Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 6056210" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>I'm mostly in agreement with Balesir here, but I've got a slightly different slant on the question that might be useful.</p><p> </p><p>When our group is putting together a campaign, we talk it out, see what kind of characters will be played, pick a system, pick some obvious house rules/tweaks/supplements that we'll need, etc. However, <strong>then</strong> I go do something more or less like what Jeff Carlsen said. I do the setting, and the players do the characters. (Or I do both at the start, but then the players take over the characters. Pregen or not is a logistics questions for us.)</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p>Yet, I find that having the tools laid out the way Balesir discusses makes it much easier for me to do this. It's for several reason, and I'm probably forgetting some:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It makes communication in the early stages a lot easier for everyone. If we want to include X in the game, everyone knows exactly what that can mean.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If the player wants a character concept that fits within the broad plan, it's usually clear how to get there.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If the players want certain kinds of challenges, it's usually clear what they are asking for.</li> </ul><p>In 1E, I could more or less do the same thing ... but only because early we didn't care about this stuff, and then considerably later I was an experienced DM playing with experienced players. Everyone in the group knows what happens when you use psionics, or not, or partially, or whatever. I suppose some people got to that point with 3E, or low to mid-level 3E, or their subset of 3E or variant 3E. I never did, <strong>and even if I had</strong>, the players weren't anywhere close.</p><p> </p><p>Our group isn't like it was 30 years ago. We want a system to perform for us mostly as expected, at least after the first several months of break-in play.</p><p> </p><p>When playing D&D, we like me being responsible for the setting and the players responsible for the characters. If we want the whole group to be responsible for everything, we'll play any number of games that are far better than D&D will ever be, for that purpose. But fixing/adapting things that do not work for you is another category--neither character nor setting.</p><p> </p><p>Given a good set of tools, it is very liberating. The group has collectively signed up for a vision that they understand. Now, that means they have <strong>delegated</strong> to me the authority to be a rat-bastard DM in pulling that off, within those broad parameters. Just because you theoretically can use every single monster in the MM in one campaign, doesn't make it a good idea. Functional options are always like that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 6056210, member: 54877"] I'm mostly in agreement with Balesir here, but I've got a slightly different slant on the question that might be useful. When our group is putting together a campaign, we talk it out, see what kind of characters will be played, pick a system, pick some obvious house rules/tweaks/supplements that we'll need, etc. However, [B]then[/B] I go do something more or less like what Jeff Carlsen said. I do the setting, and the players do the characters. (Or I do both at the start, but then the players take over the characters. Pregen or not is a logistics questions for us.) Yet, I find that having the tools laid out the way Balesir discusses makes it much easier for me to do this. It's for several reason, and I'm probably forgetting some: [LIST] [*]It makes communication in the early stages a lot easier for everyone. If we want to include X in the game, everyone knows exactly what that can mean. [*]If the player wants a character concept that fits within the broad plan, it's usually clear how to get there. [*]If the players want certain kinds of challenges, it's usually clear what they are asking for. [/LIST]In 1E, I could more or less do the same thing ... but only because early we didn't care about this stuff, and then considerably later I was an experienced DM playing with experienced players. Everyone in the group knows what happens when you use psionics, or not, or partially, or whatever. I suppose some people got to that point with 3E, or low to mid-level 3E, or their subset of 3E or variant 3E. I never did, [B]and even if I had[/B], the players weren't anywhere close. Our group isn't like it was 30 years ago. We want a system to perform for us mostly as expected, at least after the first several months of break-in play. When playing D&D, we like me being responsible for the setting and the players responsible for the characters. If we want the whole group to be responsible for everything, we'll play any number of games that are far better than D&D will ever be, for that purpose. But fixing/adapting things that do not work for you is another category--neither character nor setting. Given a good set of tools, it is very liberating. The group has collectively signed up for a vision that they understand. Now, that means they have [B]delegated[/B] to me the authority to be a rat-bastard DM in pulling that off, within those broad parameters. Just because you theoretically can use every single monster in the MM in one campaign, doesn't make it a good idea. Functional options are always like that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)
Top