PDA

View Full Version : Crunch-mitigation idea for semi-noobs...



Jaroslav
03-05-2008, 11:09 AM
So, I'm getting ready, if all goes well, to GM for my first time. Our group has played The Sword and played 4-6 sessions in our own campaign setting, but our wants to step down from that role. I'm excited to step up, but I'm still a little intimidated by all the rules. The elapsed time between our game sessions has been so much that it feels a little like we are learning the rules all over again each time we play. However, I think we should be able to start playing a little more often once I start GMing. I had an idea where we could still use some of the more complex systems in the game (rather than, for example, using BV instead of Fight!, because I think we all like the idea of using as much of the system as possible) while still making it seem like we don't each have to have the rule books completely memorized to make the game run smoothly.

Maybe this is so simple and obvious that it's not even worthy of a post, but it seemed cool to me. Since almost all of us own the books, I was thinking that each player could pick one area of the rules that s/he is responsible for knowing backwards and forwards, then, in game, we could call on that player to help with rule clarification when that particular mechanic came up. Obviously, we'd all try to know all of the rules, but each person would be the group's "expert" in one area. This could help encourage players not to rely on the GM to be the de facto expert in all areas of the game and take some pressure off of a nervous first-time GM.

What do you all think? Has anybody else tried this? Obviously, it only works in a group that has already bought in, both figuratively and literally. It's not a technique you could use to introduce wary new players, but if you have a group that is dedicated to learning the game, I would think it could take the edge off of learning the somewhat imposing rule set.

-John

Z-Dog
03-05-2008, 11:13 AM
if people are cool with that, I think it's a great idea!

my BE game was helped immensely by a player who loved reading and understanding the rules...he was my wingman!

Thor
03-05-2008, 11:25 AM
John, it works like a charm.

luke
03-05-2008, 11:25 AM
It's funny, that's how I assumed it'd be! GM's responsible for the first 79 pages or so. The fighty player's responsible for Fight. The Elf's responsible for RnC. The social monster, for DoW and Circles. The thief for Resources, skills and traits. The sorcerer for Sorcery, etc.

-L

Dwight
03-05-2008, 11:52 AM
This could help encourage players not to rely on the GM to be the de facto expert in all areas of the game and take some pressure off of a nervous first-time GM.
I prefer to, actually always have, to rely on people around the table to help out with rules. Yeah, I know this runs counter to a lot of ideas about GMs being infailable, that they must be the smartest person at the table or have the best rules knowledge. But that never sat right with me either, and it doesn't even exclude someone have an area of expertise that exceeds that.

Flip to page 269, middle of the page. "Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule...". Implicit in that is that the player is expected to understand the rules themselves. Areas of specialty for your character seems a good place for that to hold especially true, it's what your PC is about.

And make sure they realize it is on them to invoke rules that go both ways, the ones that are about things getting in the way of PCs too. Invoking rules isn't just for beating on the GM/NPCs. ;)

Jaroslav
03-05-2008, 02:27 PM
Cool, thanks everyone. I've suggested this to my group, and I'm sure they'll see the logic. I think we've been doing already to some extent by default (before I decided to GM, I was the only one with sorcery, so nobody else bothered to study those rules very closely), but I think it will nice to make it a little more official.

Z-Dog
03-05-2008, 03:02 PM
It's funny, that's how I assumed it'd be! GM's responsible for the first 79 pages or so. The fighty player's responsible for Fight. The Elf's responsible for RnC. The social monster, for DoW and Circles. The thief for Resources, skills and traits. The sorcerer for Sorcery, etc.

-L

I swear to god we need a page on the wiki:

here's what you're assuming about RPGs

here's how BW is different

---

and, after spending some time here, another list:

here's what you're assuming about indie RPGs

here's how BW is different

Dwight
03-05-2008, 04:01 PM
and, after spending some time here, another list:

here's what you're assuming about indie RPGs

here's how BW is different
I've started noticing that. Not just here.

eruditus
03-05-2008, 05:42 PM
Although I certainly believe that most Story Games (what I call what I think you're referring to as "indie" - not just small press/owner controlled, rather games that drive narrative forward with their rules) have very "GM is just another player" perspectives.

Other than having a goodly number of rules (my favorite quote is from Fred hicks when he said that "BW is the Rolemaster of Story Games") what other differences are there between BW and other SGs?

Mind if we talk about that here, too?

- Don

luke
03-06-2008, 12:15 AM
Other than having a goodly number of rules (my favorite quote is from Fred hicks when he said that "BW is the Rolemaster of Story Games") what other differences are there between BW and other SGs?

Mind if we talk about that here, too?

- Don

Put it in the Chatterer.