Roleplaying overated?

[MutantHamster]

I had to discontinue a campaign as I was getting complaint form a player who thought he was being led along in some big story, I told him I had to agree.

I have 2 non munchkin players in my game who are very good roleplayers, unfortunately I think one of them may be too good.
The paladin in my party has no heed for my DMing. The characters arrived in town and the first thing he did was go to a womens house for a quest (where the ranger died), Then he used his reward money to revive the ranger, get healed, then gave the money back. Now hes off looking for the man who sold her the monster, instead going back to the adventure guild that hired her, or looking for more information. He passed by a cleric who asked him to help with something else but he turned him down because hes so involved in working on a quest that he doesnt have enough information to solve, and is too weak to do.

I decided to cancel the campaign instead of hurt his feelings since he is a friend.

But now im kindof tired of DMing, all my friends always wanna be players and I never get to be one. So if theres anyone out there who needs a player, please let me know

 

[kengar]

It sounds to me less than a roleplaying issue and more like a player who needs to be reminded that a D&D campaign is not usually 100% "wide-open."

The DM has to provide some direction in order to keep things moving in the direction he has things prepared. If players continuously go off into left field, no one has fun. D&D is supposed to be heroic fantasy, not directionless.

Explain to players like this that they need to understand that this quest, while noble, is not what the current adventure is about. It's always nice when these things get handled "in game" and "in character," but it's better to nip it in the bud than have everyone frustrated.

If you need a break, take a break. Just tell your group you need a chance to take of the DM hat for a while. If no one wants to run the game in your place, then tell them that means no gaming.

 

[Arravis]

I only mean this in the best way...
Can you rephrase what happened? I'm unable to make much out of what you posted. I don't see how Role-Playing is the problem. Perhaps it's just me.

 

[Wolfspider]

Wow. I would kill for players who actually tried to be proactive instead of reactive.

Instead of dumping the campaign, you should modify his quest so that it actually is doable for a character his level.

 

[Uller]

First and for most, if you are tired of DMing or tired of your group, stop. Take a break. You'll come back to it when your feeling more inspired and you'll be a better DM for it. If no one else in your group wants to run a game, suggest another activity for a while (rent some movies, play poker, have a BBQ, go see a movie, play some board games, play some pool at the local pool hall, take up another hobbie, play street hockey or pick up softball, etc, etc).

Second...I agree that your players need to keep in mind their "out-of-game" knowledge that this is a game, centered on the PARTY and it is more interesting and fun if they find ways to follow your prepared adventures. However...

_DM's_ need to realize that this is not _their_ story alone. In fact, it is not really a story at all. As E. Gary Gygax pointed out in an interview and on a recent thread...this is game...the story is what you tell after the game is over.

It is folly to have some big story, plot, series of events, etc. worked out in advance and expect the PCs to follow it as you planned. Sure...for any given session, you should be able to plan pretty well what is going to happen and the players should try to stick to that as much as possible. But the players should be presented with viable options and should be free to follow the path they choose. And not all choices should necessarily lead to the same conclusion.

If, for instance, you're PCs are exploring the hideout of some goblin raiders and discover a clue that leads to a slave trader who is buying slaves from the goblins and they decide to follow the slave trader rather than persuing the goblins back to their lair, let them. Shift some of the villian NPCs from the goblin plot line you had planned over to the new slave trader plot line that the PCs have chosen to persue. That way, the players have a real sense that they are in control. Don't give hooks to plot paths that you are not interested in flushing out.

 

[Mahiro Satsu]

I DM for one metagaming power-gaming stratagist freak-a-holic who never is satisfied with the campaign or me as DM. The rest are muchkins who show up inconsistantly at best. And yet when i ask him to help with some simple tasks to get the campaign up to the level we would like to operate at, he's like "what help you call people?"

I would kill for a fairly consistant and engaging group.

 

[ATO_DM]

When a player takes the initiative, and attempts acts or quests which aren't along the lines of your planned story you should commend them. After all, it is the story of the characters' lives. If you REALLY want them to follow certain courses of action you need to be resourceful enough to adapt to the players acts, and slowly weave them back to your planned course. If the Paladin has elected to this quest and not help the cleric he met, have in-game reprocussions. Such as, the cleric rembering the Paladin's lack of empathy, or have whatever the cleric wanted fixed become a problem, which isn't resolved and continues to trouble the game world. You shouldn't just end the campaign.

 

[Uller]

When a player takes the initiative, and attempts acts or quests which aren't along the lines of your planned story you should commend them. After all, it is the story of the characters' lives. If you REALLY want them to follow certain courses of action you need to be resourceful enough to adapt to the players acts, and slowly weave them back to your planned course. If the Paladin has elected to this quest and not help the cleric he met, have in-game reprocussions. Such as, the cleric rembering the Paladin's lack of empathy, or have whatever the cleric wanted fixed become a problem, which isn't resolved and continues to trouble the game world. You shouldn't just end the campaign.

Yeah. If you have players whose character have a motivation beyond "kill stuff, get treasure, level up", then use that to give them a motivation to follow your planned adventure. If they resist that, then obviously the _players_ are not interested in that adventure.

 

[Tewligan]

Actually, I think I would enjoy DMing that game. My prefered style is to know the "big picture" of the area the characters are in, and then frantically scramble one step ahead of the players as they roam wherever their whims take them, preparing adventures and notes based on what they're doing/planning on doing. I picked this style up from my current DM - apparently, it's not that common, because the last group I DM'ed for seemed a little confused for the first couple of sessions until they realized that none of my hooks were either mandatory or something that was going to be spoon-fed to them. Once they took the initiative, we had a delightful time. I plan to stick with that style if I ever have enough free time to start DMing again - players enjoy the freedom, and I enjoy seeing what they'll force me to develop for the next session.

 

[Uller]

My DMing style is kinda similar. Except I don't have a lot of time to prepare stuff that will never get used so I try to insist that the party let me know what they are going to do at the end of a session so I can go off and prepare it. I provide several hooks to the players and let them take one (or more) and run with it. As they go along, I provide more hooks, remove some that are no longer valid and once they finish up that adventure, I ask them what they are going to do next and provide them with 4 or 5 alternatives (and I ask them for ideas beyond those). Once they decide what to do, I flesh that out and we do it all over again...