D&D 5E Dm misadventures. Tales of woe. How long did your worse table arguement last?

[iserith]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I like this. It seems to me mostly a way of re-framing discussion.

How much time do you spend explaining the approach to a new group of players? Do you find that you need to reinforce it a lot in the beginning, or once people try it, does it become second-nature?

So with my current group of regulars (which is about 10 people, about half of which play in a given session), they picked it up straight away. I recall one session a few sessions into the campaign that they were spinning their wheels in debating something. I don't remember the specifics, but the stakes were high and they had fair enough reasons to be hesitant and doubtful. I didn't say anything during the game, though I could tell that they picked up on this discussion being an anomaly compared to how fluid the game ran up to that point. After the session, I put up a post on the campaign forum highlighting that moment as when "Yes, and..." broke down and that was the last time I had to say anything. As [MENTION=6801813]Valmarius[/MENTION] noted upthread, they don't even realize they're doing it anymore.

I also have a one-shot hub where I run one-shots about once a month on average. There are about 30 players in there, some of which are in my regular campaign. A typical one-shot group will be a couple regulars, one or two one-shut hub members, and one or two new members. My table rules are the same in the one-shot hub as they are in my regular campaigns with regard to this matter. I've never had a single incident with someone having a problem with it. Feedback from new members is always very positive e.g. "It was great how we were always moving in the same direction." We get a lot of exciting stuff done in 4 hours this way.

We had a scenario work like this the other day in a cyberpunk game called The Sprawl. The game actually has two distinct phases of play — preparation of a plan, and execution of the the plan. During preparation, characters learn about the target, come up with ideas about how to engage, and collect any equipment, resources or contacts they might need to make the plan work. Sometimes these will result in a scene, like stealing a set of uniforms or bribing a bodyguard to call in sick. One player made an overall suggestion for a plan of attack, and then other players would chip in with how their character might fit in the scheme. One player suggested going in as a reporter, and then another player said, "Ok, but you'll need a distraction once you're in so that you can get out to the roof. Maybe we could ..." etc. It worked really well. It also helped that, since this was a Powered by the Apocalypse game, many of the details of the fiction were being built up through this process, so there was a bit of a moving target in terms of what a "good idea" was.

Yes, I think some of the modern games, especially ones like the one you describe, have this somewhat baked in. D&D traditionally has not, though it was specifically mentioned in the D&D 4e DMG which is when I got on this kick originally.

 

[Blue]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I'm don't feel like I got a solid answer to my primary question so I'm going to ask it again:

"We play with real humans. How do you deal with players who don't agree? Not a Negative Nathan who's just blocking ideas, but two players have good, valid, but contradictory ideas of what to do next."

And please, the answer cannot be "they just all go with the plan and refine it", because the issue started before that point with who gets to speak first. Once one person has spoken it's already too late to address this issue within your framework, so how does that get resolved?

 

[iserith]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I'm don't feel like I got a solid answer to my primary question so I'm going to ask it again:

"We play with real humans. How do you deal with players who don't agree? Not a Negative Nathan who's just blocking ideas, but two players have good, valid, but contradictory ideas of what to do next."

And please, the answer cannot be "they just all go with the plan and refine it", because the issue started before that point with who gets to speak first. Once one person has spoken it's already too late to address this issue within your framework, so how does that get resolved?

I assure you I play with real humans, though to be fair, I haven't done the proper checks for replicants. So maybe that's what's going on.

Assuming my games are replicant-free, there's no circumstance in which the players don't agree. Agreement is implicit in the process ("Yes..."). Then you get to add your two cents ("...and..."). The situation tends to suggest who might best take the lead. If it doesn't, you defer to someone who hasn't taken the lead of late. The DM also has control over that by shining the spotlight at someone specific. Averaged out over time, everyone has the same opportunity both in taking the lead and in offering refinements of the ideas put forth.

 

[Lanefan]

I assure you I play with real humans, though to be fair, I haven't done the proper checks for replicants. So maybe that's what's going on.

Assuming my games are replicant-free, there's no circumstance in which the players don't agree.

You must have the most compliant player base in the world.

I find it unimaginable that the players never disagree - ever. Although I suppose it's possible that your DMing style is giving subtle (or maybe not so subtle) clues as to the best course of action before the players even start making plans, meaning all the players have to do is find it and refine it.

It occurs to me that this play-style also implicitly forbids some otherwise perfectly acceptable character archetypes from being played: the strong silent type; any sort of take-charge leader or commander; any character with a streak of independence ('chaotic' in D&D terms); the impulsive act-first-think-later (or never) type to whom 'plan' is a four-letter word; or anything with very low intelligence (too dumb to help make the plans and may or may not understand them) or wisdom.

With the exception of the very-low-intelligence character, all of these are character types I've played, enjoyed, and been able to make entertaining for others. Can't see how they'd fit here. Sad.

Lanefan

 

[redrick]

You must have the most compliant player base in the world.

I find it unimaginable that the players never disagree - ever. Although I suppose it's possible that your DMing style is giving subtle (or maybe not so subtle) clues as to the best course of action before the players even start making plans, meaning all the players have to do is find it and refine it.

It occurs to me that this play-style also implicitly forbids some otherwise perfectly acceptable character archetypes from being played: the strong silent type; any sort of take-charge leader or commander; any character with a streak of independence ('chaotic' in D&D terms); the impulsive act-first-think-later (or never) type to whom 'plan' is a four-letter word; or anything with very low intelligence (too dumb to help make the plans and may or may not understand them) or wisdom.

With the exception of the very-low-intelligence character, all of these are character types I've played, enjoyed, and been able to make entertaining for others. Can't see how they'd fit here. Sad.

Lanefan

Iserith can correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems more a way of resolving player discussion than character discussion. Because, as fun as it is to have a 45 minute impasse in character, I think a group could, collectively, agree upon a best course of action while, at the same time, acknowledging that their character is not going to take that action. One can have a fun interaction scene where characters role-play their differences, but I've also seen plenty of dull stalemates where several players just sit back and declare, "Well, my character would never [do the thing that you suggested.]" Which isn't really an interaction scene. It's just people externalizing their stubbornness onto their character.

 

[iserith]

You must have the most compliant player base in the world.

Ha! Maybe. If my Roll20 stats are correct, I've gamed with over 500 different people over the past few years. Most of those are games I've ran since I'm not a player nearly as much. It's probably not all luck.

I find it unimaginable that the players never disagree - ever. Although I suppose it's possible that your DMing style is giving subtle (or maybe not so subtle) clues as to the best course of action before the players even start making plans, meaning all the players have to do is find it and refine it.

I think it's more that they agree not to disagree. As for my DMing style, given how often they do crazy and stupid (but fun!) things, it's probably not anything I'm doing.

It occurs to me that this play-style also implicitly forbids some otherwise perfectly acceptable character archetypes from being played: the strong silent type; any sort of take-charge leader or commander; any character with a streak of independence ('chaotic' in D&D terms); the impulsive act-first-think-later (or never) type to whom 'plan' is a four-letter word; or anything with very low intelligence (too dumb to help make the plans and may or may not understand them) or wisdom.

With the exception of the very-low-intelligence character, all of these are character types I've played, enjoyed, and been able to make entertaining for others. Can't see how they'd fit here. Sad.

Lanefan

I've seen all of those characters at the table. I think you're conflating player and character. This method is about how the players interact with each other.

 

[iserith]

One can have a fun interaction scene where characters role-play their differences

Right, though I personally don't find those particularly fun. A sprinkling here and there maybe. I think there's plenty of conflict to be had outside the party. It always boggles my mind when certain players want to look within the party for that.

 

[Lanefan]

Iserith can correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems more a way of resolving player discussion than character discussion. Because, as fun as it is to have a 45 minute impasse in character, I think a group could, collectively, agree upon a best course of action while, at the same time, acknowledging that their character is not going to take that action.

That would be fine.

But in [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] world it seems you can't do this: your character has to go along with the plan and take that action even if in-character it otherwise wouldn't.

I've seen all of those characters at the table. I think you're conflating player and character. This method is about how the players interact with each other.

When it comes to in-character discussions e.g. planning how to storm the castle, player and character should be exactly the same. In other words if you say it at the table, your character says it in the game.

And yes, stubborn people sometimes play stubborn characters. Non-stubborn people also sometimes play stubborn characters.

That said, you mention Roll20 which tells me you're gaming online rather than in person - a whole different thing. I only ever play in-person games.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Right, though I personally don't find those particularly fun. A sprinkling here and there maybe. I think there's plenty of conflict to be had outside the party. It always boggles my mind when certain players want to look within the party for that.

Doesn't boggle mine: often people play a character to reflect what they can't do in real life. Someone who is normally compliant and accommodating in real life might play the most stubborn argumentative bastard imaginable in the game simply because it's something different to how they live life the rest of the time.

And when your character goal is to get as rich as you can and you end up surrounded by these walking bags of treasure otherwise known as your fellow party members...

Lanefan

 

[redrick]

Right, though I personally don't find those particularly fun. A sprinkling here and there maybe. I think there's plenty of conflict to be had outside the party. It always boggles my mind when certain players want to look within the party for that.

I've seen it happen meaningfully with regards to taking a hook, or a character needing to connect a particular action to their own ideals and bonds. Potentially, this could be resolved between player characters. Some push and pull between player characters can be a good way to bring those characters to life, and I'm in favor of any role-play that doesn't have to be mediated by the DM.