General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
#1. Relevant hooks. As the DM, imo (and I am always the DM/GM), it is your responsibility to sit down with the players and find out their characters' backgrounds and motivations.
This is always good advice. Unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee that the DM will correctly work out how those motivations he's discussed relate to the adventure at hand. He could be wrong.
The great thing about making the player primarily responsible for providing their character's motivations is that they can't be wrong about them. For that reason alone I find it to be the most practical approach.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Note that so could the player, and that that no solution from the player was forthcoming.
As a player, I would feel like I'm overstepping my bounds if I tell the DM what his NPC's or what his world is. I tell the DM who my character is. It's in his hands to get that character where he needs them.
If I say "My character is too poor to get a plane ticket across a continent," I wouldn't expect that to be a barrier to entry. I would expect the DM to gloss it over with some justification.
Quote:
But there does come a point where the DM simply doesn't have to time to keep brainstorming up reasons for a single player to participate in the the game
I'd argue that this job for a DM is more important than almost any other job, so if he doesn't have time, he better make time. If you can't properly motivate a character, and if you can't make the adventure a narrative convenience, you aren't doing your job as the facilitator of the game.
That's not to say that there aren't disruptive players out there, but that is to say that the DM has a lot of control in how disruptive these things can become. Putting a cap on it and getting on with the fun part should be pretty easy.
Quote:
I disagree more-or-less completely. You're playing adventurers, go adventure. Why shouldn't the players meet the DM at least half way?
If your adventure can't come get them, why would they want to do it?
"Adventurer" isn't everything everyone plays, even in D&D, let alone in the broader scope of RPGs. Even within the scope of "adventurer," there are different motives, different styles. Some will quest for glory, some for gold, some for justice, some out of necessity. Harry Potter just wanted to escape his awful home life, he never wanted to be the Chosen One. Bilbo Baggins was cajoled and taunted to go on his little quest. Conan saught conquest. Samwise was just following a friend.
The D&D-style "career adventurer," or the D&D-style "fantasy mercenary," are valid archetypes, but they shouldn't be the only valid archetypes, even in D&D. If I give a group of paladins and clerics a quest whose only reward is a fat sack of cash, I shouldn't really expect them to take it. If I give a group of thieves and warlocks a quest whose reward is saving some servant-girl, I shouldn't really expect them to take it. That's why multiple quests, many paths, and no bottlenecks, can be so important.
Quote:
Why should the DM have to? It's not only his job.
It pretty much is: get PC's into adventures. If you can't do that, and if you can't extend a little bit of effort to do that, you're not doing your job that well.
Quote:
This I agree with more-or-less completely. No, make that completely.
That idea -- "Tell me why your PC is in the dungeon" -- gives the DM a lot more work than preparing hooks, though. Because if your party of five characters has five different reasons for being in the dungeon, they all have to be plausible. One person wants a sack of gold, so that's in. One person wants ancient tomes of knowledge, so that's in. One person wants to save the princess, so that's in. One person wants to discover more about their family's old properties, so that's in. One person wants to unleash the forgotten evil that lies at the core, so that's in. It mandates what you can have in your dungeon.
I, personally, like playing that way, but I'm a huge fan of improvising. Most DMs have a dungeon that already has monsters and treasure. What these DMs need to do is figure out a reason for the characters to visit it. If your reason doesn't work, try a different one.
I only game a few hours a week, with a casual group, and don't have unlimited time. I don't expect players to meet me halfway, exactly, but I do expect them to make characters who (1) have some motivation to go on adventures, and (2) can at least play nicely with others in the abstract.
I
As part of that cooperation, I think its the GM's responsibility to not expect a PC to essentially metagame, just to make things easier on the GM. I don't think we have all of the information we need about the OP to decide if this is the case or not, so I'm by no means making a judgement about the specific instances in the OP.
<stuff snipped>
Our group made a plan to climb down the cliff to an entrance we had discovered, however, we had no way of securing our ship, so I decided that my character would stay and gaurd it.
After an hour of realtime with nothing to do, and the rest of the group engaged in exploring a dark jedi tomb, I tried to get the GM to help me with a reason to leave off from guarding the spacecraft. I asked him if I sensed any trouble through the force, or if I sensed that the rest of the group was in trouble (along with a few other suggestions). The GM's response was to smirk and say no, nothing is making you feel that anything is wrong.
After two hours of realtime, with the rest of the group slowly being picked off one-by-one by the spirit of a dark jedi, I again tried to get the GM to help with a reason for my character to leave the spacecraft. Again a smirk and nothing else.
After three hours of realtime, I was just about completely fed up when the spirit somehow came out of the tomb (after killing the rest of the group), came after my character, dominated him mentally (with no save), and killed him (without rolling, no defence allowed).
Now, my initial decision to guard the spacecraft wasn't the best one I've ever made. But, players make decisions that throw off a game or encounter all of the time. It is the GM's responsibility to keep things on track, and yes, to keep the players involved. In this situation, after the intitial bad decision, I had absolutely no choice other than to metagame in order to participate. Metagaming is something I'm not willing to do. It's called a Role Playing Game for a reason.
I am confused by this story and your statements. You claim metagaming is so horrible that you will not do it, but you expect the DM to wave his hands and get you back into the game after you make a bad decision. It seems like you are complaining about not being able to have your cake and eat it too. What am I not getting here?
As a player, I would feel like I'm overstepping my bounds if I tell the DM what his NPC's or what his world is.
OK. I see where you're coming from now. While I expect players to provide their own motivations, I'm fine with them asserting narrative control, or at the very least suggesting how I should narrate the event.
Quote:
If I say "My character is too poor to get a plane ticket across a continent," I wouldn't expect that to be a barrier to entry. I would expect the DM to gloss it over with some justification.
Me too. I got the impression that the player in question here was unhappy with that. Hence the 'looked annoyed' part of the original post.
Quote:
I'd argue that this job for a DM is more important than almost any other job, so if he doesn't have time, he better make time.
KM, I'm all for the DM being aware of the characters in his game, tailoring the 'story' to them, and ensuring it's 'their story'. But I'm not going to play 'guess what motivates Trogdor'. If I player can't meet me half way on their motivations for playing in my campaign, they can leave.
Quote:
Putting a cap on it and getting on with the fun part should be pretty easy.
Gamers, I have noticed, can be difficult. Observe that some of them spend time finding reasons for their characters to not adventure...
Quote:
Some will quest for glory, some for gold, some for justice, some out of necessity. Harry Potter just wanted to escape his awful home life, he never wanted to be the Chosen One. Bilbo Baggins was cajoled and taunted to go on his little quest. Conan saught conquest. Samwise was just following a friend.
Sure. This is why I prefer to leave motivation up to the player. I'll try to design scenarios with several entry points, then the players decide how they'll enter.
Quote:
It pretty much is: get PC's into adventures. If you can't do that, and if you can't extend a little bit of effort to do that, you're not doing your job that well.
This is true for players as well.
Quote:
It mandates what you can have in your dungeon.
Pssst... I don't use dungeons.
Quote:
I, personally, like playing that way, but I'm a huge fan of improvising.
Me too. It's why I don't use dungeons.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
If I say "My character is too poor to get a plane ticket across a continent," I wouldn't expect that to be a barrier to entry. I would expect the DM to gloss it over with some justification.
I would only expect the DM to run my character for me if I had to run out to the store or something.
Otherwise I'd end that sentence with, 'so I take a bus and / or hitchhike, and arrive up the winding lane on foot, bone-tired and with my worldly possessions in a backpack. If anyone asks, I lie about it and say my parents dropped me off up the road, because I don't want to admit that I'm poor.'
That's playing a role. Not, 'I sit at home and do nothing.'
I don't want to have a story dictated me to me, and if I did, I'd be reading a novel or watching the television, not joining a *role-playing game.* I want to be *part of it.*
Sitting around and not participating isn't role-playing. It's the opposite.
It's a two-way street. I would say (and did so, to players) that the more difficult their characters are to be motivated, the more active I expected the players and characters to be in game and in starting their own plotsand adventures.
If the players don't want to be active, don't want to look for adventures, then I expect them to play characters that don't have to be dragged into an adventure kicking and screaming.
Why shouldn't the players meet the DM at least half way?
Because the DM can change the world.
The players can change their characters, and some allies, if they're lucky.
It therefore falls to the DM to help players a) solve their problems b) resolve interparty conflict, and c) recognize when players aren't making a good-faith effort to do a) and b) and call them on it.
You know, this thread is remarkably similar to a debate we have in educational circles all the time. "If a student is not learning, is it the student's fault for not being motivated, or is it the teacher's fault for not motivating the child." As a teacher and a DM, I do have my personal biases.
But in the end, this is really a question of personal character, not DM or PC responsibility. As in all things in life, if we come together with the intention of serving and supporting each other, things will go well. It doesn't matter if the DM's plans are laid to waste, or if a PCs personal zeitgeist is infringed upon--if we're coming to the table focused on the needs and enjoyments of our friends.
Selfishness ruins any social event.
__________________ "Help! I'm being attacked by giant, prehistoric wildebeests!"
"Hmm...sounds like Dire Gnus."
Sitting around and not participating isn't role-playing. It's the opposite.
Er, before we go too strongly down this path, there's something to ask - is the player not participating, or is the player just not having a solution come to mind?
Human beings are sometimes afflicted by "option lock" - the inability to make a choice, because there are too many options available and insufficient criteria to eliminate some - like the kid in a candy store, or a person in a restaurant who is given a menu with many things that look good, and they say, "I don't know what I want..."
This can strike players, too. The DM asks them to make up a character, but gives no other guidance (thinking that the player would prefer to make their own choices), but thereby leaving the player with no information on which is a good thing to go with.
Or, like here in the start of a campaign, the player that has very little information, setting, or framework in which to operate, has little context for proposing a solution.
It doesn't matter if the DM's plans are laid to waste, or if a PCs personal zeitgeist is infringed upon--if we're coming to the table focused on the needs and enjoyments of our friends.
Selfishness ruins any social event.
Yea, true that.
Role playing can be a great psychic relief. Anti-social selfish jerk characters can be as over the top as you like, and fun for everybody in their excess.
But when I am tempted to use my PC as a free ticket to act-out against my actual issues IRL, gots to watch my friends don't get caught in the cross-fire. Just like you can make a realy cool fun world together, you can just as easily ruin it.
In fact, it actually happens a lot. Maybe it's the overcoming of this indefatiguable disfunction that makes the whole effort so interesting?
I am confused by this story and your statements. You claim metagaming is so horrible that you will not do it, but you expect the DM to wave his hands and get you back into the game after you make a bad decision. It seems like you are complaining about not being able to have your cake and eat it too. What am I not getting here?
In the jedi's defense, based on your understanding of the Force and the Star Wars movies, wouldn't you expect the dark jedi spirit to be tweaking off the jedi's force senses? I sure would. I wouldn't even roll for it, it would be an auto-success. I'm certainly not going to sit back and gloat about the jedi character's bad decision to stay back to guard the ship while I effect a TPK. That's not very genre-friendly.
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
As a player, I would feel like I'm overstepping my bounds if I tell the DM what his NPC's or what his world is. I tell the DM who my character is. It's in his hands to get that character where he needs them.
I think this is a terrible approach. It's fine for you to put obstacles in front of the GM, but it's "overstepping your bounds" to help him out? Seems like you're actively detracting from the game for the GM, and by extension for the other players.
I would only expect the DM to run my character for me if I had to run out to the store or something.
Otherwise I'd end that sentence with, 'so I take a bus and / or hitchhike, and arrive up the winding lane on foot, bone-tired and with my worldly possessions in a backpack. If anyone asks, I lie about it and say my parents dropped me off up the road, because I don't want to admit that I'm poor.'
That's playing a role. Not, 'I sit at home and do nothing.'
I don't want to have a story dictated me to me, and if I did, I'd be reading a novel or watching the television, not joining a *role-playing game.* I want to be *part of it.*
Sitting around and not participating isn't role-playing. It's the opposite.
