That question is:
"Does an individual player (or GM) have any obligation or responsibility to recognize the preferences of the majority of players when they game?"
This question is too vague and empty to give an accurate or precise answer without filling in the holes with one's own assumptions.
The first problem is with the first word "does." Does X have obligation/responsibility...obviously not, because people can and have played the game while being wholly unaware of their fellow players and even much of the GM's "fluf" information and only see the combat scenario as a complex game of multi-player chess. So, it would be better to start with something more concrete like, "Does it make for a better role-player if an individual player (or GM)..."
What does 'obligation to recognize' or 'responsibility to recognize' even mean? At best it's 'a requirement of one's self to be conscious of' and says nothing more. In other words it says, "Does it make for a better role-player if an individual player (or GM) is aware of..." But this still doesn't say anything about how to act on this awareness if at all. Recognizing or being aware of something doesn't carry with it any meaning for how one should use that recognition or awareness. So an addition to the original question should be added, something on the lines of "...when they game and work to use that knowledge to incorporate and weave their own preferences into that of the individuals in the group?"
But of what? Of "preferences." This is, to me, assuming a whole blanket of ideas because no specific ideas are given. So it's game tone (comedy, horror, high-adventure), character build (role-playing emphasis, combat emphasis, middle-road emphasis), game-setting, and so on. Being more specific as to what exactly is meant by 'preferences' in this case would be helpful.
Another problem is the use of "majority" in relation to "when they game" which specifically implies "during the game/at the table" and not in forums, conventions, etc. But what are we talking about here...we're talking an average group of about 5 people. So the table could be split nearly in half on a subject and the 3 would be the majority. And on the flip side...the original question seems like it would be just as justified in asking "Does an individual player (or GM) have any obligation or responsibility to recognize the preferences of the minority of players when they game?" as well as asking about the majority. But in using majority/minority it automatically sets up an us-vs-them cloud of ambiguity.
From what I can tell, then, the question should be re-written to something like:
"Does it make for a better role-player if an individual player (or GM) is aware of the character-styles and role-playing preferences of their fellow players (including the GM) and work to use that knowledge to incorporate and weave their own preferences into that of the other individuals in the group??"
To which I would answer, yes. But of course, that's my interpretation of what the original question is trying to ask.
From what I can tell, then, the question should be re-written to something like:"Does it make for a better role-player if an individual player (or GM) is aware of the character-styles and role-playing preferences of their fellow players (including the GM) and work to use that knowledge to incorporate and weave their own preferences into that of the other individuals in the group??"
To which I would answer, yes. But of course, that's my interpretation of what the original question is trying to ask.
This is pretty much why whenever I assemble a new group I try to handpick people that appear to be on the same page to begin with. If I'm advertising the game online, for example, it's not going to be the first four people to reply that get in, it's going to be the first four people I feel I can build a good game with, and I tend to be very up front about the playstyle requirements in order to avoid people getting disappointed at being rejected. If I can ensure we're mostly compatible playstyle-wise, then the minor differences tend to be a lot easier to iron out in play.
My own answer for me is simple: if I'm doing something that hurts others, I should NOT do that anymore.
The premise of this thread is who's fun comes first at the gaming table. My counter would be: I have fun when OTHERS are having fun, not in spite of them. In other words if my fellow gamers are having a sucky time, I have an active desire to fix that.
I've always thought this was an inborn human instinct that most people have. I also (naively) believe everyone is basically good. I haven't yet grown so cynical as to think that people are selfish or cruel and only do nice things for others so they can get things.
Sometimes I fail at this. Sometimes I run a crap game that I thought was awesome; sometimes a player comes to me with a problem and I tell that player its on them, not me. I'm no saint and I don't claim to be. But when push comes to shove I'd rather chuck a game and fall on my sword rather than intentionally cheese off a fellow gamer at my table.
Again, I just naturally assumed this of everyone I game with. I'm throwing this into the universe: please validate my beliefs.
My own answer for me is simple: if I'm doing something that hurts others, I should NOT do that anymore.
Alas, humanity isn't full of Mark Hoovers, and there's a disturbing propensity for us to revert to a "this is what I want to do, screw everyone else, you're not the boss of me" attitude. I'm not just talking about gaming, obviously :)
Of course, there's also the problem of what happens when stopping something that hurts one person hurts another person, where you draw the line at who you want to avoid hurting, or what happens when three people want one kind of game and the other three want another and are at odds with one another on how to do it. Still, the attitude you've expressed above (even when, as you say, good intentions don't result in such a good outcome) would solve a lot of the problems we tend to see on the boards.
|
My own answer for me is simple: if I'm doing something that hurts others, I should NOT do that anymore.
The premise of this thread is who's fun comes first at the gaming table. My counter would be: I have fun when OTHERS are having fun, not in spite of them. In other words if my fellow gamers are having a sucky time, I have an active desire to fix that.
I've always thought this was an inborn human instinct that most people have. I also (naively) believe everyone is basically good. I haven't yet grown so cynical as to think that people are selfish or cruel and only do nice things for others so they can get things.
Sometimes I fail at this. Sometimes I run a crap game that I thought was awesome; sometimes a player comes to me with a problem and I tell that player its on them, not me. I'm no saint and I don't claim to be. But when push comes to shove I'd rather chuck a game and fall on my sword rather than intentionally cheese off a fellow gamer at my table.
Again, I just naturally assumed this of everyone I game with. I'm throwing this into the universe: please validate my beliefs.
Sorry, I've met a bunch of a-holes like that throughout my gaming days. Players and GMs alike. Most of them had that "screw you i do what i want" attitude that instantly rubs me the wrong way. Needless to say, I don't game with such people.
My current group is great. Everyone is concerned about everyone else's fun.
I've only played with one player in my time as a player or GM that I would consider in the "my fun comes first" category, and he and I had a long and difficult talk about it. He eventually agreed to game our way at our table and was a great team contributer. When he moved away he said our games were the most fun he had played.
I've had the misfortune to game w/several "selfish" gamers. However I've had more team players than self-centered folks, helping to foster my own beliefs. As I've illustrated in this thread, I'm not blameless in bad behavior. I can say though that this is one of the joys of being a GM instead of a player; the action of the role sort of lends itself to being concerned for the others at the table.
I strongly agree with AD & Mark Hoover on this particular topic.
The GM has a responsibility to the group first and the individual second. His job is, very much, to "feed the fun-factory".
The group has a responsibility to help each member integrate into the dynamic and to help each other find niches and roles to play into as well as to use their characters as "sounding boards" for the other PC's to play off of.
The individual is responsible to actively search for a way to both contribute to the other players fun in a meaningful way as well as to help others find ways for him to do the same.
Everything about Pathfinder is geared towards the group over the individual. That is what makes this game so vastly superior to every previous one of its incarnations in my opinion. An adventuring party was always meant to equal more than the sum of its individual parts. This is the one all-pervading trope of every fantasy story not based on the lone-wolf or anti-hero plot lines.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You forgot one. The group has a responsibility towards the GM.
Heh, as a professional PM I can assure you that groups cannot have responsibilities. Only individuals can.
Every individual in the group has a responsibility to attempt to cooperate with every other member of the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every individual in the group has a responsibility to attempt to cooperate with every other member of the group.I wish more people understood this.
I always try and look at it as whether a player is giving fun and energy to the group, or sucking it out of it for themselves.
If everyone tried more to ensure everyone else had fun, they'd find everyone else was feeding fun back at them in return. When people go in with their aim being to obtain fun for themselves, then you end up with everyone pulling from the group instead of feeding it.
Players need to be more entertainer, and less audience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players need to be more entertainer, and less audience.
Seconded. I try to tell my own players this or a version of this when I start a new campaign. If I wanted an audience to tell a story to, I'd read to my girls. When I run a game I require participants, not spectators. In return I promise to be open and responsive to the efforts and motivations of my players. Its a simple social contract but it works most of the time.