Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jaeger" data-source="post: 8622604" data-attributes="member: 27996">And that's why a single PC death will cause an entire campaign to fail, and fall apart.Putting the campaign first doesn't makes PC's interchangeable. It is the simple acceptance that PC death is a potential outcome of play.Nobody likes PC death. Players do get attached. But no properly run campaign should ever have to end over a PC death or two.This is not just a difference of taste.It is a fundamental paradigm shift - Between playing an Role Playing Game where you take risks with limited resources in pursuit of goals you choose, and accept that death and/or failure are possibilities of play.And one where the game is used as a framework to tell a specific story. A style of gameplay that is more fragile, and it will often completely fall apart with a PC death as it short circuits the "story arc" of the campaign.Plan sessions?Like I said: Never more than one session ahead. Because I have no Idea what the PC's will be doing two sessions from now.How can any GM?Even for a session my "planning" is like this:At the end of the game night:OTW GM: "Ok, cool, what are you guys doing next?"My PC's: "We're going to rescue the princess from the slavelord..."OTW GM: "Cool, see you next week."Later that week - The OTW GM Planning session:I figure out the factions; SlaveLord, his minions etc. And how many  there are. Maybe a note or two of their motivation's /relationships / ties.I'll likely do a quick sketch of where the princess would be in the Slavelords castle/hideout. Maybe even a dungeon like map or floor plan.Done.How will the PC's rescue the Princess? I have no idea, that's their job.My session notes will easily fit on one page. The Map the same. And I'm good for 4 solid hours of play next week.You don't link sessions?Not something I really think about.  It naturally happens as part of the organic process when the characters adventure, and I manage the game world.Your games don't flow from the choices players make?They absolutely do. Which is why I don't ever have to do any "storyline" nonsense.At any time my PC's can say: "Screw this, lets bail and go be pirates..."And it wouldn't derail a thing.OTW GM: "You have no ship, and the nearest port is a weeks travel away."My PC's: " Well that solves where we're going next week..."Of course depending on where they are, and what they are doing: I toss out adventure hooks, rumors, and have NPC's act and react to the PC's actions.The key is my PC's are not obligated to follow any path but the one they choose.The game world, with its factions, and NPC interactions therein should be compelling enough that the player(s) should want to return to that world even if they are approaching things from new angles and goals, with different PC's.Plus there are usually 3-4 other players still active pursuing their in-game goals. One PC death is not enough reason to stop a campaign when there are still 3-4 reasons to continue.The only difference between OD&D/AD&D/BX, etc, and 'modern' games is that mechanical game design did not stay in stasis. Designers have come up with mechanics that better emulate various genre's of play for different levels of crunch tastes.This is good.The methods and art of running RPG's are timeless.SPLASHBoth Cool and refreshing!In our discussion we are contrasting two different game running paradigms. So how might we objectively evaluate them?First, what is the goal?My goal as a GM:  I want to run long term RPG campaigns.So which GM paradigm best serves the goal of long term play?1: The "Framework for a Story" - The game world (setting) as a framework for a specific story Paradigm.By its advocates own admission; a campaign run under this paradigm can be ruined, and can end if just one PC dies due to the randomness of the dice.This paradigm implicitly necessitates the GM to fudge dice and/or adjust NPC stats on the fly in order to avoid such undesirable outcomes. The actual game rules being suborned to the needs of the PC's 'story arc' at all times heavily dilutes the rules utility as a system for adjudicating outcomes in a reliably impartial fashion.This paradigm is thus inherently fragile for running long term campaigns because they can be ended at any time when you actually use the game system as intended unless actively suborned though constant manipulation. This places the GM in the position of bring at constant odds with the game system when running an RPG campaign to get the desired outcome. (Long term campaign play).2: The "Game-Campaign-Player" - The game world (setting) as the framework for adventure Paradigm.In an RPG campaign run under this paradigm it is explicitly understood that PC death is a potential outcome of play, and that there is not wider 'story arc' driving play. Adventure naturally flow from the actions of PC's as they explore and interact with the larger game world via factions, and NPC's, as they pursue personal goals or adventure hooks dangled by the GM. This generates the campaign play.Because the campaign world is bigger than any one player, even PC death can serve as a launching point for further adventure. Anything from revenge, to an escalation of campaign world events, or recovery missions to cut losses and move on to alternate plans in the face of defeat. In a campaign paradigm that is not limited to tell a single 'story', the options are only limited by imagination.Because PC death is accepted as a possible outcome, the GM does not have to resort to system manipulations in order to serve the outcome of any preconceived 'story'. Instead of being at odds with the game system; this allows the game system to fulfill its natural role of being a touch stone with which the players can reliably reference when interacting with the game world.This Paradigm is less fragile to PC death because the game world itself is the driving vehicle for adventure. Not a preconceived story built upon tight integration with detailed PC backgrounds.If my goal is to run the long term RPG campaigns that will bring maximum enjoyment to the group as a whole for the longest amount of time; then I am best served by adopting the campaign model that is the least fragile to PC death.And contrary to some assumptions, the anti-fragile Game-Campaign-Player paradigm works just as well with standard gaming groups as it does with a more 'open table' style of game.</blockquote>

Verification