Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 6094705" data-attributes="member: 6688858">I don't disagree with any of the conclusions (more useful in the sort of game where the typical adventuring hook is an NPC giving the PCs a quest, rather than a treasure map/dungeon rumor, but pretty good advice nonetheless) but if it weren't for this thread I would have stopped reading after the first two sentences:&quot;A&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; campaign needs to earn the players' respect if it has any&nbsp; chance of survival. Too many potentially awesome campaigns get ripped to&nbsp; shreds by disaffected and disenfranchised players, and for good reason.&quot;That seems way too biased in favor of the players to me. Let's try transposing the the player and GM role here and see how badwrong it sounds:&quot;A player character needs to earn the GM's respect if it has any&nbsp; chance of survival. Too many potentially awesome PCs get ripped to&nbsp; shreds by disaffected and disenfranchised GMs, and for good reason.&quot;I would argue that if you think one of these attitudes is acceptable and the other not, you're too biased in favor of the players.If you're doing a story-focused campaign with a specific theme (e.g. fantasy supers) then the players have just as much responsibility to play to that as the DM does. If a player is not really grooving on the DM's scene-framing then I think they should talk with them OOC and suggest some changes, and work together to get the game going in the right direction. I don't agree with this attitude that they're allowed to act like a petulant child and &quot;rip the campaign to shreds&quot; unless the DM sets everything up perfectly to coax great roleplaying out of them. I don't think that's a wise approach and reminds me of what the Forge essays call ouija board playing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Libramarian, post: 6094705, member: 6688858"] I don't disagree with any of the conclusions (more useful in the sort of game where the typical adventuring hook is an NPC giving the PCs a quest, rather than a treasure map/dungeon rumor, but pretty good advice nonetheless) but if it weren't for this thread I would have stopped reading after the first two sentences: "A campaign needs to earn the players' respect if it has any chance of survival. Too many potentially awesome campaigns get ripped to shreds by disaffected and disenfranchised players, and for good reason." That seems way too biased in favor of the players to me. Let's try transposing the the player and GM role here and see how badwrong it sounds: "A player character needs to earn the GM's respect if it has any chance of survival. Too many potentially awesome PCs get ripped to shreds by disaffected and disenfranchised GMs, and for good reason." I would argue that if you think one of these attitudes is acceptable and the other not, you're too biased in favor of the players. If you're doing a story-focused campaign with a specific theme (e.g. fantasy supers) then the players have just as much responsibility to play to that as the DM does. If a player is not really grooving on the DM's scene-framing then I think they should talk with them OOC and suggest some changes, and work together to get the game going in the right direction. I don't agree with this attitude that they're allowed to act like a petulant child and "rip the campaign to shreds" unless the DM sets everything up perfectly to coax great roleplaying out of them. I don't think that's a wise approach and reminds me of what the Forge essays call ouija board playing. [/QUOTE]

Verification