[dungeoncrawl] Re: Campaign thoughts
- From: Johnathan Detrick <jdetrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Riders II <dungeoncrawl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 09:57:30 -0400
Very nicely, well thought out e-mail Damon. I think you nailed a
lot of things pretty squarely. I still stand by my theory of the two
top priorities of the DM though. Of course, you can break DMs down even
further. To compare, I see it as the classes in the game. There are
four basic classes: fighter, thief, mage and cleric. No matter how
many prestige classes, sub-classes, epic classes and the like that they
create, all classes can be broken down into one of the four main
classes. Sure, some have parts of more than one class, but they all
fall within one of the big four. I think DMs are the same way.
However, I break the four of us down a little differently.
Bobby is the "martial arts" DM.
Jim is the "make my characters miserable" DM.
Damon is the "giant robot" DM.
I am the "plots so complicated we'll never finish them" DM.
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
Hi guys! Sorry it's taken me so long to jump in here. I finally
finished
reading the books that you guys have been writing back and forth. :)
In my opinion, I would normally prefer to have the more intricate
details
that Jim tends to put in. I like the fleshed out backstory and the
vivid
accounts of things. However, I understand that with our current amount
of
time to play D&D, we just don't have the time for it.
As John said, there are two BASIC types of DM's, but I can look at the
four
DM's that I've experienced and see four different styles.
On one end of the spectrum you have Bobby. Bobby is a very, very
descriptive DM who mentally builds a world around your character(s).
I'd
say that Bobby is more focused on the history and little details that
make a
world rich. Everything is important and described. The plots are good,
but
"generally" less complex and detailed than some other DM's. Combat is
described in detail. The main focus is on the ambiance of the world and
of
the characters. This is a slower paced campaign, because it takes more
time
to describe things and to work with all of the details, but it also
gives
the characters the most opportunity to flesh themselves out and you
always
feel like you accomplish something. The emphasis here is on the world
and
the characters role in that world.
Jim is next on the spectrum, still incorporating a lot of description
and
history in his worlds, but not focusing as much on the smaller details
about
the characters. His things are more plot driven, although sometimes
those
plots are driven by characters, the main focus is the story. How the
world
interacts with that story is another important part of it. The plots
are
often very, very complex and the world is vividly described. I think
this
gives the characters less of an opportunity to focus on their
personality
and sense of self, but it provides more of an opportunity for the
character
to interact with the world and see what changes occur. The emphasis is
on
the story mostly, but also on the world in general.
I think I'm next on the spectrum. I tend to have much simpler plots
than
any other DM. Mine are usually straight forward and my focus is
generally
on setting. Not so much the NPC's to interact with, but the environment
that the characters are in. I try to give the characters things to
interact
with that are personal to them and I like to make the characters feel as
though they are part of something important. This has its downfalls, as
it
can get overdone. I don't have nearly as much description as Jim or
Bobby,
but I do think that I focus more on characters than Jim does. I don't
provide the ambiance, but give the characters a chance to shine. The
emphasis is mostly on the characters.
John is the opposite end of the spectrum from Bobby. John focuses more
on
plot. He isn't concerned so much with description, although he does
throw
it in when it is warranted. He tends to be more into developing a
complex
plot or plots that interweave with each other. He is great at "teaching
lessons" with his plots and they often have the characters questioning
or
strengthening their resolve on different issues. I don't think his
focus is
so much on making the characters look good as it is seeing how they
interact
with NPC's and the plot in general. The emphasis here is mainly on the
plot, but also John develops his villains more than anyone, I think.
You
really end up wanting to see the villains fail.
Now, these are all just my opinions, but you can see how different the
styles are. I definitely don't think that any one style is better than
another, although there are some that I prefer. However, as you can
see,
some of the styles just aren't "compatible" with the time frames that we
play in. If we could play 3 times a week for a couple of hours each
time,
things would be different, but since we can't, I think we have to make
sacrifices. Unfortunately, some of those sacrifices are what makes the
game
so fun for some of us.
But, even with the time constraints, the fun of the game is still
there. I
have no doubt that we could easily play out this Riders thing for a
couple
of years.
Heck, all of you would be forty by the time we'd finish...I'd still be
in my
30's, but we won't talk about that. :)
Seriously though, we could take one campaign and make that the focus of
the
next several years without a problem, I'm sure. But, I just think that
we
would be depriving ourselves of getting to experience so many other
campaigns, characters and ideas. In essence, we are sacrificing a bit
of
quality to experience more quantity. But I think that we can make that
quantity a heck of a lot of fun to play!
I'll answer my expectations for the Riders in another email because this
is
getting to be a book!!
Other related posts:
