PDA

View Full Version : What kind of game do you like to run?



faceroll
2010-11-02, 08:27 PM
]I like ones with strong elements of hopeless, maddening, extra-planar horror represented in the last two panels:
http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/215543608_oPsC3-L-2.jpg

What about you?

houlio
2010-11-02, 08:42 PM
I usually run games with "lighter" feelings, since I'm good at being funny and happy-go-lucky but little else.

WinceRind
2010-11-02, 08:48 PM
I wouldn't mind trying myself at a pretty dark horror campaign. But I don't know if it'd work out too well, I haven't DM'ed seriously before.

Some kind of a semi-homebrew large scale campaign that forces players to be some of the less usual races, preferably monstrous humanoids, and face off entire countries of the usual fantasy races - humans, elves, dwarves, and what not. Add a tinge of revenge story, and it'd be a pretty cool thing to do.

Tyndmyr
2010-11-02, 09:03 PM
Horror campaigns get drab and boring.

Horror is something that needs to be splashed into a campaign as a theme for a bit, the better to be appreciated by the contrast with the rest.

My RL campaigns tend to be a blend of different things, while my pbp games tend to die a slow and boring death.

Galsiah
2010-11-02, 09:07 PM
I go for more political intrigue in my campaigns than anything else, usually the PC's don't know any of this is going on either. It's fun to see them putting the pieces together after a previously unmentioned country starts trying to kill them :smallcool:

Grommen
2010-11-02, 09:36 PM
I very much like running adventures where their is a very strong "grey" area. Where the good guys might be on the wrong side, and the traditional bad guys might be in the right.

However it requires my players to think, and that is clearly not their strongest ability. So it just ends up as a very long and boring campaign where I want to strangle someone.

I like gothic horror stories as well, but not an entire campaign of it. And on occasion I really like being the white knight and beating the snot out of something that really, truly has it coming.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-11-02, 09:50 PM
Since my last few RL campaigns have had to wrap up in less than a semester (we're rotating DMs every semester to teach some people how to DM) I've tended toward the larger-than-life sorts of plots that give a nice sense of closure--win a transcontinental war, save the world from fiendish incursion, that sort of thing.

Erom
2010-11-02, 09:59 PM
I tend to run short campaigns - often only a few levels long, or even at a static level. That tends to push me toward shorter plotlines (like a movie plot-line rather than a novel). Things like capers/heists, exploring a single large dungeon, etc.

I tend toward more local/smaller scale things, too. More "kill the dragon and get the girl" than "kill the world-shattering lich lord and save the kingdom".

valadil
2010-11-02, 10:14 PM
I think the big thing I do differently (when compared to games I play in, not to games the rest of the playground runs) with my games is focus them around the players. I don't even settle on an overarching plot ahead of time. I take the backstories, flesh out the NPCs, and run whatever emerges as the most interesting plot.

My games are heroic fantasy with a splash of comedy. I'll write characters who tell jokes. I won't write characters who are jokes.

I'm also drawn towards the surreal. One of my goals in any game is to draw the players into a bizarre scene without them realizing it. The sort of thing that starts out normal enough and they follow a path into absurdity. Basically I aim for the sort of thing where if a player described the scene to an outside observer, it would freak out or alienate the observer, but from the point of view of the player it makes total sense.

Historically my games have been short. Levels (3-5)-(8-12) or so. I usually focus on one or two plot resolutions. When those finish, the game is over for me and I wrap things up as quickly as I can. This has limited how magical the games can go. For my current game I'm trying to keep things running indefinitely, just for a change of pace.

I almost always run for 5 players. 4 isn't enough. They learn each other too quickly. 6 is more than I like writing plot for. 5 is just right. I also always finish my games. I have no incomplete games waiting for the group to get back together.

Ernir
2010-11-02, 10:19 PM
Combat-heavy games where the Good vs. Evil theme is never very morally ambiguous and politics take a back seat.

Not all of them are like that (hell, I am DMing one via PbP where the PCs are right now slaughtering all witnesses to their latest crime), but yeah. That's what I have tended to do in the past...

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 10:39 PM
Relatively low magic, but overall heroic games. A light dusting of grittiness, but not to the point of ridiculousness.

Dralnu
2010-11-02, 10:40 PM
I like to run more light-hearted heroic fantasy in the level 6ish range. My gaming group enjoys their share of RP in doses, but also like to balance it out with sheer absurdity in healthy amounts too. It flows surprisingly well and keeps everyone at the table laughing. My latest campaign, an evil one, is pretty lighthearted, despite having "gritty" scenes of human sacrifice for sweet BOVD buffs now and then.

Blaze
2010-11-02, 11:39 PM
I like to wing it, and give players an open world to do stuff in. I have basic hooks and plots that they should be following, but it won't hurt them to go troll slaying either. Basic adventures in each town or at least some sort of idea of what they can do in said town/city.

So I like to make sure I have all the NPC's in cities fleshed out so when they decide to travel across the country to some shanty town that's in the middle of nowhere, I can say, "Hi, I'm Bob, I'll be your waiter today."

Sometimes I wing it too much though, and then it's TPK because they were stupid enough to try to fight a dragon that I randomly had flying over them.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 04:22 AM
Relatively low magic, but overall heroic games. A light dusting of grittiness, but not to the point of ridiculousness.

This, with a large dose of Iron Kingdoms thrown in.

Rixx
2010-11-03, 04:32 AM
Simple, lighthearted games at low level with a colorful cast of characters and NPCs, played out in little "episodes" that are loosely planned and spontaneous.

GolemsVoice
2010-11-03, 04:50 AM
Either what Rixx said, or a pulp-action campaign where the players are gentlemen, reporters, archeologists or secret agents, and fight Nazis on giant, burning zeppelins threatening to crash into New York, or unearth the ancient secrets of the darkest African jungle, while suffering the perils of the savage heart of darkness.

jpreem
2010-11-03, 04:58 AM
Cliche has worked out the best - everybody knows what to expect no reason to get too artsy :smalltongue:

Morph Bark
2010-11-03, 05:05 AM
Games that are loosely planned out and have a somewhat lighthearted tone, but a serious end goal - even if the players don't always entirely realize the latter. This doesn't mean the encounters they get thrown at them are any easier or comedy-themed, however. It just means that the evil general who dominated an entire city of 20000 kobolds will crack a witty line at you once you're in his grasp and similar stuff to that.

Earthwalker
2010-11-03, 05:17 AM
My style changes depending on the system really.
Shadowrun
Campaign starts as a simple adventures that start linking together for an over arcing plot. I like this style a lot, in the beginning ts simple to get characters involved and by the end they are running their own scams and impacting on the world. Shadowrun always gets political with the characters playing people against each other just to keep alive.
Torg
Lots of large save the world stuff. Of course the advantage in Torg was the mood and style changed as the PC travelled around. I ran Torg for ages as it was easy to change the game style by moving to adventure in one area, when I was bored with that, just change the area. Of course the majority of Torg is big heros saving the planet stuff so that was general style of the thing. Just you could throw iin horror or super heros or fantasy or whatever.
DnD
Usually lighter and less political. Good guys v bad guys, the players have always been on the good side, or at least not on the bad side. Low level mainly not really going about 7. My next campaign is moving to a city based campaign and hopfully more political but still with the players on the side of angels. I find it easier to deal with good players then evil, as it makes it simpler for me this is what I run.

Psyx
2010-11-03, 05:54 AM
Massive campaigns that last for several game years. Typically pretty gritty. Lots of horror elements and intrigue, with shades of grey and morality-based choices. I tend to throw in everything from urban scenarios, to courtly encounters, dungeon-crawls and full-scale warfare.

I tend to have the party working for a Lord or other employer in order to sustain direction. There's seldom a single over-arcing plot-line and always plenty of side-quests. The part are given rough goals and then have to figure out how to achieve them.

Psyx
2010-11-03, 05:55 AM
Torg

Awesome game. I introduced a couple of people to it last year, and they loved it.

Silus
2010-11-03, 06:25 AM
Well, I've not DMed yet, though I'm highly considering doing so at some point (Just need to learn the proper rules for treasure, appropriate monster selection, that sort of thing). I'd want to run a game that's kinda like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. A short, unavoidable tutorial at the beginning (like, say, escaping a jail while pursued by people wanting to kill them) for them the players to settle into their characters and so I could get a feeling of how they play. But once they've escaped, I'd do my best to make it an open world.

There'd be no real plot once they escape, and I'd let them decide what to do. Sure, there would be plot hooks set up around the world, but I'd do my best to not railroad the players into plots (I as a player don't appreciate being railroaded into plots in a sandbox game, and I doubt my fellow players don't like it either). At most, I'd have someone run up to them and hand them a letter from someone, requesting a meeting somewhere, though it would not be mandatory for them to meet (Like "If you wanna make some extra cash, meet behind the church at 2AM").

On the whole though, I'd want to run a fairly serious game--joking is all well and good, but I'd...."encourage" non-ridiculous characters. Not like "you can't play a wizard", but more like "No, you can't play a were-dodo ninja".

*Shrugs* I figure if/when I finally get around to DMing, thing'll change a bit...

Also, no psionics. I hate psionics with a passion.

panaikhan
2010-11-03, 08:30 AM
It doesn't seem to matter what kind of game I try to run, it always boils down to one thing - the party collectively blundering around in the dark, until 'The Plot' tries to kill them.
Seriously.

At least this is an improvement. It used to be that the only way to get the bad guys involved would be to throw them through the inter-party crossfire.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 08:32 AM
Also, no psionics. I hate psionics with a passion.
May I ask, "Why?"

Psyx
2010-11-03, 08:37 AM
^In my last Oriental-based game it was assassination attempt number SEVEN on the party* before someone said 'you know... I think someone might be trying to kill us.'


*Prior attempts included an avalanche, bandits hired to kill them, ronin hired to take them out in the street, an inn burning down, and an actual ninja attack.

FelixG
2010-11-03, 08:46 AM
Empire building and toppling.

Nothing says fun like conquering the world/galaxy ect

Silus
2010-11-03, 08:51 AM
May I ask, "Why?"

Lot of bad experiences. Two stick out in my mind.

1. Session #2 with current DM. In a nutshell, we flew into a Spelljammer shipyard on a flying ship (thanks to Tinkerbell of all people), some Psionic ***** turned the illusionary dome that hid the shipyard into stone, shot us down, and proceeded to rip us a new one (Our objective was to destroy this Stargate type time portal, and she was all "If you go through the portal, we will not trouble you at all" and out low Wisdom Dwarf attacked her). We had a half-machine human Ranger, a Ghost adept (low magic game), a Pixie, a Dwarf Fighter (Or was it a Barbarian? I forget), a Prinny (Yes, a Prinny. It was being playtested at the time, though that's a whole other thread worth of complaints), a squad of Ogres, a Gnoll wit a magic flaming axe, and a (somehow) tamed Abyssal Purple Worm (which the Psionic lady two-shotted somehow).

So in a nutshell, she knocked out the Prinny (They can't die :smallmad: ), did....something to the Pixie (I quickly lost interest after it started to look like we were defiantly going to all die), turned the Ghost to crystal (somehow), two-shotted an Abyssal Purple Worm (the second "hit (more like explosion) being after she was swallowed whole), killed the gnoll, summoned a pair of Astral Constructs, and turned the Ogre's over to her side (after whooping the Prinny, who they were following).

The kicker is this: The lady, apparently a Psion 16/Rogue 4, was the DM's previous character. We only succeeded due to my character jumping aboard a Spelljammer ship with the dwarf and using the cannons to destroy the portal. I then PK'ed the Dwarf and lost the use of the Ranger (that I had put a crazy amount of time into making) as she became a NPC.

2. Psionic Snotling, a chest full of cocaine, crack cocaine, and meth, my Ork failing a Fort save, and the DM neglecting to tell me that my minion/follower had gained a character level or three while we were fighting Modrons two sessions previously.

Silus
2010-11-03, 08:54 AM
*Remembers something*

One thing I'd defiantly allow if I ran a game is if the players get to a sufficiently high locations (mountain top, city guard tower, ect. ect..), I will allow them to make a Spot check to try and spot a Plot Hook.

Did that in a game my friend was DMing (It was Discworld based).

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 09:07 AM
I can see where that would lead to Psionics-hate, but I think it would lead me closer to DM-hate, though. I like Psionics as a system, and it's fun to mess with, but that seems like DM shenanigans to me.

Silus
2010-11-03, 09:13 AM
I can see where that would lead to Psionics-hate, but I think it would lead me closer to DM-hate, though. I like Psionics as a system, and it's fun to mess with, but that seems like DM shenanigans to me.

Oh most defiantly, but I've yet to see how Psionics can be used as a benefit (as the DM in question gives you like a 2%-5% chance to be Psionic, ad like NOBODY ever gets the roll). To me, it just seems like overpowered magic.

Drogorn
2010-11-03, 09:16 AM
Psionics is underpowered magic...

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 09:18 AM
Oh most defiantly, but I've yet to see how Psionics can be used as a benefit (as the DM in question gives you like a 2%-5% chance to be Psionic, ad like NOBODY ever gets the roll). To me, it just seems like overpowered magic.

It's actually a bit more balanced than regular Vancian casting, if you read the XPH.

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-03, 09:24 AM
My games - when I'm not running converted or propriatory modules - generally tend to be party vrs (A N) Big Bad (or Big Good, party alignment depending). Morality is very much black and white (Evil is Evil is Evil, no matter how much said deluded Evil Guy might whinge about how he's not; though that's a rare occurance in my games, even when there isn't any alignment in the first place!)

When we play the bad guys, the players are not going to be sympathtic or misunderstood or misguided; they are flat-out EVIL, in a (highly-organised, as part of a large Evil Empire) murder-people-for-kicks-and-mission-goals sort of way.

Aside from that, it does vary a bit more depending on what party we're using, as does the type of adventure. There is a fairly heavy emphasis on combat, though not always, but you can be sure there will be at least one combat in anything I run!

My games are not sandbox-types, though. The only one which currently comes close is the sci-fi Rolemaster party we run once or twice a year, as I often ask what the character would like to do next. (As they are part of a much wider-in-scope universe where there is no single metaplot. I say, metaplot, but what I really mean is "a string of events in the wider universe shaped by our wargames scenarioes".

Otherwise, we tend to be on one world, which sets the tone to that world's specifics. My current campaign world is sort of Romans-meets-Lord-of-the-Rings-meets-Final-Fantasy-ish-before-the-Ice-Age1. So it has a rather different feel to my prior, more "conventional" fantasy worlds. I've not done a major campaign there yet, but I've done a couple of day-quests, one with good PCs in the chaotic period of the Dark Wars, and the other with evil PCs about to go undercover as covert black ops working for the Dark Lord in the good nations. That world doesn't have (as yet) a real metaplot, though, so it may be a bit less story-arc-ish dependant if I eventually run it as a weekly game.

My prior world, Caranda, was sort of designed around the metaplot the campaign was going on. A bit like David Edding's Belgariad, it was really a sort of place for the Chosen One to stand on while he did his thing. It nags at me a bit I've never finished that campaign, but Dreemaenyhll is so much better as a campaign world that I've rather lost interest.



1But, basically, aside from the PCs, being the exceptional protagonists and their enemies, most normal people live in a mostly non-magical fashion. Despite a fairly solidly low-apparent-magical-power and historical basis, once magic does get involved, there is plenty of FWACKOOM! around.

Exponetially so in the historical Dark Wars period. Imagine the Battle of Pelannor Fields in the movies, only with Gondor being replaced by the alliance Romans, Elves and Dwarves (and some Hobbits), with clerics and wizards supporting and dispelling on both sides. Meanwhile, Gandalf and the Witch-King (and their five best mates) fight a brutal magical combat against each other, spell and counterspell, too busy with not dying to inflict too much devasation on the noncasters. Naruto-style-ninja dragons and giant, metal-clawed, psion and warlock crow-falcons duel with Gryphon wizards and Fey Paladins in the sky above; shire-horse-sized unicorns clash with savage manticores on the flanks and magma-spitting nidhogs rain volcanic death from afar. On the side of Good, Dryads turn nature itself into a devasting weapon, while on the other side, sheep-sized fox-like Cusith hardness nature's darker, more entropic side spreading death, disease and corrosion to all they encounter.

Yeah, that's pretty much what a full-scale battle looks like, during the Dark Wars. (Heck, my normal encounters aren't many orders of magnitude smaller in scale...!)

Silus
2010-11-03, 09:24 AM
It's actually a bit more balanced than regular Vancian casting, if you read the XPH.

With the DM in question, he does not like the XPH. I'm pretty sure he runs it like a weird mesh of 2E and 3E with the powers from 3.5. Or something like that, I dunno.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 09:27 AM
With the DM in question, he does not like the XPH. I'm pretty sure he runs it like a weird mesh of 2E and 3E with the powers from 3.5. Or something like that, I dunno.

Ew. :smallyuk:

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-03, 09:27 AM
With the DM in question, he does not like the XPH. I'm pretty sure he runs it like a weird mesh of 2E and 3E with the powers from 3.5. Or something like that, I dunno.

Well, that does explain it. AD&D and 3.0 psionics were simply awful even when used independantly. Combining them... Yeah, I'd not want psionics in my games in that instance, either. *shudder*

XPH psionics, on the other hand, are much more sensible in both terms of power and consistency with everything else.

Silus
2010-11-03, 09:28 AM
Ew. :smallyuk:

I know right? And since he runs a low-magic game (no wizards, sorcerers, clerics, druids, or paladins, just adepts and martial classes), the magic/psionic transparency is all but non-existant.

Silus
2010-11-03, 09:29 AM
Well, that does explain it. AD&D and 3.0 psionics were simply awful even when used independantly. Combining them... Yeah, I'd not want psionics in my games in that instance, either. *shudder*

XPH psionics, on the other hand, are much more sensible in both terms of power and consistency with everything else.

Well I could very well be wrong, but I remember him saying that he does the whole "You're Psionic" check based on 2E, and he does not like the XPH. I'm simply making an educated guess here...

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 09:30 AM
I know right? And since he runs a low-magic game (no wizards, sorcerers, clerics, druids, or paladins, just adepts and martial classes), the magic/psionic transparency is all but non-existant.

I personally use the "psionics is different" rules. I dislike the transparency, but then again, I don't run many 'low-magic' campaigns.

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-03, 09:31 AM
I know right? And since he runs a low-magic game (no wizards, sorcerers, clerics, druids, or paladins, just adepts and martial classes), the magic/psionic transparency is all but non-existant.

Aha. I think your problem is perhaps not so much psionics per se, but more your DM is being a largely unreasonabe fracktard.

Silus
2010-11-03, 09:32 AM
Aha. I think your problem is perhaps not so much psionics per se, but more your DM is being a largely unreasonabe fracktard.

*Nods* I've noticed he tries to avoid certain things. Like mercenary companies. He does not know how to work them. I assume the same is with magic, hence the Adepts.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 09:33 AM
Aha. I think your problem is perhaps not so much psionics per se, but more your DM is being a largely unreasonabe fracktard.

I concur.
Dang 10 character minimum.

Silus
2010-11-03, 09:33 AM
I personally use the "psionics is different" rules. I dislike the transparency, but then again, I don't run many 'low-magic' campaigns.

I wouldn't mind that approach if everyone got the ability to be Psionic without having to get crazy lucky on some fething roll.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 09:35 AM
I wouldn't mind that approach if everyone got the ability to be Psionic without having to get crazy lucky on some fething roll.

When I run, people actually end up playing more psionic characters than spellcasters. I know: funny, right?

Silus
2010-11-03, 09:37 AM
When I run, people actually end up playing more psionic characters than spellcasters. I know: funny, right?

To each his own I suppose. *Shrugs*

Drogorn
2010-11-03, 09:40 AM
I wouldn't mind that approach if everyone got the ability to be Psionic without having to get crazy lucky on some fething roll.

Forget everything you think you know about psionics! It's all wrong! There is no roll to be psionic!

Silus
2010-11-03, 09:44 AM
Forget everything you think you know about psionics! It's all wrong! There is no roll to be psionic!

With the DM that runs my games there are. :smallannoyed:

I know normally one can take whatever class they want if they meet the requirements, but with this DM......*Angry eye roll*

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-03, 09:46 AM
I wouldn't mind that approach if everyone got the ability to be Psionic without having to get crazy lucky on some fething roll.

3E and XPH in particular did away with that. If you want to be psionic, you pick a psionic class of grab Wild Talent as a feat (Hidden Talent if level 1). (You just don't expect to do much if you don't have any psionic class levels though.)

(Older)D&D's idea of having psionics a basically random boost never seemed to me to be a good idea in practise.

It's actually a pretty balanced and robust system (more so than Vancian casting, on the whole.) I say this mainly because your dislike of psionics seems more mechanically-based (well, bad-homebrew-mechanic-based) rather than simply not liking the flavour. Properly-run psionics isn't any worse than magic. Less so, since there are fewer (fewer is not, however, none!) ways to break reality in half than magic.

Silus
2010-11-03, 09:51 AM
3E and XPH in particular did away with that. If you want to be psionic, you pick a psionic class of grab Wild Talent as a feat (Hidden Talent if level 1). (You just don't expect to do much if you don't have any psionic class levels though.)

(Older)D&D's idea of having psionics a basically random boost never seemed to me to be a good idea in practise.

It's actually a pretty balanced and robust system (more so than Vancian casting, on the whole.) I say this mainly because your dislike of psionics seems more mechanically-based (well, bad-homebrew-mechanic-based) rather than simply not liking the flavour. Properly-run psionics isn't any worse than magic. Less so, since there are fewer (fewer is not, however, none!) ways to break reality in half than magic.

*Nods* Well given the chance, I'll give it a try. And we (my group) might just get the chance to alter things for our benefit. See, we have this time machine, and, well, the DM apparently has no problem with us pulling off epic feats of win with regards to changing time. Heck, in the campaign we're in, Lolth is a good deity thanks to an intervention by the now only Drow to exist.

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-03, 10:06 AM
*Nods* Well given the chance, I'll give it a try.

I thank you for your open mind, good sir. *tips hat*

And that is why I made the effort. Some people don't like psionics because they don't like the flavour or don't want to learn a different set of mechanics (which is fair enough). While others - like yourself - get a rather unfortunate poor experience with it, giving a poor impression. Though more often, it's because of
someone either cheating (accidently or on purpose) by not following the first rule of XPH psionics1 than just bad DMing!



1I.e. You can't spend more PP ona power than your manifester level! No, not even then!

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 10:09 AM
1I.e. You can't spend more PP ona power than your manifester level! No, not even then!

That's why I like the old 3.0 Shadow Mind PrC. Bonus manifester levels (and nowhere did it mention in 3.0 that your manifester level couldn't be higher than your HD :smalltongue:). SHENANIGANS! :smallbiggrin:

Quietus
2010-11-03, 11:02 AM
That's why I like the old 3.0 Shadow Mind PrC. Bonus manifester levels (and nowhere did it mention in 3.0 that your manifester level couldn't be higher than your HD :smalltongue:). SHENANIGANS! :smallbiggrin:

You can still get your manifester level above your HD, you just can't spend more PP than your manifester level. As long as things are kept in check, and you don't get the opportunity to get ML up to like 10+ points over your HD, you'll be quite fine, in most cases.

AtwasAwamps
2010-11-03, 12:48 PM
I like heroes.

I like the idea of the knight charging a dragon. I like the rogue who swoops through the air and snatches up the princess via conveniently placed swinging vine rope/grappling hook. I like a wizard who slams his staff in the ground and balks his foes with walls of deadly light or explosions that rock entire formations to the ground.

I like to see good meet evil and know exactly what to do about it.

I admit that I set up a fairly elaborate framework to show the moral ambiguity of each side, but at the heart of the matter…I want my players to beat up the bad guys. I want them to hit the field running and come through the other side bloodied, battered, maybe a man or two short, but glorious and proud all the same. I realized that this was the type of game I ran when I opened up alignment to all kinds for a 3.5 game and saw the neutral evil rogue step in front of an innocent child and take the charge from a rampaging barbarian, then saw the player look at me and say “I’m changing my alignment. That felt too good.”

My players and their characters are bought and sold, true, but in the words of Lord Vetinari, “never poorly spent.”