You're in 3e territory now, son!
Hey all, this is my little blog. I'll mostly be using it to collect little thought snippets I don't want to escape or be forgotten. Discussion is welcomed, bickering is not. If I sense responses heading off into the argument land of tired old threads, I can and will cut it off.
Hey all, this is my little blog. I'll mostly be using it to collect little thought snippets I don't want to escape or be forgotten. Discussion is welcomed, bickering is not. If I sense responses heading off into the argument land of tired old threads, I can and will cut it off.
Games Are More Dispensable Than Players
In the course of game discussion and criticism, I've seen many valid critiques batted off with a refrain to the tune of "that's a player problem, not a game problem." The problem I see with that is you need players to play, but games are many. Though there are certainly unreasonable players, they do not occur with the regularity that people who bank on the "blame the player" defense seem to think.
As promised, this blog (or this section of it) will be a collection point for bits of gaming philosophy. Here's a discussion I captured about how I came to this conclusion, captured from an ancient thread here:
(In response to a poster blaming players for a game problem):
I'm not insulted (though I must say, if it were my players you were referring to, it might have been) so much as I think it's a totally bogus cop-out when it comes to defending a game.
Let me tell you a story. The title of this story is "Why Psion Doesn't Run Hero".
Psion loves Hero. Psion thinks that Hero is a way cool game. In some ways, he thinks it out-cools D&D. Why? Because it lets him craft anything and have rigorous mechanical support for it that he much prefers to ad hoccing everything.
But back in college, Psion had a group. There were many players in this group, but one of particular interest. We'll call him Rob. Because, well, that's his name.
Psion is running a rip-roaring game of hero, but find that Rob routinely avoids running characters that use magic. I soon discover that Rob does not use magic because he doesn't grok the power system. Well, Rob's a college student, so he should understand the basic math that goes into making a Hero character right?
I thought so, but it occurs to me that whether or not he's capable, that's work to him. It occurs to me that gaming being a leisure activity, it's not my place to make him do things he doesn't like. And by running hero, I was limiting his options.
It was that moment that pushed me away from hero and back towards D&D. Yeah, it's not as flexible as Hero, or many other systems. But IME, most people grok D&D, and can play any character type they care to play if they can play at all.
Later, I got into verbal fencing with GURPS fans, who in answering my charges that IME GURPS players too easily build characters with scads of half point skills it was my "player's fault."
Such arguments firmed up my philosophy that it is not the job of the players to support the game, but vice versa. If your players don't enjoy a game, that is not a slight to the players. You can't obligate the players to fit the game, much less judge them.
I could easily slam rules light players for their lack of mathematical ability, but given my experience with Rob, I tried to avoid going that route because I consider it the "low road". It's not the player's job to fit the game. It's the game's job to support the players.
So, I'll own that if D&D accounting is not too your liking, you should probably play something with less accounting, or (at the very least) make efforts to minimize it. But by the same token, if the lack of robustness is limiting the actions your players consider, I'd say that is on the game, not on the players.
It is easier to change the game you are playing, or to change rules of a game, than it is to change people. Games are dispensable.
As promised, this blog (or this section of it) will be a collection point for bits of gaming philosophy. Here's a discussion I captured about how I came to this conclusion, captured from an ancient thread here:
(In response to a poster blaming players for a game problem):
==========================
I'm not insulted (though I must say, if it were my players you were referring to, it might have been) so much as I think it's a totally bogus cop-out when it comes to defending a game.
Let me tell you a story. The title of this story is "Why Psion Doesn't Run Hero".
Psion loves Hero. Psion thinks that Hero is a way cool game. In some ways, he thinks it out-cools D&D. Why? Because it lets him craft anything and have rigorous mechanical support for it that he much prefers to ad hoccing everything.
But back in college, Psion had a group. There were many players in this group, but one of particular interest. We'll call him Rob. Because, well, that's his name.
Psion is running a rip-roaring game of hero, but find that Rob routinely avoids running characters that use magic. I soon discover that Rob does not use magic because he doesn't grok the power system. Well, Rob's a college student, so he should understand the basic math that goes into making a Hero character right?
I thought so, but it occurs to me that whether or not he's capable, that's work to him. It occurs to me that gaming being a leisure activity, it's not my place to make him do things he doesn't like. And by running hero, I was limiting his options.
It was that moment that pushed me away from hero and back towards D&D. Yeah, it's not as flexible as Hero, or many other systems. But IME, most people grok D&D, and can play any character type they care to play if they can play at all.
Later, I got into verbal fencing with GURPS fans, who in answering my charges that IME GURPS players too easily build characters with scads of half point skills it was my "player's fault."
Such arguments firmed up my philosophy that it is not the job of the players to support the game, but vice versa. If your players don't enjoy a game, that is not a slight to the players. You can't obligate the players to fit the game, much less judge them.
I could easily slam rules light players for their lack of mathematical ability, but given my experience with Rob, I tried to avoid going that route because I consider it the "low road". It's not the player's job to fit the game. It's the game's job to support the players.
So, I'll own that if D&D accounting is not too your liking, you should probably play something with less accounting, or (at the very least) make efforts to minimize it. But by the same token, if the lack of robustness is limiting the actions your players consider, I'd say that is on the game, not on the players.
It is easier to change the game you are playing, or to change rules of a game, than it is to change people. Games are dispensable.
Total Comments 9
Comments
-
I agree. You can't force a system to the players. The system and the group must match. And it's far easier to find a new system then it is to find new players.Posted 6th July 2008 at 10:47 PM by Mustrum_Ridcully
-
I find this a smart blog post and worthy of being rated 5 stars!Posted 7th July 2008 at 04:26 AM by MichaelSomething 
-
This is a great post, and a great point, Psion.Quote:Originally Posted by PsionIt's not the player's job to fit the game. It's the game's job to support the players.
It's coming up a lot in my discussions about bonus stacking in 3e.Posted 7th July 2008 at 02:08 PM by Wulf Ratbane -
As a fellow Hero GM I can so see this - and I largely agree with it.
My counter-point is that GMs have a say in this whole fiasco as well. If my players had their way we'd still be playing the same characters that they designed 14 years ago and running around on kicking the tail end of some demi-gods. Some will say, "what's wrong with that?" Well, I don't like running those types of games is what is wrong with it and by gosh what I want should have at least as much weight as what the players want.
I'll admit a little frustration because my group doesn't want to try any new games. I love Hero but get tired of Hero flavored everything. They are comfortable and don't want to learn new systems. I want to play Burning Wheel and the new Song of Ice and Fire game but in order to do that I have to "force" the issue.
Basically, it is a two way street. Finding balance is the tricky part. Respect for the players and respect for the GM. Now if only I weren't filled with wonder-lust in a group of homebodies.Posted 7th July 2008 at 06:53 PM by Eosin the Red -
I don't know if this is exactly what you're saying or not but I'm getting loath the whole "its the players fault" or "you can Rule 0 that" argument.
It crops up a lot in systems talk (pro, against, whatever) and I tend to think it's weasel words. Instead of owing up to the situation people try to shift to talking about something else because of their bias for or against a system.
Maybe I'm thinking of something else though.Posted 9th July 2008 at 04:40 AM by Graf -
I think we're basically on the same page.Quote:I don't know if this is exactly what you're saying
(...)
I tend to think it's weasel words.
Posted 9th July 2008 at 02:47 PM by Psion - Interesting read. While I agree with what seems to be the general point of the subject line, that if your group is not digging a game to find a new game, I find it is a little unfair to make a blanket argument against opinions that suggest it is the "players' faults". Though I am unfamiliar with the discussion that sparked this blog post. Sometimes it just is the players' fault.
With a new game people will try to make it play like another game or a previous edition. They will not always understand how some rules or systems work (that is, the intention of how it is to work). Again, if the group does not like it, that is fine, but that does not mean all of their criticisms are fair or accurate.Posted 9th July 2008 at 03:43 PM by ripster0 -
An excellent post. I agree that rather than forcing players to a game you should find a game that works for everyone. Like all of us, I have seen games that ground to a halt because a player wants to be antisocial and plays in a manner that makes the game no fun. The trick is knowing which is which. If Rob was unwilling to learn any system, not just Hero (which can be a little intimidating) it is a player problem. It is everyone's job to create and maximize fun at the table. If I am slowing the game and making it less fun because I am unwilling to learn the rules, I am the problem not necessarily the game system.
I am in complete agreement with the post's title. As I play with friends, as I suspect most of us do, I can give up my best most fun character to keep it fun for everyone much easier than I can get an entire new group of friends to allow me to play a certain game/system.Posted 9th July 2008 at 07:06 PM by Forgefly - I think it's more fair to say that any given problem may have cause, contribution, or cure by player, GM, game system, and often overlapping.
a player only playing simple PCs because they don't like a game's complexity has 2 key nouns in it: game and player. The solution lies in changing 1 or both.
a player who slows down the game, interrupts others, screws other PCs over has the same 2 nouns: game and player. Technically, you could change the game (aka RPG's aren't for him, let's play dodgeball). Or you could change the player (correct the behavior, or dump him).
a player who always builds game-breaking PCs, that overshadow other PCs is also a problem. Is it the game, having bad design? Is it the player, who is exploiting game faults? Is it the GM, who creates an environment where the player feels the need to maximize his PC, in order to win.
In the last example, I've got a friend who loves playing magic item destroying Forsakers. It dawned on me, what he was really doing was building a PC that had no commitment to items or property, so that the DM couldn't take it away later, setting him back. Basically, the player was looking for ways to stop the DM from hurting his PC (ironic in a game where the DM can do anything). The most probable cause? The GM ran a tough game where when the PCs got too good, he'd set them seriously back with in-game events (destroying items, invading destroying property, etc). That leads to players making PCs with no ties, no dependance on anything else. The only real threats were direct, which PCs are inherently built to deal with.Posted 9th July 2008 at 08:09 PM by Janx
Total Trackbacks 0
And yet another word from our sponsors
