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="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8973324" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don't think so. I think they have a profound impact on how a game works. I would argue that it is more important than player skill, which was your original point. I think player skill is the least important of the three. There are plenty examples of brand-new players who are totally engaged and play with inspiration and excitement, despite their lack of expertise. Also, look at D&D as an example again. Highly detailed NPC and monster entries, specific spatial distances and effects for combat and spells... all these things promote a certain kind of play that require at least some prep, mostly in the forms of maps and statblocks. What if D&D didn't have monster stats? What if the ranges and areas of effects of spells were more broadly categorized? That would effect how people play. You seem to be of the opinion that the only way for the players to drive play is if they're highly skilled players. And while that may be one way to do it, there are others. Having the game itself help with that, and the GM, too, are huge parts of it. By rules, I meant the procedures of play just as much as I meant the actual mechanics. It's not so much about backstory as it is about what's to come. The players can have a lot of say on that, if the game is designed to bring their wants to the fore, and if the GM knows to pay attention and proceed with that in mind. It can also be specifically the mechanics. The Spire game I mentioned took on the epic feel it did largely because of Fallout, and the impact it had on the characters, which then impacted play. One character in particular had a journey in the game that was like nothing I've ever experienced in any other game. It would not have happened without the rules working the way they do, the player being open to having his character changed in fundamental ways, and the GM being able to help with it. I don't think that setting is about pre-existing stories. The setting should be there for the player characters. Look at the original Star Wars... there's clearly a lot that has happened in the past. But all of it is there to propel Luke on his journey. That's the focus. If that was an RPG, we shouldn't be as concerned about solving all the little tidbits about the past. We should be focused on Luke's journey. Don't make the focus of your game be about the players learning what's in your 22,000 word backstory (hell, even Lucas was making it up on the fly). Make it about finding out about their characters and what they care about and what they do about it. As for inconsistencies... what do you think is more likely to result in them... my one page of backstory or your 40 pages? I don't care how many systems you've read the rules for. Your second sentence here renders the point moot. I cannot see how you will have read so many games and feel that there is no alternative to the approach you've described. There absolutely is, and I'd expect someone with a strong grasp of the wider RPG industry to know that. I didn't suggest that anyone should do that. So look at the Mandalorian as an example. It started out with a bounty hunter. Then it became about something else as a result of what happened as the show unfolded. If we viewed this as an RPG, maybe the player said they wanted to play a cold-blooded mercenary, and so the GM decided to test just how cold-blooded they were by introducing a child for them to care for. And we'll make the child important in some way that the players will understand, even if the character doesn't. Then leave it up to the player if they turn the kid in or decide to protect him. That decision can then help shape how things are going forward. The GM should let the player decide, and then proceed accordingly. If the player decided to save the kid, then we know they care about something. So then the question maybe becomes how much? Enough to risk their sense of self? Their heritage and legacy? And so on. If the player decides to turn the kid over to the remnants of the Empire and collect their bounty, then the GM should accept that and not somehow steer things so that the kid shows back up and so on. It formalizes it as a process and makes it explicitly a part of character creation. My character's Friend and Rival are on my character sheet, just like my Action Ratings and my Gear. And they're meant to come up and to matter, though perhaps not as frequently. You're dismissing multiple things as not being strong examples, but yet they're not meant to be applied in isolation. Combine these practices with a game that allows for them to happen and a GM who knows how to help with that, and collectively, they work quite well.Right, that's a good first step toward player driven play. I don't think it's all that can be done. So this reminds me of all the posts here and elsewhere lamenting how pointless the Bonds, Ideals, Flaws, and Traits are in D&D 5e. They're just there, without much connection to anything else, accept if the GM remembers to grant inspiration. They're tacked on. But what if they were more integral to the game? What if the GM actively used the Bonds to help craft the setting? What if the game instructed the GM to actively find ways to test the characters Ideals? What if the Flaws couldn't be conveniently ignored? Other games effectively incorporate these kinds of elements into the game such that play of any given game is ABOUT the characters, rather than being about something else and just featuring these characters. I mean, in my current D&D game that I'm playing in, we're doing the Temple of Elemental Evil. It's a perfectly fun game. I'm enjoying it. It's not player-directed at all. It can't be, really... it's about the threat of the Temple. It's not about Malacus the Eladrin Wizard. My character and any other PC could be swapped out and little would change about the game. What do you mean by GM metagaming here? I don't see how anyone can demonstrate it to you except perhaps if you actually played with them. Have you actually played or GMed any of the games I've mentioned, or similar ones? Would you be open to doing so? It feels very much like you're starting with your conclusion, and then working from there.</blockquote>

Verification