[wfrp] Core Meltdown

[Fergus]

The session I'm about to describe took place over a year ago.

The system is Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (Version 1).  I'm the game master.  I've been GMing this system on and off for close to two decades, with occasional forays into Vampire and Battletech.

I met the group through an old high school friend, who had been clamoring me to meet them and GM WFRP for them.  She and I had good memories of a few get-togethers to play with her sister and boyfriend, and my best friend in the past.  Perhaps about 5 total sessions of 6 hours length each.  Since I'm always hoping for good gameplay I figured I'd at least give the group a meet and a go.  And playing with this friend might be good for nostalgia. 

The participants:
- Me, white middle class gamer-type.  Friends with Irene and Linda in the distant past (from high school), at the time of the session growing dissatisfaction with the friendship with Irene.

- Irene, white middle class flakey gamer-chick.  My old high school friend.  Dating Jack at the start of the campaign.  Plays an Elf Marine (a river patrolman), last character died in the campaign finale.

- Jack, white marine spastic joker type.  Never played rpgs before, tagging along because that's what his gf is into.  Very much the group "outsider" who bugged out three sessions into the game when Irene dumped him.  Played a human Outlaw.

- Mark, white middle class techie.  Old college game club friend of Irene.  Married to Brenda.  Plays an elf Scout.

- Brenda, white middle class housewife near as I can tell.  Married to Mark, with a single young toddler in tow.  Mildly interested in gaming.  Plays an elf ex-Trader-now-Wizard's Apprentice.

- Willie, white middle class techie. Married to Linda.  Funny guy.  Plays a Dwarf Pit Fighter, last character died in the campaign finale.

- Linda, white middle class techie.  Married to Willie.  From same high school as Irene and I, a close friend to Irene.  Very depressed.  Plays an elf Mercenary, last character died in the campaign finale.

We played at Mark's house on Sundays, from about 3 until 8.  He had the big table ideal for a large group to get together at.  The toddler was usually asleep in the first half, coming awake for massive distractions in the second half.  The regularity was every two months or so, partly because of schedules and partly because of a certain lack of interest on the group's part.

I'd been playing with the group for just over a year, which is what I originally intended.  We had wrapped up a previous campaign and I had offered two more campaigns, each lasting probably about a year in play, which was accepted more by a lack of objection than an enthusiastic desire on the part of me and the group.

The original rules are unclear in a lot of areas, and so WFRP is famous for its house rules.  I've done a lot of tinkering over the years but find myself slowly trying to apply the rules as far as I understand them and making up excuses for the sometimes-humorous results.  The core game has a very high whiff factor, failure is a regular part of the game and combat is extremely hazardous.  It's not uncommon for even an experienced player to die.  There is no game balance whatsoever, so it's easy for a GM to apply force and smash players into submission.  To keep players alive I fudge die rolls and play the opposition stupid.

Mark and Willie do most of the playing, Mark looking for puzzles to solve and Willie looking for fights to get into.  Irene just goes along for the ride, while Brenda appears to pay no attention (she actually notices every detail so she's probably bored).  Linda chitchats with Irene, occasionally reacting when something affects her character.  She seems to get the most interest out of fighting.  The amount of communication is very small, as though no one is paying attention, or the cues they want from me are off somehow.

Originally, there was more interest, but it's waning now.  No one seems interested in their characters, the backgrounds, or the world.  The flavor doesn't mix in.  I get the feeling that I'm not interested in the game either with these people.  They don't seem to want to take charge of their characters and act.  They only react to what I throw at them.

The game sucked.  Big time.  A nightmare that ended with me never wanting to see the group or my old friends again.  And with a throbbing tension headache to boot!

General Synopsis:
Session begins with the characters receiving new orders from their Lord.  The village from the last campaign survived, but is suffering a labor shortage and the harvest is in danger.  The characters are to become press gangsters and comb the local area for drifters, criminals and foreigners to enslave.  They will then bring these people back and put them to work in the fields for a slaver, who has been brought in to create and manage the operation.  This is going to cause trouble, because the Elf characters are all Good Alignment, and many of the "foreigners" they are likely to encounter are going to be other nonhumans.  They have a summons from the helpful wizard of last campaign, who has some info for them.  No one pays attention to this setup.  Low interest in whats happening.

