Ambiance, Allusions, and Limitations

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
I agree about the long-term campaign. When I was younger, I would create a rough sandbox and pick the modules I wanted to use depending on different levels and bam--the campaign. Just got to adapt as characters may die, others brought in, etc.

I also wanted to comment on the name-drop stuff again. For publication, I always considered it more of a DM tool, in which they can share it or not. In my opinion, a bottle of wine (150 gp) is boring compared to a bottle of Evra's Spark of the vineyards of far-off Lassuth (150 gp). The players NEVER need to see the dramatic title UNLESS the DM wants them too. Perhaps the lands of Lassuth sparked something for the DM and he/she wants to include it in their world or maybe it does nothing and the DM just decides its just a bottle of wine--doesn't matter as players wont know the difference. Or maybe 'the flair' sparks something for the DM and they change the name Lassuth to Vornya as Vornya is actually a place in their world. 'The flair' serves as a reminder tool for the DM to encourage them to make their world feel bigger or alive.

'The Flair'--new vocab word for DMs...use it, love it....throw it in your book Bryce.
 

DangerousPuhson

Should be playing D&D instead
Proper names are tricky and sticky, and I still rally to omit then when possible.

If I'm throwing Evra's Spark of the vineyards of far-off Lassuth at my party, and suddenly they decide they want to visit wherever the hell Lassuth is supposed to fit in my world, then I'm now pigeonholed into inventing a place I never wanted to include in my game in the first place - a place where the party is sidetracked from my prepared materials and plots. However if I had just thrown Evra's Spark wine (sans the Lassuth stuff) at my party, I think it still accomplishes being more than just a 150gp bottle of wine without having to invent an entire nation to back it up.

The DM is the truth of the world in the game. By having outside parties dictate what is in my world by virtue of references, I as the DM have effectively given up my power to wield absolute truth in my world, which concerns me.
 

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
Proper names are tricky and sticky, and I still rally to omit then when possible.

If I'm throwing Evra's Spark of the vineyards of far-off Lassuth at my party, and suddenly they decide they want to visit wherever the hell Lassuth is supposed to fit in my world, then I'm now pigeonholed into inventing a place I never wanted to include in my game in the first place - a place where the party is sidetracked from my prepared materials and plots. However if I had just thrown Evra's Spark wine (sans the Lassuth stuff) at my party, I think it still accomplishes being more than just a 150gp bottle of wine without having to invent an entire nation to back it up.

The DM is the truth of the world in the game. By having outside parties dictate what is in my world by virtue of references, I as the DM have effectively given up my power to wield absolute truth in my world, which concerns me.
But that's exactly it though....as a DM, you can choose to take out the Lassuth stuff. However, when prepping for running your dungeon, if Lassuth sparks something then you leave it in to develop it later if your players bite. It's just a tool....when I see stuff like that, I immediately imagine what it might or could be...maybe that doesn't work the same way for others.
 

DangerousPuhson

Should be playing D&D instead
It's just a tool....when I see stuff like that, I immediately imagine what it might or could be...maybe that doesn't work the same way for others.
That's fair. I suppose I pride myself on my ability to improvise at the table, and so for a guy like me, the inclusion of such 'Flair' gets in the way more than it helps - However, I will acknowledge that people who aren't so big on improvising might find it useful.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
What I found interesting in the sub-link of Grognardia's older post entitled "Time in the Old School Campaign" from 2009 was the comments wondering if anyone other than Gygax ever had 2 competing PC groups of players playing in the same world simultaneously, (BTW, I know my DM did back in the 70's. Although I never met his other group of friends, we saw the effects of their handwork in his world---memorably, a bag of holding we retrieved that they had previously shoved nasty critters in a as prison-of-last-resort and then discarded).
I do this. All my campaigns run in the same world; some of them share timelines and NPCs, and there can be a certain amount of movement of PCs between parties.

I love long term campaigns, but even back in the day a lot of them didn't go past a few sessions. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. DMs run out of steam, players move in and out. We generally had two long term campaigns going simultaneously through most of my adolescence, but there were also lots of one shots and failed campaigns. I suspect this is true of other groups, but people tend to remember the long campaigns and forget all the oneshots.

Now of course a long campaign is nearly impossible to run, because life gets in the way.

I like name drops, but I never use them unless I have something in mind for who/what/where they are.
 

Reason

A FreshHell to Contend With
I'd say the 10 year campaign is a rare thing. You don't get too many shots at it! Easily buggered by people moving, friendship bust ups, changes of life etc.

Currently in a 8 year WHFRPG campaign & counting as a player. Started as the "off week" game our group when our "main game" DM didn't have the juice. Our "main game" meanwhile has switched 3 different settings & rule sets in that time (D&D 2eish; homebrew post apocalypse Mad Max/Mutant Future; homebrew Hyborian Age OD&D) after steam loss, world ending TPK & over seas postings.

