Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why Good Players Do Not 14.25.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7002477" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Okay, so, if I understand it, you recommend altering the game baselines to offset the problem caused by one player because you believe it will improve the game for everyone else. Why would you not discuss the problem choice with the one player? And, if that player is putting his fun above the rest of the group, why would you continue to allow him to play in your game? </p><p></p><p>What I'm getting from this is that you agree SS can be a problem, but see no point in addressing it before play or having a discussion with players to correct it if discovered after play has begun. Instead you prefer to attribute the problem to the player's attitude and change your game to punish that player (and the other players, just in a lesser way) for making the choice you've characterized as the player putting their fun above the other players. Frankly, if you allow choices in your game that allow for a player to do this, the fault is yours <em>at the beginning</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This... doesn't make sense. Let's posit something and apply your frame work:</p><p></p><p>The player chooses feat A. You make no changes to your game because the player chose feat A. Is this because a) it is irrelevant or b) your choice to make no changes is because the player chose feat A?</p><p></p><p>The problem here is that b) is circular -- it assumes that the player choice is the reason for any DM choice, including the choice to do nothing. You then say that since the DM made a choice, it's evidence that it's because the player picked the feat. Your premise assumes your conclusion.</p><p></p><p>So, I have no idea what you're actually trying to say here. I believe you're trying to say that the player's character build choices affect all decisions the DM makes. I actually disagree with this. How the player <em>plays</em> the character affects my choices. I would not, for instance, add armor to my bad guys just because my players are good at hitting and I felt the need to offset that. I would add armor to my bad guys if the bad guys leaders developed intel that the PCs were very good and that additional equipment could help the bad guys achieve their goals. Then, if they have the resources, they'd better equip their minions. But because the player's picked up SS and were decimating encounters? Nope. That's a reward for making a good choice. If, however, I found it unfun to run for that group because of that choice, I'd discuss it with the players openly and find a mutually agreeable solution that didn't involve me running behind my screen and just up armoring everything so that the players didn't do as well.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sorry, where did I say it wasn't metagaming? I said that <em>post facto</em> metagaming is a bad sort. Changing the way the game works because of the way a player chose a legal options in that game just to offset that choice is poor DMing. If you don't like the choice, remove it ahead of time or have a discussion with the players on how best to fix the issues being seen. I did exactly this in my game where I changed SS from -5/+10 to +1 DEX -- I discussed it with my players, laid out my concerns and why, listened to feedback, and we agreed that this was a reasonable change and enacted it. What I didn't do was allow a player to pick the unaltered feat and then decide I didn't like the way it worked so I'd just uparmor everything to make it less useful.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7002477, member: 16814"] Okay, so, if I understand it, you recommend altering the game baselines to offset the problem caused by one player because you believe it will improve the game for everyone else. Why would you not discuss the problem choice with the one player? And, if that player is putting his fun above the rest of the group, why would you continue to allow him to play in your game? What I'm getting from this is that you agree SS can be a problem, but see no point in addressing it before play or having a discussion with players to correct it if discovered after play has begun. Instead you prefer to attribute the problem to the player's attitude and change your game to punish that player (and the other players, just in a lesser way) for making the choice you've characterized as the player putting their fun above the other players. Frankly, if you allow choices in your game that allow for a player to do this, the fault is yours [I]at the beginning[/I]. This... doesn't make sense. Let's posit something and apply your frame work: The player chooses feat A. You make no changes to your game because the player chose feat A. Is this because a) it is irrelevant or b) your choice to make no changes is because the player chose feat A? The problem here is that b) is circular -- it assumes that the player choice is the reason for any DM choice, including the choice to do nothing. You then say that since the DM made a choice, it's evidence that it's because the player picked the feat. Your premise assumes your conclusion. So, I have no idea what you're actually trying to say here. I believe you're trying to say that the player's character build choices affect all decisions the DM makes. I actually disagree with this. How the player [I]plays[/I] the character affects my choices. I would not, for instance, add armor to my bad guys just because my players are good at hitting and I felt the need to offset that. I would add armor to my bad guys if the bad guys leaders developed intel that the PCs were very good and that additional equipment could help the bad guys achieve their goals. Then, if they have the resources, they'd better equip their minions. But because the player's picked up SS and were decimating encounters? Nope. That's a reward for making a good choice. If, however, I found it unfun to run for that group because of that choice, I'd discuss it with the players openly and find a mutually agreeable solution that didn't involve me running behind my screen and just up armoring everything so that the players didn't do as well. Sorry, where did I say it wasn't metagaming? I said that [I]post facto[/I] metagaming is a bad sort. Changing the way the game works because of the way a player chose a legal options in that game just to offset that choice is poor DMing. If you don't like the choice, remove it ahead of time or have a discussion with the players on how best to fix the issues being seen. I did exactly this in my game where I changed SS from -5/+10 to +1 DEX -- I discussed it with my players, laid out my concerns and why, listened to feedback, and we agreed that this was a reasonable change and enacted it. What I didn't do was allow a player to pick the unaltered feat and then decide I didn't like the way it worked so I'd just uparmor everything to make it less useful. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why Good Players Do Not 14.25.
Top