[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Raven Crowking]

I don't need the setting for any longer or in any more detail than it takes to tell the story. That's simply good writing -- there's no extraneous elements that don't have a reason to be there with regards to what the characters are doing.

It's pretty arguable whether or not that's good writing. If you want the setting or characters to "breathe" (i.e., to seem at all real), there have to be extraneous elements to the setting. For a good example, look at the original Star Wars movie. The galaxy has a "used" feel to it, as though there were stories taking place before Luke came on the scene, which were important to the people in those stories. A lot of that back story is developed in later films (Jabba the Hutt, Ben Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker), but it wasn't necessary to the original release. We didn't "need" extraneous details like the other droids in the Jawa Sandcrawler, that they don't serve droids in the Mos Eisley cantina, or that one person (being?) in that cantina was wanted in seven systems. But the details -- moisture farming, sand people, krait dragons, dinged up old landspeeders, holographic "chess" games, Luke talking about flying through Beggar's Canyon, and Stormtroopers talking about the newest model speeder -- are what make the film seem real to a great many viewers.

While it may be possible to move onto a different world and a different story, a well-conceived world can hold multiple stories, just as there have been six Star Wars movies (with variable degrees of artistic success), the Clone Wars Saga, comics, novels, a delighful Christmas Special, two Ewoks features, and Ewoks cartoon, a Droids cartoon, and two television programs (one animated and one live action) upcoming.

Certainly, if you are not going to reuse a world, there's a limited amount of effort you'll want to put into it. Even so, good writing -- if it is to be of any length -- always deals with extraneous elements, and IME those extraneous elements are (more often than not) what actually hook fans into the writing.

YMMV, of course.

I wouldn't want such a pizza. Maybe I'm a bit traditionalist, but I'm going to say "Hey, guys, let's keep this pizza vaguely medieval because we're ordering it from D&D, after all. Save Alternate Universe Ghandi for our comic Superheroes game."

But, you do realize that you sound rather like you are advocating exactly that, if that's what the players want?

There's so much stuff out there to try, from horror to d20 modern to Conan-style to classic LotR-style to pulp adventure to religious epic to steampunk or cyperpunk fantasy....why would I EVER bother limiting myself ?



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

But how you give that to them must be how they want it or you're a bad DM because you're not helping the other players of the game have fun.

Again, I have to disagree. DMs are not psychologists, and players should not be putting on airs. If don't think you're going to ENJOY playing in a game, don't play in that one, and if you do think you're going to enjoy playing in that game, don't cry when faced with a dillemma (though feel free to no longer play in that game).

If the player plays in a given game, give them the challenges appropriate to that game setting. He's ASKING for it.

Doing so does not make you a bad DM.

In your case, you state how they're going to get it, and if they like it they come on down. In mine, they state how they want it, and I build the game to hit those points (while at the same time hitting my own). We're both giving the players what they want, we're just doing it in different ways.

Excepting, of course, that if Bob changes his mind about what he wants, or joins the game hoping to change it into what he wants, and I don't change what I am serving, then I am a bad DM.

Bull hooey.



RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

Certainly, if you are not going to reuse a world, there's a limited amount of effort you'll want to put into it. Even so, good writing -- if it is to be of any length -- always deals with extraneous elements, and IME those extraneous elements are (more often than not) what actually hook fans into the writing.

The thing is, the world can feel like it's breathing (and have hooks aplenty aside from the "main plot") without ever having to spend more than 15 minutes working on the setting. It doesn't take that long to throw out a bit of slang, a comment in the right "dialect," or to turn some innocent statement into a fleshed out story.

It just only happens if you're interested in pursuing it.

For instance, in the "15-minute world" where the drow want to blot out the sun, I have all the detail of D&D to draw upon. There's an elven village. There's a drow cult underneath. There's some dwarves to meet up with. Where there's elves there's magic, so there will be references to the "Conjurer's Academy," which now trains specialist conjurers. The dwarves have been fighting the drow, so they'll have a preponderance of clerics and paladins dedicated to stopping the demon-summoning threat...perhaps an Exterminator's Guild that specializes in vermin slaying (that's the dwarven rangers, who take favored enemy (vermin) and favored enemy (evil outsider) and favored enemy (elf), of course). I know the sun is to be a portal to the Plane of Radience, so perhaps the Underdark contains a portal to the Plane of Shadow, and I'm referencing other realms of existence. With the dwarven clergy being so strong, Moradin and the rest of the dwarven pantheon (a quick look at Monstrous Mythology while my players are generating characters tells me what gods would work well) will be part and parcel of it, and, of course, we have drow with spiders and the like.

Of course, where there's dwarves, there's goblinoids and giants to use their bonus on, so the old dwarves will reference the "Giant's War" as they hobble on shattered legs to the pantry to get their guests (who have come to them for help against the drow) some drinks. And maybe the old dwarf knows of an artefact that was left on an ancient battlefield that could help the party, or provide clues to what happened to the giants in the aftermath.

Because of how I want the climax in a few sessions to go, we know there are gold dragons in the world, too. Why aren't they helping instantly against the drow? Maybe they are having problems in that the Red Dragons' pet Githyanki have taken to allying with the drow as they summon creatures from beyond the planes. If they attack the drow, the red dragons will attack the elves, so it's "Mutually Assured Destruction." Of course, the PC's will have to be instrumental in neutralizing this so that the gold dragon can help them in the final moments.

D&D already has a wealth of world-building hardwired into the system, and it doesn't take long to make it "breathe." It almost does on it's own, it doesn't require much thought to play to the archetypes and give the occasional tweak to make the experience something new.

It doesn't have to take months to build a world, and a world built in 20 years is no "better" than a world built in 20 minutes. It's deeper, it's richer, it's more in-deapth, but it also comes with more baggage, limits your future options, and means nothing to people who haven't spent time helping you build it. It's more cluttered.

You certainly can get a feeling that a world is breathing beyond the PC's without having to ACTUALLY come up with a SPECIFIC name for the githyanki general helping the drow BEFORE you sit down and play unless he's going to come up. And if he comes up early, you make up a name, jot it down, and make sure when he comes up again you use the same name.

As long as you're internally consistent, adding deapth is a cake walk.

But, you do realize that you sound rather like you are advocating exactly that, if that's what the players want?

There's so much stuff out there to try, from horror to d20 modern to Conan-style to classic LotR-style to pulp adventure to religious epic to steampunk or cyperpunk fantasy....why would I EVER bother limiting myself ?

Hey, if the group conscensus really wants to play our comic Superheroes game, I'll gladly step aside and let Wayne (who loves to DM superheroes) come up with his 20-minute campaign. Certainly if they created these wacky characters, I'd assume they'd have more fun. And if they *really* want to play Alternate Universe Ghandi in D&D, maybe Shana (who enjoys getting wacky with game systems) will DM. And if no one can make up their minds, maybe we'll just play Super Smash Brothers on the gamecube tonight and roll some dice around later.

That's giving them what they want. It would certainly be poor of me to say "No, we're playing D&D, and you're not being Alternate Universe Ghandi because it doesn't fit the feel I want so you need to get out and let the rest of us play!" Because I would be told "Hey, you don't HAVE to DM."

Of course, it would be very odd of me to find someone who demanded to play Alternate Universe Ghandi when the rest of the group was okay with good ol' Medieval-esque swords and monks, too.

Again, I have to disagree. DMs are not psychologists, and players should not be putting on airs. If don't think you're going to ENJOY playing in a game, don't play in that one, and if you do think you're going to enjoy playing in that game, don't cry when faced with a dillemma (though feel free to no longer play in that game).

If the player plays in a given game, give them the challenges appropriate to that game setting. He's ASKING for it.

Doing so does not make you a bad DM.

Correct. You're giving him what he wants. You're catering to his needs. You told him what you were offering, and he came to get it, and because you do your job well, he gets it and is happy. If he's NOT happy, then either there was some miscommunication, or he's having a bad day or whatever and then we need to look into what would be more fun for most people at the table, if his feeling was unique to him (in which case, no one cares if he steps out) or if everyone feels that way (in which case, the DM should probably step out).

The difference may be I'm saying you should give the PLAYERS what they want. This != giving each individual player everything they demand, but rather meeting the needs of the group as a whole.

Of course, if you don't think you're going to enjoy a particular game, you could always go play something else. And if the group wanted to go play something else instead, fun would be had and everyone would be happy.

The Game is not sacrosanct or inviolate, after all. A particular DM's setting is just one way amongst many to kill an evening.

Excepting, of course, that if Bob changes his mind about what he wants, or joins the game hoping to change it into what he wants, and I don't change what I am serving, then I am a bad DM.

Bull hooey.

No, Bob alone doesn't have the power to dictate what the game is any more than the DM alone has that power. But if Bob can convince Erica, Wayne, Tim, and Burt that the change would be a lot more fun, and you don't change what you're serving (or find someone who will serve them what they want), then, yeah, that's bad DMing, because now the entire group will have more fun doing something else and you're refusing to change. If everyone who sat down for chocolate chip cookies finds out, after sitting down, that oatmeal cookies sound really good, you don't serve them chocolate chip and tell them to suck it up, you say, "Hey, I can do oatmeal, too." or "I heard Tim bakes some kickass oatmeal, let's have him bake instead."

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, Bob alone doesn't have the power to dictate what the game is any more than the DM alone has that power. But if Bob can convince Erica, Wayne, Tim, and Burt that the change would be a lot more fun, and you don't change what you're serving (or find someone who will serve them what they want), then, yeah, that's bad DMing, because now the entire group will have more fun doing something else and you're refusing to change. If everyone who sat down for chocolate chip cookies finds out, after sitting down, that oatmeal cookies sound really good, you don't serve them chocolate chip and tell them to suck it up, you say, "Hey, I can do oatmeal, too." or "I heard Tim bakes some kickass oatmeal, let's have him bake instead."

No. It isn't my job to bake oatmeal cookies, nor is it my job to find someone to bake them for you. Just to be clear, it isn't my job to bake chocolate chip either. If I bake chocolate chip it is because I want to. If you eat those cookies, it is because you want to and because I want you to.

If it was bad DMing "because now the entire group will have more fun doing something else" then it would be "bad DMing" every time there was a new movie everyone in the group wanted to see. You might not be the right DM for that group, or it might not be the right night to play, but neither circumstance makes you a bad DM.



RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

No. It isn't my job to bake oatmeal cookies, nor is it my job to find someone to bake them for you.

Then it's not your job to be DM for those people who want oatmeal cookies, either. You're lucky you bake a popular flavor.

Though I honestly can't understand a position that is so stubborn or proud that, when faced with four other people who say "We'd really like to do something else, like what Bill wants to do" would say "We're doing what I want to do!" Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, though (I certainly think I am).

If it was bad DMing "because now the entire group will have more fun doing something else" then it would be "bad DMing" every time there was a new movie everyone in the group wanted to see. You might not be the right DM for that group, or it might not be the right night to play, but neither circumstance makes you a bad DM.

You would certainly be a bad DM if you still insisted on your group playing under you despite what others might want. Just as you would be a bad player if you insisted on playing your pet character despite what the rest of the group wants (Alternate Reality Ghandi in a basically medieval campaign, for instance).

To the point of how the new edition is designed, I don't think it is constructive at all to encourage forming DMs to be so invested in their own ideas that they are unwilling to try something new. A chef who only bakes one kind of cookies isn't a very good chef (though his chocolate chips may be the best in the world).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Then it's not your job to be DM for those people who want oatmeal cookies, either. You're lucky you bake a popular flavor.

I would say that it is more than luck, but overall I agree.

Though I honestly can't understand a position that is so stubborn or proud that, when faced with four other people who say "We'd really like to do something else, like what Bill wants to do" would say "We're doing what I want to do!" Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, though (I certainly think I am).

If you would like to do something else, then do something else. That isn't difficult, and is hardly inconsistent with saying that "If I run a game, I run the game I want to run." If you want another game, you'll have to get someone else to run it. And it is your job, not my job, to figure out who that will be, and to convince them to play the game you want.

Meanwhile, hopefully those four other people will understand if I continue on with my campaign using the remaining players and/or new players who are waiting for an open seat.

That seems pretty darn simple to me.

You would certainly be a bad DM if you still insisted on your group playing under you despite what others might want.

How, exactly, would one go about forcing a group to play your game if they don't want to? I'd agree that such an expectation would make you a bad DM, and a bit of a fool.

Just as you would be a bad player if you insisted on playing your pet character despite what the rest of the group wants (Alternate Reality Ghandi in a basically medieval campaign, for instance).

IMC, you wouldn't be a player, so it wouldn't matter.

However, if all you are interested in playing is warforged ninjas, it wouldn't make you a bad player.....simply a poor choice for some games.

To the point of how the new edition is designed, I don't think it is constructive at all to encourage forming DMs to be so invested in their own ideas that they are unwilling to try something new. A chef who only bakes one kind of cookies isn't a very good chef (though his chocolate chips may be the best in the world).

I agree that 3e makes a lot of scenarios possible that would have been difficult to set up under previous editions. As an obvious example, "Modern people travelling to fantasy world" is a pretty common fantasy trope, but it's hard to do well under 2e or 1e. It's easy under 3e.

However, having a consistent world is not synonomous with being unwilling to try something new. While it is true that making meaningful choices, perforce, creates limitations on other choices, that doesn't mean that your world is set into some kind of fast-acting concrete. Nor does it prevent you from running one-shots in other worlds (or plane-hopping adventures to those worlds).

Do you really think that the time Monte Cook invested in Ptolus prevented him from exploring new ideas?

The thing is, the world can feel like it's breathing (and have hooks aplenty aside from the "main plot") without ever having to spend more than 15 minutes working on the setting. It doesn't take that long to throw out a bit of slang, a comment in the right "dialect," or to turn some innocent statement into a fleshed out story.

I'd need to see it to believe it.

A bit of slang or a bit of dialect isn't the same thing as a fully fleshed out world, IMHO. Which is not to say that it isn't going to be fun or entertaining. However, knowing that a thing will endure beyond a given campaign is actually a strength, and makes the stories told within the setting more meaningful. If the heroes fail to stop the BBEG, and the next campaign begins with the BBEG in charge, then the players are going to take the consequences of their actions more seriously. If the players know that whether the heroes succeed or fail, the campaign world will be put away, then their success or failure is that much less meaningful.

Personally, that doesn't turn my crank. But if you're happy with it, all the more power to you.


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you would like to do something else, then do something else. That isn't difficult, and is hardly inconsistent with saying that "If I run a game, I run the game I want to run." If you want another game, you'll have to get someone else to run it. And it is your job, not my job, to figure out who that will be, and to convince them to play the game you want.

Meanwhile, hopefully those four other people will understand if I continue on with my campaign using the remaining players and/or new players who are waiting for an open seat.

That seems pretty darn simple to me.

The only difference between how that goes and how the "consensus" goes is that usually I find that what everyone wants to do, the DM would like to do, too (maybe not as much as playing his own game, but enough that he'll go along with it).

However, if all you are interested in playing is warforged ninjas, it wouldn't make you a bad player.....simply a poor choice for some games.

It would make you a bad player if you insisted upon playing it even when it wasn't appropriate, though.

However, having a consistent world is not synonomous with being unwilling to try something new. While it is true that making meaningful choices, perforce, creates limitations on other choices, that doesn't mean that your world is set into some kind of fast-acting concrete. Nor does it prevent you from running one-shots in other worlds (or plane-hopping adventures to those worlds).

Do you really think that the time Monte Cook invested in Ptolus prevented him from exploring new ideas?

Yes. It's not going to be exclusive, but the time you spend doing something is time you don't spend doing something else. Every moment you spend working on one campaign setting is time not spent working on a new one. Usually, people have a middle ground between "one campaign setting for 20 years" and "a new campaign setting every night" that lets them go at their own pace -- when they get tired of one, they try something else.

When Monte was working on Ptolus, other ideas probably ran through his head, but because of the focus something like that demands, it could only go in two ways: either make those ideas fit Ptolus, or let those ideas sit until he can make use of them later...and as time passes you get closer to burnout, closer to mortality, etc.

In other words, you can have ideas for other cool campaign worlds, but to use them you'd have to abandon the one you've been with for decades, so they wind up being put aside for later, dismissed, or made to fit into this campaign world.

I think we agree more than we disagree, anyway.

A bit of slang or a bit of dialect isn't the same thing as a fully fleshed out world, IMHO. Which is not to say that it isn't going to be fun or entertaining. However, knowing that a thing will endure beyond a given campaign is actually a strength, and makes the stories told within the setting more meaningful. If the heroes fail to stop the BBEG, and the next campaign begins with the BBEG in charge, then the players are going to take the consequences of their actions more seriously. If the players know that whether the heroes succeed or fail, the campaign world will be put away, then their success or failure is that much less meaningful.

Not nessecarily. They strive to give the story a good ending for their characters. If their characters end poorly (not accomplishing their goals, for instance), they're not happy. Indeed, the "set in stone" nature of it can be even a bigger punch. If they fail to save the world, the world will *never* be better. There's no hope for the future. Time cannot heal this wound. It's permenant...failure will always be failure, in the story and in the memory of the players.

Personally, that doesn't turn my crank. But if you're happy with it, all the more power to you.

Well, most will find a comfortable middle ground between 20 years and 20 minutes. But the idea is that it should never have to be more work than you want to put in it. 3e has made some great leaps and strides toward making it easier just to pick up the books and go, and continues to do so (the new stat blocks, the NPC's in the MM4, etc.)

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The Soul of D&D? It's rolling a natural 20 when you're down to 3 hit points and the cleric's on the floor and you're staring that sunnavabitch bugbear right in his bloodshot eye and holding the line just long enough to let the wizard unleash a fireball at the guards who are on their way, because they're all that stands between you, the Foozle and Glory.

Wow. You've nailed it.

Sigged.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It would make you a bad player if you insisted upon playing it even when it wasn't appropriate, though.

It would also make you a bad DM if you let that sort of thing continue.

I think we agree more than we disagree, anyway.

Actually, I agree with you here. I think some of our argument is essentially semantical. Although, in some cases, I think these are still important differences. For example, when you say "If their characters end poorly (not accomplishing their goals, for instance), they're not happy" combined with the idea that, if they're not happy, you're a bad DM, leads to the conclusion that unless the PCs succeed, you're a bad DM. That might not be what you are trying to say, but it is certainly a logical extrapolation of what you are saying.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Meh, as far as the setting bit goes, let's face it, Star Wars A New Hope is about as deep as a puddle. Sure, you got sandpeople and whatnot, but, that's just window dressing. None of it is ever fleshed out. "No droids allowed" is never commented on. Why aren't droids allowed? Who made that rule? What happened to make that rule?

We will never know. Nor do we need to know because it has nothing to do with the story. It's setting. It's a throwaway line that sounds good and helps to advance the plot. Why do sandpeople live where they do? Who cares? Again, it's simply something that sets the setting and has nothing to do with the plot. 3d Holochess and threats of bodily harm are again nifty bits of setting, nicely showing us that we're "In The Future" and that the hairy guy is really strong, but, again, isn't exactly deep.

Come on, pointing to Star Wars as an example of depth of setting is ludicrous. Star Wars is far closer to a 20 minute setting than a 20 year one.