I was reading some comments and posts today which characterized GMs which do not allow whatever the players want at the table as 'lazy' or lacking creativity.
In defense of preparation and boundaries, I would like to share some thoughts. Specifically I want to talk about session '0', setting and rules clarifications and why I think that drawing some lines up is a healthy thing for your home game.
What do you mean I can't play a koopah/dragon turtle gunslinger in your low fantasy game?
Several years ago, I was DMing a 3.5e game in our custom setting which would eventually become the 'Sonnegard' setting. While the players genuinely enjoyed the setting, I found myself bending rules frequently to accommodate setting. Eventually, new players were bringing in prestige classes and other findings from the many 3.5e supplements.
I found myself telling the players 'you can't do that' and 'that doesn't fit the setting' quite frequently. I consider myself a pro-player GM. I think that player agency is paramount to running a successful game. Inversely, GM agency over the world and setting are equally paramount.
It was in large part because of these instances, that my wife and I chose to create a new game. This new game would be one where I could point out what the player's 'can' do a little more frequently. Though all of the setting restrictions still existed, new mechanics and options could be implemented that better suited the setting.
While our response was admittedly extreme, it was liberating and eye opening.
The TTRPG 'Simulation Scale'
In roleplaying, I believe there is a scale in which gamers tend to fall. For simplicity sake, I'll call it the simulation scale. The concept is that all RPGs are an abstract simulation of events that take place in our imagination to some degree or another. The scale is not meant to be comprehensive, but a general guideline that I think of when attempting to understand fundamentally what type of system/homebrew people might enjoy.
The left side of the scale tends toward mechanical game play. This is where you find players who enjoy playing the game for the sake of the game. Often times, players on this end of the spectrum may view the game objective as a means to acquisition and advancement of the PC. Another tendency of players on this side of the scale is the tendency to be more 'rules' focused.
The right side of the scale tends toward roleplay. The concept that the 'abstraction' is less focused on rules and mechanics and more toward story. The left and right do not have to be mutually exclusive, and many gamers find themselves deriving equal enjoyment from both aspects of play.
The scale is also divided from top to bottom.
The top half of the scale leans toward crunchy mechanics. Players here prefer to have more rules and formulas to create more robust outcomes.
The bottom half of the scale leans toward rules light systems. Players falling in this area tend to prefer more expedient conflict resolution or at least prefer that the variation in outcome can be determined with less 'crunch'.
This isn't meant to be some major psychological graph or anything like that, but players and GMs probably have some idea of what gives them enjoyment and if they lean to one degree or another on the simulation scale.
Using what you know about your group
Every table will have a unique feel, and you will likely find that the people at your table fall in different places on the scale. Gamemasters should be aware of this and keep in mind what type of game drives the players. As a GM, you will have to craft out a set of rules and a setting that is enjoyable for the entire table. You should put careful consideration into what rulesets you intend to use, and how adherent to those rules you will be. After some careful decision making, I suggest making a list of all core rulesets you intend to include and take some time to document any 'house' rules you intend to incorporate into a shareable document. Setting these aside as the 'core rules' of your game prevents confusion down the road regarding supplemental rules or expectations at the table.
No comments:
Post a Comment