I've been called insular in my time. Actually my gaming group - different times, different people - have been called insular. We play a certain way. Sure we have diverse taste -no matter the group - but we "game" a certain way.The perception is because we don't game with different folks our thinking is pretty set on the way how we do things. We play the kind of games we want to play.

I keep reading on many different forums of the bad experiences folks have with rpgs. That they like it but they are not getting the most out of their games. That they want something else but because of the group, all who have different styles, they settle for less than what they want.*

I know it's beginning to sound like an all or nothing proposition. Maybe it is. Maybe the only way one can actually have the kind of gaming experience he/she wants is if you're with like minded individuals. So if this is true, are RPGs a closed social activity? Does one get the most out of the activity only with like minded individuals ? People like us.

Yeah I've been reading JimBob's "sympathy" thread and it got me thinking...

Regards,
David R

I've been in the same situation as you, when I lived in Perth. An insular group of players (a large group of up to ten or fifteen available players, mind you) who shied away from playing with anybody not already part of the gang. New players were always brought in very carefully. We all had very solid ideas about what a good game was.

Since I moved to Melbourne, I've played with a lot of different people. I played in a few games I wasn't interested in for networking purposes, but in the end I found it's more efficient to network with people if you are interested in their games. And then there's the social thing: if Monty Python quoting pisses you off and Joe quotes Holy Grail non-stop, it's not going to work.

I'd say I'm more flexible now as to certain expectations, but I'd really rather watch TV or blather on forums than go and be bored for several hours. Look at it this way--if you were planning a dinner party, would you look up people who didn't have things in common? How much fun could that be?

Our gaming group is four adults who have external connections with each other and game as a regular way to socialise.  In an earlier era it might have been a Friday night poker game (my father's vice, which I always wished I could be a part of).  It's not really open to new players for a lot of reasons, but if someone drifted into our circle as a friend first, they might wind up at the table.

Not sure if that's clear -- we don't want new players but new friends would probably be welcome to play.

Anyway, certainly we all have a group-consistent idea of what's fun and while it's pretty loose (we'll try new games any old time and have been known to just roll up characters for an evening while we get around a bottle of 18 year old Tallisker) it's also not likely to mesh with every other gamer's idea of a night around the dice.

Quote from: David RSo if this is true, are RPGs a closed social activity? Does one get the most out of the activity only with like minded individuals ? People like us.

Sort of, I reckon. Really we're talking about two different things: play style, and cliqueishness. By "cliqueishness" I'm not meaning anything bad here, just the normal human tendency of people to stick with people they know.

Sure it's good if people like the same sorts of games, but you're talking about something else - being a closed group. If it were just, "you have to like game X with style Y to be with us," then you could just ask new people what they liked, and if they liked it, they'd be in, and everything would be lovely. But you're saying that you have to have known them for years, just as droog said they were pretty cautious of new people in his Perth group.

What I've found is this. It's that play styles matter, but people are more accomodating of different play styles than you might expect. And if you're buddies with someone, you'll be more accomodating still.

A gamer I knew talked about how he had a gaming buddy, a real friend to him. This guy when gaming would get all emotional, if he rolled a critical fumble he'd start swearing and waving his arms about and throw the dice across the room. "But he's my friend so I don't mind." He contrasted this with the case of another player he knew who was generally annoying him, but wasn't his friend.

It reminds me also of how my woman and I were agreeing last night that one of the signs of being in love with them is that there's some small things about them that anyone would say, "that's stupid", but you think are cute. Their quirks are annoying or strange to others, but loveable to you. The same applies to friendship, I think. The player's dice-flinging and screaming would, in a new group, get him tossed out - but to his friends it was cute and funny, and just part of gaming with him - they'd miss it if he stopped.

So game play styles are important, but people are more accomodating than you might think, and they accomodate even more if they know you well and like you.

Take for example my current game group. If I were wandering around searching for one, and walked into it, with the game sessions going exactly as they have, I'd probably say, "that's fun, but not really what I'm looking for", and I'd keep looking. But because I know these guys and have gamed with them for a while, that pretty ordinary (for me) gaming seems pretty good. The play experienced is enhanced by the out-of-game relationships. I'm more accomodating because I know them. It's not that I'm bored but put up with it because I'm friendly with them, it's that what would be boring with people I don't know is entertaining with people I do know.

That's the sort of thing I meant by "sympathy."

Quote from: HalfjackNot sure if that's clear -- we don't want new players but new friends would probably be welcome to play.

I kinda of get what you're saying but ..okay, put it this way, say a gamer friend of yours had a very different playstyle from your current group, would you still invite him to play in your group?

JimBob I think I wasn't clear in my original post about what I meant. I think it goes beyond "cliqueishness"...it's more like if your playstyle does not mesh with your group's then what's the point of playing even though you're hanging out with friends ? Shit does that sound harsh?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI kinda of get what you're saying but ..okay, put it this way, say a gamer friend of yours had a very different playstyle from your current group, would you still invite him to play in your group?

That's a question that needs so many qualifications to answer that it pretty much comes down to "it depends".

If I thought his play style was so different from ours that he wouldn't enjoy himself, I'd warn him off.  If I thought his playstyle would be disruptive and didn't think I could trust him to adapt to our style, I wouldn't invite him.  Mostly, though, these are my friends and I trust them -- that means I trust them to know when to bend and know when to just walk away rather than causing a disruption with other friends.

Quote from: David RI[...] it's more like if your playstyle does not mesh with your group's then what's the point of playing even though you're hanging out with friends ?

I can understand that. I've got friends I don't want to game with because I don't like how they game, just like I've got friends I wouldn't want to work with because I don't like how they work. By the same token, though, I know people with similar game styles, but I don't like them, or they don't like me, so I wouldn't game with them.

We've got a social creative hobby. Those two things are two legs moving us forwards. If either is lacking, at best you can just hop along, and probably you'll end up falling over.

Every person, if they close their eyes and walk a hundred steps, they'll walk somewhat to the left or the right - each of us has a right or left bias. But this bias to one leg or the other is something you have to think about to even notice, and this bias doesn't mean that in fact we're one-legged. We walk on both legs, we just put more weight on one than the other. Normally we're unaware of it because as we walk we correct for it. Likewise, to each of us, the social or the creative aspect of roleplaying is more important, but usually we're not even aware of which is more important, and that the social is more important than the creative or vice versa does not mean we only want one of them. In play we correct for it, so for example right now we've got a thread here talking about people bribing the GM - the social is being put before the creative - and some people think it's wrong, some right.

So there's a person we like but their game style isn't a perfect match, and another person we dislike a bit but their game style is perfectly matched, which person do you choose? That's the hundred-step bias test to see if you're biased more towards the social or the creative. That's why Halfjack said, "it depends."

If you were perfectly balanced between the social and the creative, then you'd simply weigh up the two potential players, and see whether one was worse creatively than the other was socially - or vice versa - and pick the best. But because we have that bias, we sometimes weigh the social more than the creative, or vice versa.

That's why on the one hand you get people posting to rpg forums, "oh no, my group is really shit, but I can't leave them, they're my friends!" and on the other hand you get guys like Ron Edwards saying that most game groups are really crap. The first guy thinks the social's more important than the creative, the creative has to get pretty bad before the guy will arc up. The second guy thinks the creative's more important than the social, so he comes up with an elaborate theory about what people get out of playing games, and never once mentions dice or cheetos.

It depends

Quote from: JimBobOzThat's why on the one hand you get people posting to rpg forums, "oh no, my group is really shit, but I can't leave them, they're my friends!" and on the other hand you get guys like Ron Edwards saying that most game groups are really crap. The first guy thinks the social's more important than the creative, the creative has to get pretty bad before the guy will arc up. The second guy thinks the creative's more important than the social, so he comes up with an elaborate theory about what people get out of playing games, and never once mentions dice or cheetos.

Yeah the balance between the social and the creative. But here's the thing, if we are talking about friends...and a person who isn't having any "fun", it's about the creative right? Allowing someone with a differing playstyle into your group is one thing, whether that person is having fun is another. The way how I see it, once gaming stops being fun why do it.

Halfjack said something interesting:

QuoteMostly, though, these are my friends and I trust them -- that means I trust them to know when to bend and know when to just walk away rather than causing a disruption with other friends.

I think this is very true, one can trusts your friends not to be disruptive but I do think that it's very difficult to say if your friend is carrying on with the group not because he's having fun but rather because you're all friends.

This "creative" part has been proping up in our after game discussions because this seems to be a problem for my out of town(country) guests.

The way how I see it, if the creative aspect of gaming does not satisfy you, then why play? Sometimes there's a very real conflict between the social and creative and I think the social aspect should take a back seat, in this case. What do you think ?

