Something odd happened at my last gaming session. I was running a one shot adventure of All Flesh Must Be Eaten, using the Adventure that comes with the screen, and I noticed that my players would constantly get upset whenever a zombie got within 5 feet of their characters... Now, as far as I can remember, some of the fun in playing AFMBE is narrowly avoiding death at the hands of disgusting looking undead creatures, so this sorta startled me. I think they were looking for something else, like maybe a zombie blasting, dice rolling combat fest. Granted, combat is an important part of AFMBE, but it's also about horror, and survival in the face of total apocalypse. Yes, going out shooting is one possible reaction to impending doom, but as anyone who's seen any movie from George Romero's famous line of movies will tell you, the people who attempt to go out shooting often kick the bucket really fast. Often when they stop to reload is when they get offed. (Captain Rhodes from Day of the Dead is a prime example... He stopped to reload and a zombie that managed to learn to shoot a gun shot him 3 or 4 times and then he was ripped in half by zombies 30 seconds later.) Why play a horror RPG if you're gonna whine when its time to get scared? Another thing I notice is that they tended to whine when I called for fear checks. Example: The players managed to hook up with three soldiers toward the end of the adventure. One of the players, who chose to use the Alcoholic Party Clown Archtype from the AFMBE website, had a horrible bite on his arm, and one of the soldiers, a medic, suggested that he have the arm amputated. He agrees to, but the two PCs involved in the scene immeadiately whine when I call for a Fear Check. (If I saw somebody have an emergency amputation performed on them, I'd freak out.) Any idea why players would do this.
On another note, I had a player do a really great job playing his character, a Narcoleptic Security Guard working for the Bank. I never once had to ask him to check to see if his Narcolepsy kicked in. He did it himself, and actually failed quite often, forcing the party to stop to wake him up, even when 6-8 zombies were closing in on him.
Comments, Questions, and other stuff are all happily accepted.
Galfraxas
This is similar to something I've noticed in games I've been involved in.
There seems to be a phenomenon that players create characters, and get it into their head that these are somehow "works of art", and anything the GM throws at them that marrs the character's pristine state is to be treated as vandalism. I myself have been guilty of this from time to time.
As for a solution to this, there really is nothing for it but for the players to suck it up and realize that, almost by definition, any and all RPG characters are created for the sole purpose of being abused and kicked about like a rugby ball (and not at the hands of the GM, but those of the player).
The goal is to create a story, right? And stories only work if there's conflict.
Yes, that's exactly it. The goal of roleplaying is to create a story and have fun doing it. Not whine when something happens to your character. It seems that sometimes gamers understand that. And sometimes they don't. That can cause problems. Especially when the majority of the group knows that the goal is to create a story, and 1 or 2 are just looking for a big fire fight. It can get even worse if this happens while the group is playing a game that relies on combat very little, or just doesn't bother with it at all, games like Dying Earth, and Ward 13 come to mind as examples of this. On the opposite end of the spectrum there are games where combat is the name of the game, such as Feng Shui, Extreme Vengeance, and Hong Kong Action Theatre. So, how does a creative GM go about "righting the path" of the unruly few players who decide to turn a story into a firefight, or in the case of combat oriented RPGs, turn a firefight into a story?
Galfraxas
Hey Tim,
"So, how does a creative GM go about "righting the path" of the unruly few players who decide to turn a story into a firefight, or in the case of combat oriented RPGs, turn a firefight into a story?"
I'm not even sure where to START with this one, except to say that, as a question, it illustrates several dangerous assumptions and conditions.
Perhaps I'll start with the answer, that this GM *CANNOT* achieve the stated task. That's the answer: "He doesn't."
I'll try to break the answer down a little.
ONE
The creation of story is not a technique or a method, it is a goal. To be successful, it must be a shared goal, or contract. (This is not to say that everyone, during play, must always agree, and it is ESPECIALLY not to say that the story has been pre-planned.)
If the contract doesn't exist prior to play, the story-making activities are a lost cause - they become one or more of the people continually poking or trying to influence the other people about how to play. The poked/prodded people are going to get annoyed in return.
TWO
The very idea of designating the GM as the creative person and the few players as unruly, fight-oriented people needs to be translated and changed a bit. That phraseology reveals some serious value-judgments.
If I'm reading correctly, "creative" is being used as a synonym for Narrativist or at least anything except combat. The fight-oriented role-players are, by contrast, being dubbed "non-creative," which I think is inadmissible. Different goals are different goals; creativity is another issue.
Let's assume, for now, that the people in question take a Gamist approach to play, with survival of the PC being their main indicator of "success." (This is a TYPE of Gamism, not ALL of Gamism.) They may be very creative in this approach, including all manner of imaginative, theatrical, and in-character stuff. However, they would not be interested in developing a good story (with theme and all that stuff) about their PCs; the issue is straightforward survival.
THREE
I have played All Flesh Must Be Eaten. I do not consider it to be a very effective game design for generating zombie-movie stories. I think it is dedicated to simulating combat and other physical events in the classic GURPS style of resolution. I also think it suffers from GNS incoherence in wedding zombie-movie-story with simulate-big-explosions.
So a group of people get together to play this game. If they do NOT spend a fair session beforehand in discussing what they want to accomplish - and here I am referring to the actual people's goals, not anything to do with character goals - then they are doomed. Contrasting GNS goals will appear among the people, the game itself does not provide any focus to alert people to any one of them, and the actual behavior during play will fall apart. The uber-goal of "having fun" vanishes.
It is always dangerous simply "to show up and play," making up PCs and hopping into action in one session. It is exponentially more dangerous to do so with an incoherent RPG.
I can't imagine a better example of why GNS thinking is important - and especially ACTING upon that thinking, among the people, before any activity (like PC creation) of the actual role-playing.
Best,
Ron
Hey Ron,
I think I understand your point, and at the same time realize my problem. None of my gaming friends understand what GNS is. I myself still don't totally understand it, but continue reading all of the stuff on it here at the Forge. I think I'll bring a copy of the GNS faq to my gaming session this weekend, and see if I can cause a change in my group. Sadly, I think this maybe hard to do, because of the fact that they're all 100% Gamist... it's a miracle if they talk in character, or narrate their actions. I hope it's not too late for them.
Thanks,
Galfraxas
Hi Tim,
Actually, I don't think the FAQ is a good idea. The "System Does Matter" essay is better for introductory purposes.
I also strongly state that nothing about GNS is about conversion. It's not about how or why Narrativism, for instance, is "better" than other modes. It's about the diversity and legitimacy of all three modes/goals.
Therefore, your statement about "changing your group" still worries me. It makes no sense. If your players are happy Gamists, then good! They ought to play Gamist stuff, and if you want to play with them, so should you.
If you are interested in other modes of play, see if any are interested too. If they're not (and it doesn't sound like it), then find others to play with.
Best,
Ron
[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-09-27 11:00 ]
Hey Ron,
Maybe I'll take a copy of both articles to the session, present the "System Does Matter" essay to them, if they want to read more on the topic, I'll hand them the FAQ. Hopefully, they will realize that there's more to roleplaying than Characters being successful... story is important too. Character success is great, but generating an interesting story is too. Maybe they'll figure something out. If they don't change, that's okay. I can put up with a group of Gamists. I sorta have to, they're the only people who play a variety of RPGs in my area.. There is another group, but they only play White Wolf's Live Action games. I'm interested in playing a large variety of games, which explains why I purchase a new RPG every week.
Thanks,
Galfraxas
Tim,
Although in the main I'm sympathetic to your situation, and although your PRIMARY issue (of realizing that you and the others should talk), I think we're going around and around on this issue:
"Hopefully, they will realize that there's more to roleplaying than Characters being successful... story is important too. Character success is great, but generating an interesting story is too."
There it is again. My only response can be, "Tim, man, you're not correct." This is YOUR priority, but saying, "there's more to role-playing" is actually patronizing and untrue. TO THEM, there may NOT be more to role-playing.
