2021-04-05 The things I learned
===============================
> “Every Wednesday morning I wake up with a sense of dread,
> remembering that on top of everything else I have to do that day I
> somehow have to run a game in the evening. Every Wednesday afternoon
> I seriously consider calling the session off. But every Wednesday
> night I sit down and log in and everything actually goes fine.” –
> Failing better: a GMing retrospective, by Joseph Manola
Last month, Joseph wrote about the campaigns he ran and what he
learned from them, and at the time I thought to myself that someday
I’d do the same. Well, I guess today is that day.
The format used in Joseph’s blog post is that he has four short
paragraphs for each campaign: what it was, what worked, what didn’t,
and lessons learned. We’ll see how well this goes!
I got Das Schwarze Auge from my mom and ran some modules for her and
her friends when I must have been around twelve (1985). I ran three or
four official adventures. The first edition rules were simple and
characters were hard to kill: they started out with 20–30 hit points;
there was an active defence roll (instead of using armour class);
armour was damage reduction; magic used “astral” points; the game had
no clerics. What worked: I remember we had plenty of players. I was a
kid running the game for three adults and older teenagers and as far
as I remember, it worked. What didn’t: It didn’t last long. One of the
adults wanted to stop playing, and then the campaign stopped. Lessons
learned: simple rules enable kids to run games. I also remember the
last adventure I ran, where the party discovers a gate to another
world. When one of the players said that we should develop trade
between the two worlds, something opened up in my brain. An open
world! My first whiff of the sandbox.
I ran some adventures of my own devising in high school when I was
fifteen and sixteen. We used Das Schwarze Auge at first, switched to
AD&D 1st ed. and then to AD&D 2nd ed.; we still had no concept of a
“campaign” – we stopped buying Das Schwarze Auge modules and we
didn’t buy TSR modules, we just wrote our own and played them one
after another (1988-1989). What worked: we played D&D, we played in
English, and we played our own adventures. What didn’t: we didn’t know
how to handle party conflict and when the thief tried to steal another
player character’s gems, we didn’t know how to deal with that and that
player left the group. Shame on us! We also discovered that one of us
was a rules lawyer and a power gamer. Lessons learned: The upgrade
treadmill is relentless. There’s always somebody who wants to upgrade
to the next edition. In hind-sight we managed to deal with the hot
mess of AD&D rules pretty well.
I ran a few sessions of a light variant of Mutant Chronicles game for
fellow students at university (1995). What worked: we played in some
maintenance tunnels, which was creepy and cool. What didn’t: no rules,
no structure, no adventure; I don’t quite remember why it fell apart
but it did. Lessons learned: a cool place to game does not make a
campaign.
Kurobano and the Dragons. I ran a D&D 3.5 campaign after a long
hiatus (2006–2008). It started out with me using M20, but we soon
switched to D&D 3.5 even though I dreaded the size of the rule books.
I successfully managed to integrate my own starting setup with Red
Hand of Doom; later, I added more Paizo adventures. What worked: I
learned the D&D 3.5 rules. What didn’t: I ended up disliking the
battle map; I felt I was being forced to play a wargame week after
week, against five other humans, and I wasn’t even good at it. So I
had to add tougher opponents to counteract the lack of tactics on my
end. Lessons learned: high level D&D is weird; some players loved it
even though they were bad at keeping track of it: the multiple
attacks, the buffs, it was a chore. All they wanted was to be
super-heroes! The rules were failing us.
Golden Lanterns. I played in the Shackled City adventure path using
D&D 3.5 with DM James (2007–2010). I started running this game for a
few sessions and then I handed it over to James. It was my first
Adventure Path and I loved the idea. What worked: James managed to
make the fights work; and given the rare opportunities to play, he
skipped a lot of filler material. What didn’t: Advancement was fixed.
I felt that sometimes I got new abilities even though I hadn’t even
used all the abilities I had previously gained. My paladin found a
Holy Avenger in an armoury somewhere and that was weird. I guess James
had decided that we needed it for balance. Lessons learned: Adventure
Paths are great and terrible. They are great because they promise a
story arc that takes you to fantastic heights. They are terrible
because advancement, opposition, power levels, it all has to harmonise
and the more freedom the game offers, the harder this is.
Hagfish Tavern. I ran the Rise of the Runelords adventure path using
D&D 3.5 (2008–2011). Another Adventure Path. What worked: Again, the
beginning was awesome. What didn’t: Again, the it started to fall
apart towards the end. High level D&D is complicated because what
works at lower levels doesn’t get abandoned at higher levels. Bless
is still there. If you have three or four attacks like +16/+11/+6/+1
you still roll that last one because who knows, you might get lucky.
Lessons learned: the next campaign I would run was going to be a
sandbox for sure!
Krythos. I ran a small Burning Wheel campaign inspired by ancient
Greece (2008). It was my first attempt at Burning Wheel. It turned out
to be a short campaign of six or seven sessions, by my standards. What
worked: It was my first online game using TeamSpeak. I was able to use
Burning Wheel’s Bloody Versus (simple opposed rolls) and the Duel of
Wits (social combat). What didn’t: The game didn’t “sing” for me. I
think I’d need a lot more practice. Lessons learned: online gaming can
work. All you need is voice chat. At the time we had no video, no dice
roller, no virtual tabletop.
Sohn des Schwarzen Marlin. I played in this D&D 3.5 campaign set
along the Dragon Coast in the Forgotten Realms with DM Peter (2008).
It was a sort of nautical sandbox. I don’t remember us ever leaving
that initial island, though. What worked: We didn’t have a cleric in
the game and it worked. What didn’t: I don’t remember. The campaign
ended after a handful of sessions; I don’t remember why, though.
Lessons learned: An island hopping game with pirates might be
interesting.
City of the Spider Queen. I played in this D&D 3.5 adventure set in
the Forgotten Realms with DM James (2008–2009). It’s a long adventure;
dare I say a short Adventure Path? We started at a higher level, if I
remember correctly. Somewhere around level ten? What worked: I liked
playing a cleric of Shaundakul; I liked creating a character with a
strong bond to another character, a kind of tag team. I liked leafing
through that Forgotten Realms setting book for D&D 3.5 in order to
write up a backstory. What didn’t: I didn’t enjoy the high level
fights. Lessons learned: Tag team characters from the get go are fun.
Avoid high level D&D 3.5.
Grenzmarken. I played in a D&D 3.5 campaign with a homebrew setting
by DM Peter (2008–2010). I played a dwarf wizard licking his toad
familiar and doing other small disgusting things. This was a kind of
West Marches game: almost every session was an excursion that ended
back in town. By this time we had established a way to split the game
between the session itself and writing on the wiki. Reports got
longer. Things happened between sessions. What worked: sandbox
exploration was great, with many monsters to defeat and small dungeons
to clear. The wiki saw a lot more use. What didn’t: After a while it
was a bit formulaic, travel to the destination, fight, fight, end
boss, skip over the trip home because we were running out of time. As
fights took longer, the non-fighting was relegated to the wiki.
Lessons learned: I need my sandbox to be more interesting than monster
fighting. The excursion structure needs some tweaking but it’s very
promising.
The Alder King. I ran a D&D 3.5 campaign in Lenap of the Wilderlands
of High Fantasy and later switched the game to the Solar System RPG
(2008–2012). I used very slow advancement compared to the games I had
seen with DM James since I didn’t actually want to reach those higher
levels. I had decided to start the game with practically no high-level
non-player characters, either. My thinking was: we’ll play the next
campaign in the same setting and the surviving player characters of
this campaign would be the high-level non-player characters of the
next campaign. What worked: There were factions all over the place.
Finding allies against Yarshag the lizardman and his giant wasp riding
dragon-blood infused super-soldiers provided for a nice campaign arc.
What didn’t: When the low-level henchmen formed a new party to play
through the Caverns of Thracia, I didn’t enjoy myself as much. The
dungeon and I did not quite agree. Lessons learned: my default implied
D&D setting doesn’t work well with Greco-Roman sensibilities; I’m
starting to suspect that by now I might not like playing through
bought Adventure Paths, high level adventures, and big dungeons. Time
to buy a lot less!
Die Reise nach Rhûn. I played in a heavily house-ruled Rolemaster
campaign set in Middle Earth with GM Berni; we later switched to
Legends of Middle Earth (2009–2010). What worked: Rolemaster was weird
in a good way. What didn’t: the campaign was short lived. We tried
switching to a rules light system but that didn’t work, either.
Lessons learned: both rules heavy and rules light cannot save a
campaign; I think we should have talked less about the system and more
about what we actually wanted from the game.
Kaylash. I ran a Mongoose Traveller game which was later switched to
Diaspora using a randomly generated subsector (2009–2010). What
worked: The random subsector creation inspired a campaign. What
didn’t: The Traveller rules seemed to imply that trading was the way
to play the game, a bit like the old Elite computer game, except that
nobody actually cared about trading; when using Fate, the game shifted
away from trade to fighting zombies in space. Lessons learned: again,
switching rules does not save the game if you don’t talk about what
you actually want from the game.
Lied vom Eis. I played in a few sessions of an Song of Ice and Fire
RPG with GM Berni (2010-2011). We rotated GM duties a few times. We
had one player via video call. What worked: the new game rules worked
for us. What didn’t: we had created all sorts of characters that then
had no in-game reason to actually adventure together; at the same time
we did not think of running our house like a stable of characters with
people picking the appropriate ones, depending on the adventure at
hand. Lessons learned: do not create parties that are too far apart,
conceptually. You can make it work if you run your game like a
fast-paced movie but it takes a lot of energy. I also remember once
telling those players that I had come to play, not for the small talk.
In retrospective, perhaps I should have invested into that small talk.
We stopped playing together.
Desert Raiders. I played in the Legacy of Fire Adventure Path using
Pathfinder RPG with GM James (2010–2011). What worked: Pathfinder
worked a bit better than D&D 3.5 for us. The campaign also didn’t go
all the way to level 20. Once again, the lower levels were super cool.
What didn’t: I had created a mounted archer and got to use a horse
maybe once. Lessons learned: talk to players if you don’t know how to
incorporate their character concepts into the campaign. Also, never
let anybody borrow your RPG books because now I’m missing one of the
books from this Adventure Path.
Burning Six. I played in a six session Burning Wheel campaign
(2011). It was a short game set in an Italian Renaissance town, or
something like it. What worked: It was Burning Wheel. What didn’t:
again, I feel that the lure of the Tolkien-style troupe of everything
and everybody foiled our plans. Instead of being laser focused on a
thing, we all created characters and dropped them into a situation. I
think I was playing an abbess, there was an elf, and others… Lessons
learned: at the time, I felt that Burning Wheel simply wasn’t for me;
these days, after hearing the Shoeless Peasant podcast by Sean
Nittner and Judd Karlmann, I feel that perhaps we just thought we
could play Burning Wheel like we play D&D: create a bunch of weird
characters based on the rules and it’ll all work out. Not so. First,
laser focus on the kind of game we want to play!
Durgan’s Flying Circus. I played in a HARP game with a homebrew
setting by GM Stefan (2011–2012). It was short lived. What worked: It
was HARP. As I think back, I now get the feeling that often we played
campaigns because we wanted to try new rules and had no other plans
beyond that.
Mondschein Saga. I played a handful of sessions in an OSRIC campaign
set in the Forgotten Realms with DM Peter (2012). It was a sandbox and
Peter was searching for rules that were simpler than D&D 3.5.
Unfortunately, he picked OSRIC, i.e. AD&D 1st ed., and those rules
aren’t actually very simple. The printed book is substantial. What
worked: the island hopping sandbox was once again improved. What
didn’t: OSRIC was not smooth sailing. The players didn’t like it.
Lessons learned: OSRIC and AD&D are not rules light. The island
hopping sandbox can still be made to work.
Ymir’s Call. I played in a Barbarians of Lemuria → Crypts & Things
→ Adventure Conqueror King campaign with DM Florian (2011–2013). It
was a frost sandbox. We were people in some sort of polar region and
there was trouble all around us. What worked: I loved it. There were
many places to visit, people to talk to. What didn’t: The rules for
Barbarians of Lemuria did not convince me. On the one hand, they were
too simple, and on the other hand, spending that point to mow down
dozens was too weird. Crypts & Things was better, but still very much
on the simple side. Lessons learned: I really started to love the
wilderness sandbox. Just make sure there’s plenty of stuff to do
wherever players go. As for the rules, I started to realise that I
liked something somewhere between Crypts and Things and Adventure
Conqueror King.
Ritter von Salisbury. I ran the Great Pendragon Campaign for the
years 485 to 510, when Arthur pulls the sword from the stone
(2012–2014). What worked: we had a rough campaign outline and we loved
it; the traits that sometimes make characters do things the players
did not expect. What didn’t: character creating took a long time; the
deadly battles were frustrating if your character bit the grass; the
inability to actually influence the outcome of these battles took some
getting used to; you could build infrastructure but they had no effect
on the game; the winter phase felt like an integral and badly designed
part of the game. We always wanted something important to happen in
winter but the rules did not deliver. We should have just narrated it.
Lessons learned: There’s a cool, simpler game with those traits hidden
somewhere in those rules.
Karameikos. I played in a Labyrinth Lord game set in Mystara every
second Monday evening (2012–2015), by @oliof. We played B10 Night’s
Dark Terror and it was very cool. What worked: the siege of Sukiskyn
was fantastic; fighting vampires felt good. What didn’t: I’m not sure
how the campaign ended. We arrived at the hidden valley and then… I
don’t know. Lessons learned: B/X D&D is the level of D&D I like. After
some initial enthusiasm regarding the Mystara setting, I’m much less
enthusiastic about the incredible emptiness. Large maps with many
empty hexes simply don’t inspire me as much.
Berem and Beyond. I played in an Adventure Conqueror King campaign
with DM Florian (2013–2015). It was another sandbox, except no longer
up in the icy north. What worked: I liked the sandbox; there was also
a second group playing in the same area and I remember at least once
we came upon a little mausoleum that had already been plundered. What
didn’t: I saw Florian improvising a lot, rolling up encounters, and I
didn’t like it. It broke my immersion because I no longer felt we were
exploring a “real” place. It was being made up as we moved through it.
The ACKS upkeep and other economy rules did not interest me. It felt
like homework. Lessons learned: ACKS is too involved for my taste.
When I run a game, I make sure to use a screen in order to better
maintain immersion. If the players stray of the prepared material, I
want to maintain the illusion for as long as possible.
Montag in Zürich. Various people interested in one-shots got together
and experimented with new systems (2009–2015). What worked: I never
again played so many different games as back then. It was amazing.
What didn’t: eventually things broke down as people no longer
volunteered to run new games. Lessons learned: there are a gazillion
games out there. Also, not many of them seem to be made for the kind
of long campaigns I like (50+ sessions). What I totally learned was to
present a game, hand out characters, and run a game in 2½h.
Fünf Winde. I ran a Labyrinth Lord game set in the Wilderlands of
High Fantasy with a big dash of Planescape and Spelljammer on every
second Tuesdays (2010–2017). What worked: plane hopping, B/X + house
rules, building projects to spend gold and enrich the setting;
references to the old player characters from the Alder King game. What
didn’t: I had placed a few mega dungeons in the campaign setting but
the players didn’t really want to go there; Planescape looks cool but
if you’re actually looking for adventure material in the setting
boxes, there is very little; the same is true for Spelljammer. Lessons
learned: playing multiple campaigns in the same setting is a good
idea; visible changes from one campaign to the next is great.
Wilderlande. I ran a Labyrinth Lord campaign set in a Points of
Light campaign setting for my best friend and his three kids for two
hours on a Friday evening every four weeks (2010–2018). What worked:
one of the kids is my godchild and I managed to stay in touch for all
these years. What didn’t work: I was unable to have the spark jump. As
the older kids turned seventeen and eighteen, they showed up less and
less. None of them wanted to pick up the referee mantle. Lessons
learned: kids can play Labyrinth Lord; when they’re five and six, they
might just sit there and draw pictures, making the occasional decision
for their character, but as they grow older, they simply absorb the
game. There’s no need for special games for children. Children don’t
want toys made for children. Children want toys made for adults. They
might ignore a lot of the rules, just like we did when we were kids,
but that doesn’t prevent them from wanting the real deal.
Greyheim. I ran a Labyrinth Lord game around The Castle of the Mad
Archmage (a megadungeon) on every second Wednesdays (2015–2018). It
was a big dungeon, with a computer-generated wilderness map
surrounding them. What worked: we played until we got down to level
seven of the dungeon. We managed to invest the riches retrieved into
infrastructure: a castle was being built soon after the campaign got
going; we had a construction site, masons, carpenters, guards, a
palisade, a quarry, and on and on. What didn’t: the wilderness map
wasn’t populated with enough monsters, tribes, factions, and all that.
We did have orcs and ogres and treants, and evil elves and
necromancers, and whenever they were encountered, the game was great.
I should have added a lot more at the beginning of the game.
Mondschein Saga. I played in a D&D 5 game with DM Peter, with no
regular dates (2018-2020). This was a reprise of the earlier
campaigns. Peter had refined his concept: islands, factions, sandbox,
links to the rest of the Forgotten Realms (e.g. a visit to Baldur’s
Gate), no single safe haven but a variety of safe harbours, more
dungeons, and a group that took to D&D 5. What worked: Peter’s sandbox
gained even more depth; a less formulaic approach. Player Rafael
taught me the value of well written session reports to show character
development and I started taking to it. Some of my best writing for
role-playing games happened (in German, translate using DeepL if
you’re curious): Der Wert eines Zwerges (talking at the campfire),
Caer Corwell auf dem Opferaltar (burning down a city), Der
Feuerzirkel von Rottesheim (epilogue after the party lost the last
fight at the end of the campaign). What didn’t: I still have no great
love for D&D 5, but playing with just the Basic Rules for D&D 5
actually works. I like that! Lessons learned: as a player, writing
vignettes on a campaign wiki is great (or posting them on whatever
medium you use to share writings for your campaign).
Rasiermesserküste. I ran a Halberds and Helmets game using Razor
Coast on every second Wednesday (2017–2020). I was looking for a
nautical sand box, islands and pirates and all that. What worked: a
nice campaign with cool ideas using were shark and cultists. What
didn’t: the book tries to square the role-playing book circle, it has
everything – events, maps, dungeons, characters, prep sheets, and on
and on. It’s huge. It’s dense. It takes a lot of work, I think.
Lessons learned: try to run the next game without using any books and
without big plans that need to be prepped.
Die dampfenden Dschungel von Chult: I played in a D&D 5 game with DM
Peter, with no regular dates (2020-2021), via Skype. Same deal as
before: I used the Basic Rules for D&D 5. Instead of a fire wizard I
played a rogue and it was great. What worked: the mix of sandbox,
interesting locations with smaller dungeons, the ruins of Omu, the big
final dungeon. What didn’t: if at all, the big dungeon at the end was
a bit too long, but just barely so. It was still a great game. Lessons
learned: the D&D 5 sandbox still works! Yay!
Die drei Wälder. I ran a few sessions of Just Halberds, with no
regular dates (2020), for a bunch of kids, via Zoom. What worked: it
was a play test for the Just Halberds rules. What didn’t: I wasn’t
really able to get into a good 2d6 groove and eventually the game just
petered out. Perhaps the kids lost interest; perhaps gaming remotely
using Jitsi, Zoom, and friends, isn’t made for larger groups of
players. Lessons learned: for future games, I’m going to try and limit
the number of players to three.
Die Zeit der Waldbrände. I’m playing in a Humblewood campaign using
D&D 5 with DM Lars (2020–2021), via Jitsi. What worked: D&D with
anthropomorphic animals works better than I expected! The adventure
felt scripted at times and I went along for the ride. An adventure
path like in the old days. Funny how I am the least interested guy in
my other D&D 5 games but in this game I was the rules expert.
