I do have a strong pro-scenario, pro-honest-tactics, pro-let-the-dice-fall, anti-story, plot-is-just-for-structure-make-it-about-the-PCs-and-their-choices-not-your-whiny-ass-narrative-go-write-a-novel-if-you're-so-into-yourself agenda.
To which I can only say, amen! And that I would like to make this a motto.
It ties neatly into a comment I made over at Compromise & Conceit. (I'm not stalking the poor fellow, honest - he got grist for his blog mill from some posts I made about Tolkien, so this is my way of returning the favour). Mr. faustusnotes had written:
It’s really hard to interfere with PCs actions coherently [in a Cyberpunk game], because in any sci-fi future the power of the state is so overwhelming that the one consistent thing criminal PCs can expect is that they will die horribly and probably before they even know what happened; but there’s no reward in doing this, so you have to contort your story to enable them to escape and still be challenged.
To which I thought: I beg your pardon? And replied:
I have to ask: why on earth would you not have criminal PCs die horribly if they transgress the law in an obvious way? Punishing idiotic behaviour is precisely the sort of thing that will force the players to learn how to achieve their goals in cleverer and more subtle ways. And that will result in a much better game for all concerned – which is the “reward”. Letting players off the hook is the worst thing you can do; it encourages the bad behaviour.
It helps if you think of the players like pigeons in a Skinner box, I find.
The reason problems like the one Mr. faustusnotes describes arise in people's games is, of course, that dirtiest of all dirty words - story. Namely the GM's story. Story implies a beginning, a middle and an end, and this results in 'contortions' (fudging dice rolls, making enemies suddenly incompetent, letting players get away from what should be certain death) when the story begins to go off the rails.To which the proper reaction should be: fuck it. The player makes the choices and the GM goes with it, and if this means horrible death then so be it. Those are the terms on which player buy-in occurs (that their actions mean something and have consequences) and that's the way the GM should deal with the game.
The flipside of that particular coin, of course, is that players owe it to the GM not to throw their toys out of the pram when things go (justly) awry. If the GM's responsibility is to give player choice meaning, then the player's responsibility is not to piss and whine when that doesn't go their way.
Preach it, Brother!
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
ReplyDeletePC fear of death = Player tries hard to hold on to the player they rolled up and named and love so much = Player resorts to clever and ccreative tactics = Game "story" consists of a string of clever and creative tactics used against seemingly implacable foes = a classic pulp story.
I think I am going to have to do a post on death, because i get the sense from reading on these here intertubes that different GMs have very different ideas about it.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not sure if I know what you mean by "story". I run campaigns, not disconnected adventures. Is that a story? Or by "story" do you mean "linear narrative with only one option at each step"? Because I don't think I do that. And I don't think death is incompatible with the former. Maybe not even the latter (don't know, never tried it as far as I know). And re: the criminal pcs, isn't killing them for criminal acts exactly the antithesis of S John Ross's wisdom? You don't want them beaching your story by going criminal so you kill them?
I suppose my thought is that, the less people die, the more attached they get to their characters, the more involved in the story, and the less likely to risk themselves.
faustusnotes: And re: the criminal pcs, isn't killing them for criminal acts exactly the antithesis of S John Ross's wisdom? You don't want them beaching your story by going criminal so you kill them?
ReplyDeleteYou're not killing them for breaching the story because there is no story outside of what the PCs decide. You're killing them because those are the terms on which the game world works - actions have consequences and committing criminal acts in an obvious and easily discoverable way will likely result in being killed/imprisoned. It says nothing about committing criminal acts in a clever, subtle and creative way, which is the kind of behaviour that makes for a good game in my experience.
I suppose my thought is that, the less people die, the more attached they get to their characters, the more involved in the story, and the less likely to risk themselves.
This is absolutely true, but the best reason for people dying less often is good and intelligent play, not because the GM is letting them off the hook when they do stupid things.
This is all pretty 'gamist' of course and I know some groups would object. But those people are wrong, dammit! ;)
Yeah! S. John Ross! Yeah! Noisms!
ReplyDeleteAlso, can we kick that China Martinsville guy some more?
China Mieville's in with the gang now. All is forgiven. Didn't you get the newsletter? ;)
ReplyDeleteI run sandbox games myself. My job isn't to make a story, my job is to make a setting in which the PC's can create whichever story they wish (though a little heads up is nice..If you want a pirate story let me know so there will be an ocean nearby). The actions (including death) they set forth for their characters is the story, I view myself as a referee to manage the environment in resposne to their actions, not cram a story down their throat. That is just how I enjoy running a game. Im lazy and I want the players to bring the entertainment :P
ReplyDelete