Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 8463620" data-attributes="member: 463"><p>I think this is as usual an issue that shouldn't be treated in absolute terms. Everyone has their red lines. Not everyone should play in every game - I agree with the Geek Social Fallacies on that. OTOH sometimes reasonable compromise is possible. I'm not going to totally change a campaign premise to suit a player, but there's usually room to do more 'fade to black' on any particular stuff. Stuff can be implied without being explicit. I definitely take player feedback on what they're comfortable with, and try to deal with cross-cultural misunderstandings. I find player age group can be an issue, eg I recall a Baby Boomer player who had not seen Game of Thrones was offended by a nasty NPC who acted like one of the characters in that show. Younger players might not get my Gen X '80s-style tropes, either. I think it best behooves everyone, player and GM alike, to show some consideration and respect for the other people playing. The GM normally takes the lead, and IMO should run the campaign that excites them, that they want to run. But the GM can also ask themselves whether controversial content X is really necessary to the campaign premise, and if so, to what extent it can be used sensitively. And players should decide whether they will enjoy the campaign premise, or if it is best to sit it out. Recognising in the latter case that they are not being victimised or excluded. I have a player, a friend, who decided he didn't want to play in my new Odyssey of the Dragonlords campaign; it's important that I don't resent his decision and that he doesn't feel excluded - the themes just didn't appeal to him. So we do other stuff together.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="S'mon, post: 8463620, member: 463"] I think this is as usual an issue that shouldn't be treated in absolute terms. Everyone has their red lines. Not everyone should play in every game - I agree with the Geek Social Fallacies on that. OTOH sometimes reasonable compromise is possible. I'm not going to totally change a campaign premise to suit a player, but there's usually room to do more 'fade to black' on any particular stuff. Stuff can be implied without being explicit. I definitely take player feedback on what they're comfortable with, and try to deal with cross-cultural misunderstandings. I find player age group can be an issue, eg I recall a Baby Boomer player who had not seen Game of Thrones was offended by a nasty NPC who acted like one of the characters in that show. Younger players might not get my Gen X '80s-style tropes, either. I think it best behooves everyone, player and GM alike, to show some consideration and respect for the other people playing. The GM normally takes the lead, and IMO should run the campaign that excites them, that they want to run. But the GM can also ask themselves whether controversial content X is really necessary to the campaign premise, and if so, to what extent it can be used sensitively. And players should decide whether they will enjoy the campaign premise, or if it is best to sit it out. Recognising in the latter case that they are not being victimised or excluded. I have a player, a friend, who decided he didn't want to play in my new Odyssey of the Dragonlords campaign; it's important that I don't resent his decision and that he doesn't feel excluded - the themes just didn't appeal to him. So we do other stuff together. [/QUOTE]

Verification