There may be as many different
types of campaigns as there are dungeon masters to run them. In my
experience and correspondence with other dungeon masters, I have noted
that no one single type of campaigning seems to stand above the others.
Long-term campaigns exists where the dungeon masters primary focus
is the rules, the statistics and technique involved in the play of
the game. In these campaigns knowledge of the rules and typical medievil
history can propell a player forward in experience points and respect
from their peers. In other cases the primary focus has been the role-playing
and characterizations. In both cases some players will actually spend
more energy building and developing towns, castles, corporate entities
or whatever, preferring the building of the world and embellishing
it's storyline above the mechanics of play.
Of course few campaigns are based on a single point of view. Some
balance of "intuitive" and "technical" methodology is found. Adventure,
problem solving, role-play and of course the essential slaying of
monsters and rule lawyering is normally required to fill out a game.
Do you play more in the technical or the intuitive method?
The technical method is one which seeks legitimacy through its association
with published rules, precedents or direct examples from our world.
History's famous battles, tables and charts along with a variety of
reference materials are the technical dungeon masters best friend.
Agricultural regions and trade routes may play as great a role in
the power bases of their lands as magic or military might. In some
cases dungeon masters may be experts in the area of history, science,
linguistics or one of many other subjects and as such tend to build
their campaigns in the image and structure of this knowledge. This
type of campaign encourages the players to have knowledge in regard
to medieval warfare, weapons and technologies. It strongly rewards
players who are scholarly as well as effective in their game play.
Creativity is still valued but scholarship and technical skill are
the intellectual hierarchy.
The intuitive method seeks its credibility through the adoption of
certain common rationale. The players generally begin with an acceptance
that the DM will make consistent and reasonable rulings based on his
or her own sense of what is logical. Either that or he/she just tells
them he's god and to accept that or go away. The rules are truly just
a guidline. The players agree to accept the rulings of the DM, regardless
of his lack of demonstrativly presented charts, tables or reference
material. Rules are still in force but in a looser, more free-form
style. If the DM says that gravity is illusionary and only in force
as long as one believes in it, thats just the way it is. The intuitive
style seeks to bring a sense of realism not through technical correctness
but more by creating a sense of emotion and continual movement during
the game. Rules will be (if not always technically based in real-life
fact) still consistently applied and therefore become distinct and
reliable. The intuitive method seeks its realism through the suspension
of disbelief on the part of the players, trusting the DM and allowing
the speed of play and the depth of characterization to provide realism.
In the intuitively run campaign creativity is paramount and simply
requires consistency within the previously accepted boundaries to
be accepted. Technical skill and scholarship are rewarded but take
a back seat to creativity and character development.
What balance do you seek?
As always just MHO,
Thrandorian