Are these GM styles "Insane"?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- Lately I've been hearing some interesting words used to describe approaches to Game Mastering and Dungeon Mastering RPG games that I've always thought of normal...
But maybe they're not anymore?
There is definitely some truth in saying that a game master has to be entertaining, because if you're not entertaining your players, they're not going to keep coming back. The thing is: what entertains people is different. Some people want that sort of fast-moving action-oriented style with cheesy voices and fast action. Other people want in-depth roleplay. Some players really love seeing a well-built and logical game world. Others are obsessed with the tactical combat aspect and love coming up with strategies.
Saying there's one perfect GMing style is like saying there's one perfect video game. No such thing exists.
The most popular GM styles are that way solely because they mesh well with D&D, but not every game is D&D and if your players agreed to play something non-D&D, chances are they might be looking for a non-D&D type experience.
This is what I was talking about! Well done, nice and fluid, straight on to the topic, and well-executed. I'm looking forward to this move to a new paradigm and channel. Also, looking forward to some future conversations. Stay in touch, start vital and most important...STAY ON TARGET!
A few things. First, no one should tell anyone their style of play is wrong, or bad, or "needs improvement." Second, where are you spending your time talking about RPGs? Seems like it must be 5e crowds, since they tend to be more judgemental about things like using the word race, or making sure everyone's fun is guaranteed by having their characters be indestructible. Third, you're only wasting prep time if you're not having fun, same with game time.
I think the big thing I want to talk about though is Slyflourish's DM style, which I like to call illusionist. Some GMs and simulationists, some are gamists, slyflourish tells you to be an illusionist. To lie to your players in the interest of "story," and to adjust things on the fly to make sure all challenges are "appropriate." To steer the party through the forest out on the path you want them to be on, because secretly every path leads there. This style of GMing is antithetical to what I, and many others, enjoy about the hobby. If you think of yourself as a storyteller first and foremost as a GM, stop. I've had so many GMs who run like this and railroad characters through the bad book they've written with all their cool characters because they don't know how to work with the players, only around them. I honestly appreciate when games call the person who runs the game the judge or referee because that doesn't imply that it is your job to write a story, only to interpret the dice, and the character's actions.
You could not be more different in style than I, when it comes to GMing. I think that is wonderful. I think it's also important to not pigeonhole ourselves into a particular style of play. It can be scary but also strangly liberating to try a new way of doing things.
I've been sly flourish for years. This year I decided to try something different. While a friend takes over being the GM for a while, I've been worldbuilding in the Pirates of Drinax (Mongoose Traveller) setting. For the past 5 months; creating what amounts to a Rube Goldberg machine of interlocking story hooks, npcs and factions for my players to stumble around in. I've probably done more work on breaking and adapting this setting in the past few months than I have on all my past games combined over 15 years.
This is something I would never have attempted before. When all I had was a few books, a notepad and some dice, it would have ended in tears,, and sometimes did. I'm just not organized enough. It would all just jumble together in an unreadable mess of coffee stained papers. But now that we've been forced to the VTT by the pandemic, I have a whole host of new and easy-to-adapt tools to organize and my prep. I can automate large portions of the setting it in ways I never considered before. I still have a long way to go but I am hoping to be ready by January and I'm excited to be cutting the ribbon and letting my players in to explore my playground. It's so full of stars.
Thank You, we all play how we enjoy
It and because I use orcs or Klingons I’m not a racist. We are very similar gamemasters, albeit I have much less experience but I run every Saturday, and while I’m a pretty conservative person my players are not and that’s ok. We enjoy every Saturday we spend together because we don’t push boundaries or try to offend each other... we make each other better. If you’re nuts... I’m batshit crazy. If you’re racist or mean... I’m 10 times worst. Keep up the great work, and let’s not allow anyone to gatekeep our hobby.
"Discover a story" instead of "tell a story" sounds like a good formulation. Is that yours?
If a character dies early, that's their story. Good topic! Interesting take on it!
Keep reflecting and growing! As always, I appreciate your thoughtful approach to our hobby.
Excellent~
I will never understand the idea that fantasy races need to be excised because a few people are assholes. If your character's very species is just this mutable, inconsequential thing, then how in the hell do you expect me to take anything else about the character seriously? Is the character a person or just my POV in the story?
While I don't actually care or agree with any of the "racism" crap, I'm actually all in favor of getting rid of racial modifiers.
Racial modifiers actually detract from the important parts of the race. The modifier isn't something that you ever care about in the narrative. In fact, I could describe the events of several D&D sessions and if I left out the PC's races, you'd be unable to determine which race is which by their performance in different tasks. It's not like elves are so amazingly dexterous that they can perform amazing acrobatics and balance feats that nobody else can. And whether you gave an elven NPC higher dex because he's an elf or because he's a swashbuckler isn't really ever a thing your PCs will likely pick up on. Because as a DM you assign things stats based on what their role is, not what their race is. So an elven knight is probably going to have high strength, while the wizard will have high intelligence. Because as a DM you don't roll for your NPCs stats, you assign them. PCs are really the only ones who care about the modifier and that's at character creation because it's an additional boost to something.
