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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 2454814" data-attributes="member: 812">I think fu's more talking about world knowledge than character plot hooks.At least, that's what I find is one of my biggest challenges as a DM -- how to help my players understand the nature of the world they're living in, so that they can make decisions that are not at odds with the sorts of decisions the NPCs around them make.If I were running a 1600's-era Japan game, I'd expect players playing samurai to make their character decisions based on some perspective of that culture. They would WANT to be in service to a lord, they would be loathe to take any action that might appear cowardly -- especially within the context of samurai culture. For example, if their lord were assassinated, their reaction ought to be more towards the "What a failure I am" than the "This is my chance to steal the family silver!"It's not that I would want to control their reaction (either of the ones listed above are POSSIBLE), but I would want them to possess some understanding of the context in which their reaction ought to be determined.And it's hard enough to communicate that to players about real-world cultures. Doing it with cultures that have never existed is -- well, actually it's probably EASIER, given that most people possess rather gross misunderstandings about cultures they've never lived in.But it's not only the "actual" cultural context, because two games set in the same culture might embody very different worldviews. You can set a game in Tokugawa Japan and play The Seven Samurai with gritty battles, no magic, and plenty of death, or you can set a game in the same period and play Ninja Scroll with wild-flying action, crazy super-powers and nuttin but ninjas. Genre can be as important (if not more important) than culture in some games.Now all that knowledge has to flow first of all from the DM to the player and from the player into the game. I find as a DM that acting isn't always (or ever) the best way to communicate my vision of the knowledge I want to pass on to my players. It can help at times (like playing a town mayor as a goofy buffoon if the game is meant to be lighthearted), but it's fraught with the potential for misinterpretation and resultant frustration as my expectation clash with my players'.I find that as a DM I need to use a variety of tactics to let my players know what I'm on about this time. I try to design pre-campaign materials that embody the "feel" of the game and give players some useful cultural knowledge (usually in the form of websites where I can bring together a variety of media in a structured form). I try to design adventures that guide players in making choices that embody some philosophical aspects of the campaign (Barsoom, for example, has been setting the party up as major powers, putting them in the position that many of the BAD GUYS have been in, just to see what they'll do). I try to develop rules that likewise embody philosophical ideas (like sorcery on Barsoom, or Panache points in Gun-Fu), just to see what will happen.As a player, I find I need to rely on DM cues a lot for what's appropriate or not. I'll ask outright questions like "Is this something that I would get angry about or would I be more afraid to react?" Or I'll try things out and if the DM suggests alternatives I'll see what I think. As far as world knowledge goes, I'll often just handwave it, saying "I say something appropriate," or "I say something outrageously false." Or I'll just make something up and let the DM decide if it's true or not. Sometimes that's more fun than anything.</blockquote>

Verification