Daggerheart "Description on Demand" a GM DON'T

[zarionofarabel]

The problem is everybody has their own definition for what it takes to get them immersed if anything at all works!

I generally lower myself all the way into the tub.

 

[Reynard]

TBH, expecting a sharp divide of Player and GM responsibilities on world-building seems short-sighted and ... maybe if people are so precious about their sandboxes they'd be better off writing their own fiction without others messing it up?

Sorry, too aggressive. But building a character to exist in a campaign alters the world to incorporate said character. I sat down at a 5e table where the GM decided that Magic was shunned and outlawed. So naturally, I chose to be a Wizard ;-P ... (Just a sidenote, with the GM's approval.) I actually don't like playing Wizards, but I liked the idea of being a Wizard in this world because how did I study something forbidden? And so I ended up with a Criminal background, because I studied with a magical Mob. The GM hadn't built a Magical Mob, but we together extrapolated that if Magic was pushed underground, then it'd be criminals that studied and used it, and therefore organized crime that used Magic and had the network to actually have the tomes to study.

A PC isn't an island of a character alone in a GM's ocean. Or ... I'd tire of only playing orphaned murder hobos without a friend in the world. And I think it's asking a lot for the GM to build my PC's social life.

I think it is natural to push toward the edges of "what's allowed." One of my most wonderful campaigns ever started with my decree "no elves;no ninjas" and player choosing an elf ninja. The world we crafted based on that last legit 20 real world years.

 

[Umbran]

On my dying day one thing I know I will be glad of is that I will never have to hear the word "immersion" again and listen to people talk about it like everybody understands what it means. Bl.eep

Mod Note:
Please watch your language.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
By the way, folks, if someone uses foul language, please do not include it in quotes you make of the original. Thanks much.

 

[Vael]

As for putting a player on the spot ... same happens when it's their turn in initiative. But for world-building issues, here are two things I've tried:

1. Ask a question that doesn't have to be answered immediately. In my Daggerheart campaign, I asked the Wizard player to think up a nemesis from their past. I did a "cut-scene" showing said NPC to be in the employ of the party's main antagonist, but cloaked in shadow so we can build the details later.

2. Ask it to the group. If I don't have a name right now for an NPC, I'll ask if anyone has a notion. Sometimes I'll think of one first, otherwise a player will offer a suggestion and we go with it.

 

[Umbran]

The problem is everybody has their own definition for what it takes to get them immersed if anything at all works!

Everyone has their own definition of "fun", but somehow that word hasn't been stricken from gaming language, or normal language.

Ambiguity is a thing you have to deal with by discussion. This is a discussion board. Exactly the place for it!

 

[zakael19]

TBH, expecting a sharp divide of Player and GM responsibilities on world-building seems short-sighted and ... maybe if people are so precious about their sandboxes they'd be better off writing their own fiction without others messing it up?

Sorry, too aggressive. But building a character to exist in a campaign alters the world to incorporate said character. I sat down at a 5e table where the GM decided that Magic was shunned and outlawed. So naturally, I chose to be a Wizard ;-P ... (Just a sidenote, with the GM's approval.) I actually don't like playing Wizards, but I liked the idea of being a Wizard in this world because how did I study something forbidden? And so I ended up with a Criminal background, because I studied with a magical Mob. The GM hadn't built a Magical Mob, but we together extrapolated that if Magic was pushed underground, then it'd be criminals that studied and used it, and therefore organized crime that used Magic and had the network to actually have the tomes to study.

A PC isn't an island of a character alone in a GM's ocean. Or ... I'd tire of only playing orphaned murder hobos without a friend in the world. And I think it's asking a lot for the GM to build my PC's social life.

Yeah absolutely, unless it totally breaks my personal conception of the world I use stuff like that to ask the player to explore the connotations and context of picking something that seems contradictory. We've gotten such fruitful outcomes from it!

Any game with a character connection step that has strong loaded questions gets you great interplay too. The "grew up in a religious cult until my powers started manifesting and I burned down the church" sorcerer in my latest DH game worked out via the "What threat have you asked me to watch out for, and why are you worried about it" connecting question the Ranger asked that there's a notorious Vatican exorcist who he's afraid might come hunt him down.

Super fruitful stuff that establishes details about a) the world, b) the characters and how they relate, and c) easy backstory linked complications and dramatic moments for the GM to grab.

 

[zakael19]

Everyone has their own definition of "fun", but somehow that word hasn't been stricken from gaming language, or normal language.

Ambiguity is a thing you have to deal with by discussion. This is a discussion board. Exactly the place for it!

The problem is that immersion is entirely personal and not really required for play, right? @Reynard doesn't really think its important, other folks have said they never experience it regardless of what they play, plenty of folks posting over in the Conservative D&D players thread have said that to be anything but permanently IC at all times shatters their illusion of immersion, etc.

This is why, much like "fun," it's not a very useful term to drop into a discussion. It's entirely subjective and unhelpful except to register a very personal perspective that doesn't translate out.

 

[Vael]

Yeah absolutely, unless it totally breaks my personal conception of the world I use stuff like that to ask the player to explore the connotations and context of picking something that seems contradictory. We've gotten such fruitful outcomes from it!

Any game with a character connection step that has strong loaded questions gets you great interplay too. The "grew up in a religious cult until my powers started manifesting and I burned down the church" sorcerer in my latest DH game worked out via the "What threat have you asked me to watch out for, and why are you worried about it" connecting question the Ranger asked that there's a notorious Vatican exorcist who he's afraid might come hunt him down.

Super fruitful stuff that establishes details about a) the world, b) the characters and how they relate, and c) easy backstory linked complications and dramatic moments for the GM to grab.

I know it's not unique to Daggerheart, but the Connections part of Character Generation has been possibly my favourite part. Sitting back and just watching the players brainstorm and interact and taking notes of things they come up with is so cool.

 

[Umbran]

The problem is that immersion is entirely personal and not really required for play, right?

What, as if you only ever discuss things that are required?
And, in general, even setting immersion aside, we each like different stuff - each person has their own personal desires for their gaming experiences.

It is an entertainment. You should expect discussion of it to be figuratively swimming in a sea of subjectivity. Deal with it.

This is why, much like "fun," it's not a very useful term to drop into a discussion. It's entirely subjective and unhelpful except to register a very personal perspective that doesn't translate out.

Yes. That's what we call a "conversation starter".