Quote from: Opaopajr;1124214When players go batshit, you have more spell components to cast fireballs. Win, win.

And soup ingredients too!

Greetings!

Hmmm...interesting. I suppose that I have been sheltered from being exposed to the bat-shit crazy players from the stupid train. I can recall only a very few individuals in my private games over the years that were kinda crazy-creepy, from which they were swiftly booted from the group, and never invited back. Not really surprising I suppose, as I tend to curate my private home groups very strictly. Most of the players in my private home groups have all been friends, relatives, and or spouses and girlfriends of the primary members. Most new people are vouched for through them, and as they are all quite familiar with my standards and how I run my campaigns, they have always been very good in their own judgement. Most of my friends and associates through the years have been veterans, mature, and excellent people. I haven't gotten whiny, crybaby SJW's, or weird, emo-fucking nutjobs that have all kinds of deep seated emotional problems.

In public games, like at Adventurer's League, well, that is an entirely different story. A large number of SJW's, and otherwise deeply fucked in the head emotional train-wrecks. Certainly a minority overall, but on any given meeting, perhaps 20% to 25% fit such categories to one degree or another. In public games, well, I am much more cautious and restrained. Such whining, emotionally damaged people are really not good for the hobby, and instead of seeking to play RPG's amongst other gamers I think more than a few of them need to be heavily medicated and attending professional therapy.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Spinachcat;1124177Tenbones, how many times have you had a nutball player go batshit?

It sounds like you go "hardcore immersion" - which I dearly love, but rarely have a group who are that committed. I'm happy with 75% vs. your 110% (and we could argue that's maybe that's why I get 75%).  

For those of you who haven't had a player go batshit at your table, that's probably normal. However, when it does happen, it's rather memorable. Most of my gaming is public, aka events with strangers, and I've had my share of nutballs over the 4 decades, but even while the incidents have been memorable, the actual number has been very tiny overall.

It's a more interesting question than you might think. Because *I* am the one that has slid into wanting more immersion as time has gone on. Mainly because I find it more compelling and "fun".

What I've found is I've had games that really turned into these transcendent (beyond the "let's have fun and throw dice") games because I figured out when people invest in their characters deeply, the stakes of the game can be raised organically to really crazy heights. But it's not something I as a GM can do alone - I need players that *want* to go there. I happen to be a GM willing to create maximal freedom for players to do that if they so choose. And sure, I'll facilitate it, and massage it to go there with every kind of hook imaginable. It's like fishing... sometimes the players bite... sometimes they migrate to other parts of the sandbox, and aren't interested in the bait currently offered up.

I've had two-players really go "bat-shit" as I noted above. But I've had players have very deep moments - that casual players would find "batshit", but we found very moving because we allowed ourselves to go there. And its not easy to do, obviously, yet when it happens it really makes the game memorable that we talk about for *decades*. I'm not talking about a bunch of grown men and women getting all Shakespeare necessarily, I'm just talking about when the players get so deep into playing their characters in the game, that it takes on very personal dimensions that only those players that were there really understand.

When the players via their PC's come to know the game-setting which they're playing as theirs. It's a place where their PC's really matter. It always starts impersonal like any other game - because you got to sink into it. But if things are clicking, you stop being Bob the Fighter, and become Robert IV, heir of Kings Reach, Knight of Crimson Order, wielder of Dawnreaver - legendary blade of the Dragon Lords, etc. etc. where each of those epithets was something accrued and earned and though the Players started as a humble Bob The Fighter, the scope of that meager character grew not because "he leveled up" on paper - those are just side-effects of "The Doing". Bob DID these things and transcended his basic write-up. My goal is to always transcend the rules. They're just how we express "The Real Game".

The "Doing" is what I find that is lost on a lot of players in the modern era. There is this gulf between a proscribed adventure - like a linear module, and an organic breadcrumb that players and GM's nurture together in a sandbox to become something far greater. I find a lot of modern gamers only want the breadcrumb, the linear proscribed experience, and not let go of that rail because "Doing" more is too.. much effort.

Or in my case - the possibilities I present cause anxiety. I've said for years my games tend to be "Game of Thrones" in complexity. Which for some on the surface find "exciting" - but the realities are most people just have watched the show or read the books, but never consider having to navigate such possibilities *themselves*. And you see how fast they wither, not from making just bad decisions - but from the the paralysis of "Doing". Tyranny of Choice is a real issue I'm acutely  aware of in my games, and more so these days where newb players enter my games and expect to have everything nice and proper with Quest NPC's with exclamations over their heads, and all the crazy races in the PHB to be running around and living like happy neighbors... and what do you mean "Do I bathe? do I have to? Change of clothes?... I didn't buy any extra clothes..." or any of the multitude of details I use in my game.

Before, I've found it helps good players wanting that experience of a deeper game, get into the game. These days it's a minefield. I've found like half-dozen new players attracted greatly to my style of GMing... but then suddenly struggling because their surface assumptions (reaaaaaaallly naive ones) about the world suddenly get them in hot water. And rather than play through the problem and overcome them, they curl up taking it as some kind of personal assault on their frail egos... rather than dealing with the problem *they* caused because they were playing by video-game logic.

It's a tightrope act - and *I* know I have a huge responsibility in wanting to game at this level. I feel conversely there has been a sharp downgrade in the quality of players who have gravitated to the hobby that *want* to play like this, because they're playing D&D (specifically) like it's part of some kind of "geek uniform" they're supposed to do.

I DO make a large distinction between Public (Convention) play and Private table play. When I ran convention tournaments, I made good clean adventures with multiple routes to solve whatever the problem was. But they were never what I would consider a "sandbox".

Quote from: tenbones;1124341It's a more interesting question than you might think. Because *I* am the one that has slid into wanting more immersion as time has gone on. Mainly because I find it more compelling and "fun".

Right. The usuallt normal form of immersion rather than the "I want to beeeeeee my character!" sort of immersion or the "Rolling dice and having rules gets in the way of muh immershun!"

Quote from: tenbones;1124341It's a more interesting question than you might think. Because *I* am the one that has slid into wanting more immersion as time has gone on. Mainly because I find it more compelling and "fun".

What I've found is I've had games that really turned into these transcendent (beyond the "let's have fun and throw dice") games because I figured out when people invest in their characters deeply, the stakes of the game can be raised organically to really crazy heights. But it's not something I as a GM can do alone - I need players that *want* to go there. I happen to be a GM willing to create maximal freedom for players to do that if they so choose. And sure, I'll facilitate it, and massage it to go there with every kind of hook imaginable. It's like fishing... sometimes the players bite... sometimes they migrate to other parts of the sandbox, and aren't interested in the bait currently offered up.

I've had two-players really go "bat-shit" as I noted above. But I've had players have very deep moments - that casual players would find "batshit", but we found very moving because we allowed ourselves to go there. And its not easy to do, obviously, yet when it happens it really makes the game memorable that we talk about for *decades*. I'm not talking about a bunch of grown men and women getting all Shakespeare necessarily, I'm just talking about when the players get so deep into playing their characters in the game, that it takes on very personal dimensions that only those players that were there really understand.

When the players via their PC's come to know the game-setting which they're playing as theirs. It's a place where their PC's really matter. It always starts impersonal like any other game - because you got to sink into it. But if things are clicking, you stop being Bob the Fighter, and become Robert IV, heir of Kings Reach, Knight of Crimson Order, wielder of Dawnreaver - legendary blade of the Dragon Lords, etc. etc. where each of those epithets was something accrued and earned.

Yes, although we never refer to our characters by their classes, it was very satisfying to be SunSpear, who walked the length of Shadows Dance because he, I, had done that and left the dead (and some regenerating) trolls in my wake.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1124460Yes, although we never refer to our characters by their classes, it was very satisfying to be SunSpear, who walked the length of Shadows Dance because he, I, had done that and left the dead (and some regenerating) trolls in my wake.

Blood and souls!

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1124460Yes, although we never refer to our characters by their classes, it was very satisfying to be SunSpear, who walked the length of Shadows Dance because he, I, had done that and left the dead (and some regenerating) trolls in my wake.

That reminds me, I recently had a player who referred to his character as "we". It took me aback when I first heard it. Eventually I grokked that he was referring to the player and the character as a plural entity. Once I figure that out, it was strangely satisfying to hear it.

Quote from: Zalman;1124488That reminds me, I recently had a player who referred to his character as "we". It took me aback when I first heard it. Eventually I grokked that he was referring to the player and the character as a plural entity. Once I figure that out, it was strangely satisfying to hear it.

Any context? I admit I'm curious.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1124520Any context? I admit I'm curious.

Sounds like an idiosyncratic pronoun use. At some point most players say something like, "I cut him in half with my axe" or "I cast fireball, when of course the player is doing no such thing "instead of referring to their character in third person, e.g. "Krongar cuts him in half with his axe" or "Archimedeus casts fireball."

Quote from: Bren;1124531Sounds like an idiosyncratic pronoun use. At some point most players say something like, "I cut him in half with my axe" or "I cast fireball, when of course the player is doing no such thing "instead of referring to their character in third person, e.g. "Krongar cuts him in half with his axe" or "Archimedeus casts fireball."

Indeed, no other context to speak of -- this was the player's first session. Instead of switching between first and third person, this player combined them. It gave the impression that both he and his character were directly involved. Well, as soon as I figured out who the other person was anyhow.