A commonly proposed solution to problems between GMs and players is "just tell players what to expect ahead of time." Which makes a lot of sense in theory. If you're going to commit to dozens of hours of play at the very least, you should know what you're getting yourself into. And it should reasonably cut down on later drama if there is an agreed-upon expectation for what a group is sitting down at the table to do in the first place.
Of course, by the same token, every time you're introduced to someone for the first time, you should give them a full account of your religious and political beliefs, your personal peeves and berserk buttons, and what you do and do not consider "just common decency, really." Yet for some odd reason, people don't normally do that. :p
So, as a GM, what do you tell prospective players about how you go about things? Do you have a list of what you consider vital information that you make sure to inform them of? And do you find that that does, in fact, work well to head off future unpleasantness?
Personally, I must admit that I almost never do any such thing, and that I nonetheless rarely have any trouble. (I can remember exactly one player who actively seemed to expect a different style of play than he got, and who was frustrated by it) Somehow, the players always just seem to manage to get into the spirit of things without me telling them what that spirit is supposed to be.
Part of it may be that I try to match the intended playstyle of whatever game I'm intending to run. No one's surprised when most problems in a Savage Worlds campaign ultimately boil down to hitting mooks over the head. Likewise, if I propose a GURPS game, you don't need to be a genius to guess that thinking before you act is probably going to necessary, whereas if I suggest a Barbarians of Lemuria game, you can more or less assume that jumping in with both feet and a lot of splashing will usually be the way to go.
Another thing that I suspect helps is that I try to examplify what I'm after. For instance, I put a lot of work into giving my NPCs distinct personalities, which I think sends a pretty strong signal to the players that this is a frou-frou True Roleplayer campaign and that they are not supposed to hack and slash everything in sight. :p I prefer to play by the rules as much as possible, so I reference what rules I use when I use them, and tell the players what their characters are capable of based on what their skills are. And so on. Show, don't tell, basically. It won't help with a player who genuinely came in wanting something completely different, but most players are a little more flexible than that and are willing to take some cues as they go along.
And conversely, I also take some cues from the players as to what they seem to want and what interests them. If some part of my initial plans really seem to be boring them, I'll start downplaying that part and focusing on what they seem to want to engage with. If, by some strange accident, I manage to pitch a game of courtly intrigue to a group of players who all want to do dungeon-crawling, then within a few sessions, once I have figured out that that is the case, it will likely turn out that dungeoneering is the current fad among the court and that the best way to win the ear of the King is to impress him with how much loot you've acquired recently. I aim to please, folks. :cool:
I explain my style and what I hope to get from the game.
First, I do this to have fun. If you have any secret "land mines"; those personal experiences, dramas or potentially explosive situations that are going to blow up into some melodramatic fun-ruining outburst - please share all locations and deactivation codes. :-D I don't know what I don't know, so if there are taboo subjects, phrases, monsters, situations, whatever that will push your buttons and result in ANY kind of temper-tantrum, let's work it out before hand. You will find me considerably less empathetic DURING the temper-tantrum. Note: I don't throw temper-tantrums. Note: I DO however go on vitriol-laden razor-wit infused rage-a-tribes when provoked with unadulterated stupid. Let's meet somewhere in the middle so we can maintain reasonableness, sanity and most importantly - maximum fun.
Second, everybody plays, no body quits and if you don't have fun I'll shoot you. Maybe I stole that from Starship Troopers. Ok what I really should say is...
Second, tabletop roleplaying games are a group participation activity. No observers.
Third - Don't be a dick. Remember that everyone gets to have fun so your loner assassin orphan who can't be bothered to work with others and doesn't want to get into any adventures is just a manifestation of your dickness. So, make a character that works and then play with the me and the other players.
Fourth, I do NOT run published adventures, canned scenarios, or A-B-C style plots. I run a player-minded character-focused event-driven quasi-sandbox style where you are free to make choices and choose what is important to you. Also, you are free to suffer the consequences of those choices. Your destiny and (more importantly) your success or failure are up to you. Without this, it's just fucking story-time for sorry kind and I ain't old enough yet to be spinning tales from my blanket-covered wheelchair-bound legs to a mostly bored audience of trapped younglings trying to be nice to me.
Finally, all I want from this game is for you to have fun. Honestly, that is the MOST fun for me. I thrive off it. If we all walk away from the table YEARNING to get back to it next week? That's all the kudos I need.
P.S. I appreciate your paranoia and lament all the terrible GMs who abused you before you hit my table. However, I am not out to get you and I am NOT one of those GMs. So relax. Just play from the perspective of your character and "get into it". Stop worrying about shit you have no control over and instead get excited about how you're going to feel when you lop the head off that horrible Orc chieftain who desperately needed some blade-therapy from your barbarian.
Love,
Interesting thread. I offered a game recently (World War Cthulhu - Cold War) that dealt with spies in the 70's in Prague. I explained that (and wrote in the elevator pitch) that players should avoid too many fighty skills and concentrate on things like Tradecraft and the like (I even gave out a handout which said "These skills are important" and listed them). I thought this would set the tone for he game as one that needed stealth and research skills. Boy was I wrong - one of the aspects of the mission involved getting an occult book out of a museum library. Their idea was to stage a fist fight as a distraction. So two PC's who had business man/book dealer as a cover in Cold War Prague start a fight, needless to say the game went downhill from there. I have dropped the group from my gaming and now go with on-line games where I can get interesting thoughtful players that want to do things other than hit mooks with an ax.
I work with my players, not against them, and I prefer the 'rule of cool' over nitty gritty details. Other than that, I'll go along with just about anything, and stuff I don't I'll compromise with.
I aim for a three tier solution, based on my assessment of the new player's experience:
Total newbie to RPGs - "Here are some pre-made characters that cover the most common play styles. Don't worry about the rules yet, pick one that looks good to you, like Streetfighter II. You can always change later, I'll be lenient. I strongly recommend picking a pre-made, but if you want to go drown in the rulebook and the confusing babble of advice from the experienced players I can't stop you. Don't worry about the setting or table expectations, you'll get the gist of it quickly and can always ask for a sidebar."
Person who gets the basic principles already and can be trusted not to bolt when the learning curve starts up, but is still kind of casual - "Here's the book and a list of authorized character options (don't worry, most of them are still allowed and I've added a few if you really want to check those out). There's pre-mades too if you like. I advise you to take my advice above the well-intentioned babble of the experienced players. By the way, here's a brief summary of my campaign expectations. Actual house rules will be dealt with on a need-to-know basis."
Experienced player who clearly enjoys the nitty gritty - After a long conversation on the phone about our expectations before the first session, they are given my typed up house rules and setting summary.
Quote from: Baeraad;955467A commonly proposed solution to problems between GMs and players is "just tell players what to expect ahead of time." Which makes a lot of sense in theory. If you're going to commit to dozens of hours of play at the very least, you should know what you're getting yourself into. And it should reasonably cut down on later drama if there is an agreed-upon expectation for what a group is sitting down at the table to do in the first place.
Yes.
QuoteOf course, by the same token, every time you're introduced to someone for the first time, you should give them a full account of your religious and political beliefs, your personal peeves and berserk buttons, and what you do and do not consider "just common decency, really." Yet for some odd reason, people don't normally do that. :p
And if you expected to spend considerable time each week together, yes:).
You know, the way you introduce yourself to your co-workers the first time the manager introduces you...at least that's how it works in every office I've been in - I'm sure someone would tell me you don't do it this way in state X of the USA;).
QuoteSo, as a GM, what do you tell prospective players about how you go about things?
Well, depending on their level of experience, it might include "what is roleplaying" or not.
The rest is my list of things that vary between GMs;).
QuoteDo you have a list of what you consider vital information that you make sure to inform them of?
Yes - though I'm just going to give you a list, remember it's going to be couched in much kinder language.
I call it
the highway to hell list. Parts of it obviously vary depending on campaign.
It's a sandbox. Deal with it...or take the highway.
No NPC has plot armour. PCs die, too. The systems usually have some way to prevent that, but it happens. If it's a deal-breaker...highway called, it's asking for you.
PCs need to be motivated (cue Crimson Exodus' list of things that PCs and GMs have to do). If you can't play one, you can either pick someone who can and follow a lead...or you're unfit for a sandbox and need to take the highway.
Mechanics need some love, too, it's courteous (though not mandatory) to engage them at least nominally. There will be someone to help, usually, but at least learn what you need to roll. Or try. It's no big deal in most games. OTOH, mechanics shall be amended to reflect setting. If you start to think mechanics first, better get the highway now, you're not going to be happy here.
Setting matters. The characters you create need ties, or the societies will grind your PCs to dust. As an exception, you don't need to leave if you want to play a murderhobo - but you'd wish you'd taken the highway, and you'd likely need many spare character sheets, I only provide the first character sheet. Of course, if you want to play a murderhobo struggling to gain acceptance, be my guest! But remember, most settings have hierarchy, culture and economics and religion - as well as prejudice, wars, crime, abuse and beliefs we might consider mistaken...but might well be objectively right in this setting for one reason or another. If you can't follow those or work around them, it's best to take the highway (fully democratic - everyone has the same chance for a speeding ticket).
NPCs are human (or aliens). This means they have goals, motivations and so on. They might, gasp, lie! If interacting with them is boring, go take the highway and amuse yourselves with the car, because doing so might be a non-insignificant part of the campaign.
GM has authority over the setting. You have authority over the characters. Don't overstep, but make the contact between the two fun - or take the highway before you bore us, too.
Love hurts - in some systems, literally. Wounds hurt. Pain lingers and might incapacitate you for days and weeks until you recover. There's also sickness and poison. If you think the system we're using doesn't account for those...well, you might be right, but you haven't read the houserules yet. And if you think heroes should be above that, go take the highway, there's many heroes there!
The rules can be amended by group consensus with the GM having veto rights. Even the GM is bound by them, though. If you expect me to bend them, I recommend the highway as a painless solution.
Oh, fuck. I typed all of the above and remembered that I'd written an intro for a forum game.
Here's what I wrote. Funny enough, you can see how the specific system has morphed my usual approach.
Game Description:
A Legends of the Wulin game, might well be the first to be run on MW! We're using the default setting, I'm just adding the Loresheet for Yun's Martial Arts Academy to it. (To anyone who caught it: yes, the name is an "Easter Egg").
What this game IS: A game where your decisions will matter.
Not only can your characters be awesome in every sense of the word, it's expected. (It's part of the advancement mechanics, for crying out loud!)
Not only will your actions determine the end results of what happens to the setting, they're guaranteed to...if you care at all.
Nothing is unimportant in this game. Words can kill, both literally and figuratively. Your actions can curse you, again literally...and not only. Who you fall in love with can sap your strength or nourish it. How you describe your attack or defence is potentially, though not always, more important to the outcome than all the bonuses you can stack. Trust me, I did the math.
All of that ends up not with the old-school attention to detail, but with your actions becoming more and more grandiose as you advance.
Ah, yes, I'm planning to have advancement in the game. In case you thought you'd be stuck at the starting level, that's not the case. Well, maybe not this year...but since it's December, that's not saying much, is it?
What this game ISN'T going to be:
A game where the GM will force-feed you a plot or follow some canned module.
A game where you can never reach the main NPCs in the setting, no matter what...it's quite clear that you can. It just might take a lot of time, and your character might have to become either a saint or a devil. Both are doable.
A game of travelling murderhoboing. You can start as one, but you have to develop connections to people. It's part of the game. "Only cares about other Ranked Fighters" is probably a very powerful Disadvantage!
A dungeoncrawl. If there is a dungeon in this game, it's probably the work of a twisted Scholar or Priest...and it's probably only got treasure no sane man or woman would use, and even some insane ones would burn.
A historical game. Shen Zhou is a fantasy version of China, we'll keep it that way.
A game where you can join and learn the rules later. Sorry, I like those games, too, and I've got 99 of them, but LotW ain't one. Legends of the Wulin doesn't reward lack of rules mastery, and the rules are too intricate for me to just explain if you haven't got your own copy. The best I can offer is help if you have access to them!
A game from zero to hero. A 5th Rank character is above 99,9% of the people in the setting, easily equal to a bandit gang lead by an ordinary bandit of superior skill! Remember how OD&D has your character's title as "Veteran" at first level? Well, it's similar. You start off as heroes, but you can use the practice. It's better to say the game is about going from hero to legend!
A game where you'll be kept off the mechanics. If it wasn't clear already, the game rewards you for actively using them, and cheering for other players when they manage to do so!
QuoteAnd do you find that that does, in fact, work well to head off future unpleasantness?
Yes - as soon as someone objects to something that follows the list, you can remind the group that this is expected. Then usually the next reaction is "well, this was unexpected".
My answer is shrugging and "you'll know next time, now what do you do?"
QuotePersonally, I must admit that I almost never do any such thing, and that I nonetheless rarely have any trouble. (I can remember exactly one player who actively seemed to expect a different style of play than he got, and who was frustrated by it) Somehow, the players always just seem to manage to get into the spirit of things without me telling them what that spirit is supposed to be.
Good for you, it's advice you don't need.
Other people might use it, though.
QuotePart of it may be that I try to match the intended playstyle of whatever game I'm intending to run. No one's surprised when most problems in a Savage Worlds campaign ultimately boil down to hitting mooks over the head. Likewise, if I propose a GURPS game, you don't need to be a genius to guess that thinking before you act is probably going to necessary, whereas if I suggest a Barbarians of Lemuria game, you can more or less assume that jumping in with both feet and a lot of splashing will usually be the way to go.
My intro before a new campaign usually varies according to the system.
QuoteAnother thing that I suspect helps is that I try to examplify what I'm after. For instance, I put a lot of work into giving my NPCs distinct personalities, which I think sends a pretty strong signal to the players that this is a frou-frou True Roleplayer campaign and that they are not supposed to hack and slash everything in sight. :p I prefer to play by the rules as much as possible, so I reference what rules I use when I use them, and tell the players what their characters are capable of based on what their skills are. And so on. Show, don't tell, basically. It won't help with a player who genuinely came in wanting something completely different, but most players are a little more flexible than that and are willing to take some cues as they go along
.
Best approach...but some people are better at adapting to rules than they are at following examples, I've found;).
QuoteAnd conversely, I also take some cues from the players as to what they seem to want and what interests them. If some part of my initial plans really seem to be boring them, I'll start downplaying that part and focusing on what they seem to want to engage with. If, by some strange accident, I manage to pitch a game of courtly intrigue to a group of players who all want to do dungeon-crawling, then within a few sessions, once I have figured out that that is the case, it will likely turn out that dungeoneering is the current fad among the court and that the best way to win the ear of the King is to impress him with how much loot you've acquired recently. I aim to please, folks. :cool:
I don't, and courtly intrigue ain't going to change if I pitched a game of courtly intrigue.
Of course, your aristocrats are free to go dungeoneering. It's putting your life on the line, so it's different from base, inappropriate stuff like trading.
Silliness is tolerated OOC (if you simply must toss out some Monty Python quotes), but IC my games are serious (no parties made up of long-haired bards who all paint their faces black and white named Paul, Gene, Peter, and Ace).
I take a cue from the old Fighting Fantasy style game books, i.e. I try to give players two or three clear choices when I describe a situation that needs input or a decision from them. They are welcome to try other things, but I never want to leave them scratching their heads wondering what to do.
Just because I describe or mention something doesn't mean it is important. If I describe a room as having a desk with some papers on it, a painting that is torn in the corner, and a bench next to an end table with a small statuette on it, it doesn't mean that any of those things are important or hold clues to solving whatever adventure they are on. I'm just trying to create a living, believable world. Plus, if I only mention/describe the things that are important to the plot, there's nothing for them to figure out; as soon as I mention the statuette they know it's important somehow.
No one has any narrative control over any character but their own.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;955475I work with my players, not against them, and I prefer the 'rule of cool' over nitty gritty details. Other than that, I'll go along with just about anything, and stuff I don't I'll compromise with.
For my style this. Also, for the system I'm running, I (the GM) get to say no to munchkinism and min/max setups if they don't fit what the other players are doing.
One of my co-workers is going to start playing with us once a month on a sci-fi RPG. I actually spent most of the time explaining the existing players' play style and group dynamic, since that was more relevant and drives how I GM.
Wow, it's been a good while since I was GM (2 years?). Have to get back into that.
Anyway, a couple of days before a game I generally give them a choice about the game world and tell them about things that might not be everyone's cup of tea: in Artesia, I let them know that this is a brutal world, where battles are lethal and things like assassinations and rape actually happen (although I don't rub these things in their faces for shock value). Oh and Artesia is supposed to be a bit sexy too, but again, I tell them I don't go overboard and turn it into a porn session or anything. I actually also tell them if romance might be part of the plot, because some people simply don't like romance. I wouldn't force this point anyway.
One typical alternative that I give is Tolkien's Middle-Earth, which is something I like and most people are familiar with. Of course, violence and romance etc. might happen there too, but I think that goes without saying.
Finally, I usually tell any new players that I am kinda laid back about rules. For instance, I like The One Ring, but I simply can't remember all the rules off the top of my head (too many things going on in my life I suppose), so we use the basics, and sometimes expand it with rules that could be useful. This is one reason why I also like Basic Roleplaying as an alternative; it is so damn simple at its base. I actually used it for a Silmarillion game, and it wasn't bad at all (just make sure that characters are appropriately heroic, and think about how you will handle things like oaths and fate).
I tell my players "Feel free to trash my setting but it won't be easy."
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
It generally involves beer...
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;955479I aim for a three tier solution, based on my assessment of the new player's experience:
Total newbie to RPGs - "Here are some pre-made characters that cover the most common play styles. Don't worry about the rules yet, pick one that looks good to you, like Streetfighter II. You can always change later, I'll be lenient. I strongly recommend picking a pre-made, but if you want to go drown in the rulebook and the confusing babble of advice from the experienced players I can't stop you. Don't worry about the setting or table expectations, you'll get the gist of it quickly and can always ask for a sidebar."
Person who gets the basic principles already and can be trusted not to bolt when the learning curve starts up, but is still kind of casual - "Here's the book and a list of authorized character options (don't worry, most of them are still allowed and I've added a few if you really want to check those out). There's pre-mades too if you like. I advise you to take my advice above the well-intentioned babble of the experienced players. By the way, here's a brief summary of my campaign expectations. Actual house rules will be dealt with on a need-to-know basis."QuotePretty much this, except:
New player - What do you want to be? Here's your options. Let's dive in and make something cool. Don't worry, it's easy.
Casual Player - I have this great campaign idea... you could do A,B,C... let's make a character.
Overly enthusiastic semi-armature know-it-all I appreciate your enthusiasm, this will be great. No, you can't do that, the setting is more like X,Y,Z. Here's why I constructed the rules the way I did. if you buy in, great! Otherwise...
Experienced or serious player/GM I have a 12 pack, a new campaign idea, and a system. Wanna go over it?
I'm a traditional style GM: I run the world and interpret the rules, players play their characters. I am as neutral and impartial as I can be. I respect the creative ideas of my players and try to incorporate them where they fit, but PCs can only affect the world through IC PC action. . My goal is for everyone to have fun through escapism and immersion into an imaginary world. I don't explicitly state any of this. I don't have to.
New players will pick up my "style" in short order. There is nothing more natural than playing a character IC in a GM controlled world. Casual players don't care as long as its fun. I have to feel out and sell the game to players who have come from other groups who believe that SW is the end all be all, or that "clerics are the best class," or whatever. Wherever they come from, they quickly adapt and learn to enjoy my style of game. Before any campaign, I will discuss it with the grognards of the group in depth. This isn't to appease them. I genuinely seek their input and advice, and celebrate the launch of a new game with a meal, some cold beer, or a bottle of Jameson.
If a player doesn't already have experience playing with me, then there's:
* What they heard from whoever told them about me, or whatever I've written describing the game inviting new players.
* I'll have a conversation or email exchange with them where we both talking about our RPG experiences, interests and tastes. This is where I've seen most players who are going to have issue with my style flee.
* Then there are handouts which describe my current intro to my game, rules, and campaign setting.
* Even if they've skipped all of the above, random players who show up (e.g. someone's friend or cousin) seem to catch on well and get informed, prompted and/or corrected as need be.
What I don't do is use jargon.
I don't use the words or phrases OSR, gritty, realistic, or meta-gaming.
I'd give examples, but don't want to derail the thread. :p
Quote from: Black Vulmea;955503Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
Sometime I feel like that when replying to you ;)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;955503Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
* swoon * THUD!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;955503Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
I love it.
Myself, I only really have three things to say to new players:
- I (the GM) am not your adversary.
- Don't be a dick.
- No mobile phones at the table.
If I have to tell you more than 3 times to stop trying to constantly "defeat" the GM, being detrimental to anyone else's enjoyment of the game, or constantly texting or browsing social media, you won't be invited back.
Haven't had to worry much about ground rules...yet. The only "style" aspect I'd reveal is that I'll make almost all the rolls in the open (combat ones for sure). It's more about them than me, anyway, so I don't feel the need to drop much in the way of expectations, except to say that, if they wander in over their head, it is okay to run away (or to try to, anyway).
Quote from: estar;955560Sometime I feel like that when replying to you ;)
Just remember I'm all bark, no bite.
I am Crom. I don't care. It's all on you, so come with a plan. Narrative logic does not apply.
Weaning players off the bad habits and expectations they have developed due to gaming with killer, or just plain bad DMs has been one of the most onerous and frustrating tasks as a DM I have had to deal with.
I lay out up front how I do things. What the setting is like and some ground rules for behavior. such as "Foul mouthery around kids and you are OUT." and in general things like dont min/max or try to game the system. Dont make a character thats somehow incapable of actually functioning as an adventurer.
Also what classes, races, skills, whatever are not available, or just really rare in the campaign. Such as no gnome PCs in BX or no Clerics and very few magic users in 2e Conan. Or even a setting where theres only haflings and magic using classes are not available. and so on.
I also usually explain some common knowledge things that the PCs will have of the start location and surrounding land. Such as kobolds are a major crafting race and trade extensively. Or that to the north is a vast forest formerly a mighty elven kingdom that fell to ruin. and so on.
Eh. If I'm spinning up a new group (fingers crossed that in the next month or two I'll be able to do just that!) then pretty much I just tell them that I'm there to react to them, not the other way 'round. I don't do mysterious dudes handing out free quests in the local tavern.
Mostly because if I DON"T tell them that, the first session or two is them painfully waiting for a mysterious dude in a tavern to give them a princess to rescue or some shit, and ignoring all the 'do it yourself' ideas I toss out like free candy.
For an established group then I pretty much just tell them my idea for teh campaign/setting/rules and find out what appeals and doesn't and run with that. I got an uneven but fun two year Rogue Trader campaign out of that. Ended weakly, but was a fun ride all the same.
I tend to run tight, focused, short campaigns and I set up expectations up front.
Even if its as sandboxy as "a mysterious isle emerges from the mist, the king offers great bounty to explorers!" - I set the game in motion and then let them build off that in whatever direction they like. My Mazes & Minotaurs campaign has the conceit that Zeus was shot with Hades arrow and he's dying unless the PCs can discover a cure located somewhere in an archipelago of lost islands. A couple of the PCs don't even want Zeus to live and they're on the mission for their own gods.
I assume PC competency. Unless the situation requires rolling due to high chance of failure, I err on the side of the PC's skills. AKA, if you are Cleric of Hastur, you know all the basic Hastur lore, rituals, worship, history, etc without an INT roll.
I run high kill games. I do not fudge rolls. I am not out to slay PCs, but my monsters gotta eat and your PCs are on the menu.
I use morale for foes. Living things don't want to die. Consider flight as a possibility as well because I do not balance combats.
I encourage players to ask OOC questions. Your PCs know lots of stuff about the setting that you may not know. Feel free to ask me what your PC knows about XYZ. Again, remember I believe in PC competency. I believe informed players make better roleplayers and helps immersion.
If your cellphone rings and you're not a surgeon, you get punched in the junk.
If your spouse can somehow manage the baby while you are at work all week, they can do so during the 4 hour game.
Quote from: Baeraad;955467A commonly proposed solution to problems between GMs and players is "just tell players what to expect ahead of time." Which makes a lot of sense in theory. If you're going to commit to dozens of hours of play at the very least, you should know what you're getting yourself into. And it should reasonably cut down on later drama if there is an agreed-upon expectation for what a group is sitting down at the table to do in the first place.
I never really have this issue, as I either know the players beforehand or I am running vanilla D&D or some other game which may or may not use prefabs (like something Superheroic). If I were to warn them, then it would be to tell them to prepare for weird shit. My games can go full gonzo. Expect other worlds, alternate realities and time travel with no bloody fixed point nonsense. However, I rarely start this way unless of course the game is in Sigil, which it often is. I even ran a Mutants and Masterminds game there, with Eclavdra trying to seduce Spider-Man. Good times. More on this later.
Quote...you should give them a full account of your religious and political beliefs...
Say what now? Um how about no? The game table is not the place for that. Maybe during breaks, or when someone is having a smoke outside if you want to talk about that, but game time is game time and there's precious little of it to waste on shit talk. Now if they want to talk about in game politics and religion, well that's a completely different matter because that is world building as well as fleshing out the setting for players.
QuoteSo, as a GM, what do you tell prospective players about how you go about things? Do you have a list of what you consider vital information that you make sure to inform them of? And do you find that that does, in fact, work well to head off future unpleasantness?
Not really, though sometimes there is kind of an impromptu session zero, or I speak with them before hand. One group I sometimes DM for likes low magic games with trade and commerce. They have ambitions of having their own territory and building their own armies. So often I'll run a game in Thyatis or Karameikos where taking a mundane route is a perfectly fine way to go. Another group is perfectly fine with what I throw at them, so right now that's Sigil. If it's a completely new group then there has to be a reason we're all in the same place at the same time, so I assume I have already prepared something and worked out the details with them.
QuotePart of it may be that I try to match the intended playstyle of whatever game I'm intending to run. No one's surprised when most problems in a Savage Worlds campaign ultimately boil down to hitting mooks over the head. Likewise, if I propose a GURPS game, you don't need to be a genius to guess that thinking before you act is probably going to necessary, whereas if I suggest a Barbarians of Lemuria game, you can more or less assume that jumping in with both feet and a lot of splashing will usually be the way to go.
That's the best way to go. If I have a group of murderhoboes than you bet we be murderhoboing that night. Or if they want to treasure hunt, then there will be a dungeon and horde guarded by something, or a palace with a vault that boasts to be "impregnable". Sometimes they just want to sit in the tavern and yap away, which is fine especially if the campaign has been running for some time.
QuoteAnother thing that I suspect helps is that I try to examplify what I'm after. For instance, I put a lot of work into giving my NPCs distinct personalities, which I think sends a pretty strong signal to the players that this is a frou-frou True Roleplayer campaign and that they are not supposed to hack and slash everything in sight. :p I prefer to play by the rules as much as possible, so I reference what rules I use when I use them, and tell the players what their characters are capable of based on what their skills are. And so on. Show, don't tell, basically. It won't help with a player who genuinely came in wanting something completely different, but most players are a little more flexible than that and are willing to take some cues as they go along.
I recycle NPCs a lot. The world and tech may change, but I always have certain personas ready to bring in. Why not? If you use the same NPC (some of which started as PCs long ago) for decades, then they become handy tools for immersion. Sometimes for fun, I assign actors to NPCs. Sometimes this works, and well. An episode of Big Bang Theory where Howard is DMing comes to mind. Though I am sorry, but every Rakshasa NPC I have every used sounds like Shere Khan.
QuoteAnd conversely, I also take some cues from the players as to what they seem to want and what interests them. If some part of my initial plans really seem to be boring them, I'll start downplaying that part and focusing on what they seem to want to engage with. If, by some strange accident, I manage to pitch a game of courtly intrigue to a group of players who all want to do dungeon-crawling, then within a few sessions, once I have figured out that that is the case, it will likely turn out that dungeoneering is the current fad among the court and that the best way to win the ear of the King is to impress him with how much loot you've acquired recently. I aim to please, folks. :cool:
The hard part here is when you have characters with diverse interests and you have to try and encourage them to work together. Sometimes that requires some planning. In the worst case, the party gets split and you have to be good at time management to make sure each group has enough quality time. Most of the time through, there all there for one thing more or less and worse comes to worse I'll randomly generate a dungeon crawl, either using tables or just drawing whatever I feel like. Remember, nothing unites characters for a common cause better than the promise of loot. Loot is gaming's universal solvent. A player can have a lousy night, and one gumball sized ruby can turn that right around. The important thing is that if the player is trying to make a contribution, then whatever they are playing should be of some use to the overall success of the group. But if one player wants to be a merchant or something and do more trade than adventuring, that is fine too.
More than anything, if I player has certain goals they want to accomplish in the game I do outright tell them to let me know ahead of time. I WILL make adventures for specific characters, though yes everyone else gets to go too. Seriously though, do this BEFORE you start running the game. The players should know what they are playing. Though I suppose sometimes people do go along for the ride and might not even know what they want right away. If that's the case, I usually ask them about their favorite fiction. Knowing what someone geeks out on is quite helpful. If you find some players feel lost in a certain setting, it can still be salvaged. Put some dungeon crawl into that intrigue, and have players investigate the basement of a noble from a rival house, and then they stumble upon the catacombs underneath as well as the noble's dark secret. Whatever works.
My style of GMing tends to tune into the players: I give them the freedom to do what they want to do, and I assume that they will propose doing things that they will enjoying doing. My approach to rulings (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4238/roleplaying-games/the-art-of-rulings) similarly defaults to a low threshold of information from the player before resolving an action, while also allowing them to flexibly focus more time and detail on the stuff that they want to focus on.
This means that I generally don't have problems. The rare exception is a player who keeps choosing to do stuff that makes them unhappy. This generally happens because of some other GM who has inflicted damage upon them. If I can identify the problem, I will attempt to address it specifically as necessary. (Experimenting with openly declaring "you can do whatever you want!" at the beginning of a session proved ineffective, because it turns out that the GMs who inflict this kind of damage on players habitually lie and say the same thing.)
What I will explain are any non-intuitive scenario structures (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures) we're using -- whether that's hexcrawls or Ars Magica covenants or Technoir's "ask your contacts".
Quote from: AsenRG;955485And if you expected to spend considerable time each week together, yes:).
You know, the way you introduce yourself to your co-workers the first time the manager introduces you...at least that's how it works in every office I've been in - I'm sure someone would tell me you don't do it this way in state X of the USA;).
I can only report that we don't do that in Sweden. When you start at a new office, you're pretty much expected to quietly feel out the local consensus and then politely agree with it...
... and I just realised this second that that's pretty much what I'm expecting my players to do, too. Huh. The culture you're raised in can sneak up on you like that... Well, like I said, that approach has in fact usually worked for me, even with players from all across the world.
Quote from: Krimson;955651Say what now? Um how about no? The game table is not the place for that. Maybe during breaks, or when someone is having a smoke outside if you want to talk about that, but game time is game time and there's precious little of it to waste on shit talk. Now if they want to talk about in game politics and religion, well that's a completely different matter because that is world building as well as fleshing out the setting for players.
I was being sarcastic! :p Of course you don't do that (well, except in Bulgaria, apparently...). It's just the sort of thing that nerds tend to propose, usually in a tone that suggests that they have
solved human interaction through their peerless logical thinking! :p
Quote from: Baeraad;955467So, as a GM, what do you tell prospective players about how you go about things?
[video=youtube;V-OYKd8SVrI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-OYKd8SVrI&list=PLF84F7E8A02EBFD57&index=106[/youtube]
Quote from: Omega;955624Weaning players off the bad habits and expectations they have developed due to gaming with killer, or just plain bad DMs has been one of the most onerous and frustrating tasks as a DM I have had to deal with.
Guess things are different in your neck of the woods, but I tend to have the opposite problem these days: Players who are so used to being handled with kid gloves that they instantly assume I'm a horrible, bloodthirsty killer GM as soon as I mention that PCs can die in my games.
For my latest campaign (4e) my pitch was:
It'll be in the Nentir Vale setting http://nentirvale.wikidot.com/setting starting in Fallcrest, and open/sandboxy so will follow player/PC interests rather than a single pre-written story (but I do have a bunch of adventures I can use). I'll mostly be using the standard rules but I want to use minions a lot for fast fights and make them seem 'real' so will be giving them 1/4 the hp of a standard monster. Re character creation, I think it would be a good idea to spend part of the first session on making characters together, unless you want to bring a pregenerated one.
I generally don't say much but I generally try to get over (a) that I seek to avoid railroading and I like proactive PCs (b) some mention of houserules so players don't expect RAW. (c) If using a published setting with metaplot I let them know I won't be sticking to canon. Generally the more I think I'm deviating from the game's default assumptions, the more I'll say.
I don't really tell them anything. They learn as they go along. Though a lot of people locally are pretty aware of the types of games I run.
In the recent past, I have:
- Used recent media to give a reference point for what the setting tone is like (e.g., my M&M games are somewhere around Captain America: The Winter Soldier and X-Men: First class)
- Tone or feel (level of in-game humor tolerated, level of PC optimization expected/tolerated, etc.)
- Any personal hangups I have (what sort of humor I disdain, departures or limitations to the rules we are using.)
Quote from: Baeraad;955467A commonly proposed solution to problems between GMs and players is "just tell players what to expect ahead of time." Which makes a lot of sense in theory. If you're going to commit to dozens of hours of play at the very least, you should know what you're getting yourself into. And it should reasonably cut down on later drama if there is an agreed-upon expectation for what a group is sitting down at the table to do in the first place.
Of course, by the same token, every time you're introduced to someone for the first time, you should give them a full account of your religious and political beliefs, your personal peeves and berserk buttons, and what you do and do not consider "just common decency, really." Yet for some odd reason, people don't normally do that. :p
So, as a GM, what do you tell prospective players about how you go about things? Do you have a list of what you consider vital information that you make sure to inform them of? And do you find that that does, in fact, work well to head off future unpleasantness?
Personally, I must admit that I almost never do any such thing, and that I nonetheless rarely have any trouble. (I can remember exactly one player who actively seemed to expect a different style of play than he got, and who was frustrated by it) Somehow, the players always just seem to manage to get into the spirit of things without me telling them what that spirit is supposed to be.
Part of it may be that I try to match the intended playstyle of whatever game I'm intending to run. No one's surprised when most problems in a Savage Worlds campaign ultimately boil down to hitting mooks over the head. Likewise, if I propose a GURPS game, you don't need to be a genius to guess that thinking before you act is probably going to necessary, whereas if I suggest a Barbarians of Lemuria game, you can more or less assume that jumping in with both feet and a lot of splashing will usually be the way to go.
Another thing that I suspect helps is that I try to examplify what I'm after. For instance, I put a lot of work into giving my NPCs distinct personalities, which I think sends a pretty strong signal to the players that this is a frou-frou True Roleplayer campaign and that they are not supposed to hack and slash everything in sight. :p I prefer to play by the rules as much as possible, so I reference what rules I use when I use them, and tell the players what their characters are capable of based on what their skills are. And so on. Show, don't tell, basically. It won't help with a player who genuinely came in wanting something completely different, but most players are a little more flexible than that and are willing to take some cues as they go along.
And conversely, I also take some cues from the players as to what they seem to want and what interests them. If some part of my initial plans really seem to be boring them, I'll start downplaying that part and focusing on what they seem to want to engage with. If, by some strange accident, I manage to pitch a game of courtly intrigue to a group of players who all want to do dungeon-crawling, then within a few sessions, once I have figured out that that is the case, it will likely turn out that dungeoneering is the current fad among the court and that the best way to win the ear of the King is to impress him with how much loot you've acquired recently. I aim to please, folks. :cool:
Social contracts solve most problems before starting a game, for players and for the GM.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;957072In the recent past, I have:
- Used recent media to give a reference point for what the setting tone is like (e.g., my M&M games are somewhere around Captain America: The Winter Soldier and X-Men: First class)
What's your backup plan when me, my wife, her sister, and our red-headed friend all say we haven't seen either of those? :D :p ;)
Quote from: RPGPundit;957056I don't really tell them anything. They learn as they go along. Though a lot of people locally are pretty aware of the types of games I run.
What would you say if they asked you to describe your style?
Personally, I take this to be a good sign, since players that know what they want at least aren't going to waste everyone's time:).
Quote from: Tod13;957078What's your backup plan when me, my wife, her sister, and our red-headed friend all say we haven't seen either of those? :D :p ;)
Yeah, me neither;).
Quote from: AsenRG;957080Yeah, me neither;).
That's why I made my post originally about not using jargon. Even if you have seen the movie, you might not get the same thing out of it.
Pretty basic.
"It's a group adventure game. You must make a character who is willing to work with the group and is wanting to adventure"
Quote from: Tod13;957078What's your backup plan when me, my wife, her sister, and our red-headed friend all say we haven't seen either of those? :D :p ;)
To answer for myself, the first question would be, why do you want to play a superhero RPG? And the second would be, what is your knowledge of superheroes in media? From there I could either determine a) the point of reference I could use, b) recommendations to make for how you can clue yourself in or c) assess you know so little of the genre you shouldn't have any preconceived expectations that would conflict with the game.
And then I'd probably make fun of you for missing out on some of the best films of the past few years.
Quote from: Tristram Evans;957091To answer for myself, the first question would be, why do you want to play a superhero RPG?
I like the idea of superpowers, and chicks in spandex:p?
QuoteAnd the second would be, what is your knowledge of superheroes in media?
Why, I've seen a few episodes of Spiderman and Fantastic Four, watched the Batman and Robocop movies, and a movie with that hairy guy with the claws that everybody called Wolverine, a movie called Watchmen, and something about those X-men mutant teens. Oh, and I've read Punisher Max at the recommendation of a colleague, he was a lot like the Watchmen!
Quote( From there I could either determine a) the point of reference I could use, b) recommendations to make for how you can clue yourself in or c) assess you know so little of the genre you shouldn't have any preconceived expectations that would conflict with the game.
Go ahead, tell me what you think. The above is really what experience I have with superhero movies.
QuoteAnd then I'd probably make fun of you for missing out on some of the best films of the past few years.
Don't, or I'd make fun of you for thinking that there have been good films in the past few years;).
Quote from: Tod13;957078What's your backup plan when me, my wife, her sister, and our red-headed friend all say we haven't seen either of those? :D :p ;)
Shrug and say "so what sorts of books/shows/films do you know in the genre", let them make a list, and tell them what comes closest.
This was, in fact, a real problem for a couple that joined my Night's Black Agents game who had consumed about no action-espionage media. The closest they got was X-files.
Quote from: AsenRG;957142I like the idea of superpowers, and chicks in spandex:p?
Honestly, based on that I'd say D&D 4th would be more to your liking.
QuoteWhy, I've seen a few episodes of Spiderman and Fantastic Four, watched the Batman and Robocop movies, and a movie with that hairy guy with the claws that everybody called Wolverine, a movie called Watchmen, and something about those X-men mutant teens. Oh, and I've read Punisher Max at the recommendation of a colleague, he was a lot like the Watchmen!
Eh, an x-movie (hopefully not X-men 3) and Watchmen/Punisher should cover the X-men first class/Captain America Winter Soldier idea, but mixed with Tom Clancy...as in much more political intrigue.
As an aside, I cant imagine what it would be like to see Watchmen with no awareness of the tropes that its subverting.
QuoteGo ahead, tell me what you think. The above is really what experience I have with superhero movies.
Well, different strokes for different folks, but my god did you miss out on most of the only stuff worth watching these days coming out of the US.
QuoteDon't, or I'd make fun of you for thinking that there have been good films in the past few years;).
I'd be very confused as to how you could have an opinion on that
I still wonder if "the talk" does any good. I'm sure you all have stories of players who wete suprised by your game despite telling exactly what you were going for. Or ended up in a game that ran pretty much the oppiste of what you were lead to believe.
"You're all going to die, especially if you don't bring snacks."
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;957192"You're all going to die, especially if you don't bring snacks."
I have told players on occasion that they may want to bring an extra character just in case. That said I haven't had a high casualty rate unless someone charges blindly into stupidity. Usually the players are quite thorough sometimes verging on paranoia. I have no idea why. :D
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;957192"You're all going to die, especially if you don't bring Alizé and titties."
. . . yo.
Two things are paramount: Actions Have Consequences and Stupidity Kills.
The only other things I may include is what point in time the game occurs (especially if in an established setting, like Star Wars) and an advisement to keep the banter at a set rating (like in movies) if we are in public, depending on what public space (a game store with little kids running around playing pokemom will be rated G or PG while a bar will be rated R or NC17).
Quote from: jeff37923;957212Two things are paramount: Actions Have Consequences and Stupidity Kills.
It's more fun if the players discover this in play.
Quote from: Headless;957189I still wonder if "the talk" does any good. I'm sure you all have stories of players who wete suprised by your game despite telling exactly what you were going for. Or ended up in a game that ran pretty much the oppiste of what you were lead to believe.
On the DM side. Yes because it lessesn the chance of misunderstandings and anyone who cops an attitude thereafter doesnt have any backing for it.
On the player side. That has nothing to do with "the talk" being effective or not. Thats something else like a bad DM, a confused DM, or who knows what else.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;957213It's more fun if the players discover this in play.
Not really. Some just dont know it. Or have never experienced it. And thus have no idea whats right. Its best to say this stuff up front rather than look like a total dick as you gloat about killing off PCs simply because you didnt tell the players and they are supposed to use their psychic powers to guess it.
That can and probably will leave a bad impression of that style of play if done poorly and sometimes even if done well.
By that reasoning, Game of Thrones' first episode should have begun with a disclaimer that, "main characters can die, and bad guys can win." Otherwise nobody could possibly enjoy a show like that.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;957211. . . yo.
Alizé looks vile. I'll mix you something decent.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;957223By that reasoning, Game of Thrones' first episode should have begun with a disclaimer that, "main characters can die, and bad guys can win." Otherwise nobody could possibly enjoy a show like that.
Books and shows and movies have a different level of commitment and co-operation than role playing.
I started a gaming group a year and a half ago with a mix of friends and a Meetup I started. Some of the people I'd never met, many of them are young enough that that they'd never played anything older than D&D 3.5. Many had played other games (CP2020, Unknown Armies, Fate). But few had played anything from the 70s or early 80s.
I wanted to play
Lamentations of the Flame Princess (B/X D&D) and so I wanted everyone on the same page in terms of expectations of play out of the gate. (Or at least as much as I could!)
So I sent out an email nailing down what I thought they should keep in mind -- with a special focus on how the game would be much different than recent game designs. By laying down rules everyone could approach the game in the proper spirit and point of view and not become frustrated with mismatched expectations as we played. It seems to have worked. Everyone has been enthusiastically playing.
The email:
QuoteLamenations of the Flame Princess is part of the Old School Renaissance of RPGs. A clean and sleek version of the early Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set, the game focuses on exploration, danger, and weird fantasy. The setting will not be Tolkien-esque, but a warped 17th century Europe where the strange and magical is rare, inexplicable, and invasive.
OSR games in general, and Lamentations of the Flame Princess specifically, work from principles that are different than a lot of game in recent decades. In general…
- The Referee has environments and situations, not a pre-planned “story” of any kind
- Players drive things forward with their choices
- The game is dangerous. The Referee is not there to kill your characters, but neither is he there to protect them. Dice are rolled out in the open. Death is part of the game. (Luckily, new characters are easy to roll up!)
- The situations you encounter are not “balanced.” You might want to avoid encounters, you might want to flee encounters, and if you choose to engage them you’ll want to have the PCs manipulate the fiction toward your advantage (Short hand: Think of conflicts as asymmetrical warfare, not as engaging in a sport.)
- In this kind of play the Referee presents the players with an environment that is as solid as possible, that would continue existing if you weren’t there.
Come to think of it, a related question might be: what do you not tell your players of your GMing style ahead of time (possibly because you don't even think of it as part of your GMing style), that they invariably figure out on their own?
In my case, it's the following: "when in Baeraad's campaigns, do not look a gift horse in the mouth. If you do, it will bite your hand off. Instead, pretend that you left something in your car and walk, don't run, away from the gift horse until you're out of sight. Then start running and don't stop until you're in the next county."
Though I maintain that this just proves that I keep ending up with especially paranoid players. Come back here, you cowards! It might not be a trap! It's not always a trap! :p
Quote from: Baeraad;957270Though I maintain that this just proves that I keep ending up with especially paranoid players. Come back here, you cowards! It might not be a trap! It's not always a trap! :p
Was it a trap?
Quote from: Headless;957273Was it a trap?
Well.... "trap" is such an ugly word. I prefer to see it as a sadly-missed opportunity for interesting complications that would have made for a really good story to tell later. :D
Pretty much I start with...
I am chainsaw, your referee. From now on, you will speak only when spoken to, and the first and last words out of your filthy sewers will be "Sir!" Do you maggots understand that? If you losers leave my dungeon, if you survive level one ... you will be a weapon, you will be a minister of death, praying for war. But until that day you are pukes! You're the lowest form of life. You are not even human fucking beings! You are nothing but unorganized grabasstic pieces of amphibian shit! Because I am hard, you will not like me. But the more you hate me, the more you will learn. I am hard, but I am fair! There is no racial bigotry here! I do not look down on humans, elfs, dwarfs or even halfings or gnomes. Here you are all equally worthless! And my intent is to weed out all non-hackers who do not pack the gear to survive in my beloved dungeon! Do you maggots understand that?
Quote from: RPGPundit;957056I don't really tell them anything. They learn as they go along. Though a lot of people locally are pretty aware of the types of games I run.
Same here. I used to warn new players if I was DMing DCC or Dark Sun that it would be more deadly than what they might be used to, but so far this warning has been not necessary. After 3 different groups, most are fine with it.
I tend to read the players attitudes at the table, and adapt on the fly.
Quote from: Baeraad;955467A commonly proposed solution to problems between GMs and players is "just tell players what to expect ahead of time." Which makes a lot of sense in theory. If you're going to commit to dozens of hours of play at the very least, you should know what you're getting yourself into. And it should reasonably cut down on later drama if there is an agreed-upon expectation for what a group is sitting down at the table to do in the first place.
Of course, by the same token, every time you're introduced to someone for the first time, you should give them a full account of your religious and political beliefs, your personal peeves and berserk buttons, and what you do and do not consider "just common decency, really." Yet for some odd reason, people don't normally do that. :p
So, as a GM, what do you tell prospective players about how you go about things? Do you have a list of what you consider vital information that you make sure to inform them of? And do you find that that does, in fact, work well to head off future unpleasantness?
Generally, I tell them that the campaign is open and they can take it wherever they want. Don't be afraid to try things, don't be timid and overcautious. If you want to discuss something and work out whether it is worth trying then ask me. If you try something and I think it will be difficult, then I will apply a penalty, if it is especially hard them I will say "It had better be a good one" which almost certainly guarantees a critical roll from the player. Don't worry about failure, even a failure can open doors and brings new things to the game. Everything that has gone on before can affect what happens in the future, so pay attention to what is happening and what has happened. Above all, enjoy the game.
I tell them that:
I have a sandbox campaign. There are some adventure hooks that will come to you, but don't be shy about finding your own.
The monsters will probably eat you if you don't work together.
Do not assume that the encounter is balanced just for you. Things are as they are.
You usually don't need to roll a skill check unless something else is actively opposing you.
If there is active dickery among the players, I inform the player that such things are unwelcome.
I tell them what they need to know about the campaign; it's a sandbox, or a mission-based game where everyone works for X, or whatever I deem necessary. But generally speaking I'm a show-don't-tell kind of guy.
Quote from: Chainsaw;957280Pretty much I start with...
Not bad, Chains, but you and me and everyone else still stand in the Shadow of the Master (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?17565-My-worst-campaign&p=290108#post290108).
Quote from: Black Vulmea;957303Not bad, Chains, but you and me and everyone else still stand in the Shadow of the Master (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?17565-My-worst-campaign&p=290108#post290108).
That really made my day
Quote from: Baeraad;957270Come to think of it, a related question might be: what do you not tell your players of your GMing style ahead of time (possibly because you don't even think of it as part of your GMing style), that they invariably figure out on their own?
"Things are generally as they appear. I appreciate it's hard grokking a campaign world through the limited bandwidth of me talking, so I try to keep everything as straightforward and comprehensible as possible. This is so that you have the chance to understand what's going on and act on that knowledge. Eg if you're going to get doublecrossed, it's probably by that treacherous dwarf slaver you just released when he promised to take you out in the wilderness to the lair of his old buddies... No, I am not actually going to tell you when you are about to be doublecrossed, unless you take some minimal action such as requesting an Insight check. I would like you to be paying enough attention you can work it out for yourself."
That's what I don't tell them. :)
Quote from: Baeraad;957270Come to think of it, a related question might be: what do you not tell your players of your GMing style ahead of time (possibly because you don't even think of it as part of your GMing style), that they invariably figure out on their own?
Two things come to mind.
The first didn't really surprise me at all. It was a mid-session comment that "nDervish has a random table for
everything." (Maybe not quite everything, but I do try.)
The other was a total surprise. A new player joined, someone mostly experienced with D&D3/PF, and promptly grabbed his dice, told me what he rolled, and asked what he saw. Before I could answer, one of my veteran players turned to him and said, "Don't roll for Perception unless nDervish tells you to, otherwise he'll make up something for you to see, and it probably won't be good." (I don't consciously do that, and I don't like the idea that I do that, but... yeah... I do hate to see a good Perception roll get wasted on a simple "you don't see anything"...)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;957303Not bad, Chains, but you and me and everyone else still stand in the Shadow of the Master (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?17565-My-worst-campaign&p=290108#post290108).
That was glorious. Especially:
QuoteI can just see him now, holding up the book with his Cheetos-stained hands, spitting out the last syllable of "no thuch thpellth available to thhamanth" so that little flecks of saliva and popcorn land on my blazer as he engages in some twisted power-play for status as alpha geek. If that's what was going on, I'm not surprised that the DM got so pissed off he engaged in some massive screwage. The DM doesn't design games so you can slap your dick on the table trying to contradict him.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;957303Not bad, Chains, but you and me and everyone else still stand in the Shadow of the Master (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?17565-My-worst-campaign&p=290108#post290108).
Haha! Great read. Thanks for sharing.
Like I mentioned earlier, I try to play by the rules as written because I think that helps in establishing a coherent world, and therefore aiding in immersion... but I'm with the GM on this one. When I say that the game world runs according to the rules as written, that carries the unspoken rider "to the extent that I know and understand them." Pointing out rules to me that I have missed in particular cases is fine, but if my planned scenario hinges on an assumption that's contradicted in some obscure paragraph in the middle of a disjointed, poorly indexed mass of text that I hadn't noticed because my eyes had glazed over by the time I got to that point? Oh, you'd better believe that I'm overruling that one! :p
Quote from: AsenRG;957080What would you say if they asked you to describe your style?
If I could, I'd probably point them to one of my actual play blogs.