First of all, you've built an excellent site with high quality discussions and articles, two thumbs up.

Now, since you seem to be an exceptionally knowledgeable group of people, maybe you can help me. I'm a gamer with a somewhat bad luck when it comes to gaming. longest campaign i've played has been only three scenarios long and most campaigns have been only one scenario, despite being planned as a long campaign and most have been lacking in a way or another. As such, I've decided to methologically build up a campaign that lacks all those propereties that cause campaign failure and for that, I need your help.

The situation:
  - I'm most likely a gamist with the subtype of 'bitterest gamer in the world' http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/
  - Game is going to be played one on one
  - I have only few dozens of games under my belt and the GM is even less experienced player and a first time GM
  - We've already decided to extensively plan the campaign on the general expectations level before beginning to play.
 
Now, into the question itself: Given this situation, how do we optimize the social contracts/expectations so that we will not face unsurmountable problems of differing expectations during the game? We've already discussed about game world on the general level and we're planning on discussing thins such as genre, role of GM, linearity and role of story and railroading, but that list doesn't feel complete. What else should we negotiate about to make sure that the game will proceed smootly and most of all, enjoyably for us both?

Thanks in advance!

- Wallwalker

Hi,

Welcome to the Forge!

First, what system are you guys playing with? 

You and the GM are concerned about how play is going to be, but have either of you played/ran this system before?  You also mention general inexperience, is this system complex?  Wherever the game text itself is least explicit, that's where you and the GM are going to need the most discussion.

Second, since it sounds like you and the GM probably don't have much experience together, why already plan for long term play?  It might make more sense to deliberately throw yourselves into some one-shots, or short runs to see how both of you feel about the game itself, each other, and working styles for play.

Chris

System is most likely going to be gurps, and while neither of us has played with it, I've spent extensive time studying it so familiarity with ruleset shouldn't be a problem.

And why I'm planning for long term games? Mostly because what intrigues me the most in RPGs are things that require a long time to achieve, long term plans, goals and achievements. And of course there's the fact that it's either gaming with this GM or not at all because he's the only realistic option (Other potential GMs have vastly different preferences on what game should be, so playing with them isn't going to be an option.)

Wing it...

Your previous experiences seem to have been these epics that sputtered.  Maybe you'd have better luck if you just sort of started with a skeleton and fleshed it out over time with the stuff you decided you liked?

Welcome! What's your name?

Wallwalker wrote:
And why I'm planning for long term games? Mostly because what intrigues me the most in RPGs are things that require a long time to achieve, long term plans, goals and achievements.

It would help if you could post an example of Actual Play. Is there a game you used to play that hit these buttons for you?

Hello,

Good to have you here. For this discussion to continue, you really do have to provide an example of real, actual play you've experienced.

When was it? What game did you use? Who was playing? What happened in the game? What happened socially? Was it fun? Why or why not?

That's right - describe it like a journalist would, or maybe an autobiographer. Without this, we can't continue with this thread, and your bigger, planning-questions, cannot be answered.

Best,
Ron

When was it? What game did you use? Who was playing? What happened in the game? What happened socially? Was it fun? Why or why not?

That's right - describe it like a journalist would, or maybe an autobiographer. Without this, we can't continue with this thread, and your bigger, planning-questions, cannot be answered.

Hey There,

I don't have a huge amount to add to the discussion, though I'm watching it with interest. Mostly I just wanted to ask whether you've had the chance to look at Donjon, and if not I think you may want to.

-Tim

Great actual play writeup. One thing that jumps right out is that you want the opportunity to be presented with a tactical type of problem, and be given the room to come up with a creative solution. You got to do this with the bridge, but the GM blocked you twice with the goblin ambushes.

This writeup doesn't quite address your desire to get a longer campaign, but I'll make a guess that your dissatisfaction with being overridden like this is an impediment to a long running campaign.

Back in your first post, you asked about how to create a social contract to get what you want. A real good way to open that social contract discussion would be to share this writeup with your GM. That gives the two of you a basis to discuss what you want from the game, and from that discussion will flow the social contract.

Something to watch out for in trying to "plan" a long campaign. If too much structure is built into the campaign, you may find your ability to problem solve neutralized by illusionist techniques trying to force the "story." That may be part of what was going on in the session you described. Your bridge crossing might have worked because the GM needed you to cross somehow. The ambush bits might have failed because the GM needed the combat to happen under certain conditions to meet his "story."

Frank

It seems you really enjoy the tactical challenges presented by D&D 3.5. Lucky for you, that ruleset is pretty good at that kind of thing but it works well only when all the players are on the same page. The problem with D&D is that experienced players bring so much baggage to the table from their old experiences (using older versions of the rules). I'm not saying this happened in your case, but a couple of your examples point to a mismatch in what we call Creative Agenda.

Basically, you seem to have the most fun when you're presented with a challenge and you get a chance to use the tools you have available to you (your character's abilities, the circumstances of the setting and situation, and even the abilities of other characters) and overcome obstacles. And earn recognition at the table for your accomplishments. "The best ten or so minutes of play" you mentioned was the one time where you were presented with a challenge and got to use your tools and succeed.

In the other situations you describe, you seem cut off at the knees. You start mapping, but the dungeon's Y shape is not challenging or important. Running away was a game-ending option, not a viable tactic. You wanted to sneak up on the psionic goblins but the DM railroaded you into a different choice. Possibly, the DM failed to play his side to the hilt by not using the firebomb -- or he made it up later as a fudge -- and you felt cheated either way.

Talk to the people you want to play with. I think a lot of DMs don't understand that some players would rather have their characters die in a fair fight than be strung along by DM cheating. And some players do want "script immunity." You just all have to get on the same page, set some rules, and stick to them.  

D&D 3.5 complicates things a bit by hedging a bit about the process the DM uses to come up with "fair" challenges and plenty of D&D literature still talks about DM-fudging. I submit that D&D 3.x is best played with a group of people with a Gamist Creative Agenda, and that means the DM, too. The DM should create fair challenges, be free with the information about what challenges the players might face (even telling the players the Challenge Ratings or Encounter Levels), then let the players decide to wade in or not. If the PCs fight, the DM should fight back, to the death. And if they choose to flee, there are other challenges for now, and they can come back in a level or two.

So see if that's the kind of thing your friends are interested in doing. If not, find different people to play D&D with.

Hi,

Wallwalker wrote:
System is most likely going to be gurps, and while neither of us has played with it, I've spent extensive time studying it so familiarity with ruleset shouldn't be a problem.

I don't have anything to add to this thread but encouragement. That's an excellent Actual Play report, and furthermore, it sounds like you know what you want from some perceptive analysis.

Just a few things I might mention:

- focus on quality and not quantity
- find out what external factors might sabotage the game and plan around them
- set a schedule (how long and how often)
- say to the GM what kinds of things you would like to do. Do not be afraid to use movies, books or TV shows as examples.
- practice
- when it goes in the toilet, figure out why - don't do that again - practice some more - old timey role-players have made mistakes and also have successes, this is something we all have to go through
- have fun
- the more experiences you guys get under your belts, the more you'll have to talk about and analyze (this is how you learn the most about what works)
- try not to have too many expectations - remember, the GM is NOT you and will never run a game quite like you would - that's what makes it exciting and unexpected
- expect that you'll like some bits more than others
- say to the GM that you like to look for creative solutions and solve problems; make sure he/she likes that kind of game
- communicate often
Good luck!

Adam wrote:
So see if that's the kind of thing your friends are interested in doing. If not, find different people to play D&D with.

Unfortunately all people I know (except for my current DM-to-be) have vastly different preferences and I've yet to find another person who shares them with me, despite looking.

Bankuei wrote:
Hi,
Although you know the rules very well from reading, sometimes actual play can provide a very different experience.  And it sounds like you know the rules better than the GM.  Do you think the GM will be able to provide a good challenge without familiarity of the rules? 

I know and I agree, but, how do I gain that play experience if not by playing? And yes, that is true, like I said, the GM is a beginner so that is likely to be a problem, but I don't see a solution to it as a beginner he doesn't have a rulesystem he understands.

A common problem with some games is that a GM cannot gauge how tough or easy a challenge will be without extensive play experience.  The term "TPK(Total Party Kill)" comes from inexperienced GMs as much as "Killer GMs".  GURPS and other point-build systems tend to have this problem especially, since characters are often focally specialized in one set of abilities to the deteriment of others.

True, but to me, that isn't a problem, it's a good thing! I believe it's my job to find challenges that suits me and not the GMs in the "I see burn marks and huge claw marks around this cave of dragons? I think I'm going to go hunt rats instead."-sense. And as such, I'd consider it perfectly fair to kill my character if I didn't consider the potential dangers of the mission and walked right into them.

The other key issue is to answer Ron's question, "What happened socially?" Not between "Kozar the barbarian and Esther the cleric", but "John and Tom at the table".  Since you're asking about Social Contract, this is where it begins.  What experiences have you had socially in your gaming history?  Have you had any problems in the past?  Anything that has been really cool?  Is there a common reason you haven't gotten regular play?  Or that you're choosing to play 1 on 1 for this?

What happened socially is a somewhat vague question to me, but I'll try to answer. Personally I adopted a "this is business"-stance from early on and tried to keep everyone informed on the situation and plans, and to discuss them for improvement. I'd also say that it was me who held the 'party initiative' in the sense that I don't remember anyone else taking the lead in the "we need to do this and this for this effect!"-sense which I did on several occasions. I don't think anyone resented that or otherwise had anything against me, well, except maybe the GM, he seemed to have something against my engineerish efforts. Otherwise, the social relations within the group seemed to be good, which was to be expected as we all knew each others well. And metagaming? I didn't do any of it, I would consider it.. ah. inappropriate.

And my past experiences in the social aspect of gaming? Very discouraging. every GM I've had or asked to be a GM for me has either had very different ideas of what kind of game we should play or they haven't actually been all that interested in the business of GM:ing. And other players? Discounting the few times I've had to play with people who don't take the game seriously, my experiences have been okay. So I guess the common reason for not gaming regularly is the fact that I haven't found a GM that'd fit my gaming style and would be active.

And why one on one? Certainly I do not have anything against playing with others, as long as the logistics of handling too many players doesn't get into the way of the gaming (7 people seemed too much, waiting times for your own turn grew too long) But I don't feel like they're essential to the game. Actually I can't find any single thing which I'd need another player for, which couldn't be replaced with an NPC ally, with the assumption that the GM is fair. If the GM isn't playing fairly (in the "i don't care if you live or die, my job is to simulate the orcs, not to help or hinder you") then I'd prefer to discuss my plans with another player instead of an NPC. So to me, other PCs are almost completely replaceable with NPC allies yet don't bring logistical problems with them (NPCs don't get tired of gaming, don't get late and don't get pissed if you get them killed) so I don't actually see the Point of getting a big gaming group, there's nothing in it for me personally.

Again, that you all for your replies!

Ah. that's supposed to be thank you. And it seems I somehow failed at using the quote feature, can a moderator fix this?

And yes, yes, i'm supposed to use the preview *ashamed*

Hi,

Totally cool, just trying to get a better idea of where you're coming from in order to get a better idea of how to help you.   

With regards to the "challenge issue", it's not so much about your character dying, as much as it is for the GM to best be able to figure out what an appropriate challenge is.  If you lose a tough challenge, that's just a possibility, but if you lose to an impossible (or near impossible) challenge, that's no fun for anybody.  On the flip side- inexperience can also create a lack of challenge, so it's important for the GM to have that as well.  I agree that play is the best way for both of you to get that experience, though it might be best to figure on a shorter "test run" to get that experience before highly investing effort or emotions on either side with the expectation of long term play.

I think a very important statement is this:

Very discouraging. every GM I've had or asked to be a GM for me has either had very different ideas of what kind of game we should play...

Bankuei wrote:
Hi,

Totally cool, just trying to get a better idea of where you're coming from in order to get a better idea of how to help you. 

With regards to the "challenge issue", it's not so much about your character dying, as much as it is for the GM to best be able to figure out what an appropriate challenge is.  If you lose a tough challenge, that's just a possibility, but if you lose to an impossible (or near impossible) challenge, that's no fun for anybody.  On the flip side- inexperience can also create a lack of challenge, so it's important for the GM to have that as well.  I agree that play is the best way for both of you to get that experience, though it might be best to figure on a shorter "test run" to get that experience before highly investing effort or emotions on either side with the expectation of long term play.

In terms of "challenges" and GURPS, are you going to be using the hex maps and such for tactical movement? 

Chris

Wallwalker wrote:
And as such, the existance of practically unbeatable dungeon isn't a problem as long as I don't have to go there.

Caveat: I've never hex-mapped GURPS. I have played quite a bit of hex and square-mapped (A)D&Dvx.y, as well as some hex-based war games.

Short answer: If you have a combat that is at all complex (more than a very few partcipants and/or tactical terrain) you want a map. You really want that map. It avoids so many silly arguments of the form "But I thought he'd be behind the pillar" or "I didn't know I could get to the chair in time". You can, quite literally, see what you're doing. Far from making the game more complex to run, it makes it easier. All that brain power that you were devoting to keeping a map in your head is suddenly freed to do fun things like find that amazing maneuver that makes everybody else's jaw drop.

Yes, you do have to learn the mapping rules, but
- in comparison to the rest of the combat rules, that's peanuts
- if you're not using the mapping rules, you'll be improvising all that stuff in the actual combat, which is a lot harder than following the mapping rules.

SR
--

Dear Wallwalker;

I see you know that you want to play one-on-one. That is an excellent step. As far as actual play goes, in my experience, there is only so much preparation you can do before a game. It's just like swimming; you don't learn how to swim unless you get wet.

That being said, playing one-on-one is excellent because problems can be solved immediately (you don't have to wait until your turn or rush) and you are the star. NPCs, as long as they add something, are useful. Try not to have too many NPCs or it turns into a mess. KEY NPCs are excellent, or fodder, etc.

Make sure your GM is cool with taking time-outs if you run into an issue, so you guys can figure something out during a game, as opposed to just before the campaign. Make this part of the process of role-playing rather than something to be frowned on. This makes your experience exceptionally customized and rewarding. Again, since you aren't sharing the GM, this is easy to do. In a time-out it is understood that you are out of character until the game resumes.

Tell the GM you like to (a) come at things different ways, this is the challenge and enjoyment to you; (b) that you might go off path and would like things to be open (or what you would like). See what the GM says, and hash out an agreement that lets him do some prep and gives you some initiative.

You need to say if you want the GM to have a well thought-out continuing story or one-offs. THIS IS CRITICAL - if the GM thinks you want a story, you might not be able to change it much without it screwing up the GM's plans - if you want to have it open-ended, it should be understood that you can effect the story or even leave without finishing the story, or whatever combination you guys hash out.

As far as difficulty levels, being one PC, you can't really take on hoardes of monsters. The GM needs to make sure that battles are fair - more like in the manner of a video game first person shooter for instance, with things like stealth to contact, hide-and-seek, and cover, sneak attacks and the like. Due to the fact there is only one of you, you can take advantage of combat rules for PCs and NPCs. This can really enhance your enjoyment of the game. Make sure you and the GM are both familiar with the rules, and make it permissible to help each other out with the rules, in order to blossom in combat.

Major opposition should be about equal to your average skill level or below. It may be very difficult to take out opposition that is more than 2 points higher than your level, though not impossible. Make sure your GM knows how often you want a lethal challenge like that - i.e., once a week, once a month, etc. It will be helpful for the GM to know how much danger you are willing to take. Like in karate practice, you need to say if it's too much, but the GM will have to learn how to lay it on without it being too thick.

Remember, in a one-on-one GM-PC situation, you guys are really partners. Take advantage of this unique partnership and prepare for some hard fast play. You can really get into to cool strategies and life-and-death situations with the heat turned all the way up because you have no one to rescue you.

I'm not sure what your other questions may be, perhaps you can ask something in specific?

Hi Wallwalker,

I developed this in a recent thread. What would you do with it in play?

Danger Point System

1. The GM can add a Danger Point cost to any piece of loot or goody in the game, by clearly stating it has that cost. If the players take or use that item, the GM earns a Danger Point (DP). If the players decide not to take the item, they themselves invent the reason why.

For example:
GM "You enter the cave and on the floor is a rotted corpse, with an ammo clip next to it (and I get a danger point if you take it)
If the players didn't take it, they would have to invent some reason why, like saying the clip is rusted and would damage their weapons.

2. During normal play, if players think a situation/encounter/trap/whatever is too unbalanced/deadly, they can call a Danger Rating (DR). The DR can be any number, but players who call large numbers all the time are probably being wimpy.

The GM has to beat the DR or otherwise he has to withdraw the stated situation/encounter/trap/whatever. Each Danger Point the GM has is worth 1D6. The GM chooses how many points he'll use, if any (he might decide to just withdraw the situation). Sixes are exploding, in that each six rolled means you keep that and roll again. Dice that come up with a one remove one Danger Point from the GM's total (he can't have a negative total though).

If the GM's total roll beats the Danger Rating the player called, the situation/whatever stays. If the roll equals the DR or fails, the situation/whatever is removed.

For example: A player decides to call a Danger Rating of 15 on falling down a rather deep pit because of the damage of the fall. The GM decides to use two Danger Points and rolls 2D6. He only gets a total of four and one of them rolled a one, so the GM loses one Danger Point. The damage is removed, but the GM could still say the PC has fallen down it (a previous, dead victim broke his fall and removed the damage). Then again, the player could still call a Danger Rating on that.