What are you a minority about?

[Jhaelen]

I guess, I'm in the minority regarding dungeons: I don't like 'em.

The bigger they are the less I like them. In my 3e campaign as in all of my previous campaigns most of the action happens outdoors, either in the wilderness or in settled areas.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

I think I'm highly atypical in that I like my campaigns to have what I call the three Hs: Horror, Humor, and Heroism. I usually hear about (and have played in) campaigns that focus more on one or two of these to the exclusion of the others. My campaigns can be quite dark and dire, so opportunities for the players to kick ass and to laugh really can serve as the dramatic and emotional release the campaigns need to remain fresh. And the variety of experiences keeps the players on their toes.

I may also be in the minority of gms that think that character death might be one of my least favorite ways of “tormenting” and challenging my players. It's always more satisfying to me when they're so worked up that losing something else (a NPC, an organization, a beloved magical item, etc) causes them to writhe even more than the loss of the character's life For as long as the player characters still draw breath, you can make their lives a living hell.

 

[TheNovaLord]

--that lots of the so called minority views above are actually majority views

--that if 49% like it one way there still a minority

so for me

Alignments.

I really like.

In two 2 words you can sum up an awful lot about someone, or something

In a few more words based on alignment, you can add a lot. One of the few things I like about Palladium rpg is the small section on alignment bullet points

 

[Rechan]

Let's start it out with a biggie: D&D is not my favorite RPG.

3) I hate bookkeeping. Unless there are good reasons for it (like playing an adventure where survival is an issue), I don't want to worry about tracking rations or ammunition or the like.

Took the words right off my keyboard.

I never, ever use random tables. I will intentionally design an encounter to serve as a "random encounter", but not just roll for it. Tables are sources for ideas. To go with the idea of the above, I don't do "randomness". To me, the dice are there merely to answer the question "Does it happen?"

Rarely do I ever deal with absolute alignments and, or even very hard "This guy is evil" things.

Human-centric games (and human-and-elves-dwarves centric games) bore me to tears. I love the crazy, the weird, and monstrous, and think a game lacking the core races would make me happy.

I consider an RPG a tool. If you want to play a game that focuses on X and Y, it's better to use a system that X and Y were designed to emulate, then try to make system Z do it.

Traditional Tolkien-esque Medieval Fantasy grates on me a bit.

Fighting rats, wolves and skeletons at 1st level is offensive, and fighting kobolds and goblins has been done to death.

I hate resurrections.

I'm ok with railroading sometimes.

The Planes hold little interest to me (outside of say, the Feywild).

Never liked minis (in the "buy or paint little plastic characters" sense).

 

[Doug McCrae]

I dislike Planescape. The writing style, the terminology, the treatment of the planes, the factions, I even find the art a bit too fey and cute.

 

[Steel_Wind]

All of that raises the question: why D&D? Aren't there miniature combat games that simulate fights better that you could then add roleplay to with a more satisfying result?

Oh, no no no. Heavy combat emphasis does not mean complete lack of roleplay. We do roleplay - just not as much as the majority seems to prefer on ENWorld.

I also run games with extremely deep and complex plots. My games are, if anything, metaplot heavy too.

On a continuum of:

1- ALL ROLEPLAY----------------50-MIX---------------100-ALL COMBAT

I think our group comes in around 75-80 on a "good session".

But from the comments of most ENWorlders, I think they tend to the middle "50" as an ideal. I used to believe most gamers aimed for 66, but if comments are to be beleived, the balance of a majority heads for far more roleplay than I thought previously as the "correct balance" for their play sessions. I aim for play at the 75 mark, and often end up a little more than that some sessions (less on others).

During a long 8 hour session, if we spent 6 hours of that in some heavy tactical combats on the battlemap, with the other two hours spent on roleplaying and plot development, that would be ideal to my group.

100 would be dreadful for us though. That 25 roleplaying makes the game for us as much as the other 75 combat does. I'm talking about emphasis, not exclusivity.

 

[Rechan]

Oh, no no no. Heavy combat emphasis does not mean complete lack of roleplay. We do roleplay - just not as much as the majority seems to prefer on ENWorld.

Not to mention that in a mini-wargame, there's no variety of location. You're fighting on an open field (or thereabouts). Not in catacombs or in an active volcano. You can't swing on a rope or roll explosive barrels down a set of stairs.

 

[dogoftheunderworld]

I bought Forgotten Realms books for the maps, easily transplantable fluff and NPC stats. I've never read any of the novels and ignore anyone who talks about "canon".

 

[Raven Crowking]

I am so far in a minority that I have to write my own system to make it fit my tastes.

I am so far in a minority that, as far as I know, only one other person has DMed that system at all thus far.....although one of my playtesters is designing an adventure scenario to run a game.

I prefer rolling Initiative each round, rolling stats, rolling hit points (although I allow PC max at 1st level), I like having many races but an incentive to be human, I overwhelmingly prefer Vancian casting, I enjoy playing clerics and (1e, 2e, Basic, or RCFG) magic-user types (even at 1st level), I don't fudge, and I am able to sustain the interests of a group of players in the same campaign milieu for more than six months to a year (which I am begining to suspect puts me in a minority).


RC

 

[Piratecat]

On a continuum of:

1- ALL ROLEPLAY----------------50-MIX---------------100-ALL COMBAT

We're at about the 35-40%. I love combat, but not as the main focus.

I much prefer slow advancement and plot-heavy long campaigns. My last campaign lasted 16 years and had people leveling twice a year (about every 12 sessions.) I did the math and realized that if I keep doing that I'm only going to get another 3 campaigns in before I die of old age; so now my campaigns are pegged to last six years, with advancement every 5-6 sessions. It's working well.

I am much, much more interested in cinematic games with a plot or a mystery. Random encounters are seldom something I find memorable. Give me a tactical or moral dilemma instead and I'll be very happy.