Quote from: rgrove0172;938927Basic decency between civilized participants require we value even the worst, most rediculous or seemingly errant opinions.

Actually... no.  "One has a right to one's opinion" does not equal "all opinions are equally valid."  That fallacy has destroyed political discourse in this country and almost destroyed news reporting.  I do not value an opinion that "Fox news is the most reliable news source there is," for instance.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938927As an equal member of this forum my opinion has value regardless.

A member of the forum is entitled to share an opinion, but no one is guaranteed their opinions will be valued.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938927Basic decency between civilized participants require we value even the worst, most rediculous or seemingly errant opinions.!

Only a garbage can accepts everything thrown its way.

The most essential gift for a critical thinker is a built-in, shockproof, shit detector.*


* With apologies to Papa.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938785If it works for your table, nothing else actually matters.

Yes.

Often said, but always worth repeating.

We play games with PEOPLE. If the people are happy, we are doing it right.

Quote from: tenbones;938731Ahern is a bad writer. Sure he has his fans, and so does Stephenie Meyer, they may be successful but the quality of their writing is shit. Ahern is like the retarded love-child of Richard Marcinko and Clive Cussler pretending to be Tom Clancy. All of them are bad writers (I'll cut Clancy a break).

One day, I hope to fail as badly as Meyer, Marcinko or Cussler.

The Part 2 of that Penny Arcade comic is the best part.
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/05/22/the-song-of-the-sorcelator-part-two

Quote from: robiswrong;938557You need to give enough information that the players and GM are all working with *compatible* images in their heads.

Absolutely.

And we can argue all day what "enough" means, but it should mean "whatever amount works for your players".

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938784Thirdly, the vast majority of the hundreds of people I've gamed with over the last 44 years DON'T GIVE A FUCK.  Seriously.  I have a BA in medieval history and a fairly sizeable library in both text and photos.  I have found:

They don't really care how a castle is built or what it looks like
They don't care what actual medieval clothes are called or what they look like
They don't care if the knight is wearing alwhyte, Gothic, Maximillian, or Greenwich armor.
They don't care what the inside of a medieval smithy actually looked like

They're there to play a game and have adventures.  If I say "the nobles are dressed like the nobles in 'The Princess Bride,' " they all nod happily and we get on with the game.

Oh god, truer words have never been spoken. I run historical games, and I bend over backwords to get the details right. I obsess to the point of knowing the names of the actual residents residing in any given house in London during 1922 that players might pass by. I create tons of supplementary materials, I've even gone so far as actually write entire grimoires and "black books" that I'll post on the campaign website.

And 99.9% of the time the players interest in any of that is akin to what one might expect from the characters from the Knights of the Dinner Table comic strip.

The thing is, I'm fine with that, I do this for myself,for my own enjoyment. It makes the game more real for me, and I don't expect other players to travel along with my obsessive compulsions. However, I do insert campaign secrets into the supplementary material Iproduce an every once in a while a player figures out that they can reap incredible advantages by investing the time to read it.

But its not a requirement. The games wouldn't go any different if it wasnt there.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938945A member of the forum is entitled to share an opinion, but no one is guaranteed their opinions will be valued.

You can apply that to the way Democracy is supposed to work, as well. The thing I like to tell people is that "free speech" doesn't mean "consequenceless speech." Of course, if you have money and lawyers, you can be a complete dipshit and pay your way out of your fuck ups (because, in America, mo' money=mo' speech [well, mo' everything]).

But, I digress. You can say what you want, but you can also expect that if you say "yin" someone's going to throw their "yang" out there.  I'm pretty sure Grove gets this. He just doesn't like the tone. I think there IS something to be said for discussing things civilly, if only because an off-putting tone drives away your listener. But I'm not sure there's a glaring need for that when discussing our elf games.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;938929Actually... no.  "One has a right to one's opinion" does not equal "all opinions are equally valid."  That fallacy has destroyed political discourse in this country and almost destroyed news reporting.  I do not value an opinion that "Fox news is the most reliable news source there is," for instance.

Bleh, semantics.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;938945A member of the forum is entitled to share an opinion, but no one is guaranteed their opinions will be valued.


Only a garbage can accepts everything thrown its way.

The most essential gift for a critical thinker is a built-in, shockproof, shit detector.*


* With apologies to Papa.

And shit is absolutely in the eye of the beholder so your detector is tuned to its operator and essentially useless.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;938967Oh god, truer words have never been spoken. I run historical games, and I bend over backwords to get the details right. I obsess to the point of knowing the names of the actual residents residing in any given house in London during 1922 that players might pass by. I create tons of supplementary materials, I've even gone so far as actually write entire grimoires and "black books" that I'll post on the campaign website.

And 99.9% of the time the players interest in any of that is akin to what one might expect from the characters from the Knights of the Dinner Table comic strip.

The thing is, I'm fine with that, I do this for myself,for my own enjoyment. It makes the game more real for me, and I don't expect other players to travel along with my obsessive compulsions. However, I do insert campaign secrets into the supplementary material Iproduce an every once in a while a player figures out that they can reap incredible advantages by investing the time to read it.

But its not a requirement. The games wouldn't go any different if it wasnt there.

Obviously your experiences with players has been different from mine. I have had a few of those players that approached the game at a very superficial level but a majority have embraced at least in part my priorities. ie. setting, historical detail and accuracy etc. When we are on the same page it is incredibly rewarding but I can understand your frustration when those kinds of players appear.

I get it when ten-bones explains he has had to adjust and develop his game over the years while playing with a variety of players, depending on their priorities, their gaming preferences, personalities etc. I can see where that would be necessary. I consider myself very lucky that I didn't have to. Ive tolerated a few gamers that didn't really fit our approach to gaming but typically they left when the union didnt seem to be working out in their favor, and we wished them well. I never felt a need to change what we were doing in order to accommodate the odd outsider now and then.

Quote from: cranebump;938984You can apply that to the way Democracy is supposed to work, as well. The thing I like to tell people is that "free speech" doesn't mean "consequenceless speech." Of course, if you have money and lawyers, you can be a complete dipshit and pay your way out of your fuck ups (because, in America, mo' money=mo' speech [well, mo' everything]).

But, I digress. You can say what you want, but you can also expect that if you say "yin" someone's going to throw their "yang" out there.  I'm pretty sure Grove gets this. He just doesn't like the tone. I think there IS something to be said for discussing things civilly, if only because an off-putting tone drives away your listener. But I'm not sure there's a glaring need for that when discussing our elf games.

This - Yang is great, tactless yang with a combative bent less so.

I'm one of the people that doesn't care too much about the ostensible accuracy of details. As far as I'm concerned its another, fictional world. It doesn't have to work like ours. Most rpgs make dozens of assumptions and handwave things for various reasons. What I like and want are immersive details: sights, sounds, smells, textures. What its like to be in the setting or particular scene. Cinematic descriptions that set the atmosphere are big parts of what fun for me. If the description includes a reference to a real life thing that's fine, IMO, even if its not totally accurate.

I've game with allot of people on both ends of the table, more than some, less than others. I've fun into allot of nitpickers that want to tear into any perceived inaccuracies from gms or games. For example, Some of the descriptions given in this thread where nitpicked for minor or even trivial issues as far as I'm concerned, I thought that they were fine even enjoyable. It was the mood and imagery that was more important than the technical details. Though, IME, geeks (frankly) do tend to obsess over minutia especially when theydon't like something.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938995Obviously your experiences with players has been different from mine. I have had a few of those superficial players that approached the game at a very superficial level but a majority have embraced at least in part my priorities. ie. setting, historical detail and accuracy etc. When we are on the same page it is incredibly rewarding but I can understand your frustration when those kinds of players appear.

I get it when ten-bones explains he has had to adjust and develop his game over the years while playing with a variety of players, depending on their priorities, their gaming preferences, personalities etc. I can see where that would be necessary. I consider myself very lucky that I didn't have to. Ive tolerated a few gamers that didn't really fit our approach to gaming but typically they left when the union didnt seem to be working out in their favor, and we wished them well. I never felt a need to change what we were doing in order to accommodate the odd outsider now and then.

I think some of the difference is perspective stems from a difference in approach and goals. I'm not really trying to appeal to a vast number of people. If people like my style and want to play in my games, that's great. If they don't that's cool too. Same goes for when I play. I'll stay or leave based on how much I like the game. But I can see how if someone has gm'ed for larger more varied groups it will affect their style as they have to adapt and be more flexible toa broader denominator. In that perspective, a lighter touch does make more sense. The less added, the less chance of over doing it, the more you have to feel out your current audience, etc.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938995Obviously your experiences with players has been different from mine. I have had a few of those superficial players that approached the game at a very superficial level but a majority have embraced at least in part my priorities. ie. setting, historical detail and accuracy etc.

That seems largely inconsistent with several of your previous posts.

QuoteWhen we are on the same page it is incredibly rewarding but I can understand your frustration when those kinds of players appear.

I have no idea what you're saying here. What frustration when who appears?

Quote from: Spinachcat;938965One day, I hope to fail as badly as Meyer, Marcinko or Cussler.

I imagine allot of popular authors that get frequently trashed online cry themselves to sleep at night on their mattresses stuffed with money.

But more seriously these people have found their audience; if people like their work they like it. Same with descriptive and play styles.

Quote from: Nexus;939005I think some of the difference is perspective stems from a difference in approach and goals. I'm not really trying to appeal to a vast number of people. If people like my style and want to play in my games, that's great. If they don't that's cool too. Same goes for when I play. I'll stay or leave based on how much I like the game. But I can see how if someone has gm'ed for larger more varied groups it will affect their style as they have to adapt and be more flexible toa broader denominator. In that perspective, a lighter touch does make more sense. The less added, the less chance of over doing it, the more you have to feel out your current audience, etc.

Spot on. Understanding where the other guy is coming from is crucial when attempting to get his full meaning in a post and something rarely in evidence here. Assumptions are made continually and misunderstandings proliferate. Once I got the idea that tenbones was a heavy gamer, lots of different projects, many different groups, cons etc. it changed how I perceived his posts. Im at the other far end of the spectrum. I did my mass gaming, convention stuff with military miniatures. To me RPGs are more personal, I pick and choose my players, the games I want to GM and how I want to GM them. I less likely to adjust how I want to enjoy the game than I would be if GMing on demand for example or for a new group I was trying to lure into gaming. I can afford to be selfish.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;939007That seems largely inconsistent with several of your previous posts.



I have no idea what you're saying here. What frustration when who appears?

I don't see how, Ive mentioned my players seem to enjoy my style of GMing many times, to the consternation of some, but I thought I made it clear I ask out of curiosity, not out of need.

As to frustration;

Players that don't share your vision for how the game is supposed to flow. Don't appreciate detail, concentrate only on combat, aren't self motivated or whatever. You spend time and effort on elements they don't care about etc.