Good GMing techniques backfiring?

[W3bDragon]

Warning, wall of text incoming:

I'm looking for advice in handling a situation that has recently been cropping up in the last few games I've been running for my players.

Before I start a campaign, I usually consult with my players as to what kind of game they would like to play. Often, this isn't as straight forward and friction-free as I'd like. Firstly, the players don't give the "type" of game much more thought than "combat" or "intrigue." Problems start when my players sometimes have diametrically opposed views as to what the next game should be. With my three players, I can sometimes receive the following input:

Player 1: I want a high level combat-heavy game without too much seriousness or thought required.

Player 2: I want a deep story with lots of intrigue and interesting NPC interactions.

Player 3: I want cake! Also, I'm up for anything, but I'd rather start at 1st level.

Its difficult to reconcile all of these, and it gets more so because of the way I run campaigns. I work with plot inspiration as the main motivation for running a game, and if the 2 or 3 options I have in mind don't support what the players want, I sometimes end up running the game I can run (because I have ideas already) instead of running the game the players want to play (because I have no original ideas for a campaign along those lines at the time.) As such, rarely are all the players' requirements accomodated in the campaign.

To further blur the lines of what is the right thing to do, once the campaign starts, the players tend to enjoy whatever game I'm running, even if it has nothing to do with their expectations. Its as if they come up with requirements for the campaign only because I asked, but it doesn't really matter to them as long as the campaign is interesting.

Even though I believe I should continue asking them what kind of game they would like to play, its starting to feel like its actually counterproductive. The player who would've been happy playing a low level campaign now has a slight bitterness because his requirement of "high level game" wasn't met. A requirement that he only came up with when I pressed him for an answer.

In a similar vein, as of a few campaigns ago, I started a habit of getting input from the players about the campaign on a session by session basis. I usually ask whoever I can catch of the players before the next session to tell me what they liked and didn't like about the last session, and the same about the overall campaign. This practice has been immensely helpful in understanding what my players enjoy and don't enjoy and I feel our games are better for it.

However, recently, whenever I ask these questions, they tend to cause issues rather than solve them. For example, after a thoroughly enjoyable 8 hour session with only one "down" moment, my post-session questions start to focus the players' attention on that one down moment, robbing the game of some of its fun.

They become so focused on dissecting that "down" moment that instead of feeling the enjoyment of the session for the whole intervening week until the next, the focus becomes that one bad moment and who's fault it was. Either it was one of the players, in which case he gets blamed for ruinning the session (a session that was in fact very enjoyable until *I* brought up the point), or its my fault, in which case it tends to damage some of the verisimilitude of the game, or its the whole PC party's fault, in which case they feel that they've failed me as players and are ruining my campaign, leaving them in a miserable "we all suck" mood for the whole week.

Finally, I'm having a similar problem with setting the campaign's difficulty. I prefer challenging games from a tactical and story view and I don't like to have my NPCs pull their punches if it doesn't make sense for them to do so. Yet, every time the PCs get dangerously close to a TPK or they run away from an encounter that ends up being overwhelming, I ask them whether I'm setting the difficulty too high. Consistantly, I've been getting the feedback that they prefer the difficulty the way it is and they'd rather improve their tactics to achieve their objectives and savour their success.

However, as the campaigns progress, encounter after encounter and adventure after adventure, they don't really improve their tactics. They continue to struggle with the challenges I send their way, and at times that has caused campaign derailment or in rare cases, a TPK. More importantly, it seems to be taking away from the enjoyment of the game. Though I repeat often that I'd can reduce the difficulty, they continue to object and request to keep it as is.


What brought me here to post is that my thoughts are arriving at the conclusion that I should just park these "techniques" for a while and see if the game improves. However, that seems very counterintuitive.

tl, dr: Is it that my attempts at improving my GMing have at first improved our game, but are now starting to become a detriment?

[Cespenar]

Seems like you have identified your own problems pretty handily: Most people, when you get down to it, don't exactly know what they would or would not like. Evaluating past results is a better solution in these instances, as opposed to asking people for their likes and dislikes.

Similarly, overanalyzing sessions may very well lead to focusing on trivial points while discounting 95% of the game that was otherwise enjoyed. Outliers are always more memorable, after all, good or bad.

If we look at the results of the situations you have described, what to do becomes as follows, if you don't mind my curt tone:

A) The players enjoyed your game even if it didn't cater to their aforementioned likes. Thus, simply don't ask, and run the games as you normally do.

B) The after-game discussions started to take from the enjoyment rather than define it? Then remove them. If someone would have pressing problems, they would already know you're an accessible DM and tell you what they need anyway.

C) They can't deal with your level of difficulty after all that time? Lower it.

[caden_varn]

On the point of soliciting player input on the type of game - I'd suggest this should be a group discussion with an outcome all can agree on, rather than asking each individual player for an individual answer and trying to combine them all. So the statements above are the players initial positions - they can then discuss them, which will lead them to clarify what they want, and how strongly they feel about them. They can use this to agree a set of criteria that they can all agree on.
Note this discussion should involve the DM. They are part of the game too, and have a particularly critical role to play, as they need to come up and run the adventures. If you as a DM are not confident with writing or running an intrigue-heavy campaign (I wouldn't be for example), this needs to be taken into account when agreeing the criteria, so players expectations are set appropriately.

On the point of player feedback, you might want to wait a couple of days to let things sink in before asking for it. If nothing else, it should not immediately taint the post-session feeling by raking the negative bits. Also, it is a good idea to ask about what they did like as well as what went badly.

Finally, all groups are different, so not everything that is supposed to be 'good DMing practise' will work in all groups. If something is causing trouble for your group, drop it.
(this is applicable to all the issues really), each group is going to be different, and different things will work well or badly depending on the exact group setup. Feedback is good to get, but not

[Raum]

tl, dr: Is it that my attempts at improving my GMing have at first improved our game, but are now starting to become a detriment?It looks like you asked what they wanted, got three different answers, ignored some or all of them, and went on to create tactical problems which don't seem to engage players. Have you tried getting the group together pre-campaign to create a consensus?

[Delta]

Seems like you have identified your own problems pretty handily: Most people, when you get down to it, don't exactly know what they would or would not like.

This so much. It of course depends on the player, but I have one case in my group where I've just stopped asking. Because she is one of those people who could never, ever tell you that she wants something just because she likes it or some trivial reason, she seems to be pretty obsessed about doing the objectively "right" thing.

So when you ask her what kind of character she'd like to play, she won't just tell you "I want to play a fighter who smashes things with a big sword!" even though that may be just what she wants to play, but somewhere in her head, she thinks that just wanting it isn't enough, so she thinks and thinks until she finds something "right", so now she just doesn't want to play a fighter, it has to be something complex and deep and so on because that's what "correct" characters look like, right?

In the end of course, it's no fun for anyone because she doesn't actually want to play that complex, deep and troubled character she just designed and I as a GM have to handle a character that I have no idea what to do with because including her background in the campaign can easily backfire horribly if the player doesn't even want to play the character the way she designed it.

So long story short: Don't overthink it. If you get the feeling everyone is having fun, most likely everyone is, so keep doing what you feel you're doing right. Of course always keep an open mind and ear for player criticism, but don't force them the criticize unless they want to.

[Themrys]

This so much. It of course depends on the player, but I have one case in my group where I've just stopped asking. Because she is one of those people who could never, ever tell you that she wants something just because she likes it or some trivial reason, she seems to be pretty obsessed about doing the objectively "right" thing.

So when you ask her what kind of character she'd like to play, she won't just tell you "I want to play a fighter who smashes things with a big sword!" even though that may be just what she wants to play, but somewhere in her head, she thinks that just wanting it isn't enough, so she thinks and thinks until she finds something "right", so now she just doesn't want to play a fighter, it has to be something complex and deep and so on because that's what "correct" characters look like, right?

Can't that problem be solved by reassuring her that whatever character she wants to play is "correct"?


@W3bDragon: Since you already established that they can talk to you anytime they want, I'd say, just try to lower the difficulty a bit and see how it works out. Lower difficulty won't make the PCs die, so there is not much risk involved.

Regarding the kind of game people want to play ... only few people enjoy only one kind of game, so I'm not surprised that they are happy with what they get.

Doesn't mean they don't know what they want - if you ask, people will tell you what they like most, not what they'll enjoy, too.

[Delta]

Can't that problem be solved by reassuring her that whatever character she wants to play is "correct"?

No, this isn't limited to roleplaying and this problem has no external source I can see, it's just that her head has to overthink anything and everything she does.

Just one more example, when we were playing Exalted in Gethamane (basically a city-state inside a huge cave system inside a mountain in the far north) and I asked them what they wanted to play and do in the campaign, she was the one convincing the others that she wanted to stay in the city for the beginning of the campaign because her character was a kind of "freedom fighter" trying to rebel against the oppressive benevolent dictatorship of the city and not delve into the unexplored caves beyond the city too soon.

Then in the very first gaming session when given the choice between staying in the city and trying to found out more about some corrupt officials who extort extra taxes that go into their own pocket or going after some rumors of an overdue expedition that had gone into the caves of course she's the first to vote for dropping everything they're doing and running after the expedition. Because of course what she really was after was killing monsters and finding lost treasures, but that would've been much too simple to use as a character motivation.

There's this weird tendency for people who overthink matters to arrive at the conclusion that the things we like can't be good for us and things we don't like are.

[valadil]

Before I start a campaign, I usually consult with my players as to what kind of game they would like to play. Often, this isn't as straight forward and friction-free as I'd like....

Its difficult to reconcile all of these


It sounds like you're talking to each of your players instead of talking to all your players. Talk to them all at once and let them do the reconciling for you.




However, recently, whenever I ask these questions, they tend to cause issues rather than solve them. For example, after a thoroughly enjoyable 8 hour session with only one "down" moment, my post-session questions start to focus the players' attention on that one down moment, robbing the game of some of its fun.


If they have nothing to say about the rest of the session, that means you did it right. I know what you mean though about feedback being problematic. It feels like I never get enough feedback, and the amount I do get comes from so much nagging that I worry I'm pissing off my players.

I've found two ways to get feedback that actually work.

One is passively. People talk about games. Listen to what they tell other friends about your games. Don't lead them, just see what they're enthused to talk about. This is where you get to hear about the positives of your game.

When I eavesdropped the war stories from my last game, I heard the PCs talking about all the times they went off rails. At first I was pissed. They didn't find my stories interesting? Well no, that's not the right interpretation. They found things interesting enough that they wanted to solve them in their own way and I was gracious enough to let them off leash to do so. Each time I l rolled with their bizarre plans was a memorable moment they went of and bragged to their friends about. IMO, that's a damn good lesson.

The other way to get feedback is to ask for it, but narrow it down to specifics.

I gave my players a form to fill out. It listed a dozen NPCs, plots, and game elements (hard combats, easy combats, puzzles, etc). They were asked to circle things they wanted more of and cross out the things they wanted to see less often. Prompting them for these specifics really helped get answers.

I also asked a few open ended questions. Best/worst part of the game, etc. Some of these were useful, others weren't. Here's the link if you're interested https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qLAvhgbA7uyK2iTF7jYvYXIIWP-zPAiu5Nt6vEW4dYg/edit?usp=sharing

The form was great, but it's obviously not something you can do every session.



. Consistantly, I've been getting the feedback that they prefer the difficulty the way it is and they'd rather improve their tactics to achieve their objectives and savour their success.


Players don't really know what they want. They know they don't want a cakewalk because that would be boring. They like the idea of being challenged by combats and they lik the idea of being a mature enough roleplayer to accept a TPK, but when push comes to shove, they also like it when their characters live. The preferences a player tells you they like aren't always what they really like. Some of them know they like easy combats, but just go along with peer pressure.

By all means continue to ask them for this feedback. But if their behavior in a tough combat is different then their stated preference, make a mental note and lower the difficulty without telling them.

[JusticeZero]

Don't ask what was bad, because that focuses attention on the bad parts. Ask what was good, and try to do more of that.

[kyoryu]

Player 1: I want a high level combat-heavy game without too much seriousness or thought required.

Player 2: I want a deep story with lots of intrigue and interesting NPC interactions.

Player 3: I want cake! Also, I'm up for anything, but I'd rather start at 1st level.

I'd try to nail these down with more specific questions. Hypothetical game scenarios - ask Player 2 if they'd be okay with sessions that had nothing but combat, and ask Player 1 if they'd be okay with sessions with *no* combat. Ask about hypothetical situations - "Player 1, would you be okay with a scenario that involved... <some stuff here>, if part of resolving this ended up involving combat?" Reverse the scenario for Player 2.

The problem is that when you ask people about things, you get vague answers that may mean something to them, but may mean *very different* things to you. Nailing down at least a few specifics is a good way to make sure you're on the same page. That doesn't mean you have to use the actual hypothetical situation, but at least knowing the types of reactions that the player has suggested they'd have is useful.


Its difficult to reconcile all of these,

As others have said, it's best to have this discussion as a group.


and it gets more so because of the way I run campaigns. I work with plot inspiration as the main motivation for running a game, and if the 2 or 3 options I have in mind don't support what the players want, I sometimes end up running the game I can run (because I have ideas already) instead of running the game the players want to play (because I have no original ideas for a campaign along those lines at the time.) As such, rarely are all the players' requirements accomodated in the campaign.

Incorporate the players' feedback. Let their actions guide the game in a direction.

And you don't have to satisfy all needs all the time. If a player likes plot-heavy stuff, then give them plot-heavy stuff. But that doesn't mean it needs to be all plot, all the time. As long as you're satisfying the plot need, you should be able to do other things as well.


To further blur the lines of what is the right thing to do, once the campaign starts, the players tend to enjoy whatever game I'm running, even if it has nothing to do with their expectations. Its as if they come up with requirements for the campaign only because I asked, but it doesn't really matter to them as long as the campaign is interesting.

What people think they want, and what they actually enjoy and do tend to be different. What they do is far more interesting.


Even though I believe I should continue asking them what kind of game they would like to play, its starting to feel like its actually counterproductive. The player who would've been happy playing a low level campaign now has a slight bitterness because his requirement of "high level game" wasn't met. A requirement that he only came up with when I pressed him for an answer.

If someone expresses a preference, and you're not going to meet it, it's best to be up front about that, and let them make the decision if they want to continue with the game or not. Don't let it be a surprise. Then, if they choose to continue, they really have no right to be bitter. Especially if you promise to satisfy their high-level need in a different game in the future (or just take this campaign to higher levels).


In a similar vein, as of a few campaigns ago, I started a habit of getting input from the players about the campaign on a session by session basis. I usually ask whoever I can catch of the players before the next session to tell me what they liked and didn't like about the last session, and the same about the overall campaign. This practice has been immensely helpful in understanding what my players enjoy and don't enjoy and I feel our games are better for it.

Absolutely. It's a definite best practice - but it doesn't replace constantly watching your players during the game to see what engages them and what doesn't.


However, recently, whenever I ask these questions, they tend to cause issues rather than solve them. For example, after a thoroughly enjoyable 8 hour session with only one "down" moment, my post-session questions start to focus the players' attention on that one down moment, robbing the game of some of its fun.

Then act as a guide for the discussion, acknowledge the issues surrounding it, and then move the conversation on to other topics. Let the issue be brought up and resolved, and then move on. Don't rathole on it.


They become so focused on dissecting that "down" moment that instead of feeling the enjoyment of the session for the whole intervening week until the next

"Okay, so that bit didn't work so well. I think that <xyz> was the problem, so in the future, I'm going to try to do <abc> instead/I'll look into what can be done as an alternative. Okay, moving on..." Acknowledge the issue, display a plan of resolving it in the future, and get moving. Just constantly bringing up the same bitching points doesn't help anyone. The idea is to get information on the session.


Finally, I'm having a similar problem with setting the campaign's difficulty. I prefer challenging games from a tactical and story view and I don't like to have my NPCs pull their punches if it doesn't make sense for them to do so. Yet, every time the PCs get dangerously close to a TPK or they run away from an encounter that ends up being overwhelming, I ask them whether I'm setting the difficulty too high. Consistantly, I've been getting the feedback that they prefer the difficulty the way it is and they'd rather improve their tactics to achieve their objectives and savour their success.

So, what's the problem? You're running a challenging game, the players don't win every encounter, and they're fine with it.


However, as the campaigns progress, encounter after encounter and adventure after adventure, they don't really improve their tactics. They continue to struggle with the challenges I send their way, and at times that has caused campaign derailment or in rare cases, a TPK. More importantly, it seems to be taking away from the enjoyment of the game. Though I repeat often that I'd can reduce the difficulty, they continue to object and request to keep it as is.

Perhaps suggest tactics to them that would help? Also, a lot of the tactics that help may not be "in-combat", but rather out-of-combat - scouting, planning, etc.

Again, if they're happy with how things are going, what's the problem?


What brought me here to post is that my thoughts are arriving at the conclusion that I should just park these "techniques" for a while and see if the game improves. However, that seems very counterintuitive.

I don't think so. I think there's possibly some refinement that could be done, but it sounds like you're generally doing the right things.

[jedipotter]

Players don't really know what they want.

This is so True. It is really much better to just go by the reactions of the players then ask them questions. Did the player look and sound like they had fun? Well...chances are they did.

But when you ask someone what they like...it just starts the spin. Some people give 'stock' answers. Some people just repeat what they heard or read somewhere. Some people feel they 'must' give an answer or two for whatever reason and so on.

And it only gets worse when you break it down. Most players will say, zombie like, that they like 50% role play and 50% combat. But what does that mean? Talk for 30 minutes then fight for 30?

[Lorsa]

I don't believe your good GMing procedures have backfired. You just need to make them a little better.

When asking people what they want out of a game they will most often say what they think they want most. This doesn't necessarily have to be what they actually want (see Jay R's usual statement of what players want today vs. what they want tomorrow) and it doesn't say anything about what they don't want.

Also, these statements often depend on the campaigns that have come before. Most people like variety and if one campaign have focused on a specific thing chances are some players will want something else for the next one.

It's also important to keep in mind that not everyone should be in the same group. Roleplaying is a very diverse hobby and can take many forms. At some point you might run into a situation where you just have to say "alright, we're not going to find something that we all like" and that's okay.

Now, what you can do more than asking what sort of campaign they want to play is to ask them what sort of campaign they don't want to play. You can also be specific, such as "I've been thinking about setting up this, would you be interested? or "Our last game was a lot of dungeon crawling so I was thinking of doing some more intrigue and social interaction if that's okay?". Find out if the players' requests are mutually exclusive, or if they simply presented their highest preference. Also, it's quite possible to make campaigns that feature many different types of game in the them (those are usually the ones I like most for example). But if that isn't possible, your different campaigns can focus on different things.

There's also the possibility that there are some types of campaigns that you run better than others and that some things you simply can't do very well. That's okay and you should let your players know that. If you can't run lighthearted high-level action; say that. Players will usually understand.

When you ask about specific sessions, try asking for what they liked most. Which NPC did they enjoy talking to the most? Which fight was most intriguing? This will give you an idea of what they like and you can do more things similar to it. I find it's often easier to see on people when they are dissatisfied as compared to when they're happy. So you often don't really need to ask about what was bad; ask what was good instead. Also, I don't usually do it after every session but I make sure to do it at regular intervals and after adventure endings and such.

To sum it up; it hasn't backfired, you just need to ask your questions slightly different.

[Jay R]

I prefer saying, "I'm considering starting a game of the following sort. <Put in description here.> Would you be interested in playing it?"

Getting approval of a single concept makes more sense to me than trying to put several people's incompatible concepts together.

Besides, if you ask what they want, you only get their first choice. This way, I find something they will all enjoy, even if it's one person's second choice and somebody else's third choice.

[Lorsa]

"I'm considering starting a game of the following sort. <Put in description here.> Would you be interested in playing it?"

Yes I would. When does it start? :smallbiggrin:

[erikun]

Seems like you have identified your own problems pretty handily: Most people, when you get down to it, don't exactly know what they would or would not like.
This. Unless people have taken the time to think over a subject, they probably don't have a good answer to the question. In fact, they'll probably just relate the most noteworthy part of the last adventure they enjoyed - which might be wildly different from why they enjoyed it. Your Player 1, for example, might have enjoyed a game with very unique characters and an interesting story - but when pressed, being high level, lots of combat, and not very serious stood out in mind.

The other big recommendation is that, when talking to people and asking them questions, don't just focus on the negative. Focus on the positive as well. Your insistence in grilling your players over the one negative point just made them focus on that one negative point. You should be talking about the whole session, about the points they liked along with the points they didn't like.

Also, don't ask so many questions about the session in general. You want to get some idea of what they didn't like, and if "I'm not really sure" is the answer, then make note of it. You're having them recall a fun experience, not putting them through a manditory pop quiz for the next session.

[Another_Poet]

It seems like you've gotten a lot of suggestions about the uncertain-players stuff, but not so much about the tactical stuff.

I can't imagine too many RPG players telling their GM, "Yes, please dumb down the challenges for us." And while that may not be what you're asking them, that's easily how "Is this too difficult?" can sound.

Players don't want to feel like the GM is wearing padded gloves. They want to feel like the GM is throwing real, difficult, level-appropriate challenges at them and that they, the heroes, are overcoming those challenges fair-and-square through their own determination and clever ideas.

So asking them if you should make it easier is probably never going to solve the problem. Instead I see two options:


Make clear that you didn't expect them to have such problems with the challenges you gave them, and that they could have overcome them with better tactics. Work with them (or encourage them to work on their own) to improve their tactics.
Start making the challenges slightly easier, but don't say that. They will assume the victories are their own making.


It sounds like your players would rather just enjoy the game and not analyze it too much, so I'd suggest #2.

[Funderpants]

Have you tried themed campaigns? I find this is a great way to keep player motivations and campaigns on track.

[Tengu_temp]

I can't imagine too many RPG players telling their GM, "Yes, please dumb down the challenges for us." And while that may not be what you're asking them, that's easily how "Is this too difficult?" can sound.


This is why you don't ask "are the fights too difficult?". You ask "are they frustrating?" or "are they too long?" instead. And if that's the issue and the players say yes, then when you fix it they won't see it as you making the fights easier. You simply got rid of annoying enemies who take way too long to die.