Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 6791117" data-attributes="member: 8835">This is an idea I had from reading the Lame Duck thread:<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?474690-Dealing-with-lame-duck-characters/" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?474690-Dealing-with-lame-duck-characters/</a>In there, a group has a problem with a player who keeps making lame duck PCs and plays recklessly.&nbsp; Turns out, the player doesn't like D&amp;D, and wants to play something else.I'd say a good chunk of the advice was all about solving the problem in-game, though there were some wise folk (even before the &quot;doesn't like D&amp;D additional info appeared) advised solving it by talking to the player/handling outside of the game.Anyway, here's the theory:It should be well known that you should solve out of game problems, outside of the game. So if Timmy is a jerk, deal with Timmy outside of the game, not by doing stuff to his PC.&nbsp; GMs lacking this fundamental rule of thumb can make their problems worse.I posit that just about anytime somebody has got a problem that makes them seek out advice from fellow gamers, that it is almost always really an out-of-game problem (and thus needs an out of game solution).Whatever crazy stuff players are doing in your game that isn't causing strife in your group isn't a problem because your players don't have problems that irritate the in-game enjoyment.which means, whatever's going on that seems like a problem, is most likely coming from outside the game.I of course, could be wrong, but it seems to me that an eye to what's going on outside the game, when there's a perceived problem should be the FIRST thing to think of.&nbsp; Stop defaulting to in-game solutions without considering a broader picture of the players involved.What do y'all think?&nbsp; Am I right?&nbsp; OR are there more obvious &quot;this is a problem, but it really is an in-game problem&quot; examples?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Janx, post: 6791117, member: 8835"] This is an idea I had from reading the Lame Duck thread: [url]http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?474690-Dealing-with-lame-duck-characters/[/url] In there, a group has a problem with a player who keeps making lame duck PCs and plays recklessly. Turns out, the player doesn't like D&D, and wants to play something else. I'd say a good chunk of the advice was all about solving the problem in-game, though there were some wise folk (even before the "doesn't like D&D additional info appeared) advised solving it by talking to the player/handling outside of the game. Anyway, here's the theory: It should be well known that you should solve out of game problems, outside of the game. So if Timmy is a jerk, deal with Timmy outside of the game, not by doing stuff to his PC. GMs lacking this fundamental rule of thumb can make their problems worse. I posit that just about anytime somebody has got a problem that makes them seek out advice from fellow gamers, that it is almost always really an out-of-game problem (and thus needs an out of game solution). Whatever crazy stuff players are doing in your game that isn't causing strife in your group isn't a problem because your players don't have problems that irritate the in-game enjoyment. which means, whatever's going on that seems like a problem, is most likely coming from outside the game. I of course, could be wrong, but it seems to me that an eye to what's going on outside the game, when there's a perceived problem should be the FIRST thing to think of. Stop defaulting to in-game solutions without considering a broader picture of the players involved. What do y'all think? Am I right? OR are there more obvious "this is a problem, but it really is an in-game problem" examples? [/QUOTE]

Verification