Quote from: Zachary The FirstMy favorite part is how "Promises of Fun" is under the bad GM part under the pentagon...I'm sure they meant "Promises of Fun Unfulfilled"....or did they?

My guess is that the chart author is trying to say "The more the GM promises that This Game Will Be Fun, or The Next Session Will Be A Blast, the less likely this is to be true."

Which, you know, I can kind of see. The GM shouldn't have to promise that the game will be fun, that ought to be a given; loudly promising that the game is going to be totally awesome sounds insecure.

Quote from: Warthurloudly promising that the game is going to be totally awesome sounds insecure.

Quoted for emphasis. This is true.

I know of one particular group that does this with regularity, over the internet. Wait-- who is it again?

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's good. Do you agree that in order to understand this thing called roleplaying, it is as important or even more important to consider "functional" gamers as it is to consider "dysfunctional" (unhappy) gamers?

There is a more basic level where I think some of these theories go wrong.  The same exact process that can produce a functional and happy experience for one group can produce a dysfunctional and unhappy experience for another group.  One group may be very happy to have the GM lead them through a linear adventure while another group may feel controlled and railroaded and be quite unhappy about that.  That's because the likes, dislikes, and expectations of gamer can differ substantially.  That's why whenever there is advice on how to be a Good GM or an attempt to define what makes a Bad GM, there will be someone calling one person's Good technique Bad and someone calling one person's Bad technique Good.

In other words, other people might be doing the exact same thing your group is miserable doing and they might be having a blast.  And if they try doing something that produces a great game for your group, they might have a really awful time.  

For example, there is nothing wrong with players expecting to sit at the table and have the GM guide them through a story.  We accept the exact same dynamic when a person sits down to have a writer and director guide them through a story while watching a movie.  Why not watch a movie instead of playing a GM?  Because may the player enjoys having a stake in the story (via their character) and enjoys the participation they do get to make (basic decisions and dialog).  And what's so wrong about that?  So in the right context, even railroading isn't dysfunctional or bad.

I agree. There's nothing particularly "dysfunction"-inducing about a particular process such as so-called "GM Fiat". (Whose exact definition is still pretty unsettled IMO.) But maybe there is something about another common element of RPGs--continuing play from session to session--that makes it harder for the normal processes of evaluation and feedback to do their work. I.e., continuing play carries promises of future payoffs and also imposes an obligation to keep attending, both so you don't miss the "good parts" and so you don't let down the rest of the group.

If you compare boardgames to RPGs, in essence I think it's harder to drop out of an ongoing campaign than it is to simply opt out of a boardgame. With a boardgame group, you can skip a game--meaning at most a few sessions--without missing anything. And if you're not happy in a game, you know it's going to be over pretty soon anyway. These characteristics of boardgames allow a sort of "invisible hand" feedback mechanism that's not too socially disruptive, as games or people who don't go well together simply stop appearing at the same table.

So if there's any one widespread practice in RPGs that I would connect to "dysfunction", it's the expectation of continuing play, especially with just a single GM/single system/single campaign. Mixing things up with short-form games or one-shots, rotating GMs and/or games and campaigns, seem like good ways to avoid this.

[Digression: I think I've experienced something similar when it comes to TV shows--24 to be exact. For the first two seasons I thought it had moments of coolness interspersed with increasingly lengthy and annoying stretches of stupidity and spinning wheels. But we kept watching because the show always ended on a cliffhanger, leaving us--my wife and I--wondering what would happen next and how it would all eventually pay off. Finally, after the first episode of season 3, we just made a vow to quit cold turkey, and never looked back. With Dawson's Creek, we grimly waited out the series to its ridiculous conclusion. Come to think of it, TV has been using continuity more and more as a trick to keep people watching, even in comedies, and with a similar effect as people watch just to "see what happens next" instead of actually enjoying the lousy shows. But at least you don't feel like you're letting down your end of a bargain when you stop watching.]

Not buying this traumatized-by-continuity-expectations thing.

My experience is that even in situations where there is continuity-- long term campaigns-- people miss sessions all the time, without a problem. I know I've done it before when I was a player in someone else's campaign, and I know I've had players have to miss sessions of my campaign. It's no big deal. How is this long term campaign thing so traumatizing? If it is, why wouldn't you just drop out? I would. I dropped out of a not-so-great campaign last year..

   Anecdote: Now, was I traumatized or dysfunctional? Well, to be truthful, I kinda wanted my illusionist character to get some more bluffings and trickery in and I questioned this guy's ability as a GM, sure. But I really dropped out because I wanted to GM again myself, and I wanted to play on Thrusdays versus Friday, and I was driving like 30 minutes to get to this guys house..and 30 minutes back...  I mean, that stuff adds up. That's not "Dysfunction", it's just arranging your time.

Most groups even have a policy (formal or informal) about this kind of thing. I know in the "sister" campaign I play on weekends, the GM gave us a little "campaign primer" and it has a spelled out "absence policy". (You can either hand your character off to be run as an NPC for half experience or just have the group pretend you arent there for the session for no experience).

Thats' more elaborate than I do. If anyone's absent, we have an informal policy; we just pretend the character disappears into the background. The game is about the players after all, so if the player isn't there, then we just pretend the character isn't there either. In the event I have to come up with a notional fiction we just go ahead and do it. (ala "ok, Saul's not here? Ok, let's say his character suddenly remembers he has to check on the horses, and he leaves the dungeon. Alright, where were we?")

The other reason I see this as problematic: I truly believe that continuitous long term campaigns are the ideal way to manage a gaming group.

Well, I'm not saying continuity causes trauma, just that it encourages people to keep coming back to the same campaign--which is a problem if the campaign isn't delivering.

The core hypothesis is that large numbers of gamers are having a miserable time, but due to some odd psychological feedback mechanism are unaware that they are having a miserable time.

In other words, large numbers of gamers think they are enjoying themselves when in fact they are not.

IMO that's an extraordinary hypothesis, particularly when put against the alternative hypothesis that people who think they are enjoying themselves are in fact enjoying themselves.

Extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary proof, for this one we don't even have weak proof.  We have in fact no evidence at all in favour of this hypothesis.  We do have evidence suggesting that some gamers are not enjoying themselves, and even that some gamers convince themselves they are having fun when they are not.  But we have literally no evidence to support an extrapolation to the wider population.

Quite honestly, I think we are giving this more attention than it merits.  Let someone come up with some evidence for what is frankly a bizarre claim and then let's discuss it, until then as best I can tell Melinglor is simply extrapolating from his own experiences to the wider population in the absence of any evidence that such an extrapolation is meaningful or justified.

It's a classic debating trick being used here, let's put all the possibilities in the ring and then assess them all equally.  By doing that, you give equal weight to the extraordinary hypothesis as to any others, and sidestep the issue of whether there is enough evidence supporting the extraordinary hypothesis to merit it being considered in the first place.

There isn't, there is simply no reason to believe that the majority of gamers are having a shitty time but convincing themselves otherwise, other than a vested interest in promoting other games which may not be selling purely on merit, I struggle to see why anyone would suggest such a bizarre claim.  Do people who enjoy knitting go around suggesting that most people knit despite not enjoying it?  It is simply a ludicrous claim.

Let's let this thread die, Chris was an unhappy gamer who made a bad entry on his blog, no more than that.

QuoteLet's let this thread die, Chris was an unhappy gamer who made a bad entry on his blog, no more than that.

That´s all I´m saying.

See, there is one thing that reliably works in nearly every human being:

The reward system.

The real and cruel truth is, that some forms of gaming are effortless frustration free fuzzy feeling. Just like drugs.
People have fun.
People can have fun & escapism way too easy sometimes.

That´s the real danger.

People enjoying themselves too much.

I keep reading all this stuff and I keep coming to the exact same opinion.

Way too many people have no sense of perspective.  There is no such thing as 'disfunctional gaming'. I've never had it, and really I say no one else has.

Look, you game and this guy in the group, maybe he's the GM, maybe he's just a dominant player... he's an asshole and he's fucking up your game.

That's not a dysfunctional game, not a dysfunctional group. Its an asshole, don't game with him. If  you keep not having fun playing with that asshole, then YOU are exhibiting dysfunctional behavior (not gaming, just in general) by willingly subjecting yourself to an asshole over and over again.

Me? I've played with assholes I couldn't stand. I either figured out a way to ignore/minimize their impact on my play, or I didn't play with them. No middle ground, no coming back over and over again for the abuse. And certainly no 'woe is me, gaming is an abusive relationship' gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair.  

Trying to establish truly incoherent charts (seriously, I'm amazed at some of the analysises of the chart I've seen here... I can take a peice at a time, but the chart itself? means fucking nothing at all. Could have taken each of those ideas and just listed them without lines and it'd make more sense....) to prove the GAMING is dysfunctional is to miss the fundamental truth:

Games aren't assholes, people are. And people who subject themselves repetitively to assholes have problems, not the assholes.

Melingor: If your games were not fun until you discovered the Forge, why the fuck were you still playing them?  Unless someone at the forge said 'don't play with assholes in your group' then they didn't save your gaming.

Defending people from their own stupidity, warrented or not, will bring you nothing but grief. Bring your own ideas and you'll get along with much less stress.   Look at Jimmy... when he brings the Cheetoism we all cheer him on, when he jacks up his own game group with poor communication and passive agressive antagonistic play he heap (or at least I heap...) scorn upon his unworthy head.  No one here defends  the Pundit from his rampages but the Pundit (at least last time I checked...).  

In other words, you are welcome to YOUR opinions even if they disagree with some of us, but if all you do is say that this other guy's opinions are yours, you'll get the flamestick over and over again...

I agree with these last few posts. I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about the respective merits and disadvantages of short-term vs. open-ended play, and how to avoid pitfalls in each, but this thread is probably not the place for it.

http://rpgtalk.net/bankuei/weblog/421.html

this is the same dumbass who apparently feels offended seeing nerds dressed up as "Drow" cause "it's black-face".

fucking retards...lumping racism, brain damage, physical/psychological abuse, and the weariness of war veterans under the imaginary fantasy land of role-playing games is insensitive at best.

i remember fucking fuming over the bullshit Ron wrote about how they were all 'veterans', sitting around a campfire, scarred from battle, etc etc. telling war stories of their triumphs in gaming theory....

I don't have enough feet for teeth-kicking in that crowd.

Kregmosier: Brutha, you and me both.

Alright. I just made my post about (long term vs short term) campaigns to split this off:

http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=75194#post75194

You know what´s so pathetic about the gamer haters?

They are still "only" gamers.

When you want to be pretentious, you stop having college-like fun, and only talk shop about theatre, the opera and literature.
Not games.

They are even failing in their pretentiousness, total losers.

Yeah, then there are those folks who claim their way of gaming is morally superior...losers.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYeah, then there are those folks who claim their way of gaming is morally superior...losers.

How can my gaming be morally superior? d00d, my excuse for rolling dice and eating cheetos is way better than your excuse for rolling dice and eating cheetos!