|
My friends, I have a confession to make.
I don't enjoy playing Pathfinder RPG with all of the members of my weekly group of 5 years. I've been the GM.
Two players are great, the other four are "meh". I've come to realize that those four don't really contribute much to the role-playing, and don't seem to express enthusiasm about much (in or out of game).
I'm struggling to determine whether its just that I want more from my weekly group i.e. a commensurate level of participation and effort that myself and the other two players put in?
Part of me wants to break up the group and start over, part of me wants to help coach the four to become better roleplayers, part of me wonders if this is as good as it gets?
What I'm looking for is the very best homegroup possible. I have 6 players ages 24-54 currently. And the four in question seem to play more "gamist" games in their spare time like Warhammer, Dominion, and Video Games.
In the world, I observe there are some different types of game styles / ways games tend to go:
- Introductory Games (played by kids ages 11-14)
- Gamestore Games (participate in public / homebrew)
- Gamestore Games (participate in public / organized play (like PFS))
- Home Games (homebrew / 1-5 sessions before fizzle out)
- Home Games (modules/APs ; enduring campaigns)
- Home Games (homebrew / ultimate; 40-50 sessions per year for 6-7 years; characters advance from L1 to L20 in that time; milieu expands with the characters; equivalence of playing multiple modern homebrew APs; characters are developed through role-play and contextual immersion into the fabric of the GMs world.
I'm looking to continue enjoying the last one on the list. My confession is that as GM, I'm struggling to decide which issue I am facing:
> Is it possible that some players just won't be able to advance their role-playing or become better at it?
> Is it possible that in this GM-Player relationship, I simply want and expect more from my players, after years of gaming with them?
> Is it normal for a GM to feel like some players just aren't contributing like others e.g. being quiet through sessions, arriving late, not preparing their character sheets ahead of the session, focusing more on optimization/combat/rules rather than role-play?
> Should I not expect role-play or enthusiasm from all my players?
A few other players have noticed the lack of role-play and "meh" attitude from the others as well, so I know its not just in my head.
Am I just bored with some of them? Am I disappointed that they don't seem to be trying to better themselves and the game? Should I just expect less, and carry on? Am I expecting too much? *sigh*
Please help.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're unhappy as a GM
Talk to your players *clap clap*
If you're unhappy as a GM
Talk to your players *clap clap*
If you're unhappy as a GM; the players' views you cannot see'em, if you're unhappy as a GM talk to your players.
Seriously. (And yeah, I know the meter's off. But really, seriously.)
Talk to your players. Ask them what they want. Ask them WHY they themselves are not into roleplaying. Ask them what makes them excited about roleplaying and what doesn't. Tell them why you are frustrated. Work with them together to find common ground.
Random message board people do not know why your players are not participating the way you want them to. I can absolutely 100% guarantee however that your players do, however.
Good luck.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You definately have high expectations, and that is ok, but you should understand that what you want is extermely difficult to achiee. A weekly or near weekly 6-7 year single campaign is like the holy grail of our hobby. The vast majority of games will never be this. Groups that achieve this might not achieve it again, or might not have achieved it before. Its a lot of work for all those involved, and not just at the table, this requires a mental, emotional and time commitment of a significant order.
Your age range makes me assume that all as adults have lives, jobs, familys, maybe kids. Not everyone is able to commit to that even if they want to, and not all will want to commit to that. It seems you have 2 players that want to, and 4 that may or may not. The first step is to find out.
> Is it possible that some players just won't be able to advance their role-playing or become better at it?
-Yes, roleplaying is in fact a skill. Some people wont ever be good at it, and some dont want to. Both these things are ok, but they have to have an impact on your choices about the game and the players. You need to figure out if its a matter of 'not there yet', 'never will be there', or 'dont want/care to be there'.
> Is it possible that in this GM-Player relationship, I simply want and expect more from my players, after years of gaming with them?
-Sure. My group has been together for more then a decade now. I remember awesome moments from previous games with the same players and expect the same from them, but I wont always get their best, they are human after all. The important thing is to set a baseline for your expectations near the average the player can deliver, and not always being dissappointed that they are not at their best.
> Is it normal for a GM to feel like some players just aren't contributing like others e.g. being quiet through sessions, arriving late, not preparing their character sheets ahead of the session, focusing more on optimization/combat/rules rather than role-play?
