Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 13:00:47 GMT -6
Imagine beginning the campaign with a super hero defending an existing stronghold against an invading force. The player, in this scenario, must raise capital to pay his men. The usual way would be taxation, but you could also get a jump on fundraising by looting a dragon's lair. It's risky. Wouldn't the above have made more sense than what is in Men & Magic? What adventurer wants to stop playing the actual game (dungeon crawling) so they can manage a long term construction project? Or, in the case of wizards, sequester yourself in a tower making potions for months or years. I know it's too late now, but wouldn't it have made more sense to start your players as lords if what you wanted to do was hold land? This is the fault of the game, that it describes strongholds as a goal to attain rather than a burden to defend. My opinion is that the fighter text in Men & Magic should not have included a a post hoc justification for the game that players wanted to play instead of wargaming, which was dungeon crawling. Those guys playing in 1973 were barely "name level" when it was written. Your experience, if you choose to continue, is going to be better than Gygax' own! Next time, start with the wargame. Then, when your players need a break, do a dungeon crawl. I'll bet they never want to return to defending a castle after that. But this is o ok, despite some of us liking this kind of game. Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I'm so f*cking tired of having to put up with people sh*tting all over the games I like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2019 14:00:57 GMT -6
Ugh. So, it seems Michael decided to nuke his account on our board. That's not cool, but given that he wouldn't change his negative attitude towards other posters no matter how we admonished him, it was perhaps unavoidable. - Please don't discuss this incident, for the moment. You'll likely hear from our team over the next few days or weeks.
In the meantime, please feel free to continue this thread, as you were.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 21, 2019 9:03:38 GMT -6
I applaud your creativity, marrying two disparate styles of game in a single scenario. You do your players a great service, but don't feel bound to follow a rule that wasn't playtested in the first place. If I understand you correctly, CJ you are saying that there is a clear logical distinction between war-gaming and dungeon-crawling (for lack of a better term). I do not see how this could be disputed. It seems clearly to be the case. I also understand you, CJ, to be saying that the two games were historically completely disparate from one another. This is an historical claim and would need more justification. I wonder if increment could weigh in. I am certainly not qualified to dispute it. It also seems that you are saying that these two claims are related to one another. That because they are disparate from one another historically, therefore they are logically separable from one another. I say this is clearly not the case. Logical and historical relationships are categorically different. But deeper than this there seems to be an implied value judgement. Because they are historically and logically differentiated from one another, and because the game of D&D went in one particular direction, dungeon-crawling is the actual fun game and the one that should be played or emphasized. This is why, I suppose, that although you, "applaud my creativity," in my "marrying two disparate styles of game in a single scenario," you also encourage me, nevertheless, not to "feel bound to follow a rule that wasn't play tested." I feel no such obligation. That there is a logical distinction between the war-game and the dungeon game is in no way a problem in terms of what D&D is. D&D is a set of "meta" ruling for coordinating a wargames campaign. A wargames campaign involves many different "sub-games" in order to give the feeling of an over all "realistic" world. Coordinating the two games is simply an example of what a war-game does. And, for me, it is part of what is fun about original D&D. I like war campaigning. I like medieval fantasy. Perfect combo. The problem here is the later tradition of published D&D assuming that it is one, single, unified game with a unified ruleset rather than a "meta" game of coordinating different games with one another into order to generate the affect of a relatively realistic world. Tony Bath's Ancient Wargaming is a really great resource for getting what wargames campaigning is about. It has helped me so much in understanding original D&D. It may very well be the case that, historically, Gygax was not able to pull off the coordination of these two logically distinguishable games and also that, historically, those who played D&D and built its tradition of play did not continue to engage in the wargaming side of things. But this historical fact has nothing to do with the logical possibility of coordinating these two things with one another in a wargames campaign because that is simply the kind of thing you do in a wargames campaign: you coordinate different subgames. But it seems that you are saying that to attempt to coordinate these games is unfun, a kind of distraction for your poor players who had rather just be dungeon crawling. Again, from my own experience, this is not the case. My players love domain and mass combat play. In my experience, both as a player and as a ref, these two games can be coordinated seamlessly. Player objective is the advancement of characters through an abstraction called experience directly related to the accrual of treasure.Where is all that treasure going? Who is protecting it? Why? Character objective is the advancement of law against chaos. (Or, the opposite, if you align with chaos.) Law advances through the establishment of civilization in chaotic wilderness. Chaotic wildernesses are cleared of chaos by emptying dungeons and lairs. It is a seamless game from the "character" point of view, so to speak. My players understood this, intuitively, from the start, and campaign level play and mass combat have always been a part of their goals and their expectations of what play will include. The key is linking the accrual of treasure with campaign level events, personalities, economy, and, most importantly, character advancement. I really love the work of Courtney Campbell. He has recently published a gaming supplement that shows how these work so well together, On Downtime and Demesnes (although I regret that he considers such work "downtime"!). I highly recommend it. Until then: Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Dec 22, 2019 11:18:57 GMT -6
tetramorph , Have you refereed a gaming session in which only one player character builds a stronghold? What were the other players doing during the session? Or, during a session that you refereed for a group of players, how did you answer the player who intended to build a stronghold rather than start another quest? How did that gaming session proceed for the actual players sitting around the table? And when the stronghold was completed, did the other players' characters just enter the employ of the newly minted baron so that they could continue to game together? Or, did you start having to host them on separate nights? Because, realistically, barons don't embark on adventures and adventurers don't guard castles. Does this bother the players? If not, then Fight On! indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Piper on Dec 22, 2019 12:16:35 GMT -6
I’m a player in Tetramorph’s campaign.
Mostly? We've reclaimed castles from taming the wilderness territories and defeating the masters of strongholds encountered there. So basically, we didn’t have to build anything at all. We just laid claim on what was already there. Of course claiming it is one thing, holding onto it is quite another.
So, anyway, we’re taking turns clearing the territories around strongholds, with different parties running in different areas. I can tell you from playing the game in the mid-1970s and onward? This is a very “old-school” approach.
I must say Tetramorph runs a fun game. Nothing is handed to us on a silver platter, but if we managed to gain something by the strength of our sword arms or power of our magic? Then it is ours.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Dec 22, 2019 12:46:59 GMT -6
Piper , Yes! Thank you. I was hoping this would be the case. Is tetramorph refereeing the parties, in turn, all in the same gaming session? Or, do the separate parties game on completely different nights? Because, that's what I picture when I hear "old school" rustic313 said: How many players are playing in tetramorph's campaign? Do the players stay to tax the peasantry, or do they keep marching? And, rustic313 , do you also have enough players that you could form more than a single adventuring party? I'm guessing the answer is "no".
|
|
|
Post by Piper on Dec 22, 2019 13:23:16 GMT -6
Or, do the separate parties game on completely different nights? Because, that's what I picture when I hear "old school" It’s the same group of gamers running different player-characters. He switches between groups on different Fridays, and there is also a second referee who run a game during some of our Friday night sessions. So, depending on what Friday it is, we may be playing in one of three different areas. For this reason? Tetramorph maintains a calendar of events within the campaign so he can coordinate what’s going on in different spots.
|
|
|
Post by Piper on Dec 22, 2019 13:25:40 GMT -6
How many players are playing in tetramorph's campaign? Usually 5 to 8 players.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 22, 2019 17:44:56 GMT -6
Have you refereed a gaming session in which only one player character builds a stronghold? What were the other players doing during the session? The building of a castle is one of those kinds of administrative, logistic parts of the game that takes place away from the table. We use "Slack." I would PM the player and we would work it out in a Slack "thread." Think of it like rolling up a character. Rolling up a character is still playing D&D. But you can do it before you sit down at the table. Table play is unique and precious. It is best for exploration, extraction and making group-impacting decisions. So I try to make sure that we focus on those things at the table. Slack, email, telephone conversations, even occasional one-on-one meetings are the means by which I do these other kind of logistical things that do not necessarily directly contribute to an exploratory session. There is no conflict between building a stronghold and going on a quest for all sorts of reasons. I will do my best to enumerate as many as I can think of, but perhaps not in the best logical order! So, first of all, time in between dungeon expeditions is traditionally counted in terms of weeks. Most of the time this is literal, but sometimes we "freeze" a session, at other times, players ask to forward several weeks because they want to research or something. So characters can easily do the work of advertising for, hiring, and directing specialists towards their project while they occasional go and clear up a problem and add to their treasury. Like paying taxes, upkeep, tithing, going shopping at the town bazaar, setting up and running a stronghold or barony is not in conflict with the life of adventuring. As long as they do not simply abandon their demesne, there is really no problem. More over, this is fairly historically accurate. It is why you would have a scheneshal or castellan. But especially by the time you are a high enough level character to build a stronghold, you have developed significant enemies within the game world and you are ready to build the kind of army you are going to need to take them down. Finally, if a character really needs to stay at his stronghold, he can take a different, low level character into the current dungeon delve. That way the player can participate in any given table session. Oh, and I think I didn't quote in another question. Do you have to get lower level characters up to higher levels to join these parties? Absolutely not. A high level party is a first level characters dream! If they hide behind the giant Amazon while they clear a red dragon lair and make it out alive? Instant level two and filthy rich! Nice.
Sometimes stronghold and barony type discussions are had at the table. That is when they are making group-impacting decisions. So, for example, a recent discussion included: "hey, can we make our own guild of magic-users and share the cost of research?" After we worked that out, it was time for the next dungeon delve. All these level 6 to level 10 characters are famous throughout the land, they all know and respect each other, most have worked together, and many are friends. Getting a barony does not end that collegiality and friendship. If anything, it deepens it. "Beric is under siege! Let us defend our friend from the foe!" etc. They send messages to each other. They meet up for feasts and for sieges and battles. They meet up for major expeditions. They will be meeting up on the Winter Solstice to put together a two part magic artifact they discovered in two different places. (This should be fun.) They help each other out in clearing each other's land. It is to all their mutual advantage to share the work of clearing the land. Etc. I am pretty sure ancient medieval barons embarked on a lot of adventures. But I for one can directly attest to the fact that the barons of the Perilous Realms in fantasy land most certainly do embark on adventures! In fact, their people may well revolt or rebel if their fat and comfortable baron just hangs up his sword and preens! Adventurers guard their own castles and the castles of their buddies. And their players have fun doing it! So, no, it does not bother the players. It is the very game we play. Piper, thanks for weighing in. To be a bit more accurate: I do make them make repairs at half construction cost. They also usually want to add their own buildings and make the place their own. So their is construction cost -- but never what it would be if undertaken from "scratch." Each table session is dedicated to some concrete exploratory mission. The separate expeditions and the parties associated with them would be scheduled on different nights. I will announce what the focus of a given evening is by email and by Slack. I have had up to at least 12 players around my table before. A typical session is 6 to 10. Total players in the campaign world probably exceeds 12 at this point. Some players are more regular than others. Yes. Time keeping is the key. I use Evernote to keep track of campaign details. Evernote organizes its notes alphabetically with number first. So I will write the date of a session in such as: 0997.11.10, meaning Nov 10, year 997. This keeps all the dates in proper order. Then I write the name of the session in the title of the note. Then I write the note with the following headings: Action items, marching order, chronicle, treasure, experience. If something is coming up, I write it ahead in the time line. So "0998.01.01 Big Bad Guy attacks Major Good Guy." Etc. Or, for example, this up-coming meeting on the solstice, I write in: "0997.12.21 Solstice Magic Artifact Meetup at Trollbride." This way when the time comes, I will say, "you guys can't finish X and such expedition and get to your meetup with Quark at Trollbridge on time." Etc. Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Dec 23, 2019 2:52:23 GMT -6
tetramorph said: I think this is the single most important element of this conversation for me. When I read in the rules that characters will take time and money to build, I assume that the activity will take place at the table. In fact, your players have been managing their affairs throughout the week in chat. That means that your players are interested enough in the campaign to do the homework on their own time. I feel foolish not to have considered it before. Dave Arneson was driven almost to exhaustion when players realized they could campaign over-the-phone, between meetups. I think there is also historical precedent for counting real-world time as in-game time, but then you say that players may fast forward, between sessions, to do magical research or something. Maybe, they could build a stronghold between only two actual play sessions? At my table, the sessions are "frozen" until the next get together. The reason for this is that we have become accustomed to indefinite stays in the dungeon. Most levelling is also done on-the-run, so to speak. Our characters do have homes, just not within civilization. I'll be perfectly honest and say that I have no idea what the historical equivalent of a dungeon explorer is. I also just had to look up what a scheneshal was on wikipedia. I, personally wouldn't bother rationalizing how or why a landlord is crawling around in the unknown. If it's fun, it's fun. As an aside, I just read your post on taxes, tithes, and upkeep. 