« Location, Location, Location. | Main | Highland Games, 2005 »
« Location, Location, Location. | Meta-Gaming | Choosing a Game »
February 5, 2005
Us versus... No One?
He Stole My Balloons!
Role-playing grew out of the table top War Gaming hobby. This is where a group of armchair Generals get together with miniature figurines representing armies and either re-create history's great battles, or make up new battles of their own.
Is it any wonder, then, that so many gaming groups have an 'Us versus Them' attitude about it all?
The Problem Defined
Too many gaming groups think of the night's gaming as a contest. That it is our Job to Beat the GM into submission and show our collective superiority over his meaningless minions!
The GM, in turn, does his best to squash our characters hopes and dreams by throwing ever larger monsters and hordes at us in an effort to remind them who really is the boss, and that he does, in fact, have absolute, godlike power over mere mortals.
There are other symptoms of this same attitude. Perhaps there's a certain Bad Guy that can never be defeated no matter how cunning and thought-out the player's plan is. The players never give up, pursuing victory beyond the bounds of reason - making sacrifices that no sane person would make. But hey, they're just fictional characters we're playing. And we're supposed to win!
The Shared Experience
Except I thought we were supposed to be having fun? Call me a Pretentious gaming snob if you like, but isn't the point of all this to create a shared experience and have fun doing something together? Whichever side gets beat down by the other in an adversarial situation probably isn't having much fun.
Which is not to say that The Gamemaster should just hand the players the answers and solutions at no risk to themselves. That is also no fun. Drama and conflict are the essence of all drama. And Roleplaying is drama.
Drama Main Entry: dra·ma
Pronunciation: 'drä-m&, 'dra-
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin dramat-, drama, from Greek, deed, drama, from dran to do, act
1. a composition in verse or prose intended to portray life or character or to tell a story usually involving conflicts and emotions through action and dialogue and typically designed for theatrical performance : PLAY -- compare CLOSET DRAMA
2. dramatic art, literature, or affairs
3. a : a state, situation, or series of events involving interesting or intense conflict of forces b : dramatic state, effect, or quality
There is no drama if one side consistently wins. As hard as it is to believe, some of my fondest memories of gaming are situations where my characters basically lost.
When you lose, you immediately have another goal. It is right there before you: come back stronger and win the next time. This is why recurring nemeses (That's plural for nemesis, by the way) are great. The party should lose (Or at least stalemate) with the villian a couple of times before finally defeating him. Because then that victory means something.
But if you win, what happens? Wow. You have to find new meaning for your character's life. A new goal to keep him busy. If you always win, you are always looking for new meaning (There's a parable here, too, if you're inclined to see it). It's boring. Oh, look, Zoltan the Bombastic is threatening Greater Malbogia. I guess I'll go stop him now. *zot* *Pow* *slice* Next!
IC versus OOC
For those not up on their gamer lingo, IC means "In Character" and OOC means "Out of Character." IC, the point of any conflict is to come away the winner. Because -- let's face it -- if you lose a gun fight, you probably lose your life. But OOC, the point of any conflict is to heighten the stakes. To take the story to the next level. This is something the players and the GM should work together to achieve. If, OOC, the players and the GM are reduced to mere adversaries of one another, then the game becomes an elaborate round of Cowboys and Indians.
Making it Happen
So how do we achieve this harmonious zen state of cooperative storytelling? Through trust. Through mutual interest. Through planning. It is the responsibility of the players to let the GM know what kind of game they are interested in playing. The GMs intrigue-heavy Holmesian whodunit will fall flat on its face if the players really want a Black-and-white Hammer-style detective story. Both are essentially the same: A mystery. But it is the flavor that makes the difference. Players will try to drag any game they are in to be the game they want. And at a certain level, they have every right to.
It is also the GMs responsibility to let the players know what kind of game he has in mind before the first game is played. If there's disagreement it needs to be worked out to the mutual satisfaction of both sides. Once an agreement is reached, both sides should stick to it. This will help build trust.
Gaming trust is different than friendship trust. The two are related, of course, because they are both trust, but the foundations are different. Gaming Trust means the players know that, ultimately, the GM is working in their best interests - which are not necessarily the best interests of the characters. Gaming Trust means that if the GM makes a ruling on the fly, he'll continue to make that ruling for at least the rest of the game session, and that if he feels he needs to change the ruling later, he'll tell them before the situation arises again and the players are expecting a certain course of action that isn't going to happen. Gaming trust means not maliciously killing characters. If you ever meet a GM who smiles gleefully while ripping up your character sheet after you've just died - find a new GM - this guy is out to rack up a body count, not make sure you have fun in his game.
The GM should let the players contribute. If one of them describes an action that is consistent with their character and the roll of the dice supports it then don't change it. The players should not expect the GM to provide a description of every move in the fight they are in, either. If the player comes to the GM with an idea for the game - the GM should listen to the idea and should try to find a way to integrate the idea into the game. Admittedly, it is not always possible, but the GM should look for ways to integrate player ideas rather than find ways not to do so. If the GM consistently shuts down player ideas, then it is no longer a cooperative effort.
We are All on the Same Team
The team of fun. Our actions should reflect that. The game isn't 'Us vs. Them' The game is 'SWEET! That was great. I can't wait for the next session!' Cooperative Play is your friend.
Posted by Shannon on February 5, 2005 8:19 PM
Comments
I still can't believe you let "tyco" Jack (middle manager/human cockroach) live. It would have been great if he had been crushed to death when he pulled over the "modern sculpture", or just be pinned under it with his limbs flailing about as he muttered "work smarter, not harder.", "Let's streamline our processes and start actualizing getting this off of me." or "What we have here is a failure to communicate."
Posted by: umczar at July 7, 2005 11:59 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)






