|
|
|
January 20th, 2006
02:19 pm - Player Input in Post-Apocalyptic D&D
More thinking on the post-apocalyptic D&D campaign idea -- I'll be making a website section on it soon. Soon, I want to start asking more experienced D&D players more specific questions. There was a recent Forge Actual Play thread, "[D20 Eberron] Lost that Spark, a Lost Gm seeks advice". There, the GM Glen writes: The question now is whether to start fresh, knowing what I know now, or to head back into the Eberron campaign and try bringing all the players' material front and center. I do agree with Bill and the Glyph in that D&D and D20 doesn't 100% support player input in terms of system (Eberron's like Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, just a setting using D&D style rules). I still messed up in this game, and take full brunt of the fault, and I don't want to point fingers at a system, but it would help if there was something to support and encourage player input built right in. So I, too, am using D20 but I want the players to have a lot of input. I want them to have input through the normal D&D rules, though.
D&D is a bit peculiar in its power split. If playing a typical published module by the book, the GM is reduced to nearly a bookkeeping role. She reads of the descriptions when the PCs get to a room, and rolls for the monsters, but she has little direct control over the pace or direction of the game. The players control where they go, how quickly, and so forth. The primary GM control is through hints and advice given to the players. This gives a sort of social power, because the GM knows the information and doles it out -- but it isn't exactly control.
Anyway, here are elements for the game that relate to player input: - The PCs are the most powerful and respected of all the survivors. They will be the leaders of their little world of survivors. No kings, high priests, or anyone over them to give them orders.
- The interaction and handling of NPCs will be important, which the PCs have dominance over. (The players will have a certain degree of control over NPCs, as I mentioned in an earlier post.)
- The PCs will be well-informed. I plan on giving the PCs an accurate map of the dungeon(s) by some in-game excuse. First of all, I've never liked the laborious process of players drawing out their own map based on verbal GM description. Moreover, information is power. If they know where they're going, they have greater control of pacing and events.
Player maps have often been common to a degree, though they vary in detail. I was intrigued at how detailed the player map was that came with D&D3 module The Shackled City. It was our only map, and we just annotated it a little with a few hidden finds.
|
January 13th, 2006
10:28 am - NPCs in Post-Apocalyptic D&D
So more pondering on my post-apocalyptic D&D game... Specifically, I am pondering how to handle the supporting cast. For each PCs, I want there to be 2 or 3 NPC survivors who go with them -- who should almost all be weaker. The question is, how should I conceive and generate those characters?
So, by one method, the players would each designate and describe relationships for their PC -- like DNPCs in Champions or pre-bought Relationships in Dogs in the Vineyard. However, given the nature of the game, I am considering an alternate method which fits with how I am doing other aspects of the game.
I random-roll 3d6 attributes for (3 * the number of PCs) characters, and I allocate a fixed number of levels which the players can distribute among them. i.e. The four players look at the sheets, and can distribute 24 levels among the 12 characters, say. Probably they can also determine race and gender -- and maybe also name them (but I'm not sure about that). As GM, though, I get to freely make up the backgrounds and personalities for them all.
The logic here is that like the PCs, the NPCs begin as types. The players are familiar with them from having generated and chosen them -- i.e. "the 2nd level halfling Adept". However, I play them as real personalities and they are forced by circumstance into the PCs lives. One of the things which D&D3 in particular is good at is getting the PCs to set up defensive formations. I want to try to use that -- have vulnerable NPCs there on the battle mat for the PCs to protect in encounters. (EDIT: Not all at once, in general, but a few at a time.) In non-combat, I will play up all of their personalities, interactions, and so forth.
Am I crazy? It is radically different than how most narrative games have approached NPC generation, but it sounds good to me.
|
January 12th, 2006
04:13 pm - On "Reign of Fire"
So I saw "Reign of Fire" last night, relating to my the post-apocalyptic D&D idea that I talked about in a recent post. It was indeed bad, as most people told me. Actually, I should have expected this given that the director went on to the even-more-awful "Elektra". Luckily it was at least able to be laughed at in a B-movie sort of way. I'm thinking about it compared to post-apocalyptic movies I liked, such as "28 Days Later" and "Land of the Dead". I think the key thing is it's total lack of humor -- combined with a simplistic plot and hackneyed characters. Spoilers below if you care (which you shouldn't)...
( Read more... )
|
January 9th, 2006
11:51 am - Post-Apocalyptic D&D... now with more Dragons
So I just had a cool suggestion for my post-apocalyptic D&D idea. I had originally outlined this in October in a post entitled, Breaking Down D&D -- and followed up with some more system thoughts in Characterization and System.
I had been waffling about what I think the apocalypse should be. I knew from the start that it had to be something which broke down the alignment barriers -- i.e. the destruction had to be something which wasn't evil per se and didn't care about alignment. My leading idea had been some sort of rain of giant insectoid or arachnoid creatures, but I wasn't very satisfied with that.
