|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:27PM
#101
|
|
|
Side effect of this method that I've noticed after a while using it - my prep work gets less and less. As your players take on more of the narrative, you'll need less on the front end to produce the same amount and quality of play experience. As I consider prep to be a barrier to DMing (especially entry to DMing in the first place), this is a big upside.
I was looking through some old adventures I wrote the other day and noticing just how much I would now cut out if I ran them again today. "Don't need to know this to make it work..." "Or that..." "This detail can be filled in by the players..." "Scratch that out..." "This whole planned scene can go..." and so on.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:31PM
#102
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2012
|
...That's a good question, one to which I have no answer to, but they're cutting through the goblins to retrive an item for a merchant. (The D&D Starter Box. It's a Red Box... Of D&D stuff.)
Note what you have here: a goal that, in theory doesn't require them to kill a single enemy. Furthermore, it's a goal that actively encourages thievery.
Think of all the movies and stories there are in which the heroes have fought almost to their goal, but are too beat up and short on resources to complete the goal via a direct assault. If your players put themselves in that spot through non-optimal use of their powers and resources, it's actually something of a blessing, because it means that in order to succeed they're going to have to get clever. They can't charge straight in, or they'll fail. If you set a time limit (say, until the merchant sells or uses the McGuffin) then they probably also can't take an extended rest to recharge. This is where you'll see creativity start to emerge, and where the DM becomes the person who accepts and adds on to cool ideas, instead of the person who might feel the need to block or deflect ideas.
I love It. ALOT.
Glad to hear it. It's not my idea, but one that has been around for a while and is seeing use in some newer games. 4th Edition doesn't directly advocate it, except maybe in DMG 2, though it's related to the "Yes, and..." concept in DMG 1. Try it out a little bit and see how it works for you and your group.
Funny you'd mention that, they're about to come upon a dragon, that they can talk with and negotiate with, and that they don't have to kill.
And Iserith, and much as i'd love to, I don't trust my players with the plot and narritve just yet... That ended with a inn burned down, and the PCs almost dead, and about twenty villagers dead.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:34PM
#103
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2012
|
And Iserith, and much as i'd love to, I don't trust my players with the plot and narritve just yet... That ended with a inn burned down, and the PCs almost dead, and about twenty villagers dead.
That's their way of hinting at the kind of game they want to play. Step back for a moment and see if you can't reframe the world in a way that makes the stuff they find fun inherent in the setting rather than a side effect (As an aside, a surprisingly large chunk of the tabletop RPG population enjoys playing mercenaries with a healthy dose of comedic sociopathy. Not saying your game has to conform to this, but if their goal is to seize the throne rather than save the princess it's best to figure that out early on)
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:38PM
#104
|
|
|
Start small with what Centauri suggests. Deciding what trinket they themselves stole off the goblin, however insignificant it may turn out to be, is giving them narrative control. You can gradually give them more and more to whatever comfort level you prefer.
DMs often think they can control things they can't and are very afraid to give up what little control they think they have. All that control, real or imagined, is completely illusory and given to the DM by the players anyway. Thank them for that trust by giving some back.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:42PM
#105
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
(As an aside, a surprisingly large chunk of the tabletop RPG population enjoys playing mercenaries with a healthy dose of comedic sociopathy....)
This is quite true, and it's rather amazing that pre-generated modules don't take this into account. Perhaps they did, once upon at time, but I don't exactly recall that. Of course, no one has to use modules, but the fact that modules strongly imply that players will more or less willingly go along with standard heroic plot hooks, and that, by extension, those players who don't (or their DMs) are doing something wrong.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:49PM
#106
|
|
|
This is quite true, and it's rather amazing that pre-generated modules don't take this into account. Perhaps they did, once upon at time, but I don't exactly recall that. Of course, no one has to use modules, but the fact that modules strongly imply that players will more or less willingly go along with standard heroic plot hooks, and that, by extension, those players who don't (or their DMs) are doing something wrong.
Oh man, don't get me started on plot hooks or published mods. Or what lessons both teach new DMs that then have to be deprogrammed later when things (inevitably?) go awry.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:49PM
#107
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2012
|
This is quite true, and it's rather amazing that pre-generated modules don't take this into account.
My first major break with the linear narrative format was when on a whim I allowed a player to make a Neutral Evil character in an otherwise "white knight" style party (thankfully the player's interpretation of the alignment was more self-centered jerk than psycho). When none of the standard heroic plot hooks caught his character's interest ("It's the right thing to do" "Your liege lord commands it" etc) I was forced to provide incentives that the character (and by extension the player) actually wanted.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 12:59PM
#108
|
Date Joined:
Apr 24, 2011
|
Side effect of this method that I've noticed after a while using it - my prep work gets less and less. As your players take on more of the narrative, you'll need less on the front end to produce the same amount and quality of play experience. As I consider prep to be a barrier to DMing (especially entry to DMing in the first place), this is a big upside.
I was looking through some old adventures I wrote the other day and noticing just how much I would now cut out if I ran them again today. "Don't need to know this to make it work..." "Or that..." "This detail can be filled in by the players..." "Scratch that out..." "This whole planned scene can go..." and so on.
Very true, My prep has diminished significantly over the years, to the point now that I really only prepare the BBEG, have a rough idea of what could be encountered, and a general context of the story.
...and in the ancient voice of a million squirrels the begotten chittered "You have set upon yourselves a great and noble task, dare you step further, what say you! What say you!"
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 6:04PM
#109
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2009
|
Interesting approach. Though I still prefer to try and approach every single part of the session as the adventure, no matter where they're at. Thus, if I asked them about everything, you're looking at too much time to get anywhere significant.
Yes, I used to do that, too, and a lot of DMs still do. Not my cup of tea as a player or DM. I'd rather not play than talk to barkeeps and go shopping in town. Unless the adventure happens to be in the town, of course (which I rarely choose as a location).
My take on this is that D&D is nice and broad and useful for a lot of styles, but it does a few things well. Among those things is location-based fantasy adventuring. Anything else is a gamble because D&D was not specifically built for those things. Horror, mystery, and other genres come to mind. Now, the DM can build up a bunch of non-transferrable skills to make those genres work, but it's still hit or miss in my opinion, especially given there are other games that do it better. The old burn down the tavern routine might be a way better scenario in Fiasco than in D&D. By focusing on what D&D does best, you improve your chances at a better game.
D&D is a flexible game. You can make it the best at anything.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!)
*Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb.
http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 18, 2012 - 9:43PM
#110
|
|
|
D&D is a flexible game. You can make it the best at anything.
That depends on how much work you want to put into it to get uncertain results. It's a broad game that's great in some areas and hit or miss in others. I'll use D&D to play the things it's really good at with no major effort on my part and save stuff like horror and mystery, for example, for other systems.
|
|
|
