Hello,

I had a revalation today. I am the gamer that Ron describes in the opening paragraph to his GNS theory article. I've actually known this since the first day that I read it a couple of months ago, but I think that I may be a little closer to the truth of why this is. (At least for me)

Having read the GNS article, I came to the conclusion that I was a Simulationist with preference for exploring Setting and Character. Mainly I decided this because those are the things that tend to hook me and grab my interest in a game. An interesting setting will do more to get me to invest in a game than most anything else, though a really interesting character can make up for a weak setting. Though in thinking more about it, I think that I could probably swing over into Narritivism given the proper group. I really like the ideas of Author and Director stance, and would really love to get into a game that allowed me to play out a good story while at the same time actually having some say in how it proceeds.

I believe that in my case a good portion of the problem is in the definitions of two words: Work and Fun.

I work as a computer technician for a small college. My concept of work is trudging around campus and fixing relatively minor computer problems all day long. After 8 years of doing this, I can just about fix the average computer problem in my sleep.

My idea of fun is to take my brain for a walk, let it get some excersice after a week of fixing routine problems. I like complex stories with strong themes involving fairly heavy matters, matters that bring into question commonly held beliefs or challenge moral, ethical, or religious concepts. Anything to give my brain something to chew on for the next week or two.

Nearly all of the gamers in the area, however, are either college students or have "brainy" type jobs, and as a result, their idea of fun is just some good, clean, escapist fun with little complication and nothing too heavy. (This is true of just about every gamer I've been able to find in the area to date. I can think of only one that probably does not fall into this category (Hi Eric!)) :)

So why am I telling you all of this? Because I would like to get opinions on what I should do. I'm currently running a game for some of my friends and it's become more stress than fun simply because I like heavy games, they like light. I've been trying to puzzle out something that would keep the game fun for everyone, but I've been unable to come up with anything, so I'm looking for some more brain power and opinions.

Am I being a wuss? Should I just suck it up and run the damn game? Should I kick these loosers to the curb and hang up the gaming until I can find people that are actually willing to dive deep?

Any and all opinions are welcomed and wanted. I don't mind criticism as long as it's constructive. I've wracked my brain and I'm tired.

Thanks in advance to anyone that can help.

Lael

I'm dating a girl. She's really nice. I mean, she means well. She doesn't like the same kinds of movies I like, and she, well, she doesn't have that much to say. And when we talk, she seems to like listening to me, but sometimes, lately, I think we're really not talking much, just spending time together because I like spending time with somebody, and and she seems to like spending time with me.

It's becoming more stress than fun when we get together. I've been trying to puzzle out something that would keep getting together fun for both of us, but I've been unable to come up with anything.

Am I being a wuss? Should I just keep going out with her? Should I break up with her and look for somebody I actually want to go out with?

Thanks in advance for anyone who can help.

; )

Lael--

Christopher makes a good point. If you & your group like different things, why suck it up & keep playing with them? Especially since you like Character & Setting Exploration & not you're not so much into "lite" rules. I'm sure you could find any number of players who are into that. You've got it made in the shade!

No, you're not being a wuss. But I can't think of any reason to keep playing with a group if you're not having fun. (If you are having fun, but not as much fun as you could be having, that's when it's time to think of compromising &/or finding another group to play with as well as your original group.) You don't have to be mean about it, but just acknowledge that you're not really enjoying yourself & you want to look elsewhere.

If the rest of the band wants to play jazz, & you want to play metal, why keep playing jazz?

Yeah, that's about what I was thinking...

The problem is that I've been in this area for the better part of 18 years (yech, I need to move somewhere else. :) ). And I've tried many times to find a decent group that I can hang with and enjoy.

<Joking a little>

Maybe I'll just hang up the Role-playing bag and become a game designer, that way I can claim that I'm too busy making the games to actually play them. :)

</Joking>

Ah well, it's all good, I'll figure it out.

Would still appreciate any more opinions, I like having people weigh in on my insecurites. :)

Thanks again,

Lael

joshua neff wrote:
Lael--

Christopher makes a good point. If you & your group like different things, why suck it up & keep playing with them? Especially since you like Character & Setting Exploration & not you're not so much into "lite" rules. I'm sure you could find any number of players who are into that. You've got it made in the shade!

I assume y'all's "Southern Maryland" is accross the bay, and thefore nowhere near me. (Yay the desert of culture that is the Eastern Shore...)

This has been said elsewhere on the bboard, but I'll repeat it here: if the gamers in your area are all either happy with what they're doing and uninterested in learning theory or even trying different games (and, let me emphasize, the main successes reported here have been when people simply take a really different game like the Pool or Sorcerer and get people to play; however, since you're more into Sim, I don't have suggestions, alas), you're better off cultivating different people altogether. Non-gamers, in a word. Artists, musicians, and, dare I say, writers are good candidates. They make great friends anyhow and their parties are better to boot. :)

--TQuid

Eric:

>I have a feeling Lael's been doing the same thing, just not getting as
>much enjoyment out of it.

I think that's pretty much it. Plus, I'm fairly sure that you are the better GM and although I really like GMing, I think that the limits of my skills are also causing me some frustration. But that is a problem that I'll try to deal with differently. Maybe an online game or just giving up the campaigns for short stories, I don't know. :)

>From experience, Lael's in even worse shape. I'm pretty sure I don't
>know many people into his Sim style of gaming, outside of two people in
>the area who left town years ago, and I even think he and his wife have
>different styles. (Am I wrong on that, Lael?) We're trying to put our
>heads together for a night of cutting edge gaming with stuff like
>Sorcerer (which is already booked) and Godlike, but it looks like it may
>just be the two of us.

My wife does have a different style, but I think that she is willing to experiment and try new things. When she found out that we were playing Sorcerer on the day that she will be gone, she was a little disappointed, if it goes well we might want to consider giving it another go with her there.

Xiombarg:

>I assume y'all's "Southern Maryland" is accross the bay, and thefore
>nowhere near me. (Yay the desert of culture that is the Eastern Shore...)

Yeah, 'friad so. We are both in St. Mary's County. Unless we could find someone right around the Bay Bridge where we could meet, I think that it would be too far for us to consider. (Might be too far even then.)

TQuid:

Getting people to try something radically different might work for some. I've got a couple of people that I'm still holding out some hope for, but I'm not sure how they would recieve such ideas, so that will be an experiment for a different time.

Thanks again to everyone that has responded,

Lael

xiombarg wrote:
I assume y'all's "Southern Maryland" is accross the bay, and thefore nowhere near me. (Yay the desert of culture that is the Eastern Shore...)

Have you tried asking your group? Something like, "Hey guys (or gals), would you ever want to try a darker type of game some time?"

You never know - they might go for it. It may work, it may not, but at least you are making your preferences heard. And just maybe one or two of them will find out that they like the darker stuff once in a while too.

It's worth a shot. I'd try asking before quiting altogether.

Actually it's not even so much that I want the game darker, as just "meatier". And yes, I have asked them to try to see what I want, and I'd be willing to compromise if they would, and if they would be willing to meet me half-way.

But sadly, my suggestions that this game is not what I'm looking for and my attempts to explain what I'm wanting get only blank, baffled, stares.

I think that there may be some hope for one or two of them, so I'm actually planning to stick it out and see if I can slowly push the game towards something closer to what I want. Maybe try Eric's approach of looking more at the planning and pulling off as the challenge for me rather than trying to get the players deeper into the game. If it fails, it fails, and I'll always have straight theory and design to fall back on since I do enjoy that. Plus, I have many of the games mentioned here on indie-rpgs which I can enjoy vicariously.

Thanks,

Lael

Lael,

Something to think about:

Over at a thread started by Emily Care about preparing / pre-planning a gaming group, there's a good discussion about what sort of talk helps pull players in a new direction, and what talk doesn't. You might want to check it out.

I'll offer that if someone doesn't know what you're talking about, (ie, hasn't experienced it), describing it won't help. The best you might be able to do is say, "Do you guys want to try something new?" and then if they say yes, just show up with Sorcerer. Lay out the basics, get them to create characters. By *experiencing* they'll come to know whether they like it or not.

At least this way you're giving them a shot.

(If not you risk falling into a trap I know I've fallen into on occasion -- presuming to think I know more about who people actually are than I could possibly know. It lets me moan about my isolation (when that strikes), without the responsiblity of risking failure (ie: "maybe I'm afraid I won't run the game well, better to know it's *those* people who wouldn't like it in the first place.)

Think throgh the possibility of just *doing* what you want to do. Then, at least, you all know.

Christopher

Hello,

Ayrizale, what would your "meatier" game look like?

Are you interested in getting your players to be able to invest more in setting, world and character? What you are describing sound a lot like what I most enjoy in a game. I've found people of like mind and had a very satisfying gaming life for the last few years.

(The thread Christopher pointed out, over in RPG Theory, is ending up being about pre-planning, but it is shared world creation and group authorial power, concensus based resolution and power in the world, needs-based experimentation with mechanics, player ownership of game world, multiple characters and more that I want to discuss as well.)

Starting with an entirely different game system (Sorcerer, Soap, etc) that can help your players begin to get their minds around different styles of play seems like a great place to start.

My group started with world based simulationist play where all of the players have shared creation and exploration powers. This has easily become more narrativist once the world and setting have been established, and as the players have become more knowledgeable about narrativism. It is possible that it may be hard for players to invest in a sim-based world that they only get to have input on in very small, constrained ways.

Questions you may want to ask yourself are: What is it that I love about the kind of gaming I want to do? How can I help others to find that in play?

--Emily Care

"How can I help others to find that in play? "

I think Emily really nailed something there.




****

Oh, and Emily, sorry about short-changing your MFA program. ; )

Christopher, Emily, Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I'll check out the thread that you both mentioned in a few minutes. First I would like to address a couple of the things that were said in these posts and see if I can figure out what it is that I'm thinking here. (I've found that talking/writing these things out shows me where my logic has gone wrong.)

Christopher:

>I'll offer that if someone doesn't know what you're talking about, (ie,
>hasn't experienced it), describing it won't help. The best you might be
>able to do is say, "Do you guys want to try something new?" and then if
>they say yes, just show up with Sorcerer. Lay out the basics, get them
>to create characters. By *experiencing* they'll come to know whether
>they like it or not.

This is a good point. I failed to really make sure that they understood the kind of game that I usually prefer to run, so that my fault from the start. Since that time, I have had the chance to talk to the players about some of their concerns about how the game is going and nearly all of my suggestions have been met with a refusal to compromise. I like intrigue games that work on many levels, but none of the players are even willing to consider the possiblity of taking notes so as to follow the action.

Now I don't presume to blame them. As I said in my original post on this thread, they are just after a bit of good, clean escapism and I really don't have a beef with that. I can even understand and respect it. On the other hand I want more complexity. Starting this game without really discussing what I want is my own fault, the rest is just a disconnect on what defines "fun".

I would love to get a group of players that are willing to try the consensual reality creation or even the use of Author stance to help direct the story, but every time I have tried (and I have tried) to get that kind of input from my players I either get nothing back, or I get complaints that it "is too much like work".

Emily:

Thanks again for the thoughtful reply and I'll read your thread with interest. My "meatier" game would probably contain a narritivist premise, something along the line of the basic question of Sorcerer or even something similar to the Hero Wars game that Ron has just wrapped up. Something that makes you go "Hmmm". Maybe not even anything that heavy, but something along those lines. Maybe "Is it better to kill someone quickly rather than letting them die a slow and painful death, and what is the cost to the one that must kill them?" Or something like that.

The problem is that I have never had the chance to get into such a game, so I'm not even 100% sure that I would like it. But it is something that I very much want to try. I'm seeking to expand my horizons and no one wants to go with me. :-/

I would love to have a group such as yours that is actually willing to do a little legwork for the game, to help build the setting. But I have yet to find any such people. I have talked to many people in the area and have asked them if they would be interested in getting a game together in any system and building the details of the world together. I've actually been asking people about this kind of thing for the past four or five years (long before I found this site or had ever heard of narritivism.) And I have yet to get even one taker. The players around here (at least the ones that I've been able to find) appear to like their settings as bland and cliched as possible so that they do not have to invest anything in it and can simply take it for granted that a Fantasy game will have elves and a Sci-Fi game will have Warp Speed or Hyperspace. (Clearly not Sim/Setting players around here.)

And let me say again that I do not blame them for their choices or the problems that I'm having. I understand their choices and to some degree respect them. When they are in a game that they are comfortable with, they have a good time and enjoy themselves, so clearly I am the outsider around here.

Anyway, let me go and check out that thread of yours, sounds like an interesting topic.

Thanks,

Lael

Let me try and make a few suggestions:

You say that you want to introduce more authorial power to your players, but they don't seem to want to put in the effort required. Well, as a start you may want to try a game like Donjon Krawl. It uses quite a bit of authorial power, yet it's light in theme. This way your players can see how much fun different styles of play can be, yet they won't draw any kind of associations between meatier subject matter and those techniques. It might not be what you want right away, but at least they would be moving in the "right" direction. Then, I'd say you'd be in a better position to drop a more narrativist orientated game on them. In other words, once they have a grasp on some of the techniques, you can try out some more serious subject matter using those techniques.

Alternativily, don't worry about authorial power. Use the simulationist techs that everyone is comfortable with, but throw some heavier stuff at them in small doses. The small doses are the key though. Sometimes, if you try to much at once, you can really alienate people. I think just having few choice moments that make everyone quetion the situation beyond the typical, "Should I kill it?" would make you a lot happier with you gaming. Then maybe your players will become more interested in those moments and you can talk about how to do more of that with them.

What I would not do is start throwing theory in their face. Not that you have, but I want to kick myself for all the times I started saying, "I want narrativist play and you don't. You suck." I've even tried to go about the subject in a more discussion-based fasion, where everyone is just airing their own viewpoints. It doesn't work most of the time. You are much better off playing games and throwing new stuff at them in small doses. Then when you have your post-game wrap-up, you can ask them, "Did you like this?" If they say yes, you can move the game in more of that direction. The key is to challenge the players to try new things, not to expect them to conform to a certain style of play.

Theory is good for talking about games, and designing, but when it comes to acutally playing a game, throwing labels around can be very dangerous.

Sounds good, Lael. Maybe you can try Tim C K (fleetingGlow's) suggestions.

It is discouraging to have people turn down more creative power in the name of it being "too much work." Honestly, it took me several years of watching other people do it before I believed that I could build world etc with the best of them... And at least I had people modeling the behaviour in front of me...

And Chris:

Christopher Kubasik wrote:
Oh, and Emily, sorry about short-changing your MFA program. ; )

Cool. Thanks for the suggestions. I've already got some ideas for stuff that I can toss them and see how they handle it. I have at least one player that may be willing to go for something a bit deeper. I've had some ideas and I think that I'm going to play it out and see if I can get those moment's of "payoff" that make it worth the time. And if it doesn't work, then it is just another lesson learned.

Thanks again for the insights,

Lael

Odd. You want a Simulationist game with a Narrativist Premise? Hmmm. And that premise you cite is reeeeeally narrow. It would get thematically played out after the first encounter. A typical Sim -char/setting Premise is more like "What is it like to be a knight in Arthurian legend." Ala Pendragon.

How about a more specific question. What system would you use? What type of setting interests you? Anything as long as it's group constructed?

FWIW, I can identify with your desires. I and my friends happily play mostly Sim - char/setting stuff. And I really enjoy group creation of setting (one of the features of Universalis). So I can see where you are coming from, I think. But I also know that we're a fairly rare bunch. If you can take it, you're best bet to find more people like yourself is on-line gaming, as you suggest.

Mike

Mike,

Although I believe that I tend towards Sim - Char/Setting, I also believe that I would really like to give Narritivist gaming a try. I have not had the chance yet to even give it the briefest of tries. The Premise that I gave was probably very narrow simply because that is an area of gaming that I have never had the chance to explore, and so I'm kind of fumbling around for a really good example.

What system would I use? Hmmm... Depends on what I'm wanting to play. If I want to go for a Sim - Char/Setting game, then I would currently choose White Wolf's new offering, Exalted. I really, really like the setting and the system/setting combination, IMO, offers the opportunity for some very interesting characters.

If I were wanting a narritivist game, I would first want to try either Sorcerer (probably with "& Sword") or Hero Wars.

What settings do I like? Epic High Fantasy, usually. Pretty much anything with Magic, or Mysticism, or just something that is "unexplained." I liked the Setting for Shadowrun almost as much as I like the setting for Exalted, for example.

Like Narritivist play, I have yet to actually play in a group constructed setting either, so this is more about me wanting to expand my horizons while everyone else is quite content with their horizons where they are.

I am considering online gaming, and may go that route at some point. But I also like the social aspect of playing in the same room as the other players.

I hope that answers the questions that you had, and if you have any more I'll do my best to answer them. If I missed the point of the messages/questions or if I'm just missing something in general, please point it out to me, I can be kinda dense sometimes. :)

Thanks,

Lael