On 2005-11-24, Curly wrote:
"How many of us get to play the games we want, with the people we want to play them with? How reasonable is it to expect? How far should we have to compromise, and on what?"
Here's my answer.
I don't have any problem with this thread's existence
I am not quite comfortable as the poster child for a hopelessly dysfunctional group.
Is it time for me to give up & find new players? Not yet.
Starting last January, my friends gave some childhood games (AD&D, Car Wars) a shot & liked 'em. They gave new games (DitV, Uni, the Pool, Forge-influenced homebrew) a shot—and liked 'em less.
It is time for me to reflect on Why they prefer what they do, and see if I can find a way to satisfy them without compromising my own desires too much.
It's a time for reflection & study & questions & theory & design.
So I go to the Forge & here and I read for months and eventually ask some newbie questions—on topics that are apparently favorites with Monty Pythonesque "I'm looking for an argument" wankers. And I was met with exasperated groans from the old hands—who've had to put up with waaay too much such nonsense, for years now. Fair enough.
So I wrote the marginalia that tops this thread—to communicate that I'm sincerely searching for answers. That my irritating questions aren't themselves a pseudo-intellectal game.
IF I make progress—and find a way to design play that better-suits my players + myself; then hooray.
IF I keep hitting a brick wall, I need to move-along & play with someone else & stop pestering Forge luminaries with my same-old problems.
That's where I draw the line. Seems compatible with much of what's been said in this thread? From Matt, to Luke, to Brand? Good.
Here's a 1-page first draft I wrote this morning, which seeks to address theme before Any Other aspect of play is even on the table.