I've noted that the style of responses here differs from some of the other forums I visit. So, curious about what I'd get here, I'm hauling my big gaming advice post over here from elsewhere.
1. Come For A Good Time
If your primary goal at the table is something other than having an experience you enjoy, and that others can enjoy with you, you should be doing something else. Generally speaking, that means having fun. Sometimes it might be more specific - crafting a satisfying story together, or having the experience of seeing things from the perspective of your character, either in addition to or instead of classically fun stuff. But if what you want when you sit down at the table on any given night isn't enjoyable to you, or does not allow enjoyment for others, do not sit down at that table. Not gaming is better than bad gaming.
2. This Is Your Gamespace, These Are Real People.
Accept and understand that the players around you are real people that are also here to have fun. Nobody comes to the table to watch one player discuss their personal character's stuff with the GM when it could wait, or to watch two players crack inside jokes at each other and exclude everyone else. Nobody comes to the table to be treated to the personal aroma of another player, or to closely observe their food being chewed. Nobody hosts a game hoping for a marathon cleanup session at the end. Nobody comes to the table to be the ego-boosting kick-toy of anyone else. Never, ever, forget that you are playing the game with real people.
3. Accept Responsibility
Taking the same point as #2, and bringing it into the game - what you do at the gaming table is your responsibility, and you should accept this. What others do is their responsibility, and they should accept that, too. This absolutely includes what you decide that your character does. This absolutely includes the actions of the GM as world. If playing your character as written could very well interfere with the fun of others, you need to decide where to go with that – it's your call, though; excuses are lame. If you ruin the game by playing your character or the world 'correctly', then you still ruined the game.
4. Give Feedback
Anything from telling the GM "I had a good game tonight" to "here's ten specific moments of play I really liked, and ten moments I really didn't", can help. For the GM, telling the players what they loved about their play, and what they found dull, works the same way. The GM can't read the minds of the players here (or anywhere else), and the players don't know what's going on internally for the GM either. Unless they tell each other. This doesn't need to be formal – in fact, it seems that it often works best if it isn't. But the clearer it is, the better; and it's often good to get a quick idea of this stuff before you start.
5. Share Creativity
No one person at the table has full control over what happens in the game. If someone does, you get some really boring shit. At the very least, a player generally controls most of one character in the game. There are an infinite number of little variants on how the GM and the players share control over who gets to put stuff in, and things work best once the group hits a level of input from each person at the table that they're comfortable with. Find that level. If you're looking for ways to muck about with that level of input, there are quite a few ways to do that.
6. Seek Consensus
The people at your table have, if your game is actually running at all, a consensus. The ideas in their heads of what the game is and does match up well enough to produce good play. Sometimes a group will hit on little moments when their ideas just don't match up, and they'll need to talk about what this specific thing looks like in their heads and agree on one way to go about it. Once in a while, one of the people at the table will want to bring something in that they aren't sure will match up with what the others have in their heads, and it's a good idea for them to mention that before they do.
7. Negotiate Honestly
When problems come up in your group, the first step is to make sure that everyone at the table is onboard with at least the basic ideas of the first five things here – they don't have to be "skilled" at these things; being onboard is plenty. If they aren't, I don't really have any good advice for you – for myself, I likely wouldn't play with them for much longer. If they are, and you still have a problem, then it's time to sort that out. Now, my own recommendations on doing that are below, but they aren't really 'polished' and they're kind of artificial; if you've got any ideas on that, I'm really interested. But here's another standard saying that ties into this – it's usually a very bad idea to try and solve out-of-character problems with in-game events. That's dishonest, and doesn't generally work. Also, using the rules to 'punish' your players or 'get back' at your GM? Same thing.
8. Consider Your Options.
When someone makes an attempt to alter 'your part' of the fiction - the world if you're the GM, your character if you're a player, you have choices. You can simply agree, or disagree; you can put it to the mechanics, you can modify what they've stated and give it back to them. Limiting your options in this case is silly; most advice to limit these options in a 'positive' way comes from a desire to keep the energy of the game high, or allow for trust between players above and beyond the basic average; those are good goals, but instead of using limits on yourself and others to achieve them, simply remember that your decisions will affect those things as well as the specific matter at hand.
9. Watch The Spotlight.
At any given instant of play, someone has the spotlight. This doesn't just mean 'one person is talking'. It means that if there are a whole string of scenes, one person is usually "center stage"; the scene revolves around their stuff, whether that's world stuff or character issues or whatever. If that person isn't you, then you're a supporting character in that scene; try to play good support, whether that means keeping quiet, offering support or advice, playing up the effects the setting has on your character a bit, whatever. If that person is you, then fill that scene; it's there for you to step into. If nobody is sure who should have the spotlight, then act as support for each other, until the focus hits. But watch that spotlight, too. If you're getting more than a fair share, work to make more scenes about other characters. If you're getting less than your share, then when a scene doesn't really have a focus, step up and take it. Now, sometimes the players will think that different people are getting too much, or not enough spotlight time – we're people, it happens. Talk about it; most of the time, whoever's being a hog or hiding away just needs to know about it - and on those occasions when that isn't true, work it out.
10. Play the Game At The Game
This is a close partner to sharing creativity. Sometimes, you'll have an idea about the game before you sit down at the table, about something you'd like to see happen there. Sometimes, you'll have a whole string of them. That's good stuff. But when those ideas start to look like a whole storyline, you need to be careful with it. A storyline like that is great raw material, but don't get too attached; if you get too attached to that storyline, you'll find yourself pushing to make it happen, and ignoring or working against all the other good ideas and creative input at your table. Remember, at all times; raw material is good. But don't play the game before it starts – play the game when you're at the game.
11. Show Your Stuff As You Go.
Almost everybody wants to feel like the fictional world, and the characters in it, are real to them enough to imagine. This is, of course, achieved by describing things. But nobody wants to be bored by drawn-out description, or huge whopping chunks of detail. If the GM rattles of ten facts about the place the characters are standing, only the first few will sink in; likewise if a player does this when describing their character. So, the key is to describe as you go. If a player wants us to know that her character Jill is a graceful woman, she shouldn't simply tell the group that at character creation; her character should 'glide' and 'move nimbly' in play – her description at creation need only be a single, vivid image, that she can build on by describing not only what the character does, but how. This works in the same way for the GM; when the characters walk into a abandoned study, it can simply be an old, dusty study, smelling of books; as the characters interact with it, the GM can note the thick books, the puffs of dust as things are moved. One key to a good description that's often missed is that it starts simple and vivid, and grows as you go, so that it's never boring.
12. Learn To Speak The Same Language.
This is an ongoing effort that every group needs to make together. Every single person thinks that different phrases and wordings imply slightly different things, and this is one of the biggest things that can knock down even an honest attempt at talking to other people. Your group, to communicate both well and quickly, will sometimes need to hash out things related to this; accept that it's going to happen and try not to get too serious about a problem until you're sure this isn't it.
this is really good stuff. thank you for posting it!
All great advice, I've copied and pasted into a notepad doc for myself if ya don't mind. Never hurts to be reminded of these things.
Levi Kornelsen - The man with the plan - Great advise. I can truly say, I have never really had a bad gaming experience. Some sessions did not really pan out the way we wanted, most times because of the personalities invovled but, whenever this happened we gently reminded the offending parties that one of the more important aspects of this whole gaming thing is all about "playing well with others".
Also, posting some of your stuff on theory would be cool.
Regards,
David R.
Many thanks, all!
Quote from: David RAlso, posting some of your stuff on theory would be cool.
Tempting, but I've fought that battle enough times.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenMany thanks, all!
Tempting, but I've fought that battle enough times.
The administration would like to say that theory threads, while often dense and difficult to read, and even though they are usually a flame war in waiting, are welcome here also.
