Our first foray into Dicing With Dragons generated some interesting commentary, so it’s time for another peek — this time at the idea that every GM reaches a “crisis point” in their gaming.
…the first flush of enthusiasm often fades and the participants may have reached a crisis point in their involvement with the hobby. Three issues seem to hold the key to this crisis…[and they] are believability, interest and balance.
Defined as follows: Believability comes from internal consistency, interest derives from having reasons for what happens in the world and balance is how you approach risks and rewards.
So how about it? Is our favorite 1982 introduction to gaming on track, or way off the mark?
FWIW, I completely spaced about the book and thought you were talking about another blog, i.e. something that’s been written very recently. If not for the line at the end about 1982 and corresponding link to the post about the book, I’d probably still be under that impression.
The definitions for believability and balance make sense, but I think the definition for interest is way off. Interest might be: “Subject matter that draws the players into the game.”
I agree with the author’s point, but I think there is more to it than just believability, interest, and balance. I mean, your GM can be a total bastard, but hit these three things perfectly, and you might start looking for other hobbies.
In my mind interest would be defined as:
“Material that personally motivates the players.”
I think otherwise this is an accurate assesment. Yes, there are other problems that can cause a gaming group to fall to pieces, but they’re liable to destroy things much earlier than when the concern for these comes into play. These are more guidelines for keeping a continuing campaign going.
DWD’s definition of “interest” seems to be awfully close to its definition of “believability” — probably too close for my tastes.
How does everyone feel about the overall argument, though — that every GM faces a crisis point?
I think “crisis point” is hyperbole. Or at least everyone doesn’t get one, any more than everyone “has a mid-life crisis”.
If someone engages in a hobby that sparks a lot of interest, there will be bumps in the road. Enthusiasm for the hobby, energy in general, time available, etc. are not constant. Whether these bumps are minor, significant, or develop into something approaching a crisis will depend mainly on the situation and the individual GM (and even his players).
Ah, the three-legged stool of a cohesive roleplaying experience.
My take is slightly different:
1) Verisimiltude. A $10 word that describes the world, setting, as well as the actual gaming environment provided by the GM.
2) Player buy-in. This is usually were game theorists talk about “social contract” stuff. But basically, it’s the player “interest,” or active participation in the GM’s world and the gaming experience as a whole. Player expectations are also part of the mix.
3) The Rules. How everything plays out mechanically. Even if GM and player do their part, if the rules are unfair, unbalanced or just plain broken, the experience can also be ruined.
The seat the legs hold up is the payoff: Was the game rewarding?
The “crisis point,” though, doesn’t solely depend on these three factors, in my opinion.
Clearly, a failure in any of the three legs will cause the stool to topple.
But even if all three legs are firm, the participant still must deal with outside forces, personality issues among the players, real world obligations, financial constraints, etc.
Participants must weigh the time invested vs. enjoyment gained (the old four hours of gaming for 20 minutes of fun argument). This factor, more than any other, is the true “crisis point” for any rpg participant. But the GM is particularly vulnerable, because they, generally, are making the biggest investment in the enterprise. But the same is true for players as well.
The confusion, for me, stems from what context the above definition for “interest” actually refers. “… interest derives from having reasons for what happens in the world …” Does this mean the (game) world or the (real) world? If the latter, then I think the entire paragraph has more validity. But judging from the above comments, many of us presume we’re talking about interest in the (game) world.
Good analysis, Troy. 🙂
As for the context behind “interest” in DWD, it’s strictly rooted in the game world side of things.
Hi Martin,
I often joke that when people are focusing too hard on surface issues, that they’re, “arguing the length of elf ears”, which is what I feel with DWD’s assessment of the gamer’s crisis.
It’s much more simple than that- first, is the game giving enough fun for the effort put in?
This is a combination of who you’re playing with and the rules you’re playing by. People are willing to put in a little more effort initially for nearly anything, because they expect it to be a bit difficult at first and things to get easier as they master it. If you have to fight the rules or the people at the table constantly, it doesn’t get easier, and it only wears you down.
Second, most rpgs assume a longterm commitment from the get-go. I like eating pasta, but man, I wouldn’t want to eat pasta steadily for a year on end… In the same sense, you might be in the mood for a certain game, after enough time, one or more people in the group might lose interest. Instead of either planning short term arcs that can be switched out from easily, or honestly giving advice to close up and move on, people are expected to trudge through and things will magically get better. People need variety and sometimes a break.