innerdude
Legend
So I had an interesting conversation with one of my players immediately following last week's gaming session.
We're currently in the heart of an FFG Star Wars / Genesys system campaign using Edge of the Empire.
The player in question has a long, long history of RPG play but almost exclusively in D&D 3 and old-school White Wolf (VtM + VtR). And there are times when I can just watch him getting frustrated at some of the more "narrative-style" sensibilities that live behind FFG Star Wars / Genesys as a system.
What sparked our conversation last week was him getting hyper-focused (to an extreme degree) on how to make money so I can make my character better. And if you've played the FFG Star Wars system, you know that while there is a decent and fun gear mini-game built in, with extensive upgrades and component building, etc., it's really just a fun nice-to-have. It's not a core part of the gameplay loop in any particular sense, other than it does give the residual min-maxers something to idle on from time to time.
And I kind of had to explain a little bit about my approach to the game and why him getting hyper-fixated on those sorts of things would actually make me as GM less likely to give him what he wants. "Oh, so you're griping about gear again, eh? Hmmm, guess every item in the inventory list just increased its rarity level by 2!"
But the reasons for my . . . pique, I guess, are largely aesthetic preference. I am flat-out DONE with gameplay that focuses on "How do I get my next bonus to stat and my next +2 sword and my next +2 AC bonus so I can be awesome?!" Go play BG3 or Skyrim, away from my table, if that's your thing.
In this case, the specific instance was, they had defeated a group of nexu (the ferocious wild animal/cat things that appear in SW Episode II) that had been cybernetically enhanced. And his whole thing was, "I'm going to cut off the arms and limbs and heads of these nexu so I can take the cybernetics and sell them." *Edit: Forgot one more thing; he went on a 5-minute tangent as well about, "Where I can I get some beskar armor so I'm immune to lightsaber attacks?"
Which, of course, is like . . . so far on the opposite end of intention of gameplay for FFG Star Wars as you can possibly get. His instinct was instant and immediate, compelled by what I can only imagine as a long, long string of "trad", possibly adversarial D&D 3.x GMs who taught him as a player that the GM never gives the PCs nice things, the GM will naturally screw you out of anything/everything given the chance, and it's on the player to make every opportunity to claw and scratch their way to their next stat bonus and armor upgrade.
But yet rather than just show annoyance in that moment, I felt like I needed to try to explain to him what it was I was looking for out of gameplay. Try to vocalize more eloquently why what he was doing was actually counter-productive to working with me as a GM. So that of course meant I needed to try to explain what a more "narrative style of play" meant in terms that didn't involve Forge-speak, esoterica of gameplay loops, or just telling him, "Go read Ironsworn from cover-to-cover and get back to me."
What I found was that our conversation shifted into a discussion of the intersection of player and character motivations.
Player (P): "So why did it bother you that I wanted to take those cybernetics by chopping up the nexu?"
Innerdude (I): "Because . . . well, first off, because that's not really what Star Wars is really about, is it? Luke and Leia, and Han after Episode IV, don't go around looking for bodies to loot just to make a few extra hundred credits on the black market."
P: "But I want my character to get better. Better gear means my character gets better."
I: "Okay, but better at what? What do you need to be better at?"
P: "Well . . . everything I guess. In the Star Wars expanded universe, Han was always looking for more loot as a smuggler."
I: "True. But that's not really the story of Han Solo, is it? The real story of Han Solo is the story of a smuggler who kept a small (or even large-ish) piece of his humanity intact. A guy who HATED watching injustice and corruption harm the innocent, based on his time as a youth in the underbelly of Corellia. Even if he didn't do anything about it much of the time, we see that in his character, even if it's only in small doses in some of the early expanded universe stories (Star's End, Han Solo's Revenge, Lost Legacy). What we watch in Star Wars, as events play out over time, is the journey of this guy who slowly lets that burning hatred of injustice and corruption become his true, guiding motivation."
P: nods "Okay . . . I can see that."
I: "Look at Lando. Same thing. The real story of Lando Calrissian is watching a guy go from a backwater scoundrel, to ultimately embracing his role as a citizen-leader on Bespin, to then embracing a role as a general in the Rebellion. Do both Han and Lando want better stuff as they go along? I mean, sure, but by the end of Return of the Jedi the focus has long, long ago shifted to their deeper motivations."
P: "Okay, but how does that play out in our game? I want to envision my character and play as if I'm the character. Isn't that just what I'm doing here?"
I: "I mean . . . sure, I guess. But I would tell you to ask yourself, very clearly and honestly, are you conflating your desire as player with the actual character motivations? Especially in Star Wars, character motivations are supposed to be heroic and self-sacrificing. In a very literal sense. So if you're really just 'playing your character,' and your character's motivations are literally just 'next stash of money, next job, repeat ad infinitum,' you're missing out on what this game is trying to do. Frankly, if that's what you really want, we should be playing a house-ruled Savage Worlds game instead."
P: "I still don't get how I'm supposed to just, bring out this character motivation."
I: "Well it's hard, because there's this weird thing in RPGs where we set up a fictional game world, but then often apply our real-world sensibilities around power, scarcity, and lack of trust to the stuff our characters do. One of the things I try really hard to do is be as open with information as possible, at every level, because I feel like too often players are making decisions in a vacuum. When you're making decisions in a vacuum, of course the default instinct is self-preservation and 'What's in it for me?' over everything else. But back to motivation --- almost no one in the Star Wars universe, other than the really, truly brutal mercenaries, goes around cutting apart wild animals to sell their parts for money---even if those animal parts are cybernetically enhanced. The Star Wars cinematic universe isn't about that, and this game as a system pushes back against that kind of thing. If you look at the core gameplay loop---action, combat, wound points and strain, critical hit chart via advantage---the whole thing points to a gameplay style of escalating desperation. Even in a "fair fight," the tension/action escalates fast enough that within 4 or 5 rounds, your situation will become desperate and you're going to need to make some hard, heroic choices to determine how a fight ends. Have you noticed how very little armor there is in the game, and how very little functional difference it makes even if you do have it?"
P: "Hmm, not really."
I: "Well, again, that's on purpose. The creators have done that as a pacing mechanism for fights. Have you also noticed how hit points don't scale, at all in this game?"
P: "Yeah."
I: "Same thing. Fights aren't meant to be these laborious, blow-by-blow, grinding slog fights. They want you, as players, to be prepared to make hard choices when times grow desperate."
P: "Huh."
I: "Take a look at the overall challenges posed by combat. It's very, very easy to be taken out of a scene in Edge of the Empire, but what you may not have realized is that it's actually very, very hard to be flat-out killed. And why is that? Because it's Star Wars. Get taken out of a scene? Sure you failed, and your buddy has to drag you on to an escape pod just to fight another day . . . but you don't expect your hero to fall over dead in the escape pod corridor from a head wound. Edge of the Empire is built to create Star Wars cinematic flavor."
P: "Okay, but still---are you saying I need to change the way I play my character?"
I: "Eh, not necessarily, but possibly. I am suggesting that you might get more enjoyment from our sessions if you think about that seed of your character that would be the basis of motivation like it was for Han, and then play out that characterization in the game. So here's another secret about my GM style and this game in particular---there are times where I am relying on the narrative dice to decide things. I WANT you as players to provide input. I WANT to leave a lot of things open in the game world. As a GM and player, we can make things more impactful, more resonant with true character motivation elements when we do that. But you have to want to have more intrinsic character motivations. This whole instinct of, 'I have to get better stats and better stuff because my character just needs to be better' is ultimately counter-productive in games that I GM. If that's how you want to play your character, you're going to be frustrated, because I as a GM--in frank and brutal honesty--find that boring as hell. The sooner you let go of that instinct and get into the spirit of a Star Wars narrative, your fun will triple or quadruple almost overnight."
-----
Obviously not quoted word-for-word, but the substance is mostly there, I hope. But I'm curious if others out there might have approached this conversation differently, even if (or perhaps especially if) the game in question isn't Star Wars: Edge of the Empire.
We're currently in the heart of an FFG Star Wars / Genesys system campaign using Edge of the Empire.
The player in question has a long, long history of RPG play but almost exclusively in D&D 3 and old-school White Wolf (VtM + VtR). And there are times when I can just watch him getting frustrated at some of the more "narrative-style" sensibilities that live behind FFG Star Wars / Genesys as a system.
What sparked our conversation last week was him getting hyper-focused (to an extreme degree) on how to make money so I can make my character better. And if you've played the FFG Star Wars system, you know that while there is a decent and fun gear mini-game built in, with extensive upgrades and component building, etc., it's really just a fun nice-to-have. It's not a core part of the gameplay loop in any particular sense, other than it does give the residual min-maxers something to idle on from time to time.
And I kind of had to explain a little bit about my approach to the game and why him getting hyper-fixated on those sorts of things would actually make me as GM less likely to give him what he wants. "Oh, so you're griping about gear again, eh? Hmmm, guess every item in the inventory list just increased its rarity level by 2!"
But the reasons for my . . . pique, I guess, are largely aesthetic preference. I am flat-out DONE with gameplay that focuses on "How do I get my next bonus to stat and my next +2 sword and my next +2 AC bonus so I can be awesome?!" Go play BG3 or Skyrim, away from my table, if that's your thing.
In this case, the specific instance was, they had defeated a group of nexu (the ferocious wild animal/cat things that appear in SW Episode II) that had been cybernetically enhanced. And his whole thing was, "I'm going to cut off the arms and limbs and heads of these nexu so I can take the cybernetics and sell them." *Edit: Forgot one more thing; he went on a 5-minute tangent as well about, "Where I can I get some beskar armor so I'm immune to lightsaber attacks?"
Which, of course, is like . . . so far on the opposite end of intention of gameplay for FFG Star Wars as you can possibly get. His instinct was instant and immediate, compelled by what I can only imagine as a long, long string of "trad", possibly adversarial D&D 3.x GMs who taught him as a player that the GM never gives the PCs nice things, the GM will naturally screw you out of anything/everything given the chance, and it's on the player to make every opportunity to claw and scratch their way to their next stat bonus and armor upgrade.
But yet rather than just show annoyance in that moment, I felt like I needed to try to explain to him what it was I was looking for out of gameplay. Try to vocalize more eloquently why what he was doing was actually counter-productive to working with me as a GM. So that of course meant I needed to try to explain what a more "narrative style of play" meant in terms that didn't involve Forge-speak, esoterica of gameplay loops, or just telling him, "Go read Ironsworn from cover-to-cover and get back to me."
What I found was that our conversation shifted into a discussion of the intersection of player and character motivations.
Player (P): "So why did it bother you that I wanted to take those cybernetics by chopping up the nexu?"
Innerdude (I): "Because . . . well, first off, because that's not really what Star Wars is really about, is it? Luke and Leia, and Han after Episode IV, don't go around looking for bodies to loot just to make a few extra hundred credits on the black market."
P: "But I want my character to get better. Better gear means my character gets better."
I: "Okay, but better at what? What do you need to be better at?"
P: "Well . . . everything I guess. In the Star Wars expanded universe, Han was always looking for more loot as a smuggler."
I: "True. But that's not really the story of Han Solo, is it? The real story of Han Solo is the story of a smuggler who kept a small (or even large-ish) piece of his humanity intact. A guy who HATED watching injustice and corruption harm the innocent, based on his time as a youth in the underbelly of Corellia. Even if he didn't do anything about it much of the time, we see that in his character, even if it's only in small doses in some of the early expanded universe stories (Star's End, Han Solo's Revenge, Lost Legacy). What we watch in Star Wars, as events play out over time, is the journey of this guy who slowly lets that burning hatred of injustice and corruption become his true, guiding motivation."
P: nods "Okay . . . I can see that."
I: "Look at Lando. Same thing. The real story of Lando Calrissian is watching a guy go from a backwater scoundrel, to ultimately embracing his role as a citizen-leader on Bespin, to then embracing a role as a general in the Rebellion. Do both Han and Lando want better stuff as they go along? I mean, sure, but by the end of Return of the Jedi the focus has long, long ago shifted to their deeper motivations."
P: "Okay, but how does that play out in our game? I want to envision my character and play as if I'm the character. Isn't that just what I'm doing here?"
I: "I mean . . . sure, I guess. But I would tell you to ask yourself, very clearly and honestly, are you conflating your desire as player with the actual character motivations? Especially in Star Wars, character motivations are supposed to be heroic and self-sacrificing. In a very literal sense. So if you're really just 'playing your character,' and your character's motivations are literally just 'next stash of money, next job, repeat ad infinitum,' you're missing out on what this game is trying to do. Frankly, if that's what you really want, we should be playing a house-ruled Savage Worlds game instead."
P: "I still don't get how I'm supposed to just, bring out this character motivation."
I: "Well it's hard, because there's this weird thing in RPGs where we set up a fictional game world, but then often apply our real-world sensibilities around power, scarcity, and lack of trust to the stuff our characters do. One of the things I try really hard to do is be as open with information as possible, at every level, because I feel like too often players are making decisions in a vacuum. When you're making decisions in a vacuum, of course the default instinct is self-preservation and 'What's in it for me?' over everything else. But back to motivation --- almost no one in the Star Wars universe, other than the really, truly brutal mercenaries, goes around cutting apart wild animals to sell their parts for money---even if those animal parts are cybernetically enhanced. The Star Wars cinematic universe isn't about that, and this game as a system pushes back against that kind of thing. If you look at the core gameplay loop---action, combat, wound points and strain, critical hit chart via advantage---the whole thing points to a gameplay style of escalating desperation. Even in a "fair fight," the tension/action escalates fast enough that within 4 or 5 rounds, your situation will become desperate and you're going to need to make some hard, heroic choices to determine how a fight ends. Have you noticed how very little armor there is in the game, and how very little functional difference it makes even if you do have it?"
P: "Hmm, not really."
I: "Well, again, that's on purpose. The creators have done that as a pacing mechanism for fights. Have you also noticed how hit points don't scale, at all in this game?"
P: "Yeah."
I: "Same thing. Fights aren't meant to be these laborious, blow-by-blow, grinding slog fights. They want you, as players, to be prepared to make hard choices when times grow desperate."
P: "Huh."
I: "Take a look at the overall challenges posed by combat. It's very, very easy to be taken out of a scene in Edge of the Empire, but what you may not have realized is that it's actually very, very hard to be flat-out killed. And why is that? Because it's Star Wars. Get taken out of a scene? Sure you failed, and your buddy has to drag you on to an escape pod just to fight another day . . . but you don't expect your hero to fall over dead in the escape pod corridor from a head wound. Edge of the Empire is built to create Star Wars cinematic flavor."
P: "Okay, but still---are you saying I need to change the way I play my character?"
I: "Eh, not necessarily, but possibly. I am suggesting that you might get more enjoyment from our sessions if you think about that seed of your character that would be the basis of motivation like it was for Han, and then play out that characterization in the game. So here's another secret about my GM style and this game in particular---there are times where I am relying on the narrative dice to decide things. I WANT you as players to provide input. I WANT to leave a lot of things open in the game world. As a GM and player, we can make things more impactful, more resonant with true character motivation elements when we do that. But you have to want to have more intrinsic character motivations. This whole instinct of, 'I have to get better stats and better stuff because my character just needs to be better' is ultimately counter-productive in games that I GM. If that's how you want to play your character, you're going to be frustrated, because I as a GM--in frank and brutal honesty--find that boring as hell. The sooner you let go of that instinct and get into the spirit of a Star Wars narrative, your fun will triple or quadruple almost overnight."
-----
Obviously not quoted word-for-word, but the substance is mostly there, I hope. But I'm curious if others out there might have approached this conversation differently, even if (or perhaps especially if) the game in question isn't Star Wars: Edge of the Empire.
Last edited:
