Some Observations from My Most Recent Game

[GrayIguana]

I’m not really looking for answers to anything. I just thought I’d share some insights from my most recent game, and hopefully some may find it entertaining.

• I'm learning that my players prefer a little railroading. I lurk on ENworld quite a bit, and I see so many threads about bad DMs railroading their PCs. So I give choices. I give opportunities to role-play and develop characters. Yet, in the middle of the last session, one of my players says, “but I don’t want to decide what to do. What does the king want us to do?”

• I may have munchkins on my hands. I believe I create fairly decent story lines. I try to put a good deal of thought into why things are happening. But sometimes, the players just want to “kill” something.

• Sometimes the encounters I am most excited about turn into near disappointments. For example, we have a fairly odd group including one half-celestial. I decided that a god has taken a bemused interest in this group. The group “happens” to run into this curious immortal while they are en route to another destination. Rather than show an interest and interact with this powerful being (and resource of information), most of the group responds with severe reverence and respect. But they go to the point of not really saying much at all. They don’t even ask any questions. While I can’t blame them for their cautious approach, I thought they’d dive into it a bit more. (After game, some players reacted that this just took them by surprise and they couldn’t think of what to do, so this god may just show up again). In fact this is really a good thing. I continue to play because of the surprises the players throw at me. Why didn't I see my players responding this way?

• My dragons need minions. My PCs treat dragons with great respect. If they are going to go up against one, they plan and prepare. In this campaign, I think they have met three dragons. I don’t think one dragon has lasted more than three rounds. Well, unless you count the rounds it took the dragon to chase one PC into an ambush. . . . The next dragon is going to have allies.

 

[Kanegrundar]

My group can be the same way. There are a couple players that have come to D&D via the Final Fantasy games, so they are used to be told what to do and where to go (in a general sense). I tend to railroad a bit simply because they aren't entirely used to being able to go their own way. I still offer choices and leave some things open ended, but there are times I just tell them (through NPC's) what they need to do.

As far as munchkins go, unless they are either cheating on their rolls or wanting to play a half-vampire fiendish minotaur with a full supply of artifact gear, I wouldn't worry about it. There are many times that my group just wants to kill something, loot it, and sell the surplus. After a long week at work (and college for a couple of them), they just don't want to think about arching storylines or epic quests. They just want to bash some pitiful goblin and take his coppers! If the game that night isn't going to fit the bill, we play either some random D&D (using the random encounter charts in the DMG coupled with Diablo 2: Diablerie and Warhammer Quest dungeons) or just play straight Warhammer Quest. It slates their appetite for mayhem, and after that we may still have time for a brief session of the campaign.

Give your dragons minions. Oh yes. There are a lot of monster books out there that offer a lot of really good "dragon corrupted" templates or other monsters that fit in great with a dragon master. Plus, don't forget about templates for the dragons themselves. I like to chuck a template on any monster that my players have got a plan of attack down pat for. I loved the way they scrambled early on in the campaign when they were hunting a goblin clan and I threw the Goblin Vampire from the WotC site at them!

Adios,
Kane

 

[Doug McCrae]

Sounds like you've got a good game there.

 

[GrayIguana]

Sounds like you've got a good game there.

Oh, I do (or at least I have some good players). I should have noted that I'm not complaining by any means.

 

[WizarDru]

You know what? Sometimes even the most hard-core roleplayers sometimes just don't want to worry about what to do next. And that's swell.

One of my players was telling his wife that he had to leave to make our game. The wife, who was wondering aloud when he would do some chores about the house, wanted to know why it was so important that he be on time.

Said player responded, "Hey, those orcs aren't gonna kill themselves."

After a long work week, sometimes you just want to break some skulls and get some lewt. And it can be Damned fun.

 

[GlassJaw]

Sounds like you've got a good game there.

I agree. I think you are just learning your group's style.

I've encountered similar things in one of the groups I'm in. A couple of the players (including myself) are really into the industry and are involved outside of the game. Some others are what I prefer to call "weekend warriors". They like to show up, roll some dice, and kill stuff. We all have fun but they just need a little more prodding to role-play some encounters. I'm not sure I'd consider them munchkins though as the game is mostly core. It's definitely a Kick in the Door style of play though.

For a group like this, a little rail-roading isn't necessarily a bad thing. Again, some players want to take the quest and find the bad guys. They don't need elaborate hooks or storylines to get them involved.

Now, all this doesn't mean you have to completely change your game to suit their style. Throw them some surprises once in a while.

 

[GlassJaw]

"Hey, those orcs aren't gonna kill themselves."

Brilliant.

After a long work week, sometimes you just want to break some skulls and get some lewt. And it can be Damned fun.

Definitely. I think it gives some of them an excuse to eat junk food too.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Said player responded, "Hey, those orcs aren't gonna kill themselves."

Crap. Now I gotta go and change my sig again....

 

[Haltherrion]

It may just be quirks of your gaming group but if it could also be that what you, the ref, feel is a game that encourages roleplaying and more nuanced response is not perceived that way by the players.

It can be hard on the ol' ego to have to take a critical look at your own style but it can be necessary. It sounds like you want more out of your games so it might be worth doing this.

Some things to check for:

• Are you consistent? If you usually give the players encounters that require hack-and-slash but sometimes give them a more interactive encounter, you can't really expect them to catch that most of the time.
• Do you make sure they feel that their non-combat actions have real, significant effect that demonstrably change the course of the campaign?
• Have previous encounters with powerful NPCs required obsequious behavior?

There are other things to look for.

There are groups that just want a simple game with simple objectives (the female half of my gaming group oddly enough but more on that below) but more often the players have consciously or unconsciously taken the measure of a campaign and a ref and are responding accordingly.

(In my own case, as I write this, I wonder if my failure to engage the female players in my campaign in the non-combat side of things has more to do with me presenting plots and information in a way they don't connect to. My approach seems to really engage the guys but the gals aren't buying into it. It may be they just want murder and mayhem but maybe I haven't found the right way to engage them.)

Hope some of this helps.

 

[Amaroq]

I'm learning that my players prefer a little railroading. I lurk on ENworld quite a bit, and I see so many threads about bad DMs railroading their PCs. So I give choices. I give opportunities to role-play and develop characters. Yet, in the middle of the last session, one of my players says, “but I don’t want to decide what to do. What does the king want us to do?”

This is definitely a per-group-of-players variable, and I've seen it run the gamut.

I DM'ed a group with little-to-no railroading, and the group really meandered: it didn't feel like they had any idea what to do without a forced hook to follow, and eventually somebody would get bored, start some trouble, and the rest of the group would react to it; a very reactive group.

The next group I DM'ed 'carrot and the stick' style. There are people trying to kill at least two of the PC's, who have some ideas why but may not know for sure; they certainly can't talk to their pursuers or sit still; there are also some 'carrots' out there in terms of things that the PC's want. This group enjoyed it greatly, and got into some great role-playing (the two 'hunted' PC's each became convinced that the pursuers of the OTHER one had it right...)

A later group I've been playing in has a DM who is a bit more 'traditional dungeon adventure' oriented, and a very high role-playing contingent. Entertainingly, this group inverts that first one: the players are happy to spend an entire evening having an intense in-character discussion; the DM gets bored, starts some trouble, and the group has to react to it. (And yes, it actually is frustrating when this happens!)

The group I'm starting up in December or January this year includes a player who would be happiest with that first 'open-ended' style, so I'm going to have to compromise between forcing the group to react and allowing them to forge their own choices in the absence of pressure.

An interesting distinction you might enjoy, in thinking about DM'ing style: there's a big difference between 'railroading' and 'carrot and the stick' - railroading is where the players can ONLY go down one path; the latter ensures that 'stagnation' is a bad thing (the stick) and gives some ideas of places to jump (carrots) but the players can jump in whichever direction they choose.