Quote from: Kyle AaronThese blokes (they're always male) are usually not ones who really want to be frontseat drivers, they want to be backseat drivers with right of veto over the front bloke. So you just slide on over and let them get into the front seat if they want, then they back right off.

Mmmmm... Nail of head you have hit, yes.

And this is the LAST kind of behavior you want in any kind of improv situation.

But I have a related question: I get into argum...discussions about how some games are inaccessible to many players because they require a level of spontaneity that those players don't possess. But I'm of the opinion that that spontaneity is a critical element which if absent doesn't make an RPG worth playing in the first place. Now it's bad enough that the least spontaneous players tend to be the most canon infatuated (and regrettably the most likely to purchase licensed RPG material), but what's worse is that they compromise the other players' ability to be spontaneous as well.

Should we even try to be designing games for these people? Better yet, are these the people most responsible for keeping what exists of the RPG industry afloat?

There are games that require more or less spontaneity than others? I can see how some styles might do that, but I'm having a hard time envisioning a game whose rules cause that.

If there are games like that, then yeah, someone should probably design something for the other end of the spectrum. If they're really ambitious they could try for a game that doesn't require much spontaneity, but rewards it with mechanical benefits, and use that game as a learning tool.

I dunno.

I´ve seen lazy artsy half ass-GMs, who couldn´t be bothered with a setting, and bullshitted whatever they wanted. People who claim to be perfect GMs without prep and with only the corebook. They suck big time.

If the GM indulges in the background, chances are high the chages he makes will be perfectly accetable to a set of Setting/canon fans.

So, I´m giving the benefit of the doubt to the player here. I´ve just have seen way to many lazy half assed wannabe GMs get all whiney on the internet to feel sorry for them.

Mabye the "canon fan" is actually right. Players mostly are right.

Quote from: SettembriniMabye the "canon fan" is actually right. Players mostly are right.

And most people tend to be moderate in most things they do. But that isn't the question, it's "how to deal with canon fanatics," which is another thing entirely.

As a player I love it when GM's offer their own spin on established worlds. I'd far rather have someone engaging their creative faculties and breathing life into a setting than endlessly parroting the official material. I suppose I've been in too many FR games where Elminster/Blackstaff/The Harpers had a stranglehold on things for me to give a fuck anymore about how closely the GM hews to the sourcebooks.

Quote from: chaosvoyagerI get into argum...discussions about how some games are inaccessible to many players because they require a level of spontaneity that those players don't possess. But I'm of the opinion that that spontaneity is a critical element which if absent doesn't make an RPG worth playing in the first place.

If I'm reading this right, it sounds more like a player problem for the GM to solve than it is an entire table problem caused by specific game systems. You could always choose more carefully the players, concentrating on those who are spontaneous enough for you.

Quote from: jeff37923If I'm reading this right, it sounds more like a player problem for the GM to solve than it is an entire table problem caused by specific game systems. You could always choose more carefully the players, concentrating on those who are spontaneous enough for you.

If he's referring to spontaneity in the sense of setting detail (and I'm guessing he is given the thread topic), then yes, there certainly are settings and games that inhibit spontaneity more than others, in the sense that there's simply too much "official detail".

Forgotten Realms springs to mind, where almost every last square mile is covered in great detail, every tiny village and roadside inn has an official entry somewhere and detailed stats for the barkeep to boot, leaving very little room for the GM and the players to get creative with the setting details.

I also ran into this problem a lot with Rifts players as well, who would pretty much only run games within the confines of existing sourcebook'd setting areas, as there was a certain fear that an official sourcebook would come out covering X part of the world and thus render their game "wrong".

Conversely, some settings and games are designed to be quite broad-stroke, high concept, and pretty much leave the specific detail to the individual GM and players.  This is how I approach settings, both the ones I write, and the ones I buy.  But if the players lack the desire or the creativity to come up with those sorts of details on their own, then they will similarly be unsatisfied and confounded.

This spectrum can also often find itself expressed on a mechanical level.  Somes offer more package deals and handholds towards coming up with a character concept, for instance, while others are much more freeform and can drown a player in indecision.  

Look at the difference between Rifts ultra-specific classes, where every OCC is a specific career for a specific organization and such, and GURPS with it's predefined lists of traits but no specific guidelines other than point value, to games like Risus which have no prewritten traits at all unless the GM specifically provides a list of his own.

Quote from: jeff37923If I'm reading this right, it sounds more like a player problem for the GM to solve than it is an entire table problem caused by specific game systems.

It is a player problem (at least for me) and has fuck-all to do with 'spontaneity' -- the folk's I'm talking about have no problem with being spontaneous. It's deviating from the printed word that gets their panties in a twist.

For as much as J Arcane and I disagree on things, he's put to words exactly what I was thinking in terms of spontaneity: Forgotten Realms.

I was lucky enough to be allowed into a local group (unfortunately, due to my current...situation...I was unable to attend the first session to which I was invited).  I asked the DM about characters,etc.  He said I was allowed to choose from FRCS.

Let me tell you, it's the one things that worries me.  How much am I going to have to know?  How well will I play my character? Will I do or say things in character that are completely off base - perhaps even just to this group? I'm actually thinking that my character will be a simple kind of fighter perhaps fighter/rogue just to avoid the devine and magic weave aspects - all so I can be more "spnotaneous" without fear.

Here's to hoping I can make the next session - and they'll have me!