10%, REALLY?! you heartless bastard . I kid. The only upkeep my players do is counted in rations and torches, when I happen to remember. Our players, levels 4-8 approx., would be the scourge of the local village if they didn't spend so d**n much money. They bristle at every perceived sleight and have caroused and gambled entire play sessions away when I couldn't interest them in taking up a quest. Mostly we're in the dungeons, though. In fact we share residences in the first, second, and now fourth levels under a seaside ruin. I wouldn't call it homey. As you might suspect, they started out as defensible waypoints. Now it's where loot is stowed and rest taken. Their is a suite of rooms on the fourth level which is now protected by force fields, a "gift" from an extraplanar creature much further down. There is also commerce in the dungeon and in the wilderlands across the sea with different groups and travelling merchants(orcs, gnomes, kobolds, etc.) I don't enforce alignment unless it's with magic items. Even then, Law just means honest and Chaos, dishonest. One day soon, two of the players are going to turn on the others. Then we really will have a wargame on our hands, even if it's just a small one. Getting six or more players all together in one session is a rare feat in this day and age. I struggle to coordinate with 3. Is this all in-person or do you also game over a video chat? Anyways, keep it up! I've heard that it's actually more work to dm for small groups than large(the players in large groups being more absorbed with each other takes the spotlight off the dm). Do you feel that's true? Piper said: That's the way to do it, if you can.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Dec 23, 2019 5:39:32 GMT -6
tetramorph said: I'm saying first and foremost that combat is not strictly necessary to advance during a session of Dungeons and Dragons play, but that it is the vital essence of a wargames scenario. The logical conclusion I derive from that is that Dungeons and Dragons is distinctly not a wargame. i.e.: although you can choose to collect experience in D&D through combat, you may not score kills in a wargame by roleplaying. This means that even if you transitioned a player character onto the battlefield by repurposing his existing traits, you may not also transform a wargames figure into a civilian by virtue of his (attack/defend/move). The situation by which the soldier, so narrowly defined, will be called upon to evolve a personality does not exist. I'm not saying that a personality can not be imagined for it, mind you. I'm only saying that their personality will never come into play. They must already have been a player character to begin with. Historically, wargaming and roleplaying did co-mingle frequently. But, this brings up another point I elaborated further up the thread: The original Blackmoor players already had wargamed extensively when they were presented with the Blackmoor campaign. They competed with each other, pitting army against army, as you ordinarily do in a wargame. Then, at some point, during the development of the campaign, or before, that changed. The players became an adventuring party. When Blackmoor culminates in the publication of Dungeons and Dragons there is no trace of competitive play. Where did it go? Gary Gygax was perfectly comfortable with the idea of player on player. He incorporated it, Dave Megarry's objections notwithstanding, into the Dungeon! boardgame. Now, only the dungeonmaster remains to run the monsters, and he's not competing with the players. How could he be? There's no way for him to win. I would agree with this, but since I don't claim that the two games were "disparate" historically I will consider the point moot. I think what you read as me saying wargaming and Dungeons and Dragons were historically seperate was actually me saying that the progression from adventuring to wargaming, as presented in the written rules, would have been ahistorical. It's my opinion that wargaming should be undertaken simultaneously with exploring. Or, if at all possible, the wargame should precede the dungeon game. I wasn't clear. I addressed this comment to "you", tetramorph, when I should have addressed it to anybody, generally speaking. Chalk this up to poor grammar on my part. I'm going to say something now which I hope is not taken the wrong way: Roleplaying (for lack of a better term) is an evolution away from wargaming in the same way that, say, the internet is an evolution away from the newspaper or the television broadcast. The internet still resembles these things, but only superficially. It's not just that roleplaying is communicating a depth of information that would be undesirable to incorporate on a board (or a sandtable), it's also that players are able to interact fully with that information. It's the difference between observing a two dimensional space and actually travelling through a three dimensional space. The two dimensional space that is a wargame may be vast or complicated, and that's where the challenge lies. But, just trying to comprehend all the possibilities for action is where the challenge of D&D lies. Roleplaying games, for which Dungeons & Dragons was the vanguard, must, in my opinion constitutes a different gaming experience altogether. The dungeon is an incubator for the roleplaying. It restricts player movement to only what the dungeon master allows and, in this way, he can still set incremental objectives for players that can now attempt absolutely anything. That's the only reason it's retained it's popularity over the wilderness adventure. The wilderness requires more DM skill to pull off.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 23, 2019 7:58:57 GMT -6
I think there is also historical precedent for counting real-world time as in-game time, but then you say that players may fast forward, between sessions, to do magical research or something. Maybe, they could build a stronghold between only two actual play sessions? At my table, the sessions are "frozen" until the next get together. The reason for this is that we have become accustomed to indefinite stays in the dungeon. Most levelling is also done on-the-run, so to speak. Our characters do have homes, just not within civilization. I'll be perfectly honest and say that I have no idea what the historical equivalent of a dungeon explorer is. I also just had to look up what a scheneshal was on wikipedia. I, personally wouldn't bother rationalizing how or why a landlord is crawling around in the unknown. If it's fun, it's fun. As an aside, I just read your post on taxes, tithes, and upkeep. 10%, REALLY?! you heartless bastard :P . I kid. The only upkeep my players do is counted in rations and torches, when I happen to remember. Our players, levels 4-8 approx., would be the scourge of the local village if they didn't spend so d**n much money. They bristle at every perceived sleight and have caroused and gambled entire play sessions away when I couldn't interest them in taking up a quest. Mostly we're in the dungeons, though. In fact we share residences in the first, second, and now fourth levels under a seaside ruin. I wouldn't call it homey. As you might suspect, they started out as defensible waypoints. Now it's where loot is stowed and rest taken. Their is a suite of rooms on the fourth level which is now protected by force fields, a "gift" from an extraplanar creature much further down. There is also commerce in the dungeon and in the wilderlands across the sea with different groups and travelling merchants(orcs, gnomes, kobolds, etc.) I don't enforce alignment unless it's with magic items. Even then, Law just means honest and Chaos, dishonest. One day soon, two of the players are going to turn on the others. Then we really will have a wargame on our hands, even if it's just a small one. Getting six or more players all together in one session is a rare feat in this day and age. I struggle to coordinate with 3. Is this all in-person or do you also game over a video chat? Anyways, keep it up! I've heard that it's actually more work to dm for small groups than large(the players in large groups being more absorbed with each other takes the spotlight off the dm). Do you feel that's true? So, the general rule, of course, is that in-game week and real-world week are equal between sessions. If they are stuck in a dungeon, like in the middle of combat, and it is 11 o'clock (sorry, I am old) then I will freeze the session and pick up there next time. If they ask for more than a week between sessions to pass for the next time we meet, for research or something, there are consequences. I will roll for the possibility of random events they will have to clean up for taking so much down time. Also, stuff might happen in other locations because they were not there but were busy reading books in a tower, etc. In my campaign it would not be possible to complete construction on a stronghold between two sessions. That would be too high a level of abstraction. But, I suppose, you could imagine a campaign existing at that level of abstraction. I do not think it would be fun. But we calculate when the construction will be completed, according to the rules, and then I put that date in my timeline. As play comes closer, I can tell that its completion is coming up so that I am reminded and it therefore affects game play at the right time within the campaign world. Barons, lords, counts, even kings and emperors, were constantly on the move -- relating to their own domains (a lord of a manor had to be supported by several manors just to have food for one year), relating to the leaders of other domains, going to wars. I suppose the going to wars part is the closest to dungeon delving. Dungeon delving is going to war with chaos itself. Anyway, in the game world, the peasants are super psyched to have super heroic lords guarding them. Seriously accounting for encumbrance, diminishing supplies, and upkeep change the nature of the game. It is the connective tissue between the dungeon exploration game and the influence on the wider world game (of which strongholds and baronies form a part). So the first thing I would do if I were you is stage a massive heist of the player's stupidly stowed treasure (any decent thief worth his salt would know it was all there waiting for him). Get some high level thieves -- perhaps who come from or know how to relate to the extraplanar force-shield generators? -- to come in while they are away and take as much as they can. That should make things interesting. They may see the need for strongholds and manors! When Law vs. Chaos is a cosmic battle it affects the entire campaign world. It makes the whole thing, literally, a game about a war. Dungeon crawling and wilderness clearing are examples of sub-campaigns and battles within an over-all coherent campaign setting. Player vs. player can be fun. But, for me, that would not be a good use of precious table time. I am blessed to live in a town that has a strong OSR population of gamers and an abnormally large pool of original D&D folks. We are in each other's campaigns. I am grateful. Large tables are fun. I am a professor, so I have developed skills for keeping discussions focused. That helps. Thanks for engaging me on this. It may take a while for me to get round to our more academic debate. It may have to wait until after Christmas. Until then, happy holidays, and, as always: Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Dec 23, 2019 9:37:06 GMT -6
And a very Merry Christmas to you as well, tetramorph
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Dec 23, 2019 19:58:40 GMT -6
This has gone a bit far afield, as discussions here do.
I have a procedural way to run domains from month to month. It draws a lot on ACKs but also some on Mentzer. It’s definitely an away from the table exercise. But for players into game mechanics, it’s easy to teach and repeat and they can do it themselves.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Dec 24, 2019 7:37:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Dec 24, 2019 9:07:47 GMT -6
I'm saying first and foremost that combat is not strictly necessary to advance during a session of Dungeons and Dragons play, but that it is the vital essence of a wargames scenario. The logical conclusion I derive from that is that Dungeons and Dragons is distinctly not a wargame. Hey, CaptainJapan, looks like I have a little time to myself on Christmas eve to respond in brief. Combat is not necessary to advance in D&D. Yes. So, indeed, D&D is not a (single) war-game. With this regard you are completely correct, and I totally agree with you. Combat is, however, necessary to advance during a given battle scenario of a war-game. And, so too, is it necessary when combat arises in D&D. Combat is not necessary to advance in a war-games campaign. This is the clincher. D&D is not a war-game. It is a system for coordinating games in order to run a war-games campaign. A given side can advance in a war-games campaign through all sorts of means: -building transportation networks -building industry -recruiting troops -espionage -diplomacy -etc. Each of these means is its own sub-game, with its own rules appropriate to the kind of game it is. In fact, as in D&D, it is often better to avoid a battle if possible. This is because D&D is a war-games campaign. I urge you to read Tony Bath's Setting up a War-games Campaign. Then let's continue the conversation. Again, I think it will change your assessment of the historical points you are making. And, again, Merry Christmas. And, in all your D&D: Fight on!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Dec 26, 2019 13:41:39 GMT -6
That’s interesting. My players in my current campaign have advanced more through various hijinks and mercantile expeditions than through dungeoneering - quite against their own stated natures
|
|
|
Post by increment on Dec 31, 2019 19:24:18 GMT -6
To the historical question above, it's a bit unclear from the printed rules how collaborative or competitive players were originally intended to be. OD&D mentions the idea of a "party" a lot, but I think we need to be a little careful about how we understand it. Maybe from early play records and author statements we can take away a sense that players were expected to be cooperative at first, when they were low level, but by the time people started owning castles, inter-player conflict became a larger element of the game. Almost like you couldn't do the full-on wargame part until you had enough clout to field an army.
But it's murky, because you certainly could pick up the OD&D rules and treat them like wargame rules, and play wargames with them from the get-go. In some sense, every encounter in a dungeon is a quick skirmish wargame that you play through, and different referees could have different approaches to managing the opposition in those encounters. As a tool, the original rules are just too flexible to nail down to any single interpretation. Which is handy, in that everyone can tailor them to their liking.
|
|