Players Bored Because of their own Playing Habits

[TheGemini]

I am a fairly inexperienced DM. One thing I've noticed, however, is that players can get bored by games because their play style is so narrow.

I tried to create this very intricate environment where every decision the party makes has real effects on subsequent events. And it does! Rather impressed with myself, the players simply chose the path that required the least amount of thought and thereby the least amount of options. They are used to having (a prior) DM feed them their options, and they're not inclined to think for themselves.

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.

 

[Arnwyn]

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...

Sadly, if you want to continue DMing for that particular group, you'll likely have to adapt to their play style. (The bonus part - you'll save time by not having to create intricate environments!) Trying to change them is more likely than not doomed to failure.

 

[lior_shapira]

I've been dm'ing with a bunch of people for over a year now, and my playing history with some of them goes back over 12 years. I've learned that most players become quite predictable with time. They do things a certain way (always hack n' slash, always diplomacy, roleplay a certain character type) and almost nothing can budge them from their wicked ways

It can be frustrating, in the last adventure I ran in the Midnight campaign setting I left over a dozen clues and hooks for the party to investigate and talk to the npc's in order to understand what's going on. Sadly they took none of them, killed everyone they met (and chopped off their heads) so at the end they were like "so what actually happened?". It was a major dissapointment.

But every once in a while a player will do the unexpected, or you'll have the best roleplaying moment, or the party will catch on to something you never expected them too. It's worth it so don't give up

 

[BSF]

It sounds like there is a basic communication gap here. That is just one of the issues though.

One of the first things that a GM should do is set the expectations of the players. There are a number of games where the group has drifted into a comfort zone. This comfort zone may include tailored encounters and linear storylines.

In itself, these are not bad, nor are they good. The point is that they can exist, and that they sound antithical to the game you want to run. It also sounds like your players hold one or both of these elements in their comfort zone.

The first time you try to break players out of this comfort zone, there will be a certain degree of discomfort. Without a linear storyline, they may have difficulty understanding that the decisions are solely in their hands. Instead, they flounder around, growing frustrated and eventually decide that you are being arbitrary and laughing at their lack of cleverness.

This is why it is important to set expectations.

You have created an environment where actions and inactions have repercussions in the game. Do the players understand that? Do they enjoy it? Do they understand that you are not going to spoonfeed them information about the story? Would they prefer that you do? These are questions that you need answers to.

Piratecat runs a great game where events and decisions from earlier in the game have an influence on what is happening currently. If your players haven't read his storyhour, you might point them toward it. I try to run a game where I setup situations that won't have a payoff (good or bad) until much later in the campaign. In my game, there are unsolved mysteries and the PC's might continue to work on them, or they might abandon them at the risk of re-encountering them later. However, my players undrestand this and they seem to enjoy it. I have spent the last couple of years working with my players and discussing my playstyle. I still speak with them frequently to try to keep us all on the same page as far as what the game will be like. The communication is a key factor.

You need to understand what they want out of a game. They need to understand the intriacies of your style. All of you need to have some common agreement. You can help them grow into different playstyles for the game, but a lot of it hinges on communication.

 

[TheGemini]

It sounds like there is a basic communication gap here. That is just one of the issues though.
....

You need to understand what they want out of a game. They need to understand the intriacies of your style. All of you need to have some common agreement. You can help them grow into different playstyles for the game, but a lot of it hinges on communication.

Very good insight, sir. The issue at hand is that I have asked and they have spoken. But when they say they want a more open plot and I say that, we mean two very different things. I think in reality only one player is having a problem making the adjustment. He just falls into the same psychotic "Look at me, look at me!" behavior every game without fail. Then complains the plot didn't really seem to advance when really he was too focused on being the star to think about what was going on.

Anyway, thanks for the input, all.

 

[random user]

Something to consider is having a post mortem.

Create an adventure that will just last one or two sessions and is pretty self-contained.

After they are done with it, sit down with them and point out everything they missed. Like the bartender could have told them something. The thieves guild had an interest. etc etc. Help them out with some concrete examples of things they could have done that would have changed things around.

It's one thing to hear that you can have an effect on the world. It's another thing to see concrete examples of how things would have been different if they had done things differently.

Just my 2cp

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Another thing to do every once in a while is design an adventure that shakes things up.

By that, I mean that their usual actions don't have the usual effects. I'm not talking about hosing the players just to hose the players, but having the consequences of the party's actions have unusual results.

Some examples I have used in the past:

In a supers campaign, I had villians who had extremely low defenses puling a major bank heist. However, by power level, they were basically mundanes with some spiffy equipment. When the heroes went at them full-bore, they left bloody smears behind. The heroes were all of a sudden wanted for murder, and had to clear their names: the villains in question were actually sophisticated automatons- little better than robots with skin & blood. After that, the PCs took the time to assess the nature and power of their opponents before unloading. The one player that didn't learn that lesson later faced a clone of a known villain who was mentally deficient (think of the way Validus was written up in early DC Comics plots), so he was villified in the press for bitch slapping what was essentially a super-powered baby.

Another party in a RIFTS campaign tracked down and destroyed a powerful vampire...only to find he was the mayor of a town nearby. And yes, they did know he was a vampire. He got elected because he alone of the town's residents was powerful enough to hold off a powerful band of bandits (though he couldn't destroy them). After being tried for murder and found guilty, the party was sentenced to eradicate the bandits.

Instead of a drow raid, have the human kingdom raid a drow village for slaves. Why? So they can have a bunch of cheap, trained workers doing the basic work for enchanting items, that the kingdom then sells for great sums of gold- their main income is generated by sales magic items.

The kidnapped princess? She's actually posessed by a demon.

In other words, shake up YOUR adventure design, and you'll shake your players out of complacency. If something sounds like a cliche, jettison it! Do the opposite!

 

[Coreyartus]

I don't know if you rotate DM's at all, but sometimes that can really help a player expereince what is possible... Just reading pre-packaged adventures after you've run them can go a long way to opening up the eyes of myopic players.

A lot of RPGA adventures are repetitive--the OTA (Obligatory Thug Attack) happens quite regularly, and players have developed a kind of system to playing the games as they come down the pipeline. It makes for very boring experiences. But all it takes is single adventure to break people of their habits, as long as it's presented in a fun way.

Figuring out how to make change FUN without relying on the change itself to provide the fun is really hard. That's why there are so many different campaign settings out there--people need to realize their playing habits can make the game boring, not only the setting.

Coreyartus

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My campaign is getting ready to complete a story arc. Next up for my players...I'm killing the party. All of them. Dead.

They will be reanimated by BBEG to defend his dungeon. After killing several parties of invading adventurers, at least one of them will break the influence of the BBEG and lead the party to victory over him.

Then, they'll have to find a way to come back from the dead.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Something to consider is having a post mortem.

Create an adventure that will just last one or two sessions and is pretty self-contained.

After they are done with it, sit down with them and point out everything they missed. Like the bartender could have told them something. The thieves guild had an interest. etc etc. Help them out with some concrete examples of things they could have done that would have changed things around.

Always a good idea; and if you're going to do this, go all-out and have a pre-game briefing, too.

Seriously, if you're going to do an adventure where you plan on challenging the usual habits and assumptions of the players and hope to provide them with the opportunity to try doing different things instead, you're setting yourself up for failure if you don't at least mention your plan to them in advance.

Because GMs have habits, too, and players eventually learn to recognize those quirks and work around them. If you've been playing NPCs as unnecessarily cryptic, generally unhelpful, and usually adversarial in all your previous games, don't be surprised when the PCs just pull swords and maim NPCs rather than waste time interviewing them. If the police in your games have routinely hassled PCs, doubted their word, told them to leave the investigation to the professionals, and written them parking tickets, your fancy new resolution to have the cops in this new game be helpful and effective won't matter. If PCs who tried to amass some kind of in-game power (running a town or organization of some kind) have been raked over the coals for it (getting only the problems of being in charge and none of the perks), you shouldn't be expecting to see many more PCs who are interested in that kind of thing.

But if you tell them before they even sit down to play that this game is different (and if you aren't lying to them about that ), you might get a few of them to try stepping outside the boundaries you both have established for "normal" play. Let them know you want to do a different kind of campaign, let them know the kinds of things you plan on doing differently, and let them know that you actually want them to do something different, too. Otherwise, I can practically guarantee that no one will notice and nothing will change.

Unless you're all mind-readers, anyway.

--
it's amazing how many gaming problems having a psychic hive-mind will solve
ryan