| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just wondering if the 'disposability of characters' concept was some aspect of tournament vs 'regular' modules.I believe that it was. I wrote this a little while back in another thread, but I'll repost it here:
I've been doing some reading about the early history of D&D, and this idea of "Gygax was always throwing around instant death traps" is overstated.
The reason that this idea caught on is because, back in the early days of TSR, they were trying to drum up business by running tournaments at various conventions. These tournaments were usually multi-round elimination contests, where dozens of characters who played through the first round needed to be whittled down to a much smaller group who could advance to the second round. Also, the PCs received scores based on the things they did during the adventure, and the longer they were running around the dungeon the more the DM had to tabulate after the adventure ended, again, for dozens of characters usually run back-to-back in a very tight time-frame.
Both of these considerations meant that these tournament modules were incredibly lethal, as that eased the burden on the DMs that were doing so much so quickly. The fact that these were one-shots with (randomly) assigned pre-gens for the players helped to dull the sudden loss of a character also.
But these tournament modules had a tendency to survive the tournaments they were made for. TSR realized that they could make some extra money by repackaging and selling these adventures for retail purchase...and often, the only changes made were to remove the scoring instructions for the DMs, since those weren't needed for a campaign (though sometimes those were left in).
So you eventually had extremely deadly modules sitting on store shelves, many of which had Gary's name on them, and the idea that "Gygax is...
Believe it or not, but that mentality was actually the only mentality I saw people bring up on the WotC forums early on in 3E's run.
I dropped by to see what the place was like, and was rather surprised to see talk about Gygax... and even more surprised to find that, from the way everyone on the thread was talking, everyone pretty much hated him and agreed he was one of the worst DMs to ever run a game due to that lethality. And more than a few times, they indicated or outright said that Mordenkainen and PCs like him didn't survive via playing fairly, but through as much outright cheating as they could manage (which, in turn, was said to be the origin of a lot of their spells, items like bags of holding, etc.).
What else did they have to say? That a lot of 3E's design, especially the entire write-up on being a dungeon master, was specifically written against Gygax and specifically designed to discourage people like him from playing the game. Those same posters also indicated this was the primary source of Gygax's dislike for 3E and that he did not enjoy having his own game tell him he's wrong in how he runs it.
Now, keep in mind the above is my first introduction to who Gygax actually is; before that, he was just a famous name I didn't even have a face for. It left a lasting impression, to say the least.
Then I ran across one of the 2E vs. 3E arguments and didn't even bother to register. I'm pretty certain there were major wars that were more civil than that argument was.
So, I feel this thread, or at least a thread like it, should be stickied. Because the impression I get of Gygax from his own words is that of someone extremely reasonable who tried his best to design and run a good game... not that of the player-hating, self-centered jerk that he was made out to be.
@Pehlan: Have you played yet? What do you think? I've got the Skull and Shackles Beta but we haven't mananged to get together and play it yet.
Played a few rounds solo, running one character only.
I enjoyed it, but I discovered that as Seelah I can't roll at all - a paladin should not lose to the same skeleton three times. Whereas when I played as Valeros I ran into the villain quickly in each location *and* easily beat him each time. And it's not that Seelah is bad. I just rolled very badly when I used her.
Oh man! Holmes, you've sparked an idea that I've wanted to chat with knowledgeable people about for a while now.
The question is essentially one, but can, and probably should be looked at from two different perspectives. The question is: What is to be done when a participant in a running game isn't feeling emotionally enthusiastic about the game?
Being a human being I know that every other gamer out there will be able to empathize with that day that you really just "aren't feeling it," when it comes to playing an RPG.
The two different angles for this, though, depend on whether the person "not feeling it" is a player or the GM.
One could argue it's okay to continue playing with a player that is emotionally "under the weather." (Which is a ridiculous euphemism, by the way.) It's much harder to continue a game with a GM that is under that same proverbial weather though.
One of the reasons I ask is because I am the GM and I've almost cancelled a game session because of my own lack of enthusiasm, but I know that's not fair to the players. However, I wonder, is it fair to the players to play in a session where the GM isn't giving it his/her "all." Holmes post, makes this topic of conversation completely relevant.
Thanks Holmes!
I think the first question is whether we're talking about temporary or long-term lack of enthusiasm. If you're just burned out and need to take a bit of a break, that's an excellent, excellent time to let one of the players run a one-shot, or play board games, or just hang out. As long as you can give decent notice, that shouldn't really be an issue if it happens from time to time.
Now if you're talking about having entirely lost enthusiasm for the campaign, then that's something where you really need to sit down with the players and discuss it. Because you'd need to either recover that enthusiasm, or end the campaign. Trying to run a campaign you're not interested in will make you miserable, and it will likely makes the players miserable as well, and then nobody's having fun.
Even if it's a player who's not feeling it, that could be cause to cancel the gaming session, especially if that session would focus significantly on that character. One player, unless central to the plot, can skip out of a session without a major impact. The GM can't do that.
