The beauty of ignorance

#1

A friend of mine asked several questions about the campaign setting of our upcoming Dungeon World game. The honest answer was and is other than it’s a fantasy setting I don’t know. By the end of session zero we will know. In his defense he’s still new to tabletop gaming. And it got me thinking of how we’ve largely been conditioned to believe the GM knows all. Rather than just embracing ignorance and being OK with it.

Personally I can say DW fundamentally changed the way I think about and play role playing games. A core concept is “draw maps and leave blanks”. When first read I thought it was literal, but in fact it is both literal and figurative. Leaving a little wiggle room can go a long way and anecdotally has been quite fulfilling.

Can’t remember where I read it, but a post went along these lines.
GM : You see a tall sailing ship on the horizon.
Player : Oh no! Is it full of undead pirates?
GM : It is now…

Another anecdote from a previous Barbarians of Lemuria campaign. The players were having a conversation with a merchant NPC. I asked what kind of merchant she was. Stunned he asked “Don’t you know?” It was the simplest attempt to source the table and it fell flat.Now it wasn’t integral to the story at hand, We hand waved it and moved on. Had he answered perhaps it would have led nowhere or perhaps it could have sparked something wondrous.

It’s understood not everyone is comfortable leaving big gaps to be filled in. Nor would I suggest it to a novice GM. It does take some ability to improv and course correct when needed. It takes practice and experience like most skills.

I suppose it falls under being over prepared and under prepared. It’s the hard lesson of spending hours preparing an encounter or plot or whatever, only to have the PCs zig rather than zag. Bullet points are a great example of looking at the big picture rather than all that minutia.

In the end I’m confident our group will put together something cool as we collaborate a setting out of nothing. I don’t know what’s ahead, and simultaneously excited to discover together. In closing I can only suggest source the table, embrace ignorance and let the creativity flow from the unknown. And if you’ve made it this far thanks for your time.

#2

Yeah, it can be difficult at times when there is varying levels of desire to be creative at the table. In my Terrinoth game the idea for my story came from a short paragraph in the book, which is all the info there is on that specific subject. I expounded a wee bit on it, but figured my players where keen enough to be able to handle all of us just sort of figuring out what it all meant (and everyone responded enthusiastically to my pitch). Hot damn was I wrong. I had one whole player leave the game because it “wasn’t doing it for him”, after 1 session. In his defense I don’t think RPG’s do it for him; he’s more of a boardgame guy. The other players are in to it though, and we are having a great time “figuring it out”, aka taking equal parts in telling this story at the table.

You are right though, us GM’s don’t NEED to know everything, and sometimes its better that way.

#3

Yeah, yeah yeah!

“Draw maps, leave blanks” was a transformational concept for me as well.

#4

There are many great concepts in PbtA games and the collaborative aspect of Worldbuilding was definitely an eye opener. Fate has also some great ideas in that regard.

#5

Whenever I’m prepping, I have my DW book close, I don’t even need to read it anymore, it is just there to remind me how to do stuff.

The way I see it, the GM is just another player. Players prep their chars, they tick off boxes, draw illustrations, track stats, create their backstory and personality either before the session or on the fly, and they (should) are always willing to change and evolve through the story, gaining or revealing new abilities, relationships and personality traitsm they improvise what to do in the momentbased on the fiction that’s going on.

If you just sit down and think about the GM doing the EXACT SAME THING but for the WORLD instead of the chars, it just clicks imho.

#6

This clicked for me recently, too, and has helped me understand my GM role(s) better.

#7

Good post!

I’ve seen this as a trend lately. The idea of having the players participate in “filling in the blanks” along with the GM. While players should certainly do it for most things having to do with their PC and backstory, outside of that I’m not a fan and I think it is bad advice.

IMO, when I come to the table for an RPG, I don’t ever expect the GM to have all the answers for whatever might come up. But it would take me out of the game to suddenly be asked my opinion about who some NPC is, where they’re from, etc.

No joke, the GM caries a heavy burden to set everything up. But when I GM, for those inevitable occasions where I need answers to questions or NPCs on the fly, I will consult various GM tools (tables, a dice roll, oracles) before asking the players to answer in-game needs outside of their PC’s content.

Again, my sense is this has become a recent trend of advice. It way work with a few players, but I think for the majority it’s not a good idea to follow. Having a GM provide content and on the fly responses is one of the last reasons for me to play in a group (aside from the social fun). If as a player I have to answer too many questions I could solo play with some game oracles and have nearly the same experience.

#8

If as a player I have to answer too many questions I could solo play with some game oracles and have nearly the same experience.

Same can be said about GMing. If whenever I don’t know the answer to something I always need to figure it out or generate it randomly without help from others, why do I need a group instead of solo play?

The GM has the last word on everything but that doesn’t mean he must have ALL the words. And I’m sorry to sound controvertial with this but passive “audience” players are very, very annoying whenever there’s any sort of creative drive in a group.

We are playing a game togheter and having everyone have a say in things, either requested y others or self proposed is always good, while front-loading the responsability of 90% of the game into one person is just bad.

I’ve been there, GMing with a totally passive audience, in a game where I had to run monsters, NPCs, towns, factions… Where asking to a player to give me some input on anything would result in “well, I don’t know, that’s YOUR job.” It sucked and felt like awkward solo RPing, like if I was being watched and pressed to get things going on my own. I’ve also played GMless games with creative people and, even tho this is personal preference for the most part, I must say that I think that collaborative gameplay is the best way to do tabletop RPing.

It is not bad advice, it is a way of doing things that some find WAY more fun than the “traditional” way.

#9

[quote=“Nimlouth, post:8, topic:3591”]
Same can be said about GMing. If whenever I don’t know the answer to something I always need to figure it out or generate it randomly without help from others, why do I need a group instead of solo play?

Different strokes. For me, the reason I prefer to have an actual group as a GM is because I enjoy pleasure of good company and offering fun to that company. Before I even started actually playing in TTRPGs, I recognized the energy & time GMs put into running games for players. When I started playing I always appreciated every single person who’s game I played in, and I have enjoyed paying that forward when I can for players in my games. But that’s me, I can’t answer that for you. :slight_smile:

The GM has the last word on everything but that doesn’t mean he must have ALL the words. And I’m sorry to sound controvertial with this but passive “audience” players are very, very annoying whenever there’s any sort of creative drive in a group.

For me, the time for collective story telling is session 0 and between sessions. In game I want to try my best to deliver everything for the players. And as a player, I appreciate the GM telling the story in game while I tell my PCs perspective. If asked I contribute in game to be a source, I don’t mind. When GMing I try not to ask for the reasons mentioned.

I’ve been there, GMing with a totally passive audience, in a game where I had to run monsters, NPCs, towns, factions… Where asking to a player to give me some input on anything would result in “well, I don’t know, that’s YOUR job.” It sucked and felt like awkward solo RPing, like if I was being watched and pressed to get things going on my own. I’ve also played GMless games with creative people and, even tho this is personal preference for the most part, I must say that I think that collaborative gameplay is the best way to do tabletop RPing.

Fortunately, I’ve not had to deal with that kind of table/audience as a GM. I can see how that would suck.

Also fortunately, recent years have seen a number of GMless fully collaborative story telling RPGs come to market for those into it.

#10

There are lots of little tricks to give the appearance of complete game prep from the GM, but still allow a lot of “blanks” to be filled in on the fly.

I just learned last night from a friend about setting up traps or puzzles without any plan for a solution. Instead, he picks a solution from what the players actually try, giving the players complete agency to succeed without having to get into the GMs head, and without the GM needing to find a way to drop enough clues to lead the players to success. This won’t work for everything, but I thought it was a great idea.

#11

@Nimlouth @Wildstar
I agree with both of you. But how can that be since what you two say are in opposition to each other?

As far as I can see, it depends on the group of players you are playing the game with. Some players do want the GM to do everything - which Nimlouth calls passive players - and they can be annoying to play with. Yet in my experience even some very active players don’t want to get involved in creating story elements and want to leave that entirely to the GM. This is because they want to unravel the mysteries the GM created for them and having a say in those things ruins the mystery and excitement.

Long story short, if your group loves creating things together, by all means do it. If not… Well, you can always do it yourself.

#12

I think like others have said, it all depends on your group.my players openly prefer me to make the choices. But I myself come up with 3 or more choices for things and roll for it. (does the npc survive the fire? Are there 1, 2 or 3 trolls, fire flood or storm?) stuff like that. I like the randomness.

#13

Being a regular on DM Academy on Reddit, you don’t know how much this is true. People don’t even contemplate the IDEA of letting players influence worldbuilding. They actually attack you for suggesting it. It’s appalling.

Do they really believe they, alone, can craft a better adventuring world than multiple minds put together to that purpose? How?

#14

@Nicolas_Bohnenberger agreed. Lots of my ideas are from my players. Just things you overhear in game or out you can just make a note of and expand on later can make huge world building events

#15

I mean really, session 0 having a worldbuilding part the players contribute to from the point of view of their characters.

It’s not always clear (and most people end up just ignoring this) but the character choices a player makes, be it bio-form/race, class, background, are ALL hints of what they want to see in play. I doubt a player that made a wizard character is not going to want to interact with magic, one that chose a rogue with the underworld, a warrior with the finer points of combat and its effect beyond the encounters.

Let them go wild there and get them invested in the game from the get-go and you’ll be surprised how much engagement changes.

#16

I’m truly surprised much feedback was received from my original post . Would have never guessed there be so much response. It really shows what a robust community this has become!

This is great demonstration of a GM having a keen ear. Once the cleric misspoke during a session. That was enough for a fairly important event to occur. Ya just need that little spark. And it never need to be overt. During the course of that campaign I’d receive a bit of prose from a player. It could be backstory related, historical, or something else entirely. And I always found something to incorporate into the story. And most of it was unsolicited. It would usually start out like I have an idea.

A favorite tool of mine is to ask “In addition to the other treasure and magic items, you’ve found another magical item. What is it?. Name it in two words using a noun an adjective” And BOOM they get to create an item. It’s a tiny creative exercise. Shouldn’t we all flex that muscle?And next session I’ve done the heavy lifting of giving said item all the game mechanical stats etc.

Agreed. The dividends are often so satisfying to player and GMs alike.

#17

You’d be surprised at how creative some players are, and also at how NOT creative some players are. Or, they just don’t like creating nearly as much as, well the GM! In fact, I think the most enthusiastic, well meaning, open, and happy person at my gaming table is woefully uncreative. But I’m super happy to GM for him!