does CN get a bad rap?

[pawsplay]

I think I'm with P-kitty: how's trusting your players make bad gaming?

When you empower and license their evil.

 

[I'm A Banana]

When the trust is misplaced. Duh!

Even then, doesn't the trust itself kind of open that channel of communication where you can talk about it? Or at least the honest way of saying "if you mess with us, you're out"?

When you empower and license their evil.

The...player's evil, or the character's evil?

Because evil characters aren't always a problem (depending on the campaign), and calling a disruptive player evil seems a bit harsh IMO.

 

[Seeten]

If I am gaming with someone I dont trust, I have a much worse time.

If I dont trust the DM, I assume rulings will be arbitrary, or incorrect, that every time his +5 attack bonus hits my 36 ac he "rolled" a 20 the old fashioned way, etc.

If I trust the DM and he trusts me, we work together to tell a story about the party, and world. that everyone is a part of.

Without trust, everyone works at cross purposes. Nobody gains, everyone loses.

 

[pawsplay]

If you trust someone and they reward that trust with abuse, then you suffer a lot. Even good players have an egoistic episode now and then. Gaming is a cooperative experience, and it's up to the GM to rein in a lot of in-game issues.

 

[pawsplay]

If I am gaming with someone I dont trust, I have a much worse time.

If I dont trust the DM, I assume rulings will be arbitrary, or incorrect, that every time his +5 attack bonus hits my 36 ac he "rolled" a 20 the old fashioned way, etc.

If I trust the DM and he trusts me, we work together to tell a story about the party, and world. that everyone is a part of.

Without trust, everyone works at cross purposes. Nobody gains, everyone loses.

In other words, it's better to game with people who are trustworthy. If they are not, however, then trusting them is worse than not trusting.

 

[BryonD]

Trusting your players is the first key to good gaming.

Assume much?
Hollow cheap shots at my relationship with my players might sound clever, but they don't change reality.

Knowing who can and can not handle a certain roles before they screw up everything for all the other players comes much higher on the list of keys in the real world.

And knowing that there are perfectly valid alternaitves that let everyone have fun instead is also an earlier key.

 

[BryonD]

If I am gaming with someone I dont trust, I have a much worse time.

Now you are basing your arguement on abusing a word YOU substituted into the debate.

"Trust" was a stretch when you narrowly applied it to the reality of either (a) being aware that a player would have a hard time not beign disruptive in a specific role or (b) simply not knowing a given player well enough to be certain and not risking it when other options are available.
But what the hell, it wasn't worth arguing.

Now you are turning around and misrepresnting the whole thing as being at the crux of whether a player is worthy to be at the table with you. That is absurb.

There are a lot of players out there who become anti-fun in certain roles. Some because they revert to jerks, but many for less overt reasons. If you really can jump in your mind from that to someone you could not game with due to "trust", then you are vastly oversimplfying the situation to your own lose.

 

[Piratecat]

Assume much?
Hollow cheap shots at my relationship with my players might sound clever, but they don't change reality.

Let's all take deep breaths and a step back, please. I'd rather not close the thread for arguing!

 

[DungeonMaester]

Actually, what I think of as a CN PC fits what you're saying, DungeonMaster, which is how I play a DMPC in my solo campaign. (He's impulsive but most of the time doesn't care what he does as long as he gets money or fame eventually, and his 6 CHA keeps him from influencing the party much at all.)

But this doesn't quite jive with how I often see CN portrayed on the boards (witness this discussion) or in adventure modules. For example, in a recent Dungeon adventure (Diplomacy, in #144),
[sblock]The CN NPC (mercane) is treated on the same level as the NE NPC (arcanaloth) and is, in fact, more likely to attack the PCs directly. While this fits with the chaotic tendencies, his long range plans don't seem that different from the LN NPCs, even though the LN NPC (a modron) mostly seems there as a straight man.[/sblock]
And this seems to come up fairly often. I just wonder if the idea that "CN characters don't play well in parties" gets carried over into adventure design or if people really think CN is kind of villainous.

I hate it when NC PCs go "Im CN..How do I benifet from this?" Which is not CN at all. Its really bad because A) It happens a lot and B) People actually think thats good roleplaying when a NC PC says that when a problem comes up.

---Rusty

 

[Seeten]

If you trust someone and they reward that trust with abuse, then you suffer a lot. Even good players have an egoistic episode now and then. Gaming is a cooperative experience, and it's up to the GM to rein in a lot of in-game issues.

If you trust someone, and they reward that trust with abuse, you've learned something valuable. That person is not to be trusted, and should be shown the door and gamed with no longer. Problem solved. Next?

Now you can replace them with someone trustworthy, and share a great time.