Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7381948" data-attributes="member: 82106">Its the 'job' of everyone at the table to decide what and how they will play, it doesn't fall to one person or another. This is just as true in a 'standard' D&amp;D game, where most DMs will hesitate to accept certain kinds of characters, behavior, etc. Players in these games are also likely to do certain things and abstain from certain things in order to 'keep order'. Heck, 3.5e is virtually unplayable unless the players agree (tacitly or not) to refrain from doing 'broken' things. That may be a bit of an extreme case, but all games work this way. So, I don't find it at all unusual that players would ask themselves questions like &quot;Do I want to play a game where PCs pull wands out of their ***es?&quot; and they usually answer 'no'. Anyway, if the GM is capable of delivering a reasonably fun, entertaining game, then there's little reason for players to try to undermine that. True troublemakers would be booted out regardless of rules or style of play as well, so I don't see that as a criticism or weakness of one type of game.Now, does that mean the players and the GM will always agree completely on what SHOULD be in the game? I don't think so, and I don't think players will always agree with EACHOTHER either, but the same goes for standard D&amp;D games where players disagree all the time on how to proceed. Somehow they come to a consensus, usually. If a player introduced some factor into a Story Now game that other players didn't think belonged for whatever reason (genre, tone, dramatic reasons, etc.) they CAN object. If all you get is constant profound irreconcilable difference of opinion, then you need to change games or players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7381948, member: 82106"] Its the 'job' of everyone at the table to decide what and how they will play, it doesn't fall to one person or another. This is just as true in a 'standard' D&D game, where most DMs will hesitate to accept certain kinds of characters, behavior, etc. Players in these games are also likely to do certain things and abstain from certain things in order to 'keep order'. Heck, 3.5e is virtually unplayable unless the players agree (tacitly or not) to refrain from doing 'broken' things. That may be a bit of an extreme case, but all games work this way. So, I don't find it at all unusual that players would ask themselves questions like "Do I want to play a game where PCs pull wands out of their ***es?" and they usually answer 'no'. Anyway, if the GM is capable of delivering a reasonably fun, entertaining game, then there's little reason for players to try to undermine that. True troublemakers would be booted out regardless of rules or style of play as well, so I don't see that as a criticism or weakness of one type of game. Now, does that mean the players and the GM will always agree completely on what SHOULD be in the game? I don't think so, and I don't think players will always agree with EACHOTHER either, but the same goes for standard D&D games where players disagree all the time on how to proceed. Somehow they come to a consensus, usually. If a player introduced some factor into a Story Now game that other players didn't think belonged for whatever reason (genre, tone, dramatic reasons, etc.) they CAN object. If all you get is constant profound irreconcilable difference of opinion, then you need to change games or players. [/QUOTE]

Verification