So, with the telly on the blink and all the interesting threads here already read, I decided to go check out old rpg.net. As a permabanned and therefore unregistered poster, the threads there have to be pretty interesting for me to look through, since I'm stuck on only 10 posts/page. But what do I find? Some Forgers have started a So, "cheetoism" thread. It's pointed out to them that the place to discuss that with me replying would be here, but apparently they're not keen on that.

So, "cheetoism"! These guys wonder what the point of it is, you know, if it's just, "we game for fun," what does that tell us, not much.

Well, actually, there's more to it than that.


There's the main thing. What you see in there in fancy-talk would be said, "roleplaying games are a primarily social activity." It's people first, everything else second. See, game groups don't break up because someone's not Narrativist enough for the group, or because of Incoherence in game design. It just doesn't happen. Game groups break up because people piss each-other off.

On the flipside, game groups do really well, and everyone has fun, when everyone gets along well.

A group which gets along well can have fun with an absolutely shit game. A group which doesn't get along well won't have fun no matter the game. The vast majority of problems which cause groups to break up are between players, personalities. They're things which would break the group up if the group played soccer or volleyball or model trains instead of roleplaying.

Roleplaying is a social activity. That's what "cheetoism" is about. People first, everything else second.

It's funny that I found that thread today, just this afternoon I was chatting to a friend who used to run a game store. He said he'd seen heaps of groups go through the place, and he could always tell the ones that were about to break up. He said what usually happened was that a couple of the gamers would get together after the session and bitch about another player, or the GM. The next session, they'd take that out-of-game discussion, and apply the results in-game, giving the bitched-about guy a hard time. The ensuing argument as people took sides broke up the group. He said that their arguments were about all sorts of things, but the root cause was always personality conflicts. Some people just plain didn't get along.

It surprised me, because I'd thought personality conflicts were just part of it, and that sometimes in-game things would do in the group. But apparently not. It's almost always personality stuff. Just whether or not people get along.

That's because whether we like it or not, we're people first, and gamers second. When we game, as when we do anything, we express ourselves. If someone else doesn't like that self we've expressed, then we're in the shit.

It's why I say that the whole body of rpg theory is nonsense, because every single one, whether GNS, GDS, AGE, or whatever, doesn't mention this, what happens at the game table, how people get along. They think it's unimportant.

Which of course is stupid. However you want to categorise our game tastes, calling them "Alphaism, Betaism, Gammaism" or whatever, if we get along well, then we'll sort something out so that we can both have fun in a game session. But if someone thinks I'm a dork, then he won't want to game with me, even if we're both Betaists, both Gammaists, etc.

I'm expressing things in extremes, extremes of groups breaking up or having a wonderful time, but only to be clear about what I'm saying. Obviously most groups aren't at those extremes, and have good sessions, and bad sessions. What I'm saying is that how good or bad those sessions are has more to do with the people as people, as individuals, than it has to do with some listing of game play style tastes, whichever theory you choose.

People first, everything else second. That's common sense, but is rejected by rpg theories so far. Since it was rejected or forgotten, I needed to remind people of it. For things to stick in people's memory, you need a catchy-name, a sense of humour, and plain English.

Is Cheetoism a joke? Yes. It's a joke about a real thing. People. You can be humorous and still speak the truth.

It was expressed best in rpg.net by KenHR

Quote from: KenHRI think it's more "Because playing an RPG is a social activity, I think most problems experienced by game groups have to do with interpersonal issues that can be solved through communication and compromise between the players and GM. Therefore I think that trying to solve these issues by encoding behavior/style/whatever in rules is not the best way to go about it."

Of course KenHR was being sensible and reasonable and speaking clearly so the Forgers ignored him.

Of course the second art is "to tell tall stories." Tyberious Funk said it should be "to create tall stories." Well, it comes to the same thing, I guess he wanted to emphasise that it was a group thing, the tall story. But "create" sounds a bit pretentious, I dunno, what do you guys reckon?

