Quote from: SethwickIt describes how much folks game, sure. It's an absolutely useless description. It's like answering "Why does society form the way it does?" with "survival." Sure, that's the point, OF COURSE that's the point. It doesn't really offer any useful predictive powers though.

Again maybe. I think it does all it needs to do to describe whether the group/game is a functional experience for all involved. Fun is a very underrated over analyzed forum term. A player having fun (for whatever reasons) says a lot about the activity. I really don't need to understand why he is having fun all I need to know is that the player is not bored.

QuoteTrue. But I think showing up to play with a goal and then deciding you would rather follow anothers is better. It's not like coming up with a goal is hard, or takes any time. It takes a fraction of a second of brain activity.

Not all players think this way. For some coming up with a goal is hard. Some want to find their goals in the game. A competent GM provides avenues for all kinds of players.

QuoteI've discovered that players who do things "just because" sap my will to live and are the primary reason why I find it very very hard to keep my enthusiasm for GMing at all existent now days. People have reasons for doing things. So do characters. It isn't work to come up with a damn reason.

Refer to my comments above

Quote"Atmosphere"? I don't really understand what you mean by that, beyond providing an area to game in or food or something. Since I'm generally the one who does that in my group of friends I guess I don't generally think about that.

By atmosphere I mean the general goodwill and camaraderie around the gaming table.

 

QuoteRPGs are not TV. Should the players and GMs try to do interesting stuff and engage each other? Yes. Is it their duty to get Dave to come out of his shell and take an interest in the game besides rolling to hit in fights and searching for traps when people ask him to? No.

Yeah if Dave derives enjoyment from the game and does not impede the fun for the others. IME Dave- like players have provided the game with freakin' awesome moments of sublime roleplaying/action goodness...but hey maybe that's just the kind of players I have, and no doubt an example of my general brilliance as a GM. (Drawing potential players out of their shells is what I (we) do best)


Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAgain maybe. I think it does all it needs to do to describe whether the group/game is a functional experience for all involved. Fun is a very underrated over analyzed forum term. A player having fun (for whatever reasons) says a lot about the activity. I really don't need to understand why he is having fun all I need to know is that the player is not bored.

Uh... You don't need to know why? Good for you but I really really REALLY want to know why. Not only is it something that I would want to know anyway (I like knowing stuff), it helps me learn what, in the future, will lead that person to have fun. Knowing why is a hugely important part of learning to game well IMO.

QuoteNot all players think this way. For some coming up with a goal is hard. Some want to find their goals in the game. A competent GM provides avenues for all kinds of players.

No, a GM who wants to serve everyone finds avenues for them. I have no interest in players who want to be lead around. I think trying to make all games/campaigns have "avenues" for everyone has lead to most problems in modern RPGs. One reason I like the indie scene so much is because they are willing to say, "This game is for this, it's not for anything else. If you don't like it, play a different game."

QuoteBy atmosphere I mean the general goodwill and camaraderie around the gaming table.

Makes sense.
 

QuoteYeah if Dave derives enjoyment from the game and does not impede the fun for the others. IME Dave- like players have provided the game with freakin' awesome moments of sublime roleplaying/action goodness...but hey maybe that's just the kind of players I have, and no doubt an example of my general brilliance as a GM. (Drawing potential players out of their shells is what I (we) do best)


Regards,
David R

Problem is when you end up with a majority of Daves. Or even just a few. They suck the enthusiasm out of the air. Especially when they have so much potential sometimes if they'd just speak up and... *Deep breath* Sorry.

Really, I roleplay for drama. Creating drama is what I think the role of everyone involved in an RPG is. These Dave's don't create drama. The do the opposite. They are the fly in the soup. If they just strung along it would be fine, but when they just don't react to hardly anything it ruins it.

Basically I think the desribed players with no goals are the type who won't tell you what they want in a game. "What do you want?" "Anything is fine." Meaning that anything will be treated with the same mix of dead eyed passivity and implied boredom. RPGs run on enthusiasm, and if you don't have a goal or a preference or something to be enthusiastic about you can't have enthusiasm.

I smell swine.

Quote from: SethwickUh... You don't need to know why? Good for you but I really really REALLY want to know why. Not only is it something that I would want to know anyway (I like knowing stuff), it helps me learn what, in the future, will lead that person to have fun. Knowing why is a hugely important part of learning to game well IMO.

Learning is an important aspect about gming. I learn more about the needs/wants of a player when she tells me she is bored. I get very little from what she finds fun. Most times IME a player is more explicit in what she finds boring then what she finds fun. Boring I can work with...improving/maximizing fun is not a priority on my list.

QuoteNo, a GM who wants to serve everyone finds avenues for them. I have no interest in players who want to be lead around. I think trying to make all games/campaigns have "avenues" for everyone has lead to most problems in modern RPGs. One reason I like the indie scene so much is because they are willing to say, "This game is for this, it's not for anything else. If you don't like it, play a different game."

Again this boils down to experience. What you see as leading around I see as engagement. If a player is not an active player -  in this instance goaless -by the end of the campaign he either has adopted something for his character or had fun playing in the campaign. Either way works for me.

Now, a game should have focus. I don't think this is the sole domain of indie games. For instance in Jorune (oh common people, you knew I would mention this game ) players start of by seeking citizenship. Why exactly is left up to the players (the rule books do give various reasons).

Now I like this kind of method. The players who have goals - have their own motivations for wanting citizenship. The ones who don't ...this is a convenient device to get them started on something.

BTW your last sentence pretty much is what any GM who has a good grip on his game would say. Don't need Indie games to tell me this

QuoteProblem is when you end up with a majority of Daves. Or even just a few. They suck the enthusiasm out of the air. Especially when they have so much potential sometimes if they'd just speak up and... *Deep breath* Sorry.

Engaging passive players esp ones with potential is what theory should focus on, IMO...or a skill most GMs should try to hone.

QuoteReally, I roleplay for drama. Creating drama is what I think the role of everyone involved in an RPG is. These Dave's don't create drama. The do the opposite. They are the fly in the soup. If they just strung along it would be fine, but when they just don't react to hardly anything it ruins it.

Again are we talking about extreme examples here? Because goaless does not mean they don't create great moments of drama.

QuoteBasically I think the desribed players with no goals are the type who won't tell you what they want in a game. "What do you want?" "Anything is fine." Meaning that anything will be treated with the same mix of dead eyed passivity and implied boredom. RPGs run on enthusiasm, and if you don't have a goal or a preference or something to be enthusiastic about you can't have enthusiasm.

Again, goaless players and indifferent players are not the same thing. A goaless player could create great moments of in game drama. An indifferent one is a different kind of problem.

Regards,
David R

Great quote for this discussion from way back in 1978...

Quote from: Gary GygaxSkilled players always make a point of knowing what they're doing.  i.e. they have an objective.

from the 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook.

Quote from: David RAgain, goaless players and indifferent players are not the same thing. A goaless player could create great moments of in game drama. An indifferent one is a different kind of problem.

Regards,
David R

Quoted for emphasis. This is correct. The attempt to blur the two or say one is actually the other is wrong.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI smell swine.

Yeah... I'm pretty much the very definition. Well, other than being big on rules controlling and directing play. So, yes, and very proud of it. I could show you my Cult of Edwards mark, but then I'd have to kill you

Goalless and indifferent... I'm not sure they aren't the same. That I think is our main disagreement.

Quote from: SethwickYeah... I'm pretty much the very definition. Well, other than being big on rules controlling and directing play. So, yes, and very proud of it. I could show you my Cult of Edwards mark, but then I'd have to kill you

You shouldn't even say this in jest. Not here :eek: . Like Jules from Pulp Fiction some don't like swine :pundit: ...except those (swine) with personality. Personality goes a long way.

QuoteGoalless and indifferent... I'm not sure they aren't the same. That I think is our main disagreement.

I know a few folks who think the same way.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SethwickYeah... I'm pretty much the very definition. Well, other than being big on rules controlling and directing play. So, yes, and very proud of it. I could show you my Cult of Edwards mark, but then I'd have to kill you

Goalless and indifferent... I'm not sure they aren't the same. That I think is our main disagreement.

An "cold-eyed" indifferent player wouldn't even be motivated to play.

A goalless player may only be motivated to play for the most basic reason- that he's having fun contributing to the team effort, or maybe he just enjoys playing out the combat part or whatever. I think a lot of forgies forget that outside of of the psychodrama exercise world, people actually play games as games. You don't need a goal to play boardgames either. You don't need to roleplay making car sounds in monopoly, even if you get the car piece.

Pretending to not be able to see the difference is a sign of the deep intellectual dishonesty that stains your movement.

QuoteYou don't need a goal to play boardgames either.

Yes -- they come with pre-fab goals.  This is not the same as touchy-feely roleplaying "goal" -- it's a concrete tactics/strategy/objective goal.  RPGs can (and should) have this kind of goal as well.  Either pre-fab, or clearly identified by the players/group.

Stuart, I'm not sure if you agree or disagree-- but at least you aren't trying to falsely equate one thing into another.

I'll try and elaborate a bit:

You can easily observe in the wild that people play RPGs for different reasons. Can we all accept this? I mean, it should be obvious.

Less obvious, and not universally accepted, but I believe it anyway:
the reasons can change from moment to moment, and from session to session, and further- these reasons are not mutually exclusive. So a player could have several reasons for playing at any given moment.

Some of those goals might be like "I want to be a really cool guy with a Katana and a trenchcoat" or something similar. Whatever. Sure. Or the guy that fails spectacularly. Or the comical character.

Some of those goals are more abstract like "I'm part of the team effort to solve this mystery", or "solve the puzzle" or "complete the mission". This guy may not have any 'personal goals' at all. But he's just as engaged.

Sometimes the goal defaults down to a love of building: building characters (through levelling), building other entities like strongholds, dynasties, etc. Designing coats of arms, and all of that.

And sometimes players can default all the way down to a desire to exercise skill and mastery of the game itself to beat encounters. This is highly tactical gaming "hey if your rogue is over here, I can bull rush the bad guy past his threatened area and you'll get an extra sneak attack this round...AND I'll end up in a flank for next round." or "I slip on my ring of feather falling as I fit my bag of holding over the 800 pound boulder this round.. then I dimension door up 750 feet, directly over the dinosaur, still carrying the bag. Next round, I upturn the bag, dropping the boulder, while feather-falling down to the ground.."

When that guy gets lumped into "dead-eyed indifference" because he didn't come up with some kind of "I want to roleplay out my portrayal of a welsh sheepherder" or "I'm trying to create a moment of powerful tension as I work through my feelings about childhood pets" or any somesuch, I call bullshit.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhen that guy gets lumped into "dead-eyed indifference" because he didn't come up with some kind of "I want to roleplay out my portrayal of a welsh sheepherder" or "I'm trying to create a moment of powerful tension as I work through my feelings about childhood pets" or any somesuch, I call bullshit.

Yes, I would as well.

In fact, I'd say someone trying to do those things and not having any in-game "goals" that involve things like: "I'm part of the team effort to solve this mystery", or "solve the puzzle" or "complete the mission" -- that's much worse than someone who has those goals, but not the deep roleplaying / feelings goals.

The absolute worst is when you have a player who's not interested in the mystery, puzzle, mission OR roleplaying / feelings -- they just want to be disruptive.

I hope that's clear.

Quote from: StuartYes, I would as well.

In fact, I'd say someone trying to do those things and not having any in-game "goals" that involve things like: "I'm part of the team effort to solve this mystery", or "solve the puzzle" or "complete the mission" -- that's much worse than someone who has those goals, but not the deep roleplaying / feelings goals.

The absolute worst is when you have a player who's not interested in the mystery, puzzle, mission OR roleplaying / feelings -- they just want to be disruptive.

I hope that's clear.

No, thats totally clear. I think we 100% agree.

The curse of the forgie is that they don't recognize anything but being an amateur author/thespian or amateur psychologist as legitimate. Sethwick asks why would such people even choose roleplaying games? When Redfox offers examples, they are dismissed as "All things better served by actions other than playing RPGs."

The "gamism essay" on the Forge reaches a similar conclusion as it slimes us:

QuoteFor the Gamist, the question is, why is role-playing your chosen venue as a social hobby? There are lots and lots of them that unequivocally fit Step On Up with far less potential for encountering conflicting priorities: volleyball, chess, or pool, if you like the Crunch; horse races or Las Vegas if you like the Gamble; hell, even organized amateur sports like competitive martial arts or sport fishing.

Do you play Gamist in role-playing because it doesn't hurt your ego as much as other venues might? Is role-playing safer in some way, in terms of the loss factor of Step On Up? Even more severely, are you sticking to role-playing because many fellow players subscribe to the "no one wins in role-playing" idea? Do you lurk like Grendel among a group of tolerant, perhaps discomfited Simulationists, secure that they are disinclined to Step On Up toward you? In which case, you can win against them or the game all the time, but they will never win against you?
I accuse no one of affirmative answers to these questions; that's the reader's business. But I do think answering them should be a high priority.

In other words, the only reasons "gamists" might exist to Ron Edwards is because they're either misplaced, or they are actually there to prey on the poor victimized amateur thespians or armchair psychologists. The "hard question" indeed.

My answer is that nobody (the so-called gamist or anyone else) needs an excuse for enjoying a game as a game. It's the other guy- the griefer forgy who wants to command everyone's attention while he works out his novel or agonizes over issues or explores his psyche -- that guy needs to think long and hard about why he came to a roleplaying game.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsDo you play Gamist in role-playing because it doesn't hurt your ego as much as other venues might? Is role-playing safer in some way, in terms of the loss factor of Step On Up? Even more severely, are you sticking to role-playing because many fellow players subscribe to the "no one wins in role-playing" idea? Do you lurk like Grendel among a group of tolerant, perhaps discomfited Simulationists, secure that they are disinclined to Step On Up toward you? In which case, you can win against them or the game all the time, but they will never win against you?
I accuse no one of affirmative answers to these questions; that's the reader's business. But I do think answering them should be a high priority.

Wow.  What an asshole.

"Gamist" meaning "playing to win" doesn't preclude things like storytelling or roleplaying.  It doesn't mean direct confrontation with the other players.  It doesn't even mean a zero-sum game.  I don't think Ron even begins to know what he's talking about in regards to games and roleplaying.

Have you ever taken an acting class, or done any theatre sports?  Playing to win in those situations means something VERY different from playing to win at Chess or Poker.  It means excelling at acting and improvisation.  It's a team effort as well, perhaps more like "Shadows over Camelot" than Warhammer 40K.  You can't "win" against the other players in a game like that.

Trying to seperate "Game" as something seperate (and bad) from Narrative (aka "Roleplaying") when trying to talk about theories of "Roleplaying Games" is fundamentally ridiculous.

Semi-veiled accusations of people being "brain damaged" or "monsters" when they approach games in very normal, human ways -- that really is an obnoxious thing to do.

That so many people subscribe to these theories, rather than cherry picking whatever semi-useful ideas Ron may have had and creating alternate theories -- it's absurd and frankly more than a little saddening.

Quote from: StuartGreat quote for this discussion from way back in 1978...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gygax
Skilled players always make a point of knowing what they're doing. i.e. they have an objective.


from the 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook.

Yeah, but does he mean strategical, tactical or both?  Does he mean long-term or short term?  It's kind of general.

Just because I as a player do not have an over-arching goal for my character (e.g. my space farm-boy will join the rebellion and defeat the empire and become a jedi knight) doesn't mean I'm not down with the goal of the current session/adventure/mission/etc (e.g. rescue the princess from the Dungeon of Orcs).