Playing in the band

I am not the first to liken role-playing to playing in a band (I think that honor might go to the Chaosium crew, in a later version of RuneQuest). But the metaphor stands up extremely well, especially when I consider the perennial cry of someone reading Sorcerer or similar games for the first time: But what do I do?

This question always strikes me as weird. After all, imagine a guy walking into a music store and buying a guitar and a book or tape explaining blues chord-progression, then standing around in the store saying, But what do I play? There isn't much to tell this guy, is there? Maybe one could say, Listen to the good stuff, play your own stuff, make sure you get good folks to play with. Yet when it comes to RPGs, more seems to be required in some people's minds: they want a note-by-note, all-laid-out song to play, or story to run.

I find this attitude nearly incomprehensible. Role-playing is yours. It's you. "Demon" means something specific to you. "Humanity" means something specific to you. Meaningful drama arises out of those somethings, especially in the interactive, narrative environment of a good role-playing session. It can+IBk-t be pre-programmed into this medium with an elaborate canonical sourcebook and lists upon lists of NPCs or weaponry. To return to the music analogy, that is karaoke, which I guess is a kind of music, but in my estimation hardly something to aspire to, or to consider to be the "most complete" kind.

Sorcerer and its supplements are just like that guitar and a little how-to book on chord progressions. The art itself, of which others will say, "That is yours," must arise out of your own efforts and vision.

Pick up a modern RPG, and what do you see? Fifty pages of back-history, an elaborate time-line, passages of fiction (I use the term loosely), and all sorts of delving into various NPCs' personal philosophies. This is not quality RPG design and publishing; this is a scam to part you from lots of money in exchange for high-production white noise.

People who publish RPGs, in the traditional sense of book-publishing, are not interested in your role-playing experience. They have to get the product bought by retailers. And retailers are interested in profit-margin per unit. Does this sound paranoid to you? It isn't. A retailer has hefted Big Eyes, Small Mouth at me, saying, See, this one's too light. After it sells, I'm not ordering any more copies. These people, not the customer base, are what drive traditional-book RPG commercial success.

Emancipate yourself from the current slavish, consumer dependency on sourcebooks and complex background material. Consider what Bang you get per buck, and how much actual role-playing you are capable of doing instead of reading transcriptions of others+IBk- role-playing experiences. (Granted, there are a few excellent, challenging games with elaborate book-libraries, mostly from Chaosium, like Call of Cthulhu, Pendragon, and Nephilim. Not many, though.) Check out some slim, high-impact game with a great premise and a DIY attitude: Puppetland, Ghost Light, Zero, Swashbuckler.

Think it's easy? Hell no. You gotta suffer before you can sing the blues. Some of your friends will resent the fact that you spend one-eleventh of their RPG budget and have more fun. The retailer will stop treating you like his meal-ticket, excuse me, like his pal. You will lose that cool insider-status from reading about and discussing the latest hot new game and who joined what other company, or demonstrating your detailed knowledge of intricate game mechanics.

But you'll be role-playing - a lot! - and your art will be your own.

RAN HARDIN:
Hmmm... this is almost like 2 separate afterwords glued together. One is the "RP as playing in a band" analogy, and the other is a rant concerning contemporary RPG design. It's not that one doesn't segue to the other; it's just that I think the analogy is a more insightful read for the Sorcerer. player. As it stands, it comes off looking like a just a prelude to the rant.

My suggestion is to expand on part 1, and save part 2 for something else.

Now, all of the above must be taken with a pinch of Morton's, because I've never really been clear on what an afterword is for. My question is "what's the point?" -- and not as a criticizing rhetorical question, but really: what do you want to accomplish. I know it sounds like Comp. 101 rhetoric to ask about Purpose, but I'm asking anyway.

RON EDWARDS:
Guilty. Either I'll expand on the first and nix the second, as suggested, or break'em into sub-sections like I did in the Sorcerer afterword.

>... I've never really been clear on what an afterword is for. My question is "what's the point?"

Good point. Couple things: (1) yes, it may be considered plain old editorial space, and God knows it's a point I want to shout loud and clear these days. (2) Or more structurally, an "umbrella point" for the whole supplement, that is, what the supplement fits INTO and therefore can't be IN (part of) the supplement.

Best I can do in terms of why have the damn thing. But for some reason I find it more satisfying to have it there, when I put myself into the hypothetical-reader position.

Raven's post got lost here. That is so annoying.

RON EDWARDS:
Raven was writing in response to my comments about comparing role-playing with being in a band.

>This is an important issue! Not so much, "What do I do?" but "What can I do with this?" or more accurately "Where do I fit in?" ...

>Unfortunately, I've noticed that unless you are really lucky, your band sucks. ... I'm not talking so much storyline-development/campaign-plot development as character/party development! ...

>Another way to restate the questions, linking them together: What skills do I have and how do those skills fit with/interact with the rest of the groups'?

What do we all want out of this as a whole and will doing that make me happy?

My thoughts on this are as follows: all of the above is true. But for some reason, if I'm in a band, I KNOW this is a major issue, and I expect all the other members to know it too, and part of getting together explicitly requires us to resolve these questions. Anyone who can't hack this is out the door -- no matter how talented, no matter how close friends you are, no matter who's sleeping with whom, no matter whether you're related, or what.

However, in role-playing, I look around me, and I see that again and again, people say: "Toby's a total pain in the ass, he can't role-play, girls can't stand to be near him, and every group self-destructs or at least bogs down, or can't break the munchkin paradigm, largely because he's there .... BUT..."
"But Toby's been RPing with me since we were in sixth grade"
"But Toby's my sister's boyfriend"
"But Toby can be counted on to be there every session"
"But Toby lives for RPing and this is the only group he can play with"
... and so on.

I trust my point is implicit, but let me spell it out: if Tobe were in a band, he'd be out the door, and none of the above excuses would be tolerated. Just plain not invited any more. If any one band member felt too loyal to him, that guy would be out the door too. Why don't we (you, me, anyone on this list, our friends) act like this regarding role-playing?

And in fact, I do. It was literally liberating, years ago, simply to stop letting people play with us JUST BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO. Nope, nope, I said, got all my players, not interested. Although then, if someone came along who was a good candidate for joining, they were welcome. Double standard? Not really -- just a standard, period.

The best part is that word-of-mouth moved pretty fast, and once good stories, good RP sessions became usual for our group, the like-minded players elsewhere heard about it and started asking to be involved. Pretty soon I had (and have) some of the most enviable groups I know of, specifically in terms of our commitment to making every single session really worth our time.

>I've been the unfortunate victim of the latter in my current gaming group. I know I want something different out of the campaign than the others do; however, I also know the DM wants something specific out of the game, and our "goals" in this category match.

So: you and this DM guy -- just decamp. Quit inviting the others. Find one more person who's at least interested in playing more intensely. The three of you play. Do small-combo for a while, get into it. As for the others ... all disappointed? Resentful? Betrayed? Mad 'cause you think you're too good for them? Yeah. Probably.

>For a gaming group to work well, everyone needs to know the basics, not mechanics-wise, not world-wise (unless that is one of the methods towards the goal!), but "How are we doing this?"-wise. And since you can't really play RPGs by yourself effectively, this might mean a little give and take...or rather learning to harmonize the melody.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's not a matter of being dogmatic of "my way or don't play," but rather of being musician/RPer enough to get together and jam. These other folks we're talking about are NOT PLAYING (in either sense, music or RP). They're present. They're interacting. Isn't that good enough? NO! Think about it like a jam session -- if you're not keeping up to the task, you're just plain in the way.

An interesting side point: sometimes the best players, in the sense Raven describes above, are NOT the most experienced, hard-core gamers. By "experienced," many gamers mean "familiar with all the rules." But if we're using systems like Sorcerer, the Window, Over the Edge, Zero, or many similar RPGs, that's no longer an issue. I've found the best candidates are often the quiet, tolerant, mildly dissatisfied members of other groups ... they like RPing, but they aren't too happy where they are, they sense that there's more potential here somehow.

RAVEN:
>I trust my point is implicit, but let me spell it out: if Tobe were in a band, he'd be out the door, and none of the above excuses would be tolerated. Just plain not invited any more. If any one band member felt too loyal to him, that guy would be out the door too. Why don't we (you, me, anyone on this list, our friends) act like this regarding role-playing?

Indeed!! Why don't we?

Perhaps it is because we think, "If we kick Tobe out, we'll be down a player! Where are we gonna find another one?" or perhaps it is because we have a subconcious perception of ourselves as outsiders and brothers-in-arms and since Tobe is one of our 'subculture', "he's like, ok," even if he can't play worth crap.

Both of these are hogwash, though!

Nowadays you can't throw a rock without hitting a gamer, let alone a potential gamer. And gamers are easier to find than musicians, yet all the bands I know manage to find enough GOOD musicians to fill them out. Yet we settle for so-so or crappy gamers.

Brothers-in-arms?

Let me share a related story: I'm an outsider, religiously. Admidtedly, it has been trendy for a number of years to call oneself a witch or Wiccan, so I can find them wherever I go fairly easily. Wait, wait! Does that mean I want them in my Circle with me?

Exactly.

Brothers-in-arms or not, misplaced loyalty is not a good thing. I know a couple drug-dealers who game; do I want these guys in my group? Even if one of them is an *excellent gamer?

Exactly.

>So: you and this DM guy -- just decamp. Quit inviting the others. Find one more person who's at least interested in playing more intensely. The three of you play.

I'd be willing, he'd never do it. For the very reasons you gave above, "But, they're my friends! I've known them for years!" He's a wimp when it comes to players, even bad players. I admit, I am as well, though less so now than in the past.

>Do small-combo for a while, get into it. As for the others ... all disappointed? Resentful? Betrayed? Mad 'cause you think you're too good for them? Yeah. Probably.

They can bite me. We ARE too good for them.

Frankly, I know one of the players would scream all that, have a fit, get snobby and crabby and bitchy...but how utterly predicatable and immature. Unfortunately, just like the majority. Thus, you can't avoid it; and whose problem is it? Really?

>I've found the best candidates are often the quiet, tolerant, mildly dissatisfied members of other groups ... they like RPing, but they aren't too happy where they are, they sense that there's more potential here somehow.

Actually, one of my two best players has little experience with table-top RPing; she's an excellent role-player and constantly impresses me with her character's depth.

The other isn't even old enough to drive yet, but...well, there's a reason I kept him in my group despite the relative difference in ages between he and the rest of us. Without any prompting, he creates parts of the gameworld without trying to take over the gameworld, he naturally found that fine line between addition and creation. He sends me ideas between games, asks questions about things like religious festivals, local history and personages, colleges or other institutions, coinage, important streets and so forth during the game and then HE USES THE KNOWLEDGE!

I WANT those kinds of players. I want players that look at me and tell me things *I didn't know about *my world that work because they paid attention, or who give a crap about the stuff they didn't know beyond the immediate context of the game session.

Hell, players who give a crap about the story-line itself make me happy, as I've unfortunately had the experience of players who don't care and don't bother putting two and two together...content to drift through the session acting out this alternate personality, every session.

Personality isn't the only thing that makes a good character. I've seen plenty of forgettable characters with well-developed personalities simply because there are only so many ways to play an Introverted-Empathic-etc. Characters do not exist inside a vaccum. Don't play them as though they do.

One of the most memorable characters ever was an anti-hero played in my last campaign...and he wasn't played particularly well, in that he didn't jump out as seperate from the player or particularly emotion-filled or have a lengthy history, but in that he was a selfish drunk defector from the frontier and he was *played like a selfish drunk defector from the frontier.

And again, one of the best tales from that same campaign was the tale of a young knight who didn't even last one whole session. Character had no history, no preset personality, nothing that is typically thought of as necessary for "a good character."

That knight went down fighting for king and country, and damnit if he wasn't played that way. And we remember him going down fighting for king and country.

I had the chance to resurrect that campaign, using the same characters, different players. The players were excellent players of personalities, but...well, the evening was forgettable. There were well-developed personalities aplenty, but...well, that's all there was...oh yeah, there was this quest. And that's the way it was played.

Very forgettable.

In gaming, what happens to you is at least as important as what happens in you. After all, without that murder mystery to solve and those demons to fight, all you are really doing is playing dress-up with paper dolls...nothing important.

Imagine trying to write a movie around that!

Stuff must happen, you must react to stuff, that stuff must be your *focus, or it simply turns into a psychological exploration of personality types, nothing more, and it must be more to have real meaning in any sense.

RAN HARDIN:
> Very forgettable.

> In gaming, what happens to you is at least as important as what happens in you. After all, without that murder mystery to solve and those demons to fight, all you are really doing is playing dress-up with paper dolls...nothing important.

> Imagine trying to write a movie around that!

> Stuff must happen, you must react to stuff, that stuff must be your *focus, or it simply turns into a psychological exploration of personality types, nothing more, and it must be more to have real meaning in any sense.

And this activity must be important, full of real meaning, and movie-like why, again? I just can't help playing devil's advocate on this point because it seems so totalitarian... this is mostly gut reaction here, not intensive self-searching, but I think there must be some gray area between having a group of players who don't give a damn about anything involving the game, and sharing an overriding obsession with telling a deep, meaningful story. Yes, I am aware that Sorcerer likely becomes just another dungeon-crawling, NPC-stomping activity without the GM creating situations that cause the player's characters to confront their motivations and etc... but there's just a little voice that whispers to me that there is a danger in being too consumed by the passion to Create Meaning and Be Important. I'd rather explore the gray area between directionless shilly-shallying and a scene-by-scene unfolding of a movie in a group format.

Ultimately, of course, this is only an issue of taste, and the question, when searching for new players, becomes "do you have tastes similar to mine?" A tough one to answer.

RAVEN:
>And this activity must be important, full of real meaning, and movie-like why, again? I just can't help playing devil's advocate on this point because it seems so totalitarian...

Well, perhaps it is, for me. Having played more than a year's worth of meaningless, unimportant games, I ask myself: What's the point? I don't care anymore, the players obviously never cared, it isn't FUN.

However, I think you've taken my point and stuffed it full of a Narrativistic angle that was never intended. After all, action movies aren't "full of real meaning", but they do have real meaning in them, they aren't senseless nor bereft of meaning.

I think the word "real" is where the hang-up comes in...keep reading and hopefully what I mean by that word will become clear.

>this is mostly gut reaction here, not intensive self-searching, but I think there must be some gray area between having a group of players who don't give a damn about anything involving the game, and sharing an overriding obsession with telling a deep, meaningful story.

No, no...you misunderstand, I'm not talking about telling a deep, meaningful story and all that Vampire-fan laden, angst-filled, human-drama jazz that usually makes people want to puke bunnies. I'm talking about the players just giving a damn about their characters beyond their existences as extensions of their own personas.

And that entails caring about the world around them (not "Oh, I love you" caring, which it seems you think I meant, but "Hey, this world exists and stuff happens in it" caring...recognition of the world *beyond the existance of the character personas), about the world history, the environment the character grew up in, local history, etc. Things that would be important to the character that the player outright ignores, only using the character as a paper doll...a vehicle...a rubber mask...without purpose, direction, but mostly without thoughts or feelings or a concept of their own history.

I'm saying that characters DO NOT EXIST IN A VACCUM, despite the fact that (at least in my experience) most players play them as though they DO. Take the character and drop them into another world, who cares, same character. Send them against a horde of pit-fiends, or send them against a alien armada...same character...same f* game because the player is static and self-focused and thus so are the characters. BOOOOORRRRING!

Trust me, it gets old seeing the same character played time and time again...same character...different name, different gear, different race, different worlds...*same* character. SAME f* character...no matter what they do, no matter what happens to them, same character at conception as at end of play, and on into that player's next character. They were a hermit in a burning wasteland, an elven noble from dark lands, a virtuous paladin of a monotheism...but they all look alike, they talk alike, they even f-ing think alike! They're cardboard, identical cut-outs, yes it's true! (watching everyone run as I break into song)

I've put up with too many years of it to be anything but disgusted by it. I'm to the point where it would be just as easy to forget the campaign world completely and play in an endless void of dungeons, and it wouldn't matter to the players I'm talking about ONE BIT, not ONE BIT. They'd complain, yeah, but even if I gave them background material, they wouldn't use it, wouldn't recall it...it would still be just the characters. Those players come to take up space and to interact...but that really isn't enough after awhile.

That isn't role-playing, that's a poker game.

THE WORLD DOES MATTER.

Perhaps you've visited on-line "inns", role-playing chatrooms where you take on your character persona and interact with others inside this structure...character background exists but doesn't matter, doesn't matter what world the inn is located in (that much thought doesn't usually go into this), nothing exists beyond the inn...it is simply personalities interacting. That's all. Meaningless.

And there's the definition. Stuff happens, you react to stuff and DO something. That's meaning...on-line inns, though, are meaningless. The stuff that happens inside literally lacks any sort of real meaning because it has no real context anywhere outside the inn.

I hate those so-called role-players...folks who play like the game world is an inn, except their party is the inn...meaning that nothing really exists or matters beyond them and their interactions. So what if the city-state of Yema fell to a horde of ravening invaders...next week they won't remember that plot detail to save their lives (quite literally)...but they can recall what color the elf's undies are.

You see, in a game world, there is more than just the 'inn.'

>in being too consumed by the passion to Create Meaning and Be Important. I'd rather explore the gray area between directionless shilly-shallying and a scene-by-scene unfolding of a movie in a group format.

That's not what I'm talking about though...I'm perfectly fine with directionless shilly-shallying if the players would invest themselves in the created world...but they don't. It doesn't matter...only THEY matter...their intra-group personality conflicts...the stage could be stripped of props, it could change plot and background constantly, and it wouldn't make a difference.

THAT'S what bugs me...when players, and thus their characters, act as though nothing exists beyond their group or before their group.

Hence, I repeat: "Stuff must happen, you must react to stuff, that stuff must be your *focus, or it simply turns into a psychological exploration of personality types, nothing more, and it must be more to have real meaning in any sense."

RAN HARDIN:
Reply: the short form.

I getcha now. ;}