So, those who know me, or have sort of been following along, know that I've been gaming for a while now. You'll also know that I'd become a bit jaded about the whole thing, to the point of nearly abandoning the hobby. Then I stumbled across the works of some brave game designers who questioned, for better or worse, the way gaming has "always been". I was once again hooked, invigorated by the hobby (or at least this subset of it). There were, certainly, a great many excellent ideas being bandied about, particularly if you like the idea of an RPG creating a "story-like" experience. I think many regular-GMs were probably equally excited by the prospect for this very reason, though many of the games did away with "viking hat" GMing (that is, GM with ultimate, godlike authority) and provided a level of transparency and player input that likely appealed to many frustrated players out there. However, much of this excitement and enthusiasm gave way to the zealotry of the newly converted. And I was one of them.
Now, I'm not saying that the message wasn't good and valuable, but like any new devotee armed with soundbite doctrine and tales of unverified miracles, I was trying to apply concepts (that I didn't even fully understand) as a panacea to all of the (gaming) world's problems, real or imagined. However, I'm not one to accept an idea fully on faith, so I sat on the temple steps, and though I rarely contributed to the debates of the learned, I listened. And eventually I realized that, as usual, things aren't simply black or white.
I learned that while a great system can provide structure and inspiration and focus, if the people at the table aren't interested in taking advantage of it, it's meaningless. You simply can't run a game on auto-pilot. Well, you can, but it will be as dull and lifeless as you would expect.
Related to that, the real reward of an RPG comes from what the structure DOESN'T cover, the "fruitful void". Yes, it's corralled by the structure, informed by the inspiration and guided by the focus, but it's the chaotic, creative maelstrom that those things surround (without touching them) that are what make RPGs fun.
And then there is simply the fact that different people want different things, to the point of barely sharing the same hobby. It's like getting some Rugby, Soccer and Football players together for a game and assuming that since it's all field-sports, then it's all the same. After all, it's just endzones and kicking and tackling and stuff, right? I'm sure you can see how that game would quickly devolve into anarchy and arguments. It's like the powergamer, storyteller and immersive roleplayer all trying to play together. The powergamer isn't being a jerk because he's knocking the roleplayer to the ground, and the roleplayer isn't intentionally disrupting the storyteller by wearing a giant helmet and shoulderpads. The problem is that they're all playing different games with different assumptions, expectations and needs.
So, there's not much I can do about the last, short of being clear what the goals and expectations of play are, but I CAN play with creative people and enjoy that place between the rules for the blank canvas that it is.
So that's where I am right now.
Anybody else have a similar experience that they'd like to share? Any questions or insight?
"If you fudge dice rolls, your system is failing you!" -Sons of Kryos
"I genuinely think that some people measure their free will by reading how unhappy their GM is." - TonyLB