Players: it's your responsibility to carry a story.

[Merkuri]

They go and see a cat. Oh hey, stray cat. I didn't just say there's a cat on the steps. Its a stray cat, and obviously so. Good deed to be done? Give it a home or find whom it belongs to.

I'm sorry, I would not have gotten that. A stray cat is not unusual, so the word "stray" wouldn't make the cat stick out to me. There are some strays that hang around my apartment building. We're told not to touch or feed them because they're feral, and they might bite, so my instinct in real life is to stay away from cats I don't know.

Plus, some people would say a stray cat is happier than an owned cat because it's free. These people would say that finding the cat a home would not be a good deed.

When I think "good deed" I think of helping an old lady cross the street, or giving food to a beggar, or returning a lost wallet. Boy scout type of things. Or, if I were told that I needed to do a "good deed" in a D&D game I would probably expect a plot hook for an adventure to turn up soon, where the completion of the adventure would be the good deed.

My point here is that not everybody thinks the same way. Something you think is perfectly logical may not make sense to someone else.

I think your mistake was that you had one single good deed in mind - one solution. DMs should try to avoid situations that boil down to "guess what solution the DM is thinking of." Always have a plan B, or at least allow your players to succeed if they think of something you did not. If I were DMing the scenario you mentioned I would have let the players succeed by donating that deer meat to the church. It fits the description of good deed and it's creative, so they deserve to be rewarded for it, IMO.

 

[Merkuri]

Half the point of playing D&D is seeing what the players will do, seeing how they will figure things how, what kind of unexpected things they do.

By the way, I just re-read your post and notice these lines. If you want to see players do unexpected things in your game then you need to reward those unexpected things when they happen. If a player comes up with an unexpected solution to a problem you have, let them succeed. They'll be more likely to try the unusual in the future.

 

[Chrono22]

Something I've learned over the years is that the driving force behind a healthy and successful campaign (one that reaches milestones, one the players will talk about for years to come) is creating and maintaining player interest. Dry, short, uncreative descriptions don't cut it. Detail is only pointless when its irrelevant. Maintaining the atmosphere that the players exist in a living, breathing world where changes occur with or without their participation, rather than a static backdrop for their exploits, is necessary to maintain player interest in what would otherwise be the pointless/trivial imaginings of a person. The more the players exist in the world, the greater their vested interest in the events that unfold will become.
Really, step back and recognize what your priorities are in relation to those of the players, and you and their expectations for play. My expectation for play is to give the players rewarding and pleasurable experiences, ones of value. If I'm mistaken, please correct me, but my perception is that you are rather trying to provide them with a story (a linear trail) by which they must walk down. Your measure of success, is how closely the players adhere to your plans.
Stop doing this. If you want to write a story, do so. But don't try to turn your players into puppets. The gameplay is a shared experience, a shared story. On some level, you must cede control of the direction of play and let the players guide the direction. Else... well, you end up with the situation you've recounted.
Either way, good luck with your DMing.

EDIT: A really good example of fail players: http://shamusyoung.mu.nu/images/comic_lotr15.jpg

Um... that's actually a fail DM. He provided a (boring) unavoidable obstacle with one solution... with the reward being, the players get to continue going on a quest to find an object they don't give a damn about.
Really, the players are better than many, and I have met some awful players. At least these guys are engaged in what is happening. Which is surprising, since the DM seems entirely oblivious to what they actually want to do.

 

[The Shaman]

If a DM just sits my PC down in a bar and says, "Go!" I will probably have some trouble thinking up something to do. I need direction of some sort, even if it's in the form of a colorful world.

Good heavens, why?!

Merkuri, I don't want you to think I'm picking on you specifically here; I did read your following paragraph, but I'm trying to understand this concept, and you're not the first nor the only gamer to express this.

Okay, with that out of the way, I am perpetually mystified when players adopt this mindset toward the game. From an in-character perspective, your character is an adventurer, right? Isn't seeking out adventure part-and-parcel of living the life of an adventurer?

Even the simplest of motivations - kill things, take stuff, purchase ale and whores, repeat - should, in my opinion, lead an adventurer to seek out the means of achieving one's goals. Do you need to know where the treasure is? Talk to wizards and priests and sages and captains and traders - hells, buy the oldest guy in the tavern a flagon and ask him about the area. If the referee has anything on the ball, the game-world should be full of information sources the adventurers can tap. But the adventurers should at the very least possess enough initiative to buy an old geezer a drink first. That's not asking for the world, is it?

And if an adventurer's goals are even a little more advanced than that - gain wealth and power, build a stronghold, purchase really good ale and expensive whores - then all bets should be off. Become a knight and marry a princess - how do I join an order and who's daddy do I need to impress? Found a school of wizardry - start collecting a library of magical tomes and pick up henchmen/cohorts as pupils. Build a tample - find a community in need of a priest to serve them, build a shrine, train acolytes. Again, if the referee is anything more than a bump on a log, the game-world should present opportunities to those who seek them.

As far as out-of-game goes, I've heard more than a few players - and I'm expressly not including you in this, Merkuri, so please don't assume I'm attributing any sort of motives or behavior to you - the idea that this is too much like work; usually it's expressed something along the lines of, "I just want to throw dice and move my guy around the table for a couple of hours." (A surprising number of referees - surprising to me, at any rate - accept this and cater to it.) I think this is an unfortunate mindset - in my opinion, playing a roleplaying game like it's Talisman or Descent misses some of what makes roleplaying games a unique form of entertainment. (Let the accusations of "badwrongfun" commence.)

Again, this is a mindset I just don't get, so if someone would like to take a stab at explaining it to me, then please, by all means, lay it on me - the floor is yours.

 

[Nameless1]

Even the simplest of motivations - kill things, take stuff, purchase ale and whores, repeat - should, in my opinion, lead an adventurer to seek out the means of achieving one's goals. Do you need to know where the treasure is? Talk to wizards and priests and sages and captains and traders - hells, buy the oldest guy in the tavern a flagon and ask him about the area. If the referee has anything on the ball, the game-world should be full of information sources the adventurers can tap. But the adventurers should at the very least possess enough initiative to buy an old geezer a drink first. That's not asking for the world, is it?

So there are several things that don't fit for me in your post.

First, your post assumes a mercenery style campaign. One with the stock stadard cliched D&D tropes. I actually never play these style games.

Second, I always cut the "find the adventure" crap out of my games. We have a plan for play before we sit down at the table. Characters are made with the plan in mind. I find wandering around waiting for the GM to finally give me a hook to be very boring. I have never read any fantasy literature that started with a motley group of mercenaries sitting in a pub, asking around about where the adventure is. It is a different play style, but I find it saves tons of time and gets to the good stuff without any frustration.

Third, all of the most interesting stories are created out of relationships of protagonists with other people. Pre establishied relationships are the building blocks of good stories. sitting in a bar is one way to establish relationships, but as I discovered early in life, bars are poor places to establish relationships with interesting and important people. I quit going to them, and I see no reason besides pub food for why my characters would be interested in them. The "we meet in a tavern" cliche is tired, and deserves to be drug out into the street and shot. With a spoon.

When you outline more advanced character goals, you seem to start at nothing. I like to have a my characters have a little more involvement in the world before we even start play, that way I can hit them where it hurts. Characters with no roots cannot be hurt. You should always hurt the characters. How they handle it is the story.

For full disclosure, I don't think that I have played D&D in about 2 years. I have played a bunch of indie games. And I guess I should say that I may be overreacting to your post. You may be just using D&D cliches because everyone understands them. But the thing that Merkuri is commenting on is the fact that he dislikes the D&D cliche of "we all meet in a bar" with no plan beyond that. Sorry, but that is a bad way to start play, and even very proactive players can only salvage that so much.

 

[The Shaman]

So there are several things that don't fit for me in your post.

First, your post assumes a mercenery style campaign. One with the stock stadard cliched D&D tropes. I actually never play these style games.

Nor do I, or more precisely, I play them one day a year.

I do tend to use 'D&D-isms' in forum posts, particularly on ENWorld, as a convenient shorthand - the memes of Dungeons and Dragons make up a sort of lingua franca among roleplaying gamers.

Second, I always cut the "find the adventure" crap out of my games.

So do I, in that I don't write adventures at all. There is a setting - Paris 1625! - or an open-ended initial situation - Africa 1980! - and the game is driven by what the players and their characters do.

We have a plan for play before we sit down at the table. Characters are made with the plan in mind.

Yeah, no, that's about as far removed from the way I approach roleplaying games as it gets.

I find wandering around waiting for the GM to finally give me a hook to be very boring.

So do I, which is why I dispense with plots and hooks altogether.

What I do have is a group of adventurers with goals to pursue. The adventure is what results from that pursuit.

I have never read any fantasy literature that started with a motley group of mercenaries sitting in a pub, asking around about where the adventure is.

Roleplaying games =/= literature.

It's what makes roleplaying games great, in my humble opinion.

It is a different play style, but I find it saves tons of time and gets to the good stuff without any frustration.

For me, playing the game is the good stuff. Exploring a world is the good stuff. Developing relationships with other characters, both player and non-, is the good stuff. Chasing dreams is the good stuff.

Really, it's wall-to-wall good stuff.

Third, all of the most interesting stories are created out of relationships of protagonists with other people.

I completely agree.

Pre establishied relationships are the building blocks of good stories.

Nonsense.

Relationships established in play are the building blocks of a great game.

sitting in a bar is one way to establish relationships, but as I discovered early in life, bars are poor places to establish relationships with interesting and important people. I quit going to them, and I see no reason besides pub food for why my characters would be interested in them. The "we meet in a tavern" cliche is tired, and deserves to be drug out into the street and shot. With a spoon.

I honestly couldn't care less where the characters begin, They can start on a streetcorner as far as I'm concerned.

It's what they do next that drives the game.

When you outline more advanced character goals, you seem to start at nothing. I like to have a my characters have a little more involvement in the world before we even start play, that way I can hit them where it hurts. Characters with no roots cannot be hurt. You should always hurt the characters. How they handle it is the story.

I expect the adventurers to put down roots in play.

I pay very little attention to character backgrounds, actually. What your character does when we're all sitting around the table together is what's important to me. I encourage players to write backgrounds which are more about what the character plans to do, not what the character did.

For full disclosure, I don't think that I have played D&D in about 2 years.

I played D&D last Saturday, my annual fix. But none of this is specific to D&D.

I have played a bunch of indie games.

It shows.

And I guess I should say that I may be overreacting to your post.

Perhaps a bit.

You may be just using D&D cliches because everyone understands them.

Yup.

But the thing that Merkuri is commenting on is the fact that he dislikes the D&D cliche of "we all meet in a bar" with no plan beyond that. Sorry, but that is a bad way to start play, and even very proactive players can only salvage that so much.

You're standing at the gates of Paris. The year is 1625. You have a sword and some coins and your wits. Make your fortune.

Does it really take more than that?

 

[Sunseeker]

The year is 1625. You have a sword and some coins and your wits. Make your fortune.

Does it really take more than that?

Depends on if you know anything more than jack about Paris in 1625.

 

[The Shaman]

Depends on if you know anything more than jack about Paris in 1625.

Knowing nothing more than what you know right this very second, what would your character do?

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Knowing nothing more than what you know right this very second, what would your character do?

Head to the nearest tavern and wait for something to happen.

 

[Nameless1]

Roleplaying games =/= literature.

It's what makes roleplaying games great, in my humble opinion.

What makes RPGs great for me is being a participant in the types of stories that are told in great literature and myths. RPGs =/= literature, but literature is good when it tells great stories, and RPGs are good when they tell great stories. The fact that RPGs =/= literature is not what makes them great.

Relationships established in play are the building blocks of a great game.

This is not mutually exclusive to pre-established relationships. I am often not a fan of characters with no connection to other characters. There are fun stories to be told of characters with no connection, but they are a minority. Most people have connections. The self taught orphan who comes from someplace else and neither cares for nor dislikes anyone here is a weird character type. Everyone else has some connections.

We have a plan for play before we sit down at the table. Characters are made with the plan in mind.

Yeah, no, that's about as far removed from the way I approach roleplaying games as it gets.

I have a feeling that you misinterpret me here, mostly because I realize that my statement might be a little misleading.

By plan, I mean that we have a theme and situation in mind. I do not mean that we have a plot or outcome in mind. Creating characters that fit into the situation creates much tighter games. Think of the Iliad. There are already well established relationships and a situation at the start of the story, as well as characters that fit the situation. It is actually the characters and their relationships that create the situation. Finding out what happens is the fun part.

Your linked campaign and it's obvious inspiration make me think that you do not approach things that differenty than I do. Swashbuckler stories thrive on intrigue, and intrigue is all about relationships and motivation. There is situation in the Three Musketeers prior to the start of the story, even if you just simplify it to the scheming of the cardinal and his relationship to the french king, the Musketeers, and the various nobles of France.

I think that the issue that I see in a lot of this thread is GMs, in my opinion, starting play out too early, and without cohesive background/situation/characters. It seems like many campaigns go:

Unconnected characters -> Start play -> Search for the action -> Action!

I find that a more efficient scheme is:

Decide theme/basic situation -> Characters that fit the theme -> Flesh out the situation with character motivations/relationships -> Start play -> Action!

It probably takes as long, but I HATE the search for the action step. It is the worst part of any game. It is boring. It is solved through discussion of what kind of game people want to play, group chargen including explicit discussion of character motivations and relationships, and starting play off in the middle of the action.