[Exalted] Spectating replacing interaction?
greyorm:
Quote from: intorporeal on August 17, 2010, 06:51:38 AM
Has anyone else experienced issues with this trend of sidelining interaction in favor of spectatorism, in this game or any others? Or is it more likely an artifact of the people that I've been playing with, and not the game itself?
I can't speak to Exalted specifically, having never played it, but this is a fairly common issue in the way many games are played, and a common complaint of many old hands here at the Forge. There has been much discussion of the source of this problem and possible solutions to it that could be found with a search through the Archives. You might start by looking up the terms "railroading" and "illusionism" in the glossary here, and see if that leads you anywhere useful.
Historically, this sort of play was part-and-parcel of the gamer culture that arose in the 90's centered around White Wolf and their reliance on metaplot -- even if the rules themselves did nothing to encourage or discourage such. I've read in a number of places that this was also a major issue in the adventure modules released for 7th Sea, where PCs became glorified couriers (little more than witnesses to the narrative), and the real action and story was centered around NPCs. I've also experienced it myself in a slightly different form in 2nd Edition AD&D, and I derisively called it "soap opera role-playing": it was play where the plot pushed the characters here and there without any control by us, punctuated by moments of role-playing that consisted entirely of intra-party drama, disputes, and bickering.
The part about players not working together and at cross-purposes is an entirely separate issue, and the case of that issue I would mention that many groups find this sort of play highly enjoyable (like myself). You don't, however. So the question is are you sure you're playing with a group that matches your personal style well? If you aren't, you have two choices: live with it and enjoy it, or don't play with that group. The worst thing you can do is demand everyone else conform to your expectations of what fun should be and/or them they're playing "wrong".
Try discussing the situation with the whole group (players and GM) and point out that you're not enjoying yourself because you prefer a more team-oriented style of play and see if they're interested in going that route (they may be or they may not, but keep in mind that even if they're up for it, it may not work out). Bring up how it isn't enjoyable to sit and listen to monologues, that you would rather be actively playing the game, involved in action, and doing things. See if you and the GM can come together on this and work it out so the focus is on the characters.
Ron Edwards:
Hi there,
I think Raven's absolutely right to separate the issues of (i) whether the characters are defined and acting as a team or shared-interest group of some kind, and (ii) whether conflicts or even major attention are focused against one another or against external threats or targets. All four possible combinations can lead to viable play.
- defined and acting as a team, but mostly concerned with internal disputes and crisis (e.g. the X-Men as written by Chris Claremont)
- defined and acting as a team, and mostly concerned with external threats or targets, such that personality differences among the team are mainly colorful, without crisis (e.g. the A-Team)
- not a team or well-acknowledged group, and mostly concerned with conflicts among themselves (at its most extreme, "blood opera" as we at the Forge liked to call it when developing this approach through several games a few years ago, or "face stabby" as some like to call it now)
- not a team or well-acknowledged group, but still mostly concerned with external threats or targets (e.g. as observed in Werewolf, in proposing highly individualized characters, but also a far-off, very scary enemy they must try to defeat; also strongly visible in Nobilis)
I went into this in detail because it's too easy to claim, as you're kind of doing, that one or more of these are "no good" by definition. They're all good. They all work. The better questions concern why in your experience they haven't.
It could be that the entire group simply never got its shit together about which one of these was under way. That's a game-killer right there.
Or it could be that they did, but you personally simply didn't want to do it, which is also understandable; I don't think much of the idea that a person who isn't enjoying the basic idea of a given game/group should suck it up and not have fun so that everyone else can.
What do you think?
Best, Ron
Ron Edwards:
Shoot, my post got away from me, mentally, and I totally forgot to bring it around to the point of the thread.
Given your answers or thoughts on what I posted, that will really help to clarify why spectating was so prevalent in your game, and why it wasn't fun. Because again, there are in fact games and groups in which spectating does happen and it's fun, so the questions here are why it happened in your games and why it wasn't fun. Not that it's automatically no good.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page