Loyalty among gamers, does it exist?

[Haltherrion]

... 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." ...

I guess I really don't see it that way. There are some people who don't "bond" with others and will flit around without any consideration of loyalty or friendship. But I think many manifestations of "disloyalty" are just players looking around for the right group. They will keep moving along until something clicks.

It's like my earlier dating analogy. While there are some people who just like dating (and exploiting people) most folks are looking for a steady relationship. But you don't usually get lucky on the first few partners. It takes time. The person could certainly look disloyal at one point and quite loyal at another point.

In my experience I've had some players pass quickly through my group because something didn't click for them about my table. I can't think of any of them I'd call disloyal, they just seemed to be looking for something else. (This excludes the ones we kicked out, that's a different matter) On the other hand my core players have been with me for 15 years and more.

 

[scourger]

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.

Right. It was fun enough for you to play those games with that group, but would you do it again? Would you play for an extended period if the majority of the group decided to do so?

 

[Haltherrion]

Right. It was fun enough for you to play those games with that group, but would you do it again? Would you play for an extended period if the majority of the group decided to do so?

If the group persisted in choosing games a loyal member of the group did not like after said member was sporting enough to endure several of them, then that group isn't being very loyal to that player. It might very well be time to move on but I wouldn't accuse the person who left of being disloyal. He gave it a reasonable shot.

 

[scourger]

...my core players have been with me for 15 years and more.

Yeah, the 2 friends I regularly game with now I've known for 20 & 11 years respectively. I think the 3 of us are more loyal to each other & the group, and we are willing to play games that are not our first choice if the others are excited about it; but there are still limits. I took about a 6 month break a couple of years ago when a certain game became very not fun for me. I felt guilty about it, but I just couldn't do it anymore. It was the game that we all like at a baseline, but it ground on way too long. Ironically, that game took our group membership from 6 to 3 before the remaining players killed it. It ended not in a good way which was unfortunate but not my fault as I was not there for the terminal episode although I had returned recently to the campaign.

The part that really mystifies me is that 3 of the guys have known each other since childhood with about 25-30 years shared gaming history. Only 1 is still with us. I would have thought that those long-standing friendships would have counted for more. They are still good guys, but I don't think we'll get them back to the table even though we see them outside the game.

The good news for me is that is very liberating and empowering to have these insights.

 

[scourger]

If the group persisted in choosing games a loyal member of the group did not like after said member was sporting enough to endure several of them, then that group isn't being very loyal to that player. It might very well be time to move on but I wouldn't accuse the person who left of being disloyal. He gave it a reasonable shot.

That's true, but opinions vary as to what is a "reasonable shot." Some won't even give it a try, which I don't consider loyal individually or making a group collectively. That's just a bunch of individuals. And, that's okay too.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Right. It was fun enough for you to play those games with that group, but would you do it again? Would you play for an extended period if the majority of the group decided to do so?

Answering for myself, I'd probably opt to continue gaming with my group (assuming we're talking about a group I like) instead of leaving over a game I didn't like (assuming its not a blatantly offensive RPG). I did it before, after all.

(Poker, because it involves gambling, would be a different case.)

 

[DumbPaladin]

I will modify my earlier statement by saying that I wouldn't ever steal or cajole or recruit players out from under another DM.

But I don't consider that "loyalty among gamers" -- I just consider that not being a douchebag.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I will modify my earlier statement by saying that I wouldn't ever steal or cajole or recruit players out from under another DM.

But I don't consider that "loyalty among gamers" -- I just consider that not being a douchebag.

Agreed.

But, frankly, I don't get the "You must play in any game we choose, or you are disloyal" meme.

I get that you shouldn't attempt to disrupt an activity you don't want to participate in. I get that you should take ownership of, and try to make fun for all, any activity that you do participate in.

I also note that expecting someone to play whatever the group chooses ignores the individual tastes of group members. I mean, playing an adventure to try a new system is usually fine, for most people. But if it is not? I am loyal to individuals rather than groups, and I would uphold that person's right to opt out. Not to disrupt everyone else's fun, but to decide to do something else on those days until that person's preferred game(s) return(s).

Loyalty to an individual requires willingness to take individual tastes into account, and it requires a willingness to let each person decide what they are willing to participate in.

The back-and-forthing Danny A has described is disruptive, and is acceptable only to the degree that the individual feels pressured to Just Say Yes. IMHO.

Also, all loyalty -- to individuals or to groups -- is dependent upon behaviour...or should be, IMHO...because it is based on trust. You give more leeway to those you trust more (Perhaps Bob is just having a bad day?) but there is always some ultimate point where trust is broken, perhaps irreparably. If there wasn't, and there was really "loyalty among gamers" just because we are gamers, EN World wouldn't have/need Ignore lists.

IMHO. YMMV.

 

[howandwhy99]

It depends on the game

[B]TYPICAL LOYALTY, OBEDIENCE, AND MORALE CHECK SITUATIONS
Situation Failure                                Failure Result
[/B]offered bribe                                    co-operates
ordered to testify against liege                 agrees
has a chance to steal goods                      steals
left alone in possible danger                    deserts
abandoned                                        deserts
ordered into possible danger                     refuses
ordered to perform heroic act                    refuses
ordered to perform heroic act and dangerous act  refuses
ordered to rescue party member(s)                refuses
ordered to rescue liege                          refuses
in combat with possibly dangerous foe            runs away
liege incapacitated or slain                     runs away
offered surrender terms                          surrenders
surrounded by superior foe                       surrenders
ordered to use up or diminish own magic item     refuses

NORMAL LOYALTY BASE: 50%, +/- charisma adjustment

[B]LOYALTY OF HENCHMAN AND ALLIED CREATURES
Adjusted Loyalty Score    Loyalty  [/B]
less than 01              None - will attempt to kill, capture, harm, or desert at first possible opportunity.
01-25                     Disloyal – will always seek own advantage regardless of circumstances
26-50                     Little – will seek own advantage at first sign of weakness
51-75                     Fair – will support cause if no greater risk is involved
76-00                     Loyal – will always attempt to further the ends of the liege, even at great risk
Greater than 00           Fanatical – will serve unquestioningly and lay down own life if necessary without hesitation

[B]LOYALTY BASE MODIFIERS[/B] [types only listed, tables are left out]
[B]Length of Enlistment or Association
Enlistment or Association
Training or Status Level
Pay or Treasure Shared
Discipline/Activity
General Treatment by Liege
Racial Preference For – Liege, Associate Group
Alignment Factors
Alignment of Liege
Situation Modifiers
[/B]

 

[Kobold Boots]

Pretty much comes down to: "Do you like the game and enjoy your time playing it?"

Yes - be loyal.
No - leave.

One of the primary skills of a good DM is to periodically poll the group and ensure people are doing what they like to do. When DMs don't do that, games die.