Re: [D&D 3.5] A world without its creator
Ron Edwards:
Hi Jasper,
Here's my question: yes, the introduction was boring, but what about play itself? I recognize that the first may be an indicator for upcoming problems in the second, but it might not have to be that way. If play presents (or presented, I'm not sure) no hassles, then the bumpy introduction might simply be left in the past, or discussed without pressure in retrospect.
Best, Ron
dindenver:
Hi!
I didn't think that happened anymore, lol
Yeah, I have been in some D&D campaigns that started that way.
Something about D&D hits a lot of those pressure points and brings out the same reactions in inexperienced DMs. There is the two parties, one is the good guys one is the bad guys, etc. And when its all drawn together the GM wants to retell it, but sometimes there is not much fun in the re-telling...
Sorry man
David B. Goode:
I have a delightful home-brewed supers game I've been running for years. The one constant through every campaign has been my poor wife. Every time a new game started for years, she had to endure the Big Back Story, explaining history and origins. She told me, after several occurrences of this, that she really didn't need to hear it anymore.
After patching up my wounded GM heart, I came across a great alternative - probably from a pod-cast. Planting the history and world story in the game is way less cumbersome. The PCs get to take it in in bite sized peaces. I've noticed a lot of movies and computer RPGs begin in media res, kind of assuming you know everything, then reveal the world, backstory and all, to you slowly.
Also, remember every GM makes mistakes, especially when he's excited about sharing a wonderful world he's crafted.
Jasper Flick:
I've been away for a while. Thanks for the reactions people!
It seems I'm not the only one who believes that RP sessions generally make bad source material for storytelling. In case of an actual play session even more so: I'm here to play, not to exclusively listen. If I could've seen it coming I probably would've tried to stop it, though I can't tell if that would've shot the whole deal to hell. I've noticed trying to talk about the act of play itself tends to alienate mainstream RPers from me (and I don't use any fancy Forge lingo or anything).
I guess the point was that there wasn't anything set up or agreed upon in advance (heck, this was to be the first orientating session). The deal to tell a bit about the setting was made there and accepted. Only while it was being carried out did it manifest itself as something I considered bad. By then he who would stand up would be the party pooper.
It would probably have been alright had I included in the deal "yea but if it gets boring we can cut you off, ok?". Ah, hindsight. Counter-intuitive as it might seem, being formal in a casual situation makes me more at ease. (Tangent: I abhor true freeform play; gotta have explicit rules or it's meaningless to me.)
So with that out of the way, as Ron asked: what about play itself? I didn't make it very clear but the game in question ended about a month before I started this thread. Anyway, indeed a bumpy start can be overcome, but in this case the initial momemtum rapidly vanished. I'll write about that in a later post, which will come in a few days. Sorry for the wait!
Some other good point people made in this thread:
How long is it gonna take?
I think Callan hit something big here:
Quote from: Callan
[...] I could literally feel them chaffing during it. I think to a degree, fair enough - when you don't know how long the GM's going to go on for, it's hard to enjoy it.
Indeed Johad had unrealistic expectations back then, but so did at least I as well. We both obviously thought it wasn't going to be too long.
I think both sides can gain a lot by knowing how long it's going to take.
The GM beforehand: "Is this going to take a reasonable amount of time, not too long?" The GM can time himself to check whether he's reasonable, based on agreed upon standards.
The players during play: "Is this acceptable? Can I switch to story-time mode or do I have to stay primed?" Not knowing how long something still has to go is half the pain if you ask me.
When do we PLAY?
Quote from: Matt Snyder
[...] But, I do know of many groups -- including mine! -- who spend one session and other odd times setting up a "campaign." Very often, I find this very unfocused, and the interest level among various group members varies widely. Often, the GM is very, very excited about it and has a particular vision. Maybe one or two other players are into it. Most folks, though, are thinking "Yeah, yeah, Big Bad. When do we PLAY?"
I don't know Matt. It kinda like startup sessions like that because it allows all heads to be turned in the same direction. But it has to be clear to all that it is NOT a play session, and everyone has to be OK with that. I kinda seems from your example that people weren't on the same page about that in your case.
No more Big Back Story
Quote from: David B. Goode
After patching up my wounded GM heart, I came across a great alternative - probably from a pod-cast. Planting the history and world story in the game is way less cumbersome. The PCs get to take it in in bite sized peaces. I've noticed a lot of movies and computer RPGs begin in media res, kind of assuming you know everything, then reveal the world, backstory and all, to you slowly.
I think that's an interesting technique but I'm not sure if it accomplishes the same gaol as a BBB, by which I assume you mean a big opening dialogue to set the stage. In Johan's case the purpose was to give us an idea about the setting, or genre if you will, and to give hooks we could use to integrate our PCs into the setting. A slow reveal won't serve that purpose. If your goal is creating mood, then small doses indeed seem better than big chunks. If your goal was to bask in world-builder glory, well... then... shit... I guess small chunks are a reasonable concession.
David B. Goode:
Quote from Jasper
Quote
I think that's an interesting technique but I'm not sure if it accomplishes the same gaol as a BBB, by which I assume you mean a big opening dialogue to set the stage. In Johan's case the purpose was to give us an idea about the setting, or genre if you will, and to give hooks we could use to integrate our PCs into the setting. A slow reveal won't serve that purpose. If your goal is creating mood, then small doses indeed seem better than big chunks. If your goal was to bask in world-builder glory, well... then... shit... I guess small chunks are a reasonable concession.
Totally right, Jasper. I guess some backstory coming into a new campaign is unavoidable, especially if your world is unique. My advise is more for setting up a fantasy or space opera or whatever with the basics up front, but again, a bit-sized chunk, but still holding back on even historical revelations until the game is going on. By dividing it up you take some off the front end, and can get your players into the story faster.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page