Just some observations from my experiences as a player and as a GM with my current RPG group I'd like to share.

Recently, one of the guys ran a Vampire set in medieval Japan.

I like the the idea of a game based on the premise of "Imagine is Vampires were real, and you were one what then?" - I like that premise.

I have no interest in Japan, or in Japanese folklore or culture.

I don't like certain aspects of Vampire game by WW and don't like playing it.

Needless to say my interest in the game the GM ran was somewhat limited. I couldn't wait for it to end to be honest.

So why did I even bother to play you may ask?

Well, the GM was very enthusiastic about the game before hand and had obviously went to a lot of trouble putting it together, I was willing to give it a go.

Plus, as a group we've been playing together for about 5 years and saying "You know what, I think I'll sit this one out" would have really put this guys nose out of joint so to speak.

Reading this forum the thought occurs to me that I don't feel that we will ever play a game as a group which satisfies everyones needs, or fulfills their expectations.

As a GM it's not very rewarding when you realise that one or two of the players just aren't "into the game" for whatever reason.

As a player it's downright tedious to sit through session after session playing a game you have little or no interest in. Even if as a player I'm playing a game that I do find interesting and enjoyable the fact that some of the other players feel the opposite detracts from the game as whole.

Many of the points covered in GNS were something I had always been aware of to some degree but were never able to actually articulate. The GNS Theory helped me crystalize some of my own thoughts on "the modes of play". Applying the GNS definitions it is easy to identify the modes of play routinely adopted by the players in my group.

There are bits of the GNS theory I'm still wrestling with but as a whole I do find it insightful and it does strike a chord with me.

Knowing this however doesn't alter the fact that if I were to run a game next week or next month some of the players in the group just wouldn't find it enjoyable and as a result neither would I.

The type of game I want to run isn't the type of game that they would really want to play although they'd never actually say so. They'd turn up, as they always do but they wouldn't play or participate in any meaningful way.

That's why I haven't run a game for 2 years.

Of course, if I wanted to run a game and was forceful enough I could just say...

"Look...I'm running a game but I don't feel you should play because I feel it's really not your kind of game."

or

"I'm going to be running a game but it's not going to be something you are going to be intrested in."

Even then they would probably make a point of saying "no problem, I'll give it a go anyway" rather than be excluded from the gaming sessions.

I don't like pissing people off, they are friends after all. However saying to players "I really don't want you involved" is bound to do that.

I'd really like to get feedback from GMs who have encountered the same sort of problem.

Cassidy wrote: Of course, if I wanted to run a game and was forceful enough I could just say...

"Look...I'm running a game but I don't feel you should play because I feel it's really not your kind of game."

or

"I'm going to be running a game but it's not going to be something you are going to be intrested in."

Even then they would probably make a point of saying "no problem, I'll give it a go anyway" rather than be excluded from the gaming sessions.

Thanks for the reply Emily.

Good suggestion and I suppose ideally that's what I'd like to do. It's just a question of finding the time to do so and fitting it in with the schedules of the other players.

Hi Cassidy,

I guess my take on this matter relies on two ideas.

1) No role-playing is better than bad role-playing.

2) Friendship, to be valuable, must be based on something besides "we role-play together." (Granted, that may be the main point of contact, but it shouldn't be the basis of the friendship.)

Some conclusions or outcomes from these ideas include:

1) It's OK not to role-play with a friend if you're not interested in that particular game. Playing or not playing with someone doesn't make or break a (real) friendship.

2) A given game or group's existence cannot, by itself, carry the success of the social interaction on its back. It's the other way around - the successful social interaction is necessary for the game or group-activity to work at all.

These conclusions have profound consequences that reverberate not only through my entire framework of theorizing (my big essay and associated debates on the Forge), but also through all my interactions on Actual Play. I'm interested in what you think of them.

Best,
Ron

This is probably the biggest problem that faces all gaming groups. The GM has what he feels is a great idea. The players have their ideas what they feel would be a great game and what they are currently interested in. Strangely enough my group has figured out the best way around this problem, at least for us. It takes people being flexible but it usually garners good results. What we do when we are getting ready to start a new game is we all sit down and everybody tels the others what type of game they what. First we decide on a genre or a setting and then we go on player by player of what they want it to involve. Two of the players may decide they want the game to have X while is really interested in it having Y while the fourth decides they don't mind it haveing X or Y but they would also like it have some Z. We then decide how much of X,Y, and Z the game should have and then we choose wich one of us can best accomodate all of our wants as GM. Please note the GM will also have given his input of what he feels the game should have. I know this may not work for every group but it has given us good results. Hope this may help people some.

