Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3403099" data-attributes="member: 42582">A very interesting thread about the connections between GMing, player expectations, and resulting play experience. Some thoughts in response:For these sort of players, a well-developed campaign world seems to be a necessity.The proper way of correlating the campaign to the players depends crucially on what everyone at the table wants. To wit,This can be the case, but it doesn't have to be. If the agreed aim of both GM and players is to produce some sort of thematic payoff for all involved, and if the campaign elements the GM has come up with are intended to contribute to that, then presumably when the players ignore one such element ("hook"), they are in the meantime pursuing some other one or more of those elements that resonate with them at present. In such circumstances, it seems quite reasonable for the GM to put the ignored elements "on hold" until the time is right for the players to be confronted with them. After all, why squander the opportunity for the payoff that those elements were intended to deliver.There is a big difference between a player who wants "to frolick around in a fictional world", and a player who wants to engage with the campaign elements in order to experience some sort of dramatic or thematic payoff. For the latter player, simply being asked "what do you do" may not work, if no material has been handed to them (by the GM, in the typical game) to work with.Again, what counts as good GMing and good campaing management depends on what everyone is looking for in play.Are we talking here about the players success, or their PCs'? If the aim of the players is to take part in a story that yields dramatic/thematic payoff, then the aim should be for them to succeed in that goal. Otherwise, why both playing? Whether this payoff depends upon their PCs succeeding is a different matter. Maybe one player's goal is to become a great pirate, another wants to play out a tragedy. The GM's role is to try and integrate these narrative goals into a coherent game session.In D&D, the main way that players can assert narrative control is via character development - hence the signficance of discussions of backstory, etc. Once the game gets going, the players have little mechanical control over the campaign's evolution. But if the GM responds to those backstories in establishing the in-game situation, it need not be a sand castle created by the GM alone. It may be one that the players have contributed to, as the sand castle that they see as contributing to their dramatic/thematic goals.There is a difference between the players telling the GM what sort of story they want told to them, and the players telling the GM (either expressly, or via backstory etc) what sort of dramatic/thematic payoff they want to help generate in play. Either of these approaches to play can begin with the players talking to the GM, establishing character backstories, etc; but if the group isn't clear on which sort of play experience is desired, it may all end in tears as different participants find their expectations thwarted.Agreed. This is a good description of what is involved in setting up a situation which the players will then resolve in game - something quite different from the GM dictating the solution with the players just along for the experience.What I'd add is that, in different circumstances, "where we start out" may be a particular situation, or a setting, or some other element of the campaign world. The balance between what the GM provides as the common demoninator, and what the players provide as their contribution, may be different for different groups looking for different sorts of play. D&D mechanics don't actively support this sort of activity, but they don't completely dictate which campaign elements be given priority.</blockquote>

Verification