PDA

View Full Version : RPGs and what people expect out of them



jseah
2011-05-31, 08:01 PM
I've been reading around various threads and it appears to me that different people play RPGs for different reasons. Not like it wasn't obvious already but it never really sunk in until the 4E edition wars.

What I was curious about is how many people want a certain genre of game. (is that the right word?) IE. how popular is X?

---------------

Should a game require a strong plot and tell a gripping story and interesting characters and is railroading to acheive this acceptable? (an agreement to not derail the plot counts as railroading)
- This intrudes into collaborative fiction writing
- A subquestion is: Is the overall plot and development of events in a setting more important than developing the characters of the PCs?
EDIT: OR
A variant of this is a game where the players do their thing, make their mark on the world, but the GM never railroads or plans an overall plot. NPCs do their thing, events happen and the world reacts to the players.
A sandbox in other words.

What about a game that focuses around doing awesome things? (I don't know what counts as awesome since I don't subscribe to this, but it seems to gravitate towards cinematic combat and action)
- This can be taken to be synonymous with heroic fantasy since that is how I understand heroic fantasy (sorry, I just don't get it)

How about a game that presents everything as a puzzle to be solved, and solved in the most creatively efficient manner?
- IE. dramatic tension sacrificed for expediency
- A killer hack and slash game with a DM vs player mindset falls under this but could be divided into a distinct subset.
EDIT: I did not literally mean puzzles. While a puzzle-filled game counts, I meant that the game focuses on conflict as a matter to be *solved* not experienced.

Or a game focused on exploring the fine details of a setting, but not actually connecting to an overarching plot? (sort of like playing a collector of stories and parables or a group of explorers of the unknown)
EDIT:
I meant this to be a non-plot game. The characters are not connected to major conflicts or the conflicts don't exist. Pure exploration or a slice of life.

-----------------

I never intend these to be mutually exclusive. Having a strong story does not preclude creative problem solving.
I am simply asking what you (in general) would prefer to see most in a game. The most important and overarching trait you as a player want to see in a game.
Feel free to come up with your own if I missed something. Please don't include things like "playing for social reasons", if you aren't playing for the game, then this doesn't really matter.

Fingers crossed that I'm not alone.

dsmiles
2011-05-31, 08:22 PM
Personally, I like to see character/plot development with a few gratuitous action scenes.

By "character/plot development" I mean:

Characters have plot points in their backstory.
Characters develop, in a realistic fashion, as the game progresses.
There is an overall plot loosely connected to the characters' backstories.
The characters are free to explore their individual plotlines, with an equal amount of gaming time dedicated to each player, but involving the entire party (so no real solo adventures).
A richly detailed campaign world with events taking place all over, so that anywhere the characters go, they have the opportunity to adventure.

jseah
2011-06-01, 11:32 AM
From this thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201316

It appears alot of people favour "cool" actions over the rational efficient one (I interpret this as favouring the 2nd question over the 3rd. But this doesn't resolve whether the other ones are more or less important)

dsmiles
2011-06-01, 11:40 AM
Admittedly, I prefer efficiency, but if the opportunity arises to do something "cool," I'll sometimes step up to the plate, if no one else does.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-06-01, 11:56 AM
I expect a system to deliver what it promises.

If a system claims to be about a bunch of criminals who do work for various Powers That Be while trying to to avoid being cut down in the crossfire, then I want the rules to support that. I will be disappointed if the rules instead focus exclusively on 1001 ways to blow stuff up.

If a system claims to be about a bunch of adventurers who go into dungeons and kill dragons I will be disappointed if the rules spend a lot of time figuring out how much money a baker can make in a town of a given size.

If a system claims to be about negotiating a web of intrigue built and maintained by immortal monsters while trying to maintain your own humanity I will be disappointed if the rules spend most of their time modeling the various ways in which your head can get bashed in.

Aside from that, it depends entirely on what kind of game I feel like playing. A system is not bad just because it does things in a different way than I like; it's bad when the packaging doesn't match the contents.

valadil
2011-06-01, 12:10 PM
I expect a system to deliver what it promises.


That's a whole lot more efficient than what I was going to say. I can have fun with GURPS and I can have fun with 4e. I don't expect them to deliver the same game. But I know what type of game I'm getting out of each of them, and I'm going to try to work with that instead of fighting the system to be something else and then complaining when it doesn't work. I would also like to add that I want the system to very clearly advertise what the game is going to be like so I can play a character that works in the system. If the system does not do this, the GM absolutely should.

The one thing I want out of all the RPGs I play is a certain level of interaction with my unique character. I want to go through the game and leave my character's mark in a few places. If I can't metaphorically scratch his name in the wall, there's no point in that character being there. I want the game to be different for each set of characters that passes through it. If the game is a long obstacle course with a few branching paths, but those paths and obstacles never change no matter what character faces them, I'm going to be bored.

Yes, that expectation is more about having a reactive GM than about any particular rule set.

Mastikator
2011-06-01, 12:26 PM
Should a game require a strong plot and tell a gripping story and interesting characters and is railroading to acheive this acceptable? (an agreement to not derail the plot counts as railroading)
- This intrudes into collaborative fiction writing
- A subquestion is: Is the overall plot and development of events in a setting more important than developing the characters of the PCs?

I kind of want to outright say "no" to this. Story is important, yes, but I don't think RPG is an act of storytelling/storywriting, at least not in the same sense as a book author is a storyteller. Ultimately the game isn't about the story, it's about the players' characters. I think it's okay to sacrifice the story in this sense because after the game is over there will still be a story, just not one anyone in the game could've figured out, and it's not contrived.


What about a game that focuses around doing awesome things? (I don't know what counts as awesome since I don't subscribe to this, but it seems to gravitate towards cinematic combat and action)
- This can be taken to be synonymous with heroic fantasy since that is how I understand heroic fantasy (sorry, I just don't get it)

Depends on the game. Exalted is a good example of a game that focuses around doing truly awesome things. I think it does it well.
Awesomeness vs rational is very subjective and contextual. Sometimes they are the same. I don't think there's any glove that fits all for this question; just do whatever feels right.


How about a game that presents everything as a puzzle to be solved, and solved in the most creatively efficient manner?
- IE. dramatic tension sacrificed for expediency
- A killer hack and slash game with a DM vs player mindset falls under this but could be divided into a distinct subset.

As a fan of puzzle games in general, I'd say that a puzzle here and there in the game is always welcome. In RPGs I prefer the puzzles be subtle and difficult, so much that it'll require teamwork to solve it. Puzzles also work well to put the breaks on players that want to rush things (and thus deprive themselves and everyone else of the subtle nuances hidden in the details of the game).
Solving difficult puzzles can be very gratifying, it puts the awesomeness and rational creative efficiency in the same category.


Or a game focused on exploring the fine details of a setting, but not actually connecting to an overarching plot? (sort of like playing a collector of stories and parables or a group of explorers of the unknown)

This is basically how I DM.
I put a bunch of NPCs over a large area, give them motivations, goals and preferences, let them interact with each other and the players and see what happens. The players can choose where to go, who they want to interact with, which side (if any) they want to take in various conflicts. The players can even choose to completely ignore the world and instead think "hey, we need a headquarters, lets build a castle!".
I'm a big fan of the sandbox.

Shadowknight12
2011-06-01, 01:28 PM
I accommodate to the expectations of my players and/or DMs. That said, I have standards, and I've no interest in playing a game without at least a vague semblance of a plot. The richer the plot, the setting and the characters, the more I'll like the game itself.

jseah
2011-06-01, 02:02 PM
This is basically how I DM.
I put a bunch of NPCs over a large area, give them motivations, goals and preferences, let them interact with each other and the players and see what happens. The players can choose where to go, who they want to interact with, which side (if any) they want to take in various conflicts. The players can even choose to completely ignore the world and instead think "hey, we need a headquarters, lets build a castle!".
I'm a big fan of the sandbox.
I meant more than a sandbox. A game without direction.

I'll add sandbox to the OP, as a variant of the plot (without railroading)

I meant the inverse of this:

If I can't metaphorically scratch his name in the wall, there's no point in that character being there.
The characters journey and travel, see the sights, explore the temple, collect rare spells, investigate the insignificant detail about Rtuclean architecture.
But they never *participate* in anything big. They might be the spark that sets off the civil war, but they don't take sides.
IE. being detached academics.


Conversely, the characters are so wrapped up in the setting that they aren't special. They don't do anything heroic, save the town or go where no man has gone before. Daily life, character interactions with NPCs, simply running around and doing their thing.

A slice of life.