Discussion on player Ettiquette and play style [Archive]

Kublai

02-14-2005, 11:52 AM

Fortunately not. Most of the players I game with are on the same level as I am and don't try to bend, twist, or take advantage of the mechanics for a purely mechanical benefit. This could be because most of us have been playing for some time together and know what to expect from each other. But even as I start new campaigns with nerd.strangers, I have yet to meet someone with such ill habits.

jc_madden

02-14-2005, 12:46 PM

My current DnD game has seen TWO people asked to leave and one who quit in a fit of anger. Basically we have a very steady solid group of 4 and take on 1-2 pickup players trying to find that special someone. So far it hasn't worked out. One player is actually back from being kicked out with the promise that he will not let his personal life affect the one day a week that we game.

Viper

02-14-2005, 01:36 PM

You have to be careful about kicking people out. It can lead to suicide.

http://www.chick.com/tractimages8295/0046/0046_03.gif

doesn't abzu look great in a wig?

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

Kublai

02-14-2005, 03:49 PM

Viper. Get out.

eruditus

02-14-2005, 03:54 PM

Gosh, I love this trac! i don't know where but if i can find it I will send the MST3K version. Its hilarious!

Anyway, to avoid blartha...

I actually have had a few players in my gaming carrier who either would have done this or considered it strongly.

I haven't had to say "Please leave my game."

I have steered the game in a direction the a player would find dull and unsatisfying and ignored players so that they eventually just drop out.

I have had a GM say "well, if your going to continue in this manner maybe you shouldn't be in this game."

I am the first to admit that I am a far better GM than a player.

But I'm getting better. :oops:

Viper

02-14-2005, 04:04 PM

foxandwarlock

02-14-2005, 04:12 PM

The problem with this (the intervention idea) is that unless that person sees their own behavior as a problem - they'll commonly just deny they do 'x' or claim that it does happen all that often - or point out somebody else's habits that bother them, etc. And you will end up booting them because they're too defensive to listen...and then you will be the assholes when that guy (or gal) retells the story to friends.

Basically, I'm just saying you better put your helmet on 'cuz its gonna' get rough. :twisted:

eruditus

02-14-2005, 04:20 PM

Viper. Get out.

Bite me, Marcie.

Anyway, I've had the good fortune to never have things get so bad that I had to kick someone out. However, if it did get to that point, I'd do my best to just honestly tell the player what the problem is, and give him a chance to resolve it - I'd also encourage the other players to speak up... have a sort of gaming intervention.

Certainly. i think the folk that i usually have the most problems with are folk too like me, who think their s$@t don't stink and the problem couldn't possibly be them... cause we all know it couldn't be me causing the issue ;)

Really, I have had players do the most assenine things then be upset with me when it doesn't work the way they expect it.

Two stories of semi-recent examples:
1) Group fighting a goat-man martial artist. He obvioulsy deft and nimble and has good kung-fu. one of the players says "I take out a bar of soap," which he apparently had bought and written on his sheet for just such an occasion, "and throw it at his feet." When the goat didn't slip on the soap once the player was surly. In fact I didn't even roll for the goat slipping.

2) Group comes across a magical corridor that poisons all who touch the floor and anything touching them (I didn't make it up). They have no idea why there are bodies littering the place and all the clues i have given them (but the clues are not the issue here). The druid decides to get on the back of her dire wolf and ride down the corridor. Every character that has a familiar or animal companion (4 in all) send the creature down perched on the wolf or the druid. All, except the Druid die (the druid had better stats and hit points and survived the return). my player's response was "Well don't get a familiar, the GM will just kill it off." Does this strike anyone at all as ass-backwards, or is it just me?

of course read the many pages of character craziness I went through in my Dark Virtues campaign in the Games, Campaigns and Stories Section. :roll:

Kublai

02-14-2005, 04:39 PM

1) Group fighting a goat-man martial artist. He obvioulsy deft and nimble and has good kung-fu. one of the players says "I take out a bar of soap," which he apparently had bought and written on his sheet for just such an occasion, "and throw it at his feet." When the goat didn't slip on the soap once the player was surly. In fact I didn't even roll for the goat slipping.

:lol: :? :cry:

There are so many ridiculous things about this scenario that I wouldn't know where to begin! A bar of soap in medieval fantasy?

Thinking about it, I would've rolled the die of fate and on a one he would've slipped. However, before I rolled, I would warn them that this means I could do the same thing to them. You won't see faster back-pedaling!

Viper

02-14-2005, 04:40 PM

The problem with this (the intervention idea) is that unless that person sees their own behavior as a problem - they'll commonly just deny they do 'x' or claim that it does happen all that often - or point out somebody else's habits that bother them, etc. And you will end up booting them because they're too defensive to listen...and then you will be the assholes when that guy (or gal) retells the story to friends.

Someone like that would probably paint you as assholes anyway if you just ignored them or made the game boring to force them out.

jc_madden

02-14-2005, 05:32 PM

Well there was soap and you bought it by the pound and carved off slivers to use. It was mainly used for doing laundry not bathing one's self but I digress.

Erud. Man I'm sorry you had to go through that. I think it isn't really necessary to say it but yes you're right it's completely bass-akwards there. The players were obviously at fault if they cared so little for thier animals as to send them into their deaths in such a manner. The penalties for loosing one's familiar are not so severe as they once were in D20 and this is disapointing.... I think in the end it's a choice of the role player to put their familiar/animal companion in danger like that. My Ranger that I'm currently playing had a wolf named Flame Eater (he got sparked by a camp fire when he was a pup his father told me so that's what he named him) and he took an arrow and went down. My character with tears in his eyes healed the poor wolf and told him to leave and be free. He couldn't in good concience put his faithful companion in danger. Now it was the DMs choice to attack the wolf but it wasn't uncalled for, the wolf was attacking and triping anything that attacked me. The archer decided to put an end to him. No hard feelings. I wish your players could see the difference.

The whole goat man thing... man, that's what MARBLES are for NOT soap. Jeeze you think if he was going to be a munchkin he'd do it right!

Kublai

02-14-2005, 05:56 PM

To be fair, in one campaign, my character was running away from thugs and entered a kitchen. I asked if there was a big pot of soup or something and Luke told me there was one indeed. I then dumped it onto the floor and took off through the window. Luke was pretty annoyed when I demanded that there be a slight chance someone would slip, but he finally gave in to the Die of Fate. He rolled a 1 and the first guy to enter the kitchen slipped!

Still, this is much more reasonable than throwing down a bar of soap in a melee and demanding the bad guy step on it!

luke

02-14-2005, 07:21 PM

I guess I'm a bit of a hard-ass, and I demand a lot from my players. Players in my games must be punctual, responsible (for dates they are going to miss, etc.) and involved in our game and the way we play.

I've had numerous discussions with players: Do you think things are working out? What's wrong? Etc. Usually the discussions result in players coming back into the fold.

I've axed two players cold.

I also will, with the Power Invested in Me as GM, absolutely forbid players from engaging in game-breaking nonsense. Beating each other up to get tests, for example.

However, I will ask what the intent of their actions are. If it's a test? And they are so hellbent on getting it they are willing to break genre and cheat, I'll just give it to them (using the Practice rules, of course).

Anytime players feel compelled to so grossly bend the rules and defile genre conventions, you must stop play and find out what's going, what's wrong. If players feel like their characters aren't powerful enough, start another game. Give them 8-10 LPs to play with. There always must be compromise at the table, but there never should be such a compromise that players feel the need to cheat in order to bypass it.

-L

Wayfinder

02-14-2005, 08:07 PM

I have a few tales from the table:

We had a guy in our group who, how can I put this?, never played just a regular character. I'm not suggesting everyone pick out an archtype and that's it. Being unique is the fun of creating characters. But being unique and using it to gain an advantage over other characters is just ridiculous. Using splat books and rules from this book and that magazine. It just got crazy. Nobody wanted to GM, because they knew he was going to bombard them with questions. He is 90% of the reason I haven't picked up a d20 book in almost a year. Sure the system has its flaws and it still can be fun, but a person like that makes you hate the game.

I was running a one-shot for the group. The PCs get to the final room of a cave complex where they encounter the main bad guy and his henchmen. The bad guys take the upper hand and eventually one of the PCs dies. The guy from above starts complaining "C'mon man, we're getting our asses kicked" He didn't think to realize, everyones trouncing through the caves with armor on, and more importantly saw two guards see them and failed to stop them from getting away. So basically, the baddies were waiting for them. They were beefed up with spells and had a plan of attack. Oh, and the guy whose character died. He was fine with it, and was almost glad. He, along with myself, felt that our games needed more casualties (warranted, of course) For a while there, our games seemed too nice.

Since then, I've been working (on and off) on an extensive BW campaign.

Bill Cook

02-14-2005, 10:39 PM

This is a really interesting thread.

Nobody wanted to GM, because they knew he was going to bombard them with questions.

This kind of player I give whatever they want. Lavishly.

Personally, I don't take issue with players seeking advantage and trying to win. If they're acting weird, I kind of do what Luke said and ask them to explain their intentions. And then I reassure them that things work out exactly as they had intended.

The only thing I'm a pill about is when dice speak. That, and being consistent with procedure and implementation of kewl powers. (e.g. "Now my magic sword can form passageways!")

I love it when they say, "I have an uncle now, who buys me a horse," or whatever. Saves me the trouble.

As for ambushing the PC's, I will do this, but I always foreshadow. (e.g. "Cut to the temple hall. The runaway guards arrive, breathless. 'Intruders! .. Maybe six or more .. (huff, huff) ..' The high priest energizes his rod of PC disintegration. 'Call in the elite guard and form a phalanx! We will hunt them in the tunnels and dry their skins for throw rugs!' Cut back to the party.")

eruditus

02-14-2005, 11:40 PM

This is a really interesting thread.

Should this be changed to Chatterer since its not about BW games directly?

eruditus

02-14-2005, 11:53 PM

As for ambushing the PC's, I will do this, but I always foreshadow. (e.g. "Cut to the temple hall. The runaway guards arrive, breathless. 'Intruders! .. Maybe six or more .. (huff, huff) ..' The high priest energizes his rod of PC disintegration. 'Call in the elite guard and form a phalanx! We will hunt them in the tunnels and dry their skins for throw rugs!' Cut back to the party.")

Oh SHIT this is great!! Do you GM with such lines or are you like many of us and only able to think of such dialogue when writing :D

Really, this cinematic style is akin to how I prefer to run games, with prologues, epilogues, cut scenes, etc.

Old school gaming often sets the GM and the players in adversarial positions. Players keep stuff from the GM and try to "suprise" him - "Well, you forgot about the Staff of Mook Ignorance we got in episode 3 that I have been hiding in my handy haversack for just such an occasion." And then be all uppety about it. It just makes we wanna go "okay, you reach for it. Remember that Perception test I had you make in episode 18? You realize that the cut-purse you saw in the general store must have been in the saloon the night before and hit ya while you we're playing drinking games with the elf in the chainmail bikini."

I sometimes feel like if you give players everything they want they will just trample through your plots and NPCs with no regard for history, interaction, personalities, useful trivia, etc. They will often just come proceed on the path of least resitance and be damned if there is a story or even other players.

Bill Cook

02-15-2005, 01:57 AM

I write better than I game. But I'm not too shabby with the quip. I use my mistakes for primer, in the moment. If it's not clicking, I increase the mistakes. Eventually, the damn thing hits a rhythm; your players toss the ball back and forth, and you just keep it going, which is easier.

Players keep stuff from the GM .. and then be all uppety about it. It just makes me wanna [oppose them].

I used to fight my PC's too. That may've been why they hid things from me.

I sometimes feel like if you give players everything they want they will just trample through your plots and NPCs with no regard for history, interaction, personalities, useful trivia, etc.

This is very weird to me. It sounds like the game you've prepared is all about the things you've listed. I guess, give them what they need to function, but don't ask them what they do -- tell them.

They will often just come proceed on the path of least resitance and be damned if there is a story or even other players.

Weird. Wouldn't you want to take the path of least resistance? I guess you've got two choices: choose their path for them (which, I'm not being facetious; it's a very viable style) or let the path they choose become the story.

Kublai

02-15-2005, 10:21 AM

I sometimes feel like if you give players everything they want they will just trample through your plots and NPCs with no regard for history, interaction, personalities, useful trivia, etc.

As I try to play it, the plot and NPCs are the history, interaction, personalities, etc. If these are seperated from each other, of course they are going to fall by the wayside. But I guess that's another thread, eh?

Fourth Horseman

02-15-2005, 11:05 AM

I guess I'm a bit of a hard-ass, and I demand a lot from my players.

I don't know. Enforcement can be uneven, and on the other side of the coin as we get older it seems our discipline grows more lax. One would think that the opposite would be true as we get older. But I think having a job and all this other shite that needs to get done on the weekends is a big part of the "problem."

There was a time when we had at least one night a week we gamed and when we would all show up on time, and play till the wee hours of the morning. No yelling, screaming, or cajolling was necessary to get people to show up. In fact we had too many punctual players. This of course coincided with a time when we were all in college and had no jobs, picture the young ones but a little geekier. Ok a lot geekier.

Luke's convention schedule means we no longer have a guaranteed weekly game. And old age, and betrayal, have left me (and others) less then gung ho about showing up punctually.

Ah, for the good old days.

Bill Cook

02-15-2005, 11:39 AM

As I try to play it, the plot and NPCs are the history, interaction, personalities, etc. If these are seperated from each other, of course they are going to fall by the wayside.

I think you're saying that "history" is created during play by "interactions" of "NPC personalities." And that PC reactions to "history" create "plot."

That sounds cool. It reminds me of an idea I got from reading the Art Deco Melodrama Threads (1 (http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=753), 2 (http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=770), 3 (http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=828), 4 (http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=876)): (1) write a complete story with just NPC's that has a final ending, (2) rewind to the first major event and (3) play.

eruditus

02-15-2005, 12:21 PM

I sometimes feel like if you give players everything they want they will just trample through your plots and NPCs with no regard for history, interaction, personalities, useful trivia, etc.

But I guess that's another thread, eh?

As far as being another thread I think it goes to show that problem players can certainly stem from problem GMs :)

As I try to play it, the plot and NPCs are the history, interaction, personalities, etc. If these are seperated from each other, of course they are going to fall by the wayside.

However, that's kind of a non-sequiter. Of course they are that's why bulldozing their way through them is with "no regard for history, interaction, personalities, etc." If all you interested in is "gee I can't wait to see my B15 polarm damage in action" and the first PC you come across you skewer on some loose justification then you have just derailed the game (or possibly done so). If the group agrees that they want to go to ball and dance and hob-knob and you go in killing guards and hiding, you begin to take away from the fun of the other players and worse may even set up adversarial situations between the CPs that other players may not want in the game.

Kublai

02-15-2005, 12:47 PM

That situation you described is exactly why characters that don't share the group dynamic should not be allowed to be burned up in the first place!

I have moved away from indivual character creation to group character creation for just this reason. It really helps everyone to start off in the same direction and expecting the same kind of story. So this leads us back to if one player refuses to go along with the rest of the players, then he should be talked to and perhaps asked to leave.

Bill Cook

02-15-2005, 04:29 PM

Yeah, if it's that bad, I guess you would have to axe him. I don't know. I've never had it happen. I have, myself, been kicked out of groups, though.

There're all kinds of mismatch; not just the Quakecon Psychotic Case. And not all are deal-breakers. If that were true, I would have parted ways with my primary group months ago:)

We agree that players that are not aligned to a group's purpose need to adjust or move on. It's also worth saying that, within the range of a group's agenda, bloodthirsty players should be connected to streams of bodies. I, too, sometimes want nothing more than to swing a poleaxe. Repeatedly.

eruditus

02-15-2005, 04:42 PM

I'm with you guys. Ultimately I am talking about folk who refuse to fit into the groups play style and expectations. They are the folk who come to the table where we all say "we wanna play heroes and have an open play style" and all the while they are scheming about killing peasants and hiding their poisonous daggers until the dramatic moment when we are all aghast that they dropped the innkeeper cause he sold him cold beer.

There are reasonable players and there are unreasable players and somewhere in the middle we all exist.

I think many of the ideas put out here have been how to deal with reasonable players with unreasonable aspiration - social flatulance, if you will. The folk I run into that often (at least one a group) are the unreasonable people with their passive moments cause they know that honey draws more flies but its only a matter of time.

Kublai

02-15-2005, 04:59 PM

::note to self:: Do not RPG in Philly. :P

Fourth Horseman

02-15-2005, 06:13 PM

That situation you described is exactly why characters that don't share the group dynamic should not be allowed to be burned up in the first place!

But there is a tradeoff isn't there? For unity of direction gained, you lose a venue for a rebel to move the "group" in a completely new direction. Of course that's only going to work if you have a GM prepared to alter his "script" in the first place.

jc_madden

02-15-2005, 07:20 PM

Sure thing! But not if it ruins it for everyone else. I think a lot of peoples idea of "moving in another direction" isn't conterproductive or disruptive. In these extreme cases we're discuss they are and it's a problem.

Kublai

02-15-2005, 07:41 PM

Yeah, if a player convinces everyone to move in his direction, then there's no problem. But if it causes a split in the group, that's bad.

Bill Cook

02-16-2005, 02:25 AM

If troupe-style exploration is part of your group's arrangement. There's a whole 'nother technique that weaves together multiple narrative threads. It's obviously destructive to the kind of prep eruditus describes above; so I wouldn't allow it in that case. But if you want something more .. chemically reactive, allowing characters to act as plot agents, bumping into each other or careening off the page, then it really facilitates.

And I wanna say: it's a pain in the ass to train. But assuredly valuable for its purpose.

eruditus

02-16-2005, 09:59 AM

Yeah, if a player convinces everyone to move in his direction, then there's no problem. But if it causes a split in the group, that's bad.

Exactly.

I think what some people feel is "role-playing" and evocative is really just disruption. They think that arguing is interaction. Although a little tiff between characters or a little interparty strife is healthy, intriguing and "real" taking up two hours of your precisous four just isn't cool (unless that is the expectation set out from the beginning). Those sorts of players just assume that is the game the other players want to play and don't really give them a choice.

eruditus

02-16-2005, 10:03 AM

::note to self:: Do not RPG in Philly. :P
Gosh, I wish moving were the simple solution. But I have played with them everywhere. Most groups have at least one of these guys from what i can tell. There is at least one guy in an extended gaming circle that most people don't want to play with.

Maybe I attract them cause invariably, as a player or a GM, that guy sits at our table in the convention. :D