TheRPGSite

I saw this earlier:

One guy was talking about how he wanted to use some alternate XP system for D&D, that players would get XP for 'setting and accomplishing goals'.

So Ok, so  far, so good.

Then, some of the players balked at this, saying they didn't want their characters to set any goals at any point.

Ok, sounds good so far. I'm following along.

Then some fart smeller, er.. smart feller peeped up with "Thats because those kind of players are just along for the ride..  or they really want the GM to set goals for them!"

(here's that needle scratching off the record sound)

To which I say "How do you get that?"

I submit this:
A player who is not interested in setting goals for his character is not interested in anyone else doing it either. Neither is he "just along for the ride'. A lot of times players want to just ease into a new game or explore the possibilities of play without interference.

Why is this such a hard concept?

It's a hard concept because it pisses off GMs when their players have no goals. "Well shit, what am I supposed to run?"

Agreed, Abyssal Maw.  In fact, I've had open conflict about Exalted 2e's requirement for each PC to have an epic goal at character creation.

It's hard enough trying to herd nuclear powered cats when they're not all driven in different directions.  And my players had immense trouble coming up with suitably epic goals in the first place.

Motivations are sometimes really helpful when you're GMing, but they're just another tool.  They're not necessary and people who like using them shouldn't shit all over people who don't.

Quote from: beejazzIt's a hard concept because it pisses off GMs when their players have no goals. "Well shit, what am I supposed to run?"

Well, it doesn't piss me off, and I'm a GM. I liken it to this: I like  car games. I like to race the cars.. and then sometimes I'll spend an hour or so crashing the cars into walls and other cars to see how that works. Then maybe I spend some time in the customizer making new cars and giving them cool paintjobs. Then I try out the campaign game. Sometimes I just get in the car and surf around for a while.

Sometimes the goal is just "to play"

I think it's great when one play *does* have a goal, because i can really play to that. But I'm not offended when they don't. Especially when I consider that in a long running campaign- the guy might suddenly decide he's got a goal at level 5 or 7 or something down the road.

I tend to find goals that develop in-play are much more rewarding on average than ones brought to the table.  YMM, of course, V.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI submit this:
A player who is not interested in setting goals for his character is not interested in anyone else doing it either. Neither is he "just along for the ride'. A lot of times players want to just ease into a new game or explore the possibilities of play without interference.

Why is this such a hard concept?

It's a hard concept to get people to agree to because it's at least partially wrong. You've stated it as an absolute but it's not always true. Some players fit it, but other players do want goals set for them by the GM (or even other players). Others really are just along for the ride.

Change the second "is not" to "may not be" and you're in the right territory with A player who is not interested in setting goals for his character may not be interested in anyone else doing it either.

James: I concede. Your'e definitely right about that.

Huh? What?

What happened to my internet!?!?!?!?!?

;)

Right, I don't think goals are needed off the bat, but I can't imagine GMing without at least having some sense of what the players want to do, or at bare minimum, will agree to do.

I get very frustrated as a player all too often due to stuff like this.  I LIKE to set a goal for my character. But I LIKE to do it after I've spent a few games puttering around and seeing what the world is like, what the character is like and what the GM is like.

Organically if you will.  

Of course, a lot of games I've been in I come in, ready to start working on a long term goal only to find the rest of the players had grown bored with the game and created new characters, reseting the game to zero. Or the GM has decided that I am a 'utility player' and relegated me to the background and doesn't want to hear about my grand ideas.


But to come up with an Epic Goal at the start of character creation? Can't do it.

Quote from: SpikeI get very frustrated as a player all too often due to stuff like this.  I LIKE to set a goal for my character. But I LIKE to do it after I've spent a few games puttering around and seeing what the world is like, what the character is like and what the GM is like.

Organically if you will.  

Of course, a lot of games I've been in I come in, ready to start working on a long term goal only to find the rest of the players had grown bored with the game and created new characters, reseting the game to zero. Or the GM has decided that I am a 'utility player' and relegated me to the background and doesn't want to hear about my grand ideas.


But to come up with an Epic Goal at the start of character creation? Can't do it.

This is the problem that I have, if the characters aren't driven and interesting the game will fizzle out.  I'm not totally sold on Exalted's epic motivations, and will allow the player to choose a more mundane one to start with, which we can expand on later.  For example, maybe they'll start with 'kick the dragon-blooded out of my city'.  Then we'll worry about 'destroy the Realm' or 'restore the Solar Deliberative' later.

It's hard as a GM to write a game for characters without goals, especially if you're at least somewhat character driven.  To me, if the character has no goals why are they a PC?  What is interesting about them?  Why are they going off to instead of staying home and watching TV like everyone else?  If you find the character so boring you can't think of anything you want them to do, I can't imagine you're going to have much fun in the game.

Quote from: MaddmanThis is the problem that I have, if the characters aren't driven and interesting the game will fizzle out.  I'm not totally sold on Exalted's epic motivations, and will allow the player to choose a more mundane one to start with, which we can expand on later.  For example, maybe they'll start with 'kick the dragon-blooded out of my city'.  Then we'll worry about 'destroy the Realm' or 'restore the Solar Deliberative' later.

It's hard as a GM to write a game for characters without goals, especially if you're at least somewhat character driven.  To me, if the character has no goals why are they a PC?  What is interesting about them?  Why are they going off to instead of staying home and watching TV like everyone else?  If you find the character so boring you can't think of anything you want them to do, I can't imagine you're going to have much fun in the game.

I think part of it might simply be people shying away because they feel they have to come up with acceptable goals.

"Walk the earth" is a perfectly valid goal, as is "beat up lots of guys and get stronger."

Some people also don't know where their character is going yet, or just don't care much about them other than as a vessel for escapism.  Many players are reactive rather than proactive as well, and GMs have to come to grips with that.

Quote from: RedFoxI think part of it might simply be people shying away because they feel they have to come up with acceptable goals.

"Walk the earth" is a perfectly valid goal, as is "beat up lots of guys and get stronger."

Some people also don't know where their character is going yet, or just don't care much about them other than as a vessel for escapism.  Many players are reactive rather than proactive as well, and GMs have to come to grips with that.

True, and my general way of dealing with that is to put them in a situation where we see what kind of person they are.  Are they the kind of person that will risk their life to save an innocent?  It's happening right across the street.  Will they fight to protect their honor?  A thug has just insulted them.  By giving the player these kinds of situations you can suss out where they want to go with them.  It's a lot easier and a lot more fun if they have some idea.

Acceptable goals to me means what do you want beyond the premise.  (Not the Ron Edwards meaning of Premise, but the normal one)  If we're playing Buffy, then all the PCs want to protect the people of the town from vampires and demons.  If we're playing D&D, they want to kill monsters and get their treasure.  Saying you want to do that isn't helpful - what makes *your* character special?  Even if they do, flavor it up a little.  Maybe your Buffy character wants to fight against vampires because one of them is stalking her.  Or your D&D character wants to go treasure hunting so he can find the lost McGuffin of Plot Device, a family heirloom.

Truthfully, I find the first session of a new game the hardest to prep for and the hardest to run, because generally the players haven't given me very much about their characters, and what they have given me they may not stick to.

Quote from: SpikeI get very frustrated as a player all too often due to stuff like this.  I LIKE to set a goal for my character. But I LIKE to do it after I've spent a few games puttering around and seeing what the world is like, what the character is like and what the GM is like.

Right, this is where I'm headed with knowing what the players want to do. So you want to putter around. What kind of puttering are you looking for? Doesn't have to be the same thing every campaign, of course, but it will give some sense of the type of prep needed both in terms of setting elements and (if necessary) events to throw at the player.

Quote from: Elliot WilenRight, this is where I'm headed with knowing what the players want to do. So you want to putter around. What kind of puttering are you looking for? Doesn't have to be the same thing every campaign, of course, but it will give some sense of the type of prep needed both in terms of setting elements and (if necessary) events to throw at the player.

That's just it, there isn't a single answer.  In one game that notoriously ended when I showed up for the next session to see everyone making new characters.. the first few game sessions my 'guy' was some big, ugly over the top (Hawiian shirts, white boy dreads that had been tie-dyed) ex-commando who had been picked up as part of this mercenary team.  He was a loud obnoxious and over the top guy. By three games in, I had worked out a bit more of his past, got him side intrests (trade, black market arms dealing and the like), a potential love intrest he was woo-ing... which meant ditching the hawiian shirts, at least some of the time, for suits and ties.  In other words, he was evolving as a character. Just in time for the game (which only lasted four sessions as I recall...) to end unexpectedly.

More recently, I joined a long running D&D game that meets infrequently. My character is, coincidentally, a mercenary. The GM needed him to be from a local village, so he's the prodigal son returned to find his home in peril. Not much to go on, and as we've only played twice I still don't know where he's going. That comes out in play.   Right now, the closest thing I have to a goal is that he collects things that might have magical resonances (like thousand year old manacle chains still holding their last occupants and the shards of shattered weapons and armor) with some crude idea of getting a Mage to forge them into a weapon of significant power. Maybe. It's just an idea floating in my head, and as goals go, it sucks. Right now, that game is being driven by the other players, and for now I'm content to just hang out in the background and do my thing.

I've done lots of characters, from the Drow that wanted to become closer to his Goddess (Eliestree or whatever.. the dancing huntress goddess of the moon...), to the former Sergeant Major who wanted to rebuild a shattered Poland from the base we'd set up in an abandoned warehouse on the riverfront, to... well, i wouldn't want to bore you with them all. The thing is, none of those goals were written down before I played the character for a few games.

This is very interesting to me. If you don't mind I'd like to use you as a test case for how to handle a player with my new "what do you want to do, not what do you want to accomplish" theory. Care to start a new thread?

Quote from: Elliot WilenThis is very interesting to me. If you don't mind I'd like to use you as a test case for how to handle a player with my new "what do you want to do, not what do you want to accomplish" theory. Care to start a new thread?

You are welcome to use me as a test case, and I'll be happy to participate, but you should make the thread. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your statement there. :D

For certain players I don't think goals are very important. And I say this as someone who bases whole campaigns on pc goals. The thing is, what is crucial is that those players who do not have goals get something out of gaming which does not impede the fun of those who do have goals.

Also these goalless heathens :D should ideally be the kind of players willing to find something in the goals of the other pcs or something in the setting worth adopting as their own.

I have long since abandoned the whole "strangers meeting in a tavern" concept in any genre. Character creation is a group effort. we discuss what the campaign is about, some of the themes etc and the players create characters together - the most important aspect of which is what is their relationship to each other and what holds them (nominaly sometimes) together.

This has a couple of advantages. The first I can inject the pcs into the setting with minimal effort. The second and perhaps the more relevent to the topic at hand, it gives the goalless players something to hook their characters on (often times just a relationship) before moving on to something else

One of the reasons I'm not such a stickler for character goals, is that I have over the years discovered that for some players, it's just about doing stuff - sometimes for no apparent reason. Get the bad guy. Discover the mystery.Survive the encounter. Why? No reason, just because...

If that's the case and they are having fun, and also contributing to the whole atmosphere, than fine. A couple of players in my current group are just there for the ride and although there is not much character growth in their protrayals, they do contribute a hell of a lot of awesome to the game.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SpikeYou are welcome to use me as a test case, and I'll be happy to participate, but you should make the thread. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your statement there. :D

Thanks! Forward link! (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=50027)

I don't mind player's with characters that lack clear and/or epic goals, but it does bother me when they lack "common human goals" to the point of breaking suspension of disbelief due to their inhuman actions.  (for that genre / character)

I think I listed these earlier today:

Spontaneously suicidal or homicidal. Amoral. Fearless. Shameless. No concern for long term goals or consequences of any sort beyond the current gaming session. etc.

Wow.  I *think* I'm the one who started the thread about this elsewhere.  It's amazing where thoughts on the Internet go sometimes.  Anyway, this is my first time ever to this site and my first post here.... so howdy.  :)

In any case, my only reasons for bringing this topic up were...

1.)  I really had never considered having a character with absolutely no goals whatsoever as a player.  Goal probably isn't a good term either.  I'm talking more about motivations.  To me, a character without some sort of motivation is like having a chess piece in chess.  Sure the rules give it some "powers" by telling it how it can move around the board but the piece is pretty boring until you give it the motivation of "capture the opposing King".  (Please, don't take this analogy too far.  It's weak anyway and it might break under the strain.)

2.)  As a GM having players with no motivations leaves me with nothing to do.  In D&D I'm supposed to provide opposition to the characters but if they don't have any motivations I'm privy to then I have nothing to oppose.

Now, in the specific case I was talking about #2 takes care of itself.  Since I had a module the players were interested in, I just dumped them in a dungeon sans motivations.  Now they can kill shit and get treasure until they figure out what they want.  In some other, more open ended game, I'd be kinda screwed if the players didn't give me *something* to work with.

Andrew

Well, if it was you, you're not actually the one I found confusing.

I suspect part of it is a kind of slander: "Oh that player doesn't want to provide a motivation? he must just be along for the ride.."

Part of it is, I truly believe players don't actually need motivations at all for D&D, beyond just 'to play'. It's one of the great advantages of the game. There's a whole established method of play that allows for that whole characterization layer to come secondary.

The actual question here is whether you think characters should be developed in play or before play begins.

Quote2.) As a GM having players with no motivations leaves me with nothing to do. In D&D I'm supposed to provide opposition to the characters but if they don't have any motivations I'm privy to then I have nothing to oppose.

...try giant spiders.

It's been said--but I'm going to echo it: it's legitimate to want to set goals during play after getting a feel for the character/world. Not all characters portrary exactly as envisioned at creation time: I don't want to be wedded to a goal I might no longer care about.

Secondly, the GM and other PCs (not to mention dice rolls) all add input to the game that can make a character-goal less attractive during play than it seemed prior to play.

Now: I don't mind have sharply focused games (James Bond) where there are some goals that are clear from the outset (do the mission). And that, to many degrees works well. Secondly: if a player does show up with a goal that I, as a GM, can handle, that's exciting. So I like it.

Finally: not having a distinctly stated "goal" isn't the same as "not interested in playing." A Private Investigator may not have a goal like "eventually take down the corrupt mayor" but will still investigate any cases that walk into his office.

-Marco

Being the GM of a player who doesn't give his character any goals or motivations can be a frustrating experience. Are we supposed to fill in the blanks for him? Keep throwing hooks until they bite, even if other players are doing more for the game? Focus our efforts on other players? What?

Some players just need to get creatively comfortable.

In my current group, we had a situation where one guy was basicly writing his own plots. He had created a character that was secretly a villian, and he was doing all kinds of stuff, constantly writing me emails, all kinds of stuff.

We also had one guy who didn't provide any of that stuff. So I started leaving hooks out for him, including a really obvious one. He had this ultra rare race from the Psionics book for his PC, and so I put a female NPC of the same race in the game, and had her try and develop some stuff with him. He rebuffed her and avoided her, so we filed the NPC away. No bite.

Later on- like 3 months (or 12 game sessions) later, when the players reached the city where she was located, I went through my npc file and saw "oh this character is from that city, I'll have her make an appearance.."

So I did and it was in a way not even remotely directed at that player either.

Strangely, this time, he did bite and started following up on her. A lot of time when we get to a new city or something I'll just say "Ok, you've got the whole day to yourself in the new city, what would you like to do?" Usually this is time spent crafting or buying stuff. This guy said "I'll go find (that NPC) and see if I can reestablish connections with others of our kind.."

So I dunno, I say, do nothing special. Make hooks available. They bite or they don't bite, but you as a GM shouldn't sweat it if the player isn't ready yet. And as always, you can just ask the player if he has anything he's interested in pursuing.

With this guy, I truly think it was just that he needed a while to settle in and get comfortable being creative amongst the other guys in my group.

Forcing players to do things they aren't ready or willing to do on their own can backfire.  Maw's story was pretty interesting. If he'd gotten mad at his player for ignoring the hook, gotten in his face to one degree or another about getting 'motivated' then he probably would have lost the player and missed out on the stuff the guy did later.

Maybe some players need shoves, others will resent it.

Quote from: RedFoxIt's hard enough trying to herd nuclear powered cats when they're not all driven in different directions.

Rotwang! Reads Internet Post, Head Explodes

HUMAN LEAGUE, IN -- Gaming forum regular Dr Rotwang! today sustained major head trauma stemming from a clever post he read online.

"Bwa ha ha ha!", he was heard to remark at the time of the incident.  "Nuclear-powered cats...herding...oh, my g-" he exclaimed, shortly before his head exploded.  Sadly, he had nohing to contribute to the conversation, due in part to his injuries and the damn Bette Midler song that was playing on TV.  He is expected to make a full recovery.  Bette Midler was not available for comment.

The author of the post, fellow forum regular RedFox, has been nominated for a major award with light-up pinwheels on it.  

Alas, I cannot take credit for that particular turn of phrase.  I believe I saw it used in the Big Purple discussions on Exalted and, being both cool and appropriate, it stuck with me.

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

I mean, I see a lot of discussion of what players without goals want, and what they really are and such, but really I see no reason for such a class of players to exist. I really really don't like people who play characters without goals (I tend to be proactive as a player, and have proactive characters, and when I GM I want, and rarely get, such proactivity), but PLAYERS without goals? I mean, why play?

There 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 love that mainstream (Exalted) games are starting to require characters with goals. It makes it so much easier for a GM. Instead of having to make a goal up that will entice all the players (or several overlapping goals) or dealing with players rolling their eyes and being bored ("Why should we try to save the village children from the orcs? I mean, there is no money in it... Screw this I'm getting drunk."), the players make their own goals, and if the goals bore them it is really a sign they have a problem.

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

To have fun, I'd imagine.  Maybe relax.  Maybe socialize.  Maybe to make dice towers.

Quote from: SethwickI mean, I see a lot of discussion of what players without goals want, and what they really are and such, but really I see no reason for such a class of players to exist.

Yes, let's begin the purges!  First against the wall will be the goal-less players.  Next will be the ones who turn in fifteen page character backgrounds.  Then maybe the ones who steal the last cheetos from the bowl.

Quote from: SethwickI really really don't like people who play characters without goals (I tend to be proactive as a player, and have proactive characters, and when I GM I want, and rarely get, such proactivity), but PLAYERS without goals? I mean, why play?

If you can't understand it, it shouldn't exist!  I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.  There are so many things I don't understand.  Getting rid of them would simplify my life so very much.  :D

Quote from: RedFoxYes, let's begin the purges! First against the wall will be the goal-less players. Next will be the ones who turn in fifteen page character backgrounds. Then maybe the ones who steal the last cheetos from the bowl.
...
If you can't understand it, it shouldn't exist! I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. There are so many things I don't understand. Getting rid of them would simplify my life so very much.

This sounds recycled from some other discussion. :rolleyes:

There's nothing "persecutional" about saying players in a game should have goals -- particularly on a message board setup to discuss "Game Design & Theory".

I'd prefer it if players were proactive with character stuff, but if they want to wait until later sessions to have a goal-- or even if they never quite have a goal but theyre always in the game, then that's fine. In fact, I kinda distrust anyone who is too explicit with goals, or who has already set them up before playing.

If I'm looking for players and I get two guys, and one guy says "I just want to play a wizard" and the other guy says "I want to work out my issues with child abuse through roleplay", I'm totally taking that first guy. There's no question.

Similarly, if I get a PC who has already written his entire story and outlined his goals before the first dice hits the table, I have some distrust.
This is because I have a personal bias towards characters that develop through play.

I also run games that are about adventure. Adventure is the goal. So if you want to be some mopey guy or an angsty guy or whatever, that comes second to the basic goal of adventuring, and being a team player.

I can actually illustrate this with some examples from the last time I did a blind recruit of players (my current campaign recruited back in February, actually).

From my ads I got about 12 people.

Of those people: I got a couple from my area who started talking about 'conflict resolution', and I had to reject them. They seemed nice enough, but they were damaged goods. I had almost forgotten them, but I saw on another mailing list just this morning that they were still looking for a group.

Then I had some other guys who just couldn't work out a Thursday night.

Then my favorite was this one other guy I remember was wanting to play, but he had needs. He was like, "I never like to break character, so I'll need everyone to understand that.." (haha), and "by the way, I don't drive, so I'll need a ride." and then something like "It will be worth it for you to have me in your game, because I am an expert roleplayer."

I mean, geez, I wasn't looking for resumes.

But my bet- my personal theory- is that last guy there would probably come up with all kinds of character goals. And he'd also be annoying as shit to play with.

Good point, Maw.  Sometimes players with TOO MANY goals, or the wrong kind of goals for your game, are infinitely more frustrating than players with no goals beyond "Having fun".  

I personally have no real problem with the player who's just there to have fun and be along for the ride.  The problem can emerge when a player seems to have no tangible goals, and YET experiences frustration at "never getting to do anything".
Even that can usually be solved by throwing them some opportunities to develop goals (a "quest", an enemy, some personal opportunity, whatever), except if said player is all of the above PLUS he actively ignores/rejects all of these opportunities.

But that's still better than the goal-filled player who wants the campaign to be all about HIM. Those "primma donnas" are absolute poison.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RedFoxTo have fun, I'd imagine.  Maybe relax.  Maybe socialize.  Maybe to make dice towers.



Yes, let's begin the purges!  First against the wall will be the goal-less players.  Next will be the ones who turn in fifteen page character backgrounds.  Then maybe the ones who steal the last cheetos from the bowl.



If you can't understand it, it shouldn't exist!  I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.  There are so many things I don't understand.  Getting rid of them would simplify my life so very much.  :D

Red, did I tell you I love you? In a totally hetero, non-furry way, I mean! :D

-clash

It's worth noting the difference between goals like "exploring my character's sensitive past" or "create a deep and moving portrayal of a half-elven poet-dancer" and goals like "explore the dungeon, kill the goblins, return with the treasure". :)

Prima-donna players: bad.  
I don't want to go on the adventure players: bad.

Not going on the adventure?  That's not goal-less, that's disruptive.  Difference.

Aimless players are just along for the ride, for whatever reason.  They're also called "casual players."  They're not disruptive, because they don't generally instigate or block anything.  If anything, they're a non-issue until and unless they react to things well.

I think some people are confusing players that don't have a goal with the ones that have disruptive or counter-productive goals.  Like the ones who decide they want their characters to sleep all day instead of going on the adventure.

Those are just assholes.

I think some players have explicitly stated goals ("My character's goal is to do X") and some have implicit goals (They're exploring the dungeon with everyone else... they pick up the gold from the chest... etc).  

When I talk about characters with no goals they're the ones that don't want to go along with the adventure and object to *any* form of scenario setup as "railroading".  They don't want to guard the caravan, or explore the dungeon, or rescue the princess.

So yes... basically, they just want to be disruptive. :)

Quote from: RedFoxTo have fun, I'd imagine.  Maybe relax.  Maybe socialize.  Maybe to make dice towers.

All things better served by actions other than playing RPGs.

QuoteYes, let's begin the purges!  First against the wall will be the goal-less players.  Next will be the ones who turn in fifteen page character backgrounds.  Then maybe the ones who steal the last cheetos from the bowl.

I didn't mean it in that way. I mean I couldn't see a reason for them to game at all and thus I couldn't see a reason for them to exist as gamers.

QuoteIf you can't understand it, it shouldn't exist!  I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment.  There are so many things I don't understand.  Getting rid of them would simplify my life so very much.  :D

So explain it. If you don't have a goal, how or why do you play? It seems like you'd just be wasting everyones time.

IME  in some situations players showing up just to have fun trumps players having goals...seriously. I know the players showing up to have fun will find something in the game which is fun to them and roll with. Sometimes players who have goals get a bit frustrated when their goals don't exactly play out as they expected it to. What they had in mind may not necessarily be what happens during play.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RIME  in some situations players showing up just to have fun trumps players having goals...seriously. I know the players showing up to have fun will find something in the game which is fun to them and roll with. Sometimes players who have goals get a bit frustrated when their goals don't exactly play out as they expected it to. What they had in mind may not necessarily be what happens during play.

Regards,
David R

I have always thought, and still do, that bringing up "fun" ends meaningful discussion about gaming.

Sure, people game to have fun, duh. HOW they have fun and why certain things are fun to them and what kind of people have certain kinds of fun.

Anyway, I think just showing up to a game expecting fun makes you sort of a leech. You need to, IMO, show up with some plan to make some of your own fun at an RPG.

To me, players trying to promote their goals and resolving opposing goals and such is what RPGs are about. Showing up expecting to passively take it all in and get some fun means you are not providing anything to the group and game. Passivity doesn't work in RPGs unless you have other players (including GM) who are willing to make up for your passivity.

Quote from: SethwickSo explain it. If you don't have a goal, how or why do you play? It seems like you'd just be wasting everyones time.

It seems like a lot of the discussion involves the level of detail of said player goals versus a goals/no-goals light switch type division.

For example,  when I play a RPG, my player goal tends to be: "Roleplay a character".  You want more detail?  Ok. "Roleplay a character in a RPG".  More detail?  "Roleplay a character in a RPG with some friends who like RPGs also".  Still probably not the kind of detail that the GM is looking for.

I really don't like the question: "Describe where you see your character 5
 years from now?  10? 20?". This kind of question drives me nuts...especially at the beginning of the game. Dude. I'm still trying to figure out what "Dysha" means and WTF Isho is....how can I tell you what my character want's to do in 20 years, if I'm not even sure what he's going to do in 5 minutes...

I don't think there's anything wrong with figuring out goals as you go...but I'm crazy that way.

Conversely, I'm the kind of player that I(as GM) would pull my hair out over.."You don't know what you want to do?...AHHHHH!!!"....:)

Quote from: SethwickI have always thought, and still do, that bringing up "fun" ends meaningful discussion about gaming.

Maybe. But it is a shorthand that best describes why most folks game. But I'll repost (in italics) most of my earlier stuff to give you a better idea as to where I'm coming from :)

For certain players I don't think goals are very important. And I say this as someone who bases whole campaigns on pc goals. The thing is, what is crucial is that those players who do not have goals get something out of gaming which does not impede the fun of those who do have goals.

