|
Post by shasodnarb on Jul 12, 2010 19:15:07 GMT -5
What aspect do you feel is most important when running a game? Why?
|
|
|
Post by thesanityassassin on Jul 12, 2010 19:38:01 GMT -5
I'm big on focusing in on the characters. I generally set up a fairly detailed setting, with an "end goal" for a campaign in mind, but try to give characters a good amount of free will to make their way through the campaign world as they see fit, rather than leading them through set "encounters"
|
|
|
Post by shasodnarb on Jul 12, 2010 19:57:32 GMT -5
I very much agree (except for the characters part lol). I do my best to be true to the setting as well as I can. I tend not to care too much about the PCs themselves, as my view is that it would distort my representation of the world. As far as plot is concerned, I prefer to use several different hooks and have some information where that could lead if the PCs follow them, but I try to keep my influencing of those decision to an absolute minimum.
So basically, the setting matters most. For the most part, it's up to the PCs to do what they want.
|
|
|
Post by LizardTau on Jul 12, 2010 20:44:51 GMT -5
I haven't actually dmed or anything but i would probally focus on making it entertaining and focus on the story making it interesting and like a book you are playing
|
|
|
Post by redshirt2375 on Jul 12, 2010 21:17:54 GMT -5
I do have to say I enjoy the settings that Dnarb creates and the freedom they offer.
Though from experience it does seem that encountering the super-powers is almost unavoidable since they either come to you or you stumble upon them and things just tend to get crazy from there.
My characters tend to survive most situations when I'm given the chance to play them out, but alas my party member tends to make things much more difficult. I've lost count of the number of times he's brought about the death of what would have been a great character.
I think it would be great to just once get a chance to have play out a campaign to a somewhat fitting end and not have it end prematurely through unavoidable PC death or GM annoyance level with afore mentioned party member *sighs*
|
|
|
Post by shasodnarb on Jul 12, 2010 21:31:22 GMT -5
I've been thinking about that as well... I know due to timing difficulties, I'll be running a Dark Sun solo for Mythweaver... but due to past general difficulties, I'm thinking I will probably keep the aforementioned "party member" out of our main game for once.
As far as sudden deaths are concerned, I think the new chart will better represent the likely nature of random encounters. I might even tweak it even further towards normal before we begin, to use as a template. I'll have encounter tables by region for those 2, 3, 19 results anyway.
|
|
|
Post by thesanityassassin on Jul 12, 2010 23:04:26 GMT -5
To qualify my "character focus" a little bit, I DO put great effort into staying true to the world, and will not bend the rules of the world for the characters, but I tend to really focus the kinds of encounters and challenges to the party, and try to avoid inevitable character death. To me Character Death is a punishment that comes from someone doing something incredibly stupid...if a PC is foolish enough to wander blindly and alone into a dark cave, he'll get eaten, whether my encounter sheets have a monster there or not. On the other hand, I'll be the first to bump down a critical hit from a monster that would have killed a PC that didn't "deserve" to die. For this reason I really prefer to roll GM dice behind a screen.
I think it comes from being a player first, and devoting a TON of time to character creation and background, but I genuinely hope that the party that starts a campaign will finish it, and while Character Death is sometimes unavoidable (or handed out as a punishment as said above), I really do my best to avoid it if possible. I've seen a lot of GM's party-wipe quite commonly, or have about a 25% survival rate for their enounters, and I really feel that this is a failing on their part....such situations should not arise unless the party has made a number of foolish moves in a row. I won't lie, I'm not a big fan of games where 2-3 players end up rolling up a new character each session. I'm a role player first and a combat player second, and don't like constantly having someone new shuffled in. Sure it's bound to happen once in a while, but my focus while running a game is making it exciting and competitive, but in a way that the party SHOULD make it through alive if they play their cards alright.
|
|
|
Post by shasodnarb on Jul 12, 2010 23:19:41 GMT -5
Regarding fudging rolls to favour the players, it's interesting to hear another viewpoint on the matter. For me, it's a conscious decision to not do that. As a consequence, I tend not to feel guilty for PC deaths, because I rationalize that it's the setting doing it to them, not me. Basically, one goal of my GMing is for my players to know they can trust my influence in the game. Whether that's to their benefit or detriment, at least they should know they won or lost fairly.
I agree, though, about fairness... it's just that I don't believe in the setting being inherently fair to players. I've seen great player ideas get punished by bad luck, and I'm ok with that. However, as I need to update the house rules I posted, we do figure a fudge factor into our rules: every person (GM included) gets a single reroll (or may add/subtract 1d6 from a roll) per session that they can use at their whim, to indicate that they are somehow favoured participants in the world.
Anyway, unless it's a roll related to something the players shouldn't know, then I prefer to roll everything in the open. Having said that, that decision may also be influenced by one longtime player whose honesty and forthrightness have been challenged from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by redshirt2375 on Jul 13, 2010 5:45:09 GMT -5
Funny how one player can influence both sides of the RP experience
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jul 13, 2010 5:51:01 GMT -5
I would say focusing on the characters, because when the campaign is long over, they'll remember the characters the most and the heroic awesome things they did (which in effect means that they remember the campaign)... If your plot is driven by character interactions and immerses the characters in the setting, which provides a very imaginative background, it allows the characters to flourish and become the memorable heroes they were meant to be...
if the characters aren't in the forefront you run the risk of the players not being invested in their characters... and then who cares if they live or die... they're not engaged....
|
|
|
Post by justice7ca on Jul 13, 2010 11:12:27 GMT -5
An option that isn't there... focus on the Players. It is their game, you are just facilitating it for them. If the players want to do something, run with it! Allow them and reward them for being creative.
The setting is good, but i don't feel it is important to a fun game. Throwing in some good lore to turn the heads of people who are into that, but keeping the center of attention on the players themselves is paramount.
When i DM, I allow my players to decide how they want to solve a problem. More often than not, they figure things out and feel good about their teamwork.
|
|
|
Post by voodoo on Jul 13, 2010 17:39:01 GMT -5
I agree, it's basically a choose your own adventure book with infinite options, I lay out a basis of what needs to happen, how my players get there is up to them, I also try to make one PC vitally important for one or two sessions at least, using past knowledge that their character would have, etc. It brings them closer into the storytelling and provides some additional interaction with the shaping of the path.
|
|
|
Post by Mythweaver on Jul 14, 2010 9:26:11 GMT -5
I voted for Character focus but that doesn't really describe my Gm ing style at all. I am most interested in the story.
Yes, I build a general framework of what the story "should" be about but I let my friends and leroy do the telling. I do my best in any given situation to ensure that the characters have a way out...kill the beast, run , hide or talk thier way out. I don't believe that it is my duty as GM to point the options out however. If leroy refuses to run away from the 20HD demon when he is only 5HD, then the rest of the party needs to leave him to his own devises.
Using a Paladin as an example: whatever your god may expect of you and your code of conduct, he/she would want you to use your head, retreat, fast for a week and prepare; gather allies so that you can effectively do his/her bidding.
I also agree with Matt in the idea of fudging the "Occasional" die roll. If the only character that knows a vital piece of the story is about to die then I may allow them to live, or in the very least intervene in some way. That character is inevitably going to die though...you've got to pay the reaper...when the story plays itself out I will find an interesting way to kill the one living on borrowed time.
As far as rolling dice is concerned I believe that most of it should take place out in the open, in the middle of the table if possible. Every gaming group I have taken part in has had a cheater. That person that just has to succeed no matter what. We have all seen the "roll and snatch" method of scoring a critical hit and I think that all of us, GMs and Players alike, have suffered for it. Ensuring that all dice are rolled in the open is a standard house rule for most of the people I play with, just to keep from singling the cheater out in an embarassing fashion. I also believe that the GM has the right to roll dice behind the screen whenever he/she wishes to keep suspence up, to make saving throws without alerting players to possible situations etc... All in all, die rolling conventions should be discussed before any campaign begins and again in the advent of new players joining the group, or when leroy inevitably forgets and does the ol' snatch and grab.
Roleplaying should be the chance for everyone involved to stretch thier minds, be the brave or timid person they are not in life. Everyone dreams of doing the impossible, but noone wants to get hurt. to that end we gather around a table and try our best to create a living breathing world through conversation and a few die rolls. That is what Gm ing is to me.
|
|
|
Post by shasodnarb on Jul 14, 2010 9:37:54 GMT -5
Obviously, the fundamental mechanic of D&D is rolling dice. As a player, my view is that my character's success or failure is inherently undermined once the GM secretly starts fudging dice rolls, particularly when we have established house rules to address the issue.
So, even when I benefit, I feel fundamentally cheated by the GM when this occurs. As a GM, I'd rather try to avoid the possibility of having players in my campaign feel that way. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but campaigns are hard enough to run for me having to worry about something like that... so, I just try to avoid the issue altogether by focussing on the world, and fairly letting the dice roll as they may.
|
|
|
Post by Mythweaver on Jul 14, 2010 9:49:01 GMT -5
It is my job to inherently undermine everything you stand for, my friend.
|
|