|
Post by geoffrey on May 20, 2011 23:02:54 GMT -6
Men & Magic, page 8: Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Balrog would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee. While I've long been aware of this passage, only recently has it sunk into my imagination. I've long forbidden non-human PCs in most of my D&D games, simply because most of my campaign worlds do not have demi-humans. Now I allow demi-human PCs with the understanding that PC demi-humans are the ONLY demi-humans in the campaign world. They were somehow transported to the campaign world from elsewhere. Everyone will think they are freaks, and will treat them accordingly. How do you think a sub-Saharan African would have been treated if he were suddenly dropped in the middle of 11th-century London? It would be twice as bad for a dwarf or an elf. And not only demi-humans. You want to play something out of the Monster Manual, or out of the Fiend Folio, or etc.? Go ahead. Let's work out the details. Simply keep in mind that you're the only one in the campaign world (unless your fellow players play the same thing). Your character choices cannot dictate to my campaign world ("I'm a dwarf/bugbear/whatever, so you have to have dwarves/bugbears/whatevers in your campaign world!"), and my campaign will not dictate your character choices. ("There are no dwarves/bugbears/whatever in my campaign world, so your character cannot be a dwarf/bugbear/whatever!") My campaign world is my campaign world, and your character is your character. I'll do whatever I want with my campaign world, and you do whatever you want with your character. Sounds fair to me.
|
|
|
Post by coffee on May 21, 2011 0:07:41 GMT -6
Sounds fair to me, too!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 21, 2011 4:54:49 GMT -6
I agree with the spirit of your statement, but not 100%. The issue that I might have is that the player-DM experience is a common one and so both parties should be allowed to share in the discussion. This works fine for me because I tend not to stick to a single campaign world, but rotate from one to another depending upon my mood and/or the requests of the players. For example, Pirates of the Caribbean #4 came out this weekend so my players would like to play in a pirates game. Rather than say "sorry, no pirates are allowed in this game" I create an alternate campaign based on pirates. There are other times when I run something because it interests me instead of the players. A DCC RPG playtest used a bunch of rules which my wife dislikes (she hates any randomness in her use of magic, and she always wants to be a magic-user when she plays) but she'll play it knowing that it's not the only game I'll ever run. So, while the notion of "the DM is always right" is a good one, I find that compromise makes things work best in the long run for me. If a player really wanted to be a balrog, I might come up with a way to have it happen rather than throw the character into a pre-existing game where that character is a freak. Just my two coppers. You, of course, can run your game as you like!
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on May 21, 2011 7:57:34 GMT -6
Yep. I think the spirit of the rule is "flexibility". The whole thing come straight from Arneson, of course, who accomodated his players desires to play vampires, balrogs and so forth. Gygax was obvioulsy not keen on the idea and purged it from AD&D.
So the question really is how much should a DM give in to the dreams of thier players and the general answer is (I think) to the extent possible provided it doesn't wreck things for other players. Geoffrey's example of "okay but you are the only elf in the land" strikes a good balance there, I think.
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on May 21, 2011 13:50:41 GMT -6
Quite a marked contrast with what EGG later wrote (DMG, p. 21: The Monster as a Player Character):
To me this is one of those signal differences between "Arnesonian proto-D&D campaign development" and later "Gygaxian Gaming Philosophy".
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 21, 2011 14:29:20 GMT -6
I've never been fond of stigmatization as a way of controlling non-standard or more powerful character types. You're saying, "You can play what you want, but I'm going to cheapen it for you." If they choose to play that type anyway, it won't be what they want, and if they decide not to play it after all, they'll resent having to play something else.
A better strategy is to either allow or not allow the desired type based solely on what exists in the campaign. If some types are more powerful than others, increase the experience requirements significantly or impose other limitations, like low and non-negotiable level limits.
Men & Magic gives the example of a dragon character. As the character gains experience points, it grows larger and stronger. Depending on how you handle dragons in the campaign, it might hit a level limit ("fully grown") or have a sky-high experience table (based on how many "normal" characters its power is equivalent to). Naturally dragons will have a hard time talking to mysterious old men in taverns and creeping down ten-foot-wide corridors, but there's really no need to hound the player by making the character unpalatable to play beyond the natural limitations.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 21, 2011 14:59:53 GMT -6
A better strategy is to either allow or not allow the desired type based solely on what exists in the campaign. That's what I've done in the past, and in my current campaign it means the only PC choice is human. The ONLY monsters in the campaign are unique monstrosities created with the help of James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator. There are no dwarves, no elves, no balrogs, no dragons, no orcs, no lizard men, nothing. Thus, I figure it is more liberal to allow any sort of PC race rather than merely disallowing them all (save humans) out of hand. If a player can't have fun unless his character is a demi-human in a world full of demi-humans, then he's simply come to the wrong campaign. ;D
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 21, 2011 16:32:47 GMT -6
Quite a marked contrast with what EGG later wrote (DMG, p. 21: The Monster as a Player Character): To me this is one of those signal differences between "Arnesonian proto-D&D campaign development" and later "Gygaxian Gaming Philosophy". Other than the art, is there anything in AD&D that I consider an improvement over OD&D?
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on May 21, 2011 22:31:46 GMT -6
Geoffery
I've been considering this for awhile now, if only for an occasional game.
I think you could just run them with the stats they have in the MM's and the Folio.
I don't think it's so much a question of limiting the PC's as evenly matching them with foes of a HD and abilities that is commensurate to what they have chosen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2011 5:08:21 GMT -6
in my current campaign it means the only PC choice is human. The ONLY monsters in the campaign are unique monstrosities created with the help of James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator. There are no dwarves, no elves, no balrogs, no dragons, no orcs, no lizard men, nothing. I'm a big believer in letting others run their games the way they like, but I'll admit that this is pretty limiting. I know that there is a certain mix of old stories (I've seen it called Appendix N from AD&D) that has only humans as races, but I wonder how many players would feel bummed that they can only play humans. Where can I get "Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator"? I'd like to see what replaces all of the monsters in your game. It sounds like an interesting campaign, but I dunno if I would play it long-term.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2011 5:13:58 GMT -6
Another thought: if I play a unique character who is viewed as a freak, maybe an elf or a vampire, it seems like the style of play of the campaign could change alot. 1. The game could become all about me dealing with my freakness. (Is that a word?) That could take it into Forge territory. 2. The game could become like the x-files where others are trying to expose the existance of the character. 3. The game could go on unchanged, in which case playing the elf or vampire is no big deal. 4. Something else I didn't think of. I dont know which is the best one or which way your campaign would go, but just including one of those characters could change the campaign alot!
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 22, 2011 10:25:00 GMT -6
Keltset, thanks for your posts. None of my players has yet opted to play a non-human. (It's only been within the last month that I've dropped my "humans-only" for PCs rule.) That said, if one of them wanted to play an elf (for example), I'd rule that the elf wandered through a magic portal from Greyhawk (or whatever fantasy world the player wanted his elf to originate from) into my campaign world. Thus, the elf wouldn't think of himself as a freak. He'd have come from a world with lots of elves. Instead, the human societies he encountered would think him weird. He'd probably have to disguise himself. Remember Spock disguising himself in those old Star Trek episodes in which they visited historical Earth? And remember the prejudices Spock ran into when the natives saw those remarkable ears? Something along those lines is what would happen. Now if a PC wanted to play a dragon or a balrog (for example), he's not even going to be let into town! If he were to so much as approach the city gates, he'd be fired on. But even with all-human PCs, there are dozens of choices: You want to play a class from the Players Handbook, or Unearthed Arcana, or Oriental Adventures, or the Arduin books, or from Dragon magazine, or something you made up, or etc? Sure! Let's do it. The Random Esoteric Creature Generator is published by Goodman Games. You can buy it directly from them, or from Noble Knight Games, or from a host of other places. It's my second-favorite D&D book ever published in our Old School Renaissance era. It has liberated my game and given me countless millions of monsters to use rather than the several hundred in the old AD&D monster tomes. I can't recommend it highly enough.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on May 22, 2011 11:05:30 GMT -6
I am usually pretty elastic as a DM: I remember a party member playing the party's mule, mutated into a cobra-centaur hybrid after drinking a potion with random effect.. and that was really fun. ;D
Usually before starting a campaign there should be a sort of agreement about the setting (+1 sword under every rock in the Forgotten Realms and ) and the style (investigation or hack'n'slash): IMHO there's absolutely no reason for a player to complain or to feel limited.. because you already know - thanks to that agreement - what you can or what you cannot do.
I don't think an all-human campaign is limitating: do you want demi-humans? Beardos for dwarves, Sheldon Cooper look-alike for elves and Justin Bieber look-alike for halflings: in few words, nothing forbids a player to play a haughty slim noble with pointing ears.
It's not an elf, but it looks like an elf.
Talislanta docet.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on May 22, 2011 11:45:21 GMT -6
Another thought: if I play a unique character who is viewed as a freak, maybe an elf or a vampire, it seems like the style of play of the campaign could change alot. 1. The game could become all about me dealing with my freakness. (Is that a word?) That could take it into Forge territory. 2. The game could become like the x-files where others are trying to expose the existance of the character. 3. The game could go on unchanged, in which case playing the elf or vampire is no big deal. 4. Something else I didn't think of. I dont know which is the best one or which way your campaign would go, but just including one of those characters could change the campaign alot! Doesn't have to. In fact, in most cases, it shouldn't. You can go with the John Carter option. John Carter, warlord of Mars, is one of the most distinctive people on the planet. That means he's easy to recognize, occasionally has problems with people seeing through his disguises, and is a bit of a target. But his alien-ness itself isn't such a big deal. Everyone takes it for granted that he's different, but no one dwells on it. Instead, they focus on what he can do. It's the same solution I would use for female PCs when emulating a historically male chauvinist society. I wouldn't remind the player constantly about the character being a woman in a man's world, and I wouldn't force them to confront gender issues instead of adventuring. Aside from an occasional NPC shouting "I ain't afraid of no WOMAN!" it wouldn't be an issue; the locals would just recognize that woman as being different. It wouldn't change their opinions of women in general, nor would it make them want to force the PC to obey social constraints. It only becomes an issue if the *player* wants it to be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by vito on May 22, 2011 11:48:40 GMT -6
I'm into collaborative world building myself, though I understand that this is often considered more of a new-school approach than an old-school approach. I don't limit my player's choices to what I as a DM think should be in the setting. Rather, if a player decides that they want to play as a certain kind of character, I try to adjust the game's setting to make it fit. I make sure all of the other players are on board first though.
If, for example, somebody wants to play as a robot, I'll ask all the other players if they are interested in playing in a science-fantasy themed game. If they are interested, then we do that.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on May 22, 2011 12:18:26 GMT -6
Arneson was coming from--what appears to be taking place in his FFC, a war game. So, yeah you could play a vampire, because someone had to run the evil army and his leader. There is a lot of freedom for the DM once you let the players play really almost all of the characters in the world allowing the DM really to only referee the game, instead of relegating the DM to being all the antagonists to the players heroes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2011 13:51:35 GMT -6
I have no issue with limiting player choice, though I believe I am pretty open when it comes to variant player races or professions. When I set up a campaign I usually have some very specific idea as to what that particular reality is like.
I've not found, in 35+ years of running OD&D based games, that working within a well-defined matrix stifles player creativity. Even if the rules framework seems restrictive at first glance. Quite the opposite: it often gets their amazing minds (and most gamers really are quite brilliant) working overtime.
Still, if a player comes up with a strongly variant character concept that stops short of violating the ground rules for the campaign world I've created? If he can sell me on the idea, I'll allow it.
It's just a game, after all ... isn't it? ;D
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 23, 2011 17:38:57 GMT -6
Now I allow demi-human PCs with the understanding that PC demi-humans are the ONLY demi-humans in the campaign world. They were somehow transported to the campaign world from elsewhere. Everyone will think they are freaks, and will treat them accordingly. How do you think a sub-Saharan African would have been treated if he were suddenly dropped in the middle of 11th-century London? It would be twice as bad for a dwarf or an elf. I'm not on board for the above. The only one of the race in the world? I'd rather not, but okay. However, the impossibility of ever encountering another and animosity against them wherever they go is a big drawback to play. And fun too IMO. For my game anything is possible to play as a race (within table rules). But the starting PC must fit within 1st level bounds. Scores are rolled normally. Abilities are small. However, convey in whatever way you wish all the details and we'll work out something we are all happy with. Carebear? R2D2? Non-sentient rock? Okay, but it is a fantasy milieu geared to the human scope, so it may not be want you want. It's best to describe how one perceives the character to perform, so I can help point out with any differences in the game world to the concept. My starting races are already designed for use. Monsters are already in the world. So if you pick one for PC play, they have a pre-determined background. Want something not in the game? Submit it and now it will be. I don't agree with the above either. Table rules cover both individual's behavior. Plus, campaign worlds can be more embracing of different concepts and still retain its underlying structure.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 23, 2011 18:07:42 GMT -6
Wow. As a player, I'd never dream of telling the DM, "Since I'm playing a hobbit [or whatever the case may be], your campaign world has to have plenty of other hobbits, too." IMO, the DM's campaign world is explored by the PCs, not dictated by them. Of course, the PCs can attempt to change the world. There is nothing to stop that hobbit PC (or anyone else) from attempting to open magical gates and bringing whole villages of hobbits into the campaign world.
But hobbit villages by player fiat? Never.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 23, 2011 18:20:11 GMT -6
I get the feeling you run a world inhabited solely by humans. Everything else is a lone alien, popped into existence without connection or place, and wanted by the law.
|
|
|
Post by snorri on May 23, 2011 18:21:20 GMT -6
The 6 year old brother of my youngest player (she's 11, and can't believe I was allready playing D&D with her dad when she wasn't even born), wants to play too. And he asked to play.... a Sagitarius! Apparently, he heard it was his astrological sign and likes the idea of a centaur with a bow. So, next session, I will allow him... I wouldn't probably have allowed a centaur in a group for an older player
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on May 23, 2011 18:31:06 GMT -6
Wow. As a player, I'd never dream of telling the DM, "Since I'm playing a hobbit [or whatever the case may be], your campaign world has to have plenty of other hobbits, too." You're taking the suggestion way beyond its intended scope. A player who wants to play a hobbit in a setting where the DM hadn't considered hobbits before isn't asking the DM to suddenly make whole hobbit villages appear in his campaign world; he's asking for just one little hobbit. Sure, maybe there has to be a hobbit village somewhere to explain where he came from, but it's likely well out of the way and relatively unknown. I get the feeling you enjoy tight control over your game, whereas some other referees have a more laid-back attitude.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 23, 2011 18:44:31 GMT -6
I get the feeling you run a world inhabited solely by humans. Everything else is a lone alien, popped into existence without connection or place, and wanted by the law. In my current campaign world, the only intelligent species is the human race. There are unique, intelligent monsters, but no monster species.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 23, 2011 18:58:11 GMT -6
Wow. As a player, I'd never dream of telling the DM, "Since I'm playing a hobbit [or whatever the case may be], your campaign world has to have plenty of other hobbits, too." You're taking the suggestion way beyond its intended scope. A player who wants to play a hobbit in a setting where the DM hadn't considered hobbits before isn't asking the DM to suddenly make whole hobbit villages appear in his campaign world; he's asking for just one little hobbit. Sure, maybe there has to be a hobbit village somewhere to explain where he came from, but it's likely well out of the way and relatively unknown. I get the feeling you enjoy tight control over your game, whereas some other referees have a more laid-back attitude. It is of course possible that I have misunderstood the post. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be my first time. I do indeed have tight control over my campaign world. It is my creation, with goodness knows how many hours of thought and work expended upon it. I will allow no one to dictate to me regarding my campaign world. The players have tight control over their characters. The above is, in a sense, similar to the real world. Each human being has the free will to attempt whatsoever he wants in a world that he has no control over, that he didn't have a share in creating, and which is full of other people who also have free will. For me, the primary fun of being a DM is creating a world. And for me, the primary fun of being a player is exploring a world. It would break the spell for me if my DM asked me to create parts of his world. I'd sputter, "But... But... I want to explore and learn about YOUR world!" YMMV. ;D
|
|
|
Post by snorri on May 23, 2011 19:05:35 GMT -6
I use often my players proposals as campaign adds, but don't feel obligated too. When a player asked for an elf, I said ok but she was the lone elf - I just said she was from the other side of the river. Then, I added an elven wood on my map (which is, by the way, the borderland map). When characters decided to venture on that side of the river, I took some features from rahasia (the grey mountain) and added the silver princess palace as a dungeon, changing most monsters to 'dark' elves. So, the player demand for an elf affected my campaign world, by providing a good base to set up classical modules (until now, I used bits of B2, B3, B4, B5, B7, N1 and U2 in my borderlands). There was a also a dawrf, but he was also the lone dwarf and so far, no other dwarf appeared - but there's probably dwarves somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 23, 2011 19:44:42 GMT -6
That's a good "Middle Path".
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 23, 2011 20:55:35 GMT -6
For me, the primary fun of being a DM is creating a world. And for me, the primary fun of being a player is exploring a world. It would break the spell for me if my DM asked me to create parts of his world. I'd sputter, "But... But... I want to explore and learn about YOUR world!" YMMV. ;D What I do is run a reality puzzle game. It's a cooperative simulation game where the rules are the puzzle/code hidden behind a screen. It is not the rules in the books, those are merely guidelines for me, the referee, in the creation of it. It's up to the players to learn and decipher this code as best they can to achieve their own ends. However, I do not and could not have rules for everything, so I tell them "we are all creating the world together." It is just like a situational puzzle, when a player makes an attempt irrelevant to the rules I tell them the results are their declared attempt (normally with an "okay"). However, all unaccounted for attempts define new code or configuration of such (this all being a complex variant of Conway's Game of Life anyways). The scope of the game is by the available roles for play, the classes. Each has their own scale of complexity easily recognized by their XP quantity / level. I have a lot of stuff seemingly outside of the PC roles to, but it is all related towards the ones offered. These are 4 primary circles overlapping in the sweet spot of "adventurer" with niches not overlapping. Sub-classes/roles are subsumed in one of the above 4. Most of a sub-class's included scope is the core class, but it may some may be from one of the others or even new material. The players themselves are always outward-focused for the experience of the world surrounding them and inward-focused regarding their thoughts and feelings of it. The outward focus exists even though they are, at the same time, in part constructing that world as they go. Okay, so outside of character they submit to me a background. When they created this they were creating/expressing the character. I negotiate with the player in order for the background to configure within the code I am using. Any extraneous details are taken as new code. Every single new game element is converted outside of game by me to the code regardless of whether I am the creator of the element or they are. The only restriction on me is: I do not get to create new code after the game campaign begins. Out of game submissions may include: more background, modules, campaign settings, etc. Anything can be added within the table rules, but the overall scope is human-centered in an earth-like reality. Steer away from that, like playing a star system as a PC and it won't really work. The player race is the degree to which it fits in the human scope. The easiest are a "demi" semi-humans and humanoids, the more divergent become less playable for the code constructed. Players are always changing or adding elements, either knowingly or unknowingly. This is one of the few rules, something everyone knows and accepts. All changes and additions forever remain part of the underlying code being puzzled out. Players are always exploring, seeking understanding, and attempting to use their wits, memory, and devised strategies to accomplish self-defined ends. These ends are expected to be within the scope of their class, but they can attempt others. The details and complexity are simply going to be less. The overall puzzle game is designed to push the players in very pragmatic acts and it does so extraordinarily well in my opinion. For the case of a hobbit, I would tell the player hobbits and halfings are already in the world. Hobbits are akin to Halflings who are not part of the civilized world. They can play one, but their kin reside in uncivilized parts of the world. As they already have a good bit defined, it takes more negotiation to add more. But since the player does not know what this is they can submit whatever they desire. This is the same with any of the PC races offered at campaign start. This does not mean they cannot define how their PC grew up, only that it will need to be worked out until everything configures within the pre-existing code with new bits added. Just like a module the player suggested, the work is interpreted by me, connected to everything else in the world, and becomes a new and exciting element for them to explore and play with. This negotiation process is also learning about and exploring the world. It is part of the puzzle solving process and part of the gameplay, but it is not done in character. However, at the table all play is done in character, regardless of player mannerisms, and most find that POV more enjoyable (as do I). Last thing. Also in the rules everyone knows. I tell the players I will never be revealing the code behind the referee screen at any point. Even after the end of the game. However, if they pay attention and play smart, they will recognize I am revealing this ever-growing code with almost every word I say throughout the game. It's all a clue to something forever larger than what they currently understand it as.
