ARRGGH! Overcoming players' phobias

[Scripty]

So, I'm having a heck of a time introducing HeroQuest to people out here.

First off, I play regularly in three groups. It's a drain, but I've just never cut back down to two. One group, I run exclusively. I've just been the weekly GM and that's the way it's always been. Formerly, this group played D&D and mostly nothing but. I got them to switch to Mutants & Masterminds. It worked out okay, but I noticed that the same sorts of behaviors were prevalent in M&M as in D&D. Things such as min-maxing, creating lists of powers (not characters), and emphasizing combat over all else.

Noticing the same results across somewhat different systems led me to believe that the group of players were just twinks. But then we played Feng Shui. The entire group dynamic changed. The group approached the game and their characters differently. This led me to consider the system as a contributor to player behavior. At this time, this group is playing in a Feng Shui game (instead of D&D). The choice to drop D&D led to a significant drop in player attendance (from 8-10 to 3-4 on a regular basis). But I, personally, am finding the games more enjoyable and the setup is much more efficient (i.e. I don't spend 1 1/2 on adversaries' stats and 20 minutes on Bangs, I spend 1 1/2 on Bangs and 20 minutes on stats). The players who do show up seem more involved and interested in what's going on.

The second group is pretty all over the board. Whoever runs is whoever runs. Their tastes vary. They have a predilection towards Marvel Super Heroes (TSR's version) but often slide into AD&D or RIFTS from time to time. I have, on occasion, run sessions of Donjon and Over the Edge for them with much success.

Now the third group. The third group is "run" by a singular individual who, for some reason, feels that AD&D is the pinnacle of all rpg design. He resists any game that is not similar in part and parcel to AD&D. The catch is he is extremely narrativist in his approach and almost every single campaign of his in which I have participated has broken down or been abandoned due to his "plotlines" colliding with the rules system of his choice. At some point in the not-so-distant past, I introduced said individual to Mutants & Masterminds. He loved it. Owns it. Runs it, etc. I had discussed my own experiences with the game (in that, ultimately, it breaks down for me in the same way that D&D does).

Now the catch is, group #1 knows that HeroQuest is coming. They (or what is left of them) are generally tolerant and seem to enjoy rules-systems that protagonize them more. Group #2 will most likely play the game once, in six months or so, love it, buy the books, and never play it again. That's sort of their modus operandi. Group #3 is a problem. There's the opportunity for me to run a few demo sessions coming up. This is something I wanted to try and do before I attempted to run HQ with Group #1. Now the "owner" of Group #3 tells me today that he's not interested in HeroQuest at ALL. The other players have been receptive to the idea of a game where your debate skill can be as important as your "Kill and Loot" skill, and also where your relationships actually MEAN something in systemic terms. Group #3's "owner" is entirely xenophobic with new systems however. He's terrified of them. Don't know why, but he is. Hence, he tries to run epic adventures with 1st level D&D characters and then throws his hands up in the air when the party turns out to be more interested in survival than his MacGuffin. No slander on D&D, but being first level it's practically imperative that survival be among your first considerations. Subsequently, his Mutants & Masterminds campaign ground to a halt for the same reasons as every other campaign he's run. Mechanics break his plot and it's over.

His statements are that he's not interested in learning a new system. That he doesn't see how HeroQuest does anything that he can't do with D&D. And that he's not interested in players having a mechanic that encourages participation in the setting. His position is that setting is his realm and that he, as DM, is supposed to use and abuse players' relationships as befits his "plots". If I want to play HeroQuest, I'll have to do it somewhere else.

All of this equals mondo frustration for me. I've played with this group for 2 years or more. They've thoroughly enjoyed every game I've introduced them to in the past (including Mutants & Masterminds). I don't understand the stonewalling on the part of this one individual, especially in terms of his ultimatums. Has anyone else experienced Glorantha-phobia and, if so, does anyone have any suggestions as to how I might work around it?

This has really pushed me a bit far. Group #3's "owner" wants me to run (so he can play and work on his new campaign). The rest of the group is receptive to HeroQuest, with a couple of them even looking forward to it. But Group #3's "owner" is dictating that if it's not D&D, he's going to have someone else run. These guys are friends. I'd hate to ditch on them, but I feel that it's becoming a big waste of my time.

Sorry to rant. Any helpful advice? Any words of encouragement from those who have been in a similar situation in the past?

