|
Angrymog posted:Well your rocks thing, you go "You look up the cliff, it looks climbable, but some parts of it look unstable." if they want specific mechanical details, you say, "If you fail, rocks fall and bad thing happens *" They can then decide if the risk is worth bad thing, if they have ways to mitigate the risk, or if they just give up on the climbing the cliff plan. Except that they don't know if they really have ways to mitigate the risk. If they try to mitigate the risk but choose the wrong method, or get a middling roll, there's no way for me to prove to them that I hadn't just decided to doom them from the very beginning. The only way for me to avoid that is to say that whatever they choose to mitigate the risk works. Splicer posted:"You reach Mount Mountain, your goal is at the top." "But I guess we have to go back and get A and B raised." "Doesn't my armor reduce the damage from the rocks?" "Well, technically it's a Reflex saving throw which you failed rather than an attack.." "But common sense, even if it makes it harder to get out of the way, rocks falling onto armor would still hurt less." "Yea, but that's not really how it works in the rules." "Well you can override them. It doesn't seem very fair that I died just because C failed his nature/perception roll. What did he need to roll?" "A 15 to see it was there or a 25 to see how to get around it." "Is that in the module?" "No, it's on the standard difficulty chart." "But you know that C only has a 10% chance of hitting a 25 on perception and you just made that up anyway?" "Well, it's a difficult mountain path." "Yea, but you're not supposed to just make up something has an effective 90% chance of killing two PCs." "It's what they recommend for that kind of terrain." "Sure, but only you decided the terrain was there. If you can make that up why can't you make up that armor gives me DR against the rockslide?" [For people comparing my group to the KoDT, I suggest that Jonny Nexus' "Game Night" and "Saving Stone" are better references. And even if you can't stand my poo poo you should read them anyway because they're hilarious and Saving Stone is free.] hyphz fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Apr 21, 2020 |
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
hyphz posted:Except that they don't know if they really have ways to mitigate the risk. If they try to mitigate the risk but choose the wrong method, or get a middling roll, there's no way for me to prove to them that I hadn't just decided to doom them from the very beginning. The only way for me to avoid that is to say that whatever they choose to mitigate the risk works. They'll ask questions. You answer them guided by your chosen system and what makes sense. "Can we rope ourselves together?" "Yes, and you'll get a bonus to help someone who falls, but that fails, everyone's going down." "Will my armour help?" "It'll reduce damage (if it's a game where armor does that), but won't help you stay on the cliff." "Can I dodge the rocks?" "Not really unless you want to throw yourself off the cliff." "Can we find a safer looking route?" "You can roll again, but it'll take time; the enemies will arrive where you are shortly after you start the climb" You are overthinking things. I didn't play your CFA game, but it sounds like people had fun and didn't heckle you. Most groups are like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
Angrymog posted:You are overthinking things. I didn't play your CFA game, but it sounds like people had fun and didn't heckle you. Most groups are like that. I'd assign that to the game rather than the group, as you can't really have any seriously bad consequences in CFA (and as I said I was probably too generous for similar reasons)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 19:44
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Except that they don't know if they really have ways to mitigate the risk. If they try to mitigate the risk but choose the wrong method, or get a middling roll, there's no way for me to prove to them that I hadn't just decided to doom them from the very beginning. The only way for me to avoid that is to say that whatever they choose to mitigate the risk works. "What?" "You heard me." <if an acquaintance> "No, sometimes things just go wrong. We can hash this out after the session if you think I've made some unfair calls. For now let's say your character is "missing, presumed dead" and we'll continue on with the backup character for the rest of the session, OK?" <if a good friend> "Uh... do you guys mind if we wrap up a bit early for the night?" <later> "Dave, is everything OK? Do you need to talk?" hyphz posted:"But I guess we have to go back and get A and B raised."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Except that they don't know if they really have ways to mitigate the risk. If they try to mitigate the risk but choose the wrong method, or get a middling roll, there's no way for me to prove to them that I hadn't just decided to doom them from the very beginning. The only way for me to avoid that is to say that whatever they choose to mitigate the risk works. If you're afraid they're going to do that, maybe chill and trust them ? If that's a paraphrase of something that's happened, they'd be happier playing Gloomhaven.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
Splicer posted:"Did you just decide to doom us from the very beginning?" "Hey, it's not me. I just don't see what the point of the game is if no matter what we've got, you can just make stuff up which means I've got a 90% chance of getting killed." "You got a saving throw." "A 70% chance then." "Well, you didn't have to climb the mountain." "Right, so when you tell us there's a super dangerous dungeon, you want us to say 'oh that sounds too risky so we don't go'?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
hyphz posted:"Hey, it's not me."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
I'm so glad I've managed to spend 9 years playing d20 and PBTA games without any of them degenerating into the kind of grinding, joylessly pedantic experiences being showcased here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Gort posted:I think part of what softens the blow of a GM's hard moves in PBTA games is that the GM didn't cause them to happen, the player did by choosing to make a move, and then getting a bad result on that move. Falling into the habit of only handing out hard consequences for failed rolls is a trap that should be avoided. hyphz posted:Except that they don't know if they really have ways to mitigate the risk. If they try to mitigate the risk but choose the wrong method, or get a middling roll, there's no way for me to prove to them that I hadn't just decided to doom them from the very beginning. The only way for me to avoid that is to say that whatever they choose to mitigate the risk works. Don't think of it like that. The solution can (and usually should) lie somewhere in between. So for instance, let's say they decide to rope themselves together, but that someone still fails their roll. OK, they can't fall off the cliff, but they can still have a different consequence that takes their mitigation factor into account - and most importantly in a way that changes the problem they are facing. Let me give you an example: Adventurers Alaric, Buckstone, and Cladwyll are trying to climb the cliff. It's tall. Looks kinda scary. Falling from even half-way up would mean certain death. Cladwyll in particular is not super enthusiastic about his chances of making it to the top, so they decide to rope themselves together. Alaric goes first, because he's the best climber. He knocks it out of the park. Buckstone comes next. He does OK. Finally, Cladwyll rolls, and sure enough he fails. So what happens next? Maybe Cladwyll takes a little bit of falling damage because he can only fall a short distance (bouncing over rocks as he goes) before his line goes taut. And maybe that's the end of it. Buckstone hauls him up and tells him to be more careful, and they continue on to the top. Or maybe the mitigation strategy worked and Cladwyll doesn't take any damage, but now Buckstone has a problem - he's got to haul Cladwyll back up to where he can get a grip again, and that's going to require a Strength check (or equivalent). So Buckstone rolls, and maybe he doesn't do so hot. He just can't hoist Cladwyll up, he's too heavy. But you don't want the story to completely stop, because where's the fun in that? So maybe you suggest an alternative - if Cladwyll ditches his heavy pack, then he'll be light enough for Buckstone to haul him up. Awesome! Cladwyll cuts his pack loose and we watch it tumble down the mountain as Buckstone lifts his unfortunate compatriot back up onto a ledge. The party continues on its way, albeit with the loss of all of Cladwyll's rations and much of his gear. Bonus points if you can bring that lost gear into play as a consequence later in the adventure. Like the group fails a Survival roll (or equivalent) and you can say something like, "You were pretty sure you'd planned enough rations, but between the exertion of scaling the cliff and losing Cladwyll's pack, you've gone through them much faster than anticipated. Take X Stun damage due to the beginning effects of starvation," or whatever. OK, so when we unpack this, it is pretty obvious that if they hadn't roped themselves together, Cladwyll would have loving died, right? And because Buckstone wasn't strong enough, they got put into a more tenuous position by the loss of Cladwyll's pack. But they still made it to the top of the cliff - even after two failed rolls, and nothing in the narration makes them think that you just said that their mitigation strategy "just worked." They get to feel clever for saving Cladwyll's life, and you get to inflict some complication or difficulty on them for their failed rolls - while still allowing them to succeed (because you're a fan of their characters and want to see them triumph over adversity). Does this make sense? Success doesn't have to be all or nothing. Ilor fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
Splicer posted:"Dave, you just accused me, your good friend Splicer, of deciding to "Doom you from the very beginning". When has that ever been me? When has that ever been you? Seriously, what's going on dude." A thought related to both the Twitter thread and hyphz: I initially wrote this as a back-and-forth, but how would you handle a moment where a character is trapped in the dark, finds a light source, turns it on only to find themselves face-to-face with a ghoul or similar unholy monstrosity? Would that be the result of a failed roll, or can you pop that on a character just for the sake of the mood of the game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
I really think a key thing this is underlining is that hyphz expects players to have no or negative trust that the GM is trying to create a game they will enjoy. There's no expectation of give and take, collaboration, or even trust in a fair and reasonable challenge coordinated by a well-intentioned GM. Instead, it's 'you hosed us by putting an obstacle in our way' - not 'hey, I think you overtuned that encounter, it hosed us up' 'oh shoot, you may be right, let's find a way around it.' There's no conversation or mutual respect, there's just hyphz being terrified of belligerent players. Players should trust GMs and GMs should trust players (and they ultimately should all recognize that they're all just players, the GM just has a specific role difference).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
