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.
It's been obvious for a while that WotC seems to have been taking over by a "gamist monoculture".
That's an interesting observation. That would explain a lot.
__________________ "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in your imagination..." - Cover of Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules Set 1.
This is complex to explain. I'm not fond of GNS categorization, as I think my game crosses too many of those lines. My games tend to be lower magic; I like the presence of magic, but I prefer that it be a minor presence with the exception of certain legendary sorts of items.
In the 1E/2E days, I rarely ran a game over 10th level (but this was in large part due to the lack of benefits gained at higher levels and the time it took to level up at higher levels). In 3rd edition, I run my games beyond those levels, although the ubiquitous presence of magic in standard 3E begins to get to me.
I run mostly homebrewed adventures, with a fairly even balance of sandbox vs. more directed play. The PC's will tend to have the opportunity to choose from a bunch of plot hooks, and in how they will approach those hooks, but once events begin unfolding, they unfold as I think they logically would, which tends to narrow the focus a bit. Then after an adventure, the options broaden out again.
I run a pretty even mix of roleplaying and combat. I like to get a fight or two in every 6 hour session, but I've had sessions go without any combat. I like systems that can help me focus non-combat situations, but I don't like to be too constrained by them.
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?
The goal is fun, of course. I want my players to feel like they have created, contributed and participated in a story that feels like an epic fantasy tale. I want drama, action, and excitement. My preference runs from the style of Lord of the Rings to the Pirates of the Carribbean. The phrase I like to use is that I prefer "more woohoo, less wahoo."
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 will modify classes, restrict access to certain spells (mostly by just not having NPCs have those spells, thus making it difficult for PC's to get the ons I don't like), etc. I used to house rule 1E and 2E quite a bit, but I haven't done that with 3.X to this point. My next campaign (which will be 3.X as of right now) will probably go more in the house ruled direction. I will substitute alternate classes, maybe even an entire new system of magic (I've thought of using the Arcana Evolved system or doing some work on the 3.X system myself). I would consider 4E but as it stands now, I really don't care for the power system. I think I like everything else, but the power system is so ubiquitous that I don't know how to resolve the problem for me. It just breaks my suspension of disbelief too much and in too many places.
__________________ "I hurt Firewing." is not something a huge number of people can say. "He dropped a parking garage on me," on the other hand, a lot of people can say. -Kazan, my Champions GM.
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.
The key to the quote above is "Where I know".
As I said, the point is to not let the players know.
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.
Oh, I've certainly met people like that. But it's possible to bring them around if they've got any interest in story-based entertainment (a reader of novels is best, but you can work with comics and movies. Someone who only watches ESPN and Friends and doesn't read a lick though is probably unreachable from this point of view). Ask them what their favorite characters have been in books they've read, what plots they liked, etc. We can usually settle down for a jam session (IRL or email) with the group as a whole and discuss some plots & places (urban vs. edge-of-the-known-world; tomb-raider vs. defender of myth dranor, etc.), figure out who will cover what bases (local knowledge expert, ranger, thief, etc.). It's very effective to say "What do you want to do?" and then just sit their quietly until they answer.
Once they have the motivation to see how the story ends the manual stuff like power cards & character sheets usually falls into line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rechan
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.
Absolutely. Winning cannot exist without the possibility of losing.
In a game I played very recently the 1st level PCs had three rumors to follow up. They followed up one of them into the hills north of town only to discover the source of the problem was a black dragon. They snuck away very, very carefully and reported back to the town's mayor "Sorry, you're northern farmers are just gonna have to get used to losing cows. Nothing we can do. We're gonna go look into those goblin raids on the other side of town." The world is not a set of encounters scripted for their benefit. If it's important to them they'll come back at 10th level.
__________________ 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.
They followed up one of them into the hills north of town only to discover the source of the problem was a black dragon. They snuck away very, very carefully
What chance did you allow for the dragon to discover the PCs first and decide to kill them (no save) before they could sneak away?
Because where simulation tries to model real life, narrativist play tries to model stories.
As an aside... I always thought that RPG's were supposed to model stories. I believe this opinion is supported by the fact RPG's traditionally fail miserably at modeling real life. They do a better job w/stories.
Quote:
And real life generally doesn't make for good stories.
I suddenly have the urge to a d20 Modern campaign based on Raymond Carver stories... hopefully it will pass.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
"Nothing we can do. We're gonna go look into those goblin raids on the other side of town." The world is not a set of encounters scripted for their benefit.
And I don't consider that good behavior of heroes their first time out trying to be heroes.
To quote your statement:
Quote:
Winning cannot exist without the possibility of losing.
The inverse is that without a chance to win, they must lose. And there was absolutely no way to win that situation. It's just "Here's something you can't possibly overcome. Deal with it."
And real life generally doesn't make for good stories.
Oh god.
This reminds me of a solo Shadowrun game I played in. The GM made me get a job at a stuffer shack (think Fast Food, but downgrade the quality). He spent 40 minutes walking me through my day.
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.
...
I disagree right here, due to the way I create my PCs and play them.
When I create a PC, I figure out what he's going to be like. I then play him that way. This means, I could be playing him wrong. If I were out for a session and someone took over, they could play him contrary to the way the character is.
All of this is possible if your PC has PERSONALITY. By investing in a PC this way, it is possible to play it WRONG. However, the reward is a richer story experience.
I have a half-orc barbarian who's gruff, bullying, brave, and willing to fight evil. After playing him that way for 20 levels, suddenly playing him as eloquent, polite, and fiendishly diabolical would be out of character. That would be wrong.
If you can play your PCs differently session to session without anybody noticing or caring, then you're right on the money. You're not creating a world or playing a character.
As others have stated, player-driven plots in a sandbox. I am blessed with very motivated players who take genuine interest in the world around their characters. Their choices heavily shape and mold the storyline from their perspective. Our focus is mostly on cooperative storytelling, with combat as the last resort for conflict resolution.
Quote:
2. What is the overarching goal of your game? What feel do you want and what experience should your players have?
The goal of the campaign is to shape a cooperative piece of literature from different perspectives through suspension of disbelief as players take upon the persona of their character at the game table. I present a believable world from a low fantasy perspective, intermingled with real-world issues and the players combat those issues on a personal and a macro level. 4E used for the metamechanics of what players can do, but consequences are rarely rules-driven so much as story-driven. Establishing alliances with personalities within the campaign world and making choices based on personality traits influence what the player can do and cannot do, thus driving the story. Since the game is reflected in varying shades of gray when it comes to the world around them, the players are also fairly complicated when it comes to morality. It reflects a dark reality where players are pitted against foes that cannnot be necessarily defeated outwardly through combat. Politics, religion, urban conflict, factuous wars, gritty violence, low magic, low fantasy and low horror - these themes are the backbone of the story. No one person is a villain or a hero in a general sense, it's all a matter of perspective.
Quote:
Most importantly, what steps do you take to change the way the game plays, and in what way do they contribute to your goal?
The players chose their own goals. Each and every player in my game has a story to tell about themselves and their past, and I've worked with each player in secret to slowly expose who and what they are throughout the lifecycle of the game by creating plots that bring to light their pasts to one another. Simply put, no one player knows the alignment, the personality traits, the real name or the true history of their comrades (you have to read my campaign story to understand why this is Deismaar: Year 200 / Gothric Campaign). They are allies out of neccessity, fighting for their own survival. It is a very nonstandard storyline that takes influence from George RR Martin and Fritz Lieber with a heavy dose of David Mamet, creating very complex yet rewarding storylines. There is very little handholding on my part to drive my players.
We employ some light houserules to support the gritty nature of the world including changes to healing surges, resting and wounding. Otherwise, no rules changes are required as combat resolution, the skill system, rituals and the like fit my setting perfectly. 4e works out very well because it mirrors my homebrewed system we'd used before switching over to 4e (Saga/3.5 hybrid). Without "fanboying" it up, I'd say 4E is one of the best iterations of D&D to date because it feels familiar to my players and I.
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.
Not to seem flippant, but, perhaps, you should choose the people you game with more carefullly. I'd rather not game then play with unmotivated people.
Quote:
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. .
Real life happens. After 8 years, two of my players moved cross country. We replaced them with high school students. About six months later, one had to move with her family and the other moved 200 miles to be with her significant other. Both come to visit a few times each year, hang and game.
Quote:
But the way people talk here, they want a serious, justifiable chance of just utterly failure.
Some chance of failure, imo, is necessary. If there is no chance of failure (including death), I might as well go watch a movie or read a book.
__________________ "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
The world is not a set of encounters scripted for their benefit.
I wanted to touch back on this.
If the world doesn't exist to cater to the group that's playing in it, if NPCs and plots and things exist beyond their control or even awareness, then what's really stopping you from justifyingly saying "Well, game is over. See, one of the plot hooks you didn't follow up on lead to the end of the world. You weren't there to stop it. Sorry."
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?.
If that is what happens. However, I try to find common threads and overlaps in motivations when setting up the initial situation. I also supply players with information that other pc's won't have. In some instances, depending upon background, this information may be useful to other characters.
The previous fantasy campaign started with the the rogue out on the docks watching potential "marks" disembark from a ship. Among the disembarking passengers, he spotted the paladin, barbarian and druid,. The three were among the various passengers that stood out and they were looking around with the interest of someone arriving to the island's shores for their first time.
Recognizing the paladin by his vestments, the rogue decided to avoid him based on the order's reputation ( I fed the player this information, because the order was well known in several nations). So, he "marked" the barbarian and druid.
The rogue's introduction to the other characters was a failed attempt to cut the barbarian's purse that led to him being on the outs with the other PCs. The druid spotted the rogue attempting to cut the rogue's purse and prevented him from escaping. A fight nearly broke out when the barbarian challenged the rogue to a duel, but the Paladin intervened.
The druid, following the Paladin's lead convinced the paladin's lead, convinced the barbarian that there would be no honor in killing the rogue.
They let the rogue go. However, there was no reason to expect that the rogue would be accepted by the others. He just tried to rob them.
The rogue, however, was not about to give up and was determined to get his money. He just needed to wait for the right opportunity (now, I am fairly sure that this was the player buying into the game and determined to get his character into the party). He tailed the three foreigners through the crowded streets and, along the way, learned that the druid and barbarian were looking for what the rogue took to be a "princess" being held on the island. This hooked into several of the rogue's motivations- screw the mages that ruled the island, get off the island without having to sign on as a shipmate (too much work), and get rich (hey, she's a princess so there must be a reward).
The question was how to make amends with the other characters and be accepted into their group. And, as fate would have it, the rogue had information they needed- information as to where where the "princess" was being held ( a bit of knowledge that I fed the player prior to the start) and knowledge of the city.
He approached the party with an apology and offered to share information of her location if he could help liberate her.
The party (the Paladin already offered his services to the druid and barbarian in exchange for their future aid) had suspicions. However, the rogue had information they needed, he knew the city, and he could always turn them in to the Mageocracy. It was better in the party's opinon to keep him close.
Granted, relations were tenuous at best, but that led to some really good rp interaction even after the rescue and escape from the island
So, why keep the rogue afterward?
First, the barbarian and druid had agreed to reward the rogue (they just never promised anything as lavish as what the rogue was picturing in his own mind). Being honorable, they were obliged to pay him once the "princess" was safely home.
Second, The escape itself ensured that the party stayed together. In their escape, the party killed a minor mage and a few guardsmen. Now, they had a mage's guild after them and needed each other more than ever- especially, after the rogue lifted an ornate ring from the dead mage's corpse and pocketed it (it was a long time before the party discovered how the mages kept tracking them). They needed each other for survival- safety in numbers. Plus, , in the minds of the other PCs, who were all men of honor, it would have been dishonorable to leave the rogue on his own- and, the rogue used this to ensure his own safety while claiming he was just along to get paid.
__________________ "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
And real life generally doesn't make for good stories.
There's a rather large thread elsewhere in these forums about real life people who were a thousand times more awesome then any D&D character could ever be. Real life can and is plenty exciting and does make for some truly awesome stories - just not the life of you and me. But then again, we aren't adventurers.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
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?
I enjoy large sandbox style games where the players are placed in a world and they follow their whims to wherever.
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?
I want to be able to look back and say "Do you remember when..." For us, that comes through watching the characters interact with the world I created in unexpected or unintended ways. Our best stories have come from interactions that I never thought would occur. But, through dice rolling and random chance - it happened! They should feel the excitement of completing their journey, but, also experience the thrill of knowing that the world is both dark and dangerous.
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?
Well, there are a number of things that I do to better fit the feel of my world.
1. Magic Items - Are more than just things people find/buy. They are stories unto themselves. They grow in power as the characters learn more about the legends surrounding them.
2. Experience - Characters earn experience by completing goals not by killing monsters.
3. Monsters - I have changed the flavor on monsters. Creatures are not necessarily what is written in the Monster Manual - they are unique to the world.
4. Languages - I try to make the names of people, places, and things work off of location and not race. And have similar sounds throughout.
In general, I want my players to feel like they are in a world that does exist. Creating something and watching how the characters interact and grow with it - To me, that is part of "The Fun".
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.
For me, I cannot experience the joys of success without also being able to experience complete and utter failure. I want to know the thrill of having everything I have done hang in balance due to a bad roll of the dice. I want to know the thrill of that moment just before you roll a save knowing that failure means certain death. It makes success that much sweeter.
I don't really agree with any of these people trying to dictate what is and isn't fun, or should or should not be done. When they are the DM they can do what they want for as long as they can maintain players. Their views most often never reach my gaming tables as they are completely opposed to what I and other player think.
The fact that you do have thriving worlds that feel like they do exist in your imagination is one of the biggest parts of D&D, otherwise you just have some board game. I already have a few board games for D&D Like Dragonlance, and a better D&D board game called Hero Quest. I will play those if I want that feel, but they even seem to bring the world to life.
I don't really agree with any of these people trying to dictate what is and isn't fun, or should or should not be done. When they are the DM they can do what they want for as long as they can maintain players. Their views most often never reach my gaming tables as they are completely opposed to what I and other player think.
The fact that you do have thriving worlds that feel like they do exist in your imagination is one of the biggest parts of D&D, otherwise you just have some board game. I already have a few board games for D&D Like Dragonlance, and a better D&D board game called Hero Quest. I will play those if I want that feel, but they even seem to bring the world to life.
I can’t speak for others, but when I write my columns, it’s all about explaining what works for me and other DMs I know and chat with. I write about it in a definite manner, because I am a believer in writing with a strong voice, not to squash or drone out other opinions or methods.
DMing, like any skill or art, usually starts with a suggestion or guidance, and then moves on to wisdom forged through practice. Then, when you have wisdom, you spread it by explaining your thoughts, ideas, and experiences to others. People find guidance in those explanations and stories, build upon it with their own experiences, and the cycle repeats.
I don’t write my columns to be the end-all-be-all of what you should do as a DM, but to help new or frustrated DMs, and to move forward the conversation. That conversation is important, and I'm glad it is going on here and elsewhere.
I think most the folks offering up suggestions and counterpoints here on points in my column or the follow-up conversations probably feel the same way.
__________________ Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Developer, RPG R&D
Wizards of the Coast
---------------------------
I've always liked you Byron, but you never know when to shut up. Even bad men love their mommas.
-- Ben Wade
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
