The most enjoyable experiences I've had [LONG]

[contracycle]

Sorry to jump in to the OT discussion but I propose rules like:
The player of any Klingon character must threaten violence against another person at least once per game session.

This is an in-game act with an in-game raitonale, but it is organised and compelled in game terms.

I agree that the solipsistic gaming approach is unhealthy, even if only because it risks jarring play.  But I think the solution has to be systematic; the appropriate contributions have to be established and publicised by some means.

[thwaak]

I thought so. Some of the first games I ever ran had nar like themes in them. But after the first session I'd poured my heart out. It wasn't so much the prep workload - hell, I spend ages here on the forge typing away. It was pouring my heart out - it's not something you can do just cause there's a game on saturday.

What do you think would happen to that campaign if the other players were able to pour their hearts out too, into the game, thus taking the prep weight off you? Assuming they'd want to, of course - in my games one of the reasons I got drained was because the players were all take and no give (then complained how dull my games got).

Actually they did pour it all out. There was one person who flaked a lot, but the other 4 players were solid, and rearranged their social life to make it to game night. Often, I was merely reacting to them..as if I was the player, and they the GM's. They had invested so much into their characters and the whole thing took on a life of it's own.

Still, I get your point. Many players just sit there waiting to be entertained.

[cydmab]

This is my first post.

I also find myself to have very different goals as a player or as a GM in RPGs. As a player:

1. My primary goal as a player is to "get into character" "channel the character" "stay in character" "roleplay." By doing this I experience a kind of loss of self - it's very... unique state of consciousness that I enjoy very much.

2. Being in character is sortof a binary experience. I've either achieved it, or I haven't.

3. The more distractions, ooc considerations, etc. that happen, the harder it is to stay in character.

Because of 2 and 3, there is a threshold of how many distractions I can put up with before losing the in-character state. The first few distractions I can handle with no problem, but after a point the state collapses.

So does this mean I must play selfishly? Yes and no. I am more than happy to put a few restrictions on my behavior - a few won't break my immersion, and there are some restrictions (see below) which are just critically essential to a good game. But after a point, if too many burdens are put on me, my sense of immersion will break down completely.

A specific example of break-down comes when I am asked to do rules lookups, or worse, calls, as a player. Oftentimes I'm the most experienced with the rules at the table, and the GM will ask me for a rule. This is bad, because it snaps me out of my immersion. I'm tempted to instruct GMs here-on to never ask me about rules. I already make a point of trying to never correct a GM on an obviously bad rules call, even if they would want me to. (obviously if I'm with a GM that wouldn't want me to make a rules correction, I wouldn't.)

As mentioned above, however, I can abide by some restrictions on my play:

1. Never kill/betray another PC unless I am absolutely sure the PLAYER behind that PC would be cool with it.
2. Never totally derail/disrupt the plot in such a way that I bring the story to a screeching halt.
3. If possible, try to bring as many other players into the action as possible. For example, if Alfred is talking to the GM, and I and Bob are sitting idly by, start roleplaying with Bob to keep us both engaged and in-character (even if chatting in the context of the story seems inappropriate)
4. Don't Block (in the improvisational acting sense)
5. Don't hog the spotlight - instead, try to empower other players

Etc. Basic stuff. The little things that don't take too much effort but can make a game run much better. (BTW I agree that rules-of-thumb really should be put in introductions of all RPGs for new players.)

However, at some point, I've got to focus on just staying in character. If you asked me to spend every moment concerned about the welfare of other players as a player, my immersion will break down completely. And this is catastrophic, because that is the primary reason why I play the game.

Now as a GM, I just don't have the Mad Roleplayin Skillz it takes to shift from character to character, make rules calls, set the scene, and stay immersed. It's hopeless for me. So I give up, and focus on making the players happy. In a sense, my players get to roleplay, but I don't. I do work. When I portray NPCs, my players usually tell me I do a fine job at being convincing to them, but I gain no immersion enjoyment from doing it. Since immersion is impossible, I try to extract some joy from telling a story, but most of my fun as a GM comes from altruistic/voyeuristic experience of making my friends happy.

What does this mean for taste in games? As a player, I want the game to be 100% completely invisible. I want to never touch a rule book - preferably I never want to touch a die or a plot-point chit. I just want to roleplay. If there are any mechanics, shunt it all onto the GM.

But as a GM, I sorta want to spread out the work to players. GMing can be hard and draining. Furthermore, the story can benefit from the input of players. and seeing the story evolve is about the only thing I get out of the GMing experience. So the perfect game for me as a GM would find ways to somehow move decision making authority to the players, hopefully without causing them to break out of character.

