Free Will and Choices

[Henry]

then let me just say your players suck. i put hours into my character in and out of session. and i know my fellow players do the same.

What in the world are you doing to your characters that requires hours a week between games?

In addition, the players don't owe the GM for their miscalculations. If the GM prepares something the players really and honestly don't like, they aren't obligated to suffer through it. If a movie-maker or author creates a work I don't like, I'm not obligated to slog through it just because they did the work. The player is there to be entertained, not to do homage to the GM.

They, unlike the movie-goer, are obligated to tell me. They are also obligated to tell me what they would LIKE to do, so I don't waste my time and theirs. Otherwise, you waste each others' time for little reason.

I also have to disagree with and amend your last statement I quoted: They player is there to be entertained, AND TO ENTERTAIN. Just as I as a DM put in my time and effort before and during, they put in effort during to participate, have fun, contribute to the social dynamic. A guest at a party has the same obligation: Both to partake of a good time, and contribute their part of socializing to the group. I wouldn't repeatedly invite a guest to my parties who had no fun and always sat like the proverbial bump on a log; the same thing applies to a game session. One shows one's respect to a GM who puts time and effort in by letting them know (when asked) whether they are having fun.

My players and I (and I suspect yours too) entertain one another during games all the time; whether through fun roleplay, or through a well-timed joke, they are there for my fun as much as I am theirs.

 

[diaglo]

What in the world are you doing to your characters that requires hours a week between games?

i'm here ain't i.


research. possible twists to an old theme. or yoink broken/nerfed ideas to badger my DM.

i also write up a player journal. you can access in the Story Hour link in my sig.


you can never bring too much enthus....excitement to the table.

 

[takyris]

If there is one line of thinking i disklike in these discussions, its the, "I'm the DM and I put in all the work." Its a catch 22 argument. As others on this thread have said, the amount of preperation a dm puts into a game is highly variable and does not always directly correlate with the game being fun. It's your choice to put that much work into the game; the players don't 'owe' the dm anything. If they are having fun, they will follow your path, if not, they won't. You should take that as a sign, not as something to dismiss.

I'm quoting your early message, rather than the later ones.

First off, I am the DM, and I do put in all the work. I'm sorry if this offends you or makes you feel bad or defensive, but there you have it. My players will occasionally talk tactics between sessions, but it's a rare occasion when one of my players puts in work-time between sessions. Heck, I handed out XP when one guy made a new character sheet in anticipation of gaining a level that night.

I, have to stat out the bad guys that the PCs might be facing if they take certain actions. Sometimes I just slack and say that the main villain has right-out-of-the-MM henchmen, but more often, in an effort to make things a little more personalized and interesting, I slap on a few character levels or a template or something for at least one of the main henchmen. When your PCs are 12th-15th level, the DM ends up doing a lot more work, because the number of monsters available as a fun challenge gets smaller -- which means that you either have to buy more material or add levels to or advance basic creatures. Beyond that, the PCs can now teleport places, which means that you've got to have at least some kind of basic plan for anywhere the players might show up.

The PCs still throw me for a loop sometimes, and I do spend some of the time winging it -- but I don't think that 3rd Edition D&D is something that's terribly easy to wing unless you're REALLY in your comfort zone. I mean, sure, I can run a 10th level fighter without stats -- I can just squint and guess that his melee attack bonus is something like +15/+10 after strength and magical bonuses, and he probably does 1d8+5+1d6 of some kind of element with his axe or sword or whatever I just said that he had. Maybe the players won't even know that I'm fudging. By and large, though, the game runs a lot more smoothly when I've done my homework.

As far as people owing me anything... pick whatever word you want. I like Henry's host-and-party metaphor. Yeah, they have an obligation to bring chips if I said it was a pot luck. Yeah, they have an obligation to wear a costume if I said it was a costume party. If they don't, they're being rude.

Frankly, though, I think we're talking about different things, and maybe we're both setting up straw men. There was another thread about this awhile back, and my point of differentiation was metagaming. In my opinion:

The evil wizard laughs. "You fools, you've just unwittingly agreed to my geas! Now you must go and slay the gorgon-lich of Kazrak! To do anything else will seal your doom!"

is not railroading. The PCs have several options. They can try to kill the wizard, try to break the enchantment, try to just leave and hope that the geas wears off. They can try to bribe the wizard with something else. They can go to the gorgon-lich and see if the gorgon-lich can take the geas off them and then team up with them against the wizard.

On the other hand, this is railroading.

PC: Okay, I cast Detect Magic. Can I see the geas?
DM: No, and you have to start walking right now.
PC: I'm going to bluff the wizard and try to make him think I'm immune to his geas, so he ought to just let it drop.
DM: Um, he doesn't fall for it.
PC: Do I even get to roll?
DM: No.
PC: Okay, I'm gonna cast Sending and send a message to the gorgon-lich that we're being forced to come fight him.
DM: You can't, 'cause that's against the geas.
PC: What? The geas said we had to go there and kill him. It didn't say we couldn't warn him first!
DM: Well, the geas stops you anyway. Now, two days later, you're at the entrance to the cave...

The DM is not expected to do nothing that puts any in-game pressure on the PCs to act. The DM is not expected to make every adventure a purely voluntary decision. The DM is not expected to always allow PCs to turn down adventuring choices without any in-game ramifications -- like the destruction of a town that they decided not to go save, the ascension of a cult that they decided not to go eradicate, and so on. If every adventure involves people holding the PCs' friends hostage while entire towns will be destroyed if they make any other decision, that's lame and a sign of a lack of imagination -- and yeah, that's probably railroading by habit. But expecting it to never happen is silly. Your PCs are not the most powerful forces in the universe. Excitement requires conflict. Many great movies involve unwitting or initially reluctant heroes. It should be a give and take between the players and the DM.

So perhaps our viewpoints are not so far apart.

 

[Umbran]

They, unlike the movie-goer, are obligated to tell me. They are also obligated to tell me what they would LIKE to do, so I don't waste my time and theirs.

Yes, and such communication helps enormously, no argument there. However, it is not guaranteed to eliminate missteps. It is not physically possible for a player to list all things they would prefer to not do beforehand. So, on occasion a GM will guess wrong, and design something that the players really don't want.

There's no shame in that. Happens to the best of GMs. My point is that when the situation arises, the GM should not feel all that put out that the players don't choose to do what he planned/expected.

I also have to disagree with and amend your last statement I quoted: They player is there to be entertained, AND TO ENTERTAIN.

Usually, yes. I did not include that last phrase for two reasons:

The first being that I have seen at least two cases where it wasn't actually true. I personally didn't find working with them appealing, but it seemed to work for them.

The second being that I personally ascribe to a service-oriented GMing style. It is my observation that the GM will generally get the most entertainment when he stops worrying about what he (or she) finds fun, and instead focuses primarily on what the players will find the most compelling. So, while the GM is supposed to be entertained by the whole thing, I find stating that the players are supposed to entertain the GM to provide a misleading emphasis.

A guest at a party has the same obligation: Both to partake of a good time, and contribute their part of socializing to the group.

Hm. Okay, I'll use the party analogy to describe what I'm getting at here.

Let's say you're having a party. You buy a lot of booze, including an expensive bottle of many-years-old scotch. You set out the Twister game, and all is in readiness. Are you going to be offended if people go light on the booze, or don't touch the scotch, or don't open the Twister? Probably not.

Or, let's say the party turns into a full-blown drunken coed Twister blowout, as advertised. One of the folks you invited doesn't drink, and realizes that this isn't their scene. Are you going to force him to drink, or be personally offended if they pay their respects and leave? Probably not.

So,if you're a DM, and present your party with an adventure they really aren't interested in pursuing, do you become offended? Probably not.

 

[Wombat]

I've been DMing since 1976.

In my first couple years (say, through 1979) I might get a little cheesed if players derivated from the adventure I had mapped out for them, but then I started to calm down.

Yeah, I put a lot of work into my campaigns and adventures.

So do my players.

This game is not my game, but our game and I would be appalled if it was viewed any differently. As such they expect me to present the general background of the world and the adventure, but they will probably add to the setting. The game has never been about me vs. the players or about my world which they are only allowed to participate in through my grace. Instead it is about the cooperative, interactive nature of gaming.

This means that my players are welcome, nay!, encouraged to think for themselves, even if it goes against the script-o-th-moment.

If I wanted my players to follow my carefully scripted, tightly controlled scenario, I'd learn how to program and just set stuff up for NWN.

This, however, is not what I want, nor is it what my players desire, and as such there are bound to be many variants, whole pages of adventures that fly away, even adventures that take sudden u-turns.

Game is all. Game don't need tight script. And if the players can change the scenario, so can I, in accordance to their actions.

Thus Free Will is preserved on both sides of the screen.

 

[Arnwyn]

He made a deal out of how much time he put in versus the players, which strongly implies that some deference or 'payment' should be made to him. Sorry you couldn't see it. I've heard that argument before and you are repeating a watered-down version of it now.

Meh. "Watered-down" or not, I do ascribe to the whole host/party concept (see Henry's post) of social dynamics. If a lot of work has been done, put at least a little effort in. If shortly you find out that it doesn't float your boat, then walk away without guilt.

As to your point, I would say that if the players walked away, the dm probably did a crappy job of 'hooking' them or judging what their attitude was. In such a case, there will be little pay off of fun relative to the prep put in. If you had such finicky, strong-willed players and you wished to retain them, you should probably learn to improvise. If you really think that the players would love your scenario, you should do a better job of communicating enough of your intention that you suspect they find compelling.

Indeed. As we all know, good improvisation skills is the hallmark of a good DM.

 

[Gundark]

free will

now while i hate storyline nazis (this could be a thread all to itself), I would rather that the DM give the players a few options and let us choose what adventures we take, etc. Too many times I've seen the "Let the players do whatever" DMs at the begining of the session go "So what do you guys what to go do?" We then sit there for awhile trying to decide...it's a waste of time. I understand there will be some guy that goes.."hey I do that and we have great sessions"..well good for you...butin my experience this has turned out morelame sessions that not.

 

[Henry]

I think we're close to agreement here, but we're using different terms.

The second being that I personally ascribe to a service-oriented GMing style. It is my observation that the GM will generally get the most entertainment when he stops worrying about what he (or she) finds fun, and instead focuses primarily on what the players will find the most compelling. So, while the GM is supposed to be entertained by the whole thing, I find stating that the players are supposed to entertain the GM to provide a misleading emphasis.

If the players find it compelling, they contribute to the game, and I am entertained. This is what I refer to; if a person DOESN'T find it entertaining/challenging/what have you, and there is an impasse in making it so, then they waste their time by playing something that's no fun, and the GM's time is wasted by continuing to accomodate them after the point of no return.

That's my feeling on it - the GM is obligated to GM, and ensure his players have fun. The PLAYERS are obligated to PLAY - or at least explain why they cannot.

Let's say you're having a party. You buy a lot of booze, including an expensive bottle of many-years-old scotch. You set out the Twister game, and all is in readiness. Are you going to be offended if people go light on the booze, or don't touch the scotch, or don't open the Twister? Probably not.

As long as they're having fun, and participating, it isn't wasted. My players don't have to use every plot hook to be entertained, and I can always store the Booze (the plot hooks) for a later party.

One of the folks you invited doesn't drink, and realizes that this isn't their scene. Are you going to force him to drink, or be personally offended if they pay their respects and leave? Probably not.

They recognized it, paid their respects, and left to let the others have fun. Again, cool beans.

So,if you're a DM, and present your party with an adventure they really aren't interested in pursuing, do you become offended? Probably not.

Maybe a little at first (human nature and all that), but then I ask, "first of all, is this the game we all wanna play for now?" and secondly, "what do you each want out of the game?"

In fact, I just ran a survey for my players that asked just those very questions. I asked them, "do you want to see more roleplay and intrigue? less? More magic? less magic? more puzzles, less puzzles? More city adventuring? more ruins adventuring?"

Their responses determine in part what direction I go in my design. The other half is reserved for my own twisted creative little mind.

But as in any social event, people are obligated to participate if they are included; otherwise, it's not fair to include them. If it's a very one-sided event, something needs to change. (Different game, different GM, etc.)

 

[der_kluge]

Very interesting discussion. Here's my take (if anyone cares, but I'll pretend like they do...)

IMC, the PCs are just mundane folks. I've played in games where the PCs are destined to become great things (a.k.a., The Lord of the Rings). But that's not the case in my game. Also, the world itself is a fairly boring, mundane place. So, if you venture out into the woods, you've just bought yourself weeks of mundane camping sessions, and maybe MAYBE the occasional wandering monster.

So, while I don't forbid the players from just striking out off the path into the woods, they're likely to get really bored out there. Plus, whatever thing it was that they were working on, will go undone, and whatever ramifications that has will take affect.

I'll usually give them subtle hints. "How many _days_ do you decide to wander through the forest?" They'll usually clue in pretty quickly.

I agree with iwatt - it's a compromise. I can put forth a loose sketch of events and tie some things together, and I'm happy just adlibing stuff and letting the PCs go whereever they want, but there's going to be much more detail, and depth if they go where I want them to go. I build these dungeons for a reason after all.

My problem lies in the fact that sometimes if I sketch out a game on a post-it note, they complete that stuff in a matter of about an hour, and then I'm left running the game with no direction, and I'm not the greatest adlib'er in the world. My cross to bear, I suppose.

 

[Nifelhein]

Very interesting discussion. Here's my take (if anyone cares, but I'll pretend like they do...)

IMC, the PCs are just mundane folks. I've played in games where the PCs are destined to become great things (a.k.a., The Lord of the Rings). But that's not the case in my game. Also, the world itself is a fairly boring, mundane place. So, if you venture out into the woods, you've just bought yourself weeks of mundane camping sessions, and maybe MAYBE the occasional wandering monster.

I care, and also am interested on how you handle a game with a normal world, with normal people and normal life, rare uncommon wandering monsters...

Also:

In fact, I just ran a survey for my players that asked just those very questions. I asked them, "do you want to see more roleplay and intrigue? less? More magic? less magic? more puzzles, less puzzles? More city adventuring? more ruins adventuring?"

Their responses determine in part what direction I go in my design. The other half is reserved for my own twisted creative little mind.

I have just done that based on a thread around here, I made two docs up to now and the first one is with the players, it is all about what they like/ want/ prefer/ dislike/ how much and so on. I plan on posting it sometime this week as the survey questions are very good and also follow an article's advice of what should be dealt with, maybe I will raise the thread back from the archives, maybe just link to it.