Der Fluch des Stradh: I am playing in a D&D 5 game with DM Mircea,
with no regular dates (2021–now), via Zoom. I played a fighter that
picked the Skilled feat to pick rogue skills. So, a rogue without
sneak attack, haha. I’ve started using the D&D 5 Player’s Handbook, at
long last. I picked the Grappler feat, too. But then my character died
and now I’m playing a wizard again. What works: the mix of interesting
locations with smaller dungeons everywhere.
Tau Subsector. I’m running a Classic Traveller game, with no regular
dates (2021), more or less weekly, via Jitsi. I used a ton of random
tables to provide even more details for the generated subsector and
then one thing lead to another, with not too much prep required. No
advancement, no balancing during character creation, skills that are
good for combat but combat rules where most hits take you down
immediately, no social skills to speak of, no monsters, no aliens… I
learned that all of this works just fine.
Lessons learned, overall: Keeping the notes of the games you played
in, is future pleasure – in a jar. Do it! Open it a decade later and
enjoy the memories, like I did.
#RPG #Old_School #Old_School
Comments
--------
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
Very interesting and a good read!
My lessons from the last decade:
* Campaign wikis are great for lore, player background stories and
interactions with the world. I also think they work better for
character development and many aspects of role playing, as most
people are more comfortable and creative at writing between sessions
than at speaking during a session.
* D&D 5e rules work. They are the best version of the rules in my
opinion. Easy to get into, quite well balanced and without any
really serious flaws. I would prefer them to be a bit more gritty
and less Marvel Super Heroes style. The exploration/survival aspect
is also too trivial.
* Sandboxes are great. I love creating and running them. But pure
wilderness hexploration as in the Grenzmarken campaign is a bit
bland and can feel meaningless soon. Who cares about how many arch
demons from Hell your hero killed in a forsaken dungeon in the
wilderness? Killing an arch duke in a city or just having the power
to possibly do so, is much more interesting and also character
defining. So social sandboxes with fame and factions are more
interesting for everyone, I think.
* Dungeons are still the heart of the game and what the D&D 5e rules
are made for. The players are on the edge of their toes and fully
engaged most of the time: Thinking about tactics, spell selections,
resting points etc. Everyone can contribute. The problem with social
encounters is that usually it is just 1 or 2 players that are really
engaged or relevant and the rest is fiddling their thumbs. I am just
experiencing this again as player in DM Mirceas campaign.
* Now here’s a big conflict with the point about sandboxes: For the
campaign to be interesting and meaningful, you need a social setting
rife with conflict and interactions. But in actual play it seems to
me that running dungeons still works best. It is also less demanding
of the DM than running and improvising interesting social
encounters. So this led to my current kind of preferred gaming style
of running mostly dungeons and combat in actual play and running a
social sandbox for character development and world exploration on
the campaign wiki.
* There’s a also a social aspect of relevance at the meta-level: A
smaller party size (3 or 4 max) would certainly make it easier to
have more social interactions and character development during a
session like we had in the past. But I also came to the conclusion
that having a bigger party size makes the game and campaign much
more relevant for everyone at the meta level. Many of my sessions
with just 3 players felt a bit meaningless or bland in
retrospective. If you kill the BBEG with a critical hit with just 2
companions at the table it doesn’t feel the same as with 5, where
there’s always a lot of cheering, high-fiving etc. going on. It’s a
bit like watching sports now in empty stadiums compared to fully
packed ones in the past. It’s kind of stupid, but it really seems
that among humans, everything becomes much more meaningful and long
lasting in memory if there are a lot of spectators/companions.
It’s not just the B/X campaigns that went on for a long time; the D&D
3.5 and now the D&D 5 campaigns all went on for at least 30+ sessions,
if not twice as much – even if I did not enjoy high level 3.5. I
suspect that it has to do with how spell levels structure D&D
gameplay: on the one hand, every new spell level attained changes the
gameplay itself (suddenly you can fly, or fireball large groups of
kobolds), and it also advertizes that change ahead of time in the
rules: if you play until you get to level so and so, you’ll be able to
do this and that. And immediately, people start dreaming.
This makes me nostalgic. I wish I’d kept a campaign diary back in the
day. I don’t think any games suggest such a thing (who thought about
40 years later) but it would be nice to read throughs something like
that now.