Quote from: ThjalfiThe administration would like to say that theory threads, while often dense and difficult to read, and even though they are usually a flame war in waiting, are welcome here also.
...Well, then.
Give me a minute, and I'll dredge something up for you.
Let's start with a nice sematic debate about terms, shall we?
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen...Well, then.
Give me a minute, and I'll dredge something up for you.
Let's start with a nice sematic debate about terms, shall we?
:heh: we've even opened up a nice forum for this kind of topic... if you'll notice... :heh:
Quote from: Thjalfi:heh: we've even opened up a nice forum for this kind of topic... if you'll notice... :heh:
Which one?
Seriously. Because my theory stuff is, uh, not quite what you're used to. It's not academic or "revolutionary". It's just... stuff.
Point #1 is very much spot on, and something that I wish more people would embrace.
Looking back at the successful gaming groups I've been in, all of them had an unspoken commitment to enjoying the game. Nobody went out of their way to ruin the fun. It sounds obvious, but I've seen all too many games derailed by one or two players trying to push a creative agenda on the rest of the group, a GM intent on steamrolling or abusing the players, or attention hogs who are there to glorify in the spotlight.
I think a good attitude is infectious. I remember playing in one D&D 3e game where the DM absolutely murdered the rules, usually to the PCs' detriment, but I couldn't bring myself to say anything. The story was interesting, the PC interactions were a blast, and he was good at setting a scene. Why bog down the game with a rules argument?
Heh.
While I tried to arrange most of the points so they'd more or less flow, the one that had to go first was that one. It is, bar none, the most important.
Also, I agree very much that a good attitude is infectious - though I'd take it a bit further. Any strongly-played attitude can be infectious.
QuoteBut don't play the game before it starts – play the game when you're at the game.
That is only true for DMs. For example I find it very neccessary to tweak my spell selection, and equipment requests during the downtime, just to survive in AoW. And in Traveller, it´s also cool to play the game i.g. waging battles, designing starships etc. during downtime, even if you are the Referee.
I thought you were a breath of fresh air at RPG.net Levi.
It was mostly for this kind of thing. Well done.
I originally glossed over this thread.
I'm glad I came back and read it. Good advice. Very helpful. I think the whole "spotlight" advice is spot-on.
Next game I start, I'll be tempted to print this out and hand it out.
+phantom rep
-O
Kudos. I like this.
This post in http://shootingdice.blogspot.com/ is to my thinking useful to the discussion at hand.
Levi, hope this is not considered a derail. Same goes to Shooting Dice.
Regards,
David R.
Got here via Mearl's blog. Nice avatar btw, Mike.
Very good stuff indeed. I posted the link on the site I run to share with others, as well as my gaming group(s). It is hard to have 4-7 people sit at a table and nail these 12 things down so that it not only becomes a good gaming experience, but an extraordinary one.
Great advice indeed. Thanks to Mearls for linking it in his LJ.
QuoteI've seen all too many games derailed by one or two players trying to push a creative agenda on the rest of the group, a GM intent on steamrolling or abusing the players, or attention hogs who are there to glorify in the spotlight.
I've seen these kinds all too often myself. Unsurprisingly, people trying to push creative agendas at the game table are generally GMs, and people who want the spotlight constantly for themselves are generally players. Or maybe I can just spot them more easily because of the roles they have at the game table.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenI've noted that the style of responses here differs from some of the other forums I visit.
How so?
Quote from: ColonelHardissonHow so?
It seems as if folks come here, in many cases, to goof around a bit. This makes things less "polite and professional" - but sometimes, goofing around with the right material, or thinking of it in that tone of mind, can lead to some really cool insights.
...Or something like that.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt seems as if folks come here, in many cases, to goof around a bit. This makes things less "polite and professional" - but sometimes, goofing around with the right material, or thinking of it in that tone of mind, can lead to some really cool insights.
...Or something like that.
:heh: don't put it nicely on our account now....
yes, we like to fuck around. we
play. we're not "polite and professional" because that's not what our website is really about. We remember that we talk about games, and that while you can take a subject seriously, you should always be able to laugh about it.
Quote from: Thjalfi:heh: don't put it nicely on our account now....
yes, we like to fuck around. we play. we're not "polite and professional" because that's not what our website is really about. We remember that we talk about games, and that while you can take a subject seriously, you should always be able to laugh about it.
It's good point - but I suspect that maintaining it will get harder as your traffic increases. Assuming that your traffic does continue to increase, that is.
I wouldn't mind comparing some crib notes at some point on some of this stuff, actually.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt's good point - but I suspect that maintaining it will get harder as your traffic increases. Assuming that your traffic does continue to increase, that is.
I wouldn't mind comparing some crib notes at some point on some of this stuff, actually.
We'll keep that in mind.
Keep in mind, our entire purpose in this site is to be honestly
different. all of the nutkins are fed up with the big boards for RPGs that exist, and we know we're not the only ones.
And pharao dreamt of large conventions, where everybody's face was frozen serious, and of small gatherings full of laughter and wine (and, knowing pharao, women). When he woke up from the latter, he wanted to fall asleep and dream on right then and there.
I don't think this even needs to be interpreted.
Anyway, just saw this thread. Good advice, there. I'm thinking about translating it.
I think your suggestions are pretty good in general but...
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen3. Accept Responsibility
Taking the same point as #2, and bringing it into the game - what you do at the gaming table is your responsibility, and you should accept this. What others do is their responsibility, and they should accept that, too. This absolutely includes what you decide that your character does. This absolutely includes the actions of the GM as world. If playing your character as written could very well interfere with the fun of others, you need to decide where to go with that its your call, though; excuses are lame. If you ruin the game by playing your character or the world correctly, then you still ruined the game.
Please don't exclude that for some people, playing the character or world correctly is the right thing to do and not playing the character or world correctly because a GM or player things it might be more fun to do something different can be the thing that ruins the game. And don't forget that not playing their character or world correctly can ruin the game for the player or GM. In other words, I think this suggestion is biased against a perfectly valid play preference.
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen5. Share Creativity
No one person at the table has full control over what happens in the game. If someone does, you get some really boring shit. At the very least, a player generally controls most of one character in the game. There are an infinite number of little variants on how the GM and the players share control over who gets to put stuff in, and things work best once the group hits a level of input from each person at the table that theyre comfortable with. Find that level. If youre looking for ways to muck about with that level of input, there are quite a few ways to do that.
Don't assume that players want to share creativity or that people want or need to muck about with the level of input. They aren't represented on gaming boards or in theory discussions but there are plenty of players who are quite happy to just go along with a game with minimal input. That may sound horrific to you but it's a perfectly legitimate way to play if that's what the group has fun with.
Quote from: Levi Kornelsen8. Consider Your Options.
When someone makes an attempt to alter 'your part' of the fiction - the world if you're the GM, your character if you're a player, you have choices. You can simply agree, or disagree; you can put it to the mechanics, you can modify what theyve stated and give it back to them. Limiting your options in this case is silly; most advice to limit these options in a positive way comes from a desire to keep the energy of the game high, or allow for trust between players above and beyond the basic average; those are good goals, but instead of using limits on yourself and others to achieve them, simply remember that your decisions will affect those things as well as the specific matter at hand.
Bear in mind that some people want the GM or players to push back against this sort of thing. I've played with GMs that didn't push back enough and it ruined games for me. If I ask the GM if there if I can buy a magical sword in a town, I'm not secretly making a request for the GM to add a store selling magical swords to the town. I want the GM to tell me if there is such a store in town and expect to hear "no" reasonably often.
Quote from: John MorrowPlease don't exclude that for some people, playing the character or world correctly is the right thing to do and not playing the character or world correctly because a GM or player things it might be more fun to do something different can be the thing that ruins the game. And don't forget that not playing their character or world correctly can ruin the game for the player or GM. In other words, I think this suggestion is biased against a perfectly valid play preference.
