#19 - How Young is Too Young?

At the Con of the North this year I had a few games with Children. I'm talking under the age of 16. Although I myself am very young I found myself looking across a generation gap. There were three events where I mixed with youths, and found it challenging in different ways to communicate with the kids. A RPG is worthless if there is no way to communicate between the people involved. So I wanted to take time to react.

I'm not expert, I don't have children, and I don't commonly work with them, but this is how it went....

I held a Pokemon game at the Con of the North. Pokemon Master Trainer. It's not a great title - can't hold a candle to the classic Game-Boy's Red & Blue. But the kids liked it enough. A half dozen preteens sat with me at the table rolling dice and throwing Pokeballs. There was some rotten luck at that table. Dice rolls don't seem to reward effort or hope. But I wanted the kids to enjoy themselves.

I'm certain that game was unlike any other Pokemon experience they ever had. Pokemon as a franchise is not well suited to be a board game, and the particular game was a lot more random than most collectors would prefer. There is almost zero skill in that game. The familiar ways a Pokemon Master would utilize water types against rock didn't apply.

One kid in particular had a really rotten show, didn't catch any new Pokemon for 30 minutes. Basically ruining his whole game. Spent every turn thinking this would finally be his time to win big. It seemed very unfair.

I spent a lot of time at that table reminding players that it was their turn and trying to bolster hope as they rolled the die again. As everyone took their chance to battle the Elite four I kept repeating, "roll up - roll up," "Here we go," and "I believe in you." Not much to do on your turn but see the random result.

In the end it was a silly (and poorly designed) kid's game. But, I think everyone enjoyed the highs and lows.

I sure hope they did.

Another pair of events I held, were a RPG coffee and chat seminar. Meant to be a break from the games, instead a brainstorming session; a chance to talk about what we like and struggle with in our games. Children came to these, on two different days. The First went very well, had great participation and creativity from two kids half my age. They had questions ready to go, asked me for advice, and even told me about ideas they had been thinking of. We had a brief improvised game where I made use of a villain one of the Kids invented.

That child even had the attention to mention moments where I misunderstood what he had come up with. He even gave allowance for my adaptation of what he created. It didn't have to be the same as what he intended, and he was comfortable with my creative licence.

His buddy, the 2nd kid in the duo, took on the roll of main protagonist and asked my advice on how to best participate. Both in the game we briefly played at the Convention, and for future games he hoped to be the Narrator of!

From a pair preteens I was much impressed.

My other Seminar didn't go well... I'll never forget this kid, he name was Noah. I'll never forget him, because I was at a loss for what to talk about with him. He had no ideas to share when we sat down, nor had he ever played DND. That isn't such a problem, so long as we make comparisons and share some fiction. Noah knew that this wasn't a game just a launchpad.

But our rocket ship included no fuel.

Noah had no awareness of Middle earth, nor did he know any Greek myths. I was half convinced he had never seen a Disney movie. As I said he never had played DND, and his ignorance of Elves, Dwarves, and Orcs astounded me. The whole seminar was co-opted by Noah as the other attendees tried to help. The whole hour became about Noah making a DND character.

Finally I learned he had read Harry Potter, something we had in common. By this point Noah was dead set on making a "Smart Guy" hero. So I brought him to Player's Handbook pages on Wizards.

Just so WE are all on the same page here, DND Wizards are NOT like Hogwarts Wizards.

Noah eventually did make his Wizard and did make all the key choices a player needs when establishing their PC.

But I wonder where he will go from here... Who will he play with? How will he find his first game?

Now, I'm no child at heart; I don't write this to ask when will a Kid be mature enough to play in your game? I just want to emphasize that a gap in knowledge will emerge when you have people of different histories at the table.

Some of the Adults at my RPG seminars were not very experienced and sometimes felt like they were put on the spot.

These hiccups will come up, I just encourage you to exercise patience. Please consider how you previously felt "too old" or "too young."

It might help bridge the gap!

#18 - 2nd Opinions

I decided to write today about an issue I myself should be more attentive of. Any creative person needs inspiration, and builds off of works that come before them. I should be paying attention to what the larger Role-playing community is doing, and to the games that people are holding. I don't do this enough, but it is January, it is time to hold ourselves to some resolutions.

The simple truth is I don't read enough, but I should. I don't watch enough you-tube videos of other RPGs, nor do I expose myself to enough new ideas and great players. Today I wanted to mention two others and ways I'm trying to learn from they.

First is Seth Skorkowsky.

Who I will link to here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQs8-UJ7IHsrzhQ-OQOYBmg

Specifically about Seth I wanted to bring up his "RPG Social Contract." Simply put, Seth believe the responsibility between a GM and their Players is to ensure everyone has fun. The Players grant GM control over the narrative so that the GM gives everyone a good time. Fun is key to Seth, and to the games he makes and all the adventures he writes. If they were not fun we wouldn't play. So always and forever, that needs to be central to the design of the games.

Additionally Seth recognizes that players and the games they play are imperfect. He is aware that things will not go as planned, and good intentions do not guarantee good results. Yet, perfection need not be the expectation, just the good faith effort to make what isn't working better. To learn from our mistakes and remember that this is a game. That we are playing because we want to be play.

Beyond Seth, I'll mention another YouYube personality, one I don't know as well. That is Cody from Taking20,

Link here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCly0Thn_yZouwdJtg7Am62A

I haven't seen as much of his content, but like me he seems to emphasize being self critical. To question why you are having the games played the way you always have. To resolve issues that come up by asking some elemental questions. "Was this a fluke or a mistake?" "Could we have seen this coming?" and "Did we how did we want things to go anyway?"

Part of learning from our mistakes is understanding that they were. This need not be something we do alone! By definition a RPG is something we do not do alone! Things only happen because we decide they do.

In a fictional world of infinite possibilities, how can we say that something was inevitable? That this was how it was supposed to go? I look forward to watching more of what he has to say because I also have these questions and comments front and center.

That's it for my commentary on ways you can improve. But what good would it do me not to ask for your favorite guides and lessons. Are you a fan of someone you like learning from? Reach out on my contact page and let me know how you keep trying to sharpen your skills.

#16 - In Praise of DND

I had a debate with a fellow player recently. It all started when I requested joining his new DND game. My pal was happy enough to accept me, but he did raise a concern, "I thought you didn't like Dungeons and Dragons."

Well, its complicated.

But I didn't back out of my offer to join the game, I wanted to participate. On that day, as I will today, I offer my single greatest praise of DND. The game is robust!

When I say robust I think of my High School statistics class. I think of sample sizes, and the more data you can get for your question the stronger an answer you will have. This is what it means to be robust; strength in numbers.

This is an understated part of what makes DND a great game. The people I know who love it, compliment its variety and the opportunity for creativity. How much room there is to play around within that system. Why wouldn't there be room to play around? the game has existed for 40+ years! The community is millions strong. There is a continuity from one group of players to another. Even if the campaigns hold no similarity in settings, or evil-doers, the players will likely make similar characters. Their spells and equipment will be familiar from one hobby center to next hang-out. There is a symmetry from one game to the hundredth game - even after decades!

DND is like a stock or broth. The flavor that it brings to your stews, sauces, and dishes is so strong that it allows every chef to experiment and personalize it to their taste.

Ravenloft makes a perfect example of this strong flavor. Ravenloft as a module or setting blends two different types of adventures into a fantastic mixture. That quest to slay Strahd is unmistakably Gothic, while at the same time a bold sword and sorcery tale! A perfect crawler and horror mixture.

This robustness of DND, the long history, makes it one of the greatest games of all time.

So yeah, I want to play.

#15 - Full Force

1991 - The World Series between the Atlanta Braves and the Minnesota Twins.

