thormagni said:
But I don't ever recall the games fulfilling the same roles in my life that they seem to have filled in your life. If I can find fellow gamers in the old-folks home, I hope to have my books and dice.
Although I am not convinced I am done with gaming (and I can see myself gaming in an old folks home as well), the game for me has always had the psychological and deeply relevant meaning that Mark mentioned. You name the character (or even major NPC) or world event, and I can tell you what part of my personality I was dissecting, exploring, or creating. Every bit of it is deeply personal with me - and routine absences from the game are usually taken very personally by me. I feel as though I am sharing deep parts of me when I GM or play, and routine absences feels like a rejection of those things I am choosing to share.
Even the big, black
thing I turned Alisander (the most glorious city of my golden age of gaming) into was an important metaphor/allegory to me (on at least three different levels of thought).
Likewise, I need people to bring something like that to their own characters & goals - or we may as well just be playing a board game. So much of the time, it seemed like many of the players were just "along for the ride" - but no one was actively directing the cart! People who say, "Oh, I don't care; I just want to play" are missing a core ingredient. I need for the players to care. If they don't give a damn, then eventually neither will I. Again, we may as well be playing board games.
One of the reasons I resurrected Inzeladun in the first place was the enthusiasm Chris had for the world - and then he stopped coming. All the little hints I threw out that (probably) only he would get were missed because he was almost never there. No one else cared about those little things I threw in.
I didn't get the sense that people felt invested in the games I was creating, that they felt
compelled to play. Maybe that is my fault, maybe it isn't. I know it is killing me to wait so long for George R. R. Martin's next book - because I feel invested in them, the setting, the characters. I get excited by the subtle things, and I look for signs and portents. Because no one felt invested, few showed up consistently, which gave everyone a feeling that they were along just for the ride, content to finish up whatever the people who showed up last time (but aren't here on this day) started.
I had a neat idea for a sci-fi setting, but not a single person had a really good idea of the character they wanted to play. Once that became obvious (during character generation, most people were saying, "Oh, I don't really care. Just roll up something. I just want to play"), I had to drop it. I realized I had no storyline wherein I could weave the needs of the characters into my sci-fi setting. The characters had no needs or goals - unless I supplied it.
I am certainly not beyond gaming. I am not even done with it. But I don't see myself GMing it again until there is a group of people who
need to have their story told - or are willing to die in attempt to tell that story. I also need a group of people interested in exploring the stage I offer. In the last games, it rarely happened that anyone investigated the little hints I threw out, or showed interest in the world itself - it was, "Okay, what happened last time when I missed, and what are we doing now?" And the few times someone was interested in investigating the world, everyone else would throw out reasons why looking over the next hill or under that rock is a bad idea.
Some might blame the system - but to me, the system is irrelevant once the character takes a hold and begins to live. Every time I suggested changing the system, people would say, "No, let's try this a bit longer - we are starting to get used to it." The problem is that no one seemed to be very invested in their actual character - as in personality. D&D3E buries character under a Christmas tree of magic and feats; perfect for making max-minned combat machine.
RuneQuest lets character run free - but few seemed interested in running anything deeper than a shallow shell of a character.
RuneQuest was not good for making a video-game-like combat-machine, however.
Savage Worlds looks like it offers the best of both, but, really, without interesting characters, we may as well be playing a video game or board game.
I find criticism of the system as a reason for not attending somewhat offensive - the world is what it is regardless of system (and I offered several times to change systems and/or house-rule fixes to perceived problems). Characters are who they are regardless of system. I can create versions of any of my classic Inzeladun characters in any of the game systems I might have (or that John could provide), and they would play the same way, reach the same goals, examine the same aspects of who and what I am in the same manner.
I still have worlds within me left to explore, discover, and create - but I really need people who also have those within themselves and are willing to explore, discover, and create alongside with me. Do you stand for something with your character, or are you just the group's token warrior (or wizard or whatever role you fill)? Have you seen "Not Another Teen Movie"? In it is a guy whose only role is to be the token "black guy," just there because the movie needs one. There were too many "token" characters in the last game. Too many.
Before I take up arms and play in an RPG as a player, I need to know that the things I need explored will be explored. I am interested in a superhero game, but only if there are "secret identity" stuff to be done. The best parts of a Spider-Man comic or movie are often the Peter Parker things as he tries to balance heroic responsibilities with life responsibilities; or the times when he has to make sadistic choices. The slug-fest portions actually get dull for me. Same with Superman and Batman. I am concerned that the Superhero games focus entirely on the slug-fest (i.e. dull) parts, with no meat - and no real character.
I prefer the old Superman TV show, where Superman had to solve mysteries. Once he solved it, the resolution was inevitable - he
is Superman after all, and he was fighting human foes. But - could he solve it in time? Could he solve it without causing harm to those he loves? The old TV show knew the fighting portions were boring, so they didn't emphasize that -the same with Wonder Woman, the Incredible Hulk, et. al. The best Superhero tales have only a little fight at the end - the rest of the time they are solving problems and figuring out who they are. In the Hulk TV show, the Hulk only showed up twice per show - and briefly only. The rest of the time, he was David Banner - who was far more interesting to watch than the Hulk - but it was
awesome that he could turn into the Hulk and just knock the snot out of his physical problems. The same with the other heroes. If the game doesn't offer a chance to explore the character, his life, and his goals, then I am not interested. The slug-fest is typically the most boring part.
And that is also where D20 fails - it gets too rules-heavy for the most boring part, and makes it last too long. And the character generation emphasizes combat effectiveness - again emphasizing the least interesting aspect of playing the game.