Yes, in many cases you could say "But that's what my character would do!" in response to allegations of disruptive play. It might even be true. However, who is responsible for
making that character in the first place?
Quote from: DackeYes, in many cases you could say "But that's what my character would do!" in response to allegations of disruptive play. It might even be true. However, who is responsible for making that character in the first place?
Exactly. The characters should have wide freedom in how they behave and act. They should not however take that as license to drive the campaign off a cliff. I can appreciate and will even reward taking nonoptimal paths for the sake of being true to a character. But "That's what my character would do" is not license to be an asshole.
Quote from: John MorrowDon't assume that players want to share creativity or that people want or need to muck about with the level of input. They aren't represented on gaming boards or in theory discussions but there are plenty of players who are quite happy to just go along with a game with minimal input. That may sound horrific to you but it's a perfectly legitimate way to play if that's what the group has fun with.
I think what Levi is pointing at is that everybody is at least in charge of one aspect of the shared experience - their own character. If everybody played their character in the vein of simply following the others, never saying anything, taking no initiatives of any kind, there would be no game. At the gaming table, you have responsibility to contribute, or you are dead weight to the group. Most groups can handle those kind of players, because there are rarely more than one in any group, but at the table, they are effectively place holders for a juiced up cohort (to speak in D&D terms).
Quote from: John MorrowPlease don't exclude that for some people, playing the character or world correctly is the right thing to do and not playing the character or world correctly because a GM or player things it might be more fun to do something different can be the thing that ruins the game. And don't forget that not playing their character or world correctly can ruin the game for the player or GM. In other words, I think this suggestion is biased against a perfectly valid play preference.
It can. But it's still their responsibility. In cases like the one you're talking about, the responsibility
reinforces the natural desire to play to character. In places where playing the character completely correctly would ruin the game for others, they can, but doing so never removes their responsibility for their actions.
Quote from: John MorrowDon't assume that players want to share creativity or that people want or need to muck about with the level of input. They aren't represented on gaming boards or in theory discussions but there are plenty of players who are quite happy to just go along with a game with minimal input. That may sound horrific to you but it's a perfectly legitimate way to play if that's what the group has fun with.
Dr_Avalanche got my answer here.
Quote from: John MorrowBear in mind that some people want the GM or players to push back against this sort of thing. I've played with GMs that didn't push back enough and it ruined games for me. If I ask the GM if there if I can buy a magical sword in a town, I'm not secretly making a request for the GM to add a store selling magical swords to the town. I want the GM to tell me if there is such a store in town and expect to hear "no" reasonably often.
Absolutely.
Hearing "no" relatively often in such cases can be a part of what makes the game fun. It's not "be firm but fair", and it's certainly not "say yes or roll the dice" in most games.
It's actually thinking over your options.
Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI think what Levi is pointing at is that everybody is at least in charge of one aspect of the shared experience - their own character. If everybody played their character in the vein of simply following the others, never saying anything, taking no initiatives of any kind, there would be no game.
However, if a single player or the GM does say things and take initiative, there
can be a game. In fact, there can be a game that everyone in the table enjoys. Just as a sadist and a masochist can make each other very happy, an agressive and guiding GM can be very happy with passive players and they can be very happy with the GM.
Quote from: Dr_AvalancheAt the gaming table, you have responsibility to contribute, or you are dead weight to the group. Most groups can handle those kind of players, because there are rarely more than one in any group, but at the table, they are effectively place holders for a juiced up cohort (to speak in D&D terms).
If the group can handle the player and the game is fun, then why must they have a responsibility to do more?
Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt can. But it's still their responsibility. In cases like the one you're talking about, the responsibility reinforces the natural desire to play to character. In places where playing the character completely correctly would ruin the game for others, they can, but doing so never removes their responsibility for their actions.
