Players that just don't *get* the genre

[Rel]

I think that two thinks are key to avoiding this problem:

Good communication from GM to players about the genre expectations.

AND

Good understanding by the GM of what his players enjoy.


I ran a game years ago that was a sci-fi game where the PC's were supposed to gradually explore a strange planet to which they had been kidnapped. There was supposed to be a heavy element of mystery, a fair bit of establishing something resembling a culture for themselves and a dash of combat thrown in there. Problem was that they expected to be playing something more like Star Wars. It failed miserably and folded after just a few sessions.

That was entirely my fault. I not only didn't explain myself very well but I also ignored the fact that the sort of game I was planning might have appealed to one or two of the players but certainly not most of them.

 

[Starfox]

This is not always the player's or even the GMs fault. In Shadowrun, the economics of shadowrunnng are set up so that it is basically impossible to live of it. You will certainly never regain the million nuyen invested in your cyberware. To even break even, shadowrunners have to loot their enemies and steal cars. And once you have started on the easy money of stealing cars, there is very little incentive to ever return to the gritty, starving world of elite mercenaries in the shadows of the corporate world.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This is not always the player's or even the GMs fault. In Shadowrun, the economics of shadowrunnng are set up so that it is basically impossible to live of it. You will certainly never regain the million nuyen invested in your cyberware. To even break even, shadowrunners have to loot their enemies and steal cars. And once you have started on the easy money of stealing cars, there is very little incentive to ever return to the gritty, starving world of elite mercenaries in the shadows of the corporate world.

Is this a story of you missing the genre of Shadowrun? Because my milage varies alot.

You may have had (or been) a stingy GM, but I had a successful long-term SR campaign where my hard-core D&D players never even thought to loot an enemy. Stealing cars? Chump change compared to the big payoffs related to a critical run against a rival corp.

 

[Jimlock]

If a game has genre conceits like "heroes don't kill/loot" or "it's a time travel game, it's relatively safe to get out of the machine" then communicate them up front.

While i generally agree, I also believe that the "communicate them up front" is not always the best choice.

What comes first is knowing what players like, and, most importantly, how much are they willing to deviate from their tastes.

For example, a GM should somehow know beforehand, whether his D&D-medieval-hardcore player is gonna like the idea of a time machine falling from the sky in the midst of a clearing, or...whether he's just gonna walk out the door the moment he hears about it.

So why can it be a bad idea to communicate such things before hand?

You lose on SURPRISE.

Players should know info about the game they are about to play in the most general of terms. Beyond that, it's better if the find out in the process. The game should entangle them slowly, not outright, nor should they be aware of the roots entangling them beforehand.

So in my opinion the BEST thing a GM can do is know their tastes, as well as their flexibility. If that involves communicating with them to the point where he doesn't give things away... that's fine. Beyond that it's a mood barker.

I understand how some of you might argue that this is irrelevant, for you might believe that it does not have to do with story-surprises, but i strongly believe that mood/theme/genre swings ands surprises are equally important.

 

[Umbran]

You will certainly never regain the million nuyen invested in your cyberware.

That's okay, because you probably weren't the one who invested it.

To even break even, shadowrunners have to loot their enemies and steal cars.

I haven't played the newer editions, but back when I was playing 1st and 2nd edition, that was not our experience. Usually, looting your enemies got you fairly basic hardware that wasn't of much resale value. What you're talking about sounds more like an adventure design problem than a rules or genre problem.

 

[jonesy]

So why can it be a bad idea to communicate such things before hand?

You lose on SURPRISE.

Players should know info about the game they are about to play in the most general of terms. Beyond that, it's better if the find out in the process. The game should entangle them slowly, not outright, nor should they be aware of the roots entangling them beforehand.

Only if the game is intended to surprise, and to create mysteries. That's another one of those genres, you know.

And knowing about the game they are getting into only on general terms can be fatal to the campaign. Just imagine a group with only a history of hack-n-slashers entering Blue Rose.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Shadowrun's economics only don't work if you have a stingy GM who makes every run a set-up. Our long-running shadowrunners were well on their way to buying permanent luxury lifestyles by the time our group broke apart.

Kzach - what makes you think this is a video game thing? I've had at least one player (totally brand new to roleplaying) who decided it wasn't for her because it wasn't competitive enough. She wanted to be working against the other players, not with them. Video games do not even remotely feature in her list of hobbies.

I think it's just human nature. Throw a bunch of people into a room together and try to get them to do something and you're going to have power struggles for a while until everyone works out their place in the group.

In fact, other people agree - see Tuckman's stages of group development. And they restart every time the group changes - that means you should always expect a period of storming every time you get a new player or lose one.

And roleplaying adds a second layer to that - not only are the players trying to find out their position in the group of players, but the players are also trying to establish their character's position in the party.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

In a supers game I've ran recently I had players loot the villains apartment. Yes there was some nice stuff there (art, some loose cash and bonds in the wall safe) but really, listening to them going on about stealing everything. Paintings, silverware, wallsafe. So much stuff I asked how they were going to carry it. So they rip down the curtains and use them to make enormous swag bags for the brick to carry.

Same game, the group is sent on a covert mission: retreive a perp hiding out in the bottom of a moderately secure hi-tech building. Most of the security is of the surveillance/silent alarm type and one sleepy rent a cop sitting behind the desk in the lobby. The guy is perfectly visible from outside (glass walls and doors.) The group smash their way in and the poor old rent a cop is knocked out. The party TK asks "do we need him for anything?" "No," say others. TK snaps unconscious guard's neck.

2 of the players were new to the super genre. But the other 3 are more than genre-savvy enough to know this sort of crap don't wash.

I've sat down and explained what the consequences of this sort of thing will be. ie: I don't mind that their characters are a bunch of depraved psychos. But if you can't at least be subtle about it you're going to get hunted by the cops and real heroes.

In all fairness they've improved since those early days of 6 months ago.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Re: Shadowrun, think Leverage. In the first episode, the team did not make their money from the con itself. They made it from shorting the victim of their con (who thoroughly deserved it - they stole something back and were shorting against his inflated stock price). You know a run's going down and it's easy to make back the cost of the cyberwear. Of course you don't tell the runners that...

 

[DragonLancer]

I was a player in a game of CoC where one player just couldn't understand why running at an ancient horror with a shotgun was a bad idea. She'd never heard of Lovecraft, didn't play horror games or read the stories, and the best horror movie she said she'd seen was Naked Fear. Although, to be fair, she was kind of dragged along to the game by her boyfriend.

Tell me about it. My current CoC game is a bit like that. I have four players, and they are decent guys and a girl. They know the concept of 1920's Lovecraftian Horror, they've read some of the great man's stories and they know what is expected of such a game. But yet, two of them insist every time that rather than investigate it is safer to just find out where the cultists do their rites or where the monster may be imprisoned and just burn it down or destroy it. I can see where they are coming from but the other half of the group wants to investigate first, learn what they can and make an informed decision as to what the final move is. It can make it a tough game.