PDA

View Full Version : DM help? Giving the PCs a sense of ownership?



rubycona
2010-05-07, 05:27 PM
Hey, all. Long post, sorry.

So, I've got this world I've been working on for quite a while now. I read DM guides, I ask questions on here all the time, I spend easily 10+ hours a week thinking about the world, fleshing it out, making it more in depth, more involved, more Real feeling, more realistic. I try to think, "Ok, in a world that operates off of these rules, what kind of society, laws, etc, would exist?"

The PCs are non-citizens of this nation, stuck here due to the situation with a war with another nation, and aren't permitted to leave. It helps a lot, I think, because it has far fewer instances of things that the character should know, that the player doesn't. Now both player and character don't know a lot of things.

Personally, I really think that the world framework is fine... not the best, I've not been DMing long enough, and I'm not exactly a bard here, but I really think that it's good. It's definitely very thorough, and if I were a player, it would play to my tastes perfectly. Basically, I feel the problem isn't with the world itself, but with how I'm DMing it.

But... the players can't seem to care. I finally got out of them that they feel no sense of ownership in the world... a sense of connection, that they should Care about what's going on.

Previously, I'd gotten the criticism that my world feels too "real," like they can't do anything to change it, sort of like the real world. Sure, we're all sad about world hunger, but we can't really Do anything about it, and one of my players had said that this world feels so perfectly consistent, self-contained, that they couldn't really do anything to change it.

Obviously, that annoys me as a DM, because the whole Point of the game is for them to change the world... I've intentionally left little holes for them to exploit, little ways in which it Can change, and the nation's in a bloody upheaval right now, due to the fact the nation is at war, and because of the diverted resources, the rebellion, which had previously been underground, is starting to surface and make pushes against the nation's leader. That very chaos is, to me, easy enough to exploit... how many have done so in the history of the real world?

Also obviously, I'm wrong here. I keep failing to make this world compelling...

I've read that spilling too much narrative information is bad, so I've tried to tone it down a lot... as a result, the PCs don't really know all that much about Luska (ok, so I stole a lot of names :P), mostly just the salient bits, a few of the major movements, the laws as they apply to the PCs, and so forth... maybe I've swung too far, and not shared enough information.

I've tried to motivate them with all I know of their character motivations, but... it seems to be dry for them. Maybe, I'm too heavy on this grey morality thing, where nothing, absolutely nothing, is perfectly good or evil... I'm constantly putting the characters in positions where they're not sure what the right thing to do is, there's good and evil on both sides, merely one is fundamentally evil, superficially good and the other superficially evil, fundamentally good.

An example of a motivation I expected to work, and didn't, was we have a druid in the party, and the party discovers that the druids are in a very difficult situation. The leader of this nation is making a push to eliminate all non-humanoid-friendly creatures, to "rebalance" the ecosystem, essentially, which puts him at great odds with the druids. All those that have fought back out in the open have been hunted down and executed for "treason against Luska." So, the only druids that remain are those that act from a support kind of role, heavily involved in supporting the rebellion, and are all itching for the opportunity to arise to put an end to this genocide mess, and avenge their friends.

I thought the PC druid would be heavily drawn in by this, since druidic pursuits are the only character motivations she's given me. And she is upset at the creature hunting, but rather than favoring the druids, she's upset that they aren't actively attacking the nation, she feels I've made them all cowards. Which... makes no sense to me. The whole rebellion is a secret, if they're found out, they're not strong enough to face Luska's resources head on yet. And all the druids that Have tried more direct approaches (of which there were many) have been hunted down, over the course of the last several decades, and executed.

So, there's an example of a major flop on my part, either I explained it really poorly when they spoke to a druid who'd been captured, or... I dunno.

So you guys have an idea of where I'm coming from. I know I don't have a perfect question here, it's kind of vague, but I'm basically just asking for help... ideas on how I can draw in the characters, give them a sense of ownership, make this world compelling. Thanks for any help that you can provide :)

Ravens_cry
2010-05-07, 05:49 PM
Give them titles within the hierarchy they are part of. A cleric could become a Bishop or similar title of his deities church. A fighter could be granted land by a grateful king. Have people they have saved in previous adventures come up to them later to thank them. Have others give them respect, and not treat them as the heavily armed errand boys, unless that would fit that NPC. Let them build a fort, castle or bar.
Let them have an effect on the world.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-07, 05:58 PM
This essay works well to explain how to get the players to care. (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/players-caring.html)

Aside from those enlightened words, I know how you feel.
I got that in a game setting that I made up. There was exactly that statement from one of the players - there are no gaps, you've got everything covered.

So I went out of my way to show that there was the surface normality, the everyday life of the everyday folk, and there was the conspiracy and backroom dealing of the shadowy, undiscovered, secret side.

Think of your D&D setting like a spy story, or a Dan Brown conspiracy novel, or a detective story - but with all the crazy action elements that D&D brings.
You need to show the players what's normal, and then break it in an exciting way.

One thing that stands out to me in your post: your players' characters are not local to the setting.
This means they are - from the start - not connected to the local status quo. You need to work on drawing them in. Focus on something small and friendly, nothing too big or mysterious or solemn or tragic or anything - no orphans or hooded strangers - something they are almost certain to like. Pick something the players think is cool and cram it in there - a saucy barmaid, a boxing club, whatever will get them liking it.
This friendly place, person or whatever should be the source of some low-key, easy, fun adventures.

Once you've got the players having fun, and associating fun with your hook - then you use that hook to introduce your bigger plot.

Just my advice - it may not work for your players. Sometimes, players are less interested in playing than they think.:smallfrown:

weenie
2010-05-07, 06:10 PM
Yes, motivation can be tough in a highly realistic campaign, especially if the players aren't very cooperative, which I feel is what is going on in your case. I ran a realism-heavy sandbox E6 campaign, that went on for a few months and ended about a week ago, and if a player enlisted "<insert class> pursuits" as the only motivation his character has, I'd make him flesh it out a LOT more before before it could see play. It is also a good idea to have a main goal that all the characters are after, or else there's little reason for the party to stay together.

