the psychology of getting enjoyment from play (split)

[Bankuei]

Hi guys,

I agree with you both on the general unwillingness to analyze and its various reasons.  Mainly, my point deals with folks who want to analyze("Story", "Role vs. Roll playing" and whatever else you pull out) but cannot because they are unable to connect real experienced play to analyze the patterns of behavior.  All I can say is, "Right on!", and that the vocabulary is a secondary aspect of being unable to analyze the situation to begin with.

Chris

[M. J. Young]

Jack, I love the line about going with the flow of stagnant water.

What are we really debating here? Clearly, there are many people who have issues with their games who don't want to bring them up because they might offend someone or make matters worse. There are also people who have problems with their games that they are unable to explain because they don't understand the theory.

I've never had those kinds of problems with my games, really. I usually flow with the game. I have had some game problems over the years, but usually manage to contain them one way or another (such as players trying to create ubercharacters so they can overrun anything that hits them, for which obviously the answer is providing tougher challenges than they imagined). However, it's clear to me that over all those years I was shifting between three modes of play, and perhaps sometimes not enjoying a game so much because it seemed to want me to play in one mode but set me up to play in another. (My experiences with Gamma World come to mind; I'm actually not sure what it was trying to do, but it always seemed to be about living in a world in which survival was impossible, and yet surviving. I was always upset when my characters died, but almost as constantly surprised when they lived. It probably would have been very interesting as simulationist play, but the scenarios kept pushing toward gamism.)

Having the vocabulary, as it often does, made it possible to talk about and even to think about different modes of play in ways I had not done before. Language is a real factor in our ability to perceive and understand. I've lived in temperate zone regions with a lot of snow all my life, and seen a lot of snow in that time. I'm quite aware that the Innuit language has eight distinct words for different kinds of snow; my language does not--I don't even have the linguistic legerdemain of being a skier in this regard. I know it must be different, because Innuits and skiers perceive the difference, but to me it's all just snow, even though I've built forts and snowmen and snowballs and I've shoveled and cleared more than I'd ever wanted and been out in more than a few snowstorms. Now, if I had the vocabulary, I could start to say, "Ah, this is packed powder", or whatever. Without the vocabularly, all I can really say is, "This is somehow different from that." Then either I devise my own vocabulary and try to work out the differences myself, or I wind up with nebulous ideas of things that are not the same but are called the same thing by everyone I know.

So having the vocabularly helps analyze the problems; but you have to be willing to consider the matter, too, or you get nowhere.

Aside to John Kim--one thing that might work in your situation is starting a character journal. Go back to the beginning of the current campaign and write it from the character's perspective. (Lots of formats work--letters home, reports to superiors, diaries are just the most common.) Have it reflect whatever it was that ever interested or excited the character, and let it follow the progress through the present situation. If it starts to say, "More slogging through the mud today; not much to write, really. Maybe things will pick up tomorrow", that's good. Share the history with the group, as an account of the adventures so far. One of the things I think is very valuable about character journals is that they inherently reflect the things the player enjoyed, and by letting the referee see what has happened that you did like you can help him figure out how to do more of that without actually pressuring him.

--M. J. Young

[jdagna]

There's a key element in the inability to discuss issues that I haven't seen raised: the old GM screen concept.

There's this idea that the GM should have secrets from the players who then no longer know exactly what's happening.  In such a scenario, everyone's memories of the game are always going to be different - the GM was holding his breath to see if the PCs would wake a hidden party of orcs, the players were just being routinely cautious and wishing something would happen.  Nobody wanted to say anything about what they really wanted because it would have been "out of character."

Secrecy and differing perceptions are useful elements in functional play, so aren't inherently bad, but they ensures that the players and the GM are essentially having different experiences at the same time.  In a dysfunctional group, they'll drive the wedge that much deeper.

But this in-game secrecy often goes over into out of game stuff too.  I've known GMs who didn't feel comfortable just asking the players what they wanted to do even as he writhed in agony over to how to get them interested.  Likewise, some players withhold criticism or input precisely because they don't know what happened on the other side of the screen - maybe that lousy anticlimactic adventure was due to a couple of die rolls and if so, they may feel that they shouldn't really complain.

Anyway, the whole thing boils down to the usual cure for dysfunction of any type: admitting the problem, then sitting down and talking about solutions.  GNS is a useful tool in the discussion but the discussion is rarely the hard part in breaking dysfunctional patterns.

[ADGBoss]

There are lots of issues being raised here.  Fundamnetally though, what we talk about AFTER play is going to be colored by WHY we are playing in the first place.

Here are a couple reasons why one would want to Role Play

1) They want to test themselves intellectually and creatively (Which is my personal theory where ALL game play comes from: Not Fun but Civilized Conflict)

2) They are trying to create an entertainment / artform

3) They are trying (and maybe failing ) to socialize and have fun

4) They are testing a game for possible play/publication.


Now in the first three, there is no reason whay anyone would bother to accurately remember what went on unless something spectacualrly good or bad occured.  Which is typical of most stimuli.  Players are in general not the least bit interested in theory or only peripherally so.  

So with nothing other then the At This Moment Conflict / Tension of gaming, there is no need for them to cognitivley put more effort into remembering the game.

I would also like to address Jack's assertion that most people do not know how to Role Play.   Well how does one Role Play Correctly? You could be correct but in the scheme of things does it matter?

We try to evaluate Gamers in an attempt to Understand what they want and to play with people we have compatible styles with.  However, from a design stand point its important to know how their playing to entice them to our game BUT ultimately if I am selling a game, do I care that 50% of the players do it wrong?

If you could, can you extrapolate on that a bit

Sean

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

Just would like to reiterate for clarity:

Memory is not the issue here.

Let's drop all post-game memories for the moment.  Let's just talk about being able to analyze what is happening in play, at this moment(with according short term memory to comprehend it).  

What I am saying, is, that many folks could, understand the definition of Gamism, but during play, may not be able to identify a gamist decision on their own part, or that of other players.  Or identify when tensions arise the source of it.  Or of power manuevering by players(John Barters) or the GM(Oops, critical fumble, stab yourself in the eye!).  

Not because of memory.  Because of denial and dysfunction.  Dig?

I'm not talking about folks who have no interest in theory.  They play however, that's fine.  I'm talking about people who decide they want to take the effort, read the essays, try to comprehend the essays, and still cannot make real world, actual play connnections.

Anyway, the whole thing boils down to the usual cure for dysfunction of any type: admitting the problem, then sitting down and talking about solutions. GNS is a useful tool in the discussion but the discussion is rarely the hard part in breaking dysfunctional patterns.

Right, which is all that I'm saying.   I'm pointing out a common problem in order to assist folks in recognizing it, and pointing out a symptom of dysfunction- Inability to connect theory to play.

I'm saying the same sort of dysfunction that pervades a great deal of the world, all screws with our gaming, screws with our fun.  For anyone interested in "having more fun", "having better fun", or "improving their gaming"(based on those two previous criteria), the ability to analyze the source of un-fun, is severely hampered by the inability to recognize what is happening in play.

Chris

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I would also like to address Jack's assertion that most people do not know how to Role Play.   Well how does one Role Play Correctly? You could be correct but in the scheme of things does it matter?

We try to evaluate Gamers in an attempt to Understand what they want and to play with people we have compatible styles with.  However, from a design stand point its important to know how their playing to entice them to our game BUT ultimately if I am selling a game, do I care that 50% of the players do it wrong?

If you could, can you extrapolate on that a bit

Hey, Sean.

My reasoning goes something like this:
Most people, at least I did and most of the people I know learned to play an RPG by joining a group and through playing with that group, they learn not only the rules of the game but a whole mess of habit about roleplaying and How a Roleplaying Game Is Supposed To Be Played.(TM) This is not necessarily bad nor "doing it wrong" so much as synedoche, being unaware of the full possibilities of what an RPG could be apart from what they already know.

I can see this as a problem for someone familiar with only D&D picking up Sorcerer or The Pool or Universalis or whatever. They think they already know how to play an RPG so they try to play those games like the one they know, regardless of how carefully it is explained in the text, and it doesn't work. Sorcerer combat falls flat even if you do add a map-based positioning system. Of course it does. It was not meant to play like that.

My point is, relating it to your question, I believe that if you are selling a RPG and 50% or more of your potential audience does not realize they would enjoy it or thinks that they would not based purely on misunderstanding their own preferences in play, that's something to care about.

[ADGBoss]

What your saying does make sense. To recognize the problem you have to recognize what the hell is going on in the first place.

So what is going ion? If someone cannot recognize What is Happening in the light of a certan Theory why is the problem necassarily with their understanding of Play or Theory?  It could be that the problem exists with the theory itself. If the Theory is flawed in some way, then Play will not be recognizable within the context of that Theory.

It may have nothing to do with Denial OR Dysfunction.  However, if we assume that lets say GNS is broad enough in spectrum to allow a fairly good idea of what happened, it still may not answer the WHY?  Can the theory answer the WHY even if it answers the WHAT?

Just a thought


Sean

[ADGBoss]

Hey, Sean.

My reasoning goes something like this:
Most people, at least I did and most of the people I know learned to play an RPG by joining a group and through playing with that group, they learn not only the rules of the game but a whole mess of habit about roleplaying and How a Roleplaying Game Is Supposed To Be Played.(TM) This is not necessarily bad nor "doing it wrong" so much as synedoche, being unaware of the full possibilities of what an RPG could be apart from what they already know.

