Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pickin_grinnin" data-source="post: 6297504" data-attributes="member: 6697674">I hit &quot;Submit Reply&quot; too soon...A lot of RPG players (and GMs) seem to think that combat is the end-all and be-all of roleplaying games.&nbsp; There may be non-combat things going on, too, but there seems to be a widespread feeling that the combat parts are the most important overall. You can play that way, but you don't have to, or at least don't always have to.&nbsp; There are all sorts of ways to play and run games (and whole campaigns), and what is important is that everyone involved has a good time.&nbsp; Not all playing and GM styles fit well together, though, so it's usually best to find people to game with who have similar styles.Having said that, though, more people need to realize that the problems they have encountered in the games they run or play in are not necessarily things that are problematic across the board.&nbsp; Some GMs run carefully plotted games where the players need to touch upon certain things (locations, fights, etc.) for things to advance.&nbsp; They do best with players who are very goal-oriented.&nbsp; Some GMs run sandbox-style games, and do best with players who are most happy figuring out what they want to do, rather than feeling there is a quest or end goal to it.&nbsp; Some like very crunchy approaches to things, some like heavy roleplaying, and many like some mix of the two.&nbsp; Some players and GMs really like defined roles - set classes, playable races, etc.&nbsp; Some prefer a lot of creative freedom.&nbsp; I could play a literal mosquito in an epic fantasy adventure and find all sorts of ways to be useful.&nbsp; I could play a talking stick and do the same, in most cases, because I like to think outside of the box and am very resourceful.&nbsp; I could easily DM a game or campaign where someone played an intelligent mosquito in a band of hardcore fighters.&nbsp; I have met a lot of other players and DMs who could deal with such things just as easily. Some folks would find it very difficult to play or play with (or GM) characters that don't have stereotypical sets of skills.&nbsp; One way isn't better than another, and having a non-combat oriented character will not derail or mess with all games or campaigns.&nbsp; In fact, if you have the right player(s) and the right GM, you can make virtually anything work with no more hassle than doing things the standard way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pickin_grinnin, post: 6297504, member: 6697674"] I hit "Submit Reply" too soon... A lot of RPG players (and GMs) seem to think that combat is the end-all and be-all of roleplaying games. There may be non-combat things going on, too, but there seems to be a widespread feeling that the combat parts are the most important overall. You can play that way, but you don't have to, or at least don't always have to. There are all sorts of ways to play and run games (and whole campaigns), and what is important is that everyone involved has a good time. Not all playing and GM styles fit well together, though, so it's usually best to find people to game with who have similar styles. Having said that, though, more people need to realize that the problems they have encountered in the games they run or play in are not necessarily things that are problematic across the board. Some GMs run carefully plotted games where the players need to touch upon certain things (locations, fights, etc.) for things to advance. They do best with players who are very goal-oriented. Some GMs run sandbox-style games, and do best with players who are most happy figuring out what they want to do, rather than feeling there is a quest or end goal to it. Some like very crunchy approaches to things, some like heavy roleplaying, and many like some mix of the two. Some players and GMs really like defined roles - set classes, playable races, etc. Some prefer a lot of creative freedom. I could play a literal mosquito in an epic fantasy adventure and find all sorts of ways to be useful. I could play a talking stick and do the same, in most cases, because I like to think outside of the box and am very resourceful. I could easily DM a game or campaign where someone played an intelligent mosquito in a band of hardcore fighters. I have met a lot of other players and DMs who could deal with such things just as easily. Some folks would find it very difficult to play or play with (or GM) characters that don't have stereotypical sets of skills. One way isn't better than another, and having a non-combat oriented character will not derail or mess with all games or campaigns. In fact, if you have the right player(s) and the right GM, you can make virtually anything work with no more hassle than doing things the standard way. [/QUOTE]

Verification