Next encounter is at an Inn that the party failed to cleanse fully of Chaos mutants and cultists, and has now become a secret meeting place and staging ground for the growing Chaos threat.  The Characters are offered an opportunity to investigate and correct their previous failure, but choose instead to bushwhack a number of patrons at the inn and enslave them.  They chase some Chaos cultists masquerading as peddlars, but the two mutants escape.  Interest increases due to the combat, which is very one-sided in their favor.

The party dumps off the latest recruits and heads up road to the local town to follow some leads on beggars and orphans.  On the way they encounter a ghost they were supposed to help last campaign, which has come back working for the bad guys as a twisted Chaos spectre.  The encounter baffles everyone, who assumed the ghost was fine and they strategically withdraw to figure things out.

At the town, the party meets with the wizard and learns about the loose ends they failed to tie up that need correcting.  Growing dissatisfaction with the revelation that last campaign was a mixed bag of success.  Disinterest in the wizard, even though the elf wizard's apprentice is presumably now being tutored by this NPC, more interest in bushwhacking the locals and getting the "task" over with.

Some brief encounters in town with the Chaos peddlars again.  Annoyance that Chaos is taking such an interest in the party (even though last campaign they were THE threat to the operation, taking out the leader and his pet monster).  I'm wondering if the intrigue is starting to be too much for these people.  Off to the slums where the party kidnaps some poor people and locks them up.  Local mob boss threatens them with dire repercussions if they don't cut him in for his share of the "action".  Party annoyed at this obstacle.

Session ends with return to the party village to dump off the slaves.  I change everyone's Alignment to Neutral, and the elfs have a falling out with NPC tribal members who are upset that they are "doing the human's evil work".  Players are baffled.

At the end there was a great deal of dissatisfaction with the session and an obvious disinterest in continuing, which I think was mutual.  People seemed overwhelmed and limited in what they could do.  The jackup seemed unfair to them.

Conclusions:
I'm not going to play again with these people.  I don't know what I'd do differently this time around, since I GM'd the way I wanted to, and I was very satisfied with my implementation of the world.  I imagine myself having a more serious discussion about the game before I play with a group, since it seems to me that the group dynamics impact the game much more than I would realize.  Its no good to play with people you are repulsed by and hope that the game overrides the mutual disinterest you have with people.  I think some communication problems might have been averted if I'd been closer to the group, but distance made it difficult for me to care.

I like the world the WFRP game appears to present, and I like the danger of the system.  But I don't think the rules work in engaging players nor do they give a GM any tools to solicit input from the players.

I'm having a really hard time formulating any point to raise here.  My point is, I hung out with a group I don't like and play with a system that has lost its fun but it's all I know.  It took a year of no fun to figure out this sucked.  It took twenty years of (mostly) no fun for me to take a hard look at this game.  What do you do when you realize you have a piece of metal stuck in your head and you are living a lie over and over again?

[Callan S.]

Hi Fergus, welcome to the Forge!

I sympathise with you alot, I can see quite a few paralels with what's happened in my gaming history too.

Because of that I've ended up looking at prior agreement in terms of game structure. For example, I was a player in a friends game a few months ago. Before play I asked what sort of ending he wanted, as he's notoriously a bit of a railroader. He said he didn't really want a certain ending - we were to find out stuff. I asked, like three things (I didn't mean small stuff either), and he said yes. I thought about what I could enjoy about that play, then felt for whether I wanted it, found that I did and agreed also.

It was a very basic game structure, but it worked. Every time I felt kind of disempowered or railroaded, I thought "Am I finding out info like what I came into this game for (that agreement)? Yes - ah, things now fit into place, and most importantly its exactly what I agreed to, because I felt some desire for it. And then I failed to discuss a play structure agreement in a latter game GM'd by another friend, and it kind of sucked. BUT it wasn't the game - it was the lack of structure to commit to.

What sort of structure of play do you think each of your players were pursuing? I'm only seeing vague outlines, but they vary alot between players - some even include alot of socialising as part of the structure. If you were a band, you'd appear to have different sheets of music in front of you all.

[JSDiamond]

Ron will probably shut this down (and rightly so) because it has the potential to become a "why does this game suck" thread. Partially because the experience is punctuated as a big, wide, barn-door sized hole of a general question at the end: Here are some possibly relevant observations.

1. People change. There's no sense of urgency because Joe is thinking about whether he mailed the rent check and Suzy thinks that everyone is staring at her because she weighs 12lbs. more than she did ten years ago when you last played. Or maybe as adults they don't need to be told when and if their characters can do something anymore. You're older and more experienced too.  Maybe you don't like GMing that way anymore. 
Solution: See end of #3.    

2. House rules are to blame. House rules can dilute something so distant from the original intention ("vibe" or whatever) of the game that layer upon layer later, the game is trashed. The solution: Trash the house rules and start over. It's a common thing every once in a while for groups to play strictly by the book to freshen things up. And/or to roll up new characters to do so.

3. The thing stuck in your head. The game falls short of your goals for having fun because it wasn't your bag to begin with. Maybe it had a lot of things you liked, but the system mechanics don't *do* what you want --which incidentally is WHY people make up house rules.  The cure becomes the symptom. Solution: Try something else in that genre. OR use another set of rules to play in that setting.  A common mistake is that we (gamers) think we can fix an existing system. When what we are doing is changing it. Try playing in the world of WFRP but with Donjon's rules.




   

[Moreno R.]

Hi Fergus!

If the people at the table don't "work well" with each other, the game is doomed from the start, so maybe there was nothing you could do to save it. But there is an aspect of play that you described that I find  interesting and I would like to explore.

From what you said, I get the image of a kind of "intrigue / problem solving play", where some socially powerful NPC (their Lord)  would assign "missions to solve" to the characters. This simple setup would be complicated by encounters with various npcs with problems and desire of their own, building a web on interest and intrigue that the characters would have to solve: am I right?

Other than this, you would like to get more feedback from the players, and appreciation, both for the detail of that web (and they instead frustrate you by forgetting crucial npcs and loose ends) and for the setting (and them don't even care for their character's alignment, race or society, right?)

Now, I could be completely wrong and I could have misunderstood the kind of play or the player reaction, and if it's so please correct me, but it seems to me that you GOT the feedback of the players. It was negative, with shows of disinterest and the characters who followed the first random chance to hit something instead of following the principal mission, but it was feedback.   If a player is really disinterested, he doesn't show up to play. If he does show up anyway, he can try to enjoy it as much a he can, or he can try to SHOW it's disinterest to you as a kind of "in game complains".

What I suppose, from the real little data that I have (so, I repeat, I could be simply wrong about this) is that the players showed in that manner that they weren't really invested in the setting or the "missions". They didn't care enough to complete them tying all the loose ends, they stop following them to play a little fight to get some slaves...  I mean, this seems to me like a classic example of a group that is feeling all that web, all that intrigue, all these mission, as a weight. So, not a group that didn't want to play, but a group that wanted to play in another manner.

The problems is that, IF I am right (and I repeat again: I could be wrong about this. You were there, you tell me if you think that this is possible), you just did the most contrary thing you could do. You took all the loose ends of the previous campaign, the pieces they didn't even care enough to finish, the pieces they discarded because they didn't like them enough to care, and you pushed all of them again to the face of the players!.

Yes, you forced them to do something they already told you (by their action) that they didn't care about. You pushed their nose in their past "failures". This isn't what players like, usually.

The way I see it, you had to choose.  You wanted a game where the players solved all the problems and the mysteries ("resolving the game") AND you wanted at the same time a game where they engaged the setting and the plot with their excitement and interest ("engaging the fiction"). But you found yourself in a situation where their interest followed a different direction, away from some of the problems.

You could have chosen to follow their interest, dropping all the leftover mysteries and problems, and following them in what they wanted to do, OR you could have chosen to continue to follow the leftover mysteries and problems, at the cost of forcing the player to do so rubbing their nose on these, and losing the little interest they had left. And you choose the second solution.

Do you think I am wrong, or this could describe what happened in your game?

The problems is that there isn't a "right" choice to the dilemma above. You could have chosen to follow the player's implicit indication, and find out that while you retained their interest, you had lost yours, in a game that wasn't' anymore what you wanted to play.

Did you ever talked out-of-play about what you all wanted from the game? What they like, disliked, etc.?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

With such a clear presentation, I think we can all stop worrying about "what went wrong" or trying to dissect the play itself. I know that's the usual response to dysfunctional play accounts, but that's because in most cases, the person's in a state of confusion. Fergus, you're clearly not confused.

Here's what jumped out at me.

I GM'd the way I wanted to, and I was very satisfied with my implementation of the world.

If I'm not mistaken, if I were to translate this into the Big Model jargon, you'd be saying, "I contributed to the shared imagined space to the extent that I enjoyed, and to the extent that others could have received/contributed themselves." Is that a fair paraphrase?

So ... to jump ahead a bit to my final point, it seems as if all you need is like-minded play partners, people who are interested in the same stuff and approach. That's actually good news, right?

Somewhat more critically, I could ask whether the "way you wanted to" contributed problems of its own. If you want to talk about that, we can, but it might just be picking scabs. If not, then I'd be interested in learning about a relevant play-session in more detail.

...  I like the danger of the system.

I went and looked over the account to see this in action, and found only contradictions - you talked about the whiff factor and about the need to play NPCs dumb and fudge to keep characters alive. Can you help me understand the fun part of the danger of the system?

I'm having a really hard time formulating any point to raise here.  My point is, I hung out with a group I don't like and play with a system that has lost its fun but it's all I know.  It took a year of no fun to figure out this sucked.  It took twenty years of (mostly) no fun for me to take a hard look at this game.  What do you do when you realize you have a piece of metal stuck in your head and you are living a lie over and over again?

Well, that's a good question to consider, and I'm hoping that the great responses so far can be a foundation for addressing this question. Here are my current thoughts about it, which aren't intended to be anyone's last word.

1. Real reflection is at least half the battle. You're asking yourself this question without me or anyone holding your head and rubbing your nose in it. So, um, that's impressive, it's constructive. I grant you fully, it ain't fun.

2. The immediate short answer is, "Twenty years is plenty of time for not-very-fun. Now it's time to have fun." To go through your points about that, the first step is to find people who share your interests - and I mean aesthetic interest in actually playing, not merely fans of Warhammer. We can talk about group construction, because "find people" is a misleading phrase; great and wonderful RPG groups are usually made, not found.

The second step, I think, is to separate your expertise and familiarity with this particular game/rules-set from your interest in the hobby activity (or art, or whatever we call it). That's really hard. For me, letting go of Champions as "mine" was almost like deprogramming myself. It took a traumatic summer of no-fun play with people I really liked to kick-start me into even beginning.

3. Your post reminds me a lot of some of the great work in the early days of the Forge, specifically, that the first real insight people gained was, "I am not alone." I know, it sounds all AA and everything, but I've been there, Jeff's been there, Callan's been there, and so has nearly everyone who's read this thread so far. That's not nothing either, right?

Best, Ron

[Fergus]

Callan S.:

That is kind of the problem.  I'm not entirely sure what kind of play my players were pursuing.  I only have vague ideas, based on their non-interest in what I was presenting.  I saw that we were not communicating our needs but its almost as if I were powerless to do anything about it.

JSDiamond:

I get what you are saying, and no one could tell me the game sucks outright.  I see holes, I see problems, and I will acknowledge that maybe it isn't my bag, as you say.  That's all a given.  I've done everything in the world to "fix" the system.  But I still love the system.  The problem is, maybe I need to evolve.  So yeah, I'm looking at this game called Riddle of Steel, and I'm gunna try something else and see if it gives me something like a bit more info on whats going on.  I mean, yeah, you're right, after all that has happened I think trying to fix the rules is wrong.  I should probably point out that this campaign was played without a lot of House Rules that I normally play with.  Not game as written, but with an idea that maybe House Rules aren't the answer.

Moreno R.:

Yeah, you're right on all counts.  And I recognize that I got the feedback I needed.  The problem is, I didn't understand the feedback enough to see what people we're asking for.  And maybe that's where people can help me out if I'm being too dense.

And that's the part where I'm feeling guilty.  I know I must have forced them to do something they didn't want to do.  I wouldn't be surprised if I did the exact thing I shouldn't have, as you said.  And I made attempts to talk to them about what they wanted out of the game.  It was hard to get anything out of them in terms of specifics.  It was as if they were incapable of telling me what they wanted.

Ron Edwards:

Yeah, that's a fair paraphrase.  I mean, the game has got to be fun for me too.  If they wanted combat and nothing else, I could have provided that, but maybe I'm guilty of playing a certain way and just not finding people who want to play that way.

