When was the last game you (any of you) have had in which even a single player didn't pull out their phone or other electronic device at the table to look at something that wasn't related to the game?Honestly? I don't remember the last time that hasn't happened.
I swear, if I get in another game where someone interrupts another player just to share a meme...
Haha. For me that is the ultimate sign of respect (or lack there of) for a GM.
If you say "no eletronic devices at the table that aren't directly assisting with the flow of the game" and they consistently share memes (interrupting people's turns and the like), then it is clear they don't respect you as a GM.
I find that my closest friends and roleplayers have fallen into this tiring habit, while many newer groups/SOS groups I've been throwing together do this far less frequently (presumably because they aren't as comfortable around me as my friends are).
Kind of like how people say you should never date a coworker, or move in with your friends; it makes people too comfortable. They end up unconsciously taking advantage of the relationship, doing things they never would (or should) do otherwise.
Can I play with you? Pretty please?!
Yeah. I always try to bring in some form of professionalism when I play. I may make some jokes out of game, if that's what the group is like. But as for in-game, I try to stay as serious and locked-in to my character as possible.
I enjoy that immersion. Living that character, not just as a bunch of numbers on a sheet, but as a living, breathing person with their own thoughts, feelings, and history. Where I can become that character.
And then the GM thinks it's funny to have an orc throw literal feces in my face. The Barbarian with 8 Int can't string together a two-word sentence without the first word being his name. The Rogue is CONSTANTLY trying to kill us and/or steal our s$%*. And now we have to fight Baby Bowser in a flying helicopter chair during fantasy medieval times.
Yes, it gets incredibly frustrating. Especially since that seems to be the vein of the fast majority of games I've come across.
I am amused though by the general transition to crunchier games being considered "older style", when it wasn't that long ago that the OSR movement was talking about getting back to the old lighter "rulings not rules" style.
"What goes around ..." I guess.I suspect it's not a general trend caused by video games or anything, but more of a cyclical thing.
I played AD&D before getting hooked into 3.X systems, and I've maintained a fondness for crunchier games. I find that it gives a more even experience, but that might be because I had a series of poor experiences with the AD&D DM.
Moral of the story though, complaining about cell phones and meme sharing is screaming at the tide. A cultural change is occurring and you can either bake it into the social aspect of the game, or try to build a group of extreme RPers. Either way, have fun. I'll still play games with my friends that are half or more about the social aspect rather than gaming and still run RP heavy games locally.
This thread reeks of crotchetiness and gatekeeping.
Nah it's just bengay.
I believe that what Ravingdork is saying, though feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is not that people can't or shouldn't play. It's that they eventually won't WANT to play because they have to read the books and actually learn how it works when they could just hop onto The Elder Scrolls X: VR Edition for immediate gratification.Yeah, I'm not really sure how to respond to this. It reads an awful lot like more of the usual "casual/hardcore" gatekeeping.
If you can't talk with your group (assuming you have a consistent group) to find out the style and tone that works best for you...I'm really not sure what to say as a suggestion then. Some folks want a light game with limited in-depth focus and the dial of zany turned up to 11. Some folks want to run a poverty-level game of cyberpunk gutter trash in the Redmond Barrens. Neither one is wrong.
I've found far more distraction from cross-table talk and long-running in-jokes among my longest running in-person groups than I do with my relative newcomers checking their phones. Distractions aren't a new thing, or in any way related to your service time or commitment level in game.
Huh. I can't tell if you are talking to me or to Ravingdork.
My intent has never been to "gatekeep." I've said it before, there is no wrong way to play so long as everyone is having fun.
If people want to play casually and be goofy and silly, more power to them.
I do not have a long-running group because I haven't found a group that goes with what my style. That is where I get frustrated.
If I'm a gatekeeper, then I'm one of the worst in history and should probably be fired. But that doesn't mean I can't get a bit angry and complain.
Wealth seems relevant.
When I was a kid, I had a new RPG book at Christmas or my birthday and that was it. I devoured those books in minute detail, because I wasn't getting another one for six months, I knew every illustration and jot of text. Even if they were terrible, you had to wring every drop of juice from them, because they were all you had.
Now, I have PDFs, the internet, a giant library, and more games than I can possibly read. If I go to DriveThruRPG and drop $100 on PDFs I can get more stuff than I can digest in a decade, and I could do that every week if I wanted to. The constraint on my gaming now isn't money, it's time, a million diverse offerings are paraded before me and I have to decide carefully not what I can afford with cash, but what I can afford to invest reading and playing time in.
So true.
I can still open the DMG to the potion miscibility table or the Monty haul reference or any of a number of trivial little details. I read that book so many times.
Now I can barely get through skimreading one month’s subscriptions before another packet arrives.
The decline of RPGs is game stores very well might be because of online sales. But that also leads to game stores shutting down in their masses. Which makes it far harder to actually find people to play with.
In the five years I've been playing, every gaming store that's not a large franchise has shut down near me. Now, if I want to go to a gaming store, I have two options. G2K, which has basically nothing beyond a few D&D 5e books and MAYBE some Pathfinder on a good day. Or I can drive an hour and a half into the next state, and even their selection is becoming more and more limited.
That's the true death of role playing games. The age of sitting around a table with your friends, snacking, with books open and maps drawn is coming to an end.
That's strange. Here in Arkansas we have 2 non-chain gaming stores in a town of 60k, three in another town of about the same size, and most cities average the same.
Online sales have taken some niche gaming off the shelves, and many gaming stores are now more MtG than DnD, but they are still quite around where I live.
Though I do think the quality and quantity of game stores is diminishing, much of what was lost in the stores is still being sold online, and there are tons of websites dedicated to roleplayers finding other roleplayers.
So, it's more that the dynamic is adapting to current trends, rather than fading away.
I've been playing a long time. Like so long that there weren't "gaming stores" when I started. So the rise and fall of gaming stores is worth noting, but not panicking about.
There used to be "toy stores" where you could buy bikes and some sports equipment and playing cards and blocks and other things to play with. And that's where the first D&D books were sold. (and where you posted your index card with your phone number to find other players)
With online social resources, it's much easier to put together a face-to-face game than it ever was in the early days. And if you're willing to play online, you can game all you want.
Yeah, my Local Gaming Store, which is really a comic book shop, is mostly for Magic the Gathering. While RPGs are sold, no significant play of D&D or Pathfinder or other games are done there. All my local experiece is finding groups and playing. I live in a rural area of north central Illinois in a small city of 20,000 and there are maybe 8 groups/tables playing that I know of.
I wonder now, shouldn't this thread be moved?
Over the last few years, I've observed a disturbing trend in roleplayers, both here on the forums, out there on other forums, and at various play tables: People keep asking questions about simple rules that are clearly spelled out in the rulebook.
To be fair, you're a little guilty of this yourself, considering the topic you made on how a reaction cannon can't break a lightbulb :P
That's the true death of role playing games. The age of sitting around a table with your friends, snacking, with books open and maps drawn is coming to an end.I'll make sure to let all those ongoing tabletop games in homes and apartments around the world that they're officially undead.
Overblown hyperbole aside, gaming stores have never been the central point for entry into the hobby. Those venues have always been outnumbered by home groups. And nothing has changed to invalidate that format.
There's no death here, other than that of common sense.
You know, in every response you've posted so far, you've left me feeling more than a little insulted. I don't know what your issue is, but please stop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, you're a little guilty of this yourself, considering the topic you made on how a reaction cannon can't break a lightbulb :P
???
A reaction cannon fired by a low-level character IS unlikely to break a light fixture in a single shot...
To be fair, you're a little guilty of this yourself, considering the topic you made on how a reaction cannon can't break a lightbulb :P???
A reaction cannon fired by a low-level character IS unlikely to break a light fixture in a single shot...
Sure, whatever the entirety of the device exactly is, but Glass has a hardness of 1 with 1 hit point per inch of thickness. BTW, your topic did say "lightbulb."
Wait, you're supposed to read the rule book cover to cover? Every GM I talked to was like "No don't do that."Of course not, it would be a threat to their power if players did that and suddenly knew more about that game then they did.
;P
My rule of thumb: if the GM doesn't want me reading the core rules of the game, than I don't want the GM running my game. Keeping deep secrets and mysteries of the setting unknown to players until they are learned *may* be a fair desire.
"The fundamental rules of the game" are not 'deep secrets and mysteries'. If the GM is using house rules, they should just say so, not passive aggressively conceal it from the players. And if the GM is terrified of not having complete control over the PCs. . . well, bluntly, they never have complete control over the PCs. They have exactly as much control as the players willingly grant, and no more. John Wick-style "I, the GM, am God" is BS, and always has been.
That's a good rule of thumb. :D
That's a good rule of thumb. :DWait, you're supposed to read the rule book cover to cover? Every GM I talked to was like "No don't do that."Of course not, it would be a threat to their power if players did that and suddenly knew more about that game then they did.
;P
My rule of thumb: if the GM doesn't want me reading the core rules of the game, than I don't want the GM running my game. Keeping deep secrets and mysteries of the setting unknown to players until they are learned *may* be a fair desire.
"The fundamental rules of the game" are not 'deep secrets and mysteries'. If the GM is using house rules, they should just say so, not passive aggressively conceal it from the players. And if the GM is terrified of not having complete control over the PCs. . . well, bluntly, they never have complete control over the PCs. They have exactly as much control as the players willingly grant, and no more. John Wick-style "I, the GM, am God" is BS, and always has been.
I have been booted from a 5e game when I mentioned that I read the Dungeon Master's Guide. Apparently, he thought that players should never read it, and it was cheating if they do.
I have been booted from a 5e game when I mentioned that I read the Dungeon Master's Guide. Apparently, he thought that players should never read it, and it was cheating if they do.
I ask my players to not read the DMGs and the MMs if they want a sense of wonder and mystery. I also ask them to do so so that they don't get gamey about the monsters or traps.
I've played many games where I never read the rules at all, just rolled and said what I wanted to do.
If you have a good DM, one that isn't power-mad, it doesn't matter if you read the rules or not. My job as the DM is to mediate conflict and provide friction to make an interesting story, not to kill, torture, or make you want to quit. In that case, you don't need to know the rules.
That being said, I wouldn't kick out anyone who has read the DMG, I'd just ask them to maintain the character knowledge/player knowledge boundary as much as possible.
Personally, I would just flat out refuse to play in the gaming group of someone with that stringent of standards because it comes with this built in notion that people participating in this hobby for fun should only ever do one job; either play or DM. That if you decide to DM a game once just to try it out & see if you're any good at it, you're never allowed to go back to just playing & experience the story that someone else wants to tell.
I have been booted from a 5e game when I mentioned that I read the Dungeon Master's Guide. Apparently, he thought that players should never read it, and it was cheating if they do.
Now that's a GM who always wants to be a GM, because without reading the other two books, the other players could never really run a successful game themselves.
It's a highly unrealistic expectation that unnecessarily restricts the hobby as a whole (as described by FormerFiend).
Personally, I would just flat out refuse to play in the gaming group of someone with that stringent of standards because it comes with this built in notion that people participating in this hobby for fun should only ever do one job; either play or DM. That if you decide to DM a game once just to try it out & see if you're any good at it, you're never allowed to go back to just playing & experience the story that someone else wants to tell.Well, the old school gygaxian rule was "Don't read the DMG/MM until you're ready to start GMing." Basically, there's no need and you'll just spoil things for yourself anyway.
Mind you, I never played that way from the start and I haven't met anyone who does in decades.
And I can appreciate that and am as opposed to the notion of actively using the knowledge gained from reading the DMG/MM to gain a metagame advantage as anyone(though personally I try not to view the game as competitive, it's still bad form).
But upholding it to the point that you would kick someone out of your group because they had read one of those books at some point is absurd, because that basically means that once you decide you're ready to DM, that's all you're allowed to do from that point forward in that person's eyes. If someone decided they wanted to try out DMing only to discover that they don't enjoy it or aren't very good at it, are they just supposed to give up the hobby as far as the DM Azalah describes is concerned?
I get that you're not saying that and in essence I'm arguing with someone who isn't here, but I just find that standard to be nonsensical to the point that I couldn't help but comment on it.
I still find it really weird that I was told not to read the CRB all the way through even though I explicitly told the people in question that I wanted to try out GM'ing. Isn't the game master obligated to know the rules as thoroughly as possible? Sure I'm going to be doing lots of homebrew, but shouldn't I know what the rules are anyways before I decide break them?
