Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9246336" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Your previous request was not straightforward. It was hard to parse. Your sentences tend to run on very long and so the subject becomes a bit unclear. This request above is much clearer. You want me to explain post 495. Yes, I didn't elaborate in post 495 that the process described applies to all players in the game. I think I have clearly done so in subsequent posts. If not, I'll elaborate now. The process is a collaborative one. No one is demanding things of others. No one should be surprised by the expectations. In games where the design is explicitly intended to deliver an experience we'd call neotrad, the participants should be aware of this. In games where the design is loose enough to allow for either trad or neotrad or some other kind of play, the group should discuss expectations and processes of play up front. Either way, once play begins, everyone should be on the same page. The players should have strong character concepts with specific goals. These can be shared or not, but there should be some unifying element to the group... something that keeps them together. That can be an additional goal of some sort, or it can be some other bond... family, friendship, necessity, whatever. The GM will work with the players, who will also work with each other, to discuss and firm up these ideas. Then the GM will add his own ideas... and then they can start. I'm not really going to address the idea of problematic players. If someone is going to insist on doing something that the group isn't into or doesn't appreciate, then they're going to do it. All I can do is say that you seem to think that neotrad play somehow fosters problem players. But that's not the case. This depends, which is why I didn't comment on it. I don't think there's one way to do this. It's possible the game will take place in a known setting... let's say we're going to play the Alien RPG. No one's going to ask to play an elf. Or... crazy idea incoming... the GM may not already have a world fully formed. Maybe he's waiting for the players' ideas to finalize things. That's how I often do it. I don't create a whole fictional world whole cloth before talking to players. What if they don't like any of the ideas I come up with? Or even if I do have a strong sense of the world before play begins, maybe one or more of the players comes up with a really cool idea I hadn't thought of, that not only fits with my world, but enhances it? I mean, players are creative people, too.... there's no reason to just ignore their ideas because they have a different role in the game. But isn't it trivially easy to work this out with the GM? They can just talk and come up with something that works. That I didn't address this in the example doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. Everyone typically is involved in the process. Again... each of these points is eased if we think of everyone a bit more equally. It's not the GM's world... it's the group's world. Why would there be incompatible and conflicting backstories? Why would the player characters' stories be at odds in any way? Again, it's a collaboration, not a contest. You've misinterpreted that post to the point of absurdity. I would say that there are many games that I don't think make a distinction between play styles or expectations, or that think multiple styles can be accommodated simultaneously. And while I wouldn't go so far as to say that's impossible, I think it'd be better if games were more explicit about this kind of stuff. Rather than "hey here's some rules, do what you like" they should actively explain the game's intentions and how to achieve them. Otherwise, people wind up with really warped ideas about what a given style is about.</blockquote>

Verification