Players are, arguably, the most important part of any game because, let’s be honest, without players you have no game. Further, while the traits of a good DM are commonly discussed, and much has been said about what makes for a poor player, little has been said about what actually makes for a quality player.
I believe the core value of a great player is balanced respect. Respect for the DM. Respect for the other players. Respect for themselves. While a great player may allow the wishes of one of those groups to take precedence on any given night, or in any given situation, ultimately the long-term trend is towards keeping all three in balance.
From this core value I have derived what I believe are the 13 indispensable traits that make up all great players.
1) A great player gets actively involved in the campaign. They don’t show up expecting to sit back and have the DM entertain them. They show up expecting to be a driving force in the session, and they work to find ways to help other players get involved as well.
2) A great player works with both his DM and the other players to make sure their character fits in well with the group. This doesn’t mean they’re vanilla, it does mean they look for ways to: 1) hop on adventure hooks, 2) keep the party together, and 3) avoid unnecessary actions that will split the party.
3) A great player looks at things from their characters point of view.
They pursue the goals and take the actions that their character would. Even if it’s not smart. Even if it gets the party in some trouble. Even if it gets their character killed. They also make their DM aware of their character’s goals and work with the DM to fit those goals into the campaign.
4) A great player will consider what their character would do, what the party wants to do, and what the DM has planned and then try to find an acceptable balance.
5) A great player puts in preparation time out of session. They know what their new spells do, they know how their new feat works, they make sure their character is leveled up. They don’t just show up and make everyone else wait while they take care of business that could have/should have been taken care of out of session.
6) A great player always looks up the spell, feat, or special ability they plan to use before their turn comes up, if only to have a ready reference in case a question arises.
7) A great player is honest and remains so even if, and especially when, it’s inconvenient to do so. They roll dice in the open and don’t fudge their rolls. They keep accurate track of Hit Points, Spell durations, AC, encumbrance, chances for spell failure, and whatever else is necessary, even if the DM doesn’t.
8)A great player keeps others informed about his character’s status, especially when they're low on spells, hit points, have just been poisoned, et cetera, so that something can be done about it. They don’t suffer in silence for several rounds before tossing down their character sheet and suddenly announcing to everyone gathered that they’re now irrevocably dead.
9) A great player knows the rules. They speak up when they think the DM is wrong and shut up once the DM makes the ruling, even if they disagree.
10) A great player knows when to step into the spotlight and save the day.
11) A great player knows when to hold back so that others can have a turn in the spotlight to save the day.
12) A great player accepts success and failure with maturity. They don’t throw fits because their character died, the DM disallowed their favorite race or prestige class for the current campaign, or because they suddenly realize, 8 levels into the campaign, that their character isn’t as perfectly min/maxed as they want wish them to be.
Finally, 13) A great player designs characters that aren’t defined by their items, their attributes, their spells or their prestige class, recognizing that what the DM gives the DM may take away. They create multifaceted characters, so that when the items are gone, the character suffer irreversible attribute loss, their best spell nerfed and they’re no longer eligible for their chosen prestige class, at the core the character still remains viable, and enjoyable, to play.
Now, obviously this is a matter of personal DM preference, but I'd just as soon have my players more or less ignore what the DM "wants" them to do, at least when it runs counter to their characters' personality. Not that I'd want them to go out of their way to make things hard for me, but I also don't want them to compromise their character for my sake.
An example: I DM'd a short solo quest with a Rogue character from a larger group. This was a pretty classical rogue- greedy, not unduly valiant, and halfling- so I decided to give him a bit of a moral challenge. He was approached by the thieves' guild and offered a bounty to attack the caravan of a merchant who had fallen behind on his "protection" money. For considerable profit, of course.
Now at this point, I want the player to consider many things- his character's moral compass, the rewards, potential conflicts with his in-party friends (notably including a paladin whose own father had been attacked in a similar bandit ambush), et cetera. I sure as hell don't want him leaping on board with the quest because it's the quest I had planned. The eventual consequences of his decision ended up drastically affecting group dynamics and changing his alignment, and I wouldn't want to foist that kind of problems on an unwilling player (though this one was more than willing).
So kids, just say "no" to sketchy plot hooks. A decent DM should be able to swing things so that you either want to go on a quest, or have no viable (in-character) alternative.
In other words, I think the player should consider giving in a little now and then to keep the game flowing.
Also, there are some players who just like to blow off the DM's planned adventure to make him sweat...and that's just stupid.
