Player vs Plot - DM responsibilities

[Emerikol]

Well, there's plot, and then there's plot. And there's levels of preordination.

In my Deadlands campaign, the PCs dropped the ball in a major way, and left a McGuffin they knew was powerful and important in the open, having nearly painted a sign on it telling the bad guys where it was. Technically, in theory, the PCs could have then gotten in the way of the next steps. But they didn't know to do so. The Cthuloid horror now wandering around in Missouri was pretty much a foregone conclusion after they failed to show common sense.

Well you have a given set of bad guy npcs that reacted to something the PCs did. That fits fine with what I am saying. In fact it's exactly what I'm talking about. I do think as much as you can it's better to at least have an overall understanding of your npcs in advance so these things aren't as contrived. And by no means am I saying yours was. Just saying it works better if you know things about your npcs. And my use of the term npcs of course includes "monsters" etc...

For me at least, I like to develop a lot of "plots" that are happening behind the scenes between the various npcs. What becomes a real group plot is then up to them.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Potentially, it's a great plot in another referee's game, but the hypothetical DM involved doesn't think he can do the plot justice, and frankly doesn't want to as he wants to downplay religion as much as possible in his game.

So he has to choose between owning up to the player and asking for a different character, negotiating with him to change the character or giving the player's plot a try and risking the downsides.

I realize it is just an example, and I don't want to pick it apart. Suffice to say, I'm of a GMing style where I get really excited about player ideas and work harder to integrate them into my games than my own ideas.

Your style of play is vastly different than ours. This campaign, was meant to be gritty and difficult, and the fun was in it's integrity.

I see everything I described as gritting and difficult, and completely logical and consistent though. Heck, in my description, I made the addition of a spellbook for the wizard a net negative for the party. I guess my point is that you can give players what they want (or in this case what they need) for the game while still not making things too "easy" on them. It just takes some creativity and a little bending.

In general, if a player doesn't enjoy my game I consider it a failure of something I did. I've failed many times, just so you know. I could write on and on about everything I've done wrong. I've regretted those mistakes every single time.

 

[Shiroiken]

In general, if a player doesn't enjoy my game I consider it a failure of something I did.

I agree with this in theory. However, I've found in practice this isn't always true. If your group is a bunch of mature, considerate role-players, then lack of fun is probably the fault of the DM. I too have had my share of failures in this regard.

However, I have known players who only have fun at the expense of other people's fun. I've also know a player who feels if the DM is having fun, then he isn't. I've known players that collapsed a campaign in the first session because one PC had too good of Ability Scores and two other players were insanely jealous. Generally, these types of players you don't want in your game, but sometimes they find their way in.

 

[ThirdWizard]

However, I have known players who only have fun at the expense of other people's fun. I've also know a player who feels if the DM is having fun, then he isn't. I've known players that collapsed a campaign in the first session because one PC had too good of Ability Scores and two other players were insanely jealous. Generally, these types of players you don't want in your game, but sometimes they find their way in.

Wow, I've never run into anything like that before! I'll consider myself lucky.

Once, I had a bunch of players who didn't put anything into the game, and one player who had tons of goals and ambitions. That player basically ran the game. Then, at one point, I introduced a plotline for an NPC to remove him from play for a little while. All the players, except the one who always had motivations for me, wanted to follow that NPC and go adventuring with him on his quest to regain his family inheritance from a great white dragon in the north. I basically sabotaged their idea. My reasoning at the time was that that one player put so much in the game that he should be rewarded by having more input into steering the game. They went right back to putting nothing into the game.

Looking back, I think that was a terrible mistake. I basically sabotaged my own game. It was the first time these people had actually wanted anything. This was my opportunity to show them that they could have input into the game and try and help encourage more input. Instead, I showed them that they should just follow along. They weren't great players, but I had the opportunity to perhaps increase their interaction the game. I still beat myself up about that.

 

[Aenghus]

Once, I had a bunch of players who didn't put anything into the game, and one player who had tons of goals and ambitions. That player basically ran the game. Then, at one point, I introduced a plotline for an NPC to remove him from play for a little while. All the players, except the one who always had motivations for me, wanted to follow that NPC and go adventuring with him on his quest to regain his family inheritance from a great white dragon in the north. I basically sabotaged their idea. My reasoning at the time was that that one player put so much in the game that he should be rewarded by having more input into steering the game. They went right back to putting nothing into the game.

Looking back, I think that was a terrible mistake. I basically sabotaged my own game. It was the first time these people had actually wanted anything. This was my opportunity to show them that they could have input into the game and try and help encourage more input. Instead, I showed them that they should just follow along. They weren't great players, but I had the opportunity to perhaps increase their interaction the game. I still beat myself up about that.

New players need to be encouraged to have (appropriate) goals and take calculated risks. While some players are content to be passive, I find a number of them have been taught to be passive, not have plans, backgrounds or ambitions.

Admittedly it's often because new players first active decision may be to burn down the setting. Understandably referees shut them down, but in so doing risk teaching that railroading DMs are the one true way and following the rails is the only way their PC can survive.

 

[Shiroiken]

Wow, I've never run into anything like that before! I'll consider myself lucky.

Yea, in over 2 decades of gaming, I've run across quite a few sociopaths