One of my old groups quite memorably had a like hour long in character argument after a mission failed. I just sat back and watched them argue.
When it was over one of them was like "...we're not really mad, right? I feel like we just had a fight but we didn't." No one was real life mad. it was pretty intense
Some sessions require aftercare
It's a great feeling.
But I have to admit, the good booze may have had as much to do with it than anything else.
And be careful not to bask in the feeling too much. Eventually you do want to get the party moving again. Once the weekend is over, folks may notice they "didn't do anything."
I'm really glad that my first introduction to RPGs, when I was on a summer camp and like 13yo, was with a GM who didn't use any rules (aside from a D10) and instead focused on RP, and resolved actions based on what exactly we described, intuition and a D10 roll without a set goal or number.
It has taught me an entirely different approach to pen&papers that has carried really well over to when I started playing more rules heavy systems, which is especially apparent when I play with groups who never really played without rules, where most of the combat or actions are reduced to playing a board game and a lot of talk revolves around stats and numbers, instead of on the RP, which is a shame. Which is understandable, since if your first experoence with RP is a rule heavy system, it's not exactly intuitive to just ignore the stats and rolls, because they seem important.
I'm used to paying almost no attention to stats aside from vaguely knowing what my character is better at, and threat them and the rolls in same way as I did when starting - don't care what are the odds, don't care about the roll, I just start with describing an action I want to do and figure out the stats as an afterthought. And it makes for such a better experience, and I higjly recommend for anyone starting a new group or having inexperienced players - just go with a single d10 for the first session, and guess the results based on a vague gut feeling based on the situation and the number rolled. Its suprisingly intuitive once you start from the GM side, and it teaches the new players way better habbits in how to approach the game and what is important, that will stay with them even after they add rules to the mix.
I'm glad you had such good experiences, but I just don't have the trust with most people to be happy with that kind of unilateral "the dm goes by his gut".
I do like Fate, which is very narrative, but I try to run it in a very consensus focused way. The players have a lot of input (partly because the rules say they do!), and I do a lot of "Jumping in the driver's window and taking control of the car sounds like something an 'Action Movie Hero' could do with difficulty, how about try to beat a 5 on the dice to succeed free and clear?". That is, explain my reasoning and get player buy-in. I don't really like when the GM just decides everything.
Like, let's say they fail the roll. One style is for the GM to just decide "you jump, but the car turns suddenly and instead land on the front of the car! You roll off the hood and land roughly, take some damage and add prone!" That's a lot of decisions. I prefer instead "ooh you rolled a 2... Ok, do you wanna fail outright and like just miss, or succeed at a cost? The cost could be like, your backpack snags on the window and falls off, but you get inside." The player could accept that, or be like "oh what if I get inside, but it freaks out the hellhound in the back of the van and it goes berserk".
It's more like writing a story together. The GM still has more power, but it's more like a 60/40 split than 90/10
I agree, and I think that what may have also helped was that I was still basically a child when I was introduced to the dice-only RPGs. Also, it's definitely way more difficult for the GM, which I was fortunate enough to have a really experienced and amazing one.
It's true that if the whole group including the GM is starting out, going with something like Fate is better choice, which I also prefer nowadays. Or more experimental ones like Dread or the candles one.
I’m used to paying almost no attention to stats aside from vaguely knowing what my character is better at, and threat them and the rolls in same way as I did when starting - don’t care what are the odds, don’t care about the roll, I just start with describing an action I want to do and figure out the stats as an afterthought. And it makes for such a better experience
Reading this again, it made me think about how it's super important everyone is on the same page with play style and goals.
If I sat down expecting to play like fantasy special ops where everyone knows their role and is extremely competent, but one person wanted to play goofball "whose line is it anyway?" I would probably be pissed. It's not that either of us are playing wrong, but we're essentially playing two different games.
To me, in that scenario, if the goofball signed up to play the healer archetype and is instead bashing rats with their staff or trying to start a rat burger business with the cave goblins, it feels like they're not doing their job. They're a catcher that's not behind the plate, or a shortstop who wandered off to center field, to make baseball metaphors. We definitely could have a fun afternoon sitting in the grass watching the clouds, but we instead agreed to play baseball. Get in position.
From their perspective I'm probably taking things too seriously and who cares about all that combat and rules? I do. I care. If you don't want to play a rules heavy combat game why are you in a DND group? Play fate or bitd or some pbta games. I would love to do that. But like, intentionally. Where we all agreed on what we're doing.
Which brings me to the worst combination here: someone who wants a light fun game without all the complicated rules, but refuses to play anything other than DND. Though that's probably because DND is a mega brand and some people don't know what else is out there.
Anyway. I apparently have some pent up frustrations here.
This is a great point, and I definitely agree, and I haven't thought about it in this way. I don't think that I've ever ran into a group where our expectations would be so much different that it would cause an issue, but it's a great thing to keep in mind. Now that I read it again, I think I should add that I don't think that it's wrong to play RPGs as a board game, and I don't really mind if someone does even in our group and I'm having fun either way, but I mostly felt like it's a little bit shame that it may not even occur to some people that you don't have to focus mostly on rules - since thats what most of the game book is about, and can do it differently, especially when you're starting out. Which is also a good thing to keep in mind, to discuss and make the options and expectations clear before starting.
