RPG Preference
So last night as one person was making a character for our Dresden Files game, a question came up amidst various conversation. Our newest player, hyper and eager enough to be trying to GM the game, asked some of us what sort of games/systems we prefer. One person vaguely answered that he wasn't sure yet.
I really like the idea of the story-heavy, interactive game. DFRPG goes this route to a good degree, Fox Magic and some others probably a bit further. When a game is shaped by everyone's input, they all feel more involved. Theoretically, there's less burden on any one person (usually the GM), and all is good.
In this style game, systems are generally closely tied to the setting and theme of the games. There are specific, integral rules that reflect things within the games. The Refresh trait in DFRPG conveys the lure of supernatural power balanced against the freedom of human will. FM is even more tightly focused around kitsune abilities.
And yet, I find myself a lot more comfortable with a different paradigm. I still picture the "norm" for RPGs being a GM who manages the world and general plotline and a group of players who run their characters, with the GM in charge. Maybe this is a view that's becoming dated, but it's how I was "raised" in gaming. And while this style isn't unheard of among setting-specific games, I still have a great fondness for the generic fantasy D&D rules of old - where the rules might be genre-specific, but could be dropped into pretty much any setting with minimal effort. Heck, D&D 3E was so generic, they offered is in a modular fashion onto the masses with their Open Gaming License/d20 movement.
Somehow, in practice, I find the latter types of game to be more fun and/or move better. This is strange to me on examination, because I really like the theory of the former. Am I just too old to learn new tricks, so hidebound that I don't want to try newer (to me, anyway) ways of gaming? Well... I do think that's part of it. I'm a creature of habit in so many ways, and that probably accounts for some discomfort in any move from GM-driven to player-driven gaming. But I don't think that's all of it.
Mood plays a part, too, I think. When I get to gaming, it's usually after work, or cramming in before. I "come to the table" frequently without a relaxed mindset and without particular inspiration or creativity. Mostly, I just want to play as some social interaction and escapism. So, as a player, the idea of taking up responsibility for the story beyond just my character is actually something of a burden. I already don't like writing other people's characters, or messing with "their" setting, so working together to shape the game is usually just more than I feel like doing.
And on the flip side, when I feel like GMing, it's because I have ideas that I want to see played out. They don't have to follow a set script (if they did, I could write it myself), but I generally have some vision of the overall arc.
- Young Jedi come into their own while investigating a new/old threat to the Republic and seek a way to stave off invasion.
- Adventurers struggle to aid a dying world while rediscovering themselves and facing whether they are who they were.
- Representatives of several nations come together to confront a great threat to them all.
- National heroes come to see the corruption and consequences associated with great power in themselves and others, and must decide whether such power is truly worthwhile.
For all of these games (okay, I've never run the last one), I had a rough vision of how things would play out and my enjoyment, as a GM, came from sharing that and watching it grow. Forcing players along a specific path is usually too much (though some don't mind), but if the players were to make a campaign jump off the rails entirely, it wouldn't be as fun for me as a GM.
So... yeah. I guess I'm fairly set in my ways. I don't know if I really answered the question in the way he wanted/meant, but I gave more an answer than anyone else. ;)
I really like the idea of the story-heavy, interactive game. DFRPG goes this route to a good degree, Fox Magic and some others probably a bit further. When a game is shaped by everyone's input, they all feel more involved. Theoretically, there's less burden on any one person (usually the GM), and all is good.
In this style game, systems are generally closely tied to the setting and theme of the games. There are specific, integral rules that reflect things within the games. The Refresh trait in DFRPG conveys the lure of supernatural power balanced against the freedom of human will. FM is even more tightly focused around kitsune abilities.
And yet, I find myself a lot more comfortable with a different paradigm. I still picture the "norm" for RPGs being a GM who manages the world and general plotline and a group of players who run their characters, with the GM in charge. Maybe this is a view that's becoming dated, but it's how I was "raised" in gaming. And while this style isn't unheard of among setting-specific games, I still have a great fondness for the generic fantasy D&D rules of old - where the rules might be genre-specific, but could be dropped into pretty much any setting with minimal effort. Heck, D&D 3E was so generic, they offered is in a modular fashion onto the masses with their Open Gaming License/d20 movement.
Somehow, in practice, I find the latter types of game to be more fun and/or move better. This is strange to me on examination, because I really like the theory of the former. Am I just too old to learn new tricks, so hidebound that I don't want to try newer (to me, anyway) ways of gaming? Well... I do think that's part of it. I'm a creature of habit in so many ways, and that probably accounts for some discomfort in any move from GM-driven to player-driven gaming. But I don't think that's all of it.
Mood plays a part, too, I think. When I get to gaming, it's usually after work, or cramming in before. I "come to the table" frequently without a relaxed mindset and without particular inspiration or creativity. Mostly, I just want to play as some social interaction and escapism. So, as a player, the idea of taking up responsibility for the story beyond just my character is actually something of a burden. I already don't like writing other people's characters, or messing with "their" setting, so working together to shape the game is usually just more than I feel like doing.
And on the flip side, when I feel like GMing, it's because I have ideas that I want to see played out. They don't have to follow a set script (if they did, I could write it myself), but I generally have some vision of the overall arc.
- Young Jedi come into their own while investigating a new/old threat to the Republic and seek a way to stave off invasion.
- Adventurers struggle to aid a dying world while rediscovering themselves and facing whether they are who they were.
- Representatives of several nations come together to confront a great threat to them all.
- National heroes come to see the corruption and consequences associated with great power in themselves and others, and must decide whether such power is truly worthwhile.
For all of these games (okay, I've never run the last one), I had a rough vision of how things would play out and my enjoyment, as a GM, came from sharing that and watching it grow. Forcing players along a specific path is usually too much (though some don't mind), but if the players were to make a campaign jump off the rails entirely, it wouldn't be as fun for me as a GM.
So... yeah. I guess I'm fairly set in my ways. I don't know if I really answered the question in the way he wanted/meant, but I gave more an answer than anyone else. ;)
Comments
Post a Comment