Please Just Play the Adventure (One Shots)

[Reynard]

Always start in media res. Always. (For rando one shots I mean.)

 

[Yora]

When the players appear to be unaware of something that is important to playing the game, just tell them. There's really nothing to gain by witholding metagame information from then, and making them jump through hoops to realize by themselves that something is wrong.

This is very common. You see it all the time with "stranger" games. A lot of players don't "get" how to play the game from the meta side and a lot of players think an RPG is "just do dumb random stuff with an audience".

In my experience, when players do dumb random stuff, 9 times out of 10 it's because the players are being frustrated with having no idea what to do to make the story continue and helplessly try to cause some kind of response that will produce something they can meaningfully interact with.
Some people just like being dicks, but usually this happens because the players have no idea what else to do to get to the next scene.

That's pretty much what you have to do, even though it has its (well documented!) problems. I look for the in-game signs of where the path is, and if they aren't clear, I take tentative actions or ask questions—in character if possible, and out of charcter if necessary. Some players really hate having to break character, but if it's a choice between that or the game falling apart, I'll do it!

I feel that this seriously underuses the great potential that is unique to RPGs compared to other media. Yes, it works, but it leaves the aspects that make RPGs truly special unused and instead focuses on those elements that other media can do so much better.

 

[MGibster]

RPGs are a medium in which the players are given the ability to make choices about what their characters think and do, and those choices have consequences that determine the story that is playing out. Published adventures don't understand that and instead write a whole story in which all the choices have already been made for the players.

One of the difficult things about publishing an adventure is that the author is flying blind. He doesn't typically know the players, their characters, or even the GM. If I write a scenario, I typically I have the advantage of knowing the players, knowing their characters, and, unlike Charlene, not only have I been to paradise but I've also been to me. To me, there's a big difference between players not doing something the way the adventure's author expects them to do it, and not engagning with the adventure at all. And in this particular case, the players spent a lot of time trying to figure out whether they were going to engage with the adventure at all. That's not the fault of the scenario.

To consider your specific problem, did you give the players an overt incentive to help the guy, other than charity? Did he offer them a reward, or something like that? Even that isn't necessarily a motivator of course because it's a one-shot. This might be why earlier convention games were scored and run as competitions!

You mean their characters? Because the players all signed up to play through an adventure, which, to me, is motivation enough to engage.

You shouldn't expect the best from strangers. I remember my organized play days in PFS. It was always a crapshoot. That's kind of the price of admission. You will encounter playstyles that are different than your own that you will not like. Sometimes, you get a rare surprise and game with somebody who has a different style, but its a positive experience. Pick up groups, organized play, or con stuff should always be tempered with the chance of bad players both in and out of game.

That's a fair point, I ran enough Living Greyhawk games to know it's a crapshoot. For the most part, I've had positive experiences running games for strangers. Some of them have gone on to become regular players.

That said, the hook relying on the PCs helping a stranger has its pitfalls obviously. Any other context? Are they just riding through the desert for no particular reason? Typically, for this kind of thing to work the PCs are either some type of law enforcement or are actively looking for the guy.

That's another fair point. I did give one of the PCs a drawback making it so they always had to help someone who was in need. The player acknowledged his character had this flaw, but said if the group voted to abandon the rider that he'd go along with it. I could have very easily made other characters law enforcement or something else to give them a more direct motivation to help the rider.

In my experience (as both a player and a DM, and only playing with established groups of friends), the issue arises when one or more of the players try to outsmart the DM and "beat" the game. I've been guilty of it myself, particularly when I get carried with my own perceived cleverness, and I know it annoys whoever is the DM.

Yeah, that's what happened the last time I participated in a game with a lot of strangers. One of the players jumped to the conclusion that the person who hired us had actually betrayed us, and the adventure was derailed as he insisted we go to confront her. To be fair, this does happen on occasion with my regular group of players. Sometimes they make leaps of logic that makes perfect sense to them but leaves me scratching my head thinking, "Why do you think that?"

Always start in media res. Always. (For rando one shots I mean.)

That's how I start Star Wars games!

I think I'll try to run a few more games with new people and see what sticks.

 

[payn]

That's a fair point, I ran enough Living Greyhawk games to know it's a crapshoot. For the most part, I've had positive experiences running games for strangers. Some of them have gone on to become regular players.

Yeap, you gotta meet people somewhere. I have some gamers that I met 10+ years ago in PFs and love them. I also met players I knew to never get involved with. One guy sends me facebook messages every 3-6 months looking for a group. I know exactly why too.

That's another fair point. I did give one of the PCs a drawback making it so they always had to help someone who was in need. The player acknowledged his character had this flaw, but said if the group voted to abandon the rider that he'd go along with it. I could have very easily made other characters law enforcement or something else to give them a more direct motivation to help the rider.

I am curious how this scenario starts? Are the PCs strangers? Why are they riding in the desert?

 

[bloodtide]

In my experience, when players do dumb random stuff, 9 times out of 10 it's because the players are being frustrated with having no idea what to do to make the story continue and helplessly try to cause some kind of response that will produce something they can meaningfully interact with.
Some people just like being dicks, but usually this happens because the players have no idea what else to do to get to the next scene.

In my Experience, 9 times out of 10 players do dumb random stuff are just jerks. When most players get frustrated, they most often just stop playing the game.

Somehow, too many players get the wacky idea that they can do dumb random stuff in an RPG. One of the all time classics is too many players think pretending to drink in a tavern is the coolest thing to do. And they will waste hours of game time pretending to drink.

And it's always amazing that when some players are "stuck" in town because they can't figure out how to leave and they want to cause some kind of response that will produce something they can meaningfully interact with attack some farmer....but never even think to try "Hey howabout LEAVE TOWN and head over to the DARK FOREST".

 

[overgeeked]

One of the first times I ran a game the entire plot (yes, I had a plot) hinged on the players Doing the One Thing (yep, it’s coming)…and so of course they Did Not Do the One Thing. I was so pissed. I had to run the whole rest of the session on the fly. Did I mention the one thing was literally the opening two minutes of the game? They had to do the thing in the first two minutes of the game. Or the whole plot went bye-bye. They didn’t. And I had to improv the rest of the four hour session. I wanted to kill the players. But as soon as I walked away from the table after the session I realized it was my fault for prepping a plot. The players aren’t there to follow my plot. They’re there to play a game and have agency. Real, meaningful choices. Lesson learned. I’m literally never making the “I have a plot” mistake again. This applies to modules as well.

 

[MGibster]

I am curious how this scenario starts? Are the PCs strangers? Why are they riding in the desert?

The scenario starts with the PCs on the road to a well known city. They know one another, but I never establish why they're going to the city. And the reason they're in the desert is because the whole region is a desert.

 

[Panzeh]

I try to give players freedom on how they want to approach situations, but especially in a con game, i'd be really peeved if the players refused to actually, y'know, engage the scenario. I can motivate you, but if i give you a character sheet with weapon skills and you're deciding to just, well, leave the area, better not to waste time sitting down at a table.

 

[Reynard]

The scenario starts with the PCs on the road to a well known city. They know one another, but I never establish why they're going to the city. And the reason they're in the desert is because the whole region is a desert.

Showdown at Sundown for Deadlands?

 

[Dausuul]

One of the difficult things about publishing an adventure is that the author is flying blind. He doesn't typically know the players, their characters, or even the GM. If I write a scenario, I typically I have the advantage of knowing the players, knowing their characters, and, unlike Charlene, not only have I been to paradise but I've also been to me. To me, there's a big difference between players not doing something the way the adventure's author expects them to do it, and not engagning with the adventure at all. And in this particular case, the players spent a lot of time trying to figure out whether they were going to engage with the adventure at all. That's not the fault of the scenario.

If the scenario starts with them on a journey... I'd say it is partly the fault of the scenario, yes. It's perfectly reasonable for the players to assume the journey is the adventure, and engaging with the NPC is purely optional.

IMO, the way to do a one-shot is to announce at the start, "You have accepted a quest to go to X and do Y." No ambiguity, no wasted time, no misunderstanding what you're "supposed" to do.