Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 9042262" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Has been a problem for me more often than a benefit.I utterly reject it as gygaxian dross of the highest order.The group concensus replaces it.I don't hold to this, especially since many games do not mechanically support it. It's only required for the simulationist mode.As a GM, I play to have fun; if the player's aren't having fun, they're free to complain politely or leave...If I'm not having fun, whether the players are or not, I'm unlikely to continue running.I refuse, however, to hold myself hostage to any individal Player's fun. If the majority are unhappy, I'll switch.As a player, if I'm consistently not having fun, I walk away.It's a balancing act. As a GM, most of the time, if I'm having fun, so are the players, but not always. If the players aren't having fun, usually I am not, eitherMy rules, in order<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Rules are consensus and social contract, act accordingly</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Play is supposed to be entertaining; entertaining and fun are NOT synonyms! ¹</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The PCs are the most important PoV for play.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The PCs need not be the most important characters in the setting nor the game. They're only important for their PoV and actions.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Good play is allowing a maximum number of meaningful choices per session.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">When in doubt, set a difficulty</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It's good to state a failure condition on setting difficulty</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Hidden information of story state, game state and setting state is always by choice, never by need. </li> </ol>Meaningful choices: Choices with game state and story state consequence, and made with sufficient information to be decided with expectation of major and/or most consequences predicted or elucidated.The corollaries to these<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Being a social contract... <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the choice of ruleset is binding</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">change requires consensus</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The GM can be wrong.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Grueling and/or heartbreaking sessions are entertaining, but definitely not fun. Understanding the distinction, make certain the players are on board before stepping out of "Fun" into "Grueling" or "Heartbreaking" or "Loss-filled." The heartache of a campaign ending on a down note can be entertaining -  memorable, emotional, and worth pursuing. But it's not for everyone.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Players should have stakes for their characters in most scenes, and every scene should involved characters controlled by the players.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Especially in certain established fictional worlds.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Not most important to the setting  <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Players need not be members of either Thorin's company nor the Ringbearer's Company to play in Tolkien's world.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Players need not play a screen-seen cast character in Star Trek - there's plenty else for them to be BDH's in within the federation. And entire periods with no coverage.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Not most important to the emergent story<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The villain can in fact be the most important character in a game. If done well, it's great. If done poorly, however, it sucks.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">PCs DO need to be the focus of the way the story emerges. Find out in play.</li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">THe following become bad practices<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">setting tasks with no choice to them -- tho' it being a gateway to choice is marginally acceptable to me.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">resolving scenes with a single roll -- as it minimizes choice)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Illusionism -- it makes the choices meaningless from a game state perspective</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">plot on rails -- unless it's agreed to, as the rail is literally the lack of choice...</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Taking over PC actions via rules -- there are times its appropriate, but it literally robs agency and is often frustrating. Even morale fails should be choices; run or freeze. </li> </ul></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">That difficulty can be outside "reasonably attainable".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">When practical, I prefer to take the BW approach: "If you fail, X will happen. Going to Continue?" It's not always practical, especially with hidden information situations.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">two corollaries<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Hide things only when it's going to be more fun overall to hide them. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The opposite to hidden information isn't open information, but undefined information to be defined in play.</li> </ol></li> </ol></blockquote>

Verification