This is an RPG, not a "to do" list.

[Doug McCrae]

But here’s a hint, if you don’t want to rescue the princess, don’t. I’ll either come-up with another job for your group, or you can take the initiative and think of something yourself.

I, the player, want to rescue the princess because it's what the GM has prepped. Generally speaking, I think prepared material is of better quality than unprepared (otherwise, why prepare at all?) and I want to experience higher quality material - better names, more interesting ideas, fewer cliches, etc.

Last session in my D&D game I improv-ed some stuff with ogres and it was poorer than my usual. I named their tribe the 'Skullcrushers' which is really dull, and was struggling to come up with the chief's name. My list of prepped names didn't have anything appropriate for ogres on it, it was mostly medieval English or general fantasy. I also had Gary Gygax's Extraordinary Book of Names with me but finding it and looking up the right section would've taken too long imo. The names need to be on a piece of paper right in front of me, otherwise it's too slow for my taste.

 

[S'mon]

I, the player, want to rescue the princess because it's what the GM has prepped. Generally speaking, I think prepared material is of better quality than unprepared (otherwise, why prepare at all?) and I want to experience higher quality material - better names, more interesting ideas, fewer cliches, etc.

I think it depends on the GM. Generally I think I GM best riffing off an existing kernel, supported by play aids like random tables, rather than when GMing a fully detailed pre-written adventure. Eg I wouldn't have any trouble improvising an ogre chief's name, nor would I worry that my ogre tribe had a cliched name - they're ogres, of course they're going to use cliches. I tend to find that cliche works very well in RPGs anyway; one of the differences between RPGs and works of fiction.

 

[green slime]

Right Doug.

But it is also possible to tell the DM before the session about things you would like your character to do, or be involved in.


I get kind of bored with players that just turn up, and expect a great adventure plot to fall on top of them, and be spoon-fed everything, every step of the way. And let's face it, the amount of effort required to turn up and play, is far less than that required to run a good game.

It is possible to create more open-ended threads, in the overarching background plot and see which direction the players head for, i.e. what interests the players. Far too often, many players expect the motivation to come from the DM, rather their own characters, and then complain about feeling railroaded... "We have to get this, do that, and then..."

In my latest campaign, I interviewed the players about what kind of characters (archetypes and motivations) they would like to play, then created the characters for the players (the players got to choose from a slection of 4 characters) That is, each player had a selection of 4 different unique characters from which to choose. Each character had very different goals associated with them (for example one had captain a ship, command a fleet, free his native isles from the empire, defeat the imperial navy in a battle, another had convert as many as possible to his faith, defeat a demon, expose heretics, etc). Achieving a personal goal provides a certain amount of XP.

With the creation of the characters, there are also conflicting goals between the various characters, and it was obvious that some goals could only be achieved by co-operating with other players, whereas others were in direct conflict with other players. Every character is member of some faction, either overtly or covertly. So a healthy dose of paranoia was added with lots of different factions, agendas and power groups, and suddenly the game became far more interesting, as players sought to ally themselves with other players and NPCs, gain influence, without revealing their own private agendas.

I have found this game to be more interesting (but I have known the players for many years), as they drive many of the events happening, with the NPcs just trying to keep up. I have added in a newsletter which describes the happenings going on in the wider world as well, providing more paranoia and metaplots/plots should they wish to persue further information.

 

[DumbPaladin]

I have to give you credit for admitting that you were this problem, once.

I also don't think you should jaded, just observant and frustrated.

 

[Water Bob]

I’m not trying to sound jaded. I’m just trying to tell people that maybe a more PC centric approach to playing their PC might be a better mindset than a “what’s the next plot point I need to hit?”

Your point is laudable. I guess I'm the contrarian here, but I think you're going about it all wrong.

One of the hardest jobs a GM has is his effort to motivate players. The GM is akin to a film director, and he's charged with finding ways to get his actors to perform the way he needs them to.

In my current campaign, I created a sandbox for my players to explore. And, I created this elaborate background for the PC's describing their culture, the local history, and their family legacy. Man, it was so "cool". I thought to myself, "They're going to be begging me for the next part of this."

I decided to send out the "history" in parts in e-mails to the players in between games. I thought: What better way to do this? Each player will come to the game knowing what his player knows, and we won't take game time to go over this stuff. Plus, it's so "cool" that they'll eat it up like a breathtaking novel.

Guess what. I got to the game, and hardly anybody had read their stuff. I was peeved. I had spent a long time on that, and I was expecting what compliments on how "cool" I had made the game world.

It became a point of contention between me, the GM, and the players. I broke the background up into small, easy-to-read chunks, and then sent those out. It still didn't help. The players avoided it like reading the instructions to their DVR.

Then, I stumbled across Justin Alexander's web site and read his article about feeding lore to players. He says that, no matter how "cool" it is, players don't want to read that stuff. They like it when they know it--they just don't want to spend any time (even a minute) reading it. If you're lucky, the best a player will do is skim the material, even if its written better than Stephen King ever thought about putting word to paper.

I thought about what Justin had to say, and I realized (remembered--this is one of those things I knew and forgot) that it wasn't the players that were failing--IT WAS ME!

I was failing at motiviating my players to be interested in the background material. I wasn't presenting it in the right format for it to be appreciated.

Justin provides many ideas for presenting lore to players in a manner to which they will respond.

And, that's my point to you. I see what you're trying to do, I just don't think you're going about it the right way.

You need, imo, to find a different way to motivate your players to play characters and immerse themselves in your world rather than systematically playing the game like a computer rpg.

I don't think a letter (which, I've found, they'll just skim anyways!) berating them is going to do the trick.

 

[Verdande]

Any sort of pre-planned adventure is necessarily going to take focus away from the players, because it's no longer about the players, it's about this neato adventure, hey go do this. Find the magical sword, slay the Ogre Cheiftan, then it's on to the next pre-planned adventure.

It's like pre-planned fun. It doesn't work.

My most common question to the players is, "What do you do"? For example: "After exploring the caves for three days, you stumble across a cave opening decorated with skulls on poles and old bloodstains on the grey rocks that form the ground. You hear screams coming from inside the cave. They don't exactly sound human. What do you do?"

Or even: "You arrive at the magnificent city of Greensreach. You see hundreds of scuzzy little buildings punctuated by tall stone towers. The city wall is roughly 20 feet high, and made of wood, palisade-style. The flag flying over the wall is mostly green, with three yellow lions vertically. What do you do?"

If the players want to try and rob the merchants blind, that's cool. If they want to introduce themselves to the king, that's cool. If they just want a place to stay for the night, that's cool. If they're looking for the entrance to the sewers, that's cool. Real life is open ended and interesting enough that you can have an adventure without somebody telling you what to do, so why can't you have the same experience in a roleplaying game?

 

[fanboy2000]

Your point is laudable. I guess I'm the contrarian here, but I think you're going about it all wrong.

I don't post things on internet forums thinking I'm going to get universal praise. It's better than Usenet, but that's like saying it's less painful than having your leg amputated without anesthesia.

I don't think a letter (which, I've found, they'll just skim anyways!) berating them is going to do the trick.

Good point. I didn't send them a letter. When I found out after the game, I simply told them they can do what they want, I'm fine with it. This post is just me going on about it in stronger words.

My world has a backstory, but I never wrote it down for them to read. They get it as it comes up.

Part of the problem I'm having is that I ask them "what do you want to do" and (usually Adam) turns the question back on me! I have an answer for them because I've been gaming with them for a while now, but I'd like them to show a little more gumption.

This wouldn't be all that bad had two players not gotten into an argument over it and caused a third player to leave the game session. It's one thing to argue over what to do next, it's another when your position is predicated not on what you want to do, but on what you think I want you to do. Especially when you get it wrong.

And I guess that's what really bother's me. It's not that Adam and Barney argued over what to do, it's that Adam's position was based on what he thought I wanted. And he was wrong about what I wanted.

 

[Rel]

I think this is kind of a two way street. The players are relying upon me to paint a picture of a place that has interesting places to go, plots to unravel and people to kill. But I'm relying upon the players to present me with characters who have nice anchor points for a few of the plot hooks I'm throwing out to catch hold of.

So let's say I've got a cool idea for an adventure in a big castle. The player's character's "thing" is that "He feels dutybound to uphold his family honor and can leave no slight unanswered."

I say, "This NPC called your sister a dirty whore."

Player says, "I'm going to kick his ass. Where does he live?"

I say, "He lives in that castle over there."

 

[nedjer]

If they're not used to/ motivated to make plenty of open choices they'd maybe get along better at first with a menu to pick from. I.e. if you prompt them with sets of concrete choices they'll probably want more.

Giving them a set of missions to choose from rather than simply locations may help, e.g. the mayor's still offering a reward for anyone who can find his son . . . your old adversary has been sighted going North with a wagon said to be carrying a treasure chest . . . or you could get away from it all and go prospecting in the remote goldfields.

The choice is limited at their end but it includes selecting/ developing their own PCs' motives. This can help players 'work on' their PC, as the PCs take 'defining' choices, which can then feed into and out of scenarios: mystery rescue mission, grudge match intrigue or frontier life.

 

[Water Bob]

Part of the problem I'm having is that I ask them "what do you want to do" and (usually Adam) turns the question back on me! I have an answer for them because I've been gaming with them for a while now, but I'd like them to show a little more gumption.

Understood. My point is that then answer is not to tell them to have more gumption, but to figure a way to motivate them through the game.

Let's say the PCs are in the local pub. You want them to stumble on the bounty announced to track down some bandit goblins. You start the game...

GM: OK, you drain your pints. What do you want to do?

Adam: What should we do?

GM: I don't now...why not get up, look around. See if there's any work?

That's the way you are describing your game and problem. My suggestion is to do something like this.

GM: One of you have a pint. Man, it's good--just what you need on this humid day. The leather from your armor is hot. Another one would really quench your thirst. You look up and see the barkeep cleaning mugs from a table.

Adam: I wave him down for another.

GM: He nods and brings one to you, then stands there for payment. It's 3 copper.

Adam: I pay him.

GM: You go for your purse, but it's not there! You've been ripped off! The barkeep glares at you, snatches the ale back, and walks back with it to the bar, mumbling under his breath. You can't hear what he says.


See, the situation is the same, but in the second example, the GM motivates the player through the game. The GM hasn't said anything at all about getting the bounty and going after the gobbies, but the player will get there naturally. He'll need money. First, he'll be peeved about the loss of coin, and when his efforts turn to naught in his search for the thief who stole his purse (or not, if you want to turn this into an adventure), the player will not have any money and then start looking for a way to get some. That's when you will let him know that he notices the bounty parchment nailed to the wall.