Quote from: S'mon;1013228I gave up playing for awhile in the 90s because it seemed all the published stuff was in this linear/railroad Storytelling style, either brute force or illusionist. Obviously home games will have varied. But 2e AD&D went that route, following Vampire, and my other '90s games like Heavy Gear were much the same.

The preplanned Story gaming approach was indeed very popular and through that I was able to blend my love of gaming with my interest in creative writing. Ive never forced a player group to do anything in a game as Ive related here openly, I do nudge pretty hard sometimes. It was an accepted style for quite a while, ever published game clearly supporting it in the GM section and every published scenario requiring it. The attitude seemed to be that "You came her to play a game about delving in this dungeon, so by God you are going to delve this dungeon." Laugh

At any rate, I mellowed (Not nearly as much as the industry it seems) over the years but there is still alot of that in my gaming.

Well by rgroves own comment earlier It sounds like its not quite as on rails as it appeared. Hes just occasionally doing the things you oft expect when someone has a sort of plot or sequence of actions and doesnt want to "waste" them. Or to facilitate a mood or sense of threat. The off kilter part seems to be that he is using the die rolls to do this rather then describe it? Which seems contra to his particular style.

So I guess the question I have to rgrove is.

Did it really never occur to you that you could back up your tweaks with description? Or was this just a sort of rare occurrence? It sounds like its your standard approach though?

Quote from: Omega;1013256Well by rgroves own comment earlier It sounds like its not quite as on rails as it appeared. Hes just occasionally doing the things you oft expect when someone has a sort of plot or sequence of actions and doesnt want to "waste" them. Or to facilitate a mood or sense of threat. The off kilter part seems to be that he is using the die rolls to do this rather then describe it? Which seems contra to his particular style.

So I guess the question I have to rgrove is.

Did it really never occur to you that you could back up your tweaks with description? Or was this just a sort of rare occurrence? It sounds like its your standard approach though?

Of course it occurred to me, and yes typically there are logical reasons for whatever changes I make to the game norm... or for that matter when making up something new. This situation, as I have admitted a couple of times, was more the result of a snarky player getting upset because I deviated from the book he was pawing through and my being a defensive dick about it.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013251You are right... My gaming kind of took on new life in the 90s after a long break. The players I started in with then remained my long term players until only a few years ago when a couple passed away and another moved. We saw no need, and thus I saw no need, to change the method of playing for almost two decades. I have a couple players now that have taken to my style and we get along great. There have been issues when a new player is inserted in the mix, apparently used to other types of GMing etc. Thats been the root problem with two of my posts that highlighted my own apparent deviation from today's GM norm and what drew such consternation from the members here.

This is important here. Your style seems to have grown to match the needs of the players. They like, or love something with a little or alot of plot behind it?
This is actually fairly common as long term groups mesh in sometimes unique ways and it can looks really weird from the outside. Like tables where the DM rolls for everything and the players may not even know their own PCs HP. They are there for the action and the DMs narration and dont want any mechanics getting in the way. Im pretty sure some here would find that fairly odd. Others might shrug and go "eh. thats not strange."

This is why some of us advocate for a "how to DM" section in RPGs and why I and others advise strongly that a DM needs to be upfront about their style to new players so there arent any false assumptions or blow-ups when one side or the other realizes somethings off kilter to what they thought.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013257Of course it occurred to me, and yes typically there are logical reasons for whatever changes I make to the game norm... or for that matter when making up something new. This situation, as I have admitted a couple of times, was more the result of a snarky player getting upset because I deviated from the book he was pawing through and my being a defensive dick about it.

heh. I've done that too. But usually I make a point to remind the players that just because its an orc doesnt mean its the exact same orc as all the rest. "Did you pay attention when I said this kobold was bigger and stronger looking than the rest? No? Well I did and I mentioned he was carrying a battle axe. That is why he hit you so hard." and maybe they will pay attention next time when I mention the orc chief looks strong and competent.

Quote from: Sommerjon;1013138Or perhaps it is because he knows his players far better then random poster 113?
I made this living breathing world that strangely enough happens to be things that some of the players like to dig into and root around in.  Mere coincidence?
How dare I as a person make something that several other people would want to spend time doing.  WTF do I think I'm doing?

Did you read the OP? Did you read the various posts on this thread concerning the OP? Are you familiar with the fact that this thread is a rehash of, conservatively, a dozen other threads like it from Grove?

If not - avail yourself.

Quote from: Nexus;1013009Barring the character having superhuman powers I envision 'dodging' bullets more of dodging the shooter's aim rather than literally sidestepped the projectile.

Or diving into cover when you realize you are going to come under fire.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013251Thats been the root problem with two of my posts that highlighted my own apparent deviation from today's GM norm and what drew such consternation from the members here.

Yes, I think both 70s-80s and 2000s-present dominant GM styles of rules adherence don't fit very well with aspects of your approach, although there are similarities here and there - fudging to keep PCs alive is common elsewhere among both old school and new-school GMs; not so much here I'd expect. Fudging for story outcome not uncommon in post-2000 play, but controversial. Fudging/modifying for aesthetic purposes I think was only really common in the '90s.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013251You are right... My gaming kind of took on new life in the 90s after a long break. The players I started in with then remained my long term players until only a few years ago when a couple passed away and another moved. We saw no need, and thus I saw no need, to change the method of playing for almost two decades.

...


This is pretty much the mirror image of my situation. Two of my group moved away, one died. The group was more or less consistent with 4 exceptions since I started to play pnp. I'm mostly stuck at home because now I'm caring for my ill mother who is 70. That's why I am here now and try to play RPG via online means, mainly play by post, to "not lose fully touch with my roleplayer side".

 It isn't easy to adjust though, even if we only consider the dozens of systems I'm unfamiliar with. (although the 'unknown' also interests me)

Quote from: tenbones;1013269Did you read the OP? Did you read the various posts on this thread concerning the OP? Are you familiar with the fact that this thread is a rehash of, conservatively, a dozen other threads like it from Grove?

If not - avail yourself.

Yes I did, what's your point?  That he isn't flipping over showing his belly to you?
Sure I'm not a fan of everything he does and would go about it differently, but the absolute shitstorm some of you cause just to through sand in his eyes in some juvenile sense of superiority is tiredly laughable.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012955But when confronted on it by some ass hat player I would have thought the notion of modifying the rules.

Here we see the actual problem.

We all think the player asked a perfectly reasonable question.  Grover has damned the impudent player to the depths of asshathood for daring to question his mighty word.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013054No one but you thinks that this is the argument people are making.

And this.

Quote from: Sommerjon;1013316Yes I did, what's your point?  That he isn't flipping over showing his belly to you?
Sure I'm not a fan of everything he does and would go about it differently, but the absolute shitstorm some of you cause just to through sand in his eyes in some juvenile sense of superiority is tiredly laughable.

I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. I'm not with him on everything (but I think my tastes lean more his way that 'typical' board member) but it seems to be largely working for him and his usual players.

Quote from: tenbones;1013269Did you read the OP? Did you read the various posts on this thread concerning the OP? Are you familiar with the fact that this thread is a rehash of, conservatively, a dozen other threads like it from Grove?

If not - avail yourself.

I went back and counted, couldnt find even half that many tenbones.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1013323Here we see the actual problem.

We all think the player asked a perfectly reasonable question.  Grover has damned the impudent player to the depths of asshathood for daring to question his mighty word.

Not the question, it was the delivery and refusal to accept an answer.