Gaming Styles and Avoiding Conflict

[Quixotic1]

(Warning: rant ahead)

(A bit of background: my games tend to be very well-defined in their goal, with a tight structure. My friend has made it no secret that he prefers games that have multiple goals and an open structure, with plenty of opportunities for the players to explore the world or possibly create parts of it. They admit that my games are fun and that I am a skilled GM, and I have only recently noticed my tendency towards a certain sort of game, and I've been trying to branch out.)

A friend and I were discussing ttrgs. I mentioned some articles I'd recently read about adventure and encounter design that were pretty mind-blowing for me. I was pretty excited about it.
My friend was pretty chilly to the subject, saying that these articles were only one way to approach gaming.
I tried to explain that part of what made these articles so valuable to me was that they weren't really dedicated to a super-specific style of play. They would make any game they were included in better.
I compared different styles of games to different kinds of cake; black forest isn't better or worse than angelfood, it's just different. And there are good and bad examples of both. Adding the right amount of sugar will make a cake better than adding the incorrect amount, regardless of what kind it is.
My friend seemed to be hurt by that remark, accusing me of basically saying that open, character-driven games are worse than more restrictive ones.
I tried to explain that this was not my opinion at all, but they abruptly ended the conversation.

I texted them a while later, asking if they were upset and saying that it really wasn't my intention to make them so, if they were. A week later, they told me they had been too busy to reply to any texts.
We have not spoken on the subject since.

Recently, I found out that they has been complaining about me/our conversation to other people. So it's clear they're not really passed it, and they still feel wronged.

So. Man. I dunno. On one hand, it's important to me that people--especially people that I call my friends--understand where I'm coming from and that I do not hold this narrow-minded or elitist opinion that they seem to think I do.
On the other hand...I think I've gone to significant lengths to explain just that, and that at this point, they seem to be almost willfully misunderstanding me.

I feel like a big point of contention with a conversation like this is all this terminology we use (see thread "Definition of Some Term"). When I say "open structure", I do not mean "unplanned" or "character-driven". But that's not the definition everyone uses. And I try to be clear about what I mean and consistent in the way I talk about it.

Has anyone else run into issues like this, where people seem to have their guard up so high that nothing can get past--even civil discourse? Or just difficulties in talking about the hobby?

[KorvinStarmast]

Have you visited this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?645164-Maybe-it-s-quot-Authored-quot-vs-quot-Emergent-quot), perchance? :smallwink:

[Quixotic1]

Have you visited this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?645164-Maybe-it-s-quot-Authored-quot-vs-quot-Emergent-quot), perchance? :smallwink: Now I have. Thanks for that.

Yeah, that's touching on some of the issues here, for sure.

One thing I always want to do in my games is provide a high-quality experience that satisfies players on as many levels as I can manage (see: the eight types of engagement).
And all that means I need to prepare stuff.

Now, I've run plenty of games that were largely GM-driven. The characters are faced with a situation or an occurrence and have to react. And I like to keep the pressure on them, keep them moving, keep things tense. That all falls under "authored" by those terms.

But I've also run games where I'm like, "here's this place. Check it out." And that's much more in line with this other category. But...once the players decide they want to take the job as sellswords for Darius Von Buchenhoft or explore the Echoing Caves Beyond Time or whatever...I can't just be 100% reactive to that. I need to prepare *something*, if it's going to be good.

And that's where those articles I read would come into play.

I don't know. My old friend has been really pushing me to game with this guy they know, and my friend clearly thinks that sitting in on a few sessions will Open My Eyes To The Truth.
But jeeze. I'm not against character driven games or "sandboxes" (though I dislike that term almost as much as "railroading"). I'm all for all of it.

The more I look at it, the less it feels like the issue is my opinion. I think it's just me.

[False God]

Well yes, and it's not just limited to gaming. Some folks see any presentation of alternate ways of "doing things" as an attack on themselves, often because they have heavily invested a large portion of themselves in the subject matter.

If your friend is trashing you behind your back, I'd strongly question if they are actually your friend.

Like gaming groups themselves, sometimes you gotta part ways if you simply cannot reconcile your differences.

[kyoryu]

A friend and I were discussing ttrgs. I mentioned some articles I'd recently read about adventure and encounter design that were pretty mind-blowing for me. I was pretty excited about it.
My friend was pretty chilly to the subject, saying that these articles were only one way to approach gaming.

The implication here is that there's something in those articles that they didn't like. Without knowing what the article is, it's hard to judge what that may be.


I tried to explain that part of what made these articles so valuable to me was that they weren't really dedicated to a super-specific style of play. They would make any game they were included in better.

Paraphrased:

Friend: "I don't want this, it is not fun to me."
You: "It will make any game better."
Friend: "I just said I don't like it."

That's not going to go well.


I compared different styles of games to different kinds of cake; black forest isn't better or worse than angelfood, it's just different. And there are good and bad examples of both. Adding the right amount of sugar will make a cake better than adding the incorrect amount, regardless of what kind it is.

And yet it is possible that people like angel food, but not black forest cherry, or vice versa.

And if someone hates cherries, the "right" amount of cherries is none. Trying to convince them otherwise generally doesn't work.


My friend seemed to be hurt by that remark, accusing me of basically saying that open, character-driven games are worse than more restrictive ones.
I tried to explain that this was not my opinion at all, but they abruptly ended the conversation.

I'm guessing the articles were talking about something that was primarily about how to make more restrictive games. If I had to double-guess, I'd hazard a guess that it was about some kind of illusionism techniques.


I texted them a while later, asking if they were upset and saying that it really wasn't my intention to make them so, if they were. A week later, they told me they had been too busy to reply to any texts.
We have not spoken on the subject since.

That's not okay. Though I'd be curious how the actual conversation went.


So. Man. I dunno. On one hand, it's important to me that people--especially people that I call my friends--understand where I'm coming from and that I do not hold this narrow-minded or elitist opinion that they seem to think I do.
On the other hand...I think I've gone to significant lengths to explain just that, and that at this point, they seem to be almost willfully misunderstanding me.

I dunno, sounds more like they don't feel like they're being heard. Like, you're telling them about how many cherries to use and they don't like cherries, but you're insisting there's a right amount.


I feel like a big point of contention with a conversation like this is all this terminology we use (see thread "Definition of Some Term"). When I say "open structure", I do not mean "unplanned" or "character-driven". But that's not the definition everyone uses. And I try to be clear about what I mean and consistent in the way I talk about it.

Has anyone else run into issues like this, where people seem to have their guard up so high that nothing can get past--even civil discourse? Or just difficulties in talking about the hobby?

I find that getting concrete helps.

Also, people just like different things. And that needs to be accepted. You're not going to talk someone into liking something they don't. The best you can really do is "hey, why don't we give it a shot?"



One thing I always want to do in my games is provide a high-quality experience that satisfies players on as many levels as I can manage (see: the eight types of engagement).
And all that means I need to prepare stuff.

You may be optimizing for things that your players don't care about. Like, these are two valid conversations:

GM A: "So, yeah, I prepare a bunch of stuff because I want to make sure there are awesome encounters, but that means that you're kinda gonna go through them and not have as much freedom."
Player A: "But we want that freedom."
GM A: "But that means you won't get awesome encounters."
Player A: "I'm okay with that."

GM B: "So, yeah, I don't prepare a bunch of stuff because I want to make sure you've got as much freedom as possible, and I don't want to lock you into a path. The cost of that is that you won't get as awesome of tailored encounters."
Player B: "But we want those encounters."
GM B: "But that means you won't get as much freedom at that level."
Player B: "I'm okay with that."


Now, I've run plenty of games that were largely GM-driven. The characters are faced with a situation or an occurrence and have to react. And I like to keep the pressure on them, keep them moving, keep things tense. That all falls under "authored" by those terms.

Authored games are fine, and have a lot of advantages. But some people don't like the costs, and don't care about the advantages.


But I've also run games where I'm like, "here's this place. Check it out." And that's much more in line with this other category. But...once the players decide they want to take the job as sellswords for Darius Von Buchenhoft or explore the Echoing Caves Beyond Time or whatever...I can't just be 100% reactive to that. I need to prepare *something*, if it's going to be good.

For some people, the ability to do that is how they define good. How tailored the encounters are is irrelevant. So you're saying "I can't do X because of Y" but it sounds like your players may not care about Y.


And that's where those articles I read would come into play.

I'd really like to see those. Because it really really really sounds like they're pushing at illusionism - making it look like people have freedom, while guiding towards the encounters you set up.


I don't know. My old friend has been really pushing me to game with this guy they know, and my friend clearly thinks that sitting in on a few sessions will Open My Eyes To The Truth.
But jeeze. I'm not against character driven games or "sandboxes" (though I dislike that term almost as much as "railroading"). I'm all for all of it.

Try it, or don't.

Some people like different things, and that's okay. And sometimes GMs and players want different things, and that's okay, too. You either compromise, or accept that your game preferences are incompatible.


The more I look at it, the less it feels like the issue is my opinion. I think it's just me.

No, it sounds like a fundamental difference in what you and your players expect out of gaming. Which is 100% okay, you just need to acknowledge and accept it.

[Pauly]

This is the result of long term disagreement, not the reasonableness or otherwise of either party’s position.
If you like X and you tell your friend who has no history of disagreement over X “here is a cool thing about X”, then normal discussion goes on.
If you like X and your friend likes Y and you’ve had a history of disagreement and say “here is a cool thing about X”, then the person who likes Y receives the message as
- X is superior to Y/Y is inferior to X
- You should like X/you're wrong for liking Y
- this is another salvo in the war
- it’s an attempt to proselytize someone who doesn't want to be converted
You’re not pushing a button in isolation, you’re pushing a button that links to many other buttons.
Saying ‘It’s just an interesting discussion point” can be seen as post hoc butt covering, not a sincere explanation of your position.

An additional question does your friend GM?
The people I run into who are most insistent about sandbox good, railways bad tend to be players who don’t GM. As an analogy I used to live near a university where most of the undergrads didn’t drive either because they didn’t have a license or didn’t have a car. So they rode bicycles everywhere. They would ride at night in dark clothes with no lights on their bikes, they would ride on the wrong side of the street, they would ride on the road when there was a perfectly good bikeway 5 meters off the road, they would cross the street on a green walk sign without looking for cars, they would come up the inside of a turning lane and then go straight across in front of turning cars. In short it was terrifying to drive near the university of the cyclists with an apparent deathwish,
Yet when you talked to them they complained about how bad the local drivers were. However their song changed within a week of them finally getting a car and starting to drive.
The criticism comes from a lack of understanding of what the other person has to do.

[Quixotic1]

If your friend is trashing you behind your back, I'd strongly question if they are actually your friend.Well, we've been friends for over two decades. So I'd be hesitant to toss that out over (what seems to be) an entirelt unnecessary conflict.
But yeah. Some friends are better than others, in this way or that. And this friend...well. I guess I feel like they have very little trouble offering criticism and significantly more receiving it. To the point that they are offended by perceived criticism that was not actually offered.


It's often fraught. There's a lot of history, and people tend to have very strong opinions about things.

I'd be curious which articles these were, and what their preferred style of play was?I can see that.

The articles were by The Angry GM. Talking about adventure and encounter design. There was one part about how the beginning and the end of a game should go by faster than the middle; the intro is less exciting than the action part itself, and the moment you can reliably predict if you've won or lost, there's obviously less tension. And he showed how the way he drew the map for his little dungeon, all of that was considered and accounted for. I just thought that was cool; the very size and shape of the rooms and hallways encouraged this rather sutble aspect of game design. I thought it was impressive.
But to be clear, I never got that far in our conversation. I basically said "I read these articles about X and Y and they're so cool," and the reply was essentially "meh" followed quickly by "you're a jerk".

Their preferred style is...hm. I don't always think they know what they want. But they are currently into original Dungeons & Dragons and the very open-ended, player-driven games that system was designed for.

[KorvinStarmast]

The articles were by The Angry GM. {snip} But to be clear, I never got that far in our conversation. I basically said "I read these articles about X and Y and they're so cool," and the reply was essentially "meh" followed quickly by "you're a jerk". here's what might be going on.

Some people simply can't handle Angry GM's writing style. His book, which he had to edit to keep it manageable, really tones down the annoying schtick and is decent. His blog has a lot of good info but he clutters it up with attitude.
Many people just turn off anything with his name on it as a reflex.

Which is a pity, as some of his ideas are damned good.

[kyoryu]

Was it this one?

https://theangrygm.com/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/

Also note I edited my original response to you :)

[Pauly]

here's what might be going on.

Some people simply can't handle Angry GM's writing style. His book, which he had to edit to keep it manageable, really tones down the annoying schtick and is decent. His blog has a lot of good info but he clutters it up with attitude.
Many people just turn off anything with his name on it as a reflex.

Which is a pity, as some of his ideas are damned good.

I’ll second this.

Before now I knew he existed but hadn’t read any of his stuff. I tried to read the article, but the attitude just turned me off. I found it deeply unpleasant and patronizing and in the end I decided not to bother continue reading because the fertilizer to pony ratio was too great for me.

[kyoryu]

here's what might be going on.

Some people simply can't handle Angry GM's writing style. His book, which he had to edit to keep it manageable, really tones down the annoying schtick and is decent. His blog has a lot of good info but he clutters it up with attitude.
Many people just turn off anything with his name on it as a reflex.

Which is a pity, as some of his ideas are damned good.

For sure.

Also, a lot of language he uses in his articles, while I find it useful, is anathema to certain groups - "stakes", "story questions", thing like that. There's a lot of (gamer) cultural signifiers in there.

If the players involved are hardcore simulationists, even asking "what are the stakes" can trigger that kind of a reaction, as the response is often "the stakes are there's spiders there! It's what spiders do! Stop with the story stuff!" even though it can be understood as "why don't the spiders leave/run? Why do the players fight instead of not fighting?"

[Easy e]

To be 100% clear, are you asking how to make-up with your friend, or are you asking for something else?

[BRC]

I tried to explain that part of what made these articles so valuable to me was that they weren't really dedicated to a super-specific style of play. They would make any game they were included in better.

While there is probably something else going on, I feel like if anything from what you've told us could produce this sort of response, it would be this sentence. I don't know exactly how the conversation went but this seems like the only thing that could have been extrapolated?

There is literally no technique, philosophy, or mindset that cannot be grouped under some definition of "Style of Game". Therefore, the statement of "This advice will ALWAYS improve your game, no matter what style of game you're going for" can get taken as "There is a correct Style of Game, and these articles help you achieve it".


Even something as innocuous as "Here is how to design encounters for more interesting tactical battles!" carries with it several assumptions about goals. Some people don't especially want to solve complex tactical puzzles, they just want to roll dice and watch goblins explode. Some people just want to wind up a powerful build and see what it can do without dealing with a bunch of Frustration caused by terrain. Some people want to build characters for RP reasons, and don't want to worry about optimization, so the idea of "interesting tactical battles" that test a player's strategic reasoning forces them to navigate their fun but non-optimized build through an obstacle course designed to force reasonably optimized characters to fight smart. Some people say that if you are pre-planning encounters to the point where you can design specific tactical battles, then you're game isn't sufficiently open ended.


More specifically, I'd speculate that your friend has read, and thoroughly disagreed with, similar articles. There's a LOT of writing about how to play TTRPGs online.

So the conversation goes like this

"I just read this great article about how to run a game!"
"Those articles don't apply to the types of games I want to run"
"No, you see, this applies to literally any type of game!"

What you hear is

"I just read this great article about how to run a game!"
"Those articles don't apply to the types of games I want to run"
"These articles are different from the ones you've read in the past, because they are universal

What your friend hears is
"I just read this great article about how to run a game!"
"Those articles don't apply to the types of games I want to run"
"If these articles don't apply to your style of game, then you are running the wrong type of game"


The split continues with the Cake metaphor. You think you're saying "No matter what type of cake you're making, it's important to use the right amount of sugar". You think you're saying "Some games are Angelfood, some games are Black Forest"

Your friend hears "There is a Correct Way to run Games, similar to getting a recipe right." He hears "Some games have the Correct Amount of Sugar, some have the Wrong Amount of Sugar".

[Quixotic1]

The implication here is that there's something in those articles that they didn't like. Without knowing what the article is, it's hard to judge what that may be.Allow me to state, again: I said I had read some articles. I described their general subject. In less than ten words.
I never got a chance to talk about what they actually contained. We never got that far.



Friend: "I don't want this, it is not fun to me."
You: "It will make any game better."
Friend: "I just said I don't like it."

That's not going to go well....of course not. But when someone says they don't like something before they've even heard what it is, that's a little less "me trying to oppress their gaming experience" as you seem to be making it out to be.



...it is possible that people like angel food, but not black forest cherry, or vice versa.

And if someone hates cherries, the "right" amount of cherries is none. Trying to convince them otherwise generally doesn't work.I'm sorry. I...don't really understand what you're trying to say. I said that neither is better or worse than the other, right?
And in my metaphor, I'm not talking about cherries. I'm talking about sugar. Both need sugar, or something like it.
Using a metaphor as a springboard for another metaphor seems like a good way for things to get confusing, and quick.


I'm guessing the articles were talking about something that was primarily about how to make more restrictive games. If I had to double-guess, I'd hazard a guess that it was about some kind of illusionism techniques.No, it was about game design and how to balance preparing ahead of time and improvising, I believe.


That's not okay. Though I'd be curious how the actual conversation went.As accurately as I can recall:

"...I read these articles about adventure and encounter design that kind of blew my mind."

"Well, that's one approach, anyway."

"That's the thing. I feel like it can be applied to pretty much any game. How open or restricted the structure or who's driving the narrative doesn't really change how this stuff could help a game."

"Okay. Whatever."

"What?"

"Well, you basically just said that open, character-driven games are worse."

"...no, that's not what I'm saying at all."

"Okay. Well, I gotta go."



I dunno, sounds more like they don't feel like they're being heard. Like, you're telling them about how many cherries to use and they don't like cherries, but you're insisting there's a right amount.I...am kind of getting the feeling like maybe this is striking some sort of personal nerve.
No one's talking about cherries, here. Nothing is good or bad, just different.
And I'm sorry, but some things ARE good for all games. Like...speaking coherently, in a language everyone in the group understands. Or not punching people in the face randomly. And, I would put forth, understanding concepts related to story structure and game design.
Now, I am not saying that playing a ttrpg is the same thing as telling a story. They're not. But they have some things in common. If you're a good story-teller when you've got everyone gathered 'round the campfire, that'll help you in certain aspects of gamemastering. Just like being a good actor gives you tools you can use as a GM or player, or being good at math (for most games, anyway).


Also, people just like different things. And that needs to be accepted.Actually, this friend of mine loves to buy new games and push them on people. I've sat down and learned quite a few systems at their request.


You may be optimizing for things that your players don't care about.I feel like those two conversations are fairly unrealistic, at least from what I've seen of the gaming community.
It's a balancing act between preparation and improvisation, always.
The last few games I invited my friend to, I was like, "I'm gonna run this game. It's this sort of genre and sub-genre. It'll take place over here. The premise is as follows." --I mean. If that ain't clear enough, I'd like to see what is. And if it's not what you want, don't agree to join. Please.


Authored games are fine, and have a lot of advantages. But some people don't like the costs, and don't care about the advantages.The more I've read of that thread, the less useful I found the term "authored".
I'm currently running a game that is very open in its scene structure; the players have full control over where they go, what they do and how.
It is, from scene to scene, very character-driven. They do, I react. Occasionally that switches, of course. But overall I'd say they drive at least 70% of itm
But there's also a single, vital goal that the characters are in pursuit of. The game will end when they've succeeded or failed to reach that goal.

I'm sure a hundred people would have a hundred opinions on which category and sub-category this game belonged in, but a game is a complicated, multi-faceted thing. Trying to shove them all into one of two boxes seems both hopeless and pointless.


For some people, the ability to do that is how they define good. How tailored the encounters are is irrelevant. So you're saying "I can't do X because of Y" but it sounds like your players may not care about Y.This one player has been...difficult for me in the recent past, yes. We actually had a very long conversation a year or so ago where I had to confront them about how poorly they'd treated me over the course of a game I ran, and how hypocritical they had been when they ran their own game. That particular conversation ended with a full concession and an apology on their part.
Which is part of why I'm so baffled that we're back in this annoying situation again. I just...I guess I don't enjoy this feeling of "you'd better be ready to defend your views to me...but I will get SUPER UPSET if you challenge my opinion, or even just fail to agree hard enough." I mean. We're friends. I don't like walking on eggshells while simultaneously warding off attacks. I wouldn't like that from a stranger. Why can't people be kind?

Everyone else at my table is more than satisfied with the games I run, to put it very, very mildly.


I'd really like to see those. Because it really really really sounds like they're pushing at illusionism - making it look like people have freedom, while guiding towards the encounters you set up.I don't really want to dig through the archives to find them, sorry. You're welcome to take a peek. When you find the bit about an abandoned mine with some kobolds, you're there.
I don't know why it "really really really" sounds like anything so bad as that. Unless you just don't like his articles in general?
Which...sure. Like what you like. But I really don't feel the need to defend th value I see in his stuff to you, sorry.


This is the result of long term disagreementIs it? Because that would be news to me. I don't dislike any of the stuff they're talking about. I enjoy and respect it. I find it interesting and worth pursuing.


You’re not pushing a button in isolation, you’re pushing a button that links to many other buttons.This. I feel like my friend has been not-so-subtly pushing the envelope for a year or two, now.
Like, it's not enough for me to like this new direction they've taken the hobby; I need to renounce my old ways and bow before their superior preferences.


An additional question does your friend GM?
The people I run into who are most insistent about sandbox good, railways bad tend to be players who don’t GM.They do. I just don't know if they're good at it. The last game they ran was...I was pretty mad that we spent 12 hours playing that game. Especially after all the condescending through character creation, and the difficulties I had when then as a player in my concurrent game.


here's what might be going on...Some people simply can't handle Angry GM's writing style.100% agree. He pretends to be an obnoxious jerk to cover up the fact that he is, in all likelihood, at least somewhat obnoxious and somewhat jerky.

And that would make sense...if my friend has ever read any of his stuff. Which they have not.


Was it this one?

https://theangrygm.com/how-to-build-awesome-encounters/No, you need to dig quite a bit deeper than that.

[Quixotic1]

To be 100% clear, are you asking how to make-up with your friend, or are you asking for something else?I asked "has anyone else run into issues like this, where people seem to have their guard up so high that nothing can get past--even civil discourse? Or just difficulties in talking about the hobby?"

...but I also put in that warning about this being a rant for good reason. I would never in my life come to an online forum for advice on how to interact with a friend. That...no. I'd go to a therapist or someone, maybe. Or talk with a mutual friend.
But no; moments like this are just intensely frustrating for me. I'm not "in touch" with the gaming community in really any way. Half of all my gaming experience is with the same 4-7 people. So these rifts are just...they strike me as very, very trivial. I know that they're not to a lot of people; that's just my initial knee-jerk reaction.

[Quixotic1]

You think you're saying "No matter what type of cake you're making, it's important to use the right amount of sugar". You think you're saying "Some games are Angelfood, some games are Black Forest"

Your friend hears "There is a Correct Way to run Games, similar to getting a recipe right." He hears "Some games have the Correct Amount of Sugar, some have the Wrong Amount of Sugar". Yeah, that could be.

But wow. You'd think, if that were the case, then saying "hey. I hope I didn't upset you earlier. I wasn't trying to say that any one type of cake is better than any other" would clear that up.

I don't know. I've heard people on here talk about the differences between roleplaying games and storytelling games...it's like a genuinely traumatic subject for some people, apparently. But my friend is not one of them. They weren't part of those discussions on The Forge or any of that stuff.
Actually, I mentioned those discussions to my friend, a while back. They were like "...who cares? That's all dumb." I don't know. Maybe the other people they're hanging out with have had a profound influence over them. Maybe they just feel like I need to be taken down a peg.

I think I can safely say that, after going over everything on here, I know what to do.

[jjordan]

I texted them a while later, asking if they were upset and saying that it really wasn't my intention to make them so, if they were. A week later, they told me they had been too busy to reply to any texts.
We have not spoken on the subject since.

Recently, I found out that they has been complaining about me/our conversation to other people. So it's clear they're not really passed it, and they still feel wronged.
You should not be dating playing a D&D game with this person. You want different things. So, as the color hopefully made clear, I'm making something of a joke. Except I'm also not. Dating is a kind of social relationship and so is D&D gaming, so there are parallels. In this case you both have different styles of play and want different things out of that play. If you can't have a conversation and come to an agreement, and it seems your friend isn't interested in conversing, then you're probably better off splitting up, in gaming terms. Which isn't to say you can't still be friends. Not being friends might be the outcome, though.

I wish you luck.

[icefractal]

Which is part of why I'm so baffled that we're back in this annoying situation again. I just...I guess I don't enjoy this feeling of "you'd better be ready to defend your views to me...but I will get SUPER UPSET if you challenge my opinion, or even just fail to agree hard enough." I mean. We're friends. I don't like walking on eggshells while simultaneously warding off attacks. I wouldn't like that from a stranger. Why can't people be kind?This is sadly not uncommon. A lot of AITA questions involve people who're self-proclaimed "brutally honest" or "tell it like it is", but really they're just thin-skinned bullies who whine and act super-hurt if anyone tries being blunt with them.

Personally, I wouldn't expend much effort on placating people like that, because it will always be a one-sided relationship. But YMMV, it depends on how good a friend they are in other ways.

[Faily]

I think the best approach is to talk about it, without using any metaphors to describe games or gaming styles. Explain that you didn't mean to hurt them with what you said and also note that you feel that there might have been a misunderstanding or miscommunication. That you found some articles to be helpful for *your* GMing style is not an attack on his person or personal tastes.

Simply put: a game in which players and GM alike are having fun is a Good Game. To get this, compromise has to be made very often to accomodate different preferences, with most leeway being given to the GM usually as they are the ones who have to put in the work to create a game.

I personally don't follow Angry GM and what he writes, but I see value in hearing and reading different opinions/takes on how to improve as a GM (and as a player too). It is the same as with my other hobbies (drawing, painting, painting minis, writing); gaining other perspectives and learning new techniques can potentially improve your own skills within your hobby. Likewise, you might also find things you absolutely don't like or don't want to try. In that vein, you might learn something from sitting in on a session with this person that your friend thinks is really awesome. It could also be a way of showing some goodwill between you two after the conflict.

[Quixotic1]

You should not be dating playing a D&D game with this person. You want different things.Yeah, I dunno. They're having a lot of fun in the ChroD game I'm running. They've even praised it and me to their other gaming friends.
And I don't *not* want what they're talking about with the Old School Renaissance or anything. There's a lot of stuff in there that's really awesome.
I do have some serious doubts about this whole "authored" game stuff; I would greatly like to see the synopsis of a game that was totally, 100% un-authored...but then, my friend has said that they agree with me on that. I mean, they spoke much more vehemently about it than I do. So it just doesn't seem like that's it at all.
Hm.

Thanks for your time.

[Easy e]

Well, I think the easiest way to "solve" the issue is to just play games together, relax, and have fun. Just be friends, and not get too worked up about any of this TTRPG theory crafting.

Don't worry too much about "style" or "What type of game is this", as ultimately it is pointless navel-gazing.

The doing is the thing with TTRPGs, and then just ask for feedback on how it went, what they liked, parts they did not like, etc. This will help you make the game your group needs/wants to play.

Oh yeah, you also did nothing wrong. Your friend did nothing wrong. What happened is just part of the human condition. Play some games and move on.

Edit: Also, Dale Carnegie says that the best way to avoid an argument, is not to have one. Simple really.

[Quixotic1]

Sure. Like I said, I'm not really looking for anyone to tell me how to "solve" the situation.
And I really don't worry about style or "what type of game this is"; that seems to be how this problem came to be, actually. And my confusion and lack of concern on this topic is definitely how I ended up causing such s commotion on this forum in the past.

And yeah. Again, I'm not really worried about how to run games. My players enjoy my games pretty thoroughly.

I would also disagree that no wrong was done. I accidentally offended them. They ignored my attempts to make ammends and willfully set out on their current course.

Thank you all for your time. Once more, I really don't need advice on friendships or communication or whatever. And if I did, I would seek it elsewhere. Thanks again.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: thread closed.