Help me analyse this game

[droog]

I've been playing in a game of d20Star Wars for a couple of months now. I'd like to offer it up for analysis in order to advance my own understanding.

The game was supposed to be an introductory one for newbies at the club I'm going to, but (a) it's dragged on for longer than I expected and (b) apart from me, it comprises only people who already know each other and have played together before. That it's dragged on is not the issue: this isn't a plea for help in that sense. I'm continuing to attend because I'm fascinated by it in the light of what I've learned here at the Forge.

The games go like this: we sit around and wait for the GM to throw us the latest development in the plot, to which we then react. About once a session, we get a fight of some sort. Meanwhile, people either chat amongst themselves or indulge in first-person acting scenes. Do you know what I mean by the last? People make up dialogue in character, none of which seems to serve any purpose except for saying eg 'this is how a Gungan speaks'. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's excruciating. This behaviour seems to be expected and normal among the group. It seems to be almost the only input we have apart from reacting to the GMs plot. I'm pretty sure that my input (of this sort) is well-received and appreciated—while at the same time I find it tedious.

I've found myself at the point of Turnin' several times (my droid's finger was hovering over the button to blow up a group of PCs at one point). This is not normal behaviour for me at all and I've resisted it, but I take it that the very fact that it's happening is a sign that nothing's going on that I'm interested in. It's not just me, either. And yet, people continue to play. Amazing. One fellow sits there week after week doing almost nothing (and being given almost nothing to do).

Generally speaking, the game appears to be incoherent or poorly-realised Sim. I'd say that a good half of our three-hour sessions are taken up by discussion of the SW universe and canon. But it certainly doesn't feel like Star Wars. There's some Gamism going on — good tactics are cheered and effective character builds are given respect. But the challenges are few and far between, and there is a lot of lip-service paid to 'roleplaying' (I was told at the start that 'We don't use the system much'). Narrativism in the Forge sense is absent as far as I can tell — the 'roleplaying' consists entirely of the IC acting I mentioned. There are no real thematic choices.

So exactly what's going on here? I find the game quite hard to put into words, but if people here are interested enough to discuss it, I would love to get a closer analysis. Is it just habit that keeps these people playing? Why, despite the fact that I'm bored, are my contributions welcomed? Is there any significance to the fact that most of these people play together in LARPs?

"The fool learns from his own mistakes, the wise man learns from others'."

[Darren Hill]

I'm certainly interested in the analysis. I know of a group like this.
The group I run on Mondays doesn't show this behaviour. All of these players belong to a group on Sundays that does something very much like you describe, and on the rare occasions I'm not GM on Mondays, it tends to go like this too.
Monday: A group of 6, 3 of which are in the Sunday group.
Sunday: a group of 5, 3 of which are in the Monday group (obviously)

ISTR a syndrome recognised on the boards, where over time a group is disatisfied with play by the rules, and gradually drifts towards systemless play, especially a group that has been together a long time. That's part of what goes on with the Sunday group - what causes that again?
Also, there's a problem with the main Sunday GM, in that a) he doesn't prepare, b) he has a very poor attention span - they compensate for not having anything ready by siezing any opportunity for and covertly encouraging out-of-game discussions - not the healthy sort, but the sort that derail play in a bad way.
He also tends to run games using systems he doesn't actually like. He likes superheroes, so he naturally runs Champions, but the heroes never get into fights or use the system much for anything (a BIG frustration for one of the players) - when they do get into an action scene, he doesn't bother with the turn sequence, and narrates a lot of stuff. In D&D3, the other big game, he similarly bypasses the system.
Does this sort of thing go on in your Star Wars game?

[droog]

I'm not sure. I recall that when I asked the GM (Megan) whether she'd ever played with the WEG system, she said 'Yes, but this is better.' Nobody has expressed outright dissatisfaction with the rules, and a couple of people seem quite expert with them. They're just rarely used.

While I've seen Megan prepping half an hour before the game, she usually seems to have enough prep--in a sense. The side discussions go on when she is occupied with one or two players (ie nobody is very much engaged with anybody else's sub-plot).

There are seven players involved, some of whom get sub -plots more regularly than others. Mind you, the sub-plots are not at all character-based; they are simple portions of the main plot (eg someone must go to a certain bar etc). The dreaded question 'Is there anything you want to do?' comes up frequently.

[Silmenume]

Hey droog!

I suffered through a situation like yours for yeeeears.  When the "campaign" started it was when 2E was just coming out.  There were new supplements (new things to learn and discover) with the rich heady air of lots of new "possibilities."  The problem was that we were completely deprotagonized.  Nothing we did really affected much of anything (the "plot" was going to proceed along the GM's path virtually no matter what we did) with the added insult that conflicts were as scarce as a politician's integrity.  So we had few opportunities to address conflict (make effective decisions) and even then our decisions were almost without substantial or noticeable effect.  Finally when a combat did pop up the pacing was glaaaaaaaaaaaacial.  So the original promise of "possibilities" eventually faded away as the game ground relentlessly on with players reading during the game, having lots of outside conversations (almost all of them not game related), playing "magic", knitting, drawing while all we could effectively do was add color.  So I would show up, find a space on the floor and basically doze off with an ear half tuned for something that might require attention.  There was a fair amount of social interaction, but not much game action.

Why did I stay?  Routine I guess.  About a year before I dropped out a friend of mine found this unbelievably awesome game and he begged me for a year to go to that game with him.  But I always demurred and sleepwalked my way to, through and fro.  Finally when the attendance began to fall and thus the variety of social interaction declined with the decrease in player I tried that "new" game my friend was telling me about.  That was seven years ago and I never turned back.  That "new" game is the one and only game I play now and it still rocks my planet.  I can't play or even endure sitting at a game like you described anymore...and I'm not the only one in my group that feels that way.  Virtually every player that became a core member of our group eventually stopped playing other "sim" games.  We actually lament that because our gaming schedule is so inconsistent and it would be nice to find a "fix" elsewhere.  One player still will happily join an openly gamist venue, but not if it conflicted with our "sim" game.

I have often wondered, in retrospect, why I locked myself into a very frustrating game.  What was the draw?  Some of it was based in my personality.  But part of it was my previous gaming experiences.  Up to and including the penultimate gaming group I had never had a really enjoyable experience.  Actually it was much like Ron described in one of his essays about the rare flickering hope that is mostly or nearly consistently unmet.  I guess I didn't believe that there could actually be a fun Role-playing experience.  So these people I gamed with were friends with whom I could see on a stable basis while the regularity of the game substituted for much desired structure in my life at the time.

However, the strongest reason that I convinced myself to continue in that game with was duty.  I felt that if I left the game that I would be somehow be making a negative comment on the skill of our GM.  We became friends because he was GMing on a set and I wondered over saw what he was doing and then expressed a common interest.  What was a root though was that I was afraid that it would somehow undermine our friendship.  Why was that an issue?  Years later I discovered that he has a Narcissist personality disorder and that there was never really a friendship.  So my poorly understood unease about leaving having an impact on our relationship was sound.  See...we'd go out and do things but while he was exceptionally social he was a closed book.  We all just wrote off his peculiarities as that he was shallow and self-absorbed, being an actor type, but ultimately it turned out that he really didn't have a functioning ego/personality.  Thus leaving the game would have affected our relationship as that was the underpinning.  However, as it turned out there was nothing to lose.  He was an emotional vampire who thrived on, nay, required attention (as a junky needs heroin) to function as a person and ran his game to bring in a captive audience.  So he'd call us players and send out emails to pull us in and be all personable when we were at his game, but he gave nothing – including allowing us effective input into the game.  We were "played" one end and given nothing in return.

Even now, as I think about it, his NPC's would do the most emotionally irrational and inconsistent things.  IOW his NPC's weren't emotionally logical – they didn't make sense.  By way of analogy something akin to having an NPC who as a parent be virtually unaffected by the death of a child – and it was not because the NPC was evil or justified in this response in any way.  He was to emotional situations as a colorblind person is to color or a musician who is tone-deaf.  We'd get these weird agglomerations for NPC personalities that weren't exactly flat (more like one trick ponies) but slightly discomfittingly emotionally inconsistent with the events that were unfolding.  It was like he vaguely felt that "something emotive" should be happening yet his timing and execution were not quite random, but functioned at low comprehension of how "others" feel or react.  Up reflection it seemed like he was stretching beyond his own understanding of how other people felt and thought and thus it felt clumsy at best and eerie at worst.  Though I do see that most of his NPC's were much like himself – they'd have a big garish splash of "personality" while there was nothing underneath other than this something that you couldn't quite put your finger on that was slightly offsetting.  (The NPC's never evolved in any way!  Hmmmm...)

Sorry, I think this has drifted out of the territory you were interested in.  If there is something helps or you are curious about let me know.

[GB Steve]

I played a similar game to your experiences at Origins. After several excellent games of Call of Cthulhu, which, whilst there was plot, allowed for meaningful character interaction, choices and moral dilemmas, I made the mistake of trying a game of Vampire because I thought I'd like to give the new WoD system a run out.

Much of the game was interupted for tales of "how cool my home PC is", even by the GM, or lines such as "once I rolled 28 dice!" Even stranger this was interspersed with claims of hating powergamers and people who don't engage with the story. Much of the gaming was third person, which is not necessarily bad, but which lead to confusion when I tried to talk in character to other PCs or NPCs. The railroading was so complete that anytime we tried to move away from the plot a sniper shot an NPC. It was pretty depressing.

However many people seem to be really into it and claimed to have really enjoyed the game. So how could this be when I thought it was so useless?

Much of it, I guess is down to expectations. In my experience of conventions there are many undemanding gamers who are quite happy with this kind of fare. It's a kind of PC gaming, or perhaps more like Fighting Fantasy, where player choices aren't so much about decisions for their character or the story but whether they survive the current piece of plot or not. It doesn't require engagement or effort and is pretty similar to my experiences with computer games. Your games are for consumption rather than egagement.

You could always try to change your groups to different ways of gaming but I suggest you find a different one.

[Larry L.]

relentlessly on with players reading during the game, having lots of outside conversations (almost all of them not game related), playing "magic", knitting, drawing while all we could effectively do was add 

(Emphasis mine.)

Knitting?! I have to say this is the first time I have ever heard of a game so non-engaging that players took to knitting to entertain themselves.

In my old D&D group, the joke for "I'm being completely ignored as a player" was "I'm gonna go stick my head in the microwave!" Uh, I guess you had to be there...

[Lord_Steelhand]

However many people seem to be really into it and claimed to have really enjoyed the game. So how could this be when I thought it was so useless?

Much of it, I guess is down to expectations. <<snip>>  It doesn't require engagement or effort and is pretty similar to my experiences with computer games. Your games are for consumption rather than egagement.

Perhaps this is a component of the enjoyment for these people.  It is similar to a forum where people are expecteed to "roleplay" a particular person.  Kind of an occasionally "in character" chat group.  I think this a lot more common than people would like to beleive, but I do have to say that is may be fun for some of those people.

The lessons of the Forge seem to point to me that there is no wrong way to do it as long as you are having fun.  Much of GNS discussion is intended to select if YOU will enjoy the game.  My advice is that, if the playstyle offends or bores you find or form a group where it doesn't.

The reason so many people drift to - and adhear to - such games even if they are not the core that is having fun is that the whole "find or form a new group" is difficult to do - either because they do not have gaming conatcts or they are stuck in an area with a small gaming community.  I think this alone explains the aimless quality of many games.

It also explains why people select games that people will "show up for" and then ignore the rules or make some house rules substitutions very early in.  The "game" is now just a shorthand in many places for the genre, tone, etc. for a much more freeform game in reality.  I think that is why larger publishers insist on having story arc games now - because they know the game is being discarded quite fast.

Sorry if that is a bit disjointed, but I think all gamers with some years behind them have seen, or been in, this kind of game.  The fact is, these types of games work for some people who want kind of a screen saver style game or a conversation by proxy where the game is just an icebreaking tool for other social interactions.

[droog]

I just want to stress, guys, that I'm not looking for advice on what to do about the situation. I'm there in the spirit of scientific research, and as soon as I'm done, I'm gone.

Okay, so:

Jay says it's a matter of diminished expectations and duty to friends. I can certainly see that in this case. Two of the players are the GM's sister and the sister's boyfriend. These people socialise together and play LARPs together.

Steve says it comes down to an expectation that games are for passive consumption rather than active creativity. Over at Vincent's blog somebody made a comparison between making things wiith Lego and playing with prefabricated play-objects. It seems to me that many kids actually prefer the plastic light-sabres. There are some larger conclusions to be drawn from this, I feel.

Judd says that it's a front for socialising. "So its sort of social. Demented and sad, but social, right?"


I think all of these are true. Unfortunately.

[GB Steve]

There are some larger conclusions to be drawn from this, I feel.

I think the larger conclusion, and YMMV, is that capitalism makes lazy consumers out of us all, unless we care enough to do something about it. The same thing has happened to food. Pork is not something to be cared for and fed for 8 months then slaughtered in the barn, it's something that comes in small microwavable packets from the supermarket which you order on the internet through a weekly standing order. No fuss, no mess, no pain. And why should it not? We all want the easy life don't we? We all want the path of least resistance.

Of course, given that what you get out of a hobby is proportional to how much you put in (as it is with many things), the amount of fun you can get will be less. But then perhaps you can't handle that much fun anymore and have lowered your expectations? "It passes the time of day, I don't have to make any difficult decisions or agonise over anything. I don't want that kind of pain" (which incidentally is why I stopped at Civ I, the others are too much like hard work). Or perhaps you've never known anything else.

[Thought I'd give the glow a go, it's a bit garish and I'm not sure what the third parameter does]

[Jaik]

The games go like this: we sit around and wait for the GM to throw us the latest development in the plot, to which we then react. About once a session, we get a fight of some sort. Meanwhile, people either chat amongst themselves or indulge in first-person acting scenes. Do you know what I mean by the last? People make up dialogue in character, none of which seems to serve any purpose except for saying eg 'this is how a Gungan speaks'. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's excruciating. This behaviour seems to be expected and normal among the group. It seems to be almost the only input we have apart from reacting to the GMs plot. I'm pretty sure that my input (of this sort) is well-received and appreciated—while at the same time I find it tedious.

This is what a game "should" look like.  That is, if a game is run according to the "conventional wisdom" of writing your plot for the players to run through (but not alter) and throwing in a fight or two each session because, hey, every session needs a combat, right?  And as far as I can tell, what you describe is what most people would describe as good roleplaying (as differentiated from the badwrongfun for "roll-playing").  It sounds like a pretty standard game.  If I'd never found the Forge, I'd probably nod my head and say "Yup, sounds like my game.  What does this guy want?  Sounds like a normal game to me."

Sure, it sounds  a little sarcastic, but I think that this is what a lot of gamers EXPECT from a game.  I mean, what other way is there?  All the "How to GM" chapters say to do it that way.  All the "How to be a Player" chapters say to do it that way.  What's the matter with you?  You don't like to have badwrongfun, do you?

[Adam Dray]

Knitting?! I have to say this is the first time I have ever heard of a game so non-engaging that players took to knitting to entertain themselves.

I have a player who routinely knits during games. It's one of those idle-hands things she does and she manages to stay fully engaged in the game, so I try not to get too stressed about it. It bothered me at first, but I talked to her about it and she explained that it doesn't distract her from the game at all so I tried it out and it worked fine.

[Lord_Steelhand]

I have a player who routinely knits during games.

I think I speak for everyone when I ask: "Does she knit game-related things like mini-cozies or character heraldries?" <grin>

I think that sort of non-distracting thing is not a bad idea, as a life-long fidget.  It would be cool to have a new dice-bag at the end of each game or a scarf from the Empire of Vardreen (or whatnot).  <double grin>

Slighly right of topic, that is why I don't in any way mind my pal who draws gamescenes and NPCs during play and why I desperately wish I knew a musical composer who would write background music and themes for my games.  When such idle work is put to game use, it triples the experience for me.  I myself build paper models and minatures on occasion related to my games, or make fancy prop dicuments for the same reasons.  Tangible items make the game that much better, if they are handled right.

Creative people are nice, but craftsmen ROCK!

[droog]

I think the larger conclusion, and YMMV, is that capitalism makes lazy consumers out of us all, unless we care enough to do something about it.

My M doesn't V at all. That was my line of thought exactly. That would perhaps explain why my own poor contributions are received well. I'm pretty good with a quip and a funny voice; thus, the other players are consuming my abilities hungrily. I don't need to do much at all--address premise, dream on or step up. A one-liner will do.

[droog]

Sure, it sounds  a little sarcastic, but I think that this is what a lot of gamers EXPECT from a game.  I mean, what other way is there?  All the "How to GM" chapters say to do it that way.  All the "How to be a Player" chapters say to do it that way.  What's the matter with you?  You don't like to have badwrongfun, do you?

Apparently I do. You know, I'm not really into Gamism (I suspect it's because I'm not very good at it). But it would still be preferrable to what we get. And the d20 system seems quite suitable for it. That, however, would be 'roll-playing', and that's just not on.

[Adam Cerling]

If these players participate in Mind's Eye Theater LARPs, perhaps my experience in such games can suggest a cause behind their behavior.

MET Larps have many players and few GMs, but GMs still "control the world," so to speak. Therefore, if you are to enjoy yourself at a MET LARP, your chief means of entertainment must be your interaction with the other players, not your impact on the big-picture Setting or Situation. That's why good acting is prized: it makes your interaction with other players more colorful.

In the best of MET LARPs, the GM is barely needed: all the interest comes from the changes to Character and Situation that arise out of this social interaction. It's a grand soap opera.

In the worst of MET LARPs, this social interaction isn't very interesting. It just passes the time until the GM drops by like a stranger on the doorstep to peddle some plot. The players pursue that plot until its energy is gone, at which time the GM withdraws to do the same to a different group of players, leaving the rest to return to their social interaction.

Your Star Wars game sounds a lot like a fraction of a MET LARP. If there were more players, with factions and loyalties and grudges to trade amongst themselves, all the "acting" you see might actually have an effect on Character and Situation. As it is, there are too few players for politics, so they're stuck in equilibrium. The GM, meanwhile, is mostly a stranger.