I was musing about this recently after reading several threads here in which people throw around terms like "good player" or "competent player" as if there is an accepted definition. Now I'm curious as to how various people do define a good player. Is it someone who can build a powerful and successful character? Is it someone who makes sharp tactical and strategic decisions in game? Is it someone adept at solving the riddles and mysteries in a game? Is it someone who can roleplay well enough to deserve an Oscar nod? Is it someone who is a good teammate and/or contributes to the success of the party's mission? Is it someone who is fun to have around on game nights regardless of any of the above?
Part of what got me musing was remembering my days in the old RPGA, when players were given rankings and earned points for "winning" tournaments. You won by getting the other players to vote for you as the best roleplayer at the table, moving you to the next round until you reached the finals. Definitely the RPGA's definition of the best player back then seemed very much to be all about the acting skills. I played in a few of those tournaments, and even won a couple back in the day, but distinctly remember thinking that all this was measuring was one facet of being a good player, and that some of the highest ranked Grandmaster level players were guys (and gals) that I wouldn't necessarily want playing in my regular games, as they tended to be hammy spotlight hogs. Not all of them, by any stretch, but definitely some of them.
My own personal definition at the moment is that a good player is someone I look forward to gaming with every week because they make the experience better for everyone, although the reason they do so could be different for each good player I know.
Someone who can manage to not be a jerk for a few hours of the day. :)
I hope I can manage that. Some days my jerk impulse (or at least my respond to jerk by being a bigger jerk impulse) gets pretty irresistible. :)
Thanks, ToZ, that sets a pretty nice floor for who is a good player to game with. But what moves them up above that floor for you?
It's really diffcult to honestly answer this question without sounding like an elitist douche-bag.
A good player is someone who can conceptualize a character and then portray that charcter both RP wise and mechanicly in combat, in a pleseant manner.
A great player is one that does the above consistantly.
|
I hope I can manage that. Some days my jerk impulse (or at least my respond to jerk by being a bigger jerk impulse) gets pretty irresistible. :)
Thanks, ToZ, that sets a pretty nice floor for who is a good player to game with. But what moves them up above that floor for you?
You are not alone, Brian. ;)
Honestly, someone who is willing to put effort in. A player that offers input and takes charge of his character.
I'm guilty of just showing up and waiting to be spoonfed the plot myself. Some people only want to ride the rails and not have to think about anything.
But when the bard player in my first campaign said 'I'm going to go talk to my underworld contact, Rourke' I was blown away. Who was this NPC he was talking about? What do I do?
What I DID was roll with it, making up the encounter on the fly. And Rourke turned out to be the leader of the lesser thieves guild in town, a recurring character that ended up murdering the assassin PC in a dramatic moment.
None of that would have happened if the player had not taken charge of his PC, or if I had said 'you don't have such a contact, this is my story and I didn't make that up'. It made me grow as a DM and enhanced the game for everyone.
I try to follow his example, maybe not in such a blindsiding manner, by not being a passive player.
|
A good player is someone who can conceptualize a character and then portray that charcter both RP wise and mechanicly in combat, in a pleasant manner.
A great player is one that does the above consistantly.
This.
Plus:
Shows up consistently on game night, on time.
Chips in for food and snacks.
Doesn't cheat on dice rolls.
Consistently bathes and applies deodorant before arriving at the game.
It's really diffcult to honestly answer this question without sounding like an elitist douche-bag.
A good player is someone who can conceptualize a character and then portray that charcter both RP wise and mechanicly in combat, in a pleseant manner.
A great player is one that does the above consistantly.
I don't see any EDB coming out of this response. Sounds like you value a player who can build, mechanically play and roleplay a character well in equal portions. Sounds pretty good.
I don't see any EDB coming out of this response. Sounds like you value a player who can build, mechanically play and roleplay a character well in equal portions. Sounds pretty good.It's really diffcult to honestly answer this question without sounding like an elitist douche-bag.
A good player is someone who can conceptualize a character and then portray that charcter both RP wise and mechanicly in combat, in a pleseant manner.
A great player is one that does the above consistantly.
Yeah, well thanks.
This also wasn't my first response. I edited it a bit ;)
A player I want to game with (as co-player or DM) is someone who helps others enjoy themselves during the hours spent at the table, while enjoying himself doing that.
Ruyan.
1. Actively participates (this does not mean stands in the limelight constantly, but means they are at the table and paying attention.)
I like this one, and didn't think of it specifically. Definitely active engagement is an important trait for a good player.
I hope I can manage that. Some days my jerk impulse (or at least my respond to jerk by being a bigger jerk impulse) gets pretty irresistible. :)
Thanks, ToZ, that sets a pretty nice floor for who is a good player to game with. But what moves them up above that floor for you?
You are not alone, Brian. ;)
Honestly, someone who is willing to put effort in. A player that offers input and takes charge of his character.
I'm guilty of just showing up and waiting to be spoonfed the plot myself. Some people only want to ride the rails and not have to think about anything.
But when the bard player in my first campaign said 'I'm going to go talk to my underworld contact, Rourke' I was blown away. Who was this NPC he was talking about? What do I do?
What I DID was roll with it, making up the encounter on the fly. And Rourke turned out to be the leader of the lesser thieves guild in town, a recurring character that ended up murdering the assassin PC in a dramatic moment.
None of that would have happened if the player had not taken charge of his PC, or if I had said 'you don't have such a contact, this is my story and I didn't make that up'. It made me grow as a DM and enhanced the game for everyone.
I try to follow his example, maybe not in such a blindsiding manner, by not being a passive player.
Good example. I love players that challenge me when I DM, and am working on becoming more adept at winging it when they go somewhere unexpected plotwise. The only time it is a pain is if someone is jumping the rails just for their own fun and to shine the spotlight on themselves, and the other players aren't into it.
Consistently bathes and applies deodorant before arriving at the game.
I can see you've gamed with some of the same folks I gamed with way back in the day, particularly at conventions. Seriously, folks. Try not to be a stereotype.
Actually, I gamed with some Peace Corps folks while in Africa a couple of years ago, and some of them were pretty aromatic. They had a good excuse, though, as many of them didn't have running water or access to modern hygiene products in their villages.
Someone who can live with GM decisions without arguing every rule even when the GM calls something wrong. Really being able to roll with situations.
Someone who can live with GM decisions without arguing every rule even when the GM calls something wrong. Really being able to roll with situations.
Good point, and one I've argued before on these boards. DMs aren't always right, and there definitely is a time and a place for bringing up your differences with a DM (after the game, over beers is my preference), but noone enjoys a disruptive player who takes up everyone's game time with constant rules arguments or second-guessing of GM decisions.
|
|
Consistently bathes and applies deodorant before arriving at the game.
I can see you've gamed with some of the same folks I gamed with way back in the day, particularly at conventions. Seriously, folks. Try not to be a stereotype.
I was thinking of some of the guys that would show up at the gaming store back in my college days (early 90's). Geez-Louise, I almost felt like rubbing menthol in my nostrils just to kill the BO-funk.
I wasn't trying to stereotype all gamers, but such stereotypes often have a basis.
Asking what a "Good Player" is pretty vauge. There are many things that jugde how good a player is.
A general "Good Player" Is someone that understands that the game is about having fun first and foremost. Without the fun there would be no game to begin with. They should respect the other players decisions and help the game as a whole to be enjoyable to everyone.
Of course understanding the rules and knowing how the game flows are important, but I think the mood of the session is most important.
Mostly,
- Being creative on character concepts and actions. Personnally, I like to have at least seen 2 or 3 nice memorable actions per session. It's always more cool to remember a super acrobatics stunt (Or an epic fail stunt!) than someone who only "tries to hit with his sword" all game long.
- Being rigorous at roleplaying such concepts. I like believable concepts and well rendered characters. I have this friend of mine who like to play anti-heroes, loners and seemingly out-of-place races. Like, an overly muscular elf, the super-intelligent and refined orc shaman, or the famed altruistic and goodly drow. It's like he can't play anything else. I prefer another who plays the cliché of a dwarf, but plays it well. It adds to the feeling of the game world.
- Taking measures to ensure game fluidity I'm the melee or skill-monkey-class loving player, so I don't know spells that much. If I was to play a spellcaster, I'd print my own spellsheets for quick reference, but I'd hate to make the other players lose momentum because I don't know my options at all.
- Being diplomatic with the DM (or other players, need be). At times, there are situations or sudden house-rules I don't expect when I take a combat round to do something. My example is a recent barbarian sunderer, adamantine hammer and all. I tried to break the wheel of a stopped chariot and even though I had the roll to hit, I wasn't entitled for damage at all (The DM needed that chariot for plot purposes, I learned afterwards). Instead of spoiling game ambiance with debates of rules lawyering, I prefered to talk to the DM out of game about it, so he adopts an homogenous rule. Everyone was happier, and the DM realized her way of switching rules kinda messed up part of my build at times so... there.
- Being able to have fun without the DM monitorising everything. When the DM has to resolve a particular question (Or animate a character who is alone for a reason X) the rest of the team can well play out mundane roleplaying such as tavern discussing or even prepare some plan when he's got time. As a DM, I hate when a player demands my attention too much or else he's not having fun, it feels I can't concentrate on anything important.
- Knowing the difference between player and character. Whatever my place in a game, be it DM or player, I hate to have to do psychology each game to explain that when I roleplay angry and scold another character, the scold and/or insult is not meant to the player (Especially when it is phrased as "Goblin-brain", "Weakling Elf"). This is part an immersive game I concede, but it is part improvisation, and is whole-grain fun.
- And much of the things in higher posts.
A good player allows other players to run their character themselves, without telling them "how to play a [class]".
A good player can accept defeat in battle.
A good player knows that combat and non-combat confrontations can be equally important.
A good player works with the team of players, and their character works with the team of characters.
A good player allows other players to run their character themselves, without telling them "how to play a [class]"
I partially agree, though. Some players try out new classes and might not be quite fit for it. Common example : The Paladin. It is a class with enormous restrictions, and an unexperienced player might fumble in his way of playing it.
It's a DM's job to talk to him about it, but a player (out of game) might counsel him without being a bad player, right?
It's a DM's job to talk to him about it, but a player (out of game) might counsel him without being a bad player, right?
Absolutely, but I think that should be kept for out of game. It might even be a GM-only position. I'm sure you understand, I was trying to comment on the armchair generals who consider other players characters to be pawns in their wargames.
What does it mean to play a game well?
I should think that's obvious. In a competative scenario, it means mastery of the game, and success. Sportsmanship is still important, no one likes a jerk.
In a social setting, which is the vast majority of RPGs, being a good player is nothing more than being a good friend. A kind, generous person who others wish to spend time with, and who is willing to work through differences of opinion with patience.
I am blessed with a group of no less than 7 great players by the second standard. I really enjoy Gming for them, and I almost never have problems like the ones I read about on the forums. Whether or not they are "competent" in a competative sense... I couldn't care less.
A good player is willing to contribute to the suspension of disbelief needed to visualize a 6' 6", 300 lb guy playing a Halfling Rogue dancing about trying to avoid a 'blinded' scorpion in the dark. Not just for the few, but for the table.
A good player does not sit back and expect the DM to do all the work to make the session fun and entertaining. A good player gets involved in the game and works with the DM and other players to create a gaming session of fun and adventure.
Fundamentally a good player helps facilitate (rather than impede) the game for the GM and his fellow players.
This player would act within the parameters he's developed for that character, with a distinct (though it doesn't have to be contrary) personality from himself.
The player would take the campaign seriously, but not to the point of making it tense for others. In other words, he would try to keep up with the story rather than mocking it or just ignoring it until he gets to "smash things". At the same time, he wouldn't berate his teammates for cracking a joke or building an unconventional character. He desires for everyone to have a good time.
Ideally, a good player will be educated enough about the game to be able to offer good advise or his opinion on a rules issue, but will be respectful enough to not muck up or rules lawyer the game to a standstill and will let it go with no hard feelings if the GM rules against his view.
A good player with time will play decently. Doesn't have to be great, but at least an effort to contribute adequately. Wouldn't run into the boss room ahead of the group before they have healed up because "that would be chaotic and funny!".
Oh, and beyond all else, honesty. A good player is one that you wouldn't have to second guess the truth of the number he rolled (not saying the math, everyone makes honest mistakes, but actual deception). One that would point out a disadvantageous rule or condition to himself because he wants to keep the integrity of the game.
A good player strives to make all the other players shine brighter, thus reflecting that light back upon himself.
A roadie would make an excellent player!
Absolutely, but I think that should be kept for out of game. It might even be a GM-only position. I'm sure you understand, I was trying to comment on the armchair generals who consider other players characters to be pawns in their wargames.
It's a DM's job to talk to him about it, but a player (out of game) might counsel him without being a bad player, right?
M'aaaaah, right. I now see what you where driving at. We have an agreement!
Good in WHICH part of the game?
- One can be a good player because he RP so good that increases the immersion and enjoyiment of everybody at the table.
- One can be good player because knows the rules, making game run smooth and helping realizing PCs from a concept
- One can be a good player because always remembers it's a team game you play with your friends, and it's polite and pleasant at the gaming table.
- One can be a good player because can find new and/or efficent ways to accomplish tasks, he's imaginative in the use of his PC or of the monsters, respecting points above.
Absolutely, but I think that should be kept for out of game. It might even be a GM-only position. I'm sure you understand, I was trying to comment on the armchair generals who consider other players characters to be pawns in their wargames.
It's a DM's job to talk to him about it, but a player (out of game) might counsel him without being a bad player, right?
I agree with your basic point, but I would just caveat that it's a different story when a player is new and still struggling to master the mechanics. Then it may be a kind thing to help them out and give suggestions. Once they've got their feet under them, though, let them do their own thing, even if it means biting your tongue when somebody does something not very smart tactically. That doesn't mean you can't discuss it with them later and say something "I really wish you had cast haste on the party rather than trying to incinerate the fire elemental with a fireball." Just don't try and dictate what other players do during the action.
What does it mean to play a game well?
I should think that's obvious. In a competative scenario, it means mastery of the game, and success. Sportsmanship is still important, no one likes a jerk.
In a social setting, which is the vast majority of RPGs, being a good player is nothing more than being a good friend. A kind, generous person who others wish to spend time with, and who is willing to work through differences of opinion with patience.
I am blessed with a group of no less than 7 great players by the second standard. I really enjoy Gming for them, and I almost never have problems like the ones I read about on the forums. Whether or not they are "competent" in a competative sense... I couldn't care less.
Excellent. Your group sounds a lot like mine. Some, but not all, of them are very good from a competitive standpoint, as well. But they're all a blast to play with.
+1 to all the above.
Even a mediocre campaign is still a lot of work for the GM. A good player will bring his imagination and sense of fun to the table, making a so-so game vibrant and immersive. It's only as fun as the people involved.
I still remember first learning to play, and that sense of confusion I had: "Which die do I roll?" "What's a kobold?"
I know the game pretty well, now, but it's still the fantasy element and always looking for new and better ways to reach your goals that keeps me coming back. In RL, I'm not much. In gaming, I can be a hero with amazing power and skill, righting wrongs and saving the day, along with a diverse group of other exciting people.
A good player can visualize the fireball going off, the fearsome roar of the dragon, the pain of being stabbed and slashed, and the thrill of victory.
Good players are ones miraculously blessed with the patience of being able to put up with a moody, inconsistently prepared, and oft absentminded GM like me. :) ;)
|
I am not going to answer what a good player is. There is way too much to consider there. I will however tell you what I think a great player is. Rather simple actually. A great player makes everyone feel comfortable. Offers opinions when asks and is not argumentative the entire time. Even if this gamer realizes his style is incompatible with the table they will finish the session and bow out gracefully. Basically someone with tact and class.
A player can lack game mastery or social skills for role play and still be a great player. That is the best thing about great players if they have any of the above mentioned faults you can work on those. If the guy/gal is jerk there is nothing you can do about that.
Thanks for all the thoughtful responses folks. To summarize, it seems that what makes a "good" player is highly variable, but the majority of folks seem to come down with some variation of somebody who is a decent human being, contributes rather than being disruptive to the game, and is fun to play with for a wide variety of reasons. Systems mastery and skill are important to some, but not all, and definitely seem to be secondary qualifications.
I have to admit to being somewhat pleasantly surprised that more of the elitist attitudes about mechanical optimization skill and/or roleplaying skill didn't show up in this thread. Not that I miss them much, but they are points of view that are well-represented on the boards.
It's also amusing that the current thread about things players do that you hate has many, many more contributions than this one. Nature of the Internet, kind of like politics. Most people have much more fun and are much more energized talking about the negative than with identifying the positive and working to bring it about. This also tracks in the recent threads about what people love about PF and what they hate. A lot more contributors in the second than the first, despite the fact it is a game most of us are playing voluntarily in preference to others, and presumably enjoying.
|
|
It's also amusing that the current thread about things players do that you hate has many, many more contributions than this one. Nature of the Internet, kind of like politics. Most people have much more fun and are much more energized talking about the negative than with identifying the positive and working to bring it about. This also tracks in the recent threads about what people love about PF and what they hate. A lot more contributors in the second than the first, despite the fact it is a game most of us are playing voluntarily in preference to others, and presumably enjoying.
To be fair this thread is just a babe. Give it time you may be surprised.
Thanks for all the thoughtful responses folks. To summarize, it seems that what makes a "good" player is highly variable, but the majority of folks seem to come down with some variation of somebody who is a decent human being, contributes rather than being disruptive to the game, and is fun to play with for a wide variety of reasons. Systems mastery and skill are important to some, but not all, and definitely seem to be secondary qualifications.I have to admit to being somewhat pleasantly surprised that more of the elitist attitudes about mechanical optimization skill and/or roleplaying skill didn't show up in this thread. Not that I miss them much, but they are points of view that are well-represented on the boards.
It's also amusing that the current thread about things players do that you hate has many, many more contributions than this one. Nature of the Internet, kind of like politics. Most people have much more fun and are much more energized talking about the negative than with identifying the positive and working to bring it about. This also tracks in the recent threads about what people love about PF and what they hate. A lot more contributors in the second than the first, despite the fact it is a game most of us are playing voluntarily in preference to others, and presumably enjoying.
Definitely agree on the point of the nature of Internet and Politics. People love to be "on offense" and attacking something someone did or said. Lot harder to craft something than to destroy it. Lot easier to criticize than make hard decisions.
Obviously the real yard stick for good players, is are they fun to play with. I think what a lot of posters touched on are things that make someone a good friend, and it is difficult to separate good social behavior from good play. That being said, I think there are few characteristics that make me consider someone a good player.
Interesting characters with well thought out backgrounds and depth - Some times it's the small details- mannerisms, accents, quirks, unique likes and dislikes that make them seem like real people rather than caricatures. Mostly though it's a strong character voice (and I'm not talking accents more word choice and tone). I love it when I'm playing with people and I never have to ask, "Are you saying that or is it your character."
Understanding there characters and the rules that govern them - A good player doesn't have to bog down the game looking up spells, or feats they use all the time. They understand the basics of the mechanics, and are able to make decisions quickly and efficiently.
Understanding of the basic principle of RPGs and how they relate to play - RPGs are governed by social contracts that everyone must abide by in order for it to be enjoyable to all participants. Good players are people who don't cheat, or argue with GM (not disagree, but argue) and realize the only conditions to win are the ones they set for themselves. They are attentive, especially when the spotlight is on other players, and can enjoy the entire RPG experience, not just the parts that feature their character prominently.
Bringing a sense of enthusiasm and teamwork to the game - I like it when players take notes, and are knowledgeable about the gameworld and the other PCs. A good player will look something up for the GM to facilitate play, and help less experienced players to keep the game running smoothly. Being excited to play, and not just to win is the hallmark of a good player.
Most of all though. It's just whether I like playing with them that makes me call someone a "good" players.
The best player I have seen in my many (but not extensive) years of roleplaying, was the godfather of my daughter.
He walked in, and tried to understand the basic rules and mechanics as fast as possible, as to not draw away from the gameplay, or hinder the other players.
Once he grasped the rules, he played as he wrote his character, low wisdom, yet high intelligence, so he played the character well, thinking plans through, yet not being able to grasp the idea that not everyone can be redeemed, the evil red dragon will not bow down and let you absolve him of his past "sins" and will eat you whole.
He always showed up to the regular DMs house on time, sometimes a little early to go through the rules once again and learn his character's powers and possible feats he may be able to take.
He used descriptive terms whenever possible and always tried to get involved, he also never metagamed, any information he knew as a player never followed on to his character's knowledge, not once.
The best thing about him was that he was polite, even though he was gaming at my house, he always used manners and offered what he had to everyone.
This player has now moved quite a few hours away, and cannot play any more, but he still rings me occasionally to see how his God daughter is doing, and to complain that he is going through "Pathfinder Withdrawal Symptoms" as he puts it.
He was my definition of a "good" player, but no player is "perfect" because every player and DM is different.
my 2 cp.
Ekeebe :D
|
|
There are many different kinds of good players. Some are going to work better in your game than others.
A good roleplayer understands his character and plays to that character's motivations, abilities, knowledge and situation.
A good facilitator writes everything down and keeps enough notes that the party does not forget which magic items they have and how much gold they got.
A good tactician makes clever use of the resources at hand (whatever they may be) to defeat any foe.
A good strategist plans for emergencies and ensures that the party will always have good tools for whatever troubles they may encounter.
A good gamer has fun and helps everyone at the table have fun.
We all have our strengths and we all have our weaknesses, but the game we play generally includes all of the elements I just mentioned, so it could be said that the best players are those who can do all these things. This is pretty rare.
As someone who is a GM 95% of the time, I am very picky about who I run games for.
In general, I tell people that as long as you and your group are all having fun, then "you're doing it right". Your style may not be mine, or even close to what I want, but it doesn't matter. What matters is everyone enjoying themselves.
The "rules" of the game are just the skin draped over the skeleton of "collaborative storytelling". This is most evident in systems like Amber, which is diceless, but still has "rules".
So, for me, a good player is one who is more concerned with the story than the numbers on the paper. A person who makes decisions based on the character they are portraying, rather than what weapon crits for more damage, or what race makes the best wizard.
Creativity that furthers the storyline and adds to the overall enjoyment is what I am after.
In the big picture though, one person's "good player" can be another's worst nightmare. It's very subjective.
Obviously the real yard stick for good players, is are they fun to play with. I think what a lot of posters touched on are things that make someone a good friend, and it is difficult to separate good social behavior from good play. That being said, I think there are few characteristics that make me consider someone a good player.
Interesting characters with well thought out backgrounds and depth - Some times it's the small details- mannerisms, accents, quirks, unique likes and dislikes that make them seem like real people rather than caricatures. Mostly though it's a strong character voice (and I'm not talking accents more word choice and tone). I love it when I'm playing with people and I never have to ask, "Are you saying that or is it your character."
Understanding there characters and the rules that govern them - A good player doesn't have to bog down the game looking up spells, or feats they use all the time. They understand the basics of the mechanics, and are able to make decisions quickly and efficiently.
Understanding of the basic principle of RPGs and how they relate to play - RPGs are governed by social contracts that everyone must abide by in order for it to be enjoyable to all participants. Good players are people who don't cheat, or argue with GM (not disagree, but argue) and realize the only conditions to win are the ones they set for themselves. They are attentive, especially when the spotlight is on other players, and can enjoy the entire RPG experience, not just the parts that feature their character prominently.
Bringing a sense of enthusiasm and teamwork to the game - I like it when players take notes, and are knowledgeable about the gameworld and the other PCs. A good player will look something up for the GM to facilitate play, and help less experienced players to keep the game running smoothly. Being excited to play, and not just to win is the hallmark of a good player.
Most of all though. It's just whether I like playing with them that makes me...
Thanks, good points on what it takes to go from beyond just being a genral good guy tio hand out with to being a good player.
There are many different kinds of good players. Some are going to work better in your game than others.
A good roleplayer understands his character and plays to that character's motivations, abilities, knowledge and situation.
A good facilitator writes everything down and keeps enough notes that the party does not forget which magic items they have and how much gold they got.
A good tactician makes clever use of the resources at hand (whatever they may be) to defeat any foe.
A good strategist plans for emergencies and ensures that the party will always have good tools for whatever troubles they may encounter.
A good gamer has fun and helps everyone at the table have fun.
We all have our strengths and we all have our weaknesses, but the game we play generally includes all of the elements I just mentioned, so it could be said that the best players are those who can do all these things. This is pretty rare.
Nice post on the "roles" people have as players, not just as characters.