Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Darkly)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Chebucto Regional Softball Club

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Splitting the party from session 1
A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.

Splitting the party from session 1

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
rpgmemes
154 Posts 72 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • ? Guest
    Sorry for being off-topic, but I don't think I understand anarchism as a political philosophy. Isn't anarchism the absence of imposed rules? Communal resources seems to go against that, (it does make sense that the players get to divvy it up, though) and being cursed by the gods feels like a more theocratic thing than anarchist. Im not trying to be rude or anything, I just like to pick people's brains about this stuff.
    R This user is from outside of this forum
    R This user is from outside of this forum
    randomgal@lemmy.ca
    wrote last edited by
    #51
    Yeah. He has a lot of rules and demands for an "anarchist" lol.
    A ? 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • The Picard ManeuverT The Picard Maneuver
      This post did not contain any content.
      Link Preview Image
      ? Offline
      ? Offline
      Guest
      wrote last edited by
      #52
      I actually made this work in a recent cheesy short campaign. My character was an intelligent monkey, although he was still an animal and couldn't speak. After meeting the party, he decided to go do his own thing, which just so happened to be the same thing as the rest of the party. It worked out really well. The rest of the party could navigate social challenges without having to explain the monkey, I could sneak around and grab MacGuffins without having to accommodate huge humans who were terrible at climbing. I doubt it works well for longer or more serious games, but it matched the hectic nature of the campaign and led to some hilarious moments.
      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • ? Guest
        Sorry for being off-topic, but I don't think I understand anarchism as a political philosophy. Isn't anarchism the absence of imposed rules? Communal resources seems to go against that, (it does make sense that the players get to divvy it up, though) and being cursed by the gods feels like a more theocratic thing than anarchist. Im not trying to be rude or anything, I just like to pick people's brains about this stuff.
        ? Offline
        ? Offline
        Guest
        wrote last edited by
        #53
        > Communal resources seems to go against that Mutual aid is a fundamental principle of (most types of) anarchism, as is freedom of association. In other words: if the PCs don't like it, they can make their own game with their own rules.
        A 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • Miles O'BrienS Miles O'Brien
          I told him multiple times that if he was going to try and do his own thing, he won't be participating with the group, and the group is the entire focus of the game. I suppose I could have made it more explicit that he could join the group or he could leave the game.
          S This user is from outside of this forum
          S This user is from outside of this forum
          sirblastalot@ttrpg.network
          wrote last edited by
          #54
          Yeah, in that case I think you did everything that could reasonably be expected of you.
          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • Miles O'BrienS Miles O'Brien
            I started running games for my wife and her niblings, and the oldest boy is getting into that "I'm such a rebel" phase where they think they're bad ass for taking slightly longer to do a chore than needed and say "no" the first time you ask them to do something. He thought it was hilarious to have a character that refused to join the rest of the group, so I said "okay, you can stay at the inn if you want" and then proceeded to intentionally ignore anything he was saying or doing, leaving him out of rolls, and never addressing him. He's 12 and started literally crying to his mother about how we're all being mean to him. Apparently "he had the opportunity to participate and chose not to" wasn't a good enough response to his mother. I stand by my choice. Although my wife managed to convince me to let him "rejoin" at the next town/session. He doesn't pull that shit anymore though, when he's playing he's playing or he gets shut out again. Genuine question to anyone reading: does that make me a bad DM? If so, suggestions on how to handle it?
            E This user is from outside of this forum
            E This user is from outside of this forum
            Ech
            wrote last edited by
            #55
            The fact your seeking feedback suggests no, but it was certainly a bad move, both as a DM and as an uncle. Punishing anyone, though especially children, without explaining why *is* mean. You have a responsibility to clearly communicate problems with others as an authority figure at the table and in their life. I don't necessarily think the punishment was unreasonable, but if it's not explained to them, it just comes across as arbitrary and vindictive. Imo, the best way to handle issues like that is to set the rules and consequences, making them clear to everyone, and to be *consistent* in their application. Letting people off or being vindictive will just exacerbate things.
            Miles O'BrienS 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • Miles O'BrienS Miles O'Brien
              > let people roll to see if something happens Oh god so many DMs in the past have done this, and I just roll my eyes every time. Like I'm okay if you want to roll your own dice behind the screen to see if we get attacked overnight, but that should be the only kind of "roll to see what happens" going on.
              A This user is from outside of this forum
              A This user is from outside of this forum
              a_union_of_kobolds@lemmy.world
              wrote last edited by
              #56
              Absolutely. The GMs got tables to help them determine what's going on - you've got one person. Engage with the setting, not a piece of paper. And yes, DMs, sometimes that means adjusting your plans on the fly to make what they do have fun consequences. That's our job.
              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • R randomgal@lemmy.ca
                Yeah. He has a lot of rules and demands for an "anarchist" lol.
                A This user is from outside of this forum
                A This user is from outside of this forum
                a_union_of_kobolds@lemmy.world
                wrote last edited by
                #57
                Anarchism means "no rulers" not "no rules". If we all consent then what's the problem? IRL consent is complicated by coercion - you can't disagree with your boss because if they fire you, you can't pay your bills. DND is an asymmetrical activity. One person, the DM, has an outsized level of effort required. If im expected to create a whole world, NPCs, plots, and respond to all your nonsense, I think its totally fair to ask the players abide by a simple code of conduct. Again, I've almost never had issues.
                R 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • ? Guest
                  Sorry for being off-topic, but I don't think I understand anarchism as a political philosophy. Isn't anarchism the absence of imposed rules? Communal resources seems to go against that, (it does make sense that the players get to divvy it up, though) and being cursed by the gods feels like a more theocratic thing than anarchist. Im not trying to be rude or anything, I just like to pick people's brains about this stuff.
                  A This user is from outside of this forum
                  A This user is from outside of this forum
                  a_union_of_kobolds@lemmy.world
                  wrote last edited by
                  #58
                  See my other reply re: "no rules" Also, just read the first chapter or two of this. It's very, very accessible https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • R randomgal@lemmy.ca
                    Yeah. He has a lot of rules and demands for an "anarchist" lol.
                    ? Offline
                    ? Offline
                    Guest
                    wrote last edited by
                    #59
                    Political anarchy is not inherently against rules. Anarchy does not mean that everything is on fire and everyone steals from others and do whatever they want, that's just a common misconception. Also it's only 3 pretty basic rules, nothing particularly crazy about them
                    A 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • ? Guest
                      > Communal resources seems to go against that Mutual aid is a fundamental principle of (most types of) anarchism, as is freedom of association. In other words: if the PCs don't like it, they can make their own game with their own rules.
                      A This user is from outside of this forum
                      A This user is from outside of this forum
                      a_union_of_kobolds@lemmy.world
                      wrote last edited by
                      #60
                      Thank you. ✊️ I'm not hurting for players. I run my game exactly as often as I want to.
                      ? 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • A a_union_of_kobolds@lemmy.world
                        Thank you. ✊️ I'm not hurting for players. I run my game exactly as often as I want to.
                        ? Offline
                        ? Offline
                        Guest
                        wrote last edited by
                        #61
                        I think it's funny that I have the exact same *rule zero*: I'll reluctantly *play* 5e, but I won't run it.
                        A 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • ? Guest
                          Sorry for being off-topic, but I don't think I understand anarchism as a political philosophy. Isn't anarchism the absence of imposed rules? Communal resources seems to go against that, (it does make sense that the players get to divvy it up, though) and being cursed by the gods feels like a more theocratic thing than anarchist. Im not trying to be rude or anything, I just like to pick people's brains about this stuff.
                          A This user is from outside of this forum
                          A This user is from outside of this forum
                          a_union_of_kobolds@lemmy.world
                          wrote last edited by
                          #62
                          I've got a second tho so I'll try: 1) it means "no rulers", from Greek. Not no rules. You can't have more than 2 people without some rules, we just want to all be able to agree with them. Anarchists by and large are opposed to *hierarchy*, that's the focus. We tend to like direct democracy and communal organizational structures. The stories I tell don't have to be purely anarchist in structure. If im DMing, and we all agreed to the God Curse if you screw over your party, and then one player does - who's responsible? The one with full knowledge of the consequences who then did the thing anyway, right? Look: as a political philosophy, anarchism exists in the real world. There are people who've done it very successfully. But that's not why I call myself an anarchist. I do so because when I discovered anarchism, I found other people who thought the way I did. I'm an anarchist because my *soul* is anarchist and always has been. I *also* think its what we need to do if we're going to survive climate change, but fuck me for trying to convince anyone of that, so I keep to myself.
                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • ? Guest
                            Political anarchy is not inherently against rules. Anarchy does not mean that everything is on fire and everyone steals from others and do whatever they want, that's just a common misconception. Also it's only 3 pretty basic rules, nothing particularly crazy about them
                            A This user is from outside of this forum
                            A This user is from outside of this forum
                            a_union_of_kobolds@lemmy.world
                            wrote last edited by
                            #63
                            Thank you. I've given a *lot* of thought to this. I want everyone to have fun, even if its not my kinda fun. But any player's right to do so stops when they make that impossible the rest of us.
                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • Miles O'BrienS Miles O'Brien
                              I told him multiple times that if he was going to try and do his own thing, he won't be participating with the group, and the group is the entire focus of the game. I suppose I could have made it more explicit that he could join the group or he could leave the game.
                              A This user is from outside of this forum
                              A This user is from outside of this forum
                              a_union_of_kobolds@lemmy.world
                              wrote last edited by
                              #64
                              Nah brother you did the best you could, 12yos are pains in the ass.
                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • ? Guest
                                I think it's funny that I have the exact same *rule zero*: I'll reluctantly *play* 5e, but I won't run it.
                                A This user is from outside of this forum
                                A This user is from outside of this forum
                                a_union_of_kobolds@lemmy.world
                                wrote last edited by
                                #65
                                Dude, dealing with 5e players is just the worst. I've spent so much time and energy learning how to deprogram them. 3rd edition was a mistake
                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • E Ech
                                  The fact your seeking feedback suggests no, but it was certainly a bad move, both as a DM and as an uncle. Punishing anyone, though especially children, without explaining why *is* mean. You have a responsibility to clearly communicate problems with others as an authority figure at the table and in their life. I don't necessarily think the punishment was unreasonable, but if it's not explained to them, it just comes across as arbitrary and vindictive. Imo, the best way to handle issues like that is to set the rules and consequences, making them clear to everyone, and to be *consistent* in their application. Letting people off or being vindictive will just exacerbate things.
                                  Miles O'BrienS This user is from outside of this forum
                                  Miles O'BrienS This user is from outside of this forum
                                  Miles O'Brien
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #66
                                  I told him the game focuses on the group and if he's not part of the group then he won't be playing, and since that first game he has participated, with few issues popping up. I probably could have been clearer before we even got to the table that if you aren't playing with the group then you aren't playing, rather than just expect them to stick with a group on their first game.
                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  • R randomgal@lemmy.ca
                                    Yeah you definitely showed that 12 yr old who is boss...
                                    Miles O'BrienS This user is from outside of this forum
                                    Miles O'BrienS This user is from outside of this forum
                                    Miles O'Brien
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #67
                                    If that's what you took away from my comments, have fun I guess.
                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • ? Guest
                                      It might be your least favorite part of DnD, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who enjoy meeting a new group of characters and finding out about their particular ticks and specialties.
                                      ? Offline
                                      ? Offline
                                      Guest
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #68
                                      I learn about the characters, myself included, throughout the campaign through their actions. Otherwise session one is like that time I asked a coworker about one of his tattoos and had to hear about his sister's murder. That's more of a session two+ thing to me.
                                      ? 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • A a_union_of_kobolds@lemmy.world
                                        Anarchism means "no rulers" not "no rules". If we all consent then what's the problem? IRL consent is complicated by coercion - you can't disagree with your boss because if they fire you, you can't pay your bills. DND is an asymmetrical activity. One person, the DM, has an outsized level of effort required. If im expected to create a whole world, NPCs, plots, and respond to all your nonsense, I think its totally fair to ask the players abide by a simple code of conduct. Again, I've almost never had issues.
                                        R This user is from outside of this forum
                                        R This user is from outside of this forum
                                        randomgal@lemmy.ca
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #69
                                        Your rules are great, I agree you deserve some privileges when acting as DM because rod the effort you put in. My comment wasn't on that front. But if you are enforcing the rules, and receiving different treatment because of them, you deserve that. But if you are win control of the space, you set the rules and you enforce them. You're a 'ruler' in that context. My point is, your anarchism isn't really at play here.
                                        ? A 3 Replies Last reply
                                        0
                                        • ? Guest
                                          That's not common in Shadowrun... 30+ years playing and running that game, and I've never encountered it!
                                          ? Offline
                                          ? Offline
                                          Guest
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #70
                                          I've seen it once...it was used against a single player because he refused to play anything but loners who backstabbed immediately and it was mostly used to piss him off enough he quit the group. He should have just been kicked out, sure. I think the dm just hated doing that which was cowardly. Buuut he was gone and that game was much more enjoyable!
                                          1 Reply Last reply
                                          0

                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • 1
                                          • 2
                                          • 3
                                          • 4
                                          • 5
                                          • 6
                                          • 7
                                          • 8
                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups