And sometimes that lack of commitment hurts. My first Arcana Unearthed campaign was a huge headache, because I had anywhere from 3-10 players on a given day, only a handfull who would let me know ahead of time if they would be there or not. And one time was terrible, a player who indicated he would not be there showed up, and decided it was time to go off and handle something from his back-story, totally blowing my prep to the water. He finally relented when I basically said, well, if we don’t do what I prepped, the game session’s over, because I’m NOT running D20 by the seat of my pants (to damn much fiddling to set up encounters – especially in AU with less support material). And I sure as hell wasn’t going to run a city based adventure (where all the NPCs would be classed, excuse me while I spend an hour writing up the spell caster you’re going to talk to) where I had nothing more than a city name, and hadn’t really read this guy’s backstory and all. The more than an hour it took before he finally said, well, you could always put the clue I need into your adventure… was one of the most painful hours of game play I’ve ever had.

Oh, and before I do custom prep for a player, I’m going to need lots of assurance from the player. I learned that lesson back in high school some 25 years ago when a player wanted to have an adventure to secure a castle site. So I came up with something. Well, come game day, that player decided to play in another game. We ran the island adventure all right, but he didn’t get his castle. And the few times I’ve done custom adventures since then have been for players who commit more to the game than anyone else, players who talk to me about the game and their plans out of session (now if I get into some of this narativist style games with bangs and such, I’ll obviously have to custom prep for players, but I’m going to be very careful about how much commitment I give them without a feeling that I’m getting some commitment in return).

Now tmcdon, are you really one who gives no commitment at all? I bet not. Now perhaps your level of commitment is less than I would desire, and that’s fine. There actually is room for casual gaming, so long as everyone recognizes that. But I’m not going to hold a seat open any more for a player who sees my game as something to do if nothing else comes up.

So I personally have absolutely nothing against Mike Mearls’s statement. I don’t find it at all presumptuous. What was presumptuous was the old form of the statement (that the GM was responsible for entertaining everyone else, with not so much as a thank you for his effort).

I just can not conceive of group activities working without commitment to each other. But that doesn’t mean that every time we do a group activity we do some new fangled kind of group hug and formal “I commit to do XYZ” kind of dance. No. For a lot of things, just simply walking in the door is sufficient commitment to the group. Simple honesty: “I really want to play Fudge not D&D so I’m joining a different group.” is commitment.

“Responsibility” is not some contract spelled out to the last minutinae with penalty clauses for non-compliance.

Frank

“Having said that, I agree with the spirit of the statement in regards to the fact that for a game to be successful then active participation by all parties is probably the largest contributing factor to the relative success of a game. Role Playing games are, in general, cooperative games by nature, and interaction between GM and Player(s) is fundamental.”

I think if I would have used a different set of vocabulary Frank would have understood.

My problem with the statement Mike makes is in semantics, not the “spirit” of the post. The primary reason for games is enjoyment. We play games to enjoy ourselves, not entertain someone else. In fact I have a problem with gamers who believe that the purpose of the GM is to “entertain” them.
My only “responsibility” at the game table is to have fun. Obviously with a role playing game (cooperative game) the best results are to be had by total group involvement.

I have been, recently, in a group that had a hard time scheduling regular playing time. I don’t view it as anyone’s responsibility to me to show up. If you like to roleplay, you want to have a good time doing so and sharing in some great fellowship then you’ll be there. If not: we’ll go on without you, hope you make it next time. The player who doesn’t show may be missed, there may be a sense of saddness over their absence, but the game goes on and the fun continues. As for the player unable/unwilling to take a more active roll in participating: that may simply be a matter of comfort. Hopefully they can be drawn into feeling more comfortable with whatever aspect of the environment/game that prohibits them from active participation and further enjoyment.

That said, I think the reality is that in a social group that is remotely functional, this commitment and taking on of responsibility does indeed exist, even if people would argue up and down that they don’t have responsibility.