The way you stated the point made it seem pretty clear that you considered it a negative. It follows from the assumption that people use the concept of doing what their characters would do as an excuse for ruining the game, which you used as an example. Nobody demands that people take responsiblity to making the game fun. For example, do you also demand that GM's take responsibility when everyone has a fun time? My point is simply that the thing you are demanding people take responsibility for is not necessarily a bad thing.
If anything, I've had problems with the reverse problem -- people appologizing for doing things in character that they are worried might ruin the game.
Quote from: John MorrowHowever, if a single player or the GM does say things and take initiative, there can be a game. In fact, there can be a game that everyone in the table enjoys. Just as a sadist and a masochist can make each other very happy, an agressive and guiding GM can be very happy with passive players and they can be very happy with the GM.
If the group can handle the player and the game is fun, then why must they have a responsibility to do more?
Okay, John, you think it needs to change?
The original advice was written based on people relating their experiences of actual play.
I invite you to back up your point by sharing some.
:Bookmarks thread, adds "convert thread to drupal page" to his list of things to do.:
Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe original advice was written based on people relating their experiences of actual play.
I invite you to back up your point by sharing some.
Fair enough. I do have actual people in mind.
Among the people I've role-played with, people have been described as "wolves" and "sheep". The "wolves" are the active players and the "sheep" are the passive players. And, by the way, that distinction was made to be critical of the "wolves" who can step all over the "sheep". In any event, the sheep are quite happy to play characters that would just go along with what the rest of the group is doing or whatever plot the GM tosses at them, and they do have fun doing it. Now specific enough?
One of the GMs in my group has created several groups of role-players from among his co-workers. He basically talked about role-playing with people who had an interest in genre fiction and seemed to have the right temperment and would run games for him. In many cases, they didn't really have an interest in how the rules worked. They'd tell the GM what their character did when asked, would roll dice when asked, and then ask the GM what happened. I played with one of those gropus becaues the GM knew I could avoid being a "wolf" because a "wolf" would have eaten the group alive. Basically, they were incredibly passive and would largely go along via prompting from the GM. Yet they had a great deal of fun playing and he had a lot of fun running the game.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenI invite you to back up your point by sharing some.
My wife is also a reasonably passive role-player. She's been incredibly frustrated when, for example, an SCA-member GM asked her to describe exactly how her character was hitting a monster with a sword (because he used a combat system where it mattered). She didn't know and didn't care and played magic users in his games from then on. She was more interested in engaging the game at a very high level and letting the GM move things along.
Okay, now we're on solid ground.
I agree that the advice I've given here thus far doesn't support such players well.
I also feel that altering these items to fit players of that type as well might dilute the advice - it's already very general, and there's a danger of becoming so broad as to be useless.
What this leads me to believe is that what should be done is to add further items that speak to that style; all of the same advice applies, I think, but vastly toned-down in some ways, and vastly toned-up in others.
Do you see what I mean?
Quote from: Levi KornelsenI agree that the advice I've given here thus far doesn't support such players well.
Then it's not really general always true advice, is it?
Quote from: Levi KornelsenI also feel that altering these items to fit players of that type as well might dilute the advice - it's already very general, and there's a danger of becoming so broad as to be useless.
It can be handled through qualifications that take play styles into account. The generic advice would be to encourage people to cater to the preferences of the group and that "I like playing this way" (the real issue) doesn't excuse ruining the game for everyone else at the table.
Quote from: Levi KornelsenWhat this leads me to believe is that what should be done is to add further items that speak to that style; all of the same advice applies, I think, but vastly toned-down in some ways, and vastly toned-up in others.
Do you see what I mean?
That could work, too.
Utlimately, it's all about expectations and what people consider enjoyable. The first rule always has to be, if you are having fun, you are doing it right. If you aren't having fun, you need to figure out why and try to fix it. If a group is having fun with a group of passive players being railroaded through a story by a GM, they aren't doing aything wrong. In fact, you might ruin their fun by trying to change that dynamic.