[dungeoncrawl] Re: Campaign Thoughts
- From: Johnathan Detrick <jdetrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: dungeoncrawl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 07:19:30 -0400
I certainly understand what you are saying, and I think you have a good
point. However, I have to disagree when you say too much contrivance will kill
the game. Sometimes, contrivance is not only useful, but absolutely necessary.
I believe the problem may be that you still wish to DM as you did when we
played more often. It's the same trap I fell into with the Tiamat War. We want
to do things for the sake of the story. Unfortunately, that's not always an
option. In my opinion, the DM has two jobs, and what shapes a DM most is where
they place their priorities. The first job of the DM is to provide a story; a
world and a plot and other characters for the players to interact with. The
second job is to provide the players with an enjoyable game. I have always
placed my emphasis on the second job, while I believe that you sometimes focus
on the first.
Does that make me a better DM? Of course not. But it can be very telling
in the way the game is run. Many times in the past I have zipped through things
that I felt would not be enjoyable for the players to actually play through.
Did it seem a little contrived? Hell yes. But, in my opinion, it was better to
be contrived than it was to have a session that wasn't as much fun as it could
have been. I think the best example to illustrate the differences between my
style of DMing and Jim's style of DMing has to do with bringing new characters
into a group.
Let's say that we have a new player joining us, and he has a character to
bring into the campaign. I will introduce that character within the first ten
minutes. It might be the stupidest introduction you have ever seen, and often
it makes no sense at all.
"The king told me to join your group."
"Um, the king has been dead for 20 years."
"Yes.....well...the king's....butler told me to join the group."
It makes no sense, but it gets the character into the group immediately, so
the player can enjoy themselves.
Jim is much more likely to detail an intricate, well plotted, and completely
rational way for the character to be introduced. His way will make sense in
terms of characterization, it will make sense in terms of plot, and it will
stand the test of time. However, the player may have to wait for 30-60 minutes
for everything to come together so they can play.
Opinions or comments on that? My basic point is not that one or the other
of us are a better DM, just that we prioritize the jobs of the DM two different
ways.
Now, on to the second part of Jim's e-mail; do we expect to succeed. Of
course we do. In every mission that I have ever been in, in any role-playing
game I have ever participated in, we have always succeeded. Sometimes there is
death, sometimes there are setbacks, but in the end, success is there. Am I
prepared for Magnus' death? Darn tootin'! If he should join the choir
invisible, so be it. I trust Jim completely as a DM, and I have no problem with
whatever happens. Perhaps he would come back, not as the king of the gods, but
as one of the smaller ones. Wouldn't that make the pantheon even more
interesting? Magnus would constantly be scheming to gain more power! It could
be the best thing that happens!
What about if the Riders don't gain the power of deities? What if another
group succeeds (say the Black Legion)? Again, no problem. Magnus will stay on
that world (with anyone who wishes) and try to wrest the power from them. That
could be some interesting adventures!
This is getting very long, so let me say this. Jim, I respect you as a DM.
I trust you as a DM. And I enjoy you as a DM. I understand that your style is
different from mine, which is a good thing, especially for Matt and Damon, since
it means that our adventures have a drastically different feel, giving them
greater chances at diverse role-playing. I am excited about your adventures.
My only problem was the amount of individual role-playing we have done the past
two weeks. You feel it was necessary for the plot. I feel a slightly
contrived, but quicker solution, would have been preferable. No harm done.
More comments?
Jim and Karen wrote:
> OK, yesterday Damon and John got me back on course, and reduced my
> unconscious efforts to write the Lord of the Rings trilogy to a more
> manageable movie of the week.
>
> After some thought and planning last night, it occurred to me that I may be
> able to return the favor. :)
>
> I think I know one reason why the interest level may have waned a bit the
> other night. It could come from deep-seated expectations that we as a group
> share about what is/isn't up to chance. For example, I think every player
> absolutely expected that the group would be gathered for the meeting in
> Sigil that we ended with. To be true, it had a 90% chance of happening.
>
> Here's why - Mylena really does have the only information available to the
> party that lets them pursue the quest. If they lose her at this point, it's
> all over - someone else will have already won by the time they figure
> anything out. That's one reason why she was so surprised that Magnus was
> letting her take all the risk - just to give a sense of how I'm running this
> as DM, she could have either ended up dead and lost on an outer plane or get
> so frustrated that she jump ship and hook up with another faction.
>
> I guess I'm hoping that we can have a more direct discussion today about
> where this is all leading. I sense a great deal of enthusiasm for the idea
> of a campaign world with some or a good number of our characters as gods -
> and that's good. It could be really cool. Then again, it could be cheesy.
> The whole reason that I'm writing this today is to get a handle on what
> everyone's expectations are.
>
> For example, on Wednesday - I couldn't as DM simply "let" anyone escape.
> The current group(s) may well find themselves in difficult encounters with
> divine servants who will try their hardest to recapture the Riders. Those
> beings might succeed. And that would fly in the face of players who think
> that victory is guaranteed, or that I'm setting the stage for having the
> characters all free again. I think if anything will kill our game over
> time, it will be too much contrivance.
>
> Maybe I'm being so wordy to avoid coming across in the wrong way, but this
> seems to be a very important thing to discuss. For example - John, how
> would you feel if, in the course of a battle with the Black Legion, Magnus
> died - let's say, in one of those meteor swarms that he's so fond of? :)
>
> Another Rider could possibly take up the quest - and might even make all of
> the big decisions in the end. As the only thing I will guarantee is that
> some Riders WILL have an opportunity to be gods, are you ready for a
> situation where Magnus is reborn as a major power, but only over elves or
> magic or something?
>
> I don't want to pick on John - he has the good/bad job of playing the party
> leader. And maybe I'm too anal - I just think that we all need to give some
> thought to whether we're sacrificing excellent stories for the sake of
> requiring some long-term specific outcome.
Other related posts:
