Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

[paladinofshojo]

wait, maybe the problem is not that they follow kings, maybe the problem is just that they are pushovers? do they just accept missions from anyone paying them high enough, and perform those missions without thinking twice? maybe they don't want to face difficult choices, they want instead to just be given a mission, go somplace, slay some enemies, take the loot, minimal roleplaying involvement, rinse and repeat?

i don't know enough of your table from your description, but it may just be this.

That sounds like them, except sometimes it’s not even about the reward, one time the King was in one of his moods beating one of his concubines so the party decided to NOT ask for payment for the mission. And they seemed to be okay with that.

I asked them, “wait, what was the point of fighting that gnoll tribe if you didn’t get paid for it?”

The party lead just looked at me confused and said, “well…. What else are we supposed to do?”

They seem to lack imagination and narrative agency and are just trying to progress some linear plot that doesn’t exist.

[Cluedrew]

The party lead just looked at me confused and said, “well…. What else are we supposed to do?”

Did you look them in the eye and tell them "Overthrow the king."

Actually what have you told them about what they are supposed to do/what the campaign is about?

[TeChameleon]

And you don’t consider any of this to be clear sign of neglect of infrastructure and mishandling of military logistics?

Being part of a kingdom means that the crown is obligated to protect you correct? Otherwise why are you even bowing before the king and paying him a percentage of your crop yield?

I... er...

As far as I can tell, you seem to be operating on an odd mix of modern expectations and knowledge of medieval times.

Even in the most stable, happy, good-aligned kingdom, there are three major limiting factors on how far and how effectively the king can project his power.

1) Resources are limited. Unless the king has a magic warrior-spawner that pops soldiers out of thin air with no investment, it takes significant time, money, and manpower to produce even a single standard footsoldier. Remember, each soldier requires a support infrastructure behind them in order to be able to function, so every soldier you have means that the army infrastructure has to grow, which means multiple fewer people producing food, which in a subsistence economy is a major, major investment. That adds up quickly, and if your standing army/police force starts to add up to even a moderately significant percentage of your population, you get this fun little side effect known as 'widespread famine and starvation', which tends to reduce armies in ways they can't exactly fight, and paying more money doesn't help with in any noticeable way (unless you start buying food from outside your kingdom, but then you're looking at an open invitation for invasion).

2) Communication and travel are not instant. With point (1) taken into consideration, the king's elite troops are most likely going to be stationed at the capital or a central fortress during peacetime, since he can only afford a few of them and a central location is a necessity if you want to be able to get optimum use out of them. Unless the kingdom is tiny, it's going to take at a minimum several days to several weeks of marching to bring a significant armed force to any given point in the kingdom.

There will most likely be smaller garrisons stationed at major towns, or local lords sponsoring their own guard (although that's likely limited by law, since the king won't want them getting ideas), and what have you, but they'll have limited manpower to throw at problems, especially as they have to defend the area they're stationed in and can't go multiple days' march away to deal with peasants being eaten by hobgoblins or whatever.

Add in the fact that the person reporting the trouble will almost certainly have to travel multiple days or weeks to reach a position to even report a problem- either a garrison with messengers of some description, or a large enough town to have some form of magical long-distance communication- and you can have problems that fester for weeks or months before anyone 'official' is physically able to do the slightest thing about it.

And finally, compounding everything else,

(3) People are strange and complicated. They will often do things that make sense to themselves (as long as they don't think to hard about it) that look... erratic, at best... from the outside. Maybe a local lord is looking to earn the king's favour by dealing decisively with a problem without the king's forces needing to get involved, and pulls a 'the buck stops here' with a report that might have gotten royal help. Maybe a sheriff is in danger of demotion or worse because he has handled problems poorly in the past, and is desperate to save his position and tries to keep word from getting out. Perhaps the local peasantry has superstitions about some monster that is eating them every other weekend and thinks the king will turn into one if his men interact with it. Or a wealthy merchant has paid off a minor functionary to keep their werewolf daughter quiet, even though dozens of people are getting mauled every full moon.

Could even be that one of the local deities has decided that the king snubbed them in some half-remembered ritual that nobody knows how to perform correctly anymore and is messing with communication chains, or has straight-up possessed the person who's supposed to be sounding the alarm, or one of any number of other magical threats is doing similar.

Point is, add all those things together, and the heavily-armed randos in the tavern who don't need anything other than money to deal with the problem, and who are, y'know, right there, start to look a lot more attractive, no matter how sure the king's (eventual) justice might be.

[paladinofshojo]

Did you look them in the eye and tell them "Overthrow the king."

That sounds an awful lot like railroading, if I am playing a game I would not be comfortable if my DM is literally telling me or another player to “correct” some sort of behavior unless it is causing drama or making someone uncomfortable. As such I feel like if I did something like that I’d be a hypocrite.

Actually what have you told them about what they are supposed to do/what the campaign is about?

The story started out pretty ordinary, they met at a well known Tavern on the outskirts of the Kingdom and simply drinking ale and minding their own business until there was screaming and townsfolk running away from an attack by a bunch of hobgoblins.

The other tavern patrons either ran or hid under the tables while the 6 players being armed decide to band together…

And so they fight their way out of the attack and decide to stick together for survival.

[Satinavian]

They seem to lack imagination and narrative agency and are just trying to progress some linear plot that doesn’t exist.

Ignoring all the royalty stuff because it is irrelevant, you could do three things :

- Talk out of game with them how their way of playing doesn't mesh with your idea of running a sandbox.

- give them not one hook after another but half a dozen at once. Preferably at the end of session so that you can flesh out their choice until next time.

- Give them a task that is missing all the details and also is long term. Thex need to find their own approach, the questgiver is only interested in results. "Stabilize province X". "Solve the feud between family Y and Z". "Pacify the orc steppe and make a duchy out of it. Also choose who of you gets to be duke later".

Or course it can get better! All you have to do is wait until everybody is dead!

I think this was about the Warhammer Fantasy Empire. WHF is still quite dark and full of ridiculous exaggeration but significantly less so then 40k. At least if you ignore Endtimes which was meant to end the franchise.

[Anonymouswizard]

Warhammer is a deliberately grimdark setting. It is essentially impossible for things to get better.

Now, it is certainly possible to think of a world at a medieval tech level as grimdark, since by modern standards there aren't any 'good guys' - even the most virtuous of medieval characters is fairly horrifying by modern standards. And it's certainly possible for fantasy to have the right combination of magic, gods, non-human species, and rampaging monsters to be actually grimdark. 'Who do I support?' becomes a rather tricky question in a grimdark world, and may have counter-intuitive answers. It's possible the PCs mentioned in this thread are operating at least partly on grimdark principles, such as prioritizing stability above all because all rulers will inevitably become corrupt tyrants so minimizing civil wars is the best option for the common people.

Eh, Warhammer is somewhat less grimdark than 40k. While the Empire's most advanced technology is just as irreplaceable as the Imperium's it's because they're marvels centuries ahead of everybody else who's creators have died. The Empire itself just needs to hold out one to two hundred years to most likely hit an industrial Revolution.

Don't get me won't, still grimdark, and Chassis still eventually wind. But not too the extreme extent of 40k.

Or course it can get better! All you have to do is wait until everybody is dead!

After the IoM, the Eldar, Dark Eldar, Chaos, the Orks, the Tyranids, Necrons and small factions like the Tau, Fraal, Hrud, Khrave...etc., have wiped each other and the rest of the galaxy out, the Immaterium will quiet for a few millions years thanks to the disappearance of the cuatrillions of sentiences feeding Chaos, combined with the quieting effect of a galaxy-spanning Tyranid Shadow in the Warp, and whatever shenanigans the Necrons pulled to kill the other factions.

The few thousands of surviving humans, hidden in stasis in vaults deep inside barren planets will then emerge and timidly start to rebuild...

I see not a single Warhammer faction. Plus why are you spelling orcs with a k?

Oh, wait, you thought I meant Warhammer 40,000? I thought I made it pretty clear I was talking about Warhammer.

[Batcathat]

They seem to lack imagination and narrative agency and are just trying to progress some linear plot that doesn’t exist.

Yeah, that does seem more worrying than if they just followed the king without questions, at least that could be a somewhat unusual but fairly interesting roleplaying choice. As have already been suggested, the best thing is probably to just talk about it with your players. It does sound like your playstyles doesn't quite mesh but it's also possibly that they don't understand how much freedom they have been given and will use it if they do.

[King of Nowhere]

That sounds like them, except sometimes it’s not even about the reward, one time the King was in one of his moods beating one of his concubines so the party decided to NOT ask for payment for the mission. And they seemed to be okay with that.

I asked them, “wait, what was the point of fighting that gnoll tribe if you didn’t get paid for it?”

The party lead just looked at me confused and said, “well…. What else are we supposed to do?”

They seem to lack imagination and narrative agency and are just trying to progress some linear plot that doesn’t exist.

yeah. pushovers. they are indeed just trying to follow a plot.

i've had players like that. i'll risk linching saying it in this forum, but generally those kinds of players need to be railroaded. they want to be railroaded. not in the bad way of forbidding them from doing things, but in the decent way of giving them clear objectives, and planning a campaign that does not expect them to take initiative on their own.

now, that's often a case for new players - i've been a pushover myself. generally people start like this because they don't know much what to do, then when they get confident with the system and the world and the table they start timidly taking some initiative, and they gradually become expert players capable of driving a campaign.

but from your list of stuff that happened, it seems you've been playing with them for a long time. either that impression is wrong and all those encounters were condensed in a half dozen one-shots, or.... well, there are players who don't like to make decisions and prefer to be pushed around, even when they get expert. you may have such players.

[Xervous]

There may also be a bit of ‘main quest slog’ mindset in play where they simply do not care about the sideshows you’re currently offering and are pushing the path of least resistance to get to the next scene in hopes of finding something that’s interesting. Unlikely, my vote is still on beer & pretzels.

Again I’ll ask what founding premise of the game leads to the assumption that the players should be rejecting the king as presented? In their eyes this GTA NPC gives them quests and doesn’t threaten their characters. If you want to drive for reactions you’ll need to give them consequences. Given that expectations were never set they probably don’t give a hoot about political drama. Recognize that your audience would much more enjoy something immediate and personal in the vein of John Wick. Discuss with your players what everyone expects from the game and look for common ground rather than testing your players with scenarios like they’re a black box.

[Cluedrew]

The story started out pretty ordinary, they met at a well known Tavern on the outskirts of the Kingdom and simply drinking ale and minding their own business until there was screaming and townsfolk running away from an attack by a bunch of hobgoblins.

That is just how the campaign got started. That is not what I was asking: What have you told them about your expectations for what this campaign is about and how they should approach it. Speaking very generally, not in terms of any particular decision.

On Railroading: Its not railroading if you have player buy-in, its just a linear adventure. It is the difference between providing a path and forcing them to stick to it. In fact forcing them to leave the path would be railroading.

[paladinofshojo]

Yeah, that does seem more worrying than if they just followed the king without questions, at least that could be a somewhat unusual but fairly interesting roleplaying choice. As have already been suggested, the best thing is probably to just talk about it with your players. It does sound like your playstyles doesn't quite mesh but it's also possibly that they don't understand how much freedom they have been given and will use it if they do.

The most egregious act IMO was like in our fourth or fifth session when the rogue player realized, “wait… we can get information by talking with the NPCs?” When they were trying to infiltrate a cult that worshipped an ancient lich.

The party lead asked, “well yeah… how else are we going to figure out where the cult is located?”

The rogue player answered with a shrug and rather casual look “I figured we would just kill villagers and a couple of them would drop clues, thatÂ’s how it works right?”

I wanted to bash my head against the table as the party lead explained to him how this isn’t pen and paper Skyrim…

That is just how the campaign got started. That is not what I was asking: What have you told them about your expectations for what this campaign is about and how they should approach it. Speaking very generally, not in terms of any particular decision.

There are no expectations…. It’s a straight sandbox and I had told them that this is a living breathing world that reacts according to their choices and actions….

On Railroading: Its not railroading if you have player buy-in, its just a linear adventure. It is the difference between providing a path and forcing them to stick to it. In fact forcing them to leave the path would be railroading.

I didn’t offer them a path… they are literally told in the beginning that this is a living world and that they are given complete freedom to make their own quests and goals…

There are plotlines INSIDE my world but they have to find them themselves because I feel it’s not a DM’s place to decide which quest the players take and which they don’t.

There is a quest line involving a Lich trying to gain dominion of the kingdom in a bid to attain godhood.

There is a rumor about children going missing in a village near a swamp which is said to be the home of an evil hag.

The fortresses that make up the border guard seem to be getting concerned with the large number of Orcish tribes settling on the outskirts of the kingdom...

Plot hooks are there, but apparently they seem to like hanging out in the capitol and doing the King’s bidding.

Edit: On Valentine’s Day I even added a silly Romeo and Juliet story in which the King’s Cousin was murdered by some noble named Tybalt and so the King decided that his entire family must be murdered…

They ended up killing the entire Capulet Clan as the Montague family aided them… With Benvolio being named the new Prince of the City Verona….

It was only when they found the two dead lovers in the crypts where the last Capulets were hiding did they realize… “wait… was this Romeo and Juliet”?

[Xervous]

So you 100% haven’t cleared up expectations if it takes one player to explain to the other that this isn’t being run as tabletop Skyrim. You said sandbox game, Skyrim is a sandbox game. Don’t try to change OOC understandings and expectations with in game methods, just reach out and talk with your players. You’re clearly missing out on some of your expected fun, the GM gets to have fun too! 10, 30min of just talking about what everyone likes/wants/hopes to do with the game may help you find common ground with your group.

[Psyren]

I didn’t offer them a path… they are literally told in the beginning that this is a living world and that they are given complete freedom to make their own quests and goals…

There are plotlines INSIDE my world but they have to find them themselves because I feel it’s not a DM’s place to decide which quest the players take and which they don’t.

Even open-world sandbox games are better for having a main plot of some kind though. Look at GTA, or Breath of the Wild, or Skyrim/Fallout, or Assassin's Creed, or Dragon Age Inquisition. All the side stuff and vignettes spread throughout the world are improved by the existence of a critical path, rather than diminished.

And if that's what your players want, then insisting on a "pure," directionless, make-your-own-fun sandbox is just going to leave them dissatisfied as they hunt in vain for something that isn't there. It's not enough to make the game you want to run, you have to make the game they want to play too.

[paladinofshojo]

So you 100% haven’t cleared up expectations if it takes one player to explain to the other that this isn’t being run as tabletop Skyrim. You said sandbox game, Skyrim is a sandbox game. Don’t try to change OOC understandings and expectations with in game methods, just reach out and talk with your players. You’re clearly missing out on some of your expected fun, the GM gets to have fun too! 10, 30min of just talking about what everyone likes/wants/hopes to do with the game may help you find common ground with your group.

I am kinda nervous about that because I’d rather have them naturally progress as players instead of me having to “correct” their behavior.

They don’t cheat on their dice rolls, they don’t do anything to female NPCs that would be considered “offensive”, all they do is play the game mechanically. The way they talk to each other OOC as players seem to be as if they are discussing a show. As if they don’t have any agency in the narrative.

When the King orders the execution of the hilarious halfling jester for referencing how a visiting princess kicked him in the balls I assumed the players would be attached to the clown and save him, or at the very least leave the King’s service, but they simply said “RIP Juggles” as their characters began beating the clown as he was begging for his life and trying to plead to them with all the “laughs they shared over the years”….

They are not sociopathic players, when they are sent to raid towns and villages I make it an effort to make it as unpleasant I can for them… the last one as they arrived into the town I had a little peasant girl chasing a ball towards them.

When she saw the men she just looked up and smiled at them and said, “hello! We don’t get strangers in town too often!” They will see that a few of her teeth have fallen out, suggesting that she is around 6.

The players looked at me kinda annoyed and angry. Then the rogue shook his head begrudgingly and rolled to slit her throat.

I asked him, “are you sure?” and he said, “well yeah… the story has to proceed right?”

Even open-world sandbox games are better for having a main plot of some kind though. Look at GTA, or Breath of the Wild, or Skyrim/Fallout, or Assassin's Creed, or Dragon Age Inquisition. All the side stuff and vignettes spread throughout the world are improved by the existence of a critical path, rather than diminished.

These are all video games though… They are focused entirely on telling a story, not player immersion….

You can’t start a business or make a family in GTA can you? In Breath of the Wild, Dragon Age, Assassin’s Creed you are literally railroaded into doing a quest line which the entire game is based on, Skyrim is arguably better at it than all your examples, but even it is a “dumbed down railroad” version of TES’s best RPG game, Morrowind, in which your actions have weight as whichever faction you join forces you to be excluded from others and their quests…. Which will impact your entire game… also information wasn’t as readily available as it is in Skyrim…. You actually had to collect and read books to figure out what’s going on. And EVEN with all of that, there are still limitations to immersion because you are not surrounded by actual people but coded sprites with scripted responses.

Point is, videogames aren’t the benchmark to what tabletop RPGs should be held to because the two are run by different metrics.

[TheStranger]

Even open-world sandbox games are better for having a main plot of some kind though. Look at GTA, or Breath of the Wild, or Skyrim/Fallout, or Assassin's Creed, or Dragon Age Inquisition. All the side stuff and vignettes spread throughout the world are improved by the existence of a critical path, rather than diminished.

And if that's what your players want, then insisting on a "pure," directionless, make-your-own-fun sandbox is just going to leave them dissatisfied as they hunt in vain for something that isn't there. It's not enough to make the game you want to run, you have to make the game they want to play too.

Seconding all of this, and most/all of what others have said too. Clearly your players want to be given quests to complete, as evidenced by the fact that they’re faithfully doing the quests you’re giving them.

If everybody (yourself included) is having fun and you started this thread just to talk about some unexpected directions things have gone, then carry on. There’s no particular problem here.

If you’re getting frustrated and your players are getting confused, then you should take a step back and have a lengthy OOC discussion about what they expect from you and what you expect from them. And the goal of that discussion isn’t to get them to play the game the way you think they should. It’s to figure out what’s going to work for everybody at the table.

[Psyren]

I asked him, “are you sure?” and he said, “well yeah… the story has to proceed right?”

The fact that they are hunting for "the story" to "proceed" - evidently by any means necessary - illustrates my point perfectly.

These are all video games though… They are focused entirely on telling a story, not player immersion….

No offense but this is a very narrow view. Game design is game design, you shouldn't discard good lessons simply because they are from a different medium, rather you should look at the similarities.

Yes video games have a narrower possibility space than tabletop (though you can absolutely start a business and make a family in a game like Skyrim.) But having a world of theoretically infinite possibility that ends up being an unfocused mess with bored and directionless players isn't superior. Did you even ask your players if "starting a business" and "making families" are things that interest them? That's what people are trying to get across to you, you find these features to be amazing selling points of your world but your players appear to be looking for a plot, not to play pretend house somewhere without working towards anything in particular.

And the idea that "telling a story" and "player immersion" are at odds from each other makes no sense. You can't seriously believe a game like Breath of the Wild isn't immersive.

[paladinofshojo]

Seconding all of this, and most/all of what others have said too. Clearly your players want to be given quests to complete, as evidenced by the fact that they’re faithfully doing the quests you’re giving them.

If everybody (yourself included) is having fun and you started this thread just to talk about some unexpected directions things have gone, then carry on. There’s no particular problem here.

If you’re getting frustrated and your players are getting confused, then you should take a step back and have a lengthy OOC discussion about what they expect from you and what you expect from them. And the goal of that discussion isn’t to get them to play the game the way you think they should. It’s to figure out what’s going to work for everybody at the table.

I think you’re mistaking me, I don’t feel like they’re playing “wrong” since there is no “wrong way” to play, I just feel like they need to “grow” as tabletop players…

If they want to play as fascist goons that’s fine, but they can at least play into it… Be unnecessarily evil, rape, pillage… Hire gangs of ruffians as men at arms… But they don’t do that… They are basically playing D&D like silent videogame protagonists…

Which there is nothing wrong with, kinda breaks the spirit of the game doesn’t it?

Again, if that’s how they want to play that’s fine, it’s not my job to police their fun, I am just saying it’s kinda odd. 🤷

[False God]

My players typically hate royalty and treat minor attitude issues or oversteps by nobles as reasonable grounds to kill them.

[paladinofshojo]

The fact that they are hunting for "the story" to "proceed" - evidently by any means necessary - illustrates my point perfectly.

I really don’t get what that’s supposed to mean…. They made that choice… The only one who was forcing them to kill that little girl was themselves, all I did was ask, “are you sure?”

They clearly didn’t want to do it, and they could have just up and left the village then and there to do other stuff instead of playing Game of Thrones for King Rupert…

No offense but this is a very narrow view. Game design is game design, you shouldn't discard good lessons simply because they are from a different medium, rather you should look at the similarities.

The problem with that is that concepts that are considered ground breaking for video games aren’t applicable or counterproductive for tabletop.

For instance, how do you add the combat system of Dark Souls or Shadow of Mordor into Tabletop…

Also, how limiting would it be if you’re only allowed a good, neutral, or evil option when speaking to NPCs like in Mass Effect or the Witcher? Instead of actually using human imagination to hold an actual conversation?

Yes video games have a narrower possibility space than tabletop (though you can absolutely start a business and make a family in a game like Skyrim.) But having a world of theoretically infinite possibility that ends up being an unfocused mess with bored and directionless players isn't superior. Did you even ask your players if "starting a business" and "making families" are things that interest them? That's what people are trying to get across to you, you find these features to be amazing selling points of your world but your players appear to be looking for a plot, not to play pretend house somewhere without working towards anything in particular.

It’s not the DM’s job to provide you a purpose to play… The DM is only there to keep the world together and consistent and actually “alive”… it’s the player’s job to decide whether or not they should follow the “main plot” or even if there is a “main plot” to begin with.

Do people wake up and expect God to tell them what to do and what their purpose is in their actual lives? No! Then why should Player Characters in a world as immersive as our own expect their version of God to grant them that luxury?

And the idea that "telling a story" and "player immersion" are at odds from each other makes no sense. You can't seriously believe a game like Breath of the Wild isn't immersive.

It isn’t though…there still is one linear story that you have to follow…What happens if you want to leave Hyrule for some distant lands across the ocean? Or Triforce forbid…what happens if you want to be evil and help the Calamity destroy Hyrule?

[Xervous]

I am kinda nervous about that because I’d rather have them naturally progress as players instead of me having to “correct” their behavior.

I think you’re mistaking me, I don’t feel like they’re playing “wrong” since there is no “wrong way” to play, I just feel like they need to “grow” as tabletop players…

What is ‘progressing as a player’? Why do they need to ‘grow’? Need is a very strong word to use in this case.

[Psyren]

I really don’t get what that’s supposed to mean…. They made that choice… The only one who was forcing them to kill that little girl was themselves, all I did was ask, “are you sure?”

They clearly didnÂ’t want to do it, and they could have just up and left then and there to do other stuff instead of playing Game of Thrones for King RupertÂ…

I'm not sure what's happening with your post but there's a lot of weird characters getting inserted.

And yes, they made that choice, but if their characters are making IC choices because their players are feeling OOC bored and directionless that's an actual problem. Do you disagree?

The problem with that is that concepts that are considered ground breaking for video games arenÂ’t applicable or counterproductive for tabletop.

For instance, how do you add the combat system of Dark Souls or Shadow of Mordor into TabletopÂ…

Also, how limiting would it be if youÂ’re only allowed a good, neutral, or evil option when speaking to NPCs like in Mass Effect or the Witcher? Instead of actually using human imagination to hold an actual conversation?

Let's put aside that you absolutely CAN add Dark Souls and Shadow of Mordor mechanics to a tabletop game, quite easily in fact. (SoM's Nemesis System is much, much easier to do in tabletop in fact.)

I'm not talking about game mechanics though, I'm talking about plot and narrative. Every RPG can have those, regardless of medium. And a game without plot is possible, but your players clearly don't want that from what you're telling us, nor have you told us if you've actually and explicitly asked them that question.

It’s not the DM’s job to provide you a purpose to play… The DM is only there to keep the world together and consistent and actually “alive”… it’s the player’s job to decide whether or not they should follow the “main plot” or even if there is a “main plot” to begin with.

You are half right. It's the player's job to decide if they follow the main plot.

But deciding whether there is one? That's your job, not theirs.

Do people wake up and expect God to tell them what to do and what their purpose is in their actual lives? No! Then why should Player Characters in a world as immersive as our own expect their version of God that luxury?

A plot doesn't mean a god (lowercase or uppercase) telling you what to do. Plot means three things: Goal (what they want or need to accomplish), Stakes (what happens if they don't do that) and Urgency (what timeframe is there on it, if any). That can come from a god, a villain, an opportunity, a natural phenomenon, or any number of other things. The point is that your players are looking for one, and you're adamant against providing one. That's not a bad thing unless you don't actually make that crystal clear to your players.

It isnÂ’t thoughÂ… there still is one linear story that you have to followÂ…. What happens if you want to leave Hyrule for some distant lands across the ocean? Or Triforce forbidÂ… what happens if you want to be evil and help the Calamity destroy Hyrule?

So any constraints or direction at all means a game isn't immersive to you?

[paladinofshojo]

I'm not sure what's happening with your post but there's a lot of weird characters getting inserted.

And yes, they made that choice, but if their characters are making IC choices because their players are feeling OOC bored and directionless that's an actual problem. Do you disagree?

I am assuming the characters happen when I use an apostrophe or a period… strange.

But moving on, they don’t feel bored or directionless though…

They were sad because I had them kill Juggles the Jester, and they were mad at me for putting them in a situation that forced them to kill a 6 year old girl. They are invested to the story world.

It’s just that the concept that they have agency over their narratives isn’t in their minds…like at all…with a normal party they’d have flipped the bird to the King or even killed him and bounced to go adventuring somewhere else…

My party, on the other hand, seems to be making it more difficult for themselves by masochistically serving a teenage royal brat. They don’t need to follow him around but for some reason they feel obligated to.

I'm not talking about game mechanics though, I'm talking about plot and narrative. Every RPG can have those, regardless of medium. And a game without plot is possible, but your players clearly don't want that from what you're telling us, nor have you told us if you've actually and explicitly asked them that question.

The reason why I have become dungeon master for this group was that we had all originally been players under a very strict, old school railroading DM who insisted on micromanaging everything… he had long speeches said by his NPCs while we the actual players stood around in the background waiting for his wizard chosen one NPC to fulfill the prophecy and banish the demon lord back into the abyss.

After that we all agreed no more railroading DMs, hence why I am so adamant about my stance.

You are half right. It's the player's job to decide if they follow the main plot.

But deciding whether there is one? That's your job, not theirs.

Why though? As a DM I gave them their first session, after which I granted them a world in which to impact however they see fit…

A world fleshed out with quests and intrigue of which they haven’t even scratched the surface of btw.

A plot doesn't mean a god (lowercase or uppercase) telling you what to do. Plot means three things: Goal (what they want or need to accomplish), Stakes (what happens if they don't do that) and Urgency (what timeframe is there on it, if any). That can come from a god, a villain, an opportunity, a natural phenomenon, or any number of other things. The point is that your players are looking for one, and you're adamant against providing one. That's not a bad thing unless you don't actually make that crystal clear to your players.

It’s not a DM’s job to give players goals though…. The players have choice… And if you take away that element from them then what’s stopping your game from being another story simulator like a video game except with pen and paper?

So any constraints or direction at all means a game isn't immersive to you?

Yes? That’s why I disagree with your comparison between video games and tabletop, if you want to kill scores of nameless mobs and follow an already established and linear story then there’s video games…if you want to actually be in a world filled with living breathing people than you can play tabletop.

The overall quality of the video game is irrelevant, if it limits your choices in any way then it isn’t immersive.

[Psyren]

The overall quality of the video game is irrelevant, if it limits your choices in any way then it isn’t immersive.

Your definition of immersion is too narrow for us to have much meaningful discussion then.

Have you asked them, directly, whether they want a main plot or not? Yes or no, and if so, what did they say?

[paladinofshojo]

Your definition of immersion is too narrow for us to have much meaningful discussion then.

Have you asked them, directly, whether they want a main plot or not? Yes or no, and if so, what did they say?

Not yet, our next session is tomorrow night…

And I got to admit I am kinda dreading it because I don’t want to influence how they play…

[Xervous]

Not yet, our next session is tomorrow night…

And I got to admit I am kinda dreading it because I don’t want to influence how they play…

If you don’t want to influence how they play, but you also want them to play a specific way, you’re just setting yourself up for disappointment. The dog won’t learn to roll over if you never teach it. Either find comfort in the fact that they’re enjoying uninfluenced play, or work towards building a shared understanding of what’s fun for everyone at the table.

[TheStranger]

Not yet, our next session is tomorrow night…

And I got to admit I am kinda dreading it because I don’t want to influence how they play…

You seem to have a very particular idea of what TTRPGs should be and how the players and DM should approach the game and interact with each other and the world. You also seem to have the idea that your attitudes are correct and your players should “grow into them.” The first part is fine, but the second part is a big issue.

I’ve been playing TTRPGs for about 30 years, and I don’t have much interest in the type of “sandbox” campaign you seem to want to run. I play in a group with several experienced players and a DM I consider to be excellent, and we play published adventures almost exclusively. That’s the style of game we all enjoy, and I don’t think it makes us lesser roleplayers to prefer that structure in our game.

My point is, there’s no one right way to play TTRPGs. The important thing is that everybody at the table is on the same page. It’s fine that you want to run an extremely open sandbox game. It’s also fine if your players want to play in a game with more direction. Sitting down and talking about these things isn’t influencing how they play, it’s what you do to make sure everybody’s on the same page and having fun. It’s certainly better than wanting them to play a certain way but never telling them. But if their answer is that they really prefer that there be a story, you’re not doing anybody any favors by refusing to give them one. The best DM is the one who makes the game fun for everybody (himself included), not the one that adheres to some principle of player freedom.

That said, the fact that they’re so unwilling to go off-script that they’re apparently killing kids not because they want to be evil but because they feel like your plot requires them to is pretty extreme. There’s nothing wrong with using that as an example of a place they could have acted differently. Not in the sense of your plot was actually that they wouldn’t kill the kid, but as an example of a place where they could have killed the kid or not, and whatever they did would have become the story from then on.

[Psyren]

Published adventures have a main plot.
Published adventures are also not "video games" which you seem to see as a pejorative. They are tabletop.

You have two choices - bite the bullet and figure out what your players want, or don't. Doing the latter maintains the status quo (which you seem dissatisfied with.)

Doing the former will lead to two more choices:

1a) If you ask them and they want the same thing you do, then you have to figure out why they don't seem to be behaving the way you expect.
1b) If you ask them and they don't want the same thing you do, you have to decide whether you're going to change up the campaign to meet them halfway, run a campaign one side (you or them) is not happy with, or quit.

[Satinavian]

The players looked at me kinda annoyed and angry. Then the rogue shook his head begrudgingly and rolled to slit her throat.

I asked him, “are you sure?” and he said, “well yeah… the story has to proceed right?”

Ok.

That here is the point where you should have stopped the game and have a proper talk about it OG with your players. For three reasons

- There were obviously misunderstandings that need to be cleared up.
- Your increasingly heavyhanded approach to get them to oppose the king via having them do cruelties obviously didn't work and needed changing.
- They stopped having fun.


As your next session is imminent, start it with such a talk.

[TheStranger]

Ok.

That here is the point where you should have stopped the game and have a proper talk about it OG with your players. For three reasons

- There were obviously misunderstandings that need to be cleared up.
- Your increasingly heavyhanded approach to get them to oppose the king via having them do cruelties obviously didn't work and needed changing.
- They stopped having fun.


As your next session is imminent, start it with such a talk.

Very well said.

[icefractal]

That here is the point where you should have stopped the game and have a proper talk about it OG with your players.

This! Stop hinting at how your game / TTRPGs in general work and tell them. You've been saying things like "open world" and "living, breathing world" and expecting them to know that as a result they can approach problems any way they want to.

Well if they came via the world of video games, that's not how those terms are used!
Open World = you can travel around freely and visit areas in any order
Living, Breathing World = NPCs do something other than stand motionless when not interacting with the player
Neither of them implies you have total freedom in how you approach problems.

When they say something like "we have no choice" and you don't correct that, you are contributing to the miscommunication. The game itself can be a mysterious process of discovery, but understanding how it's played shouldn't be!


As an example, consider if you were playing in a game I was running, and this jester situation came up. I had previously mentioned that I see the game as a collaboration between the players and GM. You refuse to execute the jester, the king orders his other guards to kill you, and after a tough fight several PCs have died. Understandably, you're frustrated at this seemingly no-win situation.

Then I ask "Why didn't you just say that the jester was secretly an assassin, and have him throw some smoke bombs to cover your retreat?" After all, I said this game was a collaboration, obviously (in my mind) that means that the players can insert any narrative that doesn't directly contradict what's been established.

Except actually I don't ask that, I just silently wonder why you inexplicably didn't think of doing that. How many sessions, you think, before you'd spontaneously discover that option? Being mysterious OOC is for chumps!