Please Care
OOC
I've run hundreds of sessions of Edgewar with dozens of players. I've learned that the two most important ingredients are:
- The players and the GM are all kind to each other.
- The PCs care deeply about the IC issues.
When I'm frustrated as a GM, it usually comes back to #1 or 2. Nothing saps my creativity more than the absence of #2. To put it another way, one of the best ways to be kind to me as the GM (#1) is to care about the IC issues (#2).
As an example, pretend that the original Star Wars movie trilogy is a tabletop campaign. Let's look at the middle of The Empire Strikes Back.
The central themes of Star Wars include family, faith, and standing up to tyranny. The GM makes these themes abundantly clear through the issues the characters experience and talk about. By the middle of the campaign, Luke cares about these things, because his adoptive parents and Obi-wan have been killed by the Empire. Luke is about to learn that Darth Vader is his father. Leia starts the campaign as a leader in the Rebellion. By the middle of the campaign, she's been tortured, her homeworld has been destroyed, and the Rebellion is on the run. Luke and Leia are "all in." But not Han. He says, "Look, I ain’t in this for your revolution. I’m not in it for you, Princess. I expect to be well paid. I’m in it for the money."
Some viewers of Empire might argue that Han's inner life and character arc are more complex than those lines suggest. He does show up for Luke and the Rebellion at the end of Star Wars. In Return of the Jedi, Han volunteers to lead a dangerous mission. As a movie watcher, I love seeing Han become invested.
But as a GM, by the middle of this campaign, I would be frustrated. I would be setting up complex moral dilemmas and pushing the players to respond, especially by role-playing through debates and plans. Does everyone on the second Death Star deserve to die? Is it acceptable to collaborate with criminals in order to defeat the Empire? Can Darth Vader find redemption? Does he even deserve the chance? Han just shrugs. He's cute and a swashbuckler and just too cool to care.
Sometimes in an Edgewar session, in moments of thematic vividness, some PCs just shrug. Their players may have different reasons. They may not feel safe. They may not feel they have enough separation between IC versus OOC, or that other players don't. They may not like role-playing internal party conflict. They may not want to win an argument because then they'll be responsible for making a decision or a plan. They may worry that they must completely agree, as players or characters. They may even worry that there's only one "correct" answer, and that if they make the "wrong" decision or plan, I'll punish the players or PCs. Those are understandable concerns and we should continuously work on them.
But sometimes, a player just isn't paying attention or engaging with the setting, lore, and story. Sometimes their PC's character concept and backstory have weak or no hooks to the central themes and current issues. They may even purposefully lean into some tired tropes of genre fiction, especially emotional detachment. I've seen every flavor of detachment: ironic, academic, scientific, robotic, alien, civilian, amateur, drunk, childlike, etc. Detachment can even spread like a social virus. When some players decide that their PCs are too cool to care, other players become less likely to role-play caring. To be clear, it is a decision to be too cool. Pointing to a character concept or backstory is a cop out.
I've been GMing since 1991. I palpably feel when the experience is sustaining my energy or not. I often set up complex scenarios using real-world themes and strong allegory. My reward is seeing the players energetically engage through role-playing. I want to explore big problems and big ideas, with passion, with my friends. This is fundamental to why I do this.
I love watching The Empire Strikes Back. I would hate GMing it, because Han's player is a dick.
