In reading over http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12207, I remembered some off-hand comments from last Thursday's game night.

One of the people at the table mentioned while looked at a (currently) unused Exalted character sheet that it would be nice to play if James hand't killed the game.

(James -> that's me, by the way.)

Now, what happened was that I played the Exalted game once. I thought that the game was very much like a HERO/MERP game we'd tried before. There was almost no input allowed from players as to how the story was to move, the GM repeatedly told us how we did things, etc. And the game's premise left me flat. I was basically just taking up some space at a table, and not having much fun. I told the GM and everyone else "Hey, look, this game isn't for me. I'll sit out until you guys finish it, or you want to do something esle. In the meantime, game on!"

Of course, they haven't played since.

When my friend made this comment I looked up and asked "So, what, when I don't show up, you guys don't play?"

And, guess what. They don't.

I'm not carrying this burden. I don't feel weird (I did back then, but not now) about saying "No thanks, pass." I think this has a lot to do with the old We Gotta Play Together or We Won't Be Buddies crap.

Just a thought.

Spot on from this armchair, my friend.

Best,
Ron

James, I gotsta agree.

I had a similar revelation with my last group, though I was (mostly) running games instead of playing them. Without me to harrangue them into getting together, it wouldn't happen; it was almost like I was convincing them to be interested in gaming.

The final proof came when my wife and I had our son this last winter. I said, "Well, I'll be out of this for a few months; keep playing something and I'll join in later." They made chars for L5R, I think, and then it all just faded away. I didn't care anymore, because I didn't need to carry that crap, either.

The upshot is, as I slowly gather a new group, it's gonna be all about intention; I have little enough time as it is, I don't want to spend it pretending to game while really just hanging out.

I know there's some controversy around Social Contract stuff, but if everyone's not clear on just why you're all gathering, then there isn't actually a single Contract, but many Contracts pretending to be one (and usually failing!)

Hi James,

The messenger of bad news is often the first one blamed. The group may have taken your clear and blunt message as a direct attack on themselves as people and/or pulled back the curtain to the fact that no one there may have been having fun at all.

Chris

Had the same thing happen to me a few years ago. A friend of mine was talking about our gaming group and said something to the effect of, "And you always kill every attempt to play X, Y, or Z games."

I replied, "I didn't say we couldn't play those games. I just said I wouldn't play them. You guys could have played them anyway."

He said, "You knew that wouldn't happen. You're the leader in this group and we won't do anything if you don't want to."

I had no idea that I had that kind of power. Hell, I would have wielded it like a frickin' hammer if I had known! So, in effect, the rest of the group passively ceded power over what they would do in their free time to someone who never knew he had it! Jeesh.

The annoying thing was that I learned that some group members still resented the fact that I had "killed" the discussion about games they wanted to play, as if I had done it purpose. Or done it all. After all, they ceded power to me without my consent or knowledge and the only thing keeping me in power was them. So, ultimately, like James, I didn't feel any responsibility at all. I didn't do anything. They did.

I hadn't thought they were serious about it until just now.





But it's still not my problem.

I have to think 'leader' is perhaps a missused word. More like a drummer, in a band, who's back beat keeps everyone elses music together. Your not leading as the drummer, but your pretty essential to keeping everything together, which looks the same.

And I'm not so sure one can absolve ones self so neatly of guilt (otherwise, one wouldn't need a post like this). After all, if you start being the drummer, everyone else is going to focus on learning their instruments rather than learning to drum, which makes sense.

Where this leaves you, I'm not sure.

And I'm not so sure one can absolve ones self so neatly of guilt (otherwise, one wouldn't need a post like this). After all, if you start being the drummer, everyone else is going to focus on learning their instruments rather than learning to drum, which makes sense.

JamesDJIII wrote: No, this has absolutely nothing on me whatsoever. Even if what you say is true (regarding being just a drummer or nor the drummer), they can learn just as well as I can. That's laziness on their part.

The problem is that they are till in the We Gotta Game Together mode. They still beleive, for whatever reason, that if we don't game together, we won't be friends. As far as I'm concerned, it's popycock.

Hello,

Kirt's point brings me to this question, James: what now? Does this thread have anywhere to go?

Don't get me wrong; I'm a serious advocate of the kind of social epiphany you're undergoing, and the Social Context threads I started in the Infamous Five were based on this issue. But now that you've stated your point, it's not clear what to talk about.

I think that's why Callan raised a possible objection - to give the thread some spread-out points to allow discourse. Since that doesn't seem to be what you want, let's decide whether to give the thread such a foundation or to let it stand as your initial statement, without further discussion.

Best,
Ron

I think a discussion that explores this would be ok by me. As far as a foundation goes - I'm not sure I'm reading it as clearly as others. That's ok, maybe I need to see more of what they're talking about.

I just wanted to be really clear: their (social geek falacy amongst the people I play with) problems are not mine to carry.

It's rare that gamers talk about these issues. There's too much "Let's just play already!" and not enough of this examination and you put it, Ron, epiphany.

Good topic, though I agree, one that is rarely addressed among members of a gaming group, usually in favor of avoiding the possibility of hurt feelings. My group of friends, which thankfully CAN socialize together and talk without gaming, is also plagued by variations of this. One of the older members of the group played Warhammer and Champions, etc. and while they will tell stories about it and don't *technically* refuse to play those, make offhanded comments which clearly indicate their aversion to those games for whatever reason (usually something happened that made them stop playing, so they have a bad taste in their mouth).

Seeing posts here and other forums about new and indy RPGs, and becoming at the excited at the prospect of playing something *different*, I bought Feng Shui, which a couple of them expressed mild interest or at least "well, I guess we could try it once and see how it is", though one or two others said "that looks stupid". To me, I agree the people that don't like it shouldn't play it, but that also would make me feel bad as I don't want to even unintentionally exclude someone - it makes me feel or seem selfish, even though I am not (this is probably what some of your group is experiencing), so I am not running Feng Shui or these other "blacklisted" games.

This leaves the other gamers to run in general either Star Wars (which isn't bad, I'm playing a Gungan Jedi, heh) or usually we'll fall back to Call of Cthulhu (which even I might run). Not a tremendously large selection but we all have our own biases and preferences and I don't find the "urge" to game strong enough to haggle over any of it - I'll play if someone's running something, or will occasionally run if I'm in the mood, but it doesn't bother me if we don't, which may ALSO seem selfish or like I'm "punishing" people by not appearing overly interested and struggling to try to come over after us having not played in a couple of months, etc.

I agree its not your fault that 'the power' was handed over to you, without your consent or knowledge, and I agree its not a mantle you have to wear, but I do think it DOES affect how everyone behaves. If everyone else says "we can't be pals if we don't all game together", and you're the ONLY one that says different... unless something changes, you are the odd man out and are effectively in denial of what the situation is. Which sucks because thats a stupid position for them to take. =( Much luck!

JamesDJIII wrote:

And I'm not so sure one can absolve ones self so neatly of guilt (otherwise, one wouldn't need a post like this). After all, if you start being the drummer, everyone else is going to focus on learning their instruments rather than learning to drum, which makes sense.

So, before I came along, what were they doing?

No, this has absolutely nothing on me whatsoever. Even if what you say is true (regarding being just a drummer or nor the drummer), they can learn just as well as I can. That's laziness on their part.

Look, the point is, I didn't do anything but state (clearly!) a preference against a game I didn't care for. I would have dne far worse by not saying anything and being a real pain in the ass during the game itself.

The problem is that they are till in the We Gotta Game Together mode. They still beleive, for whatever reason, that if we don't game together, we won't be friends. As far as I'm concerned, it's popycock.

Dr Velocity said:

If everyone else says "we can't be pals if we don't all game together", and you're the ONLY one that says different... unless something changes, you are the odd man out and are effectively in denial of what the situation is.

Don't think the trajectory of this thread is going anywhere constructive... let's shut it down.

Hiya,

I agree with James, so it's closed.

Thanks for all the comments, folks.

Best,
Ron