tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post5040641339390725289..comments2023-10-14T03:58:59.333-06:00Comments on The Tao of D&D: The Ruination of PlayersAlexis Smolenskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-77866405552349589782014-09-25T15:49:29.010-06:002014-09-25T15:49:29.010-06:00It is also possible that those hoof beats are zebr...It is also possible that those hoof beats are zebras. But we design for horses.<br />Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-17800051736728078612014-09-25T15:14:28.559-06:002014-09-25T15:14:28.559-06:00In what feels like ages ago, personality conflicts...In what feels like ages ago, personality conflicts or outright abuse were much more common, and as a neophyte player I would have great difficulty understanding why real-world concerns would ever interrupt the wonderful opportunity to come together and escape into our collective imaginations for a few hours (actually, back then it was more likely to be many, many more than just a few hours).<br /><br />The incident which I'm thinking of, though, wasn't something so obviously beyond the pale as real-world abuse which would certainly not be tolerated in a group to which I and my like-minded-fellows would return. The incident which I refer to was a player who by all prior indications was perfectly capable of participating at a high level, but for unknown reasons (probably real-world stress?) at the precise moment of maximum leverage <i>betrayed</i> any semblance of characterization, much less any spirit of cooperation) and quite literally blew up the entire campaign for his own gratification. <br /><br />This wasn't my game; the GM just disinvited the player and rolled the clock back for the next adventure. But the incident has always stuck with each of us, with me because other than a little bit of out-of-character grousing about a few minor things, the player in question made his campaign-killing maneuvers completely secretive as well as in-character, catching the GM and players off-guard. <br /><br />Simple long-term solution, of course, just disinvite the bloke. But as I said, the memory of the incident lingers as an example of how terribly bad things can go, even if the GM is consistently demanding of participation, seriousness and role-playing. Hopefully a rare event, but it's possible to be caught off-guard.<br /><br />At any rate, <i>"Why do the players keep coming back in good faith? Trust. Safety."</i> Very good indeed.Mujadaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07698839746240695386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-77747588598065748382014-09-25T14:46:32.412-06:002014-09-25T14:46:32.412-06:00"If a malevolent player abuses the sandbox na...<i>"If a malevolent player abuses the sandbox nature to foul up the game for everyone else, I can accept my own failings in not reigning him in in time . . ."</i><br /><br />While nine tenths of what you say is to my mind exactly right, the point where we agree most is in the sentence above - it is only the definition of SOON ENOUGH that differs.<br /><br />For me, one insult will do. My ears are open and ready for the least abuse of a fellow player character and I don't let that sort of thing pass by. I am on that shit so fast that I promise you, the only player who is going to have a bad time at my table is the one getting stepped on by me. The line is not crossed, it is not danced upon, it is respected from a distance.<br /><br />I ask you to turn your points around and view them as questions: Why do the players keep coming back in good faith? Why do the players collaborate to produce a good evening? Why do the players WANT to be responsible for their characters?<br /><br />Because they've met the DM, they trust the DM, they know that the zone is safe and they come to the game WANTING to be better players, EVERY TIME.<br /><br />Those good things in players that both you and I like are not chance things. We create the environment where those players thrive. That is our full and total responsibility.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-17751672532868752022014-09-25T14:27:18.271-06:002014-09-25T14:27:18.271-06:00I have to completely agree with what you've sa...I have to completely agree with what you've said, but must also clarify my positions, as I feel a slight misinterpretation has inspired this post.<br /><br /><i>"We have got to get rid of this idea that a DM is only as good as his or her players."</i> -- Is there a pithy phrase along these lines with which you might agree? "An evening's adventure is only as good as the players and DM collaborate to produce"? If a malevolent player abuses the sandbox nature to foul up the game for everyone else, I can accept my own failings in not reigning him in in time to preserve the maximum enjoyment for everyone else, but I'd describe the outcome as a result of a bad player, not of a bad DM or even a bad adventure.<br /><br /><i>"A bad world is never the fault of the players"</i> -- Surely; when the players are there in good faith, it is absolutely the DM's business to have prepared and to deliver a good adventure. The players can at best have been responsible for their characters' own parts; the DM is responsible for all else outside their arms' reach.<br /><br />Characterizing the ability of oneself as a DM as 'good' or 'bad' should be nowhere near one's mind. Directly attempting to "be a good DM" sounds like a task which will always fail. Delivering a <i>good adventure</i> (consistently) is what makes one a good DM.Mujadaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07698839746240695386noreply@blogger.com