|
|
Post by mao on May 20, 2021 7:14:35 GMT -5
...it is the wrong way. My unique visions have never attracted an average gamer or even good ones. I had players who mostly have not gamed before. Then being exposed to the true way they leave. I'm really not sure why or how I kept the game going on for so many tears. I know that I have never been happy with my players which I am now convinced that was my fault. I don't know how this is going to affect my futre here. As I am not really interested in trying to get a game going. One thing I know I am going to do with this is the next PBP that I do here is going to be conventional w hints of mao.Stay tuned
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on May 20, 2021 7:31:29 GMT -5
So how exactly do I go mainstream? I am going to put an end to the low level crap, it really has restricted my player base. So what elements do I keep. I am not abandoning anything but I am going to turn as mainstream as possible. So how should I proceed, I REALLY don't want to hear "Don't change", it's a done deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 20, 2021 13:11:03 GMT -5
Figuring out players, what they like and what they dislike. Evaluating them and helping them improve their game over time. People around here don't like the word balance, but you really have to do that because you want to include everybody. You are going to have that guy who is all about Min/Maxing, or the woman who lives for Role-play. There are players who want to use the dice to look for stuff and others that want to really explore the setting. If everybody hates tracking arrows, food, and torches, then don't track it or figure out a way to sneak those resource management scenarios in there with small bitesize chunks.
Your job is to figure out how you can make combat fun for puzzle-solvers, challenging for players who have played for decades while teaching the newer gamers the basics, and create moments for everybody to feel awesome. If nobody wants to play a wizard because of all the bookwork involved, then go with it. If everybody wants to play a wizard, we can find that story too.
We are looking at our game and making it better, if something goes wrong it can really suck but that happens when you are pushing the boundaries. I have a good idea of what my own weaknesses are, and I seek to strengthen them. I tend to fall in love with my own ideas and had to learn to run the game more loosely. I like a tight game, but making sure that everybody is feeling comfortable, that everybody is getting their moments, that no one person is dominating the game "including me", all of that is more important. It sounds cliché, but the DM is the MC of the game. One can be a master of the rules, or a great story-teller, but if they can't read the room they are going to fail.
Something that I try to keep in mind at all times is a simple thought. It is always an easy thing to tear people down, but very difficult to build them up. Look at them, look at how they play and give them opportunities to shine, but sneak in those tiny things that will quietly challenge them into expanding in a fun way! Reward them for a job well done, do not punish EVER! Build them up, tell them what they did right, make adjustments to teach them new ways of thinking. This game teaches people things on its own, we just have to let it function. I really love it when a player comes to the table and says, "I've been thinking about this thing since the last game and I want to try X." That doesn't happen much, I have to set it up and hope that it happens. I also try to get the players more involved in the narrative, but it is usually me. I have to come up with way to encourage it but without putting anybody on the spot. I've had a month to think about this stuff, they have only a few seconds.
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on May 20, 2021 15:45:52 GMT -5
I don't have the experience to advise here really, but I will say that I think you should stay unique and stay true to yourself. But if you dress that up in a different way or find a way to be yourself while also being more attractive to players, then I can't see how that would be bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by hengest on May 20, 2021 15:48:13 GMT -5
One of your obvious strengths is the apparently endless fountain of invention. Obviously you don't want that to dry up. Maybe instead of so many worlds, though, you would want to work on one "backdrop" world as a base and have a justification in-world to have places with all the wild stuff you come up with. I see in your forum that it's your custom to split them up into different worlds but maybe you can express the same creative impulses while hanging them in a world that will serve as a "gallery" to keep things more grounded for players.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on May 21, 2021 6:09:21 GMT -5
One of your obvious strengths is the apparently endless fountain of invention. Obviously you don't want that to dry up. Maybe instead of so many worlds, though, you would want to work on one "backdrop" world as a base and have a justification in-world to have places with all the wild stuff you come up with. I see in your forum that it's your custom to split them up into different worlds but maybe you can express the same creative impulses while hanging them in a world that will serve as a "gallery" to keep things more grounded for players. This is prob a very good idea. Im not sure if I can pull it off. For now I just want to see if a more mainstream world helps here.We need to shake the satus que of here needs to be changed(I think) |
|
|
|
Post by mao on May 21, 2021 6:10:14 GMT -5
I don't have the experience to advise here really, but I will say that I think you should stay unique and stay true to yourself. But if you dress that up in a different way or find a way to be yourself while also being more attractive to players, then I can't see how that would be bad. I think this is the way to go |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on May 21, 2021 19:18:47 GMT -5
...it is the wrong way. My unique visions have never attracted an average gamer or even good ones. I had players who mostly have not gamed before. Then being exposed to the true way they leave. I'm really not sure why or how I kept the game going on for so many tears. I know that I have never been happy with my players which I am now convinced that was my fault. I don't know how this is going to affect my futre here. As I am not really interested in trying to get a game going. One thing I know I am going to do with this is the next PBP that I do here is going to be conventional w hints of mao.Stay tuned How many years did you say your campaign ran or your gaming group was together? |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on May 21, 2021 19:21:24 GMT -5
