Experiencing the fiction in RPG play

[billd91]

Never mind that there's no saying that cutlass guy is even going to survive the first three sessions.

Honestly, with Classic Traveller, there's no guarantee that cutlass guy is even going to survive character generation.

 

[billd91]

Folks are not machines that always produce the expected experience. Like an author, if we aren't working at it, GMs can be that way too.

I think part of the difference here is maybe the players should put the work into it as well. I doubt that Lanefan would balk at a player having his cutlass-wielding character hit the networks at a starport, maybe put some of his skills to work, in finding ways to make use of his cutlass skills. In other words, directly advocate for himself in finding a way to use his character concept in play rather than just putting it on the character sheet. In this way, the players, by doing so, are directly sculpting the campaign from Lanefan's otherwise uncarved block.

 

[pogre]

In that sort of game the kids play, how exactly do the players interact with the GM's "story"? How do the decisions they make for their PCs affect it or fit into it?

I get the feeling they are actors in the GM's story. I guess they're decisions are not as consequential as I would prefer. In fairness, I have not sat in and closely observed - it just a sense I get from hearing snippets from their games.

I'm running a table too - I have a mix of faculty and students at my table - so it is tough for me to comment definitively.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm always a little skeptical of analogies, so please pardon if I'm reading this wrong. But a GM that is employing a large story arc, along with character arcs, can't just really lay ice down and let the players choose their way. There must be something a little more than neutral in my humble opinion. That leads to part two...

I think this works well for those groups that have a ton of time - like a campaign that will last years and they play 4 or 6 hour sessions a week. But, those campaigns restricted by time, say three months or four months, this option doesn't work nearly as well. I have (anecdotal, yes), found players simply get frustrated. Have you been constrained by time limits like this? If so, have you found it still to work? I'd definitely appreciate the pointers if you were able.

Sorry, but I'm probably the last person from whom to seek such advice; as any campaign I ever start is undertaken with the stated intention of lasting as long as anyone still wants to play it or until I-as-DM burn out on it (or die). So far I've had three; of 10+ years, 12+ years, and 10+-and-counting years.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. I wasn't questioning that. You can have agreement on those basic things... and still be, well, boring. Or not present the players with places they can hook themselves to interesting events in the world. Those basic agreements doesn't mean your game has anything of interest to the players.

Yeah, that can happen. Comes under the heading of you're never gonna please all the people all the time.

Far more common, I find, is that some element really catches the attention of one or two players while some other element really engages another one and the fourth can't decide. If I can I'll try to find a way to tie these elements together somehow, but it ain't always possible and sometimes they end up getting played out sequentially.

What, having done a good job before gives the GM a free pass?

I've read Stephen King. I liked The Stand. Having read one of his books, I pick up another.... and find that Cujo... is actually kind of boring. That past experience sets an expectation. It builds a small bank of goodwill, which is quickly spent if they don't live up to that expectation.

Can't speak to King as I've never read any of his works; but I guess I put more goodwill in the bank than you as I realize not everyone's perfect all the time. The flip side, though, is that things can always turn around if given time.

The ONLY way? Really? Have you never been disappointed in your life? ... Maybe a favorite sports team that was doing well in the early season, only to falter later on? Nothing has ever let you down before?

I'm a Canucks fan and have been since they started, so believe me: I know all about being let down by a sports team.

Not everything lives up to expectations - fact o' life - but just as often something exceeds expectations, and the two tend to cancel out in the long run.

shrug

. Sorry, maybe I'm just too hipster. I'm producing small-batch, artisanal gaming experiences. If you want to be TGI Fridays, or Chili's, that's a reasonable choice.

Thanks, but you've made it seem like we actually have pretty different goals for what we want to accomplish behind the screen. You seem to want to hit a common denominator. I want to hit what the particular people at the particular table want. Both are okay goals, but they call for different methods.

Tangentially, this brings up another point around which we may be talking past each other a bit: there's a difference between catering things to the players at the table (e.g. running the type of adventures they seem to like) and catering to the individual characters in the fiction (e.g. finding ways for cutlass guy to have his cutlass be relevant). I'm cool with the first of these but not so much with the second; IMO the fiction and setting should be neutral such that - no matter what characters the players bring in - the same adventures, plot hooks, etc. can be prepped and (unless the players/PCs decide to do something else) run.

It's like one of those escape rooms, or True Dungeon: it's the same setup each time it's run, no matter whether it's you going through it, or me, or anyone else.

 

[hawkeyefan]

(i) I want the fiction to be reasonably compelling
- (a) the game
- (b) the players
(ii) I want the fiction to have obvious available "points of contact"
(iii) I want the fiction to be laden with evident possibility

I hope you don't mind that I've snipped your quote to summarize your opening points. My comments on each are below.

(i) I like that you said "reasonably compelling" here. I agree. I think that very often people see a RPG story the same as they would a story in a book or movie. And I think that can be problematic. We experience a RPG differently than we do a book or any other media. What's needed is a story that presents enough interesting decision points for the players to be engaged. This can be something entirely original, or can be something totally cliched. What we might frown upon in a movie or novel is likely very different than for a RPG.

Having said that, your (a) and (b) are both key, for sure. Perhaps as @Umbran mentioned, we could add (c) system to the list. Some people do indeed engage with the game in a more mechanical manner. But I think that depends on what you mean by "game". I would see it as the setting and the expectations that go along with that; things like sci-fi or fantasy or urban horror, etc. A GM should create a scenario that fits into these expectations, for sure.

I don't really get the call for neutrality when it comes to (b). I understand that neutrality in rule abdication and the like can be seen as a quality for a GM to have. But neutrality toward content? It always seems like a bad idea to me. The GM should care about the game. The players have made choices for their PCs and the GM absolutely should consider those choices when creating content for the players to interact with.

(ii) This brings us to your second point. I think the more that a GM tailors things for his players and their characters, the more of (ii) there will be. More points of interest for the players to seize. More areas for them to interact with the fiction. More opportunity for them to take the initiative and really help to steer the story and how the game goes. I think the more effort put into this, the better the game will tend to be. Multiple paths for the PCs to take, and which don't all lead to the same eventual destination. I think that's also key....the players will be more willing to see the points of contact if they know that these are not just window dressing, but rather are actual decision points where they can potentially get into the driver's seat and steer the game for a bit.

(iii) Which I think is what point three is all about. The idea of possibility. Where will things end up? It's a pretty big question, and how it's handled can really influence the experience of the game for those involved. I don't think it's inherently bad for the GM to have some kind of end point in mind, but I think it's best if that end point is more loose and if it's shaped by (a) the game and (b) the players. If the players have created a bunch of outlaws and revolutionaries, for example, I don't think it's a bad idea if the GM thinks of the end point as "will they topple the government?" I think it's a bit less desirable if his idea of an endpoint is "After a long and arduous journey, the PCs finally come face to face with the Iron King in his court for a final battle". One is asking a question and the other is providing the answer.....to me, the GM should ask the question, and the players should provide the answer.

For me, knowing that a game really can take off in any direction based on what the players do is really interesting. Not long ago, my group played a bit of the first Adventure Path created for the Starfinder game. I had reservations because I was a bit critical of the Pathfinder System, and I expected Starfinder to play similarly. But we had some fun with it. We came up with an interesting collection of characters and that made the game enjoyable. Unfortunately, the GM wasn't really willing to depart from the predetermined story of the adventure path. There was a point where there was a clear alternate path that made sense for all our characters, and all the players seemed interested in pursuing that path, but the GM was pretty much intent on running the adventure exactly as presented in the books. Needless to say, the game didn't last much longer after that.

Now, that's largely a matter of preference and situation. There have been other times where we as players are willing to follow along the path of a published adventure. Some have enough freedom so that you don't feel entirely constrained. Others seem like pure railroads. My preference moves more and more away from such games, but I don't think they are without some merit. However, for me, a GM needs to kind of read the room, and proceed accordingly.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Arilyn]

I have run adventure paths. I look at them as more like guidelines, as some have ended up very far off what was published, although, I could still mine enough information from the later parts that they didn't become useless. One time, in particular, the players were so surprised that the adventure they loved got poor reviews. Had to explain what they did wasn't that close to the official AP. This wasn't because I'm a brilliant adventure designer, bur because the players pursued their interests, and I moulded my GMing around their characters.

Other times, APs will run pretty much as written, not usually though.

 

[GMMichael]

This makes the fiction seem worth engaging with on its own terms, rather than making it like a crossword puzzle or sudoku with only one correct answer or predefined path which the players know is located in my mind (or notes) as GM.

. . ."pemerton always has something up his sleeve - a twist, or a new opponent - and so I want to be ready for it". . .

Given that we play these games as games, for fun, I think it would be silly to try and eliminate that sort of thing. But still I want the players' first thoughts, when they decide what their PCs do, to be about the fiction - what is this that we're confronted with? - and not me - what is the GM doing to us?

Players are probably going to have (at least) two sets of GM expectations, formed by what they've learned from 1) other GMs, and what they've learned about 2) you. You can control only one of these. If either of these sets rewards them for metagame thinking, you're fighting an uphill battle.

If you want to remove yourself, bodily, from the game, do it. Run your game online, don't engage with any personal commentary during the game, and act like a syntax parser. See what happens.

 

[Umbran]

Not to derail the thread, but have you re-watched that?

Yes, recently - like, finished the re-watch last month, I think. And I'm quite aware of the issue - they'd had to cram much of the planned season 5 into Season 4, and then after filming that Season 4, told they could have a 5 after all. I daresay we could hear JMS scream at the time.

Unfortunately, the fact that he'd had to then back-fill time showed. And Byron stank up the place something fierce.

Byron, by Jeff and Maya Bohnhoff

from the album Aliens Ate My Homework

jeffandmayabohnhoff.bandcamp.com