I've been trying to think about some of the play experiences that have led to my mostly refusing to be a normal player instead of GMing. I'm not sure what there is to be had from these other than I guess exploration of what I really want from gaming...

In college, a bunch of people ran campaigns using Cold Iron, a home brew system written by one of the guys. I played at least a couple times in most of these campaigns (I don't think I ever actually played in the designer's campaign though).

The first one I really played in was a brand new campaign, so everyone started with first level characters. I rolled up a human fighter (or maybe it was a lizard man). Other characters included a mage, a cleric, another fighter or two, and a scout. In my first battle, I rolled poorly, and broke my spear. After that battle ended, we patched up my spear. In the next battle, I rolled only slightly better, but since my spear was now a makeshift weapon, I fumbled again (I forget if it broke again). I think at that point I stormed out of the session. I had been able to contribute nothing. I couldn't cast spells. I couldn't fight, I wasn't any good as a scout, and there really was little else to do. I think I did end up playing once or twice more, but the campaign just held no interest for me.

Another campaign had been running for some time. New PCs still started at 1st level, or maybe 2nd level. I rolled up a fighter again. I forget how the first session went, but again I was unable to contribute anything significant to the game (though I think I may have made a level or two). After the session, I talked to the GM. He let me roll up a new character. Cool, this one could be a cleric. So enter the 2nd session. During the first battle, we get attacked at night by undead. In the first or second round, my character got tackled by several ghouls. In the next round or two, my character was ripped to shreds. Game session over for me. A couple days later, the GM talked to me again, and he took my first character and fudged the attributes around so I could be a cleric. I played a couple more sessions after that, but again, I rapidly lost interest in the campaign. The low level characters couln't contribute much of anything to the combats (which often took several hours to resolve), and I never really connected with the political stuff going on in the campaign (mostly because I am pretty apolitical, but also because again, low level PCs couldn't contribute much because they didn't have any reputation).

Another guy ran a campaign that only lasted a few sessions before basically everyone gave it up. A big feature of his campaign were "rumors" which had no basis in fact at all, they were just things that NPCs made up. I don't think anyone ever figured out what the point of the campaign was.

I also ran one or two sessions in one other campaign, but again, new PCs started off at 1st level (though several players joined at the same time, and some of the older players had 2nd PCs that were lower level than their main PCs). The big thing I remember about this campaign was my PC being a fighter again, and realizing that every other new PC was a better fighter than me (In Cold Iron, the mages and clerics basically are fighter-mages and fighter-clerics).

One thing that I took out of this learning experience back into my own games was starting new PCs off at a more reasonable level compared to the existing PCs. I have also more recently decided to totally abandon random PC generation, at least in the traditional D&D sense (I'd still be interested in some kind of random generation that produced characters that were comparable). I also started asking what type of character the player wanted to play, and even though I was using random generation, would make sure the player got to play that type of character. Also, for my own Cold Iron games, I reduced the fighting ability of spell casters to really try and make sure a straight fighter PC would always be a better fighter than any of the spell casters would be (I have also talked with the GM who took pity on me a few times and he recently suggested letting everyone play a spell caster - which is certainly an interesting idea [and not at all novel - for example Ars Magica or Sorceror]).

I guess in one way, ultimately the reason I GM is that I have found that to be the only reliable way to always get to play. When I look at all of the above campaigns, I basically didn't get to play. I actually enjoyed all of those campaigns more when I didn't try to play, and instead just watched. I tend to take the same tactic to board games also, I prefer to watch. If from watching, I see that I will really enjoy the game, then I consider playing. What I used to hate were the board games where it took you an hour or two to lose - where you would realize you were almost certainly going to lose, but for whatever reason, you couldn't just give up the game right then (and I've had people get upset at me for quitting a game I was losing and "denying" them their honest win or something). Oh, I also hate three player games where two players gang up on the third and eliminate him, then spend the rest of the evening playing a two player game...

Frank

Hey Frank,

Sounds like a social contract issue. Some people figure it's part of the point to get your character through some long-assed apprenticeship where there's a huge whiff factor and a good chance of death. I've been in this kind of game before, and actually gotten to a pretty high level with it. The fact is, sticking with it doesn't make things much better. You get to contribute, and you aren't as likely to sit out while your pc is down but it still happens. And it still sucks.

That sort of crap has kept me out of more than one campaign as well. Even if the game might otherwise be fun, the 1st level effect is too ugly and continues for too long. With the demise of AD&D, I think that this is something that tends to get relegated to actual fantasy heartbreakers these days.

You might want to check out other game systems. Shadowrun characters don't start out weak at all, for example. Characters in Godlike can be of astronomical power if you pick the right powers (although weak as hell if you don't). Even Cyberpunk 2020, where things are "gritty" starts out your character as pretty tough. It's all about system. Your experience (where characters start out unbelievably weak before progressing on an upward spiral to near godhead) is very common, but it's limited to a single system and its clones.

-Robert E. Jones

One thing that I should have pointed out was that these experiences were between 15 and 20 years ago, so the "everyone starts at 1st level, no matter where the campaign has progressed" was still quite the norm (though certainly other systems were showing up with different character power schemes).

But, I actually like the D&D style level system, at least as a GM. I just don't like great power level differences between the different PCs, though I also have pretty limited play experience in non-D&D style games. Pretty much the other systems I have played are Traveler, Hero system (mostly Fantasy and SF, pre Space Hero), GURPS Supers, and Fudge.

The big trouble is that for the most part, my experience in other systems hasn't been any better. One thing that certainly is a factor is that I tend to be the quiet guy who doesn't have much to say, so if I don't have a clear role, and the other players (and GM) don't make some effort to include me, I will tend to just sit in the background. So, when something like combat does come along, if my character is poor in combat, there is nothing left for me to really enjoy and feel like I'm contributing. The experiences have led me to be very reluctant to try playing in games, and for the most part, I only play in games that I get invited to by one of my players or games I've been exposed to in a club environment (the GURPS Supers game was an exception, where I met the group via BBS chatting [yup, that was about 15 years ago also]).

My tendency to be a wall flower extends through my whole social life, though I will speak up if the conversation is interesting and I have something to say (and people give me a chance to get a word in edgewise). As long as the conversation doesn't sink into the areas where I have almost no interest or desire I'm usually fine. My big areas are sports, politics (though I have enjoyed talking politics online), and computers (mostly because I get tired of Microsoft bashing and uninformed discussion). Discussion about movies also usually bore me (I see about 1 or 2 movies a year).

I guess one thing to do is come up with a list of interview questions for potential GMs. But it sort of seems like too much work. I find it easier to just recruit players for games I will run, though even that can be frustrating, but at least it isn't that much effort (since no time is invested in a play session until I actually have some players).

Frank

I have always assumed that it was the norm in D&D campaigns (any version) for new characters to be created at ..say.. a level or two less than existing characters. Less powerful so as to reward survival...but powerful enough to be able to contribute.

In fact id have though this was the norm in any game where characters gain significant power...and need power for the player to contribute.

Frank, I hope you can clarify something for me. Are you asking for advice on how to achieve something new in your roleplaying? Or are you looking for validation that you have, in fact, encountered a very difficult problem and that it's okay for you to stop trying to solve it?

I'm perfectly fine with giving either response. IMHO, it's a hard problem but one that's worth getting past. But other people's mileage can and will vary. I don't want to give advice on how to play differently if you don't want to play differently and don't see any reason why you should. You might well see such advice as an attack, and I totally understand why.

I have always assumed that it was the norm in D&D campaigns (any version) for new characters to be created at ..say.. a level or two less than existing characters. Less powerful so as to reward survival...but powerful enough to be able to contribute.

Frank, I hope you can clarify something for me. Are you asking for advice on how to achieve something new in your roleplaying? Or are you looking for validation that you have, in fact, encountered a very difficult problem and that it's okay for you to stop trying to solve it?

I'm perfectly fine with giving either response. IMHO, it's a hard problem but one that's worth getting past. But other people's mileage can and will vary. I don't want to give advice on how to play differently if you don't want to play differently and don't see any reason why you should. You might well see such advice as an attack, and I totally understand why.

'kay then.

It sounds like the group you were playing with had a pretty serious hangup on restricting the player contribution to the SIS to that explicitly justified by the skills they attached to the character. For example (correct me if I'm wrong) it doesn't sound like these guys would have been hip to a character who was important to the game because they were a lost prince the others needed to protect, rather than because they were good at something.

In that sort of situation, niche protection should be a prime factor of the system. Hearing that mages were fighter-mages, and clerics were fighter-clerics convinces me that these guys (in building their system) were thinking too much about what would be fun for them individually to play, and too little about what sort of characters would play nicely with others, shining in their own specialty but not cheating others of the chance to shine in turn.

So I'm right with you there on the frustration. You specifically tried to choose a niche that would let you shine, but other people just trompled over all of your fun. That's the kind of thing that puts people off of roleplaying entirely. Good on you for continuing to give the hobby a chance!

Hello,

Just for purposes of contrast, and to hone our ability to offer help or comments ...

Frank, can you give me a single, unalloyed example of genuine and unqualified fun you've had with role-playing? Not a scene or a roll, but an entire session.

This is not a challenge, but a much-needed "other end of line" that I'm trying to draw in my head for you.

Best,
Ron

Ok, Ron, fair enough... Actually, I had been thinking on those lines this morning, but wasn't ready to post yet...

I do want to post a session where I was a regular player, not a GM (I've had a fair bit of fun as a GM). I'm really digging deep for this one, going back about 25 years I think.

At one of MIT's game conventions, I ran in a Traveler scenario. The GM (Glen Blacow in case anyone remembers him) handed out pre-generated characters. I wound up with Master Khalkis, the computer and science officer. Khalkis was a spy with secret powers. I didn't really succeed in my mission, partly because the rest of the group guessed I was up to something, but gosh, I just had a blast. I wound up at the other end of the table from the GM, and as a result, I was constantly tossing notes down the table (a couple of the players afterwards joked about the appearance of a blizzard). The GM kept me up to speed, I never felt like I missed an opportunity to take an action. The scenario was interesting, with a good mix of emergency and slower paced stuff. I don't think there was a lot of combat.

So what did I especially like about this session? Well, certainly I was completely involved. I don't recall hardly a moment that I wasn't either busy with my own investigations or enjoying the scene that was unfolding. The pacing was great.

Frank

Tony,

Choice of character type really wasn't. You rolled your stats and made the best of them. So there was no niche protection at all. Certainly very old school D&D style play. I'm not sure if playing a character with a special background was particularly available at all.

Lack of niche protection is one of the things I have frequently observed. That certainly was a problem in the Fudge game I played in (where I wound up being the 2nd of 2 scout types - though that was the least of the problems I had with that game).

Cold Iron's allowing mages and clerics to fight well was a response to the fact that everyone hated D&D mages who could do nothing once they were out of spells.

I have to admit that I have never played in a game where the GM worked with each player to figure out how they would fit into the game world (and as a GM, I'm a little weak on that myself). The Traveler scenario above, and a 2nd that I played with Glen, were some of the few times I've had that sort of experience as a player.

Frank

Niche protection is something I've been thinking a bit about recently.

I played a tech in a Cyberpunk game once. This was a guy that used to be a designer for a fairly mid-level cyberware corp, who had since lost his job due to a drug problem. Now I as a player tried to keep my skills pretty well-rounded, and keeping to the description of skill levels layed out in the book, set my Cybertech at a reasonable 5.

Along comes another player, with a teenage netrunner, who was not so interested in keeping her skills well-rounded, and needing to put career skill points into something, dumped 7 of them into Cybertech.

So all of a sudden, the guy that was the mastermind behind the new tactile relays on the Dynalar Excelsior 300 Series cyberarms was being shown up by a snot-nosed 17 year old who had dropped out of high school. You might say that one could simply call it a case of technology moving fast, and being out of the tech game for more than 2 years relegates you do dinosaur status, but that really wasn't the kind of story I was looking to tell.

This is one of the reasons I'm really liking games with no skill lists. Over the Edge is particularly nifty, because it establishes a baseline for everything (2 dice), then adds whatever skills you make up to that baseline. And because you make them up, your skills are nice and personalized.

Sorcerer goes one step further and rolls all of your personalized skills into one simple-to-use package (Cover).

One of the things I'm planning on for my own system (which owes a LOT to the 2 abovementioned games, mechanicswise) is to require the player to come up with a short anecdote (a sentence or two) about each skill, to illustrate how the skill is to be used in-game (it also gives your character some ready-made background).

-- Ben

Hi Frank,

It all sounds straightforward to me - you want to play. Period. And no one has permitted you to do so.

Let's just step out of role-playing for a minute and pretend that you were really into bowling, or were so interested that you were really looking forward to learn how.

Now, do you think that such a person who encounters no chance to bowl, even with the group who apparently does it, is going to enjoy that? Who is continually elbowed out of the way, or who looks for some instruction and instead, the person you ask just takes your ball and bowls with it?

The GM whose game you enjoyed simply gave you a ball with very, very clear instructions about how to bowl with it. And you had fun.

Everyone else you've played with, apparently, had no idea of how to conduct a social activity of any kind, let alone role-playing. The notion that you've continued to try to do this for twenty-five years astounds me, and I hope it can phase into a happier and more satisfying set of activities for you.

Food for thought ... can you see that accepting a pregenerated character actually let that character be yours? Why do you think that is - that using someone else's creation let you be "you" during play more than you've ever experienced with a character of your own creation?

Now, here's the troublesome question I have for you: since you've been GMing, do you provide a "ball" for the other people in the group? Or ... and this might hurt ... have you been inflicting the same or similar abuses on them that were inflicted on you, almost every time you've tried to play a character?

Another way to ask this is, are the characters created in the games you GM more "theirs" or more "yours"? I'm sufficiently evil to claim that "ours" is not a viable answer.

Best,
Ron

Hmm, interesting analogy with bowling (another activity that I prefer to just watch rather than actually play - being ever so coordinated - not...). I guess I've never thought about my experiences in such strong terms, or at least not so directly since obviously I've had pretty strong feelings about my experiences.

Food for thought ... can you see that accepting a pregenerated character actually let that character be yours? Why do you think that is - that using someone else's creation let you be "you" during play more than you've ever experienced with a character of your own creation?

Now, here's the troublesome question I have for you: since you've been GMing, do you provide a "ball" for the other people in the group? Or ... and this might hurt ... have you been inflicting the same or similar abuses on them that were inflicted on you, almost every time you've tried to play a character?

Another way to ask this is, are the characters created in the games you GM more "theirs" or more "yours"? I'm sufficiently evil to claim that "ours" is not a viable answer.

Ben,

This is one of the reasons I'm really liking games with no skill lists. Over the Edge is particularly nifty, because it establishes a baseline for everything (2 dice), then adds whatever skills you make up to that baseline. And because you make them up, your skills are nice and personalized.

One of the things I'm planning on for my own system (which owes a LOT to the 2 abovementioned games, mechanicswise) is to require the player to come up with a short anecdote (a sentence or two) about each skill, to illustrate how the skill is to be used in-game (it also gives your character some ready-made background).

ffilz wrote: At one of MIT's game conventions, I ran in a Traveler scenario. The GM (Glen Blacow in case anyone remembers him) handed out pre-generated characters. I wound up with Master Khalkis, the computer and science officer. Khalkis was a spy with secret powers. I didn't really succeed in my mission, partly because the rest of the group guessed I was up to something, but gosh, I just had a blast. I wound up at the other end of the table from the GM, and as a result, I was constantly tossing notes down the table (a couple of the players afterwards joked about the appearance of a blizzard). The GM kept me up to speed, I never felt like I missed an opportunity to take an action. The scenario was interesting, with a good mix of emergency and slower paced stuff. I don't think there was a lot of combat.

So what did I especially like about this session? Well, certainly I was completely involved. I don't recall hardly a moment that I wasn't either busy with my own investigations or enjoying the scene that was unfolding. The pacing was great.

Frank

Yea, the note passing certainly helped in the communication department. However, most GMs I have played with have done a pretty good job with giving everyone a turn, at least in combat. Of course out of combat, I often become a wall flower again. I think what was more important thought were goals and abilities I could relate to. I didn't enjoy the 2nd Traveler game Glen ran nearly so much, in that game, I wound up with a womanizer, something I'm not terribly good at, I also didn't have as many skills that related so well to what we were doing.

One thing I've certainly learned is that characters need to have something they're good at, that is useful in the game as actually played, and that the player can relate to.

When I ran Traveler, every once in a while, when a new player joined, we would have to tell him that no, the ship couln't use another pilot, we already had more pilots than necessary, all who were probably better than a starting PC was likely to be (I used an experience system for Traveler so PCs could advance). Of course that brings up a problem with niche protection and new players. Sometimes the new player may not really want to fill one of the open niches.

Frank

Yea, the note passing certainly helped in the communication department. However, most GMs I have played with have done a pretty good job with giving everyone a turn, at least in combat. Of course out of combat, I often become a wall flower again.

I'm not so worried about the "getting a turn" part. I prefer game systems with tactical combat systems and use of maps and miniatures or counters, and that tends to mean a fairly well defined order of play in combat or other stress situations. If you are doing time critical stuff, you have to be objective about time.

Out of stress situations, say in puzzle solving, or negotiating, or whatever, I often don't have something to contribute, and people tend to do a better job of listening when you try and speak.

I'm much more interested in exploring the questions Ron asked.

Frank