Last week I nearly walked out of my D&D game. I was getting overly frustrated with players keeping secrets about their characters from other players (not characters).

What started it
There are three basic thorns in my side that kicked this off.

Tim - Just created a new character as his old one died. His new character is an unusual race and for now has remained hidden under a hooded cloak. Thus Tim has refused to reveal to any of the other players what race his character is.

Miriam - Her character is evil. We all know this, but only because I bullied it out of her during character creation. The funny thing is that I was DM at the time and I still had to bully it out of her! Anyway, she continually has to have private DM/Player talks.

Kristina - He character is a free genie that is on a mission to destroy genie rings. She's masquardeing as being bound to a ring that one of the other chatacters has. Turns out I am the only one that knows this because I helped her come up with the backgroun. Well, I said something OOC last week revealing that she wasn't really bound to the ring. The DM yelled, "No one else knows that!" I responded calmly with, "I know. My character doesn't know either. That was OOC." She came back with, "No, I mean none of the other players know that!" This drove me to start a group discuss about how I felt the other players didn't trust each other to be able to separate player knowledge and character knowledge and that it bothered me.

Well, most ofthe group pretty much turned on me. I told them that I just wanted to get everything out in the open. I tried talking theory and social contract and stuff and they were not buying into it. I eventually gave in and told them that our styles of play differed enough that it was hard for me to enjoy the game. I went as far as saying that if they were not my friends I probably wouldn't game with them as a group because our styles of play are so different. Of course they took it personally.

Our DM, Jen, was taking things in stride, because she wanted to make sure that I wasn't left out on the fun. After I had basicly given up, she asked if anyone else had a problem with the way the game was going and Tim brought up how he didn't like it when the NPCs saved the day all the time. This conversation degenerated into more argueing and Jen nearly broke down into tears over everything.

Well, today I talked to Jen and mentioned that I hoped no one was upset and she revealed that I came off as kind of elitist. I was kind of offended by that because I never claimed that my style of play was better than anyone else's style. I'm thinking that somewere along the line my Forgite discussion translated to "I'm a better gamer than you" when I was actually saying "My style of play is different from yours".

Have any of you experienced this when you bring up gaming theory with non-Forgites? How do you handle it? What led up to it?

,Matt Gwinn

Matt Gwinn wrote:
Well, today I talked to Jen and mentioned that I hoped no one was upset and she revealed that I came off as kind of elitist. I was kind of offended by that because I never claimed that my style of play was better than anyone else's style. I'm thinking that somewere along the line my Forgite discussion translated to "I'm a better gamer than you" when I was actually saying "My style of play is different from yours".

I think I can understand the way your group feels. Let me give you an example from my real life.

As a kid, I was working in my dad's wood shop on a project. I had a question, so I went and asked him. Three hours later, he was still expounding on tools I'd never heard, analyzing weight-bearing strategies, the advanages of various joints and so forth and so on. Now, I new I needed help and was open to help. But all I wanted to do was build a simple shelf in my tree house to put a can of soda on!

This is often what happens when people bring up role-playing theory during actual play events. People, even when they admit to a problem, often just want a simple fix. They don't really want to analyze the deeper secrets of role-playing and definitely don't want to call their entire role-playing history under the microscope for fine examination. You might have received a better response by saying "Hey, could we stop keeping so many secrets?" and have left it at that.

Of course, I suspect your game group may see secrets as a sort of gamist victory condition. I've seen this done in a functional way, though it's usually pretty dysfunctional (and often a dysfunctional solution to other dysfunctional problems). This would explain part of their reaction as well. Imagine if you proposed to a typical D&D group that they should stop trying to get experience and treasure!

Anyway, it's my experience that the best time to bring up theory is out of game and not in reference to any particular topic. It's a good thing to do with e-mail, prefaced with "Hey, I saw this concept on some weird website. Have you guys ever thought about this?" Then, AFTER they've discussed what they think, you can bring up a particular situation. "Hey, thinking about all that stuff, what if we modify the social contract so we don't keep so many secrets?"

My group uses secrets in game a lot. I sometimes slip in what I'm saying too, but I kinda like secrets too. Its not for any hidden tactical advantage, its to see the look on your fellow player's face when they realize something completely new about your character.

Elitist? Not sure. The friend thing was kind of mean though. I agree with jdagna, this kind of stuff should not be discussed during actual play, I can see the sparks fly if I all of a sudden started off on some theory or what not. Its best to discuss it before or after the game so no one feels as attacked.

-Joshua

Just to clairify things a little. When I talked to the group I didn't go into a big diatribe about GNS, scene framing, or any of that sort of stuff. I limited my forge references to social contract and disfunction.

Also, this is Jen's first time running and she is very open to new ideas. However, the rest of the group is not and she is wholely concerned with ,making everyone happy. Hell, Jen loves Soap, so I know she's not totally opposed to what I was talking about. Want made her most upset was Tim's disppleasure with NPCs saving us all the time.

clinton wrote: Instead of walking out, offer to run the next game, and show her how you do it. If it works for her, it will spread.

jdagna wrote: You might have received a better response by saying "Hey, could we stop keeping so many secrets?" and have left it at that.

jdagna wrote: Of course, I suspect your game group may see secrets as a sort of gamist victory condition. I've seen this done in a functional way, though it's usually pretty dysfunctional (and often a dysfunctional solution to other dysfunctional problems).

djagna wrote: This would explain part of their reaction as well. Imagine if you proposed to a typical D&D group that they should stop trying to get experience and treasure!

djagna wrote: Anyway, it's my experience that the best time to bring up theory is out of game and not in reference to any particular topic.

enoch wrote: My group uses secrets in game a lot. I sometimes slip in what I'm saying too, but I kinda like secrets too. Its not for any hidden tactical advantage, its to see the look on your fellow player's face when they realize something completely new about your character.

I feel for you Matt. Similar shit has hit the fan in the group I used to be in. I had left the group like 2 months ago, possily more. I forget, but my wife still goes so I still get info every now and again.

I should point out that there are some very heavy-duty social issues that had been brewing for almost a decade...no, it's been a decade.. involving the GM and with the GM's g/f for less than a decade. I don't really want to go into that. That is, I want to get some of this shit off of my chest. Talking to myself or phantom people in the car about it just doesn't cut it. But why the hell should I dump on you? Anyway, There's a social aspect in it and you might want to consider that angle in your group because the whole gamer elitist thing might be on top of it.

But, suffice to say that I consider my friendship with the GM over because of these social issues, but talk of RPG theory, GNS or no, had added fuel to the fire.

I agree with most of Clinton's assessment about human nature and fear of the unknow and such, but is that an excuse for becoming defensive and calling another an elitist or a roleplaying snob? Personally, I find that a teensie bit hypocritical.

"You're such an elitist snob with you're hoity-toity theories that you haven't taken into account my feelings." Well, with that statement you have shown a similar disregard for my own feelings. Thank you. I doubt Einstein took into account of whether E=MC^2 would make the other physicists feel bad. Instead, come up with a rational argument about the theory or possibly some clairifying questions if you do not understand. Lashing out emotionally when I'm discussing something intellectual is rude and changing the subject.

Whew! No wonder why Ron has a rough time of it on the internet about GNS and having to deal with this kind of crap, I would wager, daily. I'm all worked up.

That all said, while the defensive reaction my be understandable, being understandable does not excuse it nor make communication any easier.

Matt Gwinn wrote: I went as far as saying that if they were not my friends I probably wouldn't game with them as a group because our styles of play are so different. Of course they took it personally.

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: (Tangent: this is why people new to role-playing get GNS better than 20-year veterans. I was luckily fairly separated from the oral tradition when I found GO.)

Max Planck, Nobel Prize winning physicist wrote: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

Hi Matt,

This is completely the dysfunction/denial/don't talk about it stuff I've been looking at recently. Consider this train of thought-

1-We play the way we do because that's how we play
2- We don't think about it because we might recognize that the play doesn't live up to what is promised or expected of it
3- We don't talk about it because it might make us think about it.

Saying, "I'm not having fun" translates in people's heads as thus:

I'm not having fun because this game sucks
because you're a bad GM/player
because you are a bad person

Rational? No, but that's how people read it. And you can see it in their responses. Rational reply? Nope, just get angry about it, yell about it, maybe say sorry, maybe never mention again, but never actually work out the issue.

What is terrible is that for most folks, a great deal of self-esteem is tied into "being right" all the time. And like Clinton said, the oral tradition is "how we do things" so to do it differently is effectively saying "you are wrong, hence you are a stupid and bad person".

Sorry, I don't have any answers or advice, just some insight into the issue.

Chris

Hi Guys,

I'm sorry if I'm jerking this thread off topic – but it's really touched a nerve for me.

First, though, to stay on topic for a moment, I would offer that speaking of dysfunction right at the game table is a bit like hashing out sexual problems in bed. There are probably times and places more neutral in nature that might be better used. The motives might be sincere, the attempt well-meaning.... But it might well leave a karmic wound right there where the fun is supposed to be had.

***

And now... (and I've switched on my rant button, so forgive me... )

An elitist is someone who desires the best. That's all. I am so tired of this word being misused as "snob." (A snob is someone who apes the taste of others for the sake of status – a completely different situation.)

And more: If the word were only being misused, I probably wouldn't be so agitated. However, it really is seen as a kind of insult to "most people" when someone strives to please his or own higest sense of pleasure and taste.

Fuck that. The idea that I or anyone else is a pretentious fuck because we delight in something other than what "everyone else" likes is the logic that leads to adds that say "three out of four people prefer x." And the implications of this logic is... what exactly? That I should prefer x instead of y because 75% of my peers prefer x. The only power this kind of ad campaign can be playing to is the fear of being different. And how, exactly, is that going to make that quality of my life better?

Games: When folks, seldom here, mostly elsewhere, refer to "niche" games with some sort of sniff in their tone, I just wanna take fist to their jaw. A game is of less value because it doesn't have a vast marketing arm behind it? Fuck that, too. While one must be careful not to build an army of flawed arguments ("quality is never popular," "crap sells well,"), to assume that a game doesn't matter because "me and my friends" don't play it is obscene, faulty in it's logic, and, precisely, snobbish.

I scan the movie listings every week to go see a movie. I love movies. I'd love to go. I don't. I cannot find anything out there that looks remotely interesting that's been designed to do well at the multiplex. (Again, I'm looking; I'd love to go.) Instead, the last three movies I've seen were a South Korean 19th century costume drama about a famed painter which I found in many ways terrific; "Blue Car" which was written and directed by a friend of mine and made me think as the credits rolled, "I didn't think anybody made good movies anymore."; and "The Shape of Things," Neil LaBute's latest jurry-rigged exploration of morality and sexual-mores that I found to be nonsensical piece of shit the moment I thought about it for five full seconds. (I bring this up to be clear: the Art house is clearly no haven for qulity, but these days, the odds, desperate though they are, are better there.)

Am I elitist in my choice of movies? You bet. I'm gonna go sit through two hours of nonsense just cause everyone else is doing it? No.

What about relaxing? What about "just having fun."

This is where taste really comes into play. When I went to the Lucian Freud show a couple of weeks ago at the L.A. Museum of Contemporary Art, I wandered around for the two hours having a great, engaging time. I left refreshed. Was the engagement I had with the Freud paintings greater than I would have with X2? Yes. Just. Simply. Yes. Was there more pleasure in it? Yes. Do I think all that is supposed to be "high art" is good? No. But I strive to find the best, most engaging work.

I was recently hired to work at a video game company to do design work. I've been playing a lot of video games lately with an eye to what is best. Some game are better than others. It's that simple. Some games are more fun than others, some games are better designed than others, some games are more engaging than others. There's a variety of types of game, so there's a range of types of excellence. But it's my job to know what is best and to make what is best. Why work toward anything else?

When I collected comic books, you couldn't help but notice that the work of Jim Starlin, Gene Colin, Neal Adams and Jack Kirby was head an shoulders above the pedestrian stuff filling the rest of the panels in the monthly titles. And those are the artists I went after – because I had an eye for what was best.

Same in styles of play. How many of us gather every week (or gathered every week), playing out grinding rounds of combat that never really satisfied but we kept going because that's what we did with our friends and it was good enough? How many times did some we think, "I really don't want to be here," but showed up anyway because... what? We didn't want to risk leaving our friends? Risk not knowing who we might meet? Not knowing what to do once we refused to participate in activities that didn't actually mean that much to us. (See Clinton's remarks on fear of change above: we all suffer from it.)

Enough of good enough. What is the experience truly provided by the event? What is the level of satisfaction? What is the actual engagement?

Let me be clear: I'm not making a subtle case for Nar games over Gam games. I'm making an explicit case for QUALITY. If something is half-assed, it's not quality. Give me chess, give me Diplomacy, give me Squad Leader, give me Sorcerer and Riddle of Steel, Peter Jackson, David Lynch, and William Blake. Give me the people making something with clear vision that stands out because it strives to be terrific – in whatever field. (Honestly terrific, not some strained pretense like LaBute's work.)

And quality depends on us. It depends on what we choose to engage with. Are we really, truly, engaged? Or is it, well, good enough? Do we go to see movies that we know we can dissect with our critically inflicted lingo, knowing we are safe from actually being moved ("The CGI is awesome,") or are we seeking out work that stirs us to thoughts and feelings we never anticipated? Are we reading this or that novel to escape and get vague about what our life? Or are we reading this book, playing this game, seeing this movie, walking this gallery, to engage further in life?

Engagement with life. I can see no other yardstick for quality. I can see no other yardstick for taste.

Yes, these are "just" games. And a painting is just a painting. And a life is just a life – one among many, soon lost and swarmed by the souls still living and those yet to be born. But, for God's sake, in whatever we touch, let's stop being embarrassed about wanting what is best and searching for what is best.

To sum up then, should some fearful person say to you, "You're an elitist," be sure to speak the only appropriate response:

"Thank you."

Take care,
Christopher

First, though, to stay on topic for a moment, I would offer that speaking of dysfunction right at the game table is a bit like hashing out sexual problems in bed. There are probably times and places more neutral in nature that might be better used. The motives might be sincere, the attempt well-meaning.... But it might well leave a karmic wound right there where the fun is supposed to be had.

Hi Matt,

That sounds great. Especially the part about roleplaying out the scrifice as a group. Congrats.

Take care,
Christopher

Matt Gwinn wrote: Last week I nearly walked out of my D&D game. I was getting overly frustrated with players keeping secrets about their characters from other players (not characters).
...
I told them that I just wanted to get everything out in the open. I tried talking theory and social contract and stuff and they were not buying into it. I eventually gave in and told them that our styles of play differed enough that it was hard for me to enjoy the game. I went as far as saying that if they were not my friends I probably wouldn't game with them as a group because our styles of play are so different. Of course they took it personally.

Our DM, Jen, was taking things in stride, because she wanted to make sure that I wasn't left out on the fun. After I had basicly given up, she asked if anyone else had a problem with the way the game was going and Tim brought up how he didn't like it when the NPCs saved the day all the time. This conversation degenerated into more argueing and Jen nearly broke down into tears over everything.

John Kim wrote: OK, I guess I'll be the voice of dissent here. I find it a bit shocking that you would offend your friends and reduce one to tears over this.

I joined a hiking group because I enjoy challenging walks. It turned out to be a woodland hiking group. I prefer hill walking because it offers more of a challenge, and that's what I enjoy.

During a walk one day, I said to the group, 'could we do less of this woodland walking'. I just got blank stares. A couple of weeks later I booked everyone into hill walk, and the shit really hit the fan. I told them I didn't realise no one was interested in hill walking, and thought it would be nice if we tried something different.

Well, pretty much the group turned on me. I told them I just wanted to try hill walking. We argued. Eventually, I told them our preferred forms of hiking were just too different for me to enjoy walking with them. I even went so far as to tell them if they weren't my friends I wouldn't even come out walking with them. Of course, they took it personally.

* * *

Despite arguments to the contrary, elitism holds no positive meanings for me. Too often, elitism is embraced as a tool with which to assert that the tastes of the few are superior to the tastes of the many.

Hi Matt,

Your initial post really struck a chord with me insofar as about 8 months ago I was wrestling with a not too dissimilar problem. See Breaking up is hard to do for the gory details.

At the time I could have confronted the issues I had head-on as you did. In the end though I chose to make a clean break. After playing with the group for 5 years I firmly believed that some of the personalities and game style preferences involved would never gel regardless of discussion or debate. Looking back I'm glad I made the break, should have done it far sooner.

That sort of drastic action doesn't seem necessary for your group. By the sounds of things they seem like a fairly easy going bunch, certainly nowhere near as screwed up as my old group. They seem open to new ideas which is cool, but that's a 2-way street though. You have to be open to their ideas and aware of their play preferences also.

Looking at your thorny issues...

Tim has a character who wanders around all hooded and mysterious. Presumably Tim created his character that way because he gets a kick out of playing a character with a mysterious past. I don't see anything wrong with that if that's what he wants to do.

Miriam's character is evil. I really would expect the GM to know the significant aspects of a characters nature and lets face it being evil is pretty significant, although I don't see any reason why the players themselves would need to know Miriam's true nature.

Question:
Which would you prefer? Knowing OOC that Miriam is evil from the start or actually discovering Miriam's evil nature eight sessions into the game? I know which one I'd pick.

If Miriam wants to have secret Player/GM talks then ordinarily I wouldn't have an issue. It is commonplace for players to want to impart some knowledge to the GM that she would rather the players not to be privvy to. That's ok by me. I would however take issue if Miriam's secret Player/GM talks constantly disrupted the flow of the game to the detriment of my enjoyment. I'm guessing that this may be so in your case.

Kristina (and the GM) may legitimately wish to keep some knowledge secret about Kristina because it is something that they as players find engaging. They may have justifiable reasons why they want the players discover to discover the secret during the game itself.

Matt Gwinn wrote: This drove me to start a group discuss about how I felt the other players didn't trust each other to be able to separate player knowledge and character knowledge and that it bothered me.

Matt Gwinn wrote:

John Kim wrote: OK, I guess I'll be the voice of dissent here. I find it a bit shocking that you would offend your friends and reduce one to tears over this.

I wouldn't say the argument was heated at all. No one was yelling or anything. Jen is just sensitive when it comes to being confronted with stuff and tends to take things very personal. When I told her I wasn't enjoying aspects of the game, she took that to mean I was saying she was doing something wrong as DM.

No one was particularly mad. In fact, everyone wanted to find a compromise somehow, but no one really wanted to change the way they play.

Matt Gwinn wrote: We're getting a little off topic here. My group is managing ok and we will likely find a way to work things out. This post is really about whether you have been accused of being an elitist player because you prefer a different style of play that others in your group.

Ian Charvill wrote: Despite arguments to the contrary, elitism holds no positive meanings for me. Too often, elitism is embraced as a tool with which to assert that the tastes of the few are superior to the tastes of the many.

Let me be exact: there's nothing wrong with liking high culture, it's when people like high culture to the exclusion of all else that I start to get a bit hinky. The Art House, to me, is great, but so is the Multiplex - I like whatever I like from either. Snobbery and inverted-snobbery are both forms of bigotry, and they both make me twitch.

The hiking example was invented. Principally because I didn't want to come flat out and say two things explicitly. I'm going to choose here to be honest rather than tactful.

Failing to pick up on the social cues the first time around ("I said to the group, 'could we do less of this woodland walking'. I just got blank stares") is a failure to pick up on fairly obvious social cues (unless you read the blank stares as ignorance rather than disinterest).

The line "I even went so far as to tell them if they weren't my friends I wouldn't even come out walking with them" is plainly passive aggressive. It invites the listener to remember that every time you're out walking, you're doing them a favour, and they should be grateful for your presence.

I have a flat out populist bias, and I'm willing to stand to be corrected, but that's how I'd read the above parts.

Hi guys,

It isn't my intention to turn this thread into a discussion about my post, but since people are now posting words that suggest I said other than what I said, I feel a need to respond. (I understand that people might not be misrepresenting what I said; I just don't want to read a post five pages down that says, "When that fucking eltist pig said blah, blah, blah" when I never said blah, blah, blah. I just want to set the record straight now.

I said nothing about a preference for "high culture." I said, "the best." I gave plenty of examples of different media and within some media examples of popular successes. (For example, I don't think Peter Jackon is anybody's idea of Ingmar Bergman, but I referenced him. Because Fellowship of the Rings is one of the most beautiful movies in years. It made $300+ at the box office. That's popular.) So, please, if the argument is going to move to prickliness about high and low are, please start off with something like: "I know no one has brought this up, but what really irks me is...." Because no one has yet brought up high vs. low art. I referenced comic books, board games, painting, movies and role playing games.

Popular work is often GREAT work.

Two more things, while I'm at it. (What the hell.)

First, the fact that a tool can be used to ill ends does not invalidate a tool. Hammers are used for instruments of torture, mutilation and death across the globe. I see no reason to give them up -- because for most people they're very helpful. A desire for the best can be used to bludgeon someone... But the issue there is the issue of the idiot doing the bludgeoning... and that's snobbery.

Second, I don't know anything about "unwashed masses." In fact, I'm sure I would even "like" X2. However, "like" doesn't seem enough right now. Perhaps because of shortening years left on the planet, but the choice between "like" and "passionate" is getting clearer and clearer and I know which way I'm going to choose.

I don't think Brian Singer has any actual interest in superheroes, and thus am not driven to see his movies. However, I'm already rounding up people to see The Hulk on Friday because Ang Lee always engages me in unexpeced ways.

People can get defensive and make false distinctions to put in my mouth. But my words in my original post were clear on these matters and I would appreciate people not contorting the issues with the implicatin that they're responding to some thing I said when they are not.

Thanks.

Take care,
Christopher

Hello,

What Christopher said. That said ...

Moderator speaking - let's get this discussion back on track to the actual play involved.

Best,
Ron

Ok I have a few of what I hope are poignant and helpful and insightful.

Question #1

Let me ask this one first. What if the tables were reversed. A table full of people who were open and talked about their characters and there was one person who did not.

"I simply have never played like that. We always kept character information secret because we wanted to protect character integrity, even from inadvertant Player Knowledge."

What would we say to him or her? Your a dork? Get out of this game? Hey your playing in the dark ages? Your in the minority, play our way? Hopefully we might try and convince so and so to try coughing up the info and allowing us to explore his character with him (or her) ina kind and intelligent way. More then likely. More then likely we would drive them back to their Hellish Anti-Forge Forum and villify them here.

Would we call this person an elitist? Would we call them old fashioned? Opinionated? What would he or she think of us?

Question #2

Why do people who still wonder why Gamist seems to be looked down upon? Why is there still a feeling that Narrativist Play is the preferred or "best" way to play. If you sit back and read between the lines quite a bit can be construed to about the above statements. I am speaking in generalities here and not pointing fingers.

I think the reason is clearly that even if we are not Elitists in the pure or vulgar definition, that at times we are indeed snobs. Yes. Snobs. I know I can be, even in simple ways like when people don't know how many Magic Missiles they get at 7th level. "Well duh! its 4. Duh!" lol

I mean honestly, we defend Matt because THEY jumped out of line because THEY don't play the way we think they should? Isn't that really it? I am not lambasting Matt or anyone, indeed I think you tried to handle it well. Honestly though, we say "We the two styles are not compatible" but are we not saying"You guys are doing it wrong." I am sure they felt that way. Its difficult not to sound like that even when your being completely sincere.

Jack said:

I think it's mostly used as a label by people who simply refuse to understand that someone may have different tastes or ideas about things.

I, personally, have never been called 'elitist.' However, one of my players (who has recently left the group) reacts quite negatively when I attempt to use Ron's theorum to improve the game. His comments were along the lines of...

"What's wrong with plain old DnD?"

"Okay, just, like, shut up with your made up theory crap."

Unfortunately, he does not have the open mindedness of Matt's players. And one hypocracy specifically caused much tension between us: when I tried to alter my GMing style to be more simulationist (his preferred mode of play, esp. exploration of system, though he refuses to admit that modes of play exist) and asked if he enjoyed the game more after the session, he responded with a resounding yes, saying the game was much more realistic (even though it wasn't, really, in my opinion, but that's a whole different topic) and he had had more fun. When I brought it up a week later...

"Jeff, your game sucked."

That was just the last straw. I tried to fix the problem. It worked. But he refused to admit that it worked. I guess he just didn't want to accept that 'made up theory crap' could improve the game.

-Jef S.