WFRP is a gamble.  As far as I imagine the game, Players take it up the ass while trying to figure out complicated plots.  I like the way the game throws impossible situations together and comes up with unexpected results.  But I play for kicks.  Maybe some people are playing for keeps.

Or to put it this way.  The fun comes from putting Characters into situations and seeing what happens.  If they survive, all is glory and chitchat afterwards.  If they don't, it's fodder for contemplating the vagaries of life and a springboard for the next generation of characters.  For me, the plots and the intrigue are a means for making the combat encounters more interesting.

The point for me is, this doesn't work for everybody.  I've got this reputation, good or bad, as the GM who can do anything.  This session says something is wrong.  Maybe I would have been better off saying no, or trying something else.  I feel I let these people down, but I don't feel that I did anything wrong.  Or if I did, then what am I missing?

But yeah, I'm asking questions, that's good.  The problem is, I'm not even sure if they are the right questions.  Somethings up, but I just don't get it.

[JSDiamond]

Hi Fergus, I apologize if I sound curt in my posts --it's how I talk when I'm trying to solve something.  Trying to fix the rules isn't wrong... what I meant was that for a $30 rulebook you shouldn't have to "fix" anything.  A few house rules are one thing; a whole set of rules signals (to me anyway) that the system is broken to begin with and you end up patching the holes. 

Now the setting is a whole other enchilada.  I love the warhammer world.  But the system was so numbers heavy I just never got into it. 
My advice: Trash the system and keep the world.  Riddle of Steel has a cool system.  Donjon's is very good.  The Window system is good. 

The problem is, I'm not even sure if they are the right questions.  Somethings up, but I just don't get it.

Congratulations, you've just leapt across a wide chasm with that statement and landed on the other side; terra incognita.  The answers will only make sense when you know the questions.  I suggest reading the basics of GNS because like I said, time changes peoples' priorities in gaming as well as in life.  Your gamists may have morphed into narrativists, or vice-versa.  You may have done the same.  As a noob playing Chainmail in highschool and then AD&D1st, I thought I had found the holy grail that could hold the frothy tidal wave of my imagination.  It took 7 years of me playing to figure out that WotC's grail is made of plastic and not dishwasher safe.









     

[Precious Villain]

Hi Fergus,

Not to throw in more confusion, but I'd like to point out that it may not be the system.  While it may be de rigeur to tout the benefits of cutting edge RPGs at the Forge, the fact is you had one player looking for puzzles, another looking for fights, one interested only during combat (but apparently not actively seeking it) and a couple who just didn't seem to give a crap.  Riddle of Steel won't fix that.  Games that give players a better degree of control over the plot through shared narration may be better at allowing the game to develop in a way that interests everybody - but it won't create interest where there isn't any.

-Robert

[Callan S.]

Callan S.:

That is kind of the problem.  I'm not entirely sure what kind of play my players were pursuing.  I only have vague ideas, based on their non-interest in what I was presenting.  I saw that we were not communicating our needs but its almost as if I were powerless to do anything about it.

Well, you were powerless! Don't worry about it.

Many people here might recommend players talking about their needs during play and how to encourage that, but I don't. Play is a time for doing, not a time for talking about needs. Otherwise its rather like eating a pizza but half way though someone expresses their need to actually be eating a fruit salad. Half way though the pizza - I mean really, is it really going to help to chop and change then? Get the food right at the start, and make sure the only people who turn up are the ones who like that food.

To do that I'll use another analogy (forgive me!). Basically you know the flags at the beach, the ones your supposed to swim between? Well the same idea fits roleplaying content nicely too, in that you set flags for where play is supposed to occur - anything between the flags is valid play. You then communicate these to potential players well before play. The only 'bug' with this is that people who don't like what you like (ie, what's between the flags) wont turn up. Then again, reread that and it looks more like a feature than a bug. That's a quick, rough outline of something you can look at in relation to all this.

[Fergus]

JSDiamond:
I used to think that fixing the rules was a normal part of things, but now I'm just getting worn out with all the prep I have to do these days.  What I was missing in this session was input from the Players, or an ability to interpret what they wanted and translate it into the game.  Part of that might be blockage on my part as GM and the training I've had in "managing Players".

I've read the GNS stuff pretty thoroughly, and I identify pieces of the setup with my experience, but its just not clicking right now.  But yeah, I think I am changing, and I've seen changes in some of my Players.  Its just like you describe, that the grail is turning out to be made of plastic.  Not that this is bad per se, but I see limitations and problems and I'm looking around going, "What, is this it?"

Precious Villain:
I definitely saw different agendas among the players, and I think that's something that's bugging me.  Is there a process pre-game, where everybody has to identify their game needs?  I can say, "let's try this Riddle of Steel game" or "let's play this WFRP game and see what happens", but I've noticed players will say anything to get playing.  To them, they can negotiate later as long as the game is on.  A lot of house rules get born this way.

Callan S.:
Along the lines above, I agree that its stupid to try and change meal mid-course.  So, how do you make it clear that the game you are playing is "roll or die" and not "collect the sweet, sweet xp"?

Okay, I like the flags analogy better.  So, if I read your right, the declarative statement of play is the most important part, and you have to be willing to accept exclusion of those who don't want what the game is about.  Wow, this is hard core.  That means Group Unity is a chimera, doesn't it?

***

Well, crumbs, I'm feeling a little queasy here.  It isn't the system at all, but rather something more fundamental like group dynamics or something.  So, I've got to identify whats going on with myself, locate a game that jives with that, and then negotiate with people I know and find the ones who jive on the same personal channel and game channel.  So, what's the next step?

[Eero Tuovinen]

Jumping in in midstream here:

I definitely saw different agendas among the players, and I think that's something that's bugging me.  Is there a process pre-game, where everybody has to identify their game needs?  I can say, "let's try this Riddle of Steel game" or "let's play this WFRP game and see what happens", but I've noticed players will say anything to get playing.  To them, they can negotiate later as long as the game is on.  A lot of house rules get born this way.

It's a disease! Anybody who reads that will recognize the social pattern. The problem is that it's a pretty normal mode for roleplayers to fall into - searching for consensus and letting immediate social gratification rule over long-term satisfaction arising from quality play.

I'd like to say that it is OK to choose to rather play a crappy game so you can play with your friends, except that it doesn't work very well, and it's become such a truism among roleplayers that crappy play is actively hindering the hobby. In no other situation would you or I even consider letting that kind of behavior slide, but in roleplaying it is apparently quite OK to negotiate in bad faith when setting up the game with a full intent to renege later on and impose your own priorities on the group in the middle of the game. Heck, I must have read three or four descriptions of this attitude from the horses' own mouths this month alone - GMs who claim that they have the right to change "their" game midstride, players who congratulate themselves on their ability to subordinate the game and shift it to a direction more to their liking, and so on.

The first counter-argument that comes to my mind when grabling with the difficult idea of hobby exclusivity is that people shouldn't be shut out of the game just because they don't know fancy terminology and can't jump through the hoops to prove that they can play with me. That idea, among others, was behind my long-term D&D campaign that ended a couple of years ago. Looking back into it with older, smarter eyes, I can see that, however counterintuitive it is, excluding people on the basis of self-expression is actually the only reasonable criterion I have: if I want to play a verbally active, narration-heavy roleplaying game, I'm pretty much forced to prefer players that can express themselves. That self-expression includes a basic ability to discuss the kind of game we're going to play - if a given potential player is autistic enough to be unable to plan a coming game reasonably with me (a surprisingly common condition among roleplayers for some reason), I'm not sure what could be done to make our interaction in-game satisfactory in any way.

Again, it's not bad to play a crappy game for social reasons. I know that I get stuck playing simple boardgames with young relatives from time to time quite voluntarily, for example. But I find it despicable how some people feel it socially acceptable to waste my time again and again by blithely ignoring all communication attempts during the game establishing phase, only to turn around later to play their game their way, ignoring everything they agreed upon when we negotiated the game. I don't understand how this could have become a de facto standard of behavior in roleplaying culture, being lauded and justified as "good roleplaying" by anybody who happens to share aesthetic goals with the saboteur. It's like everything is acceptable on a social level if it's done to empower the player himself to play the kind of game he wants.

OK, so that's off my chest now. Moving on...

Along the lines above, I agree that its stupid to try and change meal mid-course.  So, how do you make it clear that the game you are playing is "roll or die" and not "collect the sweet, sweet xp"?

My answer here has been to increasingly play only with new people or people I have fun playing with. It's quite insidious how a roleplayer gets used to being stuck with the same people for all time, but there's really not much reason for it: just don't ask incompatible folks to play with you, and if they ask you to play, tell them that you don't enjoy the kind of games they do.

Well, crumbs, I'm feeling a little queasy here.  It isn't the system at all, but rather something more fundamental like group dynamics or something.  So, I've got to identify whats going on with myself, locate a game that jives with that, and then negotiate with people I know and find the ones who jive on the same personal channel and game channel.  So, what's the next step?

Speaking for myself, my next step was to effectively move into the outback and school my own generation of roleplayers here - 2-3 years of play will turn those malleable teenagers into masterful roleplayers of whatever sort you like to play with

More realistically, my concrete advice is to start small and proceed naturally. Ideally, grab all your roleplayer preconceptions about how to go about establishing a campaign and throw them out of the window. I myself routinely compare the way I act in my hobby with a wide variety of other hobbies -a kind of reality check, you could say, to ensure that I'm not falling back on some weird rpg-specific assumption in arranging my play. Some examples of what I've done to improve my quality of play:
- I play many more one-shots than I used to. I also play more than I used to, coincidentally. But when I meet new people, roleplayers or not, I play one-shots with them to get to know them as players, so we'll know if we will want to play more with each other in the future.
- Often my rpg sessions are arranged in a casual social manner, more like a salon than a dedicated rpg event. This is where the one-shots often happen: I meet people, we play boardgames and eat, and if the chemistry initially works, might play a short rpg. This way we get to know each other, and will know who to call on for more elaborate play.
- The casual play activity I engage in allows me to gauge my acquaintances for the future. Usually people I get along well become regulars in my salons, while the people who are not interested in the same things I am drop off. Meanwhile, when I want to playtest a given game, say, or run a longer campaign just for fun, I have some sense of who I might want to play the game with.
- An important point to realize is that you don't need many excellent, top-of-the-line soulmates to get a solid play group going. If you find two other people who share your gaming interests and are keen to play with you, you already have a group. Finding two such people is anything but hard, unless your preferred mode of play is really, really weird.

Thus I'd say that my overall strategy is to not go for a particular game and campaign straight off - rather, I'm realistic about my opportunities, and limit myself to playing smaller and less elaborate games until I have a group I feel can pull off more difficult arrangements. Incidentally, that judgement includes myself - I haven't had any particular need or want for super-long campaigns lately, so I haven't had to try to set any up for a while. Lately I've been playing Bliss Stage as a longer-running campaign, and it's going rather well - our group is attuned to each other, and we're able to communicate effectively about our wishes for the campaign. So that seems to support the validity of my play strategy during the last couple of years...

[Callan S.]

Callan S.:
Along the lines above, I agree that its stupid to try and change meal mid-course.  So, how do you make it clear that the game you are playing is "roll or die" and not "collect the sweet, sweet xp"?

Find the question you are trying to ask. Get a notepad and pen (this helps me alot) and write down 'Why do I want play that is "Roll or die"?', then try and answer it. And with what you answer keep asking 'why do that' until you can only answer 'because it's important to me to know'. Then you'll be able to see your question.

Once you can see it, you can show it to other potential players and see who else wants to ask it.

Okay, I like the flags analogy better.  So, if I read your right, the declarative statement of play is the most important part, and you have to be willing to accept exclusion of those who don't want what the game is about.  Wow, this is hard core.

Kind of yes - but the role of passive and assertive are the other way around. Your not actively excluding those who don't want what the games about, your declaring the flags/the question and then your essentially passive. The players are in the active role rather than you, coming if they want to get an answer to that question. That active role is essential right from the start, because it'll continue driving right through play, rather than having passive 'entertain me' type players.

I can say, "let's try this Riddle of Steel game" or "let's play this WFRP game and see what happens", but I've noticed players will say anything to get playing.  To them, they can negotiate later as long as the game is on.

I've noticed that too. I think with many the negotiation (often though "I'm unhappy with that" facial expressions) is a means of affecting the game world - which is the point of play to them, rather than a means to an end. My suggestions about finding a question are unlikely to attract a gamer with a focus on this sort of play.

[Fergus]

Thank you for the replies.  I think that I've found the kind of answers I'm looking for with this topic.  It feels over my head, and I'm going to have to digest what people have said here for a while.  I'm going to go play some games now and take into account people's input.