Passing notes at the table

[Desdichado]

Continued assumption of the universiality of your perceeptions and opinions. Not suprizing.

Are you freakin' kidding me? You're sitting here telling me about the universality of "The Cooperative Party" and the "basic plot" inherent in the game, and then saying that I'm the one with a "Continued assumption of the universiality [sic] of your perceeptions [sic] and opinions. Not suprizing [sic]." I mean, seriously?

If you think you can bludgeon me with such strict assumptions of what the game is and then claim that I'm the one making invalid assumptions about how far-reaching my opinions are, I honestly don't know how to respond to that. I don't know how to be any clearer that your perception of our relative assumptions vis a viz "the universiality of your perceeptions and opinions" is completely a$$-backwards.

Backtracking. You in fact stated that you were "always a bit surprised at the notion that D&D is a team/cooperation oriented game."

No, KB, it's not "backtracking". It's called clarification. But since you're so clearly wanting to argue and pick a bone with me, it's not "suprizing" that you overlooked that.

And since no one said that was the only way, merely the baseline way which people chose to diverge from*, your attempt to shift the subject is rejected.

There are some days when I really, really miss the rolleyes smilie. This is one of those days.

You're also quite wrong; I'm not talking about a default from which people are diverging from, I'm talking about a default from which people are very strongly pointing out that they will not diverge from. I'm surprised that the default is truly as much a default as some claim, since there's absolutely nothing inherent in the rules or the books to suggest that play is always cooperative between players nor that it should be, and I'm also surprised that so many people would approach the game from that perspective, since to me that implies a wargaming "tactical" approach to the game, and wargames have been a nearly dead hobby for decades and haven't been a gateway into RPGs since sometime in the mid-70s or so.

 

[Crust]

I voted yes only because they do it anyway.

Not like it matters when the 30 HD beholder appears and starts disintegrating PCs.

 

[Rel]

I've been known to occasionally pass a player a note that says, "I'm just passing you this note so the other players think I'm telling you something secret and will want to kill your character later."

 

[fusangite]

I'm generally interested in running games where the party works together as a co-operative unit. But even when they don't, I'm not a fan of note-passing. In my view, the set of knowledge a player has and the set the character has are sufficiently disparate that I just expect my players to keep a fairly good firewall between what they know as players and what they know as characters. You don't need notes for character factionalism; you only need them for player factionalism. And I have zero interest in running divided players.

 

[Thunderfoot]

fusangite - While I wish I could agree with you, I have found that there are players that cannot seperate player knowledge from character knowledge. Very rarely is the note passed to player A so that player A doesn't act or react in a certain way, but so that players B, C, D & E don't react to player A's character's "secret" actions. I you have found a group of players that can keep those things separate on a regular basis, then I am jealous!

Passing notes to create player separation isn't MY intent, just keeping the players honest in their actions - but then again I run 13 players, so YRMV.

 

[Dimwhit]

I'm going to back up Hobo on a couple points.

First, party unity is far from a necessity in D&D. Some of my favorite campaigns had characters that didn't get a long and plotted against each other. It's roleplaying. You can't always get along, and it can be fun when you don't. (As long as you're mature enough to not let it spill over to real life.)

Second, I don't think the game itself has a basic plot. The characters make up the plot as they go. I suppose that wouldn't be the case with a railroading DM, where the plot is laid out ahead of time and there's nothing the characters can do to change it. But who wants that...?

 

[buzz]

fusangite - While I wish I could agree with you, I have found that there are players that cannot seperate player knowledge from character knowledge.

Easy fix: Don't game with those people.

 

[DonTadow]

I'm always a bit surprised at the notion that D&D is a team/cooperation oriented game. Why do you see it that way?

I see it as a roleplaying game. You take on the roles of certain characters. Characters may or may not work well together or get along. In fact, some level of intergroup tension can be much more interesting than any other conflict you've got going on half the time anyway.

Maybe it's because I've always approached RPGs as attempting to replicate (to some extent) books, movies, TV shows, etc. rather than be tactical miniatures games, but I've never really grokked the whole idea in the first place.

D and D is described in the DMG as a cooperative role playing game, thus it is seen as so. There are systems where adversarial play is the game but d and d is not it. Groups in movie may not get along all the time, but usually they accomplish their goals as a team. If there is going to be the "betrayer" character it will be an NPC as opposed to being one of the PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

D and D is described in the DMG as a cooperative role playing game, thus it is seen as so. There are systems where adversarial play is the game but d and d is not it. Groups in movie may not get along all the time, but usually they accomplish their goals as a team.

Simple self-preservation instinct often sees to this....

If there is going to be the "betrayer" character it will be an NPC as opposed to being one of the PCs.

But why on earth can't a PC take on that role as part of their character? Not every betrayal has to be part of the DM's story...the players *are* allowed to write their own chapters, or should be...and if Bob the Thief wants to sneak out one night and warn the Orcs of the party's approach then so be it. (this actually happened to me once; the party Ranger realized the rest of our party was more evil than the opposition, so he ratted us out and left, never to be seen again; the opposition had a field day...)

Lanefan

 

[DonTadow]

Simple self-preservation instinct often sees to this.... But why on earth can't a PC take on that role as part of their character? Not every betrayal has to be part of the DM's story...the players *are* allowed to write their own chapters, or should be...and if Bob the Thief wants to sneak out one night and warn the Orcs of the party's approach then so be it. (this actually happened to me once; the party Ranger realized the rest of our party was more evil than the opposition, so he ratted us out and left, never to be seen again; the opposition had a field day...)

Lanefan

Because Dungeons and Dragons is still a game and is defined as a cooperative game. Such a character can not be played cooperatively. Most players who play the "batman" character usually do so to stand out and usually standout in all the wrong ways with the group. I allow some leeway, but when actions directly oppose the group for a malicious or evil purpose, that character falls to the wayside and retires to npcdum to finish out their bad guy career.

That is not to say that this type of character is ruled out all together, but I have only met 1 player in about 1,000 who has been able to play an anti-hero and not piss off other players in and out of game.

This also isn't to say that PC's should not take different moral stands. In my regular game there was an election where the pcs were running against each other on different platforms. Two of the pcs very often disagree on methods of accomplishing the goal. Most of the time, though, they should have a common goal.