D&D 5E Player agency and Paladin oath.

[doctorbadwolf]

And what about the people (probably your friends) that signed up to play a fun, collaborative experience with other friends, and had some other jerk at the table ruin it for them because: 'Lulz evil'.

Screw those guys hey?

Is it really that hard to imagine that Lanefan’s whole group is on board with the style of play he talks about?

I disagree with just about every single thing he says, but damn.

 

[Lanefan]

And what about the people (probably your friends) that signed up to play a fun, collaborative experience with other friends, and had some other jerk at the table ruin it for them because: 'Lulz evil'.

Screw those guys hey?

So many assumptions...

First assumption: that it's just one person being a jerk. If it is, that's fairly easy for the rest to deal with. But IME it takes at least two to tango; and if there's two that want to play that way chances are there's more. And as long as everyone's laughing, who cares?

Second assumption: that the game's been pitched as collaborative in any sense beyond the most basic support needed to survive when the game-world tries to kill you - which it will, now and then. It usually works out as somewhat collaborative in the end but collaboration isn't mandatory, in part because (and examples abound on these boards) when a game's pitched as collaborative what's really being said is that players/PCs are strongly discouraged from thinking for themselves and-or acting on those thoughts, in favour of groupthink.

Third implied assumption: that people are taking it seriously enough to be annoyed, rather than just entertained, by whatever the one-or-more gonzo types do. And yes, gonzo types - not only is playing evil frowned on these days, but playing something gonzo (I think the term is Leroy Jenkins, or something like that) is out of favour as well; which is rather sad.

 

[Lanefan]

My response would be that you didn't make the character/bring the character on in good faith so trying to argue "not playing the character in good faith..." is nothing less than disingenuous hogwash!

Depends on the character and the situation, and it can apply just as much to Goodly characters as Evils.

If your PC has a reputation for non-violently upholding law and justice and doing the right thing, it naturally follows that if the other PCs are looting graves you'd ask them to stop and then turn them in to the authorities if they didn't. Or, you'd leave that party - and yes, good-faith play can sometimes involve role-playing your character out of the party; <sarcasm> not like I've ever done this or anything. </sarcasm>

If you're new, maybe you get a pass the first time or two (though, frankly, that's being generous). but once you've played a bit - you KNOW what kind of Character you're making and how it will affect the game. You don't get to hide behind the character.

There's a legitimate concern if every character I make is the same.

Sorry but torpedoing a group for the lulz or intentionally wrecking a burgioning great party dynamic because you think it would be fun/funny? Let's just say I heavily disagree that anything goes - that way lies hurt feelings and broken groups.

Define "great party dynamic". I suspect you'll find it's just as hard as defining any alignment; as what's a great party dynamic to one person might be awful to another.

ESPECIALLY if it's a group of new players. If you're an experienced player in a group of new players and intentionally mess with them (start fights, derail the plot, be constantly contrary, etc.) for your own amusement? That's the worst kind of behavior IMO.

IME it's much more often the new and enthusiastic players who do the crazy or evil or chaotic stuff, just because they can and because they don't take it all that seriously. You never know what's coming next, which is what makes it entertaining; and this is why I love new players!

 

[Mort]

So many assumptions...

First assumption: that it's just one person being a jerk. If it is, that's fairly easy for the rest to deal with. But IME it takes at least two to tango; and if there's two that want to play that way chances are there's more. And as long as everyone's laughing, who cares?

As long as everyone's laughing and having fun - that's right. Problem comes from 1 or 2 people at the table having "fun" at the expense of everyone else. That's what I don't have time for, thankfully my current group is far, far from that.

Second assumption: that the game's been pitched as collaborative in any sense beyond the most basic support needed to survive when the game-world tries to kill you - which it will, now and then. It usually works out as somewhat collaborative in the end but collaboration isn't mandatory, in part because (and examples abound on these boards) when a game's pitched as collaborative what's really being said is that players/PCs are strongly discouraged from thinking for themselves and-or acting on those thoughts, in favour of groupthink.

I don't think everyone acting together to accomplish a goal is groupthink - it's either agreement on a goal or (and this one is actually easier) self preservation because otherwise the scenario will do bad things to your character.

Also it allows for everyone to actually be moving along together - which is important when there is only 1 DM.

The last time I was in an "evil" "everyone for themselves" group, I was honestly bored out of my mind. Basically since everyone was messing with everyone and everyone was in each other's way - the DM spent all his time resolving various disputes and situations. It took forever, and half (at least) the session was just sitting around chatting with people who were also not actually interacting with the world (No we didn't talk to each other in character while the DM was focused elsewhere - this wasn't a LARP; we just wanted some beer and pretzels role-playing). No hurt feelings or anything - just boredom.

Third implied assumption: that people are taking it seriously enough to be annoyed, rather than just entertained, by whatever the one-or-more gonzo types do. And yes, gonzo types - not only is playing evil frowned on these days, but playing something gonzo (I think the term is Leroy Jenkins, or something like that) is out of favour as well; which is rather sad.

Well yeah, if the group sets up something, be it an ambush, a negotiation - whatever and 1 of the players decides to suck up all the attention by pulling a leroy jenkins - that's irritating. If it's actually funny and people laugh and have fun then great. But most of the time, these people are not nearly as entertaining as they think they are; they're just really annoying.

 

[Lanefan]

In mine too. But with all his years of experience, I doubt that it is something that is done on a daily basis. It is more like on a case by case basis. If the character is an established "do gooder" then having said character going on a rampage in a small town murdering left and right would not be accepted in his games either.

At the least it'd prompt an alignment audit, but more likely it'd prompt some 'wtf?' from around the table.

And he did state that session zero is important for group cohesion. I think you are taking only a part of what he said. Take the whole posts into account. It is sometimes easy to lose sight of the whole thread, especially long ones.

Session 0 as an actual session doesn't really happen. The bits you think of as session 0 - the pitch, the groundrules, etc. - happen earlier one-on-one when or before I invite each player into the game. The first time we all get together is roll-up night, which segues right into session 1 if they're halfway efficient about it.

And both during the one-on-ones and in the pre-game write-ups I try to make it clear what they might be getting into; that while cohesion is nice it's not mandatory, that (absent some offensive stuff) anything goes in-character but it had damn-well better stay in-character (i.e. out-of-character arguing doesn't fly), bad things can and will happen to the characters so don't complain when they do, and though I'm open to debate on rulings etc. in the end my word is the law if it comes to that. If they still want in after that, they can't claim they haven't been warned.

 

[Weiley31]

Did the Paladin of Devotion go Death Wish on the party yet?