![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
OK, I got up there for about ten minutes to look for a notebook, didn't find the notebook, and am now knackered by the effort, and have to sit down again. Being ill sucks, so to take my mind off it, I'm going to ramble a bit about RPGs, D&D, high and low fantasy, and other such stuff, and all of you are going to comment and ask me interesting questions, and before I know what's happening, I'll have the energy to have another crack at finding the notebook. Which is, of course, a D&D notebook.
People know I'm a gamer. They might not know the word "gamer", but they know I play D&D, and every now and then I'll get asked how the D&D is going - usually in work, since most non-work people will know to ask about the campaign, or even campaigns. I used to just mumble something about it going well, but of late I've decided that fuck it, you ask one of my co-workers about soccer, and you'll have to gag him to stop him talking, so why shouldn't I do likewise? So now, when people ask, I set off into a big long ramble about the current plots, and what the PCs have done, and what this NPC did, and why time travel is a bad idea, and why I'm really glad I got rid of speak with the dead and resurrect and (*spit*) time pool. And instead of backing off in a stunned way, they... ask questions.
One of the more thoughtful ones that gets asked once in a while is "So why do you run games, and not play them? It sounds like a lot of work."
And sometimes I'm hard put to answer that one. It's a lot of work, yeah. And even though it's a lot of work, I don't put as much into it as I feel I should. By rights, with the three hours preparation to one hour's playing that leads to a really good game, I should be investing upwards of fifteen hours a week into solid preparation for this week's (or this month's) games. I don't do that, and sometimes I feel guilty about it, and then I decide that being guilty about it is daft, and stop. But still, yeah, lot of work.
First up, I like my campaign world. My campaign multiverse, even, because it has its own cosmology, more or less ripped off from Spelljammer and Planescape, and pushed to fit where they didn't quite mesh, and with bits bolted on at various points. As an aside, I want to read some of Michael Moorcock's stuff again, and would appreciate a loan of some from anyone local-ish. It's very much my campaign world, with a few concessions to the sensibilities of my players - but it's all personal. I know that world inside and out; I can write short essays on the tax practices of a given kingdom off the top of my head, and tell you exactly which of the three kinds of luminescent fruits is a hallucinogen that only works for halfbreeds. It's my world, I built it, I spend a lot of time thinking about new stuff to do in it.
Second up, I like running games. The mixture of acting and calculating and on-the-spot-plotting and improvisation is something I'm really rather good at. I may need to emote a bit more, but I'm working on that too.
And third up, I don't like playing all that much. Other people run games in published worlds, which are kinda dull and not as alive as home-built ones, or they run sci-fi, or superhero games, or White Wolf stuff, which I've tried, but which I'm not all that enthused about. I've yet to find anyone who's running a decent D&D campaign in a home-built world, let alone one which I'd actually like to play in. If someone does that, sure, I'll play. No, I'm not all that interested in other systems - D&D took me long enough to learn, and I know it well now; I can't be bothered to learn another one, and I really can't be bothered to learn the ones where the system and the world are tied together. Yech.
High and low fantasy, now. This is one that bugs me. I know a good few people who like low-fantasy games - I'm married to one, even. But low fantasy... well, it bores me. I read, write, play fantasy so that I can deal with things that are not possible in this world. The notion of a game where it's swords and mud, well, that was here six hundred years ago. I'm much more interested in examining the consequences of a world where anyone, given opportunity, time, and some basic suitability, can create magical items, be served by undead, travel to other planes, or talk to rocks. Low fantasy misses something essential, to me - it doesn't think it through. You have wizards who can do incredible things, and they're not hired by monarchs to increase their prestige, de Medici style, or to wipe out their enemies. And if the wizards can't do incredible things, then, um, what's the point? People point at low-fantasy books, like The Mists of Avalon. And sure, that was cool, but the bits that stick most in my mind from that are the bits that weren't low-fantasy; the Isle of Avalon moving in and out of the Real World, for instance. In my mind, at least, people will use whatever they can get their hands on to make their lives more comfortable, easier, or interesting. For me, trying to run a low-fantasy fantasy setting is like trying to run a low-science modern setting.
So, enough rambling. Tell me what you think.
