| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Levi
Site Admin
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 657
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm going to have to agree that for some groups, the best possible social setup is one of common politeness that moves immediately towards play, stays there for the duration, and then adjourns for the night.
But, in my own experience, that is a form of social setup, and can be facilitated just as surely as any other.
_________________
levi.kornelsen@gmail.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kester Pelagius
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 31
Location: Earth, Mutter's Spiral
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Levi wrote: | | I'm going to have to agree that for some groups, the best possible social setup is one of common politeness that moves immediately towards play, stays there for the duration, and then adjourns for the night. |
A laudible goal have. While it's been my experience that games, especially when they have a good momentum going, tend to develop a life of their own and want to be played to a resolution that offers closure to the players your repsonsibilities in life tend to intrude on this.
_________________
Mise-en-scene Crypt
Join the RPG FunZone Forums! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dindenver
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 3
Location: Denver, CO USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: Thoughts |
|
|
Hi!
I will admit that I agree with this idea. I feel that the majority of gamers are "casual gamers" and that hardcore measures like no chit chat at the game table are off-putting to the casual gamer.
My group has been running solid since 1996. The day has changed, the time has changed and the games we play has changed, the GM(s) have changed, but we carry on and make do with what we have.
I do feel that your "writing for effect" is super off-putting. I read the entire home page and did not feel like reading the rest because you were so aggressive and defensive. I know that forgites and Punditites are also very aggressive and defensive, but I do not know that it is in the interest of casual gamers to fight fire with fire, you know?
In the end, the reality is that my weekly game group is almost the only time my friends see each other. So, they need time to catch up on current events, blow off steam and bond. Gaming has still proceeded just fine, but only because the GM reing it in after 10 or 15 minutes of chit chat.
Lots of RPG advocates ask why there aren't more female gamers and why there aren't more gamers in the hobby. I think the answer is that too many groups are too hardcore. No talking during game play, no showing up late, no missing sessions, no leaving early, etc. The reality is these sorts of measures make it hard for newcomers to get to know the members of the group or to learn how to play well/better.
_________________
Dave M
Author of Legends of Lanasia (Still in Beta)
[URL="http://dindenver.blogspot.com/"]http://dindenver.blogspot.com/[/URL] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Holmes
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 113
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you guys are actually all agreeing with Kyle... which means your delivery could use some improvement, perhaps, Kyle. Or that they didn't really read what you wrote.
Nowhere does Kyle say that the idea is to set aside the game for social activities. He's saying that, if you have a crying baby issue, that this can't be fixed by adjusting the rules of the RPG... you have to talk to the real people and fix the problem. That's what being social is about in this context, fixing problems on the level of the people, not fixing problems with the game.
As it happens, I disagree with Kyle in that I think that some issues are with design primarily - I think most groups are actually socially OK. But where there is a social problem, I can only agree that it can't be fixed with rules.
Mike |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kester Pelagius
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 31
Location: Earth, Mutter's Spiral
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike Holmes wrote: | | Nowhere does Kyle say that the idea is to set aside the game for social activities. He's saying that, if you have a crying baby issue, that this can't be fixed by adjusting the rules of the RPG... |
That's the real life intruding. Of course how you deal with such disruptions largely depends on where your group is gaming, which also tends to affect the social dynamic.
| Mike Holmes wrote: | | As it happens, I disagree with Kyle in that I think that some issues are with design primarily - I think most groups are actually socially OK. But where there is a social problem, I can only agree that it can't be fixed with rules. |
Exactly.
I remember an incident at a LGS years ago, I'd arrived with a few members of my group early to do the whole catch up on what we've been doing in our lives since we last met when the GM using th current time slow came up to me and said I could have the table and offered me his RPG (which he'd just been trying out) for a $1. That was one peeved GM, and it had nothing to do with the group, who were regulars, but everything to do with the game and it's rules.
So, in this case, bad rules upset an otherwise fine group social dynamic as everyone left in a huff.
_________________
Mise-en-scene Crypt
Join the RPG FunZone Forums! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lee Short
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kester Pelagius wrote: |
| Mike Holmes wrote: | | As it happens, I disagree with Kyle in that I think that some issues are with design primarily - I think most groups are actually socially OK. But where there is a social problem, I can only agree that it can't be fixed with rules. |
Exactly.
I remember an incident at a LGS years ago, I'd arrived with a few members of my group early to do the whole catch up on what we've been doing in our lives since we last met when the GM using th current time slow came up to me and said I could have the table and offered me his RPG (which he'd just been trying out) for a $1. That was one peeved GM, and it had nothing to do with the group, who were regulars, but everything to do with the game and it's rules.
So, in this case, bad rules upset an otherwise fine group social dynamic as everyone left in a huff. |
If the group all left in a huff, angry at the other players --- then either the rules were only the catalyst that set off some deeper issues, or the players needed to grow up some.
Regardless of the root cause of this particular incident (which very probably neither of us has enough information to determine), I think that in general, Internet posts with analyses of social phenomena tend to tell you rather more about the person making the analysis than they do about the phenomena in question.
Back to the topic, I think that there are some players who really want the mechanics to provide them a complete set of rules that they can push at. When a game doesn't provide a complete rule set, these players are often quite unhappy with making ad hoc rulings to keep the game moving. IME, these kinds of players are type of players who might have social problems caused by the game design. The "let's just wing it" players will have rather fewer social problems caused by the game design. Of course, there may also be social problems when the "wing it" players try to play with the rules-completist players. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Warthur
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In defence of Kester's point, I can certainly remember times when my own gaming group has had to put down a game because we seriously weren't enjoying it. It is entirely possible to be mad at a game as opposed to a human being, and if everyone's grumpy because they are mad at the game then everyone's just a little on edge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lee Short
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure. You've got to know when to quit a game that's just no fun, for whatever reason.
But I don't think that means that "Stop playing this game when you're not having fun." is something every game author needs to have written into their game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anemone
Joined: 21 Mar 2007
Posts: 37
Location: Seattle. WA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Warthur wrote: | | In defence of Kester's point, I can certainly remember times when my own gaming group has had to put down a game because we seriously weren't enjoying it. It is entirely possible to be mad at a game as opposed to a human being, and if everyone's grumpy because they are mad at the game then everyone's just a little on edge. |
Sure. But in my experience, when this happened in our group (more than once), we just brainstormed on what to do next and tried different systems. The system did not have the power to destroy the group.
_________________
Anemone
Running: Truth & Justice: "Top 10: Night Shift" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
