PDA

View Full Version : If I wanted to do X I would just do Y!



Talakeal
2015-02-18, 01:34 AM
Has anyone ever noticed that some players just don't like entire aspects of the hobby, and furthermore act really dismissive of anyone who doesn't share their opinions?

In my old gaming group there was a guy who absolutely refused to pay attention to the game's plot. He actively zoned out when someone else was speaking or the DM was describing the setting, never remembered anything, never came up with character backgrounds or spoke in character, and if this ever came back to bite him in the butt he got pissed. Whenever anyone asked why he didn't participate in any of the "fluffy" aspects of the game his response would always be "If I wanted to participate in a story I would just read a book".

In my current group there is a guy who is almost the exact opposite. He hates any sort of mechanics and is quickly bored of combat. Furthermore he talks down to anyone who does enjoy the "crunchy" aspects of the game and calls them power gamers, munchkins, hack and slashers, not REAL role-players, etc. Furthermore, if anyone speaks up for themselves he proclaims "If I wanted to just have a bunch of mindless combat I would play a video game!"

It is weird that the two players have almost identical attitudes, albeit coming from completely opposite directions. Now I personally find the comparisons ridiculous as there is a whole level of customization, creativity, social action, longevity, and plain old immersion, that is, imo, unique to tabletop RPGs. In my mind this negates the whole "I could just do X" argument, but it seems weird that it is made in the first place.

Anyone else know anyone like this? Anyone know how to deal with players like this when everyone else at the table enjoys at least some of the game element they are so utterly dismissive of?


Personally I am not crazy about painting models or solving puzzles in game; but I still enjoy them in moderation and do not begrudge others their fun when they want to participate in them.

kyoryu
2015-02-18, 01:38 AM
People want different things out of their games, and get upset when they don't get those things out of their games.

A common (though immature) reaction is to lash out at the things they don't like, rather than just say "different strokes for different folks".

Earthwalker
2015-02-18, 09:06 AM
I to find this an odd approach. Its a simple mater that different people get different things out of RPGs. I am sure when you have GMed you have notice different players express interesting in parts of the game but not others.

Like the guy that just likes playing the combat mini game.
Or the guy that is only interested getting his improv on.

As a whole most people are enganged with each bit of the game and just are more interested in thier own favourite bits.

I have seen and played with players like you describe. People that completely switch off if they arent in combat. When asked what they are doing thier first responce is to make a to hit roll.

I think you may only get your answers by talking to these people and ask why they are like how they are.

Segev
2015-02-18, 09:18 AM
I am now vaguely amused by the idea of pairing these players. "Bob, you handle the character's RP, and Fred, you design his mechanics and run him in combat."

kaoskonfety
2015-02-18, 09:27 AM
I am now vaguely amused by the idea of pairing these players. "Bob, you handle the character's RP, and Fred, you design his mechanics and run him in combat."

"Everyone is John" D&D edition...

Could be... an interesting experiment. I'm not sure if I'd want this to be something long term, but I'd run it with the players once to see how it goes.

etrpgb
2015-02-18, 09:29 AM
The solution is fairly obvious actually; play different games.

Just do not try to use the hammer just because that all you know. For example, all lies a part D&D is made for combat and mechanics heavy games. You CAN use it elsewhere, but it is like using an hammer to chop a tree.


However, there is plenty of Narrative games for "I dislike mechanics" players, (e.g., Polaris) and there is plenty of tabletop games for "I dislike story and plot" players (e.g., Pandemic).
There are also more traditional role play games with minimal rules and mechanics too (e.g., Altar and Archetypes.)

Try and change.

goto124
2015-02-18, 09:46 AM
At least those 2 guys aren't in the same game.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-18, 11:06 AM
"If I wanted to participate in a story I would just read a book".

