Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Juiblex" data-source="post: 232480" data-attributes="member: 2998">Tough Row to HoeI was also encouraged by Kestrel to post here.&nbsp; I also know Meridian.&nbsp; However, I was not a member of said group.&nbsp; I just have a few random thoughts.I do think that this group shows a very difficult dynamic to overcome - Rollplayer versus Roleplayer.&nbsp; Like Psion has said elsewhere, I don't really believe that anyone is actually a &quot;rollplayer.&quot;&nbsp; I think everyone roleplays, its just that some have more of a gamesmanship paradigm.&nbsp; However, when I say Rollplayer most everyone knows what I mean - someone who has a larger emphasis on game mechanics than acting out a fantasy.&nbsp; While others who have more of an escapist paradigm are what people traditionally refer to as &quot;roleplayers&quot; in the same breath as &quot;rollplayers.&quot;&nbsp; In any event, when you have conflicting personalities things tend to get rough - as we all would attest to I am sure.There were a series of articles in Dragon magazine last year that explained the dynamics of different types of players and how to deal with them.&nbsp; I thought the articles were very good.&nbsp; Now my experience is with my current campaign - The Classics of 1e.&nbsp; Well, this campaign begs for and is centered around modules.&nbsp; My campaigns usually have no modules.&nbsp; However this was classic DnD.&nbsp; Unfortunately, after the second module I found that the campaign was stagnant, the play (tons of combat) wasgetting boring and I felt like as a DM I was spinning my wheels in mud.And I wasn't the only one.&nbsp; I think everyone was a bit grumpy that things were what I would call &quot;rough&quot;&nbsp; My group tends to lean toward the gamesmanship side of the equation with one member very much in the escapist camp.&nbsp; So I have decided to change some of my presentation, focus more on a cohesive story and try to smooth my classics of 1e into an overall story arch.So I did something radically different.&nbsp; The last session was a murder-mystery in Greyhawk.&nbsp; Was it original?&nbsp; Hell no.&nbsp; It was worse than Perry Mason.&nbsp; We didn't roll combat once.&nbsp; However, it provided a nice change of pace and I think it showed my escapist player that I wasn't going to exclude him.&nbsp;&nbsp; I also think it showed my other players that I was going to try new things and it wasn't going to be all hack and slash - which I think they were tired of as well.I haven't been a DM for a long time.&nbsp; But I think I have learned one thing that I have read over and over.&nbsp; It is very true.&nbsp; Although I'd like to please everyone - you can't.&nbsp; If they don't enjoy your game or your style (and there have been more than a few that haven't liked my games or my style) then there really isn't much you can do about that.&nbsp; In the end you change for them and then you are unhappy.Just throwing out some ideas.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Juiblex, post: 232480, member: 2998"] [b]Tough Row to Hoe[/b] I was also encouraged by Kestrel to post here. I also know Meridian. However, I was not a member of said group. I just have a few random thoughts. I do think that this group shows a very difficult dynamic to overcome - Rollplayer versus Roleplayer. Like Psion has said elsewhere, I don't really believe that anyone is actually a "rollplayer." I think everyone roleplays, its just that some have more of a gamesmanship paradigm. However, when I say Rollplayer most everyone knows what I mean - someone who has a larger emphasis on game mechanics than acting out a fantasy. While others who have more of an escapist paradigm are what people traditionally refer to as "roleplayers" in the same breath as "rollplayers." In any event, when you have conflicting personalities things tend to get rough - as we all would attest to I am sure. There were a series of articles in Dragon magazine last year that explained the dynamics of different types of players and how to deal with them. I thought the articles were very good. Now my experience is with my current campaign - The Classics of 1e. Well, this campaign begs for and is centered around modules. My campaigns usually have no modules. However this was classic DnD. Unfortunately, after the second module I found that the campaign was stagnant, the play (tons of combat) wasgetting boring and I felt like as a DM I was spinning my wheels in mud. And I wasn't the only one. I think everyone was a bit grumpy that things were what I would call "rough" My group tends to lean toward the gamesmanship side of the equation with one member very much in the escapist camp. So I have decided to change some of my presentation, focus more on a cohesive story and try to smooth my classics of 1e into an overall story arch. So I did something radically different. The last session was a murder-mystery in Greyhawk. Was it original? Hell no. It was worse than Perry Mason. We didn't roll combat once. However, it provided a nice change of pace and I think it showed my escapist player that I wasn't going to exclude him. I also think it showed my other players that I was going to try new things and it wasn't going to be all hack and slash - which I think they were tired of as well. I haven't been a DM for a long time. But I think I have learned one thing that I have read over and over. It is very true. Although I'd like to please everyone - you can't. If they don't enjoy your game or your style (and there have been more than a few that haven't liked my games or my style) then there really isn't much you can do about that. In the end you change for them and then you are unhappy. Just throwing out some ideas. [/QUOTE]

Verification