Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The stupid expectations of some DMs...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 217747" data-attributes="member: 1106"><p>I doubt it's an artifact of the "modern world" - game theory suggests that there are significant disadvantages to both "good" and "evil" behaviour in humans - in-game and out. I think you're maybe waking up to the idea that "neutral" is how most people live - because it works? (Applying D&D alignment to real people is also, I think, an exercise in futility. The person who might under one set of circumstances murder you might save your life at the expense of their own under another.)</p><p></p><p>The reason why people tend towards the middle path (even if they write "good" on their character sheet) is that outside of RPGs, there are significant disadvantages to both "good" and "evil" behaviour. As most of us probably know, those who consistently display "good" behaviour may get exploited, backstabbed and outcompeted by those who aren't, and those who consistently display "evil" behaviour may get persecuted, reviled and ostracised for their actions. The middle road allows for guarding yourself against the actions of others whilst respecting their needs - within reason - as well.</p><p></p><p>I did say "in-game" for a reason. The "heroically good" approach <em>can</em> work in a game of D&D if the DM ensures that it does. I think the frustration occurs when the DM sets things up for the "heroically good" approach to work, and the players "cheat" by taking the "conservatively neutral" approach instead. Why would they do this?</p><p></p><p>I think it may have to do with a lack of trust in the DM in some cases - especially if the DM has betrayed them by punishing them for taking the "heroically good" approach in the past - by killing their characters when they fight to the death in a combat that the DM has decided "the odds are too great, they should obviously retreat from if they're not stupid," for instance! (And I know this is a common DM conceit because of the number of examples in the "stupid players thread"). Here the DM has made a situation where the heroic approach doesn't work, but doesn't register that players can't mind-read for when he wants them to be heroic and when he wants them to use discretion. I'd suggest that he has no right to complain when the PCs meet his next encounter set up with a heroic solution in mind with a more conservative approach, because in the past they got beat down on purpose, by the DM, for taking the heroic approach consistently. "I want you guys to be heroic <em>except</em> on those occasions when you guess that I don't want you to be!" Players, bring ESP to the gaming table. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite11" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /></p><p></p><p>Some "grim n gritty" style DMs have even been *ahem* <em>bragging</em> recently that their worlds stomp out player/PC idealism. I hope these aren't the same DMs expecting heroics from their players. Players learn quickly, and if their attempts at heroism are actively punished or consistently for naught, they'll probably get the message and adapt to a more practical style of play. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p>When I think of a heroically good character, and this discussion in general, I think of Ace Rimmer from Red Dwarf. In several episodes he comes up with a self-sacrificing plan which involves his death in order to save the other characters, and they say, "What a guy." If he wasn't stopped each time, he wouldn't be there for more than one episode. I think that this is the character that JLXC and arcady perhaps want to see more of, which is fine - just make sure that there are a few neutrals there to bale them out! This is workable in D&D - think of Sturm from the Dragonlance Chronicles, and the convincing Tanis had to do to stop him from fighting suicidal odds at the Inn for reasons of pride, his code, justice and honour.</p><p></p><p>In short, discretion is often the better part of valour, and if the DM expects heroism from PCs, he has an obligation to make sure he doesn't flip-flop between punishing them and rewarding them for it - depending on his mood. If attacking the dragon is "stupid" today ("The stupid PCs should have retreated!") and heroic tomorrow ("I'm going to punish them for not attacking that dragon! They're no heroes!") then the PC's behaviour makes sense as a reaction to the mercuriality of the DM's style. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek! :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rounser, post: 217747, member: 1106"] I doubt it's an artifact of the "modern world" - game theory suggests that there are significant disadvantages to both "good" and "evil" behaviour in humans - in-game and out. I think you're maybe waking up to the idea that "neutral" is how most people live - because it works? (Applying D&D alignment to real people is also, I think, an exercise in futility. The person who might under one set of circumstances murder you might save your life at the expense of their own under another.) The reason why people tend towards the middle path (even if they write "good" on their character sheet) is that outside of RPGs, there are significant disadvantages to both "good" and "evil" behaviour. As most of us probably know, those who consistently display "good" behaviour may get exploited, backstabbed and outcompeted by those who aren't, and those who consistently display "evil" behaviour may get persecuted, reviled and ostracised for their actions. The middle road allows for guarding yourself against the actions of others whilst respecting their needs - within reason - as well. I did say "in-game" for a reason. The "heroically good" approach [i]can[/i] work in a game of D&D if the DM ensures that it does. I think the frustration occurs when the DM sets things up for the "heroically good" approach to work, and the players "cheat" by taking the "conservatively neutral" approach instead. Why would they do this? I think it may have to do with a lack of trust in the DM in some cases - especially if the DM has betrayed them by punishing them for taking the "heroically good" approach in the past - by killing their characters when they fight to the death in a combat that the DM has decided "the odds are too great, they should obviously retreat from if they're not stupid," for instance! (And I know this is a common DM conceit because of the number of examples in the "stupid players thread"). Here the DM has made a situation where the heroic approach doesn't work, but doesn't register that players can't mind-read for when he wants them to be heroic and when he wants them to use discretion. I'd suggest that he has no right to complain when the PCs meet his next encounter set up with a heroic solution in mind with a more conservative approach, because in the past they got beat down on purpose, by the DM, for taking the heroic approach consistently. "I want you guys to be heroic [i]except[/i] on those occasions when you guess that I don't want you to be!" Players, bring ESP to the gaming table. :rolleyes: Some "grim n gritty" style DMs have even been *ahem* [i]bragging[/i] recently that their worlds stomp out player/PC idealism. I hope these aren't the same DMs expecting heroics from their players. Players learn quickly, and if their attempts at heroism are actively punished or consistently for naught, they'll probably get the message and adapt to a more practical style of play. :D When I think of a heroically good character, and this discussion in general, I think of Ace Rimmer from Red Dwarf. In several episodes he comes up with a self-sacrificing plan which involves his death in order to save the other characters, and they say, "What a guy." If he wasn't stopped each time, he wouldn't be there for more than one episode. I think that this is the character that JLXC and arcady perhaps want to see more of, which is fine - just make sure that there are a few neutrals there to bale them out! This is workable in D&D - think of Sturm from the Dragonlance Chronicles, and the convincing Tanis had to do to stop him from fighting suicidal odds at the Inn for reasons of pride, his code, justice and honour. In short, discretion is often the better part of valour, and if the DM expects heroism from PCs, he has an obligation to make sure he doesn't flip-flop between punishing them and rewarding them for it - depending on his mood. If attacking the dragon is "stupid" today ("The stupid PCs should have retreated!") and heroic tomorrow ("I'm going to punish them for not attacking that dragon! They're no heroes!") then the PC's behaviour makes sense as a reaction to the mercuriality of the DM's style. :eek: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The stupid expectations of some DMs...
Top