From: djdaneh@pbhyc.PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Subject: Thoughts on roleplaying and magic (was Cure for Munchies)
Reply-To: djdaneh@PacBell.COM (Dan'l DanehyOakes)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:01:31 GMT


All of which reminds me.

One general rule of thumb for a campaign which is oriented more toward
personality/interaction/role playing than hacknslash/grabthecash/montyism, is 
"keep the magical treasures few and far between."

I would like to propose an exception to this r.o.t., especially for a campaign 
in which you are hosting one or more recovering munchies, to wit:

==>	Make healing-type magic fairly abundant.

The reasoning is not very subtle.  If you are trying to encourage the players to
develop personalities for their PCs, you need to keep said PCs around long 
enough to develop personalities.  This is particularly true with folks who are
used to games where personality development is kept to a minimum, and that
minimum generally limited to the cliches that go with charcter class/alignment/
species.

A bit of perspective:

I've been playing various RPGs (D&D, GHOSTBUSTERS, CHAMPIONS, CALL OF CTHULHU,
GAMMA WORLD, and my own ARTHUR [no relation]) with more or less the same gang
for a looooooong time.  (How long is it?) (That's a rather personal question.)
(Hush, you've spoiled the atmosphere.)  Two of us from the original gang go back
15 years, others have come and gone over the years, but we've had a pretty much
steady core for something like ten or twelve.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my own philosophy is that RPGs are a sort of
impromptu theatre with no audience (or, rather, with the audience fully 
integrated into the cast).  The GM provides an environment for the characters to
react to, and -- at least as important -- which reacts to the characters.  [A
side effect of this is that it isn't GM-versus-players; it's GM-and-players
together creating interesting theatre, though the GM has to be "fair" even if
it means a favorite character bites the big one.]

"Modules" are important but not always necessary.  Sometimes the characters will
create enough interesting situations that all the GM has to do is react with/for
the environment.

I'll give you a f'rexample:  we were playing GHOSTBUSTERS a few years agone, and
the GM hadn't yet started the module he was planning on, when some of us got
an idea.  Our leader was a classic geek, who thought himself a hero (not to
mention a mad scientist with a penchant for experiments involving bullfrogs),
and had just established a "trophy room" in the office.  With lots and lots of
lucite makin's for encasing trophys.  While he slept, we encased his feet in 
lucite.  Which led to a phone call to ESQUIRE with the claim that this was a 
radical new fashion statement, and eventually an appearance on the TONIGHT
show, where John brought along a bucket full of ectoplasm (don't ask where we
got it, you don't want to know) that somehow got all over Johnny's pencils. . .
you get the idea.

The GM never got to introduce a module that night.  It was, contrariwise, one
of the best gaming sessions I remember.  Ever.  To say we were all ROTF, or
even ROTFFKAS, would be an understatement.

Okay, you get the idea:  strong characters can carry a game situation almost
without a GM.

"So," I hear someone say, "what *does* the GM do?"

Mostly provide problems to be solved, goals to be met.  One odd bit of gaming
philosophy I've evolved as a result of playing with strong characters is not
to give them a detailed map of their world.  They have a general outline, but
when I want them to find something (an NPC, a monster, a castle, whatever), it
just *happens* to be on the road to wherever they were heading anyway -- 
otherwise no way they'd ever solve any of the bigger problems they're faced
with.

Which doesn't mean they never have to search for something.  When that's part of
the challenge, I'll assign it a specific spot and give them the clues they need.

Well.  What's all this got to do with magic and munchies?  A couple of things.  

First of all, when I've let munchies into my campaign (which has only happened
a couple of times, largely because the way we get new players tends to exclude
the possibility:  the incoming persons are usually adults, often people who've 
never RPG'd before), they've fit in much better than you'd think.  The nature
of the game forces them to interact.  And, oddly, they love it.

Second, once players are accustomed to this style, you can run a game as high-
powered as you like and it doesn't turn into "powergaming."  The grand finale of
the First Age of Arthur (I was tired of GMming, took a few years off, and came
back 16000 years later with all the old characters long dead) was a Quest to 
Rescue the Polymetallic Dragon (offspring of the Polychromatic Queen and the 
Platinum King, Lord of the Neutral Dragons, etc., etc.)  Clearly a quest 
designed for munchies if ever there was one. . . but verily, verily I say unto
you that there was no munchkin behaviour in the entire period of the Quest.
(Incidentally, the characters performing the quest were not supercharacters
-- not a one of em above 10th-level-equivalent, with an average probably around
7th.)

Again and again and again:  encourage and reward killing things and a munchie
campaign is what you will get.  Encourage and reward interesting roleplay and 
you will get interesting role play. . . and a game that is as entertaining for
the GM as for the players.

Interested?  If you're in the Bay Area and are willing to commit your saturday
nights, drop me a note. . . there's always room for more. . .


		The Pavlov dog and the Schroedinger cat
		Side by side in my forebrain sat
		With Shakespeare's monkeys crowding in behind. . .
		. . . it's all in your mind.
			-- Visual Purple

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes, Net.Roach
My opinions do NOT represent Pacific Bell,
Professional Development, or anyone else.
But I'm willing to share.