Over on his always-engaging blog Ludanta Retero, Joshua BishopRoby has posted a list of 64 player skills — things that players are expected to be able to do at the gaming table.
I’d like to use Joshua’s excellent (and unbelievably thorough!) list as a tool for discussing what expectations GMs have of their players.
So how about it — what skills do you expect your players to possess?
As a possible jumping-off point for discussion, think of the game you’re currently running, or of the last game you ran, and try to answer these questions:
- How many of these 64 skills do your players possess?
- Which ones do they use regularly?
- Of those, what are they best at?
- Which skills are they lacking?
- And lastly, which skills that they don’t use regularly would you like to see used more often?
I’m not interested in player-bashing — I think honest assessments of these four questions could lead to some intriguing conclusions. Feel free to ignore my five questions, too, in favor of the big one: What do you expect of your players?
A very interesting list, thanks Martin. While I don’t have a current steady group that I can analyze, looking back in hindsight from this perspective does offer some good ideas and insights, both into one’s own style as a GM (as far as what we prioritize and value) and what our players want.
One of the things that was most important to me when I was running a game was my players’ ability to get into character. I wanted to work with them to tell a good story and have fun. Something I’d note about the list, though, is that Game #2 – “Separate players from characters (both own and other players) after the game.” – really ought to be a part of Acting/Immersion, based on my experience. An absolutely critical part of getting in-character is being able to step out of character when necessary. I’ve had players who played without that “sandbox” before, and I’ve seen OOC fights caused by IC tension. (Fights I had to moderate, natch, as I was both the GM and the “go-to” person in that dysfunctional circle of friends for stuff like that.)
One of those players was an “all-or-nothing” sort of roleplayer, which was something my co-GM and I were trying to help her with. She was either fully IC, and thus feeling everything the character felt, or she was basically a robot following the programming on her character sheet. End result: her characters were always very Mary-Sueish, exaggerating some aspect of her personality because she couldn’t concieve of how to play a character too different from herself, and she had a very hard time dealing with bad things that were said or done in-character. The lack of that “separation” skill ended up dragging things down somewhat.
This isn’t to say that the other skill trees aren’t important, of course. Players have to be a part of the team, be creative, and not be complete idiots about putting together the numbers. I think the areas of emphasis come down to the individual GM, game, and theme.
…Just noticed an interesting phrase I used involuntarily (thanks, Diablo 2) – “skill tree.” I wonder if this list would be able to be modeled as trees – show players and GMs alike a good skill-building path.
Damn good post. I know that the ones I value most (and there were more than I expected) all seem to follow around a central theme. Developing and acting your character. I see storytelling and character as the main reason of a game (from a GM’s perspective). I guess what I expect the players to do is give me something to run with.
I expect the players to go: This is my character. Here is who he or she is. I have developed this to be something concrete, a real person in a make believe world. I will act as them when appropriate, I will think as them, and I will do my best to give their imaginary life and goals meaning.
This gives me something to work with in the story. The elements I began desiging, the parts of the world I started out with I inevitably intertwine to the characters or change completely. The story actually becomes about them instead of here is a story and your cookie cutter people fit into it.
The hardest thing i think there is with this approach is getting people to let their characters out of the limelight. Following someone elses path, trying not to steal the situation, allowing plot points to happen (i.e. the evil bad guy is a wizard giving his evil speech and inevitably someone has to try to kill him to stop him from casting a spell)
I guess the ones off of the official list (which is a great idea to put those thoughts into concrete terms) are
——————-
5. Speak in Character
6. Think in Character
1. Build a full-fledged person
22. Pacing — ie, know when the story needs something more (know when it doesn’t)
17. Share your goals (selling)
18. Share others’ goals (buy-in)
19. Step out of the spotlight if there’s no reason for you to be in it.
20. Theme – Identifying and Understanding it
21. Theme – Participating in it
23. Accept character development in unexpected directions
or to sum it all up ala The Gambler
6. Know when to hold ‘em, Know when to fold ‘em, Know when to walk away, Know when to run.
I think doing giving a lot of free reign to the characters by way of development leads to them easily doing interesting things. A stereotypical DND cleric does heals people, fights undead and worships his or her god but the itinirent con man priest of light Deamus knocks peoples teeth out, solders wounds shut when he’s out of healing power, plays beat poetry when exposed to strange herbs, and tries to charge stupid warriors for their monster tax .
I expect them to aim for the more memorable second example, but am happy if they rise at least above the first.
I vehemently disagree and I expect I’m alone in this. Thus, I’ll try to go into detail and support my argument/thinking.
I’d like to say upfront that a lot of what you’re about to read isn’t necessarily directly related to this post, but some of the concepts outlined above and in the 64 skills thread. Thus, I’m kind of going a bit further than what’s stated here. Some of you may see where I’m going with this, others notsomuch. That’s fine.
First, I’m opposed to — and naturally have a bad reaction to — anything that attempts to place or categorize people in silos. The thing is, people aren’t so nice and handy to just conveniently fit into the silo as a “powergamer” or “simulationist;” the entire exercise is at, some level, unrepresentative of a person and, frankly, demeaning. It’s as if to say, “you are this way — which may not be good or bad — but that’s where you fall.” It segments people into strata and labels them. I don’t want to overstate things, but think how well historically placing people in preconceived niches has worked….
