D&D General What is an Adversarial Player?

[Mort]

Yeah, that's more an issue that a lot of modules being, on the whole, linear as hell.

That's true. But if a DM is running a linear module (as many/most of them are), there needs to be an understanding established (at the table) that the players not deliberately run the module of the rails.

Is that artificial and a bit constraining to the players? Sure, but the DM is running the module either because they're new and need some experience or because they just don't have the time to run original material, or both. Allowances must be made on the player side as well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's true. But if a DM is running a linear module (as many/most of them are), there needs to be an understanding established (at the table) that the players not deliberately run the module of the rails.

I think the problem is the word "deliberately" is doing some heavy lifting there; often what's required goes beyond not actively avoiding it, but actively staying within the lines, and people who aren't necessarily prone to that are not doing deliberate sabotage; they're just playing.

Is that artificial and a bit constraining to the players? Sure, but the DM is running the module either because they're new and need some experience or because they just don't have the time to run original material, or both. Allowances must be made on the player side as well.

See above. I just think there's some reasonable limits to that. A GM who wants to run some of the more really linear (and easily broken) adventures is behooved to get full buy-in up front on that, and if he doesn't and things go badly I think he's as much to blame as any player.

 

[Mort]

I think the problem is the word "deliberately" is doing some heavy lifting there; often what's required goes beyond not actively avoiding it, but actively staying within the lines, and people who aren't necessarily prone to that are not doing deliberate sabotage; they're just playing.



See above. I just think there's some reasonable limits to that. A GM who wants to run some of the more really linear (and easily broken) adventures is behooved to get full buy-in up front on that, and if he doesn't and things go badly I think he's as much to blame as any player.

Well sure. A DM needs to state up front what kind of game it will be, such as that he's planning on running certain modules etc. and get player buy-in on that front.

If a DM runs a fully linear adventure (especially if it's easy to derail) without telling the players he's doing so? 100% on them when the players, inevitably, sidetrack it. Plus, without foreknowledge, the players are just going to think they're being railroaded by the DM - and that NEVER goes well.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

So in your opinion if I play a cleric I'm required to heal a party member without fail or question?

Yes. The default expectation of a cleric in D&D is a character who supports the party via healing spells, the same way the default expectation of a fighter is an armored guy who defends the party in combat. It's part of D&D. If you upturn that expectation with a "I'm just roleplaying my character!" then you are being disruptive. If you want to play a cleric who isn't going to healbot, that's perfectly acceptable, but you need to say, "My character isn't going to focus on healing."

Refusing to use your class features as they are designed to support your teammates is a Richard Maneuver.

 

[R_J_K75]

The default expectation of a cleric in D&D is a character who supports the party via healing spells

Me and the people I play with have no "default" expectations.

 

[Mort]

Me and the people I play with have no "default" expectations.

Not even something as simple (and possibly unstated) as you are all there to further each others fun and enjoyment of the session?

For ex: If you knew one of the other players HATED kender, would you play one without discussing it with that player?

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Me and the people I play with have no "default" expectations.

Mmmkay, and I suppose the other players refuse to use their class features to support the party: the rogue doesn't find traps, the fighter doesn't protect anyone but himself, and the wizard refuses to cast anything other than magic missile.

Regardless, the game is designed to function with clerics as healers.

 

[Mort]

Mmmkay, and I suppose the other players refuse to use their class features to support the party: the rogue doesn't find traps, the fighter doesn't protect anyone but himself, and the wizard refuses to cast anything other than magic missile.

Regardless, the game is designed to function with clerics as healers.

Well lets not go that far.

5e can handle a cleric that doesn't heal, especially if there is another cleric, or a druid, or a divine soul sorcerer or even a bard. Or even none of those, as long as the group understands the pitfalls.

The key is that there is good communication with the group and that everyone both understands where everyone else stands and is also there for the fun of the group and not just themselves.

 

[R_J_K75]

Not even something as simple (and possibly unstated) as you are all there to further each others fun and enjoyment of the session?

For ex: If you knew one of the other players HATED kender, would you play one without discussing it with that player?

Mmmkay, and I suppose the other players refuse to use their class features to support the party: the rogue doesn't sneak attack, the fighter doesn't wear armor, and the wizard refuses to cast anything other than magic missile.

Regardless, the game is designed to function with clerics as healers.

Comments from 2 people who have never played with me or the other players in my group. Stop comparing us to the "Default" expectation. I'm a bad player, my group are bad players, we're playing D&D wrong. OK I get it, and don't want to discuss this anymore.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

Comments from 2 people who have never played with me or the other players in my group. Stop comparing us to the "Default" expectation. I'm a bad player, my group are bad players, we're playing D&D wrong. OK I get it, and don't want to discuss this anymore.

Very well. In the future, I'd recommend not asking a question if you are unwilling to hear the answers.