Door to Gary Gygax Basement at 330 Center Street, Lake Geneva
Lots of Players
There were a lot of players adventuring in a shared space. This influenced play style. It also led to its own kind of dyamics, in some cases even with groups attacking each other in the wilderness city.
In our campaign group that cycled through in a couple of years (74-75) something in the neighborhood of 100 or so different players, there were perhaps three females. [11]
Over 100, and the turnover was from eager newbies wanting to learn the D&D game from Rob Kuntz and I. They then went off to form their own groups. The number doesn't include the regulars who stayed and played constantly. [11]
For about six months the typical number of players in an adventure session in my basement was 18-22 persons packed in. That was when I asked Rob Kuntz to serve as my co-DM. Getting marching order was very important. Of course most activity was dungeon crawling, so actions were just done in order around the table. Be ready or lose your chance! Stick with the party or else something very nasty is likely to befall your character away from the group. The sessions were fun but somewhat chaotic, lacked most roleplay, and surely didn't allow for a lot of one-on-one time player and DM. #2471
Party size varies from one to about 20 or so in weekends. I often adventured alone, with two or three PCs, or one and some hirelings. Rob would DM for me while I worked. [11]
When Castle Greyhawk was in its heyday, groups of 10 or more PCs would adventure in it several times a week, many of the players in each group different from the previous ones. #1628
I personally dislike refereeing for expeditions above six persons, but demand usually force me to take more. The largest party we ever took into "Greyhawk Castle" was 16 --- and four actually survived to tell of it. And that without 75% occupancy and no more than a half-dozen traps on a typical level. [46]
In large party dungeon forays, the dwarves, gnomes and halflings formed the front rank, then elves and humans with spears fought behind them, and the spell casters fired off their attacks from the third rank using the intervals between the two files before them. [11]
Eventually, the large parties of PCs dungeon crawling in Greyhawk Castle were arrayed in three ranks with the halflings and dwarves in front, then elves and short humans, and the tallest in the rear--with any additional PCs behind them covering the backs of those ahead. [11]
Back in those halcyon days we played in large groups on weekends, while during the week smaller parties were DMed by me, or another of the ones who had campaigns--Rob mainly (and thus he was made co-DM of my campaign late in 1974). #1933
Adventures with 10 to 20 PCs were fun, if hectic, and few of any of such mass forays were of memorable sort, other than perhaps for the number of low-level characters being done for and new one's hastily rolled up. Because of that, and the fact that the more skilled veterans with higher-level PCS wanted adventures of less chaotic sort, the sessions with smaller groups were much in demand. As Ernie, Don, Rob and Terry in my house or near to it, were family or friends, they came by often to play, Rob more so than the rest, followed by Ernie and Terry, for Don had a day job and a family. #1933
The better players--Rob, Ernie, Terry--would ofter adventure as a party, but sometimes alone. It was very rare that they got into something that they could not handle...or escape [11]
Whenever possible I ran the less-experienced players alone or with lower-level "flunkie" PCs of the veterans of the group, giving them a chance to get full XPs instead of the half limit if played in addition to their "masters." #5191
The newbies actually often preferred to be along as assistants to the high-level PCs, even though I had by then developed the "XP shares by level" method, where all levels of the party were added and the total XPs for the adventure divided by that number and then shared up accordingly--multi-class levels counting as half-levels added to the main one (for instance a F/MU/T of 4-4-5 would have 9 share levels [2+2+5]). Then Robilar and Tenser were involved, the kills and loot were usually great. #5191
There were never many female gamers in our group. My daughter Elise was one of two original play-testers for the first draft of what became the D&D game, and both of her younger sisters played...and lost interest in a few months as she did. [11]
Dan Plerson says that we are rumored to play competitive D&D with group against group. It so happens that when we get the campaign into high gear, there is considerable competition between three or four factions, and they find it enjoyable to attack each other when the opportunity arise -- and they do play to make such opportunities. As a DM I find this quite suitable. It does not occur frequently. It almost never happens during dungeon expeditions. [46]
Lots of Play
We played a LOT. An average of seven gaming sessions a week was typical even when I was busy working. Often I played more than that. #878
We played so much that in truth I can't remember 90% or more of what happened, and the accounts are the incidents that were truly exceptional. #382
In late 1972 through 1975 I probably averaged at least 30 hours a week with D&D. I'd work a half day to keep the wolf from the door, then play the game or DM a group. Late at night I'd make notes and/or write. In 1976 I had to spend more time working, I became a full-time employee of TSR in June of 75, and I was writing a lot of game material then also. My gaming time likely dropped to an average of about 12 hours a week. #327
I expected no particular number of game sessions from anyone. The "regulars," on the other hand, expected to play many times a week. Eventualy, the occasional players dropped out, or became regulars replacing others of that ilk that left the campaign, as the ones that played more frequently were of higher level and dominated the action. #5188
As I was working at home I did not schedule play sessions, but when a gamer or two dropped in of a day, I made haste to finish immediate work and put on my DM's hat. Evening games with the regulars were generally scheduled a few hours or a day or two ahead. #1933
In 1974 the veteran group had doubled in size, and as it was necessary for me to spend more time working on revising the game, Rob took over some of those sessions. The "wild bunch" showing up for weekend adventures was also larger, so Rob and I co-DMed those mass expditions. #1933
From 1972 through 1985, rather sporadically after 1981. I still play it now and again. #2689
Generally, parties left the dungeon at the end of a session so PCs could get their experience point awards, resupply, and heal. that was a must I insisted upon for large groups. If the party was of small size and wished to remain active in any location awaiting the next session, then the usual manner for managing a missing player was that he was ill and able only to move along with the others, not do any other sort of action. #2761
Lots of Characters
People did not play just a single character. They typically had multiple. Gary had about eight major ones, that later became the "Circle of Eight". Life was cheap, you were not invested in your single character.
When we played, you got a guy to 10th level, you retired him. We had him build a keep, carved it out of the wilderness, hired men-at-arms, lived the good life, started a new character. We always had five or six characters active at a time. See, we'd look and say, ah, I could bring him or I could bring him. We didn't have our whole lives invested in a character. We didn't go into a clincal depression when our characters died. [
Tim Cask, Youtube Video from GaryCon, 3 May 2015]
The reason that most regular players in the campaign had two or more PCs was for the very reason you mention, timelines in the campaign.
Dungeon adventures are relatively short in that regard, and thus they are easy to keep track of. A sheet of paper with a running count of days suffices until some of the group heads for an outdoor adventure. Then one must keep track of days, weeks, and possibly months.
Neither Rob nor I were sticklers for exact dates. When the main party of players was enagaged in a trek somewhere, others could do likewise, delve underground, or just sit sround and await the return of the main PCs. A rough estimate of time passed relative to the separate PC groups sufficied for eventual rejoining.
When only one or two PCs were off on a long adventure somewhere, we would usually speed time for the others if they wanted to eventually catch up with the wanderer(s).
Group play is far more important than timekeeping an an RPG. #8209
Level of the Characters
Remember that my group began playing late in 1972, and that most of the dedicated regulars had more than one PC. No one wanted very high level PCs because that precluded their character from many of the adventures run. The only DM that managed a campaign accommodating such PCs was Francois Marcela Froideval. In his game PCs in their teens were low-level flunkies.
Anyway, there was no coddling of characters, so everyone of us made sure to have undo petrification, clones, wish spells, and a helpful cleric ready for times of chrises... #8362
The old veterans had PCs with levels in the teens after about 10 yeras of play. Back then my own highest level PC was the same, although nearly 20th level. It was common to virtually retire a character when 15th or so level was attained. #8360 That was Mordenkainen, around 1982. Gary played until 1985, and
got him to mid-20s in level.
The few who reached such level were ready to retire their PC somewhere around 15. most never bothered to formally retire, simply created new PCs when one reached 12th level or so and wasn't that much fun to have on adventures with lower-level PCs, or was just a tad boring because of familiarity. Rob Kuntz had Robilar build a stronghold, as he had so much wealth and the pair of green dragons to manage. [11]
Yes, fellows, I find 20th level to be absolutely incredible, for you won't get it in the games hereabouts -- or in most other places which I hear in talking with DMs. It makes good players angry to hear about umpteenth level characters when they have had to play two actual years, carefully and intelligently, to rise to tenth level or so. [46]
No God Killing
As for plots, never have I had the group concerned with saving the world, although sometimes that have been involved in adventures that have impacted a state or region. Mostly they decide for themselves what their motivation is and how far they will go to fulfill their ambitions. #8029
That sort of campaign is hogwash in terms of the FRPG, proper for a comic book superhero system where the characters can become tremendously powerful and need such opponents to make the game even vaguely interesting. In short, I think the concept is childish and not worth pursuing by mature gamers. #5591
Fantasy deities create things, move mountains, sink continents, and are generally quite untouchable by mortals. Even the Genie of the Lamp is quite unkillable, albeit he can be duped #5620
Asmodeus (or whomever it was the PCs were contemplating assaulting) would send in a few companies of devils (or demons) so as to have some entertaining sport to amuse him for a time. When he tired of that, it would be time do something such as begin killing each of the offending mortals slowly with his power, drawing out their soul if not protected from him by some other like deity, and sending it off to suffer in one of the hells or a layer of the abyss. If: "Hey! you can't do that because X isn't like that in the book," so what? Who says that the information in that work is correct in regards to deities? Do you imagne they are going to reveal their secrets to the likes of you? #8383
To be fair, if you put stats for demon lords and gods into a monster manual, and these are such that they can be beat by the stats normal player characters can attain, do not wonder if the players conclude that battling and defeating these entities is not only possible but is intended by the games' designers.
No comments:
Post a Comment