This was in regards to Mok's post in the "Antagonize Fixed?" thread here. It is comment #220.
Mok wrote: ...The freedom of RPGs to "not be like those stupid characters in that horror movie" and endlessly act in highly systematic and rational manners means that dramatic moments flatten out. A good example is the classic "Why didn't the Fellowship just have the eagles drop the ring in Mt. Doom?" I know I'm guilty of it myself. There is this dream of being able to go into a fantasy world and "do everything right" where everything is logically broken down and systematically spammed with rational tactics. The premise and tone of the fantasy world strains and might even fall apart under this approach. I think that a big part of it is that players traditionally have this abstract control over their character that lends more to this approach, and moves away from being able to emulate dramatic characterizations and events in stories. I was running a one shot game this weekend as half of my gaming group was out of town. We're doing KM currently and decided to have some Call of Cthulhu fun on Candlemere Island since a PC built a prison out there (See Rivers Run Red's entry on the Candlemere Tower).
The two PC's (who were playing evil prisoners) broke out and found the former abbey of the monks who degenerated to worshiping the Old Ones underneath the prison. I had described some strange happenings ala The Whisperer in Darkness and The Fungi From Yuggoth and had two encounters, one with a zombie pigeon swarm and a howler.
One of my PCs, who is a very analytical Navy guy, decided after those two not-so-incredibly-dangerous-but-scary encounters that "no sane person would keep exploring or continue to try and escape" and marched his ass back to the prison overhead and turned himself in, much to the unhappiness of the other PC who wanted to keep going.
Navy guy was playing a CE cannibal barbarian that had ended up in solitary confinement after sucking someone's eye till it popped in a yard brawl. Mind you, CE isn't Chaotic Stupid but....man this is hard to word.
He was a party sh*tter. Plain and simple. It was a one shot game that ended on a note of disappointment because he used his own RL reasoning of "I wouldn't keep going, so my character won't" and had his murderous cannibal barbarian immediately decide that his life wasn't worth the possibility of saving. If I had driven him insane with the Mythos to believe that, it would be A-OK. I just have issues with a player who all of his characters think and respond the same way.
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to discuss this with a player in a civil manner other than simply calling him a party sh*tter? Anyone have any similar stories?
Jesse Brake wrote: This was in regards to Mok's post in the "Antagonize Fixed?" thread here. It is comment #220.
Mok wrote: ...The freedom of RPGs to "not be like those stupid characters in that horror movie" and endlessly act in highly systematic and rational manners means that dramatic moments flatten out. A good example is the classic "Why didn't the Fellowship just have the eagles drop the ring in Mt. Doom?" I know I'm guilty of it myself. There is this dream of being able to go into a fantasy world and "do everything right" where everything is logically broken down and systematically spammed with rational tactics. The premise and tone of the fantasy world strains and might even fall apart under this approach. I think that a big part of it is that players traditionally have this abstract control over their character that lends more to this approach, and moves away from being able to emulate dramatic characterizations and events in stories. I was running a one shot game this weekend as half of my gaming group was out of town. We're doing KM currently and decided to have some Call of Cthulhu fun on Candlemere Island since a PC built a prison out there (See Rivers Run Red's entry on the Candlemere Tower).
The two PC's (who were playing evil prisoners) broke out and found the former abbey of the monks who degenerated to worshiping the Old Ones underneath the prison. I had described some strange happenings ala The Whisperer in Darkness and The Fungi From Yuggoth and had two encounters, one with a zombie pigeon swarm and a howler.
One of my PCs, who is a very analytical Navy guy, decided after those two not-so-incredibly-dangerous-but-scary encounters that "no sane person would keep exploring or continue to try and escape" and marched his ass back to the prison overhead and turned himself in, much to the unhappiness of the other PC who wanted to keep going.
Navy guy was...
Well this is sort of not the right place to discuss home games, but I'll respond. Basically if your adventure is on a track. Sometimes players don't like the "railroad" type of adventure and will pull back when they feel that it isn't in their character's best interest.
You could put a situation where turning back isn't in their best interest. That's a stick to get people to move along the track, but I'd also put a carrot (other than freedom) to encourage them to move forward. Since your doing something that is in the spirit of horror, and the character is a cannibal I'd consider having the character get dreams about some evil deity like Norgorber or Rovagug pushing him forward to be free to become their pawn.
