# 4 Hours w/ RSD - Let's Have a Flamewar!



## Charles Dunwoody (May 17, 2011)

Interesting concept. I have new players that like to get new options books, however. I wonder how they'd react if we limited books instead of allowing new books?

Also, I wonder if we allow drop in players and they enjoy it but then you don't have room for them, what happens? Hopefully you could get them into another game, but I could see someone getting upset if they showed up for one game and weren't welcomed back. I think you'd need to be very sure the player(s) knew how many games they might get to play in.

On the other hand, I'm all for not lugging so many books around. And if I could go several months without the minis and mats that'd be great.


----------



## aurance (May 17, 2011)

"I say no."

I say yes. See how subjective this is?

The only DIR is everyone on the table having a good time. Rest is up for negotiation.


----------



## Starman (May 17, 2011)

aurance said:


> The only DIR is everyone on the table having a good time. Rest is up for negotiation.




I disagree. Your "fun" is actually badwrongfun. If only you knew the _right_ way, you could be having _real_ fun.



I agree with you.


----------



## Osgood (May 17, 2011)

Wow.  I disagree with most of what you have to say here Ryan, and the rest, I don't really have a basis for comparison.  Your experiences seem to be very different from my own.

While I agree that the game could use simpler rules, game complexity is rarely an issue.  My group's longstanding process is to go with what the DM decides when in doubt, and look it up during the next break.  I have yet to hear anyone complain about new powers, feats, etc. had to be learned upon leveling.

For the most part the interdependence doesn't matter because everyone makes an effort to attend every week.  The rare times we do have someone bail, we usually press forward with  no major issues (the absent player gets ribbed the following week about not even being missed).  The exception being when multiple people are out or the missing person  is integral to the plot (as in we're taking on that character's  nemesis).

The short timer issue has never come up for me.  I don't have a lot of opportunity for random guest stars dropping by wanting to play for a session.  Honestly, I don't know enough gamers for that, and I still play with all the ones I care to (that still live in the country).  

As for the GM workload,  I enjoy doing it so it's no biggie if it doesn't get used.  But frankly after all these years, I'm pretty good at knowing what will get used (or recycled), so seldom are my efforts in wasted.  

Railroad vs. Sandbox generally isn't an issue either.  I know my players, and I can usually anticipate what they'll do, and when they surprise me... I roll with it.  I played for years without any prepared materials, I made it all up on the fly, so again, no big deal.

None the less, as has already been stated, the only real way of "doing it right" is when everyone is having fun, and that's never been an issue.


----------



## Alphastream (May 17, 2011)

I like that unlike previous posts you provided non-inflammatory ideas for improving the game. A lot of your comments and advice are sound.

To be honest I don't see the benefit to half of what you wrote. The whole diver story, the title of "let's have a flamewar"... these aspects to me detracted from the rest of the useful post. I suspect many will say "too long, didn't read" or simple be turned off by the title and the way it starts out. 

Really, what is the point in your writing about those aspects? Are you wanting a flame war? There should be no flame war and there is no reason for at all saying someone is doing it wrong. People having fun aren't doing it wrong. 

Sure, many of the aspects you mentioned are detrimental in various ways. At the same time, for many these same aspects are part of what makes RPGs so worth playing. Complexity is a prime example: gamers love complexity. There is a reason (ok, several) why 99% of us aren't playing OD&D.

I think most of your post could be recast as ways to run a campaign so they are both fun for the group and also grow the hobby and retain interest. This would have reached out to different players better and encouraged a better discussion. Story-driven is fantastic. Encouraging new players is fantastic. Having a proper economic model for RPGs is wonderful. Can we really envision a flame war to any of that? We can promote ways to do these things without labeling anyone's play as "doing it wrong" or even "doing it right". We can do it without begging for a flame war.


----------



## Shayuri (May 17, 2011)

I'm not going to say you're wrong, because you're clearly writing from your experiences. Your experiences and mine don't seem to match...but that's to be expected. If they did, you'd be me...or I'd be you...or something equally disturbing.

I do want to offer some ideas that, well, one hates to use the word 'rebut,' but perhaps that reflect a different gaming experience and could mitigate some of the factors you speak of.

*The Game Itself Is Too Complex*: This complaint strikes me as being tied to the 'short-timer' complaint, for one reason; learning curve. There's a counterforce to complexity, basically, when gaming, and that is that we learn the rules as we go...eventually reaching a point where we're familiar enough with them that game action isn't necessarily impeded overmuch by using them rigorously. 

My example for this is back when I first started tabletop gaming with GURPS. GURPS is a complex system. There are a ton of modifiers to keep track of for nearly any roll. However, three or four months in, I was familiar enough with my character, his equipment, and the game, that I didn't need to look up tables to know that if I fired my blaster rifle at a target 100 yards away, targeting his leg, that my effective skill was 12. 

My experiences with D&D have been similar. The rules can be complicated, but eventually we learn them. At that point the rulebooks become reference material; not necessary for every action.

Now one can certainly argue that the learning curve of games is too steep...I don't know that I agree, but there's definitely a point of contention to be made there. But I don't think it's accurate to say that the longer a group plays, the longer it takes to play. Yes, complexity increases, but so does a group's proficiency with the system.

*Parties Become Interdependent:* Hee...I have to admit...I actually think this is a GOOD thing in some ways. I get what you're saying though, I do. If you're in the Tomb of Horrors and Chucky the Rogue can't make it to the session, you probably don't want to try it without him. I just don't see that as being a systemic problem with the game though. Heck, can someone else play him for the night? Can the GM NPC him? It wouldn't make any narrative sense for him to just vanish anyway, would it?

Well, in the Tomb of Horrors it might.

I think you and I may attribute party interdependency on different things, which may account for our different viewpoints on it. You seem to view it as a natural process of optimization...a group of people specializing into roles so that the group is more capable than the sum of its parts. There's that element to it perhaps, but I think people specialize because of a much simpler urge:

People want to shine.

If I swing a sword, I want to be THE GUY WHO SWINGS A SWORD. No one should be better at swinging a sword than me, except perhaps my nemesis enemy NPC, who loves to show me up. That's the essence of playing a character in heroic fantasy. You're the best at what you do (or the best in potentia, if low level). You have a niche, and it's yours. Oh, you may not stand in the spotlight when a bat swarm descends upon you, or when a guard must be snuck past and a jail cell unlocked, but you're okay with that because you know soon it will be time to swing swords again, and you rule at that.

The concept of role protection is really strong in every game I've played. During character creation the question I see most is, "I'd like to play a wizard (or whatever), does anyone else want that?" Party needs DO shape these choices, but I think it's because party needs define which choices will have the chance to shine, not because everyone making characters is trying to come up with a combination of classes that will make the party as number-crunched effective as can be made.

And, as a postscript, I think it's good that games encourage people to talk to each other and think about their choices in context with the choices of others, and shows the advantages possible from doing so. I think that outweighs, in my mind, any potential negative issues arising from a well-integrated party's mutual dependence on each other.

*Short-timers are discouraged:* This strikes me as a problem with a group more than a problem with a system. A good group that makes people feel welcome will help the newcomer along. The GM might use email or online communication to help him or her get their character ready before game night. They won't expect system proficiency at first, and will be ready to help with the inevitable stumbles.

*GM aspirations exceed their abilities:* Also a group issue, not systemic. But this is also how GM's learn their trade. You don't know the limit of your ability until you test it. 

*Plot replaces Story:* This ties directly in with the previous complaint. Your proposed solution of sticking to the "core" genre story strikes me as a good idea for groups that are new...but I also find that as I become more confident as a player and GM, I want (in either capacity) more possibilities. Maybe a little mix and match with other genres. Maybe a reworking of some other popular media material into the game. Maybe something wholly original, or something we develop between us there at the table.

These departures from genre norms DO have increased risk of falling flat...but when they work, there's so much to be gained as well.


----------



## Lanefan (May 18, 2011)

Interesting read, Ryan. 

I mostly agree with your basic sentiments, but I've one quibble and one outright disagreement with what you wrote:

First, a disclaimer: I'm coming from a 1e perspective thus my experiences are probably going to be much different than someone coming from a 3e or 4e background.

The quibble: E6, or anything that similarly caps the game, is not an answer to anything for me.  One of the joys of the game is that in theory it's open-ended; you can go as far as luck and the campaign will take you.  E6, with a hard cap at 6th level, takes that away.  There must be better ways of reducing the powers, of which I'd suggest the first is, well, simply reducing the powers both in number and effect.

The disagreement: I would much rather see party interdependence than not, for two reasons.  One, it encourages the PCs to stay together as a party; and two, it discourages what I call "one-man band" characters who can kinda do pretty much anything without needing the rest of the party at all and who - knowing they're at least vaguely competent in any situation - tend to wander off on their own much more often than characters with obvious strengths and weaknesses.

Lanefan


----------



## Quickleaf (May 18, 2011)

I am down with DIR! Then again I'm an amateur free-diver, and they're sort of another breed... 

Your points about welcoming new gamers and one-timers is great. But I mostly disagree with the 5 "pathologies" you identified (I do not think that word means what you think it means!). 

I'll just address your critique of the plot-story issue.



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> Plot replaces Story: A related trap that many GMs (and some players) fall into is trying to develop a plot – that is, a pre-determined framework around which the players are supposed to build a story. This creates the feeling of being railroaded which players hate.



Not all players hate this - Ive played with several who would rather be given a strong direction by the DM. 
And some DMs create an illusion of choice that leaves players none the wiser. Personally I don't like it, but I've seen it done.



> It creates frustration for GMs when clues aren’t followed, events are encountered out of order, or characters wander off into the wilds.



Well, I am a strong believer in the Rule of Threes when it comes to clues - provide the players 3 ways to get any single clue. And intelligent adventure design plus a flexible DM can make "out of order" encounters fun and flowing. And if a game gets to a point where players wander off into the wild, while that could be indicative of feeling railroaded, it could also be the DM has failed to hook their interest, or it could be a hex-crawling type of game. 



> GMs feel a subtle pressure to deliver this kind of experience from the plethora of novels featuring their favorite game worlds, and the computerized RPGs which seem to deliver this kind of game effortlessly.



Maybe a certain kind of GM feels this way. But I don't. And to assume that GMs as a whole can't distinguish between the dynamics of reading a novel and a shared roleplaying game session is an insult to our (unpaid) profession!


----------



## pneumatik (May 18, 2011)

Your home games are very different from the type of game I participate in.

We're perfectly happy to not have new people. I realize that's not how you grow the hobby, but if I liked meeting new people I'd have never gotten into DnD.

We use our stacks of books away from the session to build characters. Stuff PCs do all the time we memorize the mechanics for. We look up stuff before our turn, or have someone else look up something while we handle our turn's other activities.

Most of the DnD books are spells (powers, whatever) and magic items. Cutting down the page count necessary for the game means detailed lists need to be replaced with relatively simple mechanics that can create a large range of options. Even then it's tricky because each item in your chinese menu needs to be details. Overall rules simplification would help cut down all the individual power descriptions, but at the cost of more ambiguity in the rules (and I think the market doesn't want to pay that cost). 

Party interdependency allows us a lot more character design space to build PCs in. Playing a glass cannon only works if there's a tank and a healer. Changing this requires a system-wide change.

OTOH, I love the advice to have your game be about what the game is about. The game should be built around its core story. Indie games force you to do this by only supporting a specific type of play.

If you're looking for other short games, I love (but have never run) microlite20. It's a great example of increased ambiguity in return for shorter power descriptions.


----------



## WheresMyD20 (May 18, 2011)

Ryan,

Excellent insight! The advice you give in this column matches up pretty well to my own gaming experience.

It's all about keeping it simple and keeping it all in balance.  Too many rules and you'll frustrate some of the group members, too much plot and you'll put others to sleep, etc.  The "less is more" approach seems to work pretty well.  It seems to have the broadest appeal.


----------



## scourger (May 18, 2011)

While I don't agree with all of this, I do agree with some of it.  So here are my thoughts.  First, the system does have to be limited.  I started this with *AD&D 2e* by eventually limiting my game to just the core rules.  It worked so well that I ported that concept over to d20.  Of course, the "core" of *3e* is still about 1200 pages (PHB, DMG & MM); but it was better for me than allowing all the content that exploded afterward.  I would use the core of another d20 game, but that was generally all.  My favorites were *Judge Dredd d20* and *Omega World d20*, the latter being a great example of a concise but brilliant game where less is more in the presentation.  

For non-d20 systems, the best I have found and brought to my group is *Savage Worlds*.  The design concepts for that game seem to deliver many of these concepts.  I think one of its best features is that it keeps coarse granularity of options for the GM while allowing fine granularity of options for the players.  In other words, GMs can easily stat up foes or other NPCs that are good at one or a few things without worrying over the exact "right" calculations.  That makes it easier to run.  Meanwhile, players get to enjoy a rich level of character development through advancement options that preserve the game-within-a-game to keep them engaged.  

To deal with a diminished number of players in our group, I really embrace the idea of allowing a pool of allies to the PCs.  We started this concept in *Savage Worlds* games, and the key is to make sure all the players have extras to control--not just the player whose character has a leadership feat.  I've brought it over to our current *Gamma World* game, and it works well.  The heroes have some extra muscle that is somewhat expendable, and it opens up the possibility for the player characters to discover more allies in unexpected places through roleplaying the story.  For example, when they rescued 4 people they turned out to be needed replacement allies; low-powered but available.  Same for a robot they defeated, reprogrammed and repaired.  And, since the game is simplified the allies are relatively easy to manage in additions to the stars.  

There are some limits to simplification, though.  In our *Gamma World* game I find the players less engaged because they don't have enough character development work to do.  Each PC really is defined by the first rolls for backgrounds, and they are pretty even tactically.  This hurts the story development because the players do not feel invested.  It's to the point that I am not sure I want to continue the game even though I have 2 expansion modules left to explore.  

I had the same experience with a *D&D Minis* skirmish campaign that I ran a couple of years ago.  It was awesome for its simplicity.  I chose a pool of minis for the adventuring group to include the heroes and the extras.  The players took on characters and even made one each their primary character.  But, the advancement was very simple from the *Miniatures Handbook*, and there were no defined feats or skills to choose or use.  Next time, I plan to use a hybrid approach with the players having PHB levels of options but giving myself some freedom as DM to use a minis level of complexity for the foes.  

Unfortunately, I think the best way to limit the game material is to limit the magic.  I say "unfortunately" because magic is really a big driver of the fun for *D&D*.  But, it takes up a lot of material.  Going back to *3e*, magic is about 1/3 to 1/2 of the PHB.  So, for the next game I would like to run, _Sons of Conan_, I plan to limit the PCs to non-spellcasting classes.  So, they are basically barbarians, fighters, monks or rogues.  It has to work for the story, though, so magic-users are limited to foes and occasionally helpful NPCs; like the original _Conan_ stories.  My hope is that the players will actually be liberated from niche roles and that I won't have to worry about magic so much and can just use foes from my stock of D&D minis.  That should in turn free me to focus more on the story development.  

Similarly, I would love to run a game based on the _Slaine_ comics with classes limited to "celtic" themes: barbarian, bard, druid, fighter & rogue.  I think *Slaine d20* presented some interesting themes and the _Horned God_ graphic novels present a basic story that could make a good adventure arc.  But, the rules options need to be narrowed to empower the game--for me.


----------



## rayt38 (May 18, 2011)

*I agree with some of it Ryan*

My group has played D&D from OD&D to 4ed and has now returned to Swords & Wizardry and what we have from OD&D still usable. As a group we got tired of the amount of books and options that kept growing out of sight with 3e and 4e and decided at the beginning of the year to go back to OD&D and the new S&W Complete to have a game with a few agreed upon house rules we could enjoy and not have to remember a boat load of rules and 2 hour combat rounds to enjoy.

Role playing games have always been about the story not the crazy amount of rules that tell you what you can and cannot do at a given moment in the game. That why we went back to the beginning.


I have 4 players ages are 39, 54, 42 and 25. We are having a blast playing the old rules again and thats what matters.


----------



## Anselyn (May 18, 2011)

Funnily enough, today and elsewhere, I answered the question "Why isn't Call of Cthulhu more popular than it is?" by pointing to

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfile...chSummary.html
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfile...PGPlayers.html

I find it particularly interesting the statement from the summary of the survey that:


> *All * (emphasis mine) of the people who indicated a strong interest in RPGs identified eight "core values" that they look for in the RPG experience. These 8 core values are more important than the segments; that is, if these 8 things aren't present in the play experience it won't matter if the game generally supports a given segment's interests - the players will find the experience dissatisfying. These 8 core values are:
> Strong Characters and Exciting Story
> Role Playing
> Complexity Increases over Time
> ...




Now, I find that some of these absolute core values don't apply to my gaming desires (I also think that they are not buttons pressed by Call of Cthulhu.)

Complexity Increases over Time
Requires Strategic Thinking
Competitive
Add on sets/New versions available

Hence, CoC doesn't align itself with the desires af a large section of gamers and so is not highly commercially successful.

However, I also think that pushing D&D to fulfill these latter needs -  and how well MTG worked to do this too - has been detrimental to roleplaying as a whole as D&D painted itself into a particular hobby corner. I think the article above indicates this - especially on the complexity front.

Also - and I know I'm going to be irritating by saying this - but a lot of people are going to look at this and reply well those values do apply to me. (see replies above already). But, of course they are likely to your presence here is a statement that you almost certainly fit the dominant mode.


----------



## delericho (May 18, 2011)

I was with you right up to "Core Story".

Having just guided a group of near-novices through the process of 3e character creation, I'm fairly strongly convinced that even at its simplest, this edition is needlessly and uselessly complex in places. (4e is a bit better, but not much.)

So, yeah, I agree with that.

However, I don't agree with your "Core Story" notion. For me, the principle value of simplifying the game is so I can get "the work" parts out of the equation so I can focus on "the story" parts of it - but that value is negated if I then limit myself to a "Core Story". This is especially true since I specifically _don't_ want to have to change games often for lots of different stories - unlearning and relearning the rules is a real pain (especially if there are lots of minor changes - something the d20 games tended to be particularly bad for).


----------



## delericho (May 19, 2011)

Kravell said:


> Also, I wonder if we allow drop in players and they enjoy it but then you don't have room for them, what happens? Hopefully you could get them into another game, but I could see someone getting upset if they showed up for one game and weren't welcomed back.




In a "game club" environment, I would very strongly push for a policy that "all new campaigns start at less than full load". That is, if the DM (and game) can handle 6 players, the campaign is limited to 5 players at the outset.

This guarantees that if someone new joins, there will always be a spot for them in at least some game, and ideally they'll have a choice of games to play.

I base this on an experience I had on both occasions I joined a game group - although there were loads of games going, they were all full, so the organisers had real trouble finding me a spot at _any_ table, never mind a game I actually wanted to play.

(The clubs also had the problem that every time a given DM would kick off a campaign, the same group of players would immediately jump in - and sometimes they would be pre-registered by the DM. That made the club very clique-y. But that's another rant...)



pneumatik said:


> We're perfectly happy to not have new people. I realize that's not how you grow the hobby, but if I liked meeting new people I'd have never gotten into DnD.




I once thought as you did. Then I watched my game group slowly fall apart over many years.

While you're in school/university (or perhaps the army?), it's easy - you have a bunch of friends all with a similar schedule and demands, so you can find a time when they're all available. This state of affairs can go on quite happily for several years.

But in time, you hit the constraints of the real world. Al decides to move away for work. Bob gets married and starts a family. Chris and Dave have mutually-exclusive work schedules.

And suddenly, instead of having seven people able to turn up most of the time, you have four - few enough that even one cancellation means the game is off for everyone... and most sessions there's _someone_ who has to cancel.

(Even worse - when we got to that situation, we found that we _couldn't_ recruit. There was so much history and so many in-jokes, and habits, and references that any new player automatically felt like an outsider. They never stuck around. It sucked, but there was nothing we could do.)

Trust me - you're much better maintaining at least some loose ties to the wider network of gamers - that way, you can maybe pick up some people to replace those you've lost, and when people do have to leave your group, they can probably find another game that suits.


----------



## TerraDave (May 19, 2011)




----------



## pneumatik (May 20, 2011)

delericho said:


> Trust me - you're much better maintaining at least some loose ties to the wider network of gamers - that way, you can maybe pick up some people to replace those you've lost, and when people do have to leave your group, they can probably find another game that suits.



I do that. I just mean that we don't care if a given game is conducive to bringing in new people. It's just easier.


----------



## delericho (May 20, 2011)

pneumatik said:


> I do that. I just mean that we don't care if a given game is conducive to bringing in new people. It's just easier.




Ah, fair enough. I misread what you were saying.


----------



## Henry (May 20, 2011)

I have to say I agree with a lot of what Ryan says. If I were introducing a brand new group of people to role-playing, I would NOT NOT NOT use 3E or Pathfinder, or really even 4e, though that wouldn't be as bad.

I would go with Basic D&D, (or Labyrinth Lord as it's now known) or Castles and Crusades. I would not give people more than 15 things to keep track of, and the six ability scores, their AC, attack and damage dice, and (MAYBE) saving throws is about it - and even then, I'd use Fort, reflex and will instead of the classic saves, and I'd keep it to a simple "by level" chart with no bonuses.

For newbies, there's just too much to decipher, as a general rule.

Now, for the established group, I'd say we love complexity. Everyone who delves deeply into a hobby loves to push up the challenge level by planning and stretegy -  Ryan, didn't you say that DIR divers have discussions of almost Talmudic detail? Having no experience with Judaism, but getting a few glimpses from Potok's The Chosen, I can see where people who love a subject enjoy digging into it far more than a novice would. Not everyone needs to love Strat-o-Matic baseball to enjoy a ball game - but chances are a big time fan who loves diving into player and team averages will grab on to Strat-o-Matic with gusto.


----------



## amnuxoll (May 21, 2011)

RyanD said:


> *Short-timers are discouraged*:  It is very hard for a player to just “sit in” in a Standard Game.



I don't think this has to do with complexity.  I think it has to do with the natural inclination of humans to clique.

I agree that the 3E and 4E systems often create too much complexity.  I don't think E6 is the only solution to that.  And I definitely don't think that you will ever find a fantasy RPG that appeals to everyone.




RyanD said:


> *Plot replaces Story*




The other extreme is the sandbox campaign.  I hate those just as much as railroads.  The best DMs can ride in between the two extremes.  I think there is a lot of value in the GM creating a loose plot as a skeleton to build the story around.  If the PCs deviate too strongly, don't be afraid to dismantle it and rebuild.  



RyanD said:


> _Encourage Characters to be Generalists_




I think this is fundamentally bad advice.  Not only will players refuse to go along with this, I don't think they should.  Being master adventurers that work together as a team is downright fun.  It's awesome to defeat a foe together you could not have defeated alone.

One of the FLAWS in 3.5e was that you could be a generalist.  You could be a PC that was a good melee fighter who could heal, cast arcane spells and find traps.  I shared a table with a few of these twinked out one-person-party PCs.  No fun.

I firmly disagree with the notion that one absent PC makes for a TPK.  It just makes for a challenge:  an adventure that builds perspective and character.   



RyanD said:


> _We’d Love To Have You Join Us!_




This is very solid advice.  Also, do reverse:  Join other groups from time to time.  Play some RPGA games.  Meet people.  It pays off.


----------



## Kestrel (May 21, 2011)

I agree with the post, and its something I've been struggling with in my own game.  I've dropped d20 and started playing Savage Worlds because of the complexity factor.  I'm tired of the hyper-specialized characters and all the time spent on just trying to play the game by the rules.

As to inviting new/one-shot players, we did this in the last session.  Two players from another game dropped in and they were able to grab a pre-gen, and get into the game with no problems.  They grasped the game within minutes and were playing with not having even looked at the rules book previously.

My goal now is to focus on trying to have the game run without using the character sheets.  I want the players to envision the characters acting based on what is going on in the game and using the rules only to adjudicate those actions.  I really want to get away from the boardgame and focus on the roleplaying, but I know its going to be an uphill climb.  We've spent way too many years looking at the battlemat and our character sheets to determine what we do.


----------



## GameDaddy (May 22, 2011)

Judges Guild recognized the power creep early on as a game breaker. Bob's solution? Change the experience points table to slow the rate that characters gain levels. The result, a basic D&D game that plays very much like an E6 game today.

Another option, especially for the more complex modern games, i.e. 3.x is character multi-classing. Have multi-class characters be the norm and single class characters (and npcs) a rare exception.

Fighter/Clerics Fighter/Thieves Fighter/Wizards or Fighter Sorcerers and wizard/rogue combos make for a much more interesting characters and a much more interesting game. Advanced games use some prestige classes  to create this effect, and new prestige classes that round out characters and give them a wider range of abilities will help to create homogenous characters more adept at handling a wide range of characters.

There are plots and storylines that do make it much easier to integrate new and visiting players into a campaign, among these:
_
The Army Campaign_, where the players are marching with a vast Army into unexplored or enemy territory. Each session the players undertake a "new" mission for the commander.

_The Extended Family Campaign _where the players are members of a clan or tribe. The players have obligations to fulfill for the benefit of the clan, more importantly though, they have obligations to look out for each other.

_The Great Migration/Resettlement Campaign_, where the players are part of a large group that have traveled into new territories and are exploring, looking for suitable locations to settle in.

Each of these basic storylines lend themselves well to allowing one-shot opportunities for play by new players, and it's also easy to include infrequent but recurring visits by one-shot players that decide to return and participate.


----------



## GameDaddy (May 22, 2011)

Kestrel said:


> My goal now is to focus on trying to have the game run without using the character sheets.  I want the players to envision the characters acting based on what is going on in the game and using the rules only to adjudicate those actions.  I really want to get away from the boardgame and focus on the roleplaying, but I know its going to be an uphill climb.  We've spent way too many years looking at the battlemat and our character sheets to determine what we do.




For the more advanced games like 3.x a redesigned character sheet could go a long way toward changing the style of play too.

For the GM, the character sheet would include all the crunch detail, the numbers, the exp, the precise desciptions of feats, equipment, magic and treasures.

For the players, the ability scores, their background, their training, a brief description of their talents as well as some notes on who they know in the social hierarchy.


----------



## GameDaddy (May 22, 2011)

...duplicate post? How did that happen?


----------



## KidSnide (May 23, 2011)

I have to say that, while I agree with some of the general ideas in this post, I really disagree with the idea that GMs should focus on the core story of the game.

I play RPGs in order to have a wide variety of stories.  Furthermore, IME, most players put it a significant amount of time learning rules systems.  If GMs focused on the core story of the game, they would have to teach players a huge variety of rules systems.  It is far, far better to adapt well known game to create the type of campaign that the GM wants to run.  As a counter-point, I've been playing for over 25 years and - for the last half of it - it has been the exception for the "core story of the game" to match the core story of the campaign.

I think the better advice is to make sure that (1) the players understand what the core story of the campaign is, and (2) that the players want to play that core story.

-KS


----------



## erikscottdebie (May 26, 2011)

*Thanks for the post!*

Interesting post, and a very good read. 

The concepts you raise here are things that bear a great deal of thought--a number of them, in my experience, can sneak up on you and mess up your game before you realize it's happening. I would encourage every DM to consider these points, feeling free to agree or disagree as appropriate for an individual game.

I am a firm believer in "DIR = customized for your game." The game is going well when you and the players are happy and fulfilled. Gamers vary widely in their expectations regarding RPing, railroad vs. sandbox (personally, I agree with the skeleton plot + adaptable story concept), generalist vs. specialist, etc., etc. 

In my experience (and I've been a DM about two thirds of my life now), the key to running a good game is to know your players and be able to adapt to their needs and expectations.

Cheers


----------



## billd91 (May 27, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> I think this is fundamentally bad advice.  Not only will players refuse to go along with this, I don't think they should.  Being master adventurers that work together as a team is downright fun.  It's awesome to defeat a foe together you could not have defeated alone.
> 
> One of the FLAWS in 3.5e was that you could be a generalist.  You could be a PC that was a good melee fighter who could heal, cast arcane spells and find traps.  I shared a table with a few of these twinked out one-person-party PCs.  No fun.
> 
> I firmly disagree with the notion that one absent PC makes for a TPK.  It just makes for a challenge:  an adventure that builds perspective and character.




I think it's great advice. The problem as I see it with 3e wasn't that you could generalize, it was that it was too mechanically advantageous to specialize. A single generalist in a party of specialists wasn't going to do very well. A single specialist in a party of generalists was still going to cause trouble. 

Stepping back, it may not be a problem that 3e allows either approach, per se. Rather, it's an issue with players who don't all get on the same page about the type of game they want to play and the style of PC they want to have. So, I'd add a caveat to advice on specialization/generalization of any strip: harmonize your approach with the rest of your players.


----------



## guest (Jun 8, 2011)

*последние кин*







 Джулия  Робертс и Том Хэнкс в свежем номере журнала W (напомним, Робертс  снялась в новом режиссерском проекте Хэнкса «Ларри Краун»). 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	
















     источник:Kinopoisk онлайн фильмы в хорошем качестве


----------



## Jadasc (Jun 9, 2011)

The Game I Run: Vampire: The Masquerade, Revised Edition.
How I Streamlined It:
1. Only two books were canon at game start: the Revised Core and the Guide to the Camarilla. Material from any other sources was hearsay at best, malicious gossip at worst. Along those lines — no clanbook material that hadn't been reincorporated into those two books.

2. Mass combat in Storyteller can be a grind. Mass *anything* can be a grind. So I repurposed the Extended Action rules into something akin to the Skill Challenges of 4E… except that it apparently works better. Used them to handle 8 players in a great debate, a grand ball, and a "fox hunt."

3. Specialties let you "peg" a die from your pool — 4-dots is an auto-6; 5-dots is an auto-8. Two specialties and a Willpower means that a specialist can often get a complete success without needing to roll in their area of expertise, which moves things along and gives a feeling of competence to boot.


----------



## Ron (Jul 6, 2011)

I haven't read this article until today as I thought anything penned by Dancey under the title "Lets start a flame war" was probably not worthy of my time. What a surprise to find it actually pretty well written and that I agree with virtually everything he wrote.

Ryan, I am pleased you agree current D&D is bloated and inadequate for beginners. Why you couldn't do anything about it when you were a top executive a TSR? Was you vision at odds with the rest of the management?


----------

