We’ve been having a problem with my group.
And before you ask, yes it is problem for all of us, not just me. Every single one of the players has expressed dissatisfaction with the situation.
I actually picked this set of modules because it is sort of railroad-ish. The party is being attacked an is mostly just trying to survive and escape along the obviously most survivable route. But it still has player choice. And they just can’t. Choose that is.
They spent over 15 minutes arguing over where to start looking for tracks out of what was left. Then they started bringing back into the discussion that maybe they should first check out the non-obvious places since that is more dangerous and kids don't always do what they are told.
At that point I was getting irritated and said he was going to starve to death before you step outside the village. So they decided to start heading north.
Then they spent 10 minutes arguing over whether they should be a spread out line abreast shouting the kids name, sneaking in single file to not attract the many monsters, riding horses or walking, etc…
They eventually decide to have 2 guys sneaking about 40’ ahead of the other 3 walking abreast and leading the horses. Seriously.
This was just to get started on a tiny little make friends with the locals side quest. I expected the whole thing to take 30-45 minutes. They spent 45 minutes just getting started.
Anytime the situation doesn’t have a clear obvious ‘do this’ neon sign, they dither and argue. I could easily give many more examples.
They are getting much better (not great by any means, but better) when it is a combat situation. Or at least a high intensity, ‘the Earl is not going to sit around waiting while you argue’ type situation.
All of them complained about how long it was taking to get anything accomplished.
I have seriously considered hand waving anything that is not essential to the plot.
“You make friends with the locals, you help them out with some minor criminal problems, and you look impressive when champions challenge you to see how capable you are.”
But that is boring for me, breaks the immersion, and they don’t seem to like it either.
One of the guys even said he would like to try a real sandbox campaign where the players decide what to do an write the story. I just gave him an incredulous look and said “You mean the players that just spent 5 minutes arguing over who was in a better position to make the perception check? Those same players?”
I have tried suggesting things like “You could elect a leader to make the decision.” What I got was, “I don’t want to be in charge, but why should I take his orders?”
I’m not sure what if anything I can do.
A timer can help. You can use a litteral for real timer. I try to incorporate roleplaying into the timer.
For instance, in a campaign I ran the PCs found a secret entrance into the lower area of a keep. They got into the dungeons and freed some of the prisoners. They had access to a ship and they were able to befriend some of the prisoners who were soldiers and such. They armored the NPC capagin and troops with gear from the guards in the dungeon and asked him to get the rest of the people back to their ship. (They secured the root.) At the same time an alarm was triggered and some of the NPC troops were securing the door at the direction of the PCs.
They began to plan their interior attack and discussion got long. While they spoke I had the captain shouting orders to soldiers. The Soldiers holding the door yelling they couldn't hold it. It was good, it added tension and forced them to come to a decision quickly on what to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the guys even said he would like to try a real sandbox campaign where the players decide what to do an write the story. I just gave him an incredulous look and said “You mean the players that just spent 5 minutes arguing over who was in a better position to make the perception check? Those same players?”
While I can't help you with your dilemma (that type of irrational behavior just seems nuts to me), I laughed at the above. Nice!
Groups need leaders. Your players don't have one.
Unless someone decides to take on the role, you're going to continue to suffer with this.
This is one reason I've seen some GMs introduce NPCs to "take charge". This can be done subtly if you are really clever.
"Hey, I think I saw some little boy tracks over by the woods to the North."
|
I think your players have trouble playing the role of their characters (instead of deciding what their characters should do to optimize their chances at "winning" the game).
Check with them whether such is the case and find out what each of you can do to help them get into their character and play the part. The whole playing needs to become more emotional rather than stay at the purely intellectual level.
... The Soldiers holding the door yelling they couldn't hold it. It was good, it added tension and forced them to come to a decision quickly on what to do.
They usually do ok, if there is something external forcing their hand. But it becomes stupid and I believe they would resent it if everytime there is a decision there suddenly a catastrophe if they don't hurry up.
So I can't use it all the time. But I have been using it more than I am really comfortable doing to them.
-------------------------------------------
Groups need leaders. Your players don't have one...
They very clearly don't have one. But they can't seem to connect their indecision to needing one.
