Hanging out

[Lorenzo Rubbo-Ferraro]

"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."

I think there are two distinctly different types of gamers here. The ones who "just want to hang out" can be very different to the people who "want to be entertained".

Sure, those who just want to hang out and show little interest in contributing, probably are slackers as Valamir suggests, and useless for gaming.

I think there is a legitimate place for those who want to be entertained though. I GM for kids and they are extremely enthusiastic about playing, they want to be entertained and play a part in a cool story. I don't think there is anything wrong with this - it's like watching a movie - you can be thoroughly engrossed while not doing anything. And yes, we have played games like Shadows where they put in 90% of all the work, and enjoyed it a lot. But there is a time when they just want to do very little and just "be entertained".

These times are a lot of hard work for me, and mostly I wish I was on the other side of table!, it's all one way storytelling, but I put myself out so that they can have fun. As long as they are enthusiastic about making decisions and rolling the dice and really having a great time then they are participating.

To me they are a different kettle of fish to the unenthusiastic slacker.

[Mike Holmes]

A few things. First, this was all covered very well in the "big five" on how the social nature of gaming takes it's effects. I highly recommend going over those. Anybody have a link, again? Is it in a sticky somewhere or something? This includes the well debated idea of making games more accessible to larger numbers of people. Comes down to goals.

Anyhow, there definitely is a spectrum of this effect as Lorenzo points out. I had one player who was there because of their spouse, and who would actually fall asleep during play. The specific level of commitment required varies as well as has been noted.

With regards to other activities, some mentioned were bowling, cards, etc. In all of these, you aren't considered to be playing if you don't actuall perform all of the mechanical requirements. But these are very clear. In RPGs, it's not so clear. If all the player does is grunt when their character is spoken to, does that constitute full participation? In some groups it might. In others no. Also, in all of the activities mentioned, if one player doesn't participate, the activity doesn't stop. One can bowl as easily by oneself as with others. For bridge it might mean one less table. RPGs are collaborative by nature, and a non-participant has a much larger effect.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

That's The Infamous Five, the series of threads and thread-spawn that marks the most significant developmental step of the Forge as a site.

Best,
Ron

[Vaxalon]

With regards to other activities, some mentioned were bowling, cards, etc. In all of these, you aren't considered to be playing if you don't actuall perform all of the mechanical requirements.

That hasn't been my experience, at least not with bowling.

Every game I have been to, there has been at least one person out of the group of six or eight that have said, "Oh, I'll just keep score."  Someone who, for whatever reason, wasn't prepared to actually roll the ball, but participated at a lesser level.  Usually a wife or girlfriend, though I've known men to do it as well, this person often has a physical disability that prevents the twisting motions involved.  While they weren't "bowling" they were certainly "going bowling" if you catch the distinction... they were participating on the social level, and on a minor level in the game, though they weren't competing.

I would equate this to the player that rolls the dice when it's his turn, laughs at the Monty Python quotes, and springs for pizza once in a while, whose character is nothing more than a pile of numbers, and which never interacts with PC's.  He's interacting on a minor level in order to justify his presence at an event where he has fun and doesn't prevent others from having fun.  

As long as I don't have a whole tableful of them, people like this are welcome at my games.

[Mike Holmes]

With regards to other activities, some mentioned were bowling, cards, etc. In all of these, you aren't considered to be playing if you don't actuall perform all of the mechanical requirements.

That hasn't been my experience, at least not with bowling.

Uh, you can say that they're "going bowling" but they're not participating in actual bowling. Yes, this is socializing with these people, and that's not a problem. But nobody would mistake them for having a score or something.

As Ron said, having people there as audience, or even as helpers for the GM, whatever is fine. It's when you have somebody putatively there to bowl, who only picks up the ball and drops it in the gutter every time intentionally that you might have the problem. In RPGs, the definition of participation may be loose enough that some players think that they're participating if they do the equivalent of dropping the ball in the gutter every time. In actual bowling, nobody would mistake that for actual participation. Rather, the player knows precisely what level is required of him to be considered a participant. Sure there's levels of competitiveness, but if he isn't rolling the ball down the lane trying at least a little to hit the pins, he's not bowling. He might be socializing, but he's not adding anything directly to the activity per se. In fact, it might be better if he just kept score, or acted as audience (certainly would cost less in lane fees).

I would equate this to the player that rolls the dice when it's his turn, laughs at the Monty Python quotes, and springs for pizza once in a while, whose character is nothing more than a pile of numbers, and which never interacts with PC's.  He's interacting on a minor level in order to justify his presence at an event where he has fun and doesn't prevent others from having fun.  

