I recently started playing in a new D&D 5e campaign, which is being DMed by one of the players in my ongoing AD&D 2e campaign. Most of my blog ideas come from being a DM, so this got me thinking about what I could write as the result of being a player.
I enjoy being a player, but I'm primarily a DM because I truly love DMing. Prep is an enjoyable solo game for me. I like the process of meticulously detailing things and the resulting feeling that I have everything figured out well ahead of the players interacting with it, meaning that I can confidently adjudicate my sessions.
Most of the time when I'm a player, the DM is not that style of DM. They might not have the same attention to detail, grasp of the rules, or sensibilities when it comes to making rulings. This can lead to disappointment, or a feeling that I could "do it better". I recognize this as a problematic attitude to have as a player, and try to keep in mind that the DM is doing what works for them, and that my DMing style is for my games. The DM is giving me the opportunity to play, so I have to make the most of it.
So, I try to be the best player I can be. I try to be the player I'd want in my game. What does that look like?
Be An Adventurer
This is probably the most obvious one, but it's a problem I've encountered more times than I'd like as a DM. The player character is a merchant, or a politician, or a farmer. They expect to start the campaign in a tavern, or a caravan, or on a ship, and for the adventure to somehow happen to them.
Professions and backgrounds are all well and good, but first and foremost, I want my players to make characters that are primarily adventurers - people who, for one reason or another, are willing and eager to trek across the wilderness, go into a dark hole, and potentially be disintegrated, eaten, or hacked to pieces by monsters, spells, and traps.
It can be for gold, for Good, or simply an unshakeable death wish, but the player characters should want to band together with a weird group of misfits and go risk dying in a hole.
So, my characters are always adventurers. They might also be an outlander on a coming-of-age quest required by their clan, or a sage cataloguing monsters and antiquity sites, or an urchin trying to earn enough money to finally own a home, but their principle motivation is to go out and adventure to achieve those other goals. Along the way, they usually find that they like adventuring for some reason, and once they start, they just can't stop.
Take Risks
This is related to being an adventurer, but slightly more specific. It makes sense that players are conservative in the face of danger - they spent a lot of time making and playing a character, and they don't want that character to die and need to be replaced. They don't want to spend all that time acquiring magic items and social capital all over again. "Surviving" feels a lot like "winning".
My players often don't want to interact with mysterious altars, obelisks, and plinths. They avoid certain monsters by reputation, don't trust unsavory NPCs, and do their best in general to avoid trouble unless it stands in the way of their goals. These are all aspects of "good" play, but I'll admit that as a DM I'm always a little disappointed when the players decide not to interact with some nefarious element of the game which I've deviously concocted for them, not because they've concluded that it's dangerous necessarily, but simply because they're afraid of what might happen.
As a player, I try to be the devil on my fellow players' shoulders, convincing them that surely, this obviously bad idea isn't that bad. My player characters jump at the chance to try on cursed rings, make bald-faced lies to NPCs that will clearly come back to bite them, and open doors they shouldn't.
Sometimes, this works in our favor. In a past campaign, we had a random encounter with a chimera at 1st-level. My fellow players wanted to run in the opposite direction, but based on the distance at which the chimera was encountered, the size of our party, and certain spells I had prepared, I was confident we could take it. If not, dying seemed like a better story than running away.
We ended up killing the chimera, and obviously, I still remember that encounter to this day. A few sessions later, my character picked a fight with an evil high-level knight. He killed my character, and his evil sword raised my character as a zombie, bound to do his bidding. Win some, lose some. It was an opportunity to make another character, which as a DM primarily, I'm always eager to do.
Have a Plan, Have Intentions
I'm always asking my players what they want to do. I don't wait for them to tell me - I ask. "So and so is looking for secret doors. So and so is searching for traps. What are you doing while they do that?" Sometimes, the answer is, "I'm waiting until they do the thing they're doing," and that's fine! The important thing is everyone had a chance to do something.
Ideally, the DM will go around the table and give everyone a chance for input, but as I said before, this isn't always the DM's style. Sometimes, I have to chime in: "While they're doing that, I'm doing this." I'm always thinking about what I want to do while listening to what everyone else is doing. I'm trying to come up with a way to get in on that or contribute in some other way.
More than just having a plan as to what I want to do, this is about knowing why I'm doing it. I don't say "I search the room," I say "I'm searching the desk for the wizard's spellbook," or "I'm searching the room for signs that monsters have been here." I don't say "I want to roll Charisma (Persuasion)," I say "My character says 'blah blah blah'. I want to try to convince the goblins that attacking us is a bad idea because our wizard knows a death spell."
