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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ThirdWizard" data-source="post: 2534359" data-attributes="member: 12037">I definately agree with people who don't want to talk about it during a session. Most important longterm decision making occurs between sessions anyway, when the players talk about their moves for the next session by giving me their plans. During sessions, in the heat of the moment, it would be counter-productive to stop the game to discuss the campaign on a meta-level unless it was something groundshaking, and even then we probably wouldn't.I agree. Only one of my players has DMed a campaign, and I can tell that it changes your outlook on the game. Philosophy of gameplay is an interesting thing to discuss with him, but with the others seems rather uninspired. Being DM changes one's outlook on the game.I've found that those that have DMed tend to think of character actions in terms of plot hooks and other things along those lines while those that havn't have a much more PC-centric view of the game. That's just a generalization, of course, but it does bring me back to my point. Two players, two different outlooks, neither more valid than the other, but one is right in the fact that he and the DM are on the same page while the other one isn't. This isn't necesarrily the one that's DMed in my previous example, because two DMs can have vastly different outlooks. The question becomes, should the DM interject because of this? I've seen some great replies. I still havn't formulated an oppinion as such, though. I'm so wishy-washy. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I can only imagine the fear on my players faces if I asked them that!And, I shall never get used to the capital 'A'. I litterally didn't recognize you for a second! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Sorry, yeah, that's why I wasn't too interested in the particular scenario. I shouldn't have used it twice, it gave away that that particular situation brought this up! I know exactly what will happen if they build the stronghold. The problem is that the players' selective viewpoints about it are getting a bit out of whack. One player only sees the good. Another only sees the bad. I could interject with "You're both right, and here's why" but I don't know if I should at this point.But, this isn't limited to this situation, this is something I've noticed because we recently (erm.. as in 14 sessions ago) started a new campaign. New campaign, new assumptions, new ideas. The PCs in this campaign are nothing like the old ones, and it seems every time we start a new campaign, we constantly find new things arising that we don't share world-views about. This isn't a bad thing, I think; it means we can branch out, be different, and enjoy new experiences. It just also means that sometimes I, the DM, and the players will expect something completely different than each other. I guess that can be fun, too, though. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'm actually a bit surprised how forthcoming most posters are with their players. Interesting.</blockquote>

Verification