My search for the right party, to run or to play with, continues...
A little late to the party
At this point I refereed campaigns in a variety of circumstances, with friend fact to face and online. At game store where anybody can drop in from week to week, at conventions with total strangers. One off sessions
like the one described by BrendanBedrock and so on.
To make what I do apply across all these groups equally well, I roleplaying and ask my player to roleplay in first person. if somebody says "I have Rurik the fighter go and talk to the shopkeeper and buy a sword." I would look the player in the eye (or with VOIP) say in first person "How can I help you?" And cox the player into responding in first person.
Now to be crystal clear this is not the same as acting or doing the funny voice. It sufficient to be just yourself with the abilities and knowledge of the character.
This is a first crucial step because what it does for most is engage their natural social instinct as people. A point that crystallized for me in observing how people play in LARPS. In a LARP with its emphasis on live action everything is first person.
Once the player's social instincts are engaged, it adds clarity for the players over what to do in whatever situation they find themselves.
Second, is that I am only human as a referee. I only have so much bandwidth physically and verbally. Out of all the myriad possibilities inherent to the entire world of a setting, I can only focus on a few things at a time. But what things? Well the things that a) players are interested in focusing on. b) things that could impact the players positively or negatively and finally c) things that are of potential interest.
The problem is that the experience as a referee and as a person has an outsized impact on doing the above. Because you have to pay attention to players, understand what they like, and what things you could come up that would work with that yet remain consistent with the setting.
And the it often naunced. For example you can't just always tailor things all the time. Most players pick up on that and as a result the the world of the setting starts to feel artificial. But you can't just use random tables and random ideas all the time as most will feel they are in a funhouse all the time and their choices have little meaning as nothing makes sense.
The path lies in balancing all these elements and juggling ideas which can only be learned through repeated trial and error with a variety of individuals.
Back in the early 80s when I started doing all this, I certainly didn't get right. But what got me to where i am now, is the willingness to do go with whatever the players wanted to do as long as it made sense in terms of the setting and character (which is pretty broad). And recognizing that I had to try different things with different people.
So my first campaigns could have been better but still a fun time was had by all.
Earlier in the thread there was discussion about the how real thing actually are. I can tell you that it varies from player to player. What immersive for one players is not always the same as the next players. It not a huge range but enough that you need to learn a variety of technique so it works with your group.
Wrapping it up
To recap it about having everybody roleplay in first person, paying attention to what they like, and having a toolkit of experience and technique to rely on to figure out what works. While keeping an open mind as to what the players want to do as their characters but also willing to mix things up to make it feel more organic.
Finally a example.
Let take the worse case people often paint for sandbox campaigns or campaigns with a rich background. We have a group that has not interested in character backgrounds. Their roleplaying can be summing as "themselves with the abilities of their character." Primarily they are focused on being THE badasses and they optimize a lot.
So for this group, I will insist on first person roleplaying even when it themselves with the abilities of the character. I will do it passively through example and coaching but if it doesn't sink, explicitly. Otherwise I am not interested in continue to referee this campaign.
I rarely have an issue with this except for very shy players. In which case I will accommodate.
So the group starts the campaign with no history and no past. Which is fine as prior to the start I would have developed a sense of what they are interested in. Which is often NOT being murder hobos which is the typical stereotype. The last group that was like this, liked how I detailed the magic item economy so their first adventures were about working for magic item collectors and finding magic items. All the while acting like badassess about it.
The problem that most have with this how would this work in a setting. Luckily for me, I played enough LARPS, and MMORPGs to see how this plays out with groups interacting with other groups. It not unlike the interaction of urban or biker gangs. Or going back into history how warbands and nomadic clans dealt with one another.
So despite the lack of a prior history, the group will become enmeshed in their own slice of the setting with rivals, and allies, with complications born of the hooks and leads they do or don't follow. With consequences born of the choices they made or not made. Because I interacted with these type of players more than a few times, I know what they find fun and what they don't. Thus make sure for every complications I introduce, that there something else that is of interest.
And done right it doesn't feel artificial. Because in life we deal with the unexpected and seek out and focus on that which interest us. Sometime our live is dominated by what we focus on. Other time it feels like it all about the unexpected.
So that my couple of cents on the subject.
Rob Conley
Bat in the Attic Games
http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/