Really the one and only thing stat mods do is encourage PCs to play towards a race's stereotype. So you get the elven archer, the half-orc barbarian, the gnome wizard, etc. Unless that's one of your active goals for doing a campaign that you want a very archetypical fantasy party, I don't see the point of racial modifiers. Some players like to play against the archetype and that's fine. And if that means the PC is one of the smartest half-orcs in the world? Well... great, it gives that character something interesting about him. As a DM, play up the racism in the world where everyone thinks he's going to be stupid and let him surprise people. In the end, it'll be a far more interesting character than just another elven Legolas ripoff.
Within the Context of the current D&D,
Yeah, absolutely. The stat modifiers just don’t do that much and don’t expand capability outside of what the other species can achieve. And there’s no way to “fix” that besides coming up with static abilities or priveliges to represent the (agility, toughness, foresight) of a species in a non-stat way, under the current rules paradigm.
Stat modifiers are kinda small beans and not the best way to differentiate species-however, I feel like it’s a move *away* from a more evocative simulation/Roleplaying experience to deny altogether that a given species is stronger, tougher etc as a matter of ecology. Should the bonuses work in a way that doesn’t just promote min/maxing? Why, yes. Star Trek Adventures and Pathfinder 2 have gone that route, just charting a different beginning to the lifepath but not allowing maxima any higher than other species
@@The_CGA : Yeah, I definitely feel like the world design should reflect differences in races in terms of what NPCs the players meet. It's really up to the DM to enforce the racial identities in their world by having suitable NPCs. Unlike PCs, I think NPCs should generally be encouraged to reflect the stereotypes of their race, because those NPCs are going to be the main example for your PCs as to what "being a dwarf" really is about.
On the PC Character generation side, I'm fine if all races are effectively "equal" and you just make what you want to make. In cases, where you can have vast diversities in physical characteristics, like say a troll in Shadowrun, I think it's best handled with a racial minimum/maximum to statistics, then letting the players buy those ability scores normally, as opposed to true modifiers. That prevents the 18 strength pixie or 8 strength stone giant. But for the "near-human" races, it's probably a lot easier to just handle their stat differences with flavor text and an expectation in world-design.
And about non-stat increases, I think those are much more interesting. If done right, they actually shape the race's way of life and are much more noticeable. Like if a race can see in the dark or has a natural breath weapon, that's something that comes up narratively. Combat modifiers should involve things that actually change how that race wages war and how others fight against them. Something like "half damage from bludgeoning" would get through the idea that dwarves are just "tougher" than other races, and also helps to reinforce why they might like mining and working underground because they're at less risk from being crushed by a cave-in. I think there's definitely a place for simulationist traits in racial abilities, they just need to actually be meaningful. And those are things PCs should have to make them seem more dwarven or elven or whatever.
Looking forward to your new rebranding.
I'm of the mindset that Player and GM "Styles" don't exist as so many think they do and using these terms to attempt to define players into these specifically titled groupings does more harm than good...and the over reliance by some people on these labels is a problem within the overall rpg hobby because, like all labels, people tend to judge others and restrict themselves into thinking that only certain "Styles" are appropriate and some are wrong.
It leads to arguments, judgement, and a lot of negativity where it simply doesn't need to exist.
It also trivializes us as humans who are much more than the label of "power gamer" or "storyteller." All of us are different, and all of us find our Fun in different ways. And that's what should be more important... Understanding that no two people are the same, and every person plays rpgs for his or her own reasons. So all these attempts to try and categorize people into very niche categorical groupings of table behaviour does more harm than good.
“Styles” is just used in the title and thumbnail to quickly communicate to the browsing user. I Believe each person is an individual and I share your concern that we are making “archetypes” into “pigeonholes” and “stereotypes.”
Glad I finally watched this. It's tremendously helpful. I will say I think you're ignoring part of the sly flourish style, which does include building out "fronts" that represent an antagonist character or organization and its goals and the steps it will take to accomplish them. You usually build out three of these for a campaign. You also should have "six truths" for the campaign that you pitch as the basics of the world in session zero.
Obviously that's light, but the sly flourish style is about preparation time, not the act of world building which is treated as separate from how it's presented to the players. It's been useful for me learning to DM because it helps answer the question "what do I need tonight". I still built out a rough pantheon and mythology, and you'll have pry my maps from my cold dead hands, but it's good to know that if I'm still nailing down the details of factions and economies and what demigod is aligned with what god I can do that without having to delay the start of a campaign.
Your channel is great because you cover a lot of games (Pendragon for example) that really don't jibe with the lazy dm thing. If people can't appreciate that then they probably haven't looked at a lot of RPGs. I'd like to see Sly Flourish try and handle something like Ars Magica. Some systems work because of their setting, and sometimes setting is secondary. I think figuring out where to draw that line is the art of being a good game master.
the absolute state of casuals trying RPGs for the first time, and thinking their initial word salads are profound.
