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

[CrimsonReaver]

When you sit down to game, whether DM or player, you're entering into a relationship with everyone else at the table. And, like any relationship, communication is absolutely essential to its success or failure. As are an open mind, a willingness to put in some effort, and the ability to realize when it's simply not working and it's better to part ways than constantly bash your head into a brick wall as you try to make the other person/people into what you want them to be.

When I've been the DM, I've always made a point of asking my would-be players what they want from the experience. If all they want is combat and loot, with no desire to role-playing or story, then I go the Wizardry route where it's just a X-level dungeon/tower/whatever with a generic goal/boss at the opposite end of where they start. If they crave story, if the want opportunities to live in their characters, then I strive to present them with a sprawling epic with an expansive cast of NPCs (many of who have recurring roles) in an adventure that spans an entire world (or more) that's impacted by their choices. Or anything in between - provided it's what I'm in the mood to run. If I'm not feeling it, or I know I'll get burned out DMing it, I offer an alternative, a compromise, or suggest that someone else might be better suited to run that particular style of game.

Similarly, every so often, when a game sessions wraps, I like to ask the players how they're enjoying it. I mean, usually I can tell when someone is bored or frustrated, but I always try to give my players an audience to make suggestions, to chime in about what they'd like more or less of. And I like to do it in the open, where all the players can voice their individual quibbles or wants. Because it's not just an issue of DM vs. players, but the players all have to gel too.

There's almost always one player who gets really into the role-playing element and wants to interact with every possible NPC they encounter, or feels compelled to detail their character's every action or every moment. Just as there's almost always that one player who constantly screams, "Get to the killing!!!" The guy who'll stab an NPC mid-sentence because it was taking too long to get to the next battle. So, it's just as vital that the players feel comfortable within the group, that nobody feels like they have to suppress their desire to role-play for fear of bogging down the game, or curtail their bloodthirst and, instead, turn to IMing on their phone while they wait for the dice rolling to begin.

Everyone is responsible for the fun, and everyone is accountable to everyone else at that table for that fun. In almost 20 years of gaming, I've had very few bad experiences since I've made a point of talking things out with my groups beforehand, making sure we're all on the same page about what we want from the experience and tweaking things as we go to meet everyone's needs.


So, all that being said, I agree that players are absolutely responsible for carrying the story - as the leads, they're the only ones who can bring it to life, keep it moving forward, and help it evolve - but only if they've signed on for that responsibility. It's unfair to push a Final Fantasy story on players who were just looking for a little Diablo-style hack 'n' slash fun, and that's a failure of the DM.

 

[DumbPaladin]

I too agree that the original poster is correct. My character's been somewhat thrust into the leadership role, primarily because he's the moral compass and the social glue of the group and NOT because he's the best equipped person to necessarily lead ... but when I don't have my pally choose a mission to undertake, we can sometimes sit and spin our wheels doing things that are not going to earn us any XP at all ...

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Who is constantly at odds with anyone?

Did you actually read what I posted? Most of the time groups have fallen apart simply because I moved away from the area and it was no longer local for me. I don't own a car and rely on public transport, meaning if I move just two suburbs away, it can mean more than an hour's increase in travel time, and it often means cutting short games at 10ish because busses tend not to run late in most outer suburbs of Melbourne. And it's worse on weekends.

Another thing I've found about groups is that they're extremely fragile, and when you get someone like me who steps up to the plate and organises people, who then stops organising them, they (OMG!) stop being organised. The amount of groups who have had enough people and a perfectly fine venue to play at who have stopped playing together simply because I stopped organising them, I have lost count of.

Have I had conflicts with groups? Sure, and I have left groups because of people I didn't like, and I'm sure people have not liked me either. But I never indicated that there was any disproportionate amount of groups that I've 'been at odds' with, and the fact is, that's simply not the case.

Which makes me wonder just what exactly your agenda was with posting such a comment.

No agenda. Your tone with words like "responsibility" and negitive conitations towards self-described "roleplayers" came off as bitter to me. Since you mentioned group troubles I assumed that was the cause. If I'm mistaken, I'm sorry but I still feel a great sesne of bitterness in your OP.

Having said that, I still disagree with you. It doesn't bother me one iota that my players would rather be in the tavern for a few sessions. As long as they're having fun and IMO a good DM can turn any bad gaming situation into at least decent one.

 

[Greyfeld]

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.

To be fair, DMing and drawing up character sheets require more coaching from a mechanical standpoint than does RPing. Role Playing boils down to "use your imagination."

The real problem is that a wide majority of players, despite wanting to RP, are afraid to step outside of their bubble of what is comfortable and familiar. The only real way to pull them out of that is to lead by example and show them that it's alright to be loud, semi-obnoxious, and create a completely off-the-wall character that doesn't reflect them in RL whatsoever.

 

[Greyfeld]

No agenda. Your tone with words like "responsibility" and negitive conitations towards self-described "roleplayers" came off as bitter to me. Since you mentioned group troubles I assumed that was the cause. If I'm mistaken, I'm sorry but I still feel a great sesne of bitterness in your OP.

Having said that, I still disagree with you. It doesn't bother me one iota that my players would rather be in the tavern for a few sessions. As long as they're having fun and IMO a good DM can turn any bad gaming situation into at least decent one.

I'd just like to point out that I got the same impression when I read the OP. I have nevered DMed, so I can only speak from a player perspective. But throwing around phrases like "it's your responsibility to carry a story" and saying how you have to lie to your players to get them to do anything (all 100+ of them, obviously) gives the impression that you see running a game for non-DM players as an exercise in stupidity, and not worth your time.

Honestly, if I had somebody that said "roll up a character, you're in a tavern.... aaaaaand GO!" I would ask "... what exactly am I supposed to be doing?" I understand that DMs go through a lot of work and effort to piece together campaigns and plot hooks and such, but it's only fun so long as I actually feel like my character has a reason to remain interested.

 

[angelababy]

yeah, I have to feed them adventures, but still they take off and turn them upside down with the rp. While searching for a creature kidnapping kids, they encountered the third PC a college student, who runs a "wall of wierd". give them sandboxes when they enter trading posts. Go bother random NPCs for chump change.
For all intents and purposes they're in a sandbox but the reality is that they are chugging along a railroad. All that matters is that they think they are making choices.
Actually, that isn't entirely true. I normally give the illusion of a sandbox but when the rumours are all about goblin attacks in the village to the north.
Cheers

 

[Beginning of the End]

Sand-boxes are great for adventuring, but they're horrible for stories.

Given that most stories are driven by the interests of the protagonists, I find this an odd claim to make.

It is a vestigial remnants of the rest of our media consumption culture that results in players wanting to be both (a) play the protagonists and (b) just sit back and passively receive a story.

OTOH, I'm also seeing a lot of "sandbox campaigns suck because they're always set in really boring places" strawmen being spread liberally around the thread. So, yes, it's the DM's responsibility to create a dramatically interesting situations for the PCs to interact with.

 

[Hussar]

Given that most stories are driven by the interests of the protagonists, I find this an odd claim to make.

It is a vestigial remnants of the rest of our media consumption culture that results in players wanting to be both (a) play the protagonists and (b) just sit back and passively receive a story.

OTOH, I'm also seeing a lot of "sandbox campaigns suck because they're always set in really boring places" strawmen being spread liberally around the thread. So, yes, it's the DM's responsibility to create a dramatically interesting situations for the PCs to interact with.

This I mostly agree with. It's not so much that sandboxes are always boring, it's that bad sandboxes are boring and it's REALLY easy to make bad sandboxes. Sandboxes done well are fantastic. But, IMO, a metric boatload of work for the DM to set up and then present to the players in such a way that they actually buy into the setting.

It's far easier to screw up a sandbox than a plotsy campaign.

OTOH, blaming "our media consumption culture" seems like a cop out as well.

 

[Lord Zack]

Seriously, do you're players even want to play D&D? Not trying to insult you or you're players, but I would think that if you're playing D&D you're going to be you know adventuring. My players don't need to be prodded to go and adventure. It also helps that one of my players has a strong goal for his character, that I gave them rumors that they heard before the game even began and I also started my campaign with something happening (an attack by bandits on the road to town. Bandits which they're promptly whooped and made they're "hirelings", they're wages being they're lives. Besides that they treat them pretty well though.). But even without that they'd probably have immediately searched for a "plot hook" (the word "plot" isn't really appropriate because I don't have one) and pursued it.

If my players just sat around the tavern drinking beer and hitting and the serving girls I'd be like "After a week or so of wenching and boozing you find you're coin pouches getting rather low. Perhaps you should find some kind of profitable adventure if you wish to continue you're present lifestyle? Unless of course you're characters want to get jobs...". If they made themselves a nuisance by constantly starting fights they might get in trouble with the law, or just get run out of town by angry townsfolk. Even if they are initially unmotivated you don't need to railroad them, just give them some motivation. Heck, they don't even need to leave town to adventure. Adventure can find them. Maybe the barmaid they're hitting on has a boyfriend. Maybe they have they're coin purse snatched. Maybe somebody they know disappears. Maybe the town is attacked by goblins. I think however the best solution is probably to say to you're players "Hey, I know you guys sometimes have problems with motivation. I really want you to figure out a reason for you're character to actually adventure without having to be prodded. Even if it's just 'my character is too lazy to actually work so he wants to find a dungeon to raid'. We're here to play D&D right?"

 

[Nameless1]

I have to say, this was my experience of GMing for most of my GMing career (on and off since 1987). It was only until I started playing Indie games the last couple of years that this has not been a problem for me. They have mostly given me and my players the tools necessary to avoid the "spoon fed by the GM or no game" type games. Indies games are great for this kind of thing.

That being said, there are a lot of tactics that can be used to avoid this whole problem in more traditional games. A great source for strategies for this kind of thing is the Ars Ludi blog. Good stuff there.

These exact problems are discussed in a post there called Three Sins of Players. One of the sins is passive players, another is the sabateur. One wrecks a sandbox, another wrecks a plot, and any player can be either or both, depending on the circumstances.

Plot type games can be enhanced and kept from being railroads by creating situations, not plots. Situations not plots outlines how this is accomplished. Creating situations gives the players something to do that is easily understood, and at times impossible to miss, but doesn't demand a certain response, just some response.

If you want to play a sandbox type game, Grand Experiments: West Marches shows how this is set up in a way that demands player action and investment. The quick spoiler is that the GM does not organize play. The players do. They schedule the session, and only after they give the GM a goal for the session does it happen. No more sitting around the tavern and wasting time. No plan, no play. This series is continued with Grand Experiments: West Marches (part 2), Sharing Info, Grand Experiments: West Marches (part 3), Recycling, Grand Experiments: West Marches (part 4), Death & Danger, and West Marches: Running Your Own.

Another thing that I would suggest to combat all this stuff is to try some Indie games. Taking a look at roleplaying from a different perspective than the traditional helps us to become better gamers. It has definitely made me a better GM. Try Something New: The Indie Exploration Kit is a good sales pitch for why we should do this, and provides a couple of suggestions for where to start. I like and own both games suggested. I also recommend any FATE game, The Committee for the Expolration of Mysteries is one of my favorites, Dogs in the Vinyard is great for sandboxes, InSpectres is easy and fun with little GM guidance, and Lady Blackbird is amazing once you get the hang of player initiation of game/plot.

In essence, I agree that players should be held responsible for bringing the fun, but I disagree that the illusion of a sandbox that is actually a railroad is the answer, or even that it is subconsciously desired by players. Often, it is just the only way that players know to get some fun in their games. Often, it is easy to sit back and have the GM spoon feed you. Often, it is much less satisfying to have only one player (the GM or a leader of the party) bring the fun. When we train ourselves and our players with a few simple tricks, the bar session only happens if everyone wants it to.