It's a great idea to talk with the players, but I really think it's a matter of discovering one another's priorities than a matter of converting anyone's views.
And please, please, do NOT use the FAQ. It has turned out to generate far more problems than it solves. The System essay should be all you make use of, as well as maybe some discussion material from the forums.
I also suggest Christopher Kubasik's Interactive Toolkit essay, who should be linked around here somewhere.
Best,
Ron
Hey there,
I just realized something else. Look at the title of this thread: "When players think the GM is trying to kill them."
My reading of your situation, Tim, is that the players WANT you to try to kill their characters. That's why they are playing cautiously, because they are expecting the zombies to come at them with everything, and they are angling for the best position. They refuse to participate in "losing" by behaving otherwise, which is completely appropriate for a Gamist [sub-type Survivalist] approach.
As you wait for them to produce character activity called "story," and as they wait for you to hit them with your best shot, nothing really satisfying happens. I realize that I wasn't present at your session, but based on my experiences that's what it sounds like to me.
So consider the title of your thread - it indicates, to me, the fundamentally different sets of assumptions. "You're acting like I'm trying to kill you!" you say to them, and they respond, reasonably, "Why the hell aren't you?"
Best,
Ron
A great deal of the advice I have boils down to "play to your players." If I don't like having my character killed off, the Zombie movie genre would be one I'd avoid like the plague!
A few notes/reactions to what I've seen:
a) Ron said that AFMBE was GNS inconsistent (because of the way it mixed the Zombie genre with ??(I didn't understand about the 'simulate-big-explosions' thing). Anyway:
Get two star trek fans together. Have them discuss what "real trek" is. Run. A huge problem with narrativist gaming in general (IMHO) is that if the gaming group doesn't all agree on what's "in genre" it'll fall apart. If the game system rewards one facet of the genre then narrativists who differ will become, sort of, gamist (if I have this right) complaining that the system is broken--or 'abusing' the system to make their version of what's within the genre come out 'right.' (I'm not sure if this makes any sense, just having re-read it ...)
My view of Zombie movies is that you'd want a lot of realistic hardware, an intricate damage/wound system, and really-the-hell big realistic explosions. So that kinda threw me.
b) PC death sucks. It sucks in meta-game ways and it sucks in game. Drive an hour and a half to a play session and get killed and have the GM tell you ya can't make a new character until the scenario ends (which will be next week).
If you kill my character and I get to sit in what's essentially "time out" for several hours, I'm not gonna be happy--especially if I didn't 'ask for it.'
When running games with high levels of PC death make sure that everyone has a way back into the game and that no one's too attached to their characters (that was the whole gimmick behind a module I published with highly-likely PC deaths).
-Marco
Marco,
Couple of things to go over ...
1) I don't think "genre" is the issue to focus on when people discuss what they want out of a role-playing session. I've got a lot of posts about why genre is not a very useful term for role-playing and RPG design.
But terminology aside, and if we were to focus on GNS goals and my little bag o' [system + situation + setting + character + color], then yes, I do think the real humans should have a real discussion about what they want out of the role-playing situation, before play. I very strongly disagree with the notion that "anyone" can "just play" successfully.
2) I do not think that zombie movies are about zombies, or even about trying to survive zombie attacks. Nor do I think they are "about" violence and explosions. They are about people in isolated, unbelievably stressed conditions, especially people who in ordinary conditions would not want to associate with one another. All zombie movies are about how people react in these conditions: can the people manage to cope with their situation effectively, or do their issues with one another outweigh their sense and lead to their unspeakable (but watchable) deaths?
These issues are thrown into high relief in such movies by (a) the utter gruesomeness and incomprehensibility of "the walking dead," and (b) the tendency of some of the main characters to FAIL to bond sensibly with some of the other characters, and thus to be killed.
I agree with you that the usual RPG character death, which is the ultimate "loser" outcome in traditional game design, is incompatible with these goals. Personal bondings and antagonisms are not found as important, outcome-affecting mechanics in games like AFMBE, and it treats death in the classic fashion. My comments in the Dead Meat review pretty much indicate my position - that if you want to make a zombie movie RPG, you're going to have to have PC death be very common and NOT synonymous with "player loses."
