(D&D2e) Bringing in the new guy
Ron Edwards:
Hey, I was thinking and thinking, and I finally realized it wasn't something I read, but what Robin talked about in some detail when we participated in a panel at GenCon one year ... 2003, or 2004, one of those. The panel was billed as kind of a "what problems do you run into" seminar, with me, Robin, and ... could it have been Mike Mearls? Maybe. Anyway, the audience included one particularly memorable account by an Amber player, but the person I'm thinking of was running into all kinds of trouble with strife in the D&D party. Robin explained the issues surrounding having thieves and paladins in the party at all, i.e., that by having either one, you are purposefully front-loading specific kinds of conflict into the play-experience, and that you have to know that that's what you want to do. It was an insightful point phrased in a way that was accessible to people who hadn't thought about these things a bit.
For purposes of clarity: the analogy with the Marines is my paraphrase. Robin focused on in-D&D, in-play concepts without analogies.
Best, Ron
Aelwyn:
I'm frequently the new guy. Here are some things I'd most like to see when I'm joining an existing group. Some of these dovetail with the problems noted in Jeff's post.
1. I'd like an open, nonjudgmental conversation about the group's style of play: Is it zany, edgy, realistic, violent, sexually charged, serious, or epically overpowered? How much out-of-character talk is allowed? To what degree can we ignore the mechanics of the game and just narrate our way out of a situation? If my character dies in the first five minutes, are you going to let me roll a new one, or do I have to go in the kitchen and make onion dip for the next five hours? Are the characters in this campaign cooperative or competitive? Is it expected that our characters will die during this game? Are we supposed to be heroes or antiheroes?
2. Some input on the kind of campaign. I'm not asking you to completely change the group to accommodate me, but if I'm interested in solving a mystery and the other six players and the GM want to bash monsters, it would be nice if we spent 1/8th of the time on solving a mystery.
3. If I'm creating my own character, be honest about what skills and characteristics will be useful in this campaign. If there aren't going to be any locks to pick or nobles to seduce, what's the point of bringing my thief or my courtesan? I might love the character, but I'm going to be bored to death, and I probably won't be back.
4. Go out of your way to make sure I can 1) contribute something to the group and 2) have some success within the game. See point 3.
5. If your style of play and my style of play don't fit, allow me to back out without getting into an argument.
6. If you're playing a game that isn't D&D, or I'm new to role-playing games, try to avoid game-theory jargon, acronyms, and references to other games when explaining the rules and play to me. I haven't played TMOS 3rd ed., don't know what it stands for, and don't have the ability to purchase and read the rulebook in the next five minutes. Tell me whether the game world is closer to Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or James Bond, and I'll get it. Tell me that I'm going to be rolling dice, and higher is better, and tell me five things I can do in this game to affect outcomes. Or better yet, ask me what my gaming experience is--then you'll know what shortcuts to take.
7. Since I probably haven't read the rulebook, and there's no way I'm going to understand the mechanics of the game in five minutes, it's okay to give me hints on strategy. This will put me on a more level footing with the guys who have been playing for 40 years and have every rule memorized. Don't make the game a contest on who can memorize the most rules--I will always lose that contest, and it's no fun playing games you always lose.
8. You need to offer all of the above without me asking for it, since I'm the new guy, and I don't really know how things work in this group. I'm unlikely to charge into an unfamiliar social situation with people I don't know and a game I haven't played, take control of the situation, and demand that you provide me with the kind of information I need. So the group needs to welcome me and help me understand its dynamics.
Jeff B:
Aelwyn, you do write like a veteran of not being a veteran. Man, all your comments strike a chord in me.
I think it is especially appropriate that your comment #1 is #1. This conversation should happen perhaps even before the first session. My experience with this conversation is that the players are usually helpful; it's the GM who is the problem. Instead of an open discussion of player preferences, the GM will make this into a conversation about the "right way to play" and claim that every good thing you imagine about roleplaying will occur in his campaign. Outwardly the language will be compatible. For example, you will both agree that "impartial judgment" is a virtue. But unfortunately, that word means very different things to you and to him in practice. So the truth of the roleplaying experience remains shrouded behind individual interpretation.
#3 is a big mystery to me, too. Is it pride that makes the GM say, "Oh, all the skills are good. Pick things that fit your character image," when they know full well you will NEVER use Animal Medicine or Fashion Sense during the campaign? It's as if there's an illusion going on within the GM's mind that they are running the perfect game. If you give a GM a checklist of every skill in his game system and say, "Check the ones that have come into play during the last ten sessions," could you trust them to mark it accurately? Okay, so you could choose the Farrier skill (making horseshoes) and try at every opportunity to add color by working it into the game. But D&D doesn't give the player that much control, and it's not likely ever to be really important, unless the GM has already determined it will be important. Which he won't have done, because nobody even had Farrier until you chose it!
Your point #4, I do agree, but this can be harder than it sounds in most game systems. In my opinion, the ideal situation would be that an extra party member means more success for everyone. Think of the farmer, in centuries gone by: The bigger his family, the more acres he can manage, the more money he can make. Every new kid is profit, in the long run. That's the kind of feeling I'd like to see, where things the party couldn't do before, now they suddenly can because guy X came along! Easier said than done, but I totally agree with you on its desirability.
#5, no kidding. Can we just get along? This is more interaction on the Social Contract level (that is a buzz word here -- essentially it means the aspect of the game where we are real people interacting with each other, the things that affect us on a real world level, not just our character selves. A lot of your points are aimed at Social Contract level, I think. That supports the idea that the social aspect of gaming is neglected and under-utilized; too much emphasis on the game world, not enough on the people who are playing).
#7: Agreed, again. I'm totally open to the experienced player next to me advising me, "Okay, in this conflict, you might wanna just step to the side and tell the GM each round that you want to 'lend support to' whoever moved before you. He'll know what you mean. You can kick back and watch how things unfold." Okay, no problem. And I've met many helpful players. They are usually more helpful than the GM. I even remember GM's saying such obnoxious things as, "Hey, no advising the new guy! He has to figure it out himself." I say screw that. What that GM is doing is trying to kill any action on the social level, which gives him even more power.
Everyone at the table should feel *some* inkling of interest in making the time fun for everyone. But that kind of spirit is hard to find.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page