D&D General Of Consent, Session 0 and Hard Decisions.

[FrogReaver]

Okay. And when this happens over and over and over and over because this player doesn't give a naughty word that people don't want to play murderhobos?

The dm just has to not enable it to derail the game by giving the other players an in game out. Cease the guilt by association stuff they have NPCs so often presume and give the rest of the players an in game choice.

How is that not abusing the social contract? How is that not being incredibly disrespectful to your fellow gamers?

How is it? I mean it depends on the social contract, etc. but in general that’s not hard behavior to handle.

"No solution perfectly solves the problem, therefore we should not use any solutions" is a well-known logical fallacy. You have committed an error of reasoning by asserting that, just because no solution is perfect, we should not ever bother trying to find solutions that are better than what we currently have. This assertion is false in most contexts, and definitely false for the vast majority of TTRPG-related contexts.

It’s a good thing my assessment was that any given solution can cause as much harm as it does good, not just that a solution wasn’t perfect. Amazing how when one actually reads what I say that I thoroughly managed to avoid such a logical fallacy.

 

[Zardnaar]

The dm just has to not enable it to derail the game by giving the other players an in game out. Cease the guilt by association stuff they have NPCs so often presume and give the rest of the players an in game choice.

How is it? I mean it depends on the social contract, etc. but in general that’s not hard behavior to handle.

It’s a good thing my assessment was that any given solution can cause as much harm as it does good, not just that a solution wasn’t perfect. Amazing how when one actually reads what I say that I thoroughly managed to avoid such a logical fallacy.

Murder hobo thing can be annoying because it's derailing the flow of the session and generally putting the spotlight on said player.

Sometimes it's innocent but last (and only) player booted last 8 years or so was trying to pick fights with the "kings" elite guards while I'm trying to build ip a future confrontation.

And it was pretty much every session all session. Said person has been booted out and banned from various stores and combined with really dark comments around others yeah.

As of a week or two ago I see they're trying to join another group in another city (the 4th).
Word gets around though I got contacted by old MtG player from 20 years ago warning me from 200km away.

That's the only outright toxic player I've encountered. The other problem ones were just fish malk types. Disruptive in a different way but not horrible people.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The dm just has to not enable it to derail the game by giving the other players an in game out. Cease the guilt by association stuff they have NPCs so often presume and give the rest of the players an in game choice.

The very fact that it happens in the first place is still a derailment. That the DM can work to avoid negative consequences for the entire group doesn't mean that the derailing player hasn't derailed the scene and made it all about themselves and their own interests and desires.

How is it? I mean it depends on the social contract, etc. but in general that’s not hard behavior to handle.

Are you seriously Oberoni-ing crappy player behavior? "The DM can 'handle' it, therefore it isn't actually disrespectful behavior." Seriously?

It's still friggin' massively disrespectful. That the DM can "handle" it has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is disrespectful or not. Indeed, I'd argue that the fact that it even needs the DM to "handle" it in the first place is a sign that it's not good player behavior!

It’s a good thing my assessment was that any given solution can cause as much harm as it does good, not just that a solution wasn’t perfect. Amazing how when one actually reads what I say that I thoroughly managed to avoid such a logical fallacy.

You emphatically did not do that. You said--effectively--"some things work some of the time for some people, so we shouldn't bother doing anything because nothing works for everyone." Which is still that same fallacy. Adding the "maybe it works for SOME people" doesn't change the fallacy.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have it right in the game intro that, with a very few exceptions as noted (sexualized violence being one), anything goes.

And thus far in my current campaign the players have at different times (infrequently) brought in-character racism, child-killing, and torture to the table; along with slavery (as in, the PCs were the slave-sellers), mass murder, and the occasional execution. And that's just what the PCs do to the outside world; there's a whole other list of what they've done to each other over the years.

Anything goes, and as DM there's many a time I don't have to add very much; though parasitically-reproducing creatures have shown up a few times.

I would like it stated for the record that you cut out the part where I symmetrically said that if the player has hangups that can't be readily predicted, it's incumbent on them to actually say something about it. When you isolate only the part of my statement where I talk about the DM, and thus ignore the part where I explain how both sides have to meet in the middle, it's quite easy to present it as something it isn't.

 

[GrimCo]

As @Zardnaar mentions, this level of openness is not socially acceptable in some cultures (add British to NZ). You need to provide socially acceptable channels for people to communicate through, not expect them to voice something out loud in a way they have been taught is not socially acceptable.

Could you explain a bit if it's not a problem, what would you consider socially acceptable channels? Never dealt with Kiwis, but i had enough interactions with Brits and to lesser degree Aussies. It was in professional setting (first trough NATO joint operations, later in corporate sector on multinational projects), but they never had problems with expressing their opinions, both positive and negative, when dealing with both superiors and peers. One would think that people are more relaxed in casual setting. But maybe i'm wrong.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Could you explain a bit if it's not a problem, what would you consider socially acceptable channels? Never dealt with Kiwis, but i had enough interactions with Brits and to lesser degree Aussies. It was in professional setting (first trough NATO joint operations, later in corporate sector on multinational projects), but they never had problems with expressing their opinions, both positive and negative, when dealing with both superiors and peers. One would think that people are more relaxed in casual setting. But maybe i'm wrong.

Well not really, because all cultures are different, but the British (especially males) do not talk about personal feelings under ANY circumstances. Certainly not down the pub, where weather and football are the main conversation points.

When I’ve had to resolve issues I’ve done it by private text messaging.

There are no barriers to being forthright on professional opinions, but there is a tendency to be negative and cynical. You will get funny looks if you are too positive or enthusiastic about something.

If a British person tells you “that’s not a bad idea” they mean they think it’s a great idea. It’s what passes for wild enthusiasm here.

Understatement also works the other way. If a British person tells you “your idea is interesting but probably wouldn’t be practical at this time” what they really mean is it sucks bigtime.

 

[GrimCo]

I get it.

I always told new people, both in gaming groups and at workplace, if you have any issues, feel free to talk to me in private if you aren't comfortable in group setting. But i prefer to deal with those situations in person. Text messages don't convey body language.

While i prefer that people who have problems with each other settle it between them without getting me involved, i do realize some people are non confrontational and perceive DM as somewhat of authority figure inside gaming group and would rather go talk to DM for him to sort things out.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I very likely wouldn't bring a new player into any game unless I already knew them from elsewhere and thus a) already had a reasonable idea as to what made said person tick and b) more or less knew that said person would or could be a good fit with ourusual style of game and play.

Would you put what you just said into the DMG???

 

[Lanefan]

Would you put what you just said into the DMG???

Somethng like it, probably; along the lines of "advice: know your players before you run a game for them", only put in better words.

 

[Remathilis]

Somethng like it, probably; along the lines of "advice: know your players before you run a game for them", only put in better words.

"Also: join Adventurers League! Link to get started below."