Hi guys,
I am slowly but surely coming round to the "Yes, and ..." approach to DMing. Improvisation is my weakest point as a DM, and I'll admit to being a bit of a control freak, so I do have a tendency to say "No" or "Yeah, but ..." a lot. (You may have noticed me doing that when I ask for advice here on the forums, as well.)
Recently I shared this article in a D&D Facebook group [it's a secret group; otherwise I'd just link to the thread directly]: 11 Ways to be a Better Roleplayer, with the caveat that I wanted to emphasize #3 ("don't negate") in particular for my group going forward.
One of my players (the indecisive one) responded with: "I disagree with 3. Trying to stop someone from doing something is a totally valid thing to do if it goes against your char's principles. That's RPing your char. I don't like 4 either, for pretty much the same reason."
One of my other players said: "Well i kinda believe your character should be built to fit the story, rather than the story be distorted beyond reason to your character ... You are trying to make a character and LOCK it in without responding to the group or plot hooks. (just go with the suspension of disbelief you may find your character just go "emerging" as you follow things... Worked for my glory hog enchanter!)"
I think he was talking in terms of the general "you", but the first player appears to have taken it more personally, as she replied: "Maybe my style of RPing is just incompatible with the group. I don't believe I'm trying to distort the story beyond reason to accommodate my chars. In fact, I try hard to fit my chars into the storyline. But whatever, it's all my fault."
So I said: "If a PC is built so that its principles and motivations are in tune with those of the other PCs in the group and with the goals of the adventure in general, then trying to negate the other players' actions (#3) or refusing to engage with the adventure because your character wouldn't do that (#4) won't ever be an issue. In other words, instead of making a character that wouldn't do a particular thing, make one that would (within the context of the group and the adventure)! As far as I can tell, that's something you've come to realize on your own, since you've decided to drop Isilme and make a new PC that better fits the mood of the group[*], right? And, for the record, #3 is as much for me as the DM as it is for anyone else. And I have been guilty of #4 as a player plenty of times. I need to remember to let go and say 'Yes, and ...' more."
*In the FB group I set up for my campaign, she recently posted: "Okay, I'm going to drop Isilme for a new char. Not just because of the Warlock thing, but also because she's too serious and this is not a serious group lol. Crazy actions by various members of the party are severely aggravating when your char is taking things seriously, so I'm going to quit doing so. To make it easier to fit a new char into the group (as Isilme had no connections with anybody), does anyone have any possible relationships that they would like somebody to fill?"
I feel like she's missing the point somewhat. I don't think she's doing anything wrong necessarily. Yes, she (and I) dropped the ball with her first character, which wasn't well-suited to the rest of the group (although she was well-suited to the adventure at least). However, as I pointed out to her, any issues of "Don't do that!" or "My character wouldn't do that!" shouldn't arise if she makes a PC that would do "that", and based on her post about making a new PC, it seems she does actually understand that.
Anyone want to weigh on this? Where would you take things from here? How would you have handled things differently?
For the record, I have also shared this article about saying "Yes, and ..." with the group, although I've only just post it this morning, so I don't think anyone else has seen it yet.
Thanks in advance!
I don't see why there's a problem. A player realized a character concept, that concept didn't mesh with the rest of the group, they made a new character. System working as intended.
Mind you, I approach that from the philosophy of "Feel free to fight, work at cross purposes, or even kill each other if that's what you all enjoy. You're all adults. The world will still be there after the backstabbing is over."
DemoMonkey wrote:
It sounds like, with time, the whole group might see eye to eye regarding that if they have all (DM included) worked together properly to set up the campaign that #3 and #4 won't happen - but at the current point in time one player is seeing "you aren't allowed to have your character object to something another party member is doing" under #3 when what it really says is "you aren't allowed to stop what another player is doing, you have to respond to it in character."
Basically, it'll take time to learn the difference between "No, your character can't do that because mine wouldn't like it" and "Yes, and now we can roleplay this disagreement between our characters while ultimately allowing the game to proceed forward."
The rule of improv is "don't block." That's significantly different from "you can't have your building upon another player's contribution add dramaticly appropriate conflict." People get confused about it very easily though.
That's probably a good way of putting it, Aaron. Thanks.
I've added to the FB discussion the following: "I also think it's worth pointing out that there will be occasions where stopping another PC from doing something is acceptable, such as when that PC is not of sound mind. Additionally, for me, it's not so much PCs negating PCs as it is players negating players. If one player announces that he wants his PC to pick the guard's pocket, another player shouldn't argue long and loudly about why he shouldn't. Just let him do it and then have your PC react accordingly (by admonishing him, or by alerting the guard, or whatever)."
Well, it is really all up to how the players feel about the PCs. I could see a serious warlock in a group of heroic do-gooders and the table could have a blast with that. I guess there just has to be compelling reason why the warlock would stay with the others.
I think it is bad for a player to make suggestions to other players or tell them that their plans are bad or that they should change them. I don't think it is bad if the PC in character and in the game tries to stop another PC from trying to do something if it makes the story better.
For example, in one of the last Horde of the Dragon Queen games I played in, our party had snuck through a forest area and found a camp of humans and kobolds. While we were planning, the Dwarf (who can't speak common...and we can't speak Dwarven) started to charge. Our other fighter, took a cue from the rest of us and beat the Dwarf on initiative so he grappled the Dwarf to hold him back. The Dwarf took out a throwing axe and threw it at a foe while being grappled (the DM gave him disadvantage), and he still hit the foe. We all just reacted to the situation and played from there.
I think what's important is that everyone at the table realize what each PC is really all about and form some real reason to stay together even when there are missteps and even crossed motives.
My sentiments exactly, Rhenny.
Coming from the opposite camp of "No, and quit asking!" I have to say that the player needs to decide if your group is right for her. I would tell you to kiss my <explitive>, and walk. Of your list, 2-5 and 8 are crap. To take them from the top:
2) Incorperating my backstory is also part of the DMs job. If I'm a shrewd buisnessman, you should have opportunities for me to do it. If I want to be an anti-social wild elf who sits in a tree during a social encounter, that's MY choice. I'm not harming anyone, nor taking time away from the game for anyone. The only one I'm possibly hurting is myself (for the loss of game time).
3) Blocking is the worst Politically Correct term bandied about on these forums. If I'm playing a character you you piss him/her off, I will retaliate in character (see response to #4).
4) My characters are not me. Telling me to change my character for the whim of another player is bogus. My characters are more than just numbers on a sheet, and they don't alter to fit anyone's whims, not even my own.
5) If you can't accept consequences like a resonable adult, then I really don't want to play with you. In fact, I probably don't want to associate with you as a human being.
8) If you can't be mature enought to hand adult concepts, then I also don't want to play with you. I run and play in games that are meant for a mature audience. If I'm playing in a game designed for younger players, then I'll restrain myself (like a PG or PG-13 movie), but if you as an adult feel "uncomfortable" with being an adult, then go away.
"Yes, and..." is total garbage, and I applaud your player for standing up for herself and her character. You should think about how she feels, and discuss (away from the game) if she's a good fit. She may be far better off finding another group that fits her needs more.
