Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4645271" data-attributes="member: 2067">Keep in mind that threatening monsters with adorable names is very low on the &quot;wackiness&quot; scale, first. You could run a totally grim-n-gritty, survivalist horror game where things are named &quot;fluffy,&quot; no problem.Second, it's not OK for a campaign to be totally closed to what people have fun doing. If a player WANTS a little bit of wackiness, why shouldn't they get it? Every campaign is a balance of conflicting playstyles, because no two people are really looking for the same thing. A campaign should be flexible enough to accommodate everything the group is looking for (including the DM, but not exclusively the DM).A little bit of wackiness is a common source of fun. Putting the lid on it puts the lid on FUN. Even a serious &quot;dark world where dark stuff happens to dark characters and everyone is very dark and also darkness is very serious business&quot; kind of world should be able to find a home for a brutal wolf named &quot;fido.&quot; Honestly, in the end, it boils down to flexibility. Campaign settings are often better as blades of grass or stalks of wheat rather than as tall trees and intricate buildings, because player characters are hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes all at once. Artsy sensitivity doesn't survive nature red in tooth and claw, and an inflexible vision that can't adapt will die. It is not you Will to impose on others. It is a system, a coexistence, and if the DM can't learn to co-exist (while still having his own brand of fun), if the Princess can't learn to sleep on the pea, then sooner or later entropy takes over from order and the whole thing falls apart no matter how hard that DM tries. This isn't a reaction against melodrama-style &quot;storytelling&quot; per se. My campaigns, for instance, tend to have very deep literary themes to them -- little mantras like &quot;Hope in the Face of Hopelessness&quot; or &quot;Survival by Any Means,&quot; or &quot;Your Family will Make You and Break You.&quot; My own pet system uses a pretty nice structure for telling these stories. I've got no problem with campaigns with a strong theme or a cohesive structure.This is a reaction against inflexibility, ego, and total control, however, all of which are pretty bad to have in any collaborative effort. It's basic group dynamics. There is a bit of false dichotomy going on here. This isn't about &quot;serious&quot; vs. &quot;casual&quot; playstyles. This is about flexibility vs. inflexibility. Even a very serious play style needs flexibility to be...welll...playable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 4645271, member: 2067"] Keep in mind that threatening monsters with adorable names is very low on the "wackiness" scale, first. You could run a totally grim-n-gritty, survivalist horror game where things are named "fluffy," no problem. Second, it's not OK for a campaign to be totally closed to what people have fun doing. If a player WANTS a little bit of wackiness, why shouldn't they get it? Every campaign is a balance of conflicting playstyles, because no two people are really looking for the same thing. A campaign should be flexible enough to accommodate everything the group is looking for (including the DM, but not exclusively the DM). A little bit of wackiness is a common source of fun. Putting the lid on it puts the lid on FUN. Even a serious "dark world where dark stuff happens to dark characters and everyone is very dark and also darkness is very serious business" kind of world should be able to find a home for a brutal wolf named "fido." Honestly, in the end, it boils down to flexibility. Campaign settings are often better as blades of grass or stalks of wheat rather than as tall trees and intricate buildings, because player characters are hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes all at once. Artsy sensitivity doesn't survive nature red in tooth and claw, and an inflexible vision that can't adapt will die. It is not you Will to impose on others. It is a system, a coexistence, and if the DM can't learn to co-exist (while still having his own brand of fun), if the Princess can't learn to sleep on the pea, then sooner or later entropy takes over from order and the whole thing falls apart no matter how hard that DM tries. This isn't a reaction against melodrama-style "storytelling" per se. My campaigns, for instance, tend to have very deep literary themes to them -- little mantras like "Hope in the Face of Hopelessness" or "Survival by Any Means," or "Your Family will Make You and Break You." My own pet system uses a pretty nice structure for telling these stories. I've got no problem with campaigns with a strong theme or a cohesive structure. This is a reaction against inflexibility, ego, and total control, however, all of which are pretty bad to have in any collaborative effort. It's basic group dynamics. There is a bit of false dichotomy going on here. This isn't about "serious" vs. "casual" playstyles. This is about flexibility vs. inflexibility. Even a very serious play style needs flexibility to be...welll...playable. [/QUOTE]

Verification