Well, that seems to be a damn good question.
For some reason I don't really feel like I had a weekend break, and as a result of that, I didn't run my Sunday night M&M game last night, so I'm afraid I don't have anything to say about it. As such what would have been a recap/update post has to turn into something else.
I'd be kidding if I said I knew what.
I guess it's a good time to waffle on a bit about how detrimental it can be to have a roleplaying session where the GM isn't in the spirit of things.
In all my years RPing, I've seen recalcitrant players, bored players, powergamers, deep-immersion storytellers, excited players, frustrated players, involved players... well, a lot of different types of players, really. But I know that the one thing that can utterly destroy a campaign is a GM who just isn't "into it".
Every once in a while I get struck by writer's block, unable to come up with even a half-decent storyline or plot idea. Usually I can get away with it by throwing a random event into a session, and feeding off the RP that comes out of that event to create a tangential storyline, but believe me, it doesn't always work.
The GM is one of the driving forces behind an RPG, and if the GM doesn't have the right "feel" for the session, the players will always pick up on it - they become despondent, lethargic, unenthusiastic. Nothing kills a game session faster than the GM giving off "I can't be arsed" vibes.
I've said before (in another blog, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away) that I believe that no plot can ever survive contact with the players. It's a truism I've lived by as a GM for over 20 years, and I've never seen it proven wrong. Well... except where a GM tries to railroad the plot. That sucks, by the way.
It gets worse when the GM knows that no matter what he does, no matter how his carefully crafted plotline is prepared, the players will ignore it, focus on their own agenda, and rip the plot to shreds.
The whole point about RPing is what I refer to as "shared storytelling". I'm not strictly brilliant at it, because I tend to have firm opinions about the direction a plot or scene should take, and sometimes I get locked into that. It's all about learning to say "yes" to the players. Letting them get away with things that enhance the story, but might not fall strictly into the bounds of the rules of the game.
If Gnarg the Barbarian wants to pick up the table in the tavern and charge the brawling patrons with it, the GM can require that he makes a Strength check to lift the table, and apply all the appropriate modifiers for using an improvised weapon as part of a charging bull-rush... almost certainly causing the attempt to fail, if Gnarg is only 1st level, but otherwise being a trivial task for him... so why bother rolling? It makes for a good scene, it makes for an entertaining interlude, and unless it's an important scene for the plot (and how often has the tavern brawl actually been important to the plot?), then I see no reason for Gnarg to fail. After all, he's the hero of the piece, being one of the PCs. Sure, let the agile assassin dance out of the way as the table rushes in, but Gnarg is going to squash a number of people with that table, and there is no good reason for a GM to deny the player a memorable moment.
The story always wins. It's something that sets excellent GMs apart from adequate ones. It's worth pointing out that the plot and the story are not the same thing. The plot is the carefully crafted series of events and encounters that the GM has decided to throw at the PCs. The story is what actually happens once that plot meets the players... and the plot will not survive. But that's okay - because the story is what matters, not the plot.
Any GM who thinks that the plot matters more than the shared storytelling experience should just go away and write a novel - because their players will end up feeling like they have no impact, no control over their characters' destinies, which will ruin any RP campaign or adventure. The GM's job isn't to "run the game", despite what it might say in a dozen guides and rulebooks. The role of the GM in a roleplaying game is basically to start the ball rolling. Create that plot that he knows is going to be ripped to shreds inside of five minutes. Describe the scenario, and then sit back and watch the players have fun.
I've met some GMs who seem to believe that GMing is "them vs. me" regarding the players. These GMs should play wargames, where their competitiveness can be allowed a good outlet. I have never grown so attached to an NPC I've created or used that I would get upset if the PCs managed to do him in "early". What's the point? An NPC isn't really a character - it's a tool to enable the players to have fun. It's a plot-device to help drive the story... and plots don't survive contact with players.
Wow. This post ended up in a totally different place than I was expecting. But that's not a bad thing, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mmm. I think I instinctively knew this many, many years ago, but only recently have I seen it declared as so in a lot of different places. You're right; I can't recall many RPGs saying "Well basically, you'll throw the plot out of the window when you start playing". I guess if they did, they'd have a hard time selling you follow-up modules, eh?
ReplyDeleteBack when I was regularly GMing, I remember frequently that I'd find it difficult to sit down and plot out adventures. (I find it almost as hard to do the same with fiction.) Often, I'd start with good intentions and then (literally) just tell myself to wing it. It usually worked.
As for hanging on to NPCs, well yes, I certainly agree that they shouldn't be treated as more important than the PCs themselves; however, they can add a lot to a game if they're memorable and they recur. Of course, getting them to remain memorable and recurring can be tough when they interact with the band of inevitable psychopaths that is the average player group.
I have to admit that when I work on "a plot" at the moment, it tends to boil down to "there are these bad guys. They want to achieve X. To do that they're going to start by doing Y... and then we'll just kinda see what happens".
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I think that adds a level of realism that can be missing with a fully detailed plotline. It allows the PCs to take a proactive part, and allows me as the GM to have the villain spontaneously react to the setbacks that the PCs deliver their way.
Case in point - my M&M game on Sunday nights, with the Sea-life Centre scene. I knew what the villains wanted, and I knew what they were going to try and do, and I knew what would happen if the PCs did nothing. But I don't believe that a GM can ever plan for what NPCs will do if the PC actually act, because a GM can never know precisely what the PCs will actually do.
In that particular scene, the end result was rather spectacular, from my perspective as GM, and the reaction of the "behind the scenes" NPCs to the news that their plans had again been thwarted actually opened up a whole new plotline that I hadn't even considered. I could have done, I suppose, but I made the NPCs react. I didn't plan it in depth. That spontanaeity is exciting to me as a GM, and prevents any chance of me railroading the plot.
I enjoy creating fun NPCs with complex goals that interweave with the main storyline (such as it is), true. I often make them so that they will be recurring characters, capable of meeting the PCs a number of times... but those inevitable psychopaths tend to kill them off in the first encounter where they meet.
It's one thing I like about M&M, actually. There exists an actual game mechanic for the GM to say, flat out, "and, unfortunately, he slips through your fingers and escapes", by awarding the PCs Hero Points for it. It's one of the greatest plot-driving mechanics ever. I do think, though, that it needs to be used very cautiously, because if the GM just keeps on saving the bad guys, then the shared storytelling experience is cheapened. My personal rule of thumb for it is that if it's VITAL to the plot, then I'm willing to do it (I might not), but if it's just something that I would like to have, then player actions will rule the story.