I would say that you need to look to what is best for yourself, and for the campaign. If that's to cancel a session or three, rather than killing the campaign through burnout, then cancel the session(s). And if what's best for you really is to kill the campaign, then you need to sit down with the players, explain that, and do what you can to get the campaign to a satisfying resolution.
@Magus Janus - welcome to the thread.
I know that if I created D&D, I'd think of it as "my game" and likely tell people how they should play it. Which would leave some folks thinking I was a jerk (I'm sure they'd have lots of other reasons to think it as well...).
I think there are cycles where "Gygax isn't cool' is a trendy thing to ascribe to as well. And he's disparaged by those in that camp.
I've read that Dave Hargrave, author of the Arduin Grimoire stuff, could be a real jerk as a GM.
Burn-out/lack of enthusiasm: that's a pretty serious topic. Going back to RPGing being a hobby (as opposed to a paid job), it should be something you enjoy doing. And if you've lost enthusiasm, you aren't enjoying it. What are the causes for the lack of enthusiasm? Is it a player or players? The GM? The actual RPG being played itself? The scenario or adventure? Having to truck across town on Wednesday night to play? Just a cyclical interest in gaming that wanes and waxes?
Figuring out why the enthusiasm has dimmed is a pretty helpful first step. Sorta like determining the cause of the illness before you try to treat it.
He was a smart man, and there are a number of "common sense" wordings in the old books that I miss.
OTOH, PF has some great material as well.
I've read that Dave Hargrave, author of the Arduin Grimoire stuff, could be a real jerk as a GM.
Yep. But also a nice guy.
Yep. But also a nice guy.
I've read that Dave Hargrave, author of the Arduin Grimoire stuff, could be a real jerk as a GM.
BTW, I'm a fan of the early Arduin books. Was just making the point that some of the pioneers likely had some control issues and ended up with negative perceptions about them over the years.
Next step coming by this weekend. I'm a big Sherlock Holmes/Solar Pons buff and have a couple different projects going, including a recent relaunch of my Pons website and an article to write for Sherlock Holmes Mystery Magazine. I still plan on getting one post up a week to keep the thread moving along.
Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery
Step Twelve - Play as frequently as possible
Note: Italics are quotes by Gygax, contained in the book, Role Playing Mastery.
Just as in step 5, this could almost go without saying. The hobby of role-playing games is no different from any other endeavor in that exposure to the activity must be frequent and ongoing in order for the participant to achieve a high level of skill. If your life-style or life circumstances do not permit you to play often, or if you simply don’t have the desire to spend a great share of your leisure time involved in RPGs, then you cannot hope to achieve mastery unless the prohibitive factor(s) can be removed. You can, of course, still enjoy playing.
A pretty common sense, straight-forward point. When I began playing Ultimate, I couldn't even throw a backhand. Within a decade, I was scoring goals in a national championship game. Early on, someone told me, "You play in tournaments like you practice." I carried that advice with me to every team I played on. But enough about me...
The more you play, the more familiar with things you become. Compare your first time playing a card or board game with your fifth or tenth or twentieth.
Again, Gygax takes this pretty seriously. Few, if any of us would consider the impossibility of acheiving RPG mastery because we have too much other stuff going on in our lives. But that's his frame of reference for the book.
Steps Fourteen (Play outside your group’s campaign frequently) and Fifteen (Play in tournaments) are related to this step, dealing more with the external impacts of frequent pay (i.e., different styles and environments). Here in Step Twelve, it's more about increasing your skill level and proficiency through repetition.
We had a fair bit of discussion about the five steps of group success and increasing individual mastery through frequent play is related to those as well.
I'm only partly joking, but if you followed his Outline of Study for Mastery (posted earlier in the thread), I can't imagine you'd have much time left to actually play the game.
In an unrelated note:
I'm a fan of both Tolkien's books and the Peter Jackson films. I have enjoyed the three LOTR movies and the first Hobbit film. Monday, I saw the second Hobbit film.
Meh.
It's not a bad movie, but I found I was far less pleased with it than the four prior Middle Earth adventures. I think this is primarily due to, for the first time, the stretching out of the series made the product (an individual installment) too 'thin'. The action sequences in the middle and end of the film were just too much.
Now, I don't know how you film a set piece dragon encounter where both sides survive (if that was a spoiler, you really need to read the book, but don't worry, I didn't ruin the third film), and maybe they did the best they could with it, but it didn't work. It was like too much cotton candy. But they had to fill up two and a half hours so they did what they could.
LOTR - three books, three movies.
The Silmarillion - one book, enough content for many movies.
The Hobbit - one book - being stretched too far for three movies.
If you like the other films, I still recommend this: visually, Jackson is an artist. And there's some good stuff. But it wasn't a memorable film for me.
We now resume our regularly scheduled programming.
Holmes, total agreement on the latest Jackson installment of Tolkien's works. As a movie? Great stuff. As a portrait of Tolkien's novel? Not so great.
As to the regularly scheduled programming...
Wouldn't we all love nothing more than to play every day for multiple hours a day? I know I certainly would. Which isn't to say that any activity taken in on that scale won't acquire a bit of tedium after a while, but there have been very few times in my life when I said to myself, "self, all this RPG playing is getting boring." I think this hobby is not very unique in its ability to be addictive. Most hobbies are, that's why people continue to do them with as much open time as they can muster. As you said, this is common sense. The more you do something the better you get at it. If you want to be a role-playing wizard (please excuse the out-culture colloquialism) you will need to log as many hours as possible playing the game. Therein lies the great difficulty of this tip as it references real life. This game requires a minimum of two people to play (I'd say four, because I think that's the lowest appropriate number, but you can play with just two). That requires matching schedules of adults, or at least quasi-adults, and that can be a skill to try and attain mastery in, all on its own. Sure I'd love to be able to play at least once a week, but matching up the schedules of the busy people I play with on that regular of a basis is darn near impossible. C'est la vie, I guess I'll never attain true mastery. At least I can, as Gygax points out, still enjoy playing. :)
There have been a bunch of articles on the 40th birthday of D&D. This one from James M. is pretty darn good!
And if you don't read the Black Gate blog, you're really missing out.
Gygax says the following in his discussion of different types of groups:
The regular veteran playing group is most desirable. If you are
seriously interested in the play and mastery of role-playing games,
it is absolutely necessary to engage in frequent and regular exercise
of role-playing with a skilled GM and players who are as enthusiastic as you are.
The next level down, is:
The fragmented veteran playing group is basically the same group just described. The difference is that the GM and players are unable to meet frequently on a regular basis. The game master might hold irregular meetings with only a few or even none of the regulars. The regular players might be found playing in other, less desirable groups because of their inability to play with the fragmented
veteran group.
The players might well all serve as GMs regularly, by force of circumstances, even though they are more proficient as players and enjoy that form of participation more. The participants of such a group will certainly bring much tc those outside it-if they continue to be active. The problem is that members of fragmented playing groups tend to fall out of regular gaming unless each is able to find or establish a regular play group. Failing this, the group will lose its members, with only one or two actively playing or game mastering. The balance of the people will join them on rare occasions, but as an entity, the group has disappeared.
As is mentioned more than once in the book, if you can't carve out a significant amount of time to play, Mastery just isn't in your future.
Monday, I saw the second Hobbit film.
Meh.
It's not a bad movie, but I found I was far less pleased with it than the four prior Middle Earth adventures. I think this is primarily due to, for the first time, the stretching out of the series made the product (an individual installment) too 'thin'.
LOTR - three books, three movies.
The Silmarillion - one book, enough content for many movies.
The Hobbit - one book - being stretched too far for three movies.
I loved Epi 1 more than 2, no doubt. But, if you love LotR, you will want to see what Gandalf & co was doing on a larger stage while Thorin & co were after some "phat lewt".
I am glad Jackson added that in- i have always wanted to know more about the White Council, the Necromancer and Radagast.
Action? Yeah, maybe too much. But can you imagine watching the scene *IN* the barrels on your screen? Black screen, sound of water, while apple scent is blown into the theater. ;-)
So, I give him a pass on this.
After Hobbit III I look forward to Tom Bombadil!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On playing- when the game first came out, here's what we did: played Friday 4PM til 3AM or later. Saturday noon to 3AM. Sunday 2Pm to 10PM. Then maybe a quick one on one and some calls during the week.
Man, those were the days!
i suppose i consider system master and roleplaying mastery separate items. You can know one system and still be terrible at role playing. You need to have fundamental knowledge of multiple systems and the problems and advantages of each different system types. The basics of setting a story, the do's and don'ts, the basics of what to keep secret and what to have players roll.
I consider, while having knowledge of a system great, the knowledge of multiple systems, their ups and downs, and what changes are necessary, to be true roleplaying mastery.
I look at it this way:
Roleplaying mastery (knowing how to work with other players, how to get into character) is the equivalent to reading a map and plotting a route.
System mastery (knowledge of a game system) is the equivalent to driving a vehicle.
You can do quite a bit (easily enough to enjoy what you're doing) with just one of those skills, but together you find they can compliment one another. On the other hand, some people prefer to hike across-country on foot and others enjoy driving around a racetrack.
Mastering multiple systems (or vehicles) also gives you a degree of intuitive skill over others you haven't played (driven) before. If you've driven a car and a van, you're not going to be completely lost driving a bus - you may just need a nudge in the right direction to get it started and some time to get a feel for the controls, but the steering wheel and pedals still do similar things (even if it takes a while to adjust to their relative differences, or they may be switched around or have an extra twiddly bit thrown in that you're utterly clueless about). Obviously it'll take time to get up to bus driver level but you've got a decent headstart.
