Finding your roleplaying style

[Krensky]

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.

It's breaking the game because they agreed to play an Adventure Path style module, then not only refused to follow the initial setup, but then turned that setup upside down and lit it on fire. They agreed to play an AP, then decided to play in a sandbox. It's a dick move. It's showing up at a touch football game and playing rugby without discussing it with the other team. It's not engaging with the world, it's breaking the implied table contract that "We'll play this AP." while mooning the GM at the same time.

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

It's not a question of allowed.

Let's go with a more concrete example.

I'm currently running Rise of the Runelords. I advertised the game as that AP. I layed out a few simple rules.

1. Engage with the adventure. This is a published adventure path. There's plenty of subplots and secondary encounters possible, but don't refuse to engage with the AP.

2. No villainous characters. The party and your characters should be heroic or at least anti-heroic. You can come up with any reasoning or background you like, but when crap hits the fan you should rise to the challenge and save the village.

3. No PvP. Inter-party tension and conflict is fine. Backstabbing, infighting, etc. is not.

4. Don't be a douche. To me, to each other, to the game.

There were a few others, but these are the relevant ones. I fact these four rules (or rather, rules two through four and some variant of one) are more or less standard for my table regardless of who's GMing.

Now, let's go back to your question with the above firmly in mind as a concrete example.

The equivalent of Shaman's example is:

Me: Ok, so you're all in Sandpoint for the Swallowtail Festival.
Player 1: No I'm not, I'm heading for Riddleport.
Player 2: Yeah, let's go check out the local hive of scum and villany.
Player 3: I want to head to Kovosa and assassinate the Queen.
Etc.

I would stop the game and remind them of rule one, that they agreed to. (Which has been a premise the whole time that everyone knew they were playing an AP style module.) If they insist on breaking the game, that's fine. I have other things I can be doing then running a game for a bunch of jerks.

Your example would be that partway through the players decide to become
Karzoug's lackies and help conquer the world. I'd stop the game and point the to the no villains rule. If they insist, once again, I have plenty of other things I can do rather then run a game I'm not interested in running.

What makes these players 'breakers' is that they agreed to play in a game of one style but insisted on playing another style. This is a extreme hypothetical, since these are (more or less) mature adults who aren't setting out to be jerks.

I did say in my original response to Shaman that the GM in his example didn't inform the players he was going to run a adventure path style module, he made a huge mistake and the table has big issue. If he did (which is the premise this whole discussion is based on) and the players did what happened in that example, they're jerks who set out to break the game the GM and they agreed to.

 

[Argyle King]

In the event the players agreed to those specific rules and then played otherwise, I would then agree with you.



However, the way you are framing what I am saying is different than how I am intending it. In the example you gave, I would find it somewhat ridiculous if one of the characters just randomly decided to go somewhere else without any sort of reason. Though, if along the way, the players via interacting with the world (not by avoiding it) became interested in an aspect of the game world and wanted to explore it further, my personally preference would be to allow them to do so - even if that means they sidetrack a little bit. To me, that's what I mean by sandbox play; that is also why I view 'breakers' and 'sandboxers' as different things.

Breakers are going against the grain of the world based upon reasons not rooted in the game world, and/or are ignoring the world. Sandboxers are interacting with elements of the world; and this interaction sometimes takes them away from the main path; sometimes it leads to them cutting their own trail. Decisions are based upon looking at in game elements through the eyes of the character. To me, that's the difference.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

That was my reply to Krensky's repeated assertion that gamers failing to follow the adventure path are game-breaking jerks.

And please, the "sirrah" stuff is lame.

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.

No, this branch of the conversation began with Krensky trying to equate my 'sandboxers' with the original poster's 'breakers.'

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.

Compromise and collaboration sound good, but in my experience they are often overrated.

I would rather find a group of like-minded gamers who are on the same page with respect to their preferences - then everyone at the table gets the game they want.

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?

I noticed you changed your post from your earlier reply - did you realize how it sounded to say that we don't know how Dave Arneson's campaign played out when my excerpt is from the book specifically about how his campaign played out?

With respect to your Plan B post, old isn't good, and new isn't better - I simply know what I like and what I don't, and I play accordingly. I don't worry about whether that's considered fashionable or not.

 

[Krensky]

In the event the players agreed to those specific rules and then played otherwise, I would then agree with you.

Then why are you arguing? From the very beginning I specified that the players agreed to play the module.

However, the way you are framing what I am saying is different than how I am intending it. In the example you gave, I would find it somewhat ridiculous if one of the characters just randomly decided to go somewhere else without any sort of reason. Though, if along the way, the players via interacting with the world (not by avoiding it) became interested in an aspect of the game world and wanted to explore it further, my personally preference would be to allow them to do so - even if that means they sidetrack a little bit. To me, that's what I mean by sandbox play; that is also why I view 'breakers' and 'sandboxers' as different things.

*sigh*

From the beginning the entire premise of this discussion is that the players agreed to to play in an adventure style module (because otherwise the GM got we he deserved for not getting proper buy-in) then crapped all over it by refusing to engage with the module's events in favor of playing in a sandbox (per Shaman's example).

Breakers are going against the grain of the world based upon reasons not rooted in the game world, and/or are ignoring the world. Sandboxers are interacting with elements of the world; and this interaction sometimes takes them away from the main path; sometimes it leads to them cutting their own trail. Decisions are based upon looking at in game elements through the eyes of the character. To me, that's the difference.

That's completely tangential though. The premise was they agreed to play in an AP-style module and then decided it to break the game by turning it into a sandbox. They bought into a AP style module, and then refused to play the module.

 

[Krensky]

That was my reply to Krensky's repeated assertion that gamers failing to follow the adventure path are game-breaking jerks.

If they agreed to play the adventure path, which I stated as a premise from the beginning, jerk is putting it mildly.

No, this branch of the conversation began with Krensky trying to equate my 'sandboxers' with the original poster's 'breakers.'

With the singular premise that the players agreed to play in a AP-style module, which I maintained since the beginning, I still don't see a difference between refusing to do anything or choosing to do anything other then play the module. It's not a question of preferred play style, it's a question of agreed terms of the game. I'm sorry, but if you agree to play in a AP-style module and then take the obvious 'hire on as caravan guards' hook and turn it into replacing the local crime ecosystem, you're breaking the game.

Compromise and collaboration sound good, but in my experience they are often overrated.

Just like a sandbox!

Couldn't resist.

I would rather find a group of like-minded gamers who are on the same page with respect to their preferences - then everyone at the table gets the game they want.

Agreed, but that's been part of this since the beginning. The players in your example are only 'breakers' if they agreed to play the adventure path. Under that reasonable premise (because we both agree if the GM didn't get buy in he screwed up big time), they're breaking the game. Put your preference for 'pure' sandbox aside and imagine yourself at the first session of a new campaign where the GM said he was going to run an adventure path. He says there's a caravan looking for guards. Are you really going to claim that it's unclear or obfuscated what the module expects you to do?

 

[Starfox]

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.

I would have handed out xp for this, but since I could not and I think the point is VERY important, I quote it for truth instead. Something I'd not normally do.

One of the few play styles that actually IS disruptive is when you consider your own play style so superior you won't even consider others' point of view. Such thinking can turn into a closed-loop argument; nothing goes in, nothing comes out.

 

[Starfox]

...when everyone at the table is 14 and full of ego and not much understanding of others, things still go awry...

Just as an aside, the way I remember things from when I was a 14-year-old gamer we did have some arguments, but we were mostly on the same ship. Whereas today, approaching 50, I find that players can REALLY disagree, to the point where they refuse to play with each other. As we develop our personalities, we get more fixed in our likes and dislikes; we know what we like and won't bother with anything else. Unlike 14-year-olds, who are open to oh so many things.

Who is to say which is really better?

 

[Starfox]

It's breaking the game because they agreed to play an Adventure Path style module, then not only refused to follow the initial setup, but then turned that setup upside down and lit it on fire. They agreed to play an AP, then decided to play in a sandbox. It's a dick move. It's showing up at a touch football game and playing rugby without discussing it with the other team. It's not engaging with the world, it's breaking the implied table contract that "We'll play this AP." while mooning the GM at the same time.

I would rather find a group of like-minded gamers who are on the same page with respect to their preferences - then everyone at the table gets the game they want.

I feel that what this is boiling down to is that a gaming group (like any other group) has an implicit social contract. It is rarely clearly formulated; rather it develops over time, and includes many details on preferred playstyle, what kind of attendance is required, who brings the burritos, and so forth. For a group to function, there must be some kind of consensus (or at leas an agreement to disagree) on these things. Obviously, you two have quite different ideas on playstyle, which sounds like it would make it hard for you to coexist in one gaming group. On the other hand, it could be that it would work out in practice because you could agree on the "attendance and burrito" parts. What is important here is that neither of you are wrong. You both have a valid play style, only your styles may not mesh perfectly.

The Robin Laws articles referenced by Rel go a long way towards explaining these things.

 

[Rel]

I think there are two different topics here that function entirely independent of one another. One is playstyle. The other is what I call "buy-in".

Just so I'm clear about what I'm referring to with playstyle, I don't consider "sandbox" or "adventure path" to be playstyles. I think of those more as... "campaign structures" might be a good term. When I say playstyle I mean that somebody is a "butt kicker" who really enjoys the parts of the game where they get to engage in combat. Or "story teller" who latches on to the plot elements of a campaign (whether they be plot elements posed by the GM or generated by the PC's).

The buy-in is where you have an explicit not-in-character conversation between the GM and the players where the GM poses to run a certain campaign structure and the players all say, "Yes. We agree to this." It is very much a social contract and there are (and should be) consequences for breaking it. It is this kind of buy-in conversation where the GM says, "I'm going to run the Savage Tides Adventure Path. Is everybody cool with that?" By agreeing to play the adventure path the players are essentially saying that, whatever other choices their characters may make, they will promise to bite on the plot hooks that pull them further into the published adventure.

I've seen the notion expressed (not suggesting it was by anybody in this thread - I frankly don't recall who posted it) that a sandbox game needs no such buy-in because the GM is placing no expectations upon the players in terms of what their characters do. However I would suggest that buy-in is still necessary because the GM expects the characters to do something. Some players might otherwise sit around waiting for the game to come to them. There may be exceptions such as where a GM always runs games as sandboxes and the players always play well in those sandboxes. But some sort of buy-in happened at some point in the past and essentially that social contract is still unchanged and intact.

Personally I run games that fall in the middle somewhere. I almost never run published adventures of any kind, but I steal ideas from them liberally. Most of my games tend to have a theme of some kind and I make damn sure that before we start rolling any dice that I have full player buy-in concerning that theme. Like when I wanted to run a game that had a Pirates of the Caribbean theme, the buy-in conversation included the specific sentiment that, "Hey you guys don't have to be aboard a ship every single session. Going ashore and having adventures there can certainly happen. But it's generally agreed that this is a nautical themed campaign and returning to the sea is going to be where the action is. So no long journeys into the heart of South America to capture lost Incan Gold, ok?" And everybody said "Sounds fine." and we got the game started.

 

[Barastrondo]

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

Heroes can be proactive, too.

Can't give you XP at the moment, must spread around, but the example of do-goodniks is fantastic, and exactly what warms my heart when I see my own players kicking up in that fashion.