DM - Adversarial or Permissive?

[noisms]

Do any venerable DMs or players have any suggestions about how to get past this conflict? Am I "doing it wrong?"

I thank my lucky stars that my players aren't like that - they're extremely pro-active and love thinking their way around challenges.

That said, your players apparently don't. I firmly believe this is because they, like a lot of players, get stuck in a mindset where they think the DM is responsible for their entertainment and they can just sit back and let the story wash over them and massage their egos. I've written about this problem on my blog here: Monsters and Manuals: You are responsible for your own orgasm

You most certainly are not "doing it wrong" - I think you are trying to create a more challenging but ultimately more rewarding game. If I were you I'd try to explain what you're trying to do to your players and get them on board with it if you can. If you can't then unfortunately I guess you're stuck with being "permissive".
http://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com/2012/02/you-are-responsible-for-your-own-orgasm.html

 

[Rogue Agent]

I've written about this problem on my blog here:Monsters and Manuals: You are responsible for your own orgasm

That's all well and good until DMs cock-block their players. Then it goes back to being the DM's problem.

I firmly believe this is because they, like a lot of players, get stuck in a mindset where they think the DM is responsible for their entertainment and they can just sit back and let the story wash over them and massage their egos.

While I agree that this is a problem, it's usually a problem created directly by DMs who say things like "if you do what you want to do instead of what I want you to do, then you'll have to roll up a new character".

Given a DM like that, players very quickly learn to just lay back and let the DM's story about being arrested on trumped up rape charges wash over them.

(Admittedly, the example I'm using here is a little on the extreme side. You may find it hard to believe that it would ever occur in actual play.)

 

[catsclaw227]

While I agree that this is a problem, it's usually a problem created directly by DMs who say things like "if you do what you want to do instead of what I want you to do, then you'll have to roll up a new character".

Given a DM like that, players very quickly learn to just lay back and let the DM's story about being arrested on trumped up rape charges wash over them.

(Admittedly, the example I'm using here is a little on the extreme side. You may find it hard to believe that it would ever occur in actual play.)

(ouch...)

 

[JamesonCourage]

Who talked about abandoning the town? Plenty of fugitives flee from the law without abandoning the town. They hide out in the woods. They sneak back in at night. Their friends sneak food and water out to them. Etc.

The player talked about abandoning the town. According to the OP on page one, the player had no real reason to stick around:

Basically it would have resulted in him surviving out in the woods and (according to him) most likely leaving the area while the rest of the party continued on with the quest. If he'd had a vested interest in the town or allies there, I would have certainly been open to him striking out on his own. As it stood, if he escaped, he would have left the campaign.

His PC was effectively abandoning the party.

Because he is the one whose PC the GM has had wrongly accused of a crime, and when he responds to that by having his PC try to flee - a fairly common and reasonable response to unjust accusations from unknown authority figures - the other players, as I said, hang him and his PC out to dry.

This seems to be acceptable based on the social contract of the table. Each character, including his, was "acting in character." Remember, he was essentially abandoning them, as he said he had no reason to stick around after leaving the gate. As always, play what you like

 

[noisms]

That's all well and good until DMs cock-block their players. Then it goes back to being the DM's problem.

So DMs shouldn't cock block. Not what went on here at all - all I can see in the OP's post is a campaign world which has consequences.

While I agree that this is a problem, it's usually a problem created directly by DMs who say things like "if you do what you want to do instead of what I want you to do, then you'll have to roll up a new character".

Given a DM like that, players very quickly learn to just lay back and let the DM's story about being arrested on trumped up rape charges wash over them.

(Admittedly, the example I'm using here is a little on the extreme side. You may find it hard to believe that it would ever occur in actual play.)

That depends on what the DM wants the player to do - in particular how specific it is. Does the DM want the player to be arrested? No. Does the DM want the player to engage creatively and realistically with his game world by thinking about the situation for, like, 5 seconds and figuring out a sensible and interesting way around the problem? Yes. I don't see a problem with the latter at all.

 

[JamesonCourage]

So DMs shouldn't cock block. Not what went on here at all - all I can see in the OP's post is a campaign world which has consequences.

That depends on what the DM wants the player to do - in particular how specific it is. Does the DM want the player to be arrested? No. Does the DM want the player to engage creatively and realistically with his game world by thinking about the situation for, like, 5 seconds and figuring out a sensible and interesting way around the problem? Yes. I don't see a problem with the latter at all.

You only have six posts, and yet I can't give you more XP yet. Well said. As always, play what you like

 

[catsclaw227]

That depends on what the DM wants the player to do - in particular how specific it is. Does the DM want the player to be arrested? No. Does the DM want the player to engage creatively and realistically with his game world by thinking about the situation for, like, 5 seconds and figuring out a sensible and interesting way around the problem? Yes. I don't see a problem with the latter at all.

That's a bit of a strawman. We have no idea how long the player thought about it or how long they talked about it before he decided that running was in character and the best thing for him to do. The DM simply mentioned after the fact that if he ran then he'd effectively be out of the campaign, and even went so far as to ask the other players if they'd follow or assist the PC. Then he mentioned TO US that there may have been other options. Were these even discussed with the player and for how long?

Either way, given the circumstances, we don't know how long he thought about it. In many campaigns I've been in, the DM doesn't let you think to long about this kind of stuff because it's happening "in real time" and you need to decide and often the instinctual reaction is the one the player decides is right for the PC.

 

[noisms]

That's a bit of a strawman. We have no idea how long the player thought about it or how long they talked about it before he decided that running was in character and the best thing for him to do. The DM simply mentioned after the fact that if he ran then he'd effectively be out of the campaign, and even went so far as to ask the other players if they'd follow or assist the PC. Then he mentioned TO US that there may have been other options. Were these even discussed with the player and for how long?

Either way, given the circumstances, we don't know how long he thought about it. In many campaigns I've been in, the DM doesn't let you think to long about this kind of stuff because it's happening "in real time" and you need to decide and often the instinctual reaction is the on the player decides is right for the PC.

I think there are some valid points there - telling the player that if he ran then he'd be out of the campaign is an absolute no-no as far as I'm concerned. I think it's part of good DMing to always respond flexibly to whatever curve balls your players throw you (assuming good faith on the players' parts, needless to say).

But this didn't seem like a very problematic situation - the "flight" response is, not to read too much into the situation, perhaps the response of a player who isn't used to thinking very creatively? Bribing the guards or fast-talking them seem like really obvious solutions, and ones which are potentially more interesting and useful too from a player perspective (you get to make allies in the local guard, which could come in handy).

 

[catsclaw227]

But this didn't seem like a very problematic situation - the "flight" response is, not to read too much into the situation, perhaps the response of a player who isn't used to thinking very creatively? Bribing the guards or fast-talking them seem like really obvious solutions, and ones which are potentially more interesting and useful too from a player perspective (you get to make allies in the local guard, which could come in handy).

I still posit that bribing the guards when you are being falsely accused of rape is different than bribing the guards when you are being falsely accused of petty thievery or breaking and entering.

Considering the fact that the PC (not player) didn't have any ties to the other PCs and they were willing to abandon him, then running was a realistic (cinematic) response in light of the situation.

Also, the sheriff and the guards could have approached him much milder especially considering he was a local hero that turned back a goblin attack.

 

[noisms]

I still posit that bribing the guards when you are being falsely accused of rape is different than bribing the guards when you are being falsely accused of petty thievery or breaking and entering.

Considering the fact that the PC (not player) didn't have any ties to the other PCs and they were willing to abandon him, then running was a realistic (cinematic) response in light of the situation.

Also, the sheriff and the guards could have approached him much milder especially considering he was a local hero that turned back a goblin attack.

The fact that he's a local hero makes things even easier to work around. "Come on guys, you know me. Do you really think I'd do a thing like that?" etc. Is it really that difficult?

As an aside, I find the double standards at play here interesting. The discourse revolves around the DM and his failings, but I'm not sure anybody has mentioned the player in question's apparent complete disregard for the fact that there's a game going on that he's supposed to be partaking in, and that generally speaking it's best not to have your character do things which will clearly make things difficult for everybody else.

In my view the player in question did two things that I really can't have a lot of truck with - he gave a kneejerk response when if he'd thought momentarily he could have come up with something creative, and his kneejerk response was something that undermined the game itself.

This doesn't excuse the DMing errors which I think are obvious (saying "Don't do that or you might as well roll up another character", and starting off the game with the PCs not knowing each other), but still.