When you're playing a game, there are times you don't want to roll.
Playing any version of an RPG, such as Dungeons & Dragons, there are things that you need to accomplish and things you want to accomplish.
The things you need to accomplish are the things that make sure everyone has fun and feels supported.
When I say 'fun' I don't mean that their characters win. I mean that they are able to be in a social situation with friends that makes them feel comfortable and like they'd want to return.
When I say 'feels supported' I mean that they should be able to express how they feel about the game and the way they are able to interact with the other players.
When I play a game, I do it to share an experience with others. If they're not my friends at the start of the game (probably because this is the first time we've played together), I treat them like I want to be their friends by the end. I've made some mistakes doing this. They've mostly been giving people the benefit of the doubt and expecting things will resolve well.
Because of this, in my latest game session when things got to a 'player versus player' moment, I decided a roll wasn't the right thing. The situation was with two players whose characters had conflicting motivations. One wanted to save people. One didn't.
That by itself was manageable and the players were both very respectful to one another. However, the situation, the idea that the game was built with a system that told me how to resolve the situation, and that it was randomized, didn't appeal to me. Most of the mistakes I've made running games are expecting that the random result of a roll would make both people happy.
My experience is that it won't. It will make one person feel bad and one feel good. It will enforce a competitive sense of play. It will call attention to safety tools but may make people feel disinclined to use them because they will feel 'weak'.
Like players of video games that have Easy and Hard modes, the point of the safety tool is to allow people to enjoy the game. Easy isn't worse. Hard isn't better. At least, they shouldn't imply that they are. Safety tools also aren't there to decide who is stronger (able to bear more trauma and uncomfortable gameplay). They are there to support people and allow everyone to have fun.
So the decision in this case was that, as GM, I would ask both players what they wanted as an outcome. I would disallow anything that seemed to weaken one character over another. There would be an agreement on how play would proceed. There were no checks, no points spent.
In the end, it allowed both players to express their positions, decide on how they wanted to see the situation resolve, and let me as GM feel like I supported the players.
Not everything needs a roll. Not everything should be random. People come first.
Playing any version of an RPG, such as Dungeons & Dragons, there are things that you need to accomplish and things you want to accomplish.
The things you need to accomplish are the things that make sure everyone has fun and feels supported.
When I say 'fun' I don't mean that their characters win. I mean that they are able to be in a social situation with friends that makes them feel comfortable and like they'd want to return.
When I say 'feels supported' I mean that they should be able to express how they feel about the game and the way they are able to interact with the other players.
When I play a game, I do it to share an experience with others. If they're not my friends at the start of the game (probably because this is the first time we've played together), I treat them like I want to be their friends by the end. I've made some mistakes doing this. They've mostly been giving people the benefit of the doubt and expecting things will resolve well.
Because of this, in my latest game session when things got to a 'player versus player' moment, I decided a roll wasn't the right thing. The situation was with two players whose characters had conflicting motivations. One wanted to save people. One didn't.
That by itself was manageable and the players were both very respectful to one another. However, the situation, the idea that the game was built with a system that told me how to resolve the situation, and that it was randomized, didn't appeal to me. Most of the mistakes I've made running games are expecting that the random result of a roll would make both people happy.
My experience is that it won't. It will make one person feel bad and one feel good. It will enforce a competitive sense of play. It will call attention to safety tools but may make people feel disinclined to use them because they will feel 'weak'.
Like players of video games that have Easy and Hard modes, the point of the safety tool is to allow people to enjoy the game. Easy isn't worse. Hard isn't better. At least, they shouldn't imply that they are. Safety tools also aren't there to decide who is stronger (able to bear more trauma and uncomfortable gameplay). They are there to support people and allow everyone to have fun.
So the decision in this case was that, as GM, I would ask both players what they wanted as an outcome. I would disallow anything that seemed to weaken one character over another. There would be an agreement on how play would proceed. There were no checks, no points spent.
In the end, it allowed both players to express their positions, decide on how they wanted to see the situation resolve, and let me as GM feel like I supported the players.
Not everything needs a roll. Not everything should be random. People come first.
Comments
Post a Comment