# better gaming through chemistry



## jim pinto

as a game designer, i've had hundreds of debates internally at AEG about what sorts of books would sell, etc.

i've had conversations with gamers at conventions, game stores, parks, and dark alleys where bootleg pdfs are sold and bartered for cheap knock off mountain dew.

in all this time, i've never seen a book for PLAYERS that gave advice on how to be a better PLAYER

there are dozens, nay hundreds, of books, essays, articles, and advice columns for being a better DM. the list is nauseating to look at. no one person's advice is entirely withour merit, but no one book ever challenges the PLAYERS to up their game

and when i say UP their game i'm not talking about looking for better cheats, buffs, or min-max combos.

i'm talking about adding to the enjoyment of the game, not detracting from it. helping the DM tell a better story, not make the DM an advesary.

knights of the dinner table exists not only as an satire of gaming, but also an allegory of those kinds of gamers who walk around saying... my DM is always trying to screw me... well... you might be right that your DM sucks and you might want to stop gaming with him until he gets better... but you might want to consider that ADVERISTY and CHALLENGES are at the root of all story and myth

without challenge, there's nothing to write about or do...

PCs that need to do max damage every round should go the way of the dinosaur and not be rewarded with book after book of broken feats and classes from mongoose and the pdf du jour.

there's a few more things to touch on here, in the vein of book publishing style, but i'll let someone else chime in before i suggest a new method of presenting information in books.

- jim pinto
(fluidsum.blogspot.com)


----------



## Teflon Billy

I have ni idea if I would buy such a book (I mostly DM), but your suggestion is--if nothing else--unique as far as I'm aware.

I am intrigued


----------



## Crothian

I think it is a good idea and you are right there are no books like this.  The closest is mechanic books that just help the player make more effecient characters and do max damage.  I'd love to see something like this


----------



## the Jester

Wow, what a great idea.

I too mostly dm, but I might buy this book just to let would-be players read it.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy

The idea is intriguing.  However, I wonder if the skills needed to be a good player are as specialized as those needed to be a good DM?  Playing is generally easier.

Looking to the creepy player thread on RPG.net, it seems like a lot of bad players are bad because of socialization problems or even mental illness...  Otherwise, RPG players are a pretty tolerant lot.


----------



## Umbran

I think the major problem you'll find is that defining "good player" wil be a bit more slippery than defining "good GM".

The GM's role in the game is highly service-oriented.  The GM's job is to provide something for the players, and one canmeasure his or her success by how much the players like the offerings.

The player's role, traditionally, is not quite so service-oriented.  While playing is a cooperative endeavor, the player's role is a bit more centered upon themselves, and that makes grading their performance a bit more difficult.

In addition - one of the things that marks a great GM is flexibility of playstyle.  A really good GM can satisfy munchkin and dramatic angst-bunny alike.  But right in your original post, you approach it like one of these styles is not as good as the other.  Your bias is showing.

The number one thing you'll have to understand before you can write a successful book is the _relative_ nature of "good".  Until you can show that a good powergamer and a good dramatist are both good players in their own styles, you're doomed to fail.


----------



## jim pinto

Umbran said:
			
		

> I think the major problem you'll find is that defining "good player" wil be a bit more slippery than defining "good GM".
> 
> The GM's role in the game is highly service-oriented.  The GM's job is to provide something for the players, and one canmeasure his or her success by how much the players like the offerings.
> 
> The player's role, traditionally, is not quite so service-oriented.  While playing is a cooperative endeavor, the player's role is a bit more centered upon themselves, and that makes grading their performance a bit more difficult.
> 
> In addition - one of the things that marks a great GM is flexibility of playstyle.  A really good GM can satisfy munchkin and dramatic angst-bunny alike.  But right in your original post, you approach it like one of these styles is not as good as the other.  Your bias is showing.
> 
> The number one thing you'll have to understand before you can write a successful book is the _relative_ nature of "good".  Until you can show that a good powergamer and a good dramatist are both good players in their own styles, you're doomed to fail.




excellent point.

my bias is showing. but i don't believe munchkin players have anything to offer, and by default the DM is not obligated to offer him anything in return. he can go play zelda and be the antisocial power-gamer he wants to be against his xbox and not ruin anyone's fun... and here's where the problem lies...

the DM can't be expect to:

a) write a story
b) detail NPCs, maps, locations, etc.
c) administer the game (maintain the flow, know the rules, have everyone, involved)
d) make things interesting

AND

e) put up with everyone's nonsense

somewhere people have to bend to the DM. because if they're not bending to the DM, they need to start paying him for his time.

the DM should have an equal vote about the tone and quality of the game, especially if he's bound by all these rules about how to run things for the PCs.

and a good player, understands his role in this.... and if his role IS munchkin super power gamer, he needs to realize he doesn't get to be the center of attention all night. in fact, he's lucky if he gets to shine for longer than 5 rounds of the final fight of the evening.

at this point, i should list the SEVEN types of gamers... these are, by marketing standards, the people you have to focus your product on when selling.

Power Gamer. This is the guy who knows how to make the most with the least amount of rules. He knows that a gnome barbarian is the best combo for dealing maximum damage in a round, etc. He typically purchases books with more feats, equipment, etc.

Combat Monkey. Different than than the power gamer, the combat monkey's character has one schtick that the player is particularly proud of. All of his energy goes into making the perfect chain fighter, etc. The character is effective in combat, but the main purpose of the character is to kick ass.

Escapist. He's here to kill things, loot things, and generally just play. He wants to escape the rigors of the real world. His characters are one-dimensional and provide the game with nothing, but provide the player with the joy of killing stuff. He's just happy rolling dice.

Storyteller. Typically also a DM, the storyteller is concerned with making sure everything fits together. He doesn't care about rules and generally doesn't even care if he succeeds at all his actions. 

Actor. Particularly devoted to character motivation, themes, mood, and drama. The actor creates characters that come alive at the table, but generally are less effective in combat. In battles, he tries to do things that the rules do not support. DMs have a hard time juggling this sort of player.

Hanger-On. A friend of a friend. This person shows up to game because someone he knows games. He generally doesn't buy books.

Casual Gamer. This is the guy who is inconsistent in showing up. He loves making characters, trying out new systems; playing asheron's call one week, and everquest another. He's buying pattern is unreliable.

and of course, some people are combinations, but generally one trait stands out.

the key, i think, is to make sure a book covers these elements and details how the PCs will get more OUT of the game, if they can adhere to these basic principles.

and "good" isn't as relative as you may think.


----------



## Agback

I wrote a couple of essays on the subject for the newsletter of the RPG association at the university I was at at the time back in 1987. _That's Entertainment_ and _Leads and Excuses_. I think some of them are floating around the 'Net somewhere.


----------



## Nailom

If it's good. I would instantly buy such a book for my players.


----------



## silvereyes

I think I like the idea, but I must be missing something...

It sounds like you are thinking of writing a book that helps players work with the GM to tell better stories. This is a book that I would buy as a player. (I am of the useless escapist gamer classification, so learning what alot of people say is a good way to play interests me.)

But is it's target going to be all players? Or just those who have an interest in telling stories?
Will it help the beer and pretzel players enjoy the game more? How about the one upsmanship of power gamer groups?

Cause if so, you might just be able to give WOTC a run for their money....


----------



## jdrakeh

If such a product existed, I would champion it. The vast majority of players (or, for that matter, _gamers_) that I know, both online and off... 


Have _zero_ understanding of what genre is, let alone what playing a 'playing a genre appropriate character' or 'acting in genre' might mean. 


Draw no distinction between out of character knowledge and in-character knowledge, nor do many fully understand the difference between the two states of OOC and IC. 


Have an all or nothing mind set when it comes to rules, charging that you must use _all_ of the rules in a game (including those implicitly labeled as optional) or none of them. 

If everybody involved in a game is ignorant of genre conventions, the separation of OOC and IC status, and similar things - great fun will be had. The problem is that many publishers have taken it upon themselves to inform the GM, but not other players. This upsets the balance.

I can directly trace most of my frustration with games, gaming, and gamers back to the point in time that I developed a firm grasp on genre, genre conventions, story continuity, pacing, etc - and my fellow players did not. At all. 

All of a sudden, I saw the potential for dramtic mysteries, epic romance amongst the stars, pulp adventure in the vein of 1930s radio serials, and so on. My fellow players still couldn't see past their characters as simple stat blocks or conduits for wish fulfillment. 

Me: "I've got a great idea for a game about masked avengers in 1930s New York!"

Them: "Cool! That means we get to kill gangsters!"

Me: "You can play heroes in the vein of The Shadow, Doc Savage, or even Batman!"

Them: "Sweet! We'll play a group of robotic ninja!"

And so on... pretty much every conversation about a game ended up like that. Of the fifty or so gamers that I spent a long time with in Topeka, only my friends Norm, Roger, and Lenny seemed to have a firm grasp on genre and stuff... and, unsurprisingly, they were the other 'go to guys' for GMing (and all shared my frustrations). 

Save the sanity of myself and others like me. Please, please, please re-balance the scales. Teach players the importance of genre conventions, dispel the fallacy that the written rule is Gospel, explain the difference between assuming a role and moving a pawn on a game board. Do these things and I shall follow you to the ends of the Earth!


----------



## Henry

jim pinto said:
			
		

> ...i don't believe munchkin players have anything to offer, and by default the DM is not obligated to offer him anything in return. he can go play zelda and be the antisocial power-gamer he wants to be against his xbox and not ruin anyone's fun... and here's where the problem lies...
> 
> the DM can't be expect to:
> 
> a) write a story
> b) detail NPCs, maps, locations, etc.
> c) administer the game (maintain the flow, know the rules, have everyone, involved)
> d) make things interesting
> 
> AND
> 
> e) put up with everyone's nonsense




I know where you're coming from, as from your comments I'm guessing I'm a DM similar in style to yourself. However, I'm also a firm believer in Robin Laws' ideas on "what makes gamers tick," and I recognize there's a bunch of different reasons people sit down at that table, power gamers ("munchkins") included. 

I believe  that the book Robin's Laws to Good Gamemastering, for that reason, is a great book for ALL gamers, players and DM's alike. The best advice that I would give in any "better Player" book is:

COMMUNICATE.

COMMUNICATE.

FREAKIN' COMMUNICATE.

First of all, be sure your DM reads the same book (that or the first chapter of the DMG2). Then, tell your DM what you like. Tell him after-game that you're not strong on puzzles, or that combat gets your blood going, or that you love it when a plan comes together.  Tell the DM if you love intricate stories, or love playing an effective character, or just plain love the feeling you get when you add that new level to your character sheet.

Make sure you know what style of DM you have. He's a player too! If the DM loves combat, and he puts in an encounter that begs to be solved by violence, oblige him. If he loves an intricate puzzle, let him know if it was just inscrutable to you after-game, so he can tone them down accordingly. Is he a story teller, as I partly am and Jim Pinto seems to be falling under too? Be sure to pick up on any hooks dropped, and try to supply a few of your own. Don't be afraid of a background as if it's some sort of noose, but use to give the DM a little less prep time, as a favor to him.

Just as Robin's Laws drives home like a piledriver that LISTENING is the #1 DM skill, if I wrote a player's book, Communication is the #1 lesson I'd sledgehammer home.


----------



## Zappo

Damn. Reading the title, I thought this thread would advise me on what kind of drugs I should use to enjoy gaming more.


----------



## Janx

Some useful sections for your proposed book would be:
how to identify the GM's plot
Why you should find a reason to go along with the GM's plot
Making a character that fits in
Cause and Effect in an RPG
Goals for your PC
Anti-social gaming behaviors to avoid
Making the game better


Janx


----------



## jdrakeh

Janx said:
			
		

> Cause and Effect in an RPG




Yes. This is a must - too many players disassociate actions from consequences (and contrary to popular belief, rigid rule enforcement doesn't discourage this any). This is a product of, not necessarily 'coddling' GMs as many ignorant people suggest, but a result of _predictable_ GMs.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Have you started a similiar thread over at RPG.net? It'd be interesting to see what they, the gamers of many systems so to speak, take on it.

One thing that should be noted though, is that the GM has got to do a lot more work in terms of bringing his vision to the players. If one player hasn't seen any movies on the Shadow, the Phantom, etc... or read any of those books and the GM says he's going to run a Pulp genre and that player doesn't get it, whose fault is that?

A player shouldn't be expected to know every genre or every element of every game ever produced. It's one of the reasons why I think older gamers and younger gamers have some... interesting discussions as to what is "classic" fantasy. For older ones, it tends to be Robert E. Howard, Michael Moorcock, etc... For younger ones, it's Terry Brooks and David Eddings. And for their respective ages, they're probably both correct!

I agree that lots of communication is one of the key ingredients in making sure that the players and GM are on the same page.


----------



## jdrakeh

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> If one player hasn't seen any movies on the Shadow, the Phantom, etc... or read any of those books and the GM says he's going to run a Pulp genre and that player doesn't get it, whose fault is that?




Oddly, I never had that happen - my players were always familiar with examples of a given genre, but didn't _understand_ what a genre was, what tropes were, or how either effected a game. The problem that I had was players who viewed genre in terms of setting, not character - genre was never a reason for their characters to _act differently_, so said characters ended up being the same ass-kicking, wish fulfillment, machines in period garb.


----------



## DamionW

I like the idea, but I imagine it'd be hard to design for the people who need it.  As I see it "bad" players are either new to the hobby, emotionally immature, or firmly set in their bad play styles as what works for them.  If they're new to the hobby, they have a lot of basic mechanics to learn in the first place.  Unless you carefully write such a book to not be overwhelming at first glance, it might scare them off and feel like "home work" which I doubt many new gamers would enjoy when they've come to play a game.  For the emotionally immature, that either will go away with age or not go away at all, but I'd be surprised if reading a book would suddenly show marked improvement.  Then for the dreaded munchkins, that is what they play the game for.  They want to min/max in ways that zelda or other games don't, and trash the boundaries of the virtual reality that computer RPGs confine them to.  It'd be difficult to supress those instincts and the inherent fun factor in them just to develop a plotline which doesn't motivate them in the first place.  That sucks to hear, but I still think it's fairly accurate.  I do like the idea and I'd give a well written book on this subject a good read, but then I'm already a storyteller playstyle, and I like cooperating with a GM if it increases the game's fun.  I think most of the people responding to this thread are already at the "good" to near-"good" state you desire.  So how do you target this book to be picked up by the "bad" gamers, read, and utilized?


----------



## Black Pharaoh

good point. The people who need to read a book like this are probably not going to.


----------



## Black Pharaoh

Jim, it may have been unfair to single out Mongoose in your inital post.


----------



## JoeGKushner

Black Pharaoh said:
			
		

> Jim, it may have been unfair to single out Mongoose in your inital post.





Unfair, but perhaps not factually inaccurate!


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy

jim pinto said:
			
		

> excellent point.
> 
> my bias is showing. but i don't believe munchkin players have anything to offer, and by default the DM is not obligated to offer him anything in return. he can go play zelda and be the antisocial power-gamer he wants to be against his xbox and not ruin anyone's fun... and here's where the problem lies...
> 
> the DM can't be expect to:
> 
> a) write a story
> b) detail NPCs, maps, locations, etc.
> c) administer the game (maintain the flow, know the rules, have everyone, involved)
> d) make things interesting
> 
> AND
> 
> e) put up with everyone's nonsense
> 
> somewhere people have to bend to the DM. because if they're not bending to the DM, they need to start paying him for his time.
> 
> the DM should have an equal vote about the tone and quality of the game, especially if he's bound by all these rules about how to run things for the PCs.
> 
> and a good player, understands his role in this.... and if his role IS munchkin super power gamer, he needs to realize he doesn't get to be the center of attention all night. in fact, he's lucky if he gets to shine for longer than 5 rounds of the final fight of the evening.
> 
> at this point, i should list the SEVEN types of gamers... these are, by marketing standards, the people you have to focus your product on when selling.
> 
> Power Gamer. This is the guy who knows how to make the most with the least amount of rules. He knows that a gnome barbarian is the best combo for dealing maximum damage in a round, etc. He typically purchases books with more feats, equipment, etc.
> 
> Combat Monkey. Different than than the power gamer, the combat monkey's character has one schtick that the player is particularly proud of. All of his energy goes into making the perfect chain fighter, etc. The character is effective in combat, but the main purpose of the character is to kick ass.
> 
> Escapist. He's here to kill things, loot things, and generally just play. He wants to escape the rigors of the real world. His characters are one-dimensional and provide the game with nothing, but provide the player with the joy of killing stuff. He's just happy rolling dice.
> 
> Storyteller. Typically also a DM, the storyteller is concerned with making sure everything fits together. He doesn't care about rules and generally doesn't even care if he succeeds at all his actions.
> 
> Actor. Particularly devoted to character motivation, themes, mood, and drama. The actor creates characters that come alive at the table, but generally are less effective in combat. In battles, he tries to do things that the rules do not support. DMs have a hard time juggling this sort of player.
> 
> Hanger-On. A friend of a friend. This person shows up to game because someone he knows games. He generally doesn't buy books.
> 
> Casual Gamer. This is the guy who is inconsistent in showing up. He loves making characters, trying out new systems; playing asheron's call one week, and everquest another. He's buying pattern is unreliable.
> 
> and of course, some people are combinations, but generally one trait stands out.
> 
> the key, i think, is to make sure a book covers these elements and details how the PCs will get more OUT of the game, if they can adhere to these basic principles.
> 
> and "good" isn't as relative as you may think.




So the target for the book would be primarily storytellers and actors?  If that is the case, then I would suggest explaining things like:

- When rules matter, and when they don't.
- Sharing the spotlight.
- Mentoring other players to see the advantages of following a plot.
- How to help if the DM doesn't get it.
- Teamwork in general (which is hard even for professionals in the business world).
- Recognizing the DM as another player who is there to have fun.
- Recognizing when somebody you game with has social or mental issues.

The last one I mention because it seems like a lot of gaming groups would run more smoothly if it was recognized that some of the members have autism, take anti-psychotics (and maybe miss a dose), or have problem families.  A lot of folks are really OK people if you can get past their disabilities.


----------



## LostSoul

Janx said:
			
		

> Some useful sections for your proposed book would be:
> how to identify the GM's plot
> Why you should find a reason to go along with the GM's plot




Ugh.  Why not call the book, "How I Learned to Stop Caring and Love the Railroad"?

DMs need more advice because D&D doesn't have all that many rules to rein in a poor GM.


----------



## Jim Hague

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Ugh.  Why not call the book, "How I Learned to Stop Caring and Love the Railroad"?
> 
> DMs need more advice because D&D doesn't have all that many rules to rein in a poor GM.




Sorry, but having a plot doesn't mean there's a railroad.  And I disagree on the 'no rules to rein in a DM' - that's exactly what the rules are there for and why the system uses a consistent approach to resolving conflicts.


----------



## Jim Hague

And more on topic - I'm shocked, _shocked_ I say, to see that nobody's mentioned the venerable Uncle Figgy:

http://www.dragondogpress.com/unclefiggy/guides.htm


----------



## Joshua Randall

jim pinto said:
			
		

> at this point, i should list the SEVEN types of gamers...



Have you read the first few chapters of the DMG II? It also categorizes the types of players.

Here is a thread I posted a while back with some brief descriptions of the types.


----------



## jdrakeh

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Ugh.  Why not call the book, "How I Learned to Stop Caring and Love the Railroad"?




There is a balance between 'Do what I say!' and 'Do whatever the hell you want!' that makes for a good game. Games that adhere to the former extreme usually suck for players just as much as games that adhere to the latter extreme usually suck for GMs. Advice on how players and GMs can reach a compromise might be a good topic.

[Edit: See Jim Hague's posts above for more truth.]


----------



## JoeGKushner

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> There is a balance between 'Do what I say!' and 'Do whatever the hell you want!' that makes for a good game. Games that adhere to the former extreme usually suck for players just as much as games that adhere to the latter extreme usually suck for GMs. Advice on how players and GMs can reach a compromise might be a good topic.
> 
> [Edit: See Jim Hague's posts above for more truth.]




I've got a friend who is so into doing whatever the hell he wants that he keeps getting kicked out of gaming groups. One example is his portrayal of a samurai being lawful neutral as a complete chop 'em up in the streets if they meet your eyes in a western setting. another of being a wood elf in Warhammer with, yes, exactly the same mentallity in a Empire based campaign. "No one's going to tell me how to play my character!" is definatly his battle cry.


----------



## jdrakeh

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> I've got a friend who is so into doing whatever the hell he wants..




I've had a lot of friends like that. After a while, I politely explained that their 'style' wasn't going to mesh with that of the group at the time. I remained friends with most of these people, but it was probably _because_ I didn't game with them. Players like this drive me up the wall (and not just me, but pretty much any of my other players who have rudimentary social skills, as well). 

The "I'll play/do/say whatever the hell I like!" guy ranks right up there with the "I only play Ninja!" guy (which, in fairness, is a subdued version of the "I'll play/do/say whatever the hell I like!" guy) on my list of players that I hate to deal with, as either one can (and almost always does) abort any game that they participate in before it gets off the ground.


----------



## Teflon Billy

jim pinto said:
			
		

> excellent point.
> 
> my bias is showing. but i don't believe munchkin players have anything to offer, and by default the DM is not obligated to offer him anything in return. he can go play zelda and be the antisocial power-gamer he wants to be against his xbox and not ruin anyone's fun...




OK! I'm now purchasing your book

I'm still not 100% on it's utility to me, but I'm just glad that someone here at our beloved  EN World was man enough to say something about play style other than "Every play style is of equal value" or "It's all good as long as everyone is having _fun_"

I never dreamed in my life I'd get as tired as I have of the concept of _fun_ in a game


----------



## diaglo

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I'm still not 100% on it's utility to me, but I'm just glad that someone here at our beloved  EN World was man enough to say something about play style other than "Every play style is of equal value" or "It's all good as long as everyone is having _fun_"
> 
> I never dreamed in my life I'd get as tired as I have of the concept of _fun_ in a game



Balderdash.

i say it all the live long day.


OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.


----------



## fiddy

Given the contents of the DMG II, I would actually expect/hope the upcoming PHB II to have at least a section covering this topic.


----------



## LostSoul

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Sorry, but having a plot doesn't mean there's a railroad.  And I disagree on the 'no rules to rein in a DM' - that's exactly what the rules are there for and why the system uses a consistent approach to resolving conflicts.




I think it depends on what you mean by plot.  If you mean a set-up where at any point the DM says, "I have to get the PCs over here/doing this in order to continue with the game", that is (to me) railroading.

On the other hand, if you do what some DMs here do and create a bunch of NPCs with thier own motivations etc. and come up with interesting ways for them to conflict with the PCs - without having the continuation of the game be dependant on the choices the PCs make - well, I wouldn't even call that a plot.  But that's not railroading.

A good example is Piratecat's example in a recent thread of an erinyes marrying one of the PC's father.  There's no plot there, no constraints on what the PCs can or can't do (even if they do nothing, you still have conflict), and yet you have a lot of adventure.

The rules to rein in a DM are well done in combat, not so well done out of combat.  I'm still forming an opinion about this, so lemme think on it.


----------



## Jim Hague

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think it depends on what you mean by plot.  If you mean a set-up where at any point the DM says, "I have to get the PCs over here/doing this in order to continue with the game", that is (to me) railroading.
> 
> On the other hand, if you do what some DMs here do and create a bunch of NPCs with thier own motivations etc. and come up with interesting ways for them to conflict with the PCs - without having the continuation of the game be dependant on the choices the PCs make - well, I wouldn't even call that a plot.  But that's not railroading.
> 
> A good example is Piratecat's example in a recent thread of an erinyes marrying one of the PC's father.  There's no plot there, no constraints on what the PCs can or can't do (even if they do nothing, you still have conflict), and yet you have a lot of adventure.
> 
> The rules to rein in a DM are well done in combat, not so well done out of combat.  I'm still forming an opinion about this, so lemme think on it.




When I refer to plot, it's a matter of me sitting down and writing a precis on what's going on, usually 3-5 pages.  The NPCs get motivations and plans, and there's some debugging thrown in if the PCs manage to interfere.  I _never_ put a fixed end into plots.

Example:

In Sunday's session of The Incredible Years (Incredibles-inspired Mutants and Masterminds), the new Freedom League (the PCs) have discovered at least part of the evildoers' plans - that the bad guys intend to resurrect the archvillain Omega via placing his energy form into the body of Centurion, who was killed during the Terminus War, sacrificing himself to destroy Omega.  The bad guys have placed the clone into a massive, Entropic Energy-powered Mechanaut robot and sent it rampaging towards the Goodman Building, where a nexus of Entropic Energy can be found conained inside a force field.

I made allowances - what would happen if the PCs failed to stop the Centurion Mechanaut?  What if they succeeded?  In the first case, the campaign closes on a cliffhanger as Omega is resurrected and retreats into the Terminus to plot new evils against Earth.  In the second, the one that took place, the PCs defeated the Centurion Mechanaut and gained a valuable clue regarding the opposition's plans. Now they find themselves racing towards the final episode of the series to confront their archenemeses before it's too late.  I wrote up a phyrric victory as well - what if Centurion's clone were destroyed, or just its robotic shell?

Obviously, you can't account for all possibilities - there's days the PCs just go off and do something you don't expect.  But setting up an interesting framework for the story isn't railroading by any means; it's providing structure, not stricture.


----------



## LostSoul

Two thoughts:

1) I wouldn't call that a plot. 

2) How would advice on "follow the DM's plot" work in that case?  What you're doing is giving them choices to make, and then watching the ripple work itself out.  There's no way the PCs can identify the plot or attempt to follow it - they make the choices presented to them, and sh.. I mean stuff happens as a result (which leads to more choices they have to make).


----------



## The Shaman

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I'm still not 100% on it's utility to me, but I'm just glad that someone here at our beloved  EN World was man enough to say something about play style other than "Every play style is of equal value" or "It's all good as long as everyone is having _fun_"



All play styles are equal, but some are more equal than others.  

I know that some of what I think of as "fun" now is a bit different from what I would consider fun twenty-seven years ago (though there are shared roots - i.e., kill things, take stuff...) - what I enjoy as a gamer has evolved over time.

With that in mind, I can't bring myself to dismiss anyone's style of play - there's a chance that I played the same way at some time in the past.

I do think that some gamers are better at the pastime than others, however - the player who can make an effective character and roleplay the character as something other than a mini+stat block and the GM who creates a thoughtful, consistent, engaging world for the characters to explore and offers adventure opportunities without lashing them to front of the plot-train both come to mind as examples. There's a reason some adventures and campaign settings and character archetypes become beloved classics - it's the elusive, hard-to-define-but-still-recognizible attribute called Quality. A game can be fun for the participants without posessing the enduring appeal that is one of the benchmarks of quality.

So, yes, fun is good, but it's only one standard by which I measure quality gaming.

Meanwhile, back at the topic...







			
				jim pinto said:
			
		

> somewhere people have to bend to the DM.



That's your opening line right there.

As GM I expect the players to fit their characters to the setting, not the other way around. Got a great character concept for a rapier-wielding swashbuckler? Sorry, not in my Dark Ages game - save it for another GM. The point about adhering to genre conventions is one that needs to be hammered home.


----------



## Henry

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1) I wouldn't call that a plot.




"Plot is what happens when the players don't interfere." Wise words once told to me. 



> 2) How would advice on "follow the DM's plot" work in that case?




I can understand this - he means _"don't blow off everything the DM tells you and spend the entire session trying to play out the minutiae of a shopping trip."_ What you do should at least in some way fall in a framework that doesn't cause the DM to scrabble completely and have to reinvent everything. Don't tell the GM you're going to take on the Evil Stonghold at the end of last session, and then this week decide you didn't get enough of the political intrigue in the town you just left. While open matrix campaigns are great if the DM can swing it, it's also not going to have as much depth and attention to detail as if the DM gets an idea of the avenue you're heading into.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I've had a lot of friends like that. After a while, I politely explained that their 'style' wasn't going to mesh with that of the group at the time. I remained friends with most of these people, but it was probably _because_ I didn't game with them. Players like this drive me up the wall (and not just me, but pretty much any of my other players who have rudimentary social skills, as well).
> 
> The "I'll play/do/say whatever the hell I like!" guy ranks right up there with the "I only play Ninja!" guy (which, in fairness, is a subdued version of the "I'll play/do/say whatever the hell I like!" guy) on my list of players that I hate to deal with, as either one can (and almost always does) abort any game that they participate in before it gets off the ground.




I agree completely.  I didn't slave over my campaign, creating interesting stories and engaging encounters just so that some selfish jerk could decide that his character's total existential liberty is more important than other people's fun.  A good game is a two-way street.  The GM works to put together a good story to frame the player's experiences and the players work to integrate themselves in the world in a way that makes more, not less, fun happen.  If a player is deliberately being disruptive, he's essentially telling the other people at the gaming table, "I don't care about you or your fun.  I'm here to have fun at your expense, and I'll justify it however I want!"  And that's not just being a bad player.  That's being a freakin' jerk.

Anyone who disagrees is not welcome at my table.  They can go play Choose-Your-Own-Adventure with the rest of the children.  No doubt they'll be flipping through the book to find the best ending.  I hope it works out for them.


----------



## Jim Hague

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Two thoughts:
> 
> 1) I wouldn't call that a plot.




Then I submit this:

plot    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (plt)
n. 

A small piece of ground, generally used for a specific purpose: a garden plot. 
A measured area of land; a lot. 
A ground plan, as for a building; a diagram. 
See graph1. 
*The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.*
A secret plan to accomplish a hostile or illegal purpose; a scheme.    

That I only work on my half of the plot (the plans, motivations and reactions of folks who aren't the PCs) doesn't make it a not plot.  

Again, my guideline for this is 'structure, not stricture'.  I have no problem if the PCs' brilliant plan derails what I had in mind, in fact I plan for it.  Part of being a good GM is knowing your players and their characters well enough to recover the thread of plot (if it makes sense to) or roll with that punch and move things in a new direction without interrupting the flow of the story, whatever it is.




> 2) How would advice on "follow the DM's plot" work in that case?  What you're doing is giving them choices to make, and then watching the ripple work itself out.  There's no way the PCs can identify the plot or attempt to follow it - they make the choices presented to them, and sh.. I mean stuff happens as a result (which leads to more choices they have to make).




Ahh, here we've got some meat to sink our teeth into!  The answer really is, 'it depends on the players'.  If you've got cooperative players who want to see where the story goes via a combination of the plot and their own actions, then you're golden.  If it's a group of players that're bad at figuring out what to do, where to go, then you need to improvise a bit more.  If it's players that're willfully bucking, I consider that metagaming in a bad way, and respond with appropriate actions; I brook no disruptions in the game.

Identifying the plot isn't the problem - that's what clues are for, in whatever form they take: a series of high-tech robberies, mysterious disappearances, whatever.  The important thing is to establish a _pattern of events_ that points at the greater whole.  It's not simply reaction, it's _action_ - while the PCs are busy looking at _this_, their opposition is doing _that_, proactively and reactively.   The GM isn't a passive dispenser of entertainment; IMO, a good GM has to be active in helping things along while remaining fair.


----------



## Janx

Henry said:
			
		

> "Plot is what happens when the players don't interfere." Wise words once told to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand this - he means _"don't blow off everything the DM tells you and spend the entire session trying to play out the minutiae of a shopping trip."_ What you do should at least in some way fall in a framework that doesn't cause the DM to scrabble completely and have to reinvent everything. Don't tell the GM you're going to take on the Evil Stonghold at the end of last session, and then this week decide you didn't get enough of the political intrigue in the town you just left. While open matrix campaigns are great if the DM can swing it, it's also not going to have as much depth and attention to detail as if the DM gets an idea of the avenue you're heading into.




Yup.  Henry's got my point.

If in the 1st adventure, the DM offers you a treasure map, a missing mayor's daughter, and rat infested sewer, and you still can't find anything to do in town...then you're missing the plot.

Ultimately, for good play, players need to identify the plot, and go with it (barring a huge conflict).  Why?  Because the DM did a bunch of work writing an adventure surrounding the plot.  Going off to someplace else WASTES his work.  Obviously, we'd like the DM to have interesting plots, and non-railroady plots (ex. the guards WILL capture the PCs and force them to fight in the area).  But if you want to play with the group, you've got to work with the DM you HAVE.

Another related example is players who can't seem to make a character that will join the party.  I once had a player join, where his opening remark upon meeting the party was to challenge them and resist joining the party.  A good player will come up with a plausible reason to join the party (if one isn't handed to them), so the game can progress.

Both examples are METAGAME events that need to occur.  Players need training on how to identify when these hang-ups are happening and how to get the game moving.

Another interesting problem that someone else brought up, is usually problem players don't think they have a problem.  Thus, they are the least likely to read this kind of articles.   The result is that you end up preaching to the choir.

Janx


----------



## I'm A Banana

I ain't really interested in a book that tells players who like certain styles that they can go screw themselves. 

Because the DM is the final arbiter, the DM needs advice on what his game will please and what it won't. Because the DM usually has one of the final says in if someone can join the group or not, the DM needs to be able to identify what kinds of people his game will interest and what kinds of people it won't. The player, on the other hand, only has to identify his own needs. What makes the game fun for HIM. There doesn't need to be a manual on how to be a "good player," because each player will find what makes them happy and gravitate towards it, and that's the best kind of player you can be -- the kind who knows what he wants and goes for it. 

The DM does need to be aware of what makes other people happy, and that tastes don't always mesh up. They need to be able to identify these qualities to maximize their own enjoyment, and the enjoyment of those havin' fun at their table. The players don't really need to be told what makes them happy -- they already know it. They measure each DM against that. But a DM, because he has to wed the joy of several different people, needs to know how to find what other people are looking for. 

I'm not interested in a tome that tells players to go along with the DM's story even if they're not enjoying themselves, to compromise their own enjoyment because the DM works oh so hard. Pheh. I don't want complacent players who only agree with me to be "good players." I want active participants. And that requires each individual player to identify what they want and to demand it out of me, and me to either rise to the occasion or say "you'll have to find someone else to give you what you want."


----------



## Brain

This is a very interesting thread.  Just as there are many opinions on what being a good GM means, I'm sure there are many on what being a good player means. For me, it varies from group to group, from GM to GM, from game system to game system, and sometimes from session to session.

For instance, I like to know the rules of the system that I'm playing.  This means that I will often come across situations where something is being done against the rules.  For me, what I do after that depends on the attitude of the GM.  Often times, GMs like it when I point things out, but some would rather that I didn't.

I think the most important characteristic for a good player is adaptability/flexibility.  Being able to try something new, take a chance, go with the flow.


----------



## LostSoul

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> If it's players that're willfully bucking, I consider that metagaming in a bad way, and respond with appropriate actions; I brook no disruptions in the game.




I agree with you there.  That's just bad play.  (ie. Jackassery)



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Identifying the plot isn't the problem - that's what clues are for, in whatever form they take: a series of high-tech robberies, mysterious disappearances, whatever.  The important thing is to establish a _pattern of events_ that points at the greater whole.  It's not simply reaction, it's _action_ - while the PCs are busy looking at _this_, their opposition is doing _that_, proactively and reactively.   The GM isn't a passive dispenser of entertainment; IMO, a good GM has to be active in helping things along while remaining fair.




Let me see if I get this right: the plot is all about _pacing_.  The PCs do whatever, but the plot* is like their smack addiction, drawing them into some dope fiend's den to get a fix.  Each choice they make is like another hit of plot, which makes them want another hit even more, and so on, until we have a climax and finally the resolution.

* And by plot we mean: the NPCs and what's happening to them + their motivations, and the ways that the NPCs interact with the PCs, which force the players to make choices.


----------



## Jim Hague

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I agree with you there.  That's just bad play.  (ie. Jackassery)




Yup.  And life's too short to waste it on people who aren't there to both enjoy themselves and help everyone gain enjoyment.




> Let me see if I get this right: the plot is all about _pacing_.  The PCs do whatever, but the plot* is like their smack addiction, drawing them into some dope fiend's den to get a fix.  Each choice they make is like another hit of plot, which makes them want another hit even more, and so on, until we have a climax and finally the resolution.
> 
> * And by plot we mean: the NPCs and what's happening to them + their motivations, and the ways that the NPCs interact with the PCs, which force the players to make choices.




Pacing is definitely a part of plot and, IMO, the very hardest part, thanks to the disconnect between realtime and game-time.  But yes, hitting them with interesting plot elements at a good, measured rate is definitely something to aim for.  Lemme see if I can break a few things down here.

PLOT:

*Pacing - Making sure events don't move too fast or too slow.  Too fast and you get frustration, too slow and you lose interest.

*Engaging elements - make sure that the plot structure has something to appeal to the players.  If possible, it's a good idea to make the elements personal in some way; an old vendetta, a link to their origins, etc.

*Structure, Not Stricture - the plot is, when it's working well, an organic structure.  It doesn't only react it _acts_.  By its nature, the structure has to be mutable, adapting to events in the game, both PC and NPC.  Plots should always feel like the players are affecting their outcome at every step of the way.


----------



## LostSoul

Janx said:
			
		

> Yup.  Henry's got my point.
> 
> If in the 1st adventure, the DM offers you a treasure map, a missing mayor's daughter, and rat infested sewer, and you still can't find anything to do in town...then you're missing the plot.




I think that's partly the DM's fault, and partly the players.

The players should come up with characters who have a reason to adventure.  Or else what's the point?  Why does your guy want to do anything then?  Make up a guy with a reason to pick up sword and shield or go home.

The DM should give the players interesting choices where even doing nothing creates consequences.  If the players can do nothing and stay alive, why would they want to go spelunking through rat-infested sewers?  Doing nothing _must_ be a choice, just like any other.


----------



## LostSoul

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> PLOT:




Cool.  Now that we have a definition of plot, how do we suggest that players "follow" it?

1. Create characters that are full of engaging elements.  Backstory should be one bubbling cauldron of plot hooks.  The game starts when your PC's life changes forever and you can't do what you've been doing before.  (eg. Luke Skywalker sees his aunt & uncle burnt to a crisp by Stormtroopers.)

Well, there's one...


----------



## Jim Hague

Well, those aren't the only parts of plot, but they're important ones.  As for hooks, you've hit the nail on the head:

_Make it personal_.

Think about it - in every good piece of fiction, things don't just happen, they happen to the characters in the story.  Being detached from the action is a good way for players to lose interest.  

Another tangent - heap trouble on the characters.  Bury 'em in it.  Don't introduce a new problem when they've overcome and old one, introduce it when they're _halfway_ to completing whatever.  Disarming a bomb, three seconds left?  The door bursts open, bad guys rush in guns blazing!  Keep the pressure on.  When things are quiet, that's when the players and their characters should start getting suspicious and worried.

The gentle art of listening - players tend to be an amazingly paranoid bunch.  Roll some dice, throw out some vague clues or indications of where the action lies...then just listen.  Often, even groups that won't give you a straight answer when asked directly will give you a good clue as to their wants if you just shut up and listen.  Likewise, when the plot seems like it's not going a certain way, _listen_ - your players might have ideas on what's going on that you hadn't thought of.


----------



## JoeGKushner

One thing such a book should discuss is what the players can do when it's not their turn or the GM is giving long periods of attention to other players. After a fw minutres of just sitting there looking at my character sheet, even a good GM's descriptions begin to sound like droning. I'm very used to being in the commander's chair and used to always talking, acting, or reacting.


----------



## LostSoul

This might interest you:  Burning down the firewall


----------



## Joshua Randall

I think the book also ought to contain things the PCs can do to help build up the shared gameworld, thereby taking some pressure off the DM.

For example, say the PC is a monk who's part of the Order of the Ebon Hand. Well, the PC's player ought to work on these questions -- why does the order exist? what are its core tenets? how many members does it have and what are their typical races/classes? where its is headquarters?

And so forth. Obviously, the player also needs to realize that anything he creates can be (and likely will be) modified by the DM to integrate it into the campaign. But I'm sure all DMs can say that modifying something is a lot easier than creating it from whole cloth.

And yes, I stole the name Order of the Ebon Hand from an old _Magic: the Gathering_ card. So sue me.


----------



## Jim Hague

Eh, some of that I agree with - but honestly, many of those behaviors are disruptive as hell, and louder/morecharismatic/persistent players can very easily use them to basically run others' characters.  I'm particularly down on the 'sure, go ahead and metagame...it's ok!'.  For me, that borders on the only cheating you can really do in an RPG.  

The off-topic chatter detracts, IMO, and it's highly disrespectful if others are engaged in a particularly intense or interesting scene - you're effectively saying that _your_ fun is more important than everyone else's.  It's this material and more like it that made me relegate my copy of Dogs in the Vineyard to the Resources shef next to the Gm's Station, and not the Games Being Played.  As always, YMMV.


----------



## jim pinto

*wow*

This post sort of got away from me in the 12 hours since I looked at last.

[Btw... Nice to see you here, Joe... always a source of opinion]

Now.

Let me clarify.

If I sit down and write this book, it will be for everyone. It will talk to each kind of gamer, explain their role and make sure they understand that they are 1/4th, 1/10th, or 1/516th of the campaign; depending on the number of people at the table.

The book will explain Plot-oriented, Event-oriented, Character-oriented, and Location-oriented adventuring.

(someone said something about railroading and that's event-oriented gaming... which I personally hate, but became big when people stopped playing in dungeons and hadn't figured out the other two types yet)

Lastly, there is completely freeform adventuring as well, which would get some attention.

The book would clarify the need to compromise at the table.

COMPROMISE is HUGE... its the thing that seperates gaming from every other hobby.

RPGs are in an even tighter niche, because they require cooperation (not competition) and as a result, fight against every video game urge under the sun.

The player's should be vested. They should have a reason to show up, just as much as anyone. They should have a vote over what's in the world, what they play next, and what they can do. They don't get a veto. But, they get a vote.

We recently lost a player from our group at home because he couldn't understand or accept these last two concepts and believed everyone could just show up in whatever mood they wanted.

I'll have more later to post (going to lunch), but I'm really glad people are responding to this thread.


----------



## MongooseMatt

jim pinto said:
			
		

> (I even got an angry letter from Mongoose. How cool is that?)




Lie.

As far as I am aware, we have never had any issues between us, so I sent you a mail asking you where you were coming from.

No anger.  But your attitude is irritating.  This kind of sniping is central to the problems of the industry - it is just not a cool thing to do.


----------



## jim pinto

Edit: I'd like to get this thread back on track, please.


----------



## MongooseMatt

jim pinto said:
			
		

> you need to get a sense of humor, matt




Sorry, Jim, don't find it funny.  Nor do the twenty-odd other people working at Mongoose.  However you cut it, it was cheap and unnecessary.



			
				jim pinto said:
			
		

> (nice work dragging it into public, though)




This is like Usenet.

Umm, you made two public posts about this before I appeared. . .



			
				jim pinto said:
			
		

> you want me to humiliate you here or in another forum? or perhaps you could respond to the private e-mail you were sent?




(gasp)[/QUOTE]

You can do what you like Jim.  I'll get round to your email when I get back home.


----------



## Henry

Gents, a little more prefessionalism would be appreciated. Perhaps by e-mail, as suggested?


----------



## Plane Sailing

No mean spirited sniping please, Jim or anyone else.

I would expect to see anyone who is involved in publishing maintain a certain degree of professionalism in the way in which they refer to other publishers.

Please take care to do this. Thanks all.

Regards


----------



## BlueBlackRed

Threads like this make me glad that we screen players prior to joining our group.

Here's a list of strong suggestions from me:
- Munchkins are welcome only one at a time until they can be properly trained. It's a process that can take up to 2 years.
- Powergamers are outright banned and then made fun of.
- Whiners are shown the door after being yelled at until my voice is sore.
- If you've ever said the words "But if you look at the way the spell is worded...", then you're dragged out into my front yard and beaten.
- If you are looking for a way to word Wish to get unlimited wishes, then you are about to get a big surprise from an experienced DM who has the entire power of the gaming omniverse at his beckoned call.
- Unless your PC actually owns the Monster Manual I, then there zero legitimate reasons that you should even have yours open.
- If you honestly think a whisper gnome is truly EL+0, well then you're probably a powergamer.
- If your PC wasn't there for the talk with the ultra-powerful sage-wizard, and no one in the party made your PC aware of what happened, then you may not use that information in your decision-making process; even if your PC may die as a result.
- Speaking while the DM is speaking, and then asking what the DM said while you were speaking, just creates horrible spiral that results in you wishing you had just shut up in the first place.
- All groups like to take breaks and talk about their weeks, but there is a limit. Please note that.
- If you don't understand the basics of the game, then it is unreasonable to ask to be the DM.
- Except in the absolute worse circumstances, give a new DM more than one session to get his campaign going before having your PC "fall on his own axe".
- When looking for a gaming group, be honest about what you'd like to find in a group. That way you aren't severely disappointed when their version of the game doesn't match yours. Uhm...the same goes for lying at job interviews...
- If you have a friend that wants to join your game, but someone in your gaming group does not get along with your friend, then your friend needs to wait. Losing a known consistent player for someone brand new is not a good idea.

That's just a small list of what I can think of for the moment.

Put that in your book jim


----------



## FireLance

jim pinto said:
			
		

> in all this time, i've never seen a book for PLAYERS that gave advice on how to be a better PLAYER



Well, it's not a dedicated book, but D&D for Dummies does address some of the issues you mentioned. Apart from role-playing advice scattered throughout the book (the "How to Play a Fighter/Rogue/Sorcerer/Cleric" sections in the chapters covering the four basic classes, for example), Chapter 21 addresses "Role-playing and Working Together").

Still, a dedicated book on how to be a better player is a neat idea .


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I ain't really interested in a book that tells players who like certain styles that they can go screw themselves.
> 
> Because the DM is the final arbiter, the DM needs advice on what his game will please and what it won't. Because the DM usually has one of the final says in if someone can join the group or not, the DM needs to be able to identify what kinds of people his game will interest and what kinds of people it won't. The player, on the other hand, only has to identify his own needs. What makes the game fun for HIM. There doesn't need to be a manual on how to be a "good player," because each player will find what makes them happy and gravitate towards it, and that's the best kind of player you can be -- the kind who knows what he wants and goes for it.
> 
> The DM does need to be aware of what makes other people happy, and that tastes don't always mesh up. They need to be able to identify these qualities to maximize their own enjoyment, and the enjoyment of those havin' fun at their table. The players don't really need to be told what makes them happy -- they already know it. They measure each DM against that. But a DM, because he has to wed the joy of several different people, needs to know how to find what other people are looking for.
> 
> I'm not interested in a tome that tells players to go along with the DM's story even if they're not enjoying themselves, to compromise their own enjoyment because the DM works oh so hard. Pheh. I don't want complacent players who only agree with me to be "good players." I want active participants. And that requires each individual player to identify what they want and to demand it out of me, and me to either rise to the occasion or say "you'll have to find someone else to give you what you want."




My advice to players is always this: go read a manual on improv theatre.  Improv theatre is essentially dialogue written off the top of one's head using a few key concepts (sometimes provided by the audience).  There are rules that have been developed to help make it work, because if you aren't any good at improv, you'll end up standing around like a doofus going "um..." while the audience snores.

The big rule I always double-underline is "don't block," followed by "yes, and..."  

Don't block means that when someone hands you a hook, even if they don't know it's a good hook, you take it and work with it.  When the DM says that a group of gypsy merchants are selling their wares, you decide your character happens to have spent time travelling with gypsies and knows some good stories to tell to ingratiate himself to them.  Not only have you helped to flesh out your character to make him more interesting and realistic, but you've provided a good way for the DM to pass on rumours and other information that he might have wanted to share (with or without skill rolls, as the group prefers).  You might then use the gypsies as a source of hooks that catapult you into future adventures.  In essence, you're helping the DM by giving him a footing on which to build some interesting NPC interactions and adventure hooks.  Blocking, on the other hand, is when you say no.  When you decide you don't care about rescuing anyone, or solving any mysteries, or talking to any townsfolk, or when you want to be chaotic evil so you can sabotage the party for no reason.  It's just bad form.

Yes, and... essentially this is the opposite of blocking.  Not only do you want to take the hook, but you want to make it more interesting than it was.  In improv, when someone says "I see you bought a new hat," you reply, "yes, and it's one of those new musical hats!"  In roleplaying, when a plot hook wanders by, not only are you waiting to pick up on it, but you're also ready to do some work to make it your own.  Not just grudgingly going off to rescue the princess because "it's what we have to do for the plot, obviously."  No, your character wants to rescue the princess so he can marry her, regardless of what her parents think.  Surely his charm and wit can win her over, and if he can get her favour, what must he then do to impress her parents?  If you're the hack-and-slash type, maybe they'd like some exotic trophies to hang over the fireplace.  If you're the deep-roleplayer type, perhaps just laying on the charm real thick will do it.  There's a lot of room for multiple solutions to the same situation, but you have to try to arrange a situation before you can solve it.  Maybe there's a rival suitor, or maybe the girl decides she wants to elope.  Maybe she turns up pregnant and your PC is suspect #1.  Suddenly it's not just a plot hook, it's a story with your character in it.  It's more engaging, more interesting, and it'll end up being more fun.

This isn't about telling players, "It's my way or the highway."  It's about telling players, "Look, we're in this together.  We can cooperate and make a fun game for all of us, or we can piss off and do our own thing alone and not have fun playing a game with each other.  I think that the former choice would be the better one."  People who are playing the game to win, or playing to crush the other players, or playing just to be a nuisance (whether they know they're doing it or not) are not good players, and a book to teach them how to play might help both them and the people they play with by making them more like the sort of folks we'd all like to game with.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Well, those aren't the only parts of plot, but they're important ones.  As for hooks, you've hit the nail on the head:
> 
> _Make it personal_.
> 
> Think about it - in every good piece of fiction, things don't just happen, they happen to the characters in the story.  Being detached from the action is a good way for players to lose interest.
> 
> Another tangent - heap trouble on the characters.  Bury 'em in it.  Don't introduce a new problem when they've overcome and old one, introduce it when they're _halfway_ to completing whatever.  Disarming a bomb, three seconds left?  The door bursts open, bad guys rush in guns blazing!  Keep the pressure on.  When things are quiet, that's when the players and their characters should start getting suspicious and worried.




I swear by this.  And not just in pacing, but also in plots.  I usually heap so many potential plot hooks on my players that they don't always know which ones to follow, or what happened to the ones they didn't look into.  I keep track of where they're likely to end up by listing all my hooks along with a star rating from 1 to 5, where 1 is "Maybe we'll get around to it someday" and 5 is "The world is going to end unless we do something RIGHT NOW."  Or, at least the level-equivalence of that level of import.


----------



## The Thayan Menace

*Tell it Like it Is, Brother ....*



			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> ... I'm just glad that someone here at our beloved  EN World was man enough to say something about play style other than "Every play style is of equal value" or "It's all good as long as everyone is having _fun_" ....



Agreed; equivocation seems to be in vogue these days. Many people are more concerned about feigning "civility" than engaging in meaningful discourse.


----------



## ThoughtBubble

It's a neat idea. I just don't know how much working on one source would really convince players to try things differently. 

For example, after weeks of discussion, I was finally able to get the 'why loner characters are hard to gage--they give poor feedback' example to set in.

It took close to a year (three months of which he was miserable because the party hated him) to get a close friend to admit the possibility that his character wasn't really party-friendly.

After two days of heated discussion, 4/5 members of my superhero game believe that people should be able to play any character they want, and that players should not be required to think about how their characters fit in/work together as a group. They were, however, receptive to the story of how my character was usurped by another character who did everything I did, and was a better fighter.

Two members of my D&D group don't understand the difference between banter and insults. The same two also don't believe that having a character background makes any difference.

There is, on some level, an idea that sits around in all of our subconciousnesses. "Players get to come to the game and do what they want. Having to work or think is what the DM needs to do. The game is for players to enjoy."

I am slowly pushing the idea that better games have everyone involved. In a couple of years, I might have made some more headway.


----------



## DarrenGMiller

This has been a very interesting thread.  I think this proposed book tackles some very challenging issues.  There are some root issues here:
1. Communication
2. Cooperation
3. Respect

If you could teach these concepts to every one who needed to learn them, you could be a VERY wealthy man.

Beyond these basics of any relationship (and membership in a gaming group is a set of relationships), the already mentioned genre conventions would be a great thing.  What are some genre examples and how "should" they be played?  Building a character that fits the group and adds to the game would be a great topic.

Other than those two areas, most of my player problems have been with players who are uncooperative, rude and disrespectful, or just outright lacking in social skills (or people with other issues, such as temper, obssessions, etc.).

DM


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

IMHO, one of the best ways to improve as a DM or Player is actually quite simple:

*Play a lot of different RPGs.  *Too much familiarity with a single game leads to memorizing rules exploits and other kinds of metagaming and overall conceptual laziness.  And lazy gamers can quickly become bored gamers who then become bad gamers

When you are unfamiliar with a game, you get forced outside of your comfort zone. You make different choices than you would in a system you know inside and out:

1) You don't know what a good PC looks like, so you may be satisfied with a sub-optimal PC and still have fun.  Imagine playing the equivalent of a Halfling Paladin with 10 as his high stat...

2) You can't min/max or exploit rules as easily, so you make due with what you get.

3) You minimize rules lawyering.

4) You get forced into trying out unfamiliar roles.  There is a guy in my current group who always plays a Ranger...even when we played RIFTS.  Sure, he's happy, and he plays a good Ranger, but he's stunted as a gamer.  How would he react to playing an RPG without an equivalent concept?  (My guess- he might quit.)

5)  Since you're "in unfamiliar territory with unfamiliar equipment," you'll have to rely more upon teamwork to achieve goals.

6) You think differently about the rules themselves- why have levels (or classes, or even dice)?  Much of the change to D&D over the years is based on its designers' responses to the way other game developers handled certain things.  The plethora of PC races in the current incarnation probably would not exist had it not been for games like Taliantha, GURPS or HERO.

I'm speaking from personal experience.

I played only 3 RPGs for the first 10 years of gaming- AD&D, Champions/HERO, and Traveller.  I picked up a few along the way (Universe, Space 1889, Paranoia, Shadowrun, etc), but those were the only ones I PLAYED.

It wasn't until I was living in Austin and going to Law school in the 1990's that I was forced to play anything outside of my comfort zone.

Due to the dynamics of the group I found at Alan Hench's house, I was forced to play games like Mekton, ACE, RIFTS, MechWarrior, and GURPS..._LOTS_ of GURPS.  We even dusted off some of the games I (and others) had collected over the years.

Because nobody was familiar with all of the games, there was always a period of learning the rules- but it also meant that nobody could min /max every PC they played.

It improved my RPG play immeasurably.  Even my fantasy PCs are different now from the first ones I created.


----------



## bubbalin

There is a book that covers some of this. I found it very interesting and enjoyable, but I didn't really like the presumptive tone it took.

Roleplaying Mastery by Gary Gygax. You'll find details elsewhere, and I've written a review of it on RPG.net. http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9959.phtml

Of course that was a while ago, and I'm probably going to get more flak.


----------



## JoeGKushner

It'd be interesting to see if the book could work out how GMs could be better players. I find that I tend to have too much meta knowledge. A good example of this is our Midnight GM uses a lot of illos from the Monster Manual and BAM! I know what it is. I haven't acted on that info, hard to since I'm playing a single class fighter whose stick is him them until they die!   but I do worry about it effecting game play.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Many people are more concerned about feigning "civility" than engaging in meaningful discourse.




Since when was poncing about like imaginary elves meaningful discourse? Patooie. I love D&D, but it's a game, and falls very short of any forced meaning that style can inflict upon it. 



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> This isn't about telling players, "It's my way or the highway." It's about telling players, "Look, we're in this together. We can cooperate and make a fun game for all of us, or we can piss off and do our own thing alone and not have fun playing a game with each other. I think that the former choice would be the better one." People who are playing the game to win, or playing to crush the other players, or playing just to be a nuisance (whether they know they're doing it or not) are not good players, and a book to teach them how to play might help both them and the people they play with by making them more like the sort of folks we'd all like to game with.




I see your point, but it's a point that I think DMs need to know and players will either know or not depending upon what kind of fun they want to have with the game. 

A player who loves improv and story will do this without any sort of manual telling them how, just like a player who loves crunchy mechanics and rulesbits will make a mechanically powerful character using only the PHB and his own imagination. The player who loves history will inquire about it, and the player who loves tactics will use them. Because that's what's fun for them and their imagination. There are useful tomes about min/maxing you character mechanically, and the market can only benefit from books about how to use other styles effectively, too, but those will be even less useful than the Munchkin's Guide books because what they "teach" is much more ephemeral. In other words, making a supplement about how to improv well in D&D will fall short of a book about how to improv well in general. So why reinvent the wheel?

The DM needs to be able to do this MORE than the players. That's why there's volumes more DM advice -- the DM needs to recognize where the players are having fun and emphasize those aspects of fun (or tell the players to look elsewhere if they're uncompromising). The DM needs to include moments of improv for the actor, moments of mechanical difficulty for the min/maxer, moments of history for the historian, and moments of brilliant tactics for the tactician. It's much more likely that a DM doesn't have all these skills, and it's more important for a DM to recognize where he won't give players the fun they want. Players can largely decide for themselves what's fun or not, and generally already have by the time they get to the table.



			
				jim pinto said:
			
		

> If I sit down and write this book, it will be for everyone. It will talk to each kind of gamer, explain their role and make sure they understand that they are 1/4th, 1/10th, or 1/516th of the campaign; depending on the number of people at the table.
> 
> The book will explain Plot-oriented, Event-oriented, Character-oriented, and Location-oriented adventuring.
> 
> (someone said something about railroading and that's event-oriented gaming... which I personally hate, but became big when people stopped playing in dungeons and hadn't figured out the other two types yet)
> 
> Lastly, there is completely freeform adventuring as well, which would get some attention.
> 
> ...
> The player's should be vested. They should have a reason to show up, just as much as anyone. They should have a vote over what's in the world, what they play next, and what they can do. They don't get a veto. But, they get a vote.
> 
> We recently lost a player from our group at home because he couldn't understand or accept these last two concepts and believed everyone could just show up in whatever mood they wanted.




I think your first difficulties are that you are overcategorizing and assuming too much. You're putting "event-based" on a continuum from worse to better that doesn't nessecarily exist. You're delimiting the categories of adventures when a good campaign will have a mix of those and more. You're saying the players should be vested, but that's an opinion, and not one eveyrone shares. You say you lost a player because HE couldn't understand the concepts, without ever addressing the fact that the issue could have been (and probably was) much more complex than that.

It sounds like you want to "fix" bad players. But it's my stipulation that the only bad player is the one who doesn't enjoy herself. So all you need to do is encourage that player to seek what's fun and tell the DM that. It's the DM's job to balance everyone's wants and needs, and that's a much more difficult task (and thus is worthy of many more volumes of advice). And that doesn't require a manual. Just a bit of assertiveness (which not everyone will have, admittedly).


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy

While D&D generally supports a variety of play styles, it is at its heart group-oriented.  In this day and age, people who don't work and play well with others have the option of CRPGs, and those who only want "crush, kill, destroy" have any number of options like D&D miniatures, HeroClix, etc.

Some players need to ask themselves, if you aren't interested in interacting with others, then why are you in a ROLE-playing game?  If you aren't interested in positive interactions, then why would anybody be interested in playing with you?


----------



## The Shaman

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But it's my stipulation that the only bad player is the one who doesn't enjoy herself.



A player who cheats is a bad player.

A player who is disruptive, in or out of game, is a bad player.

A player who is selfish is a bad player.

All of those things may contribute to a player's enjoyment, but they have no place at the gaming table.







			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It's the DM's job to balance everyone's wants and needs, and that's a much more difficult task (and thus is worthy of many more volumes of advice).



It's the GM's role to present an exciting adventure in an interesting game-world - players should not expect to have their every whim catered to.

Not happy with that? Walk, playboy.


----------



## jim pinto

*being clearer*

while i have my own bias about event-based gaming and munchkins, each would get their fair attention is a work of this caliber.

the point is to promote COMPROMISE and COMMON GROUND

something few if any game books have ever addressed

and i think its crucial for people that DO want to get better, for DMs that want fewer arguments disrupting their game, for players that want cohesion at the table, and for generally elevating the quality of games.

the book will certainly contrast storytelling vs. munchkin gaming, but if your DM isn't a fan of the min-max power concept, chances are he's not going to be too happy with half-ogre barbarian chain warrior IV

and if your DM is like 90% of americans, he's passive agressive about his hints and nudges to not make another stat crusher. and if subtlty doesn't work, what avenue does he have left?

anyway... that last paragraph wasn't productive.

patrick kapera and i worked for AEG for many years. having had many discussions about gaming. this conversation came up a lot. its certainly no one's place to PREACH to others and say... here... game better... but if robin laws can write a book on RUNNING better, certainly someone (ahem, me) ... can sit down and write a book about PLAYING better.

fun is certainly a goal.... but your fun is as important as the fun of person X, Y, and Z sitting at the table with you... and wouldn't be cool if everyone promoted each other's fun, instead of just their own?

or am i being a bit too much of a socialist about a non-competitive, social endeavor that's consuming 6 hours of our week (more if your the DM)?

a lot of people have written some really smart things on here, btw

i'd really like to recruit you to help on this book, if you'd be so inclined

OR

perhaps just brainstorm off the list sometime about what elements you'd like to see

(i'm already working on an outline)

alright

thanks for everyone's insight

- jim


----------



## jim pinto

The Shaman said:
			
		

> A player who cheats is a bad player.
> 
> A player who is disruptive, in or out of game, is a bad player.
> 
> A player who is selfish is a bad player.




this is awesome

YOUR fun is not okay if it detracts from my fun... and if you think its okay, i'm coming to your house and kicking your cat and saying... "Hey. This IS fun!"

i think big picture thinking is the enemy of short-sighted ' immediate gratification ' gaming... which i think is supported by the small challenge mentality of video games

(there was an article in psychology today about how video games hurt people's abilities to set goals, because video games fail to have long term challenges.)


----------



## Crothian

What I'd like to see is a way for common character types to work together.  THis can be a problem when you have 6 players all make fine characters but when brought together they just don't gell as a group and it is more a problem with the character concepts then the players themselves.  And then someone has to compromise and then the problem becomes a player one.  But it would be nice for people to see how a lone wolf character can fit into a group and make it fun.  How the necromancer when played right can work with a good group and be okay.


----------



## eyebeams

Umbran said:
			
		

> I think the major problem you'll find is that defining "good player" wil be a bit more slippery than defining "good GM".
> 
> The GM's role in the game is highly service-oriented.  The GM's job is to provide something for the players, and one canmeasure his or her success by how much the players like the offerings.
> 
> The player's role, traditionally, is not quite so service-oriented.  While playing is a cooperative endeavor, the player's role is a bit more centered upon themselves, and that makes grading their performance a bit more difficult.




That attitude is the problem right there. If a player is self-centered, then they should seek a form of entertainment that best suits selfish play, such as MMO gaming.


----------



## Janx

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think that's partly the DM's fault, and partly the players.
> 
> The players should come up with characters who have a reason to adventure.  Or else what's the point?  Why does your guy want to do anything then?  Make up a guy with a reason to pick up sword and shield or go home.
> 
> The DM should give the players interesting choices where even doing nothing creates consequences.  If the players can do nothing and stay alive, why would they want to go spelunking through rat-infested sewers?  Doing nothing _must_ be a choice, just like any other.




There's a common theme in the "against a book like this" I'm seeing.  It seems that some folks are taking things too literally.  In my example, of a DM presenting 3 plot hooks, if the player's don't bite, the game is boring.  Maybe the DM should have made better hooks, but if there aren't any more, you'll be stuck.  In that situation, a GOOD player will detect the situation, and work to get the story moving so the DM can get back in the groove.  That's not sacrificing your fun, that's helping the DM out of a sticking point.

The example about rules of improv acting apply here.  The DM is basically saying, "I see you got a new hat".  Blocking it won't make the game any better.

As a player, you can't make the DM a better one DURING the game.  So you've got to have skills to make the session BETTER than it is.  This isn't sacrificing your fun (well, maybe a little), it's trying to make the best of the situation.  A bad player will work against this process, making it harder for the DM, and harder for the other players.

Since D&D is a group effort, the following should be true:
a player should act to keep the game moving
a player should avoid hurting the campaign

This doesn't mean the player can't munchkin out his PC, kill lots of stuff, be dramatic.  It simply means the player is aware of other factors besides their own goals and works to accomplish those goals WITH the group so more people are having fun.

There are plenty of other avenues for anti-social folks to get their kicks than at the gaming table hurting other players and the DM.  This forum is full of stories about crappy players.

Another fallacy among players seems to be the desire to be able to wander around a game setting, seeing everything and thinking the DM has a plot and background for every NPC.  Got news for you.  Most DMs are NOT capable of multitasking that many complex plots and NPCs.  They come up with a general storyline and 1 or more hooks to get you in the story.  While it is great that you or your DM is capable of ad-libbing an complex adventure based on anything the players do, most DMs are not.  So realizing that, isn't it in a player's best interest to figure out how to coexist their gameplay desires with the DM's prepared material?  Remember, all the "I wish the DM would do X" ain't worth squat, because you can't change him, but you can control how you play the game.

Janx


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

The Shaman said:
			
		

> A player who cheats is a bad player.
> 
> A player who is disruptive, in or out of game, is a bad player.
> 
> A player who is selfish is a bad player.
> 
> All of those things may contribute to a player's enjoyment, but they have no place at the gaming table.




While it's easy to focus on antisocial behaviour as something we don't want to see in players, I think that's a bit too easy.  What I want to see from a book on How to Play isn't "don't be a total creep" guide to avoiding negative behaviour, but rather a guide to positive player behaviour.  Assuming you're not a selfish git, but are instead a normal person who wants to have a fun game with people, what can you do to work with the DM and the other players to improve the session from the player's seat?

It's easy enough to just kick the bad players out.  What we should be asking for is a guide for the already-okay players that will help them improve their style.  That will be more difficult, more subtle, and more valuable.


----------



## skinnydwarf

jim pinto said:
			
		

> <SNIP>
> in all this time, i've never seen a book for PLAYERS that gave advice on how to be a better PLAYER
> <SNIP>




Back in the 80's Gary Gygax wrote a book called Roleplaying Mastery  that discussed how to be a better player.  It's pretty good, and you can find it on ebay (that's where I got my copy).  His followup, Mastery of the Game (which focused on how to be a better gamemaster) was also full of good advice.

[EDIT: bubbalin beat me to it- I didn't see his post initially].


----------



## jim pinto

skinnydwarf said:
			
		

> Back in the 80's Gary Gygax wrote a book called Roleplaying Mastery  that discussed how to be a better player.  It's pretty good, and you can find it on ebay (that's where I got my copy).  His followup, Mastery of the Game (which focused on how to be a better gamemaster) was also full of good advice.
> 
> [EDIT: bubbalin beat me to it- I didn't see his post initially].




i've actually read these, believe it or not

but gary didn't like actors or story... he saw no place for it in roleplaying.

this book needs to be a guide for everyone... a tool for every style, and level of play

with essays and excerpts and discussions about what works for what kind of DM and so on

it can't be totally inclusive, because that's impossible, but we can get close


----------



## LostSoul

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> While D&D generally supports a variety of play styles




Uh.  Not really.

You _can_ play D&D in a variety of styles, but being able to play in a variety of styles same thing as _supporting_ a variety of styles.

I think that's one of the reasons 3e is such a good game.


----------



## LostSoul

Janx said:
			
		

> There's a common theme in the "against a book like this" I'm seeing.  It seems that some folks are taking things too literally.  In my example, of a DM presenting 3 plot hooks, if the player's don't bite, the game is boring.




I'm against putting bad advice in the book.

If the DM presents 3 plot hooks and the players think they are boring - guess what, the DM messed up.  He came up with 3 boring plot hooks.  Maybe the game will get more exciting if the players follow those plot hooks, but maybe not.  Telling players to slavishly follow any plot hook (or boring plot, as it unfolds) that the DM comes up with is bad advice, in my opinion, because you're just going to reinforce bad play.

Now the players have messed up if they haven't told the DM what they want those plot hooks to be.

And the game has messed up if the player's desires aren't clearly stated on the character sheet.


----------



## Uller

As a DM, I don't  really bother too much with "plot".   

My campaigns go like this:

1) Present the PCs with 2 or more "hooks" for adventures.
2) Players choose hook or tell me they want to do something else
3) I build an adventure around the hook(s) they choose to follow
4) The adventure concludes.  Based on the results of the adventure, the actions of NPCs and whatever else, some hooks are removed and some new ones are added.\
5) repeat at step 2.

This way, the story or plot or whatever you want to call it developes more out of the players' and NPCs' actions than out of some story-line of my making.  

As a player, I can't stand it when the DM has some over-arching plot and tries to paint me and the other players into it.


----------



## jim pinto

*why do players hate DMs so much?*



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> I'm against putting bad advice in the book.
> 
> If the DM presents 3 plot hooks and the players think they are boring - guess what, the DM messed up.  He came up with 3 boring plot hooks.  Maybe the game will get more exciting if the players follow those plot hooks, but maybe not.  Telling players to slavishly follow any plot hook (or boring plot, as it unfolds) that the DM comes up with is bad advice, in my opinion, because you're just going to reinforce bad play.




i totally DISAGREE with this

there are only 36 basic plots. to say you don't like three of them limits design; limits options.

it also undermines faith in the DM that a simple sewer excursion couldn't be more... couldn't be a discovery of a ruin or ancient holy place

lastly, it precludes the posibility that the DM might have something up his sleeve... and maybe... just maybe ... the first three plot hooks are setting the tone...'

the pcs don't get to make any character they want AND dictate the story the DM tells them ... not without paying for the ride

next they'll be telling the DM what sort of monsters they want to fight, to match their perfectly chosen favored enemy

this kind of attitude is precisely why the book has merit

its about compromise... on all sides of the table... and both sides of the screen

its time to put the onus back on the PCs... make them responsible for something

- jim


----------



## The Shaman

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> While it's easy to focus on antisocial behaviour as something we don't want to see in players, I think that's a bit too easy....What we should be asking for is a guide for the already-okay players that will help them improve their style.  That will be more difficult, more subtle, and more valuable.



No question - I was responding to a particular point that I thought was overreaching.

These are the extremes of behavior that fit the more general principle of...







			
				jim pinto said:
			
		

> YOUR fun is not okay if it detracts from my fun...



...a principle that extends equally to the GM as it does to the players.

More subtle and insidious examples might include deliberately copying or undermining another player's character concept or attempting to "run" another player's character - while this may be fun for one player, it's certainly not for another player. This is also true of players who try to "break" the game-world (_wall of iron_ and _fabricate_, anyone?) for their own profit or amusement.

I think one of the best principles elucidated so far is...







			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> The players should come up with characters who have a reason to adventure.  Or else what's the point?...Make up a guy with a reason to pick up sword and shield or go home.



This seems so obvious, but I've heard story after story of players who characters avoid adventures because it's not "something my character would do" for decades now.

Another idea that should be conveyed more effectively than I think it has been, and one which comes back to the idea that it's the GM's "job" to entertain the players, is that adventuring life is supposed to be difficult and dangerous to the characters: there is a chance that they will fail, that they will get hurt, and that they may die. Part of the enjoyment of gaming should come from facing risks with the potential for lasting consequences to the character - the idea that a character should never face permanent death, for example, is anethema to this. This expectation should be planted in the back of a player's mind from the start, IMHO, as well as some idea of how to handle it should this come to pass ("My character died! What now?").


----------



## jdrakeh

jim pinto said:
			
		

> fun is certainly a goal.... but your fun is as important as the fun of person X, Y, and Z sitting at the table with you... and wouldn't be cool if everyone promoted each other's fun, instead of just their own?




I addressed this in *Formless*, going so far as to incorporate the drafting of a social contract into the game's rules. While the examination of social contracts in Formless has been simplified to reach as wide an audience as possible, there's really a lot more to it - that said, it boils down to exactly what you've said above.


----------



## LostSoul

jim pinto said:
			
		

> i totally DISAGREE with this
> 
> there are only 36 basic plots. to say you don't like three of them limits design; limits options.




I think I may not have explained myself properly.

I may not like "hunting for rats in the sewers", but that's not to say I don't like the generic plot IIX or whatever.  (Although I do like that plot hook.  And I can't figure out what generic plot that one links up with - based on George Polti's "36 Dramatic Situations".)

If I'm not interested in a plot, I'm not interested.  Telling me that I should be is just going to mess me up.  And drive me away from the game, after I've kicked myself too many times for not enjoying the DM's plots.  "I guess I just can't play RPGs."



			
				jim pinto said:
			
		

> it also undermines faith in the DM that a simple sewer excursion couldn't be more... couldn't be a discovery of a ruin or ancient holy place




I understand.  It's a question of trust.  If I had built up a relationship of trust with my DM, I'd be interested to see where things were going even if I found the plot hook boring.

But - putting advice in a book to players that tells them to follow plot hooks _that they find boring_ is just bad advice.  You'll have players who do what the book says, come away thinking, "I did what I was told, and I had no fun.  I guess RPGs are just not for me."  Even when that's not the case.

So, you say, I won't put advice in the book that says you have to follow boring plot hooks.  Great!  We agree.   Make sure you say exactly that - if you don't spell it out, people can get the wrong idea.  "Follow the DM's plot hooks" means "follow the ones you like and follow the ones you find boring."  (I know there's a more succinct way of saying this.  )



			
				jim pinto said:
			
		

> and maybe... just maybe ... the first three plot hooks are setting the tone...'




If it's a boring plot, the tone you're setting is "This is a boring game."



			
				jim pinto said:
			
		

> the pcs don't get to make any character they want AND dictate the story the DM tells them ... not without paying for the ride




I don't want the DM to tell me a story.  I can go to the library to get that, or turn on the TV.

If you do want the DM to tell you a story, fine; but not all players do, and unless you specify that your player advice applies only to certain people, I would consider it bad advice.



			
				jim pinto said:
			
		

> next they'll be telling the DM what sort of monsters they want to fight, to match their perfectly chosen favored enemy




Right, because I took levels in the Ranger class and didn't care whether or not I would get to use my abilities.

The players _are_ telling the DM what kind of monsters they want to fight.  All you have to do is look at their character sheets.  Rogues want to fight Sneak Attack-able creatures.  Clerics and Paladins want to fight undead.  A Fighter with Improved Disarm wants to fight guys with weapons.  etc.



			
				jim pinto said:
			
		

> this kind of attitude is precisely why the book has merit




Play nice now! 

Regarding the title of your post, there are a lot of players who "hate" DMs because of all the bad experiences out there.  RPGs generally give a lot more power to the DM.  (In a social game, I think that's a mistake.)  A lot of DMs use this power irresponsibly.  And a lot of players get pissed off because of it.

So anyway, what are the player's responsibilities?

- Play nice with other people.  ie. Don't be a jackass.  If you can't do that, go back to kindergarden.
- When you make your character, make sure he has a reason to adventure _in whatever world/setting/system you agreed to play_.  If all the characters that you want to play don't fit in or have a reason to adventure in a certain setting or system, don't play.  Don't spoil everyone else's fun by saying "My guy wouldn't do that."  Pick up the dice or go home.
- Make sure that you make it clear to your DM what kind of plot hooks you're going to bite on.  Don't have him waste his energy by making up stuff you're not going to want to play.


----------



## Digital M@

OK, here are my .02 (I know you have all been waiting)

I agree with Jim's reasoning, I hate the same style players he does and think they have hurt my enjoyment of the game.  That being said the Amber Diceless RPG has some great advice for players and GMs alike.  

As for not following a DMs plot hooks, I don't get it.  There is a reason you are sitting at the table and if protesting a plot hook because you have some wacked out allignment and personality combo is going to get your rocks off, more power to you, but in the end, I don't think it is much fun.  I have been in too many games where players have neutral characters that just reiterate that they don't care about helping people that they do whatever they want.  They expect the DM to rewrite the story and then complain in the future there is not enough plot and too much combat.  I really miss playing the game with close friends, and IMO, it is hardly worth playing without them.  

I wouldn't buy a book on the subject, but think it would make a great free .pdf or a recurring  article in Dragon or on a website.  As with any self help, I believe a little dose here and there is better than being vomitted on all at once.


----------



## LostSoul

Digital M@ said:
			
		

> As for not following a DMs plot hooks, I don't get it.  There is a reason you are sitting at the table and if protesting a plot hook because you have some wacked out allignment and personality combo is going to get your rocks off, more power to you, but in the end, I don't think it is much fun.




Let's say the DM has written an adventure where everyone starts off in a city.  They are going to have to go into some dungeon to get the MacGuffin.  He tells you to make a background, and have something in it that details why you ended up in the city.

So your guy saw his wife killed by an Ogre Mage with one eye and he's followed him to the city.  He's even taken a level (or two) of Ranger to get Favoured Enemy: Giants.

Naturally, you want to go after the Ogre Mage.  But it doesn't happen the first time.  "Okay," you say, "I don't really care about the MacGuffin, but I'll wait and see.  He probably couldn't work in the Ogre Mage.  DMing is hard work; I'll cut him some slack.  Next time."

Next adventure, more MacGuffin hunting.  Not an Ogre Mage in sight.  No leads, nothing.

Repeat.

How often do you go after the MacGuffin (which you don't care about) while the DM ignores what you do care about (the Ogre Mage)?

Or, to put it another way: how often do you do what the other guy wants, and put off what you want to do?  How much more important is his fun than yours?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I'm against putting bad advice in the book.
> 
> If the DM presents 3 plot hooks and the players think they are boring - guess what, the DM messed up.  He came up with 3 boring plot hooks.  Maybe the game will get more exciting if the players follow those plot hooks, but maybe not.  Telling players to slavishly follow any plot hook (or boring plot, as it unfolds) that the DM comes up with is bad advice, in my opinion, because you're just going to reinforce bad play.




But that's DM advice.  If the DM has a problem with coming up with interesting plot hooks or engaging his players, he needs to go to a source for DM advice, like Robin's Laws or the DMG II or what-have-you.

Let's assume for a second, that the DM's plots aren't boring, and perhaps that the players feel like they should take his bait when it's offered.  Take that as a baseline condition.  Now, assuming that we send the DM off to read some DM advice books, what are we going to tell the players while he's off doing that?  To sit around and depend on him to make a good game for them?  Or to themselves assist the DM in making a good game?  And how should they go about doing that?  That's what the book will be about.


----------



## ThoughtBubble

LostSoul said:
			
		

> How often do you go after the MacGuffin (which you don't care about) while the DM ignores what you do care about (the Ogre Mage)?
> 
> Or, to put it another way: how often do you do what the other guy wants, and put off what you want to do?  How much more important is his fun than yours?




Two different questions. The first seems to ask: "If a DM can be bad, why should we entertain the possibility of a good player?"

The second question gets to the heart of the whole thing, which is really about give and take. On average, I'd guess that the general equation of how often you do something that you want to goes something like 100%/(2+number of players in game). This does ignore the possibility of a situation where multiple people can do what they want at the same time. 

In your second question, is 'the other guy' referring to another player, the DM, the rest of the group or a bum down the street?

And, in terms of character background, I've run into this weird phenomina. No one in my group tells me about their backgrounds. I give out character points for it, and I still barely get it. In one situation I was the last person in the group to hear about a character's family and background. They had spent weeks thinking about it. They talked to the rest of the group about it several times. I, the DM, just never heard about it.

In the case of the Ogre Mage section, there are a lot of possible reasons for the enemy not being included. However, that's where the whole communication thing comes up. There's probably a good way to bring up the fact that you'd like to see the Half Ogre come up sometime.


----------



## I'm A Banana

The Shaman said:
			
		

> A player who cheats is a bad player.
> 
> A player who is disruptive, in or out of game, is a bad player.
> 
> A player who is selfish is a bad player.




But these problems are much deeper than D&D can handle. Selfishness, disruption, and cheating are psychological issues, not gameplay issues, and I wouldn't expect any D&D book to be able to handle those beyond "Don't do it." Not without being more of a self-help book than a game supplement, anyway. "Don't Cheat, Don't Be Selfish, and Don't Cause Trouble" are rules for any sort of personal interaction, and it'll take more than a guidebook to disabuse someone of those tendancies.



			
				Jim Pinto said:
			
		

> i think big picture thinking is the enemy of short-sighted ' immediate gratification ' gaming... which i think is supported by the small challenge mentality of video games
> 
> (there was an article in psychology today about how video games hurt people's abilities to set goals, because video games fail to have long term challenges.)




Hahahahahaha, wow, that's a lot of unsupported conjecture....  

Crackpot theories of attention span aside, I'm just not interested in a book where the author basically espouses his own dream of the ideal gamer while critizing those who don't adhere, and everyone congratulates everyone on a job well done removing an unwanted element from society.

What's it add to my game? What does it enable my players to do? It won't stop the occasional bad apple from sitting down, and it won't help the good ones do anything other than what they do anyway. I don't need any sort of book to tell my players how to enjoy themselves -- they do it just fine. I don't need any sort of book to try and convince them that there's some "higher goal" than enjoying themselves, either. Because, quite simply, in D&D, there isn't.


----------



## WayneLigon

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> ...say something about play style other than "Every play style is of equal value" or "It's all good as long as everyone is having _fun_"
> 
> I never dreamed in my life I'd get as tired as I have of the concept of _fun_ in a game




Amen. Because I have realized in many instances that if Player X is having fun it means I'm _not_.


----------



## LostSoul

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Now, assuming that we send the DM off to read some DM advice books, what are we going to tell the players while he's off doing that?  To sit around and depend on him to make a good game for them?  Or to themselves assist the DM in making a good game?  And how should they go about doing that?  That's what the book will be about.




Right.  I'm just saying that you shouldn't tell players to follow plot hooks.  If they are interested in them, they'll go after it without any need to push them, no problem.  If they aren't interested in it, telling them to follow that plot just reinforces unrewarding play.

So: "Follow the DM's plot hooks" should not go in the book, in my opinion.


----------



## LostSoul

ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> Two different questions. The first seems to ask: "If a DM can be bad, why should we entertain the possibility of a good player?"




I'm not sure I understand you.  Interested, though.



			
				ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> In your second question, is 'the other guy' referring to another player, the DM, the rest of the group or a bum down the street?




I was talking about the DM, but you could apply the same logic to any relationship.



			
				ThoughtBubble said:
			
		

> And, in terms of character background, I've run into this weird phenomina. No one in my group tells me about their backgrounds.




That brings up another good piece of advice:  Communicate your desires to the other players and the DM.  edit: Which is what you were saying.


----------



## jdrakeh

LostSoul said:
			
		

> RPGs generally give a lot more power to the DM.  (In a social game, I think that's a mistake.)




Actually, quite the inverse is true - many games, by implelmenting numerous mechanical checks and balances, actually give the _players_ more power by defining the structure within which a GM can work. There are games are games that don't do this, but everybody (including the players) knows this when they sit down to play one of those games, and trust the GM not to abuse this power. If somebody agrees to play with a rule set that gives the GM more power, they shouldn't bitch about it unless... 



> A lot of DMs use this power irresponsibly.




If the  GM abuses this power, then sure - players _should_ be upset. They should also _tell the GM that they're upset_ - something that, in my ten years of gaming, I've rarely seen upset players do. Instead, such players seem to keep their mouth shut and so the GM, unaware that a problem exists, doesn't change anything and a miserable game continues to be miserable, while unhappiness festers. 

In this regard players usually have as much responsibility for a crappy game as the GM does, if not more, as they had the chance to point out a problem that the GM might not be aware of and _chose not to do so_. When _this_ happens, players have _no_ right to complain - after all, they're contributing to the problem by not addressing it (and, thus, allowing it to continue) just as much the GM did by initially creating it. 

This comes back to cooperation between _all_ players. A social contract takes care of a lot of this before play ever begins by addressing specific tenets of play according to the wishes of all players involved in the game, and I've found that most players welcome such structure. The _only_ players that I've seen vehemently oppose social contracts and other cooperative efforts in games are those socially short-changed players who would benfit from a book such as that proposed by Jim.

[Edit: If you need contributors, Jim, I'd gladly write a piece about social contracts and playing to expectations.]


----------



## silvereyes

jim pinto said:
			
		

> its about compromise... on all sides of the table... and both sides of the screen
> its time to put the onus back on the PCs... make them responsible for something




Okay, this I must admit I like. The questions of what exactly are a player’s responsibilities. I mean really, where is the list of things I am expected to do? (Not including basic social skills.)

However with power comes responsibility, and giving responsibility usually means granting power . . . 
What are my corresponding powers as a player? What decisions as a player do I get to make about the game?

But what about the GM, what decisions does he get to make about the game, and which are he not allowed to make?

And a random theory from a nobody:
Do different styles disagree on these? ( ‘Cause I suspect they do, but I would love to be wrong.)


----------



## jim pinto

*good stuff*

the process here is NOT to say one way is better than another

i've said this four times now, but people are still missing it

the book is about 
a) making sure EVERYONE has fun
b) the DMs work doesn't go to waste
c) the DMs time isn't devalued and disrespected by gamers who think, "they got fun coming to them."
d) making sure EVERYONE has an equal vote, equal time playing, and equal investment in the game
e) making sure the styles of play mesh (if the DM is a munchkin and the player's a munchkins... they don't need this book)
f) if all these conditions are met, can we elevate the quality of our game?
g) okay. i'm not 14 anymore... what sort of characters, campaigns, challenges can i create/be involved in?

and so on.

does this make sense?

the book is about putting some responsibility into the hands of the players for a change.

DMs can't and shouldn't be held at gunpoint to run a great game/story/adventure/combat fest week after week after week unless they are being paid OR they have the option of saying NO... you can't have 14 sneak attack feats that stack together into the perfect death touch attack.

and player's need to know why that's not okay, without crying foul that the DM is out to get him or her.


----------



## Janx

LostSoul said:
			
		

> If I'm not interested in a plot, I'm not interested.  Telling me that I should be is just going to mess me up.  And drive me away from the game, after I've kicked myself too many times for not enjoying the DM's plots.  "I guess I just can't play RPGs."




So WTF do you expect to be doing for that session?  The DM (say a new one running for 1st level PCs) has only got 1 plot, goto sewer, kill rats.  This isn't much different than any CRPG.  You can kill the rats (satisfying the combat folks) or you can roleplay prepping for the mission (satisfying the drama folks), or you can sit on your arse and whine that there's nothing to do in the city.

Our point is, you're absolutely RIGHT that the DM should be making multiple plots that are relevant to the players interests.  BUT since you don't own or control the DM, how do you make the best of the situation at hand?  

That's the point of suggesting follow the plots you're given.  If you make the bets of what you have, you'll have more fun and the DM will have the opportunity to get better than if you stall the game out and nobody has any fun.

There's another misconception on PC backgrounds.  You're making a 1st level PC.  You only need a 1 paragraph background.  You shouldn't be making up detailed histories and complex enemies to go hunt down and fight.  a 21 year old 1st level fighter may not be likely to be married, let alone witness his wife killed by and Ogre Magi AND be prepared to hunt it down.  Assuming that was a reasonable backstory, the PC should be interested in pursuing the sewer mission because it gets his funds for his hunt and XP so he won't be a 1st level PC when he meets the Ogre Magi.

Another way to look at adventures is this:  The DM's job is to START the story, provide a few hooks to an interesting adventure.  The PCs job is to FINISH the story, solve the problem in their unique way.  Once the DM has started the story and the PCs have entered it, his job is to simply resolve the PCs actions against the story he setup.  This is the difference between railroading and having a plot.  

Somewhere over the years, the some players and DMs have forgotten this little arrangement.  The players expect the DM to be a full universe simulator, and the DMs come up with weak plots or railroads to hell.

The point Jim's book idea is trying to make, is that you are a PLAYER.  What can YOU do to make the best of the gaming situation you are in NOW.

Janx


----------



## JoeGKushner

LostSoul said:
			
		

> So anyway, what are the player's responsibilities?
> 
> - Play nice with other people.  ie. Don't be a jackass.  If you can't do that, go back to kindergarden.
> - When you make your character, make sure he has a reason to adventure _in whatever world/setting/system you agreed to play_.  If all the characters that you want to play don't fit in or have a reason to adventure in a certain setting or system, don't play.  Don't spoil everyone else's fun by saying "My guy wouldn't do that."  Pick up the dice or go home.
> - Make sure that you make it clear to your DM what kind of plot hooks you're going to bite on.  Don't have him waste his energy by making up stuff you're not going to want to play.




What about knowledge of the rules? Players should understand the rules of the game. There should be progessive knowledge increase as players continue to play. You should not be wondering how power attack works six weeks into the game.

How about having a character sheet tha's clean and easy to read? Having all appropriate bonuses totalled up? Having variants precalculated for Power Attack or other commonly used modifiers?

How about being timely and helping the host out? Some might be surprised that there are still people who show up rotuinely late. Those whole subject could be it's own book in terms of common manners, etc...

Listen to the GM. If everyone agrees up front that the game is going to involve a lot of fighting undead and the players decide to make rogues and rangers that don't take undead as favorite enemies, is the GM supposed to scrap the campaign that everyone agreed to in the first place?

Then outside of table rules, you have "meta" rules. For example, does the party steal for each other? If you have a rogue in the group, there woudl be no reason why the rogue shouldn't occassionally dip into something that they found uniquely. It happens in fiction and the movies all the time. It makes for bad game play usually as most groups are going to want to kil lthe rogue if they ever find out.


----------



## Henry

Janx said:
			
		

> There's another misconception on PC backgrounds.  You're making a 1st level PC.  You only need a 1 paragraph background.  You shouldn't be making up detailed histories and complex enemies to go hunt down and fight.




This is a point that IS a peeve of mine, along with players who won't even go so far as the one paragraph. If you are playing low-level characters (1st through 3rd), their background is going to be very short, by necessity. Extensive backgrounds detailing lots of travel, deeds, and vendettas is not plausible for a person who's just reached age of majority; it's possible, let's say they've been conscripted in a war, they travelled on a ship, were present for many deeds but didn't participate in them), but that experience is rare. A more detailed background is appropriate for a higher-level starting PC, but_ "held off 15 orcs that invaded his home"_ at 1st level is not, as is _"celebrated for mediating a truce in his home land"_ or _"fought with the 81st lancers, private regiment of the King."_


----------



## LostSoul

Janx said:
			
		

> So WTF do you expect to be doing for that session?  The DM (say a new one running for 1st level PCs) has only got 1 plot, goto sewer, kill rats.




Wondering why the DM ignored my character, and hoping it'll get better next time.  At the end of the game, tell him what I thought.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> BUT since you don't own or control the DM, how do you make the best of the situation at hand?
> 
> That's the point of suggesting follow the plots you're given.  If you make the bets of what you have, you'll have more fun and the DM will have the opportunity to get better than if you stall the game out and nobody has any fun.




I see your point.  But you need to tell the player that he doesn't always have to follow the DM's plots if he's not interested in them.  There's a limit to that sort of thing.  Give the DM some slack to see where it's going, sure.  Always following his plots, no.  



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> There's another misconception on PC backgrounds.  You're making a 1st level PC.  You only need a 1 paragraph background.  You shouldn't be making up detailed histories and complex enemies to go hunt down and fight.




How about this:  "I was a farmer.  Today I went home and saw my wife being taken by orcs!"

DM: "Okay, you're going to hunt rats in the sewers."

Player: "That's lame, but if I don't follow his plot like this book says, I'll be doing something wrong."



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Another way to look at adventures is this:  The DM's job is to START the story, provide a few hooks to an interesting adventure.




I'd say that it's the player's job to start the story.  That's what his background is for.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> The point Jim's book idea is trying to make, is that you are a PLAYER.  What can YOU do to make the best of the gaming situation you are in NOW.




And sometimes the best advice is "Quit".


----------



## Joshua Randall

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I addressed this in *Formless*, going so far as to incorporate the drafting of a social contract into the game's rules. While the examination of social contracts in Formless has been simplified to reach as wide an audience as possible, there's really a lot more to it - that said, it boils down to exactly what you've said above.



I would like to too my log on the fire of social contracts. Too often, they are left implicit when they should be made explicit.

I have toyed with the idea of making my players *sign* an actual contract, but that seems a bit off-putting, so I haven't actually done it.


----------



## DamionW

A lot of times a book like this is important when you don't have the option to be picky about who you game with.  I'm in the military and am stationed in a town with a small gamer base to select from.  I've done _EVERYTHING_ to mobilize the gamers in this area so we can communicate, but it isn't happening.  So if you're answer to someone who has some antisocial behavior that only manifests itself in gaming is just "boot him," that's not always optimal.  I think there is merit to finding ways to improve team effort to make an enjoyable game.  I disagree with KM that each player enjoying themselves equates to them being a proficient player, because there is a higher goal: create a communal experience where everyone can share fun.  If you are _solely_ interested in personal enjoyment, there are other hobbies to pursue.


----------



## The Shaman

LostSoul said:
			
		

> How about this:  "I was a farmer.  Today I went home and saw my wife being taken by orcs!"
> DM: "Okay, you're going to hunt rats in the sewers."
> Player: "That's lame, but if I don't follow his plot like this book says, I'll be doing something wrong."



Earlier you made an excellent point, *LostSoul*, about creating adventurers with a reason to adventure. However, in the examples you cited above, I would say you've created characters who's reasons for adventuring are too narrow - you are creating a character who is really a one-gimmick pony rather than a character who is likely to be engaged by a number of adventure possibilities.

This is one of the reasons I think the whole "character-seeking-revenge" is really a poor character motivation, especially for introductory characters - let the revenge motif come in after the character has experienced an adventure or two and an enemy escapes, or a particular monster does something heinous enough to arouse the character's ire.

One other thought - you've created this character that wants to pursue an ogre mage or orcs or whatever...but what if the other three or four players in the party want to hunt rats in the sewers? Are you expecting the other players to buy into your revenge-driven character just because that's what you want to play?

The idea that character motivations must include a reason to seek out adventure should be printed in gold letters on the cover of every player's handbook - at the same time, motivations that are too narrowly construed may leave a player feeling frustrated. There needs to be a balance.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> and player's need to know why that's not okay, without crying foul that the DM is out to get him or her.




But no manual will do this any better than "Rule Zero" already does. The rules already state that the DM has the final say. If you're not comfortable with that, you're obviously going to have to find some other way to play, because D&D hinges on one person being different from the rest. And if you *are* okay with that, there's no reason to cry foul. This is why I think the book as you have it now tends to be self-congratulatory: it makes those who already play this way feel like they're doing the right thing, and it does nothing to stop those who don't already play that way from throwing a fit. So it's not adding much to my game.



> the process here is NOT to say one way is better than another




Fair enough, but I don't think that's coming accross in the way you describe what the book's about.



> the book is about
> a) making sure EVERYONE has fun
> b) the DMs work doesn't go to waste




The Core Rulebooks already do this. 



> c) the DMs time isn't devalued and disrespected by gamers who think, "they got fun coming to them."




Which says that gamers who don't think that way are better than gamers that do.



> d) making sure EVERYONE has an equal vote, equal time playing, and equal investment in the game




Which the Core Rules do.



> e) making sure the styles of play mesh (if the DM is a munchkin and the player's a munchkins... they don't need this book)
> f) if all these conditions are met, can we elevate the quality of our game?
> g) okay. i'm not 14 anymore... what sort of characters, campaigns, challenges can i create/be involved in?




All of which says that gamers who are munchkins, who don't think in terms of evaluation of quality, who are 14 or who play like they are 14, are worse than gamers who play otherwise.



> and so on.
> 
> does this make sense?
> 
> the book is about putting some responsibility into the hands of the players for a change.




How? By making them think they're playing like they're supposed to because they're not fourteen year old munchkins who think they deserve fun when playing a game? 

People don't need a book to tell them how to enjoy themselves.


----------



## DamionW

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Which the Core Rules do.




I don't think the Core Rules do address equalizing fun for all players nor for making sure a player respects the effort a DM has to make to create the environment that enables their play and their fun.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> People don't need a book to tell them how to enjoy themselves.




I see where you're going in that the good players are already good and the bad players just shouldn't play.  But I think there are certain antisocial behaviors that COULD be targetted with a book like this.  If your enjoyment arises from you being the star of a game and driving the plot with your character's actions alone, maybe some light reading on cooperative plot development could be helpful.  Maybe some of these people really don't know HOW to give up some of the spotlight to the other players and still enjoy themselves.  There ARE methods out there, but maybe they don't know them.  This is one example of a person who is enjoying themselves at the expense of other people at the table's play.  So there needs to be other options than "Cater to their enjoyment and let them steal the show." and "boot them they're just a selfish person and no book can change that."


----------



## Uller

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Earlier you made an excellent point, *LostSoul*, about creating adventurers with a reason to adventure. However, in the examples you cited above, I would say you've created characters who's reasons for adventuring are too narrow - you are creating a character who is really a one-gimmick pony rather than a character who is likely to be engaged by a number of adventure possibilities.




First off, I completely agree with *LostSoul's* point "I don't want the DM to tell me a story. I can go to the library to get that, or turn on the TV."   When I play, I *HATE* it when DM has some "story" in mind and wants to pigeon-hole my character into it.  

However I agree (sort of) with what The Shaman says here.  At the start of a campaign, one of two things needs to happen:  1) The PCs have to have generic reasons for adventuring or 2) The DM and players need to agree upon their reasons.  

In my current campaign, I told all the players they work for a certain NPC and gave them a few example reasons why they might be working for him.  One player came up with he was adopted by him because his father was an associate who died mysteriously, another came up with she stole something from him and was caught and is working off the debt.   Others had interesting reasons too.  One guy (the power-gamer in the group) said he just wants to walk the earth and have adventures....whatever.  

I consider it my job, as the DM to work in the interesting parts of PCs backgrounds into early plot hooks.  Then things go from there.  If you came to me and said your PC is hunting a specific monster, I'd probably use that as a hook in the first adventure or two.  Otherwise, I'd probably ask you to find another motivation (the former really is the most likely unless it was something really odd or unworkable).

I don't think you need a book for this...

As for a book to tell the players to learn the rules:  If they haven't read the PHB, what makes you think they'll read (much less buy) a different book?


----------



## NCSUCodeMonkey

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> My advice to players is always this: go read a manual on improv theatre.  Improv theatre is essentially dialogue written off the top of one's head using a few key concepts (sometimes provided by the audience).  There are rules that have been developed to help make it work, because if you aren't any good at improv, you'll end up standing around like a doofus going "um..." while the audience snores.
> 
> The big rule I always double-underline is "don't block," followed by "yes, and..."
> 
> Don't block means that when someone hands you a hook, even if they don't know it's a good hook, you take it and work with it.  When the DM says that a group of gypsy merchants are selling their wares, you decide your character happens to have spent time travelling with gypsies and knows some good stories to tell to ingratiate himself to them.  Not only have you helped to flesh out your character to make him more interesting and realistic, but you've provided a good way for the DM to pass on rumours and other information that he might have wanted to share (with or without skill rolls, as the group prefers).  You might then use the gypsies as a source of hooks that catapult you into future adventures.  In essence, you're helping the DM by giving him a footing on which to build some interesting NPC interactions and adventure hooks.  Blocking, on the other hand, is when you say no.  When you decide you don't care about rescuing anyone, or solving any mysteries, or talking to any townsfolk, or when you want to be chaotic evil so you can sabotage the party for no reason.  It's just bad form.
> 
> Yes, and... essentially this is the opposite of blocking.  Not only do you want to take the hook, but you want to make it more interesting than it was.  In improv, when someone says "I see you bought a new hat," you reply, "yes, and it's one of those new musical hats!"  In roleplaying, when a plot hook wanders by, not only are you waiting to pick up on it, but you're also ready to do some work to make it your own.  Not just grudgingly going off to rescue the princess because "it's what we have to do for the plot, obviously."  No, your character wants to rescue the princess so he can marry her, regardless of what her parents think.  Surely his charm and wit can win her over, and if he can get her favour, what must he then do to impress her parents?  If you're the hack-and-slash type, maybe they'd like some exotic trophies to hang over the fireplace.  If you're the deep-roleplayer type, perhaps just laying on the charm real thick will do it.  There's a lot of room for multiple solutions to the same situation, but you have to try to arrange a situation before you can solve it.  Maybe there's a rival suitor, or maybe the girl decides she wants to elope.  Maybe she turns up pregnant and your PC is suspect #1.  Suddenly it's not just a plot hook, it's a story with your character in it.  It's more engaging, more interesting, and it'll end up being more fun.
> 
> This isn't about telling players, "It's my way or the highway."  It's about telling players, "Look, we're in this together.  We can cooperate and make a fun game for all of us, or we can piss off and do our own thing alone and not have fun playing a game with each other.  I think that the former choice would be the better one."  People who are playing the game to win, or playing to crush the other players, or playing just to be a nuisance (whether they know they're doing it or not) are not good players, and a book to teach them how to play might help both them and the people they play with by making them more like the sort of folks we'd all like to game with.



That, sir, is pure and utter genius. All of it. I've never seen it said quite so well before.

NCSUCodeMonkey


----------



## NCSUCodeMonkey

Uller said:
			
		

> I consider it my job, as the DM to work in the interesting parts of PCs backgrounds into early plot hooks.  Then things go from there.  If you came to me and said your PC is hunting a specific monster, I'd probably use that as a hook in the first adventure or two.  Otherwise, I'd probably ask you to find another motivation (the former really is the most likely unless it was something really odd or unworkable).



I agree, and would add that I also think that the DM should work with the player to integrate their background into the setting. A player came to me last week with a new character and his background was unworkable for the setting. So, I made a few suggestions and he wound up with something that was exactly the same in spirit (i.e. gave his character the same motivations), but was actually in sync with the setting.

NCSUCodeMonkey


----------



## Jim Hague

So here's a question - directed at Uller and LostSoul - what do _you_ consider 'story'?  Are you speaking of having a GM that's got a specific beginning, middle and end in mind, with the PCs just sort of being dragged along, or are you opposed to story in the larger sense?  

By larger sense, I mean that a GM's got plot arcs and the like as an organic structure that acts and reacts to the PCs' actions or even inaction.  Neither one of you strikes me as the sort to look for a campaign where you just wander about and put the burden of keeping things interesting entirely on the GM, but I've been wrong before...

As to the 'why' of any sort of guide - because knowledge is never wasted.  Never.  Even lousy advice can be educational, at least in showing you what _not_ to do.


----------



## Radiating Gnome

Okay, another .02 . . . .

I tend to think that a book like this will struggle -- not for most of the reasons that we've mentioned (which are mostly from the point of view of the people posting in this thread, who are, as far as I can tell, mostly DMs, not players . . . but that's conjecture, I could be wrong).  

To begin with, the worst players won't read it, won't learn from it, and won't appreciate being handed it.  This isn't a new idea in the thread, but it's true as true can be -- the people who might read this are good players.  We can make them better, but they're good already.

The DMing guides and pointers spend some time talking about player archtypes -- looking across the DM's screen at the players, who they are and what they enjoy.  But what does the player see when he or she looks around the table?  

To begin with, any discussion of player archtypes should be presented as a discussion of the OTHER players at the table.  But much more interesting is the player's guide to DMs.  

Keep it focused on the player's side of the screen, though.  Don't fall into the trap of writing about the herculean work that the DM puts in to preparing the story, plots, cut scenes, NPCs, and everything else.  And don't spend too much time on the basics, the things that all players good enough to read this book would already have down (know the rules, bring your books and a pencil, be respectful of other players and the DM -- give everyone their time on stage, take notes and bring your old notes to each game, etc).  

Discuss some archtypes for DMs.  Is your DM a wargamer at heart?  Is he a screenwriter?  Is he first and foremost a judge? What are the characteristics of those archtypes?  What makes a good or bad DM (someone whose game is worth playing in). Help them understand the challenge and view from the other side of the screen, but not from the point of view of "this is what a DM wants to tell his players."

And think about a structure for the book that answers player how-to questions. How do you identify the things that you need to enjoy your game more, and what are some strategies for getting that out of the game?  How do you make combat more interesting?  How do you find more opportunities for role playing? How do you help the DM shape the story arc of the game?  

In the end, I'll bet we would all agree that the players that will read this book are the players who are already good players -- they're our allies at the table, the players we depend upon for one thing or another in the game.

OHHH, and another thought -- something I've been talking about with a player in my current game.  What about some chapters on being a good PARTY.  Something for the group, not for the individual.  The conversation with my player has me thinking a bit about paranoia, which (at least, in the old days when I played the original version) gave every character a position, an office to perform.  There are obvious roles that players and characters should fill, and the players ought to be encouraged to accept the roles that suit their characters and themselves, to rotate those around as necessary, and to respect the roles that other players and characters will play.  I mean, a party will need a healer, a tank, a scout, a faceman, and often it would help if there were a leader.  A table of players needs to have a bookkeeper, a notetaker (historian), a mapkeeper, etc. 

Wow.  This post is too long.  All I'm really trying to suggest is that it will help to shift the focus of the discussion away from what the DMs in us would like to tell our players (or would like to beat into their pointy little heads) and towards a presentation that is much more focused on what the player sees from his or her side of the screen, and how the player can do more to enjoy his or her own game experience, and the game experience of the rest of the table.


----------



## LostSoul

The Shaman said:
			
		

> However, in the examples you cited above, I would say you've created characters who's reasons for adventuring are too narrow - you are creating a character who is really a one-gimmick pony rather than a character who is likely to be engaged by a number of adventure possibilities.




I agree with you.  I think that players should come up with a number of NPCs with whom they have some sort of relationship.  That gives the DM a whole lot to work with.

I'd also let the players come up with new NPCs after the game has begun.  That will help allow the scope of the game to grow, so you're not always hanging around the starting town where all your NPCs are.

Let's say you're travelling to the Keep on the Borderlands.  You're still on the hunt for the orcs, or their leader, or the Ogre Mage.  But that's about it.  So you say, "How about I once met the lord of this place.  He didn't like the way I looked at him, so he gave me a scar to remember me by."

The DM might agree, or he could say, "No, he's a nice guy, he wouldn't do that.  How about you had an affair with his daughter, and his master-of-arms caught you two together, and he gave you the scar.  And the master-of-arms was reprimanded by the lord.  So now he really hates you."

The player says, "Yeah, cool, I can dig it."

Then the DM has the daughter (who was just made up on the fly) a captive of the cult in the Caves of Chaos.  And the master-of-arms, who was in love with the daughter until she rebuffed him, he was the one who betrayed her to the cultists.

That sounds pretty cool to me.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> One other thought - you've created this character that wants to pursue an ogre mage or orcs or whatever...but what if the other three or four players in the party want to hunt rats in the sewers? Are you expecting the other players to buy into your revenge-driven character just because that's what you want to play?




I think that the DM should try to work in whatever he can into the game.  He might have the wererat who's leading the rats in the sewers have something to do with the orcs, or the ogre mage, or whatever.  And he can tie in whatever else to the other PCs.  He might not be able to work in all the PCs, but if he tells the players that, it's not so bad.

I think that PCs should not be created in a vaccuum.  At best, you'd want to have a session dedicated to creating PCs; or at least deal with it via email or over the phone.  Then everyone can make a group that gels well together, and get the PC that they want.


----------



## LostSoul

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> So here's a question - directed at Uller and LostSoul - what do _you_ consider 'story'?  Are you speaking of having a GM that's got a specific beginning, middle and end in mind, with the PCs just sort of being dragged along, or are you opposed to story in the larger sense?
> 
> By larger sense, I mean that a GM's got plot arcs and the like as an organic structure that acts and reacts to the PCs' actions or even inaction.




I think that, as long as the choices I get to make are meaningful (in the here and now as well as down the road), and I get to make a lot of choices, it's good.  The "story" is what comes out of play.

When the DM has a beginning, middle, and end, you can't make choices.  You're playing through what he's already set up.  It's his story, and you don't have any impact on it.


----------



## Janx

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I see your point.  But you need to tell the player that he doesn't always have to follow the DM's plots if he's not interested in them.  There's a limit to that sort of thing.  Give the DM some slack to see where it's going, sure.  Always following his plots, no.
> ...snip....
> And sometimes the best advice is "Quit".




No disagreement here.  I think the next quote hits on our difference in expectations.



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> How about this:  "I was a farmer.  Today I went home and saw my wife being taken by orcs!"
> 
> DM: "Okay, you're going to hunt rats in the sewers."
> 
> Player: "That's lame, but if I don't follow his plot like this book says, I'll be doing something wrong."
> 
> I'd say that it's the player's job to start the story.  That's what his background is for.




I think we're getting closer to the crux of the matter (and it's a good idea for a section of the book, creating backgrounds and what to expect out of them).  Basicallly, LostSoul has a different expectation of what a background contains and is for than I do (and perhaps at least 3 other people agree with me).

I don't expect a background to contain an immediate plothook.  There should be nothing in it that says the PC's next thing to do is XYZ.  For example, LostSoul's background of "I was a farmer.  Today I went home and saw my wife being taken by orcs!" would be vetoed by me.  I don't want PCs providing me with anything immediate.  I want background to consist of references.  Such as, who trained you, how did you get your skills/class ability?  Describe your family.  What are your interests?   What's a long term goal?  I also tend to limit the kinds of pre-game events you can describe, basically nothing too specific or recent that would drastically set anything up.  I want backgrounds I can ignore or use, at MY discretion.  Some backgrounds will hint at great plot ideas to use, some won't.  I don't want any backgrounds that implicitly force me to do stuff (that's kinda like reverse direction railroading, and I think that may be a key factor on what DM's don't want in backgrounds).

Now, LostSoul, if you built a background for your PC to my method, can you see how my statement  "Another way to look at adventures is this: The DM's job is to START the story, provide a few hooks to an interesting adventure." would make sense?  I don't expect a player to provide me with an immediate plothook.  The reason is that some players get too ambitious in their backgrounds, putting in things that don't fit or aren't appropriate.  A 1st level PC has no business hunting down an Ogre magi.  Additionally, what if that immediate goal (which is rather short term) has to compete with a whole party's worth of individual immediate goals.

There are exceptions, some players have some pretty good ideas for stuff that will jump start the campaign.  But I absolutely don't want a player dictating exactly what and how my campaign will start.

As someone else pointed out, the backstory of "A bad guy killed my wife, I shall hunt him down and kill him" is rather limited.  How exactly do I hook in the other players?  I want a more open background, so I can encourage the party to team up and pursue a series of short term and long term goals together (as well as personal ones on the side).  Generally, most players don't do good backgrounds and planning to make a party that will logically be able to meet up and work together on something.

Ultimately, this is why the archetype story for D&D is meet in a bar, get a map, goto dungeon, kill stuff, take their stuff, go home, do it again next week.  In order to tell that style of story, I need player backgrounds that would ENCOURAGE that kind of behavior.

Now, as the game progresses past a few sessions, my style shifts to bring in more NPCs and incorporate elements of PC's past (both pre-campaign, and post 1st adventure), as well as to have more complex topics like "an ogre magi killed my wife while we were out in the dungeon, will you guys who have adventured with me for so long, aid me in my quest for vengeance."  Ultimately, I think my version of getting to the "ogre magi killed my wife" storyline is better AFTER the campaign has been running, than it is for a 1st level PC to try to get a bunch of nobody's together to help him.

Now, for my PC I just built, I had a fairly basic plan:
Backgroun for 1st level halfling rogue under a new DM
a few years ago, came from halfling community that had been overrun by orcs and such (couldn't name the place because the DM hadn't built all the world) 
His goal:
do some adventuring
get money
collect weapons and armor from dead monsters
get bag of holding
buy shop stall and sell used weapons and armor (cutting out middle man of normal weapons shop), increasing profit margin
develop good reputation in community
get involved in local government (election?)
Build a stable and nice home

That goal doesn't imply anything HAS to happen, merely that the halfling will try to follow the plan.  Initially, he has immediate hooks into being willing to follow any plot hook that leads to money and getting loot.  It calls for an event that happened in his past that isn't too dramatic and doesn't really change anything (halfling villages get overrun all the time...).  In this example, I didn't even come up with any names or such.  I may do so later, but for the first adventure, the DM had enough to go on, and could count on me to tackle the most common plot hooks.  That helps, because it gives the DM experience, so he can write more complex adventures later (which my background implies he is interested in).

Janx


----------



## Jim Hague

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think that, as long as the choices I get to make are meaningful (in the here and now as well as down the road), and I get to make a lot of choices, it's good.  The "story" is what comes out of play.
> 
> When the DM has a beginning, middle, and end, you can't make choices.  You're playing through what he's already set up.  It's his story, and you don't have any impact on it.




So it's rigid, linear stories that irk.  Having been stuck in more than one game where that was the case - player choice meaning very little - I can certainly see where it's just no damn good...which brings me to my next point.

People at the table who're only concerned with _their_ fun, and everyone else be damned.  The GM with the rigid, linear story is an example of this, as rae players who don't cooperate with the GM and fellow players to make it an enjoyable experience for everyone.  Reliquishing the spotlight doesn't mean that you get nothing to do; it simply means that someone else gets to shine for a moment.  Without that cooperation at the table (instead of compromise _per se_; IMO, going for compromise instead of cooperation is a quick way to dissatisfy everyone), you end up with a lopsided experience, and who wants that?


----------



## The Shaman

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think that the DM should try to work in whatever he can into the game.



This sort of collaborative world-building approach is one that some gamers like - personally I'm not necessarily one of them.

I agree that characters shouldn't be created in a vacuum, but that's not the same as your NPC example above, which I wouldn't be comfortable with as GM at all.


----------



## LostSoul

Janx said:
			
		

> I don't expect a background to contain an immediate plothook.  There should be nothing in it that says the PC's next thing to do is XYZ.  I also tend to limit the kinds of pre-game events you can describe, basically nothing too specific or recent that would drastically set anything up.  I want backgrounds I can ignore or use, at MY discretion.  Some backgrounds will hint at great plot ideas to use, some won't.  I don't want any backgrounds that implicitly force me to do stuff (that's kinda like reverse direction railroading, and I think that may be a key factor on what DM's don't want in backgrounds).




I think that's where we disagree.  As a player, I wouldn't want the DM to ignore whatever he wants.  It's my game too!  I'm telling the DM through my background what I want in the game.  If he ignores that, I wouldn't like it.

I think this is a big difference, and we'll never see eye-to-eye on it.  No problem.


----------



## Barak

Here's a few things I'd like to see in that book, with examples!

-If the DM allows something out of the ordinary for you, don't whine about your choice afterwards.

I had a player who wanted to play a Watcher.  Really badly.  That's some dumb half-gargoyle-half-dwarf race from some book.  I looked it over.  It was alright.  I warned the player "Fine.  But you -do- realize that it's a +2 ECL race, right?  Your Hit points are gonna suck bad."  Player said yes.  Two game sessions later, he's whining that his character has too few hit points, and should get 4d8 more Hit points, because gargoyles have Hit Dice.  Ugh.  Next time you ask me for something weird, you're getting a no, buddy.

-If the game is ongoing, and requires something specific to get your new character in, take that into consideration.

I'm running the WLD.  In that setting, the characters don't get out.  They don't visit towns.  When a character dies, the player's new character will have to go/be on the dungeon on his own.  So if you make your character, and I rack my brains to get your character where the party is, don't tell me "oh no, my character would -never- go there."  'Cause, well that won't work.


----------



## DamionW

Radiating Gnome said:
			
		

> Wow.  This post is too long.  All I'm really trying to suggest is that it will help to shift the focus of the discussion away from what the DMs in us would like to tell our players (or would like to beat into their pointy little heads) and towards a presentation that is much more focused on what the player sees from his or her side of the screen, and how the player can do more to enjoy his or her own game experience, and the game experience of the rest of the table.




Good post Gnome, and not too long.  Had some good points in there, particularly identifying DM archtypes and dealing with them.


----------



## jdrakeh

LostSoul said:
			
		

> When the DM has a beginning, middle, and end, you can't make choices.  You're playing through what he's already set up.




That's not true - _all_ stories, whether thay're pre-scripted or generated extemporaneously have a beginning, middle, and end. Every last one of them. Decrying unavoidable structure as a shortcoming of the GM is a cop out - it isn't true _and_ it avoids the issue of player responsibility.


----------



## DM_Jeff

>>One thing such a book should discuss is what the players can do when it's not their turn or the GM is giving long periods of attention to other players. After a fw minutres of just sitting there looking at my character sheet, even a good GM's descriptions begin to sound like droning.

1) Listen in for future reference. If the DM thinks it’s okay, and it’s reasonable the lone PC would later tell everyone what happened to them anyway, listening in might be fun. Just be careful not to interfere with advice or anything...after all, you’re not there!

2) Look up game materials. Check player D&D game books for some obscure ability your PC might get soon, or new ways to use the skills he or she already has. If the DM says it’s okay, he may ask you to look up something for him.

3) Be the prop master. If your group plays with miniatures and terrain, perhaps now is a good time to clear the table of accumulated houses and shrubbery and reorganize the party miniatures. If the materials are on hand, why not even paint a miniature.

4) Keep a party log. Now’s the perfect chance to scribble notes for your party’s log book, or your own notes.

5) Write in-character notes. Develop your PC by passing role-playing notes between players. Ask questions, resolve old debates, and explore your PC’s depth and further the richness of the game all at the same time.

6) Play a creature. Maybe that lone PC encounters a creature or two. What a hoot if the DM asks you to play a monster! Volunteering for this task may make a DM very happy!

7) Draw. You don’t have to be Larry Elmore. Draw a map of the area your characters are in. Try a character sketch or two.

8) Be the bar keep. Get your comrades-in-arms some soda or chips out of their reach. Or collect the money and call for a pizza.

9) Nature calls. Go to the bathroom or call your non-gaming spouse or significant other. After all, better to do these things now than when the whole party is knee-deep in combat!

10) Read Dragon Magazine. It is a source of continued useful gaming ideas and inspiration. 

11) Roll up another character. One of the best ways to learn the D&D rules is to create Player Characters due to the research involved in the creative process! Besides, you never know when your current character may give up the ghost.

12) Upkeep the treasure list. Divvy up some of the recent loot, appraise some of the gems, or discuss who might make best use of an item.

13) Up keep the kill sheet. While it doesn’t have to necessarily have to just log kills, traps overcome, NPC’s tricked or bypassed will aid your DM keep track of rewards at the end of a session. 

-DM Jeff


----------



## LostSoul

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> That's not true - _all_ stories, whether thay're pre-scripted or generated extemporaneously have a beginning, middle, and end. Every last one of them. Decrying unavoidable structure as a shortcoming of the GM is a cop out - it isn't true _and_ it avoids the issue of player responsibility.




If the DM _already has_ the beginning, middle, and end of his story written out, those events are going to happen no matter what choices you make.

The kind of story I want to see in an RPG is one that is only apparent after you finish the game.  "Oh hey, look at that, story."  Not one that has its beginning, middle, and end pre-written for me.


----------



## jdrakeh

LostSoul said:
			
		

> If the DM _already has_ the beginning, middle, and end of his story written out, those events are going to happen no matter what choices you make.




That makes more sense, but it still doesn't mean that players don't have choices, as you stated earlier.


----------



## LostSoul

I guess I meant meaningful choices.  So if there is a story out there, and it is already written, there's no way you can make meaningful choices.  

You might be able to pick from dungeon1 and dungeon2, but there's no point in going into that dungeon (edit: there's no meaningful choice being made), since when you come out it won't have mattered either way.  Things will be just the same, the plot will have advanced on its schedule, chug-chug-chuging down railroad valley.  

Unless, of course, you like dungeons just for the sake of dungeons, but then the whole story is just extra work that the DM is doing for himself.  Then the choices are more about what feat to take or what magic item to get and what to do in combat.  Which is cool.


----------



## jim pinto

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I guess I meant meaningful choices.  So if there is a story out there, and it is already written, there's no way you can make meaningful choices.
> 
> You might be able to pick from dungeon1 and dungeon2, but there's no point in going into that dungeon (edit: there's no meaningful choice being made), since when you come out it won't have mattered either way.  Things will be just the same, the plot will have advanced on its schedule, chug-chug-chuging down railroad valley.
> 
> Unless, of course, you like dungeons just for the sake of dungeons, but then the whole story is just extra work that the DM is doing for himself.  Then the choices are more about what feat to take or what magic item to get and what to do in combat.  Which is cool.




While I don't agree with everything you've posted on this thread, LostSoul, this is an excellent concern.

You are describing the difference between plot-driven and character-driven adventures. Dungeon-crawling is location-based, but can be part of either kind of campaign, or just be part of a dungeon-hopping campaign that fuels the tastes of wargamers and miniature players.

You as a player are obligated to tell your DM, you want to play in a character-driven adventure where your character can impact the world (and I would certainly intend to address this in the book). And your DM is obligated to say... well, that's not going to happen in this campaign, but I'll try it next time... or whatever his response is.

I've said goodbye to all sorts of gamers in my time who couldn't handle the character-driven campaign (which by the way is what I predominately run). Some people like being pulled by the nose (event-driven), or sitting back and letting the NPCs' quests for power take hold (plot-driven).

Anyway. Your concern is valid, but not every DM is going to be receptive to your play style. And not every DM is receptive to min-maxing, either.

Good posts, today.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

LostSoul said:
			
		

> How about this:  "I was a farmer.  Today I went home and saw my wife being taken by orcs!"
> 
> DM: "Okay, you're going to hunt rats in the sewers."
> 
> Player: "That's lame, but if I don't follow his plot like this book says, I'll be doing something wrong."




DM (thinking): Okay, I've written a few sessions worth of NPCs and encounters.  Soon the players will discover that their sleepy little town is actually the secret home of the Bandit King.  Will they crusade to stop him, or join his band of ruffians?  This should be exciting.  But first, it's into the sewers to fight some rats and discover evidence of intrigue brewing...

DM: Okay, do you have your characters ready?

Player 1: I'm Bob the Wizard.  I guess I'm probably the apprentice of the local wizard or something, and I've got dreams of becoming a powerful diviner and learning the secrets of the universe, particularly the outer planes.

DM: That's cool.  Sure, you're the apprentice of old McGillicuddy the wizard.  (notes down bit about outer planes for higher-level stuff)

Player 2: I'm Fred the Cleric.  I serve Heironius and I aspire to join a holy order of protectors of the crown under the banner of the god of valour.

DM: Okay, there's a temple just outside of town you can be from.  (makes a note to think up a holy protector prestige class with associated NPC organization)

Player 3: I'm Tom the Fighter.  Some orcs carried off my wife this morning and we have to go save her, now!

DM: Uh, well, actually I don't think there are any orcs in the area...

Player 3: No, there are orcs.  It says so in my character background, now you all have to come help me fight them!  My wife is kidnapped.  Do you want the orcs to kill her?

Players 1 & 2: Hey, nobody asked us if we wanted to fight orcs!

DM: I don't have anything like that prepared.  You see there are these rats...

Player 3: *siiiigh* Okay, whatever.  I guess you don't care about what I want to do.  Your plot is lame.  I hate this.  Why can't I do what I want to?  You're a crappy DM!

A bit overwrought, but the point is, it's a two way street.  The DM has to do actual work to prepare sessions and put together a game.  Some people can just wing it, making it up as they go along.  That kind of DM is great if you want to just wander off and see what kind of adventures you stumble across.  But most of them do things like write up statblocks, prepare encounters, and come up with overarching plots so that the events of the campaign hold together with some kind of sense.

Prep time is a big issue.  That's why lots of people rely on modules.  Of course modules are even more limited in player freedom, but how many people come on these boards and fondly remember White Plume Mountain or Temple of Elemental Evil?  Quite bit more than complain that the DM wouldn't let them leave Hommlet and go gallivanting off into Geoff instead of stopping the evil freakin' temple from summoning a demon queen.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

NCSUCodeMonkey said:
			
		

> That, sir, is pure and utter genius. All of it. I've never seen it said quite so well before.
> 
> NCSUCodeMonkey




Well, thank you!


----------



## The Shaman

Barak said:
			
		

> Here's a few things I'd like to see in that book, with examples!
> 
> -If the DM allows something out of the ordinary for you, don't whine about your choice afterwards.
> 
> I had a player who wanted to play a Watcher.  Really badly.  That's some dumb half-gargoyle-half-dwarf race from some book.  I looked it over.  It was alright.  I warned the player "Fine.  But you -do- realize that it's a +2 ECL race, right?  Your Hit points are gonna suck bad."  Player said yes.  Two game sessions later, he's whining that his character has too few hit points, and should get 4d8 more Hit points, because gargoyles have Hit Dice.  Ugh.  Next time you ask me for something weird, you're getting a no, buddy.
> 
> -If the game is ongoing, and requires something specific to get your new character in, take that into consideration.
> 
> I'm running the WLD.  In that setting, the characters don't get out.  They don't visit towns.  When a character dies, the player's new character will have to go/be on the dungeon on his own.  So if you make your character, and I rack my brains to get your character where the party is, don't tell me "oh no, my character would -never- go there."  'Cause, well that won't work.



I wanted to highlight this post for two reasons: (1) I agree with both points, and (2) I want to clue you all in on the fact that *Barak* is an excellent player who knows how to create a good background, IMHO.

*Barak* is a player in a d20 _Modern_ game that I'm GMing, a military adventure campaign. Knowing that his character would be fighting in an environment where just about everyone carries rifles, machine guns, or grenades, he chose to create a character with above average brawling skills, a former boxer dodging some bad choices that put him on the wrong side of the law.

*Barak* didn't expect me to change the engagements (encounters) specifically so that his character could show off his right hook - in fact, he said that he knew his character wasn't optimized for the kind of combat most prevalent in our game, but that it made the most sense for the character to have those skills and feats. He also said that perhaps the character could find time off-duty to do a little amateur boxing - at the outset of the game I encouraged the players to consider ways in which their characters would spend their leave time and suggested that we could create opportunities to roleplay these activities.

Without knowing it at the time he created the character, *Barak*'s character background played directly into a number of encounters that I planned for the game, and I was able to use material from his character backstory to expand on those encounters. Note that I didn't create these encounters with *Barak*'s character in mind - rather the background was specific enough to understand the character's motivations while general enough that I could then tie it into encounters already planned.

This to me is how a good character background influences both character creation and campaign development: mechanics are a function of character concept, and background is used to tie the character to the game-world, not as a source of encounters or plot hooks directed at that character.


----------



## Rel

I'm mostly replying at this point to get subscribed to this very interesting thread.  I'll have to catch up on where it's gone when I get back from out of town.

If I was going to sum up player advice into a few short sentences, they'd be these:

* Look for ways to "buy in" to the story rather than ways to "opt out".

* When your "thing" comes up (like combat for the Buttkicker or intense roleplaying for the Method Actor) embrace it fully.  That's why the GM put it in there.

* When somebody else's "thing" comes up, let them enjoy it.  And maybe even try to take pleasure in a friend being happy.  Don't crap on it by acting as bored as possible in the hopes that the GM will hurry up and get back to something you're interested in.

* Tell the GM the things that you really enjoyed about the session.  And tell him the things that you didn't care for so much.  But understand that those two categories might be reversed for another player.


----------



## LostSoul

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> A bit overwrought, but the point is, it's a two way street.  The DM has to do actual work to prepare sessions and put together a game.  Some people can just wing it, making it up as they go along.  That kind of DM is great if you want to just wander off and see what kind of adventures you stumble across.  But most of them do things like write up statblocks, prepare encounters, and come up with overarching plots so that the events of the campaign hold together with some kind of sense.




 A bit overwrought, but funny.

No, you're right, of course; it is a two-way street.  Player 3 made a few "errors" that would keep him from enjoying the game.

He didn't tell the other players or the DM about his background before he created the character.

He was completely unwilling to compromise.

He wasn't willing to see where things were leading.

If I was the DM, I'd say, "Okay, the orc took her to the sewers!  Unfortunately, it's plagued by rats and worse.  So maybe Tom goes to find Bob, a Wizard, and Fred, a cleric, who can help him out.  And that orc?  He had a red armband.  You can make a Knowledge (local) or Gather Information check to find out what that's all about."

Now maybe I didn't have any orcs statted up, but I can change one of the NPCs into an orc without too many problems.


----------



## LostSoul

jim pinto said:
			
		

> While I don't agree with everything you've posted on this thread, LostSoul, this is an excellent concern.




I haven't agreed with everything you've posted on this thread, but I agree with everything in your last post.

There's a lot of good stuff in this thread.


----------



## ThoughtBubble

Well, it's a bit late in the conversation, but let's pick this back up.



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand you.  Interested, though.




The arguement (to that point) went something like: 
Players should follow plot hooks.
Only bad players build characters who don't follow hooks.
Here's a bad DM not working with a player.

So, it seemed to be that your example of bad DMing was set up to counter the idea of characters not following hooks. "not the right type of hook" does deal with some of the situations that crop up, but I have personally dealt with players who seemed to create characters where any hook was the wrong type of hook. 

And I do like to think that I'm at least a mediocre DM.   

edit: hence, asking if the possibility of a bad DM who does not work with a player was enough to rule out players trying to work with any DM.



> I was talking about the DM, but you could apply the same logic to any relationship.




I agree, it does have to be give and take. However, I find that when I DM, I'm giving 90% of the time. I think that my players probably give about 10% and take about 40% of the time. They'd be taking less, but I do my darndest to force them all into dealing with each other in the same room. In previous games, they probably gave about 5% and took about 20%.  So, obviously there's a function of how much my time gets spread among the players, and how well. That's one of the reasons I point this at being one of my better games.

So, from my PoV, asking a player to give a little more is a small thing. Even if they give more than they get (which, as a player, I tend to do), they're still giving far less than I am as a DM.

And that could be a large part of why "Guy" our resident loner orphan who has no friends is the least satisfying character to have in the game. However, when he drew a cool picture of his character, it helped.   



> That brings up another good piece of advice:  Communicate your desires to the other players and the DM.  edit: Which is what you were saying.




Yeah, but it can't be said clearly enough, often enough. Speaking of which, I need to talk to my DM about not manhandling my background.

As long as we're here....I have this idea. I think that good play doesn't just 'happen'. Up until my recent superhero game, this particular group of players has never been strong on group cohesion or interaction. This is to the point where several party members will dispise another member of the party, who won't know about it because it's never mentioned.

Each of our games starts out the same, the DM comes up with an idea for a game, people make characters and roll stats. We expect it to all work out. I've recently been trying to convince people that we should think as a whole. I think we can have a better time of it if we make characters who have an honest reason for sticking together, working together, and talking.

It could be that, as a group, we just really suck.

But, my superhero game is going pretty well. There are still some rough spots, and there's way more shy or distainful charcters than I'd have liked, but there is some working towards actual discussion between the characters. So I think there's hope for the group.

I just think we need to make it happen.

Hence, that whole communication thing.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> I see where you're going in that the good players are already good and the bad players just shouldn't play. But I think there are certain antisocial behaviors that COULD be targetted with a book like this. If your enjoyment arises from you being the star of a game and driving the plot with your character's actions alone, maybe some light reading on cooperative plot development could be helpful. Maybe some of these people really don't know HOW to give up some of the spotlight to the other players and still enjoy themselves. There ARE methods out there, but maybe they don't know them. This is one example of a person who is enjoying themselves at the expense of other people at the table's play. So there needs to be other options than "Cater to their enjoyment and let them steal the show." and "boot them they're just a selfish person and no book can change that."




The thing is, these behaviors aren't just limited to the game. And they won't be controlled just by a book targeting the game. A tome that tells people not to be selfish won't have any effect on selfish people -- the issue is psychological. Selfish people can only not be selfish by a concentrated effort to change themselves. Which they can do, but it's not really any D&D book's place to tell them to do it.

No D&D book can help a person not be selfish. Some gamers probably need a self-help book, or maybe just a good group of friends to be a motive for change. But a book isn't going to solve this problem.

Thus, it seems like the book doesn't add anything to anyone's game. It won't make people who don't want to change change, and if those people wanted to change, they would do it with or without the book.


----------



## DarrenGMiller

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The thing is, these behaviors aren't just limited to the game. And they won't be controlled just by a book targeting the game. A tome that tells people not to be selfish won't have any effect on selfish people -- the issue is psychological. Selfish people can only not be selfish by a concentrated effort to change themselves. Which they can do, but it's not really any D&D book's place to tell them to do it.
> 
> No D&D book can help a person not be selfish. Some gamers probably need a self-help book, or maybe just a good group of friends to be a motive for change. But a book isn't going to solve this problem.




I think a distinction needs to be made between players who have some gaming weaknesses and players who have more generalized social interaction problems.  Are some player's gaming difficulties related to their social difficulties? Sure.  Would most of those player benefit from a book of this nature?  Heck, most of them would probably resent the advice it contained and become defensive.  However, some of them would be open to "becoming a better gamer."  

I have known some people who seem pretty well adjusted away from the table, but sit across from them at the gaming table and things go south pretty quick.  They become immature, selfish and rude.  Why?  In my experience, most of the players of this type look at gaming as a total escape and release.  They feel that they can act in a way that they don't normally act.  This is a stress release for them.  The inner spoiled child comes out to play and the 9-to-5 nice guy adult gets locked up for a few hours.  I am not sure if it they will take the advice offered in a gaming book that this is not acceptable behavior, but there is a strong probability that they might, I think.  It sounds too simple, but some of this type of player have probably never been told that in gaming escapism it is not okay to drop the conventions of acceptable social interaction.  They have possibly been bouncing from group to group or gaming with friends who tolerate the behavior.

Those gamers who do not possess much in the way of social skills will not get much if anything from this book and probably wouldn't read it.  They are not the only ones out there though.  There are also those gamres who are pretty good, but constantly seek to be better gamers.  They would definitely learn anything they could from a book of this type.  So, the book would have to work on several different levels.  It would have to have SOME basic advice, information on social contracts and such, as well as more intensive subjects like genre conventions, etc.  I also like the idea of a chapter for the "whole group" instead of aimed at individual players.

DM


----------



## Artellan

*burningvoid & LostSoul's style*

There's a fair number of 'Player Advice' articles on Heather Grove's BurningVoid website - http://www.burningvoid.com/rpg/play.php . They're divided into two groups - 'Character/Play' and 'Other'. For those that don't feel a book of this nature is worthwhile, do you feel that all of those articles are similarly useless?

Actually the BurningVoid website has a whole series of articles on Free Will in Roleplaying, where I think the concept of Free Will roughly equates to LostSoul's "meaningful decisions that affect the story".
http://www.burningvoid.com/rpg/gmfreewill.php

I've played in some of LostSoul's campaigns and I can shed some light on his DMing style ... He's one of those DMs that, if the players are always following his hooks wily-nily, he'll eventually get bored. He wants the players to participate in the creation of the 'story', to come up with ideas that send the campaign in new directions. If the players haven't been doing so, one of the symptoms of his getting bored is he'll run sessions where there aren't any obvious choices of what to do, no clues as to which 'adventures' he had prepared in advance. I remember the first time this happened and it was a bit unnerving - like a feeling that if I didn't go where I knew the DM wanted me to, my character might end up stepping off the end of the world - but I've since gotten used to it. Basically I just realized that he wants campaign INPUT. Sending the whole campaign spinning because of a choice I make during the game is cool, but it's pretty hard to do; luckily he's just as happy with emails between sessions stating character goals.

So as a player LostSoul wants to be able to have that same input into the campaign, whether through character background, communication with the DM about what he & his character want to do, creative in-session choices, etc.

Anyway, I think the discussion on this thread has been excellent, not just the free will vs. railroading stuff but all the ideas for player advice. It's neat to see the merit of player advice being debated ... I'm definitely in the 'a player advice book is worthwhile' camp. (Else I probably wouldn't have read all those BurningVoid articles.)

- Artellan


----------



## Artellan

The Shaman said:
			
		

> There's a reason some adventures and campaign settings and character archetypes become beloved classics - it's the elusive, hard-to-define-but-still-recognizible attribute called Quality. A game can be fun for the participants without posessing the enduring appeal that is one of the benchmarks of quality.



I'm commenting on an old post here but I just wanted to mention, I've never seen anyone apply Metaphysics of Quality (a la Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) to role-playing before. Well done!

- Artellan


----------



## Barak

Oh and one more thing, I do not think this book would be useful.

Most people who might be inclined to buy it would find nothing in there they didn't know, either consciously or unconsciously, and the people who might benefit from it either wouldn't buy it, or wouldn't think anything in it applied to -them-.


----------



## FickleGM

Barak said:
			
		

> Oh and one more thing, I do not think this book would be useful.
> 
> Most people who might be inclined to buy it would find nothing in there they didn't know, either consciously or unconsciously, and the people who might benefit from it either wouldn't buy it, or wouldn't think anything in it applied to -them-.




I sort of agree with this comment, but the funny thing is that this in no way invalidates the feasibility of this sort of product.  Look at the self help section of any bookstore and what do you find?  Yes, shelves full of stuff that people already know, either consciously or subconsciously.  So, while I would not purchase this, it may still have a place.


----------



## Barak

Hmm yeah.  I guess it might sell well to people who like to read stuff they can nod along to, saying all the while "I'm like that!"


----------



## The Shaman

Barak said:
			
		

> I guess it might sell well to people who like to read stuff they can nod along to, saying all the while "I'm like that!"



I managed a bookstore many years ago, and I had the opportunity to ask a psychologist why people bought self-help books - that was the EXACT reason that she gave!

That, and so they could look at their friends and say, "Oh, s/he is SO like that!"


----------



## The Shaman

Artellan said:
			
		

> ...I've never seen anyone apply Metaphysics of Quality (a la Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) to role-playing before. Well done!


----------



## jim pinto

*writing the book*

well.

i will say that i am in the process of dicussing this project with other writers.

doing it will not be for profit, but because i love this hobby and after 8 years of writing for it, i want to do something that doesn't follow the "bigger orc, with bigger sword" thread of books that have blotted the d20 landscape.

POD makes even the lowest selling books feasible, so long as the writers accept their not going to get rich doing this.

haha.

anyway.

people interested in contributing ideas, concerns, must haves, essays, or stories from their game sessions should contact me off list.

(this is in no way closure on this topic, but i'm in outline mode as we speak)


----------



## Barak

Man, I want you to know that I understand what you're going for, and that I'm not dissing you for trrying, or anything.

I just -really- don't see that sort of book helping anyone who needs help.

Not that it might not make money.


----------



## Henry

jim pinto said:
			
		

> people interested in contributing ideas, concerns, must haves, essays, or stories from their game sessions should contact me off list.




Burn the thought of COMMUNICATION  through that book with a foot-wide laser beam. 

I'll post some personal anecdotes, if time permits, next week.


----------



## Barak

That illustrates my point pretty well.  Think about it.  People who have a problem with communication don't generally read books.  They might use rule books, but that is not what we are talking about here.


----------



## jim pinto

Barak said:
			
		

> That illustrates my point pretty well.  Think about it.  People who have a problem with communication don't generally read books.  They might use rule books, but that is not what we are talking about here.




i don't think its as bleak as all that, but i don't think it'll sell millions of copies either

feh...

back to brainstorming

btw

that takes me to my second concept (which i elluded to in post #1)

the concept of player primers... at this point i think i'll save it for the book, but there's a lot to be said for dolling out information to pcs slowly... instead of letting them know everything about the red wizards of FR (or whatever)

- jim


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

LostSoul said:
			
		

> A bit overwrought, but funny.
> 
> No, you're right, of course; it is a two-way street.  Player 3 made a few "errors" that would keep him from enjoying the game.
> 
> He didn't tell the other players or the DM about his background before he created the character.
> 
> He was completely unwilling to compromise.
> 
> He wasn't willing to see where things were leading.
> 
> If I was the DM, I'd say, "Okay, the orc took her to the sewers!  Unfortunately, it's plagued by rats and worse.  So maybe Tom goes to find Bob, a Wizard, and Fred, a cleric, who can help him out.  And that orc?  He had a red armband.  You can make a Knowledge (local) or Gather Information check to find out what that's all about."
> 
> Now maybe I didn't have any orcs statted up, but I can change one of the NPCs into an orc without too many problems.




Well, isn't that just railroading again?  Sure, the player's background is being used, but no matter what, they're going into those damn sewers.  It's just that now, the DM has to contrive ways to get them in there, regardless of what they had in mind.  Wouldn't it be better if the players and DM came together to work out a way to get them involved in his plot instead of the DM having to shoehorn the characters into it?  That's why a player's guide to getting involved in the story could be a good addition to a book on "how to play".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this essentially how they recommend it be done in White Wolf games?  Everyone sit down together and work out where they want the plot to go and the part their character should play in it, before they even really get going on the roleplaying?  Isn't that part of what the Prelude is usually about...getting the characters integrated in the plot and with each other before scene one?


----------



## jim pinto

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, isn't that just railroading again?  Sure, the player's background is being used, but no matter what, they're going into those damn sewers.  It's just that now, the DM has to contrive ways to get them in there, regardless of what they had in mind.  Wouldn't it be better if the players and DM came together to work out a way to get them involved in his plot instead of the DM having to shoehorn the characters into it?  That's why a player's guide to getting involved in the story could be a good addition to a book on "how to play".
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this essentially how they recommend it be done in White Wolf games?  Everyone sit down together and work out where they want the plot to go and the part their character should play in it, before they even really get going on the roleplaying?  Isn't that part of what the Prelude is usually about...getting the characters integrated in the plot and with each other before scene one?




yes. if any books have touched on this subject at all, its the player's guides to the various worlds of darkness.

but two pages in the back of player's guide to mage does not exactly address the level of responsibility player's should show to help create a more co-operative environment.

awkward? do you want to contribute?


----------



## jdrakeh

Jim, 

As I said elsewhere on this thread, I'd be interested in contributing a section about social contracts and playing to expectations (as defined therein) - but for some reason I can't send a PM to you. So, if you would, please drop _me_ a line at jdrakeh [at] softhome [dot] net

Thanks much.


----------



## LostSoul

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Well, isn't that just railroading again?  Sure, the player's background is being used, but no matter what, they're going into those damn sewers.  It's just that now, the DM has to contrive ways to get them in there, regardless of what they had in mind.




Interesting question.  Is it railroading?  What is railroading?  I think it's the inability to make meaningful choices.  I'm going to look at the example based on that reading.

The player in the example has defined his own goal as it relates to the plot.  (Maybe not his goal as it relates to play; maybe he wants to test himself in combat, or deal with issues of trust and loss, or whatever, and none of that is addressed explicitly in the example.)

Anyway.  He's got his own goal.  He's saying, "This is what is important to me."  He's making a meaningful choice, because he's choosing to do something that matters to him (instead of following the DM's plot willy-nilly).

The specifics of the adventure are open, but I doubt many players would want to dictate all of that in the beginning.  What they want is to make a meaningful choice.  Does going into the sewers - because that's what the DM has planned - mean that his choice to go after his wife is not meaningful?  I don't think so.

What would make it more meaningful?  If he had a choice between going after his wife and something else.  That "something else" would have to have enough allure so that it's not a simple choice.  "My wife was taken by orcs!  I have to hunt for her in the sewers.  But that hag from the forest has been taking a lot of interest in my kid.  If I go after my wife, I can't watch over my kid.  If I go after my kid, what happens to my wife?"

The DM would have to make that choice have impact.  If he goes after his wife, his kid is going to be in a bad way, maybe possessed by a demon or whatever.  If he takes care of his kid, facing off against the hag, his wife gets the stockholm syndrome and when he does finally meet up with her she wants nothing to do with him.  "If you really cared about me you would have come to save me!"

Okay, that's a lot of speculation that goes beyond the example I posted.  To look at just the example, he's making the choice - do what is important to me.  He's going to have to go through the DM's adventure, no matter what that is, since that's what happens in D&D.  (Maybe in some other game system it'd be different, who knows.)  But because he's saying, "This is why I'm adventuring, this is what it's all about for me," I think that there isn't railroading in the example.

Well, that's my opinion.  What do you think?  I'm really interested to hear from someone who disagrees.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be better if the players and DM came together to work out a way to get them involved in his plot instead of the DM having to shoehorn the characters into it?  That's why a player's guide to getting involved in the story could be a good addition to a book on "how to play".




Yes!  It would be much better.  Then the DM can take the input from the PCs and give them what they're looking for.  He could have the orc hunt for the one guy, a lot of undead for the cleric who took Improved Turning, and an imp for the guy who's interested in planar creatures.

I agree with the advice "Get involved with the story".  But I'd say that the story has to be _your own_.  (Unless you like being a cog in the great wheel of the DM's story; that's cool too.  I don't think many people enjoy that though - especially me!  )  Framing it as "following the DM's plot" is bad advice, in my opinion.  Saying that "If you like to tell stories, you should put a lot of work into your character so that, through him/her, you can tell your own story" I would totally dig.


Re: White Wolf: I have no idea, never having played nor read through a WW book.


----------



## LostSoul

Artellan said:
			
		

> I've played in some of LostSoul's campaigns and I can shed some light on his DMing style ... He's one of those DMs that, if the players are always following his hooks wily-nily, he'll eventually get bored.




This is important to understand where I'm coming from.  Forever, I've felt like I've been railroading in ever campaign I've been in.  I'd write "the plot", and if the PCs did something I didn't expect, I'd roll with it no problem.  But I became good enough at it (or my players felt like they had to/wanted to do what I had planned) that what I had written up was exactly what came out in play.

So I'd get frustrated with myself (and, in weaker moments, my players) but I had no idea how to do anything differently.  I wanted the players to tell _me_ their stories, but how does that happen?  Every now and then I'd stumble upon something that made it happen, but I had no idea why it occured and what to do to make it happen more often.

So recently I've had an epiphany of sorts, and I see that giving them hard choices to make (in the Rat Bastard DM style) is where it's at.  I argue against railroading because I did it for so long, lessening my enjoyment of the game for so long, that I don't want anyone else to get caught in that trap.  

Actually, that's not it - I'm arguing against my old self, and the way I used to do things.


----------



## jim pinto

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Jim,
> 
> As I said elsewhere on this thread, I'd be interested in contributing a section about social contracts and playing to expectations (as defined therein) - but for some reason I can't send a PM to you. So, if you would, please drop _me_ a line at jdrakeh [at] softhome [dot] net
> 
> Thanks much.




can someone explain why post 124 has my signature on it, but post 147 does not?!?

j-drake... e-mail me whenever

and yes, anything you'd like to contribute would be awesome


----------



## LostSoul

jim pinto said:
			
		

> can someone explain why post 124 has my signature on it, but post 147 does not?!?




Only one .sig per page.


----------



## jdrakeh

jim pinto said:
			
		

> can someone explain why post 124 has my signature on it, but post 147 does not?!?




That's what threw me!


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

jim pinto said:
			
		

> yes. if any books have touched on this subject at all, its the player's guides to the various worlds of darkness.
> 
> but two pages in the back of player's guide to mage does not exactly address the level of responsibility player's should show to help create a more co-operative environment.
> 
> awkward? do you want to contribute?




If there were two of me, sure.  But despite the volume I post here, I actually have very little time to do anything but work these days.  I've got time to spend 15 minutes here and there emptying my head onto a message board, but not the time to write any polished essays or guides.  Thanks for asking, though, and feel free to rip anything you like from anything I post.  

edit: If you ever do that, and would like to credit me, just let me know and I'll send you my real name. (I don't care about being credited, for the record)

If this project doesn't see daylight until the summer, my tune might change, since that's when I get free time.


----------



## jim pinto

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Well, that's my opinion.  What do you think?  I'm really interested to hear from someone who disagrees.




i think this was addressed before, but essentially this is a bad background concept. its scope is so limited, that i as DM would make you find the orc dead on the side of the road on the way to town, your wife, miraculously alive.

creating a limited revenge background (unless all the pcs are on the same revenge adventure) is short-sighted. it limits campaign potential and it limits your own choices... why would anyone make a character that only wants to do one thing? 

certainly railroading adventures are bad for a player like you, but railroaded PCs are equally bad for a DM like me.

i grow weary of players that showing up demanding i entertain them, with a 20 str half-orc that only wants to get drunk and kill peasants.

a better background is this... my wife and son were killed... i have nothing else to live for. so i'm packing up my mule, rake, and +2 shovel and seeing what lies beyond the horizon... i want to see the world before i die kind of character.

your version of the PC has no need to adventure once your kid and wife are safe.

'BAM! you win.'


----------



## jim pinto

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> If there were two of me, sure.  But despite the volume I post here, I actually have very little time to do anything but work these days.  I've got time to spend 15 minutes here and there emptying my head onto a message board, but not the time to write any polished essays or guides.  Thanks for asking, though, and feel free to rip anything you like from anything I post.




i will steal from you liberally without guilt


----------



## LostSoul

jim pinto said:
			
		

> i think this was addressed before, but essentially this is a bad background concept. its scope is so limited, that i as DM would make you find the orc dead on the side of the road on the way to town, your wife, miraculously alive.




This is very strange to me.  You've got something that you can play with for a long time.  I hunt down the orc.  Oh, he's working for the Bandit King?  I hunt him down too.  I find him? Who's to say that my wife will be just like I remember?

There are a ton of ways to play out that basic concept.

Whereas... "I'm an adventurer" is nice to hear, when you're the DM, because then you don't have to do anything different.  Okay, well, we can play this module, or that module, or Dragonlance, or whatever.  He'll like them all.

And you know what?  If I do find my wife and kid, and "BAM!  I win!" happens, I can always make a new character.  I did what I wanted to do, I'm happy.

But forget about that concept.  It was a simple one-liner I came up with on the spot.  Is it that you don't like a player to tell you what he wants to do at the beginning of the game?  Or is it that my example sucked ass?  If the latter, tell me what kind of characters would work for you.


----------



## LostSoul

Oh, and:



			
				jim pinto said:
			
		

> i grow weary of players that showing up demanding i entertain them, with a 20 str half-orc that only wants to get drunk and kill peasants.




Players have a right to be entertained.  Just like the DM has a right to be entertained.  If it's the 20 STR half-orc that wants to kill peasants that bothers you, tell the guy that you don't want to play like that (which is pretty much the same as saying, "We play D&D" or "We play Vampire").


----------



## jim pinto

LostSoul said:
			
		

> This is very strange to me.  You've got something that you can play with for a long time.  I hunt down the orc.  Oh, he's working for the Bandit King?  I hunt him down too.  I find him? Who's to say that my wife will be just like I remember?
> 
> There are a ton of ways to play out that basic concept.
> 
> Whereas... "I'm an adventurer" is nice to hear, when you're the DM, because then you don't have to do anything different.  Okay, well, we can play this module, or that module, or Dragonlance, or whatever.  He'll like them all.
> 
> And you know what?  If I do find my wife and kid, and "BAM!  I win!" happens, I can always make a new character.  I did what I wanted to do, I'm happy.
> 
> But forget about that concept.  It was a simple one-liner I came up with on the spot.  Is it that you don't like a player to tell you what he wants to do at the beginning of the game?  Or is it that my example sucked ass?  If the latter, tell me what kind of characters would work for you.




this IS a great setup, if you work it out with the DM a week ahead of time... if he knows about it before the game starts. i apologize if i assumed you were dropping it on him.

i think DMs that have hit snags come up with smarter starts to campaigns anyway though...

instead of... make some characters for next week, we're playing DnD... instead they do something like... all of you are lawful neutral or neutral good characters ... eagerly trying to become paladins in the "church of banana hammock" (in a game world where paladin is a prestige class, not a base class)....in order to prove your worth to the church, you'll be going to the village of robot junction to uncover the source of a plague that could hurt the kingdom if it spreads (pcs receive one potion of cure disease each).

now the DM has told the pcs GENERALLY what the campaign (or at least the first adventure) is about. anyone making a character that wants to avenge his wife needs to understand that this first adventure takes precedence. he shouldn't complain if his personal story isn't catered to in the early acts of the "story."

so.

in retrospect, your example fails if there's no planning on either side of the screen, but succeeds if the PC is flexible enough to follow the trail of the orc into the sewers.

(btw) the DM would be wise to put the PCs in a situation where someone saves the orc-hunter's life.... strengthening the bond of the party.


----------



## jim pinto

duplicate post.

edited version on page 5.


----------



## jim pinto

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Oh, and:
> 
> 
> 
> Players have a right to be entertained.  Just like the DM has a right to be entertained.  If it's the 20 STR half-orc that wants to kill peasants that bothers you, tell the guy that you don't want to play like that (which is pretty much the same as saying, "We play D&D" or "We play Vampire").




i don't believe they have a right to be PASSIVELY entertained... i'm not a showman working the crowd for free...

pay me if you want to demand i run you through a level of diablo

but

they do have a right (and I would argue an obligation) to ACTIVELY increase the entertainment value of the game.

now, the DM is getting something back for all his/her hard work


----------



## LostSoul

jim pinto said:
			
		

> now the DM has told the pcs GENERALLY what the campaign (or at least the first adventure) is about. anyone making a character that wants to avenge his wife needs to understand that this first adventure takes precedence. he shouldn't complain if his personal story isn't catered to in the early acts of the "story."




Totally agree.

"Church of the Bannana Hammock?"  That's hilarious.

"We're the biggest church around."

"You guys have the most worshipppers?"

"Nope."

"You have the most temples, then?"

"Nope."

"What, are you all giants?"

"Something like that."


----------



## LostSoul

jim pinto said:
			
		

> i don't believe they have a right to be PASSIVELY entertained... i'm not a showman working the crowd for free...




Agree.  Step up or shut up.


----------



## DamionW

LostSoul-

I have an honest question for you:  What about DMs that have segments of the campaign world that move on without the PCs decisions?  Say the party stumbles on orcs laying waste to a farm plantation.  When the local paladins hear of this, they launch a crusade against the orcs to drive them deep back into their homeland.  The players can join the crusade or watch it march off in the sunset because they don't care.  Either way, once the paladins leave, some other monsters come out of the woodwork to attack the village the paladins used to protect.  The PCs have the choice to fight the baddies or help them raid the village, the DM won't stop them.  However, the PCs, barring outstanding diplomacy skills or tactical miracles can't stop the paladins from marching off, that's their sworn duty.  Once the paladins have left, the monsters will come out of the woodwork, they can't pass up the unprotected village.  Is that railroading, or is that the DM deciding how NPC elements are going to maneuver through his game world?  I'm asking because I have a plot like this planned.  The PCs don't HAVE to take any one action, but certain NPC forces are going to move through the world in their own way because the party is simply too low level to stop them.  They have to advance and grow stronger before they can alter the motions of the world's different factions.  Is your definition of railroading not having choices, or not having "meaningful" choices, where meaningful means they can change the flow of the NPC world?  I honestly want to understand your mindset in that.


----------



## LostSoul

DamionW said:
			
		

> I have an honest question for you: <snip cool stuff> Is your definition of railroading not having choices, or not having "meaningful" choices, where meaningful means they can change the flow of the NPC world?  I honestly want to understand your mindset in that.




I think that's a great plot.  The players have to make a decision about what they want to do.  If I was the DM, either way they went, I'd tell them the negative impacts of their choice.  If they then changed their minds, I'd tell them the negative impacts of that choice.  What you end up is with players deciding what is more important to them.

Meaningful, to me, means that the player gets to do what he wants with his character.  (Barring bad dice rolls, poorly thought-out choices, etc.)  It means that they affect the NPCs and the game world, but they don't control them.  The NPCs do their own thing, and if the PC interacts with them, they either keep doing what they were (if the PC liked it, or he failed to change them) or they go another way (which will also have consequences).

If the Fighter wants to be the best swordsman in the world, the NPCs are going to react to that.  He will still get to pursue what he wants - having to make choices about how important it really is to him - but the NPCs will do their own thing.

I don't know; maybe it's about not getting in the player's way.  Rolling with his desires.  And since it's a two-way street, he'll have to roll with the DM's (and the other players') desires as well.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

Radiating Gnome said:
			
		

> To begin with, the worst players won't read it, won't learn from it, and won't appreciate being handed it.



Nonsense.  If that were true then the same must apply to bad DM's - they would never read, learn from, or appreciate being handed any of the TONS of DM advice books and articles that have been written.  Note that many of those writings are devoted to dealing with problem players.  But it is true that there are also bad DM's despite all the advice.  So why is it NOT a good idea to start writing advice for players to deal with bad DM's, just as we have more than enough advice for DM's to deal with bad players?  Good for the goose; good for the gander.


> The DMing guides and pointers spend some time talking about player archtypes -- looking across the DM's screen at the players, who they are and what they enjoy.  But what does the player see when he or she looks around the table?



The SAME variety of player archetypes that they should be given advice on how to deal with as fellow PLAYERS.  Everyone at the table must deal with a problem player or a problem DM.  And that's just one slice of the advice that players could and should be given.  Nearly EVERYTHING that you can give a DM advice for handling you can give a player advice for handling.

You can advise a DM how to craft a more interesting encounter - and you can advise a player how to turn _repeatedly_ uninteresting encounters into something better from the PC end.  You can advise a DM how to maintain consistent pacing - and you can advise a player how not to _sabotage_ a DM's already difficult job of pacing.  Etc.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Interesting question.  Is it railroading?  What is railroading?  I think it's the inability to make meaningful choices.



There are two types of railroading.  First is when there ISN'T an option and the DM OPENLY disallows any deviation from his dictated, scripted adventure.  But more commonly railroading is nothing more than the AWARENESS that your choices are irrelevant.  It is possible for your choices to be irrelevant _without_ being "railroaded".

For example, let's say I prepare an adventure to... rescue the princess.  I present the PC's with several "plot hooks": one PC gets clues about his long-lost sister, there is a rumor in the taverns about a dangerous ogre having moved into the area and killing people, and the party together witnesses an altercation between two nobles.  What the PC's don't know is that ALL of those hooks are going to lead into my "rescue the princess" adventure because the princess has been captured by a nefarious individual hired by a noble to kidnap his rival's daughter.  The rumors of the ogre are just that, but they've been spread in order to draw attention away from the truth.  The sister of the PC had been kidnapped by the aforementioned nefarious individual and in the unfolding adventure I've cooked up the PC may find his sister, or simply acquire more clues as to her fate/whereabouts from Mr. Nefarious.

Now at the time the PC's make their decision about which of the very different plot hooks to follow they do not FEEL railroaded, they don't know they're being "railroaded" but in a manner of speaking they are.  Their decision is actually irrelevant - each option will lead to my prepared adventure.  But again, they don't KNOW that and there is no feeling of it by the players, and thus they don't fight against it.

At worst, at the end of my adventure, after having discovered that their original choice about the plot hooks was irrelevant they might feel somewhat railroaded.  But then it's possible that all the plot hooks might NOT have been followed/played out during my adventure.  Any thing I have not formally established I can freely change.  If the players only follow up through the altercation between nobles they can rescue the princess and possibly capture/kill the nefarious guy - but I don't have to have that clue about the PC's lost sister lead still lead to him, and I don't have to have the Ogre remain a red herring but can build my next adventure around him.  Again, the PC's are technically being railroaded but because they don't KNOW it/don't FEEL it, as far as their concerned there's no railroading involved.

Railroading is simply PERCEPTION of irrelevancy of choice.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

BTW, my contribution to the book would pretty much boil down to my "D&D Manifesto" at http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/manifesto.htm  I think I started with about a dozen points and I've added/revised a bit here and there and it's grown to 19.  I haven't looked at it in a while but it should be reasonably current.  It's also written from the viewpoint of being House Rules, but it does deal with issues being discussed in the thread here.  I was proud when I originally wrote it to have not made it a list of demands but an attempt to clearly and succinctly state opinions on the basics of playing the game, as well as solicit responses.


----------



## Andor

I didn't slog through the 5 pages of this thread so I don't know if it's been pointed out, but how to be a good player is somewhat campaign dependant.

Some things always apply. Don't eat all the muffins. Don't sleep during game. Do know what your character can do and how the rules work.

But a play style that makes you a wonderfull player during a game of High Court intrigue in feudal japan could make you a complete prat during a bug hunt game, and vice versa. 

If the GM and all the other players want to play a highly tactical combat oriented game, then the guy who wrote 30 pages of backstory and took (Skill Focus: Basketweaving) for roleplaying reasons but has no combat utility is the disruptive player. 

And there are complex issues, frex in a Swashbuckling campaign a player with no social skills makes a character who is a good campaign fit and does have high social skills. Nontheless he might bring the mood down when all the other players actually RP their flowery speeches and the poor guy just says "My character tries to convince the duke we're on his side. *roll* 34 Diplomacy". This is not the players fault but it may be a problem.


----------



## Steverooo

*Some Thoughts of Mine:*

I have to agree, the Mongoose comments should have been edited out... 'nuff said.  Peace!

The book sounds good, I might buy it and read it.  (I think I'm a good player, but while some agree, others disagree.)  Anyway...

I think, even though this is a PLAYER'S book, that a section on "Dealing With Problem Players" is called for!  "Whiners" whine for one of two reasons: either A) They want something, or B) They don't want something.  In either case, it seems easier, to me, to find out WHY they're whining, and see what can be done about it.  Again, this IS something that the players can help the GM with!  Leaving the GM to handle "the jerk" puts more strain on him, and ignores the power of peer-pressure.

In a group where I was an officer, we had some occasional problems with someone in the audience berating the President, while he was trying to run a meeting.  Even after the President had answered his question, the guy kept interjecting, repeating his original objections (which had already been answered).  The President later suggested that, in future cases like that, that someone else in the audience should jump in, and "take the floor" from the objecter, pointing out that this topic had already been addressed...  This seems to work better than vain repetition, or trying to ignore the objecter.

PCs can do the same thing with problem players, as well.  After the GM has heard them out, and answered them, if they start up the same objections, again, the other players can say "Dude, you already said that!  The GM said no.  Move on!"  After two or three other players have said this, the whiner will probably realize that it aint working, this time, and move along.  Do it often enough, and they'll either learn, or leave.

As an example of a "Whiner", and why he "whines", it has always bothered me how _unheroically unskilled_ my PCs often are... so much so that I have written several pieces to help "fix" these perceived problems, even getting a couple of them published.  One of these was "Tracking: It's More Than Just 'Duh!  Deh Went Dattaway!'"  Another was on Background Skills.

Another "whine" of mine is that I like to play Stealthy, Perceptive characters, especially woodsmen.  Outdoorsmen, survivalists, somebody who is at home in any terrain, and who can do anything I see in a survival manual...  The problem is, the rules don't allow some of it!  I can't play a Ranger who sets snares and traps!

Why?  Because any trap has a CR, and the DMG states that it takes 1,000 GP and one WEEK of work per point of CR to make a trap!

Now if my PC were trying to build a bear trap, out in the wilderness, I could see that... but a simple snare?  Even a complex snare?  A covered pit (with or without sharpened stakes in the bottom)?  A limb-trap?  A net trap?

A (mechanically) simple snare takes about six to 10 seconds to set.  It's about DC:2.  The VERY FIRST TIME I set a complex (dangle, strangle) snare, when I wasn't sure what I was doing, it took me less than 15 minutes.  I argue that this is an integral part of the Ranger's ability to "Find food and water in the wild" DC:10 Survival skill (which ordinarily takes 1/2 day, or about eight hours -- plenty of time to set a trapline).  A Ranger (or a Barbarian, or a Druid, or anyone else with Survival or Craft (Trapmaking) skill) should be able to do this.  Craft (Trapmaking) is there for the Rogues and Bards, and other interested PCs without access to Survival.

Look at the description of the _Detect Snares and Pits_ spell...  Snares, deadfalls, and pits are specifically mentioned, there, as being easier to detect than the standard mechanical or magical traps.  Likewise, they should be easier to set, too.  Call them "CR 0", and allow them to be set in a relatively short amount of time (1D20 minutes or less, depending upon complexity).  This gives the PCs a few new options for defending their bases, and the bad guys can do it, too...

"Okay, you guys trailed the Orcs with Fred's wife into the forest, and now are coming out of it, near the mountains.  You see some caves, ahead, but can't tell if the tracks lead into one, from here.  Everyone roll your Spot checks..."

Fred: "I got the highest, rolled an 18, total."

"You can't see, from here.  What do you want to do?"

Jerry: "We follow the tracks, weapons ready."

"Same order?"

Jerry: "Yeah!"

_GM looks at marching order._  "Okay, Fred, Jerry, make two Reflex saves, please!"

Tom: "Oh, no!  Do we hear a _Fireball_?  What do we see?"

"Nothing... yet!"

Fred: "A 19... and a four...  Oops!  What happens to my PC?"

"You step on something, which quickly slithers out from under your feet.  You see something moving in a tree, nearby...  Jerry?  What did you roll?"

Jerry: "An eight, and a 12!  What happens?"

"You all see Jerry's PC yanked up, off his feet, flipped upside-down, and whisked through the air, swinging from a rope around one ankle.  He slams into a nearby tree, where he is impaled by a couple of sharpened tree limb stubs!  You take 2D6 damage, for... (rolls) seven points of damage, and are now hanging upside-down, by one leg.  Roll to see if you retained your weapon!"

So, maybe sometime you WANT to listen to a "Whiner", huh?  Take a page from their notes, when they know what they're talking about, and use them...

More on other "Problem Players", later...


----------



## Steverooo

*"Threads", by Rick Grant*

The following bits of sheer genius are by my good friend, and former GM.  I fergitz why I have an "assistance" attribute, but...

=============================

Adventure Threads in RPGs
Copyright 1998-2005 by Rick Grant
(with assistance from Steve C)


	One of the most frustrating situations for a gamemaster to find himself in is to have spent countless hours developing a detailed adventure, only to find his player characters wandering off in a totally different direction. The players end up in a part of the game world that the referee has yet to develop, forcing him to create an adventure on the spur of the moment and forget about all of the detailed work he already had prepared.  On the other hand, nothing will ruin a game faster than a gamemaster who insists on leading his players around by the nose - if players want that, they go to the movies.

	So what's a referee to do? How can you make sure that your players experience all of the thrills and excitement that you've built into your pre-prepared adventure, without having them feel like you're force-feeding them or pre-determining the fate of their characters?

	One way is to talk to your players beforehand to determine exactly what they want in the gaming experience and then design your adventure to their specific tastes. But as many a gamemaster has learned, many players don't know what they like in a game until they see it - and by then, it's too late.

	Another solution is to prepare almost nothing and try to invent a scenario on the fly as the players roam the world. When done correctly, the results can be amazing, as the imaginations of the players and the gamemaster cooperate to create an original story. But most often, especially in the hands of an inexperienced referee who is not "on his game", the adventure bogs down and players soon lose interest.

	A better way is to use a framework of seemingly unrelated events, or what I call "threads", that can be used to provide a strong framework for an adventure while allowing the flexibility the players need to determine their own fates. This technique involves spinning a series of well-developed mini-adventures that can be inserted into the game at the appropriate time to steer the players in the direction of the pre-prepared adventure.

          This article will detail what threads are; the pre-requisites for their use; their anatomy; how they are used in a game; and how to create your own adventure threads (and use them within your RPG of choice).  It includes a completely threaded generic Fantasy RPG adventure, along with three examples of how the adventure might turn out, illustrating the use of various threads and motivations.

	One benefit of the threads system is that it allows the players to assist in the creation of the adventure, which can provide some surprises for the gamemaster as well as some exciting opportunities to think on his feet. But the biggest advantage is that it allows the referee to direct the flow of the game without making it obvious that he is leading his players into the adventure.

	In a nutshell, adventure threads are similar to rumors with the addition of a fair amount of detail. About twenty good threads should prepare a gamemaster for an exciting game - and we'll get into exactly how they are developed and used later. But first, there are some pre-requisites.

PRE-REQUISITES FOR THREAD USE

	In order to use the thread system, you must already have an established gaming environment or campaign background. The players must already have a feel for the world they will be gaming in. This background should include, but is not limited to, detailed campaign maps, established high-level non-player characters, and well known tensions existing within the status quo.

	Campaign environments are widely available, and every RPG has at least one that has been detailed for use in the game. To develop your own, you must be sure to add enough detail that the players have a set of common expectations for the behavior of non-player characters within the game. For instance, the world must be developed well enough that all players know not to venture into the Misty Forest, or try to cross the Rapid River, or whatever. If a thread mentions that a child was kidnapped and dragged off in the direction of the Weathering Mountains, and that's supposed to be a deadly place in the game world, then all of the players should know this going into the adventure.

	In general, the campaign world should contain all of the work that a gamemaster would normally complete for a given adventure. You should have a detailed area mapped out (a tavern, spaceport or other meeting place) and a treasure or expected adventure outcome - usually something good that you want the players to end up with at the end of the adventure. These are jobs that most gamemasters do before embarking on the work of getting their players to travel down the right road.

	High level NPCs have a balancing effect on a campaign world, and should be established in the minds of the players from the onset. If the King is a kindly but sickly man who is struggling to maintain his power, the players should have this information early in the game. If there exists a powerful wizard who is evil, or a mad scientist in a Sci-Fi game, then the players likewise need to have that background. As you will learn, most threads do not deal with high-level NPCs as these characters are semi-permanent, stabilizing factors in the game world. But threads will very often be related in some way to these high-level personalities, or will have effects on their desires or goals.

	And finally, the campaign world must have plenty of tension. While high-level NPCs will have a balancing effect on the game world, the ever-present possibility of change must foreshadow the future and lend significance to the threads and the players' actions. Tension is developed and maintained by designing high-level NPCs with conflicting goals. As long as there are power centers in the world that want different (and often radically different) outcomes, there exists fertile ground for tension.

THE ANATOMY OF AN ADVENTURE THREAD

	The idea is to have a variety of events that all point in the direction you want the player characters to go, but without pre-determining the orientation of the NPCs involved in the events, or in the actual meaning of any particular event. If done correctly, the players can assign the significance to any given event, and even share in the determination of the orientation of the NPCs involved. The system allows the players to maintain full self-determination while giving the gamemaster many ways to get the characters involved in the scenario he has spent valuable time developing.

	For our example, let's assume that we're working in a medieval/fantasy setting with an established world and an adventure that includes a dungeon, and a raid on the hideout of some evil bad guys (pretty generic, but instructional).

	Threads are built around a rumor. Say, someone heard that a man was hiring adventurers. Pretty simple. To make it into a thread you need two additional elements. The first is a list of three to five different reasons that this person might be hiring adventurers, and the second is a list of about 10 low- to mid-level non-player characters who may be involved. This list of NPCs is generated in advance and the same group is used for all of the threads - so that work only has to be done once.

	So for our example, you might decide that there are three possible reasons for this thread to occur: (1) it's a real adventurer that will lead the players to the prepared dungeon for a share of the loot, (2) it's the leader of the evil band looking to recruit evil adventurers, or (3) it's not really an adventurer at all; it's one of the Duke's men (a high-level NPC) who is looking for leads on the whereabouts of the evil bad guys.

	This list of lower level NPCs (the ones that will most likely interact with the player characters) is used now to flesh out the mini-adventures presented by the threads. In this case that list would include the evil bad guy leader, the Duke's mid-level lieutenant, a young fighter who was robbed by the bad guys on the road, a beautiful girl who's father was killed by them, a young boy who's younger brother was lost in the dungeon... well you get the idea. Just a whole bunch of people that can be randomly met and who will spin the players into the pre-ordained action.

	These characters can initially be roughed in without a lot of detail (since much about them might change depending upon how the referee decides to use the thread), but basics must include whatever statistics and equipment such an NPC would need to operate in the game. Developing these character in advance will save a lot of time during the game.

	So let's say that your players are having a hard time getting into the adventure. Maybe they've already been introduced to a thread about a boy lost in the dungeon, and didn't want to help out. Significance to the event assigned by the players is zero - information to the gamemaster: the players are not interested in getting into an adventure for altruistic purposes.

	So when the second thread comes up, the rumor of the man hiring adventurers, the gamemaster has the opportunity to try another approach. If altruism didn't work the first time, forget the possibility of the Duke's man looking for help. Better to go with either the real adventurer (profit motive) or the evil dude (hack and slash). One of these may motivate your characters to get into the adventure. If not - don't worry... You have 18 more threads to try!

	You can also play with the motivations, and even alignments (if your game system uses them), of the NPCs as needed. If your players are already heading in the right direction and they encounter a thread that threatens to pull them off course, you can switch the motivations of any NPCs associated with the thread to keep them on track.

	For instance, if your characters had already agreed to go with the adventurer into the pre-prepared dungeon for profit, your plan might be to let the adventurers go through the dungeon, gain the prize and then lose it when the adventurer who hired them steals off with it, and is then killed in turn by the evil guys, forcing the players to raid the hideout in order to get the prize back. Your entire pre-planned adventure would be played out - if plans ever worked out the way they were supposed to.

	Say that on the way to the dungeon the players encounter another thread (we'll talk about how this happens specifically in a bit) and it turns out that it's a woman who is looking for help to avenge her murdered father. The gamemaster would not be overly concerned by this as his players have already turned down the opportunity to do the right thing once during the adventure so the chances of them abandoning their profit motive to help out this girl are slim. But then one of the players takes a liking to the woman and decides that if he helps her, he might have romantic inroads with her.

	This could be a problem, as it could take the players away from the pre-prepared material. So, with a flick of an ink pen, the gamemaster turns her from a blushing potential goodwife to an aspiring sorceress who is lying about her father in order to steal the eyeballs of an adventurer to pass some test established by her evil mentor.  On the other hand, if the adventurers meet her first, before they have committed to the adventure, she can be used in her initial form as an enticement to get the players into the game.

HOW THREADS ARE USED IN THE GAME

	Now for the mechanics of thread use. I have found that once about 20 detailed threads have been prepared, the most rewarding way to use them is to randomize them as part of a normal random event roll. Most games have some sort of built-in system for creating random events. By making a non-event into a thread, you can allow chance to take a role in the game.

	While it's true that threads can be used to direct the player characters at any time in the game, it is often more exciting for the gamemaster to allow chance to dictate when they are used and which one is employed. This forces the gamemaster to find plausible reasons for the events that occur and to create realistic links on the fly between the threads already in the game and the new ones that are being randomly introduced. This really keeps the gamemaster on his or her toes, and can add another creative element to their gaming experience.

	The basic rule for thread use is to use them whenever they are necessary to keep the players on course through the pre-planned material, and to alter the threads when necessary to make the best use of existing player character motivations. In other words, try to use your threads to let the players do what they want to do - just make sure they do it in the area of the gameworld that you've already developed.

	This can have a profound effect on the adventure that a gamemaster thinks he may have designed. In short, threads can change the very structure of the gameworld as the referee (who imagines that he's in control) looks on.

	Let's say that a number of threads have been used to pull the players into the adventure, and over the course of the adventure the following facts have been made clear to the referee by the way the players have handled the mini-adventures: (a) The players are off on the wrong foot with the Duke - some are angry at him and want to storm the castle but haven't found a good enough excuse yet, (b) the players have determined that the Duke is working in league with the sickly King's evil advisor to take over the Kingdom, some of the players are really upset by this and want to help the king, and (c) the players have encountered the girl whose father was killed by the highwaymen and one of them likes her very much, and wants to help.

	I believe in letting the players have the adventure they want. In this case, the players clearly want to align against the Duke, fight for glory in the King's name, and possibly look good in the eyes of damsels in distress (your players' motivations may vary - remember, this is an example). Unfortunately, the way I designed the adventure was with a good Duke and a good advisor who were prepared to do the right thing in any event.  Must I then disappoint my players by forcing them to set their sights lower and fight some common ruffians on the dusty road after climbing down into a wet and muddy cave in search of some mundane treasure?

	Nay! This is high fantasy! As referee, the threads are my servants, and I use them to make the game better. Using what I've learned of my players' real motivations, I deftly change the moral fiber of two high-level NPCs and alter a few threads so that the woman knows her father was murdered by the Duke's men pretending to be highwaymen because her father opposed the King's evil advisor.  I use another pre-prepared thread that originally involved a town bully and turn him into the woman's brother, a young warrior who is considered a bully because he opposed the Duke. The young warrior is the leader of a small contingent of local warriors who will gladly follow the players characters - if they have a plan.

	Now all I have to do is find a way to use the two pre-prepared segments of my adventure (the dungeon and the highwaymen's hideout) to enable the players to storm the castle (their self-determined fate).  Another thread (see below) will get me closer: a wandering gypsy foretells a future for one of the players - involving a lost key to a secret entrance in the Duke's outer wall and the key's subterranean resting place. That should handle the dungeon. Now for some reason to storm the highwaymen's hideout. A suggestion by one of the NPC warriors concerning the usefulness of a map of the castle's interior should handle that part quite nicely.

	The players will spend the rest of the session digging in the pre-prepared dungeon for the key, and then raiding the highwaymen's hideout in search of a map (or suitable prisoner), and I, as referee, will have time to build the next adventure: the storming of the Duke's castle.

CREATING YOUR OWN ADVENTURE THREADS

	The trick to effective thread development is to try to come up with 20 or so completely unrelated events that could involve a number of different characters with vastly different motivations. This will build in flexibility and make the threads usable throughout the game to push player characters in a number of directions.

	If you are too rigid with your threads or they are only suitable for a limited number of your pre-prepared, lower-level NPCs, they will not give you the flexibility you may need to follow your player's desires. Also give your thread a number of reasons for taking place and provide a number of reasons for the players to get involved. A thread might occur for a good or an evil purpose. Players might get involved with it for any number of reasons. By testing out threads on your players, you will learn what they want out of the game.

	Good threads can be found in a variety of places like literature, movies, or even free association. Often, the weirder the better, as threads that are not obviously part of some gamemaster ploy to lead the characters can be most effective with players intent on directing their own fates.

	Threads can be simple or complex, as long as you build in the flexibility to change them as needed. Don't go to the trouble of creating an incredibly complex thread that will only work in the game if a bunch of other events have fallen into place in the right order. Think of them as square or triangular tiles, and build in a number of possible orientations through which the pieces can be made to fit together.

	Referees can build their skill in working with threads by mentally tying together the random events that happen during adventures. There is an old saying that everything happens for a reason. So a gamemaster intent on building his creative skills can look at every encounter (random and otherwise) in the game in terms of a plausible link to every other event. For instance, if one of your threads calls for the characters to meet a fortune teller on the road and receive a bad omen for one of the players, try to link that omen to something that has happened in the player's past - or better, link it to a thread that hasn't been used yet and allow the link to be revealed to the players later in the game when the seemingly random event takes place.

	Gamemasters should also think about NPC motivations. If a thread calls for an event, but does not specify which NPC must be involved, the referee should think in terms of what personality in the game would have the most compelling reason to be involved in that event. This thinking will provide a high level of realism in the game and may prompt the gamemaster to say to himself during the game, "Ah, so that's what that NPC is up to!" This is especially enjoyable when player actions earlier in the game have altered the threads from the gamemaster's initial conceptions and he is forced to see his world in a new and interesting way.

	For instance, the bully thread mentioned earlier might involve a man who is just stupid and mean, or it could be a misunderstood warrior without the experience or renown to sway the masses. Alternatively, it could be the Duke's agent in disguise, trying to gain information for some reason.

	If handled correctly, the game for referees becomes one of trying to come up with more bizarre threads to keep players guessing how in the world the event could be related to their current adventure. This works best if gamemasters never tell players which events are just random happenings and which are pre-prepared threads randomized into the game.

	In conclusion, I have found the threads system a good framework for developing interesting adventures while maintaining high player enjoyment. And it's been a lot of fun for me as a referee, too.

	The real value of the threads system is that it affords the gamemaster the luxury of being flexible. With a handful of well-developed threads, a referee need never worry if his characters move off in an unexpected direction. He will have the tools he needs to bring the adventure to them, even if he can't lead them to the adventure. And perhaps most exciting, the system opens up the possibility that together, the players and referee will develop a totally new adventure that fits within the campaign and takes the characters down that road of  high adventure, which is the ultimate goal of any good RPG.

SIDEBAR

	As an example of the preparation a referee should do to run an RPG using threads, I have completed the following adventure scenario framework for use with any medieval/fantasy-based RPG.

I)	PRE-REQUISITES

	GameWorld - assume that we are using one of the many boxed campaign sets available that includes a complete fantasy setting. This will contain colorful maps of the countryside, and descriptions of high-level non-player characters, some of which are detailed below. We will further assume that the players have adventured in this world at least once and are familiar with the local culture. The scenario involves a dungeon adventure and a raid on a group of highwaymen. Detailed settings have been prepared for a dungeon, a hideout, and a village with a large tavern.

	NPCs - the world must have a few high-level non-player characters to use as anchors for the adventures that take place there. For this game, I focus on six major NPCs that may or may not interact (probably won't) with the players during the adventure.
1)	The Good King - Wenseles is a wise but sickly King and is not expected to survive the winter. He has ruled the most powerful nation of Wenton for better than half a century and has brought his people to the highest standard of living the world has ever known. But his illness keeps him mostly in his bed now and his will is delivered by his chief counselor, Delrick.

2)	Delrick - is a enigma to most of the common folk. Some say he is a magician of vast power, others a thief who stole into the Kings good graces over a decade ago - yet, strangely, he appears to be very young. Still, the King trusts him completely and he is the most likely person to succeed the King upon his death if the real heir, William, does not turn up before then.

3)	William, Prince of Wenton - has not been seen at the court in three years.  He left with a small force to secure a mountain village in the extreme northern region of the country. The village had been the target of raids from a neighboring country and William was of a mind to put the aggressions against his countrymen to rest for good. He never reached the village and neither he nor any of his men have been seen since then. Some suggest that the village raids were a trap set by long-time Wenton enemy Roderan the Rat.

4)	Roderan - is the barbarian King of neighboring Harbornea, which he took by force from the previous ruler eight seasons ago. He rules the land with a bloody sword and has reduced the commoners to peasant status. Rumor has it that he was once a noble knight of Wenton, but when King Wenseles' sister, Wendolen, spurned him, he lost his taste for chivalry and took up the sword for far less noble purposes. He hates the family Wenseles and will take from Wenton whatever he can.

5)	Wendolen - is the true heir to the throne of Wenton if the King's only son does not return before his death. Most men of learning agree that her wisdom would carry Wenton until either William is returned or a new King could be chosen, but rumor has it that Delrick will not pledge allegiance to her - and without his resources it is unlikely that she will have the power to rule. Still, she has resources of her own that can be called upon in the event that she must dispose of her brother's advisor. Not the least of these is Bernard Lawe, the Archbishop.

6)	Bernard Lawe - The Archbishop is a powerful and crafty man. He has his eyes on God, but his hand in everyone's pockets. Still, what're a few coins if it can mean happiness in the hereafter, and so he has many powerful allies in the Kingdom. There is some question as to where his true allegiance will lie when the King is dead, for as he has been known to say, "The affairs of men are but trivial things in the eyes of God."

	Tensions - the third vital pre-requisite for the game is to have some built-in tensions or conflicts in the world. From the high-level NPCs we have developed, these are pretty simple. But we'll add a few others to keep the game interesting.

1)	King/Delrick - It is not clear whether Delrick is really as trustworthy as the King seems to think he is. Rumors abound that he is positioning himself to take over the throne. Some powerful groups (such as the Forester's Guild and the Full Circle Magicians' Enclave) have allegedly offered Delrick their support if he opposes Wendolen for the throne. Despite the rumors - the judgments that Delrick has been handing down in the name of the King have been sound and fair of late. This situation creates resonant conflicts in the forms of Wendolen/Delrick, Archbishop/Delrick, William/Delrick. In short, Delrick finds himself in a dangerous position.

2)	King/Roderan - In the recent past, Roderan has been satisfied with running rough-shod over his own people, but some fear that could change in the near future - especially if Roderan was responsible for William's disappearance. With the King ill, it is not clear whether he could muster a force strong enough to repel Roderan should he invade. Many worry that the thieves and brigands that have been becoming more prevalent in the countryside are actually Roderan's spies.

3)	Local Duke/Archbishop - the Duke of the territory in which the players find their characters adventuring is having a dispute with the Archbishop regarding the tithes his ministers are assessing of the people. The Duke depends upon the commoners in his fealty for his income and has been finding it more and more difficult to squeeze enough from his subjects after the Church has taken its fill. Some argue that it is not really a matter of money at all, but rather a quarrel over the King's successor, saying that the Duke feels more competent to assume the throne than a weakling advisor or an old woman.

4)	Local Bully/Duke - in the town the players have entered there is a local bully who for years has hated the Duke. It is said that the Duke made an example of the man's father years ago and for this the bully has never forgiven him. In truth, the bully is a noble man gone bad by circumstances. He has nothing to lose by his actions and so acts badly when he could be a valuable asset. The Duke gives him no attention preferring to ridicule him by ignoring him.

Note: The fourth conflict above is based on two of the five lower-level NPCs prepared for interaction with the threads.

	So now we begin to see a bit of the world in which the adventurers will be living over the course of the scenario. Much of this material will come ready-made in a boxed campaign set, or (like this one) can be prepared in very little time. Now all that is needed are a bunch of random threads with which to weave a tale of future history.

1)	A young boy has been captured and dragged off by monsters into the mountains.
a)	If the characters are altruistic or good, use the boy's mother to entice them to track the boy to the dungeon.
b)	The village leader could offer a reward for the return of his son.
c)	Could be a lie told by a wild-eyed drunk that gets credibility later when a random monster encounter occurs.

2)	A young woman approaches the party asking for help to avenge her murdered father.
a)	The players may respond to a damsel in distress.
b)	Or she could offer them certain favors for their help.
c)	Or she could be lying to steal something from them.

3)	An man is looking to hire adventurers for a quest.
a)	A real adventurer that will lead the players to the dungeon 
b)	The leader of the evil band looking to recruit evil adventurers
c)	 One of the Duke's men who is looking for leads on the whereabouts of the highwaymen. Could be related to 18 below.

4)	The party encounters the town bully at the local meeting place.
a)	He might insult one of them in a drunken bout of self-pity.
b)	He might overhear them and respond favorably to anything they are talking about.
c)	They might overhear him talking about any other thread.

5)	The Duke has doubled the taxes in the city, and a group of soldiers is even now approaching the town.
a)	The Duke might be angry with the townspeople and aggressive.
b)	It could be a lie and it's just a random patrol about its business.
c)	It might be the Duke's men searching for highwaymen.

6)	A traveling fortune-teller approaches the party with a reading for one of the players.
a)	She might tell them about the dungeon.
b)	She might tell them something bad relating to any other thread.
c)	She might foretell the death of one of the players if they do not find the object of the adventure in the dungeon.

7)	The party is attacked on the road by a band of horsemen.
a)	The band might be entirely killed by the adventurers (if you don't want to distract them from moving on towards the dungeon).
b)	The band might seriously hurt one or more characters and then run off towards their hideout.
c)	The horsemen might not see the party and move off in the direction of the dungeon.

8)	A rainstorm descends on the territory, causing flash floods.
a)	Might be used to keep the adventurers in the area.
b)	Could be used with 10 below to get the players to help a boy washed down a sinkhole (into the dungeon).
c)	Might be used to get the players out of the dungeon when the water starts to rise.

9)	Two merchants enter town with a fabulous sword to sell.
a)	Might be a fake magic sword so as not to distract.
b)	Might be a real magical weapon that will make the players targets of the highwaymen.
c)	Might be an ordinary sword - but the merchants might hire the players to protect them from the highwaymen.

10)	A young boy approaches the players asking for help in rescuing his younger brother.
a)	Might be an attempt to get altruistic adventurers into the dungeon.
b)	Might be a lie told by a monster pretending to be a boy to get them to come to the dungeon.
c)	Might be a boy working with the highwaymen to get the players out onto the road.

11)	A ragged traveler was encountered by a group of commoners. The man claimed he was Prince William.
a)	Might be an outright lie told to get drinks at the bar.
b)	Might be a man pretending to be William to flush out enemies. Could be Delrick's man, or the Archbishop's, or Wendolen's, or even Roderan's.
c)	Might really be William (use this very carefully).

12)	The Archbishop is traveling through the area to meet with his ministers regarding the tithes they are charging the commoners.
a)	He may really be looking for the rumored William from 11 above.
b)	He may be coming to threaten the Duke, which could lead to 5 above.
c)	It might be lie.

13)	A magician from the Full Circle Enclave is meeting with the Duke - rumor has it he is enlisting his help in favor of Delrick.
a)	He may be trying to get the Duke to side against the Archbishop and in favor of Delrick.
b)	He may be looking for the same thing that the players will find in the dungeon.
c)	He may encounter the players on the road and offer them money to get him the artifact in the dungeon.

14)	A woman suffering from a high fever cried out in a delirious fit and quite accurately described one of the players' characters.
a)	It might prompt the townsfolk to kick the players out of town in fear of evil spirits.
b)	It might tell the townsfolk that the players hold the key to some longstanding problem (like the dungeon or the highwaymen).
c)	The players might encounter her on the street. She might pass out when she sees them and then tell them about a vision she has seen relating to the dungeon.

15)	A wagon carrying a shipment of grain and dairy products bound for the Duke disappeared on the road between a nearby village and the Duke's castle.
a)	The Duke may try to hire adventurers to find the stuff.
b)	It may make him angry and lead to thread 5 or 18.
c)	The players may witness it.

16)	A farmer overhead a group of men talking about quick advancement in Roderan's army.
a)	It could be a fantasy concocted during a drinking bout.
b)	It could be true and some of the highwaymen may be considering leaving their leader for Roderan.
c)	It might get back to the Duke prompting him to offer a ransom for any highwaymen apprehended.

17)	A man who says he represents Delrick is offering a high reward for the return of a relic said to be hidden in an underground temple near the village.
a)	It could be Delrick's man looking for an artifact.
b)	It could be the Archbishop's man looking for Delrick's sympathizers.
c)	It could be a wizard trying to get someone to go into the dungeon for him.

18)	The Duke, angry with the rising wave of crime along his roadway, has announced that all men-at-arms traveling through the area must register at the castle or face prosecution.
a)	It might prompt the players to leave town and get on the roadway.
b)	It might make the players approach the Duke and be hired to find the highwaymen.
c)	It might make the players fighting mad, and while discussing it, they could be overheard by a highwayman who tries to recruit them.

19)	The players encounter a group of the Duke's men beating the local bully senseless.
a)	They might rescue the bully and have him reward them by telling them about the dungeon.
b)	They might scare off the Duke's men, but leave the bully alone (no significance).
c)	They might watch as the bully beats up a number of the Duke's men, and then have to face his anger for not helping him.

20)	The players encounter the Duke along the roadway. He has been badly injured by highwaymen.
a)	It might be a highwayman trick.
b)	It might be a Wizard trying to trick the players into going into the dungeon for something he can't get on his own.
c)	It might really be the Duke, who hires the players as his personal guards.

	For the threads to be usable, the referee must develop a number of framework NPCs: a woman (may be good or evil, used in various threads), a boy, some soldiers, a wizard or two, and so on. Once developed, they can be inserted in a thread as needed with little regard to the way the thread was initially written. The key to the exercise is to have thought out a number of possible outcomes for a number of seemingly unrelated events so that the gamemaster can think better on his feet during the game, giving the illusion of  a seamless pre-planned adventure that takes the players in the proper direction regardless of the choices they make - without becoming apparent that they are being directed.

	Examples of thread use in this scenario might be:

	(1) This adventure begins as the players enter the small village of Stormville. No sooner have they seated themselves before a hearty feast when they witness a poor woman trying to get some of the local men to go in search of her lost son. She fears that he has gone into the "dark pit" at the edge of a nearby mountain. The townsfolk are not interested, having heard of the wicked creatures that dwell there. But the players are interested and agree to go in search of her son.

	(15) But on the way to the dungeon, the players witness a band of highwaymen rob a family of a wagon load of farm goods. The evil men make their escape before the players are in range, but the family tells them that the goods were bound for the Duke's castle. After some discussion, the players decide to pursue their initial mission, but promise the farmers that they will return to investigate the crime.

	(7) A few more miles down the road, the players are attacked by another band of evil horsemen. Each of the attackers wears a red sash as a badge of their allegiance to their evil gang. In a heated battle, the players kill every one of the bandits, but get hurt in the process. In anger, they vow to wipe out all of the outlaws after they find the boy.

	(18) With the mountain in sight, the players are again encountered on the road, this time by a heavily armored contingent of the Duke's men. They inform the players that the Duke has decreed that all men-at-arms much register at the Castle in an effort to cut down on road crimes. The players explain that they'll be happy to register as soon as they find a missing boy. When they describe him, the Duke's men tell them that the boy is already found and was recently in the care of a group of highwaymen wearing red sashes.

	The players convince the Duke's men that they know who the highwaymen are and that they must be based nearby. They convince the Duke's men to help them raid the hideout. A tracker in the player's party backtracks the men who attacked them on the road and together the players and soldiers overrun the hideout. But the boy is nowhere to be found.

	After the highwaymen are killed or captured, the players learn that the leader has stolen off with the boy. Artifacts of a dead religion found in the hideout indicate that the leader is an evil priest. A prisoner tells the players that the leader has taken the boy to a secret subterranean temple to sacrifice him.  In a desperate race against time, the players return to the dungeon and rescue the boy.

	In the end, the players are in the good graces of both the townsfolk and the Duke. And the adventure is played out.

Or....the adventure might go like this:

	As soon as the adventurers have satisfied their hunger at the Stormville Inn, they check the notices on the tavern's note board, and learn that a man is hiring adventurers for a quest. They leave word at the bar that they are interested, and retire for the night. The next morning, the barkeep tells them where to meet their potential employer. But when they arrive for the meeting, they are surrounded by a contingent of the Duke's men. The players are searched and threatened. The Duke's evil lieutenant promises to kill them all if they are involved with crimes on the Duke's land.

	(13) As the Duke's men make their way down the street, one of the players notices that they are being observed. The players follow the g magician who has been spying on them. The magician leads them back to the Inn where an entourage has settled for the night. When the players approach the magician,they learn that he is in the employ of a powerful mage from the Full Circle Enclave who is in town to meet with the Duke. This young mage is beginning to believe that his mentor may have some evil intentions and may be plotting with the Duke against the King. The players convince the mage to spy on his mentor and give them the details.

	(4) When the young mage is gone, the players are approached by what appears to be a common ruffian. He has overheard their conversation with the mage and confirms that the Duke is in league against the King and will try to make a deal with the Full Circle Enclave against him. But the magicians won't deal unless the Duke gives them a priceless magical artifact which they know to be in this area - but which the Duke doesn't possess. The ruffian tells the players that he is a young warrior intent on thwarting the Duke and aiding the King. He says that the Duke is really behind the highwaymen, and is using them to search everyone for the magical artifact. But, because his sister is a seer who has dreamed of the artifact - the young warrior knows where it is.

	(5) The players are skeptical, but then they hear that the Duke has doubled the taxes in the city, and a group of soldiers is even now approaching the town. The young warrior convinces them that this is the Duke's ploy to search all the buildings in the village for the artifact. He urges the players to go with him to the dungeon and retrieve it.

	On the way back to the village with the artifact (which the players must now decide what to do with) they come upon the highwaymen's hideout, and the young warrior will attack it without them if they don't help. Together they defeat the brigands.

	In the end, the players have a valuable artifact that could put them in the good graces of the King, if they can find out who to trust. The young warrior is a contact for the future. And the adventure is played out.

Or....the adventure might go like this:

	(20) On the road to the village of Stormville, the players encounter an injured man in royal garb. He claims to be the Duke and says he was waylaid by highwaymen who left him for dead. When the players dismount and offer him aid, he leaps to his feet and whistles - the players are surround by a group of no less than 20 armed riders. They are forced to surrender their gold, but the men leave them with their weapons "out of respect for other men-at-arms", and ride away laughing. The players track them to their hideout but decide not to attack them yet, as they are vastly outnumbered.

	(10) Once in Stormville, the players pull out the coppers they had hidden away, and have a drink in the local inn, where they are approached by a young boy with a proposition. Unable to trust even an innocent at this point, the players listen halfheartedly to the boy's tale and learn that his younger brother has disappeared down a hole that leads to a dungeon. None of the townsfolk will help him as the hole is known to be inhabited by monsters. The players smell a way to get back some of their gold, and agree to help.

	(9) After the players have defeated the monsters and saved the boy, they return along the road to Stormville where they find two merchants standing beside their empty wagon. They have just been robbed by the highwaymen, and lost a valuable shipment of gold and jewels. They tell the players that a magic sword is among the treasure, and the players can keep it if they return the rest of the shipment. Since the players already know where the hideout is, they agree.

	(16) The players are armed with some treasures from the dungeon which they feel will help them defeat the highwaymen, but on the way to the hideout, they see a young man running away from them. Fearing he's a lookout, they chase him down to learn that he thought they were among the highwaymen. He was hiding in a field of tall wheat that the bandits passed through earlier, and overhead them talking about how easy it is to advance in Roderan's army. Armed with the knowledge that the highwaymen are working for the King's enemy, they concoct a plan to enter the hideout.

	In the end, the players bluff their way in by claiming to be working for Roderan, then use the treasures from the dungeon to defeat the highwaymen and return the merchant's goods. They are in the good graces of the townsfolk and the merchants, but one of the highwaymen got away and will tell Roderan all about them for a future encounter.

Note: the three adventures, above, are all concocted from the same basic building blocks. More or less threads can be used to create an adventure.  However, there are exactly 20!/4!*(20-4)! ways you can put four of these threads together (that's about 4,800), which should keep your players busy for a while. Good gaming!


----------



## FickleGM

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Nonsense.  If that were true then the same must apply to bad DM's - they would never read, learn from, or appreciate being handed any of the TONS of DM advice books and articles that have been written.




I'm going to disagree a little bit on this one, for one reason.  Throughout the last oh, maybe 20 years (give or take - maybe since the late '70s), the DM has been given advice on running better games and what he can do to create an enjoyable game with multiple player types.

The advice hasn't always been the same, has occasionally contradicted another person's advice and at times has been wrong.  Unfortunately, the players have not been advised nearly as much.  Heck, players have read article after article, thread after thread, book after book that puts the onus on the DM for creating the game.

I realize that there has been some advice for players, but the vast majority has been targeted at the DM.  This is both a perfect reason why a book of this could be useful and why a book like this may be a hard sell.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

FickleGM said:
			
		

> I realize that there has been some advice for players, but the vast majority has been targeted at the DM.  This is both a perfect reason why a book of this could be useful and why a book like this may be a hard sell.



Why would it be a hard sell?  DM's are both good and bad.  People write tons of advice for them.  Some good advice, some bad advice.  Players are both good and bad.  NOBODY writes advice for them (well, almost nobody).  There is nothing on which you can base an assumption that player advice will be a hard sell because it's open territory.  The only thing you could reasonably refer to is how well DM advice sells - which it does.  Do you have some other explanation for why DM's are interested and willing to buy and read advice to better themselves and their game, but players won't be?

Players are a vastly larger potential pool of purchasers than DM's, although as I understand it DM's do most of the purchasing of RPG products because naturally they make use of more of the products.  If you interest even a small percentage of players in buying an advice book it seems to me you've got a winner.  I mean who wouldn't buy a PDF titled, "*World's Best Player*: How to make the most fun and memorable character your gaming group has ever seen WITHOUT min/maxing or even exceeding Core Rules!"


----------



## Umbra

Janx said:
			
		

> There's another misconception on PC backgrounds.  You're making a 1st level PC.  You only need a 1 paragraph background.



An example.  I played a barbarian that was looking for the love of his life who wasn't interested in him.  I had no other details about the situation except that when they met she went "Ergh" in disgust not realising that was my name and I went "Gorr" in lust not realising this was her name.

Silly.  But it was what drove my character to keep moving around.  Everyone was asked if they had seen a beautiful woman with scars on her cheeks, bones in her hair, etc.   And when the adventure was about to travel off world, I wrote a note to the DM saying I wouldn't leave the world where I thought my true love was, please have an NPC hint they had seen someone like Gorr travelling through the portal which he did. Problem solved.

When I was DMing I received a letter from a player written from the characters perspective saying they would like x,y,z - what can be arranged.  It was essentially a prayer to god.  TOGETHER we came up with a happy (and fun for the other players observing the results) solution.

So...
 Simple background - anything too detailed _needs DM approval._
 Players need to negotiate, suggest, guide the DM
 Players need to do some work to make the DM happy just as
 The DM needs to do some work to make the players happy.


----------



## LostSoul

Man in the Funny Hat said:
			
		

> Railroading is simply PERCEPTION of irrelevancy of choice.




I don't agree.  Even if the players aren't aware that they are being railroaded, the DM knows it.  (Maybe he's okay with that.)  The other problem is when the players look behind the curtain and see the bumbling old man pulling the levers.  Then they realize everything they've been doing has been pointless.  That can cause some pretty big problems.  

Unless you're an amazingly skilled DM, this is going to happen at some point.

When the players don't realize that they are being railroaded, that's illusionism.

I think better play is when the DM says that he is going to railroad the PCs (to some extent), and they agree to go along with it.  This is typically what you get when you play a module.


----------



## jim pinto

Steverooo said:
			
		

> The following bits of sheer genius are by my good friend, and former GM.  I fergitz why I have an "assistance" attribute, but...
> 
> =============================
> 
> Adventure Threads in RPGs
> Copyright 1998-2005 by Rick Grant
> (with assistance from Steve C)




hey steve

this article was submitted to shadis LONG ago... and it presents an excellent alternative to the event-driven story... by putting events in a different order, allowing characters to drive the action.

i was eventually going to bring it up... 

thanks for trumping me


----------



## Umbra

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think better play is when the DM says...



One aspect I believe needs to be said to both player and DM's is to make more things explicit which is part of the popular 'People, please communicate' you see in any of these discussions.  It's easy to think 'oh  that's common sense' and not talk about it but one man's common sense is another man's idiocy.

I personally think that such a book would be really interesting if done well but I also think that most players wouldn't be interested enough in it to buy it or read it in detail.  "I don't need some book to tell me how to play.  _I know._". Or "I don't have time for that". (No facts here, just my opinion from people I have played with.)

It may work if the book was designed so it also showed DM's and those players who do care/read it how they may 'educate' other players although this really needs to look at different approaches for different types of people which is whole 'nother ball game.  (eg. the 4MAT system divides people into 4 preference groups like {gross simplification and distortion} those who like to study something, play with something, socialise about something or personalise something in order to learn it.)

At one time I set very simple homework for each player.  It may have been answer a simple question in character eg who was your childhood hero, or to research and explain a tiny rule subset eg turning.  Perhaps something similar could be used: what can your character do to help the group, etc.  Getting them to do it however!


----------



## Soul

In another forum I frequent is a thread dedicated to this topic. Its geared towards 7th Sea but the information applys more to players of any game. http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=318938&CategoryID=11109&startcat=1&ThreadID=1334614


----------



## twofalls

Jim, you know I respect you as a writer and a friend. I've gone out of my way to buy books that you specifically have written, and I know that anything you write will have worthwhile content if you allow it to see print.

My experiences with different players are (as we have discussed) limited, however I've introduced a lot of my friends and some of my family to RPG's and I'm not able to think of an instance where a book on how to be a player would have been helpful.

The three occasions where I've had to remove players from my games because they were being disruptive was due to basic personality clashes that no amount of reading or self help was going to overcome (well, at least not in a timely enough fashion to make me want to keep them on). 

The workload between being a GM and being a player is so utterly unbalanced that I've found books on being a better GM to be helpful. A book on how to be a better player... either a person fits in with the personalities at the table or he doesn't. 

I only read the first page of this thread, its become rather long, however you have convinced me to look at other works with a different   attitude (Mercenary's, WLD, Secrets) so I will be willing to give this idea a look over if does get produced. Good luck with the project!


----------



## Soul

The thing is, the workload doesn't have to be so unbalanced. Its by and large the D&D system and other similiar systems that make it seem that way. It doesn't have to be, there is a lot more to being a good player than simply showing up on time with good hygene, or working to get a long with the group. Games like the 7th Sea, and other similiar systems inherently propose that the player activly participate in not only setting the story but describing the scene. This requires an open minded Game Master though also.

  These games are suposed to be about fun for everyone and anything that contributes to that goal is a plus imo. Being a good player involves helping the GM by creating plot hooks for yourself or other players, willing to step out of the lime light or helping other players to shine. Working with fellow players to keep up with the story, and giving the GM stuff to go off of to keep the game interesting, having good communication skills or atleast a willingness to let the GM know what you and your fellow players are looking for, and trying to help balance with what the GM has/is willing to offer. There is a lot of give and take.

  It is a lot more than those things also though, its trying to have your stuff (i.e whatever materials, character sheets, dice, etc..) ready when you sit down to play, trying not to side track the game with real life stuff, unless everyone else is 'ok' with that. Its helping to work out ground rules with the GM and other players and sticking to them. There are a lot of player archetypes, like the ruleslawyer, the powergamer, the actor, etc.. A good player should try to avoid letting these things get in the way of the good of the game. Such as, not trying to argue with the GM for 20 minutes on a call he made be it good or bad, without really good reason, its best to ride with it and settle it after the game. Being a good player is a lot of work, I'm sure most of us don't always live up to these things all of the time. Its worth the effort though, because it makes for a better game, and thats what its all about.


----------



## Steverooo

jim pinto said:
			
		

> this article was submitted to shadis LONG ago... and it presents an excellent alternative to the event-driven story...




Did you work for Shadis?  I wasn't aware that this article had ever made it into print...


----------



## nyrickgrant

*Shadis and articles*

Yes, Steve, Jim did work there. I remember corresponding with him years ago. Nice to see you here, Jim. 

Thank you for dredging my drek back up from the pits. It seems I could string a thought together back in the day.

Great conversation here. The only thing I can add is that I have found that players and GMs are neither good nor bad but that the group makes them so. I have had the worst trouble finding a group to play with these last few years and it pains me greatly. I remember the great games we played in the past. It wasn't just because the adventures were well planned and expertly run or that the characters were all played in high style, but rather because we were all friends. Everyone wanted everyone else to have a great time and we all worked hard to make sure that happened. (Steve: I'm not necessarily referring here to the games my little brother participated in   )

D&D among friends will always be better than the game played by strangers who believe it can be won or lost. Wishing you all great gaming.

Rick.


----------



## BlueBlackRed

To those who think that a book like this won't help anyone, I have to disagree.

I've had a player not too long ago who had a bad case of ADHD. There was no hope for him no matter what we tried. So a book such as this would do nothing for him.

But we've also had several other players in our group over the years who simply needed a push in the right direction and some basic training. For these guys, a help book could be an invaluable time-saver.

When people join our group who have not played D&D 3E, or no D&D at all, we basically help them create their first character.
That character is always a straight up fighter because they are generally easier to learn than other classes.

About 2 years ago we had a guy who was brand new to D&D. He didn't like his fighter after a few weeks of play, so when a new campaign began, he chose not to be a fighter. He decided on a druid/monk for reasons unfathomable by the rest of us.

Week after week went by and there wasn't a single session where he didn't slow down the game, spending minutes to figure out his PC's BAB, spell, or other action. And of course his PC was totally innefectual as anything other than a target during combat.

And when role-playing was being done, he just kind of sat there quietly listening unless I, the DM, prompted him for something. This is understandable to a point, because we all have to start somewhere.

As weeks went by, he learned more and more, but just couldn't get up to speed. And eventually he left for unrelated reasons. Several of our group were glad to see him go.

But a player's help book would have been perfect for this guy to at least set him on a path that would get him more enjoyment out of the game and to help him understand why the other players would get frustrated with him.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I've had a player not too long ago who had a bad case of ADHD. There was no hope for him no matter what we tried. So a book such as this would do nothing for him.




I don't know...we've got an ADHD guy in our group...he's a blast!  You just have to help them find PC's that fit their demeanor and play style.

In RIFTS, it was a Juicer (chemically enhanced super-warrior mercenaries with a 5 year life span).  His big quote: "Tick-Tock Mother-F****R!  You're still here?" whenever somebody talked to his PC too long...

In D&D, he's playing a "legitimate businessman."

But we more experienced players had to steer him into classes that were more action oriented- and so while the book might not help him directly, it might improve the gamers AROUND him to help him game more effectively.



> As weeks went by, he learned more and more, but just couldn't get up to speed.




Some never do...

Another game group I was in had 2 players who were constantly a bit off on their attack bonuses, etc. but we just "left the training wheels on" and helped them when they needed it.  Why?  Because they were fun to be around and (eventually became) pretty good role-players, even if they didn't grasp the mechanics.

A book with helpful hints on how to help people like that (and with other RPG handicaps) manage their PCs couldn't hurt- if nothing else, it will enlighten their fellow players who may then be able to help them.


----------



## jim pinto

nyrickgrant said:
			
		

> Yes, Steve, Jim did work there. I remember corresponding with him years ago. Nice to see you here, Jim.
> 
> Thank you for dredging my drek back up from the pits. It seems I could string a thought together back in the day.
> 
> D&D among friends will always be better than the game played by strangers who believe it can be won or lost. Wishing you all great gaming.
> 
> Rick.




what a great quote... can that go in my book?

anyway, yeah. your article rocked. i was GOING to print it. but shadis tanked with issue 54 or 55... we laid it out, sent it to the printer, and basically prepared it for public viewing when the bosses put the magazine on hiatus... and never brought it back

i still have a copy of your article, actually, because i thought it was pretty good.

and its jim

not Jim



peace


----------



## jim pinto

*outline*

for the record, we're working on an outline now for this (and two other books)

i don't know or care if this makes millions, but i need to give something back to the industry that i left behind.

i want to write these books

i want to impart something beyond another book on necromancy where they sacrifice blood instead of flesh or sanity instead of bone or monkeys instead of rice

game books have the potential to change their structure from the splat-book of the month/week/day to something more useful to DM and player alike.

i know i'm thinking way outside the box, and i have plenty of projects to keep me busy, so starting my own fledgling company as a 24/7 venture isn't in the cards as the moment.

so effectively, i'm just giving away these ideas to whatever eavesdropping companies that want them.

which brings me to part 2 of this saga... (to be posted later)


----------



## JoeGKushner

Sounds interesting.

And I think that the 'industry' needs some thinking outside the box.

On one hand we have companies going the way of the dinosaur due to a wide variety of things and on the other companies selling out of their print runs but overall, fewer evergreen titles and less selling by more companies.


----------



## Joshua Randall

I'm posting to remind myself to dig up a (fairly) recent issue of Dungeon magazine in which Monte Cook describes "the perfect player". Could be useful to compare notes with that article.


----------



## jim pinto

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> I'm posting to remind myself to dig up a (fairly) recent issue of Dungeon magazine in which Monte Cook describes "the perfect player". Could be useful to compare notes with that article.




hmm

never read it

which issue? is it recent? still on stands?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I'm posting to remind myself to dig up a (fairly) recent issue of Dungeon magazine in which Monte Cook describes "the perfect player". Could be useful to compare notes with that article.



Eh... really, it was just a paraphrase of an interview with me!


----------



## DarrenGMiller

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> I'm posting to remind myself to dig up a (fairly) recent issue of Dungeon magazine in which Monte Cook describes "the perfect player". Could be useful to compare notes with that article.




He also had a pretty good one in Dungeon last year on table conventions.

DM


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

BlueBlackRed said:
			
		

> Week after week went by and there wasn't a single session where he didn't slow down the game, spending minutes to figure out his PC's BAB, spell, or other action. And of course his PC was totally innefectual as anything other than a target during combat.
> 
> And when role-playing was being done, he just kind of sat there quietly listening unless I, the DM, prompted him for something. This is understandable to a point, because we all have to start somewhere.
> 
> As weeks went by, he learned more and more, but just couldn't get up to speed. And eventually he left for unrelated reasons. Several of our group were glad to see him go.
> 
> But a player's help book would have been perfect for this guy to at least set him on a path that would get him more enjoyment out of the game and to help him understand why the other players would get frustrated with him.




Hmm...that's interesting.  Perhaps an article on "what you're here to do" would be a benefit to people who are new to the game.  Step one is learning the ebb and flow of the game dynamic: GM - NPC - PC - Player.  What sort of interactions should one expect?  Perhaps one of those "what is roleplaying" articles, but not from an abstract point of view.  Take it from a "what actually goes on at the table in most groups" point of view.  Describe how play shifts from in-character to out-of-character as roleplaying and meta-game language mesh together.  Describe the dynamics of a table: dominant vs. submissive personalities and how it affects play; division of labour for tasks like mapping, treasure tallying, notetaking, and snack wrangling; those ineffable standards that people have about roleplaying like bringing one's own dice and the importance of ritual and luck.

Step two is learning the game.  Advice consists of: Know the basic rules inside out, backward and forward.  Treat it like you're a sports fan learning your team.  You want to be an expert at basic play so that things move quickly and you don't slow down the action, because then there will be more action.  Know the rules that pertain to your own character, and make copies of things like spells so you don't have to flip through books to find them.  Work on organizing yourself to speed up play.  A few simple tricks can go a long way toward facilitating the game.

Step three is getting into character.  Dialogue, motivation, and characterization.  Advice consists of: Keep a few key quotations written down to get you back into the groove when you're not feeling like an elf barbarian.  Keep a few sweet phrases written down to drop at opportune moments (like the tick-tock quote above) so that your character will have memorable lines.  Lists are great ways to keep track of what your character is likely to say, what he's likely to want, and what he's likely to do.  Keep a second list of what your character is unlikely to do, want, or say.  Get a gimmick.  Some kind of affectation or quirk can really make a character memorable, but take care not to make it the sort of thing that will get on people's nerves after a while.  Learn how to act a little, what acting is, and what the difference is between you quoting Hamlet and you playing Hamlet.  If you keep that in the back of your mind, it becomes more fun to roleplay.  And then your character is better, and it becomes more fun to roleplay, etc.


----------



## Cinderfall

I have a couple of thoughts I'd like to share, if I may.  I would be interested in such a book as a player AND DM.  I think I'm fair at both, but not as good as I could be.  What I'm interested in seeing ideas collated in a cohesive manner, something I can logically digest - as opposed to trying to remember an odd collection of ideas I've had over the years.  And, more importantly, see what ideas are out there I've never thought of.  I KNOW there's a ton of great advice out there that I could benefit from.

With that said, I hope the book isn't a list of "bad player/DM" traits.  I get that on these message boards every week.  I want ideas on how to make my game better, not how to point fingers and identify "sucky" players/DMs.  That's pretty much it.  Good luck on your project.


----------



## BlueBlackRed

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Hmm...that's interesting.  Perhaps an article on "what you're here to do" would be a benefit to people who are new to the game...



Well even if the player help guide never gets made, I'm still going to do some kind of new-player write up for my group (with their input of course). 

So I'm interested in anything that has already been written by others, including that Dragon Mag article.


----------



## kigmatzomat

LostSoul said:
			
		

> If the DM _already has_ the beginning, middle, and end of his story written out, those events are going to happen no matter what choices you make.




Ummmmm, no.  Most every pre-gen module has a beginning (the hook), the middle (the chase) and the end (climax).  Those are what will happen on either a schedule (monster goes on rampage 3 days after the  module starts) or at after an event (monster goes on rampage after his master is detained).  If the PCs find the monster before either of those triggers occur, the monster may rampage early or never at all!  

I hate being the mouthpiece for someone else's novel-in-waiting but the adventure will have key points set up for beginning/middle/end.  The best storyteller-types can always make their "gotta have" moments occur as a <b>result</b> of PC actions rather than <i>in spite</i> of the PCs' actions.  I'm not a storyteller DM (when I tried it bombed miserabley) so I don't have "gotta have" scenes.  I will change any and every part of the adventure so that it makes sense but I <i>always</i> have scenes in mind before the game starts.


----------



## kigmatzomat

LostSoul said:
			
		

> This is important to understand where I'm coming from.  Forever, I've felt like I've been railroading in ever campaign I've been in.  I'd write "the plot", and if the PCs did something I didn't expect, I'd roll with it no problem.  But I became good enough at it (or my players felt like they had to/wanted to do what I had planned) that what I had written up was exactly what came out in play.
> 
> So I'd get frustrated with myself (and, in weaker moments, my players) but I had no idea how to do anything differently.  I wanted the players to tell _me_ their stories, but how does that happen?




Did your players have fun?  Did they feel a) that you were so good you could predict their every move or b) no matter what they did your story occurred? 

If Fun=Yes and !b then !Railroad.  

Obviously, you weren't enjoying the situation.  That is justification to change, no doubt.  But realize that some players are the same as you, just on the other side of the screen.  They  do not <i>want</i> to tell a story; they want to enjoy one but not drive it.  

I think every game should have change-ups where you switch between dungeon-crawl, PC driven, and plot driven adventures.  There are too many different kinds of players & DMs in the world for one kind of gaming to be the shiznit for everyone.  And, if nothing else, it helps prevent burnout and lets people's preferences change over time without having to change camaigns.


----------



## Joshua Randall

Monte Cook's "perfect player" article is in the October 2004 issue of _Dungeon_ magazine (#115). You should be able to get back issues from www.paizopublishing.com

To paraphrase, the perfect player...
* *pays attention*
* is interested in the DM's world
* *is familiar with the rules, but lets the DM have the final say*
* helps other players but doesn't boss them around
* *doesn't try to force his style of play on others*
* doesn't hog the limelight
* doesn't bring the game to a standstill by not knowing what his character wants to do
* doesn't wander away from the table mid-game
* doesn't forget stuff at home or have to keep borrowing stuff (books, dice)
* respects the game location (i.e., is a good houseguest)

I bolded the ones that I think are most important.

= = =

Someone mentioned Monte Cook's article about table rules. That is in the December 2004 issue of _Dungeon_ (#117).


----------



## jim pinto

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Monte Cook's "perfect player" article is in the October 2004 issue of _Dungeon_ magazine (#115). You should be able to get back issues from www.paizopublishing.com
> 
> To paraphrase, the perfect player...
> * *pays attention*
> * is interested in the DM's world
> * *is familiar with the rules, but lets the DM have the final say*
> * helps other players but doesn't boss them around
> * *doesn't try to force his style of play on others*
> * doesn't hog the limelight
> * doesn't bring the game to a standstill by not knowing what his character wants to do
> * doesn't wander away from the table mid-game
> * doesn't forget stuff at home or have to keep borrowing stuff (books, dice)
> * respects the game location (i.e., is a good houseguest)
> 
> I bolded the ones that I think are most important.
> 
> = = =
> 
> Someone mentioned Monte Cook's article about table rules. That is in the December 2004 issue of _Dungeon_ (#117).




thanks, joshua

good notes. i may just run with this and branch these concepts further

peace


----------



## Steverooo

nyrickgrant said:
			
		

> Thank you for dredging my drek back up from the pits.




Drek?!?  Why I oughta...!  



			
				nyrickgrant said:
			
		

> Great conversation here. The only thing I can add is that I have found that players and GMs are neither good nor bad but that the group makes them so. I have had the worst trouble finding a group to play with these last few years and it pains me greatly. I remember the great games we played in the past. It wasn't just because the adventures were well planned and expertly run or that the characters were all played in high style, but rather because we were all friends. Everyone wanted everyone else to have a great time and we all worked hard to make sure that happened. (Steve: I'm not necessarily referring here to the games my little brother participated in   )
> 
> D&D among friends will always be better than the game played by strangers who believe it can be won or lost. Wishing you all great gaming.
> 
> Rick.




Words of Wisdom!  Playing with _friends_ is the best!


----------



## Steverooo

*What Is Roleplaying?*

Here's what I tell Non-Roleplayers:

Basically, Roleplaying is acting, or a grown-up version of the "Let's Pretend" that we all played as a child. Just as an actor or actress plays a role in a film or play, RPers are portraying a character, which leads us to the next question...

Ever seen some "B" Horror flick where, on a dark and stormy night, when the lights suddenly go out, the protagonist says "I'll go check the fuse box in the basement."? _Oh come on,_ now! We all know that the monster is down there, and that the protagonist's life expectancy is about six seconds!

Ever laughed at the poor sap, and thought how, "If I were him, I'd go get the shotgun and flashlight from the den, first, and when that critter jumped out, I'd blow his fool head clean off!" Ever watched a movie where Arnold missed an obvious clue, and thought how you could shorten the manhunt by 48 minutes? Ever wanted to meet a Dragon, be an Elf, sail across a sea of stars, or visit a world where the impossible is a daily occurrence?

So have we; that's why we're here. Just choose the appropriate role...


----------



## jim pinto

*thanks*

i want to thank everyone for their help so far

its nice to see that we could generate 5 pages of interest on this topic

there's no guarantee that this will be a monster hit, but i really need to get this topic done and out of my system, so i can do the projects i want to do.

when i have more information to share, i'll be sure to post it here


----------



## JoeGKushner

Sounds good. Make sure to bookmark the thread eh?


----------



## LostSoul

If this thread is over with, I suggest archiving it.


----------



## jim pinto

LostSoul said:
			
		

> If this thread is over with, I suggest archiving it.




not being a forum expert, i'm not sure what that means?


----------



## buzz

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> What about knowledge of the rules? Players should understand the rules of the game. There should be progessive knowledge increase as players continue to play. You should not be wondering how power attack works six weeks into the game.
> 
> How about having a character sheet tha's clean and easy to read? Having all appropriate bonuses totalled up? Having variants precalculated for Power Attack or other commonly used modifiers?



What I wouldn't give for players who did this...

The flip side of the first point being the armchair DM who knows the rules better than you and gets miffed when you don't want to run your game their way.


----------



## LostSoul

jim pinto said:
			
		

> not being a forum expert, i'm not sure what that means?




Just saving it for posterity in the Archive forum.


----------



## Dinkeldog

I'll move it down to the Archive forum.


----------

