OK, here's my situation:
I really haven't been able to play with any regularity in the last 4 years due to my work schedule. Now I have a new job that will no doubt kill me, but I can now play on a regular basis. During that time, I have been able to play on and off a couple times, sometimes a month at a time but not always. Mostly I didn't. Point is, I'm rusty. Add to that all the crap I've been filling my head with, narrativism and such, and the problem takes shape.

The group is player D&D3e. I'm going to be fairly vague here about the people specifically since I don't want to talk shit about them behind their back and stuff, but if you ask me a direct question, I will answer it.

This week started with one of the players having a little "talk" about last week's battle with the other players and what problems we have. To his credit, he started with himself. His "talk" boiled down to two basic points:

• No one is really role-playing enough.
• Everyone showed poor tactics in last weeks battle



Now, I know there's a problem here, but darn is I can express it into words. Add to this that his memory of last week's battle was skewed a little (i.e. he accused one player of doing something which just plain isn't how it happened either last week or during the campaign at large. I'll elaborate on this if anyone asks) and he's also the sort who wants everything just so but doesn't go out of his way to tell you how he wants it or nothing. This just adds distraction to the problem at hand.

To, it seems like these two things are separate goal as per the GNS and stuff and what's good for one is not necessarily good for the other.

I admit that I am somewhat not there. Maybe I should leave the group. But I'm trying to puzzle this thing out so maybe I won't have to.

So, any questions or comments?

Jack,

That is indeed rather vague. But it doesn't sound like a total disaster area. Take a look at Pyron's woes for a number of excellent suggestions that should serve a group that is not as bad off as his seems to be.

The core of it:



• Discussion of battle tactics should be the last thing. That's one player's priority.
• First discuss what people's priorities are. As has been said elsewhere, this is not the place to bring up GNS. Just what are people looking for? What do they mean by "role-playing"?
• Hash out the scheduling stuff, how much table-talk is OK, what kinds of things in play push people's buttons (in subject matter and in out-of-game social behavior). You know, that whole social contract thing.



Start there and see how it goes. Maybe have the above discussion on a night when you all play something less fractious, like a card game or something.

--JB

J B Bell wrote: Discussion of battle tactics should be the last thing. That's one player's priority.

First discuss what people's priorities are... Just what are people looking for? What do they mean by "role-playing"?

Start there and see how it goes. Maybe have the above discussion on a night when you all play something less fractious, like a card game or something.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I think this is also a fairly disfunctional group with some seriously socially retarded individuals. That is, pretty much all of the people sitting at the table has some form of mental/emotional problems and a few of them have been professionally diagnosed, two are without job because of this, one of which is living in a group home and one several medications.

I am in distress because the reaction to my group was worse than yours. My feelings: Drop them. If they make up most of the group, leave the group. I don't know what you are trying to fix. Even if you get them to role-play you then have a whole new area of problems to work with. I really don't know what to say.

Hi Jack,

It all comes down to this: are you happy playing with these folks? That is, socially, personally, time-expenditure-wise?

If not, don't play with them, all done.

If you are, then the concern becomes, how do you communicate with them about your unease? Let's take the only concrete thing we've heard about: "better role-playing" and "better tactics." And right away, I hit a brick wall. We (and you) don't have enough to work with, mainly because by "role-playing," a person can mean anything.

For instance, the GM may expect total in-character characterization during non-combat scenes and total out-of-character tactical commitment during combat scenes.

Or, in many contexts, using optimal battle tactics would be consistent with the characters' outlooks and concerns - hence better role-playing = better tactics.

Or he wants two contradictory things and is in denial about it.

See what I mean about all the possibilities? There're more, too.

Now, I'm not in the group, and so I don't know. Maybe in your experience of them, the two "betters" are indeed contradictory. I do suggest probing just a little to see whether they are or aren't. Ask for an example of each one, or of both together.

Best,
Ron

Pyron wrote: I am in distress because the reaction to my group was worse than yours.

Ron Edwards wrote: Now, I'm not in the group, and so I don't know. Maybe in your experience of them, the two "betters" are indeed contradictory. I do suggest probing just a little to see whether they are or aren't. Ask for an example of each one, or of both together.

H'mmm,

This might be one of those situations in which goals of play are not even relevant. (Cue: "Whaa-at? What did he say??")

Chill out, everyone. You all know that I think Exploration and GNS and every role-playing technique exist embedded in a social matrix. And I've always been fine with the idea that some groups are only about the socializing, and literally don't care about the role-playing, rendering GNS etc totally moot (because it's about the role-playing).

So, if that's the case with this group, a questionnaire from you will have about the same effect as the processing/control stuff going on from the woman you described - ie, no effect. In that case, the only question you have to face is the one about whether you (and your wife) want to socialize with these folks at all. The role-playing will be irrelevant.

Again, I don't know. I'm trying to see all the possibilities.

Here's another one: if enough people involved do indeed want to have a more coherent group in terms of role-playing itself. If that's so, then the woman's desire to "talk" is a constructive thing. I mean, that's what we always say to people, right? Talk to the players? Communicate? So if that's going on, then good on her. She's opened some dialogue about goals, even if it's perhaps more about "I want you to play my way," or whatever. If this is the case, then your questionnaire is a valid and hopefully useful extension of that dialogue.

Well, that's about all I can say without further information. Let us know how it goes.

Best,
Ron

Below in the quote box is a questionaire I came up with, including the little intro. I know I must be missing some important points with this, so comments?

The following fill-in-the-blanks are designed to help figure out what you desire out of a role-playing experience and how to best get it. Answer each question as completely and honestly as you can. Use a separate sheet of paper. Remember: the only bad answer is a dishonest answer.

1. A role-playing game is _______.
2. To me, "role-playing" means: _______.
3. The most important thing in a RPG session is _______.
4. The least important thing in a RPG session is _______.
5. When playing, I am most happy when _______ .
6. When playing, I am least happy when _______.
7. As a player, I enjoy doing _______ during a session. (You the player, not your character)
8. As my character, I enjoy doing _______ during a session.
9. After a session, I feel _______.
10. I would most like to play _______ type of game because _______.

Couple problems I see. One is that the "least important part" is really hard to answer; the natural inclination is to say something absurd. Also, in question 10 there's no way to answer it by literally filling in the blanks while being gramattical; that always bugs me on questionnaires.

Henry Fitch wrote: One is that the "least important part" is really hard to answer; the natural inclination is to say something absurd.

Good thought for #10. As for the "absurd" bit, I mean things like "fighting monsters based on ex-US Presidents isn't important" or "having our characters get killed and fed to one another by psychotic innkeepers isn't a priority."

I don't think you can really choose the least important thing when there's no defined set of "things." It's like trying to choose the highest positive number.

Hmmm....

I suppose it depends on how you read it. It says least important, which could be read as, it's still important, but of the other stuff that is important it's the least important. That stuff you've mentioned doesn't even register, you know?

Uhh... Off track but my opinion:

4. should be something like: The least important element of role-playing is:

Hi Jack,

Definitely keep the n°6 (the least...), because it can indicate some pretty important things. Forex. for me at one time the answer would have been: fights. If we had anwser such a questionaire, it would have been made obvious for everyone why I didn't enjoy some seesions.

Take care,

Fabrice.

I might recommend not using a printed questionaire for this, or doing the verbal equivalent. I think that your idea of going in with a list of questions that you'd like to know people's responses to is a good idea. I expect the answers to be less useful that you might hope.

When I was serving my time as a high-priced consultant, universally the best way to get honest responses that match observed reality was with face to face verbal communication. This type of communication also provides you with a prime opportunity to get your point across, just by asking the right questions.

Bringing a printed questionaire into this creates a gigantic barrier to open communication, especially because people think differently when writing and when speaking. Make sure you're indicating in your non verbal communication how important what they have to say is, as well. Don't have much more than a piece of paper for taking notes in front of you, and don't spend too much time looking at that paper. Look at them when they're speaking, and you'll be surprised how much useful information flows.