I don't normally read the RPG.net columns (I have no idea what qualifies the people who write them to say anything authoritative about anything in the world, ever), but for some reason I decided to read today's. It is called How to Get the Players to Play More In-Character, and it strikes me as the perfect example of something that I've never really been able to understand: the idea that the GM in a gaming group has the responsibility for fiddling around at the margins, trying to come up with ways to incentivise things that should be basic requirements for gaming. Like he is the dad and the players are a gang of 8 year olds who haven't yet developed the rudiments of maturity. This all feeds back to something I've written about before, but why is it that for so many people the basic assumption is that it's the GM's job to cajole the players into just properly participating in the game?
To spin the question another way, why is nobody writing a column entitled "How to stop pissing off your GM and the other players at the table by completely failing to find the shred of human social skills required to realise that you are being a hindrance to the enjoyment of others?" You could call it HSPYGOPTCFCSHSSRRYBHEO, or something.
What always baffles me about such advice is that it never once seems to occur to them to just ask the players to play in the way that they'd prefer to see. Instead it's all this passive-aggressive stuff intended to train the players like rats in a maze to play the way the GM wants without ever coming right out and telling them how the GM would like the game to go.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it actually comes off as being quite sinister, don't you think? Like the GM is some kind of puppet master, getting the players to do his bidding without them knowing it.
DeleteIn a game where the players have imperfect information and (1) desire, as pretty much every player/human does whether or not she'll admit it, to be part of an awesome story that's more coherent than 'X then Y then, because why not, Z!' but (2) can't all agree in advance how the hell you make that happen because they're nerds, then
Deletec'mon,
doesn't it make sense that the GM needs to learn management/manipulation skills, so as to corral the players and shape the world-at-play without breaking the fiction?
This isn't true, thank God, it is possible to build cool stories out of the emergent effects of play.
DeleteThere are games set up to do this, but instead of suggesting you buy stuff:
1 - Set up characters who care about something vaguely related to something you care about, in a situation that seems a little close to home in some ways (but not too close). This requires the players have a bit of control over background to put this stuff in.
2 - In play, never let any roll shut down the momentum of play, if it stops the players in their tracks, it must also by side effects set up some other things going on. Better if most of the time it just adds consequences without blocking.
(This stops the coolness of the starting situation getting eaten by dice)
3 - Talk after each game about what was cool in the previous game, what it could mean etc, and then as GM use that as inspiration for future twists, but always in a slightly non-obvious way.
(This keeps the situation hot as people's lives change)
4 - Have a load of random generators or ways to quickly come up with basic details for the situation, but always overrule them if they step on 1 2 or 3.
(This reduces your reliance on prep and on keeping players to areas you have thought of)
5 - If the players split up, try to fit things into each of the situations they are in that remind you a little of things the other players are doing or coming across, so that players can make thematic parallels between each other's actions.
(This means that players can wander wherever and other players will still find it moderately interesting to spectate)
That should (maybe) be enough to make a cool story without any manipulative stuff, although I'm personally open to the possibility that you can do some random interesting stuff with manipulation that you can't do with straightforwardness.
The simplest way to make players roleplay is to make what happens when they roleplay matter. For example I love Paradox games and I remember reading a bunch of old accounts of Europa Universalis in which people wrote on and on about the royal family, court intrigues, the specifics of military tactics, etc. etc. none of which had the slight bearing on what was actually going on in-game. If role-play feels like that, inconsequential narrating of the mechanics rather than something that makes a difference in and of itself, then it's just window dressing (however fun it is) and it's hard to get players worked up over window-dressing.
ReplyDeleteI was going to write something about that but didn't quite have time: players will role play when they are doing something that they feel invested in. But it's as much, if not more, up to them to invest in the game as it is the GM's responsibility to try to get them to.
Delete"Like he is the dad and the players are a gang of 8 year olds who haven't yet developed the rudiments of maturity"
ReplyDeleteBeen there, done that. Although to be fair, my group is in fact quite a bit more mature than some RPG.net contributors.
Yes, let's not knock 8 year olds....they frankly tend to be better at getting in character and being "in the moment" than many adults I know. But anyway, I have to agree that it's odd that the GM should be expected to slyly try and cajole and coerce players into being more engaged in the scenario. My usual rule of thumb is to kick players who don't mech with my game style or that of my group (although I've only had to do that twice in the last few years) as I've found that as the years go by my tolerance levels have dropped precipitously, at least when dealing with people who should know better. Zero tolerance may seem harsh, but it sure keeps the peace!
ReplyDeleteI guess it's a problem if you have strangers turning up? I only game with friends or friends of friends, generally speaking.
DeleteThe 8 year old comment was totally unfair. ;]
DeleteWell in some games the GM really is arch-cajoler; he's the one who notices when players are pissing each other off and sublimates their conflict into the game where they can see it, hopefully in such a way as to lead it to an amicable conclusion, or he takes out the elements that are bringing up their differences.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very teacher-y stance, or like a carer or something, but it does allow a certain sort of chilling out for people who work in telesales or whatever; they've been being accommodating and socially aware all day, now they can regress and be a little socially ignorant and things will still work.
There's a milder version of this too, where everyone moves a bit to keep things casual and rolling on, and the gm just has more room to move to effect things. A whole structure of giving slack, setting up reminders, all that stuff.
But of course, that's not even remotely what this advice would do; xp penalties for "metagaming" is a terrible solution to in-character/out-of-character knowledge, when you could just ask people "how does your character know that?".
Then they solve one of the real problems of metagaming (ie puncturing the plausibility of the world) themselves, while still being able to use their experience.
But then that's probably my standard egalitarianism/rebellion talking! I still see even the most engineer-y GM as a facilitator rather than a judge.
I think some people confuse "Leadership" with "Dictator". Almost every group has a leader, whether official or not - especially if they are trying to accomplish something as a group.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with having a leader in an RPG session, and of course the GM is a natural position for that. "What's this rule mean?" "What are my odds if I try X?" Even a Project Manager leads.
A leader can be cooperative, democratic, tyrannical, or even egalitarian. I used to live in Australia (which is very egalitarian) and they still have leaders while respecting each other as equal human beings. It was very different than the US (where I live now). Can you imagine a US CEO having lunch with a mailroom clerk? Good luck!
"Leader" isn't a bad word. "Dictator" is a bad word. "Superior" is a bad word. "Arrogant" is an elf. And also a bad word.
First, this article seems to be very 'new school'. It assumes D&D is all about combat and playacting. This is not why I play D&D and I hate playacting aspect. My character is a chess piece; I tell him what to do, not the other way around. I've had a DM penalize me for that with XP. Leveling at half the rate they were just further alienated me from the group.
ReplyDeleteAnd I hate when DMs ask me to pretend not to know something. It's their job to keep me from getting above game knowledge about a situation. If you have character in different locations ask me to leave the table while that's going on. I don't mind, really.
I resent the way XP are being used as a tool to make PCs behave in that example. You're supposed to get them for being good at the game: killing big monsters and getting treasure, not for licking the DMs butt. "Story rewards" and such are far too arbitrary.
I think most folks would say "new school" is generally not about roleplaying, actually...
DeleteYeah, that whole "XP for doing what I want" idea is so manipulative and Skinner-boxish it just makes my skin crawl.
DeleteThe 'playacting' bits are my favorite part. From my angle, if I'm not playing my character I might as well be playing a wargame/boardgame/videogame.
ReplyDeleteNot everyone is as into that though... some guys I've played with just can't get into anything besides the stats and mechanics... always focused on getting ready for the next combat, and that's all. I don't think a GM pushing them to roleplay would improve their fun at all.
I don't think that playing in character has to involve playacting. Playing in character can be achieved through statements of intent that are made with a view to the way that the character might act, rather than how the player might move his token in a board game.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, when I've had this conversation before, about say the allegation of 'roll-playing' when using a mechanised social skill system, I'll actually go so far to say that in character statements of intent, a back and forth with the GM, prompting the player to add specificity and clarifications, can be better role-playing (playing a GAME in role) than a bout of poor am-dram at the table.
In short, Danny Dyer is a professional actor - he's several levels a better actor than any of us - yet his acting range is limited. Dan Brown can barely write a convincing conversation - yet he is a professional novelist. The lesson, apart from don't be a Daniel? We can't expect our players to invent convincing dialogue and speak it in character at the drop of a hat. What they can do convincingly is determine what their characters would attempt to do - and they will have a much wider range if their 'diplomat' character can use HIS skills, rather than the 'diplomat' character relying on the same set of skills that over the past few weeks, also determined the social skills of a barbarian, a robot, an anthropomorphised duck...
The general drift I get from a lot of people is:
ReplyDelete"I game with horribly abusive assholes and any game without foot-thick padding will cause them to be total dickheads so, please, give me a system to help me...."
Maybe the reason we're not getting it is that we're not 15 years old?
DeleteBingo. I'd say this is the main evolution of mine as a designer and GM over the past 2 years - to stop worrying about needing to straitjacket antisocial players.
ReplyDelete...why is nobody writing a column entitled "How to stop pissing off your GM (etc)...
ReplyDeleteAnyone prepared to listen to an article like that probably doesn't need to read it: they know and appreciate how hard their GM works. It would just become a lightning rod for trolls, whiners, soapboxers and professionally offended crusader types. Some people just aren't ready to hear that they're the common factor in all their dysfunctional relationships, even if its true. The timeless wisdom of the rule Don't Be An Arse isn't rocket science; but some people just aren't ready to admit their own arsery.
Also possibly for the same reason the industry sells player's option materials? There are more players than GMs, and no one (except possibly Raggi...) wants to be even perceived as giving the finger 70-80% of the readership in one fell swoop.
Oh, *and* no one likes to be hectored about how hard is the life of the person in the (perceived) position of power and authority. The GM is the referee, and it takes a rarefied sensitivity to sympathise with a person who repeatedly rules against your own partisan desires (however impartially).
YMMV.
It's not just the GM that people are pissing off if they're not properly participating in the game, though, right? It's the other players and also ultimately themselves, because they're losing out on a lot.
Delete