What campaign designers are doing wrong

[captaincrumbcake]

I saw this youtube tutorial and thought, well, that could be applied to RPGs as well. So, I thought I'd link it for others to digest.





For me, the core point being made is, start small, take your time developing it, test it, analyze the test data, make what changes are deemed required in your mind and the campaign's needs, begin Beta playing, refine, stir and continue...

[robkuntz]

My two cents:


From my interview @: multiverse.world/blog/2016/11/30/qa-robert-j-kuntz/

Learn as much as you can and then toss it out for your own ideas.  Learn for the sake of knowing what not to do and what to improve upon.  Massimo Vignelli, the great Italian designer, noted that “A designer without a sense of history is worth nothing.”  What he meant, in part, is that you cannot improve upon design history unless you are familiar with it; and by extension that design, unlike the median market, should never be considered a static state.  Unfamiliarity with the history of any subject gets one trapped in the present and in other people’s opinions or models. This design route tends towards imitation rather than origination. To stay original always challenge the status quo like Arneson and Gygax did. Know when to separate from the pack and make your own mark.  “Inner circles” are good for such knowledge acquisition but can ultimately end up promoting circular thought.  That also applies to “schools of thought.”  Learn them.  Assess them.  Do all of that but remain yourself.  Maintain your own philosophy as such schools typically tend to calcify design thought and thus inspire pro-competition attitudes. They fast become echo chambers of the market tending towards only minor changes in design trajectories. That’s fine for establishment writers and designers or for studio musicians, etc.  But for non-competitive, forward-thinking, free-lancers who wish to keep their careers fresh and challenging, well, be a maverick and be proud of it.

[hengest]

May 13, 2017 14:33:28 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

My two cents:


From my interview @: multiverse.world/blog/2016/11/30/qa-robert-j-kuntz/

Learn as much as you can and then toss it out for your own ideas.  Learn for the sake of knowing what not to do and what to improve upon.  Massimo Vignelli, the great Italian designer, noted that “A designer without a sense of history is worth nothing.”  What he meant, in part, is that you cannot improve upon design history unless you are familiar with it; and by extension that design, unlike the median market, should never be considered a static state.  Unfamiliarity with the history of any subject gets one trapped in the present and in other people’s opinions or models. This design route tends towards imitation rather than origination. To stay original always challenge the status quo like Arneson and Gygax did. Know when to separate from the pack and make your own mark.  “Inner circles” are good for such knowledge acquisition but can ultimately end up promoting circular thought.  That also applies to “schools of thought.”  Learn them.  Assess them.  Do all of that but remain yourself.  Maintain your own philosophy as such schools typically tend to calcify design thought and thus inspire pro-competition attitudes. They fast become echo chambers of the market tending towards only minor changes in design trajectories. That’s fine for establishment writers and designers or for studio musicians, etc.  But for non-competitive, forward-thinking, free-lancers who wish to keep their careers fresh and challenging, well, be a maverick and be proud of it.

I quite like this post /quote by RJK.  If you are socialized at all (or here, understand gaming even in the most basic way) you are not likely to go so off the board that no one can follow (or if you do, you will quickly learn that you have done so because no one will play with you or talk to you).  So it is more important to stay fresh and to allow yourself to discard whatever in favor of something new.  

I have a strange split here between fluff and mechanics.  I have been coming up with plenty of my own fluff to use out of my own head, but I can barely even attempt to imagine a new game system.  I think the closest I have come is my fairy tale world, which was intended as a skin or add-on to a D&D mechanic / setting but I think could be its own system, sort of.

Which is not to say everyone has to invent their own set of mechanics, but simply that creativity can work differently (or not work so well) in different areas of endeavor...

[ripx187]

Oh! Good find hengest

I don't think that I've ever really spent much time playing D&D as written, as soon as you get it you start making your own rules because you either don't understand what is there, or don't want to stop the game to look up procedures. After a few years of DMing, it is always healthy to reread the books and you notice that more and more of it makes sense, or that important rules were hidden in walls of text that you just never saw. 

