Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9626883" data-attributes="member: 18">What's funny here is a lot of this stuff can be true at the same time.For example:Players take advantage of DM errors that are in their character's favourandPlayers point out DM errors even when it disadvantages themI've seen both of these from the same player, in the same game, at the same session! Literally depending on what the errors are. Definitely we lean more towards the latter as a group but I don't think there's a real contradiction here, and I doubt many players 100% pick up on DM errors one way or the other. Generally if the advantage would be too big the players are more likely to point it out, but they're less likely to pick up on a rounding error or few points of damage or the like.Also in different games, different things are true. Like, in most RPGs we play, this is never the case:Players prefer to leave the room rather than experience an event their character does notBut in other RPGs, specific ones, particularly ones where intra-character conflict is more likely, we do, in fact, do that. Also the importance of the event matters a lot. And further I'd say that isn't a trait of adversarial games or not - it's doesn't track with them, it's something that happens in both very friendly and very adversarial games albeit for slightly different reasons.The only two which are almost always untrue for my main group are:Players take advantage of in-game events their characters are not aware ofandPlayers enjoy breaking encounters by using weak or "edge case" rulesBut largely because those are boring and slightly annoying-to-everyone things to do.Overall I'd say the tone of the group is very non-adversarial. Whether I'm DMing or the other guy, we're both basically in the "be a fan of the player characters" general zone (albeit also "kill your darlings" applies lol).What's funny is I've seen groups where almost all the non-adversarial options would be checked, but where the tone was actually oppressively adversarial just because of how the DM operated - you can non-adversarial players but an extremely adversarial DM. Indeed a lot of the early 1990s games of AD&D I played (rather than DM'd) in could be described accurately that way.I think the main issue with this survey is that in my experience, adversariality rarely flows from the players to the DM, but rather almost always the tone is set by the DM, and if the DM adversarial, then the group can become adversarial.</blockquote>

Verification