Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3663357" data-attributes="member: 48965">Well in my game, the first time any PC meets any other PC, if they want, they describe what they're character looks like as well as any information or background they would want the other PC's to know.  Here's an example a new player from work thought up in his first game of Castles and Crusades with us...He played a cleric who said he had what appeared to be rope burns on his neck, this really got both me and the other players interested...he never told anyone what the rope burns were, from...never wanted to talk about it in character was his favorite answer...and even admitted to me out of game that he had no idea where the rope burns came from.  He just thought it was cool.  Was it relevant? Not at all.  Did it add to the game...sure, for his character, and that was cool.I'll also state for the record that I love playing Exalted (when I'm in the mood to play a crunch heavy game and have all or mostly players who are familiar with the rules.).  Now one thing I've taken from Exalted and used in both my C&C as well as my D&D game is the idea of "stunt bonuses".  A stunt is any cool description of the way an action is performed, in or out of combat.  Now as a GM sometimes the players can get a little boring or repetitive with it, and in the end the +1 or +2 I give isn't really worth that much...but my players seem to love doing this.  I have no problem listening to their descriptions of how their characters perform their actions, though I will admit it can be boring at times for me...however I also expect them to listen when I'm describing something as well.  It's give and take.  Maybe I've just got players who fit my style better than most...but I have no problem with players being descriptive and they have no problem with me being descriptive as well. In our minds it shows that were interested in what is going on in the game.Hussar, I think the 3 minutes is a little extreme.  I don't think most people are arguing that the DM or players should be droning on for 3 minutes.  Most of us are arguing that as a player you have a responsibility to at least indulge the fun of your DM (within reason), just as he should indulge yours (within reason).  If we're still talking about the article, I think this is my, as well as others, sticking point.  It doesn't address this at all.  It is all about promoting a "correct playstyle" and I for one, don't believe such exsits as far as roleplaying games are concerned.  IMHO it's about compatible playstyles.  I listen to what the player's characters do, say, and think all the time (and no, it's not always the most exciting thing for me.)...but to claim that the only way they should listen to what I'm saying is if it's relative to them at this particular moment, otherwise they should cut me off or talk over me, just doesn't sit right with me.  Some people want more than combat and bonuses out of D&D...some don't, Personally neither style, IMHO, is inherently better than another, and I'm not sure that sacrificing the playstyle you enjoy is necessarily the best route to go.  I mean WotC sells crunch, so of course the side that wants crunch is right(buy Weapons of Legacy, it'll solve your problems), but I just don't agree.Maybe Noah should cut back a little...maybe his players, not the two who do seem to enjoy and listen to him, should listen more.   The problem is that the article is too one sided and makes no argument for the fun of everyone being important...It argues only for those players who are bored unless your listing the bonuses of their items.</blockquote>

Verification