Granted that this is a one shot, but even disaster movie characters have long term plans and that is what pushes the plot along. They want to escape to get back to that life. It sounds to me that the players character could get back to what he wanted in the prison hence he had nothing to lose by going back. You need to find away to make sure that going back was never an option. Perhaps when the player started to pull back, you needed to do some sort of flashback as to why it would be better to escape, than go back.
OK, so that's a lot of criticism. It is meant to be constructive, honestly it sounds like you cooked up some fun. It can be rather disappointing when a player cannot motivate their self to continue, but you have hit a wall that all GMs and game designers have all hit.
You need two things to avoid this:
1) Characters that are willing to risk their life if something they value is at stake.
2) A Situation where something is at stake. Exploring the temple of Kill'em all just because it is there won't provide a compelling game to many players.
I’ve had this problem in a home game before, but not in an organized play scenario.
When I was living in Bakersfield, CA, there was a good friend of mine who liked to create lone wolf style characters (Pitch Black had just come out, so he was in love with the character concept of Riddick). I constantly had trouble getting him involved in modules I’d use or adventures I’d write. He would constantly say, “there’s no reason for my character to go there, you gotta find a way to get him there.” It frustrated me to no end. I usually did, though, find some way to involve his character, even though it may have been in cliché or heavy handed ways (i.e. he was captured and forced into the module.) He seemed to actually enjoy those options for whatever reason. The final straw though, was the 2nd or 3rd to last evening I was going to be able to DM for them since I was moving to Minnesota, no matter what I tried it wasn’t good enough and the evening devolved into he and I arguing about him just going on the adventure.
In organized play, you will see much, much less of this as an issue. People show up to the table to play a particular module. If they choose not to participate in what the module describes, then why show up in the first place? It should be part of every character’s motivation, to actually go on these missions for the Pathfinder Society (for whatever reasons you want to have for your character, whether it is altruistic, loyalty, some weird vendetta, et. al.)
Some DMs hate it when their players metagame and play their character's fearlessly.
Some DMs hate it when their players act like their characters and don't play their character's fearlessly.
Lesson: You can't please some people. lol.
PFS scenarios are really short. Either the PC wants to be a Pathfinder or not. Don't make characters that don't want to be Pathfinders. End of story.
There is a difference between the player wouldn't do it, so the character won't, and NO ONE would do it so the character wont. If in the player's opinion the character would have turned back then so be it. That is called PC agency. Without it the game becomes pointless. What you should have checked on is if your player was up for this kind of game because it seems to me he wasn't.
The same thing happened in a horror themed game when I was playing a conjuration wizard. We were subjected to all sorts of terrifying things, nearly killed dozens of times and spend much of it running for our lives. After about 5 or 6 levels we fought our way back to the entrance which was blocked by a cave in. I then teleported the group out of the cavern and we left. Our characters were terrified, so they ran away. That isnt using real life reasoning in game, that is reasoning from the perspective of the characters who are being subjected to these horrors. If you are terrified, and you have a way to get away from the source of your terror, most people will run. That just makes sense.
Michael Griffin-Wade wrote: OK, so that's a lot of criticism. It is meant to be constructive, honestly it sounds like you cooked up some fun. It can be rather disappointing when a player cannot motivate their self to continue, but you have hit a wall that all GMs and game designers have all hit. The criticism was appreciated. The PC had killed a couple of guards to make it to where he was, so he knew if he went back, he'd certainly be executed. Knowing that, he went back and was just that, executed (after being interrogated by the mage warden). His character had the goal of escaping to join up with Armag and his warband (part of KM storyline) but decided it wasn't worth the trouble of what he saw, even though he had murdered some guards already and sealed his fate.
I hate it when DMs force a PC to do something, but I did prod him in the direction I wanted him to go. I hit him a foul black bile that halved his movement as he was going backwards. The doors slammed shut from where they came, but he broke them down. And when he got to the top of the stair case and found the entrance had been bricked over because the site was under construction na dn they guards did in fact have brick and mortar in the very room they found the secret staircase to, he spent the time hammering away at the wall with a maul he stole from the construction site earlier. He just wanted out and short of completely removing gamer choice, he was going to get out.
feytharn wrote: A Situation where something is at stake...Exploring the temple of Kill'em all just because it is there won't provide a compelling game to many players. Truth, that's why a group I was in abandoned The Night Below adventure from AD&D. No investment. I was attempting to provide a compelling reason to explore (the possibility of freedom) but I guess I did a bad job at it. However, his main character is in fact the warden of the prison, so maybe I'll have some nasty rumors go on about him that the horrors he has under his caster's tower is so great that it drove an insane man sane and a BARBARIAN would rather would face execution in a DOCILE fashion than see it again. The people already don't like the wizard, this will just be fuel.
feytharn wrote: Some DMs hate it when their players metagame and play their character's fearlessly. Some DMs hate it when their players act like their characters and don't play their character's fearlessly. I have never hated it when someone "plays their character" but I have always hated when their character is the same every single time. Your 13 INT CE barbarian should not be as analytical as your 24 INT N wizard. I've never actually had a character played fearlessly. I mean, I scared off a barbarian with a zombie swarm of pigeons.
feytharn wrote: Don't make characters that don't want to be Pathfinders. End of story. Or in my case, don't make one shot PCs that won't try to seek the natural conclusion of a one shot game. Either way, I totally agree.
Kolokotroni wrote: There is a difference between the player wouldn't do it, so the character won't, and NO ONE would do it so the character wont. If in the player's opinion the character would have turned back then so be it. That is called PC agency. Without it the game becomes pointless. What you should have checked on is if your player was up for this kind of game because it seems to me he wasn't.
The same thing happened in a horror themed game when I was playing a conjuration wizard. We were subjected to all sorts of terrifying things, nearly killed dozens of times and spend much of it running for our lives. After about 5 or 6 levels we fought our way back to the entrance which was blocked by a cave in. I then teleported the group out of the cavern and we left. Our characters were terrified, so they ran away. That isnt using real life reasoning in game, that is reasoning from the perspective of the characters who are being subjected to these horrors. If you are terrified, and you have a way to get away from the source of your terror, most people will run. That just makes sense.
I've never heard it called "PC agency," just "PC agenda." But yes, you are completely right. A player should be able to do what his character would do. But a PC who has his character do what he would do, across all of his characters, is kinda missing part of the fun of the game IMHO.
As far as your situation and teleporting everyone out, I would have done the same thing.
Jesse Brake wrote: I hate it when DMs force a PC to do something, but I did prod him in the direction I wanted him to go. I hit him a foul black bile that halved his movement as he was going backwards. The doors slammed shut from where they came, but he broke them down. And when he got to the top of the stair case and found the entrance had been bricked over because the site was under construction na dn they guards did in fact have brick and mortar in the very room they found the secret staircase to, he spent the time hammering away at the wall with a maul he stole from the construction site earlier. He just wanted out and short of completely removing gamer choice, he was going to get out. Coming from someone you used to put together renaissance and pirate festivals I have occaionally point out to people, if thats what your character is, that's fine, but your about to talk yourself out of a job.
You have a simular situation. I'd let that person know that if he's going to keep talking himself out of playing, then your not going to want to keep creating games for him. But also find out if there are somethings that are just out of bounds. Perhaps he was really creeped out and needed an escape hatch. Hard to tell, but let this blow over and then talk it over with him and let him know that he let you down, and find out what it would take to make sure that doesn't happen again.
Should've just kept playing with the one player.
Don't let him hold your game hostage.
I know if someone in my game was like "I'm going to go home, see ya" then they'd just go home, see ya, and I'd keep running the game for everyone else who wants to play.
Jesse Brake wrote: feytharn wrote:
Some DMs hate it when their players metagame and play their character's fearlessly. Some DMs hate it when their players act like their characters and don't play their character's fearlessly.
I have never hated it when someone "plays their character" but I have always hated when their character is the same every single time. Your 13 INT CE barbarian should not be as analytical as your 24 INT N wizard. I've never actually had a character played fearlessly. I mean, I scared off a barbarian with a zombie swarm of pigeons.
feytharn wrote:
Don't make characters that don't want to be Pathfinders. End of story.
Or in my case, don't make one shot PCs that won't try to seek the natural conclusion of a one shot game. Either way, I totally agree.
Just for the record: Those last two quotes weren't mine ;-)
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