Well said.
I think this refusing to have your brand new PC arrive at the start of the adventure example is completely different from having your established PC refuse to perform human sacrifice or other out of character acts in the middle of the adventure. It's refusing the entire premise of the game, or at least putting an extra unwanted load on the GM to spotlight your PC as he's forced to engineer some extra scene around your PC to get them in - the Wolverine Syndrome.
As GM, I have very limited brain processing capacity & energy. Running a large group especially I have very little to spare. I really hate players who demand a big extra chunk of that directed to them for no good reason. Some players seem to think I have infinite mental resources with which to attend them; I don't.
You know, this thread is remarkably similar to a debate we have in educational circles all the time. "If a student is not learning, is it the student's fault for not being motivated, or is it the teacher's fault for not motivating the child." As a teacher and a DM, I do have my personal biases.
As an educator myself, I don't think apportioning blame is helpful. However, it is my job to motivate that student, and I am paid to do so. RPGs by contrast are an unpaid leisure activity, no one is paying me to motivate the difficult player.
In the jedi's defense, based on your understanding of the Force and the Star Wars movies, wouldn't you expect the dark jedi spirit to be tweaking off the jedi's force senses? I sure would. I wouldn't even roll for it, it would be an auto-success. I'm certainly not going to sit back and gloat about the jedi character's bad decision to stay back to guard the ship while I effect a TPK. That's not very genre-friendly.
I certainly think the GM in that SW game sounded like a total jerk. Having the Jedi's senses not activate was bad, but auto-killing the PCs was worse.
If a player is giving you, the GM, a way to get the PC into the game - "Do I sense anything?" - I think the onus is on the GM to work with that to make the game fun for everyone. Only if the player is actively refusing to get involved and rejecting the GM's suggestions (including 'come up with a way, any way') is it the players' fault.
When it comes to the girl from California:
The DM said, "Make a character and get them to this place."
The player created a character and then said, "I can't get her to that place."
This isn't a case where the DM should have just handwaved the whole thing. The player didn't follow the directions. Instead of California, pretend that the player made a character from a tiny tribe in Sub-Saharan Africa. If the power isn't flight, teleportation, or speed, and they didn't come up with an in-game reason for the character to get to the point, then that player did not follow character creation rules.
As one person said, it would have been great to have the character get a bus ticket or hitchhike and walk. That can create a ton of awesome little stories later. To make a poor person and just say, "I can't get there." is absolutely ridiculous. My response would be, "Fine. That's a good NPC for me for later. Now follow the damn directions and make someone who can actually get here."
To start the first game session, I had each Player describe how they arrived at the mansion of the NPC. One came by bus, one came by borrowing his parent's car, etc.
One guy, whose PC was a teenage girl from California commented that there was no way his family could fly her all the way to the east coast. While I started the introductions as each PC arrived, this Player willingly sat at the table without having his character introduced.
What, lone wolves can't hitchhike? Steal a car? Hop a freight train? Everyone has a bad day and this day was bad for that player.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullgrit
The Player essentially threw up his hands in apparent exasperation, and had his girl show up. He seemed annoyed to have to do something out of character/background for his PC.
And then he shows up the DM. Bad behavior.
Crossing the line can be done if you don't escalate things and abide by party decisions.
For example, I've had my guy say he was going to punch a PC in the nose if he didn't stop playing keep-a-way with a magic item. He didn't stop. I punched him in the nose. He gave it up. I told him that I treated him like a man: I told him what I was going to do and let him choose what his behavior would be. Later, when his character got a bit of revenge, I didn't respond in kind. Problem done with, both players happy, end of story. When you trust your fellow players, you can do things like that and not worry about de-railing the campaign.
For another example, a PC, unbeknownst to us, multi-classed from paladin into binder. We had our suspicions, but they were confirmed when she made a bad pact and grew horns. My LG ranger argued that our mission to rescue some POWs should be aborted, because our friend was either possessed, cursed or ill. I argued it for a while, then agreed to wait until after the mission to deal with it.
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
Purity, Body, Flavor 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
