Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9625243" data-attributes="member: 13383">What @pemorton is missing is the difference between approaching tabletop roleplaying from a first-person view versus a third-person view.For example, the above only makes sense if the referee chooses to present it in the third person. In contrast, what I and others do is roleplay as Horne, and talk in earnest, expecting the players to pick up on my tone of voice and act accordingly.  As for things like smell, taste, or touch, we have to describe them, but a referee can choose to do so in a way that is only a step removed from actually having something there for the players to smell, taste, or touch.Again, this only makes sense if @pemorton's approach to refereeing is from a third person viewpoint. My approach, as highlighted in the video of our session, is that wherever possible, I had you and the other players interact in the first person. One thing that the video is missing is the fact that, due to technical limitations, we had to run the session using theater of the mind. Typically, I will reinforce the viewpoint with the use of maps and minis. Rather than telling me what your character is doing, I have you show me what your character is doing by moving a token or pointing out something on the map.  You experienced some of this with the Adventure in Middle Earth sessions, where we were able to use Roll20.Overall, tabletop roleplaying has elements that are commonly used regardless of system, we use a game to adjudicate what the players do as their character, use dice, the referee describes things verbally, the players describe what their character do verbally,  and these are the tools we use to make tabletop roleplaying campaigns happen. However, they are just tools. They are the brushes, paints, and canvas we use to create campaigns with. How we use those tools can make for very different experiences, just as in the world of art, brushes, paint, and canvas can produce impressionist paintings, romantic painting, along with all the different other styles that feel different from one another despite using the same set of tools.I ran a LARP chapter and events for over a decade. Live action roleplaying is all about feeling as if you are there as much as you can given safety constraints.  There is little in the way of third person description or declaring actions. You see what you see, sense what you sense, and act accordingly.This experience helped me with tabletop roleplaying campaigns afterward. While tabletop isn't live-action, I figured out a lot of ways to apply the techniques I learned in live-action to the tabletop experience. To create more of a first-person experience that leaves the players feeling that they were there as their characters actually talking to Horne, and seeing the manifestation of LeClair's ghost.[USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER]  What [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] is not considering is that the referee can choose how the flow of information is managed, choose not to exert narrative control. Instead, they decide to limit themselves to using notes and plausible extrapolation of motivations, goals, and resources.  Why would a referee do this? Because I found through experience it makes a difference in how the campaign flows.  It may not feel much different during a specific session, but as the campaign unfolds, it results in a distinct difference in feel for the campaign as a whole compared to other approaches.The point of my approach is not for the referee to control the narrative, but rather to create a framework that facilitates player agency and makes interacting with the setting the primary focus of the campaign.This establishes a feedback loop that makes the resulting campaign a unique product of both the referee's actions and the players' actions. Just as important, the fact that I impose on myself a commitment to plausible extrapolation means that I will give information to players not just based on what they do (or ask out of game), but also what their character would plausibly be aware of as if they were really there. For example, the player doesn't have to ask about the smell of LeClair's ghost; I would provide that information because it is a plausible thing to describe if the characters are present. If it was something that only an expert would recognize, then I would ask for skill rolls or make them myself based on the character sheets.Looking at the chain of posts, I noticed several additional points. First, the feedback loop above isn't just about revealing information; part of it is figuring out how the characters of the setting react to what the players do. This creates a dynamic feel of a "World in Motion", and when there is a mystery involved imparts a feeling to the players they are part of a larger world with more things to discover than what they know as well as providing ideas for how they can continue to interact with the setting to discover what going on.Coming up with how the world is in motion is one of the primary ways I am being creative during the campaign; it is not an area in which I exert absolute control. I have to use my creativity because the players did something. The end result ultimately becomes something that wouldn't exist without the players and me playing out the campaign.I discussed how my approach limits the referee to plausible extrapolation. For the players, they are limited to what their characters are capable of. Part of what I found that made my campaign interesting, based on my players' feedback, is that the limitations both of us operate under make the campaign a more interesting challenge and create a feeling that they just had adventures in a place that could have existed despite the fantastic premises, like magic.[USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER] I hope this helps support the points you made.</blockquote>

Verification