Crashing the game: When the DM doesn't expect resistance

[MarkB]

I think the key thing to remember is this was a novice DM, new to this. "Crashing" the game is quite likely to deter this person from wanting to DM again.

I think your initial solution, calling a time-out, talking to the DM and suggesting alternatives as a group of people playing the game to have fun is the better path than resorting to "crashing" the game. As others have suggested, maybe talking it out and giving the DM a chance to use some basic stats for the paladins or pointing him to a template he could use for it would be much more helpful than "crashing" the session. Then the DM gets to learn and possibly get over this hurdle and become a great DM in the future.

I think one problem here is that the window of opportunity for such intervention can often be small or non-existent. With an inexperienced DM, the time period between the players realising that the DM doesn't actually have a response planned for their current course of action, and the DM deciding to call it quits because he can't see a way out, may only be a few minutes - or even no time at all.

And once a DM - especially one with low self-confidence - has made that mental jump off the precipice and decided not to continue the game, getting him back in the mood to run it may simply not be possible, at least for that session. Conciliation can seem like condescension, and suggestions from more experienced players can feel like them dictating the way the game should run.

 

[Dausuul]

I think the key thing to remember is this was a novice DM, new to this. "Crashing" the game is quite likely to deter this person from wanting to DM again.

I think your initial solution, calling a time-out, talking to the DM and suggesting alternatives as a group of people playing the game to have fun is the better path than resorting to "crashing" the game. As others have suggested, maybe talking it out and giving the DM a chance to use some basic stats for the paladins or pointing him to a template he could use for it would be much more helpful than "crashing" the session. Then the DM gets to learn and possibly get over this hurdle and become a great DM in the future.

I rarely think it is a good idea to cause a game session to fail. If you don't like a DM's style, talk about it with the DM and see if you can come to an understanding. If not, finish the session out and the politely drop out of the gaming group.

Given that the other players apparently felt the same way... while talking things out is the best answer, if you're not going to do that you might as well blow things up and give the DM the feedback that "Hey, you did a really bad thing here." If nobody provides that feedback, the DM is apt to walk away thinking he ran a good session and things went well. And the next game he runs might be with a bunch of novice players (remember, the OP said this was a one-off game with soldiers on a weekend pass), and he might turn them off to the hobby.

The DM screwed up big-time. He's a novice, it's understandable and forgivable, but someone needs to tell him he screwed up. If it can be done diplomatically, well and good, but tactless feedback beats no feedback at all.

 

[Mesh Hong]

A heavy-handed railroading DM is no fun for anybody except the DM. I've played in such games, and my experience is that going along with the railroad means all the players are bored and frustrated. That's not a good answer.

The best solution, as I said above, is to call time-out, sit the DM down, and explain the basics. But blowing up the session is often better than continuing.

I think that you are missing the context of the original post. This wasn't your normal game session where you have the luxury of wrecking it and starting over next week. This was a once in a couple of months session grabbed when the opportunity arose.

Whether the (inexperienced) DM was doing the right or the wrong thing in this situation is secondary to the chance of playing. Well thats how I see it anyway. It doesn't sound like crashing the game increased anyones fun at all, and possibly undermined the inexperienced DM (who deserves some kudos for giving it a go in the stated circumstances).

Playing or running a game requires a healthy chunk of "suspension of disbelief", surely the experiened players around the table should have been more aware of this than the novice DM and therfore should have been able to accomodate the fairly obvious plot trap he dug for himself and then fell into.

From a player point of view I am very aware of the brutal "I am sticking rigidly to my characters motivation and world view, and don't care about the consequences" attitude, as a player it is something I can be guilty of. But that is in a regular group of good friends in a situation where we are all aware of it. Out of this context it would be an attitude that would be far from desirable, and would in fact be unreasonable and even rude.

I say again from the context of the stated situation, he should probably have just rolled with the plot and talked reasonably about it later. The DM is going to learn more if you can talk to him and say; "I really liked (insert something) but I don't think (insert something) worked so well, maybe try (insert something better) next time?".

 

[IronWolf]

I think one problem here is that the window of opportunity for such intervention can often be small or non-existent. ...

And once a DM - especially one with low self-confidence - has made that mental jump off the precipice and decided not to continue the game, getting him back in the mood to run it may simply not be possible, at least for that session. Conciliation can seem like condescension, and suggestions from more experienced players can feel like them dictating the way the game should run.

Very true, the window of opportunity could be small, especially with a low confidence DM. It could turn into a situation that seems more like condescension which results in a game/session ending situation anyways.

"Crashing" the game via in-character action just seems wrong to me to solve an out of game issue. So it just doesn't sit well with me. But as you said, with a low self-confidence DM he may have already made the decision to not continue even with suggestions or constructive advice from more experienced players.

 

[IronWolf]

... while talking things out is the best answer, if you're not going to do that you might as well blow things up and give the DM the feedback that "Hey, you did a really bad thing here."

I don't agree that blowing things up in character for an out of character issue is the appropriate solution. It doesn't help a novice DM learn anything.

If nobody provides that feedback, the DM is apt to walk away thinking he ran a good session and things went well.

I haven't said not to provide feedback to the DM. When the situation arose I would have suggested taking a break and talking about it out of character about options. About why the characters are reluctant to just surrender themselves. And possibly even saying lets take a break here and perhaps one of the more experiences players helping the DM toss some stats at the paladins so the game could continue.

 

[Dausuul]

I think that you are missing the context of the original post. This wasn't your normal game session where you have the luxury of wrecking it and starting over next week. This was a once in a couple of months session grabbed when the opportunity arose.

Whether the (inexperienced) DM was doing the right or the wrong thing in this situation is secondary to the chance of playing. Well thats how I see it anyway.

Then you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion here. I'd rather not play than ride that kind of railroad. Since evidently no one was inclined to surrender, it looks like the players (all of them) felt the same way.

I don't agree that blowing things up in character for an out of character issue is the appropriate solution. It doesn't help a novice DM learn anything.

It's not the appropriate solution, no, and I've said so repeatedly. I think everyone agrees that talking it out would have been the best thing to do.

I'm just saying that "just shut up and play" is not a better answer than saying no. And I disagree that a novice DM could not learn from the session going blooie. He might not, but then again he might.

 

[TheClone]

I think one problem here is that the window of opportunity for such intervention can often be small or non-existent. With an inexperienced DM, the time period between the players realising that the DM doesn't actually have a response planned for their current course of action, and the DM deciding to call it quits because he can't see a way out, may only be a few minutes - or even no time at all.

And once a DM - especially one with low self-confidence - has made that mental jump off the precipice and decided not to continue the game, getting him back in the mood to run it may simply not be possible, at least for that session. Conciliation can seem like condescension, and suggestions from more experienced players can feel like them dictating the way the game should run.

I disagree. There'll be seldom a DM that rejects talking it over (maybe first with only one player, to get his mood up again) and continuing. Maybe he needs some more time for it and then, when the game is up again he needs an encounter or two to find his way again, but I guess most'll do it. Especially with a mistake every DM can say "Hey, I did this in the beginning, too.". Everyone who DMs loves to play and surely will not let the session go for some ego thing.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

I say again from the context of the stated situation, he should probably have just rolled with the plot and talked reasonably about it later. The DM is going to learn more if you can talk to him and say; "I really liked (insert something) but I don't think (insert something) worked so well, maybe try (insert something better) next time?".

Except that the context also pointed out that time to be invested was a precious commodity. The more rare and precious the time I'm offering, the less forgiving I am of wasting it.

If something is offering me less enjoyment than sleep or as little enjoyment as a movie I would walk out of then I need to do something to adjust the situation.

That adjustment can be me determining that the OOG group bonding time is worth my mental discomfort since everyone else is having fun with the direction (not the image I'm getting from the explanation), my diplomatic attempt to extricate myself to do something else (possibly crashing the game), or my playing along as my character (arcane caster in group as mandated by DM) would considering the level of danger the arrest offered my character with the support of the other player characters (inadvertantly crashing the game in this case).

 

[jmucchiello]

What is out of game about this issue? The in-character actions derived from in-game circumstances that forced the character to react in a specific way. 99.99% of players confronted with the same circumstances are going to fight.

 

[pawsplay]

I think an experienced player should have some sort of feeling for this kind of thing. After all, if the tracks *aren't* obvious then it's not a railroad. But when in doubt, you can always ask. "GM, please tell me where the plot is." Sometimes it's the least bad option.

This brings to mind what I think of as The Darth Vader Principle. When faced with the capture of their PCs, players will typically do a quick mental assessment: Is this Darth Vader trying to arrest me? If there are not clear indications that the NPC possesses overwhelming power, and they do not have the opportunity to seize Han's blaster with their magic NPC powers while still suggesting the possibility of survival by not killing everyone even though they obviously could... the players are most likely going to conclude they can take the NPCs. If the GM hasn't thought things through carefully, they are often right.

I think making the game work is more important.

How does it work when you are asked to player your PC, and then told you cannot? How can story both be important, yet of no importance to the player-as-actor-narrator?