Adding on. I'm not a Yes, And... DM. However, I draw distinction between inter-player conflict (which I do not permit) and inter-character conflict (which has me closer to demomonkey).
Ive had to remind players to stick to playing their own characters, and sometimes to remind them who has the spotlight and who doesn't.
Some of this "My character stops his character from doing (whatever)" seems to come from badly played Paladins policing the other party members. Or it's been that way IMX. And that's where I've had to take an anti-MetaGame approach to deal with. (Usually I dont).
Ex. Our LG dwarf fighter (very strict, morally) would not permit the party rogue (trained in diplo & intimidate) to question a prisoner alone. The rogue's player had said (clearly OOC - we have a gesture) that he'd make the prisoner talk and the LG dwarf said he wasn't going to let the Rogue do anything at all. At this point, LG Dwarf tried to initiate grapple to stop the Rogue.
I stopped the action and reminded the dwarf that all he knew and saw was his trusted friend and ally headed toward the prisoner's enclosure. Nothing more. Under what circumstances did that justify physical force? The LG dwarf backed off.
I tend to avoid the meta issue altogether, but I will use it to keep the game moving and to shut down conflict between players.
One of the key points the author of the "11 Ways" article puts forth (especially in a later article that I have linked in my signature) is that your character is just a construct, something that is used for the entertainment of everyone at the table. This dovetails nicely with what the Basic Rules say about the goals of play. Paraphrasing, the "win condition" of D&D is to have a good time and to create an exciting, memorable story. These are the things we are tasked with trying to achieve when we play D&D. This applies to choices we make for our characters, too. Given that those choices represent at least one-third of the entire basic conversation of the game, it's important that whatever we choose is (1) entertaining and (2) leads to the creation of a memorable story.
The problem that a lot of players run into is they don't put those priorities above their own character. This character, which is fully under their control, seems to tell them what it will or will not do like some sort of possessed ventriloquist dummy. "My character wouldn't or won't do that..." or "My character does this thing that doesn't make for a very good time or exciting, memorable story..." The player's priorities are out of whack. A more effective way of thinking - at least in terms of achieving the aforementioned goals of play - would be to ask oneself "What is the most entertaining choice I can make here that is also consistent with my established characterization? What choice can I make that will lead to the most interesting story?"
Sometimes, the answer to those questions can be intraparty conflict. It's not my cup of tea because there is a whole world of monsters to kill and rob, so turning on the guy next to you is not very entertaining to me. For every one time I have seen it turn into something interesting, I've seen a dozen times where it was a detour into a sword-measuring contest where nobody had any real incentive to back down from their positions except to get the heck on with the adventure. Which is what we should've been doing from "go." So generally, I will avoid this as a player or discourage it if I'm DM. What I absolutely will not abide as either a player or DM is a player's refusal to play the game they agreed to play and say "My character wouldn't do that." The group isn't there to play a game of convincing another player to play. That player will either have to create a new character that will play the game or come up with a reason themselves to engage. It's probably a good thing that your player is creating a new character that better suits the party and premise of your game.
So here's the interesting thing: None of what I said above requires the use of the improvisational technique known as "Yes, and..." Often, this concept is conflated with other techniques or is completely misunderstood, especially by detractors. That said, getting into the habit of saying "Yes" more often can take your game into a totally new direction with faster pacing and more harmony between players. This can make it supremely easy to acheive the goals of play I discussed above.
Shiroiken wrote:
Hmmm. First of all, I think it would be best to handle the discussion with your player(s) in person, if possible; in my experience, facebook conversations and chatrooms aren't that great for social problem solving. I guess the main reason is that, if we're talking through the net, I might read something a person wrote that makes me angry, but respond in a polite way; conversely, if we're all in the same room, you'll see my mouth twitch and my hands squeeze into a punch, detecting that no, I don't agree.
About your player: though it is true that, sometimes, it is better to change character if you see the current one doesn't fit into the campaign (or the group), that's not really gonna solve the issue, which will inevitably represent itself as soon as the story has a change in tone or atmosphere. If your player had trouble with her "serious" warlock in the current group and now creates a hack'n'slash dwarf shieldmaiden with an obsession for beer, she will feel out of place as soon as the dwarven city is burned to the ground by goblins and giants, being "not in character" to feel the appropriate amount of grief.
It's really about BALANCE, and it's about understanding that your character evolves, changes, and is NOT a fixed formula. Being honest, if I were you I'd encourage her to stick to her current PC; she just has to learn (and you and the other players could/should help her) how to make her character a "rounded" figure. Perhaps she is secretly addicted to Mandragora Mead, or she is a virgin, or she is a lesbian, or she is always serious because in fact she's terribly insecure and you, as a DM, can challenge these aspects. But make it clear for her that she has to TELL YOU the nature of her character, even if it's a secret for the rest of the group. Anything that can spice up situations and making the game interesting!
However, these suggestions are valid if your group and the storyline you're playing have some solid logic behind them, and if character growth is a common goal for the party. I've DMed for very different groups, and the priorities can vary. A lot. I think you basically should make sure that you're all on the same page when it comes to the overall spirit of the campaign, and to what it means for your group to "have fun". That's really the basis, as Iserith pointed out.
Anyways, best of luck! I hope you solve the issue 
Emanuele_Galletto wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Sorry to hear that, Emanuele. Were you unable to continue without them?
pukunui wrote:
Inter-character conflict is fine in my opinion, it's great as long as none of the players take it personal. For example, I'd often ask my players what they choose to share with each other. Often there will be a player that says "I tell my party everything I just learned, except that one thing that I don't want them to know about", to which the other players respond with much laughter.
I realize that not every DnD group would have this same understanding, and some players could get angry when fellow PC's work against them like that. I think it's important as a DM to be sort of the referee, and to explain how it is nothing personal, and should be applauded as a great in-character action. As a DM you establish the mood under which the game is played, together with the players. But don't underestimate your influence in this regard.
When there's inter-player conflict however, that is a different thing. Sometimes players will get in each other's hair, even when they are supposed to be adults. Secretly we know that none of us are really adults, so lets stop pretending that we are. But as a DM, it is also your task to put an end to any such fights, because it can really sour the mood of a campaign. Make sure you intervene when things get out of hand, and discuss it openly with the group. Explain to them that they should try and work together more, instead of trying to rub each other the wrong way. It's all about telling a fun story together, so explain to the players that they also make the story. They can make it fun, or they can make it annoying.
When my barbarian with a below average intelligence insists on going first. And he insists on relying on his own superior trap searching skills, and then proceeds to get hurt by every trap along the way, the players can't help but laugh. It's important that the players understand when you the player are deliberately getting the rest of the party into trouble, you do so because it fits the character, or simply because it is funny. It is very important to have this mutual agreement among the players regarding the general mood of the game.
Imaculata wrote:
Shiroiken wrote:
Emanuele_Galletto wrote:
pukunui wrote:
I suppose the tone of the campaign was pretty serious: can you survive Icewind Dale's harsh winter environment long enough to stop a bunch of bad guys from doing bad things? I imagine the comedic elements have been a direct response to the seriousness of the campaign pitch - like injecting a bit of comedy into a thriller so it's not so exhausting to watch, you know?
pukunui wrote:
[quote="AaronOfBarbaria"]
I think that now I get why you think being a DM is hard.[quote]
Being a DM is easy, being a good DM is hard.
Also, "blocking" isn't a politically correct term - it's a term used in improvisational acting (as well as other places) that is being used to describe what is being done, not an appointed fill-in word for some word that has been taken out of use because it is offensive.
[quote="Shiroiken"]
[quote="AaronOfBarbaria"]
I think that now I get why you think being a DM is hard.
Being a DM is easy, being a good DM is hard.
Also, "blocking" isn't a politically correct term - it's a term used in improvisational acting (as well as other places) that is being used to describe what is being done, not an appointed fill-in word for some word that has been taken out of use because it is offensive.
Shiroiken wrote:
Emanuele_Galletto wrote:
Seems like the sort of play where there's a metagame conceit that the party simply must stay together (and that is why they all must be perfectly compatable with each other) as well as being the stort of play where, like the start of horder of the dragon queen, if you see greenrest being attacked by a powerful army but there's plenty of empty countryside around you, you are to run into greenrest.
I've seen that list before, but I think #3 is, at best, worded poorly. At worst, it allows one out-of-control player to run roughshod over the plans of an entire group because no one is allowed to stop anything that PC does, in or out of character.
pukunui wrote:
Dreamstryder wrote:
Here's an idea...
Sometimes a player makes a pc before knowing what the party is like. It could take a bunch of sessions to feel the vibes and learn. At that point, the DM and the player should discuss. 5e gives us the idea of traits, bonds, ideals, flaws. In that discussion, DM and player should replace or add a new facet to the PC that will encourage more productive party dynamics.
Of course, player should build the story of the character to incorporate this change.
Rhenny wrote:
kaitoujuliet wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Imaculata wrote:
Yeah I think there's probably a confluence of issues that lead to these traffic jams in play. And I don't know that th solution is exclusively "don't block." To an extent, there are table management issues, spotlight time, at least one time-issue with the con game (just not enough time to suss out who enjoys what and catering to that).
Re selfishness. I think it's okay, but with caveats. If you understand that at my game, you will be expected to be a backup player or support player when the Spotlight isn't on you, and if you understand that when the spotlight is on someone else then it's their turn to direct the course of play, then I've got zero problem with however you choose to play when the spotlight is on you. In other words, if you can share table/play time, I dont mind anything else you might want to do. Call it Right Of Way if you like.
Players cannot block other players.
..."I stab the king!" says the player of the Rogue.
"I cast Hold Person on the extremely unwise Rogue." says the player of the Cleric....
This is not blocking.
..."I stab the King!" says the player of the Rogue.
"The Kings Guard, who I already told you are very competent and watching you closely, use their triggered actions to fill you full of (rolling of dice) 37 HP worth of arrows." says the DM...
This is not blocking either.
..."I stab the King!" says the Rogue
"No you don't, that's stupid." says the DM...
THAT is blocking.
Only DMs can block players.
This is not to say they should; only that they are the only ones who can.
Shirebrok wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
"What about a situation where one player states a desired course of action and another player (not the DM) tells him OOC not to do it because it's stupid or whatever."
If they are politely advising a new or inexperienced player about a course of action that might have a bad outcome the new or inexperienced player might not expect, I would let it pass as long as it's presented as information and not an order.
If they are actually telling someone else OOC what to do, they should politely be told to stop. It's rude.
It's still not blocking though.
smacintush wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
smacintush wrote:
"Bring Your Own Crucifix should not be a part of any game IMO."
Unless you're playing "Cathedral", of course!
smacintush wrote:
pukunui wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
My immediate reaction is to try to defend myself as a roleplayer in the con game example I brought up earlier, but really, the specifics of that situation aren't the point here. I simply mentioned the con game as an example of how one player can dominate play without being in bad faith. This can happen whether the other players are good or bad; the dominant player isn't better than the others simply by virtue of being dominant.
Back to point 3. Seriously, I really don't see what the harm is in having one PC prevent another from doing something, as long as it doesn't happen all the time. I'm sure there are some groups who will have better experiences using this as a guide, but to make it a universal rule for every table, everywhere, in every situation? I'm not buying it.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
smacintush wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Did you sell the game to the players as a comedy version of the game or did you just pitch the game as presented. This is a huge deal.
If you did not say you were making a comedy game out of the adventure ... you pulled a bait and switch on the player. When you say you are playing a FR game you have a specific tone and genere included in that statment. Trying to make it into a knights of badasdom comedy is dishonest on your part.
If you did sell the game as a comedy and all the players agreed than your player is wrong. That player showed up to a game with a tone and genere and is playing against the group agreed upon setting.
After you answer that explain how the rest of the group feel about the "yes and" approach you intend to use. That game play style and the link you posted are huge deviding points in play style. If the group did not opperate by that play method before you need to make sure every one is onboard with that change.
Any one that is not onboard should look elsewhare for a game. I can not and will not play in a "yes and" group. I also take issue with nearly every single point on that list. If this player is like me they will need to move on. They will not have fun in your game and you will not have fun with them in the goup. Note that if it is only you that wants this " yes and" play style that means you need to go. You are the bad fit for the group. This is a huge devide issue.
Isareth and I are on oposite sides of this issue. We would not be able to play in the same group and have fun. I know that he enjoys his play style and that for him it works great. For me it lacks what I want from the game. I want a character that behaves acording to who it is not what is expediant for game play. I respect him as a fellow player and as a DM. We have an understanding about what we want from the game. The huge differance is the road we take.
You and your group need to sit down and find out who is going to stay and who needs to look for a new game. Your play styles are diverging and that means that it is time to see where the split is. It does not mean you cant be friends, just that you probably should not play DnD togeather.
kaitoujuliet wrote:
I don't think you NEED to wait until the DM narrates one result before you state what you're doing.
Taking the case of a crude fighter attempting to knock out an npc that accidently stepped on his shoes, I think a "goody two-shoes" cleric could attempt to stop the action physically before it happens. The DM can then decide what happens(do we roll initiative; use initiative modifier to see who can act first; does the dm just decide what happens; etc.).
Sure SOME groups like to play one at a time. Not every group does and that isn't a wrong way to do things.
Personally, in my game if that situation happened I would check initiative modifier and then if the cleric had a higher modifier I would allow a grapple check(if he is standing next to the fighter). If he isn't next to the fighter or the fighter has a higher modifier I would describe what the fighter does(just assuming the hit will connect given he is a fighter and this guy is a commoner) and ask the cleric how he reacts being that he wasn't quick enough to stop it.
bonethug0108 wrote:
I know you wouldn't. I'm just pointing out that not everyone likes to play the same way. Someone else might turn it into a full blown combat by rolling initiative.
Not everyone plays the "spotlight" style. Some people go around and ask what everyone is doing before determining anything. Others might go around and then allow other players to potentially respond to an action(how we play).
"My way" is no less fun or entertaining. It in no way inherently creates a worse story. We love being able to interact the way we do and we end up with plenty of great stories because of it.
I'm not saying any way is wrong or worse. The fact is they can all be great fun if they work with your group.
bonethug0108 wrote:
One example of "our way" is like when the rogue checks a trap. If I just narrate the rogue fiddling with the trap and it goes off the rest of the party could be in a bad spot. Instead I'll say, "Okay the rogue is about to check the trap. Does anyone want to do anything here?" The fighter responds that he goes to hide behind a pillar. The wizard responds that he hides behind the fighter. The fighter makes a quip about the wizard being a coward in a playful way. The wizard fires back about him being better protection than the pillar.
Another example is when the fighter says he wants to charge the king and try to strike him down. I'll ask if anyone responds and the bard says he sees the fighter begin to reach for his sword and calls out his name to distract him. Now the fighter might respond to the bard or could choose to still charge if no one else does anything. Later on there will be a discussion about, "What happened back there?"
Not direct examples of things that have happened, but jus examples of how things may play out.
bonethug0108 wrote:
We do have a case of this. Ravenloft game, I'm playing a Ranger. My character doesn't know the domain we've wandered into, he's just trying to rescue his mother, who'd been kidnapped.
Now after a while, I'd made a deal with a shady cult to ensure my mother's protection. In return, they want me to steal a Maguffin from a temple. So here comes my ranger to steal this thing, and we arrive in the midst of a ceremonial sacrifice. The person being sacrificed is the dude who promised my mother's safety. So, rather than, let that guy suffer through the ceremony, my Ranger shot him dead, and threw the place into a riot frenzy. Now, the party paladin, watching me aim, starts screaming I should stop - this is suicide. But i didn't.
As it turns out, the priest performing the sacrifice is the domain's dark lord. Which the paladin knew and I did not. (She'd put it together, where I just thought he was some guy). Now I've gone and taken a dark lord's toy away.
Anyway, the paladin didn't stop me, for all she tried. And as a result, the relationship between them (ranger and paladin) was irreparably damaged. Ranger is too reckless for her.
It was a good bit of play and I'm rather glad the DM (Iserith in this case) let my mistake roll forward. If he hadn't, I wouldn't feel like my choices had any meaning. In other words, if the paladin actually DID stop me, it would've made me want to do it all the more, simply to reassert control over my own character.
Now, maybe that's just me. And I still feel there are circumstances where intra-party conflict is great. But not where it takes from a person their ability to control their own character or make their own choices.
The DM should provide a space where the players' character concepts can exist and interact with the story in a reasonable way. However, each player is responsible for their own fun, while respecting the other players. If I provide a city that has a bunch of quests and the party decides to persue one, I do not feel bad for you if you decide to not follow the rest of the group because of some made up reason as long as I provide some sort of hook for you to hang a motivation on.
It would be unfair for me to assign the group a quest of Burn the Forest TO THE GROUND and then get annoyed that the Druid doesn't want to go along with. On the other hand, if you decide (against my advice) to create a misanthrope who hates people and thinks adventuring is beneath him, it's up to THAT PLAYER to come up with a good reason to be with, stay with, and participate with the rest of the party.
Most of these things get caught in character creation/Session Zero but sometimes they still come up. Laying down this groundwork is important. Myself, I explain to the players "You are responsible for your fun, along with the fun of the rest of the group. I will do my best to create an exciting experience and world and lay the framework so everyone can have fun but in the end it's up to you."
From time to time we get this "that's your opinion" argument, often accompanied by "it's the WAY you said it," and "it seems like you're saying your way is better, objectively."
Of course everyone thinks their way is better. That's why they do it that way. I certainly think my way is the best, but I have no measurements to lord it over anyone. (Sigh).
But if it helps you, imagine all unverifiable assertions are prefaced with an "IMO" in front of them. That way we don't have to have the "Well that's YOUR OPINION" discussion, which adds basically nothing to a conversation, addressing only the standing of a person making an argument and not the merits of (or lack thereof) the argument itself.
Basically, it goes without saying that everyone believes their ops union is right, but has no way to objectively assert that rightness - the best we can do is measure a technique against our own priorities, and see what holds up.
bonethug0108 wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
If you're going to use a term, please use it correctly or else the definition and resulting conversation regarding the topic becomes muddled.
bonethug0108 wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Outside of initiative.
Now, if the Paladin were able to read my mind (and therefore know my intent) and also had the ability to pre-empt me, then sure I guess that's fair.
But there was no space really between "I act" and "I react" in which stopping me was possible. Mostly bc I didn't say "I'm thinking about doing this..." My character didn't speak at all, just acted.
So, I mean, even if she did beat me on initiative, she'd also have to guess my intent. And if my ally simply attacked me out of the blue... Idk...
Its a stretch on this point, Rhenny. I agree, that in the framework of initiative, were my intent known, that trying to stop me would be fair game. And odds would be basically even on how it would come out. But in the scenario I played, those considerations weren't present.
Sure out of initiative I totally see allowing each pc/player to act no strings attached.
And intent must be known or anticipated within the context of the situation and pc knowledge/experience.
Rhenny wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Noon wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
iserith wrote:
A lot depends on where you and your players put the focus of the game. If the story is the ultimate thing then everything else is on hold. No blocking because that will get in the way of the story, etc.
If the characters and portraying them authenticly is your goal you will have different approaches. For some the highlight is inter-character conflict and to ban it removes something valuable from the game.
If the focus of the game is general explroation with no over arcing story then again different focuses will come into play. Working together to solve problems is more important than any one characters rash impulses that might get the whole party killed.
In the ranger situation above when the whole party is together I find it hard to see how a ranger trying to snipe a target far way in a large group would possbaly go so fast that no one else in the party would be aware of what was going on. To say the other player couldn't even say "wait" is taking it too far for me.
If an action is likely to affect the entire party then for me saying everyone else must sit around while that happens before commenting "damn wish I had thought to stop you, before you cut the rope that was holding the bridge we are all standing on, thus plunging us to our deaths". Partly this ia also related to consiquences, if you know that basicly everything will always kind of work out anyway then the actions of any opne player are kind of not too damaging (but also kind of meaningless). If you are playing with a different tone, then a player doing something that puts all the other characters in danger, might be something they want to have a say in.
It is very much finding what works best for you and your group.
'Blocking'...
It's a loaded word in this context, and I have seen it used as an excuse for bad behaviour flying in the face of the best interests of a game, or indeed naysaying a GM's ruling.
The only 'right' time to say no as a GM are to ensure the following;
- A campaign element is applied fairly - "No, you can't go to the nearest city and buy a Griffin mount, there is no established market."
- NPCs are properly roleplayed - "No, he won't back down, despite your threats." *where the NPC is defending an interest more important than the character's influence on them*
- Rules interpretations - "No, it doesn't work like that..."
In general, I fiind it best only to fall back on out-of-character 'no' when absolutely necessary.
When a player is being unreasonable, it is usually bettter to rein them in via in-game elements.
If they steal from a patron, have the patron hire a brute squad to rough them up. If constantly taking more than their fair share of the treasure and getting away with it IC (and pissing off the other players), contrive an NPC to discover their perfidity and blackmail them.
Just some examples.
Just never allow truly bad bahaviour that hurts your game to go un-addressed because of the old excuse of "but it's what my character would do...".
The GM has a duty to make the game fun for the players, but likewise the players for the GM, and for each other.
iserith wrote:
Caliburn wrote:
Xguild wrote:
iserith wrote:
I wouldn't. Basically you'd be inviting the other players to stop the one moving toward the king.
I don't ever ask the PCs to make insight checks, or any checks, until after they've declared that their character is doing something. I feel doing so is a form of taking control away from them.
bawylie wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
This conversation is really interesting and informative. I think the crux of the matter comes down to how long the DM allows each pc to be in the spotlight so to speak in out of combat situations.
Do you guys think this spotlight time changes depending on the group? I could see letting a group I'm more familiar with take longer spotlight turns than groups I'm less familiar with. Comfort level seems to play a big role.
@Xguild,
You argument is: One person shouldn't get to define the scene - the next person should.
Your support is a principle regarding player agency & the ability to affect the world.
I support player agency except where it conflicts with another player's agency. Much like right of way. Once a person has control of a lane, they reasonably expect an unimpeded path of travel (nobody gets to cut them off & doing so is rude and potentially dangerous).
Two characters with a legitimate conflict, wherein each knows the others' intention, ought to be able to play out that conflict.
One player does not have the right to preempt another, nor negate their actions, simply because they don't want that player to play that way or take that action. To me this is the same as when a Wizard wants to cast light and someone else says "No, cast magic missile." Or when someone says "Very well, we'll consider your offer," and another player says "No, tell him something more awesome."
Anyway, it comes down to principles. So I don't suppose I'll convince you. I value player agency except where that means violating another players' agency. (And no, going first does not do that). I also value knowing when you're in the spotlight and when you're a support player, and acting accordingly. Stealing the spotlight is not cool in my game: it's taking someone else's turn.
Rhenny wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
I don't take disruption as intentional. I believe it's because my players are so excited about my game that they can't help themselves. So my reminders are typically gentle. I don't have "problem players" bc I know how to train them to play in my game.
A DM should NEVER tell their players, "No that's not possible" or "No you can't do that". Instead a DM should be saying, " Sure, but let me suggest you try this.." or "Alright, let's give it shot, you'll need to roll the following..."
The game is fantasy and once you stop thinking like its real life and just a game, it will become fun.
Bloodlust1997 wrote:
shpelley wrote:
iserith wrote:
Xguild wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Noon wrote:
iserith wrote:
I think right now we are trying to discuss two very similiar issues, using one to justify the other.
The first issue is that of the rude/disruptive players who interupt, interject or attempt to halt a player even before they are able to say what he wants to do, or trying to artificially stop someone from doing something (I cast light ... No you don't ... cast magic missile).
The second and very seperate issue is reactive role-playing and a DM getting a full understanding of what everyone is doing in a scene before he decides what happens, which I think is an obligation, which ignoring that to me is not a "DM style", its really a failure to do your job as the DM. This is about collaborative role-playing, interaction between players and as far as I'm concerned one of the fundementally most important elements of storytelling and how that applies to being a DM (Abjudicating what happens).
Now rude and disruptive players that interupt you, interject and try to influence the activities of another player, in that sense, I completetly agree that the response of the DM should be to put a stop to it. The answer is a definitive "NO" you can't do that. This isn't a game thing or a DM style thing, its a social skills thing and its not something that you use as a basis for adapting your philosophy as a DM because it has nothing to do with you being a DM and it has everything to do with said player not understanding the difference between a player interupting and a character reacting.
I stand however by the idea that players should, if they so desire, have the oppertunity to react to events before a seen is resolved. "I slap the King" is the intention of one of the many possible actors in the scene. For a DM to say "ok the king has been slapped" without giving an oppertunity for anyone else to do something is the very definition of railroading. You have railroaded the events of the scene to be based on what one player wanted to do.
Perhaps this example of "I slap the king" is too short of a time frame to make the point with. But imagine a player says "I will setup camp and pitch a tent" and than the DM said, ok that takes 2 hours and for those 2 hours no one gets to act because one person has already called the action. Its the exact same scenario, the only difference is the amount of time that has passed.
Its perfectly reasonable for players to have an expecation for an oppertunity to react to the actions of other players before the scene is closed out, to me, that's not even a negotiable thing or DM style thing, its the difference between collaborative role-playing and whatever the oppossite is. If a DM did that to me as a player, I would consider the game one of severe railroading.
I certainly disagree that you need to get another players permission. That's completetly ludicrious. Player1: I pitch a tent, it takes two hours. Player2: Eh player 1, can I do something in those two hours, pretty please?
I do agree that there are times when as a DM you take the reigns and push events through. "I slap the king" may be a scene like that. Perhaps as a DM you simply decide, it only takes a second, by the time anyone realizes what was about to happen it already happened. I get that, there are times when reactions don't make sense and to me that is the caveat of reactive role-playing, or role-playing of any sort at any point. It has to make logical sense. "I ram my hand down his throat and pull out his spine"... makes no sense, its not in the realm of possibility (for most characters) so naturally I would inquire exactly how a player intends to do that or simply point out that "that's not possible". Logic and common sense play their roles in adjudication as a DM and the DM has a reasonable expectations that the players chosen actions make sense or at the very least are feasable/possible.
No, I'm not - more false assertions. Players may think what they want and act how they want so long as they don't infringe upon the agency of someone else without that person's permission. That is simple courtesy in my view. In cooperative board games, we call the people who try to dominate play "table captains." They're always trying to control the strategy and shoot down other people's ideas. Their ideas and strategy might even be more efficacious, but they sure do suck the life out of the collaboration by trying to control other people. We don't want those kind of people in our D&D games, thanks.
@Xguild. It is important to separate the two cases you mention.
Fir me, I like to separate player actions too. There are some player actions (or attempted actions) that are either so sudden or so masked of intent that it seems completely clear that the pc will attempt the action and everyone has to react to the resolved situation. On the other hand, there are longer, more clearly telegraphed actions, that give time for others to react.
How the table deals with "blocking" needs to be an established convention. Some groups will allow blocking if it fits with the character and background/context of the campaign. Others will discourage blocking completely. Still others will allow blocking with plater permission.
Xguild wrote:
Xguild wrote:
Iserith the concept you have defined here is the polar oppossite to collaborative role-playing. Its not collaboration when the input of one player supercedes the input of another. Where permission must be "granted" before an action is accepted. Does the implementation of the house rule also apply to the DM? Does the DM have "agency" over a scene when he chooses to and must players also ask the DM for permission before they can act in a scene? Or the oppossite, must the DM ask permission from the player before he acts on the behalf of one of his NPC's?
I think if I tried implementing a system like this into any one of my groups I would get punched in the face.
" Its not collaboration when the input of one player supercedes the input of another"
So why should the second guy supersede the first guy?
