SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Dealing With Different Intellectual Abilities of The Players

Started by SHARK, November 02, 2021, 05:16:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3
User actions

Greentongue

#30
November 08, 2021, 01:56:21 PM
"I suppose it is one of the main reasons that new players have been encouraged to start with Fighters or Barbarians. They are fun, reliable, and don't require lots of fiddling."

This does tend to tint the view of the game. If the common experience is "fighting is The answer", then that drives expectations of what "D&D" is.
As was mentioned, there are multiple types of people and how they react to this can effect their engagement.
May even make them seem to "play dumb" as they don't engage as many brain cells for "simple" games.

mAcular Chaotic

#31
November 09, 2021, 04:09:03 AM
Quote from: dkabq on November 07, 2021, 07:57:40 AM
I have a similar range of players. The way I handle it is to provide material (over time) that covers that range. So there are adventure threads where "killing the lawful owners and taking their property" works, while others require investigation, negotiation, and not-killing.

My players also have different levels of engagement . Some only think about the game in when in a session. Others are plotting and scheming between sessions. I don't penalize the low engagement players, but I do give perks to the high-engagement players. For example, one PC has been trying to figure out the CISO (City State of the Invincible Overlord) bureaucracy. Given the effort (some successful, some not) he has put in, he now has proficiency in dealing with the CISO bureaucracy. It is nothing specifically defined, rather, it is just a reminder that the PC has some skill in that regard which I need to consider, either as ruling that is is automatically successful (e.g., able to "work" a lowly clerk) or in setting DC checks.

This gives me an idea.

What if you gave extra XP to players that were more engaged? Or more specifically, to player behaviors that mean more engagement. For example, XP for players when they don't zone out or check out their phone or whatever during a session, XP for players that show they remember the details of what's happening instead of just spacing out until someone tells them what's going on, etc. XP for basically being a good player.

If XP is what drives player activity, then it should make them more engaged. You can lead people to it.
Battle doesn\'t need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don\'t ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don\'t ask why I fight.

Ghostmaker

#32
November 09, 2021, 08:13:40 AM
This reminds me of a discussion I had with my group regarding Mage: The Awakening.

Namely, that unless you wanted your game to go awry, you needed your players to be in the middle of the bell curve. If they weren't smart enough, they'd hurt themselves via Paradox; but if they were too smart, they'd break the system in fascinating ways.

"I'm an engineer. That means I solve problems..."

Steven Mitchell

#33
November 10, 2021, 07:11:13 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 08:13:40 AM
This reminds me of a discussion I had with my group regarding Mage: The Awakening.

Namely, that unless you wanted your game to go awry, you needed your players to be in the middle of the bell curve. If they weren't smart enough, they'd hurt themselves via Paradox; but if they were too smart, they'd break the system in fascinating ways.

"I'm an engineer. That means I solve problems..."

That does lead to some funny conversations.

"I'm sorry, we are kicking you out of the group."
"What!  What did I do wrong?"
"Nothing.  You are just too smart to play with us.  It's nothing personal.  Just not a good fit."

Ghostmaker

#34
November 11, 2021, 11:14:17 AM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 10, 2021, 07:11:13 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 08:13:40 AM
This reminds me of a discussion I had with my group regarding Mage: The Awakening.

Namely, that unless you wanted your game to go awry, you needed your players to be in the middle of the bell curve. If they weren't smart enough, they'd hurt themselves via Paradox; but if they were too smart, they'd break the system in fascinating ways.

"I'm an engineer. That means I solve problems..."

That does lead to some funny conversations.

"I'm sorry, we are kicking you out of the group."
"What!  What did I do wrong?"
"Nothing.  You are just too smart to play with us.  It's nothing personal.  Just not a good fit."
LOL. Although I wouldn't kick someone out of the group for being too smart. I might opt for a system where it's harder to use pressure dynamics to kill every critter in a cave system, though.

Svenhelgrim

#35
November 12, 2021, 09:48:04 AM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 11, 2021, 11:14:17 AM
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 10, 2021, 07:11:13 PM
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 08:13:40 AM
This reminds me of a discussion I had with my group regarding Mage: The Awakening.

Namely, that unless you wanted your game to go awry, you needed your players to be in the middle of the bell curve. If they weren't smart enough, they'd hurt themselves via Paradox; but if they were too smart, they'd break the system in fascinating ways.

"I'm an engineer. That means I solve problems..."

That does lead to some funny conversations.

"I'm sorry, we are kicking you out of the group."
"What!  What did I do wrong?"
"Nothing.  You are just too smart to play with us.  It's nothing personal.  Just not a good fit."
LOL. Although I wouldn't kick someone out of the group for being too smart. I might opt for a system where it's harder to use pressure dynamics to kill every critter in a cave system, though.

You make that person the Game Master and hope he/she's not a psychopath.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions