HANDLING TROUBLESOME PLAYERS
Some players will find more enjoyment in spoiling a game than in playing it, and this ruins the fun for the rest of the participants, so it must be prevented. Those who enjoy being loud and argumentative, those who pout or act in a childish manner when things go against them, those who use the books as a defense when you rule them out of line should be excluded from the campaign. Simply put, ask them to leave, or do not invite them to participate again.
Peer pressure is another means which can be used to control players who are not totally obnoxious and who you deem worth saving. These types typically attempt to give orders and instructions even when their characters are not present, tell other characters what to do even though the character role they have has nothing to do with that of the one being instructed, or continually attempt actions or activities their characters would have no knowledge of. When any such proposals or suggestions or orders are made, simply inform the group that that is no longer possible under any circumstances because of the player in question. The group will then act to silence him or her and control undesirable outbursts. The other players will most certainly let such individuals know about undesirable activity when it begins to affect their characters and their enjoyment of the game.
Strong steps short of expulsion can be an extra random monster die, obviously rolled, the attack of an ethereal mummy (which always strikes by surprise, naturally), points of damage from "blue bolts from the heavens" striking the offender's head, or the permanent loss of a point of charisma (appropriately) from the character belonging to the offender. If these have to be enacted regularly, then they are not effective and stronger measures must be taken. Again, the ultimate answer to such a problem is simply to exclude the disruptive person from further gatherings.
tussock will get to this in due time in his review, but this extends to the forums as well with the name in the thread title, but is also a reason why discussions cannot be had on these forums well...too many troublesome players.
the second part is in essence what 3rd etc has done from the company to ALL. oddly enough if you watch the 1st session of the livestream you clearly see James Wyatt, a designer doing this exact thing, and Mearls having no balls at all to step in and tell him to stop.
the fact they are trying to make
Planescape: the Dungeoning instead of D&D by forcing everyone to play Planescape, wherein NEVER were the planes a core part of D&D as it assumed people to play on a single planet, is further proof of this story motif to the game. what is WRONG with D&D.
first you are forced into playing high level magic games, how else would one function on the planes? also forcing connections to things that never were.
Manual of the Planes
this is ONE book, that calls the Planes as being a hall junk closet with crap just thrown in. only those seeking the crap in it would open the door. not everyone wishes to open the door. why was Greyhawk a default for the majority of (A)D&D's lifespan? because it was the ultimate generic world. the core books don't detail Greyhawk life, nor religions and maps. this is a feature not a bug, nor is it coincidence. the ability to buy Greyhawk material meant more sales, but not just of Greyhawk material, of the core game itself for BOTH being so open in nature to do what you want with them. as i understand 3rd has deities right in the core books, where it should NOT since there should be NO cosmology in the core game as it is NOT a setting, just a framework. though IIRC also it doesnt even use those dieties in any real way that much. only when you get to a world does those things come into play. was ANY rules in 3.x core (PHB,DMG,MM) tied to a deity? 4th also did have deities of sorts in the core, but they meant nothing. pre-WotC didnt even mention deities in anything. 1st didnt have the Greyhawk list of deities in the rules. it always sid things like "a god", "your god", etc when discussing a character ability or function. Deities & Demigods added some generic ones, and the campaign worlds offered their own. WotC loves to force the ONE TRUE WAY to play D&D with each new edition, such as it is doing with DDN with having both Realms and Planescape as default game settings on their "dials". 2nd didn't have deities in core that is for sure. The only reason Greyhawk character names are on spells is because it was those names that created them. notice the SRD removed many of them if i am correct, Melf's Acid Arrows, just became Acid Arrows. no real loss.
WotC continues to tell THEIR story, rather than allow people to play the game their own way, and WotC-followers perpetuate this to such an appalling extent it is only hurting the game further. people like Fuchs and Koumei that are clearly identified in the quote above are what is hurting the game to the extent that D&D no longer exists. the ME-ME-ME, rather than playing the game. This extends to the Wyatts and Mearls out there too. Those people that want to tell their one singular story with D&D and have it made in such a way that prevents on the inspirational level of playing ANY other way.
again in regards to the Planescape Edition, the core should be generic, people wanting those planes need to buy additions tools to do it. sorry, that is the way the world works. D&D can't be all things to all people. NOT everyone is even a plane-hopping fop. yet the game is continuing to be made for THOSE people that want one singular type of story, rather than an open game where people can play their own way. (see the "snowball" thread and "wishlist" thread for more)
@erik, pretty much the quote above in the first section is what these people dont understand be it online or off. as other say, "no game is better than a bad game." and player with bad players will lead to a bad game, and playing in methods or systems one doesn't like will lead to a bad game...thus what D&D logo is being placed on....bad games. mostly unrecognizable as games anymore but just the device to tell WotC's story of D&D. which should belong and remain ONLY in the novels written by the likes of Greenwood, Salvatore, Weiss, whatever.
__
Bigby might exist in th core of D&D, but only as a faceless wizard who made a spell and named it something. his exploits are NOT present in AD&D, only a name, and had nobody ever known that Bigby was a character in a game played by Gary then it would have been no different than naming something a Mind Flayer, just a name pulled out of someone's ass. that is what the core should be, not a tight knit story of this one true way, but a generic that people can ADD too.
AD&D, everything already is modular since the "subsystems" are so unconnected. people can not only make their own game world, but they can make their own system and change it in such a way that works for them. if not, then 3.x could have never existed replaces one saves system for another, etc.
there is a thread on DF right now talking about things like powers in 4th and feats in 3rd and simply put... the fact that NWPs arent used by many, because they arent needed. this, THIS, is what D&D should be. a basic framework with SOME D&D specific things, however few they re, like how D&D elves are, but not that they are bred from something called the Feywild. Feywild creation is akin to a backronym. trying to create a reason for its existence from history and assuming it always was... NO.
those who WANT to add, should be able to. others shouldnt have to take away. ANY DM that cant use the core generic info and make something their own to make it work, shouldnt be a DM, or can buy the extra tool, be it a Planescape setting box/book, anr encounter book, etc. but lacking the imagination to be able to do these things from the start, probably tells that a TTRPG is NOT the game you should be playing as you lack something of its foundation as a player.
"The thing we must not let them know is that they don't need out books to play D&D." ~ Gary Gygax
Nebuchadnezzar wrote:You meant to say Spanish. The use of 'Mexican' in that context is racist.
didnt' se the next page... the use of SPANISH to call a Mexican is racist. ask any Mexican if they are Spanish, and count the tooth you have left in your mouth, they don't claim Spain anymore than it works to claim Americans are English... cause America is NO a part of England. Welcome to North America, where people went to get AWAY from Europe. and I have spoken to enough legal and otherwise Mexicans in America, that even say they speak Mexican, not Spanish. I will also guarantee that the "spanish"-speaking people in America are in the majority Mexicans, not people from Spain...nor matter where their ancestors originated.
so you cant be politically correct, when you aren't correct in the first place.
