TheRPGSite

I've heard people often complain about those players who seem to fade into the background a bit, always end up playing support characters, etc etc.  You know, the "quiet ones".

Now, I've heard people claim that this means that these players are secretly dis-satisfied with their play, or that the GM has to try to reach out to them and get them "as involved" as the rest of the players.

My question is: why?? Why do you think that just because he isn't bouncing up and down with glee it means he's secretly harbouring a desire to whip out a grenade, chuck the pin, declare "This Game leaves my might heart feeling empty!!" and take you all down with him?
If a player, at the end of the night, smiles and agrees he had fun, as long as he knows that I'm available for discussion, and if he doesn't show any other symptoms of dissatisfaction, then I'm going to take him at his fucking word and assume he's having fun.

Also, why the fuck do you need all the players to be equally "involved" in a campaign? Personally, if there's one guy who is "low needs"; who feels happy with coming every week and playing and enjoying his game without needing every fucking plot to directly involve him in some way, or to get to spend hours dedicated to his issues and his plans, then the last fucking thing I'll want to do is try to change him into a primma donna! Shit, I would wish there were more like him.

RPGPundit

I have a "quiet" player like that in my campaign. He is currently tied for having the best attendance record to the game- only missed the game when he took his entire family out of state for vacation. Pretty good attendance for a game thats run weekly since February.

The "problem" with quiet players is that it's hard to judge whether they enjoy themselves as much as the more outgoing types. A game master might think he's doing something wrong and doesn't play to the tastes of them as much.

We've got a couple of guys who are notorious for twisting entire games around their chararacters, and other folks who are more content to go with the story and fade into the background when necessary. They serve different functions in my group, and it's kind of neat. My DM encourages the guys who go with the story to take on roles integral to the functioning of the plot, because he knows they'll go along with it, while letting the hams (myself included ;) ) pretty much involve ourselves however we please and leaving it to us to make sure our characters relate to the story somehow.

As long as they come on a regular basis, are ready to play, and contribute to each session, I'm happy. Some people don't need a double mocha when a weak tea will do.

I've had players like this in my group.  Heck, I often am one when I'm not in the GM's chair.

While quiet players might seem like a pain to GM sometimes if you like playing off cues from your group, I've learned not to take their being quiet as a sign of negativity.  I periodically let my players know they can come to me with any issues and always ask if they're enjoying themselves.  If they say they're having fun, then they're having fun.

Some folks aren't interested in scene editing or collaborative world building.  They want to show up, roll dice, have some pizza, and enjoy the ride in their own way.  And I'm cool with that.

Quote from: SosthenesThe "problem" with quiet players is that it's hard to judge whether they enjoy themselves as much as the more outgoing types. A game master might think he's doing something wrong and doesn't play to the tastes of them as much.

Not at all. All you have to do is ask him or her. If the player says he's enjoying it, as the Pundit says, take him at his word. You should ask - once - if he'd like to get more involved, but if he says no, leave it. If he's showing signs of not liking it - like any other player - talk to him. Communication is the key to anything social. Talk.

-clash

Quote from: RPGPunditIf a player, at the end of the night, smiles and agrees he had fun, as long as he knows that I'm available for discussion, and if he doesn't show any other symptoms of dissatisfaction, then I'm going to take him at his fucking word and assume he's having fun.

Likewise.  The guy's got no reason to lie.  People enjoy different things, and that's cool.

My only problem would be if I wanted/expected him to contribute more to my fun.  In some games, with some groups, I don't expect that.  In some games, with some groups, I do.

To analogize:  I have a kid who plays on a soccer team.  They're young, it's not really competitive.  Who can be bothered to keep score?  But my son likes to pass to people, and likes the people to pass back.  He likes to be actively part of a team.  He feels good when that happens, and feels frustrated when it doesn't.

There's a girl on his team who never touches the ball.  She will actively step aside to let a perfect pass miss her.  She just saunters around the field while the game is going on around her.  She seems to be happy.  But she's not doing a damn thing to help my son be part of a team, and in fact she's stealing a good deal of his fun whenever she's on the field with him.

Do I have some right to expect the girl to get involved in the game?  'course not.  But I'll tell you that I, as a spectator, am much happier (and I guarantee you my son is happier) when he's fielded with kids who are trying to play the game together.  If I could choose who he played with, I'd choose those kids.

You can be a team player but still keep pretty quiet in an RPG. (Just as you can be a quiet team member at work- I have lots of people I work with who nonetheless are big contributors).

If you step aside when someone passes you the ball, you can't be a team player. At least not in Soccer.

I'm tossing your analogy out.

Tony, do you think that "quiet" players can detract from a GM's fun?

The other thing is- I don't at all appreciate the slander that "quiet players" are "bad players".

You know, the only players I've ever wanted to get rid of or moderate somehow are the ones that are too fucking loud and trying to be intense all the time. Inappropriately.

The ideal gaming group, in reality, is composed of a mix of players who are very involved and some who aren't.  A bunch of primma donnas all put together don't mix well, and if every player in your group is a quiet guy, then no one will move the party along.

RPGPundit

Quote from: flyingmiceNot at all. All you have to do is ask him or her. If the player says he's enjoying it, as the Pundit says, take him at his word. You should ask - once - if he'd like to get more involved, but if he says no, leave it. If he's showing signs of not liking it - like any other player - talk to him. Communication is the key to anything social. Talk.

