Most players don't just reject the idea of wanting "empowerment"; they actively RESENT any effort to give them such that is outside their regular role.

Often, they reject doing so even inside their regular role.  Hell, many of my players get a bit flustered at having to name their character; they sure as hell don't want to have to create a 5-page story background for him, or have to then create plot hooks for the campaign centered on him.  They want the GM to do those things for them, if anyone does.

The few really successful ways to get players to give the level of commitment required to flesh out their characters and inject him into the world are by trying to make them as simple as possible, with questionairres that have short yes/no or one-phrase answers, etc.

All this is because, in the end, your average player is a player and not a GM because either doesn't feel like he has the commitment or the creativity to do what a GM does. He wants to play, have a good time, and not have to do all the work that is involved with being a GM.

RPGPundit

that's been my experience as well.  although most players will eventually come up with a good name on their own, just give them time.  otherwise, the "choose one NOW" results in names like "hee-bob" or "hugh g. rection" and the like.  

even the players who ref would rather just play instead of coming up with additional details.  the extra work would go towards the games they run, instead.  

this also comes with getting older and having less free time, methinks.  gaming should be fun, not homework.

I've had players really cotton to 'player empowerment,' using their new abilities to the hilt, and I've had players turtle up at the mere notion of it. In my experience the ratio of lovers to haters has hovered right around 50%. Then again, I haven't found many casual players over the age of, say, 18 to 22. All but a handful of the veteran gamers I know also GM from time to time.

I'd agree that the number of players willing to seize player empowerment goes WAY down when stuff like 5 page character backgrounds are involved. Of course, I can't think of a single RPG insane enough to attempt to require such a thing. I'd also say that long backgrounds have somewhere between jack and shit to do with player empowerment.

Was this inspired by the thread on RPGnet? Because I agree with you 100 per cent.

The more I think about, the more I've come to believe that most of the impetus for non-traditional RPGs is from GMs who are deeply frustrated that the folks they play with aren't as committed to the game as they are. It's the GMs who want the backstory and sophisticated motivations, so they have material to work with on their hobby of writing RPG stuff (and then talking about it on the internet).

The problem is that these unhappy souls turn around and disparage GMs who have functional groups. On RPGNet, they've managed to play up the myth of the domineering GM who refuses to share power into a menacing bogeyman.

What they really want is to play with a bunch of obsessive super-gamers like themselves, so they invent games that would cater to just those implausible groups. Then they talk about those games, and how cool they would be, while shitting on traditional play and castigating both the GMs and players who have fun with it.

Because in my experience, RPG groups typically consist of one or two very motivated and creative players, a bunch of more casual players. And that's a dynamic that works pretty well for most people. But for the people who it doesn't work for, who cannot stop stressing about what play might be like with a bunch of players as keen as himself, chatting on the internet about player empowerment and shared-authoring games is the only outlet for the frustrations.

Quote from: RPGPunditMost players don't just reject the idea of wanting "empowerment"; they actively RESENT any effort to give them such that is outside their regular role.

It's not so much a matter of resentment as lack of interest in it, unless the "empowerment" becomes mandatory.  Then it becomes resentment.  Mandatory
"empowerment" isn't.

Quote from: RPGPunditMost players don't just reject the idea of wanting "empowerment"; they actively RESENT any effort to give them such that is outside their regular role.

There's your argument right there.  Empower the "regular role".  Don't give the "regular role" extra powers, but don't undermine the options available to the role, either (and we've all known GMs who've done that).

QuoteOften, they reject doing so even inside their regular role.

Now, that's a problem in my book.  If I'm putting out my all as GM for their entertainment, I expect the players to put forth some effort in their "regular role".  If they resent that expectation, I don't want to GM for them.

See where this is going?  The whole issue of "empowerment" revolves around expectation of the kind of game you intend to play.  Some games expect some creative input from everyone playing, not just reactive dice rolling.  Other games are just fine with the mechanical approach to the game rules, and are uncomfortable with the theatrical aspects of roleplaying.

So, play the game the way you want to.  If you don't like the way your group plays, try to find (or found) a new group.

!i!

Quote from: HaffrungThe more I think about, the more I've come to believe that most of the impetus for non-traditional RPGs is from GMs who are deeply frustrated that the folks they play with aren't as committed to the game as they are. It's the GMs who want the backstory and sophisticated motivations, so they have material to work with on their hobby of writing RPG stuff (and then talking about it on the internet).

Trying to do GM stuff while playing the game is like trying to watch a movie with the director's commentary turned on.  Yeah, it can be interesting but it makes it darned difficult to just enjoy the movie.  I'd much rather talk about the nuts and bolts of the session after I've played it, much like I prefer to listen to the director's commentary after I've watched the movie.

Quote from: HaffrungThe problem is that these unhappy souls turn around and disparage GMs who have functional groups. On RPGNet, they've managed to play up the myth of the domineering GM who refuses to share power into a menacing bogeyman.

For those GMs out there, when I ask you if something is in the room, I don't expect you to "Say yes or roll the dice".  I expect you to tell me if that thing exists in the room or not and "No" is a perfectly valid response.

Quote from: HaffrungBecause in my experience, RPG groups typically consist of one or two very motivated and creative players, a bunch of more casual players. And that's a dynamic that works pretty well for most people. But for the people who it doesn't work for, who cannot stop stressing about what play might be like with a bunch of players as keen as himself, chatting on the internet about player empowerment and shared-authoring games is the only outlet for the frustrations.

Some GMs enjoy entertaining their players so running a game for a group of casual players is great fun for them.  Other GMs need the players to entertain them back.  Those GMs get very annoyed if the players don't provide that entertainment for them.

Hmmm.....

There are actually several different ideas being flung around here at once.  

(Insert appropriate zebra <- hyena image)

I find usually (95%) that players who have long complicated backgrounds and etc. want to be the "star of the show".  They're attention-whoring.

As far as "player empowerment", I agree with the comment about "director's commentary".  I don't want to hear a lot of shit about how something is done, I just want to watch.

As far as "players giving back" -- when I'm GMing, I expect my players to be present and focused.  No, they don't have to put in hours of out-of-game time.  But be on time, get your ass to the table, pay attention, and make reasonable decisions for your character.

And think.  Surprise me.  Come up with the 101st way to get inside the Imperial base when I have 100 defensive measures in place.

"most of the impetus for non-traditional RPGs is from GMs who are deeply frustrated that the folks they play with aren't as committed to the game as they are. It's the GMs who want the backstory and sophisticated motivations, so they have material to work with on their hobby of writing RPG stuff (and then talking about it on the internet)."

Ding.  Winner.

That, plus Ron Edwards had a D&D GM who was a dickhead and never got over it.  "Show us on this doll where the bad GM touched your character."

Quote from: John MorrowSome GMs enjoy entertaining their players so running a game for a group of casual players is great fun for them.  Other GMs need the players to entertain them back.  Those GMs get very annoyed if the players don't provide that entertainment for them.

No doubt. But my impression is a lot of GMs who need the players to entertain them haven't found a group that suits their needs. Instead, they enthuse over idealistic power-sharing games, while hurling accusations of abuse on DMs who are fine with their groups.

Quote from: RPGPunditMost players don't just reject the idea of wanting "empowerment"; they actively RESENT any effort to give them such that is outside their regular role.

Often, they reject doing so even inside their regular role.  Hell, many of my players get a bit flustered at having to name their character;

I beg your pardon?

Now to the topic.
IMNSHO (in my not so humble opinion), empowerment should be WON or DEVELOPED in-game. I'm much more of a player than a GM, and a much better one, and I've never needed a 5-pages background story. Bloody hell, I usually need just about 20' of gaming to flesh out a character. In my experience, not only

Quote from: Old Geezerplayers who have long complicated backgrounds and etc. want to be the "star of the show". They're attention-whoring.

but they also just lay down quietly on their backgrounds and can't or won't let their characters grow. Most of the time they're not even good players. And that blows.
And as a GM, I'd much rather have a player who, upon seeing an orc patrol, shouts "My name is Oskar Thunderfart, you killed my father, prepare to die", than the bloke who just mumbles "I fly into rage", because he stated into his background that an orc patrol had killed his daddy, but won't even say it out loud.

I agree with most everything said here and wish to subscribe to this newsletter.

I've basically ran into three kinds of players in my 20+ years of gaming:

1. The Casual Player
The casual player rarely, if ever, owns anything RPG-related - maybe not even dice.  They don't particularly care what their character's name is and never come up with a background.  They don't have much of a character concept and are usually happy playing whatever.  They usually play a similar personality regardless of which character/game they are playing.

Some people find these players annoying because of their lack of "investment" into the game, but I love them.  All they care about is getting together and having fun.


2. The Semi-Casual Player
The semi-casual player owns at least a few RPG books, though not necessarily for the current campaign game.  They might try to GM once in a while.  They usually come up with a name and may or may not come up with a brief background or concept; both of which are usually taken at least partially from a book or movie.  They generally will go with the flow, but may argue a point of rules or setting information on occasion.

This would be my second-favorite type of player.


3. The Hardcore Player
The hardcore player always insists on owning the rulebook for the latest game before agreeing to play it.  They will also own several supplements to make sure they have access to the "best" stuff.  They tend to be terrible min-maxers.  They are also usually constant rules-lawyers, and will argue every rule as long as it falls to their advantage.  They create long, detailed background stories that are a mish-mash of various "cool" movies, books, etc.  They will always try to create something unique about their character to be a special snowflake.  They will almost always have a domineering personality any try to be the center of attention in all conversations during the game.

I loathe this style of player.  The drama queen antics and min-maxing rules lawyering get on my nerves very quickly.


Of the three types, only type #3 would want any type of empowerment.  And even most of them won't want the responsibility for the group that comes with empowerment - they just like the opportunity to be more of a center of attention and give advantages to their own character so they can "win" the game.

Empowerment is clearly only desirable for people who like to be GMs stuck playing under a different GM whose style they don't like.  I've been stuck in that position before, but even then, I'd still rather GM a different game of my own than try to armchair-GM somebody else's game.

I truly don't understand where they think a big market is for these kinds of games.

Quote from: jgantsI truly don't understand where they think a big market is for these kinds of games.

You said it yourself.  "The hardcore player always insists on owning the rulebook for the latest game before agreeing to play it.  They will also own several supplements to make sure they have access to the "best" stuff."

The game designers and publishers want to encourage this sort of player because they actually buy books and lots of them.  The casual players isn't a sale.  The market for this sort of game might not actually exist, but hope springs eternal.

Really, jgants, the issue is that you can't have all three at the table at the same time.  In order to have a fulfilling experience, you must focus on one type of player and tailor the rules strictly to their level of play.

Games that do not do this are Incoherent.

Quote from: John MorrowThe game designers and publishers want to encourage this sort of player because they actually buy books and lots of them.  The casual players isn't a sale.  

Yep. And so the game publishers are locked into a death spiral with the hardcore players, designing their systems to reward system mastery and buttressing them with heavy mechanics so the rules lawyers can't crack them.

Quote from: HaffrungYep. And so the game publishers are locked into a death spiral with the hardcore players, designing their systems to reward system mastery and buttressing them with heavy mechanics so the rules lawyers can't crack them.

It's worked for over 30 years, going on 35.  It's a proven model, the one that drives all of the best-selling RPG franchises in all media where RPGs exist, and it ain't going anywhere because no alternative yet produced can best it.