PDA

View Full Version : Two heads are worse than one?



Talakeal
2021-06-20, 08:06 AM
In a few of my recent help threads, I have noticed people saying that the GM has an unfair advantage over the players in that, being controlled by a single person, they never have communication issues and can act with greater synergy.

But are there not also advantages to having multiple people on a team? Multiple perspectives, more people to come up with ideas, and more chances to notice things?


Is this really so one sided? I personally think, like most things in life, its probably really complex and full of incomperables that more or less balance out in the end.


Does anyone have any thoughts on this or hard evidence one way or the other? For example, are there any other games that you have played where having more or fewer people on a side proves to be a definitive (dis)advantage?

kyoryu
2021-06-20, 09:29 AM
In a few of my recent help threads, I have noticed people saying that the GM has an unfair advantage over the players in that, being controlled by a single person, they never have communication issues and can act with greater synergy.

But are there not also advantages to having multiple people on a team? Multiple perspectives, more people to come up with ideas, and more chances to notice things?


Is this really so one sided? I personally think, like most things in life, its probably really complex and full of incomperables that more or less balance out in the end.


Does anyone have any thoughts on this or hard evidence one way or the other? For example, are there any other games that you have played where having more or fewer people on a side proves to be a definitive (dis)advantage?

In terms of coming up with solutions to a problem, absolutely, 100%. Having a number of different people can bring different experiences to the table and make solving some problems easier.

In terms of in-combat coordination? Nope.

Kraynic
2021-06-20, 09:44 AM
I think this will depend a lot on the style of play for a specific game/group.

In my experience, with a game that isn't too tightly stuck to some rails, there is always room for players to do something unexpected. It doesn't matter whether this is a single player or a dozen. This is why some people that give advice on games even recommend not coming up with solutions to problems the players run up against. Let the players come up with the ideas on what to do and just adjudicate success, failure, or a mixture of the 2 as the ideas fit the situation. Not only does this allow the player's ideas to truly impact the game, but it cuts down on the workload for the person running the game.

In the end, it doesn't matter if the person running the game is the most widely read, most imaginative person in the group with the most diverse set of real life experiences. While people in the same household may be similar, each player will bring some other perspective to a game, from literature, movies, real life interests, etc. The person running the game may have a better idea of what is going on in the background (although this is debatable depending on style of game), the players will still bring a different perspective to the events happening in the game. Then the only question is whether the person running the game allows those different perspectives to matter.

Silly Name
2021-06-20, 09:58 AM
The "problem" is that, in a typical tabletop RPG like D&D, the GM has perfect knowledge of the game world and its people. Meanwhile, the players' knowledge is imperfect, lacking, or may be distorted by communication issues. In real life, a group of people examining a room has better chances of finding a hidden object than a lone searcher; but in a tabletop game, the GM describes a room and then the players try to visualise it and describe how they search around the room.

Not only the GM and the players are likely to visualise the room in slightly different ways, each player's mental image of the room is going to be unique, and it's not hard for some details to get garbled up, or to simply go unstated because the DM erroneously thinks them obvious.

Imagine your GM describes the party entering the study of a politician, and among other things he describes the furniture. Once the GM is done, you may have questions like those: "Is the bookshelf on the north or south wall? Does it cover the wall fully, or just part of it? Wait, was the desk oaken and the armoire birch, or viceversa? Does it even matter? Was that a clue?"

Some may be things you misheard, some may be things the GM didn't say. It doesn't matter, what matters is that there's a discrepancy in information between two parties.

A classical, if humorous, example is the tale of the Dread Gazebo: a player doesn't understand properly what the DM is communicating and acts in a way that's frankly silly. In combat this may be particularly harmful for two reasons, the first being screeching the game to an halt over arguments about what the battlefield looks like, and the other being that a misunderstanding of the field's conditions and structure may prove detrimental. The GM never misunderstands what the battlefield looks like, because the GM creates the battlefield in the first place.

Now, this is not necessarily an universal truth: there are many games that grant players more narrative control and explicit permission to add details to a scene - do you want to swing from a chandelier but the GM mentioned none? If it fits the room, you can just say there is a chandelier from which you can swing.

This definitely ameliorates the problem of information asymmetry, and I've found I enjoy it quite a lot, both as GM and player.

Talakeal
2021-06-20, 10:07 AM
A classical, if humorous, example is the tale of the Dread Gazebo: a player doesn't understand properly what the DM is communicating and acts in a way that's frankly silly. In combat this may be particularly harmful for two reasons, the first being screeching the game to an halt over arguments about what the battlefield looks like, and the other being that a misunderstanding of the field's conditions and structure may prove detrimental. The GM never misunderstands what the battlefield looks like, because the GM creates the battlefield in the first place.

The dread gazebo is actually a classic example of when the party is at an advantage; if one of his fellow players had been polite enough to actually explain to Eric what a gazebo was, the whole thing would have been averted.

Silly Name
2021-06-20, 10:19 AM
The dread gazebo is actually a classic example of when the party is at an advantage; if one of his fellow players had been polite enough to actually explain to Eric what a gazebo was, the whole thing would have been averted.

Point taken, but the problem at the core of the situation was information asymmetry between Eric and the DM: if Eric saw the gazebo in real life, he may have not known how to call it, but could easily tell it wasn't a monster. Instead he visualised something different from what the DM meant. This never happens to the GM, because the GM can't misunderstand themselves.

(But, yes, the story of Eric and the Gazebo is an humorous one and not a serious indictment of its participants or game system)

Talakeal
2021-06-20, 10:24 AM
Point taken, but the problem at the core of the situation was information asymmetry between Eric and the DM: if Eric saw the gazebo in real life, he may have not known how to call it, but could easily tell it wasn't a monster. Instead he visualised something different from what the DM meant. This never happens to the GM, because the GM can't misunderstand themselves.

(But, yes, the story of Eric and the Gazebo is an humorous one and not a serious indictment of its participants or game system)

Agreed. But I am not really talking about whether information asymmetry exists, but rather whether multiple players make it better or worse.

Pex
2021-06-20, 10:48 AM
It's different, not better or worse. However, my take is because all the bad guys work together at the speed of DM thought, players need to be able to talk to each other for tactics. There is a point to not wanting the game to drag on where players are discussing strategy in the middle of combat for 15 real world minutes before someone takes their turn. That is an extreme, and I agree shouldn't happen. However, at the other extreme I'm against DMs denying any 'table talk' at all. Bob telling Frank to do something because it synergizes well with what Bob can do next or even what Alice can do next should be and is fine. Also fine, but to a point, is Frank saying he wants to do something but Bob suggests Frank do something else. That's a fine line because it is Frank's character and Bob should not be playing it. The onus is on Bob to do it sparingly when it Honest True would make a significant difference. Sometimes but should never be too often nor all the time, Frank may ask Bob or the party for advice on what to do.

Time Troll
2021-06-20, 12:27 PM
It's complex and balance out.

By default most DMs are intelligent, knowledgeable, have setting and rule mastery, and are fully engaged, immersed and focused on the Game. In a general sense, all of this is needed to DM and average game.

Players,on the the hand are a mixed bag, sometimes. A typical four person group of players are likely:

1.The engaged, immersed focus player that is playing the game 100% (quite often they are the one that says dozens of times "come on guys can we get back to the game?" when the goofing off starts.

2.The sort of half focused player that sort of half pays attention sometimes, but mostly just dirts along or just follows player one.

3The player is just there, as he does not want to be at home and has nowhere else to go. they don't pay attention much and can be sure that even after years of playing a game will ask "how do i roll to attack?"

4.The distracted player. Chances are they are on their phone all the time. they "play the game" only for a couple minutes each hour or so.

The above such group will never act like a single function unit.....at best they will just do whatever player one picks to do.

Often too many players don't really want to make any decisions or take much of any actions. If asked they will simply say they "don't know" or "don't care", or they might pick something at random.....or maybe worst of all might just always pick the combat option.


The DM does have the immersed focus that the whole game world reality does as they want. For example all the goblin bandits want rob travelers on the road and use group tactics and teamwork to do it.

This does however also have a huge down side as things the DM likes fill the world and things the DM does not like don't exist. If the DM does not like traps or poison, the Pcs will never encounter that. If the DM does not like to look up skills, feats, spells or magic items....then most foes will have the default core ones that are easy to remember. If the DM does not like ambushes, they will never happen. If the Dm does not like save or die or save or suck spells, they will never be cast by any npc in the game. If the DM does not like long combats, most of the foes will simply be easy targets for the PCs to take out quickly.

A group of players at least has a small chance that each person might have a different view point on any one thing. So even if three players hate ranged attacks and make all melee characters....that fourth player might well make an archer character. Then in the game when there are some ranged foes, the archer character can say "I got this".

And quite often a group of four players might not be much of a group, and instead be more like four Lone Wolves. But, there is at least a small chance that sometimes the players might all work together as a real team.

The DM though, is likely to never change. A DM that dislikes and does not use traps in their game won't suddenly and randomly put a trap filled dungeon in their game. The same way if the DM does not like using combat tactics, then the DM will never have intelligent tactical foes fight the PCs.

When the DM describes something in the game, with four players, there is at least a chance that one of the four players will understand or "get it", whatever it is. The group gets four chances to figure out a riddle or solve a mystery.

The DM though, only gets one chance. If a PC pulls a trick, the DM and every NPC in the whole game world, only get the one chance to figure it out. If the PCs can confuse or distract the DM, they confuse or distract the whole game world.

So complex and balances out.

YoungestGruff
2021-06-23, 08:23 PM
As far as this one specific example of player asymmetry goes: When brainstorming, two heads are better than one. When executing, one head is better than two.

MoiMagnus
2021-06-24, 04:40 AM
A team of PCs rarely use optimal coordination. Optimal play would probably be something alike (for the sake of the example I'm not saying this particular structure would be optimal)
1) One player is the leader, that take all the decision and effectively play all the PCs.
2) One player is the "monster expert", that collects all available information about the enemies, their weakness, and their expected playstyle, and feeds to the leader the most relevant.
3&4) Two players handle together all the available resources and actions of the characters (spell list), and offer suggestions of tactics and as well as ensuring resources are not disproportionately consumed during each encounters.
5) One player is scanning the tactical map and interacting with the GM to obtain as much information as possible, and try to come with creative use of skills or of the environment.

In general, a team of PCs will be much less coordinated that what it could be, as players focus on playing they character and respect the agency of their teammate. And it's probably better that way, you play a RPG to play a character, not to be an agency-less cog in a perfectly organised command chain.

But the same can be said of the GM. While in theory, the GM could coordinate all its monster, he might not. For the sake of pacing, he might play his monsters one by one without any greater tactics in mind. He might consider individuals monsters are resources to be sacrificed for victory, or might give them some survival instinct and deliberately sabotage their coordination.

So while two heads is better than one in theory, it's much less certain in practice.

Pauly
2021-06-24, 07:39 PM
In tactical combat the GM has the advantage because of co-ordination. This is why many DMs have the monsters adopt a random or semi-random targeting process.

Problem solving is generally where 2 heads are better than 1 is in the party’s favor. Player A might come up with half the solution, player B the other half and Shazam! problem solved far quicker than they could have as individuals.
The exception to this is where the DM presents a problem with “one true solution” and rejects any solution that doesn’t fit the pre-plotted narrative. The players can often waste time on plausible solutions that the DM will ultimately reject.