Quote from: weirdguy564 on April 17, 2022, 10:53:37 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on April 17, 2022, 01:29:15 AM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on April 14, 2022, 05:58:03 PM

I might try Pundit's own Star Adventurer,

I hope you do!

Actually, we were on the verge of trying it out. 

Then I found Dungeons and Delvers: Dice Pool Edition.  It has such a simple and effective way to play that it was our next test run game. 

But, I'm going to play Star Adventurer.  I've already rolled up my Star Knight (psychic warrior) and have the basic Galaxy lore figured out.  Aka, it's a lot like Star Wars, but it's literally not that universe.  For example, psychics are made, but only rarely born with powers.  You have to convince an existing psychic to transfer power to you, dropping that psychic down a level.

Those two games are about as "D&D" as I want to go.  The official game holds no appeal for me.  I'm not a fan of gaining lots of hit points and a fixed armor class.

Sounds great!

So I went into the podcast really rolling my eyes at the "BrOSR". I've seen their conduct on Twitter and I still take umbridge with this idea that their way is the ONLY way to play DnD ever. I can see why they think the way they do about AD&D 1e. It's right there in the rule book and DMG. Fine. But if we're going RAW because RAW is the only way to play then B/X and BECMI make no mention of 1:1 time. I think the debate here is between the Basic way and the Advanced way. B/X was made with a different methodology than AD&D 1e. Both can exist. Both are okay. I like both. I am not a "gross nerd" because I want to play B/X over AD&D.  Nor am I a "gross nerd" if I want to play Shadowrun, VtM, or the many other non DnD pen and paper RPGs. That also make no mention of any 1:1 time. You can certainly add 1:1 time to whatever game you want. That's your prerogative as a DM. But if you're adding it to any game other than AD&D 1E you are no longer playing the game as intended. You're playing the game WRONG! You are now a gross nerd. The BrOSR argument conveniently side steps that even if Gygax intended DnD to be played 1:1. Other games exist. This includes other editions of DnD made after Gygax exited TSR. Am I a gross nerd because I play "how Gygax intended" but not how the designers of 3.5 a game not written by Gygax intended? What's the objective metric here? Because the BrOSR are acting like there is one.  "We are right. You are wrong." for ALL DnD and all tabletop RPGs.

However...

The brief bits of Jeffro's opinion I could listen to through Pundit's shouting actually intrigued me. He seemed to have answers for any of the questions asked. Even if the other guys weren't really looking for answers.  This lead me down a rabbit hole. I looked at the Trollopolus stuff. I looked at other blogs with similar campaigns. And you know what, this kind of 1:1 campaign idea actually intrigues me. It will require a large degree of logistics. But I have run multi party adventures before. So I'm down for this. I love the idea of dip in dip out. The game goes on regardless of who is there or not. A lot of my best group members don't have the time they used to. And only get free time every once in a while in a non scheduled manner. So I can easily see myself running a game where people drop in and out through a discord group with a schedule negotiated on a per session basis. I love the idea of patron players. I love the idea of becoming a patron being a long term goal of PCs. I like the idea of players having multiple characters doing things when there's downtime. I love the idea of patron players as dynamic forces affected by and affecting the PC's actions.

It reminds me of how MMOs are. You log in, do some quests and whatever else you want in the time you have available, log out and the other players go on with out you whilst the game persists. At least the sandbox sort of games I prefer and not those shitty theme park MMOs like FFXIV and WoW.

I see this as an OPTION for my games however. Not a requirement. And I refuse to be talked down to because we differ on an opinion of how to play an RPG.

As I've said, I catch a lot of the BrOSR on my Twitter feed, and they're making a pretty good case that they've hit on many of the elements that Gygax had in mind as the context for using AD&D 1E, even if they may be overstating their case for rhetorical or entertainment purposes.

What they haven't done is made the case that AD&D 1E as intended by Gygax/rediscovered by the BrOSR is the only kind of game worth playing.

Quote from: King Tyranno on April 19, 2022, 01:32:16 PM
So I went into the podcast really rolling my eyes at the "BrOSR". I've seen their conduct on Twitter and I still take umbridge with this idea that their way is the ONLY way to play DnD ever. I can see why they think the way they do about AD&D 1e. It's right there in the rule book and DMG. Fine. But if we're going RAW because RAW is the only way to play then B/X and BECMI make no mention of 1:1 time. I think the debate here is between the Basic way and the Advanced way. B/X was made with a different methodology than AD&D 1e. Both can exist. Both are okay. I like both. I am not a "gross nerd" because I want to play B/X over AD&D.  Nor am I a "gross nerd" if I want to play Shadowrun, VtM, or the many other non DnD pen and paper RPGs. That also make no mention of any 1:1 time. You can certainly add 1:1 time to whatever game you want. That's your prerogative as a DM. But if you're adding it to any game other than AD&D 1E you are no longer playing the game as intended. You're playing the game WRONG! You are now a gross nerd. The BrOSR argument conveniently side steps that even if Gygax intended DnD to be played 1:1. Other games exist. This includes other editions of DnD made after Gygax exited TSR. Am I a gross nerd because I play "how Gygax intended" but not how the designers of 3.5 a game not written by Gygax intended? What's the objective metric here? Because the BrOSR are acting like there is one.  "We are right. You are wrong." for ALL DnD and all tabletop RPGs.

However...

The brief bits of Jeffro's opinion I could listen to through Pundit's shouting actually intrigued me. He seemed to have answers for any of the questions asked. Even if the other guys weren't really looking for answers.  This lead me down a rabbit hole. I looked at the Trollopolus stuff. I looked at other blogs with similar campaigns. And you know what, this kind of 1:1 campaign idea actually intrigues me. It will require a large degree of logistics. But I have run multi party adventures before. So I'm down for this. I love the idea of dip in dip out. The game goes on regardless of who is there or not. A lot of my best group members don't have the time they used to. And only get free time every once in a while in a non scheduled manner. So I can easily see myself running a game where people drop in and out through a discord group with a schedule negotiated on a per session basis. I love the idea of patron players. I love the idea of becoming a patron being a long term goal of PCs. I like the idea of players having multiple characters doing things when there's downtime. I love the idea of patron players as dynamic forces affected by and affecting the PC's actions.

It reminds me of how MMOs are. You log in, do some quests and whatever else you want in the time you have available, log out and the other players go on with out you whilst the game persists. At least the sandbox sort of games I prefer and not those shitty theme park MMOs like FFXIV and WoW.

I see this as an OPTION for my games however. Not a requirement. And I refuse to be talked down to because we differ on an opinion of how to play an RPG.

Yeah, what I realized is the old school "big table" D&D is basically MMO before MMOs.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on April 19, 2022, 04:14:18 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on April 19, 2022, 01:32:16 PMIt reminds me of how MMOs are. You log in, do some quests and whatever else you want in the time you have available, log out and the other players go on with out you whilst the game persists. At least the sandbox sort of games I prefer and not those shitty theme park MMOs like FFXIV and WoW.

I see this as an OPTION for my games however. Not a requirement. And I refuse to be talked down to because we differ on an opinion of how to play an RPG.

Yeah, what I realized is the old school "big table" D&D is basically MMO before MMOs.

I like that analogy.

Kinda makes me wonder if it should be more common for dungeon masters to get together as a group and set their games in the "same" world to let groups interact indirectly with each other.  I certainly would be interested in a game like that.

I did at last get around to looking at the Blackmoor documentary. Thanks for the reminder.

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on April 19, 2022, 04:41:17 PM
Kinda makes me wonder if it should be more common for dungeon masters to get together as a group and set their games in the "same" world to let groups interact indirectly with each other.  I certainly would be interested in a game like that.

I've tried it a fair bit. Communication is an issue, as is different visions for the campaign. Overall I tend to be more in favour of a singular vision.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on April 18, 2022, 10:26:32 AM
I've been reading your posts but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Both of the situation you describe can happen whether or not the DM is using 1:1 time.

I don't think I was making a point so much as trying to untangle this mess. I mean, it's difficult to even formulate a reply to you because it is not clear what "1:1 time" even means. Among those I've talked to and heard from who claim to use it, there isn't exactly consistency as to what 1:1 means. And what the majority (of those I've heard from) take it to mean does not jive with what it means in the DMG.

