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

[SteveC]

Like so many things, this gets back to communication between the players and the GM. It is the GM's responsibility to communicate what kind of campaign he intends to run, to set the groundrules and the parameters. With that done, it's the players' responsibility to pick up that ball and run with it in as awesome a direction as they can.

When I run a campaign, I try to let the players know what I'm going for so that they can design appropriate characters who'll fit the world and the campaign story (or be pro-active enough to give me a direction if it's a sandbox campaign) and then I listen to what they want to play and design accordingly. I've found that to be a pretty good concept.

For example, I'm running War of the Burning Sky at the moment, so I made sure that the group knew what kind of a game that was, and designed their characters so that they would have logical, in character reasons to continue the campaign.

I think the best reply to "my character wouldn't do that" is to initially ask "okay, what would he do, then?" and just roll with it. If it turns out that one or all of the group wants to go a completely different direction from what the GM expects, that can be a very good thing... depending on the kind of campaign that's going on. It may result on a short evening's play where the GM has to retool what he intends to run, but them's the breaks, and it's why the GM gets the big bucks.

--Steve

 

[Rel]

At this point though, you are practically doing 'play by post'. If we have the assumption here of a give and take exchange of information prior to the session, why not send out an initial email describing the town and ask the player's what their agenda will be rather than assuming for them? What do you actually gain by setting the agenda?

I get that you are cutting out some small drama town exploration stuff that your group doesn't find that interesting. I don't get how you see that as also 'jump starting the role playing'. Sure the point is to short cut past alot of role playing that you don't find all that terribly interesting in favor of something else?

Ok, sure, I understand cutting to the bang. And, I understand handling invididual one on one RP in a format outside that of the group session. I still don't get how you gain any advantage by making assumptions about the player's actions and agenda when it would be so easy to either just not make that assumption or to prompt the players for their actual agenda at the start of the 'play by post' session you describe.

I think you ask some good questions here and I've given it some thought. My answer has to do with the personalities of my players. Overall they are a very good bunch and they are fantastic friends. However some of them (depending on the exact player makeup of the campaign perhaps most of them) are not the most proactive group ever assembled.

I could trot out an e-mail that gives the obvious features of the town and say, "So what's your plan?" I know for a fact that one of my players would immediately launch into an exploration, with some character driven agenda in mind, tenaciously going after his goal and uncovering the local politics/economic/streetwise scene. Another would probably pursue things if they were part of the very narrow sort of goal that his characters typically pursue. The other two would probably not respond to the e-mail at all or would read it an hour before they came to the session. (Just for the record I know this because I've tried it multiple times in the past.)

By virtue of narrating some of what they have already done then I'm sort of giving them a push in the "right" direction, where I define "right" as "the direction you already told me you were playing your NPC in". I'm not force feeding them the plot hooks. But I'm putting it on the fork for them and dipping it in some juicy sauce.

Obviously this method wouldn't work for every player. But then no method works for every player. The first rule of GMing as far as I'm concerned is "Know your players." For these players, and many similar players I'd guess, it is no great crime to narrate a bit of their characters behavior when it is the kind of thing they've already indicated they would typically do.

 

[Greg K]

I agree with SteveC that the GM changing direction can be a good thing.

I have in all my years of gaming done the my character would not do that three times. Once to end my character's adventuring, because he reached his goal and there was more immediate matters that needed him to stay (however, he sent my new PC to aid the party). This took everyone by surprise, but everyone agreed it was a fitting retirement. A second time, because the the idea was my rogue would be thrown into the party by circumstances and his time with the party would "transform" him to the most loyal of comrades and a heroic character. However, his introduction had him conning the naive Monk out of money by acting as a guide and then leaving him stranded in the middle of the city (the monk had paid up front and he thought he could make money guiding back. The monk only asked to be taken to a specfic part of the city). The players still look fondly upon him and his progression.

Then there was the following:

I was running a monk in Rolemaster. The GM had stated the order were paladin like. They protected the weak and the downtrodden. They tried to be the epitome of good, what is right and lead by example. I played the character like this for fifteen levels.
After completing a major arc, we set off on a ship and found a new continent to explore. The first town we came to had a bunch of peasants about to be executed. A little information gathering revealed their crime- stealing fruit and bread to feed their families and one or two for shouting down the magistrate enforcing the laws.
Here we were a party of very experienced adventures and, yet, the rest of the party was willing to let them be killed just so they could learn more about the people in charge.
There was no way my character was going along.
I informed the players and the GM that I was activating spells and magic and was going to rescue the peasants and by myself if it was necessary.
The players were understood why, but wanted me to wait. If not, they would deny knowledge of my character and he could not travel with them.
The GM asked me if I was sure and I told him "Yes". I reminded him that he told me how strong he had told me the order was in their beliefs and that is how I always played the character. He completely agreed.

I understood that the character might no longer be welcome in the party.

I told the players that I did not expect them to back me up and would be willing to make up a new character.

The GM went through with me saving the NPCs and I thought that would be the last time I would play him (Two of the PCs gave me additional support from the sidelines).
As I started to pack up the character and watch the remainder of the session. the GM asked me what my character would do next. I told him he would become a Robin Hood or Zorro like character. He could use him as an NPC
The focused the party on their information gathering and making connections while I, occassionally, got to rescue peasants for corrupt nobles and back alley thugs which started catching the attention of others.
Eventually, the PCs made a connection with an underground resistance while I learned that they and the resistance were going to be ambushed.
I notified them and then skulked in the shadows to ambush the ambushers. When it was over, the character ended up back in the party and part of the resistance.

 

[Pbartender]

I've found, through long experience, that what this whole scenario boils down to is...

How much do you trust your players, and how much do they trust you?

Can you trust them to not bring the game to a screeching halt, because they are simply being too stubborn (for whatever reason) to continue the game? Can you trust them enough to play their characters' personalities faithfully while still finding ways to work through those moral dilemmas that inevitably show up to make the game more interesting. "Fine! Have it your way! We'll help the farmers... But I'm not going anywhere near anything that even vaguely resembles dirt, and you can't make me eat that slop they call food. Gods help me, I'll have to buy an extra quart of Au De Aetheral just to withstand their stench! I sure hope they don't pay us with chickens."

Can they trust you do set the scene with occasionally a little bit of railroading without you dictating that they take actions that are in gross violation of their characters' personality? Can they trust you to play their characters just as they would? (Rel, I think, has already given a fine example, presuming his players indeed had no objections.)

 

[Rel]

(Rel, I think, has already given a fine example, presuming his players indeed had no objections.)

I've had not a single complaint from the fictional players of the fictional characters in my example. It's been a huge success by that metric.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've had not a single complaint from the fictional players of the fictional characters in my example. It's been a huge success by that metric.

Well, no wonder they don't complain! They're "fictional players"!

 

[Rel]

Well, no wonder they don't complain! They're "fictional players"!

Yeah well fictional players have a lot of advantages over the real thing. For example, all my fictional players are bisexual Penthouse Pets.

 

[Hussar]

Easy.

1) = you WILL play my way.

2)= If you cannot accept what the rest of the group wants to to you are free to pass on this adventure.

What I do NOT agree with is the idea that the DM is obligated to entertain special snowflakes when such players are too selfish to consider the rest of the group.

That's some pretty fine hair splitting. Both boil down to, "You will do what I say or get out." Considering you gave an example later of #2 where the entire group rebelled, I'd say it's probably equally problematic.

IMO, I solve all of this with group character generation. No one gets to create characters in a vacuum in my campaigns anymore. Your character WILL have a reason for being with this group and he WILL have ties to other members of the group.

That solves virtually all issues for me. No more lone-wolf, Strong Silent Type, Man with No Name crap at my tables, thank you very much. Your character will be embedded in the campaign before the first die roll.

 

[Henry]

For example, all my fictional players are bisexual Penthouse Pets.

Beats the heck out of Wonder Pets.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's some pretty fine hair splitting. Both boil down to, "You will do what I say or get out." Considering you gave an example later of #2 where the entire group rebelled, I'd say it's probably equally problematic.

If the entire group decides they are not interested in a given adventure the that isn't a problem at all. They remain together doing what they want. The problem pops up if the group wants to go in several different directions and cannot agree on a course of action to take together.

The difference is that in most of these cases it is a disagreement between what the rest of player characters want to do instead of what the DM wants them to do. If the DM provides 3 different adventure hooks and the group doesn't like any of them and decides that they want to go into the hills and hunt bugbears everything is still ok as long as the whole party is on the same page.

Heh. That example of the group rebellion actually happened and I would do the same again.