Community

Jan 17, 2013 -- 9:32AM, Hengeyokai wrote:

Guys, this has turned into an argument and I really don't want to participate any more since it is ruining what could possibly be a very good thing to have on the forum. Centauri, if you post an example of how your system works without simply criticising everything I say then I will happily listen and consider adding it to the list. However, if it is the same as what RednBlack said I'm afraid I can't add it as it simply won't work for most players.

It's not an argument - it's a discussion. And no different than the discussions that happen below the initial reserved posts in the CharOp guides. My advice would be to let it play out and simply do your part as editor and add the things you think should be in the initial post. Anyone who wants to read and comment below the initial post should be permitted to do so.

I'd add that the reason you're getting criticized is that some of the advice suggested really does have some long established problems with it (see these very forums for examples). In addition, saying things like "I can't add it as it simply won't work for most players" belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what is being discussed and an assumption on your part based upon that misunderstanding. Granted, what is being discussed could be explained better or in a better format. I'll definitely give you that and welcome Centauri to do his thing.

This is otherwise a good and helpful attempt at condensing DMing wisdom, so I thank you for your efforts. 

Jan 17, 2013 -- 10:39AM, Hengeyokai wrote:

This list is simply about giving good advice that is applicable to as many DMs as possible and I cannot turn it into an essay on how Cent runs a D&D group since most players simply don't play the kinds of games Cent seems to. If Cent would like to set out their advice as to how their system works then I will see if it is something that would be helpful for the DMs who read this list to know. I'm sorry if you don't like this method but I have to consider the wider implications of all the advice that gets added to the list since it is not there for just one or two people but for everyone who plays tabletop RPGs.

Editorial bias notwithstanding, fair enough.

I'll add some more:

26. Encourage your players to accept the ideas of others. If someone comes up with a plan, address it as if it's the only plan and ask the players to add onto it, not come up with their own separate plans. If everyone comes up with a plan of their own, that likely means that you've spent WAY too much session time on the issue. It also means that - since only one plan is likely to be used anyway - 4 other people get the shaft. It's better to back the first plan that comes up and add your own spin to it rather than say why it can't work and come up with something else. This way, everyone gets their ideas included and the game moves forward.

27. Failure mitigation kills game pacing. I'm sure everyone has been in the 30 minute discussion about how exactly to attack the goblin camp or avoid the trap, only to have a player bored with the discussion run in and attack or set off the trap just to get some freakin' action and get the game moving forward. If the players are spending a lot of session time discussing ways to avoid trouble, ask them why. Then ask them what sort of trouble they'd LIKE to get into. Whatever they tell you, give them that. 

Jan 17, 2013 -- 11:56AM, Hengeyokai wrote:

I think it either needs to include the risks inherent in the advice, offer additional suggestions (along with their risks), or be left out.

0k, that is fair enough. I have tried to do that where possible but please do tell me about pitfalls that I haven't mentioned.

I will try to.

Jan 17, 2013 -- 11:56AM, Hengeyokai wrote:

My concern is that you're only considering the wider implications of the new idea, and not of the old, traditional idea.

Your concern is a fair one and I don't deny that it may play a part. The snag is that the solution to a faulty system is not to simply do the opposite but to look for what works, which is what I am really after.

That strikes me as an odd thing to say. If something isn't working, do something else. You still seem to think that I'm saying "Instead of the DM inventing and describing everything, the players do it." What I'm saying is that if the DM trusts the players (which they must to some extent even to play) it's possible to give players more control than they usually have, and thereby not only share the creative duties, but speed up play (since less "permission" is required), and invent things that no one person around the table could have thought of.

The "system" is really just the "Yes, and..." approach, which is detailed in the 4e DMG. I expand on it slightly by not waiting for players to ask me things, but to ask them things and treat the answers as true things to build on. This can be done a lot, or a little. The important thing is to close down player ideas as little as possible. This encourages more ideas, shared creativity, surprising discoveries, and trust.

Jan 17, 2013 -- 12:22PM, Hengeyokai wrote:

What I'm saying is that if the DM trusts the players (which they must to some extent even to play) it's possible to give players more control than they usually have, and thereby not only share the creative duties, but speed up play (since less "permission" is required), and invent things that no one person around the table could have thought of.

0k, this sounds interesting, but could you give me a full discription of how this works and maybe an example (preferably one from experence). It would be good if you could explain what methods you use to prevent players from taking this too far. At the moment I am looking at creating an entry that explains this as an optional method that some people may like to try but I need you to explain in depth how your method is diferent from the DMG one.

Ok, I'll try to do that before to long. But it doesn't differ from what's in the DMG, because the DMG says to say "Yes, and...." That's what I do. The DMG2 offers good examples of collaboration, too, some of the best I've seen in any RPG book.

Jan 17, 2013 -- 12:22PM, Hengeyokai wrote:

That strikes me as an odd thing to say. If something isn't working, do something else.

Do something else, yes. Doing the oposite should not be the default, however. the oposite of a bad system can be a far worse sytem.

You can stop talking about "the opposite." No one is suggesting "the opposite." That's a key part of your misunderstanding and, I suspect, your reluctance (not complete, I'm happy to admit) to consider the idea.