Of course, this is not as cut and dried as all that. You could allow ANY attempt, but make the difficulty number so high, it's really like saying no. The player in such circumstances may well not even make the attempt. This implies that "allowing" something that's a little bit outside the rules also requires the attempt is made "easier" than it would normally be. But if you allow everything, and everything is subsequently easier than the rules would admit, you're essentially stripping risk from the game. The paradox: By letting players make things more exciting in the moment, you're really making the game less exciting overall. Well, that's as maybe.
What you allow should really be a function of what you want to REWARD in the game, and this will depend on its genre, setting, and particular group of players. Superhero, pulp and hi-octane action games SHOULD allow "cool" moments where one uses their powers "creatively", or a crazy action beat is made easier to achieve, because that pushes the genre. Comic books and Indiana Jones movies aren't full of failures (but not lacking in them either). When the hero jumps for the rope collapsing rope bridge and hangs on during an entire fight, somehow, that's what the genre calls for. And often, it's true, such games will have mechanics that make the "allowance" for the GM (Hero Points of some kind that players can spend to make improbable actions more probable, deadly situations more survivable, and environments more interesting and useful.
But they don't always. And even when they do, that may not be your problem.
But beyond that, you're teaching them to play, PERIOD. So if they're too violent, allow interpersonal relations to work more effectively than weapons. If they're sociopaths, make it easier and more rewarding to save bystanders than to ignore them. If they meta-game too much, allow players to get away with pure role-playing moments that put the group at risk, and reward them with plot advancement. And there's the opposite, of course, which is making things harder if they're not conducive to good gaming. Punish the violent psychopaths, the meta-gamers, the lazy fighters, the party splitters, the time-wasting interactors, and the min/maxers if they're disruptive at your table. But then reward those who play well by allowing them to do more than they should.
Most games have a reward system built-in - whether experience point or gifted Hero Points - which push genre emulation and "good play". These systems decide/propose what should be IMPORTANT to the PCs in any given game. That said, I think it's only part of the incentive. "Allowing" a player's premise and making it affordable incentivizes the behavior BEFORE and DURING the game, rather than after the fact. And ultimately, it always pushes players to think more creatively, which makes for more entertaining and memorable games for everyone. If it doesn't fit the genre or setting, by all means, say no, but perhaps offer an alternative that DOES fit, nudging players closer to what's required.
So you said "yes" to something. It's just a game. What does a GM have to lose?
"Punish the violent psychopaths... min/maxers if they're disruptive at your table. But then reward those who play well by allowing them to do more than they should." The rub is that you are making a valued judgement. I understand that you've enjoyed playing with a group intimately familiar with improv, but otherwise, most GMs don't get the luxury of choice.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I run immersive, usually intricately plotted convention games, although my players are generally at liberty to approach the investigation in whatever way they choose, and indeed, I have at times run with imaginative alternative plot narratives if I've calculated that it doesn't contravene what has hitherto been established and considered actively workable, otherwise, I take the responsibility to hit certain narrative markers to help facilitate a structured, time-conscious experience.
Something that seems reasonably pertinent, in the past, I've had a self-identified Asperger's syndrome individual who would regularly roll several dice rolls in anticipation of taking an action, personally I wasn't particularly bothered by the resultant, outsized result, more amused, but other players in the room would become rueful and irritated, the result seemingly casting shade upon their own particular endeavours. I had to be firm eventually and ask the player to roll the dice again once the action was called. And having dealt with many min/maxers (rules lawyers), making creative house rules decisions upon the fly could have had lasting campaign consequences.
I absolutely affirm that encouraging creative choices should be encouraged, but the reality is that when it starts having rules implications there can be unforeseen consequences.
Rules-playing vs. Role-playing. If that's your group/game/style, ignore all of the above. But if you think rules lawyering is a bad thing, then don't reward it by bending to the lawyers. The game doesn't have to work off of jurisprudence, and the quicker they stop citing rules and house rules, the better.
DeleteOh and let me qualify that comment about improv players (as if they don't also have min/maxers etc.) by saying that while I've often mentioned it, it hasn't really been true for a few years. The article was actually inspired by the work of OTHER GMs in games I've been a player in, and where "allowing it" has proved most gratifying. None of those games have any improv players except me.
Delete"[T]hen don't reward it by bending to the lawyers". It's about understanding and mediating differing play styles and social expectations, I've had socially adept power gamers and otherwise, their joy is about mastery of the game rules, a safe space, a sense of control which they likely don't experience elsewhere in their lives. The more socially adept players usually understand their proclivities and the necessity for compromise at times around the table, the less socially adept players may very well be upon the autism spectrum or similar, causing inherent complications of communication and understanding. Another smaller sub-grouping simply don't perceive tabletop RPGs as an active social experience, merely another gaming experience similar unto CRPGs. What they all have in common is a desire for active advantage and once it's gained, it's routinely employed again and again with no discernable loss of enthusiasm.
DeleteI understand your point. As with any advice, it all depends on the group of players, and it should be ignored if it doesn't fit the actual players. There will always be exceptions, and in no way do I write from a perspective of pick-up games where players are essentially an "unknown" that hasn't gone through a Session Zero to air these matters out.
DeleteOutstanding article
ReplyDelete