Why I don't GM by the nose

[Raven Crowking]

As a GM, I simply don't play along with that.

If the players mill around for five minutes deciding what to do, the characters do likewise.

If the players ask me "What should we do?" I respond with "Who are you asking?" If they say, "You", I say "I'm not there".

Players are a clever lot. Given a game where they must think for themselves, or suffer the consequences of not thinking for themselves, many will succeed in getting out of the "Tell me what to do!" rut.

Those who do not....do not. They either become effectively the henchmen of those capable of thinking for themselves, or they find something more suited to their tastes.

Perhaps that's harsh, but if I am running the world and telling the PCs what to do, that's not a game. I might as well be writing a novel.


RC

 

[howandwhy99]

I know I'm not alone in this. As a GM I make a scenario so players can *Play* in them. I want to make a world that people can explore. This doesn't mean that I want them to just sit there while I tell them what they do, it means I want them to do things in the setting or scenario I'm DMing.

Thoughts?

First and foremost, to be an impartial referee the person behind the screen needs to drop expectations about what the players will do. It should be expressed before play that they are being tested on how capable they are in performing their chosen role, no matter what class that is. This defines the game's objective and scope, two important elements that should be known in any game prior to play.

I think you're on the right track with an intention or attempt-based game. It puts the players in the driver seat and if they wish to engage, then they are always doing so proactively.

Think of it in a action-consequence, cause-and-effect model. The players are always telling you what they are trying to do and, based upon the system you're using, you can clarify by asking them for more information. I think this goes beyond your "what would you do?" expectation and allows the players to drill down.

Rather than your description, maybe you could try the following:

Ref: Down the hallway about 20' is a doorway illuminated by your torchlight. In front of it is a stone statue with two oranges at the base.

(All these elements are taken in with a casual glance. If they want to interact more with any of the features, then you can start adding wicked grins and shriveled peels on the oranges. Not to mention the heavy detailing of the door. At this point, these details are extraneous to the players anyways. If they become important, they will tell you what they are doing to find them.)

Player: Is the statue moving or holding a weapon?
Ref: Neither.
Player: What about the door? That's shut right? Any locks or bars?
Ref: It is shut and there is a golden lock below a doorknob.
Player: Is that real gold?
Ref (clarifying): What are you doing to check?
Player: I'll scratch it with my steel dagger to test its' softness.
Ref (marking that the PC has moved forward): The metal is softer than the dagger's. There's a scratch on the lock now.
Etc.

If the players ignore anything, in the particular or the whole, that is their decision. A referee isn't there to second guess the strategies of players in a game.

By using an attempt-based model for refereeing the players maintain their proactive status rather than being directed. I think it also serves your goal of running an exploration game, having the players "do things", and asking themselves the question "what would you do?"

What's doubly nice IMO is it does not differentiate between the players and the characters, which leads to world immersion if not always immersion in character personality. The second is really more or less secondary in fantasy Roleplay Simulation games like these.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

I pretty much agree with just about everything said in this thread, altough I havent yet seen anyone mention one thing: a lot of people got their 'rpg education' from MMO's and offline cRPGS.

A lot of what people expect or their approach to the game gets influenced by that. And this isnt meant as a rant or anything or to say those other mediums are somehow 'less' than p&p or something, but ever since they began making those, it's always pretty much focused on combat.

Most cRPG's and especially MMO's tend to not use problem solving outside of combat, and even the games that do have a bit of flexibility and freedom in them are still constrained&codified in the possibilities, like a multiple choice kind of thing.
Then, add to that jRPG's whom's major trope seems to be completly linear railroading through the story, no advancmenet unless you solve a puzzle exactly like the designers envisioned it.

If you come from that kind of experience, it's not hard to see how you'd feel clueless and draw a blank when you'r supposed to do something that isnt combat and there is no obvious que to what you're supposed to do.

I think, therefore, that it's important to explain the freedom inherent in the game, and that it's not about 'solving a puzzle'.
That said, that also means you should watch out for designing adventures where you as a DM expect a certain thing from your PC's, as in "is this what you want us to do?"

 

[Transformer]

Well, you have to take the player's expectations and interests into account, not just your own. Why does the player need to be lead by the hand? Many reasons, but it could be he is bored. To be engaged, you have to be motivated. Some people don't really care about the minutiae you described in that example.

I don't know if that kind of thing is common in your games, but if it is, I would be player two. Why? Mostly because I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the statue. I don't care how the dried oranges might interact with the statue or whatever else you had in mind. All I want is to get by this statue and door with a perception check and/or a thievery check. Actually, if you let me know that a failed check sounds the alarm, you have my attention. If you expect me to solve some kind of puzzle, I'll leave the room for a beer and hope somebody else solved it by the time I am back. When I want to do a brain teaser I do a sudoku or crossword puzzles (I really do!).

Personally, I like two things more than any other about D&D: Nail Biting fights and interacting with other PCs and NPCs. I want interesting villains and allies and then I want to interact with them until it leads to battles that I feel invested in. All of my best D&D memories are wacky quotes from crazy exchanges my PCs had with the other PCs and NPCs or awesome moments in a battle (both awesomely good or bad). None involve a tree with dried apple and no enemy in sight. There is no tension in this scene; There is only the possibility of screwing up if you don't conform to whatever the DM decided was an acceptable course of action. Yawn.

I don't like puzzles; they usually are much better in the DM's eyes than in mine. And I really hate to get bogged down in details.

That's my opinion. Other people focus on different things as is their right. But understand this; just as you are thinking that you aren't dealing with an ideal player, the player is probably thinking he is not dealing with an ideal DM.

If you got one or two puzzles fans in your group, feed them this statue bit and adress mostly them. Just make sure it is quick and to the point in order not to bore the others and then move on to something that engages them. You have to give the people what they want. And there damn well better not be another 'what do you do' scene behind the door! And if NONE of the players feel engaged by the kind of situation you described, stop doing it altogether.

PS: 'What do you do?' isn't nearly as important as 'What do you want?'. IMO, anyway. 'What do you do?' when I am in a situation I don't care for in the first place isn't that useful. If you'd ask me what I wanted first, we wouldn't be in this bind!

I'm with Mal. I believe in objective value in a lot of different areas, but how one plays PnP RPGs isn't one of them.

Assuming it's a more long-standing problem my approach is to "train" the group of players.

This illustrates what I mean, I think. A GM "training" his players in how he wants them to play reminds me of a person trying to "change" his significant other after they've started dating. Obviously it's not such serious business, but I think there's a real similarity here.

If a GM thinks his players would really enjoy puzzle solving and exploration, but just need to be drawn out of their shells a bit, that's one thing. But if his players really just enjoy NPC interaction and combat like Mal, or even if they want nothing but combat and powergaming, there's nothing at all inferior about their preferences, and there's no point in trying to "train" them out of what they enjoy. If A GM just really doesn't enjoy GMing the kind of game his players want to play, then he can honestly and nonjudgmentally tell them that he'd like to step down after next week's session.

Now, I know it isn't quite that clean in real life, and that a GM might (for instance) want to keep GMing for his friends because they're his friends, even though their preferences don't line up. In that case, maybe a compromise is in order, and the GM can expect a little give from his players. The one thing that should not happen, though, is the GM deciding that because his players aren't interested in his puzzles or exploration opportunities that they're doing it wrong and need to be trained out of enjoying what they enjoy. They're not doing it wrong. Even if they want nothing but to be led around by the nose and fight monsters, they're still not doing it wrong. It's just the kind of game they enjoy.

 

[darjr]

Mal, I think that you wouldn't fall into player type 2. You would have your character do as you just described, by pass the encounter as expediently as possible. Sure you might miss the encounter the GM setup, but I would guess that was your point as a player. I'm just hoping that you wouldn't go away from my table in a huff, cause in that encounter I probably would try and make sure you could find what you wanted..... an exciting combat encounter or a weird and wonderful NPC interaction.

I do subscribe to the idea of finding out what your players want. If what they want is to be lead by the nose then I'm not sure there is much you can do. Maybe find players to add to the group that don't, and let the others tag along for the ride?

 

[kitsune9]

I don't do true puzzles (as opposed to problems that make them think).....

Yeah, I find it hard to give my players puzzles too. Out of the four players I have, one refuses to look at puzzles because he has zero confidence in himself in being able to solve them, two others will approach the problem by making random guesses, and one player will have an idea of what it takes to solve it. I refined my process more and more to simplify the puzzles so that the players can at least look at them and maybe figure it out, but it's a challenge.

 

[Krensky]

If your players sit around saying they don't know what to do, you have failed as a GM.

Either the scenario and players lack immediate goals and motivations or you're not running the game they want to play.

Honestly, I can't tell you what I'd do in the given example because there's not enough there. Is the statue something (or similar to something) I've seen before? Why am I in the dungeon, heck, what is the dungeon anyway? Old temple complex? Tomb? Is the GM prone to intricate descriptions that serve no real purpose? Does he constantly include stuff that violates Chekhov's Gun? Is the game largely made up of stuff he should have edited out? Am I just here exploring, searching for fortune and glory? Is the world the sort where sadistic and schizophrenic architects build non-sensical buildings and tombs and such in case someone comes to visit or does form follow function and architects actually design structures appropriate to their original use? Is there a MacGuffin I need to get from this place? Am I infiltrating the villains play house? That all feeds into knowing what to do next. Based on the lack of knowledge, I suppose I'd try the door knob while thinking about a tale to cheat death or what to make my next character.

Not everyone likes the pixel bashing, trial and death sandbox game style.

 

[Aus_Snow]

If your players sit around saying they don't know what to do, you have failed as a GM.

Do you believe that a gamer can ever fail as a player?

 

[Raven Crowking]

This illustrates what I mean, I think. A GM "training" his players in how he wants them to play reminds me of a person trying to "change" his significant other after they've started dating. Obviously it's not such serious business, but I think there's a real similarity here.

If a GM thinks his players would really enjoy puzzle solving and exploration, but just need to be drawn out of their shells a bit, that's one thing. But if his players really just enjoy NPC interaction and combat like Mal, or even if they want nothing but combat and powergaming, there's nothing at all inferior about their preferences, and there's no point in trying to "train" them out of what they enjoy. If A GM just really doesn't enjoy GMing the kind of game his players want to play, then he can honestly and nonjudgmentally tell them that he'd like to step down after next week's session.

Nah.

A GM "trains" his players as to the expectations of the campaign.

Is it worthwhile to talk to NPCs? The GM should demonstrate that this is so before the wholesale slaughter begins.

Is there a benefit to/expectation of mercy? Again, the GM should demonstrate that this is so before the wholesale slaughter begins.

Do the PCs have to talk to NPCs or show mercy? No. But they might miss things if they do not.

As long as the GM has players who want to play his game, he is justified in running any game he wants.

As long as a player is still welcome in a game, he is justified in running his character any way he wants.

A wise GM doesn't wait until every player is gone before considering his game; a wise player doesn't wait until he is booted from every game before he considers his playing.

If Bob is GMing, and Marcy and Joe want a different game, Bob absolutely does not need to "step down"; he can keep running a game for Sue and John. If Marcy then runs a game more like what she and Joe want, perhaps Bob, Sue, and/or John will also want to play in that game.

If, for some reason, Sue and John can only play in one game, then either Bob's or Marcy's gets them, depending upon which is closer to what Sue and John want.

The only reason Bob should "step down" is because he is tired of GMing.

If your players sit around saying they don't know what to do, you have failed as a GM.

Either the scenario and players lack immediate goals and motivations or you're not running the game they want to play.

This is no more, or less, true if reversed:

If your players sit around saying they don't know what to do, they have failed as players.

Either they lack immediate goals and motivations, or they're not choosing to play in the game they want to play.

Maybe the scenario sucks ("You're on a flat featureless plane with nothing to do.").

Maybe the players suck ("Can't you just tell us what to do?")

Or maybe the players simply have no experience with rpgs run so as to allow and expect them to make real choices. IMHO, and IME, this third is by far the most common cause. And, IMHO and IME, most players truly enjoy a game that allows and expects them to make real choices, assuming that it is run well. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I have never, ever, had a problem filling a table in this manner....my problem has always been the opposite. At what point do you start turning players away?


RC

 

[jbear]

I think Dming has its difficulties. Communication and expectations are two important things for a DM to deal with.

'Am I getting all this important information crucial to the adventure over to my players. Am I doing that at a good pace and in interesting ways? Have I been clear enough or given enough information so that my players do have something to go on from here?'

'How much do I expect my players to resolve for themselves without allowing them to eek out further clues with knowledge checks, how much does the successful continuation of the adventure base upon their ability to put together all the things that have gone on before? Do I expect them to look under the right stone in the right way in order to find this hidden treasure? Are they expected to specifically ask if a door has a lock when they ask to examine a secret door or am I expected to describe it as soon as they say they look at the door? Are they expected to comb every inch of the laboriously elaborate dungeon I have designed or can they cut to the chase... etc etc.

Lots of important questions you have to ask yourself as a DM just beneath the banner of those two areas.

And I think they are very easily turned around and can be looked at in very similar ways from the player's perspective. Am I communicating my PCs actions clearly enough or am I assuming certain things that the DM is perhaps not assuming. Do I need to establish a 'default' state my character is in when travelling through a dungeon i.e walking defensively with my crossbow loaded searching for traps. Or do i need to state this over and over as we progress. How much do I expect the DM to describe when I investigate something, how explicit and specific do my questions need to be to hit the mark.

I guess a lot of these things are discovered by trial and erro as players and Dm learn each others play styles.

As frustrating as it can be for a DM to be met with a shrug after describing a relevant area of the adventure, it can also be frustrating to receive a lack of description from the DM as a player upon entering an area. I do think there is a lot of give and take necessary between players and DM. When everyone is contributing on both sides of the screen, thats when a game starts to feel like real fun.