World shattering events-That the PCs ignore

[DragonLancer]

Say your players disagreed with your signature, or at least didn't think that D&D was only about heroic adventure and doing the right thing. Or maybe they got burned out on heroic adventure and doing the right thing. What if they suddenly decided that they would be having more fun playing in a game where their characters just worried about personal goals, or maybe just about how much money they had and what cool places they could go? And as a corollary, what if they decided they just weren't having fun playing through a game of wall-to-wall world-saving against impossible odds?

Then for the next campaign it gets changed, but the DM should not be held to ransom by the players. All too often thats the attitude presented.
I for one would be happy to run something more mercenary for my players, providing that at some point they played heroic characters again. Thats what the game is about at its core IMO.

As a GM, would you end that campaign, as it apparently is not holding their interest? Would you change the campaign's focus to better fit what they want to do? Would you tell them to just play what's put in front of them, because you're the one running the game and providing the story? (And though I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually do that last one, I've actually seen it happen in real life; the campaign "mysteriously" ended a few sessions later, of course, and "somehow" that GM wasn't ever able to run anything else for that group again.)

Again most of these options feel like pandering solely to the players. D&D is meant to be enjoyable for all involved, not just players. Though if it came to it that the players were really not interested, I would end the game there and then, though I would not be happy, not in the slightest. I would never force them to play something they didn't want to however.

Which is more worth your time and effort, to run a plot that you love but your players don't like, or to run a plot that you sort of like but your players love?

Your missing one. Run a plot that you don't like, but your players love? Again we're back to running soley for the players.

If you were a player in a campaign whose focus had drifted towards something you were totally uninterested in and where you weren't really having much fun, would it be worth your time to keep playing in it? And which is better, to try and get the GM to shift the focus to something more fun for you, or to just "play along" and not have fun in order to keep the game moving?

I am tempted to say the last one to be honest, unless I was really really not enjoying it. If you can work with your DM to create a better game thats the best option, just don't force the DM to doi what he doesn't want to.

But I'm pretty sure that if you ever keep dropping a plot hook in front of the PCs and they keep ignoring it, the smart thing to do is let it go. Figure out why they don't like it, maybe work out a way to revise it so that it interests them if you can manage it, but setting up a situation where the GM is pissed off because the players won't go along with the plot they hate and the players are pissed off because the GM keeps trying to force them to go along with the plot they hate doesn't work out well for anyone.

Can't say that I agree with this all that much. If I as DM have put a lot of effort into a big epic plot, then I do expect my players to at least pay it some attention, even if they decide to be on the fringes of the plot onion.

Not directed at anyone in paticular but quite frankly stop pandering soley to players. I notice its a trend on these boards.

 

[shilsen]

Thats a good idea if the DM is happy to do it. Personally I feel that the DM has got to be comfortable doing such. A campaign goes both ways and its not just the players who have to be happy with the game.

I don't think anybody here is disagreeing with you about it going both ways. It had seemed to me from your earlier posts on this thread that you were upholding one particular way as the right way to play D&D, and that's what I (and some others, I see) was taking issue with.

You said earlier - "D&D is about heroic adventure, and doing the right thing. See my signiture to see my view on D&D characters." I would simply say in addition, it can be, but it doesn't have to be. I like running heroic characters. But I also like running amoral and pragmatic characters. I also like running evil characters, though I get to do so much less often. The cool thing with D&D is that you can do all of the above and then some! It's unlikely that every member of a group (player or DM) is going to want to see exactly the same things in a D&D game. But as long as they can come to some sort of consensus, it's all good.

 

[DragonLancer]

You said earlier - "D&D is about heroic adventure, and doing the right thing. See my signiture to see my view on D&D characters." I would simply say in addition, it can be, but it doesn't have to be. I like running heroic characters. But I also like running amoral and pragmatic characters. I also like running evil characters, though I get to do so much less often. The cool thing with D&D is that you can do all of the above and then some! It's unlikely that every member of a group (player or DM) is going to want to see exactly the same things in a D&D game. But as long as they can come to some sort of consensus, it's all good.

It is all good, and I don't argue. I know in my case I prefer heroic, but can handle more mercenary games if I have enough details from the players. I also admit that I don't handle evil campaigns very well - my players don't tend to handle such games very well.

We seem to have wandered off topic a little. Different styles of game are fine and dandy, but I do believe that when a DM puts effort into a plot regardless of size, then the players should play it.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

For me as a DM ideally my PCs would be the heroic sort, but I know that is not going to happen. As a player I like to play heroic characters. I wish I could play at your game Dragonlancer.

 

[DragonLancer]

For me as a DM ideally my PCs would be the heroic sort, but I know that is not going to happen. As a player I like to play heroic characters. I wish I could play at your game Dragonlancer.

You would be more than welcome.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Your missing one. Run a plot that you don't like, but your players love? Again we're back to running soley for the players.

No, I left that one out very deliberately. You should NEVER run a plot that you don't like just because your players love it. That would just be unnecessarily masochistic. It's tough enough to GM a game without making it a game that you don't enjoy at all. But running something you only "kinda like" as opposed to running something you love is fairly easy to accept, if the players genuinely love it.

Because running something that the players enjoy and NOT adhering rigidly to something they don't is hardly pandering to them. It's just acknowledging that the game has to be fun on both sides of the table.


Personally, as a GM it drives me absolutely crazy when something I'm running is clearly not entertaining or interesting to my players. Hell, most of my fun comes from getting them involved in the game and seeing them have a good time.

And yes, I've had plot threads of all varieties (major, minor, trivial, world-shattering) fizzle out because their PCs weren't interested in following them up, and sometimes that has made me a very sad panda. But I certainly don't think our game is being held for ransom when the players don't want to follow along, any more than they should think our game is being held for ransom if I file off the serial numbers and repaint that plot hook and present it to them again a few more times.

If there's something I want to run that they're just not buying, I often try to tweak it a few ways to see if they'll change their minds, but if that fails I'm willing to drop it. It's not a serious imposition on me, because I can think of lots of different things that would be pretty fun for me to use in a game and I don't need to try to ram the wrong plot down their throats and kill the whole campaign. I'll just cannibalize the prep work I did for whatever they didn't want to do and use it somewhere else, and then I'll put that poor abandoned plotline back in my notebook for use in another game later on.

That's not pandering, that's collaborating. I am in a conspiracy with my friends to play these games and have fun doing it, and I like it that way. It's understood that if a significant number of the players aren't having fun, they'll end the game on their own, one way or another; likewise, it's known that if the GM isn't having fun, the game will also end (and that the "significant number" of unhappy GMs it takes to end the game is "one," so making sure the GM is happy is vitally important!). It's also understood that ending a game because it stopped being fun really sucks, if the alternative was finding a way to make it fun again.


I actually don't think our viewpoints are all that far apart. You might have more of a "but this is the dream game I want to run, the only thing I really want to run, so they should just let me run it" perspective as opposed to my "hell, I'll run anything that I think I can do well and that doesn't annoy me" attitude, perhaps.

But I know that even when it comes to my dream games, I don't necessarily agree with you that players are in any way obligated to play anything that the GM puts effort into just because the GM put effort into it; if they don't like the game being offered up for their fun, they should vote against it...with their feet, if necessary.

And in my experience, they generally don't play games if they don't like them; in other groups, I've seen everything from blunt statements that they just don't want to play this game to passive-aggressive tricks like "schedule conflicts" or deliberate total party kills. I'd like to avoid seeing that in my current group if at all possible: I prefer it when everyone can talk about what they like and dislike right up front, so an attempt can be made to make the game fun for everyone again.

--
and i'd give pretty good odds that you would agree with that last sentiment at the very least

 

[DragonLancer]

Because running something that the players enjoy and NOT adhering rigidly to something they don't is hardly pandering to them. It's just acknowledging that the game has to be fun on both sides of the table.

Absolutely. No argument from me. My points have simply been that players are not the be all and end all of the game, which unfortunately is (especially) a common view on these boards.

I actually don't think our viewpoints are all that far apart. You might have more of a "but this is the dream game I want to run, the only thing I really want to run, so they should just let me run it" perspective as opposed to my "hell, I'll run anything that I think I can do well and that doesn't annoy me" attitude, perhaps.

But I know that even when it comes to my dream games, I don't necessarily agree with you that players are in any way obligated to play anything that the GM puts effort into just because the GM put effort into it; if they don't like the game being offered up for their fun, they should vote against it...with their feet, if necessary.

Maybe. I don't know, but as a player I feel that my job is to (a) have fun, and (b) tell the story that the DM is running. I guess I just project that onto players in general. I think that both DMing styles are perfectly viable, providing that neither are railroady.

And in my experience, they generally don't play games if they don't like them; in other groups, I've seen everything from blunt statements that they just don't want to play this game to passive-aggressive tricks like "schedule conflicts" or deliberate total party kills. I'd like to avoid seeing that in my current group if at all possible: I prefer it when everyone can talk about what they like and dislike right up front, so an attempt can be made to make the game fun for everyone again.

--
and i'd give pretty good odds that you would agree with that last sentiment at the very least

I do agree. If players have a problem, they should always approach the DM with them. I know that if my players did I wouldn't have a fit, but then I couldn't always agree that I would change anything.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What I derisively call D&Diablo. This was my last group of players. I asked them what their goals were and the only thing approaching a goal was "Get to 20th level, have a lot of stuff". Feh. Then go home and play Diablo!

Huh? CRPGS got their ideas from D&D in the first place. Going up levels and getting more stuff is the essence of D&D.

 

[Chimera]

Huh? CRPGS got their ideas from D&D in the first place. Going up levels and getting more stuff is the essence of D&D.

True enough, but if that is your ONLY goal, if you deliberately run away from anything approaching a plot or standard "adventure" and if you refuse to do anything but wander in circles waiting for monsters to hit you so you can find their lair and grab their stuff...

Then go play Diablo.

Don't waste my time with that crap at the D&D table.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I bet even in New Zealand you can hear me crying.

When my PCs don't bite at huge plot hooks, I figure that's okay - but the event happens anyways. Maybe I use it to make some other group of adventurers famous, maybe no one fixes it and horrible things happen that the PCs still have to cope with. Either way, it makes the game more interesting by providing a "living" background.

The real question here is: why are your players purposefully ignoring adventure hooks? If they have other more fun places to adventure, or want to finish another plot, that's one thing. If they aren't having fun in the game and are trying to tell you that by being obstinate, that's quite another.

They can hear you in New Zealand because it is being sent by relay, multitudes taking up the cry.

I have also had a game where one player ignored the plot and hung out in the inn avoiding everything, then he complained that nothing happened while the other players looked at him funny. (What was really going on was that he didn't want to risk his character...)

The Auld Grump, the point of earth shattering events is that if they happen the earth is shattered! (Or in the words of Marvin the Martian: "Where's my kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth Shattering Kaboom!")