Does There Need To Be More Player Focus?

[Wednesday Boy]

In terms of the players narrating, I think that onus is on the GM as well. The GM needs to show the players that they have the freedom to narrate and how far they can go with it.

One GM I have gives free rein to the players to narrate if they want to. Your PC walks into the inn and you can describe what you see in there and have a conversation with the bartender by yourself. The GM jumps in to add important items or get rid of things that shouldn't be there. And the players respond in kind, often narrating themselves.

Another GM does it to a lesser degree, often describing the inn for us then asking us to pitch in something we see. And we do as asked but don't take complete control.

For the GMs who never ask for extra narration, they don't get it. (Not out of ill will but because we don't want to overstep our bounds.)

The same thing goes with world creation (locations, events, NPCs, etc.). The GMs who ask for and use the stuff get the best responses. I'll always flesh out my character's background but if it never sees use I won't continue to flesh out other stuff. If it does get incorporated I would expand my efforts.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Why does it have to focus only on 4e?

Such a publication could easily be made edition-neutral, as much the same advice applies across the board and a good player in one game is more likely to be a good player in others.

Digging deep in the 1e PH finds some good advice on how to play, but it's not really laid out as such and also not all in one place.

Lanefan

I agree - make something like this and it can be edition & even system neutral.

And, what I remember about 1E was some of the character names in the play examples - Gutboy Barrelhouse!

 

[Umbran]

I think that there is potentially a huge benefit in providing more player focused material that's not reliant on new crunch.

There might be, but I think I see one wrinkle - many of the things you can suggest to a player isn't something a player alone can successfully implement.

When a GM picks up a book on GM's stuff, he or she may choose to implement it. The GM has some authority over how the game is to be played at their table. The same cannot generally be said for a player - if the GM or the other players aren't into it, the effort is largely wasted.

I think this may be why we see so much directed as GMs - they are the typical vehicle though which play style options are communicated to players. The compromise, then, might be a book for GMs, about how to get players to work with new tools in their boxes.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I agree. So does WoTC. It's part of what they recommend in DMG2.

Which is why I think there needs to be more player focus. If the only time WoTC prints advice books is for the GM, how are the players ever supposed to 'grow' with the GM? Or is this another burden on the GM that he has to try everything on his own with no real support from WoTC in this regards outside of pumping book after book of crunch out?

In terms of the players narrating, I think that onus is on the GM as well. The GM needs to show the players that they have the freedom to narrate and how far they can go with it.

One GM I have gives free rein to the players to narrate if they want to. Your PC walks into the inn and you can describe what you see in there and have a conversation with the bartender by yourself. The GM jumps in to add important items or get rid of things that shouldn't be there. And the players respond in kind, often narrating themselves.

Another GM does it to a lesser degree, often describing the inn for us then asking us to pitch in something we see. And we do as asked but don't take complete control.

For the GMs who never ask for extra narration, they don't get it. (Not out of ill will but because we don't want to overstep our bounds.)

The same thing goes with world creation (locations, events, NPCs, etc.). The GMs who ask for and use the stuff get the best responses. I'll always flesh out my character's background but if it never sees use I won't continue to flesh out other stuff. If it does get incorporated I would expand my efforts.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I envy DMs that have players that get really into a setting. Besides myself (I loved learning about Dark Sun back when I was a 2e Dark Sun player), I've never seen it happen.

Players don't need to get really into a particular setting to get into the campaign. I'm running my campaign in The Grand Duchy of Karameikos and I only have one player who has real interest in Mystara outside of the campaign. A couple of them are old schoolers and remember the setting from way back when but don't feel any particular rush about playing a campaign in it now.

This is perfectly fine and dandy because the published Mystara isn't half as interesting as the one we are exploring together as we play throough the campaign. Getting the players involved with the people, places, and things within the actual campaign is much more rewarding than fanboy worship of some published material that may or may not have any relation to their characters.

The players are involved with campaign happenings because they are directly involved in shaping them and witnessing the change they have on their world. I don't expect players to get all excited about some published world (but if they are that's fine) but I do like to see engagement at the personal campaign level. Good hooks, interesting opportunities, and the freedom to make meaningful choices does most of that work.

Players don't really need to narrate and blather on about the game world, they can influence it and shape it through their actions and deeds.

 

[DragonLancer]

In over twenty years I've never known players to take an interest in a campaign setting, with two exceptions: WoL erea Dragonlance and only because they had all read the Chronicles and knew the basics, and 2nd ed Dark Sun. Otherwise they just want to play and have stuff introduced when they encounter it or they ask.

It seems to me that it is the DM who gets excited about a campaign setting and has to convey that across in game rather than get the players into the setting.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It seems to me that it is the DM who gets excited about a campaign setting and has to convey that across in game rather than get the players into the setting.

This experience has been almost universally true for me. I view the campaign world and the stuff within apart from the PC's to be the DM's character in some ways. The campaign and the adventures belong to everyone since these are created and shaped together. It is natural for the DM to care more about the particulars of his/her "character" than the other players.

IMHO, unsolicited narration is a player doing exactly what a DM is never supposed to do which is tell a player what he/she is doing or reacts to something. Some DMs enjoy it when players take over running part of the world and making decisions about it and others see it as stepping on their toes.

For the players who enjoy shaping the story through narration, is it considered ok if the DM does the same thing from time to time and decides what your PC will do or how he/she reacts to something if it will make for a better overall story?

 

[Kzach]

I wrote a "Player's Guide" for my 4E hack. Not as detailed as the DM's Guide, but still.

Wow, that actually looks like it could be really good. I'd love to see a copy of it; maybe post in the house rules forum (or a link to your post if you've already done so)?

This could potentially be a great third-party book. It wouldn't even need to work with the GSL given that it could apply to any RPG.

EDIT: It just occurred to me that the 2e PHB had a lot of material that focused on 'teaching' the player about roleplaying. I'm reminded of "Rath" the 'playable' character.

 

[Umbran]

Which is why I think there needs to be more player focus. If the only time WoTC prints advice books is for the GM, how are the players ever supposed to 'grow' with the GM?

I have a sneaking suspicion that we are talking past each other a bit, possibly because there are two different meanings of "player focused" that aren't synonymous.

There's "player focused" meaning printed for the players to read, and "player focused" meaning that it is focused on what the players do. I am thinking the first is a hard sell, for the same reasons that books beyond the Players Handbook are usually a hard sell, but the second may still be of value.

Remember, typically a player cannot buy a book of crunch and expect and and all elements they wish to be available in a campaign. Traditionally, all these things have to pass through the GM. As a result, while some players do buy crunch, the real market for crunch is still primarily the GM - unless they are a collector, there's not a whole lot of point for a player to buy a book of crunch he doesn't already know the GM will be using.

The thing here is that roleplaying is not really any different. The GM controls the roleplay style of the group almost sa much as he or she controls the rules-content used at the table. If the GM or other players aren't supporting or using techniques to compliment what the player does, there's no real gain.

But, as usual, the GM sits in a position of authority from which he or she is typically expected to introduce new things to improve the game. So, "player focused" content which is printed for the GM, as options he or she can introduce to his or her group may be more effective, and more profitable.

 

[Hussar]

This experience has been almost universally true for me. I view the campaign world and the stuff within apart from the PC's to be the DM's character in some ways. The campaign and the adventures belong to everyone since these are created and shaped together. It is natural for the DM to care more about the particulars of his/her "character" than the other players.

IMHO, unsolicited narration is a player doing exactly what a DM is never supposed to do which is tell a player what he/she is doing or reacts to something. Some DMs enjoy it when players take over running part of the world and making decisions about it and others see it as stepping on their toes.

For the players who enjoy shaping the story through narration, is it considered ok if the DM does the same thing from time to time and decides what your PC will do or how he/she reacts to something if it will make for a better overall story?

There's a couple of points there though. A player who narrates a small bit of your setting isn't touching the massive amounts of stuff you have to play with. OTOH, the character is generally the only thing the player has to control, so, messing with someone's character becomes a lot more difficult.

Secondly, I've rarely seen any campaign that didn't allow players to narrate their backgrounds to a large extent. How is that not stepping on the DM's toes? Sure, the DM can veto, ammend or whatnot background ideas, but, by and large, players can determine their own backgrounds within the DM's setting, to the point of adding NPC's (family, lords, mentors), locations (home, hideout, whatnot) and even setting elements (religious orders, wizard schools, etc.). So, it's not exactly out of left field for the player to have some input into the setting during the game.

It also depends on what system you're playing. FATE allows the DM to specifically trigger elements of a character. If a character has a particular attribute, the GM can pretty much force the player to play that trait, or heavily penalize him if he chooses to ignore his trait. Other systems can do all sorts of things. Heck, even traditional D&D lets me as the DM, charm or otherwise magically influence characters.

How many times have DM's turned to players and said, "Umm, you want to slit the innkeeper's throat and steal the cash... what alignment is your paladin again?"