Killer obstructive DM, nintendo hard games, and shift in gamer culture

[EggKookoo]

Which they indeed are. High school jocks have a situation that’s fairly tailored to encourage ****ty behavior. I’m also more looking at adult behavior, so might be looking at a pretty different set.

And so to try to keep with the topic, I wonder if there's something about the nature of tabletop games that prompts a kind of behavior in its players. Maybe it's the interpretive nature of the rules? Or the way the game encourages a subtle dance between cooperation and competition between the DM and the players? I know some absolute cutthroat board and card game players, but at the same time most such games have stark rules that you do not cross. A game like D&D is more squishy in that regard.

My personal experience is most strife at the table(top rpg arena) comes from players who view it as a board game, where they feel they need to "win" against the other players. But since the rules don't describe a win condition for such, those players are frequently feeling around the edges for something that feels like it can be used to improve their status. Honestly I think that's a big part of jerk DMs, who know they can't just sledgehammer their way to being "better" than the players, but look for ways to legitimize such as part of their authoritarian role.

For me, as a player, I remember the first time a DM was actually happy for me when I got a good roll against one of his monsters (this would have been late 80s, early 90s). I was blown away, and it was the first time I felt like I could actually run a game myself.


Sorry if I misapplied that brush.

Nope, you didn't. I just wanted to clarify.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

And so to try to keep with the topic, I wonder if there's something about the nature of tabletop games that prompts a kind of behavior in its players. Maybe it's the interpretive nature of the rules? Or the way the game encourages a subtle dance between cooperation and competition between the DM and the players? I know some absolute cutthroat board and card game players, but at the same time most such games have stark rules that you do not cross. A game like D&D is more squishy in that regard.

My hypothesis, in a word? Escapism.

Tabletop RPGs let you get "outside yourself" in a way that sports, board games, and even video game RPGs don't, so the people likely to be attracted to that are likely to be the ones to whom that kind of escapism most appeals: the bullied, the social outcasts, the less socially adroit, and so on. Which isn't at all to say that most RPGers are like that, just that (A) those people aren't attracted to e.g. model railroading or competitive ballroom dance in the way they are to RPGs and (B) they're a noticeable enough fraction of the playerbase that most players will tend to run into one or more of them in their gaming career in a way that doesn't hold for e.g. running into lots of overly-aggressive jerks in hockey or showboating divas in skiing or something.

Because of that, winning and losing and freedom of choice and so on become much more personal than they do in a board game or football game (if your character dies in a board game it's because the token you happened to pick this game fell afoul of a game-generated challenge and there wasn't anything within the limited ruleset you could do about it, if your character dies in an RPG it's because the character you created and invested so much in fell afoul of a challenge created and run by the DM and it was your lack of creativity/bad tactics/etc. that's at fault, or so it can easily feel) so people may be impelled go to greater lengths to prove themselves somehow, on both sides of the screen.


My personal experience is most strife at the table(top rpg arena) comes from players who view it as a board game, where they feel they need to "win" against the other players. But since the rules don't describe a win condition for such, those players are frequently feeling around the edges for something that feels like it can be used to improve their status. Honestly I think that's a big part of jerk DMs, who know they can't just sledgehammer their way to being "better" than the players, but look for ways to legitimize such as part of their authoritarian role.

Very much agreed. I've been fortunate enough to never run into any bad players or DMs in the many gaming groups I've been a part of, but a good friend of mine lives in a small town where gaming is scarce, and for a long time his group was essentially stuck with one especially awful DM because she was the only person willing to DM, confident in their DMing skills, and able to host the group somewhere. I almost thought all the terribly stories about her were jokes or hyperbole until I had the distinct displeasure of meeting her for myself. :smallsigh:

Said DM was definitely of the "attracted to escapism" sort described above, and her constant attempts to "beat" the players likely (my friend has hypothesized) derived from the fact that whenever the group got together for board games or Magic or Smash Bros or whatever she was pretty terrible at those other games, so she tried to make up for it and be "good at gaming" by killing PCs in RPGs.

[kyoryu]

And so to try to keep with the topic, I wonder if there's something about the nature of tabletop games that prompts a kind of behavior in its players. Maybe it's the interpretive nature of the rules? Or the way the game encourages a subtle dance between cooperation and competition between the DM and the players? I know some absolute cutthroat board and card game players, but at the same time most such games have stark rules that you do not cross. A game like D&D is more squishy in that regard.

I think it's the power fantasy, combined with the fact that in a lot of RPGs, you just don't lose. Even games that claim to be super hardcore you'll die all the time really have an actual loss ratio of like 1:20 or worse. A lot try to make up for this by claiming that IF YOU FAIL YOU'LL BE SO DEAD OMG but if you're only "losing" one in twenty or more encounters, you're still basically winning all the time.

In a sport or non-cooperative game, if you win 95% of the time it's time to play against better people.

So I think RPGs attract a particular variety of person that finds high value in those things. And I think those people can often be toxic. Of course, those aren't the only people that get attracted to RPGs, but I think it feeds into why there's a higher percentage of maladjusted people.

Similarly, in hockey, there's some people that just want to knock people down. Between penalties and teams not wanting them, those people usually don't stick around that long. There's other reasons people play hockey too, that have nothing to do with that.

[Knaight]

So I think RPGs attract a particular variety of person that finds high value in those things. And I think those people can often be toxic. Of course, those aren't the only people that get attracted to RPGs, but I think it feeds into why there's a higher percentage of maladjusted people.

Similarly, in hockey, there's some people that just want to knock people down. Between penalties and teams not wanting them, those people usually don't stick around that long. There's other reasons people play hockey too, that have nothing to do with that.

Bolding mine. I've had a very different experience with the local community, which isn't surprising given that there's probably both a location and generational gap, along with a real possibility of different games attracting different people. The people who view RPGs as a conventional game they win all the time probably exist, but I've never met any - and there's heavy overlap with boardgamers, who often play games where the expected win rate is in the 1/5 to 1/3 range (3-5 players being a common table size).

I suspect a lot of it comes down to a generational shift around ostracism and inclusion in nerd circles. Sufficiently maladjusted people are substantially more likely to be screened out or removed, because the whole idea that ostracism for behavior is inherently morally wrong has largely faded, or at least condensed into deeply dysfunctional and isolated subgroups that are largely unwelcome in the broader community.

I've heard horror stories from elsewhere and especially elsewhen, along with stories about (and limited experiences with) brushing up against toxic elements in the gap between them showing up and being shown the door. They've just been so few and far between that I'd be no more wary about bumping up against the jackasses if I had to go eat dinner with some rando than in something like a recreational hockey league counter example. I'm pretty sure it eventually comes down to community self policing.

[Cluedrew]

My personal experience is most strife at the table(top rpg arena) comes from players who view it as a board game, where they feel they need to "win" against the other players.
My hypothesis, in a word? Escapism.

Sound pretty reasonable. Actually if we stretch escapism a bit it covers a lot of the common problems. People who think their "chaotic neutral" antics are hilarious. Those who want some power in a group and try to get it by being a GM. Those who want to be the biggest and baddest PC in town.

For me the biggest problems come from people who just don't think about the game; their effect on other players or can't really consider what is happening in fiction. Some mean well so it is more of a particular inability than a motivation and so it might not be quite what we are looking for here.

I'm in the storytelling camp personally, everyone is supposed to put in effort and also look for opportunities to make other people's character's look good. Not constantly but when the chance comes up.

[Quertus]

I think the answer is "don't look at roleplaying games as competitive or adversarial setups between the GM and the players."

I mean, look at Drascin's original statement:



If the GM and players are not in a competitive, adversarial relationship, the power imbalance doesn't really matter.

So… it's complicated.

Some people view "the GM creates and runs the challenges" as an inherently adversarial relationship; others, myself included, do not.

IMO, that initial statement actually muddies the waters, as it seems open to inference of the former position, without explicitly stating either way.

So, in addition to the questions I asked, it also matters what they mean by a competitive, adversarial relationship.

But, yeah, still trying to figure out exactly what they think that the problem & solution look like.


And so to try to keep with the topic, I wonder if there's something about the nature of tabletop games that prompts a kind of behavior in its players. Maybe it's the interpretive nature of the rules? Or the way the game encourages a subtle dance between cooperation and competition between the DM and the players? I know some absolute cutthroat board and card game players, but at the same time most such games have stark rules that you do not cross. A game like D&D is more squishy in that regard.

My personal experience is most strife at the table(top rpg arena) comes from players who view it as a board game, where they feel they need to "win" against the other players. But since the rules don't describe a win condition for such, those players are frequently feeling around the edges for something that feels like it can be used to improve their status. Honestly I think that's a big part of jerk DMs, who know they can't just sledgehammer their way to being "better" than the players, but look for ways to legitimize such as part of their authoritarian role.

For me, as a player, I remember the first time a DM was actually happy for me when I got a good roll against one of his monsters (this would have been late 80s, early 90s). I was blown away, and it was the first time I felt like I could actually run a game myself.


I mean, there's lots of little triggers, which differ for individual players. Some are fine so long as they aren't playing "evil"; others are fine so long as they aren't playing "priests"; etc. Which is why I definitely stand in the side of, "rules can fix bad behaviors" rather than "bad players will always be bad".

IME, the biggest trigger on the *player* side of the screen is running inherently problematic, antagonistic classes: Paladin (no evil), Barbarian (1e - no Wizards), or Kinder (@#$$_&&&$#@#$__$), for example.

I do like what I read your idea to be / what I extrapolate from your idea, that so many of the social rules around RPGs are soft, unspoken, and vary from table to table. I think that that certainly can contribute.

[NigelWalmsley]

And he had players solo it, at surprisingly low levels.

That's because Tomb of Horrors isn't hard in any interesting way. It's just a series of arbitrary death traps where there is no reasonable way to determine the right answer and guessing wrong kills you. Soloing the Tomb of Horrors is like getting heads on fifty consecutive coin flips. It's unusual, and it's kind of a novel story to tell your friends, but it doesn't reflect any particular skill on your part.

[Telok]

"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

[NorthernPhoenix]

"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

No, or at least not in the way you're joking about. As the thread title wants to discuss, people are a product of their culture, both broadly and in this case of the subculture they take part in. One of the most important thing a TRPG ruleset must do is inform and guide the intended table culture for the game. The problems described in some parts of this thread occur when there is a incompatibility between player and culture.

[Democratus]

No, or at least not in the way you're joking about. As the thread title wants to discuss, people are a product of their culture, both broadly and in this case of the subculture they take part in. One of the most important thing a TRPG ruleset must do is inform and guide the intended table culture for the game. The problems described in some parts of this thread occur when there is a incompatibility between player and culture.

Cultures are made by people. So it does, ultimately, roll back to "people are a problem". Which was Douglas Adams' point.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Cultures are made by people. So it does, ultimately, roll back to "people are a problem". Which was Douglas Adams' point.

Right, but they don't spring out of every individual independently. They are a product of external influences. In this case of TRPGs at least, how people are taught and influenced to act by others (media, books and so on being a key "others") is more important unless you subscribe to a decidedly pessimistic view of human nature.

[Bohandas]

Interestingly enough, Tomb of Horrors exists because a number of Gary's players told him that the game was too easy.

And he had players solo it, at surprisingly low levels.

I mean theoretically if they were high level they could bore through the top using magic and/or a large expensive team of hired laborers

[Lucas Yew]

(…)

I mean, there's lots of little triggers, which differ for individual players. Some are fine so long as they aren't playing "evil"; others are fine so long as they aren't playing "priests"; etc. Which is why I definitely stand in the side of, "rules can fix bad behaviors" rather than "bad players will always be bad".

(…)

For the last few years on this board, the more and more I think that you have almost identical views on many aspects of tabletop roleplaying games…….

(…maybe except on about accepting LFQW as is (which I never will), but that's another story and is not to be discussed here)

[Zarrgon]

Like, at every point in a D&D game, you are doing things because the DM wants you to do them. If the DM wanted you to not do a thing, he could absolutely stop you from doing it - he has absolute power to set the scenarios you run into, and your only real power is to get up and leave if the disagreement is hard enough.

The twist here is style and finesse. If your even a just above average DM you know that you can do anything in the game and make it perfect from any and all disagreements. Both in the role playing and in the mechanical rules. And if you are a typical person or player....watching such a DM is magic.

Of course, that is not every DM. A lot of people simply can't do it. Being a DM is a skill: some can do it well, but not everyone. Though a lot of people to watch one of the DMs effortlessly doing 'perfect' game mastering and think "wow, I can do that!". Though, like many skills, most people are wrong: not that they can't ''ever" do it, but they sure can't just sit down and blink and be a great DM.

And this is what people see. The DM wants X, but they simply don't have the skill to make it happen. So they are left with the bad approaches that are the stuff of legends.


Interestingly enough, Tomb of Horrors exists because a number of Gary's players told him that the game was too easy.

Tomb of Horrors is not a typical adventure.




So, from where I sit, a game where the GM creates the *scenarios*, but the *rules* adjudicate them (and the GM had no special powers with regards to rules interpretation) seems optimal.


This sounds optimal....but very incomplete.

A game where the GM creates the *scenarios* and uses the *rules* adjudicate them when possible, but is willing with the full *trust* of the players to interpret, abdicate and create rules and rules as needed, seems optimal.



Sure, and a lot of it spawned because of the way that Gary played D&D - an open table, where random people would come each session, go down into a dungeon, and come back up. That's what D&D evolved around.

Lethality meant something different too. Losing a character in a typical "modern" D&D game is like deleting your Skyrim save file. At Gary's table, it was more akin to losing a solidier in X-Com. Sure, it still stings, but it's a whole different context. The problem is that's not how most people play now, and that's not even how a lot of people played back then.

A lot of players got way too attached to their characters, even from the start of D&D. And a lot of players put way too much into their characters, so the loss is a huge life changing blow to their life and not just a character in a RPG died.



It's weird that of all the hobbies I am or have been involved in, roleplaying games, one of the most social of those hobbies, has the highest percentage of people with poor social skills - by far.

Well, it might be a lot more that RPGs showcase, exacerbate and spotlight poor social skills far more then any other hobby.



And, yeah, we had some folks that were just jackasses. But the percentage was pretty damn low. And there's a lot of social interaction in team sports - I mean, the whole point is that you're working together as a team.

Except the one of the big reasons why many sports are popular is that you don't need social interaction and you don't need to work together as a team.

The jerk jock can be an anti social, aggressive, hostile solo player/anti team player...you know the type who gets the ball/puck/whatever and just goes for a solo goal while giving a huge finger to the team they are not really "on". Of course, it's the nature of sports that when this jerk does score a solo goal, no one will whine and cry that he did "not play as a team" or whatever....they will just cheer that they got the point(s).

[Pex]

A lot of players got way too attached to their characters, even from the start of D&D. And a lot of players put way too much into their characters, so the loss is a huge life changing blow to their life and not just a character in a RPG died.

It's called empathy. Players get attached to their characters the same way people get attached to fictional characters in movies, tv shows, and books. It's part of what makes them entertaining. They care. When a fictional character dies it hurts. It matters, even when it's a guest star character of a 1987 British tv show episode so you use his picture and name as an avatar on a gaming web forum.


Except the one of the big reasons why many sports are popular is that you don't need social interaction and you don't need to work together as a team.

The jerk jock can be an anti social, aggressive, hostile solo player/anti team player...you know the type who gets the ball/puck/whatever and just goes for a solo goal while giving a huge finger to the team they are not really "on". Of course, it's the nature of sports that when this jerk does score a solo goal, no one will whine and cry that he did "not play as a team" or whatever....they will just cheer that they got the point(s).

The fans may or may not care, but the other players on the team do.

[Zarrgon]

And so to try to keep with the topic, I wonder if there's something about the nature of tabletop games that prompts a kind of behavior in its players. Maybe it's the interpretive nature of the rules? Or the way the game encourages a subtle dance between cooperation and competition between the DM and the players? I know some absolute cutthroat board and card game players, but at the same time most such games have stark rules that you do not cross. A game like D&D is more squishy in that regard.

RPGs are quite unique in a lot of ways. More so then a lot of activities RPGs are a very personal and social experience. And even more so a RPG is a channel for all a persons hopes and dreams and everything they are not in real life. It's a huge deal.

The vast majority of sports and other games have nothing close to anything like this. Loose at cards and sucks you can't buy something fancy. Loose at a sport, and you feel sad for a couple seconds. "Loose(that is have anything even slightly negative)" at an RPG and all your hopes and dreams and fantasies are crushed...maybe forever.



Tabletop RPGs let you get "outside yourself" in a way that sports, board games, and even video game RPGs don't, so the people likely to be attracted to that are likely to be the ones to whom that kind of escapism most appeals: the bullied, the social outcasts, the less socially adroit, and so on.

Escapism attracts everyone. No matter who you are your likely not a king or a wizard and you can't say ride a space turtle through a super nova.



if your character dies in an RPG it's because the character you created and invested so much in fell afoul of a challenge created and run by the DM and it was your lack of creativity/bad tactics/etc. that's at fault, or so it can easily feel) so people may be impelled go to greater lengths to prove themselves somehow, on both sides of the screen.

And you see the worst of humanity here. The player wants to "prove" themselves in the eye of another and have witnesses.....but they are not always up to the challenge. And when they fail, they are most likely to blame the DM, and not themselves.




So… it's complicated.

Some people view "the GM creates and runs the challenges" as an inherently adversarial relationship; others, myself included, do not.

The GM, as the hostiles of a game world, is in an inherently adversarial relationship with the characters. Not ever the players. For the players the GM is all about creating and having fun.

Of course, you can see the problem of way to many players "play the game, as themselves" in every way, but most of all mentally. So when the DM orc attacks their character the player sees and feels it's an attack on them personally.



It's called empathy. Players get attached to their characters the same way people get attached to fictional characters in movies, tv shows, and books. It's part of what makes them entertaining. They care. When a fictional character dies it hurts. It matters, even when it's a guest star character of a 1987 British tv show episode so you use his picture and name as an avatar on a gaming web forum.



Though note there is a huge difference between the fan that is sad that a fictional character dies, but can get over it and accept it......and that fan that goes on a crazy rant and vows to never watch/read that show/book ever again and refuses to accept it.

It's not that you don't feel sad, and it's not that you don't honor their memory.....but you don't let it go too far.

And...and...and....your Avatar is Pex, from the 7th Doctor "Paradise Towers".....wow.

[kyoryu]

That's because Tomb of Horrors isn't hard in any interesting way. It's just a series of arbitrary death traps where there is no reasonable way to determine the right answer and guessing wrong kills you. Soloing the Tomb of Horrors is like getting heads on fifty consecutive coin flips. It's unusual, and it's kind of a novel story to tell your friends, but it doesn't reflect any particular skill on your part.

Eh.... I don't think that's true, and stories of people soloing it the first time, successfully, also suggest that it's not true.

It definitely prioritizes a different set of skills, and it's reasonable to say that one of those skills is "knowing how Gary thought".

It also is the extreme of.... I don't want to say "don't trust the GM", but especially in linear adventures there's a necessary attitude of "go along with it, even if it looks dumb, it's there for a reason". ToH is the opposite of that.



Tomb of Horrors is not a typical adventure.


Indeed. It is often held up as the pinnacle of "adversarial DM". And my point is... even in that case, I don't think it was. Looking at it without the built up knowledge of players in that campaign, it can certainly seem that way, but within context I don't think it was.

So, really, I'm arguing that its existence isn't so much an example of "D&D should be adversarial" or even "old D&D was intended to be adversarial" as it is often made out to me.


A lot of players got way too attached to their characters, even from the start of D&D. And a lot of players put way too much into their characters, so the loss is a huge life changing blow to their life and not just a character in a RPG died.

It's understandable. I think "true high lethality" (as in, characters actually die on a regular basis, not "oh we say characters die but they really don't", is best done in a campaign where you have a stable of characters. I think doing that in a game where you're expected to invest heavily in a single character is a bad idea.

Outside of fringe elements, that's why Skyrim doesn't have permadeath. Nethack does, but nethack can be beat in, comparatively, a fraction of the time.


Well, it might be a lot more that RPGs showcase, exacerbate and spotlight poor social skills far more then any other hobby.

Eh, I'm not sure of that. The phenomenon even occurs on message boards.


Except the one of the big reasons why many sports are popular is that you don't need social interaction and you don't need to work together as a team.

The jerk jock can be an anti social, aggressive, hostile solo player/anti team player...you know the type who gets the ball/puck/whatever and just goes for a solo goal while giving a huge finger to the team they are not really "on". Of course, it's the nature of sports that when this jerk does score a solo goal, no one will whine and cry that he did "not play as a team" or whatever....they will just cheer that they got the point(s).

Wow. I dispute this 100% for team sports. I don't know of any team sport where, if you're anywhere near an appropriate level, you're not better of working as a team member.

Maaaaaaybe basketball? But that'd be it, and I'll admit I don't have a lot of knowledge of basketball so I could be off base there. Being a puck hog in hockey is a good way to find yourself needing a team, and no, it doesn't matter if you're "that good" because unless you're simply too good to be on that team (and there's always other leagues at a higher level unless you're in the NHL), being a predicatable puck hog is the worst thing you can do because then the other team knows exactly what to do.

Sorry, I love RPGs. And I love a lot of people in them. But... the percentage of jerks that I've seen (and no, not jsut in my age range, I've played with people between 20 and 60), is much higher than I've seen in any other hobby.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Indeed. It is often held up as the pinnacle of "adversarial DM". And my point is... even in that case, I don't think it was. Looking at it without the built up knowledge of players in that campaign, it can certainly seem that way, but within context I don't think it was.

So, really, I'm arguing that its existence isn't so much an example of "D&D should be adversarial" or even "old D&D was intended to be adversarial" as it is often made out to me.

Precisely. What people are either forgetting or glossing over is that Tomb of Horrors was a convention module--that is, it wasn't designed as something for a DM to buy and run for their home gaming group as a satisfying dungeon crawl in and of itself, but for a bunch of DMs to be handed at a convention, run a bunch of parties through in parallel, and see which one could get the farthest with the most loot before dying horribly.

The reasons it relies heavily on traps, puzzles, and monsters of the "guess what the DM's thinking" variety are that (A) it had to be fairly mechanics-independent because it would be run by DMs with broadly varying system mastery and for players who could bring any characters they wanted to the convention, (B) it was specifically designed as a "hard mode" module to challenge players who thought previous convention dungeons were too easy--or, as Gygax put it, to be "ready for those fans [players] who boasted of having mighty PCs able to best any challenge offered by the AD&D game," and (C) it was a timed event and, even given that AD&D combat tended to run a lot faster than in later editions, making things lean toward "figure it out or die" than combat challenges meant that time management wasn't as much a factor in a group's final score. And even then, DMs weren't supposed to be "adversarial" when running the module, because then they'd be unfairly penalizing that group relative to the others competing; as with all convention games, they were simply supposed to be very strict with rules and rulings to ensure as uniform an experience as possible across all the groups.

Complaining that AD&D encouraged adversarial DMing and then holding up Tomb of Horrors as evidence of that is like complaining that it's only possible to go skiing two weeks out of every four years and never in the same mountains twice in a row because the Winter Olympics exist. Tomb of Horrors was very much unlike the standard game experience at the time, and that was the whole point.

[Zarrgon]

Indeed. It is often held up as the pinnacle of "adversarial DM". And my point is... even in that case, I don't think it was. Looking at it without the built up knowledge of players in that campaign, it can certainly seem that way, but within context I don't think it was.

So, really, I'm arguing that its existence isn't so much an example of "D&D should be adversarial" or even "old D&D was intended to be adversarial" as it is often made out to me.

If you have never played it, Classic Old School Hexcrawl style D&D is something unique. But back in the Ye Old Days, some D&D games were nothing except going room by room through a dungeon, starting at dungeon level 1 and going down (most often) to ten. This is the type of game Tomb of horrors was made for....




It's understandable. I think "true high lethality" (as in, characters actually die on a regular basis, not "oh we say characters die but they really don't", is best done in a campaign where you have a stable of characters. I think doing that in a game where you're expected to invest heavily in a single character is a bad idea.

Really it's more about acceptance and the over attachment. A player can make a character, invest a year of deep, deep, deep role and roll playing into the charterer and still just accept the characters death. They don't like it, and may not be happy: but they will accept it as part of the game.

It's a simple, yet hated and misunderstood thing that many believe: A game has No Value unless there is the possibility of loss. In order to win/succeed you must face loss/failure. No safety net, no save point, to restart, no do over or anything like that. You can play again, but the game you lost(and the character and all the items) is lost forever.

Not everyone likes the above way. Video game players especially demand that they "don't loose too bad" and force the games to be made with safety nets and save points and all the other safe stuff. It's not right or wrong, it's just different view points.




Eh, I'm not sure of that. The phenomenon even occurs on message boards.

Because the internet showcases, exacerbates and spotlights poor social skills far more then any other thing ever. So combine RPGs and the Internet and you have a social apocalypse....



Wow. I dispute this 100% for team sports. I don't know of any team sport where, if you're anywhere near an appropriate level, you're not better of working as a team member.

Maaaaaaybe basketball? But that'd be it, and I'll admit I don't have a lot of knowledge of basketball so I could be off base there. Being a puck hog in hockey is a good way to find yourself needing a team, and no, it doesn't matter if you're "that good" because unless you're simply too good to be on that team (and there's always other leagues at a higher level unless you're in the NHL), being a predicatable puck hog is the worst thing you can do because then the other team knows exactly what to do.

Well, I'm not talking about "better". Sure, if you take a step back team sports work a whole lot better if everyone works...as a team(who would have thought, right?)

And I'm not in anyway saying the jerk jock that is anti social, aggressive, hostile solo player/anti team player is someone you'd want to have on your team. But they do exist, and they very often slip/sneak their way on to teams. And quite often they can hide in a group of jocks. And quite very often they can be just enough fake and charismatic to cover their jerk ways (To your face they would say "Oh sorry best bro teammate I did not see you were open to pass the puck too")

I doubt you can say you have never met a jerk jock or had one on a team you were on....



Sorry, I love RPGs. And I love a lot of people in them. But... the percentage of jerks that I've seen (and no, not jsut in my age range, I've played with people between 20 and 60), is much higher than I've seen in any other hobby.

Well, I can assure you that the percentage of jerks in the world is fairly stable no matter what you do, where you go and what ages people are at the moment.

[Pex]

Though note there is a huge difference between the fan that is sad that a fictional character dies, but can get over it and accept it......and that fan that goes on a crazy rant and vows to never watch/read that show/book ever again and refuses to accept it.

It's not that you don't feel sad, and it's not that you don't honor their memory.....but you don't let it go too far.

And...and...and....your Avatar is Pex, from the 7th Doctor "Paradise Towers".....wow.

I didn't cry over Pex, but I was . . . upset. I liked the guy. It was the worst character death for me on Doctor Who since Adric. Interestingly it would be years later I would read the British fans hated Adric and were happy he met his end. I wouldn't feel so upset over a character death until Cedric Diggory when I literally, and I mean literally, threw the book across the room when I first read it. I needed a break for 5 minutes before I picked up the book again. :smallyuk:


Precisely. What people are either forgetting or glossing over is that Tomb of Horrors was a convention module--that is, it wasn't designed as something for a DM to buy and run for their home gaming group as a satisfying dungeon crawl in and of itself, but for a bunch of DMs to be handed at a convention, run a bunch of parties through in parallel, and see which one could get the farthest with the most loot before dying horribly.

The reasons it relies heavily on traps, puzzles, and monsters of the "guess what the DM's thinking" variety are that (A) it had to be fairly mechanics-independent because it would be run by DMs with broadly varying system mastery and for players who could bring any characters they wanted to the convention, (B) it was specifically designed as a "hard mode" module to challenge players who thought previous convention dungeons were too easy--or, as Gygax put it, to be "ready for those fans [players] who boasted of having mighty PCs able to best any challenge offered by the AD&D game," and (C) it was a timed event and, even given that AD&D combat tended to run a lot faster than in later editions, making things lean toward "figure it out or die" than combat challenges meant that time management wasn't as much a factor in a group's final score. And even then, DMs weren't supposed to be "adversarial" when running the module, because then they'd be unfairly penalizing that group relative to the others competing; as with all convention games, they were simply supposed to be very strict with rules and rulings to ensure as uniform an experience as possible across all the groups.

Complaining that AD&D encouraged adversarial DMing and then holding up Tomb of Horrors as evidence of that is like complaining that it's only possible to go skiing two weeks out of every four years and never in the same mountains twice in a row because the Winter Olympics exist. Tomb of Horrors was very much unlike the standard game experience at the time, and that was the whole point.

I can't speak of Tomb of Horrors, but I know 2E encouraged adversarial DMing. The DMG was all about the DM saying no to players. The worst offender for me was in ability score generation. In 2E you needed minimum scores to play classes. The game discouraged the DM to adjust rolled stats, but if you are doing it anyway don't let a player qualify for a special class like paladin or ranger. "If the character already qualifies for a fighter does he really need to be a ranger? Why not play a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees. Inspire roleplaying!" That's male bovine feces.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I can't speak of Tomb of Horrors, but I know 2E encouraged adversarial DMing. The DMG was all about the DM saying no to players. The worst offender for me was in ability score generation. In 2E you needed minimum scores to play classes. The game discouraged the DM to adjust rolled stats, but if you are doing it anyway don't let a player qualify for a special class like paladin or ranger. "If the character already qualifies for a fighter does he really need to be a ranger? Why not play a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees. Inspire roleplaying!" That's male bovine feces.

For reference, here's the section you're talking about:


All of the above notwithstanding, you don't want to force a player to accept a character he doesn't really like. All you will do is lose a player. If someone really is dissatisfied, either make some adjustments to the character or let him roll up a new one.

When adjusting ability scores, follow these guidelines:
• Don't adjust an ability score above the minimum required to qualify for a particular class or race. You are being kind enough already without giving away 10 percent experience bonuses.
• Don't adjust an ability score above 15. Only two classes have ability minimums higher than 15: paladins and illusionists. Only very special characters can become paladins and illusionists. If you give these classes away, they lose their charm.
• Don't adjust an ability score that isn't required for the race or class the player wants his character to be.
• Think twice before raising an ability score to let a character into an optional class if he already qualifies for the standard class in that group. For example, if Kirizov has the scores he needs to be a half-elf fighter, does he really need to be a half-elf ranger? Encourage the player to develop a character who always wanted to be a ranger but just never got the chance, or who fancies himself a ranger but is allergic to trees. Encourage role-playing!

Keep in mind that that's not an isolated section telling the DM to screw over the players, but rather the last of a sequence of sections giving general advice about ability scores and power levels. Here are some excerpts from those other sections:


At the same time, watch out for a tendency in some players to want the most powerful character possible. Powerful characters are fine if that's the sort of campaign you want. A problem arises, however, if players are allowed to exploit the rules, or your good nature, to create a character who is much more powerful than everyone else's characters. At best, this leads to an unbalanced game. At worst, it leads to bored players and hurt feelings.


The following methods are different from one another. Some produce more powerful characters than others (although none produces extremely powerful characters). For this reason, every player in your game should start out using the same method. If, at some later point in your campaign, you want to change methods, simply announce this to your players. Try to avoid making the announcement just as a player starts rolling up a new character, lest the other players accuse you of favoritism.


This method is more time-consuming than I or II, especially if players try to "minimize/maximize" their choice of race and class. (To minimize/maximize, or min/max, is to examine every possibility for the greatest advantage.) Players may need to be encouraged to create the character they see in their imaginations, not the one that gains the most pluses on dice rolls.


Before choosing to use this method, think about how adventurers fit into the population as a whole. There are two schools of thought.

One holds that adventurers are no different from everyone else (except for being a little more foolhardy, headstrong, or restless). The man or woman down the street could be an adventurer--all that's required is the desire to go out and be one. Therefore, adventurers should get no special bonuses on their ability rolls.

The other school holds that adventurers are special people, a cut above the common crowd. If they weren't exceptional, they would be laborers and businessmen like everyone else. Player characters are heroes, so they should get bonuses on their ability rolls to lift them above the rabble. If you choose method V for creating player characters, then you agree with this second view and believe that adventurers should be better than everyone else.

This method creates above-average characters. They won't be perfect, but the odds are that even their worst ability scores will be average or better. More scores push into the exceptional range (15 and greater). It is easy for a player to create a character of any class and race.

Method V Disadvantages: Like other methods that allow deliberate arrangement of ability scores, this one takes some time. It also creates a tendency toward "super" characters. Unless you have a considerable amount of experience as a DM, however, beware of extremely powerful characters. They are much more difficult to challenge and control than characters of moderate power. On the plus side, their chance for survival at lower levels is better than "ordinary" characters.


One of the great temptations for players is to create super characters. While this is not true of every player all the time, the desire for power above everything else afflicts most players at one time or another. Many players see their characters as nothing more than a collection of numbers that affects game systems. They don't think of their characters as personalities to be developed. Players like this want to "win" the game. These players are missing out on a lot of fun.
[...]
The greatest difficulty occurs when a player asks to bring in a character from another campaign where characters are more powerful. Unless you are prepared to handle them, super characters can seriously disrupt a campaign: Players with average characters gradually become bored and irritated as the powerful characters dominate the action. And players with powerful characters feel held back by their weaker companions. None of this contributes to harmony and cooperation among the characters or the players.

Cooperation is a key element of role-playing. In any group of player characters, everyone has strengths to contribute and weaknesses to overcome. This is the basis for the adventuring party--even a small group with sufficiently diverse talents can accomplish deeds far greater than its size would indicate. Now, throw in a character who is an army by himself. He doesn't need the other characters, except perhaps as cannon fodder or bearers. He doesn't need allies. His presence alone destroys one of the most fundamental aspects of the game--cooperation.


At the other extreme from the super character is the character who appears hopeless. The player is convinced his new character has a fatal flaw that guarantees a quick and ugly death under the claws of some imaginary foe. Discouraged, he asks to scrap the character and create another.

In reality, few, if any, characters are truly hopeless. Certainly, ability scores have an effect on the game, but they are not the overwhelming factor in a character's success or failure. Far more important is the cleverness and ingenuity the player brings to the character. When a player bemoans his bad luck and "hopeless" character, he may just be upset because the character is not exactly what he wanted. Some players write off any character who has only one above-average ability score. Some complain if a new character does not qualify for a favorite class or race. Others complain if even one ability score is below average. Some players become stuck in super-character mode. Some want a character with no penalties. Some always want to play a particular character class and feel cheated if their scores won't allow it.

Some players cite numerical formulas as proof of a character's hopelessness ("A character needs at least 75 ability points to survive" or "A character without two scores of 15 or more is a waste of time"). In reality, there is no such hard and fast formula. There are, in fact, few really hopeless characters.

Dealing with Hopeless Characters

Before you agree that a character is hopeless, consider the player's motives. Try to be firm and encourage players to give "bad" characters a try. They might actually enjoy playing something different for a change.

A character with one or more very low score (6 or less) may seem like a loser, like it would be no fun to play. Quite simply, this isn't true! Just as exceptionally high scores make a character unique, so do very low scores. In the hands of good role-players, such characters are tremendous fun. Encourage the player to be daring and creative. Some of the most memorable characters from history and literature rose to greatness despite their flaws.

In many ways, the completely average character is the worst of all. Exceptionally good or exceptionally bad ability scores give a player something to base his role-playing on--whether nimble as a cat or dumb as a box of rocks, at least the character provides something exciting to role-play.

Average characters don't have these simple focal points. The unique, special something that makes a character stand out in a crowd must be provided by the player, and this is not always easy. Too many players fall into the "he's just your basic fighter" syndrome. In truth, however, even an average character is okay. The only really hopeless character is the rare one that cannot qualify for any character class. The playability of all other characters is up to you.

The context of that advice, then, is not "don't let players play what they want and give flippant Stormwind Fallacy suggestions if they ask you to," but rather basic advice that if a player is being disruptive or complaining or asking for concessions and if you've offered to let them reroll and they refused that and if you've talked to them about making the character work and they still refused to give that character a try, and if after all that you feel like changing scores for their benefit, you should make the minimum adjustments to let them play the character they want and not give out extra perks on top of that.

It's much like a hypothetical section in the 3e DMG that said "if a player really wants to take a PrC but his PC won't qualify for a few levels because he needs two more feats, go ahead and waive a few prereqs if you feel like it but don't give him those two feats for free" or something like that. Hardly adversarial DMing or encouraging the DM to "say no" to everything.

[EggKookoo]

And it's not an edition thing really. In my recent revisits to it, I was surprised at how adversarial the 3e DMG positioned the DM toward the players. Things like setting the DC to what you want and not even letting the player know you did (just tell them pass or fail) and repeated reassurances that you're the Top Man in Charge Now. I'm not going to say 3e was the worst in encouraging a DM vs. Player mindset, but it certainly encouraged it strongly.

[Aotrs Commander]

I think this is actually all down to one factor. 3.0 came around at the time the internet was becoming widespread.

Before that, the only window into what anyone outside your own group or people in your own area was doing was a) conventions and b) magazines and that assumes you did either. (I didn't, really, aside from the, like four issues of Dragon I think I picked up at sporadic intervals).

Forums migth have existed before then, but before 3.0, there wasn't the congregatation of people, nor the facility for, well - us to be having this conversation.

And I think in a more globally-connected culture, the simple spread of ideas has made some of the stuff more prominent. Stuff that we always cite now with interpersonal conflicts "talk to the plyer out of game" - there just WASN'T the facility to do that, save for the very few bothered enough to maybe write into Dragon or something and lucky enough to get said letter published. I think we all have a tendancy to forget this stuff just wasn't as obvious even twenty years ago (let alone in, like, the 80s? I want to say?) When the AD&D DMG was written.

The fact that sometimes a player or a DM doesn't fit with a group's playstyle is something we talk about now, but even in the dawn of 3.0, probably wasn't something anyone mostly considered. If it was your local group, it's be just considering the odd-one-out to be "That Guy," without genuinely realising that in another group, their playstyle might make them "That Guy" because if all you know is the same group, then how CAN you?

For (somewhat trivial) example, my group would NEVER in a million years considered the idea of "someone other than the DM has the character sheets," until I saw people talking about it. (Because no-one had done it any other way.) And thus, when we have had the players that want to do that, being prepared for such things not coming out of the blue, all I say (for our weekly games) is they have to keep a copy for me reasonably updated in case they are away one session.

I think part of it is, we're all now MUCH more self-aware about this sort of thing, both in RPGs specifically and generally culturaly, simply because of the freedom and ease of communication. (And partly because while it allows the like-minded to find each other more easily, that can be a double-edged sword sometimes as well.)

[NigelWalmsley]

I think this is actually all down to one factor. 3.0 came around at the time the internet was becoming widespread.

Yep. I promise you, if you had the same number of people analyzing the problems of 2e, you'd find just as many issues. And conversely, if you play 3e without exposure to the internet charop culture, you will likely have very few balance problems.

[Willie the Duck]

Keep in mind that that's not an isolated section telling the DM to screw over the players, but rather the last of a sequence of sections giving general advice about ability scores and power levels. Here are some excerpts from those other sections:

The context of that advice, then, is not "don't let players play what they want and give flippant Stormwind Fallacy suggestions if they ask you to," but rather basic advice that if a player is being disruptive or complaining or asking for concessions and if you've offered to let them reroll and they refused that and if you've talked to them about making the character work and they still refused to give that character a try, and if after all that you feel like changing scores for their benefit, you should make the minimum adjustments to let them play the character they want and not give out extra perks on top of that.

It's much like a hypothetical section in the 3e DMG that said "if a player really wants to take a PrC but his PC won't qualify for a few levels because he needs two more feats, go ahead and waive a few prereqs if you feel like it but don't give him those two feats for free" or something like that. Hardly adversarial DMing or encouraging the DM to "say no" to everything.

FWIW, 2e overall was written with some very bizarre flavor (perhaps as a way to make it distinctive from the Gygaxian prose of 1E). There are passages of examples of play and the like where the DM is somewhere between tonedeaf and clueless to halfway jerkish.


And it's not an edition thing really. In my recent revisits to it, I was surprised at how adversarial the 3e DMG positioned the DM toward the players. Things like setting the DC to what you want and not even letting the player know you did (just tell them pass or fail) and repeated reassurances that you're the Top Man in Charge Now. I'm not going to say 3e was the worst in encouraging a DM vs. Player mindset, but it certainly encouraged it strongly.

If you include Strategic Review/Dragon articles, the game seems to have always struggled its whole life with whether a DM needs to see players as people they are trying to accommodate or people trying to get away with something.


I think this is actually all down to one factor. 3.0 came around at the time the internet was becoming widespread.

Before that, the only window into what anyone outside your own group or people in your own area was doing was a) conventions and b) magazines and that assumes you did either. (I didn't, really, aside from the, like four issues of Dragon I think I picked up at sporadic intervals).

Forums migth have existed before then, but before 3.0, there wasn't the congregatation of people, nor the facility for, well - us to be having this conversation.

There were local BBSes and Usenet in the 80s and 90s. What I got from that is that there was that whining and complaining was certainly not a modern gaming phenomenon. No one has ever been satisfied with TTRPGs (D&D or otherwise) ever, be it the rules, their group, their DM/GM, or anything else. Very much a nothing-new-under-the-sun thing.


Yep. I promise you, if you had the same number of people analyzing the problems of 2e, you'd find just as many issues. And conversely, if you play 3e without exposure to the internet charop culture, you will likely have very few balance problems.

I think, without the internet culture, you just fix things that are problems. Everyone seemed to have a binder of house rules, fixes, mods, combos, clipped out articles, and the like.

[prabe]

I think, without the internet culture, you just fix things that are problems. Everyone seemed to have a binder of house rules, fixes, mods, combos, clipped out articles, and the like.

I think pre-Internet you might not have as many problems you felt you needed to solve, but finding solutions for them might be more difficult. I wouldn't call it a complete wash, but maybe it's kinda close.

[Zarrgon]

I think this is actually all down to one factor. 3.0 came around at the time the internet was becoming widespread.

Though it is amazing how much the internet homogenized everything.

Before The Net, each gaming group was unique and people in the group though all sorts of different things.

After Internet: Just about everyone is the same and thinks the same things with no acceptance for any other viewpoint.

Just pick a random topic, like say Monks. Immediately the huge bulk of people online will say "Monk's Suck!". And you will only find a couple people like myself that say it's not true.

Just look at the houserules for any posted game...amazingly just about all of them are the same from game to game and you will see the same ones repeated over and over and over and over again.

And look at just about any "asking for help thread" and you will see the same answer given by nearly everyone every time. I stand out nearly every time typing "well, I have a different view point then all the other posters above me".



I think part of it is, we're all now MUCH more self-aware about this sort of thing, both in RPGs specifically and generally culturaly, simply because of the freedom and ease of communication. (And partly because while it allows the like-minded to find each other more easily, that can be a double-edged sword sometimes as well.)

It just does not seem as if the communication is good for the game....

Though really this is a big lifestyle culture shift, and not just a game one.

[Quertus]

The GM, as the hostiles of a game world, is in an inherently adversarial relationship with the characters. Not ever the players. For the players the GM is all about creating and having fun.

Agreed. Granted, I've had some GMs who just weren't capable of role-playing non-hostile NPCs, with non-adversarial relationships with the characters. I think it might be fair to consider them "hostile GMs".


Of course, you can see the problem of way to many players "play the game, as themselves" in every way, but most of all mentally. So when the DM orc attacks their character the player sees and feels it's an attack on them personally..

That certainly could explain some people's definitions of "hostile GM", I suppose.


I think this is actually all down to one factor. 3.0 came around at the time the internet was becoming widespread.

Before that, the only window into what anyone outside your own group or people in your own area was doing was a) conventions and b) magazines and that assumes you did either. (I didn't, really, aside from the, like four issues of Dragon I think I picked up at sporadic intervals).

Forums migth have existed before then, but before 3.0, there wasn't the congregatation of people, nor the facility for, well - us to be having this conversation.

And I think in a more globally-connected culture, the simple spread of ideas has made some of the stuff more prominent. Stuff that we always cite now with interpersonal conflicts "talk to the plyer out of game" - there just WASN'T the facility to do that, save for the very few bothered enough to maybe write into Dragon or something and lucky enough to get said letter published. I think we all have a tendancy to forget this stuff just wasn't as obvious even twenty years ago (let alone in, like, the 80s? I want to say?) When the AD&D DMG was written.

The fact that sometimes a player or a DM doesn't fit with a group's playstyle is something we talk about now, but even in the dawn of 3.0, probably wasn't something anyone mostly considered. If it was your local group, it's be just considering the odd-one-out to be "That Guy," without genuinely realising that in another group, their playstyle might make them "That Guy" because if all you know is the same group, then how CAN you?

For (somewhat trivial) example, my group would NEVER in a million years considered the idea of "someone other than the DM has the character sheets," until I saw people talking about it. (Because no-one had done it any other way.) And thus, when we have had the players that want to do that, being prepared for such things not coming out of the blue, all I say (for our weekly games) is they have to keep a copy for me reasonably updated in case they are away one session.

I think part of it is, we're all now MUCH more self-aware about this sort of thing, both in RPGs specifically and generally culturaly, simply because of the freedom and ease of communication. (And partly because while it allows the like-minded to find each other more easily, that can be a double-edged sword sometimes as well.)


Yep. I promise you, if you had the same number of people analyzing the problems of 2e, you'd find just as many issues. And conversely, if you play 3e without exposure to the internet charop culture, you will likely have very few balance problems.

Would I come across as a conceited, Lawful Evil super genius if i said, "it's always been that obvious"? :smallwink:

How about if I said "it's always been that obvious, but most people weren't standing on the backs of The Giant and company back then to realize it"?

[Pex]

For reference, here's the section you're talking about:



Keep in mind that that's not an isolated section telling the DM to screw over the players, but rather the last of a sequence of sections giving general advice about ability scores and power levels. Here are some excerpts from those other sections:


The context of that advice, then, is not "don't let players play what they want and give flippant Stormwind Fallacy suggestions if they ask you to," but rather basic advice that if a player is being disruptive or complaining or asking for concessions and if you've offered to let them reroll and they refused that and if you've talked to them about making the character work and they still refused to give that character a try, and if after all that you feel like changing scores for their benefit, you should make the minimum adjustments to let them play the character they want and not give out extra perks on top of that.



There are lots of Don'ts there. The player is not disruptive or complaining. He's only dissatisfied he can't play the character he wants because he didn't roll the required stats, and the DMG is saying don't let him.

[NigelWalmsley]

I think, without the internet culture, you just fix things that are problems. Everyone seemed to have a binder of house rules, fixes, mods, combos, clipped out articles, and the like.

Do you think people don't do that now? Every D&D player I've ever met has their own idiosyncratic collection of houserules, homebrew, variant rules, bannings, rules interpretations, and allowed sources. People don't argue on the internet instead of fixing their problems, they do both.


Before The Net, each gaming group was unique and people in the group though all sorts of different things.

After Internet: Just about everyone is the same and thinks the same things with no acceptance for any other viewpoint.

Is there any issue you can't reduce to a false binary between two groups of people, where there's a group you belong to that is virtuous and maintains its ancient traditions, and a group other people belong to that is evil whiners?

[Knaight]

Eh, I'm not sure of that. The phenomenon even occurs on message boards.
I'm not sure about this - there's toxicity on RPG message boards, sure, but the bad ones are nowhere near the bad ones I've seen for other hobbies. Starting with the trash fire that is the general videogame community, but also music centered and weightlifting centered ones in particular.

There are also good sites for most all of these, though I'm not sure a videogame forum with a functioning culture actually exists. Maybe for certain specific video games.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

There are also good sites for most all of these, though I'm not sure a videogame forum with a functioning culture actually exists. Maybe for certain specific video games.

Definitely for certain specific videogames, particularly smaller communities can be very nice. But I have to admit I wouldn't personally know an exactly similarly sized equivalent of say GiantITP centered around video games/a video game series/a fan comic of a video game series.

[Zarrgon]

Agreed. Granted, I've had some GMs who just weren't capable of role-playing non-hostile NPCs, with non-adversarial relationships with the characters. I think it might be fair to consider them "hostile GMs".

This is why wise people say DMing is hard. It's not hard to toss monsters at players: it's hard to have a non-adversarial relationships with the characters. And a great many other things.



That certainly could explain some people's definitions of "hostile GM", I suppose.

It's no less common in most things in life: way too many people take way too many things personally.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

FWIW, 2e overall was written with some very bizarre flavor (perhaps as a way to make it distinctive from the Gygaxian prose of 1E). There are passages of examples of play and the like where the DM is somewhere between tonedeaf and clueless to halfway jerkish.

If you include Strategic Review/Dragon articles, the game seems to have always struggled its whole life with whether a DM needs to see players as people they are trying to accommodate or people trying to get away with something.

I wouldn't say it struggled with the issue so much as it viewed the DM as wearing many different hats in a way that later editions didn't really distinguish. 3e and later basically refer to the DM as the "DM" everywhere, but AD&D material talked about "Dungeon Master" or "judge" or "referee" or a few other terms depending on the context, and those three were roughly used as "DM" = building adventures and running the monsters, "judge" = knowing rules and making rulings or resolving rules disputes, and "referee" = group manager and moderator of inter-player disputes.

It wouldn't be unreasonable for the DMG or a Dragon article or whatever to both recommend always sticking with the rules as written and to work with a player to houserule something, because those are two different approaches to the same issue (make using the rules simpler by being inflexible with them vs. make the players happier by accommodating them) and DMs were expected to decide how they personally wanted to resolve those issues.


There are lots of Don'ts there. The player is not disruptive or complaining. He's only dissatisfied he can't play the character he wants because he didn't roll the required stats, and the DMG is saying don't let him.

Again:


A problem arises, however, if players are allowed to exploit the rules, or your good nature, to create a character who is much more powerful than everyone else's characters. At best, this leads to an unbalanced game. At worst, it leads to bored players and hurt feelings.

While this is not true of every player all the time, the desire for power above everything else afflicts most players at one time or another. Many players see their characters as nothing more than a collection of numbers that affects game systems. They don't think of their characters as personalities to be developed. Players like this want to "win" the game.

When a player bemoans his bad luck and "hopeless" character, he may just be upset because the character is not exactly what he wanted. Some players write off any character who has only one above-average ability score. Some complain if a new character does not qualify for a favorite class or race. Others complain if even one ability score is below average. Some players become stuck in super-character mode. Some want a character with no penalties. Some always want to play a particular character class and feel cheated if their scores won't allow it.

Some players cite numerical formulas as proof of a character's hopelessness ("A character needs at least 75 ability points to survive" or "A character without two scores of 15 or more is a waste of time"). In reality, there is no such hard and fast formula. There are, in fact, few really hopeless characters.

The section is not giving advice on players like someone who goes "Darn, I needed my Cha to be 2 higher to play Sir Bob the Paladin. Hey DM, do you mind if bump up his Cha by 2 and, I dunno, drop his Dex by 2 so he can be a paladin?" and is fine rolling up a different character if the DM says no. The section is advising DMs on how to deal with powergamers, munchkins, the "No, I totally rolled thre 18s when you weren't looking" types, the "But 3d6 is order isn't fair!" types, and similar, even though the general advice about raising stats is applicable in both cases.

[Composer99]

We all heard horror DM tales. games where you don't get any loot, and most smart solution are vetoed. games where you can get a negative debuff that willl never get away, as you won't have the magic to heal it. games where your character can die for a critical fumble. and we wonder why the players put up with them.

then i was browsing tvtropes, and went to nintendo hard, and i realized that in the past, it was the norm for games to be much more brutal and unforgiving. it was pretty common that a single hit could kill you, that you would not be allowed to skip stuff by being clever, that you would not get any significant power-up through all the game.

So I'm thinking, maybe those bad DM and bad games aren't exactly bad per se, but they are rather a leftover after a shift in gamer culture. And perhaps the people in those games - even those people who feel miserable - think that it should be normal for a game to make you miserable unless you are an absolute pro, because it was the norm.

which, by the way, was probably a result of games being, by necessity, much simpler at the time. so the only way to make them challenging would be to have them being very unforgiving of small mistakes.

I'm wondering if a lot of bad games could be explained by a clash in gamer culture.

This thread has got into some serious weeds, even if some of the unfolding discussions are interesting to read (even if they are rehashing much well-covered ground on these forums).

But to look at this original post, I would say that, having lived through the age of Nintendo Hard console games but somewhat after Ye Olden Days of TTRPGs (I cut my teeth on the BE part of BECMI in the late 80s), I'm not sure I could agree that changes in TTRPG culture over time relate to the phenomenon of Nintendo Hard. I'm also not sure that "it should be normal for a game to make you miserable" was ever a norm for TTRPGs. (Indeed, I can't agree that Nintendo Hard meant playing games "ma[d]e you miserable", necessarily.)

I'd be more inclined to say that (a) changes in TTRPG culture are likely reflections of changes in the overall culture in which TTRPGs are embedded, and (b) insofar as DMs ranging from poor to toxic were indeed more commonly encountered in the past, such that their existence today can come across as a holdover, it's likely because the kinds of attitudes, mindsets, and behaviours that encouraged their existence were more likely to be accepted or tolerated in the wider culture in the past.

[EggKookoo]

I think part of it is, we're all now MUCH more self-aware about this sort of thing, both in RPGs specifically and generally culturaly, simply because of the freedom and ease of communication. (And partly because while it allows the like-minded to find each other more easily, that can be a double-edged sword sometimes as well.)

What I've found for myself is my tendency to homebrew has lessened as I'm exposed to more information. I don't have a solid reason why, but I suspect it has to do with how, in the relative isolation of the past, I felt more like I was the only one to notice Problem X and had no one outside my immediate gaming group to discuss Problem X with, and if they weren't interested in working out the kinks with me (and they usually weren't), I would come up with Solution X on my own. Solution X might be horribly broken in a dozen ways, but if none of those ways come up in our actual real-life game, they functionally didn't exist for us. Which only encouraged more imbalanced homebrewing.

With my current access to a forum of experience, I might bring up Problem X to learn that maybe it's not really a problem after all, but exists for a reason (a reason I can take back to my players). Or I might see that people agree it's a problem, but my Solution X is a very bad idea and I should never implement it. Instead, people have been applying Solution Y, which I would never have thought of. Or maybe I would have if I had reason to reject Solution X, but since in the old days that solution never caused a perceptible problem I was never motivated to. Mostly, I find, it's the former (X is not really a problem, it was a design decision, and here are the reasons...). Which discourages changing it, and encourages a kind of "trust the system" mentality. Which in turn reduces my sensitivity to small quirks and inconsistencies in the mechanics. A kind of How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the RAW.

[ExLibrisMortis]

With my current access to a forum of experience, I might bring up Problem X to learn that maybe it's not really a problem after all, but exists for a reason (a reason I can take back to my players). Or I might see that people agree it's a problem, but my Solution X is a very bad idea and I should never implement it. Instead, people have been applying Solution Y, which I would never have thought of. Or maybe I would have if I had reason to reject Solution X, but since in the old days that solution never caused a perceptible problem I was never motivated to. Mostly, I find, it's the former (X is not really a problem, it was a design decision, and here are the reasons...). Which discourages changing it, and encourages a kind of "trust the system" mentality. Which in turn reduces my sensitivity to small quirks and inconsistencies in the mechanics. A kind of How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the RAW.
This, very much. "Trust the system" not in the sense of "trust that the writers did a good job balancing", because they didn't, but "trust that the system describes a functioning, playable, interesting-to-explore game world", which it does, even if it isn't necessarily the average fantasy kitchen sink one might expect (see: Tippyverse, the Dream of Metal (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?121334-The-Dream-of-Metal), and other RAW-inspired world-building). Or that the designers thought they were describing, for that matter.

[kyoryu]

What I've found for myself is my tendency to homebrew has lessened as I'm exposed to more information. I don't have a solid reason why, but I suspect it has to do with how, in the relative isolation of the past, I felt more like I was the only one to notice Problem X and had no one outside my immediate gaming group to discuss Problem X with, and if they weren't interested in working out the kinks with me (and they usually weren't), I would come up with Solution X on my own. Solution X might be horribly broken in a dozen ways, but if none of those ways come up in our actual real-life game, they functionally didn't exist for us. Which only encouraged more imbalanced homebrewing.

With my current access to a forum of experience, I might bring up Problem X to learn that maybe it's not really a problem after all, but exists for a reason (a reason I can take back to my players). Or I might see that people agree it's a problem, but my Solution X is a very bad idea and I should never implement it. Instead, people have been applying Solution Y, which I would never have thought of. Or maybe I would have if I had reason to reject Solution X, but since in the old days that solution never caused a perceptible problem I was never motivated to. Mostly, I find, it's the former (X is not really a problem, it was a design decision, and here are the reasons...). Which discourages changing it, and encourages a kind of "trust the system" mentality. Which in turn reduces my sensitivity to small quirks and inconsistencies in the mechanics. A kind of How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the RAW.

In general, 100%. Presume some level of competence from the designers. The way I view it is:

1. Play and really internalize the system before tweaking it
2. When you understand the rule, and can argue for it, you're in a good position to tweak it
3. When you tweak a rule, understand what impact it's having on the game, why it's not what you want, and what you want to have happen as a result. In other words, tweak not because you don't like the process but because you have a different result in mind
4. Beware of unintended consequences


This, very much. "Trust the system" not in the sense of "trust that the writers did a good job balancing", because they didn't, but "trust that the system describes a functioning, playable, interesting-to-explore game world", which it does, even if it isn't necessarily the average fantasy kitchen sink one might expect (see: Tippyverse, the Dream of Metal (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?121334-The-Dream-of-Metal), and other RAW-inspired world-building). Or that the designers thought they were describing, for that matter.

And even the Tippyverse is really the result of applying rules that were meant for the fairly narrow application of adventuring, and applying them to "general world sim" problems. Understanding what the rules were really meant to do is a huge part of the process above.

Rules that work amazingly well in one context often "fail" horribly in another. Though you could certainly argue that the Tippyverse isn't a "failure", in this case it's a "failure" to achieve the ostensibly intended result (though, as I said, by using the rules for other than their intended purposes).

[ExLibrisMortis]

Though you could certainly argue that the Tippyverse isn't a "failure", in this case it's a "failure" to achieve the ostensibly intended result (though, as I said, by using the rules for other than their intended purposes).
Yes, if you're looking to use the system for a typical fantasy world, the Tippyverse is... not your ideal result, to say the least (designer intent doesn't interest me as much, but it's safe to say they weren't thinking of the Tippyverse either). However, if you're looking to follow the system as presented and arrive in a world you hadn't thought of, it's very good. Over time, I've grown naturalized to 3.5 to the extent that it's become a very specific fantasy setting shaped by RAW, rather than a game system that represents a generic fantasy setting. Where 3.5 completely fails to simulate a generic fantasy setting--i.e. in many places--it often produces interesting alternatives. That's something certain other types of system (rules-light and narrativist, I think) don't provide, for better or for worse.

[Zarrgon]

What I've found for myself is my tendency to homebrew has lessened as I'm exposed to more information. I don't have a solid reason why,

Back in the Days Before The Net, nobody played D&D "by the book": Every game was a ton of Homebrew built around the D&D rules. And this was encouraged by the creators: right there in the rulebooks it would say "go ahead and make up all your own stuff and make D&D yours."

This carried on a bit until after The Net, and into 3X....but then came the flood of the Rules are Top players. Encouraged by 3X's stance that only they, the makers of D&D could make rules(and sell them to you), a great many players took the stance that the game must be played only by the written rules. Everyone had to follow the rules or you were "not playing D&D". This brought a massive stop to even the idea of homebrew. Just sit back and let the super smart people at Wizards make all the content(and sell it to you).

[Aotrs Commander]

Back in the Days Before The Net, nobody played D&D "by the book": Every game was a ton of Homebrew built around the D&D rules. And this was encouraged by the creators: right there in the rulebooks it would say "go ahead and make up all your own stuff and make D&D yours."

Certainly, none of the several DMs I ever played AD&D with ever used the same set of rules; and only one of them played it relatively close to core.

(I, as you might expect, absolutely did not, immediatly allowing any and all races to multiclass or dual class however they liked. Notably, the one and only proper campaign party I started in AD&D (it flipped to 3.0 as soon as that came out) had five characters, and yet two each of the base four class paradigms... As I recall, it was thief, fighter, cleric/fighter, thief/wizard and druid/wizard...)

[EggKookoo]

Certainly, none of the several DMs I ever played AD&D with ever used the same set of rules; and only one of them played it relatively close to core.

In my experience, rules weren't adjusted so much as settings. I've never played any RPG in any of its established settings. D&D was either just in a generic sword & sorcery mishmash (1e), or the DM took pains to make his own world with very specific details (2e). The Call of Cthulhu campaigned I joined in 1986 (but it had been in existence for a couple years by then) takes place in a world cooked up by the GM. My own W:tA campaign spun off from that, so a shared universe. My current 5e campaign is the closest I've come to using a published setting. It's in Eberron, but not really. In fact I'm putting my players through Dragon Heist in Sharn, and I've replaced much of the world's mythology with my own, where...

...a distant-future Dying Earth Road-Warrior-for-Dragons kind of place.

But in this latest game, I can count the number of actual homebrew mechanics (so far) on one hand.

[Pex]

Back in the Days Before The Net, nobody played D&D "by the book": Every game was a ton of Homebrew built around the D&D rules. And this was encouraged by the creators: right there in the rulebooks it would say "go ahead and make up all your own stuff and make D&D yours."

This carried on a bit until after The Net, and into 3X....but then came the flood of the Rules are Top players. Encouraged by 3X's stance that only they, the makers of D&D could make rules(and sell them to you), a great many players took the stance that the game must be played only by the written rules. Everyone had to follow the rules or you were "not playing D&D". This brought a massive stop to even the idea of homebrew. Just sit back and let the super smart people at Wizards make all the content(and sell it to you).

No.

The issue was 3E has this problem because of Rule X. Some would say 3E doesn't have this problem because the DM can change Rule X. The response was of course the DM can change Rule X but that doesn't change the fact the problem exists because 3E has Rule X. Some people still insisted the problem didn't exist because the DM can change it.

Then there are those who didn't find Rule X to be a problem at all and didn't need fixing.

In 5E now people are saying Rule X isn't a problem because the DM can change it and cheer that as a feature. :smallsigh:

[Zarrgon]

No.

The issue was 3E has this problem because of Rule X. Some would say 3E doesn't have this problem because the DM can change Rule X. The response was of course the DM can change Rule X but that doesn't change the fact the problem exists because 3E has Rule X. Some people still insisted the problem didn't exist because the DM can change it.

Then there are those who didn't find Rule X to be a problem at all and didn't need fixing.

In 5E now people are saying Rule X isn't a problem because the DM can change it and cheer that as a feature. :smallsigh:

You lost me here.

Before 3X: The books had guidelines and suggestions and soft rules, as many of the books said right there in the type. Every DM was encouraged to make the game their own and do whatever they wanted to do to make a fun game.

The Dark Ages of 3X: The books have the Official Rules and you Must use our rules to play our game. The Rules are your Friend. Every player dm person must follow the official rules. End of Line.

4E: Er, skip.

5E: The books have lite rules: DMs are encouraged to make the game their own and do whatever they wanted to do to make a fun game.

[EggKookoo]

The Dark Ages of 3X: The books have the Official Rules and you Must use our rules to play our game. The Rules are your Friend. Every player dm person must follow the official rules. End of Line.

Are you talking about the "d20 System" or do you mean the way the 3e manuals presented the rules?

Because, as I've said above, the 3e DMG is shameless in how it promotes Rule Zero. Almost aggressively. The 5e DMG doesn't even come close to the level of the "tell the players they're lucky to be in your game and they should take what you give them and like it" mindset that 3e promoted. I know the cultural mythology often says otherwise, but go reread your 3e DMG.

If 3e had a locked-in-the-rules problem, it came from both the DM having the final say and having lists of examples that the DM could use to determine what that final statement was. Players looked at the examples and felt they were hard and fast rules that the DM was obliged to follow. At the same time, the DMG told the DM they were not obliged to follow those examples and that they didn't have to justify their decision to the players. That they didn't even have to let the players know what those decisions were (i.e. don't state a DC, just ask for a roll and tell the player if they passed or failed -- talk about "mother may I?"). It was like the manuals were written specifically to foster crunch arguments at the table.

[Aotrs Commander]

The Dark Ages of 3X: The books have the Official Rules and you Must use our rules to play our game. The Rules are your Friend. Every player dm person must follow the official rules. End of Line.

Never saw that myself. House-ruled a freely in 3.0 and beyond as I did in AD&D; the big difference was that (comparitively) 3.0s flaw's were several orders of magnitude LESS than AD&D's (and twenty years ago, those flaws as 3.x has were not so immediately obvious), so it required less work from the get-go; so I didn't START with pages of house-rule rules before I set pen to paper.



Again, I think this perception is largely because of the simply lack of widespread connectiviety tha congruently emerged at the same time as 3.0 did. Had that come several years later, I suspect you'd have seen basically the same set of conversations. The part that isn't that likely comes from the idea of theorhetical optimisation (which also really only emerged with the wider use of the internet and WotC's own forum - which was the most populous one for a long time), in which you take the RAW in the most literal interpretation as possible (it's theorhetical for a reason) to see what that allows you to Numbers.

[Zarrgon]

Never saw that myself. House-ruled a freely in 3.0 and beyond as I did in AD&D; the big difference was that (comparitively) 3.0s flaw's were several orders of magnitude LESS than AD&D's (and twenty years ago, those flaws as 3.x has were not so immediately obvious), so it required less work from the get-go; so I didn't START with pages of house-rule rules before I set pen to paper.

The rules have never changed how I play a game either, I still house rule and homebrew freely.

Back in the Time Before Time pre 3E, just about no one ever would say that a game of D&D was being "played wrong" because of house rules or homebrew. Everyone accepted that everyone's game was different. If a player shows up to play, and were told a rule they did not like: they simply accepted it.

3X is where you get the rise of the hard 'the official by the book rules are the only way to play the real game of D&D". Also this gives rise to the DM that only uses what is written on the page: even at times going so far as the say they "can't" use skeletal birds because they are not listed in the Monster Manual.

[Willie the Duck]

3X is where you get the rise of the hard 'the official by the book rules are the only way to play the real game of D&D". Also this gives rise to the DM that only uses what is written on the page: even at times going so far as the say they "can't" use skeletal birds because they are not listed in the Monster Manual.

Again, I think a lot of people here dispute that this was any way the case, excepting perhaps vocal voices on various online sites that did not reflect the gamer base as a whole.

[prabe]

Again, I think a lot of people here dispute that this was any way the case, excepting perhaps vocal voices on various online sites that did not reflect the gamer base as a whole.

I don't disagree with the premise that 3.x had enough player-facing information that a suitably-minded player had more ammunition for a rules argument with the DM. I don't think I ever saw it be a problem at any table I was at, but I'll be first to admit my experience was kinda limited there.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't disagree with the premise that 3.x had enough player-facing information that a suitably-minded player had more ammunition for a rules argument with the DM. I don't think I ever saw it be a problem at any table I was at, but I'll be first to admit my experience was kinda limited there.

I don't disagree with the premise that 3.x had enough player-facing information that a suitably-minded player had more ammunition for a rules argument with the DM. I don't think I ever saw it be a problem at any table I was at, but I'll be first to admit my experience was kinda limited there.

Eh, 'Rules Lawyer' became a term in gaming before AD&D finished hitting shelves. Certainly there were more places where one couldn't argue down to one irrefutable conclusion. That said, we are talking about what people did with these rules. When it comes to "only way" or "can't," I'm solidly unconvinced (quite possibly because I lived through both eras, and did not see it). Now, on Enworld, Wizards.com, and probably here did there arise a whole bunch of navel gazing over the rules and builds that relied on 'technically correct*' interpretations of mass confluence of rules text amongst the game book rules (bolstered by 'but it's RAW' as defense against critique that no DM would allow it). I don't know exactly what that shows or proves unless people went and took those builds to actual gametables, and DMs allowed them -- not because they thought it would be interesting to see in action, but because they felt powerless to object. And I have absolutely never seen any substantive evidence to the case that this took place.
*No judgement on whether specific instances were actually correct. I certainly saw plenty of people argue their case well past having been shown to be mistaken.

AFAICT, 3e gaming played out very much like AD&D gaming and BX gamin and oD&D gaming -- each group ran the game as best they could, making decisions about how closely to hew to the rulebook as they individually felt necessary, and neither total mass of situations rules-covered, nor specific guidance in the DMG about what powers the DM specifically had were in any way relevant.

[EggKookoo]

I don't disagree with the premise that 3.x had enough player-facing information that a suitably-minded player had more ammunition for a rules argument with the DM. I don't think I ever saw it be a problem at any table I was at, but I'll be first to admit my experience was kinda limited there.

Part of it might be because the 1e/2e rules were so convoluted that it was hard for most players to even know if the DM was making stuff up. I mean the entire time I played 1e, I had no real understanding of how the DM ever worked out if I hit something or not. Granted, I was mostly about 10 years old, but the DM was usually of the same age or only a bit older.

One "benefit" of 3e's more unified rules is that it made it easier to know if the DM deviated from something.

[Pex]

Are you talking about the "d20 System" or do you mean the way the 3e manuals presented the rules?

Because, as I've said above, the 3e DMG is shameless in how it promotes Rule Zero. Almost aggressively. The 5e DMG doesn't even come close to the level of the "tell the players they're lucky to be in your game and they should take what you give them and like it" mindset that 3e promoted. I know the cultural mythology often says otherwise, but go reread your 3e DMG.

If 3e had a locked-in-the-rules problem, it came from both the DM having the final say and having lists of examples that the DM could use to determine what that final statement was. Players looked at the examples and felt they were hard and fast rules that the DM was obliged to follow. At the same time, the DMG told the DM they were not obliged to follow those examples and that they didn't have to justify their decision to the players. That they didn't even have to let the players know what those decisions were (i.e. don't state a DC, just ask for a roll and tell the player if they passed or failed -- talk about "mother may I?"). It was like the manuals were written specifically to foster crunch arguments at the table.

Yet what I find interesting is that for one exception all the "tyrannical DMing" I experienced that helped informed my opinions of DMing today were all 2E DMs of way back when. Not all my 2E DMs were tyrannical, just saying all the DMs who were tyrannical was when I was playing 2E. All my years of playing 3E and Pathfinder not one DM was tyrannical. They had their house rules, Rule Zero campaign events, and were quite happy to use whatever DC number a table suggested for a skill, including the "DM's best friend" of using +2 or -2 as the situation warranted. That one exception of a tyrannical DM when I wasn't playing 2E? It was my first 5E game. I've long since learned I didn't have to put up with it, so of course I quit. I still remember that horrible thing he said. "I'm a DM who believes a player should never get what he wants." Fortunately I haven't met one since.

[EggKookoo]

Yet what I find interesting is that for one exception all the "tyrannical DMing" I experienced that helped informed my opinions of DMing today were all 2E DMs of way back when. Not all my 2E DMs were tyrannical, just saying all the DMs who were tyrannical was when I was playing 2E. All my years of playing 3E and Pathfinder not one DM was tyrannical. They had their house rules, Rule Zero campaign events, and were quite happy to use whatever DC number a table suggested for a skill, including the "DM's best friend" of using +2 or -2 as the situation warranted. That one exception of a tyrannical DM when I wasn't playing 2E? It was my first 5E game. I've long since learned I didn't have to put up with it, so of course I quit. I still remember that horrible thing he said. "I'm a DM who believes a player should never get what he wants." Fortunately I haven't met one since.

I think that just shows tyrannical DMing is not caused by the mechanics or by the books promoting Rule Zero or anything like that. Some people are just jerks.

[kyoryu]

I mean, there's lots of little triggers, which differ for individual players. Some are fine so long as they aren't playing "evil"; others are fine so long as they aren't playing "priests"; etc. Which is why I definitely stand in the side of, "rules can fix bad behaviors" rather than "bad players will always be bad".

I mean, maybe, sometimes, and I don't care.

Like, maybe some types of bad behavior can be curbed by appropriate rules.

But I think that that's not actually true for all behaviors, as I've had a number of experiences with players that just... are bad. No matter the system or the context (except maaaaaybe them running a game).

And I don't really care because I don't want to limit my gaming just to avoid people being jerks and doing things that have been made clear they shouldn't do.

[Quertus]

I mean, maybe, sometimes, and I don't care.

Like, maybe some types of bad behavior can be curbed by appropriate rules.

But I think that that's not actually true for all behaviors, as I've had a number of experiences with players that just... are bad. No matter the system or the context (except maaaaaybe them running a game).

And I don't really care because I don't want to limit my gaming just to avoid people being jerks and doing things that have been made clear they shouldn't do.

I mean, I don't want to wear clothes, just to avoid frostbite, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid strategy. :smalltongue:

Now, I might be getting too senile to remember, but I'm curious what your "bad players" were like, whether they trigger a "I knew that guy - he was fine so long as…".

And that's the thing: I game with friends (albeit sometimes of the "strangers are just friends you haven't met" variety). In that vein, I'm generally on the side of, "of course you should at least try something different, to see if you can't manage to have a fun game with your friends".

Still, making it clear that they shouldn't do something? That's, you know, a rule. And, sometimes, it's easier to say, "no pirates for you" than to spend years iterating through every unacceptable behavior that "being a pirate" brings out in that otherwise fine player.

And, at least my way, you don't have to worry about never looking at a "rapier" the same way ever again.

[Satinavian]

There are players who are bad at certain roles. But they usually know that and only try for a challange or to test boundaries. Those are not "bad players".

In my experience there are actually very few bad players. But as with team sports the argument that bad players have a hard time finding a team holds true in RPGs as well. Players who don't have groups and are looking for one tend to be more often bad than those who have no need to look.


