aramis erak
Legend
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.
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.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, it wasn't the only hook, because the players were following the 'go to the city' hook.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.
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.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."
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.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.
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."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.
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.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."
You missed the part where I admitted I shoud have just come out and make it explicitly clear that this rider was the adventure.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.
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.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.
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.Your players, however, did. Because that's what they were started with. You know the hook is the guy with the dead horse.
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.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.
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.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.
Because they didn't know that was "the adventure." That's the point.What they did, was come within a hair's breadth of walking away from the adventure.
It's not unreasonable to expect that the players will engage with the adventure.I don't think it was unreasonable for me to expect the players to actually engage in the adventure.