Yet Another GM Complaining About Players

[DMFTodd]

Sigh. I'm once again totally feed-up with players and ready to quit gaming. Why is it so hard to get a group of good players together?

I've got one player, for the last two weeks, who's paid no attention to the game other than to complain. Last night he disappeared for about 30 minutes (we play online) which was annoying, but when he returned all he did was complain which was more annoying - the rule system sucks, the other players aren't playing smart. He's the party face and on meeting some new allies his comment was "Hi, we're uh, those guys. We're looking for - insert name of person we're looking for, we're here for something, I forget." When you'd rather a player not be there, that's a bad sign.

The group complained that there was little treasure. Nevermind they were handed two potions about 12 sessions ago that they forgot. Or the magical spearhead they needed to research but forgot about. Or the mummy they were going to dissect that they forgot about. It doesn't matter what you do as a GM if the players won't pay attention or make an absolutely minimum effort.

I'm totally feed-up with what I call the "XBox Mentality" - players that show up, press the On button, and then expect me to entertain them for 4 hours with no effort on their part at all.

[Jiggy]

By what means, exactly, do you acquire/recruit players? Perhaps you could make an adjustment there.

Also, gotta share a chuckle:

DMFTodd wrote:

The group complained that there was little treasure. Nevermind they were handed two potions about 12 sessions ago

I'm sure you're probably only mentioning the two potions they forgot about, but it sort of reads (to me, at least) like "They got 2 whole potions in a mere 12 sessions! How is that too little treasure?!" I had to laugh. :)

[anthonydido]

Just my opinion here but the problem probably stems more from the fact that it's online. I personally don't care for online play because I don't feel as involved or interested as when playing in person. There are too many possible distractions as well.

I will ditto Jiggy's question though as to how you get your players. Do you interview? Do you let them know your expectations beforehand?

[RDM42]

Jiggy wrote:

By what means, exactly, do you acquire/recruit players? Perhaps you could make an adjustment there.

Also, gotta share a chuckle:

DMFTodd wrote:

The group complained that there was little treasure. Nevermind they were handed two potions about 12 sessions ago

I'm sure you're probably only mentioning the two potions they forgot about, but it sort of reads (to me, at least) like "They got 2 whole potions in a mere 12 sessions! How is that too little treasure?!" I had to laugh. :)

He did mention the magical spearhead and the mummy they were going to dissect - which was presumably mentioned because upon dissecting it there would have been goodies wrapped up in there.

[MattR1986]

anthonydido wrote:

Just my opinion here but the problem probably stems more from the fact that it's online. I personally don't care for online play because I don't feel as involved or interested as when playing in person. There are too many possible distractions as well

This. I don't really agree with the idea of online games except out of necessity like if you live in a town of 100 people in the middle of nowhere. Many people, especially if they're under 30 are used to doing at least 3 things at once on a computer. They're likely playing the game as just another thing to do while watching tv or playing a game. There's also the issue of losing social interaction but that's a whole other discussion. I've considered giving onlinr/pbb a chance but haven't felt a strong pull to find one yet.

[RDM42]

MattR1986 wrote:

anthonydido wrote:

Just my opinion here but the problem probably stems more from the fact that it's online. I personally don't care for online play because I don't feel as involved or interested as when playing in person. There are too many possible distractions as well

This. I don't really agree with the idea of online games except out of necessity like if you live in a town of 100 people in the middle of nowhere. Many people, especially if they're under 30 are used to doing at least 3 things at once on a computer. They're likely playing the game as just another thing to do while watching tv or playing a game. There's also the issue of losing social interaction but that's a whole other discussion. I've considered giving onlinr/pbb a chance but haven't felt a strong pull to find one yet.

Our online virtual tabletop game paired with Skype offers plenty of social interaction.

[Jiggy]

I had a pretty fun play-by-post going for a while, chock full of roleplay.

[DMFTodd]

I went online because I got feed-up with the players locally. Online I figured I had a whole world of good players to draw from - in theory. I do have one great player, who lives on the other side of the country, so going back to local really isn't an option.

(It's not a Pathfinder game so, yeah, the treasure does sound a bit skimpy.)

[Craig Bonham 141]

Okay, you can't find players locally, you can't find players online. At least, no players that are up to your expectations.

Once or twice, bummer.

Continuing and you have to ask yourself, are YOU doing something to bring about the problem? Is this guy just being a dick or is he bored?

[Jiggy]

Um, yeah, hate to say it but the list of potential common threads among all your negative experiences is getting really short.

[Bill Dunn]

OK, 2 hours into a thread and someone's already taking pot shots at the OP? Kind of jumping to conclusions, aren't you, Jiggy?

[anthonydido]

Bill Dunn wrote:

OK, 2 hours into a thread and someone's already taking pot shots at the OP? Kind of jumping to conclusions, aren't you, Jiggy?

Well, given the information we have, there are only a couple of potential reasons for the OPs problem. Either his expectations are really high such that it would be hard for many players to abide by or something he is doing (or not doing) is driving these players to act a certain way.

There is a slew of information we don't have yet though. Any more details could help. Jiggy and I asked a couple questions that haven't been answered yet.

[Jiggy]

Bill Dunn wrote:

OK, 2 hours into a thread and someone's already taking pot shots at the OP? Kind of jumping to conclusions, aren't you, Jiggy?

Just suggesting a possibility based on the information available. That's not exactly "taking pot shots".

Also I thought including a funny picture would lighten the tone. Maybe not...?

[thejeff]

In fairness, finding a set of good, compatible online players either requires good luck or a good selection process.

It may just be the latter he hasn't mastered. Which may be his problem, but not in the implied way.

And sort of an interesting question: How do you find good compatible players online?

[Jaelithe]

Jiggy wrote:

Um, yeah, hate to say it but the list of potential common threads among all your negative experiences is getting really short.

Of course, there's the counter to that:

Another common denominator ;)

Like jiggy's post, this is just meant to be funny. As Data would say, "It was not meant as a serious disparagement."

[LazarX]

MattR1986 wrote:

anthonydido wrote:

Just my opinion here but the problem probably stems more from the fact that it's online. I personally don't care for online play because I don't feel as involved or interested as when playing in person. There are too many possible distractions as well

This. I don't really agree with the idea of online games except out of necessity like if you live in a town of 100 people in the middle of nowhere. Many people, especially if they're under 30 are used to doing at least 3 things at once on a computer. They're likely playing the game as just another thing to do while watching tv or playing a game. There's also the issue of losing social interaction but that's a whole other discussion. I've considered giving onlinr/pbb a chance but haven't felt a strong pull to find one yet.

There's nothing inherently wrong with online play. We've switched from face to face to using Roll20/Google Hangout because everyone in our group lives so far apart. It's given us much more flexibility in setting meeting times and saves us all a good deal of expense in travel.

Online play is exactly the same as face to face, aside from the initial technical difficulties, the bulk of the problems are what people bring to the virtual table, not inherent in the form itself.

[Jaelithe]

LazarX wrote:

Online play is exactly the same as face to face...

Perhaps you mean that it's just as viable?

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

MattR1986 wrote:

anthonydido wrote:

Just my opinion here but the problem probably stems more from the fact that it's online. I personally don't care for online play because I don't feel as involved or interested as when playing in person. There are too many possible distractions as well

This. I don't really agree with the idea of online games except out of necessity like if you live in a town of 100 people in the middle of nowhere. Many people, especially if they're under 30 are used to doing at least 3 things at once on a computer. They're likely playing the game as just another thing to do while watching tv or playing a game. There's also the issue of losing social interaction but that's a whole other discussion. I've considered giving onlinr/pbb a chance but haven't felt a strong pull to find one yet.

There's nothing inherently wrong with online play. We've switched from face to face to using Roll20/Google Hangout because everyone in our group lives so far apart. It's given us much more flexibility in setting meeting times and saves us all a good deal of expense in travel.

Online play is exactly the same as face to face, aside from the initial technical difficulties, the bulk of the problems are what people bring to the virtual table, not inherent in the form itself.

I wouldn't go so far as "exactly the same", though it does rely on what people bring to the table.

I'd draw an analogy to the differences between face-to-face conversations and online ones. People do tend to behave differently when not there in person. That's going to affect how they behave in game. You miss a lot of non-verbal social cues. There's less tendency to empathize with people who aren't actually there.

All of this less so if you're playing with people you knew in person, but more so if the only contact is the online game. And probably even more so in a more remote PbP kind of game than a real-time online one.

[Balgin]

DMFTodd wrote:

Nevermind they were handed two potions about 12 sessions ago that they forgot. Or the magical spearhead they needed to research but forgot about. Or the mummy they were going to dissect that they forgot about. It doesn't matter what you do as a GM if the players won't pay attention or make an absolutely minimum effort.

I'm seeing a lot of "they forgot"'s there Todd. Looks like your players really aren't paying much attention at the moment.

[MattR1986]

I'm referring to playing online as using PbP or an AIM chat (does anyone still use this?), or mics or things of that nature.

Skype with webcams is slightly less personal, but still enough that you are getting "face to face" interaction. There shouldn't be nearly as much distraction as its going to be pretty obvious that you're playing call of duty or texting someone the entire game. I always found the webcam thing kind of an awkward means of communication, but to each his own.

[DMFTodd]

Doesn't seem like my bar is that high - pay attention, make a minimum amount of effort. This player is definitely not paying attention. It is kind of the standard MO for this player - very excited at the beginning, steadily loses interest as the game goes on. We're running shorter campaigns just for him. He's been in the game for a few years now.

How do I find players? This one is a friend. Others, we generally play with a few times online to see if we want them in the group.

It's mostly the one player at this point. Sure, everyone could be keeping track of the treasure, but that's a minor thing. The rest of the party knows what is going on, why they are where they are, etc.

-------
On the other hand, this is a standard MO for me as well. I eventually get feedup with players. I'll drop one or two when a campaign ends, get some new ones. Rinse and repeat trying to find a great group. Haven't achieved it in 20 years of playing. There's probably some truth in Ziggy's comment.

[Pan]

LOL loot pinata.

I run one shots, short campaigns, and PFS until I can find a stable group of players that match my play-style. I live in a metropolitan area though so my pool is pretty big. Sounds like OP is trying to do this but not succeeding. Not sure what to tell you.

[Adjule]

I find it rather difficult finding a group online that has the staying power of those formed locally. Unfortunately, there isn't really anything locally for me. I know of one group at the local used book store/magic the gathering seller, that plays (which was news to me). Unfortunately, their playstyles do not mesh with me at all. So I am stuck trying online.

Even then, it is really tough. There seems to be someone who's playstyle clashes with the others. I am starting to feel that person in my Wrath of the Righteous group is me. They have proven to be optimizing powergamers who are all about the combat, which has destroyed any fun. Yes I know WotR is a high powered game, being mythic. But it is ridiculous when you give powergamers that extra boost of mythic power.

My only advice to the OP, would be maybe dropping Mr Forget-everything and continue on with the others? Or, just slog through it as it could prove fruitless trying to find a replacement that wouldn't just be the same. Or, as a third option, scrap it all and just go for being a player instead of GM.

[Calex]

Has anyone tried a more free-play style with less or no rules? I once read a book by 2 authors (Sorcery & Cecelia by Patricia C. Wrede & Caroline Stevermer) in which they had started out as simply a writing exercise with each writing letters to the other as their respective characters. As the correspondence grew they realized they had actually written a collaborated story, and got it published. Anyone experience anything similar via PbP or such? Or even (really old school) snail-mail?

[Burma "The Tusk"]

Calex wrote:

Has anyone tried a more free-play style with less or no rules? I once read a book by 2 authors (Sorcery & Cecelia by Patricia C. Wrede & Caroline Stevermer) in which they had started out as simply a writing exercise with each writing letters to the other as their respective characters. As the correspondence grew they realized they had actually written a collaborated story, and got it published. Anyone experience anything similar via PbP or such? Or even (really old school) snail-mail?

That's all well and good, but that's straight roleplaying, not a roleplaying game.

[Calex]

Semantics. Almost anything someone does for fun can be called a game. Doesn't answer my question.

[Matt Thomason]

Calex wrote:

Has anyone tried a more free-play style with less or no rules? I once read a book by 2 authors (Sorcery & Cecelia by Patricia C. Wrede & Caroline Stevermer) in which they had started out as simply a writing exercise with each writing letters to the other as their respective characters. As the correspondence grew they realized they had actually written a collaborated story, and got it published. Anyone experience anything similar via PbP or such? Or even (really old school) snail-mail?

I co-ordinated freeform PbP games for an organization of around 200 players many, many years ago, broken into individual groups of around ten.

The one thing I miss in live play is having that full paper trail of the story we're making. We do summaries and occasional in-character diary entries but there's nothing quite the same as having the ability to flip back and re-read a nicely written scene at any time. I wish I were able to multitask well enough to type up the game narrative during live play - or even have enough spare time to do it afterwards from a recording.