[Gordon C. Landis]

Just My Opinion -

The "owner" of group #3 needs to understand that he is NOT the owner of the group.  If the group as a whole would like to give HQ a try, the group as a whole gets to do that.  He can either join in, or sit this one out.  If he joins in, hopefully folks can help him over whatever anxieties he has.  If he sits this one out, that's OK - no one is going to stop being his friend over it, and (as I understand you) D&D play with him as GM is going to return after a while.  

His preference shouldn't be allowed to negatively impact everyone else in the group, but it is OK for him to have a preference - he just has to accept the consequences of it.  Losing friends and/or "never playing with these folks again" should NOT be consequences in this situation, but having to sit out the HQ game might be.

That's my quick-read,

Gordon

[Scripty]

Thanks, Gordon. I was a bit hot under the collar when I wrote the above post. I believe that, should I be asked to run (which I most likely will as the individual running in the current interim typically loses interests in his campaigns after 1 or 2 games), I will say I have a HeroQuest game prepared. Pretty much, that and the weekly Feng Shui game are all I've had time to work on. Should the group object, then I will have someone else run. Should the "owner" object, I'll have the group deal with it. It really is a decision, I feel, that they should make, not him (or me ultimately). If the group wants to play D&D, any single one of them is capable of running a more than adequate campaign. If they want to give HeroQuest a try (or specifically want me to run), then I feel we should do that.

I have also considered taking a break from this group. This isn't the first time that this individual has caused problems within the group. My wife also thinks three games a week is a bit much, especially considering things such as my band and a 40-50 hour workweek. She's also rather miffed by this whole event. Said "owner" is frequently overly negative (perhaps threatened?) and not very encouraging of other people's efforts. I like him best outside of games.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Don't forget that quite often, in a work environment, sports team, band, or role-playing group, the one individual who's often perceived and overtly described as "indispensable" or "central" is often the same one who most impedes constructive activity. Particularly when that activity includes change.

Many an "efficiency" consultant has horrified their clients when they tell them, "So-and-so is your problem; fire him/her." "But so-and-so is our lifeline!" they say. "Uh-huh," say the consultants, "and so-and-so achieves that by making everyone else crazy, so so-and-so can 'solve' and manage everything."

Best,
Ron

[Grex]

(Edit: Yeah, what Ron said.)

If GM#3 is just a jerk, there is nothing you can do about it. Problems outside of the game cannot be solved within the game.

Group #3's "owner" is dictating that if it's not D&D, he's going to have someone else run. These guys are friends. I'd hate to ditch on them, but I feel that it's becoming a big waste of my time.

Can he do that? It sounds to me like you have 3 basic choices:

1) Bail out.  If you do not feel that entertained by his epic 2-session campaigns, that time is better spent with your family.

2) Put it to a vote when the entire group is in session. "I'd like to GM an HQ campaign. Show of hands: Yes or no?" If you think that doing this would upset him, you may be better off bailing.

3) Confront him head-on but politely. State upfront that you will be running an HQ campaign come the end of whatever you are playing now. Invite him to sit in on the start of the campaign; if he sees you have fun, he might change his mind.

In my part of the woods the consensus is that if a person wants to run a game, said person also calls the shots. I.e. (s)he'll determine what rules to use, the style, theme(s) and tone of the campaign, and to a large extent the social contract. People who like the setup are welcome to join the game. People who don't, can -- and do -- find better entertainment elsewhere, no lingering animosity. In fact, in nearly 20 years of gaming I have yet to meet a gamer who thought otherwise.

So if the guy is a jerk (and your second post indicates that he is), it is probably best to just tell him "we're playing HQ for a while; we'll call you when we're ready to play d20 again. But why don't you just sit in on a session? You might like it".

IMO, as usual. :^)

Best regards,
Grex

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Speaking for myself only,

it is probably best to just tell him "we're playing HQ for a while; we'll call you when we're ready to play d20 again..."

... would be my favored option. And significantly, without the additional invitation. I'm kind of harsh that way.

Best,
Ron

[Scripty]

Understood.

I really appreciate the input. I'm the kind of person that second guesses myself a lot (especially regarding my emotions and opinions). I know that you have received the story through my own personal filter, but, thus far, your advice has mirrored my own conclusions and my wife's conclusions (who serves as a reasonable control outside of the gaming group itself; she knows all the people involved, is not a gamer and is not a member of the group itself; she's also not afraid to tell me when I'm full of crap).

This geographic area is fairly unique in the types of groups to which I have been exposed, in that there is G and S and no real N, to put it in terms of Ron's theory. After three years, I've G'd and S'd myself to near burnout and am now interested in pursuing N until I get the urge to G a little and S a little.

Group #3's players are great and the group "owner" is even great at playing in an Narrative style game. Their default mode is heavy Simulationism shoehorned into a Narrative structure. The resulting dysfunction (with the demands of the style of play straining against the system that the group "owner" feels most comfortable playing/running) explains many of the start/stop campaigns in this group. In retrospect, it's not all that unpredictable. Group 3's GM stops a campaign and complains because the players are more interested in levelling up, getting magic items, and killing things than they are in his byzantine plot. Hence, they kill his major NPC (don't talk to him) and ignore the murder in the palace (or never find out there was one) because they've heard there's treasure in the hills to the south. So the complaint often times is that the Players are playing D&D, the way it was, for the most part, intended to be played. Ironic, eh?

For my part, I don't mind that the group has a pretty fixed GM, but I do feel that if I'm asked to run an unspecified game by the group during the normal GM's break, I should be able to determine what I would feel most comfortable (or interested) in running. Had the group, as a whole, looked to me and said, can you run a generic D&D3e campaign for a month or so? I would have said, flatly, no. I've run D&D long enough (once a week for 2 years straight with no break). I'm ready for other things now.

Personally, I think I'll leave this up to the group. If the group wants to play, then I'm cool with it. The best thing, from my readings of HeroQuest, is that the system is abstracted from the setting to such a degree that it would really fit most genres with a minimal amount of gruntwork. Much like The Pool, the HeroQuest mechanics seem very flexible. I'd just really like to take it out for a test drive. I've done the same for Buffy with this group and they still talk about that game. I, personally, didn't care much for the Unisystem and, hence, haven't revisited it. But the Group, as a whole, are VERY open to trying new things, and react enthusiastically to Player Protagonism (who wouldn't?). So, I'll leave it up to the group. I'll run any genre, but the system will be HeroQuest. I'd really like to try my hand at Glorantha, but I prefer players to have some say.

As a warm-up, I ran my wife through a brief (hour long) one on one session set in the Harry Potter world. She played Hermione Granger and HeroQuest worked like a fine-tuned machine. I was excited at how easy it was to get the system to do what you needed it to. It really had a toolkit functionality to it.

From my end, I could probably curb my enthusiasm somewhat. I still remember this guy back in college who was SO into the Dead that, to this day, I can't listen to a Grateful Dead song without cringing. But then again, he played them 24/7 at volumes you could hear across the Commons...

Long story longer, thanks for the helpful advice. I will bring this up before the group. I will also talk privately to the group "owner". He said some pretty harsh things about HeroQuest (which he knows nothing about) and overall was not very supportive. I kind of like friends who are supportive, unless, of course, I'm a psychopath or something. In which case, some constructive advice can be helpful. I also don't like to leave things hanging in the air, especially between friends. So, I will talk to him and use my best conflict resolution skills not to pimp HeroQuest but, rather, to let him know that I don't appreciate when friends tell me my ideas are crap before they know anything about them. It's one thing to get shot down by someone who knows what they're talking about and really cares about the situation. (i.e. My wife: "You're not wearing THAT, are you?") It's another entirely to be shot down three words into an idea. ("How about HeroQuest?", "Then we're not playing, HeroQuest is just silly. I have no interest in it." Not an exact quote, but an accurate paraphrase.)

I'm also considering gracefully dropping out of the group. My wife is correct in that 3 games a week is a bit much on my schedule (especially on a week where my band is playing a show or, god forbid, recording). Considering that sometimes the rotation hits where I'm running all three of them at a time, it might be more realistic for me to pare it down to just 2 games at a time.

I thoroughly agree with Ron's statements regarding the "indispensable" members of a band and work environment. I have worked with many a guitarist who fits aptly fits his statement. This is the first GM, however, I've ever encountered who demanded such prima-donna status. To borrow from "Bring It On",

It's not a "Game-ocracy" and he's being a total "Game-tator".

I'm sure my personal !? is coloring my representation of him. He can be a very nice guy. I've tried to be fair in my description of events as they have happened, but I am sensible enough to know that my emotions running high have probably painted this individual in a poor, and somewhat unfair light. Thanks for the advice though. It is very level-headed and reasonable, even though I might not have been when I first posted.

