Writing Every Day 04: The Danger of Author Voice

When I'm writing essays, I worry how the reader interprets what I'm writing. Often I feel like the reader will misinterpret my intent and think I believe what I've written is an absolute. That's not the case. You can almost always add an unspoken "in my opinion" appended to a statement I make, particularly when I talk about roleplaying games.

In my opinion (there, I'm front-loading it this time), roleplaying games are pretty personal things. Not things that need to be kept private, but something that works for you when it works for you, and how it works for you. Some Game Masters are comfortable only when running a game within clear bounds, while others prefer a more freeform experience. Some of us do funny voices, others despise it. We gravitate to the style of play we enjoy and are comfortable with, and a GM's style of running a game can be as individual as the stories he or she chooses to tell.

What does this have to do with the author voice? Great question! Some players take what the GM tells them with the same degree of absolutism I'm concerned people think my writing suggests. This goes beyond Rule Zero, the idea that the GM is the ultimate authority when running a game and his or her word is law. I don't have an issue with that. What concerns me is when that perspective restricts how players interact with the world.

When a GM describes a situation, they are laying down the rules of that scene. Is it dark, is it bright, indoors or out, and so forth. Once those statements are out in the open, all the players have points of common knowledge about the scene. I've encountered players who then treat the situation as if those are the only things about the scene. If something hasn't been described at the outset, these players go through a quick session of twenty questions trying to figure out what other options they have in the scene. "Is there a big rock here, is it large enough for me to take cover behind, can I reach it this round," and on and on.

Once in a while, I run across a player who takes a different approach. Rather than waiting for absolutes to come down from the GM, they simply state the kind of action they want to perform, like, "I run to the nearest boulder or tree large enough to take cover behind." Sometimes the GM needs to clarify the situation further, such as telling the player that there aren't any such pieces of cover near enough to reach this round but close enough to reach by next round, in order to preserve the intent of the scene. If it doesn't interfere with the scene, I suggest just rolling with the punches. If it doesn't break anything, letting a player walk to a street side noodle vendor to blend in while he cases a building not only helps build the scene for everyone else, it takes some of the pressure off you.

This can be thought of as a part of the Rule of Yes, a position that states the GM should affirm suggestions the players offer up. There are more involved discussions about this rule, like the Rule of Yes, And/Yes But where the GM takes the player's inclusion and uses it to raise the stakes. ("Yes, you run behind the boulder and the security guards fan out into cover of their own," or, "Yes, you step up to the noodle counter but one of the mayor's bodyguards is sitting at the counter.")

Interestingly, the players I encounter who are most willing to treat my games this way are kids. I've been lucky enough to run games for younger players at conventions on multiple occasions, and by far they are the most willing to add details to the scene. I like it when a player treats an encounter's details as a starting point, not the end all, be all, of the world.