How do you coax individualist players out of a self-centered mindset...
mrlost:
...and into a collaborative one. I'm sure this must have come up before but I haven't had luck finding it. I've started running games for some friends after a long absence (due to college) and found a lot of anger directed at collaborative play styles.
My gaming interests changed a lot when I was away at school and I think for the better but in my absence these players have been subjected to a very antagonistic everyone for themselves against everyone else (Steve Jackson board game) style of play and its tearing the fun out of games.
Ron Edwards:
Hi there, and welcome!
I'd like to learn more about the games you played before college with these folks, and what you're playing with them now, or trying to. I have some ideas about how to discuss your question, but I think more context is needed, so we can stay away from generalities.
Best, Ron
mrlost:
I used to run White Wolf's vampire the masquerade, changeling the dreaming, and several other "noun definite article noun" games, Pinnacle's Deadlands the Weird West, WEG's Star Wars, and a few others.
While I was away at college I played a couple short games of Dogs in the Vineyard, one of Sorcerer, two of Burning Wheel, a session of Capes, and a session of Ogg, and some very collaborative campaigns of Shadowrun (of all things), Heavy Gear, Unknown Armies and a unisystem super hero high school game where almost all the NPCs were family and friends of the PCs and were all played by different players.
Upon returning from college a friend and his wife asked me to run Burning Wheel. They didn't own the book or know much other than that the Elves were very Tolkien-esque and powerful because one halloween I had come down and ran a scenario when I had first picked up the book but just before I had played the game. The game quickly lead to a lot of anger and frustration on all sides and ultimately lead to two players purchasing their own copies of the system and me picking up the Monster Burner. Issues consisted of players taking possession of story elements and being deeply angered when other players touched those elements in any way shape or form. Talks commenced to resolve the issues but nothing ever came of it.
Anyway, our first game died due to anger directed at the player who was introducing conflict into the story botched a summoning check and unleashed basically Cthulhu, half the group just gave up, believing it impossible to defeat even though it most assuredly wasn't.
When that game died the players got together and wanted to have another go at it. The next attempt was worse, with each player constructing various antagonists and getting angry with the other players when they attempted to fight those antagonists or interact with the other characters NPCs. Cries of "She's my witch queen!" were heard and eventually this game died too.
I decided to go back to running more traditional games: Deadlands, then D&D, and lately Star Trek. Each has ended or been abandoned because of player on player oneupmanship (not character on character conflicts). These are not kids, I'm the youngest person at the table at twenty five, and one player is in his late thirties. Currently, the group has been unable to decide on what to play next, and no one will compromise. Player A and B want a Changeling game, Player B would also go for a number of other games that nobody else is willing to try, Player C wants Unknown Armies but her husband player A does not, and player D wants to play D&D but nobody else is willing to have a go at it. Player E has retreated and sits at home playing Fallout 3 and texting me about how much he wants to play a solo game. I'm GMing but its all gone wrong.
I've been craving another go at collaborative player driven roleplaying but I'm scared that what happened last time will happen again. Player B has suggested that I find assistance in introducing more collaborative play.
mrlost:
I don't know how to edit the above post otherwise I would add that player B has suggested that I try running a Changeling game wherein I ask the players to provide me with Kickers and Bangs, and connections to each other and a relationship tree of NPCs. I find the idea intriguing but I was hoping to get more advice first. Besides ditch the grognards of course.
Ron Edwards:
Wow.
OK, I'd like to enter into a fairly in-depth dialogue with you, but it's going to be slow. OK with you?
The first thing I'd like to suggest is this notion: that to be functional, and that means base-line functional, even regardless of successful, a social creative activity has to:
1. Be composed of people who really want to play this game, with each other, at this time. In other words, it's the optimal thing to do in the face of hundreds, even thousands of other options.
2. Be conducted in the context of learning, which is to say, initial attempts at things may not be carried out right or have the results you want, but you learn from them and everyone gains better competence as we go along.
3. Be committed to the spirit of the rules as written, which at times may be a tweaky or iffy application of those same rules, but always carried out with some faith that the procedures have a power of their own, which are there to discover.
If this seems like a really high bar to set, consider that every single such activity known to human beings does in fact conform to these three points - except hobby gaming. If we were building a house together, making a movie together, constructing a volleyball league together, or anything of the sort, we'd take all three as given.
I'm getting the idea that the group you're talking about isn't meeting that bar. Am I correct about that?
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page