D&D General Combat Against Player Engagement: A Systemic Challenge

[Lanefan]

It's not so much the tricks that I care about - I'm going to use the same strategies and dirty tricks (plus some of my own devising). What I am talking about specifically are the rulings. Sometimes players will push for certain interpretations, shall we say, based on the rule of cool. And a lot of the time, they're thinking about how cool it would be if the rules worked a certain way for them, without thinking about how that means it'll work that way for their opponents.

Same principle - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

That's not the sort of game I tend to run. Do I love a good old-fashioned dungeon crawl beat-em-up? Yes I do. Do I get that some people just want to enjoy cracking some imaginary heads? Yes, I get it. People don't necessarily need to keep track of the motivations of a band of ogres. But there are plenty of scenarios where the whys and wherefores matter. If the group is sent to negotiate a truce with the ogre king, then a single PC deciding to cast fireball on the six approaching ogres because they tuned that part out is going to be a problem.

Same difference if the same PC, full knowing what's going on, casts fireball on the ogres because he doesn't like ogres, or because he thinks the negotiation play is dumb and would rather there be a war, or whatever.

As a GM, I can enjoy the chaos. But I think the other players aren't generally keen on when they come up with a plan and someone Leroy Jenkins it because they weren't listening.

Thing is, just because some players come up with a plan doesn't mean everyone's automatically going to go along with it (in-character) even if they are listening. And the other characters will soon come to recognize that Caramon is a wild card and you never know just what he's going to do next, and account for that - as best they can - in their planning.

With the right character, I can be that player. In-character I'll sit through all the planning and not say much, then when the rubber meets the road I'll just do whatever I was going to do anyway - particularly on those occasions where their planning is flawed but there's no way to convince them of that.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Same principle - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Same difference if the same PC, full knowing what's going on, casts fireball on the ogres because he doesn't like ogres, or because he thinks the negotiation play is dumb and would rather there be a war, or whatever.

I dunno, I think that there is a difference between someone doing an action in the game with intention behind it, and someone doing it because they just want to throw down and roll some dice. But also, if they're knowingly engaging in something to create friction within the gaming group (and to be clear, not every time something like this happens, it's going to create friction), that can escalate into a serious table problem.

Thing is, just because some players come up with a plan doesn't mean everyone's automatically going to go along with it (in-character) even if they are listening. And the other characters will soon come to recognize that Caramon is a wild card and you never know just what he's going to do next, and account for that - as best they can - in their planning.

With the right character, I can be that player. In-character I'll sit through all the planning and not say much, then when the rubber meets the road I'll just do whatever I was going to do anyway - particularly on those occasions where their planning is flawed but there's no way to convince them of that.

If there's not sign-off from everyone on a plan, that's an issue the players need to resolve. As a GM, I will frequently, once they've finished hashing it out, repeat it to them. Not just to make sure that I understand it, but to make sure that it's fresh in people's minds. Because I have totally seen the people that came up with a plan, unbelievably completely ignore it after I said the words "roll initiative."