QuoteIf a player misses a session, he misses out on the dungeon looting done in that session. If a player misses a session, the other players might do something to an NPC that the absent player may have not wanted. Both of those things can happen regardless of how much game world time passes between sessions. In fact, whether the absent player returns four in-game days later or four in-games months later is almost entirely meaningless. The only effect it would have is on the age of the character.

In both situation, the DM is not obligated to run a special session to catch up the absent player. The DM could, of course, but that would be an exception because of real world time constraints.

DaddyWarpig's google doc listed one of the benefits of 1:1 time as ensuring if you go on vacation for 2 weeks, you will not miss more than 2 weeks of the campaign. There are only two ways to keep that promise. One of them is somehow someway placing a 1:1 time ceiling on campaign time. Whereas if you go by what's in the DMG, 1:1 time acts as a floor on campaign time.

Special catch-up sessions is not really apropos of anything I'm saying. It's simply tying up loose ends, anticipating the fact that technically you could run a campaign without a 1:1 ceiling and use a catch-up session as a way of keeping your promise that the player will only miss two weeks of in-game time. I cite the problems in doing that to illustrate that it's not quite as good as the real thing. Almost like it's adhering to the letter of the promise but not to the spirit of the promise. I address it mainly to dismiss it. It may from time to time be beneficial, even necessary. Sometimes it makes the most sense. And the DMG certainly makes allowances for this--so hard ruling it out is not exactly going adhering to this section of the rules. But I wouldn't want it to be the glue holding the campaign together.

It is the claim of DaddyWarpig's document that this is necessary to making the open table work because it's necessary for planning. And in the discussion with Jeffro, he also states that 1:1 time is an essential element of what he's doing, although unfortunately there wasn't enough meat in that conversation to pin down exactly why and how he thinks that.

I happen to strongly disagree. I don't think 1:1 time is the magic sauce at all. I think Pundit is correct in suggesting that careful timekeeping would suffice. It doesn't have to be 1:1 time. I use the 1:1 time floor to keep campaign time flowing because I want overall campaign time to flow substantially faster than real time. In my experience, the magic sauce is as simple as making every effort to always begin and end each session in town.

Quote from: Lunamancer on April 16, 2022, 10:33:18 PM
...
As some of you know, in 1999 Gary put out the Lejendary Adventure RPG. What's lesser known is LA was just the fantasy version of a Science Fantasy RPG he wrote that was never published called AsteRogues. In there, he explicitly describes having players play multiple characters, and specifically characters who operate on different tiers of action--like one group that does straight-up adventuring, another that does domain management type stuff, and so on.

He even gave it a name. The multi-tiered campaign.

I happen to have a copy of the beta version manuscript. It bears a copyright date of 1994....

Any chance we could see a scan, or even cellphone pics of the relevant passages? I'd be interested to read what he said.

I do find it interesting that his 'multi-tiered campaign' description ended up on the cutting room floor when he finally put out Lejendary Adventure's. I wonder  what the reasons were for that cut.

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 26, 2022, 11:15:45 PM
...
I happen to strongly disagree. I don't think 1:1 time is the magic sauce at all. I think Pundit is correct in suggesting that careful timekeeping would suffice. It doesn't have to be 1:1 time. I use the 1:1 time floor to keep campaign time flowing because I want overall campaign time to flow substantially faster than real time. In my experience, the magic sauce is as simple as making every effort to always begin and end each session in town.

That, and I think the non-session campaign downtime just needs to be consistent. 1:1 or 1:2 if you game every other week... Whatever, just so long as you are consistent.

.

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on April 19, 2022, 04:41:17 PM
Kinda makes me wonder if it should be more common for dungeon masters to get together as a group and set their games in the "same" world to let groups interact indirectly with each other.  I certainly would be interested in a game like that.

The closest I have come to achieving something like this is to incorporate NPCs, artifacts, any time travel or dimension hopping, from the different campaigns I've run in different genres, even different systems. If you play in a lot of my games you would be able to notice when something from a different campaign world just passed through. If not, you would miss it, I'm sure. This is all inspired of course by Moorcock's fictional creation of the multi-verse. The latest occurance of me trying to weave elements from disperate campaign worlds is about a universal form of energy. In my B/X game world it is known as Trans-Arcana Contamination. In my modern superhero game it is known as Q'rrr'mm Energy (from Atlas Unleashed) and in my far future Classic Traveller campaign it is called "Dirty" Anti-Matter.

Quote from: Jaeger on May 27, 2022, 12:46:24 PM
Any chance we could see a scan, or even cellphone pics of the relevant passages? I'd be interested to read what he said.

I do find it interesting that his 'multi-tiered campaign' description ended up on the cutting room floor when he finally put out Lejendary Adventure's. I wonder  what the reasons were for that cut.[/quote]

Gary had woven his "multi-tiered" campaign tightly with the AsteRogues setting. On the title page of the players book it actually says, "LEJENDARY ASTEROGUES (TM) MULTI-TIERED FANTASY SCIENCE ROLE-PLAYING GAME." There are bits of it sprinkled throughout the players book. The meat of it is in the game masters book and runs about 11 pages. This was intended to be a huge (albeit optional) part of the AsteRogues game. I'd be happy to go through it and pull out some key quotes.

As to why it was cut, probably the simplest, most obvious answer is because it wasn't written in a generic tense of, "Oh, by the way, here's a way you can manage your campaign." It was specifically integrated into AsteRogues. It's not like you could just copy and paste it into a fantasy game.

Quote
That, and I think the non-session campaign downtime just needs to be consistent. 1:1 or 1:2 if you game every other week... Whatever, just so long as you are consistent.

The difficulty with consistency is, one player's non-session time could be another player's session time. I had no intent at the time to run multiple groups at all. My sole focus was "Begin in town. End in town. The game always goes on. Whoever shows up, plays." But the fact is, the group on week 2 could be comprised of different players than the group on week 1, and so you end up with de facto multiple groups as a consequence. It's unavoidable. You could have a case where all of Group 1 is taking 2 weeks off. But group 2 will still have sessions in that time. If time flow is allowed to vary in-session and without limit, there's no telling how much campaign time Group 1 might miss.

I don't want to hold group 2 up. I want the game to always go on. On the other hand, I also don't want group 1 feeling like they're playing a Rip Van Winkle campaign. So there is a sense in which you have to squish the two extremes together. And I think that's best handled with sound judgment rather than a consistent rule.

On the slower end of the scale, I'm going to say 1 game day is lost for each real day the players are idle in keeping with the 1:1 rule. As to whether or not there will be special catch-up sessions is going to depend on what I think makes the most sense at the time.

On the faster end of the scale, I have to decide what's reasonable in terms of how far ahead I can let the fast group get. 30 days max feels right in most circumstances. But if they're 60 days travel away from the slow group, then there's no reason I can't let them get 60 days ahead since the two groups really can't affect one another. If the faster group is suddenly teleported back to where the slow group is, though, they'll get put in time jail then and there--playing alternate characters until the slow group catches up. Once the slow group is caught up, the fast group suddenly appears and we take it from there.

Here are a few select quotes from AsteRogues on the Multi-Tiered campaign

Quote01.01.  Definitions:
Multi-tiered role-playing means more than players having multiple game characters.  It means that the Legend Master has a campaign milieu that operates on many levels, and that the participants in the campaign are thus empowered to have personas of vastly different and unrelated-to-each-other sort.  The latter means, in a nutshell, that players might be allowed to have Avatars ranging from princes to paupers operating all over the solar system and likely at cross purposes too.

So there's the basic idea laid out. So we're pretty much talking about the same thing the BroSR is doing. Gary goes into a lot of detail, though, and the details may vary.

QuoteClearly the multi-tiered concept is not the ordinary approach to role-playing.  Its rewards are great, can be far greater than the conventional method can deliver.  If the demands of multi-tiered role-playing place too great a burden on the individual Legend Master, or are such that the players are unable to cope with the requirement of assuming separate and distinct game personas, possibly in the course of a single adventure, then the utilization this aspect of the game should be set aside.  Conventional play is fully accommodated.  In truth, another way of thinking of multi-tiered play is the conventional—but multiplied in complexity of role-playing, and thus increasing entertainment therefrom, by the same factor.  So if conventional, single-character-type participation is wholly satisfactory, then this game will be eminently satisfying.  Furthermore, the expanded opportunity of multi-tiered play remains open and available.

Note here he is actually stating that this is not a usual way for playing the game but rather something distinct. Sure. Back in the day, in his actual campaign, he had tons of people coming and going. Bits and pieces of this idea, with multiple groups interacting, were things he had to give consideration to.

QuoteThe design bases used to facilitate the concept of multi-tiered campaign play, the easy creation of the character and the simple and fast resolution of situation variables, mean that conventional play is extremely easy.  The statistical information is arrived at quickly, the Abilities (five or six of 45) are relatively few in number and correspondingly broad.  Avatar details can be limited initially to those absolutely necessary for role-playing bases, with origin, heritage, and various personal details of the character created left to the Legend Master and player to develop through play.

Here, Gary is "selling" his system. But the main idea is you need an RPG that is sufficiently simple in order to pull off this style of play. I have heard several RPG commentators point out that one of the differences between new school D&D and old school D&D is that the old school rules better allowed the style of play where characters had entire entourages of henchmen, hirelings and followers. Newer D&D, where the characters were too unique, had too many stats, skills, feats, and powers, would be a nightmare to manage an entire troupe.

His Dangerous Journeys RPG was notoriously complex (if you played Advanced Mythus). With LA, there are a whole list of instances I can point to where he clearly, intentionally, even boldy stepped back to the old D&D vibe of things. One of my favorite examples to point out is in the fantasy version of LA, he included illusions that can physically hurt you--making it clear that it could even cause wounds to open "as stigmata do." This kind of puts a pin prick in the story Frank Mentzer spins that no such details were ever hashed out in the old days--like how illusions worked--and that developed later over time. And you shouldn't stick to the old ways because nobody knew what they were doing back then. Well, here you've got Gary going back to illusions causing physical wounds after having 20 years to think about it. It tells me it was always his intention and Frank's story is just isn't true. I wonder how many of the "stupid" things we've since evolved and improved over the years were actually 100% as intended in the first place, and that rather than having improved on these things, all we did was lose some of the artistry like much stained glass.

QuoteIf all participants are veterans and have at least a modicum of expertise in role-playing, the Legend Master should indeed plan a multi-tiered campaign approach, providing he or she is desirous of this expansion and has the time and willingness to make the extra effort.  That decision must also consider the players, of course.

In summation, all campaigns should begin in a conventional mode, with the Legend Master unveiling the initial information regarding the campaign milieu, and the players developing their game personas accordingly.  The multi-tiered campaign commences at such time as the Legend Master decides to introduce additional story lines and plots, and the players are willing and able to develop and role-play two or more characters in the milieu.  Thus, conventional play is standard, multi-tiered is optional . . . . but compelling in its capacity to make the milieu come alive.

Here he's suggesting easing into this. It's to help players acclimate. But I also think it produces a neat effect of only gradually putting the pieces in play--at first, those pieces don't interact with one another, but gradually they do and you get the interplay that people gush about with Patron style play.


There's a LOT more to the section. It's packed with details. He's got many different categories of "bases" for the different tiers of adventure, and for each of those categories he gives 4 sample starting points. I could just roll a bunch of d4's and put together the skeleton of a multi-tiered campaign just from his jumping off points, then go back and flesh it out.

I just have short meeting with BrOSR on Twitter, and I have to admit after like four backs and forths I decided I prefer TBP for RPG discussion

You want a guide to inappropriate characters?

Ok.

Anyone playing any type of active Nazi. Period. Yes this happened to me and to this day I would push that guy in front of a bus if I could get away with it.

Anyone playing a character who must dominate other players, or backstab them, or make other players lives hell and ruin the game for them.

That's pretty much it based on my personal experience. I've never been in a game where someone wanted to play a pedo, but yeah that's a nogo too.