Read on Twitter
Tabletop hot take: If your GM is very interested in "challenge" in your game, that's probably a good sign that the game will, in fact, suck. Also, the GM will be very interested in pulling "gotchas" on the players, enjoy saying 'no' way too much, and love having power over you. https://twitter.com/sublimemarch/status/1284222388087984130
Tabletop hot take: If your GM is very interested in "story" in your game, that's probably a good sign that the game will, in fact, suck. Also, the GM will be very interested in pulling "gotchas" on the players, enjoy saying 'no' way too much, and love having power over you.
Way back in the '90s on http://rec.games .frp.advocacy we developed the Threefold Model, which held that GMs would make their decisions based on an interest in Simulation, Game, or Drama.
The primary reason for developing this theory was to explain how and why different people wanted different things out of their roleplaying game experiences, so that people could stop slagging each other for #BadWrongFun and instead have meaningful, respectful discussions.
And, at least on rgf.advocacy, it largely succeeded. It wasn't perfect, but it gave people a conceptual framework for understanding (and communicating) their preferences. That, by itself, led to less flaming and more productive discussions.
It also led to a lot of people running games that were more successful and more enjoyable for everyone involved.
Having a vocabulary that could be used (however crudely) to discuss these preferences meant that people could diagnose when a game was going wrong.
Having a vocabulary that could be used (however crudely) to discuss these preferences meant that people could diagnose when a game was going wrong.
More importantly, it gave people the capacity to set expectations before the game even began.
And although the model was built on tension between these factors, it inherently recognized that compromise was possible and the balance of the game could be tweaked.
And although the model was built on tension between these factors, it inherently recognized that compromise was possible and the balance of the game could be tweaked.
I personally found that it also drastically broadened my RPG experiences: Metaphorically, once I understood the color palette existed, it became a lot easier to select the right set of colors to paint my room.
So, yeah, I'm never going to villify someone for clearly communicating what their interests are and what type of game they're interested in running (or playing in). It's OK for different people to like different things. It doesn't make them bad people.
And, yeah, when I'm running #ArsMagica I'm going to tell people that we're leaning towards realism (yes, even with the wizards). And when I'm running #FengShuiRPG I'm going to say we're going heavy on the drama. And for 1974 #DnD, I'm twisting the dial over towards challenge.
If you really don't like the dial on this game, that's OK. I'll catch you in my next game (or we'll play a different one, depending what the motivating factor for the current game is).
(Ironically, the Forge would take the Threefold, change the focus from GMs to game designers, erect walls between Game, Narrative, and Simulation, and then declare that anyone mixing them had committed heresy and was literally brain damaged. But that's a story for another time.)
