PDA

View Full Version : How would you earn my trust?



Totally Guy
2012-12-16, 04:00 AM
I saw in another thread the suggestion that players should trust their GMs and that lack of trust was a problem for the group.

But I'm of the opinion that trust must be earned. I don't give it without good cause.

How would you earn my trust? What kind of trouble would I be if I played while sceptical?

AntiTrust
2012-12-16, 04:24 AM
The question is, skeptical of what? Their ability to run the game or tell the story? I think if you elaborate a bit on that we'd know really what angle you're coming from.

PersonMan
2012-12-16, 04:40 AM
Well, I think that someone would gain trust in gaming by either:

1. Proving to be a good player/DM over a long period of time.
or
2. Dealing with a touchy issue (DMPCs, or PC death) in an excellent manner, that makes everyone happy with the result.

Vitruviansquid
2012-12-16, 05:02 AM
How I would earn your trust:

I'd explain that the policy of making people earn your trust is sensible when betrayal could really hurt you, like when you're making deep emotional connections with someone, committing crimes with someone as accomplice, or giving someone a great deal of responsibility, but not really necessary when you're just playing a game for entertainment.


The kind of trouble you would be if you played while skeptical:

1. It's not fun to play RPGs with other people who aren't having fun. Nobody wants to get in-character when they know someone else at the table is just half-assing their role because they want to get it over with and go do something else. This is true even when the player who isn't having fun isn't actually trying to sabotage the game.

2. Many RPGs work best with a narrow range of player numbers. DnD 4e really runs best with 4-6 players, so if you're running with 4 players already and one decides he doesn't trust the DM and leaves, you don't really have a game at all any more.

3. It's annoying to sit at a table and have a player constantly vocalize his distrust in your vision.

Hope this helps.

Jessica1990
2012-12-16, 06:04 AM
That’s not the point.

Saph
2012-12-16, 06:15 AM
If you're a survivor in a post-apocalyptic wasteland overrun with zombies, mutants, Chaotic Evil looters looking to exploit the collapse of society, and people who may be infected with a virus that'll turn them into brutal killing machines, then "You must earn my trust" is a sensible and 100% justified attitude to take towards strangers.

If you're an affluent, middle-class person living in a modern Western country playing a tabletop game which explicitly depends on co-operation, and where the most serious consequence that can happen to you if things go wrong is that is that you might not have as good a time as you could have had somewhere else, then the attitude of "You must earn my trust" is just melodramatic and annoying.

There's really very little you can do about it if a player decides he's not going to trust the GM, but it also tends to be a self-inflicted punishment. If a player doesn't trust the GM he won't bite on plot hooks and won't participate in anything, meaning that after an hour or two he'll usually end up sitting on his own, bored. Usually the problem sorts itself out, one way or another.

ghost_warlock
2012-12-16, 06:22 AM
My character sheet says that I'm Lawful neutral. Is that trustworthy enough for you?

Kurald Galain
2012-12-16, 06:26 AM
What kind of trouble would I be if I played while sceptical?

You would not enjoy playing overly much, I'd say. This advice also holds for life in general: if in real life you don't trust anyone at all until they've explicitly earned it, you'll enjoy your life much more if you change that attitude.

Totally Guy
2012-12-16, 06:46 AM
Aww gee, I was hoping to see some "go down to the pub and have some drinks" or "talk about your gaming expectations".

Saph
2012-12-16, 06:51 AM
Aww gee, I was hoping to see some "go down to the pub and have some drinks" or "talk about your gaming expectations".

We do that every session with every player. :smalltongue:

The_Snark
2012-12-16, 07:20 AM
How would you earn my trust? What kind of trouble would I be if I played while sceptical?

I guess my counter-question is, what does your mistrust/skepticism mean? How is it expressed? Is it offensive and/or disruptive to the game?

I mean, if you decide not to play a paladin until you've gotten a feel for a new DM's style and are comfortable with how he handles alignment questions and ethical dilemmas, that's one thing. No big deal.

If you kill off all your character's friends and family in your backstory to ensure the DM can't kidnap them/turn them evil/otherwise "use them against you"? That's not a great attitude, but OK, I guess. You can play a paranoid loner orphan if you really want to. If you refuse to bite on plot hooks because you know they'll lead to trouble (in the form of an adventure), and won't give me any motivations to work with... that's getting disruptive.

If you object to use of Rule 0, houserules, DM-created monsters, and other deviations from the Rules As Written, on the basis that you don't trust the DM to "play fair"... that is likewise disruptive. (Of course you can object to individual rulings if you think they're unfair, but categorically objecting is not good.)

In general I don't think I'd go to any great effort to "win over" a skeptical player. I'd just, you know, play the game as usual, and you can play along and see how it goes. If you enjoy my DMing style, awesome! Hopefully that's enough. If you have reservations or would like to see something different, feel free to speak up. If that's not enough... you're probably out of luck. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a GM to jump through hoops to earn a player's trust, any more than it would be the other way around.

Eldan
2012-12-16, 08:42 AM
Cookies. I bring a bag of mixed cookies to every first gaming session.

Crazyfailure13
2012-12-16, 09:15 AM
I'd pay for pizza and red bull

Mephit
2012-12-16, 10:02 AM
I'd come like 10 minutes early with pizza and drinks, and help you set up the game, while going through my character's 10-page history and his place in the setting. It'd be a casual character, a cleric or something, nothing too power-gamey but I can still help the other players with some buffing if they're not that experienced. I'd help them with their character sheets so they don't screw themselves over.

During the game, we'd have a blast. We'd make sure everyone can contribute and I'd encourage everyone to not stray from the plot too much. I crack a few jokes and wink at you, and as you look into my eyes, you think about how great of a guy I am and you realize you're falling in love with me.

After the game I help you put everything away when the others have already left. We'd have a glass of wine, and then, when we're all alone, I'd run my hand up your leg and whisper into your ear: "I love you. I've always loved you."

That's how I'd earn your trust.
And your affection.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-12-16, 10:03 AM
Aww gee, I was hoping to see some "go down to the pub and have some drinks"

Could we sit on the couch and watch cartoons instead?

Phaedrus2129
2012-12-16, 12:02 PM
Beer. Not Bud Lite, get something quality, (Sam Adams or other mid-markets, or a local microbrew) in at least two varieties (a dark and a light), as well as a beer alternative. If someone is responsible and has enough foresight to bring at least three quality beverages to fit different peoples' tastes, then they're responsible enough to run a DnD campaign.

Also nachos.


cookies help too

also brownies

Water_Bear
2012-12-16, 12:45 PM
Skepticism is healthy as long as it's reasonable. In a tabletop RPG, you don't have to accept on faith that your GM is any good as a roleplayer or understands the mechanics, and it's not unreasonable to watch for signs of cheating.

As a GM I try to run the highest quality game I can, and make my position on the rules and social contract as clear as possible. Personally I'd see doing anything more than that to "earn trust" as being suspicious.

Slipperychicken
2012-12-16, 02:12 PM
I would establish rules (or use an existing ruleset) and not violate them.

I would define fairness, articulate my commitment to it, then play fairly.

The only time I would violate the rules is after explaining why and how, then obtaining the tables' consent (majority in favor).

I would show up early or on time for the game and be prepared.

Perhaps running a "practice session" before the actual game so everyone knows how it goes.


It takes 20 years to build trust, and 5 minutes to destroy it.

scurv
2012-12-16, 02:22 PM
First we begin with open communication and respect. Add in a little friendly banter. Some token show of trust is needed to get things started. But I believe what cements it is the lack of betrayal and acting in good faith.

Delwugor
2012-12-16, 07:09 PM
I'm going to be myself and GM as I always do. So check that skepticism at the door and lets play a good game.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-12-16, 07:41 PM
My character sheet says that I'm Lawful neutral. Is that trustworthy enough for you?
I, uh, echo this sentiment. :smallbiggrin:

Jay R
2012-12-17, 11:18 AM
The sae way you earn trust in conversation, trade, or any other human interaction. Open up a little, get to know each other, and build a mutually respecting relationship. Why would this be any different?

If I'm the DM, then I have an incredible amount of knowledge about the world and the characters, and the settings. If you do not trust that I will play the game fairly, then why would you ever sit down to play?

I play with my friends - people I have borrowed money from and lent money to, talked to about serious subjects, etc. Trust is earned over time.

On the (extremely rare) occasions that I play with a DM I don't already know well, I assume that he is playing fairly and serving the players well. I start with the assumption of trust. How else can you play?

Similarly, to get in somebody else's car requires the assumption that he is a competent driver, and will get me safely home. I don't give a driving test. Trust is assumed (unless something happens to break that trust.)

Ceaon
2012-12-17, 11:29 AM
It takes 20 years to build trust, and 5 minutes to destroy it.

I'd say this is dependent on the truster and the trustee in question.

Being too trusting and too suspicious both have pro's and con's. As do being too forgiving and not being forgiving enough. I think that trust should establish naturally during the playing of a tabletop, but I'd say that if it doesn't develop quickly, that's a sign that something is amiss.

You can't force trust, but I favor naïvite over scepticism if you are playing a game to have fun. No use in trying something half-way just so you can say "See, I thought it'd be rubbish, and it was" - even if done on a subconsious level. No matter if you are a DM or a player, trust is necessary to be able to expose yourself and be vulnerable.

Jay R
2012-12-17, 01:16 PM
It takes 20 years to build trust, and 5 minutes to destroy it.

20 years?

I've had binding contracts with people I'd only known a few months. I've accepted jobs from people I only met at the job interview. I had trusted friends when I was less than 20 years old. I married my wife, thereby trusting her with my life, my honor, and all my worldly goods, when I'd only known her for 11 years.

And I've certainly played D&D with people I met that day at a gaming convention.

Slipperychicken
2012-12-17, 02:07 PM
20 years?

I've had binding contracts with people I'd only known a few months. I've accepted jobs from people I only met at the job interview. I had trusted friends when I was less than 20 years old. I married my wife, thereby trusting her with my life, my honor, and all my worldly goods, when I'd only known her for 11 years.

And I've certainly played D&D with people I met that day at a gaming convention.

I was paraphrasing an investment-related quote which I hardly remember now, it probably had a different number. The point is, it takes a long time to build trust (beyond "I'm pretty sure he won't kill me and loot my pockets in real life in the middle of a public D&D game"), and not so long to destroy it. You generally have to do a lot to show your commitment to fulfill your obligations, unless the issue in question isn't such a big deal, or the other party is desperate.

Playing a D&D game with someone takes about the same level of trust as asking someone for directions (I've gamed with plenty of people I wouldn't even lend $20 to). Whoever was processing your job application probably did an adequate background check on you, learning that you had for most of your life maintained a reputation adequate for doing the job right.

Xefas
2012-12-17, 02:25 PM
I'd be like "I know what Lines and Veils and the Social Contract is. Also, we're not playing D&D."

That's pretty much all a GM has to tell me to get a basic level of trust.

CarpeGuitarrem
2012-12-17, 02:48 PM
I was paraphrasing an investment-related quote which I hardly remember now, it probably had a different number.

"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it." would be the quote you're looking for. Warren Buffet.

Carry2
2012-12-17, 03:36 PM
Aww gee, I was hoping to see some "go down to the pub and have some drinks" or "talk about your gaming expectations".
...I don't drink. I sense this may become a problem.

To address the OP more seriously, I basically agree that a lot of RPGs seem to imply that players should have total trust in the GM, but the GM should have very little trust in players.

"Oh, no, you can't let the players have any information that wouldn't be available to their characters, because they might exploit such information for their personal benefit."
vs.
"As GM, feel free to have NPCs make decisions on the basis of how you feel the story should turn out."

This is exactly the same behaviour- using OOC information to influence IC decisions- but it's considered bad when the players do it and good when the GM does it. And the players must trust the GM to do this responsibly, but not vice versa. Then it's 'metagaming'.

Carry2
2012-12-17, 03:38 PM
I would establish rules (or use an existing ruleset) and not violate them.

I would define fairness, articulate my commitment to it, then play fairly.

The only time I would violate the rules is after explaining why and how, then obtaining the tables' consent (majority in favor).

I would show up early or on time for the game and be prepared.

Perhaps running a "practice session" before the actual game so everyone knows how it goes.
This, I suspect, would also be enormously helpful.

awa
2012-12-17, 04:54 PM
personally I always dislike having info my character wouldn't.

for example if i see a monster and figure out its weakness i feel good.

But if i see a monster and I already know it's weakness i feel bad exploiting said weakness becuase i feel like i'm meta gaming.

Carry2
2012-12-17, 05:06 PM
personaly Ialways dislike having info my charecter wouldent.

for example if i see a monster and figure out its weakness i feel good.

But if i see a monster and I already know it's weakness i feel bad exploting said weakness becuase i feel like i'm meta gaming.

I guess I can see the logic to that.

It's just that I tend to feel unsatisfied when the GM is rolling in secret, and might be 'fudging' to go easy (or hard) on me. Which is kinda similar to meta gaming.

Slipperychicken
2012-12-17, 06:54 PM
But if i see a monster and I already know it's weakness i feel bad exploiting said weakness becuase i feel like i'm meta gaming.

1. Have the whole party make Knowledge checks

2. If your Knowledge check is high enough, congratulations! Your character happens to also posses your insight, you may exploit the weakness with clear conscience.

3. ???

4. PROFIT!

OR

1. Assign a probability that your character would guess randomly to use the tactic which the monster is weak to.

2. Roll a die to determine if your character guesses correctly.

3. Have your character act accordingly.

4. ???

5. ROLEPLAYING!!

Winter_Wolf
2012-12-17, 08:07 PM
I saw in another thread the suggestion that players should trust their GMs and that lack of trust was a problem for the group.

But I'm of the opinion that trust must be earned. I don't give it without good cause.

How would you earn my trust? What kind of trouble would I be if I played while sceptical?

I wouldn't, and you wouldn't, because I wouldn't be interested in gaming with you if this was the attitude you brought to my table. I'd tell you to find a different table.

The attitude I found in your post is very adversarial. I'd tell you straight up, "hit the bricks, and good luck on your search for group that's good enough for you."

Maybe you're not stating your case in a way I understand, but it reads like, "I'm a player that you need to woo before I'll deign to play in your game."

If you were to approach me in a courteous manner--nothing fancy, just a "I hear you're running a game. Tell me about it"--I'd be happy to tell you about the kind of game I'm running, what rules we'll be using, what sources are acceptable or need a case-by-case decision, introduce you to the group to see if you mesh, and the general tenor of the game. I'll certainly welcome any and all questions and hear out suggestions. If everyone is agreeable, welcome aboard. If not, I'll wish you well on your search for a game that suits you better.

GolemsVoice
2012-12-18, 05:16 AM
I generally trust people enough to not be total jerks, or jerks at all, from the start, no matter if I'm DMing or playing. What I'd do is that I'd lay down some basic rules (if I even feel that would be neccessary) and then just start.

Basically:
1.) everyone's here to have fun, don't ruin other people's fun
2.) these are the rules we're using, these are the exceptions
3.) this is a rough outline of the adventure I'm planning (e.g. a social adventure, maybe good not to roll up a barbarian)
4.) the DM provides a story for the players, and as such, the players should show some respect for his/her work, as long as the DM doesn't do something really stupid. On the other hand, the PCs are all the players get to control, don't mess with them too badly if the players don't want that.