HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jan 11, 2012 18:35:59 GMT -8
I've been thinking about something that my friend, coworker, and gaming buddy related to me yesterday. He was one of the players in the Eclipse Phase one shot game I ran (mentioned in this thread), and as all three of my players live in the same general area they all took the train home together from my place after the session. On the ride home, one of the other players remarked "I'm really glad that Wayne (that's me) ran Eclipse Phase, because I wouldn't be able to. Eclipse Phase needs to be dark and messed up, and I just can't run those types of games." I haven't spoken to the player who actually said that yet, so I'm paraphrasing a bit here. But I've been wondering about it, and will pose the question to the group for discussion. If you think you couldn't GM a certain game because the tone and feel of the setting just isn't your style, then could you play in that game?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2012 20:34:01 GMT -8
to answer simply, yes.
you have to look at what gm'ing and playing are when you look at that question. a game with a darker setting requires that the gm make sure that he helps maintain that dark tone as he is running it, it is a lot of work to constantly keep up a feeling of looming dread in a game, or a sense of adventure in another game. if you are able to create the desired mood as a gm then you are right for running it.
a player's job is to react. that makes it easier to play in a darker toned game than in a lighter setting. a player in a lot of ways has to react properly to the gm's ideas and situations, it is a less difficult task to react to a given situation than to create a mood for it. playing in a darker toned game is easier (at least for me) than running it, experiencing the looming dread that a gm creates means i can react in a fitting way to that game's tone.
simply put running a game with a specific tone takes a lot more work, than playing in a with that same tone. some people are just better at that than others when running.
it isn't a bad thing, i suck at running a darker toned game and opt more for running more adventure filled heroic type games, but i can still play in a darker game and keep to what the gm is trying to create with it.
|
|
jpk
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 58
|
Post by jpk on Jan 11, 2012 23:23:32 GMT -8
Yes I can.
In a similar vein, I don't make furniture, but I can sure sit on it. I can't produce television, but I can sure waste time watching it (on my made-by-someone-else furniture). And so on...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2012 5:09:31 GMT -8
I do feel that there are games I couldn't GM that I could play in... but it's much more an issue of mechanics (e.g. that game is too complicated for me to run) than style.
There are games I *wouldn't* GM because of style, that I would be willing to try playing, I suppose. I don't know, I've never given it a whole lot of thought..
|
|
clanhanna
Journeyman Douchebag
The Muffin
Posts: 221
Preferred Game Systems: Storyteller, O.R.E, Mongoose Traveller
Currently Playing: Vampire: The Masquerade, Vampire: The Dark Ages, D&D 5e
Currently Running: Vampire: The Dark Ages
Favorite Species of Monkey: Peanut-buttery Rhesus
|
Post by clanhanna on Jan 12, 2012 8:53:16 GMT -8
For the most part, I like to play in any system or genre I have never played in before, before I try to run a game in that system or genre. As a kinesthetic learner, I don't get as much of a feel for a game just through reading the associated print material; I have to do it.
So there are plenty of games that, at least initially, I could say that I could play in but not GM, yet.
Also, the number of tangents I run off on during a game, I don't know if I could run a convincing horror game. But I'd like to try playing in one.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jan 12, 2012 20:06:19 GMT -8
Well, I hadn't really meant for the "you" in my question to be the individual you, but more of the collective you meaning players in general. Guess I should have made that clearer, but I'll just go with it since so many people have responded in that manner.
Honestly, I'm not so sure. Perhaps I'm just a gigantic snob when it comes to things like tone, but I tend to think that someone who can't grasp the tone and feeling of a setting would have trouble playing in that setting, and even more trouble GMing it. I only have anecdotal evidence to back this up though, which of course will be colored by my own feelings on the subject, and so may not really be valid.
I've been shooting emails back and forth with the player in my group who sparked this discussion, and it's painfully obvious that we don't see eye to eye on the tone of the Eclipse Phase game setting. I see it as essentially being Call of Cthulhu in space, where humanity is doomed despite all it's fancy technology and the best we can hope for is simply a continued existence. Simply surviving is a "win". He sees it as a very positive game, with the technological advancements made by humanity providing hope and equality for everyone. Getting things back to the way they were is a "win". Those are very different takes on the same setting.
Neither way is "wrong" of course. But I think that a PC made by this player would be at odds with the universe of a game I ran, just as a PC I made would be at odds with the universe of a game he ran. Yes, a player could play in this "opposite universe", but could they play effectively? And I don't mean mechanically effectiveness here, but rather would they fit with the rest of the story and setting? There is give and take in an RPG, since it is a collaborative game. But you have to start of the same page, or things could be so mismatched that they cease to work. No one picks up a horror book and then complains that there weren't any rainbows and unicorns in it.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jan 12, 2012 23:17:59 GMT -8
The short answer is yes.
One need not be able to run a game in order to play in it. By the same token however someone might not be able to play a character in a game but be able to do a fine job of running it.
Though there is certainly a great deal of overlap in terms of the skills to gm or play the two are not identical skill sets.
I think that the tone of the game is ultimately more telling here than the system though if someone is not familiar and comfortable with a system they probably should not be running it at least not in a con setting for example. That said, some of us get a kick out of learning and running a new system in a con setting, so maybe i have no idea what I'm actually talking about. I'm not the best person to judge by.
Just my 2 krupplenicks worth, your mileage may of course vary.
JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2012 17:13:56 GMT -8
A player's job isn't to be completely reactive to the GM's world. They're not lumps of clay molded in the GM's style, or the style of the world. You can have the grimmest grimdark world but does that mean every character should be angry or depressed? No, you can still have hopeful characters, noble ones, characters who fall back on humor as a coping mechanism, or any other type of character. The GM's tone or style determines how the world responds/punishes/rewards a character who doesn't perfectly fit in with the way that world works.
Having different outlooks in a group is good. Interesting party conflict isn't between the paladin and thief playing to type, it's between characters who have strong beliefs in the way the world works, and those beliefs are at odds. If those beliefs are at odds with the published setting or the GM's characters or narrative, then I think you get even more interesting conflict, and real drama.
|
|
|
Post by hoseirrob on Jan 20, 2012 8:36:15 GMT -8
No doubt about it. Not all actors can direct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2012 4:03:20 GMT -8
Actually i think that would be better for me. As a DM I find myself thinking stupid things like: Oh i would have put a twist there, or I bet that villain could be be tougher, or this dungeon is too small. I think playing a game you wouldn't be able to GM well could be a cure to most of those
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2012 6:37:18 GMT -8
I have to agree with Sentinel. Your party is not always going to match your setting perfectly in tone and that's a good thing. Without the disparities everything becomes vanilla and gets boring fast. It also gives room for character development and growth as the world can change the characters and the characters can change the world.
As for playing a game I couldn't DM, my personality remains the same regardless of my role as actor or director. So if I can't DM it I probably can't play it because no matter what role I might take on I'm still me and that will come through. I tend to avoid DMing and playing strict horror games because I don't do either well, on the other hand I lean heavily towards pulp in its many genres.
|
|
otherdoc
Supporter
Jim - Yes, THAT Jim
Posts: 84
Preferred Game Systems: AMBER Diceless, Savage Worlds, D&D/Pathfinder, Fiasco, Apocalypse Engine
Currently Playing: N/A (on a hopefully temporary hiatus as a player)
Currently Running: N/A (only con games, at the moment)
Favorite Species of Monkey: Squirrel Monkey (Peru, Ucayali Region)
|
Post by otherdoc on Jan 24, 2012 20:34:43 GMT -8
I think there are things I do well as a GM and things I do poorly as a GM, and there are some games may look to me as though they'd require qualities I don't possess in abundance to run effectively. But I might try playing them.
There are a few games, like Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings RPGs that I don't mind playing, but that I feel like I'd be hard pressed to come up with a good campaign for as a GM. I think it's mostly because I'm maybe too close to the original story and I feel as though the most important things going on in those universes won't be coming anywhere near the PCs. Not that every adventure HAS to be galaxy-shattering, but when I run a game I like the players to feel as though their characters can be significant to the world's overall story. The only way I think I could comfortably run LotR, for example, would be to completely strip out Sauron and replace him with some other villain. But if someone were running a Middle Earth campaign using Sauron, I probably would give it a try because the GM might be capable of doing something I'm not.
|
|