This goes for combat, as well. Part of the reason combat takes so long is because players often have no idea what they're doing when their turn comes around. I never want to be that player. I'm thinking about my turn while listening as everyone else takes theirs. I have an idea of what I want to do in an ideal situation when my turn comes around, as well as a backup plan in case my target moves out of range or is killed, and another backup plan in case a fellow player character is wounded or needs an assist.
Intentions are important in combat, too. I keep in mind whether I want to kill the monster, subdue it, distract it, or convince it to run away. Communicating my intentions as clearly as possible allows the DM to adjudicate my actions more quickly and easily, and in a way I find satisfying, because I'm not being surprised by a "gotcha - you said you were doing this, but you weren't specific enough, so this unintended thing is how I'm going to interpret your words".
Rope Other Players In
As a DM, I find it enjoyable when players have motivations that are at odds with one another, and delight in moments when they split the party to pursue their own objectives. As a player, I find it boring when myself and many others are sidelined while the DM interacts with just a single player for a long time.
As a player, I do my best to include others in my schemes. If my rogue is sneaking off to scout the dungeon, I ask if anyone can come along via an invisibility or pass without trace spell. Maybe the wizard can send their familiar with my character. Maybe the fighter can follow a bit behind my character, far enough to not alert potential enemies, but close enough that they can assist my character if they're attacked.
If my character needs to do some research, they ask the wizard to help them find what they're looking for in the library. If my character needs to see a priest, they bring the cleric or paladin.
Sometimes, this is for no in-game benefit at all. Often, it feels like player characters don't interact unless they're making a decision or working together in combat. Players might feel that in-character interactions will only slow the game down, but sometimes slowing down makes the game more enjoyable.
As a DM, I love it when players chew up some time riffing off of each other. It makes the group feel more cohesive, gives me time to prep or think ahead, and puts the players in the headspace of their characters. A DM can prompt their players into having interactions like this, but that sometimes feels forced. I enjoy it much more when the players take the initiative.
If the party is staying in a tavern, my character will try to find another character to bunk with, and I'll devise some way to share little details about my character and tease details about the other player's character out of them during our little slumber party. If we're on a journey, I'll roll a die and strike up a conversation with a randomly-determined character, ask them how they feel about this wretched swamp we're trekking through, and oh, maybe they'd be so kind at to let my little halfling ride on their character's shoulders?
As someone who runs a lot of games and knows a lot about the game's rules, it can sometimes be frustrating when players don't know how their characters work or when the DM gets a rule "wrong", isn't aware that a rule exists or doesn't use it, or makes a different ruling than I would make.
However, I know how annoying it can be as a DM to be interrupted by players. Sometimes it is helpful, such as when I'm genuinely unsure or mistaken about something, but often, I have my own ideas about how something "should" work, and am bringing that perspective to my style of adjudication. I know the rules, I've made a ruling - I don't want to spend 20 minutes arguing about it.
As a player, I resist the urge to "Well, actually..." other players and the DM during the game. I don't think it's my place to correct other players, and it certainly isn't my place to correct the DM. However, since I often play with the same people for whom I DM, my DM and fellow players know that I have a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the rules (particularly 5e, but also, to a lesser extent, AD&D 2e, 1e, and OD&D, in that order). Often, the DM will ask me, "Is there a rule for this?" or "What's your ruling in this situation?" In that case, I'm happy to share my input.
As a general guideline, I assume that the DM knows the rules, is confident in their rulings, and is going off-book on purpose when they do so. If the players make a mistake, it's the DM's job to catch it, unless they specifically ask a player to assist them in being a rules adjudicator, which is sometimes the case, and often a good idea.
It's not my place to point out that attacks made with lances have disadvantage when the target is within 5 feet of the attacker, or to go on a diatribe about the mechanics for firing missile weapons into a melee. If the DM asks me if I know, or seems unaware and disappointed that there isn't a rule for something (that they know of), or is struggling with a ruling, then I know I can contribute.
Arguing about rules often slows the game down, but being able to confidently and concisely clarify them, when appropriate, can often speed things up.
The Other Side of the Screen
That's all I've got for now, but I may post more of these as new topics occur to me in play - sort of the opposite of my regular play reports, which are from the DM perspective. These posts, by comparison, will consist of my reflections as a player: things I enjoy doing as a player, things I don't, things other players did that I liked, things I want to see from my players - that kind of stuff. Hopefully, it's illuminating in some way.
Yes haha yes!!
ReplyDelete