Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cyronax" data-source="post: 5042849" data-attributes="member: 822">Astute analysis, Janx. You are indeed right the 4 year long running group in question often made snide comments about me being stingy or too 'Old Guard' (to describe me as too much a 2e DM -- i.e. me not following 3.X wealth by level). We butted heads more than most. And the parting of ways was a good result indeed. I've been DMing since 1997-ish and have run a number of long campaigns (though none survived past 13th level in 3.X). I think the main point I was trying to make is that DM's nowadays (at least those who read EN World) are getting a better lexicon to help convey their styles to the players (and vice versa). My 2003-2007 group essentially collapsed because we had wildly different expectations. I later tried to play in the group's adventure path campaign and was bored to tears because it felt like a railroad. YET, my old players enjoyed the railroad. happy ending: I formed a new group right after the last one collapsed in 2007. We are still going strong into 2010. They more or less like my more sandbox-type style ... and I do my best to attend to their other tastes as well. But I should also state that I also tried my best to make my 2003-07 group enjoy my campaigns and tried to blend all of our tastes. We had some great times, but by 2007 though, two specific players became too frustrated with it and that's when we collapsed as a group. The two 'insurgent' players formed the new adventure path group, while two of my old players stayed on to join (at times) my new group. Gaming is not marriage. And a sandbox vs. linear adventures are equally valid. Best Regards,C.I.D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cyronax, post: 5042849, member: 822"] Astute analysis, Janx. You are indeed right the 4 year long running group in question often made snide comments about me being stingy or too 'Old Guard' (to describe me as too much a 2e DM -- i.e. me not following 3.X wealth by level). We butted heads more than most. And the parting of ways was a good result indeed. I've been DMing since 1997-ish and have run a number of long campaigns (though none survived past 13th level in 3.X). I think the main point I was trying to make is that DM's nowadays (at least those who read EN World) are getting a better lexicon to help convey their styles to the players (and vice versa). My 2003-2007 group essentially collapsed because we had wildly different expectations. I later tried to play in the group's adventure path campaign and was bored to tears because it felt like a railroad. YET, my old players enjoyed the railroad. happy ending: I formed a new group right after the last one collapsed in 2007. We are still going strong into 2010. They more or less like my more sandbox-type style ... and I do my best to attend to their other tastes as well. But I should also state that I also tried my best to make my 2003-07 group enjoy my campaigns and tried to blend all of our tastes. We had some great times, but by 2007 though, two specific players became too frustrated with it and that's when we collapsed as a group. The two 'insurgent' players formed the new adventure path group, while two of my old players stayed on to join (at times) my new group. Gaming is not marriage. And a sandbox vs. linear adventures are equally valid. Best Regards, C.I.D. [/QUOTE]

Verification