This is split from The airplane issue
First, a full recap since it was impossible to split the thread:

Paul Czege wrote: More interesting, perhaps, is the question of why an argument against the use of play experiences as the foundation of a theory is so often found agreeable to folks in online discussions. Chris Chinn and I had a conversation about it last night. His observation is that most often when you ask a roleplayer to examine a concept in the light of actual play, they mentally pull up hypothetical or idealized instances of play. And that totally clicked for me. I've had those conversations. It's almost as if the experience of actual play isn't wholly there for the other person to draw upon...like it has been retroactively edited or something. Is it possible the foundation of GNS in the examination of play experiences is actually at odds with the psychology of getting enjoyment from play? Is the mental record actually incomplete?

Bankuei wrote: Thanks for bringing that up, I've been trying to figure out a way to introduce the topic, and you've bridged it rather nicely. My point was that for many people there is a mental disjunction in making it from Actual Play to Observation to Theory. The heart of this inability to recognize what's going on seems to stem from dysfunction...

Anyone who's dealt with dysfunction, in games, or in life in general will recognize these behaviors:

1) Don't talk about it("Don't say you're bored")
2) Because you can't acknowledge it, you need to work around it("I'm mad at you because you were rude so I'll be an ass about the rules!")
3) Deny its existance as part of a coping mechanism("Of course I'm having fun, I just hate this, that, that, and that about it")

Because GNS grew out of observation of dysfunctional play, and dysfunctional behavior conditions folks to NOT recognize it, it doesn't take long to see how hard it is to point out what is going on to folks who are defensively maintaining their mental illusion. This would seem to me to be the cause of folks constantly shifting over to hypothetical situations as opposed to concrete experiences.

Bringing this back to the plane analogy, again, this is folks not willing to admit that crashes do happen, and because of that, being unable to analyze why and how, in order to prevent crashes in the future.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: That is quite possible Paul. I am sure we've all seen movies we do not rememeber very well. They simply didn't impress us so they did not make a memory. Why shouldn't RPGs be the same way. But then, anyone see the episode of Red Dwarf when Rimmer was telling the story of the best game of Risk he'd ever played and bored the others to tears?

Paul Czege wrote: I think we're talking here about something specific to RPGs, something other than just forgetting the boring parts of a movie. You don't have to forget parts of movies in order to enjoy them. The question is whether idealized recollections of actual play are the result of the effort of enjoying roleplaying in particular, and how that impacts the wider acceptance of a theory based on the examination of actual play.

Bankuei wrote: To clarify a bit better with Paul's point, you may forget parts of the movie, but generally you can identify whether you liked the movie, was unimpressed, or disliked the movie. Within gaming, you have a mental divorce on the part of some people as to their personal experience with the game, as well as the divorce from "what is happening" around the table as opposed to "in game".

Hi Jack,

Thanks for rescuing the topic! Anything you'd like to tackle with this?(question is open to anyone else as well)

Chris

Hey, guys.

I disagree. I think we are talking about a fairly common human behavior but, perhaps, how it is applied uniquely to RPGs. Memories are more fluid and formed then we tend to like to think. But how often do we think we recall something perfectly and then find out that others remember it differently, and not just different in the sense of different POV but fundamental differences. How about a particular scene, hell, a LINE from a favorite movie you hadn't seen in years and then you watch it again and find out you had the wording all wrong, occasionally the meaning as well?

Memory is imperfect (one of the points of Memento IIUC) probably because it goes through a subconcious editing process. What did you have for dinner last year? Who was at your birthday party five years ago? The inconsequential is weeded out and with time most things become inconsequetial and with time, we remember what we want to remember even if it never happened.

Now lets look at this in a roleplaying situation. My friend once talked about trying to join the RPG club at college. To get things started, they went around the room asking what was the best experience you'd had in a RPG session. My friend & his roommate talked about the storylines and the characters working together that kind of shit. One kids talked about how he scored a critical hit on a dragon in Shadowrun-- a jargon-heavy description and it wasn't enough to kill the dragon.

I could riff on all this, but I think I'll stop for some feedback.

Hi Jack,

I don't think that anyone here is contesting the fluidity of human memory. I think issue at hand is more of what influences selective memory in roleplaying in particular and specifically, how this interferes with the ability to observe actual play experiences AND how that creates problems for folks being able to link theory to play. Lots of linkages right there, I know...

So, consider this;
Actual Play -> Observations -> Theory

With folks usually getting clouded in that middle part. My point was that dysfunctional behavior(in or out of games) directly conditions folks to not recognize that behavior, it becomes accepted as the norm, an unstated, "Of course that's how things are", sort of deal. GNS exists as a behavioral study of behaviors in gaming, and folks usually are unable to connect what GNS is talking about to their actual play, even when they can give examples that amount to paragons of GNS in action.

Comments? Thoughts?

Chris

Bankuei wrote: what influences selective memory in roleplaying in particular and specifically, how this interferes with the ability to observe actual play experiences

I think i'm with Jack on this one. We tend to lose focus and quickly forget anything that we didn't find compelling (for whatever reason). Perhaps the problem is that most write-ups and analyses of games and sessions are done afterward. This means that all the high points are hit, but we rarely are able to do a direct analysis of real-world play. This, of course, isn't the case when play occurs online since you have an actual transcript of what happened, but i tend to consider online play to be lacking something. Anyway, the solution would be a recording (preferrably video, though audio would be acceptable) of an entire session. The problem that this raises is that almost everyone involved in theory plays, and so has the same ability to tune out the minutia of play.

There may be some way to come at things afresh, a way of looking at everything in the same meticulous way. I just don't know what it is, perhaps some sort of intensive study with input from people who are non-gamers? Maybe go recruit your your Sociologist friend or something...

Thomas

Hi guys,

I agree that boring stuff is quickly forgotten. But, I think my point of dysfunctional denial is being completely overlooked though. Let's consider a story that many people are familiar with:

GM: Ok, what are you guys doing?
Group: Shopping for stuff
John: I want to barter
(Scene devolves as John spends 30 minutes 'roleplaying' with shopkeeper, everyone else is bored)

Note:
1- No one just says, "This is boring, can we move on?" in most cases(but they do sigh, and make other "workaround" cues)
2- John says, "I like roleplaying" as the cause behind his actions, but his actions could be from a number of things, ranging from "I like immersiveness" to "I know the GM is going to force me to do something, so I'm going to steal the ball of control away for a while and show him!"
3- Everyone knows John does this sort of thing, on a regular basis, it is boring, but well remembered as a feature of John's play style
4- When asked about the game, everyone (except John) truly didn't enjoy that scene, but wouldn't be able to tell you that there's a problem with the way that they play.

This isn't a case of, "Oh, its boring, I forgot", this is a case of, "Yeah that part sucks, and so does this and this and this, but I had fun" after the player describes about 95% of the game time spent. Doesn't this seem a little odd to you?

I am very actively comparing this to a dysfunctional relationship, compare this: "Well, I don't like it when he yells at me, or breaks things, or forgets to call, or stands me up, or hits me, but he loves me."

Granted, this is an extreme example, but you'll notice the similarity is to first not talk about the issues as a group, and second, that after doing that long enough one is conditioned enough to forget what one feels about the situation at all("Oh, no, we're perfectly happy. This is a wonderful relationship!")

What I am saying is that the reason most people have trouble digesting GNS, or even being able to make intelligent discourse on it, pro, con, whatever, is that folks in dysfunctional play are conditioned to not acknowledge play issues, or actual play as it happens. Being unable to acknowledge that, they can only turn to hypothetical situations and can't make the connection between theory and actual play.

Comments?

Chris

Hi there,

Chris, beyond total agreement, I don't have much to say. Just add a big ol' "Yes" to your latest post from me.

Best,
Ron

Ah, i see what you mean. I do believe you have a good point, but the question it raises is: Is there a solution? Is there some sort of way to recondition players to play in a way that's enjoyable instead of the way they actually do? Perhaps it would be a good idea to video tape a session and then let some other group of players analyze it and point out stuff like what you're talking about.

Thomas

Good idea, Thomas. Friends of mine tape-recorded months worth of sessions we played. Only the character dialogue and such were transcribed, but it would be interesting to hear that now...

Another reason for the the trend Paul talks about is that it's just easier to make up an example than to find one from real life play since life is less precise than we think of it as being. A given instance of play can be hard to quantify in terms of GNS since motivation matters, and that's hard to pin down. In Chris B's example, "John"'s explanations/rationalizations could give conflicting evidence about just what kind of conflict is going on. Though it's clear there is a conflict.

Paul Czege wrote: It's almost as if the experience of actual play isn't wholly there for the other person to draw upon...like it has been retroactively edited or something.

Hi folks,

I'm glad that my example did the trick, I've had a hard time articulating this. Its especially hard since with observation, many of the theory issues are obvious. It's sort of like saying "the sun rises in the east" to people who refuse to open their eyes. Upon opening their eyes, and looking for themselves, it become blatantly obvious, and no argument or discussion is really needed.

On note of "What can be done?" the issue isn't so much memory, as observation. If you start applying the theory understanding that you have in play, you can see where the theory holds up or fails. As a player or a GM, you can watch your own reactions or those of others and be able to judge not just the sort of play, but how true to life a theory stands.

The only benefit I would see in taping actual play is to go back and then point out things, "Ah, see! That was a Narrativist decision!", "Look, he passed the ball!", etc. The problem with this is assuming that you have someone (yourself included) in the group who can identify these behaviors. If you're trapped in denial, you could watch it a thousand times and perhaps never pick up on the main issue.

Again, the point here is careful observation and awareness. Observe what you like, what you don't like in terms of play. Then identify it(whether its a simple as rolling lots of dice, to deep emotionally wrenching games). Then try to find what facilitates that.

The key problem that leads us back to my example with John, is that John probably isn't concious of what the real reason is behind his behavior. It could be something like he's attention starved and here's his little way of acting up and throwing a fit. Since John isn't aware of what he wants, he doesn't know how to request it, make it happen, or get it. So John will act out over and over, and perhaps never be satisfied.

The group is the Lost Gamer, sure that roleplaying has what they're looking for, can be more than what it is, but can't identify what that thing is. They are unable to produce a concrete goal to aim for. They're never happy with what they have, so they wander from system to system, tweak to tweak, genre to genre, GM to GM, and maybe, just maybe, they stumble upon what they've been looking for, although they couldn't tell you what it is, and wouldn't know what it is if they had to look again.

The source of this inability to identify what you want, is the very same thing that happens when people in dysfunctional relationships not only deny the situation, but have been conditioned to not acknowledge how they feel about the situation, making the denial complete.

The key component, I feel, to unconditioning, is to be observant in play, to recognize what's going on socially in an explicit manner(at least for yourself, if not being discussed amongst the group). I'd say an excellent excercise would be to take a theory concept, such as, "IIEE", or "Gamist decisions" or something like that, as the topic for the night, and as you play, mentally note where and how you see it working, perhaps take notes. You can do this as a player or a GM. My Ball analogy came directly out of this sort of observation.

Chris

Edited to change one word

Well, the other problem with players recognizing what they are looking for is that most people don't have the sort of shared vocabulary that we do. Let's look to theology for an analogy: once in a while a great genius is able to articulate some new ideas from scratch, but most people build their work on those that have come before. Most players don't realize that all of this theory has been articulated, and thus aren't familiar with all the thought and analysis that has already gone into gaming. Since the vast majority of people are not geniuses when it comes to the analysis of RPGs, they don't have anyway to analyze or describe what they are looking for.

The problem is one of Language. Language is more than just the words, it is also the underlying set of ideas that is accepted by any specific small Language group (we generally accept the meaning of Narrativist as a single idea). Since most players don't "speak the Language" that we have here, they can not analyze (even internally) what they want with any sort of articulation.

If the goal is to encourage players to analyze play, we will have to introduce those players to the Language of RPG theory. Even if we don't go into the details of GNS or Social Contract we will need to bring the concept of analysis of RPGs and the idea that we can categorize things about them into the forefront. Unless people think about RPGs as something that can be categorized and analyzed, they will not categorize or analyze them.

We can look at the book Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud. Until i read that book, i had never considered comics in the light he portrayed them in. I feel that RPGs are the same way, until we can bring people to the realization that you can analyze RPGs in the same way, people won't really think about it.

Thomas

Hi Tom,

To address your issue and Emily's:

I (almost) always encounter this when I try to talk theory with folks outside of the Forge: the vocabulary and frame of reference just isn't there. What puzzles me is why should it also be the case with us here? Is there a "solution" other than reminding ourselves to use concrete examples?

And most of the controversy over GNS comes from a bunch of people who aren't willing to bake the damn cheesecake for themselves to taste it(learn it for themselves), and then declare anything from, "Cheesecakes don't exist!", "They must taste like crap, because not everbody's eating them!", or "It's really just like chocalate cake, but with a different name!"

