Exactly, Warthur.

The view TonyLB's presenting of a game group is... I don't know how to express it, it's like they're those statues at Easter Island, each one stands tall and alone. Not a game group, but just a table full of individuals. "Not my problem. You figure it out."

Whereas in reality good GMs and players try to help one another. They talk.

In my game group I have two players who came to me from two different groups, both of whose GMs I know. Part of the reason they left the game group was for similar reasons to jgants' story - the GM wanted to help create the character. In one case, there were two sessions of the player watching everyone else play, and every character idea they had, they were told, "that's great! But if you did this other thing, that'd be awesome!" - which was really just a nice way of saying, "change it or you won't play, bitch." In the otehr case, the GM had everyone create characters, then began them with amnesia, and as the game progressed and they "discovered" their characters, gave them abilities and disabilities of the GM's choosing.

In both cases, the GM said they were just doing it so it'd be fun for the player, and when the player said, "but it's not fun, I don't want this," the GM just blathered on about how awesome it'd be. That's a GM not listening. What it really means is, "I as GM think this would be fun for me, so it should be fun for you, too - and if not, too bad, see you later." It's the old thing of a leader thinking they know what's good for the people better than the people do.

Now, not even a good GM knows better than a player what's fun for the player. But a good GM will know what's fun for the group better than any individual player. So if you as a player say, "but playing a lesbianstripperninja who betrays the party will be fun for me!" then the GM can't deny that - of course it will be. But they'll know whether it'll be fun for the rest of the group or not.

Players are generally smart enough to know what'll be fun for everyone, it's just that they don't normally think of it. The player naturally has a narrow view of things, focusing on their own character and their own fun; the GM naturally has a broader view, because the GM isn't invested in any particular character, they're invested in the group as a whole.

Notice that many common complaints about GMs come from their breaking this thing, that they should have a wider view - the GM has a pet NPC (and so is invested in their own fun even to the detriment of others'), the GM won't let them play the sort of character they want because it interferes with their "vision" for the campaign, and so on.

A good GM has that wider view, considering what's good for the group as a whole. What's good for the group as a whole can be discovered by talking to the players, seeing what everyone wants and finding some kind of consensus or compromise. And the good can happen in the game session only when everyone feels responsible for everyone else's fun.

For example, in my current campaign, the PCs do missions, and each mission a different PC is in command, whoever has the skills most appropriate for the particular kind of mission. One player was a bit reserved and quiet and not contributing a lot, so a second player - the one who by temperament and brains is probably the best suited to lead, in fact - said, "why don't we make them leader of the next mission, that'll bring them forward a bit." And it was done, and it worked, the player's more lively now. And now all four players are having more fun, because all four are contributing. When one of them was holding back, it wasn't as much fun.

On another occasion I had a different four players, and one was very quiet while another one was noisy. I noticed that when people sat down, the quiet one sat next to me, and the noisy one directly opposite me; whoever sits in direct eye contact with the GM obviously gets more of the action in the session, meeting eyes gets a response. The one sitting by your side you might forget is there if they don't speak up. I said to the quieter player, "I notice you're a bit quiet in the game sessions. I realise it can be hard to speak up when the others are so noisy. What I was thinking is that you might sit where so-and-so usually does, directly opposite me - if I'm looking right at you, I'll remember to call on you. Then you can have more action and contribute more - that's if you'd like to." The player agreed, and it worked, that player's decisions started leading the campaign. And everyone - including the noisy ones - had more fun.

In both cases, that could not have happened unless we all felt responsible for one another's fun. Talking to get consensus or compromise, the GM constantly watching to make sure everyone gets to contribute as much as they're comfortable with, that's how good game groups work.

Other game groups that players leave to come to mine, they often have long-term members who are very comfortable with each-other. They don't need to make special efforts to accomodate everyone, because everyone is comfortable with and trusts one another. Of course, those long-term game groups have also had dozens of people come through them who didn't just fit in easily, and since no-one felt responsible for their fun, they never could fit in, and away they went.

The difference here is that those long-term game groups formed because the people just happened to be compatible in their game play styles. What I'm talking about is, rather than just hoping for a random matching, actively working to make things compatible. Instead of just drawing the cards and going "snap!" when things match, and discarding the cards that don't match, go through the pack and find the ones that match.

And since a human being is more like a whole pack of cards than a single card, having many aspects to them, many different things they enjoy, it's not actually that difficult to sort through each pack and match several cards up.

So I think perhaps what we're really looking at here with TonyLB's comments is a difference between having a long-term established group, and having a new group. Bob saying, "I'm not responsible for Jim's fun, Jim can take care of himself" works alright when Jim and Bob know each-other for years. But it doesn't work so well when Jim and Bob are strangers to each-other.

"I'll do what I want, you do what you want, if we happen to match, great, if not oh well" - these groups have most new members leave. "We're all responsible for each-other's fun" - these groups attract new members.

Quote from: WarthurFor me, the best CoC games are those which focus strongly on the investigation, and where the really dangerous monsters only come out if the characters have actually screwed up, so my personal guideline for CoC characters is "would they make reasonable protagonists in a detective novel"?

In response to which the players come back with urban ninjas & black-ops assassins. It never fails--to the degree that sometimes I wonder if I even occupy the same "reality" as my players. :confused:  Oh well, better stick to fantasy games...

Seriously, though, whether I as GM consider this sort of thing my responsibility or not, it's still my problem. And if a game implodes because players aren't having fun or if their character concepts are clashing, then it's a loss all around. If I can prevent that as GM, then I should do so or risk a lot of wasted effort down the road. Both for me and for those players who were actually enjoying the game before it went south. Sadly, I speak from experience.

Quote from: Kyle AaronTalking to get consensus or compromise, the GM constantly watching to make sure everyone gets to contribute as much as they're comfortable with, that's how good game groups work.

That's one way that good game groups work.  Not to knock a (very solid) model for fun, but it's not the only way.

I suppose we could play "Sez who?" games here, but really, I'm personally pretty compelled by my own proof (anectdotal as it is to you):  I can get a group of people together, whether folks I know or entirely new people, and run a fun, rolicking game where I don't worry about the stuff you're talking about worrying about.  I make sure (usually just by playing a solid game) that everyone's got roles where they're contributing what the game needs in order to give folks the opportunity for fun ... and then I leave it up to them to take advantage of those opportunities.  I concentrate on doing my job in providing the things I'm supposed to provide.  The other players do their job, and seek out opportunities to enjoy themselves.  On the whole, they usually succeed ... even if they have to get creative in order to do so.  In fact, it's often the most fun when they have to get creative in order to make things fun.

It works.

That was just bad GMing.

If this were my game I would have asked you to give an in character explanation on exactly how your PC managed to get his hands on an X-wing (a craft that is a known favorite of the rebels, and only has one function which is to destroy other ships) and fly it around during a civil war and not get immediately desintigrated by the first imperial frigate that came along.

An explanation such as "My PC is under contract by a Corellian space security firm that has an imperial charter to use X-Wing craft for shipping defense, as long as the X-Wing carries the appropriate markings and colors." would have been good enough for me to green light your character. Or you could have simply chosen a different model fighter such as the Incom Z-95 headhunter or an old clone wars republic fighter.

Quote from: jgantsI'm voting for the excluded middle here.

On the one hand, I absolutely hate it as a player when I have some kind of concept and the GM refuses to even meet me halfway.  

For example, someone invited me join a new Star Wars campaign he wanted to start.  No info whatsoever was provided.  I came up with a rebel fighter pilot character.  When the game started, it became clear the GM only liked to play "ye olde space freighter campaign #98214903" rather than something that fits Star Wars (I hate West End for encouraging people to turn Star Wars into Traveller)..

But OK, I can compromise.  My guy can just fly as an escort to the freighter on missions, right?  Wrong.  The GM decides that an X-Wing stands out too much for the smugglers campaign he has in mind, so my concept gets nerfed and I end up a generic crewman on somebody else's freighter in the first session.  Result - I never go back for a second session.

The point here is, the GM does need to modify the game a bit to accommodate reasonable character concepts.  And yes, even blind or pacifist characters could be reasonable concepts, depending on the game (such as CoC, etc).

On the other hand, I also believe the GM should not have to go out of his way to integrate a "questionable" concept.  And I'm a big believer in that players need to decide amongst themselves why they stay together, etc with only the flimsiest of pretenses given by the GM.

Very short answer to the title and first thought in this thread:


Yeah it IS your problem, if you piss off the players - you don't have a game to go to the next week.


- Ed C.

Quoteif you piss off the players - you don't have a game to go to the next week

Unless you do--like Kyle.

Quote from: droogUnless you do--like Kyle.

You've been part of one of his groups, Droog - How do players get in a word edge-wise??

 Is he that verbose during game sessions?


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarYou've been part of one of his groups, Droog - How do players get in a word edge-wise??

Small correction: I haven't actually played a game with him. I've been at a social event for roleplayers that he organised.

Now, that said, it's true that I heard Kyle's voice over all others the entire evening....

It's also true that had I not organised it and invited people, it wouldn't have happened. So you take the good with the bad

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's also true that had I not organised it and invited people, it wouldn't have happened. So you take the good with the bad

Always--that's life. But I'm not putting a value-judgement on it; I'm just recording my impressions.

That's alright, I expect to be judged by people I've just met, that's social life.

I've always been loud, and talkative. This is both a virtue and a flaw, a virtue in that it keeps the wheels of the social machine moving (and gives us Geektogethers), a flaw in that I can talk over people and so on. I try to minimise the bad parts and maximise the good parts, but it kind of falls on its arse when I get a few pints in me.

To try to move it back on-topic, I think that there's some overlap between organising a social function where people new to each-other meet up, and being a GM getting a game group together. Starting a new game group is a bit like trying to organise a single's party. Obviously you need to be someone who's open to compromise and will try to achieve consensus, but on the other hand you need to be someone who can just kick people in the arse to get them moving. That's a hard balance to get.

I manage it twice every three months, for each season's Geektogether, and for the new campaign each time. Ongoing, not so good.

Quote from: TonyLBSee, now this is precisely the type of behavior that is caused by the GM taking on too many worries, and too much responsibility.

"An X-Wing stands out too much for a smuggler's campaign"?  What the heck is that?  The GM is worried about fine-tuning the way that the characters are going to work ... so worried that he'd veto your concept?  Silly.  Just needless worry.  Why not just let you work out the kinks?

Communication is good, of course:  In his place I'd have said "Wow ... X-Wing.  Well, very Star Wars, but I'm worried that it'll stand out a bit in a campaign where other people are trying to keep a low profile.  Thoughts?"

If you come back with "Heck, it's a model of starship, not a declaration of principles ... I can just say 'Hell yeah, I've got the same fighter that the rebels use, because it works' ... and if we draw some imperial heat, that's fun for the game, right?" then I'd be one satisfied GM.

Then, of course, there actually would be people who view your starship as a declaration of principles, for better or worse.  You've just testified to your willingness to deal with that trouble, so why the heck should I sweep it under the carpet if that's what I think would happen?

Seems to me that GM put wayyyy too much effort into pre-playing the game:  resolving all the potential conflicts before they could become anything fun in the story.  It's a wierd, risk-averse strategy.

The example you're giving here doesn't sound like an application of the "not my problem" principle, so much as an application of collective problem solving.

The GM expresses his concern and asks the player if the player has any ideas about how to handle.  The player suggests a solution (people buy his explanation). Etc.

My assumption about "not my problem" (the way you expressed it in the first post) would be to say nothing and then have a TPK when the Empire shoots firsts without asking for any explanation.

When the outraged and disgusted players ask what happened, the GM explains that the Empire shoots on sight and the game was doomed from the moment the PC made the X-wing decision.

When asked how the hell the GM let things get to that point (a few hours of character gen followed by an hour or so of play, and then game termination), the GM shrugs: "I had a blast. The rest of it? Not My Problem."

I like this example a lot better -- if "not my problem" means collaborative problem solving with the out-of-bounds player working toward a mutually acceptable compromise, then I'm heavily in favor of that approach / philosophy with the caveat that I think it could be named better.

Cheers,
-E.