Player Enablement

[sam500]

What makes a game fun for me has changed alot in the last year.
I used to be what is called a "killer GM".
Now however, I'm changing my tune. That's not to say that I don't still kill characters (I killed 3 last week), but I'm not gunning for them anymore. The focus of my games has changed.
My two most important rules are now:
1. Make the game fun above all else.
2. Enable the players, the story is about them.

Most people have a similar goal in 1, but many GM's seem to cough over 2.
One of my friends has a saying he likes alot, "Consider Yes." when asked by a player for something. Will this something make the game more cool or more fun even if it is powerful or not in the rules? Consider yes.

However, I'm noticing more and more GM's turning to the rules too much to decide what happens in game. Too often, it seems, GM's rule against the players or practise almost a sort of manic player denial through through the simple act of reverting to "no". In one game I'm playing in, the GM hands out XP awards to other players for screwing eachother over rules-wise and XP penalties for other actions. In another game I played in, high level encounters turned into rules debates every turn as the GM didn't know or didn't like what was going on on the table according to the rules.

I've been GMing since 3.0 came out so I consider myself well grounded in the rules. I also limit my games to core only as many players are new and I don't want them overwhelmed. In game or in a conflict when a rules question comes up, I think to myself what would be most cool for the story. I then ask the player what they want to happen (most cool for the player). In general I will rule in favour for the player (and hopefully the story as well). When I don't, it's because the story will be more fun for everyone (including the player in question) if it doesn't happen and I explain this to the player at the time.

Sometimes this means the BBEG dying in the first round do to clever players. This is ok to me, as there is a big celebration at the table. Everyone rejoices and pats themselves on the back and is having fun. I'm not bothered either as I know there are plenty more encounters where that came from.

Has anyone else noticed this trend amongst GM's (especially D&D GM's) towards denying players rather than empowering them?

... maybe I'm just a bad sport as a player.... but that's another matter (I think GM's make horrible players).

 

[S'mon]

I think if anything GMs think more about empowering players now than they used to. 3e does encourage reliance on the rules and discourage GM discretion, but that's a separate issue. Oh, and I don't think GMs make horrible players, generally. People with GM-mindset have particular tendencies, eg they may want to develop a chunk of the gameworld, they may treat their PC as an NPC and not powergame enough to compete well in a powergamey group, but these aren't necessarily bad.

 

[Black_Swan]

"Consider Yes" is a great slogan. Many GM's immediately jump to "No" before even thinking the issue through.

Good job.

 

[molonel]

My first longterm DM in 3.0 was a "Consider no" kind of guy. Great DM. I learned a lot from him. But he strangled the game a lot by nitpicking minutae. Supposedly, this was to rein in powergaming, but the best powergamer in the group routinely drove through gaping rules loopholes with a Mack truck while the DM sat and fiddled around with the crafting rules to make sure they were "balanced."

I learned about rules balance from him, but I also learned that focusing too much on rules balance can ruin a good game, and I've tried to apply that in my games ever since.

 

[Reynard]

2. Enable the players, the story is about them.

IMO, those statement aren't necessarily connected, largely because, as far as I am concerned, there is no story. Or, at least, there is no story until it has been told -- at the table, with players and DM and dice all doing their part. Havinga "stoyr" in mind reduces dramatic tension, makes rules arbitration (um) arbitrary, and, overall, creates an experience that is less of a game and less fun.

On the other hand, enabling players (and their PCs) is a good idea. "Consider yes" is a great attitude to go with -- mostly because it translates to "stop and think about this; is there a reason to say no?". If there isn't, then say yes. Much better than "Say Yes!" as a slogan, which leads to games that are inflated, boring and just generally unfun.

 

[lazarus1020]

Has anyone else noticed this trend amongst GM's (especially D&D GM's) towards denying players rather than empowering them?

... maybe I'm just a bad sport as a player.... but that's another matter (I think GM's make horrible players).

I don't think telling a player no is a bad thing. If I ran my games by your rule the party would fall by the wayside to one dominant player. How can a player not try to take advantage of the game if there are no rules to keep his desires in check. Almost everybody has played with a person who wanted to be the focus and usually the rules are the only thing that holds them back. I would also wonder how much fun the other characters are having if after a long journey to find the BBG and only watch as he falls in the first round to another character. It is supposed to be a team effort and letting a player have anything they want does not really help create an atmosphere of interdependence.

I think I was a great player before I became the DM of my group and have been well received when I have played a couple games with friends. I have a good understanding of the rules but more importantly I know the hardships a DM faces in running a group. It is not easy for a DM to run a campaign sometimes and it helps when a DM has players who have experience. I personally have always felt that a long hard battle fought at the end of an adventure was the most exciting part and would feel cheated if it was over in moments.

 

[sam500]

I don't think telling a player no is a bad thing. If I ran my games by your rule the party would fall by the wayside to one dominant player. How can a player not try to take advantage of the game if there are no rules to keep his desires in check. Almost everybody has played with a person who wanted to be the focus and usually the rules are the only thing that holds them back. I would also wonder how much fun the other characters are having if after a long journey to find the BBG and only watch as he falls in the first round to another character. It is supposed to be a team effort and letting a player have anything they want does not really help create an atmosphere of interdependence.

I think I was a great player before I became the DM of my group and have been well received when I have played a couple games with friends. I have a good understanding of the rules but more importantly I know the hardships a DM faces in running a group. It is not easy for a DM to run a campaign sometimes and it helps when a DM has players who have experience. I personally have always felt that a long hard battle fought at the end of an adventure was the most exciting part and would feel cheated if it was over in moments.

I think you missed the jist of my post.
I'm not advocating letting a single player dominate the game or other players.
Have you ever played "indie RPG's" or RPG's with a shared narrative?
If the purpose of rules in your game are to limit pushy players than I think you have a different problem than what this thread is about.

 

[Mark CMG]

"Consider Yes" is a great slogan.

Indeed!


Ask not what your players can do for you. Ask what you can do for your players!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sometimes this means the BBEG dying in the first round do to clever players. This is ok to me, as there is a big celebration at the table. Everyone rejoices and pats themselves on the back and is having fun. I'm not bothered either as I know there are plenty more encounters where that came from.

Bingo! Though it sucks a bit when you've put a lot of effort into a BBEG who is roundly trounced with simple tactics, it's all in a day's work. Sometimes, the party rolls low, sometimes the villain does.

Has anyone else noticed this trend amongst GM's (especially D&D GM's) towards denying players rather than empowering them?

I think the earlier editions have been very clear that the DM can and should say "No" at the merest hint of diversion from what he wants. From the "adversarial" DM style springing from wargames where the goal was to kill the players (while still giving them a glimmer of hope) to "gotcha" tactics that hose players that are "too good" to constant paranoia about "monty haul" campaigns and "power gaming," there's a pretty hefty dose of "Beware the Players" message in a lot of places in the game.

It's pretty clear in all editions that the buck stops with the DM, who even supercedes the printed rulebooks if he wants. The "Consider Yes" advice is pretty recent in the game. Usually "Tell them No" was the default, and if you considered yes, you were in for a boat of problems that the game wasn't designed to handle.

 

[Imaro]

What makes a game fun for me has changed alot in the last year.
I used to be what is called a "killer GM".
Now however, I'm changing my tune. That's not to say that I don't still kill characters (I killed 3 last week), but I'm not gunning for them anymore. The focus of my games has changed.
My two most important rules are now:
1. Make the game fun above all else.
2. Enable the players, the story is about them.

I totally agree with #1 as long as that includes the GM as well.
#2 IMHO enabling players isn't necessarily making the story about them.

...However, I'm noticing more and more GM's turning to the rules too much to decide what happens in game. Too often, it seems, GM's rule against the players or practise almost a sort of manic player denial through through the simple act of reverting to "no". In one game I'm playing in, the GM hands out XP awards to other players for screwing eachother over rules-wise and XP penalties for other actions. In another game I played in, high level encounters turned into rules debates every turn as the GM didn't know or didn't like what was going on on the table according to the rules.

I think if a GM is going by the book, he's not ruling against the PC's, he's being impartial. I also believe the word no has to be used sometimes.

If we as a group come to social contract before playing a game that we are playing type X(where X can be a genre,time period, etc.) and a player at character creation decides it would be fun to play a type Y character I feel I'm in my rights to say no.

EX.
DM: I want to run a game based of the renaisance period w/ a smattering of clockwork tech and magic mixed in.
Players A,B &C: Sounds cool ok.
Player A: I think I'll play something like a duelist/disowned noble
Player B: I was thinking about a SCientist dabller, using the artificer class from Eberron
Player C: I'm going to play a kung-fu wuxia master from a ninja clan...What, why are you guys looking at me like that?
DM: SMACK!! No.

I've been GMing since 3.0 came out so I consider myself well grounded in the rules. I also limit my games to core only as many players are new and I don't want them overwhelmed. In game or in a conflict when a rules question comes up, I think to myself what would be most cool for the story. I then ask the player what they want to happen (most cool for the player). In general I will rule in favour for the player (and hopefully the story as well). When I don't, it's because the story will be more fun for everyone (including the player in question) if it doesn't happen and I explain this to the player at the time.

This sounds like being arbitrary and a little railroady. So you empower the players, but then you decide on rules questions, not by what you feel is a fair or consistent ruling, but by what YOU think is the best way to progress the story. Hmm. I don't really know if that's empowerment or a really good illusion of it.

Sometimes this means the BBEG dying in the first round do to clever players. This is ok to me, as there is a big celebration at the table. Everyone rejoices and pats themselves on the back and is having fun. I'm not bothered either as I know there are plenty more encounters where that came from.

Ok, so above you'll arbitrarily make rules decisions, but here you let the dice fall where they may. How do you decide at what point to do which? If the story would be "cooler" by the fight lasting a little longer would you fudge it?

Has anyone else noticed this trend amongst GM's (especially D&D GM's) towards denying players rather than empowering them?

I will argue Devil's Advocate here, because I've seen players who will totally own a DM who doesn't restrict them to a certain point. They can do that because they aren't trying to run a whole world, all they have to worry about is their one character. I think a well prepared DM is going to know what he has the capacity to handle and restrict his game accordingly.

... maybe I'm just a bad sport as a player.... but that's another matter (I think GM's make horrible players).

I personally feel every player should spend some time in the DM seat, I think it gives them a better perspective on the game as a whole insteaad of just their piece of it.