|
I am starting this thread because I have minor out of game conflicts with two players and I am trying to find out if it's my fault, or I am just going nuts.
I am Gming in RoRtr campaign and one of my player's (lets call him John) is whining recently a lot how the immersion isn't big enough, that we are skipping those simple little magical moments, how he comes to session full of spiritual joy and goes away slightly disapointed because group isn't so „magical“ as other homecampaign groups seem.
To me, he has interesting suggestions occasionally and his advice is welcome, but his expectations are bunch of ****. He complains of not giving immersion yet consistently he never does anything about it. It's like he sits and waits for me to do everyone's job.
I always try to describe moment's and environment around them, but I am just empty on words sometimes and I don't know what to speak anymore when there isn't much to describe. Sometimes you run into interesting house, sometimes you run into bunch of boring houses which don't have anything in them. Few times I skipped last session on some part's the searching of few rooms and said that there isn't anything in them, simply because I don't want them to poke around that single room entire day, but no, I am killing freaking immersion while his answer is 80% of time, „I wait and guard.“
I am making sure 110% of time that everyone receives their turn and gets chance to do something, but only one player is actually brainstorming through everything (lets call him Bob). He is only one who is pushing the storyline while other's simply go with „Ok“ most of time and I frightened of the fact how will group manage it without him, since he recently declared that he has to withdraw from sessions because of the college and I am fine with that if that's how he chooses.
John recently made even sarcastic and rude comments about Bob and he pretty much hates his style of play, which includes too much optimization and he is pushing my limits slightly.
I really don't know if it's my fault or at least partially mine, but John's crappy whining isn't helping. I am both sad that Bob is leaving and happy because he won't have to listen John's whining anymore.
All player's are generally good player's, John just has different expectations and I don't know how to fix it.
It certainly isn't just your fault, if at all your fault.
Have you taken John aside and asked him about specifically what he wants from the game? If he doesn't give you a specific answer, let him know that you can't solve a problem if he doesn't tell you what the problem is. Also acknowledge that storytelling in a tabletop game is a two-way street: you can only give them as much immersion and they're willing to roleplay.
As for concerns about the absence of Bob and the other not as active players, a way you might get them more involved is by throwing a non-combat encounter at them. Have a streetrat steal one of their wallets, and they have to chase him down and then confront him. Ask the players 'What does [character's name] do?" not "What do you do?" as it will push them to stop thinking about it in videogame terms.
|
You need to tell John that everyone has different parts of the game that they enjoy more than others.
You seem to be trying very hard to please John, but you need to let him know that you are doing so, and will need his help, in and out of game.
You need to let him know that not every DM is the same, and all have their own particular style.
If you do this, and he is still not satisfied, then you need to tell him that you feel that your efforts are for naught, and you don't know if he will ever be pleased.
|
|
@Big Lemon
He told me that he hates when we rush things like it's some time race, that he wants to experience everything and how his character should feel more lifelike or something. He also gave me some video in which GM explain's how character's roleplay rolls from dices. He want's more, but he is asking something which I can't grant without everyone's full cooperation.
I pretty much use their character names 80% of time.
If Bob is leaving soon then maybe it will, since it seems John has a big problem with people who play the game like chess (focused on strategy and tactics).
It might also be that Bob is dominating the table. Is he telling other players what they should do with their characters constantly? That can certainly kill roleplaying and may make players like John dislike him.
|
|
@Big Lemon
Bob is diva and he likes attention, but he isn't unreasonable. Everyone is aware of that at the table so he slowly started working on reducing that influence and he did suprisingly good in the end, but John still dislikes him. Old habit's die hard I guess.
In some other way, Bob is dominating at table simply because others have nothing to say, but I just don't see how I can help them if they play passive.
I've had this and before but the complaints didn't come from the players but from me. I'd put my heart and soul into making really cool set pieces, interesting plot twists, and I did the legwork discussing with the players to see what kind of game they wanted ahead of time.
My players said they wanted a game where they had a few different plot hooks and could direct themselves; once they chose a mission however it could be railroady or sandbox. Since it was a homebrew and I wanted to intro some elements to them I set them on the first mission myself but then left it open from there.
What did I get? Crickets. 3 games in a row I'm describing potential hooks, red herrings (they didn't know it) and such and the PC's are just looking at me, waiting for the next random encounter.
So I took the forum's advice and had the talk with my players. They said they didn't like the "weiss-hickman like" descriptiveness and just wanted action. I said fine, retooled and created a megadungeon to work with the main plot. One game into said dungeon I asked for feedback and was stunned when they said it felt like I was railroading them. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT THEY ASKED FOR?
...I don't game w/those guys much anymore.
As for John and Bob, I hope all works well. Just remember what BBT says all the time: have the talk; if that doesn't work, take the walk...
|
Not all players are compatible. Not all GMs are compatible with all players.
Both sides have to want to be a part of creating the adventure. RoTRL is a really good AP that can be played many, many different ways to accomodate many, many different styles.
With the Caveat that is it is based on your description, it sounds like Bob is trying to GM from the other side of the table and John resents it. If you let Bob optimise to the point where he is, as you said "pushing my limits slightly." perhaps he is more than pushing the limits of the rest of the party.
As you also said, you are worried how the rest of the group will get on without him. If that is the case, Bob is aquamanning the rest of the table, and that is at least a problem for John.
But one that will solve itself when Bob leaves.
In the past, my group had a similar problem to what Mark described. We had couple of players who said that they were really interested in sandbox play. So the GM tried running an open sandbox game. [Honestly, I prefer a liner plot to follow, but I was happy to go along with majority rule on that.] After the GM wrote and designed a wilderness sandbox area, all they seemed to care about was traipsing through the forest killing wandering monsters. They also weren't that thrilled with following my character's lead on what to do in the sandbox-- they wanted to be in charge. Out of game, the players complained that the GM hadn't written anything interesting.
So the GM introduced a plot with a BBEG doing nefarious things, and laid some clues as to what was going on. My character wanted to follow the clues, but these players decided that it wasn't their problem to solve and went to the local lord to tell him to deal with it.
It seemed to me that what it boiled down to with this group was that these players told themselves that they wanted sandbox play (because they saw that as some kind of Platonic ideal of RPGs), but deep down they really wanted to follow a linear plot and became disappointed when one didn't materialize in the sandbox-- even though if they did find one, they'd reject it as being too railroady.
Catch-22!
The GM took me aside and enlisted my help. He told me that he would have to pretend to be writing a sandbox with lots of clues and options, but that all of the clues and options would actually lead to the same place. Basically, he said the he thought they'd only be happy if he tricked them into believing that they had free choice but really didn't. I agreed with him, and that's what we tried to do.
While I had fun in this game, the players really were never all that satisfied, and the GM ended up rushing the campaign to its end so that we could play something else.
So, I guess the bottom line is that sometimes your players don't really know what kind of game they want to play!
|
|
Tricking players into believing they have free choice is what running an AP is all about.
Well...let me rephrase that. A good campaign is about stuff happening and what the players decide to do about that.
The GM decides what stuff is happening, the players decide what to do about it, and the GM tries to figure out how what they do effects what is happening.
That is, to me, the game in a nutshell.
|
|
I actually believe that's the whole point of campaign. Main plot with false feeling of free choice, not that the choice won't matter, but simply that all routes get to the same objective.
@Ciretose
Bob maybe wanted to GM while being a player at the start, but so did John. While Bob explained mechanics, John wanted immersion. Problem as I see it is that John is selfish. Bob at least changed his attitude after 3-4 session already.
John said at end that it was his mistake for this, so he kind of apologized to us, but he said after that he will search other group regarding this his "magical world" that he speaks of, so here I am, writing this thread, semi to blow some steam of, semi to realize what I did wrong, because in either case, I felt insulted at end.
@Big Lemon
Bob is diva and he likes attention, but he isn't unreasonable. Everyone is aware of that at the table so he slowly started working on reducing that influence and he did suprisingly good in the end, but John still dislikes him. Old habit's die hard I guess.In some other way, Bob is dominating at table simply because others have nothing to say, but I just don't see how I can help them if they play passive.
You just have to direct something at one of those players specifically. Don't make it a "what does the group do?" situation, but something one player has to respond to specifically. The aforementioned example could work, or you could have one character be awakened by a dream and see a mysteriously, beckoning light in the distance... you get the idea.
Malag, when I have a player who wants a more immersive experience, I frequently can meet with him separately and work out ways to accomplish that goal while still allowing the members who are after a more tactical battle simulation to get what they want. Usually that's done by letting the first guy take the lead on plot hooks that are important to him so he feels that his character is interacting meaningfully with the world.
