Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 2892067" data-attributes="member: 9254">I do enjoy that stuff typically.&nbsp; It's why I GM a lot.&nbsp; I get to do that stuff if the players enjoy my game.&nbsp; I have to do that stuff if there is going to be a game.&nbsp; But I don't do it well if I don't enjoy it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Matter of fact if I don't enjoy it, why am I doing it?&nbsp; That can happen.&nbsp; One of my long running campaigns was conceived as a group idea, where several players/GMs were brain storming and we came up with an idea.&nbsp; BUT the core campaign idea had to be flagrant, blatant and unmistakeable so that these other people didn't have a significant advantage in the game.&nbsp; I've been helping another buddy with a sci-fi game he wants to run.&nbsp; I toss out technology/consequences and he picks and chooses what fits with the way he thinks.&nbsp; Which is another way to express &quot;he says No to some things I suggest.&quot;It has been my experience that 99% of the time a campaign starts when a GM comes up with a setting and has 3-4 story arcs in mind and then they broach the idea with players.&nbsp; Which is closer to the singer coming in with a core playlist of songs that sets a style.&nbsp; For instance, Reggae.&nbsp; In that scenario either everyone can say, &quot;yeah, I want to play reggae&quot; or someone suggests an alternate style.&nbsp; If you went reggae to hip-hop it might be a reasonable translation. But maybe the singer sucks at hip-hop stylings.&nbsp; If the keyboardist insists on hiphop either the keyboardist leaves or they get a new lead singer.&nbsp; Some choices really are orthogonal, especially when they are personal choices.&nbsp; The &quot;problem player&quot; felt his character was being held hostage but by the same token he was trying to hold Elephant's campaign hostage.&nbsp; What game to run is just as personal a choice as what character to play.&nbsp; A player that can't enjoy playing a core character is just as valid but no more valid than a DM who can't enjoy running a non-core game.&nbsp; Neither is a bad person for this reason, it means there is an incompatible play style.&nbsp; Doesn't mean they are universally incompatible but that they are right now.&nbsp; I've got GM friends whose sci-fi games drive me nuts but that are great (IMO) fantasy GMs.&nbsp; Same way some players like my D&amp;D games but not my Mage games.&nbsp; Doesn't make us bad DMs and/or players, just incompatible in some regards. Saying &quot;Hey, I'm running a core D&amp;D game for five other players this saturday, would you like to play too?&quot; is really no different from someone saying &quot;Hey, the six of us are going for Indian saturday night, do you want to come too?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; There are 3 socially acceptable answers:&quot;Never had it but I'll give it a try.&quot;&quot;Mmmm, Indian/core!&quot;&quot;Naww, I'm not partial to Indian/core.&nbsp; Call me next time, though.&quot;It is, and should be, socially unacceptable to say &quot;I don't like Indian/Core!&nbsp; The rest of you should change your plans to fit me!&nbsp; If you don't you aren't my friend!&quot;&nbsp; Anyone who is willing to say that has already demonstrated that they are NOT your friend.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kigmatzomat, post: 2892067, member: 9254"] I [i]do[/i] enjoy that stuff typically. It's why I GM a lot. I [b]get[/b] to do that stuff if the players enjoy my game. I [b]have[/b] to do that stuff if there is going to be a game. But I don't do it well if I don't enjoy it. Matter of fact if I don't enjoy it, why am I doing it? That can happen. One of my long running campaigns was conceived as a group idea, where several players/GMs were brain storming and we came up with an idea. BUT the core campaign idea had to be flagrant, blatant and unmistakeable so that these other people didn't have a significant advantage in the game. I've been helping another buddy with a sci-fi game he wants to run. I toss out technology/consequences and he picks and chooses what fits with the way he thinks. Which is another way to express "he says No to some things I suggest." It has been my experience that 99% of the time a campaign starts when a GM comes up with a setting and has 3-4 story arcs in mind and then they broach the idea with players. Which is closer to the singer coming in with a core playlist of songs that sets a style. For instance, Reggae. In that scenario either everyone can say, "yeah, I want to play reggae" or someone suggests an alternate style. If you went reggae to hip-hop it might be a reasonable translation. But maybe the singer sucks at hip-hop stylings. If the keyboardist insists on hiphop either the keyboardist leaves or they get a new lead singer. Some choices really are orthogonal, especially when they are personal choices. The "problem player" felt his character was being held hostage but by the same token he was trying to hold Elephant's campaign hostage. What game to run is just as personal a choice as what character to play. A player that can't enjoy playing a core character is just as valid but no more valid than a DM who can't enjoy running a non-core game. Neither is a bad person for this reason, it means there is an incompatible play style. Doesn't mean they are universally incompatible but that they are right now. I've got GM friends whose sci-fi games drive me nuts but that are great (IMO) fantasy GMs. Same way some players like my D&D games but not my Mage games. Doesn't make us bad DMs and/or players, just incompatible in some regards. Saying "Hey, I'm running a core D&D game for five other players this saturday, would you like to play too?" is really no different from someone saying "Hey, the six of us are going for Indian saturday night, do you want to come too?" There are 3 socially acceptable answers: "Never had it but I'll give it a try." "Mmmm, Indian/core!" "Naww, I'm not partial to Indian/core. Call me next time, though." It is, and should be, socially unacceptable to say "I don't like Indian/Core! The rest of you should change your plans to fit me! If you don't you aren't my friend!" Anyone who is willing to say that has already demonstrated that they are NOT your friend. [/QUOTE]

Verification