Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6097422" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Nothing.  But are the rest of the players at the table also only interested in combat? I would think that, if we have five or six gamers(including the GM) sitting around the table, and all of them are interested only in combat, then the GM would not be incorporating "exploration of the desert" or "interviewing the hirelings" scenarios.  He would skip to the combat.  If the GM is out of step with the player group as a whole, then the GM needs to adapt his style to the group, or the group needs to find a new GM.  But if the other players enjoy these other aspects of the game, then perhaps it is the one player who only enjoys combat who needs to either compromise or find a new group.One cannot keep everyone at the table engaged if some of them are interested only in combat and others are disinterested in combat.  Again, the group dynamic is such that everyone cannot be happy with the same game.  The solution depends on the mix of the group - if one gamer (player or GM) is the odd one out, that gamer needs to find a new group, unless they can live with the emphasis placed on aspects of the game that are less engaging to them.  In Hussar's case, clearly he is bored to tears, so that seems not to be an option for him.This works fine, so long as you assume that all the players are on the same page.  If two players are gung ho to skip immediately to vengeance against the Grell, and three are greatly enjoying the recruitment and interaction with the NPC's, what then?  Two players want cardboard cipher NPC's and three want well fleshed out NPC's they can spend time interacting with.  Does majority rule?OK, so the GM is now faced with either a shirty Hussar because he won't skip over the scenes that interest and engage other players, or with a different shirty player because he skips over the scenes that player wants to play out in favour of cutting directly to the scenes Hussar favours.  So what we get is a battle between the players for the GM to referee (oh, what fun that must be for the GM), with any decision he makes resulting in a shirty player, or some players just agree to play the whole game in a manner less than fully enjoyable for them to keep the 'shirty' player happy.  In my books, the player who feels he has the right to dictate how the game will be played is a whiny, immature player.  Hopefully, that's a more extreme player than anyone actually discussing the topic here.And my question has simply been "are all the players who are still awake rolling their eyes and sending signals they do not want to interact with the hirelings, perhaps as bluntly as saying 'can't we just mark off the effing gold and be done with it?' or are the other players engaged and enjoying this NPC interaction" - that is, for them, it is a worthwhile example of that activity?  I find it much easier to sympathize with the GM in the latter case than in the former case.I would be interested in Hussar's comments on this area specifically.  He has said at least once, I believe, that telling him how to play his character is a dealbreaker.  I know a lot of players who have similar feelings about the importance of their 100% control over their character.  Let's say the other players at the table decide that this need for vegeance agains the grell is getting stale, so the vote is unanimous that Hussar's character should lose that Vengeful trait, to take an extreme example.And yet we must still decide, as a group, which contests will use more or less granular resolution models.  One player deciding he shoud get veto power in this regard or he will get 'shirty' is not, in my view, the appropriate decision making approach. To whom?  If the GM is playing out all the interaction, bored all the while, and watching the players' eyelids droop, then how did we ever end up playing out the interaction scene in the first place?  I suggest it is not boring to everyone at the table.  One thing I sometimes find boring is a combat involving lots of NPC's which deteriorates into the GM rolling a whole bunch of dice for the various participants with the PC's having limited or no real involvement.  With, say, 4 PC's, 6 NPC hirelings and, let us suggest, two Grells, 2/3 of the actions in the battle will be taken by the GM.  How much spectating by the players is too much?If the matter stopped at stating a preference, well and good.  But it has been clear from the outset that, if that preference is not honoured, Hussar feels it is well within his rights, as one of the players at the table, to get 'shirty' because the GM/rest of the group isn't doing things his way.  That goes beyond expressing a presence.In real life, throwing money at the issue doesn't always make it go away.  Why would we assume this to be the case in game?  If that mercenary is prepared to work with you for, say, 200 gold, what happens after the battle, when the party is badly injured and the mercenary is looking at his seriously debilitated employers, who thought nothing of tossing him a sack of 200 gold coins (bet there's more where that came from) and a pile of treasure heaped under the corpse of that powerful foe they have just defeated?I see no reason the scene becomes more drawn out.  If anything, it may become quite a bit shorter because the low CHA, no social skills character lacks the tools to even attract potential recruits in any significant numbers.   Again, I don't believe there would be an extensive recruitment scene delaying combat with the grell if everyone sitting around the table found the former boring and the latter exciting.  Nor do I think that playing out the crossing of the desert is prima facie boring as compared to whatever awaits us on the other side.  If the entire group finds an activity boring, then the group as a whole seems highly unlikely to spend their time on it - which is why we don't see details of how scrubbing takes place witout inducing blisters, the way in which the PCs keep their clothes laundered and relatively free of mites and fleas).Once again, how many players?  If the GM continuously frames out scenes that the players as a group have indicated are of no interest to them, this is bad GMing.  But if one player insists that each scene in the game focus exclusively on those aspects that interest him, despite the fact that his interests are either considerably different, or perhaps much more narrow, than those of the rest of the group, then that player is not necessarily a bad roleplayer, but is certainly a person I would not want to be spending my limited leisure time with.  I enjoy the game - even those aspects which may not be my personal favorites - far more than I enjoy watching a player get 'shirty' because he didn't get his own way.</blockquote>

Verification