better gaming through chemistry

LostSoul said:

Oh, and:



Players have a right to be entertained. Just like the DM has a right to be entertained. If it's the 20 STR half-orc that wants to kill peasants that bothers you, tell the guy that you don't want to play like that (which is pretty much the same as saying, "We play D&D" or "We play Vampire").

Click to expand...

i don't believe they have a right to be PASSIVELY entertained... i'm not a showman working the crowd for free...

pay me if you want to demand i run you through a level of diablo

but

they do have a right (and I would argue an obligation) to ACTIVELY increase the entertainment value of the game.

now, the DM is getting something back for all his/her hard work

jim pinto said:

now the DM has told the pcs GENERALLY what the campaign (or at least the first adventure) is about. anyone making a character that wants to avenge his wife needs to understand that this first adventure takes precedence. he shouldn't complain if his personal story isn't catered to in the early acts of the "story."

Click to expand...

Totally agree.

"Church of the Bannana Hammock?" That's hilarious.

"We're the biggest church around."

"You guys have the most worshipppers?"

"Nope."

"You have the most temples, then?"

"Nope."

"What, are you all giants?"

"Something like that."

jim pinto said:

i don't believe they have a right to be PASSIVELY entertained... i'm not a showman working the crowd for free...

Click to expand...

Agree. Step up or shut up.

LostSoul-

I have an honest question for you: What about DMs that have segments of the campaign world that move on without the PCs decisions? Say the party stumbles on orcs laying waste to a farm plantation. When the local paladins hear of this, they launch a crusade against the orcs to drive them deep back into their homeland. The players can join the crusade or watch it march off in the sunset because they don't care. Either way, once the paladins leave, some other monsters come out of the woodwork to attack the village the paladins used to protect. The PCs have the choice to fight the baddies or help them raid the village, the DM won't stop them. However, the PCs, barring outstanding diplomacy skills or tactical miracles can't stop the paladins from marching off, that's their sworn duty. Once the paladins have left, the monsters will come out of the woodwork, they can't pass up the unprotected village. Is that railroading, or is that the DM deciding how NPC elements are going to maneuver through his game world? I'm asking because I have a plot like this planned. The PCs don't HAVE to take any one action, but certain NPC forces are going to move through the world in their own way because the party is simply too low level to stop them. They have to advance and grow stronger before they can alter the motions of the world's different factions. Is your definition of railroading not having choices, or not having "meaningful" choices, where meaningful means they can change the flow of the NPC world? I honestly want to understand your mindset in that.

DamionW said:

I have an honest question for you: <snip cool stuff> Is your definition of railroading not having choices, or not having "meaningful" choices, where meaningful means they can change the flow of the NPC world? I honestly want to understand your mindset in that.

Click to expand...

I think that's a great plot. The players have to make a decision about what they want to do. If I was the DM, either way they went, I'd tell them the negative impacts of their choice. If they then changed their minds, I'd tell them the negative impacts of that choice. What you end up is with players deciding what is more important to them.

Meaningful, to me, means that the player gets to do what he wants with his character. (Barring bad dice rolls, poorly thought-out choices, etc.) It means that they affect the NPCs and the game world, but they don't control them. The NPCs do their own thing, and if the PC interacts with them, they either keep doing what they were (if the PC liked it, or he failed to change them) or they go another way (which will also have consequences).

If the Fighter wants to be the best swordsman in the world, the NPCs are going to react to that. He will still get to pursue what he wants - having to make choices about how important it really is to him - but the NPCs will do their own thing.

I don't know; maybe it's about not getting in the player's way. Rolling with his desires. And since it's a two-way street, he'll have to roll with the DM's (and the other players') desires as well.

Radiating Gnome said:

To begin with, the worst players won't read it, won't learn from it, and won't appreciate being handed it.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. If that were true then the same must apply to bad DM's - they would never read, learn from, or appreciate being handed any of the TONS of DM advice books and articles that have been written. Note that many of those writings are devoted to dealing with problem players. But it is true that there are also bad DM's despite all the advice. So why is it NOT a good idea to start writing advice for players to deal with bad DM's, just as we have more than enough advice for DM's to deal with bad players? Good for the goose; good for the gander.

The DMing guides and pointers spend some time talking about player archtypes -- looking across the DM's screen at the players, who they are and what they enjoy. But what does the player see when he or she looks around the table?

Click to expand...

The SAME variety of player archetypes that they should be given advice on how to deal with as fellow PLAYERS. Everyone at the table must deal with a problem player or a problem DM. And that's just one slice of the advice that players could and should be given. Nearly EVERYTHING that you can give a DM advice for handling you can give a player advice for handling.

You can advise a DM how to craft a more interesting encounter - and you can advise a player how to turn repeatedly uninteresting encounters into something better from the PC end. You can advise a DM how to maintain consistent pacing - and you can advise a player how not to sabotage a DM's already difficult job of pacing. Etc.

LostSoul said:

Interesting question. Is it railroading? What is railroading? I think it's the inability to make meaningful choices.

Click to expand...

There are two types of railroading. First is when there ISN'T an option and the DM OPENLY disallows any deviation from his dictated, scripted adventure. But more commonly railroading is nothing more than the AWARENESS that your choices are irrelevant. It is possible for your choices to be irrelevant without being "railroaded".

For example, let's say I prepare an adventure to... rescue the princess. I present the PC's with several "plot hooks": one PC gets clues about his long-lost sister, there is a rumor in the taverns about a dangerous ogre having moved into the area and killing people, and the party together witnesses an altercation between two nobles. What the PC's don't know is that ALL of those hooks are going to lead into my "rescue the princess" adventure because the princess has been captured by a nefarious individual hired by a noble to kidnap his rival's daughter. The rumors of the ogre are just that, but they've been spread in order to draw attention away from the truth. The sister of the PC had been kidnapped by the aforementioned nefarious individual and in the unfolding adventure I've cooked up the PC may find his sister, or simply acquire more clues as to her fate/whereabouts from Mr. Nefarious.

Now at the time the PC's make their decision about which of the very different plot hooks to follow they do not FEEL railroaded, they don't know they're being "railroaded" but in a manner of speaking they are. Their decision is actually irrelevant - each option will lead to my prepared adventure. But again, they don't KNOW that and there is no feeling of it by the players, and thus they don't fight against it.

At worst, at the end of my adventure, after having discovered that their original choice about the plot hooks was irrelevant they might feel somewhat railroaded. But then it's possible that all the plot hooks might NOT have been followed/played out during my adventure. Any thing I have not formally established I can freely change. If the players only follow up through the altercation between nobles they can rescue the princess and possibly capture/kill the nefarious guy - but I don't have to have that clue about the PC's lost sister lead still lead to him, and I don't have to have the Ogre remain a red herring but can build my next adventure around him. Again, the PC's are technically being railroaded but because they don't KNOW it/don't FEEL it, as far as their concerned there's no railroading involved.

Railroading is simply PERCEPTION of irrelevancy of choice.

BTW, my contribution to the book would pretty much boil down to my "D&D Manifesto" at http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/manifesto.htm I think I started with about a dozen points and I've added/revised a bit here and there and it's grown to 19. I haven't looked at it in a while but it should be reasonably current. It's also written from the viewpoint of being House Rules, but it does deal with issues being discussed in the thread here. I was proud when I originally wrote it to have not made it a list of demands but an attempt to clearly and succinctly state opinions on the basics of playing the game, as well as solicit responses.

I didn't slog through the 5 pages of this thread so I don't know if it's been pointed out, but how to be a good player is somewhat campaign dependant.

Some things always apply. Don't eat all the muffins. Don't sleep during game. Do know what your character can do and how the rules work.

But a play style that makes you a wonderfull player during a game of High Court intrigue in feudal japan could make you a complete prat during a bug hunt game, and vice versa.

If the GM and all the other players want to play a highly tactical combat oriented game, then the guy who wrote 30 pages of backstory and took (Skill Focus: Basketweaving) for roleplaying reasons but has no combat utility is the disruptive player.

And there are complex issues, frex in a Swashbuckling campaign a player with no social skills makes a character who is a good campaign fit and does have high social skills. Nontheless he might bring the mood down when all the other players actually RP their flowery speeches and the poor guy just says "My character tries to convince the duke we're on his side. *roll* 34 Diplomacy". This is not the players fault but it may be a problem.

Some Thoughts of Mine:

I have to agree, the Mongoose comments should have been edited out... 'nuff said. Peace!

The book sounds good, I might buy it and read it. (I think I'm a good player, but while some agree, others disagree.) Anyway...

I think, even though this is a PLAYER'S book, that a section on "Dealing With Problem Players" is called for! "Whiners" whine for one of two reasons: either A) They want something, or B) They don't want something. In either case, it seems easier, to me, to find out WHY they're whining, and see what can be done about it. Again, this IS something that the players can help the GM with! Leaving the GM to handle "the jerk" puts more strain on him, and ignores the power of peer-pressure.

In a group where I was an officer, we had some occasional problems with someone in the audience berating the President, while he was trying to run a meeting. Even after the President had answered his question, the guy kept interjecting, repeating his original objections (which had already been answered). The President later suggested that, in future cases like that, that someone else in the audience should jump in, and "take the floor" from the objecter, pointing out that this topic had already been addressed... This seems to work better than vain repetition, or trying to ignore the objecter.

PCs can do the same thing with problem players, as well. After the GM has heard them out, and answered them, if they start up the same objections, again, the other players can say "Dude, you already said that! The GM said no. Move on!" After two or three other players have said this, the whiner will probably realize that it aint working, this time, and move along. Do it often enough, and they'll either learn, or leave.

As an example of a "Whiner", and why he "whines", it has always bothered me how unheroically unskilled my PCs often are... so much so that I have written several pieces to help "fix" these perceived problems, even getting a couple of them published. One of these was "Tracking: It's More Than Just 'Duh! Deh Went Dattaway!'" Another was on Background Skills.

Another "whine" of mine is that I like to play Stealthy, Perceptive characters, especially woodsmen. Outdoorsmen, survivalists, somebody who is at home in any terrain, and who can do anything I see in a survival manual... The problem is, the rules don't allow some of it! I can't play a Ranger who sets snares and traps!

Why? Because any trap has a CR, and the DMG states that it takes 1,000 GP and one WEEK of work per point of CR to make a trap!

Now if my PC were trying to build a bear trap, out in the wilderness, I could see that... but a simple snare? Even a complex snare? A covered pit (with or without sharpened stakes in the bottom)? A limb-trap? A net trap?

A (mechanically) simple snare takes about six to 10 seconds to set. It's about DC:2. The VERY FIRST TIME I set a complex (dangle, strangle) snare, when I wasn't sure what I was doing, it took me less than 15 minutes. I argue that this is an integral part of the Ranger's ability to "Find food and water in the wild" DC:10 Survival skill (which ordinarily takes 1/2 day, or about eight hours -- plenty of time to set a trapline). A Ranger (or a Barbarian, or a Druid, or anyone else with Survival or Craft (Trapmaking) skill) should be able to do this. Craft (Trapmaking) is there for the Rogues and Bards, and other interested PCs without access to Survival.

Look at the description of the Detect Snares and Pits spell... Snares, deadfalls, and pits are specifically mentioned, there, as being easier to detect than the standard mechanical or magical traps. Likewise, they should be easier to set, too. Call them "CR 0", and allow them to be set in a relatively short amount of time (1D20 minutes or less, depending upon complexity). This gives the PCs a few new options for defending their bases, and the bad guys can do it, too...

"Okay, you guys trailed the Orcs with Fred's wife into the forest, and now are coming out of it, near the mountains. You see some caves, ahead, but can't tell if the tracks lead into one, from here. Everyone roll your Spot checks..."

Fred: "I got the highest, rolled an 18, total."

"You can't see, from here. What do you want to do?"

Jerry: "We follow the tracks, weapons ready."

"Same order?"

Jerry: "Yeah!"

GM looks at marching order. "Okay, Fred, Jerry, make two Reflex saves, please!"

Tom: "Oh, no! Do we hear a Fireball? What do we see?"

"Nothing... yet!"

Fred: "A 19... and a four... Oops! What happens to my PC?"

"You step on something, which quickly slithers out from under your feet. You see something moving in a tree, nearby... Jerry? What did you roll?"

Jerry: "An eight, and a 12! What happens?"

"You all see Jerry's PC yanked up, off his feet, flipped upside-down, and whisked through the air, swinging from a rope around one ankle. He slams into a nearby tree, where he is impaled by a couple of sharpened tree limb stubs! You take 2D6 damage, for... (rolls) seven points of damage, and are now hanging upside-down, by one leg. Roll to see if you retained your weapon!"

So, maybe sometime you WANT to listen to a "Whiner", huh? Take a page from their notes, when they know what they're talking about, and use them...

More on other "Problem Players", later...