"A World Worth Saving": Chris Perkins on NPCs and GMing style

[Aenghus]

I would tend to agree with most of the article, with the caveat that the DM needs to know the players will be open to being "heroic" members of society, as opposed to a roving band of adventurers or outlaws outside of society's constraints.


While I can play in "trust no one" greed and paranoia style, I have found out I don't like that style of play for any length of time. I understand that some other players enjoy it, but it's not for me bar the occasional one-shot.

In my own campaigns, I clearly indicate to new players the desired tone of the game, which for me is normally a high heroic game where the PCs form (individual) ties to the setting and care about it.

If the players just want to blow off steam and will kill npcs at the drop of a hat, the're looking for a more sword and sorcery or rogues and ruffians style of play, and that suggests a different presentation of the setting. That is, everyone is as least as grubby as the PCs, whether open about or secretly corrupt, and often many of the antagonists are clear black-hats. A "Grey or Black" morality world allows the PCs to have better PR and be the lesser evil. It also makes negotiations easier, as betrayal is always an option. And the world may not be worth saving, to the PCs.

To me the article isn't about enforcing a game style on the unwilling, which is unlikely to work, or apathetic, which can work but may not be appreciated.

It's about facilitating high heroic play by presenting a "world worth saving".Which is very useful prerequisite for a "save the world" ( or kingdom or town or village) plot.

It's possible to have reluctant heroes in "save the world" plots, but they need to sign up as players to the idea, and can be a lot of extra work, and massively increase the changes of campaign failure in my experience, as players /PCs get sidetracked or sell out.

Basically this comes down to the question of what an adventuring party is ? true heroes of the people or just a murderous band of brigands, and where they lie between those two end points. (I'm speaking objectively here, obviously a successful bunch of brigands may try to legitimise themselves, but the referee and players will have a fair idea of what they are portraying).

 

[Libramarian]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION]

As I said, I don't think the actual advice in the article is bad. I'm criticizing the intro:

A campaign needs to earn the players' respect if it has any chance of survival. Too many potentially awesome campaigns get ripped to shreds by disaffected and disenfranchised players, and for good reason.

In a few weeks, I'll be traveling to Boston for PAX East, and I guarantee there will be DMs in attendance whose campaigns have been turned into chew-toys by players driven to obnoxious behavior. Are your players doing their utmost to sabotage your campaign and make your life behind the DM screen a living hell? Are you players so apathetic to the events of your campaign that they'd rather kill time in a tavern — or set it on fire — than chase a quest? If the answer is yes, I have a good guess as to why: Your NPCs aren't doing their jobs very well.
​

I would respect this article 10x more if he said "or you know, maybe they're just being dicks or they're not interested in heroic play no matter what you do. But if you think it might be your NPCs try this..."

We talked about the DMs on the Critical Hits blog in the first scene framing thread--that's where I'm coming from here. This seems right out of that DMing school. It's 100% assumed that if something's not working it's the DM's fault. I think when players become more active influencing the story of the game, there should be a concomitant increase in emphasis on how players can and should exercise that power well. Otherwise I think you've got a recipe for excessive DM stress, boom or bust sessions and confused handwringing over how to suck the players into the story but without railroading them, without defining what railroading means and why it's bad. That whole complex.

My interest in these discussions about how best to run a story-focused game is mostly theoretical. My bg is that I read the Forge essays a few years ago. When I ask why player choice is so important it's not a rhetorical question, I'm interested in how people would answer that.

I'm aware that I tend to talk about different styles of play in black & white, idealized terms, without really looking for deeper connections. I'm not trying to pigeonhole anybody or any game. I'm flexible but I like the clarity it provides for me at this time.

I agree that movies and videogames do passive story experience better. I am skeptical that active story experience is reliably achievable without the players losing at least some immersion (immersion in this sense meaning being able to play without any consciousness of the fact that the quality of their roleplaying contributes to the overall story of the game and matters to other people).

I think it is reasonable to expect the players to "fake it until they make it", if the PCs are going to be the protagonists right from the beginning of the game before the players are sucked into the setting/story. That's what I would expect. To an extent that goes beyond abiding by the 'social contract' of the game.

You probably getting sick of the mantra, but Burning Wheel adresses player responsibilities head-on. Both player and GM responsibilities are discussed at relevant points in the text, plus at the end there is a checklist of responsibilities for both.

My personal reasons for focussing more on the GM than the player side are (i) I mostly GM, and (ii) in my experience most players will try to run an interesting/worthwhile PC if given a chance, and the biggest obstacles to that are poor game design in combination with poor GMing. Part of the reason Edwards' stuff at The Forge resonates so strongly with me is because I saw the attempts to generate "story" via GM force, and the resultant struggles over power and crushing of player initiative, at the height of 2nd ed in the mid-90s. While I find Edwards' characterisations sometimes exaggerated, the basics fit with what I've actually experienced.

I dont mind -- you've convinced me to dl and read the free intro pdf. I think it's the first couple of chapters.

 

[haakon1]

IMO the High Noon/Rio Bravo debate is somewhat at cross purposes anyway, since the High Noon advocates were often Leftists or Communists burned by or afraid of McCarthy, while the Rio Bravo advocates were right-wing Conservatives who'd see their Leftist fellow filmmakers as more villains than victims.

I know, but I choose to ignore the backstory on the antagonism between the two camps at the time. I've heard that several Presidents (from both parties) had "High Noon" among their favorite movies not because the McCarthyism issue behind it, but because of the actual storyline of the leader who stands alone amongst people who aren't really worth of him.

Of course, my favorite Western is "Unforgiven", in which NPC's (as opposed to the PC party and the monsters) aren't that important, and "Pale Rider", in which the NPC's almost share equal billing with the hero and villain, and certainly try to help themselves.

 

[haakon1]

Just like in Fellowship of the Ring (the movie) the gate guard in Bree asks some general questions about the hobbits' business.

Of course, that scene has no relevance in D&D, since WOTC specifically mandated we skip all gate guard scenes to get to the tactical combat scenario.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Of course, that scene has no relevance in D&D, since WOTC specifically mandated we skip all gate guard scenes to get to the tactical combat scenario.

I see your smiley there, but there are folks who do think that that was what was actually being advocated in the DMG. It's one of the most common issues people use to lay the hate on 4e, and it's rather tiresome, because it is so often misunderstood and taken out of context, even if it was poorly written.

So, to clarify for those people, the DMG suggests skipping the 'guard at the gate' encounters if the outcome of said encounter is inconsequential or effectively meaningless. Clearly, not the case in Bree (there is was used, quite effectively, to set the tone).

Carry on.

 

[S'mon]

So, to clarify for those people, the DMG suggests skipping the 'guard at the gate' encounters if the outcome of said encounter is inconsequential or effectively meaningless.

No it doesn't.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

It's not verbatim, but that's what I got out of that passage; seemed implied to me.

 

[pemerton]

I dont mind -- you've convinced me to dl and read the free intro pdf. I think it's the first couple of chapters.

I hope you'll post your thoughts - my reaction may be quite a personal one, and I'm curious about what someone else might think.

If you're curious, I can post the player/GM responsibilities in dot point form - the check lists are at the back so won't be in the free download.

 

[Libramarian]

I hope you'll post your thoughts - my reaction may be quite a personal one, and I'm curious about what someone else might think.

If you're curious, I can post the player/GM responsibilities in dot point form - the check lists are at the back so won't be in the free download.

Idk if I'll have anything interesting to say, because I have so little practical experience with story focused play, but I can do that.

And sure, that's the part I am most interested in so I would like to see that. If you think other people would find it useful/interesting for D&D, maybe it would be worth a new thread?

 

[pemerton]

maybe it would be worth a new thread?

Done.