Fantasy Immersion and the Things that Ruin it.

[Spence]

5 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Spence

Very nicely written.

 

I agree with you on the Sandbox campaign.  I've been in one or two and they don't last long.  I mean, not more than one or two sessions because there's absolutely nothing for the characters to do.  There's no focus or drive to move the characters forward.  Those type of campaigns may sound like they're going to be good because "no ones' tied down!" but i've yet to play in one, or hear of one that amounted to anything.

 

I'm glad it made sense to someone 😁

 

But reading back over it makes it a clear example of why I hate posting from my phone. It reads terrible and the spelling.......🤔

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I agree with you on the Sandbox campaign.  I've been in one or two and they don't last long.  I mean, not more than one or two sessions because there's absolutely nothing for the characters to do.  There's no focus or drive to move the characters forward.  Those type of campaigns may sound like they're going to be good because "no ones' tied down!" but i've yet to play in one, or hear of one that amounted to anything.

 

Some years back, I had someone refer to a "sandbox" campaign in contrast to a "rowboat" campaign.

 

The sandbox as he described it had players who would work together.  The game world was there, it had plenty of plot hooks, and the players/characters would decide their goals and which hooks to bite.

 

The rowboat was "You are in a boat on a massive featureless sea.  What do you do?"  Why you can pick any direction you want, with no idea what may be found, or even whether anything will be found, no idea where you came from or where you are going.  Have "fun".

[Vanguard]

@Hugh Neilson

 

If that had been the case, the plot threads and hooks, then I don't think there would have been any problems getting the game moving.  The thing was that there wasn't.  We had literally 2 sessions of just sitting around while the GM read a book/futzed around on the PC.

 

Giving the players hooks/ideas/hints of goings on out in the world and then letting them pursue whatever interests them instead of having a more traditional campaign set-up is good and, like I said, probably would have worked.  But just plunked the group down "in the world" and then letting them flounder around isn't the way to start the game. 

[tkdguy]

5 hours ago, Vanguard said:

@Hugh Neilson

 

If that had been the case, the plot threads and hooks, then I don't think there would have been any problems getting the game moving.  The thing was that there wasn't.  We had literally 2 sessions of just sitting around while the GM read a book/futzed around on the PC.

 

Giving the players hooks/ideas/hints of goings on out in the world and then letting them pursue whatever interests them instead of having a more traditional campaign set-up is good and, like I said, probably would have worked.  But just plunked the group down "in the world" and then letting them flounder around isn't the way to start the game. 

 

True. The players will need some idea of where to start when doing a campaign. The GM needs to let the players know where to find the plot hooks. If he/she runs a sandbox campaign, great, but it's necessary to explain that to the players, who will otherwise be wondering what to do or where to go.

[Hugh Neilson]

On 5/1/2020 at 8:15 AM, Vanguard said:

@Hugh Neilson

 

If that had been the case, the plot threads and hooks, then I don't think there would have been any problems getting the game moving.  The thing was that there wasn't.  We had literally 2 sessions of just sitting around while the GM read a book/futzed around on the PC.

 

Giving the players hooks/ideas/hints of goings on out in the world and then letting them pursue whatever interests them instead of having a more traditional campaign set-up is good and, like I said, probably would have worked.  But just plunked the group down "in the world" and then letting them flounder around isn't the way to start the game. 

 

Yup - rowboat, rather than sandbox. 

[MrAgdesh]

I might have three or four planned adventures to start the characters off, but as a product of how these these pan out, 'sandbox' opportunities will naturally occur. At this stage, I consider that the game has got to a position where 'it runs itself' - in other words, I do not have to necessarily come up with a new plot thread in order to run the next session of play. The players may decide to follow up on loose ends from previous sessions and all I have to do is come up with the plot of that adventure (which will largely be formed in my mind due to the previous escapades) rather than a completely new adventure for the next session.

That's what I'd call a Sandbox, and it's always great when a campaign gets to the position of being able to run itself because a) that's less work for me, and (b) the players are getting immersed in a reactive world.

[tkdguy]

Also, the GM and players need to be on the same page. The GM needs to explain how he/she runs the game, and the players need to give their input. I've found all too often that assuming everyone is thinking the same thing leads to a bad night of gaming. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, both as a player and as a GM. 

[Michael Hopcroft]

1 hour ago, tkdguy said:

Also, the GM and players need to be on the same page. The GM needs to explain how he/she runs the game, and the players need to give their input. I've found all too often that assuming everyone is thinking the same thing leads to a bad night of gaming. I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, both as a player and as a GM. 

Perhaps the process Ron Edwards describes in Champions Now for starting a campaign that is all new characters is a good thing to apply in principle. At the very least it gives the players direct input that if often lacking when running premade settings (like the official Champions Universe). Or the FATE Core approach in which the setting is literally constructed as a collaboration between the GMs and the Players.

 

The new wave of RPGs (FATE Core, SW, etc.) exist for a reason, and carry things GMs in any RPG can learn from. And while Hero players are not going to take things to (what they consider) it becomes important that the GM and the players see eye-to-eye before anyone does so much as pick up a die.

[Vanguard]

On 5/2/2020 at 7:16 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Yup - rowboat, rather than sandbox. 

 

And we didn't even have paddles. . .

[Spence]

On 5/3/2020 at 6:13 PM, Michael Hopcroft said:

Perhaps the process Ron Edwards describes in Champions Now for starting a campaign that is all new characters is a good thing to apply in principle. At the very least it gives the players direct input that if often lacking when running premade settings (like the official Champions Universe). Or the FATE Core approach in which the setting is literally constructed as a collaboration between the GMs and the Players.

 

The new wave of RPGs (FATE Core, SW, etc.) exist for a reason, and carry things GMs in any RPG can learn from. And while Hero players are not going to take things to (what they consider) it becomes important that the GM and the players see eye-to-eye before anyone does so much as pick up a die.

 

?

 

FATE Core isn't set up any different than any other RPG when it comes to deciding on a campaign.  The difference is in the rule structure with games like FATE being far broader and less specific than systems that drill down the details. 

 

Collaboration was always a part of building a campaign.  At the beginning it also included figuring out what the rules meant as well. 

 

But building a campaign has always meant that the GM/DM/Keeper/whatever has needed to work with prospective players on their build.  The actual issue is the rise over the last 10 years of the idea that players are everything and GMs are door matts and should be thankful for it.   It is also why games that have solid support in pregenerated adventurers/campaigns dominate the market. It is far more palatable to run a pregenerated adventure when it flames out, than to see your personal hard work get destroyed.

 

This idea that somehow rules lite games have invented one of the foundations of the RPG is actually pretty amusing.  The reality is we are simply cycling through and the newer gamers are "discovering" old ideas as new. 

 

In a very broad sense, there are two types of GMs.  The ultra miniscule micro percentage that always GM to the same people in their private gaming group for decades.  And the bulk of GMs that routinely have new players in their games. The latter deal with far more a$$hattery that the private group types. 

 

The core reason it is so hard to find and keep GMs is that for years players were all take and no give.  Routinely lying to GMs about playing in their campaign, and then trying to reshape it when it starts. This type of problem seldom occurs in the private game. But is fairly common in more open games.  

 

The neverending issue with finding people willing to GM is not because no one wants to build settings and run adventures.  It is because of the small but crappy minority of a$$hats that seem to revel in destroying a game.  I was fed up and just stopped running games because I was tired of people agreeing to one thing and then trying to do something completely different.  I mostly run one-shots for a small select group, though I was planning to run something at Dragonflight this year.  If it happens. 

 

But if people want RPG gaming to truly expand, one thing that they need to grasp is you can't keep screwing over your GMs and expect them to come back. 

 

It is actually very very simple.

 

If you agree to play in a game, then play in the game you agreed to.

 

If the game doesn't appeal to you, decline and don't play.

 

If you start a game and discover you don't like it.  Let the GM know and leave the game.

 

Simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tkdguy]

Agreed 100%. Speaking as a GM, it's very discouraging to put in a lot of effort into a game and get players who can't be bothered to show up on time or give any input on what they like or dislike. It has killed more than one campaign.

[Spence]

2 hours ago, tkdguy said:

Agreed 100%. Speaking as a GM, it's very discouraging to put in a lot of effort into a game and get players who can't be bothered to show up on time or give any input on what they like or dislike. It has killed more than one campaign.

 

Or, when they give you feedback and then after you get done adjusting they suddenly go in a completely different direction.

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

On 4/17/2020 at 7:38 PM, Duke Bushido said:

"Sorry; you cannot add any more reactions today...."

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was three years, Chris, but I finslly got it.

 

 

 

 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I agree with all of the things in the original post.  All of them ruin fantasy for me.  Another is this:

 

Treating magic as just technology or science we don't yet understand instead of... magic.  Its not science its outside science.  If it loses that magical feel of the supernatural and the impossible brought to life, it stops feeling magical.  Don't explain it too much or the magic goes away.

[GDShore]

I can understand how most of the original post can be jarring but in any world where magic is plentiful the practitioners, particularly those not so good ones will seek to produce things they can sell to make a living. This in turn will inspire better mages to make new or better products to have a better living and so on. They may not call it the "germ theory of disease" but any healer mage of any notable ability  will study disease and one will eventually make the connection and pass it along. 

     What pops my button is slang and puns, bad puns. 

[Rich McGee]

7 hours ago, GDShore said:

What pops my button is slang and puns, bad puns. 

My tolerance varies, but if the game designer/GM thinks Xanth and Myth Adventures are classic fantasy I'm out.

[Chris Goodwin]

4 hours ago, Rich McGee said:

My tolerance varies, but if the game designer/GM thinks Xanth and Myth Adventures are classic fantasy I'm out.

 

De gustibus non disputandum. 

 

What makes something classic fantasy?  Because those series were both in their heyday 40 years ago.  Look back at 1974 when Lovecraft, Howard, and Ashton-Smith were writing their stuff... and it was 40 years before that.  None of those guys had any illusions that what they were writing was high literature.  (The Hobbit was published in 1937, as well.)

 

I don't build puns into my games, but as I said up-thread, both of those are in my "Appendix N".  And I've actually run a Myth Adventures game in Fantasy Hero. 

 

How much immersion does it really take to "I just want to bash orcs?"  You can do that with hex-and-counter skirmish level wargames (and where did D&D come from?).  If you're using a relatively complicated, full blown RPG system like Hero for that, IMO you might be doing more work than you need to. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think the idea of classic fantasy has more to do with genre than age.  Winnie The Pooh was written over a century ago, and it has fantastical elements but nobody would consider it classical fantasy.  You can write classic fantasy today; its about the themes, concepts, setting, and events, not the date it was written. Classic fantasy is what you get when you don't try to put a "twist" on it like all the stuff in the original post, or focusing on humor and mockery of fantasy, etc.

[Chris Goodwin]

13 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Treating magic as just technology or science we don't yet understand instead of... magic.  Its not science its outside science.  If it loses that magical feel of the supernatural and the impossible brought to life, it stops feeling magical.  Don't explain it too much or the magic goes away.

 

I hear this a lot... but how do we reconcile this with playing in a system like Hero where our powers are quantified in terms of range, area, power, and so forth? 

 

As I also said up-thread, I do see magic as a science.  I lose immersion if it's not.  I lose interest in books where it's not, and I certainly don't want to play in settings where it's not.  If the characters in-universe believe it's not, I can maybe accept that... but if I want to play a character who believes it is, and tries to figure out how, and the GM shoots me down, I'm going to pack up my books and go home.

 

I'm still not exactly sure how you're supposed to play in a roleplaying game where magic isn't explained.  I'm not being rhetorical here; I literally don't understand how.  The GM at least needs to know the system behind it. 

[Chris Goodwin]

Along with "railroad" "sandbox" and "rowboat" I'd like to add "theme park" to the list of terms.  It's a world or adventure that's obviously designed as a place to adventure in.  It can also be a railroad or a sandbox; I suppose it could be a rowboat as well, but I have a tough time seeing how. 

[Chris Goodwin]

19 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I think the idea of classic fantasy has more to do with genre than age.  Winnie The Pooh was written over a century ago, and it has fantastical elements but nobody would consider it classical fantasy.  You can write classic fantasy today; its about the themes, concepts, setting, and events, not the date it was written. Classic fantasy is what you get when you don't try to put a "twist" on it like all the stuff in the original post, or focusing on humor and mockery of fantasy, etc.

 

While I don't need puns and mockery, I can enjoy them.  And I don't believe that Xanth or Myth Adventures in any way are attempting to mock "classic" fantasy.  The Dancing Gods series... I wouldn't call it mockery, but is definitely satire from the inside.  (Also in my Appendix N.)

 

Me, I need a twist or I lose interest.  I can't stand the same thing over and over and over. 

Edited November 30, 2023 by Chris Goodwin

[Duke Bushido]

 

Man, I really did not intend to stir this pot again.  I just remembered that I owed CG some rep and spent some time hunting up the post! 

 

Well, done is done; I suppose.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

 

 

Winnie The Pooh was written over a century ago, and it has fantastical elements but nobody would consider it classical fantasy. 

 

Great.

 

Now I wanna go bust up some orcs in the Hundred Acre Wood.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

You can write classic fantasy today; its about the themes, concepts, setting, and events, not the date it was written. Classic fantasy is what you get when you don't try to put a "twist" on it like all the stuff in the original post, or focusing on humor and mockery of fantasy, etc.

 

 

Without any attempt to cast aspersions on any person or any idea, I feel pretty certain that the correct definition and examples of "classic fantasy" is going to vary significantly from one human being to another.

 

I had to explain this to myself when bookstores started putting Sci-Fi and fantasy in the same section.  As someone who generally does not care for fantasy, this was painful and insulting at the time.  I got better.

 

 

 

 

[Rich McGee]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Now I wanna go bust up some orcs in the Hundred Acre Wood.

Surely you mean heffalumps and woozles, who are at least native to the general region.  You'll have Tuesday Next and her employers on your case if you start importing orcs wholesale.  

 

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Without any attempt to cast aspersions on any person or any idea, I feel pretty certain that the correct definition and examples of "classic fantasy" is going to vary significantly from one human being to another.

You can leave out the "fantasy" part there and still be correct.

 

2 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

The Dancing Gods series... I wouldn't call it mockery, but is definitely satire from the inside.

If not, Peter David's Apropos of Nothing trilogy makes a good example of a mockery, as does Bored of the Rings.

 

2 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

I'm still not exactly sure how you're supposed to play in a roleplaying game where magic isn't explained.  I'm not being rhetorical here; I literally don't understand how.  The GM at least needs to know the system behind it. 

True, although I can at least envision a game where no PC understands magic diegetically and the players are mostly guessing what it can do based on trial, error and observation.  A Conanesque swords & sorcery game where the sorcery is the province of evil wizards and perhaps the odd weird but helpful NPC, or a world where superstitions and folktales are as close as you get to coherent magical guidelines.  In literary terms, extremely soft magic systems where "a wizard did it" is not automatically an inadequate explanation.  Your stated preferences call for hard magic systems.  Lyndon Hardy's Master of Five Magics, not Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, for ex.

 

Obviously not a compatible concept with someone looking to play a HERO system style mage, or even one from a system that doesn't try to achieve balance through point systems.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

I feel pretty certain that the correct definition and examples of "classic fantasy" is going to vary significantly from one human being to another.

 

Yeah each person has a specific idea in their head when they hear this but I think most people known what I mean when I say "not with a twist" like "My orcs are 9 feet all and use rocket packs!" or "My dragons are actually terrifying Cthulhuian monsters!" etc.  Its not a faux western, its not sci fi with swords, its not fantasy + steampunk.  Its just low tech some magic and some monsters.

 

Quote

I'm still not exactly sure how you're supposed to play in a roleplaying game where magic isn't explained

 

I know what you mean, and I don't think you're trying to be a jerk here. I'm not sure you're capable of being a jerk.   When I say "don't explain your magic too much" I don't mean "have no structure or system" I mean "leave some of it to imagination and mystery."  You don't need a scientific explanation for how every possible aspect of the spells work and how the exact mechanics behind the scenes function like its a nuclear reaction or a scientific formula.

 

You need the mechanics for how the game runs magic, and the limits (magic cannot do this, etc), but don't go too deep or it stops feeling magical.

[Duke Bushido]

23 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

You need the mechanics for how the game runs magic, and the limits (magic cannot do this, etc), but don't go too deep or it stops feeling magical.

 

 

Careful with that, Sir.

 

 

Was it a year or so ago I got well-run across the coals for saying that as much as I detest it, D and D-- owing, I am sure, mostly to it'a complete lack of logic or reason-- excels at making magic feel like magic in a way that HERO just can't do with it's brick-by-brick Lego-style approach to building "powers."

 

I mean spells.

 

Sorry.