So, what are the player/DM behaviors that annoy you most?
How do you deal with them?
For example, it annoys me when players don't "buy-in." I.e. players go kicking and screaming into an adventure unless there is A. Mad Loot(tm) involved or B. the Bad Guy(tm) has killed his whole family and is right in his face or C. Both.
Weird goings on about town are not enough to get them to investigate.
This is something I can understand (barely) in a "common man" RPG, like say...umm is there a such thing?
I handle these things by A. telling problem players to make CURIOUS characters at the start. If that desn't work, I tell them out of character that their "in-character" play is is getting in the way of the fun stuff, and pissing me off because I spent all week designing a fun encounter that they're avoiding.
If that doesn't work....the encounters come to them and they die.
You need them to understand that inactivity is a choice that will lead to their character being eaten. :)
Quote from: StuartYou need them to understand that inactivity is a choice that will lead to their character being eaten. :)
That's pretty much how I deal with it.
Do they know what they are getting into before the game starts? If not, the answer is that the players wanted X but you handed out Y. If so, I wonder about the possible of passive agression rejection or perhaps there was a good reason for inactivity (They were doing stuff but you didn't consider it "productive"). I don't want to go into Cheetoism too much but it sounds more like a social problem rather than a problem to be solved in game.
They might be "turtling" -- afraid of putting their characters in harms way, so they want to stay on the defensive and let things come to them.
You could use day and night to help. Each night, unless they've done something to prevent it, they get chased about by something nasty. Or a villager gets eaten. Or whatever they don't like. That could encourage them to haul ass during the daylight and try and get stuff done.
Do you guys have any in game behavior problems?
How do you deal with them?
violence.
suspect cheater? npc's target that one, a little more than most.
turtling? the action comes to them, sometimes unpleasantly (home village burned down, etc.).
If you sit in your hotel room the whole session waiting for violence to come to you, when I say "whatcha doin?" and you answer "nothin," I move on to the next player.
Quote from: James McMurrayIf you sit in your hotel room the whole session waiting for violence to come to you, when I say "whatcha doin?" and you answer "nothin," I move on to the next player.
Did this with a group a few years ago. They all sat in their rooms for about 4 months before someone figured out they were wasting their lives.
I deal with the "I roll to dodge the adventure" guys by asking players to create characters with a background and personality. For example, for my current campaign I asked for a background with one important person, place and thing (some portable object) for each character.
This gets them thinking about their character in some detail, and by having the players effectively come up with an NPC and part of the physical setting or two, they feel a sense of investment in the setting. They helped create it, so they want to be part of it, just like if they help pay for the pizza they want to eat some of it :D And by the little stories and themes they come up with from the important person, place and thing, that tells me the sorts of stories and themes they'd like to see in the campaign.
I can then create the campaign setting to match that stuff, tap into it. I talk about that a bit in How I made my best campaign ever (http://www.gamecircle.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=21).
Some players turtle up defensively, but I just tell them stories of old campaigns I've run and played, mistakes I've made, so that they know - I'm not out to get you, I'm barracking for you, mate, I want you to have a chance to be a hero!
Of course it doesn't work with all players. It supposes that players are interested in entertaining themselves; but some players have watched too much tv, and expected to be entertained. I try to encourage those guys, but in the end they usually just drift or have to be cut loose. Go play a computer game.
Quote from: SpazmodeusDid this with a group a few years ago. They all sat in their rooms for about 4 months before someone figured out they were wasting their lives.
I've never had it happen with the whole group before. At that point I'd probably reevaluate the entire campaign and my role as GM. If nobody is doing anything, there's something very wrong.
And it's not like there's nothing to do. They often drop plot hooks because they don't have the manpower to chase them all. I also welcome efforts to create your own plot hooks. It's just that one of the players sometimes wants to do nothing that doesn't involve hitting things. He isn't that way all the time. He even spent 30 minutes once decoding the heiroglyphs in Desert of Desolation (a TSR module with a pyramid robbing egyptian thing).