And I have to admit I've seen many groups work well together without a clear established leader. Decision just seem to happen and most usually agree on the best course of action. But not this group.
... This can be done subtly if you are really clever.
"Hey, I think I saw some little boy tracks over by the woods to the North."
Then I don't think I am subtle enough. If I never let them make any actual decisions, it always feels like a I am leading a little kid around by the hand to guarantee their success.
I don't know, but it doesn't seem too heroic to me. I'll see what I can do along those lines.
--------------------------------------------
I think your players have trouble playing the role of their characters (instead of deciding what their characters should do to optimize their chances at "winning" the game)...
Actually, if anything it is the other way around.
One guy is trying very hard to play a not lawful stupid paladin, but still straight forward follow the code. We should rush to where he was most likely to go and follow him from that point.Another is playing the paranoid drow who wants to be good but is having difficulty trusting. First you should search the most dangerous area. If he is somewhere less dangerous he has a better chance of surviving unti we get there.
Then we have the happy go lucky low wisdom gnome sorcerer. Kids don't do what their told, so he's probably where ever he wasn't supposed to go.
Ok, I just reread this and it sounds a lot more negative than the guys really deserve.
We've been getting frustrated the past couple of session and that is bleeding through to this post.
They really aren't a bunch of anarchist children. Even if it sometimes feels like they are.
I guess what bugs me the most is I'm not sure what I can or should do about it.
One guy has been hinting that it is my job to step in and fix the situation. And to a certain extent I agree. Part of the GM's task is to see that things run smoothly. But I also really feel like the GM should not take over what are clearly the characters actions or ram non-choices down their throats.
|
|
Important decisions require a lot of thought and discussion. Trivial decisions don't. They don't distinguish. They need an illustration of the difference, particularly with reference to whether it matters for the game mechanics. I don't know how to make that happen.
Alternately, they seems like they are very concrete thinkers; from a rules standpoint, the difference between how they search for a kid may not matter...roll Perception. But, that is an abstraction, and for concrete thinkers, the wonder of the game is working out those small details. You might all benefit from scenarios where the little details really are important..in other words, maybe you need to change to content that fits their style rather than asking for them to change. Maybe that's just a matter of expecting less progress re: plot in a given session of gaming. Maybe the entire group might work better if one of them GMs and you become the leader of the players.
I'm not saying you're gaming wrong. I'm just trying to provide some insight, outside-the-box thinking, and some commentary from the perspective of group organization.
Some people like to role-play breakfast. :)
Important decisions require a lot of thought and discussion. Trivial decisions don't. They don't distinguish. They need an illustration of the difference, particularly with reference to whether it matters for the game mechanics. I don't know how to make that happen ...
Could not have said it better myself.
... maybe you need to change to content that fits their style rather than asking for them to change. ...
I would do that. Can you suggest what would fit the above, cause I can't think of anything.
... Maybe that's just a matter of expecting less progress re: plot in a given session of gaming. ...
They do not appear to be happy with the lack of progress anymore than I am.
... Maybe the entire group might work better if one of them GMs and you become the leader of the players. ...
Actually, I am the alternate not the primary GM. I run about 1/3 to 1/4 of the time so he can get some time as a player.
And like I said they don't seem to connect the slow progress, arguing, and indecisiveness to needing a leader.
Any time a leader is brought up, the immediate response is "Why would my PC accept orders from any of the other PC?"
... I'm just trying to provide some insight, outside-the-box thinking, and some commentary from the perspective of group organization. ...
That's why I'm here. And I appreciate the ideas.
... Some people like to role-play breakfast. :)
Ugh. I've been with people like that. If the group becomes that, I will just quit.
|
|
Important decisions require a lot of thought and discussion. Trivial decisions don't. They don't distinguish. They need an illustration of the difference, particularly with reference to whether it matters for the game mechanics. I don't know how to make that happen ...Could not have said it better myself.
All of this assumes that you have all just talked about wanting things to be different and can't figure out how.
Here's an idea. You can either set up a situation or wait until next time they get heavily invested in a trivial decision. Let's say they're arguing about two methods to do something. Interject something like, "You have a couple of ideas. Tell you what, let's play out both ideas." Then do that. Play through the first. Then play through the difference. In all likelihood, the mechanical checks will be close if not identical. The narrative might be a bit different. The result will likely be the same. Then, point out the similarities, how the decision doesn't really matter, and that if they want to make more progress, then learn to move through these decisions faster. Repeat as needed until they get the message. If they really want faster plot progress, they'll get it.
Or come up with a reward system or rotational system. Get a stuffed animal, cool geeky thing, whatever. Whoever has it when one of these trivial things come up is activated as the player-leader...not character leader...player leader. He decides how to do the thing, then passes the cool geeky thing. Alternative might be to hand out poker chips when someone announces, "This is trivial. I defer to whatever is decided." Then let them cash in that chip for something...an in game effect, a turn with the cool geeky thing, contents of a pre-game ante, something. Turn it into a game-within-a-game. Over time, activate this system only when needed. If they like the game that they now experience during the periods when they don't need the training game, you'll need it less frequently. You can even "reward them for deciding well.." by tossing out a poker chip reward when not in the training game.
Another training idea: present them with the choice of two doors side by side. One red, one blue. They'll debate which one. They'll listen, check for traps, whatever. When they eventually open one, they find they both open to the same room. Then take a break to explain that this was an illustration of the time that is being wasted on small decisions.
... maybe you need to change to content that fits their style rather than asking for them to change. ...I would do that. Can you suggest what would fit the above, cause I can't think of anything.
Thinking aloud...something that has the characteristic of small decisions making a big difference. Or, where the small details contain clues to progress, stuff like that.
The other thing you might try is to get away from urban/rural adventure. Get them into a dungeon. The whole reason this is such an inherent part of the game is because it eliminates the free-form decision making and focuses on the exploration, foes, and conquest.
And like I said they don't seem to connect the slow progress, arguing, and indecisiveness to needing a leader.
Any time a leader is brought up, the immediate response is "Why would my PC accept orders from any of the other PC?"
Then either focus on the idea of the leading player rather than leading character, or rotate duties with one of the ideas above or just a weekly cycle. Leadership itself doesn't mean giving orders. It can be directing discussion, delegating, gaining consensus, or encouraging a social culture.
Last thought: Find A Bigger Problem. If they are debating all the little things, it probably means that the overall goal isn't very driving for them. The biggest motivator in the game is a mystery...curiosity. Particularly things that are slowly unveiled or consist of a plot that is of a wheels-within-wheels format. Think of it this way: if there were a compelling secret about to be uncovered, would they still debate some small decision?
Hope these help.
|
|
Last idea:
If they are consumed by small details, maybe they need more in-game direction. If the discussion is about two choices about how to search, use an in-game mechanic...maybe have everyone roll opposed Survival checks. "Joe, you have the best insight into this, and while you think either choice might work, going line abreast works best in situations like this."
Or make liberal use of Knowledge checks to give additional info that makes a clear best decision.
Be warned, though, that if they just like to disagree, they'll use this as ammunition to continue that process.
I haven't tried it, but I've heard some GMs instate "time begins to pass" rules as they argue. Every minute they spend in real time discussing is 1/10/60 minutes of game time passing. Even in situations where there isn't an imminent catastrophe, five hours of time passing while a kid is lost in stirge-infested woods is consequential.
I am introducing an in-game leader as part of a well telegraphed plot moment where they form an adventuring company with a new leader elected every month of game time. Was supposed to happen last session, but I had enough no-shows we postponed the vote and did sideplot stuff. I had a GM run a campaign where there was an power transition from an NPC leader to a leader elected by the PCs and I really liked that dynamic, but I thought it would be fun to make it temporary so the players can shift roles a little if they want.
This also answers the question of why one PC would take orders from another PC: because you voted for that person because you weren't getting anything done otherwise. If the PCs are selfish and wouldn't ever vote for someone not themselves, maybe they set up a fixed rotating leadership.
And to echo Howie's point: if this is a custom campaign, reassess whether the goals are driving enough. If the campaign hasn't instilled a burning desire to get through the next door or to hunt the lost kid, or whatever, find whatever motivates your players (loot, drama, puzzles, heroics, etc) and turn that up a few notches.
There's been a time or two when my players have gotten sidetracked arguing over minutiae. Have a wandering monster blunder upon them while they're talking. Nothing super-tough like you're punishing them for taking too long; just something to break up the argument for a while. Nothing like a little combat to focus the mind.
On a similar note, sometimes just let them run out of time when they're not coming to a decision. I once had an NPC leave the room to go get an item during which time the PCs had to decide if they were going to side with her or her enemy. I let them talk for about 5 minutes of real time -- about all the time their characters would have had to talk in-game -- and then she came back in without them having come to an agreement. At that point, whoever acted first had a big influence on deciding which way the group would swing. It was tense and chaotic and a lot like real life: sometimes you just don't have time to think things through.
Thanks folks, those are some good ideas. I will see how I can incorporate at least some of them.
With regard to the trivial decisions. Sometimes I'm not sure they can tell the difference between an important and trival issue. I'll try a couple things and see how it goes.
The group has made it very clear, they don't want just a bunch of dungeon crawls. But I did pick these modules because they are more linear than most.
The player leader (maybe rotating) instead of character leader is an interesting concept that I haven't thought of before. I will bring that up to them.
This is purchased modules with almost no modifications not a home made campaign. Don't have the time, even if I had the skill, for anything else.
The NPC leader worked (sort of) but just following orders isn't very heroic or adventuresome. Plus it get boring after a while. Actually that was how this series started. But the guy that hired them has been murdered.
I don't think it is that the main plot is not engaging enough (getting out of the country alive and sane). I think it is at least partially that they can't tell if every little side item is crucial to the main plot. "Well they wouldn't put it in the module if it wasn't needed."
|
Well, the fact that you've mentioned so many options where you could look for the boy means you kinda did build a sandbox. You even gave them a haunted shrine, wo could resist that?
You can give them hints in game, by letting NPCs drop more clues. You did allright with the mom dropping of hints, but you could add more NPCs that basically say the same things. For example, a helpful guard could tell the player's that he hasn't seen the kid. This would inform the players that they're looking in the wrong direction. Make sure you give the players options. Let them make skillchecks to find tracks, optain knowledge about the area, or ask questions to random people. They will feel a sense of acomplishment when they do find the lad.
Anyway, your players seem to be the investigating type. I bet they don't want to be let round by the nose. In fact, I think they might indeed enjoy the sandbox more than a railroad.
Another trick is to just change the story to fit the players. What that means is that if Mohammed doesn't want to go to the mountain, the mountain will have to go to Mohammed. Let the action come to the player's, not the other way around.
Well most of that stuff was things they alrady know about. they have already cleared out the shrine and stopped the thing that was poisoning the river. If it was a sandbox, it was a very small one.
Yes, they say they want an investigation. But then the just sit around and dither or argue about what to do next. Or occasionally all run off in different directions.
They did eventually get out to make skill checks, pretty easily found the tracks, and saved the child. But they were arguing while standing in the courtyard where all the village children were playing. No way to distinguish a particular boys tracks. They had not yet gone to the edge of the village to talk to a guard. The only adult there that had any real chance of giving them info had done so.
Again, that was just one example. I could give quite a few others. Whenever the path forward is not clear they have real difficulty making any progress.
Did you bring this up with your players?
Do they acknowledge this is a problem?
How does the group act under the other GM? If different have you talked to him/her about it?
Have you asked them how to solve this?
Are the arguements happening in character? Or out of character?
I need more infomation I think to give you advice.
1 Did you bring this up with your players?
2 Do they acknowledge this is a problem?
3 How does the group act under the other GM? If different have you talked to him/her about it?
4 Have you asked them how to solve this?
5 Are the arguements happening in character? Or out of character?
I need more infomation I think to give you advice.
1 They have brought it up to me.
2 Yes. They have specifically said "we are not working together" but they resist the notion of needing a group leader.
3 Fairly similar. But his plot has been even more of a railroad. Which several players have said they were getting tired of so I was trying to be a little less railroad-ish. Also I am a player in that group so I don't mind say, "It doesn't matter, flip a coin."
4 Yes, no response.
5 Both.
Ah ok...
3 Fairly similar. But his plot has been even more of a railroad. Which several players have said they were getting tired of so I was trying to be a little less railroad-ish. Also I am a player in that group so I don't mind say, "It doesn't matter, flip a coin."
Does flipping the coin work in head off these arguements?
If so can't you just say hey guys lets flip a coin as a GM. Or roll a d6 if there is more than one option.
Another idea is to ask for ideas from each person. Than ask them to vote on it allowing no arguemts. While this might take a little bit of time...I don't see it taking 45 minutes.
... Does flipping the coin work in head off these arguements? ...
We don't really flip a coin. But the comment points out that at least one of the party is getting tired of it and thinks the whole discussion is pointless. After someone says something like that, it tends to resolve fairly quickly.
... If so can't you just say hey guys lets flip a coin as a GM. Or roll a d6 if there is more than one option. ...
I can and have, but then I feel like I am stepping on the players playing their PC's. But maybe I will have to do that anyway.
... Another idea is to ask for ideas from each person. Than ask them to vote on it allowing no arguemts. While this might take a little bit of time...I don't see it taking 45 minutes.
We tried that once and it was a farce. We had almost twice as many ideas as players and nothing got more than a single vote. However, it did point out that alot of it was without merit and it did get resolved fairly quickly after that. So I suppose it did sort of work in a manner of speaking. I might try it again.
This seems to be trying to take control of something thats not your responsibility. Your responsibility is 'determining the consequences'. Nothing more.
Its great that the players have identified one of their weaknesses as a group. It's not your job to fix that weakness.
Its your job to determine if the weakness causes a consequence (not arriving to rescue the boy in time, not choosing the right path to locate the boy...)
If the group recognizes a weakness, but doesn nothing to resolve it, thats supposed to be largely on them. Especially if they've managed to pick up on it amongst themselves.
And consequences are a great way of illustrating that it's a weakness that needs to be ironed out. Being 'damned if you do' is one thing. But if they're not feeling the burn of being 'damned if you don't' then the world isn't reacting to their 'decision to be indecisive'.
At most you should be reminding them that the sun is rapidly racing across the sky and that a decision not reached quickly may result in trajedy. Paralysis by indecision. Or as I believe Abraham Lincoln said "Even if you're on the right track, if you're not moving forward, you still get hit by the train."
On another note saying that a 'true open sandbox wouldnt work' isnt necessarily true with these 'indecisive' types either.
When you choose your own goals the path to achieving them can be much more direct. In a table where nobody 'steps up and chooses the how', sometimes giving them the ability to choose the 'what' creates its own impetus to get it going. Nobody may agree on the best way to 'search for the missing boy' but everyone has a pretty good idea of how to going about getting done the thing the truly want to do for themselves.
--- “I don’t want to be in charge, but why should I take his orders?”
I agree that not only is this statement common, but its not inherently a bad thing.
--- Groups need leaders.
I adamantly disagree with this one. A group needs a reason to get their butts moving. That doesnt mean they need someone in their own party to be the gas pedal. Forcing them to act is exactly within the purview of a gm, even if having done so is only discovered too late when they have failed to act and something horrible happens as a consequence. Not every 'act now' should be 'in their face'... Sometimes the 'act now' moment passes without any indication to the party that it's happened. There are important things happening in your world that the players cannot hear or see and being reminded that the plot moves forward with or without them is a strong lesson, but an appropriate one. Whats 'forcing their hand' or the 'catastrohpe' can, and occasionally indeed should, be discovered only after it is too late. Indecisive partys cant always be heros who save the day. Captain Kirk didn't always have the luxury of making the right/best call. Sometimes he just had to make a call and be damned if it was the wrong one, and clean up the mess as best he could afterwards.
--- Part of the GM's task is to see that things run smoothly.
Oh no. If things don't run smoothly they simply don't run smoothly. The very lack of smoothness can create the complexity and excitement that only foolish inaction can create! ^_^ Creating smoothness is not your job at all. Letting your world react to the characters 'decision to be indecisive' is.
--- Howie: Some people like to role-play breakfast. :)
--- OP: Ugh. I've been with people like that. If the group becomes that, I will just quit.
Very bad things can happen while a party is quietly enjoying a pleasant breakfast.
--- Find A Bigger Problem. if there were a compelling secret about to be uncovered, would they still debate some small decision?
I love this one... If the players dont care enough to move fast, give them something to care about. Thats excatly why open sandbox can work better for a group like this. Maybe these 'heroes' truly dont care about finding and saving a missing little boy. And in a way , if they don't, its wrong to expect them to.
--- I've heard some GMs instate "time begins to pass" rules as they argue.
I like this less from the simple statement that time is moving forward, but to describe the ways the environment is changing that represent that time is moving forward. The sun starts to set. It starts to rain... It starts to snow! The mother of the missing boy starts freaking out about their inaction... Some palatable/colorful sense of forboding instead of the lazy mechanical 'roll a perception check to notice how much faster the shadow seems to be creeping across the sundial' or something thats going to make any decision more difficult to execute simply because they chose not to execute quickly.
--- Another trick is to just change the story to fit the players. What that means is that if Mohammed doesn't want to go to the mountain, the mountain will have to go to Mohammed. Let the action come to the player's, not the other way around.
Totally true. If the deliberation takes too long and you just wanna get the ball rolling its great that 'any decisions players make is the right one' but it can easily be the opposite as well. This question becomes relevant when its time to decide are you more interested in giving them enough time to explore every option they have, or are you more interested in getting the boy saved as fast as possible and moving on to the next plot element.
It sounds like you hate to be the whip and that's great. If the players don't solve the problem simply decide what would happen if the players never bother to intervene and then, in a flourish of grandiose realism.... 'let that bad thing happen'... Then make sure to find a way to let the characters know that something bad happened that they had the power to prevent.
Boy was eaten by a cave bear?
Boy found frozen to death having gotten lost and spending the night out in a snowy forest alone and underdressed?
Boy has become a ghoul.
Boy rescued by someone ELSE! Now the players aren't the town heroes that everyone's talking about. Free drinks for the true town heroes! Which aren't the party members!
TLDR: Dont 'force a decision'... Like ever... This feels like a whip and it feels like a railroad. You've specifically mentioned that you frequently use the whip and that your players have become mindful of it and feel like it is railroading...
Instead, make even the wrong decision or no decision have its own kind of gravitas.
Sometimes when a player says he wishes the campaign had more 'realism' or 'felt grittier' this is the kind of thing they are talking about.
More HansChristianAnderson/Grimms Tales/Braveheart. Less Disney.
Theres a teensy tiny smidgen of me that feels like the players are dying to know what would happen to the boy if they didn't do anything about it. Just to see... Have a little look... Have a little see.... A little peek behind the curtain to see if what they do or 'dont do' has any effect... any... CONSEQUENCE!
Once they get good at 'fearing inactivity' then you can subvert the trope by sending them on a wild goose chase to the haunted crypt, only when they return tired, hungry, broken and unsuccessful, to discover that the kid was hiding in his mom's wine cellar the whole time and came up 5 minutes after the party left for the haunted crypt... but everyone was too scared of the crypt to go after them to let them know everything was ok... GAH!
I refer to this as the aikido of game mastery. One must simply get out of the way and, in fact, gently help the players along on their own path to discovering, quite surprisingly, that they are off balance..
Once that's happened it takes but a gentle noodge to make them fly akimbo and crashing down. And afterwards everyone laughs at how remarkably easy it all went down.
You might either have newbie players or you are a simulationist GM with gamist players. Try a test scenario with them. Just have monsters attack the village. No plot or need to explore. Simple straight forward combat action. Did they have a lot of fun? Then move them to another set piece of gamist play the labyrinth filled with monsters, traps, and treasure. If again they love it, you just need to switch to a gamist style to keep them happy and involved.
I guess i forgot another possible answer for the tragic missing boy plot...
Werebearman kidnaps villagerwoman
Turns her into a werebear
She doesnt love him but stays away from the village due to fear and shame
She stays with werebearman she doesnt love because she is not able to survive in the wild on her own, so for now she stays with him to survive/learn/cope/buy time to plot her escape/revenge.
Werebearman senses her sorrow/resistance and kidnaps villagerboy also turning him into a werebear, hoping it will give her a project and that stockholme syndrome will sink in.
Villagerboy discoveres werebearwoman is his sisters mother. Doesnt return home while they work out what to do.
Party discovers mamabear and babybear and villagerboys clothes.
Party goes all murderhobo on them.
They revert to human form upon death.
The party has just killed their quarry and werebeardad should be home any minute now.
What the fu.....?!?!?!?!?!
Its a good example of 'it doesnt really matter how long it took for the players to figure out what the consequence was, as long as its a cool/horrifying/enjoyable consequence'
Your job isnt to crack the whip. Your job is simply to show the players through consequence that the whip cracks on its own whether they hear it or feel it or not. And to make it an interesting/meaninful crack of the whip when its discovered...
They just need one of the players to do something (anything) when enough arguing time has passed - "I'm going this way"
They'll follow.
(This works in real life too)
Funniest thing for me was in our zombie campaign the player that finally did this was the noob in our group. All the veteran players spent so much time deliberating that he finally just got fed up and said 'screw it. here's what i'm doing'... It wasnt the best plan. And as the gm it certainly wasnt what i was expecting, but it was priceless. Having to roll with it myself was fun but watching the rest of the party try to roll with it too was hillarious. It definitely seemed like it was easier for me to roll with it than it was for the rest of his own party to cope with it.
I agree with and will see how I can work in alot of what you said.
But this comment and some of the others like it:
...
--- Find A Bigger Problem. if there were a compelling secret about to be uncovered, would they still debate some small decision?I love this one... If the players dont care enough to move fast, give them something to care about. Thats excatly why open sandbox can work better for a group like this. Maybe these 'heroes' truly dont care about finding and saving a missing little boy. And in a way , if they don't, its wrong to expect them to. ...
I understand why you might have thought this. But just way off. They very much did want to save the boy. And I think all of them did get a fairly big charge out of saving him even though it was really a minor plot element as far as the whole series is concerned. It was not that they did not care. It was much more that they were so concerned that they didn't want to chance getting it wrong.
Remember the don't seem to have these kind of issues when there is any time pressure. Just when they have some significant freeedom in how to act.
In reality if there was a child missing in the woods, spendig 25 minutes planning on where to start searching and how to go about it is actually pretty damn fast. So wanting to get a search point and pattern correct isn't really an in-game problem even if it happens in-character. This is really an out-of-game problem because we have a limited amount of time set aside for our hobby. It was a very minor point in the module. That whole section was less than 1/4 of a page. Once they start searching DC 20 perception check to find tracks and a DC 16 survival check to follow them. (I ended up expanding it a bit to make the time spent seem more worth while.)
You might either have newbie players or you are a simulationist GM with gamist players. ... If again they love it, you just need to switch to a gamist style to keep them happy and involved.
On a personal level I rather dislike use of the 'big 3' labels. I have met very few players that fit very well into any of the 3 boxes. But I can understand how it can make the abstract discussion shorter if everyone is using the same definitions. But I don't think they usually are using the same definitions.
Be that as it may.
You are not way off. They are not newbies, but I would say they have more experience with the 'gamist' style, not necessarily that they are 'gamist' players.
The previous campaign with these players and some of what they have told me about thier past did involve a lot of dungeon crawls, city attack, kill the X, etc... But they have all expressed some level of dissatisfaction and boredom with just that.
Yes, they do like that stuff. But they also want some mysteries to solve. Some intrigue to work through. Some freedom to plan what or at least how. This series of modules was an atempt to take a step in that direction. Mostly what they are used to (fairly railroad-ish combat) with some of the other stuff involved (how do we save the girl, stay away from the authorities, and get out of the country).
They just need one of the players to do something (anything) when enough arguing time has passed - "I'm going this way"
They'll follow.
(This works in real life too)
To a certain extent. There used to be a player in the group who did that pretty often. But eventually they let him go off on his own and get killed a few times.
... Does flipping the coin work in head off these arguements? ...We don't really flip a coin. But the comment points out that at least one of the party is getting tired of it and thinks the whole discussion is pointless. After someone says something like that, it tends to resolve fairly quickly.
... If so can't you just say hey guys lets flip a coin as a GM. Or roll a d6 if there is more than one option. ...I can and have, but then I feel like I am stepping on the players playing their PC's. But maybe I will have to do that anyway.
While I personaly would agree in most groups it would be...but the players have said from what you said that they need to be reined at times...and have said that is your job as a GM...so I really don't see how they as players can complain.
I can appreciate what you are trying not to do as GM...but I think your platyers require it more.