this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
33 points (100.0% liked)
rpg
3213 readers
74 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think there are three main ways to make it work:
Giving the GM tools to do the job. I remember reading PF2e and thinking, wow, it fills in so many of the gaps I had to improvise on the fly as a DM, and the balancing systems seems to, you know, work. Kevin Crawford's work, especially the ...Without Number series, famously provides so many useful tables guidelines even if you don't use the underlying system itself. Then there are system-neutral resources like the Tome of Adventure Design.
Providing clear explanations for how and why the system works the way it does. I know it's a love-it-or-hate-it system, but Burning Wheel is great for this. It's a weird system, and whatever you think of Luke Crane, it's useful to have guidance and explanations for why the rules are the way that they are. Plus the Codex adds even more. I found I really like GM resources that explain the thought process behind running the game. IIRC some of Ben Milton's work does the same, and I like to have a commentary for my own projects.
Giving the players meta-narrative agency. Admittedly, this one is extremely subjective. I have mixed feelings about it. I'm absolutely happy to let my players make some decisions for the game, but I found that my group specifically prefers to inhabit a world rather than shape it, and I'm not crazy about that style of play in practice. It feels more like writing a story than playing it out. TO BE EXTRA CLEAR, this is a matter of personal preference. For those who like it, it works fantastic, and the popularity of that kind of game goes to show how it works for a lot of people.
For 3- I still think about a post I made a while ago where I mentioned giving players more creative input as a means of increasing engagement. The example I gave was when the players returned to the magic academy the wizard had graduated from, I asked the wizard player what the lighting situation was in the grand hall. Like if they had lots of mundane candles, or a big chandelier, or magic lights, or what. He was pretty into it.
One person in the thread responded that they would hate that. They want to be told a story and explore a world! Asking them to make out-of-character decisions like that just ruins the whole experience for them.
Completely alien to me. I always look at these as like writing a story, and I'm never "being" my character.
Different strokes, of course. :)
I think for me and my group, it's just a sometimes thing. I think I'd be happy to let players make some decisions about the world around them, but narrative control of action resolution just fell a bit flat.
It's also why I like the distinction between "writing a story" and "being a character." It indicates the difference without presenting either as better than the other, which is a risk when talking about... well, anything, especially online. :P