It's a little annoying sometimes, but not so much that I've ever complained to him about it. Everyone (even he) jokes about his allergy to flavor text. :)
Quote from: KrakaJakDo you guys have any in game behavior problems?
How do you deal with them?
Not really problems...over the past couple of years I've learnt to deal with the various different ways my players engage with my games. Here is just one example...
The Supporting Actor. This player finds it very difficult to become active (or even react) to any of the plot threads I throw out there. Campaign creation is where the players
tell me, what their characters are doing or want to do in the setting....I don't do, any of that "you all meet in a tavern" stuff.
But this player normally has no ideas for his character....what he likes to do during play or campaign/character creation is to latch on to another player's plot thread or character....essentially becoming a supporting "character" to that plot thread or character.
So now in every game, the players (and me) decide before the campaign who will have "the supporting character"....now this may sound pretty dodgy to most gamers but it seems to work for our crew. This particular player roleplays really well, creates characters who are useful to whoever he's attached to in the campaign....so, there's always a bit of a fight as to who gets him :D
Regards,
David R
Quote from: David RNot really problems...over the past couple of years I've learnt to deal with the various different ways my players engage with my games. Here is just one example...
The Supporting Actor. This player finds it very difficult to become active (or even react) to any of the plot threads I throw out there. Campaign creation is where the players tell me, what their characters are doing or want to do in the setting....I don't do, any of that "you all meet in a tavern" stuff.
But this player normally has no ideas for his character....what he likes to do during play or campaign/character creation is to latch on to another player's plot thread or character....essentially becoming a supporting "character" to that plot thread or character.
So now in every game, the players (and me) decide before the campaign who will have "the supporting character"....now this may sound pretty dodgy to most gamers but it seems to work for our crew. This particular player roleplays really well, creates characters who are useful to whoever he's attached to in the campaign....so, there's always a bit of a fight as to who gets him :D
Regards,
David R
I wish I had more players who wanted to be the "supporting charatcers". A problem I haven't realy figured out are the players who build really deep 'leading role' characters....and then wait the whole game just to say "Oh, I guess I punch the guy."
Quote from: KrakaJakI wish I had more players who wanted to be the "supporting charatcers". A problem I haven't realy figured out are the players who build really deep 'leading role' characters....and then wait the whole game just to say "Oh, I guess I punch the guy."
Is "
Oh, I guess I punch the guy" the
only option available? In other words is this the only option you're presenting to such players or are these players coming up with character backgrounds in which violence is the only form of possible conflict. A little more info is needed.
Regards,
David R
No, people are coming to my games, creating detailed in depth backrounds...and then not interacting with the game at all until it's their turn in a combat round, and their combat description is "I punch the guy" or "I hit him with my sword."
I.E. they have these neat interesting characters on paper, but come play time, they're as dull as a box of rocks.
As I said, you as GM have got to make their backgrounds relevant. So if Jim the Fighter has a background with Bob the Thug as his dad, you have to NPC Bob, and have him talk to Jim.
The setting and the character backgrounds have to be tied in together. If they grew up in a town, that has to be a place they can visit, if they had a childhood friend that has to be someone they can look up or who might bump into them, if their whole family is dead, well they have graves to put flowers on, or which might be moved for a new commercial development.
Tie the campaign and the characters together in play.
If you do all that and they still stare at you blankly, then you have boring gamers and need to find some new ones.
Quote from: KrakaJakI.E. they have these neat interesting characters on paper, but come play time, they're as dull as a box of rocks.
No offence, but in that case... it's
your fault as the GM. They're creating interesting characters and you're doing nothing with them! Sure, if they were more proactive you wouldn't
need to push them a bit. But not everyone is a proactive player. And besides, you don't really want a group of entirely proactive players. So you've got reactive players... take the interesting details about their characters and
use that information to
make them react.
In DMing and playing I found that characters really came alive when gameplay moves from "task that you MUST" complete to "situation that you've got to deal with." If the adventure doesn't work if the PCs don't take a certain job, you've either set up a pretty crappy adventure or are playing a game system where basic play expectations are built on that (Shadowrun I think). If you're handing the PCs situations that they have to deal with then it lets them be more creative and approach the situation in all kinds of different ways, according to their character's personality.
Bad adventure: PCs are hired to go kill the local orc tribe.
Good adventure: PCs are trying to go to X and have been paying their way by working as caravan guards. But now the caravan is parked in a town and doesn't want to continue along the road because raids have made the main road dangerous. The PCs can:
1. Try to browbeat the merchants into continueing.
2. Attack the orcs.
3. Try to continue along to X without the caravan off road and attempt to dodge the orcs.
4. Attempt the organize the villagers into an anti-orc army Seven Samuri style.
5. Camp out in the town and wait out the orcs and deal with running out of money, annoying villages, cabin fever and the eventual all-out orc assault on the town.
The best way to get players out of "I attack the orc" "I hit it with my sword" kind of boredum is to give the PCs real meaningful choices about what to do instead of just shoving them into your pre-made plots.
Yup, rpgs are a show me not tell me medium, and it's up to the GM to present the players with opportunities that demonstrate this.
Regards,
David R
I'm definately doing things with their charcter backrounds...but it seems in the end they don't care. It's more along the lines they've built characters they're un-able to actually roleplay.
For Example: A player built a daring celebrity socialite, with huge points in backrounds, and social skills. Huge backround story that she was a beautiful celbrity go getter. Instead of roleplaying their character as presented, as a manipulative seductive actress, she strictly does nothing in social situations (without my, or other players coaching).
I wish these players would instead play...oooh, supporting cast members, like hanger-ons of another character, or bodyguards, or something where I don't have have to work to bring their backround into play.
This is something that's hard to balance, because I like to help create new good roleplayers, rather than just find or recruit them. If a player wants a more pivotal role in determining the course of an adventure, who am I to dent that chance. If then the player can't step up to the plate, I then have to draw up a new scenario that doesn't revolve around that players character which can end up wrecking an entire session...or even a campaign.
Quote from: KrakaJakI'm definately doing things with their charcter backrounds...but it seems in the end they don't care. It's more along the lines they've built characters they're un-able to actually roleplay.
Ah...this is a very different problem. I always talk to my players before hand as to how they are going to roleplay the characters they have created. Sometimes if the player has created a charater which is out of his/her repertoire, I go a bit further discussing possible situations that may come up and how the player in question would roleplay the character. This is not to say that characters don't change from creation to execution, but these discussions act as a rough guideline for the player to work from.
Regards,
David R
Kill them and take their stuff.
Hi!
I used to be pretty frustrated. My old group was hardcore and whatever we played, they learned the system and played to the best of their abilities.
After I moved, I got a new group going, but they are not hard core. They learn the rules they use in play, but never read the manuals. Sometimes they make interesting characters, sometimes not. They almost never learn the background setting, unless its something they know already or it comes up a lot in game. And their roleplaying is pretty thin on the acting/narration side.
I tried to push/pull more out of them.
Then I realized, they are casual gamers. They like gaming, but they have other stuff going on. I get 100% of them at the table, but when they leave after, they get on with the rest of their life...
Sometimes I miss the old days, but I have a great group and I wouldn't trade them for the world.
As to annoying habits now that I know what I have, there are a couple:
1) One player harps on another player because occasionally he speaks before he thinks (the classic example was him suggesting that they party launch themselves into the side of a skyscraper, via a rocket).
2) Two players whose mouths run faster than their brains, but its not too bad since I don't do that stupid "You say it, your character says it" rule or anything silly like that...
I am not sure what to do about the harping, I sometimes wonder if its not some kinda alpha-dog behavior or something like that...
dindenver: My suggestion, give in game rewards (usually XP) for the behaviors you want to encourage. If you can...do it instant gratification style.
Somebody says something awesome, give em XP.
Someone stays in character the whole game...bonus XP.
People bring food to the game table...drop some XP on 'em.
That's what I use on more "casual" players...and it tends to work really well.