Let The Players Manage Themselves Part 3, waitaminute...

[justanobody]

DMs like players are different in the same and other areas. I just think the articles should take that into account. IF most of the people you speak with think the same way as you, you should try to find the other side of the coin, because it always exists; to make sure you don't discount another group that you are unfamiliar with.

I applaud trying to help new players, but the wording seems to come off too strong in a bunch of the articles.

Anything coming from the official product source most times is viewed as canon, and can cause much unrest from the fanbase. Just look at Dumbledore being gay in Harry Potter. One little specific given caused many people to question many things through the books and even caused some to change their mind about liking it.

So if your article has only one side of the coin, you may wish to partner up with someone slightly out of phase with your views to offer the other side. Either each having your own byline in a given article, two articles being combined into one release, or actually two separate articles to make sure to cover the most ground to offer something to more players. So thanks for coming by and sharing your wisdom on the behind-the-scenes of the article with us here Stephen.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Dm like players are different in the same and other areas. I just think the articles should take that into account. IF most of the people you speak with think the same way as you, you should try to find the other side of the coin, because it always exists; to make you you don't discount another group that you are unfamiliar with.

I applaud trying to help new players, but the wording seems to come off too strong in a bunch of the articles.

So if your article has only one side of the coin, you may wish to partner up within someone slightly out of phase with your views to offer the other side. Either each having your own byline in a given article, two articles being combined into one release, or actually two separate articles to make sure to cover the most ground to offer something to more players. So thanks for coming by and sharing your wisdom on the behind-the-scenes of the article with us here Stephen.

This right here.

It's not that I entirely disagree with the column (as the majority of the article really jived with me). However, the statement I quoted was strongly-worded, and gives me the impression that Wizards may be taking a turn towards "digestible" campaigning (as both the opinions of writers, editors and even snippets of the DMG seem to echo this sentiment). There is a very rich history of products that supports worldbuilding as an art form, rather than merely a backdrop for mini-instances of fun. I suppose time will tell whether this is a change in development ethos, as I know there would be plenty of community support for campaign-building guides with 4E CRUNCH.

Nonetheless, I look forward to future columns and constructive discussion as we've had here with both players and the author himself.


Cheers~

 

[Adso]

Dm like players are different in the same and other areas. I just think the articles should take that into account. IF most of the people you speak with think the same way as you, you should try to find the other side of the coin, because it always exists; to make you you don't discount another group that you are unfamiliar with....

Anything coming from the official product source most times is viewed as canon, and cause much unrest from the fanbase.

Wow…don’t get me started on canon. I really dislike the concept of canon in RPG settings, and I think it is out of place for DM advice. Don’t get me wrong, I believe very strongly in many of the opinions I write. I do considered and know other opinions (and have at times championed those opinions in the past), but haven’t espoused them for one reason or another. At the same time, I think people should think about them, disagree with them, have the convictions to come up with their own arguments, and challenge the status quo when they feel they ought to. It is conversation, not the dogma of perceived canon that makes games and gaming better.

 

[Greg K]

I am a believer in writing with a strong voice, not to squash or drone out other opinions or methods.
(text deleted)
I don’t write my columns to be the end-all-be-all of what you should do as a DM, but to help new or frustrated DMs, and to move forward the conversation. That conversation is important, and I'm glad it is going on here and elsewhere.

I admire you desire to help new or frustrated DMs. However, you are writing under the banner of WOTC. And, while you don't intend for your column "to be the be the-end-all-be-all", new and inexperienced DM and players as well as a larger segment of the DND fanbase often take what the designers at WOTC write as being the gospel of how things should be done and your approach often comes across (to me and apparently others) as reinforcing this.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

I hate sandboxes.

I HATE sandboxes. As a player and as a DM.

As a DM they are a huge amount of work. It's hard enough to run a plot-driven adventure, let alone make up something on the fly every week.

As a player they are too often meandering, do nothing wastes of time, with unsatisfying encounters that have been thrown together because the DM doesn't have any prep time. Or they are full of too much detail that the DM has slaved over, forgetting that the players want to play and not be read a novel.

Please, don't try to convert me or say your game isn't like that because I've played enough that I won't believe you and just don't want to hear it.

 

[Mallus]

There is a very rich history of products that supports worldbuilding as an art form, rather than merely a backdrop for mini-instances of fun.

Heh... I spend an inordinate amount of time lavishing details on my (usually collaborative) campaign settings, but I wouldn't go so far as calling world-building an art form. Wait, are we including really bad art? If so, then yes...

In a more serious vein, I think it's important to make a distinction between the world before play starts and after. My take: initially, a homebrew is my baby, it's all art-for-my-sake; a creative outlet. But as the campaign start date approaches, that same homebrew is now a tool. It's purpose is to help facilitate an entertaining campaign for my friends and I (in that order). Now the same flights of fancy that before needed only amuse me need to be considered in the context of providing fun, balanced encounters, plots that interest the players; things need to be playable.

I don't think it's ever bad advice to remember that world-building is supposed to be in service to the game.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Please, don't try to convert me or say your game isn't like that because I've played enough that I won't believe you and just don't want to hear it.

You probably should have posted your opinion on a blog then. This is a discussion forum. For discussions.

 

[Irda Ranger]

What chance did you allow for the dragon to discover the PCs first and decide to kill them (no save) before they could sneak away?

I'm guessing it was 0% or thereabouts.

The PCs took normal precautions and saw the dragon before it saw them. It's not exactly hard. Dragons are big. What's your point?

The inverse is that without a chance to win, they must lose. And there was absolutely no way to win that situation. It's just "Here's something you can't possibly overcome. Deal with it."

If I did that every time I'd be a jerk. It also wouldn't be "realistic". Not every enemy is going to be exactly CR 15. But I think it's important to establish that the world is a big place with some seriously big, bad enemies. It gives the PCs something to look forward to.

For instance, say you were running a Middle Earth campaign set several centuries before LotR. The main enemy is the Kingdom of Angmarr. Would you expect your PCs to be able to take on the Witch King in their first foray into the wild, or maybe work up to that?

If the world doesn't exist to cater to the group that's playing in it, if NPCs and plots and things exist beyond their control or even awareness, then what's really stopping you from justifyingly saying "Well, game is over. See, one of the plot hooks you didn't follow up on lead to the end of the world. You weren't there to stop it. Sorry."

I'm not a fan of "End of the World" plot-lines, but I see where you're going with that. What I normally do is either let the failure happen and the PCs have to accept that ("Rumors on the road report that the City of Len was overrun by ogre hordes.") or some other adventuring company takes care of it and collects the reward. There's no shame in that as long as the PCs are spending their time productively. The sad state of the world is that there are often more good deeds needing doing then good men willing to do them.

 

[Greg K]

I hate sandboxes.

Please, don't try to convert me or say you're game isn't like that because I've played enough that I won't believe you and just don't want to here it.

I am not going to try and convince you. However, I am convinced

a. that the DMs you have had have not pulled it off correctly or that it was the wrong approach to use with the players with whom you have games.

b. it works for the players that I have gamed with, because a) I get calls throughout the week from players with questions and ideas; and b) when I try to take a break to be a player, the players ask me when I will be ready to start running again.

c. And, while much of the setting work is done ahead of time, it doesn't rule out the need to prep. I still require my players to give me a about a week notice if they are heading out to a new location so that I can prep- Note cards, location maps, monster/NpC statting still need to be done in many cases. It's just that the prep previously done makes it easier to handle on the fly situations and run off the cuff when the situation demands it- like when the decided at the last minute that they needed to change directions and visit the knight's homeland instead of the Great Sage (we took a ten minute to fifteen minute break while I asked the Knight a few questions and the night's session formed itself based on history for that realm and the Knight's background).

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

You probably should have posted your opinion on a blog then. This is a discussion forum. For discussions.

I just didn't want to hijack the thread into a "sandbox: good or evil" debate.

I did want to pipe up and point out that not everyone likes sandbox games since there were several very-pro sandbox comments in this thread.