Kohai Explains Gaming
Hey look, a year went by without me posting anything! I might as well fix that.
I've been talking about tabletop RPG concepts pretty frequently lately with rikoshi and athelind and here are some of the things that have been rattling around in my mind. I am an Internet blowhard, so you may take great issue with some of the things I have to say. Feel free to comment!
Q. What are rules? What is the benefit to using them? Can't people roleplay without them?
A. Rules are a contract between the GM and the players that define how conflicts are to be resolved. Roleplay can absolutely take place in the absence of rules. The virtue of rules is in resolving disputes between the players and the GM (or between multiple players) on how the story should unfold when the groups have mutually exclusive ideas. With a clearly defined rules system, the GM and the players can both vigorously participate in determining how events unfold without either crowding out the other's ideas or simply squashing them by fiat.
Q. What is a story? Who creates it?
A. A story is an emergent phenomenon in the game world, based on the collaborative interaction of setting, PCs and NPCs. Neither the GM nor the PCs exclusively is responsible for generating "the plot." While the GM may have the largest hand in creation of the story by virtue of the fact that she is responsible for the setting and the NPCs, the PCs have a critical role as well. The PCs are the sine qua non of the story, the protagonists who are responsible for resolving (or failing to resolve) the major conflicts in the story. The story is only interesting insofar as the PCs are invested in it and their actions and decisions are meaningful.
Q. What are the key causes of problems in the story?
A. I am going to assume before answering that everyone is already following the rule to never game with anyone who's not as cool as you are. Presuming you believe that everyone is bringing to the table ideas that are as cool, as interesting and as meaningful as yours, then my response is as follows.
For players: Inaction. In particular, failure to engage with the plot/setting/NPCs/etc., failure to be proactive in pursuing your character's goals, or playing under the false assumption that creating a meaningful story for your character is someone's responsibility than your own.
For GMs: Control. In particular, the impulse to override, redirect or negate PC decisions or actions that do not fit in with the GM's preferred narrative. Negating something legitimately achieved by one of the PCs is akin to the nuclear option.
Q. In the previous question you used the word "engage." That sounds like a bullshit buzzword to me, the sort that people use without actually conveying anything. What the hell does "engage" even mean?
A. That's actually a really good question. When I say the players should stay "engaged," I mean they should pay attention, even when the events aren't expressly directed at them, think seriously about their characters and their motivations, and be prepared to act without prompting in pursuit of their goals. This applies to both major events (e.g. avenging your father's death, rescuing your long lost sister, completing your destiny) and minor ones (e.g. knowing what your character would do with their free time, knowing where they would want to go on arriving at a city for the first time). For GMs, "engagement" means paying attention to the PCs' actions and keeping track of how they fit in with the bigger picture, making it your job to learn their motivations and goals, and being good about responding to players who show initiative or take the effort to bring material to the game table. "Engagement" should be a continual feedback loop between players and GMs.
I've been talking about tabletop RPG concepts pretty frequently lately with rikoshi and athelind and here are some of the things that have been rattling around in my mind. I am an Internet blowhard, so you may take great issue with some of the things I have to say. Feel free to comment!
Q. What are rules? What is the benefit to using them? Can't people roleplay without them?
A. Rules are a contract between the GM and the players that define how conflicts are to be resolved. Roleplay can absolutely take place in the absence of rules. The virtue of rules is in resolving disputes between the players and the GM (or between multiple players) on how the story should unfold when the groups have mutually exclusive ideas. With a clearly defined rules system, the GM and the players can both vigorously participate in determining how events unfold without either crowding out the other's ideas or simply squashing them by fiat.
Q. What is a story? Who creates it?
A. A story is an emergent phenomenon in the game world, based on the collaborative interaction of setting, PCs and NPCs. Neither the GM nor the PCs exclusively is responsible for generating "the plot." While the GM may have the largest hand in creation of the story by virtue of the fact that she is responsible for the setting and the NPCs, the PCs have a critical role as well. The PCs are the sine qua non of the story, the protagonists who are responsible for resolving (or failing to resolve) the major conflicts in the story. The story is only interesting insofar as the PCs are invested in it and their actions and decisions are meaningful.
Q. What are the key causes of problems in the story?
A. I am going to assume before answering that everyone is already following the rule to never game with anyone who's not as cool as you are. Presuming you believe that everyone is bringing to the table ideas that are as cool, as interesting and as meaningful as yours, then my response is as follows.
For players: Inaction. In particular, failure to engage with the plot/setting/NPCs/etc., failure to be proactive in pursuing your character's goals, or playing under the false assumption that creating a meaningful story for your character is someone's responsibility than your own.
For GMs: Control. In particular, the impulse to override, redirect or negate PC decisions or actions that do not fit in with the GM's preferred narrative. Negating something legitimately achieved by one of the PCs is akin to the nuclear option.
Q. In the previous question you used the word "engage." That sounds like a bullshit buzzword to me, the sort that people use without actually conveying anything. What the hell does "engage" even mean?
A. That's actually a really good question. When I say the players should stay "engaged," I mean they should pay attention, even when the events aren't expressly directed at them, think seriously about their characters and their motivations, and be prepared to act without prompting in pursuit of their goals. This applies to both major events (e.g. avenging your father's death, rescuing your long lost sister, completing your destiny) and minor ones (e.g. knowing what your character would do with their free time, knowing where they would want to go on arriving at a city for the first time). For GMs, "engagement" means paying attention to the PCs' actions and keeping track of how they fit in with the bigger picture, making it your job to learn their motivations and goals, and being good about responding to players who show initiative or take the effort to bring material to the game table. "Engagement" should be a continual feedback loop between players and GMs.