Do bad players have the right to have fun?


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing about video games being to blame; there exists plenty of great sandbox games that have a great example of how to let players decide their own path; take the dark souls trilogy, you can pretty much go about exploring on your own pace. A lot of my friends and myself went different ways and fought different bosses in different orders, we explored different areas first, addressed different things; the only difference is the level of difficulty in some areas relative to the players level. It's an awesome concept for how to give players a "path" to make decisions compared to their power level.
In my own sandbox game, I gave plot hooks to things they "should" face at way higher levels, and the PC's had to figure if they could possibly tackle such things at that point. If they were 5th level and had the option of finding some derro who've abducted citizens, taking on ninja to find info on a BBEG or finding drow who are sacrificing pious priests, they can make a decision on what is realistic for them to tackle. Sometimes it gets a little more hard to figure lol and they had to retreat from some things to address later, and it was pretty successful in that respect.
One thing is maybe those decisions might've been a sort of metagame knowledge, I would argue that but it doesn't matter, they had fun and owned their decisions.
In answer to should bad players have fun; that's the point of playing, right? In your examples, given the info you provided (granted that there was likely more for the players), it seemed like a relative decision; the choices seemed equally urgent, and choosing one seemed to have consequences for the rest. It's seemed very hard to divine which decision was best or more pressing in general, they might have not been able to figure out a good choice because it seemed like leaving the others to their fates. I'm not saying that's a bad approach, but maybe they needed more info or more options to give them time to accomplish all of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Paradox of Choice


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:


As a fan of sandboxes and having dmed more than a few, the sandbox doesn't quite require that much detail, prep or knowledge. You roll with it, you craft some major places and areas (and be ready to move them around as they are "discovered", and the rest you fill with imagination and whatever takes your fancy on the day.

A sandbox doesn't mean you have to make all the sandcastles before the players sit down to play.

I agree. The other thing about sandboxes is longevity. I've run the same setting for just shy of 40 years (2 months to go). Over time I've built up a lot of background / world detail. Some of it is still Original / 1E / 2E, but it can be updated on the fly as needed :) Themed games (and APs) have an end game in sight and it's more difficult to keep building on the established details. There have been world changing events in my home brew over the decades but the current game includes and builds on that background. Game "history" is very useful.

*edit* Er, 4 months to go as DM. 2 months as a player. That's my 40th anniversary in RPGing :)


Jack Assery wrote:


It's an awesome concept for how to give players a "path" to make decisions compared to their power level.
In my own sandbox game, I gave plot hooks to things they "should" face at way higher levels, and the PC's had to figure if they could possibly tackle such things at that point. If they were 5th level and had the option of finding some derro who've abducted citizens, taking on ninja to find info on a BBEG or finding drow who are sacrificing pious priests, they can make a decision on what is realistic for them to tackle. Sometimes it gets a little more hard to figure lol and they had to retreat from some things to address later, and it was pretty successful in that respect.
One thing is maybe those decisions might've been a sort of metagame knowledge, I would argue that but it doesn't matter, they had fun and owned their decisions.

Yes. They have to have a grasp on their own capability vs. the opportunities for adventure. Mine have skipped things they view as too tough and backed off from things that turned out to be tougher than they thought. I try to provide appropriate in game clues and let them make the call. Part of the fun of sandbox games is the uncertainty.


pres man wrote:

The Paradox of Choice

The argument of dictators everywhere and there is some truth in it. Especially for people who are not prepared to make choices (and live with the consequences). One of the primary functions of education irl is, or should be, preparing people for choices.

As for games, being used to judging decisions and making choices is the key. If you've been led by the nose, or had your in game choices restricted artificially by storyline or DM intervention it can be uncomfortable to be offered non-tactical choices.


R_Chance wrote:
Jack Assery wrote:


It's an awesome concept for how to give players a "path" to make decisions compared to their power level.
In my own sandbox game, I gave plot hooks to things they "should" face at way higher levels, and the PC's had to figure if they could possibly tackle such things at that point. If they were 5th level and had the option of finding some derro who've abducted citizens, taking on ninja to find info on a BBEG or finding drow who are sacrificing pious priests, they can make a decision on what is realistic for them to tackle. Sometimes it gets a little more hard to figure lol and they had to retreat from some things to address later, and it was pretty successful in that respect.
One thing is maybe those decisions might've been a sort of metagame knowledge, I would argue that but it doesn't matter, they had fun and owned their decisions.
Yes. They have to have a grasp on their own capability vs. the opportunities for adventure. Mine have skipped things they view as too tough and backed off from things that turned out to be tougher than they thought. I try to provide appropriate in game clues and let them make the call. Part of the fun of sandbox games is the uncertainty.

You also have to not hook them too hard for anything tough. They've got to be free to turn things down. If the characters are too emotionally involved or the stakes are too high, they may not be willing to back off when they should.

"The drow are sacrificing pious priests" is one thing. "The drow are about to sacrifice Harry, the priest from our village who's healed us and counseled us so many times" is something else entirely.

Of course, the flip side is that avoiding that kind of emotional investment takes away much of what I'm looking for in a game. Playing a character who's just running around looking for adventure and loot isn't as much fun as playing a character who's driven, who loves and hates and cares about quest(s) he's on.


Googleshng wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Big question; how do you have fun? This is big because I have DMed situations where nothing less than an firm railroad kept things active and CR 5s are proving too challenging for the 10th level party, and the amount of plot hand holding and needing just made an increasingly boring story for me. If the party goes to the tavern to find and apprehend the criminal One-Eye Willy, and walk through the door and do nothing but look at each other for thirty minutes inside I want to stab myself and then quit GMing.

So what exactly are you doing when they're just glancing back and forth?

Typically I start spouting off advantages/disadvantages of each option or asking if X is relevant to Y's character.

If it devolves in to circular arguing between the players I fall asleep. Not on purpose its just so boring to hear them argue about plans with no one has one.


R_Chance wrote:
Jack Assery wrote:


It's an awesome concept for how to give players a "path" to make decisions compared to their power level.
In my own sandbox game, I gave plot hooks to things they "should" face at way higher levels, and the PC's had to figure if they could possibly tackle such things at that point. If they were 5th level and had the option of finding some derro who've abducted citizens, taking on ninja to find info on a BBEG or finding drow who are sacrificing pious priests, they can make a decision on what is realistic for them to tackle. Sometimes it gets a little more hard to figure lol and they had to retreat from some things to address later, and it was pretty successful in that respect.
One thing is maybe those decisions might've been a sort of metagame knowledge, I would argue that but it doesn't matter, they had fun and owned their decisions.
Yes. They have to have a grasp on their own capability vs. the opportunities for adventure. Mine have skipped things they view as too tough and backed off from things that turned out to be tougher than they thought. I try to provide appropriate in game clues and let them make the call. Part of the fun of sandbox games is the uncertainty.

I give out clues to power level as well, although sometimes I intentionally make things seem easier or tougher than it may seem (for fun) and also give them insight as to what happens without their intervention, such as the derro continuing to kidnap people or someone escaping. I'm lucky as my players tend to be very decisive and doggedly track down clues and insight to help get the best info.


thejeff wrote:


You also have to not hook them too hard for anything tough. They've got to be free to turn things down. If the characters are too emotionally involved or the stakes are too high, they may not be willing to back off when they should.
"The drow are sacrificing pious priests" is one thing. "The drow are about to sacrifice Harry, the priest from our village who's healed us and counseled us so many times" is something else entirely.

Of course, the flip side is that avoiding that kind of emotional investment takes away much of what I'm looking for in a game. Playing a character who's just running around looking for adventure and loot isn't as much fun as playing a character who's driven, who loves and hates and cares about quest(s) he's on.

Yes, but it, as you pointed out, can drive the game. Mine hunted a vampire that killed an NPC friend. They were really fired up about it. I wasn't sure if they were ready. As it happens they drove it out of the city without managing to destroy it. One adventure successfully concluded, one future adventure to go...


thejeff wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Jack Assery wrote:


It's an awesome concept for how to give players a "path" to make decisions compared to their power level.
In my own sandbox game, I gave plot hooks to things they "should" face at way higher levels, and the PC's had to figure if they could possibly tackle such things at that point. If they were 5th level and had the option of finding some derro who've abducted citizens, taking on ninja to find info on a BBEG or finding drow who are sacrificing pious priests, they can make a decision on what is realistic for them to tackle. Sometimes it gets a little more hard to figure lol and they had to retreat from some things to address later, and it was pretty successful in that respect.
One thing is maybe those decisions might've been a sort of metagame knowledge, I would argue that but it doesn't matter, they had fun and owned their decisions.
Yes. They have to have a grasp on their own capability vs. the opportunities for adventure. Mine have skipped things they view as too tough and backed off from things that turned out to be tougher than they thought. I try to provide appropriate in game clues and let them make the call. Part of the fun of sandbox games is the uncertainty.

You also have to not hook them too hard for anything tough. They've got to be free to turn things down. If the characters are too emotionally involved or the stakes are too high, they may not be willing to back off when they should.

"The drow are sacrificing pious priests" is one thing. "The drow are about to sacrifice Harry, the priest from our village who's healed us and counseled us so many times" is something else entirely.

Of course, the flip side is that avoiding that kind of emotional investment takes away much of what I'm looking for in a game. Playing a character who's just running around looking for adventure and loot isn't as much fun as playing a character who's driven, who loves and hates and cares about quest(s) he's on.

I so agree, in a sandbox, timeline quests might leave players frustrated. I tend to have a loose meta plot with unrelated side quests that are episodic in nature. Kind of like the difference between Spiderman foiling some bank robbers as opposed to some huge plot by Green Goblin. I tend to make adventures in a sandbox that are episodic and kind of self contained, with minimal over-arching plots. They should have some ability to be emotionally invested, but I think in a sandbox format some big sweeping stories won't make sense and players should go into it knowing that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Kilmore wrote:

Whenever there is dead air and no one is making a decision (or are taking way toooo long to make a decision), something that always works is....Ninjas. Nothing gets people's attention like a random Ninja attack.

For bonus points after the attack is, hopefully, defeated and people search for loot; roll 1d3 (varies depending on adventure options) whatever number comes up is the adventure option that is responsible for the ninjas.

PCs care a lot more about an adventure option when it is sending Ninjas at them.

Or you could talk to the group if this is a constant issue as something is not clicking right and it is good to find out what.

The ninjas have 1d3 plot hooks.


I am not sure I would call Malwing's game a sandbox since his players are sticking together as a team and that has it's own set of limits. It is just a regular game with a more open ended adventure selection and no overarching main plot line for the campaign.

Malwing, did you have all those adventures you were giving them as options prepared and ready to go? Or did you intend to stop the game after they picked a direction and then prepare that path? Or were you just going to wing it regardless of what they chose? In the first case I would advise that maybe you are doing more than you have to. Since you will end up rewriting the adventures for a higher level in the case of the ones not chosen. In the last case I probably won't be much help since I have only had bad experiences with the laissez faire types and not much useful advice as a result. If it is the middle case then try just giving them one main option with any other options held in reserve in case they don't seem excited about the main one. Perhaps a jobs board in town with adventures that change all the time as a backup for when the errands the mayor has them running get old. Through role play they might get well established with more than one quest giver and you could then play the NPCs against each other a little as a sort of subplot in their efforts to secure the best team for their jobs.

-=+=-

~sighs~ ...Sandbox...

I have been avoiding sandbox games for a while now. Back when I wanted to try out the sandbox approach I joined a number of online PbP sandbox games and soon discovered that when most people say sandbox they mean that they have NO content prepared and instead intend to wing it depending on what players want to do at that moment. BUT that leads to no in game continuity (since these Laissez faire GMs don't write stuff down or they would have done at least some prep), poorly run encounters (ill prepared GMs frequently forget monster details or have a poor sense of tactics), and NPCs that rarely stay in character and will likely never be seen again.

That said occasionally you do find a good sandbox GM... or so some people would have me believe. Personally I suspect a good sandbox GM is an urban myth. Why because when letting everyone do as they please they will have to juggle numerous different plot threads as everyone goes their own way; all while keeping meticulous notes for sometimes as many as six or more concurrently running adventures. And that is on top off all the usual stuff GMs need to keep straight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well that sorts itself out very easily.

If everyone goes their own way, they all die.

Whether it is a trap, a monster, a group of monsters, brigands or assassins, going solo is a very bad idea in a sandbox with plenty of dungeons, plots and antagonists. Lol, imagine trying to solo a den of trolls plaguing a region at really low level. Free delicious adventurer.

Sandbox does not mean there is no teamwork or that everyone splits up. Whatever gave you that idea Aranna?


Just the impression I get from the GMs who advertised "sandbox". Sandbox is a game without limits. Play however you wish to play as a team or solo as the mood strikes you. The world is there. Go left or right and you will find new stuff. I suspect the GM who placed a den of trolls in a low level sandbox would be expecting the player to look for help. Or maybe he is a GM who doesn't understand game balance?

PS: Think about it. If a sandbox game has 15hd monsters populating it but the GM starts you at level 1 you are likely going to end up as a tasty meat snack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Well that sorts itself out very easily.

If everyone goes their own way, they all die.

Whether it is a trap, a monster, a group of monsters, brigands or assassins, going solo is a very bad idea in a sandbox with plenty of dungeons, plots and antagonists. Lol, imagine trying to solo a den of trolls plaguing a region at really low level. Free delicious adventurer.

Sandbox does not mean there is no teamwork or that everyone splits up. Whatever gave you that idea Aranna?

What's the difference?

In a proper sandbox, the characters make sure they learn what they're going to be up against before they actually fight it. They have to or they can't make the decision to only deal with risks of their own choosing, which is the essence of the style. Why can't each character just look for problems that he can handle alone?

Maybe that means the 4th level character goes after problems that would be appropriate for a 1st level party, but he's solo, so it's reasonable.

What's the difference between "imagine trying to solo a den of trolls plaguing a region at really low level" and "imagine trying to fight the dragon that's plaguing the region at really low level"? The answer of course is that you don't do either. You seek out a lesser problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Just the impression I get from the GMs who advertised "sandbox". Sandbox is a game without limits. Play however you wish to play as a team or solo as the mood strikes you. The world is there. Go left or right and you will find new stuff. I suspect the GM who placed a den of trolls in a low level sandbox would be expecting the player to look for help. Or maybe he is a GM who doesn't understand game balance?

PS: Think about it. If a sandbox game has 15hd monsters populating it but the GM starts you at level 1 you are likely going to end up as a tasty meat snack.

Yes, that would be sandbox. And in a well run sandbox, the GM doesn't just blindly have the 15hd creature pop out of nowhere on top of one (or more) adventurers.

Instead, he has signs & warnings that "this way lies an elder dragon".

Similarly, the reason to wander into the troll infested area is presumably to deal with the trolls. You can, with some effort and planning, do this as a group at low level. If you decide, by yourself, to go into "Trollandia" at level 1, you are a troll snack.

In sandbox, the responsibility for encounter balance is about a 50/50 split between the players & GM. The GM creates the world/encounters, and advertises their presence. Said advert (should) include enough information for the players to make a reasonable assessment of their odds of success.

Also, in my experience with face-to-face sandbox, there's always been agreement (tacit or spoken) not to split up too much, or too often. Because that gets very boring, very fast (in addition to very deadly).

So, yes, technically, in a sandbox environment, the GM has said "I'm going to present the world, and let you decide your actions without interference". And, that, in theory leads to players going every which way, and the GM having to track individual plots out the arse.

But, in practice, I have my doubts it happens all that often. Once or twice wandering off from the group in dangerous territory seems to be all it takes for a new player to decide it's not healthy.

Full disclosure, I synthesize aspects of all three of the GM styles you've mentioned.

I'll plot out, in advance, the high-probability stuff. Things the players have made clear are on their "to do" list. Major NPCs and encounters I would like to see fit in somehow. Towns in their immediate area.

Then, if they go outside what I've anticipated, I just improv it. I've had years of practice, and while my encounter tactics do get a little sloppier, it's still sufficiently solid for the group's fun.

If the group (or parts there of) go so far out in left feild, stop the game (food break!). I'll use the time they're picking up grub to flesh out whatever I feel I need right quick.

It helps that I have players who take good notes, and a surprisingly effective memory. But, once it's out of game time, it's time to commit all the off-script details to paper & filter them into the existing material.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Far more than in a guided adventure, either home-brew or AP, one run in a sandbox relies on the intelligence and pro-activity of the players. If you possess freedom to do as you will, the onus is on you to act in such a fashion that you're prepared to meet the objectives you set yourself. Exploit your resources to the fullest.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

I'll put this bluntly. What if you are DMing and your players are dumb or horribly uncreative?

When I say dumb or uncreative think of this scenario;
<snip>

Thread Topic: Do bad players have the right to have fun?

Query: What if you are DMing and your players are dumb or horribly uncreative?

Scenario: Players overwhelmed by choice.

I don't see the connection between the Thread Topic, your Query, and the Scenario given. The Scenario given doesn't demonstrate stupidity or lack of creativity. They were just, well, overwhelmed. The Paradox of Choice analogy seemed appropriate. On my days off, when I have a large number of choices of things I need/want to get done, sometimes I just shut down and do very little. I don't consider that stupidity or being uncreative. I just don't know where to start, so I don't. The players could have a brainstorming session where they weigh their choices with pros and cons. Not being there, it is tough to suggest the "right" course of action.

As to your Query, I might get offended as a player if I find my DM is calling me and/or my friends dumb or horribly uncreative just because we couldn't make a decision based on a large number of choices with very little info. Your definition of dumb/uncreative seems to be subjective and based on your players not meeting your expectations. Players rarely do what the DM planned. (Just experienced this again last night in my Star Wars game). Players are wiley like that. Just my two cents.

As to the Thread Topic, it depends.

Social Gaming: Does a bad Monopoly player have a right to fun? Isn't the whole point of gaming to engage in an enjoyable social activity? So I guess it depends on your "social contract". Playing a competative game, for example, if I am a more experienced player I tend to offer suggestions. (My friend, don't trade away Park Place. He has Boardwalk and will then have the only Monopoly in the game. Two hotels later, we all suffer.)

Competative Gaming: Being the guy that gets constantly ganked in a multiplayer FPS (like Unreal Tournament, the last multi-FPS I played) isn't much fun. Unless it drives you to improve, but that can be hard to do when you get 10 seconds out of respawn and are blown to bits. I would suggest setting a handicap for the less experienced players (UT had an adjusting handicap for losing players to scale damage and such). Or play on teams and balance the experience levels of the team. Otherwise the inexperienced player will probably get frustrated and quit, depriving you of a potentially more enjoyable social experience.

Athletics: A lot of competative gaming applies here. But the "worst" players are often sitting on the bench and not getting much game play experience. As a youth, I was a bad baseball player. I accepted this. But my coach did his best to find a place for me on the field during game time. And I did assist in two double-plays that year. So perhaps a good coach can help turn "bad" players into good players. It's too bad youth sports nowadays are getting so competative that all the attention seems to be given to the "future stars", and the kids in it for the fun are just overlooked entirely (your experience may vary, but here in the midwest this seems to be the norm).

TL;DR--In my humble opinion, if you all sit down to play a game, which is meant to be an enjoyable social experience (otherwise why play), everyone has a right to have fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's like The Declaration of Independence, in that therein Americans have the right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." No one has the right to have fun ... but they certainly have the right to pursue it through social interaction and finding that which facilitates enjoyment for them.

Hopefully it's something others are on board with, too.


Run PFS scenarios. The PCs are employed by an agency (the Pathfinder Society), which sends them on specific missions and pays them well for succeeding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:
Run PFS scenarios. The PCs are employed by an agency (the Pathfinder Society), which sends them on specific missions and pays them well for succeeding.

Nah.

I've never had any interest in prepackaged scenarios, and never will. I want to create and go on original adventures, not those most everyone else has. I understand the appeal of a communal experience, but I save that for literature and film. If I'm part of the process, then I want something that's uniquely ours.


The group needs a decision-making process. The GM needs to facilitate that process.

For example, force them to elect a party leader (something that was common in early D&D). The leader is the one who is responsible for making that kind of decision. If they are unhappy with the leader, encourage them to elect a new one.

Also, try to avoid giving them decisions with nothing much between them.
"Do you want to fight ogres or undead? Of course, you have no way of knowing which is more dangerous or more rewarding and you'll probably wind up doing both anyway."
More meaningful choices:
"Do you want a quest that pays lots of money but which will make you unpopular, or do you want to rescue some kidnapped peasant children?"
"Do you want to do a quest for the favor of the priestess, or to serve the king?"
"Do you want to fight the dangerous drow, or the less dangerous goblin tribe?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

The group needs a decision-making process. The GM needs to facilitate that process.

Also, try to avoid giving them decisions with nothing much between them.
"Do you want to fight ogres or undead? Of course, you have no way of knowing which is more dangerous or more rewarding and you'll probably wind up doing both anyway."
More meaningful choices:
"Do you want a quest that pays lots of money but which will make you unpopular, or do you want to rescue some kidnapped peasant children?"
"Do you want to do a quest for the favor of the priestess, or to serve the king?"
"Do you want to fight the dangerous drow, or the less dangerous goblin tribe?"

This.

Not so much the leader, but the meaningful choices. If they can be engaged by the more RP choices of money vs good deeds or which patrons to impress, great. If it's just high risk/high reward vs low risk/low reward, at least it's something meaningful.

And sometimes you have to be blatantly obvious about it. Far more obvious than you think, looking at it from the GM's perspective.


HarbinNick wrote:

I played with a guy who once said in game "Can you tell us which NPC's have a giant floating yellow question mark over their head?"

-that didn't go well...

that is purely an MMO construct designed for making it easier for new players to find the "quest giver NPCs"

but even at a tabletop game, you could interpreted that as "anybody with Tasks that they need help with and are willing to hire assistance?"

or "whom hired us for this job again?" as a form of OOC reminder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First of all, Great thread. Secondly, BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Man, do I know how you feel. I run three groups a week currently. One is all railroaders if left unchecked, one is all uncreative and horribly ignorant newbs, and the third is a mix. To answer your questions:

1)Bad group with no ideas: You must give them a clear, concise mission. If they can't handle decisions, don't give them. Be patient, generally this will change with time, some people take longer than others. If you insist on choices, write them down, hand them to the players and make them pick one if the can't come up with a different course of action, which if they suck, they won't have any fresh ideas anyway

2)A railroader: This takes a little more of a delicate hand. First of all, a railroader is a leader that thinks selfishly. I have experienced that a lot. Private discussions with the player requesting them to help the other player's role-play better works wonders. This typically makes your railroader start looking outside their experience and start assisting you with this pretend problem they now think you have that you don't makes them act as a party leader suddenly, not a railroader. However, you must really sell them on your need for their assistance. Confrontation with a railroader gets you nowhere. I promise.

3)A group of railroaders: So, you have a group of highly creative gamers with good game knowledge, lots of individual agendas, and opinions on how they want to play and what they should be doing? Good luck with that. I have that in group one. My group loves lots of options, the extreme feeling of free will, a well-prepped adventure that they can and very well may deviate far from at a moment's notice. They exhaust me. I can have many options with 4 different campaigns, 10 mini-adventures and a well-prepped continent for them to explore and they STILL manage to throw me a curveball. However, if you can learn to be very flexible the group of railroaders will create the best gaming sessions right before your very eyes and with little of your effort.

4)You are the railroader: If nothing gets done when you don't have input, then perhaps your gaming group needs that. However, interparty role-play initiated by you (i.e. "Hey Thok, I think we should get the lamp and save the princess, what do you think?") helps a lot, however don't expect may immediate results. Once again, be patient. And exercise self-control. Also, keep in mind we are our own worst judges. Do you think of the other players? The preparation of the GM and the direction of his game? Are you helping the progress of the game? If you answered yes to all of those, you're leading, not railroading.


Jaelithe wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:
Run PFS scenarios. The PCs are employed by an agency (the Pathfinder Society), which sends them on specific missions and pays them well for succeeding.

Nah.

I've never had any interest in prepackaged scenarios, and never will. I want to create and go on original adventures, not those most everyone else has. I understand the appeal of a communal experience, but I save that for literature and film. If I'm part of the process, then I want something that's uniquely ours.

Yeah the convenience leaves something out - dm creativity.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's always the happy medium of pre-written adventures NOT run under PFS (or any similar) restrictions....like the overwhelming majority of pre-written adventures.

Hell, you can even run PFS scenarios as non-PFS adventures, so long as you don't try to claim PFS credit for them.


Kthulhu wrote:

There's always the happy medium of pre-written adventures NOT run under PFS (or any similar) restrictions....like the overwhelming majority of pre-written adventures.

Hell, you can even run PFS scenarios as non-PFS adventures, so long as you don't try to claim PFS credit for them.

Which I do for my home groups, in fact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The one premade module I have any desire to run is the Shadow's Dungeon I got as a backer reward for The Gamers: Hands of Fate. It is unforgivably difficult and looks like a huge blast.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I always read this question as being about the rights of BARD players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bards make their own fun!


Bards make everyone's fun! Including Bards!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You keep what you rock.

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Do bad players have the right to have fun? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion