Yep, I'm packing it in. This Sunday is my final session, not just with my Star Trek TOS campaign, but as GM in general.
I'm not doing it out of frustration with players or anything. Quite the contrary, my players are among the best a GM could ever hope for.
But I've been at this for 20 years now, and I'm out of fresh ideas. IMO, it's always best to quit while you're ahead.
I built my worlds and I'm content with how they all turned out.
One thing I've learned from the experience though--that I want to share with all GMs: All well-crafted RPG campaigns generally fall somewhere along the spectrum of character vs. environment. The GM's preferences and the game mechanics can contribute to this balance greatly.
A. "Environment over Character"
The PCs are tossed into a lake and challenged to sink or swim. This is a level of genre "realism" to the point where the PC's mortality risk is proportional to that faced in real life. . .or worse. This is usually where you find most one-shot or "hack & slash" campaigns. This also includes military sims and horror RPGs.
I've run this sort of campaign lots of times. From a GM's POV, a PC's death isn't an issue of concern, since it won't disrupt the goal of the game. From the player's POV, they're not likely to get attached to their character or have any desire to develop it further than key stats or a thumbnail archetype.
As a GM, I personally felt comfortable with this style of gaming--because I could blame everything on the dice and/or game mechanics.
But I got bored quickly, because my potential for interesting storylines and backstory development were severely limited. For obvious reasons, this style also tends to limit player immersion.
B. "Character over Environment"
Favors drama and character development. The PCs, ". . .are destined to save the world." This is your typical storytelling game.
Here, the risk of death takes a backseat to story and character development. If the player is running their character within reason, then character death is only necessary if and when it has a lasting dramatic impact.
I've been running this sort of campaign a lot recently. From a GM's POV, it's a real challenge to present a risk/danger that the player finds believable, but at the same time still hides some loophole/escape to extend the GM's character-centered genre.
Quite a bit of narrative license comes into play here, reflecting many popular TV Tropes.* From the player's POV, they're likely to get attached to their character, which encourages immersion and development. This in turn can create more interesting plot developments for upcoming sessions.
As a GM, I loved watching how it all played out. The problem is that I was in danger of becoming too attached to the PCs. If I wasn't careful, I'd end up nerfing the players into my pet "nannyfic," where the threats and the dice really weren't fooling anyone. I had to inject some genuine risk to life and limb, then sit back and bite my fingernails like an audience; wondering if the PCs would make it through.
Looking back, I can honestly say that I tried my best to balance "A" and "B" in a believable manner. Both are necessary to make an RPG campaign a success and fun for all.
-PJ
*Which are never a bad thing.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Fugazi Grrl