Cannibal Smiley posted:A thought related to both the Twitter thread and hyphz: Sorry to doublepost, but This depends a lot on the system and the intended outcome of the scene! If this is intended to be the jump scare right before the character dies, is captured, or otherwise takes a real hard hit, you should only do it as the result of some kind of positioning that's recognized as arising from the system (even if the system is bent towards the characters getting killed). This is the tower falling in Dread, or the GM spending a bunch of monster tokens in a game with resources, or a series of catastrophic rolls in classic play. If the character is going to make their way out of the situation, either fighting or running, and this is just a moment in play, do it whenever you want as long as it doesn't become hackneyed (or if this is Scooby-Doo, play up the hackneyed element). This is the opening of a scene, in this context, not the end of one, so the player should have a decent chance to take actions and get going. One system this reminds me of is the absolute horror masterpiece of Bluebeard's Bride. You could absolutely just inflict this on the players in BB without any prelude, and it might even make one 'shiver with fear' and lose psychic health in the game. And then the scene starts, with them down some resources, because BB is all about disempowerment and inescapable infliction (as specifically feminist horror).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
Cannibal Smiley posted:A thought related to both the Twitter thread and hyphz:
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
Have y’all seen this? https://twitter.com/gshowitt/status/1252505926042628097?s=21 The whole thread is amazing
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Joe Slowboat's post is well written and matches my thoughts exactly. The only thing I could add is that there are also systems where milling through characters is assumed or "dying" isn't a big deal, in which case springing this arbitrarily could count as a mood setter. Absolutely. Playing RPGs is art, and there are no rules. Go ahead and murder your players out of nowhere, if that'd be interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsybOPSAyrQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Maybe this is just down to personal preference. I don't really see what you gain, personally, from showing the players how the sausage is made, and it feels to me that if you do, you give them opportunities for going "well, that's not on your list of moves, so you shouldn't be able to do that", which feels restrictive to me. I guess if you are in a group where people are afraid of GMs going mad with power, that dynamic can be a bit different, but I've never personally been in a group in which that dynamic was present. You do see what's to be gained, then. It's a tool to build trust. You're likely to need to do something about that with a group that's come from D&D-alikes and hasn't played more narrative type games. (It can also be a tool to show a group that's used to freeform roleplay or improv storytelling how this game differs from those things, but that's usually a way easier sell). So I'll use it in that situation to show that I'm following a set of rules. They're not "the goblin can move up to 6 squares and make an attack +3 vs Armour for 1d4+1 damage", but they're still rules. I'm constrained both in when to use them and what they do. It's not all just me deciding to do stuff because I feel like it. I also use it to show that I'm not hiding anything. There's no gotchas here. There's no hidden "If they do X then Y happens lol " to watch out for. We're going to be having a conversation about what happens, but that conversation is informed by a set of rules that we all act within. In other words, we're playing a game here, not doing improv. It's important for a lot of people that you show, not just tell, them this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:I really think a key thing this is underlining is that hyphz expects players to have no or negative trust that the GM is trying to create a game they will enjoy. There's no expectation of give and take, collaboration, or even trust in a fair and reasonable challenge coordinated by a well-intentioned GM. Instead, it's 'you hosed us by putting an obstacle in our way' - not 'hey, I think you overtuned that encounter, it hosed us up' 'oh shoot, you may be right, let's find a way around it.' There's no conversation or mutual respect, there's just hyphz being terrified of belligerent players. The problem is that nobody trusts in a fair and reasonable challenge after they've lost. Which means that the players can never lose, which doesn't represent a harsh setting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The problem is that nobody trusts in a fair and reasonable challenge after they've lost. This is just patently wrong thinking. Many of my best games have involved losing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The problem is that nobody trusts in a fair and reasonable challenge after they've lost. I really, really think that's an issue with your playgroup specifically. I think you should really look to play with other people :x
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The problem is that nobody trusts in a fair and reasonable challenge after they've lost. Why not? Do you have a shifty face? (Also, why are the only results of an adventure "succeeded" and "failed" we have video games for that)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The problem is that nobody trusts in a fair and reasonable challenge after they've lost. Yeah this is really not my experience. Heck, my problem has been that my players tend to assume they hosed up if they lose or get drawbacks from even a stacked or difficult situation, and so I have to make it clear that they don’t need to feel anxious or like they’re letting down the NPCs. I have never been accused of unfair stacking the deck, and have had to convince them afterwards ‘no that sucked because you were up against really unfair odds, you did as well as anyone could expect.’ Literally the opposite of the reaction you seem to expect. One thing this conversation has done is really make me value the trust my TTRPG buddies have in me, and the trust I can have in them. I try hard to be worth trusting and I know they do as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The problem is that nobody trusts in a fair and reasonable challenge after they've lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
I didn't know until just now that you could charge to DM/GM on Roll20 now. So I was looking through games and I saw that people were charging to run Curse of Strahd for 8-person groups of players and I feel like that must be the D&D equivalent of hiring a dominatrix to step on my genitalia and tell me I'm pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The problem is that nobody trusts in a fair and reasonable challenge after they've lost. What? That doesn't track at all, even in your insane troll logic. If you beat me at poker, that doesn't make me decide that the concept of probability is unfair. And that's even giving you all of your incredibly bizarre assumptions about how gameplay should work. Even if we were take your axioms as true, it falls apart with this sentence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The problem is that nobody trusts in a fair and reasonable challenge after they've lost. Yes they do. hyphz posted:Which means that the players can never lose, which doesn't represent a harsh setting. Yes they can, so yes, it does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The problem is that nobody trusts in a fair and reasonable challenge after they've lost. Shoot son, one of my favorite game sessions of all time ended with my character being knocked on the head by gangsters, thrown in the harbor, and drowning while the Goddess of Luck laughed. That took almost the entire session. And all because the GM left us in one place at the end of last session, and decided to railroad us somewhere else for this session. My character just wasn't having any, and things spiraled. The GM and I trusted each other to play it out, even when it was obvious the situation was getting bad. That's my single best night's gaming, and the GM knocked my character on the head and threw him into the harbor to drown. Since then I've never not taken the Swimming skill if it was available, but I've also never been in a character's head as much as I was that night. It was peak roleplaying and I don't regret the loss of a character I'd been playing for a year. Much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:What? That doesn't track at all, even in your insane troll logic. You would definitely think something was unfair if you couldn’t see the deck, couldn’t see me shuffle, and I was dealing from under the table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
hey hyphz how many discrete operations does it take to count an ORE dice pool result
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:05
|
|
|
Ilor posted:hyphz, go back and read my last post. It deals with this specifically. It doesn’t have to be PC death. But that doesn’t change the fact that if there was no module or external source, then I made up the mountain’s existence knowing about Cladwyll’s low climb score. If I can’t point to any external justification for making a mountain part of the adventure, his argument that it’s unfair has some merit. After all, if it’s just made up by me then the Sage Of The Mountain they’re going to see could just as easily have been the Sage Of The Lake. If I didn’t know his Climb score was low, it’d be more easily argued that my decision was neutral, but I do. And now he has to play the adventure without any equipment which could be very boring for him or even make the party abort if he was the healer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:That's my single best night's gaming, and the GM knocked my character on the head and threw him into the harbor to drown. My favorite gaming from the last couple of years was a couple of sessions in the middle of a longer game in a subplot that started when my character intentionally walked into a non-survivable situation where I knew he wouldn't make it out but was sure that I'd be able to pull off a heroic-sacrifice-saves-the-day story. I rolled so badly so many times in a row that they got stabbed to death with no chance to react and then dumped on the steps of the group's supposedly secret hideout, which provoked them into a fight they couldn't (and didn't) win. The other characters survived, at the cost of having to leave behind a lot of what we'd built up so far. My character did not survive, but got to prove an important point about the nature of ghosts. hyphz posted:It doesn’t have to be PC death. But that doesn’t change the fact that if there was no module or external source, then I made up the mountain’s existence knowing about Cladwyll’s low climb score. If I can’t point to any external justification for making a mountain part of the adventure, his argument that it’s unfair has some merit. After all, if it’s just made up by me then the Sage Of The Mountain they’re going to see could just as easily have been the Sage Of The Lake. If I didn’t know his Climb score was low, it’d be more easily argued that my decision was neutral, but I do. And now he has to play the adventure without any equipment which could be very boring for him or even make the party abort if he was the healer. Try this: Whenever you feel compelled to dribble on for pages and pages contriving the least-fun possible way to approach any given scenario, instead put the same amount of effort into contriving most-fun possible way to approach that scenario, and then do that in a game instead of pretending you can't. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Apr 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
I’d like to do that! But thinking about it Xiahou’s poker example was very apt. If I use a module then that’s giving someone else the deck to set up before the game, who doesn’t know who’s playing and has no stakes. If there is some kind of random setting generation table I can roll on, that resembles using a shuffled deck. But if it’s just me filling in the world as the players explore, I can’t not stack the deck. I’m literally having to choose the cards as they’re drawn. And poker with a stacked deck isn’t fun even if you win, because you were only let to win. So how can it be made fun? (And no, the dice don’t solve it. That means the stacked deck gives you a 20% or 50% or 70% chance to win, but it’s still just me deciding the probability. And please don’t say play bridge instead  )
hyphz fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Apr 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I’d like to do that! But thinking about it Xiahou’s poker example was very apt. If I use a module then that’s giving someone else the deck to set up before the game, who doesn’t know who’s playing and has no stakes. If there is some kind of random setting generation table I can roll on, that resembles using a shuffled deck. But if it’s just me filling in the world as the players explore, I can’t not stack the deck. I’m literally having to choose the cards as they’re drawn. And poker with a stacked deck isn’t fun even if you win, because you were only let to win. So how can it be made fun? Ok, but, Hyphz: How do you imagine those modules are created? Maybe you can get into the head of a module designer and try building your own?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I’d like to do that! But thinking about it Xiahou’s poker example was very apt. If I use a module then that’s giving someone else the deck to set up before the game, who doesn’t know who’s playing and has no stakes. If there is some kind of random setting generation table I can roll on, that resembles using a shuffled deck. But if it’s just me filling in the world as the players explore, I can’t not stack the deck. I’m literally having to choose the cards as they’re drawn. And poker with a stacked deck isn’t fun even if you win, because you were only let to win. So how can it be made fun? Go back and read the last few pages and you're going to find actual, really-did-happen examples of the things that you are claiming can't be done not only being done, but causing everyone involved to have a good time. Put the same amount of effort into trying to emulate these stories that you're putting into making up reasons that they can't have really happened because they're impossible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:36
|
|
|
Joe Slowboat posted:Ok, but, Hyphz: How do you imagine those modules are created? Maybe you can get into the head of a module designer and try building your own? I could try, just by writing the adventure before characters were made. I would be cautious since they likely have a talent I don’t have, but still - that doesn’t solve the problem of how to avoid stacking the deck in games that don’t or can’t support modules, where building the world in play is a part of the experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Go back and read the last few pages and you're going to find actual, really-did-happen examples of the things that you are claiming can't be done not only being done, but causing everyone involved to have a good time. Which shows that there is a method for solving this which people either can’t or won’t tell me. I’m just hoping it’s that they can’t because it comes so naturally to them that it’s something they never thought to explain, and the way around that is to dig to the lowest levels in the hope the people who can do this will examine their methods. Of course I’m not unaware that maybe they won’t because they’re sick of me but it’s not like I really had another option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:46
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Which shows that there is a method for solving this which people either can’t or won’t tell me. I’m just hoping it’s that they can’t because it comes so naturally to them that it’s something they never thought to explain, and the way around that is to dig to the lowest levels in the hope the people who can do this will examine their methods. Of course I’m not unaware that maybe they won’t because they’re sick of me but it’s not like I really had another option. Also doesn't seem like people are generally sick of you because they're still engaging in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
Hyphz, we've been telling you how to solve this for pages and also years. You just have to get over your weird toxic* assumptions about how games have to work. There isn't a magic trick. It's exactly what we're telling you. Also I don't think you know how analogies work. Like, conceptually. *I'm not saying that liking games like this is toxic, mind. Just that it being the default and only option is toxic. If everyone wants to roll up for crazy venomous assault fantasy Vietnam gaming, then sure. One of my favorite games is Torchbearer, I can't judge. But while I love chess, if I was trying to argue doing a knight's move in football you'd think I was insane. Cause they're different games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 05:57
|
|
|
Hyphz, maybe try this: Talk to your players. Talk with them about this concern that the story you build out or the challenges you design might come off as unreasonable, and then tell them that you're just going to be constructing the game to the best of your ability to be fun and interesting. Sometimes, this means it'll feel a little off or too hard or not hard enough, and that's something you'll build on. Sometimes you'll disagree with them that a given plan should work and not realize it, so they'll find themselves in hot water they didn't expect. Sometimes they'll hit on a solution you didn't see coming, and either they'll win too easily or you'll have to recalibrate to give them something to do. Tell them you need their trust, and you need to be able to trust them, so that you can actually collaboratively create a story. I'm really more and more convinced that the 'secret technique people can't tell you about' is players having trust and a suspension of disbelief, an interest in the fiction you're creating. And you need to trust in your own artistic impulses, modified by your experience as a GM with what will be compelling. I don't sit down to write a session thinking 'now I must carefully balance the party's path to the Jewel of All Desiring' I think 'what would be cool and fit my vision for this story and appeal to my players, and how can I make that happen mechanically.' In WTF terms, I'm still chasing that Jewel of All Desiring with them, but in order to do so I'm focusing just on the world and story around us. The meta-level falls away because I can focus on the creation of a game for fun, because they trust me and I trust them. Once you have that trust, even if you gently caress up or something doesn't work, you can discuss it and work through it. That's hard work, that's difficult, but it's extremely rewarding. I've had moments of dislocation with my players, where the possibility of the game-world feeling both real and fictional, playable and believable, fell apart. But it can be reassembled with group effort and trust. E: I just watched Adolescence of Utena so my whole brain is in Jenna Moran space right now, RPGs-wise. But, I really do think the secret is to recognize that no matter what game you're playing, no matter what style or approach, it's a social activity with people, and your relationship with those people (whether close friends, acquaintances, fellow-hobbyists) is going to be the bedrock you build anything on. You have to trust in each other as players, before anything else, the way you need to trust in your opponent playing chess to not cheat on purpose to have fun, or you need to trust in your fellow football players to know what to do and be interested in playing football. It's all a socially-arranged fantasy, so treat it like one. Joe Slowboat fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Apr 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 06:00
|
|
|
hyphz posted:Which shows that there is a method for solving this which people either can’t or won’t tell me. I’m just hoping it’s that they can’t because it comes so naturally to them that it’s something they never thought to explain, and the way around that is to dig to the lowest levels in the hope the people who can do this will examine their methods. Of course I’m not unaware that maybe they won’t because they’re sick of me but it’s not like I really had another option. People tell you how they do it, and then you respond with the equivalent of "Aha! But if I choose not to do that then it won't happen!" or by pretending that a basic every day concept has to be explained from first principles before you will listen, and then ignoring anyone who tries to do that. Or whatever. Nobody's hiding a secret from you, you've got hundreds, or maybe thousands, of posts over many years from people who are showing you what you want to see, and you're looking at them and going "there's nothing there". Edit just to be perfectly clear what I'm telling you here: You're currently expending a heroic amount of effort on coming up with reasons that you can't include a mountain in a hypothetical roleplaying game that you're not running. Stop dong that, and instead play a fun game with other actual human beings who are into fun games, that includes a mountain that they have to get to the top of. Then report back on what happens. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Apr 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Edit: This was addressed. 🥰
mango sentinel fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Apr 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2020 06:05
|
|
