|
5 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 4:00PM
#61
|
|
|
There are several particularly good reasons it is better the traditional way, one reason being that if the players already know what's going to happen, it eliminates any chance for suspense.
That's not actually true. I can see why that might be what people assume though. There are plenty of surprises and suspense in this method, and better still, it tends to be surprises and suspense that actually have an impact since it is the players' own ideas. People engage more on their own ideas. That's just human nature. A single person calling the shots takes the risk of his or her ideas falling flat. I'm not saying "don't take that risk." I'm just saying you don't have to if you don't want to. It's collaboration, not abdication.
I do use the technique to an extent... I'm sure every DM does to some extent.. even if they don't realize it. If a DM asks... would you rather do a dungeon adventure or city adventure, he's using the technique.
Right. Which is why I find it odd when I get so much pushback. Most DMs in my experience already do what we're advocating. They're perhaps not doing it as much or as focused as we suggest. Or with an eye as to why and how it can improve your game and obviate a lot of pitfalls common to the traditional approach. But they're doing it.
However, I submit that at some point, some players will come to resent the DM saying "What's beyond the door?" and not because they're stuck in some old-fashioned mode of thinking, as you suggest, but because they want to empathize with their character's lack of knowing and be better able to react appropriately.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't. (That's a bad question to ask a player anyway, but I get what you're trying to say.) Also, I said "traditional," not "old-fashioned." The latter has a negative connotation; the former does not. This may be why you're reading my words as condescending when that's not my intent. As for reacting to lack of knowledge, I can only say that in my experience there are plenty if not more surprises - even for the DM - in this approach. Your supposition isn't inherently true based upon my experience.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 4:43PM
#62
|
|
|
Speaking of player contibution. I once gathered their old character sheets from previous campaigns, and after some adjustments for the passage of time, used them as the main NPCs in the new campaign.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 17, 2013 - 4:47PM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2012
|
Speaking of player contibution. I once gathered their old character sheets from previous campaigns, and after some adjustments for the passage of time, used them as the main NPCs in the new campaign.
Yeah that's pretty awesome. There's a few NPC's in my current game that were once characters of some of the players, one one of the big evils in the current world was once a player character of an older group that some of the current players got a kick out of.
I love using things like that as a way to shape the world, players love it too.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 12:39AM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2012
|
Something I'm guilty of not doing: Don't save your best stuff for later- All to often we save a characters background hook or a cool quest idea for later in the campaign. Players usually are happy to engage almost immediately. Starting the story as close to the good part as narratively suitable. This sin't to say that always makes sense in D&D where the journey is often more important, but running the players through a bunch of mundane dungeons isn't worth the suspense. Also, a few of these short story writing tips from Kurt Vonnegut might be useful:
- Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
- Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
- Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
- Every sentence must do one of two things—reveal character or advance the action.
- Start as close to the end as possible.
- Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them—in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
- Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
- Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To heck with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.
I think they help more in the sense of planning an adventure than a campaign.
A few guidelines for using the internet:
1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart.
2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons.
3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves.
4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health.
5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 5:11AM
#65
|
|
|
I'm going to echo that "don't save it for later." I've had entire campaigns crumble or fade before the players never got to the big reveal, the awesome villain, or the cool place. It took me years to realize that was probably why the campaign failed.
Now I bring out the big, fun, unusual stuff right away. You can still do some buildup, but it should be the centerpiece, not the end piece.
Another tip: Secrets are for characters, not players. I'm firm believer that if you want your character to have some uber secret that could shake the foundation of the heroes' world, all the players should know and get to enjoy playing with this hidden gem. Be up front, tell them its a secret, and I think it is even fine for the player whose character has the secret to determine how and when it comes to light. But let everyone in on it at the table.
Otherwise it's just lonely fun.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 8:42AM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2013
|
This may have already been addressed but I'm going to say it anyway as I can't remember for sure if it has.
IMO one of the biggest things to remember is that every, and I do mean EVERY, gaming group is different. Even if it's just the addition or subtraction of one player, that can greatly change how the group sees/does things, and how they want their game to go.
That being said, I think that both the Player input (collaboration) method and the more DM led focus have merit, but it depends entirely on the group. Now, if you are running a campaign for a group that you've been with a long time I think it is easier to work with them to find what works best. If, however you are running a one-shot adventure at a Con or some other event it is a little more difficult as you probably don't know any, or maybe only a few, of the players sitting at the table. Therefore, I think it is important to follow two guidelines.
The first I'm positive was mentioned before. Be creative. Whatever adventure, be it a module or a homebrew, that you are running, don't be afraid to add some of your own personal flair to it.
The second has been mentioned time and again and I am a big fan of it. Flexibility. the "Yes, and..." method. I personally love this and use it for the games I run and my friends also use it when they run games. Whether you are using lots of player input and collaboration in your game or just a little, it is important to be flexible. In fact IMO it is even more important to be flexible when you use less player input, because it is inevitable that at some point (unless you are railroading players, which I think is not a good method at all) that something is going to happen unexpectedly that will foil your well laid plans.
Once again, these are only suggestions on how to run a game and make it fun for everyone and these may or may not work within your group. There are in fact some groups that work very well using their own methods that others might completely disagree with, but it's what works for that group.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 10:13AM
#67
|
|
|
Play the way your players want: Collaborate with your players to find out specifically what kind of game they want to play, such as how often they want to see characters die, how much combat, how much non-combat, types of enemies, types of settings, etc.
This is actually the most useful advice I've ever seen you post.
I have done this with my players, and I know for a fact they do NOT want to know what's coming up, they do not want to know anything their characters' would not.
On collaboration, if my player wants to invent his hometown and place it in my homebrew world, I'm all for it. I'll set a couple of parameters, and he can fill in the rest.
However, asking my players questions like "What do you think happened to your horses while they were gone?" will never have a place at my table. This isn't being obstinate, it's being confident in knowing what my players enjoy. Their characters take actions in the world, and I decide how the world responds. That's what they want from a DM, and that's what I give 'em.
Back on the OP's topic. Tip: Ask pointed questions to the quieter players. Do not accept indecisive ones.
Example: in the Undermountain campaign, there is an encounter with a woman who was brought back to life, but she asks the party to take her back to where she was buried. She wants them to kill her so she can rejoin her dead husband. Her husband's ghost asks the party not to kill her, but to take her back to town and find her surviving relatives, and show her the joys of living.
When I asked my players what they thought of the matter, some of their characters said "Whatever she wants to do." Unacceptable. Demand an opinion. Some players may not enjoy roleplaying, but they can certainly determine an opinion. Do not judge the rightness or wrongness of it, but make them make one. Caveat: there's really nothing wrong with a roleplayed character actually having the opinion of "Whatever she wants to do." I put this example down as a way of encouraging dialogue from quieter players, nothing more...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 1:23PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
I do use the technique to an extent... I'm sure every DM does to some extent.. even if they don't realize it. If a DM asks... would you rather do a dungeon adventure or city adventure, he's using the technique.
Iserith: Right. Which is why I find it odd when I get so much pushback. Most DMs in my experience already do what we're advocating. They're perhaps not doing it as much or as focused as we suggest. Or with an eye as to why and how it can improve your game and obviate a lot of pitfalls common to the traditional approach. But they're doing it. - It's probably the AMOUNT of use of the technique you are suggesting. As if it is not only a good idea, but the ONLY good idea and that all else is bad DMing and that the technique has no drawbacks, or has less drawbacks than its more traditional use as an occasional boost over the hurdle created when a DM has writer's block or is on the verge of burnout. The condescension I was feeling was, at least in your writing, a sense that you weren't acknowledging that the technique has some unique flaws of its own (flaws other than a traditionalist's refusal to try something not within the established tradition). Many (most?) DMs ask for some sort of background about the character and if they jump the campaign a few years might ask what the player has been up to in that time. So, yes, most (if not all) DMs use the technique to an extent, and it should definitely be remembered as a technique than can be used as a trick to get players involved and creative juices flowing. It's like salt. Salt is great as a flavoring, maybe not so great as a 4 course meal. Maybe not the best analogy, but close to how the detractors are seeing it, I think.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells?
DM: Awesome. Yes.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 1:25PM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Jun 20, 2012
|
Something I'm guilty of not doing:
Don't save your best stuff for later- All to often we save a characters background hook or a cool quest idea for later in the campaign. Players usually are happy to engage almost immediately. Starting the story as close to the good part as narratively suitable.
This sin't to say that always makes sense in D&D where the journey is often more important, but running the players through a bunch of mundane dungeons isn't worth the suspense.
Also, a few of these short story writing tips from Kurt Vonnegut might be useful:
- Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
- Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
- Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
- Every sentence must do one of two things—reveal character or advance the action.
- Start as close to the end as possible.
- Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them—in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
- Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
- Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To heck with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.
I think they help more in the sense of planning an adventure than a campaign.
Good list.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller.
WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells?
DM: Awesome. Yes.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 18, 2013 - 2:21PM
#70
|
|
|
It's probably the AMOUNT of use of the technique you are suggesting. As if it is not only a good idea, but the ONLY good idea and that all else is bad DMing and that the technique has no drawbacks, or has less drawbacks than its more traditional use as an occasional boost over the hurdle created when a DM has writer's block or is on the verge of burnout. The condescension I was feeling was, at least in your writing, a sense that you weren't acknowledging that the technique has some unique flaws of its own (flaws other than a traditionalist's refusal to try something not within the established tradition).
Many (most?) DMs ask for some sort of background about the character and if they jump the campaign a few years might ask what the player has been up to in that time. So, yes, most (if not all) DMs use the technique to an extent, and it should definitely be remembered as a technique than can be used as a trick to get players involved and creative juices flowing.
It's like salt. Salt is great as a flavoring, maybe not so great as a 4 course meal. Maybe not the best analogy, but close to how the detractors are seeing it, I think.
As I just mentioned in another thread, that while I provide this technique as a solution to many problems inherent in the game, it is not the only solution and I'm not saying it is. Certain posters read into it that way. I leave others to post differing viewpoints and then the OP can decide what's right for them.
The only real flaw I've found in this technique isn't much of one. Basically, when someone who is used to the traditional style of play is given a heaping dose of narrative control, they can run wild with it. But that's okay! Because once they realize they're running roughshod over their own challenges, they bring it back to a level with which they are comfortable. Otherwise, our games simply don't have the same problems you see all over these forums week after week. We must be doing something right. (To be clear, that statement doesn't mean other people are doing something wrong. CYA, eh?)
|
|
|
