Reciprocity of interest

[TonyLB]

Why do I get the impression, then, that you don't like it, that I feel that Capes is a great start, but needs a little work to be perfect?

I don't know why you get that impression.  I don't dislike what you're doing.  I think it's great that you're exploring the rules system.  I'm just not personally interested in what you're offering as changes.

But I have a theory about why my lack of interest gives you the impression of disagreement where none exists.  And since the theory applies equally well to both roleplaying and our discussions, I figure I'll cast it in roleplaying terms first, so other people can profit from it.


There is a fallacy that I would term "Reciprocity of Interest", which goes roughly like this:

Situation:  Player A contributes X to the SiS with the intent of sharing it with other players.  Player B is interested in X and expands upon it, contributing X-1.
Fallacy:  Player A will be interested in X-1.
Pathological Case:  If Player A is not interested in X-1 it proves they never intended to share X in the first place.

I used to GM games in a system that will remain nameless (Eric, Sydney, you know which one).  I saw this pattern all the time when I was doing that.  It would go like this:

GM:  Here's a situation, filled with tension and difficulty and tons of opportunities for players to act upon it.
Players:  Here's what we do.
GM:  Hrm... I feel that I should be interested in that, but I'm not.
Players:  What?  How can you not be interested?  We're loving it!  The situation rocks.
GM:  Nonetheless... what you're doing with it sort of bores me.
Players:  Well, you aren't allowed to be bored.  It's your situation, we're engaging with it, that has to be exciting to you.
GM:  And yet... it's not.
Players:  Dammit!  You suck!  If you didn't want us to engage with your situation then why the hell did you start the game?

So, it's a fallacy.  It's not true.  If I'm not interested in something contributed to the game it proves nothing about either my past motivations or my relations with other players.  It just means I'm not interested.

The fallacy has a nice little corrolary, by the way:  If Player B contributes X-2 to the SiS, and Player A isn't interested, that is a problem, and the game is in trouble.  And... it's really not, you know.  As long as Player A finds enough in the game to be interested in, it's all good.

Has anyone else seen these in action?  Or is it just me?

[Vaxalon]

I'd say that you're right, every contribution to the SIS needs to be evaluated on its own merits by everyone involved.

[John Harper]

Yep, I've seen that, too. I was lucky enough to have a player long, long ago that shook our group until this fallacy fell out. Gaming got a lot better after that.