Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Experiencing the fiction in RPG play
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7818150" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>The topic of this thread is well-trodden ground, but there doesn't seem to be an active thread about it. And I have some things I want to say about it.</p><p></p><p>I'm going to speak from the GM side, because I mostly GM although I do have an active PC in an active campaign that I wish I could play more of.</p><p></p><p>Generally, as a GM I want to present the fiction of the game in such a way that the players - in declaring actions for their PCs - engage <em>the fiction</em> rather than <em>me</em>. This means that (i) I want the fiction to be reasonably compelling, and (ii) I want the fiction to have obvious available "points of contact", and (iii) I want the fiction to be laden with evident <em>possibility</em>.</p><p></p><p>For me, (i) is about establishing situations (and the setting behind it) with an eye to the themes established by (a) the game and (b) the players. Example from my current Classic Traveller campaign: the situations should evoke sci-fi tropes and ideas (and so eg not just be D&D dungeons repainted); and one of the PCs is a former Imperial Marines cutlass champion, and so I want situations to come up that make being a former Marine, and a champion with the cutlass, matter.</p><p></p><p>This means that when the players "look through the eyes" of their PCs they see a fictional situation that speaks to them - and so they engage with it.</p><p></p><p>(ii) follows from these approaches to (i). Situations that speak to the players as players of their PCs will tend to have things that the players want to change or interact with. As a GM, I try to maximise rather than minimise this feature of situations. Because minimising them tends to produce thinking about <em>me - </em>eg along the lines of <em>what does the GM expect us to do here </em>- whereas providing clear and plentiful points of contact leads the players to inhabit their PCs and use them to engage the fiction on the fiction's own terms.</p><p></p><p>(iii) follows, in turn, from the approach to (ii). If the players can see lots of ways to engage the fiction, then they can see all sorts of possibilities open to them, which they can push towards with their action declarations. 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.</p><p></p><p>Some final comments/reflections: I don't run a game that is completely devoid of "metagame thinking" or reflecting on the game as a shared social experience. In our 4e game one of the players always tries to keep something in reserve in the first few rounds of a combat encounter because he thinks "pemerton always has something up his sleeve - a twist, or a new opponent - and so I want to be ready for it". In our current Prince Valiant campaign I hit one of the players with a fiat effect that makes him long for a lady he rescued from danger although he is married to a different woman. After the resolution of one particular situation where this came into play I cheekily described myself to this player as a fair GM - he disputed that, but said "It's fun." That's a judgement <em>about </em>the fiction and the play of the game from outside, not from within.</p><p></p><p>Given that we play these games <em>as games</em>, <em>for fun</em>, 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 - <em>what is this that we're confronted with?</em> - and not me - <em>what is the GM doing to us?</em></p><p></p><p>And at least from my experience I think it's completely hopeless to try and do that by enforcing a "no metagame" rule at the table (which seems almost self-defeating), or to try to encourage immersion by layering on the rich descriptions etc. As I've tried to explain, it's about the way I as GM offer up the fiction as something for the players to engage with in their play.</p><p></p><p>Thoughts?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7818150, member: 42582"] The topic of this thread is well-trodden ground, but there doesn't seem to be an active thread about it. And I have some things I want to say about it. I'm going to speak from the GM side, because I mostly GM although I do have an active PC in an active campaign that I wish I could play more of. Generally, as a GM I want to present the fiction of the game in such a way that the players - in declaring actions for their PCs - engage [I]the fiction[/I] rather than [I]me[/I]. This means that (i) I want the fiction to be reasonably compelling, and (ii) I want the fiction to have obvious available "points of contact", and (iii) I want the fiction to be laden with evident [I]possibility[/I]. For me, (i) is about establishing situations (and the setting behind it) with an eye to the themes established by (a) the game and (b) the players. Example from my current Classic Traveller campaign: the situations should evoke sci-fi tropes and ideas (and so eg not just be D&D dungeons repainted); and one of the PCs is a former Imperial Marines cutlass champion, and so I want situations to come up that make being a former Marine, and a champion with the cutlass, matter. This means that when the players "look through the eyes" of their PCs they see a fictional situation that speaks to them - and so they engage with it. (ii) follows from these approaches to (i). Situations that speak to the players as players of their PCs will tend to have things that the players want to change or interact with. As a GM, I try to maximise rather than minimise this feature of situations. Because minimising them tends to produce thinking about [I]me - [/I]eg along the lines of [I]what does the GM expect us to do here [/I]- whereas providing clear and plentiful points of contact leads the players to inhabit their PCs and use them to engage the fiction on the fiction's own terms. (iii) follows, in turn, from the approach to (ii). If the players can see lots of ways to engage the fiction, then they can see all sorts of possibilities open to them, which they can push towards with their action declarations. 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. Some final comments/reflections: I don't run a game that is completely devoid of "metagame thinking" or reflecting on the game as a shared social experience. In our 4e game one of the players always tries to keep something in reserve in the first few rounds of a combat encounter because he thinks "pemerton always has something up his sleeve - a twist, or a new opponent - and so I want to be ready for it". In our current Prince Valiant campaign I hit one of the players with a fiat effect that makes him long for a lady he rescued from danger although he is married to a different woman. After the resolution of one particular situation where this came into play I cheekily described myself to this player as a fair GM - he disputed that, but said "It's fun." That's a judgement [I]about [/I]the fiction and the play of the game from outside, not from within. Given that we play these games [I]as games[/I], [I]for fun[/I], 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 - [I]what is this that we're confronted with?[/I] - and not me - [I]what is the GM doing to us?[/I] And at least from my experience I think it's completely hopeless to try and do that by enforcing a "no metagame" rule at the table (which seems almost self-defeating), or to try to encourage immersion by layering on the rich descriptions etc. As I've tried to explain, it's about the way I as GM offer up the fiction as something for the players to engage with in their play. Thoughts? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Experiencing the fiction in RPG play
Top