Its a weird precedence to suggest that if someone does something another player doesn't like that we now have to stop the game "and have a talk". What does that mean? That now any action any player takes for any reason (in story or not) it must be approved by the other players or you get a stern talking to?
This is the reductio ad absurdum -- the logical fallacy of distorting an argument to ridiculous extremes and then criticizing the result.
We are not talking about having a talk any time one person does something that another person merely doesn't like. That concept has not even come up in this discussion. We are talking about one player repeatedly and deliberately doing things he knows are making everyone else at the table flat-out miserable, and are ruining the whole entire adventure for everyone else.
If you are in a group that you know likes to RP and solve mysteries and do non-combat things, and you, on your own, and without taking everyone else's wishes into account, just force everything to be reduced to simple combat (and then run from the resulting disasters your character has created), you're not just "doing something someone else doesn't like." You are wrecking the entire experience for everyone else. That is not OK. It has never been OK. And it will never be OK.
Aren't D&D groups supposed to be groups of friends? And if we are all friends, why would one of us persist in making everyone else miserable and ruining everyone else's evening? That doesn't sound like a person who is being a good friend to me. As a friend, if I know what I'm doing is making it suck for you, I'll stop. I'm not sure I'd want to play, or be friends with, people who are going to say, "My character does what he does, and everyone just has to live with the consequences, no matter how much I'm ruining your good time."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Now I don't know about you, but I'm 45 years old, been playing RPG's since I was old enough to read and never in my entire life have I met a person who thinks/speaks or acts this way.
Yup. I've seen it. It was in Champions not D&D. Let's call the player "Andy."
I was a Freshman in college. All my same-age high school friends had gone away to college, but I didn't have the funds for that so I lived at home and commuted to school. Several of my friends were still in high school, so I hung out with them, and GMed a Champions campaign. First time we ever had a permanent GM (before that we rotated each adventure with a new GM).
Now, I had 2 people to play with at first, who had been with us the year before (when I was a senior). One was now (that fall) a H.S. senior, the other a H.S. sophomore. Two is really small for a Champions supergroup, so we needed another. The sophomore said, "I know a guy," and we brought Andy in. Andy had never played any RPGs before and definitely not Champions.
Andy learned the rules pretty fast, and right away decided one thing: All he liked was combat. He was not so much into RPing, puzzle solving, or literally anything else you do in an RPG. His friend, the one who brought him in, once even said to him, "Andy, Champions is called the Super Roleplaying Game, not the Super Dice Rolling game!" and another time he said, "It's ROLE playing, R-O-L-E, Andy... not ROLL playing, R-O-L-L."
Now, most of the time this wasn't so bad. Andy would just be quiet when combat wasn't happening. But if non-combat went on for too long or if he was just bored that night, Andy would say, "Enough talk, I'm attacking." Which he knew would force me to say, "OK, combat begins," and start segmented combat (i.e., tracking who does what in combat order -- the Champions version of "everyone roll initiative."). This ticked off not only me, as GM, but also the other two players. And I should have stopped it. But for a long time I did not. Because I was not used to being a permanent GM, and in the rotating-GM days, we did not recognize the temporary GM's authority to do anything but run his immediate adventure -- talking to someone about 'inappropriate behavior' would have been overstepping boundaries.
This went on for the whole academic year, until my now-in-college friends from our high school game came back in the summer, and two of them returned to play with us. When they saw Andy doing this, both of them took me aside separately and said, "Why the heck are you allowing this? He's ruining the RP for everyone else." I started with he's a nice guy, he's my friend now, and I don't want to cause any trouble. But the one older friend said, quite correctly, "By not wanting to upset Andy, you are causing upset for everyone else. He shouldn't be allowed to decide for the whole team when combat starts. He's not event he team leader." (Which was true -- in character, the other of the two young guys was the team's leader.)
We had a long conversation about it, and he made me see that as permanent GM, I had a responsibility I'd not had before. I was no longer just ensuring that this one scenario was good and fun for a few evenings, but I was responsible for ensuring the long-term quality of the game for the whole group, and seeing to it that everyone has fun (to the extent possible, of course) all summer or all year long, not just for a couple of weekends.
At this point I finally took Andy aside and said look, I know you like combat and nothing else, but there are 4 other people who want to do the other stuff so you need to cut it out. I will no longer begin combat until everyone is ready for combat. If you have Nightshade (his character) try to "just start attacking", your attack will begin when the rest of us are ready to have combat, and we will assume Nightshade was just not doing anything up until then. Andy said that was fine with him and finally cut it out.
And over time, he became a better RPer and eventually started GMing himself, and mostly, I think he just was very young (what, 15 at the time?) and needed to grow out of it. By the time he was in early college, as I came to the end of my table-top gaming until this year, Andy had become an awesome Rolemaster GM and a pretty good RPer.
But yes, I saw someone do pretty much what was described in the OP, and yes, it made the rest of us pretty unhappy. And I should have stopped it sooner.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Do any of your players have the hold person spell? lol but seriously... so there are two ways I’d go about this.
1. The classic group discussion out of game, maybe a bring in a therapist and you can delve into this PCs childhood to find out why they need to be center of attention.
2. Roleplay from the other PCs: in a non angry way maybe the best role player prepares a speech for when this rogue inevitably mucks up some encounter, completely in character. Seriously cast hold person or do something to restrain them. Then give them a speech about how they are worried for their safety and they could get themselves killed or a party member killed. The other characters could even have a meeting and talk about how they are concerned right in front of them at the table lol. The point is to think of a way to handle it in character, in game, without letting your outside perspective influence.
this game is also about character growth, perhaps you could talk to the player about their character trying to become a better person, self-improvement etc. then there will be that one moment when he’s about to pull a classic blunder and has that second thought and restrains THEMSELF and everyone is so happy, then their future relapses become comical and tolerable and you know it’s an in character decision.
Well, I believe we've scared the OP away from ever posting on these boards again. (Sorry OP, you've just hit on a touchy subject, I swear we're usually more friendly around here.)
BigLizard, you keep coming back to staples of fantasy literature as a justification for the actions of a character. Sure, these things exist in the literature, but we're (the we here is D&D players) not writing the next great fantasy novel. We are playing a game. A game which can, and does, involve telling a story, but at its base it is a game. The unwritten rule of every game is that you respect the other people you are playing with. Just like no one would tolerate someone flicking pieces off the monopoly board, it is reasonable for people not to tolerate a D&D player who makes their character do things that ruin the game for the other people who are playing. Your argument seems to be (and I might be misunderstanding, I don't want to put words in your mouth) that the story trumps all other considerations, and that a person should be able to do almost anything they want as long as they are serving the story. I (and some others here) are saying that the more important aspect is recognizing that this is a game and one should respect other people and their enjoyment. Not that you need to completely subvert your own fun to theirs, but that you need to find a way to have fun with your character in a way that doesn't (regularly, and seemingly by design) intrude on other players' fun. Like you, I've been playing this game, and other RPGs, since the early 80's. I've never had a problem making a character who is able to work with others. It doesn't take a lot of effort to not be a jerk.
Also, I don't think anyone has said the rogue in the OP is a bad person with no redeeming qualities. I'm not sure where you got that. What we're saying is what he's doing is not cool, and he should stop. He should find a way to have fun that doesn't ruin it for other people. I'd also go so far to say its a two-way street. The other players do need to be willing to tolerate a bit of shenanigans (up to a point) if that's what he likes. They need to all figure out what's going to work for everyone. Probably the ultimate answer is to have a session 0, and all figure out what kind of game they want.
We are playing a game. A game which can, and does, involve telling a story, but at its base it is a game. The unwritten rule of every game is that you respect the other people you are playing with.
I respectfully disagree with this. D&D is a roleplaying game. The RP being an essential part of it. I can enjoy a lot of games, but if I sit down and play chess, I don't expect to be emotionally involved besides caring if I win or loose. If I sit down and play a roleplaying game, I expect to be emotionally involved. This comes from "living" through a great story that no-one knows how's going to end, through getting emotionally involved in my character and through conflict and relationships with other PC's and NPC's.
Conflict, also between players characters [edited] is not per se a bad thing. It can be great. Some of the most memorable campaigns I've played in had whole sessions where we did nothing else than being in conflict with each other. But, that is conflict BETWEEN the CHARACTERS, not between players.
Back to the OP: It might be that this player has short social antennas and needs to be told "off-game" that the other PLAYERS don't like his way of play. It might also be that what he is actually in need of is some in character "correction". Some of the other characters (not players) stepping up to him and telling him they won't travel with him if he keeps doing this.
But whatever the problem is, in my experience, it very seldom hurts to talk a little about it off-game. Either with the rogue-player or the entire group. Maybe he'll say: "Hey, why don't you tell me that in-game".
We are playing a game. A game which can, and does, involve telling a story, but at its base it is a game. The unwritten rule of every game is that you respect the other people you are playing with.
I respectfully disagree with this. D&D is a roleplaying game. The RP being an essential part of it. I can enjoy a lot of games, but if I sit down and play chess, I don't expect to be emotionally involved besides caring if I win or loose. If I sit down and play a roleplaying game, I expect to be emotionally involved. This comes from "living" through a great story that no-one knows how's going to end, through getting emotionally involved in my character and through conflict and relationships with other PC's and NPC's.
I'm not sure how that's a response. 'Respect the other players' doesn't mean that any particular types of RP are forbidden or required, it means "Respect the type of game the other players want to play". If everyone else wants to play one game style and you want to play a different game style, you should either adapt, convince the other players that your style is better, or drop out.
We are playing a game. A game which can, and does, involve telling a story, but at its base it is a game. The unwritten rule of every game is that you respect the other people you are playing with.
I respectfully disagree with this. D&D is a roleplaying game. The RP being an essential part of it. I can enjoy a lot of games, but if I sit down and play chess, I don't expect to be emotionally involved besides caring if I win or loose. If I sit down and play a roleplaying game, I expect to be emotionally involved. This comes from "living" through a great story that no-one knows how's going to end, through getting emotionally involved in my character and through conflict and relationships with other PC's and NPC's.
I'm not sure how that's a response. 'Respect the other players' doesn't mean that any particular types of RP are forbidden or required, it means "Respect the type of game the other players want to play". If everyone else wants to play one game style and you want to play a different game style, you should either adapt, convince the other players that your style is better, or drop out.
Of course you should respect the other players.
My point in the part you are quoting is that the situation we are discussing in the OP is not similar to "throwing pieces off the monopoly board". The PC in question isn't throwing dice in the wall or wiping miniatures off the table (which in my opinion would be the equivalent of that) . He is doing something that is well within the "rules" of the game. That doesn't necessary mean that it's OK, but it's still not the same.
It seems like most here has concluded that the issue is the player playing the rogue. That might be. However, the OP actually never says he is doing anything out of character. That is something we have more or less implied. It might be right of course, but it doesn't have to be. IF he does this "in-character", why don't the other players confront him in-game?
It seems like most here has concluded that the issue is the player playing the rogue. That might be. However, the OP actually never says he is doing anything out of character. That is something we have more or less implied.
I have not inferred that the rogue is acting out-of-character, and I'm not sure other people have either. What we have assumed, at least most of us, is that the rogue's player has made up a character who, by design, is making everyone else miserable, because his character just walks in and starts stabbing things, thus foreclosing any other RP options by the rest of the company. This might be entirely in-character for the rogue, but as several of us have tried to explain repeatedly on this thread, the fact that it is in-character does NOT prevent it from making everyone else miserable. I, and several others, do not hold with the idea that "if it's in character, it's sacrosanct, so if it makes everyone else miserable you just have to live with it." I have said repeatedly no, you do not have to live with it. And most game groups will end up breaking UP over this, rather than people living with it, because no one is in this game to sacrifice his own enjoyment to someone else's.
It doesn't matter if the rogue is behaving in-character -- if the rogue's character is making everyone else miserable, something must be done to address the situation. Most likely, the player needs to make up a different type of rogue. If you watch Colville's 10 minute video about Wangrods that I posted earlier in the thread, he says, and I paraphrase, "I guarantee you that there is a character you could play, that you would enjoy, but would also not make the other players unhappy."
So this is not about in-character or out-of-character... it's about everyone finding a character to play that doesn't make the rest of the table miserable. I agree with Colville -- I guarantee you there is a way for everyone to make up characters that allow us to all enjoy our time at the table. The problem comes when someone decides that his character concept is sacrosanct, and that anyone daring to suggest he might want to make up a different concept is somehow violating the purity of the RP experience.
It might be right of course, but it doesn't have to be. IF he does this "in-character", why don't the other players confront him in-game?
This type of thing almost never gets confronted in-character, in-game, because the majority of players are cooperative, not vindictive, and most people want to just keep the peace.
In the old AD&D days, my best friend made up a Chaotic Good thief. He was a "nice guy" as a character but this friend decided that the "chaotic" part was that his thief character was a kleptomaniac. He could not help himself from stealing, and he stole regularly from the party. And by this, I don't mean swiping stuff from the dragon hoard before we divvy it up. I mean, he would take stuff directly from the packs, pouches, and pockets of the party while we were in the middle of a freaking dungeon with our lives in danger. You'd literally reach for the Potion of Extra-Healing on your belt and the DM would say, "It's not there." And of course you knew -- Seth took it.
Now to the player, again my best friend, he was just playing his character. But the rest of the party were Lawful, and most were Lawful Neutral -- meaning they didn't give two craps about good and evil but they expected the law to be followed, and stealing is against the law. One member was Lawful EVIL (assassin), whose attitude was basically, "break the law and I kill you." Knowing the party was like this Seth's player still had him steal. Repeatedly.
This went on for months. Played correctly, my assassin would have gutted him the first time he stole from him. Played correctly, the LN characters would, at minimum, booted Seth from the party. But if we did that, our friend would be unhappy. So nobody wanted to do it, as a player. The confrontation would have been unpleasant. Kicking his character from the party could, perhaps, even have destroyed our friendship. He might have gotten mad as a player and refused to play D&D with us anymore. And we were all friends outside of D&D as well -- nobody wanted that.
Now, the guy was not trying to be a jerk. He had come up with a character concept to play in our game group that nobody but him found fun to play with. The correct way to handle this was for us to say to him, "Seth is making the rest of us miserable, you need to come up with another character concept." But at that age, in those days... nobody said it. So it just went on and on.
This is not only not uncommon but it seems to be the rule. The most selfish person in the group comes up with a concept that only he or she could possibly like, and everyone else hates playing with, but since no one else is as selfish as that person, everyone just gives in and lets the problem character persist. The unselfish people are doing exactly what the selfish "I am just playing my character" person isn't -- sacrificing their own character concept to keep the peace.
EDIT - I want to say, my friend who played Seth was not being selfish. He was just being immature, because we were like in 11th grade at the time.
We are playing a game. A game which can, and does, involve telling a story, but at its base it is a game. The unwritten rule of every game is that you respect the other people you are playing with.
I respectfully disagree with this. D&D is a roleplaying game. The RP being an essential part of it. I can enjoy a lot of games, but if I sit down and play chess, I don't expect to be emotionally involved besides caring if I win or loose. If I sit down and play a roleplaying game, I expect to be emotionally involved. This comes from "living" through a great story that no-one knows how's going to end, through getting emotionally involved in my character and through conflict and relationships with other PC's and NPC's.
I'm not sure how that's a response. 'Respect the other players' doesn't mean that any particular types of RP are forbidden or required, it means "Respect the type of game the other players want to play". If everyone else wants to play one game style and you want to play a different game style, you should either adapt, convince the other players that your style is better, or drop out.
Of course you should respect the other players.
My point in the part you are quoting is that the situation we are discussing in the OP is not similar to "throwing pieces off the monopoly board". The PC in question isn't throwing dice in the wall or wiping miniatures off the table (which in my opinion would be the equivalent of that) . He is doing something that is well within the "rules" of the game. That doesn't necessary mean that it's OK, but it's still not the same.
It seems like most here has concluded that the issue is the player playing the rogue. That might be. However, the OP actually never says he is doing anything out of character. That is something we have more or less implied. It might be right of course, but it doesn't have to be. IF he does this "in-character", why don't the other players confront him in-game?
Maybe my analogy wasn't perfect, but it wasn't too far off. The crux of it is you can't do something that ruins the experience for other people, in some games that looks like flicking pieces, in others its pretending to be a character who is a jerk, rules or no. As you recognize, just because something is permitted in the rules doesn't mean you should necessarily just go around doing it. There's plenty of things in the world, both in game in irl that are allowed, but make you a jerk if you do them. The player should stop doing them.
And the part about him being in character is really what we've been addressing all along. Just because you are in character doesn't mean you get to ruin things for other people. You made that character. You are the one choosing to make the character do everything he does. You can also choose not to make him do those things. You can choose to make a character who finds some way (no matter how tortured they are in their backstory) to be able to realize they are on a team and they need to work together with the rest of the team. Make the character you want, but understand that there are limitations placed upon you by the fact that you are playing the game with other people. And just like it is fair to expect they make some allowances for you, you must make allowances for them.
The way the rogue is playing isn't inherently wrong, and I don't mean to suggest that it is, but it is obviously wrong for the group he is in. As I said in the earlier post, they should probably have a talk about what kind of game they want to play where they can work this out. Ultimately, as Pantagruel said, they should come up with some sort of compromise, or someone should find a different group.
My point in the part you are quoting is that the situation we are discussing in the OP is not similar to "throwing pieces off the monopoly board". The PC in question isn't throwing dice in the wall or wiping miniatures off the table (which in my opinion would be the equivalent of that) . He is doing something that is well within the "rules" of the game. That doesn't necessary mean that it's OK, but it's still not the same.
It seems like most here has concluded that the issue is the player playing the rogue. That might be. However, the OP actually never says he is doing anything out of character. That is something we have more or less implied. It might be right of course, but it doesn't have to be. IF he does this "in-character", why don't the other players confront him in-game?
This is your mistake: the two sentences I have italicized do not matter. Respect for other players play style might well involve playing fast and loose with the rules or regularly breaking the fourth wall. Or it might not. It's perfectly possible to have a game where the rogue being described is a great fit, but if other players are complaining to the DM, well, it's not the game the OP is describing.
A persons CHARACTER should be able to do almost anything they want as long as they are serving the story. You are not disrespecting players by acting in character in a way that disrespects and treats poorly another players character.
But that's not what we're talking about. We're not saying that if character A is disrespectful to character B, you're disrespecting player B. We're saying that if you do things in character that you know the other players are going to HATE it if you do, and that doing them is NOT FUN for all the other players at the table and is destroying their fun, and you do it anyway because "Story > fun," you're being a pretty terrible friend and you are gong to make other people not want to play the game with you.
Ultimately by saying, as you seem to be, that "Story > Fun" what you are actually saying "MY FUN > YOUR FUN." Because YOU are having fun (presumably) by strictly and rigidly adhering to the sanctity of the story and the RP, and you don't give a rip that doing this is making everyone around you miserable. But everyone at the table has as much right to enjoy themselves as you do.
If you are making other players at the table miserable, whatever you are doing to cause that, needs to stop. Period. The story has nothing to do with this. It's about playing a game with friends and the fact that everyone has a right to enjoy himself or herself at the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Greetings fellow DMs. OP here. First off, you all didn't scare me off. I just got really busy and wasn't able to respond. Second, thanks everyone for your thoughts! I've learned a bit about the dynamics of D&D from the discussion here. Here's my takeaway.
Two Worlds In Tension
Role playing inherently involves two worlds: the game world (GW) of the PCs and the real world (RW) of the people playing a game. When a PC acts in a way that is true to their character but which disrupts the party, the tension between the two worlds becomes apparent. In the GW, nothing has gone wrong. The rules are all being followed, the role play is consistent. But in the RW something has gone wrong. People aren't having fun, or worse, relationships might be disrupted.
Responses to this situation fall along a spectrum.
At one end we have the GW Purist. Nothing is wrong, so let things play out. If that means that shit gets weird in the RW, so be it. That's just what happens when you really commit to role play. (Here the GW is more than just the D&D rules, it's the entire dynamics of the in-game universe from physics, to cosmology, to politics, to demographics, to weather, to character psychology, etc.)
At the other end of the spectrum sits the RW Peacekeeper. There is something wrong and it needs to be fixed. Role play be damned, games should be fun and relationships preserved.
Between these two poles, a lot of different positions are possible. For instance, you might be more committed to GW purity but still somewhat interested in RW peace. In this case you'd be satisfied with a resolution that very slightly alters the GW in order to achieve a bit less RW conflict. Alternatively, you might be satisfied with solutions that alter the GW quite a bit if it means that the RW gamer experience is significantly improved.
Some solutions might initially seem like they don't sacrifice either GW or RW concerns. Maybe an in-game, "by the book" encounter is designed to stop problematic PC behavior. But this still is a compromise, albeit one at the metagame level, between the RW and GW. The only reason that specific encounter occurred is because the DM is manufacturing bits of the GW specifically to alter RW experiences.
For what it's worth, I doubt that any DM is entirely committed to either of the "extremes" along this scale. A deeply committed GW purist wouldn't bother modulating encounter difficulties to party level. The ancient green dragon was just bored and decided to look for a snack. It's not the DM's fault that your 3rd level characters happened to be in the village closest to the dragon's lair....that's just bad luck. But this is absurd. No DM ignores the limitations of their PCs in this way. (At least, no DM would do this for very long since the campaign is likely to end in a quick TPK, leaving dissatisfied players who never want to play under that DM again.)
Similarly, no DM completely ignores the GW, giving the players anything they want---annihilating every monster, always rolling with advantage, picking up legendary magical items from the small village store for 2 gold each. That's silly and not very challenging.
The trick is to find the right balance. And this balance, I think, depends a lot on the particulars of the individual game and set of players. The GW might need to bend quite a bit for a group of newcomers, while a group of battle-hardened players with an experienced DM might commit to a more "hard core" game where the GW dynamics are more strict. I don't think there is a right answer. In fact, I expect that the balance of RW to GW will need to flex within a single game, from moment to moment. That's the tightrope that DMs must walk.
So What Happened to the Rogue?
Some might be curious about how things turned out in my game. I ended up talking with the other, non-rogue players. I reminded them that they could ignore the rogue's provocations, and that they're under no obligation to finish battles he starts. The rogue, meanwhile, is a played by an intuitive guy who sensed that the party was unhappy with his play style. He changed his approach before I even had a chance to talk with him. So the situation sort of resolved itself. It will be interesting to see if this newfound equilibrium holds.
Greetings fellow DMs. OP here. First off, you all didn't scare me off. I just got really busy and wasn't able to respond. Second, thanks everyone for your thoughts! I've learned a bit about the dynamics of D&D from the discussion here. Here's my takeaway.
Two Worlds In Tension
Role playing inherently involves two worlds: the game world (GW) of the PCs and the real world (RW) of the people playing a game. When a PC acts in a way that is true to their character but which disrupts the party, the tension between the two worlds becomes apparent. In the GW, nothing has gone wrong. The rules are all being followed, the role play is consistent. But in the RW something has gone wrong. People aren't having fun, or worse, relationships might be disrupted.
Responses to this situation fall along a spectrum.
At one end we have the GW Purist. Nothing is wrong, so let things play out. If that means that shit gets weird in the RW, so be it. That's just what happens when you really commit to role play. (Here the GW is more than just the D&D rules, it's the entire dynamics of the in-game universe from physics, to cosmology, to politics, to demographics, to weather, to character psychology, etc.)
At the other end of the spectrum sits the RW Peacekeeper. There is something wrong and it needs to be fixed. Role play be damned, games should be fun and relationships preserved.
Between these two poles, a lot of different positions are possible. For instance, you might be more committed to GW purity but still somewhat interested in RW peace. In this case you'd be satisfied with a resolution that very slightly alters the GW in order to achieve a bit less RW conflict. Alternatively, you might be satisfied with solutions that alter the GW quite a bit if it means that the RW gamer experience is significantly improved.
Some solutions might initially seem like they don't sacrifice either GW or RW concerns. Maybe an in-game, "by the book" encounter is designed to stop problematic PC behavior. But this still is a compromise, albeit one at the metagame level, between the RW and GW. The only reason that specific encounter occurred is because the DM is manufacturing bits of the GW specifically to alter RW experiences.
For what it's worth, I doubt that any DM is entirely committed to either of the "extremes" along this scale. A deeply committed GW purist wouldn't bother modulating encounter difficulties to party level. The ancient green dragon was just bored and decided to look for a snack. It's not the DM's fault that your 3rd level characters happened to be in the village closest to the dragon's lair....that's just bad luck. But this is absurd. No DM ignores the limitations of their PCs in this way. (At least, no DM would do this for very long since the campaign is likely to end in a quick TPK, leaving dissatisfied players who never want to play under that DM again.)
Similarly, no DM completely ignores the GW, giving the players anything they want---annihilating every monster, always rolling with advantage, picking up legendary magical items from the small village store for 2 gold each. That's silly and not very challenging.
The trick is to find the right balance. And this balance, I think, depends a lot on the particulars of the individual game and set of players. The GW might need to bend quite a bit for a group of newcomers, while a group of battle-hardened players with an experienced DM might commit to a more "hard core" game where the GW dynamics are more strict. I don't think there is a right answer. In fact, I expect that the balance of RW to GW will need to flex within a single game, from moment to moment. That's the tightrope that DMs must walk.
I don't think I quite agree with the dichotomy you've put forth, and with the comment that you don't think any GMs would go to extremes. You've put "GW" and "RW" in competition, where a "RW peacekeeper" would naturally lead to all sorts of silly things in the game world, like always rolling with advantage and annihilating every monster.
But just giving players everything they want isn't fun for anybody! The whole reason WHY we have challenges in-game is because it's fun to overcome them.
Idunno, in the dichotomy you've put forth, I'd definitely describe myself as 100% in the "RW" camp, no compromise. The fiction of the game world is only relevant insofar as it creates a fun game for the actual players playing. Now, typically, players enjoy playing in a consistent world with rules and challenges - that's why we're playing D&D, instead of free-form make-believe diceless storytelling. And, in fact, I find that maintaining a consistent game world and following prescribed rules is generally a much easier way of generating interesting and fun gameplay than trying to wing it and throwing game-world consistency away.
But I'd say that the purpose of the GW is to have fun in the real world, so if there's ever a conflict, RW wins every single time, no question.
Thanks for this ftl. I'm not sure we disagree. In particular, I'm not thinking of the game world and real world as being always opposed. Rather there are two different considerations which can, sometimes, lead to conflict. One consideration is to have a realistic and challenging game world. The other is for people to have fun in the real world. In a great game you get both the engaging GW and the RW fun.
The case addressed in my original post was one where it seems like these things did conflict. A PC was disrupting the game, ruining it a bit for the other players. However they were acting in a way that was perfectly consistent with their backstory. Strictly speaking, there was nothing this player was doing which was problematic from a world-building or game rules standpoint. In fact, you might think that they were roll playing especially well, in a way that really committed to the internal consistency of the GW. But it was unpleasant for the other players IRL.
A great illustration of this potential conflict is the moment when a character is about to die. You're the DM, you've rolled the damage for the boss's attack and it's enough to wipe out a PC. In that moment, before you announce the damage total, you have a choice. You can tell them exactly what the roll was and inform them that their character is dead and that they need to roll a new one. Or you can make something up or fudge the numbers to prevent the PC from dying. Killing the character is consistent with the GW but will be less fun in the RW
Some people might be OK with their character dying, even thinking that it's part of the fun of the game. Then it becomes a case where there isn't a conflict. So the GW and RW don't always conflict. But they can.
The rogue, meanwhile, is a played by an intuitive guy who sensed that the party was unhappy with his play style. He changed his approach before I even had a chance to talk with him. So the situation sort of resolved itself.
And this has been my whole point all along. We are playing D&D as friends. If you know you're making not just one but several of your friends miserable by what you are doing in the game, then as a friend, you should stop. It sounds like your player did that.
In terms of game world vs. real-world tension, I guess I fall way far on the side of real-world peacekeeping, for two reasons:
1. I play with friends and they need to be having fun. Last night we had our 4th session. The player of the Aarakocra had us in stitches RPing that his character got drunk while watching another of the characters entertain at the tavern. He had everyone in stitches. We had a blast. That is the point of D&D. Whatever is happening in the game world should be making everyone have a good time in the real world.
and 2. Your ability to play D&D with the rest of the group is entirely dependent on their willingness to keep playing with you. If the game is not fun enough for the real-world players, there won't BE any game world (or it will be empty of player characters) because as I have said before, nobody is playing this game in order to NOT have fun. As a game group (and I mean everyone, not just the DM), we have to ensure that we are contributing to, or at least not harming, everyone else's fun, or the game will fall apart, because the people not having fun will stop showing up.
But just giving players everything they want isn't fun for anybody! The whole reason WHY we have challenges in-game is because it's fun to overcome them.
Most players recognize this and what they want is challenges. Let's not confuse what the characters want with what the players want. The character might want to easily defeat the boss but the player is going to want a challenge. The character might want a Ring of 3 Wishes at level 1. A player who knows anything about the game would realize that getting an item that powerful, unless it is part of a really amazing plot, would almost certainly wreck the game and destroy everyone's fun.
The player of the high-CHA sorcerer in our group who flirts with everything in a skirt (or more accurately, a stola, since this is ancient Rome) will have much more fun flirting if he doesn't always just sweep the girl off her feet. Yes, each individual time he tries it, both the player and the character are trying to succeed. But the player would also get bored out of his mind if he just won the gir'sl heart every single time without effort -- and he knows this.
Again: Players want to have fun. They generally know that overcoming tough challenges is part of the fun of D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I have a PC who is playing a rogue/assassin who is pissing off the rest of the party. Basically, he just runs in and starts stabbing. He even has gotten other characters knocked unconscious by starting fights he can't finish and using his bonus action to disengage and run.
I haven't been around D&D long, but I do understand this much: rogues gonna rogue. And if the rogue is role-playing well it will only make sense that he angers his party from time to time. This PC even has a backstory that would lead the character to be super nihilistic and extra stabby. So it's hard from a DM standpoint to really argue with his actions.
That said, several party members have complained that their own actions aren't important to the plot. They don't get to determine the outcome of an encounter because they're too busy cleaning up the fights that they didn't want to start. It also makes the gameplay a bit less nuanced since it's all fighting and less about exploration or creatively navigating difficult challenges.
Any suggestions?
Next time he charges into a room with baddies someone in the party should close the door and bolt it shut. He who pulls the mobs, fights the mobs. Field justice!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
Second off, thanks for spawning an interesting discussion!
And third, thanks for coming back with not only feedback on how it went, but also a really thorough reflection on the situation.
I more or less agree with your "separation" of GM and RW (game world and real world). I would often use in-game/off-game to describe more or less the same. However I think you lack one "position" in your discussion. There are some of us who also enjoy conflict and disruptions in the GW and think that is also fun in RW. I don't think D&D is the best RPG to play this way since at its core there is the assumption that the players are an party that goes on adventures. To go back to your initial example, that situation sounds like something that certainly could have happened in one of our campaigns, but the players would probably react in the GW and solve it there because that's how we've been playing for years. This of course sometimes get out of hand, but through experience, we then know when to discuss the problem in RW to solve it.
It's good to hear that it almost solved itself. Best of luck with your campaign and an unruly rogue :-)
"My character dives in and starts the fight even though none of the rest of you want me to do that," is selfish. There is not place for selfishness at the D&D table. It's just as bad as the guy who always wants the magic item to go to his character, even if the item might be better suited to someone else.
I must say I don't agree 100% with this. If the PC has a GOOD reason to attack, I'm OK with it, and so are most players. Yes, it's kind of selfish to attack that vampire just because you have written into your character that you hate vampires, but still. I would expect people to do that even if all the other players are screaming for a short or long rest. That is roleplaying. What I wouldn't be OK with is a player doing this "just because he can". If the only RP-reason he has is "that's how he is" - well that doesn't work.
Some cool fights occurs because players feel "obliged" to attack, and it can be cool to roleplay afterwards that it wasn't perhaps the best idea. But if you keep doing it on a regular basis, well, then you could very well be an annoyance to your group.
Had a player a few campaigns ago who would always sneak off on their own, constantly had to have private side conversations about what they were doing, was super secretive about their character, etc. Like they were playing a solo adventure or something while the rest of the players sat around doing nothing, waiting for him to finish his OH so secretive, its all about me activity. The group finally got tired of it, would push forward with the adventure at hand, and stopped trying to find, or wait for him. He eventually got his butt in a sling and the party was not there to bail him out. After that sort of thing happened a few more times he finally got the message that the party was not his personal rescue party, that the other players game time was equally important, started communicating more, and generally being a bit more of a team player. So if the player in the OP is like this then the other players should be able to deal with him. If they don't want to confront him, well, then its down to the DM to decide if it's worth having him in the group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
The problem with the character who continually does annoying stuff because 'in character' is that they're not really being RP purists, because they're relying on the other PCs putting up with their behavior for metagame reasons (and if they don't, the problem usually resolves itself).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is the reductio ad absurdum -- the logical fallacy of distorting an argument to ridiculous extremes and then criticizing the result.
We are not talking about having a talk any time one person does something that another person merely doesn't like. That concept has not even come up in this discussion. We are talking about one player repeatedly and deliberately doing things he knows are making everyone else at the table flat-out miserable, and are ruining the whole entire adventure for everyone else.
If you are in a group that you know likes to RP and solve mysteries and do non-combat things, and you, on your own, and without taking everyone else's wishes into account, just force everything to be reduced to simple combat (and then run from the resulting disasters your character has created), you're not just "doing something someone else doesn't like." You are wrecking the entire experience for everyone else. That is not OK. It has never been OK. And it will never be OK.
Aren't D&D groups supposed to be groups of friends? And if we are all friends, why would one of us persist in making everyone else miserable and ruining everyone else's evening? That doesn't sound like a person who is being a good friend to me. As a friend, if I know what I'm doing is making it suck for you, I'll stop. I'm not sure I'd want to play, or be friends with, people who are going to say, "My character does what he does, and everyone just has to live with the consequences, no matter how much I'm ruining your good time."
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yup. I've seen it. It was in Champions not D&D. Let's call the player "Andy."
I was a Freshman in college. All my same-age high school friends had gone away to college, but I didn't have the funds for that so I lived at home and commuted to school. Several of my friends were still in high school, so I hung out with them, and GMed a Champions campaign. First time we ever had a permanent GM (before that we rotated each adventure with a new GM).
Now, I had 2 people to play with at first, who had been with us the year before (when I was a senior). One was now (that fall) a H.S. senior, the other a H.S. sophomore. Two is really small for a Champions supergroup, so we needed another. The sophomore said, "I know a guy," and we brought Andy in. Andy had never played any RPGs before and definitely not Champions.
Andy learned the rules pretty fast, and right away decided one thing: All he liked was combat. He was not so much into RPing, puzzle solving, or literally anything else you do in an RPG. His friend, the one who brought him in, once even said to him, "Andy, Champions is called the Super Roleplaying Game, not the Super Dice Rolling game!" and another time he said, "It's ROLE playing, R-O-L-E, Andy... not ROLL playing, R-O-L-L."
Now, most of the time this wasn't so bad. Andy would just be quiet when combat wasn't happening. But if non-combat went on for too long or if he was just bored that night, Andy would say, "Enough talk, I'm attacking." Which he knew would force me to say, "OK, combat begins," and start segmented combat (i.e., tracking who does what in combat order -- the Champions version of "everyone roll initiative."). This ticked off not only me, as GM, but also the other two players. And I should have stopped it. But for a long time I did not. Because I was not used to being a permanent GM, and in the rotating-GM days, we did not recognize the temporary GM's authority to do anything but run his immediate adventure -- talking to someone about 'inappropriate behavior' would have been overstepping boundaries.
This went on for the whole academic year, until my now-in-college friends from our high school game came back in the summer, and two of them returned to play with us. When they saw Andy doing this, both of them took me aside separately and said, "Why the heck are you allowing this? He's ruining the RP for everyone else." I started with he's a nice guy, he's my friend now, and I don't want to cause any trouble. But the one older friend said, quite correctly, "By not wanting to upset Andy, you are causing upset for everyone else. He shouldn't be allowed to decide for the whole team when combat starts. He's not event he team leader." (Which was true -- in character, the other of the two young guys was the team's leader.)
We had a long conversation about it, and he made me see that as permanent GM, I had a responsibility I'd not had before. I was no longer just ensuring that this one scenario was good and fun for a few evenings, but I was responsible for ensuring the long-term quality of the game for the whole group, and seeing to it that everyone has fun (to the extent possible, of course) all summer or all year long, not just for a couple of weekends.
At this point I finally took Andy aside and said look, I know you like combat and nothing else, but there are 4 other people who want to do the other stuff so you need to cut it out. I will no longer begin combat until everyone is ready for combat. If you have Nightshade (his character) try to "just start attacking", your attack will begin when the rest of us are ready to have combat, and we will assume Nightshade was just not doing anything up until then. Andy said that was fine with him and finally cut it out.
And over time, he became a better RPer and eventually started GMing himself, and mostly, I think he just was very young (what, 15 at the time?) and needed to grow out of it. By the time he was in early college, as I came to the end of my table-top gaming until this year, Andy had become an awesome Rolemaster GM and a pretty good RPer.
But yes, I saw someone do pretty much what was described in the OP, and yes, it made the rest of us pretty unhappy. And I should have stopped it sooner.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Do any of your players have the hold person spell? lol but seriously... so there are two ways I’d go about this.
1. The classic group discussion out of game, maybe a bring in a therapist and you can delve into this PCs childhood to find out why they need to be center of attention.
2. Roleplay from the other PCs: in a non angry way maybe the best role player prepares a speech for when this rogue inevitably mucks up some encounter, completely in character. Seriously cast hold person or do something to restrain them. Then give them a speech about how they are worried for their safety and they could get themselves killed or a party member killed. The other characters could even have a meeting and talk about how they are concerned right in front of them at the table lol. The point is to think of a way to handle it in character, in game, without letting your outside perspective influence.
this game is also about character growth, perhaps you could talk to the player about their character trying to become a better person, self-improvement etc. then there will be that one moment when he’s about to pull a classic blunder and has that second thought and restrains THEMSELF and everyone is so happy, then their future relapses become comical and tolerable and you know it’s an in character decision.
Well, I believe we've scared the OP away from ever posting on these boards again. (Sorry OP, you've just hit on a touchy subject, I swear we're usually more friendly around here.)
BigLizard, you keep coming back to staples of fantasy literature as a justification for the actions of a character. Sure, these things exist in the literature, but we're (the we here is D&D players) not writing the next great fantasy novel. We are playing a game. A game which can, and does, involve telling a story, but at its base it is a game. The unwritten rule of every game is that you respect the other people you are playing with. Just like no one would tolerate someone flicking pieces off the monopoly board, it is reasonable for people not to tolerate a D&D player who makes their character do things that ruin the game for the other people who are playing. Your argument seems to be (and I might be misunderstanding, I don't want to put words in your mouth) that the story trumps all other considerations, and that a person should be able to do almost anything they want as long as they are serving the story. I (and some others here) are saying that the more important aspect is recognizing that this is a game and one should respect other people and their enjoyment. Not that you need to completely subvert your own fun to theirs, but that you need to find a way to have fun with your character in a way that doesn't (regularly, and seemingly by design) intrude on other players' fun. Like you, I've been playing this game, and other RPGs, since the early 80's. I've never had a problem making a character who is able to work with others. It doesn't take a lot of effort to not be a jerk.
Also, I don't think anyone has said the rogue in the OP is a bad person with no redeeming qualities. I'm not sure where you got that. What we're saying is what he's doing is not cool, and he should stop. He should find a way to have fun that doesn't ruin it for other people. I'd also go so far to say its a two-way street. The other players do need to be willing to tolerate a bit of shenanigans (up to a point) if that's what he likes. They need to all figure out what's going to work for everyone. Probably the ultimate answer is to have a session 0, and all figure out what kind of game they want.
I respectfully disagree with this. D&D is a roleplaying game. The RP being an essential part of it. I can enjoy a lot of games, but if I sit down and play chess, I don't expect to be emotionally involved besides caring if I win or loose. If I sit down and play a roleplaying game, I expect to be emotionally involved. This comes from "living" through a great story that no-one knows how's going to end, through getting emotionally involved in my character and through conflict and relationships with other PC's and NPC's.
Conflict, also between
playerscharacters [edited] is not per se a bad thing. It can be great. Some of the most memorable campaigns I've played in had whole sessions where we did nothing else than being in conflict with each other. But, that is conflict BETWEEN the CHARACTERS, not between players.Back to the OP: It might be that this player has short social antennas and needs to be told "off-game" that the other PLAYERS don't like his way of play. It might also be that what he is actually in need of is some in character "correction". Some of the other characters (not players) stepping up to him and telling him they won't travel with him if he keeps doing this.
But whatever the problem is, in my experience, it very seldom hurts to talk a little about it off-game. Either with the rogue-player or the entire group. Maybe he'll say: "Hey, why don't you tell me that in-game".
Ludo ergo sum!
I'm not sure how that's a response. 'Respect the other players' doesn't mean that any particular types of RP are forbidden or required, it means "Respect the type of game the other players want to play". If everyone else wants to play one game style and you want to play a different game style, you should either adapt, convince the other players that your style is better, or drop out.
Of course you should respect the other players.
My point in the part you are quoting is that the situation we are discussing in the OP is not similar to "throwing pieces off the monopoly board". The PC in question isn't throwing dice in the wall or wiping miniatures off the table (which in my opinion would be the equivalent of that) . He is doing something that is well within the "rules" of the game. That doesn't necessary mean that it's OK, but it's still not the same.
It seems like most here has concluded that the issue is the player playing the rogue. That might be. However, the OP actually never says he is doing anything out of character. That is something we have more or less implied. It might be right of course, but it doesn't have to be. IF he does this "in-character", why don't the other players confront him in-game?
Ludo ergo sum!
I have not inferred that the rogue is acting out-of-character, and I'm not sure other people have either. What we have assumed, at least most of us, is that the rogue's player has made up a character who, by design, is making everyone else miserable, because his character just walks in and starts stabbing things, thus foreclosing any other RP options by the rest of the company. This might be entirely in-character for the rogue, but as several of us have tried to explain repeatedly on this thread, the fact that it is in-character does NOT prevent it from making everyone else miserable. I, and several others, do not hold with the idea that "if it's in character, it's sacrosanct, so if it makes everyone else miserable you just have to live with it." I have said repeatedly no, you do not have to live with it. And most game groups will end up breaking UP over this, rather than people living with it, because no one is in this game to sacrifice his own enjoyment to someone else's.
It doesn't matter if the rogue is behaving in-character -- if the rogue's character is making everyone else miserable, something must be done to address the situation. Most likely, the player needs to make up a different type of rogue. If you watch Colville's 10 minute video about Wangrods that I posted earlier in the thread, he says, and I paraphrase, "I guarantee you that there is a character you could play, that you would enjoy, but would also not make the other players unhappy."
So this is not about in-character or out-of-character... it's about everyone finding a character to play that doesn't make the rest of the table miserable. I agree with Colville -- I guarantee you there is a way for everyone to make up characters that allow us to all enjoy our time at the table. The problem comes when someone decides that his character concept is sacrosanct, and that anyone daring to suggest he might want to make up a different concept is somehow violating the purity of the RP experience.
This type of thing almost never gets confronted in-character, in-game, because the majority of players are cooperative, not vindictive, and most people want to just keep the peace.
In the old AD&D days, my best friend made up a Chaotic Good thief. He was a "nice guy" as a character but this friend decided that the "chaotic" part was that his thief character was a kleptomaniac. He could not help himself from stealing, and he stole regularly from the party. And by this, I don't mean swiping stuff from the dragon hoard before we divvy it up. I mean, he would take stuff directly from the packs, pouches, and pockets of the party while we were in the middle of a freaking dungeon with our lives in danger. You'd literally reach for the Potion of Extra-Healing on your belt and the DM would say, "It's not there." And of course you knew -- Seth took it.
Now to the player, again my best friend, he was just playing his character. But the rest of the party were Lawful, and most were Lawful Neutral -- meaning they didn't give two craps about good and evil but they expected the law to be followed, and stealing is against the law. One member was Lawful EVIL (assassin), whose attitude was basically, "break the law and I kill you." Knowing the party was like this Seth's player still had him steal. Repeatedly.
This went on for months. Played correctly, my assassin would have gutted him the first time he stole from him. Played correctly, the LN characters would, at minimum, booted Seth from the party. But if we did that, our friend would be unhappy. So nobody wanted to do it, as a player. The confrontation would have been unpleasant. Kicking his character from the party could, perhaps, even have destroyed our friendship. He might have gotten mad as a player and refused to play D&D with us anymore. And we were all friends outside of D&D as well -- nobody wanted that.
Now, the guy was not trying to be a jerk. He had come up with a character concept to play in our game group that nobody but him found fun to play with. The correct way to handle this was for us to say to him, "Seth is making the rest of us miserable, you need to come up with another character concept." But at that age, in those days... nobody said it. So it just went on and on.
This is not only not uncommon but it seems to be the rule. The most selfish person in the group comes up with a concept that only he or she could possibly like, and everyone else hates playing with, but since no one else is as selfish as that person, everyone just gives in and lets the problem character persist. The unselfish people are doing exactly what the selfish "I am just playing my character" person isn't -- sacrificing their own character concept to keep the peace.
EDIT - I want to say, my friend who played Seth was not being selfish. He was just being immature, because we were like in 11th grade at the time.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Maybe my analogy wasn't perfect, but it wasn't too far off. The crux of it is you can't do something that ruins the experience for other people, in some games that looks like flicking pieces, in others its pretending to be a character who is a jerk, rules or no. As you recognize, just because something is permitted in the rules doesn't mean you should necessarily just go around doing it. There's plenty of things in the world, both in game in irl that are allowed, but make you a jerk if you do them. The player should stop doing them.
And the part about him being in character is really what we've been addressing all along. Just because you are in character doesn't mean you get to ruin things for other people. You made that character. You are the one choosing to make the character do everything he does. You can also choose not to make him do those things. You can choose to make a character who finds some way (no matter how tortured they are in their backstory) to be able to realize they are on a team and they need to work together with the rest of the team. Make the character you want, but understand that there are limitations placed upon you by the fact that you are playing the game with other people. And just like it is fair to expect they make some allowances for you, you must make allowances for them.
The way the rogue is playing isn't inherently wrong, and I don't mean to suggest that it is, but it is obviously wrong for the group he is in. As I said in the earlier post, they should probably have a talk about what kind of game they want to play where they can work this out. Ultimately, as Pantagruel said, they should come up with some sort of compromise, or someone should find a different group.
This is your mistake: the two sentences I have italicized do not matter. Respect for other players play style might well involve playing fast and loose with the rules or regularly breaking the fourth wall. Or it might not. It's perfectly possible to have a game where the rogue being described is a great fit, but if other players are complaining to the DM, well, it's not the game the OP is describing.
But that's not what we're talking about. We're not saying that if character A is disrespectful to character B, you're disrespecting player B. We're saying that if you do things in character that you know the other players are going to HATE it if you do, and that doing them is NOT FUN for all the other players at the table and is destroying their fun, and you do it anyway because "Story > fun," you're being a pretty terrible friend and you are gong to make other people not want to play the game with you.
Ultimately by saying, as you seem to be, that "Story > Fun" what you are actually saying "MY FUN > YOUR FUN." Because YOU are having fun (presumably) by strictly and rigidly adhering to the sanctity of the story and the RP, and you don't give a rip that doing this is making everyone around you miserable. But everyone at the table has as much right to enjoy themselves as you do.
If you are making other players at the table miserable, whatever you are doing to cause that, needs to stop. Period. The story has nothing to do with this. It's about playing a game with friends and the fact that everyone has a right to enjoy himself or herself at the table.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Greetings fellow DMs. OP here. First off, you all didn't scare me off. I just got really busy and wasn't able to respond. Second, thanks everyone for your thoughts! I've learned a bit about the dynamics of D&D from the discussion here. Here's my takeaway.
Two Worlds In Tension
Role playing inherently involves two worlds: the game world (GW) of the PCs and the real world (RW) of the people playing a game. When a PC acts in a way that is true to their character but which disrupts the party, the tension between the two worlds becomes apparent. In the GW, nothing has gone wrong. The rules are all being followed, the role play is consistent. But in the RW something has gone wrong. People aren't having fun, or worse, relationships might be disrupted.
Responses to this situation fall along a spectrum.
At one end we have the GW Purist. Nothing is wrong, so let things play out. If that means that shit gets weird in the RW, so be it. That's just what happens when you really commit to role play. (Here the GW is more than just the D&D rules, it's the entire dynamics of the in-game universe from physics, to cosmology, to politics, to demographics, to weather, to character psychology, etc.)
At the other end of the spectrum sits the RW Peacekeeper. There is something wrong and it needs to be fixed. Role play be damned, games should be fun and relationships preserved.
Between these two poles, a lot of different positions are possible. For instance, you might be more committed to GW purity but still somewhat interested in RW peace. In this case you'd be satisfied with a resolution that very slightly alters the GW in order to achieve a bit less RW conflict. Alternatively, you might be satisfied with solutions that alter the GW quite a bit if it means that the RW gamer experience is significantly improved.
Some solutions might initially seem like they don't sacrifice either GW or RW concerns. Maybe an in-game, "by the book" encounter is designed to stop problematic PC behavior. But this still is a compromise, albeit one at the metagame level, between the RW and GW. The only reason that specific encounter occurred is because the DM is manufacturing bits of the GW specifically to alter RW experiences.
For what it's worth, I doubt that any DM is entirely committed to either of the "extremes" along this scale. A deeply committed GW purist wouldn't bother modulating encounter difficulties to party level. The ancient green dragon was just bored and decided to look for a snack. It's not the DM's fault that your 3rd level characters happened to be in the village closest to the dragon's lair....that's just bad luck. But this is absurd. No DM ignores the limitations of their PCs in this way. (At least, no DM would do this for very long since the campaign is likely to end in a quick TPK, leaving dissatisfied players who never want to play under that DM again.)
Similarly, no DM completely ignores the GW, giving the players anything they want---annihilating every monster, always rolling with advantage, picking up legendary magical items from the small village store for 2 gold each. That's silly and not very challenging.
The trick is to find the right balance. And this balance, I think, depends a lot on the particulars of the individual game and set of players. The GW might need to bend quite a bit for a group of newcomers, while a group of battle-hardened players with an experienced DM might commit to a more "hard core" game where the GW dynamics are more strict. I don't think there is a right answer. In fact, I expect that the balance of RW to GW will need to flex within a single game, from moment to moment. That's the tightrope that DMs must walk.
So What Happened to the Rogue?
Some might be curious about how things turned out in my game. I ended up talking with the other, non-rogue players. I reminded them that they could ignore the rogue's provocations, and that they're under no obligation to finish battles he starts. The rogue, meanwhile, is a played by an intuitive guy who sensed that the party was unhappy with his play style. He changed his approach before I even had a chance to talk with him. So the situation sort of resolved itself. It will be interesting to see if this newfound equilibrium holds.
I don't think I quite agree with the dichotomy you've put forth, and with the comment that you don't think any GMs would go to extremes. You've put "GW" and "RW" in competition, where a "RW peacekeeper" would naturally lead to all sorts of silly things in the game world, like always rolling with advantage and annihilating every monster.
But just giving players everything they want isn't fun for anybody! The whole reason WHY we have challenges in-game is because it's fun to overcome them.
Idunno, in the dichotomy you've put forth, I'd definitely describe myself as 100% in the "RW" camp, no compromise. The fiction of the game world is only relevant insofar as it creates a fun game for the actual players playing. Now, typically, players enjoy playing in a consistent world with rules and challenges - that's why we're playing D&D, instead of free-form make-believe diceless storytelling. And, in fact, I find that maintaining a consistent game world and following prescribed rules is generally a much easier way of generating interesting and fun gameplay than trying to wing it and throwing game-world consistency away.
But I'd say that the purpose of the GW is to have fun in the real world, so if there's ever a conflict, RW wins every single time, no question.
Thanks for this ftl. I'm not sure we disagree. In particular, I'm not thinking of the game world and real world as being always opposed. Rather there are two different considerations which can, sometimes, lead to conflict. One consideration is to have a realistic and challenging game world. The other is for people to have fun in the real world. In a great game you get both the engaging GW and the RW fun.
The case addressed in my original post was one where it seems like these things did conflict. A PC was disrupting the game, ruining it a bit for the other players. However they were acting in a way that was perfectly consistent with their backstory. Strictly speaking, there was nothing this player was doing which was problematic from a world-building or game rules standpoint. In fact, you might think that they were roll playing especially well, in a way that really committed to the internal consistency of the GW. But it was unpleasant for the other players IRL.
A great illustration of this potential conflict is the moment when a character is about to die. You're the DM, you've rolled the damage for the boss's attack and it's enough to wipe out a PC. In that moment, before you announce the damage total, you have a choice. You can tell them exactly what the roll was and inform them that their character is dead and that they need to roll a new one. Or you can make something up or fudge the numbers to prevent the PC from dying. Killing the character is consistent with the GW but will be less fun in the RW
Some people might be OK with their character dying, even thinking that it's part of the fun of the game. Then it becomes a case where there isn't a conflict. So the GW and RW don't always conflict. But they can.
And this has been my whole point all along. We are playing D&D as friends. If you know you're making not just one but several of your friends miserable by what you are doing in the game, then as a friend, you should stop. It sounds like your player did that.
In terms of game world vs. real-world tension, I guess I fall way far on the side of real-world peacekeeping, for two reasons:
1. I play with friends and they need to be having fun. Last night we had our 4th session. The player of the Aarakocra had us in stitches RPing that his character got drunk while watching another of the characters entertain at the tavern. He had everyone in stitches. We had a blast. That is the point of D&D. Whatever is happening in the game world should be making everyone have a good time in the real world.
and 2. Your ability to play D&D with the rest of the group is entirely dependent on their willingness to keep playing with you. If the game is not fun enough for the real-world players, there won't BE any game world (or it will be empty of player characters) because as I have said before, nobody is playing this game in order to NOT have fun. As a game group (and I mean everyone, not just the DM), we have to ensure that we are contributing to, or at least not harming, everyone else's fun, or the game will fall apart, because the people not having fun will stop showing up.
Most players recognize this and what they want is challenges. Let's not confuse what the characters want with what the players want. The character might want to easily defeat the boss but the player is going to want a challenge. The character might want a Ring of 3 Wishes at level 1. A player who knows anything about the game would realize that getting an item that powerful, unless it is part of a really amazing plot, would almost certainly wreck the game and destroy everyone's fun.
The player of the high-CHA sorcerer in our group who flirts with everything in a skirt (or more accurately, a stola, since this is ancient Rome) will have much more fun flirting if he doesn't always just sweep the girl off her feet. Yes, each individual time he tries it, both the player and the character are trying to succeed. But the player would also get bored out of his mind if he just won the gir'sl heart every single time without effort -- and he knows this.
Again: Players want to have fun. They generally know that overcoming tough challenges is part of the fun of D&D.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Next time he charges into a room with baddies someone in the party should close the door and bolt it shut. He who pulls the mobs, fights the mobs. Field justice!
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
First off, nice to hear we didn't scare you away!
Second off, thanks for spawning an interesting discussion!
And third, thanks for coming back with not only feedback on how it went, but also a really thorough reflection on the situation.
I more or less agree with your "separation" of GM and RW (game world and real world). I would often use in-game/off-game to describe more or less the same. However I think you lack one "position" in your discussion. There are some of us who also enjoy conflict and disruptions in the GW and think that is also fun in RW. I don't think D&D is the best RPG to play this way since at its core there is the assumption that the players are an party that goes on adventures. To go back to your initial example, that situation sounds like something that certainly could have happened in one of our campaigns, but the players would probably react in the GW and solve it there because that's how we've been playing for years. This of course sometimes get out of hand, but through experience, we then know when to discuss the problem in RW to solve it.
It's good to hear that it almost solved itself. Best of luck with your campaign and an unruly rogue :-)
Ludo ergo sum!
Had a player a few campaigns ago who would always sneak off on their own, constantly had to have private side conversations about what they were doing, was super secretive about their character, etc. Like they were playing a solo adventure or something while the rest of the players sat around doing nothing, waiting for him to finish his OH so secretive, its all about me activity. The group finally got tired of it, would push forward with the adventure at hand, and stopped trying to find, or wait for him. He eventually got his butt in a sling and the party was not there to bail him out. After that sort of thing happened a few more times he finally got the message that the party was not his personal rescue party, that the other players game time was equally important, started communicating more, and generally being a bit more of a team player. So if the player in the OP is like this then the other players should be able to deal with him. If they don't want to confront him, well, then its down to the DM to decide if it's worth having him in the group.
Husband, Father, Veteran, Gamer, DM, Player, and Friend | Author of the "World of Eirador" | http://world-guild.com
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." ~Gary Gygax
The problem with the character who continually does annoying stuff because 'in character' is that they're not really being RP purists, because they're relying on the other PCs putting up with their behavior for metagame reasons (and if they don't, the problem usually resolves itself).