better gaming through chemistry

Eh, some of that I agree with - but honestly, many of those behaviors are disruptive as hell, and louder/morecharismatic/persistent players can very easily use them to basically run others' characters. I'm particularly down on the 'sure, go ahead and metagame...it's ok!'. For me, that borders on the only cheating you can really do in an RPG.

The off-topic chatter detracts, IMO, and it's highly disrespectful if others are engaged in a particularly intense or interesting scene - you're effectively saying that your fun is more important than everyone else's. It's this material and more like it that made me relegate my copy of Dogs in the Vineyard to the Resources shef next to the Gm's Station, and not the Games Being Played. As always, YMMV.

wow

This post sort of got away from me in the 12 hours since I looked at last.

[Btw... Nice to see you here, Joe... always a source of opinion]

Now.

Let me clarify.

If I sit down and write this book, it will be for everyone. It will talk to each kind of gamer, explain their role and make sure they understand that they are 1/4th, 1/10th, or 1/516th of the campaign; depending on the number of people at the table.

The book will explain Plot-oriented, Event-oriented, Character-oriented, and Location-oriented adventuring.

(someone said something about railroading and that's event-oriented gaming... which I personally hate, but became big when people stopped playing in dungeons and hadn't figured out the other two types yet)

Lastly, there is completely freeform adventuring as well, which would get some attention.

The book would clarify the need to compromise at the table.

COMPROMISE is HUGE... its the thing that seperates gaming from every other hobby.

RPGs are in an even tighter niche, because they require cooperation (not competition) and as a result, fight against every video game urge under the sun.

The player's should be vested. They should have a reason to show up, just as much as anyone. They should have a vote over what's in the world, what they play next, and what they can do. They don't get a veto. But, they get a vote.

We recently lost a player from our group at home because he couldn't understand or accept these last two concepts and believed everyone could just show up in whatever mood they wanted.

I'll have more later to post (going to lunch), but I'm really glad people are responding to this thread.

jim pinto said:

(I even got an angry letter from Mongoose. How cool is that?)

Click to expand...

Lie.

As far as I am aware, we have never had any issues between us, so I sent you a mail asking you where you were coming from.

No anger. But your attitude is irritating. This kind of sniping is central to the problems of the industry - it is just not a cool thing to do.

Edit: I'd like to get this thread back on track, please.

jim pinto said:

you need to get a sense of humor, matt

Click to expand...

Sorry, Jim, don't find it funny. Nor do the twenty-odd other people working at Mongoose. However you cut it, it was cheap and unnecessary.

jim pinto said:

(nice work dragging it into public, though)

Click to expand...

This is like Usenet.

Umm, you made two public posts about this before I appeared. . .

jim pinto said:

you want me to humiliate you here or in another forum? or perhaps you could respond to the private e-mail you were sent?

Click to expand...

(gasp)[/QUOTE]

You can do what you like Jim. I'll get round to your email when I get back home.

Gents, a little more prefessionalism would be appreciated. Perhaps by e-mail, as suggested?

No mean spirited sniping please, Jim or anyone else.

I would expect to see anyone who is involved in publishing maintain a certain degree of professionalism in the way in which they refer to other publishers.

Please take care to do this. Thanks all.

Regards

Threads like this make me glad that we screen players prior to joining our group.

Here's a list of strong suggestions from me:
- Munchkins are welcome only one at a time until they can be properly trained. It's a process that can take up to 2 years.
- Powergamers are outright banned and then made fun of.
- Whiners are shown the door after being yelled at until my voice is sore.
- If you've ever said the words "But if you look at the way the spell is worded...", then you're dragged out into my front yard and beaten.
- If you are looking for a way to word Wish to get unlimited wishes, then you are about to get a big surprise from an experienced DM who has the entire power of the gaming omniverse at his beckoned call.
- Unless your PC actually owns the Monster Manual I, then there zero legitimate reasons that you should even have yours open.
- If you honestly think a whisper gnome is truly EL+0, well then you're probably a powergamer.
- If your PC wasn't there for the talk with the ultra-powerful sage-wizard, and no one in the party made your PC aware of what happened, then you may not use that information in your decision-making process; even if your PC may die as a result.
- Speaking while the DM is speaking, and then asking what the DM said while you were speaking, just creates horrible spiral that results in you wishing you had just shut up in the first place.
- All groups like to take breaks and talk about their weeks, but there is a limit. Please note that.
- If you don't understand the basics of the game, then it is unreasonable to ask to be the DM.
- Except in the absolute worse circumstances, give a new DM more than one session to get his campaign going before having your PC "fall on his own axe".
- When looking for a gaming group, be honest about what you'd like to find in a group. That way you aren't severely disappointed when their version of the game doesn't match yours. Uhm...the same goes for lying at job interviews...
- If you have a friend that wants to join your game, but someone in your gaming group does not get along with your friend, then your friend needs to wait. Losing a known consistent player for someone brand new is not a good idea.