Regards,
David R

I'll post more later, but I think compromise is at the heart of good gaming, as it is at the heart of many things.  I think the focus on playing with people into precisely the same narrow stuff lessens us, both as gamers and to a small extent as people.

I think the whole Forge focus on playing only with those who share your particular priorities is a massive blind alley, which will ultimately limit the appeal of indie games.  It's no coincidence that the most commercially successful rpgs tend to be those best suited to catering to a variety of play styles.

As for online posting, unhappy gamers talk more about their gaming than happy gamers.  I have a great group, as a result I hardly ever talk about them.

Balbinus I'll be looking forward to seeing what you have to say. Either I'm not getting my point across or the current climate of the board (due no doubt to recent threads) has distorted the way you're viewing my posts...either way your response should be interesting.

Regards,
David R

I started gaming with my childhood friends. Then with some schoolmates, finally with people at my local FLAGS. Later I gamed with people from the University Gaming Club, Gaming Conventions, and finally Online Gaming Forums.

The Friday Night Gaming Group is currently composed of 5 Gamers I met at the University Gaming Club 20yrs ago. One we met about 8 years ago and another returning form a 12yr absence. Our newer Players were recruited. One by me from my Shadowrun Gaming Group at a FLAGS and the other a Lady friend of mine. We have had dozens of Gamers come and go, but the core 3 of us stays the same.

I go to Gaming Conventions, FLAGS Gaming Nights, and only recently stopped running Shadowrun off and on for 10yrs. Two of my former Shadowrun Gamers have been recruited into TFNGG.

In my experience the best way to aquire new Gamers is to run Games at Local Gaming Conventions, Gaming Clubs, FLAGS Game Nights, and from Online Forums.
 
I have had good experiences and bad experiences, but have learned you have to take the leap to find the Gamers you want.


Cheers

QM

WEll I am, by definition...

-clash

Quote from: David RYeah the balance between the social and the creative. But here's the thing, if we are talking about friends...and a person who isn't having any "fun", it's about the creative right?

Usually, yes. But sometimes it's the social as well. They could be your friends, but you see them enough already with other stuff. Sometimes people just get an overdose of someone. Like if you start an intimate relationship with someone at work, you see them forty hours a week, then a couple of dates, then maybe move in together... suddenly you're together ALL THE TIME. The relationship suffers. Not because you dislike anything about them, or don't work well together - just, you know...

It can be the same with gaming. You can game with them for years on end each week and holiday, and just some day have enough.

It's hard to draw a sharp and clear line between the "social" and "creative." I mean, suppose you and your gamer friend like the same sorts of games, but whenever he GMs, he has to look up every damn rule, and it starts to piss you off. You tell him, "don't worry, just call it +3, that's good enough." He replies, "No, it must be exact." Is that a creative issue, or a social one? Is it a matter of game play styles not fitting together perfectly, or of your friend not listening to you? Hard to say.

Quote from: David RAllowing someone with a differing playstyle into your group is one thing, whether that person is having fun is another. The way how I see it, once gaming stops being fun why do it.

Well, as you say later, because you're all friends. People often tend to carry on in intimate relationships, in jobs, in game groups or whatever, even when they're not enjoying it much anymore - out of a sort of momentum. Sometimes they're hoping it'll be fun at some future time. Like gamblers or mice in a lab, pressing the buttons on the machine for their infrequent, randomly-sized rewards. But plain old momentum and "but what else can I do?" explains a lot of it.

The people are a minority, though - the unhappy ones. I think it was about 5% of gamers think their last or current game was overall bad, if I remember that rpg.net poll correctly.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's hard to draw a sharp and clear line between the "social" and "creative." I mean, suppose you and your gamer friend like the same sorts of games, but whenever he GMs, he has to look up every damn rule, and it starts to piss you off. You tell him, "don't worry, just call it +3, that's good enough." He replies, "No, it must be exact." Is that a creative issue, or a social one? Is it a matter of game play styles not fitting together perfectly, or of your friend not listening to you? Hard to say.

Actually this is what I would call a "compromise" issue that Balbinus mentioned. I would say the lines between creative - "What you get from playing" and social "What you get from playing with friends/people" are pretty well defined...although don't hold me to that definition The former defines why you play, the latter defines how well the former is satisfied. (Damn, this last sentence sounds kind of dodgy...)

Regards,
David R