So I'll be brief. My players won't shut up. We're all very distractable, and whenever I try to move things along they start chatting about shows/comics/something going on nearby.
Going to Paizocon has made this problem even clearer to me. You sure didn't see any players getting away with interrupting the GM there.
It's at the point that I want to do something drastic. My current idea is to simply instate a penalty: every time a player doesn't go quiet when the GM starts talking, his character suffers a cumulative -1 to attacks and skill checks for the rest of the session.
Is this a slippery slope towards GM power tripping? I honestly don't know how else to get them under control. I'd bring a bell and ring it for silence if I thought it'd do any good.
I think the penalty is a bit extreme at first. Try the bell. If you have to ring it twice maybe end the session early. I am saying twice in an effort to get quiet so you can continue the game. You could also have a monster appear and start attacking PC's.
The social aspect of our game and the infrequency of games makes chatting almost necessary. Try setting aside the first 30 to 45 minutes for BSing then get down to business. Personally I use the term, "Moving right along...".
Just my 2 cp. YMMV.
I would suggest giving bonuses to the players instead of penalties. My solution to getting my players focused on the games was to bribe them with a small experience bonus for staying in character and keeping the GM happy.
Sure, in a way having to bribe the players with exp like that is a 'loss'. However, the quality of the games sure went up when they stopped referring to the Aspis Consortium as "Shinra" and Eando Kline as "The Klondike Man".
|
Question: Have you talked to them about that? Maybe there is a slight difference in expectations ("Serious" role playing vs. social event with some role playing in it). Pointing out the occasions in combinations with breaks might also work. ("That's interesting and all, but could you please discuss this during the break?").
Point out to them before the game that you want to do this, something along the lines of "Guys, while I usually enjoy chatting with you about stuff, I really want to have a session without such stuff today. We will make some breaks every now and then, at appropriate times, about once every two hours. Please consider carefully if what you want to say can't wait until the break, okay?"
Draconic punishment might kill the joy of everybody, especially if you're the only one not liking the status quo. Personally, I sometimes notice myself not liking the constant chatting, yet contributing to it ("Everybody else does, why shouldn't I?"). If it's adressed beforehand something might change.
I would not do a penalty because it only makes them less interested.
1.) Get an ally! You might not be alone. Find another player and let him/her know your fustration and ask for help. Let them in on the plan to bring the focus back to the game. They can help.
2.) Know in advance what times you want/need them to be focused. Ask that they stay in character for that moment and do not make the moment last longer than you think they can handle.
Make sure let the players know you are starting a Role Playing moment and when you are ending that in character moment. When you end the strict RP moment make sure and thank them.
You do this enough and pretty soo you will find those moments get longer and longer.
3.) Also I recoment using bennies. I use the game mastrey coins and give them out as gifts for good Role Playing, Hero Moves, and after battle the players award one to the MVP of the battle. A bennie can be used by the players to buy additional dice, when rolled they may select the higher dice.
It's a reward that the players love.
I wish you much success Kobald. It's not an easy task. Whatever path you choose please follow up, I've like to hear what worked for you.
-MD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Give them some drinks and secretly crush up some ritalin and slip it in there.
Ask them: Do you guys even want to play this game?
If they insist they want to play PF but continue to get sidetracked and cease paying attention to you, tell them to call you when they're ready to play, and then leave (if you're hosting, just pull out a book or homework etc. and they'll either get the message right away, or you will at the very least get something productive done in the meantime.
The social aspect of our game and the infrequency of games makes chatting almost necessary. Try setting aside the first 30 to 45 minutes for BSing then get down to business. Personally I use the term, "Moving right along...".
That sometimes happens while we wait for players. It doesn't feel like this group really "hashes the conversational element out", is the trouble. They just get more "talky". I could consider declaring that people could start meeting up at 2:00 instead of 2:30, though, and the extra thirty minutes would be for chatting. It might work. Breaks might also work. The reason I've been reluctant to use those, though, is that we only get about three hour sessions, once a week.
I would suggest giving bonuses to the players instead of penalties. My solution to getting my players focused on the games was to bribe them with a small experience bonus for staying in character and keeping the GM happy.
Hm...as tempting as it is to instate martial law, giving something like a 10% xp boost for staying in character most of the time might work better. Thoughts?
1.) Get an ally! You might not be alone. Find another player and let him/her know your fustration and ask for help. Let them in on the plan to bring the focus back to the game. They can help.
I have allies--a newcomer and my sister. It just hasn't helped yet.
I'm already using Hero Points. Again, just doesn't help. Nobody takes advantage of my half-Hero Point system for writing recaps, either. I like the idea of having strict IC moments, though.
Thank you all for your help. It's been very enlightening. To Ellis Mirari: If it gets particularly bad, I am kinda tempted to ask them if they want to play or not. I'll hold off for now, though--that'll be saved for when I decide they should be aware I'm upset.
We game at the outside portion of a Coffee Culture, for the record (a couple of our players have protective parents who want them to stay in public areas). I'm mentioning that because there's a related topic I'd like advice on: getting them to be a bit more serious.
Last session I pulled a small table up next to my chair (to put my books on). I was sitting at the head of the main table so I could face everyone and hopefully keep them engaged. Instead, two players insisted on sitting on the small table--even though it was very out of the way. One of them was practically sitting behind me.
Because we're friends and often poke fun at each other, they shrugged off my polite requests/snippy demands that they sit at the same table as everyone else. They proceeded to pay even less attention than usual because they were missing chunks of the game.
I think it's harder to GM for friends than for strangers in this respect. They just assume I'm joking. Any idea on how to get them to take me seriously?
How often do y'all get together outside of game to just hang?
That's the main problem: never. Most of us (sans siblings, of course) met through a writing group, but I'm the only one who's still able to regularly attend. It's very hard to schedule these people. As a consequence, the game doubles as a social outlet. It's not good for the game, though it's probably good for the friendships.
|
|
Okay. Any way the game can take backseat to the socialization for a few weeks? Or are they "no, we MUST game!"?
i.e., can you run 'em through We Be Goblins (either one) or maybe run 'em through a round or three of Munchkin or something? Either one is fun and can be conducive to socialization with the right crowd.
That's the main problem: never. Most of us (sans siblings, of course) met through a writing group, but I'm the only one who's still able to regularly attend. It's very hard to schedule these people. As a consequence, the game doubles as a social outlet. It's not good for the game, though it's probably good for the friendships.How often do y'all get together outside of game to just hang?
I've got similar problems. We're all good friends, but don't get a lot of time outside of the game to hang and shoot the breeze. I'd suggest, at the risk of cutting into your game time, doing that before you start. Hang out, talk about the movies you've seen, the stuff you've been reading, and get it out of everyone's system as much as you can before the dice start rolling. It's not a perfect solution, but it should cut down on the in-game distractions a bit.
Ask them: Do you guys even want to play this game?
This, a thousand times this.
We would dock levels if people got out of hand (or back talked the DM). If you joined the group to play then play. Socialize before, after or during breaks fine. But when the DM said lets get started that was it.
How often do y'all get together outside of game to just hang?
This can be a big factor. My Saturday group basically got together for the 4th, so when we played 2 days later, there was some of the usual banter, but it was sparser than usual. Much less of the "oh, I saw this on Reddit the other day..."
@KC: Have you tried talking about this issue more generally with them? By that, voice your concern over how little actual play is happening due to all the distractions. Speak openly and directly, there might be someone else who agrees with you (even if they're a major culprit).
That said other people's suggestion of using the first 30-45 minutes of the session to get some of it out of the way. Also, take short breaks between major shifts in the game, like after a combat. Declare a 5 min break, to grab sodas, go to the bathroom, do a little chatting, etc. After it's over, get their attention and get back into the game.
Please note aside from arse about time everything below we use in extreme situations.
Set Up:
1. Arse about time- the first 30 mins is share news and make jokes and catch up time. As soon as those 30 mins are up its game on and we are expected to concentrate.
Shock and awe:
2. Stop and stare.... The GM will close his books go completely silent and stare at the loudest person and when they catch on he will say "have you finished being disruptive". It embarrasses the hell out of people.
3. Extreme version of stop and stare is to close the books and quietly walk out of the room. It freaks everybody out. (only seen it happen once...it's a "big gun" so save it).
Carrot & stick:
5. Pass a note to people paying attention giving them bonus xp
7. Start leaving the disruptive players out of the descriptions, when they ask where they are tell them because they weren't paying attention you didn't think they were interested in playing anymore so you left them out. They miss the xp for the part where they were being disruptive.
So I'll be brief. My players won't shut up. We're all very distractable, and whenever I try to move things along they start chatting about shows/comics/something going on nearby.
Going to Paizocon has made this problem even clearer to me. You sure didn't see any players getting away with interrupting the GM there.
It's at the point that I want to do something drastic. My current idea is to simply instate a penalty: every time a player doesn't go quiet when the GM starts talking, his character suffers a cumulative -1 to attacks and skill checks for the rest of the session.
Is this a slippery slope towards GM power tripping? I honestly don't know how else to get them under control. I'd bring a bell and ring it for silence if I thought it'd do any good.
It's probably been said(on short time so I'm responding to OP right away), but I've always found that using in-game penalties for out-of-game problems was always a very bad idea.
At your next session, call for a group meeting. Refuse to start the game until at least some discussion on this has been presented. Plainly state the issue and try to get some feedback. State up front, that this is causing you a lot of headache as a DM, and something has to change.
Maybe your players just don't realize it's that much of a problem? Some groups are just very casual and chatty. My Star Wars group is like that, and that's part of our fun; we don't see each other outside of this particular game, so inevitably we spend half of our game time talking about movies, video games, etc. Or, we spend it just talking about Star Wars in general, since everyone at the table is a certified SW geek. But, even though the GM runs a very loose, open game, when something big is going on, we shut up and get down to it.
|
One of my old groups used to have a similar issue where players would often start chatting about the local shows, other games they're thinking of doing next and general life topics.
Eventually me and one of the other players got a bit fed up so we had a secondary roleplay that we'd start doing while the others chat.
The group caught on pretty quickly when they started to wonder why they weren't getting involved in any combat rounds. After them feeling a little left out, they all started to pay more attention to the roleplay.
From that point on we arranged it so that there would be set intervals where the game would pause for a 10 minute refreshment break so they could have short conversations.
Unless you know that they won't react badly, I'd advise against just stopping and doing nothing while they chat... or even packing up and walking off.
Most often, that just results in the group's commitment lowering and the activities gradually falling apart.
Whew! A lot of great advice here. Let me make a list.
As much as I'd love to try going a half-hour earlier, it just won't work for most of our members, and we can't spare such a big chunk of time when our sessions are already so short. I'll go over the rest, though.
A mate of mine is a teacher.. He uses his teachers voice.
He deepens his voice claps both hands points at our eyes then his eyes and says "eyes this way" (this usually cracks us up we laugh for a a min and then we focus).
Or if one person in particular is being disruptive then in a loud voice he calls them by their last name and says something like "8thDwarf FOCUS."
Simple, XP rivalries.
Announce that there is an XP penalty to those who don't keep quiet during the sesseion. HOWEVER. Let it be known to those who keep quiet during the game that they are awarded for paying attention! This should get someone's attention.
Start small and start ramping up the points. Eventually someone is going to notice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A mate of mine is a teacher.. He uses his teachers voice.
He deepens his voice claps both hands points at our eyes then his eyes and says "eyes this way" (this usually cracks us up we laugh for a a min and then we focus).
AUGH. This would drive me BONKERS. We had to do this in my elementary school: Teacher says "EYES", students clap twice immediately and then go silent. It irritated me for reasons I couldn't define at ages 8-10; going back once in high school for a older-students-to-younger-students thing, I finally identified why it bugged me - the instant, ingrained response of the students felt very cultish. Gave me the shivers.
It's very Jedi mind trick....
I don't think the EXP bonus/penalty is a great idea. It could work for some groups, but it could also backfire. Players might just get mad, especially if you never told them the chatter was a serious problem to begin with (simply reigning them back in with a "Okay guys now what do you do about the ____" isn't telling them the behavior is a problem).
If you don't outright tell them it's a problem, they aren't going to think it's a problem and will keep doing it, since you (from their perspective) seem to be okay with giving them 5 minutes of side-talk every few rounds.
Simple, XP rivalries.
Announce that there is an XP penalty to those who don't keep quiet during the sesseion. HOWEVER. Let it be known to those who keep quiet during the game that they are awarded for paying attention! This should get someone's attention.
Start small and start ramping up the points. Eventually someone is going to notice.
Sounds good on paper, but also sounds like it'd be disastrous to try and implement. Biggest issue I see, is what is the bar for "quiet, attentive" versus "talked too much, got the penalty"?
Unless you have the patience of a Tibetan monk, the line is going to blur, and you're going to have angry players claiming bias and favoritism. Also, some otherwise good RP will get shutdown in favor of "quiet" to try and ensure bonus xp.
In a TTRPG, you don't want a quiet table, you want a focused one.
XP rivalries have always been disasters at tables I've played at. Even something as simple as someone grabbing the DM a drink, while they are already headed to get themselves a drink and get a few extra XP, can quickly spiral out of control.
You wind up with a widening gap between levels, with lower level PC's struggling to keep up(and being useless in combat), and higher level PC's dominating the table. I have never seen an effective use of "competitive XP." It's always turned adversarial and caused rifts.
If someone does something great in my games worthy of bonus XP, then the whole table get the XP. This helps keep everyone on the same team, and not at each other's throats.
I'll add one thing to your list, KC:
Make sure you still let them have fun.
Scheduling part fun time and part serious business is the surest way to drive your clowniest player to derail the serious business.
If people are having a good time, game or not, then the game has served its purpose.
Sometimes, the less you push to get things done, the more you end up getting done.
I get that, Evil Lincoln. It's what I'm afraid of, because I don't have much fun as things stand. It's not worth my time preparing a session if people aren't going to play it. I just wish I could play a serious game for once, instead of the wacky Dreamworks-style stories we end up with. But maybe that's unrelated to the attention span issue.
I get that, Evil Lincoln. It's what I'm afraid of, because I don't have much fun as things stand. It's not worth my time preparing a session if people aren't going to play it. I just wish I could play a serious game for once, instead of the wacky Dreamworks-style stories we end up with. But maybe that's unrelated to the attention span issue.
I'd suggest finding an additional group to try and play your serious game, and let someone else run a game for this group that better fits their taste (and requires less effort from you to enjoy their company).
Heck, if we played a game without distractions it wouldn't be normal for us. We get to play once a month at the most, sometimes even going 3 months between games, so our get togethers are as much social as they are game oriented. They're chances to catch up on each other's family, work, or other information, laugh at silly one liners or even have serious talks about some things. The dice are sometimes just decorations for a pretty informal dinner party. And we don't mind it a bit.
A mate of mine is a teacher.. He uses his teachers voice.
He deepens his voice claps both hands points at our eyes then his eyes and says "eyes this way" (this usually cracks us up we laugh for a a min and then we focus).
Or if one person in particular is being disruptive then in a loud voice he calls them by their last name and says something like "8thDwarf FOCUS."
Wait...you actual last name is 8th Dwarf?...;)
To the OP. I would not get too dracorian in it. As sometimes off topic conversation can be fun. Have you tried talking to them about it?
A mate of mine is a teacher.. He uses his teachers voice.
He deepens his voice claps both hands points at our eyes then his eyes and says "eyes this way" (this usually cracks us up we laugh for a a min and then we focus).
Or if one person in particular is being disruptive then in a loud voice he calls them by their last name and says something like "8thDwarf FOCUS."
Wait...you actual last name is 8th Dwarf?...;)
To the OP. I would not get too dracorian in it. As sometimes off topic conversation can be fun. Have you tried talking to them about it?
I have at times been referred to as 8th or Dwarf (I am the shortest person in the group (5'7") by about a head). Mothman who games with us is often called Mothy as well as his proper name.
Being an Australian we like to give out nicknames or just mess with your name (I have been called, blue, bloodnut, the Fraggle, and so on)...
In general if your name is Darrin, Barry or Sharon, for example you would be called by friends Dazza, Bazza, or Shazza and your close friends would call you Daz, Baz and Shaz... If your name is John or David or Richard, then you will be called John-o, Dave-o, Rich-o.
Taking a few of Prime Ministers as examples -
Kevin Rudd our current PM is called Kev or K-Rudd.
Robert Hawke was often referred to as Bob, Hawkey and the Silver Bodgie.
The current opposition leader Anthony Abbott, is called, Tony, the Mad Monk and the budgie smuggler.
For a second I wanted to move to Australia. Then I realized I'd be called Gaz. I don't want to be called Gaz.
For a second I wanted to move to Australia. Then I realized I'd be called Gaz. I don't want to be called Gaz.
Or Gazza......... I am assuming you are a Garry, if you were a Gavin you would be called Gav....
Garret, but close enough.
I get that, Evil Lincoln. It's what I'm afraid of, because I don't have much fun as things stand. It's not worth my time preparing a session if people aren't going to play it. I just wish I could play a serious game for once, instead of the wacky Dreamworks-style stories we end up with. But maybe that's unrelated to the attention span issue.
This sounds like a clash of game styles. If you're trying to set a specific tone, and this group is rallying against it in favor of a different tone, you have more problems than just side conversations.
A compromise has to be met. Or, you need to try the game with a group of players more conducive to the style of tone you are going for.
For example, I have a lot of fun with my main group at the moment, but of I were to run a serious horror-themed campaign, I already know a couple of players who would not be invited to that game(we've played in the past and clashed badly).
If this is your "main" group, and you don't really have any other options for player selection, it sounds like you're going to need to meet them in the middle somewhere.
|
You can't penalize your players (plural) for what is your fault.
That what is going on isn't holding their attention.
If they are having side conversations, in my experience it is because they aren't interested in what is going on at the table. At high levels this can be due to how long it takes for each turn, but at low to medium, if they are invested in the game they should be hanging on every roll.
When players are invested in what they made and what they are playing, they are listening carefully to what the GM is saying so they can survive.
If they aren't...well they aren't. Check in with your players to see if they care about what you are running or if have lost them. And if you have lost them, try to find something they, not you, are more interested in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get that, Evil Lincoln. It's what I'm afraid of, because I don't have much fun as things stand. It's not worth my time preparing a session if people aren't going to play it. I just wish I could play a serious game for once, instead of the wacky Dreamworks-style stories we end up with. But maybe that's unrelated to the attention span issue.
There's a point in every GM's development when they realize that the audience sets the tone. You're there.
You can't be a player in your own game, so your best hope is to give the players the game they want. This is made trickier because players don't always know what they want, or even want what they think they want.
But it sounds like the only way to alleviate the stress you're feeling—not being able to meet certain narrative standards in your game—is to give up control and embrace the player-driven nature of the medium.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I get that, Evil Lincoln. It's what I'm afraid of, because I don't have much fun as things stand. It's not worth my time preparing a session if people aren't going to play it. I just wish I could play a serious game for once, instead of the wacky Dreamworks-style stories we end up with. But maybe that's unrelated to the attention span issue.There's a point in every GM's development when they realize that the audience sets the tone. You're there.
You can't be a player in your own game, so your best hope is to give the players the game they want. This is made trickier because players don't always know what they want, or even want what they think they want.
But it sounds like the only way to alleviate the stress you're feeling—not being able to meet certain narrative standards in your game—is to give up control and embrace the player-driven nature of the medium.
I would add to this that not everyone enjoys being a GM. The player in my group who knows the rules the best has absolutely no interest in being a GM. He just wants to play and not have to worry about the prep, politics, etc...
Being a GM is hard, often thankless, work. I personally like the challenge, but it is a challenge, each and every session.
Your job as a GM is to make the players interested and want to keep coming back and letting you be a GM. You either embrace it or you don't.
As a player, you can be more selfish. As a GM, being selfish will quickly make you not a GM.
And expanding on that, even the best GMs need to take a break and play now and then. I hope you get a chance to do that.
It really helps to quell the urge to play out a specific story (which is the player's job), rather than to set up pieces and let them play out (which is the GM's job).
Of course, YMMV.
But I enjoy GMing a heck of a lot more when I don't have my heart set on a single course of events.
Cats and kittens, I have a solution for you.
Try running initiative differently. It sounds pointless, but check this:
Roll initiative normally. Have each player (or DM) DECLARE their action in reverse order (lowest first). Anyone higher on the initiative count can interrupt, now that they have foreknowledge of what the player was going to do.
Yes, it makes initiative more potent, BUT it also gets players to shut up and pay attention because they must if they are going to optimize when they will act and what they will decide to do.
I get that, Evil Lincoln. It's what I'm afraid of, because I don't have much fun as things stand. It's not worth my time preparing a session if people aren't going to play it. I just wish I could play a serious game for once, instead of the wacky Dreamworks-style stories we end up with. But maybe that's unrelated to the attention span issue.There's a point in every GM's development when they realize that the audience sets the tone. You're there.
You can't be a player in your own game, so your best hope is to give the players the game they want. This is made trickier because players don't always know what they want, or even want what they think they want.
But it sounds like the only way to alleviate the stress you're feeling—not being able to meet certain narrative standards in your game—is to give up control and embrace the player-driven nature of the medium.
And then I stop enjoying the game. I don't really like too much wackiness in my games--I find it lazy and unfulfilling. If I can't get the players to focus and roleplay, I'll just quit GMing.
In answer to Ciretose, while a big portion of it probably is my fault (I've been reading from papers instead of trying to immerse people, for one thing) I think the main problem is just how distractable we all are. We had the same problem in the writing group. Most members want to roleplay, but are distracted, or worried about taking the game seriously due to the public area we game in.
And if there's anything I've learned from Dorkness Rising*, it's that the audience doesn't have to set the tone. They have a big hand in it, but it's up to the GM to get them involved. Players will often mold to fit a game, as long as it retains the aspects they enjoy.
*Even though I think that movie has some of the most god-awful GMing ever portrayed as 'good'.
|
|
And don't get me wrong, KC, it may not be a reflection on you as a GM anywhere. It may be a reflection of you as a GM for this group.
I am always able to get a game with people I want to game with, and when I do everyone has a good time.
If I was GM of a table with Ashiel, Buri, RD and Jiggy, I'm pretty sure it would not go as smoothly....:)
too many cooks, not enough indians
no wait
too many chiefs in the kitchen
ugh my head hurts