Roll Initiative!

[Reynard]

If you don't like to wait for your food, you use the drive-through. If you want to take time to consider your order, you go inside and stand in line.

You don't eat much fast food, do you? Going inside is almost always fatser. There's an illusion of speed with not having to get out of your car, but it is false - mostly becasue those people in the drive thru line are stopping to consider there order- for entirely too freaking long.

Wait. What were we talking about?

If you enjoy bright explosions and non-stop kills, you go electronic. If you enjoy subplots and exposition, you go tabletop.

No. If you enjoy tabletop roleplaying games, you go tabletop. If you enjoy electronic games, you go electronic. Some people like both, but substantially more like elctronic games -- as evidenced by the Hollywood sized revenue of the video game industry. Sure, some people like both, but certainly not all, otherwise the RPG industry would have a comperable annual revenue (since video games and RPG books have similar costs).

Moreover, you assertion that people who like fast paced combat in RPGs might as well go play video games smacks of one-true-wayism. There is a world of differenc ebetween playing HALO 2 on Xbox Live with your buds and sitting around a table with your friends mashing orcs. If you don't see the difference, I would wager a guess that you don't play many video games (score one for my assertion!) and/or you have a preferred play style that you feel is superior to those poor jerks that like to have fun while they play D&D.

 

[Quickleaf]

Why this wouldn't work in my game:

PC Rogue Player: Why didn't I warn the others of danger? You know I always go scouting, and I want an explanation of how our opponents saw through my (*rolls d20*) Sneak roll of 58?

PC Wizard Player: Why aren't we all invisible, or have a veil, or why haven't I mass charmed the monsters before they got to us? The rogue would have told me about them via our telepathic link.

PC Fighter 1 (defender type) Player: We could have skipped this battle if we were on our magic carpet. Why aren't we?

PC Fighter 2 (aggressive type) Player: You know I would have charged their leader the moment I saw them. As I am the only one who's usually mounted, the others will probably take a round or two just to get to the battle.

PC Cleric Player: Why didn't we negotiate with them before fighting? Between Fighter 2 and me, you know we can pull off 40+ Diplomacy rolls.

PC Bard Player: Awwww... I could have captivated them with my song while the others snuck past.

And you know what? Each and every one of the players above would have been right. WotC designer failed to take into consideration so many factors that his article is basically worthless. In medias res works sometimes. But not all the damn time.

Sniff. My hero.

Why not start every game with these words, "So, ladies and gents, what situation do your characters start in?"

 

[SteveC]

Perhaps, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it. As far as fast-paced, run-n'-gun combat goes, electronic games have had D&D beat cold for some time (especially if you have good set of subwoofers heh).

Hmmn, haven't played much Feng Shui, have you? I think what you're trying to say here is that if you're looking to play a first-person shooter, then D&D is not what you're looking for. I'm not sure what relevance that has to a discussion of pacing of game sessions and opening them with a bang. It is about as relevant as saying "Crepes have had D&D beat for some time now in terms of being tasty, really thin pancakes." The two have exactly zero correlation.

Making a game session, and, in particular a combat, fast-paced and run-n'-gun involves completely different skills than creating the same effects in a PC game. The idea of starting a session with a bang is one element of storytelling that can pick up the pace of an evening's play. It isn't necessarily something I would choose to do all the time, but it is an interesting tool for a particular kind of campaign.

The article in question talked about doing something that most people who play D&D would never think to try, and for that reason, it is interesting food for thought. Does starting each session with a bang take away player decision making and autonomy? Not necessarily. It takes a variable amount of GM skill to make it happen, and it also takes a good non-adversarial relationship with your players. In the example given about how players would ask many questions about how their powers hadn't stopped the combat from already happening, it's an example of bad GMing. A GM with that group of players has to take powers and abilities like those into context and work with the players to make it happen properly. That and talking with players about the kind of game they want to play are pretty much the hallmarks of what it takes to be a good GM, in my opinion.

Talking about new ways to challenge your group and shake up the dynamics of a game session makes interesting food for thought, and an interesting thread as well...

--Steve

 

[Sammael]

In the example given about how players would ask many questions about how their powers hadn't stopped the combat from already happening, it's an example of bad GMing.

I'm sorry, but what?

A GM with that group of players has to take powers and abilities like those into context and work with the players to make it happen properly.

Translation: to make the game start in medias res, you have to carefully examine all PC abilities, and then somehow make every single one of them not count. Yeah, that's good GM-ing alright. </sarcasm>

Look, it takes ZERO effort on every GM's part to start the game in medias res, which is a form of railroading that can be very effective if used sparingly - but not all the damn time. It's probably the easiest way to start a game. It takes a whole lot more effort and skill to let the players do their thing and then adapt to their reactions.

In the above example about a king's funeral and such, you're basically telling your players: look, your characters were buddies with this king person, and now he's dead. Now we're going to play out the part where you got to be buddies with him, after which he dies.

But what if the PCs somehow don't become buddies with the king? What if their actions are such that they get exiled from the kingdom? What if they stop the king from dying (foiled assassination, miracle cure, whatever)? By telling them "this is what happens, no matter what," you are using the worst possible form of railroading. Now, as some may recall from previous threads, I am all for mild railroading where appropriate. But a scenario like that is about as bad as the 2nd edition Time of Troubles modules and its "advice" to use any means necessary to stop the players from spoiling the plot.

That and talking with players about the kind of game they want to play are pretty much the hallmarks of what it takes to be a good GM, in my opinion.

Now, the second statement I can agree with. It's very improtant for a GM to know what kind of a game his players want to play.

 

[wayne62682]

IMO "in media res" should be used sparingly and only when the situation warrants it. For example, in my group's current game, we ended last night's session with the fortress we're infiltrating on alert and hordes of mooks looking for us. In this scenario, the DM said he was going to use in media res next time, and it would fit because we know there's more bad guys about to bust through.

If it's used all the time no matter what, then I dislike the idea completely. Everything has a time and a place to be used in a game. Nothing wrong with doing some form of "action" (not necessarily combat) to start off the game, even if it's a red herring just to keep people in their toes.

 

[SteveC]

I'm sorry, but what?

Translation: to make the game start in medias res, you have to carefully examine all PC abilities, and then somehow make every single one of them not count. Yeah, that's good GM-ing alright. </sarcasm>

Look, it takes ZERO effort on every GM's part to start the game in medias res, which is a form of railroading that can be very effective if used sparingly - but not all the damn time. It's probably the easiest way to start a game. It takes a whole lot more effort and skill to let the players do their thing and then adapt to their reactions.

In the above example about a king's funeral and such, you're basically telling your players: look, your characters were buddies with this king person, and now he's dead. Now we're going to play out the part where you got to be buddies with him, after which he dies.

But what if the PCs somehow don't become buddies with the king? What if their actions are such that they get exiled from the kingdom? What if they stop the king from dying (foiled assassination, miracle cure, whatever)? By telling them "this is what happens, no matter what," you are using the worst possible form of railroading. Now, as some may recall from previous threads, I am all for mild railroading where appropriate. But a scenario like that is about as bad as the 2nd edition Time of Troubles modules and its "advice" to use any means necessary to stop the players from spoiling the plot.


Now, the second statement I can agree with. It's very improtant for a GM to know what kind of a game his players want to play.

Okay, it seems as though I managed to not explain my point well enough for you, so let's try it again. Starting a game with a bang is an easy thing to do. Starting it off with a bang that does not have all the players making comments like those in the previous post (meaning, "why didn't X happen?" is hard. Taking all of your players abilities into account when you design this sort of a game session is important, and it can also be difficult. At low levels, it's a lot easier, but once your players have access to game changing powers: flying, teleport, mind contol and so forth, you need to take them into consideration when you decide how you're going to start the bang. If you don't you'll likely have annoyed players, such as in the example posted up thread. Annoyed players = bad GMing.

Now in my example with the king's funeral, when I started the campaign, the first thing I did was get player buy-in on the campaign concept: I told them that the game was going to start with the king of this country being poisoned, and the beginning of the game was going to be about curing him and finding out what had happened to cause it in the first place. Once that bang was in place, the game would end up where the players took it. The characters that everyone gave me were made with built-in reasons to start out interested in the bang. You had characters like the king's bastard son, the head of the town guard, the prince from the neighboring country, in the same game with a paladin of an evil cult and a crazy tiger man from parts unknown (yes, that last one was really out there).

Once that had started, they could (and did) go whichever way they wanted. What I did at that point was to take their backgrounds and work them into the campaign so that they had reasons to do things. If they decided not to tackle a particular problem, they didn't have to, and I simply resolved what was going to happen based on their inaction.

My challenge to get the players to weave something they said to the king into the story was designed to give them more control over the story rather than less, since I was very broad in what I would let happen in order to get them to make what they said come true. It was also designed to offer some comic relief at a few key points. Oh, and the evil cultist character was not happy to be at the king's funeral at all nor did she ever become friends with him: she was merely there to continue her mission from the beginning of the game.

So if you're saying "man, that sounds like a total railroady campaign that I would have hated playing in," you're right, for you. In that case, In the specific instance that I ran it, it was one of the most wildly successful games I've ever run, and the players who were in it request a follow-up every time there is an opening in our gaming calendar. Running it was very difficult, because there was an outline of what was going on in the world, and I had to constantly revise outcomes based on what the players did. The players commented that it had seemed like the game was going one way, but that they ended up making radical changes so that they had no idea what was coming next.

All this says in the end that no one play style is for everyone. My current Shackled City campaign is basically a traditional adventure path, and a completely different sort of game, so I too contain multitudes.

Talking about different play styles may gat someone to try something different. Just like cooking, sometimes trying a different play style results in a tasty evening's play, sometimes not so much. I may be wrong, but I see a fair amount of anger in your post about this kind of play. I agree that it's not for everyone, and that doing it every session (like the WotC article talks about) is asking for trouble, outside of an extremely episodic game. In the end, if someone has more fun at the table, isn't that what we're all looking for?

--Steve

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Now, the "roll initiative" technique could be applied here, and it can be a LOT OF FUN. At the start of the game, as the players are getting their character sheets ready, say "Here's your temporary characters. Players #1 and #2 - you'll be playing the villains... your goal is to capture the princess. The rest of you guys... you're playing mid-level warrior NPCs, and your goal is to protect her. Players 1 & 2 will get a bonus XP award if you can kidnap the princess while suffering no losses, and the rest of you will receive an XP bonus if you're able to hold the princess for more than five rounds against the evil onslaught. Have at it, boys".

And if your intent is to engage the players, in my case at least, you will have failed miserably.

I play RPGs for immersion into my chraracter. Nothing kills my interest in a session/fight/game than being handed a character I know nothing about, that I didn't have a hand in creating and told to play it. As soon as that happens I completely zone out. I usually start thinking about what _my_ character would do, rather than some character I was handed. In the above scenerio, my likely involvement would be "I roll to hit". What you described would bore me to tears - because I, as a player, have no connection to the situation through my character. It's all just nameless npcs.
That would be like playing in a star wars game, having built your jedi and when you show up to play your chracter, and getting handed a fight where you play stormtrooper number seven.
Blech.

I can see it working for others, just definatly not for me.