A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Bedrockgames]

Ultimately, I do think that such choices are a matter of taste and preference. Some people will never like ribs, for example, even if they're at the best rib joint in the world. But, setting aside taste and preference, there's something to be said about the advice or insight that can be offered by someone who eats the same thing every time, and someone who's tried more than one thing.

Also, while this is a very imperfect metaphor, just to come back to it for another point: I think both these people actually have something to offer. The guy who gets the steak every time, is going to be able to tell me how consistent that steak is. The guy who gets something new every time, is going to have a wider variety of options to talk about, but any one of those could have been eaten on a good or bad day. In gaming terms, a person who plays one, or a handful of similar games, is going to have deep knowledge of those systems. A person who plays lots of different games all the time, is going to have less deep knowledge of the individual games I think. Of course, most people are not this stark. I imagine most gamers will be closer to the center of the spectrum.

The examples in the metaphor are really a bit extreme I think. In reality, you'd more likely be dealing with a) Person who has a handful of regular items they routinely order on the menu because they consider them reliable, and b) person who different things more often.

Also I don't think anyone here is seriously advocating not trying different food. This conversation is more like, some people in the room don't like seafood, and so suggesting they try the calamari probably isn't going to go over well (for the record, I like calamari a lot).

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it depends though. I've often found people who seem to like everything, are not a very good way of gauging what I'd like. To me it would boil down to the individual. If it is someone who has preferences closer to mine, and I want to ensure I have a good dining experience, I'd go with that individual's recommendation. If I am feeling adventurous I might go with the person who has had everything on the menu. Either way, I'd get information from both of them, treat them both like human beings and wouldn't sneer at either one of them for the kind of food they like to eat. The latter is really what I am talking about here. It is fine to be worldly. It is fine to try lots of RPGs. I think people can get so into that though, they lose sight of what interests people who like more standard faire.

To use another metaphor: film. Growing up my dad liked to watch all kinds of movies. There is something good about that, but it has its downsides. When we went to video store he'd always get recommendations from the people working there. We saw a lot of movies, but I can honestly say one result of this approach is most of the movies were not that enjoyable (and if we had stuck with more mainstream blockbuster hits, more of the movies we saw, we'd probably have enjoyed). For every cool, quirky movie we saw, we had to sit through two films like Wizard of Speed and Time and The Peanut Butter Solution. Again, I am not knocking having wide ranging taste and trying many things (I do try to play as many RPGs as I can when I have the time). I just think people are not seeing that there is no grail here. Every approach is going to have downsides and upsides.

I like to try lots of things still. But it is definitely not for everyone. And you can be just as much of a jerk advocating for the latest quirky thing you've found, as you can be stubbornly refusing to engage anything outside your experience. And I've learned to respect that other people might have more straightforward tastes and be put off by things that are less in that zone.

Sure, I don't think that anyone needs to be treated poorly. And I think that does happen from time to time in these discussions. It honestly goes both ways, really. I find that these online debates can lose nuance and tone and context, and that can often add to the problem, where as if this conversation were to happen in person, I'd be surprised if things didn't remain civil.

And I agree that a variety of opinion is helpful, and so it's good to ask both of your friends for their advice.

But in discussing the menu in its entirety, it's very clear who will likely have more insight....and I don't mean that in any way except the most practical.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But in discussing the menu in its entirety, it's very clear who will likely have more insight....and I don't mean that in any way except the most practical.

But here is where that metaphor breaks down in a serious way. The guy who has tried everything on a menu at some restaurant, probably has biases, but I doubt they rise to the level of biases you encounter in gaming discussions. It would be great if on a random internet forum, you could trust the person who has tried everything to report on all the items on the menu accurately. In reality, just my experience on gaming discussions, half the time people try games outside their preferred style (particularly if their preferences are very strong), they are doing so with the sole aim of critiquing that game. Just to take it out of this forum, I saw it all the time in other forums where there are posters whose preferences are closer to mine. People are not objective when it comes to gaming flame wars. And much of this discussion has had the tone of a flame war. So it isn't like we are at a restaurant with friends who are reliably going to report on their experiences. People are still trying to win the discussion here and I think that clouds the issue.

But at the end of the day, I would restate what I said earlier, I think it really depends on the individual. And I think if we have two extremes to choose from: on the hand asking someone who tries lots and lots of games, and on the other asking someone who has played the same game endlessly...you are probably going to want to ask the person with lots of experience about the quirky games, but that person who plays the same one day in and day out will be able to tell you just about everything to do with that system and how to make it work. I think both those extremes are pretty unrealistic. Most people are going to settle on a preferred style of play, and have varying degrees of experience with other systems. I think the sweet spot is to actually have a go to system or systems (because mastering a single game system is very helpful to do), but to seek out other experiences as well. Still, if I want to learn about story games, I don't ask the immersionist who has tried everything under the sun. I ask people who like story games and play them regularly. If I am looking for a new gaming experience, then I am going to ask someone with a broad view of games, who can report on them objectively (I have a handful of friends in the real world who I would go to for such things).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Also, while this is a very imperfect metaphor, just to come back to it for another point: I think both these people actually have something to offer. The guy who gets the steak every time, is going to be able to tell me how consistent that steak is. The guy who gets something new every time, is going to have a wider variety of options to talk about, but any one of those could have been eaten on a good or bad day. In gaming terms, a person who plays one, or a handful of similar games, is going to have deep knowledge of those systems. A person who plays lots of different games all the time, is going to have less deep knowledge of the individual games I think. Of course, most people are not this stark. I imagine most gamers will be closer to the center of the spectrum.

The examples in the metaphor are really a bit extreme I think. In reality, you'd more likely be dealing with a) Person who has a handful of regular items they routinely order on the menu because they consider them reliable, and b) person who different things more often.

Also I don't think anyone here is seriously advocating not trying different food. This conversation is more like, some people in the room don't like seafood, and so suggesting they try the calamari probably isn't going to go over well (for the record, I like calamari a lot).

I think that many folks in the discussion fall in the middle. Even the ones who have the most exposure to the widest variety of RPGs are still in the middle. None of us have played them all.

But I do think there are also plenty of people who have only ever played one game, or at most a handful of games that are all very similar in approach. And that in and of itself is fine. There's nothing wrong with only ever playing one RPG or only ever eating ribs or whatever!

What I think can be frustrating is that when the discussion is about using RPG techniques or mechanics from a variety of systems, those folks chime in and insist on viewing things through their one point of reference.

To be clear, I'm not saying you did that, and I think the initial comment you made which then spawned this thread was clearly taken out of context. But I think there have been plenty of other examples in this thread that show what I'm talking about.

For example, meta-gaming. Many hold that this is always bad. The reason is because the game they play, or at least the way they like to play it, says that's the case. But there are other games where meta-gaming is absoluetly part of the process. It's by no means "always bad". So if someone brings up meta-gaming as a technique in RPG, and they have to fend off all the "meta-gaming is always bad!!!" comments, it can really undermine the conversation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For example, meta-gaming. Many hold that this is always bad. The reason is because the game they play, or at least the way they like to play it, says that's the case. But there are other games where meta-gaming is absoluetly part of the process. It's by no means "always bad". So if someone brings up meta-gaming as a technique in RPG, and they have to fend off all the "meta-gaming is always bad!!!" comments, it can really undermine the conversation.

I think it is unfair to expect people to bring anything other than their experience to a discussion. If you have a wider range of experiences, it is on you to figure out how to communicate with people who haven't had those experiences. But I think some folks are holding their gaming experience over the heads of others in this debate. Personally I am open to trying all kinds of games, and I don't even really play D&D anymore (at least not that often). And if I do play D&D now, it is usually an OSR version. And while there are games I like to play and try, there are others I don't have much interest in (DW, Burning Wheel and FATE all have very little appeal to me). Doesn't mean I haven't looked into them or tried playing them. A game like FATE for example, I wanted to like because there was a setting put out using that system that I really wanted to try, but I just can't to connect with the system. I don't think that should be held against me in a discussion like this (especially when I think it is clear I am basically getting what posters are saying about those systems, but some of my words are being used against me to imply I am not). But that said, I've tried to explain that I do like to try and play other games. I have a whole group of players where this pretty much all we do (I don't usually run the games, but I am a player in a game where we rotate systems, often times very experimental and quirky systems).

But to get to metagaming stuff. I wasn't paying close attention to that part of this conversation. If it is the sort of thing I am imagining it might be, I don't know,I don't care if people want to metagame in their games.

As far as this thread goes though, I think the OP pretty much poisoned the discussion from the start.

 

[Numidius]

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] what FATE setting were you interested in?

 

[pemerton]

And if you watch the series over multiple seasons, each season tries to top the last in order to keep going, but that tactic only stretches it out a few seasons and then the series dies a usually sudden death with either no ending, or a rushed and crappy ending.

You say this as if we should expect our RPGing to do better - whereas I would assert, any RPG group which can sustain fiction that has the same quality and engaging character as a three-seasion TV drama is one of the most impressive around! Very few people are capable of coming up with fiction as engaging as even second-tier professionally written material.

That he has found people that enjoy ridiculous levels of drama doesn't mean that in general, ridiculous levels of drama are not sustainable.

Who does "he" refer to in this sentence?

 

[pemerton]

In the last group I played, the party took a pause of rest in an ancient settlement built around a health-regenerating thermal pool, after an almost lethal fight against a giant monster in the haunted forest surrounding it.
What I thought ought to be just a brief downtime, became soon a whole session of jokes, embarassing moments, relaxed roleplay, casual spent of money for "services" by the locals, all while having a day long regenerating bath.

Rinse. Repeat. Next session same thing. I already split from them earlier to follow an investigation in town on my own. I had my scene but nothing more happened. The others still having the rejuveneting bath.

Third session of bathing. I try to hire some guides to take me to the infamous settlement, the Gm fiddles for ages about costs, wages, timing, distance, preparation and takes me by exaustion. Nothing dramatic happens.

On the fourth session I roll a new Pc to be present in the settlement to hurry the party up and move on. Half a session later we are eventually out: one random encounter in the forest and the evening of play ends.

Then I quit the group, sadly.

This makes me feel sorry for you, but also impressed by your patience.

Were these (what I would think of as) typical sessions - 4 or so hours? In which case you're talking about 12+ hours of play in which nothing happens but for a random encounter. Unbelievable!

 

[pemerton]

And as far as exploring the gameworld, you can't do that in as much detail as you like, at least in a GM-decides game - you can only do it in the detail the GM likes!

I would disagree with this. You can very much explore worlds in detail when the GM decides.

<snip>

there really isn't much a limit to how much detail you can go in, if the GM is seriously considering anything the players attempt.

I'm not sure how you're disagreeing with me: I said that it is the GM, not the player, who determines the degree of detail in which the gameworld can be explored. And you seem to have just elaborated on that point.

 

[Numidius]

This makes me feel sorry for you, but also impressed by your patience.

Were these (what I would think of as) typical sessions - 4 or so hours? In which case you're talking about 12+ hours of play in which nothing happens but for a random encounter. Unbelievable!

Yes. Even longer. Some RP, some casual chat with Npcs...
That's why I'm always complaining "We have a problem over here!" (In my home town)
As I said my pc was on his own in a city doing his own thing.
I invested so much time because we were supposed to play other games after that, and I thought was a matter of just getting on the same page, since we had long conversation about how we play before meeting in person.
He knows and likes the same game I do.. but the importance of Gm as unique authority on content and keeper of realism, plausibility was really too strong in him. I didn't know how exactly to debate with him.

This thread helped me clarify things. Like a lecture on the subject.