What's wrong with our group?

[Joe J Prince]

Well other than the usual sexual schisms.

Our role-play group has been utterly crap over the last few years - we just can't seem to find any game that everyone will play.
Apart from my 'homebrew' Shadow of The Prince of Darkness (PoD) system.
But that got killed by email.
We don't talk about it.
On the plus side I've revised PoD - but I'm probably gonna revise it again pretty soon, its about due.

My mates think I'm a snob 'cos I won't play DnD anymore but
I JUST CANT TAKE IT I HATE IT ITS RUBBISH (IMHO)
even when I don't play the DnD campaigns always crash and burn

How can I raise the GNS idea without them burning me as a witch?

We've now divided into two camps. I'm intending to try My Life with Master with my group next week.
Wish me well it may be our last best chance of saving our role-playing group.
I might built a generic system to mark this occasion and call it Swansong.

JJ

[matthijs]

Isn't there anyone else you can play with? Sounds from your post like your group doesn't want to do anything except what they've always done, which nobody really likes anymore...

What other games have you tried to introduce to your group? What have their reactions been?

[Mike Holmes]

It's hard to say what's wrong with your group from so little information. Sounds like simple GNS clash, but that's the snap reaction I always have. :-)

Could you tell us a little more?

Also, whatever you do, don't discuss GNS with them. It's a great way to mess things up even more. If they know it, then discuss it with them. But otherwise you're asking for them to think that you're some sort of label-wielding elitist.

Also, as an option, MLWM is rather extreme. This is good and bad. If you do play, you'll know a lot better afterwards how people feel abut things. You may want to let them know that there's a whole lot of ground in between that game and what they're used to playing.

Mike

[greedo1379]

I think you could discuss GNS but you'd probably be better off dumbing it down.  Describe each aspect of GNS without ever saying Simulation or Narrative, etc.  

"What kind of games do you guys like?  Are you more interested in the tactical decisions of fighting goblins and such and accumulating treasure and that sort of thing?  Or do you like political type maneuvering things?"

Or something like that.  That's my take anyway.

[Bryan_T]

Have you read Robin Law's "Robin Rules" booklet?  He does a nice division of player types in there--not a GNS scheme, and probably a lot more accesible.  Combat monster, tactician, etc.  Giving them a quick precis of the types and asking them to describe which type they are---making it clear that they are all valid reasons to want to game--might help clarify some of the issues.  

I'm still friends with the guys I started gaming with 25 years ago, but we haven't succesfully gamed together in, oh, probably 15 years, in part because of time issues, but in part because it got harder and harder for any of us to run games that appealled to the players.  For me reading Robin's booklet really helped highlight the problems.  Too late in our case for keeping the games running, but maybe in your case it would help.

--Bryan

[Bryan_T]

[edit] OOPs, double post somehow, sorry!

[ADGBoss]

Honestly I think that there may be some Social Contract issues that need to be addressed first.  The attitudes that you describe are not at all unusual but that does not necessarily mean anyone is at fault.  Others who are more versed in the ideas of Social Contract can point out relevant Articles here at the Forge and you can also do a search, but let me just share my take.

The first thing that struck me was how it appears that you are basically taking the weight of your group and putting it on your shoulders.  You have basically decided that MLwM is the last roll of the dice, your Ardennes Offensive so to speak, before the inevitable collapse. I can tell you, having been there myself, it is more stress then you need and frankly it rarely ever works.  Its not the game, the game or games are NOT the issue here.  If they were you would be discussing the issues and would find a game you all can enjoy, regardless of persona Creative Agendas.  Its very much a Frustrated GM syndrome and it very well may be that you yourself want to PLAY as opposed to GM but find that if you don't GM, no one else will.  If that is the case then it should be addressed. How long have you been the GM for the group? If it's over a year I would say pass the torch.

You have to get the others involved.  Remember, its easy to refer to THE group as MY group.  You don't do that in your post but you may want to ask yourself are you doing that internally?  Others in the group need to stand up, do some work, and run some games. I obviously have no idea what their level of involvement is but my impression is that it is not a great deal outside of playing and complaining.

If you are going to continue as the primary GM, take a hard look at your games and how you structure a camapign.  I myself prefer long term games but can be turned on by a one shot deal.  Why not try a game of the month? You play for 4 weeks, 4 sessions.  It gives you a chance to try new games & systems every month and opens the door for different GMs.

Finally I wanted to make mention of GNS.  It is not important that you, your mates, or anyone understand GNS OR any RPG theory (there are others) in its most scholarly form.  It is fine if you do but it is not required. For my money the most important thing a Gaming Group needs to understand as individuals is why they are there to game.  What do they get out gaming?  Are their creative and gaming needs being fulfilled? Its a process and the answers may not always be pretty.  Some people may quit.  Ultimately the group will be stronger for it or fall apart.

Hope this helps.


Sean

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Sean is absolutely right. When a social situation is breaking down as thoroughly as you describe, Dante, then it is time to evaluate it completely at the social level.

Answering these questions will be helpful to you as well as to the rest of us in this thread:

1. To what extent do the people in this group socialize with one another outside of the context of role-playing?

2. To what extent do other people in the group members' lives know about, and support, the role-playing activity?

3. What sort of payoff do you, personally, expect from getting together with them to role-play? Is this payoff shared by anyone else in the group? If so, how do you know that's the case, or are you assuming it?

4. Is anyone doing anyone else "a favor" by continuing to show up to play? Is anyone trying to recapture or relive an earlier stage of life (e.g. high school, early college) by getting together to play?

5. Are there any friendships or relationships in the group that are, at this point, defined only by the fact that the group convenes for play?

Best,
Ron

[Scripty]

Wish me well it may be our last best chance of saving our role-playing group.

I do wish you well. I also side with Mike on this in that MLwM is kind of on the extreme end of where you seem to want to go. Kind of like me taking my cousins from Kentucky to a fetish bar to introduce them to "goth culture".

That said, it might not have the effect you're going for.

Based on what you've said thus far:

1) You're sick of D&D. Man, I'm with you on that. Ran it for three years straight while playing in two other games of it a week (and all that after not having looked at or touched D&D since the mid '80s). Just burned out on it.

2) Your friends all want to play D&D all the time.

3) Even playing their game of choice, their games always fall apart.

If I may make a suggestion, maybe you should try introducing them to Donjon. I was in a group once that sounds a whole lot like the one you're describing. The only Forgish game that really resonated with them was Donjon.

First, it's not that far removed from D&D. Second, it introduces players to the concept of having more control over the game than they're used to (inching them towards heavier and higher concept stuff like Dogs in the Vineyard and My Life with Master). Third, if the players want a game to crumble, Donjon does it with comedic brilliance. Donjon can be played straight, mind you, but my experiences with it were sort of like D&D run by the computer from Paranoia on some seriously nice meds. But without the heavy hangover of a ruined DM's "plot" or multiple hours of building NPCs, adversaries, etc.

Scott

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Ah. The phrase that was just quoted is the heart of the issue:

... it may be our last best chance of saving our role-playing group.

My call: screw "the group." There is no merit to "the group" beyond what its activity can provide for its members.  No game can "save" a group, no single person can "save" a group, and there isn't even any reason to do so, if the activity is not functional.

The group is a means to an end: a fun, creative, social activity among people who are enjoying it. Not the other way around. Think of it like a band. Bands always adjust their membership over time.

So, no, don't expect anyone here to help you save your group. What we can do is help you understand what you enjoy about role-playing and how to get it - and if the current group membership is not effective in achieving that, it'll be the first thing to get chucked.

Best,
Ron[/quote]

[Joe J Prince]

Thanks everyone for your responses!

Bryan - I will try and get hold of Robin's Rules it sounds really good.

The analysis is inevitable, it is the social situation that's the route of our problems.

The biggest obstacle to our group's role-playing enjoyment is the breakdown in the relationship between two of the players, following a love triangle of death.

This has led to the creation of bizarre taboos - one player has attempted to manipulate the rest of the group into alienating the other, and has done quite well at this.

It's really petty schoolyard stuff and it's gotten totally out of hand. The rest of us are just caught in the middle.

I'll try and answer Ron's questions -

Hello,

1. To what extent do the people in this group socialize with one another outside of the context of role-playing?

2. To what extent do other people in the group members' lives know about, and support, the role-playing activity?

3. What sort of payoff do you, personally, expect from getting together with them to role-play? Is this payoff shared by anyone else in the group? If so, how do you know that's the case, or are you assuming it?

4. Is anyone doing anyone else "a favor" by continuing to show up to play? Is anyone trying to recapture or relive an earlier stage of life (e.g. high school, early college) by getting together to play?

5. Are there any friendships or relationships in the group that are, at this point, defined only by the fact that the group convenes for play?

Best,
Ron

1. A lot, probably too much almost exclusively.

2. Not a great deal, other than letting them have the odd night free.

3. Personally, I like the social aspect and I like the escapism of a fantasy world - but I need to feel I have choice and control over my PC. From a GNS perspective I like a mix of gamism and narrativism over simulation.
-I'm pretty sure at least two other players get a similar payoff, but I am assuming that.

4. Yeah, I think people constantly do 'favours' by playing games they don't like and  think that's a problem. But when you ask they always go -
"I don't mind, I'll play anything."

5.  Actually no.

I think the group dynamic does need to shift.
Ah well from the ashes - rebirth!

Cheers everyone
JJ

P.S. I think kpfs may hold the answer :-)

[Bryan_T]

I picked up my copy of Robin's Rules at a local games store, but the particular store in question has very broad stock, and this was a couple of years ago, so I don't know if they are generally available in store.

It is published through Steve Jackson Games, so is doubtless available from Warehouse 23.

It isn't a big booklet, but I think it is very worthwhile.  I'd pretty much given up running games because it just never seemed to work out for long, and for me reading the book really brought into focus some things I'd tried to ignore.  The result is that if I had a functioning gaming group I'd be willing to give it a try again.

-Bryan

[matthijs]

It's actually called "Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering" and is published by Steve Jackson Games.