Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6408588" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Going to have to reply to this in parts...I started with 3.0.However, this is exactly the way I run my game. If you don't like what I'm running, then leave. I'm open to communication, but it's my setting, it's my rules, and I make the decision on running what is fun for me. You do not get veto power. You do not get to change or add something to the rules or the setting without my permission. I get to do those things. Because it's my game.Indeed. I am quite set on having fun when running my game. Actually, that extends to all areas of my life, personal and professional. I won't do something unless I want to or I like it. That doesn't mean I'm not generous, or nice, or helpful, but more on that next.I have a very close group of friends that I've been a part of for the past fifteen years. For the past eleven years or so, we've gamed together, too. I also have a good number of other very close friends ("you're having hard times? Stay here for as long as you need" type friends) that I don't game with. However, I've also worked various acquaintances in and out of my games over the years, and I have no problems with new blood, provided that gaming with them is fun for everyone involved.I'm a social person. I'm not as domineering as I once was, but I do like being in social situations. It's fun. I have no problem being in or working with groups at work, at the gym, with leisure activities (basketball, RPGs, etc), at parties, or wherever. I don't mind leading and I don't mind going with the flow.But because I've decided that -in the game that I'm hosting- I'm going to have fun, I'm suddenly a frustrated novelist (more on that below) who doesn't work in groups and is self-centered and self-serving?HA HA. Good one.I'm not a bad person because I'm interested in things that are fun for me. I'm not a bad person for communicating to others that my style may not match theirs, and that we may not work out together. I'm still generous, helpful, and friendly to people. I run a sandbox game where the story emerges from play (contrary to the "frustrated novelist" shot you took). I still laugh with my players, take their feedback ("you're the best GM we've played with"), go off on tangents, help with food, and the like.But, yes, if I'm going to run a game, it'll be on my terms. And prospective players will be informed of those terms before they play, and they can opt-in or drop out (the latter hasn't ever happened, though I've parted ways with a few players over the years).Because I won't spend time and mental energy (playing or running a game) on something that isn't fun or inspiring for me. I'm going to build a setting that I find fun, that inspires me creatively, that I find interesting. And then I'm going to let go, let the world progress naturally, and watch the players act. It's fun. And that's why I do it, and why I'm not willing to compromise. I'm open to suggestions, and I'm open to dialogue, but it's me making the decisions when it comes to rules and setting. You get your character within those limits; everything else is mine.But hey, don't let that stop you from insulting others for having badwrongfun. I mean, that's what they get for doing it wrong, I guess. Fun is objective, after all...Ha. Thanks, poster. Good times. Oh, quick side note:I agree with this bit completely. It's why I like very rules-defined systems (if not downright crunchy systems). I like things defined so that everyone is on the same page, everyone can look at the rules and make informed decisions as to how they want to orient their characters.This just has nothing to do with "my game, my way." Two completely separate issues.</blockquote>

Verification