As most of you know, my job prevents me from being able to game every weekend. For two weeks out of every six, we have to take a break. I have discussed the difficulty of this before, but this break we have found a way to keep excitement up while we are not playing.
During this break, I am allowing a number of weeks to pass in game time. To let the party know what is going during this break, I have been sending out emails through our group Yahoo site. This has allowed the players to respond to the changing events and keep them interested and focused on the game, even though we have not been able to play for two weeks. I am not running any combats during this time, as the break is primarily a time for the PCs to get some things done in town, and prep for their next adventures, but it is allowing them to have some very interesting roleplaying opportunities that they would not have had otherwise.
Running things like this through email also allows me a rare treat, the ability to give information to certain players without everyone hearing about it. Now, most of my players are very good about not metagaming, but when everyone is sitting around and hearing the information out of character, it does take some of the punch out of it when it is shared in character. By sending the email to only the player who uncovers the information, you get to avoid that. Now it does take one thing away from secrets kept at the table: the paranoia. There is nothing that can make a player more nervous than writing something on a slip of paper and handing it to one of the players. It is an old evil DM's trick, but one that still works amazingly well.
Another thing that it allows me to do, is to have more time to think about the player characters actions before responding. Being able to see what the PCs say in an email before I react to it, gives me an amount of time that I am unaccustomed to. This can be both a benefit and a curse, as it can lead to over thinking things before reacting. Such over thinking can lead to contrived and unrealistic responses, if the DM is not careful.
All in all, the Internet is a fantastic tool to aid your games, when used in moderation. Purely Play be Email games, lose a great deal of the face to face interactions that make tabletop RPGs the unique form of entertainment that they are, but when used as support that tabletop experience, email can aid in providing a richer and fuller experience to both DMs and PCs.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
RPGs in the Secondary Market.
I have been spending a lot of time on Ebay in the last week, both as a buyer and as a Seller. It should come as no surprise to anyone what most of what I am buying and selling are RPG books, primarily 1st and 2nd edition AD&D books. There are a few things that I would like to point out to the general populace about AD&D books in the secondary market.
1) Not Every book is "Rare!". It makes me laugh every time I see this denotation on a book like the 2nd edition players handbook, particularly when there are at least ten other auctions for the exact same book. There are truly some rare AD&D books out there, but you should really do some research about which ones are, before you begin throwing that particular descriptor around.
2) Gamers, in general, have an amazing amount of discretionary income. You will have your auction sniped, and see books that you want go for many times what you think they are worth. If you are hunting for one specific book, you are most likely going to have to be patient, or be willing to throw the kind of money down that the other fanboys are, which can be a very expensive process depending on the kind of books you are hunting.
3) The best auctions are done by people who are not gamers. Often people will be selling a book collection they found in someone's attic or as part of some sort of estate sale. These people will usually know nothing of what they are actually selling, and will typically sell things in a big lot. You may have to purchase things that you already own to get that one special book that is in the lot, but you can always sell the ones you don't want yourself and make some of the money back.
4) The best time to purchase items, is when an edition change is made. I can remember when 3.0 came out, I was able to buy some peoples entire 2nd edition collections from them for less than $100. People tend to gravitate to the next new thing, and generally make decisions about getting rid of their old stuff in a very impulsive manner. I recommend taking advantage of those impulses and shear the sheep for whatever they let you. :)
The sad thing about continuing to play old school games, is knowing that the days of being able to walk into a book or game store and simply purchase your gaming books is long past. We have no real choice than to depend on sites like ebay and amazon to help build our collections and to replace books that have been ravaged by time. It is heartening to me, however, to see that auctions for these games is still active. This may be the biggest sign of the life of the old school games.
1) Not Every book is "Rare!". It makes me laugh every time I see this denotation on a book like the 2nd edition players handbook, particularly when there are at least ten other auctions for the exact same book. There are truly some rare AD&D books out there, but you should really do some research about which ones are, before you begin throwing that particular descriptor around.
2) Gamers, in general, have an amazing amount of discretionary income. You will have your auction sniped, and see books that you want go for many times what you think they are worth. If you are hunting for one specific book, you are most likely going to have to be patient, or be willing to throw the kind of money down that the other fanboys are, which can be a very expensive process depending on the kind of books you are hunting.
3) The best auctions are done by people who are not gamers. Often people will be selling a book collection they found in someone's attic or as part of some sort of estate sale. These people will usually know nothing of what they are actually selling, and will typically sell things in a big lot. You may have to purchase things that you already own to get that one special book that is in the lot, but you can always sell the ones you don't want yourself and make some of the money back.
4) The best time to purchase items, is when an edition change is made. I can remember when 3.0 came out, I was able to buy some peoples entire 2nd edition collections from them for less than $100. People tend to gravitate to the next new thing, and generally make decisions about getting rid of their old stuff in a very impulsive manner. I recommend taking advantage of those impulses and shear the sheep for whatever they let you. :)
The sad thing about continuing to play old school games, is knowing that the days of being able to walk into a book or game store and simply purchase your gaming books is long past. We have no real choice than to depend on sites like ebay and amazon to help build our collections and to replace books that have been ravaged by time. It is heartening to me, however, to see that auctions for these games is still active. This may be the biggest sign of the life of the old school games.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
For every action...
In a roleplaying game, the DM has the responsibility to have the world react to the actions of the characters. Good games have rules for a certain amount this this reaction, typically when in combat or involving skills. It is important for a DM to utilize these rules to help make those reactions fair and fun, but what happens when the action/reaction is something that is completely outside of the mechanics of the game.
In a recent game session, one of my characters sought out a teacher to learn mastery of the Bastard Sword. Now in the game world, the bastard sword is a brutal weapon created by a barbaric human race called the Orla. (Think viking) So after consulting a sage, this character was directed to a powerful Orlan Barbarian by the name of Dolf. [Keep in mind that this character is Chaotic Good alignment.] Dolf was described as the Butcher of a certain naval fleet, and generally a not nice person. However this character decided to seek Dolf out and train with him anyway.
The Orlan warrior code holds that one must either learn to kill or learn to die, and so this is what Dolf sought to teach him. Dolf forced the character to fight and kill wave after wave of men, had him chased through the island by wild beasts, each time forcing him to rely solely on his ability to kill to keep him alive. At the end, Dolf had one final test. The character was taken to a peaceful village who worshipped the goddess of Fertility. He was told that he must enter the town, and retrieve the temples Icon, without speaking to anyone, if he did not Dolf would loose his barbarians on the island. The character did as Dolf asked, and after killing two guards, who were no match for him at all, he arrived at the temple. There he saw a young priestess clutching the icon, and praying. He attempted to take the icon from the girl, but she would not let go. So he punched her in the head, killing her, and spilling her blood on the sacred icon of the temple.
Now this is where the DM must come up with a reaction. No where in the rules is there any mechanics dealing with angering a god, unless you are a cleric of that god. But it is obvious to me, in a world where the Gods are acting forces, that such a blasphemy could not go unanswered. My answer was to have the Goddess curse the character, so that his healing ability has begun to slow, and unless he acts to atone he will eventually sicken and die. I chose to have this curse manifest mechanically, in not allowing him any bonuses to magical healing, and after a month he will take increasing levels of permanent damage each week until he either atones or dies.
Now, this illustrates what I consider a very important balancing act when determining these sorts of reactions. Firstly, the DM wants to have the consequences of the action be something that will grab the characters attention. Secondly, it is important that the reaction be appropriate and logical, at least within the logic of the game world. Lastly, the reaction should be something that gives the Character a chance to continue playing, even if they risk the characters death. In this case, threatening the fighters health is appropriate as he is being cursed by the Goddess connected with life and growth, it is something that is important to him and therefore something that will get his attention; and the time table in which is acts gives him a chance to reverse his fortunes.
The best part of setting up a reaction like this, is that it provides room for the campaign and the character in question to grow. Depending on how he chooses to engage this new challenge, this curse can be something that can provide a spring board to a whole new facet of the campaign. That is ultimately what the DMs responsibility is in these matters. We should aim to have each action open a new set of possibilities, rather than simply punishing the players for their actions, and having that be the sole effect of their choices.
In a recent game session, one of my characters sought out a teacher to learn mastery of the Bastard Sword. Now in the game world, the bastard sword is a brutal weapon created by a barbaric human race called the Orla. (Think viking) So after consulting a sage, this character was directed to a powerful Orlan Barbarian by the name of Dolf. [Keep in mind that this character is Chaotic Good alignment.] Dolf was described as the Butcher of a certain naval fleet, and generally a not nice person. However this character decided to seek Dolf out and train with him anyway.
The Orlan warrior code holds that one must either learn to kill or learn to die, and so this is what Dolf sought to teach him. Dolf forced the character to fight and kill wave after wave of men, had him chased through the island by wild beasts, each time forcing him to rely solely on his ability to kill to keep him alive. At the end, Dolf had one final test. The character was taken to a peaceful village who worshipped the goddess of Fertility. He was told that he must enter the town, and retrieve the temples Icon, without speaking to anyone, if he did not Dolf would loose his barbarians on the island. The character did as Dolf asked, and after killing two guards, who were no match for him at all, he arrived at the temple. There he saw a young priestess clutching the icon, and praying. He attempted to take the icon from the girl, but she would not let go. So he punched her in the head, killing her, and spilling her blood on the sacred icon of the temple.
Now this is where the DM must come up with a reaction. No where in the rules is there any mechanics dealing with angering a god, unless you are a cleric of that god. But it is obvious to me, in a world where the Gods are acting forces, that such a blasphemy could not go unanswered. My answer was to have the Goddess curse the character, so that his healing ability has begun to slow, and unless he acts to atone he will eventually sicken and die. I chose to have this curse manifest mechanically, in not allowing him any bonuses to magical healing, and after a month he will take increasing levels of permanent damage each week until he either atones or dies.
Now, this illustrates what I consider a very important balancing act when determining these sorts of reactions. Firstly, the DM wants to have the consequences of the action be something that will grab the characters attention. Secondly, it is important that the reaction be appropriate and logical, at least within the logic of the game world. Lastly, the reaction should be something that gives the Character a chance to continue playing, even if they risk the characters death. In this case, threatening the fighters health is appropriate as he is being cursed by the Goddess connected with life and growth, it is something that is important to him and therefore something that will get his attention; and the time table in which is acts gives him a chance to reverse his fortunes.
The best part of setting up a reaction like this, is that it provides room for the campaign and the character in question to grow. Depending on how he chooses to engage this new challenge, this curse can be something that can provide a spring board to a whole new facet of the campaign. That is ultimately what the DMs responsibility is in these matters. We should aim to have each action open a new set of possibilities, rather than simply punishing the players for their actions, and having that be the sole effect of their choices.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Slowly the World Unfolds.
One of the more interesting things about starting a new campaign world is seeing how the world is revealed by the player character's actions. Gorbaldin, being a very new world, has very little that I wrote up about it before the current campaign started. I had a few pages on the Gods, a single map, about a paragraph on each country and a page or two for each of the major races. Not a lot, particularly compared to my older world, Meaghana, which has hundreds of pages written about it, and its own Wiki.
Shortly before the campaign started, I also wrote some information about Danelaw, the town the first adventure would take place in. This consisted of little more than a list of names and locations. However since the players have made this town their defacto headquarters, the people and places of it have been fleshed out, in a way that I would not have without their actions.
Everywhere the players go adds more detail to the world. With each interaction that occurs in the campaign the world becomes a little more real. And this is, ideally, how it should be. In a good campaign, there should be a sense of discovery. This holds true for both the players and the Dm. This is the weakness that I feel that my older world has. I have been running on Meaghana for about 12 years now, and there are times when I feel that there is nothing new to discover there. While this is not entirely true, it is true that to maintain that level of discovery in an older world you do have to dig deeper and expend more energy to do so; energy that is in short supply with my current work and family obligations.
With Gorbaldin being a newer world, that sense of discovery is in full force, particularly regarding the characters and what they will make of themselves. On Meaghana, the first group of player characters went on to become a new generation of Gods, and as such had a major impact throughout the world. The Champions of Light (the current party that I am running on Gorbaldin) seem to have aspirations, and have been successful in making a small impact as the game goes, but it will be interesting to see where the game takes them, and in turn where they take the game.
Shortly before the campaign started, I also wrote some information about Danelaw, the town the first adventure would take place in. This consisted of little more than a list of names and locations. However since the players have made this town their defacto headquarters, the people and places of it have been fleshed out, in a way that I would not have without their actions.
Everywhere the players go adds more detail to the world. With each interaction that occurs in the campaign the world becomes a little more real. And this is, ideally, how it should be. In a good campaign, there should be a sense of discovery. This holds true for both the players and the Dm. This is the weakness that I feel that my older world has. I have been running on Meaghana for about 12 years now, and there are times when I feel that there is nothing new to discover there. While this is not entirely true, it is true that to maintain that level of discovery in an older world you do have to dig deeper and expend more energy to do so; energy that is in short supply with my current work and family obligations.
With Gorbaldin being a newer world, that sense of discovery is in full force, particularly regarding the characters and what they will make of themselves. On Meaghana, the first group of player characters went on to become a new generation of Gods, and as such had a major impact throughout the world. The Champions of Light (the current party that I am running on Gorbaldin) seem to have aspirations, and have been successful in making a small impact as the game goes, but it will be interesting to see where the game takes them, and in turn where they take the game.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The Irrational Hatred of Thaco
I spend quite a bit of time on old school gaming Forums, and have come to see something that is driving me crazy. The interchange usually goes something like this:
1st edition player: "2nd edition AD&D sucks!"
2nd edition player : "Why do you say that?"
1st editon player: "Because it had Thaco, and Thaco is lame."
Ignoring for a second that Thaco was actually present in 1st edition, this may be the single dumbest argument against any edition of Dungeons & Dragons that I have ever heard of. It is basically the equivilent of arguing that π is dumb, just because you can type 3.1415926...
Thaco is simply a shorthand way of notating the same basic combat tables that existed in 1st edition. Now if you dislike the changes that were made to certain classes, or the nearly innumerable splatbooks that came out for the system, that is one thing. But if the best thing you can come up with to hate on a system is that the shorthand notation for combat numbers is lame, then you really don't have much of a leg to stand on, in my opinion.
Somewhat tangentially, it amazes me that there is such a rabid disdain between players of 1st and 2nd edition. The games are very similar, so much so, that it is easy to use 1st edition books and adventures in 2nd edition, and vis versa. When you compare that to the differences between 2nd and 3rd, or even 3rd and 4th, the differences are hardly noticable, and definately not enough to cause the kind of split within the community that seems present on most of the old school forums.
Now I don't have problems with people discussing the different editions and their weaknesses (I'm looking at you 3.5), but when a little light edition bashing turns into personal attacks, it makes the entire community look like argumentative, petty, douchbags. I wish everyone would try to remember that at the end of the day, as gamers there is far more that unites us than divides us, regardless of which edition you play.
1st edition player: "2nd edition AD&D sucks!"
2nd edition player : "Why do you say that?"
1st editon player: "Because it had Thaco, and Thaco is lame."
Ignoring for a second that Thaco was actually present in 1st edition, this may be the single dumbest argument against any edition of Dungeons & Dragons that I have ever heard of. It is basically the equivilent of arguing that π is dumb, just because you can type 3.1415926...
Thaco is simply a shorthand way of notating the same basic combat tables that existed in 1st edition. Now if you dislike the changes that were made to certain classes, or the nearly innumerable splatbooks that came out for the system, that is one thing. But if the best thing you can come up with to hate on a system is that the shorthand notation for combat numbers is lame, then you really don't have much of a leg to stand on, in my opinion.
Somewhat tangentially, it amazes me that there is such a rabid disdain between players of 1st and 2nd edition. The games are very similar, so much so, that it is easy to use 1st edition books and adventures in 2nd edition, and vis versa. When you compare that to the differences between 2nd and 3rd, or even 3rd and 4th, the differences are hardly noticable, and definately not enough to cause the kind of split within the community that seems present on most of the old school forums.
Now I don't have problems with people discussing the different editions and their weaknesses (I'm looking at you 3.5), but when a little light edition bashing turns into personal attacks, it makes the entire community look like argumentative, petty, douchbags. I wish everyone would try to remember that at the end of the day, as gamers there is far more that unites us than divides us, regardless of which edition you play.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
24 hours in a day, and still no time...
Before I get started today, I want to explain why this post is later than my usual Monday post time. This weekend I went to the hospital with heart trouble. After spending the weekend in the hospital, I discovered that I am in for a medicine regimen followed by one of two procedures designed to restart the electric pulses in my heart. Needless to say, this kind of news does not leave one a whole lot of time to think about gaming matters.
Which leads me to my topic for today: Time and Gaming. When I was younger, I ran several games a week, played in at least one, and had sessions that averaged 10 hours per game. Today, I have a job, a baby and other responsibilities that only allow me to play 4 weeks out of six, for an average of 5 hours a session. (Not counting the time during the session that the baby needs attention)
I am finding it somewhat difficult to get used to this reduced time. I had gotten spoiled by the ability to keep playing until the adventure was done. Now, I am left with two choices: plan shorter adventures, or be willing to end the session in the middle of an adventure. Mostly I have tried the former, but there is something unsatisfying about forcing your adventures into a pre-set time limit. (Unless you are running games at a convention, as those can be quite fun). So I find myself wanting to attempt the other tactic more.
The main difficulty in breaking a session in the middle of an adventure, is that everyone (players and GM) can have trouble remembering where you left off. I am not only talking about what room of the dungeon the party is in, but things like pieces of puzzles or clues can become much less important over a week long break. I am considering combating this problem with a group email sent out the day before the session reminding everyone of the important bullet points of the last session. While this could prove effective, it is another drain on my time.
The benefit of this method is that I will have more control over the pacing of the adventure. If I do not have to focus on finishing an adventure at a certain time, I can feel more comfortable in allowing each encounter or RP scene to unfold itself. This is the way that I have always liked to run my games, and much of the reason for the older sessions having 10+ hour run times, and it will be nice to be able to have that feeling again.
The other thing to consider when drawing out your adventures over multiple sessions, is when and how to award Experience. I have always been a big believer in awarding XP at the end of each session. With a multi-session adventure there are things to think about. For example: what happens when a PC levels up at the end of a session, will if break suspension of disbelief for a character to develop new abilities from one room to the next? The other thing to consider is that the XP totals for each session will be lower, seeing as the party is only getting story XP and quest XP every few sessions. It is important to be clear with your players about this, as the impression of slow advancement may lead them to losing interest.
Pacing is a difficult skill for any DM to master, and one that I am finding that I need to relearn as more of my time is eaten up by life. My hope is that by re-examining both the way I run my games, and the way that I plan for them, that I can maximize my time and continue providing an entertaining gaming experience for all.
Which leads me to my topic for today: Time and Gaming. When I was younger, I ran several games a week, played in at least one, and had sessions that averaged 10 hours per game. Today, I have a job, a baby and other responsibilities that only allow me to play 4 weeks out of six, for an average of 5 hours a session. (Not counting the time during the session that the baby needs attention)
I am finding it somewhat difficult to get used to this reduced time. I had gotten spoiled by the ability to keep playing until the adventure was done. Now, I am left with two choices: plan shorter adventures, or be willing to end the session in the middle of an adventure. Mostly I have tried the former, but there is something unsatisfying about forcing your adventures into a pre-set time limit. (Unless you are running games at a convention, as those can be quite fun). So I find myself wanting to attempt the other tactic more.
The main difficulty in breaking a session in the middle of an adventure, is that everyone (players and GM) can have trouble remembering where you left off. I am not only talking about what room of the dungeon the party is in, but things like pieces of puzzles or clues can become much less important over a week long break. I am considering combating this problem with a group email sent out the day before the session reminding everyone of the important bullet points of the last session. While this could prove effective, it is another drain on my time.
The benefit of this method is that I will have more control over the pacing of the adventure. If I do not have to focus on finishing an adventure at a certain time, I can feel more comfortable in allowing each encounter or RP scene to unfold itself. This is the way that I have always liked to run my games, and much of the reason for the older sessions having 10+ hour run times, and it will be nice to be able to have that feeling again.
The other thing to consider when drawing out your adventures over multiple sessions, is when and how to award Experience. I have always been a big believer in awarding XP at the end of each session. With a multi-session adventure there are things to think about. For example: what happens when a PC levels up at the end of a session, will if break suspension of disbelief for a character to develop new abilities from one room to the next? The other thing to consider is that the XP totals for each session will be lower, seeing as the party is only getting story XP and quest XP every few sessions. It is important to be clear with your players about this, as the impression of slow advancement may lead them to losing interest.
Pacing is a difficult skill for any DM to master, and one that I am finding that I need to relearn as more of my time is eaten up by life. My hope is that by re-examining both the way I run my games, and the way that I plan for them, that I can maximize my time and continue providing an entertaining gaming experience for all.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Tweaking your Setting
As I have discussed before, I run games primarily in one of two home brewed campaign settings: Meaghana and Gorbaldin. I have spent some time before talking about my different approaches to creating and running these settings, and today I would like to continue that topic by looking at how I have allowed for these campaigns to grow and change.
On Meaghana, I have, for the most part, allowed any large change to come as the result of player action. By that I mean that I created the world and the only major changes that I have made in it have been due to the characters accomplishing (or sometimes failing to accomplish) things that they have set out to do. Example: On Meaghana, there was originally a pantheon of 9 gods, one for each of the alignments in 2e D&D. Through the two campaigns, the actions of the player characters elevated a number of them to Godhood, leading to a major change in the pantheon, with some of the original Gods being killed and being replaced by the Characters.
Secondly on Meaghana, I have made all these changes additive. Meaning that when a change is made that it is added on to, or changes what already exists. The benefit of this approach is that it aids in the world seeming real. There is a history of the world that is well known and can be discovered by the characters. It also allows for the players to feel like they are important parts of the world and that their actions have meaning. Both of these I think are important facets of a campaign world, but there is also a downside to them. With this amount of history, it can be difficult for new players to enter into the campaign world.
With Gorbaldin, being a newer campaign world, I am tempted to make some modifications in a different manner. Some of the changes that I want to make, particularly to the pantheon, would not be possible to do in the same manner that changes come to Meaghana. As such, I am contemplating simply altering a few things about the game world, and saying that it has always been like that, a move known in the comic world as a Retcon (Retroactive Continuity). Now, when making this kind of change there are some things that you must be aware of. First of all, you should not attempt to Retcon any part of your world that the players have already engaged. Example: If you were to retcon the existence of the God that the party's cleric follows, you are likely going to annoy that player, who then has to choose a new deity for his character to follow, and try to make it make sense with how they have played their characters thus far.
Secondly, Retcons must be used wisely and sparingly. If you begin to retcon something new every few weeks, you will get to the point where your players stop caring about the world. If they see that anything can be changed simply by your whim, they will eventually stop trying to make any sort of meaningful additions to the game world. This will result in your campaign world becoming stale, something to be avoided.
It is one of the most difficult jobs of a DM to create a world that remains engaging to the players while at the same time creating one that they are happy with. Sometimes to maintain that balance, the DM needs to make changes to the campaign world, both large and small. It is important however to remember that the players are also your audience, and to make whatever changes are needed in a manner that will not disappoint them, or distract from their enjoyment of the campaign world.
On Meaghana, I have, for the most part, allowed any large change to come as the result of player action. By that I mean that I created the world and the only major changes that I have made in it have been due to the characters accomplishing (or sometimes failing to accomplish) things that they have set out to do. Example: On Meaghana, there was originally a pantheon of 9 gods, one for each of the alignments in 2e D&D. Through the two campaigns, the actions of the player characters elevated a number of them to Godhood, leading to a major change in the pantheon, with some of the original Gods being killed and being replaced by the Characters.
Secondly on Meaghana, I have made all these changes additive. Meaning that when a change is made that it is added on to, or changes what already exists. The benefit of this approach is that it aids in the world seeming real. There is a history of the world that is well known and can be discovered by the characters. It also allows for the players to feel like they are important parts of the world and that their actions have meaning. Both of these I think are important facets of a campaign world, but there is also a downside to them. With this amount of history, it can be difficult for new players to enter into the campaign world.
With Gorbaldin, being a newer campaign world, I am tempted to make some modifications in a different manner. Some of the changes that I want to make, particularly to the pantheon, would not be possible to do in the same manner that changes come to Meaghana. As such, I am contemplating simply altering a few things about the game world, and saying that it has always been like that, a move known in the comic world as a Retcon (Retroactive Continuity). Now, when making this kind of change there are some things that you must be aware of. First of all, you should not attempt to Retcon any part of your world that the players have already engaged. Example: If you were to retcon the existence of the God that the party's cleric follows, you are likely going to annoy that player, who then has to choose a new deity for his character to follow, and try to make it make sense with how they have played their characters thus far.
Secondly, Retcons must be used wisely and sparingly. If you begin to retcon something new every few weeks, you will get to the point where your players stop caring about the world. If they see that anything can be changed simply by your whim, they will eventually stop trying to make any sort of meaningful additions to the game world. This will result in your campaign world becoming stale, something to be avoided.
It is one of the most difficult jobs of a DM to create a world that remains engaging to the players while at the same time creating one that they are happy with. Sometimes to maintain that balance, the DM needs to make changes to the campaign world, both large and small. It is important however to remember that the players are also your audience, and to make whatever changes are needed in a manner that will not disappoint them, or distract from their enjoyment of the campaign world.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The Danger of Miniatures
As most of you know I have recently returned to playing 2nd edition D&D after a long stint playing 4th edition. Forth edition is a very solid game, mechanically, but it does require the use of miniatures more than any other edition of the game so far. I don't want to say that this is a totally bad thing. I love pulling out my Dwarven Forge Dungeon sets, and filling a table with miniatures as much as the next guy. However, I have noticed the effect that this has had on the way we game in general and that is that I want to talk about today.
When I was younger, I used to play D&D with nearly nothing for miniatures. When they were absolutely needed, we would sometimes just use dice to represent where each character was in relation to each other. Generally, we were able to keep things straight in our heads. This did sometimes lead to confusion, but it also lead to a more free form way of looking at combats and promoted more general creativity in the players actions.
Since we began playing 4th edition, I had noticed a tendency to be more concerned about squares of movement and spell areas and more concrete rules. This seemed to limit (or at very least downplay) creativity in player actions. When their turn came around, the players were busy counting the squares of movement to reach the next enemy and rarely came up with the sort of off the wall ideas that characterized games in my youth.
I do not want to remove miniatures from the game, as I feel that they are nice to help avoid confusion, as well as aiding in immersion when everyone can see what your character looks like. (Not to mention that painting miniatures is a lot of fun.) So to combat this, I have told my players that the minis and battle mats we are using are purely relational. By that I mean, I am not focusing on counting squares of movement, and I am more eyeballing the area of effects for spells and the like. This change in focus has helped them break from the board a little. My players are spending less time counting squares and more time focusing on playing their characters.
Like many hobbies, Gaming can suffer from too great a reliance on accessories. It is important that the players and DM remember that those accessories are only there to support the purpose of the game: to have fun. When the accessories threaten to limit that fun, instead of support it, then it is the DMs job to change the way he is doing things to bring the focus back where it belongs.
When I was younger, I used to play D&D with nearly nothing for miniatures. When they were absolutely needed, we would sometimes just use dice to represent where each character was in relation to each other. Generally, we were able to keep things straight in our heads. This did sometimes lead to confusion, but it also lead to a more free form way of looking at combats and promoted more general creativity in the players actions.
Since we began playing 4th edition, I had noticed a tendency to be more concerned about squares of movement and spell areas and more concrete rules. This seemed to limit (or at very least downplay) creativity in player actions. When their turn came around, the players were busy counting the squares of movement to reach the next enemy and rarely came up with the sort of off the wall ideas that characterized games in my youth.
I do not want to remove miniatures from the game, as I feel that they are nice to help avoid confusion, as well as aiding in immersion when everyone can see what your character looks like. (Not to mention that painting miniatures is a lot of fun.) So to combat this, I have told my players that the minis and battle mats we are using are purely relational. By that I mean, I am not focusing on counting squares of movement, and I am more eyeballing the area of effects for spells and the like. This change in focus has helped them break from the board a little. My players are spending less time counting squares and more time focusing on playing their characters.
Like many hobbies, Gaming can suffer from too great a reliance on accessories. It is important that the players and DM remember that those accessories are only there to support the purpose of the game: to have fun. When the accessories threaten to limit that fun, instead of support it, then it is the DMs job to change the way he is doing things to bring the focus back where it belongs.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Dice: Fickle Gods of Fate.
The vast majority of gamers that I have met have been rational, sensible and reasonable people, with one exception: their dice. Talk with almost any gamer about their dice and you will likely hear any number of superstitions about how they get their dice to roll well, or a horror story about how they have been betrayed by those very same dice.
Before I begin a general discussion of dice superstitions and their impact, I want to come clean about my own superstitions. While I understand that dice are designed to operate within well understood laws of probability, I hold to the following dice superstitions.
1) I roll better with dice that are cool-colored, preferably blue or purple. (Exception: Any die that is precisely the color of Mountain Dew is a player killer in my hands, and generally useless whenever I am not the DM)
2) Dice roll better after being charged. (Set on a flat surface with their highest number showing)
3) Dice roll better when they are part of a complete 7 die set.
4) Borrowed dice never roll as well as dice you own.
Right now, the non-gamers reading this are shaking their heads in disbelief. You are likely asking yourself how I came to such outrageous superstitions. First, I will state that as far as dice superstitions go, mine are fairly minor. I have seen people have specific "time out bags" for dice that are behaving badly, and even my wife buys a new set of dice for each character she plays and retires that set when she finishes playing that character. (She does the same with her miniatures, so we have a small shrine of her old characters and their dice in our bedroom)
As far as how those superstitions came to be, this is the crux of today's post. Roleplaying is very different from any other kind of game that one can play. I have played monopoly hundreds of times, and yet I don't have any special attachment to the sportscar piece. However, each character that I have played (and many of the NPCs) have been brought to life in such a way that I truly come to care for them as my creations. I think this added level of attachment is the foundation of many of the superstitions that gamers develop.
Dice represent the hand of fate, the one force that the player and their character has no influence over. Many times, I have seen a beloved character die due to die rolls. In such situations, it is very easy to put the dice into the role of the villain who mercilessly struck down a favored character. Spend any time in a gaming convention or a game shop and you will likely hear something to the effect of, "Those dice got me killed." It is easy to blame the dice when bad things happen, and many players will begin to take steps to combat that in the only way they can: superstitions.
It usually starts with a single event: a specific die roll coming out just as the player needs in a bad situation. It can then become a favored die, or whatever the player did with that die before the roll can become a lucky charm, and before long you are only playing with dice of a certain color, in full sets and charging them before rolling them.
The last thing I want to touch on, regarding this topic is, dice etiquette. As you can imagine, with the prevelence of supersitions among players how you treat the dice of other players can be a source of tension in a game. To combat this, I have always supported the following rules of dice etiquette.
1) Do not touch another player's dice without permission.
2) Do not mock another player's supersitions.
3) Be quiet when another player is rolling, specifically in high tension situations.
These are the three big rules that serve in most situations. There is nothing worse than a player constantly rolling your dice, or running their mouth when you are trying to make that one crucial roll. Keeping both the supersitions of your fellow players, and the general rules of etiquette in mind will help to make sure you are the kind of player that people will want to keep inviting back to game.
Before I begin a general discussion of dice superstitions and their impact, I want to come clean about my own superstitions. While I understand that dice are designed to operate within well understood laws of probability, I hold to the following dice superstitions.
1) I roll better with dice that are cool-colored, preferably blue or purple. (Exception: Any die that is precisely the color of Mountain Dew is a player killer in my hands, and generally useless whenever I am not the DM)
2) Dice roll better after being charged. (Set on a flat surface with their highest number showing)
3) Dice roll better when they are part of a complete 7 die set.
4) Borrowed dice never roll as well as dice you own.
Right now, the non-gamers reading this are shaking their heads in disbelief. You are likely asking yourself how I came to such outrageous superstitions. First, I will state that as far as dice superstitions go, mine are fairly minor. I have seen people have specific "time out bags" for dice that are behaving badly, and even my wife buys a new set of dice for each character she plays and retires that set when she finishes playing that character. (She does the same with her miniatures, so we have a small shrine of her old characters and their dice in our bedroom)
As far as how those superstitions came to be, this is the crux of today's post. Roleplaying is very different from any other kind of game that one can play. I have played monopoly hundreds of times, and yet I don't have any special attachment to the sportscar piece. However, each character that I have played (and many of the NPCs) have been brought to life in such a way that I truly come to care for them as my creations. I think this added level of attachment is the foundation of many of the superstitions that gamers develop.
Dice represent the hand of fate, the one force that the player and their character has no influence over. Many times, I have seen a beloved character die due to die rolls. In such situations, it is very easy to put the dice into the role of the villain who mercilessly struck down a favored character. Spend any time in a gaming convention or a game shop and you will likely hear something to the effect of, "Those dice got me killed." It is easy to blame the dice when bad things happen, and many players will begin to take steps to combat that in the only way they can: superstitions.
It usually starts with a single event: a specific die roll coming out just as the player needs in a bad situation. It can then become a favored die, or whatever the player did with that die before the roll can become a lucky charm, and before long you are only playing with dice of a certain color, in full sets and charging them before rolling them.
The last thing I want to touch on, regarding this topic is, dice etiquette. As you can imagine, with the prevelence of supersitions among players how you treat the dice of other players can be a source of tension in a game. To combat this, I have always supported the following rules of dice etiquette.
1) Do not touch another player's dice without permission.
2) Do not mock another player's supersitions.
3) Be quiet when another player is rolling, specifically in high tension situations.
These are the three big rules that serve in most situations. There is nothing worse than a player constantly rolling your dice, or running their mouth when you are trying to make that one crucial roll. Keeping both the supersitions of your fellow players, and the general rules of etiquette in mind will help to make sure you are the kind of player that people will want to keep inviting back to game.
Monday, August 1, 2011
New Beginnings
On July 27th at 12:01pm, my life changed forever. My Daughter: Simoné Alexandra Merritt was born. I have been a writer and a game master for many years, and I still don't have the words to explain just how amazing that moment was. I mention her, in this context, because I plan on sharing my love of gaming with her, and it serves as a good segway into today's topic: New Players.
As a DM, I have always considered it my responsibility to share my love of gaming with new players. Introducing new players to the hobby can be a pleasure and a privlege, but it is not always without its problems. To make the process as easy as possible it is best to remember a few important pieces of advice.
1) Remember that RPGs are complicated. Even though it only takes you a few seconds thought to determine the modifiers for attacking a prone enemy from hiding when you have the high ground, you should not expect all new players to pick up on the game's mechanics so easily. I recommend slowly introducing the rules to new players, preferably in easy to understand chunks to give them the time to acclimate themselves to the system. Start with the basic rules, then focus on any specific rules the player needs to run their class. From there, I would slowly add the remaining rules to give the new player time to add them to their knowledge base.
2) Fantasy does not mean the same to eveyone. Do not expect the new players to have the same understanding of conceptual things as you do. When you say 'elf' they may be thinking 'keebler', or worse yet, may think "Twilight" when you say "Vampire." It will help to make the player's onboarding easier if you take some time to explain how these things are in your game. It leads to less confusion in the long run.
3) Let them participate. I have seen a number of DMs run games for new players, and on the new players turn, the GM tells them what to do, what dice to roll and what happens without any real imput from the player. While this was helpful in showing the new player the mechanics of the game, the true magic of Roleplaying is becoming involved in the game and bringing the characters to life. This cannot happen if the players are not allowed to contribute.
4) RPGs are not for everyone. Some people find them boring, or don't understand them. Some people just lack the social graces to work well in the group dynamics that RPGs call for. The important thing here is for the DM to try to present the game to the new player as best he can, but be willing to recognize when it isn't working out and pull the plug if needed. While it is wonderful to bring in a new player, pushing a game on someone that doesn't like it just wastes everyone's time. And you don't want to be the guy who brings in the new player that reeks and acts like a jerk to everyone. It is not appropriate to lose current players, to bring a new one into the hobby.
5) Be a Gaming Ambassador. I believe that a player reflects on their first DM. It is the responsibility of that DM to help the player get off on the right foot, and to give them an understanding not only of that DMs specific game, but of the hobby as a whole. Take time to let the player know that not all DMs run things like you do, and point out specifically whenever you use a house rule. That way, if the new player continues playing with other groups, or even goes to a convention, they will not have the wrong preconceptions and expect everyone to run things like you do. Help them understand general gamer etiquette, so that they can be prepared to go out into the world of RPGs and not make a fool of themselves.
New players can be a breath of fresh air to a campaign, and should be sought out and fostered whenever possible. So I challenge all the gamers out there to invite new players into the hobby. At worst, you spend a potentially confusing evening with a friend, and at best you light the spark of love for a wonderful hobby, in a brand new gamer.
As a DM, I have always considered it my responsibility to share my love of gaming with new players. Introducing new players to the hobby can be a pleasure and a privlege, but it is not always without its problems. To make the process as easy as possible it is best to remember a few important pieces of advice.
1) Remember that RPGs are complicated. Even though it only takes you a few seconds thought to determine the modifiers for attacking a prone enemy from hiding when you have the high ground, you should not expect all new players to pick up on the game's mechanics so easily. I recommend slowly introducing the rules to new players, preferably in easy to understand chunks to give them the time to acclimate themselves to the system. Start with the basic rules, then focus on any specific rules the player needs to run their class. From there, I would slowly add the remaining rules to give the new player time to add them to their knowledge base.
2) Fantasy does not mean the same to eveyone. Do not expect the new players to have the same understanding of conceptual things as you do. When you say 'elf' they may be thinking 'keebler', or worse yet, may think "Twilight" when you say "Vampire." It will help to make the player's onboarding easier if you take some time to explain how these things are in your game. It leads to less confusion in the long run.
3) Let them participate. I have seen a number of DMs run games for new players, and on the new players turn, the GM tells them what to do, what dice to roll and what happens without any real imput from the player. While this was helpful in showing the new player the mechanics of the game, the true magic of Roleplaying is becoming involved in the game and bringing the characters to life. This cannot happen if the players are not allowed to contribute.
4) RPGs are not for everyone. Some people find them boring, or don't understand them. Some people just lack the social graces to work well in the group dynamics that RPGs call for. The important thing here is for the DM to try to present the game to the new player as best he can, but be willing to recognize when it isn't working out and pull the plug if needed. While it is wonderful to bring in a new player, pushing a game on someone that doesn't like it just wastes everyone's time. And you don't want to be the guy who brings in the new player that reeks and acts like a jerk to everyone. It is not appropriate to lose current players, to bring a new one into the hobby.
5) Be a Gaming Ambassador. I believe that a player reflects on their first DM. It is the responsibility of that DM to help the player get off on the right foot, and to give them an understanding not only of that DMs specific game, but of the hobby as a whole. Take time to let the player know that not all DMs run things like you do, and point out specifically whenever you use a house rule. That way, if the new player continues playing with other groups, or even goes to a convention, they will not have the wrong preconceptions and expect everyone to run things like you do. Help them understand general gamer etiquette, so that they can be prepared to go out into the world of RPGs and not make a fool of themselves.
New players can be a breath of fresh air to a campaign, and should be sought out and fostered whenever possible. So I challenge all the gamers out there to invite new players into the hobby. At worst, you spend a potentially confusing evening with a friend, and at best you light the spark of love for a wonderful hobby, in a brand new gamer.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Importance of Friendly Local Game Stores
Gaming, like any hobby, requires its own set of paraphernalia: Game Books, Miniatures, Dice, Play Mats and any number of other supplies. Friendly Local Game Stores (FLGS) supply these, but so to do any number of online sources.
But I feel that FLGS's do more than that. They provide a place for gamers to congregate and interact with others who share our hobby. I can't count the number of times that I have gone into a normal bookstore to buy gaming supplies and have had the employees there look at me like I was some sort of freak. I clearly remember going into Barnes & Nobels to buy a D&D book and had the girl behind the counter ask me, "So, you play D&D?" in the same tone of voice that she would have asked, "So, you eat human flesh?"
All people strive for a sense of community with like minded individuals, and a FLGS is the heart of that sort of community. Not only does it give us a place to gather, but also aids in bringing new gamers into the hobby, thereby insuring the survival of Gaming. It is important for us, as gamers, to recognize its importance; particularly today, when most gamers can find the products that a FLGS sell for a lower price online. It is important for gamers to give patronage to these small buisnesses, not just because they supply us with the supplies we need for our hobby, but also for the place they hold in maintaining the general health of gaming in our area.
Today, I discovered a new FLGS in the Greensboro Area: The Grinning Gamer. Located at 2416A Spring Garden St, The Grinning Gamer is everything I look for in a FLGS. Not only does it have a wonderful selection of games, minatures, dice and other gaming supplies, but the owner is a gamer himself. It is such a wonderful feeling to be able to purchase my gaming supplies and at the same time discuss the hobby with the shopkeep. Finally Greensboro has a truly friendly local game store again, and I call upon everyone to drop by and take a look at what they have to offer.
But I feel that FLGS's do more than that. They provide a place for gamers to congregate and interact with others who share our hobby. I can't count the number of times that I have gone into a normal bookstore to buy gaming supplies and have had the employees there look at me like I was some sort of freak. I clearly remember going into Barnes & Nobels to buy a D&D book and had the girl behind the counter ask me, "So, you play D&D?" in the same tone of voice that she would have asked, "So, you eat human flesh?"
All people strive for a sense of community with like minded individuals, and a FLGS is the heart of that sort of community. Not only does it give us a place to gather, but also aids in bringing new gamers into the hobby, thereby insuring the survival of Gaming. It is important for us, as gamers, to recognize its importance; particularly today, when most gamers can find the products that a FLGS sell for a lower price online. It is important for gamers to give patronage to these small buisnesses, not just because they supply us with the supplies we need for our hobby, but also for the place they hold in maintaining the general health of gaming in our area.
Today, I discovered a new FLGS in the Greensboro Area: The Grinning Gamer. Located at 2416A Spring Garden St, The Grinning Gamer is everything I look for in a FLGS. Not only does it have a wonderful selection of games, minatures, dice and other gaming supplies, but the owner is a gamer himself. It is such a wonderful feeling to be able to purchase my gaming supplies and at the same time discuss the hobby with the shopkeep. Finally Greensboro has a truly friendly local game store again, and I call upon everyone to drop by and take a look at what they have to offer.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Of Gods and Men
For those of you that didn't know, I hold a Bachelors Degree in Religious Studies. Much of my time in college revolved around the study and understanding of religion in a real world context. It is a subject that I find endlessly fascinating, and as one would expect, that interest bleeds into my D&D.
I almost always begin the creation of a D&D world with the Gods, and their relationship with Mortals. In my longer running game world, Meaghana, the Gods are a constant presence in the world. In addition to providing their faithful clerics and paladins with magical powers, the Gods themselves are often manifesting on the world to interact with mortals. It is a world where being an Atheist is nearly impossible. How can one disbelieve in the existence of the Gods when one came to dinner last Thursday. In addition to this, there is little room for faith in such a world. By that I am using the definition of Faith as belief lacking definitive proof. When the presence of the Gods is so obvious, one has knowledge not faith.
This may or may not seem an important distinction to some of you, but there are some major side effects to this sort of world. The most important, in my opinion, is the certitude it provides heroes with. If you know heaven exists (possibly because you used magic to go there for your last vacation), then the power of being willing to sacrifice your life for a cause is somewhat lessened. It is the fear of the unknown that makes death so frightening, and thus makes sacrificing your life such a heroic action. If you know, with absolute fact, that you are going to heaven, then there is no real sacrifice. And that is my definition of a hero, one who is willing to sacrifice for the greater good.
This brings me to my new game world: Gorbaldin. I have done my best to present a completely different view of Gods there. The only evidence of Gods are the powers wielded by their clergy. Now, it can be argued that clerical magic provides the same sort of proof, but I would argue that in a world of arcane magic and magical beasts that the source of this magic is much more in doubt. And in that doubt, faith is born. In Gorbaldin, no one knows with certainty how the world was made, or where the dead go when they die. Travel between the planes is basically unknown, and even the faithful of the individual Gods disagree with each other on matters of dogma and religious history.
In such a world, faith is paramount. And I believe that such faith, whether it be in Gods or simply in a philosophy, can provide an amazing depth and poignancy to the actions of the heroes. In addition, the creation of Religion, without the direct influence of a divine entity, tells us more about the people who brought about that religion and serves to flesh out the game world at a very human level. And it is this level that deserves the most fleshing out, as it is the level that your players, and their characters are engaged in.
I almost always begin the creation of a D&D world with the Gods, and their relationship with Mortals. In my longer running game world, Meaghana, the Gods are a constant presence in the world. In addition to providing their faithful clerics and paladins with magical powers, the Gods themselves are often manifesting on the world to interact with mortals. It is a world where being an Atheist is nearly impossible. How can one disbelieve in the existence of the Gods when one came to dinner last Thursday. In addition to this, there is little room for faith in such a world. By that I am using the definition of Faith as belief lacking definitive proof. When the presence of the Gods is so obvious, one has knowledge not faith.
This may or may not seem an important distinction to some of you, but there are some major side effects to this sort of world. The most important, in my opinion, is the certitude it provides heroes with. If you know heaven exists (possibly because you used magic to go there for your last vacation), then the power of being willing to sacrifice your life for a cause is somewhat lessened. It is the fear of the unknown that makes death so frightening, and thus makes sacrificing your life such a heroic action. If you know, with absolute fact, that you are going to heaven, then there is no real sacrifice. And that is my definition of a hero, one who is willing to sacrifice for the greater good.
This brings me to my new game world: Gorbaldin. I have done my best to present a completely different view of Gods there. The only evidence of Gods are the powers wielded by their clergy. Now, it can be argued that clerical magic provides the same sort of proof, but I would argue that in a world of arcane magic and magical beasts that the source of this magic is much more in doubt. And in that doubt, faith is born. In Gorbaldin, no one knows with certainty how the world was made, or where the dead go when they die. Travel between the planes is basically unknown, and even the faithful of the individual Gods disagree with each other on matters of dogma and religious history.
In such a world, faith is paramount. And I believe that such faith, whether it be in Gods or simply in a philosophy, can provide an amazing depth and poignancy to the actions of the heroes. In addition, the creation of Religion, without the direct influence of a divine entity, tells us more about the people who brought about that religion and serves to flesh out the game world at a very human level. And it is this level that deserves the most fleshing out, as it is the level that your players, and their characters are engaged in.
Friday, July 15, 2011
The Great Quest... the day after.
Tomorrow will be the first game back after a two week break. Normally, I would have spent a great deal of time preparing for such a session, but this time I have done almost nothing. Part of the reason for that is that I have been very busy lately, but the other part is that the next part of my game is going to be more free form than the first half has been.
Up to this point in the campaign, the characters (who call themselves "The Champions of Light") have been travelling across the country seeking "Tholand's Keep" the ancient capital of their province, that has been lost for three centuries. As such, the sessions had been fairly well planned out, with each adventure bringing them a step closer to their goal. Each of these steps were laid out with great detail, as I knew exactly what sorts of dangers the trip posed to the heroes and what kind of encounters were likely to spring from them.
Last session, they discovered the keep and slew the crystal dragon that had been using it as a terrarium for its magical creations. At the end of the session, they returned home to bask in the glory of their heroics. Their first great quest being over, the Characters are now dealing with the repercussions of what they have achieved. This marks a change in the pacing of the sessions, with there being less geographic borders between the parties activities.
From a DM's perspective, it is not so important, at this point, to understand exactly what dangers are where and plan specific encounters for the Characters, but rather to understand the motivations of the characters (both Player Characters and NPCs) to determine how the actions and reactions of the next part of the story will flow.
This demands a different type of preparation than simply designing and filling a dungeon. It is much easier to create encounters and build traps than it is to have conflict organically grow from the interactions between characters. As such, rather than sit around and write up encounters like I would for a dungeon scenario, I like to spend time thinking like the antagonists would. It doesn't even have to specifically be about the events of the game. If you can begin to understand how a specific character would think about every day things, you get a much better understanding of how they will react to the actions of the Player Characters.
This is particularly helpful in those times where the DM is unsure of what sort of momentum and direction the PCs will be providing. For example, I know that the wizard of our group, one Cartwicket Schepder, is working on building his library to begin performing spell research, and that the Fighter, Valorius Leontius, plans to seek out a Grandmaster of the Bastard Sword to learn from; but these are personal quests and I am unsure of the steps that the Characters will take to achieve them. So rather than plan a great deal of specifics that they party may never encounter, I have developed the world itself. This way I can react to the player's desires and better present them with a game that will engage those wants.
This is actually one of those points in the game where too much preparation can actually be a bad thing. A good GM must be open enough to go with the flow that the players present him with, overplanning, or more precisely the wrong kind of planning, can make it very hard to do that. It is better, in my mind, to use your planning time to create and solidify the world of the game setting, than to plan specific adventures and encounters. That way, you can be assured that you are presenting an internally consistant world that will allow you engage your players, and the aims of their characters.
Up to this point in the campaign, the characters (who call themselves "The Champions of Light") have been travelling across the country seeking "Tholand's Keep" the ancient capital of their province, that has been lost for three centuries. As such, the sessions had been fairly well planned out, with each adventure bringing them a step closer to their goal. Each of these steps were laid out with great detail, as I knew exactly what sorts of dangers the trip posed to the heroes and what kind of encounters were likely to spring from them.
Last session, they discovered the keep and slew the crystal dragon that had been using it as a terrarium for its magical creations. At the end of the session, they returned home to bask in the glory of their heroics. Their first great quest being over, the Characters are now dealing with the repercussions of what they have achieved. This marks a change in the pacing of the sessions, with there being less geographic borders between the parties activities.
From a DM's perspective, it is not so important, at this point, to understand exactly what dangers are where and plan specific encounters for the Characters, but rather to understand the motivations of the characters (both Player Characters and NPCs) to determine how the actions and reactions of the next part of the story will flow.
This demands a different type of preparation than simply designing and filling a dungeon. It is much easier to create encounters and build traps than it is to have conflict organically grow from the interactions between characters. As such, rather than sit around and write up encounters like I would for a dungeon scenario, I like to spend time thinking like the antagonists would. It doesn't even have to specifically be about the events of the game. If you can begin to understand how a specific character would think about every day things, you get a much better understanding of how they will react to the actions of the Player Characters.
This is particularly helpful in those times where the DM is unsure of what sort of momentum and direction the PCs will be providing. For example, I know that the wizard of our group, one Cartwicket Schepder, is working on building his library to begin performing spell research, and that the Fighter, Valorius Leontius, plans to seek out a Grandmaster of the Bastard Sword to learn from; but these are personal quests and I am unsure of the steps that the Characters will take to achieve them. So rather than plan a great deal of specifics that they party may never encounter, I have developed the world itself. This way I can react to the player's desires and better present them with a game that will engage those wants.
This is actually one of those points in the game where too much preparation can actually be a bad thing. A good GM must be open enough to go with the flow that the players present him with, overplanning, or more precisely the wrong kind of planning, can make it very hard to do that. It is better, in my mind, to use your planning time to create and solidify the world of the game setting, than to plan specific adventures and encounters. That way, you can be assured that you are presenting an internally consistant world that will allow you engage your players, and the aims of their characters.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Classes, Kits and the Individual
Ask any Dungeons & Dragons player (of any edition) about their character and you will, no doubt, hear the name of the class that they are playing in the first sentence or two. Since the beginning of D&D the character class has been a very important part of the characters, being the source of the vast majority of the characters abilities, as well as aiding in providing archetypes for the characters.
In the early editions of D&D, those that came before second edition, the character class was the only source of definition for a character other than their race. (and in the very early editions, some of what we know as Races were classes then, such as the Elf and Dwarf) This made for a very simple and intuitive system, but made it sometimes difficult to distinguish one member of a certain class from another.
Second edition made some of the first steps to combat this perceived problem, with the introduction of proficiencies and kits. Proficiencies allowed the characters to have different skills, that were chosen by the player, even though the number of those skills were based upon the characters class and level. This could allow for one fighter to be a blacksmith and armorer, while another had more woodland based skills like hunting and trapping. This was the first real attempt at a mechanical means of differentiating individuals within a class.
The introduction of Kits was the next big step that 2nd edition made. A kit was a set of options that a player could choose that would change some of the abilities of the class that their character had. These kits were organized by which class that could take them, and were built around specific themes. For example: The Swashbuckler kit (for the Thief class) allowed the thief better combat abilities with rapiers and parrying daggers, and gave them bonuses to acrobatic abilities.
To balance out these bonuses some of the kits had mechanical disadvantages and some had simple roleplaying disadvantages. This lead to one of the larger concerns about kits, that if a particular DM did not enforce the Roleplaying disadvantages, some of the kits were simply much more powerful than others. This is a discussion for another time, but it does go to show the begining of the arguments for game balance.
Third edition took this idea of individuality a giant step forward with the invention of Feats and a much more fleshed out skill system. However, the systems they used for this were generally clunky and, in my opinion, added far more bookkeeping and rules minutae that was really needed.
Fourth edtion, in an effort to fight against the clunky rules of the previous edition, took a giant step backward, and created a simplification of classes that is reminicent of nothing more than the basic versions of the game. It was not that individuals of a certain class were difficult to differentiate, but that the classes themselves were difficult to tell apart simply from their abilties. It was not until many sourcebooks later that the classes began to differentiate themselves, with the intoduction of different class systems.
I personally think that the most elegant way of approaching this problem has been the kit system. I will not argue that there is nothing wrong with this system, but its optional nature makes it great for those who want some extra help in making their character unique without forcing it on those who have no problems doing so without mechanical aid. And one of the best parts for me, as a DM, is that it is relatively simple to create new kits as their are needed to flesh out the campaign world.
Like everything in D&D, it does require a DM who is willing to put the work into understanding the system and discovering which parts of it fit his particular campaign, but if used correctly the Kit system can add a great deal of depth to your game.
In the early editions of D&D, those that came before second edition, the character class was the only source of definition for a character other than their race. (and in the very early editions, some of what we know as Races were classes then, such as the Elf and Dwarf) This made for a very simple and intuitive system, but made it sometimes difficult to distinguish one member of a certain class from another.
Second edition made some of the first steps to combat this perceived problem, with the introduction of proficiencies and kits. Proficiencies allowed the characters to have different skills, that were chosen by the player, even though the number of those skills were based upon the characters class and level. This could allow for one fighter to be a blacksmith and armorer, while another had more woodland based skills like hunting and trapping. This was the first real attempt at a mechanical means of differentiating individuals within a class.
The introduction of Kits was the next big step that 2nd edition made. A kit was a set of options that a player could choose that would change some of the abilities of the class that their character had. These kits were organized by which class that could take them, and were built around specific themes. For example: The Swashbuckler kit (for the Thief class) allowed the thief better combat abilities with rapiers and parrying daggers, and gave them bonuses to acrobatic abilities.
To balance out these bonuses some of the kits had mechanical disadvantages and some had simple roleplaying disadvantages. This lead to one of the larger concerns about kits, that if a particular DM did not enforce the Roleplaying disadvantages, some of the kits were simply much more powerful than others. This is a discussion for another time, but it does go to show the begining of the arguments for game balance.
Third edition took this idea of individuality a giant step forward with the invention of Feats and a much more fleshed out skill system. However, the systems they used for this were generally clunky and, in my opinion, added far more bookkeeping and rules minutae that was really needed.
Fourth edtion, in an effort to fight against the clunky rules of the previous edition, took a giant step backward, and created a simplification of classes that is reminicent of nothing more than the basic versions of the game. It was not that individuals of a certain class were difficult to differentiate, but that the classes themselves were difficult to tell apart simply from their abilties. It was not until many sourcebooks later that the classes began to differentiate themselves, with the intoduction of different class systems.
I personally think that the most elegant way of approaching this problem has been the kit system. I will not argue that there is nothing wrong with this system, but its optional nature makes it great for those who want some extra help in making their character unique without forcing it on those who have no problems doing so without mechanical aid. And one of the best parts for me, as a DM, is that it is relatively simple to create new kits as their are needed to flesh out the campaign world.
Like everything in D&D, it does require a DM who is willing to put the work into understanding the system and discovering which parts of it fit his particular campaign, but if used correctly the Kit system can add a great deal of depth to your game.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Power of Perception
One of the most important jobs of the DM during the game is to describe the world as the characters experience it. Being that this is the only way that the characters have of experiencing the world, it behooves the DM to be as accurate as possible. However, it is important to make the distinction between the world as it is and the world as the characters perceive it to be.
Characters, like any person, are not all knowing, all seeing beings; and there is alot of mystery that the DM can take advantage of by recognizing this. For instance, a DM can describe a encounter as: "You guys are jumped by three ogres. Roll initiative." or "Three large, dirty humanoids step out from the tree cover, threatening you with large clubs seemingly made from an uprooted tree."
In addition to the second description allowing for more immersion, it allows the DM to keep the nature of the encounter a secret. This forces the players to react more appropriately to what their characters would see rather than allowing them to draw upon out of character knowledge to handle the encounter. This is particularly important with creatures that have special weaknesses, such as trolls. If a DM says the word Troll, out comes the torches and acid flasks faster than you can say, "Roll for Initiative".
Particularly in the types of locations that adventurers find themselves, it is not easy to get a clear enough look at your enemies to identify them with certainty. By using this sort of preception difficulties the DM can add a level of uncertainty and tension to their encounters, and by doing so you can provide an added level of engagement for your players.
Characters, like any person, are not all knowing, all seeing beings; and there is alot of mystery that the DM can take advantage of by recognizing this. For instance, a DM can describe a encounter as: "You guys are jumped by three ogres. Roll initiative." or "Three large, dirty humanoids step out from the tree cover, threatening you with large clubs seemingly made from an uprooted tree."
In addition to the second description allowing for more immersion, it allows the DM to keep the nature of the encounter a secret. This forces the players to react more appropriately to what their characters would see rather than allowing them to draw upon out of character knowledge to handle the encounter. This is particularly important with creatures that have special weaknesses, such as trolls. If a DM says the word Troll, out comes the torches and acid flasks faster than you can say, "Roll for Initiative".
Particularly in the types of locations that adventurers find themselves, it is not easy to get a clear enough look at your enemies to identify them with certainty. By using this sort of preception difficulties the DM can add a level of uncertainty and tension to their encounters, and by doing so you can provide an added level of engagement for your players.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Power of the Screen!
One of the longstanding arguments between players and DMs has been the presence of the DM screen. Often the screen seems to be the focus of attention when players discuss unfair or overly controlling DMs, and many DMs see the screen as a symbol of the position.
As a DM, I have nearly always used a DMs screen, and I feel that the screens are an important tool for the DM to have, for a number of reasons. Firstly is simply a matter of convienence. A DM is required to make so many rulings during a game session that it helps to have easy access to some of the charts and tables for the game. The DMs screen is a great way to accomplish this. I am aware that this is the least contentious of the reasons that a DM might use a screen for.
Second, in both order of importance and contention, is that the DM needs a way to be able to reference his notes for the adventure without the players seeing them. Again, no real problems from players on this point.
The third and most problematic use for a DMs screen is to hide the DM's dice rolls. Being able to fudge dice rolls is a commonly accepted tool in the DM's arsenal, but can be a dangerous one if misused. In my mind, fudging die rolls should only be used for the betterment of the game. However, this is a concept that is difficult for people to agree on. Some DMs believe that altering die rolls to make the combats more difficult for the players is better, and others alter them so as to remove any chance of failure or death from the players.
My personal opinion is that a DM should only fudge rolls when it is pure luck that is destroying a party. For instance if the party is performing well and then the fighter gets hit with three consecutive criticals that kills him, I would be inclined to reduce the damage or even make one or more of the criticals into normal hits. This prevents the party from being destroyed by pure chance. However, if the party's tactics were at fault I would be less likely to fudge the results, feeling that they got themselves into the mess.
The problem with this is that players can be a suspicious lot, and with the dice rolls hidden there is no way for them to know how exactly the DM is fudging rolls, or even if he is. This can lead to a certain amount of resentment on the part of the players, particularly if things are going bad for them. On the other hand, bringing down the screen does make things more difficult for the DM, as well as taking away some of the power of the DMs position by removing the ability to make those fudged rolls, or even to make suprise rolls without the player's knoweldge.
I am of the school of thought that the position of the DM is one of authority, and should come with it a certain amount of respect from the players. The DM's screen is one of the symbols of that authority. The player's should respect that, and trust their DM to run a fair game, or they should find another DM that can play with that they can trust.
As a DM, I have nearly always used a DMs screen, and I feel that the screens are an important tool for the DM to have, for a number of reasons. Firstly is simply a matter of convienence. A DM is required to make so many rulings during a game session that it helps to have easy access to some of the charts and tables for the game. The DMs screen is a great way to accomplish this. I am aware that this is the least contentious of the reasons that a DM might use a screen for.
Second, in both order of importance and contention, is that the DM needs a way to be able to reference his notes for the adventure without the players seeing them. Again, no real problems from players on this point.
The third and most problematic use for a DMs screen is to hide the DM's dice rolls. Being able to fudge dice rolls is a commonly accepted tool in the DM's arsenal, but can be a dangerous one if misused. In my mind, fudging die rolls should only be used for the betterment of the game. However, this is a concept that is difficult for people to agree on. Some DMs believe that altering die rolls to make the combats more difficult for the players is better, and others alter them so as to remove any chance of failure or death from the players.
My personal opinion is that a DM should only fudge rolls when it is pure luck that is destroying a party. For instance if the party is performing well and then the fighter gets hit with three consecutive criticals that kills him, I would be inclined to reduce the damage or even make one or more of the criticals into normal hits. This prevents the party from being destroyed by pure chance. However, if the party's tactics were at fault I would be less likely to fudge the results, feeling that they got themselves into the mess.
The problem with this is that players can be a suspicious lot, and with the dice rolls hidden there is no way for them to know how exactly the DM is fudging rolls, or even if he is. This can lead to a certain amount of resentment on the part of the players, particularly if things are going bad for them. On the other hand, bringing down the screen does make things more difficult for the DM, as well as taking away some of the power of the DMs position by removing the ability to make those fudged rolls, or even to make suprise rolls without the player's knoweldge.
I am of the school of thought that the position of the DM is one of authority, and should come with it a certain amount of respect from the players. The DM's screen is one of the symbols of that authority. The player's should respect that, and trust their DM to run a fair game, or they should find another DM that can play with that they can trust.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Dangers and Rewards of Time Off
As I have said in earlier posts, my current work schedule prohibits me from playing every week as I had once been accustomed to. So far it has forced me to take two consecutive weeks off of gaming out of every six. This is not bad, and frankly was better than I expected, but it does present some difficulties, as well as some unintended benefits.
The difficult thing about having to take breaks is that it gives the players (and often the DM) the opportunity to forget things about the story. This is particularly a problem if the current plot is an intricate one, with many hints and twists. By being forced to take multiple weeks away from the game, the DM runs the risk of having those twists lost, or overlooked. Because of this, a summation of the game at the beginning of each session is essential. With a proper summation, a DM can keep things fresh in the players minds, even if it has been some weeks since the last game.
The other difficulty, and one that I am notorious for is changing interests. People can be fickle, both players and DMs. When the game takes too long a break it increases the likelyhood that someone is going to either lose interested in their campaign, or current character. This can prove disruptive to the game, particularly if it is the DM that begins to lose interest. I combat this by attempting to work on things for the game, even during periods when we are not playing. This can be something simple as some background info, or even create full-blown adventures. Just do something to keep your mind engaged with the current campaign.
The unintended benefit of this type of break is that it has given me more time to put together my plot and adventure ideas. By following the above suggestions, I have been putting together adventure ideas a few weeks ahead of the actual game progression, allowing for me to slowly unveil them. It lets me be more prepared if the Players go off the beaten track, as I already know what's out there.
Taking an occasional break can be good for both the players and the game, but it is the DM responsibility to help maintain the excitement level for both himself, and the players during this time, so as to not have the game drift apart. The DM must use the time off wisely, and come back strong to re-engage his players attentions, and keep the game moving after such a break.
The difficult thing about having to take breaks is that it gives the players (and often the DM) the opportunity to forget things about the story. This is particularly a problem if the current plot is an intricate one, with many hints and twists. By being forced to take multiple weeks away from the game, the DM runs the risk of having those twists lost, or overlooked. Because of this, a summation of the game at the beginning of each session is essential. With a proper summation, a DM can keep things fresh in the players minds, even if it has been some weeks since the last game.
The other difficulty, and one that I am notorious for is changing interests. People can be fickle, both players and DMs. When the game takes too long a break it increases the likelyhood that someone is going to either lose interested in their campaign, or current character. This can prove disruptive to the game, particularly if it is the DM that begins to lose interest. I combat this by attempting to work on things for the game, even during periods when we are not playing. This can be something simple as some background info, or even create full-blown adventures. Just do something to keep your mind engaged with the current campaign.
The unintended benefit of this type of break is that it has given me more time to put together my plot and adventure ideas. By following the above suggestions, I have been putting together adventure ideas a few weeks ahead of the actual game progression, allowing for me to slowly unveil them. It lets me be more prepared if the Players go off the beaten track, as I already know what's out there.
Taking an occasional break can be good for both the players and the game, but it is the DM responsibility to help maintain the excitement level for both himself, and the players during this time, so as to not have the game drift apart. The DM must use the time off wisely, and come back strong to re-engage his players attentions, and keep the game moving after such a break.
Monday, June 27, 2011
The Fall of the Thief
Since I have switched back to 2nd edition, I have not spent as much time on the 4th edition website as I had. Still, I do occasionally pop over to the Wizards of the Coast site to see what's going on. While doing this, I came across an article that almost made me cry. The article was entitled "Evolution of the Thief" by Mike Mearls (the current R&D group manager for Dungeons & Dragons), and supposedly is talking about how the Thief of older editions has grown into the Rogue that exists in the game today.
In the middle of the article was the following quote: "The thief had shifted from a class that offered a unique set of skills and abilities, to one that excelled at dishing out alot of damage. Sneak Attack rather than its skills became the class's defining trait."
First of all the idea that this is a positive change simply astonishes me. In second edition, the thief was one of the most interesting classes outside of combat, while still being able to offer something to the group in a fight. I always thought that giving other classes the ability to get thief skills was simply a mistake, but the article talks about how it was a purposeful decision to focus the character on being a damage machine.
This is, at its basis, what is wrong with the current edition. Everything in the rules boils down to combat. Each class is defined by its role in a fight, magic has been basically taken apart to only include those things that are combat worthy, and even the skills have been thinned out to those most useful on combat situations. Now I do think that the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons has some amazing combat rules. It may be the tightest, most cohesive rules set I have ever played with. But I feel that a RPG should offer more than simply rules for fights.
I also feel that it is a bad design decision to create classes whose "defining trait" is a purely combat abstraction by peeling away its options out of combat. Now I will be the first to say that 2nd edtion was not perfect in this regard. (I am looking at you, Fighter) But with the introduction of the proficiency system, it was a step forward from what 1st edition was. That being the case, it is sad to see how much of that momentum was lost, or even reversed, in the last two editions. It seems that this is one of the ways that Modern D&D is returning to its roots, by becoming more like the table top wargames that spawned it.
In the middle of the article was the following quote: "The thief had shifted from a class that offered a unique set of skills and abilities, to one that excelled at dishing out alot of damage. Sneak Attack rather than its skills became the class's defining trait."
First of all the idea that this is a positive change simply astonishes me. In second edition, the thief was one of the most interesting classes outside of combat, while still being able to offer something to the group in a fight. I always thought that giving other classes the ability to get thief skills was simply a mistake, but the article talks about how it was a purposeful decision to focus the character on being a damage machine.
This is, at its basis, what is wrong with the current edition. Everything in the rules boils down to combat. Each class is defined by its role in a fight, magic has been basically taken apart to only include those things that are combat worthy, and even the skills have been thinned out to those most useful on combat situations. Now I do think that the 4th edition of Dungeons & Dragons has some amazing combat rules. It may be the tightest, most cohesive rules set I have ever played with. But I feel that a RPG should offer more than simply rules for fights.
I also feel that it is a bad design decision to create classes whose "defining trait" is a purely combat abstraction by peeling away its options out of combat. Now I will be the first to say that 2nd edtion was not perfect in this regard. (I am looking at you, Fighter) But with the introduction of the proficiency system, it was a step forward from what 1st edition was. That being the case, it is sad to see how much of that momentum was lost, or even reversed, in the last two editions. It seems that this is one of the ways that Modern D&D is returning to its roots, by becoming more like the table top wargames that spawned it.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
House Rules and You!
Another of the major differences between Roleplaying Games and more conventional board games is the ability of the DM to change the rules. Often called "Rule Zero", the basic idea is that the DM is free to change, add or ignore any rule that he wishes for the sake of the game.
Each DM will decide how much house ruling they will do, and the spectrum is immense, and will change depending on which game, and even which edition of that game that the group plays. For example, in 2nd and 4th editions of Dungeons & Dragons I did relatively little house ruling, but when we played the 3.5 edition of Dungeons & Dragons, I had house ruled so many things that i took to simply pasting my house rules into the books. By the time I had stopped playing that edition, I had so much of my own paper pasted into the books it threatened to crack the spine.
Many of you, particularly those that have never run a game themselves, will wonder at the purpose of creating house rules. There are a number of reasons that a DM might choose to change the rules of the game. The first would be for simplicity's sake. RPG's can be very difficult games to learn and to run, and sometimes it is easier to simply ignore a difficult rule than to waste the time attempting to implement it. The best example of this in 2nd edition is that there is a rule for different weapons to get bonuses to hit against different armor types. I find this particular rule to add nothing to the game other than extra bookkeeping, and therefore I ignore it.
The second group of house rules stems from changing the inherent leathality of the game. My last post dicussed the different types of heroes in games, and some houserules are used to present the particular type of heroes that the DM wants in his game. In my current game, I house rule healing magic to increase its effectiveness, slightly. This allows me to keep the game from becoming to deadly to the characters, while not taking away all threat to them. These types of house rules are very common.
The third type, and potentially the most difficult, are house rules intended to make the game and the world match the DMs idea of what is is supposed to be. An example of this: In a game I played a year or two ago, the creator of the world (who was not the DM, which caused its own problems) had a very specific vision of the world that he wanted the rules to reflect. To do so, he added a number of rules that empower a certain race: elves in this case. By the time one read all the house rules, the elves were allowed better weapons, more powers and were in general better than a non-elf in every conceivable way. This creator also did something similar with certain weapons that he had a preference for, and other things. This is allow him to create the world that he wanted, but these sort of rules changes do come with a danger. Your players may feel slighted to get the short end of the rules stick simply because they do not want to play the favored character type. In these sorts of situations, it is crucial for the DM (or creator of the world) to communicate with his players and explain to them the aims that he is attempting to achieve. It is often possible to create a world of your liking simply by group consensus, as opposed to needing to drastically alter the rules.
The last type of house rule are those created simply to address something that the original rules left out. It may be that the rules do not include an answer to a particular situation the characters attempt. In this case the rules are often made at the table, and on the fly. It is important that the DM make a decision to allow the game to not get bogged down in a rules argument. It is equally important to revisit that decision after the game is done for the evening. A rule made on the fly to keep the game going may sound fine at first blush, but if it is going to become a common occurence, the DM should make sure that they have thought it out as thoroughly as any other rule change.
DM's should feel free to change the rules all they like, for the sake of the game. It is the last part of that statement that is the most important. DMs should refrain from making unneeded changes just for kicks, or worse to combat unexpected ideas from the players. It is also very important to make your players aware of any house rules that the DM is going to be using, preferably before the campaign begins. This way, everyone comes to the table with the same expectations and can focus on the fun of the game instead of muddling through different rulings and attempting to decide how it affects their character mid-game.
Each DM will decide how much house ruling they will do, and the spectrum is immense, and will change depending on which game, and even which edition of that game that the group plays. For example, in 2nd and 4th editions of Dungeons & Dragons I did relatively little house ruling, but when we played the 3.5 edition of Dungeons & Dragons, I had house ruled so many things that i took to simply pasting my house rules into the books. By the time I had stopped playing that edition, I had so much of my own paper pasted into the books it threatened to crack the spine.
Many of you, particularly those that have never run a game themselves, will wonder at the purpose of creating house rules. There are a number of reasons that a DM might choose to change the rules of the game. The first would be for simplicity's sake. RPG's can be very difficult games to learn and to run, and sometimes it is easier to simply ignore a difficult rule than to waste the time attempting to implement it. The best example of this in 2nd edition is that there is a rule for different weapons to get bonuses to hit against different armor types. I find this particular rule to add nothing to the game other than extra bookkeeping, and therefore I ignore it.
The second group of house rules stems from changing the inherent leathality of the game. My last post dicussed the different types of heroes in games, and some houserules are used to present the particular type of heroes that the DM wants in his game. In my current game, I house rule healing magic to increase its effectiveness, slightly. This allows me to keep the game from becoming to deadly to the characters, while not taking away all threat to them. These types of house rules are very common.
The third type, and potentially the most difficult, are house rules intended to make the game and the world match the DMs idea of what is is supposed to be. An example of this: In a game I played a year or two ago, the creator of the world (who was not the DM, which caused its own problems) had a very specific vision of the world that he wanted the rules to reflect. To do so, he added a number of rules that empower a certain race: elves in this case. By the time one read all the house rules, the elves were allowed better weapons, more powers and were in general better than a non-elf in every conceivable way. This creator also did something similar with certain weapons that he had a preference for, and other things. This is allow him to create the world that he wanted, but these sort of rules changes do come with a danger. Your players may feel slighted to get the short end of the rules stick simply because they do not want to play the favored character type. In these sorts of situations, it is crucial for the DM (or creator of the world) to communicate with his players and explain to them the aims that he is attempting to achieve. It is often possible to create a world of your liking simply by group consensus, as opposed to needing to drastically alter the rules.
The last type of house rule are those created simply to address something that the original rules left out. It may be that the rules do not include an answer to a particular situation the characters attempt. In this case the rules are often made at the table, and on the fly. It is important that the DM make a decision to allow the game to not get bogged down in a rules argument. It is equally important to revisit that decision after the game is done for the evening. A rule made on the fly to keep the game going may sound fine at first blush, but if it is going to become a common occurence, the DM should make sure that they have thought it out as thoroughly as any other rule change.
DM's should feel free to change the rules all they like, for the sake of the game. It is the last part of that statement that is the most important. DMs should refrain from making unneeded changes just for kicks, or worse to combat unexpected ideas from the players. It is also very important to make your players aware of any house rules that the DM is going to be using, preferably before the campaign begins. This way, everyone comes to the table with the same expectations and can focus on the fun of the game instead of muddling through different rulings and attempting to decide how it affects their character mid-game.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
What it means to be a Hero.
There are a few different trends that I notice in modern games (and fantasy fiction) as to the nature of heroes, and their place in the world. These different views are something that a good DM must be aware of, and decide for themselves where their game will stand on what I call the hero spectrum.
At one end of the spectrum is what I call the Superhero. This is a particular focus of a number of modern games, most notably 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons. The Superhero is known by his powers. Often he will have a number of different abilities and be very difficult to kill, due to those abilities and large pools of Hit Points. It is also likely that the rules support this, by setting up rules for building encounters that always favor the Heroes. While this type of game can be fun in the short term, the lack of any meaningful challenge for the characters can take away the feeling of heroic adventure after a time.
The next step down is what I call the Adventurer. This is the type of hero one can find in 2nd edition Dungeons & Dragons. The Adventurer has a few abilities, but must also rely on the intelligence of the player in order to survive. The rules of such games give the Adventurer and even break, but death is possibly for the unweary or unlucky. I personally prefer this type of game, as it allows the players to feel that their characters are heroes, by giving them difficult challenges to over come. The threat of death or failure makes the success all the more sweeter, in my opinion.
The step below that is the Emo Guy. This type of hero was once only common in games like White Wolf's Vampire: the Masquerade, but sadly has begun to spread into other games and literature as well. We are supposed to believe that the Emo Guy is cursed in some manner, usually with undeath or some horrible ancient power that makes his life a living hell. However, if looked at a little more closely, we see that the abilities that this curse gives rivals those of the Superhero. This makes a game where the characters are nearly incapable of failure, but generally whine about their "tortured" existence, or the "dark roads" they must travel. In many ways this also strips the game of any sort of true conflict, beyond the players attempted to outdo each other in nihlism.
The last step is what I call the Doomed Hero. This type of hero can be found in games like Call of Cthulhu, or Hackmaster. The Doomed hero is simply going to fail. Compared to those he faces, his powers are insignificant. Try as he might, his only reward for fighting against the forces of evil are death and madness. In these games, one cannot triumph against evil, one can only hold out against it for another day. In my opinion, the level of fatalism in these sorts of games is what removes the sense of true heroism from it. Not to mention if you are having to make a new character every other session, there is no real time or reason to flesh out their personalities or to delve into them from a roleplaying perspective.
One of the most important responsibilities of a DM is presenting a campaign world in which the players can be the heroes. (Whether these heroes will be morally or ethically just is a different argument for a different post, but...) The DM must decide what sort of place in the world that heroes have, and should communicate this to the players early on in the game. A miscommunication here can cause a lot of difficulty in the long run, due to different expectations between the players and the DM. I recommend that any DM setting up a new campaign world decide what type of heroes are most appropriate for that world. In doing so, you give the players a solid understanding of the type of stories you wish to tell, and allow them to find their place within the campaign world.
At one end of the spectrum is what I call the Superhero. This is a particular focus of a number of modern games, most notably 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons. The Superhero is known by his powers. Often he will have a number of different abilities and be very difficult to kill, due to those abilities and large pools of Hit Points. It is also likely that the rules support this, by setting up rules for building encounters that always favor the Heroes. While this type of game can be fun in the short term, the lack of any meaningful challenge for the characters can take away the feeling of heroic adventure after a time.
The next step down is what I call the Adventurer. This is the type of hero one can find in 2nd edition Dungeons & Dragons. The Adventurer has a few abilities, but must also rely on the intelligence of the player in order to survive. The rules of such games give the Adventurer and even break, but death is possibly for the unweary or unlucky. I personally prefer this type of game, as it allows the players to feel that their characters are heroes, by giving them difficult challenges to over come. The threat of death or failure makes the success all the more sweeter, in my opinion.
The step below that is the Emo Guy. This type of hero was once only common in games like White Wolf's Vampire: the Masquerade, but sadly has begun to spread into other games and literature as well. We are supposed to believe that the Emo Guy is cursed in some manner, usually with undeath or some horrible ancient power that makes his life a living hell. However, if looked at a little more closely, we see that the abilities that this curse gives rivals those of the Superhero. This makes a game where the characters are nearly incapable of failure, but generally whine about their "tortured" existence, or the "dark roads" they must travel. In many ways this also strips the game of any sort of true conflict, beyond the players attempted to outdo each other in nihlism.
The last step is what I call the Doomed Hero. This type of hero can be found in games like Call of Cthulhu, or Hackmaster. The Doomed hero is simply going to fail. Compared to those he faces, his powers are insignificant. Try as he might, his only reward for fighting against the forces of evil are death and madness. In these games, one cannot triumph against evil, one can only hold out against it for another day. In my opinion, the level of fatalism in these sorts of games is what removes the sense of true heroism from it. Not to mention if you are having to make a new character every other session, there is no real time or reason to flesh out their personalities or to delve into them from a roleplaying perspective.
One of the most important responsibilities of a DM is presenting a campaign world in which the players can be the heroes. (Whether these heroes will be morally or ethically just is a different argument for a different post, but...) The DM must decide what sort of place in the world that heroes have, and should communicate this to the players early on in the game. A miscommunication here can cause a lot of difficulty in the long run, due to different expectations between the players and the DM. I recommend that any DM setting up a new campaign world decide what type of heroes are most appropriate for that world. In doing so, you give the players a solid understanding of the type of stories you wish to tell, and allow them to find their place within the campaign world.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The Basics of Dungeons & Dragons
It has come to my attention that I have some readers of this blog that has never played Dungeons and Dragons, and has "no idea what this blog is about." Well, in an attempt to serve as an ambassador to the non-roleplaying community, I wanted to offer a short primer on what a roleplaying game is.
The best way of thinking about a Roleplaying Game is that it is a cross between improvisational theatre and a cooperative board game. One of the players is in charge of creating the imaginary world in which the game takes place, and presenting the story. This player is called the Game Master (abbreviated GM) or specifically in Dungeons & Dragons, the Dungeon Master (abbreviated DM). The other players each create one character that they play (Known as the Player-Characters).
The Dungeon Master is responsible for describing the situations the characters find themselves in, acting out the parts of any person or creature the chararacters meet, and using the rules to arbitrate any actions the characters take in response to those situations. The players are responsible for acting out the parts of their characters and in doing so overcome the conflicts presented them by the Dungeon Master.
These are the basics of actual play, and of course the rules of the game are more complicated, but I will not attempt to explain them all here. For anyone interested in learning more, I definatly recommend purchasing a copy of the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monstrous Manual for Second Edition Dungeons & Dragons. These are the three basic books needed to play the game.
The other thing that is needed to really understand alot of what I am talking about in this blog is a brief understanding of the history of Dungeons & Dragons. Originally created by E. Gary Gygax, and Dave Arneson, Dungeon & Dragons was created in 1976 as a evolution to the minature war games of the day. This was very successful, and the company Gary Started (TSR inc.) created a number of basic versions of the game before creating Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AkA: 1st edition). Gary was an amazing designer, but not a good business man, and in the 80s TSR was in financial trouble. Eventually, the company was taken over, and Gary was ousted. After which the company released a new version of the game that (in my opinion) improved upon Gary's work. This was Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (2nd edition.) This edition lasted until 2000, when the company came up on hard times again and was bought out by Wizards of the Coast.
Wizards of the Coast, created a totally new game with only a passing resemblence to the older editions, and called it Dungeons & Dragons (3rd edition). Shortly there after they released an edited, fixed version of this game: Dungeons & Dragons 3.5. These were the begining of what I call "Modern Game Design". Most recently (2008), Wizards of the coast revamped the game again and created Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition, which while being a very well made game, only resembles the early editions in theme.
My last games were run with the 4th edition rules, but as I explained in an earlier blog post, I have tired of it and returned to the edition I first started playing: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (2nd Edition). So much of my blog is written with that experience in mind, and discusses the changes made to the game in those intervening years.
I hope this gives some of you at least a slight understanding of what I am doing here. I have enjoyed Roleplaying games for the majority of my life, and I hope that even if you never play I am able to share some of that excitement and wonder with you, my readers.
The best way of thinking about a Roleplaying Game is that it is a cross between improvisational theatre and a cooperative board game. One of the players is in charge of creating the imaginary world in which the game takes place, and presenting the story. This player is called the Game Master (abbreviated GM) or specifically in Dungeons & Dragons, the Dungeon Master (abbreviated DM). The other players each create one character that they play (Known as the Player-Characters).
The Dungeon Master is responsible for describing the situations the characters find themselves in, acting out the parts of any person or creature the chararacters meet, and using the rules to arbitrate any actions the characters take in response to those situations. The players are responsible for acting out the parts of their characters and in doing so overcome the conflicts presented them by the Dungeon Master.
These are the basics of actual play, and of course the rules of the game are more complicated, but I will not attempt to explain them all here. For anyone interested in learning more, I definatly recommend purchasing a copy of the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monstrous Manual for Second Edition Dungeons & Dragons. These are the three basic books needed to play the game.
The other thing that is needed to really understand alot of what I am talking about in this blog is a brief understanding of the history of Dungeons & Dragons. Originally created by E. Gary Gygax, and Dave Arneson, Dungeon & Dragons was created in 1976 as a evolution to the minature war games of the day. This was very successful, and the company Gary Started (TSR inc.) created a number of basic versions of the game before creating Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AkA: 1st edition). Gary was an amazing designer, but not a good business man, and in the 80s TSR was in financial trouble. Eventually, the company was taken over, and Gary was ousted. After which the company released a new version of the game that (in my opinion) improved upon Gary's work. This was Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (2nd edition.) This edition lasted until 2000, when the company came up on hard times again and was bought out by Wizards of the Coast.
Wizards of the Coast, created a totally new game with only a passing resemblence to the older editions, and called it Dungeons & Dragons (3rd edition). Shortly there after they released an edited, fixed version of this game: Dungeons & Dragons 3.5. These were the begining of what I call "Modern Game Design". Most recently (2008), Wizards of the coast revamped the game again and created Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition, which while being a very well made game, only resembles the early editions in theme.
My last games were run with the 4th edition rules, but as I explained in an earlier blog post, I have tired of it and returned to the edition I first started playing: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (2nd Edition). So much of my blog is written with that experience in mind, and discusses the changes made to the game in those intervening years.
I hope this gives some of you at least a slight understanding of what I am doing here. I have enjoyed Roleplaying games for the majority of my life, and I hope that even if you never play I am able to share some of that excitement and wonder with you, my readers.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Magic in the Face of Game Balance
As I have spoken of before, one of the major aims of modern gaming seems to be to achieve some sort of "game balance". The problem with this is that there are just as many definitions of what makes a game balanced as there are players. According to the folks at Wizards of the Coast (the current makers of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition), their idea of game balance is having each character class be able to contribute equally to the game. I personally, don't have any real disagreement with this aim, and I feel that 4th edition accomplishes this admirably.
However, I feel that there is an unintended casualty of this focus on game balance, and that is magic. In 4th edition, there are wizards, priests and a number of other classes and creatures that have magical abilities. But, particularly when compared to the older editions, the magic in 4th edition has much of the scope removed from it. With the exception of Rituals, which still hold some of the old scope, (but have high costs in time and money to compensate), magic in 4th edition has become indistinguishable from the abilities of non-magic using folks. I am not going to attempt to argue whether this is a good or bad thing, as the answer to that changes with each DM and each campaign world. But if I am honest with myself, it is one of the reasons that I feel myself drawn to the older editions.
In second edition, Magic is a very powerful force. With time and the access to the right spells the magic using classes can literally break reality. If allowed to run wild, there can be a major imbalance between magic using classes and their non-magic using compatriots. However, the magic using classes do pay for their power. For example, in the game I am currently running, the mage has only abut 1/4 the hit points of the non-magic using members of the party, and an Armor class approximately 6 points lower than any other member of the party. He also needs considerably more Experience to level up, when compared to the other members of the party. Now, to some people this is not considered balance, because they expect all the characters to be roughly equal. But I would argue that this allows each class to have their own role both in combat and out of it.
The mage has some powerful effects, but he must rely on his friends to protect him in combat, so that he can unlease the awesome power that he holds without being smeared all over some ogre's club. And the Warriors can break down the doors of the ancient ruins, but must rely on their wizardly friend to read the ancient inscriptions they find within. This is the sort of balance that has always existed in my games, and with few exceptions has worked well. The players have had fun, and making sure that everyone is having fun is the only balance that the DM should have to concern himself with.
So my advice to other DMs is to find what balance works for your group. Some will want a more hard coded balance between the class like 4th edition has, but some are more than happy to have a less ingrained sense of balance in order to have the scope that the older editions allowed for things like magic. In the end, balance is only one of the tools that a DM should use to provide an entertaining time for everyone, themselves included.
However, I feel that there is an unintended casualty of this focus on game balance, and that is magic. In 4th edition, there are wizards, priests and a number of other classes and creatures that have magical abilities. But, particularly when compared to the older editions, the magic in 4th edition has much of the scope removed from it. With the exception of Rituals, which still hold some of the old scope, (but have high costs in time and money to compensate), magic in 4th edition has become indistinguishable from the abilities of non-magic using folks. I am not going to attempt to argue whether this is a good or bad thing, as the answer to that changes with each DM and each campaign world. But if I am honest with myself, it is one of the reasons that I feel myself drawn to the older editions.
In second edition, Magic is a very powerful force. With time and the access to the right spells the magic using classes can literally break reality. If allowed to run wild, there can be a major imbalance between magic using classes and their non-magic using compatriots. However, the magic using classes do pay for their power. For example, in the game I am currently running, the mage has only abut 1/4 the hit points of the non-magic using members of the party, and an Armor class approximately 6 points lower than any other member of the party. He also needs considerably more Experience to level up, when compared to the other members of the party. Now, to some people this is not considered balance, because they expect all the characters to be roughly equal. But I would argue that this allows each class to have their own role both in combat and out of it.
The mage has some powerful effects, but he must rely on his friends to protect him in combat, so that he can unlease the awesome power that he holds without being smeared all over some ogre's club. And the Warriors can break down the doors of the ancient ruins, but must rely on their wizardly friend to read the ancient inscriptions they find within. This is the sort of balance that has always existed in my games, and with few exceptions has worked well. The players have had fun, and making sure that everyone is having fun is the only balance that the DM should have to concern himself with.
So my advice to other DMs is to find what balance works for your group. Some will want a more hard coded balance between the class like 4th edition has, but some are more than happy to have a less ingrained sense of balance in order to have the scope that the older editions allowed for things like magic. In the end, balance is only one of the tools that a DM should use to provide an entertaining time for everyone, themselves included.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Sources of Inspiration
One of the things that I have been asked most, as a Game Master is "Where do you get the ideas for a game?" To be honest, there are several different sources of inspiration to me.
The first, is also the most unusual: the news. There is enough messed up stuff happening in our own world that you can easily take a story from almost any new station, give it some magical cover, and it will fit right in as the twisted plot of an evil wizard or monstrous race.
The second is music. When I am planning for my adventures, I almost always have itunes on random. You never know when a particular song will spark something. I have had entire campaigns started by a single line in a song. And even if the lyrics themselves don't spark anything, often the music itself can help me get a feel for the emotions I want to engender in the game.
The last and probably most used for me personally, is movies. There are few enough good fantasy movies there, but more than enough to get a DM in the creative mood. Now I want to say clearly that I do not recommend anyone actually watch the Dungeons & Dragons movie, as it was one of the worse things I have ever seen. But the second one, "Wrath of the Dragon God" was pretty good, and of course the 80's Dungeons & Dragons cartoon is a great source of ideas as well. That being said, most DMs will want to go outside the D&D product lines to find good ideas from movies.
A quick list of recommended movies: Ladyhawk, Dune (the original, not the bad Sci-fi channel mini-series), Gamers 2: Dorkness rising, The 10 Commandments, First Knight, both Conan movies, Merlin, Alexander, Chronicles of Riddick and Troy. You will note that not all of these films are Fantasy, and that brings me to my last point for this post. A good DM will have the ability to look outside the genre for good ideas. The best way to get the most milage out of your planning is to be able to reskin ideas and make them appropriate for whatever genre you are currently playing. The important part is that your story is engaging to the players, and the be perfectly honest, this can happen regardless of the trappings of setting that you are usings.
A great DM does not try to tell a good fantasy story, they try to tell a good story that happens to be set in a fantasy world. Understanding the difference can really bring your game to the next level.
The first, is also the most unusual: the news. There is enough messed up stuff happening in our own world that you can easily take a story from almost any new station, give it some magical cover, and it will fit right in as the twisted plot of an evil wizard or monstrous race.
The second is music. When I am planning for my adventures, I almost always have itunes on random. You never know when a particular song will spark something. I have had entire campaigns started by a single line in a song. And even if the lyrics themselves don't spark anything, often the music itself can help me get a feel for the emotions I want to engender in the game.
The last and probably most used for me personally, is movies. There are few enough good fantasy movies there, but more than enough to get a DM in the creative mood. Now I want to say clearly that I do not recommend anyone actually watch the Dungeons & Dragons movie, as it was one of the worse things I have ever seen. But the second one, "Wrath of the Dragon God" was pretty good, and of course the 80's Dungeons & Dragons cartoon is a great source of ideas as well. That being said, most DMs will want to go outside the D&D product lines to find good ideas from movies.
A quick list of recommended movies: Ladyhawk, Dune (the original, not the bad Sci-fi channel mini-series), Gamers 2: Dorkness rising, The 10 Commandments, First Knight, both Conan movies, Merlin, Alexander, Chronicles of Riddick and Troy. You will note that not all of these films are Fantasy, and that brings me to my last point for this post. A good DM will have the ability to look outside the genre for good ideas. The best way to get the most milage out of your planning is to be able to reskin ideas and make them appropriate for whatever genre you are currently playing. The important part is that your story is engaging to the players, and the be perfectly honest, this can happen regardless of the trappings of setting that you are usings.
A great DM does not try to tell a good fantasy story, they try to tell a good story that happens to be set in a fantasy world. Understanding the difference can really bring your game to the next level.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
It's not all spells and swords.
One of the things that makes a table top RPG different, and in my opinion better, than a computer RPG, is the ability for the DM and players to choose their own reactions to what occurs. For instance, in a computer RPG combat is usually the only way of dealing with a monster encounter. This does not need to be the case in a table top RPGs.
In yesterday's game, my players were attempting to clear out a hive of giant man-eating evil bug creatures. However, their frontal assault was not going as well as they hoped and they were forced to retreat. As they attempted to find a secure rock outcropping to sleep on, they stumbled across a sleeping Hill Giant, and woke him up. Sister Sulwyn, the party's cleric, noticed right away that he seemed to have thick cataracts and could not see them very well. Through some quick thinking, the party managed to convince the giant that they were not a threat, and managed to get him to agree to let them sleep nearby. His presence prevented them from being disturbed during the night, so that they could recover from their wounds.
The next morning, they had to deal with a grumpy and potentially lethal Giant. The mage of the group decided to bribe him, by turning a near by pond into beer. His quick thinking worked, and they managed to convince the Giant to unearth the insect hive's lower level where the queen was hidden. The party then decended into this final cave and slew the beasts.
This is the essence of what makes a good game. The players were able to choose their own actions, and avoid what would have been a lethal encounter, and were able to turn that encounter into something that benefitted their current situation. Now, I don't think that every encounter needs to be able to be overcome in such a manner, but a good DM should allow for the character's actions to have significant impact on any encounter. This will make the player's aware of the fact that not all obstacles need to be overcome by combat, and can help to keep them alive rather than having them run headlong into battle with everything they come across.
This is a large part of the type of naturalism that I use when designing my game worlds. Unlike some modern games, I do not set up the world to be level appropriate to whatever my characters are. The world is what it is, and that can mean that the player characters sometimes encounter creatures far beyond their abilities. By running these creatures as more than simple a block of combat statistics, the DM not only makes the world seem more real, but gives the player's options for dealing with the world without having them all die to a superior force.
It is crucial for a DM to reward creative play on the part of his players. This not only can lead to some very entertaining scenes, but allows the players to feel like they are the true driving force of the action of the game. The DM sets the stage, but the Player's must be the stars.
In yesterday's game, my players were attempting to clear out a hive of giant man-eating evil bug creatures. However, their frontal assault was not going as well as they hoped and they were forced to retreat. As they attempted to find a secure rock outcropping to sleep on, they stumbled across a sleeping Hill Giant, and woke him up. Sister Sulwyn, the party's cleric, noticed right away that he seemed to have thick cataracts and could not see them very well. Through some quick thinking, the party managed to convince the giant that they were not a threat, and managed to get him to agree to let them sleep nearby. His presence prevented them from being disturbed during the night, so that they could recover from their wounds.
The next morning, they had to deal with a grumpy and potentially lethal Giant. The mage of the group decided to bribe him, by turning a near by pond into beer. His quick thinking worked, and they managed to convince the Giant to unearth the insect hive's lower level where the queen was hidden. The party then decended into this final cave and slew the beasts.
This is the essence of what makes a good game. The players were able to choose their own actions, and avoid what would have been a lethal encounter, and were able to turn that encounter into something that benefitted their current situation. Now, I don't think that every encounter needs to be able to be overcome in such a manner, but a good DM should allow for the character's actions to have significant impact on any encounter. This will make the player's aware of the fact that not all obstacles need to be overcome by combat, and can help to keep them alive rather than having them run headlong into battle with everything they come across.
This is a large part of the type of naturalism that I use when designing my game worlds. Unlike some modern games, I do not set up the world to be level appropriate to whatever my characters are. The world is what it is, and that can mean that the player characters sometimes encounter creatures far beyond their abilities. By running these creatures as more than simple a block of combat statistics, the DM not only makes the world seem more real, but gives the player's options for dealing with the world without having them all die to a superior force.
It is crucial for a DM to reward creative play on the part of his players. This not only can lead to some very entertaining scenes, but allows the players to feel like they are the true driving force of the action of the game. The DM sets the stage, but the Player's must be the stars.
Friday, June 10, 2011
First Time Players
I will be having a new player at my table this weekend, the boyfriend of one of my current players. He has never played a table top RPG before, and as hard as it is to believe he has not even played computer or console RPGs either.
New players are always needed for our hobby to grow and flourish. I have always seen it as an honor and a privlege to be the first DM to help a new player experience the wonders of Roleplaying. A new players can also bring a breath of fresh air to an existing game, simply by provding a new point of view. However, it is important for the DM to be ready for this new addition, both for the sake of the new player and the sake of the game.
RPGs are a difficult thing to jump in the middle of. Not only can the rules themselves be challenging to learn, but a new player has to be able to understand the workings of the campaign world and the very act of Roleplaying. This is not always easy for a new player to understand. It is the responsibility of the DM to do everything he can to help smooth out the learning curve.
Some DM's I have known, would give the new player a completly throw away character with the idea that it would be easier for the player to learn with a character that doesn't have to stick around and/or doesnt have anything particular to do with the plot. I completely disagree with this approach. I feel that is it is better to have the player create the character themselves, just like any other player. This not only presents a level playing field, but allows for the new player to create a character that they are interested in. The greater the level of connection between player and character, the more fun the new player is likely to have.
The second component of getting ready for a new player is to give them a sample of the game word. For me this is easy, as I already set up a Yahoo Group for every game I run, so that I can post files about the world. This allows the player to learn about the world a little at the time, rather than trying to cram it all down their throats the day of game. This is likely the issue that most DM's require alot of patience to handle. It is only to be expected that it will take a new player some time to understand the game world, and the DM should be ready for the player to say or do things that do not match up with the game world. The best approach in this situation is to use as much as you can of the player's ideas, and gently correct them if they offer up things that are unworkable. This makes the player feel like their imput is valuable, without allowing them to simple do whatever they please despite the campaign world.
The third and most difficult of these issues, is getting the new player to open up and roleplay. Particularly if they do not know the other players well, a new player can get shy and have a hard time opening up. It is important for the DM to specifically try to engage this new player, preferably in small doses, so that they can get used to how roleplaying games work. It doesnt take too much effort to get them into the spirit, if you give them a chance.
