Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8001630" data-attributes="member: 177">Ah.&nbsp; I have found that to be, at best, a polite fiction.&nbsp; We are not from the planet Vulcan, and our ability to push aside our emotional contexts is limited.&nbsp; So, rather than deny, I accept, expect, and work with issues as they arise - which isn't all that often.For example, I have one regular player who has PTSD.&nbsp; It is clinically impossible for them to, &quot;leave it at the door&quot;.I'm not arguing against doing rash and gonzo stuff.&nbsp; I'm arguing for being thoughtful of the people at the table.&nbsp; You want to do something rash?&nbsp; Before you declare the action, look around the table.&nbsp; Will this make things suck for the other real-life people?&nbsp; If the answer is, &quot;Likely, yes,&quot; then maybe you shouldn't do it.&nbsp; I think it is likely the players in the OP did not make this check.It isn't hard.&nbsp; It isn't even deep.&nbsp; And, no, it isn't onerous or a major imposition.I have run sometimes with folks I don't know, but that's not my usual.&nbsp; My main groups tend to stick together for 5+ years.&nbsp; My current has been together (with one person leaving, one passing away, and one addition) for... 14 years now, I think?&nbsp; I check in with them at least once a year about how we are doing with table expectations, and what they want to see. I do a whole new Session Zero whenever we start a new campaign, because that typically includes some genre expectation changes.Mature adults - they talk to each other.Again, with the &quot;you are too X.&quot;&nbsp; Elsewhere it is &quot;too cautious&quot;.&nbsp; Here it is &quot;too serious&quot;.&nbsp; Again, I ask - too serious for what?&nbsp; The &quot;too serious&quot; line has an implicit expectation on your part about how the game &quot;should&quot; be played.&nbsp; It is not a priori any better than anyone else's.Rather than say, &quot;they are wrong&quot;.&nbsp; I say, &quot;talk about it before you start.&quot;&nbsp; That's all.&nbsp; Rather than have an implicit expectation, have an explicit one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8001630, member: 177"] Ah. I have found that to be, at best, a polite fiction. We are not from the planet Vulcan, and our ability to push aside our emotional contexts is limited. So, rather than deny, I accept, expect, and work with issues as they arise - which isn't all that often. For example, I have one regular player who has PTSD. It is clinically impossible for them to, "leave it at the door". I'm not arguing against doing rash and gonzo stuff. I'm arguing for [I]being thoughtful of the people at the table[/I]. You want to do something rash? Before you declare the action, look around the table. Will this make things suck for the other real-life people? If the answer is, "Likely, yes," then maybe you shouldn't do it. I think it is likely the players in the OP did not make this check. It isn't hard. It isn't even deep. And, no, it isn't onerous or a major imposition. I have run sometimes with folks I don't know, but that's not my usual. My main groups tend to stick together for 5+ years. My current has been together (with one person leaving, one passing away, and one addition) for... 14 years now, I think? I check in with them at least once a year about how we are doing with table expectations, and what they want to see. I do a whole new Session Zero whenever we start a new campaign, because that typically includes some genre expectation changes. Mature adults - they [I]talk to each other[/I]. Again, with the "you are too X." Elsewhere it is "too cautious". Here it is "too serious". Again, I ask - too serious [I]for what[/I]? The "too serious" line has an implicit expectation on your part about how the game "should" be played. It is not [I]a priori[/I] any better than anyone else's. Rather than say, "they are wrong". I say, "talk about it before you start." That's all. Rather than have an implicit expectation, have an explicit one. [/QUOTE]

Verification