LordSmerf wrote: Well, the other problem with players recognizing what they are looking for is that most people don't have the sort of shared vocabulary that we do. ... Most players don't realize that all of this theory has been articulated, and thus aren't familiar with all the thought and analysis that has already gone into gaming. Since the vast majority of people are not geniuses when it comes to the analysis of RPGs, they don't have any way to analyze or describe what they are looking for.

I agree with John on the vocabulary issue. It's not so much a lack of vocabulary so much as a lack of any desire to analyze and then figure out why you're not enjoying 95% of what goes on at the gaming table. The wife hates that I pick apart movies and I "can't just enjoy it." I've done the same for RPG and she's ticked I can't just "go with the flow." Forgive me to not wanting to go with the flow of stagnant water.

So I think it boils down to denial that you're not having any fun or at least much less fun than you could be doing other things or less fun if this or this or that was part of the game.

Yes it seems to go back to something I had been thinking: most people have no idea about roleplaying. That is, they don't understand it and therefore all they can do is imitate others, others who may not understand roleplaying any better. It's for reasons like this that original D&D had stats but no use for them until the Greyhawk suppliment and that the host of imitators that came out were thinly disguised rip-off, even to copying typos like "% in liar." Most people have no idea what they're supposed to do in an RPG and fewer still realise what could be done, thus having more fun most of the time. This sounds like great big synechdochy on the population's part. It also explains why diceless game are and continue to be met with resistance. RPGs are supposed to have dice, aren't they? Cards are slowly gaining better acceptance as flat dice that you don't roll, you draw.

Hi guys,

I agree with you both on the general unwillingness to analyze and its various reasons. Mainly, my point deals with folks who want to analyze("Story", "Role vs. Roll playing" and whatever else you pull out) but cannot because they are unable to connect real experienced play to analyze the patterns of behavior. All I can say is, "Right on!", and that the vocabulary is a secondary aspect of being unable to analyze the situation to begin with.

Chris

Jack, I love the line about going with the flow of stagnant water.

What are we really debating here? Clearly, there are many people who have issues with their games who don't want to bring them up because they might offend someone or make matters worse. There are also people who have problems with their games that they are unable to explain because they don't understand the theory.

I've never had those kinds of problems with my games, really. I usually flow with the game. I have had some game problems over the years, but usually manage to contain them one way or another (such as players trying to create ubercharacters so they can overrun anything that hits them, for which obviously the answer is providing tougher challenges than they imagined). However, it's clear to me that over all those years I was shifting between three modes of play, and perhaps sometimes not enjoying a game so much because it seemed to want me to play in one mode but set me up to play in another. (My experiences with Gamma World come to mind; I'm actually not sure what it was trying to do, but it always seemed to be about living in a world in which survival was impossible, and yet surviving. I was always upset when my characters died, but almost as constantly surprised when they lived. It probably would have been very interesting as simulationist play, but the scenarios kept pushing toward gamism.)

Having the vocabulary, as it often does, made it possible to talk about and even to think about different modes of play in ways I had not done before. Language is a real factor in our ability to perceive and understand. I've lived in temperate zone regions with a lot of snow all my life, and seen a lot of snow in that time. I'm quite aware that the Innuit language has eight distinct words for different kinds of snow; my language does not--I don't even have the linguistic legerdemain of being a skier in this regard. I know it must be different, because Innuits and skiers perceive the difference, but to me it's all just snow, even though I've built forts and snowmen and snowballs and I've shoveled and cleared more than I'd ever wanted and been out in more than a few snowstorms. Now, if I had the vocabulary, I could start to say, "Ah, this is packed powder", or whatever. Without the vocabularly, all I can really say is, "This is somehow different from that." Then either I devise my own vocabulary and try to work out the differences myself, or I wind up with nebulous ideas of things that are not the same but are called the same thing by everyone I know.

So having the vocabularly helps analyze the problems; but you have to be willing to consider the matter, too, or you get nowhere.

Aside to John Kim--one thing that might work in your situation is starting a character journal. Go back to the beginning of the current campaign and write it from the character's perspective. (Lots of formats work--letters home, reports to superiors, diaries are just the most common.) Have it reflect whatever it was that ever interested or excited the character, and let it follow the progress through the present situation. If it starts to say, "More slogging through the mud today; not much to write, really. Maybe things will pick up tomorrow", that's good. Share the history with the group, as an account of the adventures so far. One of the things I think is very valuable about character journals is that they inherently reflect the things the player enjoyed, and by letting the referee see what has happened that you did like you can help him figure out how to do more of that without actually pressuring him.

--M. J. Young

There's a key element in the inability to discuss issues that I haven't seen raised: the old GM screen concept.

There's this idea that the GM should have secrets from the players who then no longer know exactly what's happening. In such a scenario, everyone's memories of the game are always going to be different - the GM was holding his breath to see if the PCs would wake a hidden party of orcs, the players were just being routinely cautious and wishing something would happen. Nobody wanted to say anything about what they really wanted because it would have been "out of character."

Secrecy and differing perceptions are useful elements in functional play, so aren't inherently bad, but they ensures that the players and the GM are essentially having different experiences at the same time. In a dysfunctional group, they'll drive the wedge that much deeper.

But this in-game secrecy often goes over into out of game stuff too. I've known GMs who didn't feel comfortable just asking the players what they wanted to do even as he writhed in agony over to how to get them interested. Likewise, some players withhold criticism or input precisely because they don't know what happened on the other side of the screen - maybe that lousy anticlimactic adventure was due to a couple of die rolls and if so, they may feel that they shouldn't really complain.

Anyway, the whole thing boils down to the usual cure for dysfunction of any type: admitting the problem, then sitting down and talking about solutions. GNS is a useful tool in the discussion but the discussion is rarely the hard part in breaking dysfunctional patterns.

There are lots of issues being raised here. Fundamnetally though, what we talk about AFTER play is going to be colored by WHY we are playing in the first place.

Here are a couple reasons why one would want to Role Play

1) They want to test themselves intellectually and creatively (Which is my personal theory where ALL game play comes from: Not Fun but Civilized Conflict)

2) They are trying to create an entertainment / artform

3) They are trying (and maybe failing ) to socialize and have fun

4) They are testing a game for possible play/publication.


Now in the first three, there is no reason whay anyone would bother to accurately remember what went on unless something spectacualrly good or bad occured. Which is typical of most stimuli. Players are in general not the least bit interested in theory or only peripherally so.

So with nothing other then the At This Moment Conflict / Tension of gaming, there is no need for them to cognitivley put more effort into remembering the game.

I would also like to address Jack's assertion that most people do not know how to Role Play. Well how does one Role Play Correctly? You could be correct but in the scheme of things does it matter?

We try to evaluate Gamers in an attempt to Understand what they want and to play with people we have compatible styles with. However, from a design stand point its important to know how their playing to entice them to our game BUT ultimately if I am selling a game, do I care that 50% of the players do it wrong?

If you could, can you extrapolate on that a bit

Sean

Hi folks,

Just would like to reiterate for clarity:

Memory is not the issue here.

Let's drop all post-game memories for the moment. Let's just talk about being able to analyze what is happening in play, at this moment(with according short term memory to comprehend it).

What I am saying, is, that many folks could, understand the definition of Gamism, but during play, may not be able to identify a gamist decision on their own part, or that of other players. Or identify when tensions arise the source of it. Or of power manuevering by players(John Barters) or the GM(Oops, critical fumble, stab yourself in the eye!).

Not because of memory. Because of denial and dysfunction. Dig?

I'm not talking about folks who have no interest in theory. They play however, that's fine. I'm talking about people who decide they want to take the effort, read the essays, try to comprehend the essays, and still cannot make real world, actual play connnections.

Anyway, the whole thing boils down to the usual cure for dysfunction of any type: admitting the problem, then sitting down and talking about solutions. GNS is a useful tool in the discussion but the discussion is rarely the hard part in breaking dysfunctional patterns.

ADGBoss wrote: I would also like to address Jack's assertion that most people do not know how to Role Play. Well how does one Role Play Correctly? You could be correct but in the scheme of things does it matter?

We try to evaluate Gamers in an attempt to Understand what they want and to play with people we have compatible styles with. However, from a design stand point its important to know how their playing to entice them to our game BUT ultimately if I am selling a game, do I care that 50% of the players do it wrong?

If you could, can you extrapolate on that a bit

What your saying does make sense. To recognize the problem you have to recognize what the hell is going on in the first place.

So what is going ion? If someone cannot recognize What is Happening in the light of a certan Theory why is the problem necassarily with their understanding of Play or Theory? It could be that the problem exists with the theory itself. If the Theory is flawed in some way, then Play will not be recognizable within the context of that Theory.

It may have nothing to do with Denial OR Dysfunction. However, if we assume that lets say GNS is broad enough in spectrum to allow a fairly good idea of what happened, it still may not answer the WHY? Can the theory answer the WHY even if it answers the WHAT?

Just a thought


Sean

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
Hey, Sean.

My reasoning goes something like this:
Most people, at least I did and most of the people I know learned to play an RPG by joining a group and through playing with that group, they learn not only the rules of the game but a whole mess of habit about roleplaying and How a Roleplaying Game Is Supposed To Be Played.(TM) This is not necessarily bad nor "doing it wrong" so much as synedoche, being unaware of the full possibilities of what an RPG could be apart from what they already know.

I can see this as a problem for someone familiar with only D&D picking up Sorcerer or The Pool or Universalis or whatever. They think they already know how to play an RPG so they try to play those games like the one they know, regardless of how carefully it is explained in the text, and it doesn't work. Sorcerer combat falls flat even if you do add a map-based positioning system. Of course it does. It was not meant to play like that.

My point is, relating it to your question, I believe that if you are selling a RPG and 50% or more of your potential audience does not realize they would enjoy it or thinks that they would not based purely on misunderstanding their own preferences in play, that's something to care about.

Hi Sean,

Right, but in order to verify, correct, dismiss, or find flaws in a theory, you need to come back to observation in play. I'm not saying that GNS is the end all be all of judging dysfunction, what I'm saying is that folks caught in dysfunction or denial will be unable to make any real valid observation into how GNS works, or fails to work.

Now if we're talking about the Why of things, remember, like a two year old, this thing can go infinitely deep. I'd say that a major issue with answering Why is that we can be talking about issues on the GNS level, on the Explorative level, all the way up to the Social box.

But dysfunction first teaches folks to not ask Why in the first place. Again, this isn't about whether the theory is sound or not, this is about being unable to even get that far because we're talking about conditioning that prevents folks from acknowledging actual play.

Chris

(edited after re-reading Sean's post again, realizing I jumped the gun)

Bankuei wrote: Hi Sean,

Right, but in order to verify, correct, dismiss, or find flaws in a theory, you need to come back to observation in play. I'm not saying that GNS is the end all be all of judging dysfunction, what I'm saying is that folks caught in dysfunction or denial will be unable to make any real valid observation into how GNS works, or fails to work.

Now if we're talking about the Why of things, remember, like a two year old, this thing can go infinitely deep. I'd say that a major issue with answering Why is that we can be talking about issues on the GNS level, on the Explorative level, all the way up to the Social box.

But dysfunction first teaches folks to not ask Why in the first place. Again, this isn't about whether the theory is sound or not, this is about being unable to even get that far because we're talking about conditioning that prevents folks from acknowledging actual play.

Chris

(edited after re-reading Sean's post again, realizing I jumped the gun)

Hi Sean,

I think you're on the right track here, but let me put it like this:

For the folks who don't care...that's fine. Its like someone who plays basketball on the weekend. He doesn't really care about putting in a lot of effort and training to get better, and he doesn't need to. If he's having fun, cool.

But some people aren't happy with the way they play. So they decide to look deeper, to make that commitment to improve their game(for rpgs, that means finding out what is fun for you, personally). That's cool too. But in order to improve that game, they need to recognize what level they're at right now, and what needs work.

These are the folks who need to pay attention to this. You can't expect to get better if you aren't willing to take the effort to look at what's holding you back. The folks who don't care, that's fine. For the folks who do care, they need to be honest with themselves. You can't improve your game by talking about "How it should be" or hypotheticals. You need to see what you're doing right, and what you're doing wrong in play, and assess it honestly.

Now, don't get me wrong here. No one style of play is better than another. But if I decide A style if fun, and keep playing B style, and wonder why I'm not having fun, who's responsible for that? I have to honestly recognize what I'm doing, and what I'm going for, in order to make them match up.

I wouldn't say that people are being bad scientists, as much as that they're simply conditioned to not even ask questions or recognize actual play events("Jim was an asshole about the rules again" vs. "Mindor killed a dragon!")

Does anyone have some input as to dysfunctional groups turned functional? Or observations about dysfunction in play? Otherwise I don't think I have much more to contribute to this thread.

Thanks,

Chris