The Forge Archives

From the Traveller thread in Actual Play:

Quote"Lots of people don't like the pressure of having to come up with their own material. They just want to hang out or be entertained."

Thinking back on this, I can think of a few people I have met  that fit this description, but not more than a half dozen in all my years of play...  are there a lot of people out there like this?

Quote from: VaxalonThinking back on this, I can think of a few people I have met  that fit this description, but not more than a half dozen in all my years of play...  are there a lot of people out there like this?

You would be surprised. I almost had a riot in a Changeling game I run because I wanted more player authorship.

Hi Fred,

That's a good topic. I think Robin Laws calls this the "Social Gamer," which I'm not sure is the best term because in some ways I think it's asocial relative to the activity at hand.*

I tend to be a little extreme about it - in the sense that I can hang out and socialize whenever I want, with a wide variety and large number of people to choose from. When I role-play, it's a specific activity for me with definite priorities, as a sub-set of my socializing, and so I make sure to do it with others who are similarly-inclined.

I recognize that my outlook isn't very common, at least based on Robin's Laws and others' comments, which indicate that, to many, maintaining a nice unthreatening social group takes higher priority than a fully-satisfying imaginative experience.

On the plus side, I've had several good experiences with people who were not playing at all, but enjoyed being present and appreciating both the process and imaginative product of play. But the fact that they were not playing and were, essentially, "backstage pass" participants, made all the difference.

Best,
Ron

* But who am I to talk about terms being "just right" ...

(finally, I make a good topic!)

I think this kind of gamer is someone that authors and GM's need to keep in mind.

I'd actually disagree, Fred.  I think this type of gamer is exactly the sort who should be entirely ignored.  Games should be designed around the desires of the active engaged gamers not the distracted just hanging out slackers.

And slackers to me is what they are.

If the social activity was playing city league softball and you had a couple of players who just showed up to hang out you wouldn't put them on the field unless you were desperate for warm bodies.  You'd want people there who were there to play ball.  Not necessarily "win"...that's different.  But definitely there to be engaged and play hard.

If you're a dedicated golfer looking for a fourth member to your foursome you wouldn't be satisfied with some hack who was just there to drink beer and do donuts in the golf cart.  He may not be that great of a golfer but you'd want him to take the game seriously and actually be committed to playing it.

Same with starting a garage band, or a bridge club, or nearly any other activity which is a combination of social gathering and skilled effort.

People who just showed up and barely participated would be called slackers in those situations...I call them slackers at the RPG table too.  Just because everyone is just sitting around a table talking one should still expect them to be alert, engaged, committed, and participating.

I've walked out of groups that catered to slackers, and if it were my group I'd show them the door if my efforts to engage them proved fruitless.

So no, I don't think designers should keep these guys in mind at all...

...EXCEPT...to the extent that some of the slackers may not actually be slackers but just folks completely bored with the lack of purpose and reason in the games they've been playing and are wanting something more to connect to and not finding it in traditional play.  Designers SHOULD be trying to reach those types and discovering what that something more might be and delivering it.

In my experience, at least half of all gamers are primarily there for the social experience and couldn't care less about the game, so they're a pretty sizable group.  I try to screen the people I play with to make sure they have the same goals I do, so I haven't had a lot of these people around recently except at conventions.

Valamir, I'm not sure I'd be quite so critical of these people.  Being uninterested in the game isn't inherently bad - it just conflicts with your goals.  You and they can't enjoy the same game.  I suspect they'd call you a gaming snob or something along those lines.

Some bowling leagues or bridge clubs do actually make room for these people without affecting the overall event.  My high school chess club had only three people who really liked to play chess in it, and so there were two "circles of participation."  Most of the club didn't compete in tournaments and when a serious guy wanted to work on his game, he didn't do it by playing against a casual guy.  I know of bowling leagues that do that too - anyone can join and practice with the team, but not everyone competes.  Or think about the Boston Marathon.  Some people show up to break world records; others are there to jog along with their friends and see if they can make it or not (though any marathon runner has to be at least somewhat serious).

The fact that these games have clear winners and losers helps make a natural division.  RPGs lack anything this clear, so people have to be willing to be the bad guy in dealing with the problem, and many people aren't up to doing that.  Furthermore, a bowling league will have dozens of people who break up into sub-games, but I've never known any RPG group that was more than two sub-groups at a time. (In the case of this large group, it was basically divided along "hard core" versus "social gamer" lines).  But most people are forced to either kick the slackers out or tolerate them.  (Kicking them out is generally preferable).

Anyway... the problem with designing rules or scenarios intended for the social people is that they don't really care about the game, they care about the social environment.  So a game designed with them in mind wouldn't be any more (or less) interesting for them, but it would bore the hell out of your hard core gamers.

Well, there's a difference, I think, between people who just LIE there, and people who are only making a minimal contribution.

This kind of player rolls the dice when it's his turn, knows the rules, and stays focused on the game... but he's either not very creative or doesn't share the fruits of his creativity.  He's not very good at writing a backstory, doesn't engage in RP with NPC's, and his characters usually hang out with someone who's more active.

I'm thinking these people are enjoying the game.  For the golf analogy, he's like the caddy; he's got a job to do at the table, but he's not the focus of attention.  He's not being disruptive.  Your examples aren't the kind of people I'm talking about.

It seems that it is counter-productive to design games that are "slacker"-friendly.  What about games that are "slacker"-hostile?

Games with rules that make it difficult to engage in "slacker" activities assuming that you follow the system as written.  Of course nothing makes people follow these rules, but is it worth giving some consideration to designing games with this in mind.

It is probably not something that all games would benefit from, but would it be a good thing for some games?

One idea that i have been kicking around for something is a game in which all talking from the players (non-GM) is in character.  Any out of character discussion must be done through passing notes...

Thomas

Quote from: Ron EdwardsHi Fred,

That's a good topic. I think Robin Laws calls this the "Social Gamer," which I'm not sure is the best term because in some ways I think it's asocial relative to the activity at hand.*
*snip*

I suppose it'd be like calling someone a social drinker, if you invite them to come to the pub with you and they don't drink anything (not even a glass of lemonade), or they nurse one glass all night long because their not really interested in it. It would be kind of odd to call them a social drinker, for it.

QuoteI'm thinking these people are enjoying the game. For the golf analogy, he's like the caddy; he's got a job to do at the table, but he's not the focus of attention. He's not being disruptive. Your examples aren't the kind of people I'm talking about.

Well that depends. For some people that level of contribution is asocial.

On a related angle, the roleplaying hobby is probably one of the rare hobbies where tasks like learning lots of little rules, doing lots of small math equations, writing up backstories/adding character details which are then under the control of an artistic director(GM), listening carefully to details for hours on end and working out hypothetical problems set to you are considered a must, to some degree, or otherwise your not being nice. This sort of stuff reminds many people of their workplace, or doing tax returns. But by gamer standards if your not doing this (to a certain level, defined by each group) you can be judged as something quite negative (slacker, for example). A pretty effective way to set up some gamer ghetto'ism.

I mean, with sports, most people don't consider running around under the sun in the lush green grass while throwing a ball around (or whatever) as work. Certainly it doesn't sound like work to me, even though in a way it is. Those who would see all the RP effort (listed above) as not being work are probably part of the same demographic who play. A pretty small demographic, that one.

I just thought it would be interesting to note how RPG's are typically designed basically encourages those who don't see it all as work to look down on others who do (much like a group of heavy drinkers might look down on a responsible drinker who joins them). No one wants to join an activity only to be looked down upon, so they leave.

Which wouldn't be a problem if the 'it's not work' mindset was a larger demographic. Additionally, I hypothesize, most RPG's are designed by people with this mindset, so the design never escapes the demographic.

Quote from: LordSmerf
One idea that i have been kicking around for something is a game in which all talking from the players (non-GM) is in character.  Any out of character discussion must be done through passing notes...

There are some games where this is a house rule.

My only experience with them have been on M*'s... they have been, without exception, poorly attended.

The old Star Wars from West End Games did a lot to reduce the amount of "work" a player had to do.  A gamemaster could hand out character sheets, explain the rules, and be off and running without any "work" from the PC's.

I found it to be an excellent vehicle for introducing people to RPG's.  Everyone knew the gameworld, the rules were incredibly simple, and the character creation (if you used the templates) was dead easy.

Now it's a truism of marketing, that there are two ways to grow your business... you can either take customers from your competitors, or you can gather new ones from people who aren't buying your kind of product in the first place.  That's why the folks at WotC are working up yet another "basic" version of DnD, in order to create an "entry level" product and expand their customer base - it's the only way they can grow at this point.

So here's what I think:

Any game that's going to be popular with people outside the existing gamer market, has to be a lot like D6SW, in that it has to be playable without a lot of work on the part of new players.

"...has to be playable without a lot of work on the part of new players."

I think this still misses resolving the prob. Reducing the work wont make people think the work isn't work. And certainly in this age of playstations, etc, they aren't going to readily think 'hey, so its a bit of work...I'll do it because really I don't have any other options if I want to play something like this'.

Really I think you need to have a design that relies on work to operate that the larger demographic (the big demo you want) doesn't percieve as work. If an RPG design coud operate through people running around in a field throwing a ball around, for example, you'd be golden.

Well, at that point you're kind of talking about some varieties of LARP.

I'm not saying that RPG's shouldn't have work in them, what I'm saying is that the first play session should have a payoff with a minimal amount of it, if you want to grab peoples attention who don't normally game.

Some authors, probably lots of authors, don't want to grab peoples attention who don't normally game.

Quote from: VaxalonWell, at that point you're kind of talking about some varieties of LARP.

I was more lamenting that we couldn't rip off what makes sports games work, to make a typical RPG work (perhaps an atypical one, though)

Quote

I'm not saying that RPG's shouldn't have work in them, what I'm saying is that the first play session should have a payoff with a minimal amount of it, if you want to grab peoples attention who don't normally game.

I think that's a good step, but I'll play devils advocate and say it's not a big enough step. You see, if a user evaluates it from a work/payoff ratio, if you can use a type of work the user doesn't see as work, that ratio goes off the scale as it's all payoff. DVD's, playstation, internet gaming, etc usually supply this sort of ratio. So pitching something which gives even a large reward for little work doesn't really compete well against even a minor reward, zero (percieved) work game. Most people who want to put in work for a great reward would probably want to do an art class, where they have some tangible creation at the end. Typical RP doesn't have anything like that physical item.

Additionally I was suggesting the current RP'er demographic consists largely of people who don't see this work as work (so they get the reward/zero work ratio) and hypothesising this means a blindspot for designers.

Quote

Some authors, probably lots of authors, don't want to grab peoples attention who don't normally game.

Oh, I thought you were talking about introducing people to RP in your post (people outside the gamer market, that you mentioned). It's cool if someone doesn't want newbies, but for those who do, they probably have their own perception of what isn't work and what is, to overcome.