Approaches to prep in RPGing - GMs, players, and what play is *about*

[AbdulAlhazred]

I haven't yet played Burning Wheel, but it seems like a game that zeroes in more on who a character is than, say, Blades in the Dark. I've found the latter to be more concerned with what a character does, or wants to do, and the gm can pull on character relationships and so forth as things that might impede or facilitate those goals.

I think Blades pretty easily slides into the 'who'. At creation Takeo's rival is described as an old war buddy. I embellished this with a story that Takeo had a thing for the guy's daughter. Latter the rival hooked up with a powerful enemy of the crew, basically as revenge for me getting him sent up to Ironhook. This forced me to do a score where I confronted him on a prison work gang. Takeo wanted to make up with him or somehow defuse the situation but the situation went bad, and we learned that Takeo was willing to murder a former friend in order to get what he wants. Now the ex-girlfriend is his enemy, what will he do?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't know if this is an OSR thing, but I think there's a lot implied about the PCs in classic dnd, i.e. as treasure hunters in a quasi-colonial/frontier environment ostensibly on Team Law.


It does seem that this is one of the dominant play cultures now, however, perhaps inspired by critical role and other actual plays that demand strong characterization

I would go as far as saying both of the above along with many other ttrpgs make use of explicit reference to fiction in other media to ground gameplay (eg OD&D makes more sense not just in the context of wargaming but also when assuming players are familiar with appendix n)

But contrast all of this with, say, BitD, where the PCs automatically have history together, are inhabitants of Doskvol and thus have people they know, resources, and a fairly logical basis in the setting.

Characterization is not a new demand either, in the '70s it was called the 'West Coast School'! Not to say that one is better, but there's basically always been this divide between various agendas, some value prepared settings, others not so much, though I think low myth is a lot more popular now than it was in the early days. I think honestly Traveller was close to the only game in early days that kinda let you do it.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

It's the classic group project, the GM does 99.99% of the work, the player maybe does .00001% and then the player wants full shared credit for the "shared setting".

Honest question here: Do you really dislike your players?

 

[Grendel_Khan]

And he later makes a point about unrelenting positivity - sometimes discussions of non-trad games is conducted in a way that tends to dismiss areas that the games aren't actually great at, or that they sacrifice in the name of their focus.

Threads about non-trad games always wind up in this territory—demanding that people who like those games present, for some reason, a full accounting of what they also don't like about those games. Interesting that that's not the case with trad games, right? But also, if that's going to happen anyway (given enough posts), do you really need to accelerate that digression?

 

[niklinna]

Threads about non-trad games always wind up in this territory—demanding that people who like those games present, for some reason, a full accounting of what they also don't like about those games. Interesting that that's not the case with trad games, right? But also, if that's going to happen anyway (given enough posts), do you really need to accelerate that digression?

The main thing I don't like about non-trad games is the unrelenting negativity toward non-trad games from certain quarters. It makes them so hard to understand.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A quibble with apologies. My experience of play in games like Dungeon World and Blades in the Dark is nowhere near as extensive as yours but it certainly felt to me as though the GM was choosing what elements to engage especially when the opportunities arose to make Hard Moves. Much less in the sense of thinking through what they looked like and when they'd appear I agree.

I do not think we are disagreeing that there is a vast middle ground between "The GM preps for days" and "The GM doesn't prep." I think even PbtA and Blades in the Dark play probably go better if the GM takes a few minutes before the session to refresh their memory about what has happened most recently and what the various situations in the air are.

I don't disagree with either of these statements. GMs inevitably put a spin on the game. It may be in the form of certain elements they might frame in, or choices of 'zoom factor' or difficulty, etc. While all this is in service of addressing players concerns, the GM is still a participant and not a machine.

Certainly the GM needs to be attentive and participate in the details of the game. Now maybe I've just run so many games I've gotten pretty casual about it.

 

[pemerton]

I had hoped that the OP made the topic of this thread fairly clear:

For those RPGers who are interested in player-driven RPGing - @innerdude starts threads about this from time to time, and @Yora had a recent thread on it - one approach is to drop these assumptions about prep.

For those whose main pleasure in RPGing is learning about a world that someone else authored, or putting together pieces of a puzzle that someone else authored, or choosing among options that someone else presents as part of their authorship of a setting, then shifting the focus from GM prep of setting to Characters => Situation => Setting won't be helpful.

It didn't occur to me that that would need spelling out, given that it seems to be quite clearly implied by what I've quoted.

 

[Larnievc]

Some types of games promote character centered play more than others. But of course tastes vary. Don't assume what people like though if they have not been offered the option.

The few times I tried it they complained there was not enough/too much to do.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Threads about non-trad games always wind up in this territory—demanding that people who like those games present, for some reason, a full accounting of what they also don't like about those games. Interesting that that's not the case with trad games, right? But also, if that's going to happen anyway (given enough posts), do you really need to accelerate that digression?

"a full accounting of what they also don't like about those games" is a very good summary of how people who like trad games talk about trad games as well, incidentally.

Spaces that center on DND are endlessly re-litigating whether they're about problem-solving or character portrayal and how being about both creates problems, how much the story of the GM or the story of the players should be in the spotlight (including discussions of what each of those things mean), whether player characters should actually be able to die and what ludonarrative permission is required to make that acceptable, whether Vancian casting is any good or if it's actually sucked for all of these years, whether exploration has any value or if those of us who like it should be drowned in a river, whether GMs should actually be allowed to fudge dice rolls or not, whether its acceptable to engage in illusionism even when the book says it is.

That applies to the likes of VTM as well as DND, and most of these debates are basically just predicated on what people don't like about trad games, but with the added context that they are played flexibly enough to have communities with radically different perspectives on each of those issues.

 

[bloodtide]

This is a really weird way to view it. Does that really sound like what anyone is describing?

Yes. Many are describing that the game is only for the players, not the GM. Each player makes up stuff for the GM to use, and the GM has to use it. So, does the GM get to make up stuff to use: I have not seen anyone say that.

The GM gets to be surprised by what happens. The GM gets to be creative in response to the players during play. If you ask any of the folks who GM these sorts of games, I'm sure they'll tell you how much fun it is.

Not sure how a player being a "gottca" to the GM is a surprise.

Why is that a problem? The rules saying when the GM is allowed to do something doesn't seem problematic to me at all.

Well, limitations are always bad.

I mean, you've described players being able to "do anything" as equivalent to them not having any challenge, right? So what makes play challenging... what makes it require skill... is limits on what they can do. Correct?

No, don't know what your talking about here.

Then wouldn't the same be true of GMing? That not having total free rein to just do anything would require more skill?

It takes no skill to follow rules that limit your freedom.

You've said in the past that you take total control of your games and happily railroad the players into your plot, because the players are too indifferent to actually put forth any effort towards play. So you'll excuse me if I don't take your notion of D&D granting free choice too seriously.

There are many types of freedom.

So the idea that the game works well and is engaging for all participants and is described in positive ways is hard to understand?

Right, see it's that overly positive viewpoint right there.

Hexcrawls require no prep? Interesting.

I understand that few around have ever played a Pure True Random Hexcrawl. Even many over in the Old Days thread have said they never existed, although they were not there. They do exist.

Here's my BitD character sheet.

I get that, like you have said here, a BIG part of these games is how much fun it is to get together and talk about playing the game. And I'm sure the talking about the game play mini game is load of fun for you and many others.

Honest question here: Do you really dislike your players?

Well, I run 11 games. So the break down would be 6 good , 2 neutral, and 3 hostile. So it's a mix.