# Do you trust the people you game with?



## Crothian (Mar 6, 2003)

Do you trust them to create characters that will be fun for them and for everyone?  

As a DM can you say "Well, I'm allowing everything because I know that you all will not choose things based on power, but based on fun?"  Or do you feel you need to restrict the players’ choices because one or two of them would see what they could get away with?  Can you instead of using point buy or rolling dice for attributes have players just pick what they want for their character?  

As a PC are you worried about what the other players will make and the choices they make for them?  Are you concerned with taking feats, skill, classes, spells, etc that are powerful because you know if you don't you will be out shined by the other PCs?  Or can you make you character without any knowledge of the others knowing that it will all work out find in the end with no jealousy or discontent.

As a PC do you trust the DM to be fair and change the rules in the right way? Or must you question his choices or seek out others opinions on message boards, e-mails, conventions, etc.

Do you feel the need to watch what others roll, or can you trust them to always be honest?

I know not all the choices may fit what you feel, but please choose the closest.


----------



## thud13x (Mar 6, 2003)

In my old group I could trust all my fellow players and my DM.  In my new group, I am still finding out so that is way I voted the third choice.  They seem nice but I have only been to one game so....


nk


----------



## Gizzard (Mar 6, 2003)

I'm not sure if "trust" is the right word.  

Some of the people I game with will go home and read the books thoroughly looking for ways to build strong characters.  Others will just go with a character concept that interests them, strong or not.  Its not like I dont trust one of these groups, but you do have to be a little watchful that the min/maxers dont bring a gun to the knife-fight and that the character guys dont bring a nerf-ball to the same shindig.


----------



## Gospog (Mar 6, 2003)

My only real problem player for this sort of thing has moved away, so I'm golden.



I even had an instance recently when I asked a player to use a different character in an M&M game and he immediately complied.  We all had a blast!


----------



## Ranes (Mar 6, 2003)

Seven players in my new game, four of whom I've only met recently and I've found I can trust them. My problem is that one of them doesn't trust me, even though I have done nothing to her character that might give her reason not to. C'est la vie...


----------



## Sniktch (Mar 6, 2003)

Yeah, I went with option 2.  I trust my guys and we (almost) always have a good time, but some are prone to take advantage if I don't pay attention to what they're doing.


----------



## Ruined (Mar 6, 2003)

I handpicked the players for my current Scarred Lands game, and I trust them all to make well-rounded characters that have their share of bonuses and weaknesses. I wanted to pour a lot of my best ideas into this campaign, and so I needed to trust the players implicitly.

This is not so in some other games I play or with other players I know. Some people enjoy breaking the system for the most devastating character they can come up with. Case in point, in an Iron Kingdoms game we started recently, one of the newer players to the group is heavy on the powergaming side. His new character is a heavily armored cleric of a war god who is bent on being more of a combatant than the two existing fighters in the group. War and Destruction domains, Bull Strength and Bastard Swords...  And this was the character he made after the DM vetoed two other abusive ones.  Ah, but it sounds like I'm ranting...


----------



## diaglo (Mar 6, 2003)

in my old group, i could trust them with everything. we even played over the phone sometimes.

but since i've returned to gaming. i would say...maybe...

some of them definitely yes, some them definitely no. others the jury's still out.


----------



## CrazyMage (Mar 6, 2003)

Yes, but I have only one player.


----------



## d20Dwarf (Mar 6, 2003)

I tried this, but one of my players *cough* ghettognome *cough* likes rolling her stats too much, so choosing causes her to have an anurism and die.


----------



## Seule (Mar 6, 2003)

I've played with gamers that I couldn't trust.  Die cheats, charsheet cheats, people who base a character entirely on how powerful they will be.  I don't play with those people any more.  I trust the people I play with.

  --Seule


----------



## Airwolf (Mar 6, 2003)

I had to vote for #2.  

I would have voted 100% trust but there is one player who always wants to play an evil character.  He usually sets about trying to kill everything, both monsters and townsfolk.  

If he can't play evil he picks a paladin and plays the stereotypical annoying arrogant SOB that we all love to hate in the paladin class.

The rest of the players are great about creating characters that are fun for them and productive members of the party.


----------



## Sixchan (Mar 6, 2003)

Hmm...trust is an odd thing.  I'd trust all of my players with my life, but there's one that REALLY wants to play an assassin.  Even though we're playing your standard 'we are the heroes, we roll for initiative' campaign.  To keep him happy, I might start an evil campaign some time, and come to think of it, this is probably one of those REAL tests.

If my players can create Evil characters who don't just kill everything, and have a motivation for being evil, then I would say I fully trust them.


----------



## Nightfall (Mar 6, 2003)

If you mean in real life no. The ones in my games, sure. But I put the restrictions more for FLAVOR than for anything. They give me good reasons, I'm pretty much a softie.


----------



## HellHound (Mar 6, 2003)

I voted "most of the time", but my current gamers are all 100%. They work together to build and interesting and fun party that won't fall apart within a few sessions.

But I have some in my "extended" game family that need to be reigned in occasionally.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Mar 6, 2003)

I voted for number 2.

I'm talking about you Piers


----------



## Hejdun (Mar 7, 2003)

Well, depends.  If we trusted the DM not to slaughter us if we went a little soft on power, then I don't think our group would have a problem with not min/maxing.  If, however, there was an abnormally high death rate, then we as a group are excellent at powermunching characters.  We had one instance where we had... I think 12 deaths before we hit level 10.  Needless to say, the party was munched to the gills when we turned the corner into the double digit levels.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 7, 2003)

So far I must say the results suprise me.  With all the talk of limiting PCs and PCs question their DM's I really expected a much different set of results.


----------



## Henry (Mar 7, 2003)

As with all polls, the people you WANT to answer may not ever answer it.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 7, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> *As with all polls, the people you WANT to answer may not ever answer it.  *




Or it might be that people aren't going to accurately post how well they trust their gaming group.  Hard to say.


----------



## Aloïsius (Mar 7, 2003)

> As a DM can you say "Well, I'm allowing everything because I know that you all will not choose things based on power, but based on fun?"




But power is fun !
Some of my players create rather blands or "number only" PCs (no or little background, no explanations of weird combo...). It's not my problem, it's their problem, because :
*when the PC is dull, the story (and thus the DM) is the star
*when the PC is dull, the player have sometimes some surprises. ("You didn't made a background, not a problem, let me see your sheet... *I* will make this background, and *I*will explain how your wood elf became a monk...")


----------



## John Smallberries (Mar 7, 2003)

I trust them to do the following:

1. Min/Max like mad.
2. Twist every rule, push every limit.
3. Blow holes in my stories and derail my plots.
4. Have a hell of a lot of fun doing it.

Therefore, they can trust me to:
1. Let them.

No heavy-handed DM control issues. Just fun.


----------



## Aloïsius (Mar 7, 2003)

John Smallberries said:
			
		

> *I trust them to do the following:
> 
> 1. Min/Max like mad.
> 2. Twist every rule, push every limit.
> ...




That's more or less my philosophy.


----------



## Guilt Puppy (Mar 7, 2003)

I have only two concerns which create restrictions for the players:

1 -- That they remain more-or-less balanced amongst each other... Partly because I do uneven XP, and I want to make sure there is a reward for that. (At least in my table-top game, there is a slight competitive element between the players)

2 -- That I can accurately assess their power level, and that it is even enough that I can craft encounters for them which will be challenging, but not lethal for the less-powerful players.

Other restrictions may come up from campaign to campaign (such as "no evil characters" or "no such-and-such races") but those are usually created and resolved with the players when we start a new campaign and try to decide on a suitable flavor.

Outside of that, I'm pretty open. I don't look over anyone's shoulder when they roll, I typically don't audit their character sheets. See my sig thread for an example of this in action on the boards.

And, as always, there are exceptions to how open I am. But generally, nine games out of ten let's say, those two main rules are all I impose.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (Mar 7, 2003)

My only restrictions are in regards to (1) setting flavor and theme and (2) keeping logical with regards to in-game events (Skills, Feats, Multiclassing, etc.).  Beyond this, I trust my Players 100%.  I wouldn't play with them if I didn't.


----------



## 8XXX{0}====> (Mar 7, 2003)

The people I game with are caniving, evil, powergaming hellions. I dont trust those guys one bit. Even today, one shot me in the shouler with a pellet pistol (the plastic kind that sting). Stupid www.airsoft.com


----------



## s/LaSH (Mar 7, 2003)

I trust 'em. The question is, Do they trust me? They just know I'm hiding something from 'em by now. And that's true... I've done all sorts of unfair things to them, but strangely they seem to like it...


----------



## dren (Mar 7, 2003)

*trusting players*

I voted #1. 

They are honest with me in every aspect of the game. They may disagree or bring up a differing viewpoint, but they don't argue with me as a DM. Nobody cries or complains about character death or loss of an item. I sit ten feet away from them and don't see any of their rolls, but I've never had a reason to mistrust them.


----------



## Thresher (Mar 7, 2003)

They pUt thingS in mY tEeth!


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Mar 7, 2003)

*Make it hard on me why don't you?*

I think I'm going to have to puzzle out what my vote should be as I write this. 

My gut reaction was to say that I trust my group 100%. After all, I wouldn't play with someone I don't trust. I don't need to check their rolls, I don't need to double check their inventory, or the results of a turning check. They're not cheaters. They're honest about this stuff even when it hurts.

But, on the other hand, "Do you trust them to create characters that will be fun for them and for everyone?" And while I want to say yes, that's blatantly false. The characters that this group played in my last session made me swear off DMing for 4 months. 

We could probablly go by stat selection, and this group would work out ok. No one would play ridiculous games with it. 

I trust them to be honest, but I don't trust them to play the game. They've got this issue where I have to get out and motivate their characters. The house rules have started coming in allready, no PH at the table, and each rule helps alot. 

I trust them to be honest.  I could give them a guideline for character creation, never see thier sheets and be fine. They could use online suppliments, and prestige classes, and it'd be ok they wouldn't choose anything too crazy. They could make their own spells and items without me involved, and it'd be ok. But I don't trust them to play a character, I have to have a whole series of "you're out of the campaign if you do..." threats lined up. I don't trust them to think on their own, I need guys around to give them orders to have them do anything. I don't trust about half of them to get any better, because the mere suggestion that they might have room for improvement ends up in an hour long argument.

Hm. Then theres the campaign I play in. I trust all but one of the other players. Again, he's fine on dice rolls, but he purposely designed a worthless character. He plays the character as worthless, and every time we get into a decent IC discussion he drops out of character, or makes a dumb joke.

The DM, I trust him to try his best, and not fudge any rolls to kill us. But I also trust that I'm going to get ripped off on what my skills can do. I trust that 40% of our sessions will be us wandering around in the desert walking back to civilization. And I trust that despite my best efforts to the contrary, the role-playing opertunities will stay few and shallow, and most of the decisions we're able to make (aside from purchases) will be moot.

So, where does that fall in?


----------



## Ds Da Man (Mar 7, 2003)

I may not trust them at the game table 100% of the time, but my group is a collection of about my best friends. They understand when I'm tired and cranky (3rd shift syndrome), and they know all about me. They are great friends who have never let me down, (except for one who dropped out of Purdue, though not a let down, I was dissappointed. I had high hopes!)


----------



## Hardhead (Mar 7, 2003)

With my group, I'd trust most of 'em with my life.

But, I wouldn't trust a single one to roll up character stats or HP unless I'm watching them do it.  So I don't know _where_ that falls.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Mar 7, 2003)

I play point-buy and average results for all hit die rolls. That's because everyone in my group has truly spectacular luck or some weaker variant of my own abysmal dice luck. In-game, the dice fall where they may.

I have one player who plays very goofy character concepts and can be counted on to cheat at dice. He's not too disruptive, though, as the other players generally keep him in line. The only time his trifling with the dice has seriously harmed a game is when he killed a clone of Palatine with the very first attack roll of what was supposed to be a roleplaying encounter. 

With a lightsaber. A thrown lightsaber. 

Someone else's lightsaber.

He wasn't playing a Jedi.

I answered 100%, though. I let them give me any character concept they want, and their powergaming more or less fits within that concept and they play their characters. We have fun. And, the more they combat-optimize their characters, the more social encounters I give them, and vice-versa, so we generally end up with a decent balance of abilities.


----------



## Darklone (Mar 7, 2003)

Uhm... This poll can be easily misunderstood. I trusted all my players till now in respect of the game... 

Problems with the players outside of the game are more common here.

Edit: Cheating with dice... Well some did. I knew it and let them roll again (most of them did the stupid rolling a dice all the time, if it's a good number wait till the DM asks for a roll and try to tell him you just rolled it...)


----------



## S'mon (Mar 7, 2003)

I voted 100% - I trust all my current group not to cheat (this would change if I ever caught them, of course!), and to create reasonable PCs in consultation with me.  I don't allow chair PCs in my current game, though.  
Generally speaking, I've become more trusting of my players as I and they have got older.  Cheating seems more prevalent among younger players - although hopefully cheaters are a minority at all levels.
As for min-maxing, as I don't railroad my group or expect them to win fight X at Level Y for the campaign to survive, this has not been a problem.  When Tallarn (Matt) joined the current campaign, with all his powergaming knowledge gained from EN World, his cleric PC proceeded to trash NPCs that were easily defeating the previous, older, higher level but less-min-maxed PCs.   The power level of the group went up, they became able to handle threats they previously couldn't have - a young adult red dragon, most notably.  Maybe their rate of xp gain increased for a level or two - 3e advancement rules balance this out pretty well though, you rise to your level of incompetence! There's still plenty of stuff in the world they can't handle, and the game has only benefitted - maybe I do have to play my NPCs a bit meaner, but that's plausible also 

"Uh oh - it's THEM.  Get the scrolls & potions out!"


----------



## Maldur (Mar 7, 2003)

I trust most of them. 

My problem is that I cant trust my players to know the basic rules enough, that I have to pay less attention to them (rules).

Actually, that is my major peeve. So much that it got me in trouble when I spoke about that in a long email. (maybe using the "babysitting"players through a game" comment,  was not that smart) 



ps trust might not be the right word>


----------



## WayneLigon (Mar 7, 2003)

One I can trust. One I'm not so sure of, because he just joined the group a few months ago. One will create a character so bizarre in either habits or appearance or both that it's clear he's either never read the background material or doesn't give a &^$%%^&% about it. One will, no matter what he plays, continue with his utter fascination for characters that are so 'practical' as to be completely evil, even though he will swear up and down he's playing a Good character. And he really _does_ beleive this, which scares me. If we ever crash in the Andes, I'm getting to the flare gun first.

It's almost to the point of being depressing, but I'm not GM'ing right now, so it's a little better.


----------



## xrpsuzi (Mar 7, 2003)

Airwolf said:
			
		

> *I had to vote for #2.
> I would have voted 100% trust but there is one player who always wants to play an evil character.  He usually sets about trying to kill everything, both monsters and townsfolk.
> *




Same story here.... that we have this one guy who plays a neutral angst-riddening elf like no tomorrow.

After a couple of games though (we are on our 3rd? 4th? campaign now) the guys realised that powering up, though fun, does not mean it will increase the overall fun of the group. This was after the DM had to yell a couple of times, "We could be playing bunnies and burrows and be having fun. It's not the flaming bastard sword." and similar things on that vein.

suzi


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Mar 7, 2003)

I play in two groups at the moment.

In the Planescape campaign, run by Simmo on these boards, I trust all the other players, because we've hardly played as a group so far and it's better to start trusting than to start by distrusting them.

In S'mons game, I trust all except one player. I don't think he posts on these boards, but he's a bit of a difficult player to play with, he seems to have very different ideas about the game to the rest of us.


----------



## seasong (Mar 7, 2003)

My answer was not well represented in the poll, so I went with #1.

My true answer, however is:
A) I trust them 100%
B) I restrict characters heavily, not because I think they can't handle it, but because I usually have a narrative VISION that I want their help in achieving. Within that VISION, I trust them 100% to achieve it beyond my wildest expectations.
C) Where there is no restriction required by the narrative, I don't use restrictions. I don't even bother with poncy ideas of game balance, like points, stat rolls, levels, ECLs, etc.

My story hour is different - the narrative VISION is to take what the system gives us and make it into something special, a kind of random confluence. But most of my campaigns have minimal system restrictions and heavy narrative restrictions.


----------



## xrpsuzi (Mar 7, 2003)

seasong said:
			
		

> *My story hour is different - the narrative VISION is to take what the system gives us and make it into something special, a kind of random confluence. But most of my campaigns have minimal system restrictions and heavy narrative restrictions. *




[sarcasm]what madness is this? It sounds like you're trying to use RPG's to "role play"? Don't you know its about kewl stuff and killing and looting and rolling die! (unless you're a larper, then it's about hitting people with foam bats....) [/sarcasm]

Seasong, I've read your story hour and it's very good. I like games that have a strong narrative, because it helps players get into the game. Decisions of the character become decisions of suzi (I always play rogues, so my dilimnas tend to be on the moral side ....), and that depth of interaction does make the game more fun for me.

fight the good fight

suzi


----------



## SamuraiY (Mar 7, 2003)

I can't trust a _single one_ of the players in my group (well, maybe my brother...) I don't even trust the LG dwarven cleric of Moradin. I think he might actually worship Erithnul or someone. and before someone asks, no I AM NOT PARANOID! I have just had many...bad experiences with them before.


----------



## Datt (Mar 7, 2003)

Well yes I trust them to play characters that will be fun and interesting.  Although I don't think I have ever seen anyone play a chair.  That might be interesting until one of the others try to sit on it.


----------



## everchanging02 (Mar 7, 2003)

Well, this is an interesting question, and something I had to consider when I was planning on running the game that (I hope) will start next week.
This will only be my second time GMing a game...  I hand-picked the players from my group of friends.  It is a Savage Species game that will allow the players to play whatever they wanted (up to LA +6 and total ECL 10).
I had heard stories of another game in which one of the players had been 'abusing', if you will, the <i>Polymorph Self</i> spell to polymorph into outsiders.  In SS, there is a new feat that allows you to use a super natural ability of a form you have polymorphed into.  After listening to friends talk about this feat, there was the concept of poly-ing into a Rakshasa and using the immunity to spells under 8th level supernatural ability.
Therefore, I had the idea to ban outsiders from being PCs, as I didn't want to run into this problem, being inexperienced as I am.
Later, upon talking to the player, it was explained that the game in which he was playing was supposed to be 'whored-out' (excuse the language) and that I could use a modification to the spell (such that a peice of the creature being polymorphed into would need to be in possession of the caster for the spell to work).
Therefore, I voted that I can trust most of them, but that some still need to be watched.


----------



## Uzumaki (Mar 8, 2003)

Argh. I still hate my group. Some of you may remember how horrible they were from an earlier thread. Well, I decided I would try and give DMing them a chance.

Good lord.

I almost lost all of them the moment I said "First level, 32-point buy." The rest nearly went AWOL when I said "No evil characters." So far I have one person for sure, and everyone else is just kinda wavering in the middle. One person flat out refused.

Can someone save me? I live in San Diego. Surely there are other gamers in San Diego? There can't just be six out of 2 million people...

So, anyway, no, I don't trust my group. Not when I'm DMing for them, and vice versa.


----------



## Sanackranib (Mar 8, 2003)

*trust*

Since I run my game at my home, I would only let in players I could trust. I have too much money invested in this hobby to do otherwise.


----------



## Guilt Puppy (Mar 8, 2003)

Uzumaki said:
			
		

> *I almost lost all of them the moment I said "First level, 32-point buy." The rest nearly went AWOL when I said "No evil characters." So far I have one person for sure, and everyone else is just kinda wavering in the middle. One person flat out refused.
> 
> Can someone save me? I live in San Diego. Surely there are other gamers in San Diego? There can't just be six out of 2 million people...
> *




I live on the border of La Jolla and University City... Would be interested in playing in a weekly game or so, provided it's somewhere I can get to with reasonable ease (have no car, but plenty of ranks in Knowledge (Public Transit)). I normally game with my roommates, and it's fun, but wouldn't mind playing in a game that's taken a bit more seriously (they're video gamers who can appreciate the benefits and freedoms of an open-ended game system... but not exactly role-players)


----------



## Kal Skid (Mar 8, 2003)

My regular gaming group consists of two players--a GM and a PC.  There is a huge amount of trust.  I have yet to verify one of his rolls, and we do a lot of the dungeon design together.

So far, it hasn't been an issue.  Doubt it will be.


----------



## Jenale (Mar 8, 2003)

I've left games because as a player I could not trust the DM.  In the first case, he'd asked for 1st level characters, and then gave us an adventure in which our only chance for survival was to stand back and let the 5th level NPCs do everything.  Gee, that was fun.  Second case, the DM blatently favored another player, then went and changed my PCs action because he thought my PC would get killed (my POV:  my character, my choice to take the risk),  and to me that was the last straw.  Third one was an on-line play-by-post game with a DM so overcontrolling that I was signing in just to find out what my character had done.  I might as well have been reading a fantasy novel (not that there's anything wrong with that) as playing--and since I felt like he had 95% control over my character's actions, it wasn't that much of a wrench to say, "why don't you just take the character over completely".  Of course, over 20 years of playing, I guess that's not a horrible record.

The games that I still play in, I trust my DMs to create an adventure that I'm going to enjoy (and in which I am the one who controls my character).

The games I DM, I feel that my players do put in a lot of effort in terms of roleplay, but I have put some restrictions in place for character creation so that their characters do fit into my homebrew world.  Of course, I also tend to create adventures that hinge as much on whether the character can stay true to stated ideals as on whether the characters can overcome external foes, and even straight 18s (not that I would allow that) won't help achieve the internal victory.


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 9, 2003)

I voted for Option #2.  Most of the people in my group are there to have a good time within the confines of the rules, and help promote a pleasant atmosphere in and out of character.  But there are one or two players who like to push the envelope from time to time by tweaking their PC's abilities or equipment.  Needless to say, I keep my eye on them.


----------

