Explaining gaming manners to newbies?

[WarKitty]

So I have an issue. I have 4 players for an upcoming game, all good friends. 3 of the players play very deliberately, want to play good characters, and generally prefer to take their time and interact with everything. This is the kind of game I prefer to DM and my world is set up to encourage this.

My 4th player's idea of D&D is basically "I want to kill as much stuff as possible as quickly and with as much fire as possible." It's clear to me that he's not going to mesh well with the rest of the group. I've been trying to politely lay down some strictures for the game - no evil, no randomly killing NPC's for no reason, etc.

The trouble is he just doesn't seem to get anything other than "I'm being mean and not letting him play what he wants." I don't seem to be able to get across why I have the rules I do. Best I can tell, he sees D&D as a giant video game. And of course, he's my roommate and we play at our house.

[huttj509]

"It's not 1 on 1. There's 3 other PCs there, and people need to be on the same page as to expectations, otherwise there's going to be a clash at table-time."

[Rallicus]

Well, his statement isn't entirely untrue, save for the being mean part.

A good DM would allow it and let IC consequences take effect. Yes there will be clashes and yes, it might cause a shift from the generic "let's all be friends and have petty arguments pertaining to morality occasionally" PC group, but sometimes that creates the most memorable sessions.

If the three other players can be mature and work with the fourth player, then let him do what he wants. If he's evil and steps out of line, though, remind him that all actions have consequences. This might add more incentive to player four, because he'll be inadvertently roleplaying to avoid repercussions of his actions, rather than just going out slashing things to death.

My best, most memorable campaign involved a friend playing Krillen from DBZ with Super Saiyan hair, which I was originally opposed to. Just saying.

[snoopy13a]

He has a simple choice: (1) Play nice as 4 out of the 5 people want to play nice or (2) Do something else. Quite frankly, you're aren't obligated to accomodate his wishes. Make him welcome but affirm that he must play within the group's playstyle or not at all.

[WarKitty]

Well, his statement isn't entirely untrue, save for the being mean part.

A good DM would allow it and let IC consequences take effect. Yes there will be clashes and yes, it might cause a shift from the generic "let's all be friends and have petty arguments pertaining to morality occasionally" PC group, but sometimes that creates the most memorable sessions.

If the three other players can be mature and work with the fourth player, then let him do what he wants. If he's evil and steps out of line, though, remind him that all actions have consequences. This might add more incentive to player four, because he'll be inadvertently roleplaying to avoid repercussions of his actions, rather than just going out slashing things to death.

My best, most memorable campaign involved a friend playing Krillen from DBZ with Super Saiyan hair, which I was originally opposed to. Just saying.

Eh, I've been in groups with that type of player before, and ended up quitting the game. It just wasn't any fun - I felt like all the focus was on the one loud character that wanted to kill stuff, and I couldn't do any of the things I enjoyed because he'd stomp in and ruin anything I tried to do.

He has a simple choice: (1) Play nice as 4 out of the 5 people want to play nice or (2) Do something else. Quite frankly, you're aren't obligated to accomodate his wishes. Make him welcome but affirm that he must play within the group's playstyle or not at all.

I don't think he really gets the concept of a playstyle....my impression is that the issue is more he doesn't understand that D&D is different from a video game. The whole point of the game to him is to kill things and get more XP and loot so you can become more powerful. I'm not really sure he gets the idea of roleplaying at all.

[zorenathres]

if your player still insists to play it "his way", then how about showing him what happens when people push/ bash everyone else around? they get arrested, held in prison, & hopefully, given a mark of justice (hehe, Belkar) if they can't keep their hands to themselves.

its probably a bad idea, but considering your options (likely, you dont want to kick him out of the game since he lives with you), if you cant convince him that his actions have consequences, then show him what happens to people who cant play by societies rules.

no one should try to force this guy to play a goodie-two-shoes, but i guess its too much to ask that he shows a little self control when dealing with other people? (especially in a social setting).

[Zerter]

Like has been mentioned, just deal with it in-game. It is not allowed in real life to be a raging psychopath, you have to 'play the game' so to speak to do so effectively (think Dexter or a banker). He kills/tries to kill a random NPC? 100+ ways to get him in a world of trouble if not kill him outright. Make sure the rest of the party understands they are not under any obligation to aid him in his playstyle or to include him in the group.

[Togath]

he doesn't sound too bad, he just has a different playstyle, I'm sure if the op works on it, he could make the game enjoyable for the entire group, as long as the guy isn't killing quest givers before the pcs get the quests things could end up alright.

[kamikasei]

You've identified where you think the problem lies, but the things you mention actually doing/saying about it seem kind of... tangential. What, besides "don't do this, that and the other" have you said to him?

I'm wondering whether he may be amenable to having the issue explained properly or whether he's already shrugged off such an explanation.

[WarKitty]

What's been said so far is something to the effect of "no evil characters and no killing random NPC's for no reason." I haven't been able to communicate the kind of playstyle I'm looking for - it just doesn't seem to come across. I just don't feel like he's creating a realistic character, or even sees the point in building one.

The trouble with letting him have his playstyle is I think it would dominate the game. I'm worried that I'd end up constantly battling with the player over how the game world works, especially if the way I build the world doesn't fit with the way he wants to play.

[Autolykos]

A good DM would allow it and let IC consequences take effect.

Normally, that would be the best option. But in this case, it's asking for trouble. If he doesn't agree about the game's premises, punishing him ingame will look even more like you being intentionally mean to him.
I'd still rather allow him to play a Belkar, tbh. You just need to make it perfectly clear that:

a) NPCs won't just let him get away with being blatantly evil.
b) There's always a bigger fish.

If you can agree on these points, it might work. Otherwise, there's not much hope of successfully playing together.

[Zorg]

Maybe rather than trying to handle it midgame deal with it in writing inbetween?

When I started my Rogue Trader game I made a primer for everyone outlining what would be the goals and rough style of the game.
It's a bit late for that but something similar, in regards to character backgrounds and whatnot might help - send them here and ask them to get the answers back to you for instance.

Otherwise try getting another player to talk to him so it doesn't seem like it's always just you on his case.

[WarKitty]

Maybe rather than trying to handle it midgame deal with it in writing inbetween?

When I started my Rogue Trader game I made a primer for everyone outlining what would be the goals and rough style of the game.
It's a bit late for that but something similar, in regards to character backgrounds and whatnot might help - send them here and ask them to get the answers back to you for instance.

Otherwise try getting another player to talk to him so it doesn't seem like it's always just you on his case.

This is pre-game, not mid-game. The trouble I'm having is a player who looks at the stuff I send and says "But how is this related to the game? I just want to kill stuff, not fill out boring sheets. I don't understand why this is important."

[Zorg]

Apologies, missed 'upcoming' in your OP.

In that case I'd just be blunt and say

"this information is relavent to me as GM as the core focus of the game will not be combat, but developing interesting characters and exploring a detailed world. I need to know [stuff] so I can plan to integrate your character's [stuff] better into the world and make them a part of it.
If you do not supply this information, I will be unable to properly plan for your character and there will, unfortunately, be less for you as a player to do."

or something similar.
One of my players gave me almost zero character background by the due date, so I was open and said if he didn't quickly he'd get less side quests and such. He still hasn't got anything to me after six months so hasn't had and character focussed adventures as I don't have any hooks to plan for. The player hasn't complained, but if he did I'd be straight and tell him why it is so.

Has this guy played D&D before? If he hasn't maybe try to dig up some transcripts of an RPG session to show him (I wouldn't reccomend a video as they all tend to be really awkward or overdone IMO). I know the old MERPS book had one in the opening chapter, so others might be around.

[WarKitty]

Apologies, missed 'upcoming' in your OP.

In that case I'd just be blunt and say

"this information is relavent to me as GM as the core focus of the game will not be combat, but developing interesting characters and exploring a detailed world. I need to know [stuff] so I can plan to integrate your character's [stuff] better into the world and make them a part of it.
If you do not supply this information, I will be unable to properly plan for your character and there will, unfortunately, be less for you as a player to do."

or something similar.
One of my players gave me almost zero character background by the due date, so I was open and said if he didn't quickly he'd get less side quests and such. He still hasn't got anything to me after six months so hasn't had and character focussed adventures as I don't have any hooks to plan for. The player hasn't complained, but if he did I'd be straight and tell him why it is so.

Has this guy played D&D before? If he hasn't maybe try to dig up some transcripts of an RPG session to show him (I wouldn't reccomend a video as they all tend to be really awkward or overdone IMO). I know the old MERPS book had one in the opening chapter, so others might be around.

He has not played any pen-and-paper games before. I think I'm dealing with a bad case of video gamer syndrome - the world exists primarily to provide the player with things to kill for loot and XP.

[Fatebreaker]

The real question you need to ask yourself is whether (and how much) you're willing to accommodate your friend, or whether you just want him to play like everyone else. If there is no middle ground here for compromise, then you're better off telling your buddy, "Hey, sorry, you want to play in a way that we don't, so it's best all around if you don't play."

So, are you willing to compromise? How much? In what ways?

[Kish]

My advice is:

1) Don't "deal with it IC." It's not an IC problem, it's an OOC one.
2) If you cannot, somehow, communicate to him that D&D is playing a character in a fantasy world rather than playing a loot-gathering avatar, then you should not try to play with him as it won't be any fun. Don't try to deceive him, just tell him...

Actually, based on what you've told me, I'm not sure what you can tell him because I'm not sure what he's capable of understanding. If he's your good friend, presumably he doesn't go through life in blow-it-up mode.

[WarKitty]

The real question you need to ask yourself is whether (and how much) you're willing to accommodate your friend, or whether you just want him to play like everyone else. If there is no middle ground here for compromise, then you're better off telling your buddy, "Hey, sorry, you want to play in a way that we don't, so it's best all around if you don't play."

So, are you willing to compromise? How much? In what ways?

That was kind of the point. I don't think a compromise is possible, but I don't know how to communicate what the issue is to someone who has never played. And he feels like people are just picking on him for no reason.

[Kish]

Does he read fantasy? Watch fantasy movies?

He should have some frame of reference (real life, if not either of those) for "killing random people is Not Acceptable."

[Tvtyrant]

I think the best way to get this across would be to simply tell him what an RPG is and why his character type would be disruptive. "An RPG is a collaborative effort to create an immersive world, in which the players take on the aspect of characters. The issue here is that the playstyle you are advocating does not fit into the world that we are attempting to create, and disrupts the other characters. There is nothing objectively wrong with that playstyle, but it doesn't fit with what we are doing here."

[snoopy13a]

Have him sit in on the first session for an hour or so without letting him play. Say it is to give him a sense of how the game is played and an opportunity for him to learn the rules. After an hour, explain that if he likes the game, he can join in. If not, he can watch TV, read a book, play video games, or go out.

Think of it this way, if four out of the five of you wanted to watch a movie and the fifth wanted to go to a baseball game then you'd probably go a movie and the fifth person could decide whether or not to join. This is exactly the same.

[WarKitty]

The real question you need to ask yourself is whether (and how much) you're willing to accommodate your friend, or whether you just want him to play like everyone else. If there is no middle ground here for compromise, then you're better off telling your buddy, "Hey, sorry, you want to play in a way that we don't, so it's best all around if you don't play."

So, are you willing to compromise? How much? In what ways?

That was kind of the point. I don't think a compromise is possible, but I don't know how to communicate what the issue is to someone who has never played. And he feels like people are just picking on him for no reason.

[Gavinfoxx]

"Okay, you don't get experience for killing. That's right, no XP for slaying things. You get experience for solving problems of the world around you, and reaching goals and advancing the plot. We are creating a shared fantasy world story, not an action game like a diablo clone where you kill stuff for loot."

[Slipperychicken]

Bluntly let him know that his actions will have consequences, just like the real-world would. He can do these things, but he should know: There are reasons he doesn't go around murdering shopkeeps in the real world, and those apply to the game-world too.


-This is not Skyrim. Murdering random people means the police will hunt you down, imprison you, and sentence you to most of your life in prison, or even death. They might even kill you on sight. You cannot "pay a fine" for murder.

-I expect your character to be a person, not just a kill-machine. I don't expect you to be an actor right out of the box, but try to act like a reasonable person would. Think up some personal dreams and goals, trust me, it can make the game more enjoyable.

-For your first session or two, I will give you the opportunity to "undo" an action you have just taken, if it's particularly stupid or crazy.

-Your character does not know what XP is. Nor is he aware of "experience levels".

-Killing is not the only way to earn XP. If you talk your way past a Minotaur, or sneak by it, or subdue it nonlethally, or scare it, or trap it, you get the same XP as killing it.

