Lowest Common Denominator
I was annoyed a while back in my D&D game because I felt i was being pulled along by other player characters, and going along with schemes I wasn't interested in. Eventually I came to the realization that it's a game about escapism. Players play to experience things they wouldn't get to experience in real life. I decided that if another player wanted to do something in game I would go along with it, rather than hold them back. At that point I assumed that this would mean that I'd get support when I wanted to do something for myself, and that has generally been the case.
So rather than each player having the power of veto to exclude anything from the game, I saw each player as having the power to bring in whatever they like. But this seems to be a problem now too, where many players want to include something that nobody else wants. My go to example of this is a player who wants to play a dragonborn. I generally ask such a player, "Do you want to play a dragonborn character in some game, or do you want to play some character in this game?" Finding out which is more important tells me what their aims are.
If I have a group of people I know who are thinking of starting a campaign, then I'd suggest we run a lowest common denominator game, where everyone gets to veto anything they don't like, be it races, character classes, feats, weapons, spells, or monsters. You should end up with a campaign that contains no bullshit elements for anyone.
The other extreme is a kitchen sink campaign, something like Forgotten Realms or Pathfinder. Every race and class exists, and the players get to bring in any option they like.
Well the reality for most groups is something between these two poles I expect. Again, the beauty of Microscope is that the players get to veto anything they want to specifically exclude from the game, and propose anything non-obvious that they do want included. Basically all that is needed when starting a campaign is a discussion where players stake out the things they want included and find out if anyone objects to them. This could be the tone, the themes, monsters or antagonist types, or romantic interests. Getting everyone to realize that they all actually hate the same element of their games and would rather remove it would a great turning point I think.
One problem though, is that some players like to have an element of discovery in their games. They don't want to just negotiate all aspects of the campaign beforehand, they want it all kept vague so they can encounter the unknown. In this case I guess they can still list all the things they hate, and the other players can try to propose the things they want in non specific ways.
I suppose a kitchen sink game is what you expect when you join a group, or play at a convention or organized play session. A lowest common denominator game is what I'd expect a group of longtime friends to be playing. No annoyances for anyone at the table, homebrewed rules that suit the particular players, and a setting that everyone enjoys spending time in.
So rather than each player having the power of veto to exclude anything from the game, I saw each player as having the power to bring in whatever they like. But this seems to be a problem now too, where many players want to include something that nobody else wants. My go to example of this is a player who wants to play a dragonborn. I generally ask such a player, "Do you want to play a dragonborn character in some game, or do you want to play some character in this game?" Finding out which is more important tells me what their aims are.
If I have a group of people I know who are thinking of starting a campaign, then I'd suggest we run a lowest common denominator game, where everyone gets to veto anything they don't like, be it races, character classes, feats, weapons, spells, or monsters. You should end up with a campaign that contains no bullshit elements for anyone.
The other extreme is a kitchen sink campaign, something like Forgotten Realms or Pathfinder. Every race and class exists, and the players get to bring in any option they like.
Well the reality for most groups is something between these two poles I expect. Again, the beauty of Microscope is that the players get to veto anything they want to specifically exclude from the game, and propose anything non-obvious that they do want included. Basically all that is needed when starting a campaign is a discussion where players stake out the things they want included and find out if anyone objects to them. This could be the tone, the themes, monsters or antagonist types, or romantic interests. Getting everyone to realize that they all actually hate the same element of their games and would rather remove it would a great turning point I think.
One problem though, is that some players like to have an element of discovery in their games. They don't want to just negotiate all aspects of the campaign beforehand, they want it all kept vague so they can encounter the unknown. In this case I guess they can still list all the things they hate, and the other players can try to propose the things they want in non specific ways.
I suppose a kitchen sink game is what you expect when you join a group, or play at a convention or organized play session. A lowest common denominator game is what I'd expect a group of longtime friends to be playing. No annoyances for anyone at the table, homebrewed rules that suit the particular players, and a setting that everyone enjoys spending time in.
Comments
Post a Comment