C'mon, we can all do with less groupthink.
Individuals and differing play styles are completely fine. The game is about cooperation not subordination, and the dm should also think about that too (and not play to win, because a TPK is as easy as breathing).
For instance, I've gamed with a few of my pals who are gay, now they can play what they want how they want, there is no need for them to "adapt" to the rest of the group.
Identity politics rears its ugly head, but typically as one of the old guard (near old guard? Half-old guard?) there is plenty of space for lots of different players, unless you want to be a dick and think it is harsh primary school again, where the difference is crushed out of people and they are made to sit in the corner for rowdiness and disobedience.
Lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to infer...actually, outright state, that if you want access to a group, you will have better luck adapting to the group than expecting the group to adapt to you.
Does this go for EVERYONE at the table? Like, the GM has to adapt to the players, and each individual player has to adapt to the other players AND the GM? That seems idealistically homogenous. I hope and pray that one day we are all that flexible and open-minded, but I think in a culture here in the U.S.A., a culture defined by rugged individualism, this might not be achievable just yet.
Not that you're wrong to ask it of your gaming table C-4; to each their own. I fret and worry that not everyone is capable of such malleability.
What I would ask of my players is the same thing they ask of me in their own way every time they try to custom-design a Wondrous Item: keep an open mind and be respectful of other ideas. You don't have to agree with them all the time, but at least be receptive.
I think making one adapt to all is one extreme; at the polar opposite you have all adapting to one. Either way they are extremes. I suppose my hope is to land somewhere in the middle, but hopefully 51% towards one-for-all.
Just remember: the needs...of the many, outweigh...the needs of the few...or the one.
As one, I for one have never agreed with that view voiced by many. I know they would be the first to protest if they were the one, and not with the many! Lol.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are really missing what Ciretose is saying. And MrSin, you are ignoring your own advice to keep back and forth pettiness off the forums and in PMs. Stroking yourself? Really?
Take the gay gamer that 3.5 brought up. 3.5 says he shouldn't have to conform to groupthink, he can be himself, etc.
And maybe that's true, in 3.5's group. Which probably makes it a great fit for him. He might find it less comfortable to be in a group run by aggressive and violent homophobes.
When you choose a group, you need to look for qualities that mesh with your gaming style. If you are flexible in your gaming style, there are, by definition, more choices than if you are inflexible with your gaming style. That just makes sense. To use the gay example, if I have an inflexible position on homosexuality in gaming, whether I refuse to game with it, or refuse to game without it, I have limited my gaming pool to one of those two groups, rather than both.
No one is saying you can't be inflexible. Simply that it cuts down your available choices. That should be obvious. Somethings might be worth being inflexible over. A jackass GM. Animal sacrifice. A fellow player using the charm spell to get her dad to buy her more DnD books. On the other hand, the more flexible you can be and still enjoy the game, the more games you will be able to enjoy.