I call everything D&D. Always have, it is like Kleenex or Playdoh, it is just a name. Some folks have told me that I am forcing square blocks into round holes, but I always just use D&D as the baseline, so that everyone at the table is kind of on the same page. I haven't really any desire to sit down and actually create a complete homebrew game, yet I still stand by my opinion that if you play D&D for any length of time, than that is what is going to happen. 

[hengest]

ripx187 Yeah, there are lots of good RJK quotes on this forum scattered all over threads over a period of a couple years (of course, not only by RJK). I gotta pick up his Arneson book one of these days.

It has taken this forum to show me that (attractive as tables can be), the "rulesets" were never what attracted me to D&D in the first place although when I was young I practically memorized the AD&D hardbacks (I still admire those books).

But to respond minimally to your post: I think of D&D as the base game, too, at least for a fantasy RPG kind of thing. I was reading Chainmail, Adventures in Fantasy, Swords & Spells, and Powers & Perils lately (and thinking about something as distant as Pendragon), and realizing that I think of it all as just so many published possibilities for "gaming." Actually, I think this is a really unbearably cool thing about this hobby: you can slap in mass combat from some totally different ruleset or homebrew if you want to, and before it's even resolved you can play a bizarre mini-game of Fox and Geese between some PC and a doorward golem.

(I just made that up and have never reffed or played such a scenario, but it sounds kind of cool, now that I think of it.)

While the published games and clones are all cool, and it's nice to have a "set" of stuff that you know well and know you will use a lot, I find that very inspiring, to know you can grab or develop something completely different and just slot it in where you want it. And I guess the same applies not only to rules, but to every other aspect of the game. There's nothing preventing you from doing, in a single session:

• mass combat
• personal combat
• play-acting
• skills, BtB-systematized or ref's rulings about all kinds of things one might try
• searching, puzzles, difficult situations
• incomprehensible, non-systematized local magic
• simulation at whatever degree of granularity you want of the realia of the quasi-medieval setting
• etc.

(All these with different degrees of ruleyness from zero to heavily planned, published to purely homemmade.)

Or in a single campaign-world:

• medieval fantasy
• space adventures
• CoC / Indiana Jones-style exploration and insanity
• cavepeople
• WW-style vampire culture
• normal humans
• (all of the above plus whatever else, joined or not joined by portals, timetravel, messages in bottles, whatever)

Or in a single campaign:

• PbP, play-by-email
• solo-adventures with ref at any pace by email, text, or phone
• LARP interspersed with miniature-based mass combat
• group seated at table

You get what I mean.  I say this in response to you to say that to me, all these possibilities (most of which I've never even seen played) are there, all the time, and pretty accessible.  You don't have to spend a year preparing for an instance of mass combat.  You don't have to have reams of worlds in binders to do a PbP.  And, kind of like you said, to me that's all "D&D."  It's not that I imagine all those things slotted into the LBBs or an OD&D reffed system.  It's more that in my mind, D&D is the name for everything under the umbrella, regardless of the matrix that things go into (if there even is a matrix).  

[ripx187]

I really enjoy 'the long game', but typically we are always play-testing something or other. I think that is just part of the game. Before we start, I go over the new mechanic or play-style that I'd like to explore, get everybody on the same page, then after the session is over we discuss it. It starts with an idea and then figuring out how to accomplish it, that is a huge part of the process.

[hengest]

I know what you mean, I think. Ballpark. I have more ideas than I have time to develop (like everyone on here), but then I have no time or group for testing or using them.

I tell myself it's all still worthwhile. 
ripx187

[The Perilous Dreamer]

Apr 4, 2021 23:18:22 GMT -5 hengest said:

May 13, 2017 14:33:28 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

My two cents:


From my interview @: multiverse.world/blog/2016/11/30/qa-robert-j-kuntz/

Learn as much as you can and then toss it out for your own ideas.  Learn for the sake of knowing what not to do and what to improve upon.  Massimo Vignelli, the great Italian designer, noted that “A designer without a sense of history is worth nothing.”  What he meant, in part, is that you cannot improve upon design history unless you are familiar with it; and by extension that design, unlike the median market, should never be considered a static state.  Unfamiliarity with the history of any subject gets one trapped in the present and in other people’s opinions or models. This design route tends towards imitation rather than origination. To stay original always challenge the status quo like Arneson and Gygax did. Know when to separate from the pack and make your own mark.  “Inner circles” are good for such knowledge acquisition but can ultimately end up promoting circular thought.  That also applies to “schools of thought.”  Learn them.  Assess them.  Do all of that but remain yourself.  Maintain your own philosophy as such schools typically tend to calcify design thought and thus inspire pro-competition attitudes. They fast become echo chambers of the market tending towards only minor changes in design trajectories. That’s fine for establishment writers and designers or for studio musicians, etc.  But for non-competitive, forward-thinking, free-lancers who wish to keep their careers fresh and challenging, well, be a maverick and be proud of it.

I quite like this post /quote by RJK.  If you are socialized at all (or here, understand gaming even in the most basic way) you are not likely to go so off the board that no one can follow (or if you do, you will quickly learn that you have done so because no one will play with you or talk to you).  So it is more important to stay fresh and to allow yourself to discard whatever in favor of something new.  

I have a strange split here between fluff and mechanics.  I have been coming up with plenty of my own fluff to use out of my own head, but I can barely even attempt to imagine a new game system.  I think the closest I have come is my fairy tale world, which was intended as a skin or add-on to a D&D mechanic / setting but I think could be its own system, sort of.

Which is not to say everyone has to invent their own set of mechanics, but simply that creativity can work differently (or not work so well) in different areas of endeavor...

I think mechanics (or crunch as the kids say) is of less importance than the so-called "fluff." IMO I think the fluff is the meat and the mechanics are merely a tool and you can use a variety of different mechanics, but coming up with fluff is the most creative part. 

[The Perilous Dreamer]

Apr 7, 2021 12:03:37 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

Oh! Good find hengest

I don't think that I've ever really spent much time playing D&D as written, as soon as you get it you start making your own rules because you either don't understand what is there, or don't want to stop the game to look up procedures. After a few years of DMing, it is always healthy to reread the books and you notice that more and more of it makes sense, or that important rules were hidden in walls of text that you just never saw. 

I call everything D&D. Always have, it is like Kleenex or Playdoh, it is just a name. Some folks have told me that I am forcing square blocks into round holes, but I always just use D&D as the baseline, so that everyone at the table is kind of on the same page. I haven't really any desire to sit down and actually create a complete homebrew game, yet I still stand by my opinion that if you play D&D for any length of time, than that is what is going to happen. 

I have never tried to play a game BtB or RAW. I was house ruling before I could read.

[The Perilous Dreamer]

Apr 7, 2021 14:00:54 GMT -5 hengest said:

ripx187 Yeah, there are lots of good RJK quotes on this forum scattered all over threads over a period of a couple years (of course, not only by RJK). I gotta pick up his Arneson book one of these days.

It has taken this forum to show me that (attractive as tables can be), the "rulesets" were never what attracted me to D&D in the first place although when I was young I practically memorized the AD&D hardbacks (I still admire those books).

SNIP

You get what I mean.  I say this in response to you to say that to me, all these possibilities (most of which I've never even seen played) are there, all the time, and pretty accessible.  You don't have to spend a year preparing for an instance of mass combat.  You don't have to have reams of worlds in binders to do a PbP.  And, kind of like you said, to me that's all "D&D."  It's not that I imagine all those things slotted into the LBBs or an OD&D reffed system.  It's more that in my mind, D&D is the name for everything under the umbrella, regardless of the matrix that things go into (if there even is a matrix).  

You can do pretty much anything with D&D.

I ran a ship board campaign as part of a campaign that lasted a couple of years of real time and about 8 years of game time. The ship to ship combat, ship to sea monster and ship to land combat that took place all used mechanics that I improvised on the spot. I had access to written mechanics that I could have used, but I did not want to slow the pace of the game down for that. The players were happy with what I did and so fun was had by all.

