Deepblue706
2010-04-01, 03:52 PM
I've never had a clear picture of how most other DMs like to run sessions and campaigns. I catch a few glimpses of individual opinions, when discussions around here, for instance, mention "DM fiat", in reference to instances where one PC might play more or less importance in ongoing activities than is often believed they should. The term "DM Fiat" has some implications in itself; Fiat is generally a word to be taken as an arbitrary decree, with itself might be implied to be unreasonable, which would probably be expected to be contrary to "normal gameplay".
But, I'm not posting this to start a debate on what we all believe to be unreasonable with certain DM rulings, or how any opinion is necessarily ignorant. Rather, I want to focus on what DMs like to do for a session, a campaign, an overall good experience. Something they would expect to make up "normal gameplay" for when they DM. "DM Fiat" was simply a term that got me thinking about whether a default D&D experience really exists, and by how much tastes might vary between people. I am not seeking to disprove notions that 3.5 is unbalanced. Rather, I just want to observe what this gaming community's DMs like to do. I would appreciate it if anyone who'd like to participate would keep that in mind.
Mainly, I'd like to see if whether or not if DMs converge towards any one specific style of running a game. It might provide insights, or it might just be fun to read.
In case I haven't really made the idea clear, I'll start off:
----------------------------------------------
I am highly attracted to violence, flashing lights, loud noises, and all sorts of exciting things. I love dangerous places, legendary monsters, and pitched battles. I also like a swift pace, with constant adventuring and exploration.
So, when I DM, I try to include all of that. Sometimes I start slow, to build up suspense. And, I usually have a good deal of roleplaying with NPCs. But, I rarely openly provide all that much actual downtime. My goal is to always have something going on.
I don't actively work against players who want extra Rest, some time for Crafting, or walking around streets to make use of skills like Gather Information, but there is almost always something going on, and it'll often be time-sensitive.
My philosophy is that if there isn't really anything going on, I'm wasting time. I could have just as easily said the nothingness happened between sessions. In fact, I like it when my players can do the more tedious stuff between sessions. In my opinon, buying standard equipment, making craft rolls and all that is better checked at the beginning of a session where downtime had already been assumed, rather than declared mid-session where I'd rather have something cool happen.
The length of time where "nothing happens" (and players are free to do whatever) will usually be randomly determined, unless the players somewhere specfically engage in something which has to be continued immediately the following session (follow a new plot hook, for instance). And, I feel compelled to always have something to draw them onward; not because I don't want them to have free time, but because I want stuff to happen and saying "So you guys did nothing for a full week but farmed summoned animals for poison and scribed a million scrolls" just strikes me as totally lame when it's not absolutely necessary to a specific, in-game goal. They can still make that decision, but I'd rather rush them and constantly throw time-sensitive hooks because I simply think it's more exciting.
I've never implemented an "event clock" or anything like that, and I'll cut players some slack if they took just a few extra hours getting the Unique-Magical-Antidote to Deathly-Ill Baron Save-Me-For-Monetary-Rewards. However, if players have to retreat from Bad-Guy-Castle because they've expended their resources, I do reinforce. If players take an extra week to track down Caravan-Raider Bob, I have him raid more caravans. I think it's reasonable to have things happen while PCs do other stuff, so that they understand there are choices to be made, and they cannot expect the world to wait for their previous endeavor to finish before moving onward. I think it helps make the game interesting if PCs think things could get significantly worse if they mess up or take their situation for granted.
I don't keep many campaigns going. Usually, I run lots of small adventures that last 3-4 sessions long. If I am intent on a campaign, I usually link them together in one-way-or-another and narrow the group's focus, but the great amount of possibilities still exists. I find an ever-changing environment keeps things fresh and exciting. However, I find having too-few villains, a singular goal and a lack of new elements can easily become boring.
I not only crave a lot of action, but also a lot of variety. I constantly look for excuses to use all different sorts of monsters and in all different sorts of terrain. I am also a huge fan of terrain hazards: high cliffs, pit-falls, quicksand, really-thin ice, lava floes and more. In my opinion, it has a huge impact on gameplay, and in a hugely awesome way.
If I were to sum up my aspirations as a DM, I'd say I just try to make things Awesome.
Not every battle has to take place on the wall of a collapsed, ruined tower that is riding an avalanche down into a frozen lake said to be the home of a slumbering monster of legend. But, I think it's pretty awesome when stuff like that happens. I try to get as much of it as I can before it turns stale.
--------------------------------------------
So, that's basically it. I'd love to read what some of you folks have to say, because it'd help to develop my own perspective of other groups, and possibly help provide me with new ideas for my own games.
Thanks in advance.
But, I'm not posting this to start a debate on what we all believe to be unreasonable with certain DM rulings, or how any opinion is necessarily ignorant. Rather, I want to focus on what DMs like to do for a session, a campaign, an overall good experience. Something they would expect to make up "normal gameplay" for when they DM. "DM Fiat" was simply a term that got me thinking about whether a default D&D experience really exists, and by how much tastes might vary between people. I am not seeking to disprove notions that 3.5 is unbalanced. Rather, I just want to observe what this gaming community's DMs like to do. I would appreciate it if anyone who'd like to participate would keep that in mind.
Mainly, I'd like to see if whether or not if DMs converge towards any one specific style of running a game. It might provide insights, or it might just be fun to read.
In case I haven't really made the idea clear, I'll start off:
----------------------------------------------
I am highly attracted to violence, flashing lights, loud noises, and all sorts of exciting things. I love dangerous places, legendary monsters, and pitched battles. I also like a swift pace, with constant adventuring and exploration.
So, when I DM, I try to include all of that. Sometimes I start slow, to build up suspense. And, I usually have a good deal of roleplaying with NPCs. But, I rarely openly provide all that much actual downtime. My goal is to always have something going on.
I don't actively work against players who want extra Rest, some time for Crafting, or walking around streets to make use of skills like Gather Information, but there is almost always something going on, and it'll often be time-sensitive.
My philosophy is that if there isn't really anything going on, I'm wasting time. I could have just as easily said the nothingness happened between sessions. In fact, I like it when my players can do the more tedious stuff between sessions. In my opinon, buying standard equipment, making craft rolls and all that is better checked at the beginning of a session where downtime had already been assumed, rather than declared mid-session where I'd rather have something cool happen.
The length of time where "nothing happens" (and players are free to do whatever) will usually be randomly determined, unless the players somewhere specfically engage in something which has to be continued immediately the following session (follow a new plot hook, for instance). And, I feel compelled to always have something to draw them onward; not because I don't want them to have free time, but because I want stuff to happen and saying "So you guys did nothing for a full week but farmed summoned animals for poison and scribed a million scrolls" just strikes me as totally lame when it's not absolutely necessary to a specific, in-game goal. They can still make that decision, but I'd rather rush them and constantly throw time-sensitive hooks because I simply think it's more exciting.
I've never implemented an "event clock" or anything like that, and I'll cut players some slack if they took just a few extra hours getting the Unique-Magical-Antidote to Deathly-Ill Baron Save-Me-For-Monetary-Rewards. However, if players have to retreat from Bad-Guy-Castle because they've expended their resources, I do reinforce. If players take an extra week to track down Caravan-Raider Bob, I have him raid more caravans. I think it's reasonable to have things happen while PCs do other stuff, so that they understand there are choices to be made, and they cannot expect the world to wait for their previous endeavor to finish before moving onward. I think it helps make the game interesting if PCs think things could get significantly worse if they mess up or take their situation for granted.
I don't keep many campaigns going. Usually, I run lots of small adventures that last 3-4 sessions long. If I am intent on a campaign, I usually link them together in one-way-or-another and narrow the group's focus, but the great amount of possibilities still exists. I find an ever-changing environment keeps things fresh and exciting. However, I find having too-few villains, a singular goal and a lack of new elements can easily become boring.
I not only crave a lot of action, but also a lot of variety. I constantly look for excuses to use all different sorts of monsters and in all different sorts of terrain. I am also a huge fan of terrain hazards: high cliffs, pit-falls, quicksand, really-thin ice, lava floes and more. In my opinion, it has a huge impact on gameplay, and in a hugely awesome way.
If I were to sum up my aspirations as a DM, I'd say I just try to make things Awesome.
Not every battle has to take place on the wall of a collapsed, ruined tower that is riding an avalanche down into a frozen lake said to be the home of a slumbering monster of legend. But, I think it's pretty awesome when stuff like that happens. I try to get as much of it as I can before it turns stale.
--------------------------------------------
So, that's basically it. I'd love to read what some of you folks have to say, because it'd help to develop my own perspective of other groups, and possibly help provide me with new ideas for my own games.
Thanks in advance.