You're saying NO too much.
Maybe not the exact (You) reading this post, but many of the yous out there running tabletop RPGs are. You need to stop. While I am not writing this with any specific referees in mind, or targeted at any specific individuals, if you think this might be about you; reevaluate your game mastery style. That's a guilty conscious and you may need to take this to heart.
NO IS A FINAL ANSWER
There are many, countless, good reasons to say no outside of tabletop RPGs. But in a tabletop RPG there are few if any, and here's why. No stops play. When you, the referee, say no you're not keeping the game moving forward. You're pausing things in the hope that the game will keep going after an argument you're bracing yourself for. In best case scenarios a few minutes are lost and some feelings are hurt.
WHEN SHOULD I SAY NO?
This is a judgement call, and one you need to learn if you ever want to be a proficient referee. However I can point out three specific points where I will say No.
WHAT ABOUT THE ACTION ECONOMY?
Oh, I get this one. I used to be super worried about players abusing cool stunts to circumvent the action economy. Then I realized something. As long as your players aren't trying to do break the game in a clinical and unfun way, just roll with it. Yeah, getting extra attack actions should be disallowed, as well as extra movements. But if your player wants to grab one motherfucker and use him smash into another motherfucker? Make them roll for it. Maybe apply a standard "harder than normal" penalty to the grab and attack and make them roll twice for two chances of failure, but fuck it have fun. Fun is not a buzzword, it is the only meaningful reason to play a game. Otherwise it's not a game, it's Last Of Us 2.
Also, once your players have internalized how much you let them do with roleplaying actions, you can start doing it with NPCs and adversaries and your players won't question it. If you find usually attentive and invested players are constantly trying to disrupt the narrative, or become super disengaged unless you're doing something specifically tailored to their characters it is because they are craving this level of freedom.
P.S. If you let one player get away with crazy shit but don't let other players do the same with the same amount of effort, you need to hand over your cape of mastery. You do not deserve to be a referee.
NO IS A FINAL ANSWER
There are many, countless, good reasons to say no outside of tabletop RPGs. But in a tabletop RPG there are few if any, and here's why. No stops play. When you, the referee, say no you're not keeping the game moving forward. You're pausing things in the hope that the game will keep going after an argument you're bracing yourself for. In best case scenarios a few minutes are lost and some feelings are hurt.
WHEN SHOULD I SAY NO?
This is a judgement call, and one you need to learn if you ever want to be a proficient referee. However I can point out three specific points where I will say No.
- When the player is rules lawyering to a degree that you feel his detrimental to the fun of the group as a whole.
- When the player is trying to game the system in a way that creates an unfair advantage and refuses to put forth the effort to make it feel fun.
- When the player is trying to do something so outlandish that it breaks verisimilitude (not stretches it, but outright breaks it).That's it. You should not say no to anything else.
WHAT SHOULD I SAY INSTEAD?
"Roll for it."
Barring rules the lawyering example, which should be stopped whenever it rears its ugly head, make the player roll a check. Even if your system doesn't have a concrete check system like many OSR games might. It can even be just 4+ on a d6 if need be, but have them roll for it. So long as what you're having the player roll/roll against makes sense for what they're trying to do, allow it. Make the check harder for how verisimilitude stretching it is, and even feel free to alter the results depending on the exact roll.
"Roll for it."
Barring rules the lawyering example, which should be stopped whenever it rears its ugly head, make the player roll a check. Even if your system doesn't have a concrete check system like many OSR games might. It can even be just 4+ on a d6 if need be, but have them roll for it. So long as what you're having the player roll/roll against makes sense for what they're trying to do, allow it. Make the check harder for how verisimilitude stretching it is, and even feel free to alter the results depending on the exact roll.
BUT THE RULES DON'T SUPPORT THAT!
Fuck the rules.
The rules exist to serve you and the players in your game. You do not serve the rules. Whist I may use older jargon like referee when referring to a game master, the role is still that of the Game Master. So be the master of the game, and use the rules to enhance the enjoyment your players are having.
Keep in mind, however, that you are the master of the game, not the master of your players. Your players are ostensibly your friends and you should want them to enjoy playing the game.
So when one of your players wants to do some action movie bullshit and have fun while playing, let them try to do it. Make them roll a check.
If there are rules for it, no matter how convoluted they might be, it means the creators of the game expect you to do that shit. If there isn't asspull something and set a difficulty based on how much it stretches credulity.
I'm not saying let that first level D&D character throw a kamehameha wave, that shatters verisimilitude for all but the most intellectually dishonest assholes. Let's take a look at Conan of Cimmeria, one of the core archetypes that the D&D fighting man is based on. Just a cursory look at various pages from the comics, Conan has done the following:
Fuck the rules.
The rules exist to serve you and the players in your game. You do not serve the rules. Whist I may use older jargon like referee when referring to a game master, the role is still that of the Game Master. So be the master of the game, and use the rules to enhance the enjoyment your players are having.
Keep in mind, however, that you are the master of the game, not the master of your players. Your players are ostensibly your friends and you should want them to enjoy playing the game.
So when one of your players wants to do some action movie bullshit and have fun while playing, let them try to do it. Make them roll a check.
If there are rules for it, no matter how convoluted they might be, it means the creators of the game expect you to do that shit. If there isn't asspull something and set a difficulty based on how much it stretches credulity.
I'm not saying let that first level D&D character throw a kamehameha wave, that shatters verisimilitude for all but the most intellectually dishonest assholes. Let's take a look at Conan of Cimmeria, one of the core archetypes that the D&D fighting man is based on. Just a cursory look at various pages from the comics, Conan has done the following:
- Lop off the heads of two enemy soldiers in a single sword swing.
- Leap from a horse to another to grab pull his enemy down.
- Leap from a horse to grab onto the tail of a flying beast.
- Wall run over a pit.
The point is, if it is something you could imagine a trained stuntman pulling off in an action film with little more than a safety harness, you should not let the rules get in the way of you and your players having a fun and smooth game.
WHAT ABOUT THE ACTION ECONOMY?
Oh, I get this one. I used to be super worried about players abusing cool stunts to circumvent the action economy. Then I realized something. As long as your players aren't trying to do break the game in a clinical and unfun way, just roll with it. Yeah, getting extra attack actions should be disallowed, as well as extra movements. But if your player wants to grab one motherfucker and use him smash into another motherfucker? Make them roll for it. Maybe apply a standard "harder than normal" penalty to the grab and attack and make them roll twice for two chances of failure, but fuck it have fun. Fun is not a buzzword, it is the only meaningful reason to play a game. Otherwise it's not a game, it's Last Of Us 2.
Also, once your players have internalized how much you let them do with roleplaying actions, you can start doing it with NPCs and adversaries and your players won't question it. If you find usually attentive and invested players are constantly trying to disrupt the narrative, or become super disengaged unless you're doing something specifically tailored to their characters it is because they are craving this level of freedom.
P.S. If you let one player get away with crazy shit but don't let other players do the same with the same amount of effort, you need to hand over your cape of mastery. You do not deserve to be a referee.
Comments
Post a Comment