"If I wanted to just have a bunch of mindless combat I would play a video game!" I can completely understand where both of these people are coming from. I don't know how "story-like" the one game was or how "mindless" the combat in the other game was, or how close-minded the players were, but I can believe that there was some combination of the two that went bad. If the players are otherwise worth having in the game, I'd hope the group would figure out how to make the game less like a story, and how to make the combat less mindless, or otherwise try to figure out what the players' real issues are and address those


It is weird that the two players have almost identical attitudes, albeit coming from completely opposite directions. Now I personally find the comparisons ridiculous as there is a whole level of customization, creativity, social action, longevity, and plain old immersion, that is, imo, unique to tabletop RPGs. In my mind this negates the whole "I could just do X" argument, but it seems weird that it is made in the first place. All those aspects of RPGs are great, but only if they're actually used to make the game into something more than what the game is being compared to. It's easy for a game to get into a "story" mode, where a GM or player is just reeling out some prewritten idea, and expecting the players to care. Maybe that player wants to add their creativity, but feel enabled to create things that might change the story. It's easy for combat to become mindless; again maybe player creativity isn't being valued, or the immersion is being broken by stakes that the player isn't interested in.


Anyone know how to deal with players like this when everyone else at the table enjoys at least some of the game element they are so utterly dismissive of? Talk to them. Something brought them to the table. What were they expecting? If it's too far different from what everyone else had in mind, then maybe it's time to part ways. But if they actually would like the game to include more of what they like (without doing away with or significantly diminishing what the others like), and they want to help make it that way, then it's probably possible.


Personally I am not crazy about painting models or solving puzzles in game; but I still enjoy them in moderation and do not begrudge others their fun when they want to participate in them. Ugh, puzzles. I've never seen puzzles go well.

VincentTakeda
2015-02-18, 11:27 AM
My table currently consists of

One optimizer who's core strategy is 'I want to get into the thick of things'. A warhammerist, so to speak.
One non optimizer who's core strategy is 'I'm not happy unless i'm killing something'. A consummate psychopath.
One optimizer with a fervent interest in orchestrating to avoid all possible challenge and conflict. A shadowrun rigger would be his cup of tea.
One optimizer who's fervent interest is in being able to escape any situation he doesnt like the look of. Ninja magic.

That of course is simply referring to combat tactics... On the other hand, outside of combat....

the warhammerist is all about setting and theme. A world he can map and sink his teeth into.
the psychopath is disinterested in any element of the game that isnt putting something in front of him to fight. He will kill things on the side of the road. He's also a bit overcaffeinated so when he's bored he'll just do wierd things just to do them. He's the one that will announce that he has a great idea, and everyone else will immediatly see that its a horrible idea.
the shadowrun rigger is mostly interested in preparation and tactics... he would prepare for days if the end result was he could waltz around unchallenged. His side schtick seems to be 'If bad things do happen, how can I be immune to them'
when ninjawizard isnt about self preservation, he's about doing funny stuff in interesting ways. He wants what he does to be stylish. Doesn't seem to like combat but likes finding new ways of 'toying' with his powers.

So yeah. Lot of variety going on in my current group. I wont say the rigger doesnt often find himself at odds with the warhammerist and the psychopath... He often runs into the whole 'I will never get what I want because even if the plan avoids conflict perfectly, these two clowns will stir up trouble. Lately even the warhammerist is changing it up a bit and is finding the psychopath a little over the top. The campaign we're in now has recently made a major theme change, so we'll probably be back to unapolagetic thieving "don't you mean scavenging?" murdertown in no time.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-18, 11:31 AM
the shadowrun rigger is mostly interested in tactics... he would prepare for days if the end result was he could waltz around unchallenged. Waltz around doing what, exactly?

Segev
2015-02-18, 11:49 AM
Waltz around doing what, exactly?

Presumably "achieving his set goal."

Note that this style of play doesn't actually mean he is unchallenged. It means his challenge was in setting things up so that, when he finally acts overtly, there is no challenge that can succeed.

It's a lot of fun to play that way, and is a far cry from the "I declare I'm doing this, so don't you dare make it not work" problem people usually associate with the accusation of "unchallenged."

kaoskonfety
2015-02-18, 11:50 AM
Waltz around doing what, exactly?

Walk calmly in and out with the objective because:
- we spend 2 session casing the place and getting intel, I got a job as the secretary to get peoples names and swipe an ID or 2
- we killed the power to a 8 block radius (the target is well off of centre) to put the security on emergency back up (which we have sabotaged the battery for)
- all assault routes the enemies/cops can take are rigged with explosives and/or automated weaponry
- 5 flying sensor drones with enough c4 on-board to level a tank doing recon
- 4 separate escape plans and a 5th "abort" in the event something completely off the wall happens

I miss my old shadowrun group :(

VincentTakeda
2015-02-18, 11:56 AM
Thats why I refer to him as the shadowrun rigger. He wants to 'do things' but in shadowrun, if you plan your operation carefully enough, nobody will even know you'd been there... Succeeding at your mission while maintaining 'Total Avoidance' is a 'victory condition.'

As long as you don't have a party that likes to get into combat, an all stealth campaign is quite satisfying. It's about dealing with the unexpected in ways that still don't end up being 'oops, things went wrong... fighty time!!!'

If things go wrong and you can still finagle it into a success without fighting... Thats a win in shadowrun. Arguably a better win.

The D&D equivalent would be a whole party of stealth rogues who are at their happiest when combat never starts in the first place.

Way harder playstyle to pull off though when the other half of the party is a bunch of guys who are just waiting for a chance to throw down.

The reason I mention rigger is (since he usually doesnt get to play 'total avoidance') he likes to be able to just drive away when things go bad, and he has developed an affinity for 'minions'... Avoidance by 'go do my bidding, I don't like to get my hands dirty' tactics and his other go-to... Explosions. The king of action economy style of combat... The 'wu shu finger hold'... When I move my pinky, you need to clean up the whole town afterwards... When Kaoskonfety says 'all assault routes the enemies/cops can take are rigged with explosives'... This is our shadowrun guy. He doesnt enjoy the give and take of a drawn out pitched battle. Its either 'we're in , we're out, we're gone... or Big Bada Boom.'

So his schtick is kind of 'either he gets what he wants, or the whole neighborhood suffers. And he gets away scott free either way'

The flowchart of his playstyle is
1- You dont know I'm even here
2- If you do know I'm here you cant hurt me
3- If you can hurt me I will obliterate you in one shot
4- If I cant obliterate you in one shot, I will get away with or without my party
5- Usually ends up being party healer if for no other reason than an obsessive desire to keep himself in perfect shape leaves him with the means to do so for the rest of the party as well.

Psychopath's playstyle is
1- If you dont know I'm here, I need to try harder. And by try harder I mean try harder to kill you to your face.
2- Once you know I'm here, I'm happy to scrum until I feel I can't win. Its really the only time I am happy.
3- I will retreat only at the last possible second, and sometimes I wait a little too long for that moment.

Warhammer guy is
1- Desperate to connect to the setting in a meaningful way but as a player gravitates to the authority/decision maker.
2- His interest is in 'having exciting challenges' so the decisions he makes are largely explore until I'm deep into the thick of things
3- Once he's in the thick of things... Blitz your way through or out of them.
4- By and large he'd rather die than retreat.

Ninja magic is arguably our table's 'thespian' and 'improv dude'
1- Only interested in entering into combat on his own terms, and is rarely interested in combat
2- When he is in combat, he is careful to avoid extend himself into vulnerable situations. Will always have a back door trick.
3- Builds himself to be able to survive ambushes and escape unilaterally. Escape unscathed seems to be his number one goal.
4- Prefers escaping with the party but will happily leave behind folks who prefer to have a 'good day to die'
5- Only really seems to 'do' anything in the game when it means doing something funky or showing off. Likes interacting with the locals.
6- Mostly plays situational or support roles.

Beta Centauri
2015-02-18, 12:36 PM
Walk calmly in and out with the objective because:
- we spend 2 session casing the place and getting intel, I got a job as the secretary to get peoples names and swipe an ID or 2
- we killed the power to a 8 block radius (the target is well off of centre) to put the security on emergency back up (which we have sabotaged the battery for)
- all assault routes the enemies/cops can take are rigged with explosives and/or automated weaponry
- 5 flying sensor drones with enough c4 on-board to level a tank doing recon And are they just allowed to do all these things and acquire what they need to do them, without any risk or challenge?

Getting the job could involve spoofing a background check, and keeping security-program spot checks at bay; a guard who takes a liking to the PC and doesn't give them the breathing space they need; stepped-up security - meaning security sweeps and pat-downs - due to word of an "imminent threat"; etc.

Killing power to an 8 block radius could be a run of its own, involving risk moves in both meat and silicon.

Rigging up explosives and automated weaponry means acquiring those things which means another run, or meeting with dealers who come armed with even better stuff. Even if the deal doesn't go seriously sour, now someone knows that those items are in play and wouldn't the cops be interested in that.... Setting up those items means not being caught doing it, and not running into the explosives and automated weapons someone else might have set up to prevent that exact thing, or for some other reason entirely.

And I'm not sure why the recon would be something that could be so easily taken out. Why wouldn't the corp have its own armed sensor drones, and ten times as many of them?

All of which assumes that there isn't another competing team trying for the same item and willing to take different risks to acquire it sooner. Heh, imagine if the fake secretary was caught in the midst of someone else's run.

What I'm saying is that, the way I see it, all that planning just shifts the gameplay from taking risks during the run to taking risks during all the preparation for the run. The reward for succeeding at those risks is that they get the item. Sure, it's a breeze at that point, but only because they took risks and had adventure leading up to that.

I'm also saying that there are ways to satisfy the tactician and the risk-taker, even in this scenario. The tactician figures out how not to blow the primary operation, but doing so involves lots of smaller operations, each with an element of risk. Blowing those doesn't necessarily mean a fight, but would mean delays or more complications during the run.

Yeah, each of the smaller operations could also be planned as risk free, and at some level it's all completely safe. That's about the point at which the jobs the group would be offered would have shorter timelines. Failure still doesn't need to mean a fight: if they don't think going to come together, they can probably walk away, or decline the job. I mean, what are the chances that they have debts coming due, or that something is being leveraged against them?

jqavins
2015-02-18, 01:09 PM
Has anyone ever noticed that some players just don't like entire aspects of the hobby, and furthermore act really dismissive of anyone who doesn't share their opinions?

In my old gaming group there was a guy who absolutely refused to pay attention to the game's plot. He actively zoned out when someone else was speaking or the DM was describing the setting, never remembered anything, never came up with character backgrounds or spoke in character, and if this ever came back to bite him in the butt he got pissed. Whenever anyone asked why he didn't participate in any of the "fluffy" aspects of the game his response would always be "If I wanted to participate in a story I would just read a book".

In my current group there is a guy who is almost the exact opposite. He hates any sort of mechanics and is quickly bored of combat. Furthermore he talks down to anyone who does enjoy the "crunchy" aspects of the game and calls them power gamers, munchkins, hack and slashers, not REAL role-players, etc. Furthermore, if anyone speaks up for themselves he proclaims "If I wanted to just have a bunch of mindless combat I would play a video game!"

It is weird that the two players have almost identical attitudes, albeit coming from completely opposite directions. Now I personally find the comparisons ridiculous as there is a whole level of customization, creativity, social action, longevity, and plain old immersion, that is, imo, unique to tabletop RPGs. In my mind this negates the whole "I could just do X" argument, but it seems weird that it is made in the first place.

Anyone else know anyone like this? Anyone know how to deal with players like this when everyone else at the table enjoys at least some of the game element they are so utterly dismissive of?
Their attitude is in many ways the same that of religious extremists: "My way is the Right Way." Different ways, but... Oh well.

I think we've all met and had to deal with players like that. Remind the combat monster that knowing what fights are likely to be coming is helpful when the combat arrives. Remind that story-mad that combat is A) only as mindless as you play it, and B) part of the story. Allow that, as you are trying to blend fluffy and crunchy bits in a balanced way, if any player feels like the balance is off they are welcome - nay, requested to say so, but in a polite way. To anyone who rejects balance, wants it all one way, and continues to say "... I'd do Y," simply tell him calmly and sweetly "Then I suggest you do so."

EDIT: No, wait. That should have been "I suggest you do the Y that that other guy who isn't here said." Damn! I hate when a good comeback goes wrong.

Segev
2015-02-18, 01:16 PM
And are they just allowed to do all these things and acquire what they need to do them, without any risk or challenge?

By virtue of the parts of that post you clipped from your quote, no. They played it all out and executed their plan carefully. They too low-risk steps each time and used the gains from those to incrementally improve the risk/reward ratio of each consecutive step.

Now, not all of it was described, but all of what was listed is quite doable in Shadowrun. It's not "free," but it's something that, with proper preparation and a willingness to play longer time frames for more well-leveraged scenes, can be achieved with minimal risk.

There are more points of failure, but each can be abandoned and a new approach attempted without it quite seeming like the whole thing's gone belly-up.