|
1 year ago ::
Feb 29, 2012 - 8:07PM
#21
|
|
|
I have seen Hand Forcing and Refusal to Defer on the part of the DM as well. My first 4th Ed. GM had an issue with Hunter Ranger Fighting Style's improved Quick Draw that lasted over 4 gaming sessions and broke down to the DM maligning the members of these very forums for their view that differed from his. Even when every member of his gaming group disagreed with him, he'd still try to change it back to his way every 3rd or 4th gaming session.
These are human tendencies, and are just as likely to be found in a DM as in a player.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 7:13AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2012
|
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.
This is a good point, while generally I'm more like phoenix in thinking that the rule books should be as unrestictive as possible, it does assume a certain level of player maturity, trust, and respect. But the fact is, a lot of new people are coming to the game at younger ages than when people of my generation came in, and they are maybe being introdued to it in a different setting.
I personally was brought in by older experienced players who were my close friends and have carried on that tradition in my games. But, maybe with so many new players coming in and meeting the game AND players for the first time in game stores and what not, there may be a real need for the PHB to spell out what more experienced players might think of as basic good manners...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 9:07AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
So really what the OP kind of round-about cuts to it is...
D&D is NOT a dramatic roleplaying game. The less personality, the less motivation, the less detail, the less buttons your character has that can be pushed, the less things they dislike or are hesitant about, the less fears they have and the more generaly bland, unassuming and obedient the character is, the better off you are.
The game is not about conflicting personalities that can create love triangles or rivalries, these things should be expressly forbidden. Your character should not have any mortal enemies or grudges against any one or any group of people lest one of them at one time be made a member of the party or an important NPC that the party is supposed to befriend and adhere to.
The party instead is a military squad. They are expected to act professionally at all times. They are not to question orders from the squad leader and fratnerization is forbidden. They are not to have any strong, overriding personal moral codes-- or they are at least expected to wholely submerge them and engage in any acts that the group participates in, no matter how depraved or foolish they may feel. They are always expected to make the right decision by the book at all times and always act bravely without regard to personal safety in order to best further the goals of the group. Doing otherwise will result in a court martial and execution or exile from the group.
Think of your character not so much as well... a character, but rather one of half a dozen undetailed chess pieces and it just happens to be the chess piece on the board you directly control-- so long as the other members of the group agree for you to continue to retain control of that piece.
That's about it, am I correct? This is really more honest and cuts directly to the root of the problem. And if anyone thinks that this seems somewhat offensive and against the spirit they would like to imagine the game in, then I think it sort of needs to be pointed out that the group is in fact sitting together at the table and the only dynamically interactive characters in their world are those controlled by the other PCs and effectively one NPC controlled by the DM at any one time. Unlike in real life or in a single-writer fictional story or even in an MMORPG, a character cannot functionally leave the group and go make new friends. Furthermore, there is a set mission and objective and the characters MUST achieve their objective to reach the end of the mission within the allotted time of the game session.
Indeed, while one might like to imagine that a roleplaying game could be something else, the effective logistical constrictions of D&D do rather mean that thinking of the group as a military unit rather than unique personalities truly is the best way to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 9:22AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2012
|
So really what the OP kind of round-about cuts to it is...
D&D is NOT a dramatic roleplaying game. The less personality, the less motivation, the less detail, the less buttons your character has that can be pushed, the less things they dislike or are hesitant about, the less fears they have and the more generaly bland, unassuming and obedient the character is, the better off you are.
The game is not about conflicting personalities that can create love triangles or rivalries, these things should be expressly forbidden. Your character should not have any mortal enemies or grudges against any one or any group of people lest one of them at one time be made a member of the party or an important NPC that the party is supposed to befriend and adhere to.
The party instead is a military squad. They are expected to act professionally at all times. They are not to question orders from the squad leader and fratnerization is forbidden. They are not to have any strong, overriding personal moral codes-- or they are at least expected to wholely submerge them and engage in any acts that the group participates in, no matter how depraved or foolish they may feel. They are always expected to make the right decision by the book at all times and always act bravely without regard to personal safety in order to best further the goals of the group. Doing otherwise will result in a court martial and execution or exile from the group.
Think of your character not so much as well... a character, but rather one of half a dozen undetailed chess pieces and it just happens to be the chess piece on the board you directly control-- so long as the other members of the group agree for you to continue to retain control of that piece.
That's about it, am I correct? This is really more honest and cuts directly to the root of the problem. And if anyone thinks that this seems somewhat offensive and against the spirit they would like to imagine the game in, then I think it sort of needs to be pointed out that the group is in fact sitting together at the table and the only dynamically interactive characters in their world are those controlled by the other PCs and effectively one NPC controlled by the DM at any one time. Unlike in real life or in a single-writer fictional story or even in an MMORPG, a character cannot functionally leave the group and go make new friends. Furthermore, there is a set mission and objective and the characters MUST achieve their objective to reach the end of the mission within the allotted time of the game session.
Indeed, while one might like to imagine that a roleplaying game could be something else, the effective logistical constrictions of D&D do rather mean that thinking of the group as a military unit rather than unique personalities truly is the best way to play.
I think the point is you can't trust the majority of groups to be able to do all of those other things without OOC drama eventually spiraling out of control (and I agree). I have no problem with people who can do that without OOC drama doing it but the game should not assume every group can or that they are even friends with each other with some level of understanding between them. In my experence it simply isn't the case and the PHB should in fact spell out what is often disruptive.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 9:35AM
#25
|
|
|
So really what the OP kind of round-about cuts to it is...
D&D is NOT a dramatic roleplaying game. The less personality, the less motivation, the less detail, the less buttons your character has that can be pushed, the less things they dislike or are hesitant about, the less fears they have and the more generaly bland, unassuming and obedient the character is, the better off you are.
The game is not about conflicting personalities that can create love triangles or rivalries, these things should be expressly forbidden. Your character should not have any mortal enemies or grudges against any one or any group of people lest one of them at one time be made a member of the party or an important NPC that the party is supposed to befriend and adhere to.
The party instead is a military squad. They are expected to act professionally at all times. They are not to question orders from the squad leader and fratnerization is forbidden. They are not to have any strong, overriding personal moral codes-- or they are at least expected to wholely submerge them and engage in any acts that the group participates in, no matter how depraved or foolish they may feel. They are always expected to make the right decision by the book at all times and always act bravely without regard to personal safety in order to best further the goals of the group. Doing otherwise will result in a court martial and execution or exile from the group.
Think of your character not so much as well... a character, but rather one of half a dozen undetailed chess pieces and it just happens to be the chess piece on the board you directly control-- so long as the other members of the group agree for you to continue to retain control of that piece.
That's about it, am I correct? This is really more honest and cuts directly to the root of the problem. And if anyone thinks that this seems somewhat offensive and against the spirit they would like to imagine the game in, then I think it sort of needs to be pointed out that the group is in fact sitting together at the table and the only dynamically interactive characters in their world are those controlled by the other PCs and effectively one NPC controlled by the DM at any one time. Unlike in real life or in a single-writer fictional story or even in an MMORPG, a character cannot functionally leave the group and go make new friends. Furthermore, there is a set mission and objective and the characters MUST achieve their objective to reach the end of the mission within the allotted time of the game session.
Indeed, while one might like to imagine that a roleplaying game could be something else, the effective logistical constrictions of D&D do rather mean that thinking of the group as a military unit rather than unique personalities truly is the best way to play.
You put it extremely bluntly but yes that is a major if not the defining part of the issue, particularly:
a character cannot functionally leave the group and go make new friends.
However I am not saying they should not be totally devoid of personality or motivation. Simply that the party should be created so that the personalities and motivations do not conflict with one another. Due to the fact it is a team game the party should be created collaboratively to avoid problems.
The party instead is a military squad.
This is accurate if you look at a lot of what typical adventurers do. Professionalism would be necessary because many low level parties die or at least have members die. The first part of many adventurers careers would be near TPKs, having to find new allies until you find other people who consistently survive and join with them. It really is that Darwinian. If you were truly roleplaying your character like you were the person who put their life on the line as an adventurer you would expect professionalism and a lack of conflict from your allies because your chance of not coming back from the adventure are higher without those things.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 9:52AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2012
|
So really what the OP kind of round-about cuts to it is...
D&D is NOT a dramatic roleplaying game. The less personality, the less motivation, the less detail, the less buttons your character has that can be pushed, the less things they dislike or are hesitant about, the less fears they have and the more generaly bland, unassuming and obedient the character is, the better off you are.
The game is not about conflicting personalities that can create love triangles or rivalries, these things should be expressly forbidden. Your character should not have any mortal enemies or grudges against any one or any group of people lest one of them at one time be made a member of the party or an important NPC that the party is supposed to befriend and adhere to.
The party instead is a military squad. They are expected to act professionally at all times. They are not to question orders from the squad leader and fratnerization is forbidden. They are not to have any strong, overriding personal moral codes-- or they are at least expected to wholely submerge them and engage in any acts that the group participates in, no matter how depraved or foolish they may feel. They are always expected to make the right decision by the book at all times and always act bravely without regard to personal safety in order to best further the goals of the group. Doing otherwise will result in a court martial and execution or exile from the group.
Think of your character not so much as well... a character, but rather one of half a dozen undetailed chess pieces and it just happens to be the chess piece on the board you directly control-- so long as the other members of the group agree for you to continue to retain control of that piece.
That's about it, am I correct? This is really more honest and cuts directly to the root of the problem. And if anyone thinks that this seems somewhat offensive and against the spirit they would like to imagine the game in, then I think it sort of needs to be pointed out that the group is in fact sitting together at the table and the only dynamically interactive characters in their world are those controlled by the other PCs and effectively one NPC controlled by the DM at any one time. Unlike in real life or in a single-writer fictional story or even in an MMORPG, a character cannot functionally leave the group and go make new friends. Furthermore, there is a set mission and objective and the characters MUST achieve their objective to reach the end of the mission within the allotted time of the game session.
Indeed, while one might like to imagine that a roleplaying game could be something else, the effective logistical constrictions of D&D do rather mean that thinking of the group as a military unit rather than unique personalities truly is the best way to play.
You put it extremely bluntly but yes that is a major if not the defining part of the issue, particularly:
a character cannot functionally leave the group and go make new friends.
However I am not saying they should not be totally devoid of personality or motivation. Simply that the party should be created so that the personalities and motivations do not conflict with one another. Due to the fact it is a team game the party should be created collaboratively to avoid problems.
The party instead is a military squad.
This is accurate if you look at a lot of what typical adventurers do. Professionalism would be necessary because many low level parties die or at least have members die. The first part of many adventurers careers would be near TPKs, having to find new allies until you find other people who consistently survive and join with them. It really is that Darwinian. If you were truly roleplaying your character like you were the person who put their life on the line as an adventurer you would expect professionalism and a lack of conflict from your allies because your chance of not coming back from the adventure are higher without those things.
5 Star Posts both of you.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 9:56AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2012
|
While the military analogy is somewhat relevent with regards to how players and their characters can overcome personal differences in the face of accomplishing the greater mission. I think it's pretty clear that the central problem proposed by the OP is one of introducing people new table top gaming and RPG's more specifically to some of the unique problems that arise when playing a game that requires imagination and cooperation.
This issue may infact be especially relevent with the current generation of budding gamers as so much of their social interaction is done digitally rather than to face to face, and even making friends outside of school seems to require a major commitment by parents in many communities ( I mean logistically, not because there is something wrong with the kids). It may be that the next generations of players are coming to the game with less experience 'playing nice' in a live group setting and having practical/actionalable suggestions on how to avoid some of the common sources of friction for new gamers would be helpful. Especially as we add into the mix, as the OP and others mentioned, with so many new players getting involved (which is a good thing) people are often not playing with people they already have strong relationships with.
So taken all together
1) a younger target gaming group,
2) a large influx of new players,
3) a generation that MIGHT be heavily influenced by rapidly advancing digital technogy
4) a less insular gamining community
These factors might make it practical to provide a player's intro to RPG etiquette in the PHB. As opposed to placing all of the responsibility for managing and mitigating tension caused by poor group cohesion in the real world on the DM who is likely to be relatively inexperienced in his own right.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 12:09PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2010
|
I agree strongly that there's likely (or at least hopefully) going to be a lot of new people who need some guidance. I really like the idea of a players guide along the same lines as what is found in the 4ed DMG. I would just like it somewhat couched in relative preference, or perhaps a section on 'advanced narratives' that talks about the elements that can take a game to the next level, but which violate the basic tenets of 'a good player/group'.
After all, how do we move from being neophytes to being veterans? It's not enough to just plug away at it, we need sparks of insight or mentoring or example. A good strong house protects the inhabitants, but they need windows to know there is a wider world, and a door to get out to it when they're ready.
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 ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 1:27PM
#29
|
|
|
While this is something that needs to be mentioned, it is only something that needs to be mentioned, not stressed. As much as possible we need to tolerate, or even encourage, "disruptive behavior".
Our goal in playing is to be Conan, who is the big star who walks high, wide, and handsome. You want the rest of the table to be your audience to cheer on your success [and blame the dice when something goes wrong]. You are not there to play some faceless robot that says the team is all. Far from it. You want star billing.
Now the big problem here is so do the other players. They are not content to play the hot chick you are rescuing. So you need to give them screen time too just to bribe them to be your audience when you have center stage. You do need to compromise here and not do anything too much in the way of other players, but you are innocent until proven guilty. Doing something that makes your character different is fine until it is proven to cause too much trouble. This is a ROLEplaying game and if we do not want you to play roles that cause too much trouble, that is still just the exceptional extreme case. Your character needs life and difference, not some dedication to the team.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 01, 2012 - 1:35PM
#30
|
|
|
I do not want top billing in my RPG. I'm happy just to be an unspoken helper. That way when I'm unconscious and the party is suffering, they realize my importance themselves. Let them tell other people that I walk high, wide, and handsome. I'll just be quietly over here, rocking while others are talking.
Of course, I don't want to be forced to be the audience so somebody can take center stage either. I'm playing to have fun as a character, not play a self ego-boosting child-god or encourage others to do the same.
|
|
|
