Does There Need To Be More Player Focus?

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Its just the theory I was illustrating. Scale is another matter entirely. In a game where characters reach level 30 is making one decision for a character at level 2 really that big a deal compared to all the time they have to control the character?

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.

No arguments here. A DM who asks for backgrounds and such things is openly inviting setting creation participation just as a player who happily goes along with a railroad is consenting to a form of limited DM contol. No badwrongfun is taking place if the group is cool with these arrangements.

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?"

Not familliar with FATE at all but I do have experience with such concepts. In GURPS you can choose to ignore inconvenient effects of disadvantages but if you took points for them then expect your earned points for roleplaying to dwindle to a trickle. In this case it isn't the GM controlling you, it is you choosing to ignore limitations that you imposed upon yourself during character creation usually for the purpose of getting other benefits.

As far as the paladin restrictions go, I wouldn't tell the player he/she couldn't do certain things that the character was situationally actually capable of doing but the would be consequences including no longer being a paladin for starters.

 

[JoeGKushner]

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.

In my opinion, since 3rd edition at least, and probably before with the various Complete books, TSR/WoTC has tried to FORCE GMs to accept anything they've printed as 'good to go' and 'official' and 'be the GM who says yes'. So I'm going to disagree with you there.

The thing here is that roleplaying is not really any different. The GM controls the roleplay style of the group almost as 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.

I think you're right here. But at the same time, if you're a new players, how do you know what role playing is? While various GM books have X amount of player types, how many books tlak to the players about interacting with the other players? How many books talk about the role of the class not only in it's purpose, it's game mechanical function, but what it's supposed to actually be about?

In addition, there are other bits that players could learn. For example, how to handle different GMing styles. In some cases, the advice might be to quit the game instead of runing the gaming experience for yourself. If there were advice on telling players that killer GMs expect the players to survive on their own wits and you can tell such a GM by X, Y, and Z, it might influence what the player brings to the game.

For those who talk about player actions in the game, that is also the sign of good players. I've been in many campaigns where essentially my friend and I, as players, were running the campaign by determining where and what the party did because the other players were essentially there to roll dice and BS and the GM was a very "do as you will".

New players especially are going to have a hard time with a GM who gives the players such a free hand. No dungeon scenario or fitted encounters to a new group would, in my experience, not go very well. It's the difference between "you've heard rumors of X, Y, and Z" and "tell me what you do." How does a new player know what to do?

 

[Hussar]

Its just the theory I was illustrating. Scale is another matter entirely. In a game where characters reach level 30 is making one decision for a character at level 2 really that big a deal compared to all the time they have to control the character?

But, the scale is very important. There's no guarantee that the campaign will last until level 30. Certainly at level 2, the player probably has no real expectations of the game lasting that long. All he knows is what's happened before. The DM, even at level 2, still has an entire world to play with. If the player decides to narrate an extra bit of flavour - the artwork on the wall of the tavern depicts a battle mentioned in his character background, for example - I, for one, certainly wouldn't mind.

Then again, if the player tried to ret-con an NPC reaction, "No, he tells me the truth because I think it would be a better story", then, sure, I'd be pretty unlikely to allow it.

It all comes down to context. The player rearranges some of the window dressing? Not really a big problem. The player starts dictating NPC reactions? Ok, we're going to have problems.

 

[pemerton]

In terms of edition setting, I could be getting senile, but I remember one of the fun things about the 2e complete books was the various personality types they had listed. These were not tied into the kits themselves, but were bits appropriate for the class in discussion. Things like the Fated Philospiher and the Doomed Champion in the Complete Fighter among others.

4e has elements of this eg in the backgrounds that appear in various books, in some of the sidebars in the Power books, etc.

What is missing in 4e, in my opinion, is rules or guidelines explaining how backgrounds and personalities actually tie into the play of the game (eg encoutner design, skill challenge resolution etc). These would be more important for GMs, I think, than for players.

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?

It's interesting how different people have such different sorts of RPGing preferences. I want my players to shape the story through narration - especially narration of their PCs' relationships, backstories etc. For me, this is the essence of non-railroaded play. I find it far more engaging than the sandbox alternative, and in my experience it's also more likely to engage the players, because it doesn't depend upon me guessing about a plot hook they'll be interested in - the players build hooks for the GM into their PCs.

It all comes down to context. The player rearranges some of the window dressing? Not really a big problem. The player starts dictating NPC reactions? Ok, we're going to have problems.

This looks like mere colour vs encounter resolution.

Although those two things can mix: what if the player narrates the painting, then an encounter starts, and then the player has his/her PC say "Look at the painting - look at what I've done and have endured! Why should I care for your petty concerns?" - is the GM obliged to take this colour into account as a factor in the encounter resolution? I think so - it looks like it would matter to how a social skill challenge unfolds, for example - but it seems that Exploder Wizard might disagree.

 

[Lanefan]

Although those two things can mix: what if the player narrates the painting, then an encounter starts, and then the player has his/her PC say "Look at the painting - look at what I've done and have endured! Why should I care for your petty concerns?"

I have this vision now of someone in the middle of a battle standing there in a flamboyant pose talking grandly to a painting...only to get belted upside the head by some random participant in the battle...

Lan-"I've had characters in my game who would do exactly this"-efan

 

[MichaelSomething]

Didn't WOTC publish the Player's Strategy Guide to cover this purpose? I never read it so I have no idea if it was any good at it though...

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's interesting how different people have such different sorts of RPGing preferences. I want my players to shape the story through narration - especially narration of their PCs' relationships, backstories etc. For me, this is the essence of non-railroaded play. I find it far more engaging than the sandbox alternative, and in my experience it's also more likely to engage the players, because it doesn't depend upon me guessing about a plot hook they'll be interested in - the players build hooks for the GM into their PCs.

Such differences can be profound depending on circumstance. Character backgrounds and built in hooks can be nifty when they actually work and a headache when they don't. I try not to design hooks for specific PC's or even players because I never know if a particular character will be alive when the party is ready to act on a hook or if a player can't make a session right after starting on a hook specifically driven by their PC.

I run my campaign as a loose sandbox because it can remain fluid when players cannot attend or characters meet their end during the course of adventuring. No panic attacks because player # 3 can't show up this week or the barbarian bit the dust due to poor anger management-again.

 

[Umbran]

In my opinion, since 3rd edition at least, and probably before with the various Complete books, TSR/WoTC has tried to FORCE GMs to accept anything they've printed as 'good to go' and 'official' and 'be the GM who says yes'. So I'm going to disagree with you there.

Well, I'll just have to say that on this point, we fundamentally disagree. Any producer of content wants people to buy that content, sure. But, "FORCE" (in all-caps, even)? I just don't see it. I expect that there's any number of quotes from books I could find to poke holes in your position, but that isn't the point of this thread. So, I'll agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

I think you're right here. But at the same time, if you're a new players, how do you know what role playing is?

If you are a new player, how do you know what the rules are?

It is my understanding and experience that new gamers are typically brought in via an apprenticeship model, not a book-learning model. Someone brings you into a game, explains the basics, and you play for a bit, and then if it seems cool you buy a book.

So, your first and foremost source of information about how to play is not the book, but other people. This is supported, at least anecdotally, by how so many here have described how they played 1e - how many mechanics and things in the rulebook they didn't use, and didnt' realize they didn't use! That smacks less of "reading the rulebook in detail" and a lot more of "learned through oral tradition, and use the rulebooks as a reference".

Me, I have a group of people playing Deadlands - I know that I, and one player, has actually read the player's book cover to cover. He and I are the only ones that own the player's rulebook, though it is available as PDF. So, if I want the players to learn anything abou tthe system, I have to teach it to them. I'm cool with that.

If I want them to learn about interacting with each other, I'm cool with teaching them that, too.

How many books talk about the role of the class not only in it's purpose, it's game mechanical function, but what it's supposed to actually be about?

It seems to me that every class tells you, "what it's supposed to be about", if you read the flavor text. Or at least it tells you about as deeply as you can before running aground on the local variations - since some tables don't treat classes as in-game concepts, it gets kind of difficult to talk about them so. You could, I suppose list some common variations, but I bet the page count is higher than you expect, and would be daunting to a new player.

In addition, there are other bits that players could learn. For example, how to handle different GMing styles. In some cases, the advice might be to quit the game instead of runing the gaming experience for yourself. If there were advice on telling players that killer GMs expect the players to survive on their own wits and you can tell such a GM by X, Y, and Z, it might influence what the player brings to the game.

Yep, all valuable stuff, I agree. I have never said there isn't a boatload of valuable information. I have only questioned whether having a separate book for players to read it in would be particularly effective.

How does a new player know what to do?

Honest question: how much reading do you expect players to do before they attempt to play? How much of that are they going to really absorb before they try?

While there's a whole lot of potentially valuable information out there, a tome trying to impart it to a new player is, I expect, a non-starter. A new player is not invested in the game enough to wade through multiple essays worth of material for which they lack any context for application.

I expect your target is not the really new player, but someone who has played enough to get hooked, awash with enthusiasm - this person is invested enough to spend time, and has some context for understanding.

 

[Dausuul]

Didn't WOTC publish the Player's Strategy Guide to cover this purpose? I never read it so I have no idea if it was any good at it though...

Bingo. You never read it and neither did I, and I doubt much of anyone else did either, because most players have little interest in such fare.

I think Umbran has hit the key point: Players don't learn by reading, they learn by apprenticeship. So a book which tells players how to play is not going to sell any copies. If players need guidance on how to play, WotC has two ways to provide that guidance:

1. Design the mechanical rules to guide players toward the desired mode of play via incentives.
2. Propagate new play concepts to those who teach the apprentices, primarily the DMs.

I will add that having players take over parts of the narrative is very much a playstyle choice. As you can see in this thread, some DMs love it and some are violently allergic to it. Even if you could push this approach directly to the players, that wouldn't necessarily be a good idea; you'd be setting up a lot of clashes between players and DMs.

There is much to be said for the apprenticeship model--it helps to ensure that players and DMs are on the same page as to how the game is played.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Didn't WOTC publish the Player's Strategy Guide to cover this purpose? I never read it so I have no idea if it was any good at it though...

It does a fiarly god job of this in many areas.