The Braves player Lonnie Smith was forced to move on Home Base and charged at the Twins catcher Brian Harper. Although Smith was moving with extreme speed towards Harper, the Twins Catcher did not back down. A famous collision occurred and Smith was out, preventing a run and thus the Twins winning the game.

Later on, Smith and Harper were photographed shaking hands. They had reconnected, to ask each other if there were any injuries from the collision. Harper's team, the Twins, won the World Series that year. The Twins won all 7 home games.

I only recently learned this story. I myself was born in 1991. After the whole affair was over. But I was looking at the metaphor in my last essay and I didn't want to leave you all with a bad impression. More specifically I didn't want to indicate that the GM, or the players should be punitive in the game.

Nor should they be, outside of the game. What I wanted to focus on was sportsmanship.

Baseball is famous for sportsmanship. There are easy enough ways to see this. Players shaking hands, or when the whole team rushes out of the dugout to celebrate a win. Often times the winning and loosing team meetup on the field after the game. We may only see the players from the bleachers, but we trust they respect each other. We know that they appreciate the good show and effort from the other side.

In an RPG you may be at ends with the person across from you. You may be working with them. They may be your friend or a stranger, but you are not merely playing a game, you are participating in all the activities that go beyond the game.

If we were ball players, we are not merely on the field throwing pitches and catching balls. We are also there for the spectators. We are there for the home team, the away team, for teams not even on the field, and for the folks watching at home.

What poor ballplayers we would be, if we did not try our best, and expect the best from those around us?

That is the lesson I want to remember from Harper and Smith. They didn't give 50%. Nor was it 80% or only 90%. They did their best!

Not only that, even after, and one team was all but about to win, and another to loose, they continued to play. They continued to be good sports. 

Play for fun. For your fun, and the fun of the others on and off the field with you. Do your best and expect it from the home and away team.

#12 Breaking the Rules

In my previous article I wanted to impress upon players and narrators that the rules of a RPG have to help the game. If they are not helpful they should not be there. Here we get into shaving off the unhelpful bits of rules.

My most successful role-playing group shares the belief: "less is more" when it comes to the rules. These are the "Soviets," if you have been keeping up with my blog. We've played several different games now, with different rules and we like to see open space on character sheets, and rule packets under 10 pages.

The key appeal for not having rules is freedom. If we have not already decided that A will cause B, then when A occurs we can decide what is best to follow. We are free because we don't have to abide by what is written, then we can adjust the game as we progress. There is obvious value to that.

But lets discuss when we decide to go against the rules, and not simply leave something open for later. A great breaking of the rules is Destiny. If you recall, I mentioned in Essay #7 that destined events are interruptions to normal game play. Destined events are not part of the normal rally of choice and consequence. Destined events may very well also be outside of the rules.

As with Luke Skywalker and his proton torpedoes. I don't really think a die roll is necessary when he makes his final shot at the death star. He chose to trust in the force, and that should be a reason to ignore the rules.

Thinking further on Destiny, I want to encourage players to think of ways that they can also break the rules. Sometimes in games I play, I see players looking over their character sheets and they don't see a relevant skill for what they want to do. I'm not a fan of players deciding they want to use such an such a skill. I would rather the role-playing be seamless. Player decides on an action and tries to find a way to make it work.

If you are a player go ahead and announce your intention of doing something. Whatever your skills, the cooperation between you, your teammates, and the GM can find a way to make it happen.

If you want to toss you crumpled piece of paper into the recycling bin you don't need to have a "throwing" skill. Simply saying that is what you want to do is enough notice to everyone there that you will use whatever talents your character has to achieve that end. You could had it off to your teammate for the alley-oop. You could mock "throw" it by holding our your hand and "running" the motion of the paper flying through the air. Or you could just use telekinesis.

This may seem like a dumb example, but I will remind you, that role-playing games are make believe. If you want to hold your hand out the car window and fly, lets figure out a way to make that happen.

Of course I'm not suggesting that a character can flap their arms around and fly. But just as much as we can dream of taking to the skies, a character can explore ways to get up up and away. No telekenisis required.

For players and GMs, please don't limit yourselves by what the books say. Reward the creativity of your fellow players and of the narration. 

It will make sure anything is possible.

#11 - Making the Rules Work for You.

At the Con last weekend I spoke with a player in my upcoming RPG. It will be set in the Soviet Union and part of a series of games we've formed through compromise. I would say we've had success in designing our own rule sets for our unique adventures. Last year, we has the post apocalyptic "Fallout: Twin Cities" game, and more recently finished the Yukon Horror. These I play with some of my good friends from the "JB's Games" over there on the website. Both of those games and my Soviet one will have homemade rules. The character details in this adventure have been quite bare bones.

While discussing the rules at the Con, I tried to clarify my rules on "Perks," a way to give certain special abilities to heroes. My player, Erik, wanted his character to have a competitive athlete perk. Which would bolster his efforts for physical performance when he had someone to go up against. That sounded great and would be a good addition to the shared fiction. But, I wasn't sure what that would mean for the game. If you recall, our rules are sparse.

The game has only 3 types of character details, Attributes, Skills, and Perks. I was explaining to my fellow that I didn't want Perks to merely be an increase to the other two. If a Perk is a simple increase to another Attribute, it doesn't make that Perk special at all. So too if the Perk was too much like a Skill. For a few minutes I ran some ideas past Erik to think of other ways to convey his Perk. I wanted something qualitative, something more creative than the simple increases above.

But, Erik wasn't satisfied by any of this. Instead he reminded me that he needed the rules to work for him, and in this case he wanted a concrete reliable increase. He wanted something quantitative, something numerical.

Eventually, her persuaded me. Then, I made some notes for how his competitive athleticism will impact the game. Don't worry it will be a fixed quantitative boost.

The larger story here today is to illustrate why we have the rules here in the first place. As a child you might have pretended to have a tea party and in your young bustling imagination anything goes. Whatever sort of tea you wanted you had, every flavor of jam tasted great on plastic toast. In the shared fiction of a role-playing game it gets more contractual. Erik's character is a great athlete, this could stand on its own. But, when he goes up against another star runner Erik's hero will need a measurement of how fast he is. We have rules, character sheets, attributes, and skills to keep track of these things.

In a tea party everybody can be a princess. In an RPG it often necessary to know exactly what that means.

Some games have more rules than others. Some rule systems ignore different things. A hero's social class is not relevant in most D&D adventures for example. In some games being a Duke and not an Earl might have a big impact on the game. Rules can change the way a game plays out and the way the character's behave. Ultimately, leaving things in or out is up to you, and the other people you are playing with.

My quick advice is that if it is worth measuring it is worth a rules notation.

#10 - Meta-Game Thinking

I was speaking with a friend of mine, one who doesn't participate in RPGs, about my hobby. I began to brainstorm with him what manner of a role-playing experience he might find exciting. We tossed around idea, but ultimately he said that he was turned off by the fact that in the RPG, whoever it was he became for the game, he would know that he would only be assuming, or at the best guessing, what they would think feel and believe, or how they would behave.

This is true. Try as we might, to imagine out lives otherwise, or to create a simulated experience, we will only ever be pretending, playing a game. The levels of complexity to our make believe, the depth, the details, or even the moral of the story, don't cover up the fact that we are participating in a story.

An interactive story, a story were both the actors and the narrators have power to decide what happens. These are aspects that appeal to every role-player.

But it is a game none the less.

We have to recognize the nature of the fiction we create, and we have keep it at arms length.

If you assume the role of another, you are a player acting as someone else, and doing your best not to act like you are acting like someone else.

This is where the magic happens. I haven't any scientific understanding of how to pull this off, it is more poetic.

Still, doubling back to the point that you must recognize you are acting in a game, but not treat it like a game. If you were to treat it like a game, you would be engaging in meta-game thinking. Which is where you as the character in the game know that you are merely in a game.

This would be similar to if you went about in your own life as if it were a simulation and not reality. Certainly this is an interesting thought experiment, but I haven't met a person who takes the idea seriously. Or at least no one has ever bothered to explain that they do believe they are in a facsimile of reality and not actual reality.

If they did they would be engaging in meta-reality thinking, which is meta-game thinking but about our lives out of the game, whereas meta-game thinking is thoughts of the player, having their character behave like the character is in a game.

Now, there is space for a playing a character who does believe that they are in a game, or a simulation and acting like they do know that their surrounding are fictional. But, this still sits with the above problem of only guessing at how they would think feel and believe, without actually having a parallel belief outside of the game.

That is unless you yourself actually believe your reality is a simulation.

If I have lost you, please don't feel bad. Again, I don't know of anybody who takes these ideas seriously in the “real” world. Taking it seriously in the game world is easier to think about, because we are all aware of the illusion, but it is essential not the break it, if you do you stop role-playing.

I will say there is nothing wrong with playing a game and treating it like a game while you are playing that game, but that wouldn't be role-playing. You would merely be playing a game.

Not role-playing in a role-playing game is like watching a movie and treating all the characters like the actors that portray them. Interesting perhaps, but please don't interrupt the shared fiction by treating it as only fiction.

The unique nature of role-playing allows people to create fiction together, and to interact with at the characters they wish to be. What comes out of it will always be a work of the imagination, but many imaginary things feel more real to us, that whatever simulation we are all walking around in in “real” life.

#9 - What Attracts you to Role-playing

I recently attended a meeting of fellow role-players. We had met to organize and share ideas for new role-playing games. A fair amount of old ideas were also given; our favorite games. At the meeting I interrupted business as usual, with an important question? What attracts us to role-playing?

This may sound similar to my earlier comments, but it is important enough a question to repeat. There are numerous adventure games out there that allow you to become a powerful hero. Acting as someone else isn't unique to role-playing, nor is taking command of life and death decisions.

I mentioned before, how powerful players are when they make decisions. But this isn't so unique. We could play monopoly and have just as many important decisions. We don't need to change our mannerisms and adopt a character to become real-estate tycoons. Buying and selling is party of Monopoly, but we don't need to be other people. Why would it be so different to act otherwise?

Lets talk about acting for a minute, actors know empathy and emoting is essential to portraying a character. Successful actors are those that make us, the audience, feel what they want us to feel. Some actors are world famous for doing this job. Famous for making us believe they are someone they are not. They are pretending, adopting roles for a performance. I don't pretend to be a good actor on stage, but I always try to role-play in even the most basic of games I play. Whether I pretend to be a businessman or an action hero, I enjoy creating a character. I enjoy this acting, convincing others the story isn't "my" story, but of the character. It adds to the game, and makes it something that Monopoly can never be. A role-playing game isn't just a game because it is also shared fiction.

So I asked around. I went to this meeting and posed the question. What attracts you to role-playing. Why do more than just play a game, and convince others you are in the story.

The people had decided to come out on a Tuesday to spread their ideas. Clearly, they want more than a simple handshake deal over boardwalk and Marvin Gardens. They could have played a game without out acting, and they could have tried acting on stage without a game.

So I asked them. Some people admired the social aspects of role-playing. They feel connected to their friends when they are making decisions together. Role-playing has an unfinished script, and working through problems together is a big draw. Bigger still if you work through the issues from another perspective! An actor in a movie will present the best form of a character whose decisions were already made. Role-playing goes beyond this, because we are not merely displaying the decisions of another; we are also creating those decisions. Creating them as we discover who it is we are being. The woman I spoke to said she felt much more connected to her friends when they had to both decide who they were, and how best to proceed. This kind of debate was her favorite way of socializing.