Well, that's the question? It's not well laid out. Is this player actually participating, or just rolling his ball down the gutter? No way to know in RPGs, because, yeah, he's fulfiling some minimum requirement. But is it the same requirement that everybody has? It's just not clear cut.

As long as I don't have a whole tableful of them, people like this are welcome at my games.

You seem to be under some impression that I think that these people aren't participants or something. That's Ralph. My point was not that they aren't participating (these guys in the analogy are rolling the ball down the lane, but not bothering to aim at all, really), but that it's harder to tell in an RPG if someone is validly participating in the activity itself. Because it's a lot less clear than whether or not they're rolling the ball down the lane. I mean, sure they might be rolling dice, but what if the game in question needs them to choose the maneuver for their attack, and they don't do that?

Player: "I got a 4."
GM: "What kind of attack were you using."
Player: " I dunno, pick one."

Is that participation? If the GM doesn't mind filling in the choice, then maybe, for that group. But I think it would be just as valid for another group to say that this wasn't really participating.

And what about my player who would fall asleep? Surely you have some standard for what counts as participation (not using a chainsaw in the midst of play)? The thing is that it can only be local to you in RPGs. There is no general standard.

In any case, even if we do say it's all bowling, there are different groups with different standards, no? Some are in leagues, and very serious about their bowling - you don't have any problem with people having different standards than you, do you?

What does this mean about how to design a game? Well, you can design for the more serious group, or the less serious group. But doing a Least Common Denominator sort of thing isnt' really going to make the lax player OK with the serious ones, and will likely be something that the serious ones don't want to play at all.

I'm not saying that this means these games shouldn't be made at all. In fact, the Infamous Five say that one should, if one wants to get more people playing. But this doesn't mean that this is the only direction to go in with respect to design. One can design just as validly for the "serious" niche as well.

Mike

[Vaxalon]

I agree one hundred percent.

[M. J. Young]

I have an anecdote that underscores the different standards; it specifically connects to Mike's comment about the player who fell asleep.

In one of E. R. Jones' games, the player characters made camp, and one of the players said, "My character goes to bed." The player promptly passed out at the table.

Everyone ignored him, went about the stuff they wanted to do in camp. It was probably an hour later that they were finishing up that part of the game, and someone said they were going to break camp and resume their journey.

The sleeping player promptly woke up and asked what was happening and what the plans were for the next day.

The referee gave him a substantial points award for great role playing.

--M. J. Young

[Bill Cook]

. . . the player characters made camp, and one of the players said, "My character goes to bed." The player promptly passed out at the table.

LOL. I did this once during a paid event I was ref'ing at a convention. When I woke up, everyone had gone. They left a stack of review forms, filled out. Some people have no sense of humor :)

On the way back home, I rear-ended a WWII vet with a purpleheart license plate.

Woo-hoo! My 200th post!

[/OT]

[rdl]

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.* .

The term I use is "Casual Gamer", which you might find more apt.

[DannyK]

There's a term used in psychology: "social loafing."  Basically, it means that when there's a group of people all faced with a situation, everyone in the group is less likely to take action than each would individually. For example, an injured person is more likely to get helped if there's only *one* other person nearby than if there's a crowd.  

If you think of a typical gaming group this way, you can see how this effect will (even without anyone desiring it) cause some players to fade into the background.  Of course, this effect vanishes if people are called out individually -- remember the scene in To Kill a Mockingbird where the little girl breaks up the mob by calling people out by name?

To take it a step further, this may explain the effectiveness of the "party-less" model of gaming typified by Sorcerer, where each character is his own player's responsibility and may be acting independently of every other character.

[Callan S.]

Social loafing? They use that as a term? Wow, way to use polarised terminology...it's sort of like calling what people drive to work in a non flying machine. That accident example is one where everyone chokes because they don't know who's responsible for what and everyones so well trained to behave they'll do nothing rather than cross any lines of rank ("Perhaps I should call an ambulance...wait, what if that's not the right thing to do...I'm not certain, I don't want to make things worse! etc"). Which all goes away if there's only one other person, of course.

It's quite easy for a 'lazy' player to be one who doesn't know what the hell he's supposed to be doing.

[Doctor Xero]

From the Traveller thread in Actual Play:

"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?

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

I agree, and I think these are the vast majority of players -- if I understand the quote aright.

The majority of the players with whom I've interacted and about whom I've read are people who have a hunger for imaginative fun and play but lack the creativity to do it all on their own.

This makes sense to me -- if they are brilliant storytellers, they won't spend time gaming which they could spend writing, and if they are brilliant visual artists, they won't spend time gaming which they could spend painting, and if they are brilliant performers, they won't spend time gaming which they could spend preparing for auditions and then rehearsing for performances.

This is why game-masterless play and strong author stance make little sense to me : when I want to be game-masterless or author not actor, I sit at my computer writing my stories rather than direct my creative energies into something as ephemeral or closed as a game.

I enjoy RPGs for the stories which I know I can not market  and for the acting opportunities for which I lack the skill.

Not everyone can be an artist or actor, and I certainly refuse to disrespect them or call them "slackers" for this!

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.
---snip!--
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.

I disagree vigorously, Valamir.

First of all, the analogy doesn't fit.  The people who show up for the city league softball game are the "slackers" as Valamir puts it, because they are perfectly willing to obediently follow the pre-existing rules for how one plays softball just as these players are perfectly willing to adhere to the universe constructed for them by the game master.  They don't like the pressure of having to come up with their own rules for a game -- they just want to hang around and have fun playing pre-existing softball game rules.

To avoid being "slackers", they would have to show up and then insist on altering the rules for softball play, acting more as author than actor, and assume that the rules should be developed by individual input and group consensus rather than taken from a gaming book (whether AD-&-D or softball official rules).

However, most people don't want to have to come up with their own softball game design.  They want to show up and play and be entertained without designing their own sport.  And those are the players for whom softball exists, regardless of whether they are labelled "slacker" or not.  And those are the players for whom roleplaying games ought be designed as well.

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.

Exactly!  Those are the ones to whom I refer.

I think there is a legitimate place for those who want to be entertained though. I GM for kids and they are extremely enthusiastic about playing, they want to be entertained and play a part in a cool story.
---snip!--
To me they are a different kettle of fish to the unenthusiastic slacker.

I concur, and I think it is important not to disrespect them, disregard them, or exclude them from notions of legitimacy and value.

Doctor Xero

[Doctor Xero]

Well, 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)

Actually, I know a lot of people who enjoy intellectual and creative exercises but find boring or out-and-out hate the exercises necessary to maintain a high caliber physical ability.  They would find playing sports far more "work" than playing RPGs and enjoy even the paperwork involved.

Every game I have been to, there has been at least one person out of the group of six or eight that have said, "Oh, I'll just keep score."  Someone who, for whatever reason, wasn't prepared to actually roll the ball, but participated at a lesser level.

I think this fits in with what I have written previously about the respect issue.

I am not a skilled bowler, and when I am with friends who enjoy bowling simply as a way of having fun and enjoying ourselves, I will bowl right alongside them, even though I know I will be lucky if my gutter balls do not outnumber my strikes and spares.  I am not trying to innovate new rules for bowling, nor am I trying for anything beyond fun.

On the other hand, when I am with friends who view bowling as a somberly serious sport, as a forum for validating their masculinity or their value to the team or somesuch, or as an intense competition (or who feel the same about a city league softball game), I stay away from the bowling balls and the bowling lanes and I volunteer to keep score or fetch drinks.  If the social code requires I play, I stay to the background so that I don't get in the way of their somberness or validations or competition.

I have had friends who were professional bowlers and professional volleyball players, and they were always people with the grace to tone down both their talents and their competitiveness when playing with us amateurs.  I expect the same grace of my roleplaying friends when playing with amateur roleplayers : acceptance of lesser skill, yes, but also a gracious recognition that some people do this for fun only.

Doctor Xero

[Vaxalon]

This is why game-masterless play and strong author stance make little sense to me : when I want to be game-masterless or author not actor, I sit at my computer writing my stories rather than direct my creative energies into something as ephemeral or closed as a game.

GM-less play is like stone soup.  The contributors don't, by themselves, have enough creative energy to do the whole job, but when they pool their talents they can make something that's greater than the sum of its parts.

[Callan S.]

Well, 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)

Actually, I know a lot of people who enjoy intellectual and creative exercises but find boring or out-and-out hate the exercises necessary to maintain a high caliber physical ability.  They would find playing sports far more "work" than playing RPGs and enjoy even the paperwork involved.

Yes, I too know a lot of people who enjoy this. Just about every roleplayer I've met. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but they form the bulk of this hobby IMO. The hobby as we know it needs people who are into this sort of stuff. If your RPG can tap into something (to make it work) that a large demographic are similarly into, it'll be better designed to hit mass market paydirt (if you care for that sort of thing).