In the Plays Well With Others thread, DevP said this:

QuoteRight now, the skill I'm looking to build on is how, as a player (not GM), to play up to other players' wants, drawing them into a scene (esp. if I feel they haven't been 100% engaged).

Now I wonder, exactly how often does this happen around the gaming table? The emphasis is always on the GM to draw players into a scene. I think this goes beyond social rules. I think that if more gamers had this attitude a lot of the dysfunction we read about would be solved.

More and more, esp in games where the GM has a lot of influence/authority, the players just look after their own characters and not worry about the other players trusting that the GM will handle issues like the above, that rightly IMO should be addressed by the group as a whole.

What do you folks think?

Regards,
David R

Having GMed for Dev once, I can testify that he does indeed do this. I do wish he'd brought his own character forward a little more, as I thoroughly enjoyed his take on it, but he was engaging the other characters through the whole scenario, and particularly in the end-game. I just wish he'd introduced himself earlier, so we could have chatted - the game ran right up to closing time, and we had to hustle out as they closed down around us.

Wow. Thank you! And I'm sorry for having gotten their late, but it was so very hard to leave the con's MST3K treatment of The Da Vinci Code...

As for the topic: I am a GM rather frequently, so that could be one thing rubbing off - I play characters with a somewhat similar mindset as when I GM, sorta.

The most fun at the table happens when two PCs really mix it up, rather than reacting to GM stuff, but on the other hand it's a totally fair distribution of work that the players have just a character (playing them truly and interestingly) and the GM presents hooks that will interest their character.

I agree that this is a goal that I think of as fundamental to play ... enough so that I don't, personally, even think of the goal as a skill any more.

I suppose there is a skill involved in the mere act of realizing that you should be drawing other players into the game.  But, beyond that, there are also skills involved in how you do it ... and I tend to focus more on those.

   To give a real-play example:  I played a Watcher in a (very fun!) "Slayers of the Carribean" Buffy game set in piratical times.  Our slayer was a noble-born girl of, frankly, delicate sensibilities and attitude.  She would demur from confrontations, given half the chance.  So, seeing that the player wanted to do that, I figured that she would need someone to constantly be goading her into action, or else she wouldn't get to have her cake (the demurness) and eat it too (the ass-kicking which she totally also wanted to do).  That informed my watcher's philosophy:  "The job of a watcher is to torment the slayer until she is in a froth of utter fury, and then to point her in the right direction."  I got to have a lot of fun doing that, and the other player got to have a lot of fun responding to it.

I think (but I'm not sure) that there is a critical-mass thing that can go on when players start doing this.  It can pass from "That thing Tony does" to "This is what we the players do for each other."  It becomes part of the teamwork (whether unspoken or explicit) that makes the game great.

Quote from: TonyLBI think (but I'm not sure) that there is a critical-mass thing that can go on when players start doing this.  It can pass from "That thing Tony does" to "This is what we the players do for each other."  It becomes part of the teamwork (whether unspoken or explicit) that makes the game great.

That sounds about right -- everyone doing a small amount adds up to a pretty powerful push in the right direction.

I think that goes for any general approach toward making the game work (E.g. it's everyone's responsibility -- not just the GM's).

Slayers of the Carribean sounds like I show I want to see :-D

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBI think (but I'm not sure) that there is a critical-mass thing that can go on when players start doing this.  It can pass from "That thing Tony does" to "This is what we the players do for each other."  It becomes part of the teamwork (whether unspoken or explicit) that makes the game great.

Very true. I really like the example you gave, because it illustrates that the GM is not the only person at the table, who is responsible for acting as a catalyst for the player to get into a scene. I can't help but think, that if players functioned like this, proactive play would be so much easier to achieve.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI can't help but think, that if players functioned like this, proactive play would be so much easier to achieve.

Well, I'll phrase is slightly less in the hypothetical:  My experience is that when players function like this, proactive play is much easier to achieve.

Yes! Great example Tony! I have to agree with all this. The players in my groups are generally pro-active, and they like to engage each other as much or more than with the GM. There's a definite close corelation.

-clash

Yeah, goading people into action is pretty effective. Because I play in a group with PvP, the various PCs often work at cross purposes, and you're liable to get fucked if you just want to sit back and avoid taking sides.

Quote from: David RNow I wonder, exactly how often does this happen around the gaming table?

I do it a lot. Have for...well just about ever. Help proactive play? I consider it part of proactive play itself. With the bonus that it usually spurs the player being given an "in" to fire up. Some players seem to take off primarily if not only when they don't feel the GM is involved.

Mob mentality? *shrug*

The easiest, although most dangerous, way to heat up the action fast is have you PC steal another PC's "stuff". I say dangerous because for some players this is taboo and still others can mistake it for a direct attack on them.

So usually best to push a more cooperative stance..... such as hook up with another PC to mug a 3rd? :hehe:  Seriously though picking out an objective to aim for that needs at least 2 PCs for a chance of success is a great way to bring others in.

Other things I've done are play a poison using rogue (back in AD&D when "poison == EVUL"  :rolleyes: ) where everyone else was Good or Neutral alignment. Mind you the poison was always used to the party benefit, not against any of them. This was a low, low level AD&D game so the poison really punched up the party's power. It was a fun cat & mouse sidestory keeping it hidden from the other party members. Until one day the party decided to jump the rogue and "rehabilite" him (by turning him into the local authorities?).  Unfortunately they botched it and he got away. Then for whatever reason they made the fateful decision to try track him down and snuff him.  The sidestory took over the game as it turned into a total PvPfest.

My 1st level rogue ended up killing all 3 of them (mixed 1st and 2nd level) in 2 rounds and then had the PC ride off into the sunset. :deflated:  It was a short but fun "campaign". Definately something you'll want to do in moderation though and caution when picking the players and groups you do this in.  In this case one of the other players was a nutcase and another was her husband. So she decided that she'd do that with her character but when her character got caught she went total poutout.  Not killed mind you. Just caught and told to give back something she'd stolen and told not to do it again.  Middle of the session she gets up in a huff and goes outside, gets in the car, and drives off.....without her husband. He comes back in and sheepishly says "Um, can anyone give me a ride home?" :roofle:

No, I don't play with them anymore. I don't think anyone does. Even without any PvP of any sort at the table the "emotional minefield" just really wore out it's welcome.

Blakkie:  Can you explain to me how the "My guy uses Poison, isn't that cool!  Oh, now I'll kill you all," thing helped to bring anyone else's character to the forefront?

Because, honestly, I'm not seeing it.  From the description you've written so far, it looks like you were just a spoiled brat and contributed to trashing a campaign and pissing everyone off.

I deleted a rough draft about PVP conflict, because it was devoid of nuance. It's an interesting topic and very relevent to the discussion at hand, but blakkie's post illustrates why most often, players are reluctant to engage in this type of conflict because (reading blakkie's post) it seems detrimental to the functionality of the group. I'll gather my thoughts and return to the subject later.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: TonyLBBlakkie:  Can you explain to me how the "My guy uses Poison, isn't that cool!  Oh, now I'll kill you all," thing helped to bring anyone else's character to the forefront?

Hrmmm, well, it added spice to the "wack the monster, dig up the gold" dungeon. Personally I wanted to explore the idea of a socially minded character (and he was quite loyal to the party) that was "evil" because of some arbitrary stricture about poison. He didn't go around ganking grandmothers or kicking babies. To give the other characters something to play off of weighing utility versus what they've been told is wrong. Plus a mystery. A you know it sort of mystery, but you are using your character to try piece things together. I know the one player especially liked that aspect and really played off of it. That's where a lot of the back-and-forth came from.

I guess you had to be there?  Keep in mind that this is a group that had been primarily dungeoncrawl after above-ground-dungeoncrawl. This idea of breaking out of that mould to something else was a pretty wild and exciting concept.

QuoteBecause, honestly, I'm not seeing it.  From the description you've written so far, it looks like you were just a spoiled brat and contributed to trashing a campaign and pissing everyone off.

Hehe. Well people had fun. The DM was very cool with it. When my rogue had escaped I was just going to ride the PC off and bring another one in. But they wanted to hunt him. I certainly would have understood turning him over as an NPC if the DM wanted him (not sure if I specifically offered, that's going back a long time). *shrug*

I did have a lot of mixed feelings about killing those other PCs, even though it was a kill or be killed position for my PC. My next character wasn't anything like that one and I don't think I've played a poison using character since. Not before that either if I remember correctly (but that's a lot of years, so no guarantee on that one).

Unless the campaign is designed to be player vs. player* I've found that engaging in that sort of behavior damages the game much more than it helps it. It's a very rare individual that doesn't get POed out of game when another player screws them over in game. And this is doubly true if the group isn't made up of longtime friends, and its an almost total stranger who just stole half your loot.

* Yeah, I could have said PvP, but that is equating to killing each other more and more these days, and I meant for that to apply to all types of play where one PC screws over another.

Actually the bulk of my experience runs counter. I probably should have expanded more on it. I expect I will in a future post. I've got a movie date right now though.

As well that person who melted down ((please note I was talking about a completely different case)) tended to melt down in general. She actually didn't in that particular case of the poison using rogue. The sad fact is it should likely sit under the "When SO's Attack!" file. If anything if she would have left the group because of it it would have been a Very Good Thing. Ultimately she turned off and drove people off (among others my SO and ultimately myself) till the group disappeared. Nada to do with PvP.

P.S.  I will also say that I've found table secrets more damaging than PvP. Although the two combined can be killers.