Having said that, the 3 "shorter" games ran 3 years, 1 yearish until they blew up the universe & then 2 years (interludes of only WHFRPG years).
Moving home to Oz again in a few months so need to consider what I give my next shot at running...
 

Reason

A FreshHell to Contend With
No, he lives in the magical Munchkin land. Obviously. Or a prison TV show. Both equally likely.
:LOL: hellish prison/Australia, same thing right?

On reflection though you could probably get some solid campaign time done in prison.

As for the "far off Lassuth" wine. I usually take the cue from the author & just sub in a region from my world that I want to begin referencing. Spark wine from... insert place notable NPC will be from to allow a bit of conversation starter later. Or simply to reinforce the world- oh yeah Stygia, I guess they have wine their too as well as shadow guarded tombs.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Here's a post from Mosters & Manuals that sums up my preference for a "hidden history" that informs the design.
Breathing life into old threads this week? :unsure:

The comments were almost more interesting than the article. I feel like we have this history debate here frequently with the TenFoot wall-of-text dogma at one end and Malrex' love of backstory at the other. I agree with Bryce's dislike of useless information crapping up room descriptions. The fact that the room used to be a pantry is affecting the fact that it's now a kobold squat how?

I think Malrex' leaning towards a backstory at the start or chapter-head is a good solution as long as it's succinct and at least semi-relevant to the here and now. A lot of DM's like to know the hidden story of what came before since it flavours their narrative and a lot of players like to have things to piece together with their investigative skills, even if the payoff is just useless lore.

The departed DP told me in one of his criticisms to show-don't-tell in the room description in order to communicate past history, sort of like what Noism tried with his pit description. I tried this with the first take of the Summer Palace, and just like in Noism's example, people mostly didn't know what was being implied by the descriptions without context. So probably, a bit of both; a short description of the history of the place so the DM knows what to keep his eyes pealed for and then terse show-AND-tell in the descriptions. (Noism's example goes a little long for my tastes, but go with that and add a DM's note below simply saying the body is an executed assassin. And, in the case of utterly superfluous former-usage information like my pantry example above; drop in a line about old shelves and move on.

'Mosters': either really optimistic NPC's or maxed-out, optimized monsters. :D
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Telling me too much sucks all the romance out of it. Whereas teasing me with bits and pieces arouses my creative juices. Well written text is seductive. Holes beg to be filled.

(Apologies for the overly sexual metaphors at 6 am. I never could get the hang of Thursdays.)
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Per Noisms example: If a DM can't suss out and riff off of a great lead-in, then screw 'em! :)

DMing has (and always will) be for the top 10% of those with a certain set of skills. The commercial approach of TSR/WotC (post AD&D) is like forcing the band to only play "Chopsticks" because that's what everyone can manage. Forget it. I don't think it's wrong to just tell those who can't keep up: "Sorry, maybe this is not for you".
 

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
That's an interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

I actually like the first example better of the pit, BUT it only works for me if there was a sentence in the beginning of the adventure or beginning of the Appendix of that particular dungeon section (if it was a big megadungeon). As a DM, I just don't want to try and figure out what the designer was trying to do or say while I'm reading it--it makes it feel really DRY to me and I would have to put some work into it--and if I have to put work into something, may as well write my own adventure.

Noism--
"For example, let's imagine I was making a megadungeon inside a place called Bald Mountain. I might decide that the first level comprises a network of tunnels and chambers constructed by a cult of dwarves who worshipped the Crow God. I would map the level accordingly, and include, amongst other things, shrines, chapels, halls of worship, sacristies, monks' and novices' dormitories, and so on. I would then plot out areas that had collapsed or been ransacked; that had been taken over by vagrants; that still contained the original (undead) inhabitants; that had become infested by crow demons; that were now being used as hideouts for outlaws, and so on. And I would be careful to include room contents that, here and there, hinted at the respective chambers' original uses."

So in the beginning...this would be useful for me.
"Inside Bald Mountain, there were dwarves that worshipped the Crow God. Red-shirt assassins continually tried to assassinate them, due to disagreement of their beliefs. Now some areas have been ransacked and taken over by vagrants, past worshippers are undead trying to protect the place, and other areas are infested with crow demons."

That's it. Now I understand a vague and rough history/backstory that I can riff off of. It has provided a few stepping stones down the path of imagination where I can grab the reigns and move forward on my own riffing.

Now anytime I see a corpse with a red shirt, as the DM, NOW I understand the backstory a bit without it clogging up each and every room and it makes sense and I can build off of it if I need too. For example, if someone did use Speak with Dead, like in the comments example, I could riff off a much better RP situation since I know this corpse used to be an assassin. Otherwise, I would just see another corpse in a pit--just like the players do, and have to make something up on the spot. Not that Speak With Death happens in that type of situation a lot, but I'm just working with the example provided.

