Remarkable Player Apathy: Is it just me?

[contracycle]

When we play at a mates place, he always cooks.  We work toward a midpoint break in a 4-6 hour session and he tootles off into the kitchen.  I like this a lot - partly because the break is very convenient for me to get my shit together again, partly becuase it is a proper break, partly because we get fed.  Take this opportunity and learn to cook :) - it will be useful later, you'll all be healthier and its cheaper.  And your folks will probably love you for it.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

When we play at a mates place, he always cooks.  We work toward a midpoint break in a 4-6 hour session and he tootles off into the kitchen.  I like this a lot - partly because the break is very convenient for me to get my shit together again, partly becuase it is a proper break, partly because we get fed.  Take this opportunity and learn to cook :) - it will be useful later, you'll all be healthier and its cheaper.  And your folks will probably love you for it.

This sounds like a Naked Chef episode coming on.

Seriously, though, this is a good idea. I made pizza for my group a couple of weeks ago, and they thought it was great. It was a hell of a lot cheaper than ordering two large pizzas to the tone of $30, too.

[Mike Holmes]

I have a friend who we've tried playing RPGs with.  Unfortinitelley, he is a super-gamist.  I know that you shouldn't label people using GNS, but if you knew this person, you would make an exception.  The problem is that he is not just a gamist; he is well... Evil.  He enjoys killing things as well as having, what he would call competition, with the other players.  He brags about his equipment before we play (I enjoy relieving it every time I'm a fellow player with him).

Just to be clear on the theory, he makes Gamist decisions. Fine. Nothing wrong with that. He is also, apparently a Powergamer. That's a classification of player who makes Gamist decisions almost exclusively, and likes to accumulate power through them. Know what? Nothing wrong with that either. The problem here is a conflict of style. In this case it's incompatibility within Gamism, I'm guessing. But that's not the point. The point is that it's a definite incompatibility.

Interestingly there is a derogatory term that you may or may not have heard applied to this sort of player. Munchkin. This term was coined because of a common occurrence at game conventions. Players would show up expecting non-competitive or even cooperative game play from the other players. But then one kid (actually occasionally an adult) would show up wanting to competitively powergame. This one incompatible player often was enough to make a shambles of the session. Due to the typically young age of such players, the term Munchkin stuck to describe it.

And often the complaint is legitamate. That is, the player doesn't realize that the incompatibility exists, and may in fact find his "opponents" discomfort pleasing. This is a failure to understand that competition is only fun if everyone is participating voluntarily, or failure to have the responsibility to help everyone have a good time. And it is true that younger players fail to see these things more often than older players. Just a matter of experience. Call it the South Park phenomenon.

Perhaps all you need to do is discuss this with your friend. Maybe he is ready to accept the sort of responsibility to play in a fashion that will make everyone happy. If he refuses, then you do need to play without him. The only other option would be to switch to a system that supports powergaming, and have everybody else play that way too.

Have you looked at Rune, by any chance?

Mike

[Eric J.]

I've heard of munchkin.  In the forums where I'm form it's the only term they seem to be able to use.  I could probably change his playing style, but then he wouldn't be having fun and, to me, that's just as bad.  It's not just his gamist tendencies, either.  He's almost evil, in his playing habbits.  Even with his lack of experience, he seems to be unable to grasp the concept of playing a character that doesn't cuss (curse).  I'd also make a clarification of Cody vs. Powergamer.  Powergamer anticipates what skills he'll accumulate as he advances in levels.   Cody, whose character is without knowledge of the purchose, insists that he'll find my R2 unit and destroy it...  I'll just not game with him. Oh, and I've not looked at Rune.  Would you describe it for me please?

[Mike Holmes]

I could probably change his playing style, but then he wouldn't be having fun and, to me, that's just as bad.

Not change him, talk to him about it. Real person to person communication.

It's not just his gamist tendencies, either.  He's almost evil, in his playing habbits.  Even with his lack of experience, he seems to be unable to grasp the concept of playing a character that doesn't cuss (curse).

Again, you can ask him to tone it down. Have you?

I'd also make a clarification of Cody vs. Powergamer.  Powergamer anticipates what skills he'll accumulate as he advances in levels.   Cody, whose character is without knowledge of the purchose, insists that he'll find my R2 unit and destroy it...  I'll just not game with him.

Which is why I said competitive Powergamer, as opposed to cooperative powergamer.

Oh, and I've not looked at Rune.  Would you describe it for me please?

http://www.atlas-games.com/rune_index.html

Mike

[Eric J.]

I have talked to him about it in the past, and he promised to role-play better.  Unfortinitelly, he doesn't adapt well to other gaming styles.  He remakes the same character over and over again.  I'm not insulting him (exept about bragging about his equipment).  I'm just trying to enforce the fact that he's just not congruent with our group.

[Valamir]

Well, if you've made all of the overtures you're prepared to make and it still isn't working, there's nothing wrong with applying the boot.  Just do it in such a way as you don't burn any bridges.  He'll either find another group better suited to his style to play with or he won't.  Periodically, you may want to invite him to game something with you, and maybe you'll want to invite him back full time, and maybe you won't.  And maybe he won't want to.  But there is no rule that says you have to keep playing with someone whose play you can't stand.  If he can't handle that...well, sometimes life is harsh.

[Wart]

Thanks, every one.  I can relate to your scenerio, contracycle.  They were arguing on how to move in zero-g.  They said that you could blow air through your mouth and that newton's third law would take care of the rest.  I said that the mass to do so would be so insignificant that it wouldn't matter.  They argued with me.

Grrr, arguing about how gameworld physics works is one thing which frequently irritates me in games. (SF or otherwise). It slows the game down and ultimately contributes little-to-nothing to the game.

A GM I know has a little clause in the game contract for the live action freeform he's currently running, along the lines of this: "the game world is not the real world, if I say something works in a certain way then it works that way, even if I say that fire is cold". I like it so much I'm going to incorporate it into all my game contracts from now on...

[hyphz]

Oh, and I've not looked at Rune.  Would you describe it for me please?

Rune is basically designed as an out-and-out hack'n'slash game.  All players play vikings who like to kill things and pillage treasure.  You score points by killing things with which you buy special abilities (but there are no levels - it's just 'I'll buy this, for this many points').

The big twist is that the players are competing against each other for the most points.  But you don't get any points - in fact, you lose them - for attacking other players; it's all about stealing other people's kills.  There is no single GM; every player takes a turn to run, and when they do run, they're competing too based on the adventure they provide.  The 'runner' loses points for killing PCs, but he scores highly for *nearly* killing them, and he scores scads of points for providing interesting features in combat (terrain, etc.) that makes the difference between the players surviving and not doing so.

It's a fascinating idea, but I didn't like it much.  Because of the GM competition, there's a rule that every adventure must contain nothing except skill rolls and combat and must never, ever, have a branch or a puzzle.  Also, the section in the rulebook that describes the design of adventures and the rules used to ensure they're balanced is filled to the brim with contradictions and unclear descriptions.  (I never did figure out what the difference between a Standard roll and a Singular Rush roll was.)