[Admin Pete]

Apr 4, 2021 23:18:22 GMT -5 hengest said:

May 13, 2017 14:33:28 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

My two cents:


From my interview @: multiverse.world/blog/2016/11/30/qa-robert-j-kuntz/

Learn as much as you can and then toss it out for your own ideas.  Learn for the sake of knowing what not to do and what to improve upon.  Massimo Vignelli, the great Italian designer, noted that “A designer without a sense of history is worth nothing.”  What he meant, in part, is that you cannot improve upon design history unless you are familiar with it; and by extension that design, unlike the median market, should never be considered a static state.  Unfamiliarity with the history of any subject gets one trapped in the present and in other people’s opinions or models. This design route tends towards imitation rather than origination. To stay original always challenge the status quo like Arneson and Gygax did. Know when to separate from the pack and make your own mark.  “Inner circles” are good for such knowledge acquisition but can ultimately end up promoting circular thought.  That also applies to “schools of thought.”  Learn them.  Assess them.  Do all of that but remain yourself.  Maintain your own philosophy as such schools typically tend to calcify design thought and thus inspire pro-competition attitudes. They fast become echo chambers of the market tending towards only minor changes in design trajectories. That’s fine for establishment writers and designers or for studio musicians, etc.  But for non-competitive, forward-thinking, free-lancers who wish to keep their careers fresh and challenging, well, be a maverick and be proud of it.

I quite like this post /quote by RJK.  If you are socialized at all (or here, understand gaming even in the most basic way) you are not likely to go so off the board that no one can follow (or if you do, you will quickly learn that you have done so because no one will play with you or talk to you).  So it is more important to stay fresh and to allow yourself to discard whatever in favor of something new.  

I have a strange split here between fluff and mechanics.  I have been coming up with plenty of my own fluff to use out of my own head, but I can barely even attempt to imagine a new game system.  I think the closest I have come is my fairy tale world, which was intended as a skin or add-on to a D&D mechanic / setting but I think could be its own system, sort of.

Which is not to say everyone has to invent their own set of mechanics, but simply that creativity can work differently (or not work so well) in different areas of endeavor...

I am with you on the mechanics, while innovation is great, if you mostly love the mechanics you have then all you need are tweaks. I think RJKs strength is in the fluff and he needs someone between him and the public to do the marketing and the talking. He needs a translator, too. Great ideas, but difficult to understand them enough to apply them. I think people under estimate the value and the innovations that can be slipped in under the radar in fluff.

[Admin Pete]

Apr 7, 2021 12:03:37 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

Some folks have told me that I am forcing square blocks into round holes, but I always just use D&D as the baseline, so that everyone at the table is kind of on the same page.

Maybe you and many of us are not forcing square blocks into round holes, maybe what we are really doing is building a new template that has round holes, square holes, star shaped holes and a dozen other shapes and then we are searching out the blocks for each hole.

What happens is that some people believe that only round holes and round blocks have a right to exist and everything else should be discarded.

[Admin Pete]

Apr 7, 2021 14:00:54 GMT -5 hengest said:

ripx187 Yeah, there are lots of good RJK quotes on this forum scattered all over threads over a period of a couple years (of course, not only by RJK). I gotta pick up his Arneson book one of these days.

It has taken this forum to show me that (attractive as tables can be), the "rulesets" were never what attracted me to D&D in the first place although when I was young I practically memorized the AD&D hardbacks (I still admire those books).

But to respond minimally to your post:

I won't quote the entire post and I have no time to write the several pages response that it deserves, but have an exalt hengest, a brilliant post and one worth studying.

[Admin Pete]

Apr 8, 2021 12:04:07 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

I really enjoy 'the long game', but typically we are always play-testing something or other. I think that is just part of the game. Before we start, I go over the new mechanic or play-style that I'd like to explore, get everybody on the same page, then after the session is over we discuss it. It starts with an idea and then figuring out how to accomplish it, that is a huge part of the process.

Have an exalt, sounds like a great game you have.

[Morton]

May 13, 2017 14:33:28 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

My two cents:

be a maverick and be proud of it.

I never met the man, but I am in full agreement with this.