Xguild wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Xguild wrote:
I've been trying while reading this thread and catching up to figure out a name for my style of play. It is definitely not "Yes, and..." I'd call my style character centered play maybe. You are your character basically.
I don't really have a problem if a group wants to be mostly cooperative and creates characters at campaign start with that goal in mind. When they do that the result is mostly cooperation. No campaign though is required to take that approach.
Here are some ideas that I believe fits the nature of my games
1. You decide what you want to do and you don't try to control other players. It's a turn based game for a reason.
2. If you feel your character would interfere with another character in game then you interfere. You use the rules to do so. You might also just use conversation to persuade another character over to your point of view.
3. The DM should play the NPCs the same way. The challenge as DM is to play each NPC per his description.
4. Avoid metagame thinking. My players are never thinking "What can I do to make this game more interesting?" Never. If they are, they are failing big in my opinion. I want them thinking "How can we devise a plan to defeat the ogre guarding that door". I want their thoughts to as much as possible coincide with the characters thoughts. The only think I want a player doing that a character can't know is rolling dice and resolving things the character is doing in game.
I've gone back and forth enough with Iserith to know that we approach the game differently. His way works for him and my way works for me. So we have more than one way to play D&D and have fun. Shocker. I'm sure Bawylie's way is some middle ground between the two and the rest of you fall all over the place in the spectrum.
I personally do not enjoy collaboratively crafting a story with the DM and players all sitting in directors chairs and choosing actions to further some story goal. That is just not my style of play. I far prefer players who after the game use the first person to describe what they did and why. I want each of my players thinking they are really in a fantasy world and that bad guys really are trying to kill them. I want them for just a moment to forget their real lives. I want them wracking their brains for every trick in the book they can devise to defeat a bad guy. I want their decision making to be the same as it would be if they were magically really transported into this fantasy world that works like D&D. At least I want it to resemble a heroic version of the idea anyway.
This debate though has been hashed out so many times I'm not sure where it can go. Perhaps it might be more fruitful to just categorize various approaches and make it known there are these various ways of playing the game.
Via Media, baby!!!
@Iserith: Would it be fair to say that your method essentially applies the turn-based approach of initiative rounds to social interactions?
That is to say, if a PC tried to slap or stab an NPC on his turn during an initiative round, no one would be able to stop him unless they had readied an action to do so.
While social interactions don't generally involve rolling initiative, the same philosophy could apply. Player 1 announces his intentions and it is now his turn to act. No one can stop him unless they had previously announced their intentions to protect the NPC (eg. readied an action to do so).
Emerikol wrote:
pukunui wrote:
No need to take that one personally. He's mapping out a philosophical understanding, in which he feels some distance from your ethos. That's introspection up there, not attack.
Oh, I realize it's not such a formal thing. I'm not suggesting anyone should roll initiative for social interactions (although I am aware that some DMs like to have players roll initiative in circumstances like this to see if one can react fast enough to block the other).
My point is just that someone like xguild presumably wouldn't let a player's character act "out of turn" to block another player's character during a combat - unless that player had readied an action to do so - so surely the same logic should apply in a less formal situation such as a social encounter.
When we talk about spotlights, it seems to me what we we're saying is that it's a particular player's turn to act. If it were a combat, they'd have sole rights to act, although others might have the right to react (making a readied action use your reaction was a brilliant move in this sense). Why not make it the same in a social situation? If someone has the spotlight put on them, then they have the sole right to act and everyone else can only react.
This approach might be too formal for you, iserith; however, it really helps me to get my head around the concept, so I think I will describe it thusly to my players.
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Xguild wrote:
I don't think the nice guy/mean guy dichotomy applies here.
Xguild wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Xguild wrote:
Sounds to me like Xguild's group implicitly always gives permission to potentially interrupt player actions. Maybe the concept of explicitly asking permission sounds foreign and/or "stupid" to them because it's never occured to them that somebody would rather nobody impeded their action, or it never happened in their experience.
(I apologize if I sound like I'm speaking on your behalf or whatever, Xguild. I'm just trying to better understand where you're coming from.)
It is clear that both Iserith's (and Bawylie's), and Xguild's way can work. The key is still setting up group expectations. To me, it seems as if Emerikol and I bend toward Xguild's way (at least when it comes blocking).
If the group decides that they will not do anything that violates another's will or negates someone's turn through their own actions (without permission), fine. From Iserith's experience it has led to very rich and fluid games. I find it fascinating and definitely worth considering for some groups. It certainly sets up the powerful expectation that players should not interfere with other player action unless they can agree that it will develop a more interesting story/outcome.
If the group decides that they are clearly playing characters and above all, they will do and act as they feel the character should even if it means they might have to negate someone's, that's fine too. Of course, this has the potential to once in a while lead to "bad blood" between players unless the players all truly buy into the premise.
If the games we've been running or playing in have been working, and blocking isn't a problem, none of us really have to sweat it.
For people who experience a problem with blocking and "bad blood" it is most likely that the DM needs to make sure all players abide by the group expectations one way or another.
Xguild wrote:
Xguild wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
iserith wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
iserith wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Not sure where all the hostility has come from, it was a pretty civil conversation up to this point with not much more than the occassional (customary) humorous forum jab.
For what it's worth, I have neither an objection, stake or opinion on other people's play style, though I do find that conversation are much more interesting when you challenge people's idea's and put your idea's up to be challenged. For me personally it gives confirmation about what I do and often when an idea or concept I have is challenged successfully it leads me to make alterations to my games (usually for the better). There is often this assumption that the challenges are by design hostile and we should not like each other since we are disagreeing, which I find odd as the people I personally have the most respect for on the forum are people who completetly disagree with me almost all the time. Noteably a lot of changes to my games over the years have come as a result of people on this forum challenging my methods/concepts/ideas.
I think sometimes I forget that humor doesn't always translate into the written word, so if someone got offended and thought I was being hostile or rude, you have my apology. I'm nothing else if not exclusively screwing around at all times.
I think part of the reason why I have such a hard time with concepts like "Agency", "wish lists" and other cooperation philosophies is that I really don't believe it is a game about cooperation, at least not on the "play level". I mean of course we cooperate because its a group activity, but as far as the game itself is concerned, I think it is (or at least was when I started) an adversarial game. That and the fact that if I pre-planedn with the players I don't thing the game experiance would be as dynamic as the ones we have.
For example a couple of years ago in one of my adventures the players killed a powerful cultist who wielded a great two handed sword. No one in the party could use it. The Cleric of the party took the sword. The player decided that such a powerful weapon would be a huge boon for the adventuring party, it would give them a big edge which they needed. He took a level of fighter and got the proficiency to use it. He later discovered the sword was cursed, it caused him to slowly go mad. By the end of the game he had turned into a evil Cleric and was betraying the party, serving the very god the party was oppossing. He ended his role with that character in a scene where the Cleric betrayed the party at a critical moment, killed them all and escaped and later became an NPC villian for a future adventure.
We didn't plan it, it was a suprise to everyone and it created a great dynamic story. Characters died, there was direct player vs. player combat. I as a DM had no idea where things where going to go, it certainly wasn't always in my control. It was tons of fun to discover where the story would lead us but yeah sometimes things happen that upset players. There characters where getting cursed, one guy lost an eye at one point. Bad things happened to their characters and sometimes it was disapointing but in as a whole as we look back together at the story, we all agree it was awsome.
I'm not sure that would be possible if I was cooperating with the players in any way. I'm certain the player running the Cleric had no intention when he built the character to become a fighter, wield a two handed sword, go mad, become evil and betray the party. All these events took place kind of naturally.
I guess it kind of goes back to the type of group you have and what your accustomed to.
The concept was more direct back in AD&D days I suppose when we all started playing together. You where the DM. You got an adventure module (bought one or made one). It was full of challenges designed to kill the player characters when you came right down to it. The players made characters and tried to effectively overcome (beat) the adventure/module. What the players would find, what they would encounter, how well they did.. there was no guarantee's and it wasn't the DM's job to make sure "they succeed". Quite to the contrary, as a DM you where kind of obligated to try to run the module honestly and kill the players if you had the oppertunity. The game was really hard, sometimes frustrating but I'm not sure we would want it any other way.
That sort of gameplay in today's "politically correct" enviroment is very taboo. People seem to get very hostile towards the concept, try to refute that it ever existed and are quick to share horrific story's of crappy DM's that abused their responsibilities to fair play. To me concepts like "agency" and these sort of cooperation mechanics "nice guy" mechanics as I like to call them, all seemed to be linked to some former abuse players experianced. Its like the entire invention of these philosophies/concepts and house rules come from jaded and formally abused players trying to curve the game into a sort of cooperative "everything is always going to work out for you" games. God forbid someone get disapointed or upset in the course of play because something bad happened.
I suppose when you haven't had those bad experiances you don't have a point of reference which might explain why I don't get it.
Xguild wrote:
iserith wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
You just can't help yourself can you Iserith? Not much more I can say without making a personal attack. I wish you could see how you come off in your posts.
Emerikol wrote:
I'm not calling "them" rude. You're taking me out of context. "Yes, it's rude," is in response to your statement about the social contract in our game. That doesn't mean my statement applies to all games.
Noon wrote:
On a related tangent, I was just listening to my children (9, 6, 3) playing. I kept hearing one say something and then the other say "No, it's ...". I just suggested to them that instead of saying "No", they try saying "Yes" and then build on what the other has suggested in the game instead of negating it. I'm curious to see how they get on.
iserith wrote:
I guess the brief reason I reject "Yes, and..." as a universal precept is that I don't use it in real life. I may not say "No" often but I do say no. So I strive for a game with the feel of authentic relations.
As for the OP. I think most of the time an absolute rule will eventually beg to be broken. Perhaps just dial up the "Yes and" aspects of your game. There is no need to dial it to 100% or down to 0%. You can seek the point at which it works for you.
[quote="iserith"]
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
I'd put it more that as a player you can do a lot with your PC by just attempting tasks - even tasks that can be cancelled by other PC's if the dice go against you.
Unless you're in a pre-written plot game (which a lot are, sadly), in which case you can't - but then 'yes, and...' wouldn't do anything in that situation either.
grendel111111 wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
iserith wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
I considered responding to some of the comments here but I kind of think some of the conversation has derailed so @Pukuni, consider this my outline for advice for you. I've been DMing for 25 years so take it for what that's worth to you.
The concept of blocking, regardless of how you define it, shouldn't be managed with a house rule in particular one that suggests "you can't act" as your character in the way you desire in certain situations. I think this will be an issue no matter how you design the characters or who agrees or doesn't agree to the policy because over time, at some point these characters (these players) are going to end up in disagreement with what they should do and if one player "claims agency" and does something that everyone else disagree's with, you have tied their hands with this policy to do anything about it in character.
In essence you have made it impossible for them to resolve elements of the story in character and so they are forced to resolve it as players. So now when two characters disagree, the players will have to resolve the conflict between each other.
Its a very bad policy in my opinion, it encourages player conflict. 25 years of DM experiance tells me that this is what you can expect.
Instead of
Player1: I draw my sword and stab the king
Player2: I draw mine and try to block the blow.
You will have.
Player1: I draw my sword and stab the king.
Player2: I want to block the blow.
Player1: No, I don't want you to intefere
Player2: OOC: (put start of argument over the actions taking place here)
You also have to consider the problem you already have. This policy has clearly not been agreed upon unanymously. You have one player that disagrees with it and is now forced to live with the policy. You have made it a policy implemented on a majority vote. The result is that they now have to make a new character with limitations on who that character will be as the policy requires him to make a character that agrees with the motivations and goals of the other characters.
I personally think this is a policy that will create more hostility than it will prevent. Chances of you losing a player over time is quite good. You have created a meta game limitation on your campaign.
My advice is dump the policy, play it straight. This is a situation that is going to be rare anyway, so you aren't likely to have to deal with it often, but by implementing a policy in advance you are in essence forcing a player to make a pretty drastic change, something that will effect her in every game from this point forward regardless if the situation comes up or not. I don't think the trade off is worth it.
A trade off between something that is extremely rare and possibily will never even come up for potentially losing a long time player of the group. Seems like an easy decesion to me.
Good Luck with your game, hope it works out for you.
The fact that she is more interested in the character and exploring the characters development (rather than always just choosing what fits best to make a story for an imaginary 3rd party) suggests that she is an acting/problem solving type of player (See DMG p6) who is very intent on being emersed in her character. She may well not be a good fit for the direction the group is moving, and if she isn't hopefully she can find a group that more meets her needs.
grendel111111 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Xguild wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
iserith wrote:
Dis is beat.
*Pops collar, moonwalks out*
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Noon wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
I think it may be helpful to envision an improvisational acting performance. I used to watch that show, "Whose Line is it Anyway," and one of my friends did improv when he lived in Chicago a long time ago (incidently, he did improv with Steve Carell before Carell became famous). When acting in an improv piece, it is important to allow the spotlight perfomer time to establish the scene. It takes a little while to judge what's going down and then respond.
For D&D, if you use improvisational acting techniques to enhance roleplaying, it is the time interval that each "actor" gets that becomes important. To me, this is what I am taking away from Iserith's ideas. If the other players don't give the spolight actor enough time, it breaks rhythm and is less likely to develop into a full, entertaining scene. (I also think that Iserith goes even further to ensure that all PCs build on each other rather than negate, but that's an additional improvisational technique).
I think this is something everyone can use although some DMs my grant each "actor" less spotlight time at any given moment. I think most people would be comfortable with 1 round worth of action before switching actors, but some may allow more especially if that convention has been set at the table and everyone is comfortable with it.
What about the idea that everyone is acting simultaneously? In the old days, I could have sworn that at one point we had a phase where each of us declared our actions independent of each other. Then we acted them out. If the action happened simultaneously, we could not directly respond to others, but on the next round or pass through we could react to what happened before. I don't think this is necessary, but it does kind of help to understand how without telegraphing or in-game knowledge of what a PC is going to do, there is at least a 1 round buffer before others can act.
Some more thoughts on improvisation from Stephen Colbert that I think applies to our approach quite well:
"After I graduated from here, I moved down to Chicago and did improv. Now there are very few rules to improvisation, but one of the things I was taught early on is that you are not the most important person in the scene. Everybody else is. And if they are the most important people in the scene, you will naturally pay attention to them and serve them. But the good news is you're in the scene too. So hopefully to them you're the most important person, and they will serve you. No one is leading, you're all following the follower, serving the servant."
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Noon wrote:
Stephen Colbert wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Noon wrote:
Ideally I'm playing for the larger world.
Story follows us - story is a side effect of PC actions (NPC actions too, though mostly the spotlight is on PC actions). Story isn't something PC's act in order to follow.
(I say ideally because often enough I'm playing in D&D encounters which are scripted. So in this case PC's do act in order to follow story)
Rhenny wrote:
iserith wrote:
For meta gaming I don't think it is bad like Iserith claims I do. I do however think that if someone doesn't want to play with the focus on meta gaming that should be a valid choice. Saying that "everybody sometimes "metagames" therefore choosing to do it as little as possible has no value", is a stupid thing to say. Clearly that is the way that some people like to play, and saying they shouldn't or can't because I don't do it, is just trying to control other peoples process.
On page 3 of the players hand book it sets out that everyone is there to have fun and tell interesting stories. Then you look at the DMG on page 6 it tells you the ways that different people go about achieving those goals.
Some people do it through:
acting
exploring
instigating
fighting
optimizing
Problem solving
Storytelling.
I would further add that story telling can be divided into a focus on telling the games story or exploring the characters story. (some people have more focus on one over the other).
Everyone is a mix of one or more of these, and the decisions that the group or DM make about how the game will run favors some over the others. Putting too much focus on one can impose on the others.
If we listen to some people the only important one is storytelling and how people get there doesn't matter. But it clearly does to some people.
"Yes, and...." pushes things towards the instigating style of play, and the people who are enjoying an instigating style, will find it very rewarding. Those who have a strong focus on problem solving may be less excited by the idea that you have to call out first before anyone else if you want a meaningful contribution, rather than just being dragged down a river. For them there is little difference between a heavy scripted DM controlled game, that they have few choices in, and a game run totally by a few group instigator "deciders", that they have few choices in.
Of course some people insist that the solution is to force everyone to become an instigator and make decisions faster (But for a problem solver this equals making meaningless decisions because to them a decision made quickly without thought is a not decision at all, it is a guess).
It really isn't any different to an combat/ optimizing player telling a player who is more focused on a character with a rich background and lots of non-combat options that they are not pulling their weight in the game because the DPR is 2 points lower than it could have been if they had chosen a combat feat over a skills based feat. The funny thing is you don't hear the other player demanding that the optimizer stunt his character to make the game more like what he wants.
Both of these situations involve telling someone else how they must enjoy role-playing. I do not care if other people want to use meta gaming to make all their decisions, and I won't tell them not to, but if one of my players only wants to use meta gaming to the absolute minimum then I am a poor DM and a controlling a-hole if force my preferred way of them playing their character on them. As a DM I should be running the game so that all the players get the experience they are looking for to the best of my ability.
To the naysayers:
What your poo-flinging misses is the "and" part in "Yes, and..." That means you add to what someone has offered. So if you like to play a particular way or you want to make a thing part of the scene, you accept what has been established so far then you ADD to it in a way that works for you and makes the other ideas better (without negating them). The approach does not mean you have to sit there and take whatever is stated or by the first person to speak. The game is a conversation. You accept what they say and add to it. This is how you make sure everyone is getting the experience they want, save for those who have a need to block or unilaterally undo someone else's play through the proxy of their character. Those sorts of people have to give up doing that to sit at a table like this.
For those of you whose game experience is not defined by needing to do those things, my final comment in this thread is this: I challenge you to try it. I challenge you to do something other than you have done, to try something new, and to see if it improves your game experience. Done right, I bet it does. All you have to do is stop trying to block other players and build on a character's action rather than try to stop it. Say "Yes" to others and then add your own ideas after the "and..." part. "Yes, you've slapped the king - which is unfortunate - and now I will make a stirring speech in your defense." "Yes, the fighter punched that jerk and now I back his play and punch the jerk's friend - here we go again!" See what happens and what kind of stories you create as a result. My guess is you will be delightfully surprised at the result and at how easy it is to do this while remaining in-character the whole game.
Good luck, and if you do manage to take a bold step into a new game experience, let us know how it goes.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gnarl,
your first example is not a "yes, and" problem; it is a "who the heck did we let sit down at our table" problem.
Gnarl I honestly think you’re wasting your time trying to explain it because the fundamental problem with the discussion is that it’s based on the idea that two players role-playing who's action happen to intertwine in some way has been defined as "blocking" which has been equally defined as being "rude". With that poor and misguided logic in place, it’s like arguing with someone who thinks a tomato is a vegetable. You can't reason with them when they can't accept facts.
Part of the issue too is that people seem to be having trouble identifying the difference between role-playing and problem players. If a player is considered rude by the group, he is rude, there is no need to make special "rules" to fix him, you just ask politely for that player to stop being rude and if he doesn't get the message you find a new player. Fixing problem players with rules is about a stupid a concept a DM can introduce into his game as they come.
But in the spirit of neutrality, what you do in your game is your business, that is at least until you go on the forum and ask for people's opinion, at which point you read and absorb. When an OP asks for your opinion and then argues against it, I become rather confused about the point of the post. Did you want varied advice from different perspectives or where you simply trying to find people to agree with you, because if it’s the latter, it might have served you better to point that out in the original post.
Iserith, and I challenge you to play under 'no one can act fast enough to beat someone elses action' (which I've played under), which means no one could interupt the king punch. And describe how it's any different at all? That meets the requirements you explicitly state just fine - and I've played under that already.
But you don't just want that. "Yes, the fighter punched that jerk and now I back his play and punch the jerk's friend". You want them to punk the jerks friend even though before they wouldn't have. Ie, this is about telling someone else how to play their PC.
I challenge you to wait for someone else in play to do something that'd run counter to your character, and see if it's fun to now do actions that are counter to your character in order to back their play. Your PC is against slaving - another PC ties up a bunch of villagers and hands them over to a slaver. Have your PC go find some straggler villagers and bring them to the slaver too, to 'back his play'. Sooo fun?
Gnarl,
Iser is just going to shoot down that first example as you have to get permission from the other player. Needs to be an NPC being sexually assaulted by a PC. Lets take it that assaults ones own characters morality - under Iser's thing they get to assault another players PC without asking. Because of rules lawyering it and treating it that one PC physically assaulting another PC needs permission but one PC morally assaulting another PC doesn't require permission.
Noon wrote:
Noon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Noon wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Good points Grendel and I agree.
I general advise the players at character creation to either make generally compatible characters or include a strong motivation in their backstory as to why they will stay together. This sort of discussion though is BEFORE the game even starts. When we start we want to be our characters.
Noon wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Rhenny wrote: