Campaign Help

[42]

So the voices in my head have given me permission to return to the board for a while.

So I'm thinking of starting a campaign in the next few months. I've already decided some of th basic setting and story outline, but here are some of my questoins.

1. System rules: I've decided that there isn't a system out there that I completely like. So I think I will just take the DnD 3E system (since I'm familiar wiht it) and get rid of half hte rules and make it the way I want it. Is this a good idea? Does it take away too much control from the players?

2. Players: I'm the kind of player that I like to think can have fun with any character given to me. When make a character I try to think of things that might be challenging. (hmm.. let's a hafling fighter with only a sling sounds like fun). Course, I realize not every one is this way. (One person I currently play with is one of the most blood-thirsty min/max-ers I've ever met and she makes no apologies for it.) So should I limit what kind of players I let into the campaign? Not something I'm very fond of over all.

3. Characters: So I think it is a lot of fun to focus on characters. The dilema here is that, I still want to tell my story. Sometime my story-line and the player story lines don't always come together. This also happens more often when the party is in the GMs custom campaign, but the player is thinking in the world of the premods (Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, ect...). So I've been think of staggering the sessions a little so that I can take time to focus on both. Solution or Problem? I've also thought about asking the players to provide short outlines of where they see their characters heading.

4. Reality: Just how "real" should I try to make the campaign feel? Personally, reality sucks. If you can't pretend in an RPG to be a super-being who can jump off cliff without suffering a scratch or be a lone warrior who can take down a whole orc army then where can you? Despite this I understand that some people want "realistic" feel to the campaign (maybe they just haven't experienced enough trauma to know otherwise). So how much "realism" should I try to include?

[Mr_Pleasington]

1)  Messing with 3E leads to bad mojo...I'm talking from experience here.  The system plays great and is completely balanced if you don't mess with it, but once you start taking away rules you start to really mess with the subtlties of the game and the whole thing can crash like a house of cards.  Since it's balanced by so many factors (unlike previous edition which were balanced only by class) it can be hard to see the domino effect a change can make.  Adding rules to 3E works well, but there are few things you can change without really screwing with system balance.  Trust me on this

As for the rest of your points, I think the best thing you can do is sit down with your prospective players and talk about what they're looking for in a game.  This allows you to feel them out and adjust your game accordingly.

Every time I'm ready to run a game I send an email out to all my friends with a number of games I'd be willing to run along with a description of the game that let's people know the feel of it.  Kind of like a trailer for a movie.

Lately, I've found one of the biggest aspects of a game, and one you bring up, is whether to make the game narrative or player-focused.  In my 10 years of roleplaying I've played/ran almost exclusively narrative games...the GM has a plot and the players go through it...the Storyteller way.  This can be an absolute blast with good roleplayers but can stagnate into boredom and railroading if the PCs get tired of a certain part.  There's a lot of good and bad ways to do this, running a narrative game well is a sharp edge to walk.  Strangely, this is the type of game virtually everyone plays today.

The other type of game, a player-centric one, has only been recently introduced to me and I love it.  This is old school straight out of early D&D back when the rules were about being a game and not about the GM telling a story.  It was about the story the players wove as they explored the world.  This type of game gives players every freedom:  They do what they want and the GM plays referee.  It's a lot of work on the GMs part as he has to be ready for virtually anything, but can be great fun on both sides of the screen since even the GM doesn't always know what's going to happen.  Little Keep on the Borderlands for Hackmaster is like this and it's what I'm playing through now.  I've already decided the next game I run is going to be a Basic D&D player-centric campaign.

Players tend to love this because they do have so much control.  The GM isn't gently nudging them away from their course of action simply because it doesn't fit the plot he's laid out very well.

Well, enough rambling

[42]

Thanks for the ramblings.

So as a DM, I should just make up a whole lot of story lines and see which one the players choose to follow? That sounds feasible and a lor of fun.

The only problem I see is that I might have a few players who are really shallow and one-dimensional. I don't think he or she would have any problem leaving the rest of the party behind and just going off on his or her own. Should I dictate some of the party background and motives, just to keep everyone together?

