My discomfort with Thinker player archetypes--villains have plots, not heroes

[Yora]

This said... despite having no problems with players playing villains, I, too, am perpetually annoyed by overthinking players! To such degree that I will time player decision-making and prod them to a make a move if I'm a GM.

That's absolutely true and a real issue in itself. But it has nothing to do with players making long-term plans or being villainous. There is obviously a little bit of overlap, but this topic seems to be clearly about the subjective perception of heroics and villainy.

[Quertus]

Animate Dead, Summoned Monsters, Hirelings, and Redshirts are a whole 'nother basket of worms - in part because it's so many different issues.

-----

Let's start with the first: setting disconnect. In most settings, animating the dead carries with it a rather negative connotation. Animate Dead is my favorite spell (more on this in a moment), but even I recognize that its effects aren't exactly kosher among the bulk of the citizenry of most civilized D&D worlds - and that's not counting systems where its use is actually, you know, *obviously* evil.

If there is a disconnect between how a player conceptualizes the setting, and how the GM sees it, it is the GM's responsibility to talk to the player and fix this disconnect.

-----

OK, splitting up the rest of these has proven... difficult. So, instead, I'm just going to babble, and mention them as they come up.

When there's combat, it's just a matter of Realism that people might die. In fact, unless people are dying on both sides - especially if all of the combatants one one side *are* dying - it's either going to feel really unrealistic, really well-planned (something that the OP is clearly opposed to), or really one-sided / non-threatening. If you care about Challenge - and, perhaps more importantly, the Illusion of Challenge - then you all but need to have people on the PC's team die. But realistic death rates are not exactly conducive to Roleplaying or Story - modern gamers want Character Retention.

Enter the value of the Red Shirt. Sure, the Command Crew will always live, but the Red Shirts can still be used to demonstrate that the foe is a legitimate threat. Mechanically, perhaps once all the Red Shirts are dead, then the Command Crew becomes vulnerable to death as well.

Alternately, instead of the Command Crew being magically protected, they could surround themselves with Canaries - beings which, statistically, should start dropping before they do. This helps provide that feeling of threat, and lets the players / PCs know when they are in over their heads.

Now, another way to maintain Character Retention is to realize that "Death" is not the only way for someone to become disabled in a fight. Thus, there's systems / tables where "the PCs don't die", or "the PCs don't die without the player's permission". Of course, both this and Fudging may lead to failure of Suspension of Disbelief.

On a related note, some GMs really want to Telegraph the Threat. In fact, many modern players will feel "cheated" if the GM fails to do this. Disposable mooks are a great way to allow the GM to Telegraph the Threat (I guess).

Now, all this is... roughly orthogonal to how callously the players / PCs treat the deaths of the various NPCs. This Lack of Empathy may seem unheroic, but this is really a playstyle thing. It's perfectly valid to be annoyed with people who callously wear baby armor, just as it's perfectly valid to be annoyed with people who spend hours reciting weepy poetry over the death of nameless NPC #17 who died during the exposition.

An additional wrinkle here is Noncom PCs. Pursuant to the "not getting to play" thread (to which I will someday reply, but it's an even *bigger* topic than this), Noncom PCs don't really "get to play" combat scenarios. Allowing the players to puppetmaster the combat NPCs is one solution to this dilemma.

-----

Animating the Dead is a great way to not only add Canaries to the party, but also to bring some Karmic Justice: your punishment for trying to kill me is for your mindless body to serve as my shield.

-----

Which leaves Summoned Monsters.

Presuming a D&D-style game, where the PCs' "day job" is killing monsters, either

1) the monsters you summon aren't "real", so who cares?

2) the monsters *are* real, so... that's that many less monsters in existence if they die (or, more efficiently, if you explicitly get them killed).

or, for D&D specifically,

3) the monsters are outsiders, and
3a) they have to "philosophically agree with you" to be summoned
and/or
3b) they don't really "die" when killed.

[KineticDiplomat]

While the circular firing squad of semantics continues...

The question here is “what makes thinkers work at a table, and what makes them fail to be fun.”

When they work, it is almost always because the system/GM encourages systems that allow expedited and at times plot-accurate planning. Blades in the Dark has its flashback system, but any time you assume the characters can get to a start position for a scene without specific declaration, you’ve done it to some degree.

Real world planning a month long horse trip to the cave of loot and back, all while dealing with more weight than most people have in their living room, is not a particularly easy affair. Ask anyone who hikes the AT or trains got a marathon. In game we declare our intent and so it goes, with an assumption we got through the “majestic landscape shot” part of the trip without further detail needed at most tables.

When thinkers work well with the system/GM, their plans are often given many of the same benefits of the doubt. If not, the mere act of planning and information gathering can eat sessions. (Some systems, SR, encourage this) And if the GM doesn’t have the information to hand, they may be pointless hours.

Where thinkers work poorly is in systems where all of the “action basic” competence is hand waved, but anything a thinker would want to do is forced through the ringer. As reality sets more and more in, it looks less heroic and it also might be boring the frap out of the table.

[Quertus]

The question here is “what makes thinkers work at a table, and what makes them fail to be fun.”

Blades in the Dark has its flashback system,

Assuming that this works the way that I believe it does, then per my "why the hate for win buttons" thread, this would be an example of when thinking *doesn't* work: all their planning can be invalidated / replaced by the win button of a flashback sequence, and they feel "cheated" out of their fun.

[Cluedrew]

Assuming that this works the way that I believe it does, then per my "why the hate for win buttons" thread, this would be an example of when thinking *doesn't* work: all their planning can be invalidated / replaced by the win button of a flashback sequence, and they feel "cheated" out of their fun.

You know what they say about assuming...

It doesn't work like that, flashbacks can fail and this explicitly is your planning. Blades in the Dark is not like Shadowrun; its about daring more than cunning and the rules are built around that.

[Satinavian]

I am a thinker player and when i run a game i like to have planning players as well.
I could play some act now, think later, considering risks is cowardice PC. But i don'z have any fun doing that, so i won't.

And still, i do prefer plans that actually involve mostly the PCs and their abilities. Letting NPCs solve the plot does not feel particularly rewarding, even if the PCs ask the NPCs to d so.


But considering "caring for the lifes of your agents". it seems to me that mindless undead and to some lesser extend summons are more a solution to that particular problem.

[Tanarii]

Tactical planning and scheming are not the same thing.

Personally as a DM I prefer some player tactical planning. It doesn't need to be extensive before every potential fight. Broad contingency and tactical strokes when setting off into an adventuring site are good though.

What I won't stand for is ooc player tactical planning during combat. That unnecessarily bogs down the game. If you want your character to yell out something short during combat describe that. Enemies may hear it too (but not necessarily understand it). Otherwise do your planning as best you can before the action starts.

[Yora]

- "They must plotting something."
- "Or maybe they are just listening to the radio?"
- "I know plotting when I see it. That's plotting!"
- "Maybe they are scheeming?"
- "No, scheeming looks different. They are definitely plotting."

[paddyfool]

Yes, there were heroes who used raw power against all foes and obstacles too, like Hercules, Beowulf and Lancelot, but cunning ones were popular too.

I might take issue with that description of Hercules. A major theme of the 12 Labours was his finding increasingly out of the box solutions to the tasks that he was set. Key examples being his redirection of rivers to cleanse the Augean stables, and his tricking Atlas into taking back the weight of the sky after Atlas retrieved the golden apples for him. A number of his solutions involved leveraging his major asset (physical strength), but equally, it would have been fairly daft of him not to use it where appropriate.

[Clistenes]

I might take issue with that description of Hercules. A major theme of the 12 Labours was his finding increasingly out of the box solutions to the tasks that he was set. Key examples being his redirection of rivers to cleanse the Augean stables, and his tricking Atlas into taking back the weight of the sky after Atlas retrieved the golden apples for him. A number of his solutions involved leveraging his major asset (physical strength), but equally, it would have been fairly daft of him not to use it where appropriate.

The cleansing of the Augean stables was kinda the odd duck among the Twelve Labours... it was an humiliating task, rather than an heroic one... And while Hercules used his brain more than usual, his solution was a show of raw power as much as a clever trick (I would argue that it was a show of raw power first, and a clever solution second): He dug a channel to the nearby river on his own, and built a dam throwing huge boulders to the river...

As for Atlas, I think that scene is supposed to be comical rather than a show of cleverness... Atlas didn't need to go back to Hercules and tell him that he would take the apples to Tiryns, he could have just walked away the moment Hercules took the weight of Heaven on his shoulders, much less to hold it again in order to allow Hercules to put so cushioning under his knee... I think it was supposed to be a case of the simple, brawny dude tricking an even simpler and brawnier brute...

Anyways, the image of Hercules as somebody who used brute force to solve all problems was quite prevalent: A tale shows him resurrecting the wife of a friend by punching Death so hard it went away. In The Birds play he is shown as a brawny brute who is tricked by king Pisthetaerus into supporting him, and Hercules in turn threatens Tribalo into supporting him against Poseidon...

[Saintheart]

I've had a long-standing discomfort with Thinker players. These are the ones who insist on planning everything in detail before doing anything--a Thinker "wins" when the actual execution of the plan is a done deal and they've won from the start. In more tactical situations, they tend to want to find "the perfect action" or the "silver bullet" spell that will solve combat with minimal risk and optimum use of resources. And that...irritates me. Irrationally so. It feels like play is bogging down and I find myself tempted to start throwing metaphorical bombs to get things going.

Part of it is a low boredom threshold. I get enjoyment out of seeing what happens and reacting to snowballing situations. That perfect plan? Boring because it's guaranteed to succeed.

But I think there's something deeper and more founded on tropes.

Sad truth #1, courtesy of cognitive psychology: we decide how we feel about something and then make up rationalisations to support the thought that follows from the emotion.

I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with your thinking. Quite the contrary. But I really think the best way to handle this for your continued sanity in this sphere is: don't bother making rationalisations for yourself as to why one approach is heroic and another is not; admit to yourself you just don't like this kind of player (as opposed to character), dispense with all need to base your feeling on a rational or thematic basis out of literature, and just play the type of campaign you want to play with the type of people you can stand for 3 hours at a stretch. RPGing is not an expression of our personal philosophies, nor is it some great game of morals. It is escapism and a social game and typically if people don't like a social game they stop playing it, or play it with others more like themselves.

