Or I've had some really good DMs in bad styles of play lol who knows.
I'm fully aware of what they offer, as well as what they don't, which is why I play them and don't tend to run them.
Failing Forward
Or I've had some really good DMs in bad styles of play lol who knows.
I'm fully aware of what they offer, as well as what they don't, which is why I play them and don't tend to run them.
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
OK, first I will say that my experience in games like you are referring to is very, very limited. I'm also well aware that some youtube play-throughs are not representative of most sessions of any game.
And I also won't say you're entirely wrong. My bad fanfic that's a combination of published bad fanfic and home-made bad fanfic probably isn't better or worse than the bad fanfic developed by committee in the course of gameplay in the games that you are referring to. I have no illusions that I am anymore than an amateur hack stealing liberally and putting together stories and campaigns for my own enjoyment as much as the players.
There is a ton of stuff that I think of or write that will never go any farther than the screen I'm currently typing. But part of what I like, that I don't see how it would ever come together in a game like that is the multi-layered depth of the world I'm working with. I'm not saying it's better, it's just different. Details and things that admittedly the majority of my players don't even care about, but it's those very details that make the world seem alive to me. Many of those details we probably could put together in a game like Dungeon World.
My last major campaign ran for over 8 years with the same core characters, with ever more complex threads of stories that intertwined over years of the character's lives. Each local they visited (and I followed them as the DM, I didn't lead them), had a flavor and feel of their own. Largely due to the work of others, with me layering on top. After a while, by mentioning a name, description, etc. they knew where they were, even if they just stepped through a portal to an unknown destination.
And I did say that I'm sure it's possible to do something similar in the games you're playing, but I don't think it would be possible with the way my brain works, and the speed my brain works, along with the group(s) I've played with. A large number of the people I play with are new to the game, and it takes a while to get them to be comfortable with really fleshing out a character, much less a world.
I also think it's easier to maintain consistency of a sort in this manner, not to mention I'm the only one that's really OCD enough to spend many hours between sessions thinking, and often writing.
You're right, a lot of what I do is not the game, it's another hobby related to the game. But it comes alive in the game, and because of the way my brain works, that works well for me. I also love tweaking the rules, theorizing about the game. I've only met one or two people over the years that share the same excitement in all levels of the game and RPGs in general. There are certainly a lot of really interesting people here and on the net, and I would love if some of them lived nearby. Well, maybe, I really don't have the time for that!
Secrets are not gameplay. Discovering secrets, and unraveling them at the table is gameplay, and often very exciting gameplay. Sure it's not the only one, but it is a component that we really like. I like to be surprised by my players (and I am frequently), and they like to be surprised by me. I don't write the plots, I don't write the adventures, they do that.
There are multiple ways to make the players care, and I do work to ensure that they have a stake in the story, they write more of it than they realize, and I think it's very important for them to feel like they are part of that world. They have a direct hand in writing how they fit into the world, with my help to tie it into the greater world. The bad (published) fanfic gives us all a common element so we are on the same page. Just like if you play in Middle Earth, or the Star Wars or Star Trek universes. We all know certain things about the world that makes it feel more real.
They meet a merchant from Baldur's Gate, and that means something to them. Not because I tell them there's a city named Baldur's Gate and all of their characters know about it, and they go along with it because I said they all know about it, but because they actually know about it. When one of the player's character says that they are a cleric of Ilmater, they don't have to explain what that means, or how it fits into the pantheon, or how others in the world react to that or feel about it. They already know. The bard tells us that she's particularly fond of zzar and a hunk of Elturian gray, we're all on the same page. That's the sort of depth that I'm talking about.
And you're absolutely right, a lot of D&D players and DMs are the same. We learned from the same sources, with the same concept. And I don't pretend to be more than I am. I'm sure that in the arc of RPGs I'm in a pretty save, relatively conservative place. It's certainly not cutting edge, but I also think it's a place where there is still a lot of great gaming to be had. That the art form, as it is, has yet to be perfected and that it's a worthy pursuit within the realm of RPGs. Perhaps as I incorporate more of what I learn from places like here, and maybe meeting new people by running public games, that I'll grow into something more complex, or more abstract, or more of a shared-world approach, or whatever. I just don't know, and won't know until I get there. But for the moment I think that what I'm most interested in is learning more about how to do better at what I already love to do. And have loved for 30+ years. The thing that makes me want to spend crazy-stupid amounts of time thinking about it, writing about it, talking about it, and so on.
And this is not even my 'primary hobby' and competes with family, a job, and two businesses along with my primary hobby, which is also one of my businesses. I can also say that over the years I have played many, many different RPGs. Now the newer crop have some great innovations and new approaches, but regardless of what I've tried, I always keep coming back to the Forgotten Realms in D&D. It's what most excites me, and I'm happy to share my enthusiasm within that framework with whomever wants to come along with me. I'm not really concerned about whether my Realms is more involved than somebody else's game, or anything of that nature. I just don't see how I can arrive at what I love with those systems with the people I know and have access to.
I guess more importantly is that if I started a Dungeon World campaign, I'd spend most of the time trying to make it feel like the D&D that I know and love. Which is kind of pointless.
Ilbranteloth
grendel111111
First Post
Possible you mean good DM's mismatched with a play style that doesn't suit their skills and approach?
I can and have GMed with full improv and it never goes as well or is as satisfying for those at the table. I'm sure others have had exactly the opposite experience.
Matching DM's players and play styles is I think the missing piece of this puzzle.
You are correct. It's even more difficult, when your playing style doesn't match your running style. You either need multiple groups or find a group that is the opposite of your tastes. Thus the struggle.
Imaro
Legend
When you define them in the manner which you chose to, it makes me highly doubt you are fully aware of what they have to offer... It seems more likely you are fully aware of a small and very narrow subset of the particular styles...
Ilbranteloth
Explorer
See, that's why I don't "get" the sandbox style that many describe as the "ideal." I guess my campaigns are somewhat of a sandbox, in that the players can go anyplace they want. But, there are also "plots" or maybe "schemes" going on all the time in the background. They might stumble across one and follow where it leads. They don't have to, but they might. Usually they come across a number of options of that type in addition to many things unrelated.
My general concept is that of a TV series. Some episodes end up as self-contained stories (though with the plot written as it happens), others tie into a larger arc, which is also written as it happens, but part of the story is written by the NPCs (DM). Most sessions end up being a bit of both, because once they start digging deeper into what else is happening in the world around them, they are usually investigating some of those intrigues.
The last couple of months has been in an ruined temple, with a huge catacombs beneath it. They do actually have an agenda, they are trying to locate a scepter that was rumored to have last been seen here over a century ago. They are attempting to prevent that scepter from being located by the wrong people. Sort of like the Nazi's looking for the Ark of the Covenant. Except the Banites (priests of the evil god Bane) haven't set up a camp like in Raiders just yet. They aren't that far along yet.
But the sessions, while searching for that, have also been one of simple exploration. They have found more information related to the scepter, and they decided to follow up on one in particular which is to locate the crypt of the last known owner, largely because it seemed like the easiest starting point. They know that she was buried within the catacombs beneath this temple.
To that end, they have explored quite a bit, first finding a level where the Banites used to imprison and torture their enemies. After a brief look and they found some information, they moved on. There wasn't the need to explore every corridor and defeat every monster. They determined that they found what they were looking for, or more specifically, that what they were looking for wouldn't likely be found here.
The catacombs have taken a long time simply because I've modeled them after the actual catacombs in Rome and Paris. They are enormous, but they decided it would be easier and ultimately faster to continue to explore, rather than try to research them or find a map somewhere. So it has taken a while. The catacombs themselves I developed randomly, with a few planned rooms central to the concept, but their placement was also random. Encounters and treasures as well, either rolled, or I would just decide that something is here.
Once they've succeeded in finding the scepter (if successful), who knows where they will go, or what they'll do. All the while they are looking for it, they know that groups of the Banites are also looking for it. So it's quite possible that they will fail to find it, or fail to find it before the Banites. I know where the scepter is, at least for now. But many other things, like the groups of Banites, monsters, treasures, and to a large degree the map, are determined as we go. And is often based on what the players/PCs do and say.
A recent puzzle required them finding a certain key, but the bard recently selected the knock spell. In this case, the door was unique in that it was a blank wall, and an inter-dimensional passage phased in with the use of the key. She wanted to try the knock spell, and I said why not? There's no reason there's not an alternate solution, so I go with it.
Some of the background plots and such are more direct, like those that involve family members, others are completely unrelated to them. Many of the plots intertwine, although that's not always evident to begin. The majority of the plots are in part, and often significantly, written by the PCs, but not in the same manner as Dungeon World where they take an active role. Instead, I take and weave what they describe, talk about, theorize, etc, and work those sorts of things into the plots and schemes that are more closely tied to them. They do have a lot of ability to write their personal and local history. If they happen to be in a locale they grew up in, (like Daggerford for the Ranger), then they have almost all of the information that I already have about the location, plus they make up a majority of what's going on there as well. It's their home-town and they know more about it than anybody, including me. But because I'm using locations that have a lot of published material, they can take that home and read whatever they want. So they instantly have a depth of knowledge, and there's a richness to the setting. To the character from Waterdeep, I can say that somebody has recently seen Duragorn in the vicinity of Thentavva's Boots, and she knows where that is. Even if she doesn't she has access to the books so she can look it up because it's local lore that she's privy to.
This approach also means that when they are in a location where one or more of them have this familiarity, they feel like they know the location, the people, etc. When they are in a new city or town, they feel like they are out-of-towners. This is what I mean by depth, or perhaps richness of setting. What's even more amazing is when we're in a location that two or more of them know well, because they can just have conversations, just like when I talk to somebody from my town.
Ilbranteloth
Balesir
Adventurer
Aha! Another very palpable advantage to (written) pre-authoring, be it published or home-grown: it can be shared with the (other) players in "downtime" and provide bandwidth for player knowledge of the game world.
I feel that we are teasing out some genuine and objective advantages for both methods, here, which might form a good grounding in why and when to use which - I hope!
I haven't run it. I think I might have been going to mix some of it with Heathen, or perhaps G2, but didn't. The only thing I remember adapting from it is the mechanic for having Intimidate checks do hit point damage to the main antagonist - I used a version of that in the concluding combat in Heathen.
As to how I would run it - I don't remember it very well now, as I haven't looked at it since I got it (in 2010? whenever Monster Vault came out). But getting rid of the fetch quests would have to be a part of it.
This might be analogous to me having pre-drawn maps (GH) in my BW game. Or not. Without context it's hard to tell.
In my group deity emblems aren't a bit deal. But which nations are at war is a bigger deal. I wouldn't normally decide which nations are at war without having some degree of regard to PC backgrounds and manifested player interests in loyalties/connections etc to various countries, reasons for warring, etc.
This is a big part of it, yes. For my group, the deity emblem thing wouldn't matter because that's not part of what we focus on in play (it might be different if we had some visual artists in the group, but we don't). Whereas war and politics are things that matter to at least some of the players, and so determining who is at war with whom is something that would matter, and is something that (as GM) I wouldn't want to fall flat. So it would be something authored in response to player input and action declarations, rather than in advance of them.
I don't know. Maybe it didn't!
In my case, I wouldn't choose religiously-oriented content for the game without having regard to the current dynamics of play, manifested interests of PCs/players, etc, because religious stuff, cosmological enmities/alliances, etc, tend to be a big deal in our games. In the session discussed in this post, for instance, the PCs found themselves learning about the religious convictions of a particular sect, but this was made up by me in the course of play as part of the back-and-forth with the players as they played their PCs, all of whom had important religious convictions.
You haven't explained how this will happen, though. If the question of whether or not the mace is in the tower; or, of how the cult followers will respond to the building of the effigies; doesn't even arise until the player establishes a certain backstory for his/her PC and then makes an action declaration, then how is the GM railroading towards a pre-determined story? The GM doesn't have the requisite authority over either content or situation.
No. Ahead of time I decided that I liked the idea of a dark elf. As I posted, and as you quoted, I created the Dark Elf as an NPC who might be introduced.
The dark elf was introduced in response to a failed check to navigate through the desert to the ruined tower in the Abor-Alz. Had the PCs been going to the pyramid the orcs were hoping to assault, there would have been no dark elf. (Dark elves don't live in the desert.)
I brought him in as an antagonist in response to a failed check. (As you quoted me saying upthread, He became a foe in virtue of being introduced as part of the narration of a failed check.
And naturally, in a party where one of the PCs has as a Belief to "always maintain the elven ways", a dark elf is likely to be an antagonist. And given that BW dark elves are driven by Spite (an emotional attribute that is part-way between elven Grief and orcish Hatred) the NPC was never going to be terribly friendly.
But had the players decided to have their PCs try and negotiate or befriend of course that was feasible.
I don't think so. It's a while ago now, but I think the idea of the dark elf having fouled a waterhole was something I came up with when the check failed and I had to narrate some content for the failure.
I think you have misdescribed what I posted (and what you quoted), and what happened in play.
The post from [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] captures what I have in mind.
If the PCs don't follow the GM's pre-authored hooks, then in effect it's not a pre-authored game! The GM is making stuff up in response to player action declarations.
I don't think there is confusion. I think there are different views around what counts as significant player contribution.
In the sort of game that Emerikol describes, the key story elements (people, places, things) are authored by the GM and plonked into the sandbox. As he describes it, this is done "neutrally" without regard to what makes for an interesting game.
That is different from a game where the backstory and the unfolding plot arises as a result of adjudicating player action declarations, and is responsive to the priorities signalled and introduced into play by the players.
Similar Threads
