|
|
Post by The Archivist on Apr 24, 2015 11:35:15 GMT -5
Since most of us are Refs/DMs, what in your opinion makes a good player and what makes a great player? What are the primary differences between the two?
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 24, 2015 11:45:27 GMT -5
I started the exact same thread over at ODD74 before we ever had this forum. odd74.proboards.com/thread/10542/good-playerThere were some really good responses and some of them just really made me laugh (go see what I mean). Anything that makes a good, easy-going person to be around and play chess or a card-game with are the same kind of things that make a good D&D player. What makes a great player is someone who: a.) knows the rules but never rule-lawyers them b.) loves the joy and thrill of lvling-up but never MIN/MAXs c.) gets how mechanics might or might not help but role-plays the character, not the mechanics d.) throws himself into playing the game through the character rather than gaming the game with the character e) understands that he may loose his character on this particular adventure and that is why he wants to play f.) role-plays in the third person MOST of the time, but occasionally, gloriously, breaks into full character and wins the day, CHA score be d****d g.) makes careful choices MOST of the time, but occasionally, for glory, fun or character, just skips the deliberation and pulls the lever, sits on the throne, touches the statue, whatever! Those are my thoughts right now. |
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Apr 24, 2015 11:52:07 GMT -5
I disagree with these two
c.) gets how mechanics might or might not help but role-plays the character, not the mechanics
d.) throws himself into playing the game through the character rather than gaming the game with the character
I hate players making sub-optimal choices in the name of roleplaying, and I expect metagaming. This is a wargame and you play to win, not act out weird novellas in your mind! I get a kick out of seeing people solve the puzzles the dungeon gives them.
I must say I seem to be in the extreme minority in this opinion, as I have exactly one player in all my groups that also plays and thinks this way.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Apr 24, 2015 11:58:14 GMT -5
I disagree with these two c.) gets how mechanics might or might not help but role-plays the character, not the mechanics d.) throws himself into playing the game through the character rather than gaming the game with the character I hate players making sub-optimal choices in the name of roleplaying, and I expect metagaming. This is a wargame and you play to win, not act out weird novellas in your mind! I get a kick out of seeing people solve the puzzles the dungeon gives them. I must say I seem to be in the extreme minority in this opinion, as I have exactly one player in all my groups that also plays and thinks this way. I agree with you! I also hate it when players make bad decisions in the name of roleplaying and the way I read it Gary & Dave expected "metagaming" (for lack of a better word). f.) role-plays in the third person MOST of the time, but occasionally, gloriously, breaks into full character and wins the day, CHA score be d****d I am ok with first person most of the time |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Apr 24, 2015 12:22:05 GMT -5
I hate players making sub-optimal choices in the name of roleplaying, and I expect metagaming. This is a wargame and you play to win, not act out weird novellas in your mind! I get a kick out of seeing people solve the puzzles the dungeon gives them. I must say I seem to be in the extreme minority in this opinion, as I have exactly one player in all my groups that also plays and thinks this way. Well, makofan and The Archivist, I totally agree with you. Does that mean, paradoxically, that I disagree with myself? I think we are a minority in the over-all RPG community these days, but not in the OSR RPG community. What am I trying to say? I have a problem player who NEVER thinks about what is character may or may not know and I always have to say: your character couldn't possibly know that, etc. He is always busy calculating probability curves and outcome probabilities and trying to convince other players to stack a bunch of rings, magic items, swords together to create some kine of magical nuclear bomb or something. He is SO FAR from the simulation that it even kills my joy as the DM. Does that make me a "bad" OS referee? Or do you get why I am talking about here? If so, help me reword it. Analogy: If someone came into a casino and said "what I really like about card games is counting cards because I am really good at that and it helps me win every time!" They would show him to the door. When I play D&D, I want to play a wargame, for sure. But I also what to use the wargame as a means of simulating being a hero in a magical land! Help me out here, folks. |
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Apr 24, 2015 12:58:34 GMT -5
I get you tetramorph. That player is a bit of a Richard Cranium. If he came up with the idea to build a catapult, I'd say "Great! Now find and hire the military engineer, because you can't build one, even if you know how it works" To explain what I mean, let's take Pelham in West Verbosh. The three of you are going after a goblin camp. What I do not want to see is "I think we came up with a way to take out the camp, but my player isn't experienced enough to know that". I have one player who casts Continual Light on a copper piece, puts it at the bottom of a scroll tube, and uses it as a flash light. I am okay with that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Apr 24, 2015 13:41:44 GMT -5
