|
Leperflesh posted:I feel like I've heard rumors and descriptions of gaming clubs like this that are more common/still exist in the UK, but more focused on tabletop wargames like warhammer, historicals, etc. Often with a clubhouse or community space where shared resources like model terrain and gaming tables can be located. Pop down to the game club to get in a game of epic 40k with whoever happens to be around, or maybe organize a blood bowl league, or maybe just hang out and paint a mini and shoot the poo poo. Can confirm these still exist for historicals as the one I'm in on Thursday has existed for at least 40 years, but was largely focussed on historicals for most of that. More recently, it's expanded to modern board games, which also work well within that model. They do occasionally do RPGs, but always as long term campaigns within fixed groups. I've never heard of one with a static "open-to-all-at-any-time" clubhouse, though. Space is expensive and nobody wants to hang around on the off-chance that someone else arrives wanting a game. The only time I've seen that happen is with free gaming rooms in FLGSes and playing CCGs.
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
aldantefax posted:First, it is important to understand the deeper mechanics of why a gaming group fails. This usually comes down to one of three categories: I think a better definition of "failure" is needed here. The assumption seems to be that a gaming group fails if it breaks up, but any and all of these conditions can exist in a gaming group without it breaking up - for any number of reasons. I'm pretty sure people in gaming chats online have seen that skeleton GIF with "if it sucks hit da bricks" on it posted multiple times and there's usually resistance to that. Suppose a group of people who are so meek and/or desperate that they will never break the group up no matter how bad a time they're having because the alternative is staring alone at the walls and contemplating death. If the only criteria for "not failing" is "not breaking up", this group is incredibly successful. That does not seem a good standard to work to! quote:I remember when I was growing up I played Dungeons and Dragons with my buddy on the curb of our small town suburb rolling dice and fiddling through an already old and beat up copy of the Player’s Handbook and Dungeon Master’s Guide, making up monsters as we went and challenges. We’d also get together with whoever we could find and play during lunches at school, after school, and pull marathon gaming sessions on the weekends. We took advantage of every single moment of time and place and we didn’t have to wait for the stars to align to get playing - we just played with whoever we had, wherever we could, whenever we could. Comparisons to anything that happened in childhood have to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. It's the old OSR fallacy that if you set up play like you did when you were a kid, it will feel that way again. But it's only new once, and adult standards are different. quote:Here’s an example from D&D 5th edition. Someone who is a spellcaster, say a wizard, is deathly afraid of melee combat. Why? They are mechanically reinforced to have all kinds of different abilities, but melee combat is not one of them. They don’t have a specific power on their character sheet that tells them they are ‘good’ at hitting people with a weapon. This can be equated (falsely) to video game logic - if you are not explicitly granted permission to do something, you can’t do it. The key note here is that is the rules which encourage a very specific style of play as a result, and when the structure constrains the freedom of expression of the player or coerces them into thinking a certain way, very often players and referees develop certain habits without realizing it. I'm not sure how this is an example of lack of structure. It's a very clear structure that's trying to balance that PC out. Whether or not it succeeds in the case of 5e is another matter, but certainly in PF2e casters should be scared of getting into melee. I was a bit sad to see this because the effects of a lack of actual structure, "tyranny of structurelessness", are a frequent problem in gaming groups.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2022 11:09
|
|
|
I certainly wasn't intending to poo poo on any fond memories. The point was only that what provided group enjoyment as a child is not necessarily what will do so as an adult. While I accept that the word "tyranny" makes the phrase fairly loaded, the article with that title and the principle have a good point: that it is very difficult to create a group that does something and that actually has no structure, the only difference is if the structure is explicit or not.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
aldantefax posted:there are a rather high amount of people who feel disempowered to do so even if you explicitly state that the game is ready for them to latch onto This sounds scarily like me.. is there any reason for this or solution?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2023 17:24
|
|