Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Curmudjinn" data-source="post: 6360950" data-attributes="member: 6778159">The problem with that point of view, is it isn't appreciated by everyone. It isn't appreciated by a large portion of GMs. The seat-of-your-pants GMing-style that is mostly subservient to a group of open-world PCs with no direct line to their goals except ruining immersion until a goal is reached or death isn't for every GM.That, though, is why virtual tabletops and play-by-post games have grown substantially in the last decade or so. People are just sick of dealing with players without a similar play-style, or without empathy towards a certain GM-style. It is pretty hard to narrow down your offline group in the same way you can a large online gaming community to your specific likes within a game or style. I long ago left many local gaming groups for just that reason, just because their GMing style was way outside of my fun zone or the other PCs were pushy selfish asshats that made each game feel like a card game of Munchkin. Moon Elf brothers? I steal your stuff when your sleeping. Work with the King? I make an attempt on his life instead and cause a party TPK.Silly stuff.You really need some sort of breakdown of options to be agreed upon by all of the players before the game even starts. Like Setting, Seriousness, Camaraderie, etc. When all of the players on agreed with each other on what type of communal game is wanted, you can move on from there. If one continues to ruin it for everyone, ask them to adjust or leave the table. People seem to tiptoe around asking players to leave, but sometimes you have to. It's like having teammate that continues to throw the ball out of bounds because everyone else's awe at the behavior is enjoyable for them, but they clearly can't continue to play as a team member.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Curmudjinn, post: 6360950, member: 6778159"] The problem with that point of view, is it isn't appreciated by everyone. It isn't appreciated by a large portion of GMs. The seat-of-your-pants GMing-style that is mostly subservient to a group of open-world PCs with no direct line to their goals except ruining immersion until a goal is reached or death isn't for every GM. That, though, is why virtual tabletops and play-by-post games have grown substantially in the last decade or so. People are just sick of dealing with players without a similar play-style, or without empathy towards a certain GM-style. It is pretty hard to narrow down your offline group in the same way you can a large online gaming community to your specific likes within a game or style. I long ago left many local gaming groups for just that reason, just because their GMing style was way outside of my fun zone or the other PCs were pushy selfish asshats that made each game feel like a card game of Munchkin. Moon Elf brothers? I steal your stuff when your sleeping. Work with the King? I make an attempt on his life instead and cause a party TPK. Silly stuff. You really need some sort of breakdown of options to be agreed upon by all of the players before the game even starts. Like Setting, Seriousness, Camaraderie, etc. When all of the players on agreed with each other on what type of communal game is wanted, you can move on from there. If one continues to ruin it for everyone, ask them to adjust or leave the table. People seem to tiptoe around asking players to leave, but sometimes you have to. It's like having teammate that continues to throw the ball out of bounds because everyone else's awe at the behavior is enjoyable for them, but they clearly can't continue to play as a team member. [/QUOTE]

Verification