Players that just don't *get* the genre

[Tuft]

I just had an hour-long conversation about this just the other day about a long-term Ravenloft game I have been running.

Ravenloft is supposed to be a game of gothic horror. Emphasis on the horror part. In order for this to work, the characters must actually experience emotions like fear, horror, revulsion and the like. One of my players keeps running her character as trope The Jaded Professional, a la the original Van Helsing in Dracula. Nothing fazes her character, and when one character is utterly unconcerned, the other players/characters tend to relax, and then NO ONE is fazed and things run much like a normal DND game. This totally destroys the mood I am trying to create and turns my "horror" game into little more than monster bashing.

I have been struggling with this a lot lately and I'm not sure how to get things back on track.

It's my experience that horror scenarios usually end up just another kind of monster to bash.

In order to feel fear and uncertainty, something you care about and have an emotional investment in must be threatened. For example, if you have long-standing PC:s or NPC:s with a lot of in-game history and lots of player involvement, people may be afraid of losing those. (However, in this case too-much threat can trigger extremely careful and non-heroic play - you know, prodding every square of the map with every tool at disposal...)

If the players lose their PC:s easily and regain newly rolled-up characters just as quickly, and NPCs are even sketchier, there is little emotional investment, and even less reason to feel fear or even apprehension.

For example, my DM recently ran a two-session horror scenario in his regular campaign, where various person were trapped in a court house and punished horribly by a vengeful spirit. It was first when my character in the second session got emotionally involved with one of the NPCs and decided to save her "come hell and high water" that things started to get scary and interesting.

 

[Kzach]

Good communication from GM to players about the genre expectations.

AND

Good understanding by the GM of what his players enjoy.

So when the entire group sits down together and discusses what they like and dislike in a game and then agree to play in a style that everyone can enjoy and then one player ignores all of that and tries to kill other PC's whilst they're asleep and steal their stuff... this is the GM's fault?

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.

Hmm, that was extremely informative. Groups I put together rarely get past the Storming stage. I'm happy enough to take my share of the blame as the 'Supervisor', but I've also had management experience and gotten commendations from my bosses and praise from my employees (some of whom I'm still friends with) so it can't all be me.

I think I might take this to the next group I put together as a reminder to myself. Although, I'm now curious as to what would happen if I gave everyone a copy of it...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Traveller, a "scientific investigations" game where the characters were investigating various scientific mysteries and dealing with unusual medical situations. Players rolled up scientists, doctors, one ex-Scout survey expert... and a Marine Commando with a gauss rifle.

Honestly, I don't see much of a problem with the Commando per se- many classic (and not so classic) Sci-fi films centered on the Prof. Ovacephalos types had their share of Sergeant Saul Slab characters as well.

The questions- in both the fiction and the RPG campaign- are whether there is enough action & danger for the martial character to shine in the more traditional hero role OR does the character have hidden depths that let him do a bit more than shoot, stab, punch, pilot or command?

As long as the answer to one of those questions is "Yes," there is no problem. If it is "No"- as I suspect it was- then there is a serious disconnect. Hell, the campaign and the player may be a poor fit.

 

[Bluenose]

Honestly, I don't see much of a problem with the Commando per se- many classic (and not so classic) Sci-fi films centered on the Prof. Ovacephalos types had their share of Sergeant Saul Slab characters as well.

The questions- in both the fiction and the RPG campaign- are whether there is enough action & danger for the martial character to shine in the more traditional hero role OR does the character have hidden depths that let him do a bit more than shoot, stab, punch, pilot or command?

As long as the answer to one of those questions is "Yes," there is no problem. If it is "No"- as I suspect it was- then there is a serious disconnect. Hell, the campaign and the player may be a poor fit.

His idea was that they'd need a security officer to handle the dangerous situations. Part of the problem was the way skills get generated randomly in Traveller. If he'd picked up some technical ones (electronics, sensors, mechanic) or something like Recon then there'd have been useful things he could do ieven when there wasn't much combat. Unfortunately he didn't have anything like that. It meant adding bits to missions where his character would shine, but it also meant that most of the time he didn't really have much to contribute. Which given that the player likes to be a pro-active participant in the games I've played with him, meant he was getting frustrated about it. We ended up making him another character, another ex-Scout, with some pretty decent technical skills and some combat potential as well.

 

[Tuft]

As I see it, there are several types of player recruitment. For example:

A) You have a specific campaign idea and access to a larger pool of potential players. You pitch the idea to everyone in the pool, and select among those interested.

B) You have an existing group of friends, and you want to play a game with that predefined selection of players.

C) You have some kind of public drop-in, where whoever shows up gets to play.

Etc.


Players you get through method A is probably be much more motivated to follow a specific theme or more narrow genre.

When you recruit with methods B and C, you will probably have a much more kitchen-sink approach to your campaign, simply because the players' interests will vary so much more, as well as their disinterests and dislikes. Remember, some of these maybe show up because not doing so will make them feel left out. To draw them in and get them to enjoy the game to the fullest,Instead of just being dutiful, you will have to cater to their interests.

Even with A you will probably feel Moltke's "No plan survives contact with the enemy"... ahem, "players". A players drawn from the pool might have feigned interest just to play, or less maliciously, the situation may simply change. "I agreed to play a knight, but when there are three other knights in the campaign, it's not so fun anymore, so I want something different..."

 

[DragonLancer]

But AIR that is exactly what the good guys do in most CoC stories where they survive! The Call of Cthulu and The Dunwich Horror both feature this.

Yes, they do, but that doesn't make for an interesting scenario. For a one off scenario I would say fine though it may make it short. But I'm running a campaign and just going in with the gasoline and a match, all guns blazing isn't going to help them when clues are destroyed. Theres a way to play these games and really CoC is about the investigation, and without that the game just doesn't work.

 

[Kerranin]

I would say this accounts for 90% of the players I encounter. Not only that, but none of them seem to get that it's a team game that they're playing with other people. I honestly believe it's a symptom of video-gaming and a lack of social skills.

Video games don't generally have consequences for stupid actions and promote and reward inherently selfish behaviour. Video games tend to focus on one character rather than a team and even team games tend to put one character (the player's) as being of primary importance. And in almost all video games, you kill it and you loot it.

Then there's the fundamental selfishness that has them work only for their own character's benefit or amusement and often against other people in the party. These people don't seem to be able to see other people at the table as people. They seem not to comprehend that pissing off people's characters at the table tends to piss off the person playing it.

I'd blame this on the younger generation but the fact is that I tend to put together a new group every few months and experience the same sorts of behaviours from people over and over and over again. Just once I'd like to put together a random group of people who sit down at the table and act like rational, intelligent and socially adept adults. Is that too much to ask?

I agree with your underlying meaning here, but I'd point out that I played in a reasonably successful WoW guild, and of course the reason we were successful is that we worked together for the good of everyone.

Having said that, we often had people apply to join who just clearly didn't get that guilds members have to work together for the common good.

 

[Rel]

So when the entire group sits down together and discusses what they like and dislike in a game and then agree to play in a style that everyone can enjoy and then one player ignores all of that and tries to kill other PC's whilst they're asleep and steal their stuff... this is the GM's fault?

Of course not. That just means that that player is a dick. And one should avoid gaming with dicks.

 

[Bullgrit]

And one should avoid gaming with dicks.

I usually leave mine at home when I go out to a game. It tends to get in the way, knocking over soda cans, scattering the dice, etc.

Bullgrit

 

[Ulrick]

Once I played in a Post-Apocalyptic GURPs session, where everything surrounding the city the characters lived in suddenly became a burning wasteland. Communications went down. Things started falling apart, food was running out, etc. Our group's mission was to travel to a nearby town just to see if anybody else survived the apocalypse. This was the first session.

We created characters. I figured the group needed military-type character proficient with weapons. The other players said that the group also needed somebody with charisma and leadership skills, but their characters lacked such skills. So I created a soldier who had been enrolled in the Army's ROTC program before the apocalypse hit.

I also discovered that GURPS character generation takes a long time and is fairly immersive. So when I was almost done I finally asked the other players what kind of characters they were running: a pixie, a talking dog, and a wookie/sasquatch type thing.

And then they all starting bragging how cool their characters were. I suddenly remembered I had pressing engagements elsewhere...