Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: Shooting Magic Missiles from Silly Places
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lewpuls" data-source="post: 7885738" data-attributes="member: 30518"><p>I was attending a college game club for the first time, convening at the odd time of 7:19. I was quite early, having come from another college game club, so I sat down and spread out a couple of games I was seeking to playtest. Not far away a group of guys were talking, and I finally heard enough to recognize they were talking about RPGs and wandered over. It was a discussion to help GMs become better GMs.</p><p></p><p style="text-align: center">[ATTACH=full]117228[/ATTACH]</p> <p style="text-align: center"><a href="https://pixabay.com/illustrations/pumpkin-explode-halloween-3771100/" target="_blank">Picture courtesy of Pixabay.</a></p><p></p><p>The main question amounted to: How do you maintain a serious game and not have it become dominated by silliness? For example, this GM described a game that was going along the way he wanted until one of the players asked if he could shoot his magic missiles from his groin! According to the GM, the game collapsed into silliness after that.</p><p></p><p>This is a really good question. One possibility is that if the players don’t feel that their characters are seriously threatened, then they can do whatever they feel like. On the other hand, if they do feel that their characters might die, there’s likely to be a lot more focus on playing the game and a lot less on silly questions such as the above. That’s the fundamental formula generalization: the lower the stakes, the less engaged the players, and the higher the potential for silliness.</p><p></p><p>But there’s a lot more to it. You can run a game without a lot of silliness if you work to find the right players. If you get responsible players who recognize what you want to do and are willing to go along with the game’s plot, they can say funny things and have a good laugh but still focus on the “seriousness” of the situation. The <strong>players </strong>don’t have to behave like soldiers in combat as long as their <strong>characters </strong>do. The trick is to differentiate between what the <strong>players </strong>say and what the <strong>characters </strong>actually say and do.</p><p></p><p>In a similar way, if the GM is running a game where he/she is telling a story, the GM needs players who are willing to go along with that, willing to concede some control to the GM. If they indulge in lots of silliness that’s detrimental to the story, the storytellers can very easily lose control – and thereby make the story less effective. When you come down to it, a GM who is telling a story has to work with players to set an expectation about how he/she expects them to behave.</p><p></p><p>The middle ground where the GM isn’t going for a strong game or going for a strong storytelling session, is where things are likely to get muddled. Perhaps partly because the players themselves aren’t sure how/where things are going.</p><p></p><p>When a GM is hosting a game, he or she can decide who plays and who doesn’t. We’ve all encountered people who believe that <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/worlds-of-design-chaotic-neutral-is-the-worst.667279/" target="_blank">they ought to be able to do whatever they want</a>, including playing in a game when the GM doesn’t want them to. Those types of players aren’t going to fit anyway, so you may as well head off a lot of frustration early by talking to them first before putting the entire group through the hassle.</p><p></p><p>A GM would be wise to explain ahead of time what kind of campaign he/she has in mind, rather than just recruit “anyone who wants to play Pathfinder” or some other game. It’s just like playing any particular tabletop game, some people aren’t going to like it no matter how good others think the game is, and it saves the potential player time and effort if they find out what the game is about before they play. E.g., if a game can be characterized as “chess-like”, there’s no reason for those who dislike chess-like games to try playing.</p><p></p><p>While the general formula can make a big difference, in the end it’s about finding players who match the GM’s play style. It’s a matter of, well, being adult, of taking responsibility, of not indulging yourself in a way that will interfere with the game as a whole. It seems simple, but I’ve encountered many, many players who are unwilling to play along, so in the end the GM who wants players to behave a certain way may have to “disinvite” a lot of players out of the game (or not invite them to play in the first place).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lewpuls, post: 7885738, member: 30518"] I was attending a college game club for the first time, convening at the odd time of 7:19. I was quite early, having come from another college game club, so I sat down and spread out a couple of games I was seeking to playtest. Not far away a group of guys were talking, and I finally heard enough to recognize they were talking about RPGs and wandered over. It was a discussion to help GMs become better GMs. [CENTER][ATTACH type="full" alt="pumpkin-3771100_1280.jpg"]117228[/ATTACH] [URL='https://pixabay.com/illustrations/pumpkin-explode-halloween-3771100/']Picture courtesy of Pixabay.[/URL][/CENTER] The main question amounted to: How do you maintain a serious game and not have it become dominated by silliness? For example, this GM described a game that was going along the way he wanted until one of the players asked if he could shoot his magic missiles from his groin! According to the GM, the game collapsed into silliness after that. This is a really good question. One possibility is that if the players don’t feel that their characters are seriously threatened, then they can do whatever they feel like. On the other hand, if they do feel that their characters might die, there’s likely to be a lot more focus on playing the game and a lot less on silly questions such as the above. That’s the fundamental formula generalization: the lower the stakes, the less engaged the players, and the higher the potential for silliness. But there’s a lot more to it. You can run a game without a lot of silliness if you work to find the right players. If you get responsible players who recognize what you want to do and are willing to go along with the game’s plot, they can say funny things and have a good laugh but still focus on the “seriousness” of the situation. The [B]players [/B]don’t have to behave like soldiers in combat as long as their [B]characters [/B]do. The trick is to differentiate between what the [B]players [/B]say and what the [B]characters [/B]actually say and do. In a similar way, if the GM is running a game where he/she is telling a story, the GM needs players who are willing to go along with that, willing to concede some control to the GM. If they indulge in lots of silliness that’s detrimental to the story, the storytellers can very easily lose control – and thereby make the story less effective. When you come down to it, a GM who is telling a story has to work with players to set an expectation about how he/she expects them to behave. The middle ground where the GM isn’t going for a strong game or going for a strong storytelling session, is where things are likely to get muddled. Perhaps partly because the players themselves aren’t sure how/where things are going. When a GM is hosting a game, he or she can decide who plays and who doesn’t. We’ve all encountered people who believe that [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/worlds-of-design-chaotic-neutral-is-the-worst.667279/']they ought to be able to do whatever they want[/URL], including playing in a game when the GM doesn’t want them to. Those types of players aren’t going to fit anyway, so you may as well head off a lot of frustration early by talking to them first before putting the entire group through the hassle. A GM would be wise to explain ahead of time what kind of campaign he/she has in mind, rather than just recruit “anyone who wants to play Pathfinder” or some other game. It’s just like playing any particular tabletop game, some people aren’t going to like it no matter how good others think the game is, and it saves the potential player time and effort if they find out what the game is about before they play. E.g., if a game can be characterized as “chess-like”, there’s no reason for those who dislike chess-like games to try playing. While the general formula can make a big difference, in the end it’s about finding players who match the GM’s play style. It’s a matter of, well, being adult, of taking responsibility, of not indulging yourself in a way that will interfere with the game as a whole. It seems simple, but I’ve encountered many, many players who are unwilling to play along, so in the end the GM who wants players to behave a certain way may have to “disinvite” a lot of players out of the game (or not invite them to play in the first place). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: Shooting Magic Missiles from Silly Places
Top