I am very sorry. I have nothing against gamisnm, but now that I understand it, I see how my gaming group goes together:

Me: Logical simulationist, (with gamist tendencies) flawlessly logical.

Anthony: The most focused Narativist I have ever seen. He played adventure games from 1992 to now, and believes them to be superior. He is simulationist last, and I could say that he almost makes it a priority.

Brother: My brother is an odd case. He tries to be a narrativist, but can't quite understand why. I'd say that he's a simulationist.

Scratchware(Chary): He is very hard case. He doesn't understand gaming, and I'm not entirelley shure if he enjoyes it. He plays like a gamist, so that's what I'll classify him as for now.

Cody: Biggest gamist I have ever seen. We have used the philosophy that he's Chaotic Neutral, but now see that he's a gamist. He brags about his characters' abilities before we even play the game and about his equipment (which I took GREAT pleaure taking from him in-game).

Now, the problem is that I am a dramatic simulationist, and see that our views contradict in many ways, and that our differences span the entire triangle (even if it doesn't exist). I have been told to host hack-slash campaigns but that satisfies one person. I try to have advanced plots and have everything make sense to give the players more controll of the environment, but that satisfies me only. After everyone else, I don't even try to help Anthony. Any advice to overcome our differences? If you want, I can give examples justifying all of my observations concerning their GNS status. I have nothing that goes against gamisnm and have enjoyed that style of play in the past, but that just wouldn't satisify our group.

Sorry for starting another thread, but I have many conflicts that need resoluton.

Pyron,

It's really difficult having a playing group that wants to pull in different directions. I sympathise completely.

That said, I'd like to note that it can be a mistake to analyse other people's playing styles. Two players might have 'story' goals, where one is making story-orientated choices for Simulationist reasons and another is making them for Narrativist reasons.

And remember, these are just descriptions of choices people make. During certain scenes, it's possible that everyone will go a little Gamist for a while.

However, if you feel happy with your observations, and feel that one of your players has dramatically different goals to the rest of the group, then that's a problem. There are a bunch of possible solutions.

You don't *have* to run games that everyone will enjoy. To use the ever-popular 'band' metaphor, if you want to play jazz, and one of your band would really rather play metal, then maybe your goals are too different. You'll have to discuss that with your own group.

As it can sometimes be a mistake to throw a lot of terminology at a playing group, you might instead want to try just running something fresh and new. Pick up a copy of InSpectres, perhaps, and see if your group enjoys the experience. Let them know the game's a little unusual, but works perfectly, and can be a lot of fun.

And after running an odd (possibly Narrativist) game, talk it over with your players and see what they liked or didn't like. Ask them whether the system was something that appealed to them, or if it got in the way of what they wanted to do.

There's a lot of other indie games people could recommend if that was an approach you were interested in pursuing.

Best,

Joe.

Hi Eric (Pyron),

I think you've described a situation that a lot of people can understand. For instance, through much of my role-playing through the 1980s, I was, essentially, Anthony, in terms of the groups I was in. If I wanted Narrativist play, I had to do it myself to the small extent it was possible, and I had to be the only one, mainly, who perceived it.

Well, so what to do? People at the Forge have lots of differing views on this. I tend to be a hard-liner - "the group" is not sacred to me, and I don't have to play with specific people even if they are my friends (we'll still be friends). I'd rather play with people who share my priorities to a large extent.

On the other hand, Jesse (jburneko) has some great advice about how to handle more diverse groups so that everyone has fun, and I recently had a good private email discussion with Christoffer (Pale Fire) about his experiences along these lines. So not everyone is as hard-line ("intolerant" if you will) as me.

Chime in, folks. This is where theory and practice help one another.

Best,
Ron

If you want to keep a diverse group of players happy, track down "Robin's Laws", the book of game-running advice by uber-designer Robin Laws. It's an inexpensive little pamphlet published by SJG. Unlike Ron's hard-line approach, Robin considers it the GM's "job" to keep a group of players with varied tastes satisfied. If that's what you're interested in, his approach (which overlaps a good deal with the GNS stuff, from a different perspective) is worth looking into.

Gordon

Thanks for the advice, despite that probability that this has been in 50 threads already. I also request what kind of gameing style works best with diverse groups. Joe suggested narrative, but I want everyones views. Please tell me other qualities and tell me why.

Thanks,
Eric

Eric,

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that a Narrativist game *will* work best with a diverse group. Your group might hate it. But it might be worth a try, and if nothing else, you'll see who enjoy that style of play and who doesn't.

If that's the style of play you favor, it could be an interesting experience.

Joe.

Thanks.

One of the points of GNS is that some players are incompatible with others. Even if you have a system that somehow supported well all three styles of play, just the fact that some players were playing in a different style from their own can annoy some players. It certainly makes for difficult play under any circumstances.

In other words, we don't have a good solution for you. You have three options"

1. Play with a mixed group and deal with the myriad problems that can occur.
2. Get the players to play one way. This is really difficult, and may just dissatisfy certain players.
3. Get different players who all play like you want to play.

Nobody as yet has come up with any other options. Sorry.

Mike

Well, one way to handle it (the way one GM handled it with a diverse group) was basically by giving every player a little of what he/she wanted, but not enough to tick off the other players.

I'm not sure he was aware of what he was doing, but in a typical session we'd have a number of battles (pretty quick and painless, not enough to make me go asleep) to satisfy the guys who liked to show off the prowess of their character and their own "skills" at strategy. A mystery - to satisfy me in trying to figure out what had happened. He'd cut me a lot slack in improvising, but not punishing the less imaginative for not doing so. He made sure never de-protagonized our characters, and you got the feeling he played "fair" and never fudged rolls. All situations could be survived and the only way to die was by trying to go against the odds.

I don't know if you can sort any good advice out of that, so I'll try to do it for you:

* Don't punish players for playing a specific mode
* Don't let one mode overshadow all others (pretty much ties into the above)
* Allow for everyone to play their specific way
* Give a lot of room for different solutions to problems

Hmmm... Not much you couldn't figure out yourself I guess. Try to spread out the rewards. Reward the gamist for being gamist, the narrativist for being narrativist and so on. I think that's the essence of it. As long as everyone feel they have the GM's approval to play their way, it doesn't matter if the other players dislike it. The players may be at each others throats but as long as everyone feels the GM isn't taking sides and seem to want everyone to play their own way, I think it's still possible to have everyone play together.

As long as everyone can think they're playing the game "the right way" I think it can work well. And the same goes for the GM. The GM needs to feel that the way he GMs is accepted as well.

I've played with a homogenous group where everyone played pretty much the same, and althought that is very nice, the mixed group has one nice thing and that is the very fact that it do IS heterogenous. Play can be much more varying and unpredictable.

My two cents, for what it's worth.

The GNS preferences are just that, preferences. We all have prefences on many things, but just because we have a preference does not mean we cannot enjoy other things. This is like eating a big bowl of vanilla ice cream and not enjoying it because we prefer strawberry. Also, people change. I used to hate mexican food, now I love it. People change. Tastes change.

Now there's nothing wrong with having a preference or to seek out the things you like, but you can also adjust your prioreties and enjoy the game being played.

The question is, what are you willing to let ruin your fun?

That said, I've recently been able to rejoin my friends D&D group and I'm aghast at how bored I am with it. So I guess I'm willing to let any little thing ruin my fun.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: If you want to keep a diverse group of players happy, track down "Robin's Laws", the book of game-running advice by uber-designer Robin Laws. It's an inexpensive little pamphlet published by SJG. Unlike Ron's hard-line approach, Robin considers it the GM's "job" to keep a group of players with varied tastes satisfied. If that's what you're interested in, his approach (which overlaps a good deal with the GNS stuff, from a different perspective) is worth looking into.

Gordon

Thank you for your advice. I especialy liked Mike's, concise choices. I've decided to with 1 as it's my only choice. I can't abandon the group, for I live in Nebraska at a younger age (which I think RPGs aren't being played with much). Plus it would be unfair (and impossible) to change their RPing tendencies. I'll look at Robin's laws. Many thanks.