|
|
Post by drskull on Dec 5, 2008 18:51:52 GMT -6
Speaking in broad, philosophical terms, it seems to me there were 2 games going on at once in the early days of D&D. There's the Castle game and the Dungeon Game. The Castle Game came first, it was a real miniature wargame campaign. The dungeon game grew out of it. It focused on getting treasure, in order to fund operations in the Castle game (among other things). The long history of D&D seems to have been a long attempt to hack the Castle game completely out of the equation. Each new edition made hired soldiers less and less useful, and made the structure of the world around the dungeon less concrete and quantifiable. What I'm really interested in at this point is: [/ul] [/ul] |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 6, 2008 10:02:57 GMT -6
Is it really still possible to have a strategic game and a dungeon game working at the same time?
Yes, but it really becomes two separate games. The strategic game has a focus on more realm-based threats (which are hard for characters to influence) while the tactical (dungeon) game as a focus on more immediate monster threats (which is hard for a barony to influence).
If you read Robert E. Howard’s Conan stories you can get a good feel for how a single adventurer can rule a kingdom and combine the strategic with the tactical, but it mostly works because Conan is a “loner” and isn’t sending troops in to loot the dungeon for him. This requires a certain restraint from the players.
Another good example of how this can work is the Pendragon RPG. These rules are about political and military factions in England, but characters can go on quests to influence events in the world around them. Pendragon limits characters to one quest per year and sells a sourcebook that runs through a campaign roughly 125 years in length.
Some of these are pretty heavy options, but I bring them up just to help you generate ideas.
If it is, what are the key steps in setting it up properly?
Dave can confirm/deny this, but I believe that original characters in Blackmoor jumped back and forth between the strategic and tactical levels at will. In part, they could do this because characters were lower level (Dave started with only 3 designations – flunky, hero, super hero.) and therefore had a lesser potential impact on the campaign than a 23rd level wizard might have had. Unit scale was a little more vague at the time, and a “hero” simply fought in a mass battle as “ men” would have fought as per Men & Magic. Characters would have acquired a small troupe of NPCs (mostly flunky level but some interesting ones as well) to move around with them as they did dungeon crawl adventures, but most of the armies sat around in their barracks awaiting formal battles. When wars broke out, the dungeon crawl was “put away” and the characters would flock back to their castles to lend a hand to the strategic battleboard.
In my own campaign, I usually handed this by having players run more than one character. When character A gets to high enough level (for my games 8th-9th level or so, for other games perhaps a lot higher) they can be promoted to “Baron” of a castle and become “retired” from the adventuring game, but then they can start character B to pursue adventure. Character A might be playing in the strategic game, waging wars and so on, and perhaps could hire character B to run missions for him. Or could offer lodging for character B in exchange for going on quests. As long as the player can separate the actions and motivations of the two characters, this works out just fine.
So, whether you use a single character or a dual-character model, as long as the players can see a separation of the strategic and the tactical games, both games can be run simultaneously.
What are the dangers of making the attempt?
I think that the biggest danger is simply that players may choose to wield power in a manner not intended by the Referee. If a character commands a thousand knights, what would stop him from sending them into a dungeon to troll for loot? Clearly this would result in a total loss of fun for the game, but players might see these types of options as interesting at first. By the time they realize the error in their ways, the campaign might be damaged beyond repair.
Basically, I've blended the two together for years and it's a heck of a lot of fun. Good luck and hope this answer is the kind of thing you're looking for....
|
|
|
|
Post by jcstephens on Dec 6, 2008 12:36:08 GMT -6
"If a character commands a thousand knights, what would stop him from sending them into a dungeon to troll for loot?"
How about planting a legend of bad things happening when people do that? I think of dungeons as being 'alive' in a "The Shining" sort of way. Adventuring parties probably won't disturb it too much, but a full scale invasion would. The more you mess with it the more it wakes up, and a fully aware dungeon doesn't play nice. Plagues are good, mass undead rising are better, and both would be just about right.
|
|
|
|
Post by drskull on Dec 6, 2008 15:05:53 GMT -6
The problem of the players sending an army into the dungeon, is one that I have encountered and dealt with in another form. Players always seem to want to hire men-at-arms and drag them into dungeons with them. What I've always done is to say that anytime the players want to take a hireling, such as a man-at-arms or torchbearer, into the dungeon, he gets 50gp on top of his normal wage and upkeep. He of course spends this money immediately to pay old bar-tabs and gambling debts, or the mortgage on pappy's farm, so there's no looting it off his corpse later.
In place of this fee, the NPC's must make a morale check each and every encounter, or even each and every room or they flee above ground. I mean, it's wicked spooky down there.
Men-at-arms are great for guarding the camp, watching the horses and storming the castle, but are easily frightened by the supernatural.
A problem that has kept me from doing miniatures campaigns, is the threat of a no-show. If I had 5 players, each being a baron, and player 4 planned on storming player 3's keep, and player 3 didn't show, then the game would be a bust.
If I were to set up a more strategic D&D game, I guess I'd have to make the players all be on one side, perhaps knights all in service to the same duke. But, if I play all the "bad guys" then the strategy element becomes muted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2008 16:18:27 GMT -6
"If a character commands a thousand knights, what would stop him from sending them into a dungeon to troll for loot?" How about planting a legend of bad things happening when people do that? I think of dungeons as being 'alive' in a "The Shining" sort of way. Adventuring parties probably won't disturb it too much, but a full scale invasion would. The more you mess with it the more it wakes up, and a fully aware dungeon doesn't play nice. Plagues are good, mass undead rising are better, and both would be just about right. Stolen!  |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 6, 2008 18:29:44 GMT -6
AD&D has a rule that hirelings will not venture deeper than the third dungeon level. One can certainly adopt various means to a similar end.
"That players may choose to wield power in a manner not intended by the Referee" is rather the point of the affair, I think; the game is about the players' desires.
Both on that count and as a labor saving device for the GM, it may be desirable to set up the campaign somewhat after the fashion illustrated in The First Fantasy Campaign. The resources of each player at the grand strategic scale include a number of characters that can also be deployed on wilderness and dungeon expeditions.
For usual D&D purposes, those of most interest at first would be 1st level (rather than Heroes). There's the possibility of a normal man at arms getting "promoted" in individual-level play.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Dec 6, 2008 19:35:47 GMT -6
AD&D has a rule that hirelings will not venture deeper than the third dungeon level. One can certainly adopt various means to a similar end. "That players may choose to wield power in a manner not intended by the Referee" is rather the point of the affair, I think; the game is about the players' desires. Both on that count and as a labor saving device for the GM, it may be desirable to set up the campaign somewhat after the fashion illustrated in The First Fantasy Campaign. The resources of each player at the grand strategic scale include a number of characters that can also be deployed on wilderness and dungeon expeditions. For usual D&D purposes, those of most interest at first would be 1st level (rather than Heroes). There's the possibility of a normal man at arms getting "promoted" in individual-level play. AD&D had that rule? I don't remember that; that's great! It makes sense, too; by then you should perhaps have acquired at least one henchman... I second your second point; actually, I think it'd awesome if a character sent 1,000 hapless knights into a dungeon---that'd end up as an adventure talked about for EVER. I think your third point, and the scope of this thread, actually, is beginning to sound like an article someone should write for Fight On!... |
|
jrients
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 411
|
Post by jrients on Dec 6, 2008 20:52:45 GMT -6
As I recall it the rules is that NPC parties will only have hirelings among their number on levels 1 through 3. That they aren't allowed to go lower makes a certain amount of sense, but I think it's an extrapolation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 6, 2008 22:09:34 GMT -6
"That players may choose to wield power in a manner not intended by the Referee" is rather the point of the affair, I think; the game is about the players' desires. But to put my comment in context, please keep in mind that I was worried about a player abusing a situation and ruining the fun of a campaign, i.e. sending an army in to clear out a dungeon loses much of the spirit of role playing. In general my campaigns are all about player desires. I toss them a stack of rumors and plot threads as adventure seeds and they get to decide what avenues to explore and so on. I don't want to limit player options, but I don't want them doing things that destroy the campaign, either. Just my two coppers. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 6, 2008 22:15:57 GMT -6
Yes, as far as I recall that was extrapolated from the encounter rules in DMG Appendix C.
The general premise matches my earlier OD&D / Holmes play, though, and is thoroughly approved by the Union of Linkboys, Condottierri, Esquires and Roustabouts.
A full-fledged miniatures campaign with the ilk of Chainmail or Swords & Spells is a bit much for me to contemplate these days. De Bellis Antiquitatus might be pressed into service; I'm not familiar with the fantasy adaptation Hordes of the Things.
The War Machine rules from Frank Mentzer's D&D Companion set offer an alternative approach to resolving battles and sieges.
Flexibility in scheduling seems one hallmark of the early Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns. I gather that there was a time when DMing was nearly a full time job for Gary -- probably not feasible for most of us!
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 6, 2008 22:27:37 GMT -6
Sending in an army to clear out a dungeon is likely to result in the loss of the army, the fattening of monsters, and more loot (at least in the form of arms and armor) to be found in the depths.
If it were a sound strategy, no doubt it should have been employed enough already to leave a shortage of dungeons for "heroic" types to plunder in the first place.
Rest assured that the Egg of Coot (or your campaign's equivalent), et al, will provide their lairs with ample protection! In fact, they are likely to show less restraint in that department than we fair-minded and sporting DMs.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 6, 2008 23:04:19 GMT -6
I reckon that how commanding armies relates to the spirit of role-playing depends on the role one is playing. Whether it is "fun" or not is a matter of personal preference.
Apparently, Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax and their early players in Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns considered it part of the fun.
Having been a bit miffed of late by allegations in some quarters of old schoolers' stick-in-the-mud-ism, I find it a bit ironic when we raise our hackles at something even older school (for all that I may on occasion resemble that remark).
Naturally, you are free to rule that in your campaign a Patriarch does not get (at no cost!) between 50 and 300 men at arms -- but so it is proposed in Men & Magic.
As a campaign means to me (in the hobby context) a series of games played by players, it seems to me backwards to speak of its very manifestation as its "destruction." At worst, it concludes and a new campaign begins! Player freedom is most unlikely to inaugurate an endless era of boringly peaceful stasis, although the GM by fiat might and thereby end the whole enterprise so far as that world-system is concerned.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Dec 7, 2008 0:50:19 GMT -6
I think sending an army in to clear out a dungeon has it's own hazards.
First, what was that army supposed to be doing? Guarding something? Fighting somebody? Whatever it is, they're not doing it. Your enemies (and their spies!) tend to notice something like that.
Second, how long will the army remain your army? Once they are all loaded up with loot and magic weapons and such, why would they want to work for some grubby landowner -- wouldn't they (the leaders, anyway) want to BECOME grubby landowners themselves?
I'm sure a clever DM can impose enough obstacles on the player who dreams up such a notion. If nothing else, he can let the other players know what's happening.They might have something to say themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Dec 7, 2008 7:05:48 GMT -6
The War Machine rules from Frank Mentzer's D&D Companion set offer an alternative approach to resolving battles and sieges. The war machine could easily be adapted to od&&d, as most basic assumptions are the same. |
|
|
|
Post by jcstephens on Dec 7, 2008 13:04:48 GMT -6
"If a character commands a thousand knights, what would stop him from sending them into a dungeon to troll for loot?" How about planting a legend of bad things happening when people do that? I think of dungeons as being 'alive' in a "The Shining" sort of way. Adventuring parties probably won't disturb it too much, but a full scale invasion would. The more you mess with it the more it wakes up, and a fully aware dungeon doesn't play nice. Plagues are good, mass undead rising are better, and both would be just about right. Stolen! Well, I got the idea from an old Dragon article about a board game, so you're welcome to it. Here's a illustration, to drive the point home: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Thetriumphofdeath.jpgOf course, some players might LIKE that sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 7, 2008 17:03:26 GMT -6
To accommodate the tangent, I've started a Dungeons & Conquest thread. The biggest barrier to doing something on the old Blackmoor / Greyhawk scale seems to be time. That's true even without the grand strategic aspect, if one is emulating the wide open, player-driven approach to underworld and wilderness expeditions. The custom of "the party" being always The Usual Suspects meeting at The Same Bat Time each week (or however often), with the same VaUmpire, tends to impose a certain style of play -- one quite different from the old campaign model. Some people are cool with playing monsters some of the time, which is in my opinion a great aid to the referee. Many others just can't get into it at all. Most of the time, people want to play their characters in a given session. In a free campaign, not all situations -- thus not all sessions -- are going to involve all players. This is especially true when characters are widely separated not only geographically but on the time line. So, you've got to be able to arrange sessions involving a subset of the players. It's a big help if players are able to interact with each other outside of refereed sessions, for the kind of diplomacy that leads to joint expeditions or opposed battles. The Internet can greatly facilitate that. Email can supplement the telephone for private conversation, and a message board can host public announcements. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 7, 2008 23:26:18 GMT -6
Thanks! The conversation was drifting a ways from the OP's question. I was about to start one of my own when I found yours. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 7, 2008 23:57:24 GMT -6
Shucks, twernt nuthin ...
And I don't mean to be picking a bone with you personally in disagreeing on some points as colorfully as I have.
|
|
jjarvis
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 278
|
Post by jjarvis on Dec 8, 2008 8:35:55 GMT -6
I think that the biggest danger is simply that players may choose to wield power in a manner not intended by the Referee. If a character commands a thousand knights, what would stop him from sending them into a dungeon to troll for loot? Clearly this would result in a total loss of fun for the game, but players might see these types of options as interesting at first. By the time they realize the error in their ways, the campaign might be damaged beyond repair. No exp for the player, lower share of treasures, NPCs that risk themselves in such an endeavor certainly expect goodly shares of treasure (almost certainly going to get potions and scrolls discovered and used in the dungeon). What if one of those Knights decides..."hey the king is a wimp, let's overthrow the tyrant"; what if it isn't the knight but a really darned powerful intelligent sword motivating the rebellion? What's to protect the king when the dragon on level 12 hears there is an army from lord smartie attacking the dungeon and the dragon decides to attack the holdings of lord smartie while the knights are absent? I had one group bring about 100 men at arms to the caves of chaos in B2, that didn't end well for them. Only so many soldiers at a time fit in a 10' wide corridor. Not to mention the raids from multiple caves at once against the invading force. Such player decisions aren't campaign enders they give the DM a whole heck of a lot ofopportunities to present new challenges and adventures. |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Dec 8, 2008 9:04:29 GMT -6
Strangely, we seem to be building an actual social rationale for Adventurers! I mean, no, a big force isn't going to survive the Caves of Chaos. However, if nothing is done, bad things are eventually going to happen to the Keep. Hence the purpose of Adventurers: Not only do they boost the local economy, they pick off just enough of the bad guys to keep them from ever becoming a serious threat to the Real World...
Thread hijack finished.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwayanu on Dec 8, 2008 15:37:08 GMT -6
|
|
