The general case of this appears to be pretty straight forward - we are having fun with friends, but some mistake leads to us having less fun than we could have had - a frustrating diversion on a road trip where we don't come away with a funny story would be a simple example.
For an RPG example, imagine a game in which the players spend half an hour frustrated with some puzzle because of miscommunication that's eventually cleared up - the whole game could be fun, but it would likely have been more fun if the mistake wasn't made.
The general case of this appears to be pretty straight forward - we are having fun with friends, but some mistake leads to us having less fun than we could have had - a frustrating diversion on a road trip where we don't come away with a funny story would be a simple example.
For an RPG example, imagine a game in which the players spend half an hour frustrated with some puzzle because of miscommunication that's eventually cleared up - the whole game could be fun, but it would likely have been more fun if the mistake wasn't made.
Fair enough.... The proof is in the pudding. If the players keep coming back for more, keep excitedly asking, "When's the next game?? I'm free Tuesday!" then that's a pretty huge tell that you're doing things correctly.
Fair enough.... The proof is in the pudding. If the players keep coming back for more, keep excitedly asking, "When's the next game?? I'm free Tuesday!" then that's a pretty huge tell that you're doing things correctly.
bloodtide I'd say a lot more 40% 50% 10%. Walk into any game store and your sure to find a mix of Bad and Average DMs.....and no Good DM in sight......
oh noes i am not a good dm..... the horror the horror. I guess that why my other handle is rottenroger dm. truth in advertising and maybe bloodtide will show up and play.
Then I would say that you mustn't have been playing in, or DMing, games you enjoyed, because I'm still close with the same group of people I was DMing games for 30 years ago. Perhaps as a consequence of the fun we had playing RPGs back then, we became lifelong friends.
See I think gamers had the right idea back then and something has since been lost, but I can already hear the accusations of "rose-colored glasses." Sure... OK, keep tellin' yerself that.
Its entirely possible to view enjoyable gaming despite problem processes and not view it as because of them. There were a lot of things I did early in my GMing career that I don't think were exactly ideal ways to do things, and the fact I managed to pull out some good games while doing them in no way changes that; some of them would have been better if I didn't.
"A pass" is so broad and poorly specified that I will not agree to it.
As an example, there are some games (like, say, F.A.T.A.L.) which I find offensive, in whole or many parts. But I am not offended by how its mechanics will encourage future human ethical breeches in the real world if it is played. I am offended by it in much the same way as I am offended by someone shouting racist or sexist slurs at my friends.
"The game", like "a pass" is not well defined here.
Speaking in broad generalization (so, admitting that there will be exceptions) I find that much of the fiction that comes out of our play is enacted without mediation by the game rules.
I think that's a view well worth considering. Not one I dismiss by any means... albeit I'm curious to read your answer to my above question. The problem I think your nicely pithy statement skirts is suggesting that the narrative is independent of the game, which seems to make inexplicable what function the rules are serving?
So, here's a point that maybe will bake your noodle - the game cannot position us to promulgate good ethical choices unless bad ones are present. Indeed, the strongest morals are depicted when the moral choices are not rewarded. The players cannot reject ethical violations, unless the game makes those violations possible.
As in - if you are concerned about mass killing and colonialism, and that that the minion mechanic makes plowing through hordes of invaded people possible... It follows that the players cannot choose to not do that, unless the game gives them the option to do it!
As an example, from many years ago, I was in a Mage: the Ascension game...
Someone had botched a major magical working, and most of the PCs were trapped in a Paradox Realm - a little pocket universe reality used to wrap up the inconsistencies generated by magic. But, the PCs didn't know they were in the realm. One of the ways out was for us to notice the inconsistencies, realize it was all a dream, and the bubble would pop. Unfortunately, thinking we needed to be saved, one of the party members who wasn't caught broke in, and informed us of the situation - we could then not realize it on our own, so that possibility was shut off.
The other way out was to sacrifice all the other denizens of the paradox realm, and use their collected energy to break the thing open. The GM figured that, since all the denizens of the realm were "fake", we'd be okay with that. Turns out, we collectively were not. We all decided that killing so many people, "fake" or not, was not something any of us were willing to do, and we were willing to end the entire campaign, with our characters living out their lives in the paradox realm, rather than be mass-murderers.
Eventually, the GM relented, and allowed a third option for escape, but that was only after we started talking about new character concepts. We didn't expect him to give in.