Originally posted by Auber Furyblade
13) A great player designs characters that aren’t defined by their items, their attributes, their spells or their prestige class, recognizing that what the DM gives the DM may take away. They create multifaceted characters, so that when the items are gone, the character suffer irreversible attribute loss, their best spell nerfed and they’re no longer eligible for their chosen prestige class, at the core the character still remains viable, and enjoyable, to play.
I agree with everything except this. Irrevocable changes to abilities alter the core of a character, sometimes to the point where they are no longer viable. For instance, a Wizard whose Intelligence is irrevocably reduced to 9 is no longer enjoyable to play. An archer who is irrevocably blinded would only be enjoyable to play for a select few.
At what point such changes make a character unviable depends solely on the individual player. A great player knows when it is time to retire a character rather than doggedly continuing to play it at the expense of his own (and eventually others') enjoyment of the game.
Originally posted by Tenzhi
I agree with everything except this. Irrevocable changes to abilities alter the core of a character, sometimes to the point where they are no longer viable. For instance, a Wizard whose Intelligence is irrevocably reduced to 9 is no longer enjoyable to play. An archer who is irrevocably blinded would only be enjoyable to play for a select few.
At what point such changes make a character unviable depends solely on the individual player. A great player knows when it is time to retire a character rather than doggedly continuing to play it at the expense of his own (and eventually others') enjoyment of the game.
Tenzhi, I don't think that was the point of #13. A good DM doesn't irrevocably reduce a wizards Int to 9 for no reason, nor does she blind an archer forever on whim. If such a thing became necessary, I would talk to my player before it happened and explain and discuss.
It is important to remember that good players shine the most under good dungeon masters.
The point of #13 is that the characters they create are people, and as people they are more than the things they use, or even the abilities they possess. So you lose your Adamantine Greatsword every once in a while because a nightshade disarmed you after you power attacked full. Such is life. So your wizard destroyed an artifact, and so as punishment a deity took from them their ability to cast spells. The character lost a big part of her identity, but that doesn't mean its the end for her. Maybe there is another item her and her friends can acquire that will restore her powers, or a way to get an opposing deity to act on her behalf. Webs, stories, connections. The game we play.
#14: A great player knows when to roleplay seriously and when to have a little fun.
-Frosty
Originally posted by Auber Furyblade
Indispensable Traits of a Great Player
8)A great player keeps others informed about his character’s status, especially when they're low on spells, hit points, have just been poisoned, et cetera, so that something can be done about it. They don’t suffer in silence for several rounds before tossing down their character sheet and suddenly announcing to everyone gathered that they’re now irrevocably dead.
I agree with this as long as it is in character. "Forsooth, I feel the poison in my veins, please help me sirrah!"
However, when it's just a whiny meta-gamer, it is annoying. "Somebody help me, I'm at -9!" All the characters know is that their friend went down in a shower of gore; what cheese to be round counting in the midst of battle. In these moments the player should sit in painful silence, and only pronounce that he is dead when the Heal check reveals it to be so.
I do agree that he shouldn't mope at this point.
The rest are great. Especially No.9. I do that alot :D
I agree with this as long as it is in character. "Forsooth, I feel the poison in my veins, please help me sirrah!"
However, when it's just a whiny meta-gamer, it is annoying. "Somebody help me, I'm at -9!" All the characters know is that their friend went down in a shower of gore; what cheese to be round counting in the midst of battle. In these moments the player should sit in painful silence, and only pronounce that he is dead when the Heal check reveals it to be so.
I do agree that he shouldn't mope at this point.
I also agree with this point. I have 1 particularly annoying and mopey metagamer in our group of otherwise great players and it really ruins the moment when her monk (who is dying due to one of the plethora of stupid things she does every session) complains that she is dying and someone better heal her when she should be shutting the hell up.
I mean whatever works for your group is fine, but I like to try and stay in character as much as possible.
I would like to point out that there are plenty of ways to jump onto plot hooks, in character, without metagaming a reason to jump on. People seem concerned that a good player would lose his individuality if he bit every time the DM put down bait. I disagree. Read the classic Dragonlance trilogy from the perspective of "If I was Raistlin's player" (I know you've all pretended anyway). Starting in Autumn Twilight, the only motivation Raist had for tagging along with the companions was just that. If he were being played by any member of my last gaming group, he'd still be sitting in that tavern when the Red Dragon flew by and burned it to the ground, because "That barbarian chick never said anything about questing to become an arcane archer in her little ballad."
What creates a memorable character, and as best I can figure, is consistent with the original poster is HOW. HOW the player handles the situations that s/he manages to end up in. HOW the player fits into the party dynamics. HOW the PC, through expressing his own uniqueness, brings the party together and sees to it that no player is indispensable.
It is my opinion that a well-played Chaotic Evil PC can be as much a benefit to the party as a whole as a well-played Paladin, but only if the PLAYER recognizes that no matter what, he (the player) is still bound by the same unwritten (until now) code that governs how to play into the game.
I look forward to one for the DMs out there, too. Not "How To Make A Campaign" stuff, but the qualities and virtues that a good DM brings to make either published material or homemade stuff fun and enjoyable.
Good job.
This is a very good analysis on the traits a player should bring to the table.
I look forward to one for the DMs out there, too. Not "How To Make A Campaign" stuff, but the qualities and virtues that a good DM brings to make either published material or homemade stuff fun and enjoyable.
Good job.
Check out the threads in Regdar's Repository for that information. Go back into the older threads as well; there are only 7 pages of threads in Regdar's, so it's actually not that much to wade through. Examples of threads that are valuable to DMs include (but are not limited to) the following:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=58130
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=59612
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=141977
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=133046
Players should be designing settings, making NPCs, shaping the history of the world and the like. While some might argue this is the DM's province, players (if they simply make and play there character) have PLENTY of free time for world-building. The players shouldn't just be the driving force, they should have their hands in designing what they are driving.
Where many people would stop playing the character and roll up a new one, I was determined to stick with the PC I'd made. I had a whole thought on how his development would have been altered by being turned to stone and brought back... he'd be terrified, and what little confidence he'd originally had would've been broken. He probably would have become bitter and fearful, but I was prepared to play him that way and enjoy playing it.
Unfortunately, the campaign fell apart the session after...
-Just my 2cp,
Staver :D
A: 1,10- Participation
B: 2,4,9,11- Mindfull of Others
C: 3- In Character
D: 5,6,9- Preparation
E: 7- Honesty/Ethics
?: 8- Metagaming? (this is the GMs duty if the character is unconcious, and I would prefer players stayed in character)
F: 12,13- Attitude
Indeed even these can be simplified to 2 simple concepts. And it’s easier to remember short lists when playing. So if you simply remember the following two concepts you should be a good player.
Play Nice with Others: B, E, F
Get Involved with the Game: A, C, D
I love the list by the way. Good Job.
If people remember these two very simple concepts they should be good players indeed.
Players should be designing settings, making NPCs, shaping the history of the world and the like. While some might argue this is the DM's province, players (if they simply make and play there character) have PLENTY of free time for world-building. The players shouldn't just be the driving force, they should have their hands in designing what they are driving.
I agree strongly with this idea. It's easy for a player to help add depth to the world in these ways without the DM giving away the plot or ruining the adventure. (A good player wouldn't metagame using that knowledge anyway.)
It immeasurably enriches the world, and the gaming experience, to have a character who actively takes a role in building the story -- together, with the DM and other players -- and the result is a much more enjoyable and memorable game. The only possible issue is creative disagreements, but the DM can give guidelines for what s/he wants and the player should be able to stick within those.
It lends more variety to the environment as well, because more than one mind had a hand in creating and manifesting ideas. The setting is more interesting and more likely to hold the attention of any not-quite-there-tonight players. It also feels good to be able to proudly point to something that happened, and see how you've contributed and made a difference.
With the above said:
#13) Indeed, respect, as mentioned earlier is the key issue here. Nothing is permanent in D&D, unless the PC & DM agree that it is. I've found that even a fiar DM will bend over backwards to help a great player achieve what they want to with their character, thus #13 holds as true as any of the others.
If the PC is struck blind or even eyeless, or has his skull half crushed or his mind spell fried or whatever, that is NOT the end of the character. The character isn't his or her classes alone and too, nothing, even death, is more permanent than the team of the Player and DM wish it to be.
But even if not, there is always a way for a creative player to go forward, if, as the poster said, the character is multi-faceted, a complete character, not someone who has the completely unreasonable obsession to fixate utterly that can never be found with people, only with min-maxed pseudo-creations.
The former Wizard with the lowered intelligence will certainly have other attributes that are not abysmal. With those stressed and pointed towards new goals the viability of the character isn't damaged, just his intellect. If he was fixated on being just a min-maxed Wizard then he certainly wasn't multifaceted. Other avenues will always exist for a good role player. A new part of that role might be the lament for lost abilities, but the role continues.
From a game other than D&D I had a character who was a very physical type (An Avenger in a Hunter the Reckoning chronicle for those of you who know what that means) become paralyzed from the waist down. It's hard to be a vampire hunter ina wheel chair, but the character, because he had been produced to be reasonably human, not just a combat machine, was able to make the transition to advisor and computer and logistical support personnel for the younger Hunters in his area.
If the character has been built to be more than a block of stats nothing, not even death, needs to be the end. A new template, that of ghost perhaps, is appended and amended to continue the character if it's fitting. This is D&D. Fireballs fly from the hands of Mages, resurrection is a possibility, the only limits are the imagination of the participants.
Isshia
I agree with everything except this. Irrevocable changes to abilities alter the core of a character, sometimes to the point where they are no longer viable. For instance, a Wizard whose Intelligence is irrevocably reduced to 9 is no longer enjoyable to play. An archer who is irrevocably blinded would only be enjoyable to play for a select few.
At what point such changes make a character unviable depends solely on the individual player. A great player knows when it is time to retire a character rather than doggedly continuing to play it at the expense of his own (and eventually others') enjoyment of the game.
They may be "fun" to play but they are mostly worthless to the party and become a drain on the other characters.
That said, one should be careful when declaring a PC a liability. Some builds are surprisingly able to bounce back from crippling situations. And at low levels the difference between any of the PCs is so small that it shouldn't be hard to find a new focus without becoming a liability.
And one final thing, If the player wishes to retire his PC, then he should be allowed to do so for any reason. I have played a PC who was of a race in the campaign world that was the target of a great deal of prejudice. It was a roleplaying challenge at first. But by 10th level it became obvious to me that the GM wasn't going to even allow one or two minor NPCs to see past the race to the heart of my PC. I discussed this with the GM and he said that was the price I had to pay. So I retired the PC. Everyone loved my PC and told me to keep playing it. In fact as the only living 'tank' style fighter remaining in the group they said they needed me. The GM said I could not retire. So I played a couple more sessions. But I wasn't having fun. I wanted to build a place for myself in the campaign world, not just the party. I was not able to do this, so I simply stopped played with that group. I like the players, but what is the point if I am not enjoying myself anymore.
The situation in #13 is different. Its not about keeping your PC at all costs. Its about Attitude, if the player has a poor attitude he shouldn't be playing any character. Yes its ridiculous to get all whiney over a single magic item. But the only fix for that is to remove the player. Not force him to play his character when crippled. That will only prolong the whining.
To put things in a nutshell, you're asking players to be committed to the game. What if they have a life, you know a wife, children, garden, work... Maybe some players don't have the time to think about the game outside the game. So what, does that make it a worse player than someone that thinks about it 24/7? I think not.
You're asking players not to do any metagame thinking and stay consistent with their character concept. From my experience, that is way too much to ask of anyone. No matter how hard they try, the best players I've seen just can't help it messing up once in a while. Plus the difference between metagame thinking and the character having a shift in its personality can be very difficult to discern.
You're asking players to say Amen to everything the DM says and to rush towards each and every adventure hook he presents. I'm sorry but that's not the way it works. That's part of your DM work. Making things go straight the way both you and the players want it to be. Once again there is no rule here.
You're asking players to make characters that fit with the rest of the group and not what they want to play. Paranoia is a really fun game to play you know. The spirit can be imported to D&D. From my experience, every time a player was forced to play a character other than the one he wanted, it was a disaster. Either he didn't care about the character, either he played it the way he wanted to in the first place, artificially adding a little LG in the alignment section of the character sheet.
And finally, you're asking players to do a little role playing. What if that player is shy, he doesn't dare speak his mind but loves the game because everything is going on in his imagination. Or what if they just want to play Never Winter Nights or Diablo? Does that make them worse players than the others? If both players and DM want to play Diablo, it's their choice and it doesn't make them any worse than what I call the hardcore roleplayers.
If everybody is having fun at the RPG table, then that's my definition of what a "good" player is.
You don't go far enough with #1.
Players should be designing settings, making NPCs, shaping the history of the world and the like. While some might argue this is the DM's province, players (if they simply make and play there character) have PLENTY of free time for world-building. The players shouldn't just be the driving force, they should have their hands in designing what they are driving.
I disagree with you there. It's a matter of your group and personal preference, but I'd rather design my NPCs and world myself. The best roleplay is when things are the same between player and character. The characters cannot shape the world besides through their actions, and the players only outlet to shape the world is through their character, it makes for a much better game. Besides the fact that my campaign world is my creation, my vision. It's like making a video game, it's your own vision. you give the players power within the game, but you don't give them the power to design the game as they're playing it. Time shouldn't be an issue, you only play when the DM has material for the game. If he needs a while to fully prepare for a good game, you don't play for a while.
I've met several Great players who don't always do 2). 3) is arguably incompatible with 8, 10 and 11, and certainly conflicts with 4. 6 is only possible in games with several copies of the rules - many games simply aren't set up that way. 7 is also not universal. I've seen some wonderful examples of players being dishonest to make for a better game -- most recently to save a novice GM from wrecking the campaign on the second session. I'd also add that 13 isn't so much a matter of character design as it is game emphasis. Your character may become unviable as much from the emphasis the game puts on certain abilities as from how central those are to the character concept. This is something that needs to be sorted out between GM and player.
Most of all though, you're ignoring that playing and DMing is an interactive process. 'Great players' don't exist in a vacuum any more than 'great DMs' exist in a vacuum. Someone is a great player or a great DM only in the context of a particular group or style of play, and to a different group or playing style, they could be a real pain in the neck.
What you seem to have done is taken a list of things that please or annoy you and your group, and turned them into a list of universal principles. They are good and worthy attributes in their place, but they simply aren't as universal/indispensable as you give them credit for.
I feel I'm sounding too harsh. These are excellent guidelines. They just aren't rules or definitions of what makes a good player.
And I think that #2 is very, very important, and no player can be considered a great RPGer without following that rule.
Perhaps I learned to play AD&D in a more goal-oriented environment where players discussed what classes each PC they created would be in order to create a balanced party. Where the DM rolled his combat dice openly, so that players would know that there was no fudging and if a PC died, he died. Where the players AND their PCs always strove to work together as a team to overcome challenges. And where the players always tried to make the game session pleasurable for everyone.
Sure, you might be a great roleplayer without considering the DM or the other players in how you plan and play your character. However, you wouldn't be a good roleplaying gamer, and you'll quickly find yourself without a gaming group. RPGs are a social activity. Antisocial behaviour is detrimental to any game.
And I think that #2 is very, very important, and no player can be considered a great RPGer without following that rule.
#2 does tend to mess up games where conflict between the player characters is part of the game. The distinction between role-player and roleplaying gamer is one that only works if the nature of the same is set. Since it isn't, following this rule in and of itself could lead to bringing expectations of what the game is like that conflict with the game itself.
Take for example the old standby where the villain tries to lead the characters into a trap. Rule #2 can mess that one up hugely. If you have a situation where one character is warned against going, but goes anyway because otherwise he'd be splitting the party and ignoring an adventure hook, then not only has the whole one character coming to the rescue storyline bitten the dust, but the you end up being horribly unfair to the players, because their characters are acting not of their own volition, but based on their perceptions of the needs of the storyline.
The problem with any statement along the lines of "If someone doesn't follow rule X then they can't be a great roleplayer" is that roleplaying is a varied hobby, and people play in a great variety of ways. There will invariably be someone out there playing a game where the rule is inapplicable or would be actively bad for the game. Someone can play a game differently from the way you or I would, and still be a great roleplayer.
It's a good list - it's just not true every time.
Roleplaying is a very important part of D&D, otherwise it's just another mindless hack and slash thing to take up your time. The more you can get in character, the more interesting it is to deal with. I play a paladin. You know how freaking hard it is to be that good all the time? And make decisions like a fearless defender of the light would? In such situations, you DO lead your party into traps, simply because your deity is your shining shield, and none can stand before your retributional wrath and nothing could ever harm you.
So yeah. This list is very insightful, and for you who feels that the list is complete hoodoo, I wag my tongue at you, filthy English dog. In any case, seeing just what happens and how to get your paladinly/roughish/scarred and misshapen (in the case of the fighter)/magic using butt out of there. I say three cheers for D&D! Huzzah! (Repeat as necessary.)
Hack and slash campaigns, where the players (possibly min/maxers, possibly not) simply attempt to bring down monster after monster with sword and spell are quite common. All of the roleplaying-sensitive traits are largely irrelevant in such a campaign. It is still very definitely D&D, and I wouldn't want to say that no one in such a campaign is ever a great player.
Alternatively, you can have a roleplaying-heavy campaign. In such a campaign, players may stay in character even when it does not necessarily fit the plans of the DM. Parties may end up neglecting plot hooks, only to get actively involved in something completely unexpected. This ability is a feature of a non-linear RPG (as opposed to a computer game), although it does require DMs to think on their feet.
A similar issue relates to cooperating with the rest of the party. Characters that strongly disagree with each other can be a lot of fun. Sure, the party may not "accomplish" much, but plenty of roleplaying can get done within the party. This also has the advantage of taking some of the pressure off of the DM, since the players are interacting with each other to a much greater extent than in other sorts of games.
In short, I agree with Gnarl and Cardinal Teplin. It's a good list for some sorts of games, but not all of the traits apply beneficially to every game.