Why I don't GM by the nose

[Derren]

In the scenario given, there are only a few things worth doing. By noting all of them (statue, oranges, door) you limit the number of options without actually telling the players what to do.

Yes, you are in effect saying "Eating the dungeon lint in the corner will not accomplish anything useful," but if you're players don't know that already you've got other problems.

"Anything useful" should depend on the players.
You, and sadly most players seem to expect that the DM creates a linear path on which the PCs travel, sometimes swaying left or right but in the end still linear.
Yes, eating the lint will not solve the puzzle to open the door (if there even is a puzzle to begin with), but maybe teh PCs do not want to solve the puzzle? Maybe they want to use brute force to open the door? Maybe they want to turn around and do something else? That are all viable options in a RPG, but most players seem to want to play the RPG like a video game where there is a single path you have to follow with no chance to turn back. Sadly many DMs obligue them and limit RPGs to exactly that.
And it is no surprise that such players have no idea what to do when not told what to do. To address the accusation that the "DM has failed because he did not provide hooks". The players should be able to create their own hooks. If not they fail as players.

 

[TarionzCousin]

You, and sadly most players seem to expect that the DM creates a linear path on which the PCs travel, sometimes swaying left or right but in the end still linear.

No. You are completely wrong. I said nothing of the kind. In response to players saying "I don't know what to do," I suggested giving them options.

Are you saying that if they don't know what to do, that they "fail as players" and the game stagnates? Why not try to have fun instead of trying to make yourself feel superior?

I think you'll find that if you refrain from telling other people their game styles, how they act, what their opinions are, etc., you'll come across as slightly less of a jerk.

 

[Krensky]

"To address the accusation that the "DM has failed because he did not provide hooks". The players should be able to create their own hooks. If not they fail as players.

If the players sit around, not knowing what to do (rather then being jerks by refusing to do anything) and the GM lets the drag the game to a screeching halt rather then having something kick in the door or whatever, the GM has failed. Creating hooks is not the player's job, it's the GMs. Coming up with goals and pursuing them independently of the GM's hooks is.

Pacing is a GM responsibility. If the players are sitting around with blank looks, it's boring. Allowing this to last more then a short while is the GMs fault.

 

[Derren]

I think you'll find that if you refrain from telling other people their game styles, how they act, what their opinions are, etc., you'll come across as slightly less of a jerk.

And by that you are telling me how to play.
About your example, as soon as you decide what accomlishes something and what not and tell that your players as suggestion, you are not giving the players options, you are limiting them and drive them down a specific path.

Pacing is a GM responsibility. If the players are sitting around with blank looks, it's boring. Allowing this to last more then a short while is the GMs fault.

Why should pacing be the GMs responsibility?
If you are playing a linear story, then yes you are correct. But when not its the players who have to drive things forward and when they don't they fail.

 

[Krensky]

And by that you are telling me how to play.
About your example, as soon as you decide what accomlishes something and what not, you are not giving the players options, you are limiting them and drive them down a specific path.

No, it's called adjudicating. It's one of the primary responsibilities at the table.

Why should pacing be the GMs responsibility?
If you are playing a linear story, then yes you are correct. But when not its the players who have to drive things forward and when they don't they fail.

Even f you're playing in a plotless litterbox, it's still the GM's responsibility. Why? Because the players have no real control over pacing. The GM controls the world, so he controls the pace. If the players are proactive, great. If they're not then it's the GM's job to make them react. If the game drags to a stop and everyone just sits there twiddling their thumbs, that's the GMs fault. Why? Because he has the most ability to change it. Bad or too few hooks, unclear paths, not seizing initiative, inducing option paralysis. These are all failures of the GM, not the players. Honestly, I can not think of a situation, either anecdotal or hypothetical where the game grinds to a halt because where the GM is not at fault.

 

[Derren]

Even f you're playing in a plotless litterbox, it's still the GM's responsibility. Why? Because the players have no real control over pacing. The GM controls the world, so he controls the pace. If the players are proactive, great. If they're not then it's the GM's job to make them react. If the game drags to a stop and everyone just sits there twiddling their thumbs, that's the GMs fault. Why? Because he has the most ability to change it. Bad or too few hooks, unclear paths, not seizing initiative, inducing option paralysis. These are all failures of the GM, not the players. Honestly, I can not think of a situation, either anecdotal or hypothetical where the game grinds to a halt because where the GM is not at fault.

The GM controlls the pace? Again only when the GM decides what ultimately the PCs have to do. If you are running this kind of game yes, the GM is at fault. But if not its the players responsibility to do something. The GM might controll "the world", but 90% of the world is off screen. THe PCs on the other hand are always the center of attention so the players have always the ability change the world even just by moving to another location.

 

[TarionzCousin]

And by that you are telling me how to play.

I was referring to your asinine post in which you told me how I GM'ed, not to your game style. I even quoted the post in question. I never once mentioned your style of gaming.

Do you know how this whole "message-board thing" works?

 

[Krensky]

The GM controlls the pace?

Yes, the GM always controls the pace.

Again only when the GM decides what ultimately the PCs have to do.

No, the GM always controls the pace.

If you are running this kind of game yes, the GM is at fault. But if not its the players responsibility to do something.

Only if the GM is lazy. If the players do something, awesome. If they don't it's the GM's job to keep the game moving. Otherwise everyone at the table is wasting time.

The GM might controll "the world", but 90% of the world is off screen. THe PCs on the other hand are always the center of attention so the players have always the ability change the world even just by moving to another location.

The GM is the only person at the table who controls the pacing, because even the things the players can do to change things rely on the GM enabling them. Moving to a different location won't change anything if there's nothing different there.

 

[Haltherrion]

Because, as I said, if the players are at a loss for what to do, the GM has either failed to give them things to do (hooks) or failed to seize the initiative (kick in the door) when they flounder.

I agree. This in the end comes down to GM and play-group style. In an ideal case, the GM has done such a nice job setting up the world, both background and hooks, and the players are so proactive and engaged that the players drive the story without much impetus from the ref (beyond the setup which can be substantial).

However, I say that if the players are staring at you looking for something to do, it is the GM's problem, not the player's problem.

Should the players be more proactive? Possibly. Maybe the ref has done a bang-up job on the setting and they really ought to be finding something to do. Maybe your entire group of players are a bunch of unmotivated laggards. But in general when there is a choice between 3-5 people being in the wrong or one person being in the wrong, it's usually the one person. Individually people make mistakes, groups are actually pretty effective. So if all the players are 'stuck' it is more likely the ref needs to better set up the game, make better hooks, whatever than that all players are clueless.

Even separate of the issue of where the burden lies, most refs are the "prime mover" for a gaming group. Most have invested a fair amount of time in the campaign. Most refs don't want their game to fall apart. If the campaign gets to a pause, rather than have it peter out or bounce around in aimless wandering that is likely to not entertain and therefore likely to cost you players, shouldn't you as the ref intervene to make sure your prized campaign succeeds?

Seems like it is in the ref's best interest to act in this case rather than perhaps arguing with his players that they ought to be finding stuff to do. The latter sounds akin to the movie director who, after getting mostly bad reviews, is prone to arguing with the critics rather than learning from his experience and resolving to improve his movies.

I've been on both sides of this and in my personal experience, my games improved tremendously once I took responsibility for game momentum. I like to think that I have done this by providing richer, clearer settings with clearer hooks but in the end if I got my hooks wrong and nothing clicked with the players, I'll step in and force something interesting rather than have my hard-to-schedule players sitting around staring at their navels.

 

[Hussar]

Now this is a new one to me. I don't think I've ever seen people try to pass the buck on pacing from the DM to the players.

How exactly does a player control the pacing? Since even the most pro-active player must still absolutely depend on the DM to provide the scene, NPC reactions, and every other detail outside of the PC him or herself, what can the player do to control pacing?

For example, if the party is currently at a meeting with the town mayor to discuss the recent orc raids, what can I do as a player to speed that meeting up? Can I declare that the discussion is over, the Mayor hires us for the amount I want? I suppose I could walk out of the meeting, but then again, I'd have to convince the rest of the table to do that too, which is likely going to slow pacing to a crawl.

So, what methods should a player use to increase pacing? I can see players decreasing pacing pretty easily (particularly the player who takes fifteen minutes to complete his round in a 3e game, while playing a 4th level FIGHTER!), but, I'm not really clear how a player can do otherwise.