I feel like there’s two poles of the RPG experience. At one end, there’s the writer’s room “let’s tell an awesome story together”. At the other, there’s “I am my character and I am in the world”.
I am super far in the writer’s room direction. I don’t want to “immerse” in my character. I want to tell a cool story about my character. So for me, when I try to jump onto a moving train and flub the roll, having input into what happens is great. I like being able to say “what if I land and roll and my backpack falls, so I lose all my stuff?”, or “what if I crash through the window of the wrong car, and it’s like a room full of security goons having dinner??”. If the GM just unilaterally does that, by contrast, it feels bad to me. I like having input.
It’s probably no surprise I GM more than play.
I imagine at the other end of the spectrum, thinking about that stuff gets in the way of trying to experience the character.
The “writer’s room” stuff is, by definition, not role-playing. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely enjoy it, but if you tell me we’re role-playing and then hit me with that, I’ll be upset at the whiplash.
I feel like games like FATE need to pick a lane. Either we’re all writers telling a story together, or we’re trying to role-play as characters and be immersed in the world. But you can’t accomplish both things at once.
And if we’re doing the writer’s room thing, we should just play Microscope. It’s my favorite improv-game so far (although I’m open to trying others).
I can see why you might feel that way. Playing in that mode still has some properties of roleplaying- you’re often focused on one character and thinking about the world through their perspective - but you’re not trying to be them the whole time.
Maybe it’s like being an actor and director at the same time, for a film or play? You drop into the character but also zoom out for the bigger picture. I don’t think anyone would say like “Branagh wasn’t acting because he was also directing”
I don’t agree with “can’t accomplish both at once”, but this is a reasonable thing to disagree on. It can definitely be a mode of play people don’t enjoy!
FATE is my favorite least favorite system. I love so much about it, but find about half of it absolutely intolerable.
For example - players making up their own consequences. It’s so metagamey that it immediately kills my immersion.
Edit - Don’t get me wrong, I love the idea of the Consequences system, but it rubs me the wrong way for the players to be the ones choosing them.
I feel like there’s two poles of the RPG experience. At one end, there’s the writer’s room “let’s tell an awesome story together”. At the other, there’s “I am my character and I am in the world”.
I am super far in the writer’s room direction. I don’t want to “immerse” in my character. I want to tell a cool story about my character. So for me, when I try to jump onto a moving train and flub the roll, having input into what happens is great. I like being able to say “what if I land and roll and my backpack falls, so I lose all my stuff?”, or “what if I crash through the window of the wrong car, and it’s like a room full of security goons having dinner??”. If the GM just unilaterally does that, by contrast, it feels bad to me. I like having input.
It’s probably no surprise I GM more than play.
I imagine at the other end of the spectrum, thinking about that stuff gets in the way of trying to experience the character.
The “writer’s room” stuff is, by definition, not role-playing. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely enjoy it, but if you tell me we’re role-playing and then hit me with that, I’ll be upset at the whiplash.
I feel like games like FATE need to pick a lane. Either we’re all writers telling a story together, or we’re trying to role-play as characters and be immersed in the world. But you can’t accomplish both things at once.
And if we’re doing the writer’s room thing, we should just play Microscope. It’s my favorite improv-game so far (although I’m open to trying others).
I can see why you might feel that way. Playing in that mode still has some properties of roleplaying- you’re often focused on one character and thinking about the world through their perspective - but you’re not trying to be them the whole time.
Maybe it’s like being an actor and director at the same time, for a film or play? You drop into the character but also zoom out for the bigger picture. I don’t think anyone would say like “Branagh wasn’t acting because he was also directing”
I don’t agree with “can’t accomplish both at once”, but this is a reasonable thing to disagree on. It can definitely be a mode of play people don’t enjoy!