Please Just Play the Adventure (One Shots)

[aramis erak]

I've never personally had this happen at a public table I've been at as GM nor player, but I've seen it happen at other people's tables.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think we might define hook a little differently. A story hook is a premise that grabs your attention and promises something interesting. Traveling through the desert to a city for unspecified reasons isn't a hook, it's just the establishment of a scene. But what makes the scene interesting? The mysterious well dressed young man lying in the shade of a cactus not too far from the horse he's ridden to death of course. That is a hook because it piques your curiosity (What the hell is this about?), and it's going to lead to something interesting.

No, we don't have different definitions. You started play by introducing a goal -- go to the city. You may not have meant this to sound like a goal, but it is, and it's clear. You then introduced what you wanted to be your hook in a soft way. Nothing went boom. It's all just talking. And then the hook requires the party to stand watch while they sleep? This isn't advancing us towards that goal of getting to the city the GM said. We should probably ditch this clown and get on with what we're supposed to be doing. If he's important, he'll turn back up or something.

This is what your players were thinking. I shouldn't be arguing here to show you that getting to the city was the hook you actually set because that should be obvious from what happened in the game! What did the players try to do? They tried to continue on to the city. You thought that was stupid only because you knew that wasn't the goal, but whatever you actually presented gave the players that impression. Getting to the city was the hook you actually set while trying to set the one you wanted. This is a big problem for one shots, and if you're not going to recognize it, you should be prepared for more similar instances of confusion in play as to what the goal actually is.

I'm not trying to be mean, here. Tough love, a little bit, because I've done this exact same thing. More times that I want to admit. A one shot is a distillation of a game to a purer, crystalline form. This means you have to up your game on the hook and get it in and hard with no mistakes. One of the biggest mistakes in one shots is hiding the game, and that's exactly what almost happened here. So, stop arguing that what you did was fine, because it was exactly what led to your game almost imploding. This is you, not the players. Own it.

It may have been a weak hook, but it was the only hook in play. No, my big flaw is that I assumed the PCs would see the "Adventure This Way" sign and act accordingly. Which, ultimately they did after a lot of hemming and hawing. Admittedly, this was my fault as I should never assume what's obvious to me is obvious to others.

No, it wasn't the only hook, because the players were following the 'go to the city' hook.

I've seen similar bizarre behavior at con games I wasn't running. I remember one fantasy game where all of us PCs arrived in town and were going to stay in an inn. One PC, the Ranger, insisted that his character wouldn't go into town and would instead just find a place to sleep out in the woods. After we wasted about 15 minutes talking to this character, the GM finally just said something like, "Look, if you don't come into town you're going to miss the adventure."

And that GM made a similar mistake -- they started play and let it happen without setting a hook. This is one-shot 101 -- get that hook in from the start. If you need to let the PCs 'get to know each other' in some scene, make sure that scene doesn't require any decision on the part of the PCs to get to the scene where the hook sets.

 

[MGibster]

No, we don't have different definitions. You started play by introducing a goal -- go to the city. You may not have meant this to sound like a goal, but it is, and it's clear.

Sorry, I don't see going to the city as the hook. A goal isn't a hook. If you do, okay, but we're in disagreement there.

And that GM made a similar mistake -- they started play and let it happen without setting a hook. This is one-shot 101 -- get that hook in from the start. If you need to let the PCs 'get to know each other' in some scene, make sure that scene doesn't require any decision on the part of the PCs to get to the scene where the hook sets.

At some point, I do think the players bear some responsibilty for actually engaging with the adventure. The obstinate player wasting all our time insisting his character would sleep in the woods instead of going into town was the problem not the GM. Except maybe the GM could have said, "Hey, dummy, the adventure is this way."

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sorry, I don't see going to the city as the hook. A goal isn't a hook. If you do, okay, but we're in disagreement there.


At some point, I do think the players bear some responsibilty for actually engaging with the adventure. The obstinate player wasting all our time insisting his character would sleep in the woods instead of going into town was the problem not the GM. Except maybe the GM could have said, "Hey, dummy, the adventure is this way."

Right, okay. You're not listening, and aren't looking for advice on how to improve your GMing of one-shots. That's fine, you want to vent and bash those dumb players. I'll let myself out.

 

[MGibster]

Right, okay. You're not listening, and aren't looking for advice on how to improve your GMing of one-shots. That's fine, you want to vent and bash those dumb players. I'll let myself out.

You missed the part where I admitted I shoud have just come out and make it explicitly clear that this rider was the adventure.

 

[overgeeked]

Sorry, I don't see going to the city as the hook. A goal isn't a hook. If you do, okay, but we're in disagreement there.

Your players, however, did. Because that's what they were started with. You know the hook is the guy with the dead horse. The players don't. And this is a perennial problem: what's obvious to the referee is not obvious to the players. When you think it's obvious, make it about 10x more obvious, then it will be obvious to the players. As mentioned, hard starts work great when the players don't actually have a choice.

This is a problem of expectations. You set up one expectation...get to the city...then pulled the rug out from under the players...by introducing this guy with the dead horse. So the players have "get to the city" as their goal. You've put a minor obstacle between them and their goal, guy with dead horse. "Okay...uhm...here's some water, bye" is about the only response you can expect.

As said, if you wanted the guy with the dead horse to be the hook, you should have set it up with neon blinking signs and a hard start. If you have one thing the players have to do, don't give them the option to avoid it. Start with the thing that has to happen already happening. If you give them the option to avoid it you can't then blame them for avoiding it. Well, you can, but you really shouldn't.

 

[MGibster]

Your players, however, did. Because that's what they were started with. You know the hook is the guy with the dead horse.

One of my favorite places to fish for trout is the White River here in Arkansas. The water is so clear, that when you're reeling in your lure you often see the trout trailing after it and sometimes even taking a bite. I don't even really care if I catch any fish because I'm just having a good time on the water. We're not talking about a situation where the players ignored or didn't notice the hook, in fact, just like those trout, I could see them swimming after it. They stopped, examined the scene, asked me questions, spoke with the rider, and came to the conclusion that he was running from something. What they did, was come within a hair's breadth of walking away from the adventure.

This is a problem of expectations. You set up one expectation...get to the city...then pulled the rug out from under the players...by introducing this guy with the dead horse. So the players have "get to the city" as their goal. You've put a minor obstacle between them and their goal, guy with dead horse. "Okay...uhm...here's some water, bye" is about the only response you can expect.

And that's fair. If I were to do it again, I'd set it up so they were looking for this rider specifically in order to save him. I don't think it was unreasonable for me to expect the players to actually engage in the adventure. But I realize that's on me.

 

[MGibster]

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.

I might have a rosier view of humanity. While some people are just being jerks, I'm not sure that's what motivates random stuff 9 out of 10 times. In a lot of cases, I think the player might just be bored or otherwise disengaged from the game and are trying to make something happen. I had to have a come to Jesus speech with a player about this a few years back. He'd have his character do these things that he thought was fun but just baffled the rest of us. His character would stir up trouble in ways that just wasn't entertaining for the rest of us.

 

[overgeeked]

What they did, was come within a hair's breadth of walking away from the adventure.

Because they didn't know that was "the adventure." That's the point.

I don't think it was unreasonable for me to expect the players to actually engage in the adventure.

It's not unreasonable to expect that the players will engage with the adventure.

It's unreasonable to expect they will know what the adventure is supposed to be.

It's a problem of you being too close and having too much information. You know "this" is the adventure. The players don't. To you it's glaringly obvious because you've read it a dozen times or planned it and run it in your head a dozen times. Not so with the players. They're coming at it fresh. "The adventure" could literally be anything. Hence the bit about expectations. If you point one way but want them to go another, you shouldn't be upset when they try to keep going the way you first pointed.

If you give them a choice, they might choose "wrong"...so don't give them a choice if they don't actually have one. If they have to turn left, don't give them the option to turn right.

 

[delericho]

Yeah, I've had some problems like this. There was the guy who wouldn't accept any quest without reward... and then spent an age arguing over whatever reward was offered. There was the guy who refused to bite on any adventure hooks, and then complained that it was the GM's job to entice him. And I'm sure I've had cases very similar to the OP's description.

Eventually, I got to the point where I simply told players up-front that they had to create characters who were going on an adventure - they could come up with any justification they wanted for their characters doing so, but it was their responsibility to do so. (I also told them that they had to create characters who would adventure together, after one too many parties that just never gelled. But that's another rant...)

The other policy I adopted was to make no apologies about railroading characters into the adventure (for one-shots) or the first adventure (for campaigns). Often, that's really explicit ("Your mission is to...."). Or just start in media res, or whatever.

(I do take the view that once the PCs are in that first adventure it's up to them how they proceed. So I wouldn't have a problem with the PCs acting as in @niklinna's post - I would have to structure that adventure differently.)