I’ve played and GMed FRPGs since 1975, yet I’m sure I’ll never see all the different styles of play that are possible. I describe an immersion-breaking but popular style, “All About Me”, that differs greatly from the cooperative semi-military style.
I’ve played and GMed FRPGs since 1975, yet I’m sure I’ll never see all the different styles of play that are possible. I’ve seen a fair bit of one style lately that I’d like to describe, because it’s so vastly different from the styles I’m accustomed to.
I’m accustomed to RPGs as a more or less military matter, where there’s a war on between good and evil, or at least where the group of adventurers (sometimes religious heroes, sometimes mercenaries) is a group of soldiers that are sometimes on a mission against the enemy, and sometimes on a mission to gather more loot, but always in a military like setting, where if you don’t cooperate with one another you’re going to die sooner or later. I have always used pieces for characters and a movement grid so that geospatial relationships can be illustrated, because group armed conflict is partly slaughter and partly maneuver.
What I’ve seen lately is high school or college aged folks playing what I’ve dubbed “All About Me” fantasy RPG. The emphasis is on the individual actions of the player characters, not on the actions of the group as a whole. Each player wants to do his own thing, run his own story, often showing off to the others. Typically in this situation there’s a lot of customization of characters to begin with. And sometimes the whole group is a bunch of characters somewhere between quite neurotic and psychotic.
Why is this important? Because many people cannot maintain immersion when things get silly. It becomes too obvious that you’re playing a (silly) game, not participating in an adventure. Some people don’t care. I do.
In these circumstances cooperation can be difficult. Typically the GM arranges the game so the players can survive and succeed without cooperating. In one of the recent groups I’ve watched the GM complimented the players because, despite the great diversity and psychological complications of the characters, they did cooperate. (Though I didn’t see much cooperation while I watched.)
What I observed was what you might expect from the situation, that is, several people blurting out what they wanted to do, talking over other people who were trying to say what they wanted to do. Now some people are used to this because that’s the way their families behave, but others are accustomed to people who take their turn speaking and maintain some modicum of politeness. The chaos is not too problematic when there are four players, but when there are eight players it becomes difficult. It’s up to the GM whether he or she does something about this, of course, and this particular GM (who has a stupendous voice and is slightly older than the players at age 23) has not tried to teach the players to behave in a less self-centered manner.
RPGs are about having cooperative adventures, not about one-upmanship, as far as I'm concerned. But Third Edition D&D enshrined one-man armies and showoff characters in the game.
I lay down the law pretty quick about behavior when I GM, but then again, I’m never going to GM this kind of game. To me it’s unreal and unrealistic behavior in a situation where there ought to be a real chance that somebody might die. This is not to say that I require a grim seriousness from players, but the “All About Me” style doesn’t fit with my semi-military notions of what’s going on.
The result in this particular case is a game with not much combat, so much so that there are no actual pieces or figures for the characters and no movement grid – it’s all done by talking. But even in games where figures and grids are used, the game can still mostly be “all about me” in what amounts to a relatively safe environment.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the players are accustomed to single player computer RPGs, where there’s no one else to cooperate with and no one else competing for attention.
As always, this is descriptive, not prescriptive. More next time in Part 2.
This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!
I’ve played and GMed FRPGs since 1975, yet I’m sure I’ll never see all the different styles of play that are possible. I’ve seen a fair bit of one style lately that I’d like to describe, because it’s so vastly different from the styles I’m accustomed to.
I’m accustomed to RPGs as a more or less military matter, where there’s a war on between good and evil, or at least where the group of adventurers (sometimes religious heroes, sometimes mercenaries) is a group of soldiers that are sometimes on a mission against the enemy, and sometimes on a mission to gather more loot, but always in a military like setting, where if you don’t cooperate with one another you’re going to die sooner or later. I have always used pieces for characters and a movement grid so that geospatial relationships can be illustrated, because group armed conflict is partly slaughter and partly maneuver.
What I’ve seen lately is high school or college aged folks playing what I’ve dubbed “All About Me” fantasy RPG. The emphasis is on the individual actions of the player characters, not on the actions of the group as a whole. Each player wants to do his own thing, run his own story, often showing off to the others. Typically in this situation there’s a lot of customization of characters to begin with. And sometimes the whole group is a bunch of characters somewhere between quite neurotic and psychotic.
Why is this important? Because many people cannot maintain immersion when things get silly. It becomes too obvious that you’re playing a (silly) game, not participating in an adventure. Some people don’t care. I do.
In these circumstances cooperation can be difficult. Typically the GM arranges the game so the players can survive and succeed without cooperating. In one of the recent groups I’ve watched the GM complimented the players because, despite the great diversity and psychological complications of the characters, they did cooperate. (Though I didn’t see much cooperation while I watched.)
What I observed was what you might expect from the situation, that is, several people blurting out what they wanted to do, talking over other people who were trying to say what they wanted to do. Now some people are used to this because that’s the way their families behave, but others are accustomed to people who take their turn speaking and maintain some modicum of politeness. The chaos is not too problematic when there are four players, but when there are eight players it becomes difficult. It’s up to the GM whether he or she does something about this, of course, and this particular GM (who has a stupendous voice and is slightly older than the players at age 23) has not tried to teach the players to behave in a less self-centered manner.
RPGs are about having cooperative adventures, not about one-upmanship, as far as I'm concerned. But Third Edition D&D enshrined one-man armies and showoff characters in the game.
I lay down the law pretty quick about behavior when I GM, but then again, I’m never going to GM this kind of game. To me it’s unreal and unrealistic behavior in a situation where there ought to be a real chance that somebody might die. This is not to say that I require a grim seriousness from players, but the “All About Me” style doesn’t fit with my semi-military notions of what’s going on.
The result in this particular case is a game with not much combat, so much so that there are no actual pieces or figures for the characters and no movement grid – it’s all done by talking. But even in games where figures and grids are used, the game can still mostly be “all about me” in what amounts to a relatively safe environment.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the players are accustomed to single player computer RPGs, where there’s no one else to cooperate with and no one else competing for attention.
As always, this is descriptive, not prescriptive. More next time in Part 2.
This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program. You can follow Lew on his web site and his Udemy course landing page. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!
