Group Dynamics and the Chaotic Neutral Bard ...

Umbran said:

My point here is that actually examining whether your assumptions and preconceptions match the rest of the group's play-style and intent is part of your responsibility as a player. "The GM didn't explicitly tell me," is not an excuse.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know how things work in your area, but here if I get contacted by a DM asking me if I would be interested to join his group, then that's typically the only person I'm in contact with until I actually join the group for a gaming session. I'll either create my character on my own based on the information I receive from the DM or I'll meet with the DM to create the character under his direct guidance. Alternatively, I've sometimes been asking the DM if he has a pre-gen I might use, particularly if I'm new to the system or setting. I don't think I've ever contacted any of the players in such a case or was introduced to them before meeting for the first session (unless it was one of the players who introduced me to the DM in the first place).

So, I have to make certain assumptions, e.g. that the DM actually asked his players if it was okay that I'll join the group! And if the DM doesn't realize that my character might cause problems with the rest of the group I really don't see how the hell I should realize that before the first session?
Of course during the first session I'll typically hold back to get a feeling how the others are playing, but if I should notice that either the pcs are completely at odds or the play style isn't anything like what I've been told beforehand then I think it's the DM's fault, not mine.
What will happen then is that I'll either roll up a new pc that could actually work with the group or the first session will simply have been my last session with that group.

I'd like to note that I've rarely left a group because of one (or several) of the players (Well, there was this one guy...). It's usually when I dislike a DM's style that causes me to quit. And I don't recall having been kicked out of a group, either. So, despite my inexcusable assumptions and preconceptions and my disregard of my responsibilities as a player, I tend to get along well with (new) players, even if the pcs don't

Jhaelen said:

At least in earlier editions of D&D and among oldtimers like me, 'PvP' is the default mode of play.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. I'll accept that this was *your* experience but it was not the 'default mode of play'.

Jhaelen said:

Well, I don't know how things work in your area, but here if I get contacted by a DM asking me if I would be interested to join his group, then that's typically the only person I'm in contact with until I actually join the group for a gaming session.

Click to expand...

That's fine. The GM should have sufficient knowledge of his group and game to answer the relevant questions.

So, I have to make certain assumptions, e.g. that the DM actually asked his players if it was okay that I'll join the group! And if the DM doesn't realize that my character might cause problems with the rest of the group I really don't see how the hell I should realize that before the first session?

Click to expand...

By asking the GM, of course. If you ask, and the GM gives you inaccurate information, that's on his or her head. All I'm saying is that if you fail to ask, and there's a problem, then you don't get to pass the buck on to the GM. Own your own mistake, is all I'm saying.

So, despite my inexcusable assumptions and preconceptions and my disregard of my responsibilities as a player, I tend to get along well with (new) players, even if the pcs don't

Click to expand...

Bzzt! Hyperbolic, straw-man characterization of a position! 5 yard penalty!

Holy Bovine said:

Nonsense. I'll accept that this was *your* experience but it was not the 'default mode of play'.

Click to expand...

Well, I'll accept that this was not the default mode of play in your area (wherever that may be), but it's what it was like here in Germany in the 80s if you played (A)D&D. The game was predominantly played by groups interested in 'solving problems by combat' and D&D had quite a bad rep, probably precisely because of the widespread PvP incidents that the alignment system seemed(?!) to encourage. Ask any player who's been playing D&D in that time in Germany and I'm sure you'll get an account of their favorite PvP episode!

If you were interested in a more 'tame', cooperative play-style you simply picked a different rpg, e.g. the ever-popular 'Das Schwarze Auge' (The Dark Eye). This was a game that expected pcs to act in a 'heroic' way, work together as a team and basically be more interested in roleplaying and the storyline of an adventure than in engaging in (tactical) combat. (A)D&D players were a minority and looked down upon by the DSA players as 'hack & slashers' while the D&D players replied in kind and expressed they felt that DSA was 'for sissies' or 'newbs'.

I'm not saying there were no exceptions but that really was the dominant way to play (A)D&D here (it might be and probably is different today). And before you again dismiss my experience as anecdotal, I'd like to mention that in the days I was a co-founder of an rpg-club that in its prime time featured over 80 members from several different states, and when I moved to a different federal state a couple of years later the scene was exactly the same.