|
3 months ago ::
Mar 05, 2013 - 3:55AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Oct 27, 2007
|
My DM style has changed over the years (sometimes cyclical), I've done chracter based, sandbox, storylines (adenture paths) etc.
Lately I've settled on a sandbox type game with some dungeoncrawling and a lot of player freedom.
1) Character action and character motivation based storytelling rather than character background-story based. Subtle difference but I'm more interested in what characters do or decide to not do during a session than in the essay sized background story the players wrote for their character. I've had too many times that (anecdote alert!) that the were characters with elaborate backgrounds did hardly anything interesting (subjectivity alert!) during sessions while characters with no or little background did and at the same time shaped the story and their character. That said most of my campaigns had 5+ players which meant that I had to prioritize my attention towards what happend on the table durting the session vs how the adventure did or didn't fit into one or more of the characters background.
2) The future is uncertain, the dice and the players will tell. Part of playing (for the PC's)and DM-ing is interpreting what the dice results mean, sometimes it's simple; a low roll on an attack mean someone misses, sometimes it's a bit harder: according to the dice the orc patrol the PC's encounter are willing to parlay. I don't know what the storyline will be in 3 sessions because the players decide which of the many leads they will follow and why. Based on what the players do and what the dice say (for instance for random encounter, morale or reaction check) I have to improvise as much a cohesive story as possible.
3) The campaignworld is a living changing entity, stuff happens even if the PC's don't interact. It is the basis upon which I can improvise, which does mean that it is generic enough that players don't need to much campaign specific info to assess a situation. Seeing a hobgoblin walking the street of a large city for instance is a rare event and worthy of investigation. Also players can choose "odd-ball" character ideas and/or races but there will be consequences against the campaignworlds (Greyhawk in my case) background. If a player wants to play a hobgoblin the campaign doesn't retroactively have hobgoblins tribes that are accepted in civilized society but it will mean that the vast majority of the civil poplation will automatically assume that character is a monster and the player will have to take that into account (otherwise why play a hobgoblin?)
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 05, 2013 - 10:52AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2004
|
Every NPC has a story, small or large. The players are free to interact with any NPC and their story or ignore them and create their own. Every session the NPC stories advance through rumors and events which the players can then continue to interact with or ignore.
With all things there are consequences for character actions or lack of actions.
Combat is deadly.
We've pretty much tossed out the magic system. There are multiple orders of magic, each of which has it's advantages and disadvantages. Each spell type has rules for scaling to determine which slot or how many points are used. Currently players use slots which as used are marked off like a ranger would mark off arrows fired from her quiver.
There are 4 types of arcane casters for each order based on hit dice.
d4 has all cantrips, rituals and spell slots/points
d6 can only cast rituals and spells that his order grants a bonus to
d8 can only cast a single type of spell that the order grants a bonus to, or can only perform rituals (instead of slots/points this person gains extra arcane knowledge skills)
There are "at will" cantrips however they are extremely simple and minor in effect/affect. Light a candle, turn water into coolaid, change the colour of a dress, mend a torn cloak, clean mud off boots, etc...
Rituals are used and take 10 minutes per slot or point calculated.
A "hard" game would have the players write out each spell slot beforehand.
A "soft" game lets players mark the slot off as used.
Arcane magic can heal, however, it is not as good as divine healing.
Clerics use a piety point system similar to HarnMaster.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 05, 2013 - 1:44PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2009
|
My playstyle alters slightly depending on the campaign I'm running, so I'll talk about the playstyle I'm using for the playtest.
1. Player influenced; though I build the world for my players they are the ones that give me much of its flavor, tribes, armies, entire cities and nations will exist if my players require it for their back story. All my players understand that I'll work with them as long as they work with me.
2. Low magic, I prederr casters with at-will magic but I don't tend to have worlds where magic is what technology is to us. If sending stone cell phones and cloaks with bags of holding sewn into the pockets are going to exist it will be for a story purpose alone, and likely be in use by someone of importance befoere it ever falls into the PCs hands.
3. The invisible Railroad; I have a general concept for the direction of the campaign, my players tend to get from point a to point b without ever realizing I had planned point b 4 sessions ago. My players are happy because they have complete freedom to do what they want as they want, I encourage them to do so and to trust me to keep the game going strong. And if I miscalculate what my players enjoy and are likely to do so much that they end up at point 24 instead of point b then I'm complelty ok with it, I can and will improve every and any session at the drop of a hat if I need to.
4. Reactionary world; this ties into 3, I have plans for how things will likely go down but I always make sure my players see atleast some of their effects on the world. And the world will always change in some fashion in accordance with their actions. My players aren't confined to a finite box, I just know what makes them all happy enough that I can progress the game into becoming a cohesive story without them realizing I ever planned it all out.
5. Finally, I like to see imagination encouraged. Though some complain that rules can stifle imagination i'd argue my players were more creative with 4e fighters the 3.5 ones. I feel that it is the dm who really decides how much imagination is used. Whether I give ideas outright, give hints towarrds unconventional methods, or have the bad guys show by example I make sure my players know that if they are smart they can improve as much as they are comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 05, 2013 - 1:44PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2009
|
My playstyle alters slightly depending on the campaign I'm running, so I'll talk about the playstyle I'm using for the playtest.
1. Player influenced; though I build the world for my players they are the ones that give me much of its flavor, tribes, armies, entire cities and nations will exist if my players require it for their back story. All my players understand that I'll work with them as long as they work with me.
2. Low magic, I prederr casters with at-will magic but I don't tend to have worlds where magic is what technology is to us. If sending stone cell phones and cloaks with bags of holding sewn into the pockets are going to exist it will be for a story purpose alone, and likely be in use by someone of importance befoere it ever falls into the PCs hands.
3. The invisible Railroad; I have a general concept for the direction of the campaign, my players tend to get from point a to point b without ever realizing I had planned point b 4 sessions ago. My players are happy because they have complete freedom to do what they want as they want, I encourage them to do so and to trust me to keep the game going strong. And if I miscalculate what my players enjoy and are likely to do so much that they end up at point 24 instead of point b then I'm complelty ok with it, I can and will improve every and any session at the drop of a hat if I need to.
4. Reactionary world; this ties into 3, I have plans for how things will likely go down but I always make sure my players see atleast some of their effects on the world. And the world will always change in some fashion in accordance with their actions. My players aren't confined to a finite box, I just know what makes them all happy enough that I can progress the game into becoming a cohesive story without them realizing I ever planned it all out.
5. Finally, I like to see imagination encouraged. Though some complain that rules can stifle imagination i'd argue my players were more creative with 4e fighters the 3.5 ones. I feel that it is the dm who really decides how much imagination is used. Whether I give ideas outright, give hints towarrds unconventional methods, or have the bad guys show by example I make sure my players know that if they are smart they can improve as much as they are comfortable with.
|
|
|