Also these goalless heathens  should ideally be the kind of players willing to find something in the goals of the other pcs or something in the setting worth adopting as their own.

One of the reasons I'm not such a stickler for character goals, is that I have over the years discovered that for some players, it's just about doing stuff - sometimes for no apparent reason. Get the bad guy. Discover the mystery.Survive the encounter. Why? No reason, just because...

QuoteAnyway, I think just showing up to a game expecting fun makes you sort of a leech. You need to, IMO, show up with some plan to make some of your own fun at an RPG.

Needless to say, I'm not into the leech school of thought when it comes to rpgs as a social activity. Everyone contributes in different ways

If that's the case and they are having fun, and also contributing to the whole atmosphere, than fine. A couple of players in my current group are just there for the ride and although there is not much character growth in their protrayals, they do contribute a hell of a lot of awesome to the game.

QuoteTo me, players trying to promote their goals and resolving opposing goals and such is what RPGs are about. Showing up expecting to passively take it all in and get some fun means you are not providing anything to the group and game. Passivity doesn't work in RPGs unless you have other players (including GM) who are willing to make up for your passivity.

If by passivity you mean that which impedes the other players fun, than yeah , a group may have a problem. Otherwise, I don't really see why the players and GM putting a little bit of extra effort to engage certain players is a problem.

I have long since abandoned the whole "strangers meeting in a tavern" concept in any genre. Character creation is a group effort. we discuss what the campaign is about, some of the themes etc and the players create characters together - the most important aspect of which is what is their relationship to each other and what holds them (nominaly sometimes) together.

This has a couple of advantages. The first I can inject the pcs into the setting with minimal effort. The second and perhaps the more relevent to the topic at hand, it gives the goalless players something to hook their characters on (often times just a relationship) before moving on to something else

Regards,
David R

Quote from: rcsampleIt seems like a lot of the discussion involves the level of detail of said player goals versus a goals/no-goals light switch type division.

For example,  when I play a RPG, my player goal tends to be: "Roleplay a character".  You want more detail?  Ok. "Roleplay a character in a RPG".  More detail?  "Roleplay a character in a RPG with some friends who like RPGs also".  Still probably not the kind of detail that the GM is looking for.

I really don't like the question: "Describe where you see your character 5
 years from now?  10? 20?". This kind of question drives me nuts...especially at the beginning of the game. Dude. I'm still trying to figure out what "Dysha" means and WTF Isho is....how can I tell you what my character want's to do in 20 years, if I'm not even sure what he's going to do in 5 minutes...

I don't think there's anything wrong with figuring out goals as you go...but I'm crazy that way.

Conversely, I'm the kind of player that I(as GM) would pull my hair out over.."You don't know what you want to do?...AHHHHH!!!"....:)

Ah... See, we're entirely different. Where do you see your character in 5, 10, 20 years is shit I know instantly upon thinking up the character. In fact, I probably thought of what the character will be before I thought about what the character is now.

I also tend to be about three or so steps ahead of gameplay. ZILLIONS of ideas are there, it's not hard to figure out what to do on my turn, it's hard to wait between turns.

As a GM I would hate you :)

Quote from: David RMaybe. But it is a shorthand that best describes why most folks game. But I'll repost (in italics) most of my earlier stuff to give you a better idea as to where I'm coming from :)

It describes how much folks game, sure. It's an absolutely useless description. It's like answering "Why does society form the way it does?" with "survival." Sure, that's the point, OF COURSE that's the point. It doesn't really offer any useful predictive powers though.

QuoteFor certain players I don't think goals are very important. And I say this as someone who bases whole campaigns on pc goals. The thing is, what is crucial is that those players who do not have goals get something out of gaming which does not impede the fun of those who do have goals.

Also these goalless heathens  should ideally be the kind of players willing to find something in the goals of the other pcs or something in the setting worth adopting as their own.

True. But I think showing up to play with a goal and then deciding you would rather follow anothers is better. It's not like coming up with a goal is hard, or takes any time. It takes a fraction of a second of brain activity.

QuoteOne of the reasons I'm not such a stickler for character goals, is that I have over the years discovered that for some players, it's just about doing stuff - sometimes for no apparent reason. Get the bad guy. Discover the mystery.Survive the encounter. Why? No reason, just because...

I've discovered that players who do things "just because" sap my will to live and are the primary reason why I find it very very hard to keep my enthusiasm for GMing at all existent now days. People have reasons for doing things. So do characters. It isn't work to come up with a damn reason.

QuoteNeedless to say, I'm not into the leech school of thought when it comes to rpgs as a social activity. Everyone contributes in different ways

If that's the case and they are having fun, and also contributing to the whole atmosphere, than fine. A couple of players in my current group are just there for the ride and although there is not much character growth in their protrayals, they do contribute a hell of a lot of awesome to the game.

"Atmosphere"? I don't really understand what you mean by that, beyond providing an area to game in or food or something. Since I'm generally the one who does that in my group of friends I guess I don't generally think about that.

QuoteIf by passivity you mean that which impedes the other players fun, than yeah , a group may have a problem. Otherwise, I don't really see why the players and GM putting a little bit of extra effort to engage certain players is a problem.

RPGs are not TV. Should the players and GMs try to do interesting stuff and engage each other? Yes. Is it their duty to get Dave to come out of his shell and take an interest in the game besides rolling to hit in fights and searching for traps when people ask him to? No.

QuoteI have long since abandoned the whole "strangers meeting in a tavern" concept in any genre. Character creation is a group effort. we discuss what the campaign is about, some of the themes etc and the players create characters together - the most important aspect of which is what is their relationship to each other and what holds them (nominaly sometimes) together.

This has a couple of advantages. The first I can inject the pcs into the setting with minimal effort. The second and perhaps the more relevent to the topic at hand, it gives the goalless players something to hook their characters on (often times just a relationship) before moving on to something else

Regards,
David R

I love the idea of group chargen. I LOVE it. Absolutely agree with you there. Thing is, face to face. I've never seen it work. Even if I insist everyone sits at the table at the same time while making characters, it always turns into one person at a time doing it. Online this doesn't happen. I don't know why it always ends up that way in real life.

Quote from: SethwickIt describes how much folks game, sure. It's an absolutely useless description. It's like answering "Why does society form the way it does?" with "survival." Sure, that's the point, OF COURSE that's the point. It doesn't really offer any useful predictive powers though.

Again maybe. I think it does all it needs to do to describe whether the group/game is a functional experience for all involved. Fun is a very underrated over analyzed forum term. A player having fun (for whatever reasons) says a lot about the activity. I really don't need to understand why he is having fun all I need to know is that the player is not bored.

QuoteTrue. But I think showing up to play with a goal and then deciding you would rather follow anothers is better. It's not like coming up with a goal is hard, or takes any time. It takes a fraction of a second of brain activity.

Not all players think this way. For some coming up with a goal is hard. Some want to find their goals in the game. A competent GM provides avenues for all kinds of players.

QuoteI've discovered that players who do things "just because" sap my will to live and are the primary reason why I find it very very hard to keep my enthusiasm for GMing at all existent now days. People have reasons for doing things. So do characters. It isn't work to come up with a damn reason.

Refer to my comments above :D

Quote"Atmosphere"? I don't really understand what you mean by that, beyond providing an area to game in or food or something. Since I'm generally the one who does that in my group of friends I guess I don't generally think about that.

By atmosphere I mean the general goodwill and camaraderie around the gaming table.

 

QuoteRPGs are not TV. Should the players and GMs try to do interesting stuff and engage each other? Yes. Is it their duty to get Dave to come out of his shell and take an interest in the game besides rolling to hit in fights and searching for traps when people ask him to? No.

Yeah if Dave derives enjoyment from the game and does not impede the fun for the others. IME Dave- like players have provided the game with freakin' awesome moments of sublime roleplaying/action goodness...but hey maybe that's just the kind of players I have, and no doubt an example of my general brilliance as a GM. (Drawing potential players out of their shells is what I (we) do best)


Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RAgain maybe. I think it does all it needs to do to describe whether the group/game is a functional experience for all involved. Fun is a very underrated over analyzed forum term. A player having fun (for whatever reasons) says a lot about the activity. I really don't need to understand why he is having fun all I need to know is that the player is not bored.

Uh... You don't need to know why? Good for you but I really really REALLY want to know why. Not only is it something that I would want to know anyway (I like knowing stuff), it helps me learn what, in the future, will lead that person to have fun. Knowing why is a hugely important part of learning to game well IMO.

QuoteNot all players think this way. For some coming up with a goal is hard. Some want to find their goals in the game. A competent GM provides avenues for all kinds of players.

