I would personally recommend that more game masters out there embrace that spirit! Because far too many folks fight their players tooth and nail to try to make their games as small as possible, and I have rarely seen anything stifle player interest and creativity as thoroughly as those efforts.
 |
| Go on... let it out already! |
For folks who don't want to miss out on any of my upcoming releases and news, make sure that you subscribe to my weekly newsletter! Additionally, if you want to help me keep doing what I'm doing, consider become a Patreon patron today! Or if you're just looking for something fun to add to your table, you might want to take a look at 10 Fantasy Villages, or my supplement for Ironfire, the first city in my new fantasy setting available for both Pathfinder and DND 5th Edition!
What I Do (And Don't) Mean About "Small" Games
To eliminate confusion, I'm going to talk about what I do and don't mean regarding what a "small" game is. Because I'm sure there are some GMs out there who think I'm talking about giving their players powerful magic items, letting them have high-level characters, or giving them expansive resources (servants, castles, mercenary companies, etc.) just because the players want it, and it fits their backstories.
But I'm not talking about any of that.
When I say that too many GMs put in white-knuckled effort to keep their games small, I mean that they restrict as many starting options as they can in order to fit everything within narrow boxes. I'm talking about GMs who will tell you that elves can't be barbarians, that orcs and half-orcs can't be nobles, and that drow, tengu, or tieflings are right out because they, "Don't want to deal with them." These are the GMs who, even though they're running modern games, will re-write the rules to discourage use of firearms so that players either won't (or effectively can't) use them. The GMs who, even if the setting is strange, bizarre, and fantastical, want to limit as much stuff as they can so the players only have a handful of real choices when it comes to making their characters and telling their stories.
 |
| But why, you may ask? |
Academically, I understand why some GMs do this. Generally speaking there are two reasons:
- They want to exert some sort of control on the toolbox that players have available to them. They might be prepared for barbarians, wizards, and sorcerers, but they don't also want to have to deal with psionic nonsense that follows its own rules, a character race that's highly resistant to certain abilities, etc.
- They want to control what kind of story is being told, and what sort of elements are present in it.
For the record, the second one is a way bigger problem, and a far more common reason that this happens in my experience.
You Can Change The Game (But Your Players Need To Know)
The rule most people cite here is that we can all change the rules of any game we want to as long as it gears it toward the experience we want to have. And I am totally in favor of doing this... what most people seem to leave out, though, is that if a GM is going to change the rules or the setting, that needs to be done with the informed consent of their players for it to be fair.
And there should be a conversation around it... especially if this is going to be a problem for your game going forward.
 |
| Everybody's got deal breakers. |
As an example, if you want to run a Pathfinder game in the core setting of Golarion without black powder, guns, gunslingers, or any of the weird tech that exists in that core setting, then you need to tell your players about this change up-front. This is especially true if there is no canonical reason for the change to happen in setting, such as rewinding the timeline so the gunworks in Alkenstar hasn't been built yet, so of course there aren't widespread firearms. You can limit the race and class choices if you want to, and even declare certain feats and spells are off-limits. You can state that elves are no longer aliens, that gnomes are not fey creatures, or anything else that you want.
What you might find, however, is that your players are a lot less enthusiastic about your game if you do that. It's even possible they'll decide to walk away, and wait for a game that allows them full access to the breadth of options in the published material rather than play with options they want grayed-out.
So the next time you go to make a change in your game, stop and ask yourself whether it broadens the options players have available to them, or if it shrinks them. Because I can tell you this right now... if you let your players have the toys they want, and if you let them really go for it when it comes to their characters, you will never have to chase them down to ask if they're coming to game. They will be there, ready to roll, and eager to play because you worked with them to help provide the experience they wanted.
And sometimes that's worth a little extra planning, or a slightly convoluted explanation on your part as the game master.
Also, for additional reading, consider some of the following:
Like, Follow, and Stay in Touch!
That's all for this week's Moon Pope Monday. To stay on top of all my content and releases, make sure you subscribe to my newsletter at the bottom of the page!
Again, for more of my work, check out my Vocal archive, and stop by the YouTube channel Dungeon Keeper Radio. Or if you'd prefer to read some of my books, like my cat noir thriller Marked Territory, my sword and sorcery novel Crier's Knife or my latest short story collection The Rejects, then head over to My Amazon Author Page!
To stay on top of all my latest releases, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and now Pinterest as well! To support my work, consider Buying Me a Ko-Fi, or heading to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page to become a regular, monthly patron. That one helps ensure you get more Improved Initiative, and it means you'll get my regular, monthly giveaways as a bonus!
