|
Post by GRWelsh on Dec 7, 2022 12:27:45 GMT -5
I've been thinking about what Scott said about wanting to do more player versus player stuff in his campaign, similar to how Dave Arneson originally did it in Blackmoor. I was trying to think how it would work, logistically. I have a better idea of how that may work now that I've played in a Braunstein ("Banania") refereed by Dave Weseley. In that game players role play with each other and then submit what they do each turn to the referee who adjudicates what happens. Blackmoor was originally referred to as a 'medieval Braunstein.' So it's not like DIPLOMACY in concept if that game also had a referee/DM role.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Dec 7, 2022 15:03:34 GMT -5
I think online play can help facilitate this. It's easier to run for more players. I think a smaller campaign world is also required with dungeons anybody could explore and get the rewards on a first come, first serve basis, either a big Greyhawk kind of dungeon, or maybe a small region, like the Wild Coast. Some of the big Blackmoor battles weren't necessarily PC vs PC, but the players controlled armies the PCs were affiliated with. So players could be involved in larger battles that their PCs may not personally be part of, and still be motivated to win. I would still like to try using the lands bordering the Wooley Bay, and maybe extending up to the Nyr Dyv to include Greyhawk in the action.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Dec 8, 2022 10:17:53 GMT -5
It might be fun if the players each had high level characters who were leader of fiefdoms or border marchlands and could form or break alliances and have intrigues with each other. In concept that actually seems quite similar to DIPLOMACY.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Dec 8, 2022 11:31:54 GMT -5
If you can assess that the players are fit for zero grudge and they have readily available back up characters then go for it. Otherwise discourage it.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Dec 8, 2022 12:46:18 GMT -5
You couldn't run it like a default style campaign with the addition of PVP within the same party, an existing, long term party member suddenly backstabs somebody else and runs off with the loot. I don't see the fun in that. It would have to be set up from go like Blackmoor or Greyhawk. Multiple players groups interacting with a shared environment, but not as part of the same party/team. If the campaign starts with that expectation, that war gaming is part of it, and the PVP could likely be between players that never adventured together in the campaign, nobody should be surprised. Blackmoor had its great invasion, where PCs were running the armies of the Egg of Coot, Blackmoor, etc. based on allegiance, alignment, etc. and also directing their own PC's forces. Something smaller scale might be a better start, like an actual PC army vs PC army acting as proxies for larger forces.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Dec 8, 2022 12:55:52 GMT -5
Yes, it would take a major psychological shift and a re-setting of expectations. The premise would be to play D&D in a completely different way that is closer to its wargaming roots. Everyone would be have to be assigned a high level character or else bring in one of high level characters they've worked up previously, who would be the lord of master or a small fief, castle or territory, with other player characters being their neighbors or in close enough proximity for them to interact. It would probably involve more book keeping than my players would be willing to do...
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Dec 8, 2022 17:02:17 GMT -5
As time passes, my appreciation for Blackmoor continues to grow. It is such a great setup for so many different play options. You have your main town with a nearby dungeon. Blackmoor is small enough that their is unclaimed wilderness much closer to town, and high level PCs can actually make or break the town. There are foreign enemies, and their location is close enough to be menacing, but not so close that they're always around. And again the wilderness in between is full of adventuring opportunities. Blackmoor castle has been taken and then liberated based on PC actions. So much of the setting is what it is because of the actions of the players, which I think is a great result for an RPG setting.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Dec 14, 2022 21:20:53 GMT -5
I've tried to get something like this running, but could never get enough players. I still am interested in trying it. I'd like to have t least enough players to start out with two parties, and one group being something other than good. PvP is the goal, but I'd rather have PCs working for different sides from the beginning and lead up to a big war, and not a situation where one PC suddenly turns on the party at the first opportunity. If anybody is interested, message me and let me know what alignment you would prefer. I would most likely use Roll20 and/or Zoom.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Dec 14, 2022 21:59:11 GMT -5
I am going to post/update interest here, and once I have enough interested players for two parties we'll get started. So far one for LG or NG.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Dec 15, 2022 11:26:17 GMT -5
Players: LG/NG CE
Off to a good start.
Thinking about some old Greyhawk stories I think placing a few powerful items and having rumors available about their locations is a good way to encourage rivalries. Robilar and Tenser competing to find the crown first always stood out for me. Some kind of location based goal might be a good motivation to raise armies to capture and hold the place, like a rich mine, or a fixed location artifact.
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Dec 15, 2022 14:34:25 GMT -5
It might be fun if the players each had high level characters who were leader of fiefdoms or border marchlands and could form or break alliances and have intrigues with each other. In concept that actually seems quite similar to DIPLOMACY. Broadly-speaking, Diplomacy seems to be a "missing link" in the evolution of D&D, bridging how D&D was played early-on in it's "wargaming" days vs. how RPG playstyles evolved after D&D became successful and redefined the new normal playstyle in it's own image. Several early players and adopters were very into Diplomacy, including Lakofka and Pulsipher (among others; Gary was certainly familiar with and played and invented variants for it too, I'm just not sure how much he was into/dedicated to/influenced by Diplomacy vs. other designers). Allan.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Dec 15, 2022 19:07:17 GMT -5
As the years go by, I hate having to remember things that Gary said but Diplomacy was mentioned as aside. He rambled then snowballed into a story about Dave Arneson and a helicopter. Anybody know what I'm talking about? That is all I recall but if I heard it again I might remember more. Frankly, I wanted to get back to the dungeon talk so all this Diplomacy talk had me trying to veer away.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Dec 16, 2022 8:32:16 GMT -5
Yes, at GARY CON after we played the "Banania" Braunstein game, Dave Weseley told the story about Dave Arneson when they first played this scenario circa 1969. The gist of the story is that in these Braunsteins Arneson went all out with role playing and wanted to use props. In a way these were the first LARPs since players interacted with each other "in character." The "Banania" scenario was set in a Banana Republic in Central America in the 1950's, with some characters trying to seize or hold onto power, others trying to destabilize the nation, etc. Arneson played a minor figure but was so creative with what he did as far as role-playing that it impressed Weseley. Arneson used a fake ID prop to convince others he was a CIA agent and played both sides against each other and got them to entrust a large sum of money to him, and then at the end of the game Arneson escaped with the cash in a helicopter while dropping propaganda flyers on the people below.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Dec 16, 2022 10:52:34 GMT -5
Yes, that is it! Now at least I have context for that.
I liked the Ernie game but I really wanted to talk rules and game aspects like I did with his dad. I did have a chance outside Gary Con to commune with Ernie though so that was good. I just didn't want to ruin the game that is always a stickler with me. Game first.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Dec 16, 2022 11:27:06 GMT -5
When sitting face to face with Ernie it was tempting to ask him a million questions about Tenser, Greyhawk, early days of gaming, how his dad was as a DM, etc. which would totally derail the game. Ernie had enough digressions of his own. Ernie's DMing seemed like a mixture of "make it up as you go along" with a setting he knows so well he doesn't have to look anything up. That is a combination that keeps things moving along, for sure. I wanted to ask about the Tenser versus Robilar and other rivalries, but that will be for another time...
|
|