That's just a small list of what I can think of for the moment.

Put that in your book jim

jim pinto said:

in all this time, i've never seen a book for PLAYERS that gave advice on how to be a better PLAYER

Click to expand...

Well, it's not a dedicated book, but D&D for Dummies does address some of the issues you mentioned. Apart from role-playing advice scattered throughout the book (the "How to Play a Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer/Cleric" sections in the chapters covering the four basic classes, for example), Chapter 21 addresses "Role-playing and Working Together").

Still, a dedicated book on how to be a better player is a neat idea .

Kamikaze Midget said:

I ain't really interested in a book that tells players who like certain styles that they can go screw themselves.

Because the DM is the final arbiter, the DM needs advice on what his game will please and what it won't. Because the DM usually has one of the final says in if someone can join the group or not, the DM needs to be able to identify what kinds of people his game will interest and what kinds of people it won't. The player, on the other hand, only has to identify his own needs. What makes the game fun for HIM. There doesn't need to be a manual on how to be a "good player," because each player will find what makes them happy and gravitate towards it, and that's the best kind of player you can be -- the kind who knows what he wants and goes for it.

The DM does need to be aware of what makes other people happy, and that tastes don't always mesh up. They need to be able to identify these qualities to maximize their own enjoyment, and the enjoyment of those havin' fun at their table. The players don't really need to be told what makes them happy -- they already know it. They measure each DM against that. But a DM, because he has to wed the joy of several different people, needs to know how to find what other people are looking for.

I'm not interested in a tome that tells players to go along with the DM's story even if they're not enjoying themselves, to compromise their own enjoyment because the DM works oh so hard. Pheh. I don't want complacent players who only agree with me to be "good players." I want active participants. And that requires each individual player to identify what they want and to demand it out of me, and me to either rise to the occasion or say "you'll have to find someone else to give you what you want."

Click to expand...

My advice to players is always this: go read a manual on improv theatre. Improv theatre is essentially dialogue written off the top of one's head using a few key concepts (sometimes provided by the audience). There are rules that have been developed to help make it work, because if you aren't any good at improv, you'll end up standing around like a doofus going "um..." while the audience snores.

The big rule I always double-underline is "don't block," followed by "yes, and..."

Don't block means that when someone hands you a hook, even if they don't know it's a good hook, you take it and work with it. When the DM says that a group of gypsy merchants are selling their wares, you decide your character happens to have spent time travelling with gypsies and knows some good stories to tell to ingratiate himself to them. Not only have you helped to flesh out your character to make him more interesting and realistic, but you've provided a good way for the DM to pass on rumours and other information that he might have wanted to share (with or without skill rolls, as the group prefers). You might then use the gypsies as a source of hooks that catapult you into future adventures. In essence, you're helping the DM by giving him a footing on which to build some interesting NPC interactions and adventure hooks. Blocking, on the other hand, is when you say no. When you decide you don't care about rescuing anyone, or solving any mysteries, or talking to any townsfolk, or when you want to be chaotic evil so you can sabotage the party for no reason. It's just bad form.

Yes, and... essentially this is the opposite of blocking. Not only do you want to take the hook, but you want to make it more interesting than it was. In improv, when someone says "I see you bought a new hat," you reply, "yes, and it's one of those new musical hats!" In roleplaying, when a plot hook wanders by, not only are you waiting to pick up on it, but you're also ready to do some work to make it your own. Not just grudgingly going off to rescue the princess because "it's what we have to do for the plot, obviously." No, your character wants to rescue the princess so he can marry her, regardless of what her parents think. Surely his charm and wit can win her over, and if he can get her favour, what must he then do to impress her parents? If you're the hack-and-slash type, maybe they'd like some exotic trophies to hang over the fireplace. If you're the deep-roleplayer type, perhaps just laying on the charm real thick will do it. There's a lot of room for multiple solutions to the same situation, but you have to try to arrange a situation before you can solve it. Maybe there's a rival suitor, or maybe the girl decides she wants to elope. Maybe she turns up pregnant and your PC is suspect #1. Suddenly it's not just a plot hook, it's a story with your character in it. It's more engaging, more interesting, and it'll end up being more fun.

This isn't about telling players, "It's my way or the highway." It's about telling players, "Look, we're in this together. We can cooperate and make a fun game for all of us, or we can piss off and do our own thing alone and not have fun playing a game with each other. I think that the former choice would be the better one." People who are playing the game to win, or playing to crush the other players, or playing just to be a nuisance (whether they know they're doing it or not) are not good players, and a book to teach them how to play might help both them and the people they play with by making them more like the sort of folks we'd all like to game with.