My kid started the very first D&D game they ran with 'You're all in jail, having been arrested for having a bar fight. What do you do?' just to avoid the standard 'Everyone walks into a bar'.

Off-topic, I know, but that one always made me giggle.
This message was last edited by the user at 01:25, Tue 11 July 2023.

In reply to SunRuanEr (msg # 51):

 The only way that prompt could have been better is if it had been 'What did you do?' ^_^

In reply to SunRuanEr (msg # 51):

That sounds like a GREAT way to start an adventure!  If nothing else, it gives you an immediate chance to decide (and demonstrate) whether your character's going to be a good, law-abiding citizen who trusts the system, a conscientious objector who doesn't want to be in trouble but also doesn't like being a victim of the system, or a straight-up bad boy.

You can always let the players decide if their characters were the ones who started the fight, or if they jumped in on it, or if they were just minding their own business and the local gendarmerie got a little overzealous in rounding up troublemakers and they're suffering guilt by association.

There's a lot to be said for an in media res start to a game.  One of my favorite tabletop gaming campaigns in college started with the GM having each individual player go through their own solo session, and mine was very much plunging right into the action immediately...I can't speak to the others, as I didn't sit in on their sessions, but the callbacks to those sessions that came up over the course of the campaign sure made it feel like they'd been through the gauntlet in their own turn, too.

 I ran a tabletop Shadowrun game where it starts with me saying "

I'll tell it to you straight. I don't know what successful run you just had.
I don't know what you had on you two minutes ago.
Where you   were.
Who you were with.
I don't know none of that.
I do know you are now waking up on stone slabs, in a place that it totally different from where you last remember...

Oh, and you are naked.

Good luck."

That is how I GMed a totally unplanned Shadowrun game that I didn't initially know I was going to be GMing, and didn't have time to deal with any of the anxiety that can come up with face-to-face games in real life round the table. Some players need to stop thinking of you as a blindguy, and rather as a guy that doesn't see. The difference is important, and is easier  online.

What can slow down a game.

Let me tell you something I do that is important. I make sure the DM knows that my handle is literal.  If said DM runs an image based map heavy game, then I should, or another blind person on RPOL should not join your game. We can do text  based maps just fine, well, pretty well with periodic questions, but we cannot do image based maps. Do not tell them that you use image based maps, but then say its not a big deal, if you use them heavily for the game, because it will become a big deal later.    The game will slow.  Someone's going to get frustrated.

I have to say I am loving the discussion on feedback and it possibly warrants a discussion of its own.  I'm someone who when GM'ing absolutely would welcome feedback but I think the history of roleplaying has led to a some factors that inhibit it.

Of course, the scenarios I share are the extremes and real people are in the spaces between.  On one hand we have the GM of the absolute master and arbiter of everything.  There are decades of books which tell GMs they are in charge of the story, they are the decision maker and they create the world and story.  And decades later we have GMs who are judge, jury and executioner of everything.  There are some games on here that no matter how interesting the premise I wouldn't touch due to the vibe the GM gives off.

....and I kind of get it, because most stories start of as a GM vision of what the world, players and story is and no matter what this largely exists in their head.  The single thing that ruins a GMs vision is the players encountering it!

On the other hand there are GMs who either see themselves as an active and equal collaborator in the story - this still runs into the player interpretation of the world, but players often expect or need direction because they can't see into the GM's brain.

There is little that a player can do about a GM that accepts no feedback and goes 'my game, my rules, my vision'.  But I do think good GM's actively seek feedback.

This is especially important where challenging subject matter is involved, but regular check ins early on about whether people feel the story is what they expected and that their character is involved doing what they expect are pretty important.  It doesn't mean the GM needs to change everything depending on what players say but there may be things they haven't seen or spotted.

It's sad but the first time a GM knows there is a problem is when someone ghosts or leaves so it's important to build feedback loops early.

None of this is a dig at GMs either.  It's often a thankless task trying to create a fun game and managing the dynamics of players and expectations early on.

In my admittedly limited experience, that attitude is based more on the personality of the GM than on any advice they've received from any books.  All of the gaming books that I've seen have encouraged GMs to adopt a flexible style and collaborate with the players...yes, they have to be in charge of the story, but they can still allow for some give and take.

I say that because the GMs I've played with who have probably read the most books and guidelines on how to be a GM are often the most collaborative and least dictatorial in their approach to running the game.  But most of them are also pretty easy-going outside of the gaming environment, as well, while those whose iron-fisted take on GMing seem to have a narrower focus on what gaming material they've read and also tend to be a lot more uptight in life as a whole.

That said, I've had extremely good luck in choosing GMs, overall (and the bad choices were blessedly short experiences, either through their choices or mine leading to my rapid departure from the game), so my perceptions on the matter are definitely colored by those good experiences.

In reply to bazhsw (msg # 55):

There's a reason that I've always adopted the moniker of Storyteller rather than Game Master.   Too many GMs (and players) treat a game as competitive or (even worse) confrontational.   It's no "us vs him" but rather "us and him".

I've had just one bad GM when it comes to feedback/being in charge - they had asked for players for a new game and a bunch of us joined and made characters and were looking forward to starting. A week passed, then another, and I'm not sure how much more time. I remember some of us were chatting in the OOC thread to sort of keep things going (not that the game had started yet), meanwhile the GM was insistent on finishing doing their worldbuilding/preparation in the background rather than starting the game.

I remember making a post to the effect of "It's okay, you don't need to feel like you have to create the entire world in one go - just do the bit that's near wherever we are, so we can start, and then you can be doing the rest in the background as we go. It's not like we'll notice, and it saves us waiting around even longer - otherwise why have us join this early?". Logged in the next day to find I'd been removed from the game entirely(!?) and there was a post from the GM in a/the OOC thread (which at least was Group Zero so I could see it :P) saying how they would do this in their own time, everything had to be perfect by their own standards, and that I was wrong to have brought it up. Felt like they were "making an example" of me for daring to even ask. Anyway, unsurprisingly the game fell apart pretty much straight away. This was several years ago now but I still have no intention of every playing under that GM if they ever come up again.

When I'm GMing a game myself, I like getting feedback - I want to know if the players are having fun, what specifically they enjoy (or not), so what kind of content I can come up with that will continue the fun bits and improve on anything that people might not be enjoying. The last campaign I was running at tabletop, I'd ask at the end of each session what the players thought and the answer was pretty much always a generic sort of "Yeah, it was good". Would've liked things more detailed than that, but it did always kind of feel like I was more enthusiastic about the game than they were. At the end of each session they'd pack up to go home as though we'd been playing any other random board game. Just felt a bit sort of discouraging, though I did also ask them stuff between sessions. One player did give some more information, at least. Game ended up on forced hiatus thanks to the pandemic/lockdown and though we tried, it basically fizzled out and died :(.

I am not surprised that game fizzled out Ameena and that does sound quite an unpleasant experience.  It feels like a bullet dodged and perhaps in hindsight the GM shouldn't have opened up to players yet if they wanted things 'just so'.  Even if they weren't comfortable starting a message to you along the lines of asking you to be patient is infinitely better than 'making an example' of you.  It did make an example - of how they would treat any player who didn't fit their rigid way of thinking.

The unfortunate flip side of that is that players prepare for a game at wildly varying speeds.

So, a GM that's used to having a slew of players that take weeks to finalize every nitty-gritty detail of their characters might factor in that time for themselves, only to find that this time they have a handful of players that blaze through creation and have a character ready to play inside of 24 hours. I've found that what helps curtail some of that is to have a set 'The game will start on X day' deadline, so that the fast people aren't expecting anything quicker, and the slow people know when they have to be done by.

That said, I -abhor- when players try to rush the GM. I've certainly never removed a player for or advocated for them to be removed for that (nor have I ever encountered players trying to rush a game start), but (using a recent example), if the GM says "We're going to move to X phase on Y day", and players start making IC "hurry up" posts (inner thoughts wondering what's taking so long, etc, etc, AFTER being told when things would happen), well...Y day starts moving further back on the calendar.

That's just rude and inconsiderate isn't it?  If a GM has said, 'this will happen on this day', others trying to hurry things along from the sidelines is quite disrespectful.

A lot of problems could be managed easier with a little respect, give and take and generally being cool with people.  Sadly in a text format that's easy to be misses.

For perspective.

In reply to Ameena (msg # 58):

Was going to edit, don't want to delete, but don't want to rehash, nor certainly open up another can. I'll make this germane and cover the two points. Three points, I was that GM. Then two points.

So to sum this up. 4e has players that like knowing classes. I know military veterans out of uniform in my county. I know users by system. If RL people have classes, I know most of those without needing ever be one of one, I know the fighters, the rogues, the monks, and wishful but impotent clerics. In D&D, way more than what what a (good) book would explain, or descriptuion would fit, avails most ambiguity. Yeah, maybe not a fighter, but paladins and barbarians, and all the other muscular characters have another mien. Maybe not a rogue, but then they must not be a well equipped fighter. Players felt this "class" was ostensible to character. All but one.

Most players want 4e to be about good group synergy. For 4e being most hated edition, I only rejected three RTJs. All but one, total, wanted to have group balance, and I should have done that as GM. Three of the five pushed for open group sharing, one outright expected it, and wanted to start having been a team.

I had a lot of PMs from two players that took my time away. Which is expected. Reading mostly, but also typing replies. However, these PMs grew to forty posts long. One lamenting OOC spillover, from another with more and more new ideas. It got old to say no, so I found new ways. Eventually I needed to divide and focus on two baskets. I didn't. Instead all but one egg broke in the basket. Being a Kenku, this hit you hardest. You were unique, but the cost was being outcast. Survival is about fitting in, not being in healthy fitness.

I moved platforms, since "Immediate" and "[No" Actions were easuier. Finally, after questions were player to player and not to me, I let the PCs start their own planning while I eavesdropped every once in a while, but finished my planning inn days, not weeks, being able to paint what I saw and not explain what I was painting.. We played in slow real time, but seconds not hours latency. Usually at least. ISP sometimes made that hard, but it would for RPoL ten times more.

The game did go on. Sacrifices were made. Lessons learned. Prime objective complete though.

As for playing with you Ameena, when I did (It's been two years since I played ANY game on RPoL) I enjoyed it. You posted in a IC thread, and when you were introduced, I knew it was you because you were a Kenku...and posted in the IC thread. You also were posting paraphrasing of expressions. You didn't read .every post, as you admitted, and just skimmed over what you deamed your character would know. That's all. I connected four degrees of qualities. The Bacon number is 1. Four degrees isn't that hard though. That's 2^3 or 8. With the turn out though, it might as well be 1 in a million. So if you avoid me, sorry to say, we've played well together. If you avoid me as a GM, yeah. I get that. That's a good thing. For you, but also for me. I don't avoid you though. I avoid some users, you're not one.

I hope that covers the germane mostly, but also the boastful attitude is toned, and exclusion shown to be selective, deductive and pragmatic, not creepy, dogmatic, nor obsessive.

If not, WE can refer to the lack of "necessity" citations following but predated. If so, however, I'm glad I had the chance correct my error. Even if not for all, then for some.
This message was last edited by the user at 11:10, Fri 21 July 2023.

In reply to SunRuanEr (msg # 60):

I have a chronic tendency to start a game without any real planning; which I suspect is the real reason that most of my games fail.   Realistic expectations (usually stated up front) and communication (between players as well as player/GM) tend to be the key to a successful game.

None of this was necessary. Nobody knew what the game was or which GM was running it. Rather, this comes off as petty under the pretense of "giving another perspective." Also, a bit creepy on the side of "I know who you were in another game as well."

In general, I am never going to start a game and advertise for players if I am not ready yet. People have different styles, sure... but maybe not advertise for a game if you're still in the middle of building a module from scratch?

Agree, there were a lot of very public receipts being delivered which feels unecessary when we are discussing what stops / slows games down

In reply to shinanai (msg # 64):

A lot of players and GMs want the game to be tailored to the specific PCs who will be in the game. That makes it really hard, if not impossible, to have the game done and ready to go before knowing what PCs will actually be in the game.

In reply to liblarva (msg # 66):

That is not an issue. I would argue it is much easier to prepare a little bit for the beginning of the campaign and work on the major bulk via PBP than actual sessions in real life. And yet I have managed to do that for both PBP and live games. Mind you, I do understand that some GMs need longer than others. Still, there is preparation... and then there is writing a railroad. Let's be honest... how many of you had plans for the player characters in their game and then have the characters go completely off the rails and do something entirely else, forcing you to improvise the story anyway?

Either way, it's besides the point. There was no need to provide public receipts about whatever happened between these two, because ultimately we don't know. We weren't there. And there is no reason to believe one over the other. At least Ameena kept it vague.
This message was last edited by the user at 14:39, Thu 13 July 2023.

Oh I knew it was you, V. I haven't forgotten. Just didn't want to mention names because it didn't seem fair and I didn't want to acciedntally break some rule about being too specific. But unceremoniously removing me from a game, with no warning and no opportunity to explain myself/say goodbye to the other players, just because I politely suggested that maybe we get started because it had been weeks of waiting?
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was in need of a minor tweak, at 17:59, Thu 13 July 2023.

Literally never. I don’t run games like that. I run open-world sandboxes. I don’t make plans for what the PCs do. It’s not up to me. I run the world, the players run their PCs. If there is any story it will be purely emergent from game play. I prep NPCs, situations, locations, etc. The players are free to engage with any of it, in any order, for however long, in whatever way they choose. I come up with problems and obstacles for the PCs to face, the players come up with the solutions. It’s slightly more work but it’s wildly less stressful.

*gives the topic a LIKE*

LMAO, I think we went way off-topic by now...

In reply to shinanai (msg # 67):

I have to say, having joined a few of shinanai's games, that she's really good about adapting what she's already got on paper for the players who turn up to actually play.  One game I joined, there was pretty much no way for her to prepare in advance for the characters, as it was a game where she was encouraging players to basically 'port in' characters from other games to a world she had created, so she was faced with a literal grab-bag of miscellaneous characters and had to figure out how to incorporate them into her world.

In one of her games, she actually had her world-building done months before I had my character ready (it was a bad time for me to join a game, because of work commitments).

I'm not going to weigh in on a wrong vs right, in that regard...I'm a firm believer that every GM should run their game the way they want to run it.  I'm also a firm believer that if the GM's style is a bad fit for the player, the player should feel free to bail out.

And there's a big difference between generalized complaining about the way an anonymous GM handled conflicting styles with their players, and specifically calling someone to the carpet in a public forum.  That's all I'm going to say on that subject.

Aside from returning it back to the OP.  Bad chemistry with a GM or other players can really slow a game down in a hurry.  The moment that composing a post starts to feel like a chore, instead of something fun, I'm automatically not going to be as eager to keep updating the game.  That stuff cools my enthusiasm WAY down.  It's one thing to be hesitant because you don't know the other players or GM and you're not sure how your stuff is going to come across...I'm talking about bad chemistry, as opposed to no chemistry.  When you feel like there's hostility at the other end of the connection, it's really easy to just stay away from that connection.

In reply to bazhsw (msg # 61):

This is a very appreciated post. I did want to say that succinctly. Aggregate, my players in current games cooperate and help in time frames. I didn't want a good word to go unpraised.

In reply to liblarva (msg # 66):

This is also better said than I tried in the pre-edit.

---

I make the "who" and "where". Players individually tell me the "Why" and together the "How". All of us, GM and players get the big topic, the "What". I start my submissions with a "what" but that's loose., and the big meaty question everyone gets some of.



This quote I 99% agree with. Unfortunately four games, out of about 400 were this way. So I can't truly say never. Not far off though. Railroads are stories. I have events and characters. Even when I wrote for Living Greyhawk: I gave opportunity and events, you could live, and cap out with minimal loss, but minimal gain. I also co-wrote them. So I was not the only pen in hand on the page.

I will edit my my previous post, as I did this one, in a couple days. Simply because most of it's not germane it can be pared down. Most of it wasn't necessary, I concede some was. Some really was. So I'll keep the necessary, and forfeit the unnecessary. I'll leave the post that's up now, unchanged for a couple days. Then I'll pare it to clean up a mess. Made or mixed. Sole or partial.
This message was last edited by the user at 08:12, Fri 14 July 2023.

I'm almost right there with you. The only time it's ever happened for me is because my players, those pastry-making muffin-fiends, specifically requested something, then changed their minds.

Open-world sandbox like always, a few months into the campaign, the party decides "Hey, that player-driven quest to find the artifact weapon was really fun, lets go collect some more artifacts!" So I spend the next couple weeks putting together a list of artifacts, where they are, and some dungeon prep to go with them. Next time we get together, "Hey! You know what we should do? We should go to [wasteland technohell] and try to rebuild a spaceship!"

Fruiters.