Well, some of the silent guys are a little hard to talk to. Ask them "did you have fun?" and you'll get a "sure!" no matter what. Not all game masters have the time or empathy to get some truth out of the more wallflower-ish guys.

Quote from: SosthenesWell, some of the silent guys are a little hard to talk to. Ask them "did you have fun?" and you'll get a "sure!" no matter what. Not all game masters have the time or empathy to get some truth out of the more wallflower-ish guys.

So?

Take him at his word and move on. If he keeps coming and keeps playing then he must be having at least a decent time.  If he ain't, and he's not talking...

guess what? It ain't your problem, bub.  You've done you part.

Spike: This is why I love you the best.

Quote from: SpikeIt ain't your problem, bub.  You've done you part.

Depends on who you're playing with. If I'd be running a game for a bunch of kids,  the need to get the silent ones into the game would be bigger than for a 40 year old who can't get his jaw moving...

On the other hand, most "non-intense" gamers I've had were just glad enough to be along for the ride. Usually very supportive and good for the group. New players are a different matter, they just might be silent for different reasons. And the "proud male" effect might catch them sometimes, so they won't exactly admit that they don't "get" the rules. Before talking, it often pays to just watch them during the game. If they look confused while they try to participate in combat, going over the rules one more time might be worth it. You don't even have to make it too obvious for whom you're doing it...

Quote from: RPGPunditThe ideal gaming group, in reality, is composed of a mix of players who are very involved and some who aren't.  A bunch of primma donnas all put together don't mix well, and if every player in your group is a quiet guy, then no one will move the party along.

RPGPundit

QFT.

I would also note, that sometime the quiet guy in one game is the loud/outspoken guy in another...

Quote from: JongWKTony, do you think that "quiet" players can detract from a GM's fun?

If I get my fun by tossing people a big tangled ball of snakes and watching them get excited and react viscerally to it?  Of course.  The guy's not going to do his "part" in that little exchange.  I'll toss him a big tangled ball of snakes, and he'll just do a little "Uh ... yeah, that's a ball of snakes all right," sidestep and then wait for me to make the next move.

I mean, you can certainly argue that having fun in that way is BadWrongFun or something ... but if that's the fun I'm trying to have, is there really any question that the guy can detract from it by not engaging?

Quote from: TonyLBIf I get my fun by tossing people a big tangled ball of snakes and watching them get excited and react viscerally to it?  Of course.  The guy's not going to do his "part" in that little exchange.  I'll toss him a big tangled ball of snakes, and he'll just do a little "Uh ... yeah, that's a ball of snakes all right," sidestep and then wait for me to make the next move.

I mean, you can certainly argue that having fun in that way is BadWrongFun or something ... but if that's the fun I'm trying to have, is there really any question that the guy can detract from it by not engaging?

Fallacious argument, Tony. The quiet guy MIGHT go, 'yup, that's a big ball of snakes'... and avoid it. Or he might 'handle' it his way. Just because he doesn't jump up and down screaming 'OMFG it's a big ball of snakes!!!" doesn't mean he's wrong. If he calmly goes 'I pull my battle axe and chop the ball of snakes out of the air, cleaving it in twain, then return to the business at hand'... is he wrong?

The GM's fun in NO MORE important that the player's fun. No less, sure. But no more. Just because YOU see it like popping a frog in front of a girls face and having her NOT squeal in shock, doesn't make her response unfair. ...

I can only go by what I know. I find it's more fun to play with people who get involved. I get impatient and bored if something's not going on.

I love my friend Simon and I'd never turn him away from a  game, but it makes very little difference whether he's there or not. Sometimes he falls asleep. Meanwhile, I'm actually playing with other people.

Quote from: SpikeIf he calmly goes 'I pull my battle axe and chop the ball of snakes out of the air, cleaving it in twain, then return to the business at hand'... is he wrong?

"Wrong"?  When did "wrong" enter into it?  I wasn't talking about right or wrong.  I was talking about what was fun for me.

Quote from: SpikeThe GM's fun in NO MORE important that the player's fun. No less, sure. But no more. Just because YOU see it like popping a frog in front of a girls face and having her NOT squeal in shock, doesn't make her response unfair. ...

No.  But it the fact that it's "fair" doesn't make it fun for me, now does it?

Quote from: TonyLB"Wrong"?  When did "wrong" enter into it?  I wasn't talking about right or wrong.  I was talking about what was fun for me.

No.  But it the fact that it's "fair" doesn't make it fun for me, now does it?

Well Tony. We can all agree that the guy who dodges the ball in soccer isn't playing the game and is wrong. See earlier posts in thread. Then you pop up and adapt the metaphor to a big ball of snakes, and equate the quiet player with 'sidestepping the ball'... returning us to the earlier soccer comparison, making the guy that ruined your fun as the GM... wait for it.... Wrong.


To which I cry bullshit.  His response is fair, valid and right. Your demand that he react viscerally for your amusement is selfish. Let me go so far as to say railroady. You want one specific response (reacting viscerally) and when you don't get it, the player isn't co-operationg with your vision of the game.

So, if that 'If I' statement you started your post with is any indication of how you play, I think most of us are in agreement in suggesting you are a less than optimal GM.




As for the second part: I wasn't aware that he was solely responsible for your fun. My bad.

Quote from: SpikeWe can all agree that the guy who dodges the ball in soccer isn't playing the game and is wrong. See earlier posts in thread.

No we can't.  What kind of straw-man are you trying to construct here?  You're the only one who's been saying this nonsense, and only in order to disagree with it.

Quote from: SpikeYou want one specific response (reacting viscerally) and when you don't get it, the player isn't co-operationg with your vision of the game.

Yes, that is true.  He doesn't have any obligation to cooperate with my vision of the game, of course.  But it is very much true that if I'm looking for that response, and don't get it, then it decreases my fun.

Quote from: SpikeSo, if that 'If I' statement you started your post with is any indication of how you play, I think most of us are in agreement in suggesting you are a less than optimal GM.

>shrug<  I was answering the question "Tony, do you think that 'quiet' players can detract from a GM's fun?"  That's a reasonable question about my fun.

You want to tell me that type of fun is BadWrongFun?  Go ahead.  I literally couldn't care less about that if you paid me specifically to be apathetic about your opinion. :D

IME there are two problems when it comes to the quiet ones.

The first, they fade into they background so well, that the other players and gm forget about this player and are only reminded of his/her existence during really intense situations - combat etc - which may break the whole mood of the game.

"Okay, the plan is set, everyone know what to do?...but wait..."oh we forget about Charlie..I mean, Denarth..."

The second, is that their silence is deafening. Everyone seems to be getting into character and engaging with the setting and each other, and this player is just sitting there...

The thing is, I've found that most of these kind of players can be drawn out of their shells. Indeed, they may be pretty shy when not gaming, but during a game, they leave their shells for a couple of hours...at least long enough to contribute to the session so that either of the above problems are eliminated or reduced.

Regards,
David R

With quiet, casual folks, I'm always wondering if they are as engaged as they want to be.

When asked, many of them waffle a little, in a way that constantly seems to indicate "I'd like things to be a little different, but I'm not sure how."

On the occasions where I hit something one of them really digs, and engages, I remember to present it more often.  On the occasions where they seem to be saying that they really are content, I butt the hell out.

For the ones that want something a little different, I'd love if I could find out what that is more efficiently.

I don't think people need an equal share of the action, I think they need a fair share. The fair share is whatever they feel comfortable with. Not what they'll put up with, but what they feel comfortable with.

This is another topic which shows just how social a hobby it is. That's why I went through and read each post and agreed that it seemed reasonable - even though they contradicted each-other. It's human relationships, about which it's often hard to say anything definitive.

I think that most people will have more fun when they participate more. And there'll be a synergistic thing going on, that if Quiet Quentin speaks up, not only will he have more fun, but Loud Larry will, too. I think of an rpg group as a team - teams work best when they work together. The example of the guy who falls asleep in the games - he's letting the team down. As a player, I'd ditch him from the team. He's taking a space more interested people could take, and if the bugger's sleeping, he won't miss the game anyway. There are enthusiastic gamers out there desperate for a group, why should they miss out so Sleepyhead can lie there snoring?

Now, that does not mean that every has to participate equally. If we have four players, they don't have to get exactly 25% of the spotlight time each. What usually happens is that in a group of four people, two of them will be extroverted and lively, and two of them will be quieter. So the lively ones get 40% of the time each, and the quiet ones, 10%.

I reckon that's okay. What's not okay is when the loud ones shout down the quiet ones when they do speak, reducing them to 2%, and when the quiet ones get all self-effacing and say, "oh I'm entirely happy with 2% of the spotlight time." But that's what happens.

It's because human personality traits aren't etched in stone. We respond to other people. I'm naturally foul-mouthed, but if I'm with a politely-spoken person, I'll be less foul-mouthed, and if I'm with a rude person, more so. I respond to the company I'm with. That doesn't mean I'm happy with swearing more or less, that just means it's my natural response.

Likewise, a quiet or self-effacing person, a reserved one, will become more so in the company of louder or more assertive people. So that 10% wil become 2%. That's what the GM is there for, to moderate things, and try to bring them more into balance. Not equal balance of 25% each, but the balance which people would be most comfortable with. Quiet Quentin isn't going to be comfortable if you push him up to 25%, nor is he comfortable if Loud Larry pushes him down to 2%. So the GM's there to try to bring him up to his natural 10%.

And that's not just for Quiet Quentin's sake, either - it's for Loud Larry. Loud Larry will have more fun if Quiet Quentin speaks up a bit more, than he'd have if he was essentially on his own.

Of course, there are also people who are comfortable with just 2% of the spotlight. I'm not interested in gaming with them. I want to game with people who want to game. Roleplaying is not a spectator sport. Join in, or go home.

Again, that doesn't mean everyone has to participate exactly equally. But they should have the chance to participate as much as they'd be most comfortable with, and if it's below some small percentage, then I'm not interested in gaming with them - since they're not really interested in gaming with me, they're just there to watch.

The reason that GMs need to watch out for this and take action is that often the quiet ones are self-effacing, not very assertive people. Or perhaps they're new to the group and don't want to make waves.

So for example, once I had a player who was very quiet, incredibly polite and modest guy. I'd sit at the head of an oblong table, he'd sit on my immediate left. Something like this:

- GM -
|               |
A              B
|               |
D               C
|               |
- E -

Naturally, the GM is going to look mostly at E, a bit at D and C, and rarely at A and B. That's why when you go on a date you sit opposite the person, not side-by-side. So anyway this quiet guy would sit at B. The loud assertive players would sit at E, or C or D. The loud players claim your attention, and the people sitting in your field of vision naturally get more attention. So the loud players were getting a multiplier effect on the attention they got.

I talked to quiet B, and asked him, "hey, you're a bit quiet, I think you're getting lost in the noise. Would you like to move around a bit on the table, that way I'll remember to call on you?" He agreed, and moved to E. I then moved the noisy players up to A and B.

The noisy players don't need any extra help in getting my attention as a GM, they demand it already. The quiet ones may need some help. I just arranged for some more eye contact between me and the quiet ones. It's not even always a conscious thing, "okay, time to call on this quiet guy." More like, as GM I'm there talking and telling them the situation, then I say, "okay, what do you do?" When I say, "you," I mean "the party," but whoever I happen to make eye contact with at that moment is naturally more likely to answer.

I did all that, and then the quiet guy went from 2% to 10% of the spotlight time. Not an equal share, but a fair share. A share he was comfortable with. He was only putting up with 2%. I could have just asked "are you happy?" but that's not enough. A GM has to poke and prod a lot more than that.

Now in my latest group, there's a different situation. One player isn't actually quiet, but he's self-effacing. He's always saying he's not up to the task, not much of a roleplayer or a GM, doesn't have any clue of what to do next in the game. But when you press him, he actually has fucking good ideas. So by pressing him for them, he has more fun because he realises his ideas aren't so crap after all, and everyone else has more fun because they get to play out his good ideas.

Sometimes you have to press the people, sometimes you have to move the chairs around on the table, because not everyone is loud and assertive and demanding. It's not enough just to ask them what they want - you have to watch them, too. If you just leave the players to it, they'll share out the 100% spotlight time amongst themselves, and we'll end up with 50% fun, because the luood guys take more time than they really know what to do with, and the quiet guys lose that time, and become more quiet than they'd like to be. If you try to be more active with it, watch them carefully, then you can spread it around more evenly and get at least 80% fun going on.

It's a funny thing, roleplaying - if you game with a lot of people, you start getting some insights into people as a whole, different kinds of personalities and how they interact.

Anyway, all that ramble is why I don't think people need an equal share of the action, I think they need a fair share. The fair share is whatever they feel comfortable with. Not what they'll put up with, but what they feel comfortable with.

And yes, all loud players is utter chaos. But then, all quiet players is utter boredom.

Quote from: TonyLBNo we can't.  What kind of straw-man are you trying to construct here?  You're the only one who's been saying this nonsense, and only in order to disagree with it.

Really Tony?  I just made up the whole soccor ball idea on my own? that's funny, 'cause when I looked up the thread to post this I found this from you...

QuoteThere's a girl on his team who never touches the ball. She will actively step aside to let a perfect pass miss her. She just saunters around the field while the game is going on around her. She seems to be happy. But she's not doing a damn thing to help my son be part of a team, and in fact she's stealing a good deal of his fun whenever she's on the field with him.

So, I know you know what I'm talking about.  Nobody disagrees that the kid playing soccer has to kick the ball, not just wander about aimlessly enjoying the pretty fucking grass.  Yet... you deliberately equate the quiet player with the girl playing soccer.

And when i call you on it you say it's a strawman?  

Maybe if you weren't  involved with the soccer ball idea to begin with. Seriously.

Now, if everyone else is talking about wether or not quiet players are a bad thing, you talking about your personal fun as a GM is only relevant in answer to the question... building an argument that they are not playing on the team is another critter entirely.

Quote from: SpikeNobody disagrees that the kid playing soccer has to kick the ball, not just wander about aimlessly enjoying the pretty fucking grass.

Well I disagree.  It's freakin' youth soccer.  Whatever they want to do is the right thing for them to do.  They're five years old, for pete's sake.

The only concern I've got is that her pursuit of her goals makes it harder for my son to pursue his goals.

She's not responsible for making him happy.  But I don't see any reason to ignore the fact that her behavior, no matter how perfectly reasonable and fair, has an impact on how much fun he can have.  Am I supposed to pretend it doesn't?

Quote from: RPGPunditAlso, why the fuck do you need all the players to be equally "involved" in a campaign? Personally, if there's one guy who is "low needs"; who feels happy with coming every week and playing and enjoying his game without needing every fucking plot to directly involve him in some way, or to get to spend hours dedicated to his issues and his plans, then the last fucking thing I'll want to do is try to change him into a primma donna! Shit, I would wish there were more like him.

That's true, but I think that GMs should strive to provide players equal opportunities to have plots happen which directly involved them. There's no harm done if they turn down the opportunity, there's plenty if they were hoping for it and you never give it to them.

Quote from: TonyLBAm I supposed to pretend it doesn't?

By all means, pretend what you like.  As long as it doesn't involve equating quiet players with bad, non-team players.

'Cause that boat don't float.

Quote from: RPGPunditI've heard people often complain about those players who seem to fade into the background a bit, always end up playing support characters, etc etc.  You know, the "quiet ones".

Why?  Because they are boring.

How is it for you to say they are boring?
Is it the other players job to entertain you?
How are you so sure that you aren't boring?
Do quiet players not have a right to play if they "bore" you?
If we can accept that roleplaying games are creative endeavors, is it ok to shit all over someones elses creative enjoyment just because they aren't method acting and emoting all over the place?
If the player is new to the game or perhaps even new to gaming, do they get a pass for keeping a little quiet while they figure out what the dynamic is?
How long does the pass last? (assuming they get one).


Here's my theory:
A creative community that regularly shits on other peoples creativity and enjoyment is one that doesn't deserve to survive.

Get ready for it: line-by-line.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHow is it for you to say they are boring?

Because they don't say much, they just sit there like a lump of dirty laundry.  That's boring.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIs it the other players job to entertain you?

Yes.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHow are you so sure that you aren't boring?

Because I'm cool.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDo quiet players not have a right to play if they "bore" you?

That's right.  They can play with someone else.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf we can accept that roleplaying games are creative endeavors, is it ok to shit all over someones elses creative enjoyment just because they aren't method acting and emoting all over the place?

What does intensity have to do with method acting?  Anyways, someone who isn't emoting (such as "Wicked, you kicked that orc's ass!") is boring.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIf the player is new to the game or perhaps even new to gaming, do they get a pass for keeping a little quiet while they figure out what the dynamic is?

Sure.

Quote from: Abyssal MawHow long does the pass last? (assuming they get one).

Until I start to get bored with them.

It's like hanging out with friends.  If some guy never has any interesting stories to tell, never tells any jokes, never contributes to the conversation, never does anything cool or interesting, what's the point of hanging out with him?

Quote from: Abyssal MawA creative community that regularly shits on other peoples creativity and enjoyment is one that doesn't deserve to survive.

Here's my theory: If I think you bore me, then we shouldn't be doing creative stuff together.

I dig your answer, Lost Soul, I really do. And your attitude.

That said, "boring" is a minor crime to me compared to some other ones.  You see, I'm talking about a gaming group that already has some "intense" people (you don't need more than two or three); the "boring guy" is GOOD for that group because he's one more warm body but one less guy competing for attention.  He's a desperately needed back-up player.

If I'm a player in a group (which is rare), I tend to be an intense involvement type, as such, to me, it would be way WORSE to have a primma donna player that wants to steal all my scenes, cut into my action, constantly demand the DM's attention, and wants every plotline to be about him; than the quiet guy.  Hell, the quiet guy is usually playing a fighter or something like that; I can get him into the game by making a point of having him as a sidekick (without using the word, of course), and he'll count as a valuable ally.

RPGPundit

To answer the OP, christ no. The more intense players i have seen around the playing table, the more disruption i have seen around the playing table. This may be just my experience, but i tend to see "intense" = "competitive" in many cases. The intense guys want to out intense each other and before you know it, you've unintentionally created a number of quiet players.

Just like in all avenues of my life, i want a mixed bag. I have some friends that aren't the most interesting people in the universe, but they are still friends (some of which i game with). I expect the same social conventions to apply to any game i take part in, not artificially constructed social dynamics between people. Chances are, a good proportion of people who are quiet in real life are quiet in roleplaying games. Does that mean they shouldn't be gaming with me? Hell no. There's room for everyone at my gaming table (well, you know, bar the trouser wetters and stuff).

I think a prima donna is worse than a boring guy.  He's the guy that always interrupts the conversation to say whatever retarded thing he has on his mind just to hear himself speak.

Quote from: RPGPunditThat said, "boring" is a minor crime to me compared to some other ones.

For what it's worth, I don't think it even makes sense as a "crime."

I don't get why everything that is a problem has to turn into a question of blame.

I've been reading a lot of Fantastic Four, so my examples are getting a little on the wonky side :D   Suppose I have a friend who is composed entirely of anti-matter.  He has a lot of fun being anti-matter, and traipsing around the negative zone.  And he's a good friend!  Brings me back macro-atoms and all that good stuff.  There's nothing inherently better or worse about anti-matter, compared to positive matter ... even the nomenclature's a question of which side was making up the names.

He is under no obligation to transform into positive matter on my behalf.  I certainly don't blame him for being made of anti-matter.

But I am still not going to give him a big, hearty hug.  Why?  Because the resulting explosion would destroy us both and crack the planet in two.

And yet, it seems like, the moment I say something like "Well, playing basketball with anti-matter Bob isn't really fun for me, because I like a more rough-housing game, so having to avoid physical contact spoils my fun," people are all ready to assume that I'm casting blame.  I must be saying that anti-matter Bob is a bad basketball player!  There's no other possibility!

Feh.  Some people are just flat-out too ready to draw up battle-lines.  If I ask anti-matter Bob not to attend our four-on-four game, it doesn't have to be because either of us is wrong.  It can just be because we don't play well together.  No harm, no foul.

Quote from: RPGPunditIf I'm a player in a group (which is rare), I tend to be an intense involvement type, as such, to me, it would be way WORSE to have a primma donna player that wants to steal all my scenes, cut into my action, constantly demand the DM's attention, and wants every plotline to be about him; than the quiet guy.  Hell, the quiet guy is usually playing a fighter or something like that; I can get him into the game by making a point of having him as a sidekick (without using the word, of course), and he'll count as a valuable ally.

Hogging all the spotlight time, and other PCs are only there to revolve about the glorious firey globe of your greatness? So what you're saying is that in a game group, you're an Attention Junkie?

Somehow, that does not surprise me. :p

As I said earlier, one of the jobs of the GM is to bring forward the quieter, more self-effacing players, so that they have the share of game time they're actually comfortable with, not simply the share they can arm wrestle off the noisier players. I would add that it's also the GM's job to slap the Attention Junkie down, put them in their place. The game's not just there for you. If you want a game where you're the only star and everyone else is just there to support your glory, play a one-on-one game. But if you're playing in a game group, then sometimes you'll have to pull your fucking head in.

Compromise, and stuff.

The way I look at it is this:

The problem player is never the quiet player. The guy you have to watch out for is always, always, always the overly enthusiastic jackass.

When I join a new gaming group, I often spend my first hour or so as a fairly quiet player myself, sorta feeling out the group dynamic, and looking for the best places to contribute.

In the event I end up in a game with a fairly quiet player, my instinct is to help that person out, especially if he or she is new to the group. Maybe you give them an oppostunity to roleplay if your'e the GM, or when the group splits up or something you make a point of including them or enaging them.

I call this "being a good player".

Also, since I mainly game with people I consider my friends,  the idea of slagging off a player for being quiet as "boring" strikes me as repugnant.

UPDATE: Also total agreement with JimBobOz up above. As a GM you strive to bring forth the quiet ones a bit, and hold down the loud ones a bit. Eventually you get a working dynamic.  The important thing is everyone is comfortable.

Quote from: JimBobOzAs I said earlier, one of the jobs of the GM is to bring forward the quieter, more self-effacing players, so that they have the share of game time they're actually comfortable with, not simply the share they can arm wrestle off the noisier players.

Yeah, this is good policy.  Hard as hell to implement, sometimes, though.  Drawing the line between "Putting them in the spotlight right now is giving them an opportunity to shine that they wanted, but wouldn't have taken for themselves" and "Putting them in the spotlight right now is forcing them into a position they didn't want" is hard.

'course, I've also been doing a lot of holiday shopping recently, so maybe the difference between "What they want but wouldn't get themselves" and "What they didn't get themselves because they don't want it" has been highlighted in my mind :D

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

I love prima donnas. I am an unabashed prima donna by default. I love fighting other players for the spotlight, setting up dramatic situations which people WANT to focus on. I like it when players do that. If I'm in a group with mostly "quiet" people I try to ratchet it back a little, but really I prefere trying my best to get and keep the spotlight and having other players try to do the same.

Really, I can't understand the alternative. I assume quiet players are bored and not having fun because, well, they are boring to me, and I know when I'm quiet it means I either have no idea what is going on and don't know the rules or I am dreadfully unhappy with the game and just wishing it would end. No matter how much I know that other people don't think like me, I can't help but thing "When I'm quiet, it means I am very discontent and just wishing the game was over, he MUST be atleast bored or uninterested..."

Edit: I really hate the idea that it is the GMs job to put quiet players in the spotlight. You have a boring character, and you are quiet, and you don't draw my attention, guess what? You aren't gonna get my attention. Isn't my job as a GM. I'll give the prima donna the spotlight because atleast he A. wants it and B. will do something with it.

as a player it is more fun with people who are louder and get into the game. I play so much better with interaction than if half the group just sits back and waits for me to do something.

Quote from: SethwickEdit: I really hate the idea that it is the GMs job to put quiet players in the spotlight.

It's not. It's to give the quiet players the opportunity to step into the spotlight themselves.

Here'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.

Few 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.

The 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.

A 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.

And 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.

Quote from: SethwickYou have a boring character, and you are quiet, and you don't draw my attention, guess what? You aren't gonna get my attention.

As 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.

Quote from: SethwickIsn't my job as a GM. I'll give the prima donna the spotlight because at least he A. wants it and B. will do something with it.

Yes, 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.

I'm starting to kind of get a handle on the demographic being talked about here: loud, attention-seeking players. Obsessive 'need' to roleplay with 'intensity'. Treating it like it's 'art.' Taking it a bit seriously... Willing to step on the "boring" quiet ones who are just there to game.

I think I have a handle on you guys.

Thank 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.

Hey, I know my limits.  :cool:

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!

:D

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.

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 (http://gamecraft.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=77) 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 :D

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 :D

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 (http://gamecraft.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=77) 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 :D

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 :D

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."

Quote from: SethwickI havn't gamed face to face in a long time, because those people aren't intense.

Like Abyssal Maw said, BNG.

I'm ashamed. I didn't pick this one. I thought he just had crap games, I didn't think he had no games at all. Usually I can pick the BNGs! I guess I should just go back to my blanket assumption that if you're a Forger, you're a BNG.

Anyway, what it comes down to is that Sethwick's game advice is coming from someone who doesn't game, because when he followed his game advice, he didn't get the games he wanted. He blames it on the people he played with, but... the one thing all your crap games have in common was you.

We should take game advice from someone who doesn't game, and when he did game, didn't have fun?

See, David R, this is why I said his game advice was no good. If he had this different approach and had a wonderful time, great! But he has a different approach and because of that, doesn't game at all.

My approach pretty consistently leads to everyone having fun. Sethwick's approach leads to him not having fun, and him giving up gaming. I think even a moral relativist might raise their eyebrows at the idea both approaches are equally worthy.

Sethwick, if you keep doing something one way, and it keeps making you unhappy, then it might be a good idea to change your approach. Just a thought. So either give up gaming - including talking about gaming - or open your mind to different approaches.

Fuckin' BNGs.

I think we need a BNG-sign smilie.

Quote from: JimBobOzLike Abyssal Maw said, BNG.

I'm ashamed. I didn't pick this one. I thought he just had crap games, I didn't think he had no games at all. Usually I can pick the BNGs! I guess I should just go back to my blanket assumption that if you're a Forger, you're a BNG.

Anyway, what it comes down to is that Sethwick's game advice is coming from someone who doesn't game, because when he followed his game advice, he didn't get the games he wanted. He blames it on the people he played with, but... the one thing all your crap games have in common was you.

We should take game advice from someone who doesn't game, and when he did game, didn't have fun?

See, David R, this is why I said his game advice was no good. If he had this different approach and had a wonderful time, great! But he has a different approach and because of that, doesn't game at all.

My approach pretty consistently leads to everyone having fun. Sethwick's approach leads to him not having fun, and him giving up gaming. I think even a moral relativist might raise their eyebrows at the idea both approaches are equally worthy.

Sethwick, if you keep doing something one way, and it keeps making you unhappy, then it might be a good idea to change your approach. Just a thought. So either give up gaming - including talking about gaming - or open your mind to different approaches.

Fuckin' BNGs.

I think we need a BNG-sign smilie.

Sure, ignore the fact that I game online. Entirely. I just don't game face to face. I had a bad time gaming face to face. I have a good time gaming online.

What the fuck? Do people just not read? Or do you just focus on one sentence that you like and ignore the rest and use that sentence sans context to discount an arguement?

I thought better of you JimBob. I disagree with you a lot, but I always considered you a very smart guy who argued in an honest manner, but you are simply ignoring a large part of what I say because I don't game face to face.

So, call me a bitter non-gamer if you want. I play an awful lot of RPGs for a bitter non gamer, but what the fuck ever, don't let the facts get in the way of your label.

Quote from: SethwickIs "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."

I'd say they are fairly different.  Sure, some times and some freinds are entertaining when you hang out with them. Sometimes you just hang out with people because you are comfortable around them and vice versa.

If you really thing 'enjoy being with' and 'entertained' are the same thing, one of your definitions is wonky

Quote from: JimBobOzSee, David R, this is why I said his game advice was no good. If he had this different approach and had a wonderful time, great! But he has a different approach and because of that, doesn't game at all.

My approach pretty consistently leads to everyone having fun. Sethwick's approach leads to him not having fun, and him giving up gaming. I think even a moral relativist might raise their eyebrows at the idea both approaches are equally worthy.

You are correct.

Regards,
David R

Sethwick, there is a big difference between online and face to face play. JimBob's advice works pretty well IME for the reality of face to face games. I don't game online, so my opinion on the subject ain't worth much.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYou are correct.

Regards,
David R

Only he's assuming I never have fun or rarely have fun and don't game anymore. As is I game atleast one or twice a week on IRC (with atleast one member of these forum atleast) and have fun.

Admittedly, my face to face gaming with friends didn't go so well, but like I said, long time (probably around a year) and I didn't really have the philosophy of GMing I have now. Also, I'm pretty sure I didn't say this GMing style would be for everyone, but it is what I would want from a GM and want as a GM, and it does require intense players, which was the original question posed in the thread.

Quote from: David RSethwick, there is a big difference between online and face to face play. JimBob's advice works pretty well IME for the reality of face to face games. I don't game online, so my opinion on the subject ain't worth much.

Regards,
David R

Eh, I don't think there is a big difference between, saying, playing Marvel Super Heroes in a chatroom and playing it face to face. I mean, people might feel a little more comfortable roleplaying, and you don't get to do voices, and... well, I guess not much else in a technical way.

Quote from: SethwickOnly he's assuming I never have fun or rarely have fun and don't game anymore. As is I game atleast one or twice a week on IRC (with atleast one member of these forum atleast) and have fun.

Admittedly, my face to face gaming with friends didn't go so well, but like I said, long time (probably around a year) and I didn't really have the philosophy of GMing I have now. Also, I'm pretty sure I didn't say this GMing style would be for everyone, but it is what I would want from a GM and want as a GM, and it does require intense players, which was the original question posed in the thread.

The problem, Seth, is that purely online gaming is radically different than table top, which MOST of us do at least part of the time (in my case, exclusively)...

Yes, in Chat only, quiet players ARE going to be a problem... one that they wouldn't be in TT. Maybe not a bad as you present.. I'm not the one to judge that.

So, if you'd stated...say... two freaking days ago while posting that you only IRC'd your games, that would make a HUGE difference in how you were read....

clear?

Quote from: SethwickEh, I don't think there is a big difference between, saying, playing Marvel Super Heroes in a chatroom and playing it face to face. I mean, people might feel a little more comfortable roleplaying, and you don't get to do voices, and... well, I guess not much else in a technical way.

:eek: Well, if you really think that there's no difference or that the differences are negligible, then, there's really nothing to discuss.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SpikeThe problem, Seth, is that purely online gaming is radically different than table top, which MOST of us do at least part of the time (in my case, exclusively)...

Yes, in Chat only, quiet players ARE going to be a problem... one that they wouldn't be in TT. Maybe not a bad as you present.. I'm not the one to judge that.

So, if you'd stated...say... two freaking days ago while posting that you only IRC'd your games, that would make a HUGE difference in how you were read....

clear?

I don't see how quiet players really present a greater difficulty one way or the other. I would have stated it outright had I thought that was the case. Sorry :o

As is, I guess we can lay down our differences to that.

But I think that's interesting, what would be some of the primary differences between F2F and chat (not play by post, which I recognize is VERY different, but chat where everyone shows up at the same time and games for 2-3 hours) gaming is?