No, a GM who wants to serve everyone finds avenues for them. I have no interest in players who want to be lead around. I think trying to make all games/campaigns have "avenues" for everyone has lead to most problems in modern RPGs. One reason I like the indie scene so much is because they are willing to say, "This game is for this, it's not for anything else. If you don't like it, play a different game."

QuoteBy atmosphere I mean the general goodwill and camaraderie around the gaming table.

Makes sense.
 

QuoteYeah if Dave derives enjoyment from the game and does not impede the fun for the others. IME Dave- like players have provided the game with freakin' awesome moments of sublime roleplaying/action goodness...but hey maybe that's just the kind of players I have, and no doubt an example of my general brilliance as a GM. (Drawing potential players out of their shells is what I (we) do best)


Regards,
David R

Problem is when you end up with a majority of Daves. Or even just a few. They suck the enthusiasm out of the air. Especially when they have so much potential sometimes if they'd just speak up and... *Deep breath* Sorry.

Really, I roleplay for drama. Creating drama is what I think the role of everyone involved in an RPG is. These Dave's don't create drama. The do the opposite. They are the fly in the soup. If they just strung along it would be fine, but when they just don't react to hardly anything it ruins it.

Basically I think the desribed players with no goals are the type who won't tell you what they want in a game. "What do you want?" "Anything is fine." Meaning that anything will be treated with the same mix of dead eyed passivity and implied boredom. RPGs 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.

I smell swine.

Quote from: SethwickUh... You don't need to know why? Good for you but I really really REALLY want to know why. Not only is it something that I would want to know anyway (I like knowing stuff), it helps me learn what, in the future, will lead that person to have fun. Knowing why is a hugely important part of learning to game well IMO.

Learning is an important aspect about gming. I learn more about the needs/wants of a player when she tells me she is bored. I get very little from what she finds fun. Most times IME a player is more explicit in what she finds boring then what she finds fun. Boring I can work with...improving/maximizing fun is not a priority on my list.

QuoteNo, a GM who wants to serve everyone finds avenues for them. I have no interest in players who want to be lead around. I think trying to make all games/campaigns have "avenues" for everyone has lead to most problems in modern RPGs. One reason I like the indie scene so much is because they are willing to say, "This game is for this, it's not for anything else. If you don't like it, play a different game."

Again this boils down to experience. What you see as leading around I see as engagement. If a player is not an active player -  in this instance goaless -by the end of the campaign he either has adopted something for his character or had fun playing in the campaign. Either way works for me.

Now, a game should have focus. I don't think this is the sole domain of indie games. For instance in Jorune (oh common people, you knew I would mention this game :D ) players start of by seeking citizenship. Why exactly is left up to the players (the rule books do give various reasons).

Now I like this kind of method. The players who have goals - have their own motivations for wanting citizenship. The ones who don't ...this is a convenient device to get them started on something.

BTW your last sentence pretty much is what any GM who has a good grip on his game would say. Don't need Indie games to tell me this :D

QuoteProblem is when you end up with a majority of Daves. Or even just a few. They suck the enthusiasm out of the air. Especially when they have so much potential sometimes if they'd just speak up and... *Deep breath* Sorry.

Engaging passive players esp ones with potential is what theory should focus on, IMO...or a skill most GMs should try to hone.

QuoteReally, I roleplay for drama. Creating drama is what I think the role of everyone involved in an RPG is. These Dave's don't create drama. The do the opposite. They are the fly in the soup. If they just strung along it would be fine, but when they just don't react to hardly anything it ruins it.

Again are we talking about extreme examples here? Because goaless does not mean they don't create great moments of drama.

QuoteBasically I think the desribed players with no goals are the type who won't tell you what they want in a game. "What do you want?" "Anything is fine." Meaning that anything will be treated with the same mix of dead eyed passivity and implied boredom. RPGs 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.

Again, goaless players and indifferent players are not the same thing. A goaless player could create great moments of in game drama. An indifferent one is a different kind of problem.

Regards,
David R

Great quote for this discussion from way back in 1978...

Quote from: Gary GygaxSkilled players always make a point of knowing what they're doing.  i.e. they have an objective.

from the 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook.

Quote from: David RAgain, goaless players and indifferent players are not the same thing. A goaless player could create great moments of in game drama. An indifferent one is a different kind of problem.

Regards,
David R

Quoted for emphasis. This is correct. The attempt to blur the two or say one is actually the other is wrong.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI smell swine.

Yeah... I'm pretty much the very definition. Well, other than being big on rules controlling and directing play. So, yes, and very proud of it. I could show you my Cult of Edwards mark, but then I'd have to kill you :)

Goalless and indifferent... I'm not sure they aren't the same. That I think is our main disagreement.

Quote from: SethwickYeah... I'm pretty much the very definition. Well, other than being big on rules controlling and directing play. So, yes, and very proud of it. I could show you my Cult of Edwards mark, but then I'd have to kill you :)

You shouldn't even say this in jest. Not here :eek: . Like Jules from Pulp Fiction some don't like swine :pundit: ...except those (swine) with personality. Personality goes a long way. :D

QuoteGoalless and indifferent... I'm not sure they aren't the same. That I think is our main disagreement.

I know a few folks who think the same way.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SethwickYeah... I'm pretty much the very definition. Well, other than being big on rules controlling and directing play. So, yes, and very proud of it. I could show you my Cult of Edwards mark, but then I'd have to kill you :)

Goalless and indifferent... I'm not sure they aren't the same. That I think is our main disagreement.

An "cold-eyed" indifferent player wouldn't even be motivated to play.

A goalless player may only be motivated to play for the most basic reason- that he's having fun contributing to the team effort, or maybe he just enjoys playing out the combat part or whatever. I think a lot of forgies forget that outside of of the psychodrama exercise world, people actually play games as games. You don't need a goal to play boardgames either. You don't need to roleplay making car sounds in monopoly, even if you get the car piece.

Pretending to not be able to see the difference is a sign of the deep intellectual dishonesty that stains your movement.

QuoteYou don't need a goal to play boardgames either.

Yes -- they come with pre-fab goals.  This is not the same as touchy-feely roleplaying "goal" -- it's a concrete tactics/strategy/objective goal.  RPGs can (and should) have this kind of goal as well.  Either pre-fab, or clearly identified by the players/group.

Stuart, I'm not sure if you agree or disagree-- but at least you aren't trying to falsely equate one thing into another.

I'll try and elaborate a bit:

You can easily observe in the wild that people play RPGs for different reasons. Can we all accept this? I mean, it should be obvious.

Less obvious, and not universally accepted, but I believe it anyway:
the reasons can change from moment to moment, and from session to session, and further- these reasons are not mutually exclusive. So a player could have several reasons for playing at any given moment.

Some of those goals might be like "I want to be a really cool guy with a Katana and a trenchcoat" or something similar. Whatever. Sure. Or the guy that fails spectacularly. Or the comical character.

Some of those goals are more abstract like "I'm part of the team effort to solve this mystery", or "solve the puzzle" or "complete the mission". This guy may not have any 'personal goals' at all. But he's just as engaged.

Sometimes the goal defaults down to a love of building: building characters (through levelling), building other entities like strongholds, dynasties, etc. Designing coats of arms, and all of that.

And sometimes players can default all the way down to a desire to exercise skill and mastery of the game itself to beat encounters. This is highly tactical gaming "hey if your rogue is over here, I can bull rush the bad guy past his threatened area and you'll get an extra sneak attack this round...AND I'll end up in a flank for next round." or "I slip on my ring of feather falling as I fit my bag of holding over the 800 pound boulder this round.. then I dimension door up 750 feet, directly over the dinosaur, still carrying the bag. Next round, I upturn the bag, dropping the boulder, while feather-falling down to the ground.."

When that guy gets lumped into "dead-eyed indifference" because he didn't come up with some kind of "I want to roleplay out my portrayal of a welsh sheepherder" or "I'm trying to create a moment of powerful tension as I work through my feelings about childhood pets" or any somesuch, I call bullshit.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhen that guy gets lumped into "dead-eyed indifference" because he didn't come up with some kind of "I want to roleplay out my portrayal of a welsh sheepherder" or "I'm trying to create a moment of powerful tension as I work through my feelings about childhood pets" or any somesuch, I call bullshit.

Yes, I would as well.

In fact, I'd say someone trying to do those things and not having any in-game "goals" that involve things like: "I'm part of the team effort to solve this mystery", or "solve the puzzle" or "complete the mission" -- that's much worse than someone who has those goals, but not the deep roleplaying / feelings goals.

The absolute worst is when you have a player who's not interested in the mystery, puzzle, mission OR roleplaying / feelings -- they just want to be disruptive.

I hope that's clear. :)

Quote from: StuartYes, I would as well.

In fact, I'd say someone trying to do those things and not having any in-game "goals" that involve things like: "I'm part of the team effort to solve this mystery", or "solve the puzzle" or "complete the mission" -- that's much worse than someone who has those goals, but not the deep roleplaying / feelings goals.

The absolute worst is when you have a player who's not interested in the mystery, puzzle, mission OR roleplaying / feelings -- they just want to be disruptive.

I hope that's clear. :)

No, 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 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/)" on the Forge reaches a similar conclusion as it slimes us:

QuoteFor the Gamist, the question is, why is role-playing your chosen venue as a social hobby? There are lots and lots of them that unequivocally fit Step On Up with far less potential for encountering conflicting priorities: volleyball, chess, or pool, if you like the Crunch; horse races or Las Vegas if you like the Gamble; hell, even organized amateur sports like competitive martial arts or sport fishing.

Do 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?
I accuse no one of affirmative answers to these questions; that's the reader's business. But I do think answering them should be a high priority.

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.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsDo 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?
I accuse no one of affirmative answers to these questions; that's the reader's business. But I do think answering them should be a high priority.

Wow.  What an asshole. :(

"Gamist" meaning "playing to win" doesn't preclude things like storytelling or roleplaying.  It doesn't mean direct confrontation with the other players.  It doesn't even mean a zero-sum game.  I don't think Ron even begins to know what he's talking about in regards to games and roleplaying.

Have you ever taken an acting class, or done any theatre sports?  Playing to win in those situations means something VERY different from playing to win at Chess or Poker.  It means excelling at acting and improvisation.  It's a team effort as well, perhaps more like "Shadows over Camelot" than Warhammer 40K.  You can't "win" against the other players in a game like that.

Trying to seperate "Game" as something seperate (and bad) from Narrative (aka "Roleplaying") when trying to talk about theories of "Roleplaying Games" is fundamentally ridiculous.

Semi-veiled accusations of people being "brain damaged" or "monsters" when they approach games in very normal, human ways -- that really is an obnoxious thing to do.

That so many people subscribe to these theories, rather than cherry picking whatever semi-useful ideas Ron may have had and creating alternate theories -- it's absurd and frankly more than a little saddening. :(

;)

Quote from: StuartGreat quote for this discussion from way back in 1978...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Gygax
Skilled players always make a point of knowing what they're doing. i.e. they have an objective.


from the 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook.

Yeah, but does he mean strategical, tactical or both?  Does he mean long-term or short term?  It's kind of general.

Just because I as a player do not have an over-arching goal for my character (e.g. my space farm-boy will join the rebellion and defeat the empire and become a jedi knight) doesn't mean I'm not down with the goal of the current session/adventure/mission/etc (e.g. rescue the princess from the Dungeon of Orcs).

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 (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/)" 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"?

Quote from: Elliot WilenIt 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.

You don't have some idea where things are going and where they might end up? I mean, I might not know the details, but I know in general the PCs are probably gonna triumph over adversity in the end in a heroic fantasy game.

QuoteSimilarly 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.

I think you're overreading or misunderstanding what I say. By "plot" I mean how things progress in the world outside the PCs. Plot is, "BBEG will attempt to summon a dragon and destroy the city, King blablabla will set up a reward for those trying to stop him, however..." I mean, plot encompasses the happenings in the game. Including the PCs, which are of course unpredictable, but generally you can tell which way things are going. I mean, I don't think a game that was not predictable at all would really work. Peoples expectations would almost uniformly be ruined. I mean, if  a game was heroic fantasy but suddenly all the PCs turned into slavers selling underaged slaves to noblemen I would bet there would be quite a bit of discontent at the table.

QuoteBut 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?

They're advocating games that would bore my group of friends. Obviously it doesn't bore them, or else they deal with the boredom for some reason. I've tried to explain my preferences hoping they would do the same, and I believe they have.

QuoteAnd 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"?

Not really a question meant for me.

I do want to answer Eliot's post, but I have to go right now, and I'll be gone overnight. So I'll be back.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd 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"?

For me, it's sort of the last thing.  I'll interact with the GM's world and follow up on whatever seems interesting.  Though if another player's PC seems to be driving things at some point, I'm happy to fall in behind them.

Reading this thread makes me realize I'm the kind of passive/reactionary player I hate to GM... :)

Quote from: KenHRFor me, it's sort of the last thing.  I'll interact with the GM's world and follow up on whatever seems interesting.  Though if another player's PC seems to be driving things at some point, I'm happy to fall in behind them.

Reading this thread makes me realize I'm the kind of passive/reactionary player I hate to GM... :)

QFT, with the following exceptions...

If another player's PC seems to be driving things/pursuing some plot line...I may have my character riff off that...


Here's our usual setup for a game (with me as player):

GM:  I'm looking to run a far future game set in a vast interstellar (relatively) benevolent empire.   I'm thinking it will be centered around a crew of space traders who fly around and get into assorted deals that invariably get them in trouble.  So,   I guess I'm looking for a captain/leader-type, a pilot/navigator, a muscle-head, a tech-head or some combination thereof. How does that sound?
Player 1:  Sounds good.  I'll play the muscle-head.
Player 2:  Sounds ok to me. I'll play the captain.
Player 3:  Sound fine.  I'll be the techie/pilot.

At this point we'll probably make characters, or given that many games we play these days are one-shots, the GM may make up the outline of the characters, giving them some background bits that tie into the adventure, leaving further details to the players...

If we decided to continue the one-shot for additional "episodes".  The players may tweak/flesh-out there characters after the pilot before the episodes...

Hmm... I guess as a GM I prefer riffing off player provided hooks instead of trying to hook them on my own. Bad experiences with players just not getting it and things kind of crashing. I mean, if I had players who would leap at hooks that would be great, and it would be worth the time and energy to create the hooks. As a GM, hooks don't come naturally to me (if I'm a player I can create tons of hooks for my character with ease, as a GM I have to guess at other peoples interests, both the players and characters), so I'd prefer the players do that work :)

Seth, I see you missing a point.

If, as a GM a player comes up to me, or several other people here, and lays out his personal character arc in full, as you suggested, most of us would tell him to shove off.

Not because we think characters who have goals are bad, but because what he just presented wasn't just the goal, but the journey itself, complete with 'happy ending'.  

See, if a player told me his paladin character wanted to be a true believer, but kept questioning his faith... that's good. It's not a GOAL, but it's certainly a hook. If he tells me his Goal is to confront the gods about why they allow evil in the world... well, that's a fine goal to. Not gonna happen necessarily, but he can certainly TRY to make it happen.  

BUT: If he tells me: I'm gonna confront the Gods. Not only that, I'm gonna get them to admit they are helpless and weak, and that they need MY help to overcome the evil in their ranks...

I'd cut him off and say 'not at my table'. Now, your little example wasn't quite so extreme, but was in the same vein.


None of which necessarily equates to flak. It's your table, and if that's how you want players to approach you, more power.

Just don't tell us WE have to play that way too. 'Cause you ain't my GM, and I wouldn't let you try that as a player. Capisce?

Quote from: SethwickHmm... I guess as a GM I prefer riffing off player provided hooks instead of trying to hook them on my own. Bad experiences with players just not getting it and things kind of crashing. I mean, if I had players who would leap at hooks that would be great, and it would be worth the time and energy to create the hooks. As a GM, hooks don't come naturally to me (if I'm a player I can create tons of hooks for my character with ease, as a GM I have to guess at other peoples interests, both the players and characters), so I'd prefer the players do that work :)

See, I used to try to GM that way, but I've found that the most rewarding method of play (for me, and for my players) is for all of us to find our story together.  I've had far too many campaigns start off with everyone thinking they know exactly what they want from the game, only to find that their goals change/become irrelevant/don't work with the group as a whole/etc.

Now, my players are a bit more active than I am when I play, and as a GM I can react to that and work with them dynamically to create a goal.  In my current game, we're starting off with a small adventure, mostly to get us all used to the mechanics of the game.  But after only a single session (second one is tonight...at last), by listening carefully to what my players are discussing, paying attention to what they're doing, and reading the e-mails they send after the session is up, I have a few new plot ideas that I can implement that I wouldn't have come up with on my own.  And I know they'll be interested in following up on these new hooks.

They're making their own goals organically as the game progresses, and I'm happy to follow up on that.

Quote from: SpikeSeth, I see you missing a point.

If, as a GM a player comes up to me, or several other people here, and lays out his personal character arc in full, as you suggested, most of us would tell him to shove off.

Not because we think characters who have goals are bad, but because what he just presented wasn't just the goal, but the journey itself, complete with 'happy ending'.  

See, if a player told me his paladin character wanted to be a true believer, but kept questioning his faith... that's good. It's not a GOAL, but it's certainly a hook. If he tells me his Goal is to confront the gods about why they allow evil in the world... well, that's a fine goal to. Not gonna happen necessarily, but he can certainly TRY to make it happen.  

BUT: If he tells me: I'm gonna confront the Gods. Not only that, I'm gonna get them to admit they are helpless and weak, and that they need MY help to overcome the evil in their ranks...

I'd cut him off and say 'not at my table'. Now, your little example wasn't quite so extreme, but was in the same vein.


None of which necessarily equates to flak. It's your table, and if that's how you want players to approach you, more power.

Just don't tell us WE have to play that way too. 'Cause you ain't my GM, and I wouldn't let you try that as a player. Capisce?

Not telling you to play that way anymore than you are telling me to play your way. I'm trying to explain and question and learn. Sorry if I seem hostile about it.

But what I have given you if I say "I want to confront the gods and I want to win" is not the whole journy. It is an outline. A VERY brief one. It's also something quite different from how most games run. The fun is in filling out that outline. Also, just because the end result is likely known doesn't mean there isn't drama inbetween. Movies can be dramatic without twist endings.

Also, it doesn't mean it's going to be EASY to do. If I, as a GM, receive that request, I'm gonna make the result possible. Not easy, but certainly possible.

Also, if I tell you "I want to confront the gods and win" I'm giving you a goal. A goal is an intended ending. It IS the "happy ending" as you put it. So, really, you can't have a goal without "knowing" the happy ending, the happy ending is the goal.

What about the other way? "I want to confront the gods, refuse to back down in the face of their might, and be crushed."

Quote from: KenHRSee, I used to try to GM that way, but I've found that the most rewarding method of play (for me, and for my players) is for all of us to find our story together. I've had far too many campaigns start off with everyone thinking they know exactly what they want from the game, only to find that their goals change/become irrelevant/don't work with the group as a whole/etc.

Which is why I like to get those goals out in the open beforehand. Conflicts between goals can be interesting or they can mess up the game. It certainly can work better if everyone agrees on a single goal or the GM provides the goal (although some players chafe at this).

QuoteNow, my players are a bit more active than I am when I play, and as a GM I can react to that and work with them dynamically to create a goal. In my current game, we're starting off with a small adventure, mostly to get us all used to the mechanics of the game. But after only a single session (second one is tonight...at last), by listening carefully to what my players are discussing, paying attention to what they're doing, and reading the e-mails they send after the session is up, I have a few new plot ideas that I can implement that I wouldn't have come up with on my own. And I know they'll be interested in following up on these new hooks.

That is a bit of GM advice I hear over and over again. It's good advice. But you need players who discuss that stuff in front of you or at all. I don't think I've ever discussed a game I'm in with another player outside of the game. I havn't seen players do it either. So while a great piece of advice it doesn't always work. I'm glad it does for you. I guess I'm not very talkative about games.

QuoteThey're making their own goals organically as the game progresses, and I'm happy to follow up on that.

Cool. But you do have a problem if two players goals conflict and you don't want conflict in the game. Or, even worse, two players goals pull the game in entirely different directions. Sure these things can be dealt with, but I prefere to avoid the problem by getting things out in the open pregame.

So, how do you deal with things like that? Either a player (or a small group of players) trying to have his character go off on his own or oppose the rest of the group?

I don't like the term goal. My players have certain aspirations for their characters, which is subject to change during actual play. For instance - two players in my IHW pre- campaign sessions, originaly wanted their characeters to have an Aubrey/Maturin dynamic. When actual play commenced their characters relationship turned into a Blythe/Fletcher Christian ideological slugfest.

The important thing is nobody - not them or me -knows how the "story" is going to turn out. Part of the appeal IMO of trad rpgs as opposed to story focused rpgs is that the story in trad rpgs is organic, nobody knows anything until the final scene of the campaign.

So yeah, players often tell me before hand their aspirations for their characters. It changes as the campaign progresses. Hell the campaign plot itself changes. Everything changes. The outcome of the story and the fates of their characters is unknown.  

Regards,
David R

I've come to the point where either I require the players buy off on my "group" goal/concept or identify for themselves what they want the "group" goal/concept to be beforehand.  I mean you are bounded by the "party syndrome".  As a GM, I'm not going to try and run 4-6 seperate solo adventures simultaneously to appease what an individual player wants to do.  You at least have to give me the reason your characters are together and why they are submitting themselves to this lifestyle.  I agree with having scenarios designed around a specific character but if the "group" goal/concept isn't defined the other players feel drug along for the ride instead of assisting a member of their "group".

Quote from: SethwickWhich is why I like to get those goals out in the open beforehand. Conflicts between goals can be interesting or they can mess up the game. It certainly can work better if everyone agrees on a single goal or the GM provides the goal (although some players chafe at this).

Sometimes, though (and this is just my experience), we find that even a well-established goal might end up just not being interesting.  This is especially true when we try a game outside our comfort zone (new mechanics or an unfamiliar setting might turn old ideas on their heads...not always a bad thing!).

Quote from: SethwickThat is a bit of GM advice I hear over and over again. It's good advice. But you need players who discuss that stuff in front of you or at all. I don't think I've ever discussed a game I'm in with another player outside of the game. I havn't seen players do it either. So while a great piece of advice it doesn't always work. I'm glad it does for you. I guess I'm not very talkative about games.

My players aren't always, either.  So I hound their asses 'til I get answers. :)

Quote from: SethwickCool. But you do have a problem if two players goals conflict and you don't want conflict in the game. Or, even worse, two players goals pull the game in entirely different directions. Sure these things can be dealt with, but I prefere to avoid the problem by getting things out in the open pregame.

So, how do you deal with things like that? Either a player (or a small group of players) trying to have his character go off on his own or oppose the rest of the group?

I let it happen.  We're a group of friends that have known one another for years, and a little in-game conflict doesn't affect our lives outside the game.  We're always ready to rise to the challenge offered by one of our own, and if the "offending" party is being an asshat, the other players will tell him so (in character).

Additionally, I'm not shy in enforcing consequences for actions.  If Jim's guy kills the miller's adolescent son, the entire village is going to come down on his ass.  If Chris's guy pulls a gun and fires in a crowded urban street, the police are gonna give chase, and the guy he fired at might want to even the score, too.  If Kev's guy palms the mob boss's pocket watch, the mob boss will notice and come looking for it.  This isn't adversarial GMing, it's following every action through to its logical consequence, and it isn't very hard to do.

Quote from: David RI don't like the term goal. My players have certain aspirations for their characters, which is subject to change during actual play. For instance - two players in my IHW pre- campaign sessions, originaly wanted their characeters to have an Aubrey/Maturin dynamic. When actual play commenced their characters relationship turned into a Blythe/Fletcher Christian ideological slugfest.

The important thing is nobody - not them or me -knows how the "story" is going to turn out. Part of the appeal IMO of trad rpgs as opposed to story focused rpgs is that the story in trad rpgs is organic, nobody knows anything until the final scene of the campaign.

The problem is that such stories tend to be disjointed and schizophrenic. They look like they were written by many authors who weren't all working together. And, of course, they were. Now, my ideal RPG, as a player, is not one where all the players work together, it's a system where everyone competes over the control of the story and that competition is focused by the system to keep the story coherent. As a GM, however, I like players to work together, and since that system, IMO, hasn't been created perfectly yet, I generally work that way as a player too. Since that conflict-drive-story creator hasn't been made (Although Capes is close), I do prefere some shared purpose among players. Yes, things aren't as crazy and unpredictable as a "traditional" game. However, most of the things a traditional game gives that my method does not are allready given to me by computer games and television.

QuoteSo yeah, players often tell me before hand their aspirations for their characters. It changes as the campaign progresses. Hell the campaign plot itself changes. Everything changes. The outcome of the story and the fates of their characters is unknown.  

Regards,
David R

I'm fine with things changing. However, if someone tells me an aspiration for their character, I generally won't change that or erase the possibility of it unless they tell me to.


Really, it all depends on the style of game agreed to before hand. If people agree that it will be the type of game where the GM and the rules can change things and erase the probability of players aspirations, then that's cool. But I think there needs to be that pregame discussion atleast. I would not like going into a game thinking my PC was sacrosanct and finding out I had a GM who liked to fuck with the PCs. Likewise, if I went into a game expecting to have my PC screwed with at every turn I would probably be bored if the GM treated everything within a two foot radius of my PC as beyond his power.

Quote from: SethwickThe problem is that such stories tend to be disjointed and schizophrenic. They look like they were written by many authors who weren't all working together. And, of course, they were.

Elaborate. Because frankly this makes no sense at all.

QuoteNow, my ideal RPG, as a player, is not one where all the players work together, it's a system where everyone competes over the control of the story and that competition is focused by the system to keep the story coherent. As a GM, however, I like players to work together, and since that system, IMO, hasn't been created perfectly yet, I generally work that way as a player too.

This sounds schizophrenic and disjointed. Your last sentence(emphasis mine) is what GMs have been doing for years.

QuoteSince that conflict-drive-story creator hasn't been made (Although Capes is close), I do prefere some shared purpose among players. Yes, things aren't as crazy and unpredictable as a "traditional" game. However, most of the things a traditional game gives that my method does not are allready given to me by computer games and television.

Again you are not describing anything that does not go on in most trad rpgs. Your last sentence is well just....

QuoteI'm fine with things changing. However, if someone tells me an aspiration for their character, I generally won't change that or erase the possibility of it unless they tell me to.

Different playstyles I guess.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RElaborate. Because frankly this makes no sense at all.



This sounds schizophrenic and disjointed. Your last sentence(emphasis mine) is what GMs have been doing for years.




Again you are not describing anything that does not go on in most trad rpgs. Your last sentence is well just....



Different playstyles I guess.

Regards,
David R

Sorry, you're right, that last message is all over the place...

Tomorrow is my last final, after that I move back home temporarily. Then I'll have more free time and freedom of mind to think on this and try to rewrite that last message.

Quote from: SethwickNot telling you to play that way anymore than you are telling me to play your way. I'm trying to explain and question and learn. Sorry if I seem hostile about it.

But what I have given you if I say "I want to confront the gods and I want to win" is not the whole journy. It is an outline. A VERY brief one. It's also something quite different from how most games run. The fun is in filling out that outline. Also, just because the end result is likely known doesn't mean there isn't drama inbetween. Movies can be dramatic without twist endings.

Also, it doesn't mean it's going to be EASY to do. If I, as a GM, receive that request, I'm gonna make the result possible. Not easy, but certainly possible.

Also, if I tell you "I want to confront the gods and win" I'm giving you a goal. A goal is an intended ending. It IS the "happy ending" as you put it. So, really, you can't have a goal without "knowing" the happy ending, the happy ending is the goal.

What about the other way? "I want to confront the gods, refuse to back down in the face of their might, and be crushed."

 

See it this way, Seth. That player just handed me a goal that not only might overshadow everyone else, it might actually disagree with the cosmology of the setting... and it comes with a built in result that I am suddenly expected to make possible. Maybe not easy, but possible.  

By itself? Minor irritation, and one I would be just as happy to ignore. But you couple it with a second conceit, that the player should map out his happy ending.  First of all, I like my games a bit like life. Organic, unpredictable, and they don't necessarily 'end' when the curtain goes down. It ends when you die (cue theological sidebar discussion... ).  You apparently like your games like  a good book, in fact, you use book like terms when discussing them. Thats fine and dandy... for you.  

Since I like stupid analogies: Christmas? Is it more fun if you get everything on your list, or when people surprise you with cool gifts that you didn't expect?  Me, I'm partial to the second.  

Now, I got no problems with people that give out a gift list with carefully annotated points on it: Seth, get me a malibu barbie, preferably one with pink hair.  Not the ballerina barbie, or I'll shank you.

But mostly those people don't go around using terms like 'dead eyed non-holiday people who should do something better with their time' which is a pretty loaded judgement to make about someone who does things differently, eh?

As for the idiot who askes for the gods to crush him like a bug? Simple, first session of the game, first time he opens his mouth about anything deific, he catches a lightning bolt.   People who roleplay to 'lose' are dead eyed wastes of time who should be playing volleyball. Probably badly. :rolleyes:

Okay, my big "I've thought about it and this is what I think" thing on games:
Note: You can append IMO and "for me" to every sentence here. I'm not gonna do it cause I don't like writing that way, it sounds wishy washy and it goes against everything I've ever been taught about writing. It should be obvious that this is my opinion.

The best analogy for a role playing game is a band. In a band you have a group of people with varying roles who work together to achieve something.

Players who show up to a game need to either be willing to accept and care about a GM created goal, latch on to another players goal, or create their own goal. Gaming is an active form of entertainment, like being in a band. If you are not there willing to care about the music you are playing then it is your responsibility to write better music. If you can't then it is perhaps time to talk to your band mates and perhaps leave the band.

Now, by "goal" here I'm speaking of a mainly in game concept, perhaps this is at odds with the threads focus. If I am at odds with the focus, it is because there are two different ways to interpret player goals and I have picked the wrong one. A player goal can be what the player wants for his character in the game world, this may well be different from what the character's goal. However, a player goal could also describe a purely out of game goal, answering the question: "Why do you game?" The answer there could be any number of things. I am talking about the in game players' goals, not the out of game goals (though I have perhaps confused the two in previous posts).

Anyway, players need to have an in game goal and be willing to pursue it. This allows the GM to "riff" off the players doings and lets him avoid having to railroad them or drag them along (it has never ceased to astound me how some people who roleplay seem perfectly content with having their characters do absolutely nothing). Now, I like goals to be player generated, because I believe it makes for a more dynamic, interesting time as a GM. However, this doesn't always work, so a GM created goal is ok too. However, if players fail to take that goal to heart the game will, in my experience, usually fail.

So what I don't like about players without goals, or more accurately players unwilling to try and pursue something in game, is that they do not provide energy and enthusiasm to the game like players who want and try to pursue something. It is like the bass player deciding he doesn't really want to try and play, but he'd still like to stand there and listen to the music. The music isn't going to sound right if the bass player is phoning it in and its gonna frustrate all the other members of the band.

Your'e like a little parrot or something.

Quote from: Abyssal MawYour'e like a little parrot or something.

Well, my reason for posting that was to try to think about and clearly express my position in one post because I was not being very clear before. So... yeah.

Quote from: SpikeSee it this way, Seth. That player just handed me a goal that not only might overshadow everyone else, it might actually disagree with the cosmology of the setting... and it comes with a built in result that I am suddenly expected to make possible. Maybe not easy, but possible.  

By itself? Minor irritation, and one I would be just as happy to ignore. But you couple it with a second conceit, that the player should map out his happy ending.  First of all, I like my games a bit like life. Organic, unpredictable, and they don't necessarily 'end' when the curtain goes down. It ends when you die (cue theological sidebar discussion... ).  You apparently like your games like  a good book, in fact, you use book like terms when discussing them. Thats fine and dandy... for you.  

Well, good for you. I like games that go somewhere and end, cause IMX games tend to fall apart quite often, but it's easier if there is an end point in sight.

QuoteSince I like stupid analogies: Christmas? Is it more fun if you get everything on your list, or when people surprise you with cool gifts that you didn't expect?  Me, I'm partial to the second.  

The second would be great, but it has never happened to me. I know what I want. If I totally don't expect something, odds are I don't want it. I've never gotten something completely unexpected. Everytime I've had someone get me something that was not money or something I asked for it has been disappointing. Or pointless. So, while the idea of the great big out of nowhere surprise on Christmas is a pleasant fiction for me, it doesn't happen. And this is coming from a guy who got an honest to god pony when he was a kid. I didn't ask for it, and I didn't want it and it wasn't that great.

QuoteNow, I got no problems with people that give out a gift list with carefully annotated points on it: Seth, get me a malibu barbie, preferably one with pink hair.  Not the ballerina barbie, or I'll shank you.

But mostly those people don't go around using terms like 'dead eyed non-holiday people who should do something better with their time' which is a pretty loaded judgement to make about someone who does things differently, eh?

Well, I've said pretty mean things about people who refuse to give money and refuse a list. And I generally don't like people who say "get me anything" if I ask them what they want... or expect a gift they havn't asked for. So, yeah, I am just that judgemental :)

QuoteAs for the idiot who askes for the gods to crush him like a bug? Simple, first session of the game, first time he opens his mouth about anything deific, he catches a lightning bolt.   People who roleplay to 'lose' are dead eyed wastes of time who should be playing volleyball. Probably badly. :rolleyes:

Okay, if you as a GM did this I would think you were a jerk. Sometimes I like my characters to fail. I generally find failure far more dramatic and interesting than success. I don't think you should punish someone just because he'd like to see his character fail.

I think you missed it, Seth. He wants failure, I gave it to him fast.  Seeking failure is easy.

If he wants the CHANCE to fail... that's different. If someone wants a tough challenge and the possiblity of failure, I'm happy to oblige. Someone who sets out to fail is wasting MY time.

Quote from: SpikeI think you missed it, Seth. He wants failure, I gave it to him fast.  Seeking failure is easy.

If he wants the CHANCE to fail... that's different. If someone wants a tough challenge and the possiblity of failure, I'm happy to oblige. Someone who sets out to fail is wasting MY time.

You give him unsatisfying, passive agressive bullshit failure.

I see nothing wrong about a player seeking failure. He may not agree with his character and want to use him as an example. See the play "Brand" by Henrik Ipsen as a really good example of putting a lot into a character and setting them up for failure.