Back in August I had that 3 or 4 session campaign that never quite 'gelled' right. After thinking about it for a few months I think I know why.

All three players were regulars at the store that play WARHAMMER 40K and other miniatures games there. A couple of them had played D&D or GURPS in the past decade or so . They actually requested that I run them a GURPS game.

The problems started to show up even in character creation - two of the players kept tweaking things with the rules or asking for oddball things. The third player had an interesting character concept and stuck with it pretty much . He was the one that eventually bought the GURPS rulesbooks and plans to run it when he went back to college.

 The other two were a couple of whiny jerks. Simple things they would start to argue about , then suddenly ask "So you're making a House rule or outlawing this ?"  - whatever the 'this' happened to be.

What I think the problem was is that the two guys who "didn't get it" were so used to miniatures play and stessing out over stats and tactics - that they couldn't just settle into a chracter and play a role.
 The third guy got a kick out of roleplaying interesting conversations and goofy moments with his character. He "got it".

Anyone else see this phenomena at their table ? New players that can't seem to switch their mental gears from pushing miniatures and doing mathematics?

As a GM , I'd rather have 3 to 5 players like the 3rd guy at the table.

- Ed C.

I did. I never wanted to get into the expense and mess of large-scale wargaming, but all my friends love it. I tried it, liked it, and have a number of minis games I play as regularly as I roleplay. I think the two forms can inform each other a great deal. Over the years, I've met a whole bunch of folks that like both kinds of games.

All that said, I've also met some that wanted to rp like it was minis and mini like it was rp. Frequently, you can satisfy them both with Savage Worlds, but sometimes there's culture clash.

sadly what you said is the reason i currently dont have a game anymore. Everyone around here is more into 40k and bitching about character stats and stupid army builds that will never be used, than trying something different like using there imagination.
the fact d&d 4e uses miniatures is the main reason i havent bothered to buy a copy, i just know within 5 minutes of realising it uses em any players i find will become mindless 40k drones again.

/me stamps this thread 'Pretentious'.

Because we all know that other hobbies are inferior.:rolleyes:

Those damn roll-players mixing their preferences in with true role-players. Dogs and cats, sleeping together...

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;271913/me stamps this thread 'Pretentious'.

Because we all know that other hobbies are inferior.:rolleyes:

Not 'pretentious' - I've seen the weirdness.

My usual group , I didn't have that problem with .


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;271916Not 'pretentious' - I've seen the weirdness.

My usual group , I didn't have that problem with .


- Ed C.

Right - because you guys are True Roleplayers (C), and are, therefore, not weird.

Ed, of all people to have to call out for being Swine, I actually never thought you'd be in the group...

Quote from: James J Skach;271918Right - because you guys are True Roleplayers (C), and are, therefore, not weird.

Ed, of all people to have to call out for being Swine, I actually never thought you'd be in the group...

I claim Me "not swine".

These guys, back in August really had trouble switching to just playing. At times it was like talking to 12 year olds that were in the bodies of adults.

 Maybe, I didn't describe the situation the right way.

Of course , one of those two players I've since seen how he plays WARHAMMER 40K - he argues shit with that all the time too. I didn't know that When I was trying to run that GURPS game.

One of the facets of working at that store is that I see all these Warhammer 40K games played - even tho I've never played it myself. We have long terrain tables in the back of the store for use with miniatures gaming.


I still think there are two different mindsets or frames of references involved here and it may be sometimes difficult for one type to switch modes and fit into the other type of playing.


- Ed C.

I for one understand what you're saying, Koltar.

What is with you, Jimbo?

I think the confusion is between 'Immaturity is bad' vs. 'Roll-playing is immature/bad'.

Or, I think there may be a communication issue.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;271925I for one understand what you're saying, Koltar.

What is with you, Jimbo?

Hey, now. We don't know each other well enough to get to Jimbo. Now, buy me a beer and nuzzle me behind the ear a bit, and we can consider it....

It's the "weirdness" and "Minis-pushers versus Role players" stuff - the seeming disdain with which Ed is viewing this situation...I don't know...I've seen it before.

I don't think Ed even realizes the way he's viewing it, at least given the way he's presented it. Twelve-year olds in adult bodies - not the adults who can role play and mini push...

Different people get different things out of play.  I don't think the problem is their not "getting it," they're just coming at the game from a different place.  It's not a worse place, it's just different.

I've never had problems having both types, and many in between, at my table.

Quote from: Koltar;271904The other two were a couple of whiny jerks. Simple things they would start to argue about , then suddenly ask "So you're making a House rule or outlawing this ?"  - whatever the 'this' happened to be.

What I think the problem was is that the two guys who "didn't get it" were so used to miniatures play and stessing out over stats and tactics - that they couldn't just settle into a chracter and play a role.
 The third guy got a kick out of roleplaying interesting conversations and goofy moments with his character. He "got it".

Anyone else see this phenomena at their table ? New players that can't seem to switch their mental gears from pushing miniatures and doing mathematics?

I converted a few in my time. The trick for me is immersion. I will start out with asking them to verbally describe what they want the play. Since my personal campaign makes liberal use of standard fantasy trope they can usually make something that will work in the first shot.

Then I make up a list of specific options using the GURPS Rules either based on some notes I made before or something new. They pick what they want and then I explain the game implication of each option.

What I don't do is just hand them the rule book and say "Make up a character." First for most new players handing a book like GURPS 3rd or 4th is like hitting them with a 10 lb sledgehammer. You need to distill the mass of options into something they want to play.

I go back and forth until I feel they have understood the options and the alternatives. Until they are happy with the sheet in front of them. Usually this doesn't become too involved because I allow for a free rewrite during the first few sessions. Again the GURPS mass of options are often not clear to players so rather repeatly hammer them with the "You lose" rules hammer I try to make the process as painless as possible.

Now for rules mongers like the ex-wargamer this means of course this will end up with some optimized character very quickly. But it will be a character with some amount of connection to my game world.

My games is run in very much in a sandbox style where the players are free to wander and do what they want. However the catch is that I try to portray a living breathing world. So their action for ill or good have consequences.

If I feel that a player or players are apt to act like a mad dog I will include bits to illustrate or describe how my locales dealt with mad dogs in the past. Guard Stick, Knight-killer crossbows, clans looking out for their own, etc ,etc.  

In the vast majority of case the players settle down and start to go with the flow. Because along with all of this I identify what they are truly interested in and what they have fun with. I will cater to that with the opportunities and events that I present to them. They learn that it is more fun to try to act out of their own motivations than just try to run crazy over the setting.

Now this is not a pancea nor does it work all the time. For one troublesome player my co-DM and I finally had to send his own people in to bag him (the elves) and his sentence was to be turned into a donkey for a 100 years and offer rides to anybody that can by. (He was a fire mage and torched a village).

But his next character was considerably calmer and he played in subsequent campaign afterwards. He knew that we would give him the opportunities to shine and have fun.

Running a sandbox campaign with immersion is a lot of work and not everybody's style. But the added bit of realism in how the setting is presented seems to calm the type of player you described more than any other method I tried or seen.

I have been accused on various BBs of running tactical games, because I strive for a playable reality in combat, and use MapTool on a cloned monitor as the battlefield.

However, I feel my game is more role-play than combat-oriented.

For one thing, I think the leathal degree od combat has a direct link to depth of role-play. In systems where one PC could take on 3 or 4 enemies & win, violence is a simple & easy solution. In systems where combat can be quickly fatal at any level, players tend towards more thought-out responses.

I'm currently running War Hammer setting* using a hybrid TRoS/AL-CL system, and as of session 39 (215 hours at the table) we've lost 6 PCs killed (out of a group of 12, a total of six players running two PCs each).

The role-play is, IMO, very high in our campaign; we've averaged less than one fight per session, and the WH setting is very condusive to role-play.

The key, IMO, is how deadly is combat, and how the rewards are given. In mine, combat is not something engaged in lightly. And there is no Honor (xp) awarded for kills. Period. On the other hand, Dwarves with Grudges against certain Grek tribes would get Honor for resolving said Grudges, which may include killing.

The emphasis on either role-play or roll-play is the rewards system, and presentation. Make the rewards of a campaign accessable with what you want in mind, and make sure the players understand how rewards are going to be achived. They'll either adapt, or not join, and either case is far better than a group which does not pull together.



* = I do not use the Power Behind The Throne campaign, which IMO sucks out loud.

I have a lot of fun with .45 Adventures, and its sister game, Fantastic Worlds (both from Rattrap Productions, if you're interested--http://www.rattrapproductions.com/default.html). Clearly, these are minis games. All combat. They are tiny in scale, so I figured I'd get into them with a half-dozen figures, paint them with my extremely limited expertise, and have something to play with my minis-pushing friends.

After a few scenarios, though, I made a very simple adjustment. I had a mob accountant on the table who was supposed to be handing off some ledgers to some G-Men. After that, it's a standard work-the-football-off-the-edge-of-the-table scenario. Only the way I'm doing it, he doesn't have them on him, and he's making demands before he'll turn them over, and the hitters are closing in. I said they had to roll under his mind to persuade him, or they would have to beat him silly--to zero hits--to make him sing. Suddenly, we're roleplaying. No fanfare. We're just doing it. I love doing pulpy scenarios with these rules.

Minis players--like a lot of people--don't like spending a long time creating characters. Minis don't require that, or any thespy sort of creativity from the players. It's easy-entry, concrete objectives, and a lots of action as you play. But no one can resist voicing character comments "Not so fast, Brutus," or "Why, I'm gonna murderize ya!" And it's just a tiny hop, really, from that to full-blown roleplay. If there's a slick and easy way to get people more interested in each others' games--in order to expand the player pool for both--it's probably close to this.