Role playing to the detriment of the game

[Mallus]

#1. Relevant hooks. As the DM, imo (and I am always the DM/GM), it is your responsibility to sit down with the players and find out their characters' backgrounds and motivations.

This is always good advice. Unfortunately, it doesn't guarantee that the DM will correctly work out how those motivations he's discussed relate to the adventure at hand. He could be wrong.

The great thing about making the player primarily responsible for providing their character's motivations is that they can't be wrong about them. For that reason alone I find it to be the most practical approach.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Note that so could the player, and that that no solution from the player was forthcoming.

As a player, I would feel like I'm overstepping my bounds if I tell the DM what his NPC's or what his world is. I tell the DM who my character is. It's in his hands to get that character where he needs them.

If I say "My character is too poor to get a plane ticket across a continent," I wouldn't expect that to be a barrier to entry. I would expect the DM to gloss it over with some justification.

But there does come a point where the DM simply doesn't have to time to keep brainstorming up reasons for a single player to participate in the the game

I'd argue that this job for a DM is more important than almost any other job, so if he doesn't have time, he better make time. If you can't properly motivate a character, and if you can't make the adventure a narrative convenience, you aren't doing your job as the facilitator of the game.

That's not to say that there aren't disruptive players out there, but that is to say that the DM has a lot of control in how disruptive these things can become. Putting a cap on it and getting on with the fun part should be pretty easy.

I disagree more-or-less completely. You're playing adventurers, go adventure. Why shouldn't the players meet the DM at least half way?

If your adventure can't come get them, why would they want to do it?

"Adventurer" isn't everything everyone plays, even in D&D, let alone in the broader scope of RPGs. Even within the scope of "adventurer," there are different motives, different styles. Some will quest for glory, some for gold, some for justice, some out of necessity. Harry Potter just wanted to escape his awful home life, he never wanted to be the Chosen One. Bilbo Baggins was cajoled and taunted to go on his little quest. Conan saught conquest. Samwise was just following a friend.

The D&D-style "career adventurer," or the D&D-style "fantasy mercenary," are valid archetypes, but they shouldn't be the only valid archetypes, even in D&D. If I give a group of paladins and clerics a quest whose only reward is a fat sack of cash, I shouldn't really expect them to take it. If I give a group of thieves and warlocks a quest whose reward is saving some servant-girl, I shouldn't really expect them to take it. That's why multiple quests, many paths, and no bottlenecks, can be so important.

Why should the DM have to? It's not only his job.

It pretty much is: get PC's into adventures. If you can't do that, and if you can't extend a little bit of effort to do that, you're not doing your job that well.

This I agree with more-or-less completely. No, make that completely.

That idea -- "Tell me why your PC is in the dungeon" -- gives the DM a lot more work than preparing hooks, though. Because if your party of five characters has five different reasons for being in the dungeon, they all have to be plausible. One person wants a sack of gold, so that's in. One person wants ancient tomes of knowledge, so that's in. One person wants to save the princess, so that's in. One person wants to discover more about their family's old properties, so that's in. One person wants to unleash the forgotten evil that lies at the core, so that's in. It mandates what you can have in your dungeon.

I, personally, like playing that way, but I'm a huge fan of improvising. Most DMs have a dungeon that already has monsters and treasure. What these DMs need to do is figure out a reason for the characters to visit it. If your reason doesn't work, try a different one.

 

[Obryn]

Role Playing is a collabrative game.

My thoughts exactly.

I only game a few hours a week, with a casual group, and don't have unlimited time. I don't expect players to meet me halfway, exactly, but I do expect them to make characters who (1) have some motivation to go on adventures, and (2) can at least play nicely with others in the abstract.

-O

 

[doppelganger]

I
As part of that cooperation, I think its the GM's responsibility to not expect a PC to essentially metagame, just to make things easier on the GM. I don't think we have all of the information we need about the OP to decide if this is the case or not, so I'm by no means making a judgement about the specific instances in the OP.

<stuff snipped>

Our group made a plan to climb down the cliff to an entrance we had discovered, however, we had no way of securing our ship, so I decided that my character would stay and gaurd it.

After an hour of realtime with nothing to do, and the rest of the group engaged in exploring a dark jedi tomb, I tried to get the GM to help me with a reason to leave off from guarding the spacecraft. I asked him if I sensed any trouble through the force, or if I sensed that the rest of the group was in trouble (along with a few other suggestions). The GM's response was to smirk and say no, nothing is making you feel that anything is wrong.

After two hours of realtime, with the rest of the group slowly being picked off one-by-one by the spirit of a dark jedi, I again tried to get the GM to help with a reason for my character to leave the spacecraft. Again a smirk and nothing else.

After three hours of realtime, I was just about completely fed up when the spirit somehow came out of the tomb (after killing the rest of the group), came after my character, dominated him mentally (with no save), and killed him (without rolling, no defence allowed).

Now, my initial decision to guard the spacecraft wasn't the best one I've ever made. But, players make decisions that throw off a game or encounter all of the time. It is the GM's responsibility to keep things on track, and yes, to keep the players involved. In this situation, after the intitial bad decision, I had absolutely no choice other than to metagame in order to participate. Metagaming is something I'm not willing to do. It's called a Role Playing Game for a reason.

I am confused by this story and your statements. You claim metagaming is so horrible that you will not do it, but you expect the DM to wave his hands and get you back into the game after you make a bad decision. It seems like you are complaining about not being able to have your cake and eat it too. What am I not getting here?

 

[Mallus]

As a player, I would feel like I'm overstepping my bounds if I tell the DM what his NPC's or what his world is.

OK. I see where you're coming from now. While I expect players to provide their own motivations, I'm fine with them asserting narrative control, or at the very least suggesting how I should narrate the event.

If I say "My character is too poor to get a plane ticket across a continent," I wouldn't expect that to be a barrier to entry. I would expect the DM to gloss it over with some justification.

Me too. I got the impression that the player in question here was unhappy with that. Hence the 'looked annoyed' part of the original post.

I'd argue that this job for a DM is more important than almost any other job, so if he doesn't have time, he better make time.

KM, I'm all for the DM being aware of the characters in his game, tailoring the 'story' to them, and ensuring it's 'their story'. But I'm not going to play 'guess what motivates Trogdor'. If I player can't meet me half way on their motivations for playing in my campaign, they can leave.

Putting a cap on it and getting on with the fun part should be pretty easy.

Gamers, I have noticed, can be difficult. Observe that some of them spend time finding reasons for their characters to not adventure...

Some will quest for glory, some for gold, some for justice, some out of necessity. Harry Potter just wanted to escape his awful home life, he never wanted to be the Chosen One. Bilbo Baggins was cajoled and taunted to go on his little quest. Conan saught conquest. Samwise was just following a friend.

Sure. This is why I prefer to leave motivation up to the player. I'll try to design scenarios with several entry points, then the players decide how they'll enter.

It pretty much is: get PC's into adventures. If you can't do that, and if you can't extend a little bit of effort to do that, you're not doing your job that well.

This is true for players as well.

It mandates what you can have in your dungeon.

Pssst... I don't use dungeons.

I, personally, like playing that way, but I'm a huge fan of improvising.

Me too. It's why I don't use dungeons.

 

[Set]

If I say "My character is too poor to get a plane ticket across a continent," I wouldn't expect that to be a barrier to entry. I would expect the DM to gloss it over with some justification.

I would only expect the DM to run my character for me if I had to run out to the store or something.

Otherwise I'd end that sentence with, 'so I take a bus and / or hitchhike, and arrive up the winding lane on foot, bone-tired and with my worldly possessions in a backpack. If anyone asks, I lie about it and say my parents dropped me off up the road, because I don't want to admit that I'm poor.'

That's playing a role. Not, 'I sit at home and do nothing.'

I don't want to have a story dictated me to me, and if I did, I'd be reading a novel or watching the television, not joining a *role-playing game.* I want to be *part of it.*

Sitting around and not participating isn't role-playing. It's the opposite.

 

[Mallus]

Sitting around and not participating isn't role-playing. It's the opposite.

Well said!

 

[Fenes]

It's a two-way street. I would say (and did so, to players) that the more difficult their characters are to be motivated, the more active I expected the players and characters to be in game and in starting their own plotsand adventures.

If the players don't want to be active, don't want to look for adventures, then I expect them to play characters that don't have to be dragged into an adventure kicking and screaming.

 

[GlaziusF]

Why shouldn't the players meet the DM at least half way?

Because the DM can change the world.

The players can change their characters, and some allies, if they're lucky.

It therefore falls to the DM to help players a) solve their problems b) resolve interparty conflict, and c) recognize when players aren't making a good-faith effort to do a) and b) and call them on it.

 

[Ravilah]

You know, this thread is remarkably similar to a debate we have in educational circles all the time. "If a student is not learning, is it the student's fault for not being motivated, or is it the teacher's fault for not motivating the child." As a teacher and a DM, I do have my personal biases.

But in the end, this is really a question of personal character, not DM or PC responsibility. As in all things in life, if we come together with the intention of serving and supporting each other, things will go well. It doesn't matter if the DM's plans are laid to waste, or if a PCs personal zeitgeist is infringed upon--if we're coming to the table focused on the needs and enjoyments of our friends.

Selfishness ruins any social event.