Quote from: SethwickBut I think that's interesting, what would be some of the primary differences between F2F and chat...

IRC is text only, and only what people take the trouble to type. So you don't have people's facial expressions, the sound and tone of their voice, sharing their cheetos, etc. It's less intimate, more pure words. IRC roleplaying is to face to face roleplaying as reading a play is to seeing it performed. Both are fun things, but they're different things.

In IRC, if someone is quiet, it could be because

• they're busy typing up something long,
• they're bored,
• got another window open with pr0n and having a wank,
• carefully considering what to say next,
• laughing hysterically at what someone else just said
• politely waiting while someone else has some spotlight time
• stumped in confusion as to what to do
• watching enraptured by the genius of the scene before them
• depressed
• computer froze and rebooting
• went to get a sandwich

and so on. Whereas in person, I can see immediately which of those is the case. I know if they're bored, delighted, busy doing something else, or what. I have a lot more feedback.

In face-to-face GMing, I can respond to this feedback they're giving me, even the feedback they're not consciously giving me (like a bored expression). In IRC, everything has to be spelled out. Some online GMs won't bother spelling it out, and I can't blame them - it's a lot to spell out. Easier just to let 'em sink or swim.

Because everything has to be spelled out in text online, I can't tell the difference between a player who "just a quiet guy", and a player who's bored, distracted, annoyed, etc. In person I can see the difference between a smile and a frown; online I can't. So, someone being quiet in person may still be telling you quiet a lot, while if they're quiet online they're telling you nothing.

Silence online tells us nothing. For example, if people are arguing on a thread, and one of them doesn't reply any more, what is that telling us? Did they admit defeat? Did they decide the other guy was too stupid to bother talking to? Did they lose the thread, get the flu and stop posting, or what? Online, we have no idea. In person, we'd know - see the person nod thoughtfully and walk away, or wave their hand in disgust, etc.

It's extremely relevant whether you're playing online or face-to-face. The way of running the game is entirely different. You must recognise that it's different, otherwise why would you enjoy one so much, and not the other?

Also, you should realise that when people say "a roleplaying session," they're imagining a bunch of people sitting around a table with their dice and cheetos. They're not imagining several people scattered across the world tapping away at their keyboards. So if you mean the online stuff, you have to be clear about it. Another case where silence tells us nothing.

Quote from: JimBobOzIRC is text only, and only what people take the trouble to type. So you don't have people's facial expressions, the sound and tone of their voice, sharing their cheetos, etc. It's less intimate, more pure words. IRC roleplaying is to face to face roleplaying as reading a play is to seeing it performed. Both are fun things, but they're different things.

In IRC, if someone is quiet, it could be because

• they're busy typing up something long,
• they're bored,
• got another window open with pr0n and having a wank,
• carefully considering what to say next,
• laughing hysterically at what someone else just said
• politely waiting while someone else has some spotlight time
• stumped in confusion as to what to do
• watching enraptured by the genius of the scene before them
• depressed
• computer froze and rebooting
• went to get a sandwich

and so on. Whereas in person, I can see immediately which of those is the case. I know if they're bored, delighted, busy doing something else, or what. I have a lot more feedback.

In face-to-face GMing, I can respond to this feedback they're giving me, even the feedback they're not consciously giving me (like a bored expression). In IRC, everything has to be spelled out. Some online GMs won't bother spelling it out, and I can't blame them - it's a lot to spell out. Easier just to let 'em sink or swim.

Because everything has to be spelled out in text online, I can't tell the difference between a player who "just a quiet guy", and a player who's bored, distracted, annoyed, etc. In person I can see the difference between a smile and a frown; online I can't. So, someone being quiet in person may still be telling you quiet a lot, while if they're quiet online they're telling you nothing.

Silence online tells us nothing. For example, if people are arguing on a thread, and one of them doesn't reply any more, what is that telling us? Did they admit defeat? Did they decide the other guy was too stupid to bother talking to? Did they lose the thread, get the flu and stop posting, or what? Online, we have no idea. In person, we'd know - see the person nod thoughtfully and walk away, or wave their hand in disgust, etc.

It's extremely relevant whether you're playing online or face-to-face. The way of running the game is entirely different. You must recognise that it's different, otherwise why would you enjoy one so much, and not the other?

Also, you should realise that when people say "a roleplaying session," they're imagining a bunch of people sitting around a table with their dice and cheetos. They're not imagining several people scattered across the world tapping away at their keyboards. So if you mean the online stuff, you have to be clear about it. Another case where silence tells us nothing.

I guess I'm just not good at reading people. I don't get much more feedback in person. And you gave a long list of what silence can mean online, it can also mean a variety of things in real life (I believe that was one of the points you made earlier, that silence doesn't neccessarily mean one is miserable).

As for me enjoying one more than the other, I know why and it has nothing to do with different mediums. It's the people. Online, I have access to a much wider pool of gamers, and not just those who happen to be nearby me. So I get to game with great GMs who I would have to drive for a few days or take a plane to see normally.

Quote from: SethwickI guess I'm just not good at reading people. I don't get much more feedback in person. And you gave a long list of what silence can mean online, it can also mean a variety of things in real life (I believe that was one of the points you made earlier, that silence doesn't neccessarily mean one is miserable).

You know, you're really not helping your argument here at all, or your public image for that matter.

RPGPundit