It’s like Ron’s current talk about creative agenda on the Forge in this thread. The shared commitment that allows a functional social group is almost always unstated. But when you probe various points of specific responsibility, you get responses like “Of course, anyone would do that.” For example: If your group has regular meetings, do you make an effort to let people know as far in advance as possible that you won’t make it? If a last minute issue comes up, do you make some effort to avoid changing plans? That’s a commitment, and acceptance of responsibility to the others (perhaps not specifically to commitment to their entertainment – though commitment to attendance, especially for RPGs, is often part of the foundation on which the whole activity rests).

Group activities succeed when people commit to the group needs, and not just to their own needs.

Frank

Frank: I can’t remember if it’s still under development, but Full Light, Full Steam is a perfect example of the kind of indie RPG you’re talking about. In FLFS, the PCs get XP every time everyone in the party has been tossed a hook by the other players.

Crazy Jerome: Good point about larger groups. There’s an older TT post on that topic, 6 Tips for GMing a Large Group, and your tip would have made an excellent #7.

Spleen23: I like your point about making everyone laugh. As a GM, I don’t feel quite right about a gaming night where the whole group isn’t laughing at least once, and I try to promote that.

Of course in reality, commitment levels always vary, but in an activity like gaming, if they differ too much, the game really does not work as well. Sure, a church works just fine with folks who live and breathe the church, and folks who come once a year on Easter Sunday. Sure, a circle of friends who host parties and whatnot at their homes works just fine when Fred never hosts because his 1-bedroom apartment just can’t handle the group, and as a batchelor, he may even get away with being the one who only ever signs up to bring chips or soda. But I can tell you that people notice, and react to, moochers. When I caved actively, there was one guy, who did contribute a lot in other ways, whose idea of meal planning for a trip was to make sure his messkit was packed (he literally showed up at folks camp with fork, spoon, plate, and cup in hand – with no prior agreement for meal sharing – and never an offer to contribute). People started dismissing him as a loser and butt kisser (his main contribution to caving actually seemed to be politicking). I’ve had gamers that wouldn’t even commit to making time for the game, they would only come if nothing else more exciting was available that day. I’ve currently got a player who I’m ready to kick out, because he hasn’t made 3 sessions in a row (and has now missed 3 sessions in a row). I’d rather offer that seat to someone else (or leave it empty, the group was actually sort of at capacity without him anyway).

Players who won’t commit to entertaining each other at some level, as a group, cooperative, activity, are one reason we have so much dysfunctional play. Some of them new fangled “Forge” games actually demand players not only play their characters, but make sure they are tossing hooks to the other players, “entertaining” each other. Some of em don’t even have a GM to serve as the “entertainer.”

This also points out that if none of the players has a responsibility to entertain each other, then obviously that all falls on the GM. Which is really impossible. One GM CAN’T entertain everyone every minute of the game. But if everyone has committed to entertaining each other, then suddenly, even if you’re the one player not actively involved right now, you’re still being entertained. Because what’s going on with everyone else is of interest to you in some way (if only to provide ammunition for how you will throw the next hook their way).

Frank

His ideas on playing, while simple sounding, are profound. His game designs are innovative. I have been a big Mike Mearls fan since the release of Iron Heroes.

For all you non d20 haters out there, Iron Heroes shows some of the best d20 game design since the release of 3.0. If you have not read it, you will either want to play IH or rip all the goodies out and port them directly over to your D&D game after reading them.

Needless to say, I am a big Mike Mearls fan.

John Arcadian: Players who come to the table to ruin other folks’ fun shouldn’t keep coming to the table. No social contract has much of a chance of changing that, and changing The Sentence to “not ruining” just neuters it — at least, to my way of thinking.

tmcdon: I think Mearls is using “entertain” in much the same way you used “have fun and enjoy myself and have fun with friends.” There’s an extra element to entertaining, though, which sets it apart — but they’re not that far off, IMO.

p.s. no knock on Mearls. He’s an ace writer whose work I greatly enjoy! I just find this statement a bit (and I lack the context in which it was said) presumptuous.