D&D General Chekhov's Gun and the Hickman Revolution- What Type of Campaign Do You Run?

[Lanefan]

I too find this to be ideal, but players often screw it up. How so? I think its a combo of not being able to articulate what they want out of theme and mechanics. I think some of us folks that really love this stuff, like enough to talk on a forum during the workday about it, take for granted that a lot of gamers simply dont have that level of TTRPG acumen. They dont really know what they want outside of the most general play experience. Worse is many of them just want to play a game with their friends and go along with whatever the GM is enthusiastic about.

Which is fine, and as a pleasant side effect also makes things easy on the DM.

Thing is, you could ask em what I want from a game today and I'd say [whatever], then ask me again in a week and I might say something completely different. Getting someone to arciculate in one moment what specific elements they're willing to commit to for many years is IMO asking for long-term trouble.

Very broad-brush is one thing e.g. "it's old-school dungeon-crawling anything-goes play, are you in?" is fine, but getting into picky details isn't, as preferences on those can change almost from day to day.

Which is why I'm reluctant to sign onto an adventure path with folks I dont know. I need to know you can work within a box and be creative and have fun.

Simple answer there: don't sign on to adventure paths, but instead sign on to things that are more open-ended and that have less of a "box" constraining what the players/PCs do in the setting.

I also been drifting from D&D because its hard to get players who want to be Riddick instead of Conan, or Shaft instead of Nick Fury to work as a group. God forbid you split the party too, which is exactly what anti-hero loner BAMFs are inclined to do.

Splitting the party is just part of the game, in my view. Let 'em split.

 

[Lanefan]

The other aspect worth highlighting is that this is Chekov's Gun, and not Chekov's Whiskey Bottle, though there are certainly situations that could result in that. As much as I love No Exit, plays are a dramatic medium, and the very inclusion of the gun in the limited presentation that a stage allows creates excitement. The characters are going to take action, and a gun generally presents a very high stakes means of doing so. If the only things hanging on the wall are a painting, a coat hook, and a gun, one of these stands out. The audience should absolutely notice these two things, especially if the director and set designer are doing their jobs well. One generally does not see a table in a scene, and assume that it will bear major plot-driving fruit. The location, presentation, and uniqueness of the object in its setting are going to drive how rewarding, or expected, it will be to see it used.

My preference for this sort of thing is that if there's a gun, a coat hook, a painting, and a table on stage and there's going to be a murder, that the murder be committed by breaking the table over the victim's head while the gun remains right where it is for the whole play.

More broadly: Chekov's Gun speaks to predictability, and predictability is boring.

 

[Xamnam]

My preference for this sort of thing is that if there's a gun, a coat hook, a painting, and a table on stage and there's going to be a murder, that the murder be committed by breaking the table over the victim's head while the gun remains right where it is for the whole play.

More broadly: Chekov's Gun speaks to predictability, and predictability is boring.

I mean, there's an art to tragedy, where generally everyone can tell exactly what's going to happen, and it all feels earned.

But, admittedly, in the Cherry Orchard, also by Chekov:

Spoiler

Yepikhodov produces a gun on stage. It never goes off. Indeed, it is never referred to again in the rest of the play, either directly or indirectly. It is almost as if Chekhov is drawing attention to his having flouted his own rule.

I would agree that it's not a good rule if it's not broken sometimes. And sometimes, the way the gun "fires" is precisely by not being used.

 

[payn]

Which is fine, and as a pleasant side effect also makes things easy on the DM.

Thing is, you could ask em what I want from a game today and I'd say [whatever], then ask me again in a week and I might say something completely different. Getting someone to arciculate in one moment what specific elements they're willing to commit to for many years is IMO asking for long-term trouble.

Very broad-brush is one thing e.g. "it's old-school dungeon-crawling anything-goes play, are you in?" is fine, but getting into picky details isn't, as preferences on those can change almost from day to day.

Simple answer there: don't sign on to adventure paths, but instead sign on to things that are more open-ended and that have less of a "box" constraining what the players/PCs do in the setting.

Splitting the party is just part of the game, in my view. Let 'em split.

You understand that folks have different perspectives and playstyles right?

 

[Page]

What is the point here? Snarf is responsible for the most gasbagging theory oriented threads that are always already useless.

 

[Umbran]

What is the point here? Snarf is responsible for the most gasbagging theory oriented threads that are always already useless.

Mod Note:
Then why, on this good green Earth, are you engaging in this one?

If you don't like his posts or threads, that's fine. And if you find his work to be flawed, constructive criticism might be reasonable. But this isn't so much constructive as it is insulting. If you are going to engage, make it better next time, please and thanks.

 

[Mannahnin]

What is the point here? Snarf is responsible for the most gasbagging theory oriented threads that are always already useless.

You know what's more of a waste of time than funny windbaggery? People complaining about funny windbaggery rather than just moving along and reading something else.

 

[Page]

I stand corrected and apologize. I'm thankful for this community and Snarf.

 

[Yora]

My preference for this sort of thing is that if there's a gun, a coat hook, a painting, and a table on stage and there's going to be a murder, that the murder be committed by breaking the table over the victim's head while the gun remains right where it is for the whole play.

More broadly: Chekov's Gun speaks to predictability, and predictability is boring.

Chekov wrote about stage plays. That translates well to film and TV, and even somewhat to books or videogames.

The most important thing about RPGs is that the are nothing like all those other mediums. RPGs are about interaction and player agency. The GM not predetermining what things will be important or will come back is a key element of good campaign design and gamemastering procedures.

 

[Mannahnin]

I stand corrected and apologize. I'm thankful for this community and Snarf.

And I, in turn, apologize for snarking back. I'm sorry for that.