The wife (inadvertently) woke me up around 3am with her nightmare/thrashing. While I comforted her and she quickly returned to sleep, I was once again left lying awake in bed. Just too many thoughts in Ye Old Noggin.
*sigh*
One thought was this recent post over at Grognardia. Yes, I still read the old man, on occasion. I already expressed my specific thoughts on his post in the comments, but I figured I'd go into more depth over here.
I've loved RPGs for a long, long time, and over the years I've collected an absolutely huge number...of which I've played more than a few. Dozens, probably...Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Marvel (and Advanced Marvel) Superheroes, Stormbringer, ElfQuest, James Bond 007, BattleTech (MechWarrior is the RPG), ShadowRun, Teenagers From Outer Space, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas & Superspies, Beyond the Supernatural, Rifts, Vampire the Masquerade, Werewolf the Apocalypse, Mage (the Awakening?), The Hunters Hunted, Ars Magica, Over The Edge, Fantasy Wargaming, DragonQuest, DragonRaid, Traveller, Guardians, Star Wars, CyberPunk 2020, Risus, InSpectres, Spirit of the Century, The Dresden Files, Cadillacs & Dinosaurs, Maelstrom (and Story Engine), Fiasco, Warhammer Fantasy Role-Playing...probably (definitely) a few more that I'm forgetting at the moment.
A lot of games...many in multiple editions (learning a new edition is often akin to learning a new game). And, of course, a few of my own games (Cry Dark Future, Five Ancient Kingdoms, War of the Mecha, DMI and its variations, etc.). Yeah. I've played a LOT of games.
But the vast bulk of these games...with the exception of my own stuff...were played before the age of 30. Which is to say: more than 20 years ago. Since entering my 30s, I'm either playing some one-off (usually a demo or con game), or I'm playing something of my own ("play testing"), or I'm playing D&D. And mostly, it's just D&D.
And since 2020 it's solely AD&D 1E.
It's not that I'm not (still, continuously) enchanted by RPGs and amazed at the creativity, artistry, and design I see on display every time I walk into a local game shop. I LOVE games...I do!...and I'll buy the occasional RPG these days just to marvel at its beauty and throw some financial support at the industry. But most everything I've purchased in recent years...unless it's D&D related...simply goes on the shelf. If I bother to buy a print copy at all. I have a lot of digital RPGs stored on the ol' laptop, and those never get played (I only play games out of a printed book)...those are, generally, purchases for 'research purposes' only.
But I don't have any need or use for most of the hundreds of game books I own. I can't, for example, see myself EVER playing 3E again, and yet I must have a literal dozen volumes of that game sitting on my shelf. I keep it for reference, for occasional inspiration, and as a constant warning against nostalgia and the danger of impulse buying (i.e. if I got rid of it, there's always the chance I'd run out and re-purchase the damn thing on a whim...that's happened to me multiple times over the years).
No. The only books I need...and the only books I use with any regularity...are the PHB, DMG, and the three Monster Manuals. Pretty much the same books I used to carry around in my backpack when I was 12 years old (minus the UA and the DDG).
I now play ONE game and, since 2020, I've run only ONE campaign. That's all I need: just a single world. Truth be told, due to my other priorities, I only have time for a single world (and barely time for that!). But even if I were to re-order and re-organize my life to prioritize gaming, I still wouldn't need more than that...I'd just spend MORE time in my world.
Whereas in years past, I'd break my head, starting up new games from scratch with new systems and/or new genres (hell, even in the early days of this blog, when I was only running B/X, I was constantly "starting over" and tweaking my game...)...NOW, I simply work on building the world I have. I can add layer upon layer. I can pile depth upon depth. I can detail it down to the Nth degree, if it suits my fancy. Any and all work I decide to do...whether a little or a lot...is an investment into my campaign, making it richer and richer over time.
It is the great, not-so-secret Secret that all the great world builders have discovered: spreading your imagination thin, defusing your energies over multiple works and worlds, does not lead to satisfying fantasy. In fact, satisfaction is a false carrot to chase at all...we receive satisfaction ONLY when we pause and look back over what we have wrought...what our investment of time and effort has yielded. Like a master gardener checking out the fruits of their labor. And after that pause, we simply go back to work...again...adding more depth, adding more investment to our project.
And when we pause again, we look back at what we've wrought and we feel MORE "satisfied."
And the process repeats. Those of us who scatter our energies (as I did myself...for years) seldom look back at our "works" for they are naught but a wasteland...wasted time, wasted effort. Looking at all that waste...campaigns started and abolished, games played and discarded...can be disheartening. Few of us want to take the time to sit and reflect given just how sad the could have beens can be; few of us have the courage for self-assessment of a wasted life.
Which sounds harsh, but only if one chooses to dwell on the superficial "first pass" of squandered potential. The FACT is that every moment you've spent in your life...gaming or otherwise...has led you to the exact present moment in which you currently stand. And even if you can't find it within your heart to feel a profound sense of gratitude for your gift of life (I assume none of my readers are undead) and the blessings you have in that life (whether few or many)...well, at least you've acquired wisdom. And with wisdom, you can change what you're doing so that the next time you pause and reflect at what you've wrought (whether with your life or your gaming or both) you can feel some degree of satisfaction.
If you're reading my blog, chances are that gaming is an important and valued aspect of your life. Assuming that is the case, then how you approach your gaming should hold some importance to you. If you, like me, are a habitual Dungeon Master, the world you build should be the single most vital part of your gaming life.
Why wouldn't you want to focus your attention and energy on a single world? Why wouldn't you want to make the world in which your fantasy adventures take place as wonderfully detailed as possible?
And lest you think I'm being rhetorical, I think there are only two possible answers to that last question:
- You are fearful of committing to the art and process of being a Dungeon Master, OR
- You dislike the world/setting that you would otherwise be creating.
And IF the answer is the second one (as opposed to the first, which is perhaps more common among those not having accepted their vocation...as was me for many years), then the next question is: why are you bothering to game in that world at all? If you are not whole-heartedly on-board with the genre or IP of the setting (whether it is your own homebrew or the pre-published 'grand design' of someone else), then why are you wasting your time with it? Take the parts you like, build them into a world you can commit to for the long haul, and rock that as the foundation for your game.
I cannot expound enough on how liberating it is to operate in this way. By settling on ONE system...one that requires no expansion rules like B/X, no curating like OD&D or 5E, and one that had been vigorously play-tested long before I got into the hobby...I cut out so much worry and stress from my gaming and can just run the thing. By settling on ONE campaign setting, fit for the system, I can spend any free time and energy I have in drilling down different bits and crafting adventures based on that setting. Scenarios, not plots, not "capers." Simply opportunities that players can choose to explore...or not.
And if they don't, those opportunities continue to exist in my world (until they don't) adding to its depth (until they vanish, to be replaced with different opportunities).
I was considering addressing another "Dear JB" letter before writing this post, one about liar DMs and cheating dice rolls (i.e. "fudging"). However two things stayed my keyboard. One was that most of the responses were adamantly anti-fudge/cheating (from 5E aficionados!) which is, frankly, a welcome change from older Reddit posts. The other, though, was one particular response, which said (in part):
I think the problem here is in the "players losing = death" forced narrative.In the older editions of TTRPG, like the original D&Ds, the game was a wargame with a unique premise. The expectation was that your characters would die and you'd have to reroll and that was part of the game. You could pick between a martial character like a fighter and level faster, getting up to speed more quickly, or you could pick a wizard and be intentionally weaker and level slower, but with huge pay off if you reached higher levels. Retrieving equipment to pass it down was expected, and dungeons sometimes had mechanics to specifically prevent this. The focus wasn't really on a wider campaign narrative or character story arc.As TTRPGs matured, however, the role-playing elements started to see the spotlight, and gradually the expectation shifted towards one of collaborative story telling with a wargame aspect that meant random chance still played a role in narration.Overtime, however, we start to run head-long into the central problem with this set up: your character becomes tied to the story and character death removes you, rather jarringly, from the plot. There's no longer an expectation that players will be at disparate levels, and trying to introduce a level 1 character into a campaign already 5 levels deep will result in you being useless. So your new character is shot up in levels without ever earning them, has a backstory forcibly integrated without ever really experiencing it, and is shoehorned into a plot that never expected to handle them. It creates a terrible dissonance that's difficult to work around and will never be as satisfactory as your first character that was there every step of the way.This isn't always the case, of course. Sometimes there are really great moments where a character death feels right and adds a lot to the gravity of the story. Sometimes there are new characters that can naturally integrate themselves into the plot to replace the old.However, those tend to be exceptions, not the rule, when death is left to random chance.
So, it should come as no surprise to regular readers that I have some serious quibbles with this person's analysis; however, I want to focus on specific elements with regard to what they mean to my post this morning.
First off, I'll go ahead and AGREE that there has been a shift in D&D gaming to "campaign narratives" and "character story arcs" and "collaborative story telling." I'll also go ahead and AGREE this makes the issue of character death a "problem" from the perspective of derailing the "narrative" being told (and, yes, that's a significant part of what leads to cheating/fudging at the modern day table).
Here's the thing, though: ALL THAT IS A FUCKED UP WAY TO PLAY D&D.
Leave aside, for the nonce, that this idiot seems to have forgotten that dead PCs can be brought back to life...fairly easily!...in the D&D game. We had plenty of "main (player) characters" that were raised from the dead MULTIPLE TIMES back in our long-running campaigns; my own PC must have been raised or wished back to life at least a half dozen times.
But (as said) leave that aside. Tell me: why O why do you play Dungeons & Dragons at all? Is it because you want to tell stories of the 'fantasy' genre in collaboration with other people? Because, you can do THAT a lot easier without restricting yourself to big books of rules and the random whims of dice rolls.
Personally, I think most PLAYERS (i.e. non-DMs) play D&D to experience the spills and thrills of being another person participating in adventures in a fantastical land of might and magic. Full stop. And the BEST WAY for you, as the Dungeon Master, to provide that experience is to craft a deep, rich world chock-full of opportunities (scenarios) that the players have leeway and agency to explore. Sometimes dying, sure (danger is part of adventure) but always with the option to make a new character or raise the dead one (i.e. always with the option to "get back in the game").
Your best path, then, is to pick ONE system you can live with and master (possibly tweaking to taste), and then spend ALL your world building efforts on ONE setting that you love and are committed to. Thusly, you will be able to provide the best experience to your players, such that they will want to keep returning to your campaign...regardless of whether or not it has a "narrative story arc" in it. Players want to LIVE their D&D; they can't live it if there's no world in which to live. Focusing just makes it so much better.
I might write a series of posts about my own campaign world, something that...to date...I've hesitated to do (though don't mind mentioning it in passing). For one thing, much of my world is amorphous, the subject of wild rumor and speculation (at least, in areas the players haven't visited) and therefore subject to change. For another thing, I think a DM describing their campaign world is about as boring as a player talking about how kewl their character is, i.e. pretty darn boring.
But maybe it would be helpful to some people. And "helpful" is something I'm really interested in being these days (far more than being "interesting," which was my M.O. for most of my life). Maybe this can be the subject of the personal A-Z challenge I was thinking of doing in June? I'll have to see if I can come up with 26 subjects for discussion...shouldn't be too hard.
ANYway.
I'm running out of steam. I think I'll go lie down for a bit; I've said pretty much all I want to say at the moment.
[published after dragging my sorry ass out of bed and getting the kids up and off to school]
A strong case has been made that I 99% agree with. However, there are some decisions made in life; in gaming life, that derive from more more nuanced motives than the "thrills and spills of being another person participating in adventures in a land of might and magic".
ReplyDeleteRight now, I have a on-running AD&D setting that is a great passion of mine. But on Sundays, the highlight of the week comes from our pursuit of the Great Pendragon Campaign. The motive for this one was initially a kind of bucket list thing, but I'd go so far as to say that it's a genuinely spiritual experience (I know). The world here is one we, the players, know intimately. It's our home Britain.
I say spiritual because mythology isn't something that 'happened maybe', but is something that is happening right NOW, except in some imaginal, yet very real dimension of experience.
The opportunity to interact directly with the idea of a land, of a place and of a story feels important somehow. Important in a way that one not experienced before. To literally participate in myth is no mean thing. And it has nothing to do with either story arcs or the joy of playing somebody else.
It's something almost heavy and I feel like I have to mention it just for the sake of adding another shade to what you outline.
I hope I've articulated myself. I know there's a risk of coming over pretentious, but ehh, here I am.
Great article anyway, thank you.
You're welcome! And thank you...I don't think your comment is pretentious at all; certainly not any more so than my post.
DeleteYou are, of course, correct: there ARE "other reasons" to run RPG campaigns. And the way you describe your Great Pendragon Campaign sounds amazing! Exploring the intersection of history, myth, and gaming is a wonderful thing that ONLY this medium (currently) allows the opportunity for.
I would only offer the caveat that games such as Pendragon (or P.H. Lee's RPG Polaris or certain other games of that ilk) are generally FINITE in play...that is, they have an end point as they seek to explore a certain section/period of time/place/history/myth. And when they're over...sure, you can do it again (differently, if you want to), but THAT type of play is a different animal from the on-going campaign of homebrew "myth-making" that is your (general) D&D-style game. The D&D campaign has no 'end point'...unless the DM dies. And sometimes not even then (how many people continue to play in Greyhawk or Tekumel, etc.?).
You, as a GM, are enjoying the exploration of Pendragon's rich mythos. That's wonderful. I, as a DM, am exploring my own "mythos" in a Pacific Northwest that "never was" (i.e. my home campaign). And one thing YOU might enjoy trying...when the Great Pendragon campaign ends...is exploring your own Britain That Never Was, incorporating as much history and myth as you enjoy, but without the rigid timeline that requires the fall of Arthur's Camelot...or a land withOUT Arthur, in which the players build their OWN "Camelot."
Such is the power and potential of D&D.
; )
Thank you for your kind and, as ever, helpful response. I'm going to chisel away a little longer in the hope of reaching something like my point.
ReplyDeleteLovely notion in your last paragraph, but exploring 'my own' Britain is not the point of interaction with a universal myth (for me), and thus why I'll be looking for something different . It's about connecting with something greater than oneself or one's own imagining. It is not simply to imagine, but to be imagined in turn.
By necessity, this requires an expansion of what we mean by the category of 'life'.
In this light, creating one's own Camelot is about as attractive a proposition as a game in which one rescues Christ from the Cross. The timeline is more like a chronological map upon which one sets the adventures of the PC knight's generational activity. Its not the railroad one must follow, but the sheer heft of myth.
One's own creativity is a beautiful thing (if it can truly be said to be one's own, I'm not convinced). But I do ruin there's something quite different occurring (at least at the sharp end of the wedge). I do understand what you're saying and I'm bring a tad pedantic in terms of what your final suggestion. But but, but...I just need to reiterate that there are apples and there are oranges. I think you be this tbh.
I'll be quite glad when GPC is over because I'll be able to fully embrace what you describe in terms of 'one game, one campaign'; it's a compelling pitch and one I've never fully taken on board all these years aside flip between S&S and medieval conceptions. That will be a big thing for me... something must break!
As I say, you definitely get all this, but really I think it's worth expounding upon in case a person wanders through here and is curious.
ReplyDeleteNo. I *do* get it. And I think you do, too. My "suggestion" at the end was predicated on the possibility that you didn't see the limits of GPC, but you clearly do: hefty or not (with myth, gravitas, destiny) it will, at some point, end. And I'm not sure of its "re-play" potential.
DeleteFor me, that puts Pendragon in the same category as a "one-off" (though admittedly a long run and detailed version). A D&D campaign, by contrast, has no prescribed ending: in the past I've run campaigns that saw multiple generations of PCs (grown children of past PCs), similar to the multi-gen system inherent in Stafford's RPG. While it's "baked in" to Pendragon, such gameplay is still possible with long-form D&D campaigning...should that suit a group's fancy.
However, I understand the overall point you're making, and D&D carries nothing of the "weight" that Pendragon does (I'm not sure ANY RPG does). You are correct that it is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
I've been caught between your sentiments here and attitudes from my younger years for a long time now.... current me wants to pick a game and a world and just keep going, independent even of which group I'm running for, but there's still that impulsive kid inside me that sees a new system and thinks shiny thing, must buy....honestly though, how many slightly different variations of D&D do I need on my shelf? Why do I need a "go to" horror system when I haven't run a horror game since I was in undergrad? At the same time, something seems awfully claustrophobic (to me) about playing just one system for the rest of my days. The struggle, as they say, is real.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have settled on, however, are games that do not give a single shit about killing your character. Dungeon Crawl Classics. Cairn. Those games have no options for raising dead characters, either.
I used to think that lethal games would eventually make for cautious, devious players. It turns out this only works if you have players who view keeping their character alive as goal #1. In my DCC, we've had players hurl characters they didn't like in to the jaws of death in the hopes that their next stat rolls would be better. We do have one player in that group that is attached to their characters, and they tend to turtle up when danger rears its head, whereas the other half of the table will happily go full tilt Leroy Jenkins just to have a story to tell about a character's horrible death.
Anyway, that turned into a bit of a ramble. I'm glad to see your blog is still going strong. :)
Thanks. I only wish I had more time to keep it up.
Delete; )
DMQ, I appreciate where you're coming from. And I'll even do you one better: I have two kids...perfect age for playing all these RPGs that I played in my youth. I want to show these to them; I want to PLAY these with them. Or at least, see them play and experiment the way my friends and I used to...way back in the day.
But "back in the day," we were self-motivated. There was no internet; there wasn't a gazillion forms of digital entertainment/escapism waiting for us. And it's no good FORCING my kids to play...the experience would not be nearly the same for them as it was for me. And it's the EXPERIENCE that I want them to have.
So playing ONE game is the way to go...playing one system with one campaign setting gives me the opportunity to share (something akin to) what my gaming experience was when I was a youth (when we rolled with 1E in a single shared world and didn't worry about pre-published campaign settings). Oh, I might dig out Marvel or Top Secret or Gamma World one of these days, but it will just be for shits & giggles...not for a long, strong campaign. I've only found one RPG...AD&D...that will give you that type of play experience, and THAT (in my opinion) is the best way to play. And these days, with everything else on my plate, I'm only interested in playing the "best" way. I've done enough experimenting with other ways to know what satisfies.
W.r.t. "claustrophobia:"
You're just going to have to take my word for it that there's nothing more open-ended and delightful than full-on AD&D play. I've been playing the game for 40+ years and have yet to exhaust its possibilities. I don't think I've ever used a "modron" in my life (and probably never will). Neither have I seen anyone pick up the "Ring of Gaxx," nor seen anyone cast a prismatic sphere spell. So much content in AD&D...and that's withOUT engaging in the world building (which is the best part about being a DM)!
W.r.t. Killing PCs
Yeah, I've never found that upping the death ante has made for better players (I should probably post about this). Meanwhile, giving players access to "raise dead" magic allows them to be challenged, have failures, and yet continue playing the game. It's really the best of all worlds: the only thing that makes for better players is MORE PLAY. So keep 'em playing.
[that doesn't mean 5E has the right idea...taking RISK out of the equation renders any challenge meaningless and stunts development/growth]
Cheers!