Why do YOU game?

[Sea Wasp]

This question was triggered by the recent "GM's rules" debate. It
struck me that at least part of what may be guiding what people see as
the "proper" role and limitations for a GM is what they expect to get
out of the game -- and what they NEED in order to do that.

In my case, I want to BE my character, at least as much as is
reasonably possible. This means I don't want the rules getting in my
way, I don't want to have to think about how the world is being run,
and so on and so forth. For my purposes, then, any involvement of
myself on a GM level -- the metagame, create-and-control-the-world
level -- detracts from my major goal. It forces a separation and
minimization of my immersion. Thus, for me, as a player it's NECESSARY
that the GM be God, and do virtually all of the game-control work (at
least once actual play starts; I will gladly assist in world design
and so on, but once I start playing, I don't want that job at all).

Is there, perhaps, a divide based on what the main purpose of the
players are?

[Peter Knutsen]

Post by Sea Wasp
This question was triggered by the recent "GM's rules" debate. It
struck me that at least part of what may be guiding what people see as
the "proper" role and limitations for a GM is what they expect to get
out of the game -- and what they NEED in order to do that.
In my case, I want to BE my character, at least as much as is

Me too.

Post by Sea Wasp
reasonably possible. This means I don't want the rules getting in my
way, I don't want to have to think about how the world is being run,

I want to be able to think like my character, so that I can
make the decisions that he would have made. Playing under an
intrusive GM, so that I am constantly wondering whether he
actually is objective, gets seriously in the way of this.

It works much better to play under a well-designed rules
system, where the GM confines himself to running the world,
except in those cases where the rules produce obviously
contra-realistic results - then he should step in and
override the rules, then before the next session he should
have fixed the rules so that that particular problem won't
occur again.


As for character creation, that is a period where I want to
feel free to be creative. I want to be able to, as much as
possible (and much *can* be achieved - I'm constantly
proving that with my design of Sagatafl) know, without
consulting another person, whether a particular ability or
combination of abilities, which is crucual to the character
concept that I have dreamed up, is permissible.

The reason I do not want to have to consult another person
is two-fold: First of all, I might then very easily get the
impression that somehow my person is also being evaluated,
so that for instance the GM might not allow me a particular
trait, but he'd allow you to take it - this is why I want
GMs to create general rules, rules that apply to all (also
to all of his characters), rather than wield direct
judgement as an ancient despot. Secondly, it is a *fact*
that the roleplaying gaming community is rife with
accusations, and it is not fun to be pigeonholed as, e.g. a
"munchkin" or a "powergamer" (we're both powergamers, but
the level of power I'm comfortable with is much lower than
yours, and anyway many people use it as a derogative term).
This means that if I propose a character concept, meaning
that I do not know whether it is permissible or if it
perhaps is "too powerful" beforehand (having been able to
use the rules, i.e. a point-based character creation rules
system, to find out if it is), then I risk that the GM will
accuse me of something unpleasant (munkinry, immaturity or
something like that).

Given that I probably don't know the GM very well, having
exchanged only a couple of emails with him prior to the
character creation phase, I *can* not have a sufficiently
good idea about what he considers permissible - unless he is
the kind of GM who considers very little to be permissible
(this is most GMs, in my experience), in which case I
wouldn't want to play in his campaign anyway, as an overly
restricted character creation process will lead to the world
having a shallow feel (e.g. with all the PCs being
normalized, wealth-, status- and appearance-wise, old school
style).

Having a filled-in character sheet rejected is in itself an
implicit rejection of unsavoury personal characteristics,
and the possibility of this occuring makes me anxious.
Anxiety is a very unpleasant state to be in, especially
given that roleplaying gaming is supposed to be a *fun* and
*enjoyable* hobby, but worst of all anxiety gets in the way
of creativity.

In the end, the more the GM is involved with the character
creation process, the less I (and this applies to many other
players as well) will stick my neck out and propose a really
unusual character. Thus GM involvement in the process acts
as a "force" pushing the character further towards normality
than they would otherwise have been.

So: Give me a point budget (same point budget as all the
other players get), and a shopping list (same shopping list
as all the other players get). Then tell me about your
world. Then I'll consent to play, and if I consent to play I
will create a character, a brilliant, vibrant, fun-to-play
character, made in perfect accordance with the setting
described by the GM (assuming the setting itself is well
built - if it is a stupid setting then I'm not playing), and
then submit it to the GM so that he can verify that it does
not violate the world. Then we'll roleplay.

Post by Sea Wasp
and so on and so forth. For my purposes, then, any involvement of
myself on a GM level -- the metagame, create-and-control-the-world
level -- detracts from my major goal. It forces a separation and
minimization of my immersion. Thus, for me, as a player it's NECESSARY
that the GM be God, and do virtually all of the game-control work (at
least once actual play starts; I will gladly assist in world design
and so on, but once I start playing, I don't want that job at all).
Is there, perhaps, a divide based on what the main purpose of the
players are?

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by Peter Knutsen
So: Give me a point budget (same point budget as all the
other players get), and a shopping list (same shopping list
as all the other players get). Then tell me about your
world. Then I'll consent to play, and if I consent to play I
will create a character, a brilliant, vibrant, fun-to-play
character, made in perfect accordance with the setting
described by the GM (assuming the setting itself is well
built - if it is a stupid setting then I'm not playing), and
then submit it to the GM so that he can verify that it does
not violate the world. Then we'll roleplay.

You've probably been asked this before, but I haven't seen it answered
so I'll ask anyway.

Is it a concern for you if you end up with five Hamlets, five Shaggys or
five R2D2s?

Granted if everyone desperately wants to play an R2D2 and no one wants
to play anything resembling a Han, a Ben, a Chewbacca or a Luke then
perhaps its all for the best. But in my experience a game with five
R2D2s would crash and burn, while a game with a mutually supportive
troupe of PCs would have as much chance as any to work out, even if the
players in the game that worked out were all still kind of jealous of
the R2D2 guy.

IMO character creation (absent cooperative consultation) is a Prisoners
Dilemma scenario, where individually rational choices easily lead to a
collectively suboptimal outcome. The solution is to make binding
agreements beforehand about what everyone is going to do, which leads to
a collectively superior outcome even if each individual has to make a
move which is suboptimal for them.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Kevin Lowe
IMO character creation (absent cooperative consultation) is a Prisoners
Dilemma scenario, where individually rational choices easily lead to a
collectively suboptimal outcome. The solution is to make binding
agreements beforehand about what everyone is going to do, which leads to
a collectively superior outcome even if each individual has to make a
move which is suboptimal for them.

To some extent, but the agreements must be as nonlimiting as
possible. Mine boils down to "Make sure (A) you have your own
spotlight-generator, and (B) that you aren't taking someone ELSE's
spotlight-generator." (and the universal "and don't be a dickhead
otherwise, either")

I've had an all-fighter party; they were just sufficiently DIFFERENT
fighters, with different secondary skills, that they could do "stuff"
individually that the others couldn't.

[David Meadows]

Before I answer the question, I probably need to explain that I don't *play*
RPGs any more, I only GM. I haven't been a player in someone else's campaign
for 10, 15, years.

So, why do I game... Simply, I enjoy the act of creation. Worlds, plots,
characters, everything. I know I don't actually need players to do that, but
I like having an appreciative audience (what god doesn't?) and my creations
become much richer when they are fed by the creative energies of my players.

But I'm not doing it for the players -- I'm doing it for me. I spend 20
hours a week preparing for the five hours that my players see on a Saturday
afternoon. If I didn't have players, I would still spend that time -- in
fact, a large proportion of what I create never makes it as far as the game
sessions because I can't see a way for the players to interact with it
(players are a liability sometimes). I write fiction based in my universe
(see the link in my sig for one example) and I plot entire sub-campaigns for
my NPCs to go through. My universe is my "life's work", so I'm very
protective and possessive of it, and I count myself as very lucky to have a
wonderful group of players that have devoted their time and creative
energies to enriching it.

[Chuk Goodin]

Post by Sea Wasp
This question was triggered by the recent "GM's rules" debate. It
struck me that at least part of what may be guiding what people see as
the "proper" role and limitations for a GM is what they expect to get
out of the game -- and what they NEED in order to do that.

I tend to GM far more often than I play, but when I'm a player, it's for a
few things -- an interesting story that I'm also personally involved in (more
than I would be in a movie or a novel), cool dialogue bits between players
and with NPCs, seeing what the GM and my fellow players come up with, rolling
dice and counting inches, and also to get inside a fictional skin for a
while.

I GM because I usually have ideas for campaigns that are way more interesting
(to me) than anything anyone else is running, and then I get to be a part of
all of it from the beginning.

(I haven't been reading the rules debate, though, so I don't know if these
answers have much relevance.)

[Warren J. Dew]

I also want deep immersion when I play, and thus I prefer
gamesmasters who are willing to be God and take care of all of
the game world outside my character.

I'd note that I have a somewhat broader definition of 'God' than
some people here. I don't think the gamesmaster has to have
free will in order to be God; if the gamesmaster is adjudicating
in accordance with the world's internal logic, the fact that he
doesn't accept changes from the players still makes him God.

Warren J. Dew
Powderhouse Software

----

This question was triggered by the recent "GM's rules" debate. It
struck me that at least part of what may be guiding what people see as
the "proper" role and limitations for a GM is what they expect to get
out of the game -- and what they NEED in order to do that.

In my case, I want to BE my character, at least as much as is
reasonably possible. This means I don't want the rules getting in my
way, I don't want to have to think about how the world is being run,
and so on and so forth. For my purposes, then, any involvement of
myself on a GM level -- the metagame, create-and-control-the-world
level -- detracts from my major goal. It forces a separation and
minimization of my immersion. Thus, for me, as a player it's NECESSARY
that the GM be God, and do virtually all of the game-control work (at
least once actual play starts; I will gladly assist in world design
and so on, but once I start playing, I don't want that job at all).

Is there, perhaps, a divide based on what the main purpose of the
players are?

[Ross Winn]

Post by Sea Wasp
Is there, perhaps, a divide based on what the main purpose of the
players are?

Well yes, there is. I think itis the core of both the threefold model
and the GNS theories. I am not convinced that either is correct, if that
term even applies, but both do try to define this.