(And as a matter of personal taste, I have zero interest in the game aspect of a paper and pencil RPG)

[Valamir]

What does this mean for taste in games? As a player, I want the game to be 100% completely invisible. I want to never touch a rule book - preferably I never want to touch a die or a plot-point chit. I just want to roleplay. If there are any mechanics, shunt it all onto the GM.

But as a GM, I sorta want to spread out the work to players. GMing can be hard and draining. Furthermore, the story can benefit from the input of players. and seeing the story evolve is about the only thing I get out of the GMing experience. .

How do you reconcile the double standard?

As a GM you want the players to shoulder some of the burden for you...but as a player you're unwilling to shoulder any of it yourself...

...that doesn't sound entirely kosher to me

However, at some point, I've got to focus on just staying in character. If you asked me to spend every moment concerned about the welfare of other players as a player, my immersion will break down completely. And this is catastrophic, because that is the primary reason why I play the game.

I'll save my obervations on this for another thread if you'd care to start one, or spare you if you'd rather not. 

[cydmab]

What does this mean for taste in games? As a player, I want the game to be 100% completely invisible. I want to never touch a rule book - preferably I never want to touch a die or a plot-point chit. I just want to roleplay. If there are any mechanics, shunt it all onto the GM.

But as a GM, I sorta want to spread out the work to players. GMing can be hard and draining. Furthermore, the story can benefit from the input of players. and seeing the story evolve is about the only thing I get out of the GMing experience. .

How do you reconcile the double standard?

As a GM you want the players to shoulder some of the burden for you...but as a player you're unwilling to shoulder any of it yourself...

...that doesn't sound entirely kosher to me

My point is a game that makes me as a GM happy is not the perfect game to make me as a player happy. I suspect that might be true for alot of people. This is a positive claim, not a normative one. Perhaps my tastes make me a bad person, but they are nevertheless my tastes.

Although the normative statement "I ought to like the same game as a GM as a player" is probally both too weak and too strong. It's too weak because the GM should take into account what his players in fact like, not what hypothetical clones of him might like. GMs run games for other people, not for their clones. If, for example, I run a game for a bunch of people who, unlike me, when playing love to make setting decisions on the fly and play supporting characters at the same time as their primary character, then a game that shunts responsibility to the players makes everybody happy.

It's too strong because GM might overall have more (or less) fun then the players. If, for example, the GM tends to have less fun than the players, then it might be fair (from a maximize the welfare of the worst off person perspective) to pick a system that favors the GM over the players.

[colin roald]

But as a GM, I sorta want to spread out the work to players. GMing can be hard and draining. Furthermore, the story can benefit from the input of players. and seeing the story evolve is about the only thing I get out of the GMing experience. So the perfect game for me as a GM would find ways to somehow move decision making authority to the players, hopefully without causing them to break out of character.

What is your name, cydmab?

As GM, do you care if your players are 100% in character?  (In the immersive sense you're talking about.) 

Do you generally play with other people with the same immersive Sim agenda you have?  Do you have someone who loves to GM, or is it dished out in rotation like a chore?

Do you care about using your character to push the plot?  Author stance seems to me to be incompatible with what sounds like your pure Sim agenda, but I don't want to make assumptions.

It's interesting -- I don't think you and I would get along as players in the same game at all.  I don't mean that to cast aspersions, but in the sense that I think my play style, which includes lots of third person commentary and kibbitzing, would drive you crazy.  And possibly your purism vice versa.  I'm a crappy actor, and I don't generally get into that part of the game more than a few minutes at a time.

I might be able to GM for you, though.  Hard to say.

[cydmab]

But as a GM, I sorta want to spread out the work to players. GMing can be hard and draining. Furthermore, the story can benefit from the input of players. and seeing the story evolve is about the only thing I get out of the GMing experience. So the perfect game for me as a GM would find ways to somehow move decision making authority to the players, hopefully without causing them to break out of character.

What is your name, cydmab?

As GM, do you care if your players are 100% in character?  (In the immersive sense you're talking about.) 

Do you generally play with other people with the same immersive Sim agenda you have?  Do you have someone who loves to GM, or is it dished out in rotation like a chore?

Do you care about using your character to push the plot?  Author stance seems to me to be incompatible with what sounds like your pure Sim agenda, but I don't want to make assumptions.

It's interesting -- I don't think you and I would get along as players in the same game at all.  I don't mean that to cast aspersions, but in the sense that I think my play style, which includes lots of third person commentary and kibbitzing, would drive you crazy.  And possibly your purism vice versa.  I'm a crappy actor, and I don't generally get into that part of the game more than a few minutes at a time.

I might be able to GM for you, though.  Hard to say.

Sorry, name is William.

If I'm GMing, I don't care for my own sake per say if people aren't immersed, because my immersion is already doomed if I'm GMing. I do care if all my players except one are in hard-core immersion mode, and the other person is being extremely ooc, since that's typically a bad dynamic. that is, the uncooperative person tends to make all the other players unhappy, and as a GM, it's my function to make everyone happy. So I'll try my best to figure out the root cause of the odd-person's issue and correct it. My group is heavily on the immersion side (although they aren't my clones, because they care about gaming too) so this only happens when one person is being very lazy, or is being distracted by outside things, or we have a new player. I'll try to identify the root cause and administer a correction as appropriate - lazy people get moral suasion, outside distractions get crushed or the player is asked to leave till its resolved, and new players generally get extra training and encouragement from all of us.

If everyone is out of immersion mode, then I go with the flow.

As far as everyone being sim (in the individual immersion sense - I'm not in the Virtual World sense. I could care less if everything was made up on the fly and the laws of physics change from day to day) it's a good question. I try to know my players needs and wants, but a) people change b) I'm faliable, so it's possible I misjudge people. For example, when 3rd edition d&d came out, I decided to try running a straight up dungeon crawl adventure, and there was alot of expressed interest, and I thought my players would like some mindless gamist fun. It was a catastrophe - people complained there wasn't enough roleplaying and storytelling. They didn't like so much action. That said, one of the most well-recieved rule changes I ever made was to completely abandon all character generation rules. For almost every game I run now I say "Make up your character any way you like - I'll give you some suggested guidelines and check it over to make sure it's not a Mary Sue or otherwise unplayable, but otherwise anything goes." On the other hand, only one other person in the group applies the rule when he GMs.

4 out of 6 of us GM on occasion. The others rarely do it however. Mostly due to lack of confidence. For example, one person runs great games, but he only runs them after he does tremendous prep work, so he rarely has the time - he refuses to run improv games.

Pushing the plot when playing... it's hard to say. There's a wierd social dynamic that discourges me from doing that. That is, since I'm the senior GM, people kinda want to defer to me, but also the other GMs lack confidence, and I don't want to take over their game, risking crushing their confidence. They also don't usually leave alot of openings for it, since they tend to play fairly traditionalist and keep close to the rules. Rulesets we use (D&D and GURPS) don't have good built-in tools for author stance by players, and the other GMs are too cautious to innovate. I have suggested things like "why don't you ignore the rules and let us just do blah automatically" although usually that's for pacing reasons.  Maybe I would take more author stance if circumstances were more permissive.

I can say that I'm much more likely to push plot when my character is not in the scene, or I've been forced out of character by circumstances. If I'm currently in character, I'll only push plot if I can do it while preserving mostly in character status.

Also BETWEEN GAMES I'll push plot and tone and theme like crazy, both by talking with the GM informally between sessions and in character descriptions. On the other hand, I can't think of any examples IN PLAY where I've done ADVANCED story manipulation (like trying to get a major NPC to have more of a character arc, or change/reinforce the mood/theme). These things are just way too hard for me to do and be immersed in a character.

If I'm playing (as opposed to GMing), I do get annoyed if other players break character. I will try of course to help them get back into character. If there's a game I have a high expectation that most of the players will not be in character, I won't play at all unless I have reason to believe the story will be incredible. Everyone likes a good story.

And a question for you: do the players around you encourage you to go into immersion mode? It's a lot easier to submerge oneself into character if everyone else around you is doing it, and (VERY IMPORTANT) they take the time to engage with you in character. I make no claims I'm any good at it myself. Hell, the reason I have special tastes in system as a player is because its hard for me, I need alot of support from other players and lack of distraction from the system to pull it off. If I were some super-roleplayer-god I'd be able to immerse myself in a crowd of munchkin trogledytes.

Or do you simply not enjoy it, even when the opportunity presents itself?

[cydmab]

One other thing, it's possible to be (or at least seem) to be in character, but not in the immersive sense I mean. That is, it's possible to "fake it" enough for story purposes and to be a foil for other players to play off off. I do it all the time as a GM. If I'm being heavily distracted I also do it as a player sometimes. I don't derive much personal satisfaction from being in fake-mode, but its good enough to drive story forward and not distract other players.

Also to be clear, I'm sure all my acting is Ham to the nth extreme. I've never watched myself on videotape to see just how bad it is... and I don't think I ever will because I'd be too scared.