From: mr_peanut@triryche.UU.NET
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Medieval Pain-in-the-Arse
Date: 17 Nov 1992 08:35:26 GMT
Organization: pretty sloppy, overall
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: triryche.uu.net
Keywords: advocacy, dispute

Since I started this flame war (polite though it is), I'll add my actual
feelings on the subject.  Read and Learn, gentle folk:

In article <1e970oINN3tq@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu>, tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) writes:
|> CX6L@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA writes:
|> >Philip R Hammar writes:
|> >> There is very little that irritates me more, either as a player or
|> >>as a GM than a player whose sole purpose is to have a character, who
|> >>by its very existance, must dominate game play.  

I, at no point, meant to indicate that I "must dominate game play."  Every
player in the game is competing for the "most unusuall character" award 
(entirely subjective and never presented), by creating outlandish characters
which push the limits of the GM's tolerance.  I was cheating, maybe, by
asking for the help of hundreds of gamers on the net.  I would *hate* to
dominate a game, for it would put a great deal of pressure on me to live up
to the standards of entertainment the other participants expect from a
Saturday evening.  I could hardly become a sit-down comedian by merely
having an unbearable character.  I merely wanted an especially creative one.
 
|> In this case in particular, the orignal article was in reference to one
|> who evidently was of the mindset of, "My GM wants to run a historical
|> campaign, I don't want to play it, so I'm gonna join with as screwy a
|> character as I can and trash it so he can run something I like."  This I
|> have no sympathy for.  If the rest of the players are enjoying the game,
|> why attempt to ruin

Again, you've slighted me.  If I didn't want to play in an historical
campaign, why would I ask for suggestions which fit precisely into the
scenario?  I look forward to being subject to different customs from today,
which is the real goal of a frp: feel like you've gone to a different 
world.  In this case, the differences are documented and researchable, 
instead of being created at the whim of the GM.  A historical game brings
the GM closer to the level of the players, as a participant rather than
a ruler.  We can be less afraid of what arbitrary judgement he will make 
next, and concentrate our efforts on becoming a part of the setting.

|> >the GM is just another (small "p") player, and the game is
|> >for the amusement of both the GM and the Players. 

Exactly, Mr. McGill.

|> Also, I will assert that I run for the enjoyment of the players.  I
|> get a vicarious thrill out of seeing them enjoy themselves in a game.
|> I do not run directly seeking my own enjoyment.

I'm not sure what my GM gets out of running a game.  I think it's an
interesting exercise of the combat rules in some cases (e.g.: Shadowrun),
and an attempt to pacify the whinings of the other members of the
group at other times.  We all run and play in turn, and having a
historical game allows much of the work to be spread across everyone,
instead of just the GM.  But, he still gets the glory of running 
a successfull game (and each of the players gets the fun).

|> What follows are various assumptions that I cannot let stand:
|> 
|> >If the GM picks
|> >scenarios that he knows some or all of the players will not be
|> >able to enjoy roleplaying in, it is the GM's obligation to either
|> >drop the scenario or allow a radical departure from what had been
|> >planned! 
|> 
|> No one is denying this.  The given situation is that the player
|> just didn't like the concept, and was not willing to a) run his own
|> game, or b) take it like a mature individual and sit out.  We don't
|> bomb the TV station when a show we don't like is on, and the one we
|> like is coming on in an hour, we wait for it to come on.  At most, we
|> organize campaigns to notify the station of our discontent, but we do
|> not resort to outright sabotauge. (sp?)

Again, you take me for less than I am.  I *do* like the concept, even
though I realize it is being used due to outright laziness. 
Neither do I plan to sabotage a game run by someone who is, in turn, a
player in my game.

|> >I think players *should* be allowed to play bizarre characters:
|> >it is artificial to do otherwise. 
|> 
|> I feel it is moreso artificial to introduce a character solely designed
|> to annoy the referee.  Characters should be consistent with the game
|> world.  They should have some background that ties them with the game
|> itself.  They should not be pot-luck heroes, produced without any thought
|> for the work the referee has placed in the world.

In my case, the referee has placed very little work into his world (aside
from buying several books on the subject).  You do have me right when you
say that my character is intended to annoy the GM.  But that is not his
sole purpose.  If I dedicated myself to annoying him, I could hardly have
any fun of my own.  What I indend to do is show him that running a game
based entirely on history will not free him from all the troubles that a 
GM must always face.  He expects much of the detail to come from our own
reading, and not from his descriptions.  I want to play a character which
there is not a good folklore base for imagining, as he would want.  Running
stereotypical characters allows him the luxury of putting us in
stereotypical circumstances, and adding little to the game.  As we have 
not played yet, I don't know how he plans to keep it entirely interesting.
Rely on the players?

|> I don't know about you, but I enjoy roleplaying to experience the
|> 'realities' of a fantasy world, that the street urchins can die in
|> the cold and wet seasons, when the markets close down.  That women
|> were subject in most genres, that illiteracy was common, and washing
|> after wiping was not even thought of.  I would like to have the 
|> character's experience be as close to the 'reality' of the world as
|> possible ('reality' in this case denoting genre, not 'realism.')  I
|> find it makes for a stronger sense of identity.

Hear Hear!  We *do* agree, you see?

|> >If the GM can't deal with it, it is a sign *he* is a terrible GM.
|> 
|> Final point.  I feel if the GM allows a ill fitting character in, and
|> does not fashion the game or the character to eventually mesh with
|> the other PCs, then that is the sign of a bad GM.  I reject characters
|> on grounds of character interaction.  If it goes contrary to the group
|> and mood I am trying to run, I will say so to the player.

As would my GM to me.  That's why I asked for a character that fit the
rules.  I would pick from the lot, one that fit the feel, and pushed
the GM's expectations.

|> Then again, I do not run games that snare the player first, then change
|> in their feel.  I inform the players of what I am trying to do, and 
|> expect them to help me, not hinder me or blindly insist on thier sacred
|> character conceptions.  Sir, were you to be in one of my games, I fear
|> you will find it to your liking, and such 'constraints' nearly imperc-
|> eptible.

If only my GM could be so skilled. 

Truly Yours (in every grocery in the US):

mr_peanut@triryche.uu.net
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy