After all but abandoning the RPG scene a year (or more?) ago, I was itching to get back into the play. So when I was invited to join a group by a nice guy I'd met a year earlier, I jumped at it. An historical GURPS game with a bit of faerie thrown in; with an emphasis on the historical aspect. In fact, I was given a set of links to check out before joining; to be better able to get into the game. GURPS was chosen to better model real-world physics.

For those few who've gamed with me (and the others who've read my games), how many warning flags does this raise?

Warning Flag #1 - Know your gaming preference. I know what gaming I like. I like fast-paced, balls-to-the-wall, get things done gaming. I'm not a stickler for looking things up, whether they're rules or historical facts. That the links included a conversion chart between 16th century European currencies should have been a big signifier.

Warning Flag #2 - Pay attention to the reasons for System. Picking a game system to accurately model the real world. This is a fine choice for those who want to model plausible effects. I don't game so I can be hampered by reality, though.

The first session consisted of me creating a character while the group played. I got to meet the other players, every one of them friendly people. In fact, I could hang out with these people, shoot the shit over lunch, grab a matinee showing, that kind of thing. I figured I was a good match, and disregarded the fact that the GM was hand-holding me through the PC generation process.

Warning Flag #3 - Know your play preferences (GNS is a good tool for this). I was uncomfortable with my historical knowledge, so the GM wrote the character, backstory and all. The attention to detail and historical plausibility should have told me: You are going to spend a lot of time asking about history during play.

So we play a few sessions, and I find the play tending to go like this: The session starts with the long-term dilemma (in our case, the group trying to get from Germany up to the Netherlands), roleplaying is concentrated on one or two of the four players for long stretches, and to me, it feels like we're taking an entire session to get through the most mundane tasks.

Warning Flag #4 - During play, everyone should be participants. When I spend a lot of the time getting bored and striking up conversations with the other 80's cartoon kid, it's time to reconsider whether I'm gaming or hanging out. It's fine to sit down with a friend and discuss the merits of Thundarr the Barbarian, but when it disrupts actual play, there's a problem. Now, I could forcibly enter my character; read on for that struggle.

I start doodling pretty heavily during play. Then I realize that I need to inject some excitement. During a scene where two (possibly three, not including myself) are wrapped up in some intrigue and I have nothing to do, I decide to inject my character. Sure it's not the most realistic thing to do, but hell, I've been sitting just waiting for something to happen. End result: My sense of decorum overrides my drive for action and my character winds up sitting in the sidelines for that bout. There is no plausible reason to insert my character. I don't want to be that player (you know, the one who throws a sword into the chancellor while the others are in the middle of excited and tense diplomacy).

Finally some action! My character's a sailor. We're on a small sailing ship with a massive storm approaching. People are thrown overboard, rolls are made, heroism acheived, and then ... an entirely separate roleplaying session made between the GM and a single player in the other room. Apparently something of import was going on that we weren't privy to. Eventually, though, the important event was resolved and the storm magically subsided.

Warning Flag #5 - One-on-one? But we're a group!. If you want to do a roleplaying duet, that's fine. But it's a gaming group, and we're here to play together. In addition, I have a personal gaming style issue with combining player and character knowledge. It's good for players to be privy to things even if their characters aren't there.

So, here I am. Another session or two later, and I'm finding myself very ready to leave. All the other players seem to be having a lot of fun, so I'm not going to blame them. And they're great people; I have fun when we chat outside the game. It's just that our play goals are incompatible. After I post this, I'm letting the GM know that I'd like to leave, and if he wants me there to help wrap things up with my character, I can do that. And hey, if it opens up a discussion on roleplaying and our differing opinions and theories, I'm all for it.

Lessons learned? Definitely. Friends made? Yup, and hopefully that'll stay. Fun had? At times, but not worth the gaming discomfort.

So there you have it. My first gaming dysfunction since I discovered the Forge! Hope that illuminates things for some; or maybe it's more common than I've experienced.

Hi Zak,

I'm not sure how common it is, but it's not uncommon for people new to the Forge and enthusiastic about careful examination of play experiences to go through what you did, and to post about it. What is a breath of fresh air is your relatively pain-free examination of it and your resolve that you can get what you want if you keep being clear with yourself & others. Too often we are witness to rather gruesome social meltdowns in the wake of conscious addressing of dysfunction.

So, kudos to you for showing the benefit of having conscious gaming preferences, especially for naming them in an explicit, direct way rather than encapsulating them into GNS terms. (I'm not disparaging GNS here; just saying that analysis is at its best when you own it and use your own experiences & specific preferences when talking about what you want.)

Here's hoping you're able to find something more to your liking soon.

--JB

Hey Zak,

Given that you're not in the remotest sense a newbie, let me ask some follow-up questions.

1. You should have seen these warning signs. Did you? I mean, did you actually see them, but refuse to let yourself see them because you really wanted to do some gaming and you liked these folks? Or did you actually not spot this stuff? If the latter is true, why? If the former, were there other reasons?

2. If you had seen these things consciously, what should you have done?

3. Now that you like these people, are you considering gaming with them in other ways that you like better? Would organizing a side-game or one-shot be a good or a bad idea? Why?

I'm not trying to tell you what to do in a roundabout way; I want to know what you think, because this sort of thing comes up a lot and your insights would be very valuable.

Chris Lehrich

Zak Arntson wrote: Lessons learned? Definitely. Friends made? Yup, and hopefully that'll stay. Fun had? At times, but not worth the gaming discomfort.

So there you have it. My first gaming dysfunction since I discovered the Forge! Hope that illuminates things for some; or maybe it's more common than I've experienced.

Hiya,

I'm with John all the way. It's not dysfunction; it's an amicable mismatch, right?

Dysfunction might include all sorts of lip-biting emails back and forth, perhaps a private talking-to by the GM or his best supporter, or mysterious re-schedulings or other weird "oops" events that make it inconvenient to play. That sort of stuff - or maybe even lost tempers and silent glares, all that too.

But you didn't get into all that, not even close, which is ... why, it's a relief, is what it is. I feel like we should all do some kind of self-help validation ritual for you, which is probably a good sign that I should go stick my head in the snow outside for no less than thirty seconds.

Seriously, though, well done, and what a valuable post. Any thoughts on Chris' (clehrich's) questions?

Best,
Ron

Yup, Ron, I do have answers! Here they are:

clehrich wrote: 1. You should have seen these warning signs. Did you? I mean, did you actually see them, but refuse to let yourself see them because you really wanted to do some gaming and you liked these folks? Or did you actually not spot this stuff? If the latter is true, why? If the former, were there other reasons?

2. If you had seen these things consciously, what should you have done?

3. Now that you like these people, are you considering gaming with them in other ways that you like better? Would organizing a side-game or one-shot be a good or a bad idea? Why?

I'm not trying to tell you what to do in a roundabout way; I want to know what you think, because this sort of thing comes up a lot and your insights would be very valuable.

Ron Edwards wrote: I'm with John all the way. It's not dysfunction; it's an amicable mismatch, right?

John Kim wrote: I'm also curious to hear more about your character and about the game.

Hi Zak,

Yeah, you're right. Given those clarifiers, that's the Big D for your behavior. It's still a great thing that you kept it from escalating into a cycle of almost-fun to disaster to almost-fun to disaster.

Best,
Ron

Well, weirdly enough, I've been invited to join a Spycraft game with a different group. I'm curious, and this time I informed the GM that a) I'm just curious, and I can't commit to a full campaign, and b) my tastes in gaming could easily lead me from the game. He's still interested (and that's after checking out my website), which is a good sign that dysfunction can be nipped in the bud.

The difference between this group and the last, well, we'll really have to see. But so far, the last group was an ongoing campaign (something like ten years) with the same GM. I was certainly not going to make an impact on his gaming style. When I was given reading material on history, I studied it; when I provided him Sorcerer to read, he never got around to looking at it. The lack of reciprocity was yet another warning flag! This new GM admits to being somewhat of a rookie, and seems open to discussions on gaming.

When I mentioned that I'm not a big fan of the d20 system, where it's harder to do cooler things, he wrote back, Isn't that how real life works? Aha! I provided my take on it; boiled down: I don't game to mimic real life.

So here's hoping. I'll post this new experience when it happens. The timing's awfully interesting, so I have to jump at this chance to apply my learned lessons.

Zak Arntson wrote: An historical GURPS game with a bit of faerie thrown in; with an emphasis on the historical aspect. [cut]
The session starts with the long-term dilemma (in our case, the group trying to get from Germany up to the Netherlands)

LutherBlissett wrote: I'm really much interested in historical campaign.
I, myself, am running an anglo-saxon GURPS adventure,
and I'd like to share comments and thoughts.

Is there a way to get the adventure you played?
(or maybe contact the GM...)