Another Resurrection From LJ
Jul. 11th, 2009 01:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theron(I wrote this about two years ago. My friend Jeff, who's running the upcoming WoD game at my house asked me about how I define "competence" and how it relates to game enjoyment. Rather than just point him there, I figured I'd cast Raise Dead on the original and put it over here, because it definitely has bearing on my philosophy of gaming.)
***************
I've been giving some thought to the games I've attempted to run in the last year or three and why they didn't work out. In the past, when I've looked at these things, I've tended to put it down to group cohesion or folks not being on the same page in terms of genre emulation. Generally, matters pertaining to the personalities or the setting/genre.
Lately, I've been rethinking this, largely due to my prolonged exposure to D&D 3.5. I've found that it's a game that rewards rules-mastery, something that I've never been too concerned about as far as the players are concerned when I'm GMing. In the near-year I've spent with the Tuesday night group, I've found myself in the company of people who have a high facility with the rules and found myself hitting the books, so to speak, in order to keep up. And I've found that my improved understanding of the game has improved, so has my engagement with the campaigns.
When I realized that, I looked back at my last few abortive games in a somewhat different light. The M&M game involved a group that was about 50% comics people, and only one of the other players at the table even owned a copy of the rulebook, and I'm not sure that it was the same edition of the rules we were playing. I effectively did all of the character creation based on what the players told me they wanted to play.
Ditto for the C&C game, except I had the only copies of the rulebooks.
Then, I got to thinking about the Champions game we got involved in earlier this year. The one that didn't go so well for us. For the first time in her many years of playing Champions, Jane created her character herself, with no help from me. And she stuck the game out longer than I did because (IMO) she had more of a stake in the character than she would have had I done the number crunching for her.
(Prior to this, she sat and observed the Pulp Hero round at OwlCon and afterwards said, "I finally get it. I've been playing this game for ten years without really understanding it, but now I get it.)
Which brings me to my new thesis:
Rules understanding leads to greater player engagement.
It's not like I'm hoarding secret knowledge here. I've just always kind of operated on the assumption that the GM can cover the rules side of things and if the player is willing to show up and roleplay the character, I (as GM) can worry about adjuticating tasks and conflicts. I'd kind of assumed it was just easier for everyone. Ultimately, it meant more work for me (and an increased chance of burnout) and less involved players.
By now, some of y'all are rolling your eyes at the self-evident. But for me, this is actually a breakthrough of sorts. It's definitely going to color how I recruit for games in the future.
***************
I've been giving some thought to the games I've attempted to run in the last year or three and why they didn't work out. In the past, when I've looked at these things, I've tended to put it down to group cohesion or folks not being on the same page in terms of genre emulation. Generally, matters pertaining to the personalities or the setting/genre.
Lately, I've been rethinking this, largely due to my prolonged exposure to D&D 3.5. I've found that it's a game that rewards rules-mastery, something that I've never been too concerned about as far as the players are concerned when I'm GMing. In the near-year I've spent with the Tuesday night group, I've found myself in the company of people who have a high facility with the rules and found myself hitting the books, so to speak, in order to keep up. And I've found that my improved understanding of the game has improved, so has my engagement with the campaigns.
When I realized that, I looked back at my last few abortive games in a somewhat different light. The M&M game involved a group that was about 50% comics people, and only one of the other players at the table even owned a copy of the rulebook, and I'm not sure that it was the same edition of the rules we were playing. I effectively did all of the character creation based on what the players told me they wanted to play.
Ditto for the C&C game, except I had the only copies of the rulebooks.
Then, I got to thinking about the Champions game we got involved in earlier this year. The one that didn't go so well for us. For the first time in her many years of playing Champions, Jane created her character herself, with no help from me. And she stuck the game out longer than I did because (IMO) she had more of a stake in the character than she would have had I done the number crunching for her.
(Prior to this, she sat and observed the Pulp Hero round at OwlCon and afterwards said, "I finally get it. I've been playing this game for ten years without really understanding it, but now I get it.)
Which brings me to my new thesis:
Rules understanding leads to greater player engagement.
It's not like I'm hoarding secret knowledge here. I've just always kind of operated on the assumption that the GM can cover the rules side of things and if the player is willing to show up and roleplay the character, I (as GM) can worry about adjuticating tasks and conflicts. I'd kind of assumed it was just easier for everyone. Ultimately, it meant more work for me (and an increased chance of burnout) and less involved players.
By now, some of y'all are rolling your eyes at the self-evident. But for me, this is actually a breakthrough of sorts. It's definitely going to color how I recruit for games in the future.