Mask play (was Re: [UA] Players screwed over)

[sneadj at mindspring.com]

"James O'Rance" <jorance at hotmail.com> wrote:

> sneadj at mindspring.com said:
> 
>  >>>Actually, that's exactly how folks in my group play (well, to be
> honest, we're likely only doing Mask Play ~ 65-85% of the time, but it
> is by far the dominant mode of play).<<<
> 
> I think that's unusual - most groups are not like this, and there are
> even folks who claim that people who "mask play" (ie immersion) are
> actually doing the same thing as everybody else, with the delusion
> that they've added something  more intense somehow.
> 
> I also believe that immersion is heavily reliant on different factors
> for different people. For me, I need a character whose mentality I can
> believe in, and a suitable environment. Mood-breaking players can
> destroy that environment.

Gods yes, we're *very* picky about players, but that's rarely a 
problem, since folks who aren't into immersion generally don't get 
interested in what we do.  On the few occasions that we've had 
players who deliberately attempted to sabotage other's immersion 
(or simply did it by their play style, we asked them to leave.

> I tolerate type play as a fellow player, although I do not like it,
> and as a GM it depends on what type of game I'm running. I have no
> problems with type play in The Whispering Vault, as I'm running it as
> a relaxed, "fun" game at a university gaming club. It annoyed me in
> Planescape, however. Should I run UA in the future as I intend to, I
> won't allow type play among "core" players. That would make the game
> not-fun for me to run. As a result, I may not be able to run UA until
> it becomes socially possible for me to not include some of the
> incorrigible type players in a campaign. I am patient, fortunately.

You sound *far* more patient with such people than either me, our 
GM, or most of our players.
 
> I generally assume, when reading an RPG rulebook, that it is written
> with the assumption that the game will focus on character-play. This
> is what I read from the UA book; or was I wrong, and UA is "supposed
> to" be more immersive?

No clue, both I assume.
 
> <snip cool PC death story>
> 
>  >>>It was shocking, very sudden, and all of the players were in
>  virtual 
> shock afterwards.  Almost everyone was somewhat subdued the next
> day.<<<
> 
> I understand where you're coming from, but surely you recognise that
> this would make some players very uncomfortable? Given that I've seen
> simple theatrical improv send someone from the room in tears when it
> touched on a hurtful subject (in this case, we were improv-ing a car
> crash and court case, and really hamming it up), some people are not
> emotionally prepared for that kind of intensity.

Yes, but one of our rules is never to push any PC *too* far.  
Torture, rape and similar *serious* nastiness never occurs to PCs.  
 
> This is another reason to have stress checks, or SAN rolls, or
> whatever; it can abstract a response that we could simply feel
> emotionally if we were immersive, but may not be comfortable doing.

UAs rules on that are sort of nifty, but mostly we avoid such things. 
 In these extreme (like those annoying personality traits in games 
like Pendragon), they *really* get in the way of both immersion and 
player control.  The UA SAN rules are merely unnecessary.  I 
remember 10 years ago playing a vampire (before VtM).  We had 
nothing like frenzy rolls.  Instead, my PC went berserk and started 
shooting people on a city street, attempted to munch a few of our 
allies and similar stuff whenever he got too angry.  I'm not certain I 
could have made a character do such horrific (and usually *really* 
stupid) things in character play.  Done immersively, it just 
happened.
 
>  >>>That's what real gaming is for me, and this is why I feel Mask
>  Play is 
> really cool.  However, this is also why I *strongly* avoid games where
> the GM gets too into suffering, angst, random death, or dismal
> failure.<<<
> 
> Obviously you accept that there are many games that you'll never be
> able to play! I prefer Wraith over Vampire, Werewolf, and Mage put
> together, because I love the idea of ghost stories of romance, loss,
> etc, and Wraith can be a depressing game; but I needed to avoid
> suffering or dismal failure, I could never play Call of Cthulhu, one
> of the all-time best games. That's why I'm happy to immerse only
> occasionally, even though it's a great experience.

Most definitely.  None of us like depressing games.  Wraith is 
*very* cool to read, but I'd never play in a million years.  The only 
WoD game we've ever done in Mage, which needn't be terribly dark. 
 UA is good, because both hopeful and depressing games are 
possible.  The key is the type of characters you select.  I doubt 
we'll ever have any Dipsomancers, Irasomancers, or Executioners 
in our games.  OTOH, Bibliomancers, Scholars, Kleptomancers, 
Urbanomancers, Flying Women, and even Personamancers all 
work great in a non-dark game.  

It's odd though, I used to be able to play CoC, but all the years of 
deeply immersive play have meant that I'm just not up for it 
anymore, since I instinctively go for immersion in a game, and 
that's a *bad* idea in CoC.

Interesting discussion, I also hope it's not boring anyone.

-John Snead sneadj at mindspring.com



_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua