My suggestion is that you should experiment occasionally with challenges that do not require twists to be interesting. Not just minor challenges of the sort that recur repeatedly during a session, but big ones that form the centrepiece of a session or series of sessions as well. In real life we encounter these situations reasonably frequently and find them challenging and interesting in and of themselves. For example, skiing down a hill is a pleasurable, challenging activity that allows one to have extremely good, if not perfect information, about the challenges one will face (through selecting the particular trail and then surveying it before one begins skiing).
A situation does not require to be twists to be interesting for the purposes of gaming if:
1) It does not have an obvious solution.
2) It requires several sub-processes to all or mostly be completed successfully for its accomplishment.
3) Gathering the information in order to overcome the situation is a significant part of the challenge.
I use all three of these reasonably frequently. They allow me to plan a situation or idea, and not have to worry about fitting a whole bunch of moving pieces together. It's one of the reasons that reconnaissance is such an important part of my games - if you can come up with a plan of action and gather the information you need, the actual solution is often a denouement.
Based on reading things on rpg.net and elsewhere over the years, I think there is a tendency to deprecate planning and to reduce the amount of time it takes, in order to get to the action of the scene. Planning is not everyone's cup of tea, but I do think that there are a large number of people who would enjoy planning more if it was handled in a more structured and fruitful way. It's the lack of progression and the inability to arrive at a decisive conclusion that gets to them and turns them off from it, rather than anything inherent to the activity of sitting around talking about what might happen if they did this or that. It may also be, with more experienced roleplayers, the depressing feeling that no matter what they plan, the referee is going to throw a bunch of twists that will cause the time spent planning to be entirely wasted.
So, give it a try by designing situations that are complex and multi-faceted, but all the information is there from the get go and the challenge is figuring out how to incorporate it all into a workable plan.
I <3 this post so much.
ReplyDeleteEspecially: "It's one of the reasons that reconnaissance is such an important part of my games - if you can come up with a plan of action and gather the information you need, the actual solution is often a denouement."
and "It may also be, with more experienced roleplayers, the depressing feeling that no matter what they plan, the referee is going to throw a bunch of twists that will cause the time spent planning to be entirely wasted."
I also think it's interesting that this desire for "twists" (presumably a misguided attempt to introduce tension/obstacles to players' goals) can be met much better through a more systemized game. Emergent systemic consequences will often derail plans, or at least force on-the-fly adjustments, just as much as authorial "twists" will, but the players feel more responsibility for them and thus are generally much more palatable to them. And of course, sometimes the players will account for everything (or they'll get lucky), and that success will feel genuinely earned.
Yeah, you've got it perfectly there.
DeleteBrilliant post man... frig, I'm going to introduce a friend of mine to this blog to help her learn more about running RPGs. I'm known as one of the better GMs in my circle, and you're advice is making me pick up my game and work to evolve it.
ReplyDelete