Quote from: RPGPundit;1006413I figure you know all this already Chirine, but I would worry  less about the intro and more about how you start out the game. And with a setting as weird and not easily approachable as Tekumel, you should probably start out small. Have the PCs as people of some small village/town or somewhere similarly limited in scope, and tell them step-by-step about what their characters would know, would see, would understand of the world as you go along playing in it, and you slowly expand the size of the game.

Thank you for the very good advice! The situation in this case is that this is an already-existing campaign that I was invited to join, with a first-level version of my leaden alter-ego translated into 5e by the GM - a cleric, basically. The idea is that like the mixed bag of other players , he's just dropped in from another plane. He came equipped by the GM with a 'get home' device that, with limitations, allows him to get back to Tekumel. This was used by the party after their first game session, when they used it to get some very needed help to get most of the party back alive after they'd been killed. The dice rolls indicated that the device was not entirely accurate, so the GM had the players land in my real PC's timeline / plane; they had a nice visit to Lord Chirine's palace, and got healed and re-equipped. In subsequent adventures, in keeping with Dave Arneson and Phil Barker's habit of having PCs wander back and forth between their campaigns, the party has used a retuned device to get put back on their feet after the latest calamity that's befallen them. They have enjoyed their visits to Tekumel, they've told me. In effect, they are 'tourists', off to see the sights.

We are not really starting a 'Tekumel campaign', as near as I can tell from what the GM has said. I agree with your advice to "start small", which is what I have always done in my campaign as players come and go over the years; I've always done exactly what you suggest, as that's the way Phil did is as well; I think it's often forgotten that it took us some fifteen years of once- and twice-a-week game sessions to develop Tekumel into what it's perceived as today. Back in the day, we started as low-level people (at best!) and worked out way up as we learned all about the world that we were exploring in small bites.

In effect, some established and developed 5e player-characters are being dropped into my Tekumel campaign, which has been running for over a decade; I am not expecting issues with them 'getting' the world - they'll get it in small doses, just as per your excellent suggestions - but I am expecting that I will be the one having the issues as I haven't got a clue as to how 5e (or any other version of D & D, for that matter) works. The GM is gong to be handling all of the game mechanics, as I understand it; I think I'll bring some of my copies of EPT along to the game to make his conversion of stats and such a little easier. What I had been wondering about was what, if any, materials I should have available for the players to have a look at if they want to.

I dunno. I'm not looking forward to this, as I find the 5e setting with all it's stuff as weird and difficult to approach. It's entirely different from the way Dave, Gary, and Phil used to play, and I'm simply lost in it. The players and the GM are not, for me, the issue; 5e seems to be.

Any advice would be welcome, sir!!!

I'm no fan of 5e, but like any D&D edition, a DM can bang on it enough to make it achieve their goal.

As for co-GMing, that sounds weird, but I've seen it work where one GM does the fluff and the other handles the crunch.

As others have mentioned, your intro needs to focus on what the PCs are experiencing NOW. AKA, imagine being dumped through a magic portal into a Tekumel town. What they see, smell, experience, etc is FAR more vital than any history of the world.

I totally support player cheat sheets to understand the game world, but focus on what the player should be seeing in their mind and what the PCs will be dealing with socially and in that environment.

QuoteI have no trouble running the game; what concerns me is presentation and accessibility. 5e, as i've seen it being played by this and other groups at the FLGS, offers me effectively nothing in the kind of elements that I like to see in my gaming. It's usually a gridded battle mat with wet-erase markers and pre-painted figures as a tactical display, with none of the sheer spectacle that I love to present in my games. Also, normally, I'd bring some of my copies of EPT to the table for people to look at and get a little introduction to the world-setting, but I've been put off by some of the reactions that I've gotten by people - specifically, sniggering over the artwork. My thought is to present the players with this excerpt from Book One of "To Serve The Petal Throne" as a take-away sheet for the players:

Dont judge the game by your FLGS. Sounds pretty crummy and I wouldnt likely find much interest in playing 5e like that or with people like that.

From personal experience a grid and minis is very much not the norm for 5e. It can be played that way. but all indicators are the vast majority are not using grids or minis. What you may have seen, unlikely but who knows, is people playing the 5e D&D minis wargame from WizKids? But in any case if a prospective player is sniggering over the art then thats right off a "Dont Call us. Cause we aint calling you." moment.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1006482I dunno. I'm not looking forward to this, as I find the 5e setting with all it's stuff as weird and difficult to approach. It's entirely different from the way Dave, Gary, and Phil used to play, and I'm simply lost in it. The players and the GM are not, for me, the issue; 5e seems to be.

Thank you Chirine for saying this.  I have been playing various versions of D&D, mostly the earlier ones, for a very long time and I find 5e quite alien as well. It is good to know I am not alone.

Well, it's not just 5e; I strongly suspect Chirine would find 3E, 3.5, 4E, and Pathfinder just as alien.

Once feats and skills came along the game changed drastically.  Being "all about the build" may not be universal, but it's very common.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006593Well, it's not just 5e; I strongly suspect Chirine would find 3E, 3.5, 4E, and Pathfinder just as alien.

Once feats and skills came along the game changed drastically.  Being "all about the build" may not be universal, but it's very common.

Oh for god sake, it about how people play not the rules themselves.

Although not labeled as such the classes in EPT and OD&D have feat like mechanics in the form of spells and class abilities. I just read through the spell casters in EPT and felt like I was reading about 5e warlocks and battlemaster with picking from list A, B, or C class option. The fact it was labeled as spells doesn't change that what I was doing was the same thing in terms of mechanic.

For example in my current OD&D campaign, I have two players (out of four) who like to build optimal characters. I known them for 15 years and always been like this regardless of the game or RPG we played. It not the only thing about them when we game but it there.

With my current campaign they are playing OD&D for the first time. Given the near lack of character customization the thing they turn too is magic items. What combination of magic item or enchanting magic items (when they get high enough level) will allow them to do the cool things they have in mind.

While I have magic shops in my campaign they are still high priced luxury items. So what they can get is limited until they saved enough from adventuring and of course assuming they survived.

Then you got stuff like being able to train hippogriffs (or tarns) so forth and so on.

None of this any different from back in the day in the late 70s and early 80s when I was using AD&D. Every type of good and bad roleplayer was present then as well as today. And what worked then to handle the same type of players still works today.

For me that means emphasizing the fact the players are there as their characters. Insisting on first person roleplaying, and speaking directly at them as the NPCs. Doing what I can to break them from treating their miniature or characters as a game piece and focusing pretending what it is like to be there in my setting and having adventures.

For me there is zero difference in how I manage a Majestic Wilderlands campaign when it comes to using OD&D, GURPS, or D&D 5e. The difference show up in what dice I ask the players to roll, and how long things take to resolve (particularly combat). Regardless of system players are doing the same things (mostly adventuring) for the same reasons (glory, power, and wealth).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006593Well, it's not just 5e; I strongly suspect Chirine would find 3E, 3.5, 4E, and Pathfinder just as alien.

Once feats and skills came along the game changed drastically.  Being "all about the build" may not be universal, but it's very common.

It's not about Chirine, even I find 4e and 5e alien (5e less so), and 3+ overwrought for minimum gain:D!

Quote from: estar;1006599Oh for god sake, it about how people play not the rules themselves.

Sorry, but even I can't agree here:).

QuoteAlthough not labeled as such the classes in EPT and OD&D have feat like mechanics in the form of spells and class abilities. I just read through the spell casters in EPT and felt like I was reading about 5e warlocks and battlemaster with picking from list A, B, or C class option. The fact it was labeled as spells doesn't change that what I was doing was the same thing in terms of mechanic.

It might be the same mechanically, but mechanics aren't objective, and even how you call those mechanics does influence the in-character reality a whole lot.
In other words, "gain +20% to your combat skill" isn't objective. "Gain 20%to your combat skill because of a Vimuhla's Rage spell" and "gain 20% to your combat skill because you're in a favourable defensible position on the castle's stairs while the defenders are coming upwards" might have the same mechanical effect, but claiming they're the same thing is obviously wrong;).

And OD&D has nothing even vaguely close to the feat chains and skill sets of later editions.  Especially in the environment Chirine and I played mostly under, where we didn't even see the rules.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006612And OD&D has nothing even vaguely close to the feat chains and skill sets of later editions.  Especially in the environment Chirine and I played mostly under, where we didn't even see the rules.

If you mean OD&D core only sure. But when it comes to comparing EPT or the some classes in the supplements, to what in the 5e Basic rules. I am not buying it. If you throw in the full gamut of what in the core books instead using just what in the Basic rules. Then yes you are on point. However D&D 5e is designed to be flexible in its complexity. Hence if there is a problem with feat chains and skill sets with D&D 5e it is the fault of the referee who choose to incorporate that in his campaign.

You have it in your sig that Rules can't fix stupid and cure assholes. Well the rules can't fix a referee bound and determined to include the kitchen sink in his campaign when the option exist to do otherwise.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1006612And OD&D has nothing even vaguely close to the feat chains and skill sets of later editions.  Especially in the environment Chirine and I played mostly under, where we didn't even see the rules.

...

Well, it's not just 5e; I strongly suspect Chirine would find 3E, 3.5, 4E, and Pathfinder just as alien.

Once feats and skills came along the game changed drastically.  Being "all about the build" may not be universal, but it's very common.

It is, but one does not have to play 5e that way. The 5' square battle grid, feats, multiclassing, picking skills except at starting level, long rest heals, weird new races and classes, just about everything that is fundamentally different than the old game is optional (some specifics, like high AC = better AC is different, but I feel not a fundamental difference). The more I study oD&D, the more I realize that the playstyle is fundamentally different, but much of the mechanics are arbitrarily different. Certainly 5e (with all of the options dials turned towards OSR-style play) is a step far far in the right direction for someone like Chrine (of course, saying 'it works once you sift through this huge book' is probably the least helpful thing ever, I know).

Anyways, I hope Chirine finds a way to make this work for his comfort level. I can't imagine I'd do any better than this GM he's working with, or I'd volunteer, being a stone's throw away.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1005667I did this for one of my games. Photos on my Photobucket page; I think in the 'Holiday Game' album.

Nope, no Las Vegas showgirl feathery headdress in those holiday albums. I am now sad. At least maybe you have a microphone dolled up to look like a sacrificial dagger somewhere? :confused:

Quote from: AsenRG;1006610Sorry, but even I can't agree here:).

You don't have to apologize I am well aware that my view on the relationship of rules, the referee, and campaign is on the fringes of what the hobby thinks.

Quote from: AsenRG;1006610It might be the same mechanically, but mechanics aren't objective, and even how you call those mechanics does influence the in-character reality a whole lot.

I am not sure what you mean here. My general rule if RAW conflict with the setting, I rule on the basis of the setting. My Majestic Wilderlands assume that melee combat generally work as they do in our own history. So if I get a result wildly inconsistent with that, I am going to rule otherwise. And if the players call me on it, I will be happy to have a discussion about it. I may be wrong.

Quote from: AsenRG;1006610In other words, "gain +20% to your combat skill" isn't objective. "Gain 20%to your combat skill because of a Vimuhla's Rage spell" and "gain 20% to your combat skill because you're in a favourable defensible position on the castle's stairs while the defenders are coming upwards" might have the same mechanical effect, but claiming they're the same thing is obviously wrong;).

You swing at an opponent. If you assume on the basis of the setting that combat should work like our own history then circumstance that will produce an advantage or disadvantage in real life should do the same in the game. In OD&D I may grant a +4 to hit, in D&D 5e, I may grant advantage to the roll. In GURPS I would give a +2 modifier instead (bell curve modifier are generally less). Striking from above could be a situation where I would do this.

If you allow Vimuhla's Rage then I assume you done your homework and decided that was part of your setting. A better example is Second Wind. There no corresponding ability like this in OD&D or GURPS (well not if you playing a realistic campaign).  For me it not a big deal. It not written as something magical. Instead it represents the fighter taking a brief moment in time to "catch his breath". This is represented by recovering 1d10+level hit points, Given the abstraction of hit points in the first place, this is reasonable to me. It works in D&D 5e because hit points are generally inflated along with the number of attacks and the damage they do.

In OD&D, I am not going to do this. The interplay of hit points,  to hit modifiers, and armor class, doesn't make this a good fit in my view. It not needed and doesn't add anything.

GURPS has it own extensive rules on when and where you can help somebody with first aid along with fatigue rules. And works as well as I expect for a game that models combat in 1 second rounds.

Something I don't have in my 5e campaigns in the Majestic Wilderlands is the Barbarian. The whole Rage things to me is a bad fit for what I am trying to do. Along with the fact to me barbarian is a culture which has little to do with being a class. If I was running a Swords & Sorcery pulp campaign my opinion would be different because the setting is different.

What I do allow in my 5e campaign is a Berserker which is very similar mechanically. However a Berserker is a holy warrior of the god Thor, called to find the monsters of the world. His "rage" ability stems from the divine power that Thor infuses his warriors with. If you have my Majestic Wilderlands supplement I have a version for OD&D as well that is considerably simpler mechanically.

My viewpoint is from running campaigns with the same damn setting across multiple rules system. I don't attach the importance that most do to the rules. To me it easy.

1) Figure out your setting
2) Pick a set of rules
3) Review rules, if something doesn't fit the setting then change it.
4) Play
5) Fix what didn't work in terms of how well it represented your setting.
Repeat steps 4 and 5 until you get something you are happy with.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1006635It is, but one does not have to play 5e that way. The 5' square battle grid, feats, multiclassing, picking skills except at starting level, long rest heals, weird new races and classes, just about everything that is fundamentally different than the old game is optional (some specifics, like high AC = better AC is different, but I feel not a fundamental difference). The more I study oD&D, the more I realize that the playstyle is fundamentally different, but much of the mechanics are arbitrarily different. Certainly 5e (with all of the options dials turned towards OSR-style play) is a step far far in the right direction for someone like Chrine (of course, saying 'it works once you sift through this huge book' is probably the least helpful thing ever, I know).

Anyways, I hope Chirine finds a way to make this work for his comfort level. I can't imagine I'd do any better than this GM he's working with, or I'd volunteer, being a stone's throw away.

If I have to go through the huge corpus of 5e rules and switch all the options toward OSR play, why should I not just play an OSR game? Or even one of the old games that are currently available in reprint or still on my shelves as original copies?  That seems a much simpler way to get the kind of game I want.  5e just has no appeal to me.

Characters added for minimum post length

Quote from: DavetheLost;1006676If I have to go through the huge corpus of 5e rules and switch all the options toward OSR play, why should I not just play an OSR game? Or even one of the old games that are currently available in reprint or still on my shelves as original copies?  That seems a much simpler way to get the kind of game I want.  5e just has no appeal to me.

Then don't play it. I have no vested interest in selling any edition to anyone happy with the one they have. 5e is not the edition I would make, were all the decisions up to me. It does do a lot of the things I want in a system, and I appreciate that it is an attempt to bridge the divides amongst the D&D-loving diaspora. If you have a system (be it an a D&D edition, OSR game, or homebrew) that works for you, keep playing it.

From the context of this thread, it seems like Chirine doesn't have the option of doing what he truly would like to do, so I'm commenting on making the situation better within the context of the options he has provided.