Best,
Ron
I think people may have missed something in my initial statement. They weren't expecting me to even attempt to kill their characters... they were expecting to survive without a scratch. I explained to them that the game (AFMBE) did involve a significant amount of player casualties, and that they would be battered, bruised, and bitten by the time we finished playing. They responded as though they understood, but I have a feeling it went in one ear and out the other. To simplify the matter, I'll compare this to movies... I was expecting the game to have a feeling of a George Romero film, like Day of the Dead, and they were expecting something like Bad Taste or Return of the Living Dead 2. (Bad Taste was actually about bad dressing alien puke eaters, but that's another forum completely... ) Maybe next time, I'll explain that to them. Hopefully they'll listen. I think maybe I should have worded the title of my initial post a bit differently, now that I look at it.
Thanks,
Galfraxas
_________________
"I'm running this monkey farm now, Frankenstein!" -- Captain Rhodes, Day of the Dead
The 43rd Dimension on the Left[ This Message was edited by: Galfraxas on 2001-09-27 14:03 ]
Ron,
I hear what you're saying. To a certain extent I agree with you--except to say this: *good* zombie movies are about what you described (in Night of the living dead the people are more dangerous to each other than the zombies are).
But let's say I hear zombie and think "Dead Alive"--then I want to play a Kung-fu fighting priest who "Kicks ass for the Lord" and I get to say I'm totally "in genre" since it's definitely a zombie movie (and I could also point to Italian zombie-ninja movies accoring to a friend who swears he's seen them).
Then we have to boil it down to your descriptions and get technical. But if that's the case, how can a *system* fail? I mean you might complain that AFMBE isn't GNS consistent because it focuses on Kung Fu fighting but if the author says "that's my corner of genre" whats your answer? Outside of "doesn't work for me?"
I'd say that the siller bits of Dead Alive were "out of genre" but that's my opinion ...
Also: not all my players will sit still for a discussion of GNS or even agree (a munchkin says "I'm a narrativist!") on what the terms mean.
I guess another way of putting it is how can a system be GNS inconsistent? If the makers of the game felt that big realistic explosions were cool (how else do you take out 10 zombies at once?) from what perspective do you say that's incoherent?
Part of me feels like it's a way to say "if the system doesn't enforce a trope in its genre then it isn't the right system to play that genre." When you get rid of 'genre' what's left (other than a really wide variety of terms that all have to be defined and agreed on)?
Disclosure:, I just got a module reviewed (RPGNet) where the reviewer felt that the module was (at best) okay but that boy did the system (mine too) suck for it. So ... umm ... maybe I'm bitter? (it was a good well written, well argued review too!)
-Marco
[JAGS (Just Another Gaming System)
http://jagsgame.dyndns.org/jags/index.jsp ]
Quote
On 2001-09-27 14:00, Galfraxas wrote:
I think people may have missed something in my initial statement. They weren't expecting me to even attempt to kill their characters... they were expecting to survive without a scratch.
Hmmm. The quesion then is why the players were uncomfortable. It seems odd that they would only object to a problem in dissonace over the particular type of zombie game when their characters were threatened. Was this the only thing that they had a problem with? Was it perhaps that the zombies seemed too effective to the players? This would match your problem well. You describe your players as Gamist, and in this case, they may have felt that they weren't playing on a level field.
This is an important Gamist need, to know that the game and GM aren't biased against them. I'd imagine that in a zombie game a level field would be something like one in which the characters might all survive if the players played well. I haven't read AFMBE, yet, but I'll bet that the zombies are given edges to make them more dangerous and thus heighten the horror factor. If this plus the scenario equal certain deaths, then, of course a Gamist player will complain. They had no chance to win.
Might this explain the problem?
Mike
Zombies in AFMBE are the creation of the GM. The game provides rules to create zombies of many different types, and for determining the relative power levels of each zombie. Now, the zombies I used were of relatively low power, i.e. stupid, slow, and not that strong or tough. They only responded to loud noises, or if a live human was within approximately 10 feet. So, when a zombie did manage to get close enough to a PC to actually attempt to bite or otherwise attack the PC, they freaked out. The only thing that the zombies had that counted as an advantage were numbers, and the ability to create new zombies from those they killed (and didn't eat). The party had collected more than enough ammo and guns to put down most of the zombies they faced. It was like they took Gamism to the extreme. If the zombie got an attack roll, they decided that they had lost. It's not really that big of a problem, but it just seemed like odd behavior, since it hasn't happened with the group until just recently.
Thanks,
Galfraxas
My previous post still stands: that the players have created Works of Art(TM), and damn you if you're going to mess with them in any way, like making them get injured, or Heaven Forbid, killing them, even in a Zombie game.
In this particular instance (being the Zombie game), it goes beyong this. It's as if each of the players has sat down, and thought to themselves, "Well, this is a Zombie game. In all the Zombie movies I've ever seen, there's always one guy that survives to the end, and by cracky, it's going to be me! Even if that means I hole up in a closet with a shotgun and five hundred shells for the duration of the game, and not interact with ANYTHING."
Everything that has been said about sitting down before the game and working out what your goals as a group are is absolutely true. Explain to these people that what you want to do (and not that the GM's wishes are any more important than the players', but the GM usually is the impetus behind the game) is create a story with dramatic tension, and conflict. For that to happen, they are going to have to create character that they're willing to see hurt, maimed, shocked, traumatized, and maybe even killed.
It's an issue of trust. The players have to trust the GM, that when their characters get hurt, maimed, shocked, traumatized, and maybe even killed, it's because doing so will further the story, and not just to satisfy some lame power trip.
<RANT>This is another thing that pisses me off about White Wolf. They go on and on and on about Mature Themes(TM), and there's nothing anywhere that actually addresses how to deal with the maturity level of the group.</RANT>
Hi Ben,
I think you may have hit the nail on the head with that one, or at least came super close. From my perspective as GM, it seems like the players have watched Return of the Living Dead 2. Now, in RotLD2, instead of 1 or 2 lucky people surviving, a small group, 5 people if I remember correctly, survived the zombie attack, and managed to destroy a majority of the zombies at the same time. I think my players may have decided that they're going to do the same thing, minus the destroying a lot of zombies, or maybe they're just extremely gamist, and feel that if a bad guy gets a chance to even breathe on their character, that they might as well quit playing the game. I've been writing down the important points of this thread, and maybe I'll find a way to explain it to them.
Thanks,
Galfraxas
My diagnosis would be - and I mean this in the nicest way possible - is that the problem is due to your own incompetence as a GM. You obviously have created an antagonistic relationship with your players which makes them unwilling to trust you. Not really knowing much about your group dynamics beyond this, I can't really offer any non-pejorative advice beyond that which you have already been given, other than that horror-based games are probably a bad idea. Setting clear guidelines on who gets to define what*, and making sure you stick to them, might be a route to gain back your players' trust.
* Your remark about Fear Checks is informative in this regard - telling the players how their characters think or react is normally a very, very bad idea. Plus, of course, IMHO the "You're really scared. Roll some dice to see how scared" isn't really a good approach to creating genuine fear in a roleplaying game.
Quote
On 2001-09-26 18:58, Galfraxas wrote:
Yes, that's exactly it. The goal of roleplaying is to create a story and have fun doing it. Not whine when something happens to your character.
Alternately, this could be the result of wanting to create a specific story that you've decided beforehand for your character, and not wanting anything to meddle with it.
I've come to the conclusion, through many such debates, that "Narrativist Munchkinism" is possible, and often consists of refusing to interact with the gameworld/other players, and refusing to allow the gameworld/other players to interact with you, except in ways which suit your PC's story.
Wart
Quote
On 2001-09-27 11:34, Ron Edwards wrote:
And please, please, do NOT use the FAQ. It has turned out to generate far more problems than it solves. The System essay should be all you make use of, as well as maybe some discussion material from the forums.
Could I suggest that it might be useful to put a paragraph similar to the above in the FAQ? Might save accidents due to casual browsing...
Wart
Hi Tim,
First off, I just want to say "Thanks". Two Zombie threads in a week. Me happy boy. :smile:
Tim Sez ---> "Now, as far as I can remember, some of the fun in playing AFMBE is narrowly avoiding death at the hands of disgusting looking undead creatures, so this sorta startled me. I think they were looking for something else, like maybe a zombie blasting, dice rolling combat fest. Granted, combat is an important part of AFMBE, but it's also about horror, and survival in the face of total apocalypse."
Not the way I read AFMBE... To me, the "fun" from AFMBE comes in doing munchkin stuff like making badass characters, collecting lots of weapons and ammo, and wiping out hordes of zombies. Or in the case of Resident Evil-style zombies, killing them one at a time by blowing big ole' chunks off.
I understand what Ron and Marco are saying about Zombie Movies (and I think the Zombie/Ninja movies are more likely Chinese than Italian, but there's not a topic for that). So let's say for the sake of argument that Zombie Movies are JUST about Zombies Eatin' People. Because when it comes down to it, that's what most people get out of them, or want to take from them for gaming.
Now, try playing your scenario using the rules from Dead Meat. (it's in the Forge library of free RPG's, and yah, I know, beat me own drum) One of the big changes I've made in the upcoming 2nd version that you can work in right away: HAVE THE PLAYERS DESCRIBE CHARACTER / PERSONA DEATH. Let them know they are supposed to die in hideously gruesome ways. In order for Players to allow the Chars to be killed, you need to make it part of the game, and make it fun.
I bet you'll come a lot closer to what you were looking for. Both guns-blazing, and chowtime for the zombies. As much as I like the AFMBE book, it's really just modern era D&D with the coolest monster of all time, The Zombie. That's why they call it the game of survival horror. It's not really fun if your cool character doesn't survive.
Glad to have another ghoul-friend on board. :razz:
Sean
Sean, only somebody from Wisconsin could be as interested in corpses as you are. I should know living not far from where Jeffrey Dahmer lived. :wink:
Tim,
If you don't like Sean's ending, or requing an ending in which the characters die, ask them how they want the game to end. Tell them that you'll work to make that happen. You may find that they want the RotLD2 ( I love that film, "I feel like we've been through this all before!"), in which case you have a problem. Either you have to give them what they want, or change their minds (good luck). If they do choose to all live, ask them what sort of challenges they do want in the game.
Oooh, I get to make Zombie License, the game of Licensed Zombie hunting, where the only thing that matters at the end of the day is the cash on the barrelhead from the government for each zombie head delivered.
Darnital Sean, you're rubbing off on me!
Mike
I don't mean ALL the characters have to die (tho most of them should, if I got my way :smile: ). You can also do this using AFMBE and have a couple extra NPC's that the Players take over after a PC is killed off. Otherwise what's the point of playing in a Zombified setting?
Mike, I grew up about 10 minutes from Plainfield. Ed Gein is a much cooler serial killer than Dahmer. Old school, baby. Old school. (Actually, an old landlord of mine gave me Dahmer's rental app when he lived in one of his buildings - the one previous to the one the had to tear down. Neat, huh?).
And I have a better title for you, Mike. Geek Season! In the year 2000, the dead returned. Hunting season begins. Where do I order?
First of all, it's all about 6'9" Ed Kemper. Vocal cords into ye old kitch sink garbage disposal.
Secondly, if anyone wants to write Geek Season as an InSpectres thing, feel free. :smile:
- J
Oh yeah, I still think Sean should write up a Narrative Cage Match game out of zombie films. I still have to do the HK Woo film homage (Blood & Doves?).
[ This Message was edited by: Jared A. Sorensen on 2001-09-28 16:11 ]
Hey Jared,
I sent an e-mail to James Wallis about that. Never got a reply. I'll add it to the list of projects. :smile:
Hmm, add in some humour, and Geek Season would make a great InSpectres supplement... Mike, are you writing this, or do I have to?
Sean
Here's a side question: Would playing nothing but Rifts for a period of five years do that to a group of players? I am, in a sense, the new guy in this group. I have not been playing Rifts for Five years... I've only played Rifts once in my life. Considering Rifts is a heavily munchkinized game, would it be correct to assume that the players in question have been "de-sensitized" by Rifts? I'm not saying Rifts is a bad game, it has it's strong points, but it can create some nasty habits in players. If my above assumption is correct, maybe I should try to "de-Rifts" them. As for GM/Player trust issues, I think that they don't completely distrust me, but they don't totally trust me, either. We might have to work something out there. So, the new question is: How does a GM reestablish any lost trust with the players, and at the same time, try to get them to play in a less Rifts style? Questions, Comments, Anything?
Galfraxas
Don't you mean, "to get back to the topic?" :smile:
Oh yeah, Rifts would do that. Rifts is MADE for that. Think of this; in Rifts, Zombies wouldn't do mega damage, so your average character, like a 3rd level psi-knight with a nice suit of armor, could wade through a small city of zombies. And go "whoah, that was scary". It's tailor made for 'munchkinism'. Tho a cruel Rifts GM could easily destroy parties, that's obviously not what these guys are used to.
My suggestion would be to get them to play an entirely different style of game then. Maybe start with something that doesn't kill them outright like a zombie game should. InSpectres would be my choice, GhostBusters if you can find a copy. Or Elfs or Toon, a game that's lighter and funny. Something where they can get used to failing without it meaning character death.
Or play the way they want to, make it like Rifts, or like the Marshall Law comic / start a new group (which isn't easy!) that can play in more varied styles.
And I think Geek Season would make a great InSpectres / NightWatch supplement... Gotta download a new InSpectres this weekend!
G,
Oh man, Paranoia. If that don't cure 'em of any munchkinism, nothin' will. Ensure that at some point you eliminate one player's entire clone family. Not one at a time, but just decide that the Computer has decided that the whole family is defective and returns all their cellular material to the yeast vats.
Hmmm. Nah, I can't do it to em. It's too damn cruel. Play SOAP instead.
Mike
Hmmm. Geek Season, yes. But I wanted it to have more in common with Macho Women With Guns than InSpectres. Still, thats not a bad idea. How about a collaboration Sean?
Mike
Tim and everyone,
I'm going to say this one last time. There is no need to "cure" the group that Tim is playing with. They are not sick, not dysfunctional (that I know of), and not "playing wrong."
In my experience, if someone happens upon an established group that has been playing Rifts for five years, and IF they express no particular urge to play in any other fashion, then "changing" that group to accord with the newcomer's taste is worse than hopeless - it is presumptuous.
Unless someone can express to me any indication that someone in this group WANTS to be playing differently, specifically in a Narrativist way, then I say, Leave Them Alone.
Best,
Ron
Hey Everybody,
After reading that last bit, I've decided to give up inciting a change in my group, and just work with what I have. It seems that trying to "cure" them won't happen, so I'll just hope for the best, and maybe they'll change themselves. Thanks to everybody for all the advice. I'll be moving on to other topics now.
Galfraxas
Quote
On 2001-10-01 10:15, Ron Edwards wrote:
Tim and everyone,
I'm going to say this one last time. There is no need to "cure" the group that Tim is playing with. They are not sick, not dysfunctional (that I know of), and not "playing wrong."
I have had two groups in my gaming experience that have xferred to me as the GM (from another GM) that have had revelations in terms of gaming enjoyment when they realised the GM was not out to get them, and it was a group storytelling experience. I find if the group (or individuals) want this style of play, or are open to it when they experience it, you pretty much get a reaction straight away.
If you don't, and your meeting resistance, then you should probably match their style, or I'd move on.
Some people believe the any sex is better than no sex argument applies to gaming - I don't.
Quote
In my experience, if someone happens upon an established group that has been playing Rifts for five years, and IF they express no particular urge to play in any other fashion, then "changing" that group to accord with the newcomer's taste is worse than hopeless - it is presumptuous.
Ron, while I agree with your points -- that a non-Narrativist group is not "sick" or "disfunctional", they know what they like -- I disagree that it's automatically presumptuous to try to move a group in a direction one prefers. Sometimes it might be that the group is playing Rifts (or whatever) beacause that was one of the first RPGs they got into and they've never had access to anything else. Sometimes they're not aware they're *capable* of doing things another way.
I say this because of my personal experience with the group I'm currently with here in Salisbury, MD. Over half the group was part of an established Rifts group not unlike what's been described here. However, when I moved into the area with my odd collection of games, most of which the group had never seen or heard of, since the local game store is more concerned with miniatures and card games than RPGs, I offered them the chance to try a different style of play. I didn't push it on them, but I made it clear what I was interested in as a GM. And they took to it like ducks to water -- now they're playing Over the Edge and Vampire, and are very good at getting in-character. I'd call them more in-genre Simulationist than Narrativist, but still, that's okay with me.
Now, it's important to note I didn't push them and I tried very hard not to be pejorative about their then-current style of play. I didn't talk about GNS or anything, I just ran things my way and watched to see how they took to it. And if they hadn't seemed to "get" it, like the group discussed in this thread, I would have backed off and adapted to their style. But I don't think it was presumptuous of me to try, so long as I didn't get upset if things didn't go my way.
I've found that gamers are always willing to try something new, if you are open to their opinions and aren't pejorative about their preferences, which, I think, is part of the point you've been trying to make, Ron. (This is why I so strongly disagree with the original "Why Gamers Suck" article on the
Gaming Outpost. It doesn't match my experience, and I've been gaming since 1st edition AD&D.)
There's nothing wrong with trying to institute change -- I think every player and GM has a right to play as close to their own preferences as possible. It's only wrong to try to *force* the change rather than gently introduce it.
Hey,
I agree with you. Please note this phrase in the section you quoted:
"and IF they express no particular urge to play in any other fashion"
That's the key. It's the difference between a group (or a member or two) being interested in or ripe for a change, and a group that's better left well alone.
I intentionally left my point vague regarding how people are asked about their role-playing goals, and over what period of time the answer is to be looked for. It might be that the "particular urge" above gets expressed over the period of months or immediately in the first conversation.
In Tim's case (oh, and in passing, Tim, you are a real gentleman to have opened your private gaming up to our public dissection), we are seeing a group that didn't even have that conversation. They just showed up and played. It was very clear from the posts that no "particular urge" to play differently was in evidence.
If I'm not mistaken, just about everyone who's posted to this topic has come to an accord about the issue (or is willing to let it lie). If I'm right, then let's call quits to the topic, and bring up related matters on new threads.
Best,
Ron
Quote
I intentionally left my point vague regarding how people are asked about their role-playing goals, and over what period of time the answer is to be looked for. It might be that the "particular urge" above gets expressed over the period of months or immediately in the first conversation.
Okay. The "expressed no particular urge" phrasing made me think someone had to say something. The group I'm talking about didn't particularly express a desire to do something new -- I pretty much just offered them a chance to do something different, very informally. Sometimes I think people here at the Forge forget that most roleplayers aren't very formal or even coherent about their preferences. Sometimes you just have to do what Tim did -- run a game and take your lumps if it doesn't work out.
Quote
In Tim's case (oh, and in passing, Tim, you are a real gentleman to have opened your private gaming up to our public dissection), we are seeing a group that didn't even have that conversation. They just showed up and played. It was very clear from the posts that no "particular urge" to play differently was in evidence.
The group I'm talking about "showed up and played" as well. It just went better than Tim's session did. Not because I'm a better GM, but because I happened to offer something they were interested in and not doing.
Quote
If I'm not mistaken, just about everyone who's posted to this topic has come to an accord about the issue (or is willing to let it lie). If I'm right, then let's call quits to the topic, and bring up related matters on new threads.
Okay. My commentary about informal/formal discussion of play style should probably be in another thread anyway.