| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds to me like differences in playing style are getting in the way of the game itself. I think both your and your players should state your expectations from the game, and come to a mutual agreement on how much the game is plotted vs. how much of a sandbox you are really willing and prepared to provide.
I'd recommend taking the uncooperative players out to lunch, one at a time, and have an out-of-character chat about the player's expectations of the game AND your expectations of how players should behave in your game.
It sounds like you want to run a plot-based game, but the players are more interested in a sandbox. Personally, I don't enjoy running sandbox games, and I tell my players that at the start of the campaign.
My philosophy as a GM is that I'm trying to tell a story, but it's a collective storytelling process: I supply the outline and the major plot hooks, and the players fill in the details. I have a linear plot in mind, and I do expect that my players won't deliberately try to derail the plot; but they do have the freedom to shift it a bit if that's what their characters want to do.
In my opinion, here's how you "fix" the Adventure Paths.
Okay, think of the adventure path as a road that goes from start to finish, and it has some built in twists and turns.
Now, what you should do from here on out is make lots of little alleys that come off that main road.
Make these side roads very diverse, this allows you to "feel out" your player's characters to figure out what they WOULD care about.
Then modify the AP's motivation to include things that every character would be interested.
Maybe one character doesn't care about hunting goblins for ears and bounties but maybe he's into lore and artifacts, so you add in that the goblins stole some artifacts that hadn't been studied yet by local scholars. Now that character has a reason.
There's also the "many doors, 1 room" idea.
Give them 5 doors, but all 5 doors lead to the same place. As long as by taking a door they eliminate the ability to go back and try other doors, you've basically rail-roaded them without being obvious.
But yeah, take the AP and build a mini sandbox around it and you should have less problems.
Have the sheriff ask them to investigate the necromancer who made those undead. Have him remind them of the local disappearances and ask them to see if that necromancer is behind them.
It depends upon how extreme it is. Only you can decide that. We can't hear tone of voice, see expression, or listen to the whole conversation.
If you have some players that think it is fun just to jerk you around, then I would stop playing (or at least stop being the GM) with them.
Sometimes players make characters like they see in movies or read in novels. However, many of those are SOLITARY heroes with very independent contrary personalities. That works well in a novel or movie where the author can make sure that what he needs happens. That doesn't always work well in a cooperative team game like this.
I have started telling people, "You have to find a reason your loner anarchist hermit will cooperate with and be part of a team."
Some people think they want a very open world. This is often known as a 'sandbox' type of campaign (I don't know why). This can be very difficult for an inexperienced GM.
I guess what I would recommend you try is talking to them.
"You guys obviously don't what to go through what I have planned. So what do you want to do?" When they give you an answer say, "Ok we'll meet back here in two weeks after I have time to prepare something."
Everytime they want to go off in left field, do the same. Ask what they are planning then take a break to make something around that.
Ack! This brings back some horrible memories of the first group for which I GM'ed. Seriously? Some PC's just want to watch your plans burn. If players aren't willing to work with you, there is only so much you can do. I usually try to make sure this won't happen before game one. The PC's are working together. Figure out why. What is their common thread, and how can you play that to your campaign ideas.
For my current group, I just play a game called Follow-the-Money. They take the highest paying jobs, so I make sure those are the best defined. If I want them to hunt down a macguffin, I make it out of gold or put a substantial reward on it or both. For the group before this, they were the do-gooder types, so it was just a matter of making the enemy appear evil. Call it fear of my first group - once burned and all that - but I make sure to always define the binding element right from the start. Make them say it out loud.
Even though you have already started, you can take a minute and point out that you are having trouble with them, so you would like them to state why they are working together. Gaming is cooperative. If they won't work with you, this will be a frustrating use of your free time. Don't wait until it gets to the point of Rage Quitting. I made that mistake, and it hurt a couple of friendships.
If the PCs dont want to be proactive bring the fight to them. Things would have been so much better if they would have gone after the undead. Now look what happened half of Sandpoint is dead............
Good point. Have Goblins raids increase in frequency for each day the PCs don't go out to thin the herd.
Don't forget, goblins make excellent rogues and even if the PCs can survive the nightly raids, it doesn't mean their gear and gold does.
I've been in and run games with similar players. If I'm running the game I usually require a background of sorts with important, people, places and goals to the PC. Using that I can usually get players to go where I want them to.
However you will still find those players who are adamant in their disruptive or uncooperative behavior. The people above me have suggested very good ways to talk to players about this and ways around it. If they have effectively written themselves out of the story you are trying to tell have them roll a new character. I'm not saying just let them roll a new character every time they get bored with their current character. (My Rule is: If a character dies or is "written out" of the story that player can make another character at -1 level to the previous character)
That should at least provide a pause in their uncooperative actions.
I agree, put the clues in, let them know they are there, and work in the consequences in advance if they do not. Run a couple of plots simultaneously so they don't feel rail-roaded.
For example: Necroamncers, undead & the golden box is one thread; if the party don;t track the box down, the necromancer shows up one night in the graveyard and throws the town into a zombiepoocalypse.
Another could be: Goblins in the woods (driven out of their home), the rousing of the Sandpoint Devil. Goblins have been driven out by the undead, they are in the wilds around the town and are causing trouble and stirring up other things. If the party don't do something about them, the Sandpoint Devil gets roused and starts picking off homesteads (and maybe the party out travelling).
Third you could have: Smugglers and Pirates! the box came from Riddleport and the pirates want it back, working through smugglers into Sandpoint to begin with, but then sending parties ashore up and down the coast, praying on travellers. If the party do not capture a boat and take the fight to the enemy, the pirates could end up raiding the town. Worse, they could get the box back, and suddenly you have undead pirates...
2 things here... 1, you don't want to put your players in a straight jacket. You don't want to FORCE them to do something or not have a game. One of the most exciting elements of Pathfinder (or any tabletop RPG) is the freedom of being able to try whatever your character wants. If they want to just leave the undead, don't panic. Let them.
The other side to this is that every action has a consequence. Sure, a player can try to burn down every building in a city, but as a DM you should implement consequences. In this particular case, the PCs can just choose to ignore the undead with the box, but there should be consequences. I admit that I'm not really familiar with this particular adventure path, so I don't know what the box's importance is, but USE IT in the WORLD somehow to get the players to WANT to go find it. For example, maybe when the players get back to town, some of the townsfolk are running frantic and the sheriff has his hands full because whatever is in the box is important to the entire town (again, I don't know the details). The sheriff begs the party to find this box and offers an attractive reward (assuming that's what the players are interested in) for them to bring it back. Use the players' personalities in your favor. Do they like gold? Do they like adventure? Do they seek fame? Do they just go with the flow and follow whoever wants them? Every PC is different... figure out what motivates them and use it in the story.
Railroading is fine, but it doesn't have to be blunt and obvious... telling your players, "You have to do this or there's nothing left to do" just deflates the whole game. Instead, create the illusion of choice. Maybe one of the PC''s brother/sister/parents have left a note behind saying they went out to look for something - and the trail leads straight to the undead lair that you wanted them to go to anyway. Or maybe they find out from a wizard or somebody in town that the box contains a key to a nearby vault that holds forbidden secrets and treasure. Don't be afraid to mention a specific item that would appeal to the reluctant player as well.
Don't be afraid to do things like this if your players throw your story arc for a loop. Railroading is fine, especially if you spent a good deal of time preparing for the ensuing adventure - but that doesn't mean it has to be forced. If the players aren't interested, make it interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a classic problem, and another reason I am, despite the greumbling I do about my own group, actually very happy I have my group. DMing involves a lot of preparation, if you're anything like me, and your players don't seem to know that. While I don't advocate railroading your players, they need to offer the courtesy of sniffing at the carrots you offer. It is a small but exceptable quantity of metagaming and very good for DM sanity. I actually like detours from the path I have laid out as they can be the funnest part of the day. But ignoring or not caring about all of your oh-so-not-too-subtle clues? Thats disrespectful and being a poor sport.
|
It sounds like your adventure is going off of the Jade Regent adventure path. There were some good campaign traits that gave your characters bonuses tied in to the expected storyline. Having your group enter the campaign with some built in motivation to follow the general path you've got laid out can help quite a bit in keeping things on track.
Are you using the NPCs? Having an NPC who the characters have reason to respect participate in the group and lend some direction can help, and gives you a direct "mouthpiece" into the group to provide needed motivation/encouragement/discouragement as necessary can be helpful as well.
The sandbox style of play isn't for every GM, since you're pretty much winging it as you go. Be clear with your players about what type of game you're running so that everyone is on the same page about what to expect from your adventure. If an NPC the characters should have some reason to care about is poisoned/cursed/etc. and they're reaction is "Meh, not my problem" maybe find out if there's some reason they're being contrary, or if they honestly think their character just wouldn't care. If it's the latter, maybe look at limiting the available alignments in your campaign to ones that contain a Good component to encourage teamwork and caring. Just my two cents.
If they don't want to follow the "carrot" you have given them, hit them with the stick. So they don't want to find the golden box that's fine. Ask them what they wish to do next. Lay out a few options for them, and let them choose. Whatever option they choose is irrelevant, wherever they go to take care of that task, undead have over run the area and you just move your adventure to there. If you do it right, they will feel like they found the path themselves and it wasn't so much railroading as much as a broad reaching problem that they stumbled into once again.
It is also reasonable to tell the players that the GM can expect a certain amount of cooperation on the storyline from the players as well as the PC's. Yes, you have a huge amount of freedom with character building and backstory. But keep it within reason for the campaign.
If I say the adventure is going to revolve around restoring the old dwarf under mountain kingdom, please don't create a sea pirate.
If I am developing a campaign around defending the elven tree homes, please don't make a surface hating drow pyromaniac flame oracle.
If we are going to be playing a holy crusade against the undead nation, don't bring a animation specialist necromancer.
...As far as the whole “sandbox” thing goes. Ugh. I don't think true freeform sandboxes in tabletop RPGs work. I believe they are the death of many campaigns. Often players will ask for a sandbox style game because they want to control both their PC and the story...
One group I was in kept insisting they wanted a real sandbox campaign so they could truly make plans and decide what they wanted to do.
When I tried to giv ethem what they asked for they basically didn't do much of anything except argue amongst themselves about what to do next. They ignored every plot hook and it eventually decended into PvP.
That group needed to be at least a somewhat railroaded.
That player sounds like a jerk, hopefully he isn't. Fine, he doesn't want to play find the gold box, but he doesn't have to rub it in your face. You gave him a plot hook which he spit out. How about the other players? It is their game too, if they want to go for it then he is SOL. Just make sure you have other hooks and arcs besides the golden box/undead thing. Or at least some to bring them back to it. You could have that player-character's mother be kidnapped by the necro badie and strong arm him into it if he makes you mad.
There is give an take in the GM/player relationship. Everyone needs to remember that. Make sure you do and sure as hell make sure he does.
|
You've got to invest interest in the "hook" for your players, and I'm taking that they're challenging you on this. After all, they didn't sign up to chase undead for some "box" that has no meaning to them. I don't know your plot, but maybe have others in the region hurt/killed by undead as they systematically retrieve anything that resembles a golden box. Fights break out, accusations are made. Eventually, folks will clamor for something to be done. The sheriff is in over his/her head. Heroes are needed...
Make the world reactive. If the PCs take or don't take actions, the world around them should register some difference.
As noted, in campaign making, a background tied to the specific setting (all Pathfinder campaigns have guides for this) makes a huge difference to customize "hooks" as compared to "I'm Rolf the barbarian who hates wizards and was forced to live with wolves growing up." Rolf's really got nothing investing him in your current game (unless people are hunting wolves and that's part of the adventure...)
Yes, this is Jade Regent, and honestly, it's an extremely weak opening hook.
If your PCs don't want to tramp through the swamp looking for the box, let them go back to town and tell other people about what they found at the goblin village. Some of their friends, maybe younger siblings or cousins, want to be Big Heroes like the PCs and sneak out into the swamp to try to find the shiny box. They get lost and don't come back. The PCs have to go find them and rescue them. If the PCs don't have anyone they care about in town, make it be the children of the richest families in town and a handsome reward offered. Bingo! You're back on plot.
(Next time, I'd post questions in the Jade Regent specific forum, as you'll be able to get more specific information from people familiar with the game you're trying to run. This isn't really a player-DM problem but a "get my PCs back on the storyline" problem.)
Some PC's just want to watch your plans burn.
This, and...
When I tried to giv ethem what they asked for they basically didn't do much of anything except argue amongst themselves about what to do next. They ignored every plot hook and it eventually decended into PvP.
This.
There is wanting a sandbox, and there is simply being contrary. The opposite of a railroad is not "ignore the GM," it's plot hooks. Your players are just griefing you OP, and it shows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let your players roll out to the side and make the whole evening as boring as humanly possible. no events, no encounters. Just a lot of "and so what would you like to do next..."
After a few nights of this, most players tend to pick up the threads you have dropped...
Some excellent responses in this thread. I respect Haladir's response, especially.
One thing I did with my players (I thank the gods I have a mature group of experienced gamers) is establish a little backstory with each of their characters; something I can build-on as the game goes on. So while there are sandbox ELEMENTS in the game, there are whole story arcs devoted to each character, like chapters in a book. This gives the player some investment in the tale.
"You're a warrior looking for his former Dwarven mentor? He's in the Five Kings Mountains, last you heard, and that's dangerous country...". Along the way, there will be distractions and mini-quests and opportunities for riches.
"As a Druid, you need to attend the annual moot, which is taking place in a forest far to the South. You'll need the blessing of the elders to achieve 6th level, after all."
Pure sandboxing isn't the freedom some players think it is. I blame anime and the whole "ronin" archetype.
I get the feeling from the context that these actions are diliberate. There is sanbox...and then there is sandbagging. I think I side with Blitz. Sit at the table stare at the player who is sandbagging the whole party and ask him what he wants to do, clearly he isnt interested in playing the game you as the DM have put work into providing for his entertainment...that being the case its up to him to provide the party with a direction.
Talk to them and ask them why they aren't interested in the adventure. Get specifics, "my character wouldn't be interested" isn't helpful. Find out from the player exactly what they ARE interested in. If what they want ISN'T compatible with the adventure then end it. The rest of the session can be in role play mode. They asked what else is happening right? I would tell them there is going to be a harvest festival in 10 days and describe the preparations going on. Perhaps they just want to play in character. Either way if these PCs just wouldn't be interested in the prepared adventure and you still want to run then there are only two solutions. The first is have them make new characters with the restriction that they BE interested in the sort of adventure planned. Or lastly select a new adventure based on what they want specifically.
I also have to ask did you promise them a wide open sandbox, and then try to get them to do some thing that you really wanted to run. If not the problem could be that your idea of sandbox and their idea of sandbox are not the same thing.
So here I am, running a campaign and I have a couple PCs who are kinda giving me a hard time story wise. I realize that the game is open ended, the PCs are supposed to make their own story but I have a few general goals I want them to accomplish.
...But a couple of the PCs can see this is the direction I would like them to go so they say "I don't think that appeals to my character, what else is going on in town?"
...But when given the direction to where the undead went, the one PC looked right at me and said "I don't think this box is very important. Lets just leave."
Is it me? Am I not doing a good enough job? Please give me some tips so I can make this a better experience for my players.
My two cents: I dislike the sort of thing you have designed (as you present it) for a simple reason: there is no personal motivation for my character. The story isn't about them but about some things happening that might or might not involve them.
In some games you have players and/or a dm who are just willing to follow every lead there is because of game-reasons or perhaps they have characters who are genuinely curious. Then what you designed works because the players are dictating the course of action.
However if the players aren't up for that (and that is a matter of playstyle as someone else noted), you might try to write a personal plot for them. Have them inherently interested in what happens. Not just from an in-character point of view but also from a player point of view. Give them a little adversity, give them a nemesis who thwarts their actions. Have something happen to something or someone close to them.
That is the reason why I think Planescape: Torment gripped so many who played it (if they managed to overcome the admittedly boring combat). The story is about you. You start in the middle of... somewhere with no memory and a flying skull talking to you. Your first hints? You have a tattoo on your back telling you this happened before and you need to find 'Pharod'.
The reason I think this works so well is because no matter who you are roleplaying, the game is set up to interest you, the player, as well as your character. You HAVE to act because you're... nowhere with no clue as to what is going on. You aren't in the luxurious position where you have cash and tons of jobs to choose from. That kind of situation breeds inaction with a particular sort of player. I am admittedly one of those.
Let your players roll out to the side and make the whole evening as boring as humanly possible. no events, no encounters. Just a lot of "and so what would you like to do next..."
After a few nights of this, most players tend to pick up the threads you have dropped...
Until they develop a genuinely interesting story on their own and realize that you're a god awful DM and boot you from the group. Playing chicken is a double edged sword.
Some PC's just want to watch your plans burn.This, and...
When I tried to giv ethem what they asked for they basically didn't do much of anything except argue amongst themselves about what to do next. They ignored every plot hook and it eventually decended into PvP.This.
There is wanting a sandbox, and there is simply being contrary. The opposite of a railroad is not "ignore the GM," it's plot hooks. Your players are just griefing you OP, and it shows.
If they develop a truly interesting story then things change. This jackhole player seems to be about derailing any planned adventures and just being a tool. I would guess he isn't going to come up with anything amazing on his own.
If the players work with the GM and pick up clues as provided then the GM will have had time to prepare and the experience will be 10 times better than "off the cuff"ing every session.I'm a huge fan of running with the moment and going off the rails while nothing else is going on (OR if your character has a personal mission you'd like them to follow) but turning away from every hint dropped by your GM is just toolery.
If the players want to do certain things with their character, they should make that known to the GM ahead of time so he has time to tie those stories in and make it seamless. Any good GM will have those stories already on the plate and is scheming how to get the players involved in that at some point in the near future.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's likely been said before, but just because they get to make their character, doesn't mean they get to make a lone wolf who needs no one and cares for nothing and will not be motivated by anything.
During character creation, tell them what kind of characters are appropriate and what kinds aren't. That's not to say ban certain classes or races, but ban certain personalities.
Indeed Mergy. My GM explicitly said he wanted a Heroic Good campaign and when one player made his lawful neutral Magus behave mostly evil (killing helpless and/or injured orcs) it sort of ran contra to the theme established. He ended up leaving (Thank god) cause his character wasn't "unique" enough when another arcane caster joined us for a few days.
I generally make it a point to have several things the PC's can be working on in my game (via rumors, npc's, etc.) at any one time. If, at the end of a session, the players (seemingly) have several choices of things to do I generally ask them what they think they will follow up on next time. That way I know what to plan for and they have some say in what happens. It seems to work pretty well.
Note that I don't always give them a choice about what encounters they face, but I try to give them some input on what they choose to face from time to time. Good luck!
|
|
I'm playing in this AP myself, and it would come across as insane for us to not pursue the hooks we were presented with at the start.
Are the players not using the campaign traits, or did they even read the player's guide? The thing about AP's is that the players are responsible for a certain level of buy-in. They have to care about what the AP's premise is, or else there's no real point in putting the GM through this. In this case, it seems like requiring every PC to be invested in some way with at least one of the NPCs featured in the guide is a must. When I ran Crimson Throne, the one absolute requirement I had was that each PC must care about their home. If I were to run Council of Thieves, I'd have that same requirement for that town.
On the flipside, the GM has to ensure player agency and a good game from that side of the screen, but it sounds like things are falling apart on the player side here. Or rather, not even starting.
@Mikaze
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Evil Lincoln said this in a thread a few months ago, and i have followed it ever since. Before we begin a game i gather all the players and tell them this:
"By deciding to play my game, you are agreeing upon a social contract. Aside from me expecting you to arrive on time on the previously appointed date, i also expect you to work with your fellow players. You can be any alignment that you want, but you will not attempt to seriously harm or kill other PCs. Conflict is ok as long as it doesn't impact anyone's fun. Second, you will accept plot hooks that i give out and follow them. I will be spending large amounts of time on this, and i cannot prepare for every eventuality. Unless i specifically say that we are playing a sandbox game, that means that there is a narrative to the game and a story to be discovered. The first one who pulls that 'my character wouldn't be interested in that' will be asked to leave the group. If your character wouldn't be interested in that, what is that character doing in my game?"
It has worked wonderfully thus far.
|
|
@Mikaze ** spoiler omitted **
It's been a while, but
When we found those Tien-made fireworks and tracks leading out of the goblin village, Ameiko was mighty curious to the point of buying most of them off of us and let us in on something she had heard about her family's ship that had been lost in that general area. She thought there might be something of her family's belongings there. Just being friends with her and knowing she didn't have any family left was enough for half of us, her promise of a reward and the momentum of half the party was enough for the other half. Things snowballed from there.
After that point it's probably getting into territory that might still be spoilage for me. I think that's about as far as I can go.
@Mikaze
Evil Lincoln has the same method I prefer. Thanks Hama.
|
|
@Mikaze ** spoiler omitted **
Maybe so. Everything seemed to just roll out naturally for us, but I can see how that clue going missing could throw things off. Looking back it's easy to overlook them, but they really were an important point in the right direction.
Maybe there's a fallback item or detail that can fill that role in that case?
I used to be a generous DM, allowing players to make "whatever they want," until I got a few players like mentioned in the OP. One would make characters with such detailed daily living routines, that the simple act of "adventuring" got in the way of his day to day life. Any diversion down a plot was met with eyerolls and impatient, rude comments about getting the adventure over with so they could get back to their day job. That game crashed and burned.
Other times, the players would all make "lone wolf" types, who had no in-game reason to adventure together, and would set off on their own; they literally all wanted their own personalized, solo campaigns tailored to them. I like multitasking, but this got ridiculous.
From now on, I spell it out clearly before the game begins, that if you are to play in a game I run, you will make a character that "plays well with others." No lone-wolves allowed. There may be a point in the game where a player is needed to handle something away from the party, but that's a far cry from up and ditching the party to pursue their own game at the same table.
The other thing, the "sandbagging"; I don't expect my players to bite on every single plot hook I dangle in front of them, but they have to know that as a DM, I put in a considerable amount of work preparing each session. If they choose not to pursue what I've prepared, there had better be a really good reason, AND an alternative path the group can pursue. I'm all about building the campaign around the player's intentions, but they have to give me somehting to work with.
To the OP, I recommend pulling the sandbagging player(s) aside, and talk to them in no uncertain terms. Spell it out plain as day; ask them what their intention in this game is, do they actually have a direction they'd like to go, or are they intentional derailing you just for the sake of "bucking the system?" If they can't give you clear indicators and ideas of where you can compromise the game, then ask them point blank why they are even at your table.
By all means, be polite, but make sure the point is made loud and clear. They are clearly wasting your time, and bringing down everyone else's fun. Something needs to be done.
|
@Mikaze ** spoiler omitted **
With ours it came about because when our group wasn't really fully formed until the second session and thanks to the campaign traits. In the first meeting it was only a gnomish gunslinger and a preteen aasimar oracle (whom was the Koya's adopted daughter) who went galavanting off into the swamp to earn the money and be heroes. When the second half of our party started the next week my cavalier heard, whom was a friend of the aasimar's family heard about what she was doing and fearing danger coming to her armored up and grabbed up some local talent who were already interested in the treasure and headed off. We ended up following their tracks and finding the remains of their old battles while fighting the local fauna along the way. By the time we found them they were knee deep in a cabin and what not and see the young oracle aasimar was safe and sound and at the cajoling of the rest of the party they and the cavalier headed off to find the goblins so long as the kid managed to stay safe and not get herself hurt since he couldn't manage to convince her of anything else and she had shown quite competent in combat.