Saturday 30 March 2013

Further Thoughts

I was thinking about the Angry DM's open letter, and especially about the comments he left to my response on this blog.  For some, good-enough is enough.  So be it.  But, I'd like to point out a few things that have, the more I have considered them, tasted more sour in my mouth:

(1) You are Special:  You know what?  Scott is right.  You are special simply because you take on the GM's roll.  But.......Do you remember how we decided it was a good idea to tell every kid that they were special, not because of their achievements, but because we wanted them to feel good?  How did that work out for society?  Yes, you are special.....but you are special because of what you do, not because of where you sit at the table.  The less you do, the less special you are.  So, do something good.

(2) There is No One True Way:  You know what?  There is no One True Way.  But......."Some folks just want to sit and laugh and have a good enough, fun enough game" implies that there is a scale.  The use of the word "just" and the phrase "good enough, fun enough game" implies that there is something that is not "just" good enough, not "just" fun enough.  Which leads me to

(3) The Value of Striving:  Let us suppose that you "just" want to have a "good enough, fun enough" game.  Cool.  My rule of thumb is, if you can get a single player to play, you should always play the game you want the way you want.

As I said in the comments to the previous blog post, obviously, if good enough is good enough, you can be a lazy GM. You can half-ass it. I was in grade school when I was first running games. I could be a lazy student. I could half-ass it. I could be a lazy student, and even get halfway decent marks.  At the same time, though, I wouldn't claim that doing "good enough" was getting full value from the educational opportunities afforded to me.  Maybe I might have then, but I have grown in the intervening decades.

Play the game you want the way you want. But.......if you don't push yourself, you will never get full value from the opportunities afforded to you. If you don't want those opportunities, that's your call. But there is a difference between striving and not striving.  There is a difference between a game that is just good enough, and a game that soars.

You are more likely to reach good enough while striving for greatness, than you are to reach greatness while striving for good enough.

Running the game makes you special.  Running the game well makes you more so.  Pushing yourself, and striving for greatness, makes you as special as you can be.  Don't just pat yourself on the back.  Be special.  Be that GM that players go out of their way to play with.  You can do it.  All you have to do is pull up your metaphorical pants and give it your best shot.

But, Scott is dead right about this too - the best game you can run is the game you want to run.  What you run and how you run it?  That's up to you.  Bring your best game to the table, and the players will appear.  It might not be today, it might not be tomorrow.  You might have to post a message on a few walls (including real walls) so that the potential players know about it.  But they will appear.

And if someone else would rather play a game about Teletubby Space Marines fighting dinosaurs around Uranus?  Well, they can run that game.  That's the beauty of the whole thing....if they love it, and they strive to run it well, the players will appear.

19 comments:

  1. "But, Scott is dead right about this too - the best game you can run is the game you want to run"

    Wrong. The best game you can run is the game run in a sandbox because that is the only correct way to run a game. Just because you "want" to run something doesn't make it the best.

    It's not an RPG if it's not run in an open world. Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A person dragged bitching and moaning into running a sandbox is not going to run it better than he would Savage Tide, if Savage Tide is what he wants to run. I have to disagree with you that "It's not an RPG if it's not run in an open world"....although I would agree that, as the world closes, it is less and less likely to be an rpg.

      Delete
    2. If I can run a railroad really well, it doesn't make it the best game. It just makes it the game I can run well and I'm having fun with. If we are equating "game" with "role-playing game", the whole statement is moot because playing it however *you* want means that you may not be playing an RPG at all anymore.

      A Role-Playing "Game" has a very tight definition. If the narrative isn't driven wholly by the players within the laws of the given world, it is no longer an RPG.

      Delete
    3. (1) If you can run a railroad very well, and do a suck-ass job of running a sandbox, then the railroad is indeed the best game you can run. It is not the best game, but it is the game you can run best. I hope that the distinction is clear. I would never argue that a railroad is the best game. I would accept that a railroad may be the best an individual GM can do.

      (2) I disagree with your definition of a role-playing game. In fact, unless there are no NPCs, or the players dictate the actions of the NPCs, I don't think it is possible to have a narrative wholly driven by the players.

      Delete
    4. 1. But it's not the best game you can run even if "you're running it" as best you can. Just like my math score of a C+ is not the best math score even if it's the best I can do. My math grade still sucks even if I'm having fun getting it. I'm pretty sure I'm interpreting Scott correctly here.

      He meant the best game possible, de facto, is one you're having the most fun with. That's simply not true. "Best" encompasses quality of product regardless of quality of use. Change out the word "game" for something else in the phrase: "the best grade you can get is the grade you want to get". False.

      "RPG" isn't just some ubiquitous word we throw around to mean anything we want like "free love" ("If it's fun just do it!"). It has a distinct meaning, changing that meaning to "FUN!" or something else changes the word. People sitting around eating pizza and drinking beer while improving elves doesn't mean they're playing D&D even if it's a good time.

      2. "NPC" is only a word just like "dungeon" or "castle" or "monster". They are just props in a world. They don't create a story or a narrative on their own. They are only there because the players are interacting with them even if the DM controls their responses. If the DM decides to write a back-story for his game and decides to tell his players about it, there is no RPG narrative happening. There is one-sided narrative, but unless the players are driving that narrative into something by their interaction, it is not an RPG.

      Narrative driven by anything but the players is not an RPG. If they're not driving it, who is? The DM or a rule-book. Neither of which constitute the requirements for an RPG.

      And, yes, an RPG run without NPCs and without a DM is absolutely possible. It may not be a table-top RPG like D&D that requires a DM. But it qualifies as an RPG nonetheless. The key is who is "driving" narrative? The players must do this and this alone for it to be an RPG. The DM deciding that his players will be attacked by Kobolds is not creating a story, he's just giving them some props.

      Delete
    5. /1. But it's not the best game you can run even if "you're running it" as best you can. Just like my math score of a C+ is not the best math score even if it's the best I can do./

      Okay, but you are conflating too things here. No one is saying that C+ is the best math score, but rather that if a particular form of study gives you a C+, and other forms give you a D or F, go for the C+.

      If you are running something you don't enjoy running, it is going to be a D or an F. I would go so far as to say that your marks will consistently go down over the course of running it, so that you will eventually gain an F score by failing to continue running it, or by putting so little effort/joy into it that it becomes the suckiest thing you could run.

      IMHO, a good sandbox is better than a great railroad, but a great railroad is still better than a sucky sandbox. Not that I would be interested in either of them.

      See also: http://ravencrowking.blogspot.ca/2013/04/1.html

      Delete
  2. You can't change the quality of something because you enjoy it more or less than someone else. That defies physics. The phrase, "the best game you can run is the game you want to run", is physically impossible. A game doesn't become best because you run it the best.

    The D or F still isn't the best grade you can get even if you enjoy getting it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "IMHO, a good sandbox is better than a great railroad, but a great railroad is still better than a sucky sandbox. Not that I would be interested in either of them."

    We're not talking good or better here, we're talking "best", per the quote above. A great railroad is still not the best. A great sandbox is the best, that's not up for popular opinion like your grade, that's a fact.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You seem to be confusing "The best you can do" with "The best". I hope you realize that there is a difference between the two. The best I can do in the 100 meter dash is less than the best my son can do, is greater than the best my youngest daughter can do, and is much less than the best anyone has ever done.

    The entirety of "The best you can do" or "The best game you can run" does not end after the second word. If you don't finish the phrase, and understand its meaning as a whole, you are arguing apples and 747s.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So let's follow your race logic through. "The best time you can run in a race is the time you want to run". The best time you can get in a race would be 0 seconds or very close to it, right? The best time in a race isn't 7.4 seconds (or whatever your time ends up being) just because you enjoyed running it, right?

    Can you imagine using that logic against an NFL recruiter? "But I ran a 9.2 in the 100 meter and it's the best time because I wanted to run it at 9.2. Why are you telling me I can't be drafted in the NFL?"

    If we're going to give an RPG a very precise definition we can't then say that its definition is whatever makes you most "happy" or gives you the most "fun", etc. An RPG is what it is, we are either playing it right or wrong. It's either an open world sandbox RPG, -driven- wholly by player action or it isn't. It isn't a "good" or "better" or "best" RPG if you aren't running it that way no matter how it may make you feel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but that in no way follows.

      Delete
    2. Let's look at what does follow: In a race, you should run whichever way allows you to run fastest. How I run fastest is not an issue.

      How fast I can run has nothing to do with whether or not I can run fast enough to be in the NFL.

      My best time running is not going to be the best time anyone has ever run the same race in, but it is nonetheless going to be my best time.

      If you do not like running, the odds are good that you are not going to run every day. If I want you to become involved in sports, it makes far more sense for me to encourage you to become involved in a sport you enjoy than one you do not.

      If you are great at the 100-meter dash, and enjoy it, the odds are good that you will do better at the 100-meter dash than at a marathon. The 100-meter dash is probably the race you should be running. If I were to then declare that only marathons were Real Races (TM), I would be a dick.

      I think that's pretty clear.

      Delete
    3. "How fast I can run has nothing to do with whether or not I can run fast enough to be in the NFL."

      Yes. It. Does. What the hell? If you can't run a 100M dash faster than 10 seconds, there's no way in hell you're fast enough to be in the NFL.

      You're starting to remind me of a lot of the modern RPG pop-culture fans. "As long as you're having fun, it doesn't matter how you play". It does matter. RPG isn't just your bullcrap definition that you make up for it. It means something. Either we meet the threshold criteria of playing a real RPG, or you are not playing one. It's pretty black and white.

      If you think "RPG" is defined by how much fun you're having, I can call bowling an RPG if I'm having fun. I can call water skiing an RPG. The "best" game is the one that is played -the right way-. You may not have the "best" -experience-, but you're playing the best game you can play, because that's what an RPG is. It has a definition and it doesn't change based on your own whims or emotions.

      Delete
    4. lol. Obviously, how fast I can run has much to do with whether or not they want me in the NFL. That is not what I meant. What I meant was, whether or not it is fast enough for the NFL doesn't change that I can run only so fast. The best I can do in the arena of running is the best I can do; that someone else can do better doesn't make it less than my best.

      Now, the rest of your comment here is bullshit.

      I have defined what an RPG is many, many times in this back and forth, and none of it has been "how much fun you are having". But your definition, my friend, is crap. If I were to accept it, I would also have to accept that the people who founded the hobby were not playing role-playing games.

      An rpg has a definition and it doesn't change based on your own whims or emotions. When Gary Gygax ran Steading at GenCon, he was running an rpg, even if he picked the scenario.

      I repeat: When Gary Gygax ran Steading at GenCon, he was running an rpg. He picked the scenario. It was an rpg.

      I submit that the founders of the hobby, when determining the definition of what a rpg is, and what the term means, have more authority than you.

      Delete
    5. In case you forgot:

      A role-playing game is a game in which the (or a) primary purpose of the game is to undertake the role of one or more characters within the game milieu, and to make decisions from the perspective of the character(s) so undertaken. Because of this (1) rules that are dissociative (and thereby force the player to make choices from outside the stance of the characters) and (2) rules or set-ups that are railroady (and thereby force players to make decisions that the characters would not make, in some cases quite literally being forced to reverse decisions made from the character's stance because the GM does not like the outcome on "his story") damage the degree to which any game is a role-playing game.

      I was also pretty clear about the difference between crpgs, storytelling games, linear games, and rpgs.

      Delete
    6. Your definition is great, just don't try explaining it to someone in person.

      Delete
  6. "I submit that the founders of the hobby, when determining the definition of what a rpg is, and what the term means, have more authority than you. "

    So now I should just shut up because I don't have the "authority"? How about you don't have the authority to claim that Gygax had the authority?

    "An rpg has a definition and it doesn't change based on your own whims or emotions. When Gary Gygax ran Steading at GenCon, he was running an rpg, even if he picked the scenario."

    You're right, it certainly doesn't change. Your idol, Gygax, sure changed that definition a lot though over the years though. But let's all bow down and worship "Gary Gygax's Steading game at GenCon" because ravencrowking says so.

    "In case you forgot: A role-playing game is a game... Because of this (1) rules that are dissociative (and thereby force the player to make choices from outside the stance of the characters) and (2) rules or set-ups that are railroady (and thereby force players to make decisions that the characters would not make, in some cases quite literally being forced to reverse decisions made from the character's stance because the GM does not like the outcome on "his story") damage the degree to which any game is a role-playing game."

    You're the one calling for "plot-lines" and defining "best game" as whatever is "most fun", my friend. You break your own definition with almost every post.



    ReplyDelete
  7. And if you're going to just delete my posts, cool! When you can't win, just shut up the opposition, right? Us heathens without "authority" shouldn't be commenting anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you talking about? I haven't deleted any posts. I just responded longform to one of your posts, as a blog entry, because the post disappeared between appearing in my hotmail account and my looking for the post to respond.

      (Just found one of your posts in the Spam filter and released it.)

      Delete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.