How to Get the Game You Want
No one should feel they have to play in a bad game. I'm sure you've heard the story as often as I have. "I have a crappy DM, but I have to play in his game if I want to play at all." Here are three basic steps to getting the game you want: pick your players, pick your game, set the stage. Get the game you want.
No one should have to play in a bad game. I'm sure you've heard the story as often as I have. "I have a crappy GM, but I have to play in his game if I want to play at all." It's one thing to decide it's too much work to put together the ideal game, that's understandable. It's quite another to think there's no other choice.
The most important step in putting together a good game is to get good gamers. Don't game with people you wouldn't otherwise socialize. Gaming is, after all, a social activity. If you're invited to join a group of people you don't know, get to the first session on time, and stay a little late afterwards. Make small talk while you're waiting for the game to start, during the breaks, and afterwards. Make friends. If you find that you can't make the social connection, or if the people rub you the wrong way, consider finding another group.
It may seem callous to disinvite someone, but a poor social fit is going to do more harm than good.
If you're pulling together a group for the first time, arrange to meet anyone you don't already know before the day of the game. Chat about what you like about RPGs, current events, anything that feels comfortable. Again, make friends; if you can't, consider holding back that invitation. It may seem callous to disinvite someone, but a poor social fit is going to do more harm than good.
When considering who to include in the game, play style is a very important consideration. Does this person strongly prefer first-person over third-person play? Does he find the interpersonal parts boring, something to wait through to get to the action? Does he value a character with a rich backstory over one with optimized stats? None of these styles are any better than another, objectively, but incompatible styles around the table will decrease the fun for everyone.
Sometimes it's hard to find compatible players for face-to-face games, not just because of the small population of players, but also because of the limited channels of communication for finding them. Modern technology has eliminated most of these problems, and believe it or not, there are more people playing RPGs on a regular basis now than there ever have been. There are also dozens of options for online play... message boards, instant messengers, IRC, MUDs, and proprietary software provide opportunities of play for a wide variety of tastes. They also allow you to easily overlook some of the problems that face-to-face games engender. On the internet, there's no B.O., no nosepicking, no crimes against fashion.
Play style isn't just an aspect of a player. Rulesets also have styles, too. There are games, like Primetime Adventures, where a whole action scene is decided from one roll of the dice, and there are others, like Dungeons & Dragons, where it takes dozens of rolls to resolve a fight. Picking a ruleset to use that fits the play style of the players is almost as important as picking the players. You don't want to be three sessions in, and thinking, "You know, this game would be a lot more fun if we had used GURPS."
Last, it's important to lay out groundrules and houserules before play starts rather than after. If the GM has a series of urban adventures planned, he needs to tell the players before Jim spends three hours crafting the perfect druid. If the group wants to impose restrictions on metagame talk and out of character movie references, then everything will run smoother if it's understood up front. If the GM is permitting free multiclassing, Joe will feel cheated if he only finds out about this after having spent all of first level with a human character in order to get this benefit.
The importance of consensus in this process can't be understated. Every game has a social contract, but if the important aspects of it are negotiated up front, there's a lot less acrimony when it gets enforced. Sometimes the consensus boils down to, simply, "What the GM says, goes.", but if that's the social contract, a lack of consensus on it will create friction sooner or later. Some groups find a formal method of resolving disputes quickly, such as a majority vote or negotiated veto power, gets groups through the hurdles of actual play a lot faster.
Pick your players. Pick your game. Set the stage. Get the game you want.
- Login to post comments
very well said, vaxalon.
i'll be considering your words now that I'm trying to set up a game.
...anyone for gaming near Haifa (look it up)?
- have mercy on the newbie -
I agree for the most part, but when it comes to being able to pick and choose which players you choose to game with... Well thats all well and good if you live in an area that has plenty of gamers available to pick and choose from. However, many people (myself included) live in areas that have maybe 10 gamers per 10 square miles. This makes the above concept of choosing players a little more difficult. If you can find three or four people who actually enjoy playing the same system and/or setting... you gotta either make due with what you can find... or dont play.
Your points are well made, Vaxalon. Gaming is supposed to be fun, and it's not fun to play with people who make you uncomfortable. I'd personally rather not game at all than play with people who are unpleasant. But sometimes it's easier said that done.
A friend of mine recently ran into trouble with the issue of "disinviting" someone. We all play together in other games, and he'd decided to GM something new. Then one of the players he invited committed an act in another game that made him realize their styles weren't going to mesh very well. He considered dropping the new campaign altogether rather than tell this player that he couldn't come. Ultimately one of the player's own personality quirks worked in the GM's favor: the player doesn't like to travel far from home. So the GM moved the location of the game to one that the player refused to travel to. A bit underhanded, perhaps, but it was easier to use a little subterfuge than risk hard feelings.
You did see that I covered the topic of being unable to find compatible players nearby, I hope.
Briefly, but internet play isn't for everyone, myself included. Apart from style differences, many places don't have decent speed cheap internet, a fact which I find many netizens, myself included, often forget.
You could say "well, you're reading this you obviously have net access", but what about this friend of mine who's a perfectly nice guy/gal, our play styles just don't mesh but they don't have regular 'net access, I'd like to help hir find a suitable local group?
So a bit more work on "ways to get the best out of a mediocre face-to-face game" might be called for.
MArsden
That really depends on what you mean by "get the best out of a mediocre face to face game"... get the most enjoyment out of it, or take a mediocre group and make them into a good group?
Most enjoyment. Making a mediocre group into a good group is a lot of work with no guarantee of success, and you're likely to put yourself off gaming even more.
IME it's only a worthwhile endeavour if members of the group are actually interested in flexing their styles, usually relative newbies :)
MArsden
"Enjoyment" is such an individually variable thing (a point I made in my article) that I couldn't hope to provide advice on it.
I guess someone could try to learn to like the style of the group they find themselves in... most folks find that pretty tough.
Well said. It is a game and games are played to have fun. If you're not having fun then perhaps you should do something different.
-----
Great article Vaxalon. Considering that I'm starting up my next game soon this came about just at the right time. Thanks!
You're quite welcome.
Let us know how it turns out, please.
I like what you've said here, but I've always approached it in a different way. Aside from basic things (like finding out whether the other players intend to smoke, drink, or play while high on something) that I can't live with, I don't really try to get to know the players.
As a player, I just try to find a GM that can run a decent game. If I like the GM's style, authority, world, gamesystem, etc., I tend to find that the players will follow suite and I will have a good time.
As a GM, I try to get with a new player at least once or twice to find out what in the game would interest them the most. I don't socialize much beyond that for a couple of sessions or more. I'm not into gaming to make friends (although that is almost enevitable in a decent or better gaming group), I'm here to have fun playing the game.
To put it another way: I don't have to like the other actors or actresses in the show as long as I can like and respect the writer/director. The show will go on regardless. If the director is up to the job, then the show will be a good one.
Of course, I do acknowledge that some personalities just don't mix. I personally cannot play with someone (player or character) who is immature or silly. Other people can't play with someone who is too serious and realistic.
"Last, it's important to lay out groundrules and houserules before play starts rather than after. If the GM has a series of urban adventures planned, he needs to tell the players before Jim spends three hours crafting the perfect druid. If the group wants to impose restrictions on metagame talk and out of character movie references, then everything will run smoother if it's understood up front. If the GM is permitting free multiclassing, Joe will feel cheated if he only finds out about this after having spent all of first level with a human character in order to get this benefit."
I beg to differ here in one regard. This should be first, not last. I think that this is the absolute most important thing to do before starting a game. Well before character creation or anything else is started. It is vital that the players understand what kind of game the GM is going to run well in advance of the game actually being played. Playing Cyberpunk requires a comepletely different mindset and thought processes than a Fantasy world or an Old West campaign. I cannot begin to imagine what character creation would be like without it.
By the way, thanks for the Gurps reference. It put warm fuzzy feelings deep into the cockles of my heart ;-)
"You can do anything that you set your mind to when you have vision, determination, and an endless supply of expendable labor."
I dunno. I've done it both ways and have to say that I prefer playing with folks I know. The game just seems to flow better if I'm with friends.
I understand the analogy with actors and professionals...but, how many "professional" role-players does anyone really know?
Actually you'd be surprised. I've played with a group of gentlemen who have run games at Genghis Con, Dragon Con and others as well as knowing and testing for the likes of Steve Jackson, Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, and more. These men started playing in the dawn of roleplaying and each of them had over 25 years experience. I think the youngest was in his late 40's and the oldest was nearing 60.
The funny, yet sad, part of this is that they were some of the most immature, childish, and silly roleplayers that I have ever had the misfortune to roleplay with. These proffesional and semi-proffesional roleplayers were lame.
I gave them as best as I could, both as a player and as a GM. Nothing worked. I dropped the group and started a new one with people who had experience (the most experienced had been playing for 15 years) and complete newbies. My new group had men and women, young (23 years) and older (48 years), with people who had played D&D, GURPS, and other games. This group rocked. I still play with these people in different groups 8 years later.
The point is that you don't have to be a proffesional. You don't have to start off being friends, although I admit it makes things easier if you do. You don't even need to start off with people who know how to play. All you need are people who want to play. People with similar ideas about how to play and similar stories that excite them.
That proffesional group that I played with were proffesionals for a reason. They got paid to roleplay and to test new products. I even liked them as people. I just couldn't stand playing with them.
I don't think that you have to be friends or proffesionals to have a great game. I just want people to try to put more effort into the Role aspect of roleplaying.
"If the boot fits, kick somebody."
This is good advice and I've enjoyed reading both the article and the comments. Like a lot of Gamegrene articles, this one makes me want to game. :-) I'm still struggling with two problems. One is that I have a group of people with whom I would feel comfortable gaming, but we can't get our schedules together. The other is that I'm not good at gaming, so I don't want to join a pre-existing group that's just about to start a new game and end up annoying everyone.
The other is that I'm not good at gaming, so I don't want to join a pre-existing group that's just about to start a new game and end up annoying everyone.
I know a few gamers who are very snobbish about 'newbies,' and who get very high-and-mighty about people wanting to join their games - especially women. One of them even said to me: "I just can't imagine having a good experience with women at the table." The irony of it, to me, is that these guys aren't very good role-players. If I were a woman, I wouldn't game with them if I got paid to do it - hell, I'm a man, and I quit their table after one campaign.
I do a lot of GMing. Some of my best experiences in role-playing have been with newbies, and - you guessed it - with women. A newbie has fewer preconceptions about how to play, and often jumps into character whole-heartedly. Sure, trying to grasp the game mechanics can be a challenge, but I find most experienced players are willing to help advise the newer ones and bring them up to speed. I wouldn't play with people who were jerks to the new players - that would be one way to get booted right off my table.
Now, I have the "luxury" of running multiple campaigns. I get to pick and choose my players, and I get to state my ground rules authoritatively. I realize not everyone is so lucky as to be able to kick out a problem player without demolishing a campaign.
All the same, my advice to you, Felicity, is this: play with friends, or at least people you would otherwise hang out with. Don't let your inexperience discourage you - there's only one way to gain experience, and that's to dive right in.
Amen.
Especially regarding the bit about snobbish players tending to be the worst.
And agreed that some of the best moments come from "newbie" players 'cause they have all of this energy and imagination that seasoned players don't often have anymore.
I wish I could back up the woman thing. I agree that it *should* be true, but I have yet to have a good gaming experience with a female at the table. Luck of the draw I suppose.
I certainly encourage women to try playing, tho.
It may "help" matters that nearly everyone in both my gaming groups is married. In one of my campaigns, I have two married couples sitting at the table together. Therefore, unwanted (i.e., real-life) sexual tension between players is virtually non-existent. Nobody's got an agenda, other than to play the game and have a good time.
Ah...there's the rub.
In the past, I've been burdened with guys bringing their girlfriends into the game...and, confess, that I myself was guility of this during high-school. Thus, there was always those real-life sexual tensions in the air...one girl I knew tried to convince a half-drow assassin to become her boyfriend...so...
The only non-girlfriends who came to Game Night were always girls who wanted to be girlfriends, so...
And, it's been about 12 years since we've tried to incorporate the opposite, non-married sex into our games...so, we still have a younger, slanted view.