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.
Monday, June 27, 2011
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)