One of your obvious strengths is the apparently endless fountain of invention. Obviously you don't want that to dry up. Maybe instead of so many worlds, though, you would want to work on one "backdrop" world as a base and have a justification in-world to have places with all the wild stuff you come up with. I see in your forum that it's your custom to split them up into different worlds but maybe you can express the same creative impulses while hanging them in a world that will serve as a "gallery" to keep things more grounded for players. , I think this is excellent advice. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on May 21, 2021 19:41:16 GMT -5
I partially agree with ripx187 , but I am going to disagree with him too. I agree that you should try to figure out your players and make some adjustments to your game, but stay true to your game and your vision for the game. Some players are not compatible with some games and that is OK. You do not have to balance everything to include all the compatible players. A lot of this has to do with the game you are playing. Balance is irrelvant in OD&D, balance can (unfortunately IMO) be very important in all other versions of D&D/AD&D. In OD&D Min/Maxing aka known as the Munchkin way does not mean much or accomplish much. You roll 3d6 in order and there are very few bonuses. It keeps the Min/Maxing - Munchkins properly neutered. Roleplay and exploring the setting are the heart and soul of OD&D and cannot really be separated IMO. Using the dice to look for stuff is not IMO part of OD&D. Tell me what you are doing. Resource management is part of OD&D and part of the challenge. No six-shooters that shoot hundred times without reloading. I agree with this: But I don't agree with this: The players choices and actions create those moments. If a player is playing his character as a cowardly idiot, then it is not up to me to deus ex machina a shining moment for him. He needs to choose to have his character grow and change to gain that reward. I give the players (all the players) opportunities, but it is their responsibility to act or ignore those opportunities. While I will act to nudge players out of being wallflowers, they are not going to be forced to be involved. I fully agree with this, but we have a different approach to getting there. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 22, 2021 0:46:46 GMT -5
Balance in this case refers to "writing" with your players in mind. I have noisy players who don't shut up, and I have one quiet player. Engaging this player is very important to me, she has opened up a lot through the years and never misses a game, but I make sure that I am supplying NPCs that she'll want to talk to and scenarios that play to her character abilities. She loves getting information and secrets out of NPCs, and she really enjoys it when I make her mad and she gets to attack. I don't let her know that I do this, but if I don't then she'll just gladly sit there watching everybody else play.
I wouldn't call min/maxers munchkins, it is fun to watch them play and plan. They are the type of player who is perfecting their art, they are creating a hero or whatever from scratch and building it into something. I will ask them if there is a magic item that they would be interested in getting at some point, and we'll get it done in a cool way. Min/Maxers don't cheat, they don't want favors, they want more challenge than another person might want. The thrill they get from the game is playing with the mechanics and enjoying just building a character that they are happy with. Customizing character classes. If one chooses to play a fighting man in OD&D with the intent of playing him like a knight, that is the kind of min/maxer that I'm talking about.
D&D is group storytelling. The DM pitches an idea and creates a world for the players to explore, but it becomes their story. It is told through their eyes and perspective. I have to constantly remind myself that I'm not writing a book; maybe some day, but for now we explore these places with the characters. Holding on too tightly to one's vision is the number one cause of game failure and DM frustration. I don't know what Mao is asking, but the answer is typically release the bird and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by mao on May 22, 2021 1:56:05 GMT -5
...it is the wrong way. My unique visions have never attracted an average gamer or even good ones. I had players who mostly have not gamed before. Then being exposed to the true way they leave. I'm really not sure why or how I kept the game going on for so many tears. I know that I have never been happy with my players which I am now convinced that was my fault. I don't know how this is going to affect my futre here. As I am not really interested in trying to get a game going. One thing I know I am going to do with this is the next PBP that I do here is going to be conventional w hints of mao.Stay tuned How many years did you say your campaign ran or your gaming group was together? 31 years |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on May 22, 2021 12:57:33 GMT -5
How many years did you say your campaign ran or your gaming group was together? 31 years Whatever else you can say, you attracted a loyal group of gamers. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on May 22, 2021 14:09:04 GMT -5
Balance in this case refers to "writing" with your players in mind. I have noisy players who don't shut up, and I have one quiet player. Engaging this player is very important to me, she has opened up a lot through the years and never misses a game, but I make sure that I am supplying NPCs that she'll want to talk to and scenarios that play to her character abilities. She loves getting information and secrets out of NPCs, and she really enjoys it when I make her mad and she gets to attack. I don't let her know that I do this, but if I don't then she'll just gladly sit there watching everybody else play. I wouldn't call min/maxers munchkins, it is fun to watch them play and plan. They are the type of player who is perfecting their art, they are creating a hero or whatever from scratch and building it into something. I will ask them if there is a magic item that they would be interested in getting at some point, and we'll get it done in a cool way. Min/Maxers don't cheat, they don't want favors, they want more challenge than another person might want. The thrill they get from the game is playing with the mechanics and enjoying just building a character that they are happy with. Customizing character classes. If one chooses to play a fighting man in OD&D with the intent of playing him like a knight, that is the kind of min/maxer that I'm talking about. D&D is group storytelling. The DM pitches an idea and creates a world for the players to explore, but it becomes their story. It is told through their eyes and perspective. I have to constantly remind myself that I'm not writing a book; maybe some day, but for now we explore these places with the characters. Holding on too tightly to one's vision is the number one cause of game failure and DM frustration. I don't know what Mao is asking, but the answer is typically release the bird and see what happens. Yeah, those quiet players are ones that I enjoy from the standpoint of I want to see them immersed and into it as much as the other players are. I see it as a very good game, when that is happening consistently. I view Min/Maxers as being completely the opposite of what you describe with their goal being to be too powerful to challenge. What you call a Min/Maxer I view more as a committed player who is focused and trying to do their best. Semantics/Terminology. Holding onto my vision is not an issue, because I create a world and then let the players play. There are no outcomes I have in mine, the players are free to strive after any outcome they want. I riff off of their choices and let the game take all of us where it will. There are no untouchable NPCs or institutions, they can found a kingdom or destroy a kingdom, their choice. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on May 22, 2021 14:12:29 GMT -5
Holding on too tightly to one's vision is the number one cause of game failure and DM frustration. I don't know what Mao is asking, but the answer is typically release the bird and see what happens. I think mao is asking how to let go and let the players take the game where they will. mao has said in the past that he is the king of railroads. IMO he is asking how to get off the railroad (at least to some extent) and let the players make their choices. What do you think mao? |
|
|
|
Post by mao on May 23, 2021 4:56:51 GMT -5
Holding on too tightly to one's vision is the number one cause of game failure and DM frustration. I don't know what Mao is asking, but the answer is typically release the bird and see what happens. I think mao is asking how to let go and let the players take the game where they will. mao has said in the past that he is the king of railroads. IMO he is asking how to get off the railroad (at least to some extent) and let the players make their choices. What do you think mao ? It's a close thing. On the one hand I did keep my game gooing for 31 years. On the other hand I got them so usedto the ailroad, nobody fought it. But yea I agree , I held on too tight. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on May 27, 2021 14:44:21 GMT -5
I think mao is asking how to let go and let the players take the game where they will. mao has said in the past that he is the king of railroads. IMO he is asking how to get off the railroad (at least to some extent) and let the players make their choices. What do you think mao ? It's a close thing. On the one hand I did keep my game going for 31 years. On the other hand I got them so used to the railroad, nobody fought it. But yea I agree, I held on too tight. If you had known me from childhood, I would have been the one that fought the railroad from day one.  |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 28, 2021 13:10:51 GMT -5
Behind the screen is my favorite place to be, and I can go years back there happily DMing the game. However, I find that we get tunnel-vision and start viewing the game from a DM's perspective and it will eventually lead to frustration. Sometimes you just need to play the game once in a while because we forget what it is like. Playing allows us to center ourselves and acts as a reminder for how the game functions on the player side. I always claimed that I made a bad player, but the real deal was that I was afraid that if I gave up my role as DM, I'd never get it back again.
The term Railroad implies that the PCs do not matter in any way. It is lazy DMing, it is prepping a game to go one way instead of prepping it so that the players can make decisions on how they accomplish it. Having games that are open and realistic enough to become fully interactive require less prep than games that are over prepped. In fact, getting angry with your players for breaking your game is a symptom of over-prep.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on May 28, 2021 13:21:00 GMT -5
Behind the screen is my favorite place to be, and I can go years back there happily DMing the game. However, I find that we get tunnel-vision and start viewing the game from a DM's perspective and it will eventually lead to frustration. Sometimes you just need to play the game once in a while because we forget what it is like. Playing allows us to center ourselves and acts as a reminder for how the game functions on the player side. I always claimed that I made a bad player, but the real deal was that I was afraid that if I gave up my role as DM, I'd never get it back again. The term Railroad implies that the PCs do not matter in any way. It is lazy DMing, it is prepping a game to go one way instead of prepping it so that the players can make decisions on how they accomplish it. Having games that are open and realistic enough to become fully interactive require less prep than games that are over prepped. In fact, getting angry with your players for breaking your game is a symptom of over-prep. I would say that if your game can be broken you are not playing an RPG, RPGs cannot be broken. Plays can be broken and sometimes you have to fire a bad actor that won't follow the directions of the director. But with RPGs there is no director. |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on May 28, 2021 14:20:01 GMT -5
They are talking about players keeping things a secret from the DM on Reddit. There is a player philosophy now that if the DM knows what you are doing than it won't work, the DM will purposely go out of their way to ruin you plan. I know that there are games out there that have the DM play an adversarial role; it could be argued that this was the style of Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. I have played this way, it is a rather old-school style of play, but I'm not a fan of it and I know that it can be over-done. I am not going to say that I don't go out of my way to ruin plans, because I sometimes do, but I try to only do that if it adds something the the game. There is a line between improving the narrative and being a jerk. If you do it all the time than it takes away the horror when a major villain does it.
|
|
