Synergy of the participants

[Bard]

I've been reading Tim Kask at Dragonsfoot these days...

Today I found this post: www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=556287#p556287

"In any RPG of any type, the synergy of the participants is the essence of why we do it. Formal dicta and proscriptions are the antithesis of a evolving, organic campaign."

So this started me thinking...

I'm designing my new campaign, and rule set and such, to start to introduce my newfound od&d game to myself and to my friends... But if I want to go back in time, to the beginning of this hobby, to feel the true old school feeling, maybe I should make my starting rule set as small as possible, as simple as possible, to leave room for my players to participate in the creation of our game, which we will play together. It's not that I, as the referee or DM, won't be the final authority on the rules (and if anybody will start his own campaign, then I will support them in this too), but I will encourage the players to participate in the creating the game. Not just the story with the actions of their characters, but the game as a whole, we as a group will probably enjoy playing the most.

So I will need an introductory rules & campaign book, which is short, so they can understand it easily, but complete enough that we can start playing with it, even if nobody wants to add anything to it, and which is incomplete in a way that it's only "enough" to start the game, for example for "the introductory module", and then on if they are hooked, we should expand it together.

I want to encourage my players to give their own ideas on how should we play as well as what should we play (where their characters go, what they do, who they interact with etc.).

(Maybe I try to post what I come up with in the Workshop forum, this will encourage me to keep it simple so I don't have to translate too much, and maybe I can finally get out of the philosophy trap, and start moving to actual gaming...

[Finarvyn]

That's sort of where OD&D comes from. It's a simple rules set but clearly has some spots that could be filled in or smoothed over, and the group gets to decide how to do it.

When I ran an OD&D-Chainmail blend the other day, my players wanted to stay after the session was finished to make some suggestions and share their ideas. They know that as DM I get the final say, but they enjoyed saying "you know, if we did this it might make things run smoother...."

Good luck in your quest!

[oldgeezer]

I agree. Rules-heaviness is the antithesis of the original D&D game.

When we first started playing, we HAD no rules. Only Gary had rules. We discovered rules empirically, through exploration. Does fire work on an Ochre Jelly? Only one way to find out...

The philosophy of those early days is, IMEO, summarized best thusly:

"Here's some hit tables, a saving throw matrix, and some suggested magic, treasure, and monsters.

Add imagination and go apeshirt."

[hackman]

That's one of the things I love about the OD&D spirit. When I get a game going, I'm going to ask my players the first day, so how do you want to handle initiative? Or maybe I'll wait until the first battle? Other than the tables and d6 hit points and damage, it's all wide open. I also like to create my own creatures just to make it fresh, a constant trial and error for the players. I went to the local D&D game day for 4th ed. on the 7th of June and the action kept stopping because players would ask the DM the rules consequence of their actions and he'd answer them. I thougt to myself, I might not even look it up and would tell them to just do it, they'd learn soon enough via the consequences of their actions.

[dwayanu]

When a referee describes something to me in "rules-speak," I may ask for clarification in the same terms. Guides (perhaps inexact) to probabilities are sometimes helpful in bridging the gap between a character's assumed knowledge and a player's.

In general, though, I prefer to keep "mechanics" off the stage during play. Rules IMO are something to discuss between sessions.

[coffee]

Jun 16, 2008 11:31:56 GMT -6 dwayanu said:

When a referee describes something to me in "rules-speak," I may ask for clarification in the same terms. Guides (perhaps inexact) to probabilities are sometimes helpful in bridging the gap between a character's assumed knowledge and a player's.

In general, though, I prefer to keep "mechanics" off the stage during play. Rules IMO are something to discuss between sessions.

Exactly. Have an exalt for that.

[scogle]

I agree with OP 100% on this. It's what I'm doing in my campaign: we start off running it basically BTB (which is fine with OD&D since there's so little *book* to go by), and as we play I can see which rules should be changed or added to fit the style of my players. At the same time, I'm not running this openly: the vast majority of rule-changes are going to be behind the DM's screen. I'll only tell my players about them if it's something that directly effects them. I think this really helps preserve the mystery, and prevents rules-lawyering.