Do bad players have the right to have fun?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll put this bluntly. What if you are DMing and your players are dumb or horribly uncreative?

When I say dumb or uncreative think of this scenario;

Your players just defeated the bandits of Killamanjo and are rewarded with some gold. Before going back on the road they found a map to a wish-granting genie's lamp within the haunted ruins of Killamanjo which is to the west. They also learn that a princess in a neighboring kingdom was kidnapped and held for ransom in an orc infested lair to the north. To the east there is mountain where a young dragon lives who is hording a cache of magical weapons from all the heroes who have tried to slay him and is enslaving a local town. As the party gets to the crossroads and have to decide which direction to go adventuring you ask them, "So, what do you do?" and you get nothing but blank stares as they silently look to each other waiting for someone else to make a decision.

Basically when presented with more than one means of action that have approximately equal validity the entire game freezes up. No arguing. No discussing. No players trying to do off the wall crazy antics. Just awkward silence followed by asking the rest of the party what they want to do and getting nothing in response but ideas that do not even resemble a course of action.

More dangerous is the one player who will do something because that person is not team leader but team railroader whether s/he likes it or not which for multiple of my games has led to hurt feelings very fast. But that person is besides the point. What do you do when you have nothing but a party of these people.

Now these are generally the same people who generally have poor system mastery, make bad tactical decisions and forget what their character can actually do but that can generally be solved by nerfing anything they face and making your villains a bit stupid and more obvious. The scope of my question is more about having a group of players who can't form plans of action due to a number of these factors in addition to general shyness/social awkwardness. How do you let them have fun without spending half the session sleeping until the group has made a decision about something.

Alternatively what do you do when you've become team railroader? If you step back to the sidelines NOTHING gets done. At all. If you push the team forward, then well you're definitely team railroader.

But


3 people marked this as a favorite.

RP them getting nothing done.

Maybe it starts to rain. A bird flies by.

The Exchange

I've noticed this tendency too. I hate to fall back on the old shibboleth about video games killing creative thought, so instead I'll blame No Child Left Behind.

I too tend to present multiple adventure threads, and my players sometimes admit they're lost in a maze of options. Sometimes it helps to temporarily whittle them down to one, usually by having an attack, action or discovery make their next step urgent and clear. Once they've dealt with the crisis, maybe they'll be in more of a self-determined mood.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't run a sandbox for these players. Problem solved.


Rynjin wrote:
Don't run a sandbox for these players. Problem solved.

Tried this. led to a clusterf#<k of hurt feelings. The only solution I found was a outright direct railroad and switch the active players to a new group. This doesn't work 100%. The root problem here is a combination of poor system mastery and social skills which can lead to players really hating each other due to poor social skills. I've seen group meltdowns like that too many times.

Lincoln Hills wrote:


I've noticed this tendency too. I hate to fall back on the old shibboleth about video games killing creative thought, so instead I'll blame No Child Left Behind.

I too tend to present multiple adventure threads, and my players sometimes admit they're lost in a maze of options. Sometimes it helps to temporarily whittle them down to one, usually by having an attack, action or discovery make their next step urgent and clear. Once they've dealt with the crisis, maybe they'll be in more of a self-determined mood.

This isn't just multiple adventure threads. This is ANY situation that have more than one possible means of action even if it is for the same problem. Basically anything that requires an actual decision.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lincoln Hills wrote:

I've noticed this tendency too. I hate to fall back on the old shibboleth about video games killing creative thought, so instead I'll blame No Child Left Behind.

I too tend to present multiple adventure threads, and my players sometimes admit they're lost in a maze of options. Sometimes it helps to temporarily whittle them down to one, usually by having an attack, action or discovery make their next step urgent and clear. Once they've dealt with the crisis, maybe they'll be in more of a self-determined mood.

I have to agree with this. I have children of my own and we have trouble with restaurant menus when we go out. Too many choices just leads to paralysis.

What I would recommend, and it requires some gritting of teeth, is to fight through the hurt feelings. Explain why the railroading happened and be brutally honest. It sounds cruel or rude, but in the long run it just might help. You might also be giving these people a life lesson they can use outside the group. "Sometimes you have to make hard choices, and sometimes someone has to step up and be in charge!"

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've recently had this problem come up. I was game mastering for a group of about 7 players, 6 of which were completely new to role-playing in general. They were also extremely socially awkward, shy, and afraid to step on anyone's toes or decide something for themselves. I have found a few things that works for my group but not necessarily yours. This is also dependent on if it is a home game or a PFS society game. I don't have experience with PFS.

1.) Not EXACTLY railroading but I set up sort of a time sensitive limited number of choices. Rather than just giving them a map with notes, they find a series of letters. One says if the princess is not ransomed in a week she will be slain. The other letter says a group is already en route to take the genie's lamp. The dragon has a bounty on him but only for the next month, then the king's military is called in. This sometimes helps motivate players into setting priorities.

2.) More active role-play, less system rules. If they are socially awkward like my group I try to have more interaction with NPCs and try to get the players to come out of their shells a bit.

3.) Before I even started the game, I made sure that during character creation I helped nudge them into specific rolls. For instance, our Druid is the only one with craft alchemy and brew potions and knowledge nature. Of course the player's didn't know I had subtly pushed these suggestion at creation. This helps me focus on each player at least once per session.

I hope these help at all.

Edit: oh and one IMPORTANT thing I do. I never break character as an NPC and insist that I'm speaking to the PC's character and not the player themselves. Calling them by name if I have to.


Gently railroad. If they don't have any ideas, have some guide or someone stumble across them to ask for help, or some other thing which can give them a clue where to go next.

The Exchange

Despite the rage it rouses in the modern player, classic modules that begin with the characters trapped in the dungeon (best if done as the very start of a campaign) tend to make PCs either decisive or dead. I particularly had to smile evilly at Shrine of Tamoachan, which added the complication that the air in the dungeon was bad and would get worse the longer the PCs were down there. Tick, tock...

Sovereign Court

You could go half-sandbox; pay attention if they're taking action on their own initiative, otherwise subtly guide them around.

I've found that players hate to be forcibly railroaded, but they also have trouble coming up with their own goals. My players seem to like it when I present a world with stuff happening that pulls at them a bit, and where there's plot happening. Not a true sandbox; there's a "trail" to follow, but it's not as rigid as a railroad. I think it makes the story feel more cohesive.

How much are they set on actually doing RPGs? Are they looking specifically for the game, or more for the social occasion? Maybe you would enjoy playing some board games instead?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I played with a guy who once said in game "Can you tell us which NPC's have a giant floating yellow question mark over their head?"
-that didn't go well...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Make their decision making urgent. Instead of them being proactive make it reactive. A bbeg is hunting them and they have to run and fight when they can. Its not derp derp where should we go next its make a choice any choice before the lich on your tail tpk's the group.

If they still sit there like a bunch of vegetables then tell them to sit down shut up and all aboard the railroad express because you're all acting like a 90 year old staring at a subway menu for 30 minutes. You've never eaten a sandwich before? LET'S GO

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:

You could go half-sandbox; pay attention if they're taking action on their own initiative, otherwise subtly guide them around.

I've found that players hate to be forcibly railroaded, but they also have trouble coming up with their own goals. My players seem to like it when I present a world with stuff happening that pulls at them a bit, and where there's plot happening. Not a true sandbox; there's a "trail" to follow, but it's not as rigid as a railroad. I think it makes the story feel more cohesive.

How much are they set on actually doing RPGs? Are they looking specifically for the game, or more for the social occasion? Maybe you would enjoy playing some board games instead?

Players of the kind the OP describes can be railroaded quite handily, as long as you preserve the illusions of free will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HarbinNick wrote:

I played with a guy who once said in game "Can you tell us which NPC's have a giant floating yellow question mark over their head?"

-that didn't go well...

With some groups why not!? I have a stash of question mark tokens. Roll sense motive or perception to activate relevant question marks. If that's what they need...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HarbinNick wrote:

I played with a guy who once said in game "Can you tell us which NPC's have a giant floating yellow question mark over their head?"

-that didn't go well...

We've used that joke a few times when scenarios or modules became too confusing for the players. It's a great ice breaker as long as your fellow table inhabitants have a sense of humor.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Give them more to work with. You presented three options (the genie, the princess, and the dragon) which all look the same. Don't let them look the same. Because if there are truly the same, there's no decision-making even needed.

Make one of them the "right" answer, but don't punish them much for picking the "wrong" answer. Talk about how the dragon is shoring up resources for a larger assault, and if he's not stopped soon, other towns will suffer. Then they have to decide: deal with the dragon *now*, or get the genie's help first? That's a more meaningful decision.

Alternatively, work it into their backstory. I know what you're thinking: they don't have one. That's fine: they sound like the type that would be okay with you dictating it on the fly. Let them know that the princess is a cousin of theirs, and give them a memory about a time they met her at a family reunion. Or tell another player how his uncle died trying to get the lamp: and it would restore honor to his house if the lamp could be reclaimed. Keep it simple, so the player can go "rar! my lost honor!", the roleplay might be simplistic, but it's starting in the sort of small-sized bits they can be comfortable with.

Hope that helps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

I'll put this bluntly. What if you are DMing and your players are dumb or horribly uncreative?

When I say dumb or uncreative think of this scenario;

Your players just defeated the bandits of Killamanjo and are rewarded with some gold. Before going back on the road they found a map to a wish-granting genie's lamp within the haunted ruins of Killamanjo which is to the west. They also learn that a princess in a neighboring kingdom was kidnapped and held for ransom in an orc infested lair to the north. To the east there is mountain where a young dragon lives who is hording a cache of magical weapons from all the heroes who have tried to slay him and is enslaving a local town. As the party gets to the crossroads and have to decide which direction to go adventuring you ask them, "So, what do you do?" and you get nothing but blank stares as they silently look to each other waiting for someone else to make a decision.

Basically when presented with more than one means of action that have approximately equal validity the entire game freezes up. No arguing. No discussing. No players trying to do off the wall crazy antics. Just awkward silence followed by asking the rest of the party what they want to do and getting nothing in response but ideas that do not even resemble a course of action.

More dangerous is the one player who will do something because that person is not team leader but team railroader whether s/he likes it or not which for multiple of my games has led to hurt feelings very fast. But that person is besides the point. What do you do when you have nothing but a party of these people.

Now these are generally the same people who generally have poor system mastery, make bad tactical decisions and forget what their character can actually do but that can generally be solved by nerfing anything they face and making your villains a bit stupid and more obvious. The scope of my question is more about having a group of players who can't form plans of action due to a number of these factors in...

Yes they do and you the dm should help them to find the fun.

If they are uncreative, they can get better. The onus isn't entirely upon them. Help them, teach them, show them, provide narrower options until they make a choice.

Then laugh and have fun with these players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Malwing wrote:

I'll put this bluntly. What if you are DMing and your players are dumb or horribly uncreative?

When I say dumb or uncreative think of this scenario;

Your players just defeated the bandits of Killamanjo and are rewarded with some gold. Before going back on the road they found a map to a wish-granting genie's lamp within the haunted ruins of Killamanjo which is to the west. They also learn that a princess in a neighboring kingdom was kidnapped and held for ransom in an orc infested lair to the north. To the east there is mountain where a young dragon lives who is hording a cache of magical weapons from all the heroes who have tried to slay him and is enslaving a local town. As the party gets to the crossroads and have to decide which direction to go adventuring you ask them, "So, what do you do?" and you get nothing but blank stares as they silently look to each other waiting for someone else to make a decision.

Basically when presented with more than one means of action that have approximately equal validity the entire game freezes up. No arguing. No discussing. No players trying to do off the wall crazy antics. Just awkward silence followed by asking the rest of the party what they want to do and getting nothing in response but ideas that do not even resemble a course of action.

More dangerous is the one player who will do something because that person is not team leader but team railroader whether s/he likes it or not which for multiple of my games has led to hurt feelings very fast. But that person is besides the point. What do you do when you have nothing but a party of these people.

Now these are generally the same people who generally have poor system mastery, make bad tactical decisions and forget what their character can actually do but that can generally be solved by nerfing anything they face and making your villains a bit stupid and more obvious. The scope of my question is more about having a group of players who can't form plans of action due to a number

...

I read this in Jor-El's voice.


Big question; how do you have fun? This is big because I have DMed situations where nothing less than an firm railroad kept things active and CR 5s are proving too challenging for the 10th level party, and the amount of plot hand holding and needing just made an increasingly boring story for me. If the party goes to the tavern to find and apprehend the criminal One-Eye Willy, and walk through the door and do nothing but look at each other for thirty minutes inside I want to stab myself and then quit GMing.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can lead horses to water but you cant make them drink. Do one shots or board games with these guys. Find yourself some new players for a long term campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I have a sprinkling of these players:

It's been my experience that they don't mind if a more active player chooses to be the "party leader" and make most of the decisions for the group. Who this is often would rotate depending on energy levels & personal engagement at the time.

If I have majority/exclusively these players:

and they're mostly new to RPGs & want to learn:
I'll run a module, dungeon crawl, or other fairly rail-road (preferably subtle/illusion of free will style). The amount of rail-road will dwindle as the game progresses.

AKA, training wheels.

and they're familiar with RPGs
Odds are darn good at this point that they don't actually want to play this game, at least, not right now. Stop the game, find out why no one is willing to make a decision (politely). Maybe they just need a meal break, maybe they just need to take the night off.

I've saved so many games by just putting on a movie. Much better than having people get disgruntled (myself included) by trying to play when people aren't interested. (How do you know they're interested? Simple, they care enough to make choices.)

Malwing wrote:
Big question; how do you have fun? This is big because I have DMed situations where nothing less than an firm railroad kept things active and CR 5s are proving too challenging for the 10th level party, and the amount of plot hand holding and needing just made an increasingly boring story for me. If the party goes to the tavern to find and apprehend the criminal One-Eye Willy, and walk through the door and do nothing but look at each other for thirty minutes inside I want to stab myself and then quit GMing.

In this situation, I would have fun by stopping the game. All you're doing is making the situation worse for everyone by continuing the game. I'd have more fun with a board game, or a movie (see above). Find out why they're doing so poorly (even my densest player can handle APL & APL+1 encounters, and this is a person who doesn't remember basic mechanics some sessions), and address that problem before you play again.

If the problem cannot be addressed, and this is how the game is going to play (and you don't have fun running it this way), then step down. Let them find a GM that enjoys running in a fashion they enjoy. Find yourself a group that you enjoy running for.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes they have a right to have fun.

They need Mentor or DMPC to help them make decisions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

First off, I have to second everything BillGoat said. Some nights people's brains are just not in the right headspace for gaming. Find something else to do until people get it together and are ready to play.

As for "right" to have fun, I'm not much for that term. I believe you have the capacity to have fun, you have the ability to have fun, and I hope you have fun, but I am not going to cram fun down your throat nor am I going to spoon feed the game to you.

I make this clear from the onset in my games: This is the world. The world reacts to what you do and what you do not do. If you want to spend six months on a farm planting fields and tending to chickens, well, that's up to you. That princess taken by the dragon is probably going to get eaten and the random bad guys doing bad guy things are going to continue to do them. The world doesn't stop. I expect a certain amount of cooperation and involvement in what we are doing; otherwise, this isn't a collaborative game, it's me telling you a story while your eyes glaze over.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Of course they do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Assuming that they aren't purposefully causing problems, then yes the goal should be for everyone to have an enjoyable time, yourself included.

carmachu wrote:
They need Mentor or DMPC to help them make decisions.

A lot of folks on these boards frequently cry foul over such characters, but in this case, the players are so new that they probably could use a persistent in-game point-of-contact with some semblance of a clue. Here's my thoughts on how you could pull this off...

Right now you have 3 plot hooks: princess, genie, and dragon. Perhaps the princess has already escaped (thanks to Sir Gallant the Decisive), but she's now alone in the wilderness after her savior ran afoul of a poisoned arrow. As luck has it, the princess spots the PCs' campfire at the crossroads at about the same time the enemy's scouts are catching up on her...

You have now brought the action TO the party, and it's in the form of an immediate scenario with an obvious course of action — save the lone girl from the guys in evil-looking armor. (And if that doesn't work, then have the baddies shout out that they must leave no witnesses alive and concentrate on the PCs.)

At this point, you now have someone with the party who can offer in-world lore via knowledge checks or better yet who can ask party members for input by triggering their various skills. "Sir Ranger, what chance do we have of losing our pursuit in the dark forest?" "Brother Cleric, is there any chance Sir Gallant could survive that poison if we go back for him?" etc. (In fact, when the whole party is stumped, you can simply call for everyone to make their best knowledge checks and then volunteer info their characters might think to act upon.)

From here, you can have the princess solicit the party as her advisors with her ultimately breaking any ties that might come up. Perhaps that means going back for the knight, perhaps heading straight back to inform the king of a genie that might avail them against the dragon. The NPC can help to break-the-ice on the roleplaying front too, and might choose to advance in level according to the suggestions of party members she grows to trust. "How would you suggest I learn to protect myself?"

Mind you, this will work better if you can get the PCs to care about the princess rather than seeing her as a nuisance. You'll want to use her to shine the spotlight on others and bring out their strengths rather than casting her as the lead character. Remember, the quest-giver and patron may have the purse-strings, but they need the heroes to accomplish their goals, not the other way around.

Anyway, let us know what you decide and how it pans out. Good luck!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
More dangerous is the one player who will do something because that person is not team leader but team railroader whether s/he likes it or not which for multiple of my games has led to hurt feelings very fast.

What exactly do you mean by "team railroader", and why is this a bad thing if everyone else is indecisive? At least then something is happening, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Before going back on the road they found a map to a wish-granting genie's lamp within the haunted ruins of Killamanjo which is to the west. They also learn that a princess in a neighboring kingdom was kidnapped and held for ransom in an orc infested lair to the north. To the east there is mountain where a young dragon lives who is hording a cache of magical weapons from all the heroes who have tried to slay him and is enslaving a local town. As the party gets to the crossroads and have to decide which direction to go adventuring you ask them, "So, what do you do?" and you get nothing but blank stares as they silently look to each other waiting for someone else to make a decision."

Reading these, as is, I personally feel no emotional involvements whatsoever to do any of these options. I'd probably go after the princess if she's hot. I'm usually a "logjam breaker" type though.

They're at a crossroads. Have some bad f%~#ers ride by and do something bad. Make them utterly reprehensible. Hurt the characters' feelings. Make them want blood.

Then, let these bad f%~!ers go back to one of those locations. It's not a railroad if they follow. It's a carrot.


The players in my situation aren't exactly new. They've been playing weekly for at least a year at the least, have been playing 3.5 since before I was playing at the most.

By team railroader I mean someone who by virtue of being more active they render the other player's decisions trivial. I don't fully understand it but I've seen games go down in flames because of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:

The players in my situation aren't exactly new. They've been playing weekly for at least a year at the least, have been playing 3.5 since before I was playing at the most.

By team railroader I mean someone who by virtue of being more active they render the other player's decisions trivial. I don't fully understand it but I've seen games go down in flames because of it.

I call it "logjam breaking" and do it myself at times.

If a game goes down in flames over that, well.......some bridges....are kinda meant to be burned.....


I don't think they have a Hohfeldian Claim Right to 'Fun' that imposes a duty on the GM to cater to them to his own detriment. But if the GM can do so and have fun himself, then everybody wins, right? So eg if the GM is happy running a simple linear game for 'limited' players, fine - doesn't make him a bad GM. If not he should get better players.


Erik Freund wrote:
Give them more to work with. You presented three options (the genie, the princess, and the dragon) which all look the same. Don't let them look the same. Because if there are truly the same, there's no decision-making even needed.

They didn't look the same to me. The princess is the most time-sensitive, and the genie the least, so I would do those in that order.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Obviously they have a "right to have fun'". I'm insulted that is even a question.

In that situation I would do as one commenter previously said: role-play the environment getting them through it.

"You're standing in the middle of the cross roads."
"A breeze starts to pick up."
"A merchant caravan waves to you as it passes."

I did have a situation as a players once where I became de-facto party leader simply because no one else decided on any course of action (half the group were utterly new players, the third didn't much care where we went as long as he got to do cool things).

If none of my players will take the bones I throw at them (you hear about stuff in the north, stuff in the west, etc.), I throw the bones harder. When they go back and sell all their loot and just sit around in the inn, a man comes running in begging for help: someone kidnapped the princess, etc. etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

First, it's hard to have a "party rail-roader", if no one else is making decisions. At that point, it's not a rail-road, it's a log-jam-breaker, as the Leprechaun said. It's only a party rail-roader if everyone is trying to make different decisions. If they all want to do different things, have a vote. If it's a tie, roll a dice or flip a coin (odd X/even Y). Voila!

Kimera757 wrote:
Erik Freund wrote:
Give them more to work with. You presented three options (the genie, the princess, and the dragon) which all look the same. Don't let them look the same. Because if there are truly the same, there's no decision-making even needed.
They didn't look the same to me. The princess is the most time-sensitive, and the genie the least, so I would do those in that order.

The other way of looking at it, to me, is the idea that the genie could fix the other two problems:

Wish 1) I wish the princess was safe, alive, unharmed, and healthy back in her castle
Wish 2) I wish the dragon was converted to our side and battling the orcs (after truly and fully volunteering all his treasure and holdings to us)
Wish 3) I wish all of the dragon's treasure and holdings were with us, and the princess, at her castle, where we were celebrating and partying!

Step 4) Profit!

:D

... the facts that most GMs seem to hate wishes (or rather, hate the people who use them) with a tremendous passion and these are narrative-style wishes rather than Pathfinder-game-style wishes will not stop me from dreaming, dang-it.

Also, if they're experienced and indecisive, as you suggest, perhaps it's because they've been badly burned in the past, before you were playing?

Alternatively, as Billy and knightday said, perhaps they're just not into it right now. Have a table discussion; figure out what's going on, why they're indecisive. Laithoron has a great description of how to use a GMPC, if they decide they want to go on with the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I suppose that if a suggested a GMPC who might provide timely and necessary leadership I'd inspire a lynch mob ...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The question of whether they had the right to have fun or not was rhetorical.

@Kimera, exactly. I generally design choices where there is an invisible railroad to follow. Here the princess is more logical because it is more time sensitive and has the generally weakest monster described. Non of the choices will end in a TPK, but one is definitely the better choice.

A thought occurred to me to include a rival party. Not people who you could kill without becoming evil but heroes who talk to you like Gary from Pokemon.("Well we're gonna save the princess FIRST and then I'll have a hot royal girlfriend, unlike you single losers! Smell you later.")


Kimera757 wrote:
Erik Freund wrote:
Give them more to work with. You presented three options (the genie, the princess, and the dragon) which all look the same. Don't let them look the same. Because if there are truly the same, there's no decision-making even needed.
They didn't look the same to me. The princess is the most time-sensitive, and the genie the least, so I would do those in that order.

In my experience, if GM history hasn't made it clear that "this ain't no computer game", players generally expect all other quests to maintain a holding pattern for them.

So, the choices as presented are (largely) the same:

1. To the West, is a Macguffin (genie), guarded by a set of roughly CR-appropriate encounters (undead).
2. To the North, is a Macguffin (princess), guarded by a set of roughly CR-appropriate encounters (orcs).
3. To the East, is a Macguffin (dragon hoard), guarded by a set of roughly CR-appropriate encounters (a dragon, possible servitors).

Unless the party contains classes that are more effective against one target than the other, there's no basis in the presentation for choosing one enemy over the other.

If they knew what sort of time frame was involved in the ransom (pay by next friday, or the princess is thrown from the top of the highest cliff of the Gar-Lar orc holdings); or what was in the hoard to make it a better macguffin (a +2 flaming orc-bane [insert fighter's Weapon Focus here] and a wand of fireballs); or that rival (maybe even eeevil?) adventurers were seeking the genie for their own uses.

Now there's a bit more than a set of Macguffins, each guarded by roughly CR-appropriate encounters, to pick from.

Jaelithe wrote:
I suppose that if a suggested a GMPC who might provide timely and necessary leadership I'd inspire a lynch mob ...

I got your back on this one, Jaelithe. My group has trusted me with GMPCs in the past (right now, they've got an entire cart loaded down with their allies the "B-Team").

Malwing wrote:
A thought occurred to me to include a rival party. Not people who you could kill without becoming evil but heroes who talk to you like Gary from Pokemon.("Well we're gonna save the princess FIRST and then I'll have a hot royal girlfriend, unlike you single losers! Smell you later.")

Yeah, this is another good route to go. As a general reminder (your post history suggests you already know this), just don't let a rival party overshadow the guild. At least, not too often, or for too long.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaelithe wrote:
I suppose that if a suggested a GMPC who might provide timely and necessary leadership I'd inspire a lynch mob ...

Not as long as the GMPC follows the Gandalf pattern (disappear after the ball is rolling, and turn up after the PCs have done the hard stuff.) That's not a slam at Gandalf, it's praise for a writer who knew that left to themselves, the hobbits would just sit around being rustic comic relief. ;)


I run a sandbox game. Fortunately my players can make decisions... of course they started playing in 2E or before. Some people blame it on video games. They contribute to the problem. But APs have contributed to PC "tunnel vision" too (if not as much). This is not a slam on APs, or video games, btw. They have a direct story to tell and players, having agreed to play the game, decisions are tactical rather than operational / strategic. I think more people run AP type games today as opposed to sandboxes. Of course a lot of games are hybrids as well. I like letting them make the high level decisions and then they can get down to tactics later.

In a slight derail, I probably restrict PC creation more than some people do (not all classes exist, etc.). And back stories don't need to be novel length. I'm an old geezer and our characters wrote their stories in game...

Different styles for different groups. Nothing new about that...


If the party is slowly moving a new dm I just started playing with has an interesting way of dealing with it. He says "silence means consent" so if everyone is tuned out or unsure, then what one player suggests is what the party moves to do.

It really solved the umm, aaah, what do we do next problem. Those that select an action lead the party onward.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Big question; how do you have fun? This is big because I have DMed situations where nothing less than an firm railroad kept things active and CR 5s are proving too challenging for the 10th level party, and the amount of plot hand holding and needing just made an increasingly boring story for me. If the party goes to the tavern to find and apprehend the criminal One-Eye Willy, and walk through the door and do nothing but look at each other for thirty minutes inside I want to stab myself and then quit GMing.

So what exactly are you doing when they're just glancing back and forth?

My #1 rule when GMing is "dead air is the enemy." If there is ever of more than a few seconds, and especially if it seems like the party is collectively at a loss of what to do, I start talking. Maybe I go into more detail about the current scene, run over a quick version of what the've been up to in the grand scheme of things in case someone forgot an important detail of the plot, or I'll point out something that strikes me as particularly relevant to one of the characters. If there's a situation where they're deadlocked trying to pick one of several options, and are discussing it anywhere public, I will absolutely have an eavesdropping NPC toss their two cents in on the issue.

Works great. Especially the bit where you fill in extra details. I mean, extreme example here but compare:

"OK, you head over to the tavern where One-Eye Willy is said to hang out. Now what?"

or

"OK, you head over to the tavern. The door swings open easily enough. It's pretty lightly populated. There's a bartender with a huge handlebar mustache scrubbing out a mug and nodding as you enter. Over in one corner is an old man nursing a beer and keeping his head down. In the opposite corner, a lady of the evening is giving Bob the eye. The only other patrons you see are a trio of drunks, lined up at the bar with decreasing posture, and on closer inspection a fourth who's already hit the floor. Past that, there's just a rusty chandelier, and a stairwell leading up to a few rent rooms."

If the second example still isn't enough, eventually one of these people is going to engage the PCs, or someone else might wander in. If you just keep tossing out the details, you paint an increasingly clearer picture, and eventually SOMETHING is going to hook someone into engaging and you'll have things moving.

The Exchange

Googleshng wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Big question; how do you have fun? This is big because I have DMed situations where nothing less than an firm railroad kept things active and CR 5s are proving too challenging for the 10th level party, and the amount of plot hand holding and needing just made an increasingly boring story for me. If the party goes to the tavern to find and apprehend the criminal One-Eye Willy, and walk through the door and do nothing but look at each other for thirty minutes inside I want to stab myself and then quit GMing.

So what exactly are you doing when they're just glancing back and forth?

My #1 rule when GMing is "dead air is the enemy." If there is ever of more than a few seconds, and especially if it seems like the party is collectively at a loss of what to do, I start talking. Maybe I go into more detail about the current scene, run over a quick version of what the've been up to in the grand scheme of things in case someone forgot an important detail of the plot, or I'll point out something that strikes me as particularly relevant to one of the characters. If there's a situation where they're deadlocked trying to pick one of several options, and are discussing it anywhere public, I will absolutely have an eavesdropping NPC toss their two cents in on the issue.

I do this ALOT. In fact I've done it so much most of players think that Bards infest the world like rats and are sneakier than ninja. This has in turn, transformed into a running gag. On any road, at any time of the day, the party usually sees a gnome, halfling, or particularly un-wise (but not un-intelligent)human bard wearing a bush as a hat, singing his own spy music, trying very badly to be "sneaky." For reference imagine the scene in the Emperor's New Groove when Kronk was disposing of the Emperor and singing his own theme song.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They do, just not at my table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It sounds like they are not interested in making decisions, and just want to play whatever comes their way. It sounds like you need to railroad them, but I don't like using that term; to me, "railroading" has a negative quality, such as forcing the players down a particular path despite them having other intentions. I've been in railroaded games, where the players wound up playing completely against the DM; we would outright refuse the direction he was sending us, and somehow via deus ex machina, we wound up being shoved down that path regardless.

OP's situation does not sound like that; it they are giving zero input, not even objections, then they are literally sitting around waiting for adventure to fall into their lap. This is NOT a bad thing. You have a captive audience; give them a show and get the ball rolling.

So, like others have said, whittle it down to one option, maybe two quest options if they're feeling antsy. I've only rarely encountered groups like this, but I've always found that they just want to play, and are usually pretty happy to play whatever I throw at them. If they suck at making decisions, make them make fewer decisions.

A group like this is practically begging for an AP or module, where all of the thinking is already done for them.


The problem with the sandbox version of play is that it requires a DM who is a master of extemporaneous narrative and/or possessed of an encyclopedic knowledge of the game system, a game world so exactingly detailed that any direction is already illustrated to the point of immersion or a group of players who understand that the pacing will lag at times, as the referee lays track in the direction the party chose not fifteen seconds ago.

Even this requires trust and tolerance, though, in that players can say, "Aw, that's BS/this is boring!" if they don't like the DM's impromptu creativity.

I think the game should be like a carnival: You can either wander the grounds and look at the stalls, walk through the haunted house and get something to eat ... or you can get on a ride. Just don't complain about the ride when you're on it, and don't complain about how the rides are more interesting when you're standing there eating cotton candy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As a fan of sandboxes and having dmed more than a few, the sandbox doesn't quite require that much detail, prep or knowledge. You roll with it, you craft some major places and areas (and be ready to move them around as they are "discovered", and the rest you fill with imagination and whatever takes your fancy on the day.

A sandbox doesn't mean you have to make all the sandcastles before the players sit down to play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a similar story to the OP.

I was running a LG game day years ago, and I was running a murder-mystery style sandboxy adventure. So, I sit down at the table, and recognize that there's going to be trouble.

The players consisted of one guy who was rather notorious in the area for being quite oblivious, and a bunch of neophyte friends of his he recruited because c'mon, this game is fun.

So... for the first half hour, the game consisted of me setting the stage, then saying, "What do you do?" Mr. Oblivious would get a blank look on his face, clearly not even sure what was happening, and say, "Uh..." while all his friends stared holes in him, waiting for him to take the lead.

I figured out how to scrap the multiple plot lines enough and linearize the adventure so that they didn't have to make ambiguous decisions, and everyone had fun after that. But boy, was that start uncomfortable.

Now, I definitely believe that players of all kinds deserve to have fun, with the sole exception of malicious players who only have fun when other players suffer. However, this doesn't always mean that my playing style must work with all other possible players. If there's no mesh in styles, then there's no mesh. And yes, if a group of players don't want to make decisions on their own, and don't want someone else to make the decisions for them, then... they kinda need to sit in timeout until they decide they don't want to sit there anymore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whenever there is dead air and no one is making a decision (or are taking way toooo long to make a decision), something that always works is....Ninjas. Nothing gets people's attention like a random Ninja attack.

For bonus points after the attack is, hopefully, defeated and people search for loot; roll 1d3 (varies depending on adventure options) whatever number comes up is the adventure option that is responsible for the ninjas.

PCs care a lot more about an adventure option when it is sending Ninjas at them.

Or you could talk to the group if this is a constant issue as something is not clicking right and it is good to find out what.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Kilmore wrote:
Whenever there is dead air and no one is making a decision (or are taking way toooo long to make a decision), something that always works is....Ninjas. Nothing gets people's attention like a random Ninja attack.

This is the fantasy equivalent of Raymond Chandler's famous axiom, “In writing a novel, when in doubt, have two guys come through the door with guns.”

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Kilmore wrote:

Whenever there is dead air and no one is making a decision (or are taking way toooo long to make a decision), something that always works is....Ninjas. Nothing gets people's attention like a random Ninja attack.

For bonus points after the attack is, hopefully, defeated and people search for loot; roll 1d3 (varies depending on adventure options) whatever number comes up is the adventure option that is responsible for the ninjas.

PCs care a lot more about an adventure option when it is sending Ninjas at them.

Or you could talk to the group if this is a constant issue as something is not clicking right and it is good to find out what.

Ninja'd!

(Heh. See what I did there?)


I prefer the good old fashioned:

it suddonly get's rather dark. When you look around, you see you are in the centre of a roundshaped spot of shadow, that seems to be growing. A huge rock is falling, and if you don't start moving soon, you'll die.

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Do bad players have the right to have fun? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.