Mo and I have had a pretty stable extended playgroup for about 3 to 4 years. We sometimes take people in or put people out, but its rare and those that come in tend to be selected based on the fact that they niche up well.

So yea, we’ve had a lot of chance for long term stable group play where we’ve built a group that lets us all do what we like most. Most of the time. When one of us doesn’t fuck it up.

I’ve been thinking about that very idea in relation to myself (and we had that LJ discussion where I think it got brought up…). I have come up with another possibility, but I’m not sure whether it’s right, only that it’s possible.

I know that, personally, my playgroups are highly dynamic in players. That is, I don’t play primarily with a single group. Thus, for each group I play with I have to find a balance of what each person wants and what I want. This generally means that each group is better at producing a different experience for me. As long as I want what the group can provide I can play well with them.

I’m not sure, but my read of your own actual play stuff is that the vast majority of your play is done with the same, or at least highly similar, group(s). Is that right, or am I misreading you?

Thomas

Maybe your socket isn’t character or story or setting… maybe it’s social and you actually Other your play: funneling your engagement through the agency of the group, and surrendering your power to the collective body? I mean, I only know you from a hole in the internet, but it sounds like that could be a viable explanation to the above and your frequent comments about Plug and Play.

Thomas