RPG Philosophization
also see User talk:Jason
Separate Issue
One thing I spoke to Ben about before, and you all can take it or leave it (this isnt an invitation to debate, just an observation) is my opinion why I think there is all this strife. I think its because every time there is a new game no one ever compromises. Instead of deciding on a game and embracing it for what it is, or at least trying to play that game as it is intended by its creator, all the players try to force the new game to be the game they wanted all along. Every game is just a rehash of the last game with new characters and some rules changes. My advice (unsolicited and likely valueless) is to instead of trying to get the characters connected, all of the players should find a connection and embrace it, even if its not your first choice. Make a compromise and an honest effort and see if that works better.
--Edmiao 12:22, 15 July 2008 (MST) i hope we are not having strife on the OAAAA page, my intention was to make some suggestions and I reiterate that i'm all open to compromise. Totally willing to embrace whatever Ben's vision is for the game. Ben, let us know if the suggestions get out of hand.
JASON: I dont mean right now. In fact, my perception is that everyone goes along pretty well in the formulation stages of games. Thats why its a bit of a system shock when the players tug the game in different directions. To reiterate, this is my perception and not necessarily anyone elses.
Gabe: I think it works fine to give the characters an over-all theme/purpose for the game. Sure everyone can have little side projects, but typically you don't want to make it all about one person's goal/quest... unless you roatate whose it is. I'd also say that in our current two games this isn't really a problem.
No offense, but you seem to have the most trouble embracing a game as it is. Or rather, as people play it. Also a game should be fun, so the GM might think one thing is fun and others don't... while I agree we should always try a game, I'd hate for a GM not to be open to input from players before the game starts. That was my mistake with Werewolf, now we gotta a game Dieter has zero interest in. Granted the GM can always be like well.... that doesn't match my vision, but really, I don't think it has been a problem lately.
I've actually made a lot of compermises, I just don't always voice them. I personally do not think we've been playing the same game over and over again.
BEN: I want player input, especially early, and especially in a game which I've already said is in part about using lots of tropes/stereotypes. This is pretty much how the iliadic game went to. Unless it conflicts with something I really want to do, I will very seriously consider all player suggestions.
JASON: Really, that isnt true Gabe. I played the game your way for 3 years, never once did we as a group play a game my way. Every game each player tries to make it their game instead of embracing something new and trying it. A player might have an initial inclination that they dont want something, but if they never actually try it, they will never know (and thats exactly what happens in every game).
Gabe: Wait, whats not true? The game? What game? My way? What is my way??? I've never GMed a game for you. I don't get what your way is. Nor do I think there is a certain way. Each person brings something different to the game, there shouldn't be A WAY, period. But really what is your way then? How are we not playing in that way? Personally I almost always enjoy RPing, but the momemnt someone is like "you are all playing the wrong way, do this" it is no longer fun. Is that "my way"? I think if you need to anylze RPing this much it looses some of its fun, its just a game.
Gabe: Also, I'll be polite this once, but don't tell me that I have or have not made compramises. I know me, you don't, you don't know what goes on in my head or what I'm thinking. You may know a lot about comics, rpgs, math, etc, but not me.
