Who wants to roleplay?
Feb. 26th, 2007 08:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI was looking over some ideas again this weekend, and decided I definitely do want to get back into a roleplaying campaign. Indeed to start one. I know half of you used to roleplay and don't want to again, and half of you are playing in two sessions a week already :) But I know several of the remainder also said "I used to roleplay a bit/quite a bit but haven't for a little while and want to get back into it. I had a look on the CURS wiki but there wasn't anything recent/anything I was interested in. Someone should do something..."
The last campaign I played with a couple of other very-non-expert friends, but worked really well, and I was going to copy the format.
* A short adventure of about four sessions, with another and another if everything goes well.
* World-hopping sliderslike, so we can change worlds and house rules between adventures
* A rotating DM because several people had an idea and wanted to DM once, but also to play. This was tricky, but worked well.
* Emphasis on fun, talking to people, and every so often a big fight scene. Well, I don't know, that made sense. Aiming to follow the rules, but fairly relaxed about them.
* Probably mid-level Dungeons and Dragons, because that's what most people know and we like having a framework for our creativity, but we *could* use something more fluid.
* Last time everyone was fairly amateur. That's not necessary, but I thought I'd let you know what to expect.
* I do have a first adventure idea, I enjoy worldbuilding too much. I'll explain later in case you're excited by it, but not here so it doesn't get in the way.
Who else was interested? If people are I'll work out a group and we can start as soon as we arrange a time. (I'd suggest once a week, Sunday early evening until bedtime, but we can work that out later if people want to play).
Is there anything on the list you think I should do differently?
The last campaign I played with a couple of other very-non-expert friends, but worked really well, and I was going to copy the format.
* A short adventure of about four sessions, with another and another if everything goes well.
* World-hopping sliderslike, so we can change worlds and house rules between adventures
* A rotating DM because several people had an idea and wanted to DM once, but also to play. This was tricky, but worked well.
* Emphasis on fun, talking to people, and every so often a big fight scene. Well, I don't know, that made sense. Aiming to follow the rules, but fairly relaxed about them.
* Probably mid-level Dungeons and Dragons, because that's what most people know and we like having a framework for our creativity, but we *could* use something more fluid.
* Last time everyone was fairly amateur. That's not necessary, but I thought I'd let you know what to expect.
* I do have a first adventure idea, I enjoy worldbuilding too much. I'll explain later in case you're excited by it, but not here so it doesn't get in the way.
Who else was interested? If people are I'll work out a group and we can start as soon as we arrange a time. (I'd suggest once a week, Sunday early evening until bedtime, but we can work that out later if people want to play).
Is there anything on the list you think I should do differently?
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 08:51 pm (UTC)I have the 3.5 core books and Arcana Evolved (which is a D&D variant with cooler magic) if you want to borrow either.
I think the play-by-talking-to-Robert Birthright game I was in has died :(
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 08:57 pm (UTC)We'll have to do some hustling scheduling if you're not in Cam all holiday, of course. Can I count you as definite modulo timing, and sort that out when I know who else is free?
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 09:23 pm (UTC)I'm not quite sure what you mean by "modulo timing" but if you mean showing up when I am in town than yes.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 01:42 am (UTC)Sorry, I was being a mathmo :) "modulo" means roughly "taking into account". Preferably more working out in advance when we *are* free and plan a short arc for that time, and then a sequel to follow with whoever's free then. But it depends; I'll email you.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 09:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 01:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 08:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-28 12:18 am (UTC)Bridge, strip or otherwise, would be fantastic though.
ROFL. It's probably not worth travelling to Cambridge just for bridge. But I have people come over to play bridge every so often, if you want an excuse to come to Cam, you could join us then :) Strip bridge seems... an inevitable idea, but I'm not sure if it's a good one :)
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 10:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 01:43 am (UTC)I'll email you.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-26 10:41 pm (UTC)I have quite a lot of equipment (Dice, models, rulebooks, a markable board etc.) if required.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 01:44 am (UTC)I don't think I need anything at the moment, but it would certainly help to bring if you come.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 12:55 pm (UTC)I have read the rules for Paranoia, and they make sense to me. It is written as though you are expected to play a meta-game for a certain extent, and the in-built system of consequences and, well, paranoia are designed to turn everyone into a con-artist.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 02:23 pm (UTC)The problem of "winning by seeing how close to the rules you can skate" is a problem in lots of places, and admittedly noticable here, but often work roundable.
There's a whole spectrum, from being like a complicated board game to being like improvisational acting, that all treat it in different ways.
For instance, you all charge into a dungeon trying to kill some orcs and take their treasure, and find a troll. You know that fire is the only way to hurt it. What do you do? In some games, you just know that, and go ahead. In others, the DM will make sure that if you know that and your character doesn't, then in this world trolls will be a bit different. In some you would be honour bound not to act on the knowledge until your character works it out somehow, but that is difficult to do more than occasionally, so best avoided.
For instance, you're a beserker, and about to dash into a deadly situation. In some games, you'd just use out-of-character knowledge and avoid doing so, and it's fair because everyone does. In some you'd try, but the other players would cheat a little bit and their characters would be ready to hold you back. In another you'd go ahead but the DM would tacitly see to it you survived. In another, you'd charge in and maybe die. But again, you generally avoid that.
So I guess, yes. You cooperate to make the advantage of metagaming not too great (eg. making sure that all classes for the character are roughly equal, so no-one feels stupid for not taking the best one) and then you pick one that suits you, and if it's 2% less effective, it's not worth worrying about because luck evens out and this way is more fun.
I hadn't really thought how to describe it before. Does that make sense?
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 02:40 pm (UTC)If I use 'out of character' knowledge to avoid doing something, then I'm not really acting, I'm just playing myself in a different scenario. This also seems like the easiest method of play.
How does a GM normally describe a situation without giving away the important information about what to do, but giving sufficient information for people (or their characters) to work it out? Is it mostly a case of what one can reasonably extrapolate from the given descriptions?
On another note, I didn't know that fire was the only way to hurt a troll. Is there a reason for that, or is it just One Of Those Things(tm)?
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 02:50 pm (UTC)For example, I'd stumbled on the problem of how to decide when my character had worked out something that I already knew,
Yeah, I don't know how to deal with that well. If it's make or break knowledge your character would guess sooner or later, I think it's basically undoable, and the group or DM should just decide so it's fair. But often you abstract it just a bit. Eg. The players come up with a plan cooperatively, and assume the characters all contributed appropriate amounts, rather than having the intelligent player with a dumb character or vice versa not say anything.
How does a GM normally describe a situation without giving away the important information
Well, that'd be how to GM :) I don't know, I just do my best... I can tell you what I'd do in a particular situation, but haven't any real insight.
On another note, I didn't know that fire was the only way to hurt a troll.
I just picked that as a classic example, it might not have been 100% accurate (though http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/troll.htm says it roughly was). I don't really know, but I think that Trolls were conceived with regeneration (growing back to full health when hurt), and that there needs to be a way to bypass this, and the most obvious is to burn or acid the remains. Hence, that.
What I don't know is at what point the fairytale monster became the specific dnd monster with regeneration.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 03:28 pm (UTC)I tried the middle earth roleplaying game at school, but my character was killed off in the first session, so I didn't go back. (IIRC, my one useful item when created was a ring with a water magic effect. I decided to use it at the first obstacle I encountered, and drowned myself)
It is probably one of those things that I would only properly understand if I tried it, or if there was a direct correlation to another activity that I did. I feel it might be easier if I could properly simulate another personality, distinct from my own, but I doubt that's how it's actually done, I think that's a computing solution to a human problem.
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 03:44 pm (UTC)I tried the middle earth roleplaying game at school, but my character was killed off in the first session,
That's not supposed to happen. Of course, I skipped over the playing as a teenager and not knowing what's supposed to be going on, so just work it out from scratch with a few friends phase, and skipped straight in to trying it later with a lot of theoretical knowledge from hearing about friends doing it but no experience, but for an introduction you should generally not die and be useful.
I joined a friend's campaign for a little bit and it was fun, but did have some difficulty at first from not knowing the rules well, and hence not knowing what was automatic, what was dangerous, etc. I don't know what everyone else was at in your adventure? But it sounds like you just died from not knowing the metagame that everyone else did, which isn't cool.
Like many other hobbies, it depends about 500% on who you play with, so some people just won't be for you.
It is probably one of those things that I would only properly understand if I tried it,
Yeah. Well, that is, that's how normal people would[1]. We certainly can examine the concept academically, and it's interesting and informative, but it doesn't automatically mean you'll understand it, and you'll only really understand why you'd *want* to by trying it and enjoying it.
[1] Except most people are happy to say roleplaying is dorky and not for them :) and investigate little further :)
I feel it might be easier if I could properly simulate another personality,
Again, it could be anything. Playing a different personality is a cool aspect, but by no means completely necessary, plenty of people play a character and just do what they want, or a stereotype, or play up what they find fun, especially to begin with. And at the hack-n-slash end lots of characters are just stats with no personality at all :)
no subject
Date: 2007-02-27 02:55 pm (UTC)