I apparently don't spend enough time reading about gaming theory. I have run across a new (to me) term - that is, "sandbox".
The idea, as near as I can tell, is that the "sandbox" is a style of RPG where there isn't any direction or plot, rather, a world to explore for the players, and the GM just adapts to whatever they want to do. Explore, or get into a beef with someone, or whatever.
I honestly can't say I like games like this, and I'm wondering why. I've certainly played in them before, although it's really been years since I even encountered one of these.
If I had to guess, it seems far too open ended for my taste, at least these days. It seems to imply a long campaign, which is not something I have time for, anymore, and also seems to lack what I find increasingly interesting in gaming, which are in-character limits and specifics. In other words, I really want less freedom, not more. I want hard choices, and when I've got the freedom to just wander away from trouble, that lessens the fun for me. Far better, for me at least, to have a very constrained character, which some sort of goal or problem, and a limited set of tools to accomplish it.
Am I interpreting this term correctly? How do you feel about these sorts of games?
Monday, November 30, 2009
Player responsibilities
Following up on my last post about GM roles, here are some thoughts on player responsibilities.
It may seem strange to put this much effort into what are, at the core of it, just games we play. But if it's to the greater good, then it's worth it.
We all want specific things out of our gaming experiences. Some things to consider:
1) How much time do you have? Our hobby is an odd one, in that it can require a pretty significant time commitment. I can't think of many other games, other than people who are really, really into a sport, that requires you to block out a 5-6 hour time period to play the game, as often as once a week, and may even require more time outside of that for doing things like character generation, or in some styles, keeping a character journal or helping develop material for the game.
If your time is constrained, and let's be honest, most of us have other commitments, be they work, or family, or other hobbies, it's good to get a sense of how much time a game will be taking, and how often. Be clear with your GM and the other players about how much time you have, and if the difference between what you have to give, and what is desired is too large, bow out, or work with the group to figure out a solution.
Related to this, there seems to be three rough categories for time commitments - there's the "show up and play once" of one-shots, the "we'll do this in 12 episodes" style that has a time limit, and the classic "we'll go as long as we want" of the on-going campaign. It's important to know what is expected.
On a personal note, these days, I find the first two much easier to deal with. Between negotiating time spent with my family, and the demands of work, it's much easier for me to block out the occasional one-shot, or a limited series of nights to play, rather than an open ended time commitment.
2) Listen to the GM. GMs sometimes have a hard time communicating exactly what sort of game they want to run - it might sound like just the sort of dark fantasy dealing with existential issues that you really love, but it might really be a dungeon crawl where the main goal is to have fun killing monsters. If you have any doubts, or even if you don't, get this defined ahead of time, and push the GM to tell you what they are wanting to have, since this is a key factor in your enjoyment.
3) Related to this - know what you like, and find out what the other players like and what the GM likes too. It will work better if you're all on the same page. If you really have fun playing for intrigue, and backstabbing, but everyone else hates that and wants to run things as a team, cooperating, then this might not be the game for you. It's entirely fine to try things out that may be outside of what you usually do, but our habits run deep, and it's best to make it clear that you're not completely 100% down with what appears to be the central theme, but want to try it anyway. That way, there aren't any surprises, and if the GM and other players are OK with you "trying it out" and possibly dropping out because you don't like it, they can at least plan for this ahead of time.
4) Strive for compassion - in other words, the game is not just about you. It's not just about the players, either. It's about the players and the GM and doing something together. This means that you shouldn't hog the spotlight, you should not try to drag the game in a direction that you find good but that others are not ok with, don't force things on other players (especially hot-button issues) without negotiation beforehand. You should make space in your play for others to interact with you, be open to things happening that might not be what you planned, and generally be flexible and keep others in mind at all times.
5) Keep in-game and out of game dialogs separate. Once you're playing, it's not the time to bring up how bored you are, or how much you hate what you're currently doing. Keep that for before or after the game. Of course, if there's no space to talk about the game outside of it, you might need to insist on it. Most GMs are actually really pleased to talk about how the game is going outside of it, but others aren't, or don't think about it. Being forthright and clear is the best strategy.
6) Whatever you do, don't sabotage things. Don't just act crazy out of spite, or boredom. Don't stir up trouble for the sake of trouble, and play in character. If you're playing someone who is law-abiding, for the most part, don't just go rogue because you aren't having a good time or the adventure isn't going quickly enough for you. Sit with the role. Figure out what you can do in character. If that doesn't work, talk to the GM, tell them that you're not having fun, and come with a list of suggestions for how to make it more interesting. This can range from "I want more combat" to "I was wondering what you thought of the idea of giving my character a storyline that goes something like this..."
7) And on that note, take pains to make sure that the GM and you are on the same page with what your character is like, and what's going on with them. This is especially important for those of us who like to really get into character, and often like to tell ourselves stories about the character - there's a danger that we'll go off the rails and then be disappointed when our stunningly detailed bit of fiction involving our character doesn't work with what is really going on in the game.
8) Finally, do the usual bits of social lubrication. Be on time. Do what you say you're going to do. Bring food, if appropriate. Don't mooch. Don't delay. Attend to personal hygiene. If you can't make it, make sure that everyone knows that in advance. Be gracious and say thank you to whoever is hosting.
*) Most of these (if not all) apply equally well to GMs.
GMs, what other things should players do? Players, what other things should GMs do?
It may seem strange to put this much effort into what are, at the core of it, just games we play. But if it's to the greater good, then it's worth it.
We all want specific things out of our gaming experiences. Some things to consider:
1) How much time do you have? Our hobby is an odd one, in that it can require a pretty significant time commitment. I can't think of many other games, other than people who are really, really into a sport, that requires you to block out a 5-6 hour time period to play the game, as often as once a week, and may even require more time outside of that for doing things like character generation, or in some styles, keeping a character journal or helping develop material for the game.
If your time is constrained, and let's be honest, most of us have other commitments, be they work, or family, or other hobbies, it's good to get a sense of how much time a game will be taking, and how often. Be clear with your GM and the other players about how much time you have, and if the difference between what you have to give, and what is desired is too large, bow out, or work with the group to figure out a solution.
Related to this, there seems to be three rough categories for time commitments - there's the "show up and play once" of one-shots, the "we'll do this in 12 episodes" style that has a time limit, and the classic "we'll go as long as we want" of the on-going campaign. It's important to know what is expected.
On a personal note, these days, I find the first two much easier to deal with. Between negotiating time spent with my family, and the demands of work, it's much easier for me to block out the occasional one-shot, or a limited series of nights to play, rather than an open ended time commitment.
2) Listen to the GM. GMs sometimes have a hard time communicating exactly what sort of game they want to run - it might sound like just the sort of dark fantasy dealing with existential issues that you really love, but it might really be a dungeon crawl where the main goal is to have fun killing monsters. If you have any doubts, or even if you don't, get this defined ahead of time, and push the GM to tell you what they are wanting to have, since this is a key factor in your enjoyment.
3) Related to this - know what you like, and find out what the other players like and what the GM likes too. It will work better if you're all on the same page. If you really have fun playing for intrigue, and backstabbing, but everyone else hates that and wants to run things as a team, cooperating, then this might not be the game for you. It's entirely fine to try things out that may be outside of what you usually do, but our habits run deep, and it's best to make it clear that you're not completely 100% down with what appears to be the central theme, but want to try it anyway. That way, there aren't any surprises, and if the GM and other players are OK with you "trying it out" and possibly dropping out because you don't like it, they can at least plan for this ahead of time.
4) Strive for compassion - in other words, the game is not just about you. It's not just about the players, either. It's about the players and the GM and doing something together. This means that you shouldn't hog the spotlight, you should not try to drag the game in a direction that you find good but that others are not ok with, don't force things on other players (especially hot-button issues) without negotiation beforehand. You should make space in your play for others to interact with you, be open to things happening that might not be what you planned, and generally be flexible and keep others in mind at all times.
5) Keep in-game and out of game dialogs separate. Once you're playing, it's not the time to bring up how bored you are, or how much you hate what you're currently doing. Keep that for before or after the game. Of course, if there's no space to talk about the game outside of it, you might need to insist on it. Most GMs are actually really pleased to talk about how the game is going outside of it, but others aren't, or don't think about it. Being forthright and clear is the best strategy.
6) Whatever you do, don't sabotage things. Don't just act crazy out of spite, or boredom. Don't stir up trouble for the sake of trouble, and play in character. If you're playing someone who is law-abiding, for the most part, don't just go rogue because you aren't having a good time or the adventure isn't going quickly enough for you. Sit with the role. Figure out what you can do in character. If that doesn't work, talk to the GM, tell them that you're not having fun, and come with a list of suggestions for how to make it more interesting. This can range from "I want more combat" to "I was wondering what you thought of the idea of giving my character a storyline that goes something like this..."
7) And on that note, take pains to make sure that the GM and you are on the same page with what your character is like, and what's going on with them. This is especially important for those of us who like to really get into character, and often like to tell ourselves stories about the character - there's a danger that we'll go off the rails and then be disappointed when our stunningly detailed bit of fiction involving our character doesn't work with what is really going on in the game.
8) Finally, do the usual bits of social lubrication. Be on time. Do what you say you're going to do. Bring food, if appropriate. Don't mooch. Don't delay. Attend to personal hygiene. If you can't make it, make sure that everyone knows that in advance. Be gracious and say thank you to whoever is hosting.
*) Most of these (if not all) apply equally well to GMs.
GMs, what other things should players do? Players, what other things should GMs do?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
GM roles
I was recently thinking about the role of the GM in RPGs. Or referee, or Dungeon Master, or what ever you want to call it.
The 'recieved' version of this for many of us who have been playing a long time is one where the GM is "strong" - that is, the ideal is that the GM is in nearly complete control of what the situation is, and while a good GM can roll with the punches and adjust to what the players do (or what the dice say) generally speaking, they're in a very powerful position. World creator, rules authority, action determiner, etc.
This probably needs to be examined. Over at The Sandbox of Doom my dear friend Victor (who was an early GM of mine) ponders this, and wonders what the role of the GM is, contrasting it to the opinion that he recently heard that the game is "all about the players" and finding himself put off by this idea.
There are a lot of different ways to structure this. There are, for example, systems that encourage a lot of player participation in world creation. There are those that take this to the limit, with the setting and scenario being a really cooperative effort, using some sort of "pass the stick" narration, or those that involve no central GM, but rather have different people GM'ing different players, each person acting as both player and GM.
None of these, I think, is any better or worse than any other one, although individual preference does play a big role. Personally, I find that I prefer at least a pre-established framework to hang my stories on, some base setting to work with. This makes sense for me, because I'm more about the details, and less about the big picture. But, I really do enjoy playing in games where what I do as a player matters, and matters a lot, and has an effect on other players too.
An awful lot of it actually has to do with the people involved, and less with the specific rules or setting used. If I trust the GM, and the other players, I'm much more willing to be led down a path not of my own making. That trust comes from long association, and knowledge of what I can expect. It's hard to develop, and easy to wreck. But when it works, it really, really works.
My big question right now could be stated as "how much do you want to know about what's going to happen?" Traditional GM roles have the GM often coming up with surprises, or hidden information that the characters have to cope with. This is something that comes out of the strong GM role, and can be very good when done well. But it's very, very hard to do.
So, I've been thinking a lot about disclosure, the idea that it might be OK if I actually reveal a lot about what's going on, or where I think things are going to the players outside of the game. The risk is that it's not a surprise anymore. The benefit might be that the players can adapt and contribute a lot to how it goes, leading to good RP and great emotional satisfaction. I think that in the past this has mostly been done with setting, sort of creating a third entity that has a say in the proceedings.
For example, in Call of Cthulu, one goes into the game knowing that it's pretty much assured that the characters will end up insane. Since everyone knows that this is the eventual ending of the story, the joy comes from the particulars of how you get there.
But what if, as a player, I told you (as a GM) that I expected the love triangle that your character is involved in to end up with at least one of the characters being killed, or killing themselves. If you agreed, we could go down that route, putting our work into making that a satisfying sort of story to tell. While for some, it might wreck things to know what's going to happen, for others, it might be a really good way to set the stage, and then focus on the details and the drama that the situation naturally produces. I am thinking of the opening lines of Romeo and Juliet:
The 'recieved' version of this for many of us who have been playing a long time is one where the GM is "strong" - that is, the ideal is that the GM is in nearly complete control of what the situation is, and while a good GM can roll with the punches and adjust to what the players do (or what the dice say) generally speaking, they're in a very powerful position. World creator, rules authority, action determiner, etc.
This probably needs to be examined. Over at The Sandbox of Doom my dear friend Victor (who was an early GM of mine) ponders this, and wonders what the role of the GM is, contrasting it to the opinion that he recently heard that the game is "all about the players" and finding himself put off by this idea.
There are a lot of different ways to structure this. There are, for example, systems that encourage a lot of player participation in world creation. There are those that take this to the limit, with the setting and scenario being a really cooperative effort, using some sort of "pass the stick" narration, or those that involve no central GM, but rather have different people GM'ing different players, each person acting as both player and GM.
None of these, I think, is any better or worse than any other one, although individual preference does play a big role. Personally, I find that I prefer at least a pre-established framework to hang my stories on, some base setting to work with. This makes sense for me, because I'm more about the details, and less about the big picture. But, I really do enjoy playing in games where what I do as a player matters, and matters a lot, and has an effect on other players too.
An awful lot of it actually has to do with the people involved, and less with the specific rules or setting used. If I trust the GM, and the other players, I'm much more willing to be led down a path not of my own making. That trust comes from long association, and knowledge of what I can expect. It's hard to develop, and easy to wreck. But when it works, it really, really works.
My big question right now could be stated as "how much do you want to know about what's going to happen?" Traditional GM roles have the GM often coming up with surprises, or hidden information that the characters have to cope with. This is something that comes out of the strong GM role, and can be very good when done well. But it's very, very hard to do.
So, I've been thinking a lot about disclosure, the idea that it might be OK if I actually reveal a lot about what's going on, or where I think things are going to the players outside of the game. The risk is that it's not a surprise anymore. The benefit might be that the players can adapt and contribute a lot to how it goes, leading to good RP and great emotional satisfaction. I think that in the past this has mostly been done with setting, sort of creating a third entity that has a say in the proceedings.
For example, in Call of Cthulu, one goes into the game knowing that it's pretty much assured that the characters will end up insane. Since everyone knows that this is the eventual ending of the story, the joy comes from the particulars of how you get there.
But what if, as a player, I told you (as a GM) that I expected the love triangle that your character is involved in to end up with at least one of the characters being killed, or killing themselves. If you agreed, we could go down that route, putting our work into making that a satisfying sort of story to tell. While for some, it might wreck things to know what's going to happen, for others, it might be a really good way to set the stage, and then focus on the details and the drama that the situation naturally produces. I am thinking of the opening lines of Romeo and Juliet:
Two households, both alike in dignity,What do you think? Does knowing how the story ends make it less satisfying to be a part of?
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whole misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
And the continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Roleplaying - what do you get out of it?
Role-playing is of course very ancient, if broadly enough defined. There seems to be a general inclination towards inhabiting character that is at the core of humanity. I think (and this is of course a very non-professional opinion) that we often determine who we are by imagining who we want to be. The young kid wants to be brave, and dreams himself a fireman. The wage-slave hears the advice "if you want to be the boss, you have to do what the boss does."
We imagine what we want to become. This is even used in sports - many trainers recommend using "visualization" techniques, and there is some definite evidence that imagining yourself performing the perfect golf swing, say, really does help you do it.
But we also can imagine things that we're not really all that interested in becoming in our real lives, but rather just enjoying the escape of portraying someone very different than ourselves. Sometimes, this can just be fun escapism. We are all still kids, or at least I hope we are, in the sense that playing "pretend" is a lot of fun. Who wouldn't want to be a starship captain? Or a mighty warrior battling dragons?
And, we can also imagine characters that are rather more dark than that. Aspects of ourselves that we know aren't ones that we should be manifesting in our day to day lives - people with problems. People in bad situations. For much the same reasons that we watch dramas on TV, I think. It's fun, although perhaps not happy fun, to become engaged with a character who is brutal, or hurt, or damaged in various ways, or who is experiencing fear, or terror, or tragedy.
The central theme here is that by imagining ourselves in different scenarios, in putting ourselves in connection with characters, we make sense of the world, and develop a new perspective on life. We thrill in sympathy with the characters we see in movies, or on TV. We occasionally find ourselves disgusted or frightened in the same way. I think that nearly everyone does this - how else to explain how much time and effort we put into telling stories to each other via all the forms of media we consume?
The main difference, really, between this, and playing in RPGs, is that in an RPG we get to make the decisions for the character we're playing. In that sense, it's like collaborative storytelling, like improv theater. We get a closer connection to the characters. We don't always know what's going to happen. We become creators of stories, rather than just consumers.
On a personal note, I've found this very useful over the course of my life, on a very practical level. I can imagine a character who embodies certain qualities - say, someone who is a very good friend. I often find it easier to think "what would this character do" in a given situation than to determine what I should do myself. It's an odd sort of dynamic, but I think the bit of distance that this gives you allows for a more realistic assessment - a sense of perspective. I've often used this to navigate situations in my life. I can imagine a character who knows how to appear confident in a business setting. I know that archetype - and can make it my own, at least briefly, and have a better chance of succeeding myself in a similar circumstance.
But, mostly, it's just fun to embody characters and interact with others doing the same. That's the core of RPG games for me.
I'm fully aware, and very respectful of the fact that there are as many ways to approach and have fun with RPGs as there are players. Some really like puzzle solving. Others are more tactically oriented. Some love scheming and plotting. Still others really get into setting and detail. For many, it's really just a social activity, a fun way to pass a few hours and hang out with friends, and share some laughs. All of these are entirely valid approaches. I'm merely pointing out that for me, it's more about the character, and more about the in-character interactions, especially the emotional content of those interactions, the finding of drama, pathos, tragedy, and joy, that I really enjoy the most.
I'm interested in other takes on this. Please leave me a comment if you want...I'd love to hear your perspective on why you play RPGs and what you find valuable about it.
We imagine what we want to become. This is even used in sports - many trainers recommend using "visualization" techniques, and there is some definite evidence that imagining yourself performing the perfect golf swing, say, really does help you do it.
But we also can imagine things that we're not really all that interested in becoming in our real lives, but rather just enjoying the escape of portraying someone very different than ourselves. Sometimes, this can just be fun escapism. We are all still kids, or at least I hope we are, in the sense that playing "pretend" is a lot of fun. Who wouldn't want to be a starship captain? Or a mighty warrior battling dragons?
And, we can also imagine characters that are rather more dark than that. Aspects of ourselves that we know aren't ones that we should be manifesting in our day to day lives - people with problems. People in bad situations. For much the same reasons that we watch dramas on TV, I think. It's fun, although perhaps not happy fun, to become engaged with a character who is brutal, or hurt, or damaged in various ways, or who is experiencing fear, or terror, or tragedy.
The central theme here is that by imagining ourselves in different scenarios, in putting ourselves in connection with characters, we make sense of the world, and develop a new perspective on life. We thrill in sympathy with the characters we see in movies, or on TV. We occasionally find ourselves disgusted or frightened in the same way. I think that nearly everyone does this - how else to explain how much time and effort we put into telling stories to each other via all the forms of media we consume?
The main difference, really, between this, and playing in RPGs, is that in an RPG we get to make the decisions for the character we're playing. In that sense, it's like collaborative storytelling, like improv theater. We get a closer connection to the characters. We don't always know what's going to happen. We become creators of stories, rather than just consumers.
On a personal note, I've found this very useful over the course of my life, on a very practical level. I can imagine a character who embodies certain qualities - say, someone who is a very good friend. I often find it easier to think "what would this character do" in a given situation than to determine what I should do myself. It's an odd sort of dynamic, but I think the bit of distance that this gives you allows for a more realistic assessment - a sense of perspective. I've often used this to navigate situations in my life. I can imagine a character who knows how to appear confident in a business setting. I know that archetype - and can make it my own, at least briefly, and have a better chance of succeeding myself in a similar circumstance.
But, mostly, it's just fun to embody characters and interact with others doing the same. That's the core of RPG games for me.
I'm fully aware, and very respectful of the fact that there are as many ways to approach and have fun with RPGs as there are players. Some really like puzzle solving. Others are more tactically oriented. Some love scheming and plotting. Still others really get into setting and detail. For many, it's really just a social activity, a fun way to pass a few hours and hang out with friends, and share some laughs. All of these are entirely valid approaches. I'm merely pointing out that for me, it's more about the character, and more about the in-character interactions, especially the emotional content of those interactions, the finding of drama, pathos, tragedy, and joy, that I really enjoy the most.
I'm interested in other takes on this. Please leave me a comment if you want...I'd love to hear your perspective on why you play RPGs and what you find valuable about it.
Welcome
For quite some time, I've been blogging over on Livejournal about gaming, and how I relate gaming to a bunch of other stuff in my life, but that's friend-locked, and will likely stay that way. But I've been getting some interest from people wanting to hear what I have to say, and a more open forum for doing that might be a good thing. I'm very interested in having lots of discussions about my favorite hobby. This blog will be a place to do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
