Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Casual Player, Casual Roleplaying, Sucking the Wonder Away
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 3997875" data-attributes="member: 10201"><p>I think you're dealing with someone who simply has a different goal for RPing than you do, and your options are (1) compromise or (2) don't play together. I say this because it sounds like an almost exact description of a player i knew. I don't think Paula plays RPGs in order to immerse herself in a rich detailed believable world. </p><p></p><p>Here's my little theory: the common element of all RPG players' motivations is escapism. However, what you want to escape in your real life, and thus what you want out of your fantasy life, varies tremendously. Some people have a dull life and want something more interesting--that's where the doing dangerous/daring things comes in. Some people feel unimportant and/or unliked in real life, so they want to play a rockstar or mover-and-shaker. And other people feel their talents are underappreciated, so they want to appear competent.</p><p></p><p>I think Paula is related to this last one: the appeal of an RPG is to not suffer the foibles and limitations of real life, to be hyper-competent and always in control of herself. Fear is a loss of control. And approaching the game from an in-game viewpoint leaves the player just as vulnerable as she would be in real life. By remaining distanced from the game--seeing it from an audience or author, rather than participant or actor, viewpoint--she is protecting herself from violating her escapism. IOW, the very actions that are ruining what makes the game appealing for you, are necessary for the game to be appealing to her. </p><p></p><p>Now, if she's like the player i've known who sounds the same, the good news is that what you want out of the game *doesn't* interfere with what she wants out of the game--it's not a mutual incompatibility, just a one-way incompatibility. So long as she both gets her moments to shine, and isn't forced to give up her complete control over her character (such as by suffering fear or being comically incompetent), your immersive RPing doesn't interfere with her fun. And don't mistake her need for competency and control for overcoming-obstacles gamism. It's related, but not quite the same. She's probably perfectly happy when she fails, so long as it's because the task was beyond her character's abilities, not because her character screwed up or was made to look a fool. Whereas a gamist is likely to be upset because the challenge was "unfair" if it was so hard that he never could've succeeded.</p><p></p><p>So, in short, there's likely nothing you can do. She's not there for the wonder. Treat her the same way you do the guy who only likes combat--quit trying to make them have your sort of fun, and don't worry about whether or not they're not having fun when you think they "should" be. The only difference is the combat-only guy doesn't interfere with your fun, because when you're not fighting, he just comes along for the ride. Paula's way of "not playing along" still involves her actively participating--unfortunately for the rest of the group. So, we're back to the beginning: your options are probably to compromise (i.e., allow her to not participate in the sense of wonder, and not immerse herself), or not play with her. </p><p></p><p>Oh, one other thing that came to mind: differing notions of the importance of verisimiltude, as well as what constitutes it. I have a player in my game right now who can't seem to wrap his head around the notion of anyone doing anything other than in the most optimal way. So if a spell of level X can give a +3 to soak, the notion of a level X spell existing that toughens the caster's skin and therefore gives +3 to soak and -1 to anything that requires a delicate sense of touch just doens't make sense--why would anyone have invented such a thing? The guidelines don't require it, so the fact that providing an in-world explanation of the toughening, and considering a reasonable ramification of that explanation, leads to it, apparently carries no weight. Whereas i--and i suspect you--see the spell that has an in-world mechanism as the more obvious.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="woodelf, post: 3997875, member: 10201"] I think you're dealing with someone who simply has a different goal for RPing than you do, and your options are (1) compromise or (2) don't play together. I say this because it sounds like an almost exact description of a player i knew. I don't think Paula plays RPGs in order to immerse herself in a rich detailed believable world. Here's my little theory: the common element of all RPG players' motivations is escapism. However, what you want to escape in your real life, and thus what you want out of your fantasy life, varies tremendously. Some people have a dull life and want something more interesting--that's where the doing dangerous/daring things comes in. Some people feel unimportant and/or unliked in real life, so they want to play a rockstar or mover-and-shaker. And other people feel their talents are underappreciated, so they want to appear competent. I think Paula is related to this last one: the appeal of an RPG is to not suffer the foibles and limitations of real life, to be hyper-competent and always in control of herself. Fear is a loss of control. And approaching the game from an in-game viewpoint leaves the player just as vulnerable as she would be in real life. By remaining distanced from the game--seeing it from an audience or author, rather than participant or actor, viewpoint--she is protecting herself from violating her escapism. IOW, the very actions that are ruining what makes the game appealing for you, are necessary for the game to be appealing to her. Now, if she's like the player i've known who sounds the same, the good news is that what you want out of the game *doesn't* interfere with what she wants out of the game--it's not a mutual incompatibility, just a one-way incompatibility. So long as she both gets her moments to shine, and isn't forced to give up her complete control over her character (such as by suffering fear or being comically incompetent), your immersive RPing doesn't interfere with her fun. And don't mistake her need for competency and control for overcoming-obstacles gamism. It's related, but not quite the same. She's probably perfectly happy when she fails, so long as it's because the task was beyond her character's abilities, not because her character screwed up or was made to look a fool. Whereas a gamist is likely to be upset because the challenge was "unfair" if it was so hard that he never could've succeeded. So, in short, there's likely nothing you can do. She's not there for the wonder. Treat her the same way you do the guy who only likes combat--quit trying to make them have your sort of fun, and don't worry about whether or not they're not having fun when you think they "should" be. The only difference is the combat-only guy doesn't interfere with your fun, because when you're not fighting, he just comes along for the ride. Paula's way of "not playing along" still involves her actively participating--unfortunately for the rest of the group. So, we're back to the beginning: your options are probably to compromise (i.e., allow her to not participate in the sense of wonder, and not immerse herself), or not play with her. Oh, one other thing that came to mind: differing notions of the importance of verisimiltude, as well as what constitutes it. I have a player in my game right now who can't seem to wrap his head around the notion of anyone doing anything other than in the most optimal way. So if a spell of level X can give a +3 to soak, the notion of a level X spell existing that toughens the caster's skin and therefore gives +3 to soak and -1 to anything that requires a delicate sense of touch just doens't make sense--why would anyone have invented such a thing? The guidelines don't require it, so the fact that providing an in-world explanation of the toughening, and considering a reasonable ramification of that explanation, leads to it, apparently carries no weight. Whereas i--and i suspect you--see the spell that has an in-world mechanism as the more obvious. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Casual Player, Casual Roleplaying, Sucking the Wonder Away
Top