Have you played/GMed in one?
I find the idea fascinating. Some have compared it to an MMORPG before MMORPGs existed.
It is frustrating hearing about a "lost" rule that you've been using and talking about for decades.
One thing I think they are getting wrong is the insistence that there is no story. Even Dave Arneson, back in the early days, used a system of event cards to create story elements. You would draw one of these cards at regular intervals to drive plot points. IMO this is crucial to making the world feel alive. For example, you might write a script of multiple cards adding one new card to the event deck every time another is drawn. These new cards will describe what happens if the previous card's situation is not acted upon. So, if there is a vampire plot, the first card might be rumors of missing villagers, the second card will be an entire village disappearing, and the third card will be an invading vampire army. As long as the players don't follow up on the leads, the situation will get worse and worse. And because these cards are drawn randomly from a deck of cards, the timeframe is unpredictable.
No, I have never player or GM'ed one. Even though I did start back in the 70's, we never had more than a dozen active players in the area at the same time. The most I ever had at the table was 12 and it was much more common to have half that number. Large groups (6-10) are manageable in OD&D so it never occurred to me to run separate groups.
Honestly, the Gygaxian campaign holds no appeal to me. The charm of D&D is having a group of friends sharing an adventure together. The "west marches" style of beginning and ending every session at the home-base is equally unappealing. These days a gaming session is only three hours long. As a player, I don't want to waste much of that time trudging back and forth to an adventure site that we will visit over the course of several sessions. As a DM, I don't want to adjudicate what will happen at an adventure site during each of the week-long periods between sessions.
I did make one attempt to join such a campaign on Roll20 last year. But the process involved too much mechanical meta-gaming on Discord to make things happen, and I realized that it would potentially involve different players and even different DM's each session. It seemed like an old-school version of Adventure League. I dropped before my first session. The good news is that if you like that sort of gaming, you can find it online. And it's always good to see people exploring new ways to play, even if (especially if) they are actually not new at all.
Quote from: Vidgrip on April 21, 2022, 10:19:35 AM
No, I have never player or GM'ed one. Even though I did start back in the 70's, we never had more than a dozen active players in the area at the same time. The most I ever had at the table was 12 and it was much more common to have half that number. Large groups (6-10) are manageable in OD&D so it never occurred to me to run separate groups.
Hm, I didn't get out of any of this that a "Gygaxian Campaign" necessitates either very large groups, nor multiple groups. It accommodates them, yes, but it's not essential to running this type of game as I understand it.
To the OP: yep, this is how we played in the 70's and 80's in our group(s), and is the only sort of game I've ever DM'd, save one. As the video notes, groups in this sort of game tend to grow over time (whereas the opposite is more likely to happen in what he calls "episodic" games, in my experience).
I've dabbled in the Gygaxian campaign, or maybe "edged" into it is a better expression. However, for various non-gaming reasons, I've never really had the option to run a game on the same night every week, let alone multiple nights. For longer, less frequent sessions, I've found other styles to work better. This is me making the most of what is possible rather than my first choice on how to do it.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 21, 2022, 09:20:20 AM
It is frustrating hearing about a "lost" rule that you've been using and talking about for decades.
One thing I think they are getting wrong is the insistence that there is no story. Even Dave Arneson, back in the early days, used a system of event cards to create story elements. You would draw one of these cards at regular intervals to drive plot points. IMO this is crucial to making the world feel alive. For example, you might write a script of multiple cards adding one new card to the event deck every time another is drawn. These new cards will describe what happens if the previous card's situation is not acted upon. So, if there is a vampire plot, the first card might be rumors of missing villagers, the second card will be an entire village disappearing, and the third card will be an invading vampire army. As long as the players don't follow up on the leads, the situation will get worse and worse. And because these cards are drawn randomly from a deck of cards, the timeframe is unpredictable.
That sounds like an amazing mechanic. Doesn't Masterbook do something like that? Honestly, "story" is overrated. Improv theatre (which is basically what RPGs are most analogous to) is going to produce very different results from a single person writing a script. Most adventures are very linear for cost reasons (writing it as a CYOA would result in exponentially ballooning page count) and this ignores the strength of RPG stories to be devised on the fly by the GM. Event cards sound like a decent compromise between linear adventures and GMs making things up on the fly. You could devise potentially infinite subplots into sellable card packs and then mix-and-match them to produce unpredictable stories.
We have rediscovered this long forgotten rule to D&D gaming, rolling dice! Edit: After 6th/7th edition goes full story telling with no dice.
My early campaigns were a lot like this, but I've been lazy the last decade or more and I end up running things from a module and the entire style and philosophy has changed. I miss the older days but have a really hard time selling it to modern day players.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 21, 2022, 09:20:20 AM
It is frustrating hearing about a "lost" rule that you've been using and talking about for decades.
I understand.
From the other side, I had never heard of such a thing until it was "rediscovered".
QuoteOne thing I think they are getting wrong is the insistence that there is no story. Even Dave Arneson, back in the early days, used a system of event cards to create story elements. You would draw one of these cards at regular intervals to drive plot points. IMO this is crucial to making the world feel alive. For example, you might write a script of multiple cards adding one new card to the event deck every time another is drawn. These new cards will describe what happens if the previous card's situation is not acted upon. So, if there is a vampire plot, the first card might be rumors of missing villagers, the second card will be an entire village disappearing, and the third card will be an invading vampire army. As long as the players don't follow up on the leads, the situation will get worse and worse. And because these cards are drawn randomly from a deck of cards, the timeframe is unpredictable.
I agree. it's just a different way of presenting the world and it's situations to the players.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 21, 2022, 01:52:25 AM
Have you played/GMed in one?
I find the idea fascinating. Some have compared it to an MMORPG before MMORPGs existed.
No, however I am very interested. If you are interested in accounts of how those kinds of games are run you can look at this video
this thread
https://twitter.com/DanielJWrites/status/1491779291411066885 (https://twitter.com/DanielJWrites/status/1491779291411066885)
And this blog. Look for posts about Trollopolus
https://jeffro.wordpress.com/2022/04/08/what-is-the-brosr/ (https://jeffro.wordpress.com/2022/04/08/what-is-the-brosr/)
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 21, 2022, 09:20:20 AM
It is frustrating hearing about a "lost" rule that you've been using and talking about for decades.
One thing I think they are getting wrong is the insistence that there is no story. Even Dave Arneson, back in the early days, used a system of event cards to create story elements. You would draw one of these cards at regular intervals to drive plot points. IMO this is crucial to making the world feel alive. For example, you might write a script of multiple cards adding one new card to the event deck every time another is drawn. These new cards will describe what happens if the previous card's situation is not acted upon. So, if there is a vampire plot, the first card might be rumors of missing villagers, the second card will be an entire village disappearing, and the third card will be an invading vampire army. As long as the players don't follow up on the leads, the situation will get worse and worse. And because these cards are drawn randomly from a deck of cards, the timeframe is unpredictable.
What makes the Gygaxian 1:1 campaigns come alive is the Patron players and their schemes. Instead of the GM coming up with a grand narrative a lot of that ends up happening as a by-product of patron players manipulating players and each other. Various wars and so on. And the beauty of it is it's all dynamic. Look at the Trollopolus campaign. It actually explains exactly how to make this sort of thing interesting.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 21, 2022, 09:20:20 AM
It is frustrating hearing about a "lost" rule that you've been using and talking about for decades.
One thing I think they are getting wrong is the insistence that there is no story. Even Dave Arneson, back in the early days, used a system of event cards to create story elements. You would draw one of these cards at regular intervals to drive plot points. IMO this is crucial to making the world feel alive. For example, you might write a script of multiple cards adding one new card to the event deck every time another is drawn. These new cards will describe what happens if the previous card's situation is not acted upon. So, if there is a vampire plot, the first card might be rumors of missing villagers, the second card will be an entire village disappearing, and the third card will be an invading vampire army. As long as the players don't follow up on the leads, the situation will get worse and worse. And because these cards are drawn randomly from a deck of cards, the timeframe is unpredictable.
Despite the name, that's still not the kind of thing a lot of us mean by "story" in these debates. It's just a set of possible events that can happen, along with their consequences. That's fully compatible with a simulationist/emulationist approach, which is to present a set of circumstances to the players and let them do what they want with it, with logical consequences for their actions.
What we mean my story is when the DM has a particular plot planned out and will guide -- whether gently or not -- the PCs toward its major plot points and conclusion.
I think a true gygaxian or west marches campaign can only happen when you've got excessive numbers of players and few DMs. Sometime in the 80s that dynamic changed and we got different groups each with a DM. That started the sort of campaigns Wizards is exploiting now, with the same group of characters adventuring together until high level of the campaign explodes.
Quote from: Ruprecht on April 24, 2022, 12:52:51 AMI think a true gygaxian or west marches campaign can only happen when you've got excessive numbers of players and few DMs.
I don't think this is really the case. Neither 1:1 time nor open table gaming require a large number of players. I've had great success with an open table game with just a normal amount of players. The only thing that really needs a large player base it is having player patrons, but this is really just a supplementary aspect of the game. Plus, having player patrons requires high level characters which requires that the game has been ongoing for a long time.
So the best bet is to just start with the players you have and see what happens. If it grows great, if not then will still be fun. And having multiple DMs will really only be a need if your campaign is massive as it is a sub-optimal choice. Better to have multiple DMs each running their own campaigns.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 24, 2022, 09:37:06 PM
Quote from: Ruprecht on April 24, 2022, 12:52:51 AMI think a true gygaxian or west marches campaign can only happen when you've got excessive numbers of players and few DMs.
I don't think this is really the case. Neither 1:1 time nor open table gaming require a large number of players. I've had great success with an open table game with just a normal amount of players. The only thing that really needs a large player base it is having player patrons, but this is really just a supplementary aspect of the game. Plus, having player patrons requires high level characters which requires that the game has been ongoing for a long time.
So the best bet is to just start with the players you have and see what happens. If it grows great, if not then will still be fun. And having multiple DMs will really only be a need if your campaign is massive as it is a sub-optimal choice. Better to have multiple DMs each running their own campaigns.
Well, you as the DM could just give a few players control of patron characters, letting them make decisions for the NPCs.
:) I tried to a little bit. But it gets harder as I got older because of health and scheduling issues.
It can be really fun having an area where cooperating loose confederations, a.k.a. "allies of convenience" (you were present that day at the game store when I ran my table), end up appreciating the friendly competition versus subsequent exploring parties. Naturally larger 'dungeon spaces' works better for this, so like a city district, dungeon, or hedge maze hex with lots of content. Leaving tidbits of party history adds to future mysteries for other parties, and well, players being players, there's a bit of having fun with following parties (arranging corpses in bizarre formations, weird fake sigils, other silliness). That said, you as GM should take notes for consistency.
I miss it, but I could imagine how cool and novel it must have been in the 1970s. Now with MMOs and virtual spaces it seems old hat, and partially ruined by reluctance about anti-social behavior. But if you have a trustworthy GM it is like having a trustworthy server with levels of play personalization beyond typical video game scope. Something about the human touch is still hard to beat.
I kinda-sorta run my DCC campaign in that fashion, at least from the standpoint of players having multiple PCs and giving the players adventure options (e.g., Do you want to help the dwarves protect the Glory Hole Dwarven Mine? Go to Varin's Firth to retrieve your silver stockpile? Perform one of quests that Freya requires for her to restore Oger's shattered legs? Etc.). Where I struggle is that I am player-limited (currently at 4) and that not all players want to do more than show up for a session and roll dice.
One thing that I am not doing is the commute from the safe town/keep to the adventure-job in the morning and return in the evening. Too CRPG for me -- YMMV. That said, urban areas are relatively safe for the PCs, assuming that they are laying low. Although, a bad roll on the laying-low carousing table (something I have all PCs periodically do) can thwart that.
Quote from: Opaopajr on April 25, 2022, 11:13:28 PMI miss it, but I could imagine how cool and novel it must have been in the 1970s. Now with MMOs and virtual spaces it seems old hat, and partially ruined by reluctance about anti-social behavior.
Try running a game for people who have never played D&D before or, better yet, have never even heard of D&D. This happened to me when I started playing with my kids and their friends. It was totally eye opening and much of my current day philosophy on gaming is based on these experiences.
Quote from: dkabq on April 26, 2022, 07:12:25 AMOne thing that I am not doing is the commute from the safe town/keep to the adventure-job in the morning and return in the evening. Too CRPG for me -- YMMV.
I'm a big proponent of returning to base but I totally understand that this depends mostly on how long the session is. I normally play on Sundays so my game sessions are from four to six hours long. Returning back to town is usually a nice closure to the session so it works naturally. If I was playing a shorter weeknight game of only two hours or so, it would be a big hinderance to the flow of play.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on April 24, 2022, 10:19:19 PMWell, you as the DM could just give a few players control of patron characters, letting them make decisions for the NPCs.
Honestly, this idea never even crossed my mind. When I started playing my D&D games in this manner, one of my core principles was the level advancement had to be earned and wasn't just a pacing mechanic. So, no fudging dice and no balancing encounters to the party. If you did something stupid you'd die.
Because of this, having a high level character with all the power and influence such a character has is an achievement. That is the goal of playing in the campaign, to do something that affects the game world. Whether that is creating a new guild or clearing land and building a settlement. Your character's actions will affect all other characters, even if you aren't playing anymore.
So to just hand out a character with this level of power is counter productive to that goal.
I am hopeful that one day I can GM a "MMORPG" campaign.
I would love to play random sessions, both online and offline, and also PbP in the same world, at the same time.
The funny thing is, nowadays there are so many "solo" RPGs, why not try something like that instead?
A few GMs could run adventures for dozens of players. What is better, there will be little need for NPCs.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 26, 2022, 12:00:28 PM
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on April 24, 2022, 10:19:19 PMWell, you as the DM could just give a few players control of patron characters, letting them make decisions for the NPCs.
Honestly, this idea never even crossed my mind. When I started playing my D&D games in this manner, one of my core principles was the level advancement had to be earned and wasn't just a pacing mechanic. So, no fudging dice and no balancing encounters to the party. If you did something stupid you'd die.
Because of this, having a high level character with all the power and influence such a character has is an achievement. That is the goal of playing in the campaign, to do something that affects the game world. Whether that is creating a new guild or clearing land and building a settlement. Your character's actions will affect all other characters, even if you aren't playing anymore.
So to just hand out a character with this level of power is counter productive to that goal.
I only do it with people who I know aren't playing anyway and probably never will outside of that. So they're not really players still, so it isn't the same as a regular player getting free level ups. Or players who are new and just getting their feet wet and I want to slowly introduce to the game. They're just doing my work for me in a way.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on April 21, 2022, 01:52:25 AM
Have you played/GMed in one?
I find the idea fascinating. Some have compared it to an MMORPG before MMORPGs existed.
Yes and no. I ran OD&D for two different groups that occasionally crossed over. I kept time, but not the 1:1 way outlined in 1e DMG. Certain events would put you in a timeout. Training, creating an item/magic item, healing, and researching a custom spell are good examples.
Most players had 2-3 characters in their stable. Generally, a player could suspend their activity if they really wanted to participate with a particular character. I had them roll % to see how much progress was lost AFTER they returned from the adventure and decided to resume the activity.
Do I run a Gygaxian campaign?
Yes. It's pretty much all I do.
Do I do what's in the video? Eh. Somewhat. I run an open table. I don't consider 1:1 time to be a significant part of this style, but I do use it as a floor for the sole reason of keeping campaign time flowing. Because what I really enjoy in a long-term campaign is when players can play the offspring of their original player characters in a world that was impacted and to a degree built by those original PCs.
The thing is, Gary actually did a series of hardbacks called the "Gygaxian Fantasy Series" published by Troll Lord Games. And there's zero intersection between what you'll find in those books and what is described in this video. Which isn't to say they're at odds. They're totally compatible with one another. Just that they're addressing different issues. For a campaign to be called Gygaxian, it ought to lean on those elements. I'm not convinced those things listed in the video are at the forefront of what Gary thought was important in running a good, fun game.
His reason for doing the Gygaxian Fantasy Series is because what he felt was missing in a lot of the published modules and games he played in or observed was detail--the kind of detail that builds atmosphere and brings the game to life. When I go back and read his old modules, I can totally see how effectively he uses detail. Tomb of Horrors is one of my favorite examples, because it provides so rich an atmosphere while keeping descriptions very brief.
Quote from: Opaopajr on April 25, 2022, 11:13:28 PM
I miss it, but I could imagine how cool and novel it must have been in the 1970s. Now with MMOs and virtual spaces it seems old hat, and partially ruined by reluctance about anti-social behavior. But if you have a trustworthy GM it is like having a trustworthy server with levels of play personalization beyond typical video game scope. Something about the human touch is still hard to beat.
Wait, you think anti social behavior should be condoned?