Forking the Build

[JamesDJIII]

It's been a long time coming, but I think my patience with sub-standard gaming has come to and end. I've complained long and bitterly in the past about some pretty un-fun sessions with my local gaming circle.

For example,

one of the players (who most often hosts) consistently opens his laptop at the table and plays a MUD or check email or surfs.[/list:u]

numerous conflicts with the way we play the games (creative agenda)[/list:u]

covert railroading[/list:u]

and so on. All events and behaviors that really make me miserable.

I've borught this up with some of the other players and pretty much have stated that I'm stepping back from our regular gaming night. In one conversation I had with a fellow player and sometimes GM about how in the last few years role-playings games have been very boring and not very fun. So much un-fun that I've mentally noted a preference to stay home than to put up with it any more.

At one point someone said, "Why play if it's not fun?" My immediate response was well "Some bad gaming is better than none at all." I changed my mind. Yeck!


I've also indicated that int he future I may invite some people over on another night  (so as not to force people to make an exclusive choice). I plan on trying out all the cool games I never get to play - face-to-face Sorcerer, or TROS, or whatever.

I think there is a chance I will be alone in this. I don't think everyone would be prepared to try these things out. I am running a risk that some people will take this as a purely social snub. We're all good friends outside of gaming.

If anyone has had a similar experience and had decidedly good results, can you share them? What worked and what didn't? I'm not looking for gaming group horror stories - I'm looking for gaming group rebirths.

[Andrew Norris]

I tried to think of a suitable quip about how you'd best be sure your version control software was able to handle forking the build, but it was too geeky even for me. ;)

I run a successful campaign (up to about a dozen sessions) using FATE, with all the trappings you hear about here on the Forge -- fortune in the middle, addressing premise, author stance, etc. Every one of my players has a long history with D&D 3rd edition in the "standard" mode. They have been really happy with our game, but it was a nontrivial transition process to get them on board.

From my experience, it's key to address up front that while you're going to be playing in a very different manner than most people are used to, it's simply an alternative, and it's not meant to invalidate other styles of play. (That helped my case a lot -- none of the players have changed how they play or run their ongoing D&D games, even though they love the way we do things in this game. "Apples and oranges" is their take on it.)

I brought the players in with a one-shot with clear  but simple expectations (mostly Social Contract stuff and a lot of talking about how I welcomed Author stance), and left things open at the end for future sessions if they wished them. Everyone was interested in continuing, and as we went on, I continued encouraging player input.

Almost to a man, people thought was I was doing was Illusionism, but really good Illusionism. Even though I said on four or five different occasions that there was no one plot for the PCs to follow, it took at least six sessions before they really grasped it.

If I was going to do it again, I might start off with a one-shot of Inspectres or something very much "out of the mold" to show them the kinds of things I was going for, then follow that up with a three- or four- session Sorcerer game and see how that went. I confess I snuck up on mode (heck, I started off using D20 Modern to pull in the players), and while it worked, I'd suggest cutting to the chase and demonstrating your preferred play style right away.

I fear this is vague and fairly unhelpful, but at least I'm here to say it can be done. Several players (along with myself) were in an unsatisfying D&D 3.0 game (with one of the other players GMing) about a year ago, and differences in CA, deprotagonization, and lack of interest were huge issues. For me at least, to see this same group playing in a different way, and so happy with it, has been an immense encouragement.

[JamesDJIII]

I tried to think of a suitable quip about how you'd best be sure your version control software was able to handle forking the build, but it was too geeky even for me. ;)

Another player suggested that as what might happen to our group. And for a long time it prevented me from acting on my misery. But I think I've come to realize I'm not helping anyone have fun if I'm as upet as I am with the status quo. I hope that by not trying to splinter folks into one night or the other, we'll all be happier in the end.

As far as InSpectres is concerned - I've actually read a lot of posts about it. Perhaps I'll give that a try too. Thanks!

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya James,

I have a couple of comments.

I think there is a chance I will be alone in this. I don't think everyone would be prepared to try these things out. I am running a risk that some people will take this as a purely social snub. We're all good friends outside of gaming.

See, text like this always fascinates me. If you really were such wonderful good friends, then trying out something like this would by definition not pose a threat of any kind. Your final sentence would explain why you weren't concerned about the chances of being all alone in this, not why you might be concerned.

No, it's only when the role-playing is being used as a crutch and substitute for actual friendship that re-arranging it or even ceasing to participate in it becomes a problematic social issue.

If anyone has had a similar experience and had decidedly good results, can you share them? What worked and what didn't? I'm not looking for gaming group horror stories - I'm looking for gaming group rebirths.

My entire role-playing history since 1996 has been one of joyous re-births, and to the better, with no dreadful and sundering schisms to accompany them. I think that you'll find a whole lot of experienced support for your "process" here, from me and many other people. What sort of details or advice are you looking for, if any?

Best,
Ron

[hanschristianandersen]

At one point someone said, "Why play if it's not fun?" My immediate response was well "Some bad gaming is better than none at all." I changed my mind. Yeck!

James,

My ability to really enjoy RPGs took a dramatic turn for the better as soon as I learned how to walk away from a game that I wasn't enjoying.  Ignore any pleas, spoken or unspoken, of "But what about the group?".  Maybe arrange with the GM for the next session to be your character's last, so as to provide a graceful exit.

If anyone has had a similar experience and had decidedly good results, can you share them? What worked and what didn't? I'm not looking for gaming group horror stories - I'm looking for gaming group rebirths.

Figure out who among your friends you enjoy gaming with.  Invite them to play.  Figure out who among your friends you don't enjoy gaming with.  Don't invite them.  If they ask why they weren't invited, tell them why, point blank.  Don't be rude, but don't lie.  Accept that this might hurt feelings.

When I started doing these two actions - walking away from games, and selectively inviting to subsequent games - it was a major break from the accepted social contract in my gaming circles.  It hurt feelings, it shocked people, and it gave me something of a reputation for being a "game snob".  That was the price; I considered it a bargain.  What I realized at the time was that the accepted social contract was dysfunctional, in that it valued inclusiveness over satisfying play.

Of the games that I left, if the other players really wanted to continue, then the game did indeed continue.  The new games that I started, with a "select" group of fellow gamers, were much more focused and satisfying for all concerned.  Of the friends I excluded, I didn't change my interactions with them in other social contexts, and our friendships lived on.

The biggest lasting change is that I set a precedent - if I could cheerfully and amicably walk away from a game that I wasn't enjoying, then go figure, so could everyone else.

[JamesDJIII]

Ron said:

No, it's only when the role-playing is being used as a crutch and substitute for actual friendship that re-arranging it or even ceasing to participate in it becomes a problematic social issue.

Well, I suppose that is true. Could not someone could be a good friend but still not want to to try new things? My wife of 5 years still won't eat green curry - but I would hard presses to find someone I'm closer with. I think it is a legitimate concern that once I decide to do this, and make it clear why, no one will follow.  (And I'm not saying it's realistic to expect that no one will try it out.)

Bummer, right? I just can't continue to do what I have been doing.

[JamesDJIII]

It occurs to me why I feel dread about this.

Yeah, yeah, I know I asked for no horror stories, just good outcomes to consider. But, looking back, I can't think of ANY instances where a gaming circle broke apart without some accompanying hard feelings. Some of the disentegration was due to other social conditions, but some were meltdowns that occured during play. Hmm.

Time to invest in some muratic acid.

[quozl]

I have a friend who plays the game Axis & Allies.  He loves it.  It's his favorite game.  We used to play together.  Last month, I told him I didn't want to play Axis & Allies anymore because it takes too long and it just isn't fun for me anymore.  He accepted that and went on to play Axis & Allies with other people.  I play other games with other people.  I invite him to play other games but he declines.  We're still friends even though we don't play games together.

That's all there is to it.

[Ron Edwards]

Um, I just realized that this thread isn't about actual play. Movin' it to RPG Theory.

Best,
Ron

[Bankuei]

Hi James,

Meltdowns between relationships of any sort always occur as a result of long built up friction and/or undefined social contract rules put under any kind of pressure.  If you see blow-ups, they're usually an indication of problems that have been there all along, whether personal issues with the individuals(A's ego, B's insecurity, etc.) or between individuals as a relationship.

Chris

[M. J. Young]

But, looking back, I can't think of ANY instances where a gaming circle broke apart without some accompanying hard feelings. Some of the disentegration was due to other social conditions, but some were meltdowns that occured during play. Hmm.

I don't know how old you are, or how long you've been playing, or (the important point that would be derived from this knowledge) how old you were when you started; but that's not my experience. Nearly all the gaming groups that broke up for us did so because of time or distance constraints.

One that didn't ended rather abruptly when it was determined that person or persons unknown in the very large group of friends of friends of friends was stealing things from the house during game sessions. Since the thief or thieves couldn't be identified, everyone was banned from the house while we started trying to rebuild who we could trust.

The only other problem I recall with a game group breaking up for social problems was when someone had an affair with someone else's wife, and his wife wouldn't let him go to games with her anymore, both of them key players. Very messy, that.

All the rest were scheduling problems and traveling distances.

I have had people leave groups because they didn't like the way the game was run, but that's not a problem if people aren't upset about it, right?

--M. J. Young

[JamesDJIII]

Ah! I unleased a beast!

As interesting as the meltdown stories are - and they are interesting to read about - I'd like to to steer the thread back towards positive group birthing stories. Also, what did you do to make a new group ( especially from fragments of dysfunctional ones)?

[M. J. Young]

Also, what did you do to make a new group ( especially from fragments of dysfunctional ones)?

I picked up the phone, called the people I trusted, and said, "I'm going to start a new game, this time invitation only, you're on the invite list. Would you like to play?"

Everyone knew that it was going to be difficult to hold any kind of game after we'd been robbed by gamers, so it actually went pretty well.

It probably would have gone even better if it was a new game. In fact, it did go better as a new game. I called a couple people, said, "I'm going to be playtesting Multiverser, and I need a couple players, are you interested?" and in no time I had as many as I wanted.

Given what it is you want to do, I don't see why you would have any problem calling the people with whom you would like to play, saying, "I've got this game I want to try, Sorcerer (or The Riddle of Steel, or Multiverser, or whatever cool game you want to try), so I'm inviting people I think might enjoy it. Are you free Sunday afternoon?"

I don't see how that could be a problem. If anyone asks why he wasn't invited, well, "I didn't think it was the sort of game you'd have enjoyed. If you're really interested, I'll let you take a look at it and see if that sounds like something you'd like to do." After all, probably if every one of these guys wanted to try something different, you'd just do it in the regular group. It must be that some of them aren't interested, right? So how can they be offended not to have been invited to do something they don't want to do?

--M. J. Young

[ErrathofKosh]

You do really need to separate the roleplaying and personal issues.  In my experience, people that have been "shown the door" in my group, due to differences in roleplaying preferences, usually remain amiable to the members of my group. (We are very polite about our differences.)  
The main cause of conflict is personal issues.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Since roleplaying is a social activity, how cleanly can you separate it from general social issues?