How Serious Do You Like Your Gaming?

[payn]

I want a basic core of serious where we are taking it as a real thing with a plot and choices that matter and such but basically a humorous Army of Darkness execution with fun stuff coming from both the DM and players and between players.

 

[KYRON45]

I like to present a game with a serious tone. As serious a tone as playing make believe allows.
But I also like to surround myself with people who have a good sense of humor.
I want people to take the premise and the schedule and the amount of work that goes into the game seriously.
I also want everyone to have a good time and come back again next week.
I am not a comedy writer so it's best that i don't write comedy encounters. If the players in or out of character inject some humor into the situations...that of course is welcome. Players are however not welcome to take a serious encounter and turn it into a scene from The Office. My biggest pet peeve is when the players turn an NPC's name into a joke.
I also don't allow alcohol or other substances at the table as i have seen first hand how this can quickly ruin a well crafted campaign.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I like to present a game with a serious tone. As serious a tone as playing make believe allows.
But I also like to surround myself with people who have a good sense of humor.
I want people to take the premise and the schedule and the amount of work that goes into the game seriously.
I also want everyone to have a good time and come back again next week.
I am not a comedy writer so it's best that i don't write comedy encounters. If the players in or out of character inject some humor into the situations...that of course is welcome. Players are however not welcome to take a serious encounter and turn it into a scene from The Office. My biggest pet peeve is when the players turn an NPC's name into a joke.
I also don't allow alcohol or other substances at the table as i have seen first hand how this can quickly ruin a well crafted campaign.

Considering my stance that playing make-believe and acting are very similar activities, I would say that you can get pretty darn serious.

 

[cranberry]

I like a combat focus with a story developing as events unfold, and the PCs interact with the world.

My view of "serious" is making sure tactical combat stays within the parameters of the rules, so that the PC's have to make meaningful choices. So, in other words, if a spell has a range of 60 feet, and the monster is 70 feet away, but it's ally is 10 feet away, what are you going to do to get in range.

I'm not a fan of "ambiguous ranges "near, mid, far, etc. that Professor Dungeon Master likes.

 

[Gradine]

Run it serious, embrace the inevitable comedy.

Yeah, this is pretty much how it goes. Most times my job as the DM is to play the straight man to the absolute clown show that is my party.

 

[Fifinjir]

I can go either way depending on the moods. That said, even in a comedic game I at prefer it at least the main villain is legitimately threatening.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can accept a bit of byplay humor or stuff ;that just emerges from situation, but I don't try for it (I'm not a person particularly prone to humor myself, though I can sometimes appreciate it--but only sometimes). I don't swing to the other end either, though; life is rough enough sometimes I don't feel a need to indulge in tragedy overly much in my games.

 

[payn]

I like a combat focus with a story developing as events unfold, and the PCs interact with the world.

My view of "serious" is making sure tactical combat stays within the parameters of the rules, so that the PC's have to make meaningful choices. So, in other words, if a spell has a range of 60 feet, and the monster is 70 feet away, but it's ally is 10 feet away, what are you going to do to get in range.

I'm not a fan of "ambiguous ranges "near, mid, far, etc. that Professor Dungeon Master likes.

This is an interesting comment making me think about the journey I have been on with combat and "meaningful choices". At one point in time, I really wanted the nitty gritty detail of how everything tactically operates down to feet/squares burst templates, rounds, etc.. Although, playing in one of my favorite RPGs Traveller, combat isnt all that nitty gritty or tactical. Instead of feet specific ranges, you have abstracted personal, short, medium, and long ranges. Weapons and cover are all you really need to consider. It opens up a space for applying skills in combat to make things more meaningful. For example, using leadership/recon to figure out a way to corner the enemy. Or using a computer skill to hack a terminal and set off fire suppression gas on the enemy.

Meaningful choices has moved from a tactical game of bump, set, spike, into one more narrative and improvisational driven experience. That ambiguity isnt for everybody, and I do still enjoy a good tactical RPG now and then. I just learned that sometimes that detailed tactical experience can be deceptively routine and ordinary. YMMV.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Yeah, this is pretty much how it goes. Most times my job as the DM is to play the straight man to the absolute clown show that is my party.

This is my current f2f group. They call themselves chaos gremlins.

 

[aramis erak]

My biggest problem as a GM is that I have a crew of punishingly inveterate punsters. This basically prevents the level of serious I like.