Fixing the Players: Tabletop RPGs are not Video Games
Fixing the Players:
Tabletop RPGs are not Video Games
My unceasing quest to figure out ways to create a better more engaging game has lead me here. This needed to be written if only to get it to stop bouncing around my head. Confusing video games for tabletop role playing games is a bad habit in need of adjustment. It's a habit I've seen in some of my players. It is ingrained in their brains as a result of years of expectations being built up by video games. It isn't their fault that they are stuck with the wrong frame of mind to play tabletop RPGs.
It seems so obvious that tabletop RPGs aren't video games that saying so gets a lot of "well duh" reactions from people. Just because something is obvious, doesn't mean that looking at the how's and why's of it won't be beneficial.
Right away let me say that my video game analysis is in no way an attempt to state that video games aren't good or need to be fixed to be more like RPGs (though no one is saying that isn't a good way to go). There is nothing wrong with playing video games and enjoying them as they are. This post is all about understanding the differences and avoiding confusing one for the other while you're playing.
Right away let me say that my video game analysis is in no way an attempt to state that video games aren't good or need to be fixed to be more like RPGs (though no one is saying that isn't a good way to go). There is nothing wrong with playing video games and enjoying them as they are. This post is all about understanding the differences and avoiding confusing one for the other while you're playing.
The Situation
Video games represent a player's passive experience of a story that's already been written from beginning to end and the action that surrounds it. A player is sometimes given choices to do some sort of character customization, but whatever customization it offers the player is still plopped down at the start of the story the game will tell. Some video games even offer you choices that will potentially affect the story at various plot pivot points.
All video games have an all or nothing focus on story completion. The Big Bad Evil Guy battle happens and if you aren't strong enough to beat the boss you need to leave and come back when you are strong enough. Most bosses will have one correct way to defeat them and if you do not have it down right then you don't get to beat the boss. If you don't beat the boss, you load an old game and try again and again and again...
 |
| Video Game fight with BBEG |
This is a limitation of video games. The characters need to be one dimensional archetypes to be able to let the story play out. There is no room for the hero to analyze his actions and have an opinion on them. If there is any analysis of the action, it has been programmed into the game and offers the interpretation that the developers want you to get out of the game. Once again the player takes passive control over the protagonist in a story that is already written.
RPGs, in contrast, represent a player's active participation in creating and experiencing a story that hasn't been written and creating the action that permeates it. The story and the action are not written until the moment they happen. There can be impressions and ideas before hand, but nothing is set in stone.
RPGs are designed to let players adapt to a changing story as they see fit. The BBEG battle happens is gonna happen. Your character is out matched and decides to come up with a different way to defeat the BBEG that doesn't necessarily involve trading blows until one of you falls down, or hitting the BBEG in a specific place a specific number of times.
RPGs are designed to let players adapt to a changing story as they see fit. The BBEG battle happens is gonna happen. Your character is out matched and decides to come up with a different way to defeat the BBEG that doesn't necessarily involve trading blows until one of you falls down, or hitting the BBEG in a specific place a specific number of times.
 |
| RPG fight with a BBEG |
The Problem
Playing video games is a more common practice than playing tabletop RPGs. It stands to reason that the ideas central to video game story telling would be more prevalent on the minds of your average player, especially if they are new to the RPG hobby. Video games teach the players that they are the protagonist in someone else's story that needs to happen a certain way.
This is a problem for tabletop RPGs. It gets people thinking in very closed terms about what is possible. It gets people thinking: how am I supposed to solve this? Instead of thinking: what's a way I could solve this? That small change in thought is the difference between a player who is actively contributing to the story and a player that is only along for the ride.
As a GM, my goal is to make a game with a lot of chance for the players to input their own ideas, create their own spin for scenes, or add their own thoughts to the world's history. When a player is busy trying to think what am I suppose to do to resolve this, then they are missing the opportunity to add their own influence to the story.
As a GM I have no idea how a player character would react to being pushed, so it is up to the player to determine that. If the character is put into a scene where there is some ambiguity about what could happen, then the player gets asked: What do you do?
If a player has been passively participating, that question will draw some blank stares and some shrugs. If the GM is lucky they might even get a single sentence response along the lines of "I attack it." The player is shrugging off the chance to influence the story and deferring to the GM to make it interesting.
This isn't just a problem for a GM, but the other players at the table suffer as well. Everything can come to a grinding halt if a player has to be caught up with the story. If someone does not want to contribute to the ongoing story it then falls on the other players to try to further the plot along with their own ideas. This will eventually put the passive player in an even more passive role and that isn't solving the issue for anyone involved.
This is a problem for tabletop RPGs. It gets people thinking in very closed terms about what is possible. It gets people thinking: how am I supposed to solve this? Instead of thinking: what's a way I could solve this? That small change in thought is the difference between a player who is actively contributing to the story and a player that is only along for the ride.
As a GM, my goal is to make a game with a lot of chance for the players to input their own ideas, create their own spin for scenes, or add their own thoughts to the world's history. When a player is busy trying to think what am I suppose to do to resolve this, then they are missing the opportunity to add their own influence to the story.
As a GM I have no idea how a player character would react to being pushed, so it is up to the player to determine that. If the character is put into a scene where there is some ambiguity about what could happen, then the player gets asked: What do you do?
If a player has been passively participating, that question will draw some blank stares and some shrugs. If the GM is lucky they might even get a single sentence response along the lines of "I attack it." The player is shrugging off the chance to influence the story and deferring to the GM to make it interesting.
This isn't just a problem for a GM, but the other players at the table suffer as well. Everything can come to a grinding halt if a player has to be caught up with the story. If someone does not want to contribute to the ongoing story it then falls on the other players to try to further the plot along with their own ideas. This will eventually put the passive player in an even more passive role and that isn't solving the issue for anyone involved.
The Solution?
I hear a lot about spotlighting players in order to give them each a chance to shine and do something awesome. That works well in theory, but the passive players tend to be the more shy players as well. So spotlighting can have a reverse effect on a player and make them feel like they have even less to contribute because they don't have a grand action to narrate when they are being asked: what do you do?
In video games failure means a reload to do it right the first time so the story can move forward. In RPGs, failure just complicates the story as it moves forward. Passive players need to know that it's okay to fail in an RPG. That failure will not ruin the story, but just makes it more interesting. Players will be better off once they acknowledge that video games are passive participation in someone else's story and RPGs are active creation of their own story.
Players also forget a crazy simple idea that video games don't offer: you can ask questions when things don't make sense and get an answer. In a video game if what you're presented with doesn't make sense, you simply ignore it and move on. In a tabletop RPG, you can ask the GM questions about a scene, get more information, and analyze your options for a solution based on the answers to the questions posed to the GM. There is nothing wrong with getting more information before answering the "what do you do?" question.
I haven't really offered a real solution to the issue. It's one of those issues where the best solution is as much daylight and eyes on the issue as possible. Nothing I can say here will fully resolve it one way or the other. It's a deeply ingrained cultural idea that I have no intention of trying to pry out of the global consciousness. I am only here to offer a view of the obvious to RPG players who are too close to it to see it themselves.
TL;DR:
Video games passive participation in someone else's story and the action that permeates it. Tabletop RPGs are active contribution to a story and action that has not yet been written. RPG players can ask questions and get answers.
Comments
Post a Comment