Thinking about Published Adventures

I am finding myself eagerly awaiting the new version of the "Tomb of Horrors" adventure that is coming out for 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons next month. For those not in the know, the "Tomb of Horrors" is a classic adventure from the high point of TSR. Also, it may be the single most deadly adventure I have ever experienced. The main reason for that is that it was originally made as a survival dungeon for the first Origins convention.

At any rate, my excitement over this adventure coming out has made me think. I have not used a lot of published adventures, preferring, instead, to use my own. I have played in many of those old adventures, and I think that there is a certain feeling that was in those adventures, a sense of wonder that I remember fondly. And I find myself wanting to share that with my players. And in particular for "Tomb of Horrors" there is the pride and bragging rights of being able to survive and make it through that dungeon.

So, depending on how this goes, I am seriously considering updating the older adventures myself, and see how my players do with the golden oldies of my youth. That is except for Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, as I am still a little too much of a purist to bring that sort of mix between sci-fi and fantasy to my own campaign world. As when I was 12, the idea of playing a dwarf with a laser gun was kinda cool... but now I am embarrassed that I felt that way. I hope that the same doesn't hold for my love for all the old adventures.

Starting a new game

So it looks like I am going to be running a game of Hunter every other Friday. It is going to be interesting for me, as I have not run or played in a Hunter game before. But it does present an interesting line of thought for me.

Many of my players have played in White Wolf's world of darkness setting, the same one that the Hunter game takes place in. The problem with this is that in Hunter the players are supposed to be normal humans that know nothing about the supernatural being tapped by mysterious forces to become monster hunters. So it is up to me to come up with a way for this to happen, and it is a difficult question for any GM: how do you make the old new again?

The difficulty is not how to come up with random new stuff, but how to keep things interesting and new while maintaining the feel of the setting you are playing with. My general advice is to make the changes at both the small and grand ends. But on the grand end, you need to be careful to reinterpret, rather than recreate. By that, I mean choose a new way of looking at the info provided, rather than throwing it out and starting again, like you can do with the small details.

Reinventing your setting is a simple as playing devil's advocate with yourself. The best approach is to know your setting and continually ask yourself, "Yeah, but what if it works this way..." Continue to do this, and your campaign will stay fresh and vibrant, even to veteran players.

Players are a Fickle Lot

Today I wanted to talk a little bit about an issue that I have experienced from both sides of the table. I am a very skilled GM, but it is no secret that as a player I leave much to be desired. Part of the reason for that is that as a player I am very fickle. While it is my opinion that the reason for this is that I get to play so rarely, the fact remains that I can switch characters as the drop of a hat. I would consider this a great personal failing, if not for the fact that I have seen it in almost all of the people I have gamed with to a greater or lesser extent.

All gamers are by nature, creative people and that creativity can be hard to keep steady sometimes. Whether it is due to a player wanting to try out the mechanics of new classes, or one that gets interested in some facet of the game world that their character doesn't have anything to do with; eventually all GMs will have to deal with players wanting to change characters.

Now this doesn't necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the game you are running, but you need to figure out how to deal with it. Most GMs, including your truly, feel that the players should have the right to play whatever character they want to. However, I recognize that changing characters, particularly when it becomes excessive, can have a huge effect on the game. My general thoughts on it are to allow the players to change characters, but to tell them not to be suprised if the plot tends to follow the more stable characters. This is simply to allow the GM to have some stability in his ability to plan, and should be expected by any reasonable player.

On the other hand, even with the plot following the "stable" players, this can be a problem for the GM. When it becomes so, the GM needs to recognize this and be willing to cut his losses. The purpose of the game is for everyone, including the GM, to have fun and it is his responsibility to make sure that this happens. In my opinion it is better to let a campaign end than to keep playing one that is not being fun, whether to the GM or the players.

Forum Headaches

I spend a lot of time reading and posting on the D&D Forums, and I have come to the belief that they are almost useless for new players and DMs trying to learn about the game. While there are some people on the site that genuinely try to help people, the vast majority of them are filled with complaints about random and trivial things with such vehemence that it can only serve to drive people away from the game.

Between the trolling and people treating the forum discussions as if they were a High School debate club the forums cannot really do what they are intended to, namely to aid in the flourishing of the game. Rather than showing new and existing players the wealth of entertainment that the game can bring, they remain focused on character builds and getting the biggest damage numbers.

We as a community should remember to share our loves of the game with each other, and new players; not to use that opportunity to pick apart and insult each other. The game should be about sharing an experience with friends, no matter if those friends are at the same table or halfway across the country.

Post-Campaign Ending Thoughts

This Saturday I wrapped up one of my most recent campaigns, and I am happy to report that my players succeeded in destroying Asmodeus, and protecting the world.

But more important, to me at least, is the fact that the campaign ended while planting the seeds of new campaigns. Three of the characters ended up with children, and another ended up with the call to train a new order of assassins in service to the death God. There is a great deal of satisfaction in this sort of ending, as it makes the world seem alive and that the stories of the characters and their descendants will continue to build and shape the world in the future. The day after a campaign like this ends is a fun day for me, as it is usually filled with thoughts of how the character's actions will have affected the world, and what kind of stories that can give birth to.

For a GM this is also a rewarding day. For the most part, GMing can be a thankless job, as many players aren't even aware of the amount of work that GMs put into their games. I personally, have gone sessions without a word of thanks or any feedback from the players, but to see a campaign end well and seeing everyone on the edge of their seats during the final battles is a rush for me. To see the emotional reactions to the end of the story makes all the work and effort worthwhile.

So in the words of one of my players, "Here's to the end of a great campaign!"

For my Father

Today being Father's Day, I thought I would diverge slightly from my normal discussion of gaming and talk a little about my father, and his interaction with my gaming.

My father is not a Gamer. Although a fan of some fantasy and Science fiction, he has never really agreed with or understood my love of the game. That being said, he did consent to playing for a single session. I was about 15 at the time, and I was running a game for two of my cousins and my brother. As I did occasionally, I asked my father if he wanted to join us. To my surprise that day, he said yes.

In all honesty, I can remember very little about the specifics of the game, except that I believe my father played a wizard. But as I think about it, that session has stuck with me more than almost any other. Not because the session itself was particularly amazing, but that it was the day that my father entered my world, even though gaming was not a particular interest of his. Sharing that with him was an experience that I have a hard time putting into words; but that day I resolved that should I ever be a parent, that I would do my best to share in my children's joys and interests, just as he did with me that day.

My father has done more for me than I could possibly ever put into a list, but it is this instance that sticks out most clearly in my mind. My father was always a provider, disciplinarian, teacher and protector, but that was the day that I recognized that in addition to all that, he was my friend.

Happy Father's Day, Dad. I love you.

To Kill or not to Kill... that is the question.

Killing characters... it is a subject likely to start a loud and opinionated discussion between any group of GMs, and quite a few players as well. As such, I will openly state that this post is only my opinion and although it has worked for me, it may not be what you or your group are looking for.

To start off, my view on character death has changed dramatically since I first began to play D&D. Originally, I hated the idea of a PC dying, and would go out of my way to assure that it didn't happen. This ranged from fudging die rolls, to having NPCs rescue the party when they got in over their heads. This was completely wrong, and in fact, completely unfair to my players.
By taking away the danger and the chance of failure, I also took away the heroism and power from their deeds. No adventure is as exciting if the PC's can expect a net to save them when they go overboard.

Since then, I have come to recognize the necessity of player deaths. The act of adventuring is a dangerous one, and it is only by allowing that danger to exist can the GM present an exciting adventure and a campaign world that is truly immersive. Now, I am not one of those GMs that attempts to kill their PC's, but I will roleplay the party's villains appropriately, and if that leads to a character death, then that is the way the world works. Not only is this approach a benefit to the believability of the campaign world, but it allows the rest of the group to opportunity to roleplay the loss of a valiant comrade, and the fallout of such a loss.

Now on to TPK's or total party kills. This is, to me, a somewhat harder issue to deal with. With a TPK the GM runs the almost certain risk of the campaign ending, as all of the protagonists are dead. My general feeling is that if the party gets themselves into a situation like this, I will let it happen, under much of the same reasoning I use with single character deaths above. However, a TPK situation can be a sign that the GM failed in his planning and made the adventure impossible for the players. In such a situation I will usually improv some sort of escape clause into the adventure, and if they party doesn't take it, then they have chosen their fate. If you are lucky, the players will choose to make characters who are connected with the dead heroes and seek to gain vengeance for their deaths... if not then you get to try out the next campaign you were working on.

Dealing with the topic of character death, I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to discuss resurrection. This is another hot button topic with many GMs. Some feel that the use of resurrection magics take away from the impact of player choice, and some feel that it is needed to be able to keep a stable group of characters together. I personally, take a more middle of the road stance on it. I feel that it should be offered, so that a player that is truly attached to their character has the option of continuing with that character, but I don't make it common place in my campaign world.

On Meaghana, resurrection is only available through a divine source. This limits the use of raise dead to the various churches of the world, usually requiring either a large donation or a quest to achieve the resurrection. In addition, when the ritual is cast the player gets the final choice as to whether the character comes back to life. This leaves the final decision in the player's hands, where it belongs. This allows the player to keep playing a favorite character, or allows their death to be a permanent fixture of the campaign. I have used this option for a long time, and I have found that I can trust the PCs to understand what is better for the game concerning their particular character.

Death can be a powerful storytelling tool, but it is the responsibility of the GM to make sure that it becomes neither overpowering or meaningless. A character's death at the right time can intensify your players interest in the campaign, but continual character deaths can leech all the fun and player commitment right out of the campaign world. So my advice is: Kill if you must, but kill with caution.

Why Dungeons?

I have pondered some of the more ethereal aspects of running games in the last few days. Today I would like to focus on a more concrete issue, that of the use of dungeons in fantasy gaming.

Why dungeons? The question is actually a bit deeper than it firsts appears. The easiest, and most basic answer is that the Dungeon is a clear depiction of an adventure flowchart. A GM can look at the dungeon and see where the choices of the PC's lead them. If they took the passage on the right, the come into contact with the group of goblins in room 1 and if they took the left passage they encounter the pit trap that is 20ft down that hallway. In this way, it is one of the best ways for a new GM to get started, as it provides an easy way of seeing how your adventure progresses.

This can lead to the darker side of dungeon use, however. That of an overly controlling GM. It is easy to see the dungeon as a structure that forces the players to proceed in the manner that the GM wants, and can make the players feel trapped. This is why I very rarely use dungeons that lock the players in. On occasion an escape dungeon can be fun, the obvious deprivation of player's free will can end up making them resent the adventure. And running an adventure that the players resent will never be fun for anyone.

Beyond the metagame meanings of a dungeon, there are several thematic meanings of dungeon adventures. The first is a sense of history. A well done dungeon adventure should provide hints to the history of the campaign world through the answer of at least two basic questions: Who built the dungeon? and Why was it built? Huge underground dwellings are not made by accident and the GM can communicate a lot about his game world by thinking about how it came to be. The easiest way to do this is the descriptions of the artwork in the dungeons. A simple carving on a wall or door can communicate more about the campaign world than a whole discussion with an NPC.

The second thematic idea of the dungeon is that of the unknown. We are beings of the senses, and in our normal lives our vision is paramount. However, in a dark, dank dungeon with twisted passages, that vision is limited. When we limit the senses of the player characters it enhances the sense of danger in the situation, which will make the characters more on edge and involved with the story. Between that and the sense of wonder at the possibilities of battles and wealth hidden beneath the world, a dungeon can prove to be a place of endless adventure for the party.

The third, and most subtle, use of a dungeon is to reinforce the importance of the player characters. In most dungeons, the player characters will be on their own. It is by their skill alone that they will succeed or fail. Forcing that sort of self reliance will remind the players that they are the heroes of the game, and that it is their great deeds that will change the world.

As I have shown, the dungeon is a time honored and useful tool in the arsenal of a GM. However, like all tools it cannot be overused. When the mighty undercities of the campaign world are entered with the same bored feeling of entering a general store, you are doing something wrong. But large dungeons in the midst of a campaign filled with a varied set of adventures can bring a great deal to the table, and be an adventure that is talked about for a long time afterward.

Character Options and the Beards of Women

Earlier, I was reading a thread on the D&D forums dealing with an interesting problem that a particular GM found themselves in. One of his players wanted to play a female Dwarven Barbarian in a chain mail bikini, and this was alright for the GM. The problem was that the player also wanted the dwarven woman to have a beard.

This presents an common conflict that can occur between GM and Player, that of players desire for options vs. the GM's desire to depict the world as they see fit. My general belief is that the GM defines the world, the Player's define their character, but sometimes this is not as clearly divided as one would think. What is to be done when the players wants something for their character that goes against the GM's ideas for the world?

Here the GM needs to do some serious thinking. First, consider why you have made the call that you have. In the above example, are dwarven women beardless because of any worthwhile reason or is it purely your own aesthetic competing with that of your players? If so, this is a time where the GM should step back and give the player the option they want.

Second, consider if the player desires the choice because they want to tell a particular story or are they trying to get a particular advantage? While this consideration doesn't have a particular application in the instance above, the GM must also remember that they are a rules arbiter as well as a storyteller.

And finally, the GM must consider if the choice will take away something from the rest of the players (including themselves). This is a much more difficult issue for a GM to see, and the one that is the most relevant with the above situation. Some groups may see bearded dwarven women as disruptive of their suspension of disbelief, and a GM should take that into consideration.

However, I don't think that this is the true issue in the above situation. My reasoning for this is the double standard that the GM is employing here. He is trying to claim that a woman with a beard will make things too silly, but not even blinking at the idea of a chain mail bikini that provides the normal amount of protection... Seems to me that the true problem here is that the GM has a single idea of what he finds acceptable in his fantasy world, and is not taking into consideration the desires of the players.

Now, I am in full support of the DM's prerogative to limit or ban things that he feels are disruptive to the feel of his campaign world, but I also feel that this is one of the issues that the DM needs a great deal of wisdom to handle correctly. It is good to build a world that feels original and real, but a good GM should always be cautious about limiting the player's choices to the point that you quash their contributions to the game world.

Standing at a Crossroads

Ideally, every player wants to represent their character as a whole person, one with their own goals and motivations. But what does a GM do when those goals and motivations begin to diverge?

The first thing to do is to try and understand why the party's goals are seeming to diverge. If you are lucky, it is only an issue of appearances and the problem is just that the characters have slightly different focuses within the events that are taking place. If this is the case, there is very little that needs to be done, as the party's aim are really the same for different reasons. Example: Some members of the party are interested in performing good deeds, and others are focused on making money and setting themselves up in a position of power. Depending on the campaign these are still goals that can cause the party to work together, with minimal effort on the part of the GM.

The second most tenable set of events is that the different characters are finding things that interest them, things that they want to investigate further. Theoretically, this should be the standard. You want your players to be independent thinkers, who will use their characters to help flesh out the parts of the world that are interesting to them. In the case the GM should aim to try and give each character the spotlight time they need to investigate whatever it is that is drawing their interest, and ideally connect it to any ongoing plot where capable. Example: While in a dungeon to save a princess, one of the characters notices some ancient carvings depicting a lost civilization. That character becomes interested in discovering artifacts of that civilization. This can easily be accomplished and even used in the main plot as the enemies of the PCs find themselves holding up in ancient ruins, allowing the players to combat their foes while uncovering archaeological treasures.

The problem comes when the goals and motivations of the party begin to oppose one another. This can happen for a number of reasons, some good, some bad. In the best case scenario, the characters are simply evolving and that is causing friction or causing them to grow apart. In the worst case, it can be caused by jealousy among the players (usually a problem if your plots always tend to revolve around one player), or some other out of game issue. The responsibility of the GM in this case is to attempt to rectify the issue between the two players, so that it doesn't continue to negatively effect the game.

But what do you do when the characters are simply beginning to grow apart? This is a very difficult question, and an issue that can easily bring the campaign to a screeching halt. First what is often helpful is talking to each player individually, and finding out what the motivations of their character is, and where they see that taking the campaign. Once you have done this, it is likely that you will see how the group is diverging. If it is simply one or two characters that are having an issue with their motivations, it might still be possible to reconnect their interests into the campaign. This is one reason why it is an awful idea to play too far into the future, a GM should be able to react to changing interests of his players.

However, sometimes you will see a problem that is too big for the GM to solve, such as if the entire party is moving towards some action that one character is completely against. This tends to be a much bigger problem. For the most part, I like to let character to character conflicts resolve themselves, as it can lead to some very interesting roleplaying. But sometimes the issue is unable to be resolved through roleplaying, and the GM needs to be willing to step in and do what is needed to keep the game going. Most of the time, it will only take a talk from the GM to show the players how much of a problem their conflict is. Sometimes, it takes more drastic steps. If a problem is unable to be resolved the GM needs to be able to ask a character or (in the absolute worst case) a player to leave the campaign. This is the biggest call a GM can make, and one that is not to be made lightly. But a true GM recognizes that their first priority is to the game, and making sure that everyone has a good time, and in the immortal words of Mr. Spock, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."

The last, and frankly most difficult, issue to solve is when the party splits equally, and is unable to be reconciled. Which group does the story follow? Making this sort of decision is going to differ from GM to GM, but there are a few things to consider. First, ask yourself which of the stories are you, as the GM, most interested in? If you are not interested in the story, it will go no where, so you have to be on board with whatever choice is made. Secondly, is the group splitting because you have given an unfair amount of screen time to certain players? If so, it might be best to have the story follow the less exposed members of the group, to give them even time in the spotlight. And lastly, are both directions capable of accepting new characters in their storyline. This is important because if you make a decision, the players whose characters leave will need to be able to bring in new characters, and if the aim of the story is going to make that difficult to impossible, then that is something that you need to consider.

Splitting the party, and/or having to put aside an ongoing story is never an easy task for a GM, but it is much easier that having to rebuild a gaming group that is torn apart by dissension and boredom. It is the GMs responsibility to recognize the signs of problems with the group, players and characters alike, and to be able to make the necessary choice once the group does come to that crossroad.

The Danger and Reward of Losing Control.

Control. Every GM has a different relationship with it. Some simply remember it fondly as they allow their players to run roughshod over them and their world, while some cling to it so obsessively that railroading the players is the only way they know how to play the game. I attempt to give it a long leash, so that it doesn't break it chains, and flee me forever.

By that I mean that while I am in final control of what goes on in my game and the world of Meaghana, I try to give my players as much running room with it as I can. In general, I would rather reflavor than ban. A good example of this is the new race in PHB 3, the shardmind. Meaghana has no real room for people make of hunks of psionic rocks, however I respect the idea of people wanting to play with the new mechanics that they provide so I reskinned them as half-dragons of the Gem type. This allows me to meet the players halfway, while still maintaining control of the feel of the game, and the mechanics allowed.

Much trickier, is the level of control maintained over the story elements of the world. Usually, I try to maintain a protective hand over my world, while allowing the players to tell the stories that they want to. Recently, I am finding that there is some excitement in the occasional removal of that protective hand. For example, the Epic level campaign I am currently finishing up has the player characters entering the ninth level of Hell to destroy the Archdevil, Asmodeus. The reason for this has to do with portals that have opened all over the game world that are combining the world of Meaghana with the plane of Hell. The players recognize that they are the only ones capable of dealing with his problem, and that if they fail that the world, as they know it, will be badly damaged if not completely destroyed. That level of responsibility adds a whole new rush to the game. For the players, it shows them that they truly matter in the grand scheme of things, and for all of us it creates the tension of a truly epic climax, one where no one is sure what will happen.

As a GM, this is both an amazing and a completely nerve wracking time. The story that I have constructed has lead the players here, but I am taking my hands off the wheel, and letting them lead my world into the future, whatever that future might be. That is the danger and the reward of giving up that control for a brief time. No campaign world can last if the players are in total control, with the GM unable to maintain a solid and believable world, but sometimes the world is in need of the kind of chaos that only a group of player characters can provide. The real skill of a good GM is the ability to integrate these moments of chaos into the overarching campaign world, and use it as a point of evolution, both for the world and their story telling ability.

GMing as a Family Structure

Yesterday, I discussed the historical progression of Player/GM relations. Today, I will be speaking from a more personal perspective. I tend to view my own GM as somewhat of a familial system. The GM is the father (or mother for you ladies out there), and the players are his children. Now, to some that may seem more than a little condescending, but that is not my intention. It is simply the most accurate metaphor that I have for my GMing style.

GM as parent implies a few different things. Firstly it implies control. The parent has the final say in decisions, just as the GM should have final say in the game. However, it also implies closeness and a genuine concern for your 'children'. A GM should listen to their players, hear their wants and needs in the game, and take that into account along with his own needs and those of the campaign world. This is the balancing act that every parent performs, the desire of their child vs. what is really best for them and for the rest of the family. In addition, this also shows the GMs responsibility to smooth over personality conflicts and make sure that everyone is getting along. Now, it is not always possible to give the players everything they want, but if you show that you are willing to listen to the players and take their opinions into account, then they are more likely to accept the times that you are not able to indulge them.

Now the players are children metaphor also shows some of what I feel are the players responsibilities. Firstly, the players have a responsibility to obey the GM. While it is acceptable to discuss particular calls with a GM, if they have made a firm decision then the players need to respect that and consider the matter closed. Part of this is respecting that the GM has a reason for the calls they make, either to make the game run more smoothly or to craft the campaign world as they want to. In addition, as children are expected to contribute to the family, so to are the players expected to contribute to the game worlds. At bare minimum, this requires the players to read the information that the GM supplies and play in a manner that will not destroy the sense of realism that the GM has built into the world. Ideally, this will result in the creation of PC's that will add to the world, and help it evolve and become a real world shared by everyone involved.

Now, as you can see, this is a very complex relationship between GM and Players, but in my experience it is one that leads to a very rewarding game. But that rewarding experience can only occur if all parties recognize their place in it, and work together to make the game work. The GM can no more make decisions purely because they have the power to, than players can play anything just because they want to. Both sides need to recognize that they should work for the betterment of the game and the campaign world that it is set in. Once both sides come to that understanding, you will find that the game will flow much better and the world in which it is set becomes a wonder of shared imaginations and a place where everyone, GM and Player alike, can enjoy themselves.

It's Us vs. Them... But, who's us again?

One of the most difficult things for a new GM to understand is the type of relationship that a GM has with his players. There is a reason for this confusion, first it is a complicated type of relationship, and second because over the last decade or so there has been a shift in design philosophy that has directly twisted this. This twisting has lead to a difference of understanding between newer players and those of us who have been playing for a long time.

When I first began playing, back in 2nd edition AD&D, the game was in the midst of its first attempt to change the relationship between the GM and the players. In the older editions, notably 1st, there was a definite sense that the GM was the opponent of the Players, and that wracking up a kill count was one of the expected jobs of such a GM. 2nd edition attempted to shift that idea by removing some of the antagonism between players and GMs. This essentially amounted to saying, "You are the GM, anything you want can happen so what is the point of using that to kill the PCs?" This did help matters, as the DMs of 2nd edition were less directly hostile to their players.

It is important, however, to look at how this was accomplished and recognize what it means to the formation of the Player/GM relationship through the history of the game. In first edition it was a forgone conclusion that the GM was ultimately powerful and what he says goes. The change in 2nd edition was not the take that power from the GM, but to make them realize that there is a sense of responsibility that must come with that control. For the first time, the GM was considered responsible for shepherding the players, not simply commanding them. Being that I am a child of 2nd edition, I admit that much of my personal feelings on the subject reflect this sort of idea.

The coming of 3rd edition was a dark time for GM/Player relations. Seen as a natural extension of the way 2nd edition did things, and recognizing that 5 players per group purchased more products than a single GM; WoTC began catering directly to the players. The company began to erode the position of the GM, by presenting the books for the purposes of player consumption, rather than for the betterment of the game. This has lead to a feeling of what I call, "player entitlement". By that I mean, that the players feel like they are the only important part of the game, and that it is the GM's job to cater solely to their whim. This feeling lead to the common ideas that GM who limit player choices in class or race, for the purpose of their game worlds, are inherently bad GMs. By the end of 3.5 e, the GM was viewed as a slave to the whims of the players, who were empowered by not only the publications but the newly emerging online community in which the players tended to gather and complain about their "unfair" GMs, leading to the rapid spread of the "Player Entitlement" mentality.

This has lead, not surprisingly, to two important shortages in modern day gaming. The first is a general shortage of GMs. Many people I have talked to, got tired of being treated like the party's punching bag, and decided to simply stop GM all together. So now you are hearing of a lot more groups of 7, 8, even 10 players per GM. The other shortage, is that even among people who are still GMing, less and less of them are using homebrew worlds. Now, I want to say that I have absolutely nothing against the published worlds, but the reason that I have most heard that people are not running homebrewed settings, is that it is not worth fighting the Players if the GM chooses to limit something for the feel of his game world. This is tragic, if for no other reason than that it prevents the GM from being creative, and punished them if they wish to tell a particular story.

4th edition, while recognizing some of these problems, does contribute to them although much less than 3rd edition did. The tag line for 4th edition GMs is "Just Say Yes." While generally a good idea, it does help to maintain the player entitlement, usually by people who do not recognize the subtle shift that this statement makes. By even stating this, 4th edition acknowledges that the GM is the one in charge, as it turns to the GM, rather than the books as did 3rd edition, to make decisions. However, there is still the baggage here of the older systems. Many of the players, still read this as a call for the GM to be completely at the service of the players regardless of his own fun and the needs of his campaign world. But I must give the designers of 4th edition credit, they are attempting to move against that sense of entitlement, and help GMs reclaim their position in the game, but they have a long way to go to repair the damage done by 3rd edition.

Today, I have given the historical progression of Player/Gm interaction, tomorrow I will finish this post with a discussion of my own methods of interacting with my players and how that influences both the running of the game and the formation of my homebrew world.

Thoughts on Balance

I am currently running one game of Dungeons & Dragons, playing in another one and playing another game of Star Wars Saga edition. I mention this because these two games seem to take a completely different view of game balance.

I would argue that Dungeons & Dragons (at least its 4th edition version that I am currently playing) is very concerned with balance from a gamist point of view. By that, I mean that the mechanics of the game are intended to make sure that each player can contribute equally regardless of class choice. That is not to say that each character can do everything equally well, but that each character can add to the experience of the game in a meaningful (and ideally equal) way.

On the other hand, Star Wars seems balanced from the point of view of the setting. By that I mean, that the rules of the setting dictate which character options are more powerful than others. I am specifically talking about the Jedi. In the Star Wars movies and the books, the Jedi are significantly more powerful than your average character, and this is just how the game works as well. There is something to be said for a game that remains true to the material it was based on, but when I play Star Wars I do find that I often feel bad about the lack of equality between the characters, regardless of if I am the jedi player or not.

This is something that I think the new version of Dungeons & Dragons has fixed. In the older editions, just like in Star Wars, there were certain class choices that made others uneeded, particularly the mage and clerics. I am glad that D&D has decided to level the playing field. Gone are the days that a single wizard can do more for the game than an entire party of fighters.

It is really nice to be able to play in a system that truly supports the idea of a team. Yes, it is true that is it hard for a single character in D&D to go off and do their own thing without the rest of the party, but I think that is fairly appropriate for a group based game. And I feel that I would rather play in a game that supports the idea of a collaborative fun experience than one that would sacrifice that for the sake of staying true to the published setting.

I guess I'll name him... Willam!

One of the most demanding and most necessary jobs that a GM has is the creation of NPCs. It is the GMs responsibility not only to create the important people of his world, and to portray those people in any roleplaying situations the story calls for, but to be able to do that on the fly when the players run into randomtown to speak to Micky the Bartender.

It has been my experience that, for whatever reason, players never get as attached to deeply thought out NPCs as they do to the random ones that seem to come out of nowhere during a game session. For example, in a recent session, my group was doing a skill challenge to find the location of a dungeon in a large wooded area. The bard of the group jokingly asked if she could use Diplomacy on the trees. I decided to let her try, and when she succeeded, the party came across a fairie circle where they met a little pixie-sprite named Jingle. With just a few visual details, and a belief in the healing power of muffins, Jingle became an instant group favorite. So much so, that the Bard asked if she could take Jingle as her familiar.

What was is about this random little sprite that made such a connection? Well, firstly he was a result of player action. Players will always warm up more to NPCs that they have uncovered rather than those the GM has foisted off on them. Secondly, he was memorable. All it takes is a single trait to make a NPC unforgetable. I personally like to make that trait slightly run against the grain of the campaign. For instance, in a serious campaign, having a NPC that provides a little needed levity is one that is more likely to gain the PC's attention than someone who blends into the rest of the world.

