I'm still marching through the Ref book, trying to get the draft together. Things seem to be flowing better after the movie festival and today's game. The editor types haven't had a look at any of it yet, but I'm curious what you guys think of the following:
A campaign may be meaningless without people to play in it, but a campaign is bigger than anyone playing in it currently. It is easier to find new players than it is to resurrect interest in an idea that has been poisoned by bad decisions. Your first duty as a Referee, over and above the enjoyment of your players, is to protect your campaign, as that is the very foundation of what you have to contribute to any gaming group.
A campaign may be meaningless without people to play in it, but a campaign is bigger than anyone playing in it currently. It is easier to find new players than it is to resurrect interest in an idea that has been poisoned by bad decisions. Your first duty as a Referee, over and above the enjoyment of your players, is to protect your campaign, as that is the very foundation of what you have to contribute to any gaming group.
"It is easier to find new players than it is to resurrect interest in an idea that has been poisoned by bad decisions."
ReplyDeleteUnless your decisions don't improve, in which case you're equally fucked either way.
"Your first duty as a Referee, over and above the enjoyment of your players, is to protect your campaign, as that is the very foundation of what you have to contribute to any gaming group."
ReplyDeleteFoundation of sand though it may be.
What I'm saying here, man, is that you're being 100% Raggi, but are much closer to truth and much more successful when you're maybe 60%-80% Raggi.
ReplyDeleteSo tone it down just a notch.
Just. One. Notch.
I think it echoes a lot of what's in the 1e DMG. Not so stridently stated there, maybe, but there's something to the idea that the campaign and the milieu are more important than the particular characters (and particular players) inhabiting it. For certain styles of play, anyhow.
ReplyDeleteBut I've been burned badly by running games I wasn't 100% psyched for because players wanted very things that I wasn't sure were a good idea but went ahead and did them anyway. So there's some personal history behind that opinion.
Hmmm... Very "like the creeper that girdles the treetrunk" that. I think you're right, in that there is a core to the campaign that must be preserved, but a lot of what most folks call a campaign needs to be built with the understanding that the players will touch the thing that shouldn't be touched and unleash an army of undead SoBs to run havoc all over it. ;)
ReplyDeleteIt makes more sense when you put the last sentence first. Gives the other two sentences context. Also I agree.
ReplyDelete"Your first duty as a Referee, over and above the enjoyment of your players, is to protect your campaign, as that is the very foundation of what you have to contribute to any gaming group. A campaign may be meaningless without people to play in it, but a campaign is bigger than anyone playing in it currently. It is easier to find new players than it is to resurrect interest in an idea that has been poisoned by bad decisions."
@LotFP Jim: I can see where you're coming from on this (protect your campaign in a hobby where reputation for fairness and coherence is important = common sense), but the way you've expressed it might need a little disambiguation.
ReplyDeleteThere's a world of difference between having a particular vision (eg: Greg Stafford's "You play knights, coz the game is about knights" rule for Pendragon) and being a prima donna DM.
@trollsmyth: True about the chaos monkey effect of players. I suppose its just a case of constructively limiting the ways in which they can harm themselves to the 'setting appropriate'. What works for Algol/Quantique/Metal Earth might be totally out of place in a LotFP setting, and vice versa.
I think your first duty as a game master is to make sure your game is free from serving any arbitrary master. This would include your presumptions set for the future of campaing.
ReplyDeleteListen to the game when it lives, not the dead echoes of how you thought it would have gone. Players don't play wrong, unless they are there to serve.
And for what end would it serve, if a participant of the game wouldn't be there for his own sake?
But you are right in that if something goes bad, it's best to just let it go. Just move on!
@ Will: Great advice on the recommendation for 60%-80% Raggi.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts:
I think the idea of a "campaign" as I define it: A generally a common multi-session narrative arc, with general continuity in player-run characters, and generally a minimum of continuity in setting.
I think to raise it above all else is unnecessary - why do that? The other key elements are fellowship, and balanced story-telling.
The skeleton of good gaming is the building of friendships and the fellowship of being/becoming a gamer. It is largely the game itself, but also often a bunch of fellows in black shirts trading past stories, talking about how bad the Matrix sequels stink.
Playing with strangers without fellowship is tantamount to playing RPGA or other soul-less, uncompelling gaming. Buit even then, when we meet a new gamer, we talk shop, we instantly connect. That is fellowship.
In terms of balanced storytelling, this is defined as being unbiased when you have can be, being capricious when you can be, being humane when you can be, being rewarding when you can be, being deadly when you can be - essentially providing every element of a good gaming yarn when you can in a fair manner.
Balance is a tenor that offsets the risk for games that are too easy, too hard, too nepotistic, too Monty Haul, too angry, too rules lawyer-y, too powergamerish... Balance means, sometimes these things happen, but sometimes the opposite does. Keep it fresh.
And by God no Deus Machina - the sign of a failed campaign.
One thing on balance: A DM that is vengeful should quit immediately. It should not about a power trip to offset years of dorkdom among your peers
"ording things as they should be, the game as a whole first, your campaign next, and your participants thereafter..." (from Gary's Afterword in the DMG)
ReplyDeleteIf the referee doesn't want demi-humans in his campaign, then he needn't add them in merely to accomodate a player who wants an elf's cool powers. If the campaign's technology level is Stone Age, then players wanting plate armor are out of luck. Etc. If the players don't like it, they can play in someone else's campaign. Or they can start their own campaigns.
This isn't meant to be nasty. It's just the common sense observation that people often don't see eye-to-eye. You play in D&D campaigns that you like, and you don't play in D&D campaigns that you don't like.
It's the height of hubris for a player to expect an ENTIRE WORLD to change merely to suit his whims. "I INSIST upon playing a druid. Therefore the campaign world HAS TO HAVE druids in it. Just for me! ME!"
Ahem. The DM makes the world. The players make the PCs. The only rightful influence that PCs have on the DM's world are the changes that their actions have on it. You don't like the BBEG who rules the kingdom next door? Then your PC needs to kill him.
Chris: Yep, and Raggi's not writing a generic game here, but one with a particular (though broad, it seems to me) focus. So he can be a bit more particular about where he wants to draw those lines.
ReplyDeleteAs noted, a referee who does not "stick to his guns" on the campaign is not really doing anyone any favors. But if NO players seem to like the campaign, the referee may want to re-think it if he wants to play it.
ReplyDeleteIt's sort of like bands that have to balance "being true to their music" with "selling music." If you completely sell out to make money (ore keep players), you're sure to betray (or at least compromise) what made you special in the first place and ruin your own enjoyment and that of your core fans. If, however, you make only the exact music you want to make and sell zero copies ever, maybe the problem is you and not the "idiots who don't understand."
So yes, stick to the campaign and get players that want to play in it. But if NO ONE wants to play in it, decide if you'd rather make a few changes or just play with yourself.