A common topic of discussion with tabletop role-playing games as well
as role-playing games in general is the idea of freedom. The desire
to avoid railroading is commonly mentioned and player control is
important. However, at the same time, players don't have unlimited
control over a game either. That's part of the point of having rules as opposed to just sitting together with friends and coming up with a story. In my experience, regardless of your
feelings on railroading or player control, yanking your players back
on track doesn't go over well. This, however, is different than just
railroading players. It's about taking control from your players, and yanking them to where you think they should have gone. And it is this topic that I will talk about
today.
Some Situations Have Fewer Options
Based on your player characters, their level, their magic items, the
help they have access to and many other factors, your players have a
set of tools at their disposal to solve problems you throw at them.
However, it also means that not all campaigns are created equal and
not all parties need or want the same tools. This also means that
some situations will be more desperate with the players having fewer
options at their disposal. I find it that in these kinds of
situations, limitations are important. Working within limitations in creative ways is part of the fun You don't want to make your
players irreverent either. Find a balance between these two for your
players and things will be fine.
I've played with groups who liked playing more structured
narratives. However, they still wanted choice. Don't take away all
choice from the players.
Yanking Back On Course
Problems often happen when players are trying to play the game and
they keep getting yanked back on course. You want to avoid situations
where players need to replay a scene except in special circumstances in particular.
What this does is takes away the meaning of choices and forces them
to make the choices that you make. This is one of the more extreme
examples, however. In general the game should be going forward with
players making decisions to keep pushing the story forward.
This doesn't mean that players can't make mistakes. However, if they
do, it works best if they realize that a mistake happen and try to
correct things. The alternative is you throwing something in their
way that forces them to change paths. The specifics here are
important but not really well defined. However, there is a difference
between a nudge in the right direction when players are lost (from my
experience they often appreciate it) and taking all control by
yanking their leash. That said, giving nudges is a bit of a skill in itself.
Different From Hints
Though it was hinted in what I said before, we have to note that
there is a difference between yanking players back on track and
providing hints. Hints need to be decoded and players then need to
use them to set course. They also don't always tell a player what to
do, just what they need to work towards. Them being told where they
can find information about what they are looking for doesn't help
them get their. It only sets their direction. These distinctions are
important because it's an inherit part of the give and take
relationship of tabletop role-playing games. Dungeon Masters set up a
world and conflict while players navigate them and try to influence
outcomes through their agency.
Player Sabotage
Players who don't want to play can sabotage a game. However, trying
to yank them into the story you want won't help. They'll be unhappy
and you'll be unhappy that they aren't playing. I don't think it
helps anyone to try and solve these kinds of problems at the table.
They are personal problems that need to be handled as people. Once
the real problem is handled, the game can continue and you can all
have fun. After all, you can throw you players into an undead
apocalypse and have them want to do nothing. Then, if you attack
them, they can choose to forgo their actions and get killed. At a
certain point you need to realize that you can't force them to play.
You can put challenges in their way, you can put restrictions on them
that make the struggle meaningful, but you can't and shouldn't play
for them.
Challenges to Be Solved
I've written before that I find the best way to think about these
kinds of things as challenges for my players to solve. However, they
need to solve them. I know what's afoot. I designed it. Of course it
will be influenced by their actions and I may need to adjust on the
fly, but my fun comes largely from handling what my players come up
with to solve the problems I put in their way. It isn't fun for me
anymore if I can play the game for them. That's what I'm doing if I yank them onto my story
path. But again, that is far and away
different from giving hints and providing methods to achieve what
they want. There is a difference between telling the characters where
the magic sword is, telling them exactly how to get it down to the
minute detail, and taking control from them to get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment