Skip to main content

#RPGaDay2018 Day 7: How can a Showrunner make the stakes important?

The meta-rule on this is the same as my answer for yesterday, which is: make sure the people at the table (including myself) understand the purpose of the game, have agreed to the purpose, and are all working together to make that purpose a reality for those involved. In other words, make sure everyone's bought in. That said, there's a couple of things that I try to keep in mind when I'm showrunning.

First, don't ask for dice rolls / resource investment / whatever unless the result will be meaningful to someone at the table (and that can be me as the showrunner, or even one or more of the players who aren't being asked to invoke). If there's no narrative reason for the character to fail, then there's no need to test for failure.

Second, get the person who is invoking the point (that is, doing the move, rolling the dice, spending the bennie, whatever) to lay out how invested they are in the result. If they just want the spotlight, or they just want to roll some dice, or they just want to prod the party into movement, then either get them to set the stakes, or recognize that that player needs to be invested, and so invest the invocation with meaning.

Third, don't needlessly escalate. "Suddenly, ninjas!" may be a great way to get the players moving and the table woken up a bit, but it's not always the best way to get buy-in or investment from the folks at the table. I try to get the players to point me in the direction they want things to go, either explicitly or implicitly, by asking them 'so, what do you hope to accomplish with this invocation?' and that usually works pretty well for determining not just which way the story goes, but it is especially effective when I follow it up with 'and how much are you willing to risk for that?' to get an idea of what the value is.

Now, some things are going to be low stakes; not everything is both very important and very urgent. Talk with your players about what the expectations are ahead of time. One player might say that saving the world is worth sacrificing everything; another may say saving the cat is worth everything. Alternately, it may be that saving the world isn't worth getting off the couch, but which inn they stay at is worth a duel to the death. The players are telling everyone (including themselves) what they want from the game, often without realizing it. Recognizing those clues and signposts is both moderately difficult and extremely rewarding, because it requires the showrunner to listen closely and actively to others. This is not a skill that is explicitly valued, but it is a valuable skill.

NB: I've taken to using the term "showrunner" rather than "gamemaster" or the like because I feel like, at least for me, it is less separational than the GM/player traditional terms. I like my games to be collaborative and collective, and I feel like "showrunner" indicates a more 'guide' style rather than 'lead' style.

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