Experiencing the fiction in RPG play

[Hussar]

Now that I'm going to disagree with @Lanefan.

But, I imagine, at the end of the day, it's going to come down, as it usually does, to time. For you, where the campaign is going to span many years, many characters and likely many players, any given character isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. The character might be important to what's going on at the time, but, overall, it doesn't really matter because the group will just find something else to entertain themselves with if this or that character no longer is part of the group. And, wandering around looking for stuff to do is part of the fun of the game. Is that fair?

For others, like me, where time is a VERY precious resource, I have zero interest in intraparty conflict, for example. I don't. I've done it before, it's a giant time sink and it never, for me, results in anything in the same zip code as fun. So, having a group of five PC's who have six different, and sometimes contradictory, goals is not what I'm interested in.

I LIKE Adventure Paths. I have ZERO problems with mild railroading. Heck, I wanted to introduce something into the game the other day and one of the players had recently brought in a new character. I wrote up a couple of paragraphs of backstory, pitched it to him, and he agreed. Would have been fine if he didn't, I'd have found another way to bring things in, but, this was the most expedient way. I've asked the players, "Hey, do you mind if we fast forward through this bit and get to the good stuff?" and, by and large, they're okay with that.

My campaigns are generally going to last about 1 year (give or take). Call it 60-80 sessions at the outside, with each session being about 3 hours. That means at most, for my campaign, I've got about 200 hours or thereabouts. Spending significant time futzing about with other stuff is of zero interest to my group. It just isn't. Get on with the show.

 

[pemerton]

Nice, sounds fun. So what do you consider the point of contact there?

The point of contact is the encountered starship being flown by their enemies. So its an instance of (ii) that also ticks (i) - reasonably compelling (especially given we're playing a sci-fi game!) and (iii) - there are clear possibilies, the most obvious ones being trying to take the enemy ship, or taking advantage of its absence from its base.

The contrast - for me - would be a random encounter with a random pirate vessel. While that would still create a point of contact, it wouldn't tick (i) or (iii) in the same way and so would also be a less salient point of contact.

 

[pemerton]

When it comes to character creation, I quite like how Prince Valiant does it. In the Basic game, every PC is a knight - which means straight away they have an orientation towards situations and the broader setting that makes it easy to make play happen.

In the Advanced game, other PC types are possible. So in our second session, when one of the PCs needed a new PC (his knight died at the end of the first session, trying to lead the Wild Hunt away from a lady of Kent) and a fourth player joined us, the two new PCs were a squire (from a merchant family trying to break into the ranks of the nobility) and a travelling performer. Even one session had been enough for me to get a bit of a handle on the system, and for the players coming into their second session to have developed some momentum.

The player of the performer isn't able to make every session, and so it has turned out that his PC turns up from time to time gravitating to the deeds and celebrity of the other PCs; but then isn't heard of for weeks or months at a time (in the fiction) corresponding to missed sessions.

When it comes to the subject matter of play, I have zero interest in APs. Whether for a long campaign (my 4e game, which is at 30th level but has its resolution pending one of our players coming out of home renovation purgatory, ran for probably 100+ sessions) or a short one (Cthulhu Dark one shots, or our Prince Valiant and Traveller campaigns which are each probably 10-ish sessions in) I like to start with system and thereby genre, plus characters, and see where that takes us.

The next campaign I hope to start, depending on group buy in and how our other games progress, is Apocalypse World. It seems to do a good job with system, genre, and characters that fit the situation. I think I'll find the setting aspect demanding as a GM.

 

[GrahamWills]

[Umbran] This is one of the reasons why many of us have taken to saying, at character generation - "Please make a character that is consistent with being part of a group of adventurers, doing adventurer-type stuff," or whatever the equivalent is for your table. This front loads the issues of player-agency. We are asking them to avoid a great many character types, yes. But once play begins, they have full agency, without tension.

I'm not sure you realize just how conflicted this is.

First you take a whole lot of character types and-or styles of play off the table, then you turn around and tell the players they'll have full agency once play starts.

These two things cannot both be true.

"Please make a character that is consistent with being part of a group of adventurers, doing adventurer-type stuff," is also often a red flag warning that the party's interactions/conflicts with the story/adventures/whatever are more important to the DM than the characters' interactions/conflicts with each other. Put another way, it warns that the DM wants to (and wants the players to) view the party as a single unit pursuing a single goal (at a time) with individual character goals being suppressed in order to avoid characters actually coming into conflict with each other

So, reading through the thread it looked like you were just espousing a preference for a simulations style of game -- where the GM designs the world and runs the game, and the players choose how to interact with it; neither the GM nor the players adapt the world once it is set in motion; essentially the world doesn't adapt to the characters. It's not my preferred style, but a lot of people like it, and if you find a group that does, it can oven click nicely and have long-running campaigns. It's certainly a lot easier to GM when you don't have to consider your characters, so at the very least it helps with burn-out and lessens the load on the GM.

But you seem to be straying into a more adversarial position. The idea that a GM cannot set the parameters of the game up front is a very extreme position. I'm not talking the obvious extremism of "you cannot play a Jedi in my medieval fantasy game", but saying that any restrictions on the characters a player can create is equivalent to requiring suppression of character goals is, fundamentally, simply wrong.

For your previous posts I think you mainly run long campaigns, so maybe you just don't have experience of how this works for most people. Like Umbran, I ask my players to make characters that will work with the setting and genre I have in mind. If I'm running a 4-color hero game, you cannot play evil people, for example. Sometimes it's very loose ("Play a character with a reason whether are facing execution"). Sometimes it is medium ("Play a character who has an emotional reason why they must return to the present time from the past"). Sometimes it is very strong ("You will play an ex-spy from a European or American agency who has some experience of the supernatural, and as a team, you must cover virtually all of the following investigative skills").

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "individual character goals being suppressed in order to avoid characters actually coming into conflict with each other". In fact, in the last campaign, two players played characters who actively worked for major opponents of the team's goals. One of them stole a key item from the team, leaving them to die, and the team spent a while tracking him down and getting the book back. Another member was a secret double-agent the entire, multi-year game.

I think your preference for a certain style of play is making you view other styles of play with squinty lenses. I've played in sandbox simulations games that were way more restrictive on player agency than story-first games; it's just a different kind of restriction. In a simulation-first game, as you espouse, player agency is restricted by the GM's conception of what the "rules of the world" are. So if I want, as a player, to start selling ice-cream on a military space-station, you might restrict my agency by saying that I could not get the permits, or that the components are not available, or any of a variety of reasons based in your conception of the world rules. A story-first GM would restrict agency by how it affects the story -- maybe it's too silly, or the GM knows the plans cannot come to fruition because the SDF-1 is going to finally be given permission to land on earth next turn and so it'll just be a waste of time and frustrating to start a doomed arc.

It's a GM's job -- no matter what their style -- to say what is possible. That's a good thing. But your proposition that using up-front narrative restrictions is more aggressive than in-game simulations restrictions simply says that you prefer simulation to narrative. Nothing more.

 

[Lanefan]

So, reading through the thread it looked like you were just espousing a preference for a simulations style of game -- where the GM designs the world and runs the game, and the players choose how to interact with it; neither the GM nor the players adapt the world once it is set in motion; essentially the world doesn't adapt to the characters. It's not my preferred style, but a lot of people like it, and if you find a group that does, it can oven click nicely and have long-running campaigns. It's certainly a lot easier to GM when you don't have to consider your characters, so at the very least it helps with burn-out and lessens the load on the GM.

But you seem to be straying into a more adversarial position. The idea that a GM cannot set the parameters of the game up front is a very extreme position. I'm not talking the obvious extremism of "you cannot play a Jedi in my medieval fantasy game", but saying that any restrictions on the characters a player can create is equivalent to requiring suppression of character goals is, fundamentally, simply wrong.

There's two different types of restrictions involved here, and I wonder if you're somehow combining them.

One is setting restrictions. The setting doesn't have Gnomes, for example, and nothing resembling the Monk class exists; thus, none such can be played. These are fine, provided they're communicated up front. (this covers the Jedi example as well)

The other is playstyle restrictions. Not everybody in the setting is a 'hero' or is possessed of a heroic and-or altruistic personality, thus a restriction saying a player is only able to play a 'hero' is arbitrary and IMO poor.

If, for example, on learning about the setting the players discover their main goal and reason for adventuring (as intended by the DM, anyway) is to work for and support the Royal House; to say that I-as-player am thus banned from bringing in a PC whose end goal is in fact to overthrow said Royal House is poor.

For your previous posts I think you mainly run long campaigns, so maybe you just don't have experience of how this works for most people. Like Umbran, I ask my players to make characters that will work with the setting and genre I have in mind. If I'm running a 4-color hero game, you cannot play evil people, for example. Sometimes it's very loose ("Play a character with a reason whether are facing execution"). Sometimes it is medium ("Play a character who has an emotional reason why they must return to the present time from the past"). Sometimes it is very strong ("You will play an ex-spy from a European or American agency who has some experience of the supernatural, and as a team, you must cover virtually all of the following investigative skills").

Again, you're conflating restriction types. "Play a character who is facing execution, you decide the reason" is an excellent jumping-off point for a campaign. But restricting my choices of reasons then and actions later by saying I have to be a heroic type is wrong: it should be perfectly valid for me to decide I'm facing execution because I really am a hard-ass criminal and last week I tried to shoot the Queen because someone paid me to, and I got caught.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "individual character goals being suppressed in order to avoid characters actually coming into conflict with each other". In fact, in the last campaign, two players played characters who actively worked for major opponents of the team's goals. One of them stole a key item from the team, leaving them to die, and the team spent a while tracking him down and getting the book back. Another member was a secret double-agent the entire, multi-year game.

This is cool, but seems to be exactly the sort of thing some here would like to ban; and that's my point.

I think your preference for a certain style of play is making you view other styles of play with squinty lenses. I've played in sandbox simulations games that were way more restrictive on player agency than story-first games; it's just a different kind of restriction. In a simulation-first game, as you espouse, player agency is restricted by the GM's conception of what the "rules of the world" are. So if I want, as a player, to start selling ice-cream on a military space-station, you might restrict my agency by saying that I could not get the permits, or that the components are not available, or any of a variety of reasons based in your conception of the world rules. A story-first GM would restrict agency by how it affects the story -- maybe it's too silly, or the GM knows the plans cannot come to fruition because the SDF-1 is going to finally be given permission to land on earth next turn and so it'll just be a waste of time and frustrating to start a doomed arc.

Yet again, these are different types of restrictions. Setting-based restrictions such as "Gnomes don't exist here" (hard-line) or "everyone's first character must be Human as that's all there are around where the campaign will begin; other races can come in later once the party broadens its horizons" are fine.

The "too-silly" restriction can be handled by simple dice rolling - sometimes the silly really does happen, but most of the time not.

But the one about the plans not being able to come to fruition and so the GM doesn't allow the story arc to even begin - that's controversial IMO. For my part it's the GM's job to roll with what they're given, even if said GM knows ahead of time that the story is doomed: if the PCs don't know it's doomed from the start then they should be allowed to start it and let the chips fall where they may.

It's a GM's job -- no matter what their style -- to say what is possible. That's a good thing. But your proposition that using up-front narrative restrictions is more aggressive than in-game simulations restrictions simply says that you prefer simulation to narrative. Nothing more.

I'm going to hopefully assuming you're using small-S and small-N on simulation and narrative here, as otherwise you're drifting into Forge-speak which is where I'll get off the bus.

As for @Umbran 's point about available time, ask yourself this: are you going to still be running games in 10 years anyway? 20 years? 50 years? If yes, then you've got that many years to put to use - might as well design one campaign to fill 'em up; and an extra few sessions spent within said campaign on party conflict is, in the long run, a meaningless amount of time. That said, it's time that the players will probably remember (often in a good way!) long after most other memories of the campaign have faded away.

 

[GrahamWills]

There's two different types of restrictions involved here, and I wonder if you're somehow combining them.

Yes, exactly — and you are treating them as different, saying one is privileged. My point is that there is no reason why one is more important than the other. You think that it’s fine to say “no-one can play a gnome”, but wrong to say “no-one can play a villain”. And there’s no a priori reason for that viewpoint.

(example of player conflict in a narrative game)is cool, but seems to be exactly the sort of thing some here would like to ban; and that's my point.

Again, you make an assertion about other people’s play style unsupported by evidence. You seem to think that every narrative game must feature totally cooperative play. I have no idea why you’d think this as the extreme narrative games (Fiasco, Hillfolk) are highly adversarial, and mildly narrative games (e.g Fate) make inter-party conflict way easier than traditional simulation-style games.

For my part it's the GM's job to roll with what they're given, even if said GM knows ahead of time that the story is doomed: if the PCs don't know it's doomed from the start then they should be allowed to start it and let the chips fall where they may.

Definitely small-s and -n : your quote “let the chips fall where they may” is basically the simulationist mantra — whereas the narrative player will not guide players away from something they know no-one will enjoy.

As for @Umbran 's point about available time, ask yourself this: are you going to still be running games in 10 years anyway? 20 years? 50 years? If yes, then you've got that many years to put to use - might as well design one campaign to fill 'em up

I’ve been running games for 30 years, expect to do so another 30. 50 is unlikely. But just because I play a lot doesn't mean I’m ok wasting time.

A style of play that says banning gnomes is fine, but setting a coherent style of play is bad is a risky thing. If you read this newsgroup you will rapidly see that disagreement over style of play is by far the most common reason for problems in a campaign. So saying that you think it’s a bad thing to address is counter to actual experience.

If you want only ever run one campaign, sure you can make all kind of mistakes, because after the first year you only have people who fit your style — or maybe you were lucky first time! You can waste a year of your 20 slowly reaching agreement on style.

Me, I prefer just to set that up front. That way I can immediately have fun and can run many campaigns with a range of people.

TLDR - a restriction on setting is not any different from a restriction in play style. Both limit player choice and your choice of what to restrict is just personal preference. However, evidence suggests restricting play style is a better tool for ensuring campaigns are fun for all.

 

[Campbell]

Personally I value diversity of play too much to ever run a single game for more than a couple years. Even then I will seek out other games to play and might take short breaks to try out other games.

Diversity here includes games, play styles, settings, characters and most importantly people. I could never play the same game with the same people in the same way for 30 years.

Creatively there is just so much out there. Just in the D&D sphere I could never give up Moldvay, Fifth Edition and Dungeon World entirely to play Pathfinder 2 for 30 years.

That does not even begin to account for the myriad of other games I enjoy.

 

[Campbell]

Think about it this way: In Dungeons and Dragons we play adventurers. We do not play barristers, bartenders, and apothecaries. Obviously these people exist in the setting, but we do not play them. Instead we play Barbarians, Rogues, and Gnome Paladins who dual wield rapiers.

In any game there will be a scope to play. In Masks you play a team of teenage superheroes with teenage problems. There are adult superheroes, but the game is not about them.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, exactly — and you are treating them as different, saying one is privileged. My point is that there is no reason why one is more important than the other. You think that it’s fine to say “no-one can play a gnome”, but wrong to say “no-one can play a villain”. And there’s no a priori reason for that viewpoint.

Sure there is. There's no Gnomes in the setting, thus there's no Gnomes available to play. But there's Elves in the setting, and some of those Elves are evil*, and so there should be evil Elves available to play.

* - unless in that setting there are no evil Elves at all

Again, you make an assertion about other people’s play style unsupported by evidence. You seem to think that every narrative game must feature totally cooperative play. I have no idea why you’d think this as the extreme narrative games (Fiasco, Hillfolk) are highly adversarial, and mildly narrative games (e.g Fate) make inter-party conflict way easier than traditional simulation-style games.

That great. Sounds cool!

But now, reconcile it with the requirement that "everyone must play a group-oriented character whose goals align with that of the others" - this a rough paraphrasing of some requirements I've seen put forward in this thread and elsewhere.

Definitely small-s and -n : your quote “let the chips fall where they may” is basically the simulationist mantra — whereas the narrative player will not guide players away from something they know no-one will enjoy.

Er...either something doesn't quite parse here, or we're agreeing without realizing it. "The narrative player (by which I think you mean GM) not guiding the players away from something they know no-one will enjoy" sounds just the same to me as "let the chips fall where they may".

I’ve been running games for 30 years, expect to do so another 30. 50 is unlikely. But just because I play a lot doesn't mean I’m ok wasting time.

Ah, but not all of us see it as wasting time. For some of us it comes under character development and-or player-driven story development. Two characters in a party, for example, might develop a heated rivalry over time; maybe even reaching the stab-in-the-back(or front) stage. Playing out that rivalry develops both characters, and provides player-driven story running alongside - or even sometimes in place of - the ongoing story arc(s) of the party.

A style of play that says banning gnomes is fine, but setting a coherent style of play is bad is a risky thing.

Exactly right.

Benning Gnomes tells me WHAT I can play. Setting a coherent style of play tells me HOW to play. Big, big difference: a DM is fully ithin her rights to tell me what to play but has no business whatsoever in telling me how to play it.

If you read this newsgroup you will rapidly see that disagreement over style of play is by far the most common reason for problems in a campaign.

And most of those disagreements come about from people trying to restrict other people as to how they play. Stop restricting people, and sort things out in character.

If you want only ever run one campaign, sure you can make all kind of mistakes, because after the first year you only have people who fit your style — or maybe you were lucky first time! You can waste a year of your 20 slowly reaching agreement on style.

Yes I only ever want to run one campaign* - designing them is just too much bloody work to want to have to do it any more often than absolutely necessary!

* - by which I mean setting; I run multiple interweaving parties in multiple interweaving story arcs in that setting if I can. So far I'm on my third full setting in 35 years.

Me, I prefer just to set that up front. That way I can immediately have fun and can run many campaigns with a range of people.

Where I'm quite happy to turn over players until the right group settles out; knowing there's going to inevitably be some player turnover anyway in a long campaign.

TLDR - a restriction on setting is not any different from a restriction in play style. Both limit player choice and your choice of what to restrict is just personal preference. However, evidence suggests restricting play style is a better tool for ensuring campaigns are fun for all.

Fun for some perhaps, but by no means fun for all.

 

[S'mon]

As for @Umbran 's point about available time, ask yourself this: are you going to still be running games in 10 years anyway? 20 years? 50 years? If yes, then you've got that many years to put to use - might as well design one campaign to fill 'em up

I don't see why one campaign should be regarded as better than lots of campaigns with different themes. Modern D&D's fast levelling doesn't particularly suit single decades long campaigns anyway. I run open sandbox campaigns like Primeval Thule where players decide PC motivation, and narrower campaigns like Red Hand of Doom where players are asked to create PCs with a particular goal. The latter approach is not wrong.