Yeah, that's my feeling. Now there are rules for playing a Merchants game in eg the D&D Gazetteers The Minrothad Guilds and Republic of Darokin , but basically I think certain activities don't work that well in a D&D game. The players need to be willing to play adventurers. Maybe adventurers who do other things too, but still adventurers.
Station Squatting (Player Railroading)
- Thread starter Alikar
- Start date
Yeah, that's my feeling. Now there are rules for playing a Merchants game in eg the D&D Gazetteers The Minrothad Guilds and Republic of Darokin , but basically I think certain activities don't work that well in a D&D game. The players need to be willing to play adventurers. Maybe adventurers who do other things too, but still adventurers.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
I think a basic issue with a lot of these player conflicts in RPGs is that people take drastic measures to avoid reminding themselves that they are playing a game. Instead of stepping out and saying "Wait a minute. I wanted to run an action-adventure focused game." and then working out how to move on a DM sinks the PCs' barge. Instead of saying "I'd like to focus on trading" a player ignores their DM's prepared material and keeps trying to trade even as fresh new violence pops up everywhere they go. Issues don't get resolved. Instead, you're left with people using their assigned in-game influence to shape the game in a manner conducive to their agendas when if they actually spoke they might be able to come up with a valid compromise or determine that their tastes differ too much to play together.
It's not 'work', but it is a lot of effort. I probably shouldn't have called it 'work' - it seems I got jumped on for that. One thing I don't like is to have my effort go to waste. Sure, half the fun is the improv when my players throw a curve ball, but I certainly wouldn't feel appreciated if they constantly ignored my efforts, even when I tried to involve their interests in my efforts - if they declined to smuggle information via pastry for example. Thankfully that's not been the case with my group.
I guess the point to take away from this is to make sure everyone involved agrees ahead of time on the core assumptions of the campaign they're going to play, be it 'sandbox' or 'dungeon crawl' or something else.
Agreed. And, if desires change over time, the DM and players should talk about it, rather than get frustrated with each other and act without discussion.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I generally find that player's only statio squat when they either
1. Are passive aggressively rebelling against the existing storyline, or
2. Are in a sandbox campaign and don't know what else to do.
Both are usually the DM's fault. Once station squatting starts, the best thing to do is try to incorporate the station into the adventure. Players develop quick emotional attachments, and its not worth fighting with them about it.
1. Are passive aggressively rebelling against the existing storyline, or
2. Are in a sandbox campaign and don't know what else to do.
Both are usually the DM's fault. Once station squatting starts, the best thing to do is try to incorporate the station into the adventure. Players develop quick emotional attachments, and its not worth fighting with them about it.
I wonder if a lot of this "station squatting" happens because there's a player need or impulse that is not being met by the game.
Looking at the stories, one common theme that emerges is that players seem to be trying to build something. A bakery, a barge, a trading company. A lot of times, D&D games can concentrate solely on destruction. Go here, kill the bad guys, move on.
Maybe the players feel the need to make something. To create, not just destroy. I remember in 2nd Ed, one anticipated level was the level where you could build a keep (9th?), and got servants and guards, etc. Maybe that's a mechanic or impulse that is overlooked in later editions, but is still important to players.
Perhaps if you gave the players a few more opportunities to scratch that creation urge, they'd be more willing to follow the obvious adventure path.
Looking at the stories, one common theme that emerges is that players seem to be trying to build something. A bakery, a barge, a trading company. A lot of times, D&D games can concentrate solely on destruction. Go here, kill the bad guys, move on.
Maybe the players feel the need to make something. To create, not just destroy. I remember in 2nd Ed, one anticipated level was the level where you could build a keep (9th?), and got servants and guards, etc. Maybe that's a mechanic or impulse that is overlooked in later editions, but is still important to players.
Perhaps if you gave the players a few more opportunities to scratch that creation urge, they'd be more willing to follow the obvious adventure path.
A little of it is fine in that the players are just having fun exploring the world and seeing the implications of what you have established. Also, it adds some color.
Now, if they avoid doing what you agreed the game was about beforehand (like S'mon's Caverns of Thracia example) then there's a problem. Or if the characters are just loafing around and not adventuring.
So figure out whatever it is that they have grown to cherish (their barge, their shop, some local peasant or other) and set it on fire. Then have the villain responsible for these repehensible deeds take refuge in the dungeon.
Now, if they avoid doing what you agreed the game was about beforehand (like S'mon's Caverns of Thracia example) then there's a problem. Or if the characters are just loafing around and not adventuring.
So figure out whatever it is that they have grown to cherish (their barge, their shop, some local peasant or other) and set it on fire. Then have the villain responsible for these repehensible deeds take refuge in the dungeon.
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
FWIW, I didn't see any agreement in S'mon's example. I saw S'mon saying that he wanted X and the players saying that they wanted Y. It is, I think, what attorneys refer to as failing to have a meeting of the minds (and as I understand it, no formal agreement can be said to exist without such a thing). Also, IANAL
FWIW, I didn't see any agreement in S'mon's example. I saw S'mon saying that he wanted X and the players saying that they wanted Y. It is, I think, what attorneys refer to as failing to have a meeting of the minds (and as I understand it, no formal agreement can be said to exist without such a thing). Also, IANAL
The actual situation was more complicated than my precis, and as usual it was partly my fault for eg not setting better guidelines on PC creation. Basically we had a situation where only 1 PC had a clear motivation to explore the Caverns and the other players decided that they didn't want to help her. Which was reasonable in-character because she was a priest of Thanatos, but meant no adventure. The lesson there was that every PC needs their own motivation to do the adventure.
