D&D 5E Dm misadventures. Tales of woe. How long did your worse table arguement last?

[Blue]

Players can't declare actions for other players' characters under the proposed method. Players would not, under this method, interrupt another player's character. Or rather, such an interruption would have to be essentially invited since the outcome of any hindrance by one character upon another in my games is decided by the target of the hindrance.

But if you start with something that takes sufficiently long, you're effectively dictating actions - that of not interrupting.

What I will say is that for this sort of thing to work, there mustn't be competition among the players for the supremacy of their ideas and, if there are existing modes of doing things that everyone has agreed upon previously, those things should be respected. Under this method, it would be just as bad to unilaterally break those agreements as it would be to try to tell someone their idea is no good. As mentioned upthread, the players must also have a desire for their comrades to share the spotlight more or less equally. A healthy disdain for bogging the game down with debate also helps.

"Competition for player for the supremacy of their ideas..." - can you unpack this.

I know you said examples were a bad way to show this, and my last example was picked to highlight pain points I was feeling from your description. But here's a common action at my table that has nothing to do with "competition for supremacy of ideas" but all about the decision making process:

Players brainstorm what to do and coming up with a unified plan that they all agree - but it took a few minutes to discussion to get there and it doesn't bear a resemblance to the first idea that came out - part of the beauty of brainstorming is the freedom to throw out any idea without censure.

 

[iserith]

But if you start with something that takes sufficiently long, you're effectively dictating actions - that of not interrupting.

I think I know what you're trying to say, but not completely. Can you clarify?

"Competition for player for the supremacy of their ideas..." - can you unpack this.

I know you said examples were a bad way to show this, and my last example was picked to highlight pain points I was feeling from your description. But here's a common action at my table that has nothing to do with "competition for supremacy of ideas" but all about the decision making process:

Players brainstorm what to do and coming up with a unified plan that they all agree - but it took a few minutes to discussion to get there and it doesn't bear a resemblance to the first idea that came out - part of the beauty of brainstorming is the freedom to throw out any idea without censure.

There are a lot of players who seem to enjoy saying why something won't work instead of imagining how it could work. Plenty of people do this outside of gaming as well. Shoot down ideas, sometimes never even offering ideas of their own. In other cases, a player settles on an idea and then defends it to the death. That is what I mean by the competition.

You can imagine the "Yes, and..." process is like brainstorming, but without choosing one idea as better than all the others. Instead, the idea is framed initially by one player, then anyone who wants to adds to it. And then, ideally, the next time a situation presents itself, someone else presents an idea and the process repeats.

I'm watching this play out as we speak on my campaign forum. The players are thinking about what to do in tomorrow night's session. Player A wants to assemble the party to attack the Revolutionary League on the Elemental Plane of Fire. Player B says he'll bring his barbarian for that assault since his monk is a few levels behind. Player C agrees with both and adds that they need to bring plenty of water because when they lacked water in the Nine Hells it really sucked. Player D agrees and says he is creating some fake evidence to sprinkle on all the dead Anarchists. Player A chimes back in and adds that he wants to hire a cleric to go with the party because they lack healing. Player B agrees and says he can carry the water. And so on. Absolutely no debate here, all ideas included, and always moving forward toward execution.

 

[Valmarius]

I'm watching this play out as we speak on my campaign forum. The players are thinking about what to do in tomorrow night's session. Player A wants to assemble the party to attack the Revolutionary League on the Elemental Plane of Fire. Player B says he'll bring his barbarian for that assault since his monk is a few levels behind. Player C agrees with both and adds that they need to bring plenty of water because when they lacked water in the Nine Hells it really sucked. Player D agrees and says he is creating some fake evidence to sprinkle on all the dead Anarchists. Player A chimes back in and adds that he wants to hire a cleric to go with the party because they lack healing. Player B agrees and says he can carry the water. And so on. Absolutely no debate here, all ideas included, and always moving forward toward execution.

As Player B in this situation, I didn't even realise that we were performing "yes, and..." until it was framed so obviously here.
I think our group has been playing together long enough now that we do it naturally.

 

[Blue]

There are a lot of players who seem to enjoy saying why something won't work instead of imagining how it could work. Plenty of people do this outside of gaming as well. Shoot down ideas, sometimes never even offering ideas of their own. In other cases, a player settles on an idea and then defends it to the death. That is what I mean by the competition.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from "we refine ideas together and work out something we all agree on" to "some people just shoot down ideas".

You can imagine the "Yes, and..." process is like brainstorming, but without choosing one idea as better than all the others.

Brainstorming is about gathering a number of ideas so that the group can look at all of them and determine what (single or amalgam) collection of them is a best fit. It is specifically trying for quantity, including throwing in wild ideas to get the creativity flowing, with no judgement about if they are good or bad. It specifically wants to evaluate the whole group of ideas. And it will filter through and assemble from these the best bits. But by the same token it discards parts that don't work.

This seems to vary on several aspects. It locks int he first idea, only allowing refinements and it gives no ability separate the wheat from the chaff where ideas who's time hasn't come can settle out of the final mix.

Instead, the idea is framed initially by one player, then anyone who wants to adds to it. And then, ideally, the next time a situation presents itself, someone else presents an idea and the process repeats.

I'm watching this play out as we speak on my campaign forum. The players are thinking about what to do in tomorrow night's session. Player A wants to assemble the party to attack the Revolutionary League on the Elemental Plane of Fire. Player B says he'll bring his barbarian for that assault since his monk is a few levels behind. Player C agrees with both and adds that they need to bring plenty of water because when they lacked water in the Nine Hells it really sucked. Player D agrees and says he is creating some fake evidence to sprinkle on all the dead Anarchists. Player A chimes back in and adds that he wants to hire a cleric to go with the party because they lack healing. Player B agrees and says he can carry the water. And so on. Absolutely no debate here, all ideas included, and always moving forward toward execution.

Could player C add "On the way to the Revolutionary League we hunt the Winter Warriors to get their secrets of protection from fire we're need to survive on the Elemental Plane"? That's a refinement, but it seems to be inserting itself ahead of player A's idea.

And what happens if there's any true difference of opinion? If player B says "The Revolutionary League is needed as a counterbalance to stop the Daughters of Scourge and Scorn - if we take them out the Daughters will take over all the Flame Wells. I think we need to free the Djinn from the Necropolis of Brass first to neutralize both of them".

Again, it seems like depending on who spoke first the rest of the group is being railroaded into following that lead - if player C had the right to speak first, everyone would need to get on that plan instead.

We play with real humans. How do you deal with players who don't agree? Not a Negative Nathan who's just blocking ideas, but two players have good, valid, but contradictory ideas of what to do next.

 

[iserith]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from "we refine ideas together and work out something we all agree on" to "some people just shoot down ideas".

All I can say is what I see: We don't have the debates which inspired this thread, however acrimonious and time-consuming, that other groups have. Our games move faster and progress further than other games I've seen. (I leave open the possibility that games I haven't seen are faster still.)

Brainstorming is about gathering a number of ideas so that the group can look at all of them and determine what (single or amalgam) collection of them is a best fit. It is specifically trying for quantity, including throwing in wild ideas to get the creativity flowing, with no judgement about if they are good or bad. It specifically wants to evaluate the whole group of ideas. And it will filter through and assemble from these the best bits. But by the same token it discards parts that don't work.

This seems to vary on several aspects. It locks int he first idea, only allowing refinements and it gives no ability separate the wheat from the chaff where ideas who's time hasn't come can settle out of the final mix.

It means that the method described achieves a reasonable outcome faster than the brainstorming you describe without shooting down any person's ideas. To the extent that the group values moving things along in an efficient manner that doesn't discard the ideas of some or most players, it's a good process.

Could player C add "On the way to the Revolutionary League we hunt the Winter Warriors to get their secrets of protection from fire we're need to survive on the Elemental Plane"? That's a refinement, but it seems to be inserting itself ahead of player A's idea.

And what happens if there's any true difference of opinion? If player B says "The Revolutionary League is needed as a counterbalance to stop the Daughters of Scourge and Scorn - if we take them out the Daughters will take over all the Flame Wells. I think we need to free the Djinn from the Necropolis of Brass first to neutralize both of them".

Again, it seems like depending on who spoke first the rest of the group is being railroaded into following that lead - if player C had the right to speak first, everyone would need to get on that plan instead.

We play with real humans. How do you deal with players who don't agree? Not a Negative Nathan who's just blocking ideas, but two players have good, valid, but contradictory ideas of what to do next.

It's not about the chronology of how the ideas are implemented. It's that everyone's ideas are included with none being debated and discarded. The players have to find a way to get the ideas to work together. The easiest way is that the initial idea is framed by the first player to proffer an idea which is then refined by others. Later, in some other situation, that first player will be someone else. And there can be, as @Lanefan seemed concerned about, character disagreement. But ultimately the players have to know and trust that despite any character disagreement that is being portrayed, the player of that character will imagine a way for that character to ultimately go along with the plan. And one might expect that the player of that character is throwing in that disagreement to fish for Inspiration because, of course that's why he or she is saying that!

In your example, it might look like "Okay, the Daughters of Scourge and Scorn are a problem for which the Revolutionary League is a counterbalance, but if we're successful in taking out the Anarchists, then WE are now the counterbalance to the Daughters... and can take them out next, if needed." That works to the extent the overriding concern was having a counterbalance in place.

I will say this based on hard experience: This method is hard to imagine in the abstract if you're used to another way. But when it's seen in practice, it's like, "Oh, that's it?"

 

[Lanefan]

All I can say is what I see: We don't have the debates which inspired this thread, however acrimonious and time-consuming, that other groups have. Our games move faster and progress further than other games I've seen. (I leave open the possibility that games I haven't seen are faster still.)

It means that the method described achieves a reasonable outcome faster than the brainstorming you describe without shooting down any person's ideas. To the extent that the group values moving things along in an efficient manner that doesn't discard the ideas of some or most players, it's a good process.

Speed isn't everything.

It's not about the chronology of how the ideas are implemented. It's that everyone's ideas are included with none being debated and discarded. The players have to find a way to get the ideas to work together. The easiest way is that the initial idea is framed by the first player to proffer an idea which is then refined by others.

Which means you only end up with one initial idea being put forward and refined, rather than two or three or seventeen initial ideas being put forward to be refined, accepted, combined, or - yes - rejected.

Seems a bit self-limiting.

And there can be, as @Lanefan seemed concerned about, character disagreement. But ultimately the players have to know and trust that despite any character disagreement that is being portrayed, the player of that character will imagine a way for that character to ultimately go along with the plan.

Which is the very definition of forced co-operation: you WILL find a way to go along with the plan even if you disagree with it. That's horrible!

And what happens, dare I ask, to the chaotic or unpredicatable or free-thinking character / player who dares to break with the plan once it's in motion? 'Cause guaranteed sooner or later that'd be me, with the over-under on how long it'd take being about two sessions depending on what my character had for a personality.

I will say this based on hard experience: This method is hard to imagine in the abstract if you're used to another way.

It's actually quite easy to imagine, particularly as by your own admission you pretty much have a built-in veto on any serious disagreements by having the target get to decide the resolution. It becomes an exercise in groupthink, where conforming and agreeing is the only option.

Besides, a plan that can't survive someone poking holes in it or pointing out the flaws - even if doing so is that person's only contribution - isn't much of a plan to begin with.

Lanefan

 

[iserith]

Speed isn't everything.

Sure. It depends on what you value.

Which means you only end up with one initial idea being put forward and refined, rather than two or three or seventeen initial ideas being put forward to be refined, accepted, combined, or - yes - rejected.

Seems a bit self-limiting.

A counter argument might be that whatever limits you perceive here is paid off with improved game pacing, faster advancement (both in terms of character and plot and/or content covered per session), and an environment that encourages being supportive of the ideas of others. And in exchange, you can count on your own ideas being supported, too.

And what are those limits exactly? You don't get to take the lead by framing the idea this scene, but you will next scene? And even though you didn't get to take the lead this scene, you get to add to the initial idea? That doesn't seem like a big loss to me. It seems like supporting your friends' ideas and sharing the spotlight.

Which is the very definition of forced co-operation: you WILL find a way to go along with the plan even if you disagree with it. That's horrible!

And what happens, dare I ask, to the chaotic or unpredicatable or free-thinking character / player who dares to break with the plan once it's in motion? 'Cause guaranteed sooner or later that'd be me, with the over-under on how long it'd take being about two sessions depending on what my character had for a personality.

By accepting the idea and adding to it, you turn it into an idea that you can agree with. That's the "and..." part. Accept, then add. That way you don't have to tell your friend that the idea they put forth sucks compared to someone else's (possibly your own) and then have a discussion about why that is which takes up valuable game time. Some may enjoy that and think it's a critical part of the roleplaying experience. I don't. I think it's awful. And the forums are loaded with threads about this issue becoming a problem at the table. In addition to this thread and its many examples, I recall a thread fairly recently where the poster (can't recall whom exactly) recounted an experience where his wife acted in a way that annoyed the party. I spotted that immediately as being the result of a table debate and someone getting fed up then acting unilaterally to resolve the matter to the dismay of others. It's a common result so far as I can tell. The method I describe avoids all that.

As for you breaking the plan, that would be a no-no. If you agreed to the table rules before play, you'd be breaking your agreement. What's more, if you agreed to the table rules, which includes this method, then you aren't being forced to do it. You chose to.

It's actually quite easy to imagine, particularly as by your own admission you pretty much have a built-in veto on any serious disagreements by having the target get to decide the resolution. It becomes an exercise in groupthink, where conforming and agreeing is the only option.

Besides, a plan that can't survive someone poking holes in it or pointing out the flaws - even if doing so is that person's only contribution - isn't much of a plan to begin with.

Lanefan

And it sure is nice to sit in judgment of those plans, right, and point out the flaws? Satisfying even?

Nah. A plan offered in good faith that has holes can have those holes patched by adding to the idea rather than debating and/or discarding the original idea. It doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough. And it gets us to the action faster with no dispute.

 

[Horwath]

Let's see.


Paladin vs. rogue arguments how to aproach the dead and their belongings and graves and who the content belongs. I claimed salvage rights. ofc

Lasted a better part of 3 sessions. Ended with party grappling us after exchanging few blows.

In the end, I was an elf and paladin a dwarf. Nice way to use 4hr meditation vs. 8hrs sleep. And Bag of holding.

 

[redrick]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I like this. It seems to me mostly a way of re-framing discussion.

How much time do you spend explaining the approach to a new group of players? Do you find that you need to reinforce it a lot in the beginning, or once people try it, does it become second-nature?

We had a scenario work like this the other day in a cyberpunk game called The Sprawl. The game actually has two distinct phases of play — preparation of a plan, and execution of the the plan. During preparation, characters learn about the target, come up with ideas about how to engage, and collect any equipment, resources or contacts they might need to make the plan work. Sometimes these will result in a scene, like stealing a set of uniforms or bribing a bodyguard to call in sick. One player made an overall suggestion for a plan of attack, and then other players would chip in with how their character might fit in the scheme. One player suggested going in as a reporter, and then another player said, "Ok, but you'll need a distraction once you're in so that you can get out to the roof. Maybe we could ..." etc. It worked really well. It also helped that, since this was a Powered by the Apocalypse game, many of the details of the fiction were being built up through this process, so there was a bit of a moving target in terms of what a "good idea" was.

 

[jasper]

Warmaster horus …I like it when someone in the party takes up the mantle of group leader. It's best when this person is direct but keeps everyone else involved and part of the decision making….
And blue… (a) players shouldn't have the right to declare actions for another player's character that that other player doesn't agree with and (b) characters may get interrupted by other characters…..

I have solved this by either me appointing a person or the group appointing a person. Party Caller. This is blue, warmaster, fred, etc. He makes the standard decisions of left, right, etc.
Also I ask the group for a SOP. Ex. All thieves check for traps. Then barbarian opens the door. Then the two thieves can see who rolls for the traps. But I only tell them to roll when a trap is present. Once the group decides on the SOP. You step on the landmine. Now the player can say No my barbarian is playing rear guard tonight.
I find a party caller, and sop helps the game go fast. But it does break immersion.