Sylus

Hi Ron,

Thanks for the reply, and taking some extracts from the "GNS theory" here are some of the points that seem relavent to my experiences...

Ron Edwards, taken from chapter 6, of GNS Theory wrote: Role-playing is carried out through relying upon the real, interpersonal roles of living humans, yes, even of opponents. If people do not share any degree of either Premise focus (either Gamist or Narravist) or an Exploration focus (Simulationist), then their different assumptions, different expectations, and different goals will come into conflict during play.

When that happens, the uber-goal of “Fun” is diminished. Perhaps the people continue to play together solely to interact socially, but the actual role-playing is, effectively, gone.
Ron

Ron Edwards, taken from chapter 6, of GNS Theory wrote: The clearest case is straightforward. People do exist who will habitually disrupt a role-playing group for whatever reasons of their own, and the only solution for dealing with such people is to exclude them from play.

Ron Edwards, taken from chapter 6, of GNS Theory wrote: My goal in developing RPG theory and writing this document is to help people avoid this fate.

Hi Cassidy,

Well, there's two documents now - the older "System Does Matter," which I think does state the essentials nicely but has a tendency to kick off hot-buttons, and "GNS and related matters of role-playing," which as you say has a certain tone or approach which ain't too new-guy friendly.

The plan is to write ... ultimately ... more of a McCloud-style piece, reorganized to a great extent and focused on point-by-point examples, as well as taking into account many of the excellent objections or nuances brought up by people here. It exists in draft form now, as a major re-write of the current essay. Granted, it's pretty dry (I'm like that; a cartoonist may have to be enlisted to provide an interface), but one of these days, it'll happen.

Best,
Ron

That's good to hear. I really look forward to seeing the revised piece.

Hopefully it will do what you intend and help broaden players perceptions of the RPGs they play, the way they play them, and probably most importantly why.

Cassidy,

Having just had my friends/regular gaming group of 6 years crash and burn because of our most recent Star Wars campaign I can certainly sympathize. One player wanted to play the noble Jedi who faithfully adhered to the Code while the other two wanted to play thugs with lightsabers. We ended up switching games (again) but some animosity carried over, fueled even more by some last minute "I can't make it tonights" and finally I decided to lay everything aside for now.

The GNS essays are spot on in explaining why this stuff usually happens even though I think I've been the only one to benefit from the knowledge as my players scoff at the idea of a "roleplaying theory", despite the fact that they fit the models perfectly.

But back to the matter, I personally would suggest you take a break for a while. Let them know you're just burnt out. One of two things will most likely happen:

1. They realize you are not enjoying the experience and may become more open minded if you explain why.
2. Your group breaks up for good and you have to find another one.

I know #2 sounds pretty harsh and in many cases is not as easy as it sounds but I have to agree with Ron 100% that no roleplaying is better than bad roleplaying. If you're not having fun, why continue to do it? Pick up a copy of Vice City instead and take out some aggression.

Emily's suggestion is also sound, although you might not have the time.

My friends and I still hang out but we don't RP any more. Fortunately, I just hooked up with a new gaming group that's been dying for me to run Dreamwalker so it's not all bad. :)

Good luck!

Pete

I sold my gaming group on the idea of keeping a session diary. In it, I have written all our contact information, summaries of campaigns, lists of players and their characters, and gaming biographies of my fellow group members.

I asked them what their favorite systems were, and why, what were their favorite characters, what they liked best about the gm, what other players do that bug them, what they want to change in their own gming.

I never brought up the idea of theory. Just used the natural human delight in being interviewed and documented to find out what I felt I needed to know to make better sessions.

All group members can write in the book. We will add summaries of the sessions going forward. We'll also put in anecdotes as they occur to us.

MK Snyder wrote: I asked them what their favorite systems were, and why, what were their favorite characters, what they liked best about the gm, what other players do that bug them, what they want to change in their own gming.