Gamer Development

[ADGBoss]

Social Contract, Player Empowerment, & Game Master Blues

If you were to take a survey of the entirety of the Role Playing community and ask them the question  'How did you first come to role playing?' I imagine you would get a selection of answers that would be very similar to one another when broken down by decade.  In a crude way we could also break it down by which Edition of Dungeons & Dragons was in vogue at the time though this is not an exact science. Although D&D has had a huge influence on the RPG Industry in general, I am not sure how accurately we can say that X Number of people began role-playing directly because of D&D.

A more accurate assessment might be as mentioned, breaking it down by decade, starting in the 1970's and continuing on till today.  Role-playing is now well over thirty years old and the times have been clearly changing.  Over those thirty years the power of other mediums have changed significantly and their influence on bringing people into the Role Playing community has increased.  So the reasons people come to a table have changed, especially considering non-RPG influences.

However, even with the proliferation of new role-playing games and the tie-ins from non-RPG sources, people seem to be having LESS fun with RPG's then they were in the old days.  Every day on the Forge we see a new thread from a new )or not so new in some cases) poster telling us one of the following:

-Our game of 5 years is getting stale
-My guys (or group) only want to play D&D
-I have to GM/DM or else there would be no game
-I tried something new but my group is Hard Core Gamist and there were not getting the new Game
-I WANT to try something new but...(see above)
-Our DM only does D&D or D&D Clone or has a Home system that I do not understand..

Again we see a lot of finger pointing at D&D or games that have a perceived design which is similar to D&D.  People are not having a good time with Role Playing, which may at first seem absurd because with so many new styles and so many new games, many of them NOT D&D, and players now have a wider variety of choices.  You would think that somewhere in there would be a game that would click for them. Sadly there probably is, even among the more commercial RPG's and not counting the myriad number of Indie RPGs.  The reason people are not having fun has nothing to do with the games themselves.  It has everything to do with the Old Social Contract.

RPG Old Social Contract: The group of people get together on a regular basis and play the Same Old Thing, regardless of actual game system, because only one of them has the energy to sustain the role of Game Master.  

A Variant of this has a different GM every week / month because any given player only has the energy to sustain the game for a limited amount of time, sometimes only one game session.

I would ask any group like this that I see (and have asked them this on occasion) 'Why are you role-playing? If you want to have a Quake Deathmatch then just go do that.' Playing with strangers is no better then playing with friends in this case, as those strangers tend to desperately want to play "Any" game then can get into and do not care per se if they or you are having fun.  They are gaming and that's the good thing.

Well it isn't a good thing and we can take a page from the recent (recent to me) Tylenol Ads where the lady says (paraphrase) "I would rather you not take Tylenol at all then to take it wrong."  In RPG terms I would say it like this:

You are better off not engaging in Role Playing as an entertainment activity if your alternative is to engage in an RPG experience that is not going to be satisfying.

Satisfying can be defines in many ways and locally (this Forum) GNS and the related / opposed theories seem to do at least a decent job of trying to establish the parameters of what could be satisfying for you as a Player.  Unfortunately there still seems to be a break down at the social contract level. Players (including the GM) have new toys that they can work with but often times this does not increase the Fun factor, especially when a player buys into a theory and 'realizes' that their previous and current experiences are not fulfilling, thus making it impossible for the Player to have any fun at all.

Gamer Development

Much of this ties into how the Player in question began their career if you will in Role Playing.  The following breakdown is hardly comprehensive and very anecdotal but I think does sum up the influences of Players in each time period.

1970's – Early Days: Role Playing sprouted literally in some cases, from the loins of tactical war gaming.  So war gamers became part time Role Players though I suspect many of these people (myself included – I started playing technically in 1979) did not and have not given up their war games. Sliding from the role of Captain or Lieutenant in a war game to Shining Knight or Grunt Fighter in an RPG was not a big leap. Did the Vietnam War and the culture of the 1970's have any influence on RPG's? I really can't say myself but it's hard to imagine, at least in America, that there wasn't some influence.

1980's – Role Playing for the sake of: The Role Playing "industry" really kicks into full swing and there are suddenly second and third editions of games. People are role-playing for the sake of being role players and many have never touched a war game. D&D is big and bears the brunt of the religious backlash but plenty of people are playing games that are not D&D.  With the proliferation of computer games it was inevitable that the two would meld along the way.  From Wizardry in the early part of the decade to the Gold Box D&D games of the late decade (and early 1990's) the two mediums begin walk hand in hand.

1990's – Role Playing as Art & 'I played Pools of Radiance': Role Playing becomes more of an accepted activity and begins to spawn an idea that Role Playing can be an artful type of activity.  RPG novels begin to increase and become part of the marketing Scheme.  At the same time, a group of computer gamers who had never played RPG's before are now interested in the games that influenced their favorite computer RPG. If we looked deeper, this could be the basis for much dysfunctional play, because no matter how tight the Computer RPG kept to the rules (and most were not tight at all or not based on an RPG system) sitting through Neverwinter Nights on AOL is not the same as sitting down at a table with real people. However, the MUD was a big deal as well and many people found their way to the table from the PC via these "games".

2000's – Halo, LoTR, MMORPG, & D20: The sheer amount of relationship between other entertainment media and the Pen & Paper RPG is enormous.  D20 offered up a means to convert online game worlds (EQ & Warcaft for example) into P&P worlds more easily and with a wider audience. Players who have never done table top gaming might be coming from an MMORPG which despite many valiant attempts is not like a P&P game. Lord of the Rings has or had for a time, increased the interest in Fantasy games (which has always been there to be honest).

So what does this have to do with Social Contract? Well everything. You can take a 5 different players, one from each "decade" and sit them down at a given table and go over GNS.  They may all agree that they are "Sim' people and design a game around that idea. Expectations however, may be very different. So this group of otherwise intelligent people who have the same basic Creative Agenda (as an example) might still be a dysfunctional group.  The reason is that they all have different expectations of context. The 70's guy might take a long-term view of the game, where the New Millennia kid might only have the attention span for one game session.  

Communication is the main issues.  It is more then simply talking about what game to play and in fact is really not about the game at all. It is partially about Creative Agenda or what you want from the game but theories which categorize likes and dislikes often times lead to people unwilling to explore other options. "I am a Sim Guy" is just as bad and limiting as saying "I am a D&D guy."

So what's the solution to this dilemma? Primarily I think its interesting people in playing RPG's not just as another form of entertainment but as an end in of itself. Why people would chose to Role Play as opposed to play Chess or have an orgy is a whole other essay.  Suffice to say it is better have everyone say "Let's Role Play, that's what I want to do" then "Let's do something, role playing is fine or maybe a movie." If it is the latter case, your best bet is likely the movie because the RPG will require more energy and interaction to be successful.

Game Master Blues

"My dee-twenty done left me, and my group all play Orcs... yeah my dee-twenty done left me and my group all play Orcs... yeah baby my dee-twenty is long gone, and we're playing a game about world war one..."

Ok so forgive me oh Blues Gods for that terrible piece of song. It goes to illustrate the one piece of RPG scenery that, IMHO still gets no love: The Game Master. Sure we can give you tools to protagonize and simonize and demonstrosize but where is the mechanic that allows the GM to enjoy his or her role? Heck some games think you are such a roadblock to fun and satisfaction that they do away with you altogether. There is a Myth, I believe it to be a Myth anyway, that early play and still some modern play is about a conflict of wills between the GM and players. I think the Myth grew up from dysfunctional bully play "I am the GM so shutup!" and from poor Game Mastering training.  Being a GM is not easy and many players are forced into the role with no training at all because six people decide they are going to start playing Rifts.  Even in Gamist play (as an example) the GM is still part of the group and still has a definite interest in the fun generated from the game.

Ideally every RPG session or campaign would be well discussed prior to inception and this discussion would make it very clear exactly what every player wants or expects.  This is not going to happen in every session but it is a good habit to get into when starting a new Game / Campaign and especially when beginning play with new people.  Communication needs to go on and it needs to occur very early in the process:

Why are you here?
What do you expect?
What do you envision & how do you want to contribute?

These are just basic questions and ideas that can start up good dialogue.  You should also keep an ear open for Red Flags like "Dude I just wanna play!".  Well he or she may just wanna play but letting this player into a campaign when very likely their attention span will be sporadic at best may not be the best idea. There is no law that says you HAVE to let someone play.  RPG's are not like Chess or Card games where one game might garner some interest but if not , no big loss.  The amount of work that can go into an RPG almost requires the group to be choosey.  Take some time to understand a player, new or old, and what their influences and motivations are.

As far as the GM and their role in the game, I think there are two legitimate avenues of group and game creation that will create functional play more often then not.

The first way is total group creation.  What are we going to play as group. Game X? Great ok, who is going to GM? John are you up to it? No, ok Sue? Yeah sure it's your first time, we will be gentle.  This kind of discourse is invaluable and will create an atmosphere where no one feels obliged to be the GM.

The second way may seem a bit old school but done correctly, I feel it will also lead to satisfying play.  Hi, I am Joe, I am going to be running Sorcerer. This is what I am going to be doing, let me tell you about the Game.  Not interested? Hey no harm no foul, next month I may be running Rifts, you might enjoy that more. Having a GM with a vision, who can relate this vision to the group and have them buy into is a very valid way of getting a game together.  Again the key is communication.
So what does this all have to do with design and theory? Well quite frankly, if a player is not having fun then no matter how slick the design of a game, he or she is not going to continue to play it. As Players and Designers we need to be cognizant of the idea that good groups, even if it is just 2 people, make good games and focusing some effort on the discussion of creating good groups can have a positive effect on role-playing as a whole.

Notes:
1.   I make some references to GNS and some of its ideas as means of examples that most people here are familiar with, not for the purpose of advertising GNS or implying that it is related to the discussion directly.
2.   I did not take surveys or ask questions to find out how many people came to Role Playing in X way.  As mentioned it is anecdotal and comes from 25 years of listening to players and GM's.
3.   No Guitars or Blues Singers were harmed in the creation of this essay.

[Bill Cook]

Developing a gamer group is a project in itself. Having vision and being forward about your expectations is important. Also, being direct about your enjoyment or lack of it.

And having movie night. That's important. My group has watched a video of a member's belt test, gone paintballing, gone shooting on a gun range, seen movies, had LAN parties, played wargames, watched horror videos, literally fought with swords and met at restaurants to celebrate birthdays. Sometimes, we meet in between sessions to roleplay intervening scenes one-on-one or to playtest mechanical fixes. All these things keep the roleplay sessions from being as great a risk to the integrity of the community.

Also, I've found that having a second group increases my enjoyment of the first.

I've gotten big returns on trying to get into what's going on, even though it may not be my preference. And I argue for a turn to hold the reins. So before I mouth off about how whatever I don't like sucks, I have a chance to prove the value of my approach. And what do you know, I get reminded that there's no gauranteed fun. The value of a willing spirit is hard to overstate.

[Doctor Xero]

AzDGBoss, this is a great overview of the United States RPGing generations!  I think it also explains other conflicts -- as a child of 1980s RPGing and a veteran of the "powergamer"/"roleplayer" wars, I have found I have definitely different default perspectives about gaming than my fellow players who began during the past four years, and those differences can ensnare a person if he or she is not careful.

So that this is not simply a "Right on!" posting, a few comments :

Yes, we know the Vietnam War (Conflict) had an effect on RPGs.  The first really violent, really bloody critical hit tables were established by Vietnam veterans who found the sanitized violence of roleplaying games no longer tolerable after their war-time experiences, and for a while, newer and bloodier combat tables became the rage in both games and gaming magazine aids.

My gaming groups have always used the "Old School" method you mention of an excited, inspired game master looking for people interested in his or her idea for a campaign.  (A genuinely game masterless system would likely never see play simply because it would lack a game master to introduce it, explain it, and promote it.)  When a group is interested in gaming, the "Old School" method works quite well.

So what would be the "New School" method, exactly?

My group has watched a video of a member's belt test, gone paintballing, gone shooting on a gun range, seen movies, had LAN parties, played wargames, watched horror videos, literally fought with swords and met at restaurants to celebrate birthdays. Sometimes, we meet in between sessions to roleplay intervening scenes one-on-one or to playtest mechanical fixes. All these things keep the roleplay sessions from being as great a risk to the integrity of the community.

It also works to minimize the risk of allowing any gaming member to become a gaming addict.

Doctor Xero

[ADGBoss]

Thanks Doctor Xero...

As for "New School" Approach it would be the idea that a group of people decide they are going to play an RPG, as opposed to playing Halo or something else, and establish a group dynamic. So as a group they negotiate things like Creative Agenda, Genre, roles, system, and who will be game mastering and how that will work.

It is a more communal approach but I think requires a gamer who is able to give and take a great deal.

bcook1971 wrote:

Also, I've found that having a second group increases my enjoyment of the first.

I had not really considered that as a potential means of enhancing enjoyment but I would agree that this is certainly possible, especially if the two groups have different dynamics and scratch a different itch for the player as it were.


Sean