Next, the use of “skills.” Skills can be taught, which implies a binary state. You are either skilled in an area or you’re not. Now there certainly are varying degrees of skill, but lets say there’s a level in which you possess a skill and a level in which you are “deficient.” Let’s also presume that no one is good in all 64 skills; someone is lacking in some skill. Maybe the perfect role-player exists out there who’s great with all 64 skills; we just need to clone him now. So there’s the implied statement that all players are lacking in ability. Okay, I’m not going to dispute this, but lacking from who’s perspective? You, the GM? The player is having fun (presumably) with their style of play, who are you to dictate their skill level or how they derive their enjoyment?
“But Abulia,” you say, “that’s not what we’re stating.” Actually, it is. Martin’s question asks us, as GMs, to evaluate our players and find that which they are “lacking.”
Now that we’ve determined we have players who are “lacking” skill, we go about making them better players, presumably. Again, who’s to say that: a) your assessment has any validity, b) you’ve any right to label your players, or c) that you should presume to inflict your style of play on them? (“…which skills that they don’t use regularly would you like to see used more often?”)
Can you teach “Develop(ing) Character?” How about teaching a player to “Connect emotionally with your (their) character?”
Why 64? Why not 65? Was 63 not enough? I find it interesting that nowhere on this list is “Having fun.” So are the players assumed to be skilled in having fun? That’s kind of assuming a lot, especially since we have entries for “Doing interesting things” (wha?), “Compromise,” and “Listen to other people.” Can’t we also assume that many of the items on the list are also happening?
Okay, so this is a lot of angst to ingest all at once. I can appreciate that. So what is my philosophy?
First, don’t go putting people in categories. People don’t fit in bins and they don’t wear labels. If you can’t see the danger in this then I don’t know what to tell you. Morally, I consider it “bad.” (Yes, I’m lumping DISC, Myers-Briggs in here, etc.)
Next, I’ve no problem becoming better GMs. In fact, I think it’s a great idea to work together to become better GMs and, by extension, better people. But not at the expense of analyzing our friends and fellow players to extract some better play or gaming experience out of them. You can’t change people; people have to change themselves. Conversely, if your play style doesn’t match that of another player, then find a new group, not a new play style. Neither of you will be happy in the long run.
You know, I’ve run a lot of games in my lifetime. I’ve worked multiple Gen Cons where I, literally, demonstrated games for several days, eight hours a day. Running games for hundreds of total strangers. I never felt the need to label them or dissect their playing style, all I needed to do was look them in the eye and make sure we had one common goal: to have fun. The rest, as corny as it may sound, just falls into place after that.
So what do I expect from my players? I expect them to be themselves. If we can’t find common ground then it’s up to me to find new players, especially if they’re happy with their own gaming style. Changing my gaming style might be a good short-term solution, but that’s all it will ever be.
As for the 64 skills? Frankly, that’s 63 more than I think are necessary.
BTW, the previous was the well thought out version. The “gut reaction, from the hip” version can be found on my blog, Abulia Savant. I’ll warn you now, it’s *very* ranty and I drop the F-bomb more than a few times. It’s meant partly tongue-in-cheek, so don’t too bent out of shape on it. 🙂
Clearly this discussion touched a raw nerve with me…or my medication needs to be turned up. 😉
Interesting list. Several of those could also be considered useful GM skills. I definatly saw a couple that I’m going to work on, both as GM and as player.
As for my group, I just wish they would be a little more proactive sometimes.
Zephyros: I like your skill tree model — that seems like an interesting direction to try. It also sounds like a lot of work, and you’d almost certainly have to build different trees for different games, as well as for different groups. Hrm.
John: Your comment is a good example of adapting Joshua’s list to your own GMing and playing style — it sounds like you know what you want out of your games, which is a great foundation.
Abulia: Your point about “having fun” not making the list is an excellent one — I’m actually going to post again about this tomorrow (briefly, I promise ;)), because I strongly agree with you on that one.
As far as analyzing your players to see what they’re lacking, I don’t look at that as demeaning — I’d love it if my players analayzed me as a GM, and told me what they thought I was lacking. It’d take me down a peg for a bit, but as long as it was well-meant I’d be down with that.
Frankly, I lack quite a bit both as a GM and a player — without a framework to address the things I’d like to be better at, I’d have a much tougher road to improvement.
At the same time, I see the perils of over-analysis (something I’m naturally prone to myself — go figure! ;)).
(I liked the rant version, too. ;))
GilaMonster: Yep, there’s lots of crossover between this list of player skills and its theoretical counterpart for GMs.
I’d say that’s fundamental to any analysis of gaming, since GMs are basically players, just players with a different (but overlapping) set of responsibilities and goals.
what kind of wretched system is it, where you have 64 skills and only (2 + int mod) skill points per level?
It’s also important to note that different GMs might expect different skills in different games. When I run 7th Sea, the game consists of very different activities than when I run Dogs in the Vineyard.
It’s very interesting to see what different folks cite as important skills for them — it’s like a little peephole into the games they run.