Keeping their Interest
Jim Vassilakos (jimv@uia.net)
IgTheme: Challenging the Heroes
Here are several tactics to help keep
things interesting in long-running
campaigns.
Unique Combat Settings
Back when I was in college, I ran a
campaign that, after a year or so,
began to feel a little bit humdrum. One
of the players made a suggestion that
my combats could be improved by
situating them somewhere exotic. The
very next combat the party had was
conducted while they were hanging
from chains down a bottomless pit,
fighting nightmarish creatures from
the plane of the dead.
Character Introduction
I used to also have a policy of
introducing at least one, potentially
important NPC per session. That way,
over the course of many sessions, the
players would get to know quite a lot
of NPCs, and as the campaign
progressed, I could use these NPCs to
somehow make life interesting or
difficult for them. I also discovered
that the more NPCs I had in play, the
more options I seemed to have as a
GM for generating various plots and
subplots. In short, having lots of NPCs
on the stage seemed to make my job
easier rather than harder.
Upping the Ante
Even if the characters save the world,
there are other worlds, and so too,
there may be higher (or lower) worlds
of stupendously, greater consequence.
This is more or less what happened
with the Jinx campaign. She simply
outgrew the prime material plane.
Remote, Powerful Arch-Villain
No matter how powerful the PCs
become, if the arch-villain is even
more powerful or difficult to
find/confront, then they're going to
have to keep looking over their
shoulders. And that's great exercise for
those neck-muscles!
Comments on A&E #365:
Michael Cule: ryct Marco Subias:
Yea! Let's here it for sloth! (We fellow
loafers have to stick together.)1 Also,
loved the quotes from Hugh as well as
the things player say. Oh, and minor
difficulty #1 was a classic.
Robert Dushay: re meddling
mentors: please see my comments to
Lee.
Lee Gold: re introducing former
masters and fellow students: Although
it was actually a long-lived campaign,
I only got around to introducing two
former masters. One was the master of
the group's resident chaotic-evil mage,
and for a brief time the two had great
fun causing all sorts of mayhem, albeit
to the disgust of the rest of the party.
This was so long ago, however, that I
can't really remember what finally
happened. Another former master, I
seem to remember, pointed the party
in the direction of an adventure, but in
neither case did these powerful NPCs
pop in to resolve any intra-party
disputes. Part of the reason, I suppose,
was that I didn't establish that there
was any magical connection between
master and apprentice. Robert
Dushay makes the point that such an
arrangement "smacks of deus ex
machina", but I think if it's a well-
established part of the rules, it would
be accepted just like any other part of
the rules. Nonetheless, as he points
out, it would cause the problem of the
meddling mentor.
Spike Jones: re descriptive combat:
The only reason I brought it up was
because in one of the gaming groups
that I visited (albeit briefly), the GM's
great talent happened to be descriptive
combat. He wasn't particularly
impressive in other respects, but in
this one area he excelled as no other
GM I've ever witnessed. The combats
were colorful, and he seemed
genuinely excited, jumping to his feet
and yelling out what was going on.
1
So long as it doesn’t require too
much effort.
Likewise, his monsters behaved
convincingly, using all sorts of
interesting and often desperate tactics.
It was amazing to watch, and from
what I saw, most of the players loved
it. Unfortunately, this is a talent I
simply don't have, and I wouldn't even
know how to go about acquiring it.
Perhaps if that GM trained me in this
particular technique, I might have a
chance of emulating him. That was
more or less the point of the top-half
of my essay in A&E #363. There are
all sorts of techniques we can learn
from one another, but in order to do
so, it would take some actual effort in
this direction.
re Plamondon's five points: What he
seems to be saying is that if somebody
says something particularly rude,
simply ignore it. But what if they don't
realize that they're being rude? Or
what if their definition of polite
discourse differs remarkably from
yours? Simply don't communicate
with them? I don't know. It seems
somewhat craven. Likewise, I think
there's something to be said for
standing up positively for the sort of
dialogue one hopes to see. Otherwise,
one is just leaving the playground to
the "bullies", so to speak. Perhaps we
should have a new abbreviation:
RADEYC&apRP's5PDNTR (read and
didn't enjoy your comment & as per
Robert Plamondon's five points,
decided not to reply).
re PW: Yeah, you're right. I probably
shouldn't have used that as his name in
my little story. My bad. Thanks for the
comment.
re feedback questionnaires: Yeah,
I'm surprised that you came up with
that idea so long ago. I recall thinking
many years ago that for a GM to ask
the players to evaluate the game might
in some way undermine the campaign
or the GM's authority, but now I'm
rather of the opposite view. Do you
still use these questionnaires or have
they gone by the wayside?
re Mike Travis and his stolen ring of
regeneration: Thanks for sharing that
story. I always like to hear about these
sorts of situations. Did he ever learn
the story of what was really going on?
