My DM'ing has gotten worse over the years, not better

[pawsplay]

No offence, but if a player doesn't want to 'fight giants in the north', then they should take up another hobby

I've always been baffled by players that make characters that do nothing but sit around in a tavern and run in the opposite direction of adventure.

No offense, but if the GM expects a premise to be sufficient to garner player interest, they have lost before they have begun.

It is striking to me that you jump straight from, "The player does not want to fight giants," to "The player wants to sit around in a tavern." As if players who do not jump to the GM's dog whistile are somehow lacking in volition or adventurous spirit. An argument can be made that a dwarf attacking giants out of some sense of revenge is insufficiently challenging; the motivation is trivial, the challenge merely physical. What if the giants were being exterminated by something truly evil, and the remaining dwarves and the humans in the area have no hope of fighting it off if the giant buffer zone is destroyed? That could be interesting. I'm not saying the original premise is bad. It's just not a given that the GM's idea should be taken for "good" and deviations for bad, when it is quite obvious there are many versions of good.

It behooves me to say that for someone who is self-confessedly a faltering GM, that you seem awfully quick to condemn the players when the GM's match fails to light the tinder.

 

[pawsplay]

If the player doesn't want to do that, then it will be an interesting choice. The giants that ended your clan are on the rampage, what do you do? Perhaps he will put aside his own sadness to deal with the problem. Perhaps he will become paralyzed with fear that they will kill him, too. Perhaps he will do nothing, taking an unheroic track, complaining that the fools deserved their fate. What happens with the giants after that? It's up to me. Either way, we have conflict and resolution. I see it as my job as DM to introduce the former, and move on from the latter.

Well, at this point, you are not really arguing against the point I made or the similar one made originally by RC. There is no controversy there.

The same problem comes up without a narrative focus, though. What if the party decides not to care about the demigod in his temple?

That's their prerogative. I set the adventure up so that the demigod will care about them. From the beginning, they unwittingly interfere with his plans and become his enemies. And if they refuse to take up the call... well, the world starts to end, one city at a time, one nation at a time. And it makes no difference to my structure whether they dive in like Big Heroes, or whether they wemble and try to avoid the situation, and find themselves faced with an inimical foe.

I don't think it's functionally any different from saying "There is treasure in the dungeon" (assuming characters want treasure) or "There are orcs in the hills" (assuming characters will want to stop orcs) or "There is an evil cult under the city" (assuming characters will want to stop an evil cult).

It isn't functionally any different. And those hooks all have serious problems. Let's say you have a dungeon full of treasure. What happens if two of the PCs are siblings, and one dies in the dungeon and becomes an undead creature? You may have had treasure on your mind, but the players may not be focused on dealing with the undead former PC.

You can't plan for every contingency, so you direct the action by motivating the characters.

The two halves of these sentences potentially contradict each other. If your plans are dependent on motivating the characters, you must plan for many contingencies, and to be fully prepared, pretty much all of them.

If you give the players the opportunity to make up their own minds, you are released of the responsibilty of preparing for all contingencies.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, at this point, you are not really arguing against the point I made or the similar one made originally by RC. There is no controversy there.

Storytelling focus or an act structure don't necessarily lead to one-option-only railroads. That's the point I was making when I said adding that to my games has only improved it.

That's their prerogative. I set the adventure up so that the demigod will care about them. From the beginning, they unwittingly interfere with his plans and become his enemies. And if they refuse to take up the call... well, the world starts to end, one city at a time, one nation at a time. And it makes no difference to my structure whether they dive in like Big Heroes, or whether they wemble and try to avoid the situation, and find themselves faced with an inimical foe.

So they never have the choice to NOT interfere, to NOT become his enemies, to concern themselves with any other aspect of the world over this demigod and still be the kind of characters they dream about?

It isn't functionally any different. And those hooks all have serious problems. Let's say you have a dungeon full of treasure. What happens if two of the PCs are siblings, and one dies in the dungeon and becomes an undead creature? You may have had treasure on your mind, but the players may not be focused on dealing with the undead former PC.

I really don't understand where the serious problem is. Sounds like an interesting story to me! (though maybe not a very fun game for the player whose character is now a zombie or something...but still)

The two halves of these sentences potentially contradict each other. If your plans are dependent on motivating the characters, you must plan for many contingencies, and to be fully prepared, pretty much all of them.

Once the characters are driving the action themselves, you can predict where they will tend toward with a startling degree of accuracy, without worrying in the slightest about the chance that they won't take the bait. By the time you dangle those giants in front of Burin, you will know his most likely goal, if not his exact course of action, because you know Burin's player, and you know what kind of character Burin is, and perhaps Burin's player even told you explicitly some of those goals. You know the center of the bell curve, and can develop a contingency or two for the outside, and rely on the old standby of DMs everywhere when their plans are entirely thwarted and they need a quick response: random tables of stuff.

Personally, this is part of why 4e has hurt my improv. Hard to generate random stuff in it.

If you give the players the opportunity to make up their own minds, you are released of the responsibilty of preparing for all contingencies.

Who is taking away the ability of players to make up their own minds? All you are doing with the structure is making an agreement of sorts. Burin's player telling you he's the last of his clan is asking you as a DM to include that somehow, and telling you as a DM that he is going to jump into a situation that involves that, willingly. You could even be explicit about it: Burin hopes to avenge his clan. DM, make this happen, please.

Players make up their own minds and draw their own conclusions, figure out their own climaxes, and control their own characters, but the DM works with their personal hopes and dreams as unique individuals to do something that they want to do, rather than making a trap that closes in on them regardless of their choices.

Story structure isn't about removing choice, it's about telegraphing that choice well in advance (the Introduction) so that the DM can then plan with confidence, knowing that Burin, somehow, will get involved with these giants, since it connects to his goals as a character.

The idea that "story" automagically creates a choiceless railroad where the DM basically tells his own story at the players is wildly inaccurate.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

So the DM's job is not to create the adventure?
I'm confused
everytime I've DMed I created a hook, a main bad guy (the climax) and encounters in between, what happens in between them and how they get there is not my job, but it is my job to make sure there is content for them to venture into, in all dircetions

unless I am wrong with that statement too

 

[pawsplay]

So they never have the choice to NOT interfere, to NOT become his enemies, to concern themselves with any other aspect of the world over this demigod and still be the kind of characters they dream about?

Correct. They could decide to be turnip farmers, and soon or later, he's going to come along and burn their turnips. That's pretty much the nature of a 20 level campaign involving a big evil thing.

Once the characters are driving the action themselves, you can predict where they will tend toward with a startling degree of accuracy, without worrying in the slightest about the chance that they won't take the bait. By the time you dangle those giants in front of Burin, you will know his most likely goal, if not his exact course of action, because you know Burin's player, and you know what kind of character Burin is, and perhaps Burin's player even told you explicitly some of those goals. You know the center of the bell curve, and can develop a contingency or two for the outside, and rely on the old standby of DMs everywhere when their plans are entirely thwarted and they need a quick response: random tables of stuff.

I can't prove you're wrong, but I would not recommend this advice to anyone. My viewpoint leans more toward, "No plot survives contact with the players."

Who is taking away the ability of players to make up their own minds? All you are doing with the structure is making an agreement of sorts. Burin's player telling you he's the last of his clan is asking you as a DM to include that somehow, and telling you as a DM that he is going to jump into a situation that involves that, willingly. You could even be explicit about it: Burin hopes to avenge his clan. DM, make this happen, please.

Discussing hypotheticals is confusing enough without changing details. You didn't say anything before about Burin having a stated goal of avenging his clan. That is a different situation. In that case I could raise an objection like, "What is Burin's player thought this would be a running theme in the campaign, and instead you've set up an act two where he faces off against the giant king's armies, and by the end of the adventure, his clan is avenged?"

The point is not the specific details. What I am saying is that Burin's player is definitely telling you something, but he isn't telling you that he likes your concept for the adventure. That remains to be seen. In general, "plots" should be judged guilty until proven innocent.

Players make up their own minds and draw their own conclusions, figure out their own climaxes, and control their own characters, but the DM works with their personal hopes and dreams as unique individuals to do something that they want to do, rather than making a trap that closes in on them regardless of their choices.

Story structure isn't about removing choice, it's about telegraphing that choice well in advance (the Introduction) so that the DM can then plan with confidence, knowing that Burin, somehow, will get involved with these giants, since it connects to his goals as a character.

I don't often find much reason to refer to Ron Spencer's opinions, but in this case, he made a useful observation I have to agree with entirely. This is the "impossible thing before breakfast." Either the player's control is illusory, or the outcome of the situation cannot be what you have stated based on the starting conditions.

The idea that "story" automagically creates a choiceless railroad where the DM basically tells his own story at the players is wildly inaccurate.

No, it's far from automagic. The telegraphy you are talking about is so strenuous on the story it will deform the entire campaign. Many games can survive it; some definitely won't.

I don't want to get too esoteric here. In summary, my opinion is this: the GM's ability to get PCs to do a specific thing can only be one of two things: imperfect, or tyranical.

 

[Kzach]

As if players who do not jump to the GM's dog whistile are somehow lacking in volition or adventurous spirit.

You lost me at dog whistle.

 

[pawsplay]

You lost me at dog whistle.

Say more about that, please.

 

[Colmarr]

maybe try drinking a little while you dm to help you loosen up. (Not enough to get sloppy- unless your dming improves when you are sloppy- but enough to get loose.)

I think this is actually a pretty good idea.

I recently started having one drink per session. I find that it loosens up my creatively nicely, and also lessens the inhibitions that stop you from getting into the roleplay.

 

[S'mon]

Correct. They could decide to be turnip farmers, and soon or later, he's going to come along and burn their turnips. That's pretty much the nature of a 20 level campaign involving a big evil thing.

You shouldn't be running a 20-level campaign involving a big evil world-destroying threat thing unless you have player buy in that the campaign is going to be about fighting the big evil thing. Very important to avoid bait & switch where the players think they're doing picaresque dungeon delving but you are actually planning a 20-level stop-the-darkness campaign.

 

[S'mon]

I set the adventure up so that the demigod will care about them. From the beginning, they unwittingly interfere with his plans and become his enemies. And if they refuse to take up the call... well, the world starts to end, one city at a time, one nation at a time. And it makes no difference to my structure whether they dive in like Big Heroes, or whether they wemble and try to avoid the situation, and find themselves faced with an inimical foe.

I think this campaign premise can work if the players have agreed from the start that they'll be facing this world-ending threat, even if they're not aware that their PCs will be instrumental in releasing it. But it seems like generally poor design to spring it on the players as a 'gotcha'. By contrast I think it's ok to do what Gygax did in his Greyhawk campaign and have the possibility, not certainty, of PCs releasing evil forces - forces which change the campaign world for the worse, but are not literally world ending, and do not force the players down a particular rail track lest the world blink out.