niklinna
satisfied?
I foresee some pvp fiction brewing in the not-too-distant future. Maybe even story!
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Advice for new "story now" GMs
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Online play might exist for some but having done it I'll in future avoid it like the bloody plague.
And sure, a single RPG table might consist of 2-5 players; but to be the least bit commercially viable as a game you need to attract an awful lot of those single tables; which means you have to - have to! - spread a bigger tent and appeal to more player types than just the little tiny niche you might really want.
Yet in those same games where being proactive is a surefire way to die, being proactive is also a surefire way to succeed: you just gotta keep at it. High risk-high reward doesn't really work without the high-risk part; and that some don't want to engage with that is their problem, not mine. I'll be the first to admit that high risk-low reward is bad; if getting by the high risk doesn't give commensurate reward, what's the point?
And low risk-anythng is just boring.
Perhaps, then, you can elaborate on the excitement of painting castles pink - something you've previously highlighted from your own play, which I agree sounds like zero stakes play and - as you now acknowledge - incredibly boring.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Oh! Like ACTUAL DRAMA where the question is hanging in the balance 'what kind of person am I'? Nah, that can't happen in a TTRPG! lol. I just want MOAR POWERZ and BETTER LOOTZ!
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
What it sounds like you are saying, but you cannot really be saying this, is that a game has to be pretty much trad like D&D or else it isn't really actually playable, and that only a few crazies really want to play a Story Now game...
And if you ask me, personally, trad play VERY VERY easily slips into the mode of being low player reward! You may not even realize it, the players may not even realize how small the bang is for the buck, but it happens pretty often. I'm not commenting on any particular table or any particular RPG here. I think its something that can easily happen in a lot of games. The GM is busy expostulating about setting stuff and situations that mostly arise out of that, and the players are just sort of there. The easiest formula for excitement at that point is combat and loot and XP. And that's a fine model, Gary and Dave totally turned that into a very fine game.
IME you want intense risk and reward cycles, you need to focus on character up front as the driver of the whole thing. In the end, people live in their heads, and that's where the real 'action' is.
So, to get back to the OP, the obvious advice for the Story Now GM is "its never too much, focus on what the characters are, want, and do, and just keep doubling down on putting pressure on it!" When its time to narrate a scene, think of the next thing that can happen that puts some character in a pickle, and DO IT.
And just basically read Apocalypse World, 3 times. Its the bible, it really is. There were earlier games, they have great ideas, there's other styles of mechanics that work fine, etc. but AW is Story Now narrativist gaming boiled down to its raw essence. Understand that, everything else will follow.
And Lanefan, NOBODY rejects AW. No player will fail to be engaged by a competent narrativist GM running it clean and well. There's a very good reason the game has been going strong for almost 15 years now and has spawned 100's of children.
It’s not clear that would be any more effective —or more people would be playing fantasy hearbreakers instead of D&D. Those who have seen success have done so by selling their games or products as supplements for D&D. I don’t think that’s a reasonable approach for games that want to explore different ideas or try to do different things.
I think the classes of players proposed as problems represent a set that is not universal. For someone to decide the solution of their conflict, the game would have to give them that authority. Most Story Now games seem to be pretty traditional in that regard. In our Stonetop game, I can propose consequences as part of framing my actions, but it’s still up to @Manbearcat what they’ll actually be. That was also the case in our Blades in the Dark game. I expect it is of most.
The same is true of passivity. The GM should be putting the PCs in situations provoked by their needs and interests (as stated via character creation, determined by play history, etc). There’s no way to be passive about that. If the concern is that players might succumb to analysis paralysis, then I think that eventually resolves itself once everyone understands that there is no prior conception of what should happen they have to figure out and play.
What is going to be different, and what will not appeal to everyone, which is fine, is that Story Now games are exploring something different from traditional games. While our Stonetop game has us going on expeditions, the fact is the game isn’t the expeditions. It’s about our characters and their relationships to each other and Stonetop. If you want to explore the setting or experience a character concept or take on challenges of your skill as a player, there are other games for that.
Arilyn
Hero
An observation I've made, when introducing rpgs to children, is that they naturally lean toward Story Now play. It's our first instinct because adding to story is how we all played "let's pretend" as kids. RPG books bring up childhood games in the "What is a role playing game?" section. Maybe more reminders about the positive aspects of our childhood games, instead of the ubiquitous, "Its like playing Cops and Robbers, minus the arguments over who got shot," could help. And maybe less emphasis on the video game comparison.
The less comparison to video games, the better. Likewise, comparisons to books or movies or TV series--TRPGs are none of those things.
Manbearcat
Legend
Just a quick drive-by that isn't so much advice for new Story Now GMs (though its certainly important to onboard these notions and operationalize them during play), but is rather a few misconceptions about these games that could use firmly, and permanently, clearing up:
* These games are EZMode where the solution set for any obstacle/problem is devised by the player absent situation-constraint or table/GM-vetting.
NOT TRUE
The GM frames scenes which entail an imagined space featuring opposition to PC goals and foregrounded consequences. The system has its architecture/structure which makes concrete the opposition. The GM plays that opposition to the hilt. The players index the features of the imagined space + their PC build dynamics + the system archetecture > develop a solution set > winnow that down to the chosen action > resolve via system archetecture/structure. The GM renders consequences and changes the sitution or resolves the scene (pending the particular system architecture).
* These games have a writer's room/consensual storytelling bent to them.
NOT TRUE
In these games, (a) each system has significant say in terms of input and boundaries and (b) the GM has primary responsibilities in framing and consequences (and (a) is very related to (b) ). People don't sit around, absent constraint and structure and system input and distributed authority, and consensually tell a story. These games aren't power fantasy, they aren't consensual storytelling. One player is indexing PC goals and needs/wishes and is absolutely opposing those things within the constraints of system/structure. And then system will have its own say in settling matters.
* These games are EZMode where the solution set for any obstacle/problem is devised by the player absent situation-constraint or table/GM-vetting.
NOT TRUE
The GM frames scenes which entail an imagined space featuring opposition to PC goals and foregrounded consequences. The system has its architecture/structure which makes concrete the opposition. The GM plays that opposition to the hilt. The players index the features of the imagined space + their PC build dynamics + the system archetecture > develop a solution set > winnow that down to the chosen action > resolve via system archetecture/structure. The GM renders consequences and changes the sitution or resolves the scene (pending the particular system architecture).
* These games have a writer's room/consensual storytelling bent to them.
NOT TRUE
In these games, (a) each system has significant say in terms of input and boundaries and (b) the GM has primary responsibilities in framing and consequences (and (a) is very related to (b) ). People don't sit around, absent constraint and structure and system input and distributed authority, and consensually tell a story. These games aren't power fantasy, they aren't consensual storytelling. One player is indexing PC goals and needs/wishes and is absolutely opposing those things within the constraints of system/structure. And then system will have its own say in settling matters.
loverdrive
Prophet of the profane (She/Her)
I'd say this observation holds true for most people who are new to TTRPGs.
I've pretty much never encountered newbies who didn't grok AW instantly. Have seen stables of "veterans" who can't wrap their heads around it, though. Been one of them, too.
Similar Threads