For my part, I don't particularly like the overly obsessed thinker myself who insists on a perfectly crafted plan either. And that's mainly because of the not-uncommon phenomenon already alluded to in the thread: high chance of emotional regulation problems if some aspect of the perfectly crafted plan doesn't, y'know, go according to plan.

But can I suggest a couple of other thoughts when considering the type of game you're going to run:

- It's one thing to get enjoyment out of seeing what happens and reacting to snowballing situations. That's a key advantage of the spectator. The issue to manage is that you're not just a spectator, you're the DM. That means that arbitrarily declaring that the tractable guard you can blackmail got sick today and his straight-as-an-arrow buddy Gorf picked up his shift have to be managed with some subtlety, otherwise it will look like you're putting the hand on the scale against the players for no reason other than that you think their plan will succeed without a hitch. I suspect this is often why the perfect plan player starts arguing vehemently when some aspect of their plan fails: because they assume - wrongly or otherwise - that the DM has decided to just mess with the plan because he doesn't want the players to 'win'. The perfect plan player makes his plans assuming a fair DM and a fairly strong adherence to the rules. At least in 3.0, the ruleset is large enough that they can calculate pretty strongly their odds of success, so if you're going to mess with the plan, you'd better have a decent reason for it.

- As a corollary, it's one thing to be a spectator to a situation that's rapidly going out of control. It's another thing to be inside said situation, and that's the players' issue. The guy who does perfect plans typically doesn't have a backup plan if it goes wrong, and not uncommonly insists on the perfect plan because s/he has a problem improvising. Maybe that's worth thinking about.

- In passing: I get you don't like heist-y situations. This is both understandable and ironic because the way a heist film actually generates any tension at all is the risk, and in most cases, the eventuality, that the plan is going to go south. The best heist movies not only cause the plan to go south, but then force the characters to come up with a plan on the run which still manages to work out ... or work out sort-of differently. Maybe one solution to the problem is that if you're going to ruin the perfectly crafted plan, be more rubbery on methods the players use to improvise a way out of the hole the failed plan puts them in.

[icefractal]

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about heists myself too, and it's indeed for the reason that planning is both an essential part and potentially a huge pain in the ass.

Like, "true" planning - the GM has determined all details of the situation in advance, the players make a plan and act on it, nothing retroactive - gives the most feeling of immersion. But it also has some pitfalls:
1) Planning can take an excessively long time, much of which could be going back and forth between equivalently-viable possibilities because of indecision or disagreement.
2) To support this in a truly impartial way, the GM need to do a lot of prep.
3) There's not guarantee the result will be dramatically satisfying. The plan might just not work, at all, and not in a fun way either. Or it might work so well the actual execution is done in five minutes.

Then there's retroactive planning, which can solve all these, but can also feel "fake" and more like you have a limited pool of "solve problems" magic than that you're a mastermind.

And then there's "scripted plans" where the GM already has a plan in mind, perhaps introduced by an NPC, and the expectation is you follow that. Which is ok as a thing in itself, but is different enough that players expecting the other type would likely feel burned.

That said, I played in a game with a heist-like premise recently and it went well - I think the fact that we weren't taking it too seriously helped. Neither OOC (the game is fairly comedic) nor IC (our characters were not that professional). So we came up with a somewhat questionable plan, declared it good enough, and rolled with it. Even then the planning almost got bogged down, it's easy to get stuck trying to consider all possible options.

[Yora]

Anyways, the image of Hercules as somebody who used brute force to solve all problems was quite prevalent: A tale shows him resurrecting the wife of a friend by punching Death so hard it went away. In The Birds play he is shown as a brawny brute who is tricked by king Pisthetaerus into supporting him, and Hercules in turn threatens Tribalo into supporting him against Poseidon...

Cunning was one of the prime virtues for heroes in Greek myths.
Cheating and getting away with it was seen as highly heroic.

You see the same thing happening with Conan the Cimmerian. He's not a simple-minded brute who acts on impulse. He is always very calculated when it comes to facing off against ancient sorcerers.
Maybe there really was something in the mid 20th century that made thinking heroes unpopular.

I saw somewhere someone claim that in early cold war movies from the 50s, scientists were regularly portrayed as ruthless madmen who sacrifice honest two-fisted men to pursue power, or as misguided fools who tried to reach out peacefully to the inherently evil threats, endangering everyone because they want to study it.
I believe intellectuals were a primary target of the Red Scare. Traitors who undermine the fighting spirit of those who fight the good fight. (That actually would explain a lot of thing.)

[Quertus]

I guess my related personal discomfort would be with...

• people who mistake "goals" for "plans"
• people with poor impulse control
• people who are incapable of - or actively opposed to - contingencies

That last one *definitely* includes obsessive planners who would only create a single, fragile plan. I have no interest in (and perhaps even a mild dislike for) plans being "perfect"; I only care about planning for flexibility. This discomfort with engineered inflexibility also includes the BDF who doesn't bring a ranged weapon, or the ability to fly, or anything other than their one single attack mode, and then just sits their useless when their one trick isn't applicable. Or the fire mage who has only fire, and then sits their useless when fire is not the answer. Or the telepath who has only telepathy, and sits there useless against undead and robots.

Unless your character concept is actually "total noob who has never done anything in this world before", your character coming off as a total noob who has not lived in this world is just annoying - to me, at least.

You know what they say about assuming...

It doesn't work like that, flashbacks can fail and this explicitly is your planning. Blades in the Dark is not like Shadowrun; its about daring more than cunning and the rules are built around that.

So, planning doesn't work in that system, because it's explicitly forbidden? Well, that's an even harder "no" than I expected.

[Satinavian]

You know what they say about assuming...

It doesn't work like that, flashbacks can fail and this explicitly is your planning. Blades in the Dark is not like Shadowrun; its about daring more than cunning and the rules are built around that.

Sounds horrible.

Why would "Thinker players" want to play a game about daring ? If those players would like daring instead of cunning, they would never have been categorized as thinker players. You remember, the complaints were too much planning and a tendency to avoid risks to the point that the actual plan execution might became boring. Does that sound like a daring player ?


Some people are not gamblers. And if gambling is necessary for your game, they might look elsewhere.

[Mechalich]

I think it's highly relevant and important for this sort of discussion to differentiate between two different kinds of 'thinker' characters.

1. Characters that rely on cunning, deceit, manipulation, underhanded tactics, and general skullduggery vs.

2. Characters they rely on the deployment of other assets.

In archetypical terms this would be the difference between the Trickster and the Strategist.

Tricksters work just fine in heroic fantasy and in tabletop gaming parties. Heck, many classic characters in such formulations, such as Han Solo, easily fit this category, and many characters of more classically heroic bent adopt trickster profiles from time to time, including even such paragons of virtue as Superman - whose been know to rely on his wits against such unconventional foes as Mr. Myxzptlk.

It's Strategists that are more problematic, largely because their activities tend to take place at least one step removed from the action and because by the nature of that removal they are often partially or wholly shielded from any personal risk. It also happens that strategists make their moves, whatever those moves may be, before the engagement actually occurs, meaning that when blended with non-strategist characters they may spend the climax standing around not doing anything while the others are desperately fighting for their lives.

To use an example that's already been mentioned, the Ocean's franchise, most of the characters in Ocean's qualify as some kind of trickster, and when the big heist ultimately occurs every member of the crew has some role to play in making sure all the pieces fit. Except for Ruben, the character played by Elliot Gould. He's the strategist, and in the climax, all he does is sit back, watch events unfold, and reap a massive payday with a side of vengeance. His ability is entirely based in his money and his ability to pick personnel to make the heist happen.

For another example, consider a character who takes the same assets and deploys them as a trickster rather than as a strategist. An ideal example is actually Batman, or rather Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne is obsessed with stopping crime in Gotham. He has three major assets: an extremely cunning mind, a massive level of personal fanaticism, and a giant pile of cash. As Batman he trains super hard in a wide range of fields to make himself awesome, uses his money to buy a combat suit and a whole bunch of gadgets, and then throws himself at criminal organizations in a wide variety of schemes and counter-schemes. Okay, that's great, now we have one of the most beloved characters in superhero fiction. But what if Bruce never puts on the batsuit? What if, instead, he fights crime as Bruce Wayne, billionaire philanthropist, Wayne Foundation CEO, and lobbyist extraordinaire. This version of Bruce is a master of policy and politics and sets out to remake Gotham from the ground up using NGOs, legal maneuvering, exposure of corrupt police and politicians, and in time a complete rewrite of the political and economic structure of the city to reduce crime and end urban blight. That version of Bruce Wayne might actually be considerably more effective than Batman at reducing crime (ordinary crime anyway, the calculus shifts when actual supervillains with superhuman abilities get involved), but he cannot function as a pulpy action hero.

You can certainly have strategist heroes in literature, Zhuge Liang is a nice famous example. You can have them in single player games of all kinds, in many RTS settings that's the character you, the player represent ("Greetings Executor!"). You can even have them in a squad based pulp series - but as the supervisor, not as one of the gang (ex. the relationship between Professor X and the X-men).

[Quertus]

I think it's highly relevant and important for this sort of discussion to differentiate between two different kinds of 'thinker' characters.

1. Characters that rely on cunning, deceit, manipulation, underhanded tactics, and general skullduggery vs.

2. Characters they rely on the deployment of other assets.

In archetypical terms this would be the difference between the Trickster and the Strategist.

Tricksters work just fine in heroic fantasy and in tabletop gaming parties. Heck, many classic characters in such formulations, such as Han Solo, easily fit this category, and many characters of more classically heroic bent adopt trickster profiles from time to time, including even such paragons of virtue as Superman - whose been know to rely on his wits against such unconventional foes as Mr. Myxzptlk.

It's Strategists that are more problematic, largely because their activities tend to take place at least one step removed from the action and because by the nature of that removal they are often partially or wholly shielded from any personal risk. It also happens that strategists make their moves, whatever those moves may be, before the engagement actually occurs, meaning that when blended with non-strategist characters they may spend the climax standing around not doing anything while the others are desperately fighting for their lives.

To use an example that's already been mentioned, the Ocean's franchise, most of the characters in Ocean's qualify as some kind of trickster, and when the big heist ultimately occurs every member of the crew has some role to play in making sure all the pieces fit. Except for Ruben, the character played by Elliot Gould. He's the strategist, and in the climax, all he does is sit back, watch events unfold, and reap a massive payday with a side of vengeance. His ability is entirely based in his money and his ability to pick personnel to make the heist happen.

For another example, consider a character who takes the same assets and deploys them as a trickster rather than as a strategist. An ideal example is actually Batman, or rather Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne is obsessed with stopping crime in Gotham. He has three major assets: an extremely cunning mind, a massive level of personal fanaticism, and a giant pile of cash. As Batman he trains super hard in a wide range of fields to make himself awesome, uses his money to buy a combat suit and a whole bunch of gadgets, and then throws himself at criminal organizations in a wide variety of schemes and counter-schemes. Okay, that's great, now we have one of the most beloved characters in superhero fiction. But what if Bruce never puts on the batsuit? What if, instead, he fights crime as Bruce Wayne, billionaire philanthropist, Wayne Foundation CEO, and lobbyist extraordinaire. This version of Bruce is a master of policy and politics and sets out to remake Gotham from the ground up using NGOs, legal maneuvering, exposure of corrupt police and politicians, and in time a complete rewrite of the political and economic structure of the city to reduce crime and end urban blight. That version of Bruce Wayne might actually be considerably more effective than Batman at reducing crime (ordinary crime anyway, the calculus shifts when actual supervillains with superhuman abilities get involved), but he cannot function as a pulpy action hero.

You can certainly have strategist heroes in literature, Zhuge Liang is a nice famous example. You can have them in single player games of all kinds, in many RTS settings that's the character you, the player represent ("Greetings Executor!"). You can even have them in a squad based pulp series - but as the supervisor, not as one of the gang (ex. the relationship between Professor X and the X-men).

Even ignoring the weakness of your definition of the Strategist, it is important to point out the fact that Batman is both Trickster and Strategist. He makes careful observations of all his allies, and develops contingency plans for taking any of the down. He collects items (decidedly including Kryptonite) to facilitate such endeavors.

If Batman were purely a "kick in the door" action hero, he would be nowhere near as effective as he is by also being a Strategist.

And I don't think he'd be as popular, either.

In fact, in an RPG, the non-strategist BDF with no ranged attack, no flight, no ability to deal with things beyond pushing their single button for their single trick often tends to be unpopular as well IME.

So I think that the proper balance of strategy is important to making a good character.

Strategists are only "a problem" in "kick in the door", "beer and pretzels", "high action, low thought" games. And, yes, it's a spectrum; more generally, characters are problematic when they live outside the game's/group's range - in this case, the action/thought range in the spectrum.

Per my "why the hate for win buttons" thread, I can see either feeling like the other is "cheating" or "stealing their fun".

IMO, if both sides can learn "cooperation 101" Spotlight Sharing, there shouldn't be any problem where/how the other side gets their jollies.

Thus, as always, I advocate accepting the largest possible size of range.

However, even I admit, Combat has the awesome bonus that "everyone gets to participate" is kinda the default; other minigames often lack this (by virtue of "only one person gets to open the door", or by virtue of "really, the rest of you aren't helping, please stop singing 'bluff bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre'.").

[Cluedrew]

So, planning doesn't work in that system, because it's explicitly forbidden? Well, that's an even harder "no" than I expected.

Why would "Thinker players" want to play a game about daring ?

How nice of you to be open to different play-styles. Which is to say, not it is not for thinker gameplay (I'm not going to say thinker players as I sometimes one and I want to play Blades in the Dark for completely different reasons). Blades in the Dark is built to - among other things - stop analysis paralysis. So if you are the one who makes people start to wonder when the next thing in the game is actually going to happen, yes don't come here for Shadowrun Trench-Coat (or is it Mirror Shades, the one opposite Pink Mohawk) style gameplay.

But if you are someone who finds endless planning frustrating - as in the first post of this thread - maybe give it a look. On the other hand if you want to play more heroic heroes - also mention in that post - maybe not.

[Satinavian]

How nice of you to be open to different play-styles. Which is to say, not it is not for thinker gameplay (I'm not going to say thinker players as I sometimes one and I want to play Blades in the Dark for completely different reasons). Blades in the Dark is built to - among other things - stop analysis paralysis. So if you are the one who makes people start to wonder when the next thing in the game is actually going to happen, yes don't come here for Shadowrun Trench-Coat (or is it Mirror Shades, the one opposite Pink Mohawk) style gameplay.

But if you are someone who finds endless planning frustrating - as in the first post of this thread - maybe give it a look. On the other hand if you want to play more heroic heroes - also mention in that post - maybe not.

If you are frustrated because your players like Mirror Shade gameplay and you don't, switching to a system that is not for Mirror shades won't solve your problems, just annoy your players.

I don't say that "Blades in the Dark" is bad. Just that it probably is not a good fit for thinker players who actually like planning and avoiding risks.

[King of Nowhere]

I think I may have miscommunicated. Heroes can plan and don't have to just charge in, but their plans revolve around them taking action. Not tricking others into doing it for them while they stand back and watch. Because heroes accept the risks and don't push them off onto others. And most of the time, the Thinkers' I've played with have been the latter. They'll delay taking action because they're not ready yet, even though innocents are suffering and dying. They want one master-stroke to finish off the enemy all at once, instead of getting in there and saving people.

Consider the first Captain America film. Cap decides to take action, despite it being basically suicide and being ordered not to by the "planners". He knew the innocents and his friend couldn't wait for them to get a perfect plan together.

There's a difference between being smart and being cowardly. And too often, Thinkers end up being the second. What else do you call those who are willing to see anyone else hurt but themselves? Heroes stand in the way of evil, whether with swords and guns or with clever words and social grace. They don't hide behind others. They don't treat others as disposable tools.

this has nothing to do with planning or plotting, it is merely a matter of altruism.
the problem with your players is not that they plot, but that they sacrifice others for the sake of their goals. they could do the same without plotting either. just like they could make plots that protect the people.
it's just that, when given the choice to sacrifice some mooks to increase their safety, they choose to do so. they could do the same without plotting, for example if the villain had put some hostages in a death trap and the party decided to leave them behind and focus on destroying the villain.

as for taking your time to plan every action during combat, this is another - and separate - matter. some people like to treat it as a tactical game. some people prefer the immersive angle, where they must try to declare an action on the fly. anyway, some players do it poorly, and you may have been saddled with such a bunch

[Quertus]

How nice of you to be open to different play-styles.

Blades in the Dark is built to - among other things - stop analysis paralysis.

If you are frustrated because your players like Mirror Shade gameplay and you don't, switching to a system that is not for Mirror shades won't solve your problems, just annoy your players.

I don't say that "Blades in the Dark" is bad. Just that it probably is not a good fit for thinker players who actually like planning and avoiding risks.

My comment was similarly intended to indicate how poorly suited BitD is to proper planning Players/Characters/Gameplay. Just like how a game with only prefab characters is poorly suited to the character creation minigame. Or a setting with nothing but muggles is poorly suited to my desire for the Magical.

If, instead of "my players are killing my fun with planning; I'm gonna be a **** and remove their fun (instead of talking to them about it like an adult)", your problem is, "my players are losing fun from having a planning phase because of decision paralysis", then, yes, BitD may be a good bit of medicine. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a hard "no" for planners (players or characters) for completely removing all "planning" gameplay.

this has nothing to do with planning or plotting, it is merely a matter of altruism.
the problem with your players is not that they plot, but that they sacrifice others for the sake of their goals. they could do the same without plotting either. just like they could make plots that protect the people.
it's just that, when given the choice to sacrifice some mooks to increase their safety, they choose to do so. they could do the same without plotting, for example if the villain had put some hostages in a death trap and the party decided to leave them behind and focus on destroying the villain.

That is a very clear way of expressing a common sentiment in this thread. Kudos!

[Xervous]

To me some degree of planning goes hand in hand with immersion (and agency). It’s a back and forth of clarification and additional information that helps frame the world that allows me to make an informed decision as if I were my character. Strip out the planning (and in absence of an existing understanding) it’s fast paced guess and check. Unprompted, it tends towards a gotcha if the choice works against you. “You didn’t say you bowed to the king” when there wasn’t any hinting that this was critical (substitute anything more exotic as needed). Or it may tread on your mental image of your character. “My character wouldn’t do more than a poor excuse for a bow,” when the GM hands out what he assumes is a default favorable action. Maybe the players could have spent downtime researching, eating up maybe 5 minutes of table time to get a few bullet points from the GM. Choosing not to do that could have consequences and assuming “everyone bows” removes that consequence just as surely as a conveniently unseen pool of water at the bottom of a deep spiky pit.

What does it all boil down to? I view the game as a dialogue in a limited medium and prefer risking extra time to reduce misunderstandings rather than trust blindly and chance damaging immersion and verisimilitude. If the GM assumes too much I’m not playing my character, I’m piloting a script be it a combat number grinder or a prewritten role.

[Cluedrew]

I don't say that "Blades in the Dark" is bad. Just that it probably is not a good fit for thinker players who actually like planning and avoiding risks.

My comment was similarly intended to indicate how poorly suited BitD is to proper planning Players/Characters/Gameplay.

One apology for misunderstanding, one apology for lumping you two together. Sorry about that. Don't post angry.

[icefractal]

If you are frustrated because your players like Mirror Shade gameplay and you don't, switching to a system that is not for Mirror shades won't solve your problems, just annoy your players.

TBF, it might solve your problems. Either the players are ok with less planning and just assumed high-planning was the default, or they're not happy without planning. In the latter case, you have incompatible tastes and you probably shouldn't be running a game with those players. Or if you do, there should be an OOC discussion and compromise.

What I can say from experience doesn't work is trying to solve the problem IC by restricting information or trying to impose penalties for taking too long. Because of several reasons -
1) Insufficient information means people plan on how to get more information, or spend more time making multiple contingency plans to compensate.
2) Two hours of planning is a long time IRL, but a very reasonable - short, even - time for the characters to spend planning a mission. And if the game includes something like "it takes you two days by boat to reach the location" then that's the excuse for any amount of planning they want.
3) If they planned and still failed or partially failed, the likely response is "****, didn't plan well enough, we'd better be more thorough next time."

On a personal note, I was on the planner side of this once. The GM had in mind a dilemma where because of time and resource limits we wouldn't be able to save everyone and would need to choose. I didn't realize that - I saw it as a challenging resource-management problem and went about squeezing the most from every hour with the goal of 'meeting the challenge' by saving everyone. He threw in obstacles to that, but I just perceived them as part of the difficulty and kept trying to solve them all. Eventually we both got pretty frustrated, which could all have been avoided by a little OOC discussion.

[Pex]

On a personal note, I was on the planner side of this once. The GM had in mind a dilemma where because of time and resource limits we wouldn't be able to save everyone and would need to choose. I didn't realize that - I saw it as a challenging resource-management problem and went about squeezing the most from every hour with the goal of 'meeting the challenge' by saving everyone. He threw in obstacles to that, but I just perceived them as part of the difficulty and kept trying to solve them all. Eventually we both got pretty frustrated, which could all have been avoided by a little OOC discussion.

Curious if the obstacles were always there or the DM made them up on the spot on purpose to stop you from saving everyone because no matter what you were not allowed to save everyone.

[KorvinStarmast]

Since I'm a cleric I'm thinking of just turning them, which I can disintegrate. I see trouble ahead.

So do it, and see what the reaction is. (Are you friends, or is this a random game?)

Sometimes interactions like that can be productive. Other times, not.

[Quertus]

One apology for misunderstanding, one apology for lumping you two together. Sorry about that. Don't post angry.

Apology unnecessary. I doubt I've *ever* felt any anger at your posts. Heck, I've rarely felt more than mildly annoyed at *anyone* on this site (other than myself), even in the midst of seemingly heated debate - this site and its Playgrounders are awesome! (Also, as ever, apologies to all for being… my abrasive self. Thanks again to everyone for their understanding).

So, no worries - I certainly wasn't offended or posting angry, merely clarifying

EDIT: you did seem to lump us together in your apology though

[MrStabby]

I've had a long-standing discomfort with Thinker players. These are the ones who insist on planning everything in detail before doing anything--a Thinker "wins" when the actual execution of the plan is a done deal and they've won from the start. In more tactical situations, they tend to want to find "the perfect action" or the "silver bullet" spell that will solve combat with minimal risk and optimum use of resources. And that...irritates me. Irrationally so. It feels like play is bogging down and I find myself tempted to start throwing metaphorical bombs to get things going.

Part of it is a low boredom threshold. I get enjoyment out of seeing what happens and reacting to snowballing situations. That perfect plan? Boring because it's guaranteed to succeed.

But I think there's something deeper and more founded on tropes.
---------------
The classic hero/villain situation goes something like this:
1. Villain has complicated plot that involves maneuvering everyone into the right position with minimal direct involvement. The villain uses bunches of disposable mooks, magic/psychic manipulation, or just social scheming. But during this phase they're basically not at risk. Their victory is assured, like a rock rolling downhill.
2. And then the heroes stumble onto the plot somehow. And start mucking things up. While they may have plans and goals, the heroes are mostly about action. They investigate, start turning over rocks and squishing the bugs that crawl out.
3. Climactic showdown where the heroes bring the risk home to the villain and defeat them (in combat or otherwise).
4. The villain complains something like a Scooby Doo villain: And I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling [kids|heroes]!

That is, Villains Have Plots. Heroes act.

And more than that, villains put others at risk, while heroes put themselves at risk. Villains have mooks, heroes have friends. Villains manipulate from the shadows, heroes drag them and their devious plots into the light. Villains have subordinates and henchmen who act out of fear or greed, heroes make converts and treat them as equals. Villains induce betrayal out of self-interest or by blackmail or threats, heroes convert others by persuasion and love (lust, frequently).

Even the most direct villains tend to not be seen as bad guys as much unless they actively take horrific actions. The Noble Warrior type, who lives for battle and respects the heroes for facing him head on is much lower on the scale of evil than the Manipulator or Overlord type. Not good, but less bad. And almost always a lieutenant to a bigger bad. And frequently gets a conversion/redemption arc. Manipulators and plotters rarely do, in my experience.

So when players start doing the plotting and Xanatos Gambit routines or start relying on hiring (or summoning or binding) hordes of disposable mooks to act as meat walls, they don't feel like heroes. They feel like villains. Heroes may plan, but their plans are more on the tactical level and revolve around the members of the team, this band of equals, acting according to their strengths. The big guys charge in and hold attention while the mages roast people or debuff and the support types...well...support. They don't go in for mind games or domination or underhanded gambits--they're not necessarily nice or stupid, but they tend to cut through the walls of BS that the villains put up as defense.

And most importantly, they accept risk. Heroes take the risk onto themselves. That isn't to say that they are rash or foolhardy, and making the other poor sod die for his country is always more useful than valiantly dying for your own (to paraphrase General Patton). But they recognize that there is risk, and accept it on themselves instead of trying to find a way to minimize it and act at a distance. That's a villain's ploy--hide behind walls and mooks and plots. Heroes lead armies from the front, villains stand back and let others do the fighting and dying.
---------------
Is this entirely rational? No. But I think, for me, it explains a large chunk of why I'm not comfortable with the Thinker players. And why I don't like heist-style play. It feels...villainous. And I don't play villains. I struggle to go beyond the corner of (in D&D terms) LG/LN/NG. I can understand CG, but anything below that just makes me go ewww.

It also spills over to a dislike of mook-based play, whether that's by hiring tons of disposable commoners, summoning armies, raising the undead, or binding other creatures to your will. In the end, it's all about putting someone (or something) else into harm's way so that you can stand back and be comfortable and safe.

I have some... thoughts. Unstructure ramblings on the topic anyway.

I think this plays into pillars of the game. If we have combat/exploration and social, what does being a planner mean? Well it implies that they aready have enough knowledge to plan. Exploration might be unfulfilling for them - they don't like discovery in the moment as they don't like to be surprised. Likewise social might be associated with others guiding them to a cause or course of action. Planners are taking the initiative (and taking it too far is the problem) so they neither need nor desire a lot of the social input. And combat... well it is either avoided or solved ahead of time.

I think that some of this can be turned on its head though. Give a big enough problem and let the pieces of the game fall into supporting their planning. The exploration pillar can be diving into ancient cultures to find solutions to the BBEG - the reward isn't treasure but enough lore to let the PCs build a plan. The social side can have enough deciet to ensure that people are not trustworthy pawns and that the information/actions provided are useful - but the social yields of knowing who you cannot trust will result in the party having to do some things themselves.

And combat - its fine for the party to take the initiative but make sure they are living in a proactive world. Whilst they are plotting the bad guys are trying to figure out what threat they pose and neutralise it. It's fine for you to make plans - but when the bad guy teleports into your volcano lair 8 hours before you are ready to go and starts wrecking stuff you need to improvise.



Then there is involvement. I don't mind planning - as long as everyone at the table gets to contribute. This means no one is shut out of big sections of the game as they don't have useful class abilities for that part. It also means that I think planning is less appropriate if not everyone likes that style... or it may just need to be moderated.




I think there is an issue around metagaming that comes up. OK, so this shady guy is probably a Vampire, so we do a daytime raid and constrict a crane to lift the roof of his house? It presupposes that vampires are as well known in the game world as their fictional counterparts are to us. The player's knowledge of the game structure, monster capabilities, existance of magic items or a whole load of other things come into their planing, often without players realising it.


Then there is rules abuse - "creative" uses of spells. Exploiting unclear interactions between magic and physics. Using spells that were designed for stand alone efects in conjunction with each other. Essentially abusing the fact that magic isn't bound by strict conservation laws/symmetry to avoid playing the game...


Which comes to... Players opted in to playing a particular game. It might be D&D or Pathfinder or Shadowrun or whatever - but given it was opted into, there is a reasonable expectation that time at the table will be spend using some aspects of the game system opted into. It isn't wrong to plan but time spent on this is taking up time that could be spent rolling dice and adventuring.



I have mixed views on your Thinkers. I think they can be a great way to drive greater engagement with a setting and it can be a very stimulating form of gameplay. It can also be a drag, diminish fun for some, and bring to the fore a lot of other behaviours that whilst not the worst that can happen, are still not great to have at the table.

[Cluedrew]

So, no worries - I certainly wasn't offended or posting angry, merely clarifying

Whether anyone was offended by it I don't like how that post came together so I apologize for it. I was briefly considering explaining how I consider/use apologies but... maybe another time.

My point is I want to highlight how Blades in the Dark can be used as a tool for those who want to avoid getting bogged down in excessive planning. Yes, don't spring it on people who want to plan, but if the group wants to play the same sort of archetypes as Shadowrun but not actually do that planning (as one plays a barbarian without learning how to use a sword) it is actually built for that. Its not going to suit every game (and if you think any system does you are fooling yourself... or have focused tastes) but I think it does what it wants to pretty well.

[Batcathat]

If we have combat/exploration and social, what does being a planner mean? Well it implies that they aready have enough knowledge to plan. Exploration might be unfulfilling for them - they don't like discovery in the moment as they don't like to be surprised. Likewise social might be associated with others guiding them to a cause or course of action. Planners are taking the initiative (and taking it too far is the problem) so they neither need nor desire a lot of the social input. And combat... well it is either avoided or solved ahead of time.

Considering real world explorers and soldiers both spend a lot of time planning (whether you're gonna reach the South Pole or invade a country, you're probably not just going to grab your gear and rush in), I don't see why planners wouldn't fit in either scenario. Planning isn't just deciding an exact plan for what to do, it can also be planning for a number of different eventualities that might occur.

And combat - its fine for the party to take the initiative but make sure they are living in a proactive world. Whilst they are plotting the bad guys are trying to figure out what threat they pose and neutralise it. It's fine for you to make plans - but when the bad guy teleports into your volcano lair 8 hours before you are ready to go and starts wrecking stuff you need to improvise.

That's true, though I'd say it's important for a GM that plays like that to do it fairly. If the bad guy can attack the party before they're ready, the party should also be able to attack the bad guy before he's ready.

Then there is involvement. I don't mind planning - as long as everyone at the table gets to contribute. This means no one is shut out of big sections of the game as they don't have useful class abilities for that part. It also means that I think planning is less appropriate if not everyone likes that style... or it may just need to be moderated.

Again, that's true but should be applied fairly. If half the party are planners and half prefer to go Leeroy Jenkins in every situation the planners shouldn't always overrule the Leeroys but neither should it be the other way around.

I think there is an issue around metagaming that comes up. OK, so this shady guy is probably a Vampire, so we do a daytime raid and constrict a crane to lift the roof of his house? It presupposes that vampires are as well known in the game world as their fictional counterparts are to us. The player's knowledge of the game structure, monster capabilities, existance of magic items or a whole load of other things come into their planing, often without players realising it.

Metagaming is bad, but I'm not sure it's more of a problem with planners. If anything, the metagaming is more obvious if the characters are in the middle of hectic combat with no previous plan but somehow still know to do the exactly right thing for the situation.