"The aim, in other words, is not necessarily to put in place enough clues that the players could, like explorer-scholars, piece together the entire history of the place they are exploring. (Though that would be cool.) It is, rather, to make it feel to them as though their PCs inhabit an actual place."

This reminds me of my 'librarian' character. Being an explorer-scholar was my aim and trying that particular playstyle--- trying to figure out the history and story of a dungeon, was my ultimate goal for my character. I found it 'not cool' and a bit boring (and the other players were not impressed with my spell selection)--but it was the main reason why I tried a 'librarian' (or a mage with a lot of detection, comprehend magics instead of magic missile and sleep). But I do like this sentence....because I agree with it. The aim shouldn't be having enough clues for PCs to piece everything together---BUT for me personally as a DM, I DO want to be provided a little intro/clues of what the designer was thinking for the place rather than trying to piece it out, especially during play. And if the players DID really want to piece everything together, then I could make that easier for them as DM because I would know what was up.

It feels the same to me if rumors were left out and I had to scramble to come up with rumors....or wandering encounters....a little backstory in the beginning is a tool. I usually just call it 'Summary' in my published adventures. It's the 'Welcome Mat' for the DM--this is what I was thinking for this adventure, now things may make sense where I put things or why things are the way they are, but do with it as you will.'

Telling me too much sucks all the romance out of it. Whereas teasing me with bits and pieces arouses my creative juices. Well written text is seductive. Holes beg to be filled.

(Apologies for the overly sexual metaphors at 6 am. I never could get the hang of Thursdays.)
The last sentence cracked me up....lol. I DO agree with squeen here...I don't want to be told every little bitty thing and detail because that doesn't give me room to flex my own creativity (and like Noisms said (and Bryce and 1True) it can clog up the writing in rooms). But I would argue that having this little nugget in the beginning: "Red-shirt assassins continually tried to assassinate them, due to disagreement of their beliefs." doesn't tell me everything, it won't clog up every room, and it does provide a springboard for me to 'arouse my creative juices'.... AND, the part I like, it makes the potion of poison make more sense (because the corpse had a red shirt=assassin) to me why its at the bottom of the pit (rather than a potential "Gotcha" moment for my players). I might of even added a scroll with a list of names and gp prices with some marked off--but that would depend on my players gamestyle (i.e. to appease the explorer-scholar playstyle) or can just let it ride and let the PCs wonder.
 

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
This also reminds me of when first starting out writing/publishing...and I see my partner do this still as well sometimes. It's like we were afraid to reveal everything...we wanted this mystery....and maybe after reading the whole thing in its entirety you would find out what its all about!

Now I think that is the wrong approach--that style is more for a novel in my opinion. Be upfront, say what's up to help the DM, but leave enough room for their imagination and to make them feel at home when they change/adapt/run/whatever with the adventure you have provided. It can and SHOULD still feel like a novel for the PCs---but shouldn't feel that way for the DM.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
It's an art, no doubt. Gygax did it well with the G-D series, and even Greyhawk alluded to more than it told explicitly. The unseen Elder Elemental God and Thazidun are far more interesting from a DM's perspective than Lolth who's allure was severly blunted by a boring and pedantic Q1. It's the depths of Moria conundrum---those unexplored dark corners of the world call to us, but every attempt to map them in detail creates something lesser...it's no longer Moria.

Noisms pedantic example is actually a major turn-off for me (again with the sexual overtones!). I'm fine with the little background Malrex gives above, but when the author starts giving me long lists of details or more than one or two character names (and WTF they did off-camera)...Zzzzzzzzzz. I switch off because that's exactly the kind of D&D I want to avoid: the DM's little soap opera. NPCs should be arch-types, not Mary Sues.

I say this as someone who took an in-game villain (Lareth) and tried to turn him into a reoccurring nemesis...only to have my players wack him in the next encounter. But even years later, his name still comes up---but they are interested in clues related to his earlier actions because they really, really HATED the SOB and knew he was into some serious shit. It's a bit like the DaVinci code...if he touched it, it might be significant, so their ears perk up. Or to switch metaphors, a golden thread that keeps popping up in odd places through out a tapestry.

The mistake (IMO) is to rob such a subject of it's mystique by laying it out too elaborately---either for the player OR the DM. As much as necessary, but no more. Evoke much with as few concrete words as possible.

'Nuff said.
 
Last edited:

Malrex

So ... slow work day? Every day?
Ya, @squeen, I think we are on the same page.

I looked back through the thread above and will also repeat that I don't mind a little fluff with magic item/mundane items of value once in awhile. I think you can maneuver that info so that players DO learn about it or have heard of it from bard's tales, etc.
 
Top