[AD&D 2e] {Preplay} Preparing a simulationist AD&D game.

[Alex Abate Biral]

[Chris_Chinn]

Hi Alex,

First recommendation- whatever games you play, I'd worry about the Big Model theory stuff after the fact. 

It sounds like you might be confused about some aspects ("consequences = gamism", etc.), but really it's better to play first, then see how it applies rather than build a construct in your head then try to apply it to play.  Play first, analyze later.

The biggest, biggest, biggest thing that's going to affect your game is whether the group is on the same page or not.  Not just "Conan-like", but literally their understanding of how play works for this game, this time. 

Are some of the players expecting a map and some encounters, and outside of that, no nudging or pushing on your part?  Are some players expecting a pre-written story which you will guide them through?  Something else?

Does playing D&D of any type mean they're expecting you to follow the rules?  Are they expecting you to fiat and fudge at will?  Are PCs supposed to work as a team?  Are they supposed to backstab each other?

Does Conan mean the original stories, the knock-offs, the movies, the comics, or the videogames?  Does it just mean half-naked people kicking ass or running into driven people trying to use you as a tool?

These are just some very outlying questions that the group -has- to get on board with - some groups find it naturally, some do not.  Part of the reason AD&D in general leads towards incoherent play is that many of these questions are unanswered and little or no tools are given to help a group even realize how crucial they are to playing.

AD&D 2E adds an additional feature that also causes problems- the experience system.  Older versions of D&D rewarded experience for gold acquired, which made a simple reward system and you can see why stuff like encumberance, etc. is included. 

AD&D 2E has a neat system where the characters are rewarded for doing actions along their class - Fighters for fighting, Wizards for magic, etc. which is "realistic" (loosely speaking), but also tends to reward not working as a team or even fighting monsters.  This -could- be a fun idea, but it's also layered on top of legacy rules designed specifically with the ideas that the party sticks together and that xp is gained primarily by dungeon delving and not combat.

There's definitely probably better systems to use, but again, the question is whether the group is on the same page, and excited about it.  All of the same questions I listed above will have to be resolved for successful play of any game.

Chris

[Rustin]

Alex,
I'm going through almost the exact thing (d20 3.5 Sim Pirate/Swashbuckling).
Maybe we can help each other.

The terms I've focused in on are Color and Reward, on the assumption that if everyone aims at the same color and reward, things should go ok.

I'm about to send out an email to this group talking about Color and Exploration, specifically detailing my understanding of our shared priority.  Then I talk about how fair fights and literary narrative exploration will take a second seat to exploration, where the test is plausibility in relationship to the color and setting we've agreed upon.

I'm just starting a part where I examine the rules we've agreed upon, and I'm trying to point out where they might trip us up in our Sim priority, and then offer some tweaks and suggestions. What specifically I want to tweak, however, I'm still not sure.

In the forefront, I see that high level characters strain my sense of plausibility given the genre.  So I'm thinking maybe using the Epic 8 or epic 6 rules (where they level up to 6th or 8th level, then after that they can get feats, but only if they have the correct pre-req).

I'm a bit worried about Mechanical reward (e.g., Exp, magic etc...) as the d20 system has reward fueled into more tactical battle ability balance mechanic. 

Also, I'm not sure I want to lock sim-approriate sword fighty  actions up in a feat box.  I look through the Swashbuckling rules and many maneuvers are unavailable until really high levels.   Not sure I like that.

Next I want to address Situation, because often Situation in sim can mimic Nar like priorities.  I don't think many Nar elements are mutually exclusive from Sim, just that the approach and emphasis is different.   There is no discovery of character through moral testing, per se, rather we experience a character archetype in moralistic like situation, and maybe the experience makes the archetype experience more immersive.  I think it is a subtle difference.

I noted in your post:

I will try to create a game where many kinds of situation (not only looting and fighting) present themselves to the characters. These situations can have many different resolutions; depending on the abilities of the PCs. The way they are resolved will create consequences in character and setting. These two elements, in turn, will be focused in providing these consequences. I am thinking of using color to draw attention away from the fact setting and characters are subservient to situation, but I am not very sure how to do it.

Which looks like you're even planning on walking closer to that Sim line than I.
From reading that paragraph, are you sure you won't be happier with Narrativism?

[Alex Abate Biral]

Hi Alex,
First recommendation- whatever games you play, I'd worry about the Big Model theory stuff after the fact. 

It sounds like you might be confused about some aspects ("consequences = gamism", etc.), but really it's better to play first, then see how it applies rather than build a construct in your head then try to apply it to play.  Play first, analyze later.
Quote from: Chris_Chinn on January 02, 2009, 11:07:23 AM

The biggest, biggest, biggest thing that's going to affect your game is whether the group is on the same page or not.  Not just "Conan-like", but literally their understanding of how play works for this game, this time. 

Are some of the players expecting a map and some encounters, and outside of that, no nudging or pushing on your part?  Are some players expecting a pre-written story which you will guide them through?  Something else?

Does playing D&D of any type mean they're expecting you to follow the rules?  Are they expecting you to fiat and fudge at will?  Are PCs supposed to work as a team?  Are they supposed to backstab each other?

Does Conan mean the original stories, the knock-offs, the movies, the comics, or the videogames?  Does it just mean half-naked people kicking ass or running into driven people trying to use you as a tool?

These are just some very outlying questions that the group -has- to get on board with - some groups find it naturally, some do not.  Part of the reason AD&D in general leads towards incoherent play is that many of these questions are unanswered and little or no tools are given to help a group even realize how crucial they are to playing.Quote from: Chris_Chinn on January 02, 2009, 11:07:23 AM

AD&D 2E adds an additional feature that also causes problems- the experience system.  Older versions of D&D rewarded experience for gold acquired, which made a simple reward system and you can see why stuff like encumberance, etc. is included. 

AD&D 2E has a neat system where the characters are rewarded for doing actions along their class - Fighters for fighting, Wizards for magic, etc. which is "realistic" (loosely speaking), but also tends to reward not working as a team or even fighting monsters.  This -could- be a fun idea, but it's also layered on top of legacy rules designed specifically with the ideas that the party sticks together and that xp is gained primarily by dungeon delving and not combat.
Quote from: Rustin on January 02, 2009, 01:45:55 PM

Alex,
I'm going through almost the exact thing (d20 3.5 Sim Pirate/Swashbuckling).
Maybe we can help each other.

Hi there, Rustin! That would be great!

The terms I've focused in on are Color and Reward, on the assumption that if everyone aims at the same color and reward, things should go ok.

I'm about to send out an email to this group talking about Color and Exploration, specifically detailing my understanding of our shared priority.  Then I talk about how fair fights and literary narrative exploration will take a second seat to exploration, where the test is plausibility in relationship to the color and setting we've agreed upon.

I'm just starting a part where I examine the rules we've agreed upon, and I'm trying to point out where they might trip us up in our Sim priority, and then offer some tweaks and suggestions. What specifically I want to tweak, however, I'm still not sure.
Quote from: Rustin on January 02, 2009, 01:45:55 PM

In the forefront, I see that high level characters strain my sense of plausibility given the genre.  So I'm thinking maybe using the Epic 8 or epic 6 rules (where they level up to 6th or 8th level, then after that they can get feats, but only if they have the correct pre-req).

I'm a bit worried about Mechanical reward (e.g., Exp, magic etc...) as the d20 system has reward fueled into more tactical battle ability balance mechanic. 

Also, I'm not sure I want to lock sim-approriate sword fighty  actions up in a feat box.  I look through the Swashbuckling rules and many maneuvers are unavailable until really high levels.   Not sure I like that.
Quote from: Rustin on January 02, 2009, 01:45:55 PM

Next I want to address Situation, because often Situation in sim can mimic Nar like priorities.  I don't think many Nar elements are mutually exclusive from Sim, just that the approach and emphasis is different.   There is no discovery of character through moral testing, per se, rather we experience a character archetype in moralistic like situation, and maybe the experience makes the archetype experience more immersive.  I think it is a subtle difference.

I noted in your post

I will try to create a game where many kinds of situation (not only looting and fighting) present themselves to the characters. These situations can have many different resolutions; depending on the abilities of the PCs. The way they are resolved will create consequences in character and setting. These two elements, in turn, will be focused in providing these consequences. I am thinking of using color to draw attention away from the fact setting and characters are subservient to situation, but I am not very sure how to do it.

Which looks like you're even planning on walking closer to that Sim line than I.
From reading that paragraph, are you sure you won't be happier with Narrativism?

[Chris_Chinn]

Hi Alex,

	Logged

[Alex Abate Biral]

Thanks for the hints, Chris. This is a very delicate issue, specially since one of the possible players is new to rpgs. I didn't focus it on my first post because I was trying to define what play was going to be like before thinking about how I would explain this to the players.

In previous games I played, the game master (I have yet to play an rpg without a GM) assumed everyone was in the same page as himself and just pushed on. Usually, when a players simply seemed to don't know what to do, they tried to drive the story to grab that player, but frequently the player just remained distant.

Personally, I hope that by leaving no room for the player simply assume something, and making some introductory scenarios, I will be able to make things very clear.

[Rustin]

Alex

Consider Situation as its own special aspect of Color.  Which you'll need buy-in from the group up front. To get that buy in, start with a Pitch.  (I hate the notion of "selling" Creative Agenda -- it makes it so antagonistic and places burden on one player to be the seller and gives power to the other members as buyers, that dynamic undermines the whole idea of a shared creative agenda-- so a different word might be an Offer or Idea, and see if it generates enthusiasm).

How you ask the group, I think is key.

For Sim, ask the group:
"Hey, what about experiencing a character betrayed and now in need of vengeance?"

Contrast that with how you would ask, if you were probing for interest in Narrativism:
"Hey, what if we discover a character in situations where events test his restraint vs. his sense of justice?"

 I suspect mindmapping or brain storming, where a subtle use of GNS/Big Model terms could help you organize the brain storming session. 

[Alex Abate Biral]

[Chris_Chinn]

Hi Alex,

Two thoughts (in reverse order, but for simplicity):

First, the political struggle idea can work out fine, though, generally, "threatening" the status quo won't mean much to the players until it's been solidly established to them.  That is, they may not know why they -should- care. 

For example, "He's going to have the Karasha Monument taken down!" doesn't mean anything, "He's going to have the Statue of Liberty taken down!" does, because there is context.  Getting the players to get context, to care, will need to happen before any changes can mean anything to them.

Basically- they need to care before it means anything, and, also, is there any guarantee they won't side -with- the villain?  You might be better off with 3-4 different groups making power moves and letting the players pick sides as they will.  (Also D&D as a system really doesn't do much for this kind of game).

Second, and this might just be me -over reading- your words:

I tried to use a lot of color to make them buy in, trying to describe the situations and way of playing.

You can't -make- anyone buy in. 

Usually, these things work best when you get together face to face and talk about it.  Pitching it over email, even with copious notes, can lead to everyone coming to the table with some interesting diverse interpretations- which may or may not mesh well together.

The other thing is, you can't necessarily read via email how much enthusiasm most people have or don't have for something.  "Yeah I'll play" could be "TOTALLY AWESOME" or it could be "Sure, whatever".  Face to face makes it easier to see who's not buying in from the get go.

[Rustin]

Hey Alex,

I would recommend two things:

Make a One-Sheet.
Read over the rules for Storming the Wizard's Tower.

Like Chris says, buy-in is a tricky thing.  I have had the most success with a One-sheet.  A One-sheet is from the Sorcerer game, but it can be applied to any game really. The one sheet should clearly put forward the Color and Reward of the game you want to run.  Make one large page with cool pictures that describe the context and theme of the game. You hand it to someone, then watch their reaction.  That's a good gauge of buy-in.

Check out my first draft One-Sheet-- for this 7th Seas game.

You'll notice we've reached almost the exact same line of thought: a political board game.  I plan on pulling pretty heavy from Burning Empires and the Maneuver/Infection mechanic.  Although, I'm not sure I quite nailed the color and feel of that mechanic on the one sheet. 

I mention Storming, since I just think the Town creation rules are fun and informative-- not sure exactly if it applies to this goal of Sim in Ad&d.  I just sense there is a nugget of what we are looking for in Sim play in that game.

If you do make a one-sheet, let me know. I'd be interested in seeing it.