Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8479575" data-attributes="member: 42582">D&amp;D can be disruptive too. When I was a club RPGer I joined two D&amp;D campaigns with complete strangers as GMs. One busted after two or three weeks because the GM was a terrible railroader - and so we started our own RM group. We invited the GM to join us, but he declined.It's a long time since I've introduced a friend to RPGing, but the last time I did he absolutely took it for granted that players would play a role in establish backstory, PC goals and context, etc. The idea that all that would be the GM's domain was foreign to him.That's why I agree with [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] - a group tries a game and they like it or they don't. I mean, imagine a group of friends who like playing (say) Uno together. And then one of them discovers this great card game called bridge, and teaches the rest of them. And now the group is forced to confront who is a good technical card player, and who is not in a way that never came up with Uno. Does that mean that bridge needs to come with a warning?If anyone is really unsure about what they're getting into, they can always Google it.And AW doesn't even have such things vis-a-vis PCs, only carrot/stick &quot;incentivisers&quot;.It doesn't apply to PbtA either, at least as a blanket category. AW draws a super-sharp line between in-character and out-of-character actions. The rulebook discusses it in detail, and cautions against introducing custom moves that carelessly blur the distinction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8479575, member: 42582"] D&D can be disruptive too. When I was a club RPGer I joined two D&D campaigns with complete strangers as GMs. One busted after two or three weeks because the GM was a terrible railroader - and so we started our own RM group. We invited the GM to join us, but he declined. It's a long time since I've introduced a friend to RPGing, but the last time I did he absolutely took it for granted that players would play a role in establish backstory, PC goals and context, etc. The idea that all that would be the GM's domain was foreign to him. That's why I agree with [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] - a group tries a game and they like it or they don't. I mean, imagine a group of friends who like playing (say) Uno together. And then one of them discovers this great card game called bridge, and teaches the rest of them. And now the group is forced to confront [i]who is a good technical card player, and who is not[/i] in a way that never came up with Uno. Does that mean that bridge needs to come with a warning? If anyone is [i]really[/i] unsure about what they're getting into, they can always Google it. And AW doesn't even have such things vis-a-vis PCs, only carrot/stick "incentivisers". It doesn't apply to PbtA either, at least as a blanket category. AW draws a super-sharp line between in-character and out-of-character actions. The rulebook discusses it in detail, and cautions against introducing custom moves that carelessly blur the distinction. [/QUOTE]

Verification