Gygax is talking about RPG mastery in terms of whichever game you choose to play. He mentions space, spy, etc: not just fantasy. Mastery is achieved on a game by game basis. Understandably, he doesn't specifically mention AD&D too often.
He does say that you have to know the game system and the rules. And not just knowing the rules, but how they work together. There's an entire chapter on Rules: Construction and Deconstruction.
I think Role Playing Mastery per Gygax in this book is being the best possible player. Sort of like being the master of a video game, or an elite player in a sport. People stand and watch you play.
System Mastery is required for Role Playing Mastery: it's not optional. And the play of your character and the success of your group is part of mastery as well. Which his huge list of research contributes to.
Next step is Play various characters as often as possible in as many different circumstances as possible.
Well, in that sense I'd almost disagree. Most of the roleplaying I'd be interested in watching has been that least tied to mechanics. You know, the actual role-playing interaction parts of the game. Watching system mastery at work isn't usually interesting. It can be fun to do, but that's different.
Tense social encounters. Dramatic reveals. That kind of thing.
It's also tended to be in low mechanics systems.
But I suspect I have very different preferences.
If so, then you and me both :)
Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery
Step Thirteen - Play various characters as often as possible in as many different circumstances as possible.
Note: Italics are quotes by Gygax, contained in the book, Role Playing Mastery.
It is not enough to play as frequently as possible if each of your play sessions is essentially the same as all the others. To gain mastery as a player, you must experience firsthand what it’s like to take the roles of as many different character types as your game provides for. You do not play these characters simultaneously but consecutively. If you start a new character after one is killed or retired, make a point of selecting a PC type you have not yet played or one with which you have relatively little experience. If action in the campaign occasionally shifts from one place to another in the GM’s world, you may have an opportunity to change the character you play from one game session to another. However you do it, expose yourself to as much variety in the choice and operation of PCs as you possibly can.
I remember a thread I saw a few months ago, in which a GM complained that one of his players would only be a Paladin. Every time, that's all he wanted to play. The general response was, "Yeah: so what? If he likes playing a Paladin (and it fits in the game), let him play it." I recall that's pretty much what I thought as well.
But again, Gygax is talking about more than just enjoying the game: he's talking about Mastering it. Along with classes, races would probably be included today. Looking at Pathfinder offerings (no, I'm not going into options bloat again), mastering all classes (and races) would seem to require an awful lot of games. Or to get killed a lot (which would be the opposite of Mastery).
But I do get his point. Other than a cleric, I'm not sure I ever played a spellcaster as I worked my way through all those D&D silver and gold box games. And I was almost certainly missing out on aspects of the games in doing so. Somebody who plays a fighter or magic user but never plays a thief/rogue is missing out on part of the makeup of an RPG. And will not be a Master of that aspect.
Remember, we're talking Mastery. I have no interest in playing a witch or an oracle and I wouldn't play one (not having fun) just to try and play them all. But the would be Master is a different case. There's certainly something to be gained in overall expertise by playing different types of classes and races.
That's so interesting, and really right on, because, again, we're talking about mastery. During Gygax day playing every combination of race, class, etcetera would have been a wonder in itself. Can you imagine even trying to accomplish that today, with all the character building options? I dare say trying to play every combination of race, class, archetype, feat progression, and skill-set would be darn near impossible in today's D&D/Pathfinder.
The reason I find that so interesting though, is that I actually have a houserule in all of my campaigns, and every player has always agreed to it. If your character dies, retires, or you just get bored of it and want a switch (which I strongly discourage, by the way), the new character you design cannot be the same race or class as any previous characters in the same campaign. Partially I do this for the simple variety. Partially I do it for exactly the reason Gygax suggests, essentially: you won't know what you don't know, until you've figured it out. So sometimes playing a character race and class that you haven't thought about before opens up entire new "worlds" within your viewpoint of the campaign setting.
That's so interesting, and really right on, because, again, we're talking about mastery. During Gygax day playing every combination of race, class, etcetera would have been a wonder in itself. Can you imagine even trying to accomplish that today, with all the character building options? I dare say trying to play every combination of race, class, archetype, feat progression, and skill-set would be darn near impossible in today's D&D/Pathfinder.
The reason I find that so interesting though, is that I actually have a houserule in all of my campaigns, and every player has always agreed to it. If your character dies, retires, or you just get bored of it and want a switch (which I strongly discourage, by the way), the new character you design cannot be the same race or class as any previous characters in the same campaign. Partially I do this for the simple variety. Partially I do it for exactly the reason Gygax suggests, essentially: you won't know what you don't know, until you've figured it out. So sometimes playing a character race and class that you haven't thought about before opens up entire new "worlds" within your viewpoint of the campaign setting.
You know we tried that. Except that our restrictions were more broad- if your sorc died, no arcane full spellcasters. Didn't work. We have one guy that canNOT play anything but a spellcaster.
You know we tried that. Except that our restrictions were more broad- if your sorc died, no arcane full spellcasters. Didn't work. We have one guy that canNOT play anything but a spellcaster.That's so interesting, and really right on, because, again, we're talking about mastery. During Gygax day playing every combination of race, class, etcetera would have been a wonder in itself. Can you imagine even trying to accomplish that today, with all the character building options? I dare say trying to play every combination of race, class, archetype, feat progression, and skill-set would be darn near impossible in today's D&D/Pathfinder.
The reason I find that so interesting though, is that I actually have a houserule in all of my campaigns, and every player has always agreed to it. If your character dies, retires, or you just get bored of it and want a switch (which I strongly discourage, by the way), the new character you design cannot be the same race or class as any previous characters in the same campaign. Partially I do this for the simple variety. Partially I do it for exactly the reason Gygax suggests, essentially: you won't know what you don't know, until you've figured it out. So sometimes playing a character race and class that you haven't thought about before opens up entire new "worlds" within your viewpoint of the campaign setting.
i would restrict it not as tightly, instead of being based on class, it would be based on Region and how well the character is tied to the new region. as an Example.
Andrew, the Samurai known as Taro Hanzo died in glorious combat. you can either hope you get him ressurected, or you can build a character appropriate to the region. though i will not restrict you from creating a second paladin with a different flavor, the party is currently 3 days away from a Lawful Neutral Hobgoblin Military Camp, a True Neutral Lizardfolk Swamp, a Chaotic Good Nymph's Grove and a Neutral Good town of Planetouched trying to get along. so your race options are Hobgoblin, Planetouched, Half-Nymph, or Lizardfolk or you can get your human paladin ressurected. the Hobgoblin Paladin would be the most similar to Taro. but if you wish to try a Half-Nymph or a Lizardfolk, you may get a chance to start a little later.
Half-Nymphs make excellent Bards, Sorcerers and Arcanists, and Lizardfolk make excellent Barbarians and Rangers
I would restrict it not as tightly, instead of being based on class, it would be based on Region and how well the character is tied to the new region. as an Example.
Andrew, the Samurai known as Taro Hanzo died in glorious combat. you can either hope you get him ressurected, or you can build a character appropriate to the region. though i will not restrict you from creating a second paladin with a different flavor, the party is currently 3 days away from a Lawful Neutral Hobgoblin Military Camp, a True Neutral Lizardfolk Swamp, a Chaotic Good Nymph's Grove and a Neutral Good town of Planetouched trying to get along. so your race options are Hobgoblin, Planetouched, Half-Nymph, or Lizardfolk or you can get your human paladin ressurected. the Hobgoblin Paladin would be the most similar to Taro. but if you wish to try a Half-Nymph or a Lizardfolk, you may get a chance to start a little later.
Half-Nymphs make excellent Bards, Sorcerers and Arcanists, and Lizardfolk make excellent Barbarians and Rangers
I'd be inclined to say that's actually more restrictive. Your giving a small set of available races, and suggesting which classes those races fit the best with. In my houserule I'm saying you can be anything you want, (depending on the campaign of course, each table has come to agreements on some races that aren't allowed) except for the race and class you just played.
I do see a benefit to your way of thinking. This is the region we're in, so a new character joining at this point would more than likely be from this region. All my campaigns, at this point, are in Golarion. While some races are, certainly, more prevalent in certain regions, my imagining of Golarion is that there is a chance you could find a person from just about any race, anywhere, at any time. Especially if that person is an adventurer. They could/would have a great story reason for being where they are, which always adds to the fun. Some times a new character entering, of an exotic race, has actually pushed the story in a new direction.
I would restrict it not as tightly, instead of being based on class, it would be based on Region and how well the character is tied to the new region. as an Example.
Andrew, the Samurai known as Taro Hanzo died in glorious combat. you can either hope you get him ressurected, or you can build a character appropriate to the region. though i will not restrict you from creating a second paladin with a different flavor, the party is currently 3 days away from a Lawful Neutral Hobgoblin Military Camp, a True Neutral Lizardfolk Swamp, a Chaotic Good Nymph's Grove and a Neutral Good town of Planetouched trying to get along. so your race options are Hobgoblin, Planetouched, Half-Nymph, or Lizardfolk or you can get your human paladin ressurected. the Hobgoblin Paladin would be the most similar to Taro. but if you wish to try a Half-Nymph or a Lizardfolk, you may get a chance to start a little later.
Half-Nymphs make excellent Bards, Sorcerers and Arcanists, and Lizardfolk make excellent Barbarians and Rangers
I'd be inclined to say that's actually more restrictive. Your giving a small set of available races, and suggesting which classes those races fit the best with. In my houserule I'm saying you can be anything you want, (depending on the campaign of course, each table has come to agreements on some races that aren't allowed) except for the race and class you just played.
I do see a benefit to your way of thinking. This is the region we're in, so a new character joining at this point would more than likely be from this region. All my campaigns, at this point, are in Golarion. While some races are, certainly, more prevalent in certain regions, my imagining of Golarion is that there is a chance you could find a person from just about any race, anywhere, at any time. Especially if that person is an adventurer. They could/would have a great story reason for being where they are, which always adds to the fun. Some times a new character entering, of an exotic race, has actually pushed the story in a new direction.
the classes are merely recommendations, but well, the player can still play a character close to their original in exchange, or they can play an adventurer whom is recently stranded.
the adventurer has more freedom attached, but has the downside of being disallowed from having the exact same specialty with the exception of if they can make a good reason to justify it.
the stranded adventurer can share a race and class, as long as their approach isn't the same.
in fact, using Taro as an example, another human paladin is fine as a stranded adventurer, even an eastern paladin just not another crit based 2handed paladin specialized around smiting evil with the best eastern 2hander in the game. unless you can agree the flavor will be very different.
Ah! Okay, well that certainly is a lot less restrictive than mine. As I mentioned, one of the reasons I do have restrictions is that I'm attempting to get players to explore the myriad character options that this wonderful game has to offer. I don't ever want someone to pigeon-hole themselves into one class, by failing to figure out how to play some others.
Ah! Okay, well that certainly is a lot less restrictive than mine. As I mentioned, one of the reasons I do have restrictions is that I'm attempting to get players to explore the myriad character options that this wonderful game has to offer. I don't ever want someone to pigeon-hole themselves into one class, by failing to figure out how to play some others.
build impacts a character more than class
you can have like 10 very different human paladins by means of archetypes, patron deity choice and feat selection alone, or like 25 styles of cleric that way.
different schools of wizard, whether specialty or opposition, or different bloodlines of sorcerer, encourage very different spell selections that lead to very different playstyles.
When I made the last Step post, I started doing some figuring on the combinations of races and classes (and archetypes) in the core rulebooks. Then I thought about those in the supplements and gave up before I even pondered third party stuff. The numbers are huge.
To become an expert at a game/system, I understand the idea of playing different combinations. We Christians say that if you want to walk on the water, you have to get out of the boat. It's about leaving your comfort zone. I would think it's natural for a gamer to, over time, instinctively lean towards a few favorite classes and races. I don't think I ever played a Monk (what was that thing: the Quivering Palm?) in D&D. And I didn't know a component of the game because of that.
I've been frequenting the thread less lately because I've been building up my www.SolarPons.com website and pushing a Solar Pons page on Facebook. And working on some short stories. Pons is my ticket in the mystery world and I've only got so much time and words.
But I'm still here and you're doing great moving the discussion along on your own.
Starting this coming Monday the 10th, I'm a regular blogger over at Black Gate, the leading fantasy blog on the web. My posts should be up every Monday morning. They'll mostly be Sherlock Holmes related, but with a horror/fantasy/scifi/supernatural twist. So pop over on Mondays.
Now, time to go roll up yet another elven ranger....
So was this project moved to a different source? I went through the blog linked in the OP and only found steps 1-3 there.
Howdy. Posting it on my blog and adding pictures was proving inconvenient, so the whole thing is here in this thread. I'd actually forgotten I was doing dual posting.
Sorry about that.
Ah! Okay, well that certainly is a lot less restrictive than mine. As I mentioned, one of the reasons I do have restrictions is that I'm attempting to get players to explore the myriad character options that this wonderful game has to offer. I don't ever want someone to pigeon-hole themselves into one class, by failing to figure out how to play some others.build impacts a character more than class
you can have like 10 very different human paladins by means of archetypes, patron deity choice and feat selection alone, or like 25 styles of cleric that way.
different schools of wizard, whether specialty or opposition, or different bloodlines of sorcerer, encourage very different spell selections that lead to very different playstyles.
Very, very true, and something I will consider for future campaigns. You've given me some good things to muddle over. Thanks for being an intelligent counterpoint to my obstinate GM-ery. :)
Very, very true, and something I will consider for future campaigns. You've given me some good things to muddle over. Thanks for being an intelligent counterpoint to my obstinate GM-ery. :)Ah! Okay, well that certainly is a lot less restrictive than mine. As I mentioned, one of the reasons I do have restrictions is that I'm attempting to get players to explore the myriad character options that this wonderful game has to offer. I don't ever want someone to pigeon-hole themselves into one class, by failing to figure out how to play some others.build impacts a character more than class
you can have like 10 very different human paladins by means of archetypes, patron deity choice and feat selection alone, or like 25 styles of cleric that way.
different schools of wizard, whether specialty or opposition, or different bloodlines of sorcerer, encourage very different spell selections that lead to very different playstyles.
Welkies
Hey folks: fear not! I'm still around. My two months of doing two full-time jobs is about to come to an end on April 7 (though I'll probably have an extra half-time job training my new boss AND a new direct report).
When I haven't fallen asleep early at night I've been working on my new column over at Black Gate, The Public Life of Sherlock Holmes (every Monday morning).
I should be able to resume actually taking a lunch EVERY day, read Gygax again get the thread going in early April.
I'm not dead (I feel like a Monty Python movie).
My new boss started on the 7th. And they took away my best employee, so I'm now training two (of the other three) people in my office. And it hasn't gone smoothly.
I'm keeping up on my Monday morning posts over at Black Gate, but otherwise my writing is stopped. But I'm still sticking with this thread and will have the next step up reasonably soon.
Full lunch hours are still rare but I hope that will end soon.
I know we have quite a few old school gamers in the thread. Did you see that they're Pathfinderizing City State of the Invincible Overlord?
Along with City State of the World Emperor, this was my gaming world, not Greyhawk.
Hope everyone had a happy Easter.
Great thread. Dotted for interest.
-TimD
Greetings folks. Time still hasn't let me back into the thread, but I haven't given up yet.
Famed D&D guy James Maleszewski posts over at Black Gate, where I'm doing my Public Life of Sherlock Holmes column.
I thought that this one was pretty interesting.
I remember those early modules.
Still planning on getting this going again.
City State of the Invincible Overlord (kickstarter) funded. I'm looking forward to that classic in Pathfinder format.
I do try to branch out my characters, though I have a definite preference for a martial character with some magic, which is leading me towards a smaller subset of classes. (Even within that, I've got a fair variety available now, especially with different types of builds; basically every 4-level and 6-level caster.)
It's also important to try out different personalities; this is what I find really hard. I can play a wizard, a cleric, a ranger, a fighter, a rogue, weird mixes that were poorly considered, and so on. But my supposedly reckless character is rarely actually reckless.
That's in part because I'm normally not a reckless person, it's also largely because I'm especially used to campaigns where recklessness is punished (implicitly, in the sense that the fights are designed for an optimized party facing them prepared, and are not adjusted on the fly). But then, the guy running the campaigns I've played in the longest is designing a system which seems to assume the players will have to fight defensively most of the time, which sets a tone I don't think I like.
One-shots are an amazing way to try things out. I've used a one-shot game to determine that, yes, I can play a pure support character, but I don't really enjoy it that much. I was very effective (my choice of scrolls to supplement my cleric's spell slots was spectacular, as it turned out), but it was much less fun than getting up and smashing foes.
It's also possible to get a fair bit of mastery from paying attention to the rest of the party, especially if the party collaborates on overall tactics; I know the capabilities of all the members of my parties pretty well, which has led to me having a good feel for a variety of classes or builds I have little or no experience playing.
Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery
Step Fourteen - Play Outside Your Group's Campaign Frequently
Note: Italics are quotes by Gygax, contained in the book, Role Playing Mastery.
In your quest for variety, don’t overlook the opportunity for education and enjoyment that is offered by playing in more than one campaign. If you know more than one GIM and are able to divide your playing time so as to be an active member of each campaign, there is no substitute for the breadth of knowledge and experience that this will give you.
Step Twelve talked about playing frequently. Playing with different groups will give you different experiences (good and bad), which should help with Mastery, so no surprise here with Step Fourteen.
We also talked about the five stages of group success. The fourth stage involved success outside of the group while the fifth was some form of national recognition: which presumably would involve outside play.
Gygax doesn't delve specifically into this step much. But in the course of our almost three hundred posts (yay group!), the themes of playing a lot and getting as much varied experience as you can inevitably lead to this latest step.
Practically speaking, it makes sense. The variety offered of gaming with different players and GMS is going to broaden your perspective. Of course, it could lead you into bad habits, but if that's the case, you probably weren't cut out to be a Master anyways (that's a bit flip).
It's much easier today to play in multiple groups, simultaneously or not. I only had one gaming group (which was often just me and one other guy) growing up. With the online gaming options (including right here at Paizo) you can find lots of different players and games. And you should certainly learn from them.
Now, someone who is playing in four games, with limited attention, time or both, quite likely isn't going to improve their gaming skills. Nor are they going to make the campaign more enjoyable for other players. But Gygax's idea that you should get experience with more than just your regular gaming group seems pretty sensible.
Howdy folks. Today's Public Life of Sherlock Holmes over at Black Gate is about this thread and Gygax's book!
Thanks for all of the input you've all provided on this thread. It wouldn't have been anything of note without your comments. Hopefully we've got a bit more to say.
I do try to branch out my characters, though I have a definite preference for a martial character with some magic, which is leading me towards a smaller subset of classes. (Even within that, I've got a fair variety available now, especially with different types of builds; basically every 4-level and 6-level caster.)
It's also important to try out different personalities; this is what I find really hard. I can play a wizard, a cleric, a ranger, a fighter, a rogue, weird mixes that were poorly considered, and so on. But my supposedly reckless character is rarely actually reckless.
That's in part because I'm normally not a reckless person, it's also largely because I'm especially used to campaigns where recklessness is punished (implicitly, in the sense that the fights are designed for an optimized party facing them prepared, and are not adjusted on the fly). But then, the guy running the campaigns I've played in the longest is designing a system which seems to assume the players will have to fight defensively most of the time, which sets a tone I don't think I like
This kind of thing is why I prefer a less challenging game. I can back off and make in character mistakes: maybe a reckless character or an overly cautious one or one with less optimized build for in character reasons.
And still not get the party killed.
Having to always play to the best of my personal ability limits my options more than I like.
It can be fun for one-shots to push my own tactical limits, but I don't want to always have to.
Absolutely agreed. Running scared all the time is annoying. It forces that defensive-minded, prepare-extensively mentality. It has me afraid to pursue my character's personal goals, because that would involve splitting the party (during downtime) - I might get ambushed by a party enemy who I simply cannot defeat alone, or I might just require excessive resources to re-assemble the party to handle an encounter on short notice (because we rarely ever get a call that we're needed next week, we get a call that we're needed yesterday).
That's not fun to do all the time. And it stunts my ability to play different personality types as well.
I'm currently in three games, and running a third (and thinking up a Tome of Battle-based one-shot).
In one of those games, which I've been playing the longest, it's that mentality. Fortunately, I'm already playing a smart, cautious fighter.
In another, the combat is normally not insanely dangerous, though the GM likes to make things interesting by playing off of any hook we give him, intentionally or not. I'm coming to the conclusion that the best thing I can do there is actually to just let my character be reckless, because the GM is going to do something about my actions anyway; I may as well not agonize about it.
In the third campaign, well, I'm working to keep things moving there. It's got a lot of the people from the first game, though it's far less threatening, because it's Kingmaker, without much souping up, and there are 6 of us. A little impatience, coupled with taking some interesting combat choices rather than the more typical, help a lot.
And I'm running Wrath of the Righteous, and working to find a balance point in challenge between too easy and too scary. So far, I'm not consistently on one side or the other; I had a combat that almost destroyed the party because I carelessly applied the Advanced template to the enemy, and a few other combats which were simply non-threats, though that was partly the dice; a successful attack by one enemy could have dropped a PC unconscious, from full... but of course I rolled nothing above a 5 the whole combat.
What this says to me, is that you need to experiment to find your style and comfort zone. And you also need to make sure that your style and comfort zone are at least reasonably similar to the rest of your group's.
It seems like there have been more Dungeons and Dragons-related posts Black Gate lately.
Since most of it is related to old school gaming, there's some interesting stuff.
While I'm typing up the next step...
This week over at Black Gate, I posted about Runebound, Fantasy Flight's RPG board game. It's worth a play.
And worth a read...
Gary Gygax’s 17 Steps to Role Playing Mastery
Step Fifteen - Play In Tournaments
Note: Italics are quotes by Gygax, contained in the book, Role Playing Mastery.
Gaming clubs exist and game conventions are held in most areas of the United States and in many locations in other countries, especially Canada and Great Britain. To achieve mastery as a player, you must eventually (if not immediately) become involved in RPG tournaments that are staged by clubs and convention organizers. These are special play sessions in which various groups of players take part in the same game adventure at different times (similar to the way a duplicate bridge tournament is run).
By comparing your performance to that of other players whose PCs were faced with the same problems and challenges, you can get a sense of your strengths and weaknesses in a way that is not available to you as long as your experience remains restricted to one or a few local campaigns.
Seems like a natural progression from Step 14 (Play Outside Your Group's Campaign Frequently).
Tournaments often spawned new modules (Ghost Tower of Inverness comes to mind and I know there were at least a couple Judges Guild tournament modules).
Of course, in Gygax' time there was no D&D Encounters, Pathfinder Society or even online play. So, you were a lot less likely to find gaming opportunities outside of your immediate group and tournaments played a larger role in steps toward Mastery as he viewed it.
Many (if not all) of the points made in Step 14 would seem to apply here. I don't know: do you think playing at Gen Con, or Origins or Paizocon will make you a better player as Gygax saw it? Do you need to compare your play to other tournament RPGers to identify your strengths and weaknesses?
Surely it doesn't hurt, but does this step really remain relevant today?
We had a brief mention of the RPG history book, Designers and Dragons, not too long ago.
I recently backed the kickstarter that is revamping this project. The level I chose, just $15, will get me pdfs of all four volumes of the series. And as soon as I signed up, I had access to a pdf/epub/mobi version of the first volume, the seventies.
By nature of this thread, just about everyone who has posted is interested in 'old school' D&D to some extent. The Volume one pdf is 400 pages on the origins and initial growth of RPGs!
If that translates to over 1,500 pages on the history of roleplaying for only $15, that is one serious bargain.
You can check it out yourself.
I first read about Judges Guild, then Grimoire Games. Without even tackling the actual D&D part, I was certain it was well worth the price.