Community

Mar 2, 2012 -- 12:58PM, Salla wrote:

Mar 2, 2012 -- 8:26AM, Kingreaper wrote:

Mar 2, 2012 -- 12:38AM, DavidArgall wrote:

     And that is a major goal for any gameplayer of any game.  Indeed, a prime theory of why we play games at all is to settle in a non-lethal manner just who is the stud and who is the follower. 

Not really.

The primary explanations for human gameplaying is social grooming+learning (the two primary reasons for playing in other species)

A primary explanation for SPORTS is to settle disputes in a non-lethal manner; that they're the equivelant of displays+squaring off in other species.

Note that RPGs fall squarely in the "game" category, not the "sport" category. Also note that many sports are often played as games (as with "playfighting" in animals) 

Particularly since sports are competitive and D&D is (or is supposed to be, even if some people don't quite get it) cooperative.  Everybody should be equals.

Except with team sports, when you work with players on the same team for a common goal.  You are not competetive with your teammates, just like in D&D.  The opposing team is simply the NPC's.

Mar 2, 2012 -- 1:37PM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 2, 2012 -- 1:24PM, Kishri wrote:

Mar 2, 2012 -- 12:58PM, Salla wrote:

Mar 2, 2012 -- 8:26AM, Kingreaper wrote:

Mar 2, 2012 -- 12:38AM, DavidArgall wrote:

     And that is a major goal for any gameplayer of any game.  Indeed, a prime theory of why we play games at all is to settle in a non-lethal manner just who is the stud and who is the follower. 

Not really.

The primary explanations for human gameplaying is social grooming+learning (the two primary reasons for playing in other species)

A primary explanation for SPORTS is to settle disputes in a non-lethal manner; that they're the equivelant of displays+squaring off in other species.

Note that RPGs fall squarely in the "game" category, not the "sport" category. Also note that many sports are often played as games (as with "playfighting" in animals) 

Particularly since sports are competitive and D&D is (or is supposed to be, even if some people don't quite get it) cooperative.  Everybody should be equals.

In a perfect world I would agree with you Salla. What you say is completely right, that is the way it should be.

Sadly, my world has been far from perfect.  Maybe it is because I play/DM in a high amount of convention, store, pick-up, and spontaneous games where I often don't have the luxury to hand pick my players.  Even my house game has a couple of players that some here in this thread would kick out.  In fact, since playing from '76 on up I have always been in groups that had at least one player (often more) that is competitive in the manner as discussed in this thread.

To be sure, there are groups where all at the table are equal and they solely work for the good of the team and story, but honestly, that has been very rare for me, either as player or DM.  I have had out of countless groups, maybe a couple that were that way.  The rest always had some "competitors" in them. 

One of the groups that had no competitors had a vexing problem:  They had no motivation.  I had to prod and railroad to get them to do anything.  It was like they were anti-competitors to the point of having absolutely no drive.  I guess the moral there, is competition fosters motivation, and as long as that competition does not interfere with other members' fun, it can really propel a campaign forward-- not just for the competitor, but for the whole group.

Maybe, someday, I will be lucky enough to get in a group where everyone is truly equal.

I would say that a competitive player is not as motivating as an instigator player.  They are one and the same, most often, a competitive nature arising from a need to make the game "more interesting".  In fact, the DMG for 4th warns that while an instigator is great to move the party along, the DM should watch them to make sure they don't get the party killed or attack the PCs or their allies.  So yeah, instigator, good.  Unchained instigator, very very bad.

I completely agree. 

My issue is that it is so rare to be in a game without at least one competitor/instigator that players and DMs alike need to be given advice and tools for controlling such behavior, or channeling that competitive spirit in ways that helps the campaign.  As you said, some is good, too much is bad.  The trick is finding that balance, and the threshold varies from group to group.

Feb 29, 2012 -- 10:26AM, Phried wrote:

I'm sure I could have titled this thread less controversially but that's the best way I could think of putting it that could fit in the allowed number of characters.

The point I am really getting at are that there are too many players out there who think and act like 'It's what my character would do" is a get out of jail free card for behavior that is harmful to the group dynamic in and out of character and that the PHBs do not go a good enough job explain to people the types of behavior that are harmful to the group dynamic and should be avoided. You simply cannot assume everyone is a good player or plays with personal friends with the same expectations from the game. I have personal friends I play with and some who do play RPGs that I don't play with because we have incompatible schedules so we are in different campaigns. In the time I have played RPGs easily half of the people I've done so with have not been my friends and many have been people I wouldn't otherwise give the time of day. You cant assume mutual understanding or tolerance of behavior due to friendship when designing an RPG.

I really do not believe this is a matter of subjectivity either. Across 7 groups and over a decade and a half of RPGs I've identified specific patters of behavior that always cause group dynamic problems no matter what game is being played and I believe for the sake of the hobby and for new players the first section of the PHB should point out these behavior patterns and discuss why they are harmful. Saying "Don't be a jerk" is not enough because the vast majority of problem players rarely understand what it is they are doing that is causing problems.

1. Hand Forcing: Preforming actions that forces the group to do things your way by forcing their hands should not be tolerated. If it is what your character would do you made a character actively harmful to the stability of the campaign and should make a new one. Eg: Initiating actions that put other party members in danger or that hinder their goals without the consent of the party. This ranges from anything from being offensive/hostile to important npcs the party needs cooperation from to rushing into combat that can be avoided before the rest of the group has agreed on a course of action. There are many other ways this hand forcing can be done and it always causes IC disadvantage and OOC drama. 

2. Conflicting Personality/Backstory: Creating a character's who goals, motivations or behavior causes conflict with other party members' goals, motivations or behavior. The needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the few even when it comes to playing a game if that game is based around teamwork. If there is anything about a character concept that causes conflict with the party enough to cause IC or OOC problems the character should not have been allowed to be played. Any time the party does not all sit down and discuss party creation and what the general plot of the campaign will be as a group and instead each makes their character in isolation and the GM makes the campaign in isolation you are already asking for problems. Again this is a place where "It's what my character would do" is no excuse for causing conflict, I've seen this ruin campaigns and people kicked out of groups because of how long it took for people to resolve it. Discussing this in the PHB would have prevented this or at least had the issue be resolved before tensions were so high.

3. Refusal to Differ to Someone Who Knows Better: This one is a major problem that I don't think can be solved simply pointing out why its bad for the campaign. I've never seen a case of this that didn't stem from some personal issue with the offending person. Some people just can't stand being told what to do even if they know the other person is more likely to be right than them and forcing them to never ends well. However D&D being a team game simply allowing them to get there way over what the rest of the group has reached consensus about to avoid conflict is effectively doing the same thing to the rest of the party as they don't want done to them. This is majorly hypocritical and I've seen offenders who when told how hypocritical they are being flip the crap out. I think the best course of action would be have the PHB just flat out say "Don't allow anyone who cannot go along with majority decisions without a fight play, even if they are your friend for the sake of your friendships leave them out, it will be worse if you don't". Alternatively if the person who does know better is in the minority in the group decision making process (ie: There is an objectively best course of action and it's advocate is not being heeded) the group should still go forward with the majority decision but the person who was right is entitled to an 'I told you so" $10 cash from each of the players who ruled against them. Honestly that works, once I started that policy 6 years ago there have never been hard feelings about that type of situation which I'd seen destroy one of my own and one of another GM I've known's campaigns in the past.

 

I've seen more or less about all of this at one point or another. I can't see how laying out a specific set of social rules in the PHB is going to make a huge difference though. The first time any of it becomes an issue, the offender (or defenders, if the offended is in the minority) will call on the "Throw out or workaround any rules that get in the way" rule. Everything is just rules-lawyering after that. Not everybody who plays is going to have the same ideal of socially acceptable behavior. Many play specifically for the ability to act out socially unacceptable behavior in game, and trying to insist that charcter be as politicaly correct towards one another and NPCs as we are being expected to in real life (Yes, that drunk driver just ran you off the road, but that's for the cops and insurance companies to deal with, if you get angry and make a hurtful or disparaging comment about them, you're somehow the bad guy now).

Acting in a manner in and out of character that does not cause excessive friction with the group is important, but enforcing your own morals or ethics on another person's character is just the same. Sometimes you have to learn to adapt to people who are different from you, who see the world a different way, or who have different goals.  If you can't do that, then you really shouldn't consider playing with other people unless you already know that they see things the same way you do to begin with (and still, you'll be surprised how easily OOC conflict might arise over IC issues). There used to be a time when EVERYBODY who played D&D was a misfit, an outcast, someone who HAD to learn to tolerate other people's playstyles and adapt to them because the other alternative was having nobody to play with. I hate to sound like a hipster, but I think the worst thing that ever happened to D&D was becoming as mainstream as it has. Popular people had plenty of things to occupy themselves without getting together to play D&D, but now that they've gained a taste for it, they've come in droves, and in order to make them happy (which must be done in order to make them buy the product) we've had to give up our misfit roots and conform our interactive potential to the lowest common denominator.

Mar 2, 2012 -- 2:19PM, Salla wrote:

Mar 2, 2012 -- 2:18PM, Jharii wrote:

Except with team sports, when you work with players on the same team for a common goal.  You are not competetive with your teammates, just like in D&D.  The opposing team is simply the NPC's.

In-game, you are competing with the NPCs (perhaps, depending on the situation).  Out of game, you are not competing with anybody.

Just like team sports.  Got it.

Look, as someone who has played team sports on a professional level, I can tell you that there are a LOT of parallels with being a great teammate on the field, in a D&D game, as well as at the workplace.

Tons and tons of similarities.