This certainly is not the worst thing in the universe but I’m board and want to rant…
I have been listening to some people talk about their RPG party and I noticed a big difference between how they played and what I remember happening in the Houston group. Say they found an encounter like a shrine where they could pray to a deity, each and every player would take a turn trying their luck at the alter. When someone tried some sort of test like lifting something heavy, the entire party tried to pitch in and help to reduce the load.
While this sounds very nice and friendly it seemed to me that it diminished the appeal of each event. I think it is much more interesting when one (or maybe two) character owns the scene. They succeed or fail and we move on. It may be a facet of +Jason Cordova’s GGG player that you “Give” the scene to the most appropriate or invested character. My guy is not that interested but this shrine is to your god isn’t it? This guy killed your family, maybe you should be the one to take him down? If you couldn’t lift that gate then no one could. On the other hand this can be part of good GMing in that you specifically give the scene to the most appropriate character. If another player wants to but in you can ask them why, how, wouldn’t you rather…
What do you think? Am I wrong or right? Is this only an issue with a big party? Have yall ever encountered this? How do you deal with it?
Agree. I don’t like much of anything that involves multiple tries at the same task, whether it is multiple characters trying the same thing in turn or assists from multiple characters at once.
Once something has been tried, if I am GMing, I try push the fiction forward in a way that it’s usually impossible for someone to try it again. So, in the case of the altar above. Once the first person prays, I would indicate that the god was appeased (and show a sign of it) or pissed (and show a sign of it). In the latter case I would make characters pretty afraid of trying it a second time! Or just outright tell them, “you don’t want to do that.” Or, hell, tumble the altar with a minor earthquake.
Also, I love this advice: give the scene to the most appropriate or invested character. I always do this, but I’ve never explained it myself in such a great, economical way. In fact, my players are so used to it that they do it for me. If such a test comes up they look at each other like, who should take this one? And it quickly settles itself.
Agree. I don’t like much of anything that involves multiple tries at the same task, whether it is multiple characters trying the same thing in turn or assists from multiple characters at once.
Once something has been tried, if I am GMing, I try push the fiction forward in a way that it’s usually impossible for someone to try it again. So, in the case of the altar above. Once the first person prays, I would indicate that the god was appeased (and show a sign of it) or pissed (and show a sign of it). In the latter case I would make characters pretty afraid of trying it a second time! Or just outright tell them, “you don’t want to do that.” Or, hell, tumble the altar with a minor earthquake.
Also, I love this advice: give the scene to the most appropriate or invested character. I always do this, but I’ve never explained it myself in such a great, economical way. In fact, my players are so used to it that they do it for me. If such a test comes up they look at each other like, who should take this one? And it quickly settles itself.
I think currently a lot of player focus too much on their characters as a list of mechanics and DM focus too much on how a check success equals “must happen”. So players call out abilities like keywords on Magic cards. And DM view it as a must happen. And as a consequence, everyone wants a roll of the dice. More rolls = more success.
Equally, a lot of DMs don’t use Random Encounters as the currency of risk and time. Often DM don’t enforce a sense of time in the first place (its so “old school”), so players can take all day and nothing bad happens. Its as if the entire dungeon is on pause as well as human necessity for food and rest.
Each even doesn’t have to be a “thing”. But it does have to follow realistic constraints. Instead DM’s focus on rule-based/mechanics-based constraints.
I think currently a lot of player focus too much on their characters as a list of mechanics and DM focus too much on how a check success equals “must happen”. So players call out abilities like keywords on Magic cards. And DM view it as a must happen. And as a consequence, everyone wants a roll of the dice. More rolls = more success.
Equally, a lot of DMs don’t use Random Encounters as the currency of risk and time. Often DM don’t enforce a sense of time in the first place (its so “old school”), so players can take all day and nothing bad happens. Its as if the entire dungeon is on pause as well as human necessity for food and rest.
Each even doesn’t have to be a “thing”. But it does have to follow realistic constraints. Instead DM’s focus on rule-based/mechanics-based constraints.
I’d say that sounds a lot like a “trad” approach to the situation with no GM (MC, sorry, still pretty trad myself) intercession to push the fiction. Which, to be fair, is the way I looked at DW until I internetted a bit more and began to understand that the rules didn’t just arbitrate actions but also interacted with narrative.
I just mean that your typical band murder-hobos walk into any given room or other area made discrete by boxed text and as a group leave no challenge incomplete or treasure unfound because that’s the game goal. As opposed to having a plot to push. The party encounters the situation as a game mechanic to succeed at.
In PbtA games, it’s the GM’s job (and the PCS’, I suppose, but many times the GM) to create some fictional pressure for any roll. That’s what the moves are, right? If the GM isn’t doing that, it’s by ignorance or choice.
But ultimately, if the players are doing that and the GM lets them and nobody is saying it’s boring or annoying, then I guess that’s the social contract and the fun for that group. So maybe the moral of the story is, make sure that you have a group that fits your play style – or be aware of, and ok with, the play style of a group that you join.
I’d say that sounds a lot like a “trad” approach to the situation with no GM (MC, sorry, still pretty trad myself) intercession to push the fiction. Which, to be fair, is the way I looked at DW until I internetted a bit more and began to understand that the rules didn’t just arbitrate actions but also interacted with narrative.
I just mean that your typical band murder-hobos walk into any given room or other area made discrete by boxed text and as a group leave no challenge incomplete or treasure unfound because that’s the game goal. As opposed to having a plot to push. The party encounters the situation as a game mechanic to succeed at.
In PbtA games, it’s the GM’s job (and the PCS’, I suppose, but many times the GM) to create some fictional pressure for any roll. That’s what the moves are, right? If the GM isn’t doing that, it’s by ignorance or choice.
But ultimately, if the players are doing that and the GM lets them and nobody is saying it’s boring or annoying, then I guess that’s the social contract and the fun for that group. So maybe the moral of the story is, make sure that you have a group that fits your play style – or be aware of, and ok with, the play style of a group that you join.
My group tends not to do this. Not because I don’t let them, but because a lot of the time when someone fails a roll I still allow them to accomplish it but only after they deal with my move. Or I don’t make a move that affects them and then they really get nervous because they know I just advanced a Grim Portent. 🙂
My group tends not to do this. Not because I don’t let them, but because a lot of the time when someone fails a roll I still allow them to accomplish it but only after they deal with my move. Or I don’t make a move that affects them and then they really get nervous because they know I just advanced a Grim Portent. 🙂
I couldn’t agree more. I think a big part of being a “good” roleplayer is knowing if you’re the right person to be doing a particular thing. If everyone tries every single thing then that whole aspect of the game disappears.
I think games like DW handle this great by taking the stance that whenever an action is attempted the outcome is never “no outcome”.
I couldn’t agree more. I think a big part of being a “good” roleplayer is knowing if you’re the right person to be doing a particular thing. If everyone tries every single thing then that whole aspect of the game disappears.
I think games like DW handle this great by taking the stance that whenever an action is attempted the outcome is never “no outcome”.