the worst is a guy who complais that his players don't 'roleplay' enough and aren't 'social' enough in how they handle things
which is funny because he runs the 'Other game™' and never gives out Social or RP XP
Full Version: A Rant at GMs
| QUOTE (NightHaunter) | ||||
My players aren't bad just new to the game and world. Like all good gamers they picked up the mechanics well but the world beyond them is somewhat of a mystery for them at the moment. |
I wasn't really thinking of your thread. I thought the hose up was funny as hell. Especially the Blame Game posts from your players. Remember folks, it's not about Blame. It's about who's fault it is.
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA @ Apr 20 2006, 09:10 AM) |
| the worst is a guy who complais that his players don't 'roleplay' enough and aren't 'social' enough in how they handle things which is funny because he runs the 'Other game™' and never gives out Social or RP XP |
This clip is for him!
I'm still big on trying to reward roleplaying with things happening to/for their character the player thinks is cool sounding vs. XP. But man you gotta start somewhere.
So tell me is the "aren't social enough" really mean the PCs aren't talking to the NPCs that he scripted the adventure around them talking to? Or were they suppose to guess the monster to try parlay that he has a script lined up for, and when they try to parlay any other monster it gets a free surprise attack to try bite their head off?
no more like they kill the scripted guys, and the unscripted ones
he wanted to do a political intrigue game, and it is more like a game of SR where wetwork is the main gig
he wanted to do a political intrigue game, and it is more like a game of SR where wetwork is the main gig
| QUOTE (blakkie) | ||||||
I wasn't really thinking of your thread. I thought the hose up was funny as hell. Especially the Blame Game posts from your players. Remember folks, it's not about Blame. It's about who's fault it is. |
The others should be getting back online sometime in the next couple of weeks.
I'm only online at the moment because of work.
Hence the need to decide what kind of game you're running before making characters. If your players aren't RP types, political intrique ain't gonna happen.
hisplayers ARE rp types
that is why it is so funny for me
they are just changing style to cope with the XP issue
that is why it is so funny for me
they are just changing style to cope with the XP issue
Heh. That is funny. Whish thread is it in? I could use a laugh.
RL players and GM, not on the forum, sorry
Tease!
| QUOTE (Kremlin KOA) |
| the worst is a guy who complais that his players don't 'roleplay' enough and aren't 'social' enough in how they handle things which is funny because he runs the 'Other game™' and never gives out Social or RP XP |
Hummm, ok.
Guess some people have a rose tinted opinion of themselves.
They like to believe they're one thing when actually their it's opposite.
Another problem I've run into is some players respond a bit too well to the carrots, while others not at all. I've had players who figure out exactly what I reward XP for and maximize their gains, while other people simply continue to poke along heedless. In these cases, you have one player who is super powerful and one who just meets the stick every session. Cases like this the carrot/stick method only serves to exasperate the problem.
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| Another problem I've run into is some players respond a bit too well to the carrots, while others not at all. I've had players who figure out exactly what I reward XP for and maximize their gains, while other people simply continue to poke along heedless. In these cases, you have one player who is super powerful and one who just meets the stick every session. Cases like this the carrot/stick method only serves to exasperate the problem. |
They might be heedless because your stick simply doesn't outweigh what they are after.
Or the stick tastes like carrot to them.
Find out what the guy hittign the stick every time wants and try that as a carrot. If more XP doesn't appeal to him enough to make him want to climb out of his "I don't roleplay shell" (for example) then ask him what would.
I think the closest answer I came to with one particular player was the player felt rewarded when I told a story and she sat there and listened to it. *shrug*
So tell more stories. That oughta make the rest of your players happier. 
That's actually contrary to what's likely to happen. Do more "sit back and listen" and the rest will probably mutiny.
There are multiple kinds of players across multiple axis of gameplay. Most people know Rules Lawyer/Role Player as the primary axis, but that's simply the most blatant. There's also passive/active. A passive player likes to be in a story but doesn't want/isn't equipped for the story to depend on their actions. An active player will go batty if their actions don't have any visible impact on the world (think "Ground Hog Day" where he does the crazy stuff because, hey, it doesn't matter.).
Face it, some groups are not going to get a gaming chubby from the same things. I've been part of several extended gaming groups (college, ~24 people who I gamed with across multiple campaigns) and there were some whose styles were oil/water. Or possibly water/sodium.
The best you can do in that case is throw an occassional bone to the odd player and hope it's enough for them. Sometimes it isn't. The real problem is when the GM is the odd one out; that way lies burn-out.
Someone earlier carped that DS advice tended towards a blue sky, perfect world scenario and the reason is that saying "sorry, you're group really isn't compatible and you have to decide if you want to stay together for the dice" tends to make people very unhappy.
I think the other gripe was that "the GM is just another player." Well, they are. A very special player, kinda like goalie or quarterback, but still a player. A hackn' slash GM won't run a political melodrama anymore than a spindly quarterback with a golden arm is going to play a running game. The thing is, the GM is special because they like the out-of-game prep and the act of running. They aren't special for knowing the rules better or having access to some secret handshake or forbidden knowledge (Ala KoDT). Lots of the GMs I play with are far less knowledgeable about the rules than I am but that doesn't impact my enjoyment of their game; matter of fact the WoD GM tends to ignore the letter of the rules on a general basis and rely on the spirit with far superior results than a literal adherence to the mechanics. I am generally more likely to know the rules better than my players but they will catch me in errors simply because as a human I make them.
There are multiple kinds of players across multiple axis of gameplay. Most people know Rules Lawyer/Role Player as the primary axis, but that's simply the most blatant. There's also passive/active. A passive player likes to be in a story but doesn't want/isn't equipped for the story to depend on their actions. An active player will go batty if their actions don't have any visible impact on the world (think "Ground Hog Day" where he does the crazy stuff because, hey, it doesn't matter.).
Face it, some groups are not going to get a gaming chubby from the same things. I've been part of several extended gaming groups (college, ~24 people who I gamed with across multiple campaigns) and there were some whose styles were oil/water. Or possibly water/sodium.
The best you can do in that case is throw an occassional bone to the odd player and hope it's enough for them. Sometimes it isn't. The real problem is when the GM is the odd one out; that way lies burn-out.
Someone earlier carped that DS advice tended towards a blue sky, perfect world scenario and the reason is that saying "sorry, you're group really isn't compatible and you have to decide if you want to stay together for the dice" tends to make people very unhappy.
I think the other gripe was that "the GM is just another player." Well, they are. A very special player, kinda like goalie or quarterback, but still a player. A hackn' slash GM won't run a political melodrama anymore than a spindly quarterback with a golden arm is going to play a running game. The thing is, the GM is special because they like the out-of-game prep and the act of running. They aren't special for knowing the rules better or having access to some secret handshake or forbidden knowledge (Ala KoDT). Lots of the GMs I play with are far less knowledgeable about the rules than I am but that doesn't impact my enjoyment of their game; matter of fact the WoD GM tends to ignore the letter of the rules on a general basis and rely on the spirit with far superior results than a literal adherence to the mechanics. I am generally more likely to know the rules better than my players but they will catch me in errors simply because as a human I make them.
| QUOTE (kigmatzomat) |
| That's actually contrary to what's likely to happen. Do more "sit back and listen" and the rest will probably mutiny. |
I know. Hence the winky.
If the players get ahold of something special that makes them awesome, that just means they're special. That's good, in my book.
@ blakkie
Your PM box is either full or shut off. Therfore:
Your PM box is either full or shut off. Therfore:
| QUOTE (blakkie) |
| I guess by "did you talk about it"-"constantly and it did no good" you ment something closer to "I told them to STFU and they won't". |
Hardly. You are, however, doing exactly what I expected someone to do when I posted: assuming that you know how things work in my group although I've said very little about it, and then making rash judgements based on your assumed knowledge.
By "talking about it", I mean we had multiple conversations both during, before, after, and completely removed from game. My problems were, basically, as follows.
[ Spoiler ]
| QUOTE |
| BTW I've been in the world of "Player's Guide" and "GM's Guide" too, and found it bankrupt. |
As I said, we have differing views on this. Your mistaken position, however, is that either view is any more or less "correct".
| QUOTE |
| Because there is 1 brain on one side of the screen, and 3 or more brains on the other side. |
Yes, and my personal experience is that a better game is had when those 3 brains are focused on playing their characters well, and having fun. Not on debating rules half-cocked, thus slowing down/stopping the game.
| QUOTE |
| I should call it something past arrogance to expect that you will always know more about the rules and recall it each time better than all of the all players put together. |
(emphasis mine)
That's funny, because I call that the GM's job. See, there are those crazy differing views again.
| QUOTE |
| Unless you are playing with real drooling morons incapable of memory retention and recall, which would beg the question why do that? |
And here you insult my friends based on silly, mistaken assumptions. That's not very polite.
| QUOTE |
| All this much more so in a game system where there is no such divide of books, or inane "players are forbidden to read these rules" malarky. |
No, there isn't a divide. I intend to create one for my next group though. The next group I run SR for will be using a "players book", which will be a nifty write up of rules that they need to know, and I'll be using a full copy. It's not to "limit their knowledge to keep them stupid and happy", it's to avoid bogging them down with things that have nothing to do with them playing the game from a player's standpoint. Again, differing views. I like playing, and providing a good game for my players. I do that the best way I see fit. My way might be different than yours, and that's totally cool. Don't for a second presume, however, that your way is correct for anyone beyond you and the players you know for a fact enjoy your way, however, because that's patently false.
As a "what if". I'm currently running a Dark Matter game in Alternity. The entire game is based on the players' characters not knowing what's going on. Thus, I asked them not to read anything beyond what they needed to create their characters. (Would you have as much fun if you knew everything going on in a conspiracy before the game ever started?) The game system itself has two books. One contains the rules as the players need to know them, and one from the perspective of how to apply them as GM. I have made it clear that I would like the players to only use the PHB. The result? No arguments, no debates, and about 10 solid hours of gooey gaming goodness. The players in this group? The same players as in the SR game. Coincidence, or knowing the players and adapting my way of running the game to a way that maximizes their fun and gaming time?
| QUOTE (emo samurai) |
| If the players get ahold of something special that makes them awesome, that just means they're special. That's good, in my book. |
I agree. As a side note, if you don't want the players to have something, don't put it in the game.
The worst thing you can do in a case like this is to put something in the game that you know they'll want, assuming that they can't get it. Players are crafty, and you don't want to put yourself in a position where you have to run them down in a Fiat to keep them from getting something that you put there in the first place.
As far as pleasing the players goes, I am less an advocate of equally pleasing the players, and more in favor of equitably pleasing the players. In other words - it's their game, too. I would make some effort to draw a reticent player out, but in the end, I would pay more attention to a player that puts more effort into the game.
If you're going to sit there like a lump, and expect to be led around and spoon-fed, then don't whine when the roleplayers, or tacticians, or even the combat monsters seem to have more input into the game than you do. I would try to make the game fun for everyone, but it's going to be more fun for the people who get involved in it more.
If you're going to sit there like a lump, and expect to be led around and spoon-fed, then don't whine when the roleplayers, or tacticians, or even the combat monsters seem to have more input into the game than you do. I would try to make the game fun for everyone, but it's going to be more fun for the people who get involved in it more.
This is true. Of course, there's always the "casual gamer" that's just there for the company and the pizza. I've actually accidentally made them uncomfortable before by trying too hard to engage them. Anymore though, it's pretty easy to spot them and figure out their preferred level of involvement over a few games.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012