-Its normal to feel this way, and some people are this way. Casual games are a perfectly ok thing, and it sounds like these other 4 people are casual gamers. If that isn't what you want, you have choices to make about the players.
> Should I not expect role-play or enthusiasm from all my players?
-You are putting the time and effort to run a game, you should expect something near to what you want out of it. What you dont know right now (or so I think) is what your players want out of it as a whole. They might just not realize what you want, and maybe they would put in the effort if they knew. Or they might not. Again this is a preference you have to find out. There is no one true good way to play this game, or to dm this game. Sit down, talk to your whole group, but do it by asking questions. Ask them what they want out of the game. Ask them what they think YOU want out of the game. Respond in kind.
There might be a middle ground you will all be happy with. Or you might want to look for another serious rper to add to the other two. Or maybe 2 of the 4 really wanted to rp more but need coaching. Or maybe they simply never thought about playing the game in a way other then how they have been playing it. So talk to them, and find out. Without that information, any choice you make would be premature, and quite probably the wrong choice.
You should be having fun with your game. If you are not, you should do something about it. And the first step is talking to your players about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to echo the talk with your players approach. This is the most important thing, find out what they want, and express what you want. Everyone appreciates a game that can touch on their interests and people will usually understand a give and take with it.
With that said, I had/have a similar issue with my group. Part of the problem was they were playing alot with a gamist/abusive GM where expression was downright criticized. (Not saying gamist = abusive.) The atmosphere allowed for little of the fluff and roleplaying side. Also, alot of the people felt socially awkward. They don't always think that they know how to express themselves effectively, much less a fictional character.
There were a couple of things that I did that seem to work. First off, I, as the GM, try to bring my A game, because I set the tone. I try to make my NPCs come alive with different voices and gestures. My results are ameuterish (sp?), but usually entertaining and it sucks people in. I make sure my NPCs directly address different people to suck them into the conversation.
The second thing that I did was try to tie the Roleplaying to the Rollplaying. I think people are comfortable playing an 18 Str character because their is a robust system to back up our short comings of not having an 18 Str. There isn't neccessarily that obvious level of support. What I did was when people voiced intentions or their character, I had them make a Charisma check with it. If they got a high roll, they got a favorable result, a low roll an unfavorable result.
My interpretation of the low vs high though is how I feels this works. If I tried hard to be in character, made a good effort in what I said, but I rolled low, than the result was usually more humorous than negative. It made for a good laugh, instead of feeling like a failure. I am finding that my non-roleplaying individuals are stretching more and showing more towards it.
An example of how I did this was in my current campaign with my group. The players were required to make good aligned characters, more to deal with the abusive issues than roleplaying, who wanted to be hired onto a particular caravan. The first encounter for the session, was the job interview. I made a flamboyent, enterprising, dwarf who did a mass interview at a table in the inn. He talked with each character, asked for the their speciality, poked holes at what they did. People had to find some way to negotiate with him to either get hired and determine their pay. High Chr rolls plus high interaction netted a hire pay. People that hung back, were seeing their pay go down. It brought the gamist out in some of them and they began to play more. It was considered a success by my group and still gets spoken about as one of their favored sessions. (When the dwarf looked at the bard character who had ranks in perform comedy, he asked him to tell him a joke. Golden momment.)
I agree, and a 6-7 year campaign is not everyone's cup of tea. I would ask them if that is what they want. I would rather do a 20 level campaign in a one year of time so I can do another campaign. In short I am basically agreeing with the other posters and saying talk to your players.
I agree, and a 6-7 year campaign is not everyone's cup of tea. I would ask them if that is what they want. I would rather do a 20 level campaign in a one year of time so I can do another campaign. In short I am basically agreeing with the other posters and saying talk to your players.
That was one of the things that came out with my group, one of them have ever played a character above level 12 that wasn't a one shot. So I agreed to run them until 20, but we had to do it tracked fast. (We generally level up about one to two times a month.)
Definitely sounds like you need ot talk to the players to resolve or at least understand the difference in expectations.
However, I would ask you to remember and talk about a few other things. Don't just ask "why won't you guys roleplay?"
1) Many people have different expectations on what it means to role play a character. For instance: I will not try to speak like a troglodyte (unless I'm joking around), or use a fake 'middle english' accent, and I will never write an ode to my fallen comrades. I have met other players who don't feel I'm a role player because of this. To me I am a role player because I try to think about what would be reasonable for this PC with this personality in this situation and then do that. Your players may feel they are role playing.
2) Many people are just embarrassed to role play very much. Some people are just not relaxed enough to pretend to be a halfling barbarian that's has a crush on a nyad. Also, remember this grew out of the 1980's dungeons and dragons game which had a rather huge stigma attached to it.
3) Things outside of work can make a difference even though we wish it didn't. My current group can only meet on Thursday nights due to complicated schedules. But a lot of the time, I'm just plain tired by Thursday night. I often am pretty quiet and don't contribute as much just because of that. I also don't have as much time in my schedule to plan and think about the game as some people do.
4) Some people really just aren't that into it. A previous group had 2 people that could take it or leave it. They really only played because their friends were and it was a way to be sociable in that group. But they were never going to put a huge amount of effort into it because it just wasn't that big a deal to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda got into the same situation... I've been DMing for my friends since high school (5 years now), and I was part of a second group that was 10+ years my senior and much more into the game than my current group. My second group (in which I was both player and GM) loved to RP - but alas my group of friends never did. Because of my interest in the game, I finally convinced somebody else to take over as GM.
My first character back as player sparked more RPing in the group than had ever occurred before. I was a (gray area) LG cleric with a "bring to justice" list that grew every time he felt slighted. It made my group question LG and see it in a new light. It made them a bit more curious about their own alignments and how their character would react to situations.
My character had immense depth and personality, and the then-GM (my little brother, I taught him well) played right into it at every step. Once the group started seeing personal involvement at its finest, they started to step up their game.
I still have one player who is not very "into it"... But our next go around I'm providing big bonuses at character creation for backstory to try and motivate him a little more.
So, thats how I accomplished at least something without talking to my players. But you should still talk to them.
|
Yes, it's possible that at least one of your "meh" players will become a better role-player.
Once upon a few years ago, a small group formed. One of the players didn't play anything but PC games and board games; another of the players was a WOW addict; and then there was me. (We had a GM who knew two of his players were total n00bs; I wasn't running this one.)
The WOW addict: he had potential, and after about six months of weekly games, he started to really pick up on the RP. (It didn't hurt that I had the cranky "I-can-take-care-of-myself" rogue screaming at his character about how "incompetent" he was one moment and praising his character's name to the high heavens when he did something "right" in her eyes. Heh-heh.) He now is one of the few players I look forward to interacting with in-character.
The PC/Board games guy: I figured if I could get WOW guy playing fully, the other guy would join in too. And it WORKED. The PC/board games guy started playing his character as a crazy old coot, who somewhat opposes the party just because he can. (He does it in a nice but comedic way, though, and isn't disruptive.) Very enjoyable, very memorable!
When we started playing as a group, I worried that they would never really get into it or become "real players". I'm happy to state that not only was I wrong, but I can see where that attitude of mine kinda sucked. It just took some effort and patience.
The best thing you can do is have your NPC's respond to the non-response they are getting from the players. They feel slighted by curt answers. They wonder what sort of men will not look them in the eye. They give price breaks to those that are emgaging and so on.
Also provide a few guest star NPC's. Let them meet a real knight played to the 9s by you. Let them rescue a fasttalking rogue who helps them or manipulates them to help for awhile.
I learned as much from my 1st DM's NPC's as I did from the rest of the table full of experienced players.
|
|
Thanks for the replys.
@ Gnomezrule - Although I do play NPCs well, the idea never occurred to me to directly focus their dialogue toward comments like, "what kind of a man will not look me in the eye." That's pretty powerful.
I'll have a talk with my group this week. I've sent them all a letter, providing 10 great examples of how players can work themselves into the fabric of the game through role-play. I advised that the game is about all of them, not just the particular two who roleplay a lot, HOWEVER, without a focused effort to increase their engagement/participation/role-play it becomes hard to help them feel more involved in the story. I also pointed out, that silence at the table during a session, or mere involvement when combat comes, unconsciously drives me, as a GM, to create more and more combat (because I do wish everyone to be engaged). I finally, advised that use of SmartPhones and other distractions not related to the game during gameplay does not help the other players ping ideas back-and-forth in-character as part of dialogue with those who are distrated. In short, I put the onus on the players to take action, get involved, and up the role-play to help increase enjoyment by other players, increase involvement in the story, and incresse their own enjoyment.
On a personal note, this is a tough blow to my own sense of GMing... over the many decades of play, I'd never run into a culture of gamers who feel its normal to "check-out" or remain silent, or complain about rule stuff (not the execution of it but the rules themselves), or waffle so aimlessly through game sessions. There's a stark contrast between those who seem to "get it" and "get the game" versus what appear to be (coincidentally) younger players.
I'm not casting aspersions on younger players in general, but it just feels I'm up against some kind of SOCIO-CULTURAL NORM that I hadn't encountered in past decades. Is it possible that the age of, "everyone gets a trophy" and "you're all wonderful even though you didn't work hard to earn reward" is a factor in this culture? The reward, of course, is the positive responses from NPCs, story threads tied more closely to their character's intentions due to more revaling about their characters and integration into the milieu? I mean, its just occurred to me, that even after I ensure I myself set aside every possible bias in this case, that it still almost feels like they thought I wouldn't even say anything about expecting more from players. And... THAT... is quite different from the ease of playing over the years with countless others. The GM usually makes suggestions for improvement, and players usually work with the GM more to build those ideas for their characters within the game. I mentioned in my note to them, that role-playing isn't about emailing me what they want to have happen and expecting it will, but it's much more about staying-in-the-moment, exchanging vocalizations during interactions with player characters, and NPCs.
All - do you think there's some amount of truth to the notion that some players (not all) of this particular generation, might be operating under the premise of "even if I dont talk or contribute anything, things will still keep proceeding and I'll still be equally rewarded?" Or, is this a far fetched idea?
Ah, the GM's Lament.
I think all GM's have seen it. The most telling moment for me was reading a Monte Cook column talking about a player of his that didn't come prepared with a character sheet or something. If Monte Cook can't get a solid group of players, there's little hope for the rest of us.
On some level, I think this is unrealistic. The GM spends plenty of time prepping, a lot of time thinking about the game, and just cares in general. Expecting the players to come to that level is unrealistic. People who care that much become GMs.
Can we expect a group of players that pays attention to the game, comes prepared, maybe takes a note or two to remember what adventure they are on? You can hope, but my experience is no. You can find a few of those, but you'll always have players that want to show up and have you entertain them.
"Talk to the players" - That might help some, but it's not going to suddenly turn a casual player into an invested player. I think all of the usual advice in this regard -give XP for back story, play your NPCs better to get the players involved, use props - is bunk.
Over the last 20 years, I've added and dropped players hoping for improvements. Changed to VTT rather than face to face for a bigger pool to draw from. Tried conventions, tried game stores. Tried playing to take a break. Nothing has really improved. It always seems to be a couple players really interested in the game, the rest just there to have fun. My wife really hates me complaining about it.
All - do you think there's some amount of truth to the notion that some players (not all) of this particular generation, might be operating under the premise of "even if I dont talk or contribute anything, things will still keep proceeding and I'll still be equally rewarded?" Or, is this a far fetched idea?
Definitely. I call them my X-Box players. They expect to sit down, press a button, and be entertained for hours.
Thanks for the replys.
@ Gnomezrule - Although I do play NPCs well, the idea never occurred to me to directly focus their dialogue toward comments like, "what kind of a man will not look me in the eye." That's pretty powerful.
I'll have a talk with my group this week. I've sent them all a letter, providing 10 great examples of how players can work themselves into the fabric of the game through role-play. I advised that the game is about all of them, not just the particular two who roleplay a lot, HOWEVER, without a focused effort to increase their engagement/participation/role-play it becomes hard to help them feel more involved in the story. I also pointed out, that silence at the table during a session, or mere involvement when combat comes, unconsciously drives me, as a GM, to create more and more combat (because I do wish everyone to be engaged). I finally, advised that use of SmartPhones and other distractions not related to the game during gameplay does not help the other players ping ideas back-and-forth in-character as part of dialogue with those who are distrated. In short, I put the onus on the players to take action, get involved, and up the role-play to help increase enjoyment by other players, increase involvement in the story, and incresse their own enjoyment.
I dont see anywhere where you asked them what they wanted out of the game in the first place. It seems everything you offered is how to play the game more like how you want it to be, but you have failed to get the most important piece of information. What THEY want it to be. If they dont want what you want, your efforts will be very ineffective. You are assuming they are deeply concerned with the state of things and ready to burst out with great roleplay if they could just figure out how. That may or may not be the case. I really think you are making a huge amount of assumptions and proceeding without verifying any of them. This could work, but it could just as easily backfire.
On a personal note, this is a tough blow to my own sense of GMing... over the many decades of play, I'd never run into a culture of gamers who feel its normal to "check-out" or remain silent, or complain about rule stuff (not the execution of it but the rules themselves), or waffle so aimlessly through game sessions. There's a stark contrast between those who seem to "get it" and "get the game" versus what appear to be (coincidentally) younger players.
Well there is definately a generational shift in terms of methods of play. I grew up in a sort of middle ground, and thus i am kind of caught in the middle of things. Before me, 'play' that isn't some specific sport, was all made up games. Kids create their own rules, their own world, their own game and they play.
Today, video games are a predominent form of play. This is a canned experience. Despite some recent strides, you are just participating, not creating. Modern games even make an effort to drag the player through the experience whether they make the 'right' choices or not. Alot of the fun is about the spectacle, and the individual skill then any kind of creativity. If that is what 'play' has always been to someone, I could very easily see that person just kind of drifting through a very open ended rpg with a lot of roleplay.
And if they have that mentality you have to approach things differently then if they are just trying to gain the skills to roleplay. This is what I am talking about when I say you need to find out how your players actually feel about all this.
I'm not casting aspersions on younger players in general, but it just feels I'm up against some kind of SOCIO-CULTURAL NORM that I hadn't encountered in past decades. Is it possible that the age of, "everyone gets a trophy" and "you're all wonderful even though you didn't work hard to earn reward" is a factor in this culture? The reward, of course, is the positive responses from NPCs, story threads tied more closely to their character's intentions due to more revaling about their characters and integration into the milieu? I mean, its just occurred to me, that even after I ensure I myself set aside every possible bias in this case, that it still almost feels like they thought I wouldn't even say anything about expecting more from players. And... THAT... is quite different from the ease of playing over the years with countless others. The GM usually makes suggestions for improvement, and players usually work with the GM more to build those ideas for their characters within the game. I mentioned in my note to them, that role-playing isn't about emailing me what they want to have happen and expecting it will, but it's much more about staying-in-the-moment, exchanging vocalizations during interactions with player characters, and NPCs.
Again, you are making big assumptions on what 'improvement' means. That isn't going to be the same for everyone. The GM can make all kinds of suggestions, but if the players either dont know where he is coming from with them, or doesnt LIKE where he is coming from, they will be ineffective. This isn't just the dm's game, its everyones. Sometimes that means culling your group and finding another because you dont have the same goals, but mostly it means talking to your players and finding out what those goals are.
All - do you think there's some amount of truth to the notion that some players (not all) of this particular generation, might be operating under the premise of "even if I dont talk or contribute anything, things will still keep proceeding and I'll still be equally rewarded?" Or, is this a far fetched idea?
You are assuming your idea of reward is the same as theirs and it simply might not be. Maybe the only reward they care about is xp and magic items. Maybe all they care about is the thrill of victory. Maybe their prefered reward is an afternoon with friends and the rest is secondary. You dont know the answer to this for all of your players. Find that out first, then wonder if your idea is far fetched or not.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many of the players have ever been a GM?
I think once you've done that, you have a greater appreciation for the work put in to make a good game.
Another thing you notice more as a GM, is the amount of time wasted each session.
As a player, you aren't on the spot throughout the whole session. You have moments where it's not your turn, and you can zone out, start a side conversation, while another player deals with his actions.
When a player gets called back to the action, they don't consider any time to have been wasted. But the GM does, because he knows he's had to call their name three times, had to answer a string of what seem like stupid questions about the current situation, which he wouldn't have to answer if the player had been listening.
As far as the player is concerned, they've been totally concentrating all the time. They haven't been concentrating on what's happening in the game, but they've concentrated on their friend's new app, they've concentrated on the discussion of last night's TV, they've concentrated on swapping the recipe for these dips, they've concentrated on that story about the other gaming group in town, they've concentrated on the tour dates for that band they like....
"What do you mean, I've not been listening? I'm sat right here! You just don't describe stuff properly."
As much as you don't want to admit it, part of the problem may be you. When you went to a different group, that group had no expectations of your play, and you had none of theirs. It was their play that elevated yours.
You've been playing with the same group for quite some time, and it seems you're all going though the motions. No one RP's because it's really not expected. You've never done it before, why change now? Starting over may not be a bad idea, but start over with the same group. Tell everyone to make new characters, and get involved in the character creation process. When they want a feat, ask them what in the background suggests they learned that feat. Do it with skills, ask them how they learned those skills. If they can't come up with a reason, tell them they can't have that skill unless they can figure out where the character would have learned it.
As a GM, start giving your NPCs voices, and real personalities. Make the players want to interact with them. Right now your players feel weird about acting in character. It's new, the idea is to make them feel weird when they aren't acting in character.
|
|
They haven't been concentrating on what's happening in the game, but they've concentrated on their friend's new app, they've concentrated on the discussion of last night's TV, they've concentrated on swapping the recipe for these dips, they've concentrated on that story about the other gaming group in town, they've concentrated on the tour dates for that band they like....
I think you hit the nail on the head here, Snorter.
When we formed this group (and it has an amazing track record for attendance and number of sessions per year) we were clear about what kind of game we wanted. We've always said our expectations for participation, role-play, and gameplay was very high. In the past few years we've added a player with whom we were equally up-front. Over the years we always expected one of the younger players who started with us since he was graduating high school, to evolve and grow. When we recently added a new sixth player (friends with the others), that's when the overall quality started tanking (and I don't mean assauting the bbeg). Its like a synergy of lesser-everything, and I'm hoping to stand up for the group's intentions and goals as previously established. Yes, I realize that with a change of a few players, it would seem like we should all have a nice conversation about "what we want out of the game", however, part of that IS the issue: isn't it fair to at least expect the basics (really expect them) before changing and morphing into something else?It seems to me that when you deliver a consistently high calibur game, you should have the right to expect consumate participation. And the nuance here... is that even though some time has gone by and the players have tolerated less than sufficient gameplay, it also seems right to address the issue and call them out on it.
For example, I would like for them to recognize that when two or three players are putting forth their best character play its simply NOT okay to just idly sit by in silence, or spend your time on your SmartPhone, and then "wake up" for combat. I do realize that this behavior is prevalent elsewhere... so I need to be clear that its counterproductive to the type of gameplay we're looking to achieve, because after a while the same few who roleplay/participate the most get tired of seeing that behavior too.
|
|
I'm still curious how many of them have ever been a GM.
And if they haven't, I think it could be a good eye-opener for them, if you suggested a trial period of rotating games. Instead of embarking on some epic campaign, that's going to be loaded onto one GM for years, everybody plays in several concurrent low-level campaigns, and has to agree to run at least one session a month as their own side game?
It may mean you have to start easy, and eat a few sessions with some 'been there, done that' plots and enemies, but if it gets people thinking about how the game looks from the other side of the screen, they may reign in some of their more disruptive habits.
And if someone does have the attitude of "Screw that, I'm not running a game, I come here so that you lot can entertain me!", then maybe they aren't much of a loss to the group?
One thing that I hate as being the DM is that I never get the chance to play. Is this going on with you? What we have been doing in my group since December is to alternate APs. I run one with my brother, we rotate modules and another DM runs another AP. We rotate weeks so that everyone at one time or another is playing in 2 campaigns. It is a great way to help ease the burden.
I am kind of with Snorter on this one. Most players don't really have an appreciation of what it takes to GM and what it takes to actually be involved in the story. Giving them an opportunity to experience that WILL make them better players.
Sean
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I realize that with a change of a few players, it would seem like we should all have a nice conversation about "what we want out of the game", however, part of that IS the issue: isn't it fair to at least expect the basics (really expect them) before changing and morphing into something else?
No you dont realize it, because you still want affirmation from the internet that you are 'right'. You are using words like 'fair', and 'basics' which have no objective meaning rpgs. If all you want is people on the internet to tell you 'you are totally right, those players should do what you are asking them to do', you are wasting your time. What is fair is for people to have fun. The expectation should be that people know what everyone wants out of the game and what they want to put into it. You dont have to change your game if you dont want to. But neither do other players have to change how they go about engaging in their leisure time.
Just because you were upfront about expectations with some or all of them doesn't mean it sunk in what you were expecting. Especially with new players, they may simply not undestand or want to understand what you meant. Some it seems (the two latest) may or may not have been informed completely, or at the very least been made to understand what that upfront infromation about expections means.
It seems to me that when you deliver a consistently high calibur game, you should have the right to expect consumate participation. And the nuance here... is that even though some time has gone by and the players have tolerated less than sufficient gameplay, it also seems right to address the issue and call them out on it.
Again you are using a whole bunch of subjective terms. High calibur game could be in depth roleplaying, it could be detailed tactical combat, or it could be a session where you spend half the time laughing at off color out of character jokes.
Again I believe you are going about this in a way that is very much not likely to help the situation. If you want to fix a problem in a game group you dont 'call them out on it'. There is no RIGHT way to play the game. There is no objective truth about what is 'sufficient'. This isnt a college course to be graded, or an employee performance to be evaluated. This is something done for fun with friends. Fun will mean different things to different people. And no one is 'insufficient' in their definition of fun.
For example, I would like for them to recognize that when two or three players are putting forth their best character play its simply NOT okay to just idly sit by in silence, or spend your time on your SmartPhone, and then "wake up" for combat. I do realize that this behavior is prevalent elsewhere... so I need to be clear that its counterproductive to the type of gameplay we're looking to achieve, because after a while the same few who roleplay/participate the most get tired of seeing that behavior too.
If you just come out and accuse them of being counter productive, or how they have been PLAYING A GAME is not okay, then you will immediately put them on the defensive. Maybe they are shy, maybe they arent good at roleplay. Maybe they are of the mind that the people who are 'best' at it should be the ones that should do most of the roleplaying. Maybe they made initial attempts to roleplay that were conciously or unconciously rebuffed by the 'good' players and yourself because they were 'insufficient' and got discouraged. The fact is you have no idea, and if you just attack them for it, you are not likely to accomplish anything but further alienating them.
Maybe the answere will still be to lay down the gauntlet for them to do more or remove them from the group, maybe the answer is to throw them personalized softball rp situations without the other (likely more dominant personality) characters involved, maybe the answer is they really just want to hang out and roll a few dice and dont have an interest in acting but are willing to do more to narrate their characters actions and ideas. There are a whole host of possibilities, and you have no idea which one is best because you arent bothering to try and find out what the root of the problem is, just the symptom.
I feel for you Pax Veritas. I underwent a similar struggle in the past.
I will cut to the conclusions I reached to spare page space but the battle raged for years. Driven largely by my desire to recreate a genuine role play experience I had in college, I tried everything I could think of to recreate it with my local players.
In conclusion, players can't be forced to change. Any attempt at rhetoric fails as well. The best you can do is explain why YOU like role playing and reward players who make an effort to role play in your games. In the end our group came up with a system to let players decide the level of involvement they want to put into the game. It had tiers which varied by who was GMing at the time. But to put it simply in game status and involvement was directly tied to how much effort the player wanted to contribute. For example, a player who works with the GM to create a detailed hook filled background, who actively plays his role during the game, and keeps up to date notes and is ready when game time comes around... this player is rewarded with leadership in the party, titles and positions in society, and story lines that directly revolve around their character. The player who doesn't care about becoming involved in the game world but is still ready and wants to play isn't penalized but takes the role of a secondary character, and lastly, because we didn't like people who didn't even care enough on a game level to even be ready to play, we give out experience and restart penalties for not being on time (unless you have a good excuse) or not being ready to play.
|
|
I'm still curious how many of them have ever been a GM.
Snorter, you an I think alike. A few years back, I did exactly what you are suggesting. And yes, you're right, a couple of them "can" GM, but greatly the preference for all are to be players. Players who GM get valuable insight into the game, and as a result tend to make them more understanding, appreciative, but most importantly the richness of that experience helps their overall Playership--if that's a word. lol
And, I wouldn't mind. I've often announced that all are welcome to GM. Good things happened, I think, recently when I sent out my letter to them... I'll follow up with another post shortly about it.
P.s. I also did what you do, each player made a bunch of new characters and we did a "round robin". It was a great time for me and them. But for now, they still wish to remain players, and I'm okay with GMing. I decided that too often its the GM who goes on "hiatus" when its really a self-induced punishment that's chiefly unnecessary.
|
|
You are using words like 'fair', and 'basics' which have no objective meaning rpgs.
I disagree with your point of view. I don't subscribe to this type of neo-relativism any more than I would say a restaurant cannot expect shirt and shoes or no service. There's a view in the world that "everything is okay" and I disagree. When you go to a classy dancehall, you dress up. And yes, It is fair to expect the basics from players. I think its also good for the game to expect more from players when participation takes a slump, or too many digital distractions disrupt the game.
I think Kolkotroni may have stated it too strongly. But what a couple of us were getting from some of your posts is, "I want them to play the way I like it even if they don't want it that way." I hope that is not what you really meant, but some of that vibe was coming across.
"Talk to the players" - That might help some, but it's not going to suddenly turn a casual player into an invested player.
Especially if there hasn't been any change after 5 years(!) of playing together!
You are using words like 'fair', and 'basics' which have no objective meaning rpgs.I disagree with your point of view. I don't subscribe to this type of neo-relativism any more than I would say a restaurant cannot expect shirt and shoes or no service. There's a view in the world that "everything is okay" and I disagree. When you go to a classy dancehall, you dress up. And yes, It is fair to expect the basics from players. I think its also good for the game to expect more from players when participation takes a slump, or too many digital distractions disrupt the game.
Yes, when you go to a classy dance hall you dress up. The question is, does everyone want to go to the dance hall? Or do some people want to go to the bowling alley or to a movie? I dont know about you but when I go to see an action flick with my buddies, I dont put on a suit and tie. And both are fun and worthwhile experiences.
Some people enjoy both some people enjoy one more then the other, and thats ok. It may not be ok for you and for your group, but it is ok for people that want to do it. Its friggan leisure time. People have a right to do it as they wish.
The important thing is to agree which one you are going to with your friends, and make sure everyone knows the dress code at each venue. And if that means next saturday half go to the night club and half go to the bowling alley, thats fine too. But you dont drag your friend who hates to dance, and only likes ratty jeans and t-shirts to the high class night club. You are only setting yourself up for disappointment there.
|
|
You are only setting yourself up for disappointment there.
I think the players show up because they really enjoy what's being offered. Its very much the best game event in town, possibly even better. Things are working out now, and I think we're back on track. I do appreciate all the feedback--it helped.
But on the point of it being free time, I think that's what's driving our group to want to continue to participate in a high quality game. Here's what I mean:[list]
So, where I'm at... is that this IS a classy dance hall, and always will be. The materials aren't what make it classy or good--its really about the game design and execution but without players who want to make it great (as you know) makes it all worthless.
I expect my players to show up, show up on time, be ready with their character sheets, and enjoy the best of everything including both the tactical and the dramatic. Bascially, I needed to communicate to a few players that they didn't seem like they were putting forth the same kind of effort that the others were, and it was hurting the game.
Sure, I understand people can be tired or have an off day, but I do expect everyone to want to get better, to learn from each other. And I just couldn't abide watching a few players stick their noses into Smartphones when they were missing opportunities to participate. I concluded this wasn't too much to ask. I also got tired of the same folks expecting the game to be "more about them" when they weren't offering much more than two-dimensional characters and not expressing/explaining much about their characters.
My action:
I wrote a six page letter to the group, because other than game night we're all very busy. I decided that since some players weren't improving, that maybe they needed me to be a bit directive. This happens when people in general don't know HOW to improve. In the letter I listed 10-15 detailed examples of player-character interaction in game situations/scenarios. I offered tips on how to role-play within very different contexts, even when the initial setup doesn't seem to directly tie to their characters. I explained how, as a player, each character could engage with the storyline to make it about them. I talked about imagination and provided roleplaying tips. I concluded by putting the onus on the players--saying that the game is about ALL the players, yet the story and NPCs responds to their input, and without participating and paying attention their characters might not be successful in "feeling" like the story is about them.
Bottom line, I even up-ed my roleplaying in the last session as well (as I am a big believer in taking one's own medicine). And when the players showed up, there was more attentiveness, more participation. It seems a few players still have a long way to go--but it feels I was heard.
To be clear: Having lots of "stuff" doesn't make a great game. I played for 20 years without so much as more than a players handbook. All the game needs is imagination and participation, and I'm sure it was the "participation part" that needed some directive explanation. There's a lot of games out there where players expect the GM to continually entertain the players, but this is not a movie--its an interactive tabletop rpg using the finest version of the game ever written. And frankly, I expect more from myself, and the players, and expect players to seek continual improvement and to always participate.