Are you calling the guy in the video casual or do you mean the people who call other GM styles crazy? The CGA is clearly not a casual. If you disagree with the video, please explain what you disagree with instead of only insulting sincerity with cynicism.
I just want to say, I love this channel, and you've helped shape my personal game design. I want to thank you for pointing me towards games like Pendragon and 2d20 and giving context on GURPS and Traveler.
Awesome
It's so pleasing listening to all this.
Glad for this video.
Terrific video. I've had a lot of experience in the hobby and I've played with GMs of all different styles and I've been perfectly happy playing in all of their games. Some I enjoy more than others, some styles I prefer above others, but I never considered anyone to be doing it wrong. I have my own style, too. I think it's one of the strengths of this hobby that it can be molded and re-forged to suit anybody. Really enjoyed hearing your point of view and appreciate you advocating open-mindedness and creating a welcoming environment for everyone.
I don't like fakeness. Fudging dice, plot armor and such make the game fake. I want to reach for something real and surprising. So, I see GM as someone whose job is to transport the players into a different world more than as someone whose job is to entertain. *Great* video!
Yeah, those things (Fudging dice, plot armor, and such) are in reality some sort of "Oops! I made a mistake, I better patch it up".
Nothing wrong with making a mistake once.
But... If you keep repeating it over and over...
It is better to look for the answer to the "Why was fudging needed?" -question.
Often that leads to a "Why was a dice roll made?" -question.
And thus a better long-term fix: "Do not roll dice in situations where the outcome does not matter!"
Plot armor is similar in nature; here we have something that either overshoots or undershoots a certain target, where the "Oops! I made a mistake, I better patch it up" fix becomes: Moving the target to where the shot landed. Again: "Do not roll dice in such situations!" is a better fix.
However, plot armor is not always about dice, it is often about (dice independent) failed actions, the PCs do something "wrong". Yes, that is quite often a GM mistake, in many cases due to the GM failed to communicate the situation/environment/etc. the PCs are in, in such a way that plot armor becomes fixing the failure in communication.
It is a lot harder to improve one's own communication skills than putting aside dice.
But... Role-playing games do have "communication" as a core component, thus people need to be willing to communicate with each other more clearly (/become better at communication.).
@@larsdahl5528 : Yeah, a lot of times it is about a mistake. Generally I don't advise fudging unless it's something that's going to put the entire campaign in jeopardy. Sometimes you just don't have a ton of time to prep for that week's session and you hastily create some encounter that's way harder than you intended. And in that case, it's a good idea to fudge as opposed to getting bull-headed and throwing away a long-running campaign just because you screwed up as a DM and made a super-hard battle by accident.
I've developed my "GM Style" over 30 years as both a Player and a GM. The tools we have at our disposal these days, is truly amazing. That being said, people have to feel out their preferences of gameplay for themselves- which will no doubt be a bumpy road at times. There is no "E-Z" or "Lazy" way. I think that's why folks get so upset when they hear someone say there is "No Wrong or Right Way" to play ttrpg's.
That's why I will always suggest that both Players and GMs experience the hobby with as many different people and play styles that they can. You will grow as both a hobbyist and a person- and be better for it.
I'll take the crazy DM please!!
What a drama queen
Absolutely wonderful video!
I think the differently abled alien species would be less of an issue if the games in the hobby would not be built on an abilist foundation. Since all the rolls are usually only about what characters are able to perform. Also, I think it would be better if the systems would say that like most members of a certain species are above average compared to the whole galaxy in a given trait, but leave it then still open to the player to create outliers how they see fit and not getting automatically assumed to having the trait.
Yeah, that's pretty much what removing the stat modifiers does. If elves are supposed to be super smart, the GM can still world-build in a way that puts a lot of elves in academic positions (and perhaps even sets up some racism with them being the gatekeepers of certain knowledge), but that doesn't mean it should influence the PCs characters in a numeric fashion.
What else could the rolls be about? Of course characters go around performing stuff. That's how real life is also.
@@lastburning Well, I have different idea, and I work on my own game that does that, but there are already narrative games that also don't do it that way. Maybe you want to break free of the paradigm that dominates the hobby...
The other dangerous side is All X are Y; I do appreciate Lavoisier’s words of caution against using it with abandon, but those words should go further.
Powerful, man. My mom taught me that "Normal" is an imaginary point on the middle of the number-line & no one is on that point. If they are on it, they are a freak.
And I also learned that the word "weird" a) it translates in Norse as "destined." As in: "no man escapes his wierd."
and b) I always spell it wrong.
I'll run in any style, though my typical style is "Experientialist Narrativism" -- and I imagine this places us in diametrically opposite corners on most peoples' RPG Ideology Graph! But I love and respect the way you break things down, brother. Rapport and Trust are at the bottom of everything.
My approach is kinda, “when in Rome-“ depending on the game and the goals.
Folks have recieved this video as a kind of fundamental expression of my innate style or a manifesto, but for me it was a “freedom and space to express” sort of thing. I take many walks on wild sides~