There was a thread about having game mechanics to encourage roleplaying (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=158026), I said players have either got it or they haven't, and it occurred to me that it's the gamers that I reject that make my group so good.
Quote from: JohnnyWannabeThe idea that deep down everyone is a role player is poo. The fact is the majority of people have no desire to role play whatsoever and you are never going to encourage them to give it a try unless you offer them money or free X-Box 360's or something.
I do think everyone plays roles, and enjoys doing it. I don't know whether lots of people
want to roleplay as a
game or not. But I do know that not many people
should roleplay as a game.
I mean, it's not like we should be terribly exclusive. Just at the level of a social volleyball league, say. They'll take in anyone who'll come - but they do have to be able to actually play okay. They can't be complete incompetents, or annoying bastards. I think we should have that low level of exclusivity, asking for a base level of competence as roleplayers and players.
Some of you may know of the John West brand of tinned fish. Years ago they had an advert where this Aussie bloke heads off to Alaska to get him the best salmon. When there, a local tells him not to buy the stuff in the market. "John West already bought the good fish."
"What's that then?" the Aussie says, pointing to the market-guy's fish.
"That's the fish that John West rejects."
The voiceover says, "It's the fish that John West rejects that makes it the best."
We need some of that. We need to be able to say something like, "It's the gamers Kyle Aaron rejects that make his group the best."
I just hear this stuff a lot online, about how roleplaying games are really structured wrongly because they require you to be creative or social - as though football needs its rules changed because you do really badly if you're unfit and a klutz.
People seem to have this fear that if they reject even one gamer, no other will ever come near them again, they'll subconsciously hear of the rejection through the Gamer Psychic Network. But it's not true. People knowing you have some standards actually makes them
more keen.
What do you lot reckon?
Well, I think that there are plenty of Groups that don't have the luxury of rejecting players. What if you only have 2 players + a GM and not too many people asking to join your group despite your efforts?
I've played in groups where we had 1 or 2 people that were not the best fits for our group, but we needed to have them in order to run the game. Had we come across better players we might not have accepted them.
Some times you have to take players that are not a perfect fit.
First up, I've never seen anyone who actually made an effort to find players who couldn't. The ones who said it was hopless, whenever I've enquired more narrowly I find that they've not actually taken any steps towards finding players, or have posted up a notice but not responded to emails, and so on.
Second, I never said people had to be a "perfect fit". I said they had to have some
minimum standard, some basic social and creative ability. I point again to the example of the social volleyball league. You've got several levels there,
- Olympic
- International
- National league
- State league - Honours
- State League - Division 1
- State League - Division 2
- State League - Division 3
- Social League
- a couple of guys tossing the ball back and forth in the park
I'm not saying that our rpg groups should be the equivalent of the Olympics, or even Honours. Just, you know, at least the Social League. Usually we're like a couple of guys tossing a ball around in the park. That's nice, but you're not getting a real ball game out of it. It's just guys tossing a ball around. even the Social League has
some standards.
It's not a very high standard I'm talking about. It's quite reachable.
I throw out those who are actively harming to the fun of everyone else, but overall I can't be picky. Germany doesn't have a high gamer ratio, my area is one of the most scarcely populated areas in the country with just one 200k-city in the catchment area, and there aren't much players that enjoy my traditional GMing style without any of the "storytelling" crap (fudge behind the screen, prep a plot etc.), so I have to take who I can get.
Quote from: Kyle AaronThey can't be complete incompetents, or annoying bastards. I think we should have that low level of exclusivity, asking for a base level of competence as roleplayers and players.
But those are two different things.
My group has a guy who is a great roleplayer, who considers all this PCs actions from the perspective of his in-game persona, and who quickly gets into the feel of whatever game setting we're playing. He also selfishly pursues his own agendas, frequently splits from the rest of the group to freelance, and has been known to steal from other PCs and carry out in-game vendettas. He's the most creative and most experienced roleplayer in the group and he's indispensible.
Another guy creates his PCs purely for game-optimization. He never gives his PCs any personality, to the point that you'd never know if he was playing a half-orc cleric or a dwarf fighter, and he never speaks in character or takes much note of the texture of the setting. However, he shows up early and prepared, knows the rules, tracks all of the party's in-game statistics, and generally acts as an assistant DM. He's an invaluable aid to me in running the session and tracking game information.
Both play well together and enjoy themselves. And they're both my close buddies. I'd sooner shut the game down than kick one of them out of the group.
Quote from: Kyle AaronFirst up, I've never seen anyone who actually made an effort to find players who couldn't. The ones who said it was hopless, whenever I've enquired more narrowly I find that they've not actually taken any steps towards finding players, or have posted up a notice but not responded to emails, and so on.
Trust me, there are not gamers everywhere. For instance, I live in a town of 15k. I posted on messages at the library and online, not a single reponse. There's no local gaming store, the nearest is ~ 1hr away.
My next step will be to have a "Role-Playing for newbies" community ed class. If I can get that in, it will be printed in the town news paper, I may have better luck with that.
Kyle,
I agree 100%. I think you were still around RPGnet when I posted my thread, "I divorced my gaming group". Essentially, I quit gaming with people I'd gamed with since the mid 1970s because the gaming was ass.
I got the two best into my Star Wars RPG along with three guys I met through a note on the bulletin board at the local game shop.
It's the best gaming I've had since about 1980, which was 1 on 1 -- my best friend as GM, and me as player.
So, I agree completely. Geek Social Fallacy #5 is real, and needs to be killed.
And, because it can never be said too much:
Not gaming is better than bad gaming.
Not gaming is better than bad gaming.
Not gaming is better than bad gaming.
Anything I tell you three times is true.
Anything I tell you three times is true.
This is part of the reason why I tend to run games with only 3-4 people in them (tops). If I can get 5-6 great players who want to be in my game, then by all means, but I'll only go so far.
I've found that in the gamer community around here, knowledge of my habit of either rejecting or even kicking out players has gained me a bumper crop of much better (and most importantly) less disruptive players.
I agree that there is this misconception floating around that gamers must be socially all-inclusive because we are sterotyped as socially retarded nerds who have felt the sting of rejection ourselves too often. I'm not saying that you shouldn't give a player you've never gamed with a chance, but if you know that someone is a fucktard then why suffer that fool gladly through a game?
I've watched good players abandon my table because of the bad behavior one twit and if I would have been smarter back then, I would have kicked him out much sooner and saved my game.
I've certainly become more selective about who I game with of late, and it's improved things no end. It helps that two of the guys I hang out with most frequently have come to the same conclusions, and the three of us have come to pretty damn compatible conclusions about who's cool and who's a drag; it means that so long as I invite at least one of those guys into a game, between us we can usually scare up enough other decent folks to get a viable group together.
I've never had a problem rejecting players or excusing myself from games.
Then again I live in London, which is awash with roleplayers of all stripes. I can afford to be picky. :D
It's also fun to pickup gamers at conventions. Play a game with a dozen or so people and then invite the good ones to join a private game. Of course here in Seattle, it's more a question of what kind of game is a good fit, instead of "are you violently insane?"
I've never had a problem getting players, so I've never had a problem ejecting ones who don't fit.
-clash
Quote from: McrowWell, I think that there are plenty of Groups that don't have the luxury of rejecting players. What if you only have 2 players + a GM and not too many people asking to join your group despite your efforts?
I've played in groups where we had 1 or 2 people that were not the best fits for our group, but we needed to have them in order to run the game. Had we come across better players we might not have accepted them.
Some times you have to take players that are not a perfect fit.
Hey, Mike! What's up with RPGAdmix? I haven't been able to log on in a dog's age.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceHey, Mike! What's up with RPGAdmix? I haven't been able to log on in a dog's age.
-clash
It's been hacked. Needs extensive rebuild and upgraded security package. It's down for good, I think. :(