Breaking a bad habit

[whisperwind1]

Hey all, I've been GMing for over two years now, and I've noticed a bad habit of mine in my games. This is something that has caused friction with my players rather regularly, something i'm very keen to avoid (since they're my friends and all). My problem is that I hate change as a person. I'm the kind of person who likes to come up with a plan, and gets angry/irritated when someone suggests changing it or otherwise not doing it as I intended. Even with fair warning, i'm likely to be irked, and if you spring something on me, well chances are i'll get mad about it.

At the gaming table, this translates to me getting angry, exasperated and generally negative whenever a player does something I don't expect. Usually it manifests when a player wants to take a situation or deal with an NPC in a manner I hadn't considered. Recent example: the PCs encounter a creature who is supposed to die (either at their hands or through other contrivances), a simple encounter if you will. But after talking to said creature and growing interested, the PCs then seek to rescue it and befriend it, and I as a knee-jerk reaction, immediately vetoed it. I relented after a few minutes arguing, but my players do not appreciate having to fight for every time they go off the rails, and they're right not to.

I know its irrational and unfair, but if I've written down something (or am following a module), I get mad when my players try to stray from it. I admit I prefer when they do this for stuff I had planned as RP, or for things that aren't immediately important (say relationship building). But when its an encounter, or whenever there's a question of taking prisoners, or even just keeping secrets from me in order to surprise and entertain me with their actions, I can't help getting angry. They mean well and aren't trying to sabotage my campaign (hell the most recent argument sprung from a thing I gave them FULL LICENSE to modify and tweak), so I'm really sick of always instinctively reacting badly when they go off the reservation.

So my question is, how can I break my bad habit? How can I cope or simply be more accepting of the tangents or curve-balls my players throw at me? Thanks for any advice you guys can give!

[hymer]

I know exactly how you feel, having felt it myself so often. I still feel it as the night drags on, and I get tired, but mostly I've gotten over it.
I guess there are a few things you can try.

1: Have no expectation about how things will play out. Write situations, places and characters, but not narratives. The only thing you sometimes preplan is what happens if the PCs don't intervene. But this is not to be an expectation, just a fallback. Since you have imaginative and active players (it would seem), this should be quite workable.
You may want to work on your improvisation skills here (you can find good advice on that I should think), if you're not used to this style.

2: Condition yourself to let go. You may need help from your players. When they are about to go off the 'rails', or when they've just done it, take a moment. You can inform the players you need a moment to think things through (likely to be true, anyway). What you really need to do is get your rational self to get back in the driver's seat. Remind yourself what's going on and why it's good.
Over time, this should get easier. It may be hard to get a hold of yourself initially, so if your players can be trusted to this in a useful way, tell them what you're training yourself to do, and have them help remind you that you're letting your kneejerk reaction get the better of you.

[Strigon]

Have you tried being a player?
A big part - some what argue the biggest part - of being a GM is being able to simply go with what your players do, and have the world react in a consistent and logical way. Players are often inconsistent and illogical (or perhaps just consistently illogical), and what you want to happen will rarely be what actually happens. If there's a villain with an epic, tragic backstory that the players are "supposed" to redeem, you can guarantee there'll be a knife through his ribs the first chance your players get. If you can't deal with that, maybe you should be the one doing the stabbing, instead of writing the plot down.

However, if you still feel that GMing is for you, then I can only tell you what others here will tell you for the next three pages of this thread. Don't make plots; make worlds. This isn't an RPG on your Xbox, with a set list of actions the characters can take, and a set list of dialogue options available. Players want to play their way, and they can't play their way if they're just following a script.
So instead of making a script, make a consistent game world.

For example, instead of:
Players hear of a town led by a tyrant wizard in a tower built in the forest to the north of the town.
They go to the town, see oppression, want to help.
NPC's give them location of tower. Some warn of specific traps.
PC's go to the tower, fight their way to the top.
Wizard talks to them; turns out it's a prison town, and he's the warden.
PC's and wizard try to stop now escaping townsfolk.
Wizard gives reward.
End.

Try:
There is a prison town nearby, with the warden being a wizard in a tower nearby.
The people want to escape; random NPC's include Tom, Richard (Curse that censoring machine!), and Harry. List characteristics for each.
Draw a map.
Have a plan for the townspeople to try to escape - maybe a half-finished tunnel.
List the wizard's assets.
List the town's assets.
Judge what each might want from a random group of strangers.
Let them investigate if they want.

[Broken Crown]

Since you foresee and plan for specific outcomes to encounters, one thing you could do which might help is to make sure you plan for multiple different outcomes to each encounter (at least three; more is better). That way, you will, first of all, be less tied to any particular outcome. Secondly, the more possibilities you plan for, the better the chance that whatever the players end up doing will be similar to at least one of your planned outcomes, so there's less surprise and less improvisation involved.

Admitting that there's a problem is, in itself, an excellent start. There are too many stories of control-obsessed DMs who "solve" the "problem" of players doing something unexpected by taking away player agency. So congratulations to you for looking for a solution that keeps the players in the game.

[Amphetryon]

if I've written down something (or am following a module), I get mad when my players try to stray from it
This seems like the crux of the issue. It's unlikely the Players are 'trying to stray' from your intended resolution of a situation, because they don't know what that intended resolution is. They aren't trying to stray, they're trying to solve the problem. They're just doing it from a perspective that isn't the inside of your head. The issue, in other words, is that you're placing encounters in front of them where you see only one solution, then getting frustrated when the Players don't intrinsically know what you think will happen next.

Don't write encounters with singular solutions, and don't write encounters as if the Players have access to your innermost thoughts beforehand, and you'll generally find this less of an issue.

[Freelance GM]

I've noticed that people who prefer DMing over playing (including myself) tend to also be mild to extreme control freaks. For us, players going off the rails in an adventure is like a chainsaw cutting through the beautiful painting we spent days creating.

For my first three years as a DM, I hated it when my players went off the rails. I would get anxious, start stuttering, and make decisions that tried to steer the plot back on track, but seemed pretty feeble and ineffective in hindsight. These always ended up being the worst parts of my campaigns, and I hated them.

The only thing that cured me was finding the right group of players. When I got to college, I pulled together a D&D group of artists and nerds I had just met, and only two of them had ever even tried D&D before. However, since they were more interested in the story than the game, when they went off the rails, their ideas usually ended up being better (or cooler) than what was in my script. The anxiety was gone, and the campaign wound up being one of the most fun I've ever DM'ed.

Other people suggested spending some time as a player. Playing the game every once in a while can remind you why you prefer DM'ing.

Another suggested building worlds, not plots. This is huge. As long as you have a world that you care about, that the players can interact with, you'll care less about the plot going off the rails, because no matter where they wander to, you will have planned material. Now, DO NOT try to create the whole planet. I'd strongly recommend staring out with a small province the size of the Keep on the Borderlands, and working your way up to a Nentir Vale-sized region.

I'd also suggest you consider DM'ing for Organized Play. Since it's a public event, there's sort of an unspoken rule not to go off the script. So, running a few D&D: Encounters or D&D: Expeditions games for your FLGS could also prove to be a little cathartic for you.

Try any or all of the above, and see if they help. Chances are it will be another year or two before the results really show, but hey, it's worth a shot. If that still doesn't work, you may just need to try a different group of players for a little while.

[Lord Torath]

Do you use a DM screen? If so, tape a banner in big, bold, 1"-tall font to the top that says "It's OK when my players do the unexpected. Take a Deep Breath. It's OK."

Plus, what everyone else has said (and will say) about setting up scenarios instead of plots. If using pre-made modules, try to get an idea of what motivates the main characters, so when the PCs do the unexpected, you can figure out how the characters will react. You may need to include extra clues (at least three) so the PCs have the information they need to resolve the module's plot, but again, allow them to 'solve' it in ways other than that assumed by the module.

[Geddy2112]

To add to the "don't build stories build worlds" I find it helpful to build from the perspective that my PC's don't exist. The world will carry on as you have designed and if they do not exist/do nothing, you can and should have a "what if", but this is all you need to plan. It is the role of the PC's to make choices in this world that change the outcome of that. It also provides you a win win-you get to plan out the detailed mechanisms of the world(down to Joe Blow the shopkeeper's life routine) and the PC's can choose which parts of the world to play with(based on your incredibly detailed and explained mechanics of the world).

I also second being a player to get a different perspective.

[whisperwind1]

. The issue, in other words, is that you're placing encounters in front of them where you see only one solution, then getting frustrated when the Players don't intrinsically know what you think will happen next.

Don't write encounters with singular solutions, and don't write encounters as if the Players have access to your innermost thoughts beforehand, and you'll generally find this less of an issue.

This is basically exactly right, and most of the other people in the thread are in agreement. I'm willing to try writing multiple ways to resolve a situation, and build a more open world (although its work and I don't like work). In this specific case however, i'm following a module where the expected way to deal with a situation is laid out, with one or two alternate means. Would you suggest I plan additional possible resolutions?

Also I definitely agree with hymer and his 2nd suggestions. That seems like a direct way to start working on the issue.

[whisperwind1]

I also second being a player to get a different perspective.

No worries there, I'm a player in my other games that the group has going. But I do appreciate the difference between being the guy who writes the adventure, and the guys who need to go through it.

[goto124]

In this specific case however, i'm following a module where the expected way to deal with a situation is laid out, with one or two alternate means. Would you suggest I plan additional possible resolutions?

You could gently ask your players (please reword what I typed here, I'm sure there're better ways to say it): 'Next week, we're following a module. This means that, if you try something off the rails, I'll have to disallow it and go with the action as intended by the module. Is that alright with everyone?'

[Strigon]

I'm willing to try writing multiple ways to resolve a situation, and build a more open world (although its work and I don't like work). In this specific case however, i'm following a module where the expected way to deal with a situation is laid out, with one or two alternate means. Would you suggest I plan additional possible resolutions?

1) DMing is most certainly work. No getting around that, but it's work that a lot of people love o nce they get started - myself included, and maybe you too if you give it a try. Start small - make a town. Put a few conflicts in, write a few backstories and motivations. If you're anything like me, you'll get really excited, and you won't be able to wait to show it off to your players, and see what they do with it.

2) Writing out a few possible resolutions wouldn't be a bad idea, but it might be better to try to fully understand what's at work in the situation. Once you get a feel for the NPC's and their motivations, you should be able to figure out a reasonable reaction for every action they take.

[Spartakus]

This is basically exactly right, and most of the other people in the thread are in agreement. I'm willing to try writing multiple ways to resolve a situation, and build a more open world (although its work and I don't like work). In this specific case however, i'm following a module where the expected way to deal with a situation is laid out, with one or two alternate means. Would you suggest I plan additional possible resolutions?

Also I definitely agree with hymer and his 2nd suggestions. That seems like a direct way to start working on the issue.

I wouldn't suggest planning additional resolutions. It increases the amount of work in preparing your next session significantly and depending on your group, it won't take them long to find the first resolution you forgot. There's simply no way to avoid plot derailment completely and if it happens despite your preparations you might be frustrated even more.

Instead i would suggest trying hymers 1st suggestions:


1: Have no expectation about how things will play out. Write situations, places and characters, but not narratives. The only thing you sometimes preplan is what happens if the PCs don't intervene. But this is not to be an expectation, just a fallback. Since you have imaginative and active players (it would seem), this should be quite workable.
You may want to work on your improvisation skills here (you can find good advice on that I should think), if you're not used to this style.

This can be quite hard for DMs that are not used to this level of improvisation but your players should be able to understand this. After some time you will propably get used to it.
And to me this is one of the things that provide the most fun in DMing. Some of my favourite NSCs were results of unexpected interactions of my players with people whose very existence wasn't planned a minute before.

[GoldfishBowl]

I'm going to share a silly, embarrassing story.

I grew up with Legos being the main toy of my childhood. I especially liked the castle sets, and I had a special cast of characters for my dragonslaying stories. The hero, a knight with a set of armor, visor, and shield unique to my collection. His allies, a Robin Hood type and a Blue Wizard, each also adorned uniquely. His enemies: The Black Witch and her Shadow Man, The Skeleton Pharoh and his horde of skeletons, Whitebeard the infamous Pirate scourge of the seas!

A couple years back, I dug out my tub of bricks for my nephew to play with. the very first thing he does is pull the head off my favorite Knightly Hero and stick his armor on a deep sea diver ("So he sinks faster"). The kid inside me immediately pitched a fit, which shocked me. I was about to get angry about a 6 year old 'messing up my stuff' from when I was 6. I had to take a few deep breaths and remember they're just toys, and he's just a kid. He can and should play any way he wants, and it's my job to help him by letting go of my notions of how it was done.
After I accepted that he was the one playing now, I learned to enjoy providing suggestions and framework for his builds, rather than be the architect.



It's kind of similar with GMing. In this case, you're the architect, not the actors. You really do need to let go of what you've made, because the very act of playing with it is going to 'wreck' it. And while your players aren't 6 year olds, they will still rip the heads off of your knightly heroes for completely insane reasons. But it makes sense to them, and a GM needs to train themselves in enjoy (or at least roll with) it happening.