dorettas@iddic.UUCP (Doretta Schrock) (10/29/85)
[The fastest way to a monster's heart is with a halberd] Here's an idea I thought of recently that I haven't seen in these parts: modular refereeing (or DMing, etc.). Basically, the idea is to let several people get in on the joys (!? :*) of refereeing in a short time period with minimal chaos and reality distortion. It also helps stave off referee burn-out, since everyone gets to play as well. Here's how it works: One person acts as the super-ref, and sketches an outline for an adventure (say, 12 to 18 hours worth, very rough ideas). He or she then breaks the adventure into modules at natural break points (like when the party goes from city to forest, etc.) and assigns each module to a different person. These people are then free to develop their section of the adventure as they see fit, with a few restrictions. The super-ref tells them what the general setting is, how long (playing time) it should be, what the players' goals during the module are, and, specifically, what NPCs will be going in, which should come out (i.e., which ones have to be introduced or killed off during the module), and what items, if any, need to be found during the module. The designer of the module is then free to orchestrate these events however he or she likes (what? You say it sounds like software design?! How dare you!! :-), including any red herrings, diversions, obstacles, etc. that he or she wants to include. The super-ref runs the first and probably last modules, with everyone playing in everyone else's modules. This requires that everyone be on at least fairly good terms, since someone is going to have to run your character(s) when you referee your module. Now, before I begin to get those "marshmallow toastie" feelings, let me say that this idea is completely untested. I'm getting together with some old college buddies for a pseudo-reunion in a couple of months, and we're going to be doing this with our homebrew FRPG (which, really, is the best game you've ever seen :-). I've got module #4, which may or may not be significant (the super-ref won't tell us, and we aren't telling each other), and boy oh boy do they have some surprises waiting for them (evil laughter, evil laughter). I'll let you know how it turns out. If anyone else has tried anything like this, do you have any pointers? If this is really an old shopworn idea that I somehow missed, would you like to hear about another neat new idea I have? I call it "special relativity"...:-) Mike Sellers <--note the name difference from above "You've got to do some stupid things once in a while, if you want to be a hero." -- Rocky J. Squirrel
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (11/01/85)
In article <2271@iddic.UUCP> dorettas@iddic.UUCP (Doretta Schrock) writes: >Here's an idea I thought of recently that I haven't seen in these parts: >modular refereeing (or DMing, etc.). Basically, the idea is to let several >people get in on the joys (!? :*) of refereeing in a short time period >with minimal chaos and reality distortion. > > Mike Sellers <--note the name difference from above We have tried modular refereeing a number of times with our gaming group and it turns out fairly well. We play Champions (a superhero role-playing game) with several GMs. Each has a separate universe and a separate set of player characters. However, the "crossover" has a long and noble history in comic books, and we run cross-universe scenarios every six months or so. Right now, we are involved in a complex crossover that involves Justice Inc. and Fantasy Hero characters as well as Champions heroes. We find that multi-GM extravaganzas work best with a minimum of prior plotting; otherwise, individual GMs find themselves very cramped. So for what it's worth, here's what we worked out for current scenario. It started in the Justice Inc. campaign, set in post-collapse year 2159. The heroes were blackmailed by a local chapter of the Yakuza (Japanese Mafia) to do a little sabotage on some criminal competition. The competition was working on a teleportation device that would mean big trouble for everyone (including the Yakuza). The heroes managed to wipe out the gangs headquarters, but the mad scientist who had made the teleportation device activated it, taking heroes, scientist, and device to an alternate dimension. This was the only set-up the GMs had. The heroes would be looking for a way back to their own world, and secondarily chasing the mad scientist (because the teleportation device was the most obvious way to return to 2159). However, each GM could do anything he wanted in his own universe. In the Fantasy Hero world, the JI types helped local characters kill a dragon and fight a wizard who had taken the mad scientist prisoner. (Mad scientist managed to activate the machine in the confusion of his "rescue", so the JI heroes had to run through an inter-dimensional gate before it closed.) In my Champions world, I ran an incredibly silly adventure where the JI heroes were conned into being milk inspectors, helping the local superheroes find a supervillain doomsday machine (which turned out to be a Trojan Horse). The JI types had managed to capture the mad scientist by this time, but the machine had been damaged...the mad scientist was left to repair the machine while the heroes fought villains. The mad scientist managed to get the machine working, overpower his guards, and leave, so the heroes had to pursue through a dimensional gate into yet another universe. We are in that universe right now. The mad scientist has been captured by vampires, one of our players has been turned into a vampire herself, a prominent NPC is dead, and we're moving into the final confrontation this weekend. Somehow or other, the JI heroes that are left alive will probably get the machine, figure it out, and get back to their own world. At that point, the first GM will take over again, probably giving the heroes a chance to get back at the Yakuza who forced everything in the first place. This kind of technique has worked out very nicely in other adventures too. One GM sets up a situation in which characters will want to achieve a certain goal. Then one or more GMs deal with scenarios in which the characters pursue that goal. Friends of ours are using a different approach, borrowed from the DC Challenge (a comic book mini-series). They have the following ground rules. -- every participant will GM one session -- every participant plays one character -- when a participant is GM, he must arrange that his character has little or no involvement with what happens that session -- the first GM creates as many loose ends and sub-plots as he cares to; subsequent GMs must tie off at least one loose end or sub-plot in their session They discussed the basic setting they wanted to use and created their characters well ahead of time. Since they were using the Champions system, this gave them plenty of material to work with (character disadvantages in Champions are always a great starting point for scenarios). They've just started playing the Challenge and will probably hold a session every two weeks. I'll let you know how it turns out in a few months, if anyone's interested. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
tjc@cbosgd.UUCP (Tom Cook) (11/02/85)
In Columbus, we tried a supermodule approach to give everyone a turn at DM. It took place over about a two year period, as I recall, on a one-night-a-week (4-5 hour) schedule, with about fifteen participants. THis was about three years or so ago. Basically, the experience was quite positive. The scenario we agreed to was the quest for "the rod of N parts". Each individual or team (several teams of two worked together) was to come up with a module which would start out in the Restaurant at the end of the Universe, where the party collected at the end of each section; proceed on a quest with very few holds barred; and wind up with yet another part of the rod before returning to the convocation point. There was really very little in common among the separate modules other than the very basic purpose and the cast of characters. This was by intent; the characters gave continuity, but the open-ended charter gave the interest and opportunity for self-expression. Because our group of Bell Labs employees are rather used to playing AD&D together, and most are experienced DM's, we chose to make this a high level campaign. Each player was allotted a number of experience points and magic points (per DMG magic value tables) to equip a character, typically of 12-14 level. Only a single character per player was allowed in our version. The rule was that a character killed during the course of a module would be immediately resurrected, but with the loss of one level and with potentially no equipment (unless the original equipment could be retrieved from the body...hard to do from within the entrails of a fleeing dragon). This preserved the participation of all the players, and seemed to be about the right level of penalty for our purpose...namely, to have fun role-playing and enjoy one another's company. Of course, a sub-objective was to accrue enough experience points and magic during the module to make it through the next. Each individual DM was of course free to restrict equipment and magic at the beginning of his or her campaign. Of course, the standard magic-eating mist at the entrance to the module was always an option to deal with the compleat adventurer with the encumbrance of 10,000 GP. I would be glad to look up some of our initialization procedure for rolling up high level characters if anyone is interested, although this approach should also be great with entry level characters for those whose preference is for the excitement of developing a persona from the ground floor up.
ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli) (11/03/85)
> [The fastest way to a monster's heart is with a halberd] > > Here's an idea I thought of recently that I haven't seen in these parts: > modular refereeing (or DMing, etc.). Basically, the idea is to let several > people get in on the joys (!? :*) of refereeing in a short time period > with minimal chaos and reality distortion. It also helps stave off referee > burn-out, since everyone gets to play as well. > I've tried this with Champions. We ran into some problems, however, as a result of conflict of interest between people not managing to keep their roles of gamemaster & player separate. This basically occurs because most good campaigns have an element of mystery or unknown, but obviously, the player already knows it since he is also a GM. This often prevents him from role playing his character in a realistic fashion. -- --rick heli (... ucbvax!ucdavis!ccrrick)
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (11/04/85)
In article <2271@iddic.UUCP> dorettas@iddic.UUCP (Doretta Schrock) writes: >[The fastest way to a monster's heart is with a halberd] > >Here's an idea I thought of recently that I haven't seen in these parts: >modular refereeing (or DMing, etc.). > >Here's how it works: One person acts as the super-ref, and sketches an >outline for an adventure (say, 12 to 18 hours worth, very rough ideas). >He or she then breaks the adventure into modules at natural break points >(like when the party goes from city to forest, etc.) and assigns each module >to a different person. These people are then free to develop their section >of the adventure as they see fit, with a few restrictions. The super-ref >tells them what the general setting is, how long (playing time) it should >be, what the players' goals during the module are, and, specifically, what >NPCs will be going in, which should come out (i.e., which ones have to be >introduced or killed off during the module), and what items, if any, need >to be found during the module. This is where I have trouble with the concept. What happens if the players kill off an NPC they aren't "supposed" to? Or fail to accomplish something required? The whole thing becomes much too scripted for my taste. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
richl@lumiere.UUCP (Rick Lindsley) (11/07/85)
A variation of modular refereeing is to create a modular world which can sustain different, short adventures. Our group decided to take this route, and to make it easier on us we selected one point where all five regions meet, and declared there was a "Temple of Peace" there. No weapons or hostile acts are allowed within (this is enforced by Temple guards skilled in wizardry and martial arts, as well as occasional lightning bolts from nowhere), and people that live in the immediate area are either vendors or pilgrims. This makes a handy place to pick up "common" items like rations and maybe a few weapons (just outside the periphery of the Temple), as well as a safe, non-threatening place to strike deals. For guilds and such, though, we have to go to one of the cities inside one of the regions, because the area around the Temple is not developed enough. While you are in a given region, the same person is DMing at all times. If a DM has playing characters they must become NPC while in their own region and cannot earn experience points. (In practice, most of these characters choose to worship at the Temple and wait for their friends to return rather than risk death at little gain.) Each DM may design the terrain of his own region however he likes, except where it adjoins another region. Then the two DMs should consult so the terrain agrees. But political differences may abound. For example, while moving from one adventure to another, the party got taxed by the local government for all the goodies they had. Grumble grumble. Imagine their outrage when the NEXT region they moved into also announced it was tax time (though since they were non-residents they were granted only 8% tax rather than 10%!) Ah but now I digress into descriptions of our adventures. That's for another time ... Rick Lindsley
hogge@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (11/16/85)
Warning, idle ramblings herein... I most enjoyed playing with a group of about 6, most of whom shared the job of judging on a long-term basis. (This group ran for about three years, then we all graduated (sob)). There's no real need for the referees to try to cooperate on a modular world (though that's an interesting idea), as long as everyone can agree somewhat on the interpretation of rules. The neat thing about this kind of game, other than saving the lone-DM a lot of time, is that it seems to promote a richer community of characters who have more varied experiences, and therefore, a more interesting history/personality. I've played in a few lone-DM games, and have never grown attached to (ie. developed fully) any of the characters I played. The "community of characters" just about describes it--we ran way too many characters per player, and lots of personalities were duplicated here and there. But quite a few fun relationships developed: petty jealousies, hadred, blood-brotherhood, political blocks, racial blocks (as always, the dwarven SWAT team), etc. I don't think it's easy to get this kind of gaming out of one DM who only has time to prepare a store-bought module. With 6 DM's, it was a fairly reasonable amount of time to prepare your own tasty world/scenario. Of course, one of the reasons our player-community was well developed was we played so (*&^'in much! Those were the days...