Idle Thoughts of the Morn
I'd say "stop me if I'm rambling," but that's probably all this is going to be.
I browse a fair amount of roleplaying-related forums. One topic/bit of advice that I see frequently given to GMs is "involve your players." It means a lot of things and is explained a lot of ways: let their actions matter, integrate any back stories their characters have, let their interests steer the course of the game...
And yet, I don't see things play out that way very often.
Years ago, I made a shift from casual roleplaying (in which generally the same characters faced a different dungeon/enemy/whatever every week) to something a bit more serious (with recurring villains, story arcs, etc.). The move toward some consistant story meant motivating characters to progress in a certain direction. I don't ever recall having to "fight" or "railroad" things, really. But that was perhaps the "glory days" or roleplaying offline, and the players generally went with the flow. In our group, it was normal for PCs to be more reactive than proactive - frequently they weren't even designed with major goals of their own, picking up scenerio-appropriate ones in play.
When I got into playing online, things were different. The MUCKs I dabbled in largely required players to generate things to do - most didn't have any "game masters." It took some getting used to, but I was able to play off others and things worked out. One of my legacy characters on Faire was quite the manipulator for a while, and was very active in working toward her goals - though most such scenes required someone else to field NPCs. I never really took control of a major quest for people. I tried to do something once and instead of revealing back story, giving challenge, and offering a chance to play hero, I just upset the player involved. After that, I pretty much gave up the idea and haven't really tried to run any organized RP online since. At most, I'll "GM" a few scenes for someone, but no extended plots.
And now... I dunno. Things don't seem to have changed that much. My unorganized MUCK play has dwindled - perhaps because it's "old," or because so many old friends have gone, or because the place doesn't feel "mine" enough to try to shape things. Or maybe I'm just tired. The Exalted game is holding on fairly well, though we still have tensions amidst the group. Even there, things seem guided more by story than player choices, though. Offline games, too - well, we can either fight the evil trying to destroy the world, or we can... do something else and let everything die? Gee, lotsa choices there.
Of course, playing to a story isn't necessarily bad. It can be fun too, and that's the important part. But as much as I've heard that one bit of advice, you'd think I might actually see it in action a little more.
To roleplaying readers: How often have games you've been involved in been shaped by the players more than the GM's story?
I browse a fair amount of roleplaying-related forums. One topic/bit of advice that I see frequently given to GMs is "involve your players." It means a lot of things and is explained a lot of ways: let their actions matter, integrate any back stories their characters have, let their interests steer the course of the game...
And yet, I don't see things play out that way very often.
Years ago, I made a shift from casual roleplaying (in which generally the same characters faced a different dungeon/enemy/whatever every week) to something a bit more serious (with recurring villains, story arcs, etc.). The move toward some consistant story meant motivating characters to progress in a certain direction. I don't ever recall having to "fight" or "railroad" things, really. But that was perhaps the "glory days" or roleplaying offline, and the players generally went with the flow. In our group, it was normal for PCs to be more reactive than proactive - frequently they weren't even designed with major goals of their own, picking up scenerio-appropriate ones in play.
When I got into playing online, things were different. The MUCKs I dabbled in largely required players to generate things to do - most didn't have any "game masters." It took some getting used to, but I was able to play off others and things worked out. One of my legacy characters on Faire was quite the manipulator for a while, and was very active in working toward her goals - though most such scenes required someone else to field NPCs. I never really took control of a major quest for people. I tried to do something once and instead of revealing back story, giving challenge, and offering a chance to play hero, I just upset the player involved. After that, I pretty much gave up the idea and haven't really tried to run any organized RP online since. At most, I'll "GM" a few scenes for someone, but no extended plots.
And now... I dunno. Things don't seem to have changed that much. My unorganized MUCK play has dwindled - perhaps because it's "old," or because so many old friends have gone, or because the place doesn't feel "mine" enough to try to shape things. Or maybe I'm just tired. The Exalted game is holding on fairly well, though we still have tensions amidst the group. Even there, things seem guided more by story than player choices, though. Offline games, too - well, we can either fight the evil trying to destroy the world, or we can... do something else and let everything die? Gee, lotsa choices there.
Of course, playing to a story isn't necessarily bad. It can be fun too, and that's the important part. But as much as I've heard that one bit of advice, you'd think I might actually see it in action a little more.
To roleplaying readers: How often have games you've been involved in been shaped by the players more than the GM's story?
I'm really sorry for that one bad time. It had hit a nerve, and involved something I was very sensitive to. : As to the question - hard to say. The Shadowrun Game doesn't seem to really involve player wants, really. We get an offer on a mission, we decide whether or not we want to take it (and heaven forbid if we say 'no'), and we do the mission. The D&D game, I had a few plans, and those got upended when we became wanted fugitives and had to flee the country. The most recent session was nice though, we got to join the gladiatorial arena, and three of us took on a brown dragon and wiped it out in about four rounds. :D (Mind you, this was one with the 'savage' template - loses all Supernatural Abilities and DR, gains a bunch of other things). It was all of CR 8. With the Exalted Game, yeah, the Metaplot does sort of restrict choices, but things should be fine once that plot is done.
ReplyDeleteI find it difficult to explain, but there's more to it than just direction of the game. Our Exalted game is being directed by necessity of the characters for the most part in reaction to situations that have arrisen. Yeah. But there's also a lot of other stuff about the characters that doesn't play a part in anything. - Two party members belong to the Cult of the Illuminated, but that hasn't come up since the initial "this is why you're out here" setup. - Two party members (at least) have have backgrounds at the "I have lots of resources, but my life is run by my patron" level, and we've only seen one said patron, who lets his daughter run around and do her thing. - Two members are from the First Age. Okay, this one has affected things to some degree, opening up a whole plotline (restoration of Lunar castes) that we haven't yet explored, but it's there. There's a lot more to the characters that could (and in some cases, I might even say "should, according to the rules") be played upon, but isn't. At least, not yet. That's... sorta what I'm used to, actually. You can come to the "table" with as elaborate a backstory as you imagine and it still may or may not be touched upon once the game actually begins.
ReplyDeleteAh why not a comment? Initial RP experiences include running around with my friend who lived nearby in a make-believe setting of his own imagination. Inspired by Post-apocalyptic tales and a dabbling of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, this "game" between the two of us lasted a good 10 years of our friendship. Heh. As for actual table-top with rules games, my older brother introduced to me at the fragile age of 8 the red box Dungeons and dragons. Yeah, the Basic set. I'm Old Skool like dat. In grade school a good friend of mine showed me Palladium's TMNT and other Strangeness. (Burgeoning Furrydom right there) This is all I knew until High school (Though Heroes Unlimited was mixed in with TMNT). I got exposed to Shadowrun to appeal to my near-future desires. I also started collecting Magic: the Gathering cards. It wouldn't be until college before I got into White Wolf's Vampire/Werewolf/Changling/Mage games, and the spin-off, LARPing. So what does this say about me? Well, I suppose that for a long time my influences were focus on characters, not plot, interactions and intimacies between them, and blowing shit up and looting corpses and walking away with the big haul, consequences be damned. That's still in my RP style to this day. I'm tempermental, thus my characters act first and worry about consequences after. Even my intellectuals (Like my prized mage characterization of my furry persona) still do as much damage as quickly as possible, to prevent retaliation. I don't much like rules for roll X dice to determine degree of success, but I do have the driving competition to have better stats in my "area of expertise" than others. Ah well.
ReplyDeleteThe games and groups I've played with have varied greatly, but in a nutshell, control of the storyline shifted from GM to players when the players came up with so weird idea, destination or solution that completely derailed the campaign/plot/whole reason we were there in the first place... GM: "the temple door in front of you locked, you must find a key." Players: "Hey, there was an old key in that tomb three continents over, lets go look for it, and while we're at it, save a village from orcs, spend copious amounts of GP on new weapons, develop entirely new NPC contacts, and revisit this problem in another four sessions." or... GM: " you must find evidence that links this third world dictator to the genocide in some small African country." Me: "Can't we just shoot him, and find the evidence later?" GM: "No." Me: "Ok, we'll start by making repeated trips to the arms bazaar and black market dealers, enough to draw attention to ourselves, have an elaborate running gun battle through the streets of Bankok, drawing so much attention from good and bad guys that we are forced to retreat across the border and find an entirely different cover story in order re-enter the country, by which time word of our exploits has reached the dictator, and his security has tripled. How many character points do I get?"
ReplyDeleteShaped more by the players than the GM's story? I think very few, actually. In all the games that I've run, I feel that: - New roleplayers or roleplayers that come to the game with a vague or weak sense of their character's background and motivation rely a lot on the situation, as told by the GM, to help them along. A strong GM plot helps them, obviously, because they'd be listless without it. - Experienced roleplayers who have developed, or make up on the fly, a rich motivation for their character, or roleplayers who have "imported" their previous character complete with past experiences often start the game with a firm idea of what they want their character to accomplish. I like to introduce a strong plot to unite these characters, make them a team, rather than a bunch of individuals off pursuing their own goals. - Once I feel like the group is working like a team, then I like to use the group as the means by which the individuals further their goals. In other words, I form a GM story around the individual's goal and this becomes the team's goal. Being able to integrate some synergy between like-goals or similar plots is helpful. As a player I've enjoyed this style as well. I had a DnD mage, longest running character I ever played, who had a little-talked-about background of being an exiled noble. In fact, he was introduced to the characters as 'just a mage' and completed many adventures with the group before he revealed this fact, and eventually he asked the group that he'd found much fame and fortune with, to help him take back his Duchy from oppressive, evil rule. I guess my point is, it was always the GM's story, I just happened to provide the hook by which the next chapter was played. Everything else was fleshed out by him and us, as players.
ReplyDelete"I charge my horse uphill into the archer line!" Ahem. Anyway, it just seems I rarely encounter this on large scale. Yeah, a certain encounter may be taken totally off-course by player actions, but I almost never see players that have the drive and goals to steer a whole campaign as you indicate. But then, that's what I'm curious about here: how other gamers' experiences differ.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm just jaded. I don't often see that kind of lush backstory brought to a game. When it is, I generally don't see it used to any degree. Thus, I don't usually bother to put that much effort into background. And as a GM... well, it's been so long since I've seriously done so, I don't think I'm in a position to answer that aspect. My last major GMing attempt... I expected little player background input, so devised a situation where I would interact with them slowly over the course of the game to flesh history out as the characters remembered. All-in-all, that experiment didn't really work out that well.
ReplyDelete