[Mike Holmes]

Uh, you have two groups that you're going to get to play HQ with? And you're complaining about not being able to convert the third? Count your blessings man.

Mike

[Scripty]

Uh, you have two groups that you're going to get to play HQ with? And you're complaining about not being able to convert the third? Count your blessings man.
Mike

:)

I was more complaining about this fellow's attitude towards HeroQuest. Because of his fear of a new system, he's basically going to wreck, or try to wreck, my capacity to try out HeroQuest prior to moving it to my weekly game. This hit me the wrong way, because he was out-and-out uninformed about the system, completely trashing it (to myself and now, I find, other members of the group), and being a real jerk about it in the process.

I was wondering if other people had encountered this level of unreasonable resistance when attempting to introduce players to a new game and how they had handled it. That was the point of the original post, buried in there somewhere, but it was the point.

The only reason why it was even marginally important to me to try out HeroQuest before introducing it to Group #1 is that they are more stringent with new rules systems and have higher expectations for me to know my stuff (i.e. a bit too long looking stuff up in the rulebook and they'll develop a bad impression of the game that may take months to work off), and also Group #2 may not get around to playing it for 3 months or more. They meander from adventure to adventure and sort of decide who runs by general consensus of who's ready to and what they want to play. New games are generally lower on their list. So I could most likely be waiting until January to get them to try out HQ. This seemed like a good opportunity to work out my knowledge of HeroQuest with a new group, but it's being sabotaged (is that too strong a word?) by a group member with a serious chip on his shoulder.

I'm sure (eventually) I'll get to play HeroQuest. It was just really disappointing to have that opportunity materialize and then dissolve just as quickly thanks to one group member with an overdeveloped sense of importance. That's all.

Besides, you're the guy who developed Universalis. Don't you play with Ron and them? Dude, if I'm blessed, then you've Ascended.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Scripty,

Just something I notice in reading what you've posted about game/GM #3: doing things as "befits his pots" or to serve "his byzantine plot" is NOT Narrativist.  HeroQuest is, in some ways, a threat to the whole idea that the GM gets to impose "his byzantine plot" on play.  That may be why GM #3 is threatened by it.

I don't know that WHY #3 is threatened by HQ matters all that much in how you handle this situation, and the info is awful thin for me to be making guesses, but . . . my guess is "real" Nar is very scary to that GM #3.  

Gordon

[Scripty]

I don't know that WHY #3 is threatened by HQ matters all that much in how you handle this situation, and the info is awful thin for me to be making guesses, but . . . my guess is "real" Nar is very scary to that GM #3.  
Gordon

I think you're right, Gordon. I haven't thought much about it from that angle, because he always responds well to Narrativist style play (and everything I run with any of these groups is twisted as far towards Narr as it will go). He enjoys player protagonism and enjoys himself more in games where have a tangible effect in play and where the system supports players having more say in the game. For instance, he LOVED the Drama Points in Buffy. But I didn't think about it from the perspective of how he runs a game.

I guess it could be threatening from the standpoint that the more the group plays in Narr-based scenarios formulated around Bangs, NPC character webs (ala Sorcerer and Soul), and their own Kickers, the more they expect it out of the other games that they play. There have been a couple of instances in his games where the players have quite nearly mutinied. I, personally, reserve myself. I understand that different systems and different styles of play key into different things. So, I know not to make a heavily flawed character in his games. I will die. Or be slowly tortured over the duration of the campaign. I see what he's doing as Illusionism mixed with a heavy Sim leaning and appreciate it for what it is. The other players, having had a feel for Narrativism and seeing it as something new (and therefore exciting), see the shift from Narrativism and "No Myth" playing (which I try to emulate to the best of my abilities regardless what system I'm using) to heavy Sim/Illu play as "rail-roading" and react.

I hadn't thought that his sense of threat came from his position as GM. I was assuming he was approaching the game as a player and being unreasonable. From his perspective as a GM, I could see how he would be threatened by a "new" game that I'm interested in that gives players and their characters more power in building the story cooperatively. Not only is that notion not really in his toolbox, but it would spell more player dissatisfaction among the other members of the group when we returned to his usual style of play.

Great shift in perspective, Gordon, thanks.

[Mike Holmes]

Scripty,

I'm not trying to marginalize your problem. I think most GMs have encountered resistance to changing systems. Hell, I'm still running an on again, off again Rolemaster campaign because of this phenomenon. Despite tremendous effort to get people to see the benefits of other systems. That's the same group, BTW, that won't play Universalis because it's not their cup of tea. Does it really matter why they feel this way?

And I pretty much only play demos with Ron and the like. We certainly don't have a regular game. In some ways playing with players like Ron and Ralph is torture because I can't have them around to play regularly. In any case, come to the next Con, and you can play too.

In any case, I'm not complaining. I have another group that's playing HQ right now (thanks, Josh!) Some people claim to have trouble finding any game at all. Some people play, but can only find one group that has a style they don't like. Some people have to play systems they find distasteful.

Is unreasoning resistance frustrating? Definitely. My point is merely that it sounds like it could be much worse. Maybe I misunderstood you, but it seems that you will have one regular group (#1?) that will be playing HQ? And one in which you may get a shot later? I'd be satisfied with that amount of play. In fact I am.

As for the problem with group #3, I think that's been covered as well as it's going to get covered. Communicate as well as you can. It may just be that there's no good solution to the problem. That happens. Worst case scenario, you have another night each week that you can play with a different group that may share more of your predilictions.

Mike

[Scripty]

Is unreasoning resistance frustrating? Definitely. My point is merely that it sounds like it could be much worse. Maybe I misunderstood you, but it seems that you will have one regular group (#1?) that will be playing HQ? And one in which you may get a shot later? I'd be satisfied with that amount of play. In fact I am.

As for the problem with group #3, I think that's been covered as well as it's going to get covered. Communicate as well as you can. It may just be that there's no good solution to the problem. That happens. Worst case scenario, you have another night each week that you can play with a different group that may share more of your predilictions.

Mike

Thanks, Mike. I will get to play HQ with one group. Due to the response of some players to games such as Donjon in the past, I think they will really like it. Unfortunately, half of the group quit (?) because I departed from D&D. But there are 3 players left and I'm willing to take a loss as I am relatively certain that if I stick to my guns I will (eventually) attract 1 or 2 players who are interested in this style of play, even if I lose 1 (or more) of the 3 left, which it seems I may.

I like groups to stay around the 4-5 player limit. I've been disappointed in the unreasonable resistance to change that I've been struggling upstream against, but it's nothing I haven't encountered before.

My main beef was with the aforementioned "owner" of (I can't remember which number) the group discussed prior. It's fairly obvious that he was trash-talking me and HeroQuest (while having himself only seen the cover and, maybe, read a review of the game). You see, our group of friends and acquaintances overlap all three of these groups. Though some play in one group and others in another, we all, pretty much, know, or know of, each other. Word had been getting back to me that this other group's "owner" was downing me pretty hard and that his unreasoned resistance may have led at least one (if not two) of the three regular players at my weekly sessions to outright up and leave.

This has also come back to bite him in the backside, however. Adding further evidence to Lao Tzu's case, it seems he overstepped and overpushed his delusional influence and made one of our mutual acquaintances (a close friend of his roommate) so fed up that he is now willing to try HeroQuest just to get the group owner to eat his own words. Funny that.

Personally, I am planning on leaving this "owner's" regular group gracefully and free up another night to brainstorm and spend with my wife. I hate this kind of political BS. I'm glad that I've stuck to my guns and just been upfront with everybody. Maintaining my integrity in this situation, it seems, has served me better than engaging in any kind of straight up confrontation.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

That is a success story. Three players is a fine number for HeroQuest.

Scripty, you're pretty active in the Actual Play forum, so I figure you've seen this, but for folks who haven't: Help me keep Brian from doing something regrettable. It doubly highlights how well you've handled your situation, and how the fellow you're describing is merely digging his own social grave.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

The reluctance of this GM is actually not at all surprising to me and I doubt has anything whatsoever to do with HeroQuest.

He's a long time GM.  A long time GM of a single system.  I would guess that he knows that system inside, outside, upside down.  That system is a common bond in your social group and his high level of expertise in that system gives him a certain degree of quasi respect and authority that comes from being the acknowledged expert.

This is no different than if your social activity was getting together to go to indepent and foreign films and one of your group members was a film student.  To some extent you're going to defer to him and his judgement, and make him the centerpiece in any group discussion about film.  

Now you want to switch systems.  Whoops there goes the feeling of empowerment that comes from being an expert.  Now he's a newb again and his voice doesn't carry any more weight in game discussions than anyone else.

To me this is standard social insecurity stuff and not really about the game at all.