[D&D 3.5] "I don't play for endings" (way too long)
Grinning Moon:
Oh, ho, MAN; have I ever got to say something here. Callan, dude... how could you even stand 'playing' like this for as long as you did? That takes some real fortitude, though not the kind I'd envy having.
I think I ran into a GM trying to run a game this way one time in all of ever (of course, now that I think about it, I usually wind-up being the GM... and I'm pretty sure this was also the only time I was going to sit down and play a GM'd RPG where I wasn't the GM. Which I now scratch my head at, but anyway...). It wasn't even that long ago - about three years, I believe (I'd just turned 20, moved to the city and started poking around for RPG groups in local stores). The GM's name was Sean, and I didn't know him or his play group very well (we'd more or less just met the night prior to the game being run). He was going to kick-off a d20 Modern campaign.
It began as the very same idea as what's been said here; GM has us following a pre-planned, completely linear plot (actually, since I hadn't encountered this before, I thought it was kind of fun at first. Though the novelty quickly began to wane...), he invoked 'special GM privileges' if we did something that he felt would knock us off track or if he got frustrated at how easily we dispatched certain minions (this normally frustrates me immediately to the point of finding something else to do - but, in this case, I thought it was tolerable for the 'greater sake' of the linear plot - the story of which was at least interesting. A benefit that Callan wasn't even afforded), and finally - the real deal-breaker for me - when I requested the rulebook (if I recall correctly, it was to read-up on some of the firearm combat rule intracacies), Sean said 'no'.
Now, this is part of my personality: I don't just sit around doing boring things, even if that means I have to be a party-pooper. I also don't just take insults (and I felt pretty insulted by Sean's response) without saying something, even if that means there's going to be an uncomfortable moment.
I didn't lose my temper, start an argument or otherwise create a confrontation. I just told Sean the truth. "Man, I've got to be honest - I'm not having any fun." I think that those were, perhaps, the wisest words to ever come out of my mouth.
Now, I didn't know Sean, and I pretty much just assumed he was some asshat, 'I don't want you messing with none of my things' power-tripping geek. So, as I said that stuff, I just began grabbing my die, rolling-up my sheet and pushing-out my chair...
...But my assumption, as it turns-out, was dead wrong.
"Oh. I'm really sorry. Is there something you usually do that makes the game more fun for you?"
So I pull my chair back in, smooth my sheet out, get the die out of my pocket, and talk. And TALK. It turns-out that nobody else was having fun either (Sean least of all, since his story that he worked so hard on wasn't delivering on the level he wanted it to - he wanted to use it to 'show-off' to me, the new guy) because we all sort-of 'assumed' a social contract was in place... but, I mean, of COURSE there wasn't, because not a single one of us bothered to mention what we would be doing to make the game fun. We were too busy making uber l33t robo-gangsters to discuss something so trivial as 'fun'.
Sean is actually a really fantastic human being and roleplayer. We just had to communicate properly. After we'd done that, the campaign actually kicked-off again with a lot of enthusiasm and wound-up being very memorable.
I know the situations are different, Callan, and maybe Chris (I assume you know him better than I knew Sean at the time) really IS just an asshat... but it doesn't look like you tried to communicate with him. It's great that you kept your hostile thoughts in your head, but you really should've said SOMETHING. Something polite and something even-toned, yes - but Chris can't read your mind, and he can't know for sure that you aren't having fun if you don't say so. Next time - be honest with them. Tell them you're not having fun.
Maybe they'll just flip you off, sure. Then you might want to consider why you bother hanging with them in the first place (they clearly aren't worth your time). Or, maybe they'll discuss the matter with you, and it'll make future sessions better for everybody.
Joel P. Shempert:
Hi, Callan!
Quote from: Callan S. on January 22, 2008, 02:39:38 PM
"who decides when the rule is used?" doesn't really cut to the bone, even if I said it. Because any old answer could be given and if I stop playing - there's no logical connection there as to why I stopped. Perhaps a moral code thing, but no logical connection.
I was thinking of this question being more of a gateway, an opening of further dialogue. Like, the answer could be "oh, uh. . .I guess the GM decides." And you could probe that further: "so what can players reasonably expect from the GM in terms of consistency and stability?" and so forth. Or perhaps the answer would be "Well, of course, anyone can decide to invoke it." And again with the probing: "Really? Could I decide that my PC's attack should ignore an NPC's defense, 'cause it would be more fun or tell a better story?"
I dunno, this is definitely a debate sort of scenario, i.e. NOT an open-minded discussion among freethinking equals, but a clash of entrenched positions. So I'm not sure what kind of effect I'd expect or want it to have; accord is unlikely, understanding a bit dicey, and polarization rather probable. But there is some appeal to me in everyone knowing where I stand even if it divides us (though often my debate, like yours, is internal).
Maybe a more functional version would be "Who decides? Oh, the GM? Well, I personally don't like that, because. . ." Of course this looks like your:
Quote from: Callan S. on January 22, 2008, 02:39:38 PM
However, politely asking "Oh, so method X is part of this game? Ah, didn't realise, sorry about that, my mistake I didn't mean to join a game with that. I'll just head out and watch some DVD's"
. . .but the key difference is that I'm looking for ways to discuss what I want out of a game, my desires and dissatisfactions both, in a way that doesn't involve quitting. :) I think my current group may be beyond salvage (as per the other thread), but I'd still like to develop a robust set of conversational and behavioral tools for addressing this functionally in future groups.
Peace,
-Joel
Callan S.:
Hi Grinning Moon,
Hooo, let me cast back, back through the mysts of time. I could say it's the gaps between games that make me forget, or the art of illusionism adding one just sucky thing at a time so as not to break the camels back. Or the going there for the social catch up. Or a bunch of other trivia.
But what's sad is it's trust - not in Chris or anyone else, but in that games are actually fun. Just as an idea - one pretty well supported by chess, or frisbee, or monopo...well, frisbee and snakes and ladders and shoot 'em up video games, and so on.
Do you remember the fable of stone soup? Where the guy basically cons everyone into adding an ingrediant - and the soups fantastic in the end, but only cause they thought stone soup by itself was going to be great?
I do not want to have a chat with everyone to make it a really fun game - I want the soup I paid for. The soup I trusted was there. The basic unit of trust that you give money, you get some sort of product. So I say FUCK making this stone soup good! I have sat and I have waited patiently for the product to pay, and it kept acting like it would. But it is flawed. What's worse is that if I waved the companies responsibility to actually earn their money and we had a good old chat to get some fun, those flaws would still freaking undermine the work we could do, until every one of them is ironed OUT. Not only do they not provide a product, if you accept that you still have to fight to get their monkey off your back!
I've spoken with Daniel about making a whole new game (though that's fallen to the back burner, but simply because he didn't want the gamism I thought he did all these years). I'm fine with talking about how to get our fun in a game...that were making. Of course when it comes to design, I absolutely agree alot of talk is needed. But a purchased product is another matter.
I know alot of people take it as 'yeah, of course you do that' these days that everyone has to have a big creative chat before you can play, including at the forge. It's simply not true, unless the instructions say 'Sit around and have a big creative chat'. If the instructions don't tell you you need to do this, but you need to do it to play, the game is flawed. It doesn't matter how much fun you have, it's treating a flawed product as if its a good one. That wont be healthy.
Oh, and I'm a sucker - see up above where I say I broke open the books looking for the poison rules. I'm just a bit of a sucker. Also Chris didn't ask for any advice (in your example, Sean basically did). Honestly, alot of advice material at the forge will burn a mans cherised RP ideals to the ground. But that can't happen unless he asks first - I've learnt that from forge threads - people will only absorb something related to their question. Until they ask, it's water off a ducks back.
Ron Edwards:
That's a strong, thought-provoking post, Callan. I think I agree with a lot of it.
One thing that strikes me is the "big creative chat" criticism. My thinking is that a pre-game conversation does best to serve the same purpose it does for any other activity, whether it's formal or informal. That purpose is best described as getting on the same page.
I remember when I played volleyball for fun years ago ... one thing you learned to find out, and it was usually through informal and unconstructed conversations, was how ruthless or violent the game was to be. Once you knew you should find out, then it became clear that everyone expected everyone to find out beforehand, and for groups to coalesce based on shared values about it. I don't know if it's the same for long-term players of card games or anything similar, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Like you, I am suspicious of some of the advice that gets tossed around, less so on the Forge perhaps, that sounds to me more like ... well, like deciding who is going to win, or who is going to look the best, or how it's going to feel to play. I don't think that kind of conversation is useful and I also think it's going to cause more problems than it solves.
It might be a good topic one day to consider the difference between getting on the same page about an activity, versus destroying the activity's content by over-controlling it or being too reassuring beforehand. I've spent a hell of a lot of time setting up successful groups and setting up successful games within those groups. I wonder what I'm doing at the border, or somewhere in the functional zone, of these things?
Best, Ron
Callan S.:
I think the volleyball example shows people chosing variations on a game - a more ruthless game, or a more peaceful one. The big creative chats that I see advocated appear to be at the level of 'Well, should we use a ball at all?'. Fundimental elements.
And that's perfectly fine if they had set out to design a whole new game for themselves - if one of the designers doesn't like balls, lets talk and find that out! We don't have to have a game with balls, lets do something different! That's a really healthy process going on in that case, IMO.
That's probably why it seems healthy to choose to buy a game, then go through that level of creative chat. But...it's hard to articulate - I think that level of chat means not facing the result of your own choices. To choose a game that uses a ball, but then have that chat about whether you use a ball...well, lets say your crap with a ball and that's not as fun as being good with it. Either you don't get rid of the ball, which "doesn't make sense" cause surely you don't do things which aren't fun! Or you get rid of the ball and not face the results of your own choice. But what's the point of making choices if you don't see their results? It's a catch 22 situation.
I think that's why I have a stubborn urge to stick with my ninja. Yes, it sucks. But I want to find out the result of my choice, otherwise I wouldn't have made a choice. The game doesn't have an ending/a result, so I'm left to making my own results system - ie, does it suck? The month or two between games probably makes the feeling of suck slowly dissipate, not to mention some GM management of suck in game, means I never rise to a results level of 'this definately sucks'. Kind of a limbo.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page