Well, I debated some about the usefulness of actually posting this account, but the entertainment value it had for Ron has convinced me to press on and tell you all about the only moments of misery we had at GenCon this year.

Well, I suppose that's a bit too dramatic.  I mean, the game sucked, but our indie-Forgite-lexicon allowed us to see the dysfunction for what it was instead of just getting steamed up about it.  This post is about what went down in that session and the types of dysfunction we saw there.

Lisa and I just kinda picked the game out of the book 'o events.  It was billed as a 'Champions of Rokugan' event.  I figured what the hell.  At worst we'd be minor pawns in a story about the big names of the setting and at best we might get to play those big names and have an impact on the story (funny pipe dream!).

When we show up we find out that we're jumping into the middle of a long-term HUGE event that's been going on for years.  My first indication of trouble was when they took us aside to generate our characters.  When asked what I'd like to play, I was direct and said that I'd go with something simple, a Crab Bushi (for those of you unaware of the L5R setting, that means I stand there and get attacked while saying rude things about monsters).  The immediate reaction of the GM that was 'helping' me create the character was... well, somewhat like I'd just inserted a spoonful of my own bodily fluids into his mouth.  Alarm bells went off in my head.  When I explained that I'd played a Crab in the past and would have an easier time getting into character he seems slightly relieved and explained that he was afraid that I was looking to play a "basher".  Or some such crap. 

The important thing being that I should have known to cut and run right then and there.  But I didn't.  Tales of tragedy usually start out that way, don't they?  I mean, with the protagonist knowing that they're doing something foolish.  That was me.

As I write this I'm referring back to my little blue notepad.  I wish I had a scanner.  Ron was so tickled by my notes he had me passing them around.

Once the game got started, which took a while, we got right into the [glow=red,2,300]Click On This NPC For Mission[/glow] scene.  Somehow all of our PCs were walking down the same road and met with the same famous NPC all at once (whom I'd never heard of).  Said NPC invites us to a... *ponder*  I think it was a drinking establishment for a meeting.  When we get there Uber NPC of Mission Statements comes out from behind the curtain to tell us what we need to do.  Which was basically a treasure-hunt mission where we were gathering the ingredients to some uber-kewl anti-Shadows spell.  When one of the players requested a 'gaijin lantern' from the mission-statement NPC (apparently to fight the Shadows, I dunno) the NPC informed him that he, the PC, couldn't possibly afford such an item.  Mission-statement NPC immediately disappears behind the curtains again and we're off.

Note of Annoyance:  The GM kept pronouncing it a "guy-jean" lantern.  I don't give a rat's ass if that is the correct pronunciation, he sounded like a pompous ass.

The rest of the session basically included our group of PCs travelling from one town to another to gather the essential items for the uber-spell.  Disappointingly, the "challenge" of obtaining the items for the spell basically came down to some annoying flavor text from the GM about how the local magistrates would keep us waiting for days at a time before allowing us to check their libraries and basements, and then was resolved with single Perception checks.  Checks everyone knew we had to succeed at.  Silly annoying shit.

Then there were the annoying and useless combat scenes we got into.  Scenes where, just before we actually defeated the meaningless baddies, the GM would announce "Well, you got them, so on to the next town..."  Very anti-climatic.  And frustrating.

To sum up the rest of the dysfunction, I'll give it to you more directly;

While travelling on a ship along the coast between towns an argument between a player and the GM broke out on how difficult it was to swim in 'light' oriental armor.  The argument lasted ten or fifteen minutes.  The 'scene' took about this long:  "You take a boat to the next town." 

The GM had a nice one-two punch of dysfunction when he had one player roll something like eight consecutive Void rolls.  When she finally resulted in a failure he informed her that she wouldn't regain any void points until we were done with the journey.  In the very next breath we were done with the journey.  Fascinating.

There was this one particularly wonderful moment of crap when, while travelling from town to town, we were haunted by an annoying and insulting NPC.  No matter where we went there he was with his bad attitude.  And the same lines over and over again I might add.  It was obvious the GM expected us to react to him right away and had nothing more creative in mind when we ignored him at first. 
Eventually I declared "Ok fine, I'll bite.  I walk up to him and tell him that I'm tired of his insults and I'd like to see him outside."
GM:  "Ok, he's outside."
Me:  "Um, he blipped outside?"
GM:  "Yup."  *annoying GM grin of stupidity*
Me:  "Ok, I'll stroll outside and..."
GM:  "Ok, so you run outside and bash him on the head..."
Me:  "Whoa!! No!  I stroll outside and I..."
GM:  "Right!  So you run outside and bash him on the head!  Before your weapon strikes him he shrinks down to this big and then disappears into the sand."
That was the end of the scene.  Fascinating.

