It's simple really. When it comes to a gaming group, there are many types of personalities, levels of participation and ways of how fun is derived. Everyones job - but in certain playstyles the GM has the most influence -is to help achieve an equilibrium between these three factors. If the group can achieve and maintain said equilibrium, they are a functional gaming group.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SethwickIn 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.

Ah, I think we've come to the crux of the problem. It sounds like you're a crap GM.

You think that an "ideal" way to use the characters' backgrounds is to kidnap their loved ones, etc. "Thankyou for your elaborate character background, which I will now use to fuck your character." It's this sort of GMing which creates bland characters, which creates, "My guy is an atheist orphan who had to make his own way on the streets and killed his mentor when he was 12. He has no friends or family, just a collection of knives." The Captain Teflon Psycho character is a defensive reaction by players against past GMs who've used character backgrounds to fuck the characters.

You only list negative miserable things happening, and these as plot hooks. But plot hooks don't have to be, "there is suffering and death, what are you going to do about it?" Plot hooks can also be,

• Someone has a hard choice to make, and you have a reason to care which option they choose, what will you advise them to do?
• Someone wants something, and asks you to go get it for them, there might be trouble along the way, though.
• There is some strange shit happening, what's the story?

And so on. There are many possibilities for plot hooks, they don't all involve suffering and death being threatened against the characters and their friends and families.

This sort of adversarial GMing makes players defensive, and passive and unreactive. "Whatever we do, he'll try to get us. So let's do nothing." That's why when you ask them what they're doing, you get blank looks.

What you should do is to ask your players one by one what sort of adventures they'd like to have. Something like the player preferences sheet I came up with. It's not definitive, you could have a hundred other different ones just as good, but it's a start, gives you and the players something to think about. Ask them individually, when you ask them as a group they fudge things a bit so that everyone comes out the same. When you've asked them what they want, you can take all the different things they want and stew them together into a campaign.  

If the quiet guys know that you'd like to hear what they have to say, and that you'll respond to it, they'll be less quiet. Then you won't have to seek out the loud guys and toss out the quiet guys - everyone will be loud, or loud enough for fun, anyway.

I'm just going by your own description of your GMing. You're telling us that you exclude the quiet players, and even then, the players who are left are a bit unresponsive and boring. I'm saying that from what you've told us, that's probably your fault. Don't take that as a nasty accusation or anything, because all of us can improve as players and GMs. I mean, I ran this Tiwesdaeg campaign, best one ever, everyone loved it - but still some things could have been done better. Then when I ran in that game world a second time, with different players, it was only half as good. Why the difference? Mainly, I think, because the first one I created specifically in response to asking the players what they wanted in a game. The second time I said to the new group, "here's the campaign world, let's play." The second time I didn't listen to the players as much. It was good, but not great. And that was my fault.

Quote from: SethwickUh, 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.

Yes, that would be: Basking in your reflected glow. Got it.

Folks, Sethwick's playstyle seems to work for his group and him. I mean, that's the only thing that matters, right? Each group will find a way that produces an enviroment that is condusive to the manner in which they derive the Fun

Personaly I would go with what posters like Spike and Jimbob are talking about. IME that has produced the best results.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RFolks, Sethwick's playstyle seems to work for his group and him. I mean, that's the only thing that matters, right? Each group will find a way that produces an enviroment that is condusive to the manner in which they derive the Fun

Not necessarily. Sethwick just told us that often he doesn't have fun.

Quote from: SethwickIn 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.

So his playstyle is not giving him fun, but boredom and frustration.

Quote from: David RPersonaly I would go with what posters like Spike and Jimbob are talking about. IME that has produced the best results.

Naturally, since I am wise and good.

:hmm:

But seriously: "Ask them what they want in a campaign, and then give it to them; offer choices and options; during play, make sure everyone has a fair share of the spotlight," that's advice which applies for any group, and any kind of players. Let's suppose Sethwick's approach of letting players sink or swim gave him great gaming in general - he's already said he had to exclude quieter players, or he's bored. So he has to go through probably twice as many players before he can get a settled group he has fun with. Whereas, with the Cheetoist approach, almost any player will do.

I've had loud players, quiet players, rules lawyers, and blatant cheaters, all in the same group - and we've had fun. And when we haven't, it's usually been my fault as the GM. An approach which lets you have fun with almost anyone is clearly superior to an approach which lets you have fun only with a certain minority of people.

All approaches are equally good and worthy, if they give good results. Sethwick has said his approach does not give him good results all the time. So his approach isn't that good or worthy. He's a crap GM.

Sethwick suxxorz, Jimboboz roxxorz! It says so here in this book: :rtfm:

It's harsh to say, I know, but not as harsh as you think, because as I said, we are all crap GMs sometimes, and all have something to learn from each-other. Like, talking about loud players, me as a GM - I can be loud and enthusiastic. I said somewhere here recently about my just-finished campaign, a second run of a particular campaign world... the first one was so fucking good, I went on about it a bit too much. So the active players said, "cool", and took that as a nice challenge to do well. The reactive, more self-effacing players said, "wow, you have high expectations, I don't feel we lived up to them, sorry." My enthusiasm made some players feel overwhelmed, and pushed around, and crap. I was a crap GM, because you have to be there for all the players, not just the loud ones.

Sorry Sethwick, but you suck, mate. Just like I did. Let's get better, eh?

Quote from: JimBobOzAh, I think we've come to the crux of the problem. It sounds like you're a crap GM.

You think that an "ideal" way to use the characters' backgrounds is to kidnap their loved ones, etc. "Thankyou for your elaborate character background, which I will now use to fuck your character." It's this sort of GMing which creates bland characters, which creates, "My guy is an atheist orphan who had to make his own way on the streets and killed his mentor when he was 12. He has no friends or family, just a collection of knives." The Captain Teflon Psycho character is a defensive reaction by players against past GMs who've used character backgrounds to fuck the characters.

Yeah, I use their background to fuck with their character. I LOVE it when GMs fuck with my character. That's practically what I game for. If my GM isn't fucking with my character then I'm usually trying to find a wway to fuck with him/her. I literally cannot imagine gaming without screwing with my characters and making their life miserable. I'm a huge fan of Joss Whedon, nothing ever goes well, nothing ever ends happy.

QuoteYou only list negative miserable things happening, and these as plot hooks. But plot hooks don't have to be, "there is suffering and death, what are you going to do about it?" Plot hooks can also be,

• Someone has a hard choice to make, and you have a reason to care which option they choose, what will you advise them to do?
• Someone wants something, and asks you to go get it for them, there might be trouble along the way, though.
• There is some strange shit happening, what's the story?

And so on. There are many possibilities for plot hooks, they don't all involve suffering and death being threatened against the characters and their friends and families.

But suffering and death are far more interesting and dramatic.

QuoteThis sort of adversarial GMing makes players defensive, and passive and unreactive. "Whatever we do, he'll try to get us. So let's do nothing." That's why when you ask them what they're doing, you get blank looks.

But... that's why I play. As a player and GM. I love fucking with characters, making their lives miserable and playing through it. I don't think it's adversarial, I often work with GMs to help them screw with my character in more interesting ways.

QuoteWhat you should do is to ask your players one by one what sort of adventures they'd like to have. Something like the player preferences sheet I came up with. It's not definitive, you could have a hundred other different ones just as good, but it's a start, gives you and the players something to think about. Ask them individually, when you ask them as a group they fudge things a bit so that everyone comes out the same. When you've asked them what they want, you can take all the different things they want and stew them together into a campaign.  

Tried it, same level of apathy. People I play with in F2F aren't very into gaming, I've accepted that. Hell, I've never even gone on full "screw with their character" mode for them. These are mainly preference I've developed while playing and seeing what I want as a player. This has developed since I gave up on GMing for my friends face to face. I was not an adversarial GM beant on screwing their characters. I think that might have worked better, cause it would atleast force them to respond. No, these people never went through a phase where they developed long backgorunds and were punished for it.

Also, if the GM isn't going to USE those player provided hooks, what the hell are they for?

QuoteIf the quiet guys know that you'd like to hear what they have to say, and that you'll respond to it, they'll be less quiet. Then you won't have to seek out the loud guys and toss out the quiet guys - everyone will be loud, or loud enough for fun, anyway.

I'm just going by your own description of your GMing. You're telling us that you exclude the quiet players, and even then, the players who are left are a bit unresponsive and boring. I'm saying that from what you've told us, that's probably your fault. Don't take that as a nasty accusation or anything, because all of us can improve as players and GMs. I mean, I ran this Tiwesdaeg campaign, best one ever, everyone loved it - but still some things could have been done better. Then when I ran in that game world a second time, with different players, it was only half as good. Why the difference? Mainly, I think, because the first one I created specifically in response to asking the players what they wanted in a game. The second time I said to the new group, "here's the campaign world, let's play." The second time I didn't listen to the players as much. It was good, but not great. And that was my fault.

Face to face I play with friends. I havn't excluded anyone. I'm talking about what I would prefere to do if I knew a large pool of RPG players from which to pick. That isn't the case. That's never been the case for me.

The GM I am describing is me being the GM I'd want describing the players I'd want.

As for my playstyle not being fun, not, playing with my friends isn't fun. Cause they aren't into it. They aren't intense. I need intensity to have fun. Games I play in online are intense, the GM and players are into it. It's fun.

I havn't gamed face to face in a long time, because those people aren't intense. As far as I've seen it: non-intense players = frustrating and bad experience. Intense players = fun and good experience.

I'm glad you can have fun with everybody JimBob, but I am not you and I don't have fun with everybody. I don't like games to be light hearted, a lot of people do, that alone means I probably can't have fun with most gamers. Light hearted games bore the absolute hell out of me.

I just don't understand how what I described, having loved ones kidnapped and stuff, is punishing or bad for the player. Sure, it makes his PCs life harder, but it is tons of fun and such. Providing complications and troubles is the GMs job, and I know as a player I've always appreciated that because complications and trouble are what make gaming fun. I'd HATE a GM who never had bad things happen to may character, it would be so terribly boring. I want my character's parents threatened, his girlfriend to get pregnant, his friends to get in debt to the mob, his world to turn upside down. The fact that someone would consider bad things happening to his character as bad things happening to HIM completely ignores what, to me, is the main and almost sole unique joy produced by RPGs. The ability to lead, vicariously through your character, an "interesting" (in the Chinese curse sense) life is what RPGs do.

I guess some people have more connection to their character than me.

But, really, how is haivng a characters girlfriend kidnapped screwing the character? I mean, he can go rescue her, and generally will, and that's exciting and interesting. I mean, if I used the kidnapping to hang over the players head and frustrate him that would be a dickish thing to do, but otherwise it just seems like getting mad at a GM for introducing conflict, which is pretty much the GMs job and a game would be very dull without it. Is it just that the conflict is personal to the character? I think that makes for much better gaming, but I guess that could bother some people.

QuoteI havn't gamed face to face in a long time, because those people aren't intense.

BNG. Game, set and match.

SEND IN THE NEXT FORGIE PLZ!

Quote from: JimBobOzNot necessarily. Sethwick just told us that often he doesn't have fun.

So his playstyle is not giving him fun, but boredom and frustration.

Guess, I must have missed that part. It happens

QuoteNaturally, since I am wise and good.

:hmm:

Yeah in a Jim Jones kind of way :deviousgrin:

QuoteSethwick suxxorz, Jimboboz roxxorz! It says so here in this book: :rtfm:

It's harsh to say, I know, but not as harsh as you think, because as I said, we are all crap GMs sometimes, and all have something to learn from each-other.

Speak for yourself brother :snooty:

I'm like Chow Yun Fatt in God of Gamblers or rather I'm the God of GMs :emot-rock: .

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SpikeYes, that would be: Basking in your reflected glow. Got it.

So why do your friends spend time with you? Just cause they like your stuff? I mean, I guess that could be the case with me, but I don't think so.

Your acting like it's arrogant to suppose that your close friends actually like you. I guess they just spend time around me because they believe I bring good fortune or something.

Quote from: Abyssal MawBNG. Game, set and match.

SEND IN THE NEXT FORGIE PLZ!

...

Okay... I play (when everyone shows up properly) 2-3 games every fortnight online. When I'm at university, my friends aren't RPGers and the local RPG club only players Magic: The Gathering. When I'm home on break, my friends play RPGs, but aren't terribly into them. Thus I don't face to face game. I play onling over IRC, currently playing Hearts and Souls, Marvel Super Heroes, and a mecha game playtesting another system by Tim Kirk.

Does gaming only count face to face?

Sethwick, learn to entertain yourself. It'll be handy when things are slow, and make you less boring to the people you associate with.

Quote from: mythusmageSethwick, learn to entertain yourself. It'll be handy when things are slow, and make you less boring to the people you associate with.

I entertain myself fine as a player. Just not as a GM. Dunno why that is...

Quote from: SethwickSo why do your friends spend time with you? Just cause they like your stuff? I mean, I guess that could be the case with me, but I don't think so.

Your acting like it's arrogant to suppose that your close friends actually like you. I guess they just spend time around me because they believe I bring good fortune or something.

Actually, I hang out with freinds because...you know... they are freinds. Not to be entertained by them, and I rather hope they don't hang out with me because I am just so damned funny.

Weird, huh? You don't have to be entertaining or entertained to hang out with freinds? Who'da thunk?

Quote from: Sethwick...



Does gaming only count face to face?

This is therpgsite...I'm suprised that the :pundit: doesn't have a "at least one game a week" minimum requirement before one is allowed to post

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SpikeActually, I hang out with freinds because...you know... they are freinds. Not to be entertained by them, and I rather hope they don't hang out with me because I am just so damned funny.

Weird, huh? You don't have to be entertaining or entertained to hang out with freinds? Who'da thunk?

Is "enjoy spending time with" and "entertained by" really that different? I don't think so... Maybe we are just working off different definitions of "entertain."