Can A Dm Improve His Players?

[Darklance]

I just started a Alternity campaign and I came up with a little system to do this.

Lets face it, all players want to advance their character. Gain XP, make them better, stronger, etc.

So...I instituted XP punishment. My system of XP distribution goes like this. Every "episode" (that may span more than one session) I award XP in 3 areas.

1) Participation. 0-2 points
0 points- Player did nothing, very little, or was really hurting the creativity of the group
1 point- Player did a fair job of Participating. They did their part of executing any given plan etc.
2 points- Player did a great job participating. He came up with ideas, discussed/modified ideas/ worked well with the group/ did something the really surprised me etc.

2) Role Playing- 0-2 points
0 points- Player did no role playing, or played his character in a manner that did not fit it.
1 point- Player did a fair job of role playing
2 points- The player had his race/class/ character personality down perfectly.

3) Anything 0-1 points
This is my "You did something that caught be off guard category"
They saved the guy I thought would surly get assassinated, they saw through my plot and went to the source, they stopped themselves form being framed etc. I usually don't give this one out and when I do its usually only to one or two players.

I find this system works great for several reasons. First, it takes the emphasis off Combat. So what if you killed the alien? Why didn't you save your ammo and sneak around it? Why kill the guy trying to stir up rebellion when you can do some hacking, get some dirt on him, and discredit him before things get out of control?
Second, players are literally competing to role-play. My worst player who only spoke in 3rd person is now constantly talking in 1st and coming up with great ideas. Everyone is scrambling to come up with the winning plan.

This method could easily be converted to D&D.

 

[barsoomcore]

My distaste for individual XP awards, especially as a means of "training" players, has been amply talked out in some other thread, so I won't revisit that mess here.

I just want to say that to help people succeed, create an environment where they aren't going to fail. When people see themselves failing, they very often stop trying. My concern with using XP awards to improve players is that a player who sees other players getting more experience than he is likely to assume that he is not as good a player. Yes, that might inspire him to try harder. It might also discourage him even more effectively.

Now you might say, "Begone, easily discouraged one! Such as you are not fit for my campaign!" That's totally your right.

But if what you really want to do is to help your players have more fun (rather than coerce them into acheiving some arbitrary standard of your own), then create scenarios for them to have more fun in. Figure out what they want (asking them directly works wonders, but it's not the full answer) and find ways to give it to them. Get them curious, surprise them, keep them off-balance, make them work to figure things out.

The truth of the world is: you can't change anyone. All you can do is set the best example you know how and hope you'll inspire others. If you're not willing to do that then why would anyone listen to you anyway?

 

[Bryan Vining]

Well, Todd, you cannot force the players to better fit your ideal of a player. What you can, and in my opinion, should do is let them know about your concerns.

While there are a number of ways you can approach the problem without saying anything to the players about what bothers you, allow me to suggest that you not do that. Instead, have a conversation with each player individually and discuss with them what you are finding un-fun about their playing. Be open and honest, and try not to withhold anything. While this may feel awkward at first, you will be opening up a dialogue by which you can improve your enjoyment of the game and theirs as well. It is important that you do this in a way that does not belittle them or make them feel like they are poor players. At the same time, you need to clearly lay out what's bugging you.

There's also some work for you to do on yourself, I would guess. First, and you shoud definitely do this, be clear on why what they are doing bothers you. If you try to solve this problem without making an attempt to understand why their playing bothers you, you are unlikely to be able to talk with them constructively about it. Second, see if there's one or more things that you do as a DM that would make you unhappy if you were a player in your campaign. Be honest with yourself. After all, no one else will know what you thought. Look for things you are doing that are keeping you from being a great DM. Really look. Your irritation with the players may be affecting how you run your game, and that will only make the problem worse, if that is true.

OK, well that's all for now, but if you'd like to hear more of my thoughts, let me know, and we'll converse privately.

Cheers,
Bryan

 

[Darklance]

My distaste for individual XP awards, especially as a means of "training" players, has been amply talked out in some other thread, so I won't revisit that mess here.

I just want to say that to help people succeed, create an environment where they aren't going to fail. When people see themselves failing, they very often stop trying. My concern with using XP awards to improve players is that a player who sees other players getting more experience than he is likely to assume that he is not as good a player. Yes, that might inspire him to try harder. It might also discourage him even more effectively.

Now you might say, "Begone, easily discouraged one! Such as you are not fit for my campaign!" That's totally your right.

But if what you really want to do is to help your players have more fun (rather than coerce them into acheiving some arbitrary standard of your own), then create scenarios for them to have more fun in. Figure out what they want (asking them directly works wonders, but it's not the full answer) and find ways to give it to them. Get them curious, surprise them, keep them off-balance, make them work to figure things out.

The truth of the world is: you can't change anyone. All you can do is set the best example you know how and hope you'll inspire others. If you're not willing to do that then why would anyone listen to you anyway?

Just out of curiosity, have you actually had any players lapse with this method? I've seen immediate improvement in 4 sessions of my Alternity group and a the same when I tried this in D&D.

 

[Sammael99]

Can a DM improve the players he has? If you've got average players, can a DM turn them into "good" players (however you define that)?

I haven't read all the previous contributions in detail, but here's my take :

Players (and GMs) go along because they're having fun. That's the theory anyway. You want them to "improve" ? Give them more fun. Sometimes you have to force it on them, but it usually works. More specifically :

Player #1: Good knowledge of rules. Puts together an interesting character, has some good background. But, in game, player will not open his mouth. Total introvert who contributes very little during the game. Pays attention, has great ideas when he does speak, just refuses to speak.

That one usually is easy : give him a part. Usually, the quiet player involves himself by enjoying what is happening without necessarily taking part. Most often, it's due to the other players around the table being louder, or more forward going than he is. Give him a part, just like in theater. Suddenly he is in the limelight. His testimony is vital, he's the the only one able to do this or that because of some old prophecy, whatever : you get the idea. It's all the easier if he has a nice background !

Player #2: His character has a name and some stats. Lots of stats. Tends to be a powergamer. Literally, his character has no background. If he played a cleric, you would never know the name of his god.

Trickier, but hardly impossible. The power gamer trips on power (eek Let him realise that there are more ways to power than just stats. Another strategy is to rock his boat so hard that suddenly he has to roleplay. Do unexpected stuff, stuff that there are no stats in there to handle :

• the barmaid he has lain with last time he was in town is pregnant and her father imposes a marriage or threatens to get him jailed on charges of rape.
• the daughter of the local count falls desperately in love with his character and wants to follow him everywhere
• the village he is going through is assailed by brigands and they turn to him for guidance and strategy. Suddenly he has to get them working together, elaborate a defense and think rather than just fight
• or, to tie in with another thread on the board right now, the local volcano erupts, the local town gets flooded, whatever. No instead of fighting people he has to rescue people

These are all ideas that may or may not work, it would depend on your player. My experience is that most players, once they get a taste of roleplaying, like it and want to do it more. No mind you, it won't stop him from being a power gamer, most likely, but on top of stats, he'll play his role, which is a nice improvement for a like-minded GM.

Altogether, I would say that a GM has more chance to make his players "improve" in small parties. If there are nine around the table, you can forget it. Four players or less is a nice number for this kind of endeavour.

 

[Umbran]

Players can be improved, with time, yes.

The "if it ain't broke don't fix it" position has merit. If everyone is having fun, there's no strong reason to change. However, the fact that you ask the question suggests that not everyone is satisfied.

Also, the fact that everyone is having fun now does not preclude the possibility that everyone could have more fun. And, if you suspect tyhat these players have never tried to play any other way, there's somethign to be said for exposing them so that they can make an educated choice.

Now, as for ways to improve players. The first note is that it takes time. Frequently lots of it. Look for evolutions of playstyle, not revolutions.

Some players respond to the "carrot and stick" methods of rewards or punishments. But many don't, so those methods can be risky.

Perhaps the simplest way to change players is to put them in situatiosn where they don't really have any other choice but to play a little differently.

For Player 1, the method is simple - put him in situatiosn where he must open his mouth. Some people do tend to be quiet in groups. So, put him in the occasional situation where it's only him and an NPC. Or him and one other player. Make him interact on a smaller scale first, so that he gets used to it, and then lead him on into broader venues.

For Player 2: The best solution I know, unfortunately, is only really useful if you apply it at the start of the campaign - require a background story, and then continue to refer to it. Make sure that elements of the gbackground story become real issues in the game, so this player cannot avoid or forget the past. Make what you see as grave deviations from the stated background have repercussions. If the character claims to have a family, and the family has financial troubles that he ignores, eventually the tax-man comes, etc.

Later on, it is hard to enforce such things. You'd be best off putting the chatracter in situatiosn where his game stats aren't as useful, where role-play is the solution. For example, he needs to get information (from another member of the church, so another PC cannot do the job). Make is so that this other church official isn't swayed by simple words alone. He's only impressed by people who've got backgrounds that call for respect - people of family, or people who can recite curch doctrine, or who have demonstrated devotion to the deity above and beyond holding to the normal alignment restrictions.

Or, maybe the only way to get the information is to join a rough guy in a drinking contest, during which he engages in braggign banter about the past - and if the PC cannot impress him with stories of the past, he give out no information.

In general, put Player 2 in positions where personality is more relevant to the outcome than statistics.

All this kind of amounts to leading by example. If you want more active and open role-play, make that a larger part of the game.

 

[barsoomcore]

Just out of curiosity, have you actually had any players lapse with this method? I've seen immediate improvement in 4 sessions of my Alternity group and a the same when I tried this in D&D.

Sorry, I don't understand the question. I haven't used this method. In teaching both English and martial arts, though, I can tell you that creating environments for people to succeed is a far more powerful tool than any reward/punishment system.

Unless what you're trying to do is coerce people into a certain pattern of behaviour, regardless of what they actually want. Then reward/punishment is the best system. It works very well with animals -- though even there, the superior method is reward/reward system -- no punishment at all.

My concern with individual XP awards is that varying awards across a group will always result in the perception of those who receive less that they have been punished. A dog doesn't really process that the other dog got TWO treats, she only knows that she herself did or did not get a treat. People aren't like that so I don't believe they should be trained like that. Not if what you're concerned with is their well-being and happiness.

Again, if what you want to do is provoke a certain behavior, then reward/punishment is the way to go. If you want to help people have as much fun as they can and learn as much as they can, then creating a success environment is the only real method that works. It's much more difficult, takes longer and is often misunderstood as some sort of namby-pamby "Everyone's Okay!" school of "thought". But it is the only reliable method I know of to actually transform people (rather than mold their behaviour).

It's what military groups use, martial arts schools, great software development teams -- it works.

 

[Gargoyle]

A DM can only improve his players as much as the players can improve the DM.

For a DM to improve, they must be actively trying to improve, must be open to any feedback given, and must be receiving feedback from the players.

For a player to improve, they've got to be actively trying to improve, must be open to any feedback given to them by the DM or other players, and must be receiving feedback from the DM and other players.

In other words, there has to be real communication between everyone AND effort by everyone. I think if you want to improve your players, you should start by encouraging out of character, between game communication about how everyone, including the DM, can improve. This can apply to rules knowledge, speeding up play, roleplaying, tactics, etc.

But if they don't see the need to improve after talking about it, you're not going to get anywhere. Instead of trying to change them, you may have to adjust your expectations. Power gamers may never want to roleplay, and introverts may never speak up.

 

[Glamdring]

If your player is typically quiet, and only speaks when it's to tell you what he/she rolled on the d20, then I would suggest setting aside time during the game to get everyone acquainted with each others' characters (time before each game). Go around the table and have everyone introduce themselves in character, describing themselves as best they can. Prompt them with at least 5 character traits, and have them describe their characters physically, too. Have "character conversations" for about 30 minutes before each game to get everyone in character mode. It works for me.

You need to paint a picture for the quiet players (and reading helps to give the DM that voice, that ability to present his or her campaign in a fluid, coherant manner). If one uses only the rulebooks, then the presentation of the campaign will be less picturesque (as I've experienced it over the past 7 years). And while you're running things, try to ask that quiet player if he or she would like to do anything. Anything! Whether it be whistling a tune, checking around the corner, ordering drinks, standing guard, sharpening his/her blade, collecting firewood, anything that will help that player step into his/her character.

The power gamer is a different story. In that case, I would make magical item distribution scant, have enemies target him/her more often (because if he's a power gamer, he must have some power, so let him/her use it), and also, try to work his/her character into role-playing situations as much as possible. Try running a session where there is absolutely no combat whatsoever. See what happens.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

Yes. It's where the Player Appreciation Bat comes into play. Not to mention the oversized dice that make good projectiles...

Or the sword of behaving. Hehe, get them cheap at the Ren Fest.