All rp all the time

[Raven Crowking]

I have to agree that stripping the dead of their gold teeth and toenails occurred in D&D long before it happened in computer games!

That said, I don't think that it is worthwhile to gloss over everything not directly related to the adventure. First off, if you never mention anything not directly related to the adventure, it would take a foolish player indeed to not know that the beggar accosting them was somehow important.

To me, versimilitude is important, and background details are more important in a game than in a good novel simply because in the novel the author knows what is important, while in the game the players should not necessarily have that advantage.

Of course, it is a lot more fun for the players if there is some reasonable limitation on how much scene-setting occurs. Even more fun if the scene-setting serves to convey potentially important information (such as noting that the price of swords is going up due to rumours of war, or food prices are lower because a clerical sect is using divine magic to feed the poor). Seeing the ruins of a castle on the horizon might not be important when travelling from point A to point B, but it might offer an opportunity for later exploration.

I like scene-setting that is recursive as well. The innkeeper at the Last Candle continues to be there every time the PCs stay at the inn. Then, one day, if the innkeeper is in trouble, the players might feel personally involved. Or, if the innkeeper died while they were away, it might actually make them feel like a smaller part of a larger world.

IMC, I mentioned as an aside once that dragon chess was a fad sweeping the town they spent a few months in (waiting for specialty items to be crafted). During that same time, a notorious thief, Rosethorn Jack, was active in town. His (or her?) calling card was leaving a rose at the scene of his (her?) crimes. These two things started as throw-away flavour, but they caught the players' imaginations, and thus became more prominent parts of the world. The players are still hoping, as a subplot, to uncover Rosethorn Jack's identity.

Likewise, an officious prat of a tax collector might seem like a niggling detail better left off stage, but dealing with offensive people actually becomes fun for the players....when they finally get to dump him into a mud puddle. Occasionally setting up things that annoy the players...so long as you don't eliminate every means for the PCs to eventually deal with the annoyance...can result in some of the most well-remembered and oft-told encounters of the game. Even if the PCs never gain a silver piece from it.

It's all in presentation, and paying attention to what the players are interested in.

 

[buzz]

Hussar, lemme try re-phrasing your original question.

"Why would anyone want to spend time playing out stuff that doesn't matter?"

The basic answer is obvious: No one would.

The point of contention, though, is determining what does matter. Essentially, you've got a potential for conflict of agendas. Everyone wants to play out what matters, but what matters will often vary from player to player. Joe wants to be in-character 24-7 becuase he's big on immersion; Jane just wants to get to the next fight; and Jim gets bored whenever there isn't some Big Issue on the table.

 

[Gothmog]

I think the point is that the player is assuming that nothing interesting will happen at the gem merchant when he goes to trade in his gold for a more portable stone. They're assuming that nothing interesting will happen when they go to upgrade their sword to a MW version.

It's the assumption of the mundane that's the difference. It's the DM's game - let him do the assuming.

Exactly- thats dead on der kluge. I prefer to run games where many of the "mundane" interactions are RPed out, and I throw in interesting tidbits, opportunities, and side adventures and plots for those that do them. I'll allow the "we go and plunk down our money for this stuff so we can get back on the road" when the players want it, but if they are willing to take the time to RP out some everyday occurrances, I throw some extra opportunities at them. For example:

1. The paladin PC went to look for some new armor when he was 5th level. He wanted some personalized plate mail with religious motifs of his faith engraved on it. While he was haggling with the armorsmith, he saw in one area of the smithy a piece of armor he recognized as belonging to another knight of his temple that had vanished about 2 years ago (when he was 2nd level). This other knight was a mentor and trainer to him, and when he questioned the blacksmith about it, the smith said the damaged pauldron was brought in by a man who matched the vanished knight's description. Long story short was that the vanished knight had been on a quest, become possessed by a demonic entity, and was trying to undermine the character's temple in this distant city. The paladin PC managed to uncover the plot, defeat his former mentor, exorcise the demon from him, and got a BIG promotion in his temple, as well as the temple covering the cost for his fancy new armor.

2. The PCs arrived at a roadside inn where a tinker was selling all sorts of minor trinkets and items. One thing he had was a small oak box that was elaborately engraved and bore the word "Schonnberg" on it. The box was hollow, something rattled in it, and had no discernable hinges or lock on it, and it intrigued the group. The bard PC bought it and started doing some research. She found out the Schonnberg's were a noble family from a nearby country that had a long and somewhat dark family history, including incest, murder, and madness. In addition, the group could find no way to open the box- even smashing it with a warhammer didn't mar the wood. The PCs tracked it back to the barony of the Schonnbergs, only to find the barony in ruins, and the Schonnberg line apparently died out 30 years ago in a fire that consumed their castle. When the PCs showed the box to some locals, they shied away and made superstitious signs muttering something under their breaths, but wouldn't say any more. This plot hook is still up in the air, and the PCs have moved on to other things for now. However, the Schonnberg plot still comes up occasionally- sometimes the person sleeping closest to the box has strange, prophetic dreams, or they hear the name Schonnberg occasionally from random people. I'm going for a Cthulhu-esque type of thing with this story, but it might take some time to play out. One thing is for sure- anytime the PCs hear the word Schonnberg, their ears perk up and they go digging for more info- they are dying to know what's in the box they can't open, and why the family has such a...colorful reputation.


I do this kind of thing all the time- there have been probably 50 or 60 subplots or stories uncovered by RPing out "mundane things", and about 6 active right now. Now some of you might say this is unfair to the person who doesn't like to RP the mundane stuff- to those I say.... TOUGH. You put extra effort into the game, and I'll make sure you get extra out of it or get special consideration. If you want to rush through everything, you will miss a lot of interesting bits, just like in real life.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I do this kind of thing all the time- there have been probably 50 or 60 subplots or stories uncovered by RPing out "mundane things", and about 6 active right now. Now some of you might say this is unfair to the person who doesn't like to RP the mundane stuff- to those I say.... TOUGH. You put extra effort into the game, and I'll make sure you get extra out of it or get special consideration. If you want to rush through everything, you will miss a lot of interesting bits, just like in real life.

Dang. That's some excellent stuff.

Next time you need players for a PbP, drop me a line!

 

[Hussar]

I do this kind of thing all the time- there have been probably 50 or 60 subplots or stories uncovered by RPing out "mundane things", and about 6 active right now. Now some of you might say this is unfair to the person who doesn't like to RP the mundane stuff- to those I say.... TOUGH. You put extra effort into the game, and I'll make sure you get extra out of it or get special consideration. If you want to rush through everything, you will miss a lot of interesting bits, just like in real life.

While I agree that dropping adventure hooks is a great way to spice up otherwise mundane encounters, there is something I would like to point out here. While there are 6 active plots, and that's great, the 50 or 60 inactive subplots don't concern the players. Why not? Because they don't know about them.

Now, if you are constantly tossing out hooks every time the party does anything, that's fine. However, that also generally only works in a very open campaign where there isn't a larger plot. Or at least a larger time dependent plot.

Me, if I've got 5 or 6 active plots to worry about, I don't want to worry about any more. I've got more than enough on my plate as it is. By the same token, the paladin sub-plot is great for the paladin player, but, for my elven rogue, what's in it for me?

I know, it's a matter of difference of taste. I prefer my games a little more streamlined than that. I like to have a concrete problem that we can deal with now, rather than fifteen different nebulous threads that may or may not have any import. But, OTOH, I recognise that others may enjoy that style of play.

However, as a DM, should I penalize one and give benefits to the other? Why not simply accomodate both? If players want to do lots of side treks and whatnot, that can be done over email or on a PbP. Reserve game day for the main plot. That way everyone is happy. I strongly disagree that as a DM, I should try to "correct" or change my player's styles. I can certaily suggest trying something different, that's fine. But, to go so far as to say that Style X is good and gets more benefits and style Y is bad and gets nothing, I can't say I agree.

There, I think I avoided hyperbole this time. Sorry if I wasn't clear originally. I wasn't specifically talking about Olaf's game here. I was trying to broaden the topic from that inspiration. Let me be perfectly clear. I am NOT specifically talking about Olaf's game. I am talking in a broader sense of how other people approach a particular style difference.

Man, I gotta start posting disclaimers more often.

 

[buzz]

However, as a DM, should I penalize one and give benefits to the other? Why not simply accomodate both? If players want to do lots of side treks and whatnot, that can be done over email or on a PbP. Reserve game day for the main plot. That way everyone is happy. I strongly disagree that as a DM, I should try to "correct" or change my player's styles. I can certaily suggest trying something different, that's fine. But, to go so far as to say that Style X is good and gets more benefits and style Y is bad and gets nothing, I can't say I agree.

QFT.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I strongly disagree that as a DM, I should try to "correct" or change my player's styles. I can certaily suggest trying something different, that's fine. But, to go so far as to say that Style X is good and gets more benefits and style Y is bad and gets nothing, I can't say I agree.

You know, though, while that is a fine sentiment, it isn't really practicable. If someone's style is to spend lots of time on side quests, and your position is "If players want to do lots of side treks and whatnot, that can be done over email or on a PbP. Reserve game day for the main plot." some might easily say that Style X (follow main plot duirng game day) is good within the context of that specific game and gets more benefits (followed during actual game days) than Style Y (follow side treks and whatnot) which gets little or no play during actual game days.

This assumes, of course, that your players prefer live games to pbp. YMMV.

Unless your players know and meet your expectations, and unless you know and meet theirs, there can be no "That way everyone is happy". If people have wildly divergent expectations, sometimes they shouldn't game together.

 

[Hussar]

Unless your players know and meet your expectations, and unless you know and meet theirs, there can be no "That way everyone is happy". If people have wildly divergent expectations, sometimes they shouldn't game together.

QFT

I do fully agree with this. If people are really that incompatible, then yes, maybe it's time to break out Risk or Squad Leader.

From a personal point of view, it's very different. Since my gaming is all online, I generally recruit players from online. This means that I can state very clearly up front what the expectations of the game are. In turn, this means that I don't generally run into this issue. And, when it does happen, it's not all that difficult to ask someone politely to find another game. After all, there are other games out there and I know that some will suit their style better than mine.

However, OTOH, if people are willing to compromise, then it shouldn't be a major issue. Or at least, it doesn't have to be. I mentioned taking things to email. There are, of course, other options as well. Perhaps meeting a bit earlier to take care of side trek stuff. Or going a bit later. Meeting on a different day. Whatever.

I don't think that most people actively don't want to pursue the main goals in a campaign, assuming of course, that there are main goals. If the campaign is wide open and very character driven, the rules change of course. Then, those side treks really ARE the campaign. In that case, there may be an impasse. Not necesarily, but maybe.

My point is, instead of simply shutting down one player and telling him that he's either got to change his style or suffer the consequences of losing xp or rewards, it is far better to attempt to co-opt that player's style into everyone else's. If it's not possible, then, fair enough. But, the attempt should be made.

I guess I just don't see it as my role as DM to try to tell other people how to game.

 

[Gothmog]

While I agree that dropping adventure hooks is a great way to spice up otherwise mundane encounters, there is something I would like to point out here. While there are 6 active plots, and that's great, the 50 or 60 inactive subplots don't concern the players. Why not? Because they don't know about them.

Now, if you are constantly tossing out hooks every time the party does anything, that's fine. However, that also generally only works in a very open campaign where there isn't a larger plot. Or at least a larger time dependent plot.

Me, if I've got 5 or 6 active plots to worry about, I don't want to worry about any more. I've got more than enough on my plate as it is. By the same token, the paladin sub-plot is great for the paladin player, but, for my elven rogue, what's in it for me?

Oops, I think I'm the one that needed to clarify this time. I have previously resolved 50 or 60 subplots or side-quests in the campaign I've been running for the last 13 years. Currently (and at any given point in time) there are only 5 or 6 active subplots/side quests. So yes, the PCs know about any active subplots from their side ventures. Sorry for any confusion there.

However, as a DM, should I penalize one and give benefits to the other? Why not simply accomodate both? If players want to do lots of side treks and whatnot, that can be done over email or on a PbP. Reserve game day for the main plot. That way everyone is happy. I strongly disagree that as a DM, I should try to "correct" or change my player's styles. I can certaily suggest trying something different, that's fine. But, to go so far as to say that Style X is good and gets more benefits and style Y is bad and gets nothing, I can't say I agree.

I'm not saying one way of playing is quantitatively better than the other at all. My group tends to enjoy heavy RP games, and someone who wants to put their head down and bulldoze through each adventure without enjoying the scenery won't enjoy gaming with us. I am saying, for my group, that when I have control of the situation, the person who invests more time and effort into their gaming should be rewarded with extra opportunities. Here is an analogy for you:

I am a professor of neurobiology at a university. When I teach my classes, can you honestly say that the student that seems bored in lecture, puts minimal effort into class, and puts in no lab time deserves the same grade as a student that puts extra effort into the class, asks questions in lecture, and makes an extra effort to come to lab and do research? I don't see this as playing favorites. As the old adage goes "you reap what you sew."

I'm not big on email gaming or PBP- it doesn't have the same feel or flow of face-to-face gaming. However, when someone brings up a side-quest, I don't usually play through the entire thing there at the table with the other players there, unless the other players seem extremely interested. Instead, I have the PC involved, and anyone else who is really interested in it (which most of the time these are solo affairs) come over and we play the senario on a different day than the main game day. That way nobody loses out on playing time for something they aren't interested in.

 

[Hussar]

I am a professor of neurobiology at a university. When I teach my classes, can you honestly say that the student that seems bored in lecture, puts minimal effort into class, and puts in no lab time deserves the same grade as a student that puts extra effort into the class, asks questions in lecture, and makes an extra effort to come to lab and do research? I don't see this as playing favorites. As the old adage goes "you reap what you sew."

Well, that depends on the grading method. If the grade is determined by examinations and essays with no mark for participation, then, so long as the product is equal, then both deserve the same grade. Heh, I teach English, so I do understand exactly what you mean.

But, really and truly, hats off to you. A THIRTEEN year campaign. Wow. With the same people? Same characters? The longest I've ever had a camp run was 2 years and I thought that was doing pretty good.

Fair enough, in a campaign that has been running that long, the rules are obviously different.