[kamikasei]

What's been said so far is something to the effect of "no evil characters and no killing random NPC's for no reason." I haven't been able to communicate the kind of playstyle I'm looking for - it just doesn't seem to come across. I just don't feel like he's creating a realistic character, or even sees the point in building one.

Okay, but have you said anything like what Tvtyrant suggests above? From what you're describing I'm getting the impression that the player is entirely unfamiliar with very basic concepts we tend to take for granted here, but that you're talking to him about much more minor issues without establishing why those things are relevant.

[Fatebreaker]

That was kind of the point. I don't think a compromise is possible, but I don't know how to communicate what the issue is to someone who has never played. And he feels like people are just picking on him for no reason.

Well, maybe it's time to look outside roleplaying games for a moment to see how other mediums might be able to get your point across.

Conan the Barbarian (movie) vs. Game of Thrones (tv series): In Conan, a party of random folks happen to meet, travel around, steal stuff, kill other stuff, and piss off a snake-wizard-priest-god. There's plot and character development, but it's ancillary to the action, aside from occasional moments when the plot is used to justify one action over another. In Game of Thrones, there is very little action, and most of the conflict comes from competing ideas, desires, loyalties, lineages, secrets, beliefs, and so on. The conflict is mostly treachery, politics, and social maneuvering. Combat and even open war are extensions of the social conflict.

Doom vs. Halo: The original Doom starts you off in a room with a pistol. You walk forward and then shooting happens. This continues until you win the game. Halo starts you off with cut scenes and people talking, then combat, then more talking and combat interspersed to tell a story. Both are first-person shooters, but Halo goes out of its way to tell you why you're doing the shooting. Doom just puts ugly things between you and the objective.

Mass Effect vs. Final Fantasy: Both of these video games are listed under the roleplaying genre, but in Mass Effect, how you treat people changes how they treat you and how the game ends. In the Final Fantasy-style of game, you have little to no real say in the outcome of the game. You advance through a series of fights and puzzles, and the story happens around you.

If you're not familiar with these, I'm sure you've grasped the idea well enough to find something that both you and your friend are familiar with. Show him movies, books, and games that mirror the game you want to run, and then show him movies, books, and games that mirror the game he wants to play in. Compare and contrast. Talk to him about the two styles and see what he likes about both and what he dislikes about both. You may find some common ground, or at least help him better understand where you're coming from.

A major hurdle for you is that the "kill, loot, burn" style of play is incentivized by the D&D system. Killing gains you experience which gains you power. Loot gains you magic items which gain you power. And any good adventurer knows that fire is always the answer. It would be one thing if his concept or playstyle was outside the scope of the system, but it's not -- so he may legitimately not understand why you're objecting. To a new player, it might seem like watching Conan, but skipping all the bits that involve violence and plunder. That's a very short movie. Character abilities and game rules are devoted mostly towards combat and acquiring wealth. So, to him, he may be genuinely unable to understand why can't he play the game that the games wants him to play.

Mechanics aside, there are plenty of legitimate character designs which work just fine with that attitude. Paladins, war-clerics, and crusaders who devote their lives to purging the foes of the faith. Barbarians with little understanding of the subtle pursuits and a firm desire to drink, kill, and pillage their way to a glorious death. Pyromantic sorcerers whose mastery of magic stems from lighting as many things as possible on fire. There are great characters in all of these ideas and more.

So if you can use other mediums to explain what you want to do and how his vision deviates from that, and if there is a middle ground of shared desires, then maybe you can help him find a character who emphasizes the traits he likes (killing, looting, fire), but has some reason to restrain himself while around the rest of the party. Of course, the flip side of this is to give him opportunities to play his way, too. After all, if he has to change for everyone else, it's only fair that everyone else changes for him, too.

Belkar's dream-revelation is a great example of a player who adapts to the "rules" of his party without really losing what makes him fun. And then he acts on it, but still comes off as good ol' Belkar.

So, in summary:
#1) Compare and contrast playstyles using other mediums, such as movies.
#2) Find what he likes, what you like, and what you share.
#3) Help him make a character who expresses his likes, but won't upset the party.
#4) Include elements which play to his desires, too!
#5) If you don't have a shared game, don't play with him.

Above all else, don't insult his playstyle. If he's new, he may not know any better. Or, if that really is his perfect game, then insulting it isn't going to win him over to your side. Emphasize how both the social conflict and the violent conflict are valid methods of playing the game, but for now, you're running a social conflict game. The less emotional you make it, and the more honest/factual you make the discussion, the better off you'll be.

Does that help?

Edit:

Okay, but have you said anything like what Tvtyrant suggests above? From what you're describing I'm getting the impression that the player is entirely unfamiliar with very basic concepts we tend to take for granted here, but that you're talking to him about much more minor issues without establishing why those things are relevant.

I'd like to emphasize this and second it. Start with the basics that we take for granted. He may understand your concerns more afterwards.

[WarKitty]

Ugh...tried to have a talk about immersion and backstory and failed miserably. Just got the "well if I have to have a backstory then I'll be the orphan that was found in the midst of the school building I just destroyed." Unfortunately that kind of event doesn't fit at all with the world I built (it's just not something a less than level 1 pathfinder character would be able to do), and I basically just got accused of being too inflexible because he doesn't see why he couldn't do that.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Sounds like a heavy case of Computer-RPG syndrome, possibly quite specifically MMORPG's. To him RPG is RPG, while most people around here most likely feel a slight distaste at calling something like WoW a Role Playing game.

If he is an MMO player, ask him if he ever bothers reading up on the bits of lore he can find around the world. You know like talking to the city guards about other things than where the nearest auction house is, or if he reads the full quest text for a quest he picks up to see WHY he's doing what he does. Tell him that that will be the main focus of your game, the reasons behind the actions. Sure you'll get to the action parts eventually, but not right away.

Or if he's not into those types of games at all compare it to a Hollywood adaption of a book. There's nothing wrong with the movie and enjoying all the action, it's certainly a valid form of entertainment, but while the movie just ties all the action bits together with a few words here and there. The book on the other hand gives good, deep reasons and explanations for why things happened the way they did, and the action is actually a reaction to everything else.

That's sort of how I see D&D compared to videogame RPG's, the core elements are there, but D&D expands on it so much more.

You could also offer to run a session for him before you actually get started to show him what it's all about. Give him some action bits, some social bits, some sneaky bits and some magic bits. He might be more understanding after he's actually rolled a few dice and sees how things work.

[Kish]

Whether he could do it isn't the point. (He probably could, if he was willing to use oil and a tinderbox instead of insisting he could do it with magic; people do in the real world, after all...) Just tell him something like, "So that character, who was Chaotic Evil even though I've already told you evil alignments aren't allowed, was convicted of mass murder and executed. Make another one. One who isn't a psychopath."

Or tell him that he can join the game if and when he's willing to pay any attention to anything you and the others are saying about what D&D is, instead of treating it like a shooting gallery.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Ugh...tried to have a talk about immersion and backstory and failed miserably. Just got the "well if I have to have a backstory then I'll be the orphan that was found in the midst of the school building I just destroyed." Unfortunately that kind of event doesn't fit at all with the world I built (it's just not something a less than level 1 pathfinder character would be able to do), and I basically just got accused of being too inflexible because he doesn't see why he couldn't do that.

(And sorry for double posting, edit button didn't want to work.)

I honestly don't see why that wouldn't work. What says he couldn't have set fire to the school building intentionally or by mistake? Instead of saying "No, that doesn't work!" Ask him why. How/why is is character an orphan? How and why did he destroy the school? If it was intentionally, why did he do it?

Try saying "Yes, but..." instead of "No". If he feels like he's being blocked he'll just get more frustrated and less likely to cooperate. Keep in mind, since he doesn't know the game, he doesn't understand why he can't do what he wants to do, which means he doesn't understand why you're saying no. If he wants to have it in his backstory that he destroyed a school, let him if he can explain how he did it. If he says he did it with a fireball spell you can say "That's not very likely because that's a spell that takes an experienced wizard to cast. Maybe your character got a hold of some alchemists fire and broke the bottles instead?"

If it was unintentional, ask how it happened. Maybe he lit a candle and set a curtain on fire and soon it spread. Or he knocked something over in the schools chemistry lab? (Depending on what kind of school he'd be in of course.)

And again, try running a 1 on 1 session with him to let him get a feel for the game. It's easier to understand things if you have some idea of how it works.