[S/Lay w/Me] O'er Plains of Ice the Sky-Ship Sails
contracycle:
In a manner analogous to the way in which orthodox RPG texts butchered story to the point that people who had internalised those texts had trouble grasping it when presented to them, the construction of an idea that players of - and now I can't use the term "traditional games" because that's been hijacked as well - lets say old fashioned GM-led adventure gaming, are relegated to "those people", some sort of strangely deficient Other, who need to be offered therapeutic design for their bizarre condition in the hopes of breaking them out of their "herd mentality".
Seems to me what was described here is probably simple habit. Fine. Habit doesn't need therepuetic treatment, all you need to do is demonstrate the alternative and it will catch on or it won't. If it's not habit, or if it happens "a TON with games that give the player power to make decisions about the fiction", then it might also be preference. Maybe, just maybe, people aren't seizing the opportunity because the opportunity is in fact not desirable (to them).
Long before there were games that granted this sort of authority over the fiction I encountered players who tried to assume it, and I don't doubt for one second that if you met such a person whose desires had hitherto been frustrated, and offered them the opportunity they had always wished for, they would grab it with both hands. I doubt they would need to be trained into wanting it. And it irks me whan failure to jump at the chance is treated as a pathology.
greyorm:
I don't know that your interpretation of Gregor's statement is what he meant, but I don't disagree with your points, Gareth.
Still, there is such a thing as people not doing what they want to do because the rest of the group has said "that's wrong" or "you can't", and it becomes a trained habit/belief, even if prior to it they wanted something else, and can be difficult to break out of because their brain still reacts the same way as it expects those rules to be in play. There are numerous behavioral studies in sociology and psychology that showcase just how overwhelming this effect is -- to the point that you can get people to say, without argument even, that a square is a circle if the rest of their group says it is.
That can't be outright ignored, given the amount of dysfunction in the hobby; ie: "THIS is how gaming works, and playing any other way is WRONG WRONG WRONG!" and how that affects people trying to get into story-gaming or new and different play styles. Which isn't to say this isn't murky territory, given for any specific individual it could be created habit or it could be real personal preference (or it could just be the way a specific game system is set-up to work regardless), and treating the latter like the former is disingenuous and insulting.
contracycle:
I don't dispute that at all, but it cuts both ways, right? I mean, it could also be the case that it is we who have the herd mentality that dismisses and pathologises a style of play out of habit and reinforcement.
I'm totally in agreement that it is valid to confront peopple with ideas that challenge their default assumptions. I support the challenging of habit by doing rather than arguing; but that of course is premised on the observation that when a function is supported by the rules in front of you you're more likely to take it up than if someone merely explains it to you in the abstract. Show not tell, practical experimentation - absolutely, positively, that's healthy.
None of this IMO justifies a presumption that this is something that should be imposed "for you own good". There's a line that's crossed at that point from offering to demanding, a rejection of refusal as being either genuine or legitimate.
greyorm:
Oh, definitely. If we were talking about social or criminal law or something, I'd argue there are cases when "for your own good" comes into play, but as this is hobby entertainment we're discussing, I can't see the good or point in it and there's a line there one doesn't want to cross.
But I don't know that I read Gregor as having said that (or meant it that way, if nothing else). I suppose that's up to Gregor to explain the meaning of the "those people" bit, which, at least in my mind, can be read a couple different ways.
Gregor Hutton:
Hey Gareth
I think you've picked me up wrong because I wasn't clear enough in what I said. Sorry about that. I wasn't using "those people" to tar everyone who plays traditional games at all, and I wasn't writing in a pejorative sense or pathologising players that play GM-led adventure games. And I don't see S/Lay w/Me as a "cure" or a "treatment" to an illness.
So, I don't have any argument with what you've said.
When I wrote that I was actually thinking about someone I know locally, who would find this game a pretty good thing for him to play. I think he'd like it, it would be the best game for him. He normally plays games in which he lies low and follows the crowd, and others pin value on his PC and tell him what they'd like him to do (there's a lot fo social bullying and manipulation going on in their game if you ask me), despite the fact he's very creative and probably does have a lot to say on his own. Anyway, he doesn't get into the whole social posturing going on in the group, and so even when he does get asked for things I guess he's always looking for what he should say, or people to agree with, rather than what he'd like to say if he had the stick.
I played a game of Breaking The Ice with him on a plane once (great fun, by the way), and I think he would like S/Lay w/Me even more than that. I don't see it as a "cure" or a "treatment", at all, he's not ill. I think it's just a game that would allow him to be on an even footing with a loudmouth like me, without having to give me the answer I wanted or get my permission. Does that clarify it?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page