|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 19, 2018 19:48:17 GMT -5
I never even considered the possibility that a Railroad GM would also be a Let's Just Play GM. The GM behavior you are describing is unconscionable. In my experience, GMs who encouraged backstory did so because they wanted to use it - or rather the plot hooks it provided - in creating adventures. Since the resulting adventures involved bits of each player's creation, even if the adventure plot was fairly linear it seldom felt restrictive, because we wanted to follow that plot. On the other hand - again in my experience - GMs who didn't care about PC backstories [e.g. your PC was obviously Fighter #2 in that GM's mind] tended to be the sort who ran purchased adventures straight, without using very much of their own input. And back in the day, purchased adventures were pretty much railroads. I agree. But then, we're a creative bunch, by self-selection. The non-creative ones don't need forums like this.  Heh. I never killed them. I just found a different GM. Easy to do, back in the day. But not so easy to do, these days. |
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Mar 19, 2018 21:09:51 GMT -5
On the other hand - again in my experience - GMs who didn't care about PC backstories [e.g. your PC was obviously Fighter #2 in that GM's mind] tended to be the sort who ran purchased adventures straight, without using very much of their own input. And back in the day, purchased adventures were pretty much railroads. Odd, IME DMs don't care about back story because you don't spend that much time on a PC until he gets to 4th or 5th level and everything is home brew with no purchased adventures. Once he gets past the first several levels, then you spend more time fleshing out the character because his survival odds are now high enough to make it worthwhile. |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 20, 2018 20:11:17 GMT -5
Once he gets past the first several levels, then you spend more time fleshing out the character because his survival odds are now high enough to make it worthwhile. That was the other thing. I got tired of my PCs dying so very often. So I took two major corrective steps: 1) I became a GM and 2) I switched to Classic Traveller. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 21, 2018 8:16:52 GMT -5
Once he gets past the first several levels, then you spend more time fleshing out the character because his survival odds are now high enough to make it worthwhile. That was the other thing. I got tired of my PCs dying so very often. So I took two major corrective steps: 1) I became a GM and 2) I switched to Classic Traveller. Classic Traveller where you can die repeatedly before the game begins.  |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 21, 2018 8:21:50 GMT -5
In my experience, GMs who encouraged backstory did so because they wanted to use it - or rather the plot hooks it provided - in creating adventures. Since the resulting adventures involved bits of each player's creation, even if the adventure plot was fairly linear it seldom felt restrictive, because we wanted to follow that plot. My game has adventure hooks because it is a sandbox, it does not have plot hooks because those involve an agenda by the DM of what he intends for the players to do and the expectation that they will stay on the rails. A good sandbox has many adventure hooks, the more the better and the players can choose what they pursue. In a sandbox at every point there are multiple choices, so if they continue to pursue a specific hook it is because they keeping deciding too and not because the have to or are expected to. |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 22, 2018 20:06:13 GMT -5
That was the other thing. I got tired of my PCs dying so very often. So I took two major corrective steps: 1) I became a GM and 2) I switched to Classic Traveller. Classic Traveller where you can die repeatedly before the game begins. Yeah. But then you spend five minutes rolling up another pre-game career. Or you use the optional rule that the "death" is instead an injury that's repaired with far future medical tech but still serves to end your pre-game career. But even five minutes was too long for some of my players. I had one player (my college roommate) who had me monitor him as he spent an evening rolling up fifty Classic Traveller characters, noting all the rolled results on a separate page of a 4x6 spiral notepad. After that, whenever someone new showed up to our weekly game, he'd just hand them this notepad and say, "Pick one and let's play." |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 22, 2018 20:12:24 GMT -5
A good sandbox has many adventure hooks, the more the better and the players can choose what they pursue. In a sandbox at every point there are multiple choices, so if they continue to pursue a specific hook it is because they keeping deciding too and not because the have to or are expected to. Now it's starting to sound like you are trying to make me believe that the way I envision a "sandbox" is wrong, simply because I give my players a pre-drawn map and keep my planned adventure introductions generic. I say this because you seem to be saying that planning ahead is somehow not the way to run a sandbox. In fact, you seem to be saying that any amount of pre-planning amounts to railroading your PCs. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 22, 2018 20:42:50 GMT -5
A good sandbox has many adventure hooks, the more the better and the players can choose what they pursue. In a sandbox at every point there are multiple choices, so if they continue to pursue a specific hook it is because they keeping deciding too and not because the have to or are expected to. Now it's starting to sound like you are trying to make me believe that the way I envision a "sandbox" is wrong, simply because I give my players a pre-drawn map and keep my planned adventure introductions generic. I say this because you seem to be saying that planning ahead is somehow not the way to run a sandbox. In fact, you seem to be saying that any amount of pre-planning amounts to railroading your PCs. I am not saying any of what you are claiming I am saying. Pre-plan all you want to, give a map out or don't hand one out. None of that is the issue. Forcing a specific encounter on the players is the issue. If the players have only one choice, that is not a choice, that is a railroad. To not be a railroad requires a minimum of two unique choices. Ideally there are more than two unique choices, but you need at least two to avoid the railroad. |
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Mar 23, 2018 9:20:26 GMT -5
Once he gets past the first several levels, then you spend more time fleshing out the character because his survival odds are now high enough to make it worthwhile. That was the other thing. I got tired of my PCs dying so very often. So I took two major corrective steps: 1) I became a GM and 2) I switched to Classic Traveller. To each his own. |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 27, 2018 20:07:20 GMT -5
Forcing a specific encounter on the players is the issue. But I don't force a specific encounter. I *construct* a new encounter that just happens to serve as a lead-in to the adventure I had planned. Since the players have no idea what that adventure is, how is this any different from constructing an entire adventure on the fly? Except (of course) for the fact that an adventure assembled completely on the fly is likely to include a lot more errors (most usually mismatches with stuff the players already know) than one that's been pre-planned. Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that your response to the above is going to be something along the lines of, "Then you should sketch out different encounters for each of the multiple, real, non-railroad choices you choose to present to your players." This is a laudable goal . . . except that after a while, a typical GM (maybe not you but certainly me) is going to get tired of generating adventure sketches for all the places his/her PCs choose NOT to go. A short while after that, said typical GM is probably going to take one or more of those unused adventure sketches and rejigger them to fit another set of Probably NOT choices. Given the above, a pure sandbox - where every choice made by the players leads to a totally unique encounter - is likely to be vanishingly rare. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 27, 2018 23:14:21 GMT -5
Marked on this map will also be entries in the nature of "The Dark Forest," "Ruined Ancient City," "Bottomless Pit of Doom," etc. The players are free to explore wherever they wish . . . because only rarely have I decided *what* any of those mysterious locations really are yet. That's why I say that - if I have the time to work out a detailed adventure before a given session - I deliberately don't link it to a particular marked location on the map. This way, whichever way the players end up going, I'm able to drop in the adventure at a suitable point along their way. IMHO repeatedly moving the adventure in front of the players no matter how many times they change direction is not sandbox, it is the opposite of a sandbox. YMMV You're rather missing the point. I just keep the location generic, so that I don't have create something completely from scratch, if the players surprise me with a different destination. Now, I *can* and *do* wing it totally, if I have nothing prepared. But if I've taken the time to create an intricate adventure, then the fact that the players choose to go to Beantown as opposed to Stringbeantown as they said at the close of the previous session isn't going to keep me from using it. THEY never need to know that The Prancing Badger Inn was originally going to be in Stringbeantown. "You're rather missing the point." I would know ( added) that I moved it! Forcing a specific encounter (adventure) on the players is the issue. But I don't force a specific encounter. I *construct* a new encounter that just happens to serve as a lead-in to the adventure I had planned. Since the players have no idea what that adventure is, how is this any different from constructing an entire adventure on the fly? Except (of course) for the fact that an adventure assembled completely on the fly is likely to include a lot more errors (most usually mismatches with stuff the players already know) than one that's been pre-planned. Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that your response to the above is going to be something along the lines of, "Then you should sketch out different encounters for each of the multiple, real, non-railroad choices you choose to present to your players." This is a laudable goal . . . except that after a while, a typical GM (maybe not you but certainly me) is going to get tired of generating adventure sketches for all the places his/her PCs choose NOT to go. A short while after that, said typical GM is probably going to take one or more of those unused adventure sketches and rejigger them to fit another set of Probably NOT choices. Given the above, a pure sandbox - where every choice made by the players leads to a totally unique encounter - is likely to be vanishingly rare. My summation Is my summation correct before I comment further? |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Mar 28, 2018 19:50:53 GMT -5
Is my summation correct before I comment further? Except for the fact that you changed your "encounter" to "adventure." If I have spent the time prior to play to construct a particular adventure and I can figure out a way to still use most of it - no matter where the players fare off to once the next session begins - then I will likely do so. You obviously see this as a "railroad." I do not. I don't think anything more need be said. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Mar 28, 2018 20:15:37 GMT -5
Is my summation correct before I comment further? Except for the fact that you changed your "encounter" to "adventure." That was for clarity, I said encounter before when I meant adventure, I noticed it when I saw you said encounter leading into an adventure. If I have spent the time prior to play to construct a particular adventure and I can figure out a way to still use most of it - no matter where the players fare off to once the next session begins - then I will likely do so. I see it as odd to put all these place names on the map that you hand out and then you don't tie any adventures(encounters) to specific locations (place names). That seems to defeat the whole purpose of giving out a map in the first place. I also see it as rather odd that you don't give them any hooks to tease the different things available for them to do, they are still free to reject all hooks and go off in any direction. But IMO by not using hooks, you are not using one of the greatest strengths that a sandbox offers. You obviously see this as a "railroad." I do not. No, it is problematic, you don't give them anything to go by they just head off in any random direction they want, but then you move the adventure that you designed anywhere on the map so that they run into it. So the first part is a sandbox of sorts with just sand since it lacks hooks, the second part is railroady because none of their choices mean anything at all. I don't think anything more need be said.  |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Mar 31, 2018 14:50:28 GMT -5
I feel you, raikenclw. For me, the speed of play and a good idea of where one is going is key to a good game. In a sense, a well-designed encounter is a reward in and of itself. It absolutely drives me crazy when a dungeon has no ecology, no plan of survival. Even a simple and run of the mill monster cave has security. They want you to walk in and then overwhelm you; they've done it countless times to others. As DM I'll study the map and create choke points and places to ambush enemies which reduce the risk to the defenders. Traps make sense, there are X amount of guys down there, where do they eat, sleep, rest, keep their loot. Who is in charge and why. Who is next in line and why hasn't he made his move yet? There are stories to find in this thing. It is a living and breathing place. I may even go as deep as to figure out what the cave system was used for prior to being over-run by monsters. Give it a history and some personality. The more time I put into it, the better the experience for the players. As DM, we are the brokers of information. We are the ones that supply the leads. We can't control the characters, but by the same token, the players can't control the villains. It has always been the villains who move the plot along, any plot. They provide motivations. Not to say that one can't play without this going on, but I personally feel that when I am gaming off the cuff and making it up as I go too much, my game feels less vibrant than what I really prefer. Monsters aren't nice guys. If they could make an honest living in society, maybe they would, but they can't. They still must make a living, and sell their skills. Typically these skills are offering services that decent folk would not be able to do. To have a player interfere with their ability to earn by playing a simple X-card would be cheating. There is an old image of Robert Howard sitting at his type-writer with this brutal man named Conan forcing him to write these horrible tales. Howard doesn't want to do this, but he's too intimidated to stop. Too afraid of what might happen if he says no. As DM, that is my motivation. It's not enough for me to just say that this is a den of trolls, there are stories that I can tell down there. These trolls need me to make them more than just stats on a piece of paper. While I'm not going to give them all unique personalities, I do want to create the illusion that I did. |
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Mar 31, 2018 15:03:00 GMT -5
I feel you, raikenclw . For me, the speed of play and a good idea of where one is going is key to a good game. In a sense, a well-designed encounter is a reward in and of itself. It absolutely drives me crazy when a dungeon has no ecology, no plan of survival. Even a simple and run of the mill monster cave has security. They want you to walk in and then overwhelm you; they've done it countless times to others. As DM I'll study the map and create choke points and places to ambush enemies which reduce the risk to the defenders. Traps make sense, there are X amount of guys down there, where do they eat, sleep, rest, keep their loot. Who is in charge and why. Who is next in line and why hasn't he made his move yet? There are stories to find in this thing. It is a living and breathing place. I may even go as deep as to figure out what the cave system was used for prior to being over-run by monsters. Give it a history and some personality. The more time I put into it, the better the experience for the players. As DM, we are the brokers of information. We are the ones that supply the leads. We can't control the characters, but by the same token, the players can't control the villains. It has always been the villains who move the plot along, any plot. They provide motivations. Not to say that one can't play without this going on, but I personally feel that when I am gaming off the cuff and making it up as I go too much, my game feels less vibrant than what I really prefer. Monsters aren't nice guys. If they could make an honest living in society, maybe they would, but they can't. They still must make a living, and sell their skills. Typically these skills are offering services that decent folk would not be able to do. To have a player interfere with their ability to earn by playing a simple X-card would be cheating. There is an old image of Robert Howard sitting at his type-writer with this brutal man named Conan forcing him to write these horrible tales. Howard doesn't want to do this, but he's too intimidated to stop. Too afraid of what might happen if he says no. As DM, that is my motivation. It's not enough for me to just say that this is a den of trolls, there are stories that I can tell down there. These trolls need me to make them more than just stats on a piece of paper. While I'm not going to give them all unique personalities, I do want to create the illusion that I did. Have an Exalt, well stated. I have not seen any disagreement with this anywhere in the thread. Yeah, the whole X-card thing is a non-starter for me. Yeah,"make them more than just stats on a piece of paper" your world building even on the fly or maybe especially if done on the fly has to go a lot deeper than that during play, even if the players only know a fraction of it, the DM has to or at least should know it. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Mar 31, 2018 16:23:16 GMT -5
Thanks, The Archivist, there is just too much involved on the DM side of the screen for a player to just drop a card to delete God knows what from the game. I think that a good deal of fun comes from Culture Shock. If we can't create new societies that are not politically correct by today's standards, then what is the point? Not to say that I shouldn't self-edit. The bad guys should be the bad guys, not the Dungeon Master. There is such a thing as going too far, it is a fine line, cross it too far and someone may take it personally. I had run into some cases involving little details that I didn't expect. Once I just had a gambling den which had dog fighting, it was just a popular thing in this town, but a player took some serious exception from it. I noticed her crying and I stopped the game to see how she was; I forgot that her dog had died a few months ago and she was having trouble dealing with it. It wasn't a big deal, I could just as well had cockfighting, rat races, or pie eating contests, it didn't factor into the story, so I offered to change it but she said no and it became a personal mission of hers to root this evil out and get rid of it through play. It changed the story and how it was to be played out and it kind of helped her come to terms with her loss. She found it kind of healing. Dog fighting became a bigger deal because the player felt so hurt by it. An X-Card would be cheap. To not deal with an issue teaches us nothing about ourselves or each other. I honestly can't see how using them could be a good thing unless the DM is so blind that he can't tell what is going on at the table. |
|
|
|
Post by True Black Raven on Apr 1, 2018 13:28:40 GMT -5
ripx187, ya get an exalt from me to.
|
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Apr 2, 2018 18:48:55 GMT -5
An X-Card would be cheap. To not deal with an issue teaches us nothing about ourselves or each other. I honestly can't see how using them could be a good thing unless the DM is so blind that he can't tell what is going on at the table. Thanks for bringing this back around to the original issue. Have an exalt! |
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Apr 2, 2018 18:57:58 GMT -5
I feel you, raikenclw . For me, the speed of play and a good idea of where one is going is key to a good game. In a sense, a well-designed encounter is a reward in and of itself. It absolutely drives me crazy when a dungeon has no ecology, no plan of survival. Even a simple and run of the mill monster cave has security. They want you to walk in and then overwhelm you; they've done it countless times to others. As DM I'll study the map and create choke points and places to ambush enemies which reduce the risk to the defenders. Traps make sense, there are X amount of guys down there, where do they eat, sleep, rest, keep their loot. Who is in charge and why. Who is next in line and why hasn't he made his move yet?
Yes. Even when using randomly-created dungeons back in the day, I still have to justify - if only to myself - a game-realistic background for the place and its denizens.
Exactly. The more prep I am able to do, the better the experience for the players. Although I *can* completely wing it when I must, I prefer to have the important NPCs detailed, complete with realistic motivations and their plans made accordingly. This way, their reactions to whatever unpredictable kink the PCs throw into them can be easily worked out in my head.
|
|
|
|
Post by raikenclw on Apr 2, 2018 19:09:40 GMT -5
You obviously see this as a "railroad." I do not. No, it is problematic, you don't give them anything to go by they just head off in any random direction they want, but then you move the adventure that you designed anywhere on the map so that they run into it. So the first part is a sandbox of sorts with just sand since it lacks hooks, the second part is railroady because none of their choices mean anything at all. I don't think anything more need be said. When I originally hand out the map, I don't [usually] have much prepared information on each of the placenames that I have placed upon it. At most, a sentence or two of description. If and when the players express interest in a particular point, then I will elaborate on *that* point, to whatever extent satisfies their curiuosity (scribbling appropriate notes as I talk, so that I don't forget those details should they become important later). In other words, the map builds itself, according to the player's interests. As I understand it, this is not much different from how you do it, except that I don't make them draw the map. I also remind them of whatever is relevant - when it becomes relevant - because their characters have a much better memory for such information than the players do. The players have other lives they must live, in between gaming sessions. For their characters, this information IS their lives. EXCEPTION: If a particular character has significantly below-average intelligence, I will make an appropriate roll before reminding his/her player of relevant character knowledge (since the character might have actually forgotten it). |
|
|
|
Post by colinouchou on Apr 17, 2018 9:14:14 GMT -5
For the OP's original question, I would not put up with this kind of nonsense at my table. You either want to play in my game or you don't. Part of playing in my game at my table is, I'm in charge. Those who like it keep coming back year after year, those who don't there's the door you can see yourself out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 9:41:35 GMT -5
I have to confess I’ve been taken rather aback by what I’ve read in this thread. I’ve always thought of gamers, FRPG’ers in particular, as some of the most open-minded and welcoming folks out there. Particularly in light of the persecution, ranging from mild to severe, many of us faced in the halcyon days of our hobby. Myself included. I’m sad to see I was merely lucky rather than typical in my choice of gaming companions.
Oh, well. Who am I to tell somebody else how to run things at their table? As for me, I would certainly encourage anyone in my campaign uncomfortable with something going on to speak up in whatever way they were able. My first thought would not be to show them the door and ask them not to return if they expressed any discomfort. (shrug)
|
|
|
|
Post by colinouchou on Apr 17, 2018 10:08:32 GMT -5
I have to confess I’ve been taken rather aback by what I’ve read in this thread. I’ve always thought of gamers, FRPG’ers in particular, as some of the most open-minded and welcoming folks out there. Particularly in light of the persecution, ranging from mild to severe, many of us faced in the halcyon days of our hobby. Myself included. I’m sad to see I was merely lucky rather than typical in my choice of gaming companions. Oh, well. Who am I to tell somebody else how to run things at their table? As for me, I would certainly encourage anyone in my campaign uncomfortable with something going on to speak up in whatever way they were able. My first thought would not be to show them the door and ask them not to return if they expressed any discomfort. (shrug) IMO all of us in this thread are perfectly fine with being open-minded and welcoming to our friends that we game with and to those we invite and those folks are going to speak up if we are off the beam on something. But the X-card is a different animal altogether. It is created by and to be used by those people that you wouldn't want around your children or anyone that you care about. The X-card is about those people with really out there social agenda's that want to force their mess on everyone else. You're gay, I could care less, you want your character to be gay, I could care less. But I am not putting anything in the game built around that. I am not going to help you roleplay anything thing sensual or erotic with an NPC, not going to happen. If you want that to be prominent in my campaign, not going to happen, there are plenty of other places for you to go do that. There are other things that I will not allow in my game at all, because I view those things as mental illness and you need help. I don't have the training to give you that help and when I get to college that will not be the field I am interested in. It looks like many here have more middle America beliefs and as long as you tell people that is the way your game rolls up front there should not be a problem. Then if they are not comfortable with that don't join, if they want to try it and then are uncomfortable with it, they don't have to stay, but I am not changing my game when there are way more places for those with California social values to play than there is for those of us with Midwest social values to play. Those that you are disappointed about are the minority and no we don't want to cater to the majority. They have a large roomy home over on the massive RPGNet site where they can find thousands of like minded people. We have this, not large but it is roomy. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 17, 2018 10:46:43 GMT -5
I have to confess I’ve been taken rather aback by what I’ve read in this thread. I’ve always thought of gamers, FRPG’ers in particular, as some of the most open-minded and welcoming folks out there. Particularly in light of the persecution, ranging from mild to severe, many of us faced in the halcyon days of our hobby. Myself included. I’m sad to see I was merely lucky rather than typical in my choice of gaming companions. Oh, well. Who am I to tell somebody else how to run things at their table? As for me, I would certainly encourage anyone in my campaign uncomfortable with something going on to speak up in whatever way they were able. My first thought would not be to show them the door and ask them not to return if they expressed any discomfort. (shrug) @piper, I suspect that given the nature and wording of the poll and the who X-card thing we are getting skewed results. The whole X-card thing brings up current social things that set many peoples teeth on edge. I believe if a thread had been started of the form: If the above had been the thread, then I think you would not be taken back about the results. As I noted much earlier in the thread I would want someone to let me know and if there was something major in their life they should let the ref know up front. I keep my games pretty child friendly so I would not expect anything to come up. So IMO it was more typical. As for persecution, I don't know what it was for others, but for me that all ended with high school graduation and D&D started in college so my halycon days had zero persecution. In fact, I have never had any static from anyone about D&D in the real world ever. I really feel for those of you who have had persecution for playing D&D. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 17, 2018 10:47:47 GMT -5
We have this, not large but it is roomy. Yes, we have lots of room to grow, all we need in fact.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 11:17:59 GMT -5
I suspect that given the nature and wording of the poll and the who X-card thing we are getting skewed results. The whole X-card thing brings up current social things that set many peoples teeth on edge. I’ll concede the point, but doesn’t that further mean we too are getting hung up on wording? In other words, we’re doing exactly the same thing that some posters on this thread are looking down on? People are getting upset by words. No, no such problem since the ‘70s. I did specify in my post “during the halcyon days of our hobby” to indicate such. Sorry for the unclear wording. At any rate? While I acknowledge I may be over- reading some of these posts, there are some pretty harsh things collectively said. That’s all I was saying. I always fully support any referee’s mandate to have people in or out of their game as they see fit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 11:24:26 GMT -5
It looks like many here have more middle America beliefs and as long as you tell people that is the way your game rolls up front there should not be a problem. Then if they are not comfortable with that don't join, if they want to try it and then are uncomfortable with it, they don't have to stay, but I am not changing my game when there are way more places for those with California social values to play than there is for those of us with Midwest social values to play. Those that you are disappointed about are the minority and no we don't want to cater to the majority. They have a large roomy home over on the massive RPGNet site where they can find thousands of like minded people. We have this, not large but it is roomy. That’s my preferred method, too. Tell people right up front what’s in the campaign and invite them to play a time or two on a trial basis before making the invitation a permanent one. But, then again? I tend to run games for adults. Nothing against minor children, but I would just have to be too mindful of what I’m presenting and saying to be comfortable with them at the table. Not that my games have anything more than a PG rating! But, still? No thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 17, 2018 11:34:13 GMT -5
It looks like many here have more middle America beliefs and as long as you tell people that is the way your game rolls up front there should not be a problem. Then if they are not comfortable with that don't join, if they want to try it and then are uncomfortable with it, they don't have to stay, but I am not changing my game when there are way more places for those with California social values to play than there is for those of us with Midwest social values to play. Those that you are disappointed about are the minority and no we don't want to cater to the majority. They have a large roomy home over on the massive RPGNet site where they can find thousands of like minded people. We have this, not large but it is roomy. That’s my preferred method, too. Tell people right up front what’s in the campaign and invite them to play a time or two on a trial basis before making the invitation a permanent one. But, then again? I tend to run games for adults. Nothing against minor children, but I would just have to be too mindful of what I’m presenting and saying to be comfortable with them at the table. Not that my games have anything more than a PG rating! But, still? No thank you. I grew up with a very large extended family of cousins, so I have entertained children all of my life and so I enjoy running D&D for kids. I have likely lost potential adult players because there were kids in the game. I am fairly positive that there was nothing in any game I have ever reffed that was not child friendly, since I typically am not graphic about the violence. My pbp will likely be more adult than my face to face games ever were or will be. I have reffed for 6 year olds and reffing 10 year olds is for me the sweet spot of D&D. All that unfettered imagination, energy and enthusiasm is just fun to be around. When we played in college, I think we approached it a lot like a bunch of 10 year olds. It is so much fun playing we those who have not yet been told there are limits to what their character can do or try. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2018 12:03:43 GMT -5
I grew up with a very large extended family of cousins, so I have entertained children all of my life and so I enjoy running D&D for kids. I have likely lost potential adult players because there were kids in the game. I am fairly positive that there was nothing in any game I have ever reffed that was not child friendly, since I typically am not graphic about the violence. My pbp will likely be more adult than my face to face games ever were or will be. I have reffed for 6 year olds and reffing 10 year olds is for me the sweet spot of D&D. All that unfettered imagination, energy and enthusiasm is just fun to be around. When we played in college, I think we approached it a lot like a bunch of 10 year olds. It is so much fun playing we those who have not yet been told there are limits to what their character can do or try. Well I don’t disagree with anything you said? It is still my preference not to run a game with children, with the exception if the table is all children. Also, I’ll play in a mixed group of adults and minors, I’m only referring to games I’m actually the referee. Just like Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors, so is gaming with minors simply not my flavor of ice cream! |
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 17, 2018 12:13:42 GMT -5
I grew up with a very large extended family of cousins, so I have entertained children all of my life and so I enjoy running D&D for kids. I have likely lost potential adult players because there were kids in the game. I am fairly positive that there was nothing in any game I have ever reffed that was not child friendly, since I typically am not graphic about the violence. My pbp will likely be more adult than my face to face games ever were or will be. I have reffed for 6 year olds and reffing 10 year olds is for me the sweet spot of D&D. All that unfettered imagination, energy and enthusiasm is just fun to be around. When we played in college, I think we approached it a lot like a bunch of 10 year olds. It is so much fun playing we those who have not yet been told there are limits to what their character can do or try. Well I don’t disagree with anything you said? It is still my preference not to run a game with children, with the exception if the table is all children. Also, I’ll play in a mixed group of adults and minors, I’m only referring to games I’m actually the referee. Just like Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors, so is gaming with minors simply not my flavor of ice cream! Being the referee for children is a challenge in a completely different way from adults and not to everyones taste. |
|