At one point we had this wonderful fight where some big baddie, backed up by a smattering of shadow monsters, came along and smashed my character in the forehead with a tree.  Not quite sure how that happened.  I mean, we were in the middle of a rice paddy, walking along the raised path between patties.  Of course, I actually missed the rice patty thing at first.  When Lisa's character was thrown thirty feet away and was unable to climb up the steep incline in time to make an attack I naturally assumed that we were on the side of a steep cliff face.  Silly me.  After the baddie struck me in the noggin with the elm he made a break for the back of the back of the party (we had previously declared our marching order) to fuck with the thinkers of the group.  When I declared that I would catch up to the baddie and put a toothpick in his rear I was informed that "You can't get to him."  I hope you can imagine the blank and confused stare I gave the GM at that point.

Mostly I was dissapointed that I'd been robbed the opportunity to let my character die with honor.  I was really hoping to take a bashing by that timber again.

The last item of note on my list o' dysfunction from that session was my reminder of how many times we rolled to find clues.  Clues that were essential to the storyline.  Know what?  The same character got the best roll every time.  Which means that not only was rolling silly since we were all going to get the clue anyway, but it was doubly silly as we all knew who was going to get the best roll.

My own private lesson from this?

While it may certainly be possible to have fun playing non-indie RPGs at Cons it's simply too big of a risk.  I'm better off volunteering my time as a GM for games I know I'll be entertained by.  Not only will my own entertainment be assured but I'll also bring a greater measure of entertainment to those I GM for. (I should hope!)

Sounds pretty awful, yet familiar. I think it may be due to John Wick inspired Game master tactics, because I seem to have found my worst experiences in L5R and Seventh Sea when it comes to ridiculous deprotagonisation and 'railroading'.

Did the GM give his name and was it Travis or Geoff? Silly question, to think my similar dysfunctional L5R play came from the same person, but hey, it's worth a shot.

Sounds similar in ways to my L5R convention experience, which I briefly describe in my Kublacon 2004 Report.  Chris Chinn, in his blog Deep in the Game has described his seemingly disastrous efforts to run a campaign. 

Based on what I've seen thus far, I'm mystified at the seeming popularity of the system -- though I don't want to delve further to find out. 

Hi,

Actually, the folks who I have been running for are L5R fans, one of whom I would call hardcore.  The hardcore player has plenty of stories about playing at cons with "big names" and knows all the metaplot NPCs in and out.  From his description AND yours- it sounds like standard kind of play (Big NPCs push around PCs, terrible Illusionism, etc.)

Chris

hi,

I'm not sure whether you're implying L5R just plain sucks, or that it just sucks at cons (I don't have the Forge lingo down completely yet)

if it's the former, I beg to differ

I've played a couple of games with some friends (one of which, the GM, is a L5R hardcore fan) and had a pretty good time (no particular railroading etc.)

if it's the latter, I agree 100% (I stay away from non-indie cons myself)

that being said, thank you Eric for that post

you had me giggling :)

JC

Gamskee wrote: I think it may be due to John Wick inspired Game master tactics

wrote:
Note of Annoyance:  The GM kept pronouncing it a "guy-jean" lantern.  I don't give a rat's ass if that is the correct pronunciation, he sounded like a pompous ass.

GB wrote:

wrote: I think it may be due to John Wick inspired Game master tactics

I've not played these games so I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you explain?

Christopher,

It was really just a minor annoyance.  The over-pronounciation coming from his lips just seemed to mirror and echo the argument over swimming in oriental armor.  That "I'm the GM and I know more about this culture than you do"-vibe.  That's all.  Just picking nits.

-Eric

Hello,

Eric, the new guys are floundering. If you can, please provide a topic for discussion that stems from this experience - maybe a comparison with another game, or something similar. I can see a "Well I had fun with L5R on Tuesday" mess looming.

Best,
Ron

Christopher wrote:

GB wrote:

wrote: I think it may be due to John Wick inspired Game master tactics

I've not played these games so I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you explain?

Wick wrote the two games.

Sure thing Ron.

I was actually working on this post earlier this morning, but it kept turning into a rant about RPG design.  Not something that would be productive here.  :D

So, here's the thing:

Yes, it is possible to have fun with L5R.  I have had fun with it in the past.  I happen to be one of those guys that started with L5R when it hit the shelf.  We played with the first packs of cards and ran to our local game shop to pick up the RPG as soon as it was in our town.  So, yeah, lots of history and lots of fun games there.

I would like everyone to see that this thread is not intended as a slam on L5R.  I'd purposefully hidden my personal views on the game itself.  What it is is an observation on GMing techniques and styles that I think suck.  Techniques and styles that prevented me from having any real fun during that four hour slice of my life.  I think that you would all agree that No Fun = teh suk any day.

I also observe that all the indie games I play and enjoy have rules that prevent the techniques that I think suck (and replace them with fun techniques).  Therefore I know that I can trust Forgite games at the conventions.  I don't have to wonder if the GM is good or not, the game will prevent any suckage.

If you should read this thread and conclude that the purpose of this thread was to slam one type of game or revere another type then you are mistaken.  My purpose here was to observe and catalog specific behaviors in gaming that are regularly not entertaining to me.  And if those observations cause reflection on the text of L5R I would hope that it would inspire you to ask yourself;  "How could L5R have been designed differently so as to ensure that all players are regularly guaranteed a greater level of entertainment?"

It's productive reflection that's my goal, not destructive.

-Eric

Eric, that's what I was asking about. Is there something inherent in the design of these games, or at least the GM advice that makes play difficult for certain CAs? From what you said in the first post I thought it was just a case of GMing that didn't suit your style of play but later posts suggests that there are perhaps more fundamental reasons.

It would be interesting to know whether you thought anyone enjoyed the game.

I had a very similar experience playing Vampire at Origins and I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the fault of the rules. Everyone seemed unfocused and the game kept stopping to talk about "other cool games I have played". As such it was an group exercise in bragging about "how cool I am" with the game providing a focus for that, rather than seeming to be the main reason for being there. This contrasted strongly with the Call of Cthulhu games I played where hardly a word was spoke OOC.

Hiya,

Maybe this concept needs to be parsed out a bit more, because I think Steve is driving at a good way to phrase it.

Eric, you wrote,

I don't have to wonder if the GM is good or not, the game will prevent any suckage.

Interestingly, about the time this session was going on at GenCon, I was listening to a seminar by John Wick on setting and how to use it in design. And he was using L5R as his example, and speaking about how it is the concept of Glory that brings conflict from the setting to the players (for example how you might be told by somebody with a high Glory to edit your memory of events for political reasons).

Then he also talked about Seventh Sea, and how making the countries Pseudo-Earth nations was a bad, bad idea. He took responsibility on this (using phrases like "we made a mistake, when..."). But here's the thing. As I understand it from talking to John on previous occasions, his hands were really tied in many ways about this having to work with other people on the projects, and having to meet goals set by the company. Splat, Metaplot, Sim.

So Eric is right in that it's not so much John's fault - he knows good design. It's the fact that the games weren't produced independently that caused all of the problems. If there's anything that points to the importance of independent RPGs, it's the problems that you see in play of games like L5R and 7th Sea that are great ideas that get mired up in pandering to "gamer expectations." All good play of these games involves some heavy drift to some playable CA.

Check out John's work since he became independent. Orc World, Cat, etc. You'll see that those problems are gone now. Which, as Ron points out, doesn't make anyone a better GM. You'll just see less in the way of specific dysfunctions.

Eric, either I missed it, or you forgot to mention that you ditched the game. You'd played 4 hours already or something, and were supposed to come back for several more after lunch? Or something like that?

Anyhow, the dysfunction here comes down to railroading, right? That is, even for an educated player like yourself who could try to find some CA to participate in, there was none presented. It sounds like "Complete Participationism" if anything as a CA. Tantamount to storytelling (in the traditional use of the term, not the White Wolf meaning), but requiring the players to say "OK" every so often to indicate that they're complicit? Obviously no narrativism opportunities. No gamism opportunities - when you even tried to simply move in combat, even then you were over-ridden. No sim opportunities for portrayal - sounds like the GM cut you off and even played your character in many cases, and simply shortcutted all narration in other cases.

So, again, it begs the question what the GM thought the player participation was supposed to be? You didn't even seem to get to create window dressing. Here's an interesting excercise. Try to play the part of the GM seriously for a moment. If I asked him, "What is the player's role in your game?" what do you think he'd answer?

Mike

Ron wrote: Welllll ... the game-book doesn't have actual tentacles that reach out and make people play better or worse, or do this or do that.

Steve wrote: It would be interesting to know whether you thought anyone enjoyed the game.

Wow, Eic's experience is a real contrast to Gaerik's post over on the Gencon, GNS and the Games I Played thread.

One of the reasons I have found Theory, GNS and Actual Play threads here on the Forge to be so important to me and my hobby is that it has allowed me to enjoy a variety of play that I never was able to before.  That might seem odd to some.  Either you like a certain style of play or you don't, right?  I'm not so certain that's true anymore.  

[snippage by me]

Vampire: The Masquerade

Totally different session.  I arrived and 2 other players showed up.  The session could handle 6 but no one else arrived so we went with 3.  It didn't make any difference.  Once again I listened to the Storyteller give his introduction to the adventure and I listened to the conversation around the table by the players.  It was all about the Vampire setting and how cool the World of Darkness was.  I don't remember all the conversation but I do remember thinking to myself that this had all the trappings of a really Sim oriented session.

Sure enough, I was right.  The whole session was pure Participationism and Sim.  We all were there to experience being Vampires in the World of Darkness.  We, as players, let the ST tell his story and we provided all sorts of cool color in the telling.  Nothing we did was going to really affect the outcome of the module.  Our job was to help the ST make getting from beginning to end as interesting and cool as possible.

Except that we weren't allowed to add color to the story either.  Just nod and agree.

-Eric

Except that we weren't allowed to add color to the story either.

It seems to me that no "CA Train" was present to hop onto. A group needs to play toward a CA mindfully, and from your description, Eric, it seems like there was no clear agenda in sight. I don't think the GM had a mindful, coherent play style. Rather, he played--like most players I know--based on a jumbled mix of preconceived notions of how RPGs should be played. These notions do not usually group up to a particular CA. They do not present a coherent structuring and reinforcement mechanism. So you can't really participate in a fun way other than by supporting this strange mix that leads nowhere in particular.

Most people who haven't thought about it and adjusted their approach are just not playing with a purpose. Shit, I played like that for many years.

JC wrote:
I'm not sure whether you're implying L5R just plain sucks, or that it just sucks at cons (I don't have the Forge lingo down completely yet)

Hello,

What was funny, was the actual physical notes taken by both Eric and Lisa. They began as plain old scenario notes, clearly written by someone who's trying to play fairly and listen carefully. They quickly changed to statements of horror, descriptions of especially painful peccadillos (e.g. the roll-til-you-fail, hence you fail; the swimming in armor, etc), and then each successive dysfunctional moment got annotated with Forge jargon, hilariously. It was very unfair to say "Sim = tehsuk, Narr = roxxor" in your notes, Eric, but on the other hand, as a statement of preference rather than of universal judgment, it was really funny to see that equation just emerge from note after note of agonized, dawning awareness of just how wrong the whole thing was.

Best,
Ron

P.S. And yes, the problems are "failure to role-play at all" and "Typhoid Mary," not Sim per se. No Simulationist-preferring persons, or games they like, were harmed either by Eric's and Lisa's notes, or by myself in discussion at any time. Notarized documentation of this claim is available.

Hi,

On a related note, my notes during Wick's talk also noted rather interestingly when he himself pointed out that playing a clan samurai is vastly different from playing a ronin is vastly different from playing a courtier- to the point of being completely different games altogether.  I was also amazed when I got back and realized neither 1st nor 3rd edition L5R has ANYTHING in the way of actual play instructions set up for GMs in terms of session advice.  Lack of clear reward system + lack of advice on how to run it + assuming just because all these different possible situations share setting is "good enough" = super shakey ground upon which to hang play.

Chris

komradebob wrote:

Except that we weren't allowed to add color to the story either.

Ever? Zoinks!
How did the other players react to all of this?

Robert, I was specifically addressing the ideas from that other post. That is, I think Eric could and would (and probably did) play Gamism, or simulationism has that been presented. But there was no mode presented.

In most cases.

As Eric admits there was 5 minutes of fun. Meaning that what I think we're seeing is the worst stuff being reported here. I'll bet that at some point during the game (though I could be wrong), that there was an opportunity to have some sim participation. Eric, think back to the game, and try to remember if there were any moments that were good, or, if not good, at least allowed you some sort of participation.

Basically what's likely here is that you have some standard sim with a high number of moments of complete railroading - where I mean railroading to mean not providing the player with some sort of way to participate meaningfully (like ignoring your description of your character strolling out to meet a bad guy and narrating what you want instead). Likely the play wasn't absolutely 100% dysfunctional throughout, just largely dysfunctional.

So what's going on here is some dysfunction (failure to play style), some incoherence both in play and presentation, and perhaps some small amount of functional play (Eric will have to say). The interesting thing about the session is not that there was dysfunction - that's common enough. Many games have some small amounts of dysfunction that don't make the game a total wreck. The interesting thing is that such a large percentage of the game was dysfunctional. Basically, certain of the GM's approaches to play were dysfunctional from the start.

What I think is interesting is how a GM gets to where they believe that these tactics are sound. Often this is the result of incoherent play, and the GM taking more and more control of things just so that the incoherence doesn't rear it's ugly head. If you don't give players control of their characters, they can't delve into dirty gamism, you see. Or whathaveyou. Could be other reasons that GMs get to this point as well. Abusive players, for instance.

If, in fact, the other players were having fun, then we're looking at some extreme Participationism form that's little different than storytelling where you put the audience in the narration as "you." Eric, while you might not have had any clear picture of the particulars of the scenes at all, what you did have was the series of general events. That is, you understood when your characters had gotten the next ingredient, for instance. Or that they had moved on to some new town - even if you didn't know the name or what it looked like. These things are narrative, just a very "wargamey" narrative focusing on the "scenario" elements. I point this out, because we have to indicate just what was going on for the four hours in question. Mostly the GM moving the plot on from pre-scripted situation to pre-scripted situation. Sound right?

Mike

Mike wrote: Sound right?

Hello everyone, my name is Eric and I'm a recovering RailroadAholic.
Hi Eric!

Hi Mike,

You have tripped Eric's better nature switch, and you get the "find the good in anything if at all humanly possible" award, but ...

... if the GM was Geoff, then I know this guy. I've played Seventh Sea with him as GM. Didn't realize it might have been him until this thread. And ...

... if it was him, then I'm confident there was nothing good, not even five minutes. I'm talking about hours of screaming-meemy, bizarre interaction (or lack thereof) in which the only imaginable fun is talking to the girl that you don't know a couple seats away. Not Participationism. Not anything. Fights which don't use the system, strange calls for rolls and enthused discussion of critical-hits for trivial acts (like reading a map, but without giving any content-insight about the map), and resolute blocking of anything a player-character actually does. Lots of giggles, non sequiturs, and name-dropping about what an AEG insider he is.

Four hours of Seventh Sea play, Mike. Not one ... single ... solitary sword-fight even though we literally begged him for one. No, I tell you - there was not five minutes of fun. This was not role-playing of any kind, and could not by any stretch of the imagination be called a "game" or a "session" of anything at all.

Best,
Ron

My "better nature switch"? 

Whacha mean?

-Eric

I mean that Mike's post led you to try to find as much good in the experience as possible. This is a fine thing ... until we bring it to role-playing. Memory is very easily revised, especially in public dialogue of this kind. I remember when you and Lisa returned from the demo, straight to the booth like homing pigeons. Right afterward. I got the raw humor/horror lowdown, not the "hmm, maybe some was good, let me think" public statement.

Again, if it was Geoff, then I will step up and release your better nature from trying to make things nicer than they were. What that guy does, despite the fact that he has a game book open on the table and occasionally rolls dice, is to role-playing what (ummm) carpet bombing is to traffic patterns at stoplight intersections.

Best,
Ron

Ah, I gotcha.  The funny part is, I thought you meant it the other way around. 

Ok.  I'll be very clear and drop all online PCness for one moment.  As I recall it, that game sucked donkey ass.  Every time I hoped for something interesting, everytime I gave a fleeting gesture of participation I was shot down.  Hard.

When he narrated my character running outside to bash the baddie on the noggin when I explicitly stated that I was calmly strolling... I wanted to throttle that little fucker and throw his hairbrush across the room while I lecutured the little bastard on what a crappy GM he was.

When the little shit told me that I couldn't get to the baddie that had just thwunked me in the noggin with a tree I gave him such a stare that one of his regular players immediately jumped to his defense and also began lecturing me on what an UberKewl NPC this was.

I think if there hadn't been those few minutes of fun here and there I never even would have started with my notes looking the way they did.  I mean, if I was feeling pissed on every moment I never would have bothered to take notes about what the story was about.  Those moments just happen to have been overshadowed by really unfun stuff.

-Eric

Eric,

It might be fun if you could image your notes and post them somewhere.

HAHAHAhaha... carpet bombing...  heheheheheheheeeeee...

Sorry.

Didn't mean to rip on John Wick, per se, but I have found that the few people I have played L5R with had a habit of railroading and a "Because I'm the GM!" kind of attitude.

I do not remember word per word all of the advice given for how to run a good L5R game in its earliest incarnation, but parts of it basically amounted to "Make the character's lives hell", which many took to mean, "deprotagonize at every turn and show them their place". Of course, being a setting filled with NPCs of unattainable legendary status and generally playing redshirts for them in early L5R modules, this could be done almost by accident.

I think perhaps the GM advice might have been solid if it had been more focused on "What fun does this particular game provide, how does the system support this fun, and what as a GM can you do to ensure fun for yourself and others."

It could just be that dysfunctional narrativist GM's are either attracted to this game or that it enhances this dysfunction enough to make it really stand out.

I'm curious what others experiences have been. I think Wick probably runs a good game and designs them as well. I'm just not sure if his stint on AEG had the best ability to communicate how to do the former.

Lisa here...

I know there were some questions about who the GM was.  I'm not sure who he was but it was apparent that his grooming was the most important thing to him.  (I did appreciate that by the way.)  He kept brushing his hair about every five minutes and like Eric, at one point I did want to choke him with his hairbrush.

Like Eric though, I should have realized that something was wrong when I was "helped" making my character.  I went with a Matsu Bushi.  I picked a bushi really because I've played a Lion Bushi before and well... I thought it would be an easy add in for such a long occuring campaign.  According to the guys that helped us make our characters, we were entering in the last two sessions of a five year (real time) campaign.  No shit.  So I was a bit confused when we were handed pre-gen PC's that were Rank 1 and given 10 points to modify the PC with.  *shrug*  That was where my first flag went up.

Eric wrote:

komradebob wrote:

Except that we weren't allowed to add color to the story either.

Ever? Zoinks!
How did the other players react to all of this?

Well... as I recall... no one besides Lisa and I even tried.  I had this little quip in the beginning about how I was on a Quest to Fix a Broken Shoe.  And I narrated hobbling about.  When I was summarily ignored by the GM I kinda gave up.  Lisa's issue with her combat narration I've already mentioned.

Eric wrote:
Everyone else?  They just did what they were expected to do.  They sat there and nodded, occationally discussing some aspect of the setting that had no bearing on the story at hand.  So, I can only assume that they were used to, or otherwise prepared for the lack of color.

Eric wrote:
I didn't mention yet that the GM didn't even add any color to the game.  Remember my confusion over the attack occurring on a cliff-face vs. a rice paddy?  I wasn't kidding or exagerating.  I had no idea where our characters were half the time.

Oh fabulous. Thanks for posting those notes, Lisa!

I find this absolutely fascinating. What I'm failing to work out is what kept you two there for the entire morning. I mean, four hours out of your lives? Seems like a lot to me.  Not that I'm complaining, this summary of your torments is highly entertaining.

But seriously, my question is genuine. I've staid in some horrible games for far too long and I can never stop marvelling at this particular dynamic. What kept you, can you say? You can't have hoped for things to improve after the first, well, 30 minutes or so?

Kerstin

Oh my god,

This thread has totally shed light on my own L5R experience- at first I thought that the players were just engaging in geeky side chatter about metaplot & NPCs- now I realize that it was probably habitual stuff because they're used to not actually doing anything in play!  I literally had one player panic and run for the restroom when presented with a Bang...

Chris

Kerstin wrote:
Oh fabulous. Thanks for posting those notes, Lisa!

Kerstin wrote:
I find this absolutely fascinating. What I'm failing to work out is what kept you two there for the entire morning. I mean, four hours out of your lives? Seems like a lot to me.  Not that I'm complaining, this summary of your torments is highly entertaining.

But seriously, my question is genuine. I've staid in some horrible games for far too long and I can never stop marvelling at this particular dynamic. What kept you, can you say? You can't have hoped for things to improve after the first, well, 30 minutes or so?

Ohmigodthefunnybellyhurts!

Thanks for sharing Lisa. I especially liked "...NPC [click here]"

Eric wrote:
GM:  "Right!  So you run outside and bash him on the head!  Before your weapon strikes him he shrinks down to this big and then disappears into the sand."

Ok.  I go to work for a mere 30 hours.  I get back and there's FIVE PAGES of new posts!  Holy crap.

Ok.  Serious kudos to my baby for photoing and posting those notes.  I really had no idea that they'd be so entertaining to so many.

I wanna put out my opinion on the "fun levels" of the other three players.  Zombies.  We were gaming with zombies.  Their brains were pickled, their eyes were glued, and their imaginations had suffered the chemical burns of years of bad gaming.  The GM gave them information.  They nodded.  The GM asked questions like "Do you attack?" and they nodded.  Probably because an affirmitave response was the only correct response.  Were they having fun?  I dunno.  Do bears trained to juggle bowling pins and dance on large red balls have fun?  I dunno.  If I were to guess, and I can only guess, I'd say that they were having just as much fun as they thought they were allowed to have.

And...

I literally had one player panic and run for the restroom when presented with a Bang...

You know, this entertaining and sad thread got me thinking about a group I know that plays in the most dysfunctional way possible.  Everything - and I do mean everything - they do is broken from my perspective.  One player is well known for being deliberately, destructively contrary, regardless of the circumstance.  Two are proud of their ability to grind sessions to a halt over rules minutia.  Another semi-openly cheats, and this is just sort of overlooked as a mild personal flaw.  In play, apparently (God knows I have never gamed with these people - this is all second hand, from some of the participants and their pals) they'll spend several hours arguing for every fifteen minutes of actual play, and their sessions run to 10-12 hours in length.

And they are all fine with this.  They've been gaming together for ten years.  They are friends. 

The bottom line is that they have found a safe, familiar groove that they can all enjoy.  It isn't our cup of tea, but ten solid years says it is definitely theirs.  Who are we to evangelize?  This is a serious question, because my instinct is to reach out and say "there's another way, dudes."  But since they know what they are doing and are OK with it, is that just arrogance on my part?  I really don't know. 

Since this thread has included some mockery of people in a similar situation (including the L5R GM, I suspect), I think it is worth discussing.  What's your take?

My take is that the first step on the road to recovery is the desire to be helped.  If dysfunctional gamers are happy then there's nothing we really can do to help.  Every word of reason from our well-intentioned mouths will fall on ears blocked with years or even decades of denial.

But that's just my experience so far. 

Well, that's not entirely true.  My just try this once approach has worked on one or two gamers, but they already trusted me enough to open their minds to the game once we sat down to it.

-Eric

Eric,

What are the hash marks on page two tracking?

While this thread is a lot more good-humoured and good-natured than mine http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=15997.0), I can't help noticing that the game sounds quite similar, and that the people I played with--no more--are also big fans of L5R.

Love the notes. My SW chr sheet is covered in drawings.

Hey,

So I've been following this thread, and at first I was laughing in horror, but something started to nag at me. Not to pick on Eric, but this bit highlighted what was poking at me.

Eric Provost wrote: If dysfunctional gamers are happy then there's nothing we really can do to help.

Larry,

The hasmarks weren't created during the session itself, but rather as a refrence to something the gm did.  He kept notes as to how many days had passed using hashmarks.  And the number of days that passed had zero to do with the story at all.  There was no time limit, no phases of the moon to worry about, nothing.  Lisa tells that version of the story better than me, but it's the bit that comes down to "Ok, you won't gain your void points back for 18 days... and now the 18 days are over." *paraphrase*

Chris,
You're right, it is a tangent.  Please take it to another thread if you'd like to discuss if gamers who are having less fun than they can are dysfunctional or not.  I'll be happy to post my opinion there if you start it.

-Eric