Not to mention, if I paid for the materials, I can use them as I please.
Well, the old school gygaxian rule was "Don't read the DMG/MM until you're ready to start GMing." Basically, there's no need and you'll just spoil things for yourself anyway.
Mind you, I never played that way from the start and I haven't met anyone who does in decades.
Gary Gygax may be the grandfather of tabletop games, but honestly, the more I hear about him, the more he kinda sounds like an jerk who started a lot of bad trends in game dessign. Just about anything I hear described as "gygaxian" is practically synonymous with punishing game design.
You know, in every response you've posted so far, you've left me feeling more than a little insulted. I don't know what your issue is, but please stop.Absolutely. I'll go a step further. I sincerely apologize for that post being FAR sharper than it should have been. Attacking or insulting was the end result, and not what I was aiming for in intent. Implementation of that intent...wasn't good on my part.
Intended or not (and I'm gathering that not is the case here), I read many of the "death of gaming" statements as the usual sort of "sky is falling" or "get off my lawn" I've heard over the last three decades of gaming. That's on my failure at reading the intent, not on you.
Thank you. As to what my intent with saying "the death of table top gaming," it's really just a transitioning from one state of being to another. After all, even if you die, you're still there. It's just that "soul" is missing.
What I mean is, I very much enjoy gathering around a table and playing. Whether that is with people new to the game, old veterans, or what have you. It's part of the experience. But with the way things are changing, more and more games are online. I've now played in more games where I've never even seen the other player's faces, let alone let them in person.
It's a kind of disconnect that is hard to get past when you're gesturing wildly and swinging an imaginary sword, all for naught because they can't even see you.
And then the issue with having the vast array of resources online makes it difficult for new people to come in without being overwhelmed, while the veteran players won't want to because of limited options.
I'm playing a Shadowrun 5e game online right now, and we've had one player quit in a huff and another complain quite a bit that because he wasn't allowed to use all the resources in all the extra books, that he wasn't able to make a good and effective character.
Will home games between friends stop? No. I believe that friends will still gather around a table just like in the old days. But with the advancement of technology, connecting all of us and giving us all these wonderful new books and information, doesn't it all seem less personal?
I've made great friends, and even romantic connections through supposedly "impersonal" online games. People that I went on to meet in person and who have remained in contact for many years. Online gaming is just another way to make these friendships, and they are only as impersonal as you let them be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to feel the cover of the new book you just got, hearing the creak of it as you open it the first time, the aroma of that new-book smell. That has a certain magic to it that a PDF or some wiki can never have.
In the same way, playing online doesn't have the same magic as playing in-person.
This is, of course, my opinion. If you can get as much out of playing online as you can in person, then more power to you. I hope you continue getting that enjoyment. I truly do.
Will home games between friends stop? I believe that friends will still gather around a table just like in the old days. But with the advancement of technology, connecting all of us and giving us all these wonderful new books and information, doesn't it all seem less personal?
I find this way of viewing the hobby very perplexing.
If you start with a hobby that you can only play face-to-face, with a handful of people that you can persuade to join you, you can call that "personal".
If the game thrives, and you now have specific hobby stores that cater to this game, you increase the number of people you might be able to play with.
This does not decrease the number of friends you have that are willing to play with you. The game is not less personal because you have a new method of connecting with other hobbyists.
If the game thrives and you now have an internet, you increase the number of people that you might be able to play with. This does not decrease the number of friends who might play with you. The game is not less personal.
If the game and the internet thrive, and you increase the number of people that you might be able to play with AND you increase the number of ways you can connect to play those games, ie online play, you do not decrease the number of friends you have. This does not make the game less personal.
I think you're comparing increased ways to play with an increased player base to the actual, personal face-to-face opportunities.
Increasing the ways to play and the player base does not make the game any less personal than it ever was. You've still got the same number of people who can play with you f2f.
It's just that the pool is so much bigger, not that the connections are weaker.
As I said, it was my opinion. It may be that I've just been unlucky in finding groups online. I know I've been unlucky in finding groups offline.
I think, what it is for me, is that I'm looking at my first game through rose-tinted glasses. It was special in a way that I've never gotten from another game. And perhaps that because it was in person, and I've never gotten a similar experience like it online, then that must mean online games can't give that experience.
Or maybe I'm just thinking way too deeply about it, and all that matters at the end of the day is that we're all having fun, yeah?
I have also made some very close friends online. Including romantic. So, yes, "impersonal" was probably the wrong way to describe what I was getting at.
But to refer back to my example of the book vs the PDF, I do feel that there is something missing from online play. But that is just what I feel, for whatever reason.
I'm told Gygax was only sadistic when it came to organized, tournament play. For private home games I'm given to understand he was more forgiving. He did, after all, once allow someone to play a Balrog in one of his campaigns.
Whatever works for you, though, is what works for you. I'll just be in the corner shuddering at the thought of going back to books. ;)
I'll agree that PDFs do have their uses over physical books. My boyfriend, for example, has issues with his neck that leads to him being unable to read physical books. As such, he has moved over entirely to PDFs.
Meanwhile, I've spent thousands of dollars on physical books, even though I have PDFs freely available. Even going so far as to have 3rd party printing companies print out paper versions of PDFs that are no longer in print.
It's all a matter of personal perspective. Neither one is wrong. Just different.
My boyfriend, for example, has issues with his neck that leads to him being unable to read physical books. As such, he has moved over entirely to PDFs.
Is it a matter of carrying the weight?
Seems like it would be just as hard on the neck to look down at one's electronic device of choice as it would be to look down at an open book.
What am I missing?
My boyfriend, for example, has issues with his neck that leads to him being unable to read physical books. As such, he has moved over entirely to PDFs.Is it a matter of carrying the weight?
Seems like it would be just as hard on the neck to look down at one's electronic device of choice as it would be to look down at an open book.
What am I missing?
He can hold a phone up easier than a book to read. But mostly, he reads in bed or on his computer, where he can be a more comfortable head position.
First post on these forums. If my group got to playing a game long enough, I would insist on the players at least understanding the majority of the rules applicable to their character, but I also made it easy for them. With Pathfinder, for example, I lifted their entire class out of the SRD and printed it out, so they had access to all their class abilities (and spells) in a character folder.
But combat options, the basics of how magic worked? I would explain multiple times, but players who refused to learn the rules after months were politely reminded they needed to engage with the game part of the game as well, for the comfort of those around the table.
GMs need to read the book cover to cover, multiple times, and try to master the game. But if you're just trying it out, or trying out GM'ing, giving the rules a once over and letting it fly to just try on the game for size is perfectly acceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've DM'd several games of both dungeons and Dragons And Starfinder and in both cases I think players and GMs alike should never be forced to read the books cover to cover. For players, I always have the core rules or players guide available for them If they have questions but most of the basics that are covered in character creation are rarely asked about. The rest of the time, if they have a question mid game they just go for the book and rarely ask me dirrectly. I personally use the rulebooks as a guide and a tool more then a strict obligation. If players wish to know all the rules and I decide to homebrew some stuff to accomodate my campain setting then the players usually respond positively when I tell them not to correct me.
But then again, when the universe is as facinating as starfinder's I tend to read all of it at least once.
|
Wealth seems relevant.
When I was a kid, I had a new RPG book at Christmas or my birthday and that was it. I devoured those books in minute detail, because I wasn't getting another one for six months, I knew every illustration and jot of text. Even if they were terrible, you had to wring every drop of juice from them, because they were all you had.
Now, I have PDFs, the internet, a giant library, and more games than I can possibly read. If I go to DriveThruRPG and drop $100 on PDFs I can get more stuff than I can digest in a decade, and I could do that every week if I wanted to. The constraint on my gaming now isn't money, it's time, a million diverse offerings are paraded before me and I have to decide carefully not what I can afford with cash, but what I can afford to invest reading and playing time in.
It really sucks that gaming isn't what it was when I was a kid, doesn't it. :)
Plenty of time and no money. Now it's plenty of money (relative to game costs anyway) and no time.
I was just discussing this very thing with my wife. We have enough games, game materials etc to last us for years and years. I have books I haven't had time to read for games I bought that I plan to run in the future that I likely won't get to even start for the next several years! It's an odd inverse frustration to devouring the books I had as a kid and then re-reading them over and over while waiting for something new to come out and then waiting to actually have the money to get it.