Last week a player got really upset with me when I disagreed with him on a ring of freedom of movement not being able to prevent him from being entraped by a creatures racial ability. Not posting this to get clarification on whether or not I was right or wrong as per the RAW personally I feel I was. What I am venting about is this: I believe very much that GMs and players have to work together to create a fun story and game. I'm not out to kill players and I usually side with rules that benfiet them. However, because of this they get cranky upset and childish when a ruling doesn't go in there favor. Ex: recently I've had a player switch to a different game night to game in another game with me so her character had to leave the party. She was a cleric of Erastil and became pregnant so her character decided to hang up her adventurers mantle and settle down. The party got upset with me when I didn't let them have her gear. The player was okay with it but really I couldn't see her character giving all of her stuff to the party because what if something happened and she needed to defend her family or some other such situation. After the game session I had a lengthy discussion with my palyers and have determined that really I've been going to easy on them. I brought up that one of my players I played with in a different game had a GM that had a very high player kill rate and did things that always screwed the party over but the player in question never threw such a fit with this GM bc he expected to get screwed over. So if your a GM who kills everyone and screws them over all the time no complaints. If your GM who has only one player death in a campaign that has lasted for over a year and you decide to make a call that the player doesn't agree with they pretty much put the game on hold throw a fit and give you attitude the rest of the night. BAH!
The player did apologize to me and admitted he overeacted so there really is no hard feelings this is just a general rant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It comes down to trust.
Players who trust a GM will not gainsay.
Cultivating trust is a very involved process that has a lot more to do with the people involved and their personalities than it does to do with games and gaming.
But if the trust is there, the game goes smoothly. Players who know what to expect from your encounters (possibility of death, ad hoc rulings, etc) will not gainsay unless you're defying their expectations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It comes down to trust.
Players who trust a GM will not gainsay.
Cultivating trust is a very involved process that has a lot more to do with the people involved and their personalities than it does to do with games and gaming.
But if the trust is there, the game goes smoothly. Players who know what to expect from your encounters (possibility of death, ad hoc rulings, etc) will not gainsay unless you're defying their expectations.
Total agreement. A player that reacts overtly negatively to a ruling is showing a decided lack of trust in your ability to fairly adjudicate no matter the circumstance. Unfortunately trust and gamer are not two words that naturally go together. I've found that people who are/were friends before they gamed together have it MUCH easier in this regard.
The problem is they don't trust me. Its mostly due to the fact that I always throw something different at them. I could say there is a bunny in the middle of a fiel and they would all freeze and go detect magic on the bunny and draw weapons. LoL. I have no personal problems with any of my players we see each other and get along great in game and out. Always out of game. In game is where issue come up. Also there playstyles clash. I've got one player who can't stick with a player and has in the past(not in my game) pulled a suicide because the GM wouldn't let him bring in a new character until his current one died. I just recently learned that one player is plotting to assassinate another player and my whole group knew of this and assumed i did but I did not and I'm the GM lol.
It comes down to trust.
Players who trust a GM will not gainsay.
Cultivating trust is a very involved process that has a lot more to do with the people involved and their personalities than it does to do with games and gaming.
But if the trust is there, the game goes smoothly. Players who know what to expect from your encounters (possibility of death, ad hoc rulings, etc) will not gainsay unless you're defying their expectations.
The players who tend to throw the fits have in the past GM'd themselves so I believe it is more a matter of they want the rule to play the way they would play it if they were the GM.
One of my players(former GM of another game) accused me of not getting everyone emotionally involved. I pointed out that in the very session we had just got done playing I played them through a flashback where they learned the beast that they had just finished off was once a man who had good intentions but was transformed for trying save someone else and killed his wife in the process. They were all paying close attention and wraped in the story or so it seemed and when they were out of the flashback back to their time. The first thing that a character said was I want to go check his body for loot. WOW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, this is where we close the game books and take a solid look at you personally, and your relationships with these people.
If you want them to trust you, and get this game running smoothly, communication is paramount. Ask them what they want, listen, and deliver. On top of that, make sure that they know that your job as a GM is to be impartial, and to make them bleed a bit so that they enjoy success more.
If the players don't trust you, simply explaining that your goal is to challenge them but not necessarily kill them might help. Maybe they think you're an adversarial GM. Maybe you are — I don't know you.
The simple fact is, communication is the solution. The more you talk to them all about what they're getting out of the game, and what you're getting out of the game, the better things will be.
As for me, I rarely let a session go by where I don't explain to my players something like: "What I really enjoy about running an Adventure Path is that I can be impartial. If your characters die it isn't because I'm trying to kill them — but there's a real risk here, so be careful." Etc. Etc.
I recently had a moment of bias where a PC very important to the plot could have died and I panicked. After the game, I talked to that player. It amounted to "I found today that I didn't want to go through with killing your PC if I had to. Let's talk about a replacement PC we can both get excited about, so I don't have to worry about the plot falling apart if your current PC does die." And so we did, and now, I'm happy!
</coffeecoffeecoffee>
It also seems to me that sometimes they compete with each other. Trying to impress everyone at the table and trying to outdo each other. Btw I am playing an AP and have fudged alot of my rolls in favor of the party. Recently in a random encounter that was rolled up in the first round if I hadn't fudged dice I would've scored three critcal hits against one player who walked right over the monster.
It also seems to me that sometimes they compete with each other. Trying to impress everyone at the table and trying to outdo each other. Btw I am playing an AP and have fudged alot of my rolls in favor of the party. Recently in a random encounter that was rolled up in the first round if I hadn't fudged dice I would've scored three critcal hits against one player who walked right over the monster.
I won't say no fudging, but I try to avoid it as much as possible. I guess there are really two aspects of playing a table top of an RPG. Your personal relationship with the people involved and their perceptions of the game. I find that with the latter I try to make the "dice" the evil dude. It then becomes us dealing with the decisions the dice make. It lends me, as the GM, being more apart of the group of people playing the game.
I might have done a crudy job of explaining it, but I hope that helps.
I always discuss with them when I'm going to pull something in game rather than just do it for instance the party has two really overpowered unbalancing items that were rolled when we did magic item rolls for a town. They didn't pay for the items but stole them. several sessions have been played since then and it's obvious to everyone they are overpowering the party. I'm going to tell them before next session out of game that I will probably be taking those items away and then in game they will either get stolen from them or the city guards will track down the party and demand the items back. Their reaction to this is probably not going to be a good one but in order to balance the game it must be done.
If the GM then the GM is wrong and the player has to right to oppose the ruling as long as he is civil, but he should not hold the game up. I normally handle such things after the game.
With that said if a GM does not like the way a rule works he has the right to houserule it, but as a courtesy the players should be informed of such houserules.
PS: Player death or lack of it is not the only factor in trust. Not all players look for the same thing from a GM either. My players expect me to be impartial for the most part, but other players expect the occasional fudged roll if it helps them live. Talk to you players. :)
PS2:That entombment ability is nice if it is what I think it is. I never noticed how good it was.
It was a carnivorous crystal's crystallize ability. The player had a ring of freedom of movement and said he should be immune to it the same thing came up with tar sticking to him at one point. I disagreed since the ability is basically turning parts of you into a crystal.
I'm thinking about killing them all in the next session with a fercious monster attack on their hometown then saying it was all a dream. They don't function very well as a group anymore every player goes off and does their own thing instead of working in concert with each other.
The problem is they don't trust me. Its mostly due to the fact that I always throw something different at them. I could say there is a bunny in the middle of a fiel and they would all freeze and go detect magic on the bunny and draw weapons. LoL. I have no personal problems with any of my players we see each other and get along great in game and out. Always out of game. In game is where issue come up. Also there playstyles clash. I've got one player who can't stick with a player and has in the past(not in my game) pulled a suicide because the GM wouldn't let him bring in a new character until his current one died. I just recently learned that one player is plotting to assassinate another player and my whole group knew of this and assumed i did but I did not and I'm the GM lol.
Clearly you need to have them encounter a gazebo in a field next. ;)
In seriousness, sorry it's been frustrating. One thing I'd work on is maybe just taking some time out of session and talking to your players. Ask what they find fun, what they don't find fun, what they want out of the game. Don't be afraid to say what you want out of the game either.
If they offer reasonable suggestions--take them. Once they see you're willing to work with their ideas and what makes them tick they're more likely to trust that when you make an unpopular call it's for a good reason. (I'm probably just repeating everything Evil Lincoln said, but still.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking about killing them all in the next session with a fercious monster attack on their hometown then saying it was all a dream. They don't function very well as a group anymore every player goes off and does their own thing instead of working in concert with each other.
See, no. Don't do that.
Tell them that's what you feel like doing, sure.
This is a common problem amongst GMs that I have seen here, so don't feel bad; but what you appear to be doing is expressing your personal objectives through GMing instead of coming out and saying it to the players. That needs to stop. A GM needs to be impartial above all else.
Try it my way, tell the players what you want out of the game, and ask what they want. Discuss it at length, discuss it until you're absolutely unable to contain your enthusiasm for the campaign, then play.
Head-check yourself to make sure you're not trying to "send a message" about them being "bad players" or "doing things wrong" going off doing their own thing. If they're doing something that bothers you, tell them. Don't try to "correct" it in-game. Don't punish the players through their PCs. That way lies the graveyard of dysfunctional campaigns.
EDIT: You can start by talking to them about this conversation we're having, and asking them if they don't trust you because they feel like you're biased! Asking them this will not only get you some good intelligence about what the players want, it will also demonstrate to them that you take their concerns seriously and that you're ready to step up your GMing game. Good luck man, I'm around if you need more advice on this.
WELL see thats all fine and good with rational palyers who enjoy that kind of thing but we've dedicated entire sessions to doing just that it hasn't helped. I'm worried that they won't be able to pull together for the big fights and will get creamed as i've read ahead in the AP and know whats coming we have disccusions at the end of every session about what went wrong and what went right with the game. I am enjoying myself overall otherwise I would've told them I'm not going to GM and let someone else do it or start a new game. The idea abou the Dream killing was actually from two of my players who thought it would be a good idea to bring the party together.
Our group has been gaming together for years. I started GMing pathfinder in 2009 and they haven't wanted to stop. I have fun GMing but man I'd like to play sometimes lol. We used to do a rotation thing before pathfinder now thats all they want to play so something is going right.
I think the AP is part of the problem as well. Until about last year we were just playing home brew games of my own. Since we started this AP it seems like they just feel pressure to get through it and it makes everyone a little tense. I've thrown in a few side things to break this and it works for awhile after they've completed it. We've only got two books to go though so maybe once we finish the AP everyone will calm down a bit.
I DM for my three roommates, my girlfriend, and we just picked up a new girl that the g/f met at school. I get the same crap. If something inconvenient happens to their characters, they get pissed. I've had to have some pretty coarse words with them in the past couple of months because of it. (Apparently sleeping under a soaked canvas in the bottom of a leaky ship in the middle of the ocean for two weeks without ever coming out and eating only what's stored in crates nearby isn't supposed to carry any health risks.)
Trust has only so much to do with it. A lot of it has to do with the maturity of your players. I'm not going to say that they're being immature brats and they need a good spanking, but evaluating the maturity level of your group may be an option you should explore. Explain them why you make the decisions you make as DM and what you feel they have done in response that is inappropriate.
Threads like this pop up all the time, and I have posted a few of my own, but honestly, the only REAL help I think you'll get out of it is venting to people who understand. If your group isn't mature enough to play the game like it should be played (without kicking and screaming), then they're probably not mature enough to have many of the discussions that are suggested in threads like yours.
If the GM then the GM is wrong and the player has to right to oppose the ruling as long as he is civil, but he should not hold the game up. I normally handle such things after the game.
With that said if a GM does not like the way a rule works he has the right to houserule it, but as a courtesy the players should be informed of such houserules.PS: Player death or lack of it is not the only factor in trust. Not all players look for the same thing from a GM either. My players expect me to be impartial for the most part, but other players expect the occasional fudged roll if it helps them live. Talk to you players. :)
PS2:That entombment ability is nice if it is what I think it is. I never noticed how good it was.
I read this 3 times, and I still did not catch the typo. :(
Sometimes people don't really want what they say they want. I had a group tell me to run a game and to run it on a scale of 9/10 with 10 being super hard mode. That game did not last.
If you get to see these guys outside of gaming I would ask them to hold off on debates until then.
Are they complaining about new rules or rules that have never been an issue?
What makes a GM not trustworthy varies by person. Sometimes it is not even trust, but players not getting what they want that is the issue.
Sometimes it is not even trust, but players not getting what they want that is the issue.
This is soooooo true. Sometimes their level of "trust" isn't in your ability to adjudicate things fairly; it's your ability to give them what they've been expecting. Here's the problem with that. Human beings are fickle (I'm assuming here, of course, that you are playing with other human beings) and change their mind. They may have had grandiose ideas at the beginning about how awesome it would be to be in a campaign where every combat is a knock-down, drag-out fight to the death, but then the reality sets in. The reality being I might lose this character and have to start over with another. Much of the problem here sometimes lies in the fact that they do trust the GM, they've played with you before and know that things usually work out. They assumed when they told you to "ramp it up" you'd ramp it up but still not kill them. Problem is, they only realized this on a subconscious level, and it's really hard for a GM to read minds these days.
So how, exactly, *does* one cultivate trust in players? I have been DMing for the same group for years now, and it isn't until now(barring my first year) I've been having issues with them. There are rules arguments that break out, off table talk, etc.
I'm running a different game than I usually do, *as per player request*. Said player made mention of playing a campaign where they don't auto-win (no I don't run monty haul, but the story continues until the PCs "win"), where they can fail, and die and that's it, it all goes boom. So I'm running a typical "assemble the pieces" campaign that isn't pulling punches or fudging dice.
After "killing" (they're extraplanar subtype-but standard races-using Planescape fluff) one character twice, I've run into issues with arguments, debates and suchlike that take up hours.
I do have one new player, who's a friend of a friend,but he's great, so here's the question:
What's wrong with this campaign? It's what was asked for (something more difficult with less fudging), 90% of the same players, and I've been GMing for the same goup for a while now. Why the sudden distrust?
What is it that makes a DM trustworthy/untrustworthy?
Have you talked to your players about this?
They're going to be able to answer your questions and clear up any misunderstandings.
I feel like a broken record, but please, people
They're going to be able to answer your questions and clear up any misunderstandings.
I feel like a broken record, but please, people
Is there an echo in here? in here? in here? here?
Is there an echo in here? in here? in here? here?They're going to be able to answer your questions and clear up any misunderstandings.
I feel like a broken record, but please, people
And yet, some people don't ever seem to hear it, no matter how often it's repeated.
You may be grumpy, but you're not wrong.
"Talk to the players" is the only correct response we can give. Because you're talking to us and not your players, you only stand to learn what *we* want from your game, which is pointless.
The ideal state is every player and yourself enjoying the game. I don't see how we can help beyond reminding you to communicate with them.
And yet, some people don't ever seem to hear it, no matter how often it's repeated.Is there an echo in here? in here? in here? here?They're going to be able to answer your questions and clear up any misunderstandings.
I feel like a broken record, but please, people
You don't have to be sorry DQ. That was just my subtle way of echoing your sentiment, which is the echo of other people's sentiment. It's funny to me, that in a hobby where the primary mode of game play is talking to each other, people still don't get that you can talk to each other about the game, not just as part of the game. Some of my most fun times with this hobby happen in away-from-the-table conversations with my players, about the game.
It's funny to me, that in a hobby where the primary mode of game play is talking to each other, people still don't get that you can talk to each other about the game, not just as part of the game. Some of my most fun times with this hobby happen in away-from-the-table conversations with my players, about the game.
The people who I game with are my friends. I go to movies with 'em or out for drinks or we have coffee together etc. We do all sorts of things together, outside of Pathfinder.
The older I get, the more I realize that the social interaction at the table is the most important facet of the game. Everyone at the table has to communicate and be open to other peoples viewpoints.
They need some (character) death therapy in a knock-down slobberknocker that has then openly praying to the dice Gawds before they shuffle of this mortal coil screaming for their mommies.
Whiney basitches.