|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 2:29PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2012
|
You know, if you can't embelish on this, you should not have posted it.
I didn't think I needed to elaborate, but you can if you want to.
If you constantly post paragraph after paragraph for each room, most players will start to tune you out.
I meant 'Don't leave out the eighty-foot dragon' (as it says in the discription). :p
God, no. Players who like to improvise can bring their own things with them, or make a roll to find stuff in the environment.
Draws and cupboards should have random stuff in them they can use, which you can deside in reaction to their questions if you want, but you should furnish a few things of your own.
No. Collaborate on them with the environment,
This is a matter of preference really, but I don't think players shouldn't be expected to be the main world creators in the game. Letting the players come up with too many of the details (or providing none at all) is a very good way to kill your game. I've seen it happen, everyone just goes silent because they are the characters and they want you to feed them details so they can ask you questions for more details and act. If you don't This can be really game-breaking. The players should be the ones to drive the direction of the story, but the DM should create about 80-90% of the world around the players and determine the results of what they do and drive the schemes of the NPCs.
Bad idea. Nothing pisses people off more than to spend a couple months of exploring that cave system to only find out it was the other cave system.
You are right on this one.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 2:43PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
God, no. Players who like to improvise can bring their own things with them, or make a roll to find stuff in the environment.
Draws and cupboards should have random stuff in them they can use. Players shouldn't be expected to be the main world creators in the game, if they are then there is no way to suprise them and no progression since progresion implies there is an ultimate goal.
Surprising the players (as opposed to the characters) is a questionably attainable goal, even with complete narrative control by the DM, because it requires just as much player buy-in, either to pretend to be surprised even after they've figured it out, or to enjoy the surprise after it's revealed. Anyway, collaboration and narrative control by players actually do lead to entertaining games, and even surprises.
Player imput, direction, and free will is very good (and was mentioned a few times) but letting them make up the details of the world around them is not as this basically means that they are only placing hurdles in their path towards ultimate victory and that they can ceat at any time through invention, rendering the game pointless as a game.
A common misunderstanding.
Players who are given narrative control aren't ever "cheating," they're playing the game they want to play. I've noticed that players who go directly from a DM-controlled game into one in which they have control do tend to get a little carried away, but they soon realize that they're only cheating themselves. Anyone can have a level 30 character with all the trimmings. The actual fun comes from taking a character through the levels, experiencing the adventure (even if one helped craft it), and pitting the characters against interesting challenges.
Letting the players come up with most of the details is a very good way to kill your game and and turning it into a mellow-dramatic group storytelling session where nothing ever challenges or hinders the heroes.
Yes, if that's what everyone wants. All narrative control does is let the players have the game they want. This might even be a game in which they abdicate their narrative control back to the DM, but I find that unlikely.
The players should be the ones to drive the direction of the story, but the DM should create the world around the players and determine the results of what they do and drive the schemes of the NPCs. What I am saying is that the DM creates the world and the party interacts with it. You can take tips from them, but they shouldn't be doing any more than filling in the fine details of game, as they choose.
Good in theory, but this forum is a record of part of the long, troubled history of that approach. Not that giving players more narrative control doesn't have issues, but as it inspires deeper trust around the table, it helps lay a foundation for everyone getting the kind of experience they want for themselves and their characters, rather than hoping that what the DM delivers is what everyone will enjoy.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 2:49PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
The original was edited as I posted. Draws and cupboards should have random stuff in them they can use, which you can deside in reaction to their questions if you want, but you should furnish a few things of your own.
Deciding in reaction to their questions is "DM May I" and it's slow and boring as the DM evaluates every request. "Yes, and..." is faster and fosters trust, though it does require some initial trust.
No. Collaborate on them with the environment,
This is a matter of preference really, but I don't think players shouldn't be expected to be the main world creators in the game.
Why not? Five or so creative brains are going to know what they like more than the DM does. And they don't have to be the main creators, but they should be collaborated with much more than is traditionally done. This is where the hobby is going, away from DM-as-computer and toward DM-as-fellow-collaborator.
Letting the players come up with too many of the details (or providing none at all) is a very good way to kill your game. I've seen it happen, everyone just goes silent because they are the characters and they want you to feed them details so they can ask you questions for more details and act. If you don't This can be really game-breaking.
Quite so. It's "collaboration," not "abdication." The DM prompts them to provide the level of detail they're comfortable with.
The players should be the ones to drive the direction of the story, but the DM should create about 80-90% of the world around the players and determine the results of what they do and drive the schemes of the NPCs.
No "should" about it. That's just what people are used to, and while it generally works fine, there are a lot of problems with that approach.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 3:01PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2012
|
Hmm, you make good points but I think you are a bit black-or-white on the player control issue. I'm not suggesting that the DM railroad the campaign, if the players want to try or do something they should be able to. However, the world itself should be outside their direct control. They could change it by asking questions and looking for specific things or expecting them to be there, but if you let them take full control of the way the world is build the players have very little chance of failure overall and will subconsciously build their success into the world itself. What you are suggesting is a very group dependant system which is the absolute opposite of the DM who won't let the party off the train tracks for a second, and it's too much the other way and swings the world too much in the party's favour.
You can balance it, but I think it is important to not let a normal group dictate anything about the world that is extremely important and to give them most of the details yourself so they can explore it in-character.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 4:10PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Hmm, you make good points but I think you are a bit black-or-white on the player control issue. I'm not suggesting that the DM railroad the campaign, if the players want to try or do something they should be able to. However, the world itself should be outside their direct control.
I'm sure we agree that "railroading" is generally bad, unless that's what they're asking for. But surely you have encountered situations in which players were bored or disengaged with what the DM was offering, or made choices that the DM couldn't decide how to make interesting.
The point of collaboration is that you have several other brains around the table and it's folly not to tap into those as directly as possible.
They could change it by asking questions
That's a start, but that's "DM May I," and tempts the DM to block the idea, rather than "Yes, and...." But if the DM is going to say "Yes, and..." anyway, that part might as well be skipped, and the player's idea simply worked with.
and looking for specific things or expecting them to be there,
Yes, that is a very modern approach and there's a lot of good about it.
but if you let them take full control of the way the world is build the players have very little chance of failure overall and will subconsciously build their success into the world itself.
It's not "full control." The term "collaboration" is specific, because it means "working together" not "give up control."
Yes, I have noticed a tendency for players to give themselves a lot of power, but most of this is a reaction to being freed from the restrictions of what they're used to. The same thing happens to certain players when they go from an video game environment to a roleplaying environment. Things quickly cool down and the DM finds the balance point, and the players learn that they're only cheating themselves.
And, yes, a certain amount of trust is required, but not really any more than needs to be present for a smoothing running game of any kind.
What you are suggesting is a very group dependant system which is the absolute opposite of the DM who won't let the party off the train tracks for a second, and it's too much the other way and swings the world too much in the party's favour.
It's as far the other way as the group wants it.
If a group of players gives themselves absolute power and enjoys that, then there's a good bet they were bridling under the DM's control anyway. I don't see much fun in a game like that, but some people might.
You can balance it, but I think it is important to not let a normal group dictate anything about the world that is extremely important and to give them most of the details yourself so they can explore it in-character.
This idea of "extremely important" things in the world is worrying. Extremely important in what way? To some plans the DM is intent on bringing about, whether the players are interested in it or not? DMs have been told for so long that it's their story and their world, that they can easily get very proprietary. This sets them up to block player ideas, which causes problems at the table. Once the DM can give up any notion that any particular idea is more important than collaboration at the table, then really interesting and creative things can start to happen at the table.
As for exploring, surely every DM is familiar with the group that grows bored of exploring, or completely misses the surprise the DM put in for them to find, or is nonplussed by it, or actively dislikes it - or realized the surprise well in advance and either wrecked it or went along with it. The percentage of time when exploration is actually engaging and not a repetitive grind in search for a rare nugget is very low. Most tables won't miss it at all, I daresay. And tables that are collaborating on their exploration do still make remarkable discoveries. They just don't all come from the DM. Hard to understand perhaps, but give it a try.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 4:32PM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jul 21, 2004
|
Bottom line, the tradition of treating the DM as a thing that invents and delivers a simulation to the players and players as things that just move around that simulation is one that needs a serious look. This division is the cause of many of the problems that are asked about on these boards and of a lot of the feeling that certain game sessions could be somehow be better or easier.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 15, 2013 - 8:08PM
#17
|
|
|
If I may suggest another:
*Understand the mechanics of the game well. There is nothing like a player asking he/she wants to do something in Combat or Skill challenges & the DM simply says "no" because he/she don't understand the rules to break it down. If not sure how to break it down into game mechanics, ask the players how it should be handled.
*Maintain the Prime Directive...players as a whole having fun. If players are not having fun, TALK to them how you can make it fun for THEM, and then LISTEN.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 1:40AM
#18
|
|
|
A few more that came to me: Communication is King. Don't assume things about your player's their character's, or your game. Take the time to find out how you are doing as a DM. Listen and take heart the suggestions and advice they give you. Always Strive to be a better DM. Never assume your gaming style is perfect. Just because you get no complaints doesn't mean that there isn't something you could be doing to make your game better. Read forums, take advice, and bounce suggestions off of your players, fellow DMs, and anyone who will listen. Have an open mind with the advice you recieve.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 3:08AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2012
|
Good suggestions both, I've added them. But surely you have encountered situations in which players were bored or disengaged with what the DM was offering, or made choices that the DM couldn't decide how to make interesting.
Of course, but I think you are still thinking that I'm saying that players should have no control at all when I'm saying that they should have have influence with the DM - i.e. the player looks for what they expect and the DM decides if it is there. Limits provide very interesting roleplay. For example here is how I understand your game sessions to work so far:
DM: There is a monster at the door!
Player: I grab a wand from under the sink and blast it!
(or)
Player: I grab some planks of wood and nail it shut!
Either way the situation is resolved by instant expectation - the player creates the planks or the wand and the monster is dealt with with little thought. Now here is how a game might go in the same situation with a DM who isn't afraid to say no:
DM: There is a monster at the door!
Player 1: I search for a weapon or something to block the door.
DM: The room is bare except for a small square table. (This is true to his notes)
Player 1: I grab the table and wedge the end under the handle
DM: You are lifting the table but the monster will get through if the others move!
Player 2: Is the latch on this side?
DM: Yes!
Player 2: I use a dagger to lever it down and jam it!
Player 1: I shunt the table forward and try to wedge it against the door!
DM: How do you do that?
Player 1: I turn it upside-down and prop it against the door and wedge it so it sticks.
DM: You seem to have stopped it for now and the monster curses.
Now, you see, it looks like the DM is dictating, but he didn't even think about how the players might use the table or what kind of lock the door might have until the player mentioned it and it became a latch on this side. This is a little convenient, but it isn't *too* convenient and it means that the players have to work with what is available to them at the time to get what they want instead of instantly having it. This means it is less of a group storytelling session and more like a group on an actual adventure. Don't get me wrong, I will add a note about your method at some point, but I think it should be the exception, not the rule.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 16, 2013 - 5:36AM
#20
|
|
|
Heng, with your wand and planks example you are leaving out the Dm prompting details, like "Where did you get the planks and nails? "Do you think you can seal the door before the monster gets in? Will that hold out the monster? What other ways are there in and out of the room?"
The wand would make me say "Why is there a wand under the sink? What does it do? Does it have anything to do with the monster at the door?"
Your longer example is actually a lot like what Centauri is talking about, asking the players questions and such. The difference is if my notes didn't say there was a table in the room and a player said "I want to push a table up against the door" I'd probably let them, cause, well, it's a table.
If they said "I transform into a flying unicorn and teleport out of the room," then it might lead to more of a discussion. But allowing the players to make decisions and add to the story is, I feel, always good.
I suspect my play style is actually closer to yours than Centauri's, but my playstyle now is much closer to Centauri's than it was in years past, and I and my players are have a lot more fun because of that.
|
|
|
