Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="el-remmen" data-source="post: 4591600" data-attributes="member: 11">The recent spate of thread on railroading coincides with a crisis in my own DMing and campaign style that has me seriously reconsidering how I do things because it doesn't seem to be working as well anymore.I run a very  "simulationist" game - in sense that the world is a sand-box and theoretically the PCs can go anywhere and do anything - it is just that some things are more connected to their backgrounds, motivations, loyalties, origins, etc. . . and some things are just beyond their ability to deal with at a particular level (or without the other non-level dependent resources that may be required) - but regardless, if they want to do it, they can try and find a way.When constructing a campaign, I usually collect a few adventures I'd like to run, knowing that I will have to craft the "glue" of plot that brings them together from the actions of PCs and that sometimes this means just having to drop an adventure altogether because I simply won't be able to make it work, or it involves some aspect of the campaign that the players have shown no interest in.  I also create the motivations and goals for various NPCs and organizations for the PCs to interact with - either as allies or rivals, or sometimes in more complicated morally gray ways.  As readers of my story hours and people who have played in my games know, I prefer tough choices in my games.  Also in my games the PCs are only a small part of a much larger world.  That is, while they can gain fame and make world-shattering decisions, they have to earn that. There is no "player character entitlement" in my games.  Your characters are "just like anyone else" (except in ways they aren't, of course - I just mean there is no immunity to the consequences of their actions just because they are a player character - I have had a PC arrested and just rot in jail when escape on his own was impossible and the rest of the party decided not to bother trying to save him).I am fine with all that.However, this openness has led to a kind of inertia in my current game that I have been trying to overcome and feel like I am failing.  Basically, the players (both in and out of character) debate and argue about almost every single decision they have to make.  I am not talking a little disagreement. I mean like hours of gaming time full of speculation, recrimination, obstinacy and paranoia.Since every decision can potentially make a huge difference in the direction of the game or the likelihood of survival or success, every decision is examined and discussed ad nauseum - even when it doesn't need to be, or they don't have all the info they need to make an informed decision.Now, I have nothing against character conflict - in fact, in the past I have encouraged it because I think it really helps develop the characters and leads to dramatic scenes and again, the tough choices I love - in the past these conflicts may have sometimes kept things a little frayed, but they never threatened to paralyze the game itself.Anyone else ever have this problem?  There have been points where the arguing has seriously threatened my continuing fun in running the game (again, I am not against a session every once in a while that becomes one long debate about where to travel to and what to do once they get there and series of speculations about foes, etc. . . but in this case they are coming every other session or so).  I have brought it up to the players out of game and we have tried a few solutions that so far have had little effect.One of them was to take these discussion to messageboards/email between sessions whenever possible.  The problem with this was that not everyone has equal time (or desire) to access the boards between sessions and whatever was discussed ended up rehashed at the table anyway.Another solution I offered was to find out-of-character solutions to the disagreements and then find a way to make those decisions remain consistent with the characters themselves.  This would work, except that a couple of players find that this conflicts with their playstyle - they want all their decisions made from their character's POV first (which normally is my preferred way as well, but it just doesn't always work). Also, one player in particular always seems to backslide into his own obstinacy making everything into an argument and always having to have the last word (there is a lot of slippage between how much of this is the player and how much is the obnoxious character he is playing).Related to the above solution is to have their characters change in-game - by this I mean, use the excuse of traveling and fighting for their lives together to construct a camaraderie that seems absent in the adventuring group. Again, this is kind of meta, but allows for the future in-character decisions to make sense for the players.Lastly, I am going to try to take a firmer hand in guiding the direction of the campaign.  Limiting choices and using the character loyalties and duties to push them in particular directions more forcefully.  I am also going to be less "stingy" with information in hopes of their making better and quicker decisions based on it.So what do you all think?  Suggestions? Commiseration? Questions?EDIT: By the way, I am well aware, that a lot of the advice I will likely get is to make stuff happen to them and give them timelines to complete things, etc. . . I do this already.  One character has been repeatedly attacked by assassins, they've been challenged to duels, had to save the town they were staying in before everyone went insane, etc. . .  The thing is deadlines are typically tied to a particular adventure and set of events, I think it is cheesy to repeatedly use that device.</blockquote>

Verification