Hello,

This is a bit of a personal matter and I'm not sure how "apropriate" bringing this to the public forum is but I'm affraid I'm at a bit of a loss. I'm not even sure if this is the right forum but since it deals with an actual conflict between two gamers I figured it might go in the "down to earth" form, so to speak.

As I mentioned in a post elsewhere my own GMing style has been slipping more and more towords Narrativism. As expected my dyed-in-the-wool Gamist has caught on to the trend. When I tried to communicate and explain what I'm doing he got very "angry". I put angry in quotes because he has a very funny way of becoming this extrodinarly detached angry.

Anyway, the name calling has begun. He says that I'm a bad GM because I'm ignoring the desires of ALL the players to selfishly pursue my own agenda and the few players who agree with it. He's calling me exclusive, arrogant and self-righteous. Even, though I have not been.

This all began with a discussion of how d20 is not the be all end all of games. He claims that games with narrativistic goals exclude everyone but narrativists and that d20 is capable of satisfying all of the people all of the time.

Here is relevant snipit of our conversation:

--------------------------------------------
Me:

> And again I bring up the point that
> player's don't. Latching on to father
> figures is an emotional decision that I
> just don't see player's making. It
> ruins my suspension of disbelief because I > know that people DO have passions.

Him:

Jesse, as a DM your suspension of disbelief is totally unimportant. What's important is the *player's* suspension of disbelief.
Period. If a player doesn't want to go around latching on to father figures, fine.
If he does, fine. In my game there are all different kinds of players, players who have intricate backstories and see those elements addressed in my game and also players who don't give a crap about backstory (theirs or
anyone else's) and are more concerned with what's going on the game, in the here and now. These are all fine, 'equal', and worthy of being addressed. The more different the styles of play the more dynamic your campaign will be and the more challenging it will be to set up, which, in my opinion, is where the 'fun' of DMing comes from. The challenge of creating something for everybody.

Me:

> I'm a player too. And if you can
> appreciate the GM meeting the needs of the > players can you appreciate the players
> meeting the needs of the GM, to any
> degree?

Him:

To *no* degree, which is why is takes a certain breed of gamer to be a good DM. It's a hard and thankless job whose only reward is the look of satisfaction on player's faces after a job well done, the
look of fear when you call for an unheralded saving throw, the friend who tells you something he saw reminded him of an NPC from your game. But in-game, a player really owes nothing to the 'DM's needs' besides the
agreement to accurately reference the data on his record sheet and to roleplay to the best of his ability. Anything else comes
from the DM who should not expect anything from the players but the unexpected.

--------------------------------------------

I'm not quite sure what to say to this. And perhaps there's nothing I CAN say to this. Perhaps, I'm just posting this as a venting rant because it makes me angry. If that's the case feel free to ignore it.

But if you think there's a useful and constructive answer to this please tell me what it is?

Thank you for your time.

Jesse

Jesse--

Wow. It seems pretty clear to me that you guys should not be gaming together. That's really all I get from that. If he's angry about the way you want to be a GM (& I completely disagree with his statement that players owe the GM nothing--& I can only imagine Jared's response to him), then forget about it. Cut your losses. Can you GM for the rest of the group? If so, I'd say do it--stop inviting him, or tell him that your in no way willing to GM any way except your own way & let him split. If this is a matter of leaving without a group--well, find another group (I always seem to have a hard time finding a good group of people to game with, me being very picky & all, but others claim it's easy as pie).
Personally, I think he's being pretty unreasonable, but that's not important. What's important is that you guys have very different ideas of what a GM does, & it doesn't seem likely at all that the two views can be reconciled.

On 2001-07-24 19:24, jburneko wrote:
Me:

> I'm a player too. And if you can
> appreciate the GM meeting the needs of the > players can you appreciate the players
> meeting the needs of the GM, to any
> degree?

Him:

To *no* degree, which is why is takes a certain breed of gamer to be a good DM. ...

Ever try to talk with someone going through a messy divorce?

Let me give you an example. "A" has all the photos from ten-plus years of marriage. "B" wants them, or some of them. They spend hours negotiating how to divide them up. Hours of tremble-voiced debate, punctuated by shouting about who really parented the kid, or who really organized a particular vacation. If neither wants a particular picture, does it "count" in terms of the exactly equal number of pictures each expects to end up with.

This is a true example and I am not trying to be funny. Imagine being the kid in the next room.

A calls me up and rants about how unreasonable B is, explaining how A suggested the old "I divide, you choose" method and that B responded with insults, and, and, and.

"A," I said. "You're raving. Take'em to the photo place and get a ton of copies. It's easy, cheap, and no one loses."

But A's priority was to impress upon me how bad B had been, and how angry A was about being treated like that when A's suggestion was so reasonable.

Now that everyone's thoroughly depressed, I should make my point: what is the purpose of this conversation Jesse and the other fellow are having? It seems clear that they won't be role-playing together (no loss, I suppose; they both have groups). It also seems clear that something more judgmental and last-word-oriented is at stake - for example, the accusation that Jesse is a "bad DM." Harsh words, in gaming circles - tantamount to calling someone a useless wimp in martial arts, or a stupid hack in science, or a rotten lover.

I don't think Jesse is being like A or B in the exchange, even though I am not privy to the exchange itself. I've mixed it up with Jesse enough times to know that he really cares about people, role-playing, and treating ideas fairly. But the other fellow is definitely in that mode and is using words as weapons, trying to generate as much hurt as possible under the guise of debate.

I agree that the issue of player-to-GM and GM-to-player is interesting, although my answer is abominably simple - I consider everyone at the table to be a live human person, and as such we all share social and enjoyment responsibilities to one another, both at the courtesy and at the aesthetic levels.

Would such a point matter to the person flinging insults at Jesse? Probably not. It is presumptuous to offer advice, but here it is: Jesse, practice self-defense. Don't be where this guy is shooting.

Best,
Ron

I'm going to hijack this thread a little to illustrate some things I was hoping to get across over on the RPG Theory forum but are extremely relevant to your problem. I'll try not to take it too far off and hopefully any replies not involving your personal problem will go to the proper forum.

On 2001-07-24 19:24, jburneko wrote:
...He claims that games with narrativistic goals exclude everyone but narrativists and that d20 is capable of satisfying all of the people all of the time.

Jesse, as a DM your suspension of disbelief is totally unimportant.

The more different the styles of play the more dynamic your campaign will be and the more challenging it will be to set up, which, in my opinion, is where the 'fun' of DMing comes from. The challenge of creating something for everybody.

But in-game, a player really owes nothing to the 'DM's needs' besides the agreement to accurately reference the data on his record sheet and to roleplay to the best of his ability. Anything else comes from the DM who should not expect anything from the players but the unexpected.

I'm not quite sure what to say to this. And perhaps there's nothing I CAN say to this. Perhaps, I'm just posting this as a venting rant because it makes me angry. If that's the case feel free to ignore it.

But if you think there's a useful and constructive answer to this please tell me what it is?

Ron's right. This is irreconcilable and the emotionalism can't do either of you any good. Way way back there one might find a problem seed in your early statement:

As I mentioned in a post elsewhere my own GMing style has been slipping more and more towords Narrativism.

As an addendum:

There exist several people whose company I quite enjoy in every other social endeavor, with whom I absolutely will not play role-playing games.

I still socially interact with them. We just don't play role-playing games together. It works very well. (It gets easier, actually, when they leave the state ...)

- James

I wouldn't reply to him at all. Or at most, reply to simply say, "I guess we disagree on that," and just drop it. He's moved well beyond mere disagreement on GMing styles, and is essentially telling you that you're a rotten person because of how you like to play games. He almost certainly has issues with you that run well beyond the gaming table.

Your preferences in gaming are changing. You can't please everyone. Locate the people in your group who are amenable to the style of game you want to run, and run games with them. You do not owe a good game to anyone you don't want to run a game for in the first place.

-Mike.
edromia.com

Regarding the appropriateness, I take it you are quoting personal e-mails there? If so, that is usually considered bad form. More importantly, in my experience sensitive discussions do not lend themselves to e-mail very well. It's much easier to misunderstand stuff and bad blood is much more likely to follow. I've had fairly long and utterly pointless exchanges with people that way which then get resolved in about ten minutes in direct conversations.

Minor point:

While I disagree with almost everything else your friend has said, I think there's a kernal of truth in this:

"He says that I'm a bad GM because I'm ignoring the desires of ALL the players to selfishly pursue my own agenda and the few players who agree with it. He's calling me exclusive, arrogant and self-righteous. Even, though I have not been."

Now, a "bad GM"? Perhaps not. "Selfishly" pursuing your own agenda? Possibly, but not to the extent that he advocates selfishness in players. "Exclusive, arrogant, and self-righteous"? Well... Maybe.

Hard-core narrativism is pretty exclusive, I've found. It's very, very, very different from what most roleplaying gamers have experience with, and it's a style of play that not everyone is ever going to be comfortable with (I wouldn't play an extended campaign in the style that I've heard communicated from many of the posters here).

Are you being arrogant about it? I have no idea, as I don't know you. But a lot of people who switch to a gaming style which suits them do become somewhat arrogant about it, and a lot of the ones who don't have difficulty explaining themselves without seeming arrogant.

Self-righteous? See "arrogant."

Now, let me emphasize that I don't know if you, Jesse Burneko, have any of these problems. For all I know, you may be the soul of humility and gentleness about this. I'm not even trying to imply that that's a possibility, but a remote one -- I just honestly don't know you or how you communicate with your group.

But, I gather that you've been gaming with these people for some time. I seem to recall, from some posts of yours back on RPG.net, that you claimed that your players were very happy with your games. So, now you're switching to a style of play which a few of your players like and more are uncomfortable with, right? It shouldn't be surprising that some of your players are dismayed that a GM who previously had games that they were very happy with, now has games they dislike.

To be clear: I'm not agreeing with your friend that you should (or that any GM should) sacrifice yourself on the altar of your players' happiness. Roleplaying should be fun before all else, and if what makes it fun for you is Narrativism, then you should pursue that.

Anyhow, maybe something to chew on.

Wierd. I totally agree with the player, (sorry Jesse) if I read the quotes right.

In fact, I'm starting to think I actually wrote it!

Ok, I didn't, but read it again, will you? All he is saying is that it's a GMs job to facilitate the game for everyone- not everyone is interested in experimenting with exclusive narrativism on an extended basis, in fact, hardly anyone is. His philosophy on where a GM's responsibilities seperate from a players responsibilities may not be pleasant to your ears but it is a proven and reliable philosophy. He speaks like a very sensible GM. Indulge me for a second of wild conjecture: I bet just based on what he's saying, that this is the guy that's only ever been a gamemaster, and rarely plays.

However, this also might have something to do with it. I'm the same way: and I know from experience that when I do end up playing, there are usually two things going on in my mind:

1) I would GM this part better.
2) That part is pretty good. I am going to steal that bit.

It's ruthless, I know. I spent the better part of my college days observing at least as many games as playing them, just to see how other people did things. I recommend this to anyone who wants to become a better GM.

So anyhow. Like Brian says above, your'e really just going to have to say "I'm doing it my way" and drive on.

One question: are you the regular GM of this group?

Peter Seckler
Doc Fortune

[ This Message was edited by: Peter on 2001-07-26 08:41 ]

Hello,

I just wanted to thank everyone for taking the time to reply to this thread. In hindsight it was probably pretty foolish of me to post this in the first place but I was rather emotional at the time.

Again, I apreciate the feedback. Thank you.

Jesse

It's an uncomfortable situation to be in, but I'll do my best: Your player has a perfectly valid style. It's one that I'm fairly close to myself. The GM is the host, in a way, and whilst they should be having fun, they should not hesitate to sacrifice their personal enjoyment if it comes into conflict with that of their players. Their personal enjoyment should be inexorably linked to that of their players.

Really, I don't know anything about your situation, but GMing is based on trust, and after a disagreement such as that perhaps it would be best if the player in question dropped out of the game.

The specifics of the situation (and its depth) can probably not be gleaned from the snippets of conversation you've provided, as a result I find myself sort of agreeing with everyone who's posted (even with Brian who has totally apposed views to me on gaming).

But my comment would be this. Unless your young and in college or something, we have very little time to game, and the time we do find is the result of hard effort on everyone's part to dedicate that time (both the sessions and out of game discussions) to make that work. It should see dedication from the GM and the players.

If anything gets in the way of that, and makes the process difficult or uncomfortable then get rid of it. This is especially true if the guy is not your friend and just games with you. Obviously if he's a friend beyond gaming it gets more difficult, but I'd be pretty dubious of any friendship that did not survive a difference over GM'ing style.

But Brian's right, really look at what you are trying to do and achieve (and if it has to be done in this campaign, assuming you have switched styles halfway through) and if you're sure - go for it.

Life is too complicated without having gaming give you hassles.