Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Preview of the next Silver's Soapbox (Patreon)

Published:
2017-01-07 01:55:01
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

So, I suddenly became a Youtuber. This is my second analyst type video. So, here's a question. I was thinking about doing one about Ponyfinder, for example comparing a Ponyfinder thing and how it compares to a MLP version of the same thing. Say Nightmare Moon vs The Night Mare, gem gnolls vs diamond dogs, earth ponies in general!

What topic would you like to see covered?

Files

Previews only

Spike Is a Terrible GM and how not to be!

Let's try this again! This time we speak about Spike and how he GMs and how you can be better than Spike. Hopefully the quality has perked up from the first one, but let me know one way or the other. Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/davidsilver

Comments

Tida

Comparing the gods first as Prism said would be interesting, such as Kara vs Queen Chrysalis, The Unspoken vs Discord, etc.

Xinef

On the topic of killing player characters and being a hardcore difficulty GM, the way I'd like to be treated as a player, and thus the way I treat players when I'm the GM is simple - I ask the players individually if they want to be in control of their character's fate, or if they're ok if the story/game mechanics can take that control away sometimes. If a player says they want to be in full control, deciding when/if their character can die in a given situation, etc. then that is how I treat that character. This may lead to situations such as "Well, the dice say you're taking a critical hit that would kill your character, is that ok with you? No? Ok, so you're just unconscious. Wait, you're saying you'd like to keep fighting? You imagined your guy as being super tough and nearly impossible to kill? Well (here I try to convince the player that it might be more interesting for everyone if they allow their character to become unconscious). But if the player ultimately decides to keep fighting, I allow them to do that. If I find that the player's playstyle is not fun for other players because of that, I simply won't invite that player for the next session. At the same time there could be another player at the table who is ok with their character dying. Some players like to create a new character for every session, other players don't. That's fine with me. Now this may lead to situations where certain characters are treated in vastly different ways than others, as if there were different rules applying to each character... which may be a bit complex to handle, and some may view it as unjust - but if every player is satisfied with the way rules apply to their character, it's that worth it? I mean why should one player decide how rules are applied to another player's character? And it's not like this approach leads to people losing suspension of disbelief, or otherwise feeling uncomfortable about the way they imagined playing as a party, and their expectation of other player's behaviors - if there is a problem on that front it's not because of my "flexible" system. It's because the players themselves had different expectations and thus may be incompatible to play in the same group. (which, by the way, is a problem best diagnosed before you even assemble a group of players, unless they are all new to roleplaying and have no idea what their expectations are).

ponyfinder
>>3510923

If your table has fun and things are communicated clearly, I see nothing wrong with this at all.

Xinef
>>3510923

The hard part is convincing other GMs to act like that when I'm the player :v Because when I create a character for myself, I usually have them planned... let's say in D&D terms - levels 1-20 and beyond. And I have visions such as "my character's father was killed by a demon lord, and my guy would like to avenge his father eventually", in which case I'm willing to negotiate with the DM that this may not be a demon lord buy some other villain more suitable to the campaign, but in any case I'd like to see that vision either fulfilled at some point in distant future (even if it's a hundred sessions away, since we're just starting as level 1 characters), or at least ends up as "Ok, we finished the campaign, my guy didn't fulfill his plans, but now after the campaign is over he continues his travel to fulfill his plans, even if it's not played out on a session." Which generally can't happen if the guy dies along the way. And it's kinda like reading a book that I know will end in happy ending (because let's say I know the author and know he never writes tragedies), but it can still be intriguing and challenging along the way. Even if I know the hero won't die until the end. Reading LotR is a good example. But, somehow, I'm not very successful at finding GMs that would let me play that way. And by the way, I've seen arguments saying "But you should let the story, the campaign influence your character - it's boring if you have everything planned out, and no event in your character's adventure, no matter how traumatic, will change anything about his mind". Well... I do have plans for how my character will change along the way xD I might for example plan that he starts on a mission of vengeance, but along the way he will rethink his mission. ... and I'm willing to change those plans along the way if I feel like it, but it's unlikely to change into "ok, now he dies, end of story". But, as I said, hard to find GMs that are willing to cooperate with that. Most GMs I encountered treat rules from the rulebooks as something more than just inspiration, but like a law or something, and if the book says you should take 100k10 damage, you do. No arguing. And then there were GMs who only play one-off stories where everyone dies by the end. And GMs who just like to force players into creating new characters. And GMs who are all "you didn't act the way you should have in that situation, so you die"... So that's why I just started GMing myself... at least my players aren't complaining about my way of running games. One player left because "he prefers competitive board games, and doesn't like cooperative ones", and a few who left for time-scheduling reasons, but I guess that's hard to avoid. Now my goal is to teach some new people my ways of GMing, so maybe then they'll be able to run games I'll enjoy being a player in. :)

ponyfinder
>>3510923

This falls under making sure players and GM are talking before the game even starts and making sure everyone on either side is on the same page. You can avoid so much drama that way.