Steve Jackson Games Forums - View Single Post

patchwork · 07-17-2016, 01:53 AM

On one of my rare forays into playing, I and a companion joined a campaign in progress as substitutes after a couple of other players moved or went crazy or something. Not necessarily anyone's fault, but it never worked, because those three had known each other for 20 years and their weekly game was also their primary social time; spending half the session talking about their weeks with one another and gossiping about mutual acquaintances. As the new people, there wasn't any real way to include us in that, not that I think they tried that hard. But if I wanted to spend the day hanging out in a kitchen talking only to my companion, we'd use our OWN kitchen, thank you.

Have had one epically bad one-shot that I actually learned a lot from (while squatting in the flaming rubble trying to determine how to never have this happen again). One-shots are substantially different from campaigns in that pacing is everyone's responsibility, not just the GM's. If, after 6 or 8 hours, the game has not reached any sort of satisfactory conclusion, tough, you all still have to go home now and it will not be revisited later. You should all reckon yourselves at about the halfway poijt when the alloted time is actually half gone. Had one player that fundamentally did not get this. Every GM ruling had to be challenged on the basis of undergrad physics (not even game rules books!), every one of his ideas had to be fully explored and addressed by the GM, every tangent followed to exhaustion. When the game inevitably failed, I and the GM sat silently while every other player literally screamed at him for ruining our game. And I'm very certain he did not think he was the bad guy here. The worst part for me was that he actually seemed like someone I'd want in a campaign (although others that know him better tell me I'm mistaken). He just could not or would not accommodate the mandatory structure.

Am having problems right now, actually. I have one player who is essentially a crunchy bit collector: he's a good guy and a team player, but he approaches it much like a wargame and creates very simple characters and then just seeks ever more power and toys for them. Another player who wants epic drama and roleplaying. And I'm not new at this, running games for over 25 years, this synthesis is fundamental to a lot of groups - except that the rp'er can't let it go OR have an open and honest negotiation. He insists on making some passive-aggressive insult every time Crunchybits proactively searches for loot, or seeks a tactical advantage, or just decides that, while alternatives do exist, lethal violence really is the safest, fastest, cheapest solution to this particular problem. Crunchybits isn't stupid, and naturally part of my campaign is designed with him in mind, so he really isn't (imo) being disruptive, and even is being the better fellow in not responding to provocations across the table. But I'm nearing my wit's end because I don't feel I can afford to lose either of them (they have far and away the best attendance, and the two of them are happy to play nearly anything I want to run, so they're the keepers...)

07-17-2016, 01:53 AM	#11
patchwork Join Date: Oct 2011	Re: Gaming disasters On one of my rare forays into playing, I and a companion joined a campaign in progress as substitutes after a couple of other players moved or went crazy or something. Not necessarily anyone's fault, but it never worked, because those three had known each other for 20 years and their weekly game was also their primary social time; spending half the session talking about their weeks with one another and gossiping about mutual acquaintances. As the new people, there wasn't any real way to include us in that, not that I think they tried that hard. But if I wanted to spend the day hanging out in a kitchen talking only to my companion, we'd use our OWN kitchen, thank you. Have had one epically bad one-shot that I actually learned a lot from (while squatting in the flaming rubble trying to determine how to never have this happen again). One-shots are substantially different from campaigns in that pacing is everyone's responsibility, not just the GM's. If, after 6 or 8 hours, the game has not reached any sort of satisfactory conclusion, tough, you all still have to go home now and it will not be revisited later. You should all reckon yourselves at about the halfway poijt when the alloted time is actually half gone. Had one player that fundamentally did not get this. Every GM ruling had to be challenged on the basis of undergrad physics (not even game rules books!), every one of his ideas had to be fully explored and addressed by the GM, every tangent followed to exhaustion. When the game inevitably failed, I and the GM sat silently while every other player literally screamed at him for ruining our game. And I'm very certain he did not think he was the bad guy here. The worst part for me was that he actually seemed like someone I'd want in a campaign (although others that know him better tell me I'm mistaken). He just could not or would not accommodate the mandatory structure. Am having problems right now, actually. I have one player who is essentially a crunchy bit collector: he's a good guy and a team player, but he approaches it much like a wargame and creates very simple characters and then just seeks ever more power and toys for them. Another player who wants epic drama and roleplaying. And I'm not new at this, running games for over 25 years, this synthesis is fundamental to a lot of groups - except that the rp'er can't let it go OR have an open and honest negotiation. He insists on making some passive-aggressive insult every time Crunchybits proactively searches for loot, or seeks a tactical advantage, or just decides that, while alternatives do exist, lethal violence really is the safest, fastest, cheapest solution to this particular problem. Crunchybits isn't stupid, and naturally part of my campaign is designed with him in mind, so he really isn't (imo) being disruptive, and even is being the better fellow in not responding to provocations across the table. But I'm nearing my wit's end because I don't feel I can afford to lose either of them (they have far and away the best attendance, and the two of them are happy to play nearly anything I want to run, so they're the keepers...)