Anyhow, yesterday I brought this up with my fellow Hârn players after our game, and Dennis (?) had a great suggestion -- dragons!! Jim immediately made a reference to the recent Reign of Fire film, where dragons take over the modern world. I hadn't seen the film, so I didn't know abou that. Hoewver, judged on its own, I immediately liked it. D&D dragons are both good and evil, and it is a wonderful reversal. I can picture it fairly clearly now -- there is a dragon prophet who appears and begins to fly about with the news. It tells of the dawn of a new age, when the dragons will finally come into their own. Then, very suddenly, the shift happens and within weeks the world is overrun with dragons. After the cataclysm, dragons can reproduce and mature very quickly as needed. They are not centrally organized, but rather have hordes of little kingdoms which squabble amongst each other but are united against non-dragon threats.
What I like about this: - It uses the core of the D&D mythology.
- It is a wonderful reversal. As majestic winged creatures, dragons take over the surface world, and humans are forced into dungeon lairs. It so clearly reverses the game.
- Dragons are very well-tested, well-developed, and varied foes within the D20 system. I can tailor encounters with the enemy carefully.
I think these are all very good things for what I want to accomplish. The point is to make the fights and the stakes for the PCs much more personal. They are not wandering adventurers looking to grab some cash. Everything that is left of their world they are taking with them and making for themselves.
I only have a handful of concerns. One is that this touches on works I'm not familiar with like "Reign of Fire" and more importantly the Dragonlance series. I know little about either of these, and I suspect I want to clearly differentiate myself from them. I also want to be careful about the good-aligned metallic dragons. I want to keep them roughly as they are written (i.e. good-aligned), but still make them horribly horribly dangerous under the circumstances.
I'd also be interested in dungeon recommendations from anyone who knows about D&D3. What are good modules with largish underground dungeons in general?
|
October 17th, 2005
04:28 pm - Characterization and System
Another topic here prompted by Adam Dray's comments. So I'm going to talk about rules system here for a bit, and its role in characterization. For these purposes, I'm calling "characterization" for how well the personality of the character comes across in the game. Adam comments, I'm pretty strongly convinced that D&D isn't for you, no matter how far you drift it.
You talk about a "thicker layer of characterization as opposed to raw hard-core beat-the-monsters." You're not going to get that out of D&D without considerable rules changes, and then you're not playing D&D. You're playing John Kim D20 and it will have to be wildly different than the core rules before it makes you happy.
D&D's support for characterization is limited to racial stereotype, class-based stereotype, and alignment. You want more support than that. I don't think you're analyzing my wants correctly. So I've tried characterization using D20 in my Conan RPG one-shot, Brawny Thews. I had six pregenerated PCs for that one -- cf. Brawny Thews PCs for their sheets. There were some rough spots since I was new to the system, and I couldn't quite get Eithriall to work. However, I think it wasn't bad despite the serious constraints I put on myself by having all six PCs be Cimmerian and at least half Barbarian. (See below for further notes on this.)
A basic principle of dramatic writing is that characterization flows from action rather than exposition. In game, this means that the character abilities should have the ability to represent differences in action. So labels aren't much use for characterization. For example, D&D alignment is generally passive -- mechanically it defines how things affect you (like spells), but you don't use alignment for action. Note that it might have other uses, but it isn't a very effective aid for characterization. Still, labels have their uses -- like costuming and make-up in other fields.
So what do I think helps the most? Options which are different mechanically rather than just in flavor text or narration. In many simple systems, differences are abstracted away. For example, in Over the Edge I might have one character who has "Hulking Brutal Thug 4d6" and one who has "Skillful Martial Artist 4d6". Mechanically these two characters will be identical in a fight. The players can layer on top different descriptions of what their character is doing, so the practical result can have characterization. However, the system isn't helping -- it's only providing a difference in label, whereas the action is the same.
I'm fairly skeptical of systems which rely on player-defined traits. I've used them and had fun, but by contrast a lot of other people seem to consider them a required part of design. One issue I have I went over in a Forge thread, John's Standard Rant #1: Freeform Traits. Most freeform traits mechanically encourage the players to take as generic as possible -- i.e. like "Lucky" or "Talented". In practice, the GM can forbid these or the players can voluntarily penalize themselves, but that's fighting against what the system rewards. Another problem is the lack of mechanical differentiation that I mentioned above. Freeform traits can differ in when they apply, but not usually in what effect they have -- whereas fixed traits can specify different mechanical effect.
Going back to the example of the Brawny Thews PCs...
The character sheets may be opaque to many readers, so I'll try to explain some. This is a combat-heavy event, so their character shows up most notably in their fighting. A good example is the twins: Canbotha and Eanbotha. As identical twins, I gave them identical attributes but different class mixes. Eanbotha is the responsible son and is Barbarian/Soldier while Canbotha is the rebellious son, and is Barbarian/Thief. The responsible son Eanbotha fights armored, defensively, and heavily specialized in a weapon. He will generally concentrate on one foe, possibly working in coordination with his father to defeat it. The rebellious son Canbotha fights unarmored, also defensively, but in the wild manner -- tumbling into the midst of a group and striking all around with whatever weapon he happens on.
This is one which worked pretty well, I think. There are subtler differences, too, between the animal-friendly youth Daor and the more mature hero Cumal. (You can picture Daor as Marc Singer in The Beastmaster versus Cumal as Daniel Day-Lewis in Last of the Mohicans.) Both are Barbarian-8, which makes them very similar. However, Cumal is a two-axe fighter who spreads around many attacks, can do many Attacks of Opportunity if an enemy tries certain "tricky" moves around him, and excels at throwing his axes. He tends to go in the center and strike where needed. In contrast, Daor has Cleave and will tend go for a killing shot with his two-handed sword. (I could have emphasized this difference more without the class system, but it was there.) So mechanically, Daor has much simpler tactics -- hack at something until it falls and then move to the next. This fits his youthful passion. Cumal will stand in the middle to disrupt the enemy (lots of Attacks of Opportunity), accumulate damage more steadily, and strike where needed -- sometimes throwing to strike at non-adjacent enemies.
I haven't really tried the same with D&D characters, but I think potential is there. I may post later with experiments. So I'm not sure it'll work, but it seems possible. As Adam puts it: Now, the level treadmill seems to be in the way, too. How much do you care about characters leveling up? It's going to be very hard to make 3E into a game that doesn't push players to Step On Up. They'll spend a lot of energy min-maxing classes and skills and feats. They'll spend a lot of energy earning XP so they can level up. They'll spend a lot of energy during play figuring out the most clever tactic during combat. If they have combat abilities and feats, they'll angle their adventures so they can use them often. I agree, but I also don't think min-maxing is opposed to characterization. As long as there are a variety of paths, I think its a good thing. All games encourage rules-lawyery min-maxing, subjective wheedling, or both. I want to set up the game such that this has purpose and meaning. In my post-apocalyptic game, the player-characters should be ambitious and want to get better so as to protect both themselves and their community.
|
October 12th, 2005
12:22 am - Breaking Down D&D
So recently I played in two sessions of a D&D3.5 campaign with friends of my friend Russell who just moved to the area. I have generally been lukewarm about the game. The first session was reasonably fun, particularly as we were introducing the 9-year-old daughter of our friends to the game. The second session, though, bogged down for me as we moved into more of the hard-core dungeon crawl. I don't want to talk about that for the moment, however.
So I have this idea mulling around in my mind about how I would use D&D / D20 if I were so inclined. Actually, I took a previous stab at using D20 in my convention event for the Conan RPG, Brawny Thews. But here I'm wondering about D&D itself. As I see it -- if I'm going to use D&D at all it should make use of the monsters, modules, miniatures, and combat rules. Otherwise why would I use it as a system?
My thought was to have a post-apocalyptic fantasy game -- taking a typical world and suddenly have all of civilization destroyed by giant abominations which come out of nowhere and ravage cities and fields across the globe. The survivors must hide out and fight for survival while avoiding the hordes. This might sound a bit arbitrary, but bear me out as I point out what this does to the genre. - Food, shelter, and other basic needs are what is bartered for in trade -- no one gives the slightest thought to gold.
- The PCs will be part of a small band or clan of survivors who depend on each other, adding a social dimension.
- Ruins and dungeons now become havens to hide in from the sweeps of abominations. i.e. The PCs may explore out a dungeon with an eye for a place to live. The GM may also hand some city or other modules to the players as places known to them -- where the module shows the pre-apocalypse state of the place, and the PCs may survey the destruction.
- The abominations are near-mindless instruments of destructions who destroy anything not like them -- orcs and goblins just as much as humans and elves. Thus, the different races are thrown together with a common enemy.
The idea is to get real use out of the existing material for D&D -- like dungeon modules -- but to put them in a new light. So the PCs come to a dungeon, but they ignore the gold and instead look for the food sources. They map it out looking not for how it can be cracked open, but for how it can be made secure and defensible.
Now, there might be some additional twists that I may want to throw into this: - One is class. In the post-apocalyptic breakdown of society, specialized roles break down -- this makes some sense and is part of the post-apocalyptic genre. Everyone has to help gather food, and everyone must fight to defend the band. So to push the breakdown idea further, I might tear down the class system to a point system of abilities. This might make it easier to have monsters as PCs.
- Perhaps I should also modify magic in some way? On reflection, I lean against this. It would be more interesting for the players to struggle with how to use the existing spell list, say, to help their band survive. Now "Create Food and Water" becomes a vital spell choice, for example.
As I consider this, I think tearing down the class system is important to convey the breakdown, upheaval, and shift of everyone's roles. But I'm not sure exactly how I should do it. How much, if any, should I keep mechanics for niche protection? i.e. Should there be a cost benefit for taking related abilities? I'm not sure.
Should I add in more social mechanics for the relations with the other members of the band? There should certainly be a focus, I feel, on there being families and children in the band to protect. But I'm not sure if that calls for particular mechanical changes.
|
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jhkimrpg's journal