Casual vs. serious gamers, DMs Groups, and stuff you'll never use in a game...

Wik said:

Is it just me, or does that quote seem kind of Elitist?

Click to expand...

It's probably not just you, but I suspect you are in the minority.

I've only ever had a problem like this where players did not seem to any interest whatsoever about the gameworld their characters were involved in with games of D&D.

pawsplay said:

It's probably not just you, but I suspect you are in the minority.

Click to expand...

Story of my life.

Mercurius said:

That last sentence is what inspired me to write this post however. It got me thinking about just how much of my interest in RPGs has to do with stuff that isn't actually used in game sessions, or minimally so, and is really more interesting to me than it is to players. In other words, there is a disconnect between my love of world design and RPGs in general and the common level of interest among the players in my group. I think this is a common experience for DMs (or GMs in general) and points to a strong bifurcation in the gamer populace, between the "casual" majority and the "serious-to-hardcore" minority, most of whom are DMs.

Click to expand...

I've seen some pretty hardcore people that had zero interest in running games. And then there's me who's really casual and happy to run a game, although in the case of D&D it's not going to be strictly Rules as Written.

I don't think it has anything to do with "casual" vs "hardcore", simply because you haven't defined what those two terms are in relation to. When it comes to gamers, I see hardcore collectors, I see hardcore consumers, I see hardcore rule lawyers, I see hardcore system evangelists, I see hardcore "I'm a geek, deal with it!!" attitude, I even see hardcore people that are proud of being social misfits/outcasts.

And I @#$%@#$%@#$%@#$%@#$% hate world-building. Oh, I'm fine with grabbing a setting (like Palladium Fantasy) and running a game and making up bits as I need. But "world building" like so many GMs indulge? I loathe it. And I loathe being subjected to most GMs world-building attempts. A disgusting number of GMs are frustrated novelists and their games become an outlet for it.

Which wouldn't be so bad if they'd actually bother taking some classes in how to write and actually tried to develop some writing craft.

I'm going to smack the next GM that starts pontificating on how important "The Heroic Journey" is to rpgs and how they like to incorporate Joseph Campbell's ideas into their game. Newsflash: Starting out as a crappy level 1 character and dungeon crawling for 15 levels? That's not the Heroic Journey.

Mercurius said:

And there is nothing wrong with that! I enjoy my group and our sessions are always fun, if not deeply immersive. But it has also made me wonder what it would be like to play in a group where everyone, or at least a few others, had similar levels of interest as I do, were "serious-to-hardcore" gamers who designed worlds, thought about different RPGs and game design, participated in discussion boards, were interested in what was going on in the industry, maybe interested in writing or art or miniature collecting and painting...In other words, a "DMs group"--an RPG group composed mainly of DMs/GMs and serious+ gamers.

Click to expand...

What you're describing doesn't sound "hardcore" to me, it sounds "obsessive". That's not rpgs as a hobby in my mind, that's rpgs as a way of life.

Mercurius said:

Perhaps it is a bit of an RPG Holy Grail for me: A group in which there were at least a few DMs, with some form of co-DMing, perhaps even in the same world and with the same characters.

Thoughts? Does anyone have, or have had, a situation like this? Have you experienced both situations, a group of serious+ gamers and one serious+_gamer with a bunch of casual players?

Click to expand...

Well, as far as forum culture is concerned, I barely manage to rate as a casual gamer I think. One of the few things that makes me rate at all is just the fact that I post on rpg forums. But I don't care about most of the stuff online gamers seem to be obsessed with.

On the flip-side, amongst at least one of my groups, I'm hardcore. I pay attention to what happens with rpgs, I've played and run the darn things for 20 years, I don't play just D&D but *gasp* those dirty hippie games and stuff from the small press side of things as well, I've got at least a grounding in rpg theory, I've got notions about math and how playing around with different parts of a system can produce different effects in play, I've got a number of different projects I'm working on... yeah, to them I'm probably obsessed. Which is funny to me since I've got so many other non-rpg things going on.

*shrug*

I get that you're very dedicated and passionate about rpgs. To be honest? The rpg industry is pretty much dedicated to you as well. Because let's face it... it's _not_ the people like myself that are keeping the rpg industry going. See, I happen to firmly believe that rpgs as a _hobby_ can continue just fine without the current industry. Over the 10 year course of 3.x's life, you know how many books I bought from WotC? 1. The Player's Handbook, 3.5 edition.

It's all the different kinds of hardcore gamers out there that keep the current industry on its life-support. I do not require a new book to be produced every month. I do not look at an rpg and declare it to be a "dead" game if it hasn't had a new supplement churned out for it in the past 6 months, and when people declare a game "dead" I don't feel a need to get rid of the books or find a new game. I don't care about a rulebook being hardbacked, I don't require my rpgs to be equal parts rules and coffeetable art book.

I mean, I call rpgs "Playing invisible Barbie." because that's how I see it. Dudes playing dress up with War Barbie. "My war barbie has a new sword!" "Oh yeah? My war barbie has these cool new robes, AND can just fly where ever he wants anytime!"

I've been in a couple of groups that were all GMs. It was a horrible experience each time. It was like Live Action Flamewars. Every GM had their pet system, pet theories, ideas, stories, plans... everyone wanted the spotlight. "Discussions" of topics were either the Live Action Flamewars, or they were sitting around like old men going, "Yuuuup." and nodding vigorously like bobble-heads on the dashboard of an off-road Baja racer.

I say kick back, take a deep breath, and accept things as they are. Your group might not appreciate the effort you can (or do) put into something, but there's nothing stopping you from sharing it online. Plenty of folks that can see it there. And if your group is not as into rpgs as you are, at least it means you don't really have to worry about competition either; you're going to be the default one-stop-shop for rpg related stuff.

What do you think? Is a creation legend useful to players or just the DM exersizing creative juices that no one reads more than once and never considers again?

Click to expand...

I think, creation legends are pretty useless in and of themselves. Mostly, I've typically found them to be quite boring as well.
Even though I used to be quite interested in world building this is one aspect I never cared much about.

Unless they actually play a (big) role in the campaign, I wouldn't bother about them. Notable exceptions would probably include Eberron and War of the Burning Sky.

Mercurius said:

...just how much of my interest in RPGs has to do with stuff that isn't actually used in game sessions, or minimally so, and is really more interesting to me than it is to players. In other words, there is a disconnect between my love of world design and RPGs in general and the common level of interest among the players in my group. I think this is a common experience for DMs (or GMs in general) and points to a strong bifurcation in the gamer populace, between the "casual" majority and the "serious-to-hardcore" minority, most of whom are DMs.

Click to expand...

I think that is about right...

Hussar said:

Over the years, I've become a much more casual player than I used to be. I used to do all the world building stuff, creation myths, lots of detail, Ray Winnager, the whole nine yards. Then I realized that very few of my players cared about MY details. They might give me nine page backstories about their characters, but, would only gloss over the details I brought to the table.

Click to expand...

But then there is that....

Scurvy_Platypus said:

I say kick back, take a deep breath, and accept things as they are. Your group might not appreciate the effort you can (or do) put into something, but there's nothing stopping you from sharing it online. Plenty of folks that can see it there. And if your group is not as into rpgs as you are, at least it means you don't really have to worry about competition either; you're going to be the default one-stop-shop for rpg related stuff.

Click to expand...

And, after a post that seems about to catch on fire, is a nice resolution.

You aren't paid to DM. You do it for your own reasons. Some DM's like "world-building" (though this can mean quite different things to different people). It may be why you DM. But yes, most players are only going to be receptive to certain things.

If you care, you should probably present world info to your players in a relatively summary fashion (with pictures, lots of pictures) and then work your world building into the heart of the adventure to get it noticed.

You may not care. You may only have some things read/heard by a few players over the years, and that can be ok. If you do want a wider audience, finding some other "hardcore" dms is the way to go, online or otherwise, is a way to go.

What I have found is that I do spend a lot of time on material that the players either never find out about, or never care about. It doesn't bother me in the slightest wether the players care or not, because the material I work out often does provide a background for myself for how the NPCs in general will act, and becomes a breeding ground for potential adventures. By having some idea about the politics or creation myths or religions of the world, I can have some internal consistency as I prepare adventures.

Now, on the other side, I have also found that you never know when something you have already worked up might catch a players attention. When it does, it feels great to have them acknowlege the ideas, and possibly, even if only for a little while, get the players to be more interested in some of the details.

In the end, most DMs are attention whores. Often we DM because we like to be the center of attention (at least among peers in a place we can understand and control better than "real life"). We don't get to "win" the game and we don't even get XP and treasure to satisfy ourselves, so our ultimate gratification comes from the players having a great time, getting into the game and hopefully thanking us for running it. That is why I am willing to put in more work and detail than I ever expect the players to recognize - because I might get a chance to bump somebody's level of fun from good to great.

As a player, I will only play fantasy and certain sci-fi genres if the DM has done the world building (deities, races, cultures, major organizations, etc. as appropriate for the setting/genre).

If deities have animosities and alliiances against one another, has a favorite symbol, animal or weapon associated with it, etc. and such things effect the PCs or clerics (vestments, holy symbols, weapons, behavior when encountering a priest of another deity), I want to know the reason why. I don't need twenty or thirty pages, but a one-two page handout if I am a cleric of a certain deity is appreciated.

Scurvy_Platypus said:

And I loathe being subjected to most GMs world-building attempts. A disgusting number of GMs are frustrated novelists and their games become an outlet for it.

Which wouldn't be so bad if they'd actually bother taking some classes in how to write and actually tried to develop some writing craft.

Click to expand...

Right on, Brother! I would rather the GM focus on a good game at the table, not make up the geneology of the king's servants.

I've used FR/Eberron for years for just these reasons. Players care alittle, like to poke at the map, then move on. I use the worlds as a nice backdrop for the story. I add in the world specific stuff for spice, but it is generally not all the critical.

Also, think about all the stuff that DMs don't use because the PCs change so often.

Not only do we write world history that is never used in game, but we write potential future history for PCs that is also wasted.

I've written numerous scenarios for PCs and launched the beginnings of what was supposed to be an interesting side adventure for particular PCs to be involved in. Then either the PC dies before he can get knee deep in the side plot, or the player gets booted or leaves the game.

I'm one of those guys that asks players to write a history for their PC. And I actually use that history to write up side adventures. I probably have a days worth of ideas that I wrote out for PCs and never got to use.