|
Post by DMC on Sept 17, 2015 15:34:31 GMT
I think the game system mechanics have a lot to do with it. I just finished OneShot's Star Wars games, both the 3.5 and the Edge of the Empire versions. It sounds like the EE version has a lot more freedom to let the GM and players come up with scenarios of what's happened.
The EE game system's Success/Failure, ADV/DIS dice seems to really play into that. You can fail at something, yet have advantages that mitigate that failure and make for great story and happenings. Likewise, you can totally succeed at something, but have disadvantages in doing so. Like you hit, but you left yourself open for their next attack, etc.
Where as 3E and 5E have baseline and rigid success/fail mechanics...unless you as the GM use the "Success at a Cost" mechanic a whole lot.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Sept 17, 2015 15:43:36 GMT
I think the game system mechanics have a lot to do with it. I just finished OneShot's Star Wars games, both the 3.5 and the Edge of the Empire versions. It sounds like the EE version has a lot more freedom to let the GM and players come up with scenarios of what's happened. The EE game system's Success/Failure, ADV/DIS dice seems to really play into that. You can fail at something, yet have advantages that mitigate that failure and make for great story and happenings. Likewise, you can totally succeed at something, but have disadvantages in doing so. Like you hit, but you left yourself open for their next attack, etc. Where as 3E and 5E have baseline and rigid success/fail mechanics...unless you as the GM use the "Success at a Cost" mechanic a whole lot. Right! I'm not interested so much in applying this mechanically to 5e. What I am interested in is applying this narratively to 5e. Instead of using something like the Success at a Cost mechanic, I'm interested in giving my players the freedom to just play out what happens. I'm finding the EotE narrative dice system to be an amazing training device for RP in general. I think if we can get a group of players and a DM who understands the back and forth of the system, this give and take can be applied to 5e in a loose fashion. I haven't tried this at all yet, but I want to.
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Sept 17, 2015 15:59:16 GMT
I think more "Yes, and..." DMing encourages this. If the PCs come up with something, say yes, and run with it. Forget whether or not you allowed for it in your planning.
D&D isn't just the DM's story. They create the outline, but what happens within that outline should be comprised of both player and DM alike. And a DM should also to be willing to go along with the players if something happens that takes the story outside of your planning as well.
I think we all can agree that some of the best, and most memorable moments, occur when something completely unexpected happens.
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Sept 17, 2015 16:05:58 GMT
Someone here earlier said they want the PCs to do HEROIC actions, and not default to the gritty realism of "What would I actually do?"
One of the great things and tips I picked up from Isereth on the WOTC forums, is only calling for or wanting a roll if the outcome of an action is in question. I ran with him in a Roll20 game for a while, and if you wanted to do something, you described what you were doing, and he made the call if you succeeded, or needed a roll. This meant when you walked into a room, and said "I search the room for a hidden door." you were most likely asked for a roll. If you gave more flavor and description, telling him exactly what you were doing...such as checking behind tapestries, running your fingers along the mortar seams in the wall, etc., you'd most likely find it. Also if you did something like kick a chair at the ruffian as you charged in, or some other flavor description, consider giving your PC Advantage on the attack roll, saying the ruffian was distracted by the move. Likewise use the Success at Cost to really flavor up the near misses as well.
Bottom line, encourage the players to get more invested, and give them rewards/reasons for doing so. But there's also a balance between allowing for the above ways to do things, and having that spiral out of control, and suddenly your PCs are doing it EVERY action, looking for ADV just like they used to look for stacking Circumstance Bonuses in 3E.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Sept 17, 2015 16:26:24 GMT
This meant when you walked into a room, and said "I search the room for a hidden door." you were most likely asked for a roll. If you gave more flavor and description, telling him exactly what you were doing...such as checking behind tapestries, running your fingers along the mortar seams in the wall, etc., you'd most likely find it. Also if you did something like kick a chair at the ruffian as you charged in, or some other flavor description, consider giving your PC Advantage on the attack roll, saying the ruffian was distracted by the move. Likewise use the Success at Cost to really flavor up the near misses as well. Bottom line, encourage the players to get more invested, and give them rewards/reasons for doing so. But there's also a balance between allowing for the above ways to do things, and having that spiral out of control, and suddenly your PCs are doing it EVERY action, looking for ADV just like they used to look for stacking Circumstance Bonuses in 3E. To the first paragraph: This is mechanically supported in EotE. If you give an excellent description of your search attempt, or come up with a truly compelling lie to tell an NPC, the GM can award you a "Boost Die" to add to your dice pool. What you are describing is exactly what I am hoping to implement. A non-mechanical reward for good RP. To the second paragraph: This sort of exploitation is really an attitude and table dynamic issue. This calls back to the "PCs vs. DM" dynamic I mentioned previously. If the players are trying to "beat" the DM, then they will attempt to exploit a non-mechanical award system. But if they recognize that they are collaborating with the DM, then they are less inclined to abuse the DMs flexibility. I'm finding that the mechanics of the EotE system actively encourage collaboration. The mechanics of D&D do not discourage collaboration, but the system does little to encourage it. I'm hoping that by seeing how much fun we can all have collaborating, my group will be more inclined to this play style regardless of system. Remember, all of my players are first time role players. Their first experience with a TTRPG was D&D 3.5. I think, if I were to introduce another newbie group to role playing, I'd use a system like EotE.
|
|
|
Post by joatmoniac on Sept 17, 2015 20:43:42 GMT
I'm finding that the mechanics of the EotE system actively encourage collaboration. The mechanics of D&D do not discourage collaboration, but the system does little to encourage it. I'm hoping that by seeing how much fun we can all have collaborating, my group will be more inclined to this play style regardless of system. Remember, all of my players are first time role players. Their first experience with a TTRPG was D&D 3.5. I think, if I were to introduce another newbie group to role playing, I'd use a system like EotE. I couldn't agree more with this. I think 5E is much better about introducing newer players into the RP aspect of TTRPG, but there are potentially better systems. Of course EotE is one that is very good about promoting it, but given that we are in somewhat of a TTRPG renaissance it isn't too difficult to find rules light RP heavy versions of TTRPG games. I think if I had a bunch of newbies wanting to play at my table I would spend the most time deciding on the system to use more than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by DMC on Sept 17, 2015 21:14:28 GMT
To me, collaboration has always been a product of just how much you let your players describe their successes/failures than anything.
Lately when I game in-person, I've been letting them describe why, as much as I've been saying why. We've been building off each other's descriptions more than ever. It's a great process.
|
|
|
Post by Vulash on Sept 17, 2015 21:32:02 GMT
To me, collaboration has always been a product of just how much you let your players describe their successes/failures than anything. Lately when I game in-person, I've been letting them describe why, as much as I've been saying why. We've been building off each other's descriptions more than ever. It's a great process. Absolutely, but I think the difference and we're looking for here (or at least I am, I might be mistaking Friartook's position) are more interesting ways to encourage that that might have a bit faster turn around than just telling them they can and rewarding them. I'm finding with my players that just telling them they can do things isn't enough, and showing them through these little ideas is working much better. Otherwise, it seems like players still tend to fall into the traditional "I control only my character, and the DM controls everything else" roles. I'm not saying that's bad, but I like the idea of adding some fresh ideas to make the game even more fun for everyone at the table.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Sept 17, 2015 22:05:44 GMT
To me, collaboration has always been a product of just how much you let your players describe their successes/failures than anything. Lately when I game in-person, I've been letting them describe why, as much as I've been saying why. We've been building off each other's descriptions more than ever. It's a great process. Absolutely, but I think the difference and we're looking for here (or at least I am, I might be mistaking Friartook's position) are more interesting ways to encourage that that might have a bit faster turn around than just telling them they can and rewarding them. I'm finding with my players that just telling them they can do things isn't enough, and showing them through these little ideas is working much better. Otherwise, it seems like players still tend to fall into the traditional "I control only my character, and the DM controls everything else" roles. I'm not saying that's bad, but I like the idea of adding some fresh ideas to make the game even more fun for everyone at the table. My only "goal" with this thread is open discussion of everyone's thoughts and experiences, so all perspectives are welcome. I think this sort of collaboration is easier to encourage with experienced role players. If I were a player in a game, I'd be perfectly comfortable throwing my 2cp to the DM on what I think is happening in a scene. However, new players aren't used to having input like that. My whole group was brand new to TTRPGs when we started. Their only experiences with RPGs were video games. In a video game, the computer controls almost everything, often even the PC's actions (thinking cut scenes there). Players who come from this experience aren't familiar with a medium through which they can affect the environment as much as the environment affects them. The only storytelling medium that is even remotely similar is improvisational theater. I am interested in whether or not folks want player input (or how much they want). If not, then why not (we haven't really heard from the perspective yet here; if this is where you are at, I'd be interested to hear your reasons)? If so, then how are you encouraging such collaboration?
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Oct 6, 2015 19:01:36 GMT
|
|