Here are some of my views to give you an idea of the type of player/GM I am. What makes a strong player. - A player that can stay true to character knowledge and not ruin an exchange with player knowledge - A player that considers the fun and character fulfillment of others at the table. - A player who can accept a ruling or wait until after a session to discuss it further. - An active and reliable member. What makes a poor player. - Poor reasoning skills, acts rashly, or doesn't think before making decisions that affect more than one's own character. - Inability to separate real world morality from D&D and racial cultural morality. - Characters who build their characters with antagonistic qualities in mind. An example of this would not be a character which has political stances that oppose the party, but rather designing a character as a shape-shifter under the pretense of the party not knowing. - Players that detour the entire party through chatter, or with objectives the character would not have an earnest interest in. What makes a good DM - Someone who makes time for players to resolve side quests or personal motivations outside of the session. - Someone who respects party direction and doesn't get upset if the party's interest leads the game in a direction other than what the Gm intended. Shoehorn/linear campaigns feel awkward and unimmersive. - Someone who puts a lot of time and effort towards writing and creating a vast world with characters that feel 3 dimensional. - Someone who understands that it's ok that players don't all agree, and it's ok for players to think differently. And one should not incentivise or reward players for thinking like the GM, but rather for the effort they put into the campaign and the variety/diversity and fun they bring to the table. What makes a poor DM - Superiority complex. Being able to decide rulings does not mean you get to be a cunt while doing it. - One dimensional campaign morality. Writes characters in black or white means. D&D has nine alignments for a reason. All of them can be played without creating a campaign problem, and it falls on the PC to figure out how. - Stale and poorly designed combat encounters. This also includes unfair mechanics or combat encounters tailored towards trying to limit PC abilities instead of adjusting the combat so that PCs should use their abilities in unique or creative ways. - Being afraid to kill PCs. Holding hands makes for a boring time. I am a truly veteran player. I enjoy role playing characters which think differently than I do because it breeds interesting games and scenarios. I'm a strong mechanics player that normally plays as a GM. I very strictly stick to character actions, meaning I do not sacrifice character integrity for convenience in the campaign. A character that has dedicated their life to abolishing slavery does not decide over night that some slavery is ok just because a party member recently bought a slave. Nor do they relinquish that belief because it helps move the plot forward. That's sloppy writing. A proper GM understands this before trying to force a party down their narrow plot point. What is the point in roleplay if it only lasts up until we disagree with the character? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, I have some questions for you. 1. Why did this player rage quit your campaign? 2. Why as a player should I want to be a part of your campaign? 3. How long has this campaign run for? 4. What is your favorite dessert?
