D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[JamesonCourage]

A bit different JamesC. You have players who have DM'd in the past. It gives them a very different perspective.

So, your group includes at least two people with dming experience.

Between my current two groups, I have two other GMs at various points (though it's probably been 5+ years for one of them). Out of curiosity, what were you trying to say about groups that don't have people who GM? And, does the fact that I have two other past GMs who aren't willing to steal my GM chair mean anything?

I'm still honestly a little confused as to what you were getting at. Maybe I'm thick right now, but I can't quite parse it yet.

 

[Hussar]

Between my current two groups, I have two other GMs at various points (though it's probably been 5+ years for one of them). Out of curiosity, what were you trying to say about groups that don't have people who GM? And, does the fact that I have two other past GMs who aren't willing to steal my GM chair mean anything?

I'm still honestly a little confused as to what you were getting at. Maybe I'm thick right now, but I can't quite parse it yet.

Remember that you were jumping into the middle of a conversation. MajorO was talking about how players should be automatically "bought in" just because they sat down at the table. There shouldn't need to be anything other than the DM saying, "Hey, I'm running this adventure". My point was that for casual players, which his appear to be, that's probably true, but, for those of us who don't have groups of casual players, that's not enough. There needs to be more to get player buy in than "I'm running a game" when everyone at the table is also perfectly capable of running a game.

For me, just because you happen to be running a game is probably enough to get me to hear you out and maybe give the first two sessions a test run, but, beyond that? Nope. But, look at how MajoruO talks about his game - everyone is stripped of backgrounds, basically arrives tabula rasa to the game, no one is expected to add any details to the setting and, in fact, trying to do so is outright unwelcome. This is pretty much the complete opposite of how I run games. I spend the first session building the group first - making sure that everyone has ties not only to each other but to the setting as well. Life path style character and group generation is my go to game for chargen.

Given his complaints - players who only ask for things in order to gain advantage, lack of engagement in the setting, overly zealous rules lawyering (I think the example was a home made monster with 1 point of AC too much which resulted in a lengthy table discussion) - my advice is to let the players actually take a small bit of ownership over the setting. It works wonders. People don't want to break their own toys. Once you have that buy in and ownership from the players, many of the issues go away. People with DMing experience make VERY different players. And, IMO, much, much better players.

 

[pemerton]

I think Gygax's take on it is quite close to the 5e DMG disclaimer : the DM is in charge of the fun, and should roll with the players'(crazy) ideas when possible, while pretending absolute control of the situation.

<snip>

Going with the "Drawmij nonfiery meteors" example, the beard example could be adjudicated in a cheesy way :
Player : DM, is this guy bearded ?
DM, pretending to roll dice : Let us see... No, he is clean shaven
Player : as I am ! How lucky I shaved this morning.
as the DM gets to decide for the NPC, but has no say on the supposedly yet undecided state of the PC's beard !

<snip>

Also, one has to note how abstract AD&D can be : attacks, HP, saving throws, secret doors, and, yes, name level status are abstract subsystems meant to be invoked by the players or the DM, without needing a thorough description of the in-game fiction. I believe it is a good description of RM, RQ, and some later editions, to be a reaction against those (dissociated ?) systems. Of course, if a table wants to focus on the acquiring of status, it can be role-played more concretely, or some Fame system can be added, but the default presented is that, upon attaining 9th level, a Fighter is a Lord and is entitled his stronghold and followers. I think it really showcases how Player vs Character has never been clear-cut, and shouldn't be addressed by the rules but by mutual agreement.

I really liked this post.

On the bits I've quoted: you're probably right about Gygax the man, but of the hundreds of thousands of people who bought his DMG, not that many learned from Gygax himself. They read his book (often alongside Moldvay Basic) and learned from that. Taking it all as a package, there is nothing that suggests the GM shouldn't be having regard to player desires in authoring backstory as part of the ongoing game.

Obviously I agree with you about strongholds and other abstract systems. And as someone who GMed Rolemaster campaigns for nearly 20 years, I certainly agree with you about the way that RM reacts againt these features of classic D&D.

And I like your beard example very much - adversarial playing at its best!

 

[pemerton]

If I show up with a copy of the Tomb of Horrors in hand after saying "Hey guys, I'm going to run the Tomb of Horrors next week, if you want to play show up with new characters, level X and be ready to play. The game will take place in Greyhawk and will take place in and around the City of Greyhawk." and a player shows up and says "I'm a pirate. I own my own ship. I rob ships and use it in order to fund my private crusade against Y country that I hate and want to liberate." I'm going to say "Alright, you can be that, but you'll need a reason why your character is going into the Tomb of Horrors and you'll need to realize that your ship, your crew, the country you want to liberate and that entire storyline is likely not going to factor into this adventure at all. We are playing Tomb of Horrors."

[MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] gave some nice examples upthread of integrating slightly off-beat PCs that deviate from the pitch.

There is also the point from [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] that ToH is somewhat unusual in the genre.

The adventure will not focus on the player's personal goal except as how they relate to the plot of the adventure at hand.

I addressed this quote a way upthread. If you are going to take this approach, I think it is incumbent upon you to at least offer your players a "D&D experience". A food critic eating forest-flower soup doesn't tick that box. Why should your players care about it? They probably don't pay attention to the colour of the bows the girls have in their hair either.

I don't want my players "adding to the richness" of Greyhawk.

I do. In the Greyhawk games that I have run, my players have added wizard mentors, details of wizard guilds and religious organisations, family histories, etc.

Prestidigitation

I have no problem with it as I've said in a previous post because there are rules and limitations on when and how often it can be used. It is also assumed that the character gets to decide on the effects of these spells, not the player. Which is a key difference for me since it means that the spells will likely be used to accomplish character goals instead of player goals.

Without this assumption you get people casting spells to turn their friends invisible just so they can sneak into the women's showers

I don't get this. If your players would use fate points to find peepholes in the women's dormitory, why wouldn't they do the same with a Detect Secret Doors Wand or an Invisibility spell?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Remember that you were jumping into the middle of a conversation.

Very true.

MajorO was talking about how players should be automatically "bought in" just because they sat down at the table. There shouldn't need to be anything other than the DM saying, "Hey, I'm running this adventure". My point was that for casual players, which his appear to be, that's probably true, but, for those of us who don't have groups of casual players, that's not enough. There needs to be more to get player buy in than "I'm running a game" when everyone at the table is also perfectly capable of running a game.

That makes sense. I still almost always pitch to my players, even though I know they're going to accept whatever I go with. Sometimes it's "so you're all ________," without asking them first, but that's the exception, rather than the rule.

For me, just because you happen to be running a game is probably enough to get me to hear you out and maybe give the first two sessions a test run, but, beyond that? Nope. But, look at how MajoruO talks about his game - everyone is stripped of backgrounds, basically arrives tabula rasa to the game, no one is expected to add any details to the setting and, in fact, trying to do so is outright unwelcome. This is pretty much the complete opposite of how I run games. I spend the first session building the group first - making sure that everyone has ties not only to each other but to the setting as well. Life path style character and group generation is my go to game for chargen.

I understand why you want this. I spent a couple hours tonight helping tie a new character (made between sessions) to the current group of PCs, as well as forge ties to the setting (via relationships with individual NPCs and groups). (Also done via a Life Course / Background Chart system in my RPG, as it happens.)

I highly sympathize with you on this. I also make up some small things during chargen on the rare chance I get to play (such as "I'm from a small town, here is my family, I did X at Y age, etc.). Subject to GM rejection / approval, of course, but I still start there without asking for permission (though I might ask questions about the setting while I'm writing it up).

Basically, I totally see where you're coming from with the blank slate / no ties thing being abnormal for you / your groups.

Given his complaints - players who only ask for things in order to gain advantage, lack of engagement in the setting, overly zealous rules lawyering (I think the example was a home made monster with 1 point of AC too much which resulted in a lengthy table discussion) - my advice is to let the players actually take a small bit of ownership over the setting. It works wonders. People don't want to break their own toys. Once you have that buy in and ownership from the players, many of the issues go away. People with DMing experience make VERY different players. And, IMO, much, much better players.

I think in general the last couple of lines are true (exceptions happen, etc.). I'm not sure that I'd want much authorship at all during play, but as part of a character's history prior to play, I think it really does help things. It has helped things go smoother in my group.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your point of view to me, and give it context. I appreciate it, Hussar.

 

[Hussar]

It's nice when we all play nicely.

 

[Savage Wombat]

For me, just because you happen to be running a game is probably enough to get me to hear you out and maybe give the first two sessions a test run, but, beyond that? Nope. But, look at how MajoruO talks about his game - everyone is stripped of backgrounds, basically arrives tabula rasa to the game, no one is expected to add any details to the setting and, in fact, trying to do so is outright unwelcome. This is pretty much the complete opposite of how I run games. I spend the first session building the group first - making sure that everyone has ties not only to each other but to the setting as well. Life path style character and group generation is my go to game for chargen.

This is where, for all its detractors, Forge-speak can come in handy. I suspect MajoruO's players have different expectations from a D&D game than yours do, or mine. I wouldn't be surprised if his players are fully in the mode of "the DM provides a challenge for us to overcome" and are more concerned with "fair play" than "story".

 

[Neonchameleon]

As far as I'm concerned, buy in comes by showing up to ANY table, whether it is a home game or a convention. You show up to play the game that is offered. If you don't like the game that is offered, you leave. I'm sure these players all knew they were playing Against the Slavers when they decided to show up.

And as far as I'm concerned if you don't adapt what you offer based on what the players want then that's bad DMing. (This isn't the same as giving them what they want).

Your environment is very different than mine. Nobody wants to DM. It takes work. Right now all the players have to do is show up, roll some dice and pretend to be an elf reacting to what the DM says once a week for a couple of hours.

The couple of times I've suggested that I'm getting overwhelmed and needed a break, people begged me not to stop because none of them wanted to take up the mantle. The couple of times in my history of playing D&D when I pushed back and said "No, I really don't feel like DMing", one or two of my friends have stepped up to DM. However, when they DM they also just purchase an adventure and run whatever is written in there.

To me this is ... aberrant. The only RPG I have ever played that had fewer than half the table being at least occasional GMs is D&D 3.0 and D&D 3.5 (and for all I criticise a lot of the decisions made by the 3.0 team that's my real beef with 3.X - it's very hard on DMs).

Recently, I convinced one of my friends to DM for Adventurer's League. All he has to do is study a fairly structured adventure given to him each week that only lasts a couple of hours and he often shows up having not read the entire thing and then forgets half of what is written in there. He's said that his experience running those adventures means his respect for me as a DM has grown immensely since he had no idea how hard it was to prepare an adventure someone else wrote and to handle everything that happens during the game.

Seriously? Get him to take an improv class.

I think this thread is filled with DMs whoses ego are getting a little too large and are likely used to being in an echo chamber of a small number of players who really love their DMing style and therefore they've gotten the opinion that it's the BEST DMing style.

And I'd call you Exhibit A in this thread. Further my home group has three people in it who regularly DM. All three of us have different strengths and weaknesses and we all learn from each other. And all from time to time steal each others' tricks and techniques. (And no, I don't just play with this group).

However, I can tell you that Mike Mearls's DMing style in the live stream I was referencing was nearly identical to the DMing style I've seen over 95% of DMs use. I can say this having played under hundreds of DMs. These posts seem to be implying that it is not "proper" D&D.

I can't recall anything I've said to that effect that wasn't simply reflecting back the words of others (you and Mark mostly). And Mike's DMing style? The wallchat? The deliberately and openly playing the Ghouls stupid to avoid a TPK? Mearls reminded me nothing more than of the fourth possible DM in our regular group (of five people) - the one who only DMs occasionally because he really isn't very good at it.

None of them really want to DM because they want a more passive experience. They want someone to tell them a story that they get to interact with. It's my job to provide that story. I'm bad at providing stories, so I look to other people who write better than I do to write them for me. Thus, I buy adventures.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't be fully engaged simply because it is a module.

Because I don't want a passive experience. There are few modules that don't derail if you play hard. There are few modules that give you the chance to shape the story. If I wanted a passive experience I'd put on a DVD.

For me, it's almost always the opposite. Most of the DMs I've played under that have attempted to write their own stories end up writing contrived crap that they think is a masterpiece.

And here I agree with you. A GM should not be writing a story. The worst thing that WotC ever did for roleplaying was called their GM The Storyteller. Good stories are about character. And the lead characters in an RPG are the PCs. That's where the camera is. That's who the central characters are. And that's the one thing the GM really doesn't control. The best a story written without knowing about its characters in advance can be is a Michael Bay action movie, a second rate hard SF story from the 50s, or a locked room mystery.

It's the same way I'd feel if one of my friends came up to me and said "Hey, which would you rather read, A Game of Thrones or a novel I wrote myself?" I'll take a story written by a professional writer over one written by a guy who wrote a story in the spare time between work and watching Arrow that evening.

False equivalence. Try "Which would you rather read? A random Star Wars EU novel? Or something written by a friend." And in that case I'd go for the thing written by a friend - even if the random Star Wars EU novel is probably technically better written. The average adventure module is simply not that well written (I submit Keep on the Shadowfell as evidence). Game of Thrones has many, many faults but George R. R. Martin is an excellent storyteller and hardly an average professional.

"Yeah, your problem is that you're running modules. They aren't real D&D anyways."

Anyone saying that modules aren't real D&D is talking out of their hat. Now comparing modules to microwave dinners?

As for your statement. The reason you should be fully engaged is that you are enjoying the story, you are thankful that someone else is doing the DMing so that you have a chance to play and you want to play D&D and someone else is nice enough to volunteer to give you that opportunity.

As I have mentioned, my home group has three DMs out of five regular players - and a fourth player occasionally DMs. Many of us like DMing.

You give them respect because they were the one that had to put in the extra effort to write an adventure or prepare an adventure they bought in order to provide you with an experience.

You do realise I've run very successful sessions with literally two minutes notice? As in a text message from the regular DM saying that they couldn't make it ten minutes after they were due to arrive. I won't say the longer I spend preparing the worse the experience is - other than when I've gone really overboard into the storytelling side of things (which has never worked). But light prep is good.

Yeah but I hardly think having an entire group of people who are willing to DM is typical... I think the majority of groups have way more people willing to play than to DM and this is kind of borne out by the difference in market size for player products vs. DM products. If anything your setup is the rarity here.

I said we had GMs - I didn't say we had people who bought GM material. Most of it is transferrable.

 

[Imaro]

I said we had GMs - I didn't say we had people who bought GM material. Most of it is transferrable.

Ok, first off I wasn't addressing anything you said, so not sure what you saying or not saying has to do with the phrase of mine you quoted...

Second, not sure how the fact that GM material is transferable (what does this even mean?) has any bearing on what I am saying since technically you only need one PHB for an entire group if everyone is willing to share. Does the fact I presented prove there are more players than DM's... no, but the fact that DM materials sell magnitudes less than player materials does support the assumption that there are less DM's than players... do you have any evidence or data points (outside of anecdotal which we all have) that would support the opposite view? If so I'd love to hear it...

 

[pemerton]

I suspect MajoruO's players have different expectations from a D&D game than yours do, or mine.

I agree that this is almost certainly true.

I wouldn't be surprised if his players are fully in the mode of "the DM provides a challenge for us to overcome" and are more concerned with "fair play" than "story".

Given the limited evidence we have, I think these sorts of conjectures are trickier.

My sense, given the player's complaint that triggered the OP, plus other posts in this and other threads, is that the challenge element isn't at the heart of [MENTION=15142]Maj[/MENTION]oruOakheart's game. (Eg as best I recall, but perhaps I'm wrong, he favours the use of GM force/fudging to avoid a TPK.) I think "the experience" is at the heart of the game - turning up, playing your character within the broad world and plot confines that the GM dictates, and experiencing whatever it is that the GM serves up. This will require overcoming some challenges, but my sense is that the experience is more important than the overcoming.

This is my guess as to why the player in the OP didn't like the food-critic scenario - because it is a long way from the D&D experience of exploring places, beating up monsters, and finding out how many hit points you lose in the process (which isn't ultimately about challenge if the GM will manipulate ingame events to make sure that you never all drop below zero all at once).

To me, it seems like a very mainsteam mid-to-late-80s through 90s style of play, that I think was especially mainstream during the 2nd ed AD&D era.

A GM should not be writing a story.

<snip>

Good stories are about character. And the lead characters in an RPG are the PCs.

<snip>

Anyone saying that modules aren't real D&D is talking out of their hat. Now comparing modules to microwave dinners?

Because I use a lot of modules, I have views on what makes for a good one. A good module presents interesting situations (in D&D this means interesting locations and antagonists that are both thematically and mechanically interesting). And it should be reasonably easy to strip these situations off the module-writer's chassis (which almost inevitably will assume some sort of plot sequence) and re-arrange or re-deploy them as makes sense for the game actually being played.

A module that I think is pretty good for this is OA7 Test of the Samurai. Another is B10 Night's Dark Terror. A module that I think is not very good for this is Dead Gods. Another is Expedition to the Demonweb Pits.

More traditional (early AD&D) dungeon modules can be OK for this provided it is feasible to turn them from an exploration focus to a more pithy encounter focus. I think I achieved this with G2 in my 4e game. I don't think G1 and G3 would lend themselves to it in the same way, though, as they have too much traditional dungeon-crawling/cleansing in their lower levels.

Used in this way I don't think that modules have to be the RPG equivaent of microwave dinners.