Skills, abilities and conversational intrigue...combat optional
Let's jump right into it! So I had recently held a game with my beloved group of epic story driven players. We've toiled, we've fought, we've trudged through the marshlands of Miranok. Bested the horrid creatures of ice and death in the Frozen Bronze Realm. We've navigated the labyrinth that was the Glimmerand Metropolis, and its almost infinite alley ways and streets and markets. All throughout this journey I've attempted to remain true to my own GM axiom, to have 1-3 combat situations, sometimes more if necessary. I've felt that combat lets PC's flex that ever atrophying muscle of feats, special attacks and the like. So much of the characters and the builds predicate around combat and the way one deals with hostile situations and so forth. It really is the quintessential marker for any Table Top RPG out in the market nowadays...except for that weird Jenga RPG an acquaintance was talking to me about .___.
Then we played through a recent game. There was much ado with talking, spell casting (not against hostiles), and all things which involved skills and outside things not involving combat. Then...the game ended. *Shrug*I was left wondering and worrying whether the game was fun or if the group was frustrated or even curious at the lack of action and blood letting. I spoke to them a day or so later and they clued me in, "Not at all, we had a blast trying to get things done with that airship" that's right, they got an airship and called it Ember'sEdge "And we had more dialogue action and skill action and that was fine with us!" Seeing as I trust them not to gussy a shitty situation up for my benefit I believe them. Got me to thinking, and still am, is there a necessary stage in all scenario's of a campaign for action. For one-shot's I could understand, but as last encounter was any indication...perhaps not.
One of the players made it clear it did depend on the group you were GM'ing for, and I certainly agree with that sentiment. I know a certain other group that would not only balk at such a notion, but would most likely fling heavy objects at me for such an egregious break in the actiony action we've enjoyed together. I over exaggerate of course but still, I suppose it falls to the GM to be cunning and observant enough to recognize if a group could handle all RP and no action. I still want some semblance of combat in a scenario of a larger campaign, I am just as curious about player builds and the artifacts I give them and how they interact with the rest of the world. I don't just throw random artifacts at you and think *welp, that about does it, hum dee dum* I am VERY interested to see how the artifacts and so forth play out. I have about 2 to 3 books, more I'm sure,
I'm always trying to get out of my comfort zone, lately I've had little to no time to do this as real life issues hinder me, but when I have the freedom to focus solely on this, you can be sure I spend a GREAT deal of time on our games and prep and such. To all other GM's out there, I suppose try and get a feel for other players and the groups you have in your fold. Make your judgments and keep an open mind. More than that though have a quick encounter handy for the chance that your group is super not into the RP heavy encounter you're running. I know both spectrum's, groups that wouldn't mind an RP session and a group that would be loathe to play such a game. I suppose be mindful and my takeaway from it all is that I enjoyed the experience and perhaps there will be more in the future.
This was a remarkably short entry, but hey, I feel better already! Hope you all have a great New Years, and from this less disgruntled GM I'll freely say, GTFO 2015, you sucked. :3
Always remember to roll that D20!
Ryan
No comments:
Post a Comment