Players Bored Because of their own Playing Habits

[Dannyalcatraz]

The fellow who writes this strip goes by the name of his main character (Mossfoot) on this site. This episode seems strangely appropriate.

http://www.kenzerco.com/periodicals/fuzzyknights/fkonline_current.php

 

[S'mon]

Indeed. Sadly, stupid people (just like smart people) play this game, and thus the results of stupid people who don't like to think think will be suboptimal for them...

I don't think it's a stupid/smart thing; very intelligent players can be extremely narow-minded and exasperating to GM, players of very limited intelligence can be open-minded and great fun to play with. It's a question of attitude.

 

[argo]

Spent hours and days creating all kinds of answers for "what if the party does this?". And then, after consciously choosing to reject help from the authorities, investigate certain facts, or enlist help from various sources -- a player says the game is narrow.

I, of course, have no idea what happens in your game so I cannot tell you what your problem is. However I can point out one possible pitfall that you may have fallen into without realizing it; that is, perhaps this problem is in fact the result of poor DM-player communication. How certain are you that they really are "rejecting" these twisting plot threads you have labored so long to construct? Is it possible that they simply don't see, or don't understand the relevance of, these key elements in your game world? There is such a thing as being too subtle you know. I say this because I play with a DM who has this exact problem. The guy is, at heart, a world builder which means all the NPC's have reasons for what they do and all the plot threads (even the minor stuff) has a place and he works extra hard to make the NPC's react to us in a "realistic" manner. The problem being that we, players at a game table, only know what the DM describes for us. When he plays things close to the vest in an effort to make things exciting it often means that his subtle hints simply go unnoticed. Exchanges like this were common while deconstructing finished adventures:
DM "wow, the game really bogged down tonight. We just spent a couple of hours where nothing happened"
me "yeah, we didn't have a clue how to procede so we just wandered around tying random stuff until something worked"
DM "you needed to talk to Bob, he had the info you needed to get started"
me "come again? we did talk to bob, he brushed us off"
DM "what, you expect the guy to just up and spill his guts to you? Why would he do that? You needed to convince him to talk to you"
me "we were convincing. we invoked the authority of the council, had some good diplomacy rolls too"
DM "but Bob is an experienced negoitatior (he has levels of noble), he was stonwalling you. You needed to lean on him"
me "we did lean on him"
DM "you needed to lean on him harder than that"
me "we were afraid anymore leaning and we would step over the line and make a powerfull enemy. Besides, we didn't actually know Bob knew anything in the first place, talking to him was just a guess so when he shut down on us we figgured it was a dead end and gave up to look somewhere else"
DM "hmm, got a point there."

After a while we decided it was a communication problem. Our DM did such a good job of making a vivid, interlocking game world (versimilitude was his catch phrase) that the important details just didn't stand out. It was all equally mundane on the surface. To us players it just became so much static, the background noise was too much. We worked on some ideas of how to fix the problem and the game became much more enjoyable for everybody involved, I can post some of them later if you are interested.

So, like I said I don't know if this is your groups problem but maybe it is something to talk over with your players. Deconstruct a couple of adventures where you ask them why they did what they did (or didn't do) and you explain to them what you had set up and how what they did differed from what you expected. Find out if they are just missing out on your details or if they really are rejecting them and, if so, why? In any even it should help you figgure out why they feel your world is so "narrow" when you feel the exact opposite.

Hope that helps.

 

[random user]

Oh on that note, something I try very hard to do, is to have at least 3 (I prefer 4 usually) methods for a player to gain a piece of info. For example, if a caravan owner came into town and then left, and the players want to find where he went, they could 1. ask at the tack and feed shop where he stopped to resupply, 2. ask at the adventurer/mercenary guild where he tried to pick up a guard to replace one that retired, 3. happen upon said guard at a local bar (perhaps he overhears of they ask the bartender), or 4. talk to another caravan that just got in and passed him on the way in.

Now this is a pretty poor example, as it's pretty late I can't think of another one off the top of my head, but the point is that instead of having to go to one particular place, there are multiple ways to get the info.

Here's the secret part: there is no reason you can't cheat. Let's say you want the players to find out something that not a lot of people are going to know about. It's simply not realistic that 4 sources will be able to supply the information they need. Simply come up with 3 or 4 possible people that might have the information. Chances are they will hit a couple dead ends before finding one of your sources. After they encounter that source, none of your other potential sources will actually know the answer.

This can actually allow the players to interact even more directly. Let's say you have an evil character who has done something, and the players are trying to uncover who is backing him. You think some interesting possibilities might include: the mages guild, who secretly need something bad done, the half-orc rebels outside of town, a minor noble the party has met a couple times, or a new cult that has been forming a couple towns away.

Now, only one of them can be the actual backer, but you may decide that it's too hard for your party to stumble onto the exact one. Simply decide that whichever the players find first will be the actual one. This also allows the PC to actually have more of a say in how the world turns out.

Now some of you may call this cheating, and I suppose in some ways it is. But used in moderation it's a great way to help the flow of the game. Don't uveruse it though -- sometimes the players *should* fail because they weren't smart enough to figure it out, and have to deal with the consequences they see unfold. It's simply not realistic (at least in most campaigns) for the players to always figure out what's going on within the first 3-5 attempts.