Stating the Obvious

I suppose there's a certain point, when you've been gaming or especially GMing for a very long time, that you might take it for granted that other players will have some basic common sense.  So here's a little reminder for today:

If your GM is kind enough to post a detailed map of the game setting, you should probably look at it before asking stupid questions.  Otherwise, you might miss something like a major league baseball stadium outside your front door.

That is all.

Character Archetypes (Or What You Require in a Character)

Some of the people i play lots of games with tend to play similar characters.  Some always want to be the pretty, smart girl, for example, or the biggest-toughest tank.  Still others might have characters that seem to have nothing in common at all, except that they all have extensive backstories rooted in a dark past or a volatile home life.

A lot of people will say 'i never play the same type of character twice' and be very wrong and/or lying about it, but i've probably played 50 different characters in less than three years, and i do think i've done pretty well at keeping them all new and fun. Of course there are some recurring patterns, but i like to think that even within the same archetype, they're each different enough to at least show i've made an effort.

 My personal requirements for any character, for any game, with any group of people are as follows: he or she must be able to survive the setting alone (through skills and/or fighting ability), but have a reason to work with the group anyway--and it can't just be something like 'they asked me to' or 'the same guy hired us.' There has to be some inner drive to work with someone else, even if there is reluctance involved. I don't think a GM should ever have to beg or coerce people to go along with a group--that's up to the players.

The male characters i play have the most in common: they are all tall, dark, and stoic. It doesn't matter if he's a werewolf, a ninja, a gunslinger, or a gigolo: he's going to be tough, confident, and to-the-point.  I surmise that this is probably because i'm a chick, and i want to play my ideal or whatever.  There might be some deeper psychological issues at work, but i think this theory is direct and logical enough, so let's move on.

The only thing my female characters seem to really share is a very deep, extreme, stubbornness. My women are definitely more varied than the men; they range from a 15-year-old Buffy-style Slayer who just-wants-to-kill-stuff-and-to-hell-with-the-consequences, to an immortal Japanese Samurai who feels she must atone for past indiscretions, as well as prepare her younger teammates for battles yet to come. I play women that are big, small, tough, meek, muscled, and deceptively frail. They're outspoken, shy, vengeful, peaceful, and everything in-between. I don't even mind playing ugly and/or fat chicks--i mention this only because it seems to be such a rare position on the matter.  I've seen people (men and women alike) cheat just to boost their attractiveness scores, and calling them out on it tends to be very...well...ugly.

So how about you?  Do you favor any particular archetype in your games?  What qualities do the majority of your characters have in common?

Expectations: Player vs GM

I suppose the title may be misleading; I don't mean to discuss what happens when the players and GM play against each other (though that might be a fun topic for another post), but rather when the players' expectations do not match the GM's plans.  This very issue was the end of a game I intended to run a few weeks ago, before it even started, and it was an educational, if not slightly traumatic, experience.

First, a little background may be in order.  Most of my gaming is done online, via either chat program (more specifically, OpenRPG) or message board post.  It's safe, it's comfortable, and it fits in nicely with my 24/7 parenting schedule.  However, it has left me VERY out-of-practice when it comes to interacting with *ahem* real-life people.  To pull myself out of the less-than-occasional rut that creates, i do sometimes reach out (via internet communities, of course) and attempt to meet up, in person, with local gamers.  So far I have had little to no luck, only banding together with a couple or two and playing a few games before something conveniently comes up to prevent further meet-ups.

This time i found a semi-local ("semi" because I have to drive approximately 3 hours, round-trip) gaming store that offers open gaming space, which would logically boast both a neutral gathering place and a more diverse pool of gamers--and thus far, the arrangement has delivered on both counts.  However, the group seemed too good to be true, especially after some pre-game correspondence that revealed that all of them were up for anything.  One would think this was a very good thing, but it left me wondering what they wanted in a game.  And i never found out.

Through message board posts, we decided that i would run Armageddon, and i provided them with information on how to obtain the necessary materials for play.  I had a setting in mind, and a few ideas for adventures, but i wanted to wait and see what sorts of characters they created before committing to a solid campaign.  Little did I know, it seems they had it in their minds to wait until they knew what the campaign concept was before creating characters.

*facepalm*

I suppose my method works just fine for online games, where the players may post messages for a few days, making suggestions and requests and bouncing character ideas off one another before game day.  But in face-to-face games, it seems that people expect to do these things in person.  And let me tell you, i was terrified.

One long, painful story short, and a panic attack later, we decided it would be best if someone else ran a game, and i graciously bowed out.

Lesson?  Make sure everyone's expectations are very clear from the beginning.  If the players expect an involved campaign, have one ready.  If they expect lots of flexibility and player-driven storylines, be prepared to toss out your notes.

Gamer Burnout?

I suppose there comes a time when each of us has to step back and look at how many games we're really playing in a week.  That in itself can be startling, once the hours are added up (for me it averages between 17 and 20, which i easily justify because it's all via chat or message board, so i can walk away from the computer as-needed to tend to my children, do housework and make dinner, etc. and no one's the wiser...right?), but my biggest downfall seems to be how many different systems i'm playing in a given week--right now it's 6.  And i am not keeping the combat formulas and whatnot straight.  Argh!  I find myself wondering if everyone has this problem, or just those of us that are math-challenged...or if the number of different games i play during a 7-day period is unusual.