Craigp

Craigp, 13 hours ago

For example, if you make an ancient villain dragon that runs the kingdom of Plurpelurple, your setting is now

a world

where a dragon runs a country.

This instantly changes every dynamic. It changes how everyone lives, it changes what other countries are concerned about and who runs them, it changes how nobility and succession work, it changes what backgrounds, classes, and abilities are frowned on or smiled on by which groups...

Craigp, 13 hours ago

But more importantly, this is a world where a king can be an ancient dragon.

This creates a vibe that sets it apart from The Standard Book Settings, and allows you to easily spin up a whole bevy of related themes.

For example, how does wealth work? How do people feel about wealth?

How does ethnocentrism work? How do people feel about nonhumanoid sentient creatures?

You can decide in any direction you like, all anchored in "dragon king".

Craigp, 13 hours ago

Now, technically the dragon king doesn't have to be a villain to have this effect on the setting... but villains are extremely useful because they bring the setting to the players.

If there's a dragon king, uh... over there, nice to meet you, I guess... hey dragon king, sure we'll kill a necromancer bothering your people, sure-

The aspects of the setting that the dragon king drives fall into the background. The players have no reason to care about or be affected by them.

Craigp, 13 hours ago

Coming up with a cool setting is a fun exercise, but in a tabletop game, a huge part of that is making the players care.

And the number one way to make the players care is to give them something to engage with.

In a D&D-style game, that means... yup. Enemies. Both in terms of what they can do and in terms of how the setting responds to what they can do.

Enemies are how your setting communicates and attaches to the players.

And villains are the biggest enemies.

Craigp, 13 hours ago

To be frank, anyone capable of being an ongoing threat to a band of murder hobos is definitely government-grade. At least town-sheriff grade, even for level ones.

Dropping in villains that seem to have no particular authority is very weird, because anything that can threaten five rampaging monster slayers is by definition more dangerous and more notable than them.

Craigp, 23 hours ago

Yeah, you can be blindsided by a player that uses an unexpected optimization.

But you can be blindsided by a player making an unexpected acting choice, too.

They're not any different. Both players have decided to engage with the game in a very personal way, and that's great.

The question is how well the GM can funnel these behaviors into a useful multiplayer experience that's fun for everyone.

Craigp, 23 hours ago

So let me propose the opposite: the problem isn't a minmaxer. The problem is someone that DOESN'T engage with the mechanics at all.

The problem isn't an unreliable theater nerd driving things off the rails. The problem is someone that DOESN'T engage with the storytelling at all.

My proposal is when a GM complains about "a minmaxer", they either mean "someone that doesn't care about the storytelling" or "someone I can't keep up with", and those are two very different complaints.

Craigp, 23 hours ago

And I propose we can simply use one to help with the other.

If a player is engaging with the rules and not the narrative, simply create narrative rules. Specifically, reward player interactions with other players, to create a good synergy with the players that DO care about the narrative and would like to connect with the munchkin.

Similarly, if a player is refusing to do more than the absolute bare minimum of statwangle, create mechanics that interact with the munchkin!

Craigp, 23 hours ago

Stats and mechanics are a major way the game organizes itself and creates flow.

If someone isn't engaging with the rules, I judge that as just as major a game failing as someone not engaging with the story.

It means they're not actually playing. They're just drifting along.

Not everyone has to obsess over it, but if someone isn't happy when they earn a statistical reward... then you aren't properly engaging them.

Craigp, 23 hours ago

Maybe most of this discussion comes from people that play Only D&D.

D&D is so widespread that there's a lot of tables using it with completely different priorities.

"I'm here to role play, not to wargame!"

Well, do I have news for you. There's 10,000 systems that can actively help you with that, rather than requiring you to expect players to ignore 98% of the system you chose to play the game the way you want.

Craigp, 23 hours ago

There are systems where minmaxers minmaxxing makes more role play opportunities.

Use a system that actually helps create the experience you want. Why are you trying to hammer in a screw?

Craigp, 23 hours ago

Every player is an opportunity.

The things they like to do, want to do - those are things you, as a GM, can use to create a better experience for all your players.

The players aren't guests and they aren't actors you hired to play out your skits. They're the bones your narrative is built on.

The things they want to do are the things your narrative should do. Your job as GM is to make that experience interesting and coherent.

Craigp, 23 hours ago

Well, more specifically, I think your job is to create specific refined situations and threads that they can get invested in.

But those threads must be descended from what they want to do rather than expecting players to get interested in a thread because you say so.