Comments on a recent post got me thinking: most people who talk about RPGs online are DMs - content creators, organisers, systematisers. People who are only ever players are a kind of silent majority. This means you don't get much discussion regarding how to be a good player, or play theory, or whatever. Or you may see the occasional list of desirable traits without much elaboration on how you get them.
What makes a good player? Lateral thinking is extremely useful, as a means of traditional problem-solving but also simply as a way to be creative in reacting to what the DM throws at you. (Not that I want to turn into Edward de Bono all of a sudden - I've always thought he was kind of a knob.) There are all sorts of techniques for getting better at this, of course - not least the book Lateral Thinking itself. This is the kind of skill that results in players planning to assassinate a powerful nobleman they've discovered they have to kill by putting explosive materials in his horse; using the corpses of enemies as a sled to slide down a rapidly collapsing pyramid; or relocating a river mussel goddess to a human settlement so she can live off their detritus as a means of persuading her not to kill people anymore - all of which are examples that spring to mind of things that have happened in games where the lateral thinking of the players has impressed or surprised me.
The importance of paying attention goes without saying, but it's all well and good saying it. How does once get better at it? The obvious thing is making notes - important names, importance places, important rumours. Jot them all down somewhere so you can refer back. So that you don't forget entirely or annoy the DM by constantly asking "What was that guy's name again? You know, the guy with the stuff."
A third thing: think about consequences and air them. A creative DM has to have ideas to riff off. This may be a view behind the curtain that reveals a bungling technician where there ought to be a wizard, but I'm sure I'm not the only DM who steals ideas from the players when they are idly ruminating and then runs with them. Players' fears, hopes, dreams and anxieties are part of the stuff of the game - part of the glorious feedback mechanisms that make a campaign sing. So to be a good player, speak a lot about what is going on in the game. Ruminate on things. Give him stuff to work with. A good DM won't just use what you are thinking directly. But he will pick it up and twist it, stretch it and spin it around to make the game richer and deeper.
Is that it? It'll do for starters.
Absolutely. I think there are more players lurking out there than is often thought...DM talky-talk doesn't address the things that are important to them... If there was more for them, they would be more involved (on-line). like, Character stuff and specific things on solving problems, tactics and so on. I have a nice cadre of dedicated players, only a few have read the rules. Laziness? I would cast the first stone, but I am just too lazy to do it.
ReplyDeletePlayer-only-players are that because they don't want to read stuff and I don't blame them.,
ReplyDeleteSo you often see "Player Advice" columns and (unlike this one) they often get a little passive aggressive ("Realize your GM is doing something nice for you you ungrateful little sh..." but really players never read them.
So there is advice on being a good player, but so far word-of-mouth is the best way to present it
This is probably true, I always hope the players are reading the rules and such, but usually they do not, so word of mouth it is. Even so, if there were some useful stuff out there (out here?) at least the words from the mouth would informed. Not only that, the collective "We" could point them at this stuff and if it didn't slow them down too much they might read it. Hearing it from another source makes it more likely they won't just nod when you tell them (for the 10th time) to use their ranged attacks first. Better yet they could all line up and I could whack them with my copy of "Role-Playing Mastery".
DeleteI have found that games like Shadowrun and D&D 3E that have diverse and deep character customization systems promote much more player discussion than those like B/X that do not. Asking "How can I choose a subset of these {classes, races, feats, etc.} so as to generate a character that can do interesting things?" is a question that can benefit from multiple viewpoints and different types of analysis. As such, it lends itself well to forum discussion and the like.
ReplyDeleteIn LotFP or whatever, "doing interesting things" is more a matter of players proposing ways to interact with the gameworld that are inspired by the system's sparse mechanics and then having the GM okay those suggestions. So much less commonality between groups can be achieved, and posting topics like "what interesting things can a party do in these situations" can come dangerously close to "let me tell you about this one time in my D&D campaign" territory.
Obviously, the former can be taken to unpleasant extremes (e.g. the WotC CharOp boards, particularly their obsession with twenty-level builds). But the urge to optimize is not inherently harmful.
I disagree. A game system that has extensive character building options doesn't promote smart, efficient or creative game play on the players part. I am not saying that either system (whether detailed or sparse) is better. I have played RPG's with a number of excellent players over the years and there are things they do that make them great players. Great players come in all shapes and sizes, some know how to talk, some fight, some cast spells and the best know the right questions to ask. Having one of these in your group is fantastic, two or more is a rare thing indeed. I personally like game systems that are more on the sparse end, the rules are not getting in the way of the game.
DeletePlease show me where I said that game systems with extensive character building options promote smart, efficient, or creative gameplay on the players' part. Spoiler: I did not. If you are not implying that I said that, then I have no idea what you are disagreeing with me about, because you are just sort of rambling.
DeleteWhat I said is that those systems are better at generating online player discussion than sparser systems are, because there is more common ground for people from disparate groups to talk about.
It is true, I do ramble sometimes. I have reread your post more closely. I took your statement to imply that "more complex character creation systems foster more interesting play by the players", which is not what you are saying. So, I stand corrected. I do not think good online discussion is limited to game systems with more diverse character builds. I think the common ground is not limited to the details of a particular game systems mechanics. There are both universal and system specific things players can do to to be superior players. It is true, more people will read posts about DeeUnDee (or other popular game system), as it will appear more relevant to them.
DeleteThey are some of the main ones. I always riff off the third if I can and some of the best followup sessions come from that material. I try to ban or discourage electronic media to help the second. Others that spring to mind:
ReplyDelete(1) Punctuality
(2) Willing to share the spotlight (i.e. self awareness that isn't always about your PC)
(3) Players that stretch the rules (I use a lot of house rules and campaign specific stuff) and have no issue with players who want to really bend them but I prefer they discuss this me beforehand. I have a couple of very strategic players who could basically be professional play testers.
(4) Those willing to laugh at bad results and still try to interpret them in context. A sense of humour goes a long way!
Those are good ideas, especially the electronic media idea. Sadly I've had people who will play a video game on their laptop while I run. It's never fun.
DeleteOne thing I do as a player are little things to expedite play. When I roll an attack, I'll also roll damage, even if it doesn't hit. It helps to speed up play so I don't hold up everyone. Paying attention to what goes on is a big player in this as well. There have been a lot of times where a player doesn't pay attention to what goes on and holds up the game because of it.
If there were an upvote function on this post, I'd click it. I feel there are two directions this idea can be taken, really:
ReplyDelete1. Zoom in to the details. What makes a good Paranoia player (irreverent sense of humor; ability to detach from the character) and what makes a good World of Darkness LARPer (willingness to emote, to inhabit a character, and maybe some improv acting tips) are going to be pretty different. Some systems (or at least some game styles, which tend to be served better by certain systems) will demand more lateral thinking and creativity; others will demand more back-and-forth interaction with the GM; still others will demand patient analysis of complicated tactics and investment in system mastery.
2. Zoom out to universals. Good play begins and ends with good communication, I think. Before play, talk with the GM about your expectations for the style, tone, and content of the game. During play, ruminate out loud, yes, but also go ahead and give feedback on how you feel about the game went. If play was fun, say so! If you have a complaint, air it! (In a reasonable manner that involves mutual exchange of thoughts.) And don't forget to communicate with the other players too: things that they did that were shiny; things you had problems with; random things they made you think about. It's a social game, so being able to express yourself and listen to others is vital.
I really agree with your third point and I've tried to stress this with my gaming mates. Some of the most memorable campaign stuff has coalesced out of the wild musings of players at the table in the thick of things. I pillage that shit for ideas.
ReplyDelete"A third thing: think about consequences and air them." This not only gives GMs stuff to riff off, it prevents the GM having to say, 'errr, alright, I think you've completely misunderstood the situation.'
ReplyDeleteThis, of course, is always the fault of the players for not listening/taking notes, and not a result of the GM failing to communicate clearly.
I'm joking, but there is a serious point there. Unless the GM can hear what the PC/s are planning - what their aims, methods, and [implied] assumptions are - the GM is not in a position to provide them with appropriate information, to correct misunderstandings, and so on. I've run a few games where a clever player has kept his plans secret from me, the GM, and has taken an extended series of actions that could not have achieved the ends that he sought. If he had just said, I plan to do this this and this to achieve that, I could have filled in the details, and pointed out the possible consequences.
It's role a playing game so sometimes you just have to play the part and do something completely stupid even though you know it wont 'win' you the game.
ReplyDelete