RPGs and Cars: What the Two Have in Common

[Dog_O_War]

What do these two have in common?

First, I'll start with cars.

There are people that own cars, and there are people who don't.

There are people who care about the type and kind of car they own, and there are people who don't.

There are good drivers, and there are bad drivers.

There are people who you prefer ride shotgun with you, and there are people you'd prefer tied to the roof-rack.

Finally, there are people who take care of their cars, and there are those that run them into the ground and just prefer a new one when the old one dies.


Now, I'll start with RPGs.

There are people who own books, and there are those who don't. Like with cars, we try not to judge those who can afford them and those who can't.

Then, there are people who care about the RPG they play; some like games for the system, others for the setting.
On the flip-side, there are those who don't really care what RPG it is, they simply use it as a vehicle for a story, or characters.

Next, there are good GMs and bad GMs. Like with drivers, we don't want to see a bad GM behind a screen, and prefer he practice (a lot) before he attempts it.

Then, there are good players and bad players. Like a passenger, you can be the drivers' best bud, changin' CDs, cracking fresh drinks, and feeding him fries while he concentrates on the road.
It's good for the driver, good for the passenger, good for everyone.
Unfortunately there are those passengers who belong on the roof-rack, strapped down so they can't bang on the roof and annoy the driver; in this parallel, it's a bad player who does seemingly everything in his power to otherwise annoy the GM. Like a passenger, fighting with other passengers, or just generally being annoying in a vehicle is akin to being an rooster at the table. You wouldn't want people doing it to you while you drive, so don't do it to them when they run.

Finally, there are people who will run their game into the ground, preferring to pick up an entirely new RPG when it crashes, and there are those whose meticulous attention to their players and their game will have them rolling in the same RPG for seemingly ever.




What does all this mean?
Why did I write this?
What's with the analogy?

This is meant to help people feeling confused or lost on why they play, where their campaigns are going, or perhaps why their games fail. It's a method of looking into what makes for a successful game without an 'itemized list' of the dos an don'ts of running and playing.

I wrote this as much for myself as for you posters; a kind of self-mini-epiphany that I felt should be shared.

And as for the analogy; I like analogies, and have found that people don't often see the problem in front of them. It has to be explained in another way using different terms that are common between many peoples. I find cars are often a bond people can share, or at least understand. And with that commonality comes understanding.


~woof

[Tearstone]

well said

[CyCo]

As a gamer and car enthusiast, that is a great way to explain gamers and why they game. Well done.

8]

[Dog_O_War]

define "good gamer"

A gamer whom is better than normal at the game.


And "the game" being that social one where people at the table aren't getting pissed off at you, but rather generally enjoy your company and are glad you are playing.

[Damian Magecraft]

define "good gamer"

A gamer whom is better than normal at the game.


And "the game" being that social one where people at the table aren't getting pissed off at you, but rather generally enjoy your company and are glad you are playing.

too bad those kinds of gamers are so rare.

[Warwolf]

define "good gamer"

A gamer whom is better than normal at the game.


And "the game" being that social one where people at the table aren't getting pissed off at you, but rather generally enjoy your company and are glad you are playing.

too bad those kinds of gamers are so rare.

Not in my experience.

Good anology, Dog.

[The Dark Elf]

The biggest similarity between my games and a car is that theyre both dangerous to be in if everyone has been drinking.

[Dog_O_War]

so a good gamer is one that your table personally likes?

i mean i agree & all but if thats what a good gamer is then its kinda useless philosofizzlin about good & bad gamers in general

It is deeper than that.
Breaking down what I said previously:
a "good gamer" is one who is better than normal.
I purposefully did not define normal because we all have our own view on what is normal at our tables.

Next, we have what they are good at; two parts - being social, and being a valuable player within the game.
People typically have a hard time just being themselves around others who are acting anti-social, so it requires that people enjoy your company to set them at ease while playing.
With that in-mind, your character(and not the player) must contribute in some meaningful way to the game to put value on him/her. If your character is of no value whatsoever to the group, people generally see your being there as either neutral or negative within the game's context.

Contributing though (positively) makes for the characters' value, and thus the player validated on their presence.

Looking at that, your character can contribute to the game, but if you personally are putting everyone at the table on-edge, you falter in being a good gamer.
The flip-side to that is if you are great to be around at the table, but your character is a negative space within the game, the game does not advance, and you are in the same position as above.

[Dog_O_War]

why have a thread talking about what a good gamer is if you dont want to define "good gamer"? sounds like a thread thats just for sounding clever & not saying anything important

I did define good gamer, right at the start, the first time you asked me to, "define good gamer".