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.
DMs like players are different in the same and other areas. I just think the articles should take that into account. IF most of the people you speak with think the same way as you, you should try to find the other side of the coin, because it always exists; to make sure you don't discount another group that you are unfamiliar with.
I applaud trying to help new players, but the wording seems to come off too strong in a bunch of the articles.
Anything coming from the official product source most times is viewed as canon, and can cause much unrest from the fanbase. Just look at Dumbledore being gay in Harry Potter. One little specific given caused many people to question many things through the books and even caused some to change their mind about liking it.
So if your article has only one side of the coin, you may wish to partner up with someone slightly out of phase with your views to offer the other side. Either each having your own byline in a given article, two articles being combined into one release, or actually two separate articles to make sure to cover the most ground to offer something to more players. So thanks for coming by and sharing your wisdom on the behind-the-scenes of the article with us here Stephen.
Last edited by justanobody; 10th October 2008 at 02:20 AM..
Reason: never can see the mistakes until someone quotes me and its too late to fix. :(
Dm like players are different in the same and other areas. I just think the articles should take that into account. IF most of the people you speak with think the same way as you, you should try to find the other side of the coin, because it always exists; to make you you don't discount another group that you are unfamiliar with.
I applaud trying to help new players, but the wording seems to come off too strong in a bunch of the articles.
So if your article has only one side of the coin, you may wish to partner up within someone slightly out of phase with your views to offer the other side. Either each having your own byline in a given article, two articles being combined into one release, or actually two separate articles to make sure to cover the most ground to offer something to more players. So thanks for coming by and sharing your wisdom on the behind-the-scenes of the article with us here Stephen.
This right here.
It's not that I entirely disagree with the column (as the majority of the article really jived with me). However, the statement I quoted was strongly-worded, and gives me the impression that Wizards may be taking a turn towards "digestible" campaigning (as both the opinions of writers, editors and even snippets of the DMG seem to echo this sentiment). There is a very rich history of products that supports worldbuilding as an art form, rather than merely a backdrop for mini-instances of fun. I suppose time will tell whether this is a change in development ethos, as I know there would be plenty of community support for campaign-building guides with 4E CRUNCH.
Nonetheless, I look forward to future columns and constructive discussion as we've had here with both players and the author himself.
Dm like players are different in the same and other areas. I just think the articles should take that into account. IF most of the people you speak with think the same way as you, you should try to find the other side of the coin, because it always exists; to make you you don't discount another group that you are unfamiliar with....
Anything coming from the official product source most times is viewed as canon, and cause much unrest from the fanbase.
Wow…don’t get me started on canon. I really dislike the concept of canon in RPG settings, and I think it is out of place for DM advice. Don’t get me wrong, I believe very strongly in many of the opinions I write. I do considered and know other opinions (and have at times championed those opinions in the past), but haven’t espoused them for one reason or another. At the same time, I think people should think about them, disagree with them, have the convictions to come up with their own arguments, and challenge the status quo when they feel they ought to. It is conversation, not the dogma of perceived canon that makes games and gaming better.
__________________ 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
I am a believer in writing with a strong voice, not to squash or drone out other opinions or methods.
(text deleted)
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 admire you desire to help new or frustrated DMs. However, you are writing under the banner of WOTC. And, while you don't intend for your column "to be the be the-end-all-be-all", new and inexperienced DM and players as well as a larger segment of the DND fanbase often take what the designers at WOTC write as being the gospel of how things should be done and your approach often comes across (to me and apparently others) as reinforcing this.
__________________ "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
As a DM they are a huge amount of work. It's hard enough to run a plot-driven adventure, let alone make up something on the fly every week.
As a player they are too often meandering, do nothing wastes of time, with unsatisfying encounters that have been thrown together because the DM doesn't have any prep time. Or they are full of too much detail that the DM has slaved over, forgetting that the players want to play and not be read a novel.
Please, don't try to convert me or say your game isn't like that because I've played enough that I won't believe you and just don't want to hear it.
There is a very rich history of products that supports worldbuilding as an art form, rather than merely a backdrop for mini-instances of fun.
Heh... I spend an inordinate amount of time lavishing details on my (usually collaborative) campaign settings, but I wouldn't go so far as calling world-building an art form. Wait, are we including really bad art? If so, then yes...
In a more serious vein, I think it's important to make a distinction between the world before play starts and after. My take: initially, a homebrew is my baby, it's all art-for-my-sake; a creative outlet. But as the campaign start date approaches, that same homebrew is now a tool. It's purpose is to help facilitate an entertaining campaign for my friends and I (in that order). Now the same flights of fancy that before needed only amuse me need to be considered in the context of providing fun, balanced encounters, plots that interest the players; things need to be playable.
I don't think it's ever bad advice to remember that world-building is supposed to be in service to the game.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Please, don't try to convert me or say your game isn't like that because I've played enough that I won't believe you and just don't want to hear it.
You probably should have posted your opinion on a blog then. This is a discussion forum. For discussions.
__________________ 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.
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?
I'm guessing it was 0% or thereabouts.
The PCs took normal precautions and saw the dragon before it saw them. It's not exactly hard. Dragons are big. What's your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rechan
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."
If I did that every time I'd be a jerk. It also wouldn't be "realistic". Not every enemy is going to be exactly CR 15. But I think it's important to establish that the world is a big place with some seriously big, bad enemies. It gives the PCs something to look forward to.
For instance, say you were running a Middle Earth campaign set several centuries before LotR. The main enemy is the Kingdom of Angmarr. Would you expect your PCs to be able to take on the Witch King in their first foray into the wild, or maybe work up to that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rechan
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."
I'm not a fan of "End of the World" plot-lines, but I see where you're going with that. What I normally do is either let the failure happen and the PCs have to accept that ("Rumors on the road report that the City of Len was overrun by ogre hordes.") or some other adventuring company takes care of it and collects the reward. There's no shame in that as long as the PCs are spending their time productively. The sad state of the world is that there are often more good deeds needing doing then good men willing to do them.
__________________ 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.
Please, don't try to convert me or say you're game isn't like that because I've played enough that I won't believe you and just don't want to here it.
I am not going to try and convince you. However, I am convinced
a. that the DMs you have had have not pulled it off correctly or that it was the wrong approach to use with the players with whom you have games.
b. it works for the players that I have gamed with, because a) I get calls throughout the week from players with questions and ideas; and b) when I try to take a break to be a player, the players ask me when I will be ready to start running again.
c. And, while much of the setting work is done ahead of time, it doesn't rule out the need to prep. I still require my players to give me a about a week notice if they are heading out to a new location so that I can prep- Note cards, location maps, monster/NpC statting still need to be done in many cases. It's just that the prep previously done makes it easier to handle on the fly situations and run off the cuff when the situation demands it- like when the decided at the last minute that they needed to change directions and visit the knight's homeland instead of the Great Sage (we took a ten minute to fifteen minute break while I asked the Knight a few questions and the night's session formed itself based on history for that realm and the Knight's background).
__________________ "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, while you don't intend for your column "to be the be the-end-all-be-all", new and inexperienced DM and players as well as a larger segment of the DND fanbase often take what the designers at WOTC write as being the gospel of how things should be done and your approach often comes across (to me and apparently others) as reinforcing this.
Over my many years of dealing with the D&D fan base, the one thing I'm certain of is their ability to forge their own opinions.
__________________ 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
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.
Exceptions to the rule only prove it.
Even these people go through long dull periods where they "look for the fun". And life not being D&D, there is no DM to ensure the fun finds them
Quote:
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.
Speak for yourself son.
I'm an erotic adventurer of the most deranged kind. But that's neither here nor there.
I just didn't want to hijack the thread into a "sandbox: good or evil" debate.
I did want to pipe up and point out that not everyone likes sandbox games since there were several very-pro sandbox comments in this thread.
The trick to running a very good sandbox campaign is to trick the players into thinking that they're playing in a very good sandbox campaign.
...most of DMing is like that. How do you create a vibrant, living, multifaceted gameworld? Well, you trick the players into thinking that they're in a vibrant, living, multifaceted gameworld.
Wow…don’t get me started on canon. I really dislike the concept of canon in RPG settings, and I think it is out of place for DM advice. Don’t get me wrong, I believe very strongly in many of the opinions I write. I do considered and know other opinions (and have at times championed those opinions in the past), but haven’t espoused them for one reason or another. At the same time, I think people should think about them, disagree with them, have the convictions to come up with their own arguments, and challenge the status quo when they feel they ought to. It is conversation, not the dogma of perceived canon that makes games and gaming better.
As others have said, coming from a WotC product, everything is considered canon, or core, or what term have you. The electronic magazines form another source, may not be viewed as harshly in terms of article temperment or wording, but coming from the makers of the game it does sit that the words are law for the game.
So your intent is one thing, but being part of the company means you are building on the whole of everything else that makes up that game.
It is good that you feel so strongly towards your style of play and enjoyment and can share that with others in this type of format as a Dungeon article. i tore into your Be Fair section on another thread here is you are able to search the forums and find it. May have ben the sacred cows thread. Which goes to show that the various style are out there, and you are providing many readers with a side of the coin they may not have seen before.
You just have to make sure that you do not deface their side of the coin while doing so as Dungeon is an official core D&D product.
Also, sadly, your article, and others for Dragon and Dungeon, are one-way streets and not conversations with anyone. While the various online forums allow for discussion and conversation, the articles are not capable of this. Thus why there is a strong possible chance to come across heavy handed with words and opinions that would seem to reflect the view of the company and the intent for the game itself. Sadly, again, in some elitist way if you will, even without that intent at all.
It's not that I entirely disagree with the column (as the majority of the article really jived with me). However, the statement I quoted was strongly-worded...
I agree. The previous two parts and most of this article where very good advice. It looked at a number of problems a lot of DMs face and gave us a solution. The solutions given never felt like they were musts but instead felt like options.
The comment about world-building, however, seemed wrong. Especially since it just followed a statement about how the game is supposed to be fun. It felt like a must; that I need to stop world-building posthaste because it detracts from instances of "the fun". I take exception to that as I find world-building to be part of "the fun". I find the interactions my players have with the world to be part of "the fun". My players enjoy the richness that exists in my worlds - it is part of "the fun" for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moniker
Nonetheless, I look forward to future columns and constructive discussion as we've had here with both players and the author himself.
So long as it is free. I will be sad when WotC goes onto the subscription model - but, that is neither here nor there.
The comment about world-building, however, seemed wrong. Especially since it just followed a statement about how the game is supposed to be fun.
I never said (or even implied) world building couldn't create fun. I absolutely said that world building shouldn't trump fun.
I've seen a lot of games where the DM let world-building trump fun...and games where terribly un-fun circumstance were justified by making the world more realistic...none of them ended well (including those of this ilk that I've run in the past).
__________________ 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
I did want to pipe up and point out that not everyone likes sandbox games since there were several very-pro sandbox comments in this thread.
I think the fact that "not everyone likes" can be understood to append every opinion posted to EN World. There's no need to pipe up to just state that.
__________________ 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.
The PCs took normal precautions and saw the dragon before it saw them. It's not exactly hard. Dragons are big. What's your point?
My point is that your PCs entered a dragon's territory, discovered its existence, and got away safely. Though dragons might be big, they are also fast and once the PCs are seen, it is entirely up to the dragon whether there's an encounter or not.
So your PCs saw the dragon before it saw them, and I assume it didn't see them at all.
Is it impossible in your sandbox for a black dragon to spot humanoids making a stealthy escape? How about if they're taking "normal precautions" (ie. before they themselves saw said dragon?)
So the real question is, if it's not impossible, in your sandbox, for a dragon to discover humanoid creatures merely taking "normal precautions" in its territory and then decide to kill them regardless of their words or actions, is it only impossible for this to happen to player characters?
According to your sandbox's rules-of-physics-and-whatnot, was there any chance that your PCs could have, unknowingly, passed a point-of-no-return in the game, where a TPK was inevitable based on average dice rolls?
I'm sure you know where I'm going with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cadfan
The trick to running a very good sandbox campaign is to trick the players into thinking that they're playing in a very good sandbox campaign.
...most of DMing is like that. How do you create a vibrant, living, multifaceted gameworld? Well, you trick the players into thinking that they're in a vibrant, living, multifaceted gameworld.
So true.
And I daresay that anybody claiming to run a legitimate sandbox is not only deluding their players, but themselves as well.
A true sandbox game would be an insanely frustrating experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adso
I've seen a lot of games where the DM let world-building trump fun...and games where terribly un-fun circumstance were justified by making the world more realistic...none of them ended well (including those of this ilk that I've run in the past).
Every single time I've experienced a game where the details of the setting are written in stone - ie. can't be modified on the fly to fit the adventure at hand - I have found world-building to trump the fun.
Which is why I'm wary of anybody who is a world-builder first and a DM second - they have so much emotional investment in their work of art that the other people around the table have to take a backseat.
That is not even possible. You have to be a world-builder to be a DM. Even purchasing a published setting requires adaptation and rebuilding of parts of the world to meet your player needs.
Are you saying that Greenwood, Baker, Wyatt, etc are probably bad DMs since they are setting/world builders?
I would then ask how those world settings do so well if those people did not know what a DM needed or how a DM works. building worlds for the PCs is part of hte DMs job unless you just draw random card/tiles to stick together and call it the world.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