People know I'm a gamer. They might not know the word "gamer", but they know I play D&D, and every now and then I'll get asked how the D&D is going - usually in work, since most non-work people will know to ask about the campaign, or even campaigns. I used to just mumble something about it going well, but of late I've decided that fuck it, you ask one of my co-workers about soccer, and you'll have to gag him to stop him talking, so why shouldn't I do likewise? So now, when people ask, I set off into a big long ramble about the current plots, and what the PCs have done, and what this NPC did, and why time travel is a bad idea, and why I'm really glad I got rid of speak with the dead and resurrect and (*spit*) time pool. And instead of backing off in a stunned way, they... ask questions.
One of the more thoughtful ones that gets asked once in a while is "So why do you run games, and not play them? It sounds like a lot of work."
And sometimes I'm hard put to answer that one. It's a lot of work, yeah. And even though it's a lot of work, I don't put as much into it as I feel I should. By rights, with the three hours preparation to one hour's playing that leads to a really good game, I should be investing upwards of fifteen hours a week into solid preparation for this week's (or this month's) games. I don't do that, and sometimes I feel guilty about it, and then I decide that being guilty about it is daft, and stop. But still, yeah, lot of work.
First up, I like my campaign world. My campaign multiverse, even, because it has its own cosmology, more or less ripped off from Spelljammer and Planescape, and pushed to fit where they didn't quite mesh, and with bits bolted on at various points. As an aside, I want to read some of Michael Moorcock's stuff again, and would appreciate a loan of some from anyone local-ish. It's very much my campaign world, with a few concessions to the sensibilities of my players - but it's all personal. I know that world inside and out; I can write short essays on the tax practices of a given kingdom off the top of my head, and tell you exactly which of the three kinds of luminescent fruits is a hallucinogen that only works for halfbreeds. It's my world, I built it, I spend a lot of time thinking about new stuff to do in it.
Second up, I like running games. The mixture of acting and calculating and on-the-spot-plotting and improvisation is something I'm really rather good at. I may need to emote a bit more, but I'm working on that too.
And third up, I don't like playing all that much. Other people run games in published worlds, which are kinda dull and not as alive as home-built ones, or they run sci-fi, or superhero games, or White Wolf stuff, which I've tried, but which I'm not all that enthused about. I've yet to find anyone who's running a decent D&D campaign in a home-built world, let alone one which I'd actually like to play in. If someone does that, sure, I'll play. No, I'm not all that interested in other systems - D&D took me long enough to learn, and I know it well now; I can't be bothered to learn another one, and I really can't be bothered to learn the ones where the system and the world are tied together. Yech.
High and low fantasy, now. This is one that bugs me. I know a good few people who like low-fantasy games - I'm married to one, even. But low fantasy... well, it bores me. I read, write, play fantasy so that I can deal with things that are not possible in this world. The notion of a game where it's swords and mud, well, that was here six hundred years ago. I'm much more interested in examining the consequences of a world where anyone, given opportunity, time, and some basic suitability, can create magical items, be served by undead, travel to other planes, or talk to rocks. Low fantasy misses something essential, to me - it doesn't think it through. You have wizards who can do incredible things, and they're not hired by monarchs to increase their prestige, de Medici style, or to wipe out their enemies. And if the wizards can't do incredible things, then, um, what's the point? People point at low-fantasy books, like The Mists of Avalon. And sure, that was cool, but the bits that stick most in my mind from that are the bits that weren't low-fantasy; the Isle of Avalon moving in and out of the Real World, for instance. In my mind, at least, people will use whatever they can get their hands on to make their lives more comfortable, easier, or interesting. For me, trying to run a low-fantasy fantasy setting is like trying to run a low-science modern setting.
So, enough rambling. Tell me what you think.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
I can see the appeal of running games far more easily than the appeal of playing - the whole world-building and playing god thing has huge amounts of potential for complexity, even without then seeing how people interact with it... So, um, yeah.
From:
no subject
From:
random comment (cause i was trying to figure out if i knew you...i don't think i do)
"In my mind, at least, people will use whatever they can get their hands on to make their lives more comfortable, easier, or interesting" - and abused and used for nefarious purposes ;)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
As to the whole high/low fantasy thing, I personally prefer high fantasy since it offers more opportunities for more cinematic moments. There's only so many times that charging into a regular battle is entertaining but you have more options in high fantasy to make it more dangerous or interesting. A desperate swordfight is one thing, a desperate swordfight over an active volcano is quite another.
From:
no subject
On the other hand, I haven't played for two or three years either, because the group I game with are heavily into playing assassins and thieves and such and I get tired of all the underhanded dealings with the world and backstabbings -- though I must say that everyone is extremely loyal to each other; our party has been together for years in game time, and they're all reasonably good friends.
He To Whom I Am Married and Friend C both have very complex original campaign worlds, in which we have been playing for, well, decades now (though neither is afraid to incorporate something interesting from a book they've read or movie they've seen -- Friend C is a Big Fan of Eddings, for example, so we have done the whole Child of Light/Dark thing). So that the characters can just say, well, I'm off for Tyrsis or Restinford or Keg and it's assumed that they know where they're going and how long it's going to take and that they have plenty of supplies. They're known and have reputations in all of those places. They have a favorite inn in all of those places. There are certain places where we have to go again and again and again to find things and we have learned to "avoid that room, that's where the hook horrors live" or "that used to be the torture chamber; it won't be there."
Um. Where was I going with this?
From:
no subject
Doesn't matter, more!
From:
no subject
The pre-built world I've got in my gaming life right now is in the Exalted game that I'm running. Something about the setting piqued my interest, and I decided to run it. I think it has something to do with the fact that, while it's a high-fantasy setting, it's taking place in the ruins of a world that was even higher fantasy. I'm drawn to try and play out with the characters the sense of loss inherent in it, and to instill in them the desire to try to bring about that age again. In some sense I'm not being terribly strict with the source material. I've taken what interested me and decided what themes I want to play with, the rest of the "canon" material can either go away or change to suit my whims. I run mostly from the top of my head, with little or no planning, and generally feel that I'm doing a horrible job. The players, however, are always clamoring for another session as soon as possible, so I guess I'm doing well enough for now.
Wow, that was more rambling than I intended...
From:
no subject
So the distinction between "high" and "low" doesn't bother me. You can have dragons and catch-all curemongers and rings of power and the whole shebang, or you can make spellcasters shed a cupful of blood every time they want to, I don't know, detect magic. It doesn't matter, as long as it hangs together and makes sense according to the game universe.
I suppose I'm talking about consequences. Actions must have reasonable consequences, within the parameters of the world, for the setting to interest me. So it's no use allowing players to do stupid things and then rescuing them at the last minute with a deus ex machina. For me, that kind of deflates the fun, makes it seem as though it's all just a game (*hee hee*). The whizz-bang stuff is great because it allows us (players) to experiment with phenomena that don't exist in the real world, but a given effect won't thrill me unless I can see that the implications it has for the rest of the world have been taken on board.
Which is, of course, a large part of what I like about Davon :-) *stroke stroke, simper simper*
(I'm rambling. Sorry. But I've been thinking about this a lot, in building the world for my NaNoWriMo attempt.)
From:
no subject
Consequences are, indeed, where it's at. The road not taken is as much a source of future events as the road taken, and the consequences of both action and inaction are essential for versimilitude. It's mostly those consequences that drive campaigns, if they're done right - letting the locals see you throw a lightening bolt, for instance, in Kingfisher's Way, will have a few effects. They'll be scared of you. They may run to you for help if something bigger and badder arrives along. And they'll shop you to the anti-magic factions pretty damn fast, which is not the case if what you're throwing around are healing spells.
Lemme copy off the definition of Rat Bastardry, from the Rat Bastard DMs Club:
A philosophy that asserts that a role-playing game's capacity for providing enjoyment can be greatly increased by weaving a complex web of psychological challenges, moral or ethical dilemmas, frequent plot twists, and unforeseen consequences to create a gaming environment with verisimilitude that rises above the mundane with the ultimate aim of creating an atmosphere of awed paranoia for the players.
That's what I'm after.
From:
no subject
Oh btw Gothwalk I have a number of the Moorcock Novels if you would like to borrow.
As to the running or not running games conversation I would have to say that I actually prefer running games as I wouldn't be a natural leader and have a tendance to sit back in groups (I am growing out of that) so I enjoy the attention running a game allows me :¬)
As to the published vrs home-made debate, I think the issue is actually how familliar the person running the game is with the setting in general and how well that allows that person to "wing it" on demand (players being the uncooperative so-and-so's that they are). If you are running a setting you created yourself of course you are going to be able to do stuff on the fly quite fluidly which generally leads to more fun for the players. To do that with the same ease in a published setting you really have to know it inside and out - having to reference a book in the middle of a scene really takes the players out of the moment, killing the tension you spent the last half hour or more trying to build.
-Fearghus
From:
no subject
Going with the definitions you use, I prefer high fantasy very much so over the low. It's more interesting, it's more fun, it can bring more levels to a game. I've had people try to run low-fantasy games when I've been playing, and you know, after one session where we spent the entire time walking through the woods, where we encountered evil random things (but not, like, magic evil things), oh, and vicious swarms of bees, and rain, I was ready to never play with them again. And we were all ready to strangle the DM. It wasn't pretty. My favorites have been crazy highly magical interesting games, really. I'm all about character development, so to me, it's okay if things move a little bit slowly to allow for that, but there has to be more going on than rain.
I think I've been spoiled in that most of my DMs and GMs have pretty much written their own games, most set in their own worlds, but not exclusively. And they, like you, put much time and thought and planning into it. But even still, I do feel it's more dependent on the DM and players to make it interesting and keep it interesting, whether it's straight out of a book or their heads. And a lot of that is willingness to compromise, bend or change the rules, make up new ones when the old ones aren't adequate or don't exist. (ex: we had a rule set up for chance of pregnancy)
I actually have never run a game, though my game group did try to convince me it was my turn. I prefer to be a player, though, having not given it a go, maybe I would like DMing too. I like to be the tool of the DM for the most part, which has worked fairly well for me. It's not quite like being a scripted character, more that I'm okay going in the direction of most interesting progress for the game.
So, um, yeah, those are my thoughts, I guess. Oh, and one other... I've tried playing White Wolf, and Cyberpunk, and in a way I enjoyed them, but the games themselves were kind of restrictive. Cyberpunk was fun, but always seemed kind of limited in what one could really do, especially with a group. Soloing in CP was fine, and I think that may be because it's more like reading a generic cyberpunk novel. You get too many characters acting on their own, it gets messy. To each their own though...
From:
no subject
i like the idea that one can get realy strong and powerful and have
great items to do great things with. I like a game that lets me think of something that is normal not doable and be able to do it.
It feels like one has achived more if they can get the character to thoes levels and it is even better when one gets to do this in a home grown world as it a way one become part of the history of that world and feels like they have help achieve something ina world that belongs to the DM and in some cases become a plot line for newer players.
I think the idea of building a world of your own is great ok i am not a DM/GM yet but am planing on it. i know it take a long time to get going as so far i have spent what 6/7 months just building my world ok for you drew you wont realy like it as it is a white wolf game. but i do like how it work and in the game it is a high powered players trying things one normaly cant do.
so yes it is fun haveing ones one settiings and world ideas and how things should be i would thing it gives one great pride to see ones worl become what it has become.
From:
Notes
The central problem of commercial gaming fantasy is consistency. Like Puritybrown and to an extent Inanna, I am playing for a sense of immersion and a sense of possibility that I rarely get outside the arena of gaming, in the best kind of books. And also like the aforementioned, inconsistency bothers me. With, for instance, the plentiful availability of magic, the world /changes/ from what we traditionally understand our starting point to be - that is to say, feudal Europe. That change either has to be addressed by (for example) making magic a sparse and jealously guarded commodity, which is the 'out' used in most commercial fantasy, or by changing the players notions of what the world is like and what is possible, which is the one used in most personally created milieux.
I have no problem with playing either low fantasy or high fantasy, or any value between the two crude extremes. In my own games, I /tend/ towards low fantasy for a number of reasons: it gives the PCs more room to grow, it generally means the PCs spend more time working with motivations of creatures they at least have a passing familiarity with, and it gives more of an opportunity to be tested by natural phenomena (and therefore hopefully inspire resourcefulness amongst the players) than if /Resist Elements/ were available to everyone. OTOH anything goes at higher levels: I support fully the notion of the fantastic as possible and indeed commonplace within certain limits, and I am profoundly disinterested in the complicated medieval combat simulation that DnD originally sprang from. The one thing which is associated with high fantasy that usually bugs the **** out of me is the extended good-versus-Eeeevil implacable conflict/destiny/shining warriors of light stuff which, to me, offers little opportunity to develop my understanding of human nature. Eddings, Feist, Brooks, etc: all of those annoy me exceptionally for that reason: their worlds and their characters are not ambiguous enough to let true light in.
Add to this a rather sarcastic and embittered temperament, and you can see where my current gaming style comes from...
(The offer of that email game is still open BTW, albeit with rather increased latency.)
From:
no subject