And you call it "wrecking the place", I call it "wrecking the MC's plans by doing something different that lets you play on your terms". It would suck to play a game where, no matter how boring or shit, you had to go through the plot laid out by the MC.
No, its wrecking the playspace. Killing an NPC that the the rest of the party is talking to just to see if you can is wrecking the playspace. Players will be destructive just to see what the limits are.
It sounds like your players are just astoundingly bored and are trying to skip ahead to the good bits, and that's a fair desire.
I mean, if a player kills an NPC the others are talking to, it's because he's bored of the talking and would like to do some adventuring.
Last edited by K on Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Koumei wrote:And you call it "wrecking the place", I call it "wrecking the MC's plans by doing something different that lets you play on your terms". It would suck to play a game where, no matter how boring or shit, you had to go through the plot laid out by the MC.
If you ever are in a situation where this is the case, then your game has much deeper problems than what template has been applied to what monster.
Don't bother trying to impress gamers. They're too busy trying to impress you to care.
And you call it "wrecking the place", I call it "wrecking the MC's plans by doing something different that lets you play on your terms". It would suck to play a game where, no matter how boring or shit, you had to go through the plot laid out by the MC.
No, its wrecking the playspace. Killing an NPC that the the rest of the party is talking to just to see if you can is wrecking the playspace. Players will be destructive just to see what the limits are.
It sounds like your players are just astoundingly bored and are trying to skip ahead to the good bits, and that's a fair desire.
I mean, if a player kills an NPC the others are talking to, it's because he's bored of the talking and would like to do some adventuring.
Roleplaying is a group activity, and that sometimes involves having to wait through some stuff that others enjoy, but you may not. If you can't do that, then you need to stick to single player games.
If the rest of the PCs are enjoying talking to the NPC and some selfish anti-social retard decides to randomly start attacking the NPC because he's bored, he should just go off and play Diablo or WoW. He is of the mindset that if people don't do what he wants, he's going to try to ruin everyone else's fun. We call those people assholes.
I don't want that person at my table. Fuck that douchebag.
people like K dont understand that their "player entitlement" also means that OTHER players are entitled to things to, and that a single player exerting his "player entitlement" may be a detriment to the rest of the group.
those other people dont matter, because the game IS a single player game between K and the DM, and the other players have no rights because K exists, therefore K has the MOST rights.
some players sadly find fun in just destroying things other people are doing or interfering with them. they used to be called bullies when you were a kid, now as adults you just call them assholes.
they are the ones that would go around on Halloween stealing kids candy, and grow up to be criminals....or armed services personnel.
Play the game, not the rules.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
On the other hand, those other players have the ability to defend the NPC they are talking to, and if that ends with the player who got bored and decided to kill the NPC out of hand dying before the other players go back to their discussion, then so be it.
The entitlement and freedom of action really does work both ways.
Seerow wrote:On the other hand, those other players have the ability to defend the NPC they are talking to, and if that ends with the player who got bored and decided to kill the NPC out of hand dying before the other players go back to their discussion, then so be it.
The entitlement and freedom of action really does work both ways.
ergo... fun is NOT having disruptive players. those who think their character more important than the game for other be it they are bored right now, or they are upset that they havent gotten their magic rapier, etc.
or...
fun is working together to make the game fum for ALL involved, even if it isnt always fun for you RIGHT NOW.
Play the game, not the rules.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
No, its wrecking the playspace. Killing an NPC that the the rest of the party is talking to just to see if you can is wrecking the playspace. Players will be destructive just to see what the limits are.
It sounds like your players are just astoundingly bored and are trying to skip ahead to the good bits, and that's a fair desire.
I mean, if a player kills an NPC the others are talking to, it's because he's bored of the talking and would like to do some adventuring.
Roleplaying is a group activity, and that sometimes involves having to wait through some stuff that others enjoy, but you may not. If you can't do that, then you need to stick to single player games.
If the rest of the PCs are enjoying talking to the NPC and some selfish anti-social retard decides to randomly start attacking the NPC because he's bored, he should just go off and play Diablo or WoW. He is of the mindset that if people don't do what he wants, he's going to try to ruin everyone else's fun. We call those people assholes.
I don't want that person at my table. Fuck that douchebag.
Sure, he's being a douche, but he's being a douche because he's bored and that's a separate issue from being a douche.
That's the overall point. If you are complaining about how PCs are using their abilities to skip over the encounters you placed, chances are good that it's because your encounters are boring as fuck. If you were playing Age of Worms where 90% of encounters are random fights with the barest connection to the plot and no recurring characters or other linking elements, I'd be unsurprised if the players decided to skip entire sections of the AP.
That being said, maybe the attacking player is not being a douche. Maybe everyone was not actually enjoying talking to the NPC, but they didn't know what to do next? I'm not going to judge based on a ten-word description.
Last edited by K on Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:37 am, edited 3 times in total.
K wrote:
Sure, he's being a douche, but he's being a douche because he's bored and that's a separate issue from being a douche.
In a group environment sometimes people are going to be bored from time to time. Maybe the rogue has the spotlight and is talking about a trap and your cleric has nothing to do. You get bored.
Maybe the wizard is just taking too long memorizing spells and you get bored.
Boredom is something that's going to happen with other players in the group, because not everyone has similar tastes. And you know what? Live with it. I've been bored from time to time while another PC is doing something, and I'm sure another PC has been bored while I was doing something. And it's only polite to give them some slack if they're doing something they enjoy.
That being said, maybe the attacking player is not being a douche. Maybe everyone was not actually enjoying talking to the NPC, but they didn't know what to do next? I'm not going to judge based on a ten-word description.
That guy is always being a douche. If you're not enjoying the game, the right response is to actually talk to the DM about it like a mature adult. You should not throw a fucking temper tantrum and start randomly attacking people. Being anti-social like that will not win your DM's attention and only earns you a douchebag award as well as a kick in the ass out the door.
K wrote:
Sure, he's being a douche, but he's being a douche because he's bored and that's a separate issue from being a douche.
In a group environment sometimes people are going to be bored from time to time. Maybe the rogue has the spotlight and is talking about a trap and your cleric has nothing to do. You get bored.
Maybe the wizard is just taking too long memorizing spells and you get bored.
Boredom is something that's going to happen with other players in the group, because not everyone has similar tastes. And you know what? Live with it. I've been bored from time to time while another PC is doing something, and I'm sure another PC has been bored while I was doing something. And it's only polite to give them some slack if they're doing something they enjoy.
That being said, maybe the attacking player is not being a douche. Maybe everyone was not actually enjoying talking to the NPC, but they didn't know what to do next? I'm not going to judge based on a ten-word description.
That guy is always being a douche. If you're not enjoying the game, the right response is to actually talk to the DM about it like a mature adult. You should not throw a fucking temper tantrum and start randomly attacking people. Being anti-social like that will not win your DM's attention and only earns you a douchebag award as well as a kick in the ass out the door.
Are you just trying to find something pick a fight about, or just unable to see the bigger issue?
The post I was responding to was complaining that 3e allows PCs too many ways to bypass encounters, and my response was that people bypass encounters when those encounters are boring. The fact that people do that in both douchy ways and in reasonable ways like stealth or magic or diplomacy is a tangent to the issue of boring encounters that the DM feels he can inflict on PCs.
Second guessing and passing judgment on a single poorly-explained example that doesn't even really apply to the overall point is just muddying the issue, and it comes off as trolling.
K wrote:
The post I was responding to was complaining that 3e allows PCs too many ways to bypass encounters, and my response was that people bypass encounters when those encounters are boring.
You actually responded to my post talking about the guy who randomly attacked an NPC, so I don't know what you're talking about. It's not far, it's like... right before my previous post. That's the post you responded to and that's the topic I was talking about. I'll take that as just typical denfail tactics of trying to change the subject when you're losing.
Not to mention that it's not very courteous to just skip by a DM's entire quest that he worked hard on anyway. Either way, it's just a pretty douche thing to do.
If the game is really that awful you can't stand another minute of it, make up some excuse and leave. It's a heck of a lot better than ruining a game other people might be enjoying.
K wrote:
The post I was responding to was complaining that 3e allows PCs too many ways to bypass encounters, and my response was that people bypass encounters when those encounters are boring.
You actually responded to my post talking about the guy who randomly attacked an NPC, so I don't know what you're talking about. It's not far, it's like... right before my previous post. That's the post you responded to and that's the topic I was talking about. I'll take that as just typical denfail tactics of trying to change the subject when you're losing.
Sigh. I wonder how it feels to have the evidence of your incompetence so clearly evident; you replied to my reply to Souran, but you picked out an irrelevant detail and I then made a separate reply to that pointless derail in an effort to clarify any misunderstanding (which is my mistake, because feeding the troll is never a good idea).
That being said, now that you've fallen below the threshold of minimal ability to follow a thread because of a desire to troll or general incompetence, you go on Ignore. I've lost faith in your ability to meaningfully contribute to a discussion among adults.
Starve troll.
Last edited by K on Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:18 am, edited 2 times in total.
K wrote:
That being said, now that you've fallen below the threshold of minimal ability to follow a thread because of a desire to troll or general incompetence, you go on Ignore. I've lost faith in your ability to meaningfully contribute to a discussion among adults.
Good to know I'm not worthy to comment on your "adult" discussion of how to throw a temper tantrum and ruin someone's game because you're bored.
And your response is naturally to put your fingers in your ears and stop listening.
It's silly to say that 3.x allows characters to "break plot" more than any other system. Just because they have actual options? A good MC can always improvise and keep things moving forward.
Character vs. Environment. (I am unaware of any way in which a caster cannot change their environment, up to and including linking it wholesale with an entirely different dimension.)
Character vs. Critter (usually falls somewhere in between 'environment' and 'society' but D&D is a little special. In this case all solutions that apply to one or the other pretty much apply here.)
Character vs. Society. (If the caster does not wish to out-and-out kill the opposition, they can always mind control them.)
Character vs. Self. (Casters have plenty of options for self alteration. If we're being a bit more literal, then you've pretty much got rocket launcher tag.)
At some point, the only way for a 'good MC' to improvise and move things forward is to resort to copious amounts of "FU caster."
"Appreciation is a wonderful thing: It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well."
-Voltaire... who, if I'm reading most of the rest of his stuff properly, didn't actually appreciate much.
shadzar wrote:they are the ones that would go around on Halloween stealing kids candy, and grow up to be criminals....or armed services personnel.
Shadzar, I expect nothing but retardation from you given that your reputation is so strong that even people that do not post on these boards know about you and your idiocy. But making fun of members of the military is low, even for you.
PoliteNewb wrote:D&D is a fucking game. Sometimes you lose games. D&D is better than most, in that losing is a.) not necessarily going to happen and b.) not permanent. But the possibility of loss is there. It should be there. In the opinion of many (myself included), it's part of what makes the game fun.
If your attitude is "I spent my valuable time to come here, so I better be able to play every minute, regardless of what I do or what my dice rolls are"...fuck that, and fuck you.
Maxus wrote:Shadzar is comedy gold, and makes us optimistic for the future of RPGs. Because, see, going into the future takes us further away from AD&D Second Edition and people like Shadzar.
FatR wrote:If you cannot accept than in any game a noob inherently has less worth than an experienced player, go to your special olympics.
hate to break it to you, but those former bullies are EXACTLY the type of people army recruiters look for, and for a reason.. they already like to fight.
it is like the old roman method of using gay men in the armies to have a will to fight, but the bullies already have the will and the want to do so.
Play the game, not the rules.
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
hate to break it to you, but those former bullies are EXACTLY the type of people army recruiters look for, and for a reason.. they already like to fight.
it is like the old roman method of using gay men in the armies to have a will to fight, but the bullies already have the will and the want to do so.
At this point I can only conclude that your life's mission is to make everyone in the world hate you. It seems that you have finally found something that you can succeed at. But do keep talking.
PoliteNewb wrote:D&D is a fucking game. Sometimes you lose games. D&D is better than most, in that losing is a.) not necessarily going to happen and b.) not permanent. But the possibility of loss is there. It should be there. In the opinion of many (myself included), it's part of what makes the game fun.
If your attitude is "I spent my valuable time to come here, so I better be able to play every minute, regardless of what I do or what my dice rolls are"...fuck that, and fuck you.
Maxus wrote:Shadzar is comedy gold, and makes us optimistic for the future of RPGs. Because, see, going into the future takes us further away from AD&D Second Edition and people like Shadzar.
FatR wrote:If you cannot accept than in any game a noob inherently has less worth than an experienced player, go to your special olympics.
So anyways, I think D&D is fun because pretend elf tea party is fun.
I also find character building and combat to be fun. Actually, character building is almost the entirety of combat. Koumei is right, you already won or lost when you made your character, it's just how you win or lose once combat rolls around.
I do sometimes miss the 4e system of "everyone can contribute in interesting combats", but then I'd miss the "players have a lot of freedom outside of combat to do things" of other iterations of D&D.
sandmann wrote:
Zak S wrote:I'm not a dick, I'm really nice.
Zak S wrote:(...) once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human.If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.
If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.
Souran: 3e is bad because bored players can wreck the plot
K: But if players are wrecking the plot, because they're bored, the boredom is the problem.
Swordslinger: But this one time someone was disruptive and douchy! And I hate him!
K: I don't know about that. The point is, boring encounters are bad.
Swordslinger: DOOOOOOUUUUUCHEEEEEY!
K: ....
Swordslinger: Why do you love douchebags?
K: I'm done with you.
Swordslinger: That's right, run away!
fectin wrote:Souran: 3e is bad because bored players can wreck the plot
K: But if players are wrecking the plot, because they're bored, the boredom is the problem.
Swordslinger: But this one time someone was disruptive and douchy! And I hate him!
K: I don't know about that. The point is, boring encounters are bad.
Swordslinger: DOOOOOOUUUUUCHEEEEEY!
K: ....
Swordslinger: Why do you love douchebags?
K: I'm done with you.
Swordslinger: That's right, run away!
People like to pick and win internet fights. it makes them feel better about things.
fectin wrote:Souran: 3e is bad because bored players can wreck the plot
K: But if players are wrecking the plot, because they're bored, the boredom is the problem.
Swordslinger: But this one time someone was disruptive and douchy! And I hate him!
K: I don't know about that. The point is, boring encounters are bad.
Swordslinger: DOOOOOOUUUUUCHEEEEEY!
K: ....
Swordslinger: Why do you love douchebags?
K: I'm done with you.
Swordslinger: That's right, run away!
Dude, so lets get this straight... are you saying that the guy blatantly attempting to ruin a DM's game isn't being a douche?
fectin wrote:Souran: 3e is bad because bored players can wreck the plot
K: But if players are wrecking the plot, because they're bored, the boredom is the problem.
Swordslinger: But this one time someone was disruptive and douchy! And I hate him!
K: I don't know about that. The point is, boring encounters are bad.
Swordslinger: DOOOOOOUUUUUCHEEEEEY!
K: ....
Swordslinger: Why do you love douchebags?
K: I'm done with you.
Swordslinger: That's right, run away!
Dude, so lets get this straight... are you saying that the guy blatantly attempting to ruin a DM's game isn't being a douche?
fectin wrote:Souran: 3e is bad because bored players can wreck the plot
K: But if players are wrecking the plot, because they're bored, the boredom is the problem.
Swordslinger: But this one time someone was disruptive and douchy! And I hate him!
K: I don't know about that. The point is, boring encounters are bad.
Swordslinger: DOOOOOOUUUUUCHEEEEEY!
K: ....
Swordslinger: Why do you love douchebags?
K: I'm done with you.
Swordslinger: That's right, run away!
Dude, so lets get this straight... are you saying that the guy blatantly attempting to ruin a DM's game isn't being a douche?
It's what we call misaligned expectations. Or as The Captain would call it, failure to communicate.
The player who ruins the game isn't a duchebag. He just has different expectations and desires about the type of game he's playing than the DM does.
Players who expect to play a game of murder hobos aren't going to engage with an Agatha Christie Mystery in genre-appropriate ways. They're going to rampage through your carefully crafted whodunnit like a bunch of murder hobos. That's just common sense.
