GM's responsibility

[Halaster]

Hi there.

I've got an issue with a GM that has been bothering me for a while now. I'm pretty much sure I'm in the right, but I thought I could just bring up the subject here and see what you guys think.

My problem is that she (the GM) isn't taking seriously what I see as the GM's responsibilities in the field of, let's say, group management. She rests firmly on the position that all issues the players might have with each other's gaming interests and styles must exclusively be handled between the players, with no interference from the GM. I beg to differ.

A case in point: in our play-by-chat campaign, our group played the crew of a galleon in a fantasy world, about to attack a tropical island full of demon-worshipping pirates. Now, one of our players, who is a military buff, tried to turn this into some kind of D-Day with extensive planning for who to land where and when and how. Now this kind of stuff takes a while to discuss in a chatroom, and took endless boring hours of my game time away. But since the GM didn't say anything, I just had to sit through it, since I felt it wasn't my place to speak up. However, after the session ended, I spoke to her about it, and learned that she was as bored as I am and didn't think his planning at all necessary. So I told her to keep an eye out for such stuff and cut it short if it happened again, cause I wasn't going to sit through any more of it. To my surprise, she flatly refused and told me that, if I wanted anything done about this, I'd have to talk to him myself. Which in turn I refused, for the reasons listed below, and ultimately both the aforementioned player and I quit the campaign, which we had otherwise enjoyed.

Now, for the reasons, why I think such issues cannot be handled between the players alone.
1. and foremost, how should we know what's right in such a situation? After all the planning might have been necessary because we might have run into a trap otherwise. How could I argue against that, not knowing what the GM had in mind? The other player might have been right.
2. It was completely in character. The player played the ship's captain of the marines and was basically doing his duty making sure the attack went well. He overdid it, because of his strategical inclinations and ignored what his fellow players might want, but he was playing his role. After all, he picked that character because it was the most "military" position aboard.
3. The GM simply has a different position than the players. Her word has more weight, it is her game and what she thinks about it is more profound than any single player's opinion.

That said, I believe that many issues can be worked out between the players. Somebody cracking jokes and going OOC all the time? Tell him you would prefer it if he focused on the game. But situations in which one player, in character and generally in keeping with the course of the game, detracts from the overall enjoyment of the group need to be handled by the GM.
I didn't even demand that she confront the player about it. I suggested changing the campaigns course subtly, so he wouldn't have so much occasion for his obnoxious behaviour, or alternately stating situations in such a manner as to make it clear that no grand strategy is required. I don't mind an hour or two of planning here and there, but not six hours. I know the player well enough to realize that he is going to repeat that at the next occasion. So all I needed was a guarantee from the GM that she would try her best not to let it come to that again.

If that situation seems too specific, there are enough examples for this kind of thing in an ordinary fantasy campaign. I've had thieves who always scouted ahead, no matter how long it took and how bored the players of less stealthy characters were, with the argument that you never know what's around the next corner and that they were just doing their job. And so on. In those cases I think the GM should make it clear that this is unnecessary or change the situation so as to make this impossible at least some of the time (magic effects that require the thief to have the mage with him, monsters coming for the party rather than the other way around, etc.). It is his job after all to make sure that everyone is having fun most of the time.

Finally, if the GM is in agreement with such a player, I find it perfectly justified to turn down any other player's complaint. In that case we can still all sit down together and find a solution. But hamstringing one's own campaign because one player is acting inappropriately, because the GM shouldn't interfere with the players' issues is just plain wrong. I've had my share of such situations when I'm GMing. I sit through the boring session, and then work to prevent another. That's the right thing to do.

Or is it?

[Colmarr]

The GM isn't the boss of the game. And what's more, she is likely no more capable of divining what others are thinking than you are. If you were surprised that she was bored, she was probably surprised that you were.

So how or why would she have stepped in?

At the end of the day, almost all roleplaying games are co-operative ventures.

Tell the others when you're not enjoying something. If they all disagree then you might have to "take one for the team". If most agree, then it's likely that the game can quickly move on.

[Bluebeard]

I completely agree with your DM.

If you aren't interested, make it known.
Don't whine, but speak up.

If this sort of thing bothers you, it is not the DM's problem.

[Zincorium]

Do you consider yourself children?

If not, your GM should not be a baby-sitter. Think about this for a second.

While it's reasonable to appoint a person, generally the GM, as a final arbiter for rules oriented complaints, when it comes to interpersonal problems, it is your responsibility to speak up as much as it is theirs.

GMs do not read minds. In a play by post game, they can't even read body language or pick up on subtext. No reasonable person could deduce that the plan is boring people unless someone says so. At that point, whoever was bothered should at the very least PM the GM to see if they agree.

GMs as infallible controllers of games is a bit old school.

[Tempest Fennac]

My approach when I'm DMing is that I'm basically the player who controls the NPCs while giving the PCs something to do (while encouraging PCs to question what I do because I'm prone to making mistakes and it shows they are paying attention), so I agree with her stance on this sort of thing, especially since you had a right to ask the other player to not plan it so much.

[ondonaflash]

if someone is dominating the game sessions perform little nudges with your character. If he spends a long time outlining a prolonged strategy say something like "Are you sure all this is necessary" or "How about we send [party scout] forward to gather some intel before planning out our strike". By adding your thoughts to the game you can wind up shifting the pacing quite a bit, pushing it forward or holding it back. Remember you're a player too, at no point should you be passive in the playing process.

Ask questions, make statements, tell the others what inane little action your character is doing while they chat. It gives your character life, and keeps things moving.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Do you consider yourself children?

If not, your GM should not be a baby-sitter. Think about this for a second.

This.

If you think the game is boring to you - and maybe to others - and not going anywhere, then it is your place to speak up. "Hey, this planning seems pretty excessive and I'm getting really bored. Can we move it on?" You can rationalize all you want, but you should have spoken up. If the GM agrees, she'll support you.

[Satyr]

I am a bit ambivalent towards the OP's opinion. On the one hand, yes, a good GM should make sure that every player has fun and doesn't get bored and can participate in the game. But on the other hand, in the way I coordinate games I think that spotlight time for single characters - effectively solo play is also necessary and a good player accepts that there is always a bit of downtime were others can and should play out theit shticks and strengths.
And more importantly, it is not the GM's task to fight a player's fight; if one player has a problem with a game element it is pretty much that player's task - and no one else's to verbalise the issue and to start the discussion with all players in plenum.

I have always handled all debates about the game style, positive and negative feedback as an issue of the whole group, not as a specific problem of one or two individuals. Talking about the game and the direction it takes is important and necessary for running a smooth game. Player input in the game is important and necessary to make sure that the players can identify with the game and can dedicate their time and attention to it and to make sure that everyone is indeed having fun. Refusing to get involved in these debates - or as the OP stated, to let the GM make the arguement in proxy - will probably not help to solve the issue.

[Halaster]

Interesting responses, but it seems I haven't communicated my point very well. Sorry, English isn't my primary language, so sometimes I may not find the right words. So I'll try to respond and make things clearer.


The GM isn't the boss of the game. And what's more, she is likely no more capable of divining what others are thinking than you are. If you were surprised that she was bored, she was probably surprised that you were.

So how or why would she have stepped in?

At the end of the day, almost all roleplaying games are co-operative ventures.

Tell the others when you're not enjoying something. If they all disagree then you might have to "take one for the team". If most agree, then it's likely that the game can quickly move on.

I wasn't surprised, nor was she. Everybody was well aware that the whole group (me, the GM and a third player) except for him, were bored, again except for that one player, who did not see that.
And I didn't expect her to step in. I simply wanted her to be aware of that and steer the game away from such situations in the future, or at least make clear how she planned them to be played. If I speak up, the others may agree, but it will still result in a lengthy discussion. The GM can simply end that by saying "look, that's not what I'm going for, so you don't need to do it". If that dissapoints the player, we can find a solution (solo session or something).
Finally I fully agree about the cooperative part, but to me that means that certain responsibilities must be effectively distributed. And some of them end up with the GM. The question is, which.


I completely agree with your DM.

If you aren't interested, make it known.
Don't whine, but speak up.

If this sort of thing bothers you, it is not the DM's problem.
That is a matter of gaming etiquette. You don't break up the session for an argument. You get that later.
As for it not being the GMs problem: when someone isn't having fun, it's always the GMs problem. She could easily have handled the situation, by simply adapting the focus of the campaign to what three out of four people liked better.


Do you consider yourself children?

If not, your GM should not be a baby-sitter. Think about this for a second.

While it's reasonable to appoint a person, generally the GM, as a final arbiter for rules oriented complaints, when it comes to interpersonal problems, it is your responsibility to speak up as much as it is theirs.

GMs do not read minds. In a play by post game, they can't even read body language or pick up on subtext. No reasonable person could deduce that the plan is boring people unless someone says so. At that point, whoever was bothered should at the very least PM the GM to see if they agree.

GMs as infallible controllers of games is a bit old school.

Don't get so extreme on me. There was no indication of infallibility or baby-sitting in my post.
Basically, the GM is in the unique position of having extra control about the game, whether you like it or not. She sets the scene, directs the plot in one direction or another and so on. If she uses that right, everyone gets to play what they like. If she gives one player the opportunity to run away with the game for an evening of indulging in his favorite activity at the cost of everyone else, she isn't doing that. It's really that simple, I think. And she knows how the player is about that sort of thing, so she could just pass it over with a simple "you get your men in position for the assault".
Again, I don't expect GMs to read minds. But if someone comes to them post-game and says something, they can't just go "not my problem we were all bored. That guy's a jerk, but you go change him."


My approach when I'm DMing is that I'm basically the player who controls the NPCs while giving the PCs something to do (while encouraging PCs to question what I do because I'm prone to making mistakes and it shows they are paying attention), so I agree with her stance on this sort of thing, especially since you had a right to ask the other player to not plan it so much.

Well, that's precisely her way of seeing things, and as a player I don't feel comfortable there. I'm looking to the GM more than anyone else at the table to make the game fun for me, simply because, as I said above, she's got more influence on that than the other players. If she comes up with a boring plot, nothing my fellow players can do will change that, since, after all, we can't get into more character interaction than we usually do, and so on. So, if she says she doesn't know if she can always handle that, it's fine. You've got good evenings and bad ones. But if she tells me she isn't going to try, I find that quite disappointing.

@ondonaflash:
Been there, done that, have the T-shirt. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. And all the trouble just to spare the GM from making himself a little more clear what direction the game is taking?

Since I am a GM most of the time, I use these techniques myself, that is I subtly direct the game so that I and my players have fun, every player gets his amount of spotlight and no one gets bored. That has nothing to do with me babysitting them or treating them like non-equals. It's what they've given me the GM chair for and I owe it to them. Of course, I fail sometimes. I misjudge the situation and someone isn't getting what they came for. But I address that and try to do better. If someone tells me something wasn't right during the game, I take that in hand. And I expect the same from other GMs. Is that really too much to ask?

[magellan]

I think the OPs point gets clearer if we think of a more extreme example:

Party stands in front of a door
A: Lets look for traps
B: Nah. looking for traps bores me. Lets just assume there are no traps
A: Ok
DM: You trigger the dreaded rockfalling trap. you all die.


Now players always will overplan some situations and underplan others, and it definitely *IS* the GMs job to nudge them in the right direction when they are way off! Because no one else can do that!
There are several options to do that. He can adjust to overplanning by making the plans worth something, disrupt planning with an event when the discussion about the thickness of the rope to used to climb the castle wall goes on to long and resort to the classic "Are you sure?" in the other extreme.
But the DM is the only one who can adjust playerplanning and gameworld, and therefore he must do so when it is necessary.

[Ellisande]

It is my firm opinion that both the OP and the GM were wrong. If the OP was bored and wanted to finish the planning, he needs to say so explicitly--if three of the four people there agree, the game will continue. On the other hand, if the GM is bored, the GM needs to do the exact same thing (and with the same result).


That is a matter of gaming etiquette. You don't break up the session for an argument. You get that later. As for it not being the GMs problem: when someone isn't having fun, it's always the GMs problem...

Nobody is suggesting you break up the game. There's a huge difference between, "I think that's enough planning, does anyone else want to get to the action now?" and an argument. The latter is rude--but the former is a polite, mature way to get the game moving where you want it to go.

As for it being the GM's problem, yes, it is. But it's your problem, too.


Again, I don't expect GMs to read minds. But if someone comes to them post-game and says something, they can't just go "not my problem we were all bored. That guy's a jerk, but you go change him."

It may be that the GM was rude in responding to you, or somehow grated you the wrong way, but... the position that the players get to decide how they allot their time, that the players should be able to plan as long as they like. Even if the problem is the GM's problem, it's not a problem with the GM. It's a problem within the party.

And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what you're suggesting she do. If she was setting up situations where you needed to plan heavily, or were expected to, there is something that she could do differently. But the issue is that one player wants more complex plans than the others enjoy. Short of the GM telling the overplanner to keep moving (something that you can do just as well as she can), what do you expect her to do? And how is this going to work better than a polite in-game request from the other players?

[Halaster]

My problem is that I cannot tell how much planning (or whatever other activity is boring me at the time) is necessary and expected. Even though I know the GM isn't interested in planning herself, and normally never demands that much, if she doesn't speak up, how am I to tell if the current amount of planning is needed? Perhaps she is just unusually accurate for a change, or she realizes too late what kind of situation she has gotten us into and how much planning that calls for.
So I think, it's not up to me but to her to say something and, for the future, to consider such situations more extensively, like having a backup plan if one player overplans. Something like "the pirates have spotted you, you must act now!". That would get the story moving without any chance for conflict among the players. That's what I meant with "argument". If I say "let's move on" and the other player says "no, wait, we're not ready yet", there you go. We'll have to discuss that and ultimately the ball is in the GMs court again. So better she speak up right away, because despite what was said here, I cannot tell someone to move on as well as she can.
Also, I think, it's part of my role as a player to actively remind my GM of my preferences. I can't expect my fellow players to keep that in mind all the time. Sooner or later, someone forgets, being in character and all. The GM, with more detachment from play, has more room to actually consider everyone's enjoyment and interfere for the sake of those who are bored or annoyed.

For an example of what I do: my current group is fairly evenly split between action-oriented players and those who prefer to solve problems peacefully. So in most encounters I leave both options open, so when I realize that one part of the group is losing interest, I can make the next encounter go their way. If that doesn't seem workable, I try and mix both types of encounters evenly.
You can go the same way with overplanning. Just keep your encounters open to evolving into sudden conflict that interrupts planning. Let the NPCs make the first move, if your players take too long. Keep the number of variables to be considered low. Introduce a higher authority that can order the group to move, if they get stuck preparing (be careful though, that can degenerate into railroading). Don't overuse traps and surprises, they make players paranoid. And so on and so forth.
That's what I call the subtle power of the GM over the action. No arbitrary fiats and heavy-handed announcements needed.

[Aik]

I think you really should have said something during the game - possibly floating it with the other players/GM through query beforehand that you were bored, and are they also?

Then as a group you could have come up with a quick decision (possibly arbitrated by the GM) about how to proceed. Seeing that everyone else was bored, you could basically have cut the scene short, summed up the plan briefly OOC, and moved on. If there are complaints, leave that for the post-mortem - just move on and keep playing.

The post-mortem is an important thing. I assume from what you said that you don't do them? Having a post-mortem when the session is over lets everyone see what's creating fun and what's not, and gives a general way to improve future sessions. Air your problems - let people know!

It's not really the GM's role to bring the fun, and they sure as hell can't do it when everyone else in the game has a different idea of what's fun. The group really needs a consensus on what 'fun' is in an RPG so that they can do that together.

Asking the GM to steer the adventure away from military-guy's idea of what fun is seems a bit unfair. It would be better, IMO, to just tell him that you don't find his fun to be your fun, and work out how you can both have fun in the same game (not one on one as the GM said, mind you - but as a group).

[Zincorium]

Don't get so extreme on me. There was no indication of infallibility or baby-sitting in my post.
Basically, the GM is in the unique position of having extra control about the game, whether you like it or not. She sets the scene, directs the plot in one direction or another and so on. If she uses that right, everyone gets to play what they like. If she gives one player the opportunity to run away with the game for an evening of indulging in his favorite activity at the cost of everyone else, she isn't doing that. It's really that simple, I think. And she knows how the player is about that sort of thing, so she could just pass it over with a simple "you get your men in position for the assault".
Again, I don't expect GMs to read minds. But if someone comes to them post-game and says something, they can't just go "not my problem we were all bored. That guy's a jerk, but you go change him."

In an attempt to respond usefully:

In all the games I have played, a GM, acting alone in confronting someone that the entire group has admitted to being a problem, does not resolve problem situations nearly as well as the entire group pointing it out.

The fact that you did nothing by your own admission, and by inference the others acted the same, means that the GM is:

A. Acting as the leader of a conspiracy among the other players (which is true in this case).

B. Claiming the support of people who don't actually agree to prove a point.


Acting as a group, to solve a problem which the group all perceives, will work when nothing else will.

[Thajocoth]

I actually interfere too much as a GM. I'm trying to cut down on it. Some of my players are really new to 4E though, and I don't want to TPK them... An example from last night... The Rogue in the party has Sly Flourish (vs AC) and Piercing Strike (vs Ref), and despite missing several times with high rolls with Sly Flourish against a boss, he kept using it until after one of his rolls I just asked "Did you mean Piercing Strike?" It took him a second to realize what I meant... And he switched what At-Will he was attacking with. As a GM, I know I shouldn't be giving the party tactical advice like that.

However, there was a side-chat about some kinda new flu or something... And I found it really distracting. So did one of the players. The player expressed her concern to the group. They continued. I added that I would also like to change topics... Possibly to the adventure at hand... And they did so. That's just a conversation though. Anything in-game from the GM should only be what the characters know, see, hear, ect...

So I agree with your GM. The party was discussing tactics. It's not the GM's place to interfere. It IS every player's place to provide input on those tactics, including the evaluation that they're unnecessary. However, as a player, it's not always easy to be heard... I have that problem in the campaigns I play in. Luckily for you, this sounds chat based. It a chat, no one's voice is so loud as to drown out all others.

