Results 31 to 37 of 37
-
2017-06-16, 09:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
-
2017-06-16, 09:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Duitsland
- Gender
Re: How much 'filler' should a campaign have?
I think part of the issue is that you've defined 'filler' as 'stuff that isn't there to advance the plot or characterize characters or do anything else of value, but also isn't enjoyable to play through', then asked 'How much of this entirely bad thing should a game have?' when the answer is, using that definition: none.
Now, the issue that arises in play most often, I think, is when someone plays through 'filler' that was made to be enjoyable to play through, but fails to be that, or isn't for other reasons (say, playstyle differences, or differing preferences for how combat is).
-
2017-06-16, 04:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2017
- Location
- Inner Palace, Holy Terra
- Gender
Re: How much 'filler' should a campaign have?
I generally operate on the principle that one big thing should happen each session. That big thing could be a major engagement, or a non-combat discovery, and it should take up about half the session. The the rest of the session is either the lead-up to it or dealing with the aftermath.
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
-
2017-06-16, 05:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
Re: How much 'filler' should a campaign have?
Absolutely agree.
That's specifically why I advised finding out what the other players consider to be fun.
If the other players are having fun, but you're not, then you need to talk to them -- as a group or individually -- and work out how you can all have fun together.
If nobody is having fun at these "filler" encounters, then your DM needs to hear about this, and talking things out will also help solve the issue.I want you to PEACH me as hard as you can.
-
2017-06-16, 08:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2016
- Location
- SoCal
- Gender
-
2017-06-16, 09:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
Re: How much 'filler' should a campaign have?
Ah, of course.
If there is any collaborative story telling, then there must be only collaborative story telling, and nothing else.
Yes, that's certainly how people actually play all over the world, and there's no reason to ever even try to support a mixture of collaborative story telling with any game mechanics. I mean, who would even want to tell a story where an unexpected result was possible?I want you to PEACH me as hard as you can.
-
2017-06-17, 10:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
Re: How much 'filler' should a campaign have?
Three things effect the game: Social views, Inter-social actions and Houserules. So first off there is no ''wrong'' way....any way is fine. But when things are not working, is when you should look at them and change them.
For our over all example, lets use a game of Baseball. You get together with a group of people to play baseball....but instead of using a ''baseball'' you will use an inflated beachball. Using the beachball radical changes the game...so much you can't even really play, but everyone insists that they ''have to use only an inflated beachball to play baseball.'' So other changes are made on top of the first change: The pitcher stands closer to the batter, the batter uses a plastic bat and everyone takes off their baseball gloves. This makes the game sort of playable, but it's sure nothing like normal baseball. And most of the players love the new way to play, and just dismiss any problems. Though some players don't find this new way to play as much fun as normal baseball....and they go online and post about it.
1.Social Views: This is where the people in the group all decide on ''Social'' things. Most people have a huge ton of social views. For example they might say ''lying is wrong always'', and so this also means no fictional npcs can lie in the game.
2.Inter-social actions This is actions taken, relating to the social views. And how the game is run. You'd think they would be together, but oddly they are not for most people. Most often the actions are what to do...or not do..when someone does..or does not do something. For example a Social View might be ''everyone must show up on time'', and then the Inter-social action would be ''what to do when someone is not on time. And this is where the huge disconnect comes in. Everyone has a clear social view, but at the same time does not want any actions taken. So Larry is three hours late to every game, and everyone is just like ''ok, no matter how much it disrupts the game and the night.
3.Houserules Are rules that change the game.
So you put all the different things together and you get a ''way'' or ''style'' of gaming for a group. Some people are zelots about the way ''things must be'', some people ''think the way they do it sounds right" for whatever reasons and some people just ''go along''. The zekots have no problem, the game is great and perfect for them....but the other two might not be having as much fun or like the game play.
Ok, so all that being said, we can get back to Focus in the game. A fast paced, tight, action packed focused game has no filler. But it only works with the right style. First off you can only have focus and immersion if the DM is on board with the idea. And even then they can't have the ''odd ideas'' that don't fit with focus and immersion. For example: in my game players are not allowed to break the focus of the game play, for any reason. The game is about X, play. Players get three warnings, then are told to leave the game. Harsh, yes, but it works. Though this goes back to the social views of ''this game is not fair'', ''the DM is in charge'' and ''we all want a type of game no matter what''.
Another good example is a five second rule. When any action happens in my game, a player has five seconds to respond. Anything else, even a question, has their turn skipped. Again, yes, harsh. But again this rule protects the good players that ''want to play'' from the ones that want ''other things''.
A classic ''burnout game'' that I run is ''trapped in the Abyss''. The characters get tossed in the Abyss and must escape. It's not a ''DM walks over to players and asks if they want to do this adventure'', it's a ''players show up to play an unknown adventure.'' This is where house rules come in as I use the chaotic evil semi senescent 2E Abyss with all the magic changes, plus also a hostile environment beyond the rulebooks and most likely a curse or such. All ''surprises'' and ''unwillingly'' done to the PCs.
It all comes down to the above three things, and how you play the game. My way is not right....my way works to make the game exactly what I and my players want: a fast paced, tight, action packed focused game has no filler. But this is where you need to look at all the Social views, social interactions and Houserules you use in your game....and if ''something is wrong'', you need to change one or more of them things.
I'm playing Baseball with a baseball that is on fire, bases that are on fire, fireworks going off across the field and a chocolate fountain in the dugout(and free donuts, and everyone in the stands is allowed to yell and scream and fight if they want too). But that is just my game. So say your playing baseball with a golf ball instead of a base ball....and ''something'' about the game just is not working out and it's not fun. Well, you don't need to add fire and copy my game...but you do need to change something....and change the right thing(s)....like change that golf ball to even a softball, and you will have a good game.