Should this be fixed

[pemerton]

How does making clear the norms of society mean that the players don't make evaluative judgements?

"She informed the players that the items were not evil" is foreign to you? Again, this is part of the presentation of the milieu, in a game where "evil" has an actual, concrete, detectable meaning.

The second of these quoted passages, to which I responded upthread, makes clear the answer to the first. "She", in the second quoted passage, refers to the GM. That is, the second quoted passage describes the GM informing the player of the value of necromantic artefacts (namely, as being not evil).

This is the way in which, in the approach to play that I described as foreign to me, I say that it is the GM and not the players making the evaluative judgements - whereas I prefer the converse.

I find it rather interesting that those who claim that players can do whatever they want so long as it's in character, now spin around and would boot a player for playing his character in a consistent, established manner. So much for the vaunted player freedom.

I just find it funny that people who claim to be all about player choice are the first ones to eject a player from a group for making choices that the DM doesn't like.

I had similar thoughts.

Without more information it's hard to judge, but my tentative hypothesis is this: many of those who advocate for player freedom and sandboxing are advocating for player exploratory freedom - that is, players are free to explore whatever elements of the gameworld they like (perhaps, even, by playing a PC who is, per the GM's rulings, evil). But the setting to be explored - including the values of things in that setting - are determined by the GM. In this approach, it is the GM's world. Hence the classic "Wisdom check before you do something silly or contrary to your alignment or whatever" - a mechanic I personally detest, in part because of it's association with other mechanics I detest, but something which seems to be accepted as reasonable procedure by the majority of people on this thread engaged in this discussion of GMing and playing styles. This is a mechanic which reinforces the GM's control over the values of the gameworld - what counts as good and evil, prudent and imprudent, and so on.

As the discussion about the destruction of treasure shows, there is also a presupposition in this approach to play that the principle aim of the players is for their PCs to amass as much wealth as possible. In the real world, I assume comparatively few people would think it permissible to execute, let alone summarily execute, a person simply for causing property damage. Yet look how many posters on this thread are saying that the other PCs are justified in killing this dwarf PC for destroying some loot. (Loot, furthermore, of arguable moral or aesthetic value - when someone attacked Piss Christ while it was being exhibited in Melbourne, not even the most ardent advocates of artistic free speech suggested that the attackers, who were motivated by religious objections to the work, should be killed!).

In my experience, when this general exploratory approach to play is combined with a desire to focus on some goal other than looting, the result is the classic 2nd ed/Dragonlance-style railroad. A lot of post-1990 RPG design can, in my view, be seen as an attempt to design systems that will support non-railroad but also non-mercenary-sandbox play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Without more information it's hard to judge, but my tentative hypothesis is this: many of those who advocate for player freedom and sandboxing are advocating for player exploratory freedom - that is, players are free to explore whatever elements of the gameworld they like (perhaps, even, by playing a PC who is, per the GM's rulings, evil).

I would certainly say that players have the freedom to take action within the campaign milieu, but not that they have freedom to write the milieu. (There are games, of course, where this restriction need not apply, or would make no sense to apply.)

The problem here is not that the player upset the GM by smashing the treasure, but, rather, that the player upset the other players. Something that may seem hard to grasp, perhaps, but it is not a subtle difference.

Especially in a group where the same people meet every week/month/whatever to play, if one player is consistently playing in such a way as to annoy the others, "player freedom" would suggest the freedom to have their characters react in a realistic way -- which is not to buddy up with the PC again and again because the GM refuses to allow them to do otherwise!

Without more information it's hard to judge, but my tentative hypothesis is this: many of those who advocate for player freedom to determine the values of things in that setting - (what counts as good and evil, prudent and imprudent, and so on) are also strangely concerned with the player-determined values when dealing with a problem player. To wit:

In the real world, I assume comparatively few people would think it permissible to execute, let alone summarily execute, a person simply for causing property damage. Yet look how many posters on this thread are saying that the other PCs are justified in killing this dwarf PC for destroying some loot. (Loot, furthermore, of arguable moral or aesthetic value - when someone attacked Piss Christ while it was being exhibited in Melbourne, not even the most ardent advocates of artistic free speech suggested that the attackers, who were motivated by religious objections to the work, should be killed!).​

That seems at odds, to me.

In my experience, when this general exploratory approach to play is combined with a desire to focus on some goal other than looting, the result is the classic 2nd ed/Dragonlance-style railroad.

The only thing I can say here is, WTF? I have no idea where this is coming from, or what your experience here could possibly be.

Any approach where the players determine what goals are being focused on, by definition, precludes a railroad (Dragonlance-style or otherwise) by definition, no matter what those goals are.

It is rather as though I said, "In my experience, applying black paint results in white walls".


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

Here's an interesting post, from the PC on PC Action thread, which describes a remarkably similar situation, but from the 'dwarf player' perspective.

It was a Warhammer Fantasy game. We were visiting an island that had been discovered several years previously and then colonized. However, contact was cut off and we'd been sent to investigate. We discovered the island had numerous cults, and most humans (but not demi-humans) had gone mad.

We found some glowing rocks. Now, our non-magically inclined, poorly-educated PCs interpreted the rocks as being evil. One PC tried to keep them to himself, although his sole motivation was probably profit. We didn't agree. Violently.

The player stormed out as we killed his PC in only two rounds. (He was back the next session, though, with a new character.) Ironically another PC then did the exact same thing, about five seconds later -- locking them into a box, though -- rather than follow my PC's suggestion of throwing the rocks into the sea. Having just offed a PC, we weren't in the mood to do it again, but ill will was felt around the table.

Still don't know why not one but two PCs couldn't just let go of the rocks. If my character had any larcenous or stealthy abilities he would have stolen the box and thrown it overboard. I don't recall what happened to the rocks, but I think "logically" our PCs would have gotten rid of them, fast!

 

[Hussar]

It's not that the dwarf's player isn't doing what the DM wants, it's the dwarf player not listening to the other players that makes him a jerk. Let's put it this way: If that dwarf were in your adventuring party, would you get rid of him for what he's done - including committing murder and destroying valuables all of the rest of you were interested in selling? I certainly wouldn't be that keen on having him around and I don't really care how consistently he's being played. Consistently being an ass is worse than occasionally not being one.

I think the break down here is possibly one of expectations. Some players play in a PvP environment and some in PvE. If you have a mix of the two, things can get really sticky.

In a PvE game, player decisions are generally based on what is good for the group - after all, the baseline assumption is that it's the group vs the world. At the extreme, you don't attack other PC's, but also, any action you take should be filtered with the idea of looking at the consequences for the rest of the group. However, in a PvE game, because everyone should be working towards the good of the group, you don't generally remove any character from the group since that would weaken the group.

In a PvP game, it's everyone for himself. The player bases his decisions entirely on what he (or she) feels makes the most sense for that character. Now, in an entirely PvP group, those decisions could very well result in that character being removed from the group. And, because everyone is groovy with PvP, that should be okay.

Now, when you mix those two groups, it's oil and water. One player is assuming that his actions should be based on his own personal criteria and the other players are viewing his actions as to how they affect the group as a whole. This mixing of points of view leads to a very large disconnect in reactions because neither side really is speaking the same language.

 

[billd91]

Without more information it's hard to judge, but my tentative hypothesis is this: many of those who advocate for player freedom and sandboxing are advocating for player exploratory freedom - that is, players are free to explore whatever elements of the gameworld they like (perhaps, even, by playing a PC who is, per the GM's rulings, evil). But the setting to be explored - including the values of things in that setting - are determined by the GM. In this approach, it is the GM's world. Hence the classic "Wisdom check before you do something silly or contrary to your alignment or whatever" - a mechanic I personally detest, in part because of it's association with other mechanics I detest, but something which seems to be accepted as reasonable procedure by the majority of people on this thread engaged in this discussion of GMing and playing styles. This is a mechanic which reinforces the GM's control over the values of the gameworld - what counts as good and evil, prudent and imprudent, and so on.

Your hypothesis is based on some pretty wild assumptions.

The classic "wisdom check" has often been used, in my experience, to get the player's perceptions more in line with what you could reasonably his character's to be. Often, this is because the GM thinks that the player is making a decision that a PC, knowing what a PC would know, probably wouldn't make, probably out of ignorance or a difference in the perception of the situation between the GM and the player. For example: Player has his PC try to jump a 50 foot gorge. If there's no reason to expect that to work in the rules or in the PC's reality, why would the player make that decision? Probably because he's not really understanding the full situation. Perhaps the GM hasn't made it clear, perhaps the player just wasn't paying enough attention. The wisdom roll allows the GM to prompt the player about something from the PC's point of view. It's basically a "Player, get a clue" moment.

How this is somehow detestable boggles my mind.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The classic "wisdom check" has often been used, in my experience, to get the player's perceptions more in line with what you could reasonably his character's to be. Often, this is because the GM thinks that the player is making a decision that a PC, knowing what a PC would know, probably wouldn't make, probably out of ignorance or a difference in the perception of the situation between the GM and the player. For example: Player has his PC try to jump a 50 foot gorge. If there's no reason to expect that to work in the rules or in the PC's reality, why would the player make that decision? Probably because he's not really understanding the full situation. Perhaps the GM hasn't made it clear, perhaps the player just wasn't paying enough attention. The wisdom roll allows the GM to prompt the player about something from the PC's point of view. It's basically a "Player, get a clue" moment.

Exactly this.

How this is somehow detestable boggles my mind.

Doubly exactly this.

Can someone drop some XP for me?

RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

A thought about the Dwarf's POV.

People have made a big point about the fact that society in this setting doesn't see necromancy as evil. Does that mean that every player must see necromancy as a non-evil thing? Can't a character be wrong?

The dwarf player, to his credit, is sticking to a consistent play of his character. He's made no bones about the fact that he sees necromancy as evil and that he's playing a "hanging judge" sort of Cuthberite. Not exactly out of line for a non-cleric Cuthberite. He's dispensing justice in his view.

Granted, his view is whacked and quite possibly evil (as per 3e alignments) but, it's still his character.

I find it rather interesting that those who claim that players can do whatever they want so long as it's in character, now spin around and would boot a player for playing his character in a consistent, established manner. So much for the vaunted player freedom. More like, "You can do whatever you want, so long as I like what you're doing. Otherwise, there's the door."

The character is free to hold whatever beliefs he/she wishes. Doing whatever you want can have consequences that the player needs to accept as part of the package. This can include the other party members no longer wishing to adventure with you. In any group there are some behavioral restrictions that must be observed if you want to continue being a part of that group.

Generally speaking,constantly bringing more harm and loss to the group than benefits in the name of 'doing what you want' is good way to get booted.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The character is free to hold whatever beliefs he/she wishes. Doing whatever you want can have consequences that the player needs to accept as part of the package. This can include the other party members no longer wishing to adventure with you. In any group there are some behavioral restrictions that must be observed if you want to continue being a part of that group.

Generally speaking,constantly bringing more harm and loss to the group than benefits in the name of 'doing what you want' is good way to get booted.

Exactly.

If "just playing my character" is good for the dwarf; it is good for the other players when they boot the dwarf from the party.

If "just playing my character" is not allowed for the rest of the party, it should not be allowed for the dwarf.

IMHO, you pick one way to play, and then stick to it. Personally, I'd go with "let the players choose what their characters do, and let the players sort out the conequences." I'm strongly in that camp. I'm not a babysitter.

YMMV.

OTOH, as a player, so long as the inter-party conflict stayed "in-game", I'd be happy to deal with the dwarf. Indeed, I would congradulate the dwarf on the courage of his convictions while I extracted due payment from his hairy hide. Mild conflict within the party can make for good role-playing opportunities. Major conflict within the party can be fun, too, so long as all of the players are mature enough to keep the conflict in-game, and so long as the GM doesn't tie the players' hands when they try to deal with it.

Again, YMMV.


RC

 

[WHW4]

I don't think the player is a jerk; I think his character is one.

I don't think they should kill him; I think they should wake up early at the next inn they stop at and leave him there.

I think the GM, in giving a Wisdom check, is essentially telling the player "Are you absolutely sure you wish to pursue this course of action?" without calling it a bad decision outright - which it was; because in a game where a group of people are all sitting down and trying to enjoy themselves, you should be mature enough as a player to make some role-playing concessions to allow that to happen. This is not YOUR story. This is everyone's story. Now if everyone enjoys that sort of thing, have at it, bro.

Otherwise, if you want RP that way then I suggest it be an ending for a character and a natural segue to bring in a new one.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think our group has a combo pf PVE and PVP players. For example the player playing the dwarf is a combo of PVP and PVE. He basically believes that the party should do what is the best for the party.

For example you never attack another party member, its wrong to deny healing to a party member even if that party member has defiled your gods temple.

But here is the rub he feels that way about other players but not his. He doesn't see the dichotomy of it. It has been pointed out to him that he does this and he just does not see it.

We have another player who is more PVE to him everything comes down to a role playing decision. Even if it impacts the party negatively. He also hates anything that smacks of metagaming. He builds his character only on role playing. For example if he has never used a skill in a level he won't rise it.

The rest of us or PVP players we try and role play in a way that will keep the group together and working well.

I used not to be this way but I found that PVE can really have a negative impact on the fun at the table.