korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Aug 2, 2008 13:22:37 GMT -6
I was wondering if the goodly folks here have all seen the following campaign concept report (1st of 5 entries): arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/78/grand-experiments-west-marches/A couple of caveats: the blog is not an OD&D themed one and the actual game system, from what I gleaned, was one of those newfangled items (with an oldfangled name attached). That being said, the concepts presented are systemless and quite interesting. It's not excatly an epiphany for lots of folks around here, I suppose, to set up a sandbox and let the group just go at it. However, I do like the idea of having a large player pool and allowing the players to organize expeditions on their own initiatives. It sort of creates a parallel sandbox: the "taproom" at the inn is populated by these various characters such as Mike's Fighting Man, Bob's Magic-User, Nelson's Cleric (sure to be popular!), Luis' Elf, etc. Maybe Luis doesn't show up much. No problem - he's probably off doing "Elf stuff" most of the time. But when he does show up, he can come along. Mabye Nelson is a regular at the taproom and so "Brother Noslen" adventures often and quickly rises in level, etc. Players will build reputations for themselves and perhaps someone will be considered so excellent that others will put off a major expedition until his character is available. I'd probably still set a regular "base schedule" such that it's assumed that we run at least every two weeks on Sunday afternoon or whatever. Other adventures could be scheduled on the fly. The default assumption is that the group tries to trek back to Town at the end of every session. That probably works but I was thinking of alternatives. Is some sort of Recall Device too cheesy/videogamey? I can see it getting a bit cheesy if the group decides to "punch out" when trouble is happening... and it also raises some weird economic questions. So I probably wouldn't use that. Another alternative is the "mobile base" (like an airship), but then you miss all the fun wilderness stuff, so that's out too. Anyway, I suppose trekking home the long way would work well enough. So, there's the link if y'all haven't seen it. |
|
|
|
Post by driver on Aug 2, 2008 13:50:19 GMT -6
I just saw it yesterday for the first time and like some of his ideas very much, especially since I currently have multiple PC groups running concurrently in a shared setting. Although lots of folks have done or are doing something like what he describes -- I suspect the Lake Geneva campaign, for instance, was run much the same way -- I think it's a very clearly explained and well-executed implementation. I particularly like his decision to make NPC adventurers rare or non-existent, and I have the same rule of thumb ... there are men-at-arms and perhaps specialists to be hired, but PCs are (usually) the only proactive sorts actually organizing expeditions into god-knows-where.
I've also recently made the decision to make everything that happens in the setting "permanent" ... if one group clears out the Caverns of Thracia, then the module never gets run in its original published form again. Something else might (and almost certainly will) move in, but the effects of the PCs' actions on the dungeons and locations of the world are lasting. So I read his somewhat convergent thoughts with interest.
I have no idea what else is on the site, but I enjoyed the West Marches articles.
|
|
|
|
Post by foster1941 on Aug 2, 2008 14:12:27 GMT -6
It's funny to see this idea proposed (and reacted to) as if it were something new, because it's exactly the assumed default campaign-structure of both OD&D and even 1E AD&D. Consider, for instance, the following from the section on "Establishing the Character" from the AD&D Players Handbook (p. 34):
This suggests both that it's assumed each new player/character will start out with a brief one-on-one session with the DM to get the characters set up (something Gygax also recommended in Mythus, btw) and that from there it's the burden of the player to get in contact with the other player characters to arrange expeditions, and if the other player characters aren't available or willing, that he might have to adventure alone or with NPCs.
See also, among other places, the essay on Successful Adventuring at the back of the PH and the section on Time in the Campaign in the DMG where the same dynamic -- players take the initiative in planning expeditions, and the party makeup from expedition to expedition is wholly fluid -- is clearly assumed.
The obvious drawback to this style of campaign is that it places a tremendous burden on the DM -- not only must he have a wide variety of material prepared (or, much more likely, be very good at improvising from minimal notes) but he also must be constantly available, whenever the players are. IIRC in the West Marches campaign the GM put a minimum-floor on the number of players (he'd only run a session for 3+ players or something like that) but the "classic Greyhawk" paradigm has no such limit, and single-player sessions (with or without NPCs) are prevalent -- per Gary, at the height of the Greyhawk Campaign c. 1973-74 he was running games 4-5 times a week, single-player or small groups during the week, large groups on the weekends. Between prepwork and play, that's pretty much a full-time job. I know I wouldn't be up to it, and can't imagine a lot of other people are either (at least among adults with jobs and families).
As for "returning to base camp" at the end of each session, some simple ground-rules can suffice there: in a dungeon expedition, you are required to exit the dungeon at the end of the session -- you can go back to town or camp out in the wilderness (in which case see below) but you are not allowed to stay in the dungeon. Practically-speaking this means the session runs until the characters are willing/able to leave the dungeon (which might make for some long sessions) and if the characters are so lost or so trapped that they can't get out of the dungeon before they have to stop playing they are assumed lost. An exception could be made if the players in attendance agree on-the-spot to meet the very next day to resolve the expedition -- their characters hole up for the "night" (and are subject to a night's worth of wandering monster checks) and the next day they pick up exactly where they left off. Since theoretically (if the characters have sufficient resources and the players sufficient free time) this could go on indefinitely and monopolize the campaign (i.e. no one else is able to play because the DM is forced to continue the same endless dungeon expedition every night), the DM could perhaps set some limits -- no single dungeon-expedition may ever last more than 3 days under any circumstances, or something like that.
For characters in the wilderness (or on another plane) at the end of a session, the solution is easier -- those characters simply aren't available for additional play except as part of that group, until they get back to town/base and the campaign-timeline is brought back into sync (which, again, might require a DM-imposed limit to keep a subset of players from dominating the campaign if they find themselves advantageously out-of-sync with the main campaign-timeline (i.e. if the characters can't be brought back into sync within a single session's worth of play they are declared by fiat to have wasted the remaining time doing nothing). Presumably this will lead to the more active players eventually establishing several different characters so as to ensure that they always have at least one character available at any given time.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 2, 2008 16:10:16 GMT -6
I'd love to Judge an OD&D Wilderlands campaign in this manner.
|
|
|
|
Post by codeman123 on Aug 2, 2008 19:14:18 GMT -6
this is very similar to what my campaign has turned into..
|
|
jjarvis
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 278
|
Post by jjarvis on Aug 4, 2008 10:55:19 GMT -6
I enjoyed the articles but it amusing to see someone "discovering" how to play D&D just like it was played in the good old days and by many folks for decades.
I love questions people posted like "what happens when low level charcters discover an area with high level threats?" - the answers are simple, they flee, they die or they get really lucky.
The notion that the open/sand-box/status quo campaigning is "new" is pretty darned funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by driver on Aug 4, 2008 11:51:49 GMT -6
The notion that the open/sand-box/status quo campaigning is "new" is pretty darned funny. Well, it's part of the innovative new "Points of Light" concept.  |
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Aug 5, 2008 11:20:33 GMT -6
I really wish younger/newer players cared enough to research the roots of the hobby.
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Aug 5, 2008 23:28:48 GMT -6
Well, like I said I didn't expect it to be a revelation to y'all. But it is nice that folks are rediscovering the roots, even if they don't know that's what they're doing. Also, and perhaps this is sadly "new school" of me (or simply dense)... I never really thought of having a flexible player pool. The idea of having different parties in the same world occurred to me, but not the idea of just having a large pool of players with variable participation. |
|
