Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 bawylie Aug 24, 2015 9:53:13	Disclaimer: I contribute $4/month to theAngryGM's patreon.    After a long, long section on traffic in NYC, theAngryGM writes on our tendency to complain about our players doing things we don't want them to do, and not doing things we want them to do, and I sufficiently doing things we want more of.    I know I've complained. I know I've read you complain too.    And here's what it comes down to. Do we (DMs) play only with like-minded individuals? Or do we, recognizing it is only in our power to change our own behavior, 'git gud'?   I was thinking I've seen something like this already in the Metagaming/Sub-optimal decision thread. Orethalion, for instance, doesn't have a meta game problem bc he & his players are of like mind on that issue. (I'm not resurrecting that debate in this thread, I'm addressing what we do with players who don't quite fit or meet with our own expectations). (I'm also not calling out Orethalion for criticism).    Myself, I feel I'm the git gud type. But I didn't get there until I had players who challenged my assumptions. I always wanted my games to be fun, for me and my players (I assume we all do). But then I got a group of players who had unique needs and challenges. Things they couldn't overcome. So I had to make accommodations to facilitate play. Once I started doing that, it seemed natural to continue. To pursue various kinds of fun and accommodate different interests as well as different abilities. That's how I came up with the Deck of Many Deeds, why I use mini-games, and why i feel literally anyone can play d&d if they've got an imagination.    But, it doesn't seem these two things are camps. It's not Purists vs Heretics at every table. And I imagine that most of us try to git gud in some respects, including those who primarily play with like-minded individuals.   I know we've all probably kicked a problem player. And we've all given or taken advice on talking to our players about some conflicts. Now I pose this question to you: What, if anything, do you do to git gud? What compromises, accommodations, steps, measures, etc., do you take on yourselves as DMs to make the game fun for your players?    And what, as players, do you wish DMs would do to accommodate you?
#2 WorBlade Aug 24, 2015 11:38:22	If a problem player is bring the rest of the group down, then they get "voted off the island" and jettisoned. Otherwise i suppose it depends on how many replacement players you hve access to. Years ago back in high school the pool of potential players was a grand total of 7. We put up with the twoi guys we didn't like playing with for lack of numbers. Decades later I am running an on line 5e campaign through Fantasy Grounds so players can be anyplace. I cherry picked old gaming friends whose gaming styles meched with my Dming style and only invited themn into the game.
#3 strider13x Aug 24, 2015 12:30:36	I was forced to expand my definition of Hit Points from Meat to, well, whatever works at the time. I had to accept that a Fighter with a longsword should do 1d8 with an attack even if they did something other than swing. Go with the narratives the players give you rather than take away their fun (sorry, you can't do that because I can't find that ruling in the book *yawn*). When my son turned 7 we started with 4e and let me say his 'exploits' were way more fun than any presented in the PHB! Now he's 11 and my DMing is way better for it!
#4 Hitdice Aug 24, 2015 13:14:18	If I kicked everyone who comes to my table with a different playstyle than my own, I wouldn't have anyone left to actually play D&D with.  Do not take the previous statement as evidence that I have gotten at all close to a playstyle designated as "good," objectively speaking.
#5 Ralif_Redhammer Aug 24, 2015 13:44:26	"And not one person is engaging wrong unless they are engaging at the expense of other people."   True words. When I complain about my players, it's more of me just kvetching, than an actual airing of grievances. Ultimately, I'm gaming with friends and we're all laughing and having a good time together.   I think many of us, when we complain, are mostly letting off some steam. Granted, there are some people that have legitimate problems, but most of us are just looking to gripe a little and/or improve our games.
#6 bawylie Aug 24, 2015 14:42:10	good answers so far. And yeah, I'm thinking apart from disruptive players and apart from kvetching. Let those things be like the upper and lower boundaries of behavior for this discussion.
#7 Satyrn Aug 24, 2015 14:51:33	I play with a guy who named his fighter "Fighter."   I didn't mind. Actually, I went and introduced NPC lookalikes named Boxer and Fencer. There was also a vampire named Biter introduced by the guy who last took over the DMing for one adventure. (Incidentally, he also presented the official explanation for why there are numerous people who all look the same, something I was never gonna do . . . beyond just the fact those Xena lookalike episodes amused me)   Now what was I trying to say?
#8 sirkaikillah11 Aug 24, 2015 17:30:05	I runa campaign with 12 pcs. I do a lot of get good. We play with a vet who can't leave his home, so we play in a tent in his yard. Sometimes he has emotional problems and the game is put on hold. I do a lot of things to accomedate different play styles and personality.   But I also can be quick to kick players out of the game. The one type of player I will not alllow is the troll. This is the player who gets enjoyment out of sewing chaos and discord within the group and on the game table. The troll will often play the "loser Larry" pc. The loser larry is the Pc that is always "role" playing to the detriment of other pcs. For example Loser Larry will throw a fireball on the rest of the pcs on accident. No Loser Larry pcs and no troll players are welcomed in our campaign and game table.
(Reply to #6) sirkaikillah11	bawylie wrote:
#10 Touc Aug 24, 2015 18:44:07	I could probably run a game (and have) suited for most style of gamer - as a DM my enjoyment comes from watching everyone have a good time, having a good laugh, and talking about how awesome this or that was weeks or months later.    But I don't anymore. I have a core set of gamer friends now and I know their style. I know what other types of players clash with their styles. If one player is heavily engaged in role play and wishes to start relationships and schmooze up the prince heir to the throne, and the new guy at the table won't even bother to learn the names of other characters because he's more concerned about the minute combat rolls around so he can hack things, I've got two gamers that make for a good comic strip but mostly add up to a poor overall experience. I would have no problem accomodating, but if I suspect even for a moment one pair of players or more are leaving every session complaining inwardly about how another "doesn't fit," I sacrifice for them.
#11 AaronOfBarbaria Aug 24, 2015 18:45:38	I rarely kick players - I try to work to give them more of what they want while trying to get more of what I want out of them, patiently building towards a compromise.   When I have kicked players, it's usually because of their non-game behaviors - like the guy that eats everyone else's shared food before eating what he brought for himself and isn't sharing, or the guy that makes racist remarks, and so on.
#12 Orethalion Aug 24, 2015 18:51:11	bawylie wrote:
#13 Rya.Reisender Aug 24, 2015 23:19:35	Well, first of all I'm too nice to just kick a player. If I think he strongly disturbs the fun of the others, I'll talk with him. Y'know, it kind of strongly depends on the player because most player don't intentionally disturb the game, they just don't realize it.   Also, I personally just not allow actions that would completely go against what the adventure intends. So it would probably happen earlier that a player leaves because he can't do what he wants than me kicking him. Though I guess this never happened so far.   I try to be open-minded, buuut, y'know whenever someone does something I didn't prepare for, it means a lot of work for me. I try to solve it as good as I can, but sometimes I might reach my limit.
#14 Imaculata Aug 24, 2015 23:35:50	I always allow my players to steer my campaign. If my players bring up something that "they think would be cool", then I tend to go along with it, and seek a way to merge it into my campaign. For example, one of my players recently had a cool idea for new kinds of weaponry, and he even had some reference pictures. So I immediately said, thats awesome, lets figure out some rules for that. My players also seem to like the idea of base building, so thats the next thing I introduced. I like to involve my players a lot in the process of shaping the campaign, especially when it comes to homebrew rules and new items and equipment. And if they want more combat and less talky-talky, then so be it. I adapt to their wishes.   I never kick players though. I think we're all mature enough to handle what ever problems come up in a reasonable way. Kicking is really a last resort. I have played with some players in the past, whose playing style was so radically different from my own, that I left to form a new group. And when I say their playing style as different, what I mean is that one was annoying and often disruptive (attacking his party members), and the other cheated as a player and was a dreadful DM too. So I think I left for a good reason.   I've had situations come up where a particular player was in a bad mood, and was disrupting the campaign. But rather than kicking him, I addressed the elephant in the room. I told him that if he was in a bad mood, that he probably shouldn't take it out on the game, and that we could also play another time. We didn't play that evening, and instead had a long talk with our close friend, who needed to get some stuff off his chest.
#15 Noon Aug 25, 2015 2:14:35	I think I'd prefer the GM to buy a game he likes playing, instead of trying to enjoy being a good parent to us players by accomidating all over the place. You compromise with peers. You accomodate children.
#16 iserith Aug 25, 2015 7:04:19	My approach to DMing is pretty fluid and easily tweaked to account for players of differing playstyles at the same table, provided said players aren't intolerant hardliners when it comes to certain things (e.g. metagaming, stance, etc.). I consider the hardliners to be less a game problem and more a social problem though. So I will kick them, plus anyone else who creates a social problem at the table. For anyone else, I adapt and it's learning to observe and adapt that makes one "git gud" in my view.
(Reply to #15) bawylie	Noon wrote:
(Reply to #13) bawylie	Rya.Reisender wrote:
#19 Hebitsuikaza Aug 25, 2015 8:15:59	Well.. damn. I think this is the first time I ever read anything but him that I agreed with. I even like the tone of it.   I guess it goes to show that a person can't really be wrong about everything.