About the world changing part, nobody can really expect to drastically change the world. Very few people have done it in world history, and players can't just demand they be automatically granted the ability to do so. They should work for it. Your druid feels that the rebellion isn't doing anything? Well, then SHE should do something! Attacking establishments of local authority seems like a perfect way to start! She could act independently or even unite all the rebels, to take over an entire city! But of course you and the party should all consent to this plan before she can try to set it in motion. So talk to your players, find out what they want to do, and give them some options on how that could be done in your world. Picking who and what your story will be about is what makes RPGs so fun after all.

erikun
2010-05-07, 06:19 PM
Alright, so you've build the world. Now it's time to build the characters into the world.

From what it sounds like, the characters don't have a reason to care much. They are coming in from 'someplace else' and have no way to reconnect to the outside. They aren't connected to anyone, anything, and don't have the option to leave. Is it really that surprising they are apathetic about everything?

Did you have ever found yourself saying "No, that can't happen because..." followed by some setting-specific details? I mean, not every player wants to see the world burn to the ground so that they can rebuild it from the ground up. The choice really shouldn't be the DM-established setting or complete PC-designed revamp.

You mentioned the Druid in the party thinks the local druids are weak and cowardly. (See how I did that? "The druids are cowards," not "I designed the druids as cowards.") What does the Druid player want to do about it? Are they looking at starting a revolution? Changing the government to stop persecuting the druids? Taking out the druid hunters? Look at what interesting things the players might want to do to the setting, and not what interesting things the setting might do to the players.

Giving the players a small "home base" to connect with is a way to get them incorporated into the setting. It's a bit hard to care about a giant million-person kingdom that runs itself just fine. It's a lot easier to care about a small 20-person hamlet that is being bullied by local orcs. (Just don't make every threat against said hamlet...)

Samurai Jill
2010-05-07, 06:21 PM
Previously, I'd gotten the criticism that my world feels too "real," like they can't do anything to change it, sort of like the real world. Sure, we're all sad about world hunger, but we can't really Do anything about it, and one of my players had said that this world feels so perfectly consistent, self-contained, that they couldn't really do anything to change it. Obviously, that annoys me as a DM, because the whole Point of the game is for them to change the world... I've intentionally left little holes for them to exploit, little ways in which it Can change...
The problem here is that you're essentially deciding what the players ought to be interested in in advance, and providing a series of loopholes to exploit provided they go to the trouble of understanding the world in sufficient detail. It's almost like assigning them homework.

I think it's possible that you're looking at a GNS conflict here. You sound like a Sim-inclined GM dealing with players who, well, aren't. Even without intending it this way, the intricacies of internal logic within your setting, combined with the attention paid to determining character skills and proficiencies in advance, are effectively going to shunt your PCs down particular paths within the story. It's going to tremendously restrict the range of parts they can play.

I would suggest that you're trying too hard. The only way to give the players- not their characters, but the players- a genuine sense of ownership in the world is to not establish everything about the world in advance. This might sound almost sacreligious, but... try making things up as you go along.

"Contrary to fan and gaming dogma, great fantasy does not require elaborate pre-story world building. Yes, the Hyborian Age is a triumph of world-building, so are Nehwon, the Young Kingdoms, Naipon, and so on. And yes, some solid notions had to be in place before the author began writing. But the setting developed over the course of time, as the stories were written and the hero's own history grew around it a world as big, colorful, intense and fascinating as he or she. I will go even farther and suggest that the pre-story attention shown to the world and it's map found in so much modern fantasy fiction and gaming has actually stunted the development of awesome fantasy storytelling.
So where does that leave the players and the game master... It means that world-building is both long-term and collaborative, as the hero wears and even generates the world, rather than merely traipses about in it. It begins relatively sketchy and has to develop over time, with all participants knowledgeable about their role in the process."
-Ron Edwards, Sorceror and Sword

I thought the PC druid would be heavily drawn in by this, since druidic pursuits are the only character motivations she's given me. And she is upset at the creature hunting, but rather than favoring the druids, she's upset that they aren't actively attacking the nation, she feels I've made them all cowards. Which... makes no sense to me.
When you present a player with a morally ambivalent situation- which is exactly what this is- you are in effect provoking their judgment of the situation. In this case, it's self-preservation vs. the defence of nature. But you expect the player to pick a particular side as 'obviously correct', despite having gone to some pains to present a situation where the right course of action is not obviously correct. In essence, you're asking an important question and then answering it yourself. You're prompting input without being receptive to it.

The player's judgment is that the Druids are being cowards. If you want to allow her input, allow her an honest opportunity to at least try to convince them to perform an open attack- and alter the world so that this is a viable tactic. The player wants to say something here- that "nature is worth sacrificing personal self-interest for", or something similar. That choice- and it's ultimate consequences- have to reflect that theme in order to satisfy her. There's no way to do that when the internal logistics of your world dictate that any such effort at open resistance on the Druids' part is doomed to crushing defeat.

I'm not saying that players should find that the world instantly conforms to their desires, but the difficulty of a given task should be a function of asking new thematic questions, rather than a side-effect of the imagined world's inevitable clockwork operations. (If you want to play in a Narrativist fashion.)

"...Your goal in the next town is to take the characters' judgements and push them a little bit further. Say that in this past town, one of the characters came down clearly on the side of "every sinner deserves another chance." In the next town, you'll want to reply with "even this one? Even this sinner?" Or say that another character demonstrated the position that "love is worth breaking the rules for." You can reply with "is this love worth breaking the rules for too? Is love worth breaking this rule for?"
...This love, this sinner, this law- those are real people, real characters- I mean in real, concrete situations. Create the people and the situations, don't just pose the question in some sort of theoretical way.
Most importantly, don't have an answer already in mind."
-Dogs in the Vineyard

It's possible I'm jumping the gun here, but I from what you describe, I strongly suspect that your players are itching to get involved in world-building themselves. It's just that their criteria for a compelling world are different from yours. They want a world that reflects on a theme of interest, not one that neccesarily makes perfect internal sense. That process of hashing out that world could itself be the focus of play.

erikun
2010-05-07, 06:30 PM
I've intentionally left little holes for them to exploit, little ways in which it Can change...
This little quote really stood out to me. You want the PCs to become connected to the setting and make changes in it... yet they can only make little changes by following the little clues that have been sprinkled around the setting.

In other words, if the Druid decides to take over the order and start a revolution, it is guaranteed to fail. The only way it would work is if he saves the old man in the southern town, who has connections to the assassin guild, which will kill off a key official to allow the players to....

I think you see where I'm going with this. When it is your holes for your changes, then it isn't the decisions of the players which matter (unless the players happen along the exact same solution). What you want is for the players' holes to make the players' changes in the game world. At that point, they will feel like they're contributing and making actual changes, rather than just following the plot train through its predetermined tunnels.

nedz
2010-05-07, 06:31 PM
Interesting post. Getting the players to buy in is the trick.

It sounds like you are trying to run an open game, a sandbox I think the're called these days. These are quite hard to get the knack of, both for the DM and the players.

Its hard to be sure from this distance, but it sounds like you might be trying to hard to please them.

You have to give them full control over their characters, from creation onwards. Obviously their choices have to fit the milueax, but this is their creative input to the game.

Running a world, as you have described it, requires that the world be neutral(indifferent) towards the PCs. One thing one of my players said to me many years ago was "If I do nothing, nothing happens." His playing style, and approach to life, changed from being reactive to being pro-active after this insight. It sounds like you have a set of reactive players who are dependant upon you supplying the plot. I think this is called dependancy syndrome.

You have to start the ball rolling. I usually do this by starting them with some patron, or organisation, giving them a few jobs. You need a pro-active NPC for this to work. This should entangle them in the politics, and make them some enemies. It usually takes three related hooks.

Alternativly You can have the world bite them.

In the Druid example you might consider having some powerful NPC (driven by the NPCs interests of course) take on the Druid PC, simply because they are who they are. e.g. The Druid is targetted as a suspected traitor and delt with appropriately. Perhaps this is just an ambitious noble trying to make their mark at court ? The player is then forced to confront the political realities and becomes an enemy of the state. The PC then has an interest (self preservation) in the conflict, and they have an enemy.

Many players do not need such a pro-active approach and once you have one player hooked into the milueax, the rest should be driven to seek out their own piece of the action. Once one player is getting all of the plot, the rest will want a piece of the pie. Of course the players have to get this, and talking to them about it doesn't help.

Sorry for the long reply, and I hope this help.

Akal Saris
2010-05-07, 06:33 PM
First, I think that link posted was a terrific read, and I agree pretty whole-heartedly with it.

Second, sometimes players just won't take the goddamn plot hook until you throw it at them a dozen times in different ways or you give up and try a new one.

I'm running a PF module right now through PBP, and the hook for part 3 is a stolen brooch that's worth a hefty reward from the Queen herself. But the PCs ignored it when they first got their treasure, probably because as a PBP game there isn't the same sense of immediacy about loot. Then later on I had the NPC wizard try and con them out of the brooch, and hinted to the PCs that the brooch looks like it has some familiar noble house's markings. The PCs rebuffed her and pinned the brooch to one of the PCs' outfits, then completely forgot about it again. So now the next shot at this one is going to be the Queen's guards noticing the character wearing the brooch, and threatening to arrest the party for theft. Maybe this time it will stick. If not, I'll just introduce them to the queen a different way.

From your example, let's look at the druid one. That looks like a pretty cool plot hook, though the PC really needs some better goals of her own. So next time the PCs travel through an area, have a local resistance druid member contact them and ask for healing supplies or help. Then later meet some druids that used to resist but have given up, and make it relatively simple for the party to inspire them again. Later on, have the party witness an ambush by druids that is going poorly, and give them the chance to jump in and save the cause. Maybe the druids' local leader dies in that ambush, and its up to the PCs to lead the resistance there from then on. Have all this going on while also pursuing threads aimed at the rogue or wizard or whatever as well.

I'm just brain storming here, but the point is to be persistent and throw lots of things at the PCs, because you never know what will stick. It's really hard to make PCs care about the setting when you're using a homebrew world or a new CS (like PF's golarion in my case). So you just have to keep running adventures centered around the PCs, with the rest of the world somewhat in the background, and keep on dropping hints and references that expand the world as the PCs continue their adventures.

And as a sidenote, maybe ease up on the whole "the world is all shades of gray" thing. Sometimes an orc is just an orc, you know? If the PCs have some clearly defined allies (John the innkeeper, Marcus the town guard, the Druid Liberation Front), and some clear bad guys (Lord Thaddicus the Grim and his evil minions, or the secretive bounty hunter who's out for the party druid), with no "but your ally is secretly informing on you to the neutral guy!!" nonsense, then they'll feel more centered in the world and have a better idea of where they stand towards the NPCs in it.

Samurai Jill
2010-05-07, 06:40 PM
I think you see where I'm going with this. When it is your holes for your changes, then it isn't the decisions of the players which matter (unless the players happen along the exact same solution). What you want is for the players' holes to make the players' changes in the game world. At that point, they will feel like they're contributing and making actual changes, rather than just following the plot train through its predetermined tunnels.
This. Essentially.

rubycona
2010-05-07, 06:51 PM
About the world changing part, nobody can really expect to drastically change the world. Very few people have done it in world history, and players can't just demand they be automatically granted the ability to do so. They should work for it. Your druid feels that the rebellion isn't doing anything? Well, then SHE should do something! Attacking establishments of local authority seems like a perfect way to start! She could act independently or even unite all the rebels, to take over an entire city! But of course you and the party should all consent to this plan before she can try to set it in motion. So talk to your players, find out what they want to do, and give them some options on how that could be done in your world. Picking who and what your story will be about is what makes RPGs so fun after all.

I want to make my players read this XD

Seriously, the rebellion is a bit weak On Purpose! Yeah, they could definitely use strong leadership (hint hint, nudge nudge), or maybe better information on where they could attack, if only they had better spies working for them (also hint hint), and all this other jazz.

Where I excel as a DM (I do have some good points!) is winging it. If the druid were to decide to attack something local, or organize the druids for an attack, I'd just about kiss her. But she's just... bleh.

Btw, that link was absolutely fantastic.

In response to the other responses (btw, thanks so much!!!), it IS a sandbox game I'm running, and not railroaded. I'm pretty good at changing dynamics, when the players Do something... where I'm struggling is, I can't get the players to do Anything.

I just like having most of the details of the world worked out, in my head, which makes it, to me anyway, easier to change on the fly.

It's like... they just sit there and want me to spoon feed them plot. Or, like they want me to railroad them. Maybe they Do want that, we'd played where I was a player and the DM was railroading, and they enjoyed it (I hated it, but that's just me, apparently >.>)

I don't balk when the players try something that, according to my setting shouldn't work, I just balk when the players misunderstand the setting :( Like, thinking the druids were cowards and unwilling to fight, when the reality is, I've got them itching to do Something... hell, the guy they talked to, they'd saved from capture, because he snapped and attacked loggers who were getting too close to his grove. Obviously, I failed to get across what the druids were thinking.

Like, the leaving the little holes and such, which erikun mentioned, it's not that they have to follow any one path. In virtually every conceivable (to me, anyway) path they could get started on, there are multiple ways for it to succeed. THAT's what I meant by leaving the little holes. If they want to get the rebellion into an all out war with Luska? Okay, that's a tough one, but sure... let's play ball. Could the rebellion succeed without the player's help? No, I've decided, they would fall. But the PCs could push a civil war to success.

And hell, even if they Did push for civil war, went for it, and failed, that'd change the dynamics of the nation drastically, and the PCs would be wiser to the ways of civil war, and would be able to try other methods.

My problem is definitely not that there aren't enough options. It may be that there's too many options. My problem is I can't get the PCs to care enough to try Any of the numerous paths I keep trying to hint at.

erikun
2010-05-07, 07:03 PM
Well, there are two possible issues I can think of.

The first, which probably doesn't get mentioned very much, is that the players just don't care. As in, they get together to have fun and enjoy relaxing by swinging swords and wands. Or perhaps they're just too shy to recommend a "wrong action" like war on the continent which will alienate their characters for life. If this is the case, you will want to look into giving them some obvious goodguy plot hooks to follow for awhile. It should keep them entertained until the decide they want to do something fancier than killing local orcs.

The second is, as I mentioned before, that they just don't feel connected enough to really want to do anything. This could be helped by having some obvious nicepeople around, with some roleplay and interaction to turn them into characters. The players won't much care about the local shopkeeper they sell stuff too, but they might care about Johnny B. and his southern twang every time they stop buy to sell stuff. Relating a mini-quest (generally one session) to such a character is a good way to make them memorable.

I guess I could think of a third reason: the players don't want to attack the kingdom for the same reason most people don't want to start attacking police officiers. Getting arrested or killed on-sight in any sizable town would really suck, and you've already established that the guard patrols are enough to prevent them from leaving the country.

weenie
2010-05-07, 07:22 PM
It's like... they just sit there and want me to spoon feed them plot. Or, like they want me to railroad them. Maybe they Do want that, we'd played where I was a player and the DM was railroading, and they enjoyed it (I hated it, but that's just me, apparently >.>)

I once had a player just like this. It was a solo campaign, and circumstances forced her to become the leader of a small unit of soldiers. She and her men were inside a small fortress, and a group of orcs that was way to big for them to take on in the open was approaching, so they had to set up defenses as best they could. It was literally one of the best things hat could happen to me as a player in D&D, I was actually envious, that I couldn't be the one defending the fortress :smallsmile:

What was her reaction? She looked at me and asked "well, just what am I supposed to do now?" Turns out people enjoy completely different things, and when you are writing a story that would make some people enthusiastic, the same story would bore some other people to death.

In your case I see two solutions to the problem:

1) leave the group.
Can be hard if you're friends, but if you like different kinds of games, you can explain it, and there probably won't be any grudges.

2) choo-choo!
If it's railroading they want, give them railroading! Your player thinks druids are weak? Well, she's not the only one! Another group of trigger-happy tree huggers contacts her and lets her in on this super mega super awesome assault that they have in plan! And after the first assault is successful tons of people join the group and the leaders decide it's time to go big! But they haven't forgotten how formidable your druid friend was in the first assault, so they ask her if she would be willing to lead a fraction of the rebels to attack a southern city, while they take care of that port, that keeps on supplying the enemy army... Who knows, maybe after they're in deep enough, your players will start having ideas of their own.

nedz
2010-05-07, 07:35 PM
Making the PCs non-citizens was possibly a mistake, I suspect this has made your job 3-5 times as hard because they are not embedded in the culture. Its too late to fix this now.

However:

One trick you might try is the silence ploy.

You say "What are you doing then ?"
You wait, ...
You say "Well ?"
You wait, ...

It can get a little awkward, but you keep waiting, ...

Knaight
2010-05-07, 07:50 PM
Something nearly all GMs struggle with (And I include myself in this category), is the carrying out of events that actually are random, and don't just seem that way. Flukes, freak accidents, stuff with no-ones willing intention behind it, the sort of stuff that happens frequently enough in everyday existence for it to really be a part of our world, are conspicuously absent from most settings. It sounds like your world is too structured, too controlled, unable for something truly odd to happen. But it isn't too late to change that, and sometimes you have to get the setting in motion and build it up for a while, so the players understand what it is, what happens in it, and to some extent how their characters fit in; then you begin to see proactive action. And it is all uphill from there.

The first session is always the hardest, nearly always the worst. You just need to build up some momentum, and once things start moving (which they should by session 1), you can slowly accelerate until you have a setting in motion, with the players truly immersed through their characters. When this is varies, often by session 4, usually by session 6, and pretty much always by session 10. Though this is just at the pace of my groups.

Akal Saris
2010-05-07, 08:19 PM
I once had a player just like this. It was a solo campaign, and circumstances forced her to become the leader of a small unit of soldiers. She and her men were inside a small fortress, and a group of orcs that was way to big for them to take on in the open was approaching, so they had to set up defenses as best they could. It was literally one of the best things hat could happen to me as a player in D&D, I was actually envious, that I couldn't be the one defending the fortress :smallsmile:

What was her reaction? She looked at me and asked "well, just what am I supposed to do now?" Turns out people enjoy completely different things, and when you are writing a story that would make some people enthusiastic, the same story would bore some other people to death.


Heh...I've had the exact same thing happen to me when I ran the same adventure with 2 different PCs where an army would arrive in a week. One was absolutely pumped and got his mage/thief into action setting up pit traps, drop traps, boiling up oil, training local militias, sending message spells to nearby towns, ambushing the oncoming army, and basically having the time of his life. The other PC (a paladin) was also excited, but his first question was: "So what does the captain of the guard tell me to do?" Different types indeed...

AslanCross
2010-05-07, 08:27 PM
This is one of the reasons I've never really taken a liking to sandbox games (correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting from your OP)---my players tend to just stare at me when I drop them in a situation where there are multiple ambiguous hooks but no real plot. It's probably not so much that sandboxing is not doable, it's more of my group expecting something (plot) that doesn't really mesh well with sandboxing.

This brings me to the primary question behind every campaign idea: What are the group's expectations?

As I was setting up my Red Hand of Doom campaign, I originally didn't know what to do with it. I had not yet decided on a module then. All I had was my players saying they were bored and wanting a prequel to an adventure we'd played in the past (It was a level 10 adventure where their characters were war heroes, so naturally they wanted a war campaign.)

I then found Red Hand of Doom and started dropping hints for the players so that they'd know what to expect: It was going to be an epic war story, there would be a siege, and their characters would get to make a name for themselves.

As we started playing, the guy who was using his "less experienced" versions of his characters from the previous adventure (the other players decided to just start from scratch) began to worry about his characters' potential deaths. I eventually told him that we could just treat this as an alternate continuity; no one's getting plot armor because their death would cause a time paradox. The 'prequel' angle was eventually completely forgotten and the RHOD campaign took on a (much more vibrant) life of its own.

What I'm illustrating here is that setting up player expectations is important in pulling the players (not just the PCs) into the campaign. I'm not sure if you did this, but if your players are commenting on it being "too realistic," then there might be a disjunction between their expectations and what they've actually gotten.

At the same time, it's okay to tell players that the campaign simply cannot meet all their expectations. If we can offer the players sensible reasons as to why those expectations can't be met, then we can discard the baggage and get on with the task of enjoying the game.

The link posted above is very helpful---I've been struggling to implement many of these myself. When we drop hints, they have to be obvious; if the solution to a problem is to be found in a book, let the book be on a table in a prominent place, not in some dusty shelf in the corner of the maid's quarters. If it's going to be in a library, they have to know they're looking for it in the library.

Obvious plans of action and moral ambiguity are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In an earlier session, the PCs in my campaign were offered a suspicious contract by a sinister noble in exchange for a quick way to resurrect their two dead party members (one of whom was the cleric). They don't yet know what the contract will require them to do, but they're pretty sure it's no good. Regardless, they had to bring back the dead PCs; I made it clear that level 10 characters don't just randomly walk around the world. While not technically railroading, it was simply an offer they (in character) could not refuse.

When they find out what the contract requires, they could either quietly do it (at the expense of their conscience) or refuse to do it (at the expense of their own safety). Either option provides hooks for later adventures--great possibilities.

valadil
2010-05-07, 08:57 PM
How long has the campaign been going on? If you're a month or two in, I wouldn't expect the players to have much ownership yet. That's something that'll come with time.

I share the concern that you're running a sandbox for players who want a railroad. I've met players who want to be told a story and are utterly uninterested in controlling it. However, if you're still starting out the game the problem may just be that they lack momentum. You can't just drop players in the world and ask where they go. They need a nudge in some direction. Once the plot gets rolling, let them steer.

What I suggest for this is that you give them some plots with clear cut moral decisions. I agree that gray areas are more interesting, but that's also what makes them tough. If you give a tricky moral situation to a poorly defined PC (ie, the sort of PC whose sole motivation is druidic pursuits), they'll get stuck. Feed them some easier plots. The sort of thing that everyone would agree on. While they do this your story will build momentum and your players will build character. Maybe by the time you get to a morality fork the players will know their characters enough to be able to think about the question you're asking them.

AslanCross
2010-05-07, 09:03 PM
I share the concern that you're running a sandbox for players who want a railroad.

I'd be cautious about this distinction. An adventure with a plot is not necessarily a railroad: if the PCs can still do whatever they want in the context of the plot and reap the benefits/suffer the consequences, then it's not a railroad where all outcomes are predetermined. The presence of set parameters does not necessarily mean that the PCs have no choice or say.

A railroad is where the PCs can't do anything meaningful at all; as such, it is possible for a sandbox to be a railroad too. If they go around trying to do something and yet the DM cuts them off at every turn, that's more of a railroad then an adventure with a plot that allows for creative resolutions.

Mando Knight
2010-05-07, 09:24 PM
Owning a castle or something generally gives players a sense of ownership if you do it right...

Severus
2010-05-08, 12:21 AM
I had two reactions on reading your post, well three actually. (The third being you sound like an awesome GM.)

The two material ones are:
-Some people like more mythic worlds. Good is Good, Evil and Evil. Let the fairy tale story begin. I admit I'm a bit like this. The kind of realism you describe can be a bit depressingly real world... It helps to put some heroes into it. If only by having NPCs come up to the characters and beg them to help/protect them. Let them feel like they're the good guys. Which might lead a bit into my second point.

-Some people like more railroading and have trouble deciding what to do. You might want to be more direct about offering them the first plot hook. Once they've picked a direction, the following decisions will become easier for them.

-Oh, one last point. If the druids have failed for decades and died, then the players need to have a reason to believe that they can be different somehow. That something has changed, or that they have some unique ability to do this. You need to give them a reason to believe.

I wish you luck!

stenver
2010-05-08, 07:34 AM
I think that if your players see only 1 ambition, then your players are really not mature enough for a grey world. They NEED good evil and all that stuff. I personally like gray world, so all my games are grey.

What do i do to make players care about the world around them.

*For example, for 1 game, they started off in an organisation, getting a feel of the world, exploring it, as the organisation gave them tasks to do. It did not take long for them to find out what they like and what they dislike. Soon they decided that organisation was not for them and when they finally were far enough from the core of the organisation, well out of its harms way(Since, they knew that abandoning it completely will likely be fatal), they renounced it. They always bluff that they still work for them when they meet a representative of the organisation, but in reality, they have made their own plans. Precisely. They are working for abolishment of slavery and few of the players have their own goals as well in mind.

So to sum it up: Give them a prologue tasks, so they get to know the world. Make the world unstable, so they have got many chances to change it and finally, make sure there are plenty of goals for them to choose from, so they can figure out what exactly they are after.

Finally, if you like gray worlds, keep it gray. Good/Evil is for children stories. In real life its mostly gray. And it works well.(Alignment for example, is very subjective in my world.)

onthetown
2010-05-08, 08:22 AM
It's already been mentioned, but titles might help. Get them to ally with a country that needs help, and if they help enough they should be able to become lords, barons, etc... Lands, holdings, all of those will give them a bit of ownership. There's some work involved, but it'd be a payoff for their help to the country.

Murphy80
2010-05-08, 11:45 AM
I would be interested in the players side of this equation. Any chance of getting their side of the story. Have you talked with them about this?

Kalirren
2010-05-08, 12:07 PM
I've been in this place before. When I DM I'm also a natural world-builder.

What I figured out when players were not engaging in my world was that you can't ever just build a world and hope people find it interesting, even if it is. A campaign like that from the player's perspective can be like wading through a very viscous and dense liquid. Very substantive, but ultimately directionless.

Density of world context doesn't do it alone. You have to exert pressure on them, too. You have to use situation (with a capital "S", if you prefer,) to draw them in. If the world -pushes- them, they'll push back. And when they push back effectively, the world changes, and that change too becomes theirs. Situation is a tool for letting players take ownership of world elements.

So while it's rather counterintuitive, I still find it true that you can't expect the druid to immediately empathise with the captured druid, or even the druid resistance leader if they were to meet that person, just on the basis of declared character motivation. But you can expect them to react if you have authorities trying to chase down and arrest those rebels who organized some jailbreak or protest, getting the PCs in trouble just because the druid is a druid. There's nothing that people hate more than being persecuted for what they -are- instead of what they -do-.

Have the walls close in on them. Force them to take sides. After they've taken -a- side, then they can proceed to try to dominate the world if they so wish.

rubycona
2010-05-08, 02:12 PM
I would be interested in the players side of this equation. Any chance of getting their side of the story. Have you talked with them about this?

I've talked to them quite a bit. The druid's PC is the least feedback-full, but the other 2, plus a fellow DM who joined my game last session to help give some feedback (I kept that part a secret from my players, supposedly he just wanted to see my world, which was also true), anyway I've gotten a lot from them.

And here's what I get... they feel like they're "window shopping," like they have no sense of ownership in the world, no personal, emotional drives to do anything. They say Luska seems like an interesting place, but they feel absolutely no drive to change it or help protect it or anything. So... I've obviously got Some of the elements of DMing down, but the core elements... making it fun and immersive... I seem to be falling flat on. For which that Alexandrian link is utterly fantastic.

I'm kind of half thinking what I should do is scrap the whole campaign idea, and keep the world (I've worked so hard on it, dammit) by changing styles to something blatantly obvious and in your face. IE, rather than the leader of the nation being evil in very subtle (seriously evil, just careful about it) ways... ok, well let's turn him into a bloody lich, and have him go crazy-evil on the people. That's pretty straightforward.

Or maybe, since I'm not too into undead, say the dragons get collectively pissed since he's been trying to eliminate them from his nation (nothing says "humanoid unfriendly" like evil dragons, and nothing says "interfering with evil ruler" like good dragons) and it turns into a major dragon war.

Or something. I dunno. I don't normally like talking to my players so... transparently, but I spoke to one about it, and he thought it was a fantastic idea.

Severus
2010-05-10, 01:20 AM
That sure sounds to me like they want less grey, and more black and white. More mythic, less real.

But I think part as well of the problem seems to be that they're all foreigners in the land. This isn't this fight. It might make sense to make them make new characters who were driven from this land, not strangers who wandered in.

Ask them to build characters who care about the land. They don't have to have a particular agenda, but they have to care.

I think this is one of the learnings I've had as a GM/Player. Campaign design and character design are joint actions, not unrelated that are brought together after the fact. I find it works best when you tell players "Ok, we're going in this general direction, pick a character who wants to go there." Not in the railroad sense, but in the sense that there is some common sense of purpose among the characters.

Ethdred
2010-05-10, 04:26 AM
And here's what I get... they feel like they're "window shopping," like they have no sense of ownership in the world, no personal, emotional drives to do anything. They say Luska seems like an interesting place, but they feel absolutely no drive to change it or help protect it or anything. So... I've obviously got Some of the elements of DMing down, but the core elements... making it fun and immersive... I seem to be falling flat on.

Maybe you could try giving them a small part of Luska to care about - a boy/girlfriend, a rescued orphan/slave, a group of persecuted creatures that need saving - a small group, that they can identify with, not necessarily a whole tribe. And if the big ruler isn't an all out evil guy, that doesn't mean all of his lieutenants aren't. Maybe there's a particular village that is being particularly oppressed, and the party just happen to turn up and see the local lord twirling his moustaches as he kidnaps a young maiden away from her swain just before they were to be married.

It sounds to me like you and I have similar DMing styles, in wanting to give the players a lovely world to play in and then see what they do. But you may have to start being progressively less subtle until they pick up on a plot hook or two (which means you're going to have to think of some plot!!!). Once they get going things should be more self-sustaining, but they probably just need a push. And if they still don't bite then have them come across a group of druids who are all saying 'I feel like a complete coward. Why aren't we doing something? Well, we tried but failed, remember? Oh yeah, what we need is a real leader, someone who will come and tell us what to do. Prefereably someone who wasn't from this country, and had a bunch of mates who could (insert other party class traits)'

TheThan
2010-05-10, 02:42 PM
How experienced are your players at this hobby?

I ask because it seems like your players are trying to use you as a crutch, while you are expecting them to stand on their own feet and make decisions. Inexperienced players can easily do this as they are expecting the DM to support them and provide them with things to kill. It’s a reactive approach “oh the DM wants us to go into the cave, lets go”, as opposed to a proactive approach “oh there’s weird noises coming from that cave, lets go check it out!” see the difference in the two perspectives. Some people need to be lead around by the nose, some don’t. The only way to figure out how your players are is to pay attention to their reactions to any given situation. Some times players can get really dense and the Dm needs to hit them over the head with plot points.

It also looks like your pcs are looking for obvious “big darn hero” moments, but the ones you are providing are not. To use your druid example, how did the PCs know that helping the druids would strengthen the rebellion, and help the druids at the same time? It seems like all they know is that the druids are weak and are being bullied by a more powerful faction. They had no way of knowing that helping the druids would help overthrow the kingdom and lead them to being heroes.

You’ve also said that the good aligned rebellion is responsible for doing bad things, and the evil aligned government is responsible for doing good deeds. I see this as a player trap, one thing a jerk dm would pull on a paladin to make him fall. I’m sure that’s not your intention, but that’s what I see. The players (being a neutral force in the world) see both sides of the situation and are hesitant to act. You need to force their hand and make them want to act. When you can do that, then they’ll get more into the story of the game.

One trick is to make the evil government more evil, have characters the pcs have met disappear or arrested for treason, especially to characters that have nothing to do with the rebellion. Have the leaders start passing more tyrannical laws and start to show that the evil government is indeed evil. Also start showing the rebellion in a better light, allow them to do things that benefit the community and push their cause. That will make it clear which side they should be on, and that they should join up with a side.


Now you seem to have the makings of a fantastic DM, your paying attention to your players wants and likes, and are trying to keep them entertained. You’re doing the one thing DMs must do to be successful, you’re communicating with your players about the game, and trying to improve at it. also you seem to have a knack for storytelling and world building, which is always an advantage in Dming.

Tiki Snakes
2010-05-10, 02:53 PM
My gut feeling is that the grey is perhaps not the issue so much as the lack of ownership itself.

Give them a base, (Flavoured as close to their needs and desires as possible. Let them do it up, re-design it, whatever.) If any are such inclined, give them some political or social power (Influence amongst the Druids, a Barony, whatever), plant NPC's tailor-made to strike an emotional cord with one or two of them.

Make them feel involved in the world wherever possible. But don't forget to threaten the cool stuff when they finally latch onto something. :smallwink:

Ravens_cry
2010-05-10, 03:11 PM
My gut feeling is that the grey is perhaps not the issue so much as the lack of ownership itself.

Give them a base, (Flavoured as close to their needs and desires as possible. Let them do it up, re-design it, whatever.) If any are such inclined, give them some political or social power (Influence amongst the Druids, a Barony, whatever), plant NPC's tailor-made to strike an emotional cord with one or two of them.

Make them feel involved in the world wherever possible. But don't forget to threaten the cool stuff when they finally latch onto something. :smallwink:
Yes, but be careful with this. Once burned, twice shy. They might refuse to form an emotional connection at all if giving a coin to an endearing scamp of beggar boy who tried to steal their purse just means you are going burn down his village.

Tiki Snakes
2010-05-10, 03:37 PM
Yes, but be careful with this. Once burned, twice shy. They might refuse to form an emotional connection at all if giving a coin to an endearing scamp of beggar boy who tried to steal their purse just means you are going burn down his village.

Threaten, not destroy, mind. Don't just take stuff back away again, that's just mean. :smallsmile:

Moofaa
2010-05-10, 06:16 PM
Going from the druid hook I would reccomend giving them the chance to convince the druids to be more active in the resistance.

Have a small group of druids express their frustration with the leadership come to the characters asking what they can do to help. Send them all on a side quest where the party has to work with these discontent druids to show the leadership that it IS possible to be more active. Let them score a moderate victory, then have the druid leaders decide (based on the outcome of the side-quest) whether or not its time to take a more active role.

They don't have to necessarily rush out to kill the Emporer or whatever, just have them do something like a "this ends here!" stand to defend some sacred grove or something that the druid leaders were going to allow burn. Throw a horde of low-level troops with a few challenging leader-types at them. If they win against "seemingly impossible odds" the leaders will admit that perhaps they CAN fight back.

Also remember that the kindgom this is taking place in might not be able to just crush the rebellion...they are fighting another major war as well, remember?

Raum
2010-05-10, 11:08 PM
But... the players can't seem to care. I finally got out of them that they feel no sense of ownership in the world... a sense of connection, that they should Care about what's going on.

Previously, I'd gotten the criticism that my world feels too "real," like they can't do anything to change it, sort of like the real world. Sure, we're all sad about world hunger, but we can't really Do anything about it, and one of my players had said that this world feels so perfectly consistent, self-contained, that they couldn't really do anything to change it. I try to plan three things for every major NPC - goals, resources, and how the PCs are likely to affected or involved in said goals. If the PCs aren't likely to be involved or affected, I don't need the NPC - it's dead weight. Not to the world necessarily, but to the campaign. That centers around the PCs. You spend a lot of time on the world (At least 10 hours per week is a lot to me!) do you also spend time on how goals will relate to the PCs?


Obviously, that annoys me as a DM, because the whole Point of the game is for them to change the world... I've intentionally left little holes for them to exploit, little ways in which it Can change, and the nation's in a bloody upheaval right now, due to the fact the nation is at war, and because of the diverted resources, the rebellion, which had previously been underground, is starting to surface and make pushes against the nation's leader. That very chaos is, to me, easy enough to exploit... how many have done so in the history of the real world?Some times you need big obvious levers - little holes can be easily missed simply because the players probably don't know the world nearly as well as you.


Also obviously, I'm wrong here. I keep failing to make this world compelling...You don't need to make the world compelling, they're not looking for a tour. Make the campaign compelling. Focus on the action. The interplay between the PCs and the world, not the world itself.


An example of a motivation I expected to work, and didn't...Have the players given you backgrounds for their PCs? Often, that is a big clue about how they really want to interact with the world. Other clues can be found in their character sheets - skills, combat / social focus, etc.

Oh, and one thing I learned (the hard way) about secrets - they don't help game play. All too often secrets are things the players never run into and never learn...which means they may as well not be there. I try to drop all kinds of clues for things they should learn and at least a few clues for things they'll learn in the future. Generally, 3/4 of the 'clues' get missed anyway...things 'obvious' to the planner (DM) are all too often obscure to everyone else.


In response to the other responses (btw, thanks so much!!!), it IS a sandbox game I'm running, and not railroaded. I'm pretty good at changing dynamics, when the players Do something... where I'm struggling is, I can't get the players to do Anything.Pure sandbox games require proactive players. I'd suggest trying a hybrid...have some plots going which allow you to initiate some action when the players seem lost. And, as a sandbox, be willing to follow their lead when they do come up with goals...even if it means letting your plot move in the background for a bit.


I just like having most of the details of the world worked out, in my head, which makes it, to me anyway, easier to change on the fly. In my experience there's a fine line between enough detail to facilitate winging it and so much detail you can't change something without a major rewrite. You need to allow for the 'ripple effect'. :)


It's like... they just sit there and want me to spoon feed them plot. Or, like they want me to railroad them. Maybe they Do want that, we'd played where I was a player and the DM was railroading, and they enjoyed it (I hated it, but that's just me, apparently >.>)This is something to consider, some players don't want a sandbox. Have you asked them what type of play they'd prefer?


Like, the leaving the little holes and such, which erikun mentioned, it's not that they have to follow any one path. In virtually every conceivable (to me, anyway) path they could get started on, there are multiple ways for it to succeed. THAT's what I meant by leaving the little holes. If they want to get the rebellion into an all out war with Luska? Okay, that's a tough one, but sure... let's play ball. Could the rebellion succeed without the player's help? No, I've decided, they would fall. But the PCs could push a civil war to success.Hmm, one thing I have to ask, have you chosen the goal? It sounds like you're allowing for multiple paths, what about multiple goals? How much input have the players had on goals?


I'm kind of half thinking what I should do is scrap the whole campaign idea, and keep the world (I've worked so hard on it, dammit) by changing styles to something blatantly obvious and in your face. That's a possibility. Another q for you, are your PCs at a level where they're interacting with the movers and shakers? If not, start with some smaller plots closer to home. Lead them into the larger plot bit by bit.

Say the evil leader needs unwilling sacrifices...he's going to be sending out 'procurers' or simply buying from slavers. Those can be the first 'BBGs' - and they'll tie in to the larger story as the PCs become involved. Whatever the 'big picture' story is, break it down into pieces you can tie directly to the PCs....and then leave an obvious chain of evidence towards the next layer in the plot.

Good luck!

Katana_Geldar
2010-05-10, 11:30 PM
If you want to create a world and have fun with that, consider writing a series of fantasy novels. There is nothing so great about your world that can't be thrown out if someone at the table has a better idea. Don't love it too much, you aren't the only creative person at the table.

Try letting them be a bit creative with their backstory, one very quick way after asking a player what they want to do, is to give them a brief sketch of how it works in your world and say "feel free to make something up here". That is how great ideas are made.

Delta
2010-05-11, 02:19 AM
And here's what I get... they feel like they're "window shopping," like they have no sense of ownership in the world, no personal, emotional drives to do anything. They say Luska seems like an interesting place, but they feel absolutely no drive to change it or help protect it or anything. So... I've obviously got Some of the elements of DMing down, but the core elements... making it fun and immersive... I seem to be falling flat on. For which that Alexandrian link is utterly fantastic.

Well, to be honest, from your setup, something like this is to be expected, or at least not unlikely to happen. When you begin play, the characters are clean sheets, nothing has happened to them, so by default, they won't care about much, because you have to be attached to something in some way to care about this. The only exception to this would be character background, because only through this, the player can give his character something to care about.

But in your campaign, you've taken the characters far away from where they came, so their backstory doesn't mean a whole lot. They don't know Luska, their characters don't know it, either, so why do you think they would care about it?

In such a campaign, I'd always open up with at least some kind of railroad. Give them an NPC with a mission for them, yes, have them hired by some stranger in a bloody tavern if need be. If you really want to avoid any kind of railroading, well, give them to mutually exclusive "job offers" that they will have to decide between. Yes, it's not as interesting as the players heading out to take care of things on their own, out of their own motivation. But sometimes, you have to find ways to give them this motivation first, and a "mission"-style plot can give you that.

Have them do some kind of job for the NPC, showing them different spots of your setting on the way. Have them meet people, get some sense of the different conflicts, and in the end, of course their "quest-giver" has to be involved in some of those conflicts as well.

Often, it takes time for characters to develop, to build attachments, to care for the setting. Sometimes, there's no easy way around that. You have to start somewhere, and if your players don't feel attached enough to the setting to find a place to start on their own, it's your job as a GM to provide it.