Player Responsibilities

[mgshamster]

We all know the GM's responsibility is to run a good game and do his/her best to incorporate all the PCs into the story. This can take a lot of work regarding game prep time and requires a lot of multitasking during game.

But what are the players' responsibilities?

This has always been my opinion:

1) To make a PC that wants to be with this group and on this adventure.
2) To work with the GM and the other players to ensure the game runs smoothly and a good time is had by all.
3) Show up to game on time; if you can't, give notice as soon as you can and give a estimate of when you can show up.

What are your ideas about the responsibilities of a player?

[Finback]

To provide constructive feedback to the DM on what works in the adventure, and to point out when issues occur that do not sit well e.g "this topic does not make me feel comfortable".

To assist other players' in taking responsible actions - point out when they miss a rule or miss damage they could be doing, but to also correct them for mistaken interpretations of rules, etc.

To work together with both the other players and the DM to produce an enjoyable experience - it is not a competition against anyone else.

[Honest Tiefling]

1) Be polite.
2) Try to enjoy the game without impeding anyone else enjoying it.
3) Please pay attention, and be honest if something is preventing this and consider giving warning.
4) HAVE HYIGENE.

[Naanomi]

I'll add 'to leave or accept disbanding gracefully, without drama, and in a way that maintains friendships if things are not working out for whatever reason'

[furby076]

1) Be polite.
2) Try to enjoy the game without impeding anyone else enjoying it.
3) Please pay attention, and be honest if something is preventing this and consider giving warning.
4) HAVE HYIGENE.

Number 4 should be humber 1 on your list. :)

[Pex]

1) Play with the other players, not against them or in spite of them.
2) Play with the DM, not against him.
3) Know the rules. Where you don't, learn.

[Tanarii]

DM responsibilities:
A) Present environment & situation to Players for them to interact with
B) Adjudicate or otherwise resolve actions declared / decisions made by players for their PCs

Player responsibilities:
1a) decide on PC in-character goals and motivations
1b) consider situation presented by DM
2) declare actions / make decisions based on #1

A&B and 1&2 are a chicken and egg process, so my order is semi-arbritrary. But they're basically what a RPG boils down to.

[2D8HP]

DM responsibilities:
A) Present environment & situation to Players for them to interact with
B) Adjudicate or otherwise resolve actions declared / decisions made by players for their PCs

Player responsibilities:
1a) decide on PC in-character goals and motivations
1b) consider situation presented by DM
2) declare actions / make decisions based on #1...


That sounds great!

Sadly I can't find any opportunities to play that way anymore.

Instead DM's now require me to not role-play a character and say what my PC tries to do, instead I have to break immersion and cite what "mod" I have to roll, I can't just say, "I try to wiggle loose", I have to argue Athletics or Acrobatics or whatever and provide the "mod", or I have to cite whether it's "Nature" (Intelligence), or Survival (Wisdom) etc.
All this staring at a character sheet and rules recitation feels more like playing a board or card game rather than role-playing, it's tedious and I hate it.


.
3) Know the rules. Where you don't, learn.


Back in 1979 it expressly said in the DMG that players weren't supposed to know all the rules. I want to feel like I'm exploring a world not manipulating stats!

Rules minutiae is tedious, and I'm hating it more and more!

I'd rather just have a list of the equipment that my PC is carrying, and not have to constantly provide the DM with numbers.

I want adventure not arithmetic!

I want the DM to tell me what my PC perceives, and then I say how my PC acts.

The rules?

Please keep them behind the DM screen and away from role-playing.

[Dhuraal]

That sounds great!

Sadly I can't find any opportunities to play that way anymore.

Instead DM's now require me to not role-play a character and say what my PC tries to do, instead I have to break immersion and cite what "mod" I have to roll, I can't just say, "I try to wiggle loose", I have to argue Athletics or Acrobatics or whatever and provide the "mod", or I have to cite whether it's "Nature" (Intelligence), or Survival (Wisdom) etc.
All this staring at a character sheet and rules recitation feels more like playing a board or card game rather than role-playing, it's tedious and I hate it.




Back in 1979 it expressly said in the DMG that players weren't supposed to know all the rules. I want to feel like I'm exploring a world not manipulating stats!

Rules minutiae is tedious, and I'm hating it more and more!

I'd rather just have a list of the equipment that my PC is carrying, and not have to constantly provide the DM with numbers.

I want adventure not arithmetic!

I want the DM to tell me what my PC perceives, and then I say how my PC acts.

The rules?

Please keep them behind the DM screen and away from role-playing.


But..... then how would you meta-game and power-game for maximum damage?

[Pex]

That sounds great!

Sadly I can't find any opportunities to play that way anymore.

Instead DM's now require me to not role-play a character and say what my PC tries to do, instead I have to break immersion and cite what "mod" I have to roll, I can't just say, "I try to wiggle loose", I have to argue Athletics or Acrobatics or whatever and provide the "mod", or I have to cite whether it's "Nature" (Intelligence), or Survival (Wisdom) etc.
All this staring at a character sheet and rules recitation feels more like playing a board or card game rather than role-playing, it's tedious and I hate it.




Back in 1979 it expressly said in the DMG that players weren't supposed to know all the rules. I want to feel like I'm exploring a world not manipulating stats!

Rules minutiae is tedious, and I'm hating it more and more!

I'd rather just have a list of the equipment that my PC is carrying, and not have to constantly provide the DM with numbers.

I want adventure not arithmetic!

I want the DM to tell me what my PC perceives, and then I say how my PC acts.

The rules?

Please keep them behind the DM screen and away from role-playing.


But..... then how would you meta-game and power-game for maximum damage?

4) Don't Stormwind

[pangoo209]

Bring snacks?

On a more serious note, don't talk over the DM. If the players aren't paying attention to my game or they don't want to play I am more than fine with putting it on hold, but don't make me do that if you're the only one not enjoying it. Please, it doesn't make anyone happy.

[gfishfunk]

Player:
1. Create a character that works with the other characters.
2. Know your character mechanically.
3. Pay attention and Contribute.
4. Pay attention to what the other players are doing and contribute.

2 and 4 are the hardest ones.

[gfishfunk]

I'd rather just have a list of the equipment that my PC is carrying, and not have to constantly provide the DM with numbers.

I want adventure not arithmetic!

I want the DM to tell me what my PC perceives, and then I say how my PC acts.

The rules?

Please keep them behind the DM screen and away from role-playing.

I respect your perspective. You would not enjoy my table. We are not power gamers either - but if my players don't know their characters mechanically, they do not know how they are able to interact effectively.

[Naanomi]

Back in 1979 it expressly said in the DMG that players weren't supposed to know all the rules. I want to feel like I'm exploring a world not manipulating stats!

Rules minutiae is tedious, and I'm hating it more and more!

I'd rather just have a list of the equipment that my PC is carrying, and not have to constantly provide the DM with numbers.

I want adventure not arithmetic!

I want the DM to tell me what my PC perceives, and then I say how my PC acts.

The rules?

Please keep them behind the DM screen and away from role-playing.
To a degree, I understand this... but don't let your lack of understanding what your own character is capable of and the mechanics to do slow down the game... if you have cast magic missile before and plan on doing it again, please know the range and the damage so we don't have to wait while you look it up. And if you want to be able to do something with your character, have some clue on how it is done... don't get frustrated when you want to keep wrestling people but the system relies on Athletics checks to do it and you didn't become proficient in that because you thought it meant football skills.

[BW022]

We all know the GM's responsibility is to run a good game and do his/her best to incorporate all the PCs into the story. This can take a lot of work regarding game prep time and requires a lot of multitasking during game.

But what are the players' responsibilities?

This has always been my opinion:

1) To make a PC that wants to be with this group and on this adventure.
2) To work with the GM and the other players to ensure the game runs smoothly and a good time is had by all.
3) Show up to game on time; if you can't, give notice as soon as you can and give a estimate of when you can show up.

What are your ideas about the responsibilities of a player?

4. Agree on the DMs campaign, rules, setting, character creation options, PvP rules, alignment restrictions, dice rolling rules, etc. Don't show up and ask if you can be a hill giant.
5. Bring your character, books, pens, dice, etc.
6. Bring snacks when it is your turn.
7. Bring a copy of your character sheet for the DM each time you level.
8. No leveling at the table.
9. Use a proper character sheet. No scrawled pages with missing information, pluses, spell lists, etc.
10. Keep notes during gaming sessions. Not up to the DM or others to remind you what happened.
11. Keep track of your XP, gold, equipment, etc.
12. No cell phones. Leave it in your jacket, turn if off. Exceptions: you are a doctor or something and everyone agrees. Leave the table if you must take a call.
13. No books, crafts, games, electronic devices, etc. at the table. You are there to play. Exception, flat tablet which you are using for character and/or have electronic rules books.
14. General politeness -- wait your turn, don't interrupt people, don't hog time, don't talk while the DM is talking, etc.
15. Once the DM makes a ruling at the table -- accept it. If you wish to discuss/argue the point later... do so after the game or via email.
etc.

[gfishfunk]

8. No leveling at the table.

I wish I could get this. I try to remind players throughout the week after they level. Inevitably, they level and forget about adding stuff.

I have tried to enforce it: if you don't level up before the session, you are stuck with the same level character you showed up with. Players announce about a half hour in the session that they finished leveling the character, pausing the game for everyone else with questions like 'can I get access to my new spells and my new spell slots? Etc.

I also use roll20, so I ask them to add their spells and stuff into the system. If they do it before the session, I can make sure its all working correctly (it rolls, it does damage, whatever). Inevitably, I spend 1 hour of the post-level up session IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SESSION to fix character sheet issues. If they finished ahead of time, I would be able to check things and make sure that they work before the session.

[Sigreid]

Make a character that will mesh well enough with the group eg. Don't make a devotion paladin if you know you're going to be grouping with a group of murderhobo assassins.

Find a reason for your character to bite on the hooks.

Take some initiative! Don't depend on the DM to push you all the time.

[Tanarii]

That sounds great!

Sadly I can't find any opportunities to play that way anymore.

Instead DM's now require me to not role-play a character and say what my PC tries to do, instead I have to break immersion and cite what "mod" I have to roll, I can't just say, "I try to wiggle loose", I have to argue Athletics or Acrobatics or whatever and provide the "mod", or I have to cite whether it's "Nature" (Intelligence), or Survival (Wisdom) etc.
All this staring at a character sheet and rules recitation feels more like playing a board or card game rather than role-playing, it's tedious and I hate it.

Back in 1979 it expressly said in the DMG that players weren't supposed to know all the rules. I want to feel like I'm exploring a world not manipulating stats!

Rules minutiae is tedious, and I'm hating it more and more!

I'd rather just have a list of the equipment that my PC is carrying, and not have to constantly provide the DM with numbers.

I want adventure not arithmetic!

I want the DM to tell me what my PC perceives, and then I say how my PC acts.

The rules?

Please keep them behind the DM screen and away from role-playing.If a player tells the DM 'I try to wiggle loose' and the DM says 'that will be a DC 15 Dex check' and you don't know what your Dex bonuses is or can't look it up quickly, and you find that immersion breaking and a pain in the ass to know the rules for, there's nothing wrong with that. But 5e may not be the system for you, sounds like you want one that doesn't have any non-combat checks of any kind built into the system. Like oD&D, B/X, AD&D pre-NWP, or BECMI without the Gazateer/RC skill system. Either that or you need to find a DM who runs a game by keeping all the character's sheets in front of him (physically or electronically) and calculates the results of all rolls players make themselves. (That is feasible but a mighty heavy load on the DM on top of running the world and monsters.)

In other words, adjudicating the results of player actions may require a random roll of some kind on the part of the player, possibly with some kind of bonus or modification or expenditure of a resource, based on their 'character sheet'. It behooves the player to be able to find that information and it behooves both the player and the DM to not let such a thing drag players out of immersion too much. Unless they all don't care about any of that kind of thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

All this staring at a character sheet and rules recitation feels more like playing a board or card game rather than role-playing, it's tedious and I hate it. If the whole table approaches it like this, it can be great fun. You roll the dice and the DM tells you what happened. Or do you want the DM to roll the dice?

If a player tells the DM 'I try to wiggle loose' and the DM says 'that will be a DC 15 Dex check' and you don't know what your Dex bonuses is or can't look it up quickly, and you find that immersion breaking and a pain in the ass to know the rules for, there's nothing wrong with that. All he want to do is state an action and roll the dice. As long as his DM has a card/easy sheet for the chars on the screen (I ALWAYS DID back in those days as DM) it's easy to know "pass/fail" and tell them what happened.
That was part of my checklist before each session.
Hand me your char sheets, I check that my player index sheet matches, I hand the sheets back and off we go. It was easy and fast, in terms of how fast combat went.

[2D8HP]

If a player tells the DM 'I try to wiggle loose' and the DM says 'that will be a DC 15 Dex check..



I've found few DM's that will go as far as to tell you that much!

But it would be nice to just say what my PC tries w/o having to look at the damned sheet.


...But 5e may not be the system for you, sounds like you want one that doesn't have any non-combat checks of any kind built into the system. Like oD&D, B/X, AD&D pre-NWP, or BECM...


I love all those games (especially oD&D which was my first "Adventure game", but 5e has some advantages over them:

1) My PC's tend to survive to reach 2nd level.

2) I can make a bigger variety of PC's


and most importantly

3) Actual other people are willing to play 5e.

There's an Adventurers League for 5e, and a Pathfinder Society for 3e, but there's no "Fatbeard Alliance" to play old D&D

In the old days, except for character creation and leveling up, I really didn't have to look at the sheet much, "To hit" was handled by a chart on the inside of the DM's screen.

What I'd like is to play 5e, but like the way old D&D was played, when the DM interpreted the rules, instead of the players all the time.

[Demonslayer666]

Knowing the rules is the DM's job, otherwise new players can't play, and some players simply won't. As a player, you should try to learn the rules that pertain to your character, but I think this is optional.

Nice to see this thread pop up. I recently put together this list of rules for any of the roleplaying games I run. Still a work in progress.

Rule 0 - respect the DM's decision. Don't argue the rules unless I blatantly contradict them, bring it up after game.
Rule 1 - Have fun, be respectful to everyone at the table, contact me outside of game if you aren't having fun.
Rule 2 - Be honest, don't cheat or cheese or metagame, roll in the open, track your character resources accurately.
Rule 3 - Be prepared, bring everything you need for game, be ready to act as soon as it's your turn.
Rule 4 - Listen and Pay attention, take notes, "why are we in this dungeon again?" :smallfurious:
Rule 5 - Tell me what you are doing, don't tell me to make a DC 14 wisdom save.

[Tanarii]

All he want to do is state an action and roll the dice. As long as his DM has a card/easy sheet for the chars on the screen (I ALWAYS DID back in those days as DM) it's easy to know "pass/fail" and tell them what happened.
That was part of my checklist before each session.
Hand me your char sheets, I check that my player index sheet matches, I hand the sheets back and off we go. It was easy and fast, in terms of how fast combat went.

Yes but most of the systems I listed didn't have any non-combat resolution systems. By the time they did for NWPs/BECMI skills, the 'standard' I usually saw in play was the player knew what their ability scores were, and the DM told them which skill to roll. That carried over into 3e when skills changed how they worded.

It's absolutely possible for the DM to know the players ability score mods and proficiency bonuses, and handle all the necessary math themselves. Which is why I said that. But IMO that's a lot of undue burden on them when the system is designed for players to be able to quickly add a number to the base roll themselves.

[KorvinStarmast]

1. Show up on time. Use phone to advise if there is an issue with "on time."
2. Show up with presentable and clean personal appearance, particularly if someone is hosting game at house. (There is a 5% club of gamers who need to be reminded of this, most people don't need to be reminded.)
3. Bring your own dice.
4. Make sure your char sheet is up to date before play begins.
5. Bring a sense of humor.

If You Are A Spell Caster: (I learned this from experience)
Have a 3x5 card with each spell's basics on it, particularly spells that you use with some frequency. You add to these 3x5 cards as you level up, obviously. This prevents looking things up, and allows you to check quick before you announce an action if that's the spell you want.
In time, some spells won't need the 3x5 card, but on the one night you can't make it, someone else can run you character for you (if your table does that, ours usually do) and there's a handy dandy ref for anyone taking on the role.
6. Bring snacks when it is your turn.
yes!

10. Keep notes during gaming sessions. Not up to the DM or others to remind you what happened.
Yes!

11. Keep track of your XP, gold, equipment, etc.
Double yes.

12. No cell phones. Leave it in your jacket, turn if off. Exceptions: you are a doctor or something and everyone agrees. Leave the table if you must take a call. Triple Yes.

14. General politeness -- wait your turn, don't interrupt people, don't hog time, don't talk while the DM is talking, etc.
15. Once the DM makes a ruling at the table -- accept it. If you wish to discuss/argue the point later... do so after the game or via email. Yes.

[2D8HP]

If the whole table approaches it like this, it can be great fun....

Didn't see @KorvinStarmast's post before I wrote my last one, but he gets it exactly right!

I like rolling dice, hearing what the DM says, and saying what my PC tries to do, but looking at the character sheet? I want to do that as little as possible

[DanyBallon]

12. No cell phones. Leave it in your jacket, turn if off. Exceptions: you are a doctor or something and everyone agrees. Leave the table if you must take a call.


We have 3 doctors in our group of 8 and 2 working for a funeral home (one is married with a doctor) so unfortunately cell phones are a thing at our table...

[Contrast]

Various posts hating on having to look at their character sheet

...honestly what are you having to look up? I haven't played my 5e game in weeks and I can remember my stats and if you gave me a minute I could tell you which skills I'm proficient in. With that and my proficiency bonus I now know what all my skill modifiers are. I know the relevent class abilities I have off the top of my head.

Unless you're a spell caster, new or playing in multiple games I can't see why you'd have to be looking at your character sheet for every action (and if you hate book keeping this much you probably shouldn't be playing a full spellcaster).

Besides which if you DM says 'roll acrobatics' its literally the work of a second to glance down at your sheet. In a thread on player responsibilities you seem to be advocating that the player takes what little responsibility they have and dump it on the DM as extra work for them :smallfrown:

[gfishfunk]

We have 3 doctors in our group of 8 and 2 working for a funeral home (one is married with a doctor) so unfortunately cell phones are a thing at our table...

What happened, did the local golf course shut down?

:smallsmile:

[KorvinStarmast]

What happened, did the local golf course shut down?

:smallsmile:

Night Golf is one of those "a few times per year" deals at most golf courses. :smallcool: (It's a hoot, I recommend it if you play golf. )

[DanyBallon]

What happened, did the local golf course shut down?

:smallsmile:

We live in Canada. Gold is not at its best in winter :smalltongue:

[Pex]

We live in Canada. Gold is not at its best in winter :smalltongue:

Canada has a weird economy.

[2D8HP]

...if you DM says 'roll acrobatics' its literally the work of a second to glance down at your sheet....


If DM's would start saying "roll acrobatics" after I say what my PC tries instead of having me starring at the sheet before my PC acts with me wondering, "Acrobatics or Athletics?", "Insight or Investigation?", "Nature or Survival?", "what predigested rules interpretation shall I provide, that would be great.

I will give you an example:
Another players PC was hit by an arrow, so I had my PC Dash over to try to provide aid, upon which the DM chastised me because

DM:What are you trying to do? You don't have any healing abilities, and Varga isn't unconscious.

Me: Sorry, IRL thinking messing me up. If a co-worker gets cut/injured I tend to go to them and try to do something (I at least look in the first aid kit).

I want to think in-character, not "in character sheet".


... In a thread on player responsibilities you seem to be advocating that the player takes what little responsibility they have and dump it on the DM as extra work for them :smallfrown:


Yes, that's precisely what I'm advocating.

I'd like players to be in charge of their PC's in-character, and DM's to be in charge of ruled interpretations.

[War_lord]

If DM's would start saying "roll acrobatics" after I say what my PC tries instead of having me starring at the sheet before my PC acts with me wondering, "Acrobatics or Athletics?", "Insight or Investigation?", "Nature or Survival?", "what predigested rules interpretation shall I provide, that would be great.

So basically your complaint is that you're expected to actually know what your skills do? Look, there's something like 292 pages in the PHB without appendix B and C and D, you need to have a good understanding of those pages. Learn what your skills do.


I will give you an example:
Another players PC was hit by an arrow, so I had my PC Dash over to try to provide aid, upon which the DM chastised me because

DM:What are you trying to do? You don't have any healing abilities, and Varga isn't unconscious.

Me: Sorry, IRL thinking messing me up. If a co-worker gets cut/injured I tend to go to them and try to do something (I at least look in the first aid kit).

I want to think in-character, not "in character sheet".

If a co-worker got stabbed with a knife or mauled by a wild animal, of course you would try to aid them... but that's because they're a modern American in the real world where any serious injury can be fatal if left untreated, not heroic adventurers in a land of high fantasy who can take absurd amounts of punishment without breaking a sweat. This sounds more like a complaint about the system then a complaint about anyone's DMing. If you want a system that tries to be gritty and treat every sword wound with the gravitas it would have in reality, Dungeons and Dragons is the wrong system for you.


I'd like players to be in charge of their PC's in-character, and DM's to be in charge of ruled interpretations.

Except that's not what you're asking for, you're asking for the DM to run your character's mechanics for you, while you sit and narrate. That's absurd, the DM has so much stuff to do to keep the game running, they shouldn't have to memorize your sheet on top of that. Nor should they have to create house rules on the fly just to cater to you.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except that's not what you're asking for, you're asking for the DM to run your character's mechanics for you, while you sit and narrate. That's absurd, the DM has so much stuff to do to keep the game running, they shouldn't have to memorize your sheet on top of that. Nor should they have to create house rules on the fly just to cater to you. Not sure when you started playing, but 2D8HP is describing a mode of play that I am very familiar with. It works, and works well. It's a particular method but, and this is a big but nowadays I suppose, the whole table has to be in that mode. The advantage is that with each session as the DM and players get to know the characters better and better, it speeds up play.

What the hell do I know? I only ran games like that, and in games like that, for about a decade, as well as games where we were a lot more character sheet centric.

Had fun with both. Both work.

I am of the opinion that it's important that a given table has all "buying in" to that play mode.

[gfishfunk]

Except that's not what you're asking for, you're asking for the DM to run your character's mechanics for you, while you sit and narrate. That's absurd, the DM has so much stuff to do to keep the game running, they shouldn't have to memorize your sheet on top of that. Nor should they have to create house rules on the fly just to cater to you.

While I agree with you (War_lord), some folks play the game that way: the DM controls all mechanics. Think HarmonQuest. I just don't think 5e is well suited for that kind of play -- too much going on. If you never passed level 1, I think its manageable.

[War_lord]

If people want to play loose D&D, that's fine, that's legitimate, hell that's what Gygax did. If that's what you're table likes, I'm not here to say it's wrong.

But there's a huge difference between a table that agrees that's the game they're playing, and somebody on an internet forum saying that "no, I have no responsibilities as a player, in my day we did it this way and DM's need to start doing it again, even if no one else at the table wants that style of play".

[KorvinStarmast]

If people want to play loose D&D, that's fine, that's legitimate, hell that's what Gygax did. If that's what you're table likes, I'm not here to say it's wrong.

But there's a huge difference between a table that agrees that's the game they're playing, and somebody on an internet forum saying that "no, I have no responsibilities as a player, in my day we did it this way and DM's need to start doing it again, even if no one else at the table wants that style of play". I see your point, and at a mixed table the player needs to be the one to do the homework (away from the table) and provide the concise "cheat sheet" (preferably ahead of time) for the DM if they want that kind of support. A quid pro quo. (This allows the DM a quick review to make sure it's got no errors).

[DanyBallon]

Canada has a weird economy.
Ha ha, I should always double check for that kind of misspelling

[Contrast]

Snip

I would note that your example doesn't actually involve you having to look down at your character sheet at all :smalltongue: The real issue seems to be that you're just playing a more rules heavy system than you prefer (which is fine - no-one said everyone has to like everything).

I disagree with you that that's a good way to run 5e (or more accurately, a fair way on the GM). I assume you just completely avoid playing spellcasters?

I know you shot down Tanariis suggestions for other systems on the basis of survivability, variety of characters and player base. There are plently of systems which address the first two. As for the last one - I'm currently playing in 4 games in 4 different systems (the most rules light of which I am DMing because I volunteered because I wanted to play that system). I would strongly recommend trying to find a system you like and in my experience people are willing to give it a go if you offer to DM.

[2D8HP]

...in my day we did it this way and DM's need to start doing it again, even if no one at the table wants that style of play".


That's.... actually I pretty good and concise summary of my attitude.

Thanks!
:smile:


I see your point, and at a mixed table the player needs to be the one to do the homework (away from the table) and provide the concise "cheat sheet" (preferably ahead of time) for the DM if they want that kind of support. A quid pro quo. (This allows the DM a quick review to make sure it's got no errors).


That's fair.


....The real issue seems to be that you're just playing a more rules heavy system than you prefer (which is fine - no-one said everyone has to like everything).


I'd agree with you, except that 1979 AD&D (which I played and DM'd) was if anything more complex, but that complexity wasn't felt by the players, just the DM (at the tables I played at), 1977 "bluebook: Basic was pretty simple though.


...I assume you just completely avoid playing spellcasters?


Except for a High Elf Rogue with the Firebolt Cantrip I briefly played, yes I never play spellcasters only Champion Fighters and Rogues.


...I would strongly recommend trying to find a system you like and in my experience people are willing to give it a go if you offer to DM.


I haven't found such a system, but as I indicated earlier I don't think the rules as such are what I have an issue with, it is that the burden of interpretation is now on players instead of DM's like it used to be.

I do admit that many player's like it like that, either becsuse they don't trust their DM's, or they just want to know every angle so that they may better "optimize", I'm just not like that, fine tuning "mechanics" has little interest for me, I just want to make in-character decisions, but I fear that I will never get to do that

[War_lord]

I do admit that many player's like it like that, either becsuse they don't trust their DM's, or they just want to know every angle so that they may better "optimize", I'm just not like that, fine tuning "mechanics" has little interest for me, I just want to make in-character decisions, but I fear that I will never get to do that

...Or because we actually want to experience the game properly, and genuinely like 5e being played as designed? I personally don't mistrust my DMs, because the idea that the DM is the enemy of the players was done way with long ago. Nor is it about optimizing, that's not something you need to do in 5e. I'm simply of the opinion that if I and four others take four hours out of their week every week to play D&D, it's worth doing it hardcore.

Honestly, a person trying to get out of skill checks by claiming "in-character decisions", at a table that hasn't agreed to that ahead of time, is being a munchkin. You're conflating how you used to play D&D decades ago with how D&D is actually played going by the books. As a player, you're expected to understand the PHB, what skills do what is in the PHB.

[Contrast]

I haven't found such a system, but as I indicated earlier I don't think the rules as such are what I have an issue with, it is that the burden of interpretation is now on players instead of DM's like it used to be.

Right - you don't have a problem with rules...as long as you're not expected to know any of them. Most DMs in most games will expect you to know the rules (as they relate to your character). You can either bemoan that fact or you can actively seek to solve it by either finding a DM who will pander to it or finding a game where the rules are light touch and the expectations are different. My expectation is that you will find it easier to resolve the issue by changing system, hence my suggestion.

It doesn't even have to be the system per se. I've played in many games of Cthulu where the character sheets and dice were by the way. Due to the investigation nature of the game its was mostly talking and acting in character with very little rolling. 5e (and D&D more generally) is usually not going to be that sort of game due to the more heavy combat focus. I once played a decent game of Cthulu when we were stuck somewhere with no character sheets whatsoever and using rock-paper-scissors to resolve issues.


I do admit that many player's like it like that, either becsuse they don't trust their DM's, or they just want to know every angle so that they may better "optimize", I'm just not like that, fine tuning "mechanics" has little interest for me, I just want to make in-character decisions, but I fear that I will never get to do that

I trust my DMs fine thanks :smalltongue: In fact, because I like them and am grateful for the work they put in, I do as much as I can to relieve the strain by knowing how the system works and what I can and can't do.

That, of course, doesn't mean my character won't occasionally try to do things I know they can't or shouldn't do (like run to the aid of a fallen comrade).


On topic, I guess I would summarise my point as an expectation that a player has a responsibility to understand the rules, as they relate to their character, to the DMs satisfaction (obviously with leeway for people learning the game).

If the DM is happy to run your character for you, with directions from you, then its all good. You should not enter into any game with that expectation however.

[Tanarii]

Me: Sorry, IRL thinking messing me up. If a co-worker gets cut/injured I tend to go to them and try to do something (I at least look in the first aid kit).

I want to think in-character, not "in character sheet".I don't know how you, as someone who has played D&D since it's inception, could possible misunderstand that Hit Points aren't meat.

If someone went down from a wound (0 hps), then yeah, it would have been both entirely appropriate and in-character AND mechanically something you could do something about. But that takes understanding the rules to know.


That, of course, doesn't mean my character won't occasionally try to do things I know they can't or shouldn't do (like run to the aid of a fallen comrade). You absolutely should run to the aid of a fallen comrade. They need to be stabilized. Of course, your time might be better spent eliminating a great threat while someone else who is better at dealing with fallen comrades does that, but that's a different matter.

[Contrast]

Snip

Clarification - he said the DM said they weren't unconscious so I assume they were just generically hurt rather than on 0 hit points (hence it not being sensible from a meta-gaming perspective to act at that point).

[Tanarii]

Clarification - he said the DM said they weren't unconscious so I assume they were just generically hurt rather than on 0 hit points (hence it not being sensible from a meta-gaming perspective to act at that point).
I know. That's the problem. He reacted as if they were at 0 hit points when there was both no need to in character, nor anything he could do mechanically.

[mgshamster]

To slightly change the tone of this discussion, here's why I started it:

I'm in a game with a new player. That player is angry at the rest of us (and the GM) for not doing enough to ensure his PC joins the party and goes on the mission the DM wrote.

The DM, for all his inexperience, is trying. And for that, I give a lot of leeway. And the rest of us have also been trying. But apparently is not enough.

So I brought up my opinion that's it's the Player's responsibility to ensure their own character is made to join the party and join the adventure.

If you create a character that won't join the party, it's not on everyone else to beg you to join. If you create a character that won't join the adventure, the GM shouldn't have to cater to your whims. Change your character or find a new group.

Apparently, that's extremely rude to say.

[mgshamster]

I know. That's the problem. He reacted as if they were at 0 hit points when there was both no need to in character, nor anything he could do mechanically.

That's a fair point. However, it may be perfectly in character to try to come to a friend's aid who was just punctured with an arrow or sliced open with a sword.

The kind of people who ignore that are either callous or battle hardened.

Not every first level PC should be assumed to be one of those.

[Tanarii]

If you're sitting down at a table in which there's one adventure, the DM only needs to provide a bare-boned 'hook'. It's on the player to have their PC swallow it, or go find a different table.

It's different in a sandbox, where it's on the DM to provide many hooks, and the players to either take them or find something they'd rather do. It's only on the players to have their PC's have a reason to work together and decide what to do as a group.

It's even more different in a multi-session multi-party table sandbox, where players can discuss what goals they want to accomplish ahead of time, then sign up the appropriate PCs for a session to come together as a party and try to accomplish said goal.


That's a fair point. However, it may be perfectly in character to try to come to a friend's aid who was just punctured with an arrow or sliced open with a sword
But Hit Points aren't Meat. So it's not in character because that hasn't happened just because they took damage.

[Pex]

To slightly change the tone of this discussion, here's why I started it:

I'm in a game with a new player. That player is angry at the rest of us (and the GM) for not doing enough to ensure his PC joins the party and goes on the mission the DM wrote.

The DM, for all his inexperience, is trying. And for that, I give a lot of leeway. And the rest of us have also been trying. But apparently is not enough.

So I brought up my opinion that's it's the Player's responsibility to ensure their own character is made to join the party and join the adventure.

If you create a character that won't join the party, it's not on everyone else to beg you to join. If you create a character that won't join the adventure, the GM shouldn't have to cater to your whims. Change your character or find a new group.

Apparently, that's extremely rude to say.

Ugh. The counterpoint to the Munchkin. The Drama Queen.

[2D8HP]

...a person trying to get out of skill checks by claiming "in-character decisions", at a table that hasn't agreed to that ahead of time, is being a munchkin. You're conflating how you used to play D&D decades ago with how D&D is actually played going by the books.


Except that I'm not trying to avoid rolling the dice to see if my PC succeeds or fails, I really like doing that, I just don't want to know (and provide) the exact probability.

Someone more articulate than me put the style differences this way:


I consider there to be three primary interaction types in RPGs.

Type 1:
GM: "This is the situation."
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "This is now the situation."

Type 2:
Player 1: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"
Player 2: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"
Player 3: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"

Type 3:
Player 1: "A thing happens!"
Player 2: "And then another thing happens!"
Player 3: "And then another thing happens!"

No game is really purely any of these. What you're describing is a pretty strongly "type 1" game. Pathfinder and 3.x are usually played, still on the Type 1 to 2 line (not mixing in much Type 3), but much closer to the Type 2 part.


Type 3 is not what I'm looking for, and I've enjoyed Type 2 games such as Car Wars, and [I] Risk, but when I play a role-playing game, I really strongly prefer a "No chocolate in my peanut butter" Type 1.


Right - you don't have a problem with rules...as long as you're not expected to know any of them....


When I first played D&D players were discouraged from knowing all the rules;

You are a DM aren't you? Because
As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death.


...I've played in many games of Cthulu where the character sheets and dice were by the way. good. You should not enter into any game with that expectation however.

Not my favorite setting, but I found the CoC rules very easy to GM or "Keeper"


You should not enter into any game with that expectation however.

"Expectation"?, While I admit that upon re-entering the hobby in 2015 after leaving in the early 1990's I experienced some culture shock, I only have hope now, as the expectation has been beaten out of me.


Clarification - he said the DM said they weren't unconscious so I assume they were just generically hurt rather than on 0 hit points (hence it not being sensible from a meta-gaming perspective to act at that point).

Yes, that's correct. Laughably my Rogue PC had the highest Wisdom in the Party, and so was as close to a healer that we had.


I know. That's the problem. He reacted as if they were at 0 hit points when there was both no need to in character, nor anything he could do mechanically.

In role-playing tending to the wounded seemed like the right action, OOC I blew it, and should have just had my PC firing arrow after arrow.



...Hit Points aren't Meat. So it's not in character because that hasn't happened just because they took damage.


Still hard for me to "grok" that, after all these years.

[mgshamster]

But Hit Points aren't Meat. So it's not in character because that hasn't happened just because they took damage.

It entirely depends on how the DM describes the scene. If the DM says someone took some HP Damage, then you may well be right. If the DM says that Bob was punctured through the clavicle with an arrow, then it doesn't matter how much HP Damage they took; there's now an arrow in their chest.

[mgshamster]

Ugh. The counterpoint to the Munchkin. The Drama Queen.

Ya know, it actually reminds me about my rule when drinking: be cool.

If ya can't be cool, ya ain't gonna be invited to go drinking with me again.

Drama Queens tend to fail that rule.

[Naanomi]

Comforting someone who just got shot non-fatally (assuming the danger has passed) is a perfectly fine RP thing to do so long as one doesn't expect mechanical results to every action

[2D8HP]

...a perfectly fine RP thing to do so long as one doesn't expect mechanical results to every action


Not knowing the "mechanical" results to every action, and just deciding PC actions based on role-playing, is why I'd rather retain some ignorance of the rules.

The more I'm aware of the mechanics, stats, etc., the more it feels like a boardgames to me and less like a role-playing game.

[Naanomi]

Not knowing the "mechanical" results to every action, and just deciding PC actions based on role-playing, is why I'd rather retain some ignorance of the rules.

The more I'm aware of the mechanics, stats, etc., the more it feels like a boardgames to me and less like a role-playing game.
Again, which is just fine as long as you are OK with sometimes your actions doing 'nothing' except for advancing the narrative. In real life, comforting people can build social bonds and the like, and maybe you can do something to 'help' with wound care, but isn't going to have a huge 'impact' in a measurable way in most cases. Same here, it doesn't mean your action was 'wasted' per se, especially if it took place when the action had died down (as I hope it would, seasoned adventurers don't last long with habits like stopping the fight every time a friend is injured :smallwink:)

[2D8HP]

Again, which is just fine as long as you are OK with sometimes your actions doing 'nothing' except for advancing the narrative.


:cool:


seasoned adventurers don't last long with habits like stopping the fight every time a friend is injured :smallwink:


:redface:

Well... it was a lot of damage!


...I'm in a game with a new player. That player is angry at the rest of us (and the GM) for not doing enough to ensure his PC joins the party and goes on the mission the DM wrote...



....I brought up my opinion that's it's the Player's responsibility to ensure their own character is made to join the party and join the adventure.... .

....Apparently, that's extremely rude to say.


If I was accused of rudeness for that, and facing a player like you described, I would feel the need to take a break to consider whether I wanted to continue playing that game.

[War_lord]

Not knowing the "mechanical" results to every action, and just deciding PC actions based on role-playing, is why I'd rather retain some ignorance of the rules.

The more I'm aware of the mechanics, stats, etc., the more it feels like a boardgames to me and less like a role-playing game.

And that's fine. But you then can't sign up for a game where people aren't playing like it's 1979, and then complain that you're expected to actually know the rules in the Player's Handbook.

[Sirdar]

Get in the mood!

A good DM prepares not only the scene and location, but also the atmosphere. When the players understand what the DM is going for they can help by acting accordingly. If the DM describes how the PCs are walking down an old abandonded cave and how they all feel an unexplainable, increasing fear of the darkness ahead of them - the players should act out that their characters are afraid and has doubts about moving forward. They may still go on, but the players should contribute to the eerie feeling the DM has prepared. It is not for them to decide that the cave isn't creepy at all.

Unfortunately, it is an assymetric problem as it only takes one player to completely wreck the atmosphere of a scene. There is plenty of room for jokes around the table during a gaming night without the comedian character in the group. You know the guy who brings an extremely stupid character to the table and repeatedly turn any serious scene into a joke.

I think this kind of player annoys me the most. Players who override the mood the DM is trying to create without respect to the rest of the group. All players have a responsibility to contribute to the atmosphere in the game and it is just common courtesy to learn what kind of adventure and experience the group as a whole aims for.

[War_lord]

But the DM is the one creating the world. If they're shooting for a horror atmosphere, but the actual execution is more Shawn of the Dead, I don't blame the players for wise cracking. As a player, I'd rather have a DM who accepts the shift from horror to black comedy then tries to reign everybody in.

[KorvinStarmast]

...Or because we actually want to experience the game properly, whoa there, my friend, let's not pretend there is One True Way to play.

The basics are: (1) DM describes the environment, (2) players say what they are doing, (3) DM narrates the result. Right out of the Basic Rules/PHB, on how to play. (Die rolls when necessary between 2 and 3).

There are a whole lot of ways for this to be properly done.

Most DMs in most games will expect you to know the rules (as they relate to your character). I think this is a very fair point, that any given player will, away from the table, spend a little effort with the PHB and get to know his or her class inside and out. That way the player always knows what they can do. This aids and abets that "cheat sheet" I mentioned. There is also a need to have a dialogue between Dm and players on how that works (If the DM is happy to run your character for you, with directions from you, then its all good. You should not enter into any game with that expectation however.).

So I brought up my opinion that's it's the Player's responsibility to ensure their own character is made to join the party and join the adventure.
If you create a character that won't join the party, it's not on everyone else to beg you to join. If you create a character that won't join the adventure, the GM shouldn't have to cater to your whims. Change your character or find a new group. Apparently, that's extremely rude to say. Not rude, it's the truth that person needs to hear. Best to hear it from a fellow player.

Ugh. The counterpoint to the Munchkin. The Drama Queen.
Yeah.

... reminds me about my rule when drinking: be cool.
If ya can't be cool, ya ain't gonna be invited to go drinking with me again.
Drama Queens tend to fail that rule. Yeah

Get in the mood! Good post!

[Sirdar]

But the DM is the one creating the world. If they're shooting for a horror atmosphere, but the actual execution is more Shawn of the Dead, I don't blame the players for wise cracking. As a player, I'd rather have a DM who accepts the shift from horror to black comedy then tries to reign everybody in.

I didn't mean to sound like a fundamentalist and I also think the shift from horror to black comedy can be quite fun once in a while. What I am opposed to is when one player alone 'controls the atmosphere' by his or her actions without regard for the rest of the group. It is just disrespectful to change the mood into Shaun of the Dead if the rest of the group is thrilled by the scene and are trying to roleplay their fear of the great necromancer and the unspeakable horror by his side.

[JellyPooga]

My number 1 rule for players, when I'm the GM, is not to know the rules; it helps but isn't essential. As GM, it's my job to arbitrate the rules, so if you can help that's great, if not, no big loss. Nor is it always be a constructive "member of the team"; conflict* between characters can often be the source of great roleplaying and you don't always have to "do the optimal thing". My biggest gripe as a GM...is poorly maintained character sheets. Players that refuse or forget to keep an up to date record of things like HP, limited use abilities, equipment and so forth are a massive thorn in any GMs side; we have enough to keep tabs on without having to do all the record-keeping for players as well.

Second on my list is character sheets that are indecipherable; I can forgive (even encourage!) a few food/drink stains, doodles and general wear-and-tear...it's to be expected. But when I ask to see someone's sheet (for whatever reason) or I'm reviewing their stats between sessions/adventures and I can't make heads nor tails of what I'm looking at (e.g. "I'm looking at where it says Stealth Modifier and I'm not seeing a number" OR "What does that say in the Equipment section? It looks like griff0n+fglh65f...what the hell is that supposed to be?"), it's just frustrating and I'm liable to either ignore it or rule unfavourably. I'm not against abbreviations or short-hand...just make it make some kind of sense and keep things organised (I don't want to have to look in five different places to find out just how much gold your character has, for instance).

Do your GM a favour and keep a tidy character sheet; up to date and easy to read.

*NB - This comes with the massive caveat of "don't be a douche-bag"; conflict between players, solo tangents and selfish play (as a character) produce great storytelling, on the condition that all parties are on board with it and it doesn't distract from the main plot/game too much.