Fun in an RPG
Scattered roleplaying thoughts - always so much fun to deal with. But I've been pondering what's fun in RPGs. What happens that makes Campaign X an awesome experience to look forward to rather than just something to do every Saturday? In my thinking about it, I came upon some contradictory data in my own past, fun varying some depending on the group of players and such...
One Shots
Usually, I'm against single-shot games. This is especially true if character creation takes a long time (whether because of complex rules, or a dearth of ideas). Generally-speaking, I like to invest more in my character than can be done in one session.
And yet, it can sometimes be quite fun, perhaps "liberating." We did a post-apocalyptic-future-western game a few weeks back with a new GM. The flow of the game was somewhat broken, and play stuttered, but it was fun. Why? Because those of us more experienced played with the theme, and because (in my opinion) we didn't take it too seriously. If I really look closely, I'd have to say the game itself wasn't anything special, but sitting around the room and sharing the interaction (and plenty of OOC table talk) was still very entertaining and genuinely fun.
Characters
One thing that can truly make or break a game/campaign for me is my character. If I don't really like playing them, it doesn't matter how great everything else is. I have worked through campaigns that were completely lackluster because I liked "being" my character. I've also watched characters I liked change in ways that made me disinterested in a game. Part of my trouble with getting into the Shadowrun game currently still stems from a difficulty in finding something more to my character than his stats and gear.
Similarly, other characters matter, too. Recurring villains you love to hate, party members to play off of... Heck, I recall a couple campaigns that were given a big boost of enjoyment because of a chemistry between my character and a companion.
Emotional Investment
Often, this comes through characters, but making a player feel something draws them into the game more. There's a lot of tricks and details involved all across the board.
A missing villager will generate much less interested from a player (and probably their character) than witnessing the kidnapping of a character they knew. A faceless warlord is a less motivating opponent than a former mentor turned "evil" or a recurring villain who has stymied the PCs before. Of course, these things can be overused and become cliche, too - so some careful use is required.
Whatever the situation, the more the characters and their players feel for a situation, the greater the impact of any victory (or loss) along the way. Finally defeating the lich about to take over the world is far more fun if there's a history of past encounters that has drawn the players in and made them want to defeat him as much for revenge (justice?) as to save the world.
Story
Years ago - it seems like ages now - I was but a youth, playing with youths. I fell into the role of DM among my small circle of friends, and fun was had. I might occasionally pull adventures from a Dragon Magazine or module lying around, or an idea inspired by a movie. Characters frequently remained the same, but adventures were strung together by little more than recurring cast.
Then I played Final Fantasy 3 (6). That game caused a shift in my role as DM. Instead of just manager of NPCs, introducer of challenges, and arbiter of rules, I became a storyteller. I started pitching campaigns to my friends that used new, setting-specific character and were crafted in my mind with an overall story arc. The heroes would save the world from invasion, or save the kingdom from collapse, or discover lost secrets - individual gaming sessions were no longer connected to one another by the most tenuous of of threads, but rather bound by plot that built to a higher climax. And as any story should, these tales ended - usually after a great victory. Characters and setting were retired, and we would move on to the next.
I came to appreciate a good story.
I've also come to understand there's a balance between GM storytelling and PC influence. It's possible that I railroaded players too much at times, but I don't remember any complaints and I do recall a number of compliments. Some groups at some times may prefer a more story-heavy game. At other times, they might rather have a wide-open sandbox where their characters can do whatever they want. Both can be valid, and both can be fun.
I might say I feel there's a certain degree of artistry in actually giving players freedom to roam while still managing to run a campaign that is a good, solid story. The perfect balance is, from what I've seen, actually fairly rare.
Accomplishment
When we're invested in our characters, we share some of the emotional highs and lows. I wasn't actually crying that one time, but that's not to say I didn't feel it when my character was backed into a corner and saw little choice but to turn on a friend.
So it's fun and exhilarating to overcome obstacles and accomplish something. Victory is sweet - but really only if defeat was (or, at least, seemed) possible. Scoring that fatal blow on the dragon with the group torn up and some people on the verge of death feels awesome.
Unfortunately, I've also seem a lot of "challenges" that weren't. It usually happens at the end of game when interest has waned for whatever reason, but after all the build up and work, having the PCs steamroll a final enemy, or having circumstance do it for them, usually strikes me as a horrible disappointment. Likewise, I've played in games that I would describe as somewhere between "dull" and "torturous" because we'd pass sessions traveling through the wilderness and not really doing anything. "Okay, the PCs may have survived a random encounter against all odds, but they still aren't any closer to their goal - they haven't actually accomplished anything."
Of course, for an obstacle to be challenging, there has to seem a credible possibility of failing. In many RPG encounters, failure means death. And that's something GMs and groups will always wrestle with, I think. It's difficult to make players feel death is possible without killing characters, and it's difficult not to kill characters without conveying that death isn't possible. What's an appropriate level of risk varies from group to group, but victory without at least a perceived chance of failure always feels more hollow.
I may have more thoughts to edit in or put in another post. Have you any to share?
One Shots
Usually, I'm against single-shot games. This is especially true if character creation takes a long time (whether because of complex rules, or a dearth of ideas). Generally-speaking, I like to invest more in my character than can be done in one session.
And yet, it can sometimes be quite fun, perhaps "liberating." We did a post-apocalyptic-future-western game a few weeks back with a new GM. The flow of the game was somewhat broken, and play stuttered, but it was fun. Why? Because those of us more experienced played with the theme, and because (in my opinion) we didn't take it too seriously. If I really look closely, I'd have to say the game itself wasn't anything special, but sitting around the room and sharing the interaction (and plenty of OOC table talk) was still very entertaining and genuinely fun.
Characters
One thing that can truly make or break a game/campaign for me is my character. If I don't really like playing them, it doesn't matter how great everything else is. I have worked through campaigns that were completely lackluster because I liked "being" my character. I've also watched characters I liked change in ways that made me disinterested in a game. Part of my trouble with getting into the Shadowrun game currently still stems from a difficulty in finding something more to my character than his stats and gear.
Similarly, other characters matter, too. Recurring villains you love to hate, party members to play off of... Heck, I recall a couple campaigns that were given a big boost of enjoyment because of a chemistry between my character and a companion.
Emotional Investment
Often, this comes through characters, but making a player feel something draws them into the game more. There's a lot of tricks and details involved all across the board.
A missing villager will generate much less interested from a player (and probably their character) than witnessing the kidnapping of a character they knew. A faceless warlord is a less motivating opponent than a former mentor turned "evil" or a recurring villain who has stymied the PCs before. Of course, these things can be overused and become cliche, too - so some careful use is required.
Whatever the situation, the more the characters and their players feel for a situation, the greater the impact of any victory (or loss) along the way. Finally defeating the lich about to take over the world is far more fun if there's a history of past encounters that has drawn the players in and made them want to defeat him as much for revenge (justice?) as to save the world.
Story
Years ago - it seems like ages now - I was but a youth, playing with youths. I fell into the role of DM among my small circle of friends, and fun was had. I might occasionally pull adventures from a Dragon Magazine or module lying around, or an idea inspired by a movie. Characters frequently remained the same, but adventures were strung together by little more than recurring cast.
Then I played Final Fantasy 3 (6). That game caused a shift in my role as DM. Instead of just manager of NPCs, introducer of challenges, and arbiter of rules, I became a storyteller. I started pitching campaigns to my friends that used new, setting-specific character and were crafted in my mind with an overall story arc. The heroes would save the world from invasion, or save the kingdom from collapse, or discover lost secrets - individual gaming sessions were no longer connected to one another by the most tenuous of of threads, but rather bound by plot that built to a higher climax. And as any story should, these tales ended - usually after a great victory. Characters and setting were retired, and we would move on to the next.
I came to appreciate a good story.
I've also come to understand there's a balance between GM storytelling and PC influence. It's possible that I railroaded players too much at times, but I don't remember any complaints and I do recall a number of compliments. Some groups at some times may prefer a more story-heavy game. At other times, they might rather have a wide-open sandbox where their characters can do whatever they want. Both can be valid, and both can be fun.
I might say I feel there's a certain degree of artistry in actually giving players freedom to roam while still managing to run a campaign that is a good, solid story. The perfect balance is, from what I've seen, actually fairly rare.
Accomplishment
When we're invested in our characters, we share some of the emotional highs and lows. I wasn't actually crying that one time, but that's not to say I didn't feel it when my character was backed into a corner and saw little choice but to turn on a friend.
So it's fun and exhilarating to overcome obstacles and accomplish something. Victory is sweet - but really only if defeat was (or, at least, seemed) possible. Scoring that fatal blow on the dragon with the group torn up and some people on the verge of death feels awesome.
Unfortunately, I've also seem a lot of "challenges" that weren't. It usually happens at the end of game when interest has waned for whatever reason, but after all the build up and work, having the PCs steamroll a final enemy, or having circumstance do it for them, usually strikes me as a horrible disappointment. Likewise, I've played in games that I would describe as somewhere between "dull" and "torturous" because we'd pass sessions traveling through the wilderness and not really doing anything. "Okay, the PCs may have survived a random encounter against all odds, but they still aren't any closer to their goal - they haven't actually accomplished anything."
Of course, for an obstacle to be challenging, there has to seem a credible possibility of failing. In many RPG encounters, failure means death. And that's something GMs and groups will always wrestle with, I think. It's difficult to make players feel death is possible without killing characters, and it's difficult not to kill characters without conveying that death isn't possible. What's an appropriate level of risk varies from group to group, but victory without at least a perceived chance of failure always feels more hollow.
I may have more thoughts to edit in or put in another post. Have you any to share?
On the count of making a point of death being possible, I agree with you 110%. My last serious RPG group was doing Earthdawn. I was playing a roguish sort of character who always wanted to be on the front lines. Why? You can't truly build a legend for yourself without being in the thick of it, ne? I knew that meant that there was a serious possibility of my character biting the dust. Well... The GM didn't see it that way. He had my character become possessed, tainted in the world of Earthdawn. To become tainted is a death sentence, even if you manage to get the possessing entity removed because, even if you kill the entity, you'll really have only killed its physical being and its actual essense will ALWAYS be tied to your own, able to manipulate you. Once my team-mates discovered what had occured (and several WATCHED it happen, In-Character), they should have taken up arms AGAINST me... They refused to. And the GM refused to, as well. Our group worked for several groups of what amounted to Royalty. All of them had means of detecting the "Taint" my character had and most of them DID... Not a single one of them exiled, imprisoned, attempted to kill, torture, or maim my character or ANYTHING... It honestly got on my nerves quite a bit because it went completely against the Mythos of the world in which we were playing for there to not even be any ill-will towards my character. In the end, I left that particular gaming group. The reasons are varied, but it came down to "If my character should die, then kill it! I can sit out for a while until it makes sense to introduce a new person or even take over an some of the NPC stuff". Also quit because the GM had a VERY un-subtle "longing" for my now ex-wife. Made things complicated. o.o;;
ReplyDeleteYeaaaah. Multiple reasons there. >.> I've seen a spectrum on character death. I've been on both sides of the GM screen, and I understand there are times when letting a random die roll kill a PC seems inappropriate. But I also know that sending a character headlong into a vicious battle while thinking "this GM never lets any character die, so there's no risk" takes away a lot of possible impact from the scene. I've also been in cases where my character almost died that left me questioning afterward just how much the GM might have fudged things. I've seen characters brought back to life when they probably should have been gone. And... hmm... well, I'm actually having trouble thinking of a character of mine who has died in the course of play, so I shouldn't claim that one if I can't conjure up a specific example. Now, some people feel PC death is a sin in gaming, to be avoided at all costs. I've come to feel, however, that the threat should be believable no matter how real it is or isn't.
ReplyDeleteI'll take a chapter from Dogs in the Vineyard in this matter. What's at Stake and escalation. Is what's at stake important enough for a character to get into conflict over it? Typically. It's that sort of use of drama that makes games interesting and interactive instead of stories being told as you sit there. Princesses being captured, livestock being slaughtered, homes ruined, your sister dating a guy you don't like and so on. Something's at stake and your character sticks his nose into it. Now, as for fatality. Nothing in an RPG has to be fatal if you don't want it to be. Oh sure, there's hit points or random charts and dice, but as mentioned prior, many GMs are subject to 'dice fudges' or 'having an out' for characters of players they like/don't wanna upset. So, if you charge that front line, you're putting yourself at risk. You're escalating conflict above words (which are typically safe) into physical damage, with the chance of fallout that leads to serious injury or death. An argument leading to fisticuffs leading to weapons being drawn is an example of escalation into potential fatal outcome. Is what's at stake great enough for you to 'go for your gun' as it were? Or lose the object of the conflict, but save your own skin? It's not often broached in most RPGs, especially the kind that send you in to kill things as your job. (Looking at you D&D, Shadowrun, Palladium, etc.)
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose it's my having been "raised" on D&D as a gamer, but most games I play do involved situations that are (theoretically) life and death. Not all the time. Interplay between characters can be fun and lead to development. "Bad guys" can sometimes be convinced with words... But when the plot gets moving, it's often "us or them." You can't always reason with a rabid cultist, or a nameless-horror-from-beyond that seeks to destroy the world as you know it, or the lich-lord who wants a kingdom of the dead... and the PCs are the ones putting their lives on the line simply by virtue of being PCs. If they wanted to go sit at home and be safe, that may be an option in some cases, but leads to a pretty dull story and probably end of a campaign. Also, I could point out this isn't necessarily about death per se. That's the usual example, but it's more generally the risk of failure. If you take a conflict at the conversation level even and remove the risk of failure, how rewarding is success? Not very.
ReplyDeleteFun in table top RPG for me require: 1) I enjoy the company of the players 2) I enjoy the concepts of the characters outside of mine (You'll find I'm not big on 'dark secrets' or characters made in a vaccuum seperate from others) 3a) The system. It has to be one I'm familiar with or one I'm interested in getting to know. 3b) The setting. I have to want to be something in this setting or be sold on it being a good idea. (Psuedo-Mormon paladin mail delivery law-enforcement in the wild west with a touch of supernatural. How is -that- fun?) 4) Agreement to work together as players. Now, that said, the -characters- can bitch and backstab and hate on one another, but if the players meta agree to work together towards roles filled and missions complete, I have more fun. A character of mine betrayed feels like personal betrayal if I wasn't given 'heads up' as it being a possibility.
ReplyDelete#1 is probably a big one in any game. Even online, roleplaying is a social activity to some degree. If we wanted RP without other players, there's always CRPGs. ;) #4 seems related, though you go beyond company and into working together. For some reason, it's a little odd for me to see it written out like that. I don't disagree. I mean, if players are uncooperative, it usually makes for a game/session that is more like pulling teeth than group enjoyment. In most of the games I've participated in RL, there's a certain group mentality. Even without a selected "leader," the players work together and rarely argue over what to do - options may be discussed IC and OOC, but there's usually not any level of dissent that leads to players insisting on different courses of action. And when such things do come up, it often leads to a breakdown in game as well as out. And yet... I perceive a lot less of that online. I suppose the medium removes the players from one another and makes such connections more difficult. When I shifted from MUDs (where RP was scattered and rare) to MUSHes and MUCKs, I was "taught" (partly direct, partly just by example) a certain etiquette. Highlights include: - In conflict with someone else, pose your action and let them pose the result. - If you're doing something that heavily impacts another character, discuss it with their player. There were, in a sense, "Golden Rules" of online RP to me. The first was relatively necessary given the limited game mechanics in place. The second was a simple matter of respect and courtesy to fellow players. That seems to line up perfectly with your #4: Agreement to work together as players. And yes, it negatively impacts my enjoyment when people don't. I could name instances on Faire, but I'd be retreading the same ground over again.
ReplyDelete