Lancer asked an interesting question in another thread.
He (or she) said "what's the harm in trying new things?"
Well, let's take an example. Let's imagine I'm in a group that only plays White Wolf WoD games, Vampire, Werewolf, Mummy, whatever. We'll play anything as long as it's WoD. We haven't switched to NWoD though.
Now, what would be the harm of us trying something new? Maybe NWoD, which isn't a huge leap, maybe D&D or Shadowrun or whatever? What's the harm?
Well, what if we're already having great gaming? What if we have a blast in our game every week? And what if we only get to game once a week, maybe less?
The harm is that we spend time learning a new ruleset, we spend time not playing games we enjoy, and the odds are fairly good that most new stuff we try we won't get the same fun from. After all, we're already having a ton of fun. The harm is that overall we reduce how much fun we're having, by wasting potential fun time on unfun stuff.
It's like eating out in Naples. There's a pizzeria called Da Michele, if you know the town you eat there every night. As a young seminarian said to me once*, sometimes you eat somewhere else to try something new, but every time you regret passing up an occasion to be at Da Michele because it does what it does so well.
Trying new things makes sense if you enjoy the new for being new, or if you're not having a blast with your current game. If you are having a blast with your current game, and have limited time in which to game, I'd argue that trying new things is probably irrational behaviour. That's why many people don't do it, it's not close-mindedness (always, sometimes it is obviously), it's rational choice.
*It's so rare I get to say things like that.
I like that, and I tend to agree. Trying new things is for when the group is in the mood to try new things.
We always go back to C&C, for instance, because we have the most fun playing it, and all the warm fuzzies associated with it.
I love Naples. I shall check out that place next time around.
Otherwise, nope, don't agree one little bit.
"Trying out something new" covers a very wide spectrum, of which "secluding ourselves in a monastery on the remote plains of Kashmir for one whole gameless month with nothing but water, bread, and Rolemaster Standard System for company, only to find out in the end it's not fur us, and WTF were we ever thinking in the first place" is but one extreme pole.
A more likely case is one guy coming across some new game in the store that vaguely catches his fancy, schlepping it home, reading it, then realizing either it's worth a pitch to the others or not. Whatever the outcome, no gaming group will have been harmed in the process.
Even if the game turns out to be nonpitchable, hence unplayed, merely reading it (assuming it's good in its own right, and perhaps even if it's significantly bad) will give you a clearer sense of why you prefer that other game your group is actually playing.
I have a much, much better sense of why I like AD&D 1E after I discovered rpg.net and learned about a ton of other games.
Acquiring knowledge of gaming history, of the paradigms that are out there and their transformation over the decade, is distinctly different from chasing after novelty for novelty's sake.
It's a cost/benefit analysis: the cost is the amount of time and money you'll spend trying the new thing, while the benefit is the increased enjoyment you'll get out of that thing. By that standard, the amount of time you spend trying new things should be proportionate to the projected increase in enjoyment you might experience; that's as close to logical you're likely to get.
My group played nothing but Shadowrun from 1989 until 2006 or so, with the exception of a break here or there to play Earthdawn. All of us started out playing AD&D, so Shadowrun was "something new" for us. We tried it. It was 17 years before anyone felt like playing anything else, and that was only the GM. [The players would gleefully play nothing but Shadowrun and occasional Earthdawn until our deaths, I suspect.] For the last couple of years, we've played a blend of D&D, d20 Modern, Shadowrun, and Earthdawn [I don't think I'm missing anything in there] with multiple "homebrew" settings for D&D and d20: that's new to us, and we've really enjoyed it.
I think often times, people underestimate the stimulating effect of change, and overestimate the cost of trying something different. If you're trying to be logical about it - using a sort of cost/benefit analysis - this kind of error is critical, and will prevent you from achieving optimal gaming. But if you're already having fun, the harm in not having more fun, really, is minimal, if only because you won't know what you're missing.
Have you and Mr. Analytical been taking inflexibility pills recently, Balbinus? :p
While I agree with your overall construction, it's when you come to the overall conclusion that it is a non-rational behaviour that I have to disagree and express my disappointment at your lack of broader vision (something you have never demonstrated before).
I think the situation exists where bringing a new game into a group is a net-loss in time and fun. But that is part of a broad spectrum of situations that includes many times when it is a net-gain.
I also really don't buy the system-learning cost argument. How long does it take to learn a new system? You tend to have the super rules geeks, who can absorb a new system at its base quite quickly. And then you have the people who never learn the system. And then you have the wide range in the middle, most of whom can pick up the basics through play in a session or two.
Quote from: EngineIt's a cost/benefit analysis: the cost is the amount of time and money you'll spend trying the new thing, while the benefit is the increased enjoyment you'll get out of that thing. By that standard, the amount of time you spend trying new things should be proportionate to the projected increase in enjoyment you might experience; that's as close to logical you're likely to get.
I think often times, people underestimate the stimulating effect of change, and overestimate the cost of trying something different. If you're trying to be logical about it - using a sort of cost/benefit analysis - this kind of error is critical, and will prevent you from achieving optimal gaming. But if you're already having fun, the harm in not having more fun, really, is minimal, if only because you won't know what you're missing.
YES! For the win. Thread closed.
The fear in trying new things.
I spent years as part of a group that wouldn't play the same game for two consecutive months. In hindsight, I consider this to have been one of the most tepid periods of my gaming existence. But then, I attribute that in part to the value of the games played. The novelty of newness couldn't make up for how good the games aren't.
On the other hand, I do think many games that have a high cost of learning are really worth it. I think it took me several sessions to really groove to SotC, but now that I am, I'm happy I did.
I think the biggest problem behind trying new things is Sturgeons Law. 90% of games are crap, or at best, provide limited novelty. As such, a game really has to make a meaningful effort to demonstrate it's not crap up front or no, it's really not worth the risk of consuming one of our precious and few gaming time slots.
Quote from: BalbinusTrying new things makes sense if you enjoy the new for being new, or if you're not having a blast with your current game. If you are having a blast with your current game, and have limited time in which to game, I'd argue that trying new things is probably irrational behaviour. That's why many people don't do it, it's not close-mindedness (always, sometimes it is obviously), it's rational choice.
I don't enjoy the new simply for being new, and I have had a blast with my current and prior games. By definition, I have limited time in which to game. (I have a wife and son, though I have two bi-weekly campaigns, one monthly, and one irregular - plus a few one-offs and conventions.) Nevertheless, I do get enjoyment out of playing new games, which I do pretty regularly.
By the same token, I also regularly try out new restaurants, even though there are some excellent restaurants within a close walk of me. Even if I don't think that the food is clearly better than my local stops, I still enjoy it for what it is, and I think having that variety and perspective improves my enjoyment of both local stops and new restaurants.
Quote from: walkerpYES! For the win. Thread closed.
While I disagree with Balbinus also, this really bugs me -- as much or moreso as if you declared your own "victory" over someone else. You already expressed your disagreement, leave off the patting on the back about how your side is "winning" in your own mind.
I'd say it was a risk versus reward situation as well.
Personally, I enjoy trying new things (within reasonable limits) and I like being aware of all my options, but that's my choice. If others don't want to, shrug - that's their choice.
Letting folks know their are other choices is fine as long as it occasional and casual. "Hey, I saw a movie you might like." But many folks won't let it go or are insistent, indignant, or angry, moving themselves from the "buddy" category to the "complete penis" category.
And everytime I've run across someone in the latter category, they've also been hypocrites as well. They don't sample all choices available to them. Ask them, for example, if they've tried gay sex just in case it might work out "better" for them and watch 'em sputter.
Seanchai
I like trying new games but it can be taken to extremes because it can mean constantly not playing games that I already know that I like.
For example, I had one GM that would want to alter the rules or bring in new games, constantly looking for "realistic" games. It went like this:
Session 1: spend whole session learning rules and rolling up characters.
Session 2: Play a slow session as everything is new, gm has to look up or decide on a bunch of things.
Session 3: See session 1, but with new system.
I like lots of games but I have no problem skipping 90% of the games out there. If I look at a character sheet and it's obvious that it's not going to be my cup of tea, I'm not going to waste time or money making absolutely certain that it's not my cup of tea.
Yeah, constantly trying new things and playing new games just for the sake of newness doesn't sound very fun to me either.
Yeah, we've done periods like that. [It's one of the things that turned us toward the d20 system, because rules existed to apply it from stone age to space age...even if those rules aren't necessary what we'd like.] You lose all the things that are great about campaigns, in exchange for trying 50 new things. If you've the leisure, it's a good idea, because you might find something in that 50 you like, but it can be frustrating for everyone; we've actually lost players from it, I think.
As always, neither extreme seems universally appealing; for the majority of us, a healthy moderation is the best policy, trying new things every so often, but continuing your existing campaigns [or running new things in-between campaigns of your old system] and making certain that there's something good about the things you try seems wise, as well. If you're just randomly grabbing a new game once a week to play - and some groups do that, and have fun doing it - that's going to irritate the hell out of most of us; some sort of preselection process is I find generally best.
I wonder how many people who advocate trying new RPG systems are as adventurous in other aspects of their lives. How many stray from SF/Fantasy novels into the latest Booker prize nominees, or 19th century history? How many take the effort to learn to prepare Thai or Indian food? How many watch foreign films, or seek out obscure musical genres?
No doubt some like to seek out novelty in lots of different ways. But I suspect that many are just voracious system and setting wonks who are frustrated that their friends won't come along for the ride.
Quote from: HaffrungI wonder how many people who advocate trying new RPG systems are as adventurous in other aspects of their lives. How many stray from SF/Fantasy novels into the latest Booker prize nominees, or 19th century history? How many take the effort to learn to prepare Thai or Indian food? How many watch foreign films, or seek out obscure musical genres?
I have no available statistics for you, but I can tell you that I both advocate trying new games, and trying new other-things. I've even been known to try new things myself, sometimes on purpose; many of the new things I try very quickly become my old things, so much do I enjoy them.
I'm probably more adventurous with "other things" than I am with game systems. Well, I played nothing but Shadowrun for 17 years, so I suppose I'd
have to be.
I'm a game designer. My gaming group is my alpha test group, and they are very good at it. I write a LOT of games. Since the beginning of last year, I designed and developed Aces In Spades, Aces And Angels, Sweet Chariot 2, Blood Games II, and Wild Blue; and playtested FtA! This in addition to playing Qin, D&D, CoC, StarCluster 2, and Ringworld.
My group LONGS for more time spent with each game, even though they love playing new games. They want to have a proper long term campaign, where they can sit down with the same character and progress through several years of gameplay - really get to know the characters. They constantly harp about how I throw games at them only long enough for them to really get into playing them before I start a new one. This is true. I can't see any way around it. Either I stop coming up with new games, stop playtesting my new games, or things stay as they are, and neither of the first two are realistically going to happen.
So I'm going back to Blood Games II, with their old characters. We started Saturday, they fell immediately into their old characters without a hesitation, and loved it. Meanwhile, I want to start testing Pigboats...
-clash
Quote from: HaffrungI wonder how many people who advocate trying new RPG systems are as adventurous in other aspects of their lives. How many stray from SF/Fantasy novels into the latest Booker prize nominees, or 19th century history? How many take the effort to learn to prepare Thai or Indian food? How many watch foreign films, or seek out obscure musical genres?
No doubt some like to seek out novelty in lots of different ways. But I suspect that many are just voracious system and setting wonks who are frustrated that their friends won't come along for the ride.
I do. I read voraciously in many genres and non-generic styles, fiction and non-fiction. I cook Chinese, Japanese, and Singapore style as well as American and Italian. I love Brian Eno and Yoyo Ma, Verdi and the GoGos equally. I love sports as well as games. I think I'm just a voracious omnivore. :D
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceI do. I read voraciously in many genres and non-generic styles, fiction and non-fiction. I cook Chinese, Japanese, and Singapore style as well as American and Italian. I love Brian Eno and Yoyo Ma, Verdi and the GoGos equally. I love sports as well as games. I think I'm just a voracious omnivore. :D
-clash
The wife and I tried making sushi/sashimi at home once. We now always go out for that, unless you count just simple slices of smoked salamon with onion/caper/lemon juice garnish. :) Damn that's a lot of work.
But yeah, not being blocked by fear of everything that might not go 'right' is a life skill. Otherwise how do you ever get to Da Michele's of life to start with?
Moderation, really, is the key.
What I take from Balbinus's post, unless he's just being a reactionary unimaginative berk, is that there are really very good reasons for people to decline trying new things when we offer them, and one ought to respect that.
The thing that strikes me, most of the time, when someone complains about other people not trying new things, is the self-interest masquerading as altruism. It's not just any new thing, it's their new thing. Or it's striking a blow against the hegemony of D&D* in hopes that by fragmenting the monolith, an environment more hospitable to their new thing will develop.
The other thing is just how very silly this all is, and how it leads to nonsense like me and David and Lancer, probably others whom I'm forgetting, hammering out the details of what exactly is okay to say, and what sorts of dickery it's okay to call dickery, and so forth, as if by composing a sort of detailed Credo in words we could impose social harmony on our diverse opinions. In reality the exact formulations don't matter, it's whether someone's trying to start a fight or simply won't take "no" for an answer.
*Sometimes it's "traditional games".
I wouldn't try a new game for newness sake. But I see no harm in at least looking at a new system if it was in the genre I liked.
D&D in its various incarnations is not for me. I know this because I've played it. So when asked I am able to articulate why D&D doesn't work for me. Without being hostile to people who love it.
My frustration in finding players for my non-D&D fantasy game is not with those who have sampled the fantasy game market and decided that D&D is best for them.
It's those that have only played D&D and totally refuse anything else in the fantasy genre without even looking at it.
Of course this may just mean that D&D has solidly become its own genre - and other fantasy games just don't register because they're not D&D.
.
Saying people should try new things is retarded. They should try new things if they want to, and not try new things if they don't.
I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take to not want to try new systems. If you really like the games you are already playing, there's really no need to switch to a new system. Not everyone wants to have to relearn yet another system, and many don't want to go around buying new books every couple of weeks.
For example, I used to love trying new systems. Now, not so much. I've seen enough that I don't really need to see any more. I'm good. I have my favorites for each genre, and I'll stick with them.
To me, the "what's the harm" argument sounds like whining from people frustrated that everyone else doesn't share their tastes.
Quote from: jgantsSaying people should try new things is retarded. They should try new things if they want to, and not try new things if they don't.
I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take to not want to try new systems. If you really like the games you are already playing, there's really no need to switch to a new system. Not everyone wants to have to relearn yet another system, and many don't want to go around buying new books every couple of weeks.
For example, I used to love trying new systems. Now, not so much. I've seen enough that I don't really need to see any more. I'm good. I have my favorites for each genre, and I'll stick with them.
To me, the "what's the harm" argument sounds like whining from people frustrated that everyone else doesn't share their tastes.
Is it a problem to ask people to try new things if you take "No" for an answer? Because that's me.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmiceIs it a problem to ask people to try new things if you take "No" for an answer? Because that's me.
-clash
Of course.
Asking "would you like to try X?" is fine. Saying "What do you mean you don't want to try X?" is where I see the problem (or "Why won't you try X? What's wrong with you?").
Quote from: jgantsOf course.
Asking "would you like to try X?" is fine. Saying "What do you mean you don't want to try X?" is where I see the problem (or "Why won't you try X? What's wrong with you?").
Walkerp, are you listening? Can you imagine that your friends would not cherish being in this position? How they might reject even the attempt at something new in order to avoid the above?
I don't know if that's you... but it sure seems to be.
Edit: Sorry if that is to personal. Not meant as an attack.
Quote from: jgantsSaying people should try new things is retarded. They should try new things if they want to, and not try new things if they don't.
Conversely, saying people should
not try new things is equally retarded. The original post claimed that if you're having fun with your games, the only reason to try something new is if you like newness for newness' sake.
I have no problem with people who only play one game. Unlike Elliot, I don't particularly believe in moderation as a principle, although I am fairly moderate within the set of gamers. Only playing one game, or constantly trying new games, both seem fine to me if that's what you enjoy -- and I've seen both.
Quote from: darWalkerp, are you listening? Can you imagine that your friends would not cherish being in this position? How they might reject even the attempt at something new in order to avoid the above?
Here's how it went with me. "Hey guys, I've got a one-shot I've been working on for the con, is anybody interested in playing it with me once beforehand to playtest it."
Several players: "Yeah, sure, sounds cool."
Me: "I'm going to try out this new system that I think would work best for it, it's called Savage Worlds."
Players: "What Savage Worlds! No way! Savage Worlds sucks."
None of them had ever played it before, probably not even read the book.
When a tree stops growing, it starts to die.
Quote from: HaffrungI wonder how many people who advocate trying new RPG systems are as adventurous in other aspects of their lives. How many stray from SF/Fantasy novels into the latest Booker prize nominees, or 19th century history? How many take the effort to learn to prepare Thai or Indian food? How many watch foreign films, or seek out obscure musical genres?
All the time, personally, and I consider myself a stodgy and habit-bound fellow at heart. Don't underestimate the fun of being surprised.
.
Quote from: jhkimI have no problem with people who only play one game. Unlike Elliot, I don't particularly believe in moderation as a principle, although I am fairly moderate within the set of gamers. Only playing one game, or constantly trying new games, both seem fine to me if that's what you enjoy -- and I've seen both.
?? How do you interpret what I wrote as disagreement with any of the stuff I've bolded?
Nevermind, maybe I typed something wrong. The point is, as a personal philosophy, I doubt anyone should be dead-set against ever trying anything new. Nor do I think anyone really is. I just think that people try new things when they feel like it, and they don't need to feel obligated to do any more or less than that.
Hey all,
The OP goes a little further than I meant to in one bit actually.
"Trying new things makes sense if you enjoy the new for being new, or if you're not having a blast with your current game. If you are having a blast with your current game, and have limited time in which to game, I'd argue that trying new things is probably irrational behaviour. That's why many people don't do it, it's not close-mindedness (always, sometimes it is obviously), it's rational choice."
Should read
"Trying new things makes sense if you enjoy the new for being new, or if you're not having a blast with your current game, or if you just feel like a change. If you are having a blast with your current game, and have limited time in which to game, I'd argue that declining to try new things can be rational behaviour though. That's why many people do it, it's not close-mindedness (always, sometimes it is obviously), it's rational choice."
My point wasn't that trying new stuff is bad, most of what my group plays is new stuff to most if not all of us. In the last year each of Malefices, Te Deum, Traveller actually and Gangbusters were new to all or all but one of the group. The RC game is over a year old, but when that started only two of us had ever played that before.
My point was that declining new stuff can be rational no matter what WalkerP thinks (and I so often agree with him too, not on this though), and that embracing the new doesn't make one superior to those who have good reason not to, and good reason includes being happy with what you have.
Eliot thankfully read my post right, despite the error in it flagged above, charitable reading people, I link in my sig to what I'm playing or running and it changes regularly, I'd hope folk could work out I was not advocating us all playing only one game (particularly OWoD, which I personally dislike rather strongly).
And in my experience, suggesting something new but being prepared to take a no (which is fine) all too often becomes quite quickly suggesting the person saying no is an unimaginative small c conservative who is missing out on life's rich tapestry, which to me is a lot to judge from one game preference.
On this:
"How many stray from SF/Fantasy novels into the latest Booker prize nominees, or 19th century history? How many take the effort to learn to prepare Thai or Indian food? How many watch foreign films, or seek out obscure musical genres?"
I have read one of this year's booker longlist and have two others I plan to read once they hit paperback, I read 19th Century history, I've learnt to cook Thai food and I regularly watch foreign films. I also seek out obscure musical genres.
I mean, those things aren't my whole life, but I thought it was funny I could say yes to the whole list.
Also as John Morrow rightly points out (in a different context), sometimes it's only one person in the group who wants to try something new (even though he/she is having fun at the moment) and this clashes with what the rest of the group wants and it could lead to the group fragmenting.
I think one of the benefits of trying new things is that it changes the way you view the old games you played. Sometimes you realize that you can't go back and sometimes you gain a whole new level of appreciation for those games.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: BalbinusI regularly watch foreign films
Well that's quite easy for you, I'm sure, being a foreigner.
Quote from: David RAlso as John Morrow rightly points out (in a different context), sometimes it's only one person in the group who wants to try something new (even though he/she is having fun at the moment) and this clashes with what the rest of the group wants and it could lead to the group fragmenting.
I've sort of been there. I know Clash has been.
In my case I wasn't the only one that wanted "something new" but I was definately the most vocal. In truth everyone had at least a sense we were in a rut but fear/distrust of the new, the untrodden path, held most back from taking the step of finding something. Afterall it wasn't that we didn't have any fun at all, hey we were friends hanging out. *shrug* I was in the end the one that just say "screw this, I refuse to NOT play something new". And when coming up with something new was obviously a huge problem in finding a direction that everyone would go with....
So I went and found new people to play a new game with. Initially it was only the new 4th edition of Shadowrun, because I hadn't even been able to convince the others to make that jump from SR3 to SR4. :( And yeah, it took a couple weeks and it wasn't the only contributing factor but the whole group entirely blew up...but only gaming-wise. For a while. Now the group is back together and we play different games.
Quote from: DwightI've sort of been there. I know Clash has been.
Keerect! I stood it for years, taking no for an answer, hoping that the rest would get tired of the same old same old. I slowly burnt out, and still haven't recovered fully - I may never. Finally I broke up the group and set up a new group. Now I'm happy. :D
-clash
Quote from: DwightIn truth everyone had at least a sense we were in a rut but fear/distrust of the new, the untrodden path, held most back from taking the step of finding something.
Apparently this was situation my current crew were in when I showed up. They only ever played
TSR and later on certain
d20 games. I was supposed to assume GMing duties until the group's GM got his groove back. Trying out new things was exactly what they needed to sustain interest in gaming. We still play mostly long term campaigns - campaigns which last a year or more - but we mix it up with other games and short term play.
On the other hand, I know of a group were things did not work out so well. The group wanted to try something else -
nWoD to be specific - and one player was not too keen on the idea. Like my group they play once a week and this new campaign has taken off and now he finds that his gaming has been reduced to twice a month.
Needless to say he ain't a happy camper. It gets really messy because they are a close knit group of friends and they didn't try a new game because they thought they were in a rut, but just wanted to try something new for the sake of trying something new.
Poor chap.
Regards,
David R
Quote from: Caesar SlaadI think the biggest problem behind trying new things is Sturgeons Law. 90% of games are crap, or at best, provide limited novelty. As such, a game really has to make a meaningful effort to demonstrate it's not crap up front or no, it's really not worth the risk of consuming one of our precious and few gaming time slots.
QFT and shit.
I work 7 days a week and the people I game with work 5-6 days a week. When we get togetehr to game, we play - learning a new game which may or may not be craptastic takes up time that we would rather be spent in actual play. I think the only new games that we will be looking at is
Riki-Tiki-Traveller and the
Pathfinder RPG when they come out because we've been impressed enough by the playtest and previews to give them a try. I think its also important that both of those "new" games are actually variations/improvements of older games that we enjoy and not wholesale re-imaginings.
Quote from: DwightIn truth everyone had at least a sense we were in a rut but fear/distrust of the new, the untrodden path, held most back from taking the step of finding something.
I always wonder how much of it is GM burnout. Mining a particular vein until the resource becomes valuable enough to exploit again in the future but with diminishing returns. It's almost exploitive on the players part. Deliver fun. Every edition and every game is enough to inspire a GM again. Watching a big vein of silver pass as we are trying to mine the very last bit of gold or platinum really can kill a GM out for the profit of fun. The hard part is taking control of the new direction or allow someone else to and hope the others trust in you enough to follow.
Here's how I see it:
Trying new things is great, but "trying new things" isn't my hobby. "Gaming" is the hobby, and the "trying new things" part can really only happen in between campaigns when it's time to re-choose what to play.
So for example ... right now: I play in two weekly campaigns (with one online). I show up every week to DM people through this campaign or the other and they are there, with character sheets in hand, ready to play.
So if I show up and say "hey guys, lets Try something new" they are likely to be annoyed with me. If I show up to play and someone in the group says "Hey guys, I decided we should try something new", the rest of the group is bound to be annoyed with that guy as well. Because we are all set, ready to play, and here's this guy saying he wants to "try something new".
Now- the right way to do it is of course when the campaign isn't going on, or like.. between sessions. And generally, if you want to sell your friends on the idea, you probably will have to GM whatever new system you want to try.
But that takes work, and if you want anyone to ever play a second session it also takes a bit of talent, skill, group management, and organization. Not a lot, either, but like.. a certain amount.
And without stereotyping, I think a lot of people simply lack either the will or the ability to put that kind of effort into gaming, and thus gravitate towards GMs who *do* put in the work.
This is one of the things that I find infuriating about the forgie slur that "players just want to passively be told a story" or "be entertained". It's completely backwards. Players just want to play. The real thing that makes a difference is whether or not the GM wants to do any work.
Quote from: Abyssal MawTrying new things is great, but "trying new things" isn't my hobby.
That's a loverly quote. :cool:
Some friends and I, in fact, set up a fortnightly one-shot slot specifically so that people could test-run games that they were itching at a chance to run, both published games and homebrews.
Quote from: WarthurSome friends and I, in fact, set up a fortnightly one-shot slot specifically so that people could test-run games that they were itching at a chance to run, both published games and homebrews.
That's a good idea.
Quote from: GunslingerI always wonder how much of it is GM burnout.
In our case nah. Unlike a lot of groups, apparently, we had no primary GM. We all took turns (although my wife and another only had one shortish stint each). Yes I was the person that put the group together and I was the first one that DMed (fall 2000) but some of them were people I played with before that and I didn't log the majority of DM time.
EDIT: It was just ... well, we were gunked up from a lot of dumb ideas that come out of [A]D&D. None of us had ever really sat down and figured out how pathological that shit is. We just put up with the fallout 'cuz, you know, that's how RPGs are suppose to be. :/
Whether the new game is fun or not, I find the meta-activity of learning and assessing a new system to be bags of fun. Even if the game sucks the evening is always fun (though that's partly from our simple dosomethingelseifbored policy). So whether plating an old reliable or a shiny new danger, we have fun. Just, sometimes, different fun.