The last bit of actual roleplaying that I undertook was not very rewarding or satisfying bit of gaming, but it probably was the most positive thing that could have happened in terms of inspiration for continuing on my own game design. Nothing against the group I was playing with, I certainly enjoyed hanging out with them and we still interact outside of the gaming environment, but the game itself (home brew system and world) was more frustrating than anything else. Some players enjoyed it, some not so much.

The real benefits for myself came once I took a step back and assessed the whole thing, following my exit from the game. At first I was looking at the mechanics and functionality of the game. What worked and what didn't, what I wished would have been different, etc. Being able to take an inventory of all this helped me focus my own game and really made me think about solidifying the design of the things that matter to me - which to a large degree were discovered by being involved with this group.

Looking at the mechanics was only one aspect, and more recently I also reexamined the whole social interaction issue. It is really fascinating to step back as an observer and replay everything from a more removed vantage. Which by the way, was something that the other players did a lot less of, preferring instead to focus discussion on in-game events. The whole situation had a bit of everything. A group of players which I was meeting for the first time, a range of personalities and approaches to gaming, game issues, social issues/conflicts including the rather heated crossover between in-game/out-of-game conflicts, and the whole aspect of getting more out of the social interactions than the game itself. Eventually it came down to myself and another player who decided that if we wanted to socialize we would do so, but to stay in the game for only that reason was not beneficial to anyone.

Deciding that whenever I would run my own games I wanted to avoid as much as possible some of these problems, I developed a new perspective and began to consider bits of design in way that I would not have previously. I can only wonder if the same could have happened if the game was much more enjoyable, and if I continued to play. My suspicion is that perhaps not to the same extent. However, I am not about to head out looking for more unsatisfying gaming experiences. The last one should hold me over for awhile.

-Al

There are a great number of reasons why a designer must also be a player. One of them being that you can't improve anything until you experience what's wrong with it. You learn as much or more from the bad sessions as you do from the good ones.

Thanks for the post.

Mike

Hi Al,

That's a great post. It would be interesting to know what game system this group was using, just for documentation's sake and so that others (like me) can see how they relate to it.

Best,
Ron

Mike Holmes wrote: You learn as much or more from the bad sessions as you do from the good ones.

Ron Edwards wrote: It would be interesting to know what game system this group was using

This all gets me thinking about something that Ron and I agreed on recently. Theory without practice doesn't match reality. Practice without theory tends to be staid. It's the combination of theory and practice that really advances the art.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: It's the combination of theory and practice that really advances the art.

Alright, so here are the details of my last actual game play experience. As this will probably get very long, I will split it into several parts.
---------

I have been out of gaming for a few years, but moving to a new town I figure it was a good way to meet some new people and get back into the hobby. I also wanted to do some playing, since the vast majority of my gaming experience was as a GM (and then primarily for my own game). Checking online groups and gaming site, I came across a guy running a fantasy game of his own design (both setting and rules). Either implicitly or explicitly, I got the idea that he was looking for "serious gamers" which I interpreted as a non-humor or parody game along with avoiding excesive childish or goofy behavior at the gaming table (which turned out to be correct). I liked the sound of that, and also the idea that would be gaming with someone that was a designer, not only a player. I was eager to get a chance to talk "game-design", get some new perspectives, see what he did, how and why.

The reason for the formation of this group was that the designer/GM had another group playing in his world that was not able to meet as regularly as he would have liked, as well as looking for new blood to introduce to his game world. At first I though he was still looking for some playtest or further game development, but he actually had everything set. It also turned out that I was the only one from the online responses that joined the game. The other 3 players were introduced via a mutual friend, and they might have come across each other previously (the 3 players all knew each other, and the familiarity with the GM was of the "I saw you around" type). Getting some info on the game and meeting the players, I decided to try it out. Although perhaps more stereotypical as a gaming group, it wasn't what I was particularly used to. They had the whole LARPing, ren faires, foam sword fighting, Princess Bride quoting (this one was more popular than Monty Python) thing going on. Lot of stuff that I'm not into, but I had no problems regarding social interaction with these folks.

Here are my impressions of the players: the GM was a no-nonsense, very involved and serious about his game type of guy. The kind that gets labeled as "serious role player", "respected GM", giving the impression that he knows what he's about. We had a couple of very outgoing players, though in different regards. I will refer to them by initials, BB and CG. BB fancies himself a thespian (and indeed does some theater), and he certainly carried some of that over into the game (nothing over the top). No problem with having the spotlight on himself. CG is simply just a boistrous fellow. While not reveling in in-character play as much as BB, he was never shy about expressing his opinion and making himself hear. The last player, TA, was more laid back and reserved. More of a caution planner in terms of his approach to gaming, though I wouldn't go as far as calling him overly conservative.

Character Creation

As I mention previously, a fantasy game with D&D type setting, and % based skill + template and character points game mechanics. Lot of choice in races, both human variants and full out non-human, several forms of magic and religions, and a ton of setting details (history, culture, etc.). I figured that the easiest way to start off was via the classic fighter type. I chose a template, but instead of maxing out on combat competency, I tried to make the character more rounded and interesting. CG went for a fire wielding mage, BB for a non-human rogue, and TA a priest-warrior of a shady deity with a focus on archery. We provided some background ideas, but the majority of it was filled out by the GM and handed to us. Aside from explaining the creation process and how the rules worked, there was very little feedback from the GM. I got the feeling that it was a "create something appropriate, and let's see how you do in my world" type of approach. Opposite to what I tended to do, where I would work on the details with the player, ensure that the character concept was viable and effective, and tried to ensure that the tie in to the plot/story was strong.

The first bit of disappointment came right during the first session. I understand that they can be tough, and while the logistics of bringing the character together were reasonable, the typical party formation event was lack luster. We all knew that we had to form a group, that was clearly expected (though I have to point out, it was never explicitly stated by the GM) The first bit of roleplay was rough, with the usual hired to do a job setup. It featured a very curt in character meeting with a "OK, so what skills do you have?" being asked. It was in effect a rundown of stats and abilities attempted through IC play, and struck me as very contrived and jarring to the whole immersion thing. Part of me wanted to stay hardcore in character and react accordingly, but I knew where this was all going, and stirring up immediate PC-PC conflicts didn't seem effective use of time. In fact all such PC only meetings and planing sessions were very unproductive (both from gaming enjoying view point, and in-game efficacy). The game revolved around TA's character (and his deity), and somewhat the mysterious background of our non-human rouge. CG and I provide more of the rounding-out of the party. This got thinking about alternative ways to bring the characters together, and sparked the design bug.

Overall, the game was a lot of slow moments interspersed with some interesting or action filled events. The GM played it by sticking to the dice, and sticking to his plot. It was up to us to figure it out and proceed to where we needed. He wasn't going to hold our hands or point us in a clear direction (that would be railroading!). Instead we had to figure it out, even if that meant stumbling around in circles. I would liken this to railroading, but with the rails buried under sand. You still have to follow them to make any progress, but you also have to discover them. But there was still enough roleplaying to make it fun enough to show up. Interesting, each player took a different approach to getting enjoyment out of the game. TA stuck to the story, which was good thing since he was the central character. He dove right in, and it was clear that the GM appreciated this. He was looking for players to explore his world and story, and TA played ball. BB played to the story, but with a twist. He exploited the uniqueness and eccentricity of his character. His actions and in-character play were highly entertaining. He would make sure he was having fun even if we were spinning our wheels in terms of plot progression. I got the feeling that the GM would have liked a more dedicated focus of this roleplaying talent on his story. CG, CG complained about our lack of progress, about his character's capabilities, about his life in general - though is just his style. When things are going well he is riding high, and when not he is down low. CG provided most of the liveliness outside of the game. Again, not endearing to the GM who had a whole world to surprise us with. I fell in somewhere between TA and CG. More critical of the system and game, but not too vocal about it. I was trying to work with what I had.

-Al

I would liken this to railroading, but with the rails buried under sand. You still have to follow them to make any progress, but you also have to discover them

Hi,

I know we're not supposed to do "Me too!" posts here at the Forge, but I gotta say, when I read that phrasing I thought, "That's great! That nails it exactly!"

Reading your example of play really made my breain itch. I remember playing exactly like that in the past -- and now, for the life of me -- I could not tell you for one reason why I would have stuck around. We are promised that we're going to be like the character in a novel or movie, and get to make the choices we would make as that character -- but instead, we use the character to prod and discover the path and actions we're "supposed" to be taking as determined by the GM.

It's amazing, really.

What I expect from RPGs and how I expect to play them has shifted so, so much. First, about a decade ago when I realized I couldn't play that way anymore and left the hobby. And second, when I found this place and realized my desires for the hobby were actually being realized.

Good for you for moving on and moving closer to what you want.

Best,
Christopher

Valamir wrote:

I would liken this to railroading, but with the rails buried under sand. You still have to follow them to make any progress, but you also have to discover them

Consider that stolen.

I remember playing exactly like that in the past -- and now, for the life of me -- I could not tell you for one reason why I would have stuck around.

Here are the concluding parts of this.
...

The next huge disappointment came from the game side. System development was closed, and the GM did not want to hear any questions, suggestions, or critique of his system. The intent of the mechanics tended towards realistic more than cinematic, so when I found something that I found that did not support this, I asked about it. There was never much of an explanation. That's just the way it was. There was no interest to discuss game design, or any behind the scene details that I was hoping for. Our job was to participate in the GM's story, and that was all.

OK then, so no theoretical discussion; let's stick to playing. Unfortunately the lack of character competency made this difficult. For a supposedly skilled warrior with guard experience, he was pathetic. Both in physical ability, and in tactics. Turned out that a skill of 24% means just that, a 24% to success a standard task. Reduced for increased difficulty. Furthermore, damaged was tied to skill via number of attacks, damage dice, and chance for critical hits, meaning I required more hits to take an opponent out. CG had the same problem, having a mage with too many spells and spreading himself thin. In fact, physical attack was often more productive than his pyromancy, which just basically pissed off the opposition. This was all clearly explained by BB, who told me "in any % system, you want to limit your skills and raise them as high as possible". Good thinking. Little too late to help me and CG. This came to a head during a quasi-random encounter. Quasi-random because during a caravan crossing we specified our route through the waste lands, and if we happened to hit a pre-determined spot containing a group of baddies, we were in for it (there was a chance that we could have snaked through if we got lucky). During the ensuing battle, the weakness (for me at least, the other players more or less accepted that the system worked this way) of the damage mechanics came to light. We faced off against the fodder bad guys. My low skill meant that I was missing most of the time, and when I hit, the low damage dice resulted in my crossbow providing "the bolt bounces of his hide" or "it nicks him". There was a light wounds level that had to be exceeded before any serious damage was applied. So the first bolt doesn't do much of anything, while the second could be a killer. BB's rogue on the other hand specialized in Tumbling (his defense) and rock Throwing (his offence). With a high skill rating he had plenty of attacks and more damage dice, taking out the bad guys left and right. He was the most effective fighter, and compared to me his arm was a freakin rail gun.

By this time, CG had enough of his incapable character, and was looking for a way out to get a new PC. The mage's demise wasn't too surprising, and CG wasn't exactly heart broken. I, on the other hand, had made some great strides to improving the character, and was in sight of the point where effectiveness would take a turn for the better. I had amassed plenty of experience points. These were being awarded according to a standard list of how well you roleplayed your character, did you move the story forward, accomplish any goals, successfully used a template skill, etc. You made notes during the session, and the following game you tried to convince the GM as to why you should receive those experience points. I didn't do too badly, the problem is that I was saving them up for skill improvement, and was not willing to spend them on Hero Points to buy re-rolls and stave off death. This turned out to be my undoing, as my fighter got munched on. Well, can't complain that the GM wasn't fair, he stuck by every single die roll. TA made it through thanks to his supply of Hero points, and how the NPC's survived, is beyond me.

CG thought it was wonderful to have a new character. I wasn't thrilled to be making a new PC, but new start with some game insight was going to be helpful. But I was bitter. If the GM runs by the rules, than I need to take advantage of the rules. So I sat down, put on my munchkin hat, and with some math figured out the most optimal fighting machine. Turned out to be a knife fighter with light to no armor. No way that this PC was doing down to some stinking dirt goblins. With almost every point allocated, I handed off the concept to CG. I was too intrigued by a class of magic users that warped reality, and in the process were not quite all there themselves. I just loved the idea of being able to explore this theme of gaining power at the expense of one's own sanity. The whole aloof and not quite there approach would be great roleplaying material. CG on the other hand wanted something effective, and with and interesting background. We decided to make our characters a sort of team and tie the backgrounds together. The GM agreed, and we thought that we were on our way. As before, our backgrounds were written for us. I got the feeling that the GM didn't want us to possibly upset the cannon of his world. I basically accepted it since I was going to be focusing on my character's present struggle. I did make the spell selection based on what provided the most bang for the buck; I wasn't going to make the same mistake twice.
CG did have some changes and additions to his proposed background that he didn't agree with, but the GM wasn't receptive to making changes. CG then told the rest of us that he would basically play as he wanted, to hell with the background.

So we started off with our new characters....eventually. You see the rest of the group still had to negotiate the bad lands, and then we had to have a chance meeting. Which didn't happen as the other player's stayed in character and went on about their mission, as well as unloading their bounty and going on a shopping spree. BB was rather perplexed as to why the GM kept asking what his character was he was doing, and did not bring us in. Sticking to his PC concept, he went out and bought himself a fancy hat with a feather. Blue I think, to match his fur. This was ludicrous. CG and I sat there like chumps for the whole session, while the GM waited for the other players to find the predetermined 'contact point'. I wanted to scream when opportunities for a cool incidental meeting came and went. I wanted then damn conch; throw a Hero point or something to be able to stage the scene (or at least propose it), but the GM was not accepting any suggestion. That would be stepping on his toes. The events were laid down, and we forced to find them. In the end the meeting was via a third party, and nothing nearly as cool as what we proposed (I emailed suggestions after when working on my PC, but that never got acknowledged) or what we were expecting before the session started (a meeting in the bad lands was our top guess, but not even close). As players we thought we came up with a lot better options, but it wasn't our call.

So we started off with our new characters. I'm off in my PC's world of self delusion and disconnect with reality, which plays along a great with CG's character who is watching my back, though most of the time my PC is not even aware of him, and almost never grateful. We are finding that we are really enjoying these characters. But that didn't last long.

-Al

Hmmm... I'm not actually seeing a lot wrong with this play style. It sounds like trailblazing/module play (see Does Module Play Equal Participationism?), and based on the positive comments it sounds like the GM is actually a pretty decent one for that style (flexible except when it would conflict with the setting).

There is an obvious priority difference here, and for the trailblazing style to work everybody has to on board with it as the goal of play (IMO). It really isn't protagonist driven play - which it sounds like you want. Just to illustrate, you seem to be bothered by the fact he stuck to the dice. I personally would have been annoyed if he didn't. I'm of the opinion that if you're willing to fudge the dice to get what you want, then you shouldn't roll the dice, just declare what you want.

As for the system stuff, I would actually criticize that. If you make a system, you should be able to explain why a rule exists or you shouldn't have included it.

Hmmm...seems this post came off implying that you think this style of play sucks. Which, I don't think you said that, you just said it was unsatisfactory for you. Not sure how to re-word, so I'll just leave this clarifier here at the bottom. 'K?

Y'know, I think there's a place in the role-playing world for the "my world, my way" GM. But those who want to take that attitude had better at least make sure they're entertaining the players, because they're not giving the players the means to entertain themselves.

Some see "GM ego" on display in this kind of game play. I see it in this case (as best I can, second-hand) as a GM living in fear. (See this old thread: What makes a good GM?)

A fascinating portrait, in any case. Thanks for the details!

- Walt

Hi Al,

Good questions. But two things before we begin:


1) Though in times past, I did stick around, so clearly I empathize with the impulse to do so. Today I couldn’t. My point was, looking back from today’s vantage point, sticking around seems strange as all hell… But at the time, sticking around was all I knew.

2) I’ve had many “cycles” of gaming groups through the years:

- the high school lit-geek group [Naïve Narrativists (low level AD&D)]

- -the Northwestern U hard sciences group [Environmental Simulationists – What would a world of magic be like? (Hero System)]

- the Chicago crew [Story Simulations – can we recreate a genre successfully? (DC Heroes; Justice Inc, Pendragon, CoC, Star Wars, Star Trek Homebrew, Shadowrun)]

- Mike Nystul spreads his wings – which was the Chicago Crew playtesting Whispering Vault or playing in Mike’s fantasy homebrew. As far as I could tell, Mike wanted us to bring as much “protagonist” energy as possible to the game. I love doing it, I got the feeling sometimes the other players wanted Mike to show them a monster and hand them the 20 sided die [furtive Premise based Narrativism, and lots of experimenting with techniques we here on the Forge would associate with Narrativist play – but all of it struggling to get out of old habits]

- the Lexington Kentucky gang [Frustrated Narrativists trapped in Sim habits [Amber, Vampire, ADD2nd homebrew settings]

- And, years and years later, a two month stint with a group of really nice guys who played pretty much as Al is describing – in my first session with them I too sat there for an hour and a half waiting for my character to be introduced as the first fight took “longer than expected.” I saw how the GM had laid out a series of encounters and whatnot; how who my character was (and thus, what interested me), would serves a spice to the main dish, but wouldn’t really be the story; and that, as Al put it, our job as players would be to search out the tracks under the sand and then follow them. I excused myself (though my efforts to do so calmly seemed to be quite a stressful situation for some) and knew that that style of play was over.

Okay:

How did the other players react to this kind of game play: I Gamed the high school lit geeks. Basically I said, here’s a problem, you solve it. The idea was, I wanted them to surprise me. It was a decade of frustrating RPGing after that that led me to understand most groups don’t play that way.

For the Chicago crew, it was sort of a non-reaction. The idea was, like an elephant in the corner, not to acknowledge it under any circumstances. After games, when the GM wasn’t around say, there’d be odd grumblings that “No matter what we did, the GM knew what the ‘story’ was going to be.” I found this odd, since it was clear that’s exactly what was happening. Why complain about it when we were participating in something that we all willingly knew was going on? My fun was trying to provide as much fun and color as I could to the circumstances via my PC.

For the other groups it was a given. They knew there were these cool “bright spots” you every once in a while, and your job as a player was to slog your way through the session in the hopes you’d get one. It simply was how you played an RPG.


Was it accepted by them with you being the lone dissident?

As noted, yes, it pretty much was accepted in all the groups by the other players.

As for me, I actually never dissented. Or, if I did dissent it came out two ways:

One way was in game play. See, since I knew there was always a switch somewhere around the corner labeled “progress of adventure,” I’d use my PC to press every “narrative” button and pull every NPC lever I could find to open up the next door in the “adventure.” I was considered very “proactive”. I remember that with the two month guys, someone labeled me, happily, a “clue-hound.” But the truth is I couldn’t stand the thought of sitting around “in character” behaving as if we didn’t know we were waiting to stumble across the right event/object/person to move forward. It was all just so passive! So the only really active (and by active I mean actions that would produce true consequences) thing I could thing of doing was figuring out where the GM had placed the next button.

Second, out of game play, away from the table, I would ask questions. Questions like: “In most stories, the protagonist determines how the story is going to go. In RPGs, if the villain didn’t wake up that morning and concoct an evil plan that had to be stopped, the PCs would spend all day in bed watching tv and eating Oreos. Why is that? How come PCs have no forward motions of their own that actually matters in the game world? How come we can’t decide to be like Sean Connery and Michael Caine in “The Man Who Would be King” and go make a stab at ruling this little fantasy island.

I asked these questions in part because, honestly, since my high school group, most people didn’t seem that engaged in what they were doing. It was, as you so ably put it, like watching TV even though there was nothing on – that is to say, not quite engaged, not quite watching, not quite doing the thing everyone was ostensibly there to do. Most people spent there “offscreen” time, waiting, leaning back, arms folded over there chests, with little actual engagement in each other or the game.

The questions (and many others as I tried to figure out why I was so bored while involved in a hobby I once loved) eventually formed the spine of my Interactive Toolkit essays for White Wolf’s Inphobia Magazine. Because I could see no way out of the boredom of the hobby (everyone I asked the questions of basically said, “Because that’s the way RPGs are,”) I knew it was time to go. I chucked my game stuff and stopped.

Then, new to L.A. I did the retired gamer thing: I went to the internet and looked for a group. I bumped into the two month guys, met Jesse online, he pointed me to the Forge, and here I am.

I was lucky enough to play one game with Jesse. Had a great time. It reminded me of the games back in High School… only better.


Was the person running it considered a “bit time” GM?

No. We were all pretty much considered equals. But… Except for the high school and college groups, there was a strong whiff of, “We, of course, are experienced role players…” An attitude today I flee from.


What parts did the rest of the group enjoy?

Well, it’s pretty much as marked in the categories above.

The high school group liked making moral choices and deciding, with moral implications, how to solve the problems presented, watching their actions produce resuts no one could have anticipated. The NU crew loved building a model fantasy world that could run on its own steam even if the PCs never showed up. The Chicago crew loved recreating the clichés, details and feeling of whatever “genre” they were trying to “play.” The Kentucky boys wanted a story, but wanted most of all to be cool – strong fighter, clever and witty aristocrat, whatever. The two month guys seemed really into doing character bits and “feeling” their characters.

In short, except for my high school group, the world and the story had a precedence over the power of the players – where were to enjoy being the little swirling eddies, following after a river that would sweep us along. In my high school group, the world existed only as a blank slate for all of us to draw on.


Now, of course, I did stay. In part because I knew there had been a time when I wasn’t bored with RPGs, and I thought, if I keep tweaking the elements, I’ll get it back. And, in truth, I didn’t know what to do with myself. I have been, for a good number of years on and off, a rather directionless person… And at least hanging out with these groups gave me some focus.

But think it’s significant to note I don’t own a tv. I realized that there’s only four hours of tv on a week I’d really like to watch, and I’d rather watch none of it if only to prevent myself from falling into the habit of watching something when there’s nothing on I want to watch. Same things with socializing, gaming and so forth. What do I really want to be doing? How do I want to do it? Foolishly or not, I’m determined (and have been growing stronger in this practice), to set my expectations and meet them.

This, for me, is part of the Social Contract aspect of Ron’s model I find most engaging. Am I going to gather with people who don’t actually know what they want to do, and so do this thing called RPGs in a manner that means waiting around for someone to toss you your next joyful moment? Or will I play with people who actually know what jazzes them and engages them, and so decide to play RPGs with full expectation that their choices and actions not only matter, but move the session forward in unexpected and compelling ways?

If I can’t find those people from the second group, I’ll opt out. When I do, I’ll play. Those are sort of the rules for me now – not just for RPGs but for everything.

Best,
Christopher

Christopher, thanks for the detailed reply to my questions. I will need some time to fully digest it, but I wanted to point out a silly typo. I was trying to ask about "big time" GMs, meaning when their name is mentioned people talk about their expansive campaigns, intricate plot lines, and attention to details. The kind of games where you need to be on top of your game or the world will eat you up.

I also want to address the issues raised by Jason and Walt, but I think that the final account of the game might speak to that. Let me just say that up to this point in the game I didn't consider it "unplayable". I was just behind the ball on how to be effective in a such a game and get enjoyment out of it. Which I think is quite possible. However I was also starting to form some concrete personal preferences in terms of gameplay. If I could not do that in the existing game that I was OK. It was very instructive for my own design, and in the mean time I was trying to adapt to this particalur GM's style. Whether or not it could have worked in the long term, I don't know. In the end it was a social contract issue that made me leave the game.

-Al

The conclusion.
.....

CG's character was supposed to be reverend and in awe of priests and magic wielding characters. Not something that CG agreed with, and this was one of the GMs additions to the characters background. It was supposed to explain why his character hung out with mine. CG looked at a more of an honor thing, and repaying a debt for my character saving his. My character was so out of it, he probably wouldn't notice if he was suddenly on his own, but the angle that CG was pushing was just cool. I looked at it as an exploration of a theme along the lines of Honor/repaying debts. How far would he go? Would a time come when he considered the debt repaid and what would happened then? What if his roguish qualities (i.e. greed) came into conflict with this. In fact, him pushing my character towards get rich schemes was absolutely fantastic;"hmm, what, a cave filled with man eating giant bats? Sure if we need to go lets go". There was no need to tell my character about the treasure hoard in said cave. The dynamic between the two characters was great, and the idea of the player choosing to explore a certain concept or theme seemed so cool, that I worked to have my own game actively supporting this (on the character level, this is SA's from TROS). Unfortunately the system I was playing in did not support this. Oh well, it was still me and my partner out for adventure, and this time we would kick ass.

But then CG made some in character comments that were deemed offensive to a god. He wasn't showing the GM scripted reverence for the holy as listed in his background. It went against the character concept. CG wasn't about to accept that since he never wanted that to be a big part of his character. A clear conflict between GM and player. The game continues, we enter some sort of shadow-teleportation tunnel. The GM makes a roll, decrees that a strange spirit lands on top of CG's character's head (which he doesn't notice), and then crawls into his head through his ear before anyone can do anything about it. The spirit takes up residence and cause the character to go blind and mute. Not wanting to believe that we are seeing what we think we are seeing, we try to deal with the problem in game. The warrior-priest learns that it is the spirit agent of the offended god, and that it might be able to leave if the character makes sufficient apologies. This bit of playing was actually done only between the GM and TA, while the rest of us had to leave the room. CG knew right away what he had to do, but wasn't going to do it. We did attempt to try to drive the spirit out by nearly killing the character, in fact CG told me to go ahead and kill of the character if needed. I couldn't make the tough call and went with the in-character justification that my mage wouldn't go so far as to kill him. Needless to say, the GM didn't budge, and neither did CG. We all (players) thought this as a low blow and an unnecessary ego trip. No one went so far to say exactly that to the GM, but we did try to simply resolve the situation OOC. The GM stuck to the in-game justification, weak as it was, and so CG decided to leave the game. He wasn't pleased that it came to this, but wasn't overly antagonistic. He wasn't going to change his mind, and so instead of escalating anything, he decided to bow out. He encouraged the rest of us to continue. We had another session with a new player brought it. Instead of a new character he was assigned the inflicted knife wielder, made quick apologies to the offended god, and things went on. Prior to this, I had made it clear that I did not want that character in play. It simply killed the whole dynamic (nothing against the new player - who much like TA was all over the "explore my world" gameplay that the GM was running), and more importantly, it was hugely unfair to CG. So I left the game, which was rather surprising to everyone else since my reserved nature led everyone to think that I was passive and wouldn't go against the GM in any way. But there was clearly no give on the side of the GM, and it amounted to an ego trip. I had two character concepts trounced, one via mechanics (that one I could accept), and the other vial social issues (that one I could not). Bad odds, so I cut my losses and bailed.

The Aftermath

The game I think is still continuing. One of the GM's regulars was brought in to shore up the group. CG harbors no ill feelings, and the everyone still hangs out outside of the game, though for me it is rather infrequent. I have even less contact with the GM. No hostility, I just felt that he showed huge amounts of disrespect for the other players. Unlike the other players, this is not someone I would particularly want to spend time with. It is also interesting to consider that for some, he is seen as a great GM. No knock on his preparation or in-character abilities, and there were a couple of nice bits of mechanics in the game. But the whole staged, play in my world, live by my rules, obey the dice thing left me cold, though others were having a good time exploring the world. The reward for the GM is clearly the "hey cool" response when he reveals some new bit of the setting or an element of his intricate plot. I can understand that. That's a cool moment for the GM. Yet there was so much more that I wanted to be able to do or get out of the game that I could not. It clarified what I really wanted, or perhaps needed in my games, as well as provididing inspiration as how to achieve it.

In the end, as a player the game was a bust, but as designer it opened all kinds of windows. That, along with meeting some new folks, certainly made it worthwhile.

-Al

Hi Al,

The answer to the Big Time GM, then, is "No." At least, mmm.... Wait a minute... I might have been that Big Time GM.

I remember one player saying, one night, when the group put together some dream imagery the PCs had encountered with some religious symbols of the evil priests they were battling, "But of course. Everything's connected to everything in Christopher's game."

The difference is, my world wasn't going to eat you alive if you didn't put it together. In fact, *nothing* would be lost if it wasn't recognized.

Typing this now, I realize this changed after my NU and Chicago gang days. By the time I was playing in Chicago, when I ran a game I wanted every little detail to shine in the players eyes. Again, it wasn't a make or break deal if the players didn't see it. But its interesting that after moving heavily into Sim as a player, I lost my -- humility, I guess is the best word for it -- as a GM -- and it became about Showing Off All My Cleverness -- because, by God, I put it there and that's what the game was about. Whereas back in high school it was all about tossing out stuff and whatever they responded to was what I'd make shinier. Hmmmm.

Christopher

Christopher Kubasik wrote: ...I guess is the best word for it -- as a GM -- and it became about Showing Off All My Cleverness -- because, by God, I put it there and that's what the game was about. Whereas back in high school it was all about tossing out stuff and whatever they responded to was what I'd make shinier. Hmmmm.

Christopher