Finding your roleplaying style

[Argyle King]

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



*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).




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.

I still felt the need to explain the difference.

Secondly, the OP didn't include the same rules you did when he mentioned the term. If including the rules, then, yes I agree. However, generally speaking in a manner which is meant to apply a blanket term, I do not view breaker and sandbox to be equal.

My main point being that I do not feel 'breaker' style of play is the same thing as 'sandbox' style of play. I understand that not everyone plays the same way; I support the right of people to play in a manner they enjoy. For me, even if I were running a module, I'd be supportive of the group's desire to take interest in an element of the game world - even if it wasn't an element I had intended them to take interest in. I'm a firm believer in the rpg experience being a shared story; sometimes, to me, that means the characters are their own plot hooks.


edit: I considered the rules a little more. If the players agreed to play the module and were also given the understanding that nothing exists in the game world beyond what is specifically published in the module, then, yes, they are breaking the game by taking actions which run counter to that premise.

edit 2: Some expectations can be pre-caked into a game though. I see where Kren is coming from with his module examples; even if I don't personally believe using a module means you can't go outside of it, I understand it. An example of a time when I would expect someone in a group to stick with game assumptions would be assumptions that a lot of game systems seem to have. When I pick up GURPS, D&D 4E, or Savage Worlds, there are -typically- some preset assumptions about the game which come with the system. An example I have from a D&D session which I think would match Kren's view of breakers is a friend of mine who tries to build characters like the barbarian with a strength score of 14 who uses daggers. Does the game allow you to do it, yes; should you - I believe no because the rest of the party is expecting a certain amount of proficiency out of each role in the party.

 

[Krensky]

Secondly, the OP didn't include the same rules you did when he mentioned the term. If including the rules, then, yes I agree. However, generally speaking in a manner which is meant to apply a blanket term, I do not view breaker and sandbox to be equal.

As presented by the OP, no. I was specifically responding to Shaman's example.

edit: I considered the rules a little more. If the players agreed to play the module and were also given the understanding that nothing exists in the game world beyond what is specifically published in the module, then, yes, they are breaking the game by taking actions which run counter to that premise.

It's not that there's nothing outside the module path, it's that there's a presumtion that while there's sub-plots and side-quests to pursue, by agreeing to play in a AP style module you're agreeing to follow the module's major plot hooks (or are willing to accept some slight of hand that sticks them in front of you).

edit 2: Some expectations can be pre-caked into a game though. I see where Kren is coming from with his module examples; even if I don't personally believe using a module means you can't go outside of it, I understand it.

Nothing wrong with messing around with sub-plots and side-quests. It's how the heroes come into there full measure of power.

An example I have from a D&D session which I think would match Kren's view of breakers is a friend of mine who tries to build characters like the barbarian with a strength score of 14 who uses daggers. Does the game allow you to do it, yes; should you - I believe no because the rest of the party is expecting a certain amount of proficiency out of each role in the party.

Careful, you know what they say about assumptions.

Sounds like a perfectly playable character in my D&D 3.X games, but I could see why it wouldn't be in others. On the other hand, in my current fantasy game of choice (Fantasy Craft) it would rock the house.

Savage Barbarian Soldier, 14s in physical stats and 12s in mental. Whatever Origin skills you want. Use the level 1 feat to take Rage Mastery, and the Soldier feat to take Rage Supremacy. Pick up a pair of long knives and some Pech made leather armor. Base speed of 50, 14 vitality and 17 wounds, +6 fort, +3 will, +2 reflex, +3 defense and initiative... no fatigue from going in and out of Rage. +5 to Str and Con while raging. Use your class and level feats to pick up Two Weapon Fighting, and Two Weapon Defense, the Knife chain, and Lightning Reflexes to help the low reflex save and for the initiative boost. Use early loot for better armor and to add guard to the knives to boost defense.

Yeah...

Thanks, hopefully I'll be able to play again soon and that mechanical concept will be feasible.

 

[Argyle King]

Unfortunately, that barbarian character using daggers was in a D&D 4E game. Which meant -among other things- that he couldn't even use most of the powers he had selected. (Many of them required wielding a two handed weapon.) The ones he could use had a very slim chance of hitting.


The same player also played the chaotic evil paladin of Pelor. For a few sessions it was somewhat funny. Then it wasn't. Especially when -mid combat- he deemed the ranger's beast companion unworthy to live in Pelor's light which lead to him shoving a holy symbol down its throat and killing it. Did I mention that this then meant many of the rangers powers didn't work due to a lack of a companion for the rest of the fight?

 

[TheUltramark]

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.



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.

shouldn't rule #4 be rule #1 - and wouldn't that cover most if not all issues?

 

[Lanefan]

Hmmm...not quite sure how to approach this.

What I'm reading in this thread sounds like lots of DMs who either won't or can't hit the curveball. Well, sorry to say curveballs are part of the game too; time for some batting practice.

As DM, I run a module-based campaign - whether the modules are my own or pre-canned is irrelevant - but at the same time I'm always ready to respond if for whatever reason the players decide to blow the module up somehow; be it by changing sides (they've never done that...yet), getting TPKed, left-turning away from the adventure, deciding it's more fun to kill each other instead, or whatever. If it makes sense in character and in situation* I'm cool with it. I'm (almost) never so married to a given module or story arc that I can't let it go - if nothing else, I can store it away and run it out again sometime down the road.

* - an example of a situation where left-turning does not work might be an adventure where the party is stuck on a mini-plane somewhere and the only way to get off said mini-plane is to finish the adventure.

As player, there's been times where I've led the charge to bail out on an adventure - mostly because it's either boring to me as a player or because my character would simply rather be doing something else. An example: in the 3e campaign I played my first character was all about killing Giants - they'd destroyed his home and taken his land and dammit, he wanted it back! About 6 adventures in, the DM is trying to hook us into some adventure or other and I just said "Screw it, I've had enough of this faffing around. The Giants are that way, so that's where I'm going. Who's with me?". The party followed, and the next adventure (an on-the-fly change by the DM) consisted of making a small dent in a very abundant Giant population...after which the other players had had their fill of Giants and left-turned us again into something else (at which point my character retired to keep going vs. the Giants; I had a second PC in the party and thus stayed in the game).

There's also occasions where either the players or DM or both realize partway through an adventure that for whatever reason it just isn't working out to be any good - it's too easy, it's too tough, it's dull and boring, it makes no sense, whatever - and in these cases a left turn is a very welcome thing! I've done this as DM once or twice where the players didn't even realize it - started them on one adventure, realized it was garbage, and segued into a different one on the fly. But there's also been one or two occasions where I and the players have looked at each other, thrown up our hands, and said "Yeah, this module's useless; but we've started it now so let's just get it over with."

Perhaps fortunately, the one thing I've never (yet) had to worry about was players who ignored *all* hooks in favour of doing nothing. They'll pretty much always either take the hooks presented or dream up their own; either way, there's an adventure out there for 'em and so they go and find it.

Lan-"now if I could only hit the fastball"-efan

 

[Krensky]

Unfortunately, that barbarian character using daggers was in a D&D 4E game. Which meant -among other things- that he couldn't even use most of the powers he had selected. (Many of them required wielding a two handed weapon.) The ones he could use had a very slim chance of hitting.

I don't know enough about the 4e power library to tell if this was an inherent issue with the concept or his power selection, but that sounds very poor.

The same player also played the chaotic evil paladin of Pelor. For a few sessions it was somewhat funny. Then it wasn't. Especially when -mid combat- he deemed the ranger's beast companion unworthy to live in Pelor's light which lead to him shoving a holy symbol down its throat and killing it. Did I mention that this then meant many of the rangers powers didn't work due to a lack of a companion for the rest of the fight?

Well, that's just being a dick.

 

[Krensky]

shouldn't rule #4 be rule #1 - and wouldn't that cover most if not all issues?

*shrug*

There's no meaning to the order.

 

[WHW4]

The same player also played the chaotic evil paladin of Pelor. For a few sessions it was somewhat funny. Then it wasn't. Especially when -mid combat- he deemed the ranger's beast companion unworthy to live in Pelor's light which lead to him shoving a holy symbol down its throat and killing it. Did I mention that this then meant many of the rangers powers didn't work due to a lack of a companion for the rest of the fight?

Wow. Just wow, man. That paladin wouldn't have lived through the night. If I was the ranger he would have died alone and naked in the wilderness. How did the other party members react?

 

[RedTonic]

I like some no good very bad fun sometimes. There are periods when I'm in the mood to kick down the door, socialize with my friends, and spout off witty one liners. I see that it's not OP's gig, but that doesn't mean the style merits such acrid disparagement.

The important issue is what the explicit and implicit agreement of the gaming group is vis-a-vis what's being played. If someone wants to GM a serious campaign with full on roleplay, the players who attend better want some of that action. Disinterested folk need not apply. Likewise, if someone wants to GM a lighter game, or a game for optimizing and seeing how far you can go with the rules as written, the players who show up should know what they're in for--and if they don't like it, they can do something else. The game that's played is an agreement between the DM(s) and players. Nobody should "have" to do something they don't like. Likewise, they shouldn't play it if they know it's not their cup of tea (because of the game, the DM, or the other players).

I've been a disruptive player; I've been in a campaign with a disruptive player; I've run a campaign with a disruptive player. We've all been there. It's almost always the result of a mismatch of expectations and reality.

 

[Lanefan]

I only just noticed this:

The same player also played the chaotic evil paladin of Pelor.

Chaotic? Evil? Paladin? Of Pelor?

I thought Pelor was supposed to be a Goodly type - so why would He accept paladinic vows from someone so obviously opposed to His aims in the first place?

I've no problem with CE Clerics (I still have Paladins as LG only) as PCs; but I do have a problem with them being in service to a Good deity.

Lanefan