I'm going to start writing down some of my "gaming ethos", or more less how I'm going to start running my games. I'm probably going to write up a nice document for my house rules, to keep track of what I want in my games, and maybe as a sort of explanation for players. Right now I want to talk a little more about classless D&D, and Adventurers.
Something that's already been talked about in the OSR, is how game balance either sucks or is not necessary. I'm definitely of that school of thought, though I'll explain how I particularly feel about it. There should be some semblance of party balance, in that the game should be fun for everyone. However I don't think it needs to be carefully policed, and measured precisely. I think players should do what is fun for them, and that be that. In other words, it doesn't matter if the Wizard is more powerful than the Fighter, because each player is playing the game they way they want to; IE their approaching the challenges presented to them in their own fashion. In that particular example I think I've already discussed how to balance magic, and that is through costing resources (gold, scrolls, etc). Everyone is capable of using magic, in one way or another, it just costs them, and it is that choice; whether to spend their resources on magic items, or better weapons, armor, and troops, that makes the game interesting.
There is the argument, however, that not everyone should be able to do everything. Some argue for the sake of game balance, others for specialty, and others for realism. I've already addressed the first issue above, and elsewhere, through I'll recap quickly. Balance isn't a problem if everyone can do everything, as long it costs something; and that choice of what to use your resources on, is at least to me, a choice that makes things interesting.
As far as every player being "unique" this is either a non-problem, or one that involves particular players. Say Geoffrey wants to play an insane sorcerer. Well Geoffrey is going to call dibs on any magical items the party finds, particularly scrolls and magical staffs. The insane part, he handles by "role-playing" (I know a crazy thought, role-playing, and not use rules-defined, "character abilities). Now Jeff, thinks this is a cool idea. So Jeff starts "acting insane" and trying to grab all the magical items he can. This can be perfectly fine, but if actually bothers Geoffrey, he just needs to tell Jeff: "Hey man, that's not cool, you're stealing my idea, and it's making the game less fun for me". That simple. If Jeff doesn't stop, either kill his character, talk to him again, or stop playing with him.
Realism, however is a funny concern, because we're playing D&D. If you are concerned with realism: "why does Robert's character get to the play the lute too? He didn't write that into his character background, and he's not a Bard!", you're playing the wrong game. I'm not normally for the "Heroic D&D" game, at least not in the superheroes, Pathfinder, sense. I do like the Hercules, and Beowulf style heroics. Something that I can agree on, is that while you're "normal people facing heroic challenges", I can agree you're a cut above the rest. You're motivation, alone shows your not just the average peasant farmer. The fact you've rolled ability scores, as a mechanic, represents this.
So how do we handle realism? We don't. We assume competence. Take the show Hercules for example. Hercules, is a generally competent, talented adventurer. He can pick up a lute and start playing. These things, are really mundane tasks, and anyone should be able to do them: pick locks, break down doors, sing, etc. Maybe you need a attribute check, or maybe your attributes can determine how good you are at them. High dexterity? You play the lute pretty damn well. Low charisma? I don't think you'd be able to sing to well.
You're not talking about mundane tasks, I hear you say. You're talking about true Heroics! Inspiring battle songs, disarming complex traps, etc. Well these are handled by...role playing. Describe your actions, build your character background as you play. This part requires a fair referee, but as you do things, you should get better. At the very least, Heroics are when dice come in to play. Maybe you need to make a die roll, because there is a chance of failure. Maybe you've been picking locks this whole adventure, and you've been playing with a puzzle box on your down time, and maybe your Referee rules that you've got a better chance than normal to disarm the trap.
These function just like the rules do, with two very big differences. 1) You don't need the rules, and 2) You're not restricted by the rules (IE class abilities, and skill systems). All I'm doing here, really, is using common sense, and extrapolating the underlying logic of the rules system. Yes this style of gaming isn't for everyone, but it's super simple, and it's a ton of fun (with the right kind of players, usually called "friends).
To clarify, this isn't even playing with "no rules". You have tons of metrics available to help in determining rulings. Even without classes, you've got Level and Attributes. You're level can determine your power, and even effectiveness, and your attributes can determine competence and what you can try. Like I said, I'm really just jotting down what I'm thinking lately, and using this as a sort of "gaming manifesto".
No comments:
Post a Comment