Quote from: Sethwick"What do you want?" "Anything is fine." Meaning that anything will be treated with the same mix of dead eyed passivity and implied boredom.

Why is your equation:

no goal = dead-eyed passivity + implied boredom

My equation might be:

no goal = not sure of setting/universe/etc. + like to have a couple of sessions under my belt before I think longer term

Quote from: SethwickRPGs run on enthusiasm, and if you don't have a goal or a preference or something to be enthusiastic about you can't have enthusiasm.

That's two different things enthusiasm and "a goal". This might be hard to believe, but you can have one without the other....

Here's something to chew on:

Isn't my character selection implying a sort of "goal"?

Quote from: Abyssal MawNo, thats totally clear. I think we 100% agree.

The curse of the forgie is that they don't recognize anything but being an amateur author/thespian or amateur psychologist as legitimate. Sethwick asks why would such people even choose roleplaying games? When Redfox offers examples, they are dismissed as "All things better served by actions other than playing RPGs."

The "gamism essay" on the Forge reaches a similar conclusion as it slimes us:



In other words, the only reasons "gamists" might exist to Ron Edwards is because they're either misplaced, or they are actually there to prey on the poor victimized amateur thespians or armchair psychologists. The "hard question" indeed.

My answer is that nobody (the so-called gamist or anyone else) needs an excuse for enjoying a game as a game. It's the other guy- the griefer forgy who wants to command everyone's attention while he works out his novel or agonizes over issues or explores his psyche -- that guy needs to think long and hard about why he came to a roleplaying game.

You are mixing up Forgists and Storytellers. All swine are not alike

I'm very into Forge ideas (although more recent revision don't suit me) and I'm pretty much a gamist as Edwards describe them.

Quote from: SethwickI'm very into Forge ideas (although more recent revision don't suit me) and I'm pretty much a gamist as Edwards describe them.

Really? Curious. Not trying to pick a fight or anything, but could you explain why you think the term accurately reflects your playstyle.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: rcsampleWhy is your equation:

no goal = dead-eyed passivity + implied boredom

My equation might be:

no goal = not sure of setting/universe/etc. + like to have a couple of sessions under my belt before I think longer term

This is the sort of thing I think needs to be figured out before the game. I like starting things in the action, in medias res. I mean, ideally I like to take player goals and use them to plan the first session. And the next one.  I guess it's just difference in tastes. I find things need to get going in session 1 or people start dropping out.

QuoteThat's two different things enthusiasm and "a goal". This might be hard to believe, but you can have one without the other....

Here's something to chew on:

Isn't my character selection implying a sort of "goal"?

Yes. It is. Or certainly can be. I'm not really sure.

I think this mostly comes down to different experiences as GMs. In my experiences, RPGs need to be engaging and intense from the get go. Bang, go. Otherwise, I or players get bored and give up on it.

I play RPGs with my friends. There are many things we could do while hanging out. There is not a high tolerence among us for dealing with something boring for a promise of better stuff later when we could have something fun now.

If you hae people who either don't have something better to do or believe boredom now can be made up for, then choosing a goal in game might work better. I'd rather that take up out of game time.

Quote from: SethwickI'm very into Forge ideas (although more recent revision don't suit me) and I'm pretty much a gamist as Edwards describe them.

Are you a suck, with an easily hurt ego, and not man enough for real games?  Do you like lurking about Roleplaying games like some kind of creepy weirdo because the other players are easy for you to beat, because they won't fight back?

Then why bother with Roleplaying Games at all? You'd probably enjoy something like volleyball, chess, pool or sport fishing a lot more.

Unless of course you're not a gamist as Edwards describes them...

Quote from: David RReally? Curious. Not trying to pick a fight or anything, but could you explain why you think the term accurately reflects your playstyle.

Regards,
David R

Eh, actually I'm a bit weird. I like games that incorperate player skills and involve competition. My ideal game is one where player compete tactically over control of the story. Essentially where competitive energy is focused into a story. I enjoy gaming a system for in game power with which to gain the spotlight. I like a game where every player is competing to get the spotlight via being the most awesome.

I don't really agree with Edwards. I think some of his base ideas are good but he is too focused on using what he has instead of restarting to try to get something less muddled and confused.

So, that's not really the point of this thread. If I have to argue my philosophy of gaming I'll do it in another thread

Quote from: StuartAre you a suck, with an easily hurt ego, and not man enough for real games?  Do you like lurking about Roleplaying games like some kind of creepy weirdo because the other players are easy for you to beat, because they won't fight back?

Then why bother with Roleplaying Games at all? You'd probably enjoy something like volleyball, chess, pool or sport fishing a lot more.

Unless of course you're not a gamist as Edwards describes them...

I think you're twisting his words, not to mention using them out of context. but I'm not gonna fight for Edwards here.

I wouldn't ask you to explain what Edward's meant, but I don't think I'm taking it out of context:

QuoteDo you play Gamist in role-playing because it doesn't hurt your ego as much as other venues might? Is role-playing safer in some way, in terms of the loss factor of Step On Up? Even more severely, are you sticking to role-playing because many fellow players subscribe to the "no one wins in role-playing" idea? Do you lurk like Grendel among a group of tolerant, perhaps discomfited Simulationists, secure that they are disinclined to Step On Up toward you? In which case, you can win against them or the game all the time, but they will never win against you?

But I'll agree with you on this point:

QuoteI don't really agree with Edwards. I think some of his base ideas are good but he is too focused on using what he has instead of restarting to try to get something less muddled and confused.

Exactly!

Quote from: StuartI wouldn't ask you to explain what Edward's meant, but I don't think I'm taking it out of context:

Well, context being the whole essay. Which I'm sorry I don't have time to reread now, finals suck. You could be right and that bit is him being a jackass for no reason. However, I'm willing to bet there are a lot of good ideas in the essay despite that.

Edwards can be a jackass. I happen to think he is a jackass with some good ideas.

Quote from: SethwickThere is not a high tolerence among us for dealing with something boring for a promise of better stuff later when we could have something fun now.

If you hae people who either don't have something better to do or believe boredom now can be made up for, then choosing a goal in game might work better. I'd rather that take up out of game time.

It seems you believe boredom = not having a predefined player goal.

People game for different reasons.  Some want in depth characters before they even begin play, some want outlines they can fill in with detail later.  Some like to be plopped in a world and asked "What do you do?". Others want a deeply fleshed out universe with all sorts of plot hammers hitting them on their heads...

I guess the bottom line is if it feels good, do it.  If you and your players enjoy predefining player (I'm assuming you really mean a goal the player has for their character) goals, have at it.  I think I'll just chalk it up to different strokes...

To answer your question:

Quote from: SethwickI have a question for anyone who is a "player without a goal": why are you playing?

I guess you could say my goal is "Get together with a bunch of buddies, play a role that probably is different from me in real life, and explore the universe I'm playing in."

Quote from: SethwickThere has to be SOME kind of a goal. I mean, even if it is "To explore this GMs setting." That is a goal. It's a wishy washy goal and I really would find myself bored by a player with such a goal, but it's a goal.

I guess I'm a boring player, then.  

As a footnote:  I've actually been in games where I was asked by the GM to create a detailed background, where do I see my character going, etc. I proceeded to do that, we'd play a session and the GM axed the game.  When I asked him, he said it wasn't working out, he was bored, etc.  After that, I was really less inclined to create detailed histories, character goals from the get go.

I sort of look at a campaign like a TV show.  I'd like to have an adventure that introduces me to the characters, places and the universe (i.e. a pilot show).  We then, as a group, can decide if we enjoyed it enough to make an attempt at running a mini-season or full-season. Maybe when we decide to tackle the campaign (season), I would write more detail into my character.

Quote from: rcsampleI sort of look at a campaign like a TV show.  I'd like to have an adventure that introduces me to the characters, places and the universe (i.e. a pilot show).  We then, as a group, can decide if we enjoyed it enough to make an attempt at running a mini-season or full-season. Maybe when we decide to tackle the campaign (season), I would write more detail into my character.

That's very much my mindset and approach.  I think GMs could do far worse than to use that as basic advice on how to run.

Quote from: rcsampleIt seems you believe boredom = not having a predefined player goal.

People game for different reasons.  Some want in depth characters before they even begin play, some want outlines they can fill in with detail later.  Some like to be plopped in a world and asked "What do you do?". Others want a deeply fleshed out universe with all sorts of plot hammers hitting them on their heads...

I guess the bottom line is if it feels good, do it.  If you and your players enjoy predefining player (I'm assuming you really mean a goal the player has for their character) goals, have at it.  I think I'll just chalk it up to different strokes...

To explain my preferred "stroke": IMX, this is GMing for a regular group of friends and random other people, most people who are not really into RPGs will quickly lose interest if things stop happening. I find that having PCs with strong goals helps keep things cooking. That's why I like goals.

QuoteTo answer your question:


I guess you could say my goal is "Get together with a bunch of buddies, play a role that probably is different from me in real life, and explore the universe I'm playing in."

Good if you're group is down with it. I don't mean to say anything that is fun for your group doesn't work for your group. I think that's a given. However, I generally find such play too strenuous on me as a GM and in play I'm not really into the whole immersion/exploration angle. I think we're getting down to the bare bones preferences as players/GMs which make us differe here.

QuoteI guess I'm a boring player, then.  

To me? yeah.

QuoteAs a footnote:  I've actually been in games where I was asked by the GM to create a detailed background, where do I see my character going, etc. I proceeded to do that, we'd play a session and the GM axed the game.  When I asked him, he said it wasn't working out, he was bored, etc.  After that, I was really less inclined to create detailed histories, character goals from the get go.

I sort of look at a campaign like a TV show.  I'd like to have an adventure that introduces me to the characters, places and the universe (i.e. a pilot show).  We then, as a group, can decide if we enjoyed it enough to make an attempt at running a mini-season or full-season. Maybe when we decide to tackle the campaign (season), I would write more detail into my character.

Hmm... weirdly we have similar characteristics here. I like the idea of a pilot session, but pilots need to set in motion a lot of things that will happen later and I as a GM find it hard to set stuff up like that on the fly. It helps to know where the players want the PCs to go before hand.

I don't particularly like writing up character backgrounds, I prefere blank slates that I as a GM can screw with on the fly or as a player can just make stuff up. However, I don't think this is incompatible with wanting players who have an idea of where they want their PCs to go.

I think that's what I'm after, really. The PC doesn't need to have a goal. They could just wander into things and get caught up in the chaos. However, I like it when the player has a goal for his character. The archetypical peasant to fantasy hero doesn't have the goal of becoming a fantasy hero usually. Usually he/she is just living their life when they are torn away from the normalcy they like and are used to and are thrust into the drama and conflict of the story. What the player wants for the character and what the character wants are seperate. I don't care what the character wants, I care what the player wants. If the player doesn't want something for the character, I'm kind of at a loss as to what to do with that character.

Quote from: SethwickI don't care what the character wants, I care what the player wants. If the player doesn't want something for the character, I'm kind of at a loss as to what to do with that character.

I contend that it's not really up to the GM what to "do" with anyone's character.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI contend that it's not really up to the GM what to "do" with anyone's character.

The GM controls the world around the PCs in your traditional game. The world around the PCs has a lot to do with how they respond and what they do. I like a player to be able to tell me where he wants his PC to go, so I can either: tell him that probably won't work with what is all ready going on, or help him facilitate that for maximum awesomeness from player and GM. It also gives me a chance to give the player some of my ideas.

For instance, if a player wanted his character, let's say a devout paladin, to go through some questioning of faith, but ultimately emergy stronger in his believes, I could say that doesn't fit with my overall vision for the campaign, cause lets say the current plot has a resolution where the gods are really powerful wizards that just act like gods to control the world. So, if I tell him that's not gonna work now, he's not going to waste time and energy on that and be even more disappointed. I could also talk with him about some similar ideas that might work with the campaign. Or if his idea for his character fit with the campaign, or he was really really really into them, I could work that into the surrounding events. Maybe set up some kind of big moral dilemma for him to question is faith over, or create a schism in the paladin's church.

Now, I can avoid the problem of my ideas clashing with the players ideas if I don't plan the campaign at all until they give me some idea where they want their PCs to go. Then I can plan my campaign around those ideas, making everyone more involved and the growth and change of the characters fit with the progression of the plot.

It doesn't matter what I have planned for a campaign; if a player ever told me he wants his character to go through a questioning of faith and ultimately emerge stronger, I'd suggest he find another game. The fact that you'd even entertain the possibility of a player planning a complete "plotline" tells me that your approach to gaming is fundamentally different from mine.

Similarly the fact that you would plan a game with a plot and resolution, as opposed to a mysterious fact about the world whose impact on play will depend on what the PCs do--that's not just not something I'd do, except as a lark.

But once we get beyond that, you have to realize that none of the people here are advocating boring games. You'd be better off asking Abyssal Maw what he does when none of his players have goals for their characters. What does he do to get the campaign off the ground?

And conversely, if you're a player who doesn't like to formulate goals, what has been an acceptable and fun way to "get into" the game? E.g., did someone else have a goal for their character that jump-started things? Or did the GM plop a mission or a dungeon in your lap? Or did the group basically start by kicking around and interacting with the setting until "something happened"?