The "trick" to running a "sandbox" where the group does something somewhat predictable so that you can plan ahead is to have lots of available options and be ready to adjust quickly on the fly. In my campaign world there are very few places that don't have a "boss" that would take an interest in any passing group of dangerous-looking adventurers. Eventually the adventurers are going to pick up one of the more tempting plot hooks laying there, and usually once they do that, it's "game on!" for that plot line until it peters out.
|
Is Bob ,in some ways, the "party leader" in that he does the talking with the NPC and declares "we're going down the left passage" and everyone shrugs and agrees, silent until it's time to roll the dice?
I wouldn't "skip" describing areas just because you the GM know there's nothing in them. The excitement of being a player is "you never know" what lies behind door #3. Might be nothing this day, but who knows about next. My players don't like to leave any passage unturned in a dungeon if they have the time.
To get others involved, during a role-play encounter, don't let one player do all the talking. Have the NPC directly address a quiet player, who might just be waiting for you to get them involved. They may just need a prompt and could be uncomfortable with "overriding" the role-play of Bob (even if Bob is making the right moves).
Finally it might be best to sit with all your players (over lunch, or while playing a card game) and declare a "reboot" discussion of how you'd like to run the game. Might be as simple as recommending people keep a journal of names, speaking "in character" rather than calling someone "the dwarf." (In real life, you aren't likely to call one of your friends "the white guy from Iowa." You'll call them John, their name.) Say you'd like to get folks involved more in the world and ask what you can do to get that done.
Malag, when I have a player who wants a more immersive experience, I frequently can meet with him separately and work out ways to accomplish that goal while still allowing the members who are after a more tactical battle simulation to get what they want. Usually that's done by letting the first guy take the lead on plot hooks that are important to him so he feels that his character is interacting meaningfully with the world.
The "trick" to running a "sandbox" where the group does something somewhat predictable so that you can plan ahead is to have lots of available options and be ready to adjust quickly on the fly. In my campaign world there are very few places that don't have a "boss" that would take an interest in any passing group of dangerous-looking adventurers. Eventually the adventurers are going to pick up one of the more tempting plot hooks laying there, and usually once they do that, it's "game on!" for that plot line until it peters out.
How long does it take to peter out? A couple adventures, 3 levels, a year and a day? I ask b/cause my wife says I have the "artist's disease" with my games - I never know when a plot line is really done and so I keep tinkering.
Ex: I had a hook the party took in my last campaign re: an evil ghoul lady. They followed it a couple adventures, endured her dungeon and got to her, defeating her plan but she got away. Afterwards she tormented the party for a couple levels, then they faced her again...only b/cause I thought "wouldn't it be cool if SHE was really behind this other stuff?" when I ad-libbed a bit. After the second time they faced her and I went off on a tangent of "she was just the lieutenant of an even GREATER undead menace..." the game melted down and I found out later that my players didn't even like running into her the 2nd time.
So other than waiting for a player revolt or becoming REALLY adept at reading body language and inuendo, is there a formula for how long to letting these play out?
So other than waiting for a player revolt or becoming REALLY adept at reading body language and inuendo, is there a formula for how long to letting these play out?
I think the main problem is the players are disappointed to find out that they didn't actual defeat her the first time, and it's possible they felt the second encounter was just the same thing again at a higher level.
If, say, the villain was a wizard that came back a few levels later with an array of spells and items the players have never seen before, it might be a different story. If you're bringing back the same villain again, make sure there's some element to the encounter that makes it feel totally fresh.
Mark, it's sort of interesting. My campaign world is a living world, meaning that it evolves and changes as time goes on based on the goals and motivations of the main movers and shakers in the world, as well as the reaction to the players' actions.
Some of these diversions are just a few sessions. Some have become major plot lines and cause major changes to the geopolitics of the world. In one case it resulted in a player character becoming a demigod after a crazy plot line "diversion" that eventually forced the BBEG to adjust his own plans and create an entirely new chapter in the world's history. Now there's a town named after that PC...
To get others involved, during a role-play encounter, don't let one player do all the talking. Have the NPC directly address a quiet player, who might just be waiting for you to get them involved. They may just need a prompt and could be uncomfortable with "overriding" the role-play of Bob (even if Bob is making the right moves).
This.
Conversely I've never understood the concept of a player playing a character who is the 'party face'. While there are a multitude of personalities in real life, how many of those people in real life sit around and let one person do all the talking when they make new acquaintances. (Not many).
If you've got one talkative player, and 4 'shy' types (or even 4 in character quiet types) get them involved anyway. From time to time give some reason for the NPC's not to want to talk to the 'party face' guy because he is annoying, arrogant, to smooth a talker, whatever.
I remember having so many problems with keeping my players' characters in line. I would run an idea, and everything would go left field. I eventually stopped running games for a bit, unless they were completely free for alls. ( I never even heard the term "sandbox" until a few years ago)
Shadowrun modules changed this. The early modules when the game first came out showed a flow chart. Basically, the party's decisions would take them down different paths, but all the paths eventually would come back to major plot points in the scenarios. The players seldom feel railroaded, and gameplay is more "natural". From that point on, my DMing, Storytelling, GMing..whatever, got so much mo'better.
Doesn't really apply to the OP problem. But, had to join the digression.
@ Malag- Not much you can do about this situation. Hopefully, there was some learning from it. Sometimes groups don't mesh though. Friend of mine and I joined a group he met through a gaming store. He loved the feel of the game. I hated it. I left. Many of them joined our main group for a time, I had great time. *shrugs* Social dynamics, who can figure it?
Greg
My players FREQUENTLY go off course, totally ignore plot hooks to go over and "what's down this well"
The friggen bogey man dude..... oh heck there they go all down the well to chase the bogeyman! (this was in the middle of an AP!)
Never mind earthfall, never mind weird looking black elves waring in the streets, we are spelunking down a well after a bogeyman!
They also spent an ENTIRE session planning the robbing of a magic shop (and executing it) in the middle of an AP...... this all started because they were looking for potions of healing and decided the man's pricers were too high.
then there was the goblin, who they WERE CONVINCED was not only the shop curator, but a powerful witch! (it was a drunk goblin the real curator kept around for amusement) But this obsession with pestering the goblin took up TWO ENTIRE sessions of game play. the real curator was an ogre magi I styled after Mulgarath from Spiderwick chronicles. The Goblin was styled after an really old version of seth rogans hobgoblin from the same movie.... BIRD? BIRD! tasty bird!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than let players know they are skipping rooms, just X them and move on, or give a sweeping description of those areas, but within the context of them moving through them... if there is nothing central to the plot in a gallery for example, you can just say (just as you would say "you move down the hallway and round the corner") instead: "The party moves carefully through a series of threadbare rooms containing humble quarters and mundane supplies and tools, opening up to a huge gallery, walking past high hung tapestries and crude statuary, you note the farther into the gallery you get, the more dust seems to have piled upon the floor, holes in the ceiling let rainwater in from above that fall into uninviting holes below them down to the level below, but they are too deep to see down... after a while longer you arrive at the other side of the gallery, at the foot of a huge double door... what do you guys do?" That way they have a VIVID image of the place in their mind, but you held their hand and walked them through the area. If they are driven to ask questions about the previous area, indulge their curiosity, but if you're afraid they'll bog down, tell them it's simply a setpiece and the real meat of the matter lies beyond. If they end up really jazzed about ancillary details "Whats up with those holes? What's above us? What's below?" REWARD THAT CURIOSITY... make something be there, think on the fly.
Another thing I suggest is grab, put to mind, or if you have a laptop, keep in view a bunch of pictures of scenery off of google images, and then write youself a list of modifiying descriptors like "Old, new, rotten, elven, artistic, decorative" and you can use the pictures to decribe areas again and again with the same lists of images, but with totally different pictures painted for your players because you're telling the story of the rooms differently with the different descriptors.
Also consider running down a list of the 5 senses every time somebody enters a new area or makes a perception check:
1. What does the air FEEL like? temperature?
2. Any smells? THERE SHOULD be, even if it's just normal crisp air, or mold, or dust, or candle-smoke... or baking bread. Scent can tell a story. Have a player SMELL a creature hiding or approaching for a change!
3. You're likely doing Sight well enough, but I gave tips above
4. Sound, Think ambient noise. background critters and birds, fires popping, distant footsteps, howling wind. you get the idea... don't just introduce sound when entering an area, have the noise environment change while they are doing other stuff. Did that pole in the corner fall down because we're stomping around? Or is there somebody stealthing around and just messed up?
5. Taste -- you can say the air has a metallic tinge to it, or the air is full of vapor, which causes your faces to curl up and your tongue to retract reflexively. Or "The zombies are so rank and putrified you can literally TASTE their rot in the air, roll to save vs. sickness, your eyes involuntarily well up and you can FEEL the heat of their decomposition even as you strain to keep your eyes open and focused on their approach."
He wants details? GO ALL OUT on the details. If you're too busy getting them to a point you've already decided they should be, you're not letting them enjoy the journey! And REMEMBER -- just because he's not DOING ANYTHING with all of that information does NOT mean he's not getting all of his enjoyment from seeing those pictures in his head as you describe them and putting his character there.