The other thing to focus on, is to not push an NPC on the party too much. This is one fault that all GMs are guilty of at one point or another. You come up with a certain NPC that is totally cool, and if you are not careful you can easily make this cool NPC show up the PCs. The best way of handling this sort of thing, is to make sure that the NPCs remain in a position of aid or information to the PCs, who should be the active characters in the story.

However, even using your NPCs as support for the PCs can come as a problem at times. The danger here is to make your NPC the voice of the GM, able and willing to supply all the information that the PCs dont have or have failed to get. The problem with this is that it forms a safety net for the players, one that can either make them lazy or make it seem like they are never really in the position of problems solvers. In the first case, you will get players who will stop caring about the adventures and the problems and will wait for the inevitable NPC-briefing that will give them their assignments. The second case, makes the players feel like their contributions and plans are not as worthwhile as the information that is given to them by the NPCs, which leads to resentment both for the NPCs and possibly for the GM.

If used correctly, a NPC can serve to inform, entertain and to help showcase the immersive nature of the game world. If used incorrectly, they can show the holes and weak points in the world and basically make the characters feel powerless. It is important to keep in mind how long-reaching an effect that these seemingly minor characters can have, and to practice creating and portraying them in a manner that leads to the enjoyment of the players and the growth of the campaign world.

I now pronounce you GM and Wife.

I have been asked to talk a little about what it is like to be a GM for your spouse. I have been married since March 5th of this year, but I have been with my wife, Alicia, for about 6 years.

Thinking about it, I have decided that the most troublesome part of GM for a spouse is the shift in power structure that needs to happen for the game to go on smoothly. In a marriage, or at least a good one, the spouses need to share control and work together in a open an honest manner. It is only with this sort of equality that any marriage can succeed, but such equality would be the kiss of death for a game.

To run a successful game, a GM needs to be able to remove himself from the players somewhat, and it is crucial that he be in charge. One of the primary responsibilities of a GM is to be final arbitrator for the game, something that cannot really occur with the sort of impartiality that it needs, if the GM is sharing that power with a spouse. As a side note, this is my main problem with any sort of shared GMing, particularly on homebrewed worlds. Game Mastering is definitely one of those situations in which too many cooks can spoil the broth.

Now the biggest trick to this, is how to create that change in power structure during the game. And I must admit that I have not always been completely successful in this, as it is a very hard thing to do. For a GM to be good, he must attempt to be as impartial as possible and he must be able to keep secrets from his players. Understandably this is a very odd thing to get used to, both for the GM and for their playing spouse.

For example, It is difficult for me to be working on things for an adventure with my wife home, simply because it is something that I cannot talk to her about or have her know about, if I am to be fair to the other players.

Second in difficulty, I think, is the odd place it puts the GM during any attempt at conflict resolution. A wife expects her husband to support her and back her plays, rightly so, but a GM must think of what is best for the game before the desires of any one player. I think this expectation makes it much harder for the GM to do his job, in certain circumstances. As a GM, I find myself so focused on not showing my wife any preferential treatment, that, at times, I have been somewhat discriminatory against her just to keep the appearance that I am not siding with her because she is my wife. The problem is, that this is just as problematic as siding with a spouse on every call.

In conclusion, I would say that GMing for a spouse requires a great deal of diplomacy, introspection and the ability to shift your understanding of your relationship in different context; as well as a thick skin for when the spouse gets their feelings bruised if they cannot also make that shift. That being said, I couldn't imagine not gaming with Alicia. Gaming is a huge part of my life, and it would be tragic if I were not able to share that with the woman I love.

The honesty of Face to Face Gaming. (or What I hate about Wow)

I found out tonight that my World of Warcraft account was apperently hacked and involved in some activity that got it closed. As such, my mind set right now might be a little biased, but it does make me think of what I feel is the primary difference between tabletop gaming and MMORPGs: Tabletop games are more honest.

Now, that is not to say that everyone that plays MMO's are dishonest thieves or anything, but I feel that there is a distinct difference in the personal interactions that the two types of games cause. Online games suffer from one of the worse parts of the internet, anonimity. Online, it is very easy to not see the other players as people which can be used as an excuse for all sorts of annoying antisocial behavior, from griefing to outright theft of accounts and in game equipment that the player likely spent hours attempting to gain.

Being face to face with other players at a table forces a certain type of honesty, or at very least the recognition of the other players as people. There have been plenty of gamers that I have played with, that I am no longer close to and even some that I have completely disliked from day one, but I always recognized that they were people. I think that makes alot of difference. Does it get rid of all problems between players? Of course not, but I think that being forced to look a person in the eye before you act like an immature jerk makes most people recognize what they are doing.

For online games, there is nothing that can really be done, as the laws and customs of the internet will always tend to be ignored and trampled upon by those who feel that being a faceless avatar gives them the right to be a horrible excuse for a human being. But for those of us playing table top I have a piece of advice: Stop and take a moment to look around the table. These people are your fellow gamers, and hopefully your friends. Don't be a dick... it's really just that simple.

D&D Encounters

D&D Encounters

The above link is a article on CNN.com about Dungeons & Dragons, or more specifically the new D&D Encounters Program. I want to start by saying that I am thrilled to see an article on Dungeons & Dragons in a major news outlet without them attempting to tie it into antisocial behavior or violent crime. That being said, I think this article is showing a shift in the way the game is being looked at that is detrimental to it, in the long run.

The D&D Encounters Program is designed to allow busy people to be able to participate in the D&D experience, at least that is the stated goal. However, only playing D&D 2 hours a week leave little to no time for anything past combat encounters. Now, I personally love the combat system in 4th edition, but the true D&D experience is so much more than this. I feel that if your only experience playing D&D is with a pre-generated character, playing short combat encounters with a group of strangers, then you are missing out on the best parts of the game, the roleplaying and emmersive storytelling.

The worst part, I think, is that this is the main (read: only publicized) way that Wizards is attempting to gain new players. While it is a decent idea, the fact that the "D&D Encounters" style play is the only type of gaming that is recieving positive attention by the media, worries me. If the new generation of players learns how to play Dungeons & Dragons in this manner, it only stands to reason that the game will change to match it, turning it into a boardgame and away from being a Roleplaying game.

The game cannot survive if there is no new blood, and I understand that Wizards must do what they can to make sure that new players are drawn into the fold. However, I believe that it is a greater responsibility of the current players to bring others in, and more importantly to make them the best roleplayers that they can be. This is the only way to keep the soul of the game alive along with the mechanics.

Evolution of a Game World

I have been reading a lot about how people are reacting to the changes that Wizards of the Coast has made to the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting for the change to 4th edition. It has gotten me thinking about the changes that Meaghana has gone through since its first version.

The first long term campaign that was run on Meaghana started during an event known as the Chaos War, which lead to the campaign calendar being restarted in year 0 AC. The current campaign that I am near to ending is in the summer of 1073 AC.

Looking back on the last thousand years of game history, I am really astonished as to how things have turned out. With all the changes, some put into place by me and some the result of the actions of the players, I sometimes wonder how the original players would react to Meaghana circa 1073.

This leads me to thoughts of one of the best things about roleplaying games, a sense of belonging that is shared by the GM and the players. No one would try to argue that Meaghana is not my game world, but when I hear my players discuss the campaigns that have been played there, I can hear the sense of pride that they feel for having shaped the events that have made the world what it is today.

With that in mind, I can see what the people on the forums are complaining about and I am glad that Meaghana was not chosen when I submitted it to WoTC's Campaign setting search in early 2000's. The idea of turning over control and being made a stranger in my own game world is an unwelcome thought. And I would hate to have taken that sense of pride and belonging from myself and my players just for the sake of being published.

And so, I offer my sincere thanks to: Gary Gygax, Ed Greenwood, Keith Baker, Margaret Weis, Tracy Hickman, Troy Denning, Bruce Nesmith and all of the other world designers that I have forgotten. You gave your worlds up so that countless people could enjoy them. I honor your sacrifice, even if I am unable to duplicate it.

At the End of Things...

As I am working on the last two sessions of one of my current D&D campaign, I find myself becoming somewhat introspective. As a GM, the end of a campaign is an odd time. In many ways it is the most stressful time of any campaign. You are wanting to make sure the campaign wraps up well so that it doesnt end on a low note, while at the same time making sure that the challenges that you present are not more than the players can handle.

It is also one of the best moments a GM can experience. To finally allow your players see the full extent of the story that you are creating together, while at the same time planting the seeds for further adventures in the campaign world. I don't think there is any better feeling.

So here is to my current players (and their characters): Alicia (Valina, Half-elf Warden), Mark (Saeran, Tiefling Infernal Warlock), Richard (Ilath'nis, Revenant Assassin), Travis (Baern, Dwarf Cleric) and in a guest appearance for the last three sessions, Robin (Azyre, Eladrin Wizard).

Thank you for a great campaign, and good luck on finishing it!

Why a Roleplaying Blog?

I have been thinking a great deal about the above question, as I wrestled with the decision to create this blog. In support of the idea is the fact that much of my life has revolved around Roleplaying Games, and the people with whom I have forged relationships with around the gaming table. As such, part of me feels that it is only natural that I share with the world my thoughts and feelings on the topic.

However, I find that many people either do not understand what Roleplaying is, or have very twisted opinions of it, due mostly to second-hand information or interactions with the kinds of people who represent the worst of what those who call themselves "Gamers" are.

Realizing that this was actually a concern of mine, brought me to a stop. There are a large number of people who separate their gaming from the rest of their lives, as if it were something to be ashamed of. There have been numerous occasions in which I have decided not to tell people about being a gamer, simply due to the negative reaction I thought I would receive.

But that ends here: I choose to share my love of Roleplaying, and to recognize that I need to feel no shame for it. Roleplaying is an art, just as surely as acting or singing. I just hope that my sharing of my art proves entertaining and possibly educational for those who want to follow along.