This post in http://shootingdice.blogspot.com/  is to my thinking useful to the discussion at hand.

Levi, hope this is not considered a derail. Same goes to Shooting Dice.

Regards,
David R.

Got here via Mearl's blog. Nice avatar btw, Mike.

Very good stuff indeed. I posted the link on the site I run to share with others, as well as my gaming group(s).  It is hard to have 4-7 people sit at a table and nail these 12 things down so that it not only becomes a good gaming experience, but an extraordinary one.

Great advice indeed. Thanks to Mearls for linking it in his LJ.

QuoteI've seen all too many games derailed by one or two players trying to push a creative agenda on the rest of the group, a GM intent on steamrolling or abusing the players, or attention hogs who are there to glorify in the spotlight.

I've seen these kinds all too often myself. Unsurprisingly, people trying to push creative agendas at the game table are generally GMs, and people who want the spotlight constantly for themselves are generally players. Or maybe I can just spot them more easily because of the roles they have at the game table.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI've noted that the style of responses here differs from some of the other forums I visit.  

How so?

Quote from: ColonelHardissonHow so?

It seems as if folks come here, in many cases, to goof around a bit.  This makes things less "polite and professional" - but sometimes, goofing around with the right material, or thinking of it in that tone of mind, can lead to some really cool insights.

...Or something like that.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt seems as if folks come here, in many cases, to goof around a bit.  This makes things less "polite and professional" - but sometimes, goofing around with the right material, or thinking of it in that tone of mind, can lead to some really cool insights.

...Or something like that.

:heh: don't put it nicely on our account now....

yes, we like to fuck around. we play. we're not "polite and professional" because that's not what our website is really about. We remember that we talk about games, and that while you can take a subject seriously, you should always be able to laugh about it.

Quote from: Thjalfi:heh: don't put it nicely on our account now....

yes, we like to fuck around. we play. we're not "polite and professional" because that's not what our website is really about. We remember that we talk about games, and that while you can take a subject seriously, you should always be able to laugh about it.

It's good point - but I suspect that maintaining it will get harder as your traffic increases.  Assuming that your traffic does continue to increase, that is.

I wouldn't mind comparing some crib notes at some point on some of this stuff, actually.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt's good point - but I suspect that maintaining it will get harder as your traffic increases.  Assuming that your traffic does continue to increase, that is.

I wouldn't mind comparing some crib notes at some point on some of this stuff, actually.

We'll keep that in mind.

Keep in mind, our entire purpose in this site is to be honestly different. all of the nutkins are fed up with the big boards for RPGs that exist, and we know we're not the only ones.

And pharao dreamt of large conventions, where everybody's face was frozen serious, and of small gatherings full of laughter and wine (and, knowing pharao, women). When he woke up from the latter, he wanted to fall asleep and dream on right then and there.

I don't think this even needs to be interpreted.

Anyway, just saw this thread. Good advice, there. I'm thinking about translating it.

I think your suggestions are pretty good in general but...

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen3. Accept Responsibility
Taking the same point as #2, and bringing it into the game - what you do at the gaming table is your responsibility, and you should accept this.  What others do is their responsibility, and they should accept that, too.  This absolutely includes what you decide that your character does.  This absolutely includes the actions of the GM as world.  If playing your character as written could very well interfere with the fun of others, you need to decide where to go with that  its your call, though; excuses are lame.  If you ruin the game by playing your character or the world correctly, then you still ruined the game.

Please don't exclude that for some people, playing the character or world correctly is the right thing to do and not playing the character or world correctly because a GM or player things it might be more fun to do something different can be the thing that ruins the game.  And don't forget that not playing their character or world correctly can ruin the game for the player or GM.  In other words, I think this suggestion is biased against a perfectly valid play preference.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen5. Share Creativity
No one person at the table has full control over what happens in the game.  If someone does, you get some really boring shit.  At the very least, a player generally controls most of one character in the game.  There are an infinite number of little variants on how the GM and the players share control over who gets to put stuff in, and things work best once the group hits a level of input from each person at the table that theyre comfortable with.  Find that level.  If youre looking for ways to muck about with that level of input, there are quite a few ways to do that.

Don't assume that players want to share creativity or that people want or need to muck about with the level of input.  They aren't represented on gaming boards or in theory discussions but there are plenty of players who are quite happy to just go along with a game with minimal input.  That may sound horrific to you but it's a perfectly legitimate way to play if that's what the group has fun with.  

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen8. Consider Your Options.
When someone makes an attempt to alter 'your part' of the fiction - the world if you're the GM, your character if you're a player, you have choices.  You can simply agree, or disagree; you can put it to the mechanics, you can modify what theyve stated and give it back to them.  Limiting your options in this case is silly; most advice to limit these options in a positive way comes from a desire to keep the energy of the game high, or allow for trust between players above and beyond the basic average; those are good goals, but instead of using limits on yourself and others to achieve them, simply remember that your decisions will affect those things as well as the specific matter at hand.

Bear in mind that some people want the GM or players to push back against this sort of thing.  I've played with GMs that didn't push back enough and it ruined games for me.  If I ask the GM if there if I can buy a magical sword in a town, I'm not secretly making a request for the GM to add a store selling magical swords to the town.  I want the GM to tell me if there is such a store in town and expect to hear "no" reasonably often.

Quote from: John MorrowPlease don't exclude that for some people, playing the character or world correctly is the right thing to do and not playing the character or world correctly because a GM or player things it might be more fun to do something different can be the thing that ruins the game.  And don't forget that not playing their character or world correctly can ruin the game for the player or GM.  In other words, I think this suggestion is biased against a perfectly valid play preference.

Yes, in many cases you could say "But that's what my character would do!" in response to allegations of disruptive play. It might even be true. However, who is responsible for making that character in the first place?

Quote from: DackeYes, in many cases you could say "But that's what my character would do!" in response to allegations of disruptive play. It might even be true. However, who is responsible for making that character in the first place?

Exactly.  The characters should have wide freedom in how they behave and act.  They should not however take that as license to drive the campaign off a cliff.  I can appreciate and will even reward taking nonoptimal paths for the sake of being true to a character.  But "That's what my character would do" is not license to be an asshole.

Quote from: John MorrowDon't assume that players want to share creativity or that people want or need to muck about with the level of input. They aren't represented on gaming boards or in theory discussions but there are plenty of players who are quite happy to just go along with a game with minimal input. That may sound horrific to you but it's a perfectly legitimate way to play if that's what the group has fun with.

I think what Levi is pointing at is that everybody is at least in charge of one aspect of the shared experience - their own character. If everybody played their character in the vein of simply following the others, never saying anything, taking no initiatives of any kind, there would be no game. At the gaming table, you have responsibility to contribute, or you are dead weight to the group. Most groups can handle those kind of players, because there are rarely more than one in any group, but at the table, they are effectively place holders for a juiced up cohort (to speak in D&D terms).

Quote from: John MorrowPlease don't exclude that for some people, playing the character or world correctly is the right thing to do and not playing the character or world correctly because a GM or player things it might be more fun to do something different can be the thing that ruins the game.  And don't forget that not playing their character or world correctly can ruin the game for the player or GM.  In other words, I think this suggestion is biased against a perfectly valid play preference.

It can.  But it's still their responsibility.  In cases like the one you're talking about, the responsibility reinforces the natural desire to play to character.   In places where playing the character completely correctly would ruin the game for others, they can, but doing so never removes their responsibility for their actions.

Quote from: John MorrowDon't assume that players want to share creativity or that people want or need to muck about with the level of input.  They aren't represented on gaming boards or in theory discussions but there are plenty of players who are quite happy to just go along with a game with minimal input.  That may sound horrific to you but it's a perfectly legitimate way to play if that's what the group has fun with.

Dr_Avalanche got my answer here.

Quote from: John MorrowBear in mind that some people want the GM or players to push back against this sort of thing.  I've played with GMs that didn't push back enough and it ruined games for me.  If I ask the GM if there if I can buy a magical sword in a town, I'm not secretly making a request for the GM to add a store selling magical swords to the town.  I want the GM to tell me if there is such a store in town and expect to hear "no" reasonably often.

Absolutely.  

Hearing "no" relatively often in such cases can be a part of what makes the game fun.  It's not "be firm but fair", and it's certainly not "say yes or roll the dice" in most games.

It's actually thinking over your options.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI think what Levi is pointing at is that everybody is at least in charge of one aspect of the shared experience - their own character. If everybody played their character in the vein of simply following the others, never saying anything, taking no initiatives of any kind, there would be no game.

However, if a single player or the GM does say things and take initiative, there can be a game.  In fact, there can be a game that everyone in the table enjoys.  Just as a sadist and a masochist can make each other very happy, an agressive and guiding GM can be very happy with passive players and they can be very happy with the GM.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheAt the gaming table, you have responsibility to contribute, or you are dead weight to the group. Most groups can handle those kind of players, because there are rarely more than one in any group, but at the table, they are effectively place holders for a juiced up cohort (to speak in D&D terms).

If the group can handle the player and the game is fun, then why must they have a responsibility to do more?