|
Before I get into this months topic, I would like to report that I do have at least one reader out there in cyber space. I received a nice e-mail about last months column from Khai in Malaysia, who was kind enough to not tell me that I sucked because Ive had better luck in getting cool figures from my booster packs. Khai wins my first ever "Reader of the Month" award, earning him a mention in my column and a personal e-mail from me. Such incredible prizes will probably guarantee that I will be flooded with e-mails from those trying to get my second ever "Reader of the Month" award. Seriously, reader feedback is valuable to a writer, and I welcome your comments. At least I do if theyre a little more erudite than just "you suck!"
This month, Id like to discuss some of the differences between "Dungeons and Dragons" and "Mage Knight Dungeons", now that Ive had ample opportunity to play both. Both, of course, are essentially action/adventure games set in a fantasy realm, both use "stats" and the random number of a dice roll to determine success or failure of various actions, and both, to a certain degree at least, involve some role-playing. Mage Knight is less role-playing than D&D, and in fact, you can play MK without really role playing at all, if you choose. Mage Knight Dungeons, at its base level, plays more as a "board game" with some RPG overtones.
Perhaps the first aspect of the two games that should get discussed is the role-playing. In D&D, as those who have played it will know quite well, the first thing a player needs to do before ever starting that first game is to generate a character. For some, this is a good percentage of the fun. Each player chooses what kind of character theyre going to play, and, within the new character limitations, what that characters strengths and weaknesses are going to be. The player also determines how that character will interact with other characters in the game. Is this character an honorable sort, whose "word is his bond" and can be trusted completely? Or will the character be the kind to do and say whatever it takes to gain an advantage, even against his own "friends"? Are the characters words carefully weighed and spoken fitly? Or are they brash and outspoken, given to blurting the first thing that comes to mind? In this regard, D&D allows a player to step outside of their own character traits to express things that they might never do in "real life". The withdrawn, timid person can be the loud and aggressive barbarian, and have the brawn to back it up.
In MK, though, your character selection is based on what "Heroes" you have in your collection. The heros "stats" are all recorded in a dial base, showing what capabilities that character has. You can role-play your character, to some extent, based on how you perceive that type of character would act and react in various situations, but the interaction between the MK "heroes" and other characters in the dungeon is typically limited to either fighting them, or one running from the other. The advantage of the MK character system is, of course, that you dont need to spend time generating a character when you could be playing the game instead. This, also, has its appeal. For the new player, its one less category of confusion to worry about ("I need to roll my dice for what? Where do I put that on the character sheet?"). Also, for those with a collection of figures, its very easy to decide that youd rather play one character over another for a particular game, rather than having to use your existing character, or else go through the process of generating another.
Once youre playing the game, D&D (and the games like them) is based predominately in the imagination. You dont have to have a large playing area or surface for a board to play D&D. The Dungeon Master describes the settings and the action, rather than the players looking upon a miniature board mapping out the scene (yes, I know that there is a D&D Miniatures game as well, but I havent dealt with it). I find this enjoyable, as the game plays out as more of an exploration. I dont know what lurks around the next corner. In MK Dungeons, the normal play mode is to have two or more players moving about the dungeon map, and each player, as part of their turn, can move monster "tokens" about the map. Only when a player enters the room with the tokens are the actual monsters placed on the map, based on information on the underside of the token and the roll of the dice. An opposing player will then select monsters fitting the criteria from the "monster pool", and opponents can then use part of their turn to play the monsters against another player. In D&D, the area you enter may be empty of not only monsters, but also of treasure chests, artifacts, etc. but you wont know until you enter the area and the DM tells you what you see within. In MK Dungeons, every player knows exactly where each treasure chest and artifact is before you even enter the dungeon. An MK player isnt exploring a dungeon as much as racing to get to the treasure chests first and successfully exit the dungeon alive by the appropriate exit.
In D&D, you play with a Dungeon Master whose "job" is to provide the players with an enjoyable game. This should involve sufficient challenges to keep the players on their toes, but a player should not feel as though the DMs ultimate goal is simply to kill everyone. In MK, you play against an opponent whose objective is the same as yours: gain the most treasure and get out of the dungeon alive. To that end, your opponent is going to try and work the monsters against you. If your opponent can kill your character with the monsters, then all he or she must do to win the game is survive to exit the dungeon with any treasure at all. Of course, if your opponent succeeds in killing your character, you can now utilize your entire turn working monsters against his or her character. In that regard, MK can be a bit frustrating. Since all players know where all the other players characters are, and where every monster or monster token is at in the dungeon, you can find yourself suddenly being set upon by everything heading straight for you. You cannot "hide" or hope to avoid detection by monsters. You cannot listen at a door, hear monster sounds from within, and choose to bypass that room quietly. If youre that close to a monsters location, its a pretty good bet your opponent is already moving it towards you in the hopes of eliminating your character.
Ive mentioned before in this column that Id like to try a MK game with some of the aspects of D&D incorporated. In that, I envision using a DM who, as in D&D, serves to present an enjoyable and challenging game to the player or players. The DM would map out the dungeon ahead of time, using either the stock map that comes with the MK Dungeons starter kit, and/or the dungeon tiles that come with the "Dungeon Builders" kits. When using the tiles, I think it would work well to not place the tile until the player "enters" the area. Once a player enters the area, the DM, who has mapped out the dungeon in a notebook or something similar ahead of time, would then place any monsters, artifacts, treasures, etc. into the tile. In such a game, the players would be able to stop at a door and ask if they can hear anything beyond. Depending on what may be there, the DM would answer appropriately, and the player(s) could then decide how to proceed.
Another aspect that having a DM run MK Dungeons game could introduce is the variation in character of the monsters. As the normal rules stand, monsters have one basic objective: kill the player. If the monster is severely injured by the players character, the monster may be moved away by the opponent playing it, to deny the character the experience points that can contribute to "leveling up". With a DM dedicated to presenting an enjoyable and challenging game, the monsters could take on different objectives based on the kind of creature they are. If you were DMing a game for a group of players who were exploring the dungeon in party mode, for example, you might have a group of gnolls capture one of the players who was separated from the party, in order to interrogate that character, or maybe just because theyd enjoy torturing him. Now, the remaining party members have a side objective to work on: rescuing the captive. The game takes on new twists impossible in the "stock" game. Perhaps one monster guarding a treasure or artifact enjoys a game of riddles. With a DM playing the monsters, the creatures can take on various levels of intelligence and communication skills. Perhaps the monster may gladly surrender some treasure in exchange for help in ridding himself of another monster that has been bothering him. The possibilities are nearly endless, and the game, like D&D, elevates to more than just a race to grab the loot, kill the monsters, and get the heck out of Dodge.
In either game, I have to stress that the DM must remember that they are there to present a fun and challenging game. The DMs job is not to "kill the players"; thats the job of various monsters ( Im repeating myself on this, I know). The DM should have an idea of what level characters will be playing in that dungeon, and set up the dungeon accordingly. It would not be a fun game for first level players to enter the first room and find themselves falling like flies to the Gate Lord and a slew of his minions. Just as true, it would not be a very fun game, either, for fifth level characters to encounter nothing but weak creatures that die in one hit. For a game to be fun, there must be some element of chance in there. If you cannot lose, its not fun (at least, not to me), nor is it fun if you cannot win. Yes, the DM should play the monsters in character with what kind of creature they are, and in many cases, that will involve trying to kill the players characters. The DM should not, however, make it a personal vendetta. "Win" or "lose", whatever the game, when its over it should be able to be summed up with "And a good time was had by all". If not, its a good bet that someone wont be back for another game.
|