I have noticed we have been unhappy with several games lately, and I would like to help facilitate feedback. I think a good way to do that is to talk about what elements of table top we like so that all GM's can read about what we as a group expect. That being said for now let's keep on the positive aspects for now, and post your expectation even if they conflict with others.
I will post more opinions later, but to start here is one.
I think gaming should be viewed like a social contract. This does not mean the players control everything, but they do have to consent to the story being told. So the gm needs to find a good middle ground between his vision, and player expectation. Paul said gaming was like making a mandala, and when players enter your world it is like destroying the picture. I think he is thinking in the correct direction. An other gm once said to me something akin to the idea that he only controlled 20% of the world, but it was the most important 20%. He was not the best gm by any means, but he was on to something.
I do want point out that gaming by group consent is a really bad idea, but I do think the old school idea of the gm being in total control is crap. I want run more to explore this idea further.
Moderator: Mods
What do you want to see in a table top rpg?
psn: aretepolitic
Steam: aretepolitic
Steam: aretepolitic
To explain a little bit what I meant by my statement relating a game to a mandala, the gm spends a lot of time and effort creating a world, npc's, enemies, and plot knowing that the players are going to come in and destroy the enemies, beat the plot, and stuff like that. I have seen many gm's that get way too attached to their enemies, npc's, or world to allow for the players to actually interact with them in a meaningful way. The pc's are the centers of the story, not secondary characters in a story centered around npc's.
That being said, the things that I really like in rpg's are character centric stories, I like to see development, I like to see character interaction, I like it when the players have control over their characters at creation and are allowed to tell the story that they want to tell.
I like cooperative games where the gm and the players are working together to tell a story rather than oppositional games where the gm is pitted against the players.
I like it when the npc's and enemies behave like people rather than computer programs. I have seen a lot of gm's get stuck in this rut in regards to the npc's where they don't allow them to be fluid to changing conditions, an example would be a king faced with a party of epic level characters is much more likely to attempt to flatter and use the pc party at things and then get them out of his kingdom, than attack them and imprison them out of hand.
That being said, the things that I really like in rpg's are character centric stories, I like to see development, I like to see character interaction, I like it when the players have control over their characters at creation and are allowed to tell the story that they want to tell.
I like cooperative games where the gm and the players are working together to tell a story rather than oppositional games where the gm is pitted against the players.
I like it when the npc's and enemies behave like people rather than computer programs. I have seen a lot of gm's get stuck in this rut in regards to the npc's where they don't allow them to be fluid to changing conditions, an example would be a king faced with a party of epic level characters is much more likely to attempt to flatter and use the pc party at things and then get them out of his kingdom, than attack them and imprison them out of hand.
Table top gaming is, in my opinion, a form of cooperative storytelling and, like other forms of storytelling, is a form of artistic expression in that the quality and meaning of the experience is largely subjective and "in the eye of the beholder," two gamers in the same game may have highly varied experiences of very different personal impact. Unlike other forms of artistic expression, with perhaps the exception of video games, gaming relies on the participation of the "viewer" in order to happen.
My general goal in GMing has been, especially of late, to provide an interesting, compelling, and dramatic experience, and to experience it in kind in the way that only gms can.
My general goal as a player has been to challenge myself with roles unlike the one I play in life, and to explore them as thoroughly as I can, while also promoting an overall good game experience.
What I want out of a tabletop game, as a player or as a gm, is a compelling experience that in some way enriches my life.
I"m not sure where I sit on your notion of a "social contract" between gamers and gms, In some ways I miss the days when gms were in such high demand that players would defer to their judgement on all matters game related, and wouldn't challenge them or "get pissy" over rulings or getting screwed. As a GM, I have to admit, I usually find it annoying or offensive when players inform me that something isn't possible or doesn't work, I do remember fondly the day when rules lawyers were shunned by other players because they got the party in trouble with the gm. I'm not saying that that was a superior time, or that such a dynamic is "better", but players getting bent out of shape over rules technicalities, obsessing over submechanic exploits, or calling out the gm on something they don't understand which therefore must be rules breaking is perhaps the most destructive phenomenon I've seen, as far as the flow of gameplay, immersiveness of the story, and quality of experience are concerned. As a GM, fighting or arguing with players over what can and cannot happen in a game is pointless to me, and I generally reflect, if and when it happens in my games, that at that point I'd rather be doing something else. Perhaps the disclaimer in every game book ever printed that the GM has final say on all rules and can freely modify the game as desired is a relic of another, earlier time in gaming, but perhaps if everyone reminded themselves of it then they would have a more compelling experience.
I'm going to post more on this later, I've gotta run.
My general goal in GMing has been, especially of late, to provide an interesting, compelling, and dramatic experience, and to experience it in kind in the way that only gms can.
My general goal as a player has been to challenge myself with roles unlike the one I play in life, and to explore them as thoroughly as I can, while also promoting an overall good game experience.
What I want out of a tabletop game, as a player or as a gm, is a compelling experience that in some way enriches my life.
I"m not sure where I sit on your notion of a "social contract" between gamers and gms, In some ways I miss the days when gms were in such high demand that players would defer to their judgement on all matters game related, and wouldn't challenge them or "get pissy" over rulings or getting screwed. As a GM, I have to admit, I usually find it annoying or offensive when players inform me that something isn't possible or doesn't work, I do remember fondly the day when rules lawyers were shunned by other players because they got the party in trouble with the gm. I'm not saying that that was a superior time, or that such a dynamic is "better", but players getting bent out of shape over rules technicalities, obsessing over submechanic exploits, or calling out the gm on something they don't understand which therefore must be rules breaking is perhaps the most destructive phenomenon I've seen, as far as the flow of gameplay, immersiveness of the story, and quality of experience are concerned. As a GM, fighting or arguing with players over what can and cannot happen in a game is pointless to me, and I generally reflect, if and when it happens in my games, that at that point I'd rather be doing something else. Perhaps the disclaimer in every game book ever printed that the GM has final say on all rules and can freely modify the game as desired is a relic of another, earlier time in gaming, but perhaps if everyone reminded themselves of it then they would have a more compelling experience.
I'm going to post more on this later, I've gotta run.
I'm not going to comment directly on this subject, as I can't really formulate my expectations in to words very well. Often, for me, it is simply enough that I am getting out of my cave.
I will, however, comment in regard to the above post's note about rules lawyering. This is, I believe, a result of the evolution of RPGs in general. Gone are the days when only a few rules were used to define actions in the game. Games like Pathfinder, Exalted, D&D3.5-4, nWoD, etc, are the result of quite a bit of development and have a lineage of other games from which they are descended. These games are highly technical, and part of deciding to use one of them as the mechanical support for a storytelling experience is accepting the rules, methods, and limitations that such a system imposes.
Particularly in the case of D&D (and to some degree with oWoD and Exalted), we play in a group where plays are intimately (perhaps too intimately) familiar with the rules of the game. Many of us are excruciatingly aware of certain subsets of the rules with which we have dealt extensively. We have 'done our homework' - in fact, have completed extra-credit projects - with aspects of the game and are knowledgeable of its mechanics to the point where we know what is and is not possible within the mechanics of that game (as it turns out with D&D, not much is outside the realm of possibility, given enough levels and gold).
The conflict you are seeing in your game is due to the above - in using D&D as the framework for the game, you are essentially consenting to use its means and methods. Arguments with players arise when we find contradictions, because using D&D as a framework naturally gives us certain expectations, and for whatever reason we see one of those expectations violated. In my mind, particularly in the case of D&D, these conflicts over rules are to be expected. To me they are simply a part of the gaming experience.
I will, however, comment in regard to the above post's note about rules lawyering. This is, I believe, a result of the evolution of RPGs in general. Gone are the days when only a few rules were used to define actions in the game. Games like Pathfinder, Exalted, D&D3.5-4, nWoD, etc, are the result of quite a bit of development and have a lineage of other games from which they are descended. These games are highly technical, and part of deciding to use one of them as the mechanical support for a storytelling experience is accepting the rules, methods, and limitations that such a system imposes.
Particularly in the case of D&D (and to some degree with oWoD and Exalted), we play in a group where plays are intimately (perhaps too intimately) familiar with the rules of the game. Many of us are excruciatingly aware of certain subsets of the rules with which we have dealt extensively. We have 'done our homework' - in fact, have completed extra-credit projects - with aspects of the game and are knowledgeable of its mechanics to the point where we know what is and is not possible within the mechanics of that game (as it turns out with D&D, not much is outside the realm of possibility, given enough levels and gold).
The conflict you are seeing in your game is due to the above - in using D&D as the framework for the game, you are essentially consenting to use its means and methods. Arguments with players arise when we find contradictions, because using D&D as a framework naturally gives us certain expectations, and for whatever reason we see one of those expectations violated. In my mind, particularly in the case of D&D, these conflicts over rules are to be expected. To me they are simply a part of the gaming experience.
-
Liquidprism
- Lost Soul
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:40 pm
- Location: Behind You...
I'm going to make a short post here, for now, and will make a more detailed one later. I am really busy.
The first thing that sprang to mind with this thread was the issue of trusting the GM. Roleplaying requires that the PC's place a degree of trust in the storyteller and that persons ability to arbitrate the game. Without this the game falls apart. That said it is up to storyteller to provide an example for the players to follow. If a GM consistently creates an environment in which the players feel they cannot trust him/her then the game is broken. I experienced this in my Star Wars game. Like any other social event there is a certain contract that is formed, and must be upheld by all involved parties.
For my part, I can appreciate that a GM needs to have a large degree of control over a game in order to effectively run it. I think this group of players is really bad about refusing to play with certain paradigms created by the storytellers. I don't mind cool NPCs to a point, and I don't think that the players need to constantly feel like they are 'winning'. Part of being a good GM is knowing when to tell your players 'NO', and part of being a good player is accepting that.
This comment to be continued....
The first thing that sprang to mind with this thread was the issue of trusting the GM. Roleplaying requires that the PC's place a degree of trust in the storyteller and that persons ability to arbitrate the game. Without this the game falls apart. That said it is up to storyteller to provide an example for the players to follow. If a GM consistently creates an environment in which the players feel they cannot trust him/her then the game is broken. I experienced this in my Star Wars game. Like any other social event there is a certain contract that is formed, and must be upheld by all involved parties.
For my part, I can appreciate that a GM needs to have a large degree of control over a game in order to effectively run it. I think this group of players is really bad about refusing to play with certain paradigms created by the storytellers. I don't mind cool NPCs to a point, and I don't think that the players need to constantly feel like they are 'winning'. Part of being a good GM is knowing when to tell your players 'NO', and part of being a good player is accepting that.
This comment to be continued....
Last edited by Liquidprism on Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All things in moderation...Except syrup.
<a href="http://www.wizards.com/magic/playmagic/ ... areyou.asp" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/wha ... isblue.jpg" border="0">
<b>Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.</b></a>
<a href="http://www.wizards.com/magic/playmagic/ ... areyou.asp" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/wha ... isblue.jpg" border="0">
<b>Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.</b></a>
As I mentioned, I planned to comment further.
In complicated systems, like dnd 3.x and others, following the rules is important and doing one's research in developing a setting and encounters is very important for gms. When we say "lets play dnd!" we are in fact saying that we plan to play a game with rules and detailed characteristics about how and when things happen. I've observed, however, that regardless of the experience a player has with dnd, there are often rules and details that are unknown, forgotten, or overlooked. This is true of any expert in any subject matter, and for the most part people in this group have been fairly receptive to looking up the rule, interpreting it, and moving on, with occasional bouts of disappointment or anger at the way things finally played out.
I mentioned before, or meant to, that I only partially miss the "gm is the authority on all things in this game" days. As a player, I certainly appreciate the modern trends in gm-player relationships in which questioning rulings is welcome, or at least more welcome than in the earlier days of gaming.
I suppose I'm a gm from the school of thought that states "the story is more important than the rules in all ways," and I strongly curtail the impulse to make up rules as I go, though, as most of you know, under certain circumstances, such as the special templates in my current dnd game, I will take the occasional liberty, though I'll usually try to express it in terms of the way the game actually works.
I guess in summary, I'm not a fan of gms "having" to do certain things, because after all, gms don't "have" to run games at all, and many of them would rather play. On the other hand, if a gm wants to run a good game, there are certain things he does have to do, one of which is have players. In that vein, a gm needs to do the things that will attract and retain players, but I think that this often leads to players dictating perhaps to an unfair degree what the gms do.
As I said, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, this is just some of the issues for me.
In complicated systems, like dnd 3.x and others, following the rules is important and doing one's research in developing a setting and encounters is very important for gms. When we say "lets play dnd!" we are in fact saying that we plan to play a game with rules and detailed characteristics about how and when things happen. I've observed, however, that regardless of the experience a player has with dnd, there are often rules and details that are unknown, forgotten, or overlooked. This is true of any expert in any subject matter, and for the most part people in this group have been fairly receptive to looking up the rule, interpreting it, and moving on, with occasional bouts of disappointment or anger at the way things finally played out.
I mentioned before, or meant to, that I only partially miss the "gm is the authority on all things in this game" days. As a player, I certainly appreciate the modern trends in gm-player relationships in which questioning rulings is welcome, or at least more welcome than in the earlier days of gaming.
I suppose I'm a gm from the school of thought that states "the story is more important than the rules in all ways," and I strongly curtail the impulse to make up rules as I go, though, as most of you know, under certain circumstances, such as the special templates in my current dnd game, I will take the occasional liberty, though I'll usually try to express it in terms of the way the game actually works.
I guess in summary, I'm not a fan of gms "having" to do certain things, because after all, gms don't "have" to run games at all, and many of them would rather play. On the other hand, if a gm wants to run a good game, there are certain things he does have to do, one of which is have players. In that vein, a gm needs to do the things that will attract and retain players, but I think that this often leads to players dictating perhaps to an unfair degree what the gms do.
As I said, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, this is just some of the issues for me.
-
Liquidprism
- Lost Soul
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:40 pm
- Location: Behind You...
Like most things I think happy medium probably exists, and the best games happen when a general consensus is met. That said, it is really hard to do this. The bulk of the responsibility falls on the GM, to keep everything running smoothly. Its easy as a player to bitch about the stuff you don't like in a game, its a lot harder as a GM. The GM is always held to a higher standard than any of the players, and sometimes this is quiet frankly unfair. Its a lot of pressure, and responsibility to run a game. I think people should be more supportive of those that choose to do this.
It should be okay to caveat, and change rules. However, it shouldn't be done lightly, and if its done too much the integrity of a game system can fall apart. Players make really good trouble shooters, and danger sensors (for lack of a better term). I don't mind a GM taking liberties with a setting as long as I know major changes will occur before I decide to play or not. I want to know what to expect so I don't design a character that ends up not being fun to play.
Some systems are much more accommodating of change that others. DnD is a very rigid system, perhaps the most rigid of all the systems we play. It is hard to change the rules in DnD without messing with a bunch of related things. It is however also one of the most expansive systems available, and with enough sources available it can accommodate many different types of fantasy adventure. Creating extra material for DnD is in many ways pointless, and a waste of time. It is almost always better to simply find something already in a book, and modify it slightly to fit your needs.
Feng Shui on the other hand is a free form world, with lots of room to customize, and build new things. Powers are simple, as are the rules. This makes quick fixes, and the rebuilding of whole portions of the available material really easy.
To be a bit more on topic:
What I really want to see in games is an adherence to the rules of the system being played. If something changes I like to know ahead of time. I also feel it is the responsibility of both the players, and the GM to know those rules, in order to facilitate gameplay.
I like to see dynamic NPCs, who are characters in their own right. I don't think a game needs very many but a few really help build a story.
I like dynamic, and tactical combat. I don't like to just run in a room, and shoot a bunch of guys for 3 hours. Making challenging fights for a long running game is difficult. Always challenging your players can be really hard, but challenging them, and making it fun is even tougher. I really like DnD for the tactical aspects of its combat. However, it is also really easy to get caught up in multiple boring encounters. I have seen this in many games through the years. I really want to have more banter occur in fighting. Its a great way to spice things up, and help gloss over the tedium of heavy combat games. No one ever slings banter, and when I try it gets shut down. This must change.
I don't like certain 'realistic' aspects which occur in some games, and could stand to play without them. A world without sex would be fine with me. I think its silly to have sex in an RPG honestly. It creates consequences that are frankly unenjoyable for me. Also many stories exist which do just fine by either ignoring sexuality, or glossing it, and turning it into something more 'innocent' than it is in real life. I boy can like a girl, and they can fall in love, and live happily ever after.
I think character interaction is one of the single most important aspects of any RPG, and without it the game will not work. Games/Stories that punish or negatively reinforce such behavior should not be played as an RPG, but as a board game instead. Board games can be fun btw, just not when your trying to create a character/party dynamic.
Oh, power balance. Games with consistent power balance, and creep tend to be more fun than those that lose that control. This gets really hard for a GM sometimes, because players can be greedy shits sometimes. I have never, as a player, stopped playing because the GM wouldn't give me something, or because a GM kept a tight reign on resources. I think this is necessary in fact. I also like gritty games sometimes. I have however, had to stop playing games where the power creep got to bad. I fact many games with a lot of potential have died off, because the power curve could not be maintained. This tells me something about power in games.
Along those lines, keeping the balance of the party is important in general. Internal party balance is important for keeping characters on par. Games without this tend to end up with several players feeling sore, while others feel really awesome. This can cause out of game problems, as well as in game ones.
...Well, I think for thats all. I'm sure there are other things I'm just not thinking of right now, but I can't think of them. I feel like we have talked about all this before, and so this is just rehashing old ideas.
It should be okay to caveat, and change rules. However, it shouldn't be done lightly, and if its done too much the integrity of a game system can fall apart. Players make really good trouble shooters, and danger sensors (for lack of a better term). I don't mind a GM taking liberties with a setting as long as I know major changes will occur before I decide to play or not. I want to know what to expect so I don't design a character that ends up not being fun to play.
Some systems are much more accommodating of change that others. DnD is a very rigid system, perhaps the most rigid of all the systems we play. It is hard to change the rules in DnD without messing with a bunch of related things. It is however also one of the most expansive systems available, and with enough sources available it can accommodate many different types of fantasy adventure. Creating extra material for DnD is in many ways pointless, and a waste of time. It is almost always better to simply find something already in a book, and modify it slightly to fit your needs.
Feng Shui on the other hand is a free form world, with lots of room to customize, and build new things. Powers are simple, as are the rules. This makes quick fixes, and the rebuilding of whole portions of the available material really easy.
To be a bit more on topic:
What I really want to see in games is an adherence to the rules of the system being played. If something changes I like to know ahead of time. I also feel it is the responsibility of both the players, and the GM to know those rules, in order to facilitate gameplay.
I like to see dynamic NPCs, who are characters in their own right. I don't think a game needs very many but a few really help build a story.
I like dynamic, and tactical combat. I don't like to just run in a room, and shoot a bunch of guys for 3 hours. Making challenging fights for a long running game is difficult. Always challenging your players can be really hard, but challenging them, and making it fun is even tougher. I really like DnD for the tactical aspects of its combat. However, it is also really easy to get caught up in multiple boring encounters. I have seen this in many games through the years. I really want to have more banter occur in fighting. Its a great way to spice things up, and help gloss over the tedium of heavy combat games. No one ever slings banter, and when I try it gets shut down. This must change.
I don't like certain 'realistic' aspects which occur in some games, and could stand to play without them. A world without sex would be fine with me. I think its silly to have sex in an RPG honestly. It creates consequences that are frankly unenjoyable for me. Also many stories exist which do just fine by either ignoring sexuality, or glossing it, and turning it into something more 'innocent' than it is in real life. I boy can like a girl, and they can fall in love, and live happily ever after.
I think character interaction is one of the single most important aspects of any RPG, and without it the game will not work. Games/Stories that punish or negatively reinforce such behavior should not be played as an RPG, but as a board game instead. Board games can be fun btw, just not when your trying to create a character/party dynamic.
Oh, power balance. Games with consistent power balance, and creep tend to be more fun than those that lose that control. This gets really hard for a GM sometimes, because players can be greedy shits sometimes. I have never, as a player, stopped playing because the GM wouldn't give me something, or because a GM kept a tight reign on resources. I think this is necessary in fact. I also like gritty games sometimes. I have however, had to stop playing games where the power creep got to bad. I fact many games with a lot of potential have died off, because the power curve could not be maintained. This tells me something about power in games.
Along those lines, keeping the balance of the party is important in general. Internal party balance is important for keeping characters on par. Games without this tend to end up with several players feeling sore, while others feel really awesome. This can cause out of game problems, as well as in game ones.
...Well, I think for thats all. I'm sure there are other things I'm just not thinking of right now, but I can't think of them. I feel like we have talked about all this before, and so this is just rehashing old ideas.
All things in moderation...Except syrup.
<a href="http://www.wizards.com/magic/playmagic/ ... areyou.asp" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/wha ... isblue.jpg" border="0">
<b>Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.</b></a>
<a href="http://www.wizards.com/magic/playmagic/ ... areyou.asp" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/wha ... isblue.jpg" border="0">
<b>Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.</b></a>
This is a complex subject for me, so I will try to break it down into smaller sub-topics.
Enjoyability:
This is difficult for me to articulate, partially because every game, and game system, is different. I enjoy Roleplaying characters and their interactions a great deal (we are often light on this, and I would like to see it increase; this includes things like having non-goal oriented in-character conversations, and making non-optimal choices "just cuz my character would"). I also like tactical play, because it is a creative, puzzle solving, collaborative effort. I like raw mechanics for the same reason. I like big plots, with cool sub-plots embedded in them, that create an engaging story full of goals to be completed and character changing events. I like immersive worlds that pull the player in, and rich descriptions (also a bit light in this group unfortunately).
I like all of these things, but recognize some games, and gm's, are not cut out for certain aspects. That is fine, expected even, but it is good to have fairly clear understanding of what is going on, and the setting you are looking at. When you sit down to play DnD, expect some tactical play, and expect the rules to occassionally bog down the rest of the game; if you don't want that, play a different system. If you play a game with me, you can probably expect that I will attempt to use non-cinematic npc's that will respond with "reasonable" rather than "archetypal" responses (the villain will run, rather than stand cackling maniacally over his shark tank as the heroes plug him with bullets), and if that isn't to your taste, looking elsewhere is desirable.
Basically, I enjoy a lot of different elements, and if I had to pick one... well, I'd be sad. I have a high threshold of entertainment, and like to be engaged on multiple fronts. I will say that my biggest disappointment in rp in this particular group is that people don't interact IC, they are very goal oriented, and not terribly immersive (I'm not pointing fingers, I'm to blame for some of that). Used to not be as bad, I think time/age/work/school all have made people more entrenched in their own identities and a bit more goal oriented, so just sitting back and "shooting the shit" as one character talking to another has lost a bit of appeal perhaps. I've been happy with some of the LARP stuff, and my DnD sessions however, so hopefully this is showing some improvement.
In summary:
-Different games carry different expectations, and for any detailed analysis, I would need to look at each game independently.
-Things I like include tactical, mechanical, story, and interaction elements, preferably all rolled into one. My primary interests depend on the game in question, and what I've been doing the most of in a given time period (I get a hankering for interaction if I've been doing a lot of tactical gaming, and vice versa).
-I think a game is good when it is immersive in whatever facets it is building upon, and when people come together to make it so. I think GM skill helps, but I also think player cooperation and willing engagement are what make things really work.
GM/Player Role:
I don't like gaming by consensus, it's boring. I determined a year or two ago that people need loss of control to really have fun, otherwise it's more like homework. It's why people watch new shows instead of only reruns, it's why they pit themselves against external challenges (from video games to mountain climbing) that they are not guaranteed to win. So, some chance of loss, and certainly the loss of individual control, are necessary to a good gaming experience.
Trust must also be there, but there is a difference between trust and faith. I trust someone b/c I give them the benefit of the doubt (when I haven't seen evidence to push me in a particular direction) or b/c i've seen that they are trustworthy. So, I trust the GM to give me a fun experience, and based on whether he/she follows through on that, I decide to continue trusting the GM in that particular sphere. So, perhaps Bob the GM proved to be shitty at storytelling, but a great rules person... Well, there are several options there. I'm not going to keep subjecting myself to misery, but I might suggest a different game style, one more focused on tactics, or on sandbox style, personal level play rather than over-arching, world-shattering plots. Basically, build on strengths and use what's there, shoring up weaknesses along the way, rather than shoehorning someone into being something they aren't. Trust is important in this process; you have to be willing to lose some control to let all this happen, and know that the GM has good intent for you; if they don't, and are just punishing players or making up complications for no reason, that is dickish and breaks trust.
Along with trust, there has to be an agreement between all parties on the game to be played. Not on the particulars, but on the general idea of the game. If one person is playing a tactical boardgame while someone else is playing a dramatic roleplaying game, conflict will arise, as both parties are ruining each other's fun. Same goes for conception of the setting; even if you both agree you are playing a dramatic roleplaying game, if your idea is that it is a high fantasy setting about space-knights with magic powers and light-swords, you probably won't do well in a game with people who see the game as a sci-fi game about technical schematics of space ships and gritty survival. Challenge level and level of power also needs to be roughly agreed on, or you run into serious stylistic issues, and dissatisfaction; some people don't want to play at 8 star difficulty on street fighter, they just want to play at 1 star, and beat the snot out of the game. If the players can't agree on that, then it leads to conflict and disappointment. All of these problems are of course magnified if the disagreement isn't just between players, but is instead between the GM and the players as a whole. Of course, all of this is even trickier, b/c these disagreements on perspective can in fact be healthy and dynamic (a game where everyone is in lockstep on all topics is boring and stagnant), so finding a happy medium is the key here.
As far as where the balance of GM control fits in here... Well, it depends on the game first of all. As Steven pointed out, some games are based on a matrix of complex rules, rules that players may understand intimately, and which the game world is built around. For those games, the GM should probably make rules a bit more collaborative an effort, and should be wary of making changes, because they might inadvertantly screw people over in the process. This doesn't mean that you can't speed things up, ignore boring parts, or add in special encounters that break the rules, but the rules must at least be kept in mind, and not tossed aside arbitrarily, since the rules are, in a very real sense, what the world is made of. An example would be the difference between skipping rounds of combat that are pretty much a guaranteed win (a good, time saving method), and ignoring special character abilities, or allowing someone to be more effective than they actually are (a bad thing that destroys the fundamental building blocks of the setting, and devalues character choices of all characters, not just the one getting differential treatment).
What about the story though? A rules-light game that is based on story should be more in the control of the GM, right? Well, sort of. As discussed above, the players have to have some basic agreement on the game they want to play. Lots of hard villains, gritty play, based in a conception of a popular setting as understood by the GM... Sounds great, unless all your players want less gritty play, pushover villains, and see the universe totally differently. Then it's an exercise in misery for everyone concerned. So, the GM has to strike a balance: take control, but make sure that you are on the same page, being fair, and telling a story that interests the people in your game rather than just mentally masturbating all over your players as they cringe away in.
Players have responsibilities too: give the GM some space to tell their story, be an active participant, respect the effort going into play as well as the social vulnerability inherent to putting yourself out there to be judged, and to politely bow out of things that you aren't contributing to in a positive manner.
As to where ultimate control rests, well It's hard to put a percentage on control ratio for something like this... 65%GM/35%Player? But that isn't really correct, because though the GM is in control, a good leader is in constant feedback with the wants/needs/desires of those they are leading, and the interaction of everyone is leads to the creation of the shared reality, not just the GM's say so. Vice Versa? Well, no, because the GM needs to be able to control the world, have players not question every move, and to be able to actually tell the story. Personally, I view %control as irrelevant, a distraction. It is less about percent control than it is a dynamic system that is kept in a state of fluid equilibrium; problems arise when things move too far out of synch, towards a state of chaos, or become static and rigid, with no give on the parts of the individual participants in the system.
So, in summary:
-Both players and GM's should be on the same page, and should agree to not waste each other's time; if people aren't having fun, then they should leave, the GM should change, or both (with specifics based on the particular situation, and what percentage of the gaming group sees a problem with the particular situation).
-Players should have some trust in their GM's, while GM's should not abuse that trust, or attempt overly much to force players to be a part of something they don't want to be a part of.
-The actual creation of the gaming experience should be a colaborative effort, but not one of consensus reality; the GM should be in charge of things, but should bend to the gods of gaming (FUN and FAIRNESS) when arbitrating.
-Gaming is a dynamic process of creating a shared reality; this reality is not "one person's" but rather an emergent property of the interactions between the people that participate in it. Treat it as such.
Parting Note: Goodness of Fit
http://www.personality-project.org/perp ... an/fit.htm
To make a long statement short, people should do things the way they do them best, and build from their strengths; if they are in an environment that they are not suited to, performing tasks that are outside the scope of their skill set, then undesirable results are likely. Someone that doesn't know the rules to a complex system shouldn't operate within said system, or should test the system slowly and scaffold up to higher skill levels with it. Someone that responds well to linear plot and clearly spelled out rules for every situation should not run (or play) in open ended systems if they are expecting to have a good time. If you require room to be creative, and expand in a freeform manner, then highly constraining rules are likely a poor fit.
This isn't to say people shouldn't try to improve their weaknesses, or explore new things; simply standing still all your life and never trying anything new is bad. But... Work from strengths, and when something clearly isn't working for your temperment, problem solving style, or play style, then move on. Don't try to keep fitting a square peg in a round hole, unless you have tools, and are prepared to make some heavy modifications to the peg, the hole, or both.
Last edited by rydi on Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Threading the Gerbil since 1982
Good responses so far.
I agree with Josh that trust is really important. I think many times neither side takes the time to consider the other. I find GM's and players create an environment where the mentality is we the players have to beat the gm. I think games should run differently. There are several actions a GM can take to ensure the players trust him, and players should be considerate of the story. There is a fine line between being respected and feared, and GMs should avoid fear. I also think a gm should choose his system carefully. I think steven has a point. Running d&d for us is hard. A big point in my opinion is system/metagame knowledge. I always worry a gm will make silly mistakes if he does not understand the big picture. I also never trust GMs that play favorites, and I do not care if I benefit from it. It should never happen if at all possible.
I think there should be a notable split of responsibility in a game. For example I think it is only partly a players responsibility to keep his character alive. I have discussed this at length with a hand full of people and It seems to be a 60/40 or 70/30 split with the majority of it on the player. I personally think players should die because they were stupid, and plot reasons. Sure things happen, but I think death should be meaningful or at the minimum plot forwarding. There are other areas where this is split exist such as telling the story. In this case the gm has a huge majority of the responsibility, but the players have to actually play their roles.
I agree with Josh that trust is really important. I think many times neither side takes the time to consider the other. I find GM's and players create an environment where the mentality is we the players have to beat the gm. I think games should run differently. There are several actions a GM can take to ensure the players trust him, and players should be considerate of the story. There is a fine line between being respected and feared, and GMs should avoid fear. I also think a gm should choose his system carefully. I think steven has a point. Running d&d for us is hard. A big point in my opinion is system/metagame knowledge. I always worry a gm will make silly mistakes if he does not understand the big picture. I also never trust GMs that play favorites, and I do not care if I benefit from it. It should never happen if at all possible.
I think there should be a notable split of responsibility in a game. For example I think it is only partly a players responsibility to keep his character alive. I have discussed this at length with a hand full of people and It seems to be a 60/40 or 70/30 split with the majority of it on the player. I personally think players should die because they were stupid, and plot reasons. Sure things happen, but I think death should be meaningful or at the minimum plot forwarding. There are other areas where this is split exist such as telling the story. In this case the gm has a huge majority of the responsibility, but the players have to actually play their roles.
Last edited by arete on Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
psn: aretepolitic
Steam: aretepolitic
Steam: aretepolitic
As more topics come up, more specific things, I will comment more fully.
In terms of genre I like: Superheroes, Gothic Supernatural, Fantasy, some Sci-Fi
Power level: High to medium. If it's going to be a gritty game, it should be a gritty universe (E6 DnD, as contrasted to a game of 1st-6th level in a 1st-20th game setting). I also would prefer to start at the point where the primary action in a story is at; don't make me play through commoner levels if the bulk of play is in mid-range, especially if it's going to go there quickly anyway.
And I like lightsabers.
In terms of genre I like: Superheroes, Gothic Supernatural, Fantasy, some Sci-Fi
Power level: High to medium. If it's going to be a gritty game, it should be a gritty universe (E6 DnD, as contrasted to a game of 1st-6th level in a 1st-20th game setting). I also would prefer to start at the point where the primary action in a story is at; don't make me play through commoner levels if the bulk of play is in mid-range, especially if it's going to go there quickly anyway.
And I like lightsabers.
Threading the Gerbil since 1982
rydi wrote:As more topics come up, more specific things, I will comment more fully.
In terms of genre I like: Superheroes, Gothic Supernatural, Fantasy, some Sci-Fi
Power level: High to medium. If it's going to be a gritty game, it should be a gritty universe (E6 DnD, as contrasted to a game of 1st-6th level in a 1st-20th game setting). I also would prefer to start at the point where the primary action in a story is at; don't make me play through commoner levels if the bulk of play is in mid-range, especially if it's going to go there quickly anyway.
And I like lightsabers.
As we have discussed I like many things that are the opposite of your preferred genres.
Not to say I dislike all of the above listed stuff, but I am done playing vampire. Gothic punk just does not do it for me. Mage and changeling are still ok, but I want other styles of play.
I like westerns, Victorian, steam punk , and pulp. I like campy cinematic play where the villain setups elaborate death traps for no reason other than flare. I also enjoy low power play in many cases, and this is why I am looking for alternate systems.
psn: aretepolitic
Steam: aretepolitic
Steam: aretepolitic
A note on genre (since it was brought up): I like mid-to-high power (with the assumption that mid-level characters can eventually make it to high level some day). I like sci-fi, fantasy, highly-technical steam punk (for an example of what I mean, check out the Alchemicals book for Exalted), and if superheroes are a genre, I like that too. I'm really not very excited, in general, by games set in a modern setting (excepting the required superhero setting, but even that is a radical departure from the norm).
I play games for the escapism they provide, and playing Joe Average the Neonate from Dallas just doesn't do it for me. I'm also generally not too excited by dystopias, but that also depends pretty heavily on how they're presented - I'm not sure how to articulate exactly what sort of dystopia 'feel's okay, but I know I've seen a few.
Frankly, I'd really like to play a fairly high-tech sci-fi game at some point. I really haven't gotten my fix for that in a long-ass time. (Also, I've been watching too much Star Trek lately. Star Trek might make for a fairly cool setting, though.)
I play games for the escapism they provide, and playing Joe Average the Neonate from Dallas just doesn't do it for me. I'm also generally not too excited by dystopias, but that also depends pretty heavily on how they're presented - I'm not sure how to articulate exactly what sort of dystopia 'feel's okay, but I know I've seen a few.
Frankly, I'd really like to play a fairly high-tech sci-fi game at some point. I really haven't gotten my fix for that in a long-ass time. (Also, I've been watching too much Star Trek lately. Star Trek might make for a fairly cool setting, though.)