The group started to arrive at about 6:09 and I was introduced to the person who was going to be their DM and got to talk to the people who would be the PC's about how this version was different from the others. They told me this was the basic set of rules of DND (which is called 3.5) and the system they do turns it into what they refereed to as DND 3.75, all the same as the base rules but with certain changes to make certain game mechanics less powerful. I asked them about the past group and about Hackmaster and their take on it was that Hackmaster is really a spoof on DND and is the base system but with a lot of cutesy things thrown in to make it more adversarial between the DM and the PCs and less about having a strong storyline.
The others arrived and the general setup for each player was to come in, stand for a bit and talk to the people, survey the area, claim their spot, setup their computer (yes they all had computers) and then go and get food. The group finally started at 7:09 and the beginning started mainly with a review of the past session and then figuring out what equipment each character had as well as the characters status, mental health, and any other vital information they need to know about their character or the area they were in. This brought about some interesting conversation as apparently the characters were in a zone that was normally 500 degrees and there was some banter about whether "True Ice" (Ice that is always cold, no molecular motion) would melt in this place.
The group finally started their actual play at 7:23 and the interesting part about this was that not everyone was yet sitting at the table. In fact the play almost worked as if the players were all in a family at a barbecue. Each player was allowed to sit by themselves and eat their meal and then when they were done eventually migrated closer to the table and joined in. Another curious observation was that during this intro time, each players amount of involvement was directly proportional to their distance to the DM. If the person was not at the table, they talked little if at all, this might have only been because they were eating but they did seem to be listening and thinking critically about what was happening. In fact if it weren't for the people to the DM's right and far right the game could have stopped as these two players really pushed the story forward. As the story progressed it was interesting how more and more the players took on their characters personality, and more interesting yet was how their characters personality (while well defined) were greatly reflected by the person playing them. Each person as they talked to me and introduced themselves asked me about the CHI class and then their questions in game were asked in very similar manners. It almost brought each character to life as I could picture a fighter or a monk who looked like the individual embodying them asking questions to dragons and people in the world they were envisioning.
The DM was the center of attention for most everything as he was not only a very strong presence in the campaign but also had a very quiet yet profound way of controlling the group. He made sure that the players understood everything that was happening giving very extravagant details about each area and making sure that the players understood the structures, terrain, rocks, plants, temperature and other factors of each area. It actually really helped me to paint a picture as well of what he wanted me to see. I almost felt like a Tolkien novel was being read and had to double check he wasn't reading this off a card. He also had an interesting way of dealing with conversation of the players. Essentially I gathered that there was three types of conversation amongst the group. The first was what the players called "meta game" which were questions outside the game, about the game. Essentially, when a person talks, one would assume they they are speaking for their character but this was not always the case. A lot of times a player would talk in questions or hypothetical, and see the DMs reaction and then sometimes they would just need a clarification "so what color is this dragon again?". The second kind is what I would call banter or a side conversation, these ranged from humorous comments that would spark a laugh from the person next to them or the whole group, or in some cases were just conversations about a random thought. The third kind was, of course, the in game talking of the character which was distinctly different from the players normal kind of speech and in most cases could be distinguished from meta conversations. I also noticed that the DM while it seemed like was letting the conversation be rather untamed had a very prepared structure for controlling flow of conversation. He essentially broke the group into pairs of 2 and took them in a rotation, first talking to one group, then another, then another then back to the first. Even if one of the other groups wanted to talk out of turn, he would check with the other two groups and then go to that group. The only time he did break this rhythm is if he had something to say about the story or one of the NPCs (non-player characters) in game had something to say or do that specifically affected another player. This was not a formal system, at no time did the DM tell anyone they were interrupting or tell a group to wait their turn but he definitely had a system in his head that he planned and he stuck by this system and made sure each group was good. I am more curious to know if this is simply how he is, how all DMs are, or if he is simple exceptionally good at what he does (if his descriptions are any indications, hes just that good).
The other interesting thing that happened different from the last group was there was no formal board that the characters used, at first. There were figurines used and instead of using various random objects each player had a figurine that was painted and somewhat looked like what their character (might) look like.
At first these were just placed on the table and had no real bearing on the game. Eventually as the story developed and location became more vital to the game, green felt was pulled out, and the figures were put in relative locations that again seemed very insignificant. They were used but largely ignored, and in fact the players didn't quite care where their figure was, and only really moved them when the DM essentially said they should.
However eventually this all made sense as there were boards added that did finally depict an area, and they were to scale as it was explained that each square on the board was a 5x5 square.
This spoke to the idea that while all these players know what is going on there is a strategic aspect to this game that the players can "see" and in this case it seemed much like a video game that allowed the players to step away from the serious story telling and simply get to prepare for combat and shoot lighting bolts. It was also curious how the board was not really set up until combat started. I don't know if this is normally done or if it just happened organically this way. It seems to me that if the DM wanted to keep his ideas private that the wouldn't pull any of this out until combat has (basically) started. In this case, these actions were almost a telegram telling the players that combat was coming and the more I considered their actions they were prepared for combat more than it seemed they should have been. I am curious to see another session from the beginning and see how much of this is true. I also plan on interviewing the players about these ideas and see if they notice the pattern or not.
I needed to leave shortly after they had started "combat" but I am going to go next week for the end of a session so I will report more on combat and other player actions next week as well. I wanted to see how they end a session and the things involved with it. I am also curous to try to get short interviews after the session and ask questions.
Thanks again to the group because I believe they will be reading this and I am looking forward to next week!
No comments:
Post a Comment