|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 21, 2014 18:29:12 GMT -6
I'm not sure how much you can blame the players since TSR never really talked about this. I can't think of a single article about what to do with players that don't show up or how to manage a campaign with a varying number of players. I was one of those people that started playing D&D cold. I had never played or even seen D&D being played before I bought the Holmes set and started being the DM. I don't remember exactly why but from the very first session I was under the assumption that the same people played every time. If one time we had a different group of people, we'd more likely just play a completely different game. Also, the Examples of play going all the way back to OD&D Vol 3 give the sense of a small or moderately sized party acting cooperatively, with a Caller relaying the group's actions to the DM. I think few actually used the Caller but the examples do reinforce the 'party' style of play.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 20:30:12 GMT -6
Count me as someone who learned to play/ref from reading the books. The idea of not having people play as a group is completely foreign to me. I can also say as a GM I'd much rather ref for a group of 4-8 people working as a team rather than for 1 person with his henchmen.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Aug 22, 2014 1:06:16 GMT -6
Same here, but I don't have a regular group, and only 2 people when I have a group at all. Solo play is often the only way to get some gaming done.
|
|
|
Post by exploderwizard on Aug 22, 2014 7:04:41 GMT -6
"The party" is only a limiting factor if you want it to be. A campaign can be run in a more open style even if you have a relatively small group of players who show up regularly. Lets say a DM has six players who are pretty consistent about showing up. Forming a single party and just following their adventures is ONE option that is possible due to the group dynamic. There are still other options. Each player could generate more than one character and decide each session which one to play. "The party" in this case could change from session to session even though the players remain the same.
Everything depends on the wishes of the participants. Some will want the variety of getting to play multiple characters and some want to get their single character to high level as quickly as possible. There isn't really a wrong way to structure a campaign if everyone is having a good time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 10:59:00 GMT -6
When we started playing in college, the guy that brought the game to us had played in '74 in high school with around eight (8) players and then brought the game to us in the fall of '75 where we started with twelve (12) players and the number of players increased from there. No one in his high school group or in our college group had ever played any miniatures wargames like Gygax and Arneson had and no one had any connections to any other OD&D groups. We started with the 3 LLBs, Chainmail and a glance at Outdoor Survival. He had worked the game out for himself without any outside input and I still play the way he originally taught us to play. As I posted on DF:
He and I saw the implications for end game play, but neither he not anyone else were interested in the end game and no one had any experience with end game type play. Everyone enjoyed the cooperative play and did not want to play against each other. Even though that played the thieves never stole from the party.
My own opinion is that we missed a good thing by not playing out the end game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 11:59:40 GMT -6
I don't know about Basic, but OD&D says "At least one referee and from four to fifty players". And yes, I've seen too much time wasted on "how do you play with fifty people at once?"
The OBVIOUS answer is, "You don't. Assume Gary wasn't a total moron."
Also, the entire part of the 3rd volume talking about castles and becoming the ruler of a demense. There is only one noble in charge.
It was never spelled out explicitly because neither Gary, Dave, nor anybody else ever thought it would be needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 13:14:19 GMT -6
I don't know about Basic, but OD&D says "At least one referee and from four to fifty players". And yes, I've seen too much time wasted on "how do you play with fifty people at once?" The OBVIOUS answer is, "You don't. Assume Gary wasn't a total moron." Also, the entire part of the 3rd volume talking about castles and becoming the ruler of a demense. There is only one noble in charge. It was never spelled out explicitly because neither Gary, Dave, nor anybody else ever thought it would be needed. We understood it, but I was the only one who wanted to do it.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Aug 22, 2014 15:43:32 GMT -6
I am up against some folks in my gaming group about just this end-gaming issue.
One guy complained that we had too many high level characters running around, it wasn't "OS" enough: we needed a tough enough dungeon to kill us all off!
I replied, as kindly as possible: why not die in a glorious end-game battle for each of our own respective kingdoms. I received no reply.
So, yes, the party does sometimes constrain the game!
But, without my party, how would I get to play?
Maybe someone will go end game with me before my high level character gets killed in a random trap in somebody's "megadungeon!" (and is that really OS, anyway? Just sayin.')
|
|
Torreny
Level 4 Theurgist
Is this thing on?
Posts: 171
|
Post by Torreny on Aug 22, 2014 23:28:05 GMT -6
For my own experience, we've gone with the "everyone gets together to raid the dungeon/mess up the favorite target of the week" thing, and then players would often find some spare time with me to do some solo games, and get those wheels-in-wheels going. And if someone didn't show, then their character took the week off. As for the end game stuff? Not many characters got that far. They usually just retire the characters though, especially if everyone else's character died that session.
|
|
18 Spears
BANNED
Yeah ... Spear This Ya' Freak!
Posts: 251
|
Post by 18 Spears on Aug 23, 2014 2:22:00 GMT -6
My experience is much like Michael "Old Geezer" Mornard's. Perhaps it is the era in which OD&D was published. Perhaps the matter of a few years, or a background in wargames, or the literature extant in those days, as opposed to the pabulum books and television of the 70's and 80's. Don't know. Don't care. I'll take the unadulterated 1970's version of the game over all the "wannabe" campaigns I've seen out there any day.
|
|
|
Post by doublejig on Sept 16, 2014 7:39:02 GMT -6
party: smoke 'em if you got 'em
ash: T1 The Village of Hommelet, an adventure for 6-8 first level characters tray: But wait, it doesn't say that, it says, introduction to novice level
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 14:20:30 GMT -6
I actually like this idea a lot; I think it could work in a Star Wars style game (as in, d6 Star Wars where everything is supposed to cinematic). Have some PCs play heros, some play villains, and let them play a game of cat-and-mouse in an environment. Both sides know each other's plans, I guess, but if it's more of collaborative storytelling exercise it could work.
|
|
|
Post by ragnorakk on Sept 19, 2014 16:22:23 GMT -6
It does as much as it doesn't I'd say. The majority of DMing I've done has been for a pair of my friends - and so there were some limits as to the kinds of things they'd take on - of course, the small footprint of their party size allowed them to engage in activities that a larger party might have been too conspicuous to pull off... so yeah, it is and it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Oct 1, 2014 10:27:48 GMT -6
The point is, set your gaming night (“every Friday”). Whoever shows up shows up — don’t cancel because so-and-so couldn’t make it. Every session is a self-contained expedition that ends back in town (or with all dead). Time elapses in the game world when time passes in the real world.
Thus you experience many different party sizes and group dynamics. The world feels real and persistent.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Oct 5, 2014 13:25:48 GMT -6
The point is, set your gaming night (“every Friday”). Whoever shows up shows up — don’t cancel because so-and-so couldn’t make it. Every session is a self-contained expedition that ends back in town (or with all dead). Time elapses in the game world when time passes in the real world. Thus you experience many different party sizes and group dynamics. The world feels real and persistent. I would love such a game. I'm in an AD&D game right now, where NO time passes except at the table. If you don't show up one week, somebody else plays your character. This freaked me out at first, but since I've only missed one session ever, it's not a hardship for me. But some people have to be brough up to speed frequently.
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Oct 5, 2014 16:31:41 GMT -6
I played a friend's character for a couple of sessions when he couldn't make it. The brave ranger died heroically! LOL
Actually, it was the critical hit chart from MERP we used in our games that killed him off. And my friend only came to one session; I took over the character after he left.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2014 17:34:58 GMT -6
Convince somebody to play a cleric.
Once they hit Patriarch, set them up with their castle and all the goodies, etc.
Make sure all the Patriarch's followers treat the other PCs with courtesy, but make sure they also all know the Patriarch is clearly in charge.
Watch the end game unfold.
(Clerics hit name level WAY before anybody else, and Patriarchs get all kinds of divine goodies when they build a castle.)
|
|