King Arthur Pendragon

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Having Fun With The Game

On his blog, Alexander Schiebel writes about knowing your players to make sure each and every one of them has fun at the table. In other words, knowing what they like and want from the game and provide it. It's indeed the gamemaster's responsibility to know what the players want from the game he is currently running, whether that is an old-school dungeon crawl, a space opera with lots of action and derring-do or a game of intrigue and conspiracies. A story should be based on the players' wants and somehow tied to their character concept. The players' involvement in the story is proportional to how deep they relate to it.

Even if the gamemaster sets a baseline ("My campaign will be about a group of fortune seekers and treasure hunters exploring lost ruins and underground temples"), the players should have a lot of leeway on how to play this type of game. One could favor combat and want to see lots of action, another could seek magic items because he wants to feel powerful, and yet a third could want to flex his creative muscles and solve puzzles. Short of asking outright, how does a gamemaster figure out what each player wants from his game? Simply by looking at their character sheets. That player created a fighter? He wants action scenes, to face oponents in battle and be the group's defender. How about that player who spent his points in Knowledge skills and Lost Artifact Lore? He wants to figure out things, to delve into the past and find powerful artifacts. A player created a courtier and has high charisma? He wants to interact with NPCs, to manipulate them, to make or break alliances, to speak for the group.

Sometimes a player will create a character that he does not want to play just because the group needs one more fighter or magic-user. Resist the urge to do that. Never force a player to play something against his will. An unhappy player will not have fun at the game table and will, possibly, drag down the campaign. Always try to accommodate the player's tastes within the context of the campaign. In my AD&D 1 ed. campaign, I even let players be assassins and half-orcs if they want. That provides an interesting element of conflict both within and without the group. Perhaps in my world, half-orcs are accepted but somewhat feared. Perhaps an assassin can find a compelling reason to associate with good characters. Strive to find what it is that the player wants from the game, give it to him and he'll be happy.

Weave stories or events around the player-characters not the other way around. Even in the most simple of stories, you can find something to hook the player. For instance, in my current Greyhawk campaign, one of the players - a fighter - was attacked by an evil cleric. The player realized the cleric was possibly wearing a magic plate mail armor. He immediately wanted to have it. He set himself that goal. As a gamemaster, it is my job to make sure it is possible for him to get the armor but also to make it difficult. That NPC will return. Perhaps the characters will hear from him again, either through his minions or in person. His story will be interwoven with that of the player-character. Perhaps he will become a recurrent villain.

But here's a crazy notion: it is also the player's responsibility to entertain the gamesmaster, to create interesting characters and play with gusto. Players should have dramatic flair or be creative. They should follow the gamemaster's hooks (after all, they are there so that the players are happy about the game). Failing that, they should set their own goals. Keep the story moving. As a gamemaster, I want to be surprised. When something happens that I was not prepared for, it is much more fun for me. It keeps me involved, trying to follow what the players are doing, to come up with things to stay one step ahead of them. Each gamemaster will be entertained in different manners. Find about yours, tell it to the players and you'll have much more fun if the players play with you, not against you.

In order to entertain the gamemaster, the players must accept his campaign premise. After all, the gamemaster also wants to play a game and a certain type of story and it won't be much fun for him if he's running a game of investigation when he would rather be playing a game of fantasy and action. The campaign premise should satisfy everyone at the table and, in order for that to happen, a certain amount of give and take must occur until everyone is happy. Then, the players must play their characters within the context of that premise, being funny, serious, dramatic, proactive, reactive, and so on, but still respecting what the gamesmaster wants to play. They should not be disruptive, accept each other's ideas and feed on each other's energy at the table to create an entertaining session.

In the end, at the table, all are responsible for the success or failure of a campaign, and it's not fair to blame just the GM or the players. I end with a quote from the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition Player's Guide. It applies to every campaign I know of:

"There is nothing quite like a successful D8D campaign, and its success is based upon the efforts of all participants. The Dungeon Master is pivotal, of course, but the players are just as important, for they are the primary actors and actresses in the fascinating drama which unfolds before them. For that reason, their outlook and their conduct will greatly affect the flavor and tempo of the campaign. Accordingly, they should do their best to further the success of the entire undertaking."
Gary Gygax

4 comments:

Black Vulmea said...

"A story should be based on the players' wants and somehow tied to their character concept."

Another option is to forego trying to tell a story at all, and let the events of the game as they unfold become the emergent story.

"Short of asking outright, how does a gamemaster figure out what each player wants from his game? Simply by looking at their character sheets."

As a player, there are things on my character sheet which don't reflect something I want from the game, but rather represent a resource I can tap. I created a character who had a couple of skill points in Craft (construction), solely so I could take ten on some routine tasks like building a foxhole. It wasn't a clue to the referee that I wanted to build foxholes, however - it was simply something I wanted to have in my quiver of options for dealing with the situations that arose in the game. Forcing my character into situations where I was forced to tap that skill would actually work against what I wanted from the game.

"As a gamemaster, it is my job to make sure it is possible for him to get the armor but also to make it difficult."

Another option is to leave it up to the player to decide how to go about getting the armor, and play the cleric solely on the cleric's motivations without regard to the player and his character.

In short, there's a lot here with which I disagree, that I do not do as a referee and that I don't enjoy as a player. That's part of knowing your players, too.

Hugo Barbosa said...

Thanks for your insights.

Another option is to forego trying to tell a story at all, and let the events of the game as they unfold become the emergent story.
 
That's certainly a valid concept, however, if you create certain types of characters, you are already telling the gamemaster how do you want to tackle certain situations. A fighter character is very different from a thief character. If the gamemaster never introduces traps into the game, he's certainly not caring for the player who created the character. A player of a cleric is not only signalling his willingness to cast helpful spells but to aid his group, perhaps in other ways.

As a player, there are things on my character sheet which don't reflect something I want from the game [snip]... Forcing my character into situations where I was forced to tap that skill would actually work against what I wanted from the game.

Certainly. I never said everything on the character sheet would be an indication of what the player wants in game. In fact, some things are just there because the player wants to add an additional layer of complexity to the character, be it a skill that just reveals a facet of a character ("I can do this!") or background stuff. In any case, there are some things in the sheet that may aid the gamemaster involving the players.

Another option is to leave it up to the player to decide how to go about getting the armor, and play the cleric solely on the cleric's motivations without regard to the player and his character.

Agreed. I don't have to throw the cleric in the player's path. What I'm saying is that I should keep it in the back of my mind just in case. And keep him going following his own motivations will only make him harder to find or somesuch and victory will be sweeter. In any case, the NPCs in my game exist only as a foil to the player-characters' actions. If they serve no other purpose, they don't exist. You should check my Less is More approach if you haven already.

Hugo Barbosa said...

Thanks for your insights.Another option is to forego trying to tell a story at all, and let the events of the game as they unfold become the emergent story.

That's certainly a valid concept, however, if you create certain types of characters, you are already telling the gamemaster how do you want to tackle certain situations. A fighter character is very different from a thief character. If the gamemaster never introduces traps into the game, he's certainly not caring for the player who created the character. A player of a cleric is not only signalling his willingness to cast helpful spells but to aid his group, perhaps in other ways.As a player, there are things on my character sheet which don't reflect something I want from the game [snip]... Forcing my character into situations where I was forced to tap that skill would actually work against what I wanted from the game.Certainly. I never said everything on the character sheet would be an indication of what the player wants in game. In fact, some things are just there because the player wants to add an additional layer of complexity to the character, be it a skill that just reveals a facet of a character ("I can do this!") or background stuff. In any case, there are some things in the sheet that may aid the gamemaster involving the players.Another option is to leave it up to the player to decide how to go about getting the armor, and play the cleric solely on the cleric's motivations without regard to the player and his character.Agreed. I don't have to throw the cleric in the player's path. What I'm saying is that I should keep it in the back of my mind just in case. And keep him going following his own motivations will only make him harder to find or somesuch and victory will be sweeter. In any case, the NPCs in my game exist only as a foil to the player-characters' actions. If they serve no other purpose, they don't exist. You should check my Less is More approach if you haven already.

aceofdice said...

I think your post is a very good starting point, Hugo. I consider the "Look at the stats" advice to be a simple one to follow although of course it's merely the tip of the iceberg.
What I find extremely interesting is the second part, which actually emerged from your comment on my blog, about the players being in turn responsible for the game master's enjoyment. That's kind of true and I think it is often overlooked in all those discussions about what they game should or shouldn't be about. Thanks for pointing that out.