Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 9503719" data-attributes="member: 90374">A really good write up.I do think there is a time and place to recognize when a player just has solid ideas of what an RPG is to them. I've had a player/GM that took me a real long time to figure out. We played numerous systems, D&amp;D/PF/CoC/PbtA/SW/etc.. One thing that rang continually true was the player was trying to find out what their character did. At first I thought they struggled with the idea of being an investigator, dare devil, pirate, teacher, celebrity, insert any RPG character idea you have here. How you tackle problems and resolve them seemed to be the issue.What they wanted, however, was a solid game mechanical process. If im a face, then I need a face action in combat. If im a healer, I need heal actions, in combat. If im a sneak attacker, I need sneak attack options in combat. If the system didnt provide appropriate singular mechanical resolution in combat, the player was disappointed. If the GM didnt provide situations in which the one combat mechanical thing was applicable, the player was disatisfied.What I discovered is the player viewed RPG through a singular lens. Mechacnics in combat. They didnt grok the game outside of comabt. They didnt get talking to NPCs, or coming up with plans to tackle the problems. Everything was on the character sheet, and everything was resolved in combat encounters. The rest, was just window dressing. Once I realised this, it was pointless trying to show them any other way.TL; DR You can lead a gamer to Mountain Dew, but you cant make them drink.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="payn, post: 9503719, member: 90374"] A really good write up. I do think there is a time and place to recognize when a player just has solid ideas of what an RPG is to [I]them. [/I]I've had a player/GM that took me a real long time to figure out. We played numerous systems, D&D/PF/CoC/PbtA/SW/etc.. One thing that rang continually true was the player was trying to find out what their character [I]did[/I]. At first I thought they struggled with the idea of being an investigator, dare devil, pirate, teacher, celebrity, [I]insert any RPG character idea you have here. [/I]How you tackle problems and resolve them seemed to be the issue. What they wanted, however, was a solid game mechanical process. If im a face, then I need a face action in combat. If im a healer, I need heal actions, in combat. If im a sneak attacker, I need sneak attack options in combat. If the system didnt provide appropriate singular mechanical resolution in combat, the player was disappointed. If the GM didnt provide situations in which the one combat mechanical thing was applicable, the player was disatisfied. What I discovered is the player viewed RPG through a singular lens. Mechacnics in combat. They didnt grok the game outside of comabt. They didnt get talking to NPCs, or coming up with plans to tackle the problems. Everything was on the character sheet, and everything was resolved in combat encounters. The rest, was just window dressing. Once I realised this, it was pointless trying to show them any other way. [B]TL; DR[/B] You can lead a gamer to Mountain Dew, but you cant make them drink. [/QUOTE]

Verification