Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 6453349" data-attributes="member: 5143">I've read this.&nbsp; I'm still confused as to why any of this is bad.&nbsp; I watched the video just to double check that something bad had happened and I couldn't find anything.&nbsp; All I saw was an adventure opening fairly typically with the DM choosing a starting point then summarizing what the players know from before the adventure began.&nbsp; Then allowing them to use their skills to determine how much extra information they have to help them with completing the adventure.Basically every game of D&amp;D I've ever played has started this way or at least very similarly.As far as I'm concerned, buy in comes by showing up to ANY table, whether it is a home game or a convention.&nbsp; You show up to play the game that is offered.&nbsp; If you don't like the game that is offered, you leave.&nbsp; I'm sure these players all knew they were playing Against the Slavers when they decided to show up.Just like all of my players knew I was running Murder in Baldur's Gate by showing up.&nbsp; My first session consisted of summarizing why everyone was in Baldur's Gate, their personal reasons for being here and what they knew about the city, it's current political situation and culture.&nbsp; It then summarized why they were all at the Founder's Day celebration where that particular adventure starts.I'm really, really confused as to what is so horribly wrong about this.&nbsp; The rest of your post is filled entirely with bile.&nbsp; It seems like the point you are getting across is that this method of playing is extremely lowbrow and that only idiots would use it.&nbsp; The tone really comes across as very elitist in terms of &quot;Haven't these people graduated to the proper way of playing D&amp;D yet?&quot;I really feel like I should be insulted if I knew exactly what you were talking about by &quot;GMing principles, table agenda, and proficient techniques/interchanges indicative of an extremely matured understanding of the system.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 6453349, member: 5143"] I've read this. I'm still confused as to why any of this is bad. I watched the video just to double check that something bad had happened and I couldn't find anything. All I saw was an adventure opening fairly typically with the DM choosing a starting point then summarizing what the players know from before the adventure began. Then allowing them to use their skills to determine how much extra information they have to help them with completing the adventure. Basically every game of D&D I've ever played has started this way or at least very similarly. As far as I'm concerned, buy in comes by showing up to ANY table, whether it is a home game or a convention. You show up to play the game that is offered. If you don't like the game that is offered, you leave. I'm sure these players all knew they were playing Against the Slavers when they decided to show up. Just like all of my players knew I was running Murder in Baldur's Gate by showing up. My first session consisted of summarizing why everyone was in Baldur's Gate, their personal reasons for being here and what they knew about the city, it's current political situation and culture. It then summarized why they were all at the Founder's Day celebration where that particular adventure starts. I'm really, really confused as to what is so horribly wrong about this. The rest of your post is filled entirely with bile. It seems like the point you are getting across is that this method of playing is extremely lowbrow and that only idiots would use it. The tone really comes across as very elitist in terms of "Haven't these people graduated to the proper way of playing D&D yet?" I really feel like I should be insulted if I knew exactly what you were talking about by "GMing principles, table agenda, and proficient techniques/interchanges indicative of an extremely matured understanding of the system." [/QUOTE]

Verification