Here's the module if anyone's interested. I owned it at one point. It was a bit shark-jumpy, but well written. It was pretty much a mini-campaign, and it must be noted that drow were not considered a playable race. Damn special snowflake adventure writers ;)
As for orcs, they do exist in Ansalon. I remember in one of the published books (don't remember which one specifically, sorry) there was a group of people who were orcs who renounced the evil goddess whose name I can't remember and began worshiping the good god whose name I can't remember.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc_%28Dungeons_&_Dragons%29#Orcs_in_Drago nlance
We can apparently blame bad writing/editing/product approval for it, but yup they were accidently included in a published book so it's kinda tricky to de-canonise them after that. Or to put it another way, if TSR allowed it, a GM has less ground to stand on.
All this back and forth is really just proving the point. EVEN IN PUBLISHED SETTINGS everything should be negotiable. I mean, Matt could just as easily have missed that page of the wiki as found it. Even canon is not that important. Gaming is about collaborating to tell stories, and the whole unique appeal in gaming as opposed to other mediums of similar entertainment (video games, etc) is that you can change things. If you aren't going to at least allow for the possibility of that, then you are just negating one of this medium's main strengths.
I believe they were ogres (Irda), not orcs. But the question remains unanswered. If the goal of the campaign is a classic Dragonlance theme/feel, does the GM need to accomodate a character that runs counter to that goal?
I believe the module in question was called "Wild Elves". Had a cool Brom cover of a Kagonesti. I'm not sure if it's considered canon or not, but it was a sweet module. Quite lengthy, too.
You're right. I was thinking of the Irda. Apparently I misremembered "ogre" as "orc".
To answer your question, settings are mutable. while Dragonlance doesn't have orcs, orcs aren't antithetical to the setting. It wouldn't be hard to tweak the setting to allow orcs. You probably shouldn't change the setting by making orcs the most important and influential race ever. That would require a lot of changes and would mess with the established history. But just making some orcs exist isn't a significant change. It's no bigger a change than introducing a new city.
There should be at least some wiggle room on both sides of the GM screen. Both player and GM are basically doing the same thing: they're trying to preserve the essence of what makes their concept (character in the player's case, setting in the GM's) interesting to them, in the face of foreign influence being exerted on that concept. What can be frustrating is that many players just have, frankly, ridiculous concepts. But equally frustrating is that many GMs seem to feel affronted at the notion of having to compromise their vision in the smallest way.
This. Very much this.
Like I said earlier, there's things I'm willing to compromise on as a GM and things I'm not. World details are things I'm more likely to be happy changing to fit a player's needs, while the overall tone/flavor of the story isn't (please note I only mean the tone/flavor, the direction is more up to wherever the players take it, but I do cling to that tone/flavor with the aforementioned death grip.) If they need a certain type of thing to exist in the world, chances are we can find a way to make it exist by working together. It's a collaboration.
Another way I like to look at it. Everyone probably knows those collaborative story forum games, right?
Analogy time again: As GM, I'm doing the equivalent of writing the first post in that story to set the theme. I expect players to take that first post and expand on it, and not jump straight to "but, meanwhile over on the other side of the world..." to take it somewhere completely different. Having another character walk into the room or having the scene follow people as they walk out of the door is working with me, while throwing away what I wrote in favor of starting your own story with your post is working against me.
That's how I like to see it in-game too. The players should be able to contribute to the setting itself if they like. I've worked with players before to populate an area with the race they wanted introduced, for example (in fact I required it "sure, we can add this race so you can play one, but it's going to involve some work so I expect us to work together on writing their history, etc.") However, there are also limits - not every race ever listed in every RPG supplement is going to fit into that setting, for example, and some things are going to stand out like a sore thumb and cheapen the whole campaign. I'd draw the line at talking horses, but centaurs, pegataurs, or a humanoid race with horse-shaped heads will fit just fine.
My question remains unanswered. If the group goal is classic DL, but one person wants to make a drow or orc, is the GM obligated to accept that character?
My opinion is no. They might, but there is no obligation, and not accepting that character does not, in my opinion, make them an uninaginative or control freaky GM. I would expect the player to be imaginative enough to come up with a cool concept given the thematic goal.
I believe they were ogres (Irda), not orcs. But the question remains unanswered. If the goal of the campaign is a classic Dragonlance theme/feel, does the GM need to accomodate a character that runs counter to that goal?
I believe the module in question was called "Wild Elves". Had a cool Brom cover of a Kagonesti. I'm not sure if it's considered canon or not, but it was a sweet module. Quite lengthy, too.
You're right. I was thinking of the Irda. Apparently I misremembered "ogre" as "orc".
To answer your question, settings are mutable. while Dragonlance doesn't have orcs, orcs aren't antithetical to the setting. It wouldn't be hard to tweak the setting to allow orcs. You probably shouldn't change the setting by making orcs the most important and influential race ever. That would require a lot of changes and would mess with the established history. But just making some orcs exist isn't a significant change. It's no bigger a change than introducing a new city.
I'll repeat again: should the GM (and the rest of the group) be obligated to accept this character?
My question remains unanswered. If the group goal is classic DL, but one person wants to make a drow or orc, is the GM obligated to accept that character?
My opinion is no. They might, but there is no obligation, and not accepting that character does not, in my opinion, make them an uninaginative or control freaky GM. I would expect the player to be imaginative enough to come up with a cool concept given the thematic goal.
No, you can't obligate them to take that character, because it's within their basic human rights to leave the room and go home. Unless you intend on kidnapping them :)
More seriously - it really does depend on the group. There is no global right or wrong answer to the question.
If the group rotates GMs and so far have allowed any number of outlandish concepts, introducing an Orc to DL is a reasonable request to make.
If they're all meeting for the first time, it's more reasonable to drop the drow and orc and everyone makes characters the whole group is comfortable with.
A group of friends is likely to be more flexible than a group of strangers.
A group of pure roleplayers is likely to adhere more to canon than a group that plays it as a skirmish battle game.
A group that sees it as "serious games night" may see it differently to a group that sees it as "getting together to have fun with friends night"
I'll repeat again: should the GM (and the rest of the group) be obligated to accept this character?
I'm not sure where obligation is entering the picture. My concern is making the game the most fun for everyone involved. The DM is only obligated to allow the character insofar as they are obligated to try to make the game the most fun for everyone involved.
Ok then, what if five people want to run a classic DL game, and one person wants to be orc/drow guy. To everyone else, this messes with their nostalgic fun of playing a DL campaign. Do those five people just suck it up and play mongrel DL, or is it reasonable for the lone wolf to try to fit in?
I'll repeat again: should the GM (and the rest of the group) be obligated to accept this character?I believe they were ogres (Irda), not orcs. But the question remains unanswered. If the goal of the campaign is a classic Dragonlance theme/feel, does the GM need to accomodate a character that runs counter to that goal?
I believe the module in question was called "Wild Elves". Had a cool Brom cover of a Kagonesti. I'm not sure if it's considered canon or not, but it was a sweet module. Quite lengthy, too.
You're right. I was thinking of the Irda. Apparently I misremembered "ogre" as "orc".
To answer your question, settings are mutable. while Dragonlance doesn't have orcs, orcs aren't antithetical to the setting. It wouldn't be hard to tweak the setting to allow orcs. You probably shouldn't change the setting by making orcs the most important and influential race ever. That would require a lot of changes and would mess with the established history. But just making some orcs exist isn't a significant change. It's no bigger a change than introducing a new city.
He is obligated to seriously consider it. He is obligated to try to think of a way to include it that does not irredeemably corrupt the essence of what he wanted to do in the first place. If he makes a genuine attempt at finding a way to include it but can't, then no he is not obligated to accept it.
It's like the GM is the director of this movie, but the players are the studio executives and they're always sending him memos. Yes, these memos are aggravating, but you have to pick your battles because, let's face it, your movie simply will not be made without the studio. If you're opposing every single memo, you're going to get fired.
And sometimes, you know, the producers/executives actually have it right. The Godfather, for example, was arguably improved tremendously by studio meddling.
This has come up a few times in my gaming life. In general, if this Dragonlance scenario occurred, everyone would just say, "Come on guy, we're playing Dragonlance", and guy would maybe pout for three seconds before accepting that they're not playing well with othersif they make a big deal about it.
That's my experience, anyway.
Ok then, what if five people want to run a classic DL game, and one person wants to be orc/drow guy. To everyone else, this messes with their nostalgic fun of playing a DL campaign. Do those five people just suck it up and play mongrel DL, or is it reasonable for the lone wolf to try to fit in?
Well if they really wanted to play it as a classic DL game, then they probably aren't going to be using 3.x at all, but probably what, 2e? And as far as I knew those older editions didn't really embrace playing monster races. Part of the reason they never clicked with me like 3.x did. So probably the guy who wants to play an orc or drow isn't interested in playing 2e anyway. No conflict. *brushes hands off* Problem solved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Eric: picking battles is definitely important :) Not that I've ever had a "battle" with someone over an RPG. Except here :)
Ok then, what if five people want to run a classic DL game, and one person wants to be orc/drow guy. To everyone else, this messes with their nostalgic fun of playing a DL campaign. Do those five people just suck it up and play mongrel DL, or is it reasonable for the lone wolf to try to fit in?
Without further details, I'd be backing the group wish here.
If it turns out they're all a group of close friends, they might decide all doing something together is more important.
In the situation I'm more familiar with, we'd arrange to do that game another night, and the orc/drow guy would arrange to go do something else that night, most likely with other friends that hate RPGs (and no, he isn't sulking, we just do different things with different friends rather than everything as one giant group, which makes sure people dont get dragged along to things they're not going to enjoy)
Having an element removed doesn't make the game rigid just because you wanted that specific element and only that specific element and could take nothing else.And "It would have been great playing with you, Bill. But what you're running is too rigid."Its true. 'It would have been great having you in the game, bob. But what you want just isn't compatible and you won't budge.'At the end of the day not everyone gets exactly what they want.And sometimes, that applies to you as well. Get over it.YOU are the one who's decided that you will absolutely not negotiate under any circumstance about the content of your world. That is the very definition of rigidity.
My Golarion is not the same as your Golarion. Such is true of all published settings.I don't know enough about Golarion to comment on it, but I know that Keith Baker (the author/creator of the Eberron campaign setting) frequently comments about stuff in "his Eberron" that differ or directly contradict what is in the published books.
No. Quite a lot is negotiable. Just not everything.
Not that I've ever had a "battle" with someone over an RPG.
You are a lucky, lucky man.
And again: if you specifically agree to play in a setting after the restrictions have been laid out in front of you and then specifically bring in something that isn't in a grey area but instead flatly goes against those restrictions, I'd have to say that person is being a bit of a jerk. And you aren't playing in a campaign of mine until you have selected one of the campaigns I am willing to gm ... Or offered one of your own.
Really though, how often is a player that stuck on playing one and only one thing and that one thing just HAS to be something specifically excluded(not 'not included' which is an entirely different animal)) from the setting?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Such as? Sorry, but so far Viv, Toz, and Kirth have given lots of examples of character aspects that are negotiable, and you have provided no examples of stuff in your setting you would ever negotiate over.
Fine! I'll let your character be left-handed instead of right! There, now I have to change how some of the scissors are made in the setting! Are you happy! You just broke the whole damn thing! Just so your character could be Sinister! Thanks!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've asked this question in every single one of these threads without an answer...
If "settings are mutable", then why should a GM even bother to try and create anything other than a setting that allows for the possibility of any character concept a player may come up with?
If I am "only obligated to allow the character insofar as I am obligated to try to make the game the most fun for everyone involved", then I should never create a setting that does not, nor ever had, dark elves because you might come along and want to play one some day...
Such as? Sorry, but so far Viv, Toz, and Kirth have given lots of examples of character aspects that are negotiable, and you have provided no examples of stuff in your setting you would ever negotiate over.No. Quite a lot is negotiable. Just not everything.Having an element removed doesn't make the game rigid just because you wanted that specific element and only that specific element and could take nothing else.And "It would have been great playing with you, Bill. But what you're running is too rigid."Its true. 'It would have been great having you in the game, bob. But what you want just isn't compatible and you won't budge.'At the end of the day not everyone gets exactly what they want.And sometimes, that applies to you as well. Get over it.YOU are the one who's decided that you will absolutely not negotiate under any circumstance about the content of your world. That is the very definition of rigidity.
My Golarion is not the same as your Golarion. Such is true of all published settings.I don't know enough about Golarion to comment on it, but I know that Keith Baker (the author/creator of the Eberron campaign setting) frequently comments about stuff in "his Eberron" that differ or directly contradict what is in the published books.
Um ... Yes? Not in this thread, but the prime example was a setting that had only deities with a neutral component to their alignment by nature, and no paladins - however, one player described and pitched to me a specific city state, looking through the campaign background, tied it into the history of the place, pitched a deity which fit very well into the background and history as presented ... And the campaign went from no paladins to three paladins, a sorcerer and a ranger. And the focus ended up shifting to that city state after some jerry rigging and alterations to make it fit a few things they didn't know about yet. The player put in work to make it fit in and fit in well, and it got included.
Ps: the god was, indeed, lawful good. And its hard to use those examples because then I would end up posting an entire campaign synopsis book in this thread which would be, shall we say, rathe wall of text. Any restriction described merely in terms of blurbs without the supporting material will sound odd.
Never saying I will never include something - but I do reserve unabashedly the right to say no, that isn't being added.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I am "only obligated to allow the character insofar as I obligated to try to make the game the most fun for everyone involved", then I should never create a setting that does not, nor ever had, dark elves because you might come along and want to play one some day...
Ah, but if you're like me you make sure that you're selective about who "everyone involved" is. If I don't think a player is going to be a good fit for the group, I don't see any reason to accept them into it. Once I've got that group of players assembled, then I'll do the best to make the game the most fun for them.
|
|
I've asked this question in every single one of these threads without an answer...
If "settings are mutable", then why should a GM even bother to try and create anything other than a setting that allows for the possibility of any character concept a player may come up with?
Because players don't always want to play the things you want to exclude.
If I am "only obligated to allow the character insofar as I am obligated to try to make the game the most fun for everyone involved", then I should never create a setting that does not, nor ever had, dark elves because you might come along and want to play one some day...
Just don't include dark elves. Leave some room somewhere so they can be added in if that's the direction things go, but you don't have to include them. They only would have to be added if someone wants them added. If no one ever wants dark elves, then they never exist.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because players don't always want to play the things you want to exclude.
You're right, they don't!
But...
The moment a player does, and I say no without budging, suddenly (according to these forums anyway), I have inexplicably morphed into some kind of badwrongfun GM for wanting to retain my setting's verisimilitude...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because players don't always want to play the things you want to exclude.You're right, they don't!
But...
The moment a player does, and I say no without budging, suddenly, I have inexplicably morphed into some kind of badwrongfun GM for wanting to retain my setting's verisimilitude...
Personally, I'd say the only opinions of your GM style and ability that really matter are those of the people around your table, and not people here that aren't in your game.
The most important reason the DM is the final arbitor is because the book says so and it does so for a reason.First, Erick Wilson said "sole arbiter", not "final arbiter". Those have different meanings.
Second, the book says lots of things that are changed by DMs and groups. I'm sure there's lots of reasons behind the XP tables printed in the book, but I don't use them when I DM.
Honestly, if as a GM, you have to use a book as an appeal to authority in order to try to get the people gaming with you to follow your lead, something is probably pretty wrong with the faith you are instilling in them.
I've asked this question in every single one of these threads without an answer...
If "settings are mutable", then why should a GM even bother to try and create anything other than a setting that allows for the possibility of any character concept a player may come up with?
If I am "only obligated to allow the character insofar as I obligated to try to make the game the most fun for everyone involved", then I should never create a setting that does not, nor ever had, dark elves because you might come along and want to play one some day...
Well, you know, that is basically what Paizo seems to have done with Golarion. But leaving that aside...
I, at least, am not saying that settings should be endlessly mutable, just that there should be some room for negotiation. And more importantly, I think it depends on the setting. Some simply require more rigidity than others. I realize this is somewhat idiosyncratic, but I, for example, find it kind of ridiculous to be strictly canonical about, say, Forgotten Realms, but much more reasonable to be so about at least certain aspects of, say, Birthright or Dark Sun.
But I digress. The point is that you are all there to collaborate and have fun. Yes, you can well say to a player "surely you have some other type of more campaign appropriate character you're interested in telling a story about?" But he can just as easily respond, "Just like you must surely have some other game world you're interested in telling stories about that would be a more friendly setting for the character I want to play."
I'm just making the point that in these kinds of matters there's theoretically no reason to preference the GM's interests over the player's. Ideally, everyone would be flexible and you'd find something that you all would want to play. When I pitch characters to a GM, I usually pitch at least five. But I do the same thing when I pitch games to my players. I say "I'm really interested in running either a classic Birthright game, a sort of psychadelic take on a Dark Sun game, a Firefly influenced, pirates with hearts of gold Spelljammer game, a game set in the world of Dragon Age Origins, or just this Golarion adventure path called Rise of the Runelords. Any takers?" It's all got to go both ways...
|
|
Personally, I'd say the only opinions of your GM style and ability that really matter are those of the people around your table, and not people here that aren't in your game.
That's how I have been doing it for a little over 30 years now... And like I said in another thread, it wasn't until 6 years ago, when I first came to these message boards, that I saw these things argued to this extreme.
I've asked this question in every single one of these threads without an answer...
If "settings are mutable", then why should a GM even bother to try and create anything other than a setting that allows for the possibility of any character concept a player may come up with?
If I am "only obligated to allow the character insofar as I obligated to try to make the game the most fun for everyone involved", then I should never create a setting that does not, nor ever had, dark elves because you might come along and want to play one some day...
Well, you know, that is basically what Paizo seems to have done with Golarion. But leaving that aside...
I, at least, am not saying that settings should be endlessly mutable, just that there should be some room for negotiation. And more importantly, I think it depends on the setting. Some simply require more rigidity than others. I realize this is somewhat idiosyncratic, but I, for example, find it kind of ridiculous to be strictly canonical about, say, Forgotten Realms, but much more reasonable to be so about at least certain aspects of, say, Birthright or Dark Sun.
But I digress. The point is that you are all there to collaborate and have fun. Yes, you can well say to a player "surely you have some other type of more campaign appropriate character you're interested in telling a story about?" But he can just as easily respond, "Just like you must surely have some other game world you're interested in telling stories about that would be a more friendly setting for the character I want to play."
I'm just making the point that in these kinds of matters there's theoretically no reason to preference the GM's interests over the player's. Ideally, everyone would be flexible and you'd find something that you all would want to play. When I pitch characters to a GM, I usually pitch at least five. But I do the same thing when I pitch games to my players. I say "I'm really interested in running either a classic...
Thing is ... You choose the setting first and then make characters ...
And generally unless someone specifically came to me asking "can we play something in your Burning Lands setting, I've got at least three different settings, with differing baselines. But once they HAVE selected, I kinda like them to honor their selection.
Personally, I'd say the only opinions of your GM style and ability that really matter are those of the people around your table, and not people here that aren't in your game.That's how I have been doing it for a little over 30 years now... And like I said in another thread, it wasn't until 6 years ago, when I first came to these message boards, that I saw these things argued to this extreme.
My feeling on that is that for 30 years, you've been playing with people who had a compatible-enough playstyle to want to play together. On the internet, you're exposed to every possible variation, so it's inevitable you'll run into the polar opposite.
I have no doubt that *everyone* in this thread that is expressing an opinion is doing it because they feel that's what works best for them, and it probably *is* working best for their group. We all play with different groups, who do things different ways, and like different things. Nobody here can really know what is best for another person's group, only that group knows that.
I also hope people aren't still approaching their gaming and interactions the same way they did 30 years ago. I mean the hobby has "matured", hopefully some of the neckbeards did as well.
I also hope people aren't still approaching their gaming and interactions the same way they did 30 years ago. I mean the hobby has "matured", hopefully some of the neckbeards did as well.
If some people prefer it that way, why does it even matter?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also hope people aren't still approaching their gaming and interactions the same way they did 30 years ago. I mean the hobby has "matured", hopefully some of the neckbeards did as well.If some people prefer it that way, why does it even matter?
It doesn't. In the end, this thread (and most on the boards) aren't going to change a lot of minds or dramatically alter how people are playing. What some call bad others call good and vice versa.
It doesn't. In the end, this thread (and most on the boards) aren't going to change a lot of minds or dramatically alter how people are playing. What some call bad others call good and vice versa.I also hope people aren't still approaching their gaming and interactions the same way they did 30 years ago. I mean the hobby has "matured", hopefully some of the neckbeards did as well.If some people prefer it that way, why does it even matter?
Mmm, it just the phrase "the hobby has matured" worries me a little. All I've seen happen is rulebooks got bigger and more expensive :) Okay, and it's easier to find people willing to actually RP nowadays rather than everyone wanting to do dungeon crawls. Other than that, I really haven't seen much change.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It strikes me that if the game is now played more like the comments on this post than it was 30 years ago, I'm not sure that qualifies as having "matured."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't. In the end, this thread (and most on the boards) aren't going to change a lot of minds or dramatically alter how people are playing. What some call bad others call good and vice versa.I also hope people aren't still approaching their gaming and interactions the same way they did 30 years ago. I mean the hobby has "matured", hopefully some of the neckbeards did as well.If some people prefer it that way, why does it even matter?
It matters in that to keep the hobby alive, you need fresh blood. Which means that each of us an ambassador for the hobby, most especially those of us that play with people we don't know personally in public places. If some 40 year old GM at a game store is approaching GMing in the same way he did when 13, he is probably going to turn off a lot of potential players. All it takes is one horrible GM experience for us to lose a potential gaming brother or sister and for them to just chuck it and go play the next World of Skyrim Age 7.
EDIT: And yes in some ways it has matured. Just think about how rare it was to have a girl playing 30 years. Or for someone to play a gay character. We've moved away, generally, from looking at foes are more than 2-D cardboard cut outs. Now that orc has a tribe, that tribe has non-combatants. Is your paladin going to run the whole tribe through with the sword, even the young and lame. Stories are more complex.
There is still room for the mindless kick in the door and kill the monsters, but the gaming community isn't the same as it was 30 years ago. And it is good that it isn't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also hope people aren't still approaching their gaming and interactions the same way they did 30 years ago. I mean the hobby has "matured", hopefully some of the neckbeards did as well.
Obviously speaking only for myself...
In some ways, I still do approach gaming the same way I did 30 years ago. It's like I said in one of the other threads:
I also realize that because my views can be seen as "antiquated" or something much worse... This could put limits (perhaps even severe limits) on the available pool of players that would be willing to sit at my table (at least outside of the current pool of players I have), but that is something I accept and even embrace
It matters in that to keep the hobby alive, you need fresh blood. Which means that each of us an ambassador for the hobby, most especially those of us that play with people we don't in public places. If some 40 year old GM at a game store is approaching GMing in the same way he did when 13, he is probably going to turn off a lot of potential players. All it takes is one horrible GM experience for us to lose a potential gaming brother or sister and for them to just chuck it and go play the next World of Skyrim Age 7.
In order for me to understand what you're saying, you're going to have to clarify the difference between now and when that GM was 13. Personally I don't really see much difference other than the things I've already said. Oh, and the fact that now we have computers so it's easy to write up tons of player handouts. I'm honestly not sure what you mean otherwise.
EDIT: Just saw your edit. Okay, in terms of story, absolutely - although even back then there were some cool D&D modules like CM1: Test of the Warlords that took things to national diplomacy levels. But yeah, it was far too much "enter dungeon, see monster, kill monster, collect XP and gold" in the majority.
In order for me to understand what you're saying, you're going to have to clarify the difference between now and when that GM was 13. Personally I don't really see much difference other than the things I've already said. Oh, and the fact that now we have computers so it's easy to write up tons of player handouts. I'm honestly not sure what you mean otherwise.
It matters in that to keep the hobby alive, you need fresh blood. Which means that each of us an ambassador for the hobby, most especially those of us that play with people we don't in public places. If some 40 year old GM at a game store is approaching GMing in the same way he did when 13, he is probably going to turn off a lot of potential players. All it takes is one horrible GM experience for us to lose a potential gaming brother or sister and for them to just chuck it and go play the next World of Skyrim Age 7.
You don't see how a 13 year might be expected to behave as being different than how a 40 year old might be expected to behave?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't. In the end, this thread (and most on the boards) aren't going to change a lot of minds or dramatically alter how people are playing. What some call bad others call good and vice versa.I also hope people aren't still approaching their gaming and interactions the same way they did 30 years ago. I mean the hobby has "matured", hopefully some of the neckbeards did as well.If some people prefer it that way, why does it even matter?It matters in that to keep the hobby alive, you need fresh blood. Which means that each of us an ambassador for the hobby, most especially those of us that play with people we don't know personally in public places. If some 40 year old GM at a game store is approaching GMing in the same way he did when 13, he is probably going to turn off a lot of potential players. All it takes is one horrible GM experience for us to lose a potential gaming brother or sister and for them to just chuck it and go play the next World of Skyrim Age 7.
EDIT: And yes in some ways it has matured. Just think about how rare it was to have a girl playing 30 years. Or for someone to play a gay character. We've moved away, generally, from looking at foes are more than 2-D cardboard cut outs. Now that orc has a tribe, that tribe has non-combatants. Is your paladin going to run the whole tribe through with the sword, even the young and lame. Stories are more complex.
There is still room for the mindless kick in the door and kill the monsters, but the gaming community isn't the same as it was 30 years ago. And it is good that it isn't.
I think we played very different games 30 years ago, as well as the post making some assumptions about whether or not someone's style will render a bad experience among newer players.
That said, it's back to what myself and especially Matt Thomason have been saying: not everyone's play styles match up and not everyone's games are run the same way. It isn't good or bad, it just is.
You don't see how a 13 year might be expected to behave as being different than how a 40 year old might be expected to behave?
Right, but you were talking about how the hobby had changed, not the player.
EDIT: Now I see what you were talking about with your earlier edit though - when I started 25-ish years ago, I'd have killed for the Paizo APs to run though instead of dungeon crawl modules, and - without wanting to get into an edition war here - I felt encouraging players to move to an "encounter" model was one of the worst steps backwards this hobby ever had.
You don't see how a 13 year might be expected to behave as being different than how a 40 year old might be expected to behave?
Right, but you were talking about how the hobby had changed, not the player.
EDIT: Now I see what you were talking about with your earlier edit though - when I started 25-ish years ago, I'd have killed for the Paizo APs to run though instead of dungeon crawl modules.
Actually I was talking about both.
"I mean the hobby has "matured", hopefully some of the neckbeards did as well."
See. Both.
Actually I was talking about both."I mean the hobby has "matured", hopefully some of the neckbeards did as well."
See. Both.
D'oh, now I get it. I was so focused on trying to work out how the hobby had matured (I'd have said "evolved" personally, but no sense in arguing over terminology) that I missed that part.
It is cool.
I just cringe every time I see someone say something like, "Hey it is my game and if you don't like it go find another game." Nice way to run somebody off. I hope those are mostly exaggerations. That is the thing I would expect a kid to say. I'd expect an adult to at least try to find a way to make it work.
We all have had to work with people we want to punch in the throat. You make it work. It is part of being a grown up.
EDIT: And before Arssanguinus says it, yes as a player you got to make it work with the GM as well. We all have bosses that we'd love to kick in the ass. You sometimes have to suck it up when they have their head up their rears and just do what they want you to do.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is cool.
I just cringe every time I see someone say something like, "Hey it is my game and if you don't like it go find another game." Nice way to run somebody off. I hope those are mostly exaggerations. That is the thing I would expect a kid to say. I'd expect an adult to at least try to find a way to make it work.
We all have had to work with people we want to punch in the throat. You make it work. It is part of being a grown up.
It is equally cringe-worthy to hear "I can play whatever I want, your 'story' limitations are just being a dictator."
Of course I've never heard either outside of these interwebz boards, and I suspect most gamers haven't either.
But hey, one good straw man deserves another.