POV, Yeah You Know Me

[Lanefan]

Typically, they're playing one character each. That gives you a handful of races that must be included, for example. They don't get to stipulate the existence of things they aren't personally using.

Depends on the campaign and playstyle. In even a moderately lethal campaign they might end up going through several characters each, and fairly quickly.

 

[Lanefan]

So, the thing we have, that Chopped contestants do not, is time.

I am not talking about doing this impromptu at the start of Session 1. I am talking about having a session zero in which some options are discussed, and you then taken a couple-few weeks to think and write.

Weeks?

More like several months for me, by which time the players whose thoughts had prompted that several months work might well have moved on to other things.

No. Campaign/world/setting/rules design first. Then recruit-invite players.

 

[Umbran]

Depends on the campaign and playstyle. In even a moderately lethal campaign they might end up going through several characters each, and fairly quickly.

If, as a GM, I am taking requests, playstyle and genre requests come long before we get to race and class requests.

If the players request a game so lethal that they are apt to go through several characters each, I'm going to have to ask them to come up with a few concepts, not just one, and make sure the world supports all of them.

 

[Umbran]

Weeks?

More like several months for me

When I'm taking requests, yes days to weeks. I don't need all that long to prep up the space the characters will initially inhabit, and I don't have a need to more than sketch beyond that to get started.

 

[Lanefan]

When I'm taking requests, yes days to weeks. I don't need all that long to prep up the space the characters will initially inhabit, and I don't have a need to more than sketch beyond that to get started.

I learned my lesson ages ago re the long-term problems that can and do arise when starting with a half-baked setting like that.

That said, it depends on a) how long your intended campaign is and b) how much interaction with the greater setting you expect might occur. For someone running a typical WotC hardcover adventure path as written, the answers would almost certainly be a) fairly short and b) little to none; setting design can be put to the wayside.

In my case, however, the answers are a) very long and b) lots; which means the setting needs to be at least somewhat nailed down before starting. A pre-fab setting (Greyhawk, Middle Earth, etc.) can obviate a lot of the effort required but then comes with its own issues: you-as-GM lose a lot of control over the setting's lore, history, etc. as it's all already baked in.

 

[Umbran]

I learned my lesson ages ago re the long-term problems that can and do arise when starting with a half-baked setting like that.

That said, it depends on a) how long your intended campaign is and b) how much interaction with the greater setting you expect might occur. For someone running a typical WotC hardcover adventure path as written, the answers would almost certainly be a) fairly short and b) little to none; setting design can be put to the wayside.

In my case, however, the answers are a) very long and b) lots; which means the setting needs to be at least somewhat nailed down before starting. A pre-fab setting (Greyhawk, Middle Earth, etc.) can obviate a lot of the effort required but then comes with its own issues: you-as-GM lose a lot of control over the setting's lore, history, etc. as it's all already baked in.

My campaigns typically run three to five calendar years, and the players generally choose how much interactin with the greater setting they want.

I've never had a problem with starting with a sketch, though. YMMV.

 

[Emerikol]

I guess you are welcome to have a performance based mindset for your table.

For me it's just apparent. The game is not going as well as it could for whatever reasons. It's either fun enough or not.

You seem though to zoom in on words and take them out of the context they are used in. Are you on the spectrum? Honest question. If you are that would explain a lot and it's okay many people are often in minor ways. It's not a criticism or attack. Trying to understand why you'd go straight to that definition of suffer in the first post.

 

[Scott Christian]

Amount of work does not ensure a point of view. DMs typically work without an editor. And that means they can do a lot of work and produce a muddled mess without any particular point of view to it.

It may not ensure it, but it definitely strengthens it. And for clarity, I mean work. Just like sitting down to practice the guitar with a concentration on a specific task work, not noodling while thinking about what you're going to have for dinner. Work is work. It is not the same as dabbling or tinkering.

I have. A great many nerds I know can spend tons of time developing material, but no time on their communication skills.

Heck, I know GMs who have lost the difference between what they have in their head, and what they've told their players just in a regular session of play, much less about the overall campaign.

Really? So you know a lot of people that wrote books and rules and adventures and settings, yet were not able to communicate? And you know a lot of them? And these are DMs? The person's whose job it is to communicate?

And how would a DM, who wrote a setting (ie. did their work for their style of game) not be able to remember what is in their head during a single session of play? To me, that sounds like they didn't write it.

I mean, I get it. As a DM, we have all said things we forgot. But you are making it sound like it was part of their POV, part of their work. I think that DM might have something wrong with their memory, or they wrote it years and years ago, or they were just doodling.

Yep. I am lucky too. I have a group who, while they have their preferences, will at least try anything I present to them.

But I am not sure such groups are all that common.

They have been for me. But again, I think the actual piece of who is DMing means a lot in this matter. I have been lucky enough to have had so many good DMs.

 

[MGibster]

Amount of work does not ensure a point of view. DMs typically work without an editor. And that means they can do a lot of work and produce a muddled mess without any particular point of view to it.

It doesn't. On more than one occasion I have figured out too late the plot has been lost and I was the one to blame. During my last D&D campaign, after finishing a particular scenario, I apologized to the players for wasting their time on a scenario that didn't advance the plot nor was it a particularly interesting diversion. It was just filler.

Yep. I am lucky too. I have a group who, while they have their preferences, will at least try anything I present to them.

Ditto. As a player in a FATE campaign more than a decade ago, I figured out the hard way what was pulp to me was completely different from everyone else. My character was a Sherlock Holmes analoge and another player character was an unfrozen caveman (not a lawyer) with a pet dinosaur and the other PCs were just as wacky. Since I was the odd man out, clearly I was the one who didn't get the memo.

 

[Umbran]

And for clarity, I mean work. Just like sitting down to practice the guitar with a concentration on a specific task work, not noodling while thinking about what you're going to have for dinner. Work is work. It is not the same as dabbling or tinkering.

Thanks, I am an adult with a day job. I know what work is.

Really? So you know a lot of people that wrote books and rules and adventures and settings, yet were not able to communicate?

We were talking about GMs. You sound like you are trying to make this about published authors. I am not following you on that journey.

And you know a lot of them? And these are DMs? The person's whose job it is to communicate?

I have, over the years, known a bunch of folks who spent lots of actual work developing material for games, and have the results be an incoherent mess.

Because, again, effort does not ensure point of view. Narrowing to a point of view requires discipline, focus, and understanding of the needs of the medium.

And how would a DM, who wrote a setting (ie. did their work for their style of game) not be able to remember what is in their head during a single session of play? To me, that sounds like they didn't write it.

No, I said some lost track of the difference between what was in their head, and what they'd told the players.

Boxed text exists for a reason, you know.

I mean, I get it. As a DM, we have all said things we forgot. But you are making it sound like it was part of their POV, part of their work.

Well, except that I am saying that the result had no specific point of view. They work on a ton of stuff, and cram it all in there, unwilling to kill any idea off for the greater good.

I think that DM might have something wrong with their memory

I suspect a couple had undiagnosed issues with executive function and attention deficit. But I am not a mental health professional to say with certainty. I can only speak to the results.

Others were just really full of themselves.