When Players think the GM is trying to kill them...

[Galfraxas]

Hey Everybody,

After reading that last bit, I've decided to give up inciting a change in my group, and just work with what I have. It seems that trying to "cure" them won't happen, so I'll just hope for the best, and maybe they'll change themselves. Thanks to everybody for all the advice. I'll be moving on to other topics now.


Galfraxas

[Ian O'Rourke]

On 2001-10-01 10:15, Ron Edwards wrote:
Tim and everyone,

I'm going to say this one last time. There is no need to "cure" the group that Tim is playing with. They are not sick, not dysfunctional (that I know of), and not "playing wrong."

I have had two groups in my gaming experience that have xferred to me as the GM (from another GM) that have had revelations in terms of gaming enjoyment when they realised the GM was not out to get them, and it was a group storytelling experience. I find if the group (or individuals) want this style of play, or are open to it when they experience it, you pretty much get a reaction straight away.

If you don't, and your meeting resistance, then you should probably match their style, or I'd move on.

Some people believe the any sex is better than no sex argument applies to gaming - I don't.

[xiombarg]

In my experience, if someone happens upon an established group that has been playing Rifts for five years, and IF they express no particular urge to play in any other fashion, then "changing" that group to accord with the newcomer's taste is worse than hopeless - it is presumptuous.

Ron, while I agree with your points -- that a non-Narrativist group is not "sick" or "disfunctional", they know what they like -- I disagree that it's automatically presumptuous to try to move a group in a direction one prefers. Sometimes it might be that the group is playing Rifts (or whatever) beacause that was one of the first RPGs they got into and they've never had access to anything else. Sometimes they're not aware they're *capable* of doing things another way.

I say this because of my personal experience with the group I'm currently with here in Salisbury, MD. Over half the group was part of an established Rifts group not unlike what's been described here. However, when I moved into the area with my odd collection of games, most of which the group had never seen or heard of, since the local game store is more concerned with miniatures and card games than RPGs, I offered them the chance to try a different style of play. I didn't push it on them, but I made it clear what I was interested in as a GM. And they took to it like ducks to water -- now they're playing Over the Edge and Vampire, and are very good at getting in-character. I'd call them more in-genre Simulationist than Narrativist, but still, that's okay with me.

Now, it's important to note I didn't push them and I tried very hard not to be pejorative about their then-current style of play. I didn't talk about GNS or anything, I just ran things my way and watched to see how they took to it. And if they hadn't seemed to "get" it, like the group discussed in this thread, I would have backed off and adapted to their style. But I don't think it was presumptuous of me to try, so long as I didn't get upset if things didn't go my way.

I've found that gamers are always willing to try something new, if you are open to their opinions and aren't pejorative about their preferences, which, I think, is part of the point you've been trying to make, Ron. (This is why I so strongly disagree with the original "Why Gamers Suck" article on the http://www.gamingoutpost.com">Gaming Outpost. It doesn't match my experience, and I've been gaming since 1st edition AD&D.)

There's nothing wrong with trying to institute change -- I think every player and GM has a right to play as close to their own preferences as possible. It's only wrong to try to *force* the change rather than gently introduce it.

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I agree with you. Please note this phrase in the section you quoted:

"and IF they express no particular urge to play in any other fashion"

That's the key. It's the difference between a group (or a member or two) being interested in or ripe for a change, and a group that's better left well alone.

I intentionally left my point vague regarding how people are asked about their role-playing goals, and over what period of time the answer is to be looked for. It might be that the "particular urge" above gets expressed over the period of months or immediately in the first conversation.

In Tim's case (oh, and in passing, Tim, you are a real gentleman to have opened your private gaming up to our public dissection), we are seeing a group that didn't even have that conversation. They just showed up and played. It was very clear from the posts that no "particular urge" to play differently was in evidence.

If I'm not mistaken, just about everyone who's posted to this topic has come to an accord about the issue (or is willing to let it lie). If I'm right, then let's call quits to the topic, and bring up related matters on new threads.

Best,
Ron

[xiombarg]

I intentionally left my point vague regarding how people are asked about their role-playing goals, and over what period of time the answer is to be looked for. It might be that the "particular urge" above gets expressed over the period of months or immediately in the first conversation.

Okay. The "expressed no particular urge" phrasing made me think someone had to say something. The group I'm talking about didn't particularly express a desire to do something new -- I pretty much just offered them a chance to do something different, very informally. Sometimes I think people here at the Forge forget that most roleplayers aren't very formal or even coherent about their preferences. Sometimes you just have to do what Tim did -- run a game and take your lumps if it doesn't work out.

In Tim's case (oh, and in passing, Tim, you are a real gentleman to have opened your private gaming up to our public dissection), we are seeing a group that didn't even have that conversation. They just showed up and played. It was very clear from the posts that no "particular urge" to play differently was in evidence.

The group I'm talking about "showed up and played" as well. It just went better than Tim's session did. Not because I'm a better GM, but because I happened to offer something they were interested in and not doing.

If I'm not mistaken, just about everyone who's posted to this topic has come to an accord about the issue (or is willing to let it lie). If I'm right, then let's call quits to the topic, and bring up related matters on new threads.

Okay. My commentary about informal/formal discussion of play style should probably be in another thread anyway.