PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Apathy on my table



CombatBunny
2016-03-28, 01:31 PM
Hi everyone,

This is just a way to share with you some problems that I’ve been experiencing on my table. I actually feel calm and happy with my table and with yesterday’s session, so I hope that that same fact will serve so that my opinion can be a little bit more impartial (although I understand that opinions by nature are subjective and thus cannot strive to be impartial)


Long story short: I have a table with apathetic players that do enjoy the session, but show a deep lack of will to participate. More like they enjoy to watch a movie than to be part of it.

I have tried a way lot of different things, dynamics and techniques to make them more proactive, and last session I gave my very best. I dedicated a lot of time to prepare my session, I introduced innovative dynamics, I put a lot of thought and heart to run my very best session ever and the result was…

…a very funny, exciting and entertaining session, but the problem still remains. It felt like the session itself fall too short in terms of the potential it had, compared to the final result.

How come?

It’s very hard to be impartial with this one, because we all tend to believe that we are top-notch GMs. I know that there are a lot of and far of better GMs than me in this same forum, but I’m absolutely certain that my work is at least decent, after all of these years of reading books, advice, experimenting, playing with other tables and trying almost every technique, every approach and every procedure that I have read in rgp-tips and in other sources. It’s been years since I ran a session that I or my players considered boring or bad and it has become natural to me to run at least something lightly enjoyable.

Where am I heading with all of this gibberish and self-flattery?

I did my best to ran an exciting, emotional and fun session full of choices, moral dilemmas, character growth, plot-twists, vivid descriptions, interesting NPCs and the result was a pretty good session, but one in which I still feel that what I’m getting back is not at all in proportion to the effort I’m investing on it. Like talking to a wall in which you only receive back your own voice, but withered.

My players are interested and engaged with the story, but not with interacting with it. Only one player used two messages from the “skuld deck” and only to complicate another PC actions.

(Side note: Skuld deck is a technique I borrowed and modified from an online friend called @Phil Nicholls, aimed to invite the players to collaborate in the creative process of the game, adding events, elements, situations, plot-twists or anything they would like to happen in the table. Basically they are throwing curves at me to think on my feet and incorporate their ideas in the session and I give them bonus on rolls for each one they throw. Max 2 per player per session).

I perceived during the session, that there were no yawns, they were paying attention almost all of the time, they seemed to be enjoying the descriptions and outcomes, but when it came their turn for their PCs to react, they did so in the most uninspired and apathetic way, as if they wanted to skip the parts of the game where you actually play, and just continue listening the story.

When asked for feedback, they all coincide that the session was very exciting, the spotlight was very well timed as well as the opportunities to shine, the challenges, the plot-twists, the liberty of choice, the PCs backgrounds and motivations, etc. they told me that the session was “technically flawless”, but that the problem seemed to be on their own behalf.

Each of them told me that they were more engaged witnessing how the story was unfolding for the other characters than for their own character.

Player A told me that he was still adjusting to the system and that’s why he had been not very participative.

Player B told me that he was liking the story, but that he didn’t felt like portraying his character.

Player C told me that she was enjoying the game, but the attitude of players A and B being so apathetic just disrupted the credibility of the world and so she couldn’t feel inspired playing in a world in which so incongruent characters would exist.

As a side note, player A insisted me a lot that he wanted to be a villain. Hoping to have everyone happy and have some enthusiasm in return, I did my best effort to adapt the game, the setting and the story so that he could be the antagonist and player’s B and C be the heroes. I gave a plenty of opportunities to start developing his villain, to show his evil side, to have cathartic moments, to build a truly engaging character.

In return he just begun onslaughting villagers without any emotional investment (as if he was playing Contra or Space invaders) and when he was faced with moral dilemmas or emotionally intense scenes, he just blocked himself and say whatever absurd speech to get of the situation ASAP, and I just allow him to get out of those situations due to high rolls and because it’s on his right to portray his character in whatever manner he considers appropriate. When I gave him the opportunity to express (in character) his motivations to embrace his evil side, he just told that it was because he was bored and he didn’t felt like living in a city.

So, the rest of the feedback was players B and C telling player A that they were very disappointed of how unconvincing villain he was portraying, and that it was one of the reasons they fail to feel engaged. When they asked him “Why do you want to be the villain?” He said that just for the sake of it and because he wanted to write a novel with a great villain, but first he had to experiment how it is to be a villain.

I assure you that they spoke in a calm and polite manner, being constructive and not very insistent (that was my perception at least, and I tend to be an empathic person). Still when they told him that his character lack of any convincing motivation, he just exploded and began to shout things like:

“You don’t draw Gioconda in your first attempt”

“I need to experiment how it is to be evil”

“I know I have things to polish”

“I’m pissed off! Now I’m pissed off! I’m truly, really pissed off!”

When I saw that things were starting to get out of control, I was about to lift from my chair, but he quickly shut up and told us that he was just kidding.

BTW, the apathy of my players is evident not only on the table. Their character sheets where filled without any care or thought, in some cases many numbers seem to have been just placed in any random order so that the section of the sheet looked filled out.

(For those familiar with D&D, it would be like having a 1d8 + 3 inscribed in the Armor Class box)

I corrected, balanced and polished each of my player’s character sheets, and when I called one of them just to tell me where did he wanted to place some points to improve his character, his attitude was like “Ugh! Can’t that wait? I’m occupied”, even when I had already done all of the hard work and I just used 2 min. of his time max.

There, I have spoken and vent myself, although I don’t feel angry, sad or unwilling to keep running more sessions. I just feel hard to gather enthusiasm to prepare my next session, when I realize I’m mostly playing alone.

Feel free to comment, disagree, advice or anything you would like to express regarding my situation.

* Bunny hugs and nuzzles to everyone

GrayDeath
2016-03-28, 01:54 PM
If your recollectio is accurate, the players seem to only be in it because they have nothing better to do.
I ahd such a player once, and still invite him sometimes when we need another Meatshield (he enjoys it and ewe have a somewhat reliable goto every few months), but more than one such Player is never good.

Have you tried explaining to them that you are taking the game quite seriously and expect more of that from them as well?

Geddy2112
2016-03-28, 02:27 PM
Don't be too hard on yourself-you could run the perfect game, and if nobody wanted to play it, it would not matter.

I second talking with your players so you can both be on the same page of what you want. If they don't want to put in a lot of effort and you do, it is going to just be heartache on your part.

Player A says they need more system mastery, but their participation seems elsewhere. If it was just system mastery, this would fix in a few sessions once they got comfortable. Their actions of being evil for lulz are either them being a disruptive hellion, or a bored cry for help. I lean towards the former, as their actions are evil for the sake of evil without any convincing reason, but I could see some of the latter. Talk with the player about both-what would they find interesting, and whatever that is, give it to em. Ask that in return, if they want to be a villain, why they are evil. Skeletor, Dr. Doom, even Hannibal Lecter don't just go on killing sprees because they are bored and lack emotional investment.

Also, because player A wants to play a villain and players B and C are heroes, everyone should be on board with that, out of character, from the get go. Mixes of heroes and villains, knights and knaves, lawmen and vagrants can work, but this usually requires some backstory and group agreement, or a major in game reason. War makes strange bedfellows, but outside of something like war, these types of people usually don't associate.

Player B seems to not like their character. Sometimes this happens for whatever reason.Ask if they want to make a new one, or what situations they would enjoy playing their character in. Either one should clear that up.

Player C can't be faulted too much- I have been in situations where I wanted to play something serious, and the group wants to play nihilistic murderhobo ale and wenches characters. It is the similar boat of you being the DM who wants a serious game, and they want to play lol whatever. If you could get everyone on the same page(for more serious or not) then player C should be happy.

But if you want to run a serious game, you don't have to settle. you are the GM. They can GM, or you can find new players. Likewise, if they want to not play, or play in another game, they can and should find another group. Or you can compromise, and maybe run a more casual game, or even more casual system for a while.

Draconi Redfir
2016-03-28, 02:42 PM
if the players find their own characters uninteresting, change them. if they find the story lacking, make it about them.

immagine a human fighter. he gets sent by the guards to kill a dragon, then he's treated like a hero, but he's still just a fighter who did what he was told.


now imagine that while battling that Dragon, an anciant artifact was smashed in the dragon's horde during the crossfire. It released raw and pure magic upon the two of them, and just as the Fighter's blade delivered the finishing blow, something happened. The Dragon's scales fell onto the fighter and melded to his body, a splash of draconic blood fell into his eye and transformed it into a more powerful Dragon eye. At the same time the fighter is given a flash of memmories from the Dragon, he sees a village being attacked, and sees a beautiful maiden running for her life, but knows that she got away into a forest that the fighter happens to be familier with.

Bam, right there. interesting character dinamic. The Fighter is suddenly unique and more interesting, and he has his own quest to go on, to seek out this maiden and see if she is alright. Now the story is HIS story, and he'll be much more invested in it.


a couple of years ago i was in a game with a woman who was feeling her gunslinger character was kind of bland, and didn't want to play him anymore. so, she had him pull of a suicidal trick to save my paladin's life by jumping into a larghe floating ball of fire. turns out she inevitably gained a template and became heir to the fallen celestial plane we were currently adventuring on, next thing we know her interest in her own character is revitalized and she keeps him for the rest of the campain.

Adventures are supposed to be life changing, so there's nothing wrong with having the characters change as well. from ataining demi-god hood, to stumbling across a random potion that when drank gives the character permanent gills on their neck. it' just extra quirks and abilities for their characters to play with.

mephnick
2016-03-28, 03:06 PM
The problem could be the system you're using. Perhaps they don't find it very fun to work with or inspiring. Everyone has a system that suits them the best and if you don't branch out you'll never find it. D&D (if that's what you're using) is pretty good at some things and really bad at a lot of things. It's not for everybody. Maybe they'd prefer something like Pendragon, or Dogs in the Vineyard? Dungeon World? Something lighter that focuses more on creating a fun and thematic story.

In the end, some players just don't want to invest a lot of thought into a gaming session. They've had a rough day at work. They want to follow along and see what happens. They want the DM to lead them through a story line. People will deride this as railroading but those people are idiots. If it works for your players it's the right thing to do.

CombatBunny
2016-03-28, 03:36 PM
Adventures are supposed to be life changing, so there's nothing wrong with having the characters change as well. from ataining demi-god hood, to stumbling across a random potion that when drank gives the character permanent gills on their neck. it' just extra quirks and abilities for their characters to play with.


Talk with the player about both-what would they find interesting, and whatever that is, give it to em. Ask that in return, if they want to be a villain, why they are evil. Skeletor, Dr. Doom, even Hannibal Lecter don't just go on killing sprees because they are bored and lack emotional investment.


The problem could be the system you're using. Perhaps they don't find it very fun to work with or inspiring. Everyone has a system that suits them the best and if you don't branch out you'll never find it. D&D (if that's what you're using) is pretty good at some things and really bad at a lot of things. It's not for everybody. Maybe they'd prefer something like Pendragon, or Dogs in the Vineyard? Dungeon World? Something lighter that focuses more on creating a fun and thematic story.

In the end, some players just don't want to invest a lot of thought into a gaming session. They've had a rough day at work. They want to follow along and see what happens. They want the DM to lead them through a story line. People will deride this as railroading but those people are idiots. If it works for your players it's the right thing to do.

Thank you very much for your answers,

=)

I don’t want to sound like close-minded or looking for an easy answer; by the time I have written this post, is because I have already tried almost every advice that you can find in forums and specialized books.

Still I will tell you a little bit more of my story. Yes, before he decided to be the villain, I asked all the table if they were okay with it. I Talked with this player about his motivations and what kind of kicks, situations or scenarios would he like to be in, I also dedicated a great deal of work and time to make all of this happen and to create relations and link backgrounds among PCs. His answers were always something like (accompanied with yawning):

“I have no idea”

“I’ll figure out during play”

“I dunno… villains are interesting”


I’ve asked several times what kind of game do the rest of the table wants, only to get:

“Whatever you have in mind”

“Surprise us!”

“Oh, you are doing fine, we’ll let you know if we aren’t enjoying the game”


And I have asked some players if they would like to try another kind of character, but they are like:

“No, no! I’m okay with my character, I love it” Although I presume that they tell me that just because they don’t want to take the effort to think in any character concept at all.


I have tried several ways and techniques to make them give me feedback or input, but it all resumes to:

“You are doing fine, just keep us entertained”.


And when I have tried to run more casual, comic or over-the-top kind of games, then I do had received feedback, although negative:

“That was fun, but we want something more serious. Don't do that again”

“That was too much action, that’s okay for teenagers but we like more intellectual kind of game”

“No please! No Anime or Hollywood tropes, we are tired of those”


I have tried making them the heroes, I have invested more time than them in their own characters and backgrounds, but they just want to press a button, they just want me to be their T.V. that they can turn on and off whenever they feel like it, while they relax and expect to find something good.


As for systems, I have tried with this particular table so far: D&D (3.0, 3.5, PF), Mutants and Masterminds, The Burning Wheel, Mouse Guard, FATE, Valiant Universe, Dread, BESM and currently Hero Quest 2nd edition. And I really fear to try a new system with them, as each time I have tried a new system they look me with disgust and go like:

“Oh no! A new system? New rules to learn? Really?”

“Character creation again? No thanx”

“Can I use my same character than the last system?”

mephnick
2016-03-28, 03:43 PM
Well, group chemistry is a thing. Unfortunately your gaming styles may be incompatible. The DM has to have fun as well, you can't constantly sacrifice for your group.

It may be the wrong group for you, sadly. Perhaps you may want to cut your losses and switch to boardgames?

Draconi Redfir
2016-03-28, 04:24 PM
yeah from the sounds of it it doesn't really seem worth the effort. DMing is a hard thing, and it's even hardwer when you don't get any feedback of any type. (Trust me. asking for someone's opinion and only getting "whatever you think is best" as a response is the WORST)

i'd say just call it off and rent a movie or something. if they complain about the lack of D&D make some kind of remark about how you didn't really feel like doing it because nobody was helping you with it.

D&D and RP is like a conversation, give and take. if you write out a huge elaborate conversation touching all sorts of topics and movements, and they just respond with "it's cool" or some other two-word response, it's not worth it. it's never worth it.

nedz
2016-03-28, 06:31 PM
This sounds like a play-style thing. You are not wrong and neither are your players: it's just that you all want different things from the game. I would need more information to give you a better answer, or at least a more detailed one, but that probably wouldn't help anyway since there is nothing you can do to fix this.

CombatBunny
2016-03-28, 06:40 PM
This sounds like a play-style thing. You are not wrong and neither are your players: it's just that you all want different things from the game. I would need more information to give you a better answer, or at least a more detailed one, but that probably wouldn't help anyway since there is nothing you can do to fix this.

Well... the only thing I could add is that I know this group from some time.

We had many fun sessions and many good times, but since last year it seems that everyone is fed up and tired from their works, life happenings and some other things.

So when they arrive to the table, it seems as if they are unwilling to do an additional emotional investment in imaginary characters and problems, when they are already burned out by real-life problems.

We rotate GM on a regular basis, but that only makes the problem more evident as they don’t feel enthusiasm to run any kind of game. They just arrive to the table unprepared, trying to waste as much time as possible in irrelevant stuff (like asking what does each player do in detail each morning, without further events pushing the plot forward) and just wishing for their turn as GMs to end.

No one wants to GM (they look at it as a curse), but they don’t seem to feel interest about any subject, any genre or any kind of game at all.

In fact, when other GMs take controll of the table, we all end up angry and the GM ends up with a lof of negative feedback. Yes, when you do a good job you usually don't get any feedback rather than "you're doing fine, keep it up", but when you fail, then you do can expect a lot of negative feedback about all the things that you did wrong.

goto124
2016-03-28, 06:45 PM
Try Monopoly. Or Cluedo.. Or Call of Duty. Or any multiplayer game, really.


(he enjoys it and ewe have a somewhat reliable goto every few months

Thanks! :smalltongue:


(Trust me. asking for someone's opinion and only getting "whatever you think is best" as a response is the WORST)

When I do this, it's because I feel the 'listener' will just brush off my opinion and go do whatever said listener wanted to do anyway.

But in this case, the 'listener' isn't that sort of unlistening jerk, even if the players somehow think that way.

I'm now curious as to what sort of DMs (or authority figures, or friends) these players have been under. Talakeal-style DMs? People who just don't take 'no' for an answer?

valadil
2016-03-28, 08:20 PM
This bothered me for a while too. I'm mostly over it.

First, there are some things you must accept about your players. Some of spotlight hogs. They'll do whatever they can to be in the spotlight. Some are warm bodies. They'll do whatever they can to NOT be in the spotlight. The rest are in between. They can be coaxed into participating if they're interested, or they'll sit around if you let them. Most likely they'll vary from day to day.

I like having a healthy mix at my tables. One or two spotlight hogs is great for getting the players participating, but more than that and they'll butt heads. From the sound of things though, you don't have any of these players.

This leaves you with warm bodies and undecided players. When I used to try to engage my players, I took the participating players for granted and focused on the most bored looking. The logic was that if I could reel in that player, I'd have a very involved full table but if I let that player slip, they'd just more and more bored by the game. I no longer use that approach.

Instead I try to hook the undecided players. If someone is happy to sit on the couch and hang out, I'm not going to fight them. They're having a good time. So I take the energy that would have gone to entertaining that person and channel it on the players that seem closest to being engaged.

Draconi Redfir
2016-03-28, 09:14 PM
When I do this, it's because I feel the 'listener' will just brush off my opinion and go do whatever said listener wanted to do anyway.

But in this case, the 'listener' isn't that sort of unlistening jerk, even if the players somehow think that way.

*Shrugs* all i know is that if i personally ask for your opinion, it's because i want YOUR opinion. i might still go with what i was origionally planning, but that doesn't mean your personal opinion didn't help.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-03-28, 09:38 PM
Under normal circumstances I wouldn't really consider this good advice but in this case it actually feels sound; bust out the rails and give them a plot to observe as they go along.

Go to your final fantasies, your dragon quests, your favorite long-running tv series or comic books, lift ideas liberally, and string them into a campaign where the players are integral but not central characters and tell the story you want to tell.

Be ready to cut it short and go back to mainstream, player-oriented DM'ing if they decide they want to get proactive but do your thing in the meantime.

TTRPG's usually differ from CRPG's in the fact that players can go completely off script whenever they feel like it and make any kind of deeper story-writing a high-risk endeavor. If you can reliably expect them to just go with the flow, however, you can flex a little creative, storytelling muscle of your own. Put the contents of TVtropes.org to work. Pretend you're writing for a CRPG for a bit until and unless they get tired of the game altogether or decide they want to become more proactive in the world.

mephnick
2016-03-28, 10:06 PM
Well... the only thing I could add is that I know this group from some time.

We had many fun sessions and many good times, but since last year it seems that everyone is fed up and tired from their works, life happenings and some other things.

So when they arrive to the table, it seems as if they are unwilling to do an additional emotional investment in imaginary characters and problems, when they are already burned out by real-life problems.

We rotate GM on a regular basis, but that only makes the problem more evident as they don’t feel enthusiasm to run any kind of game. They just arrive to the table unprepared, trying to waste as much time as possible in irrelevant stuff (like asking what does each player do in detail each morning, without further events pushing the plot forward) and just wishing for their turn as GMs to end.

No one wants to GM (they look at it as a curse), but they don’t seem to feel interest about any subject, any genre or any kind of game at all.

In fact, when other GMs take controll of the table, we all end up angry and the GM ends up with a lof of negative feedback. Yes, when you do a good job you usually don't get any feedback rather than "you're doing fine, keep it up", but when you fail, then you do can expect a lot of negative feedback about all the things that you did wrong.

Man, it seems like people just want to chill and forget about their day for awhile. Maybe you're forcing RPGs on yourselves because of tradition?

You guys could just be burnt out. Just have a few drinks and watch movies or something. Get back to it when people get the itch again.

Thrudd
2016-03-28, 10:58 PM
It sounds to me like they may be bored by the constraints and contrivances of playing a story game. Maybe you/they want a game that doesn't require the players to be so emotionally involved or expect them to do a lot of character acting if they don't feel like it. Give them simple rules, simple characters, clear motives and goals, and let them go at it. AKA, Old School D&D. Wilderness exploration and dungeon crawls, hunting for treasure. Wandering monsters and treasure tables. Live and die by the dice and your wits, don't spend so much time building character backgrounds (which they don't seem to want to do anyway). Draw up a series of dungeons or use old modules, and let them choose where to go after they get some information from townsfolk or quest-givers or whatever. More play, less plot. A bit less stress, on your part, during the game, because you can watch the game unfold without needing to think about holding together a plot or narrative structure or character arcs. Random elements makes the game surprising for you as well as them. A clear game objective of finding treasure to gain levels and eventually build strongholds and become rulers of their own territory.

Comet
2016-03-29, 01:26 AM
I agree that you should probably dial back on the intensity of your expectations and goals.

Related to that: I find being a high-intensity player at a table much more draining than being a high-intensity GM. I have no idea why that is, but I might not be alone on that. Being a player can be stressful and that feeling will definitely be magnified if there's an expectation of great drama and intense character building involved.

Which is why I never make assumptions about my players' engagement when I GM. I just make sure that the game is fun even if one or all players are having an off day. Sure, this means that I also can't expect very personal plotlines or great drama every session but it also makes it that much sweeter when those things happen naturally and without prompting when we're all having a good day.

Satinavian
2016-03-29, 03:13 AM
“I have no idea”

“I’ll figure out during play”

“I dunno… villains are interesting”I would never have allowed such a character. A certain amount of "making it up on the fly" can be accepted but not for someone hoping to become central antagonist in a character driven story arc.


And when I have tried to run more casual, comic or over-the-top kind of games, then I do had received feedback, although negative:

“That was fun, but we want something more serious. Don't do that again”

“That was too much action, that’s okay for teenagers but we like more intellectual kind of game”

“No please! No Anime or Hollywood tropes, we are tired of those”
Usually those kind of answers promt me to run intellectual challanging open-ended games without any easy or given answers. Everything built for difficult choices and consequences. But if they are really as apathic as described, they would simply utterly fail and loose and the campaign would be over.


I have tried making them the heroes, I have invested more time than them in their own characters and backgrounds, but they just want to press a button, they just want me to be their T.V. that they can turn on and off whenever they feel like it, while they relax and expect to find something good.
But this seems to be more at the core of the problem.

I would simply stop GMing for the group. It would be a waste of my time. Roleplaying is a group activity and does't work with only one person being really interested.

Find something else that doesn't need a GM.

PrincessCupcake
2016-03-29, 09:05 AM
Honestly, it kinda sounds like movie/board game/hangout/video game/whatever night would be a better activity than rpgs with this specific group. If they're incapable of being engaged, then don't try to fit a square peg into a round hole. It will only lead to you getting extremely frustrated.

If you're set on running something, then it's time to find some players who are actually looking for an rpg experience and not just "TV but more interesting". There's nothing wrong with tv per se, but if that's the experience they want there are much less taxing ways to give them that.

just my two cents.

CombatBunny
2016-03-29, 11:32 AM
Thank you very much to everyone for your time reading and commenting. I have seen already very good advice, I really appreciate it.


Go to your final fantasies, your dragon quests, your favorite long-running tv series or comic books, lift ideas liberally, and string them into a campaign where the players are integral but not central characters and tell the story you want to tell.
Be ready to cut it short and go back to mainstream, player-oriented DM'ing if they decide they want to get proactive but do your thing in the meantime..

Yes, this is helping me a lot to relieve stress and keep my sanity. I know this is a temporary solution, but for a time it can be fun to just run wild and let all my craziest ideas come to life without too much concern of my players.


Man, it seems like people just want to chill and forget about their day for awhile. Maybe you're forcing RPGs on yourselves because of tradition?

You guys could just be burnt out. Just have a few drinks and watch movies or something. Get back to it when people get the itch again.

Indeed, sometimes I feel that the only reason we gather to play, is because they know how much I love the hobby. But yes I have considered to simply give it a break and let them cool down.


It sounds to me like they may be bored by the constraints and contrivances of playing a story game. Maybe you/they want a game that doesn't require the players to be so emotionally involved or expect them to do a lot of character acting if they don't feel like it. Give them simple rules, simple characters, clear motives and goals, and let them go at it. AKA, Old School D&D. Wilderness exploration and dungeon crawls, hunting for treasure.[QUOTE]

Incredible advice! Maybe I have grown to try to run sophisticated games and maybe I’m overwhelming my players. Going back to the basics for a while could relieve them a lot from the burden of portraying a character, I would stress myself a lot less trying to plan complicated or elaborate adventures for nonparticipating players, and the spark could start growing again in a natural and organic manner. Thank you very much.

[QUOTE=Comet;20597856]Related to that: I find being a high-intensity player at a table much more draining than being a high-intensity GM. I have no idea why that is, but I might not be alone on that. Being a player can be stressful and that feeling will definitely be magnified if there's an expectation of great drama and intense character building involved

I haven’t considered that. You have opened my eyes, maybe I’m constantly stressing my players by constantly putting them in emotionally intense situations, when they are the kind of player that you describe. Now that you mention it, yes, I felt like my villain player was feeling as if he had been pushed to the stage and all the lights and cameras where pointing at him.


If you're set on running something, then it's time to find some players who are actually looking for an rpg experience and not just "TV but more interesting". There's nothing wrong with tv per se, but if that's the experience they want there are much less taxing ways to give them that.

Yes, I have considered definitely looking for new players. Although maybe integrating just another intense player could make a big difference. I will be alert for new players, although we all know this has been always a hard task for us RPG players n.n Just like finding the proper “dragon warrior” hehe =) Than you.

Vinyadan
2016-03-29, 12:56 PM
People with much more experience than me have given their answers, but I'll still give my 2 cp.
If the problem is that a narrative is not needed, you may want to try a simple dungeon crawl.
If the problem is that the narrative isn't compelling enough to have players throw themselves into it with their characters, you may want to let the villainous' PC ambitions go. A villain must be a traction factor. If the villain isn't interesting, well, the hero won't feel interested.

CombatBunny
2016-03-30, 09:40 AM
People with much more experience than me have given their answers, but I'll still give my 2 cp.
If the problem is that a narrative is not needed, you may want to try a simple dungeon crawl.
If the problem is that the narrative isn't compelling enough to have players throw themselves into it with their characters, you may want to let the villainous' PC ambitions go. A villain must be a traction factor. If the villain isn't interesting, well, the hero won't feel interested.

It's always useful to have yet another opinion. thank you very much.

* bunny nuzzles

SirBellias
2016-03-30, 12:56 PM
This happens a lot at my table as well. My players like to play rpgs, so they claim, but they seem to think that I have some sort of plot figured out beforehand that they're supposed to follow and watch unfold before them. They aren't so much interested in the group storytelling aspect as the "get stuff and see some cool things happen" aspect.

A semiserious suggestion I have is to try running PARANOIA. No, really. I find running it to be really easy once you figure out that you do whatever is amusing at the time. It also seems to be the only game that gets my more "apathetic" players excited, but that just may be because they're all murder hobos.

But other than that, I tend to run randomly generated exploration/dungeoncrawly types, to decrease the workload and stress on my part. It may work for you too.

RazorChain
2016-03-30, 06:56 PM
I feel for you, I really do. As my biggest reward is the reaction of my players, when I have them on the edge of their seats, cursing the bad guys. Or when they snatch a victory from the jaws of defeat. As someone has said, it seems you have a group of inactive players. I often have a couple of those and they serve their roles. But you need those who can drive the story, talkers, thinkers, plotters. Clever players, impulsive players, comedy player etc.

Maybe your friends have become jaded, maybe a break is in order or influx of new players. I like to have 5-6 players...there is always one that can't make it and we play bi-weekly, it means sufficient time goes between session so everybody is geared up for another session. Else if you are in the Oslo area in Norway then I have an open spot in my group :smallbiggrin:

CombatBunny
2016-04-03, 09:53 PM
Hi everyone,


Now I’m certain that there is a very important part of the game that falls in the hands of the players rather than the GM.


Today I ran another session, but this time I wasn’t feeling like dedicating a lot of effort preparing events and plot twists, so I just write some notes for the things that could most probably happen during play, and I just rolled with the things I had already prepared from previous sessions.


I was a little bit nervous because I had just a general idea of how things would unfold, so I was certain I would need a lot of improvisation, which is something that makes must of us GMs uncomfortable.


This time player A (the villain) decided to take a more participative role and to be more proactive and flesh out his character in a more convincing manner. That itself boosted the table, he even decided not to be the villain anymore (for now), which made the game leave the rails entirely and force me to make a lot of decisions in the air.


But the session was really enjoyable from the GMs and players perspective. I would go as far as to say that more than half percent of the success of the session was on the players behalf. I felt my GMing wasn’t as good as last session, but because this time the players had another attitude, that itself made a huge difference.


My conclusion? I really don’t know. I recommend GMs to read advice, to be creative, to try to challenge themselves and to go further, but we should also remember that no matter how hard we have prepared ourselves, there is also the player’s factor which you cannot control. I once read that the players had more than 50% of the responsibility of the fun of the table, but still when a session is over, they will always tend to perceive the GM as the one responsible for a successful or disastrous session.


Now I do feel with more enthusiasm to prepare my next session, but I think that once I have done my homework, the rest is up to my players or so I believe.


What do you think?


* Bunny nuzzles to everyone

goto124
2016-04-03, 11:34 PM
http://i.imgur.com/K2H4g.gif

Glad to hear you had fun!

SirBellias
2016-04-04, 07:23 AM
Now I do feel with more enthusiasm to prepare my next session, but I think that once I have done my homework, the rest is up to my players or so I believe.


What do you think?

I'd deem that fairly correct. I think it's incredible how players don't realize that they're the ones making it fun for the DM. No matter how much a DM prepares, if the players aren't engaged and doing things in the game world, then it just won't be fun. I'd argue that the players should put just as much effort into session as the DM for everyone to have a decent time. And if PARANOIA is the only way to get your players engaged, be afraid. Very, very afraid.

That's what I think, at least.

Typewriter
2016-04-04, 09:20 AM
I have two personal stories to share that I feel may be relevant to what you're brining up.

The first - I used to run a campaign in a world and then move on to a different world in the next campaign. Every campaign was a self contained story. The players enjoyed these and there were never any complaints. One day, we had a campaign in which the players were playing as the souls of gods who were reborn into their champions. The premise was that a group of mortals had somehow overthrown the gods and that those gods should have been destroyed but had accidentally wound up reincarnated and seeking to reclaim their power. During the campaign they had lots of wacky hijinks - including one time in which they melted several thousand pounds of gold coins into a giant golden rock and teleported it (and themselves) above an allied encampment. They wound up leaving the gold boulder there and continued on with the adventure where they eventually won the campaign and their characters ascended to godhood.

My next campaign was about a world in which the gods had gone 'missing' about 10 years prior to the start. About 8 sessions into this campaign my players discovered that there was a war between two factions who were vying for control over an artifact left by the gods. They got involved and what was that artifact - the golden boulder that they had created. They had no idea that this was coming, no idea that this campaign world was the same as the previous. Suddenly my apathetic players (who always had a good time) were interested and involved. The gods are missing - our old characters were the gods? Why are they missing? What happened? They were intrigued and active.

Since that point in the time I've followed certain trends. 3-5 campaigns in a single world with the characters old characters and actions heavily influencing the events of the new campaign. It makes the players feel involved to a greater degree and made them less apathetic. For a time. Eventually people got used to this and again sort of got apathetic.

That leads me to point two - sometimes groups get complacent with one another. I DMed for the same group for so long and did a good enough job that they just sort of trusted me. They weren't interested because they knew that everything made sense, that there was a rationale for everything, and that it would be fun. They got to the point like you described all the time - where they just sort of went along for the ride. It made me start to feel burnt out on DMing. Recently I got a new group - for the first time in 10-12 years - and I'm back to loving DMing again. I wrote a bit more about this here (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/43mmjm/i_thought_i_was_burnt_out_on_dming_but_it_turns/)if you're interested.

CombatBunny
2016-04-04, 10:18 AM
That leads me to point two - sometimes groups get complacent with one another. I DMed for the same group for so long and did a good enough job that they just sort of trusted me. They weren't interested because they knew that everything made sense, that there was a rationale for everything, and that it would be fun. They got to the point like you described all the time - where they just sort of went along for the ride. It made me start to feel burnt out on DMing. Recently I got a new group - for the first time in 10-12 years - and I'm back to loving DMing again. I wrote a bit more about this here (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/43mmjm/i_thought_i_was_burnt_out_on_dming_but_it_turns/)if you're interested.

You nailed it!

I read also the story you shared on the link.

I feel much identified. Last session my group was interested again, but what they don’t know is that it was themselves who got interested with their own decisions and course of actions.

They praised me for the plot-twists and engaging storyline, but they are the ones to be praised. I just fed their own threads and courses of actions. If it weren’t for them, I would have still delivered them some plot-twists and story arcs, but it would have been again like me talking to the wall, like a writer writing to himself.

I want to keep with this group, but I understand what you must be feeling and experiencing with a group that delights with everything you throw at them, because everything is new and full of possibilities. I would certainly like to have a new table somewhere in the future (if my current one gets jaded).

My table has witnessed me learn, make mistakes, correct, improve, etc. So I try to deliver them something new each session (even if it’s something little), but I’m sure it won’t be anything close to starting a table with newbies, in which you will astonish them with all your techniques learned through the years, and everything will be brand new, surprising and full of awe.

You really made my day =) I can imagine the happiness that you must be experiencing with your table.

Thank you very much, you just gave me some new reasons to feel happy and give my best.

* bunny cuddles

Typewriter
2016-04-04, 12:28 PM
You nailed it!

I read also the story you shared on the link.

I feel much identified. Last session my group was interested again, but what they don’t know is that it was themselves who got interested with their own decisions and course of actions.

They praised me for the plot-twists and engaging storyline, but they are the ones to be praised. I just fed their own threads and courses of actions. If it weren’t for them, I would have still delivered them some plot-twists and story arcs, but it would have been again like me talking to the wall, like a writer writing to himself.

I want to keep with this group, but I understand what you must be feeling and experiencing with a group that delights with everything you throw at them, because everything is new and full of possibilities. I would certainly like to have a new table somewhere in the future (if my current one gets jaded).

My table has witnessed me learn, make mistakes, correct, improve, etc. So I try to deliver them something new each session (even if it’s something little), but I’m sure it won’t be anything close to starting a table with newbies, in which you will astonish them with all your techniques learned through the years, and everything will be brand new, surprising and full of awe.

You really made my day =) I can imagine the happiness that you must be experiencing with your table.

Thank you very much, you just gave me some new reasons to feel happy and give my best.

* bunny cuddles

Haha! I'm glad that my link was relevant!

:)

Excession
2016-04-04, 08:29 PM
Hi everyone,

Now I’m certain that there is a very important part of the game that falls in the hands of the players rather than the GM.

Today I ran another session, but this time I wasn’t feeling like dedicating a lot of effort preparing events and plot twists, so I just write some notes for the things that could most probably happen during play, and I just rolled with the things I had already prepared from previous sessions.

Is it possible that this helped? By improvising more, you necessarily create a more reactive world and story. The players might have felt that events were more in their control than when you were fully prepared. Even if it just forced you to stop and think at times, the players can notice that and think "I changed the story there, I have control".

Knaight
2016-04-04, 09:09 PM
This sounds like burnout to me, and while the last session went well, it could be a one-off. With that said, the core of the issue seems to be that you are putting enormous amounts of work into the game, and the players are just showing up. Neither of these are necessarily bad things, but with the two of them together something needs to give.

I'd recommend putting in less work. This does mean more improvisation by necessity, and that can be an intimidating thing - though, as someone who made the prep-improv transition a long time ago, I will say that once you get used to it it can be a lot of fun. Not every game needs to be one where everyone is deeply involved, and while this will likely not be as good of a game as if it were, that's not a problem. You're dialing your work way down in response to a general dial down, and the group as a whole can have fun with something less involved this time. It will also probably improve your GMing; spending a lot of work on a game that doesn't deserve it burns you out fast, and a game that you're throwing together in a completely slapdash manner while engaged personally can be far better than it has any right to be.

In short: Slack off a bit.

kyoryu
2016-04-04, 11:14 PM
I'm going to +1 the "do less work".

To be honest, I read your initial post and started thinking to myself "it's nice that he's got all this stuff prepped, but what are the players actually doing during this?"

Personally, I prefer to think of it as my job being to provide problems, and it's the players' job to provide solutions. I also like to think about "plot grenades". Much like a hand grenade thrown at you, they force you to move - but they don't specify which direction you go.

I suspect if your players are making meaningful decisions, and seeing the results of them, they'll become more engaged.

Atarax
2016-04-05, 01:31 AM
It sounds to me like they may be bored by the constraints and contrivances of playing a story game. Maybe you/they want a game that doesn't require the players to be so emotionally involved or expect them to do a lot of character acting if they don't feel like it. Give them simple rules, simple characters, clear motives and goals, and let them go at it. AKA, Old School D&D. Wilderness exploration and dungeon crawls, hunting for treasure. Wandering monsters and treasure tables. Live and die by the dice and your wits, don't spend so much time building character backgrounds (which they don't seem to want to do anyway). Draw up a series of dungeons or use old modules, and let them choose where to go after they get some information from townsfolk or quest-givers or whatever. More play, less plot. A bit less stress, on your part, during the game, because you can watch the game unfold without needing to think about holding together a plot or narrative structure or character arcs. Random elements makes the game surprising for you as well as them. A clear game objective of finding treasure to gain levels and eventually build strongholds and become rulers of their own territory.

1. Fortune favors the bold! Scale it down. Make it so that choices MUST be made for them to survive. They are alone, far from civilization. They have limited supplies and something is after them. The clock is ticking. The choices to be made will have direct effects on their chances of making it out alive. Inaction will result in death. Don't spoon feed them story. For every day they survive, they have a chance of uncovering a bit of story, but it's hidden in the environment and it'll require some effort on their part to piece together. If they don't find it...fine...but it's going to leave questions unanswered. The legends of powerful weapons and magic will persist since no hero has answered the call. You can reduce and simplify down to the level of a board game with a grid and minis constantly being used. It's your turn, move your effing piece.

-or-

2. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If they're all like "whatever man, just tell the story" or no one wants to do anything, then don't do anything either. Your job as GM is to facilitate THEIR story. Make up some hooks and leave it up to them. Only develop things around the direction they take it. If they're not interested, then leave their sorry butts in the tavern. Maybe give them a reputation in town as a bunch of fakes claiming to be adventurers. Change all their alignments to neutral.

-or-

3. Reverse psychology. They want to be spoonfed a story? FINE. Dictate to them exactly what story you have in mind. Leave them no options or choices. Make an annoying GM NPC party member that steals the spotlight and makes the critical decisions. Maybe act like you're giving them a choice in something, then make it totally and obviously not matter at all. Minimize their role whenever possible. Make them realize that without action, motivation, or participation, they don't matter. Play with yourself. Who needs them?

Being a villain is a cool idea and all, but it kinda defeats the purpose of having a heroic quest. Not that it can't be done. But even then, they say it only works if the entire party are villains. Otherwise, you have a party with completely opposite goals that can't realistically stay together for very long. And that's no fun for anyone.

If you put all the elements there for them and they don't play ball, that's their problem, one way or the other. Don't overthink it.

goto124
2016-04-05, 07:26 AM
http://i.imgur.com/MPMAQYS.png

Yora
2016-04-05, 08:06 AM
Today I ran another session, but this time I wasn’t feeling like dedicating a lot of effort preparing events and plot twists, so I just write some notes for the things that could most probably happen during play, and I just rolled with the things I had already prepared from previous sessions.

I was a little bit nervous because I had just a general idea of how things would unfold, so I was certain I would need a lot of improvisation, which is something that makes must of us GMs uncomfortable.

While reading through the whole thread I was more and more getting the impression that perhaps the problem may lie in the way your adventures are structured. There were many good comments on what you might do, but to really tell what you might do differently, we need to know what exactly you've been doing so far.

Your comment that the game happened to be more enjoyable after having fewer things prepared sounds like maybe your approach so far has been over-scripted for your players. When people talk about "railoroad" games, it's usually players complaining that the GM shots down their ideas and impedes their attempts at taking initiative. But there's also a closely related problem in which the players have already internalized the idea that the game will follow a specific path and that the campaign doesn't really allow for initiative. There are many great videogames with wonderful stories in which you have plenty of dialogue options to decide what kind of personalty your character should have, but in the end you're still going to the places, talking with the people, and fighting with the enemies that have been fixed before you even started to play. Unfortunately, this approach to adventure design is the paradigm behind the entire Paizo empire, and their adventures are regularly being praised in the highest tones. And when you read some of them, they sound like really cool stories. But while they are great stories to read, they aren usually not in any way supportive of player initiative.

When players have such an (unconscious) assumption about the campaign, then it's easy to think of "roleplaying" as bits of improvisational theatre during breaks in the action while hanging out at a tavern or making camp for the night. And since for a great number of players this doesn't sound very fun, they don't do it.
I think it might very well be that your players are under the impression that they don't have the ability to make meaningful choices. And perhaps your style of preparing adventures actually doesn't give them much options in that regard. Your players seem to like to sit back and see where the story is going, which sounds quite like you do already have a story prepared for them.

What might be worth considering is trying and adventure or two that is not just open ended (world saved/not saved/partially saved) but doesn't even have any prepared paths for the players to take. This whole thing is a very big topic in itself, so I am leaving it at that for now. But if you think this might be getting close to the problem your group is having, there are many people here who would be more than happy to go into a lot more detail about this on your request.

CombatBunny
2016-04-05, 10:30 AM
Hi everyone,

It’s natural that you tend to believe that the reason my table is falling in apathy is because I’m railroading or failing to improvise enough.

That’s okay, you have no way to know how I structure my games.

I’ll give you a quick idea of how I use to plan my sessions. I don’t plan paths or determined events, nor do I have prepared outcomes or take in consideration PCs possible decisions. When I talk about preparing my sessions, I do so in terms of introducing a world shaking event or villain, and then I plan how would this change the setting and how would things change if no one was to interfere.

In other words, I plan more like a blender in which I put villains, NPCs, interesting locations, interesting encounters, world timelines, etc. and finally I add the PCs to the mix, I blend everything and see what happens, so in the end I don’t know what the story will be actually about, how will it unfold and what will it happen in the end.

I plan in terms of:

“Villain pretends to do ____, so he will initially put ______ plan in motion”
“NPC factions are witnessing events ____ and _____ which has led them to believe that ___ is happening, and thus they will start doing”
“From the perspective of the villagers, they have experienced ____ and that’s why they are acting in ___ manner”
Etc.

I try to plan only the most probable things that the PCs will interact with, but I use an approach called “loopy planning”. That means that when my adventure begins, I have everything defined in very vague terms “NPC 1 is grumpy” “Location 2 has a rocky layout”, etc. It’s usual that in this first stage I don’t have a defined villain or world shaking event, just possible candidates depending on PC’s actions.

That way I feel free to let the PCs roam around and when they feel interest in a particular element, they will start to nurture that particular thread. If the suddenly loose interest on it, then that thread quite probably won’t grow any further.

Once the session is over, I make notes of the things that called more the attentions of the players, the stories they wanted to explore more and the things they got more excited about.

I return to my loopy planning document, and begin to add more detail and depth to those elements that where more relevant and start to propel those plots further. I also add more hooks, new NPCs, new possible villains and more vaguely defined elements, so that they can nurture those as well or even drop their current thread if they no longer feel interested on it.

So, there is no established path, session after session I just keep adding detail to the things that the PCs where more interested and adding more elements to interact.

In this current story that I’m running, the PCs and some citizens (very few in fact) had a dream of a secretly plotted invasion (envisioned by the governors of the same city) that would occur in the next 24 hours. In that same dream, my villain PC was revealed as the herald of doom, shall he stayed alive until midnight of the next day.

The next morning the city is in panic and everyone is attending the temples and looking for refuge, because rumors have already been spread.

The governors and the priests actually don’t have idea of what triggered that dream and they are trying to calm the citizens as best as they can. Also, they have sent high elite warriors to protect villain X, as all the city is mad and seeks to kill him to end the threat.

Those same governors and priests are having a very hard time convincing the populace, because in the vision many dirty secrets were revealed and all what they saw in the vision has been proved to be truth except for signs of the invasion itself, for example:

PC: “Is it true that the temples are in fact escape ships in case of invasion?”

Priest: “Well… we don’t like to talk too much about that, but yes. We didn’t told that information to the people to avoid panic, and because we never thought that we would ever use them and we still believe that. Shall an invasion was to come, you would have known and we would have noticed it months ago”.

Meanwhile, I have personal threads and motivations for each character, so that “do nothing” is just not an option, but to exemplify I will just concentrate in the villain PC to give you an idea of what do I mean with and apathetic player.
(PC is asleep when suddenly all his room begins to shake and sounds of explosions and firearms can be heard. PC’s father enters the room after a while)

Father: Wake up my son and follow me. This place is about to crumble.

PC: okay

Father: Do you know what’s going on outside?

PC: Nope

Father: (with a grin in his mouth) you’ll figure out soon, but let’s get out of here first.

PC: okay

(Once outside)

Father: Son, maybe this wouldn’t be the right time to say this but I think we won’t have any other opportunity. Your mother and brother are already save so you don’t have to worry about them, as for you, my intention was to let you die by yourself. It’s hard for me to say this, but you were a dishonor to me from the moment that you were born, you were weak and the blood of our family was evidently withered in your veins. Still, you have stayed alive so far and that’s why I will give you a chance to prove that you are worth it.

PC: okay

Father: That is of course, if you are able to follow me.

PC: okay

GM: (Father jumps from the window and starts to run, if you don’t follow you will lose him)

PC: I follow

GM: (After a wisdom roll, you realize that as he leaps and runs across dangerous places, he is actually trying to kill you and make it seem as an accident).

PC: Okay

Father: Okay son, you have managed to follow me, take this (hands you a gun).

PC: Okay

(Father walks through the streets and when a citizen looks at him, he runs asking for help but father shoots him in the forehead in cold blood).

Father: Now son, it’s your turn, you will walk ahead of me and will clear my path.

PC: okay.

(Three citizens whom you recognize as old school friends block your path and run to you desperate for help)

PC: I shoot them.

Father: Well done, maybe I underestimated you.

PC: okay.

(Both are suddenly surrounded by the invading army)

PC: okay

(What do you do?)

PC: I shoot

(Kills one of them, but the others doesn’t open fire when Father gives them a signal)

Father: Well done, ¡but wait! They are no threat. It’s time for you to know that they are actually on our side. We are not looking to escape, we are taking the city among with them this same night.

PC: okay

Father: But before that… (Soldier hands a firegun to the PC, it has no bullets on it but the PC doesn’t knows that, it’s just one last challenge from this father).

Father: You will have to prove your worth, even against your father. I’ll let you attack me first, but that’s the only advantage that you will have, after that I won’t stop at anything to kill you.

PC: okay

GM: What do you do?

PC: I shoot

(The gun is out of bullets, father smiles and tells you that you might have your blood withered, but your spirit certainly belongs to the family)

PC: okay

Father: Interesting… come with me my son. You have deserved the right to know the most guarded secrets of our kin. In the building up there, there is something I want to show you.

PC: okay

Father: Don’t you know why did I decided to go back after you?

PC: Nope

Father: You have a skill that no other one that I have met before have. Something that I haven’t noticed until know; I’m sure that you realize what I’m talking about.

PC: okay

Etc.

N810
2016-04-05, 02:34 PM
Hate to say it, but it does seem a bit railroadey. :smalleek:
maybe you should have set up the board and rolled initiative
after the player woke up, and then set up the fight/flight/encounters and added the dialog depending where the player went.
and perhaps had roles for the other players as well, but perhaps not in the same scene. :smallsigh::smallconfused:

CombatBunny
2016-04-05, 04:07 PM
Hate to say it, but it does seem a bit railroadey. :smalleek:
maybe you should have set up the board and rolled initiative
after the player woke up, and then set up the fight/flight/encounters and added the dialog depending where the player went.
and perhaps had roles for the other players as well, but perhaps not in the same scene. :smallsigh::smallconfused:

Never mind.

Yes, I did everything you said, but it’s not like you think. I took out the other player’s actions and interactions to keep it brief.

The second session which was fun, they started to throw me curves from the very beginning, even before I started to narrate (to the extent that the villain decided he didn’t wanted to be a villain anymore, to a player that convinced the citizens to form a resistance).

In the first one, their answers where mostly “yes”, “no”, “do this”, “do that”. Even when faced with danger (and I’m not exaggerating), their answers where “hold into something”, “hide”, etc.

I’ll go as far as to say that when one of my players had no choice but to role-play a speech, he said “No, I’m sorry, I don’t feel like roleplaying my character or saying his dialogues”. So I just let him do a roll (which was pretty high) and continue with that.

Yes, it was railroad, But how can you make your players get out of the rail when they keep their answers as brief as possible and take the first option you present to them? Most of the events I described, I just triggered them to unstuck the game and keep things moving.

Thrudd
2016-04-05, 05:39 PM
Hi everyone,

It’s natural that you tend to believe that the reason my table is falling in apathy is because I’m railroading or failing to improvise enough.

That’s okay, you have no way to know how I structure my games.

I’ll give you a quick idea of how I use to plan my sessions. I don’t plan paths or determined events, nor do I have prepared outcomes or take in consideration PCs possible decisions. When I talk about preparing my sessions, I do so in terms of introducing a world shaking event or villain, and then I plan how would this change the setting and how would things change if no one was to interfere.

In other words, I plan more like a blender in which I put villains, NPCs, interesting locations, interesting encounters, world timelines, etc. and finally I add the PCs to the mix, I blend everything and see what happens, so in the end I don’t know what the story will be actually about, how will it unfold and what will it happen in the end.

I plan in terms of:

“Villain pretends to do ____, so he will initially put ______ plan in motion”
“NPC factions are witnessing events ____ and _____ which has led them to believe that ___ is happening, and thus they will start doing”
“From the perspective of the villagers, they have experienced ____ and that’s why they are acting in ___ manner”
Etc.

I try to plan only the most probable things that the PCs will interact with, but I use an approach called “loopy planning”. That means that when my adventure begins, I have everything defined in very vague terms “NPC 1 is grumpy” “Location 2 has a rocky layout”, etc. It’s usual that in this first stage I don’t have a defined villain or world shaking event, just possible candidates depending on PC’s actions.

That way I feel free to let the PCs roam around and when they feel interest in a particular element, they will start to nurture that particular thread. If the suddenly loose interest on it, then that thread quite probably won’t grow any further.

Once the session is over, I make notes of the things that called more the attentions of the players, the stories they wanted to explore more and the things they got more excited about.

I return to my loopy planning document, and begin to add more detail and depth to those elements that where more relevant and start to propel those plots further. I also add more hooks, new NPCs, new possible villains and more vaguely defined elements, so that they can nurture those as well or even drop their current thread if they no longer feel interested on it.

So, there is no established path, session after session I just keep adding detail to the things that the PCs where more interested and adding more elements to interact.

In this current story that I’m running, the PCs and some citizens (very few in fact) had a dream of a secretly plotted invasion (envisioned by the governors of the same city) that would occur in the next 24 hours. In that same dream, my villain PC was revealed as the herald of doom, shall he stayed alive until midnight of the next day.

The next morning the city is in panic and everyone is attending the temples and looking for refuge, because rumors have already been spread.

The governors and the priests actually don’t have idea of what triggered that dream and they are trying to calm the citizens as best as they can. Also, they have sent high elite warriors to protect villain X, as all the city is mad and seeks to kill him to end the threat.

Those same governors and priests are having a very hard time convincing the populace, because in the vision many dirty secrets were revealed and all what they saw in the vision has been proved to be truth except for signs of the invasion itself, for example:

PC: “Is it true that the temples are in fact escape ships in case of invasion?”

Priest: “Well… we don’t like to talk too much about that, but yes. We didn’t told that information to the people to avoid panic, and because we never thought that we would ever use them and we still believe that. Shall an invasion was to come, you would have known and we would have noticed it months ago”.

Meanwhile, I have personal threads and motivations for each character, so that “do nothing” is just not an option, but to exemplify I will just concentrate in the villain PC to give you an idea of what do I mean with and apathetic player.
(PC is asleep when suddenly all his room begins to shake and sounds of explosions and firearms can be heard. PC’s father enters the room after a while)

Father: Wake up my son and follow me. This place is about to crumble.

PC: okay

Father: Do you know what’s going on outside?

PC: Nope

Father: (with a grin in his mouth) you’ll figure out soon, but let’s get out of here first.

PC: okay

(Once outside)

Father: Son, maybe this wouldn’t be the right time to say this but I think we won’t have any other opportunity. Your mother and brother are already save so you don’t have to worry about them, as for you, my intention was to let you die by yourself. It’s hard for me to say this, but you were a dishonor to me from the moment that you were born, you were weak and the blood of our family was evidently withered in your veins. Still, you have stayed alive so far and that’s why I will give you a chance to prove that you are worth it.

PC: okay

Father: That is of course, if you are able to follow me.

PC: okay

GM: (Father jumps from the window and starts to run, if you don’t follow you will lose him)

PC: I follow

GM: (After a wisdom roll, you realize that as he leaps and runs across dangerous places, he is actually trying to kill you and make it seem as an accident).

PC: Okay

Father: Okay son, you have managed to follow me, take this (hands you a gun).

PC: Okay

(Father walks through the streets and when a citizen looks at him, he runs asking for help but father shoots him in the forehead in cold blood).

Father: Now son, it’s your turn, you will walk ahead of me and will clear my path.

PC: okay.

(Three citizens whom you recognize as old school friends block your path and run to you desperate for help)

PC: I shoot them.

Father: Well done, maybe I underestimated you.

PC: okay.

(Both are suddenly surrounded by the invading army)

PC: okay

(What do you do?)

PC: I shoot

(Kills one of them, but the others doesn’t open fire when Father gives them a signal)

Father: Well done, ¡but wait! They are no threat. It’s time for you to know that they are actually on our side. We are not looking to escape, we are taking the city among with them this same night.

PC: okay

Father: But before that… (Soldier hands a firegun to the PC, it has no bullets on it but the PC doesn’t knows that, it’s just one last challenge from this father).

Father: You will have to prove your worth, even against your father. I’ll let you attack me first, but that’s the only advantage that you will have, after that I won’t stop at anything to kill you.

PC: okay

GM: What do you do?

PC: I shoot

(The gun is out of bullets, father smiles and tells you that you might have your blood withered, but your spirit certainly belongs to the family)

PC: okay

Father: Interesting… come with me my son. You have deserved the right to know the most guarded secrets of our kin. In the building up there, there is something I want to show you.

PC: okay

Father: Don’t you know why did I decided to go back after you?

PC: Nope

Father: You have a skill that no other one that I have met before have. Something that I haven’t noticed until know; I’m sure that you realize what I’m talking about.

PC: okay

Etc.

It sounds like the player is not invested in this character's relationship with his father. And why should he be? This might be all very intense and dramatic for the character, but the player has no reason to be emotionally involved. None of these things happened to him, after all. It is not his father, not his friends in the street. They are names which were introduced to him just this moment, to which he has no connection. What you are asking for from your players is a game of improvisational acting, which may be a game they are not expecting or wanting to play. Do the others act this way, too? Certainly for this particular player, this doesn't seem the right sort of situation for him. Not everyone can just get into a character and pretend to have thoughts and emotions, as an actor does.

Events in the game would be better to derive from actions the players have actually taken in the game in pursuit of their own goals, rather than come about due to the imagined previous lives of the characters, which the players themselves aren't completely aware of. It was expressed earlier that these players have taken little interest in drafting their own characters' back stories, and you took it upon yourself to do that. It is easy to see that a back story which the players didn't even create themselves would provide little meaning or motivation to them. And also that these are not players motivated by acting or creating dramatic emotional scenarios. They likely want to get on with the business of battling monsters and finding treasure and advancing their characters' power.

Mordar
2016-04-05, 06:23 PM
Events in the game would be better to derive from actions the players have actually taken in the game in pursuit of their own goals, rather than come about due to the imagined previous lives of the characters, which the players themselves aren't completely aware of. It was expressed earlier that these players have taken little interest in drafting their own characters' back stories, and you took it upon yourself to do that. It is easy to see that a back story which the players didn't even create themselves would provide little meaning or motivation to them. And also that these are not players motivated by acting or creating dramatic emotional scenarios. They likely want to get on with the business of battling monsters and finding treasure and advancing their characters' power.

But I think this is the problem the OP is facing - events in the game should derive from actions of the players in pursuit of their own goals...but they don't express any goals...so actions are simplistic and reactionary...thus not precipitating significant events. (S)he tried to break the cycle and push the game to a different level...I think that is the thrust of the issue and the question boils down to "how to overcome inertia?"

Thrudd
2016-04-05, 08:11 PM
But I think this is the problem the OP is facing - events in the game should derive from actions of the players in pursuit of their own goals...but they don't express any goals...so actions are simplistic and reactionary...thus not precipitating significant events. (S)he tried to break the cycle and push the game to a different level...I think that is the thrust of the issue and the question boils down to "how to overcome inertia?"

That is the problem. They are playing the game, for some reason, so they are expecting something, but what they are being given is apparently not it. In the last post, she even mentioned that her players have said they don't feel like doing dialogue and would rather just roll to determine the outcome. She is trying to run a dramatic story-acting game, and it sounds like she's got good ideas how to let everyone contribute and not railroad them and make an exciting scenario. But the players have no interest in a dramatic story-acting game, apparently. I am not saying the GM must always accede to every whim of the players, but there must be some understand and agreement about what game is being played.

Since the players show no interest in acting, dialogue, and back-story driven plot elements, what is it they do pay attention to? What part of the game makes them look up from their smart phones and actually play? That tells you what they actually like and what they are expecting from the game. You need more of that in the game, and less of the stuff they have literally said they don't want to do.

I already gave my advice, earlier in the thread, and I still stand by that in light of the mounting evidence from the OP regarding the players behavior and the type of game she is running. It is not a bad game, inherently; it sounds very thoughtful, but these players don't want to play it. Either the focus of this game needs to be shifted, or a new game started possibly using a different game system/edition (assuming the players do actually want to play some form of RPG).

Yora
2016-04-06, 04:07 AM
What game system is that campaign using? Sometimes this can have a big impact on what the players are expecting and believe to be expected to do.

CombatBunny
2016-04-06, 07:10 AM
What game system is that campaign using? Sometimes this can have a big impact on what the players are expecting and believe to be expected to do.

Hero Quest 2nd Edition.

It’s in the same vein as FATE (agile, versatile, abstract, interpretative, story oriented, etc.) but taken a step further.

Character creation is as fast as describe your character in 100 words in free form, then I (as GM) guide you to translate your description to powers and abilities, and assign them ratings (which takes about 5 to 15 min.).

It’s a system not meant to power gamers because everything is abstract and much of it relies on the participants being familiar with the kind of genre and stories that are meant to be told.

For example, an ability called “He was once a war hero” could mean that he knows how to use some fire arms and military weapons in a soup opera game, or it could mean he can make a building explode and fight against an entire army in a Rambo or James Bond kind of game.

The same is true for things like Jumping, Running, etc. There are no measurements of distances or squares or units (you can define them, but it’s not in the spirit of the game), so jumping from a train in movement could be a moderate to easy difficulty in a “western spaghetti”, while the GM could state that doing the same in a “romantic comedy” or “glee musical” is nearly impossible.

Typewriter
2016-04-06, 11:04 AM
One thing I've done in the past to get characters invested in the world and their families is to establish stuff like that in a set up session in which characters are generated through gameplay. I bring this up because I used to avoid things like family interactions because the PCs were never invested - like in your post, but once I started doing this players were much more interested in things like that (I would have simply stopped going stuff like this, but they seemed interested, just not engaged). We did it with 3.5 and Pathfinder and my party always enjoyed it. Sometimes this has been used to generate stats for the party, or sometimes it's just been for stat bonuses and negatives. Sometimes I've had a checklist of skills that players could get proficiency in based upon their childhood activities and we used that instead of class assigned proficiencies. I'm not sure how it would work in Hero Quest because I'm not familiar with that system, but maybe it's something you'd be interested in.

I will say/acknowledge/warn that I've brought this up on the forum before and people here generally have a low opinion of it - I've heard it said multiple times that only 'new players' would enjoy doing this because 'experienced players wouldn't want to share in the creation of their own characters'. Anyways, here's an example of what I mean.

Before the session, I need players to answer two questions:
1. What kind of character are you looking to be?
--Steve says he wants to be knowledgeable and adventurous
--Jon says he wants to be sneaky, but proud
2. Is there anything you want to do in this campaign?
--Steve says he wants to fight a dragon in a large scale battle
--Jon wants to become leader of a cult

Once I know these things I plan out my session zero, which I have an example of detailed below along with how these two players react to things.


Session Zero
DM: "You're all growing up in the town of Loft. Loft sits just South to a lake and gets a lot of travelers coming and going. The people of Loft are fairly friendly and outgoing as a result of it being a hub for travelers. One thing that many in the town don't like is that it is quite a ways away from any larger cities and is therefore not as well protected from the dangers of the land."

DM: "Steve, your father is the town Sheriff. He is well respected and generally fair and loving to you."
DM: "Jon, your father is gone a lot, leaving you to be raised primarily by your mother who is nice, but not all there. When your father does return from his long trips he tends to bring you interesting gifts."

DM: "You're both about six years old. Tell me what kind of child you are?"
Steve: "I probably spend most of my time playing with the other kids, but I likely see myself as sort of the boss. My father is the sheriff so I'm going to be the sheriff of the other kids."
Jon: "I think that, even from this early age I'd realize that something is wrong with mom, so I'd start putting effort into taking care of things around the house and helping out as much as possible."

DM: "OK, so you both feel a sense of duty, even at a young age. Do you ever act out or are you both fairly well behaved?
Steve: "I mean, nothing more than normal for a kid of this age. For the most part I'd follow rules and do as I'm told, but I'd likely get in trouble for trying to enforce the rules on other kids. Chances are I'd get into fights occasionally."
Jon: "I don't think I'd act out at home, got to protect mom and all that, but I would likely do some messed up stuff. Probably take toys from other kids homes and stuff like that if I can get away with it."

DM: "OK, so you two probably have bumped heads once or twice."
Jon: "I wouldn't fight over it or anything - if I ever got caught I'd hand over whatever toys I was stealing."

DM: "OK, so you guys are seven now. Steve - there is a half-orc kid in town named Bob that is a bit of a bully. He's stronger than you and doesn't care for your rules. He has a half-sister (full human) named Julia who thinks he's annoying and advises you to leave him alone. Jon - your father sent some money to town in order to hire some help around the house, meaning you have a bit more freedom."
Steve: "Alright, so I'm probably going to get beat up a few times. Then I'm going to start finding the kids that Bob is bullying and I'm going to start trying to get them to work together in standing up to him."
Jon: "I'm going to start hanging out with Bob. Maybe I can use him as protection - or a distraction while I'm stealing stuff."

DM:"OK, so using Bob as protection works pretty well for a while there, but eventually Steve starts to rally kids against him and he gets the stuffing knocked out of him. Do you help him in his fight at all or do you just sort of bail on the situation?
Jon: "I'm gone - I want no part of that."

DM: "OK, so Bob becomes a bit of a loner. He stops bullying, but he spends a lot of time alone. Something else happens this year - a group of travelers who look a bit grimier than you'd normally expect show up in town and spend some time talking with the mayor and the sheriff. They wind up taking off, but every week or so one or two of them come back and retrieve money and supplies from the leaders of the town. Everyone in town has to pay a bit more in taxes, meaning that Steves dad is working longer hours and Jons mom can no longer afford 'help'. You guys are eight now - and have the option of going to school if you're interested.
Steve: "I'm going to go to school as much as possible. I'll be one of those annoying kids who is constantly talking about whatever I learned in school that day to anyone who will listen. Aside from that I'm probably going to start spending time away from town - I'm going to head to the lake which is a little to the North. I'll start building a raft out there.
Jon: "I'll spend the bare minimum of my time at school - I want to learn the basics, but I'm going to skip out on anything beyond that. I'll spend a bit of time helping out around the house but I'm going to try and start getting a bit more involved with the other kids - I'm going to start a new game where we try to sneak up on, and grab, each other without being seen."

DM: "Steve, a few things. One - Julia also spends a lot of time in school, and always sits next to you. You notice that, at the lake, there is a tower on a small island in the middle of the lake. Finally, roll a perception check. You have a +0 modifier."
Steve: *Rolls 13*
DM: "You notice that Bob is following you one day while you're on your way to the lake."
Steve: "Crap, and I'm out here alone. I'll try to get ahead of him and maybe get up on something up high where I can confront him while he's below me?"
DM: "So, you find a small cliffy rockface and hide." - Dice are rolled - "He doesn't notice and is below you."
Steve: "I stand up and confront him, probably holding a rock menacingly, 'Why are you following me?'"
DM, as Bob: "I was trying to sneak up on you but you kept going outside of town... what are you doing out here?"
DM: "Bob seems genuine - he doesn't have many friends and was just trying to play with you."
Steve: "Cool, I take him and show him my raft that I'm working on."

DM: "Jon, your father shows up in town towards the end of this year. He has a slight limp and says he's in town to stay."
Jon: "Awesome, I want to hear all about his adventures and the like"
DM: "For a while things are great and he tells you stories all the time. Eventually he starts to get grumpy and stops sharing as much. One day he hits your mother when she drops something."
Jon: "..."
DM: "..."
Jon: "**** it, I'm going to start spending less time at home. I'm just 8 so I can't do anything about it, but I'm not going to sit around and watch him smack her around when I've been caring for her. I'll sleep in caves or outside half the time".

DM: "Alright, you guys are all getting ready to turn nine. One day a larger group of bandits show up looking for their 'protection money' and instead Jons father shows up with a flaming sword and cuts them down. He lets one go, maimed, to let the leaders know that the town is done paying. Many people in town think he's a hero, but Steve - your dad is anxious about this."
Steve: "I'm not going to let anyone know about dads concerns - I don't want to spread worry amongst the other kids. You said the town has a lot of travelers - I'm going to start trying to talk to them. Maybe help them carry stuff off of horses or wagons? Maybe they'll answer questions and tell me about the world outside of town?"
Jon: "I'm going to start sleeping in my house again. I've always respected my dad and now I've seen him stand up to bullies. If I see him hit mom again I'll stand up to him and point out the bullying thing - that he's like the bandits."

DM: "Alright, sounds like Steve - you hear a lot about some other towns, maybe even a few adventures - though whether they're true or not would be hard to tell. Jon, this confrontation does occur and when you stand up to him he does back down. He starts drinking a lot more, but he doesn't hit your mother again. One day you are all outside playing and the parents start freaking out. They're screaming, "Get the kids into the house, hide them. You're all being rushed into the same house - do you both go along?
Steve/Jon: "Yes"
DM: "You guys hear some weird sounds and a few scared yells - then you hear a loud voice shouting, but only make out certain words; vengeance, payment, etc."
Steve: "I'm going to sneak out and try to look through a window."
Jon: "I'm staying right here."
DM: "Julia is holding your hand and wants you to stay with her. If you ignore her roll a stealth check."
Steve: *Rolls a 3*
DM: "So, you poorly wander up to the window, and as you do so you knock over a table. Suddenly a giant red claw rips the roof off the building and you see a dragons face glaring down at you. On the dragons back is a knight wearing all black armor. 'COME OUT HERE BOY' the knight yells at you.
Steve: "Crap. I go out."
DM, as Knight: "You know boy, your townsfolk hurt me - not directly. But they stole from me, killed some of my henchman. Do you think that's OK? Do you think that's a good idea?"
Steve: "I say... uhhh... 'We don't owe you anything'"
DM: "Alright, the dragons eyes narrow at you and you sense that it is about to strike at you when your mother screams, 'don't hurt my son'. The dragon consumes her in one bite. The knight then yells loudly, 'My collectors will be back soon - and the amount you owe is increased' - the dragon flies away as many of the townsfolk scream and weep."

DM: "Jon, roll perception"
Jon: *Rolls 17*
DM: "A few months have passed and the town is back into a bit of a depression. Many have turned against Jons father as being to blame for what happened, but he donates a great deal of treasure to the town to help pay the fee. Jon - you wake one night and see your father preparing to take off."
Jon: "Where are you going?"
DM: "I can't stay in one place for long. It doesn't go well for me, or for the people around me. Take care of your mom - oh and, I have this for you. I was going to leave it, but..." - he hands you a small glowing stone - "Keep it safe will you?"

DM: "So, you're all about to turn 10..."
Steve: "What about my raft?"
DM: "Oh crap, I forgot. Roll a couple craft checks... OK those look good. You have a raft - there's the island nearby, and a river that goes southeast..."
Steve: "River"
DM: "OK, so you take your raft out on this river. Did you make oars? Do you think you know how to swim? Is Bob with you?"
Steve: "Ummm, crap. Oh well, I'm a kid - not like I would have thought all this stuff out. No oars, probably no swimming. And yeah - Bob and I are friends now."
DM: "OK. Jon - a lot of adults in the town are freaking out because a couple kids have gone missing. You're old enough that you can help them look - do you?"
Jon: "Yeah"
DM: "OK, so half the people in town are out looking around when they find evidence of the raft. Eventually they head southeast, following the river. Steve - the raft went really fast on the river, but held up very well. Eventually it did break and you and Bob were able to get to the shore. What only took 4 hours by raft takes you two days on foot - eventually you meet up with a search party looking for you - including Julia. Bob is happy when he sees her because he thinks she's here for him, but she only hugs you. Your father, for the first time, beats you and tells you to never do anything like that again - he just lost your mother and doesn't want to lose you as well."

DM: "So, you all turn 10"

At this point I take some notes -
Steve spent a bit of time focusing on STR with all the fighting and stuff.
Steve spent no time on Dex.
Steve spent a little time on CON with travelling and exploring farther distances
Steve spent a bit of time on INT, going to school and learning stories from strangers
Steve has a penalty to WIS - many of his decisions were poorly thought out - leaving the closet, taking the raft on the river when he can't swim, etc.
Steve has a bonus to CHA - he got into a position of leadership with the kids, he rallied the kids against Bob, and then he became friends with Bob.

Steves current stats:
STR - 12
DEX - 10
CON - 12
INT - 12
WIS - 8
CHA - 12

Jon spent on time on STR
Jon spent a good amount of time playing 'sneaky' games and doing tasks that would keep him nimble.
Jon spent a bit of time living outdoors in caves and working hard
Jon spent a little bit of time in school
Jon made wise decisions - he avoided conflicts, he remained hidden when he was told to hide
Jon wasn't especially charismatic - he made some enemies by stealing and being anti-social, but he sort of made up for it so it's a wash

Jons current stats:
STR - 10
DEX - 12
CON - 11
INT - 11
WIS - 12
CHA - 10

And that's four years! The next four years would be roleplayed and would set the players out on learning various tasks and talents, giving them the option to become apprentices in various situations or attend magical academies. They'd likely spend some time away from town, but this would be temporary.

Once they're fourteen I'll do stat adjustments and modifications as above, then move on to the final four years in which various seeds of adventure and exploration would start to reveal themselves.

Some highlights from ages 11-18:
A knight is going around convincing people to unite and face the dragon. A thirteen year old Steve goes with them and sees a group of a couple hundred peasants burnt to death by the dragon, along with the Knight.
Jon foregoes adventure and exploration in favor of taking jobs around the town. He begins to gain a lot of respect and traction. He actually winds up as a bit of a squire for Steves father.
Steve goes to a magical academy (so does Julia). He finally, firmly, rebukes Julias attempts at romance. Julia makes a deal with a devil to become beautiful to try and woo him, but it does not work and she reveals what she did. Feeling guilty Steve takes her place in the arrangement with the devil.
Some people come to town looking for Jons father. Shortly after they leave his mother hangs herself. Finally free from his obligation to her he joins up with a crooked accountant and spends some time on the road scamming people. Eventually he returns to town after getting scammed himself. He lives with Steves father upon his return and goes back to helping out with the town guards as he grows older.
The town is attacked by a horde of monstrous humanoids led by a bugbear wearing a red cloak - this bugbear kills Steves father.
Freaking fire-giant ninjas come to town and steal the glowing stone that Jons father left him.

Eventually the bandit payments escalate and conflict erupts out of it. Some bandits escape and the party must hunt them down to keep them from relaying what happened. This leads to more conflicts and the discovery that some of these events are all tied together. The party is interested in one another, and I have set the stage for a number of villains that the party is invested in, as well as an eventual reunion between Jon and his father - who never returned and doesn't even know that his wife is dead.

I'd go into more detail, but I've already written a short book, haha :)

Mordar
2016-04-06, 01:03 PM
Since the players show no interest in acting, dialogue, and back-story driven plot elements, what is it they do pay attention to? What part of the game makes them look up from their smart phones and actually play? That tells you what they actually like and what they are expecting from the game. You need more of that in the game, and less of the stuff they have literally said they don't want to do.

I already gave my advice, earlier in the thread, and I still stand by that in light of the mounting evidence from the OP regarding the players behavior and the type of game she is running. It is not a bad game, inherently; it sounds very thoughtful, but these players don't want to play it. Either the focus of this game needs to be shifted, or a new game started possibly using a different game system/edition (assuming the players do actually want to play some form of RPG).

In the general case, there could also be some level of reluctance to play-act because of a perceived lack of skill...some may feel intimidated by the thought of speaking in voice, or trying to orate. Instead, they might sheepishly look down to their stat sheet and profess that they just want to roll. No clue if that might be the case here, but in going along with Thrudd's point above...what have you seen from them in other games? Have you seen them in other games? Do they "activate" differently for other genres, game systems, GMs...or is all evidence that they are passive?

- M

CombatBunny
2016-04-06, 04:21 PM
In the general case, there could also be some level of reluctance to play-act because of a perceived lack of skill...some may feel intimidated by the thought of speaking in voice, or trying to orate. Instead, they might sheepishly look down to their stat sheet and profess that they just want to roll. No clue if that might be the case here, but in going along with Thrudd's point above...what have you seen from them in other games? Have you seen them in other games? Do they "activate" differently for other genres, game systems, GMs...or is all evidence that they are passive?

- M

Well…

Now that you mention it, my players have always been participative and willing to enter in character.

The problem began when we introduced a new player that * sigh * I’m quite certain that he only entered the table because he had a romantic interest in another player.

This new player is like a kid; he only likes action scenes and watch everything explode. He also likes to be in the spotlight, but for the wrong reasons. He just enters in character when everything is comedy and goofiness.

At first I tried to make a balance between action and drama (my other two players do enjoy deep stories where moral decisions and inner knowledge prevails over action), but my players started to got tired quickly and the amount of energy and attention to entertain this one player wasn’t worth the effort because he just gave a very tiny spark of interest in return.

So, I decided to stop pleasing him and started paying more attention to my older players, but the moment this player isn’t on the spotlight or whenever the story turns to something not in the vein of “The fast and the furious”, he starts to yawn and distract the other players.

I have been with this player for over a year now and being unable to find a balance between this whole different play-styles, has made the toxicity spread to the whole table and both sides have turned to apathy. The problematic player has resigned as he has realized that I won’t run 100% action packed sessions, and the other players have turned to resignation as they won’t be able to enjoy a more deep and thoughtful story as this player will be interrupting and breaking the atmosphere the whole time.

Sadly, kicking him out is not an option. You know, sometimes social relations are more complicated than that.

Gizmogidget
2016-04-09, 10:42 AM
I have the same issues with players, and it really comes down to for me at least the stakes. My players could care less about a village getting destroyed, they might care if a city is destroyed etc. You also have to keep in mind what these people are like outside of D&D. I DM my little brothers friends and as a result making buffoonish quest givers gives them a kick. Secondly I have also learned that some people just don't get the point and that is ok. These people have better things to do than play D&D and suck the life out of a game. No one wants that.

Solutions
Stealing from the Angry GM here- Popcorn initiative is a great way to focus players. The fastest player goes first and selects the next player or monster. I personally encourage my players to pick players who aren't focused. This works so well because players may take it as an excuse to not pay attention if they know they will be last in the initiative order.

Primus Beno
2016-04-11, 09:24 AM
I don't really think it's the game or the playstyles. Because roleplaying is a social activity, I'd throw my lot in with the problem being the relationships between the people.

Right now, you're doing ALL the work. You are making the story, running NPC's, giving descriptions, showing reactions and doing all the heavy lifting for the story telling. You've got wonderfully complicated plots, scenes, rich characters and thrilling twists. Your doing the work, not your players.

Ever been in an argument with someone who just seems to get icy cool and calm as the argument heats up? The angrier you get, the more collected they become and the more infuriating that seems? That's because your doing all the work on the emotional side of the argument and they don't have to do any feeling. If you were to shift some responsibility to them, they might find that their emotions are engaged as well.

It sounds like you are doing all of the creating and its becoming an entrancing story instead of a participatory tale. It's little wonder that they don't want to do much, it's just easier to let you tell a really neat story while they sit back and watch.....like TV.

But, that's not what we roleplay for. It's a draining experience to put on a show for all those people week after week and the others are finding that they don't like to do it when it is their turn to DM....cause it's hard.

From the sounds of it, you have begun the process of loosing up control of the story and delegated some responsibility back to the PC's, which is absolutely the right thing to do and it sounds like they responded to it. I've always found the best games were those where I just simply reacted to what the PC's did instead of the other way around.

Good luck!

goto124
2016-04-11, 11:28 PM
Dredge up the most railroady module out there. Run it.

Be as icy cool as your players. Sit in the choo-choo train and admire the scenery.

Zen.

Knaight
2016-04-12, 03:47 PM
Dredge up the most railroady module out there. Run it.

Be as icy cool as your players. Sit in the choo-choo train and admire the scenery.

Zen.

I've done similar, when the group just wasn't feeling serious - it's the whole "If you're not going to take this seriously at all, then I'm along for the ride", at which point you just GM something completely absurdist. Everyone had a lot of fun too, including me, which wasn't going to happen if I tried to get a more serious game out of that group.

Instead, we had a game where all the players took dumb food related puns, and so I responded with a game involving them impersonating the knight Steak Tartare after he tried to return to Carmel Hot with the holy gravy boat, as the investigators Chile Con Carne and Chile Sin Carne tried to find out who they really were.

CombatBunny
2016-04-12, 11:08 PM
Stealing from the Angry GM here- Popcorn initiative is a great way to focus players. The fastest player goes first and selects the next player or monster. I personally encourage my players to pick players who aren't focused. This works so well because players may take it as an excuse to not pay attention if they know they will be last in the initiative order.

Nice =) I'm trying to incorporate those kind of mechanics. At least they won't have pretext to fall asleep.


From the sounds of it, you have begun the process of loosing up control of the story and delegated some responsibility back to the PC's, which is absolutely the right thing to do and it sounds like they responded to it. I've always found the best games were those where I just simply reacted to what the PC's did instead of the other way around.

Good luck!

Thank you very much for your kind words. Yes, in fact I’m currently reading some books to improve my improvisation and arrive to the table with 0 prep. That way at least I won’t get frustrated of my work going to the waste and it’s a way to push the players to be more participative.


Dredge up the most railroady module out there. Run it.

Be as icy cool as your players. Sit in the choo-choo train and admire the scenery.

Zen.

Hahaha... I used that as a temporary aid when I started to spot this problem. It works in the sense that at least I have fun =) but you can’t rely on it for far too long. Thank you.


I've done similar, when the group just wasn't feeling serious - it's the whole "If you're not going to take this seriously at all, then I'm along for the ride", at which point you just GM something completely absurdist. Everyone had a lot of fun too, including me, which wasn't going to happen if I tried to get a more serious game out of that group.

Instead, we had a game where all the players took dumb food related puns, and so I responded with a game involving them impersonating the knight Steak Tartare after he tried to return to Carmel Hot with the holy gravy boat, as the investigators Chile Con Carne and Chile Sin Carne tried to find out who they really were.

Yes, I’m working really hard to lose that fear and jump into the void and into the unknown. Next session I’ll run a game with 0 preparation and I’ll just ride the wave.

Also, I’ve been introducing all kind of taboo, bizarre and weird elements that I hadn’t dared before. If no one cares, then I will use the table as my playground to cause mayhem and make my most insane ideas come alive hahaha Thank you very much.