rythm_rampage
First Post
Ok I think we have a missunderstanding here. First of all it's not like gaming is hard work for me. I just have a definite problem when it comes to preparing game sessions. My player told me that I focused to much on detailed mapping and the like which have no real gaming impact. He's definately right about, what do a dozen o' rooms do to a game that don't add anything to the story ?
If it comes to atmosphere it's on my shoulders to set the mood in the first place. In my oppinion players can either join in or not join, it depends. An average session usually is still fun if the players are not 100% in-game. But imagine, there's a tired looking guy behind the screen who doesn't look forward to master the game (appearently), would you try and motivate him if you knew that the campaign was almost over ?
I talked to him seriously and it was not like "Ok, what went wrong with my last campaign, any ideas ?" "Your fault."
We talked about some issues we were having eversince but lately it really became a big one. What I'm talking about is the DM/Player connection. Ok, if the players trust me that I do a good job and everybody will have fun that's fine, that's how it should be. But if I got a bunch of players in front of me who actually don't really bother then something's wrong. If I ask my players if something's wrong and they don't tell me what's going an that's the worst thing they can do to me.
You know I once got a player who kept complaining about the constant fighting in my campaign. Ok, I build an investigative part. She liked it very much and the rest of the party thought it a nice change of pace. Imo it's always up to the DM what to do about mood, statisfied players and the like. Even if the players give enough input, that won't help if the GM doesn't do anything with it.
But of course, the player I was talking to told me about the good sites of my last campaign. He liked that he could actually affect the world they were playing in even if it was railroaded.
I'll make clear that I want feedback to my players, I almost had to force the one I was talking to. I told him very clearly that it's bad to not tell me what's wrong with the campaign and that I can't change anything if I don't know what's going on. I will tell my other players the same thing when we create characters.
He told me that he didn't know how I handled criticism so he held it back. But since we talked about it it's not gonna happen again.
I just started to map out the area for the first "mission" and I think I spend to much time on detailing rooms. When it comes to creating enemys I'll just pick up the Menace Manual and chose the type of enemy I need and adjust it. Since there's a whole lot of combinations that won't take to much time. Anyway this is a campaign focused on mystic investigation so I don't need much stating around anyway
If it comes to atmosphere it's on my shoulders to set the mood in the first place. In my oppinion players can either join in or not join, it depends. An average session usually is still fun if the players are not 100% in-game. But imagine, there's a tired looking guy behind the screen who doesn't look forward to master the game (appearently), would you try and motivate him if you knew that the campaign was almost over ?
I talked to him seriously and it was not like "Ok, what went wrong with my last campaign, any ideas ?" "Your fault."
We talked about some issues we were having eversince but lately it really became a big one. What I'm talking about is the DM/Player connection. Ok, if the players trust me that I do a good job and everybody will have fun that's fine, that's how it should be. But if I got a bunch of players in front of me who actually don't really bother then something's wrong. If I ask my players if something's wrong and they don't tell me what's going an that's the worst thing they can do to me.
You know I once got a player who kept complaining about the constant fighting in my campaign. Ok, I build an investigative part. She liked it very much and the rest of the party thought it a nice change of pace. Imo it's always up to the DM what to do about mood, statisfied players and the like. Even if the players give enough input, that won't help if the GM doesn't do anything with it.
But of course, the player I was talking to told me about the good sites of my last campaign. He liked that he could actually affect the world they were playing in even if it was railroaded.
I'll make clear that I want feedback to my players, I almost had to force the one I was talking to. I told him very clearly that it's bad to not tell me what's wrong with the campaign and that I can't change anything if I don't know what's going on. I will tell my other players the same thing when we create characters.
He told me that he didn't know how I handled criticism so he held it back. But since we talked about it it's not gonna happen again.
I just started to map out the area for the first "mission" and I think I spend to much time on detailing rooms. When it comes to creating enemys I'll just pick up the Menace Manual and chose the type of enemy I need and adjust it. Since there's a whole lot of combinations that won't take to much time. Anyway this is a campaign focused on mystic investigation so I don't need much stating around anyway
