Mate, they keep going on, assuming that "cheetoism" means that the game will be superficial. "Oh but I want emotional investment in my character." Silly sods, you can have that!

...mostly, just to hang out with friends and tell tall stories.

Doesn't say the stories can't be all deep and meaningful and shit. I think it was in GURPS 3e where they said something like, all rpg sessions tell a story, even if that story was just, "Barbarian Joe, Wizard Jane and Rogue Andy went down into the Demonic Dank Dungeons of Dark Death. Joe slew a dragon and Jane fell in a pit trap. Andy was killed by the dragon. They came out with much treasure."

A "story" is just something going from one place to another, talking about the two places, and how they went from one to the other. That journey's the "story". It's a good story if it makes you care about or be interested in what happens next.

If being "emotionally invested" in the characters makes you care or be interested in what happens next, then that's a "good story." A tall tale.

And this is what you get with the Forgers. Any idea of theirs, to be considered fair and decent, you have to read every last fucking essay and forum post ever about it. You have a different idea, though, and they won't read past the title, and start right into the criticism. Like this guy,

Quote from: AnivairYou con convince me that gaming is a good way to spend time. You can convince me that mindless games can be fun. But certainly I can't be convinced that a mindless game is supperior to one that tells a real story played by people who really get into character and that touches on big issues. No amount of repetition can make it true.

Where the fuck did I say a game session had to be mindless?

Quote from: AikiGhost"to be honest it [Cheetoism] doesn't seem to have produced any games I really like"

Because it's not a theory of game design. It talks about game sessions.

The ideas of GNS, GDS and AGE are that there are certain elements of game design which, if you tailor them to the interests of the people in your group (says GDS and AGE) and/or if you focus on just one (says GNS), then you'll have a successful game session. Who here hasn't had the experience, you're in some game group, and it's just boring or has lots of arguments, so you run around trying new systems and settings in the hope that if you find the One True Perfect Game, your game group won't be boring and full of pointless arguments anymore?

But you know, it never works. There's no system so good that it can make up for the group not getting along. "System Matters"? No. People matter.

Anyway, you bastards have not given me any feedback on my cheetoism page! Tell me what's wrong with it!

See, you'd never get any Forger saying that, "tell me what's wrong with it." It's all, "tell me what you think is wrong with it, so I can correct your misconceptions." Bah. I say, if something there looks wrong to you, either I'm wrong and need to fix my ideas, or I wrote it badly and need to fix my words. Of course not every word is going to seem right to every gamer ever, but just like a game group figuring out what they all like and then playing it, we can reach some broad agreement on the main stuff.

Critique me, motherfuckers!

Actually, I find myself agreeing with a lot of it, but let's see...

How about an example of how a GM-turned-player can sabotage a game in the Stagnation page?  I think I have an idea of what you mean here, but I'm not sure I have it right.

Yep, more examples are always good, you're right. I need one example in every section.

About "sabotaging a game", well, GMs-turned-player can do that in the same way players can.

• "I roll to dodge the plot hook!"
• "But it's what my character would do."
• "Why can't I invent gunpowder?"
• "I want to play a ninja."
• "I think we should check this rule, too. Yes I know it's a pain that one punch has taken eighty minutes to resolve, but we have to get the rules right. How can you expect people to let you GM if you don't follow the rules?"
• "What do you mean it's not in the spirit of the setting? I can agitate for democracy in medieval Russia if I like!"
• "I have to go for a smoke. Wait for me while I do that."
• "We have to finish up soon... yes I know I'm saying that two hours before we usually finish. This time is just different. Yes, it's just a coincidence that this is the one time I'm not GMing."

It's not hard to fuck up someone's game session if you really want to.

But why would the GM end up sabotaging the game like that?  Would he be chafing under the supposed restrictions of being a player?  Would it concern interpretations of rules?

I know I often finding myself having to hold my tongue if I disagree with a GM's interpretation of this or that rule unless it's blatantly wrong.  And I could see how someone who wasn't afraid of telling the GM how they'd run the game at every turn would be disruptive.  I'm just trying to understand if that's what you're talking about.

The former-GM sabotages the new GM's game because they're used to being the GM, and aren't comfortable being a player. If the new GM's game succeeds, the group might abandon the old game and stick with the new.

That's the thing about the Stagnation stage. It's not about the fun of the group any more, it's about this person being the GM, and so on. Top dog in the pack and all that. It's a matter of who's in charge. In any group, leaders arise. Those leaders become used to leading, and don't like it when someone else tries to lead. The leaders usually have sidekicks who reinforce their rule, but they also have people who chafe under the rule. It's like high school cliques or something.

I take it you've never encountered this sort of thing? Lucky you!

I've never encountered anything that extensive, no.  It might be an individual who gives some snark to the new GM, but never any cliques or anything like that.

So you've never had a "Stagnating" group, then. That's excellent. Have a talk to your gamer buddies about it, though. My instinct is that some of them will recognise it as something they've seen happen, or experienced, a game group just fizzling into boredom and misery and one person always GMing, etc.

Or you might come back and tell me they've seen nothing like that, either, and other people might say the same. To be honest, I'd be delighted to be able to remove the "Stagnation" bit from there if it turned out to be wrong. I'll just try to describe the things that most gamers have experienced, and that's the impression I've got, that this "Stagnation" stage does happen to some long-term groups. Not all, but some. As I said, I'd be glad to discover I'm wrong.

Yes, the ideas get altered to fit the facts, instead of the other way around. For those who think that's wrong, :forge:

What about the other stages, do they look familiar to you?

I added you on my MSN IM, by the way.

Quote from: JimBobOzThe former-GM sabotages the new GM's game because they're used to being the GM, and aren't comfortable being a player. If the new GM's game succeeds, the group might abandon the old game and stick with the new.

That's the thing about the Stagnation stage. It's not about the fun of the group any more, it's about this person being the GM, and so on. Top dog in the pack and all that. It's a matter of who's in charge. In any group, leaders arise. Those leaders become used to leading, and don't like it when someone else tries to lead. The leaders usually have sidekicks who reinforce their rule, but they also have people who chafe under the rule. It's like high school cliques or something.

I take it you've never encountered this sort of thing? Lucky you!

I went through the sabotaging old GM bit.  The old GM handed me the campaign and said he wasn't interested in running it anymore.  I started running it and the group started liking it.  The ex-GM then started showing up at game sessions, ostensibly to play, but actually to try and get everyone else to quit.  His most common tactic was to show up, ask anyone if they wanted to go out drinking with him.  After a while he resorted to sitting at the game for 30 minutes or so, then asking who wanted to help him do a "snack run," then he'd drag his passengers around for the rest of the night.

Eventually the group got sick of his shit and got back to gaming.  He'd show up from time to time, try to lure people away, then leave in disgust.  Eventually it all blew up in an emotional shitfit of epic proportions.  He volunteered to run a game, and what he ran was the systematic destruction of our characters and campaign.  When someone asked him why he was doing it and what his problem was, he responded how we were all his inferiors and blah blah blah.  He then stormed out.

It's a point of pride to me that I was a good enough GM back then that I was able to salvage the evening.

Anyway, he showed back up a couple of weeks later, expecting us to act like nothing happened.  Luckily, all of us were the forgiving sort, so we let him back into our circle.  We never did let him GM again.

I've also met people who I call "Hermit GM's".  They lurk in game stores and try to insinuate themselves into existing groups as players.  Once there, they stir dissatisfaction with the group's current GM.  After they've gotten enough support from the player group, they use their new influence to ditch the old GM.  Then they begin methodically pissing the players off until none of them are speaking or playing anymore, at which point the Hermit GM goes back to the game shop and waits for new prey.  They just get a kick out of destroying game groups.  It's what they consider the true point of RPGs.

And then there was the guy who managed to drive away most of my game group, most never to return.  It was because he was sexually attracted to me and his scheme was to destroy my social circle so I'd want to be his lover.

The other stages do, yes, though adjournment hasn't really been a problem the last few campaigns we've tried, as the game ended up crashing early due to scheduling conflicts.

It might be that the groups I've been in have been small in size 2-3 players at the most, and we tend to do other things together when we're not playing games or we're between campaigns.  And many of the groups I belonged to when I was younger were short-lived, never getting past your storming stage...maybe going right to it in one case, as some folks brought outside issues in with them from the outset.

My friend Kev might have some stories that fit what you're describing, as he belonged to more stable groups when he was younger.  I've heard a few, but it seems like all those stories were from a long time ago.

IME and I only game with friends, system does matter. I used to think it did not, but for the past two years , I've come to realize that for them at least and how they play, choosing a system that inspires them most often brings out the best of their abilities.

Regards,
David R

I am sorry to hear that Gab's experiences, and the friends of KenHR, confirm what I'm saying about some ex-GMs sabotaging things. It's a very depressing thought.

Quote from: David RIME and I only game with friends, system does matter. I used to think it did not, but for the past two years , I've come to realize that for them at least and how they play, choosing a system that inspires them most often brings out the best of their abilities.

Put it this way: if these guys weren't your friends, if you couldn't talk to them, how important would system seem to you, then?

Because even with the "wrong" system, the group stayed together, and kept searching for what was right for them, yes?

From the perspective of roleplaying as voluntary social group activity, a group staying together and being happy is what's important. Whether they're happy with this system, or that system, or with the constant search for a new system, or with tossing it aside and watching a dvd instead, doesn't matter. They're a happy group; their happiness comes from being in that group, and their sense of being a group comes from being happy.

Your group was happy all that time, yes? With the "wrong" system, they were happy. With the "right" system, they were very happy. Let me see if I can express it better as a list.

• No group. - System's irrelevant.
• Miserable group. - The person here might imagine system is important, but in general, it's the stuff between people that's making the group miserable.
• Content group. - The stuff between the people has been worked out.
• Happy group - to get here, you may need to worry about the system.
• Fantastic group - to get here, you almost certainly need to worry about the system.

In talking about why game groups fuck up, about getting a game group and keeping it, I'm focusing on the people who are in no group, or a miserable group, with just a little bit of advice for those in a content group. Going from #1 to #3, people are the most important factor. Going from #3 to #5, the people part has been sorted, so that system (or setting, or whatever) starts being important.

To me, what you're saying reinforces my thoughts about this, that to get a game group and keep it, and to have a basically good time, sort out the people stuff. You seem to be saying that you've sorted out the people stuff - you're friends, you get along, you can tell each-other things, you'l listen to each-other and respond.

I don't I can give advice to people who get along well with people in their group, who are communicating with each-other well. Nor do I think they really need any advice. They'll sort things out by themselves without my or anyone else's help. The people who need help and advice are those at the earlier stages, with no group, or a group they're miserable with.

Sort out the people stuff, and the other stuff will be easy in comparison.

Again: if these guys weren't your friends, if you couldn't talk to them, how important would system seem to you, then?

Put another way again, remember the different stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. To form, to storm, and norm, that means the people have to get along, people matter so much the rest is barely worth considering. To go from norming to performing, then system, setting, or whatever, they become important. People make the cake, but system etc are the icing.

Does that make sense? Or am I talking nonsense? Please, share your experiences, I want to get this right, it's time for more sense to be talked about roleplaying, instead of all this deliberately obscure theory rubbish.

I wonder if some friendly mod might change the title of this thread to "Critique Cheetoism" or something like that. I guess whatever it's called, with the holidays most people will eventually be bored enough to click on it and check it out...

Quote from: JimBobOzDoes that make sense? Or am I talking nonsense? Please, share your experiences, I want to get this right, it's time for more sense to be talked about roleplaying, instead of all this deliberately obscure theory rubbish.

Okay, I'll have to get back to you (it looks as though my reply will have to be pretty detailed ). Damn you JimBob for proving once again that simplicity is not synonymous with brevity

Regards,
David R

I just edited (added to) my post, maybe that'll make things clearer. Basically that when the group's forming and storming and norming, system/setting/etc don't matter much, people matter; but when they want to "perform", go from just "norming", then system and other stuff will become important.

It's like, say, you have to figure out if you actually like this woman, and enjoy spending time with her, if she thrills you or annoys you, before you worry about whether to live in East Smithtown or West Smithtown, or what to call your kids. It's like I'm writing a guide to dating and establishing a relationship with your woman, and saying, "what you name your kids doesn't matter," and you're saying, "but I'm happily married, and what we name our kids is very important!" I'm writing for people who haven't got to that stage, because frankly, if you've got to that stage, you don't need any advice, you'll figure it out yourself. Plus, what the fuck do I know about that.

Quote from: JimBobOzLet me see if I can express it better as a list.

• No group. - System's irrelevant.
• Miserable group. - The person here might imagine system is important, but in general, it's the stuff between people that's making the group miserable.
• Content group. - The stuff between the people has been worked out.
• Happy group - to get here, you may need to worry about the system.
• Fantastic group - to get here, you almost certainly need to worry about the system.

Perfect.

QuoteThey'll sort things out by themselves without my or anyone else's help.

Talking with others can help the process in the later stages, though.  Well, it's helped *me*, anyhow.

I think the meaning behind my system matters post kind of got lost in translation, due to the fact that I think this thread is dicussing another aspect of the whole does system matter question. But hey I like where you are going with this, so I'll give you my take.

QuotePut it this way: if these guys weren't your friends, if you couldn't talk to them, how important would system seem to you, then?

I think system would be very important. The way how I see it, system is a convenient short hand for folks to understand the kind of games I like to run. Does this  kind of games mean the playstyle I'm into?...okay sure, I'll cop to that.

So, let's just say, that most times in my case at least, folks who are not my friends can easily know where I'm coming from with as little communication as possible by the kind of games I like to run

I'm not so sure, just because people are not friends, they don't communicate. I think they do...it's certainly been my experience, but I think what is missing in the communication is that with friendship esp when it comes to system/playstyle, there is the mutualy held belief that accomadating your friends needs is part of the whole dynamic.

QuoteBecause even with the "wrong" system, the group stayed together, and kept searching for what was right for them, yes?

They stayed together but they had lost interest in gaming. I don't think it had anything to do with wrong system - we still use, the system they had lost interest in - it was more of the fact that their gaming world view was pretty narrow (in my case as well ) .

It wasn't about searching for a right system...and here's where Cheetoism comes into play - it was about a fresh perspective that only fresh blood can bring into a group.

Me and my hippy games, my kinky improv style (which for some reason they have told me to scale down ) and my charming quirk with regards to not knowing the rules very well...all this kind of rejuvanated the group...but the most important thing I introduced to them (not taking away the people aspect) were the new systems, that's for sure.

I could leave today, and with the stuff like a slutty wench I've shown them , they could go on gaming for years. (Also I've talked about my experiences about about being jaded with the hobby, about taking chances with new concepts all this important stuff that most groups don't talk about...Cheetoism again?)

QuoteFrom the perspective of roleplaying as voluntary social group activity, a group staying together and being happy is what's important. Whether they're happy with this system, or that system, or with the constant search for a new system, or with tossing it aside and watching a dvd instead, doesn't matter. They're a happy group; their happiness comes from being in that group, and their sense of being a group comes from being happy.

From this perspective sure, I suppose they could be happy, but this is not a really a helpful perspective. Most content groups IME are happy functional gaming groups as in they get the most satisfaction from playing games as a group (friends... strangers who become friends...because really IME nothing binds people together faster then a well run functional game that everyone is enjoying) and not just hanging out as a group...if you get what I mean...

QuoteYour group was happy all that time, yes? With the "wrong" system, they were happy. With the "right" system, they were very happy. Let me see if I can express it better as a list.

Like I mentioned earlier. I don't think they were happy - with gaming. They were still a close circle of friends. Just that gaming had taken a back seat. A fresh perspective and new systems was what they needed. I provided both.

Quote

• No group. - System's irrelevant.
• Miserable group. - The person here might imagine system is important, but in general, it's the stuff between people that's making the group miserable.
• Content group. - The stuff between the people has been worked out.
• Happy group - to get here, you may need to worry about the system.
• Fantastic group - to get here, you almost certainly need to worry about the system.

In talking about why game groups fuck up, about getting a game group and keeping it, I'm focusing on the people who are in no group, or a miserable group, with just a little bit of advice for those in a content group. Going from #1 to #3, people are the most important factor. Going from #3 to #5, the people part has been sorted, so that system (or setting, or whatever) starts being important.

Okay I think from what I'm reading here, I think I get where you are going with Cheetoism.

QuoteTo me, what you're saying reinforces my thoughts about this, that to get a game group and keep it, and to have a basically good time, sort out the people stuff. You seem to be saying that you've sorted out the people stuff - you're friends, you get along, you can tell each-other things, you'l listen to each-other and respond.

Yeah, but I came in as an outsider. A snake oil salesman with fancy shiny new games and a charming way with the ladies. I realy don't know how this falls into the Cheetoist dynamic, but I'm sure it's in there....

QuoteI don't I can give advice to people who get along well with people in their group, who are communicating with each-other well. Nor do I think they really need any advice. They'll sort things out by themselves without my or anyone else's help. The people who need help and advice are those at the earlier stages, with no group, or a group they're miserable with.

I agree with this completely.

QuoteSort out the people stuff, and the other stuff will be easy in comparison.

Yup.

QuotePut another way again, remember the different stages: Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. To form, to storm, and norm, that means the people have to get along, people matter so much the rest is barely worth considering. To go from norming to performing, then system, setting, or whatever, they become important. People make the cake, but system etc are the icing.

I think if you are starting out with newcomers who know nothing about gaiming, than system really does not matter. But if you are starting out with a group of strangers who are already gamers - then having everyone on board system wise gives folks a common language to speak. Communication is the key, I just think that system provides a convenient short hand in the communication process...

QuoteDoes that make sense? Or am I talking nonsense? Please, share your experiences, I want to get this right, it's time for more sense to be talked about roleplaying, instead of all this deliberately obscure theory rubbish.

All of it makes sense, but some of it, does not conform to my experince ....

Regards,
David R