Quote from: SpikeThank you, Jimbob, for handling Sethwick's comment so throughly and politely. Saved me from going in both guns blazing tearing shit up and generally making this an unfreindly discussion.

I guess I got a critical success on my dipomacy check. Makes up for my critical failure in another thread, where I mentioned someone's ethnic background being different to the prevailing culture, saying that because of it he'd understand certain cultural differences better than me. Mental note: You are talking to Americans, never mention race or cultural differences. Everybody same. Everybody same. All same like McDonalds. Difference there means slavery and mass murder. Therefore, never mention difference. Everybody same. No equality possible without homogeneity. Everybody same.

GURPS Basic Set, p. 163. Chauvinistic. An extremely low level of Intolerance (p.140). You are always aware of differences in sex, skin color, etc even if you do not actually react poorly to others. Thin-skinned individuals might occasionally react to you at -1 as a result.

I'm a chauvinistic gamer, I'm not autistic. If you think gamers are autistic, maybe it's got something to do with posting on the Forge or story-games.

Quote from: SethwickI gotta agree with Lost Soul and (surprise surprise) disagree with Pundit. Being boring is the single most deadly sin of gaming IMO.

Naw, the most deadly sin of gaming is being a douchebag.

What you want are people with actual social skills.  If you're interrupting people all the time, you suck.  If you just sit there and never give any input (even - well, especially - if you don't cheer when someone gets a x3 critical), then you suck too.

It's just like any other social gathering.  I would much rather go out to pick up chicks with a boring guy as my wingman than a prima donna who cockblocks me all the time.  But that boring guy better be ready to do some shots when the shooter girl comes round.

JimBobOz, nice post.

Quote from: JimBobOzMental note: You are talking to Americans, never mention race or cultural differences. Everybody same. Everybody same. All same like McDonalds. Difference there means slavery and mass murder. Therefore, never mention difference. Everybody same. No equality possible without homogeneity. Everybody same.

.

Heh.. I've lived here most of my life and I still scratch my head about it. Of course, I'm educated enough in the local ways not to trip myself up, no matter how glaringly oblivious those around me can be....:rolleyes:

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's not. It's to give the quiet players the opportunity to step into the spotlight themselves.

That opportunity exists at all times. It's called, "Speaking up and doing something."

QuoteHere's the spotlight, pointed at centre stage. You've got your really active-types, who'll go running up to that spotlight, and push aside anyone already there. "Me! Me! Look at me!" You've got your really reactive types, who'll stand around doing nothing until the GM points the spotlight at them. "Who? What? It's my turn? Oh, okay, I'll do this, then." At then you've got your passive types, who'll stand there just blinking at the light and saying and doing nothing.

Yeah, I find the reactive and passive players pretty unfun to be around.

QuoteFew players are entirely passive. Most are at least reactive, you just have to find the right buttons to push. Sometimes players are just quiet, and overwhelmed by the active ones. When there's some guy who follows the spotlight around and jumps into it, pushing aside anyone else, then others are sometimes going to just step aside when the spotlight comes their way.

Okay.

QuoteThe point is not to leave that spotlight on them until they do something. It's simply to give them a chance. It's like I said upthread about having a quiet player, and some noisy ones - the noisy ones would sit right opposite me, the GM, to make sure they could get all my attention. I moved them around so that the quiet guy was sitting opposite me, so he'd get some of my attention. If he didn't want to do anything, that was fine - but at least I remembered he was there and thought to ask him. If one of the noisy ones was opposite me, I wouldn't remember the quiet one sitting right next to me.

I think it's the quiet ones job to get your attention.

QuoteA GM's job is to give choices and options. But options are optional, you can just sit back and let events wash over you if you want to. That's fine. But sometimes other players erode each-other's choices and options. More often than a GM railroading players, players railroad each-other. There's one or two noisy people who dominate the game. That ain't good. It's a game group.

Yeah, it's a game group, but I don't feel any sympathy for those players who don't get themselves involved and don't like it. It's an easy thing to fix. Say something.

QuoteAnd sometimes, people are just shy. Haven't you ever had a shy friend who was reluctant to go to a party, you had to persuade them pretty strongly, then when they went, they had fun? Well, an rpg session is just like a dinner party. When you host a dinner party, one of the things you have to do is to keep conversation flowing, and make sure everyone's included. No wallflowers. That's what a courteous host does.

I was/am that shy friend. When I'm shy, it's cause I want to be alone, or I'm uncomfortable about people. When I roleplay, I'm not either of those things. If you are either of those things, I don't see why you are roleplaying.

I play host a lot. I really don't give a crap about being a gracious host. I provide food, illumination, space, snacks, beverages, and video games/tv if those are the order of the day. If you don't want to involve yourself with that stuff, that's your fault, not mine.

QuoteAs part of giving players choices, the GM should encourage them to make characters who aren't boring. "I see that your character likes swords, dislikes blunt swords, has a habit of sharpening his sword, and an ambition of getting a bigger sword. Perhaps if you were to diversify his interests, that'd give us more things to tie him into the campaign?" A character whose only interest is "swords" has few choices. A character whose interests include swords, tobacco, and broad-shouldered men, and who hates people humming, that's a character with more choices, more options in play.

If the player has a boring character, it's partly the GM's fault.

Bullshit. It's the players fault. GMs job isn't to make their character better. Plus, a character who has a "habbit" is far more than most passive players I think of would have.

QuoteYes, it is. Your job's to gives choices and options. If you give all your attention to whoever most loudly demands it, that reduces the choices and options of the less noisy players. You may as well just go off and roleplay one-on-one with that one guy, and let the others find another game group where they'll actually get to do stuff.

It's a game group. It's not a Survivor challenge.

What about those two things is contradictory? Why is it impossible for someone else to "demand" my attention? You act like it's always one person and it's impossible to take attention away from them.

Here's how I see it: Attention goes to those with ideas who are willing to speak up about them. If you aren't getting attention you either don't have ideas, in which case attention would be wasted, or you won't speak up about them, which is a very easy problem to fix. You speak up about them.

Really, it's not fucking hard. I was shy. I am shy. I can still open my mouth and speak. It's really easy. If you are that uncomfortable around people, such a social hobby about sharing ideas probably is not for you, and my group certainly isn't a self help group.

Now, of course, these are all problems I've never had as a GM in real life. My players are not passive cause they are shy, they are passive cause they, really, aren't that into RPGs. That's why I rarely play face to face anymore, they aren't willing/able to bring the intensity, and I'm not willing/able as a GM to make up for it. They usually aren't willing to run, so... no gaming in real life. Online, I'm usually a player, and it's much harder to tell why someone isn't saying much. I know that I generally write a lot more in online games than people other than the GM. I used to really worry about hogging the spotlight, but after I tried to really tone it down, to stop, to keep quiet for long periods of time seeing if anyone else wanted to do anything, and got nothing... In most games I just kind of say "screw it" and let go.

Also, I rarely see players in games go out of their way to set up dramatic situations. People dont' seek out love interests or create heavily involved dependents or sacrifice their characters (if their character is the self-sacrificing type) to save others (I play mainly superhero games online). I guess it comes from being a GM for so long, but I as a player I feel it's my job to provide the GM with as many hooks as possible and to jump on any hooks he puts out there and even suggest possible hooks and actions to him if I think of them. That's the stuff I think all players should be doing.

Quote from: LostSoulNaw, the most deadly sin of gaming is being a douchebag.

What you want are people with actual social skills.  If you're interrupting people all the time, you suck.  If you just sit there and never give any input (even - well, especially - if you don't cheer when someone gets a x3 critical), then you suck too.

It's just like any other social gathering.  I would much rather go out to pick up chicks with a boring guy as my wingman than a prima donna who cockblocks me all the time.  But that boring guy better be ready to do some shots when the shooter girl comes round.

Well, picking up chicks is a rather specific task. Gaming, i think, is closer to, but not exactly like, "hanging out."

And when I'm hanging out, I much prefere rude people who are funny/interesting to polite people who are boring.

Quote from: SethwickAnd when I'm hanging out, I much prefere rude people who are funny/interesting to polite people who are boring.

That is an interesting concept there, Seth. You say that you actively shun freinds that aren't entertaining enough for you?  

In other words the purpose of your friends is to entertain you? Do they have to submit resume's  as well?  Do you pay them? Or is their reward basking in your reflected glow?

Sethwich, I see that you are somewhat lacking in empathy. Your post is all, "I am... I am... when I game... I am..."

Your experiences are not universal. Not everyone is like you.

Some people are somewhat quiet and self-effacing, and will have fun sitting quietly during a game, only responding briefly when directly called on. Sometimes - not always, but sometimes - these same people will have more fun if drawn to the spotlight for a bit.

It's a bit like, say I've a job with good pay. It's a good job, I'm enjoying working there, and the pay is good. I'm content. But if they decide to double my pay, I'll be thrilled. I wouldn't ask them to double my pay, I'm not ballsy enough. But if they decide to, I ain't turnin' it down, and I'll be very happy.

Likewise, there are players who are a bit quiet and reserved, and are happy mostly just watching what happens next in the session, and occasionally responding to things. They're happy, they're content. They'd never ask for more. But if you give them more, they'll be thrilled.

Not all of 'em, but quite a few. That's what you're not getting with my posts. I'm not saying these quieter players are miserable, I'm saying they're happy. But they'd be MORE happy if they were brought forward a bit - not always, but often.

Quote from: SethwickYeah, it's a game group, but I don't feel any sympathy for those players who don't get themselves involved and don't like it.

See, this is what always fucks me off about online talk. It's this reducing everything to extremes and absurdities. Just because a quiet player might be more happy being more active, does not mean they're miserable being quiet. You're doing a pretty typical online conversation thing, taking what the other guy said, reducing it to some absurd extreme, and then responding to that absurd extreme. I never said the quiet guys were miserable, that they didn't like being not strongly involved in the action.

Quote from: SethwickBullshit. It's the players fault. GMs job isn't to make their character better.

Yes, it is. GM responsibility doesn't magically begin and end with adventures or rules arguments. The GM's there to offer choices and options. If it were just rules and setting stuff, we wouldn't need a GM, a computer or even, god forbid, a GMless game, would do as well. Obviously the player is mainly reponsible for their character, but it's the GM's job to make sure they've got all the options. I mean, if they're creating a mage, you'll make sure they've seen all the system's magic books. If they're creating a gun-totin' thug, you'll make sure they find the list of guns. You make sure they have all the options known to them so that they can best and most interestingly create their character. Personality ain't any different.

I don't know what the fuck else a GM could possibly be for, except to offer the players all the options and choices. Setting, the players can take turns reading out the "read to players" box in some module, and rules, they can look up and vote on. What's the GM there for? What does GM Sethwich do in a session, apart from abusing the quiet players and wrestling the active ones for his turn in the spotlight?

Quote from: SethwickI play host a lot. I really don't give a crap about being a gracious host. I provide food, illumination, space, snacks, beverages, and video games/tv if those are the order of the day. If you don't want to involve yourself with that stuff, that's your fault, not mine.

It must be difficult being such a generous man. I wasn't talking about that aspect of a game session, I was talking about being a GM. As the host of a dinner party is to that dinner party, the GM is to a game session. The GM is not necessarily the person hosting the physical game. But they're leading the game session. They're a moderator for the group. The GM does that regardless of who's hosting the game session - or should do.

I mean, this is why we have, for example, initiative rules. Because initiative being determined by whoever yells the most is stupid. The rules make sure everyone gets a turn to hit the orc. When not in combat, everyone still needs to have a turn, but there aren't rules like "initiative" and "combat turn length" or "statements of intent" to deal with it. That's why we need a GM.

Quote from: SpikeIn other words the purpose of your friends is to entertain you? Do they have to submit resume's  as well?  Do you pay them? Or is their reward basking in your reflected glow?

Mate, this sounds like an awesome way to live. I have to take it up. I can just imagine my next game session. I sit down at the table, ponk my books and dice down, lean back in my chair, and say, "entertain me, motherfuckers."

Quote from: SethwickAnd when I'm hanging out, I much prefer rude people who are funny/interesting to polite people who are boring.

Me too. Why else would I be on this forum?

Quote from: JimBobOzMate, this sounds like an awesome way to live. I have to take it up. I can just imagine my next game session. I sit down at the table, ponk my books and dice down, lean back in my chair, and say, "entertain me, motherfuckers."

Alas, the secret of my GM'ing method comes to light.  



Also, why I am active on these forums.


Well?

C'mon, Entertain me, motherfuckers!

Quote from: SethwickYeah, I find the reactive and passive players pretty unfun to be around.

Why is it their job to entertain you?

Quote from: mythusmageWhy is it their job to entertain you?

During a game? Yes. And it's my job to entertain them. And their job to entertain each other. That's the POINT of gaming, is it not? To promote fun/entertainment for the group. It's not just the GMs job to entertain the players, EVERYONE should, IMO, try to entertain everyone else.

Quote from: SpikeThat is an interesting concept there, Seth. You say that you actively shun freinds that aren't entertaining enough for you?  

In other words the purpose of your friends is to entertain you? Do they have to submit resume's  as well?  Do you pay them? Or is their reward basking in your reflected glow?

Uh, no. Their reward is like my reward, they apparently like being around me. I don't exactly shun my quiet friends (I have a few) but I do tend to prefere the company of talkative people. Really, it's not that hard to find interesting/funny people. I've found them just like everyone else finds friends.

Quote from: JimBobOzSethwich, I see that you are somewhat lacking in empathy. Your post is all, "I am... I am... when I game... I am..."

Your experiences are not universal. Not everyone is like you.

Of course not everyone is like me. I know that. But I don't know what everyone else is like, I'm pretty much an expert on my own desires, so I talk about what I like. The thread posed a question "Do you really want all your players to be intense?" I said, "Hell yes!"

QuoteSome people are somewhat quiet and self-effacing, and will have fun sitting quietly during a game, only responding briefly when directly called on. Sometimes - not always, but sometimes - these same people will have more fun if drawn to the spotlight for a bit.

If people have fun by being quiet, that's okay I guess, but I find it kind of disconcerting. I'd being going to them after the game, asking "Is anything wrong? What's wrong?" If they said, "Nothing," I'd probably continue to be nervous because I'm sure they just don't want to say what's wrong. No matter what feeling I give off, when I'm GMing I tend to be very very nervous and want people to feel happy. Also, I've been around enough people who would say "Nothing's wrong," when there was something wrong that I know it's possible.

As for having more fun in the spotlight, well, I think they should go for it. I mean, as a GM, I have reached out and tried to get people into the spotlight. As a player I've done the same. I think I shouldn't have to, but I've done it.

QuoteIt's a bit like, say I've a job with good pay. It's a good job, I'm enjoying working there, and the pay is good. I'm content. But if they decide to double my pay, I'll be thrilled. I wouldn't ask them to double my pay, I'm not ballsy enough. But if they decide to, I ain't turnin' it down, and I'll be very happy.

Hmm. I think the attitude when gaming is a lot more relaxed than that. Asking the GM for something is, essentially, asking a peer for something, not asking your boss/employer.

QuoteLikewise, there are players who are a bit quiet and reserved, and are happy mostly just watching what happens next in the session, and occasionally responding to things. They're happy, they're content. They'd never ask for more. But if you give them more, they'll be thrilled.

Not all of 'em, but quite a few. That's what you're not getting with my posts. I'm not saying these quieter players are miserable, I'm saying they're happy. But they'd be MORE happy if they were brought forward a bit - not always, but often.

Okay, so you give them the spotlight, and they are more happy. In the future, they should go for it themselves.

QuoteSee, this is what always fucks me off about online talk. It's this reducing everything to extremes and absurdities. Just because a quiet player might be more happy being more active, does not mean they're miserable being quiet. You're doing a pretty typical online conversation thing, taking what the other guy said, reducing it to some absurd extreme, and then responding to that absurd extreme. I never said the quiet guys were miserable, that they didn't like being not strongly involved in the action.

I explained in my last post why I think "quiet=miserable" and that, although I know that not everyone responds the same way as me, it's gonna play hell with my GMing groove if someone is always quiet. Rationally, I know that could not mean anything, but my first impression is that something is wrong, because when I'm quiet something is wrong and I"m just waiting till the end of the game to complain or get away.

QuoteYes, it is. GM responsibility doesn't magically begin and end with adventures or rules arguments. The GM's there to offer choices and options. If it were just rules and setting stuff, we wouldn't need a GM, a computer or even, god forbid, a GMless game, would do as well. Obviously the player is mainly reponsible for their character, but it's the GM's job to make sure they've got all the options. I mean, if they're creating a mage, you'll make sure they've seen all the system's magic books. If they're creating a gun-totin' thug, you'll make sure they find the list of guns. You make sure they have all the options known to them so that they can best and most interestingly create their character. Personality ain't any different.

I like GMless games a lot

Anyway, I would say personality IS different. The player may not have read the rulebook, atleast not as well as the GM. He may not know where the list of guns is, or know that if he takes this options his spell list will double, or whatever. However, when it comes to making up a personality, the player is on pretty even ground with the GM in terms of knowledge. I'm not saying I won't offer suggestions, I've done that. It's just that, in game, if the player doesn't actually DO something with that personality, and it's just notes on his character sheet, well... It's disheartening.

QuoteI don't know what the fuck else a GM could possibly be for, except to offer the players all the options and choices. Setting, the players can take turns reading out the "read to players" box in some module, and rules, they can look up and vote on. What's the GM there for? What does GM Sethwich do in a session, apart from abusing the quiet players and wrestling the active ones for his turn in the spotlight?

In an ideal game or in a real game? In an ideal game I would respond to player generated hooks, control the bad guys and the world, have loved ones kidnapped, banks robbed, houses burgled, villages raided, etc etc.

In a real game, it tends to be more of me creating the hooks and then waiting for someone to respond to them or do something. Being greeted by silence when you ask "What are you going to do?" at the opening of a game people have said they were excited about is really terrible. Sure, there are plenty of solutions at first. "Ninjas/pirates/orcs/psychic elephants attack!" can get thigns going. But eventually, if the players aren't throwing out ideas and actions, things bog down. Players control the protagonists, by definition they should be moving things along.

QuoteIt must be difficult being such a generous man. I wasn't talking about that aspect of a game session, I was talking about being a GM. As the host of a dinner party is to that dinner party, the GM is to a game session. The GM is not necessarily the person hosting the physical game. But they're leading the game session. They're a moderator for the group. The GM does that regardless of who's hosting the game session - or should do.

I mean, this is why we have, for example, initiative rules. Because initiative being determined by whoever yells the most is stupid. The rules make sure everyone gets a turn to hit the orc. When not in combat, everyone still needs to have a turn, but there aren't rules like "initiative" and "combat turn length" or "statements of intent" to deal with it. That's why we need a GM.

Every situation I've been in people have set up a sort of natural "turn" system. Bill says something, then Bob, then Jeff. If Bob has nothing to say, it goes from Bill to Jeff.