Quote from: robiswrong;898203Funny, that.

I think a lot of people turn to rules because they just don't have the social skills necessary to handle that fairly basic level of group dynamics.

I would think that recognizing and accepting rules as an essential part of the negotiations is at the fairly basic core of "social skills".

Quote from: robiswrong;898203I think a lot of people turn to rules because they just don't have the social skills necessary to handle that fairly basic level of group dynamics.

This criticism is applicable to pretty much anyone who believes that there exist conflicts within a gaming group that must be ironed out.

Don't believe me? Take a step back and start at the beginning: Anybody can have the game run exactly the way they want by just solo gaming. For most people, this isn't exactly satisfying. So you add a player. Things become more fun. You can't have everything exactly the way you want it. There is another player who has his own wants. But the amount of fun you lose is far, far less than the amount of fun gained simply by having this additional player. That being the case, this new player does NOT bring conflict to the table. This player is a cooperative partner the facilitates you "trading up" to a higher level of fun.

Then you repeat adding players until it is no longer the case that the concessions you make by adding a new player is outweighed by the fun the new player brings. Group dynamics made simple. Zero conflict.

The instant you or anyone assumes the viewpoint that you are making a "sacrifice" of your own fun for the sake of the group--rather than being aware that you have in reality simply traded up--you are manufacturing the illusion of conflict between what you want out of the game and what one or more other players want. This opens the door to resentment setting in. Resentment is why people bitch on message boards. Conflict, and the theorizing that follows, are attempts to justify feelings of resentment, which only feeds those feelings.

Quote from: Lunamancer;898444So you add a player. Things become more fun.

This is applicable only if you two know each other at least a bit, and you're there to actually play the game. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the circumstances), playing with total strangers, usually via the Internet, isn't uncommon practice nowadays and such random people sometimes bring helluva problems with them.

Yes, people are often massive pricks. Cue conflicts.

BTW, I recall a topic started here a few weeks ago (?) featuring the article by John Wick and his (true or not, I suspect bullshit) testimony of The Tomb of Horrors gameplay he participated in as a player. He was determined to (consciously or not) destroy the session from the very beginning. Such an attitude is shared among many people you meet in the Net and there's nothing that can be done about that.

Quote from: robiswrong;898203I think a lot of people turn to rules because they just don't have the social skills necessary to handle that fairly basic level of group dynamics.

A lot, yes, there's no question about that. But there are also a lot of cases where the energy spent on conflict resolving surpasses the entertainment. Doing things "by the book" is very useful style in such occurrences.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;898459This is applicable only if you two know each other at least a bit, and you're there to actually play the game. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the circumstances), playing with total strangers, usually via the Internet, isn't uncommon practice nowadays and such random people sometimes bring helluva problems with them.

Yes, people are often massive pricks. Cue conflicts.

No. You forgot and failed to quote the other stipulation. When adding a player isn't fun, you don't add them.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;898459A lot, yes, there's no question about that. But there are also a lot of cases where the energy spent on conflict resolving surpasses the entertainment. Doing things "by the book" is very useful style in such occurrences.

True along with much of the preceding post. However the type of communication I was referring too has more to do with keeping tabs on what the players are interested in doing.

Quote from: Lunamancer;898471You forgot and failed to quote the other stipulation

I'm addressing you and your comment only. Feel free to expand it, remind about the context if you feel it changes whole expression, but don't force me to trace who said what to whom. Working with that ancient, non-nested hierarchy of comments is... difficult.

QuoteWhen adding a player isn't fun, you don't add them.

But there's no contradiction here.

It's just you can't tell whether a guy you've never meet before is "fun" or not.
You can't even tell whether his last game is his typical modus operandi, or you just happened to meet him on his special (bad/good) day.
In extreme occurrences (emphasis: extreme) you can't even tell whether the guy doesn't play a game within a game, and doesn't plan to win your (your groups) acceptation and use it to destroy that little gaming club you have three sessions from now on.

In short: you're assuming people are reasonable and predictable. I know they are not.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;898484I'm addressing you and your comment only.

The part you cut out was among my comments. Immediately after what you quoted.

QuoteIt's just you can't tell whether a guy you've never meet before is "fun" or not.

You also can't tell whether a new movie that's just come out is worth the price of admission until you see it and the money is spent. And yet some people make the decision to go to a movie, or a decision not to, all the time. This sort of judgment call is inherent with every single decision we make. It is not "conflict" in any plain English sense of the word.

You can make an error in judgment in playing with someone or not. That does not make it a conflict. It makes it an error in judgment.

Quote from: Lunamancer;898515The part you cut out was among my comments. Immediately after what you quoted.

I see nothing in your thread that might contradict what I've been saying. Are you referring to You can't have everything exactly the way you want it. ? If so, then there's still no contradiction. Feel free to address the source of the problem, it will be far easier and faster than beating around the bush.

QuoteYou also can't tell whether a new movie that's just come out is worth the price of admission until you see it and the money is spent. And yet some people make the decision to go to a movie, or a decision not to, all the time.

Movies and role-playing games have some things in common, but they aren't one and the same, and they can't be used interchangeably in every sense. In this specific case, the source of entertainment is different. For example: you don't interact with people in the cinema in the way you interact with other players. You (and the rest of auditorium) don't co-create a movie, which is directly opposite to what you do during a session.

Sure, there are very specific cases when a RPG session might resemble a movie and the other way around (interactive movies featuring voting system being one), but I suspect you're talking in a broad sense.

Effectively, your example isn't very relevant and proves nothing. RPGs have more in common with, say, sexual intercourse or other social activities where the result is "something" created by all participants.

QuoteThis sort of judgment call is inherent with every single decision we make. It is not "conflict" in any plain English sense of the word. You can make an error in judgment in playing with someone or not. That does not make it a conflict. It makes it an error in judgment.

...and the result is a conflict. One that might ruin a session, develop strong regrets, form a hateful attitude towards RPGs, put a strain even on quite old relationship, or worse.

Even "the error in judgement" isn't applicable when you agree to play with total strangers, since you don't judge at all, you simply say "Skype, 5PM GMT, game X, lev Y characters, class V to Z prohibited, everyone is accepted". Yes, it IS possible to act without judging, or at least initiate an action/event without judging potential participants at all.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;898530I see nothing in your thread that might contradict what I've been saying. Are you referring to You can't have everything exactly the way you want it. ? If so, then there's still no contradiction. Feel free to address the source of the problem, it will be far easier and faster than beating around the bush.

The part where I said you don't take on a player if doing so reduces fun. That does contradict absolutely everything your saying. What you're saying hinges entirely on the basis that you've found an example where I'm having less fun. The only way you are not in contradiction if you just admit you were wrong and drop it.

QuoteMovies and role-playing games have some things in common, but they aren't one and the same,

You put zero thought into this statement. You just puked it up from a million other threads where people talk about the relevant differences between RPGs and movies. Here, the difference isn't relevant. As I explicitly stated, and once again you fail to quote, going to a movie was one general example of a dilemma that exists in ALL choices. That includes which car you buy, which restaurant you go to, what job you take, who you choose to date, and yes, whenever you sit down to play a game. There's never any guarantee will prove ex-post to be what you expected ex-ante.

Quote...and the result is a conflict.

Not necessarily. The result is conflict for you. That was my whole point. You idiots who belief in this "conflict" thing are the ones causing it. For me? It has zero chance of that.

Based on your responses to my posts here, I already have you pegged as someone who is not fun to do anything with. You clearly are more interested in being right than finding truth. And you're a terrible listener. If I did post a skype invite and you showed up, you'd pretty much be booted from my game half way through character creation. And yet not a single thing about play style has been discussed. Nothing that RPG theory addresses is even a factor.

Good rules don't fix bad people. The thing is, it takes two to conflict. It just takes one to say "No, I'm not doing this" and conflict flies out the window.

My, my... Third comment and you're already in fighting mode? That was fast.

Anyway.

Quote from: Lunamancer;898618The part where I said you don't take on a player if doing so reduces fun. That does contradict absolutely everything your saying. What you're saying hinges entirely on the basis that you've found an example where I'm having less fun. The only way you are not in contradiction if you just admit you were wrong and drop it.

But I'm not wrong. And in fact, you're not wrong either.

Our claims aren't mutually exclusive. Unless, of course, you treat the rising popularity of online RPGing - involving playing with strangers - as sort of "modern peculiarity of no importance" which is, of course, wrong assumption.

QuoteYou put zero thought into this statement. You just puked it up from a million other threads where people talk about the relevant differences between RPGs and movies. Here, the difference isn't relevant. As I explicitly stated, and once again you fail to quote, going to a movie was one general example of a dilemma that exists in ALL choices. That includes which car you buy, which restaurant you go to, what job you take, who you choose to date, and yes, whenever you sit down to play a game. There's never any guarantee will prove ex-post to be what you expected ex-ante.

So let me get it straight... You've seen people using same argument "million" times, you observed it doesn't end very well, and you still choose to use it? Well now, you either love pain, or... ah, let's leave it at that.

Anyway: I can shoot down each example you provided as easily as I did it with movies, since they all are different enough from RPGing that it renders them irrelevant to this discussion (with the exception of "dating partner" - there are strong similarities, still, it's easy to destroy too), but I don't think you have enough patience and will to listen to that.

Point is: no. The source of conflict is not important and if you treat it as vital, then you're not discussing with me, but with some mental construct that has not much in common with me. Your claim was that there's no conflict that needs to be ironed out and that's what I was addressing, nothing else. And here's my opinion that didn't change so far - no, conflict exists. ConflictS exist. And they often surpass the conflict-managing capabilities of any single person, so it might be useful to address them, recognize, and find a solution.

Just like in real life. Feel free to reduce any microscopic or global conflict to failed expectations or whatever floats your boat. This doesn't render said conflicts non-existent, or easily solvable.

QuoteNot necessarily. The result is conflict for you. That was my whole point. You idiots who belief in this "conflict" thing are the ones causing it. For me? It has zero chance of that.

Based on your responses to my posts here, I already have you pegged as someone who is not fun to do anything with. You clearly are more interested in being right than finding truth. And you're a terrible listener. If I did post a skype invite and you showed up, you'd pretty much be booted from my game half way through character creation. And yet not a single thing about play style has been discussed. Nothing that RPG theory addresses is even a factor.

Good rules don't fix bad people. The thing is, it takes two to conflict. It just takes one to say "No, I'm not doing this" and conflict flies out the window.

You seem to crave for conflict. Unfortunately, I'm not the right person to satiate your needs, bruh. Swearing doesn't bother me, it only determines the way I'm thinking about my interlocutor.

Aaaaanyway: your whole point is incomplete. It's based on limited scope, it's backed up by argument proven "million" times to be flawed, and the further you go, the more it seems your understanding of "conflict" itself leaves much to be desired. Nonetheless, I'll allow myself to repeat: there's absolutely no contradiction. You simply present only one part of a theory. I'm expanding it. You might not like it, but it doesn't mean you're right.

That's all. :cool:

Quote from: Maarzan;898241I would think that recognizing and accepting rules as an essential part of the negotiations is at the fairly basic core of "social skills".

Let me clarify.

A lot of people want rules for social situations because they just don't have the social skills necessary to handle that fairly basic level of group dynamics.

Like, getting everyone to agree "hey, we're playing superheroes with trenchcoats and fangs" vs. "we're playing an angsty game about how terrible it is to be a superhero with fangs and a trenchcoat" is the kind of thing that's easily done at a social level, and doesn't necessarily require rules.

"Do I hit the other vampire" is, I think most agree, the sort of thing that normally rules handle well.

Quote from: robiswrong;898953Let me clarify.

A lot of people want rules for social situations because they just don't have the social skills necessary to handle that fairly basic level of group dynamics.

Like, getting everyone to agree "hey, we're playing superheroes with trenchcoats and fangs" vs. "we're playing an angsty game about how terrible it is to be a superhero with fangs and a trenchcoat" is the kind of thing that's easily done at a social level, and doesn't necessarily require rules.

"Do I hit the other vampire" is, I think most agree, the sort of thing that normally rules handle well.

Other people want to have rules fro social situations that they don´t have to constantly deal with players that think that being loud and persevering meand being socially skilled.

Or try to avoid to establish formally that they are playing game type A by mayority vote, so that they can try to switch to their prefered type B in the middle game anyway.

This digression seems an exercise in ridiculous sophistry, Maarzan.

Quote from: robiswrong;898953Like, getting everyone to agree "hey, we're playing superheroes with trenchcoats and fangs" vs. "we're playing an angsty game about how terrible it is to be a superhero with fangs and a trenchcoat" is the kind of thing that's easily done at a social level, and doesn't necessarily require rules.

I think this is predicated on everyone knowing what it is they personally want to play, which in my experience is rarely the case.  No malice or subterfuge need be intended; lots of players will say and even believe that they want to play game type X, but when they sit down to the table end up playing game type Y because that's what's actually fun for them.

Once of the strengths of narrative control games, or dirty hippie storygames in general, is that since they often don't specify a setting, tone or style in favour of letting the group evolve it during play they don't have the problem of player failure to buy in to the setting, consciously or un-.

Quote from: daniel_ream;899039I think this is predicated on everyone knowing what it is they personally want to play, which in my experience is rarely the case.  No malice or subterfuge need be intended; lots of players will say and even believe that they want to play game type X, but when they sit down to the table end up playing game type Y because that's what's actually fun for them.

Once of the strengths of narrative control games, or dirty hippie storygames in general, is that since they often don't specify a setting, tone or style in favour of letting the group evolve it during play they don't have the problem of player failure to buy in to the setting, consciously or un-.

The problem starts, when the players want different things from the game and begin a tug of war.
So it is nice for a player to theoretical be able to adapt the game to his current needs. It doesn´t workout so nice, when other players disagree or adapt themselves in a different direction.