GM Notes - Cormyr campaign

My thoughts on Cormyr's past and my vision of Cormyr's present

I always found Cormyr to be the example of a good and lawful country. It was heavily patroled, watched and there were many rules that the people had to follow. I used it enough when I was playing DND that my players knew about the law that weapons must be peace bonded. And, that really got me thinking. Cormyr could be a dark place, if somehow someone could start using the laws for themselves. I mean, the PCs have already figured out a legitimate way to go around the laws. What about the nobles? What about the people who live there all their lives? What if one of them didn't like the laws but wanted to work within the system? This allowed me to better define what I saw the king doing. The king made sure the laws were fair for all, not just the nobles. As long as that was the case, things would be fine. As is the case in a monarchy, the king also made and enforced the laws. Most of the time, he had advisors and certainly the nobles had influence through the years.

Azoun IV was the best example of a great ruler. Under his rulership, as I saw it, he really made a kingdom that was unique and people wanted to be a part of it. Certainly everone wanted more but knew the boundaries as the king set them. A few tried to work outside the laws but it was usually on small stuff. Justice, freedom and goodness prevailed in the forest kingdom.

However, in 1370 DR, Azoun IV was killed, Arabel was occupied, and a child was put on the throne with a regent. While the rules are still in place, I think this really opened up a lot of potential. I see things having gone downhill for the northern area of Cormyr. While most nobles wouldn't have dreamed of doing anything illegal in Cormyr five years ago, suddenly things were different. The ruler on the throne isn't as powerful nor does this child have the contacts and resources that the previous king had. Further, there is too much work in getting Arabel to what it was before the occupation, such that most nobles saw there chance. What if they cut a corner here? Would the inspectors notice? What if they used cheaper labor or mistreated some workers? Would the guards notice?

The answer that I supplied was no. And slowly, the nobles saw more and more ways to line their pockets with more gold and not give it to the monarchy or the people who didn't deserve it. Soon, guards were found who could be bribed. They hadn't been trained as the previous guards, didn't have quite the patriotic feelings that other guards did. What did it matter if some rich noble was robbed? What did they care if they didn't look while an adulterer or rapist was beaten, maybe even to death? Gold, more than justice, started to decide who did what in Arabel.

To that end, this is a bit more noir of a game. The PCs haven't been treated well, are down on their luck and then get kicked around some more. Nobles are vying for position and with no strong leader, they are doing whatever they have to do to get what they want. This has opened up a lot of potential for introducing some corruption into an area that I saw as uncorruptable. It allowed gold to determine who was right, instead of justice. I really liked that idea and have used that as the basis for my campaign.

My thoughts on gaming

Fun

I am doing this because I hope the players enjoy it and that's why the keep coming back. I am trying to provice some escapism, for my players and myself, each week.

Gender

In years past, I didn't mind it when a player played a different gender. There were many reasons for this, trying something new, explore things, etc. However, now I don't like that for the main reason that I have found that it is too easy to look at the player and think of them as the character even when that is not the case.

I am not against this but I would merely issue the "challenge" that if a player wanted to do this, they would have to play it so that every session the rest of us knew they were playing a different gender than their own. I think that would be tough but fair.

Style

I have come to realize that I am not a wargamer, which is why I have moved away from DND, which still has its roots in wargaming. I want to tell an interactive story with my friends. To that end, the rules are there to help tell the story, not straight jacket the GM or the players.

Use what I have

Notes for this section: Computer utilities, char gens, excel and word, tree pad, mapping software.

Single session games

Something I only started with the WoD campaign Rayne and have used since is something I have never done before. I have each session be one adventure. I plan around having one thing completed each week, trying to tie it into a greater whole. This is for a lot of reasons.

It makes it much easier to explain when a player isn't there. Rather than the character disappearing in the middle of the dungeon and appearing in the same town, which they have never been to before, the character can be doing something and join the group for the next adventure. This also makes it easy for life to happen and the players can miss sessions without it having to be explained much in game.

This makes it easier for the players to remember to remember what has happened overall and not lose sight of the important details. Before, when I would set a campaign over six to nine months, it was tough to remember those details that happened in the first month or two. I am hoping that isn't as much of an issue.

However, this comes with a down side, as well. Planning is a lot more difficult. Before, an adventure idea could last me three or four sessions. Further, during those sessions, especially as they came to a close, I could start hinting at the next adventure, planning hooks and setting things up. Now, though, without having

Homework

On this issue, I am still torn but am trying to deal with it as best I can.

If it were up to me, as the GM, I would be able to assign "homework." Not huge amounts and nothing that isn't relevant to the current game or characters but I would ask the players to finish something before next time.

Examples include a character journal or something similar, updating this wiki, perhaps reviewing rules on a specific issue that came up during the game.

This isn't fair to the players, though, and I recognize that. I am probably the "hard core" gamer in my group and can't ask them to do what I would, because I would do a lot. (My backgrounds, as an example, are rarely less than ten pages.) I wouldn't do this out of being mean or the control but to keep the campaign and characters in their minds over the week. Life interupts and sometimes it is tough to remember things. I think doing these little things would help.

As I said, I am working on getting over this.

Instead, what I am doing, is thinking about what I would like them to do or know or review and merely doing it at the next session. It takes up gaming time but hopefully is quick and then we can start gaming. It allows me to cover the areas I think are important and this way I don't assign homework or have to assume it was done.