• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Strange Visitor

Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
This seems remarkably lacking in self-awareness.
Dude, you are the one insisting that Skaorn has to be drafted into something just so that someone you has chosen to identify with can have fun.
This is pure projection on your part.
Given I'd mentioned a specific scenario in the prior post he responded to, I don't think so.
 

Skaorn

Registered User
Validated User
I think there's a miscommunication here. You seem to be thinking of a situation like:

GM: I'm going to run Pizza World as the next campaign.
Player: How dare you? Pizza World is garbage because I can't play a Jedi in it! If you run that shit, I'm shutting this group down!

But AFAICT, what Strange Visitor is talking about is more like:

GM: I'm going to run Pizza World as the next campaign.
Player: Not my cup of tea, but have fun. I'll see you for the one after.
GM: Hmm, that only leaves two players ... not enough. I guess Pizza World isn't happening.

Which is unfortunate, but not unreasonable on anyone's part.
Aside from the fact that I have given a number of specific examples trying to be very specific about what I was talking about, someone deliberately trying to stop a game because they don't get to play their specific thing, the example Strange Visitor was giving ignores something very important. What if the GM who wants to run Pizza World's two other players really want to play the Pizza World? If a player is saying "I'm not into that game, have fun, let me know what you plan on doing after you wrap up Pizza World", then we should have no problem. Instead the scenario we're someone doesn't want to play, doesn't address what I was directly talking about (refusing to play because there are no elves in Pizza World or because Tim already tried to claim the cashier class and that class belongs to them), the game somehow not being workable without them despite interest by all other parties, and yet this person is somehow not behaving in a toxic manner at the same time. I'm sorry, but I see this scenario as someone going "I don't want to do that and you'll fail without me, so we should do what I want to do". I do not see that as healthy.
 

Cerulean Lion

Social Justice Christian
Validated User
I'm sorry, but I see this scenario as someone going "I don't want to do that and you'll fail without me, so we should do what I want to do". I do not see that as healthy.
Is it really the single player's fault if there are not enough other players in the group?
 

Suicide_King

Registered User
Validated User
But do you actually think that the reverse - "Since we need you for this to work, you are now obligated to play it to enable our fun even though you have no interest in it and will likely not enjoy it." is healthy? When you make it so reductive, those are the two options - either play something you won't enjoy to enable your friends' fun or "ruin" their fun by not playing.
 

Lenin

Tolerant Ent
Validated User
When you make it so reductive, [..]
That's why this extended discussion is making my eyes glaze over. It's quite rare (in my experience, YMMV, etc) for things to get so starkly binary in setting up a game. In most, the situation is more of a negotiation: the player wants to play one way, the GM wants to play another way, not necessarily orthogonal to each other, and not necessarily that focused, and the game usually settles into something with a bit of each. It's the co-operative bit of co-operative play.

Saying that, I was in a game a couple of years back which was, or became, an almost purely investigative game, which I think most of the players enjoyed, except for this one guy who got frustrated by the lack of action, went all lone wolf and kidnapped the primary target of our investigation, knocked him out, accidentally broke his leg, tried to pretend to be a fellow kidnappee when he woke up and generally derailed the entire game for that session. He didn't appreciate the other players rolling our eyes and laughing at his shenanigans — he abandoned the team and left all our characters in a different part of the park in the middle of the night, so there wasn't anything else we could do, really, while he was playing this out — and didn't come back after that session. That's really the kind of situation we all want to avoid if we can, I think.

When a player and a GM have incompatible ways of play — or other things — then it's probably best that they don't play together, however they come to that arrangement. Metaphorically chaining either the player or GM to the table isn't going to produce a good game, it's going to produce a bad game, and what do we say about bad gaming in this corner of the internet? "No gaming is better than bad gaming."

So, yeah, if you can't make a quorum for a game because two players don't play well together, do something else.
 
Last edited:

Strange Visitor

Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
Aside from the fact that I have given a number of specific examples trying to be very specific about what I was talking about, someone deliberately trying to stop a game because they don't get to play their specific thing, the example Strange Visitor was giving ignores something very important. What if the GM who wants to run Pizza World's two other players really want to play the Pizza World? If a player is saying "I'm not into that game, have fun, let me know what you plan on doing after you wrap up Pizza World", then we should have no problem. .
It doesn't ignore it; it just notes there can be cases where the player is not deliberately blocking the game, but does so in practice anyway. Which is exactly what I said in my first response on the subject.
 

Vincent Takeda

Chilllin in Rifts Denmark
Validated User
So in Lenin's example, its not 'ruin your friend's fun by not playing, but instead 'ruin your friend's fun by playing, but playing in a ruinous way.'
 

Strange Visitor

Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
That's why this exyended discussion is making my eyes glaze over. It's quite rare (in my experience, YMMV, etc) for things to get so starkly binary in setting up a game. In most, the situation is more of a negotiation: the player wants to play one way, the GM wants to play another way, not necessarily orthogonal to each other, and not necessarily that focused, and the game usually settles into something with a bit of each. It's the co-operative bit of co-operative play.
its not particularly common that players will only play one character type, either, but we're talking about that.
 

Strange Visitor

Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
or worse yet as in Lenin's example, ruin your friend's fun by playing, but playing in a ruinous way.
Honestly, depending on how sensitive you are to such things, even a lack of enthusiasm can be a drag, and I don't think its at all reasonable to expect people to manufacture enthusiasm.
 
Top Bottom