While I have run games as a game master in the past I lack experience. One thing that is something of a crux to me is the tension between drama and credibility (I do not want to use the term realism).

While I am not exactly down with the latest roleplaying theory I think my gamestyle is leaning towards “simulationism”. One of the things I enjoy most about roleplaying is tactical combats were real-life manoeuvres (suppressive fire, cover, retreat etc.) have a significant impact on the outcome of the combat.

As a player I want to win the day through smart tactics and planning and I am a firm advocate for “player power”. I think that the job of the GM is to set things in motion but other than that step back and let the players drive the story forward, for good or ill. It is important that the GM is objective towards the characters, neither adding unfair advantages nor disadvantages.

Therefore suggestions to fudge rolls or add challenges for climactic moments irk me. To, for instance, add an encounter to increase the drama since the players through planning or luck have circumvented significant parts of the adventure. Now, I am realising that I might sound a little like a hard case and I am not meaning to put down any hard laws about game mastering here. It’s just that lately I have been pondering what is more important – drama or credibility? I’ll try to explain the core of each approach as I see it (in reality they are of course not as black and white as I make them out to be below):

Credibility
The GM creates a “sandbox” for the players to live, work and play in. The world does not revolve around the characters but rather things moves on as they are “meant” to do, unless the players interfere. The GMs most important job is to make sure that everything runs smoothly, essentially being a supercomputer running the whole shebang but never interfering. It is very much up to the players to drive the story forward.

The advantage is that the players get the satisfaction that they alone, without help from the gm, came through (or failed as the case may be). The disadvantage is that the story can easily become bogged down if the players simply aren’t looking in the “right” places (of course, when done right there are no right or wrong places but you get my meaning).

For instance the players are supposed to uncover a cult, stop the summoning of a daemon and save the world. Well, they do not find the right clues or run out of time, tough – now watch the world end and go on with your life best you can.

Drama
The GM creates a campaign or adventure for the players to experience. The world does evolve around the characters. It is the GMs responsibility to drive the story forward and if needed to kick start things with a choice encounter or two.

The advantage is that there is always drama to be had, the story can always be made exciting by adding an encounter or helping the players out. The drawback is that the players can feel like they are just passengers in the GMs own story.

If the players fail to find the right clues they are likely given a second chance or can find the clues somewhere else. They are supposed to stop the summoning and “fail the adventure” if they cannot.

I am getting long winded but essentially what I want to get out of this is a discussion around these two opposed approaches. The whole reason for this (long) “question” is that I have lately started to doubt my preference for credibility. After all, isn’t it all about having fun? If the GM has to “cheat” to create this fun then, so what?

I hope I have made at least some sense. I really want to get some input on this matter.

Thank you,
/bladerunner_35

I think all GMs strike a balance between those two concepts - my personal preference is to have little planned islands of drama in an otherwise open sandbox.

What I mean by that is to have some planned moments/conclusions in my story (here they stop badguy X, here they encounter a group of desperate mutants with the deadly secret, etc) that should occur in the story, but let the players determine what they do and where they go. The realistic way to do it is to work out the likely places the PCs want to go and plan accordingly.

phobiandarkmoon said:

That's my way to GM too. As the island was brought up I can easily talk about Lost.

It think that they way that show handless itself (or the writers handle it but anyway) is a great example of roleplaying. There's the sandbox (the island itself), the back story, things that happen and things that doesn't happen because of the characters and it quite entertaining in good number of ways. There's also two quotes from the show the come to mind a describe situations in RPGs.

"Don't tell me what I can and what I cannot do!" and "That wasn't suppose to happen!"

My campaign revolves around a small village in eastern Stirland. The PCs are staying with a relative in a big mansion.

I will NOT be forcing them to do anything, but there will be several events going on (a vampire feeding off the villagers at night, a missing Cleric of Sigmar, the three sons of a Baron have been transformed into pigs (thanks for that one- you know who you are ) and mysterious kidnappings). The PCs MAY investigate these events, or not. If they don't, then there will be consequences in the world around them, of course, and they'll be prompted to partake in the cleanup.