Managing Problems and Players

Managing Problems and Players

Because "that's what my character would do" doesn't cut it.

Read Full Article

While I agree with this a lot in theory, one of the most fun campaigns I ever played in was when my Ranger got hit with a change alignment spell and no one else in the party noticed. I proceeded to screw them over in many different ways. The DM actually wouldn't let the rest of the party deal with it, because I was careful to not let their characters figure out I was behind it. Eventually, I became the quest, to remove the align spell.
It was quite a bit of fun, and I'm fairly sure the rest of the party enjoyed it, despite them getting screwed over.

I'm not sure how the story you've shared represents any difference from what I'm suggesting in practice. It sounds like you and all your fellow players took everything in good stride. I imagine that if your newly-evil Ranger had, i.e., just cut everyone's throats in their sleep, they'd have felt differently, regardless of the fact that you were just roleplaying evil. Or, contrarily, if they'd cast "detect alignment" on you and then cut you down, again, that probably would have changed how you felt.

It sounds like you understood the social dynamic of your group, and roleplayed evil in that context in a way that was fun for everyone! That's a testament to superior playing skill on your part, but it doesn't mean the core theory is wrong :D

Have people actually played in long-term, successful "Individualist" D&D campaigns? I've never been involved in anything other than strongly Collective ones, and friends who have come from Individualist groups to ours always seem, after an initial settling in period, to find the Collective approach more relaxing and enjoyable. It's so far outside my experience I'm just curious what the draw and payoff are to an Individualist style?

It should be pretty easy to avoid this situation and keep with the rules...

I don't know about other versions, but here's a bit from the pathfinder rulebook:
"The three evil alignments are usually for monsters and
villains. With the GM's permission, a player may assign
an evil alignment to his PC, but such characters are
often a source of disruption and conf lict with good and
neutral party members. GMs are encouraged to carefully
consider how evil PCs might affect the campaign before
allowing them."

So yeah, if you have a player who is going to be evil, the DM should be aware of it and have placed some kind of limits on how evil he can be. I can't imagine someone actually screwing over their teammates as badly as you are describing :\ but if they try to do it as a non-evil character, the DM can simply deny them the ability to do it, since it would be out of character for a neutral-chaotic pc to suddenly slit everyone's throat in the night.

I don't think there's anyone in my current group who would actually do something like this :) but good to know how to deal with such a case.

Psydney:
Have people actually played in long-term, successful "Individualist" D&D campaigns? I've never been involved in anything other than strongly Collective ones, and friends who have come from Individualist groups to ours always seem, after an initial settling in period, to find the Collective approach more relaxing and enjoyable. It's so far outside my experience I'm just curious what the draw and payoff are to an Individualist style?

Yeah mine have all been very collective. I would think individualist would be pretty rough on the DM, since PCs would often get split up and have to have their own separate story going.

Psydney:
Have people actually played in long-term, successful "Individualist" D&D campaigns? I've never been involved in anything other than strongly Collective ones, and friends who have come from Individualist groups to ours always seem, after an initial settling in period, to find the Collective approach more relaxing and enjoyable. It's so far outside my experience I'm just curious what the draw and payoff are to an Individualist style?

I have run two successful Individualist campaigns using the Cyberpunk 2020 rules. Both of them lasted around 20 sessions or 6 months, which is a very long run for both Cyberpunk and Individualist play!

In the first campaign, the group split into two different factions conspiring against each other over a fortune in illicit wealth. The first faction ended up assassinating the second faction in a series of targeted killings, then fled in a helicopter. Unfortunately the second faction had rigged their chopper to explode. The campaign ended with everyone dead... but after a good long run.

In the second campaign the group split into multiple competing mini-factions that each tried to one-up the other while still working fairly cooperatively. At one point the team's Netrunner actually hacked the team's accounts and started stealing from them under their noses, for instance. The campaign ended with them all jockeying for positions in a third world banana republic, settling into positions of mutual respect but distrust.

Counter-intuitively, I think the key to a successful Individualist campaign is that you need to have a LOT of players. Both Cyberpunk games have had 8 to 10 players. That gives lots of room for factions and conspiracy, while preventing any one player from throwing too much weight around. It's easy to betray 2 people. It's hard to betray 9 people.

When I've run Individualist games with small numbers of players, they end quickly. A Dark Side Star Wars campaign with 4 players lasted 1 session.

It also helps if the game is not level-based. In Cyberpunk, your starting character is fairly tough, and it's easy to introduce a new PC that's capable and competent if you get killed. That minimizes the pain and suffering that's inevitable in Individualist play, and makes it harder to take advantage of the "newbies".

Archon:
I have run two successful Individualist campaigns using the Cyberpunk 2020 rules. Both of them lasted around 20 sessions or 6 months, which is a very long run for both Cyberpunk and Individualist play!

In the first campaign, the group split into two different factions conspiring against each other over a fortune in illicit wealth.

In the second campaign the group split into multiple competing mini-factions that each tried to one-up the other while still working fairly cooperatively.

Okay, there's a missing piece. I was picturing a usual "players vs. GM" scenario but with a lot more lying and backstabbing and having a hard time seeing how it wouldn't end in bad feelings on the meta-game level. But if everyone understands up front that they're competing...I can see that. Thanks :)

Archon:
I'm not sure how the story you've shared represents any difference from what I'm suggesting in practice. It sounds like you and all your fellow players took everything in good stride. I imagine that if your newly-evil Ranger had, i.e., just cut everyone's throats in their sleep, they'd have felt differently, regardless of the fact that you were just roleplaying evil. Or, contrarily, if they'd cast "detect alignment" on you and then cut you down, again, that probably would have changed how you felt.

It sounds like you understood the social dynamic of your group, and roleplayed evil in that context in a way that was fun for everyone! That's a testament to superior playing skill on your part, but it doesn't mean the core theory is wrong :D

Fair point. I suppose I wasn't really arguing against it, just looking for some clarification. In support of your theory, I can say that nobody likes playing with the guy who is always chaotic evil (even in games with no alignment) and kills everything he sees. We had a guy like that in High School. Pretty soon we stopped telling him when we were gaming.

In the campaigns I've DM'd, I'd have to say the groups were a mix of your 3 types, depending on the situation. I've always felt very strongly that it is not up to the DM to enforce anything--a good group is self-enforcing (which can be brutal sometimes), and if it's not a good group, then why play with them?
In fact, just as in RL a judge ultimately has to answer to the community, the DM ultimately has to answer to the group community. So if there's a problem player, it's the DM's job to deal with the player--but only because the other players are using the DM as their agent.

Anyway, as to your example, unless we're talking children with limited social experience, I can't imagine a DM not foreseeing problems with the newly made character or the player and heading them off at the pass. If the player is hiding things from the DM, then clearly that is a problem person and beyond the scope of in-game solutions (they are going to "behave badly" no matter what).

Often in my campaigns I've had people turn to the other side, and as gamers I think everyone's enjoyed it (my campaigns have all lasted multiple years). Groups can handle just about anything the DM throws at them provided it's all dealt with honestly in the game.
I think being a sort of wide-open campaign allows for a great many interesting situations that wouldn't otherwise arise. Likewise, I prefer a sandbox world--generally I spend a great deal of time developing a custom world and background, then let the players decide who and what they want to play and what they want to do. From there, I develop the storylines (sometimes with some player input) that I think they will like based on what they've done.

So, though it's convenient and handy to boil RP groups down to some limited number, just as in the wider world, people are not so easily pigeonholed. And woe to the DM who expects to use pat responses (I'm not at all saying yours are) to a group's issues. Every group is distinct and requires a different approach.

0over0:
Anyway, as to your example, unless we're talking children with limited social experience, I can't imagine a DM not foreseeing problems with the newly made character or the player and heading them off at the pass. If the player is hiding things from the DM, then clearly that is a problem person and beyond the scope of in-game solutions (they are going to "behave badly" no matter what).

Well, I think you are wrong there. Hiding things from the DM is completely acceptable in some groups, particularly games that encourage adversial play like D&D 3.5. It's not how I run but I know DMs who run like that.

Anyway, the point of my article is that one person's "behave badly" is another person's "enjoyable in-game treachery" and that you can't even assess what's bad behavior until you've determined what your group's standard of good behavior is. More often than not, the problem is a player who isn't in line with the rest of the group's expectations. If the group dynamic is competition and treachery, the cooperative player is going to be perceived as a whiny carebear. if the group dynamic is cooperation and collectivism, the competitive player is going to be perceived as a jerk.

It's not convenient or handy to understand your group dynamic. It's essential.

Archon:
Well, I think you are wrong there. Hiding things from the DM is completely acceptable in some groups, particularly games that encourage adversial play like D&D 3.5. It's not how I run but I know DMs who run like that.

This seems right to me and adds another dimension to the models offered here - that is, in addition to intra-party decisions about collectivity, competitiveness, or individualism there are analogous decisions to be made about the party-DM dynamic. The different combinations of the two matrices could be fairly interesting (e.g., collective players team up to thwart a competitive DM; individualistic players cooperate with a competitive DM against other players).

It also seems that, based on these criteria, I'm a raging socialist - collective party and non-competitive DM.

I like the competitive-collective it was fun to have the players in competition. This is why I hated running evil campaigns it is hard to have an evil party. My group begged for one at one time but I broke them of it quickly. Imagine a player in the campaign who has an evil sword that begs him every night to kill everyone in their sleep, hope you have good will!

Archon:
Because "That's what my character would do" doesn't cut it.

The dog does not get a share.

While this is something I've noticed in running my own RPGs, I find that incorporating the social dynamic into the plot of the game is very effective.

For collective games, I've placed NPC's in the campaign that distinctly favor some characters over others. Usually, the NPC dislikes the most collectivist character, leaving them to wonder what offense they committed to deserve the scorn. The new dynamic and new character often manifests itself in troubling scenarios... the story would require the hated player character to work with the aggressive NPC to solve a problem and it's a great way to push the player to creativity.

For individualist characters, I've set up situations where they attract the attention of a powerful patron who offers them perks, for a price. While the price rarely destroys the main plotline, it often makes the team work harder for a goal and the attempts of the individualist to hide their true intentions from the group is quite fun.

Even in non-alignment based games (like Call of Cthulhu or Delta Green) the same social dynamics play out when there's no strict rules about the level of goodness or neutrality.

We were always a part of Competitive-Collective sessions. There was actually a time when the old GM that we were sick of joined in as an antagonist and ended up attempting to kill half the party and the nearby town. I think it was enjoyable for everyone to turn him into the king and get rid of him from the games.

However, I don't think evil is such a bad choice for a character to play depending how you play it. If anyone has seen the show Dexter, he is (in D&D terms) LE yet he is living a life in hiding so he is super secretive about all of his extracurriculars.

Fortuan:
I like the competitive-collective it was fun to have the players in competition. This is why I hated running evil campaigns it is hard to have an evil party. My group begged for one at one time but I broke them of it quickly. Imagine a player in the campaign who has an evil sword that begs him every night to kill everyone in their sleep, hope you have good will!

You would be surprised; an Evil camp is allot of fun if you set down the mentioned play style before hand. For instance if you can get all of your players to only screw with each other in a minor fashion and show them that collective evil can be fun, you end up with a surprisingly rewarding camp.
It is important to have a common goal they can work to.

Croaker42:

Fortuan:
I like the competitive-collective it was fun to have the players in competition. This is why I hated running evil campaigns it is hard to have an evil party. My group begged for one at one time but I broke them of it quickly. Imagine a player in the campaign who has an evil sword that begs him every night to kill everyone in their sleep, hope you have good will!

You would be surprised; an Evil camp is allot of fun if you set down the mentioned play style before hand. For instance if you can get all of your players to only screw with each other in a minor fashion and show them that collective evil can be fun, you end up with a surprisingly rewarding camp.
It is important to have a common goal they can work to.

Well I guess I didn't mention that really it wasn't the fact that it was an evil campaign that was a problem but how the players wanted to play it. For instance I honestly gave them a goal. They banded together in order to fend off a vigilante who would surely destroy them 1 by 1. Unfortunately for them they decided it was better to back stab each other until only 2 remained. They were promptly slaughtered.

Fortuan:

Croaker42:

Fortuan:
I like the competitive-collective it was fun to have the players in competition. This is why I hated running evil campaigns it is hard to have an evil party. My group begged for one at one time but I broke them of it quickly. Imagine a player in the campaign who has an evil sword that begs him every night to kill everyone in their sleep, hope you have good will!

You would be surprised; an Evil camp is allot of fun if you set down the mentioned play style before hand. For instance if you can get all of your players to only screw with each other in a minor fashion and show them that collective evil can be fun, you end up with a surprisingly rewarding camp.
It is important to have a common goal they can work to.

Well I guess I didn't mention that really it wasn't the fact that it was an evil campaign that was a problem but how the players wanted to play it. For instance I honestly gave them a goal. They banded together in order to fend off a vigilante who would surely destroy them 1 by 1. Unfortunately for them they decided it was better to back stab each other until only 2 remained. They were promptly slaughtered.

That is called stupid, not evil. If they were any kind of successful evil doer they would call truce, kill the vigilante, and then back stab the party member. All the while attempting to build people's allegiance to prevent something happening to your guy before you get to the vigilante.

KEM10:

Fortuan:

Croaker42:

Fortuan:
*Snip

*Snip.

*Snip.

That is called stupid, not evil. If they were any kind of successful evil doer they would call truce, kill the vigilante, and then back stab the party member. All the while attempting to build people's allegiance to prevent something happening to your guy before you get to the vigilante.

I think a little bit of that kind of stupid should be expected from time to time. The first thing I think of when the idea of an evil camp comes up is this kind of behavior.

Honestly I think the best ways to deal with the behavior is to drop a good number of hints at plot pregame. If that fails, make a few constraints on class/alignment True/Lawfull evil are almost always patient and planing.

While I personally have no experience with the topic on hand it is very interesting for me to read about the complications of a game that I've never had any experience with at all.

Also I thought I had an original thing going on with the eye of sauron but it appears I've been bested.

Archon:

Well, I think you are wrong there. Hiding things from the DM is completely acceptable in some groups, particularly games that encourage adversial play like D&D 3.5. It's not how I run but I know DMs who run like that.

Anyway, the point of my article is that one person's "behave badly" is another person's "enjoyable in-game treachery" and that you can't even assess what's bad behavior until you've determined what your group's standard of good behavior is. More often than not, the problem is a player who isn't in line with the rest of the group's expectations. If the group dynamic is competition and treachery, the cooperative player is going to be perceived as a whiny carebear. if the group dynamic is cooperation and collectivism, the competitive player is going to be perceived as a jerk.

It's not convenient or handy to understand your group dynamic. It's essential.

As for players lying to the DM (in D&D at least)--I can't imagine it. To me that means the players don't trust the DM to play the game fairly, and if they don't trust the DM to play the game fairly, why are the playing in his/her campaign? I've played quite a bit of 3.5 and have not found it to be any more adversarial than any of the previous editions of D&D, but perhaps that's solely my viewpoint.

I agree that the DM needs to have a handle on the group dynamics, though you make it sound much more formal than need be--it's simple human relations that applies to everyday life all the time.

I had to do some thinking, but I suppose I've been in groups that spanned the entire spectrum, but they were pretty similarly clustered in certain systems. In any game that I've run, and I've run a lot, I made sure that all the players understood the sort of environment going in, and that it fit with the setting. Cyberpunk 2020 (not to mention the overall genre) is pretty much made for individualistic play, and thus those games I ran featured situations where sometimes the entire party of PCs wasn't always on the same page, but all the players sure were - they pursued their own agendas as much as they could within the framework of the world provided, and sometimes that involved some PCs winning and others losing, though I tried to avoid forcing conflict between PCs, so that it would occur organically.

Call of Cthulhu games were a mixed bag, but again, something that all the players expected, both with characters that wanted to learn more about the Mythos at the expense of their own sanity and the other party members, and those who strove to protect not just themselves and the civilians around them, but even the crazy PCs from their own curiosity, which made it particularly Lovecraftian at times. Sure, we had the occasional 'I don't have to outrun the shoggoth, I just have to outrun you' moments, but again, it was expected and thematically appropriate, and no one got their feelings hurt if their PC didn't make it out alive, because everyone was having too much fun.

The World of Darkness, especially Vampire, while not promoting the sort of base violence that cyberpunk games might cause (though Werewolf sure did), just oozed all sorts of political intrigue at every turn. Everyone knew that it was a power struggle, and what was most amusing is that the Camarilla (the more human-centric Vampires) groups that I ran backstabbed each other far more than the Sabbat (who revel in their inhumanity) groups because the former just weren't as upfront and honest as the latter! When you know your entire party are fellow, unapologetic carnivorous sociopaths, it actually introduces some refreshing clarity to the mix. We had some truly epic betrayals, reversals of fortune and surprises for players and Storytellers alike.

It was in the fantasy games (D&D mostly) that we tended towards pure collectivist play, both in the games I ran and played in, which is largely once again due to the expectations of most players and the system itself. Sure, you could do evil (and we had a touch of that from time to time), but the alignment system, especially in 2e and 3e, was such that they really didn't want good and evil characters to mix well at all, at least not long term. Plus, the guys in the books you're supposed to kill (i.e. all the monsters in the monster manuals) were mostly evil or neutral, and all the guys you're supposed to help or get helped by are some flavor of good. This creates a lens through which to view the entire system, and thus you really had to do some proper homework if you wanted a believable and fun game of D&D that involved real conflict.

I think the problems arise when you have a mixture of players at the table that don't all want the same thing, or a DM who thinks that -player conflict- is okay. You can pretend all you want that most people would shrug off having their PC killed by the guy sitting next to them, but unless he knew going in that it was a real possibility then it can lead to people not having any fun, and if people aren't having fun playing a game, you're doing it wrong.

mattaui:
I had to do some thinking, but I suppose I've been in groups that spanned the entire spectrum, but they were pretty similarly clustered in certain systems. In any game that I've run, and I've run a lot, I made sure that all the players understood the sort of environment going in, and that it fit with the setting. Cyberpunk 2020 (not to mention the overall genre) is pretty much made for individualistic play, and thus those games I ran featured situations where sometimes the entire party of PCs wasn't always on the same page, but all the players sure were - they pursued their own agendas as much as they could within the framework of the world provided, and sometimes that involved some PCs winning and others losing, though I tried to avoid forcing conflict between PCs, so that it would occur organically.

Call of Cthulhu games were a mixed bag, but again, something that all the players expected, both with characters that wanted to learn more about the Mythos at the expense of their own sanity and the other party members, and those who strove to protect not just themselves and the civilians around them, but even the crazy PCs from their own curiosity, which made it particularly Lovecraftian at times. Sure, we had the occasional 'I don't have to outrun the shoggoth, I just have to outrun you' moments, but again, it was expected and thematically appropriate, and no one got their feelings hurt if their PC didn't make it out alive, because everyone was having too much fun.

The World of Darkness, especially Vampire, while not promoting the sort of base violence that cyberpunk games might cause (though Werewolf sure did), just oozed all sorts of political intrigue at every turn. Everyone knew that it was a power struggle, and what was most amusing is that the Camarilla (the more human-centric Vampires) groups that I ran backstabbed each other far more than the Sabbat (who revel in their inhumanity) groups because the former just weren't as upfront and honest as the latter! When you know your entire party are fellow, unapologetic carnivorous sociopaths, it actually introduces some refreshing clarity to the mix. We had some truly epic betrayals, reversals of fortune and surprises for players and Storytellers alike.

It was in the fantasy games (D&D mostly) that we tended towards pure collectivist play, both in the games I ran and played in, which is largely once again due to the expectations of most players and the system itself. Sure, you could do evil (and we had a touch of that from time to time), but the alignment system, especially in 2e and 3e, was such that they really didn't want good and evil characters to mix well at all, at least not long term. Plus, the guys in the books you're supposed to kill (i.e. all the monsters in the monster manuals) were mostly evil or neutral, and all the guys you're supposed to help or get helped by are some flavor of good. This creates a lens through which to view the entire system, and thus you really had to do some proper homework if you wanted a believable and fun game of D&D that involved real conflict.

I think the problems arise when you have a mixture of players at the table that don't all want the same thing, or a DM who thinks that -player conflict- is okay. You can pretend all you want that most people would shrug off having their PC killed by the guy sitting next to them, but unless he knew going in that it was a real possibility then it can lead to people not having any fun, and if people aren't having fun playing a game, you're doing it wrong.

You quite rightly mention that different systems have different effects on the group dynamic. In my opinion, those systems that don't encourage individualistic styles of play are less flexible for it.

World of Darkness encourages that Darwinian mechanic. The world is big and bad, full of people and things much scarier than you are. There's danger around every corner, including the other players. If you don't look out for yourself, you'll find yourself quickly staked out in the sun. Because that's the fallback position, the storyteller and players can create a more collective dynamic within a WoD game, if they want.

D&D by contrast works on the assumption that everyone in the party are BFFs, and that's where problems arise. If someone goes all Leeroy Jenkins, the system has nothing to cope with it *within the structure of the game*. The only real thing to fall back on is out of game DM intervention, which breaks the suspension of disbelief, and reduces the fun all around.

I have not yet forgiven my brother for killing most of the party (including my precious eladrin wizard) by deciding that what his barbarian would do is run into the next room of the dungeon before we had healed, resulting in a horde of skeletons, resulting in death. Grrrrr.

Man, these columns are pretty useful for that up and coming tabletop gamer. Great stuff

jono793:
D&D by contrast works on the assumption that everyone in the party are BFFs, and that's where problems arise. If someone goes all Leeroy Jenkins, the system has nothing to cope with it *within the structure of the game*. The only real thing to fall back on is out of game DM intervention, which breaks the suspension of disbelief, and reduces the fun all around.

The mention of Leroy Jenkins strikes me as very appropriate.

In fact, one could almost argue that the "social dynamics" I'm talking about are directly comparable to choosing what your "server type" is going to be. Are we playing PvE, factional PvP, or open PvP? Is there going to be friendly fire, or not? etc.

Psydney:
Have people actually played in long-term, successful "Individualist" D&D campaigns? I've never been involved in anything other than strongly Collective ones, and friends who have come from Individualist groups to ours always seem, after an initial settling in period, to find the Collective approach more relaxing and enjoyable. It's so far outside my experience I'm just curious what the draw and payoff are to an Individualist style?

Me and my friends play individualist almost exclusively. Its WAY more fun to let the dice fall were they may in terms of character interaction.

Conflict between party members can be lots of fun and a great chance for character development.

Macris puts across some interesting types of social dynamics and their influence upon games. Individual, collective or mixed are interesting summaries for how parties act. One dynamic that is missed is the group that is led, or which possesses a clear leader or leaders.

I bring this up because I have recently come from a game that had an aspiring leader. It finished just over an hour ago and was set in Cthulhu flavoured Vietnam. Although role-players, we bring our baggage of knowledge and preferences with us. Some players are charismatic devils, some want the power and to tell others what to do, others will have expertise or pseudo-aspirations to expertise and attempt to push the game how they believe it should be run. Examples of this can include military enthusiasts in games featuring soldiers, or post-apocalypse settings. With a further example being history enthusiasts or medievalists that try to be the knights and commanders, because well, they have the setting-related knowledge if the game is dnd, fantasy or a period they feel confidence directing. Why I am explaining this is because the directors and would-be leaders exist as a phenomenon that I as a player and DM have encountered before, and continue to encounter.

Rapidly, once the leader gets moving, things change. An equal, one could say collective game becomes lop-sided. Instead of all working together towards a goal, debating, going-back-and-forth in discussion and hammering out plans and direction to be pursued, the leader steps in. Orders are given, the leader seems alive and involved. As the leader directs the party and any npcs attached other players fade into the background. When this happens, their spirits will flag, they will typically contribute less and may leave the game. If gaming is an escape, a form of escapism then the leader is a prime symbol of what is detested in many encounters in life outside of the game--he is a figure of authority raising himself to a hierarchical position and lording his sway over others.

Fun rapidly begins to bleed out of the game, even as the fights become easier and the team is coordinated to effectively defeat opponents. Individualism, save the individualism of one or two leading pcs operating together (to reinforce their power and sway) leaves the game. Now there is a hero (or heroes) and the others are support characters.

I say leaders because at times parties can become quite divided. Worse is a game controlled by the one confident despot, but almost equally as frustrating is a small boys' club of experienced gamers moving the other pcs around as if pawns and keeping their position through stealing the centre stage. This condition is assisted by human psychology, as the Romans and Dostoevsky observed, mundus vult decipi--mankind wants to be deceived and led. For some, being the hero is not what they really want to do or feel comfortable doing, they are content to bask in the shadow of more central figures who steer the plot and story as they concentrate their development on less ambitious planes (skills and items for instance). A leader if cunning can keep the helm, but bribe pcs or seem to be listening to the wider opinions.

It is because of the frequent emergence of leaders in rpgs that ideas of collective games or even individualist groups is not the whole picture. There are also those gaming groups in which clear leaders emerge; commonly to the annoyance of the others players that feel frustrated, but which don't possess the claims to setting-specific knowledge that the intending leader or leaders possess.

Thanks for reading, it is good to share gaming experiences.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here