Now, I might be getting too senile to remember, but I'm curious what your "bad players" were like, whether they trigger a "I knew that guy - he was fine so long asÂ…".I've had a couple of players who can't lose and always cheat. But as long as you don't want the game to be vhallanging, that is even tolerable. A more problematic example are players that actively draw happiness from making other players suffer by setting up the other characters for failures and then highlighting the results teasing the players. Not so much open PvP, more classical bullying. Then there are some players who are not happy with campaign premises/session 0 agreements but instead of bowing out or convincing people try to change/subvert it through ingame action against the expressed wishes of the rest of the group. I also had someone who came to sessions always completely drunk and acted accordingly.

I can't really remember a single player who was only ****ty in a certain role.

But i have had more problems with bad DMs than with bad players. That is where the most people who are only in it for power fantasies usually end up. Because if they are the DM, no one can veto their stuff and they can even execise control over the players.

[kyoryu]

I mean, I don't want to wear clothes, just to avoid frostbite, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid strategy. :smalltongue:

I hope you realize that's a really bad analogy, and that it was made tongue-in-cheek.


Now, I might be getting too senile to remember, but I'm curious what your "bad players" were like, whether they trigger a "I knew that guy - he was fine so long as…".

Most of them were just disruptive regardless of the game.


And that's the thing: I game with friends (albeit sometimes of the "strangers are just friends you haven't met" variety). In that vein, I'm generally on the side of, "of course you should at least try something different, to see if you can't manage to have a fun game with your friends".

And of course you should modulate what you do by your friends' preferences, within reason. And since I like to use movies as analogies (though also imperfect), if you have a friend that doesn't like horror movies, just don't go to horror movies when they're around, or tell them it's a horror movie so that they can politely bow out, and maybe go to fewer horror movies.

(which is different than having a friend say that they like horror movies and wants to go to them, and then insists on punching people in the middle of them).


Still, making it clear that they shouldn't do something? That's, you know, a rule.

I think you're stretching the definition of "rule" there a bit. "Rules", in the "don't solve bad players with rules" context, pretty much means mechanical, game rules. "Don't flip the table and throw dice" is a "rule". And, yes, I think telling people "don't flip tables and throw dice" is the appropriate solution.


And, sometimes, it's easier to say, "no pirates for you" than to spend years iterating through every unacceptable behavior that "being a pirate" brings out in that otherwise fine player.

I think if you have to enumerate every single condition you're dealing with someone that's going to be a problem, as they are clearly uninterested in understanding basic social contracts and seeking to test limits. And if they respond with "well, you didn't specifically exclude...." then doubly so.

And again, it's that combination of "unwilling to back off and accept limits" usually compounded with "can't accept things" that roots most poor player behavior.

Someone who is willing to deliberately push and cross social lines when they've been made clear is not a friend. Someone that constantly pushes the boundaries when it's been made the boundaries are causing distress is not a friend.

The other problem with this, of course, is that sometimes you want to play a pirate game and not doing so because of one jerkwad impacts the enjoyment of the group, and is letting one person's poor behavior control the entire group. Forget that.


And, at least my way, you don't have to worry about never looking at a "rapier" the same way ever again.

That gets "no, those jokes aren't funny. Knock it off" the first time. The second time is a boot. Some lines don't get crossed, or at least some lines should be understood as sensitive enough that once it's made clear you don't cross it, you don't cross it.

[Quertus]

I think if you have to enumerate every single condition you're dealing with someone that's going to be a problem, as they are clearly uninterested in understanding basic social contracts and seeking to test limits. And if they respond with "well, you didn't specifically exclude...." then doubly so.

And again, it's that combination of "unwilling to back off and accept limits" usually compounded with "can't accept things" that roots most poor player behavior.

Someone who is willing to deliberately push and cross social lines when they've been made clear is not a friend. Someone that constantly pushes the boundaries when it's been made the boundaries are causing distress is not a friend.

The other problem with this, of course, is that sometimes you want to play a pirate game and not doing so because of one jerkwad impacts the enjoyment of the group, and is letting one person's poor behavior control the entire group. Forget that.

The issue is, when the player is normally fine, their Necromancer was fine, their Paladin was fine, their Thief was fine, their kinder was hit with Balefire (like all kinder should be), their runaway princess was fine, their homicidal robot was fine… but, when they played a pirate, there were issues, because that's what playing a pirate meant to them.

They would need to fundamentally redefine what "being a pirate" means to them in order to be able to run an acceptable pirate.

I have seen this pattern repeated so many times, where certain archetypes were just completely ingrained with particular mindsets and behaviors, such that the by far easiest solution was to simply ban that individual from that archetype.

And, maybe, if we're playing a pirate game, they can play a plot-critical blacksmith or something - and perhaps, somewhere along the way, they'll learn the true meaning of Christmas… err… what *else* it might possibly mean to be a pirate.

[kyoryu]

The issue is, when the player is normally fine, their Necromancer was fine, their Paladin was fine, their Thief was fine, their kinder was hit with Balefire (like all kinder should be), their runaway princess was fine, their homicidal robot was fine… but, when they played a pirate, there were issues, because that's what playing a pirate meant to them.

They would need to fundamentally redefine what "being a pirate" means to them in order to be able to run an acceptable pirate.

Let's just call "unacceptable pirate behavior" as being "making rapier jokes". You brought it up. For the sake of time, can we also assume that it's actually more broad and less specific than that?

I'd rather have a conversation that says "no rapier jokes". Then if the player says "but pirates are ALL ABOUT rapier jokes!" then I trust that player to have the maturity to realize "well, then I shouldn't play a pirate" or to ask "well, then, what do you think a pirate is" or some other conversation.

Because I also probably don't want rapier jokes if he's playing a duellist.

If I tell someone "I don't want rapier jokes at my table", I expect them to follow that standard. Maybe they don't want to make rapier jokes when playing a knight, and that's fine. But, really, all I should need to say is "no rapier jokes", to make it clear that that's the actual behavior that's undesirable, and won't be tolerated under any circumstances.

I find that "well, I'm going to set up the scenario so that he's not tempted to make rapier jokes" to be a little infantilizing. Just saying "no rapier jokes" is enough. A player that will cross clear boundaries when they're spelled out is not somebody I want at my table. Period. I'm not going to just try to arrange the situation so that they're not tempted to cross the boundary.

And to be clear, you do you. But for me "if someone tells you to knock it off, and you don't, you can bugger off" is pretty much an ironclad social rule I have. I have zero desire to deal with someone that can't follow basic social courtesies.

[Quertus]

Let's just call "unacceptable pirate behavior" as being "making rapier jokes". You brought it up. For the sake of time, can we also assume that it's actually more broad and less specific than that?

I'd rather have a conversation that says "no rapier jokes". Then if the player says "but pirates are ALL ABOUT rapier jokes!" then I trust that player to have the maturity to realize "well, then I shouldn't play a pirate" or to ask "well, then, what do you think a pirate is" or some other conversation.

Because I also probably don't want rapier jokes if he's playing a duellist.

If I tell someone "I don't want rapier jokes at my table", I expect them to follow that standard. Maybe they don't want to make rapier jokes when playing a knight, and that's fine. But, really, all I should need to say is "no rapier jokes", to make it clear that that's the actual behavior that's undesirable, and won't be tolerated under any circumstances.

I find that "well, I'm going to set up the scenario so that he's not tempted to make rapier jokes" to be a little infantilizing. Just saying "no rapier jokes" is enough. A player that will cross clear boundaries when they're spelled out is not somebody I want at my table. Period. I'm not going to just try to arrange the situation so that they're not tempted to cross the boundary.

And to be clear, you do you. But for me "if someone tells you to knock it off, and you don't, you can bugger off" is pretty much an ironclad social rule I have. I have zero desire to deal with someone that can't follow basic social courtesies.

The problem - again, from my repeated experience - is a matter of imperfect information. Yes, it's more broad and less specific.

But.

All you've seen is the rapier jokes.

So, you follow your advice, and say, "don't do that". So they don't.

But then they do something else.

Yes, there are bad players.

But there are also good players who, when playing a particular archetype, are incompatible with a particular table.

Far too often, the latter are misidentified as the former.

My goal is to raise awareness of the distinction, and give people the tools to salvage games with good players.

Don't "throw the baby out with the bath water". And don't assume that when you said, "don't do X", that the player will realize you meant that to include Y, Z, and the whole of the Greek alphabet, too.

[kyoryu]

The problem - again, from my repeated experience - is a matter of imperfect information. Yes, it's more broad and less specific.

But.

All you've seen is the rapier jokes.

So, you follow your advice, and say, "don't do that". So they don't.

But then they do something else.

Is this an actual problem? Do you have people that you can't describe what you generally don't want, and they can't figure that out, and guess when they're on the boundary?

Like, if someone is putting heads on sticks and doing plays with them, you can say "dude. Knock it off. I don't want that kind of blatant psychopathic type behavior at the table". And if they then just randomly desecrate corpses in other ways, you're telling me they don't know that they're crossing lines? Or that if you just give them a "dude. We talked about this", they don't just back down?

To me, that just sounds like someone that gets off on pushing buttons and is always trying to push the envelope.

[Quertus]

Is this an actual problem? Do you have people that you can't describe what you generally don't want, and they can't figure that out, and guess when they're on the boundary?

Like, if someone is putting heads on sticks and doing plays with them, you can say "dude. Knock it off. I don't want that kind of blatant psychopathic type behavior at the table". And if they then just randomly desecrate corpses in other ways, you're telling me they don't know that they're crossing lines? Or that if you just give them a "dude. We talked about this", they don't just back down?

To me, that just sounds like someone that gets off on pushing buttons and is always trying to push the envelope.

When they honestly think that that's what it means to be a Pirate (or a Necromancer, or a Paladin, or a Princess)? When they've gotten positive feedback for their behavior at other tables (because not everyone's a prude who can't take rapier jokes, or heads on sticks)? When the GM has done a poor job communicating just what it is that they (do and don't) want (hint: GMs *thinking* that they've communicated something, when they really haven't, happens *all the time* in my groups over the past ~40 years)? When the player never once does anything like that when they're *not* running a pirate / ninja / zombie / robot / whatever?

Yes, it's a problem.

Also, you do realize that you've predicated your argument on people actually knowing what "psychopathic" means, and, worse, on *me* actually being able to have successfully communicated with other people? :smallbiggrin:

-----

Once upon a time, a GM told his dozen or so players to make characters who were poor. *I* understood what he meant, I got the subtext. But about half the group didn't. So about half the party was incompatible with the one and only plot hook - payment - that the GM had prepared.

People utterly fail at communication all the time. Just read my posts if you don't believe me. :smallfrown: