Improving fellow players.

[Prince Zahn]

I'm not sure whether or not there's already a thread about this, but this is a problem I've been trying to solve for a while now...

Around 8 months ago, my DM rounded up a few friends to D&D for the first time, I was one of them along with another friend of mine, we've been playing a few campaigns of his, and the DM has added a few new players.
and I took the responsibility of teaching the players how it works.

until now we have been doing funny, silly carefree playing and fighting, but we are finally getting ready to start being serious about the game, rather than spending half the session yelling jokes about a natural 20 on a skill check, or attacking with toothpicks when you have a longsword handy.
now, we are about 7 players and a DM, and we are... pretty disfunctional, and me and my friend are planning to turn this around.
these are our players:
Warforged fighter: he is strong, he only sticks around to for fighting and destruction,but he plays characters that have a fair +2 Int/Wis that barely think.
in fact, at times when he does show some brain, it is heavily out of character. how do I get him to play in character while using his head, and get him to think of a better strategy than "Charge and axe-attack"?
Half-Elf Bard: He's less of a problem, he plays well, but he is very emotional, oftentimes to a point where he refuses to play. How can I prevent that?
Elf Wizard: who somehow got the idea that wizards are one-trick-ponies whose sole purpose is to dish-out damage. yet he is almost completely unaware of his spell list. what can I do about that?
Half-Orc Barbarian: not brilliant, not dumb either, but he constantly thinks out-of-character, he sees the game in the same manner one watches a sitcom, cheap drama, or rerun. and does not contribute much to the game(and I'm not talking dice-wise, he's fine about that).
Homebrew-style spellcaster guy: he tries to be funny, silly, and his actions are purposely foolish. he often does not take things seriously(other than seriously wrong). How do I deal with this guy?
Goliath Barbarian: Plays well. a little nutty, but no complaints.
Halfling Ranger: Me, hasn't truly played yet. still working on character.
DM: has only sooooo much patience, wants a serious campaign but doesn't know what to do about it, he doesn't use the backstories that some of us make, and occasionally he starts over completely half-way through the storyline. otherwise no complaints. I try hard to help the DM as a friend and game organizer, and I don't think directly complaining to him is a decent solution.

Now even though I'm not the DM, I need suggestions on how to do change this group - of which cracking jokes, performing stupidity, and charging foolishly to battle are all primary urges - to a party that can function adequately and seriously, to make our DM's job easier, and, ideally, make it a better game for all of us.

all suggestions are welcome and thanked for in advance.

[Savannah]

Step 1: Talk to the players.
If you do anything without talking to them, they're going to be (quite rightfully) annoyed, as you've been happily playing silly games up until now and they have no idea that you want to change. I've found that the majority of players are happy to work with you on things like this. However, some players don't want a serious game, and trying to force them into one never ends well, so that's something to keep in mind.

[Prince Zahn]

that is true, but only 3 of us are proven dedicated to the game, some of them think of it as "the most non-boring thing I can do at 13:30 on wednsdays", while others think of it as a game(which I'm fine with, since it IS one...)
so, how do I reach to the ones that are less into it than the 3 experienced players?

[Savannah]

"Hey, guys, we want to try a more serious game. That means we want to [do stuff differently]. You interested?"

And by [do stuff differently], I mean you should explain fairly specifically what the difference will be. If they're not into the game, they may not be interested, which gives you three choices: 1) continue the silly game, 2) play the serious game and they'll continue to be silly, or 3) play the serious game without them.

[Ursus the Grim]

that is true, but only 3 of us are proven dedicated to the game, some of them think of it as "the most non-boring thing I can do at 13:30 on wednsdays", while others think of it as a game(which I'm fine with, since it IS one...)
so, how do I reach to the ones that are less into it than the 3 experienced players?

I've got to say, I'm in a similar boat. One guy is purposefully antagonistic to the other players, but he's the boyfriend of one of the hosts. Another player drags out pointless, inane interactions that get the party nowhere, then gets angry when we try to move on. The group as a whole takes forever to get ready to play, and we've got a limited time slot.

It can be difficult to say something, can't it? Don't want anyone getting offended, don't want to cause drama in our little group, ne?

My current strategy is to avoid encouraging the behavior we want to stop. Particularly, not dragging jokes out, not laughing or even paying attention to inappropriate comments, and not collectively flaying the more defensive players. Its met with limited success.

[Savannah]

My current strategy is to avoid encouraging the behavior we want to stop. Particularly, not dragging jokes out, not laughing or even paying attention to inappropriate comments, and not collectively flaying the more defensive players. Its met with limited success.

Yeah, that's pretty much the only real way to change other people's behavior: don't reward (ie don't give social attention to) the behavior you don't want and do reward that which you do. Works best if everyone does it, though....

[Widdlyscuds]

Hey thanks to anyone who posted so far , guy number two here A.K.A the nutty Goliath barbarian , ignoring them wont do much for us they'll simply leave the group if it bores them and we lose potential team mates , the main idea is to improve in a way to get them in the game not to deter them from it , thanks for any advice anyway!

[Ursus the Grim]

Hey thanks to anyone who posted so far , guy number two here A.K.A the nutty Goliath barbarian , ignoring them wont do much for us they'll simply leave the group if it bores them and we lose potential team mates , the main idea is to improve in a way to get them in the game not to deter them from it , thanks for any advice anyway!

Then I guess Savannah's advice that talking to them is the better given so far. I can't imagine that they wouldn't be offended though, if they're the kind of people who'd leave a game because other players aren't laughing at stupid jokes.

*shrug*

Looks like its just a conflict of personalities from where I'm sitting. Which, admittedly, is not a vantage point where I can see much other than my laptop, a pool table, a few tennis tables, a piano. . . .

[Savannah]

I'm not saying ignore ignore, but when they make a nutty joke, you just smile slightly and move on with the game, but when the do something in character, you acknowledge that and try to make sure it succeeds or is at least entertaining. It's not an ideal situation, and I'd only it if they absolutely had to be in the game and talking to them hadn't worked. Always start with talking; they may surprise you.

[Prince Zahn]

Looks like its just a conflict of personalities from where I'm sitting. Which, admittedly, is not a vantage point where I can see much other than my laptop, a pool table, a few tennis tables, a piano. . . .

maybe so, but generally seems fixable from a closer view, just gotta find out how.

It's not an ideal situation, and I'd only it if they absolutely had to be in the game and talking to them hadn't worked. Always start with talking; they may surprise you.

a problem with addressing all of them like that is we can't afford to lose players that can potentially play well(not to mention a raging DM, Should we end up causing people to quit),so, I don't think one solution will tickle everyone's fancy.

If we can find a way to encourage a consensus of player contribution and improvement without DM tools or involvement(but consent of course), then we got exactly what we need,which is also exactly what we're missing at this point.

thank you all so far...

[Savannah]

You could try sitting down with everyone (which probably should include the DM so it doesn't appear to the players that it's just some random thing by the other players) and say something along the lines of "It's been fun playing a silly game, but we'd like to try a serious game for a change of pace. Would you be willing to try?" Then listen to what they have to say. If they're not willing to try, you're not going to be able to find a solution you like, quite frankly.

[Kylarra]

If there was an easy generic way to improve high-strung and easily bored players from varying backgrounds with varying interests, we'd all be sitting in perfect groups.

Talking to them about your problems is the best bet. If you think talking to them about the playstyle brings a risk of losing players and you're not willing to risk that, well, then they've effectively got your game hostage and can do whatever they want.

[kyoryu]

The thread should be titled "How do I get other players to play the way I want them to?"



Instead of changing the way the group is playing (which the vast majority of players seems to be enjoying), start a second game with ground rules about how serious the game is going to be. And enforce them.

[Prince Zahn]

@Savannah - That seems like a good idea...

If there was an easy generic way to improve high-strung and easily bored players from varying backgrounds with varying interests, we'd all be sitting in perfect groups.

Talking to them about your problems is the best bet. If you think talking to them about the playstyle brings a risk of losing players and you're not willing to risk that, well, then they've effectively got your game hostage and can do whatever they want.

both of you, 100% correct, we can't force them to play a serious game (unfortunately), and apparently our best option is to ask " Serious Game - In, or Out?" so we'll try that. hopefully for better results.

Instead of changing the way the group is playing (which the vast majority of players seems to be enjoying), start a second game with ground rules about how serious the game is going to be. And enforce them.

That's almost exactly what we're trying to do with the "Serious game", start over serious using a new campaign and using this fresh start to get them to stop acting silly.

Thanks all.

[Kylarra]

The thread should be titled "How do I get other players to play the way I want them to?"

Well that part is easy.

Mindrape.

[DabblerWizard]

By talking to the players, you're definitely taking the best first step.

Your choices seem to be: (1) Keep the game silly and light-hearted, or (2) Work on playing a more serious game.

If you stick with option 1, you risk the DM losing interest, or worse, having them go on a power trip to try and force change in the players directly or indirectly.

If you go with option 2, you run the risk of losing some players.

As they said in The Legends of the Hidden Temple (gosh, that dates me): The choice is yours, and yours alone!

[slaydemons]

Elf Wizard: who somehow got the idea that wizards are one-trick-ponies whose sole purpose is to dish-out damage. yet he is almost completely unaware of his spell list. what can I do about that?

are you in my group? no but seriously the advice I got when asking how to deal with problem characters like this one was pretty much appeal to his sense of reason "grease causes your rogue to do an extra 1d6 damage and more at higher levels other then one." that is what someone said don't know who right at this moment

[Jornophelanthas]

Here's my advice.

Talk to the entire group about playing a more serious game. If you believe the DM to want the same thing, discuss it with the DM first and let him/her do the talking. (After all, the DM is sort of a natural chairperson to the group.)

- If everyone's okay with it, play the serious game.
- If a few people want to keep it silly (but not the DM), consider playing the serious game without them.
- If a few people want to keep it silly (including the DM), either play the silly game, or play the serious game with a new DM.
- If half or more of the players don't want a serious game, play the silly game.

If the silly game continues, you could consider starting a serious game in a different time slot with the people who actually want a serious game. You don't need all eight players for that. If you don't have a DM, decide on someone to be DM.
Also, if you're not enjoying the silly game, you could consider quitting the game, especially if a serious game is starting up in a different time slot.

As a final comment, a gaming group of eight people is rather large, and difficult to manage for a single DM, especially an inexperienced one. Players can get bored if they have to wait too long between their turns. Perhaps splitting up the group would be a good thing anyway, especially if not all players have the same expectations.

[Widdlyscuds]

Here's my advice.

Talk to the entire group about playing a more serious game. If you believe the DM to want the same thing, discuss it with the DM first and let him/her do the talking. (After all, the DM is sort of a natural chairperson to the group.)

- If everyone's okay with it, play the serious game.
- If a few people want to keep it silly (but not the DM), consider playing the serious game without them.
- If a few people want to keep it silly (including the DM), either play the silly game, or play the serious game with a new DM.
- If half or more of the players don't want a serious game, play the silly game.

If the silly game continues, you could consider starting a serious game in a different time slot with the people who actually want a serious game. You don't need all eight players for that. If you don't have a DM, decide on someone to be DM.
Also, if you're not enjoying the silly game, you could consider quitting the game, especially if a serious game is starting up in a different time slot.

As a final comment, a gaming group of eight people is rather large, and difficult to manage for a single DM, especially an inexperienced one. Players can get bored if they have to wait too long between their turns. Perhaps splitting up the group would be a good thing anyway, especially if not all players have the same expectations.

As much as we would love to use your suggestions it would be too difficult to find a new timeslot as we only have 2 days a week which are consistent , the removal of players is always an option but its best to avoid it for now , they're new players and we don't want to deter them from the game.

[Jornophelanthas]

If you meet weekly, you could use the same timeslot for two campaigns running on alternate weeks. It's what my gaming group did when incompatibilities between players emerged.

[Widdlyscuds]

If you meet weekly, you could use the same timeslot for two campaigns running on alternate weeks. It's what my gaming group did when incompatibilities between players emerged.

interesting , so what you propose is that we do a week silly and a week serious? , now that idea might just fit but it can risk the game flow , regardless a good advice we will take into consideration , thanks!

[Telonius]

I'd have them bump against a mirror group.

Half-Orc Fighter
Changeling Beguiler
Human Wizard
Gnome Sorcerer/Arcane Trickster (Rod of Wonder optional)
Hobgoblin Barbarian
Kobold Scout

The other group isn't necessarily evil, just a bunch of jerks at 2 or 3 levels above the party. They're the competition. Bar fight ensues where the party proceeds to get their butts handed to them (with nonlethal damage). Build the foes well enough, and the DM will have demonstrated what's possible for the players to achieve. The players then resolve to have better tactics, and meet the other party later on, equal levels this time.

[Widdlyscuds]

That's..................................PERFECT , I feel shame not thinking of such a diabolical scheme earlier. , thanks for a VERY useful idea!

[Bang!]

until now we have been doing funny, silly carefree playing and fighting, but we are finally getting ready to start being serious about the game, rather than spending half the session yelling jokes about a natural 20 on a skill check, or attacking with toothpicks when you have a longsword handy.
now, we are about 7 players and a DM, and we are... pretty disfunctional, and me and my friend are planning to turn this around.

Out of curiosity, who is the "we" here? Is it all seven players or just the three you say are "proven dedicated to the game"?

Three is a pretty ideal party size for a more serious game. Seven is hard, even if everybody wants to do straight-faced RP. I'd support starting a second, serious game without telling your buddies to stop having fun in the one they're in. And don't be exclusive, just be upfront about how you want the other game to work.

[Sipex]

I'll have to echo the 'second campaign' idea. Campaigns are part game and part story and people naturally like both to remain somewhat consistant all the way through. If you're playing light hearted now then the current campaign should stay that way while the second campaign can try the more serious route.

[Prince Zahn]

"We" refers to the group, we are getting ready to start the campaign, widdly and I(and partially the DM) want to use this oppurtunity to get everyone serious...

@Telonius - That's a good Idea, We'll see if our DM can pull that off.
whether it will be a learning experience for them or not is a different story.

@Jorn - your advice sounds well, and you've covered the main scenarios, though I agree with everything Widdly said on the matter.

As a final comment, a gaming group of eight people is rather large, and difficult to manage for a single DM, especially an inexperienced one. Players can get bored if they have to wait too long between their turns. Perhaps splitting up the group would be a good thing anyway, especially if not all players have the same expectations.

I agree, I'm sure our session could devise a schedule compromise.

EDIT: a second campaign will be hard to pull off, but it's a good idea to try, no doubt about that.

[Tyndmyr]

The other group isn't necessarily evil, just a bunch of jerks at 2 or 3 levels above the party. ...Build the foes well enough, and the DM will have demonstrated what's possible for the players to achieve. The players then resolve to have better tactics, and meet the other party later on, equal levels this time.

Demonstrate tactics, not levels. Getting your butt kicked by a mirror party several levels higher than me teaches nothing about tactics. It merely teaches me that my DM can't design encounters at all.

If tactics are actually better, they work better at the same level.

[Telonius]

Demonstrate tactics, not levels. Getting your butt kicked by a mirror party several levels higher than me teaches nothing about tactics. It merely teaches me that my DM can't design encounters at all.

If tactics are actually better, they work better at the same level.

Agree on the importance of demonstrating tactics, disagree on the level issue. Many times beginning players will fall into bad character-building traps without realizing it. Getting your butts kicked by somebody of your own level (for beginning players) says, "Well, this is what you could have done if you'd picked your feats/spells/etc. better. Too bad you didn't." That can be really disheartening. Putting the other guys at higher level can give a bit of consolation to the players; they know it would have been really hard to win.

The players also some idea of what direction they can take the character, starting now. If the player says, "Whoah, how did he do that?" DM can say, "Well, he has the Leap Attack feat. You'd actually qualify for that next chance you get; you can take it if you like." Or, "That was the Grease spell. If your Wizard wants to do something similar, you can research it." Melee gets a bit more hosed in this sense, since feat choice is a little harder to fix; but retraining is always an option if they've already made a bunch of stupid choices.