Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5042829" data-attributes="member: 8835">Regardless of the terms used, it's always a good idea to try to give the players a sense of how you DM, and what style of game you're playing.  You don't need the big fancy official lexicon of RPG terms.  Saying there's a mix of stories and plots going on of verying difficulty levels and you're going to have to be careful which ones you chose, might say a lot.Also, be mindful that as a GM, what you consider fun to run may be functionally different than what the players want to play.  I could see the sandbox or simulation mindset appealing to a GM, looking to run "as real of a world as possible".  I could also see a GM thinking they have a story to tell and want to do so in D&D.  At extremes, either style has negatives (a true simulation tends to be so gritty and deadly due to the nature of actually being an adventurer as to not be fun anymore, a foisted story on the players can turn into a railroad).I've seen this point made twice from two different credible sources.  Dilbert recently made a point that "it's not art if people don't like it".<a href="http://dilbert.com/fast/2009-12-21/" target="_blank">Dilbert.com - The Official Dilbert Website with Scott Adams' color strips, Dilbert animation, mashups and more!</a>And I jiust finished watching the Les Paul documentary on NetFlix.  He too made the point that if you're not making stuff that appeals to people, you're going to fail.  Les Paul, for those who don't know, is a very famous musician who invented a ton of things that enable the recording of music that we hear today.  Plus he has a line of nice guitars from Gibson.There's a movement around here to not call anything "badwrongfun".  And of course, whenever the words plot or sandbox come up, a number of us get riled up into thinking the "other way' is wrong (myself included).The real test of YOUR method whatever it is, is on whether you have a group of players that enjoy your game.  If you're not currently running, the test would be, if you announced starting a new game, would your group jump on board to play it.I suspect then, since my group likes my games, that regardless of how I describe it, I'm doing something right.That in turn, folks like Ariosto (who in other threads we seem to butt heads) also has a working method for his group of players.Cyronax's story here, indicates that the way he ran his game, didn't fit for that group of players.  It doesn't mean his method was wrong, but it does mean it wasn't a good fit.  It also may be a warning sign that his methods need alteration, in what fashion would require some consideration.One of the things folks seem reluctant to do is label something wrong.  If you keep doing the same thing and getting bad results, you are doing it wrong.So what's a GM to do.  They got a philosophy they think is valid.  If it ain't holding a group together, you gotta identify what the trouble points are and adjust.  You may not have to throw out all your ideas, but if your ideas are driving away audience, they ain't all that great.</blockquote>

Verification