Players characters evading direct questions

[Jason]

This is also how I do it. If you look at your example, the GM is narrating after the dice are rolled, not before.

Yes. Because as I said, I often let the players do it that way in combat.

[Talakeal]

Yes. Because as I said, I often let the players do it that way in combat.

I think maybe we are having one of those miscommunications.

I am not quite sure why you are bringing up narration or what it has to do with rolling before or after you declare what action you are taking.

[King of Nowhere]

Yes, that's a good way to bore everyone to death. Like I said, I don't strictly follow the rule in combat. But if you just say "your turn" and the players roll bunches of dice and only say numbers you have no opportunity to narrate the action in a way that can make things much more interesting.

That's why my combats are (ideally) more like:
Jason (the GM): "The Orc with the notched helmet bats your sword blow aside, and swings it's ax at Baern," <roll> "hitting him for 7 points of damage. Baern staggers a bit at the force of the blow. Bob, what does Baern do?"
Bob (Baern's player): "I scream a dwarven war cry and strike at the orc with the notched helmet's legs with my battleaxe!" <roll> "I hit AC 17 for 12 damage."
Jason: "Baern strikes true! He cuts the orc's legs out from under it. The orc collapses and doesn't move very much. The orc with the purple eye tattoo on its forehead starts chanting something and waving its arms. Baern needs to roll a Wisdom saving throw."
Bob: "Moradin give me strength!" <roll> "Ugh, a 14."
Jason: "No, that's good enough. For a moment Baern felt some magical force trying to prevent his muscles from responding to his will, but it seems to have passed. The orc with the tattooed forehead seems surprised you resisted his spell."
And so forth.

Not giving the GM the opportunity to narrate the action makes the experience much less interesting, IMO.

weird, i have an opposite experience: after a handful of combat, narration gets dull and repetitive, and it would be boring to keep trying to describe it all the time. We do some narration and descriptio, but not for every blow.
otoh, fights rarely are about repeatedly hitting a bunch of monsters undistinguishable from each other. we discuss a lot of tactics, both we and the npcs have a lot more complex moves available, and we deal with more complex math

[Jason]

I think maybe we are having one of those miscommunications.

I am not quite sure why you are bringing up narration or what it has to do with rolling before or after you declare what action you are taking.

You said that having the GM "control" rolls means a lot of saying the same thing over and over again during combat. I explained that my combats don't work that way and gave an example.

The point remains that having the GM control non-combat rolls is not only important, but necessary to have a good game. Letting the players take the initiative is fine, but the GM is the world. He has final say for what will and won't require a roll and what factors effect a roll.

[Talakeal]

The point remains that having the GM control non-combat rolls is not only important, but necessary to have a good game. Letting the players take the initiative is fine, but the GM is the world. He has final say for what won't and won't require a roll and what factors effect a roll.

I guess it really depends on the system.

I tend to play crunchier games, and you don't really need to the GM to tell you what dice to roll for a given situation; the rule book already has a list of what tasks fall under each skill and what difficulties are used in various situations. The GM is just kind of there to make the decision in gray areas, for example is balancing on a rock that is slippery due to algae going to count as a "wet surface" or an "icy surface".

But some games maybe not so much.

[Jason]

I guess it really depends on the system.

I tend to play crunchier games, and you don't really need to the GM to tell you what dice to roll for a given situation; the rule book already has a list of what tasks fall under each skill and what difficulties are used in various situations. The GM is just kind of there to make the decision in gray areas, for example is balancing on a rock that is slippery due to algae going to count as a "wet surface" or an "icy surface".

But some games maybe not so much.

Yes and no. Crunchier games often make an attempt to codify everything, so that a player will know what the DC for, say, clearing a 12' running leap should be because how to calculate it is in the rulebook. It's still up the GM to decide when a roll should be made.

If there's no time pressure, and there's no potential cost in failing, then there's no point in rolling. If there is any reasonable chance the player character can make a 12' running jump and no cost for failure then he'll just try until he succeeds. If there's no reasonable chance he can actually make the jump then he won't be able to. No roll is necessary in either case.

If the party's barbarian is by far the strongest, and he badly fails a roll to break down a door, there is no point in the DM letting all of the other party members, including the Strength 6 wizard, make a roll (and then having to explain why the wizard succeeded when his player rolls a nat 20). The game mechanics have already determined that the strongest party member is unable to open the door - the party will have to use a different approach, like lockpicking or a knock spell, to try to open the door or bypass it.

If a player says his 1st level ranger is going to use his perfectly ordinary longbow to shoot the moon, the GM doesn't have to try to figure out the moon's armor class - he can just say "you shoot an arrow straight up at the moon. It goes up very high, but it doesn't come anywhere near to hitting the moon." He certainly doesn't have to let the player roll, and then argue that rolling a nat 20 doesn't mean that he succeeds in hitting the moon just because the rules say a natural 20 always succeeds. He simply rules it's impossible, and therefore no roll is necessary.

The system can't tell you when a roll should be made - it's a GM call. The GM has to decide when to use the game mechanics, and when there is no point in doing so.

[Talakeal]

Yes and no. Crunchier games often make an attempt to codify everything, so that a player will know what the DC for, say, clearing a 12' running leap should be because how to calculate it is in the rulebook. It's still up the GM to decide when a roll should be made.

If there's no time pressure, and there's no potential cost in failing, then there's no point in rolling. If there is any reasonable chance the player character can make a 12' running jump and no cost for failure then he'll just try until he succeeds. If there's no reasonable chance he can actually make the jump then he won't be able to. No roll is necessary in either case.

If the party's barbarian is by far the strongest, and he badly fails a roll to break down a door, there is no point in the DM letting all of the other party members, including the Strength 6 wizard, make a roll (and then having to explain why the wizard succeeded when his player rolls a nat 20). The game mechanics have already determined that the strongest party member is unable to open the door - the party will have to use a different approach, like lockpicking or a knock spell, to try to open the door or bypass it.

If a player says his 1st level ranger is going to use his perfectly ordinary longbow to shoot the moon, the GM doesn't have to try to figure out the moon's armor class - he can just say "you shoot an arrow straight up at the moon. It goes up very high, but it doesn't come anywhere near to hitting the moon." He certainly doesn't have to let the player roll, and then argue that rolling a nat 20 doesn't mean that he succeeds in hitting the moon just because the rules say a natural 20 always succeeds. He simply rules it's impossible, and therefore no roll is necessary.

The system can't tell you when a roll should be made - it's a GM call. The GM has to decide when to use the game mechanics, and when there is no point in doing so.

While this is all technically true, I can't say it actually matters.

Although I can recall a few times we decided not to go into scene or pull out the dice for something, I can't recall a single time in all my years of gaming where I actually had a player expect to roll a dice for something where failure / success was impossible.

The closest I can think of is new players who expect to be able to roll over and over again until they get a twenty, but they learn pretty quickly that isn't how it works.


As for your wizard and barbarian trying to open a door; at my table that would be handled as an assistance roll, and as the GM I would probably narrate it as the barbarian being unable to open the door until the wizard points out the proper place for him to apply his strength to get the result he wanted.

[Talakeal]

@Vahnavoi: if you are still around, I am curious, what word would you suggest I use instead of “optimizing” to describe the process or trying to find increasingly more efficient ways to perform a task where failure is no longer in question?



Well, we did one final epilogue session to wrap up loose ends while we wait for everyone to be ready to start up our Exalted game, and I have to say, it was a mess. Bob had an excuse for why he would refuse to pursue any given plot hook or interact with any given NPC, and it was really dragging on me by the end.

[Mordar]

@Vahnavoi: if you are still around, I am curious, what word would you suggest I use instead of “optimizing” to describe the process or trying to find increasingly more efficient ways to perform a task where failure is no longer in question?



Well, we did one final epilogue session to wrap up loose ends while we wait for everyone to be ready to start up our Exalted game, and I have to say, it was a mess. Bob had an excuse for why he would refuse to pursue any given plot hook or interact with any given NPC, and it was really dragging on me by the end.

I know it would be a challenge, but I would really feel compelled to ask "If you didn't want to play, why did you keep coming?" even if I already know the answer.

- M

[BRC]

I know it would be a challenge, but I would really feel compelled to ask "If you didn't want to play, why did you keep coming?" even if I already know the answer.

- M

By my understanding, Bob as a player cares almost exclusively about the OUTCOME of the game, rather than the process of playing it. Bob wants to play a game where he wins to the maximum available degree, expending no serious resources, suffering no consequences, and receiving a hefty reward. If you're in an epilogue with no real chance to score more points, I'm not surprised he checks out.

[gbaji]

By my understanding, Bob as a player cares almost exclusively about the OUTCOME of the game, rather than the process of playing it. Bob wants to play a game where he wins to the maximum available degree, expending no serious resources, suffering no consequences, and receiving a hefty reward. If you're in an epilogue with no real chance to score more points, I'm not surprised he checks out.

Yeah. That's a fair point. But I'm also a bit confused as to why an Epilogue requires (or even allows) for player decision/interaction in the first place. The PCs have already made their decisions and performed their actions and done whatever "in adventure" stuff they did. The epilogue is the GM telling the players the results of those things. This is actually the time for the GM to narrate the ending: "As a result of your heroic efforts, the <evil guys> plot to <do evil thing> was thwarted. Good King <whathisname> has regained his power, married his long lost love, and all is well. Your friends <insert group(s) who helped the party> have become well regarded and are now working as royal <whatevers> to the crown, assuring their good fortune and assisting in the rebuilding and preventing of future similar <evil plots>. You are heroes and are richly rewarded with <insert rich rewards here>. Those who had romantic subplots <insert romantic/relationship ending here>. Those who did some sort of buiding stuff get <insert some world/org building nice ending here>. The odd loner in the group <insert wandering off to do loner stuff in peace here>. And everyone lives happily ever after. The End".

Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me if you've reached the epilogue, then that means that decision time is over. You just wrap up the game, and tell the players what the results of their efforts are. The only way that player choice matter here is if I'm planning on returning to the same setting/system/characters. In which case, I'd still tell them what the specific outcomes are (cause those have happened). If they want to come to me with ideas about what their characters are doing after that point (or in addition to, or off to the side, whatever), then that'll be taken into account when I consider the next adventure in that same game world, but that's about it.

[Cygnia]

We're gonna keep saying it: NO GAME IS BETTER THAN UNGRATEFUL BAD GAME

[Mordar]

By my understanding, Bob as a player cares almost exclusively about the OUTCOME of the game, rather than the process of playing it. Bob wants to play a game where he wins to the maximum available degree, expending no serious resources, suffering no consequences, and receiving a hefty reward. If you're in an epilogue with no real chance to score more points, I'm not surprised he checks out.

Yeah. That's a fair point. But I'm also a bit confused as to why an Epilogue requires (or even allows) for player decision/interaction in the first place. The PCs have already made their decisions and performed their actions and done whatever "in adventure" stuff they did. The epilogue is the GM telling the players the results of those things. This is actually the time for the GM to narrate the ending

Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me if you've reached the epilogue, then that means that decision time is over. You just wrap up the game, and tell the players what the results of their efforts are. The only way that player choice matter here is if I'm planning on returning to the same setting/system/characters. In which case, I'd still tell them what the specific outcomes are (cause those have happened). If they want to come to me with ideas about what their characters are doing after that point (or in addition to, or off to the side, whatever), then that'll be taken into account when I consider the next adventure in that same game world, but that's about it.

I'm assuming that while Talakeal said "epilogue" he kind of meant something more like an interactive denouement or a hotwash...discussing the game, what was presented, how it was received, that kind of thing. Based on that assumption I like the idea of the callout - "If you don't want to interact with any of the characters I present, why do you play?"

- M

[gbaji]

I'm assuming that while Talakeal said "epilogue" he kind of meant something more like an interactive denouement or a hotwash...discussing the game, what was presented, how it was received, that kind of thing. Based on that assumption I like the idea of the callout - "If you don't want to interact with any of the characters I present, why do you play?"

Ah. Re-reading Talakeal's post, that makes more sense. I got the "refused to interact with plot hooks" as "right now, during the epilogue" which just seemed strange.

But yeah, if we're talking about a post-mortem session (odd connotations of the name aside), then that makes more sense. This is not the players telling the GM what their characters are doing at the tail of the story, but the players telling the GM about why they did what they did during the game then?

Eh... If that's the case, whether we buy Bob's explanations for various things or not, they still indicate some degree of dissastisfaction with some aspects of the game in general, and should at least be somewhat taken at face value. If, at the end of a campaign, a player says "I really didn't enjoy part A, or B, or the NPCs doing X, Y, or Z, and I really thought <subplot> was boring", even if you think he's making up excuses for not interacting with the game the way you expected while playing, that's still something that player did not interact with while playing. Kinda doesn't matter if you believe his after-the-fact explanation or not. Something is not running on all cylinders here.


Which I guess makes BRC's comment more on-point than I thought at first. Bob does seem like a result oriented player. He's not so much interested in the interplay along the way, just "did we obtain the <whatever>", or "did we defeat the <whomever>?". I would not at all be surprised if he did not engage so much in the game as described. Tons of social stuff, much of it seemingly purely for the sake of having social stuff, is probably a hard sell to a player like that. Heck. I enjoy a decent bout of roleplay myself, but for me, it's more about roleplay decisions and less about verbally roleplaying out dialogue (except for when I'm in the mood, in which case I probably can't be stopped once I get started). But yeah, my experience is that you lead players to RP opportunities, and then let them engage at their level of interest/comfort. I will never force a purely social RP encounter with my players. If they want to handwave it out "we talk to the baron and try to get the info", then I follow their lead.

I don't know where this particular game falls in that range though, but yeah. Not surprising that Bob maybe didn't enjoy it so much. He seems more like a nuts and bolts kind of player.

[Mordar]

Which I guess makes BRC's comment more on-point than I thought at first. Bob does seem like a result oriented player. He's not so much interested in the interplay along the way, just "did we obtain the <whatever>", or "did we defeat the <whomever>?". I would not at all be surprised if he did not engage so much in the game as described. Tons of social stuff, much of it seemingly purely for the sake of having social stuff, is probably a hard sell to a player like that. Heck. I enjoy a decent bout of roleplay myself, but for me, it's more about roleplay decisions and less about verbally roleplaying out dialogue (except for when I'm in the mood, in which case I probably can't be stopped once I get started). But yeah, my experience is that you lead players to RP opportunities, and then let them engage at their level of interest/comfort. I will never force a purely social RP encounter with my players. If they want to handwave it out "we talk to the baron and try to get the info", then I follow their lead.

I don't know where this particular game falls in that range though, but yeah. Not surprising that Bob maybe didn't enjoy it so much. He seems more like a nuts and bolts kind of player.

While I accept that, certainly, it misses one key element - the plothooks and the NPCs are (often) the ways you get bigger/stronger/faster and "win better". "Oh, had you run that errand for the blacksmith/hacker/Prince of the City you would have received the +2 Bastard Sword of Awesome/AmEx Black Card/training on the Heart-Yank-Through-Ear discipline you so wanted". That sure would have made killing the Kobold King/Insect Shaman/jerky Toreador *so* much easier.

Side quests rule!

- M

[gbaji]

Just leaving this up here as a reminder:

Bob had an excuse for why he would refuse to pursue any given plot hook or interact with any given NPC, and it was really dragging on me by the end.

While I accept that, certainly, it misses one key element - the plothooks and the NPCs are (often) the ways you get bigger/stronger/faster and "win better". "Oh, had you run that errand for the blacksmith/hacker/Prince of the City you would have received the +2 Bastard Sword of Awesome/AmEx Black Card/training on the Heart-Yank-Through-Ear discipline you so wanted". That sure would have made killing the Kobold King/Insect Shaman/jerky Toreador *so* much easier.

Side quests rule!

If pursuit of the plot hooks or interaction with the NPCs leads to a payoff that the player finds worthwhile, then this is a valid point. If they don't, then.... well... they don't.

My broader point is that it doesn't ultimately matter what Bob's specific reasons were (not from a "right or wrong" pov anyway). If the rewards for doing those things were things Bob wanted, and he judged them worth the time/effort, he would have done them. He didn't, ergo they weren't. As a GM I may very very much want my players to enjoy using creative macrame as a means to solve problems related to "winning" the award for best macrame creation. But if my players don't want to macrame, and aren't interested in macrame, and don't give a hoot about an award for doing it well, no amount of me saying "if you just do this macrame good enough, you'll win the award!" will matter to them. Sitting around after the game, and asking them why they didn't pursue the side quest to learn a new/better macrame knot that they could totally have used to improve their chances of winning the grand macrame championship and being declared "ruler of macrameland" will not help that problem.

Obviously, I didn't play the game, and don't know the players personally. But IME, if a player doesn't engage in a portion of a game, and I later ask them why, I'm not going to label the response an "excuse". I'm going to make every effort to figure out exactly what didn't work for them, and then decide if those are adjustments I can make for next time (or not, since sometimes players are just unreasonable, but at least this way I'm making an informed choice). I guess I don't get what the point of a post-motem is if you're not willing to take the feedback you get in some sort of constructive way.

[Mordar]

Obviously, I didn't play the game, and don't know the players personally. But IME, if a player doesn't engage in a portion of a game, and I later ask them why, I'm not going to label the response an "excuse". I'm going to make every effort to figure out exactly what didn't work for them, and then decide if those are adjustments I can make for next time (or not, since sometimes players are just unreasonable, but at least this way I'm making an informed choice). I guess I don't get what the point of a post-motem is if you're not willing to take the feedback you get in some sort of constructive way.

Strong point - perhaps still giving to much credit to the side I can hear, but I can recall other players in games over the years that did use "excuses" instead of legitimate answers because they didn't want to own up to a mistake, or a bad behavior (like playing on phones, reading situation-unrelated rules, that kind of thing).

Not the most common situation, of course, but something about Bob sounds like this kind person.

So if I want a hotwash and have 4 players, but Bob is one of them, I probably get the grains of salt for his comments, but agree still very much have to listen.

- M

[RedWarlock]

Just to throw in another possible usage for "epilogue", my current GM and a few past ones have referred to the sessions after the climactic boss battle finale, but still requiring character interaction, dealing with the authorities, resolving plot threads, receiving rewards, that kind of stuff, as epilogue sessions. It's not all just dictated to the characters, and sometimes the players can still throw a few surprises at a GM, especially any special plot coupons that might change the outcome or multiply the rewards.

[Vahnavoi]

@Vahnavoi: if you are still around, I am curious, what word would you suggest I use instead of “optimizing” to describe the process or trying to find increasingly more efficient ways to perform a task where failure is no longer in question?

Any of the various words English has for trying to do better. A dictionary could answer this question just as well as me.

[Talakeal]

Any of the various words English has for trying to do better. A dictionary could answer this question just as well as me.

Well, no. A dictionary is pretty good for looking up the meaning of a known word, not so great for hoping to stumble upon a word that matches a known definition.

Its just that you seemed to take such umbrage with me using optimization colloquially I figured you might have enough stake in the issue to suggest an alternative.

I know it would be a challenge, but I would really feel compelled to ask "If you didn't want to play, why did you keep coming?" even if I already know the answer.

- M

By my understanding, Bob as a player cares almost exclusively about the OUTCOME of the game, rather than the process of playing it. Bob wants to play a game where he wins to the maximum available degree, expending no serious resources, suffering no consequences, and receiving a hefty reward. If you're in an epilogue with no real chance to score more points, I'm not surprised he checks out.

Any of the various words English has for trying to do better. A dictionary could answer this question just as well as me.

AFAICT Bob tends to enjoy two things in the game:

1: Powering up his character to create an OP build.
2: Showing up other players and NPCs by rendering them useless by dint of his OP build.

We're gonna keep saying it: NO GAME IS BETTER THAN UNGRATEFUL BAD GAME

Honestly, Bob was pretty much a non factor in this game. He was so busy memorizing every possible Bastet gift (see my other thread) that he didn't really do anything this session, good or bad, except occasionally interrupt someone else to show them the cool gift he found.

Yeah. That's a fair point. But I'm also a bit confused as to why an Epilogue requires (or even allows) for player decision/interaction in the first place. The PCs have already made their decisions and performed their actions and done whatever "in adventure" stuff they did. The epilogue is the GM telling the players the results of those things. This is actually the time for the GM to narrate the ending: "As a result of your heroic efforts, the <evil guys> plot to <do evil thing> was thwarted. Good King <whathisname> has regained his power, married his long lost love, and all is well. Your friends <insert group(s) who helped the party> have become well regarded and are now working as royal <whatevers> to the crown, assuring their good fortune and assisting in the rebuilding and preventing of future similar <evil plots>. You are heroes and are richly rewarded with <insert rich rewards here>. Those who had romantic subplots <insert romantic/relationship ending here>. Those who did some sort of buiding stuff get <insert some world/org building nice ending here>. The odd loner in the group <insert wandering off to do loner stuff in peace here>. And everyone lives happily ever after. The End".

Maybe I'm missing something here, but to me if you've reached the epilogue, then that means that decision time is over. You just wrap up the game, and tell the players what the results of their efforts are. The only way that player choice matter here is if I'm planning on returning to the same setting/system/characters. In which case, I'd still tell them what the specific outcomes are (cause those have happened). If they want to come to me with ideas about what their characters are doing after that point (or in addition to, or off to the side, whatever), then that'll be taken into account when I consider the next adventure in that same game world, but that's about it.

"Epilogue" probably wasn't the right word.

Basically, we wrapped up the main plot last time, but still had a session before we could start our Exalted game due to scheduling conflicts, so I used it to wrap up loose ends and resolve dangling side plots.

Kind of like how in urban fantasy TV shows like Buffy or Charmed they will often defeat the big bad in episode 21 of the season, and then in episode 22 they will have a brief monster of the week while also dealing with fallout from the seasons main plot, resolving interpersonal dynamics, and teasing the big bad of the next season.

While I accept that, certainly, it misses one key element - the plothooks and the NPCs are (often) the ways you get bigger/stronger/faster and "win better". "Oh, had you run that errand for the blacksmith/hacker/Prince of the City you would have received the +2 Bastard Sword of Awesome/AmEx Black Card/training on the Heart-Yank-Through-Ear discipline you so wanted". That sure would have made killing the Kobold King/Insect Shaman/jerky Toreador *so* much easier.

Side quests rule!

- M

That is a correct attitude, but one that is, imo, far more mature and far less adversarial than my players are typically capable of.

Ah. Re-reading Talakeal's post, that makes more sense. I got the "refused to interact with plot hooks" as "right now, during the epilogue" which just seemed strange.

But yeah, if we're talking about a post-mortem session (odd connotations of the name aside), then that makes more sense. This is not the players telling the GM what their characters are doing at the tail of the story, but the players telling the GM about why they did what they did during the game then?

Eh... If that's the case, whether we buy Bob's explanations for various things or not, they still indicate some degree of dissastisfaction with some aspects of the game in general, and should at least be somewhat taken at face value. If, at the end of a campaign, a player says "I really didn't enjoy part A, or B, or the NPCs doing X, Y, or Z, and I really thought <subplot> was boring", even if you think he's making up excuses for not interacting with the game the way you expected while playing, that's still something that player did not interact with while playing. Kinda doesn't matter if you believe his after-the-fact explanation or not. Something is not running on all cylinders here.

Which I guess makes BRC's comment more on-point than I thought at first. Bob does seem like a result oriented player. He's not so much interested in the interplay along the way, just "did we obtain the <whatever>", or "did we defeat the <whomever>?". I would not at all be surprised if he did not engage so much in the game as described. Tons of social stuff, much of it seemingly purely for the sake of having social stuff, is probably a hard sell to a player like that. Heck. I enjoy a decent bout of roleplay myself, but for me, it's more about roleplay decisions and less about verbally roleplaying out dialogue (except for when I'm in the mood, in which case I probably can't be stopped once I get started). But yeah, my experience is that you lead players to RP opportunities, and then let them engage at their level of interest/comfort. I will never force a purely social RP encounter with my players. If they want to handwave it out "we talk to the baron and try to get the info", then I follow their lead.

I don't know where this particular game falls in that range though, but yeah. Not surprising that Bob maybe didn't enjoy it so much. He seems more like a nuts and bolts kind of player.

As we discussed up-thread, it really isn't about talking in character and using flowery language, but about interacting with the world at all.

For example, one of the dangling plot threads was finding out who killed the Duke of the Sidhe, which Bob said he wouldn't investigate because his character doesn't like nobles.
Another plot thread involved learning about his own past (Bob took amnesia and specifically told me he wanted me to come up with a mysterious background for him) but he seemed uninterested in that.



As I mentioned up-thread, there was an NPC who had both a werewolf soul and a pooka soul fighting to possess her body. Bob decided he wanted to help her become a pooka like him, and so they eventually came up with the plan to have her wear enough silver that her werewolf soul went into retreat. I told them, both IC and OOC that this plan would work, but it would take time to gather than much silver IC, and we were running short on game time OOC, and so we would resolve it next session. This wasn't good enough for Bob, and so he said he was going to kidnap her and pump her full of glamour to force the change. I told him OOC that this plan wouldn't work, and in fact could potentially backfire horribly. Bob told me that, well, his character doesn't know this, so he is doing it anyway.

As an aside, this is why I have been so dismissive of your advice earlier in the thread to simply tell the players what they need to do OOC; because it never works. The players always take it as "telling them what to do" and ignore me, doubling down on what they were doing first. OOC Bob has decided his plan *should* work, and when I tell him different, it becomes a contest of wills.

So, they grab her and go to tie her up, and I roll a frenzy test for her. To frenzy, she needs to roll a 6-10 on at least 4 of 5 dice. I think that is about a 9% chance? Well, I roll in the open, and sure enough, she frenzies, transforming into a werewolf and running away into a panic.

So, this is obviously a huge hanging plot thread. So, this session, the PCs hear that she was apprehended by werewolf hunters, and is currently being experimented on by them. Obviously, the hook is to rescue her, because this is a friend of theirs who got captured as a direct result of their actions. But, Bob's response is "I don't care about anyone but other pooka. I cared about her because I thought she might be a pooka, but now that she is a werewolf, I couldn't care less what happened to her."

From an IC perspective, this just strikes me as chillingly sociopathic.
From an OOC perspective, it strikes me as pouting because I told him no and trying to punish me by wasting my content.


And then, in the final scene of the session, I am doing a bit of foreshadowing. Kind of like the stinger at the end of a Marvel film. The players have uncovered the "real villain" who was behind the events of the previous campaign, and have tracked her down, and she gives the players a bit of a James Bond exposition monologue (although not in monologue form, it is very much a dialogue) as well as an offer for the PCs to join her.

Bob is of course silent. One of the other players asks him why he isn't engaging, as IC this seems like it is super relevant to his character's interests. To which Bob responds: What is the point? I won't work with her because I don't trust any authority, she is to strong for me to kill, and she is to dedicated for me to talk her out of her plan, so any sort of information I get is pointless. (And, of course, Bob apparently never even considered that knowledge could be power or the possibility of a double cross).

Which yeah, does sound a lot like what you describe as a "results oriented player", but combined with everything else that session it just seemed like the last in a long list of the excuses which he had been making all session not to engage with anything.

[Vahnavoi]

@Talakeal: why do you need a single word for this to begin with? Bob wants to show others up, just say Bob wants to show others up.

[Kardwill]

Which yeah, does sound a lot like what you describe as a "results oriented player", but combined with everything else that session it just seemed like the last in a long list of the excuses which he had been making all session not to engage with anything.

Does he usually grab your plot hooks? If that was only for that session, he might not have been in the mood. Or not very interested in those specific of plots (especially if they revolve around NPCs he dislikes. His dismissal ).

You could ask him if he wants you to come up with character-driven plots for him, or if he prefers to simply concentrate on the adventure itself, and leave side-plots for the other players.
You could also ask him what kind of side-plot could interest him for his next character (including if it would be mostly a combat, social or "problem solving" kind of sideplot).
Get on the same page, to avoid the frustration on both side of the screen (the GM getting frustrated his prep work isn't engaged by the player / The player getting frustrated his plot hook did not pay off)

[Slipjig]

For the character who refuses to engage with the plot (e.g. "My wizard doesn't care about anything other than recovering the lore of ancient Netheril" or "My Druid's only interest is in protecting the wilds from the encroachment of civilization" or "My rogue's only interest is in discovering who framed her family and restoring their fortunes"), it's 100% okay for the DM to say, "Ok, your character leaves to go do that, and the rest of the party isn't likely to see them again. Feel free to roll up a new character."

We want characters to have individual goals and motivations. But refusing to participate in any activity that doesn't further his personal goal is toxic behavior that needs to be corrected or excised.

