Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9669251" data-attributes="member: 1008">I fully support people using what works for them. I would like to think nothing I've said in this thread suggests that methods different to the ones I use can't work, or shouldn't be used. When I've been more heated in this thread, I believe it's been when people are saying that the methods I use don't work, are inadequate, aren't really doing what I think they do, that my players are secretly oppressed or want something different, that the things I want from a game I would better achieve using the poster's preferred techniques.I am bemused by comments like "Trad DMs cling to our strings of power."All I'm doing when I run games is what works for me and what I know from long experience makes my players happy. No one that I game with is trying to strip me of any power, so no clinging is required. The fact that I have power gives me no pleasure in-and-of-itself. The fact that I wield it, as adroitly and thoughtfully as I can, to help my players engage in long-lived campaigns that keep them coming back for decades, that is something I do take pleasure in.I may be misreading you, but it sounds a lot like you're suggesting that you assume that the things you have found improve your game would also improve mine, if only I was willing to open my eyes and see it.I've run a very successful, fun campaign of Blades in the Dark. I've run Pendragon, with everyone buying into passions. I'm currently running a mission-of-the-week supers game where I very much am directing the story in many ways (and I find it less fun, overall, but my players are enjoying the change of pace, and it's giving me an opportunity to work on my next sandbox while I run it). In my much younger days, I leaned heavily on illusionism, and one of the most memorable sessions I ever ran, remembered fondly to this day by every player there as possibly the best session they were ever involved with, ended with a deus ex machina that makes me cringe a bit when I think about it. I'm quite willing to try many game styles, and I have learned what works for me (and my current group) and what doesn't over long decades. I don't need encouragement to open my eyes to other possibilities and I am certainly not afraid to run and learn about a range of different games.And to be clear, I'm not saying that my experience means I know more about gaming than anyone else here. But it does mean that I absolutely do have orders of magnitude of more insight into what works for me, and for the players I game with, than anyone else in this thread.My next campaign is going to be a sandbox I run with the methods being discussed in this thread by the "trad" crowd, probably more aligned with [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER]' techniques than [USER=13383]@robertsconley[/USER]'s. I will use those methods because I know they work and they create a game I enjoy, and that my players enjoy. And I will continue to refine those methods, from session to session and campaign to campaign, as I continue to learn from my experiences.If, at a later point in time, I'm in the mood for more player-facing mechanics, then I will run that sort of game.If I have misread you, I apologise. I know I've been a bit snarky at times in this thread; with this post I'm trying to as politely and clearly as I can explain my position, and why I find some of the anti-trad rhetoric frustrating.</blockquote>

Verification