that way. Nor am I going to.
So long as the OP (or anyone else for that matter) and their group are having fun, I don't care if they're rubbing blue mud in their hair and calling it gaming.
Will I personally consider that role playing? No. But that's academic.
Really tired of this whole notion of BadWrongFun that seems to have creeped onto the boards of late.
__________________ I am a naughty lovecraftian goddess!
In the greater world? Laughed at in normal society? Seriously, what are you talking about? And how is it relevant?
Yes it clears up that you think there's a one true way to play RPGs. That's fine. I don't feel that way. Nor am I going to.
So long as the OP (or anyone else for that matter) and their group are having fun, I don't care if they're rubbing blue mud in their hair and calling it gaming.
Will I personally consider that role playing? No. But that's academic.
Really tired of this whole notion of BadWrongFun that seems to have creeped onto the boards of late.
Again, I am not calling anyone's preferences badwrongfun. They are simply asking for something that RPGs cannot deliver. Doing those things in an acting game can be enjoyable. Neither am I saying there is only one way to play RPGs. I am saying that role-playing is understood as being different than acting and often more clearly outside of the RPG hobby at the moment than within. This looks like one of those moments of confusion. You may not care about being confused, reality outside the hobby, or the common consensus of terms, but it actually does help when people have problems. Like when someone rubs mud in their hair, calls it soup, and cries when the mud manufacturer say its' mud is not fit for consumption.
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
If acting isn't "playing a role," then what in San Hill is it?
You don't have to be Mr. Shakespearean to play a role-playing game, certainly, and you don't even have to use your character's exact words when trying to negotiate with some NPC.
However, it doesn't follow from that statement, that you're somehow NOT playing an RPG if you do choose to do those things, or happen to prefer games in which those things are the norm.
Good grief!
-The Gneech
__________________ gneech.com -- My writing, comics, and art, including NeverNever, The Suburban Jungle, and the Brigid & Greg Fictionlets.
"Not everybody likes the same sort of games.
Everybody ought to play the sort of games they like.
It's not a stupid idea to sometimes try something you're not sure if you like or not.
Just because somebody likes or dislikes something you feel differently about doesn't make them (or you) stupid or a jerk.
Except Julie Andrews. If you dislike Julie Andrews, you're a jerk. And Golden Retriever puppies." --Barsoomcore
"There is a handsome and mysterious stranger in your future. He will try to kill you and take your stuff." --Sejs
For the most part, I agree with the writer's opinions in the article with exception of this point -
You're not creating some tense piece of post-modern performance ritual, and you are not creating a world that actually exists somewhere (or could exist somewhere).
I disagree with this notion entirely, within the context it is presented. While the players take a vested interest as directors of their own characters, the production of these pieces resemble cooperative performance art more than anything else.
I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to build worlds and share it while emulating the deeper storytelling aspects of David Mamet, complex personalities, morality-based decisionmaking, the realism of our own world and bring villany/heroics meshed with a degree of verisimilitude and reason to the table. These things don't necessarily make the game "unfun".
The way I read Stephen's statement and supporting arguement is that he's pushing the "slightly-more complex version of Diablo at the gametable". And to be frank, 4E was seemingly written with this in mind. And while this playstyle is fine and dandy if that's the sort of games people enjoy, I feel it's only fair for the author to note that not all people want to create "mini-instances of fun". Some people are looking for genuine braincandy as players and DMs through campaign-building where cooperative play contributes to a greater story as an exercise in having a good time...for fun.
Cheers~
Quote:
Originally Posted by howandwhy99
I think you're confused as to what D&D is. It's a role-playing game. From your response, it sounds like what you want to play is an acting game. A theatre acting game to be specific. There are many fun and enjoyable acting games out there, but you're not going to get those experiences from a role-playing game. Disagreeing with a professional RPG designer for not describing their product as something the product isn't will only bring you heartache. Role-playing is functionally different than acting. You simply cannot tell stories while role-playing. It's an impossibility.
