While we take our hiatus from 4e, I find myself with more time to think about role-playing, not because we haven't filled the gap with a different game -- we've yet to start in Pathfinder, but have taken a side-step into the World of Darkness -- but because I'm not currently the Dungeon Master/Gamemaster/Storyteller. Griff has taken over that role for now.
The reason that I'm the DM so often, though, is because I like creating stories, like telling stories, and like causing pain and suffering in others (characters and players alike). Since I cannot fulfill these desires at present, I have to be content with just thinking about how I'll do so the next time I get the chance. And, on that note, I've been working on my latest campaign idea.
Since our 4e experience has so far been solely with the WOTC modules, I've never made any content in the current edition, not campaigns, modules, encounters or monsters. And, even though I've claimed to have forsaken 4e for now, I find that, because of the more recent exposure to 4e and the dwindling (though fond) memories of 3.5, that design thoughts keep steering to 4e concepts of encounters, roles and powers. Thus, I'm taking the challenge to write this campaign in both 3.5/Pathfinder and 4e versions at the same time.
This could be a disaster, of course. Refreshing my 3.5 knowledge is just going to cloud the 4e that I've only just gotten comfortable with, so it will be interesting to see if they can both co-exist at suitable levels in my head as I design this campaign. I haven't decided if it's going to be possible to design encounters in a way that, no matter what the edition you play, advancement is consistent -- that is, if the party survives encounters A1 through A7, they'll make it from 1st- to 2nd-level, in both 3.5 and 4e. On the one hand, it makes planning a lot easier if that was possible, but on the other hand, 3.5 goes to 20th level (before epic rules kick in), whereas 4e goes to 30th level "normally". So should that be the meter for advancement? Or does it really matter at all? One thing I haven't done is try to gauge what the comparable strength of nth-level characters are between the two versions, and perhaps that's what's necessary to determine the progression of each edition's implementation. So, by the time the party encounters Bossman Z, they should be of similar mightiness, not because I can't adjust the 3.5 and 4e versions of Bossman Z appropriately, but because the tone and spirit of the campaign at Bossman Z's point is such that the party should be suitably ... heroic. Mighty. Epic.
Anyhow, as I work on this, I'll occasionally post on how it's going, whether to complain about or praise 4e for how it is to work with from a designer's point-of-view, or to drop a few "well THREE POINT FIVE does this better than FOUR EEE does..."-type of posts. Or, admittedly, how 4e may very well be easier to design with than 3.5. But shh, don't tell anyone I said that.
Showing posts with label campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign. Show all posts
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
DMG - Campaigns
Oops. Obviously I don't look ahead to see what the chapters are, as I talked about some of the ideas in the Campaigns chapter when I discussed the Adventures chapter.
Of course, a lot of the rules and ideas behind creating and running a module also apply to the campaign as a whole. Again, this chapter is meant, I feel, for newer Dungeon Masters who need some guidance in developing their world and the adventures within. In the same way as the Adventures chapter, it starts off talking about published campaigns, and how you can use or modify them to your needs. I think that using a published campaign setting is more recommended than a published module, because creating a whole campaign setting can be daunting and quite time-consuming. Taking a world created by others and adding your own twist into it is so much easier.
And, as this chapter reminds you, there's no reason that you have to stick with anything in the publish material -- if you don't like the name of this city, or where it is, or who rules it, change away. The only warning that needs to be given is that if your players are familiar with the campaign setting, perhaps too much, then they might argue fine points that you change and/or dislike the changes you make to their beloved world.
The various themes suggested are pretty standard fare, and I think I've used nearly all of them. World-Shaking Events, Divine Strife... these are what tell the characters that their role in the events will put then in the annals of history forever. The subgenres are a little more subtle, and while I've taken snippets of these here and there for a campaign, I myself stick to the Swords & Sorcery style of campaign for the most part. To me, many of these could last for a module or two, but a campaign dedicated to them seems a bit much. Perhaps my players don't agree?
The idea of the Super Adventure is interesting. It's not new, but putting a name to it is, I think. The campaign I'm currently designing could be classified as a super adventure. One thing that I find lacking in campaigns that I've made (and this is wholly my fault) is that the characters don't get much sense of a homebase. The story takes them from village to town to city, from kingdom to kingdom, from crypt to dungeon to demi-plane. There's no familiarity being built-up, apart from the occasional visit from recurring NPCs and the general flow of the plot. The super adventure, being focussed in one setting, helps to both personalize the events that are taking place in the characters' (possibly adopted) home, as well as to provide easier revelations of the effects that the party is having on its environs. If the characters see the city grow from ruins to a thriving metropolis, knowing they're the direct cause, that's as rewarding as the electrum pieces in their purses.
The next few parts are again for the newer Dungeon Master, talking about the story design and flow, and how to introduce the players and their characters to your schemes. The Starting at Higher Level section seems out of place here, being a rule-based section in an otherwise role-playing chapter. Isn't this discussed in the Player's Handbook?
The section on running a campaign gives guidance on tying together separate modules, either ones that are meant to be in a chain of events, or ones that might be completely separate ideas that the Dungeon Master wants to turn into an epic series of conflicts. When using store-bought adventures, such as the initial 8 from 3rd edition, you had a subtle theme in the background (the ancient dragon Ashardalon) that loosely related the modules together. But it was up to the Dungeon Master to give a reason why the party went from the Sunless Citadel to the Forge of Fury and onward to Brindinford. When making your own campaign and modules within, I tend to start with a grand scheme and parcel it out into smaller bits that make sense as self-contained stories, but stories that all tie together, progressing to the ultimate... demise of the party.
My favorite section of this chapter was on the Tiers of Play, where they spell out the kinds of events that characters in each tier might expect to see, the foes they will face, and the range of the characters' adventures and fame. I'm still not sure what I think of the Epic Destinies, however. They have a note of finality to them, that this character has reached the end of their career, even while this chapter assures you that immortality doesn't mean retirement.
Now, if only one of our parties could make it that far.
Of course, a lot of the rules and ideas behind creating and running a module also apply to the campaign as a whole. Again, this chapter is meant, I feel, for newer Dungeon Masters who need some guidance in developing their world and the adventures within. In the same way as the Adventures chapter, it starts off talking about published campaigns, and how you can use or modify them to your needs. I think that using a published campaign setting is more recommended than a published module, because creating a whole campaign setting can be daunting and quite time-consuming. Taking a world created by others and adding your own twist into it is so much easier.
And, as this chapter reminds you, there's no reason that you have to stick with anything in the publish material -- if you don't like the name of this city, or where it is, or who rules it, change away. The only warning that needs to be given is that if your players are familiar with the campaign setting, perhaps too much, then they might argue fine points that you change and/or dislike the changes you make to their beloved world.
The various themes suggested are pretty standard fare, and I think I've used nearly all of them. World-Shaking Events, Divine Strife... these are what tell the characters that their role in the events will put then in the annals of history forever. The subgenres are a little more subtle, and while I've taken snippets of these here and there for a campaign, I myself stick to the Swords & Sorcery style of campaign for the most part. To me, many of these could last for a module or two, but a campaign dedicated to them seems a bit much. Perhaps my players don't agree?
The idea of the Super Adventure is interesting. It's not new, but putting a name to it is, I think. The campaign I'm currently designing could be classified as a super adventure. One thing that I find lacking in campaigns that I've made (and this is wholly my fault) is that the characters don't get much sense of a homebase. The story takes them from village to town to city, from kingdom to kingdom, from crypt to dungeon to demi-plane. There's no familiarity being built-up, apart from the occasional visit from recurring NPCs and the general flow of the plot. The super adventure, being focussed in one setting, helps to both personalize the events that are taking place in the characters' (possibly adopted) home, as well as to provide easier revelations of the effects that the party is having on its environs. If the characters see the city grow from ruins to a thriving metropolis, knowing they're the direct cause, that's as rewarding as the electrum pieces in their purses.
The next few parts are again for the newer Dungeon Master, talking about the story design and flow, and how to introduce the players and their characters to your schemes. The Starting at Higher Level section seems out of place here, being a rule-based section in an otherwise role-playing chapter. Isn't this discussed in the Player's Handbook?
The section on running a campaign gives guidance on tying together separate modules, either ones that are meant to be in a chain of events, or ones that might be completely separate ideas that the Dungeon Master wants to turn into an epic series of conflicts. When using store-bought adventures, such as the initial 8 from 3rd edition, you had a subtle theme in the background (the ancient dragon Ashardalon) that loosely related the modules together. But it was up to the Dungeon Master to give a reason why the party went from the Sunless Citadel to the Forge of Fury and onward to Brindinford. When making your own campaign and modules within, I tend to start with a grand scheme and parcel it out into smaller bits that make sense as self-contained stories, but stories that all tie together, progressing to the ultimate... demise of the party.
My favorite section of this chapter was on the Tiers of Play, where they spell out the kinds of events that characters in each tier might expect to see, the foes they will face, and the range of the characters' adventures and fame. I'm still not sure what I think of the Epic Destinies, however. They have a note of finality to them, that this character has reached the end of their career, even while this chapter assures you that immortality doesn't mean retirement.
Now, if only one of our parties could make it that far.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Adventures in 4e
We finished our third session of 4th edition last night.
So far, this campaign has been very combat heavy, partly by the design of the module, but also based on the choices the players are making. This means we've been putting the combat system through the loops, and so far, I'd say it's standing up.
The issue of level one characters and their meager hit points in earlier editions (such as the ever-vulnerable wizards and sorcerers) is long gone, and good riddance. With the new starting hit points, everyone can take a smack or two. Granted, with the new role idea, the controllers such as the wizard really shouldn't be taking too many smacks anyway, with the defender supposed to be, well, defending, but everyone has their own play style, and it hasn't turned out dismally for that.
We've had a lot of close calls, a few characters on their way to dying, and I think all in all the level 1 encounters have been very balanced for how involved they have been. This last encounter had many more foes than you could ever shove into a 3rd edition encounter, no matter how small you made the enemies. This gives a very nice realism and flexibility that I've mentioned before -- early encounters are not limited to four or five maximum.