I have a problem player who NEVER thinks about what is character may or may not know and I always have to say: your character couldn't possibly know that, etc. He is always busy calculating probability curves and outcome probabilities and trying to convince other players to stack a bunch of rings, magic items, swords together to create some kine of magical nuclear bomb or something. He is SO FAR from the simulation that it even kills my joy as the DM. That is not metagaming, that is a munchkin. After some player experience, they should know what does or does not stack and that should be the end of it, unless the player is a munchkin. Knowing that the troll will regenerate and how to kill it from playing a previous character is cool, since that should be fairly common knowledge anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Apr 28, 2015 3:10:29 GMT -5
I disagree with these two c.) gets how mechanics might or might not help but role-plays the character, not the mechanics d.) throws himself into playing the game through the character rather than gaming the game with the character I hate players making sub-optimal choices in the name of roleplaying, and I expect metagaming. This is a wargame and you play to win, not act out weird novellas in your mind! I get a kick out of seeing people solve the puzzles the dungeon gives them. I must say I seem to be in the extreme minority in this opinion, as I have exactly one player in all my groups that also plays and thinks this way. I generally construct characters, of the weird novella kind, in terms that are expressed through game mechanics and choices. I will not do something stupid just because my character is stupid because I don't play stupid people. (Well, apart from that one experiment with the WFRP Ogre, which I regret because I wasn't playing to my strengths as a player and rapidly became frustrated.) I will sit down and engineer a competent character and I will play them competently and you can't stop me.  It should be noted that I favour rules-light games that aren't burdened with an abundance of stackable 'buffs' and other crunchy bits, but if I'm given these things I will use them to the extent that my comprehension allows. This false dichotomy between the munchkin and the thespian is to be rejected entirely. They are not mutually exclusive. I can play the wargame well whilst indulging my improv theatre tendencies, so why would I not do so? That is the essence of the Good Player; one who recognises their capabilities and pursues them with whole heart. The Bad Player is one who chooses to underplay in some capacity, or behaves in the fashion of a bellend. |
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Apr 28, 2015 8:45:02 GMT -5
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I have a problem with deliberately choosing to lose when you could easily win
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 28, 2015 14:21:32 GMT -5
This false dichotomy between the munchkin and the thespian is to be rejected entirely. They are not mutually exclusive. I can play the wargame well whilst indulging my improv theatre tendencies, so why would I not do so? That is the essence of the Good Player; one who recognises their capabilities and pursues them with whole heart. The Bad Player is one who chooses to underplay in some capacity, or behaves in the fashion of a bellend. I don't understand you here. You say: I don't understand what you are trying to say here. A munchkin does not play a wargame well, they are very bad players and a munchkin does not indulge themselves at all in improv theatre tendencies. A munchkin does not at anytime do anything that is beneficial to the group or the game or the experience, they are strictly out for themselves at all times and they only seek to derail everyone else's good time. Someone who plays the wargame well whilst indulging his improv theatre tendencies, is not a munchkin, they are someone who has rejected all facets of munchkinhood and is having fun and helping the group have fun. Munchkins don't play characters, munchkins fail to play characters. Munchkins are the extreme form of powergamer and in their minds they are the only one at the table that matters. |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Apr 28, 2015 14:59:35 GMT -5
I appear to have conflated 'munchkin' and 'minmaxer'. Perhaps I was attempting to insult both the player who is only interested in mechanics and the player who is only interested in performance by picking terms which indicated egregious examples of both. I acknowledge my error and will strive to improve.
|
|
|
|
Post by makofan on Apr 28, 2015 16:11:13 GMT -5
Hi Von
I recently had an interesting session with some old wargamers. They rolled first level characters and I put them through a five room starter dungeon (playing OD&D). Hum Ftr, Dw Ftr, Halflimg Ftr, Human MU, Human Cleric, Elf F/MU
The door to the hideout was locked, so by the time they bashed it down a goblin leading a 3' long mantis had rushed to the door. The front row got one shot off each, hitting but not killing their targets, and then the return attack did 5 out of 7 damage to the hobbit fighter. Round two, down the other hallway came a goblin scout. He failed to surprise the party, and the rear guard killed him. Up front, the three fighters managed to drop the goblin and the mantid in a close fight, while the cleric and two MU's checked the door the other goblin came from.
Seeing three more goblins giving the alarm, the MU slept them. Next round the leaders arrived and the elf charmed the leader. He told his body guards to stand down, and then the players chatted with him and learned about the layout. The plan was to have the goblin bodyguards tell the evil wizard that the threat was over, then kill him with surprise. That worked, they then looted the place.