[Keltest]

For the character who refuses to engage with the plot (e.g. "My wizard doesn't care about anything other than recovering the lore of ancient Netheril" or "My Druid's only interest is in protecting the wilds from the encroachment of civilization" or "My rogue's only interest is in discovering who framed her family and restoring their fortunes"), it's 100% okay for the DM to say, "Ok, your character leaves to go do that, and the rest of the party isn't likely to see them again. Feel free to roll up a new character."

We want characters to have individual goals and motivations. But refusing to participate in any activity that doesn't further his personal goal is toxic behavior that needs to be corrected or excised.

Agreed. Its one of the things I proactively enforce during character creation. Sometimes, the plot is such that everyone is effected regardless of what they want, but frequently I have to overtly tell people "remember that your character needs a reason to be with this specific group."

[Kardwill]

Well, yeah, it's totally the player's job to come up with reasons for their character to grab today's plot hook with the rest of the group. ^^

But side-plots and character-driven stuff require some coordination between players and GM not to fizzle out.

[Keltest]

Well, yeah, it's totally the player's job to come up with reasons for their character to grab today's plot hook with the rest of the group. ^^

But side-plots and character-driven stuff require some coordination between players and GM not to fizzle out.

Side plots IMO should be beneficial for the party on their face. If you ever have to ask "whats in it for me?" for a side quest, its just a bad side quest.

[kyoryu]

Side plots IMO should be beneficial for the party on their face. If you ever have to ask "whats in it for me?" for a side quest, its just a bad side quest.

Exactly this.

Too many people drop side quests knowing that the eventual payoff is going to be worth it (even if it's just "get on the main quest"). You've gotta remember that the players don't know that, and they make their decisions based on what they do know.

"Find out who killed the duke" fails this. It might be interesting to some players, and some might go along due to participationism. But if a character has no reason to care, and it's a time/resource sink, why would they?

Well, yeah, it's totally the player's job to come up with reasons for their character to grab today's plot hook with the rest of the group. ^^

Not sure what that emoji meant.

With an established group, "the group is doing this, these are the people I rely on, therefore I'm doing it too" should be sufficient.

Hooks without an obvious grab are bad hooks, though. The hook should be relevant to at least one person in the party, and preferably more. And if somebody is ignored by one hook, make sure the next one targets them directly.

[Mordar]

Side plots IMO should be beneficial for the party on their face. If you ever have to ask "whats in it for me?" for a side quest, its just a bad side quest.

Exactly this.

Too many people drop side quests knowing that the eventual payoff is going to be worth it (even if it's just "get on the main quest"). You've gotta remember that the players don't know that, and they make their decisions based on what they do know.

"Find out who killed the duke" fails this. It might be interesting to some players, and some might go along due to participationism. But if a character has no reason to care, and it's a time/resource sink, why would they?

With an established group, "the group is doing this, these are the people I rely on, therefore I'm doing it too" should be sufficient.

Hooks without an obvious grab are bad hooks, though. The hook should be relevant to at least one person in the party, and preferably more. And if somebody is ignored by one hook, make sure the next one targets them directly.

Agree with relevancy, but perhaps not with always face-slapping relevancy - but the Social Contract needs to be a contributing factor as well. If I, non-Sandbox GM, include "plot hooks" or side-quests it is incumbent upon me to make sure they are worth the whole group's time, but are not necessary to the "main" story. It is incumbent on the players to trust that I will provide relevant and useful (and enjoyable!) game components with which to interact that serve at least one purpose.

If we don't have that, maybe we should play Axis and Allies instead.

- M

[Slipjig]

Well, yeah, it's totally the player's job to come up with reasons for their character to grab today's plot hook with the rest of the group. ^^

But side-plots and character-driven stuff require some coordination between players and GM not to fizzle out.

Oh, I'm absolutely a fan of side-plots that pay off for specific characters. My point was about players who refuse to engage with anything that ISN'T about their personal storyline.

[Talakeal]

Oh, I'm absolutely a fan of side-plots that pay off for specific characters. My point was about players who refuse to engage with anything that ISN'T about their personal storyline.

Of course, in this case, the problem was players refusing to engage with plot hooks that WERE about their personal storyline.