Finding your roleplaying style

[The Shaman]

How is this different the what the OP calls breakers.

Because the original poster doesn't appear to like that playstyle and picked a pejorative way to frame it, whereas I like that playstyle and encourage it every chance I get.

The GM sat down at the table with a module. I'm going to assume he told the players he was running a prepared adventure.

This is one of the reasons I prefer to steer clear of modules.

A one-shot at a con or a Meetup game-night is fine; "We're gonna play this adventure path" doesn't work for me.

The players then go and not just actively ignore the plot hook, but decide to actively destroy the setting and premise.

I see that example as the players actively engaging the setting, not destroying it.

Now, if the GM didn't set the simple expectation of "This is a pre-published module. Please engage with the elements presented." then, frankly he messed up.

Agreed.

Same if he didn't specify that you're playing heroes, not criminal scum. Etc.

"Criminal scum?" Ooo, very harsh!

The same example works with a party of do-goodniks as well, however.

Referee: " . . . is seeking caravan guards for protection from bandits on the road to . . . "

Player 1: "Bandits? Hey, let's clear out the bandits and encourage the local merchants to use some of their profits to build a hospital for pilgrims."

Player 2: "We can ask for donations from the passing caravan owners as well, to defray a portion of the cost of maintaining a company of cavalry to patrol the road."

Player 3: "Are there some ruins around we can clear, to set up a stronghold?"

Player 1: "We should look at getting one of the local temples on our side, maybe donate an idol or build a shrine or something."

Player 3: "And we need to locate a reliable contact with the local thieves' guild, to gather intelligence on their relationship with the bandits."

Player 2: "Perhaps we can assist a good-aligned thief to become the guildmaster and work with us instead of against us?"

Referee: *stares at pages 2 through 126 of the adventure path clearly no one is interested in*

Heroes can be proactive, too.

 

[Krensky]

I think it's very different than breakers. Breakers are looking for a way to just kill the game from how I understand the OP.

The sandboxers are using their characters to drive the story and being proactive instead of reactive.

Really? Looks exactly the same here. Players sit down to play the game, GM gives them the hook, and they proceed to ignore the elements presented and that the GM was prepared to run (the module) to go become bandit kings.

If your GM tells you he's running a prepublished adventure, you agree to play in it, and you decide to turn it into a sandbox, your breaking the game. Frankly, the players in Shaman's example come off a jerks to me.

I 100% understand the idea behind prepublished modules. However, I would find it quite strange if I attempted an action and the DM's response was "sorry, that's not part of the script, so you can't do it."

That's not what was given as an example. Say a module frame the opening as 'Your party has been hired by the local lord to investigate a far flung village that hasn't been heard from in a season.' The you and the other players, who agreed to play the module, decide to go off and become bandits. Or to kill the lord. Or anything but engage in the module and go check the village out. You're breaking the game.

 

[Starfox]

There are many examples here written in a negative tone, but I don't really think these archetypes are negative - except when taken to extremes. And basically anything is bad when taken to extremes. So I read even the "negative" descriptions here more as loving jibes and jests than true insults.

 

[Krensky]

Because the original poster doesn't appear to like that playstyle and picked a pejorative way to frame it, whereas I like that playstyle and encourage it every chance I get.

Eye of the beholder then. Check.

This is one of the reasons I prefer to steer clear of modules.

A one-shot at a con or a Meetup game-night is fine; "We're gonna play this adventure path" doesn't work for me.

Well I figured that. That wasn't the point. When someone (or multiple someones at the table decides to pursue a play style other then what everyone agreed on, it's disruptive at best, and game breaking at worst. Granted a table's play style can and likely will drift somewhat over time, but the example you gave sounds like a bunch of jerks breaking the game on purpose.

I see that example as the players actively engaging the setting, not destroying it.

It depends on your game and the agreed upon play style. Presuming the players agreed to play the AP, if they go and decide to take the hook to protect the caravan and turn it into an excuse to become the new bandit lords, they're breaking the game.

Similarly, if I agreed to play in your sandbox and refused to, you know, do something which results in the session grinding to a halt and upsetting you and the other players by spending all my time in my apartments in Paris or whatever until you have someone kick in my door or whatever, I'm breaking your game (if only for me).

"Criminal scum?" Ooo, very harsh!

The same example works with a party of do-goodniks as well, however.

Heroes can be proactive, too.

They're still breaking the game (again, presuming they agreed to play the AP).

 

[The Shaman]

They're still breaking the game (again, presuming they agreed to play the AP).

The idea of "breaking the game" presumes that the players know what it is their characters are 'supposed to' be doing per the referee or the module author, or are deliberately trying to be disruptive, which is why I take the original post as pejorative.

Both of these are problematic for me for a number of reasons. Players may not realize they're off the reservation; their characters are doing what they believe to be best in the context of what they know, without realizing that's not what the module designer 'intended.' If the referee feels he needs to put them back on the path, he might as well just hand the module over to the players and let them read it, 'cause basically he's saying, "Here's the story I want to tell, and I don't want your choices to interfere with it."

I can't recall personally playing with many players who were deliberately, self-consciously disruptive, who were attempting to screw with the referee or the group by their behavior for kicks. I can recall players being bored or disinterested and trying to find ways to make the game more interesting for themselves. If it's one player, that can be rude; if it's the entire group, then the referee needs to seriously consider why that is.

But let's be clear, the decision by the players and the adventurers to pursue something they find interesting in the game isn't, in and of itself, disruptive. In fact, once upon a time, that was simply what players were expected to do.

 

[Rel]

I've found the various works of Robin Laws to resonate best with me in terms of defining the various types of players. I frequently recommend that folks read his Laws of Good Gamemastering or the 3.5 DMG2 or 4e DMG (even if you have no interest in the system(s) themselves) because his explanation of various types of players and how to satisfy their "emotional kick" are incredibly clear and useful. I would not consider gaming with somebody on an ongoing basis without having a conversation with them, in reference to these books, about their preferred playstyle.

One of the more eye opening things to me about these playstyles was that they are all valid. Many people tend to use the term "powergamer" negatively but I came to understand that it's a legitimate (if different than my own) approach to gaming. Same goes for the "Casual Gamer". We have a guy in our group who I tried for YEARS to engage more directly in the unfolding story of the game. He resisted all my efforts to thrust him into the spotlight. Eventually we discovered that he's just a Casual Gamer (and a little shy about that kind of thing) who is primarily there to enjoy time with his friends. He prefers playing "support" characters who are not the primary focus of the game and my understanding that has vastly improved both our enjoyment.

 

[Umbran]

The idea of "breaking the game" presumes that the players know what it is their characters are 'supposed to' be doing per the referee or the module author

Yes. He started with that premise, that running through the published module was agreed upon before play.

Players may not realize they're off the reservation; their characters are doing what they believe to be best in the context of what they know, without realizing that's not what the module designer 'intended.'

I think you're underestimating player's cognitive abilities, in general. Players are an observant bunch, and they generally know the difference between following the hooks presented and starting out a freebooting mercenary company out of left field.

If the referee feels he needs to put them back on the path, he might as well just hand the module over to the players and let them read it, 'cause basically he's saying, "Here's the story I want to tell, and I don't want your choices to interfere with it."

Well, sometimes you'll find a gaming group that's like a rock band that breaks up over "creative differences". But in general, that sounds awful hyperbolic to me - in collaborative work, there's always going to be some correction from time to time. That's expected, and not that difficult to do, so long as everyone is on board with it.

Last time I checked, one of the base assumptions of gaming was that everyone at the table is at least marginally sentient, and capable of some form of communication with the other players. While maybe when everyone at the table is 14 and full of ego and not much understanding of others, things still go awry, but if you're gaming with folks beyond a certain level of maturity, you have a conversation about what everyone wants, you get a bit of compromise give-and-take, and you move on. There shouldn't be a whole lot of a problem here.

It seems to be that saying, "the players always get their choices," is about as domineering and unfair as saying, "the GM always gets his/her choices." Collaborative work is sharing, not drawing hard lines in the sand over who gets to do what.

In fact, once upon a time, that was simply what players were expected to do.

Ah, yes. Back in the day, when everyone played the same way, in the best of all possible worlds?

 

[The Shaman]

I think you're underestimating player's cognitive abilities, in general. Players are an observant bunch, and they generally know the difference between following the hooks presented and starting out a freebooting mercenary company out of left field.

Exclude the middle much?

I've see players misinterpret clues and head off in what is, to them, a more interesting direction, and I've seen players become so interested in what's in front of them that they're less interested in what the module designer planned down the line.

It seems to be that saying, "the players always get their choices," is about as domineering and unfair as saying, "the GM always gets his/her choices."

"The players always get their choices" is neither domineering nor unfair if that is the environment the referee is trying to create - it's also a distorted view, of course, but then again, so is framing it as an issue of collaboration and maturity rather than playstyle.

Back in the day, when everyone played the same way, in the best of all possible worlds?

"From the first excursions into the dark depths of Blackmoor Castle's Dungeon, it became apparent that these first hardy bands of adventurers would soon seek out new worlds to pillage. From the castle itself the small town of Blackmoor grew, then the surrounding countryside became filled with new holes to explore and beyond that talk was already spreading about visting the Egg of Coot. Each of these steps entailed a great deal of work upon a naive Judge who felt there was already more than enough trouble already available to satisfy any band of adventurers, a phrase no doubt heard rather frequently since then, in other areas." - Dave Arneson, "Introduction," The First Fantasy Campaign

 

[Umbran]

Exclude the middle much?

Funny, but I thought that was what you were doing with the, "If the referee feels he needs to put them back on the path, he might as well just hand the module over to the players and let them read it.." You were the one who jumped to an extreme, and excluded any form of middle ground, not me, sirrah.

The players always get their choices" is neither domineering nor unfair if that is the environment the referee is trying to create

If you tell folks you are running a published adventure or adventure path, the GM is clearly not trying to create that environment. This branch of the discussion started with an explicit statement that the GM should set these expectations. So, I fail to see how your point applies.

...so is framing it as an issue of collaboration and maturity rather than playstyle."

I am merely saying that mature folks can, in fact, work through the issue if they choose. You said, rather clearly, that rather than work through the issue, the GM should instead dictate the whole to the players.

I am talking about what is possible to do, while you seem to be talking about what one *should* do - I am being descriptive and you seem to be proscriptive.

"From the first excursions into the dark depths of Blackmoor Castle's Dungeon, it became apparent that these first hardy bands of adventurers would soon seek out new worlds to pillage...."

[sblock]
The GM could satisfy that seeking with a series of prepared, on-the-rails adventures or with sandboxing, or something else. He doesn't specify in that quote what model he used for adventure design.

More importantly, it does not say the GM expected that behavior - quite the opposite, it suggests the GM was not prepared for the situation beforehand. He'd only set up the Castle, not a whole huge world-sandbox where the players could choose their course at will. He increased the scope in response to player requests. His initial offering was more limited in scope and choice.

All of which is aside another point - that the experiences of the first couple of GMs, with their small (and IIRC, overlapping) player groups, does not speak well to what happens out in the rest of the world.[/sblock]

I wrote a bunch of stuff there, and then realized a bit later that it is *all* rather aside the point.

Your icon for the golden age, where everyone did the same thing, was also the age when the hobby was smallest, and when the absolute least wisdom and understanding about rpgs had been accumulated. They were clever gents, but there's a lot to gaming that was not discovered or realized until well after their time. Is that really where you want to go for examples?

 

[Argyle King]

Really? Looks exactly the same here. Players sit down to play the game, GM gives them the hook, and they proceed to ignore the elements presented and that the GM was prepared to run (the module) to go become bandit kings.

If your GM tells you he's running a prepublished adventure, you agree to play in it, and you decide to turn it into a sandbox, your breaking the game. Frankly, the players in Shaman's example come off a jerks to me.



That's not what was given as an example. Say a module frame the opening as 'Your party has been hired by the local lord to investigate a far flung village that hasn't been heard from in a season.' The you and the other players, who agreed to play the module, decide to go off and become bandits. Or to kill the lord. Or anything but engage in the module and go check the village out. You're breaking the game.

I don't believe it's breaking the game if they are engaging the game world. The players are just reacting to the world as presented in a different way than the DM assumed they would.

If the players -while playing through the module- decided they wanted to switch sides and help the bandits instead, would they not be allowed?