Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneLigon" data-source="post: 2748671" data-attributes="member: 3649">I doubt you ever will because most people think it comes down to what the GM wants rather than the player. They've probably had people ask them that type of question before and it always goes like this:GM: &quot;What would you like to do?&quot;Player: &quot;I'd like to do an Age of Sail thing where...&quot;GM: &quot;Man, that sucks. Really, that's what you'd like to do? I hate that stuff.&quot; Player: &quot;OK, then, what do you want to do?&quot;GM: &quot;You all start out as tomato farmers....&quot;Player: &quot;OK...&quot;Not to say that you specifically do that, but usually people like that have a habit of going through that type of conversation. They cave to whatever the GM wants because otherwise they don't get to play. Frequently that means, they don't get to play anything at all. Now of course the GM can't run a game without players, but in general it's easier to find players than GMs. Qualifiers, I can more easily see. There are several things I'd like to do in a game, but only if I know a few things beforehand. A 'Robin Hood' game is good, but do we actually have a chance of defeating the Sheriff?. That sort of thing.=================================================================A lot of our agreements are mutually agreed upon and have been for years: we assume there will be a regular weekly game. People who cannot commit to a regular weekly game and place that high on the list of commitments don't get invited. We assume the party will work together. Treasure will be shared equally and magic items will be generally distributed to those who can make the best use of them. I don't think we've ever done a game where those things have not been assumed.I don't think we've ever discussed lethality unless we were talking about a superhero game. The idea of implied vs expressed evil has never come up, though I'm kinda fuzzy on just what you mean about that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneLigon, post: 2748671, member: 3649"] I doubt you ever will because most people think it comes down to what the GM wants rather than the player. They've probably had people ask them that type of question before and it always goes like this: GM: "What would you like to do?" Player: "I'd like to do an Age of Sail thing where..." GM: "Man, that sucks. Really, that's what you'd like to do? I hate that stuff." Player: "OK, then, what do you want to do?" GM: "You all start out as tomato farmers...." Player: "OK..." Not to say that you specifically do that, but usually people like that have a habit of going through that type of conversation. They cave to whatever the GM wants because otherwise they don't get to play. Frequently that means, they don't get to play anything at all. Now of course the GM can't run a game without players, but in general it's easier to find players than GMs. Qualifiers, I can more easily see. There are several things I'd like to do in a game, but only if I know a few things beforehand. A 'Robin Hood' game is good, but do we actually have a chance of defeating the Sheriff?. That sort of thing. ================================================================= A lot of our agreements are mutually agreed upon and have been for years: we assume there will be a regular weekly game. People who cannot commit to a regular weekly game and place that high on the list of commitments don't get invited. We assume the party will work together. Treasure will be shared equally and magic items will be generally distributed to those who can make the best use of them. I don't think we've ever done a game where those things have not been assumed. I don't think we've ever discussed lethality unless we were talking about a superhero game. The idea of implied vs expressed evil has never come up, though I'm kinda fuzzy on just what you mean about that. [/QUOTE]

Verification