The Philosophy of Yes!

I don't normally do this kind of post on this blog since the purpose of this blog is to record my adventures in gaming that I want to permanently remember, rather than wax philosophical about my gaming experience but a recent personal experience on a mush convinced me I want to put down my thoughts on this.

Gaming has always been a shared social experience, from the days when I first started in 1979, to the MMO's today.  You really enjoy it MOST when you can be in a guild or group of people you enjoy it with.  In my professional career, there is a concept called "Market Driven Solutions" which basically boils down to the idea that you should base your product on what the customer wants, not what you think they want.

Gamers are in it to have fun; hence the term 'Game.'  Whether it is a MUSH, a MUD, an MMO, a table top or even a larp.  And as such, the rules should be there to empower the player, rather than simply restrict them.  Some rules are always needed to make a game a game; whether or not its the kind of game that you even win (which most RPG's are not.)  The format varies too.  A MUSH or a LARP has lots of players interacting, often without a lot of Referee interaction so by definition it has to have different rules than a table top where a single referee can keep track of all the players at the same time.  A national campaign, such as Mind's Eye Theater or the Pathfinder Society, has to have another level of complexity because there are shared campaigns.

But still, I've seen too many instances of 'Rule X' in table top games or other venues that rarely asks the question, "Does this help make the players more awesome?"  Now, you can certainly have rules to make things fair.  "Not everyone can be the Jedi."  Or "If one person has this game breaking ability, it will suck for anyone playing this character time."  That is a good thing.

But I just rarely see rules added to make the players more awesome and that's a shame.  In business, the book "Tuned In" changed my view of everything.  It's about listening to your players. I know I thought I was a great GM, and I got smiles and laughs and completed stories but after really talking to my players I found that I didn't do ENOUGH railroading.  Sometimes a sandbox without hooks is too much for all players; and you should adapt.

But rules that simply make it easier for you as a GM need a second look.  That's an important equation since EVERYONE at the table (or game what not) needs to be having fun.  But a GM should never have fun at the player's expense. If the way you need to have fun is have your GMPC swoop in to save the day or have Dragons on the Tarmac (an anecdote of stupidity that I thought I had written about but have not...and will...) or on a Mush, say having the best story experience you have ever had interupted because the guy who ran it was having sex with someone who didn't like you and started to fuck with you.  That's just basic human bullshit and most expereinced gamers now know to avoid such stuff like the plague.

What is less common is the chance to enjoy that game you will really talk about; that you will really enjoy for time immemorial is when you have a GM that knows how to make the narrative about the players with restrictions only enough to make the game fun for everything and provide them challenges to overcome.  If more people who ran games simply asked the question, "is this rule really necessary? Is saying 'no' to this really important to keep the game fun for everyone else" then the experience becomes exceptional for all involved.