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

[radmod]

I mostly agree with the OP. I'm presuming he's not saying the players have to create the story, just take aid in the direction.

I've tried all three methods: railroad, sandbox and free form.
Railroad I have no problem with as it gets things going. I, nor the players, have to sit around for hours trying to decide what to do. I've had too many complaints from PCs who don't seem to want to make the decision.
Free form is tricky. I'm currently running a campaign that requires it. As it stands, I have to wait for someone to say some thing to get things going.
Sandbox is what I prefer. Players have options, and they have to live with them. For example, after finishing off a 4 year D&D campaign, everybody was in a strange mood. Ignoring my sandbox, their answer was "We go north!" I would throw out adventure ideas and their answer was "We go north!" I would let them know that going farther north would be more and more dangerous and they'd run against randoms which indicated so; their answer was "We go north!" They went north and were TPK'd. Shortest campaign ever.

I also agree: players suck!

 

[Chrono22]

Yeah, unmotivated players are the worst. The essence of adventure is drive, a desire to move forward, to look for challenges and risks and to overcome them, to explore strange new environments, to seek out new life; new civilizations... to boldly go where no one has gone before!
I try not to DM for sticks in the mud, as much as I am able. More than anything, they hold the game and the rest of the players back. After so many games and failed campaigns, I've learned the biggest threat to the adventuring party is disinterest and a lack of ambition, not monsters.

 

[rogueattorney]

I've said a number of times on these boards that I'd rather be in a game with great players and a mediocre DM than a game with a great DM and mediocre players.

The DM can only do so much. It's really up to the players to make the game take flight. With inspired, proactive, creative players, the DMs main job becomes, "Don't screw things up."

 

[athos]

I wish you would DM some 3.5 online with your open concept. I love those games. I played in one "sandbox" type game where the players were all goblins and hobgoblins and such in a tribe that branched off. It was a great concept, but when we got a new player that made a move to grab the power of the group, another player he threatened in whisper killed his PC and the game promptly fell apart. Such are the ways of evil I suppose.

"Sandbox" games are great if you have one very proactive player who is willing to "lead" the group, but as my previous experience shows, if you have two strong leader types, one has to die or leave it seems or there will be conflict in the group.

With a given mission, the typical style adventure, the group is tied together with a common purpose and is focused on the mission and not trying to gain personal power. This is a setting most players are comfortable in.

I find when I play in a mission setting, I am very group focused, whereas when I am in a "sandbox" setting where you can do anything you want, I am more apt to get two or three PCs together and try to take over something . Doesn't matter what, the local castle, the local thieves guild, the local you name it, if someone else is making money on it, my guy wants a piece of the action. But then, when I play for fun, I like to play characters that are the anti-me, someone I can just go crazy with and do something without regard to being politically correct and nice.

If I knew how to make a poll, I would ask the community whether they are like me and prefer to play a character that is the opposite of them in real life, or if they like to play a character that has the same views and values as they do in real life. I have always been curious about that.

Anyways, if you have a problem with local players contributing to your game in a positive manner, have you tried going online? It isn't the same as table top in a couple critical things (like manners, showing up, etc) but there are some very proactive players I have found online that have a lot of creativity.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The worst players are the ones that won't bite on any adventure hooks, and won't do anything else either. Either it's because their PC motivation is borked ("My character wouldn't risk his life for money!"), they expect the GM to outright force their PCs to go on the adventure G1 style, or they are just fundamentally boring people.

 

[Kzach]

The worst players are the ones that won't bite on any adventure hooks, and won't do anything else either. Either it's because their PC motivation is borked ("My character wouldn't risk his life for money!"), they expect the GM to outright force their PCs to go on the adventure G1 style, or they are just fundamentally boring people.

I've often wondered why people want to play roleplaying games when they don't step outside of themselves to roleplay. I mean... I'm not a very adventurous sort. My child-hood and teenage years were pretty wild with lots of camping, working in tourist destinations, and partying. Nowadays if someone says, "Wanna come party?" I'm more likely to respond, "I'd rather shoot myself in the face with buckshot," and stay home and watch TV.

But when it comes to roleplaying games, I like to play outrageous and adventurous characters who are always on the lookout for adventure and excitement. If my character isn't rescuing a princess, then dammit, he's gonna find one who needs rescuing!

Yet, so many people seem to... I don't know... not get the point of roleplaying? Joe lawyer plays paladin pacifist who defends people's rights in arbitration committees, not gung-ho, in your face, paladin with a vengeful streak. Sam the timid geek, plays the ranger who sits at the back of the group and says nothing and just rolls his two Twin-shot dice every turn, which quickly passes over him to the next person.

Maybe RPG publishers need to explain the concept of roleplaying a bit better.

 

[Lanefan]

On a side-note, if anyone lives in or around Ringwood and wants an extra player who will show up showered, with solid rules knowledge, ready and updated character sheet, and who will follow your plot and clues, email me

Sounds good, but where's Ringwood? I don't think I live there...

Lanefan

 

[Saeviomagy]

It's the player's role to have goals that mesh with the overall idea of the game.
(ie - we want treasure)

It's the DMs role to use those goals to send the PCs adventuring.
(there's treasure over here in the goblin ruins)

If the players have no goals/goals incompatible with the game (my pc is an insane recluse who wants to stay at home and eat peanuts - he fights crime!), or the DM ignores the PC goals (ok you band of mercenary pirates... the penniless peasant woman asks you to save her husband from a bear out of the goodness of your hearts!), nobody is going anywhere and noone is going to have fun.

I've seen both types of games. And if either party are a little bit slow to rise to the challenge, then it ends up in a vicious cycle: the DM can't be bothered to work PC motivations into the game unless the PCs have motivations, and the PCs can't be bothered to work out motivations if the DM has previously ignored them.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe RPG publishers need to explain the concept of roleplaying a bit better.

I think you have a very good point there. Every RPG in print (or nearly so) has about a page of "What is a roleplaying game" but, other than some sample transcripts, very few RPG's spend much time on "How can you be a GREAT roleplayer".

Heck, we have an entire manual in D&D devoted to making someone a good DM, but the Player's Handbook is very light on what makes a good player. The PHB tells you how to make a character, spends a bit of time on how to make a background, but, doesn't spend a lot of time on the pragmatic end of simply playing the game as a player.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Originally Posted by Kzach
On a side-note, if anyone lives in or around Ringwood and wants an extra player who will show up showered, with solid rules knowledge, ready and updated character sheet, and who will follow your plot and clues, email me

Sounds good, but where's Ringwood? I don't think I live there...

Lanefan

Hey, I'm near Ringwood! Maybe we could--

Oh, wait, I thought you meant Ringwood, New Jersey. I see you mean Ringwood, Victoria.

Hey, Lanefan's in Victoria! There's a match! How about--

Oh, wait, that's Victoria, British Columbia, not Victoria, Australia.

Sorry, can't help.

Back to the topic...

I remember one adventure I ran that ended in disaster. I was DMing a Living Greyhawk adventure, and the group consisted of one guy who was big into D&D, and a bunch of his friends that weren't that familiar with the game. For every step, they all turned to him to figure out what to do next. Literally.

The problem was that this leader-gamer wasn't a particularly observant or connect-the-dots kind of guy. The adventure was designed as an open-ended mystery.

The first half-hour was essentially:

Me: "Okay, you're in the room. There's XYZ around, a letter on the desk, and books have been pulled out of the bookshelf."
Everyone else: (Turn to stare at friend.)
Friend: "Uhh..."

I ended up essentially retinkering with the adventure in real time to give them something that worked. Really, though, it was just a bad combination of party and adventure.

I agree that the illusion of choice is usually the easiest solution, and the most acceptable. Sometimes, you can get away with a blatant railroad. For example, if the game is a crime procedural. However, you can introduce more choice into the game as long as you're prepared. I've DM'ed enough that I have about four or five adventures that I can run without prep at the drop of a hat, so I can make them available in any game I run. As a result, I make sure they're available hooks for the PCs when I run open-style.

It's the DM's job to create tantalizing hooks. It's the player's job to nibble at hooks that look interesting. Sometimes, the players can call the shots, and the DM can run with it. However, the players need to actually, you know, call shots, and the DM needs a robust world around them to react and act. It's no mean feat, but with the right players and DM, the full sandbox is quite doable.