Why I don't GM by the nose

[Herremann the Wise]

It's my day to be grossly misinterpreted, I guess.

I apologise unreservedly if I've grossly misinterpreted and summarised your game style incorrectly.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hussar]

How can a player increase the pace and-or relieve boredom?

Just *do* something.

Kick in a door. Pick a random direction and go there whether the rest of the party follows or not. Attack something. Pick up one of the oranges and throw it at the party fighter. If that fails, try throwing the statue; that'll get her attention. But do something, preferably risky!

The problem with this approach is it can very quickly annoy the crap out of the other players. They're trying to deal with a problem, taking more time than perhaps is fun, and Bloggins decides to go over and kick the statue.

Which then animates and kills Joe's character.

I'm going to imagine that Joe might be a bit miffed at this point. He just died through no fault of his own. Actually, he died as a direct consequence of Bloggin's acting without consulting the rest of the group. When this happens once, it's kinda funny. When this turns into a habit, Bloggins stops getting invited to game nights.

"Attack the chancelor because I'm bored" is about the worst kind of role play I can imagine.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm one of those folks who just levels up the entire party every so often. I don't feel the need to encourage gung-ho play by handing out bonus XP for it. In my experience, players who like gung-ho play will play that way without needing external incentives; and for those who don't like gung-ho play, why am I trying to push them to do something they don't like?

Obviously, there's potential for conflict when some players are more gung-ho than others. But that's just one of a dozen ways in which different player preferences can lead to conflict, and ultimately it's on the players to work out a reasonable compromise. Using XP awards to incentivize proactive/reckless behavior doesn't improve that compromise, it just pushes things toward the aggressive end of the scale at the expense of the more cautious players.

If it seems to me that the players' strategy discussion has reached the point where they're going round in circles, I'll step in and nudge them toward a decision--usually just by saying something like, "So, are you going into the dungeon, then?" Under the pressure of a direct question from the DM, the group almost always finds its way to a consensus. Outside that situation, I let them work out their differences on their own.

 

[Beginning of the End]

That's what you got from my post? The underscored part is sheer fabulation that can't be reasonably extrapolated from what I wrote.

What you wrote (emphasis added): "I don't care how the dried oranges might interact with the statue or whatever else you had in mind."

What the OP explicitly stated was that he DIDN'T have anything in mind. But your perception of gaming is so heavily skewed that you are apparently completely incapable of parsing that. Even now your post is still drenched with the expectation that the GM has hidden some sort of "puzzle" the he wants you to "solve" in a pre-determined way as if you were playing Myst on a computer.

Of course I am bored. I did mention I would probably try to get out of there with a perception/thievery check in the hope of moving on to something actually interesting.

IOW, you want to make a blind skill check in the hope that, if you succeed, the GM will tell you "whatever they had in mind".

But, again, the GM doesn't have anything in mind. Your are proceeding from a completely false premise, but are apparently possessed of such massive bias that you can't even acknowledge your fundamental failure when people point it out to you explicitly.

BTW, the 'damaged good' reference is arrogant. It is a sentiment based on the assumption that there is greater value in the way you like to play than the way I like to play.

Someone who literally cannot play if the GM isn't leading them around by the nose is, as far as I'm concerned, a broken player. Until they're fixed they are literally incapable of playing in games that I run.

Similarly, I would consider the opposite someone who refuses to follow up on any points of interest or scenario hooks presented by the GM on the general principle that "you should never do what you think the GM wants you to do" is also broken.

Although now that I think about it, while the latter is problematic for a railroaded game in roughly the same way that a "I must be led by the nose" player is problematic for a non-railroaded game, the root of the problem remains the assumption that the GM has an agenda (that must be either (a) followed or (b) thwarted). If the GM has no agenda, both types of broken players are equally problematic.

 

[Krensky]

What the OP explicitly stated was that he DIDN'T have anything in mind. But your perception of gaming is so heavily skewed that you are apparently completely incapable of parsing that. Even now your post is still drenched with the expectation that the GM has hidden some sort of "puzzle" the he wants you to "solve" in a pre-determined way as if you were playing Myst on a computer.

Or, you know, like in a D&D game. Been that way since Castle Greyhawk. Standard of the hobby, really.

IOW, you want to make a blind skill check in the hope that, if you succeed, the GM will tell you "whatever they had in mind".

But, again, the GM doesn't have anything in mind. Your are proceeding from a completely false premise, but are apparently possessed of such massive bias that you can't even acknowledge your fundamental failure when people point it out to you explicitly.

Actually, you're adding to what the OP said. fireinthedust never said he had nothing in mind about the statue et al. In fact, pretty much every GM I've ever played with or heard about would have some purpose to describing the statue and room that way, otherwise they're wasting words. Now, that purpose might simply to be to mess with the players head by adding detail to the description to make them think there's something going on there, but that's still a purpose.

Someone who literally cannot play if the GM isn't leading them around by the nose is, as far as I'm concerned, a broken player. Until they're fixed they are literally incapable of playing in games that I run.

Similarly, I would consider the opposite someone who refuses to follow up on any points of interest or scenario hooks presented by the GM on the general principle that "you should never do what you think the GM wants you to do" is also broken.

Not suited or a fan of your preferred play style is not broken. Oh, and the use of the word there is insulting.

Although now that I think about it, while the latter is problematic for a railroaded game in roughly the same way that a "I must be led by the nose" player is problematic for a non-railroaded game, the root of the problem remains the assumption that the GM has an agenda (that must be either (a) followed or (b) thwarted). If the GM has no agenda, both types of broken players are equally problematic.

Either (massively hyperbolic) extreme is equally problematic for either a litterbox game, or a non-litterbox game. The root of the problem is ofter lack of communication on table rules and agenda. Oh, the GM always has an agenda. Always. Saying you don't have an agenda is, in itself, an agenda.

Now, the OP has said he's tried all sorts of tricks, but has he actually sat down and asked his players why they don't seem to care? Player apathy (which, I think, is what he's talking about) is a very different issue then players being directionless. While I still insist the later is a GM failure, the former is typically a table failure. His (potential) failure is not talking to them to understand why they don't seem to want to play the bits between combat encounters.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The problem with this approach is it can very quickly annoy the crap out of the other players. They're trying to deal with a problem, taking more time than perhaps is fun, and Bloggins decides to go over and kick the statue.

Which then animates and kills Joe's character.

I'm going to imagine that Joe might be a bit miffed at this point. He just died through no fault of his own. Actually, he died as a direct consequence of Bloggin's acting without consulting the rest of the group. When this happens once, it's kinda funny. When this turns into a habit, Bloggins stops getting invited to game nights.

"Attack the chancelor because I'm bored" is about the worst kind of role play I can imagine.

Or the statue may fall over, being a fake plaster cast, exposing the 5 perfect emeralds hidden beneath. All of a sudden Joe is not complaining and has no problem demanding a share of the loot gained from no action of his own.

Complaining about bad things that happen gets you nowhere when most players are quite willing to accept benefits that also happened from no action of their own.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

"Enough" is a slippery concept. Tautilogically, this is true, but it is equally true to say "The players haven't responded enough to the hooks presented", or "The players are not proactive enough", or "The players are not able to make decisions" and be equally accurate. Either way, the players are either not doing their job, or they're doing it wrong.

But both paragraphs -- yours and mine -- are equally meaningless for two reasons. First, what is "enough" is left undefined, so that one can always then say, "Ah, but if you had done enough things would be better." Secondly, both paragraphs somehow imagine that what happens during actual game play is controlled exclusively from one side of the screen.

Both are, essentially, attempts to cop out on responsibility.

(I'm not going to quote and respond to all of your additional paraphrases of the same highly questionable point. Suffice it to say that I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.)

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

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

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. That defines making a change before you fail to have "enough".

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.

That you personally do not like sandbox games is immaterial.

Not necessarily.

Yes. "Not necessarily" was the point of what you quoted and responded to. I apologize if that wasn't clear, but either way I am pleased that you drew the same conclusion.

Yes, the GM always controls the pace.

So, if a player wants to do something, the GM slaps him down until the GM says its okay?

Now this is a new one to me. I don't think I've ever seen people try to pass the buck on pacing from the DM to the players.

How exactly does a player control the pacing?

It's been said before, but I'll say it again: The same way the DM controls the pace. Do something. Kick in the door. Pull the lever.

But, whatever you do, don't whine that taking more time is being perhaps fun, but Bob doing something isn't fun when Bob decides he wants to exercise some control over the pacing of the game. Bob is a player, too, and Bob should not be disenfranchised because you want to dicker around....or even because the GM wants to dicker around.

The problem with this approach is it can very quickly annoy the crap out of the other players. They're trying to deal with a problem, taking more time than perhaps is fun, and Bloggins decides to go over and kick the statue.

Which then animates and kills Joe's character.

I'm going to imagine that Joe might be a bit miffed at this point. He just died through no fault of his own. Actually, he died as a direct consequence of Bloggin's acting without consulting the rest of the group. When this happens once, it's kinda funny. When this turns into a habit, Bloggins stops getting invited to game nights.

"Attack the chancelor because I'm bored" is about the worst kind of role play I can imagine.

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.

Suffice it to say that I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.


RC

 

[Mark CMG]

Example:

GM: you see a sandstone statue of a man about two feet tall standing in front of the doorway. It has a wicked grin with tiny sharp teeth carved into it, and an aztec-style head dress. At its feet are dried oranges. The door behind it is like the others in this dungeon, iron-bound wood with a gold lock below the doorknob. What do you do?

Response 1: Ideal player:
Hmm, I suppose I should think about the statue and interact with it in a meaningful way to determine if it is a threat to my goals. Then I should attempt to get around it to the door, perhaps, or reevaluate my situation based on new information gained regarding the statue.

Response 2: Increasingly Typical player:
Uuuhh... now what?

GM: now... what do you do?

Player: Um... does the statue look like it's going to attack me? Or should I... rest?

GM: If that is what you think is best. (check for wandering monsters, rinse, repeat . . .)

 

[Twichyboy]

What the OP explicitly stated was that he DIDN'T have anything in mind. But your perception of gaming is so heavily skewed that you are apparently completely incapable of parsing that. Even now your post is still drenched with the expectation that the GM has hidden some sort of "puzzle" the he wants you to "solve" in a pre-determined way as if you were playing Myst on a computer.

Or, you know, like in a D&D game. Been that way since Castle Greyhawk. Standard of the hobby, really.

I disagree with this statement, As a DM if i place the PC's in a room with a puzzle and a wooden door thats magically locked, and the only way to actually open it according to the magic on the door is to solve the puzzle in the room, i should expect the players to solve the problem of going through the door, but not expect them to exactly solve the puzzle.

They should be able to decide,
hey its only a wooden door, lets knock it down,

Lets dispel the door of the magic, maybe that would open it.

Lets leave the dungeon and try to find some sort of skeleton key that will open the door regardless of the puzzle being solved or not

lets head to town and pay someone to solve the puzzle for us

As a DM i don't have to plan for any of things to happen, but in theory, these should work whereas in a game like Myst, the only way would be to solve the puzzle, the puzzle is the room itself not the puzzle

 

[Beginning of the End]

Actually, you're adding to what the OP said. fireinthedust never said he had nothing in mind about the statue et al.

Look at the title of the thread. Now look back at what you wrote. Now look at the title. Now back at your post.

Sadly, what you wrote isn't true. But it could be true if you hit the EDIT button and rewrote it.

Look down. Now back up. Where are you? You're in a fantasy world that the players can explore without the GM telling them what to do.

What's in your hand? Now I have it. It's the box you're supposed to be thinking outside of. Now look again. The box is now diamonds -- the beautiful diamonds of, "What would you do?"

Anything is possible when the players control their characters and not the GM.

I'm in a sandbox.