I am a firm believer in the idea that anyone can be a roleplayer, it just takes an patient DM, and an understanding group to allow a new player a chance to grow. With just a little effort, both the DM and the group can benefit from a new voice at the table, and I find that, generally, it is effort well spent.
New players are always needed for our hobby to grow and flourish. I have always seen it as an honor and a privlege to be the first DM to help a new player experience the wonders of Roleplaying. A new players can also bring a breath of fresh air to an existing game, simply by provding a new point of view. However, it is important for the DM to be ready for this new addition, both for the sake of the new player and the sake of the game.
RPGs are a difficult thing to jump in the middle of. Not only can the rules themselves be challenging to learn, but a new player has to be able to understand the workings of the campaign world and the very act of Roleplaying. This is not always easy for a new player to understand. It is the responsibility of the DM to do everything he can to help smooth out the learning curve.
Some DM's I have known, would give the new player a completly throw away character with the idea that it would be easier for the player to learn with a character that doesn't have to stick around and/or doesnt have anything particular to do with the plot. I completely disagree with this approach. I feel that is it is better to have the player create the character themselves, just like any other player. This not only presents a level playing field, but allows for the new player to create a character that they are interested in. The greater the level of connection between player and character, the more fun the new player is likely to have.
The second component of getting ready for a new player is to give them a sample of the game word. For me this is easy, as I already set up a Yahoo Group for every game I run, so that I can post files about the world. This allows the player to learn about the world a little at the time, rather than trying to cram it all down their throats the day of game. This is likely the issue that most DM's require alot of patience to handle. It is only to be expected that it will take a new player some time to understand the game world, and the DM should be ready for the player to say or do things that do not match up with the game world. The best approach in this situation is to use as much as you can of the player's ideas, and gently correct them if they offer up things that are unworkable. This makes the player feel like their imput is valuable, without allowing them to simple do whatever they please despite the campaign world.
The third and most difficult of these issues, is getting the new player to open up and roleplay. Particularly if they do not know the other players well, a new player can get shy and have a hard time opening up. It is important for the DM to specifically try to engage this new player, preferably in small doses, so that they can get used to how roleplaying games work. It doesnt take too much effort to get them into the spirit, if you give them a chance.
I am a firm believer in the idea that anyone can be a roleplayer, it just takes an patient DM, and an understanding group to allow a new player a chance to grow. With just a little effort, both the DM and the group can benefit from a new voice at the table, and I find that, generally, it is effort well spent.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Finding Comfort in Shedding Limitations
Now that I have returned to 2nd edition AD&D, I have gotten a much better look at the differences between so-called "Old School" gaming and Modern games. In recent years, there has been a greater push to have the game rules answer every question that could come up in a game. If a player want to have their character swing across a ravine and knock over an enemy, modern gaming theory states that there should be a specific rule mechanic to decide how the action occurs. The side effect of this sort of thinking is the, somewhat illogical, tendency to think that if there is not a rule for a particular action, then that action is not possible within the confines of the game. It is this mindset, I believe, that creates the objection that the current version of D&D is just a boardgame, or worse a tabletop MMORPG.
The opposite of this sort of theory occurs in older games. It was the norm that the DM was expected to adjudicate any situation that didn't fall within the written rules. With this expectation in mind, the designers seemed to feel that rules for specific corner cases were less necessary. The main difficulty is that this puts a much greater responsibility on the DM than they have in the more modern games. In modern games the DM can rely on the extensive rules system to help him decide events, but in older games this support and it corresponding limitations are much less prevelant.
After several years playing these modern games, I had no idea how much I had come to rely on the rules to support my running of the game. But after the first few sessions of my new 2nd edition AD&D game, I saw how much my (and my player's) reliance on those rules had hobbled our imaginations. My players stared at the playmat, spending their time counting squares of movement and concerning themselves with rules minutiae, rather than plunging themselves into the actions and motivations of their characters. The recognition was sobering.
So now I find myself trying to reverse this tendency. The best way that I have been able to do that is simply through example. It is the DM's responsibility to set the tone of the campaign, not only from a story point of view, but especially when it comes to the general feel of game play. If the DM finds himself hyper-focused on the rules, the players will naturally follow suit. However, if the DM can begin to open his imagination and recognize that the rules form a framework that he can lean on, rather than a box that constrains him, the players will begin to exersize their imaginations as well.
Now, I will not condemn anyone for playing the game that they want to play, but I think that this is the biggest issue with modern games. Between the general tendency of modern game design to focus on unifying rules sets, and the existance of internet forums to support a uniformity of application of those rules; the imagination is being forced to a secondary position in the hobby. It is the responsibility of the players and most especially the DM to fight against this tendency and keep the magic alive. It is not a difficult process, but it is one that requires us to look at the manner in which we play games and decide what is more important: the rules or our imaginations.
The opposite of this sort of theory occurs in older games. It was the norm that the DM was expected to adjudicate any situation that didn't fall within the written rules. With this expectation in mind, the designers seemed to feel that rules for specific corner cases were less necessary. The main difficulty is that this puts a much greater responsibility on the DM than they have in the more modern games. In modern games the DM can rely on the extensive rules system to help him decide events, but in older games this support and it corresponding limitations are much less prevelant.
After several years playing these modern games, I had no idea how much I had come to rely on the rules to support my running of the game. But after the first few sessions of my new 2nd edition AD&D game, I saw how much my (and my player's) reliance on those rules had hobbled our imaginations. My players stared at the playmat, spending their time counting squares of movement and concerning themselves with rules minutiae, rather than plunging themselves into the actions and motivations of their characters. The recognition was sobering.
So now I find myself trying to reverse this tendency. The best way that I have been able to do that is simply through example. It is the DM's responsibility to set the tone of the campaign, not only from a story point of view, but especially when it comes to the general feel of game play. If the DM finds himself hyper-focused on the rules, the players will naturally follow suit. However, if the DM can begin to open his imagination and recognize that the rules form a framework that he can lean on, rather than a box that constrains him, the players will begin to exersize their imaginations as well.
Now, I will not condemn anyone for playing the game that they want to play, but I think that this is the biggest issue with modern games. Between the general tendency of modern game design to focus on unifying rules sets, and the existance of internet forums to support a uniformity of application of those rules; the imagination is being forced to a secondary position in the hobby. It is the responsibility of the players and most especially the DM to fight against this tendency and keep the magic alive. It is not a difficult process, but it is one that requires us to look at the manner in which we play games and decide what is more important: the rules or our imaginations.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
A Whole New World.
As I discussed in my last post, I have recently returned to 2nd edition AD&D and a new campaign world. As such, I would be remiss in my duties if I did not talk a little about the process I am taking to design this new world.
I think that each world should have some sort of central theme and idea, that the DM can work from as a base line. With Meaghana, my orignial focus was on the Godly conflict revolving around the Law vs. Chaos distinction. With Gorbaldin, I wanted something totally different, and so I approached the creation of the world from almost the opposite direction. The Gods of Gorbaldin are distant, inscrutable beings that use intermediaries and metaphorical comunication even with their most powerful followers. As such, the world of Gorbaldin and its central ideas spring more naturally from the interactions of the mortal races, rather than a grand mythic history as was the case with Meaghana.
This leads me to the next major difference of the two worlds. Due in part to the distance of the Gods, and other beings of pure alignment, the people of Gorbaldin are in some ways more real to me than some of the peoples of Meaghana. For instance, the primary civilizing force in the campaign area is the Kingdom of Keplan. The Keplish have brought safety and civility to much of the Northlands, and the majority of the humans in the area trace their linage back to the founding of this great kingdom. However, the Keplish are not saints. They took their lands in a brutal war of conquest against the Anhaldans, a group of humans who lived in the area before the coming of the Keplish.
In Gorbaldin, these conflicts set the stage for the world as it currently stands. Many of the ancient ruins available for plundering are all that is left of the Ancient Anhaldan people, which leaves the characters a more murky world to navigate in. It is a world where goodness and heroic deeds are the responsibilites of mortals themselves, rather than them being kept on the narrow path by supernatual parent figures, who will appear to council their wayward children.
From this basic distinction the entire world has flowed, leading to a number of changes to everything from races to magic, which will be discussed in later posts. It has allowed for me to separate myself from what has come before, and forge a new gaming experience for not only myselves, but my players as well.
This brings me to my last point for this post. When I told my players about the change of game world, I had expected some resistance, as they had come to know and love Meaghana nearly as much as I do. I was suprised when the general feeling was one of excitement for the world change. The one thought I heard from everyone was "Great, We get to be the first PCs!" It has been so long since I had changed my game world, that frankly, I had forgotten the joy that is inherent with being the first people to experience a world. It does my heart good to see that excitement, and to know that it is there to help overcome even the difficulties of changing game systems, to one that none of the players had much experience with.
So here is to my players, and their characters: Alicia (Sister Sulwyn), Richard (Cartwicket Schepder), George (Valerius Justinius Leontius) and Stefanee (Alexander Caradas). I hope that your first steps upon this new world form a legacy that will help to shape it.
I think that each world should have some sort of central theme and idea, that the DM can work from as a base line. With Meaghana, my orignial focus was on the Godly conflict revolving around the Law vs. Chaos distinction. With Gorbaldin, I wanted something totally different, and so I approached the creation of the world from almost the opposite direction. The Gods of Gorbaldin are distant, inscrutable beings that use intermediaries and metaphorical comunication even with their most powerful followers. As such, the world of Gorbaldin and its central ideas spring more naturally from the interactions of the mortal races, rather than a grand mythic history as was the case with Meaghana.
This leads me to the next major difference of the two worlds. Due in part to the distance of the Gods, and other beings of pure alignment, the people of Gorbaldin are in some ways more real to me than some of the peoples of Meaghana. For instance, the primary civilizing force in the campaign area is the Kingdom of Keplan. The Keplish have brought safety and civility to much of the Northlands, and the majority of the humans in the area trace their linage back to the founding of this great kingdom. However, the Keplish are not saints. They took their lands in a brutal war of conquest against the Anhaldans, a group of humans who lived in the area before the coming of the Keplish.
In Gorbaldin, these conflicts set the stage for the world as it currently stands. Many of the ancient ruins available for plundering are all that is left of the Ancient Anhaldan people, which leaves the characters a more murky world to navigate in. It is a world where goodness and heroic deeds are the responsibilites of mortals themselves, rather than them being kept on the narrow path by supernatual parent figures, who will appear to council their wayward children.
From this basic distinction the entire world has flowed, leading to a number of changes to everything from races to magic, which will be discussed in later posts. It has allowed for me to separate myself from what has come before, and forge a new gaming experience for not only myselves, but my players as well.
This brings me to my last point for this post. When I told my players about the change of game world, I had expected some resistance, as they had come to know and love Meaghana nearly as much as I do. I was suprised when the general feeling was one of excitement for the world change. The one thought I heard from everyone was "Great, We get to be the first PCs!" It has been so long since I had changed my game world, that frankly, I had forgotten the joy that is inherent with being the first people to experience a world. It does my heart good to see that excitement, and to know that it is there to help overcome even the difficulties of changing game systems, to one that none of the players had much experience with.
So here is to my players, and their characters: Alicia (Sister Sulwyn), Richard (Cartwicket Schepder), George (Valerius Justinius Leontius) and Stefanee (Alexander Caradas). I hope that your first steps upon this new world form a legacy that will help to shape it.
Its been a long time...
I notice that I haven't written anything on this blog for nearly a year. My life has changed considerably in that year, as has my gaming, and I would like to talk about both.
I have returned to the work force with a new full time job, and my wife and I are expecting our first child, Simoné Alexandra Merritt, at the end of July. In a very short time, my life is being propelled rapidly into a new future.
With that in mind, it is interesting to note that my gaming has done the opposite: lept back into the past. Earlier this year, two of my players left my 4th edition D&D game, leaving me with only two regular players, and a somewhat sour taste in my mouth. I felt that I needed a change, and I felt that change leading me back to my roots: 2nd edition AD&D.
So I laid aside my bright and shiny new books, and even the world of Meaghana, and started fresh. I pulled out my notes on a 2nd edition campaign setting that I had never done much with, called up two other friends to fill out the group and plunged back in to the days of my youth... in part. My current life prohibits me from gaming as long or as regularly as I once did, and I find myself not as singularly focused on the game as I was then. However, I find that my new sense of perspective is making the game even more enjoyable for me. I am able to find the fun of the game, without many of the concerns and personality conflicts that characterized it over the past year.
Now, it may be argued that this is because of how the new group is changing the dynamics of the game, and that is likely at least partly true. But for whatever reason, I am finding myself enjoying my favorite hobby again without reservation, and that is a wonderful thing.
With this in mind, I am returning to this blog with a new focus. I will be looking more to older school gaming, particularly 2nd edition AD&D and my thoughts on returning to it after such a long time with Modern games. I hope that my new direction will be as enjoyable journey for you, as it has been for me.
I have returned to the work force with a new full time job, and my wife and I are expecting our first child, Simoné Alexandra Merritt, at the end of July. In a very short time, my life is being propelled rapidly into a new future.
With that in mind, it is interesting to note that my gaming has done the opposite: lept back into the past. Earlier this year, two of my players left my 4th edition D&D game, leaving me with only two regular players, and a somewhat sour taste in my mouth. I felt that I needed a change, and I felt that change leading me back to my roots: 2nd edition AD&D.
So I laid aside my bright and shiny new books, and even the world of Meaghana, and started fresh. I pulled out my notes on a 2nd edition campaign setting that I had never done much with, called up two other friends to fill out the group and plunged back in to the days of my youth... in part. My current life prohibits me from gaming as long or as regularly as I once did, and I find myself not as singularly focused on the game as I was then. However, I find that my new sense of perspective is making the game even more enjoyable for me. I am able to find the fun of the game, without many of the concerns and personality conflicts that characterized it over the past year.
Now, it may be argued that this is because of how the new group is changing the dynamics of the game, and that is likely at least partly true. But for whatever reason, I am finding myself enjoying my favorite hobby again without reservation, and that is a wonderful thing.
With this in mind, I am returning to this blog with a new focus. I will be looking more to older school gaming, particularly 2nd edition AD&D and my thoughts on returning to it after such a long time with Modern games. I hope that my new direction will be as enjoyable journey for you, as it has been for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
