Gaming and Friendship (for DM's)

[MonsterMash]

One of the groups I game with includes my brother so I don't really have much choice about including him or not, and is friends now as we've know each other for a long period (probably at least 6 years).

The other group we've only just started gaming, the DM and two of the players already knew each other, the other four of us players are new to the group so it'll be interesting to see the long term dynamics of the group.

 

[The_Universe]

Of course it's alright not to game with people who are your friends. On the other hand, I wouldn't ever want to game with people who aren't (or at least could not become) my friends. Gaming is probably my favorite social activity, and the one that I have shared with all of my "best" friends throughout my adolescent and adult years.

Because of that, your friend may be right when he suggests that auditioning new gamers is a lot like auditioning new friends - but remind him or her that you're just expanding the cast, not replacing any of the stars.

After all, since we all know it's alright (and a good idea) to have friends that don't game, how could it possibly be any different to have non-gaming friendships with people who do?

 

[Rel]

Because of that, your friend may be right when he suggests that auditioning new gamers is a lot like auditioning new friends - but remind him or her that you're just expanding the cast, not replacing any of the stars.

If that's true then I may have misunderstood the issue. I was under the impression that he was trying to recruit a subset of the current group for a new game and possibly including some "outsiders" on the basis of each person's suitability for this particular game.

I guess I got the impression that Wolf was saying, "I'm gearing up to run a Silver Age Supers game (to use Joe's example upthread) and George, you're not invited to play because I know that this genre is not your thing. And, by the way, meet Bob. Bob here LOVES Silver Age Supers campaigns so he'll be joining us."

If that were the case then I can see the potential for bruised egos and hurt feelings.

 

[apesamongus]

Two years ago he died. The rest of us were crushed. And looking back on it I wouldn't trade any of those games when he came and I was mildly annoyed about his lack of enthusiasm. Because I realize that even when I wasn't thrilled about the way he engaged the game I still really enjoyed his company and my annoyances with him were petty in comparison to the depth of our friendship.

It come down to whether you view the game as something you do to be with people you like or as an activity to be pursued for it's own virtues. There are two players (out of 6 of us) in my current group whose gaming styles I don't mesh well with. Looking strictly at what goes on directly related to the game, I would be having more fun without them. Taking a more holistic view, and looking at the total time spent during the game, I'm glad they are both there. The whole reason I'm playing is to spend social time with friends, not because the game itself is such a great thing.

 

[The_Universe]

If that's true then I may have misunderstood the issue. I was under the impression that he was trying to recruit a subset of the current group for a new game and possibly including some "outsiders" on the basis of each person's suitability for this particular game.

I guess I got the impression that Wolf was saying, "I'm gearing up to run a Silver Age Supers game (to use Joe's example upthread) and George, you're not invited to play because I know that this genre is not your thing. And, by the way, meet Bob. Bob here LOVES Silver Age Supers campaigns so he'll be joining us."

If that were the case then I can see the potential for bruised egos and hurt feelings.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue - but I think that it's somewhat petty for your old friends to get angry because you might be making new friends. What's wrong with having a "subset" of the current group? The original poster isn't going to stop *being friends* with the old group - he's just choosing to engage in a specific activity with a new group, while (hopefully) maintaining friendship with the "originals."

But maybe I'm reading it all wrong. It has happened.

 

[Henry]

I game primarily with friends, though not exclusively, or my "new friends" pool would be a heck of a lot smaller. For the weekly games, the ones I do my "regular" gaming with, it's with friends - heck, after last night's game some of us stayed around and celebrated one gamer's birthday. Those who couldn't stay likely would have, had they not had to leave for other commitments.

The funny thing is, if I DON'T hit it off with someone, or at least get along with them, I won't game with them again if I can help it. If my play style meshes, then likely my personality will mesh, for casual acquaintence if nothing else. If I don't mesh with them, then it makes the gaming harder to enjoy too, so I don't make any extra efforts.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

All of the people in my gaming group are good friends, but not all of my good friends are in my gaming group.

I hope this helps you.

 

[RFisher]

For me, the primary purpose of gaming is to make new friends & have an excuse to waste a few hours each week in their company with an fun activity.

(e.g. On game night we say to the kids: "Dad's friends are coming over tonight." Not: "Dad's gaming group is coming over tonight.")

I would never "screen" potential new members. Anyone is welcome. If they don't click with the group or our styles of play, no hard feelings should they choose not to come back.

But since it's about friendship first & gaming second, we're pretty open about each others preferences & styles & tend to make things work.

 

[Rel]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the issue - but I think that it's somewhat petty for your old friends to get angry because you might be making new friends. What's wrong with having a "subset" of the current group? The original poster isn't going to stop *being friends* with the old group - he's just choosing to engage in a specific activity with a new group, while (hopefully) maintaining friendship with the "originals."

But maybe I'm reading it all wrong. It has happened.

I think we may be coming at this issue from perspectives based on our own gaming groups and that's likely coloring our responses (I know it is with mine).

My group mostly games with each other and nobody else. We're not really all that "plugged in" to other local gamers (except me since I'm the person who organizes the NC Game Days). And we game once a week, which is the most we're going to get most of the time since we've all got wives and kids and so forth. The net result of this is that, in our group, if you are not a player in our weekly game then you're pretty much not gaming. So I try to go out of my way to make sure that whatever game I'm running appeals to everybody on some level because to exclude them from a given campaign pretty much excludes them from the hobby for some time period.

Now of course they could hunt around for other local groups to game with if a campaign idea was floated that they didn't mesh well with. But I think that would be a bit hurtful to them and I would rather be gaming with these guys than gaming without these guys, even if it means that some system or genre I'd rather play has to take a back seat to that desire.

YMMV.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...How many of you game only with "friends"? (As opposed to a fluid, casual gaming group)

I game only with friends or friends-of-friends.

It's a quote from AlsiH2o, but it speaks to my mindset as well..."If I don't want to go for a beer with you, I don't want to game with you"