The player in question is using the game, I think, in a therapeutic way to do things he isn't allowed to do in real life. I have the impression that his job is dull, he isn't allowed to be spontaneous, and the game is the one chance where he gets to go wild in a way. He has a big personality - but I just wish he'd exercise a little more caution in game - as his actions often derail what the other players are trying to do (not to mention - make it incredibly hard for me to prep for a session as I know that within the first ten minutes everything I've worked on for a week is going to go right out the window). His characters ALL tend to have impulse-control issues. In fact, the group got so mad at him at one point that they turned on him and killed his character. He was sad - but then trotted out another identical character with a new name and different class. Oi.
Vex. This is why I called out the Player in question as a Mad Slasher. As in the player archetype mentioned by the late Aaron Allston. This player shows classic signs. It is not a case of the assumption chain you thought I was using.
As an aside, I fundamentally disagree with "to an extent" in regards to PCs working together. Players have to put in the work to make it possible, practical and realistic. It is not the DMs job to do this. In Session Zero, the Players need to come up with reasons for their PCs to be at place A and trust People B-F with their lives. It is the social contract of gaming. Any Player not willing to do this should be told what is required, given time to comply and if they fail asked to leave.
I think we may (?) agree here that the options are a) Table Chaos, b) DM Moderation, or c) Complete play style homogeneity. Option A seems bad - hence this thread; you seem to be rejecting Option B since you claim "It is not the DMs job to do this"; and since you "fundamentally disagree" with "to an extent"; thus, I can only assume you're embracing C, as you've simply left zero room for individuality in playing style ( no "to an extent", remember) , and thus I can only conclude that you believe that Players need to fully conform to a single style that is set by party consensus, in session 0.
At which point, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you are not allowing for personal expression, exploration of character aspects, or variances in playing style, then it devolves into a tactical wargame: Advance to next dungeon room, kill the baddies in a tactically optimal way, get the loot, rinse, repe ... wait, wait, wait... what did I tell you, no personal expression or individually, get back in your mold!
And at that point, why not just play Warhammer 40K?
There is a difference between having balanced compatible styles ( or at least tolerance of other styles ) - which absolutely is the responsibility of the Players to have ( this is the "to an extent" aspect, and which seems to lacking in the OP situation ) - and having uniform styles. The former is a dynamic balance that requires negotiation, give-and-take, and some moderation. The latter just needs blind conformity. Unfortunately, the former - needing some moderation - needs a moderator. Since you reject the idea of DM-as-moderator, you're really only left with blind conformity of play styles.
What you are saying is that everyone needs to play the same kind of game, and play it in the same way, or get out.
I'm not willing to be that harsh, or have that one-dimensional a game - so I'm willing to take on the workload of being moderator and manager at my table. I don't always succeed at resolving the situations ( since I've had to remove a player from this campaign ), but I have an interesting group of players which literally bring different styles and different aspects to the table.
That's just my game, my table, and the roles I've decided to adopt.
Your table, roles, and your style, are - of course - yours to choose.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Vex. This is why I called out the Player in question as a Mad Slasher. As in the player archetype mentioned by the late Aaron Allston. This player shows classic signs. It is not a case of the assumption chain you thought I was using.
As an aside, I fundamentally disagree with "to an extent" in regards to PCs working together. Players have to put in the work to make it possible, practical and realistic. It is not the DMs job to do this. In Session Zero, the Players need to come up with reasons for their PCs to be at place A and trust People B-F with their lives. It is the social contract of gaming. Any Player not willing to do this should be told what is required, given time to comply and if they fail asked to leave.
I think we need to agree to disagree here.
I think we may (?) agree here that the options are a) Table Chaos, b) DM Moderation, or c) Complete play style homogeneity. Option A seems bad - hence this thread; you seem to be rejecting Option B since you claim "It is not the DMs job to do this"; and since you "fundamentally disagree" with "to an extent"; thus, I can only assume you're embracing C, as you've simply left zero room for individuality in playing style ( no "to an extent", remember) , and thus I can only conclude that you believe that Players need to fully conform to a single style that is set by party consensus, in session 0.
At which point, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you are not allowing for personal expression, exploration of character aspects, or variances in playing style, then it devolves into a tactical wargame: Advance to next dungeon room, kill the baddies in a tactically optimal way, get the loot, rinse, repe ... wait, wait, wait... what did I tell you, no personal expression or individually, get back in your mold!
And at that point, why not just play Warhammer 40K?
There is a difference between having balanced compatible styles ( or at least tolerance of other styles ) - which absolutely is the responsibility of the Players to have ( this is the "to an extent" aspect, and which seems to lacking in the OP situation ) - and having uniform styles. The former is a dynamic balance that requires negotiation, give-and-take, and some moderation. The latter just needs blind conformity. Unfortunately, the former - needing some moderation - needs a moderator. Since you reject the idea of DM-as-moderator, you're really only left with blind conformity of play styles.
What you are saying is that everyone needs to play the same kind of game, and play it in the same way, or get out.
I'm not willing to be that harsh, or have that one-dimensional a game - so I'm willing to take on the workload of being moderator and manager at my table. I don't always succeed at resolving the situations ( since I've had to remove a player from this campaign ), but I have an interesting group of players which literally bring different styles and different aspects to the table.
That's just my game, my table, and the roles I've decided to adopt.
Your table, roles, and your style, are - of course - yours to choose.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.