Anyway, a few Forgers reckon that Cheetoism is saying that we're just gaming to hang out with friends, we don't really care about the gaming. Well, no. The people come first, but the tall stories are a close second. There's only an "and" between the people and the stories. The gaming, the stories, are a way of expressing the friendship, just as some people hug or buy a beer or whatever. The expression is a good and fun thing in itself. Most people enjoy the company of other people, and enjoy some kind of back-and-forth with them, whether it be conversation, a tennis ball, arguing about game rules, or whatever. That's being human.

So that's my Hannukah gift from rpg.net. A thread about Cheetoism. The more humour, plain English and mockery of rpg theory we have in online discussions about roleplaying, the better those discussions will be. Cheetoism is just a tiny tiny tiny part of that. The Nodwick and Full Frontal Nerdity cartoons are much better. There's more wisdom in one Knights of the Dinner Table strip than in all the blatherings of Uncle Ronny.

It is kind of an entertaining thread.

RPG "theory" of the sort that most claim to practice would benefit from a better understanding of already existing theories of group dynamics and sociology.  Part of me believes that there is something to be gained by analyzing just what it is we do when we play an RPG, but that sort of study requires an understanding not only of social dynamics, but also of what narrative is and how people use it.  And I think if people took the time to look at these theories, they would realize that there is no need to create some new pseudo-science from the ground up.

This is why I really liked your "When Gaming Groups Fuck Up" thread and several other discussions along those lines.  Studying the people around the table, rather than the game they're playing, and developing a descriptive (vs. prescriptive) model of gaming group behavior, seems to be a more pragmatic approach to solving the problems that many claim to experience in their groups.

As for why I game, it's a way to be with friends and to share something we all enjoy; I've never really given it much thought beyond that.  My Traveller game was conceived as a way for my old gaming group to get back in touch with one another after jobs and other circumstances separated us all geographically.  We're all old friends, and while a video web conference isn't quite the same as all of us gathered around the table, it's the next best thing there is.

The AD&D group I joined recently functions the same way; several of the old hands in the group have known each other for 20+ years, and a childhood friend of the DM out in the Midwest joins every session via Skype.  It's been tons of fun for me, gets me out of the house, and I've learned some things from the DM that have benefitted my Traveller campaign.  Most importantly, I've made some new acquaintances and that can only make the rest of my life all the more rich.

Apologies for the lengthy and rambling post, but I've been delving back into those dusty sociology and lit crit texts that have stood, untouched, in my bookshelves since I graduated college.  This stuff has been on my mind lately.

[edit: took out a sentence that made the whole post make no sense]

No apologies necessary, KenHR. I'm in no position to criticise anyone for lengthy posts, and you're right that if anything has useful insights for us into roleplaying - stuff that regular gamers can read, understand immediately without a glossary, and which will prove useful to at least some of them - it's going to have stuff from psychology, sociology, and other fields which involve understanding people.

I think it's time to reveal the work in progress, the wiki pages for Why Game Groups Fuck Up. That was a link, by the way.

No-one else can edit it at the moment, but you can register there to comment, or abuse me for it in this thread. Bear in mind that as I said, it's a work in progress. Some parts you'll have seen before, but some are entirely new. I do intend to make a book of it, how long I don't know. I also realise it's an awful title, and welcome ideas for better ones!

I write in it,
   
Introduction

This e-book is all about how game group fuck things up, and how to avoid it, or fix it up. The reason for this is that it's something game books don't talk about much, but gamers themselves talk about constantly, on web forums, in person, after the death of a game group and while forming a new group. The two basic questions are:

[/I][/B]

If those questions are answered for a roleplayer, then everything else is simple by comparison.

Game groups do not bugger up because of the wrong game rules, or the wrong setting, but because of the people in the group. Most problems could have been avoided, and can be fixed up, simply by talking to each-other. So that's the basic message of this book: talk to each-other.

That's going to be the tone of the whole thing. Casual, and most of it obvious. When you read a non-fiction book, it'll only tell you four kinds of things,

   

• Something you didn't know, and agree with (or don't object to);
• Something you didn't know, and disagree with;
• Something you knew already, and it seems obvious to you;
• Something you knew already, but you didn't know it until it was put into words for you.

This book aims to tell you mostly the last two things. It is not revolutionary, and contains no great and innovative and profound insight into human nature. It just takes normal observations of an experienced roleplayer and puts them all together in a more or less organised form. A bunch of obvious things, if put together well, can together give you better understanding than all those things spread all over the place.[/COLOR]

Quote from: JimBobOzA group which gets along well can have fun with an absolutely shit game.

This fact seems to drive some folks absolutely nuts.  If I were inclined to call people names, I might use the term 'system fetishist'.

Or maybe just 'dumbass'.

See.... to me, I've pretty much always known it was the people. Before I knew there was a Forge, before I knew there was Gaming Theory. I've GM'ed and played most of my life, and I learned not to join groups, or run games, with certain players I knew.  Because I thought they were moronic assholes. If someone jacked me around in a game and we couldn't laugh it off, I stopped gaming with them.  That simple.  I'm 100% certain that if I was one of those settled people with 'roots' in an area, I'd have an awesome group right now.

My goal in recent games as a GM hasn't been to run the coolest sessions to keep my players coming back, but to difuse the personality conflicts at the table before they explode.   Doesn't always work, but I'm still sort of new at this mediation thing.  I've made an effort to bring all that 'off table' backbiting out into open discussion.   Part of it is realizing that you can't keep everyone, and cutting loose the player who is most problematic.

System does matter!

...if you aren´t gaming with friends.

People matter more than anything else at the table.  That there's a massive chunk of the community that resists that thought like the Russkies at Stalingrad makes grey matter run out of my nose.

And man that thread at Big Purple is like an explosion of crazy.  I especially like how "America's ruling elites" are dragged in halfway through.

Quote from: SpikeSee.... to me, I've pretty much always known it was the people. Before I knew there was a Forge, before I knew there was Gaming Theory.

Now I figured you played with other pikas, with real chainsaws (electric ones of course) and a feast afterwards. :O

-clash

Quote from: JimBobOzA group which gets along well can have fun with an absolutely shit game.

The only thing I'd argue here is this.

In the hands of a group that gets along well, a shit set of rules, or one that doesn't fit the group, will get altered or ignored.  Informal house rules will take over for system.

Good games for your group inspire the group to action and don't waste time with houseruling in play.

Bad ones siphon off time that could be better spent playing.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenGood games for your group inspire the group to action and don't waste time with houseruling in play.

Bad ones siphon off time that could be better spent playing.

I don't disagree with this assessment at all, but I personally spend way too much time wringing my hands over system choice and not enough time making my games works.  And I think many groups would be happier if they accepted a sufficient system for their needs rather than devoting their energies to perfecting a system.

The Good DM, or at least the ones I care for, have a vision, a kiss form the muses, that leads him to craft sheer awesomeness of his brains into a campaign.
The energy, devotion and time needed for that clearly overshine any time spent on houseruling.

That´s why I´ll never dig certain gamers games. They quabble over rules instead of preparing their next session.

Quote from: flyingmiceNow I figured you played with other pikas, with real chainsaws (electric ones of course) and a feast afterwards. :O

-clash

No no.... those are the... er... 'family' gatherings.

Quote from: SettembriniSystem does matter!

...if you aren´t gaming with friends.

A group dynamic that's formed and relatively coherent will have interests though.  Simple group behavior.  Even if the Omega of the group is really into Dogs in the Vineyard, if he's in a group where everyone thinks that sort of game is shit, they're not going to play it.

I've been in groups that refuse to play anything but Storyteller.  That's a group decision on system.  So system does matter.

...to the group.

QuoteSo system does matter.

...to the group.

Which is all that really matters.

Quote from: SettembriniWhich is all that really matters.

Well, there's individuals that are dissatisfied, but they're dissatisfied with the group, because the group has settled on a system they don't like, and they can't convince the group to play and/or enjoy their pet system(s).

And finding a new group can be easy or difficult, depending on how funky your tastes are, and what your locale is like.

That said, I have little sympathy for people who can't find a group because they can only get their rocks off playing WUSHU versions of wuxia Star Wars, or whatever.  A bit of compromise is necessary to enjoy a group activity.