Make it fun for Me!
-
I was talking to a friend about how there is a lot of expectations to 'make it fun for someone else.' on GMs and players alike, with little regard for what they like. It is no secret I don't agree with this policy. Because, to me, what people find fun is very subjective. Being able to 'make it fun for someone else' involves knowing what they find fun and people aren't exactly forthcoming with that to new people.
So, for me, it is more about finding middle ground. For example I have friends who like everything about combat scenes. The planning, the battle, the aftermath, etc. All of it. I dislike it. I prefer the social, the occult, the non-combat stuff. They are not big on it. So, rather than make one of us miserable we try to find a place where it might not be 'OMG MY FAVORITE THING!' for us but we both have a decent amount of fun and, since we're friends, we occasionally subject ourselves to what we don't like to let them have their big fun. AKA one of my combat friends will hold a social event with me that involves raising funds for an upcoming battle or I will pick up a concept that is combat heavy and be part of their big fights and in those cases they usually don't mind making most of the combat stuff background noise for me.
So, my 'make it fun for me' is more about finding mutual grounds.
What about others? Do you think players should be the ones to entertain the GMs so they will throw plot to them? GMs have to leave their fun behind to entertain the players in their GMed scenes? Are oyu middle ground like me? Something else?
I totally put it in mildly constructive with the hopes it won't deteriorate into cuss words and insults because of disagreements
-
@icanbeyourmuse I think everyone is responsible for their own fun, but in a cooperative storytelling environment there has to be some degree of compromise. If the GMs aren't having fun themselves, swiftly you'll find yourself with no GMs. If the GMs don't run things that are fun for players, you'll quickly find yourself with an empty MUSH.
That said, I don't think every MU has to cater to everyone. BSGU was very combat-heavy and there wasn't much in the way of social/non-combat plots. (Of course there was social /RP/ but that's different.) Similarly, I can imagine a game that's 100% political/social stuff where all combat is off-camera with massive armies. There's nothing wrong with having a limited focus, as long as you're up front about it.
-
The 'MY FUN' mentality that has been thrown around of late has been, in my opinion, goddamn toxic.
Because it has turned into this systemic issue wherein people feel enabled ('BUT MY FUN') to ruin other peoples' enjoyment of a game (or the game itself) on the grounds of 'MY FUN.'
"I don't care if other people left the scene, my fun."
"So what if my concept goes against the spirit of the sphere, my fun."
"Who cares if what I'm doing is upsetting to other people, my fun."We play games that are, by their very base concept and nature, cooperative. Yes, you should be enjoying yourself, but you come here to enjoy yourself with other people. Not at the expense of other people. If the only reason you're here is to have other people bend to your every whim or to be your audience / bit players in the show of you, you aren't playing in the spirit of the game.
When I craft plots (vs. run a one shot), I look into the background of PCs, into their sheets (if publicly viewable), into the type of scenes I've seen them enjoy in the past ("Well, Sue got really excited when we were in that investigative plot the other week versus the combat ones we're usually in...") and I try to provide hooks and things for those people along the way.
When I'm 'the leader' PC in someone else's plot, I do my damndest to not be 'the glory hog;' I mean shit, being the leader already gives you a lot to do! Your team is your responsibility! Look at them, identify who can do what and point them places! Bob, watch our asses. Jane, take point. Cathy, you're great with computers, go fuss with that one over there. I'll stand here in the middle of the pack and hopefully not be picked off by this spider dripping venom on my should- oh shit.
Seriously, I have tons of fun by working with people.
Saying the quiet parts out loud since 1996.
-
I've always encountered these arguments when there was some element of PvP involved. It was usually invoked by staff to get the resolution their involved friend wanted, often saying something like, "dear unpopular player, it's often 'more interesting' to have a setback or two on your hero's journey. It's best for you to lose this encounter and then you have something to work for!" Or some BS like this.
It always seems to be players with no staff alts or no friends on staff that are asked to make it fun for someone else, and it's tedious.
I think this is why if I ever find myself on a game with different factions that are set against each other, I tend to clique up and sandbox things as much as possible with people I get along with.
-
@faraday Yup! It's why I don't like it when games or players implement the 'make it fun and interesting for me' rue.All it does is make me think I have to completely give up what I like for the game/person. I would much rather be told 'Hey! I don't like X thing. can we try finding another way to keep to both of our concepts and still have, at least, passable, fun?' I would rather be /told/ they are not having fun rather than coming to places like here and see people complain about how I didn't make a scene fun for them. If they tell me? I'll ask them to give me a few so I can figure out how to alter my actions to turn the scene down a route fun for them and me or we can FTB and discuss how, for example, a fight our characters were having can be resolved so we can continue to RP together, if we want too.
@Auspice I try to do that too, with the rare times I GM or take leadership positions. I also /try/ to make sure every person has something to do at, at least, one point. I've been in scenes where my character was doing shit that should have made issues but the GM kept going because they had a plan and/or their focus person was 'doing it right.' I took no enjoyment, at all, from the scenes and didn't know why I was even there. Except to add a warm body.
-
I think a lot of what @icanbeyourmuse describes (and has described in the past) is, honestly? It's very familiar personally, and it's not just narcissistic horsepuckey when I say that's the kind of approach that makes for a really great player:
- Find the things you will both have fun doing together
- Mutually don't mind if people do things not involving them that are specifically about the unshared areas of fun
- Mutually come along and play along without forcibly changing the focus sometimes on things for each other's benefit to create more opportunities for others
- (somewhat related to the above) Share the spotlight; mutually be willing to be 'the backup person', taking turns supporting each other (which is actually also fun for me at least)
I think of this as 'the three big Cs': Cooperation, Coordination, and Compromise. (With their magic powers) Combined, they <insert Voltron theme music> become the big
Collaboration. -
I will be honest my fun is the main goal of RPing for me, or any other leisure time activity I take part in. I will do my best to also make fun for others, on a much we are both the suppliers and consumers for the fun. If we fail to supply then we will have no fun that is true, but unless I am getting some other compensation I won't be in a scene long unless it is also fun for me.
-
@thatguythere said in Make it fun for Me!:
I will be honest my fun is the main goal of RPing for me, or any other leisure time activity I take part in. I will do my best to also make fun for others, on a much we are both the suppliers and consumers for the fun. If we fail to supply then we will have no fun that is true, but unless I am getting some other compensation I won't be in a scene long unless it is also fun for me.
This right here.
Not knowing what's going to happen is the whole point of this for me.
As an author, I always know what's coming next when I write. I know what lurks around the corner. I know what everyone's deep dark secrets are. I know what the big plot twist is. I know everything. It gets boring after a while.
So I roleplay because I don't know what's coming next! I don't know what your character's secrets are! I don't know what the ST has planned! It's in the not knowing that I find enjoyment!
But at the same time, when I'm just a warm body in a scene; when I'm just there for Suzy Q to do all the things, I stop having fun. I want to engage! I want to feel involved! When I go three, four, rounds of just posing to myself... I feel deflated. When I pose a reaction to you, you over there, and that person over there and none of them respond back to me because I'm not the ST or I'm not the person they think is holding all the tricks or I'm not Mr. HotShot... I feel frustrated.
That's right guys: it happens to me, too.
(I've had conversations with plenty of folks, even some people here on the boards, along the lines of 'How do you always get RP so easily?!' Guess what. I've totally been in the scene where I spend five rounds posing to myself. Happens to the best of us.)But the most fun for me is in not knowing what happens next. It's also the best way to stretch my legs as it were. It's like improv for the writer. I don't know what the other person is going to throw at me! I have to think on my feet!
So I can totally have fun, definitely! In just about any scene!
Just, y'know... engage with me, include me, give me something to do. Don't hog the spotlight.
-
@auspice said in Make it fun for Me!:
We play games that are, by their very base concept and nature, cooperative. Yes, you should be enjoying yourself, but you come here to enjoy yourself with other people. Not at the expense of other people.
That's where the line is for me too. Of course everyone wants to have fun - I mean, that's why we play games, right? The issues arise when someone selfishly insists that their fun is the only fun that matters.
It's no different, fundamentally, from playground rules. Don't hog the ball. Take turns playing what everyone likes so they'll take a turn playing what you like. Don't go into crazy-competitive-cutthroat mode if everyone else just wants to play casually. Stuff like that. It's really not hard, it just requires being considerate of other people.
-
Some games just can't decide if they are competitive or a collaboration. And some players will want the maximum competition when it is to their benefit and the maximum collaboration when it is not.
some fucking idiot who people only like because he's good at taking credit for the work of everyone under him, just like every other fucking L&L headwiz.
-
@apos said in Make it fun for Me!:
Some games just can't decide if they are competitive or a collaboration
@apos That's a problem, sure, but even competitive games expect a certain degree of good sportsmanship.
-
It's a balance, like all things. Part of my fun is that other people are having fun, so I want that to happen - but at the same time, especially in an RPG, I am there to play the game that was written about in the setting files, or books, etc. If someone else's fun continuously means violating that setting or game system without consequence, then my fun becomes harder.
And in any setting/system, there are places where there's wiggle room. But wiggle is not 'stomp on and dance all over'. So if someone is violating setting or theme in a small way, then I don't really care as long as they aren't rubbing it in my character's face over and over again. They can have their fun, and it doesn't bug me. But the more people violate it in big ways, or gang up to start pullllling the theme over to something else, or gang together to cross it in ways that invalidate the parts of the setting or system that actually attract me to it, usually the less fun I have, until I start looking for somewhere else.
Generally, in situations where I have a character who is 'in charge', I try not to be too anal about things, try to overlook what I can, and if I have to lay down consequences, try to find consequences that involve creating more RP for the person, not less. I don't usually do the 'let's negotiate OOC the consequence of this', and maybe I should, but I do try to keep things within theme and not excessive.
-
@faraday said in Make it fun for Me!:
good sportsmanship
This.
All of this.
More of this.
I don't care what the goal of your game is, without a sense of respect between players, players and staff, and staff and staff, it's going to be toxic.
I press this as a respect for the game, because that's a shared goal that gets outside the equally toxic idea about who is responsible for fun, like "fun" is this thing that we can define.
We cannot universally define fun. Trying is implausible. It's a fool's errand. We might as well define world peace.
We can, however, define each game. Most of this work is done by staff. What you get to decide, really the only thing you get to decide, is how you're going to interact with that game, if at all.
This is not a small task. Deciding how to treat others is a massive responsibility, and you will be judged by it. "Good Sportsmanship" is pretty damn close to a catch-all as I think we're going to see and I think includes and goes further than our favorite "Don't Be a Dick", so is more useful.
Or in summary: A+ Faraday. Would Quote Again.
-
Saying you should put other people's fun before your own is a little unfair to players in general. When I think "try to think of other people's fun", I generally mean just to try not to stomp on other people's fun, so long as that fun still fits within the theme. In general, my rule of thumb for how I try to play is just "try to make the scene interesting and enjoyable for everyone involved".
(Including if I get a scene with a staff-controlled NPC; if the staffer is taking the time to RP an NPC with me, they should get to have fun with it too. Rather than just me trying to be 'push button, dispense plot plz.')
a.k.a. Packetdancer (or "Pax" for short)
-
@sparks said in Make it fun for Me!:
Saying you should put other people's fun before your own is a little unfair to players in general.
I think this is true to a point, though the exceptions tend to be corner cases, or instances of players who can't have fun while following the basic playground rules like 'the playground is for everyone' and 'sharing the toys is required', etc.
I'm primarily thinking here of the problem child players who can never be intimidated/charmed/lied to/tricked/come in second place/etc., derive fun from one-upping others on the player level, or aren't having any fun unless they're the star and predominant focus at all times. In these cases, yes, players with these traits are potentially going to have to place the fun of others above their own on a fairly regular basis in order to have a healthy collaborative existence on the game.
I don't see this as a fault with the theory; it's a fault in people that needs to be addressed in order to sustain a positive game environment.
Unlike @SG's experience mentioned earlier in the thread, I haven't seen as many instances of staffers or staff buddies benefitting from this, though I don't doubt it happens plenty. My personal experience has been more the opposite: when staffing, or playing with someone on staff I'm friendly with, I expect my fun is going to probably come in at last priority more often than I would expect it to otherwise.
-
@sparks said in Make it fun for Me!:
In general, my rule of thumb for how I try to play is just "try to make the scene interesting and enjoyable for everyone involved".
This is really my goal in any scene, after all if people don't have fun enjoyable scenes with me than unless they are completely masochistic or idiotic they will quickly stop having scenes with me. (Not every scene will hit this goal but no one bats 1.000)
So while I ma a big advocate of having fun yourself you should not ignore the fun of others. It hearkens back to tabletop for me. If the GM is not having run running the game they will stop running it so make it fun for the GM too. Just like when I am running the game I try my best to make sure it is fun for the players, but if a player makes my live miserable as the GM i have zero issue telling him to leave nor leaving a game that stops being fun for me. -
@apos said in Make it fun for Me!:
Some games just can't decide if they are competitive or a collaboration.
Can't they be both?
A wise man once said:
Oh, you. You just couldn't let me go, could you? This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible, aren't you? You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.
In a hockey tournament, the two teams meet at center ice to shake hands. This is done to show sportsmanship. For me, a MUSH is the same: it doesn't matter how hard I play or another person plays against me, I'm okay with things if we can shake hands and come away thinking that we gave it our all.
It's not about winning or losing, even in competition.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
@ganymede As deep and philosophical as that is, hockey is still a competition and not a collaboration (with the other team).
-
@the-sands I'm not entirely certain I agree with that. It might be competitive but they have agreed upon rules, times, and places. They have agreed upon codes of conduct. Yeah, they are competing to 'win the game' but they are working together, in a way, with each other and their teammates.
-
They are collaborating to entertain the people that ultimately pay them. A Collaboration to Compete.
