Table Top Role Playing is a long time passion of mine. I cannot say I am a regular or even overly serious player, but my interest in the core principles of the hobby have never wavered since first encountering them in high school. To be able to share a social “adventure” story telling experience with selected friends is a precious thing, in the same vein as the even longer tradition of tribal or village story telling.

Recently, social barriers to playing different forms of games have reduced, introducing more and more players, so I would like to offer a new way of introducing these new players to the hobby.

*

Table top role playing games have been around for a long enough to have developed “habits” that seem to be hard-baked in. This is natural, but not necessary and can both create stereotypes for detractors to latch onto and coral players into slavish processes (D & D as played on Stranger Things should not be the only standard bearer for a massive and diverse industry).

Sometimes looking at something from it’s roots up can change these habits, break long adhered to routines and re-invent the norm.

For those of us who play sport, we start out by setting our own commitment level. Want to go all in, then you commit and take the injuries, pain and knocks that come with that. Want to exercise for the fun of it or to stave of mother time, then different processes are used.

RPG’s ask similar, if slightly more complicated questions concerning how much we “pay into” the hobby, how embedded we want to become and whether we or not we put story telling above simple game play. Some want to sprint, some run a Marathon, some just jog occasionally and within their comfort envelope.

This is usually decided just by playing. One of the skills a Game Master develops is to adapt to their players style and desires, while policing the basic standards that good gaming needs.

There is an idea I have been kicking around for a while now, that comes from an occasional dissatisfaction with the current RPG process and a desire to increase player immersion without a commensurate bloat of mechanical complication.

First “myth” to bust is that we all need to have a character sheet in front of us, laden with stats and figures and little checks against things we intend to develop.

This is after all the core of a role playing character isn’t it?

The question is, does reducing a “character” to mere statistics reduce our immersion in the other side of Role-playing, which is the story telling? To put it another way, is the game a game, or a story telling device and where do the lines blur. Sometimes, for me, the “game” or mechanical side dominates the story telling side and leaves me feeling short changed. Something I have always battled with, depending on the game, is the mechanical nature of the processes.

Isn’t a role playing character, solely a creation of our imagination. One that we placed into a setting to face puzzles, dangers and other interactions as our on the spot persona. If so, mechanical constraints are only in place to give us limits and provide a logical level of unpredictability and randomness. Without this our character’s actions cannot be in balance with other forces in the world and “what if” turns into “what ever”.

Is it realistic or even desirable to know your own capabilities in defined mathematical values?

Is this how we live our own lives?

If pressed, I would describe myself in terms of generalisations. I would not assign myself, especially with any surety, specific numerical values or give my skills, experiences and knowledge better than vague qualities. My assessment of self may be way off, but regardless, I attempt what is in my reality envelope and avoid (usually) what is not.

The habit of using highly specific characteristics and rigid systems is a reality for most role-playing games, but it can also be a chain around our imagination and an unrealistic insight into the very workings of our gaming universe.

There are many RPG’s that are reducing or even eliminating our reliance on more mechanical processes, but many still fall victim to this same (as I see it) short fall. They allow the player to see their characters systemic “bones”. This is inherently unrealistic and forces a game oriented perspective.

How do we change this?

By placing a wall between the player’s imaginations and the mechanics of the game.

This works really well with new players or even experienced players trying out an unfamiliar game system, but you, as the GM need to do some prep*. Ironically, the best systems for this tend to be the most mechanical by nature!

Step One

Vet your players. Explain your intentions with this new way of playing and express your desires as a GM to increase their enjoyment and reduce their game playing burdens. This is especially effective for new players put off by increasingly thick gaming tomes and a feeling of being out of the games insiders loop*.

Be ready for some resistance from older players who may feel disempowered by this, but they hopefully will come around, if they see value in this style of play. Min-maxers will be the hardest, especially those with an intimate knowledge of the system used.

Step Two

Character creation. I will assume the use of a D&D style game, especially one like Adventures in Middle Earth, where character choices are logical and concepts are clear, but moderate.

The players talk to you, the GM, about their character concept as normal. This is the key point now, so listen and offer sound advice. The characters are not led by dice rolls or character descriptions in the game so they only have their concept to go from and it is your job to guide them forward, without revealing any mechanical results.

For example ask then the following;

“Tell me the order of importance you would place the following character traits in the context of your character” using generalisations that suit the games needs (for example Strong, Fast/Nimble, Tough, Smart, Wise/Level headed, Charismatic/Commanding - taken from D&D’s STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS and CHR).

Generate the base characteristics either randomly or by using points to suit the player’s wishes, again without revealing any mechanical values. It is probably best to use some randomness here to assure player confidence that you are not taking too much control of their character, maybe even letting them roll 1-2d and assign them as above and then you roll the balance.

Another way is to have three pre-set, points based characteristic sets made up. One can be a moderate or averaged, without any true extremes (max 15, min 9), the second can have a couple of stand out characteristics and a couple of lower than average (max 17, min 8) and the last can have a “hero” characteristic, a couple of strong ones and the rest lower than average (Max 18, min 6-7).