[Mr_Pleasington]

If you have a group with a lone wolf or two it is almost always advantageous to use the old "you met each other before the game began and decided to adventure."  Trite, sure, but useful and perfectly fitting in the quintessential fantasy campaign.  This kind of thing works well for a player-centric campaign as they can fill in their history as they go.  Not so good for a narrative one as backgrounds tend to be really important in those type of games.  

For an example of my first attempt at a player-centric game using 3E check out this:  http://www.geocities.com/hoodyfrickinhoo/

The site was designed as a reference for players to help them keep everything straigt since my goal was to weave a living, but typcial, fantasy world with as much versimilitude as possible.
Not perfect, and we only got to play a handful of sessions, but at the end of the first session the players had an hour discussion of what they should do first.  Some wanted money, some wanted prestige, some wanted arcane secret...and there was AT LEAST one hook that was attractive to each of those.  

[Fellfrosch]

Story and character are the hardest things for me to deal with as a GM. One of my regular players (I play with a bunch of old high school friends) has an amazing ability for asking all the wrong questions--even if I think I've got all the options covered, he'll invariably decide to do something completely different. On the one hand, this makes the games very interesting and has taught me to improvise better. On the other hand, I feel like smacking him every time he decides to ignore my well-placed clues and interview some random bystanders that I only included for the sake of color.

I suppose what I'm saying is that this style of player-driven gaming can be fun, but it's very hard to pull off. I still don't think I do it well, but I'm getting better.

[Nicadymus]

Having recently finished my first campaign that was player-driven I would have to agree with Fell.  We were playing a troupe of Jedi trying to incorporate a new sector into the Old Republic.  Of course there were those that resisted joining, and it was the responsibility of the group of Jedi to establish an embassy, foster foreign relations, and attempt to convince those in opposition to joining to change thier minds.  A terrorist group entitled A.R.T.iC. (Anti Republic Terrorist Cell) was the major adversary, and it was the job of the Jedi to conduct the investigation and track down these violent dissidents. The investigation was the player -driven aspect. I would offer clues that could lead them to several different locations, but not all of the locations would continue with the plot line, and often the group would come to the conclusion that they had to go some place that I hadn't expected they would go.  Once at these new locations, the group would then interact with the other NPCs.  Most of the time dead ends on the main plot line would occur, and a lot of improvisation was necessary to continue the session.  In fact this lead to several different side adventrues that offered an element of a dynamic world around them. But, at the same time, all of the spontaneously generated environments and characters made it pretty difficult.  They all had to be marked and remembered because the players went back to them repeatedly whenever they returned to that world.  That made for a book of notes on NPCs and Locations roughly 150 pages in length.

I am happy to report, however, that upon completion of the campaign the group unanimously agreed that this was there favorite campaign, which came as a shock to me because I often felt that I was struggling to keep up when they would choose unexpected paths.  However, their reasoning behind their statements was that they truly enjoyed the "freedom" that they had to do whatever they wished, and that all their choices didn't automatically lead them to the next exact step.  They enjoyed the "reality" of the frustration they felt when they hit a dead end, and the excitement that came when they were able to find the next clue.  This dynamic facite was what they really enjoyed.

I would reccomend a player-based campaign for the sake of the players' enjoyment, but be warned that it makes the DM's job a lot harder.

As far as linking past histories of the characters, I didn't have to worry about it because they all grew up in the Jedi temple.  I am sure taht without this common background it would have been more difficult, but having never delt with that I can't speak on it.

[42]

So, making the campaign player-focused seems like a good idea. I may have to twist some arms of some of the players to get them to break out of their video-game mentallity and start cooperating, but I'm sure it will be good for them.

I keep coming back to the rules part of my first post. I understand that changing the rules can provide some balancing problems. Here are some of the rules I'm thinking about changing:
1. Switching Bards, Sorcerers and Wizards to a spell point system.
2. Having a monotheistic religion, where Clerics and Paladins worship Saints instead of gods.
3. Placing time restrictions on purchasing magic items, players can only buy or sell so much per day.
4. Incorporating saving throws to account for mental or physical health.
5. Using skill points and feats as rewards in addition to those gained at levels.
6. Axing psionics, I just don't like having the 3rd magic system.
7. Having orcs as a player race and geting rid of the half-breeds.

So what problems am I creating?

[Fellfrosch]

The two major changes you suggest are two that would benefit the system, at least in my mind: spell points and health-based saving throws. They're also the things that will cause the most problems. I have to run now, but I'll try to think of some way to make them work.

The only other problem I see is that handing out feats will make the fighter class a lot less interesting, since extra feats is their whole specialty--if everyone gets extra feats, why be a fighter? Though I suppose if the fighter gets just as many extra feats as everybody else, it would balance.

[Entropy in Exile]

here is my tip :

Don't play DnD.

i have any number of problems with DnD. most of them are in comparison to my system of choice, WW's D10 system (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Exalted and Changling plus other oddball games floating around).

The most obvious reason can be seen by looking at the respective character sheets. D20 as 2 pages of combat statistics. D10 has about 1/5th of a page, depending on how you define combat stats (most disciplines, magic spheres and gifts are noncombative).

I'll bet your all thinking im a agnsty little goth git. 'fraid not. in my (limited) experience, most players, LARP or otherwise, are not goths. they are normal people, who like playing in a darker version of this world, where all the nasty monsters we created to fill the nights actually exist. admittedly vampire LARPers go for some wierd s*** costumes, but hey! its LARP - half the fun is pratting around as far as i can tell.

of course, there is some morons who play vampire to have a diet of agnst and gooby powergaming madness, but most people are attracted to its gritty realism (at least in the setting), and its emphasis on role playing, not roll playing.

One major advantage of D10 is that if you want to go for a campaign mentioned above - players control - then its far easier - just set the game in your home town, and youve got all the setting info inside your own head (as well as your players), and you can pull in real world figures and events to tie it in with the campaign. EG, say a murder gets big coverage, for its lack of a discernable motive, bring it into teh campaign as supernatural forces fighting shadow wars. ghoulish i know, but there you go. major protagonists can even have promenent figures as their servants, leading to players finding out that the public servant they /really/ hate is actually a vampires lackey. cue extreme violence.

and, uh, this seems to have strayed into a defense of D10 for some reason, but there you go.

[Mr_Pleasington]

The only change to the system you mentioned that would have far reaching, unbalancing problems is awarding feats and skills since these are used to balance the classes.  If you start giving out skill points you cheapen the rogue class since skills are kinda its specialty.  Start handing out feats and fighters get shafted for the same reason. If you feel the need to hand out meta-game stuff like that I would suggest doing something like Deadlands.  When a players does something really heroic or roleplays really well then give them a chip.  The chip can be cashed in for X experience points at the end of the session or used to add +10 to any roll.  That kind of stuff always goes over well and acts as positive reinforcement for what you like to see in the campaign.

I'm a veteran of many a game using the Storyteller system (d10) and I have to say that while it works well with what it does, it would be terrible for a D&D-like fantasy game where focus on combat is built into the system.  Storyteller combat is just too clunky and it takes a long time to run virtually any combat.  True, it makes that combat dramatic like its supposed to be, but for fantasy games where it's a little more hack 'n slash you need to keep it simple and be able to resolve combats in a reasonable amount of time.  Exalted, WW's fantasy rpg, avoided this problem by making combats more deadly (lot's o' powers used each turn).  Great game, though

I myself look forward to the release of Pinnacle's Savage Worlds, a universal rpg that incorporates virtually everything I like about Deadlands and makes it faster.  There's free demo rules up at their site, well worth a look.

Back to D&D though...A player-centered campaign IS a lot of work for the DM, but its very rewarding for him also.  I like to spend some time developing the world and keeping track of NPCs so it fits me well.  Eventually I'll go back to a narrative campaign (either for Deadlands or Buffy), but I'm itching to run my player-centered Basic D&D game.   You can't beat a system where Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling  are classes!

[42]

Like I said previously, I'm using DnD because I am most familiar with it. I don't approve of all the rules but I like it for some of my own reasons. If I were to use another system I would do the same thing. Get rid of a lot of the rules and make it the way I like it. I have some problems with White Wolf and GURPs and other systems. Not that they are bad systems, but they are not condusive to my style of play and it means having to teach the system to my players. I've been playing various RPGs for 16 years and I think I know what is out there, so I'm comfortable in my decision.

So I think that I should clarify that feats and skills as rewards is in addition to those gained the character normally. Therefor, fighters and wizards will still get their bonus feats just they may get a few more if the player can play well. Right now I play a halfling fighter/ranger who has more feats (15+) than he knows what to do with, so I'm not afraid of players running out of feats to choose from.

P.S. Basic DnD rocks!

[Mr_Pleasington]

Hmmm...let me put this another way...

The bonus feats a fighter gets is the balancing factor that keeps him in check with the power of other classes.  He should be neither stronger or weaker than other classes if you play to his strenghts: namely, lot's of combat feats and a good BAB.  His major weakness is low skill points.  Right?

Now, a wizard gets spellcasting, which is a huge advantage.  Along with that he gets a poor BAB, average skill points, and relatively few feats because spellcasting is such a powerful force.  This is why high level wizards ruled old editions.  The way the figher made to be an equivalent power level with the wizard is through his combat feats which increase his combat potential.

Now, say the wizard starts playing well and he ends up getting a few more feats that the fighter.  All of a sudden the fighter's balancing factor is skewed as the wizard is getting the same benefits (extra feats) that he is.  

Also, giving out skill points can seriously affect Prestige Classes and could make a PC qualify for one much earlier.  

Still, it's your game and you should play it however you want   I just wanted to point out that messing with skills and feats is probably the easiest way to lose the inherent balance of the game (which was one of the selling points of 3E).  CRs of monsters won't be accurate anymore if extra skills and feats enter the game, etc.  

Man, the more I talk about it the more I realize how little I like 3E.  I ran it for over 2 years after it came out and I'm not sure I'll run a game using it again...though I will play.   I'll probably stick to Basic or 1E since they are much more rule-light and freeform than 3E.  What can I say, I'm one of the guys who doesn't like "having a rule for everything."  Having a rule allows people to exploit said rule.  It was much easier when the wilder of the situation were left up to DM discretion.  Just look at how having all these balancing rules affects 3E modification.  So much stuff to keep in mind.  I love to tinker with systems and 3E is a house of cards when it comes to that.   Okay, end rant.

[42]

Well, I agree that the skills and feats thing could be an unbalancing factor. Some of the players are like me, and don't care if their character is up to par with everyone elses. But for some players that is a prime concern.

I've toyed with the idea of giving each player the responsibility of informing me, via email, about where they think they're character fits in to the campaign and what goals they would like their character to accomplish after each session. This, annoyingly feels like giving out homework, which I do enough at work as is. Yet it is a quick way that I can check to see if I'm meeting the hopes and desires of the players. Perhaps this is just taking the whole DMing thing to too much of a professional level?

[Mr_Pleasington]

lol...it sounds like you just want some feedback on your games, which is just how I am.  If you and your players enjoy doing it then there's no reason that you shouldn't.

Generally after the first session I like the players to put down 2 long term goals and three short term goals on their character sheet.  This gives the player some time to get to know their character and the others in game and get a good feel for the atmosphere of the campaign.  I keep a list of those goals and make sure to weave in opportunities to complete them. Also, if the game ends in a city or town (and out of combat or anything that commits the PC) I let them take care of errands and other such things between game time.  This gives them time to accomplish some of the stuff that the group won't do at that time.  This has worked really well for me.

Also, every few session I make sure that the players are happy with the direction of the campaign and ask what they would like to see.   This helps keep everyone happy and having fun.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

42, Fell, and others will recognize what I'm talking about, but I'm (sort of) running a game where there's a 12th level character (granted, he has some severe penalties) running around with characters are mostly under 5th level. One character I gave prestige class abilities at first level. It hasn't hurt the game much. See, the way I see it, balance isn't important if you have a good story and give the lower power characters a chance to do something. The game focuses on people being in character, something most of the players are doing very well. Balance doesn't matter so much if you're not in competition. I like the reward idea. I've often thought that progression should be based on what a character did, instead of letting them randomly choose what would be neat, even if it is unrelated to what they've been doing.