The healing issue is still a sticky point with me. It was nice that each character could use a second wind during the encounter, and Crwth the cleric expended every bit of healing magic he could muster -- which isn't much at first level. I suppose I need to remind myself that even in 3e, I wouldn't have that many Cure Light Wounds spells at my disposal either, so given the amount of damage being dealt to the party, I don't know that we would have fared any differently. Still, for a cleric, the iconic healer, to be able to do nothing for his party members except stabilize with a skill check that anyone might have made, it felt disappointing. Some sort of at-will gain-one-hitpoint power or something would be nice. As it is, the paladin is just going to rest there for a bit as she recoups.
I think action points have become welcome to everyone. In this last back-to-back set of battles, every character used an action point to persevere, which helped demonstrate the heroic nature of the party, beating all odds by tapping every resource they have. And tap they did -- I think every Daily and Encounter power was used up as well.
Some of the new combat rules were used effectively by both the enemy and the party. Using party members as cover for the strikers worked well, and the ability to knock a target unconscious with the final blow, instead of killing them outright, was also used -- perhaps a bit oversimplified, but definitely less of a hassle than trying to do subdual damage to accomplish the same thing in third edition.
The party also had their first skill challenge last night, which was barely successful. I can safely admit now that it was an impromptu one, not anticipated by the module, but which played out well, until someGriff who shall remain nameless got a bit greedy.
The talk of combat being faster, though, I do not agree with. There are still tactics to be decided, things to look up (even once it's a familiar ruleset, that won't fully go away), and other tricks (on the enemies' side) that prolong things just when the party thinks they're done. Even with a late start, the back-to-back combats lasted until after 2:00am.
All in all, a very accomplished night. The party has reached second level, which isn't as exciting as it was in older editions; no class-choosing, rank-ascribing, hit-point-rolling... everything is very simple -- too simple, in my opinion -- and quick. I planned the next 20 levels of Crwth in a few minutes, which does take a bit of fun out of it. One feat, one utility power, add some static hit points, and increasing a handful of values up by one. That's it!
So far, this campaign has been very combat heavy, partly by the design of the module, but also based on the choices the players are making. This means we've been putting the combat system through the loops, and so far, I'd say it's standing up.
The issue of level one characters and their meager hit points in earlier editions (such as the ever-vulnerable wizards and sorcerers) is long gone, and good riddance. With the new starting hit points, everyone can take a smack or two. Granted, with the new role idea, the controllers such as the wizard really shouldn't be taking too many smacks anyway, with the defender supposed to be, well, defending, but everyone has their own play style, and it hasn't turned out dismally for that.
We've had a lot of close calls, a few characters on their way to dying, and I think all in all the level 1 encounters have been very balanced for how involved they have been. This last encounter had many more foes than you could ever shove into a 3rd edition encounter, no matter how small you made the enemies. This gives a very nice realism and flexibility that I've mentioned before -- early encounters are not limited to four or five maximum.
The healing issue is still a sticky point with me. It was nice that each character could use a second wind during the encounter, and Crwth the cleric expended every bit of healing magic he could muster -- which isn't much at first level. I suppose I need to remind myself that even in 3e, I wouldn't have that many Cure Light Wounds spells at my disposal either, so given the amount of damage being dealt to the party, I don't know that we would have fared any differently. Still, for a cleric, the iconic healer, to be able to do nothing for his party members except stabilize with a skill check that anyone might have made, it felt disappointing. Some sort of at-will gain-one-hitpoint power or something would be nice. As it is, the paladin is just going to rest there for a bit as she recoups.
I think action points have become welcome to everyone. In this last back-to-back set of battles, every character used an action point to persevere, which helped demonstrate the heroic nature of the party, beating all odds by tapping every resource they have. And tap they did -- I think every Daily and Encounter power was used up as well.
Some of the new combat rules were used effectively by both the enemy and the party. Using party members as cover for the strikers worked well, and the ability to knock a target unconscious with the final blow, instead of killing them outright, was also used -- perhaps a bit oversimplified, but definitely less of a hassle than trying to do subdual damage to accomplish the same thing in third edition.
The party also had their first skill challenge last night, which was barely successful. I can safely admit now that it was an impromptu one, not anticipated by the module, but which played out well, until someGriff who shall remain nameless got a bit greedy.
The talk of combat being faster, though, I do not agree with. There are still tactics to be decided, things to look up (even once it's a familiar ruleset, that won't fully go away), and other tricks (on the enemies' side) that prolong things just when the party thinks they're done. Even with a late start, the back-to-back combats lasted until after 2:00am.
All in all, a very accomplished night. The party has reached second level, which isn't as exciting as it was in older editions; no class-choosing, rank-ascribing, hit-point-rolling... everything is very simple -- too simple, in my opinion -- and quick. I planned the next 20 levels of Crwth in a few minutes, which does take a bit of fun out of it. One feat, one utility power, add some static hit points, and increasing a handful of values up by one. That's it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
