|
Post by Crimhthan The Great on May 8, 2015 14:57:51 GMT -5
I don't know if the OP was using "end game" in the limiting sense as you are noting or not. I believe that he was using end game in the "when higher level players build strongholds and do something other than adventure which most of us have never had the chance to play" sense. So your input on that type of play (not as a limit or stoppage) but as a type of play that many/most of us have never had a chance to play would be useful. I have not yet had fellow players who wanted to build strongholds and I would like to hear about that type of play. In your experience have you ever had a player build a stronghold while other players kept doing other things. Do you have any suggestions for how I might persuade my DM to let me do that even if none of the other players were willing to? That's a hard one. I really dislike making suggestions, and not because I have no substance to offer, but because it's my own; and as much as it works for me i have no general POV of how that might or might not work for others. Your main point seems to be that the DM needs to be persuaded and that this has not been elevated in status equal to what is now taking place in the game. I would do as any player BITD did with Gary and myself as DMs: they came forward and stated what their PCs were doing, and we adjudicated the possibilities/probabilities thereof. Yes. People did anything that they could think of, with varying results, of course. There were no prescriptions, thus no limitations. If the DM doesn't forward possibilities in an open manner based on player choice then they are not impartial to play and perhaps view the experience in a lesser light than the players themselves. My suggestion is to start small with a house in a town and steer the whole thing to larger horizons, this if you are feeling trapped to a certain play mode only that the DM will not move from. Failing that, find another DM... robkuntz, there is a place for suggestions and advice. In this case pointing out a way that the DM can reasonably be prodded in the direction the player would like to go and if that is ignored or rejected then one can always look for another DM is IMO good advice in general. Of course sometimes finding another DM may not be that easy, which is why I am hopeful that this forum can, over time, educate more DMs into the flexibility that DMs can have in regard player choice and also spur the creation of more DMs. I think sometimes DMs/Refs are too reluctant to give someone else a turn in the chair or at least to encourage someone else at taking a turn in the chair.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 25, 2015 22:44:13 GMT -5
That's a hard one. I really dislike making suggestions, and not because I have no substance to offer, but because it's my own; and as much as it works for me i have no general POV of how that might or might not work for others. Your main point seems to be that the DM needs to be persuaded and that this has not been elevated in status equal to what is now taking place in the game. I would do as any player BITD did with Gary and myself as DMs: they came forward and stated what their PCs were doing, and we adjudicated the possibilities/probabilities thereof. Yes. People did anything that they could think of, with varying results, of course. There were no prescriptions, thus no limitations. If the DM doesn't forward possibilities in an open manner based on player choice then they are not impartial to play and perhaps view the experience in a lesser light than the players themselves. My suggestion is to start small with a house in a town and steer the whole thing to larger horizons, this if you are feeling trapped to a certain play mode only that the DM will not move from. Failing that, find another DM... robkuntz, there is a place for suggestions and advice. In this case pointing out a way that the DM can reasonably be prodded in the direction the player would like to go and if that is ignored or rejected then one can always look for another DM is IMO good advice in general. Of course sometimes finding another DM may not be that easy, which is why I am hopeful that this forum can, over time, educate more DMs into the flexibility that DMs can have in regard player choice and also spur the creation of more DMs. I think sometimes DMs/Refs are too reluctant to give someone else a turn in the chair or at least to encourage someone else at taking a turn in the chair. I missed this! Of course there's a place; and that place and time is described by the familiarity with the subject. And I have no specific knowledge of what is holistically transpiring in the exampled game and only one view, thusly, to go by. Therefore my reticence and "general" course of action. I am no "man on the mount" except in my own spheres.
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on May 26, 2015 5:47:06 GMT -5
The true "end game" would be when the characters buy a castle on a 30-year mortgage, get married, and have children. Welcome to the real world. Oh, wait ... Traveller already did that. (The 30-year mortgage on a starship, at least.)
|
|
|
Post by randyb on May 26, 2015 10:08:24 GMT -5
Yes. "End game" is one of the OSRisms which were not things bitd. Interesting. Wonder where it came from, then? My guess is MMOs. There, "end game" refers to max level activities, such as highly difficult group missions and the like, usually accompanied by a progression of more powerful gear. As a derivation, it would be "what you do when you reach max level", or "...reach highest levels". So it is a reasonable descriptor, IMO, even though it is used here in reference to a different set of activities.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 26, 2015 10:47:34 GMT -5
It's related to the corporate vision of humans.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 26, 2015 13:01:39 GMT -5
There is also an assumption involved with the use of "end". That there is a finite structure. But, by comparison, Fantasy is infinite. So the question arises from this dichotomy as to how something that is infinite became finite and having an assumed path. The latter is mostly due to imposed structure. However, what is the structure of infinite expanding imagination? Is there an end or only what is perceived and promoted through the inferred structure? One would do well in referring back to Arneson's initial example that we call Classic D&D and derive therethrough whether there are any absolutes in FRPG. One should easily deduce from that that we impose our own structures and limits within it and that there is no standard; and thus no end game unless you choose to impose one.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 26, 2015 16:55:23 GMT -5
The true "end game" would be when the characters buy a castle on a 30-year mortgage, get married, and have children. Welcome to the real world. Another "end game" might be: whatever game you happen to be playing just prior to the players generally buying homes on 30-year mortgages, getting married, having children, and no longer finding as much time for D&D. This is effectively what happened to my own "original" gaming group; around that time I had worked up an 11th level elvish cleric who is still in limbo to this day
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 26, 2015 17:48:25 GMT -5
robkuntz, I, of course, agree that there is no "limit" to fantasy, in one sense. What part of "fantasy" do we not understand here, right? However, I think that there are some "limits," in the good sense of what limits provide, not the bad sense. Limitations provide context. Limitations provide a frame. So, e.g., no rules, no game. No game, no fun. They did this experiment where they let kids play in an open field. They all huddled together and stayed close to the house. Then they put a fence -- a really big fence -- around the same space: the kids wound up playing all over it like crazy. I think that the "limits" of the fantasy genre, depending on things like taste, context, your particular campaign, etc., are part of our inheritance in the classical legendaria of the west found in our traditional literature, folk tales, fairy tales, urban legends and B movies. I am not interested in a FRPG that has creatures called "Vampires" only they have been so modified that I can no longer recognize why anyone would call it a vampire anymore. I want to stake it in the heart and watch Nosferatu parish into undead oblivion. That is why I play D&D, and that is why I play it OS. Within that classical legendaria there is an infinite landscape of possibilities and you can even go Dave Arneson gonzo style with tanks and robots and stuff. Fine. But I still know where I am. And I still know what a vampire is. To use some language from the natural sciences, "fantasy," is "bounded but infinite." The other boundary is campaign specific for me: characters age and die. I know there are and I can imagine campaigns where PCs "lvl-up" to immortality. I get that. it just ain't my world. It isn't gritty enough. it isn't "realistic" enough for my sense of simulation. I like playing in a medieval fantasy world that is FIRST medieval, and THEN fantastic. I still enjoy it being a reasonably recognizable medieval western (or ancient) world. That means people die. So, with those two limitations (classical western medieval fantasy legendaria on the one hand, PCs age and die on the other) I have a clear "END" game: what are you going to do when your characters have leveled-up so much that everyone is begging them to be their baron/king/emperor? And they know that there character's biological clock is tick tick ticking away. That brings miniature gamers back to the sand table. And hex-and-counter guys like me back to some house rules for mass and campaign-lvl combat. I like returning to the wargaming root of the game. So, as per my OP, how might a referee build interest in the "End Game," thusly construed? (If folks have no interest in "end game," or if folks are somehow philosophically opposed, I get that, no worries. Thanks.)
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 26, 2015 18:45:53 GMT -5
As I stated we impose our own limits. Thus a supposed end game is not assumed as a standard but imposed by choice. There seems to be an assumptive going on that insinuates the opposite; just the topic suggests that the way it is couched. Since the use of any game element is perforce singular in every case I stated, and again restate, that choice dictates structure and that there is no standard, especially since we can promote or demote rules and expand or contract structure based upon changed inclinations in both design and play.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 26, 2015 19:27:02 GMT -5
robkuntz, I think we may be having two different conversations. I always appreciate your philosophical ruminations on these boards and I am thankful for them. Perhaps this might help redirect things towards my OP: If you were interested in getting your players interested in playing towards a more war-game scale, what might you do? I do not care what we call it. I just want to play it. I'd like to find some interested folks. I've posted in the hopes that people have had some experiences in this area that can help me out. If you don't, that is fine, no problem. If you don't like that kind of play, that is fine, no problem. If you are philosophically opposed to making suggestions of play-styles and goals to your players, I find that interesting, and I respect it. No problem. But I am still interested in anyone out there who might help me in my hopes to build interest in (what some people have called, falsely, or no, misleadingly, or no) "end game" play. Thanks, robkuntz, and everybody.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 26, 2015 19:50:07 GMT -5
How about just part of the game? We started many campaigns in LG. As 12th level or higher, even as Gods. What would be the end game for those? There is no assumed structure for the game, that's all I am stating. How you go about scaling the structure you have, well, I have no clue. That depends upon a lot of inputs that I am not aware of. Like-- How has the game been progressing to date; how much interest is there because of that; how much variance do your players actually experience; what sub-rules and campaign oriented thrusts are you inclined towards? Stuff like that. One should start with general assessments and move towards specific organization, just like with any structure, I suppose. More might occur to me if the interchange widens a bit. BTW: If Arneson's play was "gonzo" what is the antonym for describing the opposite case? (having some fun with this...)
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 26, 2015 20:56:42 GMT -5
robkuntz, those are great questions. I started my Dun Kells campaign, table-top, with lvl 1s. They are now all about to become around lvl 4s. I have a PbP here, on-line, that started at the highest possible level of abstraction (well, at least for me, and remain fun). It is a theatre-lvl wargame campaign set in Dun Kells as well. All these characters have started out with lvl 10 PCs ("sovereigns," in my house-ruling). I am having fun with both. Recently, I started DMing a wilderness adventure at my FLGS in the Planet Eris setting. We are using a house-ruled version of Delta's Book of War to deal with 100s of orcs at a time, since none of us are miniatures war-gamers and none of us are familiar with Chainmail. It was a bit rocky, but we are honing the house rules and having fun. We had one "epic" (in the good, old fashioned sense of the term, before it was hijacked) battle that kept switching between lvls of scale as heroic lvl PCs took on the big baddies by magic-jarring into blue dragons and calling forth elementals while their troops slugged it out mass-combat style with the armies of orcs. All in all, really pretty fun. And, let's see, if Arneson is gonzo, then the opposite would be . . . oh, I don't know, the so-called "standard medieval fantasy setting"? You know, the one that strictly excludes gunpowder and hates anything that smacks of sci-fi. Or, maybe the opposite would be Gygax' more strict 1e style that implied an interest in so-called "ecologies"? Maybe. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 26, 2015 21:23:18 GMT -5
Well it does sound like you have already made headway in the matters of scale. That's how it works. A bit here, assessments, more bits, and .... wallah! You have context.
I set you up for the Arneson Q BTW, but interesting all the same: Let's see. The key words and/or phrases appear to be: "Standard"; "strictly excludes". "strict"...
Oops! That has crossed the no-no threshold in Arneson's Gygax's and my own philosophies. One must bow to gonzo, as that defines no limits; and in between it all--or even beyond those concepts that we saddle ourselves with or that we allow ourselves to be saddled with--is where we always find the newest horizon. IOW. D&D is an ongoing idea that has become confused with a set-in-stone design.
In that light, however you choose to deal with your games will work for you. You and your players are the final arbiters; and even given more and more input, I could not define your course. This is the ultimate beauty of the game, really--what defines the "Master" in Dungeon Master.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 27, 2015 11:44:46 GMT -5
Thank you, robkuntz. I appreciate your encouragement. I enjoy dialogue wherein I can tell that folks are reading me charitably, granting me the benefit of the doubt, and offering me straightforward help from their own experience. I promise I won't set you or anybody up. I just kindly ask the same in return. Thank you. Anybody else with ideas about encouraging "end game" out there? I am still interested in the OP, of course. Thanks, folks.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 30, 2015 7:09:05 GMT -5
It looks like we are going to wrap up what we have been doing in June and then in July we will be starting off with new characters. Some of the players have through our discussions expressed an interest in building strongholds and giving that type of play a go. However, we are starting out and incorporating several different things that have been percolating. Among other things we will be using the my magic swords that grow with the player and several other twists. We are agreed that we will play and see where it takes us, whether that leads to strongholds or something entirely different we will see. The main thing is that I have been able to get this group to commit to doing something entirely different. One thing that is interesting is that I just added two 20 somethings that play dozens of games (computer and tabletop and about five completely different LARPs) and they are more open to new things. How cool is that!
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 30, 2015 11:11:34 GMT -5
Anybody else with ideas about encouraging "end game" out there? I am still interested in the OP, of course. One of the purposes behind the campaign I write about on my blog (see the Black Heart of Esset AAR consimnet.blogspot.com/2013/08/chainmail-scenario-at-2013-dragonflight.html ) is to retrace to some extent the development of D&D out of Chainmail games (although we were using Labyrinth Lord to handle spell casting and each player had 1 or 2 PC characters). If I am able to get that campaign going again I intend to have domain level play (as you may have gathered, I object to that other phrase) with strongholds, battles and so on. The players will have multiple PCs, hirelings, henchmen and so on, at varying levels, and in addition to the political and military activities there will be "normal" RP activities as well.
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on May 31, 2015 13:56:22 GMT -5
Great blog, jmccann, I will subscribe. You know I will be one of your first players to sign up for Middlesea!
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 31, 2015 17:02:30 GMT -5
From a post of mine over at DF: I run an old school sandbox campaign so it is both Dynamic and Untailored. Dynamic means things are always changing everywhere at the same time because life goes on, so while a specific location might have 17 goblins with treasure today, they may not be there tomorrow. When the PCs go a different direction, life moves on and when they reach that location a month from now, anyone of dozens of things may have happened and now that cave might be occupied by a mother bear who has claimed it for her den after the goblins were killed by something else. Untailored means that encounters are never specifically tailored to guarantee an easy win for the PCs. Also I want to add, given players who will commit to it, I would love to run a campaign with some of the features that Crimhthan The Great tells us of. Where a campaign literally has no end at all, but continues from generation to generation with the players continually doing something different. If I understand his post correctly his players current characters set out over seven real world years ago to circumnavigate the globe after hearing some reports that the world is round. I am hoping that he will continue and post a bit about their progress and some highlights.
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on Jun 1, 2015 13:05:45 GMT -5
I agree with PD on the granularity slant. I have also imagined an adventure which would incorporate this view as an ever-changing series of encounters. More on this later.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on Jun 2, 2015 0:56:50 GMT -5
Great blog, jmccann, I will subscribe. You know I will be one of your first players to sign up for Middlesea! Thanks, I am looking forward to getting that rolling. But in developing it I have realized that it is a more complicated project than I can confidently achieve quickly. I plan to run a couple of shorter test campaigns which are deliberately very simple. I don't want to hijack this thread any more though, so look for a post on my blog in the next few days.
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Mar 8, 2021 1:26:27 GMT -5
I have really no right to talk about this, since I've never even played in a campaign that went here, but...
I would love to play in (or run??) a campaign where a couple players were in the end game and others weren't. Where the "domain-level" play of a couple people affected what went on for the PCs. It often sounds like everyone gets to the end game at the same time, but I guess it doesn't have to be that way.
Generally, I'm getting interested in warping time in a campaign, or the possibility of it. Those domain players are a year ahead, so what they do over there is more or less set, but what you guys do over here is not...not exactly.
It seems there should be a way to take the difficulty there (what if the PCs figure out a way to affect what has already happened?) and make it into a feature. Although I'm too tired to say or even think more. So I'm making a link to this post in my notebook and moving on for now. But I wish this sub were more active.
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Mar 8, 2021 1:55:05 GMT -5
hengest, I would like run a game that involves domain level play and I would like to play in a game where we had domain level play. I have always wanted to do that and found myself generally alone in that desire. If we are lucky and my play by post runs long enough, perhaps it will get there. Two current players have expressed the desire to go there once they get high enough level.
|
|