|
|
|
Post by howandwhy99 on May 23, 2011 20:57:35 GMT -6
I use often my players proposals as campaign adds, but don't feel obligated too. When a player asked for an elf, I said ok but she was the lone elf - I just said she was from the other side of the river. Then, I added an elven wood on my map (which is, by the way, the borderland map). When characters decided to venture on that side of the river, I took some features from rahasia (the grey mountain) and added the silver princess palace as a dungeon, changing most monsters to 'dark' elves. So, the player demand for an elf affected my campaign world, by providing a good base to set up classical modules (until now, I used bits of B2, B3, B4, B5, B7, N1 and U2 in my borderlands). There was a also a dawrf, but he was also the lone dwarf and so far, no other dwarf appeared - but there's probably dwarves somewhere. I like this too
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 23, 2011 21:00:15 GMT -6
Fascinating stuff! Thanks for detailing your methodology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2011 16:19:34 GMT -6
For me, the primary fun of being a DM is creating a world. And for me, the primary fun of being a player is exploring a world. It would break the spell for me if my DM asked me to create parts of his world. I'd sputter, "But... But... I want to explore and learn about YOUR world!" YMMV. ;D What I do is run a reality puzzle game. It's a cooperative simulation game where the rules are the puzzle/code hidden behind a screen. It is not the rules in the books, those are merely guidelines for me, the referee, in the creation of it. It's up to the players to learn and decipher this code as best they can to achieve their own ends. However, I do not and could not have rules for everything, so I tell them "we are all creating the world together." It is just like a situational puzzle, when a player makes an attempt irrelevant to the rules I tell them the results are their declared attempt (normally with an "okay"). However, all unaccounted for attempts define new code or configuration of such (this all being a complex variant of Conway's Game of Life anyways). The scope of the game is by the available roles for play, the classes. Each has their own scale of complexity easily recognized by their XP quantity / level. I have a lot of stuff seemingly outside of the PC roles to, but it is all related towards the ones offered. These are 4 primary circles overlapping in the sweet spot of "adventurer" with niches not overlapping. Sub-classes/roles are subsumed in one of the above 4. Most of a sub-class's included scope is the core class, but it may some may be from one of the others or even new material. The players themselves are always outward-focused for the experience of the world surrounding them and inward-focused regarding their thoughts and feelings of it. The outward focus exists even though they are, at the same time, in part constructing that world as they go. Okay, so outside of character they submit to me a background. When they created this they were creating/expressing the character. I negotiate with the player in order for the background to configure within the code I am using. Any extraneous details are taken as new code. Every single new game element is converted outside of game by me to the code regardless of whether I am the creator of the element or they are. The only restriction on me is: I do not get to create new code after the game campaign begins. Out of game submissions may include: more background, modules, campaign settings, etc. Anything can be added within the table rules, but the overall scope is human-centered in an earth-like reality. Steer away from that, like playing a star system as a PC and it won't really work. The player race is the degree to which it fits in the human scope. The easiest are a "demi" semi-humans and humanoids, the more divergent become less playable for the code constructed. Players are always changing or adding elements, either knowingly or unknowingly. This is one of the few rules, something everyone knows and accepts. All changes and additions forever remain part of the underlying code being puzzled out. Players are always exploring, seeking understanding, and attempting to use their wits, memory, and devised strategies to accomplish self-defined ends. These ends are expected to be within the scope of their class, but they can attempt others. The details and complexity are simply going to be less. The overall puzzle game is designed to push the players in very pragmatic acts and it does so extraordinarily well in my opinion. For the case of a hobbit, I would tell the player hobbits and halfings are already in the world. Hobbits are akin to Halflings who are not part of the civilized world. They can play one, but their kin reside in uncivilized parts of the world. As they already have a good bit defined, it takes more negotiation to add more. But since the player does not know what this is they can submit whatever they desire. This is the same with any of the PC races offered at campaign start. This does not mean they cannot define how their PC grew up, only that it will need to be worked out until everything configures within the pre-existing code with new bits added. Just like a module the player suggested, the work is interpreted by me, connected to everything else in the world, and becomes a new and exciting element for them to explore and play with. This negotiation process is also learning about and exploring the world. It is part of the puzzle solving process and part of the gameplay, but it is not done in character. However, at the table all play is done in character, regardless of player mannerisms, and most find that POV more enjoyable (as do I). Last thing. Also in the rules everyone knows. I tell the players I will never be revealing the code behind the referee screen at any point. Even after the end of the game. However, if they pay attention and play smart, they will recognize I am revealing this ever-growing code with almost every word I say throughout the game. It's all a clue to something forever larger than what they currently understand it as. All I will say to this is: YES. And that's because everything about the style in which I play as well as design has been stated here by howandwhy. I'll also mention that this does in no way denigrate any other form of play. All forms are valid. Enjoy the one(s) you like. They say "variety is the spice of life" and I fully believe in that concept. I hope everyone's enjoying the games they're playing! And just for the heck of it, try out a new one to see what it's like. And if you hate it (i.e., it's not fun for you), return to the one you love.
|
|