One of the people I can respectfully call GM recently mentioned rather off-handedly that on Saturdays he ran his "other group."
There are a lot of relationships in gaming, but I never quite realized how much the romantic-style applied to the dynamic. I think in part I felt like the GM was "two-timing" us. Where did I get the idea that there was an implied exclusivity commitment in GMing? Is it a faux pas to talk about your last gaming group like there is making comparisons to your old boyfriends?
I have noted in the past that it is not uncommon for me to develop silly crush-level feelings for the people in my gaming groups. With the Minions it made sense as it was a fairly incestuous group of friends, family, and dating partners anyway, but it sounds like it could get awkward at conventions.
Roleplaying is intimate.
There's no question in my mind why "roleplaying" has a devoted terminology in the sexual arena. Anyone who has ever flirted in-character may have similarly flirted with the intensity of the possibilities.
The nuts and bolts of gaming, as it were, probably don't require any emotional investment... although the cries of agony as a critical failure reveal themselves may provide ammunition for debate.
...but for as much as there may be an illicit thrill in "living through" of others' experiences, the interaction of gaming itself is, to me, often an extension of trust. I mean, sure, I can roll dice with anyone. Can I put on my "Jelica suit" in front of a bunch of strangers?
Comments (9)
Hi. I've been lurking here for a while but now I feel like I have something to contribute.
I think I know what Meera means. Gaming *is* intimate, and the deeper, emotional gaming you do with people you're comfortable with.
But in my group of gaming friends, we kind of take it for granted that any good GM has more than one gaming group. GMs, especially good ones, are so scarce you'd be selfish if you expected them to game for you and you alone.
And I, personally, like gaming with strangers. It's a breath of fresh air. And a new player can give new life to an old campaign. Around here, campaigns that last 5 years or more are not uncommon.
Perhaps it makes a difference that our gaming circle is not made up of friends, family and dating partners but of (former) members of a role playing club. The people my husband and gaming friends game with, in campaigns that I am not a part of, are my acquaintances. They are all potential new GMs or players when someone starts new campaign.
Does that make us promiscuous? :-)
But the deeper, more intimate roleplaying only starts when you're comfortable with each other and that takes a while.
Jopie S.
Posted by Jopie | February 21, 2003 3:23 AM
Posted on February 21, 2003 03:23
I think it was Michael Croft who said in his WISH answer, "gaming is like sex, much more fun with people you trust."
Good entry. I'm linking it.
Posted by Arref | February 21, 2003 7:11 AM
Posted on February 21, 2003 07:11
So what does this make a gaming convention?
Posted by Nuadha | February 21, 2003 9:40 AM
Posted on February 21, 2003 09:40
James: A casual orgy.
My experience is that you can become more emotionally intimate with strangers through RP (or more emotionally intimate with current friends), but it's hard to play intimately with people you distrust.
Fresh meat is good, but if you stop playing with someone for trust reasons, you shouldn't go back.
Posted by Ginger | February 21, 2003 10:57 AM
Posted on February 21, 2003 10:57
I find it also depends on the availability of other gamers. If you live in an area with lots of people to game with, your game group has chosen you, out of all those people to game with. If they then game with someone else, then they're chosing someone else, you're not as special as you thought.
If you live in an area with no more than a handful of people who play the games you like, then your game group plays with you because they don't have a huge range of options. Playing with someone else in that situation is not the same betrayal.
Posted by Claire Bickell | February 22, 2003 6:01 PM
Posted on February 22, 2003 18:01
Hey Meera, your comments text is about 6 pts high, *maybe*... could you give this old girl a bit of a break and bump it up, just a notch (er... or two)?
Main page text is a bit small, too, but I can at least read it without leaning in to the screen!
Posted by djinn | February 23, 2003 1:59 PM
Posted on February 23, 2003 13:59
Michael came up with a better answer for James. Cons are swingers clubs.
Posted by Ginger | February 24, 2003 6:13 PM
Posted on February 24, 2003 18:13
Thanks, this is much easier to read.
Posted by jenn | February 25, 2003 1:21 PM
Posted on February 25, 2003 13:21
If my SO finds out that cons are 'swingers clubs' I'll never get to go to another one.
Posted by Arref | February 27, 2003 7:57 AM
Posted on February 27, 2003 07:57