I can see this as a problem for someone familiar with only D&D picking up Sorcerer or The Pool or Universalis or whatever. They think they already know how to play an RPG so they try to play those games like the one they know, regardless of how carefully it is explained in the text, and it doesn't work. Sorcerer combat falls flat even if you do add a map-based positioning system. Of course it does. It was not meant to play like that.

My point is, relating it to your question, I believe that if you are selling a RPG and 50% or more of your potential audience does not realize they would enjoy it or thinks that they would not based purely on misunderstanding their own preferences in play, that's something to care about.

Ah ok then yes I do agree with you on this.  There is no one way to play but people who learned a certain way tend to stick with that mode of play despite the game they are using, not trying out different things depending on the game they are playing.  All RPGs play the same, which is not the case...


Thanks

Sean

[Bankuei]

Hi Sean,

Right, but in order to verify, correct, dismiss, or find flaws in a theory, you need to come back to observation in play.  I'm not saying that GNS is the end all be all of judging dysfunction, what I'm saying is that folks caught in dysfunction or denial will be unable to make any real valid observation into how GNS works, or fails to work.

Now if we're talking about the Why of things, remember, like a two year old, this thing can go infinitely deep.  I'd say that a major issue with answering Why is that we can be talking about issues on the GNS level, on the Explorative level, all the way up to the Social box.

But dysfunction first teaches folks to not ask Why in the first place.  Again, this isn't about whether the theory is sound or not, this is about being unable to even get that far because we're talking about conditioning that prevents folks from acknowledging actual play.

Chris

(edited after re-reading Sean's post again, realizing I jumped the gun)

[ADGBoss]

Hi Sean,

Right, but in order to verify, correct, dismiss, or find flaws in a theory, you need to come back to observation in play.  I'm not saying that GNS is the end all be all of judging dysfunction, what I'm saying is that folks caught in dysfunction or denial will be unable to make any real valid observation into how GNS works, or fails to work.

Now if we're talking about the Why of things, remember, like a two year old, this thing can go infinitely deep.  I'd say that a major issue with answering Why is that we can be talking about issues on the GNS level, on the Explorative level, all the way up to the Social box.

But dysfunction first teaches folks to not ask Why in the first place.  Again, this isn't about whether the theory is sound or not, this is about being unable to even get that far because we're talking about conditioning that prevents folks from acknowledging actual play.

Chris

(edited after re-reading Sean's post again, realizing I jumped the gun)

Ok let me see.  What your saying is that WHY they are doing what they are doing cannot be discussed until they really do know WHAT they are doing.

Ok if that it I think I get that.  So where is the Failure of What? If I read you right, the Dysfunction is that people are not realising there is a problem in the first place. OR Perhaps not knowing how to approach the problem.

Is the Dysfunction a failure of the Emprical process? Are people just not being good scientists about it. Asking themselves questions and brining up evidence and data to try and answer those questions.  

OR

Is it apathy? "Well something is wrong but whatever, the nachos were great and now I can say I played in a Narrative game even if it was not for nor what I expected?"  or a combination of the two.

Hope I am getting it a bit better now.

Sean

[Bankuei]

Hi Sean,

I think you're on the right track here, but let me put it like this:

For the folks who don't care...that's fine.  Its like someone who plays basketball on the weekend.  He doesn't really care about putting in a lot of effort and training to get better, and he doesn't need to.  If he's having fun, cool.

But some people aren't happy with the way they play.  So they decide to look deeper, to make that commitment to improve their game(for rpgs, that means finding out what is fun for you, personally).  That's cool too.  But in order to improve that game, they need to recognize what level they're at right now, and what needs work.

These are the folks who need to pay attention to this.  You can't expect to get better if you aren't willing to take the effort to look at what's holding you back.  The folks who don't care, that's fine.  For the folks who do care, they need to be honest with themselves.  You can't improve your game by talking about "How it should be" or hypotheticals.  You need to see what you're doing right, and what you're doing wrong in play, and assess it honestly.

Now, don't get me wrong here.  No one style of play is better than another.  But if I decide A style if fun, and keep playing B style, and wonder why I'm not having fun, who's responsible for that?  I have to honestly recognize what I'm doing, and what I'm going for, in order to make them match up.

I wouldn't say that people are being bad scientists, as much as that they're simply conditioned to not even ask questions or recognize actual play events("Jim was an asshole about the rules again" vs. "Mindor killed a dragon!")

Does anyone have some input as to dysfunctional groups turned functional?  Or observations about dysfunction in play?  Otherwise I don't think I have much more to contribute to this thread.

Thanks,

Chris