[Bluebeard]

If I say "let's move on" and the other player says "no, wait, we're not ready yet", there you go. We'll have to discuss that and ultimately the ball is in the GMs court again.
Still shouldn't be the GM's job.
If you say "I think we're ready," it poses the question for the whole group.
If one player says he's not ready, the rest of the group has the chance to say that they are.
If the majority of the group still isn't ready, that's a downer.
But just bringing the issue up for consideration is going to help more than appealing to someone else to stand up for you.

And as a GM, I would be reluctant to say "I think think that's all the planning you're going to need. Care to get started?" for a couple reasons:
1. It introduces Out-of-Character knowledge to the players that they're working under faulty assumptions, that what they're getting into is going to be a cakewalk or that there's some other gaping fault in their reasoning.
2. I'm trying to provide players with a game they'll enjoy. If planning is something they like to do, so be it. If nobody says otherwise, why not?
3. There's always that delightful look on the central planner's face as he realizes that his plans are based on fundamentally flawed premises.

[Tsotha-lanti]

As a GM, I know I shouldn't be giving the party tactical advice like that.

Whyever not? If you understand the rules better, then certainly you're the one who teaches the others and points out mistakes.

[Narmoth]

If I'm bored in a game, I'll do something about it.
If I don't want to wait while the thief player checks for traps on the 5th door, taking all possible precautions, I'll open it and hope for the best.
If I'm larping, and things slow down, I'll get a group of players and start organizing something, be it a competition or martial training or whatever.
If I'm dm-ing, and some player is overplanning something, I'll tell him that it's not the focus of the game, so he can usually open a door without looking for traps. Or I can force him to go through the door by attacking him from his side of it.

Anyway, it's always MINE RESPONSIBILITY to do something about it.
In real life, there's no mindreaders about
Thus:

1 You were wrong not to screw up the planners plans by getting on the shore while he were planning, or at least force him to a quicker way of action. You could even say something like "If we don't disembark in 15 minutes, I'll go alone"
2 You're dm was wrong not to do something about the over planning if she was bored. Maybe burn some treasure on the shore or send a wind driving you towards the shore, forcing you to get out of the ship

[BRC]

The way I see it, the ball was not yet in the DM's court. In a chat room, it's nigh-impossible to tell that people are bored unless they say so. It's also somewhat selfish to say "This is boring, as the DM I declare that you need to wrap this up quickly". Preferably, what should have happened is somthing like this.
Strategy Guy: And then we move in on their left flank, gaining the high ground and blah blah blah
You: Hey, do you think you could wrap this up. I'm sure it's a great plan, but I'm getting kinda bored here.
GM: Me too, is anybody else getting bored?
Other Player: A little.
Other Player 2: yeah.
GM: Okay, sorry SG, but i'm going to have to ask you to simplify things a little so we can actually start playing.

Now, Had the GM ignored you when you said you were bored, that would be a different matter.
Edit: As for elaborate planning, my group has a habit of coming up with elaborate schemes, which promptly turn into "Kill them and take the shinies" after the first round.

[Thajocoth]

Whyever not? If you understand the rules better, then certainly you're the one who teaches the others and points out mistakes.

You make an excellent point. The oddest part is, the one who has no problems tactically is the wizard, who has never played ANY D&D before. The others have all at least played 3.5. Though, the other 5 PCs are all melee and almost 100% vs AC too... Previously, they've needed all their dailies for every fight due to their "everyone split up and attack different people so they all die at the same time" tactic. I talked to them ahead of time about tactics this time, and they were able to get through a boss fight without expending any of their dailies or action points.

Back on topic: One thing a GM in a campaign I'm in has taught me is: The more you check for, the more you prepare, the more evil ideas you give the GM. Perhaps you could try pointing out that fact to the group.

[Raum]

I'm looking to the GM more than anyone else at the table to make the game fun for me...I suspect this is the core of your differences with the GM. I also suspect you'd have fun more consistently if you took responsibility for it yourself. The GM can't know when people aren't having fun after all, particularly in a chat based game where there's no body language to read.

Given the situation, why didn't you do anything in character to shorten the planning? Anything from a simple "Detailed plans are the first casualty of battle." to yelling "Charge!". It seems to me there are many ways this could have been resolved in character - avoiding the interpersonal drama.

[Jarawara]

I gotta agree with the original poster, this is the GM's responsibility. And mostly for the reasons the OP stated.

If one player challenges another, it's become player vs player (and for no good reason). This is made far worse if in fact the DM was expecting the players to plan ahead, and utterly disasterous if a PC dies for lack of planning.

For that reason alone, I could never suggest that one player urges another player forward - too much could be lost all for in the name of 'not being bored'.

And yet, if there was no threat or enemy presented, and the players are truly wasting their time, then everyone's going to be bored, both the players who waited for the great strategic planner, and the strategic planner himself, who now finds his efforts wasted.

Boredom like that will make me leave a game. I'd suspect I'd not be the only one. And all it would have took was a few simple words from the DM.

*~*

I suspect that the reason people are objecting to the OP is that they see this as a player-vs-player conflict, and the GM shouldn't be fighting the player's battles. To that, I ask: "What conflict?"

This was a player informing the GM of a problem so that the GM can react however it is appropriate, which might include only a simple word to urge the game forward, or perhaps no action at all. Nobody was being reprimanded here, no player was a 'jerk' who needed to be put in their place. All it needed was a slight tweaking to move things forward. And as stated above, if the player suggested it, it could have disasterous consequences, but if the DM suggested it, well, probably the DM knows what's best to suggest.

Of course the GM should take this responsibility. No one else honestly could.

*~*

So what are the possible actions the GM could take?

1) The DM could simply make a quick in-game comment to move things along. Something like 'hey guys, your plan is good enough as in. While I appreciate your dedication to detail, we're running short of gametime today. Your plan will work, dive on in."

The GM might even comment that this is a one-time suggestion, and clarify that in the future maybe explicit and highly detailed planning is needed for the player's survival. The GM after all might be counting on the players to really think out their actions first - and he just doesn't want all that effort to go to waste here, where it's not needed.

1a) As an obvious addendum to the above, if the highly detailed planning *IS* needed here, then the GM should obviously take no action whatsoever. Perhaps even a subtle word to the OP of "some day this kind of planning will save your life". But no such warning was made, the GM instead said he was bored, so clearly a significant amount of time was wasted for no benefit.

2) The GM could also let this situation pass, but try to adjust for it in the future. Sometimes with only the smallest of adjustments, the GM can prepare future scenes that will either make the 'planning' go more smoothly, and/or be unneccesary entirely - or can make use of such planning, so that the military type can find his talents more useful. And of course, the other players will find greater appreciation in such talents too. The OP would probably have not had such problem with the time spent planning if he knew it would save his life, don't you think?

3) Or, if the GM is good at adjusting things on the fly - change the next scene entirely over to react to the extensive planning done by the players. That way, the several (minutes? hours? gamesessions?) spent planning doesn't reveal itself to be wasted time. If I plan out for several hours how to sneak past the Ogres defending those defensive walls over there, only to find out it was a faulty assumption and there are no Ogres, I'm going to be put out by that, and if that happens too many times, I'm going to lose interest in the game. (And before anyone mentions it, yes, the alternative is to simply dive in with no planning and push the game forward. That works just fine, until it doesn't, in which case I spend all my time making new character sheets. So much time wasted that could have been saved with a simple word from the GM...)

So the DM could either warn us that the planning is not needed... or make use of the planning, and put Ogres throughout the defensive walls. Give us what we apparently wanted, or let us get on with the game.


Another player would not have the game-insight to be able to advise properly, and indeed if they advised improperly, PC's might die. But the GM can nudge things along when appropriate - and therefore, the GM *should*. Time is a limited commodity among players, it should not be wasted if there was an easier solution available.

*~*

A pair of responses:

==>And as a GM, I would be reluctant to say "I think think that's all the planning you're going to need. Care to get started?" for a couple reasons:
1. It introduces Out-of-Character knowledge to the players that they're working under faulty assumptions, that what they're getting into is going to be a cakewalk or that there's some other gaping fault in their reasoning.

Why not? What's the harm in telling the players who have already decided they are going in, but are spending hours planning out how exactly to do it, that it's not particularly needed here? D&D is a collaborative effort, a partnership between the players and the GM, so why not share a little of the GM's secrets in order to facilitate the play of the game?

==>2. I'm trying to provide players with a game they'll enjoy. If planning is something they like to do, so be it. If nobody says otherwise, why not?
3. There's always that delightful look on the central planner's face as he realizes that his plans are based on fundamentally flawed premises.

Or, perhaps there's that extremely pi**ed off look on the planner's face when he realizes that all his time was wasted for no reason. And the look of resentment on the other player's faces when they turn on Mr. Planner for wasting their time.

Now I'm sure that some players enjoy that. (I'm not being facitious - there are those who are amused and pleasantly chagrined when all their detailed preparations are found to be unneeded. It makes for great stories years later when the player is talking about the time he hired a team of dragonslayers, brought men-at-arms for muscle, porters to bring back the treasure, and bought up all the best dragon-slaying equipment known to mankind, only to find out the legend of the Great Wyrm was in fact nothing more than legend.

But not all players enjoy that. Some, in fact, would be downright put out by that, and unless there was a plot-specific reason for us to be wasting all our time on this useless side-quest, something else for the players to 'game', then I would be close to open rebellion against the DM who let this utter waste of time to continue on for so long!

And let me make it clear: It's not the money that's wasted. So what if we have to make little notations on our character sheets of money spent and useless equipment abandoned. So what if the characters waste a year of travel time, getting to the Great Wyrm's cavern? If that was played out in short order, it's nothing to be concerned about. But if the *player's* time was wasted in setting this up, then the GM has screwed up.

Time is a limited commodity. The GM must make use of that time, or gently make it clear that the time could be better spent. That's his/her responsibility, not the player's.

*~*

Now if the group wants to spend the afternoon away just B.S.'ing, then that's a different issue. Each player/GM has their own opinion on that, and certainly each has to voice their own desires, game or chat, but I wouldn't feel my time wasted if I spent the afternoon chatting with friends. But if I was 'playing', and it turns out my time spent was unneeded, then I feel cheated out of my time, and I won't permit that to happen too many times before I just up and leave. As player, I don't have the insight or authority to intervene - but the GM does. And that, my friends, means it's the GM's responsibility to intervene, appropriate to the situation.

*~*~*

One last thing: As player, if you have a wild-assed idea on what the group should be doing next, and you're basing that idea on assumptions, then please, please, do tell the GM those assumptions. The GM can't 'gently correct' the player if the GM doesn't know what the player is thinking.

We had one player in our group convince the whole group that the next thing we absolutely had to do was to travel to the town of FarAway, so he can get the neccesary things he needed. He didn't define what those necessary things were, but clarified exactly how better things would be once his recently slain master was back in the land of the living.

GM tries to gently get the game back on track, but to no avail, there was no diverting the player from his stated goal - and the rest of the group was convinced he was on to something. We spent a dozen gaming sessions getting over there, seeing the world and interacting with some curious situations (to which the player said 'no time, stay on course'), and finally we arrive at FarAway, to which the player immediately starts looking for a high level Wizard who can unlock his master's soul and allow for resurrection.

The GM looks puzzled, and after a brief exhange, it turns out the GM pretty much knew that such power was not available in the city of FarAway, if it was in fact available anywhere. The player was certain it would be available here, the city was large enough for it (and the debate over that went on forever). But in the end, the GM wasn't re-creating reality for this one player, and the rest of us felt duped and a bit stupid.

If the player had simply explained his reasoning, the GM could have clarified the lack of such solution in FarAway before this side-quest had even gotten started, and we'd have not wasted a dozen gaming sessions. Or, changed the availability option to 'yes', and fast tracked us over here so we didn't take a dozen sessions getting here. And yes, I admit I'm also at fault, I should have taken some action by session 3 or 4, demanding something from either of them, player or GM, so I feel stupid about it too.

Tell your GM what you're thinking, and a good GM can help you out when and if appropriate. Keep him in the dark, and the game can be derailed by your faulty assumptions, and everyone's time is once again wasted.

[Knaight]

I gotta agree with the original poster, this is the GM's responsibility. And mostly for the reasons the OP stated.

If one player challenges another, it's become player vs player (and for no good reason). This is made far worse if in fact the DM was expecting the players to plan ahead, and utterly disasterous if a PC dies for lack of planning.

For that reason alone, I could never suggest that one player urges another player forward - too much could be lost all for in the name of 'not being bored'.

Player vs. Player? Try "character interaction" or "roleplaying". Its part of what makes the game interesting.

[Bluebeard]

Or, perhaps there's that extremely pi**ed off look on the planner's face when he realizes that all his time was wasted for no reason. And the look of resentment on the other player's faces when they turn on Mr. Planner for wasting their time.

I have to wonder who invited those people in the first place.

[Raum]

If the player had simply explained his reasoning, the GM could have clarified the lack of such solution in FarAway before this side-quest had even gotten started, and we'd have not wasted a dozen gaming sessions. Or, changed the availability option to 'yes', and fast tracked us over here so we didn't take a dozen sessions getting here. And yes, I admit I'm also at fault, I should have taken some action by session 3 or 4, demanding something from either of them, player or GM, so I feel stupid about it too.It looks to me like you have a very different meta-game focus than I do. I look at the side quest you describe and see the potential for a dozen sessions of fun gaming. You appear to look at it and see only the lack of some accomplishment. To me, what was (or was not) found in 'FarAway' has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I had fun in the dozen sessions it took to arrive.


Tell your GM what you're thinking, and a good GM can help you out when and if appropriate. Keep him in the dark, and the game can be derailed by your faulty assumptions, and everyone's time is once again wasted.Is going off the rails a bad thing? Many groups are horrified at the concept of having to 'stay on track' to begin with.

Frankly the failure (in both the OP's example and yours) probably has more to do with different expectations than anything else. Sometimes it really helps to make the group's social contract explicit.

[Halaster]

OK, I get it. I have internalized the whole thing about keeping the game rolling a little too much. I guess I have had one too many bad experiences in my early gaming life, when somebody spoke up because they didn't like something, and the whole game degenerate into a discussion session. And sometimes that ends the game for good, because now all the stuff is in the open and people realize they think in very different patterns.* That's why it's almost law in the groups I game (not just the ones I GM) in to shut up while the game is going and talk about such things later.

It's also part of why I ascribe that responsibility to the GM, I guess. If I let the players discuss stuff, they could get into a free-for-all that blows the group. If you broach the subject to the GM, he or she might handle things, get everyone involved without letting them know there's a problem. It might seem backhanded, but it's a way to let everyone have fun and keep the group together.

And, considering it, just what happened to the group, when the GM refused to touch the subject? It split. Tactics guy wasn't happy, I wasn't happy, so the group is down to 1 player and the GM now. Why would anyone want that?

Again, I'm not asking anyone to fight my battles. I'm asking the person who can solve the issue without a battle to just do so. Also, for the third time, I am willing to sit through a boring session, and expect no one to know beforehand that I'm bored. But when I bring it up afterwards, I think the GM could at least try to solve the issue using the means she has and we, the players, don't.

Anyway, next time such a thing happens I'll try to get a word in during the game and see how it turns out.

*my favourite school gaming group dissolved over just such a "style" discussion

[Raum]

And, considering it, just what happened to the group, when the GM refused to touch the subject? It split. Tactics guy wasn't happy, I wasn't happy, so the group is down to 1 player and the GM now. Why would anyone want that?Sorry to hear it. But it appears this is the result of letting a problem fester and grow instead of bringing it up to the group immediately.

I haven't tried to analyze gaming in particular but, in my experience, more problems are caused by a lack of communication and avoidance of conflict than by bringing issues out into the open the first time they become a bother. It's simply easier to correct either issues or perceptions before either becomes ingrained habit.

[Halaster]

@Jarawara:
Thanks, finally someone who gets my point.

@Raum:
No way. I always bring up such stuff right after the session, and so does Mr. Tactics. We don't wait for things to get real bad.
It's just that our GM not seeing everyone's fun as part of her job left us all unsatisfied. Me, when I was bored to death watching him prepare his masterplan, him when, come next session and we finally move on, all his planning was for nothing, and we walk straight into a plain simple fight, win it, and no need for planning is to be seen anywhere. And the GM when we walked out on her cause we didn't get what we wanted, when she could have simply given it to us without going out of her way,

@Knaight:
That's part of the problem. Our characters were not having an issue. We as players were. And turning one thing into the other is really a Bad Idea (capitals and all). That's what constitutes "letting something fester". It makes it all worse.

[Raum]

@Raum:
No way. I always bring up such stuff right after the session, and so does Mr. Tactics. We don't wait for things to get real bad. From your description you didn't confront the issue at all. Instead of letting the planner know you were bored in game (ideally in character), you avoided confronting him entirely and expected another person (the GM) to do so for you after the fact.


It's just that our GM not seeing everyone's fun as part of her job left us all unsatisfied. Me, when I was bored to death watching him prepare his masterplan, him when, come next session and we finally move on, all his planning was for nothing, and we walk straight into a plain simple fight, win it, and no need for planning is to be seen anywhere. And the GM when we walked out on her cause we didn't get what we wanted, when she could have simply given it to us without going out of her way,Remember, the GM is there to have fun also. Unless you hired the 'Professional GM'. :)

When it comes down to it the GM is just another player with a different role. He or she wants to have fun as much as you do. It's not the GM's 'job' to provide fun, they're a participant.

I still think these situations can be avoided by setting expectations (both game and social) up front as a group. When they do occur, the pain they cause can often be minimized by confronting the situation openly and immediately. Complaining about someone behind their back is seldom good.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Hi there.

Hi, it sounds like your problem is solved [for the worst], but for what it's worth I think you're very mature to bring complaints to the DM before derailing the game with them. But if the DM refuses to arbitrate, it does become your responsibility to deal with. (Whether it is ir/responsible or right/wrong of her to refuse is a question of philosophy, not practicality.)

Talking with other players directly about issues can turn out well, and if worse comes to worst there's always the "I CHAAARGE!!!" solution. If it results in a TPK, you know that the DM did indeed expect more planning. If it ends with the gaming group disbanding, well, you now have seven hours extra to find a new group that would have been used for boring planning.

[Thrawn183]

I gotta say it's the DM's responsibility. I've played in too many groups where people are absurdly touchy about another player telling them "how to play the game." When all it take is the DM to say, "yeah your plan is good enough" and everybody ends up happy? Of course that's what the DM should be saying.