The party convinced the goblin leader to ditch his two bodyguards and come with his new best friend, so he sent his two goblins into the room with the two mantids (ostensibly to retrieve them) then they threw in burning oil and shut the door and killed them
They each got about 700 xp, and they now have a 3 HD monster as a charmed henchmen for the next adventure.
They had fun, and did some role playing, but basically they ran the operation as optimally as they could without worrying about doing dumb things because of a low wisdom, or refusing to act smart because of some sort of background story. This is what I grew up on, and what I am used to, but nobody now plays
|
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Apr 28, 2015 17:28:48 GMT -5
I disagree with these two c.) gets how mechanics might or might not help but role-plays the character, not the mechanics d.) throws himself into playing the game through the character rather than gaming the game with the character I hate players making sub-optimal choices in the name of roleplaying, and I expect metagaming. This is a wargame and you play to win, not act out weird novellas in your mind! I get a kick out of seeing people solve the puzzles the dungeon gives them. I must say I seem to be in the extreme minority in this opinion, as I have exactly one player in all my groups that also plays and thinks this way. I'll always make the best possible decision based on what I would do, with the information I had, in the position of the character. If I'm aware of something that my character isn't, I'll disregard it when considering my options; but I will never dileberately dumb down my decision. I would consider risky acts such as pulling the lever or even fighting a monster out of my league, to be be calculated risks. And in old school games, blind risks should have just as much a chance of bringing weal as woe to reward bold action. |
|
|
|
Post by finarvyn on Apr 28, 2015 17:51:37 GMT -5
I think that good players make the game fun for all. Sometimes that means taking the lead, sometimes letting others lead. Sometimes it means playing a role to the hilt, other times knowing when the let role-play slide so that the adventure can progress smoothly. Good players help the DM the same way that a good DM makes a game work well for players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 29, 2015 6:23:19 GMT -5
I appear to have conflated 'munchkin' and 'minmaxer'. Perhaps I was attempting to insult both the player who is only interested in mechanics and the player who is only interested in performance by picking terms which indicated egregious examples of both. I acknowledge my error and will strive to improve.  OK now I understand the point you were trying to make, sorry for being obtuse! Have an Exalt! |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Apr 29, 2015 9:00:13 GMT -5
If I'm aware of something that my character isn't, I'll disregard it when considering my options; but I will never dileberately dumb down my decision. "I will never do the thing, but I will do the thing." That's essentially what I think you've just said there. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Apr 29, 2015 9:34:25 GMT -5
If I'm aware of something that my character isn't, I'll disregard it when considering my options; but I will never dileberately dumb down my decision. "I will never do the thing, but I will do the thing." That's essentially what I think you've just said there. Let me clarify then. I won't make an unwise decision, but I may make an uninformed decision. I will the make the best possible choice given the information my character has access too, and only that information. |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Apr 29, 2015 9:47:52 GMT -5
Hi Von I recently had an interesting session with some old wargamers. They rolled first level characters and I put them through a five room starter dungeon (playing OD&D). Hum Ftr, Dw Ftr, Halflimg Ftr, Human MU, Human Cleric, Elf F/MU The door to the hideout was locked, so by the time they bashed it down a goblin leading a 3' long mantis had rushed to the door. The front row got one shot off each, hitting but not killing their targets, and then the return attack did 5 out of 7 damage to the hobbit fighter. Round two, down the other hallway came a goblin scout. He failed to surprise the party, and the rear guard killed him. Up front, the three fighters managed to drop the goblin and the mantid in a close fight, while the cleric and two MU's checked the door the other goblin came from. Seeing three more goblins giving the alarm, the MU slept them. Next round the leaders arrived and the elf charmed the leader. He told his body guards to stand down, and then the players chatted with him and learned about the layout. The plan was to have the goblin bodyguards tell the evil wizard that the threat was over, then kill him with surprise. That worked, they then looted the place. The party convinced the goblin leader to ditch his two bodyguards and come with his new best friend, so he sent his two goblins into the room with the two mantids (ostensibly to retrieve them) then they threw in burning oil and shut the door and killed them They each got about 700 xp, and they now have a 3 HD monster as a charmed henchmen for the next adventure. They had fun, and did some role playing, but basically they ran the operation as optimally as they could without worrying about doing dumb things because of a low wisdom, or refusing to act smart because of some sort of background story. This is what I grew up on, and what I am used to, but nobody now plays A smart group of players. It's regrettable that your available player base are not very good at roleplaying games. That's what I understand by the "nobody now plays" coda. I discourage my players from giving themselves excuses to play poorly. It's generally made clear that stats will adjust in response to play, since people are hung up on the significance of them. I also think that streamlining stats helps - I forget who it was but someone said that rolling 3d6 on the chart and just noting down the modifier created a more liberated kind of play. Rather than thinking "oh god I have a 4 that's the second lowest possible score" they think "I have a -1" and that doesn't feel like a massive deal. The final thing is the adjustment of stats during play; I am not averse to tweaking the 'mental' stats up and down to more accurately reflect the character's capability and if tweaking them down I will generally sneak those points back in as modifiers to Constitution or something. I think I prefer the descriptor/modifier approach though - so the 4 is "Below Average: -1" and that's an end to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Apr 29, 2015 9:52:57 GMT -5
"I will never do the thing, but I will do the thing." That's essentially what I think you've just said there. Let me clarify then. I won't make an unwise decision, but I may make an uninformed decision. I will the make the best possible choice given the information my character has access too, and only that information. That's more understandable. I still don't think I agree with it. I would argue that 'meta-gaming', making your decisions based on all the information to hand, serves a purpose in binding together the overall narrative of play, having factors be taken up and become important or resonant. I accept that there's a certain loss of integrity there which may be uncomfortable for others, which I find regrettable. I would still rather people play as intelligently as possible using all the information which they as players have. (It should be noted that my players are seldom 100% aware of all the factors in play and so it is still very possible for them to be wrong or surprised if they haven't done the diligence.) |
|
|
|
Post by hedgehobbit on Apr 29, 2015 10:09:22 GMT -5
For me it's simple:
1-Show up on time
2-Pay attention
3-Keep off topic comments to a minimum
If you can do all three of those things, you're the best player ever.
Everything else being equal, I'd prefer the player not actually know the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on Apr 29, 2015 10:35:51 GMT -5
Let me clarify then. I won't make an unwise decision, but I may make an uninformed decision. I will the make the best possible choice given the information my character has access too, and only that information. That's more understandable. I still don't think I agree with it. I would argue that 'meta-gaming', making your decisions based on all the information to hand, serves a purpose in binding together the overall narrative of play, having factors be taken up and become important or resonant. I accept that there's a certain loss of integrity there which may be uncomfortable for others, which I find regrettable. I would still rather people play as intelligently as possible using all the information which they as players have. (It should be noted that my players are seldom 100% aware of all the factors in play and so it is still very possible for them to be wrong or surprised if they haven't done the diligence.) In response to both of you on this, I would say that "metagaming" ( I hate that word) was expected by both Arneson & Gygax from all that I have ever read and from the Introduction in Men & Magic (3LBBs) where players are told to refer to the rulebooks during play - not for rules lawyering, but specifically to make sure they do not miss something that would either save the characters life or help the character gain treasure. To me there is a clear in game rational for this. I (ie the PC) grew up in this world, have heard all the stories that have been told for generations about the monsters,etc, etc, and while I may believe some things that are not true(not all stories are 100% accurate), I will have already had access to all or most of what some would call "metagaming" info as part of living and growing up in a given world. My 2cps!  |
|
|
|
Post by Von on Apr 29, 2015 12:40:54 GMT -5
I endorse your perspective entirely. Even in games/settings where the 'default' is ignorance and discovery I generally skip that stage for players on their second go around. (My most relevant example isn't really germane to the OSR, but imagine having to do the "hero is swept into a world beyond their comprehension" routine over and over again in the same world... not fun.)
As for 'metagaming' I don't think it means what the majority of its users think it means. That's not the word's fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by merctime on Apr 30, 2015 23:00:51 GMT -5
Best rpg players? 1. Decent manners and not selfish, self-righteous jerks, now matter how well they play the game. 2. A desire and enthusiasm to engage in the game, hopefully without some strange need to control its pace. Of course this helps everyone enjoy it more. 3. A powerful sense of creative problem solving really helps, as well as a health imagination. Edit: As an aside... I'm really trying to get away from acting and getting into playing the game from a more 'gamist' approach. I find it a new thing, as I've in the past been the thespian type both as a player and a DM. Well, I feel I already own that. I'd like to try something completely new, and get good at it. Wargamer style play really, really appeals to me for that reason. And mostly because it seems like a really fun way to play!! Now, my players are not really on that page... but a couple are showing moderate interest in trying. They grew up on white wolf games, and my cyberpunk game (action, but quite dramatic in character and story), so all are consummate role-play-actors. The thing I'm trying to get them to try is... WE ALL KNOW YOU CAN ROLE-PLAY GUYS. Each of you owns that skill already!! Try something new! A primary reason is to try and engender within themselves something they do not possess; to my mind, due to a theatrical attachment to a character, but I do personally believe will benefit the style of dungeons & dragons I want to explore with them... and that possession is the ability to detach themselves at least partially from a character. There has been, and will be more, character death in my game. I NEED them detached from characters, at least initially, so that they don't feel maligned if their character dies. I need them to hold off on that brilliant literary character persona and backstory, so they don't waste it on a character who just got eaten by a ghoul. I need them to not write and play such tight personae and stories, that they end up trapping themselves inside of it with no room for lateral movement or adaption during the game-play that, in my current mentality, should fuel the entire campaign. I need them to grow as players now, not as role-players... they are already full grown as the latter. I'm trying to get them to problem solve now as players, and not within the confines of a character personality. I'm trying to get them, and my own self, to see and play the game as a game, and not a movie or story. I'm really hoping the NEW type of story will eventually become what has transpired in the game itself, as we relate awesome times with one another. Trying to get the focus OFF of character... so that naturally occurring death in the game doesn't jar the playing of it. Its going to be an interesting attempt... but if they find trying the detached approach to play not so fun, I won't force it on them. Fortunately they are cool and willing to give it a try. |
|
|
|
Post by makofan on May 1, 2015 10:39:00 GMT -5
This is a great post
|
|
|
|
Post by robkuntz on May 1, 2015 12:50:46 GMT -5
A good player challenges the DM by doing things the DM didn't/hadn't consider(ed), thereby growing the whole group view of what is possible in imaginary realms.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin Pete on May 11, 2015 12:32:50 GMT -5
I realized I had not answered the OPs question yet, so here goes!  I really like the song quote: To me a good player is one that learns to make good decisions. Sometimes those decisions are based on the facts, sometimes on instinct and sometimes on a hunch. A good player learns when to be cautious and when to take risks. A good player never whines about the characters stats, a good player can have fun with any character sheet you hand them. A good player helps the Ref move the game along and helps the other players make decisions without long discussions. A good player is enthusiastic and has common sense. A good player is flexible, creative and imaginative. A good players rolls with the punches and the ups and downs of the characters fortunes. A good player doesn't hog the floor, but also knows when he needs to step up and be assertive. And as robkuntz says: A great player is a good player that wants to be or is a DM. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Feb 18, 2022 18:07:57 GMT -5
Interesting thread from a good while ago, bumping.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Feb 19, 2022 11:30:19 GMT -5
I hate players making sub-optimal choices in the name of roleplaying, and I expect metagaming. This is a wargame and you play to win, not act out weird novellas in your mind! I get a kick out of seeing people solve the puzzles the dungeon gives them. I must say I seem to be in the extreme minority in this opinion, as I have exactly one player in all my groups that also plays and thinks this way. Analogy: If someone came into a casino and said "what I really like about card games is counting cards because I am really good at that and it helps me win every time!" They would show him to the door. IMO if you do not or cannot count cards, then you should not be playing cards for money. When casino's throw people out for counting cards, they IMO have committed a criminal act. IMO players should make the best possible choice for their characters using all of the knowledge the player has and to be clear I detest the term metagaming. To those who say the character could not possibly know that, I say, when I think of all the stories that I heard growing up that were relevant to country living, I think assuming the character could not possibly know something relative to adventuring is ridiculous. In a world where adventuring and magic are a fact, the stories kids would hear growing up are near infinite. |
|
|
|
Post by Vladimir, The Dark Prince on Feb 20, 2022 22:45:05 GMT -5
Analogy: If someone came into a casino and said "what I really like about card games is counting cards because I am really good at that and it helps me win every time!" They would show him to the door. IMO if you do not or cannot count cards, then you should not be playing cards for money. When casino's throw people out for counting cards, they IMO have committed a criminal act. IMO players should make the best possible choice for their characters using all of the knowledge the player has and to be clear I detest the term metagaming. To those who say the character could not possibly know that, I say, when I think of all the stories that I heard growing up that were relevant to country living, I think assuming the character could not possibly know something relative to adventuring is ridiculous. In a world where adventuring and magic are a fact, the stories kids would hear growing up are near infinite. A casino objecting to counting cards is like a fish objecting to your oxygen tank. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Feb 21, 2022 8:18:27 GMT -5
If I understand right, they can't (officially) toss you for counting cards because you are just observing things in your mind. But if you use a device or conspiracy to do so, then they can toss you.
|
|
It should be noted that I favour rules-light games that aren't burdened with an abundance of stackable 'buffs' and other crunchy bits, but if I'm given these things I will use them to the extent that my comprehension allows.
OK now I understand the point you were trying to make, sorry for being obtuse! Have an Exalt!
