Lastoutkast
First Post
Something that can brige the gap of player and DM and there working together on the story. Rules are that written without a DM guide. Like if a new person read how to play the game they would also understand how to run one.
What games, homebrews or advise does anyone have on making running the game more of a Co-op experience.
Burning Wheel.
Arilyn
Hero
FATE, or its streamlined version, FAE. They are published by Evil Hat, if you want to check out their website. Dungeonworld is another possibility, if you want a game that is built around the idea of minimal prep. As pemerton mentioned, Burning Wheel is a good choice, or Mouseguard, which is a streamlined version of Burning Wheel. It's good too, if you don't mind playing mice.
Lastoutkast
First Post
i picked up mouseguard.....easily one of best rpgs ever written.
Lastoutkast
First Post
Prep does't bother me, I'm looking for a different storytelling experience. Like a sandbox coop style, where the dm is just as part of story as the players are...I'm asking a lot I know 
Imaculata
Hero
Prep does't bother me, I'm looking for a different storytelling experience. Like a sandbox coop style, where the dm is just as part of story as the players are...I'm asking a lot I know
Well, that is sort of the campaign I'm running now. Homebrew sandbox, with a plot, but also with a living breathing world, that responds to the actions of the players. Often things will happen that I did not expect, and take the plot into interesting directions. And other times the players follow my carefully laid out trail of breadcrumbs, and don't even notice they are doing it.
One of the things that makes it a collaborative experience, is that I often ask my players to describe a scene. If they perform a ritual, or cast a spell, what does it look like? If they are in a desperate struggle with a bad guy, what does the action scene look like? When one of the players motivates their party with a bard song, I want to know what he says to them, and then I describe how the world reacts. Both the DM and the players fill in these details together. And I always allow my players to correct me, if I'm incorrectly describing what is happening as it relates to their characters. We create the story together.
Gilladian
Adventurer
You might look at Dawn of Worlds http://www.clanwebsite.org/games/rpg/Dawn_of_Worlds_game_1_0Final.pdf as a possible tool for building a world. It gives everyone lots of ownership.
I'm looking for a different storytelling experience. Like a sandbox coop style, where the dm is just as part of story as the players are...I'm asking a lot I know
Apocalypse World. Not just a fabulous game, but one that sets the bar as far as explaining the MCs methods, principles and play agenda for this style of game.
Last edited:
Razjah
Explorer
People have already suggested all the games I would recommend. Burning Wheel (and Mouse Guard), FATE (particularly FATE Core over some older versions), and the PbtA games (Apocalypse World, Dungeon World). Any of these should help you find what you are looking for.
It's pretty interesting and bad that the biggest names in the industry seem to provide some of the worst entry points for rpgs. 5e is fine to learn, but without people to actually teach how the game works, getting the PHB isn't usually sufficient to teach someone. It's absurd to me how so many smaller publishers can make games that more adequately teach how to play and run without being a big mess to reference.
It's pretty interesting and bad that the biggest names in the industry seem to provide some of the worst entry points for rpgs. 5e is fine to learn, but without people to actually teach how the game works, getting the PHB isn't usually sufficient to teach someone. It's absurd to me how so many smaller publishers can make games that more adequately teach how to play and run without being a big mess to reference.
I thought I'd write a post that responds to the "advice" part of the threat title.
The way I like to play RPGs is more-or-less as Eero Tuovinen explains here:
In this sort of game, the "cooperative experience" comes from the fact that the players genuinely play their PCs, and the GM genuinely frames scenes by reference to dramatic need.
Some RPG systems are better for this style than others - eg because they are more likely to produce PCs with clear dramatic needs; or they have action resolution mechanics that make it easier to stay focused on what is really at stake in the game.
But before getting into the minutiae of any particular system, I think maybe the most important thing - especially on the GM side - is accepting the need to be genuine in framing scenes by reference to dramatic need, which will be established primarily by the players. I think the biggest obstacle to the cooperative experience is the GM wanting to control the game, by deciding what counts as the "real" stakes of the game.
So I think concepts like "the plot", "the adventure", "sidequest" - all terminology which prioritises the GM's vision of the game over the players' - is the enemy of the cooperative experience.
The way I like to play RPGs is more-or-less as Eero Tuovinen explains here:
1. One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . . by introducing complications.
2. The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. Then they let the other players know in certain terms what the character thinks and wants. . . .
3. The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character . . . The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.
4. The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. . . . The GM might have more difficulty, as he needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences.
2. The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. Then they let the other players know in certain terms what the character thinks and wants. . . .
3. The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character . . . The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.
4. The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. . . . The GM might have more difficulty, as he needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences.
In this sort of game, the "cooperative experience" comes from the fact that the players genuinely play their PCs, and the GM genuinely frames scenes by reference to dramatic need.
Some RPG systems are better for this style than others - eg because they are more likely to produce PCs with clear dramatic needs; or they have action resolution mechanics that make it easier to stay focused on what is really at stake in the game.
But before getting into the minutiae of any particular system, I think maybe the most important thing - especially on the GM side - is accepting the need to be genuine in framing scenes by reference to dramatic need, which will be established primarily by the players. I think the biggest obstacle to the cooperative experience is the GM wanting to control the game, by deciding what counts as the "real" stakes of the game.
So I think concepts like "the plot", "the adventure", "sidequest" - all terminology which prioritises the GM's vision of the game over the players' - is the enemy of the cooperative experience.
Similar Threads
- Locked