Another latched onto the idea of creativity. Some of those present enjoyed making conventional fiction and wanted to test their ideas. Share them not only on page but in a role-playing group. They felt particularly creative when exploring the rules of a game. Unlike a Monopoly, Role-playing games have no clear goal. Whatever Goals there are, are created by the characters in the game. These characters are interpreted and portrayed by the players. This experimentation pushes the limits of what could be imagined. Adds endless variety to fiction, when the ending is always over the horizon.

These were Interesting and important answers all around. Now, I want to put that back on you. I have already explained why I think Role-playing is important for everyone to do at least some of. It is an exercise in empathy, creativity, and decisiveness. An exercise in considering the best course of action, and realizing what your purposes are. These are essentials skills for everyone, whether they enjoy playing games or not. To build up our skills, to create interest in your own desire to go the distance I ask you to consider, “What attracts you to this? Why should you role-play?”

Sadly, there isn't much advice I can give. I cannot / would not answer this for you. Rather, this article ends with homework. Feel free to respond back, let us all know!

#5 - Beware of Mary-Sue

Before I begin I will admit there is significant debate over what is and is not a Mary Sue. About who is and who is not, and about how best to explain it. Let me jump over all that and specify a kind of Mary Sue; perhaps the worst kind, an unbelievable character.

Fiction isn't meant to correspond to reality. It is only by our willingness to believe what is happening that a story proceeds. We take the events of Harry Potter on faith. It “happened” because the author, Joanne K. Rowling, said so. Like a train, the story chugs along, and impossible things occur one after another. We believe these, we suspend disbelief and trust in her, and our own imagination.

This trust is broken by the introduction of something unbelievable. If, for example, Santa Claus showed up in a Harry Potter book. Santa Claus pulls his reindeer, Rudolf, out of his magic sack and threw it in front of a curse to save Dumbledore. If this happened, we would have some questions. We might believe in Santa Claus. We might enjoy reading Harry Potter, but there is something unbelievable about Santa making an appearance at Hogwarts.

The greatest problem with this kind of unbelievable people and occurrences is that it is easy to do. It really isn't that hard to think of our fictional heroes as larger than life, or even godlike. But, we can't put these impossible people into a story they are mismatched for.

Consider with me the worlds smartest woman. Done, we have imagined her. Now imagine a movie where the world's smartest woman falls in love with the pastry chef down the street. There is some mismatch here, this pairing begs too many questions. A romance movie where a woman falls in love with a neighbor is believable, and has been done before. But, it doesn't require and is hampered by larger than life detail. What does she see in the chef? how did they meet in a meaningful way? Why do we believe she is the smartest woman in the world? More importantly, how does it serve the fiction to be the smartest?

We might ignore these things in a different story, the same way we might ignore the detail that Santa always wears red. But, this detail in the romance is out of place. Characters need context. Fiction can be anything, but that doesn't mean it should. We may want to make our heroes gods. But godly characters need god like responsibilities.

To reinforce this idea, that an extraordinary character needs to be in an extraordinary story; lets imagine a commonly accused Mary Sue, Superman. Superman is clearly impossible, he is purposefully perfect. One of his more unbelievable cohorts is Jimmy Olson.

Superman can bend steel, can out-run a rocket, heck, he can fly! Jimmy takes pictures for a newspaper. There is a problem with this pairing. Jimmy Olson is described as “Superman's Pal,” but the idea that Superman would elect to take Jimmy on an adventure with him is ridiculous. Jimmy isn't prepared to accomplish even 1% of the things Superman can. Jimmy should get killed in any issue when the man of Steel decides to confront armed gun men with his pal in tow. If jimmy Olson survives every encounter with horrible monsters, and giant robots, we beg some questions. How is he so lucky? When does he do his job? How does he get home after being flown to the top of a building for his own safety?

If I wanted to put Superman in a story with Jimmy Olson, I should focus on the mismatch. Superman doesn't schedule interviews for the daily planet, and Jimmy doesn't lift cars. But if Jimmy was interviewing Superman while Superman was saving lives we have a better pairing. It is unrealistic to believe Superman would fight crime with Jimmy. If Jimmy is an innocent bystander however, while Superman is being super, we keep the believably.

Jimmy takes pictures of Superman for the weekly edition, but suddenly a bomb goes off! Superman needs to rush to the city's aid, and Jimmy needs to score a scoop. At the scene of the explosion, armed gunmen attempt to fire on Superman but he is bullet-proof. Jimmy hides behind a brick wall trying to get a closer look. A thug spots Jimmy and aims to kill. Superman flies in and stands in the line of fire! Jimmy yells out thanks, Superman smiles as he rips the assault rifle out of the bad guy's hand, before snapping it in two! Suddenly, Jimmy calls out, Superman look sharp! as a bus-load of school kids hurtles into the fray.

Superman is impossible, Jimmy is not. But so long as Superman sticks to doing the impossible and Jimmy sticks to doing the ordinary, balance remains. I will categorically deny that Superman is a Mary Sue so long as he stays in a “super” story. Let Clark Kent write the editorials.

The last thing I want to mention is about that World's smartest smartest woman from earlier. We can believe there in her, and we can believe that she will fall in love with anybody if its in the right story.

That is where I leave it to you. Tell me, why did the world's smartest woman fall in love with the pastry chef down the street? Providing some context, and essentials for your details is being aware of Mary Sue.

#4 - 1st Time Player

Because a role-playing game needs multiple players for a single GM, you will probably spend most of your role-playing career as a player. My experience in the RPG community is that most role-players are interested in being a GM. Only rarely can they garner the interest in their pet projects and adventure ideas to get the show on the road. It is easy to understand that when you are the GM in a RPG, you have great control in what will occur in the shared story. No one else will have the freedom and tools to create the drama like you do. But! In defense of player the players, the actors. Players will have just as much impact, if not more, on what will happen as the GM.

In my for “1st time GMs” essay, I wanted to make it clear that a role-playing game is a shared story. GMs uses their position in the game to create the conflict and to establish what challenges the heroes will face. More importantly GMs will judge whether players are successful. This is all well and good, but the Players have an equal and opposite power in the RPG. While the GM has freedom to say, "The time bomb will go off in 2 minutes!" The Players are the one who make decisions for what happens next!

This is the unique role of the players, something the GM must not do for them! The GM has control over the script, the settings, and the extras in our drama. The Players however, are dynamic have complete freedom over what they choose to do. That doesn't mean they can do whatever they want, there are consequences for actions. Deciding to do something doesn't mean it will work or have a positive result. But, as a player you are the only one with the power and the responsibility to face every challenge the drama throws at your. If you play well, you will overcome them all!

This is important to remember because we often speak in hyperbole as players. As role-players we draw within the lines. We understand that it is a team game, and we sometimes diminish our characters to be just our role in the team. Our job in the game is the healer, not the decision maker. Heck, common tropes of RPGs encourage us to do this, we pick our characters to be: Tanks, Glass cannons, Grease monkeys. Now it is only natural to divide responsibility and create a well rounded team. If were to play a space adventure game, you can certainly be the pilot. But, you are much more than the driver of the bus, just as a soldier is more than a walking machine gun.

Becoming more than a vehicle for action is making those choices. This is your power as a player, and no GM worth their dice will try to take it away from you. A good GM will foster your dynamic power, encourage you to make choices. Choices can be big and small, but while a Hero can persuade an non-player character to see things their way, no one can make you do something. Persuading the players is never a die roll, it is a discussion between the movers and shakers or drama! Players arguing among themselves is a great way for them to all recognize that they have the power to make choices. They each can channel that power to a constructive outlet. Four players could go four different directions, but it would be far more rewarding to hear each other out, and agree on one vector.

This is the best advice I can give a new player. Once you have identified why you want to role-play and what your character's purpose is, all you need to do is make the important choices. There are no mechanics or mathematics for this invisible portion of the game, it is the real magic of RPGs. Once you are comfortable making these choices for yourself, and your character, you are ready for the role-playing world.