Gaming and NMS Syndrome
That would be Not My Sandbox Syndrome, a label I'll ascribe here to a psychological reluctance to mess with things not of one's own creation.
It came up recently in some conversations that I don't "run" much on FurryFaire. A couple scenes in sequence with very little plotline and involving only a PC or two? Sure, I do that maybe a couple times a week. Any longer continuity, any wider influence on the setting, and I pretty much skip it. Why?
A lot of reasons, actually, some of which I may discuss in most depth later. Inspiration is fleeting and fickle - I can't just conjure up applicable ideas at will, but its easier to manage in this area if there are other things going on to play off of. Time can be tricky - I have had numerous scenes fall by the wayside because when I was interested in pursuing them people weren't around or something else required my attention. My GMing skills, especially online, have waned - I have enough trouble wrangling two or three players online. Unbalanced characters, unruly players, any number of other things...
But I also get stymied by settings where I don't feel entitled to really do things. This is mostly an internal mental barrier rather than one of actual permissions. I don't feel I have the freedom to do my own thing.
In some cases, that's because the setting is so clearly-defined and integral plot is presented in the game. This is why I don't really like "metaplots" with a game, and why I'm actually disappointed that generic-setting RPGs seem on a downturn (with D&D 4E, for example). Consciously, I know I can deviate from a presented storyline or create an "alternate version" of a setting, but it usually doesn't feel right to do so. This is why I'm much more inclined to play Star Wars games set in times other than what's covered in the movies. Near, maybe, but not in. It doesn't feel right to me to say either "well, you Rebel PCs did a great job, allowing Luke Skywalker to blow up the Death Star" or "you destroy the Death Star, congratulations - oh there's not Luke Skywalker in this timeline, don't worry about him."
In other cases, it may be a matter of conflicting GMing/world-building. If you run the same exact setting with multiple GMs, there are bound to be times when events contradict one another or plans have to be changed to fit. Maybe one GM gives out superweapons like candy or kills off an NPC someone else was going to use. I don't like that, thus I tend to avoid it. That is, perhaps, unfortunate.
A small MUCK one might actually have all plots run/approved by a single person, but that gets unwieldy and will probably drive them into the ground. Several staffers might be set up to run/approve plots, but then the regular players likely end up feeling stifled. Or you might allow everyone to run plots. It's not an either/or situation, though, it's more a spectrum and each MUCK is likely to find its own place on that and possibly shift from time to time.
FurryFaire is... somewhere in there. A vast majority of the setting, history, and plot has been created or codified by one person, combining lots of ideas from many people originally. Other people are allowed to run plots (I think we were officially requiring approval, but I don't know that such was ever actually enforced), but most development flows from the head wiz. This is not bad. It means things are more cohesive than they were before and make a lot more sense.
Alas, it also means that I (and probably others, though I can only speak for myself) feel that it isn't my place to change anything. On top of that, I've watched characters, places, and events get changed and rewritten over the years regardless of original source. That makes me even more gun-shy about putting forth anything into the world by way of plot. Psychologically, there's a voice in my head saying something like "If I don't have the final word over what I do, why should I even bother?"
I don't know if it's the largest reason why I don't run plots on the MUCK, but it's definitely a factor. Now matter how often I'm told "It's okay" or "I'd love to see you do something," I feel like any efforts of mine to that end would be messing with someone else's toys, playing in someone else's sandbox, and would leave me vulnerable to it all being altered or washed away no matter what I do.
But all this leaves me asking myself if I should be subject to a boot-to-the-head in an effort to get me over this mental hurdle or if it really isn't worth it. When coupled with all the other drawbacks, I tend to lean toward the latter...
It came up recently in some conversations that I don't "run" much on FurryFaire. A couple scenes in sequence with very little plotline and involving only a PC or two? Sure, I do that maybe a couple times a week. Any longer continuity, any wider influence on the setting, and I pretty much skip it. Why?
A lot of reasons, actually, some of which I may discuss in most depth later. Inspiration is fleeting and fickle - I can't just conjure up applicable ideas at will, but its easier to manage in this area if there are other things going on to play off of. Time can be tricky - I have had numerous scenes fall by the wayside because when I was interested in pursuing them people weren't around or something else required my attention. My GMing skills, especially online, have waned - I have enough trouble wrangling two or three players online. Unbalanced characters, unruly players, any number of other things...
But I also get stymied by settings where I don't feel entitled to really do things. This is mostly an internal mental barrier rather than one of actual permissions. I don't feel I have the freedom to do my own thing.
In some cases, that's because the setting is so clearly-defined and integral plot is presented in the game. This is why I don't really like "metaplots" with a game, and why I'm actually disappointed that generic-setting RPGs seem on a downturn (with D&D 4E, for example). Consciously, I know I can deviate from a presented storyline or create an "alternate version" of a setting, but it usually doesn't feel right to do so. This is why I'm much more inclined to play Star Wars games set in times other than what's covered in the movies. Near, maybe, but not in. It doesn't feel right to me to say either "well, you Rebel PCs did a great job, allowing Luke Skywalker to blow up the Death Star" or "you destroy the Death Star, congratulations - oh there's not Luke Skywalker in this timeline, don't worry about him."
In other cases, it may be a matter of conflicting GMing/world-building. If you run the same exact setting with multiple GMs, there are bound to be times when events contradict one another or plans have to be changed to fit. Maybe one GM gives out superweapons like candy or kills off an NPC someone else was going to use. I don't like that, thus I tend to avoid it. That is, perhaps, unfortunate.
A small MUCK one might actually have all plots run/approved by a single person, but that gets unwieldy and will probably drive them into the ground. Several staffers might be set up to run/approve plots, but then the regular players likely end up feeling stifled. Or you might allow everyone to run plots. It's not an either/or situation, though, it's more a spectrum and each MUCK is likely to find its own place on that and possibly shift from time to time.
FurryFaire is... somewhere in there. A vast majority of the setting, history, and plot has been created or codified by one person, combining lots of ideas from many people originally. Other people are allowed to run plots (I think we were officially requiring approval, but I don't know that such was ever actually enforced), but most development flows from the head wiz. This is not bad. It means things are more cohesive than they were before and make a lot more sense.
Alas, it also means that I (and probably others, though I can only speak for myself) feel that it isn't my place to change anything. On top of that, I've watched characters, places, and events get changed and rewritten over the years regardless of original source. That makes me even more gun-shy about putting forth anything into the world by way of plot. Psychologically, there's a voice in my head saying something like "If I don't have the final word over what I do, why should I even bother?"
I don't know if it's the largest reason why I don't run plots on the MUCK, but it's definitely a factor. Now matter how often I'm told "It's okay" or "I'd love to see you do something," I feel like any efforts of mine to that end would be messing with someone else's toys, playing in someone else's sandbox, and would leave me vulnerable to it all being altered or washed away no matter what I do.
But all this leaves me asking myself if I should be subject to a boot-to-the-head in an effort to get me over this mental hurdle or if it really isn't worth it. When coupled with all the other drawbacks, I tend to lean toward the latter...
If it isn't worth it, why continue? You once told me you liked the time when you could go on to Faire, and role play by showing off your character, hoping people would be genuinely interested in the back story and character personality you had created for him/her. there was a setting, but there wasn't any ur-plot going on being run by any sort of 'game master' but rather each player having a character which had a story that you could interweave your own character's with, or avoid if it didn't suit (unless of course it was brought to the front via conflict between the character or their plots) A table top RPG is about the single GM and his group of players at the table. The GM (typically) provides a story they want to tell in a setting and the other players have agreed to play in it. A LARP is a social construct where several GMs have plots they simply adjudicate what goes on in relation to and the players are given the responsibility of either interacting with, or avoiding these under current GM plots. They rarely have freedom to make anything on their own. (As anything involving a challenge between players or player and NPC involves a GM player, and any attempts to use influences or broker deals "don't happen" without GM approval or tests.) A computer RPG is a single player running through a plot and story written by a team set in against remotely controlled NPCs with stats and math and mechanics to rule the conflicts with zero player involvement beyond choosing what each character does. An MMO is the combination of a computer RPG with social aspects and removing the GM from those social constructs. There's NPCs, hostile or otherwise and there's fellow players. That's it. You can follow quests or ignore them, but the world is primarily static and unchanging (save for that phasing that WoW introduced in the Wrath expansion) and your fellow players have as much influence as you do for making changes in the backdrop of the world. So what's Faire? I still default to MUCKs being LARPs in the sense that there's plots being run by select people, changes requiring GM oversight and conflicts requiring tests (in our case, rolls) with the results being recorded by officials on staff (which usually over see the rolls in the first place) Players have a bit more leniency in starting things, as they can do whatever, but the consequences of actions are harsh and the setting is as static as the head GM wants it to be, which is to say, not at all, despite players feeling otherwise.
ReplyDelete