Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7085278" data-attributes="member: 48965">I agree there could have been more discussion around combining the fun of the player types... but (and I'm not really clear in what context these player types were originally published) is that the purview of discussing different player types or is that the realm of more general DM'ing/GM'ing advice.  I also am not sure that the player types are meant to be exclusive but are moreso a way of categorizing the fun players of the game prefer and creating awareness in both players and GM's about these different types of preferences in the game and to what extent each is preferred by an individual.  I have to say I find these player types more helpful in a practical way than I do much of the indie/forge essays and premises (which are often at to high a level and filled with unhelpful jargon for my players) to quickly read over and grasp.  My players were able to easily identify what was most fun for them in games as well as what was secondary, tertiary and what they didn't really care that much about by reading and using the Robin Law's model.  As a GM being aware of these preferences in my players allows me to make sure my GM generated content (which may or may not be directly relevant to their characters specific goals and motivations) is both something my players as a group don't actively dislike and it has a multitude of the preferences they do enjoy to be engaging and interesting to them as players.I'm not sure I see it the same way.  My impression of mainstream vs. indie is more along the lines of...Mainstream is about fun as the first priority in whatever form the particular players find fun... while indie games IMO tend to prioritize a specific experience.  I would say mainstream games tend to be more open and accepting of different playstyles/types since they can often be run using a multitude of techniques in service of both the DM and players... indie games on the other hand are run in a specific way with specific techniques in service to the experience the game is about.  I believe for a group whose desire for fun aligns with the specific experience an indie game is trying to deliver they can be a superior choice... but for those less concerned with the specific experience as opposed to the play generate fun for a group of people diverse in their likes and dislikes... I think often indie games can fall flat. Hmmm... I'm not exactly sure what I should take away from this.  I think both mainstream and indie games benefit from trust... but with mainstream games it's a much more important facet for a fun experience.  With a mainstream game you have to be willing to communicate what is or isn't fun for you and then trust that those at the table not only respect that but drive the game to enable everyone's fun.  The downfall is that it is hard to not only advocate for your fun but to also be willing to step back and allow others to have their fun as well.Indie games on the other hand don't, IMO, require or rely on trust... they rely on a group that wants the same experience for fun and mechanics that are focused on producing that particular type of fun.  There's really no trust involved because the mechanics are supposed to do the heavy lifting and the players and GM should alll be aligned in wanting said experience.  But yeah, I think I rambled a little here, hopefully you can parse something of worth out of my thought... lol!</blockquote>

Verification