Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
FORKED - Game Fundamentals - Player Trust, Your GM, and Cake
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="steenan" data-source="post: 5170868" data-attributes="member: 23240"><p>That's how it looks IMO:</p><p></p><p>1. There's no good game without trust between players (including the GM). No system will help here, as it is impossible to protect one from jerks and at the same time allow flexibility and freedom of choice. You either trust the people you play with or become a slave to the mechanics. </p><p>A trend of creating more restrictive, balanced and munchkin-proof game mechanics correlates with widening the player audience. It's an unspoken suggestion: "we made the game in such a way that you don't need to be afraid of some dick ruining your fun". One may hope that the game will play as described in the book no matter who sits on the other side of the table - at the cost of everyone being limited by the system.</p><p>It's worth noting that most indie games (that, by definition, aim for a small group of players) have mechanics that work great in game's designed style but easily fall prey to abuse. They assume the trust and build on it instead of assuming distrust and trying to work around it.</p><p>It's important to see that the trust-based design is not limited to a single design approach. A game may have a strong GM control - the players know it won't be used to mess with them in an unfun way. It may have a shared narration - the players are reasonable people, so the GM needs no tools for blocking their ideas. etc.</p><p></p><p>2. No system, no matter how well designed, will not make a game good if the players have widely divergent preferences, or when there are simply bad players. A good game will make these differences visible and help build a group that fits (maybe by a harsh but honest statement: "That's how I'm designed to be played. If you don't like it, I'm not for you - buy another game instead."). A bad game creates the illusion that everything is alright and then blows people in faces in the middle of a campaign. </p><p></p><p>3. If you have a group of people who trust each other and who have similar game preferences, you will have a fun play. But it is also a place where the game itself matters. If it fits the style the players prefer with its genre, setting and mechanics, it makes the play smoother and more satisfying. If it doesn't, players will find a way around it, ignoring or modifying what they don't like, but it will take time and effort.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steenan, post: 5170868, member: 23240"] That's how it looks IMO: 1. There's no good game without trust between players (including the GM). No system will help here, as it is impossible to protect one from jerks and at the same time allow flexibility and freedom of choice. You either trust the people you play with or become a slave to the mechanics. A trend of creating more restrictive, balanced and munchkin-proof game mechanics correlates with widening the player audience. It's an unspoken suggestion: "we made the game in such a way that you don't need to be afraid of some dick ruining your fun". One may hope that the game will play as described in the book no matter who sits on the other side of the table - at the cost of everyone being limited by the system. It's worth noting that most indie games (that, by definition, aim for a small group of players) have mechanics that work great in game's designed style but easily fall prey to abuse. They assume the trust and build on it instead of assuming distrust and trying to work around it. It's important to see that the trust-based design is not limited to a single design approach. A game may have a strong GM control - the players know it won't be used to mess with them in an unfun way. It may have a shared narration - the players are reasonable people, so the GM needs no tools for blocking their ideas. etc. 2. No system, no matter how well designed, will not make a game good if the players have widely divergent preferences, or when there are simply bad players. A good game will make these differences visible and help build a group that fits (maybe by a harsh but honest statement: "That's how I'm designed to be played. If you don't like it, I'm not for you - buy another game instead."). A bad game creates the illusion that everything is alright and then blows people in faces in the middle of a campaign. 3. If you have a group of people who trust each other and who have similar game preferences, you will have a fun play. But it is also a place where the game itself matters. If it fits the style the players prefer with its genre, setting and mechanics, it makes the play smoother and more satisfying. If it doesn't, players will find a way around it, ignoring or modifying what they don't like, but it will take time and effort. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
FORKED - Game Fundamentals - Player Trust, Your GM, and Cake
Top