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

[bloodtide]

character => situation => setting

Though this has problems just like anything else.

The big one: the player does not take the bait.

So the GM takes the time to use all the character stuff about how they are part of a family of god killing group of cool assassins. The GM sets up a nice situation hook "oh no three of them super assassins were killed by hands unknown at a bar."

The GM hopes that by using the players own personal creation that they play might not only pay attention during the game, but be actively motivated to engage and immerse themselves in the game

But plenty of players won't care. They will just say "cool story GM" and then have their character hide outside the bar looking for a target to attack.

Almost as big: the endless argument.

The GM says "the assassin family did this action" and the player jumps up to scream "no way". The player disagrees with the reality of what the GM is doing and demands it be changed to their viewpoint. "Just one family assassain can kill a god, so there is no way three of them could ever be killed in a tavern GM. Your using my lore incorrectly!"

This is just like the play problems if the GM makes the setting first. So nothing much changes.

 

[Arilyn]

Though this has problems just like anything else.

The big one: the player does not take the bait.

So the GM takes the time to use all the character stuff about how they are part of a family of god killing group of cool assassins. The GM sets up a nice situation hook "oh no three of them super assassins were killed by hands unknown at a bar."

The GM hopes that by using the players own personal creation that they play might not only pay attention during the game, but be actively motivated to engage and immerse themselves in the game

But plenty of players won't care. They will just say "cool story GM" and then have their character hide outside the bar looking for a target to attack.

Almost as big: the endless argument.

The GM says "the assassin family did this action" and the player jumps up to scream "no way". The player disagrees with the reality of what the GM is doing and demands it be changed to their viewpoint. "Just one family assassain can kill a god, so there is no way three of them could ever be killed in a tavern GM. Your using my lore incorrectly!"

This is just like the play problems if the GM makes the setting first. So nothing much changes.

Why do you always assume players are so uncooperative? What kind of players do you have because this is not typical.

The player has set their personal stakes, passions, goals, etc. Why would they then ignore the hooks?

You have a completely wrong idea of this game style if you believe players can just announce what they want in the game and get it. No one would play this way!

Pemerton has posted a ton of play reports. Have you read any of them? Even if this kind of play is not for you, it'll at least give a clearer picture of what's going on, in terms of game style.

 

[pemerton]

This can be a really tough thing to do for many people.

From the time I really started to GM, the predominant mode of play for many RPGs (certainly the ones I was familiar with) was that the GM would prepare or select a setting and then set up a situation. The players would then respond to that situation via their characters.

<snip>

The setting was more than just indexing or scaffolding for the characters… it was my input to the game. It was how I exercised my creativity toward the game. It was something I’d do in between games on my own.

The idea of taking that away would have scared my younger self. First, and most practically, how would play even work if I didn’t come up with stuff for the characters to do? Second, what would I do in between sessions?

<snip>

These concerns can be big obstacles to people letting go.

I've snipped this down to what seems to me its essence.

That essence has multiple components - or at least, I'm trying to carve it into components.

There is an interplay of knowledge and emotion: How would play even work? One goal of a thread like this is to try and illustrate an answer to that, with examples and more-or-less elaborate explanation.

There is also a worry about activity: What would I do in between sessions? Perhaps the answer to that has to be, read a novel or go to the pictures.

Finally, there is a different worry, and one I've seen repeatedly stated on these boards: What is my creative contribution, as GM, to play, if it's not setting prep?" There is a definite answer available to that, in my view: the creative contribution occurs during play, and consists in (i) contributions to situation, and (ii) contributions to consequences.

(I know you don't really need a lecture on the above! But I hope it's OK to have used your post as a type of springboard.)

 

[pemerton]

One challenge there is the 'map with holes in it' thing. Doskvol leaves a LOT to figure out during play, GH is a very high level setting description, but GoT has a lot of canon. IMHO there's probably an optimum there somewhere.

Sure. Canon can't be so "tight"/"complete" that there's no scope for the PCs to create their characters in the way described in the OP and elaborated on in some further posts.

I mean, consider the limit case: every action and relationship that ever existed for any person in the setting is fully detailed. What scope would that leave for character building and for play?

 

[pemerton]

Though this has problems just like anything else.

The big one: the player does not take the bait.

So the GM takes the time to use all the character stuff about how they are part of a family of god killing group of cool assassins. The GM sets up a nice situation hook "oh no three of them super assassins were killed by hands unknown at a bar."

The GM hopes that by using the players own personal creation that they play might not only pay attention during the game, but be actively motivated to engage and immerse themselves in the game

But plenty of players won't care. They will just say "cool story GM" and then have their character hide outside the bar looking for a target to attack.

I don't know what RPG system you have in mind.

But to me, your set-up doesn't seem strong, especially if you're imagining a first time around for character=> situatoin => setting.

Your situation - Members of your assassin family have been assassinated at this place seems only weakly connected to the idea "We're assassins". Especially if it's "We're strong assassins" and the killing is at a mundane place like a bar.

And what's the character's drive? How does the bar fit in? Why assassination of assassins?

I'd suggest that both player and GM work on tightening things up!

 

[Baron Opal II]

From the time I really started to GM, the predominant mode of play for many RPGs (certainly the ones I was familiar with) was that the GM would prepare or select a setting and then set up a situation. The players would then respond to that situation via their characters.

I look back at how many times I would take action of some kind to preserve what I’d prepared… to keep the villain in play or to preserve some secret that I’d decided shouldn’t be known by the players yet… and my game was riddled with that stuff. And I’ll add that even then, I absolutely did incorporate elements of the players’ characters into what I’d prepared. But that wasn’t really enough to achieve what you’re describing in the OP.

So, let them change the setting?

There seems to be the assumption that if the setting is made first, that makes immovable walls to corral the characters. I guess I see the process as:

Worldbuilding / Setting => Characters => Situations => Changes to Setting => Character Growth => Next Situation

 

[niklinna]

This is a really good point, and certainly something I've experienced with the players who I've introduced to more story-now oriented games. It can take some real shifts in thinking to get into the right mindset. When you're so used to things working one way, it can be tough to adapt to a new way.

Depending on the game, the rules and procedures may help with some of this. Most of the games that I've played that are more character focused have elements of the characters that are determined at character generation, or continually through play, that matter and are intended to be a focus for play. Some rules are explicit about this, but some are less so. Meaning some games make this easier to realize than others do.

One way this can be a problem is when a player not used to the approach creates a character that has interests that can be put into conflict, but didn't imagine or expect that they would be*. What are some games that encourage players to create characters with explicitly conflicting interests/ideals, so they know what's coming, after a fashion? Or, are there games that instruct players to mark attributes of their characters as destined for change/challenge? Dogs in the Vineyard comes to mind, but it's out of print of course. The Burning Wheel family have pretty explicit mechanisms of this nature, with quite sharp mechanical teeth to ensure they will come into play!

* One tale that always comes to mind for me is how Cú Chulainn met his doom when faced with conflicting geases...who wants that to happen to their character? Such conflicts don't need to be lethal, of course, but in my limited experience with such RPGs, they tend to be on the dire end of the scale.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Though this has problems just like anything else.

The big one: the player does not take the bait.

So the GM takes the time to use all the character stuff about how they are part of a family of god killing group of cool assassins. The GM sets up a nice situation hook "oh no three of them super assassins were killed by hands unknown at a bar."

The GM hopes that by using the players own personal creation that they play might not only pay attention during the game, but be actively motivated to engage and immerse themselves in the game

But plenty of players won't care. They will just say "cool story GM" and then have their character hide outside the bar looking for a target to attack.

Almost as big: the endless argument.

The GM says "the assassin family did this action" and the player jumps up to scream "no way". The player disagrees with the reality of what the GM is doing and demands it be changed to their viewpoint. "Just one family assassain can kill a god, so there is no way three of them could ever be killed in a tavern GM. Your using my lore incorrectly!"

This is just like the play problems if the GM makes the setting first. So nothing much changes.

OK so the situation here seems to be that we have player supplied backstory and the GM addresses it by framing a scene which presumably should concern the PCs. I don't think there's such a thing as not taking the bait. If the PCs hide and watch, that's cool! I mean I don't know what specific game this is and any genre conventions or whatever, but I can work with this.

Let's approach it like DW, the players are basically tossing the ball back in my court. I will make a move. How about announcing more bad news, they spy one of their own leaders leaving the scene, bloody murder weapon in hand!

As for players objecting to something, OK is the objection in keeping with the agenda, genre, and milieu of the game? If not, I am going to push back. If the table really wants to play 'Calvin Ball' I guess I'm out, but nothing like that has happened in a game I've ever run. I would only expect it maybe from a bunch of especially spoiled 13 year olds on a bad day.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So, let them change the setting?

There seems to be the assumption that if the setting is made first, that makes immovable walls to corral the characters. I guess I see the process as:

Worldbuilding / Setting => Characters => Situations => Changes to Setting => Character Growth => Next Situation

I’d let them change the setting in many ways. But I’d also try and preserve certain elements so that they would go how they were “supposed to”. I was too beholden to the things that I’d prepared. Not everything, but things I deemed essential to the ongoing story.

There were a few likely reasons for this, but the most paramount would have been:

• to maintain some sense of pacing or tension, either at the encounter level or at the overall campaign level
• my sense of ownership over some of the ideas and NPCs, that the time I spent on them needed to in some way correlate to the time they’d appear in play and that their importance in play would match my ideas of their importance when I created them

This was prevalent in so many RPG products at the time that it wasn’t anything that seemed problematic at the time. In fact, my players largely loved our games back then. But over time I moved away from that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

One way this can be a problem is when a player not used to the approach creates a character that has interests that can be put into conflict, but didn't imagine or expect that they would be*.

Oh for sure. If players are so used to controlling everything about their character’s emotional state and sense pf self and the like… if the player’s concept of character is inviolate without their approval… it can be jarring to play a game where that’s not the case.

What are some games that encourage players to create characters with explicitly conflicting interests/ideals, so they know what's coming, after a fashion?

Spire does that. Or at least, it potentially does it… but I think it’d involve some amount of failure on the GM’s part if it doesn’t come into play. Each of the character classes in the game is connected to some faction within the city, so the character is connected to that organization in some way. But, the player characters are all members of another, secret, revolutionary organization, as well. So these allegiances should absolutely come into conflict.

Each PC also starts play with one or more Bonds, which are existing relationships with specific NPCs, and which can be leveraged in play. They can also accrue more Bonds through play. Again, these relationships are immediately at risk because of the PCs’ allegiance to their secret organization.

One of the themes of the game is “how far will you go”; so burning your Bonds and letting others take the fallout of your actions is potentially a bog part of play.

Dogs in the Vineyard comes to mind, but it's out of print of course.

For sure. In the game of Dogs I’m currently playing in, my character has become an interesting mix of lenient and hardened. He started out more forgiving, but the conflicts he’s been through have left him doubting his leniency and losing patience with some of the people in his care. The game won't work if the players fight change.

The Burning Wheel family have pretty explicit mechanisms of this nature, with quite sharp mechanical teeth to ensure they will come into play!

Haven’t done more than glance at Burning Wheel a bit, mostly because it comes up in conversation and because @pemerton used to play it frequently. I can’t comment from experience, but the little I know would say you’re right… the beliefs of the characters are central to play.