(Reply to #19) bawylie	Hebitsuikaza wrote:
#21 Nevvur Aug 25, 2015 13:12:38	Never kicked a player from the group, but I've left a group because it was impossible to git gud.   It was 3 people who heavily favored the strategist side of the game, and 3 who favored the acting part. Of course, these preferences aren't inherently exclusive of one another, but these particular players acknowledged this was the case for each of them. I could only reliably keep half the table engaged at a time. The funny thing was, when I brought the issue to everyone's attention, they were perfectly fine with not feeling engaged half the time, because they loved the other half. In fact, they had been gaming for years together before I showed up, and acknowledged this was pretty typical.    I'm very much a git gud DM, and I enjoy hack n' slash as much as I do story mode. But I don't want to DM again for a mixed group with such strong preferences, because I feel like I'm failing when half the table is tuning out.
#22 ankiyavon Aug 25, 2015 13:42:49	I've never kicked a player who wasn't actively disruptive.   I've left groups because I didn't feel like I was a good fit; I've had players leave because they didn't feel they were a good fit; but I've never had to kick anyone who wasn't disruptive.     It's really not that difficult to compromise.  Sometimes, it's just not possible to find something that works for everyone, and that's when there has been voluntary leaving involved; but it's always the goal to find something that works for as many people as possible.
(Reply to #22) bawylie	ankiyavon wrote:
#24 ankiyavon Aug 25, 2015 16:07:30	bawylie wrote:
#25 Noon Aug 26, 2015 1:00:42	bawylie wrote:
#26 Noon Aug 26, 2015 1:14:04	bawylie wrote:
#27 Angry_Steak Aug 26, 2015 3:02:37	Running public games has pushed me toward git gudder. I've edited myself when kids were in the group, sold the viciousness of certain creatures to the bloodthirsty, and tried to keep the peace between the suboptimal fun lover and the power gaming strategist.     One of my most consistent players has issues with reading comprehension. I've grown accustomed to reminding him of different things and repeating/spelling names or places.     I have another player who tends to bounce in and out week after week. He's pretty irresponsible when it comes to combat, but his desire to do whatever forces me to adapt.     There are nights I come home frustrated, but my players are always making me question whether or not there's a better, more efficient, or more engaging way to do something, and after looking back at the past couple seasons, I can see how far I've come.
(Reply to #27) bawylie	Angry_Steak wrote:
#29 Core-Earth-Stormer Aug 26, 2015 8:37:30	Noon do you home brew anything or do you just by stuff and run it by the book?
#30 sleypy Aug 26, 2015 10:06:06	I play with people that I have a very very different view on gaming with. I have found that though we share very different perspectives we play very much the same way. They like to embody their characters and become their characters. I look at the scene, the story and the direction of my character develop; At best I am an actor trying to make the most out of the scene while doing my creation justice and consider how to be inclusive of everyone playing. In theory, we very much disagree with each others approaches to gaming, but when we sit down to play there is hardly any difference.        If I have a disruptive player I try to figure out what exactly is the cause of the disruption. A player that is causing the disruption doesn't necessarily know that what they are doing is causing a disruption. Sometimes they aren't even causing a disruption and others people are falsely assuming malicious intent. In my experience, the lazy references have been the root cause of the majority of the disruptions that get attributed to other issues.    I had an argument with a fellow player because the GM said we should assume themes from the victorian age. When another player did something that I felt was in line with the law in regard to the nobility. He was adamant that we can't just assume that the law worked the same. We all agreed that the assumption was based off the Victorian period, but the extent of that definition was very different for each of us. (Fortunately, we sat down and talked about it afterward; we still game together to this day.)   I have seen the most disruption occur due to the term "low magic" because everyone goes in with completely different expectations. It almost invariably ends up creating friction down the road because players are working off different definitions. I have completely discarded the term for its lack of usefulness.   The simple lack of clarity has led to many disruptions; It is something where I had to get good.
#42 Imaculata Aug 28, 2015 2:59:54	I still prepare for hours, but most of that is just world building, and preparing custom shopping lists, custom weapons, and writing entire essays on particular cities and countries. If I know what is coming, I'll usually write in detail about various npc's, what they look like, how they act, and what their interests and secrets are. But I end up preparing so much, that when things go off script, I have an entire world to work with. And things usually do go off script. In fact, I don't really script all that much. I just prepare story situations, and then introduce them when appropriate.   I write so much about my homebrew campaign world, that when I have to improvize, it is easy to fill in the blanks. I know what's going on in the world at that particular time, what the weather is, from what direction the wind is blowing, and which characters inhabit the current location. It becomes merely a matter of moving the pieces around, and setting up the next exciting story moment. The players drive the narrative though, and I don't ever have a definitive conclusion for any situation. It all depends on what my players do, and I continue from there.   And yes, often the players will do crazy things. But I can always find some way to continue the story.
