An Examination of Differences between Editions

[Lanefan]

If something is out of theme the DM has every right to smack it down before it enters play: "You want to play a Samurai on my world that has no Oriental-like culture? Sorry..."

However, once it *does* enter play the DM in all fairness has to allow it again if someone else wants to run out the same concept in the same campaign...either that, or come up with an ironclad in-game rationale for why this character was so unique (and then be wide open to charges of favouritism).

Lanefan

 

[I'm A Banana]

If something is out of theme the DM has every right to smack it down before it enters play: "You want to play a Samurai on my world that has no Oriental-like culture? Sorry..."

However, once it *does* enter play the DM in all fairness has to allow it again if someone else wants to run out the same concept in the same campaign...either that, or come up with an ironclad in-game rationale for why this character was so unique (and then be wide open to charges of favouritism).

And if I ended up running a group of samurai because that's what most of the players wanted, and they found a way to make it work in the world (such as by taking the class and filing the serial numbers off), I'd probably concede that my world design was limited in such a way that it would discount this particular style of fun, and I'd ask my group of they just wanted me to run an OA game or something.

Because, again, I don't invest a lot of self-worth in my campaign settings. They're sandboxes for the PC's to play in to me, not sacred immutable dogma that they must conform to.

That "slippery slope" isn't a bad thing, in my mind. It lets the players tell the DM what *they* want to do.

IME, when the DM starts shooting down player ideas, it can lead to some disconnection with the setting. The player is honestly thinking (and I'm assuming the player isn't an asshat here) that his idea fits with the setting. He's done a decent job tailoring things so that it works from the information he's been given from the DM. When the DM turns around and shoots that idea down because it doesn't fit into the DM's vision of the campaign, then the player may feel that his input isn't needed or even wanted. He's supposed to just make whatever stock character fits into the theme of the game and play away.

This can be true, too. It's the idea that in challenging the DM's preconceptions about their own campaign, the player actually enriches the setting.

The DM doesn't *have* to accept anything. But if he does, the world can be made the better for it.

 

[The Shaman]

If the sum total of your ability to come up with a character for a 7th Sea campaign setting is "Warforged Ninja", the DM's imagination probably is better than yours.

My first year of college I took an art history survey course, one of those 100-level general ed classes everyone suffers through to satisfy the Chinese take-out menu aspect of degree requirements (". . . one from column A, one from column B, with two order you get free egg roll!").

I was fortunate to have an instructor who didn't care that 95% of the class was there simply to have their tickets to graduation punched. He skillfully engaged the class by teaching us not only about the artwork but how to look at art - he introduced me to the "three-step museum patron," who upon walking up to a work of art first looks at the information card to see what it is and who it's by, then looks at the work for a moment, then looks back at the card to make sure s/he didn't miss anything important before moving on to the next piece in the gallery. (Stand back and watch people in an art museum some time, and you'll see this over and over again.)

During our discussion of Renaissance artists and artwork, the professor taught us that the subject matter of most art during the period was fairly limited, mostly commissions consisting of either scenes from the Bible or scenes from antiquity (often presented as biblical allegories). Despite the limited selection of topics, the actual content of paintings in particular varied dramatically - one Abraham and Isaac could be quite different from another, based on what the artist brought to the work. For example, the depiction of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem could include all the elements of a genre painting, showing life in a Renaissance port town through the people and features presented as "background" to what was ostensibly the subject of the painting.

Many artists explored humanist philosophy, social satire, and other non-religious and non-classical themes while adhering to the tastes and standards of the period. The professor pointed out that what separates one depiction of the martyrdom of St. Stephen from another is the innovation, the idiosyncracy, the imagination - the creativity - the artist brings to the work while preserving the original subject matter intact.

I think some people tend to confuse or conflate creativity with unfettered fancy. In my experience they are not the same thing at all.

 

[Storm Raven]

I wasn't DMing back in the early 80s (I started playing in 1987 or so and DMing in 1989) . . . however, what I am getting at is that it takes longer now, not that it took longer then.

Whether that is good or bad is up to the DM.

I don't think you are understanding me. What I am saying is that the difference is not the system. If you Dmed using the same assumptions now that you used then, then the difference in DMing prep-time between the systems would be negligible. Like I said, even if it takes 500% more time to make an NPC now than it did then, you would typically be statting up so few NPCs for a session using "back then" assumptions, that the difference in time would be negilgible.

What has changed is our expectations vis a vis what we want out of a campaign. People seem to want more than "kill the unmodified humanoids and aberrations" campaigns now, with lots of "memorable" opponents who have all kinds of bells and whistles. That's what takes time. But if you ran a campaign now like DMs ran them back in the "good old days" the prep time differential wouldn't be meaningfully measurable.

 

[Storm Raven]

Did I say anything about one year of gaming?

That was in reference to keeping track of a 1,000 NPCs at a time. If you are statting up more NPCs than you can reasonably expect to use in a year, then you are probably doing too much prep. Heck, if you are statting up lots of NPCs you don't expect to use in the next four or five sessions, you are probably doing too much prep.

Four to eight hours, with the average being probably nearer the low end.

So, you are prepping, generally, three brand new NPCs with stat work ups per hour of expected gaming? That just seems excessive. That seems to me like you are engaging in a lot of wasted effort.

The point is, I wouldn't really know until it happened, would I? I never found spending a sentence or two on 50 or so NPCs in the vacinity of the action to be wasted effort.

But that doesn't change with the system now, does it? If all you are doing is coming up with a sentence or two of description, it doesn't matter if you are playing using the rules for 3e D&D, OD&D, GURPS, or Yatzee.

It's gives life to the setting, a bit of forethought in NPC design can create alot of player interest, and it avoids 'empty room' syndrome where the player can tell from the metagame that this is just a 'nameless NPC' and can be ignored/killed. This is important for several reasons, for example, if you don't occassionally pull a 'Scobby Doo' and have the villain be the janitor in scene 5, you are never going to get away with having the villain be one of the central NPCs in disguise with experienced players.

But the thing is, there is no need to stat out most NPCs in order to have them be something other than an empty shell. In point of fact, most of what makes NPcs not an empty shell is entirely independent of the game system. Bob the Moderately Clever Merchant doesn't need combat stats, or really anything system-wise other than his race, level, class and a few relevant skill totals. What he really needs to come alive in the setting is a nervous habit of rubbing his eyes and an overly talkative nature.

I don't think I said anything about working out more than the basics.... of course, what are the basics might be something we'd quibble over.

For most NPCs, I have a purpose in mind when I stick them in the game, and I don't stat up much more than what is needed for that. Lots of NPCs don't get game stats other than "Joey the Woodcutter, Com 1", because just about everything else is not really relevant. Even that isn't really needed most of the time.

I think you make a good point here. Just because we have a more detailed system now doesn't mean we have to use it.

My rule of thumb is "don't plan out more than you have to". Because it gives you the flexibility to fill in stuff as you need it. If Joey or Bob become more important later, they can be filled in. I don't usually stat out my big bad evil guys until the PCs are going to confront him - because they usually have only a vague idea what he can do up to then anyway, and until then it gives me the ability to throw stuff in if I think it would be interesting. Just like Burlew doesn't tie himself to particular stats in OotS, until an NPC actually shows up "on stage" I don't tie myself to a particular NPC design.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The professor pointed out that what separates one depiction of the martyrdom of St. Stephen from another is the innovation, the idiosyncracy, the imagination - the creativity - the artist brings to the work while preserving the original subject matter intact.

Nice post. I think this is a great example of how a player can work creatively within the artificial bounds created by a DM who is more constraining. The scene doesn't change, it always depicts the same thing, it's familiar and everyone knows how it's "supposed" to look, but a good artist isn't limited by what they're told to constrain themselves to. In the same way a creative DM knows to work within the commonly understood rules without limiting their creativity, a creative player looks at the limitations and seeks a subtle way of saying it.

Thinking about it, it's also a great example of what Hussar did in explaining the warforged ninja. He had a limitation of "7th sea game" and he used that to develop a compelling background for the character that made it seem like it really belonged. He creatively fit it into the universe. That's part of why I'd easily allow it.

But some DM's would rather change the rules to suit their purposes than be forced to work within inadequate rules, and some players would rather play the character in their heads than the character they're told to play. Just like biblical scenes eventually got old and stale and unpopular, so to do the constraints of a certain DM's "vision" or a certain game's rules. Eventually, people wanted to draw expressionism and cubism and absurdism and pop, not Renaissance art, and eventually people are going to want to play Warforged Ninjas and not pirates.

I think some people tend to confuse or conflate creativity with unfettered fancy. In my experience they are not the same thing at all.

But, as Hussar has shown, creativity can be used to give cogent voice to unfettered fancy (if, indeed, "warforged ninja" can even be said to be unfettered fancy). There's not very much creative about running characters just like Conan through adventures just like Conan had, but there's quite a lot of creativity in seeing how a creature like Data from Star Trek could have found contact with Conan, and in seeing how each would react to each other, and, effectively, playing those roles in ways they've never been played before...

I wonder if the opposite is true, too. That some people confuse creativity with re-telling stories that were creative the first time they were told, but become progressively less so. In a game as bullet-riddled with archetype as D&D is, I'd think that would be the greater risk.

 

[Imaro]

Nice post. I think this is a great example of how a player can work creatively within the artificial bounds created by a DM who is more constraining. The scene doesn't change, it always depicts the same thing, it's familiar and everyone knows how it's "supposed" to look, but a good artist isn't limited by what they're told to constrain themselves to. In the same way a creative DM knows to work within the commonly understood rules without limiting their creativity, a creative player looks at the limitations and seeks a subtle way of saying it.

Thinking about it, it's also a great example of what Hussar did in explaining the warforged ninja. He had a limitation of "7th sea game" and he used that to develop a compelling background for the character that made it seem like it really belonged. He creatively fit it into the universe. That's part of why I'd easily allow it.

But some DM's would rather change the rules to suit their purposes than be forced to work within inadequate rules, and some players would rather play the character in their heads than the character they're told to play. Just like biblical scenes eventually got old and stale and unpopular, so to do the constraints of a certain DM's "vision" or a certain game's rules. Eventually, people wanted to draw expressionism and cubism and absurdism and pop, not Renaissance art, and eventually people are going to want to play Warforged Ninjas and not pirates.

I think the "warforged ninja" thing is also a question of rules introduction as well though, or how much add-on rules does a GM want to deal with. A better example would be a Psionic character. Is a GM who doesn't want add-ons like Psionics handbook or Complete X a bad GM because he's stifling his characters creativity? I think one thing alot of players don't realize in this situation is that the GM is dealing with way more rules per session than a single player ever will.

On the one hand I see people claim...D&D isn't complex if you just stick to core or carefully monitor what you let in, On the other hand it's become a more player-centric game rules wise, placing new options, classes, etc. purely in the hands of player oriented supplements(A great business model, but problematiic in a game sense IMHO). If I as a GM don't want to spend the money, or better yet realize the limitations of the amount of rules, classes, etc. I can/want to devote time to, am I wrong for nixing something that lies outside the purview of what I wish to deal with?

But, as Hussar has shown, creativity can be used to give cogent voice to unfettered fancy (if, indeed, "warforged ninja" can even be said to be unfettered fancy). There's not very much creative about running characters just like Conan through adventures just like Conan had, but there's quite a lot of creativity in seeing how a creature like Data from Star Trek could have found contact with Conan, and in seeing how each would react to each other, and, effectively, playing those roles in ways they've never been played before...

I wonder if the opposite is true, too. That some people confuse creativity with re-telling stories that were creative the first time they were told, but become progressively less so. In a game as bullet-riddled with archetype as D&D is, I'd think that would be the greater risk.

I don't agree with your analogy above, first off there's very few if any stories that haven't been told...even your example about Data has been told and in different ways(Frakenstein, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica,etc.). The thing about roleplaying games is they let you experience and decide how to deal with those situations. Is it any less creative to see how your characters would deal with the situations and adventures of Conan, than to see how a Data "clone" would interact in social situations...it's arguable at the least.

I think the creativity ultimately lies in how each player through their "archetype" approaches the problems set before them, whether the stories been told before or not...this is where player creativity comes into play vs. GM creativity. A GM constructs the world and adventures, the players(through their actions, decisions, etc.) shape how the stories take place. Ten different groups can experience the same adventure and have wildly differing experiences in it.

 

[Hussar]

I think the "warforged ninja" thing is also a question of rules introduction as well though, or how much add-on rules does a GM want to deal with. A better example would be a Psionic character. Is a GM who doesn't want add-ons like Psionics handbook or Complete X a bad GM because he's stifling his characters creativity? I think one thing alot of players don't realize in this situation is that the GM is dealing with way more rules per session than a single player ever will.

Actually, I would personally likely be more accepting of a mechanical reason for not including something than a flavour one. Psionics is a perfect example. I regularly veto psionics because I have no interest in it and am too lazy to learn the rules.

In the case of my World's Largest Dungeon game, I vetoed the Vow of Poverty. Not because of the power issues but because the VoP sidesteps pretty much all the basic challenges of the WLD. Since there is next to no crafting in the WLD, pretty much everyone is under the same constraints as a VoP imposes. The realities of the campaign made the limitations of the VoP no longer limitations.

In the same way, I'd likely have problems with Warforged in the same campaign. Not needing to eat, being immune to disease and not needing to sleep sidesteps a fair chunk of the challenges for the first third of the campaign (around 1-7th level). In that setting, I'd probably whack on a LA+1 simply because the base abilities become SO powerful and desirable.

To me, there is a difference here though. If the objections are purely flavour based, such as Molonel's objections to my WF Ninja, then, it is the DM saying that the player's imagination isn't good enough. It becomes solely the DM's campaign and the players are passive users, rather than creators. Actually, that's stated too strongly. The players ability to move from passive user to creator is curtailed through the filter of the DM's views. So long as the player stays within a certain boundary, then he can be as creative as he wants. If the filter is too fixed though, if it is too fine, then the player has little or no choice to become a user, rather than creator.

OTOH, mechanics issues, beyond the player deliberately attempting to abuse the system (which is a separate issue), are much more concrete. As the DM, you can point to mechanical elements in the campaign that will conflict with the mechanical elements of the player's idea. Take psionics for example. It could very well be that the DM doesn't have any idea how psionics works and has no interest in it. Since psionics does require the DM to be somewhat proficient with the rules, this becomes a problem. Additionally, the DM may not want to use psionic monsters since it adds so much complexity to the table. A reasonable player can usually see how this could be a problem.

I recall another conversation about warforged where one DM talked about how they would not fit into his jungle based campaign. Mostly for the same reasons they don't fit into my WLD game - a number of themes and challenges get tossed because of the mechanics of the WF.

Most players IME, are willing to concede that the DM shouldn't have to rewrite his entire campaign to fit a new PC, or whatever mechanic. Conflicts that are based in mechanics are, IME, better reasons for disallowing elements. Conflicts based purely on what the DM feels is the "feel" of the game are so subjective that it becomes much more difficult to build consensus.

 

[The Shaman]

I think this is a great example of how a player can work creatively within the artificial bounds created by a DM who is more constraining. The scene doesn't change, it always depicts the same thing, it's familiar and everyone knows how it's "supposed" to look, but a good artist isn't limited by what they're told to constrain themselves to.

One could depict St. Stephen as a 1956 Chrysler 300 impaled with road signs, but that is most definitely not how the scene is "supposed" to look - it takes the genre conventions in a different direction entirely. The artists referenced above respected the genre conventions while exercising their creativity within those boundaries.

What you're advocating ignores how the scene is "supposed" to look: "It's our doughty pirate band! And a robot."

 

[molonel]

What you're advocating ignores how the scene is "supposed" to look: "It's our doughty pirate band! And a robot."

That one made me laugh.