Daggerheart "Description on Demand" a GM DON'T

[Micah Sweet]

I think this is an important point.

My gamist players want to compete against the dungeon. They want to strategize and plan their attack and win. They create a story in the process but the story is not their end goal. The end goal is to defeat the dungeon and collect the rewards. The story is still a fond memery and we remember epic moments when we were victorious against the odds.

I think with the narrativist players they are wanting to collaboratively craft a story. That doesn't interest me or my groups. If I want to do that I'll write a novel.

Yeah, to me those are fundamentally different activities, and they don't feel the same at all.

 

[zakael19]

At the end of my WFRP sessions I award a player an extra 50XP if they have acted in a way that fits their motivation. A one word description of what drives them… glory, anger, power, greed, kindness, learning etc. I’m not at all prescriptive and the player decides. I’ve not had a session yet where a player didn’t get it but it keeps everyone thinking about what drives them. I always keep notes of things I think they did in case they get stumped.

My favorite PBTA’s XP move includes “did you act in accordance with or struggle against your instinct” which functions very similar. It’s led to the best character introspection and growth I’ve seen.

If there’s one thing I wish DH had but it doesn’t it’s space in the design for this. You can kinda add it in via Experiences (which is what I did for my one campaign), but it doesn’t have the XP carrot.

However DH is also more interested in the shared group story vs individual character motivations I think.

 

[TheSword]

My favorite PBTA’s XP move includes “did you act in accordance with or struggle against your instinct” which functions very similar. It’s led to the best character introspection and growth I’ve seen.

If there’s one thing I wish DH had but it doesn’t it’s space in the design for this. You can kinda add it in via Experiences (which is what I did for my one campaign), but it doesn’t have the XP carrot.

However DH is also more interested in the shared group story vs individual character motivations I think.

Oooooo. The idea of getting XP for fighting against your motivation is pretty darn good too! I’m pinching that to add in.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Some people are not good at that stuff. They may enjoying seeing it happen but cannot really partake. May be stop trying to push him and let him do his thing.

Or maybe I know my friend pretty well and you shouldn’t assume the worst interpretation of what you read.

 

[Elvish Lore]

It comes down to what you are looking for in a game. My sensibilities are very much in the gamist/simulationist camp so I want a DM who really spends time crafting a world that I can explore. If they are good at it, and I am, then players will get a lot out of it. I work very hard to make my players believe their characters are living in a world that is in motion at all times. That people besides them are going about their lives.

I want to play in one of your games because it sounds high quality.

It feels like expansive and definitive worldbuilding is becoming a lost art among GMs because there’s this sense in the gaming community and YT influencers that GMs who don’t allow for a high degree of collaboration with players are control freak naughty words with a god complex.

And over the decades I’ve played I’ve seen that! GMs too in love with their world, refusing even the smallest player suggested details - and it’s exhausting. This pub table isn’t made of oak from the woods surrounding the village? It’s actually imported from the forest in the north where the proprietor used to adventure? Oh.

I’ve also seen even more high collaboration games turn into feeling like wet sand, where things seemed so malleable nothing felt real or lived in and the game came across kind of pointless. No GM, don’t ask me to come up with my chief rival and his plans to destroy me.

So it’s an art to these things, and not a science.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Or maybe I know my friend pretty well and you shouldn’t assume the worst interpretation of what you read.

You seem to have contemplated not inviting him to your games. What exactly is he doing that is spoiling your fun?

 

[SteveC]

That's a good theory but what do you do when you have a whole group going up and one guy insists on dragging them down?

Lets hypothetically overstate the mismatching player here's preference for an example.

No matter how much of a nice guy that one person is, do they get to hold the sway?

If his thing is counter to the enjoyment of their thing - the larger group's interest should win out.

Ultimately that's what you have to do in any situation like this. If you're playing a game and one player has an issue with the game, you should work to accommodate everyone's tastes, but in the end, sometimes you have to let a person go.

One example I can think of that made its way into game play/game design that I do was when I had a painfully shy player who didn't want to be part of strong roleplaying scenes. And this was a game with a bunch of actors chewing at the scenery. What I did was let them just put out their intent and method, so saying "I want to get the guy to talk by implying we have dirt on his family" and just rolling that into play. That worked. Eventually by being positive, that player became more engaged with the game and everyone had a good time. I have also played with people who call roleplaying out conversations a "trap." In that case, I suggested another game might be more to their liking. It's all in compromise and everyone having fun together. If you can't (or don't have fun) doing that, time to move on.

 

[Emerikol]

I want to play in one of your games because it sounds high quality.

Thanks. I'm in grad school at the moment so my DMing is non-existent at the moment.

It feels like expansive and definitive worldbuilding is becoming a lost art among GMs because there’s this sense in the gaming community and YT influencers that GMs who don’t allow for a high degree of collaboration with players are control freak naughty words with a god complex.

Some are. There are bad DMs in my tradition as I suspect in every tradition. The DM should be wanting the game to be fun for his players.

And over the decades I’ve played I’ve seen that! GMs too in love with their world, refusing even the smallest player suggested details - and it’s exhausting. This pub table isn’t made of oak from the woods surrounding the village? It’s actually imported from the forest in the north where the proprietor used to adventure? Oh.

I’ve also seen even more high collaboration games turn into feeling like wet sand, where things seemed so malleable nothing felt real or lived in and the game came across kind of pointless. No GM, don’t ask me to come up with my chief rival and his plans to destroy me.

So it’s an art to these things, and not a science.

All true.

I run games that I would want to play in as a player. I seek players with similar tastes to mine. I like world building but I'm not a tyrant. I've had players outside the game ask if they could elaborate something about an organization they were members of. I had to approve it but I was going to if it was reasonable and didn't break from the existing world. The player though did it as the player and gave it to me. His character just knew it. So there is a fine line there conceptually. I haven't had that happen a lot but that person was an exceptional player and very creative.

 

[nyvinter]

Yet, rather oddly, Mercer runs Daggerheart in Age of Umbra almost exactly the same way that he runs D&D and other games, even at times "fixing" player descriptions of their monster kills. The only instance I can recall of players being handed the narrative reains was briefly in episode 7 (I think? - could have been 6 - it's when they are investigating the house with the corpses in the secret room)...and they did nothing that mattered to the story. It was surpisingly lame, given the talent involved.

Apart from Liam most of the Critical Role cast are still rather reaction-based in their play. I think Ashley was leaning into it more as Umbra went along, but most of the others are "tell us Matt!" I agree that Matt's retelling of deathblows doesn't help at all and they all have the potential to add a lot more but they need to play more games in this mode for those limits to fall off.

 

[Agamon]

Oh good, we've gotten to the, "My groups likes playing this way" "Well, my group likes playing this other way" part of the thread. That's great, play the way you like to play. There's hundreds of RPGs, play the ones you and your group enjoy.

The problem from the OP's perspective is that advice has been given that one way is objectively wrong. That's not great.