#43 bawylie Aug 28, 2015 9:07:41	Improvisation is a skill that improves with use.    I keep in mind certain formulas and structures and then riff off them. I also rely on which episode of my season I'm on.    By keeping a few underlying ideas & themes, all I have to improvise are details and color. Knowing how to capitalize on tropes and live up to expectations pays off, but you have to really know those things. Once you do, though, future work is minimal.    See for example 5 minute dungeons, and some of my blog posts on themes (such as "Mother-f%!@ing Nature").
#44 ankiyavon Aug 28, 2015 11:38:10	bawylie wrote:
#45 Ralif_Redhammer Aug 28, 2015 11:53:48	One thing I find helps improvisation is use the resources you already have. When the PCs do the dramatically unexpected, I look at the stuff that I have written in advance, and try to use as much of that content as possible while still honoring the impact of their choices.   For example, if they decide to outright fight the villainous noble that I expected they would try to smooth-talk the answers out of, maybe I have his bodyguards show up, which just so happen to have the same stats of the assassins for the ambush he was going to send the PCs into.   Or in short, it's all Lego pieces, it's your imagination that's the limit.
#46 Nevvur Aug 28, 2015 12:19:53	There's nothing inherently wrong with asking players to stay on the rails. Improvisation is great and awesome and a wonderful skill to cultivate, but it can also lead to a complete trainwreck. Script and improv is a balancing act, where you measure the greater value between a coherent narrative with fleshed out NPCs and engaging challenges  VS. freedom of choice.    That said, an improvised scene can have all the hallmarks of well-prepared material, especially once the DM is familiar with the system, and the goals of both his players and their PCs. Sometimes it can be even better than what you planned! That takes practice, as others said. But for new DMs, they should improvise small at first, and not feel awful about saying something along the lines of...   "Hey guys, I've got nothing ready for you if you go that direction. I don't want to limit your choices, but if you go the other direction, there's awesome stuff to do. I'll try to pull something out of my DMWIZARDHAT if you still want to do the first thing, but it might not be as cool as what I had planned."    If spoken open and honestly, a comment like that probably won't meet much player resistance. And if it does, at least they're informed and understand the consequences of their choice.
#47 AaronOfBarbaria Aug 28, 2015 17:05:33	Coherent narrative, fleshed out npcs, and engaging challenges are not mutually exclusive to freedom of choice - improvising can get you all of those things at once, just as it has done for me.
(Reply to #47) Nevvur	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#49 Noon Aug 28, 2015 21:34:07	Nevvur wrote:
(Reply to #48) AaronOfBarbaria	Nevvur wrote:
#51 Rya.Reisender Aug 29, 2015 1:14:13	Not everyone is good at improvisation. If I can't read a dialogue with from the adventure module, it will sound crappy. At least I feel it does, though my players keep telling me they think I'm good at it.
#52 Nevvur Aug 29, 2015 2:01:19	Took my own advice and read my own statements. You're right, I did create a contradiction. Allow me to clarify what I meant.    There's value in a preparation, and there's value in improvisation. What we both said is that improvisation can create as high quality an experience as preparation. This does not mean that it will. The difference in quality between prepared and improvised content shrinks as your skill in improvisation grows, and that difference may even become small enough that you abandon most prep work. This doesn't mean the difference becomes 0. Importantly, this difference is a measure of probability and averages on the fun metric. Prepared content will probably have more interesting NPCs and combat, but the improvised scenario can still match or exceed a script.    While I've used the word script repeatedly, the prep work doesn't have to literally be written. Even if I'm just daydreaming about what the next session is going to be about, I'm making a script, though one with multiple paths and contingencies. Improvisation is something done without preparation, and simply thinking about what might happen next session is a form of preparation. By that measure, I've never heard of a DM who improvises absolutely.   My advice to new DMs comes from seeing the most common anxiety is what to do if (when!) players deviate from prepared content. I don't advocate for preparation or improv as the right  way to DM, because I think the best DMs use both. I do advocate for new DMs getting a pass on the railroad issue if it makes them comfortable enough to stick around and cultivate the improv side of the game.
#53 iserith Aug 29, 2015 10:22:22	Rya.Reisender wrote:
#54 Noon Aug 29, 2015 22:08:39	Nevvur wrote:
#55 Rya.Reisender Aug 30, 2015 8:41:51	@iserith The reason I like going by premade adventure modules is because even when I DM I still feel like a player. I'm actually a game developer, so obviously I know the charm of creating something myself. But you know, playing a game that you haven't created is still more interesting than playing your own game, even if you designed your own game to your liking. In P&P this is also noticable for me --- I get excited just because I want to see if my players can win the challenge presented in the adventure module or not.