Why I don't GM by the nose

[fireinthedust]

This is a long-overdue gripe that I have with players that I feel is important to state here on this forum. I am hoping for the message to get out, and maybe save some friendships.


I like the idea of fantasy settings and being a hero, because I like to imagine that I'm in them, to have input, because I believe my ideas are just as valid as a video game designer's. Also, I can think outside the box technology has made for me (and my poor dexterity means bad aim in games; can't finish Mario, sorry)

I like the question "what would you do?" The reason: it is important. It defines the game, the adventure, and makes everything possible.

The worst sort of player is one who thinks the GM has to tell them exactly what to do and how to do it. In fact, who want him to tell them exactly how to do it. Then, when the GM doesn't say what the player is supposed to do, they just sit there looking confused until they get a hint.

Example:

GM: you see a sandstone statue of a man about two feet tall standing in front of the doorway. It has a wicked grin with tiny sharp teeth carved into it, and an aztec-style head dress. At its feet are dried oranges. The door behind it is like the others in this dungeon, iron-bound wood with a gold lock below the doorknob. What do you do?

Response 1: Ideal player:
Hmm, I suppose I should think about the statue and interact with it in a meaningful way to determine if it is a threat to my goals. Then I should attempt to get around it to the door, perhaps, or reevaluate my situation based on new information gained regarding the statue.

Response 2: Increasingly Typical player:
Uuuhh... now what?

GM: now... what do you do?

Player: Um... does the statue look like it's going to attack me? Or should I... rest?


I know I'm not alone in this. As a GM I make a scenario so players can *Play* in them. I want to make a world that people can explore. This doesn't mean that I want them to just sit there while I tell them what they do, it means I want them to do things in the setting or scenario I'm DMing.

Thoughts?

 

[Odhanan]

Tell that to your players.

Really. Communication is key. Communicate your expectations to your players, and listen to theirs. If communication is effective, then you'll find the sweet spot that satisfies everyone by trial and error. If you just wait for them to do stuff and complain after the fact, you won't get anywhere. This is a social game, first and foremost. Use that to your advantage.

 

[The Shaman]

A couple of months ago over on Big Purple I wrote that Pinky and the Brain are model roleplaying game players.

Pinky: "Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
The Brain: "The same thing we do every night, Pinky—try to take over the world!"

For me, the best players are proactive, from figuring out the significance of a leering idol to mounting a plot to discredit a seditious baron, without spoonfeeding by the referee.

 

[kitsune9]

Hi Fire, it could be a type of player or playstyle at work. Here's some of my ideas and how as a DM I would deal with it. Since you know your players best, maybe you see them fitting in some category below or something else.

The Distracted Player: This player is not your ideal player because they got other things on the mind or in their face that isn't allowing them their full attention. Probably, I would have little tolerance for this kind of player and abruptly tell them that they need to pay attention, repeat the situation again, and then let them fail or succeed. If the distraction is something that can be easily remedied such as a cellphone that they need to turn off, I'll deal with it then.

The Newbie: Surprisingly, even though there are gamers out there that like to play D&D, they don't read fantasy books, or reading holds little interest to them. So their imagination is somewhat lacking. Or maybe they are new to gaming and their interaction with it is limited. I try to cut these guys more slack (particularly if they are younger players) and try to bring up situations that aren't overwhelming in terms of info overload.

Uneducated Player: Even gamers who like to play D&D, if they seriously lack an education, will tend to get "stuck" in approaching situations and problems the same way over and over. Again, I tend to break situations down a little better for them and cut them more slack because I don't know the circumstances as to whether their lack of education is because of poor choice or poor circumstances.

Lazy Player: Some players play D&D like they do other activities--half-hearted and lazy. It's not really a play style, but more of a lifestyle choice that follows them in their gaming. These players annoy me, but I try to meet them halfway through handouts and making information quite simple to remember though easy names, smaller pieces of information, and so on.

Another thing is that you maybe able to illicit more interest from the players by changing up to how you GM. For example, if you have information that you really want to pay attention to, talk really fast and loud as if you're some kind of 1930's narrator of a radio serial. Or use an evil voice when reading a box text that can have dire consequences, use a soft voice when presenting a role playing opportunity (so that players are forced to listen). The key here would be to not overdo it because then too much of the evil voice with no threat of consequences will result in your players tuning you out.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Well, you have to take the player's expectations and interests into account, not just your own. Why does the player need to be lead by the hand? Many reasons, but it could be he is bored. To be engaged, you have to be motivated. Some people don't really care about the minutiae you described in that example;

Example:

GM: you see a sandstone statue of a man about two feet tall standing in front of the doorway. It has a wicked grin with tiny sharp teeth carved into it, and an aztec-style head dress. At its feet are dried oranges. The door behind it is like the others in this dungeon, iron-bound wood with a gold lock below the doorknob. What do you do?

Response 1: Ideal player:
Hmm, I suppose I should think about the statue and interact with it in a meaningful way to determine if it is a threat to my goals. Then I should attempt to get around it to the door, perhaps, or reevaluate my situation based on new information gained regarding the statue.

Response 2: Increasingly Typical player:
Uuuhh... now what?

GM: now... what do you do?

Player: Um... does the statue look like it's going to attack me? Or should I... rest?

I don't know if that kind of thing is common in your games, but if it is, I would be player two. Why? Mostly because I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the statue. I don't care how the dried oranges might interact with the statue or whatever else you had in mind. All I want is to get by this statue and door with a perception check and/or a thievery check. Actually, if you let me know that a failed check sounds the alarm, you have my attention. If you expect me to solve some kind of puzzle, I'll leave the room for a beer and hope somebody else solved it by the time I am back. When I want to do a brain teaser I do a sudoku or crossword puzzles (I really do!).

Personally, I like two things more than any other about D&D: Nail Biting fights and interacting with other PCs and NPCs. I want interesting villains and allies and then I want to interact with them until it leads to battles that I feel invested in. All of my best D&D memories are wacky quotes from crazy exchanges my PCs had with the other PCs and NPCs or awesome moments in a battle (both awesomely good or bad). None involve a tree with dried apple and no enemy in sight. There is no tension in this scene; There is only the possibility of screwing up if you don't conform to whatever the DM decided was an acceptable course of action. Yawn.

I don't like puzzles; they usually are much better in the DM's eyes than in mine. And I really hate to get bogged down in details.

That's my opinion. Other people focus on different things as is their right. But understand this; just as you are thinking that you aren't dealing with an ideal player, the player is probably thinking he is not dealing with an ideal DM.

If you got one or two puzzles fans in your group, feed them this statue bit and adress mostly them. Just make sure it is quick and to the point in order not to bore the others and then move on to something that engages them. You have to give the people what they want. And there damn well better not be another 'what do you do' scene behind the door! And if NONE of the players feel engaged by the kind of situation you described, stop doing it altogether.

PS: 'What do you do?' isn't nearly as important as 'What do you want?'. IMO, anyway. 'What do you do?' when I am in a situation I don't care for in the first place isn't that useful. If you'd ask me what I wanted first, we wouldn't be in this bind!

 

[Haltherrion]

If you are talking about a particular instance regarding players who are otherwise engaged it could be the players were tired, just not interested in a puzzle like that, or other similar issues.

Assuming it's a more long-standing problem my approach is to "train" the group of players. Coach them on what I expect, show them by how scenarios play out that they can influence events, make it clear that their actions matter and that I expect them to solve difficult problems. If they don't will they die? Very rarely but they can expect to miss out on things they would rather not miss out on.

I say group and not player because in the end, not all players will always get engaged with these things. In any group, there are usually some who engage sometimes and some who almost never do. Of the former, not all will be 'on' at any given moment. But if the group can solve a problem, I'm happy as a ref.

As someone else replied, though, sometimes a lack of engagement on a problem can mean a lack of engagement in the game itself. Or it can mean that the players think their actions don't matter. Why solve a hard puzzle if the ref has previously demonstrated that the plot is linear and he'll get them through that door one way or another? Or the players might be new to you and used to more linear games or games without puzzles.

I find that with patience most players will eventually step up to solve problems often enough.

I don't do true puzzles (as opposed to problems that make them think) a lot but I had one introduced in session 1 that just resolved in session 11. It involved finding different chambers with clues and working out sequences for basically a combination lock. It was introduced as a hook that they did not have to bite on and they could abandon it at will (and often did non-related things) but the fact that someone else was racing them to the end and had tricked them in a way that almost killed one of them spurred them on, as well as the belief there was a substantial reward on this path (and there was ). It was a fairly hard and involved puzzle that involved finding these chambers as well as solving the sequence (the latter they did with surprising ease but you never know with players). But it played out over many sessions and they could control when and how they did it. As a player or ref, I don't mind an involved puzzle if it is optional. I do mind them if it is required for any further progress that night.

 

[The Shaman]

You have to give the people what they want.

Or you could find players who understand that the game will cover a lot of ground, some of which is directed at their specific interests and some which is directed at the interests of other players and of the referee as well.

And hopefully they won't be so rude as to walk away when something comes up in the game that isn't focused on them, 'cause no one should have to put up with gamers like that.

 

[HealTheSquad]

These days all my roleplaying is done by play-by-post. I have found this issue cropping up when I try to run 4E games in particular. Players seem to want to be led between one combat encounter and the next.

Love the 4E iteration of D&D but this is a worrying sign. Is this how new players are learning the game?

 

[Neonchameleon]

These days all my roleplaying is done by play-by-post. I have found this issue cropping up when I try to run 4E games in particular. Players seem to want to be led between one combat encounter and the next.

Love the 4E iteration of D&D but this is a worrying sign. Is this how new players are learning the game?

In D&D Encounters, yes.

 

[amerigoV]

GM: now... what do you do?

Player: Um... does the statue look like it's going to attack me? Or should I... rest?


I know I'm not alone in this. As a GM I make a scenario so players can *Play* in them. I want to make a world that people can explore. This doesn't mean that I want them to just sit there while I tell them what they do, it means I want them to do things in the setting or scenario I'm DMing.

Thoughts?

You certainly have set up an extreme. But it really does come down to what else is going on.

I recall vividly where we had a group that was sneaking out of a besieged city. We encountered .... I don't know who they were ... we attacked at the slightest provocation. Why? We had not had a good fight in several sessions, and we only met every other week. The look on the DM's face it was clearly we did not do what he wanted/thought would go down.

For some of us, we need some red meat in order to play along with your* plot.

* your being the generic - you very well may just have a bad crop of players. Its nothing the Tomb of Horrors will not fix.

So I have been player #1 and I have been player #2.