[dungeoncrawl] Re: Campaign Thoughts
- From: jimkaren@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: dungeoncrawl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 08:23:53 US/Eastern
I think you covered it pretty well, and
reassured me on the important stuff.
You're right on character introduction -
it's sort of funny, but when you posed
that scenario, my first thought
was, "Ugh. That's a lot of work! I
always have to give those situations
such thought, and it takes forever."
Like the recent introduction of
Quincy. In the back of my mind, a
little voice is still saying, "You
should have developed a backstory for
John of where Quincy has been on the
planes. It would help him to
understand what happened since the
character was seen last." Or, "That
was sort of a contrived way to bring
him in - just coming through a portal
like that. There should have been a
better explanation, or it doesn't quite
hold up for this reason" - etc.
If I had a bit more talent, a lot more
patience, and even more time, I could
easily write something as lengthy as
war and peace. This might sound odd or
sick, but I LIKE the fact that the
Tolkien books are long on explanation.
It makes it more real for me.
Like the adventures we're currently
doing - personally, I'm far more
interested in things like the history
of the Green Mill Inn or its place in
the local economy than in how well it
suits the characters as a temporary
base. That's why Dennis, on first
visiting, said, "The Green Mill Inn! I
have long heard of this place from
songs and legends, but never realized
that I would actually see it."
It could be, and I'm cool with it if
such is the case, that none of the
players that night even caught the
comment, let alone used it to build an
idea that the inn they're staying in is
legendary somewhere.
I try to sprinkle that sort of stuff
all over when I DM, and the fact that
I'm in to LOTR right now is only making
it worse. :)
My problem is simply finding a
compromise in all of this - deep down,
I want the players to have a good time,
but there's a channeled spirit of
Professor Ludwig Von Duck in there too.
-------------------------------
OK - next topic. To be honest, I'm
feeling a bit of pressure in deciding
how this all turns out. In some way or
another, the Riders are guaranteed to
have a heroic or at least momentous
impact on the outcome of the "world
chasing" plot.
But it might not be what they expect,
or the terms of success might read
differently than Mylena set them up
for. I have a bit of paranoia that
anything I establish as DM will vanish
within 3 months' time - shades of
Nadan's father, or something. :)
I'd really like to end up with
something where everyone is satisfied.
The last time a character became a god
(Baish), he ended up a mortal again
within a year or so of playing time.
Or look at any one of my own reversals
or character rebirths - Fenrys would be
an example.
So I'm not "stressing" over this, but
it's necessary to understand where
everyone else is coming from. Not to
change those views or to influence them
in a certain way, but to make sure that
expectations aren't totally out of
whack with that I'm doing.
Man, can I ramble! Anyone else?
>
> 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:
