Hello to everyone (and a question about how to save our gaming sessions)
Caracol:
Quote from: Eero Tuovinen on March 05, 2009, 07:33:01 AM
Sounds to me that you all just need a complete change of scene....In a word: play something that is completely different from D&D.
This is what I tried: but changing the ruleset, not the setting. A change of setting too could have made things better? Is True20 too similar to D&D? I tought that a similar sistem they could be familiar with but that they could not abuse would have been enough.
About new games, I'm ok with that, the problem is the others. We have most of the D&D manuals, and nobody wants to spend money on a new system. How about open and free system, you say? How about some nice indipent game this forum is so full of? Well, they are ALL in english, and I'm actually the only one in the group that is capable of reading english and wants to spend time with foreing language material. As for True20, I translated all the pages and rules necessary in Italian before playing, spending a F@CKLOAD of time. I don't want to do that again, especially after those results.
Making my own game system is alright, but it takes time, it's difficult (a reason why I registered here, to get advices), and probably they won't like it anyway.
chance.thirteen:
I think Eero is on the most applicable track here. It's time to break out of the D&D game as being the problem, and get into the players and their interactions as the problem. At the point where everyone has had their GM work ruined by the players behaviors, they should ALL understand that the problems lay in how they choose to act when "playing a RPG" together.
It sounds like their are serious issues of trust, and in being trustworthy.
Sadly, it can be very hard for players to break out of their mentality that has been built up since their first experiences playing games, or playing RPGs.
I spent a decade trying to get my friends to understand that a RPG isn't just about being the toughest most unstoppable character possible. Playing Champions, a point based super hero game gave free rein to this behavior. Eventually I have up. About three years later, as these players tried to rekindle their own GMing efforts, they suddenly realized how destructive their behaviors had been. Suddenly I was hearing about "enjoyment in play" or "character over constant victory". These were people with about 20 years of experience as players finally looking at how various games they had played before had formed attitudes that may have been applicable in those games, but were not unshakable laws of playing in RPGs.
This is the sort of realization I think you friends need. Mind you, there is a great deal of fun to be had blowing things up in a game and backstabbing and so on, as long as thats the fun of the game setting, not the fun of hurting or screwing over your "friends". So I am not coming down on any style of play or what people enjoy as in game action.
Why do they want to attack one another? Why attack their helper NPCs? Why are they so attached to the rules? Is it a safety net which they hope will keep the others from cheating them? Is it a chance to protect themselves from an unfair GM? Or is it a manual of how to gain an advanatage over the players and GM? Why does someone change their alignments so often, is it to express their character, or to avoid being limited? Or is it to change to a game specified trait that "allows" them to decalre an action must be done, thus putting the blame on the character instead of on the player?
A simpler approach may be to go full on tyrant. Declare that certain kinds of actions, in game or out, are not allowed, and will be dealt with. It's not ideal, but it is a familiar situation to gamers who often play with people who do not get along well. So alignment changes cost xps, and cause allied factions to now dislike you. Attacking NPCs means that there is no replacement for that NPCs abilities and later on the players will fail or use up more resources, and you can say "Sure would be nice to have a guide through these mountains now." You can also have other NPCs offer to provide said services at double or triple the cost, and I mean in things the player care about like magic items, and have them bring armed guards. Have poor behaving character be targetting singly. They either rely on help from the party or they are replaced. And so on. It's not the best, but if you can get back to at least enjoying play for a while, maybe other changes can happen.
Alan:
Hi Caracol,
Before looking for a new game system, I'd suggest stepping back and looking at your group. What changed in their social lives recently? Has someone had an argument, lost a girlfriend, gotten married? Are you all moving from school to full time jobs? What does each one want from getting together? Do they just want to spend time together? Do they even want to play a game or is that just old habit?
Callan S.:
Hi Caracol,
Wow. Okay, I don't have a great deal of evidence for the following hypothesis, but:
The played your true20 game, were relatively calm and collected, then went back to the other GM and had the old troubles. I think Michael (Vulpinoid) suggestion that it was a fresh slate, social contract wise, is correct.
The fact they went back to the other GM makes me form the hypothesis they like to fight with each other.
It's the same as women who can only go out with bad men, who misstreat them (or men who go out with bad women who misstreat them, to also recognise that). There was a very old Charlie Brown comic where for multiple panels he argues about who shot who in cowboys and indians. At the end another character asks him "I thought you hated cowboys and indians" he replies "I do. I just play for the arguments"
I'd hypothesize that even if you made an enjoyable little ruleset to play under, they would likely move away from it, precisely because it's good. Because it's like the women who goes out with a good guy, when really she craves the self destructive 'drama' of a bad boy. She'll leave whats good - precisely because it's good.
Or I'm completely wrong. It comes to mind as a possiblity, but I might be way off in reading what evidence there is - so I just bring it up in case you want to mull over the idea for awhile, to see if it fits as far as you see things?
Caracol:
Thanks to everybody for the advices.
Quote from: chance.thirteen on March 05, 2009, 10:51:59 AM
I think Eero is on the most applicable track here. It's time to break out of the D&D game as being the problem, and get into the players and their interactions as the problem. At the point where everyone has had their GM work ruined by the players behaviors, they should ALL understand that the problems lay in how they choose to act when "playing a RPG" together....
...Sadly, it can be very hard for players to break out of their mentality that has been built up since their first experiences playing games, or playing RPGs.
I think some of them already realized or are about to realize that we all need to change in order to have fun again. It's been a year since I first stated that a change of system, a new beginning was necessary to solve the problem. They all admitted that there were problems indeed, but they think that the problem was this or that player that with his behavior ruined that particular session. At the time, I accused them of not being "roleplayers", in a sense that they didn't care about making their character good and interesting and about the plot. Of course I was completely unaware of terms like "gamist", "narrativist" and "simulationist", and the other players just replied to me that they played like they like to do.
The latter problem is really persistent in my group. No one else except me consider roleplaying to be something else than D&D. Even if we play since 5 years, and a couple of players since 10 years, trials of other system has been sporadic, if nonhexistent.
Quote
Why do they want to attack one another? Why attack their helper NPCs? Why are they so attached to the rules? Is it a safety net which they hope will keep the others from cheating them? Is it a chance to protect themselves from an unfair GM? Or is it a manual of how to gain an advanatage over the players and GM? Why does someone change their alignments so often, is it to express their character, or to avoid being limited? Or is it to change to a game specified trait that "allows" them to decalre an action must be done, thus putting the blame on the character instead of on the player?
A simpler approach may be to go full on tyrant. Declare that certain kinds of actions, in game or out, are not allowed, and will be dealt with. It's not ideal, but it is a familiar situation to gamers who often play with people who do not get along well. So alignment changes cost xps, and cause allied factions to now dislike you. Attacking NPCs means that there is no replacement for that NPCs abilities and later on the players will fail or use up more resources, and you can say "Sure would be nice to have a guide through these mountains now." You can also have other NPCs offer to provide said services at double or triple the cost, and I mean in things the player care about like magic items, and have them bring armed guards. Have poor behaving character be targetting singly. They either rely on help from the party or they are replaced. And so on. It's not the best, but if you can get back to at least enjoying play for a while, maybe other changes can happen.
These seem like very good advices, I'll try some of them. They seem to limitate player's freedom too much, tough (not that I don't like they idea, but they won't). Making all the players use this method when they DM won't be easy.
Quote from: Alan on March 05, 2009, 11:41:31 AM
Before looking for a new game system, I'd suggest stepping back and looking at your group. What changed in their social lives recently? Has someone had an argument, lost a girlfriend, gotten married? Are you all moving from school to full time jobs? What does each one want from getting together? Do they just want to spend time together? Do they even want to play a game or is that just old habit?
A lot of interesting question, I didn't think about consider these factors too. Well, a lot changed in our personal lifes, of course, but our group still does the same stuff. I'll spend some time to get the answers. Do you consider useful asking them what "game style" they prefer too? Does a proper "test" exists?
Quote from: Callan S. on March 05, 2009, 02:30:17 PM
Hi Caracol,
Wow. Okay, I don't have a great deal of evidence for the following hypothesis, but:
The played your true20 game, were relatively calm and collected, then went back to the other GM and had the old troubles. I think Michael (Vulpinoid) suggestion that it was a fresh slate, social contract wise, is correct.
The fact they went back to the other GM makes me form the hypothesis they like to fight with each other.
It's the same as women who can only go out with bad men, who misstreat them (or men who go out with bad women who misstreat them, to also recognise that). There was a very old Charlie Brown comic where for multiple panels he argues about who shot who in cowboys and indians. At the end another character asks him "I thought you hated cowboys and indians" he replies "I do. I just play for the arguments"
I'd hypothesize that even if you made an enjoyable little ruleset to play under, they would likely move away from it, precisely because it's good. Because it's like the women who goes out with a good guy, when really she craves the self destructive 'drama' of a bad boy. She'll leave whats good - precisely because it's good.
I don't know, this leaves me perplexed. Nobody seem to have fun having arguments; on the other hand, arguments arise so easily that there must be something else. Maybe it's just their daily fruxstation. But even if you're right, and they DO like to fight with each other, what solutions do you propose?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page