Thursday, November 24, 2005
RPG campaigns -- the tyrannical approach versus the collaborative approach
I've been playing RPGs for nearly twenty years, and in that time, I've almost always been the GM for my group (which I define as the group that has evolved from that first session sitting in my parents' garage with my bro and two friends named Tim M. and Sean S. -- right or wrong, I think of my group today as coming out of that first group). In that time, I've generally had a very tyrannical approach when it comes to choosing what games to run, how to run them and what campaign style and structure we're using.
Also in that time, most of the games I've run have used the traditional D&D campaign structure -- "a group of adventurers seeking fame and fortune." On occasion, players in my group (I say "my group," although "our group" would be more accurate) have taken up the GM's mantle, but it usually doesn't last long. My brother Sean often tried to run AD&D 2E and Marvel Superheroes, but they never lasted long. Logan tried running Rifts and Shadowrun, but they usually fell apart after a couple of sessions. Jay ran one session of Hong Kong Action Theatre a few years back, and then that stopped.
Even from those examples, though, most of the campaigns/one-shots used the "group of adventurers seeking fame and fortune" formula -- yes, even with Marvel. Whenever we tried to break out of that formula, things went poorly. My attempt to run GURPS Vampire: The Masquerade during those couple of years I was obsessed with GURPS failed outright. All of us were so used to the traditional D&D formula that we had no idea what to do with V:tM. The player characters ran around doing stupid vampire shit, and it turned into a series of random events (mostly sparked by the players). It wasn't until I started gaming with Lawrence that I finally learned how to properly run V:tM. Of course, now none of my players will agree to let me run it.
So the tyrannical approach to gaming is what I used for a long time. I was the GM. I was doing most of the work. The players were just along for the ride. So they fucking well played what I told them to play. In hindsight, it's a shitty method of choosing a game to play. However, I can't take all of the blame. On several occasions in the past, I've tried to get the players to take a more active role in guiding the campaign structure, but questions like "what type of game do you want to play?" and "what types of adventures would you like to see in this campaign?" have been met with "whatever you want to do."
Frustrating? You betcha.
I'm no longer interested in the completely tyrannical approach. When I start running more games in the new year, I want the players to take a more active role in determining the style, the atmosphere, the focus and the structure of the campaigns (granted, they'll likely be short campaigns) that I'll run. One-shots will still likely be semi-tyrannical, in that there are a lot of games I want to run as one-shots -- and I'll just look for appropriate players rather than try to force my regular group to play games they really don't want to play.
I'm curious about my chances of getting more feedback from my players. Past attempts have proved disappointing. I get the feeling they really don't give a shit what they play. :-/
Also in that time, most of the games I've run have used the traditional D&D campaign structure -- "a group of adventurers seeking fame and fortune." On occasion, players in my group (I say "my group," although "our group" would be more accurate) have taken up the GM's mantle, but it usually doesn't last long. My brother Sean often tried to run AD&D 2E and Marvel Superheroes, but they never lasted long. Logan tried running Rifts and Shadowrun, but they usually fell apart after a couple of sessions. Jay ran one session of Hong Kong Action Theatre a few years back, and then that stopped.
Even from those examples, though, most of the campaigns/one-shots used the "group of adventurers seeking fame and fortune" formula -- yes, even with Marvel. Whenever we tried to break out of that formula, things went poorly. My attempt to run GURPS Vampire: The Masquerade during those couple of years I was obsessed with GURPS failed outright. All of us were so used to the traditional D&D formula that we had no idea what to do with V:tM. The player characters ran around doing stupid vampire shit, and it turned into a series of random events (mostly sparked by the players). It wasn't until I started gaming with Lawrence that I finally learned how to properly run V:tM. Of course, now none of my players will agree to let me run it.
So the tyrannical approach to gaming is what I used for a long time. I was the GM. I was doing most of the work. The players were just along for the ride. So they fucking well played what I told them to play. In hindsight, it's a shitty method of choosing a game to play. However, I can't take all of the blame. On several occasions in the past, I've tried to get the players to take a more active role in guiding the campaign structure, but questions like "what type of game do you want to play?" and "what types of adventures would you like to see in this campaign?" have been met with "whatever you want to do."
