You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[Hussar]

Summing up.

I think for me, what it boils down to is that in any group, whether it is a gaming group or a group of friends, no always trumps yes. Again, this is for me. If five people are trying to decide what to do, and one says, "Hey, let's go bowling." and someone says, "Naw, I don't want to go bowling." that means we don't go bowling. Granted, we might try to wheedle and cajole someone into going bowling, or outright bribery is not out of the question (There's beer in it!) but by and large, if someone doesn't want to do something, we respect that.

It seems to me that at some gaming tables, that is not respected. No does not trump yes. So long as one person says yes, as in N'raac's cases, the group is obligated to do what that person wants to do, presuming that the DM also goes along with it (or, that one person might solely be the DM). To me, this is not a game I would enjoy.

It doesn't matter how good the game is or how good the DM is (or how bad for that matter). It's about everyone at the table having a say in what the game is. When someone doesn't want to do something, expecting that person to ride the pines quietly for the next hour, or possibly the next three gaming sessions, is unreasonable to me. I never expect anyone at my table to quietly accept anything. No one is ever obligated to do so. If someone doesn't like something, that is not a problem for me. We move on.

The whole point of a group template is to make sure that everyone is on the same page at the outset of the campaign. We might have conflicting goals, but, we will never have mutually exclusive goals. N'raac's example of the group with the fighter and the wizard and the tower illustrates perfectly why we do group templates. In my group, either everyone would be on board with going to the tower, or everyone would be on board with going home. You would never have a player leveraging his in-game resources to hijack the campaign against the express wishes of another player (or players).

Which does bring me to an additional point. In the Wizard/Tower example, what happens if the wizard and cleric want to go home, but the fighter wants to stay? The fighter has no in-game resources to leverage here since the wizard controls the means of transport. The fighter has no in-game way, short of simply walking away from the group, of making the campaign about exploring the tower. What happens then? Does the group go home or does it stay and explore?

Because if the group goes home, then my point about in-game resources has been spot on all the way along. This whole discussion has nothing to do with respect or table etiquette or anything like that and everything to do with in-game resources.

 

[N'raac]

And your assumptions here are faulty. It has nothing to do with how interesting the encounters might be. I don't care. These could be the greatest encounters ever written. Encounters which your grandchildren will regale their grandchildren about, and I still don't care. The entire point is that the player has ZERO investment in these encounters. And, these encounters can never really be more than tangential to the player's goals because there is zero problem with skipping the encounters, so long as the players have the in-game resources to do so.

Once again, we seem to come down to very to semantics. I read your comments with the are emphasis above - you don't care about the encounters. You are not interested in any encounter that do not directly related to your goals. However, what I sad was not that you assume the encounters will be uninteresting, but that they will be irrelevant - that is, they will have nothing to do with your players' goals.

We've also beaten the "can be skipped so long as the in-game resources exist to do so". For me, good scenario design includes assessing the in-game resources the plaers have. They can Teleport into the city? Then any encounters along the way t the city will logically be skipped. Either some indication there is something important out there needs to be available to the players and characters , or they should be able to succeed without whatever is out there. If they lack those resources, then it is reasonable to place relevant encounters out there.

We here see yet another binary view - if it is possible to skip it, it cannot be relevant. I disagree. You bhave ranted about "railroads" throughout most of this thread. One of the biggest indicator of a railroad, IMO, is that there is only one way to accmplish a goal. If there are multiple ways to accomplish a goal, any single means of accomplishing the goal can be skipped with impunity, as the goal can still be acheived. By your logic, that makes every encounter, bar none, irrelevant. We could perhaps manipulate the besieging force into ripping down the city, leaving not one stone upon another, and use that chaos as cover to take the Whatever It Was from the Wherever It Is unnoticed. Or we could completely ignore the social encounters of the besieging force's leadership, and instead use our own stealth and combat skills to infiltrate the Wherever It Is, take the Whatever It Was and teleport out, completely ignoring the siege encounters. Or perhaps we can negotiate with the occupants of the Wherever It Is and persuade them to hand over the Whatever It Was with no need to persuade the siege force or infiltrate the Wherever It Is.

We're going to pick one of those three approaches and, assuming its success, we will not attempt either of the other two. Since any two of the three encounter sets can be skipped with impunity, does it follow that all three are irrelevant? I do not believe it does. I do not believe making the occupants of the Wherever It Is 100% resistant to any form of negotiation and the leaders of the siege force completely opposed to anything we might attempt to have them, knowingly or otherwise, assist us in achieving our goal makes for better gaming. But it would mean we have no choice but to infiltrate the Wherever It Is, since all other approaches are foredoomed to failure, so since those encounters can no longer be skipped with impunity, NOW they are relevant? I don't think so. I think this approach simply forces players to play out the One True Approach that the GM has in mind, something that we seem to agree is not good.

But, in my model, there won't be ANY scenes where a given scene will not be invested in by the entire group. That's the point of a group template. Everything that happens to the group will be automatically relevant to every member of the group because every member of the group is inter-related and has inter-related goals.

Every member of BobPC's group can have a vested interest in BobPC. The other three characters can be BobPC's war buddy, BobPC's sibling and BobPC's passionate lover. And all three of them can be blissfully unaware that BobPC is hunted by the evil cult. For that matter, so can BobPC. In your world, it seems that the plaers, if not the characters, must know why this cult has targete one or more of them for any encounter with the cult to be meaningful. However, I suggest that, whether BobPC is targeted by the cult for reasons unknown to any of the players, whether only Bob knows why, or whether everyone knows why, the PC's have a vested interest in dealing with this cult which is trying to harm one or more of their teammates.

I further suggest that, even if al the PC's and all the players know that BobPC is hunted by this evil cult, it is entirely possible that they come to a point where they say "You know what, I am tired and bored of this cult hunting BobPC - I want to do something else." Just because they write something up and agree to it in principal, this does not mean that it will remain exciting and engaging indefinitely. One of them might even say "Hey, I know - how about we go explore that desert. The Cultists don't have a power base there, so maybe they will stay off our backs for a while and, if there is something in the desert, it has GOT TO BE more interesting than yet another round of those cultists!"

How can Bob's secret plot complications engage the entire group? They are secret. None of the other players have any investment in these because they don't know about them. They can't be invested in Bob's plot because they don't KNOW about Bob's plot.

In my view, they quickly become aware of evil cultist attacks. Why is the evil cult targeting us? We can investigate that. No one seems to know? Well, let's try to find out where this evil cult is located - even if we never know why they targete us, maybe we can eliminate them and get rid of the problem. This leaves out, of course, any prospect that BobPC might actually be role played into sharing some or all information, or that investigative efforts might provide some information. All three of these would be reasonable possibilities, at least in any good game. Finaly, I like to hope that, regardless of whether it is instigated by Bob's background, with or without full player buyin, or it is instigated by the GM (the city where the Whatever It Is awaits in the Whereever It Is is controlled by a secet, evil cult who wants to prevent the PC's gaining access to the Whatever It Is - their influence permeates the city as much or more than a seige would, and we didn't need player unanimity to have a siege), it should be resolved at some point.

Maybe that means Bob makes peace with the cult. Maybe it means the cult succeeds, BobPC is dead and we need a new character (although this might invest the remaining PC's - they may want vengeance for their fallen comrade). Or maybe it means the cult is destroyed. And any of these resolutions could mean the cult is gone forwever, or perhaps they will rear their heads in some future scenario, but at least for the near to medium term, that plot is resolved.

Really? The wizard in your example forced the entire group to play out scenes that were of no interest to the rest of the group to the point where the other players complained pretty vocally about it. Why would Bob be different?

If the PLAYERS are complaining, we have a problem. In my games, I expect I'd see some PC's complaining, while the players enjoy the scenario. I've certainly seen players indicate that, as a player, I'd like to take this fork in the road, but my character would not take that approach, so my character wishes to turn left - but I, the player, would love a reason to turn right.

Much of the disconnect, again, comes to this binary thinking of there being two possible types of scenes: "the perfect scene, the only one I wish to play next" and "every other possible scene, all of which are unacceptable". You've praised consensus a lot in recent pages. Look up consensus decision making. It is widely accepted that the usual result will be a decision which everyone can live with, but which is sub-optimal for everybody. That sounds a lot like a game where everyone deals with having their favourite aspects come up sometimes, and playing through other players' favorite aspects, even if they aren't that player's preference, other times.

Sure, there's no problem with the DM engaging Bob. That's pretty obvious. But, the DM cannot discuss Bob's secret plot with the other players under your model because Bob's secret plot is secret. If the DM discusses it, it won't be secret any more and you're now acting the way I would.

Emphasis added. That's just scary...

I can clarify a lot with Bob - and without involving the other players. I can clarify whether Bob expects this whole cult thing to remain behind the scenes throughout the campaign, or is hoping it will rear its head at some point, takes come focus and be resolved, or that it will recur on occasion throughout the whole campaign. Maybe Bob will think it should permeate the entire campaign. If so, he needs to be told that this is not the case - other story arcs, some likely stemming from other PC's backstories, public or secret, will also take place in the campaign. However, I have never had a player wish to (or at least vocalize that wish) hog the spotlight in this manner. I have much more often had a player indicate his character background has no specific adventure hooks this time, just some general reasons for adventure, and he's happy going along with the plots suggested by other characters' backgrounds and/or having his background filled in a little as we go to keep the game moving in an interesting direction.

 

[N'raac]

I think for me, what it boils down to is that in any group, whether it is a gaming group or a group of friends, no always trumps yes. Again, this is for me. If five people are trying to decide what to do, and one says, "Hey, let's go bowling." and someone says, "Naw, I don't want to go bowling." that means we don't go bowling. Granted, we might try to wheedle and cajole someone into going bowling, or outright bribery is not out of the question (There's beer in it!) but by and large, if someone doesn't want to do something, we respect that.

Either you wheedle and cajole and/or bribe, or you respect his decision. It can’t be both. If you are using peer pressure to force acquiescence, then we again get the "dominant personality" calls the shots an the others, however grudgingly, go along. I don't recall any suggestions that it was OK to wheedle, cajole or bribe you into playing out the desert scenes.

Again, however, we get this binary thing. Either I am 100% in favour or 100% opposed – I can’t, say, prefer the idea of shooting pool, but be willing to go bowling if that’s what everyone else wants.

Now, if we have five people, and one doesn’t want to bowl, one doesn’t want to shoot pool, one doesn’t want to go to a nightclub, one doesn’t want to go to a movie and one doesn’t want to sit at home, where are we left? I suspect what really happens, very often, is that the pushiest guy gets his way, and the rest go along to avoid an argument, even though they aren’t really invested in that particular activity. Which sounds very familiar to me.

It seems to me that at some gaming tables, that is not respected. No does not trump yes. So long as one person says yes, as in N'raac's cases, the group is obligated to do what that person wants to do, presuming that the DM also goes along with it (or, that one person might solely be the DM). To me, this is not a game I would enjoy.

Back to extreme positions, of course. I would not enjoy a game consisting of each scene proposed being shot down by one of the players, so we never actually game. That is just as much a possibility in the “one guy says no, we don’t do it” model as the ”one guy forces everyone else through utter boredom” result you attribute to a “say yes” model. I think, in any game where one player can and does use his authority, whatever it may be, to force unfun activities down the rest of the players' throats, or to prevent any fun activities being undertaken, the game will soon be over. It doesn't matter whether "one yes rules" or "one no rules" is in effect - if the result is that only one player enjoys the game, then either that one player will get ejected or the rest will leave.

It doesn't matter how good the game is or how good the DM is (or how bad for that matter). It's about everyone at the table having a say in what the game is.

Here is where we definitely disagree. If the game is good, then the game is good. We can agree or disagree about what makes a good game. We can even conclude that it cannot be a good game unless everyone at the table has a say in what the game is, unless everyone has a persnal veto, or whatever other litmus test we want to apply. But to say "I don’t want to be involved in a good game" seems ludicrous, at least to me. "That was a great game - NEVER DO THAT AGAIN!" is not something I'd ever expect t hear from any player or GM.

When someone doesn't want to do something, expecting that person to ride the pines quietly for the next hour, or possibly the next three gaming sessions, is unreasonable to me. I never expect anyone at my table to quietly accept anything. No one is ever obligated to do so. If someone doesn't like something, that is not a problem for me. We move on.

Here again, we get to “doesn’t want to do” being the only other possibility to “take my top priority and move to it immediately”. Maybe I don’t care about revenge against the Grell, and would rather move on to something else. Should I force that on the group, or should I play out the “revenge against the Grell” scene, which is far from my first choice, and we will move on to something else when that is done?

I will say again, rejecting what the rest of the group wants to do is forcing my will upon the group just as much as insisting on playing out, say, the hiring of the mercenaries is forcing my will upon the group. Single player exclusion is in no way superior to single player inclusion. Both can be abused. Neither is guaranteed to be abused. Both require some compromise to allow everyone at the table to have a “good game”.

I invite you to focus your absolutism that " No one is ever obligated to quietly accept anything" to the following scenario:

PLAYER 1: Your desert will suck. It is boring. Fast forward so I am not obligated to quietly accept playing through it.
PLAYER 2: Your desert will be the highlight of the campaign. Game on so I am not obligated to quietly accept skipping it.

The whole point of a group template is to make sure that everyone is on the same page at the outset of the campaign. We might have conflicting goals, but, we will never have mutually exclusive goals. N'raac's example of the group with the fighter and the wizard and the tower illustrates perfectly why we do group templates. In my group, either everyone would be on board with going to the tower, or everyone would be on board with going home.

Your group is either prescient in perceiving every possible decision point that may arise throughout the entire game, or the world’s single greatest hive mind. The latter, to me, would make for a pretty boring game.

Let’s go back to the city where the Whatever It Is awaits in the Wherever It Is. When presented with the three ideas of “infiltrate”, “negotiate”, “manipulate siege”, will all the layers immediately jump to the same choice, or will there be some discussion of which approach will be pursued? If the former, why does there need to be any choice? The players seem pretty easy to reliably predict, so why throw out choices they won’t be interested in. If the latter, then someone is not going to get their way, are they? Or will we play out all three somehow? Or, I guess, we have to play out none, because each receives at least one "NO" vote from a player. I guess the "Whatever It Is" stays "Wherever It Is"!

If we all agreed to play Shackled City, why are you refusing to play out the wasteland scenes included therein? We all agreed to play Shackled City, didn't we?

You would never have a player leveraging his in-game resources to hijack the campaign against the express wishes of another player (or players).

You mean like the wizard teleporting the party across the desert without their consent (or forcing a reluctant character to Ride the Centipede), the wizard refusing to use his teleport spell to transport the party across the desert, or the fighter killing the Hobgoblin that the Rogue was questioning?

Which does bring me to an additional point. In the Wizard/Tower example, what happens if the wizard and cleric want to go home, but the fighter wants to stay? The fighter has no in-game resources to leverage here since the wizard controls the means of transport. The fighter has no in-game way, short of simply walking away from the group, of making the campaign about exploring the tower. What happens then? Does the group go home or does it stay and explore?

In my games, the PC’s negotiate the matter and come to a decision. In larger groups, I have had situations where a “majority rules” approach is adopted. I have also seen party members named the “party leader”. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a group where non-trivial decisions are not discussed out, whether in character or outside.

I have seen a game where one PC (against player and character wishes, but he went along with it) was named “Party Leader”. The group then insisted on putting many decisions to a vote. The “party leader” (a pretty laid back, take it as it comes, chaotic character) generally just sat back and let the votes take their course. Until the GM got handed every PC’s secret ballot (don’t ask me how the PC’s came up with the idea of group management by hidden ballot), saw some “Yes” and “No” votes, probably an “Abstain” and one note that said “Since I’m the leader and I count the ballots, there is one Abstain, 2 No and 4 Yes votes. Announce the results and throw the ballots in the campfire”.

And no one complained about the direction the game took. No one got shirty when the decision didn't match their character's preference. They were there to play the game, and play it they did. Since a good time was had by all, I guess it must have been a terrible game since it did not include unilateral player veto power.

Because if the group goes home, then my point about in-game resources has been spot on all the way along. This whole discussion has nothing to do with respect or table etiquette or anything like that and everything to do with in-game resources.

In my games, the PC’s would likely talk it out. The fighter might agree to a return to the city to reprovision and come back. The wizard might agree that we’ll explore for a while and see if anything looks interesting. A disagreement between the PC’s is no big deal – it makes for good role playing. A disagreement between the players would get talked out.

I have seen one game where the PC’s were at real loggerheads. As the discussion went on, the GM made one simple statement – PC’s have free will. They can stay or go as they please. However, once the decision has been made on how this group will split (which looked to be pretty likely at the time), we’re going to number each character and roll a die. Whoever’s number comes up, that’s who the campaign follows. Anyone who split off from that character (or the group with that character) needs a new character. The other characters can be used in another game, another time.

The PC’s found some common ground, amazingly enough. A few of the players decided their more polarized viewpoints could be softened a bit. The people sitting around the table all want a good game, and they can work together to achieve it. They don’t need a Group Charter, veto power or full disclosure to make that happen.

 

[N'raac]

By the way, why does the Fighter stick with that Wizard? Sounds like a PC Halo to me...why not go out and try to recruit a wizard who will be more co-operative?

We had an interesting event many years ago when a character had left. The Players knew a new character would be coming in. One PC met a fellow in town and put out some feelers, but the new PC was a bit reluctant. OK. The next morning, the existing group member announced he was hiring a couple of people to go out, post notices and spread the word that a team of adventurers were looking to add a member or two. That Dwarf I met in the bar last night seemed promising, but wasn't really interested, so let's find someone who is. The player is responsible for bringing a character to the table who has some motivation to be part of the team.

Something in that Dwarf's backstory or personality changed a bit in fairly short order - and he showed up for an interview. An entertaining diversion for an hour or two - and it stood out from the usual activities of the game session.

At the end of the day, if everyone had a good time, that made for a good game, at least in my view. Anything else is secondary at best.

 

[Hussar]

Once again, we seem to come down to very to semantics. I read your comments with the are emphasis above - you don't care about the encounters. You are not interested in any encounter that do not directly related to your goals. However, what I sad was not that you assume the encounters will be uninteresting, but that they will be irrelevant - that is, they will have nothing to do with your players' goals.

Again, no. This is not correct. What I am saying is that the encounters have zero player buy-in before the encounters are presented. Which means that they are irrelevant to the players. Why should they care about something, before it's presented, about which they know nothing?

We've also beaten the "can be skipped so long as the in-game resources exist to do so". For me, good scenario design includes assessing the in-game resources the plaers have. They can Teleport into the city? Then any encounters along the way t the city will logically be skipped. Either some indication there is something important out there needs to be available to the players and characters , or they should be able to succeed without whatever is out there. If they lack those resources, then it is reasonable to place relevant encounters out there.

Reasonable for you. Not for me. I don't tailor my games to the group. Never have. I run a much more sandboxy campaign where I create encounters and scenarios based on the player's stated goals and motivations. The capabilities of their characters are largely unimportant except in the broadest sense - no bombing dragons on 1st level parties because that wouldn't be fun. But specific abilities? Nope, I don't plan that way.

We here see yet another binary view - if it is possible to skip it, it cannot be relevant. I disagree. You bhave ranted about "railroads" throughout most of this thread. One of the biggest indicator of a railroad, IMO, is that there is only one way to accmplish a goal. If there are multiple ways to accomplish a goal, any single means of accomplishing the goal can be skipped with impunity, as the goal can still be acheived. By your logic, that makes every encounter, bar none, irrelevant. We could perhaps manipulate the besieging force into ripping down the city, leaving not one stone upon another, and use that chaos as cover to take the Whatever It Was from the Wherever It Is unnoticed. Or we could completely ignore the social encounters of the besieging force's leadership, and instead use our own stealth and combat skills to infiltrate the Wherever It Is, take the Whatever It Was and teleport out, completely ignoring the siege encounters. Or perhaps we can negotiate with the occupants of the Wherever It Is and persuade them to hand over the Whatever It Was with no need to persuade the siege force or infiltrate the Wherever It Is.


We're going to pick one of those three approaches and, assuming its success, we will not attempt either of the other two. Since any two of the three encounter sets can be skipped with impunity, does it follow that all three are irrelevant? I do not believe it does. I do not believe making the occupants of the Wherever It Is 100% resistant to any form of negotiation and the leaders of the siege force completely opposed to anything we might attempt to have them, knowingly or otherwise, assist us in achieving our goal makes for better gaming. But it would mean we have no choice but to infiltrate the Wherever It Is, since all other approaches are foredoomed to failure, so since those encounters can no longer be skipped with impunity, NOW they are relevant? I don't think so. I think this approach simply forces players to play out the One True Approach that the GM has in mind, something that we seem to agree is not good.

Again, you take irrelevant in an in-game meaning. Which has always been the breakdown in communication here. I mean irrelevant to the players Nothing in your example is irrelevant to the players because all three options are available to the players. They can choose one of the three options, but, they also have to decide which option to choose, which means, at the very least, they have to interact somewhat with all three options.

The desert has zero buy in from the players. The only reason they have to cross the desert is geography. The goal is inside the desert. But, the desert itself is irrelevant to the players because there is no buy-in from the players.

Does that make sense?

Every member of BobPC's group can have a vested interest in BobPC. The other three characters can be BobPC's war buddy, BobPC's sibling and BobPC's passionate lover. And all three of them can be blissfully unaware that BobPC is hunted by the evil cult. For that matter, so can BobPC. In your world, it seems that the plaers, if not the characters, must know why this cult has targete one or more of them for any encounter with the cult to be meaningful. However, I suggest that, whether BobPC is targeted by the cult for reasons unknown to any of the players, whether only Bob knows why, or whether everyone knows why, the PC's have a vested interest in dealing with this cult which is trying to harm one or more of their teammates.

I further suggest that, even if al the PC's and all the players know that BobPC is hunted by this evil cult, it is entirely possible that they come to a point where they say "You know what, I am tired and bored of this cult hunting BobPC - I want to do something else." Just because they write something up and agree to it in principal, this does not mean that it will remain exciting and engaging indefinitely. One of them might even say "Hey, I know - how about we go explore that desert. The Cultists don't have a power base there, so maybe they will stay off our backs for a while and, if there is something in the desert, it has GOT TO BE more interesting than yet another round of those cultists!"

Yup, that could certainly happen. What's the problem with that? Is it better to force the rest of the group to deal with Bob's Cult problem by keeping them in the dark? I'd rather the players get to decide whether or not they want to deal with Bob's Cult Problem and, if it stops being compelling at the table, the problem goes away. It gets resolved and/or cut short. No problem.

In my view, they quickly become aware of evil cultist attacks. Why is the evil cult targeting us? We can investigate that. No one seems to know? Well, let's try to find out where this evil cult is located - even if we never know why they targete us, maybe we can eliminate them and get rid of the problem. This leaves out, of course, any prospect that BobPC might actually be role played into sharing some or all information, or that investigative efforts might provide some information. All three of these would be reasonable possibilities, at least in any good game. Finaly, I like to hope that, regardless of whether it is instigated by Bob's background, with or without full player buyin, or it is instigated by the GM (the city where the Whatever It Is awaits in the Whereever It Is is controlled by a secet, evil cult who wants to prevent the PC's gaining access to the Whatever It Is - their influence permeates the city as much or more than a seige would, and we didn't need player unanimity to have a siege), it should be resolved at some point.

Maybe that means Bob makes peace with the cult. Maybe it means the cult succeeds, BobPC is dead and we need a new character (although this might invest the remaining PC's - they may want vengeance for their fallen comrade). Or maybe it means the cult is destroyed. And any of these resolutions could mean the cult is gone forwever, or perhaps they will rear their heads in some future scenario, but at least for the near to medium term, that plot is resolved.

Without player buy-in, I will not use Bob's cult problem. End of story. In my games, we have player buy-in before anything happens. Because, while you are right, the players could buy in after the fact, they also might not. In your game, the players have no choice. They are obligated to buy-in to whatever complications are brought to the table. In my game, they are not.

If the PLAYERS are complaining, we have a problem. In my games, I expect I'd see some PC's complaining, while the players enjoy the scenario. I've certainly seen players indicate that, as a player, I'd like to take this fork in the road, but my character would not take that approach, so my character wishes to turn left - but I, the player, would love a reason to turn right.

Much of the disconnect, again, comes to this binary thinking of there being two possible types of scenes: "the perfect scene, the only one I wish to play next" and "every other possible scene, all of which are unacceptable". You've praised consensus a lot in recent pages. Look up consensus decision making. It is widely accepted that the usual result will be a decision which everyone can live with, but which is sub-optimal for everybody. That sounds a lot like a game where everyone deals with having their favourite aspects come up sometimes, and playing through other players' favorite aspects, even if they aren't that player's preference, other times.

Whereas, in my game, I would never let a player hijack the game simply to please that player.

Emphasis added. That's just scary...

I can clarify a lot with Bob - and without involving the other players. I can clarify whether Bob expects this whole cult thing to remain behind the scenes throughout the campaign, or is hoping it will rear its head at some point, takes come focus and be resolved, or that it will recur on occasion throughout the whole campaign. Maybe Bob will think it should permeate the entire campaign. If so, he needs to be told that this is not the case - other story arcs, some likely stemming from other PC's backstories, public or secret, will also take place in the campaign. However, I have never had a player wish to (or at least vocalize that wish) hog the spotlight in this manner.

So, it's okay for players to have their own plots, but, they don't get to decide how important it is in play, are completely dependent on the DM to introduce complications related to the plot and will have their complications pushed into the back seat by the DM whenever the DM feels it should.

I have much more often had a player indicate his character background has no specific adventure hooks this time, just some general reasons for adventure, and he's happy going along with the plots suggested by other characters' backgrounds and/or having his background filled in a little as we go to keep the game moving in an interesting direction.

This does not surprise me in the slightest. This is what I talked about earlier with players who come from these traditional style tables. They create characters with virtually not plots, and are perfectly willing to wait for and, in fact expect, the DM to roll up the Plot Wagon and start spooning it out to the players. After all, why be proactive when the DM can shove your plot into the background at any time? Much better, in this, to be simply reactive and let the DM frame nearly every scene and every complication.

What you have to realize here N'raac is that I, and others, don't play this way. The campaign is generated, in a large way, during character generation. Much of the story of the game will be outlined, at least roughly, during chargen. We don't start with a campaign, then tell the players to make characters and then start play. We start with the characters first.

 

[Hussar]

Here is where we definitely disagree. If the game is good, then the game is good. We can agree or disagree about what makes a good game. We can even conclude that it cannot be a good game unless everyone at the table has a say in what the game is, unless everyone has a persnal veto, or whatever other litmus test we want to apply. But to say "I don’t want to be involved in a good game" seems ludicrous, at least to me. "That was a great game - NEVER DO THAT AGAIN!" is not something I'd ever expect t hear from any player or GM.

What you don't seem to understand, is that it doesn't matter, in my view, how interesting or not the desert will be. It really doesn't. Without character buy-in, I simply don't want to play. Will that mean that I automatically veto everything? Of course not. I've always said that this was an option of last resort. But, could I? Sure.

Here's an example from my current Dark Sun game (where I am a player, not a DM). The DM had one of our favorite NPC's get kidnapped. Kinda out of the blue.

Now, at the time, I thought, "Really? This kinda sucks, but, well, we're sort of between goals at the moment and ... well... ok, fine, let's play this out".

So, no, it's not like every time I think this I auto veto the scenario. Just that veto should be an option.

To be honest, I think the DM had been pretty busy with real life stuff, we'd just wrapped up a pretty lengthy plot arc and hadn't quite jumped into the next stage of things and he wasn't quite sure what exactly we were going to be doing next anyway. So, he dropped this in mostly because we needed something to do this session. Was it the greatest session in the world? No, not really. Was it terrible? No. It was fun. It was a diversion. Not a big deal.

Plus, the fact that the campaign does move along at a pretty good pace most of the time, I'm more than willing to give the DM a break. Not a big problem.

But, again, no obligations here. I am not expected by the group to do this. No one is expected to do this. I could just have easily made some excuse and bowed out of the session if I had wanted to. Or, I could have pushed for a way around the scenario. Or I could have raised a fuss. But, meh, it wasn't worth it. Had I done so, it would have been fine as well, but, I chose not to.

 

[N'raac]

Again, no. This is not correct. What I am saying is that the encounters have zero player buy-in before the encounters are presented. Which means that they are irrelevant to the players. Why should they care about something, before it's presented, about which they know nothing?

Either you have no interest in encounters in the desert (which means they are not interesting to you) or you are interested in encounters in the desert (in which case quit complaining about playing through them).

Reasonable for you. Not for me. I don't tailor my games to the group. Never have. I run a much more sandboxy campaign where I create encounters and scenarios based on the player's stated goals and motivations. The capabilities of their characters are largely unimportant except in the broadest sense - no bombing dragons on 1st level parties because that wouldn't be fun. But specific abilities? Nope, I don't plan that way.

Emphasis added. You have spent over 100 pages of this thread telling us we should tailor the game to the group. But you don’t consider their capabilities, only their backgrounds and personalities. So if a character or two never get a chance to shine, who cares?

Again, you take irrelevant in an in-game meaning. Which has always been the breakdown in communication here. I mean irrelevant to the players Nothing in your example is irrelevant to the players because all three options are available to the players. They can choose one of the three options, but, they also have to decide which option to choose, which means, at the very least, they have to interact somewhat with all three options.

No, they do not. They can specifically choose not to communicate with the siege or the occupants of Wherever It Is and treat every situation as an infiltration/combat missing, making all interaction alternatives irrelevant to them.

The desert has zero buy in from the players. The only reason they have to cross the desert is geography. The goal is inside the desert. But, the desert itself is irrelevant to the players because there is no buy-in from the players.

Does that make sense?

If that made sense, would we have been going in circles for 100+ pages?

It makes precisely as much sense as:

The siege has zero buy in from the players. The only reason they have to get past the siege is geography. The goal is inside the siege. But, the siege itself is irrelevant to the players because there is no buy-in from the players.

Whatever you assume has buyin is relevant. Whatever you assume lacks buyin is not. And you assume that your buyin equals buyin by the group as a whole.

Yup, that could certainly happen. What's the problem with that? Is it better to force the rest of the group to deal with Bob's Cult problem by keeping them in the dark? I'd rather the players get to decide whether or not they want to deal with Bob's Cult Problem and, if it stops being compelling at the table, the problem goes away. It gets resolved and/or cut short. No problem.

It is “neither “better” nor “worse”. If the players are bored by the Cult problem, they are bored with it whether or not they know about the link to Bob.

Whereas, in my game, I would never let a player hijack the game simply to please that player.

Sure you would. We’re all enjoying the desert travel until one player says “Not feeling it – fast forward to the city”. The game has been hijacked to the city.

So, it's okay for players to have their own plots, but, they don't get to decide how important it is in play, are completely dependent on the DM to introduce complications related to the plot and will have their complications pushed into the back seat by the DM whenever the DM feels it should.

So, it's okay for players to have their own ideas, but, they don't get to decide whether they will ever see play, are completely dependent on the DM and every other player to allow complications and will have their complications, or even their character concept, pushed into the back seat by any other player whenever any player feels it should.

Still not seeing the inherent superiority of your approach…

The campaign is generated, in a large way, during character generation. Much of the story of the game will be outlined, at least roughly, during chargen. We don't start with a campaign, then tell the players to make characters and then start play. We start with the characters first.

Unless someone doesn't like that character. Veto.

 

[Hussar]

Either you have no interest in encounters in the desert (which means they are not interesting to you) or you are interested in encounters in the desert (in which case quit complaining about playing through them).

The word you are looking for here is investment, not interest. The players have no investment in the encounters in the desert.

Emphasis added. You have spent over 100 pages of this thread telling us we should tailor the game to the group. But you don’t consider their capabilities, only their backgrounds and personalities. So if a character or two never get a chance to shine, who cares?

Yup. I don't tailor the scenarios to the abilities of the characters. I'm not terribly interested in the exact abilities your character has, and likely couldn't tell you what they were. But, I am interested in making sure that every scenario is indelibly linked to the shared backstory established by the table, which would include goals and whatnot for the group.

No, they do not. They can specifically choose not to communicate with the siege or the occupants of Wherever It Is and treat every situation as an infiltration/combat missing, making all interaction alternatives irrelevant to them.

In which case, they've veto'd a scene that didn't interest them. What's the problem?

If that made sense, would we have been going in circles for 100+ pages?

It makes precisely as much sense as:

The siege has zero buy in from the players. The only reason they have to get past the siege is geography. The goal is inside the siege. But, the siege itself is irrelevant to the players because there is no buy-in from the players.

But, the siege does have buy-in because the siege is going on where their goal is. They have buy-in for reaching that goal - we agree on that much I think. Since the siege is tied to that goal, they likely have buy in. Granted, the DM might be wrong here. You'll note, that I never added the siege, that was someone else. And, if the DM is wrong, no harm, no foul, skip it and move on. I think that the siege has a fair degree of buy in, simply because it's so easily linked to the goals within the city.

But, you are right, it could simply be a roadblock too. If that's the case, then skip it.

Whatever you assume has buyin is relevant. Whatever you assume lacks buyin is not. And you assume that your buyin equals buyin by the group as a whole.

That's kinda the point of a group template. When you have a group that is together for a reason, then group buy-in is a lot easier to assume. Unlike the group of random strangers thrown together by fate. In that case, buy-in is much more difficult to assume.

It is “neither “better” nor “worse”. If the players are bored by the Cult problem, they are bored with it whether or not they know about the link to Bob.

Well, for me, it is better because we don't waste hours of table time on random cultist attacks for something no one wanted to play through (other than Bob) in the first place.

Sure you would. We’re all enjoying the desert travel until one player says “Not feeling it – fast forward to the city”. The game has been hijacked to the city.

I suppose that's true. But, again, for me, one "no" outweighs all "yes" votes.

So, it's okay for players to have their own ideas, but, they don't get to decide whether they will ever see play, are completely dependent on the DM and every other player to allow complications and will have their complications, or even their character concept, pushed into the back seat by any other player whenever any player feels it should.

Um, what? Because all of this is established at chargen, player goals will automatically be central to the entire campaign. Because no one's goals will ever be mutually exclusive, it's guaranteed that everyone's goals will be front and center most of the time. And, as an added bonus, at least two other players at the table will be advocating for your goals all the time too, because at least two other players share strong links with your character.

Still not seeing the inherent superiority of your approach…

Because there isn't one. Not for you. My style of game won't work for you. We've established that pretty early on. You want a much more DM centric, DM controlled game where the players are much more reactive and the campaign is largely centered squarely on the DM's shoulders. Very traditional style play. Totally understandable.

Not what I want to play, but, it's certainly not inferior in any way. It's not for me, but, that doesn't mean it's bad.

Unless someone doesn't like that character. Veto.

Oh, totally. That's the point of collaborative writing. Not every idea is going to survive the process. Totally get that. You might have to wait until the next campaign to play out this idea, whatever it happens to be. Again, I have no problem with that. I find the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

But, N'raac, the difference here is that you are trying to "win". You are trying to prove that one way is better than another. It totally isn't. It's just different ways of approaching the game.

 

[N'raac]

The word you are looking for here is investment, not interest. The players have no investment in the encounters in the desert.

I am capable of selecting my own vocabulary, thank you. One key difference between us is that you have no INTEREST in playing out a scene unless you have OK’d it in advance by expressing your INTEREST in that particular scene.

But, the siege does have buy-in because the siege is going on where their goal is.

As has been said, numerous times, both desert and siege stand outside the city, and between you and the Whatever It Is at Wherever It Is inside the city.

They have buy-in for reaching that goal - we agree on that much I think. Since the siege is tied to that goal, they likely have buy in.

Crossing the desert is also tied to that goal. Entering a city under siege requires getting past the siege. Entering a city in the desert requires crossing the desert.

You'll note, that I never added the siege, that was someone else.

Quite true.

I think that the siege has a fair degree of buy in, simply because it's so easily linked to the goals within the city.

As is crossing the desert.

I suppose that's true. But, again, for me, one "no" outweighs all "yes" votes.

Again, a key area of disagreement. “I don’t want to play out crossing the desert” is a “NO”. “I don’t want to skip crossing the desert” is also a “NO”.

Because no one's goals will ever be mutually exclusive, it's guaranteed that everyone's goals will be front and center most of the time.

Those goals, however many or few, that they were permitted to retain will be.

And, as an added bonus, at least two other players at the table will be advocating for your goals all the time too, because at least two other players share strong links with your character.

But those two players with strong links weren’t advocating for dealing with that cult hunting BobPC down, were they? The story changes pretty rapidly in this thread.

Because there isn't one. Not for you. My style of game won't work for you. We've established that pretty early on. You want a much more DM centric, DM controlled game where the players are much more reactive and the campaign is largely centered squarely on the DM's shoulders. Very traditional style play. Totally understandable.

For the past several pages, we have discussed player control of characters, goals and campaign events, from which you take it that I want the GM to make those decisions. Does the GM count as one “NO” vote if he doesn’t like some aspect of your character or goals, or does the GM not count as part of the game? If the former, then we have simply added more people who can decide what your character can and cannot be or do if the alternative were a completely GM controlled game.

 

[Hussar]

I am capable of selecting my own vocabulary, thank you. One key difference between us is that you have no INTEREST in playing out a scene unless you have OK’d it in advance by expressing your INTEREST in that particular scene.

Not quite. I have no interest in playing out a scene which has no player buy in before the scene. In other words, no investment in the scene. I don't have to express interest in a scene beforehand. However, that scene better include elements of investment and that better be pretty obvious up front, if you want me to engage in the scene.

As has been said, numerous times, both desert and siege stand outside the city, and between you and the Whatever It Is at Wherever It Is inside the city.

Crossing the desert is also tied to that goal. Entering a city under siege requires getting past the siege. Entering a city in the desert requires crossing the desert.

Not really. I can enter the city by teleporting, thus skipping the desert and that's okay. Granted, that also gets me past the siege, but, now the siege is still there to be leveraged. If I want to leverage anything in the desert, I first have to find out about the existence of that thing while in the city, then I have to leave the city to use it. The siege does not require these steps.

Again, a key area of disagreement. “I don’t want to play out crossing the desert” is a “NO”. “I don’t want to skip crossing the desert” is also a “NO”.

Overly pendantic semantic games are not fun. Let's not go there shall we. One player wants to play through the desert. One player does not. The no wins, in my game.

Those goals, however many or few, that they were permitted to retain will be.

But those two players with strong links weren’t advocating for dealing with that cult hunting BobPC down, were they? The story changes pretty rapidly in this thread.

Huh? The two players most certainly were advocating dealing with the cult. But, it turned out in play that the cult just wasn't that much fun. So, the group, as a group, likely decides to abandon the cult plot. But, then, again, you are presuming bad faith on the part of the players. I don't presume that.

For the past several pages, we have discussed player control of characters, goals and campaign events, from which you take it that I want the GM to make those decisions. Does the GM count as one “NO” vote if he doesn’t like some aspect of your character or goals, or does the GM not count as part of the game? If the former, then we have simply added more people who can decide what your character can and cannot be or do if the alternative were a completely GM controlled game.

Of course I take it to mean you want the GM to make these decisions. I mean, sheesh, how can I not. It's entirely the DM's decision to play out the desert. It's entirely the DM's decision that one of the hirelings is really a wanted criminal. On and on. You expect the players to automatically buy into any complication simply because they are playing at your table. You do not require any buy in. Players who don't want to participate in a complication are expected to sit quietly and wait while the complication is played out. Players are not permitted to leave if they don't like a complication, doing so would cause you to eject them from the group.

How is this not a heavily GM controlled game?

And, again, so what if the GM can also say no? It's a collaborative effort. Of course the Gm has say here. By and large he's going to set the starting parameters. Again, I suggest you take a look at the FATE character generation rules: http://www.faterpg.com/dl/df/charactercreation.html This is what I consider the gold standard for chargen.

--------

Examples are a good thing. This thread details one method I use for creating group templates:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...g-method-of-group-chargen-My-players-stay-out

I used this for my Savage Tides game a couple of years back to great effect. Worked like a charm. For my group.