Let The Players Manage Themselves Part 3, waitaminute...

[Psion]

It's been obvious for a while that WotC seems to have been taking over by a "gamist monoculture".

That's an interesting observation. That would explain a lot.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

1. What types of game do you run?

This is complex to explain. I'm not fond of GNS categorization, as I think my game crosses too many of those lines. My games tend to be lower magic; I like the presence of magic, but I prefer that it be a minor presence with the exception of certain legendary sorts of items.

In the 1E/2E days, I rarely ran a game over 10th level (but this was in large part due to the lack of benefits gained at higher levels and the time it took to level up at higher levels). In 3rd edition, I run my games beyond those levels, although the ubiquitous presence of magic in standard 3E begins to get to me.

I run mostly homebrewed adventures, with a fairly even balance of sandbox vs. more directed play. The PC's will tend to have the opportunity to choose from a bunch of plot hooks, and in how they will approach those hooks, but once events begin unfolding, they unfold as I think they logically would, which tends to narrow the focus a bit. Then after an adventure, the options broaden out again.

I run a pretty even mix of roleplaying and combat. I like to get a fight or two in every 6 hour session, but I've had sessions go without any combat. I like systems that can help me focus non-combat situations, but I don't like to be too constrained by them.

2. What is the overarching goal of your game? What feel do you want and what experience should your players have?

The goal is fun, of course. I want my players to feel like they have created, contributed and participated in a story that feels like an epic fantasy tale. I want drama, action, and excitement. My preference runs from the style of Lord of the Rings to the Pirates of the Carribbean. The phrase I like to use is that I prefer "more woohoo, less wahoo."

3. Most importantly, what steps do you take to change the way the game plays, and in what way do they contribute to your goal?

I will modify classes, restrict access to certain spells (mostly by just not having NPCs have those spells, thus making it difficult for PC's to get the ons I don't like), etc. I used to house rule 1E and 2E quite a bit, but I haven't done that with 3.X to this point. My next campaign (which will be 3.X as of right now) will probably go more in the house ruled direction. I will substitute alternate classes, maybe even an entire new system of magic (I've thought of using the Arcana Evolved system or doing some work on the 3.X system myself). I would consider 4E but as it stands now, I really don't care for the power system. I think I like everything else, but the power system is so ubiquitous that I don't know how to resolve the problem for me. It just breaks my suspension of disbelief too much and in too many places.

 

[Rechan]

If play in a campaign where I know the PC's will win unless our dice really hate us, no matter what we decide to do, then the campaign becomes really less interesting to play.

The key to the quote above is "Where I know".

As I said, the point is to not let the players know.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Wow. It amazes me that you have such motivated players.

Every group I have ran has been sacks of unmotivation. I have to design the campaign, I have to push them in directions, I have to get the players to organize rides with eachother. I had to write their own damn powers on power cards. Forget them deciding on a GOAL or a THEME.

And this has been multiple groups.

Oh, I've certainly met people like that. But it's possible to bring them around if they've got any interest in story-based entertainment (a reader of novels is best, but you can work with comics and movies. Someone who only watches ESPN and Friends and doesn't read a lick though is probably unreachable from this point of view). Ask them what their favorite characters have been in books they've read, what plots they liked, etc. We can usually settle down for a jam session (IRL or email) with the group as a whole and discuss some plots & places (urban vs. edge-of-the-known-world; tomb-raider vs. defender of myth dranor, etc.), figure out who will cover what bases (local knowledge expert, ranger, thief, etc.). It's very effective to say "What do you want to do?" and then just sit their quietly until they answer.

Once they have the motivation to see how the story ends the manual stuff like power cards & character sheets usually falls into line.

I've always had the impression that the players (and thus, the characters) are going to win. Their success is all ready pre-written. The only thing that gets in the way is the damn dice. And it's the DM's job to let them win in a way that doesn't look like it's scripted for them to win. But the way people talk here, they want a serious, justifiable chance of just utterly failure.

Absolutely. Winning cannot exist without the possibility of losing.

In a game I played very recently the 1st level PCs had three rumors to follow up. They followed up one of them into the hills north of town only to discover the source of the problem was a black dragon. They snuck away very, very carefully and reported back to the town's mayor "Sorry, you're northern farmers are just gonna have to get used to losing cows. Nothing we can do. We're gonna go look into those goblin raids on the other side of town." The world is not a set of encounters scripted for their benefit. If it's important to them they'll come back at 10th level.

 

[Snoweel]

They followed up one of them into the hills north of town only to discover the source of the problem was a black dragon. They snuck away very, very carefully

What chance did you allow for the dragon to discover the PCs first and decide to kill them (no save) before they could sneak away?

I'm guessing it was 0% or thereabouts.

 

[Mallus]

Because where simulation tries to model real life, narrativist play tries to model stories.

As an aside... I always thought that RPG's were supposed to model stories. I believe this opinion is supported by the fact RPG's traditionally fail miserably at modeling real life. They do a better job w/stories.

And real life generally doesn't make for good stories.

I suddenly have the urge to a d20 Modern campaign based on Raymond Carver stories... hopefully it will pass.

 

[Rechan]

"Nothing we can do. We're gonna go look into those goblin raids on the other side of town." The world is not a set of encounters scripted for their benefit.

And I don't consider that good behavior of heroes their first time out trying to be heroes.

To quote your statement:

Winning cannot exist without the possibility of losing.

The inverse is that without a chance to win, they must lose. And there was absolutely no way to win that situation. It's just "Here's something you can't possibly overcome. Deal with it."

 

[Rechan]

And real life generally doesn't make for good stories.

Oh god.

This reminds me of a solo Shadowrun game I played in. The GM made me get a job at a stuffer shack (think Fast Food, but downgrade the quality). He spent 40 minutes walking me through my day.

I wanted to tear my face off.

 

[Janx]

....

In an RPG no one can say "you're playing your character wrong". It's one of the biggest faux pas in gaming. That's because you're playing the role. Role-playing is an educational game. If you were to role-play climbing Mt. Everest with your friends you would keep track of rations, equipment, hire Sherpas, plan your ascent track, deal with weather problems, and much more. A good role-playing scenario taken from real life like this could research just about any kind of element that happens when climbers attempt Mt. Everest in actuality. When you role-play it, it's a hypothetical, but you are still the one making the decisions, suffering the consequences, and, more important than anything else, are the one who actually achieves the success. I'll repeat that: role-play is where your accomplishments are real. That's because when you role-play, you are not the character you play. Even if his name is George Burns.
...

I disagree right here, due to the way I create my PCs and play them.

When I create a PC, I figure out what he's going to be like. I then play him that way. This means, I could be playing him wrong. If I were out for a session and someone took over, they could play him contrary to the way the character is.

All of this is possible if your PC has PERSONALITY. By investing in a PC this way, it is possible to play it WRONG. However, the reward is a richer story experience.

I have a half-orc barbarian who's gruff, bullying, brave, and willing to fight evil. After playing him that way for 20 levels, suddenly playing him as eloquent, polite, and fiendishly diabolical would be out of character. That would be wrong.

If you can play your PCs differently session to session without anybody noticing or caring, then you're right on the money. You're not creating a world or playing a character.

 

[Noumenon]

Saying something ridiculous like "I told my kids a bedtime RPG before they went to sleep"... is only going to get one laughed at in normal society.

Of course here, it gets you links instead.