Now describe their character back to the player, using terms such as “you are tall healthy and powerfully built and tend assume you are the strongest person in the room” for STR 17, Con 13, and “prone to always accepting the friendship and compliments of others who are drawn to your wit and warmth” WIS 9, CHR 15 and so on. This is again a two way street. The players need to describe their character concept, you supply the details with general descriptions of their actual characteristic values, then the players flesh out the resulting “feel” they get from you.

It is possible here, depending on player and GM interaction, for the GM to even deliberately mislead the player, to suit a concept, such as an over inflated sense of self worth, subsequently not lived up to or great potential hidden by humble beginnings, such as the player’s desire to have a great warrior and acting like it, but not being supported by rolls.

The player’s character then becomes very much a case of “know thy self” through game play and experience.

Notice the subtle difference here. Instead of having hard, fixed numbers to base their expectations on, the characters will develop a “feel” for their character’s abilities by playing. If they fail, they will not have a spread of chances to review, but simply a life lesson learned.

The next steps of character generation, like skills and class, are then worked through as above. The GM needs again to use non-game terms here, applying the systems requirements as appropriate. This an ideal time for the GM to apply some more reality from their world and for the player’s to tell more character story and effectively the reverse of the norm, with experienced games topping off a character with some personality after the numbers have been crunched. 13th Age is ideal here, as it has no skill system, just backgrounds, helping to develop character back-story and supporting this play style.

As the character is developed mechanically by you, the player’s add “described” traits to their resume.

Step Three

Game play.

Ok. So what is different at the table?

First up, the players still roll their own dice. Without this, they will truly feel powerless and rolling represents the reality that they can see their own arm swing a sword and see if it hits their target, but do not know the odds of success before hand.

They must also be aware of the dice mechanic (a high roll is good etc.), but little else. There may be some mechanics here that can work in your favour as a GM. The 5e “advantage/disadvantage” dice for example can be used for player confusion. You could describe a trap saying “it looks easy enough”, giving the players a second dice (they assume for advantage), that is actually a dis-advantage dice, representing the hidden trigger that the players missed. The GM describes what happens, but does not say which dice was responsible.

They will get to see how well they think they have gone, but they do not get to post or pre-analyse the factors at play. It is unlikely that a character totally outclassed would take on an enemy if the math were known to them, but without that mathematical probability laid plain, would they take a chance? Maybe if they strike an opponent solidly and do no damage, they will re-think their next action, again realistically assessing the situation. This is also where a good GM can award clever thinking and bravery, without the players feeling that the world is their play thing.

I feel this adds both realistic vagueness to the game world and tons of room for the GM to “fudge” as needed*. In The The One Ring RPG, fatigued players ignore some dice values. The GM could conceal the mechanical reality of fatigue (hinting at the characters state), but apply the effect as needed.

Oft used descriptive talk like “your sword hits home, but glances off the huge warrior’s armour doing little harm” is a commonly used at a good RPG table, but is now it is the norm and indeed the only way the player gets any feed back. The player knows only what their character can see. Their roll to strike was good, but unsuccessful. Why?

The players can only interact with the world you create in terms of their projected, but relatively unquantified self.

Without numbers to qualify their statements, they cannot “play the system” only their character.

You as GM will have to do some more preparatory book keeping (simple spread sheets are good here**), but you also have complete control of the wheels that make your world turn. Lots of systems have been created to promote better mechanical two-way flow, or attempt to “hide the dice” but could it be as simple as this?

The players should now be unconcerned with the game’s systemic needs. They will describe their characters actions is normal terms, applying their skills and abilities as they see fit. They will drop game terms like Dice Mods, Levels, and Armour Class in favour of normal conversational descriptions like “I am considered a true warrior in my tribe, handy enough with a sword, but more comfortable with my trusty bow”.

Will the players have nothing to do, or more to the point will the GM have too much on their plate?

There will likely be more cases of you, the GM having to play through circumstances not covered by the rules, which is actually ideal, so stay in control and set the pace.

All of the pressures of the mechanical game system are under the control of the GM. The system becomes irrelevant to the players (I guess it would even be possible to change systems mid campaign, as long as player expectations and their game reality still line up or even keep the actual game system used, a secret!).

Nothing is used that is counter to the story and nothing happens that is contrary to story driven enjoyment. The GM may fudge anything as needed without having to produce “proof” of their logic so “Games Lawyers” are excluded from the rules interpretation process. An inexperienced GM or one not fully conversant with every aspect of a new system can hide behind the far superior dynamic of story telling while acclimatising to the rules. One situation most GM’s have faced is the “rules lawyer” more conversant in the rules than they are, challenging every call.

Do not abuse this. Embrace it for what it is.

The GM’s character sheet(s) can be as ugly and workman-like as required (and probably need to be) and will often take the form of a spread sheet, but the players are the opposite. They should look like a page lifted straight from their saga**.

Step Four

As the characters gain experience, they should grow in the direction the player wishes. If they have some success in fights, but not as often as they would like, then they should practice those skills. In a levels based system, targeted, incremental increases are ideal, in skill based systems the GM can be more precise and incremental.

What do you think? Worth a try?

Maybe the perfect fix for jaded players and GM’s.

*Don’t worry, your job as DM may get easier, not harder from here on.

** The character sheet should be a labour of love. The character’s physical and personal descriptions can be as deep as desired, and their skills and background not just a set of numbers and a few notes, but fully fleshed out story lines. Who knows, this could lead to a stronger player to character connection.