|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 1:21PM
#11
|
|
|
I keep hearing horror stories about bad players... without ever having experienced anything nearly as bad myself. My views aren't likely to line up with the OPs simply because of different experiences. I have experienced problem players but nothing on the scale of some of the stories I have heard on the internet. I would hope that they just exagerations... but that would require more faith in humanity that I can muster up.
I have played games with a lot of character conflict. Some of these games have been a lot of fun. One important rule to keep in mind: what happens IC stays IC... never at any point should you allow it to translate into OOC. If players are having problems with that then perhaps they shouldn't be playing RPGs at all. It isn't a healthy past time for people who can't seperate reality from fiction (and everything that happens in character is fictional).
As for characters with different motivations... that can cause problems occasionally. The GM should at least be trying to craft circumstances so that they are all flowing in roughly the same direction though. GMs, particularly inexperienced ones, need to recognise their own limitations and need to be able to veto character concepts if they don't think that they will work in their campaign. Evil characters in good groups don't tend to work well... unless they are smart enough to hide the fact that they are evil from the rest of the group.
Some characters are jerks. Some players are jerks. If a non-jerk is playing a jerk then they will be aware that their character is a jerk and should be prepared to tone it down if they are ruining the game for everyone else. They shouldn't need to be told this. Some jerks play jerks (usually they are unaware that they are being jerks at all). That is a problem that isn't going to be solved by twenty chapters of guidelines telling them how to play. If they haven't grasped normal etiquette don't expect them to grasp table etiquette.
As for planning arguments... being able to say 'I told you so' should be enough. Bringing real world money into it is breaking my rule No. 1... that would be the one about keeping IC and OOC seperate.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 1:26PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
The usual problem with PCs behaving like jerks is that there's an implicit "Keep the party together" tradition in most RPGs. Someone who acts like a jerk in the real world gets shunned, but you can't really do that in a game without also shunning the player.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 1:37PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2007
|
I think that every player has to come up with the following: 1. Why is my character adventuring? 2. Why with the rest of party? 3. Why should they adventure with me? 4. Why should I treat the party fairly? These are somewhat setting dependent. On a game set in a sinking ocean liner, the fact that you were onboard is sufficient for #1. In a standard D&D dungeon-crawl oriented game, you really have to work on all three if the party is overall evil, and you want to run a pacifist sage-type character. As a player, when someone introduces a new character, you need to cut them some slack, and address the following: 1. Why am I letting this person adventure with us? 2. How can I treat that character in such a way that it is plausible that he or she continues to adventure with us? 3. Why should I treat that character fairly? The difficulty is with edge cases. I had a character who was pretty darn amoral. I could easily have run her as a cheating, backstabbing, party-loot stealing, trouble-making instigator. Instead, I took a different tack. She would have answered the questions as follows (1st set, then second set): 1. For the excitement, and money. 2. It is safer with more people. 3. I kill people really well. 4. I happen to like , and , and it would make them unhappy if I were to kill , so I won't.
There is an implied social contract that says
A "I will not bring in a character to the campaign that is too disruptive."
B "If someone brings in a new character, I will try to fit them into the campaign."
This means that I won't bring in a dwarf-hating, vampiric elf into a dwarven party, or a 2nd edition paladin to a thieve's guild party. It also means that I will figure out a way, in our mostly elven party, to figure out why we will let a dwarf in.
The breakdown occurs under the following conditions (and probably others):
1. Someone relies on B, the willingness of players to accept new party members (new character from old players, for example), to bring in something really disruptive. I've known people who specialized in this.
2. Someone, usually several characters, take advantage of A, and exploit a new character. This is often done with the (inadvertant?) help of the DM. I've seen new members given no treasure for several sessions because they are on probation, ignored in discussions etc.
3. The other breakdown is when people rely on "that is what my character would do", and "my character has no way of knowing that is a PC, so I have no reason to give them a break" to force someone to play what they want. It may make sense for an adventuring party which needs a rogue to have some sort of audition. It is up to the person who wants to bring in the new rogue character to make one which is plausible to win the audition, it is up to the DM to make sure that no NPC clearly wins, and it is up to the existing players to figure out how to interpret things so that the new character wins. Having to generate three rogues because the first two were turned down due to race, or due to not having skills which weren't explained were necessary is pretty annoying.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 1:51PM
#14
|
|
|
I don't think it should be done in terms of 'rules' or even coercion to play a certain way. I think talking about it, at least in general terms, would be beneficial. If nothing else it should be brought up so that it can start a table discussion about it. It is interesting that some DMGs spend the bulk of their pages on 'how to be a good DM' but none of the PHBs do the same.