Frustrating? You betcha.
I'm no longer interested in the completely tyrannical approach. When I start running more games in the new year, I want the players to take a more active role in determining the style, the atmosphere, the focus and the structure of the campaigns (granted, they'll likely be short campaigns) that I'll run. One-shots will still likely be semi-tyrannical, in that there are a lot of games I want to run as one-shots -- and I'll just look for appropriate players rather than try to force my regular group to play games they really don't want to play.
I'm curious about my chances of getting more feedback from my players. Past attempts have proved disappointing. I get the feeling they really don't give a shit what they play. :-/
// posted by Chris @ 9:39 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
The other point you somehow neglected to mention is when you previously asked us what we were interested in playing or at very least what type of campaign we'd like built in one of the pre-approved game systems, often enough when we suggested something the response from the GM was something to the effect of "Damn, that sounds neat but I have no clue how I'd run something like that" or "Sorry not my cup-o-tea".
I recall offering suggestions and I also recall that most of them were shot down. As for previous failed campaigns, lets just say I put some of the blame on certain players who insisted on doing their damnedest to make life miserable for the current GM by just being an all around shit disturber.
I recall offering suggestions and I also recall that most of them were shot down. As for previous failed campaigns, lets just say I put some of the blame on certain players who insisted on doing their damnedest to make life miserable for the current GM by just being an all around shit disturber.
# posted by 
: 11/24/2005 11:59 AM
: 11/24/2005 11:59 AM 
Now that I think about it, I did come up with some examples you were referring to. When I was getting a bit bored of D&D, I asked for alternate campaigns. You had three suggestions, I believe.
One was WarCraft d20 (which is D&D).
Another was EverQuest d20 (which is also pretty much D&D).
The last was Exalted. Fair enough there.
One was WarCraft d20 (which is D&D).
Another was EverQuest d20 (which is also pretty much D&D).
The last was Exalted. Fair enough there.
Aye D20 is wearing thin at record speeds.
Maybe Fireborn, Exhalted 2.0 (coming soon apparently) or even the redone Shadowrun could be an option. Plus you've been going on about that online system you came across, Wushu was it? That might be an option as well.
Meh who knows, there has to be something out there that everyone can get some enjoyment out of.
Maybe Fireborn, Exhalted 2.0 (coming soon apparently) or even the redone Shadowrun could be an option. Plus you've been going on about that online system you came across, Wushu was it? That might be an option as well.
Meh who knows, there has to be something out there that everyone can get some enjoyment out of.
# posted by : 11/24/2005 12:55 PM
: 11/24/2005 12:55 PM
Very thin, indeed.
But you've really only locked onto a very small part of what my post is about. It really has little to do with what game system in particular we play, but an effort in determining the style of campaign. Like I said, most of our games have been very much like generic D&D fantasy (even when they're Rifts or Shadowrun or what-have-you).
What I'm hoping is that players will take an active role in the construction of the campaign scope, style and focus. We all have different interests and preferences in types of characters we play or interact with, types of situations we're involved in, different ways stories are told or unfold. I'm talking more about elements of the narrative rather than what game system we play or what specific setting we use. It's more about what the players and the GM want to do in that game and setting to make everyone happy and have as much fun as possible.
Post a Comment
But you've really only locked onto a very small part of what my post is about. It really has little to do with what game system in particular we play, but an effort in determining the style of campaign. Like I said, most of our games have been very much like generic D&D fantasy (even when they're Rifts or Shadowrun or what-have-you).
What I'm hoping is that players will take an active role in the construction of the campaign scope, style and focus. We all have different interests and preferences in types of characters we play or interact with, types of situations we're involved in, different ways stories are told or unfold. I'm talking more about elements of the narrative rather than what game system we play or what specific setting we use. It's more about what the players and the GM want to do in that game and setting to make everyone happy and have as much fun as possible.
<< Home
Number of visitors since Jan. 7, 2004:
