|
8 months ago ::
Oct 18, 2012 - 9:09AM
#61
|
|
|
@YamagiFire: Really? If someone bakes me a cake, and I don't like the cake, I'll eat a piece with a smile on my face, and then beg off of seconds. If someone makes me a scarf, and I don't like the color, I'll accept the gift with a smile on my face. Someone has done something for me.
And if continue to eat the cakes given to you and suffer through them, you are a fool. A disingenuous one at that. When I like something, I tell someone I like it...if I do not, I politely tell them I do not. I don't LIE to them to spare their feelings. That is what one does to children (yes, Wendy, Santa IS real!)
At some points in some RPGs it really is best if, as a player, you thank the DM, shake their hand, and walk off with a smile on your face. That's what I did in the two games of Pathfinder I played. Sometimes the differences are reconcilable, and sometimes they're not. I could have brought up all the issues I had with the game, and what I hated, but at the end of the day the issues were not solvable, and I was not going to accomplish anything productive by airing my grievances. And the DM did indeed deserve to be thanked for running the game, even if I did not enjoy it.
Then by all means, walk off. But you did not get angry at the DM or continue to play while not having fun, did you? Then you made the mature choice in the situation. If you wanted to stay, as an adult, it would be on you to let the DM know what is or is not working to see if somethign can be worked out. You making a choice in your head does not necessitate that the DM then gain clairvoyance into your brain.
Newer players may mistake "I'm not having fun because of X" for "I'm not having fun because this is an RPG." Or maybe even "I'm not having fun because this is D&D."
Then tell the person..."Hey I'm not having fun" is enough. That is a starting point. Don't keep eating the bad cake and grinning like an idiot.
Also, you say that there's no way to avoid accidents after the fact. This is true. That's why a list like this is helpful in avoiding accidents before they happen. Which is certainly something that is possible.
100% agreed. I just don't agree with getting mad at a DM that makes accidents or putting the onus on them to intuit what is going on in the heads of half a dozen people. That is ridiculous. We're all adults playing a game whose number 1 requirement is COMMUNICATION and you can't tell a DM something? Come now...
Does more responsibility naturally fall on the DM than the players here? Yes. Is that fair? Maybe not. Is it true of most gaming groups, especially newer groups that have to worry about things like player trust? Yes.
So everything has to be fair...except if it applies to the DM? All I see is posts about how "unfair" things are to players and how that should be avoided...yet in this instance, something easily solveable by PEOPLE BEING ADULTS is a situation where the DM just has to suck it?
Yeah, I don't buy that. That attitude will never result in good DMs, because it will result in NO DMs. I would not play with that expectation put upon me. Again, I am not Miss Cleo.
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 18, 2012 - 9:29AM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2011
|
@YamagiFire: I think the issue is that many DMs really DON'T want their players walking off. Read these forums and the "what's a player to do" forums for how many campaigns have fallen apart due to people walking off - and sometimes the issues that are as simple as these are the cause why.
And for many new players they will drift off because the impression they get from playing the RPG is "I don't like RPGs" and that's not a problem that's solvable. Maybe that's really the issue, and if so that's fine, but maybe the actual issue is "the DM doing something I don't like" and if that's the case the DM can solve the issue before it happens.
I just don't understand what your problem with this idea is, honestly.
Lines of communication are part of the steps, yes. I ask players after each session to tell me what they like and didn't like about the session, and give them means to contact me (and encourage them to do so) - sometimes they don't want to air their grievance in front of the crowd, hell, sometimes the grievance is with another player.
But I find it just works better if I am careful about the issues I discussed in the OP - they all have the potential to truly ruin player's enjoyment of the game.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 18, 2012 - 9:52AM
#63
|
|
|
GreyIce: I 100% agree with you. Those things do happen and its unfortunate.
Your op is good and good spirited.
What I am saying is, let us teach people to fish...do not hand them fish. Let players and dms know that they need to take responsibility for their own feelings and actions. There is no "wrong" party there....you would only be wrong to engage in silence when something is wrong.
It is setting the expectation that we are all adults and need to act and treat each other accordingly. Allow the dm to help the player...but more importantly let all involved realize its on them to call for that help. That solves ALL the potential issues this thread could point out for a dm to potentially memorize and then try to have to intuit
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 18, 2012 - 10:47AM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2011
|
I honestly don't believe that it's that simple. I've seen things break down too many times to believe it's as simple as "we should all just discuss things." Why does one group of players stay together for 8 years while another group (which contains many of the same people) fall apart in a month? Sometimes it's maturity, I guess (you seem to harp on this theme overly much, to be honest). Sometimes it's that everyone is on different pages in the group that fell apart. But as often things start to go pear shaped and it's hard to put your finger on why.
And often when things go pear shaped, the problem is these trust issues.
In my opinion, things should rarely reach the point that people need to sit down and talk the mess out, because that means that the mess has become very serious, and it should have been cut off before it hit that point.
Basically, you can think about it like medicine. There's two philosophies (well, more than two, but two apply here). One is that the doctor should fix the reason that the patient is unhealthy. The other is that the doctor should try and help the patient stay healthy.
What you are discussing is the former, and what I am discussing is the latter.
Honestly, this all came about because you had one or two well-timed betrayals that were very important to your campaign (even central to one campaign), and I suggested that DMs should not casually betray the party (which is something I see new DMs do all the time - the guide turns out to be evil, the wizard who sent them on a mission sent them into a trap, the "helpful bystander" was really a member of the thieves guild and now they're in trouble with the law, etc). You started off not really discussing what I'm talking about, and you've continued to the point where you're still not discussing it.
I am talking about PREVENTING problems. Not solving them after they've already happened.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 18, 2012 - 10:57AM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2009
|
The act of a DM "screwing someone over" as most people mean it usually refers to when the DM does it intentionally.
Everything you just listed is not intentional and thus does not count as screwing someone over. In fact, each of those problems can be quickly and easily rectified as none of them are intentional. Just mistakes. The act of a player or DM screwing over a player or DM is intentional and usually does not get rectified quickly or easily.
I don't think it's that simple. A player has made a rogue (assume 3E).
A) The DM hates backstab, and decides to make an undead heavy campaign to punish the rogue player.
The DM has indubidably screwed the player over.
B) The DM has plotted out a very detailed campaign revolving around a necromancer who is raising an undead army to overthrow the kingdom.
The DM has... not screwed the player over? To the player on the ground floor, it looks much the same, neh?
Players can get screwed over in a variety of ways due to the game system. It's harder in 4E, but even there it's possible (try using multiple swarm-only encounters someday, and watch your rogue gradually go insane).
If you don't like the lingo... tough. The player was screwed over, whether or not the DM intended to, and that leaves players feeling unimportant and uncared for. A good DM should take steps to avoid this.
In example A, the DM is clearly out to get the rogue player and is highly unlikely to change his position. The player is equally unlikely to change until he's dead or leaves the group.
In example B, the DM made what is likely an oversight or the player made a poor choice or a blind choice. Poor in that he knew it was an undead focused campaign. Or blind choice in that he made the decision before knowing all the details. There's no vindictive intentions here. The DM can drop in living creatures to help flesh the campaign out a bit on the fly or the player can make a change to his rogue or make a new character.
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!)
*Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb.
http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 18, 2012 - 8:51PM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2011
|
With my group, we make a point of knowing what kind of campaign we're going into at the character design phase. That way you don't get a character that's mechanically out of place, and more importantly, you don't get a character who would never want to participate in that kind of campaign.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 18, 2012 - 9:01PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2012
|
With my group, we make a point of knowing what kind of campaign we're going into at the character design phase. That way you don't get a character that's mechanically out of place, and more importantly, you don't get a character who would never want to participate in that kind of campaign.
Having everyone at the table for session zero really is a best practice. Taking the time to clearly lay out the intentions of the game before moving forward smoothes over so much, from catching the obvious thematic issues between "Felevar, Scion of Aristos" and "Mike the Fighter" to addressing issues of party balance / levels of optimization involved to the basic structure of the campaign (linear narrative-sandbox-LIM).
People in the aggregate tend to be naturally trusting, but paradoxically also tend to think of themselves as being more trustworthy than others perceive them. 99 times out a 100 the first breach in trust is not when the DM or one of the players brutally screws someone over at the table, but rather when the message I think I am sending you is different from the message that you are receiving (to borrow from a recent forum thread, if the DM puts an unbeatable monster at the end of a tunnel with the intention of telling the players "the world is dangerous and you can't always charge blindly ahead" but the players see the message as "here's a cool boss monster for the climax of the dungeon", there are going to be a lot of mistrust after the inevitable TPK).
|
|
|