When we wrote our home D&D version we divided the books somewhat differently than the PHB/DMG/MM convention. We used Character, Mechanics, Setting instead. After I discovered the 4th edition DMG I started on a DM guide because I loved the idea. Now you guys have me thinking that we should also do a Players guide as well.
I definitely understand a general aversion, particularly from a business perspective of "telling people how to play" but to be perfectly honest in my experience there are objectively better ways to play than others. I'm talking about Game Table Etiquette, not style preferences like Gamist vs. Simulationists or High-Fantasy vs. GrimDark. Regardless of the RPG you are playing there are universally better ways to approach being a Player and I just think people should be made to understand this for the sake of the hobby. The problem with discussing things in "general terms" if I take your meaning correctly is like I said in my Original Post: 9/10 a Problem players doesn't know they are a problem player or what part of their behavior is causing a problem and they get defensive and impossible to talk to like an adult about the issue. Just 3 weeks ago this happened in a campaign I'm in: A player in his 30s when told that he was doing the above things and it was not going to be tolerated got so defensive it took a week before he calmed down and stopped crying victim for us to discuss it like rational people and even then he barely understood what it was he was doing because to him that behavior was totally natural. Due to the fact that most problem players are like him, not intentionally doing what it is that is problematic spelling out these behaviors in no uncertain terms is essential to combating them before they get out of hand.
Well, I guess I see it this way:
Ruling or even heavily discouraging something shapes what comes after. If I put in a paragraph (or chapter) about party cooperation maybe most players take it to heart and abide. In doing so they remove the possibility of great story elements that stem from intra-personal conflicts. Moreover, it removes a certain amount of reality (or literary emulation) from the games. In Lord of the Rings the party would have been better off if Boromir hadn't been obsessed with power, pleasing father, and glorifying his homeland (culminating in trying to accost our miniature furry friend for a bit of his bling-bling). However, the story would have suffered had he changed. It's true in real life as well...much of what moves our lives forward is the conflicts and problems we have with those around us...those we depend on or even love.
A table top rpg is not the same thing as a novel and the types of stories and plot elements that work in one do not automatically work in the other, the same can be said about any two story telling mediums. If you have a group who is cool with character flaws and conflicts that's great and I'm glad you have such a mature group but you are probably playing with friends with the same expectations of the game. That is very rare in my experience, I've never seen it in my adult life, only ever in teens with their original group with original gm. Things like flaws or failing are more likely to bother at least one other player than to enhance the story for them, particularly if a flaw prevents the groups success or is annoying.
Let's go a bit more and say that while most players abide the restrictions, one doesn't (either chronically or at least once). Now rather than merely having a discussion about it the likely response of players is to crutch it to the rulebook - "You shouldn't do that because the rules tell you not to." Well, the rules also tell you that x alignment sees things this way, or x culture behaves this way. So now rather than a productive discussion that causes the group to grow you've got a book duel.
I don't really see the issue here. It wouldn't be a book duel if you already ensured the party is made appropriately like you suggest in the second part of the quoted paragraph. If culture X see things this way and alignment Y see it another that is not a problem if the party was built to be compatible in the first place. It would be a party by party bases if certain combination were in conflict and ideally that is prevented before it happens.
If you're talking more about etiquette stuff (like racism, cussing, speaker holding the floor, shifting spotlight, sarcasm/sardonicism, etc) then you're talking about group preference, not game design.
That wasn't what I was talking about. Game Table Etiquette is a term I use to describe the way people play divorced from any and all aspects of their character. Do they lean back and close their eyes when it is not their turn shutting themselves off to non-verbal communication, do they look at the person who is speaking and do they looks for the non-verbal reactions to that speech on the other people's faces, do they think about what they are going to do turn to turn or form multi-turn plans, do they wait until their initiative to decide what to do, how much time do they spend on their phone, how much OOC discussion do they have, how distracting are they, how do they react to failure, stuff like that. I pay attention to all of those things when I GM and play, I find it extremely useful information to have about people. I find that when I and those I play with pay attention to these things the only source of conflict we ever have is people who won't do this.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 1:52PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
Ruling or even heavily discouraging something shapes what comes after. If I put in a paragraph (or chapter) about party cooperation maybe most players take it to heart and abide. In doing so they remove the possibility of great story elements that stem from intra-personal conflicts. Moreover, it removes a certain amount of reality (or literary emulation) from the games. In Lord of the Rings the party would have been better off if Boromir hadn't been obsessed with power, pleasing father, and glorifying his homeland (culminating in trying to accost our miniature furry friend for a bit of his bling-bling). However, the story would have suffered had he changed. It's true in real life as well...much of what moves our lives forward is the conflicts and problems we have with those around us...those we depend on or even love.
That is very true and I would not want to see something in the DMG to the effect that all party conflict is a bad idea. The DMG rather should discuss the issue in general and the way the DM and the group set guide lines for what level of conflict is allowable. It should also address the question of how to handle players who push the edge of what level of conflict is allowable and those that try to manipulate the rules of the groups etiquette to their own advantage.
The other side of that coin is that LotR is a great story but makes for a bad D&D game. One of the many reasons is that major conflicts between allies makes for good stories but is very had to do well in a role playing game. It is very easy for such conflicts to end with a lot of hurt feelings without adding anything to the game.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 1:58PM
#16
|
|
|
If it is the motivation of the character to cause problems, it's okay in my book. If it is the motivation of the player to cause problems, he's going to miss out on an awesome campaign. Good DMs and players alike can tell the difference.
I feel sad that so many people struggle with having to deal with players like this. I guess I have been very fortunate in my 33 years of D&D that I've only encountered one person that I have had to ask for an attitude adjustment or leave the game.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 2:25PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
I agree it's a difficult/advanced choice, but it's one we've all really enjoyed. Of course, we strive for realism, depth of story, narration, immersion, etc. We're not generally a light, mechanical, or tactical group. We've played children's campaigns (all of us playing kids), true love stories (not just wenching as a happy addition), decline into evil and insanity, european historical politicial intrigue campaigns, etc. Our understood goal of every game (except the ones we do with/for our own young kids) is that if it couldn't be published as a successful novel we've failed. We've actually had real tears and adrenaline rushes a number of times for various reasons.
I'm not suggesting that ours is the correct way to play, I'm saying it's the right way for us and a set of rules suggesting we shouldn't go that route would have robbed us of some of the best moments in our lives. That's why I'd rather it be kept acknowledged, but generalized for awareness and not restriction. I think it can find a balance between 'passing non-commital mention' and 'anal retentitve stylistic ruleset'.
DISCLAIMER - Everything said by anyone is absolute subjective opinion. There are no objective claims being made by me, or anyone else, unless they overtly state 'The following is an objective claim'. At this point if you choose to be offended by anything I (or anyone else) say the problem is ENTIRELY your own.
WotC won't let us give them money because they won't produce a game we want to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 7:01PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Out of game I tell my players no backstabbing party members and no griefing. Griefing is my word for all the stuff mentioned above. (Well most of it I disagree on a few minor details but that need not be discussed here).
In game, it is a powerful cultural taboo in my world to betray a party member. Kind of like the idea of a guest in medieval times. There are Kings that would protected their worst enemy against their best friend if that enemy where a guest in their house. It is assumed that the Gods all consider this taboo in their teachings. Perhaps it comes down to them from an even greater God (the creator God, the DM ;-)).
After that speech I rarely had problems. "I'd hate for you to break that +4 sword by hitting it in just the wrong way on your fellow party members armor." It happens. I don't do lightning from heaven but I am willing as DM to handle things in a plausible way.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 7:02PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
Also I don't mind a game where backstabbing is allowed as long as the players know it upfront. I wouldn't want to play a long term campaign that way but I don't begrudge anyone else doing it.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 7:41PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Dec 26, 2009
|
I agree with the OP. We're long past the point where we should be giving people the benefit of doubt. Outline player behavior in the players handbook the same way you outline DM ettiquete in the DMG. Even with the efforts to stymie, discourage, and outright prevent bad player conduct I still repeatedly witnessed awful behavior at far too many tables. It discouraged me from bothering with D&D Encounters multiple times. Show people what constitutes good table synergy - being polite and attentive at the table, creating characters complimentary to the rest of the group, give the DM a hand, and instructions on how to avoid game derailing issues that slow the game to a crawl such as arguments over what the "group" should do, or players who are unprepared for combat.
Extreme Player conflict and character drama of the type several posters here allude to isn't something that needs to leave the game, but it is simply something that is best left to advanced players and close-knit groups.
When it comes to preventing grognardism, leave nothing to chance.
|
|
|
