Why I don't GM by the nose

[Herremann the Wise]

...It is a sentiment based on the assumption that there is greater value in the way you like to play than the way I like to play.

You have painted yourself for good or ill as not being the most adaptable of players. If there is something that is presented by the DM that you cannot roll for, it does not seem to be your cup of tea - which is fine if that's how your group plays and enjoys themselves. However, you do seem to be cutting out both large sections of the RPG experience as well as significant interaction with the group's collective gameworld by doing this. Your style of play limits the scope of what a DM can reasonably bring to the table for the group's entertainment. This is fine if the DM and all the players are like you, but in a more diverse group your style is obviously going to cause friction and issues. That is perhaps why some people would regard your style of play (unfairly or not) as being of lesser value in a general sense.

Using a parallel, I know myself that I mainly like computer games that are single player only. I don't go in for the big multiplayer experience and thus I'm limited these days in terms of options. Some would see such use of a computer as being incredibly limiting, but heh... that's what I like and those that would seek to judge how I use a computer can go jump.

The lesson I suppose for the original poster is that everyone plays the game differently. The most important thing is communication in a group to ensure that everyone is getting the most fun they can out of the collective experience.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Haltherrion]

The gist of what I said was don't ask me 'What do you do' if you have just put me in a situation where I'm bored out of my skull. Obviously, you won't like the answer.

! Very funny and honestly, spot on. I mostly ref and I feel it is my role to keep things moving forward. I have decent players and if they are at a loss as to what to do, I generally ascribe it to a failing on my part to set the setting and situation.

As a player, I can be harsh. You railroad me and I might start getting a little silly. Okay, I can't go anywhere but where you want me to but I can eat everything I kill.

You start violating premise (what? we have light sabers now?) and I might start experimenting with that light saber. (Hey, in Star Wars they used it to cut through several layers of starship blast doors, why can't I use it to open every obstacle in my way? And why does the bad-guy's armor matter? )

You, the ref, demonstrate that there is no consistency in your world or my decisions don't matter, then I'm going to focus on combat and don't expect me to pay much attention to the babblings of your NPCs.

It's a two-way street. Unless the players are new to RPGs or coming from a railroading ref, they have a basic idea of what to do in an RPG. If I present them a problem or ask them what they want to do next and they just stare at me, then it's my problem, not their problem. Unless they are really drunk at the time. In which case, I probably am too and it's time to call it a night.

 

[Argyle King]

!
It's a two-way street. Unless the players are new to RPGs or coming from a railroading ref, they have a basic idea of what to do in an RPG. If I present them a problem or ask them what they want to do next and they just stare at me, then it's my problem, not their problem.

A two-way street which ends in something being my problem no matter the direction chosen goes against my understanding of the terminology used.

 

[Haltherrion]

A two-way street which ends in something being my problem no matter the direction chosen goes against my understanding of the terminology used.

True enough. As long as I felt the ref was making an honest effort, I'd step in as a player as well

 

[Lanefan]

The problem being giving options is hard tondo without tipping your hand and effectively telling the players what to do.

Or what not to do. If you hint at the wrong option a few times and then let 'em get plastered if they blindly follow up on it, they'll either learn to think for themselves or they won't....

Lan-"yes, sometimes I wear a Viking hat"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

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.

How can a player increase the pace and-or relieve boredom?

Just *do* something.

Kick in a door. Pick a random direction and go there whether the rest of the party follows or not. Attack something. Pick up one of the oranges and throw it at the party fighter. If that fails, try throwing the statue; that'll get her attention. But do something, preferably risky!

However, there's a corollary issue, and this one is directly under the DM's control:

Basically, it involves being decisive and taking risks. Groups of players tend to get bogged down in details whenever it's time for a tough decision. For a short while you just cooperate with your friends to come up with a mutually acceptable decision but if it drags down a few minutes, it's time to move on. Just have your PC take the lead (as long as he assumes most of the risk, for the sake of not pissing other players!).

She who takes the risk has to get the reward. And what is this reward, you ask?

Experience points.

New-school games tend to want to give everyone in the party the same ExP for a given encounter regardless of participation. (there was one awful discussion in here half a year ago or so where someone had to ask whether two PCs who were several miles away exploring should get ExP for things that happened to the rest of the party while they were gone!) Or worse, there's those who don't bother with variable ExP at all and just bump everyone when they think it fits.

All this does, ultimately, is reward those players and-or characters who sit back and don't take risks! No wonder players get in a mindset of letting others get on with it...and when you end up with a whole group of such players, nothing gets done; or what does get done happens at a snail's pace through a molasses of caution and "you first".

This also explains why new players tend to be the ones who have their characters get on with it in such games: they don't realize the same spoils (treasure, experience, fame) will come to those who sit back.

Lanefan

 

[Argyle King]

How can a player increase the pace and-or relieve boredom?

Just *do* something.

Kick in a door. Pick a random direction and go there whether the rest of the party follows or not. Attack something. Pick up one of the oranges and throw it at the party fighter. If that fails, try throwing the statue; that'll get her attention. But do something, preferably risky!

However, there's a corollary issue, and this one is directly under the DM's control:She who takes the risk has to get the reward. And what is this reward, you ask?

Experience points.

New-school games tend to want to give everyone in the party the same ExP for a given encounter regardless of participation. (there was one awful discussion in here half a year ago or so where someone had to ask whether two PCs who were several miles away exploring should get ExP for things that happened to the rest of the party while they were gone!) Or worse, there's those who don't bother with variable ExP at all and just bump everyone when they think it fits.

All this does, ultimately, is reward those players and-or characters who sit back and don't take risks! No wonder players get in a mindset of letting others get on with it...and when you end up with a whole group of such players, nothing gets done; or what does get done happens at a snail's pace through a molasses of caution and "you first".

This also explains why new players tend to be the ones who have their characters get on with it in such games: they don't realize the same spoils (treasure, experience, fame) will come to those who sit back.

Lanefan

Some of what was said here is why I love that the games I play outside of D&D don't use XP or levels. Character advancement is based upon what the characters do and/or character points rewarded for playing the character. In need of a shiny magical sword? Go find it. Allies? Use social skills to get them. etc; etc

 

[Sorrowdusk]

I'm just the opposite! I'd like to roll my knowledge Hist/Religion skills and see if I know any cool lore about the statue. Its pint sized so its probably a dwarf deity (not dwarven but dwarf like the egyptian god Geb or other deities) or its the god of cannibal haflings or something known to file their teeth.

I'd figure that since the oranges are dried and at its foot, but not in a protective container they would have mildered if gotten wet or been eaten by rats or insects. So I would figure the obvious sacrifice could not have been made that long ago, probably by someone expecting to pass. If I could I'd try to do some tracking to see where people had been, as well as use Detect Magic on the door and the statue to see if there was anything unusual about the statue. If there was I'd be looking for traps, and still-I would even if it was mundane. I'd try the door next, and if it didnt open, I'd see about whether offering some more fruit or items to it might make it open or a UMD check.

And lastly, since the statue is so small, well, I'd try to pry it from the floor to salvage the 'artifact' on the way back out.

I love being the forbidden loremaster, scholar-adventurer type. I love divinations as well, and working to gain that next scrap of information that adds to an ever unfolding picture. I dont just like examining things, I like talking to people too, writing letters, and poking around in dangerous places. I think a lot of CoC as I've experienced it has rubbed off of me, albeit I played PbP and DnD first.

At the same time, I dont like pixel biching and 'lets play guess what the DM is thinking' which is very different actually. You have to be careful, because often what SHOULD be 'obvious' isnt, and what you think will be very tough will be figured faster than you think. PUSH come to shove, a PC might be smarter than the mundane playing them, so if you really need to-allow an Int or Knowledge check to help things along if its as simply as bypassing a door. Bigger campaign spanning stuff, and larger mysteries however shouldnt be so simple as a single check, unless you've just come to a point at which they've already recieved all the information and the conclusion drawn is critical to knowing where or what to do next or how to approach it. But ONLY if they cant reach a conclusion, now, if they reach an incorrect one-you could either make it so, and reward their creativity, or just roll with it and let happens what happens.

What I CAN agree with, is the fact that you should talk to your players about what kind of game they expect first, and try to deliver something to everybody. I think 'what do you do?' and 'What do you want to do?' are extremely similar, if not the same. I do sometimes prompt PCs for a response, letting them know my narration or description is complete-but really when the PCs reach that statue, they should probably do what they wanted to do in the first place-even if that was only as simple as 'I find the statue slightly unnerving, but go ahead and try to open the door.' Ideally I think, players simply attempt do things and the DM tells them the result or consequence of their actions.

On a side note-the statue COULD just be fluff or atmosphere, but Law of Conservation of Detail says otherwise (which is somewhat metathought). Its obviously important, or if the object itself isnt, its prescense or that of the oranges is important in that it means, implies, foreshadows or hints at something making it a device.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLawOfConservationOfDetail

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;



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!

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

You have painted yourself for good or ill as not being the most adaptable of players. If there is something that is presented by the DM that you cannot roll for, it does not seem to be your cup of tea...

It's my day to be grossly misinterpreted, I guess.

 

[Lanefan]

Some of what was said here is why I love that the games I play outside of D&D don't use XP or levels. Character advancement is based upon what the characters do and/or character points rewarded for playing the character. In need of a shiny magical sword? Go find it. Allies? Use social skills to get them. etc; etc

Aren't those just different names for much the same things?

"Character advancement" - D+D uses levels, other systems might use other things, but underneath it's the same principle: the character somehow gets quantifyably and game-mechanically better at what it does as the game goes on.

"Character points" - still a reward thus equivalent to experience points, and even more in the DM's control if the reward is based on "playing the character"; the DM has to make sure to reward risk-taking.

Lanefan