I'm sorry for starting such a selfish thread but I figure that it might create a good discussion and I probably carry enough prestigue around here to have people tolerate it :). Anyway:

I have conveyed a deep ignorance about narrativismn. This is because it's implication is correct. What I'm trying to say is that my G/N/S decisions are about 25%/40%/35% (in the order that is original [G-N-S]). I don't understand how to disstinguish my RPG between narrativismn and simulationism if I can't distinguish my dominent style of play. This is very frusterating, as I don't even know where to put this. Example: Last session my players were acting like idiots [again]. They did the usual stupid things: Ignoring the social interaction I let them have; walking through fire (literally walking); not displaying any emotion (fear towards the academy headmaster [who has a tatoo and a bad attitude]/suprise/distaste/virtually anything);ignoring combat when it presented itself; complaining that they had no oppertunities to do anything. I was stunned when, in the middle, I found that I expected the players to make a narrativist decision. I try to force the players to have backgrounds, and about a million other things. I simply don't have enough data/intelligance to understand what I dominate in: Narrativism/Simulationism. There are just too many questions. One is if simulationism even exists. Ron; I've read your essay, but the answer's just aren't there. I'm sorry, and I expect that this will be a short thread, but I just need a little information more to create my RPG. Sorry for my rambly post, but I'm in a very chaotic mindset. Thanks.

I'm sorry, but I can't find a line of argument - or even a clear question - in your post. What exactly is the problem? That you don't know your personal preference? That your don't know the preference of your players? That your players are stupid? That you wonder wat exactly defines narrativism and simulationism? Are you wondering how to combine them? Are you wondering how to play with a group that has different priorities from yourself? Could you please explain your problem a bit better? :)

I don't know if this is a constructive answer. But the problem may be Pyron, that you're playing with children (literally), and expecting them to not act like children. Hell, when I was 7, I doubt I could have spelled narrative decision, let alone made one.

Maybe you need to just find a more adult group to play with, and just continue to enjoy your current group for the style of play they offer.

Hi Eric,

I'm asking this question in hopes that it will help you frame your question more clearly:

Can you think of one, single, unequivocally excellent role-playing experience that you have had?

If so, what made it so enjoyable?

Best,
Ron

Hi Eric

Well, lessee... You've said a lot here and I'll try to address it.

First of all, you mention forcing your players to do things. Never force your players to do anything. It just won't work. Playing an RPG is supposed to be fun and being forced to do something usually is not fun.

You'd mentioned specifically having your players write up backgrounds for their characters. I would suggest you never ever do that again. It never works. That is, if the player is really into it and have a fleshed-out idea for their character in the first place, they will write a background on their own. If not, then they either won't or do a half-assed job and barely refer to it during play.

Likewise, do not try to force players to make narrativist decisions. If they are uninterested in such things, then you can't force them to do so. Narrativism tends to require an investment of emotion and creative effort which, if the players are unwilling to put in, it simply will not work.

Actually, it sound like your players are either unmotivated or just completely unsure of what they want out of a game session. This, I think is the root of the problem because it sounds like you yourself don't know what you want exactly.

I wouldn't worry about this too much. I've since put the trouble with my group on hold for a while until I can figure out what I want.

Now, not knowing what you want isn't so big a problem. It's something that can be remedied to everyone's benefeit. The unmotivated part will be a pain in the ass, unfortunately. Several of the players in my group tend to just sit there, and I'm no better lately I can say I'm rusty all I want but I still suck.

When you're dealing with either immature or socially stunted people, this will be a hard row to hoe. I suggest you sit everyone down and find out exactly what they want or expect from playing an RPG, and hopefully you'll find an argeeable solution.

Wow Ron, I'd have to think long and hard about that one. Because of my history role-playing has been almost entirelley dissfunctional I'd have a large problem with that... Let's see... In Star Wars D20 Anthony once had a robot. His name was R4-D2. He was on a desperate mission to destroy a space station, and had had a notion to override the security using R4. I rolled and his robot was flooded with electricity. Soldiures approached and Anthony simply smiled and looked at me, "What's that R4? Screw the game master?" I guess that such had an effect on me because it showed that the player really cared about the desperate situation. Mabee after role-playing after all of this time my players have lost that...

And Jack. I need to explain. Most GMs expect players to make GNS decisions at the appropriate times. If you're in combat you probably should not be making as many narrativist decisions as when you're in a conversation.

To summerize, I am wondering how to analize what my RPG should be like. You have firmly stated that an RPG can only facilitate 1-2 GNS expressions and I'm wondering how to do that.

On the other issue, I have come to the conclusion that my players and myself are on two completelley different levels, and I don't believe it selfish in stating that we have, at this time, impossible compatability.

Pyron wrote:
On the other issue, I have come to the conclusion that my players and myself are on two completelley different levels, and I don't believe it selfish in stating that we have, at this time, impossible compatability.

Observation time: when one person in a group can't get along with anyone else in the group - it's usually that one person's problem, not everyone else's.

You should definitely find a new group, for their sake - it seems like you're the disruptive element, and should have the courtesy to bow out.

Laurel, I think that GNS is a problem with the group. However, after all of the discussion, I don't think that it's the main problem. Clinton: I don't think that I'm the disruptive element with the group. There isn't anything to really disrupt. For example: When I told them of your opinions they dismissed all of them because your name happens to appear to be a conjunction between two former presidents that my group didn't respect. I don't think that it's fare to single me out when I haven't singled any of them out, and don't believe that the group can function without me. I mean, Anthony has been the GM in the past, but he always gives up on a campaign and without my party leadership, I can't see a campaign serviving.

Pyron wrote: And Jack. I need to explain. Most GMs expect players to make GNS decisions at the appropriate times. If you're in combat you probably should not be making as many narrativist decisions as when you're in a conversation.

Pyron wrote: I don't think that it's fare to single me out when I haven't singled any of them out, and don't believe that the group can function without me.

and if the answer is that you are having a little fun, but a lot of heartache, you have to decide which is the more precious commodity.

This isn't to attack you -at all- but convincing unhappy gamers that they don't have to RP with friends who make them miserable is a lot like listening to people in abusive relationships who talk about how unhappy they are, and how nothing they try makes things better...but still refuse to believe that leaving is a valid option, and probably healthier than staying.

The only person roleplaying in the group who you can help with GNS or any other game theory is you. If your friends think its all a crock, and gaming with them is a constant source of frustration, find other people to play with is the only way you'll have any chance of actually enjoying gaming.

Laurel

First of all, Pyron, the reason why we display no emotion is because you wear us out. You inult us for messing up a few times and send your sessions in to chaotic insult meetings. I know, we all have a problem with Cody (an extreme gamist), even if I am a slight gamist myself. I do however actually interact socially with other characters though. You may not like my wording because you are obsessed with old English. Why should we be required to speak in a way that is not used in any of the Starwars books or movies to play the RPG?

Another Point: I did not walk through the fire. I thought the com system was directly beside me. Of course it isn't your fault but you can't yell at me when you didn't tell me where it was in the first place. EXAMPLE: When I said: "I wish to walk to the com system to call for help", you could respond with "Are you sure? It is on the other side of the fire, I suggest you run" instead of saying "Okay, your character WALKS through the fire to the com system, you are now incapacitated".

Pyron: I do my best in your campaigns. You have been labeled officially an "Evil" Gamemaster by all your players. YOU KNOW WHY! You expect us to act in a scenerio that you don't explain sufficiently. How would you like it if the phone was shifting around the room?

We are just so tired of your blaming of faults on us. YOU (even Anthony has agreed with me, our best roleplayer in Pyron's campaign) are an extremely insane Gamemaster. Slow down and have fun. :)



Added: Another thing, we aren't very good at being the party leader because we never have the chance. Last time I asked to be the leader you said "No". Give us a break man. You hog all the leadership roles and steal the camera and expect us to play as good as you? You have to be joking... I think you are just plain selfish and you can't admit it. I know you will probably say "No, YOU are" but I have never been a gamemaster... I wonder why? Because you are always gamemastering and won't let us.

Pyron, Scratchware....

Whoaaa !!!! Slow down please gentlemen.

Obviously you two have serious things to settle up. I don't think that doing that stuff publicly on these boards will neither help you or is really respectfull of us, other users.

With this said:

Guys, you really should talk about all that has been said. Seems like each of you has some point. I don't think you seriously want us to decide who's right and who's not. Go private about this, please.

Then maybe you can come back and tell us what you did. Change group ? Change your attitude ? Etc.

FYI, I've been in a situation like that myself. If you two can't even talk respectfully and calmly about that, then that's a serious sign.

Fabrice.

(Ron, Clinton, I didn't mean to play the moderator. So if I overstepped, please let me know.)

Hi there,

Fabrice, you moderated beautifully. Eric and Charly, pay attention to what Fabrice said - he's right in all respects, and you two need to take this discussion into private communication.

Best,
Ron

Yeah, I will talk to Pyron tomorrow.

I still have 2 questions I need to ask though.

1:

FYI, I've been in a situation like that myself. If you two can't even talk respectfully and calmly about that, then that's a serious sign.

Hi Charly,

here's the situation I was in...

First, I must say that what I enjoyed in rpg was 1) exploration of character and 2) creation of a story.

The GM was playing to be God. His pleasure was giving you something(artefact, powers, position in society...) and then show you how much he could smash you...if he wanted to. See, we were some kind of puppets in an ego trip. Plus, we really played as sidekicks to his Ubër-powerfull gm carecters.

Upon that, the group was what Ron would call disfunctional. Some session were spent on arguements and fights between players.

So basically, neither did I found what I was looking for in term of rpg content (quite the opposite), but I spent my time arguing over and over about why I did that, having to justify my playing style and trying to calm things down between the other players. I stayed for maybe two years. They wer "friends", and I didn't had another group. Then I realised that I had enough of that, so I left.

It's not an easy move, but sometimes you just have to do it. Me, if my only opportunity for playing rpg was to go back with them, I would quit the hobby. (and actually I don't have a gaming group, so it's a real situation)

I hope this answer your question. Sorry, but no happy ending on this one (for the group that is, because for me it was very good).

Note: Charly, leaving a group is not an obligation but a possibility.

Take care,

Fabrice.

Alright then. Are there any people here or that you know of that play Starwars (any edition) in Lincoln, Nebraska?