General Player Principles for Better Play

[hawkeyefan]

Our D&D games are very much more about the characters than they are about whatever location they happen to be. That might be why the players pay more attention to everyone else's characters.

We tend to play all our TRPGs that way.

Yeah, our D&D games vary a good deal when it comes to that. We’re currently playing through Temple of Elemental Evil. So that game is far less about the characters than others may be. My sense of most of the characters is primarily their class and race, with a touch of personality here and there.

 

[pemerton]

I think numbers 2 and 6 are ones that I’ve seen my group struggle with (which then also kind of impacts number 5), especially depending on the game.

I find that games that have a lot of player facing rules that govern things like alignment or ideals and similar, it makes the character less internal to the player. The other players are more likely to have a stronger sense of the character as a result.

Without those cues, oftentimes the character exists largely solely in the mind of the single player. That can make it harder for other players to give a crap about what happens to that character.

This is interesting analaysis.

As a GM. I certainly enjoy the game more when the characters emerge for everyone to see.

The first sustained AD&D campaign I GMed had two principal PCs, a dwarf fighter and a gnome illusionist/thief. Their character flowed from what they could do - one brash and forthright, one aspiring to be tricksy - and that is still probably the central things for me.

The second sustaind AD&D campaign I GMed was original OA, and had two principal PCs - a samurai with a family, and a kensei with a master - and that is the second thing I look for to bring a PC to life: connections to the setting that matter in play.

If a player says "My PC is xyz" but that isn't there on the PC sheet in the list of things they can do or things they're related to, I'm going to struggle engaging with that PC in the desired way. For me, this is an approach I associated with some mid-80s and especially 2nd ed AD&D, though I've experienced it more recently than that. (But with players "trained" in that era.)

One thing I've enjoyed in my recent Torchbearer play is seeing one of the PCs - the Dwarven Outcast (a character option that is, on paper, clearly inspired by Thorin from The Hobbit) - open up Lore Master and Manipulator as skills. This is because he's found himself participating in more than one tricksy negotiation, often initiated by other PCs who are more social and intellectual than he was at the start. The player of the Outcast has observed that their PCs' predilections are shaping his character! This isn't something one sees so much in systems where there is a lot of player choice around how a PC develops.

 

[Manbearcat]

7) If asked a preference in a story game, a strong choice is almost always better than a middling choice.

Don’t equivocate. If asked “You’ve met this person before. How do you feel about him?” either “I love him” or “I hate him” is better than anything middling. The exception is if it’s something you’re really not interested in pursuing.

Good list and this last one in particular.

There is little worse than a Player Character with thematically meek, meandering, or outright impotent drives and goals. In the bulk of the games I GM it makes running those games much more difficult than they otherwise should be.

Players...play bold characters with clear dramatic needs that you aggressively advocate for during play.

 

[John Dallman]

I have a much more basic piece of advice, which some players struggle with.

Listen.

Keep track of what's going on and what the other characters are doing. Don't zone out while others are acting. You need to respond to the characters' environment and the other characters; asking for summaries every ten minutes is a prime waste of time.

 

[schneeland]

I think it's a pretty solid list for any kind of game, maybe with the exception of 7, where I feel the limit to story games is appropriate.

And maybe as a prerequisite to (1), it's important to be on the same page on what kind of game you are actually playing (especially when people come from D&D or other trad games, they frequently seem to struggle with other game systems/families like PbtA where the game system has a stronger hand in the way the story goes and a failed test is not necessarily a bad thing for the overall story).

 

[hawkeyefan]

If a player says "My PC is xyz" but that isn't there on the PC sheet in the list of things they can do or things they're related to, I'm going to struggle engaging with that PC in the desired way. For me, this is an approach I associated with some mid-80s and especially 2nd ed AD&D, though I've experienced it more recently than that. (But with players "trained" in that era.)

Right, this is what I was saying. If these elements are mechanized in some way… like alignment… it helps broadcast who that character is. The player can certainly do some of that themselves, but depending on how the game works and the social/ table dynamics, there may not be much opportunity for it.

The biggest factors in D&D (or at least many versions of it) that broadcast who your character is are race and class. Alignment is there, too, and can matter quite a bit in some versions. Not so much in 5e.

The BIFTs of 5e are among the strongest example of this kind of stuff that has been applied to D&D (with a couple of other exceptions) and they’re largely ignored, and seem likely to be removed from the One D&D update.

I’d like a bit more such rules in D&D, actually.

 

[aramis erak]

I generally agree, but think it is the GM's job to control spotlight time.

That's often only doable with the coöperation of the focus players.

Listen.

QFT, but there's a corollary:
When the GM asks for feedback, give it.
When the GM asks for a decision, make it and share it.

I'll add one:
Learn where the line is between enough and too much.
It's easy to work with too little - just add more in play.

When you've got too much, especially backstory, the GM is far more likely to ignore the whole shebang.

Likewise, too much detail in describing actions often leads to, "no, you instead wound up" and other uncomfortable retcons. (Especially in Trad play.) For actions, limit yourself to the method, not the effect, and state the effect desired separately "I swing my sword at him, ..." (method),"... in hopes a hit to the sore spot impairs his fighting." (effect desired stated as a goal not an action) " And it's far better than "I slam my sword into his ribs" - why? Because it leaves room for all 5 classic failure modes - simple miss, miss due to target action, hit for no effect, hit for partial effect, missed but got partial effect. Those could look like:
Simple miss: "But you misjudged your reach"
Miss due to foe: "But he sees it soon enough to dodge."
Hit for no effect: "your swing isn't dead on, and seems to have hit his armor instead."
Hit for partial effect: "You hit him, but not as hard as needed, causing him a bit more damage but not enough to impair him"
Miss for partial effect: "Your swing is a bit shy, but he's out of position now." (Lesser penalty appropriate)

 

[Reynard]

That's often only doable with the coöperation of the focus players.

I mean, really?

"All right, Bob, you continue to haggle with the shopkeeper. Go ahead and adjust your equipment. Don't forget to pay for everything and check your encumbrance. Julia and Jorge, what are you guys doing?"

 

[pemerton]

Right, this is what I was saying. If these elements are mechanized in some way… like alignment… it helps broadcast who that character is. The player can certainly do some of that themselves, but depending on how the game works and the social/ table dynamics, there may not be much opportunity for it.

The biggest factors in D&D (or at least many versions of it) that broadcast who your character is are race and class. Alignment is there, too, and can matter quite a bit in some versions. Not so much in 5e.

The BIFTs of 5e are among the strongest example of this kind of stuff that has been applied to D&D (with a couple of other exceptions) and they’re largely ignored, and seem likely to be removed from the One D&D update.

I’d like a bit more such rules in D&D, actually.

The flipside is - the stuff on the sheet has to mesh with the game as played.

The last version of D&D that I played a lot of is 4e D&D. The stuff on the sheet in 4e, that manifests the PC, is all about how the PC engages in skirmish combat, and how they are located within the cosmological struggles that are the default background setting for 4e. So play needs to pick up on that. It's not so sensitive to inner struggles - compared to, say, In A Wicked Age, which cares about an act done For Myself or For Others, or an act done With Violence or With Love.

 

[aramis erak]

I mean, really?

"All right, Bob, you continue to haggle with the shopkeeper. Go ahead and adjust your equipment. Don't forget to pay for everything and check your encumbrance. Julia and Jorge, what are you guys doing?"

Bob then proceeds to make not-nice and threaten the shopkeeper, requiring either focus time, or local reaction, or otherwise telling bob off, or just pointedly ignoring bob, at which point, if bob's the persnickity type, may require invitation to exit. (Not that I'm thinking of doing so. Just exemplar at the current.)

Also, most of my gaming is not in a space I control; I literally cannot boot certain players because, in one case, is host, in another, because of the venue's rules.

Getting the cooperation is part of learning when enough is enough... and part of that is feedback in both directions.