Skip to main content

#RPGaDay 2017 -- Day 13

(I don't know what you're talking about, of course I posted this on the 13th, it says so right there in the timestamp...)

Describe a game experience that changed how you play.

I was running a 4th Edition game for a group of friends. It was supposed to be a lightweight, no-pressure hack-and-slash campaign; we're all pretty heavy roleplayers, so this was supposed to be a chance for us to kick back, not take anything too seriously, and do some old-fashioned murder-hobo-style gaming for a change. Of course, with my group, we couldn't just do that; this was the group where I ended up having portraits of all the characters commissioned because we all got pretty attached to the characters in question, and at one point a player convinced the rest of the team that clearing out the kobolds would be unfair and cruel to the kobolds, so they just scared them into returning the stolen items, instead.

Anyway, we were in the middle of a somewhat-drawn-out combat, and one of the players had just finished his turn, and I noticed the look on his face; it was pretty clear he wasn't having fun. So after the game, I asked him what was up, and he pointed out that he spent the entire night (including most of the combat) never having successfully rolled a hit on anything -- all of the damage he did to the enemies was at the behest of other characters' actions. He, himself, had never been able to roll a success. It had been that way for a while, actually, he said; it was why he had built his character with a lot of 'damage-on-miss' powers. It was still a good group, and it was still an interesting story, but the core purpose of the game had been to relax, roll some dice, and hit some bad guys, and that core experience wasn't happening. For at least one of the players.

I took this particular failure rather personally, because I knew that I disliked these kinds of games for specifically that reason: flat dice curves are unforgiving to someone who doesn't have great luck when rolling. And yet, I was running a game with a flat die curve, because it was something familiar and easy and tropish. I was doing something for my own convenience that was actively hurting the experience of the other players at the table.

It was after that when I got serious about how I run my table. I don't run flat-die-curve games any longer. I try to failure-proof my games as much as possible. Narrative interest and investment from the players trumps pretty much anything else these days. I use plot point / bennies in every system whether they support it or not, to make sure players are part of the building of the story and are feeling agency with their characters. And, mostly, I ignore or otherwise minimize the numbers on the dice. I want the people at my table to be having fun. I, personally, think petty failures aren't fun -- failures and setbacks for characters can be fun if it's narratively appropriate and the player agrees -- but rolling a 12 when you need a 15 is the worst possible thing at the table: it's boring. And boring is the enemy at my table.

There are many, many people who would see my style of gaming as antithetical to theirs, and that's OK; they don't have to play with me, and I don't have to play with them. But that experience, of watching a friend of mine get shafted by decisions I made, changed the way I run my games. I think for the better. You'd have to ask my players if I was successful.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Money and Happiness as a fungible resource

Money really does buy happiness. Anyone who tells you differently has a vested interest in keeping you poor, unhappy, or both. I know this because I grew up on the ragged edge of poor, and then backed my way into a career in IT, which is where the modern world keeps all the money that isn't in Finance. So I am one of the extreme minority of Generation X that actually had an adulthood that was markedly more financially stable than my parents. And let me tell you: money really does buy happiness. To be clear: at 45 years old, I'm now in a relationship and a period of my life where our household is effectively double-income, no kids. I live in the city, but I own a house, and can only afford to do that because of our combined income. We also have two cars -- one new, one used (though neither of them is getting driven very much these days) -- and we have a small discretionary budget every month for things like videogames, books, and the like. What my brother used to call DAM -- Dic

Occasional Media Consumption: Man of Steel (2013)

Every so often, there's a movie where I watch it and think, "that was pretty bad", and then time goes by, and I see other people talking about it, and so I watch it again, thinking I was too harsh on it, and after watching it again, I think "not only was that movie bad, it was worse  than I remember". I try very hard not to hate-watch anything, movies or TV or whatever, because that's a waste of time, energy, and emotion. My expectation was that my first reading of this film was overblown, that my reaction to it was as an outsider, someone who didn't know the depth and breadth of the Clark Kent / Kal-El story, and who couldn't appreciate the subtleties or easter eggs or whatever. But in the intervening years, I've read a bunch of DC comics, and many of them Superman comics. And I've come to a conclusion upon rewatching this movie, one that surprised me given the budget, the cast, and the story being told. Rarely has any movie so misunderstood

Occasional Media Consumption: Justice League (2017)

So let's get this out of the way first: this movie is bad. I mean, it's bad . And not in the way that most superhero movies are bad, though it is bad in that way too: inconsistent characterizations, lack of understanding of motivations, weirdly-shot fight scenes, dodgy use of CG, etc. I mean, it is bad in all of these ways too, especially the whole thing where they digitally removed a mustache from Henry Cavill, who's honestly doing his best with a bad script and a character he's fundamentally unsuited to play. Gail Godot, in an iconic roll for her, suddenly shoved out of the way to make room for (also fundamentally-miscast) Ben Affleck's the Batman and Cavill's Superman, And Ray Fisher and Ezra Miller trying to introduce characters that honestly deserve their own movies. Jason Momoa's Aquaman got his own movie, but as far as I can tell he's just stepped into this one from a whole different universe and is basically pretending to live in the grim-n-gritt