Aha! I missed the highlighting ~--s - clearly this is why I am no good at computer games.
Like Neon said, I don't think this is good GMing technique. If you want the PCs to interact with the cat, give them an IC reason to do so.
Players: it's your responsibility to carry a story.
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
Aha! I missed the highlighting ~--s - clearly this is why I am no good at computer games.
Like Neon said, I don't think this is good GMing technique. If you want the PCs to interact with the cat, give them an IC reason to do so.
Re: the stray cat
When I first GM'd I used to be more effusive in my descriptions.
"Among the people gathered around, you see a tomato seller hawking his wares."
Next thing I knew, the PCs would be interrogating the tomato seller to see if he's some sort of spy. Or they would side-track thinking it was something important. Or they might simply side-track and attempt to haggle with the tomato seller.
Now I've gotten into 'mom' roll (like "because I said so"). I often have to finish a description with a few fake rolls and a "Nothing here catches your attention."
In the stray cat example, I probably would've said "a stray cat staring at you" just to try to get the player's attention.
When I first GM'd I used to be more effusive in my descriptions.
"Among the people gathered around, you see a tomato seller hawking his wares."
Next thing I knew, the PCs would be interrogating the tomato seller to see if he's some sort of spy. Or they would side-track thinking it was something important. Or they might simply side-track and attempt to haggle with the tomato seller.
Now I've gotten into 'mom' roll (like "because I said so"). I often have to finish a description with a few fake rolls and a "Nothing here catches your attention."
In the stray cat example, I probably would've said "a stray cat staring at you" just to try to get the player's attention.
On the other hand, if you're comfortable improvising stuff on the spot, you could simply roll with it.
I've found that sometimes, if the players find a detail that you've provided simply as window-dressing interesting enough to spend time interacting with it, it may be a good idea to reward them by turning it into something important.
This will not always work, but when it does it's very gratifying both for the players and the DM. I've had game session getting completely 'derailed' by what was only planned as yet-another-random-encounter, but great fun was had by all.
Having said all that, in Clarabell's examples I can fully understand the players. The hints were too subtle. Unless the players know your DMing style very well, there's really no reason to suspect a secret meaning behind every detail you provide.
Actually, we had a player in one of our game groups once who asked for details about absolutely everything, e.g. the exact angle of a hill's slope or the shape and materials a chest was made of. It always took ages for him to make any kind of decision.
The annoying thing was that he never actually did anything with the additional information!
He typically just moved on, his curiosity satisfied.
Interestingly, the very same player instantly 'locked-up' when he was required to talk to an npc. He just never knew what to say. But he always insisted on playing social pcs, like bards.
Boy, was I glad when he no longer showed up for our games!
S
Sunseeker
Guest
The corpse of a cat, or even the better, an undead cat, or a sparkle-vampire cat. Players need some kind of coded keyword to make them understand that this object is worth interacting with. "strange" "very ugly" "suit-wearing cat"
I love when my players have done this. Why the paladin suddenly turned green for a week, he just won't say! But really events early on like this are a great way to teach "look before you leap". Because for all they know, they ring is what killed that man.
This is a very good observation. I have a friend that DMs a game where he is upset his players are becoming more and more withdrawn.
He has a style of DMing where most of the encounters are more powerful than the party and seek to humiliate or put down the party. He tends to take a "me vs. them" old school mentality to DMing that makes players very hesitant to do anything, because if it can be twisted, and used against them, it will be.
He is a very smart and nice person, really... but his DMing style is so out of date for today's players, I just don't know what to tell him that won't hurt his feelings.
Note: Skipped most of the thread, don't have time to read it through.
But I will add that I largely agree with the OP.
I will also add that some players get into a rut, expecting to come to the table to be entertained. Once that habit develops, the player becomes blind to the fact that THEY can enhance the experience by adding to the entertainment through good story and roleplaying. They also don't see that THEY can provide entertainment to the other players and the DM by doing so.
For one particular player in my game, I have seen him change immensely. He was introduced into D&D in 2e. He was a great roleplayer back then. The mechanics of the game didn't seem to interfere with his roleplaying, or perhaps leveling was so slow that to make the game interesting it required more roleplaying. But then something happened when 3e (and now 4e) came out - now he is so focused on mechanics that roleplaying has become hard for him. The game has become about this power or that power now. I often point this out to him, and he changes for a few sessions but just slips back into mechanics mode far too easily.
But I will add that I largely agree with the OP.
I will also add that some players get into a rut, expecting to come to the table to be entertained. Once that habit develops, the player becomes blind to the fact that THEY can enhance the experience by adding to the entertainment through good story and roleplaying. They also don't see that THEY can provide entertainment to the other players and the DM by doing so.
For one particular player in my game, I have seen him change immensely. He was introduced into D&D in 2e. He was a great roleplayer back then. The mechanics of the game didn't seem to interfere with his roleplaying, or perhaps leveling was so slow that to make the game interesting it required more roleplaying. But then something happened when 3e (and now 4e) came out - now he is so focused on mechanics that roleplaying has become hard for him. The game has become about this power or that power now. I often point this out to him, and he changes for a few sessions but just slips back into mechanics mode far too easily.
Doug McCrae
Legend
Glad to hear it!
To expand a bit, this is a problem I've been aware of for a while. About ten years ago a GM I knew was complaining about exactly what you describe, the PCs withdrawing, never wanting to interact with the world, turtling. Several people, including myself, told him it was because whenever the PCs touched anything, it bit their hands off. So they stopped touching things.
Consequences for PC actions are regarded, rightly, as a good thing. It's more verisimilitudinous and it's fun for the players to see the effect of their actions on the world. My one-and-a-half year old nephew loves it when he puts his hand in front of the hose and the water skooshes all over. It's a natural, deep-seated, source of enjoyment for us humans.
Problems arise when the GM has a very negative world-view. This is particularly an issue for Brits and certainly was, and is, among several of the GMs I know. Because of this negative world-view the GM's natural response is to make all consequences negative. That's just how their minds work. The PCs can do A, B, C or D but no matter what they choose, something horrible will happen. It will be a different horrible thing for each choice, but it will always be bad. It will even be quite plausible. After all, something bad *can* always happen. It's always a possibility.
Eventually the players learn to do nothing. Unfolding events will still be uniformly bad ofc, but at least they can't be blamed for them.
I think this might have more to do with the system than the player. I have noticed a similar trend (and I have also seen it go the other way when folks brought up on 3E/4E got to play BECMI for an evening). But that's a matter for another thread.
I've struggled with this as a player, but especially as GM - it seems like crunch-heavy systems suck up mental energy I'd otherwise be using for fun roleplaying & creativity.
Re Turtleing - I think sometimes players in a regular old school-Gygaxian campaign get burned by bad choices a couple times, and start acting like they're in Tomb of Horrors when really it's Village of Hommlet.
The thing is, the Gygaxian approach imposes harsh choices for mistakes (harsher than I personally like), but it's not a screw-you approach, it's a problem-solver approach which rewards clever analysis, logic and creative solutions. If you have weak analysis skills, or just don't like problem-solving (and as a player I generally don't, not puzzle type problems anyway) then it can seem indistinguishable from an arbitrary death trap.
On a related note, I have a player in my online campaign who is enthusiastic, not a turtle, but seems to have terrible analysis skills. When I set the threat level high enough to challenge other PCs, his die. Worse, he thought it was a good idea to steal from the party, causing friction IC and OOC. It doesn't seem at all malevolent, he's just not the wisest cookie in the sage's cookie barrel. I'd like to keep him as a player but I'm not sure how to without coddling that might rightfully annoy the other players.
The thing is, the Gygaxian approach imposes harsh choices for mistakes (harsher than I personally like), but it's not a screw-you approach, it's a problem-solver approach which rewards clever analysis, logic and creative solutions. If you have weak analysis skills, or just don't like problem-solving (and as a player I generally don't, not puzzle type problems anyway) then it can seem indistinguishable from an arbitrary death trap.
On a related note, I have a player in my online campaign who is enthusiastic, not a turtle, but seems to have terrible analysis skills. When I set the threat level high enough to challenge other PCs, his die. Worse, he thought it was a good idea to steal from the party, causing friction IC and OOC. It doesn't seem at all malevolent, he's just not the wisest cookie in the sage's cookie barrel. I'd like to keep him as a player but I'm not sure how to without coddling that might rightfully annoy the other players.