Uhm, let's see...
1.build worlds (the DM often does this.)
2.complex personalities (I know players & DM's who've accomplished this in D&D with the character they are representing)
3.morality-based decision making (Uhm, yeah whether you're in a hero campaign or a villian campaign, isn't this a given?)
4.villany/heroics meshed with a degree of verisimilitude and reason (Really? This has never been in any of your D&D campaigns? It sure has been in mine.)
5. The realism of our own world (Okay, you might have a point here, but I'd ask for clarification on what exactly the OP means before conceding).
Now, let me ask you this, since you're so certain of what isn't an rpg...what is an rpg? IYHO of course...
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
The players will choose a theme or long term goal (such as overthrowing the Erl King or defending the City of Prester), and then I plop them in a city or place and start introducing them to campaign elements - NPCs, places, rumors, etc. They orient themselves within the world and then choose a direction. I plan very little in advance and use lots of random generators, but tailor the results of that randomness to fit the chosen theme/over-arching plot chosen by the players. Very little monster XP. Mostly quest/goal XP.
For all this to work the campaign world has to be "real". The players have to understand where the PCs are in it, how they fit, and how they can interact with it. Combat is an interaction, but it's not enough. Politics, economics, law, food, roads, religious observance, etc. etc. are all necessary.
That's why when someone says "you are not creating a world that actually exists somewhere (or could exist somewhere)" I shake my fist and shout "Yes I am! It's got magic and monsters, but it actually exists to us."
It's as real as Midkemia and Middle Earth, at any rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WotC_Logan
2. What is the overarching goal of your game? What feel do you want and what experience should your players have?
Once we're done and look back it should look like a good novel. But from the beginning no one knows where it will all lead or end - least of all me! We're all "writing the novel" together, but for it to be believable we have to believe in the world; it has to "makes sense." If the game is just a collection of random combats there's no story. The player experience should be a good mix of satisfied curiosity and pride in accomplishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WotC_Logan
3. Most importantly, what steps do you take to change the way the game plays, and in what way do they contribute to your goal?
I started a list of changes to 4E I would need to make. The first changes were to be in the XP rewards. Much less XP for monsters. Fighting monsters is not the goal. More XP for completing quests / accomplishing goals.
But then I started looking at the class powers (especially the magic) and thinking that I had no idea how these translated into out-of-combat abilities. I just couldn't picture most of them at all. And this created this really bizarre feeling that the combat "version" of the PC was completely divorced from the "reality" of the campaign setting. It was like it existed in its own little micro-reality, and "just don't think about it" was the order of the day.
So that didn't work for me. Add in the over-reliance on the boardgame aspects of combat and I've decided to try Rules Cyclopedia (which I've never played before - I was an AD&D 2E man before this).
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
If acting isn't "playing a role," then what in San Hill is it?
You don't have to be Mr. Shakespearean to play a role-playing game, certainly, and you don't even have to use your character's exact words when trying to negotiate with some NPC.
However, it doesn't follow from that statement, that you're somehow NOT playing an RPG if you do choose to do those things, or happen to prefer games in which those things are the norm.
Good grief!
-The Gneech
Acting is playing a character to tell a story. As seen on TV, in movies, and in theatre. This is not to be confused with taking action. Like you or I do every moment of the day. A theatre actor, again, not an actor like you or I simply taking actions, is playing a role only in so much as the character is their role. Actors and actresses can be judged on their performances in portraying these characters. They are "doing it wrong" if they were, for instance, portraying a Einstein as stupid or George Burns as boring and unfunny. They simply aren't portraying the character well and are therefore acting poorly. That's the point of acting: to portray the character well. The character is the role.
In an RPG no one can say "you're playing your character wrong". It's one of the biggest faux pas in gaming. That's because you're playing the role. Role-playing is an educational game. If you were to role-play climbing Mt. Everest with your friends you would keep track of rations, equipment, hire Sherpas, plan your ascent track, deal with weather problems, and much more. A good role-playing scenario taken from real life like this could research just about any kind of element that happens when climbers attempt Mt. Everest in actuality. When you role-play it, it's a hypothetical, but you are still the one making the decisions, suffering the consequences, and, more important than anything else, are the one who actually achieves the success. I'll repeat that: role-play is where your accomplishments are real. That's because when you role-play, you are not the character you play. Even if his name is George Burns.
To reiterate the difference: Playing George Burns in a theatre game is to do everything you can to portray him. To role-play George Burns is to face everything he did in his life and see how well you fare.
EDIT: I understand that both kinds of games refer to "character". Try not to let this confuse you when RPG players say "RPGs are where you play your character". They may also be confused, but most gamers do play RPGs and enjoy role-playing, and role-playing their "character" is what they mean.
__________________ Apparently Reagan never played RPGs ...but he liked to watch.
Spoiler:
Participants in the Pentagon simulations were sometimes of very high rank, including members of Congress and White House insiders as well as senior military officers. The identity of many of the participants remains secret even today. It is a tradition in US simulations (and those run by many other nations) that participants are guaranteed anonymity. The main reason for this is that occasionally they may take on a role or express an opinion that is at odds with their professional or public stance (for example portraying a fundamentalist terrorist or advocating hawkish military action), and thus could harm their reputation or career if their in-game persona became widely known.
(cut)
...former US president Ronald Reagan was a keen visitor to simulations conducted in the 1980s, but as an observer only. An official explained: "No president should ever disclose his hand, not even in a war game". Para,6
Last edited by howandwhy99; 9th October 2008 at 05:35 AM..
So really the "right" way to handle the consequences of failure is really group specific and not something that needs to be addressed in the rules at all.
Well, by addressing it in some fashion or other the rules can offer better support for some or other style of play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExploderWizard
I agree with this in principle. That connection and attachment to a beloved character should be more than enough of a penalty for death.
<snip>
The trick is achieving that connection with a set of rules that does its best to sever it with mechanics that reinforce the concept of gamism over all.
In a metagame heavy system like 4e, the mechanics won't deliver connection to the character. Rather, the game assumes that you already have some sort of aesthetic or emotional stake in the character, and are using the mechanics to play that out in various ways.
A little bit of xp loss as real world "stakes" adds a little bit of extra excitement though.
I dunno, just having to sit out without being able to participate is a pretty solid "real-world" stake.
I mean, in a broad sense, it's not really possible to "loose" a game of D&D. Even if I die and never come back, I've got a backup character ready to go. No matter how many XP losses I have, the difference will be made up in time. I certainly fear having to whip up a new character more than I fear an XP penalty, because an XP penalty doesn't really do anything, in my experience, while making a new character takes me out of the fun that all my friends are having going on this exciting adventure together.
Its not completely rules related though. I can get the same lack of attachment to a pre-generated character made up for a one-shot that I can with a 4E character created for campaign play. Thats the kind of detatchment that keeps story related consequences from meaning much.
And yet I could say the same about my views on any game system out there. Any time I am a player in any game, I don't care how many times I die, I don't see it as a problem. Why? Because I can make a new character, a New idea, try something different, be someone different.
Death is the opportunity to do something different.
It has jack to do with system. It's about having fun. And I'm going to have fun by getting to play more ideas I have.
Once again, being on EnWorld shows me how people who play the same thing can have so vastly different tastes and experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irda Ranger
Player-chosen plot-driven sandbox.
The players will choose a theme or long term goal
Wow. It amazes me that you have such motivated players.
Every group I have ran has been sacks of unmotivation. I have to design the campaign, I have to push them in directions, I have to get the players to organize rides with eachother. I had to write their own damn powers on power cards. Forget them deciding on a GOAL or a THEME.
And this has been multiple groups.
But then, I can't ever keep a campaign going before it falls apart due to life for people, so maybe it's just life experiences.
Something else I'm getting the impression of is what people expect, or think the game is About. I've always had the impression that the players (and thus, the characters) are going to win. Their success is all ready pre-written. The only thing that gets in the way is the damn dice. And it's the DM's job to let them win in a way that doesn't look like it's scripted for them to win. But the way people talk here, they want a serious, justifiable chance of just utterly failure.
I have had sandbox style games, RP heavy games, games that come down to being little more then dice rolling killing monster...
All in all the rules never made one lick of diffrence. If I want to tommorro run a Hard Core Monster hunt with pregens named A...B...C...and D. I can run it in WoD. If I want to design a living breathing world and put my PCs init to see what happens I can do that in 4e.
I don't understand what people want 4e to say. "Here are rules for trade agreements between countries"
or maybe "This is how you design an economy"
IF I want to do that I don't need...heck after reading 3e and 3.5 DMGs I don't WANT...WotC help in doing it. I can.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Planescape
It should be given special award to Die Vecna, Die: a module that manages to trash no less than THREE different settings (Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Planescape) in the course of one module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remathilis
Those of you who fretted that monsters have too many hp and fights take too long: meet the barbarian. The ULTIMATE "Lets speed this combat up, I need to whiz" class!
I'm curious how those of you who don't agree with the way the games are run approach your own games. "I don't agree with this" and "This isn't how I like my games" is too vague if you don't talk about what you like in games, so here are some questions:
1. What types of game do you run?
A player driven sandbox where I supply the setting and most of the major NPCs and then let the players primarily determine the direction of the campaign via their characters motivations and decisions. Furthermore, there are almost no dungeons and combat makes up between 20-40% of game play with some sessions having no combat at all.
My process for setting up the game is as follows:
I'll start by creating a setting.
- creating the continent(s) and nations,
- determing the deities (including domains, dogmas, tailored spell lists)
- determining how magic will work
- determing the races that will exist
- creating notes about the cultures ( including subsistance patterns, political organization, economy, kinship, social mores, physical descripton, dress, body adornment, religious practices, naming conventions, etc)
- make a list of classes and/or class variants found in each culture
- create some highlights of recent and past events for culture.
- place locations of interests (including important towns and cities)
- create notes about imporant NPCs and organizations for each culture including their goals
- make a list of houserules and supplements that will be used.
Once, I am finished with above, I get together with the players. I provide them with an overview of the setting and cultures along with houserules and a list of the supplements.
The next step is generating a character concept. Individual players find a culture or cultures of interest, I hand out notes on the chose culture and answer questions. I then let them come up with a character concept and ideas for a background and motivations. By this point, the players have a some istrong deas for a character . Often, they grab on to NPCs, organizations and/or events ( past and/or present) to shape their character's background and motivations, but sometimes they have other ideas.
After concept generation is concept approval. Each player approaches me with the character idea. We discuss it and make any necessary tweaks. Sometimes, their idea has a twist that leads to a slight tweak to what I had in mind.
Once the concept, background and motivations are determined, I let them create the character. At this point, I look it over the characters and we determine if any further tweaks are necessasry.
After the characters are built and approved, I'll use their backgrounds and motivations to create an initial adventure to bring the particular party "together" ( Actually, I bring them the character's to a location and let them bring the party together themselves)
Following the initial adventure, the players determine the direction of the campaign through their character's actions. They choose where their characters go. They create allies and enemies.
And, while the players have their own motivations, the world around them still goes on. NPCs have their own motivations. At times, the NPCs actions spark events that cross the PCs path. Whether or not the PCs take notice and investigate is up to the players. I had one campaign, where an old enemy had created a plague and the pc's would occassionally encounter it's victims and the undead spawned from its victims. The PCs really took no interest beyond curing the victims, killing the undead and continuing on to whatever interested them- that is until they realized the plague was spreading toward the homelands of their PCs. Suddenly, their goals was to protect all those NPCs that were intertwined with their backgrounds or whom they had befriended along the way.
Quote:
2. What is the overarching goal of your game? What feel do you want and what experience should your players have?
Like Irda, I want the players and myself to look back and see a story or series of stories based on the events that unfolded over all the sessions of the campaign.
Furthermore, I agree with him about what it entails for this to happen.
Quote:
3. Most importantly, what steps do you take to change the way the game plays, and in what way do they contribute to your goal?
With third edition, the changes involved using rules from UA (e.g, class variants, wizard specialist variant abilities, spontaneous divine casting, incantations, death and dying), third party supplements, and a few bits from WOTC supplements (e.g, expanded skill uses, a dozen or so spells, and a few feats at class variants) to find the elements that fit the feel of the setting that I wanted.
Some of the third party material that was important for me included
- Sean Reynold's Fewer Absolutes. I argued for this in my pre-3e questionaire.
- Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc) for it's maneuver system to allow martial characters to be creative on the fly with maneuvers
- Mutants and Masterminds style Hero Points: to provide some protection from the fickleness of the flat distribution of the d20.
- Green Ronin's Master Class Psychic, Shaman, and Witch's Handbooks to fill archetypes that I felt were missing and handled them in a way that fit my aesthetics.
- Artificers Handbook (Mystic Eye Games) to replace the rules for Magic Item creation. I hated XP costs for item creation and casting spells.
- Scrollworks Fatigue and Exhaustion
In addition, I created house rules to fix other elements that I didn't like about 3e including multiclassing and dipping to get proficiency in all armor and weapons or stack multiple good saves in a category.
With 4e, my solution is not to play or run.
4e does a few things that I wanted to see including a) removing the nonbiological aspects of race and turning them into feats; b) the universal save progression; c) the basics of heroic tier multiclassing; d) toning down the spellcasters; e) removes XP costs and level loss; and f) introduces the feywild.
However, upon listing everything that I wanted to change, it became apparent that 4e is not the game for me.
I have a problem with much of the 4e design and philosophy. Imo, they are grating and gets in the way of what I and my friends consider fun. Several of the changes (including implementations of things that I wanted changed) are not to my liking (e,g, per encounter abilties, removal of skill ranks, removal of craft and profession, spell durations, paragon paths and epic destinies) . Furthermore, there are sections where lack of logic/common sense with respect to in game events and setting which leads to disconnect and results in wtf moments which break me from immersion (e.g, the healing rules, per encounter martial/daily martial abilties, daily items, milestones, tripping oozes and flying creatures).
And, honestly, the 4e treatment of magic items and the Armorer's Vault didn't do anything for me- although, the web article on intelligent magic items was really good.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Last edited by Greg K; 9th October 2008 at 08:05 PM..
If the game is just a collection of random combats there's no story.
Who here is advocating "a collection of random combats"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by howandwhy99
In an RPG no one can say "you're playing your character wrong".
My pet hate is players who let "what their character would/wouldn't do" get in the way of the game:
"Even though X is the best course of action my character would do Y, making our goals ten times harder to achieve."
Dude WTF?!?!? You are the one running your character. Now would be a good time to decide your character has outgrown that particular limitation and do what needs to be done.
Goddamn method actors. Nearly as frustrating as simulationists and their myriad loose threads and unsolved mysteries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg K
Once the characters are built and approved, I'll use their backgrounds and motivations to create an initial adventure to bring the particular party "together" ( Actually, I bring them the character's to a location and let them bring the party together themselves)
What if they don't?
Do you just simulate the common real-life situation where strangers meet, fail to hit it off, develop mutual mistrust and go their separate ways?
The advantage to "creating a world that could exist somewhere" is that the results can surprise you.
If you base your game around a story you designed, the story isn't going to surprise you unless you develop amnesia. It may surprise the players - but then again, it may not, especially if they know you well. And it's unlikely to spontaneously surprise them in small ways - when you travel at the speed of plot, you don't stop to look at the roadsigns. The two aren't mutually exclusive, for that matter - you can layer a story on top of a world, and get the benefits of both.
Another reason for putting details into the system rather than just ad-hoc: When the PCs come up with a plan, and the system doesn't have anything to say about it, then as the DM, you're pretty much saying yes or no to it. And if you say "yes" to everything, then there's no point to coming up with good plans when bad ones work just as well. Of course, you can decide what qualifies as a good plan - but the players have no insight into this, so they can't really develop anything independantly.
I create locations and populate them with NPCs with motivations, means and goals. Then the PCs enter. How the PCs react to the different NPCs is up to the players, how the NPCs react to the PCs' actions leads to the next interaction. A rather fluid approach, with lots of freedom for player choices, where combat is just one option among many. It's about playing characters in various plots, not about killing things and taking their stuff.
The two aren't mutually exclusive, for that matter - you can layer a story on top of a world, and get the benefits of both.
This is the standard narrativist method.
Nobody creates an adventure (or campaign) without first having a world (or at least a portion of one) to set it in.
Narrativism is where a campaign is built around a story that takes place in a setting.
Obviously the more detailed the setting the broader the scope of stories that may take place therein. But at the same time, if a setting is too detailed then there is actually less room for certain stories. This is one reason why so many people were dissatisfied with Forgotten Realms.
Either way, detailing a setting does not require statting out every guardsman or bartender in the land. In fact this is often counter-productive.
Because sometimes yesterday's peasant farmer needs to become today's insane cult leader.
Something else I'm getting the impression of is what people expect, or think the game is About. I've always had the impression that the players (and thus, the characters) are going to win. Their success is all ready pre-written. The only thing that gets in the way is the damn dice. And it's the DM's job to let them win in a way that doesn't look like it's scripted for them to win. But the way people talk here, they want a serious, justifiable chance of just utterly failure.
The PC's winning or losing is secondary to allowing them to make choices for themselves and having those choices mean something. If play in a campaign where I know the PC's will win unless our dice really hate us, no matter what we decide to do, then the campaign becomes really less interesting to play.
Speaking for just myself, yes I do want a chance for utter failure. The chance for failure is what makes a success feel like success.
The PC's winning or losing is secondary to allowing them to make choices for themselves and having those choices mean something. If play in a campaign where I know the PC's will win unless our dice really hate us, no matter what we decide to do, then the campaign becomes really less interesting to play.
Speaking for just myself, yes I do want a chance for utter failure. The chance for failure is what makes a success feel like success.
I quite enjoy my bumbling parties failures. If they do not complete the modified KotS in a day or two - game time - the shade of Lord Vashna will use the portal and his undead army will stream into the keep and then besiege Ruaron (Winterhaven).
I'm guessing, if that happens, the luckless 'Heroes' will row a little about trying to save the village or high-tailing it out of dodge. If they leave then a couple of random encounters later they will be in Thunderspire.
Of course some refuges may come at a later stage and recognise who they are: 'mercenaries' sent to investigate the keep.
Gone off on my own tangent there, anyway I prefer the actions of the party to have a big impact on the story and my 'buzz' is changing the story to accommodate the actions of the characters, it gets my creative juices flowing.
__________________ Pablo El Vagabundo
"Mercy!? You want MERCY? I'M CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!!"
Again, ... badwrongfun ... cannot deliver. Doing ... role-playing ... outside of the ... within ... looks like ... confusion. You may not care about... when someone rubs mud in their hair, calls it soup, and cries when the mud manufacturer say its' mud is not fit for consumption.
I say, if that mud is not fit for consumption, then that mud manufacturer is BadWrongFun !!!
Purity, Body, Flavor 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