If so, how did he react? Also, are you
still friends with the guy who was
playing the thief? If so, does he regret
doing it? Looking at it in retrospect,
would you handle it the same way all
over again? What sort of advice would
you give to GMs who find themselves
in a similar situation?
re political discussions: It was
mainly because I enjoyed discussing
politics with you, as well as Joshua's
plea that we take such discourse out of
A&E, that I decided to move our
discussion to the web. I figured, why
pay money simply to generate chaff
and irritate people? In any case, since
you don't want to take this dialogue
outside of A&E, I guess we'll just have
to let the threads die, as I really don't
want to continue them in a place
where they're unwanted. Nonetheless,
this outcome is probably for the best,
as discussing politics doesn't get me
any closer to finishing my many
projects. Basically, politics is just a
time-pit that is probably better
avoided.
Louis La Mancusa: re political
debate: Yes, I suppose political debate
is exasperating to a degree, and your
comment about it typically occurring
between participants who, although
working from partial information, are
nonetheless often 100% certain of the
correctness of their views, is, of
course, seemingly indisputable. I'm
also reminded that even with so-called
20/20 hindsight, differences still occur
(just bring up the subject of FDR's
New Deal in a group of mixed
political persuasions). Sans the ability
to go back in time and examine the
long-term ramifications of what would
have happened if another path were
taken, all we can do is speculate. In
any case, your quote from Casanova is
right on the money. Until people
determine to change their very nature,
trying to discuss such matters will be a
haphazard endeavor at best.
re Apollo: I'm a fellow conspiracy
theorist, but as I told you in Las Vegas,
I'm still unconvinced as to this one. In
any case, it's a somewhat explosive
accusation, and so I'm not sure A&E is
the best place to discuss it.
re Collapse: Even discounting Easter
Island, there's still the Greenland
example (among others). I don't think
anyone can blame that one on rats or
disease or slavery. Overall, the whole
book makes me think that my freedom
perspective2, although understandable
from a purely historical/sociological
standpoint3, perhaps ought to take a
backseat to an environmental
perspective, and this, perhaps, is
Diamond's point.
Jonathan Nicholas: re your
impending departure from A&E: I'd
prefer to see you stay, however, I'll
also admit that I was having similar
thoughts just yesterday. I was asking
myself, "Is A&E helping me move
forward with my ideas/projects, or is it
just sucking time away from them?" I
guess that's a question that each of us
probably asks ourselves from time to
time. Like Paul Mason, you might find
that once you leave, ideas will start
flowing again, and you may want to
come back to discuss them. Perhaps
you might consider becoming an
infrequent contributor. After all,
there's no law that says it has to be all
or nothing. In any case, I was thinking
that I'd eventually want to go into
greater depth with you about useful
precepts for designing a "good"
tactical space simulation. I'll keep
your email address on hand and
perhaps engage you on this when I get
my own thoughts sufficiently
organized.
Lisa Padol: re a game about AIs in
conflict (and/or cooperation): Yes, I
think it has definite possibilities,
although, with respect to the question
of market viability, you'd probably
know better than I would. I really have
no practical experience in the industry.
However, I could see the basic
premise: You are part of an AI brain,
and as such, you control various
androids and robots. You undertake
missions in cooperation with your
specific community. Perhaps each
player would control a number of
androids (characters), each with a
shared personality. Some of them
might be registered (known to human
authorities). Others might be, for
various reasons, operating
clandestinely. It would certainly be an
interesting premise to explore further.
Patrick Riley: As I said before, I
loved the Ingrid write-up. It's probably
the single best write-up of a new, 1st
2
See my essay in A&E #357.
3
I'm an American, after all.
level character that I ever seen. Would
be very interested in seeing more of
your character backgrounds since you
clearly have a talent for creating them.
About my Crazy Idea
At the end of my zine, last month, I
talked about a crazy idea involving
roleplaying in such a manner as to
produce a precise, written record of
the dialogue. I now feel the need to
confess that this isn’t merely a crazy
idea that just popped into my head.
Over the past few sessions, Kurt and I
have been conducting the Jinx
campaign in this manner.
I think what prompted us to segue
into this form of roleplaying was that
some years ago, we began continuing
the campaign by email between face-
to-face sessions. Then, when we tried
AOL’s Instant Messenger, we
discovered that we could make even
more progress with a scene than we
could sometimes make in face-to-face
play, and I noticed that the level of the
dialogue was as high as PBeM play.
It seems worth noting that perhaps
this campaign is particularly well
suited for this mode of play. After all,
Jinx has well above the maximum
human intelligence, and likewise,
many of the devils with whom she
interacts are similarly gifted. Now,
Kurt and I are poor, intellectually
deficient humans. We could never
hope to carry conversations at the
level at which these characters are
capable of conversing. This is where
written conversation comes in handy.
By giving each other the necessary
time to form that perfectly worded
reply, the characters are able to
perform “on stage” at a level of
competence that face-to-face play
simply wouldn’t allow.
The whole process makes for some
bizarre, convoluted yet carefully
worded conversations where more is
implied than actually stated and where
double-meanings have a veritable field
day. Hence, we’re enjoying it a great
deal, myself so much so that I’ve
begun to question whether or not I
could ever go back to traditional
roleplaying.
It also seems ironic to me that in the
process of playing AD&D, of all
systems, we are embarking upon such
new and strange waters.