Players, GMs, and "My character"...

[Remathilis]

Five words that never bothered me as a DM.

"My character wouldn't do that" will only be said to a DM who is, in fact trying to tell a player what his/her character is doing.

Don't do it and ye shall never hear it.

I haven't heard that since I stopped running pre-written adventures. There is a simple solution as a DM/GM, ask the players what do they do, don't tell them.

See, to an extent you're both right; a GM shouldn't tell PCs how to act or what to do, but there are times when the GM wishes to advance a story* and the PCs react poorly to it.

* Yes, I know story is a evil, black word that makes some people break out in convulsions. Let me clarify. Unless your game involves the PCs wandering exactly wherever they want to and doing ONLY what they chose to do, the Gm will place obstacles, goals and reasons for them in ways to make the PCs react. If they want the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra, they need to enter the desert of woe and seek the five keys that lock it. If a PC decides his PC can't/won't jump through said hoop, the game can logjam until either the GM or the Player compromise; even if that compromise is forgetting the treasure and hunting orcs in the Sugg Swamp.

 

[Nagol]

I can see what you mean about that adventure having the problem of unusual heroes acting in a reasonable but non-genre manner as a result. As far as salvaging the situation, a good way could have been time paradoxic. The wife dies because of one of the time rifts the physicist creates that happens to appear shortly after she leaves the company of the heroes. That's one of the fun bits of time travel paradox, the time traveler becomes the cause of his own response. But I can totally see where a relatively inexperienced GM might get flustered by the situation and not come up with that solution.

There were a bunch of possible strategies for recovery and several of the players were experienced GMs and trying to help make the situation work.

One of the simpler methods to get us moving again was the young immortal who planned on going in suggested that he would send a quick note to the lab from the past if he did go in. The suggestion was the GM have short note delivered from a legal firm/post office suggesting that the travel to the past worked, was valuable, and not harmful to the immortals, but no details could be provided because of paradox potential. Unfortunately, the GM couldn't justify having that work to himself.

 

[ExploderWizard]

See, to an extent you're both right; a GM shouldn't tell PCs how to act or what to do, but there are times when the GM wishes to advance a story* and the PCs react poorly to it.

* Yes, I know story is a evil, black word that makes some people break out in convulsions. Let me clarify. Unless your game involves the PCs wandering exactly wherever they want to and doing ONLY what they chose to do, the Gm will place obstacles, goals and reasons for them in ways to make the PCs react. If they want the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra, they need to enter the desert of woe and seek the five keys that lock it. If a PC decides his PC can't/won't jump through said hoop, the game can logjam until either the GM or the Player compromise; even if that compromise is forgetting the treasure and hunting orcs in the Sugg Swamp.

The story is not evil or taboo. The story writes itself as it is played. The only time the game can completely logjam is if the whole party decides that they aren't going to do anything (at which point the campaign just ends). The game world exits primarily for the PC's to adventure in but events and happenings continue to take place in areas that the players choose not to go. If chasing the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra doesn't catch the players fancy then perhaps other interested parties go after the treasure while the PC's are busy in the Sugg Swamp.

What if the NPC's find out that the "treasure" includes something terrible that gets unleashed that the PC's might want to deal with? Now instead of tomb raiding the players need to track down the careless NPC's, get the treasure and stop the evil.........or ignore it and go off and become pirates! The point is the world is a more interesting and dynamic place if the wheels keep turning and both action and inaction have tangible consequences.

 

[Oryan77]

I don't hear "my character wouldn't do that" very often because I'm too busy asking the players, "What are you guys doing?!?" It's just as frustrating sometimes.

 

[Nagol]

The story is not evil or taboo. The story writes itself as it is played. The only time the game can completely logjam is if the whole party decides that they aren't going to do anything (at which point the campaign just ends). The game world exits primarily for the PC's to adventure in but events and happenings continue to take place in areas that the players choose not to go. If chasing the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra doesn't catch the players fancy then perhaps other interested parties go after the treasure while the PC's are busy in the Sugg Swamp.

What if the NPC's find out that the "treasure" includes something terrible that gets unleashed that the PC's might want to deal with? Now instead of tomb raiding the players need to track down the careless NPC's, get the treasure and stop the evil.........or ignore it and go off and become pirates! The point is the world is a more interesting and dynamic place if the wheels keep turning and both action and inaction have tangible consequences.

For me the worst logjams happen when the players can't agree on what they want to do. I hate trying to split attention between separate groups and gently encourage the group to reach consensus, but that can take...some time.

 

[Philosopher]

Five words that never bothered me as a DM.

"My character wouldn't do that" will only be said to a DM who is, in fact trying to tell a player what his/her character is doing.

Don't do it and ye shall never hear it.

I fully agree.

As a player, I hate it when DMs try to dictate what my character will do - and I've had DMs try it. I don't merely say, "My character wouldn't do that," I say, "My character is mine to play, stop assuming what he/she will do," just to be clear. I once saw a DM stipulate that a PC did something that shortly led to the PC's death. The player clearly disagreed with the DM's assumption of what his character did (even before the death occurred), but he wasn't the confrontational type, so he let is slide. This same DM has a tendency to come up with particular storylines that he wants to play out, and that's when he acts this way. (He doesn't always do this, however. Believe it or not, he's overall one of my favourite DMs. This is his only real fault, and he has responded well to my constructive criticisms.)

As a DM, I almost never hear those words from a player. When I do, it never bothers me. Hell, I've put work into some parts of an adventure that get completely bypassed. This doesn't bother me (I can use the stuff in the future), and I never railroad my players. Note that this does not mean I don't have storylines. It's just that the stories that emerge are based on player input. It's their game as much as it is mine.

More often, when I hear a player say, "My character wouldn't do that," it's in response to other players. That's something I leave to the players to work out. Of course, we may, from time to time, need to be reminded that we're playing a collaborative game. Sometimes the player just wants to roleplay why they end up deciding to follow the proposed course of action, rather than playing mindlessly. Compromise can be important. I remember once, as a player, making a decision that seemed to leave the DM uncertain about what to do next. Noticing this, I told him that I was okay with changing my character's mind about it. To his credit, he went along with it - I guess he just needed a minute to think it through. Nonetheless, I don't think any DM should expect this, even if it's a nice thing for a player to do.

See, to an extent you're both right; a GM shouldn't tell PCs how to act or what to do, but there are times when the GM wishes to advance a story* and the PCs react poorly to it.

* Yes, I know story is a evil, black word that makes some people break out in convulsions. Let me clarify. Unless your game involves the PCs wandering exactly wherever they want to and doing ONLY what they chose to do, the Gm will place obstacles, goals and reasons for them in ways to make the PCs react. If they want the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra, they need to enter the desert of woe and seek the five keys that lock it. If a PC decides his PC can't/won't jump through said hoop, the game can logjam until either the GM or the Player compromise; even if that compromise is forgetting the treasure and hunting orcs in the Sugg Swamp.

Story is why I play the game, but it should not be dictated by the DM. I tend to start off with a general concept, letting my players know what sort of campaign it will be. Sometimes I give them several themes as options, and their decision determines where I set the campaign in my world. Sometimes the character's backgrounds tells me what story will be pursued from the beginning. Sometimes we start off with the sandbox. But when the PCs pursue certain quests, that tells me what stories to develop, after they've decided to pursue it.

 

[Beginning of the End]

How did we get to this point? How can we prevent it? How can we fix it?

The problem here is simple: You have designed an adventure in which the players have no choice but to take a specific action, but you are attempting to convince the players that they have a choice about it. (You're probably trying to trick them because you know they won't like having control of their characters taken away, which should probably make you second guess why you're doing something you know they won't like in the first place.)

But if you want to solve the problem, you have two choices:

(1) Stop designing adventures which mandate certain PC actions.
(2) Tell the players that they have no choice.

Done.

 

[MortonStromgal]

See, to an extent you're both right; a GM shouldn't tell PCs how to act or what to do, but there are times when the GM wishes to advance a story* and the PCs react poorly to it.

* Yes, I know story is a evil, black word that makes some people break out in convulsions. Let me clarify. Unless your game involves the PCs wandering exactly wherever they want to and doing ONLY what they chose to do, the Gm will place obstacles, goals and reasons for them in ways to make the PCs react. If they want the fabled treasure of Akun-Ra, they need to enter the desert of woe and seek the five keys that lock it. If a PC decides his PC can't/won't jump through said hoop, the game can logjam until either the GM or the Player compromise; even if that compromise is forgetting the treasure and hunting orcs in the Sugg Swamp.

I think one of the biggest hurdles I had as a GM was learning that its not about the story its about events (or encounters if you prefer). The goblins are going to attack the castle regardless if the PCs are there or not. How the PCs deal with the situations becomes the story but they events happen, hopeful the PCs get involved but it may end up just being the background for their tailoring shop and the strange new tax laws imposed by the goblin overlords.

 

[Dausuul]

For me, when the problem comes up, it's usually one player saying it to the rest of the group. Three PCs are gung-ho to go on the adventure of the week but one is dragging his or her feet.

If the player is willing to work in good faith to address the issue, and the DM is ready to adapt when the PCs go off in an oddball direction, it's seldom a big deal.

If the player is just being contrary (and I've seen this quite a few times)... well, honestly, one is almost always better off without that player.

On the rare occasions that the whole party balks at whatever adventure hook you've put in front of them--well, you should certainly sit down and think about how to make your hooks more appetizing in the future. In the meantime, however, it's not unreasonable to say, "Okay, what do you guys want to do tonight?" If the players reject the DM's planned adventure hook, they need to be ready to come up with their own.

Of course, when they do come up with their own, the DM needs to be ready to take it and run with it.

 

[the Jester]

Five words that never bothered me as a DM.

"My character wouldn't do that" will only be said to a DM who is, in fact trying to tell a player what his/her character is doing.

Don't do it and ye shall never hear it.

I haven't heard that since I stopped running pre-written adventures. There is a simple solution as a DM/GM, ask the players what do they do, don't tell them.

These two quotes pretty well sum up my opinion here.

If the dm is telling the pcs what they do, he is stepping over the line of "proper dm behavior" imho. If the dm has a story that he wants to tell or a direction he wants the campaign to go in, he needs buy in from the players so that they choose to follow his hooks.

Whenever a pc's actions are assumed or mandated in an adventure, I cringe.