I have a similar gripe as your John guy in my current group... though for my part I am far more interacting with my environment. My problem comes from my feeling often that NPCs are "wooden" -- guards never have anything to say except "I don't know, ask my boss" and the bosses often say "We're hired to do a job, we don't know how to contract our supervisors, they contact us." so a lot of encounters are can seem 2 dimensional, or just missed opportunities.. last session we faced a DEMON. The first such creature of our adventure -- I had learned abyssal for my character just so I could communicate with nasties like this... No -- it doesn't talk. There has been nothing to introduce it, not even a forbidding rumor, and it, just like a couple of other boss monsters, it got killed without there even being a real explanation of why it was there or what it was ever doing. How do you make your critters seem more 3-dimensional? GIVE THEM MOTIVATIONS, and make them part of an ecosystem... if I ran those guard encounters, I would say to myself when I rolled the number of guards, One is a grizzled alcoholic veteran, one is a widower just trying to put in his time to get a pension, one is a sociopathic youth with something to prove, and the last one is secretly a coward, but will do whatever the sociopath kid eggs him on to do. Boom -- off the top of my head. So now I can describe how all the guards look, and if 3 are killed and one is captured, I have a VERY distinct idea of how that interrogation is going to go based on those personalities. I can even color dialogue between them.
For the demon in my above example, I would have it that he couldn't resist monologuing and talking to his potential victims if he was addressed, they would get to know the demon a little, and the demon would get to know them. The demon might be hinted at even a whole session in advance, hushed whispers or the remains of an ill fated party that ran ahead of the players... maybe cryptic communications from the demon himself. Even DUMB ANIMALS, if you think about what they might do in the average day in their life, can breath LOTS of life into your environments. Maybe that band of kobolds is there when the party comes to a particular part of a dungeon because this is where they go to get water. Maybe they dump their refuse in another place, etc. Don't think of a ROOM where a monster can be, think of a series of rooms it might go in a day -- have it's routine interrupted, don't just have the party keep coming up on monsters seemingly waiting to be found.
Hope all that helps.
@Big Lemon
He told me that he hates when we rush things like it's some time race, that he wants to experience everything and how his character should feel more lifelike or something. He also gave me some video in which GM explain's how character's roleplay rolls from dices. He want's more, but he is asking something which I can't grant without everyone's full cooperation.I pretty much use their character names 80% of time.
I just stumbled on this particular bit. What video is that? Is it a YouTube video and do you still have the link? Sounds interesting.
|
|
@bbangerter
"If you've got one talkative player, and 4 'shy' types (or even 4 in character quiet types) get them involved anyway. From time to time give some reason for the NPC's not to want to talk to the 'party face' guy because he is annoying, arrogant, to smooth a talker, whatever."
I am actually already doing this, because I want them all to have their moments, but John and 2 other players are passive still to much. They just let Bob to talk.
One is actually roleplaying a silent scared guy who actually has second personality when combat initiates (Possesed oracle), which is actually really cool concept, but in practice it's annoying.
Second guy is cool with anything, he just rolls along with the game.
John, well, he is playing dual sword fighter, but so far I didn't see that much roleplay from him and I do grant them opportunities.
They don't even roll Perception when I say that they can all roll it sometimes, they just leave it to Bob.
@Greg
I know. To be honest, group isn't perfect, but it's nowhere near as bad as other's that I saw. I am perfectly happy with them in general.
@Vicon
While I am already doing many stuff which you described, the Perception advice is awesome. I'll make small notes to remind me, maybe it improves the play.
Problem was, that I kind of admit, didn't feel like describing everything in the rooms that session, I did give general description, but generally I was slightly tierd and uninterested with it and didn't have my patience limit very high.
@GentleGiant
Roleplaying Your Rolls.
Honestly, I love what guy says, but it just fails in practice if you have 10 goblins. It's just to much describe. I myself describe about every more significant attack and status of monsters.
I can definitely relate to John - some players (Bob-types) like to rush through everything, trying to get the most done in the least possible (real) time. Some players (John-types) would rather play it so in-game time is closer to real-time, so they can roleplay out the situations and experience the environment. Bob likes the game aspect, John likes the roleplaying aspect.
As a John, one of the things that irks me most is when Bob describes the consequences of his actions, rather than his actual actions. E.g., "We convince the mayor to help us set a trap for the BBEG," instead of "I explain to the mayor our plan to set a trap." When he gets away with it, it effectively skips the whole roleplaying encounter without giving anyone a feel for what was actually said and done.
Similarly, our Bob often uses "we" when he describes his actions, which is very annoying because he's effectively playing everyone else's characters in addition to his own. By the time I can chime in with "actually my character is doing this instead," it's already kind of screwed up the continuity - is the rest of the party following Bob, or is Bob's action put on hold while I do my thing? It becomes unclear what actually happened, and in what order. So, I'd strongly urge you not to let a player speak for the group without clear consent. If a player ever uses "we", have them start the sentence over using "I".
Lastly, our Bob retcons like crazy. "That didn't work? Ok, well then instead of that we did this." Most GMs probably don't let that kind of thing fly, but ours often does and it really ruins the continuity and hurts the immersion. Because Bob is in such a rush to get through everything, he'll do things like instead of buffing before a battle, he'll wait until after we roll initiative and then decide which buffs he would have "of course had up."
tl;dr: don't let any player turn into a de facto GM. Some players think they're helping the party along by "being decisive" and basically deciding what everyone is doing. Roleplayers tend to resent that because it eliminates the roleplaying parts of the game and ruins the continuity and immersion.
Mark, it's sort of interesting. My campaign world is a living world, meaning that it evolves and changes as time goes on based on the goals and motivations of the main movers and shakers in the world, as well as the reaction to the players' actions.
Some of these diversions are just a few sessions. Some have become major plot lines and cause major changes to the geopolitics of the world. In one case it resulted in a player character becoming a demigod after a crazy plot line "diversion" that eventually forced the BBEG to adjust his own plans and create an entirely new chapter in the world's history. Now there's a town named after that PC...
Jaynestown? "Let me tell you the story of a man named Jayne..."
It seems like you are getting overly concerned. Play the way you want to play and the players will come.
Shy players actually don't want the spotlight. That is something I had to learn the hard way. You can try and try again to make them the center of attention but they never do anything with it. I beat my head against that particular brick wall too many times and it always ends the same. The player simply won't take the reigns. It often works smoother to focus the plot around the players who actively seek to control their own fate.
As for the John vs Bob ego battle. It looks like it will resolve soon anyway. But it sounds like you could, by trial and error, find a pacing that they can each live with... still this takes time and it sounds like you won't have time to find the middle road.
I'm only speaking as a GM here, and I very much enjoy riffing off my players; rewarding curiosity, ad-libbing and more, but sometimes a chair is JUST a chair.
What I mean is best illustrated in yet another example: my players had caught a simpering goblin after a raid on their town. The goblin sneered that their distraction worked so they could set fire to the guildhall in secret. Fortunately for the party they were able to get to the hall and help extinguish the blaze. Then they returned to their captive...
...who knew nothing more. This was by design. He's a mook; a henchman. He's the street thug that works for a guy that works for a guy that is then being manipulated by the Kingpin of Crime.
When they questioned him they got more and more frustrated that they weren't learning anything. Then they decided to let him go. Now the party is new to the town but the goblin knew he was bound for the gallows and there was a crowd there, so he did what any sane goblin would; tried to grapple and take a hostage to get away. After 2 rounds of combat the party ended him.
After the scenario the players' only complaint was the goblin thing. One said something similar to Vicon's comments, that the goblin seemed fake and 2 dimensional. Part of that was me; I was punchy and it was late. But then the rest was, well, he didn't HAVE any detail to provide, so he wasn't detailed.
Players have to be reminded that the game world is a living place. Not the characters, but the players. Sometimes a Perception check doesn't mean you've found a clue to villainy; it just means you notice something out of the ordinary like a really interesting herb in the wild that might be worth something or a particularly large bloodstain in a dungeon hall that adds to the ambiance.
We actually had this battle in our group, but it didn't involve 2 players.. It involved one.
He basically said that marching from fight to fight was boring and that he needed the gm to give him a reason to do anything he ever did... Even to the point that when he was playing a paladin and there were clearly innocent people to be rescued he still was like 'ok... whats my motivation'... He placed a high premium on the gm waxing eloquent and as I like to call it 'painting the barmaids fingernails' sort of richness and detail... whats the term? Lilly Guilding...
On the flip side any world that was rich with flavor and any campaign that was rich with detail and plot and intrigue he was given, he basically turned rage barbarian on it. Smash the pretty painting or ignore the plot completely...
He voluntarily retired when he finally realized the only thing he really enjoyed about gaming was getting out of the house and hanging out with us to cause trouble.