Why I don't GM by the nose

[Haltherrion]

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.

I don't mean it in the sense of training them to like puzzles. I mean it in the sense of training a neural net response: you give them stimulus and help them understand the response. Specifically, you show them that their actions matter and you create situations where they have to make some difficult choices.

Put the opposite way to illustrate, if as a ref, all game time to date shows them that their choices do not matter, that the ref thinks there is a 'right' answer to everything, that challenges will be overcome regardless of whether the players come up with good solutions, then the ref has trained them to not bother with your plot twists or worry about your puzzles.

It's a weaker use of 'train.' As I said elsewhere on this thread, not everyone is into puzzles and that's fine.

If you don't care for the word "train", consider "demonstrate" instead. Over the course of your game, you will demonstrate your style, how much freedom you allow players, how much their decisions matter. If you demonstrate that their choices count, that they have consequences, they will be much more likely to put some effort into these choices, some of which might be a difficult problem, a few might be a classical puzzle.

 

[fireinthedust]

Clarifications:

Firstly (Editing here): This isn't intended as a jab at my current players on these boards. Hopefully they know I'd love input on how to make games more interesting, and how I prefer sandbox-style campaigns with active players to just feeding them information.

[/edit]


1) This was an on-the-spot scenario I've never used, intended to illustrate the issues with players rather than a particular episode with my home group.


2) Most of my issues are with PBP players who don't post for weeks while other players are doing all the work. By all the work I mean any actions, even during round-by-round combat when everyone should be acting.


3) My home group is usually fairly good, though I do have to be somewhat straightforward in describing "the game within the game", ie: you'll need to make three of this kind of check; or "you need to find all three keys before you can reach the Dragon's Lair".

4) There are failure players, especially ones who can't make up their minds about which goblin to attack. I had one who couldn't choose which character to wake up for the next watch; when he was asked if he wanted, with a point blank shot to the head of the bad guy, to take the shot and save his friends, he said he'd "wait and see" and continue to hide behind an overturned table. His reason: he didn't want the bad guy to be angry with him. Not kidding here, loads of issues, let his friends die because of them.

Mal: giving people what they want is easy enough.

a) I advertise the plot I'm going to run, they apply to play pbp with me.
b) I ask "what do you want to do?" and they can at this point tell me.

My issue is that players don't do either of these things, lie to me that everything is fantastic, and just sit there soaking things in. That's great, and good for my ego, but I'd like them to do stuff.

It's more than just puzzles. In fact, it's situations like "you're in a Tavern that looks like this. There are three areas (by the bar, by the fireplace, at a table or booth), which do you go to?" and they can't answer.

In fact, we get through a plot and they get a pile of money. Now what? They have no idea, including players in my home game. They could build a fortress, build an army, design a dungeon, travel the planes, look for dragons, whatever. Their response? "I dunno."


I have a setting that I've detailed. I give them options for places to go (ie: pirate islands, borderland forests, knightly realms, or bustling anything-goes cities). Which would they like to try?

"I dunno, whatever".

The exceptions I run into usually are evil overlords who want to build armies of the undead. Which is great, but they're never heroes and try siding with bad guys and betraying party members. arrgh!

 

[kitsune9]

It's more than just puzzles. In fact, it's situations like "you're in a Tavern that looks like this. There are three areas (by the bar, by the fireplace, at a table or booth), which do you go to?" and they can't answer.

In fact, we get through a plot and they get a pile of money. Now what? They have no idea, including players in my home game. They could build a fortress, build an army, design a dungeon, travel the planes, look for dragons, whatever. Their response? "I dunno."

I have a setting that I've detailed. I give them options for places to go (ie: pirate islands, borderland forests, knightly realms, or bustling anything-goes cities). Which would they like to try?

"I dunno, whatever".

The exceptions I run into usually are evil overlords who want to build armies of the undead. Which is great, but they're never heroes and try siding with bad guys and betraying party members. arrgh!

Wow, these are some interesting examples here Fire. From reading these, I don't know if should feel really sad, or bust out laughing. May be a bit of both I guess.

Anyways, wanting to be constructive, it seems that you got a sandbox campaign going on here and the players are probably not use to that kind of DMing either because they are lazy, indifferent, or they just don't know what to do. Of course, with a campaign world, having all the locations and names populating the area kind of makes it daunting or overwhelming. Maybe you should take the Grand Theft Auto approach. You have a map, but only put about three locations on it. Everything else are just features, but no names. This would be similar to the big letters that clues the players for "find adventure / mission here". The PC's can then choose where to go from the three locations that you've got listed. If they ask you about them, you give them a handout that gives some rumors or common information.

You can give them a nudge here and there by stating in your handout about each location, "If you go X, you'll need packmules to carry the necessary food to trek across the waste" or "If you go here, armor will be too hot to wear."

For the tavern example, draw the map and tell the players to place themselves where they want to be. If you're not into minis and maps, then tell them that they have arrived at the tavern and end the box text opening there.

Also, instead of asking "What do you do?" simply describe the situation going on and let them answer the unspoken question of, "What do you?" for themselves. Going back to your tavern example you can say, "You enter the Five Coins Tavern and Alehouse. The fireplace looks warm and inviting from that deluge you just sludged through, but it's away from the bar where a good hot mead would take the chill off your bones, or may be that game of dice that's being played catches your attention since you could use the winnings to buy your mead." Then after you read / stated this, you just meet your players with silence and then let them ask you any questions or give you any stated actions. You remain silent until one of them says something.

If you do all of this by putting the choices in front of the players and they still just wander around or give you "I dunno", then it's clear that you either have 1) players who disinterested in the game itself or 2) players are very use to gaming where the previous GMing styles have been "GMing by the nose" and that is their comfort zone in gaming. If you like this group a lot, then maybe switching to railroading is better for them and for you.

 

[Krensky]

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

Sure.

Not engaging with the game. Refusing to follow the conceits of the campaign. Ignoring the game until it comes time to do what ever their thing is. Generally being an ass. Not having fun and not talking to the rest of the group.

 

[Haltherrion]

I have a setting that I've detailed. I give them options for places to go (ie: pirate islands, borderland forests, knightly realms, or bustling anything-goes cities). Which would they like to try?

"I dunno, whatever".

If it is a detailed setting as you say than the likely issue is that they don't really understand the setting; it hasn't been presented to them in a manner that matters for them. It might be too abstract or perceived as a lot of detail to slog.

You may have shortened your text for the forum post here but if it was actually presented as "pirate islands, borderland forests, knightly realms," etc., that's pretty sparse on detail and while it may conjure clear cut images for you, your players will have their own images and may be leery of exactly what you have in mind.

I've asked players what to do at times, either at start of campaign or mid-game. For the start case, in addition to some information on the world, I will try to present them with at least a paragraph, sometimes a page of what each of the options might mean. For the in-game choices, I am usually much less formal (no write-ups to choose from that is) but on the otherhand, the choices will hopefully be already established in-game.

Last session, they cracked a treasure vault they have been chasing off and on for 11 sessions. It had a spirit in it that gave them some information on the current situation that they had been dealing with, her own agenda, and a proposition for them regarding some material aid in return for the party doing something for them (I've left out all the gorey detail).

We roleplayed the encounter and in-game the players seemed interested in her offer. After the game ended, I made it clear to them that this could be another many session arc and that it was up to them whether they wanted to take this path or not. I reminded them of some of the other things they could be doing. They opted for the path as I expected they would because this path has been setup earlier and aligns with several of the PC's backgrounds but I still gave them the choice, partly because there is an implicit contract here: they have given me the green light, I will prepare more than I otherwise would for this arc.

The trick is not to give them completely open ended choices but give them bounded choices within an established context.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

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

how? The DM is the whole world as. Player you can ask any question, take any action, you can even go outside your character and ask questions.

Let's use the statue as an example. As a player I have run characters that would have: examine the statue, ignored the statue, tried to steal the statue, or pissed on the statue. A player who just sits there drooling after that description blank faced is the failure.

They aren't even engaging enough to ask the most obvious out of character question, "why are you suddenly describing this with so much more detail than anything else?"

I have asked that too, the DM answer if a bad DM is, dunno, which means obvious important, or something similar. A average DM or better will tell you why that statue caught your eye. He may say it looks familiar and that caused the description, he may say it's the first piece of ornamentation you have seen in hours of dungeon crawling, or something else.

A player or a DM can fail in many ways. To suggest the DM failed because the players won't engage even a fraction of their brain is unfair. Unless your saying the DM failed in selecting a worthwhile group of people to spend his time and effort on.

 

[Krensky]

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.

Not really. It's a GM failure. The GM hasn't presented enough hooks, or he's presented the wrong hooks, or he's presented too many hooks inducing option paralysis. Either way, the GM's either not doing their job, or they're doing it wrong.

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

You're repeating what I said here.

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

This is pretty much entirely the GM's fault. Typically because he wants to run a sandbox game.

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

That's not the player's sucking. That's the GM sucking. It's no different then in a video game. If your players are at a loss for something to do at the gaming table you have failed. As a GM part of your job is to make sure they know where to go an what to do. That doesn't mean leading them by the nose all the time, but the players should never be stuck floundering. The minute the players hesitate and surrender the initiative the GM should seize it. Have someone kick in the door. Have a peasant run up begging them for help. Now, there are times the players should ask themselves what they should do next, but this should be a tactical question. What should are next step be to reach our goal? It should never be a strategic one.

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?

Yeah... I completely disagree. If I come and play at your table and discover I have to entertain myself, I'm likely to leave even before the session's over. This is a play style issue though, so whatever works for you and your players is cool for you, but it would not work for me and mine.

 

[Krensky]

hA player or a DM can fail in many ways. To suggest the DM failed because the players won't engage even a fraction of their brain is unfair. Unless your saying the DM failed in selecting a worthwhile group of people to spend his time and effort on.

Because, as I said, if the players are at a loss for what to do, the GM has either failed to give them things to do (hooks) or failed to seize the initiative (kick in the door) when they flounder.

 

[carmachu]

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?")

Not necessarily. Depends on the DM's expectations. Having played w/ 3 different DM's, there are major differnces in puzzles and riddles:

The first example., the DM had a series of riddles to do to get to the center of the place we needed. To put bluntly, It sucked monkey Balls. Seriously. Being stuck with players who, while I liked them, were dumb as bricks for hours trying to get around the puzzles was no fun.

The second? Cute puzzle to enter a place, turned out once you figured it out....it was a music score. PLay the notes and away we went. Its was fun and cute and done every now and again type puzzle was awesome.

The last, frankly, is my current DM and he's awesome. But even in some cases, when we're slogging along ni say, a modified tme of horrors or something of that nature, player fatigue sets in. Trying to figure one thing out after another, after another, then do again, frankly is tiring as a player. But he's good enough and smart enough to figure that out a change on a fly.


The real problem is, two actually, is the OP's example- its out of context- does he do that often, once and a while, is it a typical senario? Its hard gauge where the game itself is at. The second? His player examples are pretty much two extemes with nothing in the middle- either they are unegaged or they like whats going on with puzzles, there's no in between.

 

[Lanefan]

Let's use the statue as an example. As a player I have run characters that would have: examine the statue, ignored the statue, tried to steal the statue, or pissed on the statue.

Or picked up the oranges and thrown them at the statue? Many of my past characters would have done this...

Lanefan