|
RE: This debate says a bit too much about gamer na
Post originally by Minx at 2004-10-12 14:07:30
Converted from Phorums BB System
------------
I'm just saying that most GMs and players are on same page alright, with all the horror stories on it.
------------
Well, if they were on the same page, then there wouldnīt be any horror stories, would there? I canīt see a scenario, where everyone is on the same page an it still turns into a horror story. Either nobody wants to try it, then there is no game and thus no horror story. I they agreed to play and respected the no-go areas, then there canīt be a horror story, or at least no story more terrible than: "Gosh, this was so boring/silly, lets not do this again."
The only way I can think of, where there might be a problem is when, during play, someone sees that he donīt want to have something he thought heīd have no problem with when they all talked about it. In this case, he should tell his fellow players, and game either stops or goes on without the player or the offending [stuff]. Again, no horror story.
---------------
This where most GM's are coming from when they say stuff like "I don't need this crap!" refering to things like the BoEF. Getting everyone's permission to do a sexually themed adventure/encounter is difficult with many peoples pre-concived notions of sex & gaming. And that's with an all male troupe! I for one, if asked, would say no to graphic sexuality in a game especially if I was the GM becuase it's plain creepy. Consider most troupes to be 4-6 particapants and you have better than even chance of someone not wanting sexuality in the game. If the social contract can't be agreed upon, there isn't one.
----------------
I never said that this way of playing is for everyone. If a group doesnīt want to play like that, then it by god shouldnīt, as theyīll have more fun with their normal mode. Also, if the group canīt agree what should be played, then it certainly is better not to play, or at least play without the parts that couldnīt be agreed upon. Again, I donīt see a problem here.
--------------------
My opinion can't be too far off base if WoTC in the end didn't support the BoEF. They printed the BoVD and knew that the were going to draw flack for it but did it anyway. Evil GMs or PCs casuing mayhem was a more accepted more.
--------------------
There are other companies out there with different opinions on the topic. Just because WotC, as rather big company that feeds on the "mainstream", ie. the average gamer, itīs understandable not to support the BoEF. I probably wouldnīt have done so, but I can see their point. Also, as we all know, bloodshed and mayhem is more accepted then romace and sexuality, a notion thats totally alien to me (Which may or may not be the result from the different way american and european society handle these things.) but one that (sadly) is a fact. But that doesnīt really invalidate sexuality in roleplaying games as a style of play for those who want to, does it?
------------------
BTW I'm not a fan social dynamic theories like social contracts. I expect us to do what we and do and those things that go too far never happen once I get to know my players in and out of the game.
------------------
Well, not everyone knows his group in and out, and "social contract" in gaming is simply short for "talk about it, so you can all get on the same page", which I can totally agree with.
M
|