Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8678303" data-attributes="member: 4937">I also think Mercer is spot on.  This is why I never try to teach new players the rules.  If I teach a player the rules first, then they think they can only do what the rules say.  They don't understand that the rules are just there to help me quickly and fairly arbitrate what they want to do, but they can try to do anything.  Yes, this means sometimes they try to do things that their low-level character is not yet ready to succeed at or which their character isn't built to do, and that can cause a little frustration until they can figure out what they can lean into in terms of stunts and moments of awesome, but it's so much better because they don't get hidebound.But I think he's also being if anything overly kind and generous.  The problem is much bigger than he addresses.The best players are like 12 or 14 year olds because they haven't forgotten how to play make believe.  I love the way kid's game - always have.  They take moral dilemmas absolutely seriously.  They really act like their choices matter.   And one of the most fun sessions I've ever run was for a teenage brother and sister about two years apart who started playing and then just leaned into make believe turning into like smart versions of six year olds on a playground, doing dialogue together and acting out slice of life.  It was just so much fun to watch.  As a GM I love sessions where the players entertain me.Meanwhile, most of the worst players I've ever played with have like 15 years or more experience.  I almost have gotten where I dislike getting players who have a lot of experience.  They have dug themselves down into these ruts where they've spent 15 or more years reinforcing bad habits.  I gamed recently with a player that clearly had more than 20 years-experience who was incapable of making a proposition in character, was stuck in pawn stance, tried to manage how everyone else played, was incapable of sharing spotlight, rules lawyered and argued with the GM at every opportunity, and spent more time talking than the GM did, and was stuck trying to win in situations where winning was irrelevant because nothing really was at stake.  He not only had no role-playing skills; he had anti-role-playing skills.  New players play better than that.  He hadn't leveled up; he leveled down.One thing that really strikes me about Critical Role is we spend way too much time focusing on improving GMing skills and how we have good GMs and bad GMs, and we treat being a player as this thing that requires no skill and no thought and where however you want to have fun at the table it's OK.  We treat being a GM like you are there to make sure everyone has fun, but the player like they have no responsibility for anyone's fun but their own.  And that's one thing CR gets absolutely right - the players are trying to make sure the other players have fun.Not every player reclaims their "stupid youth".</blockquote>

Verification