Loyalty among gamers, does it exist?

[Dracorat]

Loyalty is earned - it is not automatically granted. In order to earn loyalty, you have be significant enough in action and character so that the person in question has granted their trust and respect and they then feel an internal obligation to be there for the greater good of all instead of the greater good of self.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, why isn't he allowed to take a break and recharge his batteries, if he isn't interested in playing anything that is happening now?

Like I said, I do respect his right to make such a decision. Its the passive aggressive stuff I don't like.

Don't say you're going to show up and don't. Don't say you're going to give the game a chance, then send out a last-minute email about how the syste sucks the creativity out of the game. Don't say you're making a PC and not do it. Its disruptive. It creates false expectations and drags on everyone's nerves.

I'm not a 4Ed fan...but I can have fun playing it. I could just as easily said "No"...but I wouldn't be yo-yoing like this guy. (FWIW, I've known him since about 1995 or so, and I've never seen him like this. Every other time he's made a decision about hanging or not with the group, he's stuck to it.)

What, exactly, are you expecting him to do here? Hang out and not participate?

We'd be perfectly happy for him to show up, drink our beer, eat snacks and heckle.

We had one guy who didn't want to play RIFTS on a previous hiatus from 2Ed D&D (the campaign the non-4Ed player was running, FWIW). He showed up occasionally, drank beer, ate snacks and heckled.

We had one guy who didn't want to play M&M on a previous hiatus from 3Ed D&D. He showed up occasionally, drank beer, ate snacks and heckled.

This guy isn't giving his buddy the same respect he himself was shown. And again, this is extremely uncharacteristic of him.

I am sure that your friends appreciated your presence on poker nights, but surely you made a choice to show up without being pressured into doing so? And surely your friends understood when you decided not to?

Its been a year since I regularly participated in a scheduled poker night (as opposed to "We don't have a quorum for gaming; break out the cards" poker night), and I still get emails for me to show up every time- and not just the mass mailings to our yahoo group, personal ones. Just deleted a whole bunch dealing with the next scheduled poker night yesterday.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Don't say you're going to show up and don't. Don't say you're going to give the game a chance, then send out a last-minute email about how the syste sucks the creativity out of the game. Don't say you're making a PC and not do it. Its disruptive. It creates false expectations and drags on everyone's nerves.

No disagreement.....It is incumbent upon someone in a long-term relationship to be "good, giving, and game" (as Dan Savage says).

But, suppose that this guy (let's call him Charlie) feels more than a little pressured to show up, give the game a chance, and make a PC.

Should he be upfront about not wanting to do so? Yes.

Was he upfront about not wanting to do so, and then cajolled with the old "Take One For the Team" talk? We don't know.

Dan Savage places limits of being GGG. Because one should be GGG doesn't mean one should be open to everything. And the idea that one should be GGG isn't intended to be used as a stick to poke someone into agreeing to something they really don't want to do. Part of being GGG is to back off and let the other person choose what they are willing to do.

So, yes, I grant that it was disruptive the first time he changed his mind. But, once that was a known factor, why should it continue to be a problem?

If you're looking for an excuse, as a group, to DTMFA, then just DTMFA. You don't need an excuse.

Is it worth doing something about? Yes? Then do it. No? Then don't worry about it. You have to take people, or leave people, as they are. You can't force them to be what you want them to be.


RC

 

[Crazy Jerome]

All of the people I game with are friends. All the people in our current group are friends with each other. We are loyal to each other because of that. The game is an expression of the friendship, not the other way around.

I'm a pretty loyal guy, by default. I've worked three places in 21 years, not always in my best interest. That is, once an association forms, I'm loyal until someone gives me substantial reason why not. So were I, for example, to suddenly start participating in a new game with strangers, I'd be loyal to that, but only in so much as what I agreed to do, explicitly or reasonably implicitly. The mere association does not make any further claim on my loyalty. To the degree that more loyalty was earned, it would be due to any budding friendship, not the game itself.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So, yes, I grant that it was disruptive the first time he changed his mind. But, once that was a known factor, why should it continue to be a problem?

There is another element- he's one of the reasons the 4Ed DM joined the group in the first place. So there is an (ever decreasing) element of "you're invited by someone to join a group and he never showed". If you've ever been ditched at a party, you know that's pretty crappy.

 

[Haltherrion]

I think loyal groups will form but at the start of a relationship while players are sizing up refs and fellow players, their is little loyalty. For those that never desire to have (or have the good fortune to find) such a stable group, they loyalty might be quite low.

I think it is just human nature and not so different from dating. Most people try a number of arrangements until they find the right one. Some just like dating and serially tear through partners.

 

[S'mon]

I'll normally go where the best gaming is. I won't stick with a friend's game if I'm not enjoying it.

That said, it's worth sticking with a mostly-good DM who has occasional 'off' sessions and help him cultivate his skills, especially if he's a friend you've known a good while. And I'll stick with a reliable but somewhat less skilled GM I like and trust over a stranger even though that stranger seems more skilled at GMing.

 

[Dausuul]

Loyalty to your friends doesn't mean playing in games you don't enjoy, from either side of the screen. Gaming is a big time investment.

I have lots of friends I don't game with; we just do other things.

I must spread some XP around before giving it to Raven Crowking again. Of all the ways to measure "loyalty," willingness to play a D&D game seems like one of the most absurd.

 

[scourger]

In this thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/305095-gaming-group-troubles.html the second post says there is no loyalty among gamers...
So are gamers loyal to their friends or the game or something else?

Well, this thread caught my eye. No surprise since I was the second poster in the other thread. My point is that gamers are basically loyal to something else--themselves. That doesn't mean that they are not or cannot be loyal to their friends or "the game". In fact, I've found that gamers are more loyal to "a game" than "a group;" to the point that there is almost no loyalty to "the group." It doesn't make them bad people. On the contrary, some of my best friends are past & present gaming friends. It may make them bad gamers in my opinion, but that is a subjective statement based on my preferences. The best & most positive lessons I've drawn from it are that it is not directed at me and I should not take it personally. It's just a game, and the goal is to have fun. Be sure to put your fun first because everyone else is.

 

[Wycen]

Be sure to put your fun first because everyone else is.

I get what you and others are saying, but sometimes you don't put yourself first. If I had put myself first I wouldn't have sat down last week at a game of Saint Petersburg, which I hate. Or I'd have asked my friends last year to play something other than Mouse Guard. At the time I was iffy on the game and now months later I've decided I don't like it, but as you say above, I was having fun. The fun was socializing with people I like, not the game itself. Ideally, we'd do both, but not always.