Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 10:35:23 GMT -8
My players know about Game of Thrones and love the series. They also have a lot of fun in my games and always want me to GM. I ran this setting as a one shot and they all wanted me to make it a campaign. We have a great time. I think that if I changed my style to what they are saying they want they would enjoy it less. They cannot admit that the high stress open ended situations is what they love. The high stakes lead to high rewards that become awesome moments.
Thanks for the thoughts everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jun 25, 2013 12:06:35 GMT -8
It seems the players don't want to play a game with the kind of ambiguity you're presenting. Maybe they're looking for a more black-and-white sort of game. Something pulpier. It may just be a matter of taste or preference at the moment. Maybe they're looking for a game where they get to be "heroes" and save damsels in distress.
It's also possible the players have the mind set that this is the sort of game you can "win," where "winning" is having nothing bad happen to them.
A conversation is in order to see which it is. If it's the former, then you might consider a change in flavor.
If it's the latter, it's a more difficult problem to solve.
Some players play for story, some to win and some play for both.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Jun 25, 2013 13:35:45 GMT -8
Maybe you should play a Con-style 1 shot or some of the 1 sheets offered by several gaming companies. Con-games by their very nature are rail-roady and goal oriented. If they play that and say "yes! we like this! more this!" then learn how to make con-style "episodes" out of your planned sandbox. You can still do the stories you want, just present them in an episodic style.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 16:08:21 GMT -8
Maybe you should play a Con-style 1 shot or some of the 1 sheets offered by several gaming companies. Con-games by their very nature are rail-roady and goal oriented. If they play that and say "yes! we like this! more this!" then learn how to make con-style "episodes" out of your planned sandbox. I was going to suggest something similar--the OP really needs to try taking their request and see what happens. The catch there is you have to really give it an honest try.going Railroad-From-Hell on them to teach them a lesson would be a very bad idea. But if done well, I think your "if" is exactly right. It might turn out that they'll like it, in which case you can move in that direction. OTOH, it might turn out that they say "well, no, we didn't mean *that*" in which case you've taken a step in figuring out what they really want. I'm not so sure of this, it depends on precisely what the GM and the players want, and I don't think we know that precisely yet. It's a negotiation, and the heart of negotiation is to find something that satisfies all parties. And contrary to the wishes of negotiators, the universe doesn't guarantee that compromise exists. If the players don't want shades-of-gray and moral ambiguity, but the GM does, or if they don't want an open-ended sandbox and the limitless choices of a non-directional game, but the GM does, changing the presentation isn't going to help much. OTOH, if what they want isn't opposed, as we can hope, it can be done. if the GM wants moral ambiguity and the players want plot directionality, it may be possible to achieve both, though it is by no means certain since moral ambiguity usually takes the form of presenting multiple problematic choices with no clear preferred solution; moral ambiguity is usually presented by providing no clear path. One thing the OP might try is to figure out where he most wants ambiguity, and go off the rails only at that specific point. If he wants moral ambiguity, keep the players on the rails (or just provide easier hints if rails aren't necessary) while they overcome obstacles ad go off the rails when they've gotten far enough to be presented with the moral problem. OTOH, if he mainly wants open-ended problem solving, keep the morality fairly clear and "on rails" while sandboxing the obstacles to progress. That might preserve what he wants most while making the players feel less lost.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jun 26, 2013 3:57:55 GMT -8
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law. Love under will.
More than that I cannot advise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2013 7:10:41 GMT -8
It seems to me that you should give the players what they want. Simple. They say they want more rails, give 'em more rails and see how they like it. This doesn't mean the entire game has to be one massive rail. Just do as they ask, "more" rails. It's a fine tuning process. Play around with the... um... rail-ey-ness... for a few sessions.
|
|
|
Post by Forresst on Jun 26, 2013 10:47:16 GMT -8
Give them enough railroads to turn one session into "re-arranging cargo cars in the railyard" night. See if they like it. If they like it, get to writing a story and then railroad them. It won't be as fun for you, but it'll get that game done, and then maybe after the dust settles, you guys can come to an agreement about what everyone wants. Or, you can go find players who LIKE impacting stories with their decisions.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jun 27, 2013 5:15:45 GMT -8
I am running an alternate timeline in the Game of Thrones universe. At the end of each session I ask them how did it go, what would you like more of? They told me that they want more of an obvious direction that is the correct path. I infer this means that they want rails to run on so they can stay the course, not have to think too hard and hack and slash their way to the end of the video game. There are a lot of problem in the setting and every direction they travel will face them with different challenges because there is a civil war breaking out (set at the onset of Robert's Rebellion). I have been playing this game wide open and have been ready to roll with any compass direction they travel. I am the main GM for my group and a reoccurring complaint is that I give them hard situations to deal with that do not have an easy or clear answer. I have used the savage worlds action/adventure deck and there is a card that says, "The GM gives you a hint on what the best course of action is for the given situation". They played that once and I was not able to provide them with much help, "Uhhh the window on the roof seems like a weak point". I make the problems and when they generate the solution, I am flexible and allow it to work. I try to not create a solution myself so that I do not guide them into that path and take away their agency in creating the story. We always have a great time but in reflection I often hear complaints about how I always give them fucked up situations with no clear easy answers. Example: *** The villain has a knife to your sisters throat. You have been fighting his men and he appears with her in the middle of the camp. He demands for your surrender or he will harm her. He tells you to drop your weapons. (I do not have a solution on how this should end but I am ready to roll with whatever they give me.) They continue to fight and kill his men. The villain threatens to slice off her hand (her hand was offered to him in marriage so he sees it as just that he takes it given the circumstances). They do not surrender, continue to fight his men and kill them. Villain cuts her ring finger off. They do not surrender. Villain gives last chance, oh hold with knife to throat. Archer in the group aims at his hand and shoots. I give him a ranged disarm chance, the damage will be the str DC for him to hold onto the knife. He hits, Storks the damage roll horribly doing nothing. Villain on hold now acts and kills the PC's sister. The player whose character had his sister die was visibly upset out of character. "What did you expect us to do surrender?!?". I told them that it would be disingenuous to create a situation without carrying out the natural consequences that have been set up. Without the consequences being real victory cannot be as sweet. *** So I am a douche bag who creates situations without easy endings or obvious solutions or direction. If I GM like this is a game of Mario and all you have to do is travel to the right it will be far less fun for me. My group always wants me to GM and they all really enjoy my games. I believe this is because I do not give them anything easy, there will be consequences, and they are forced to come up with direction and own their own paths and destiny. In writing this I have seemed to come to my own conclusion to keep running things as I have been but perhaps I am fixed in my perspective to be able to have an unbiased viewpoint. So what do you think? If you want more information let me know. Two things leap to mind. 1. Sounds like a perfectly acceptable scenario with hard choices and consequences either way to me. I would love that personally. 2. It sounds to me like the players want clear choices where there is always a way for them to "win." I have some bad news for them, life is not like that, life is messy and things usually have a cost no matter what you choose. In this situation when they asked what did I expect them to do my answer would have been, "What your character would do." So now you've got a dead sister and a guy who slit her throat in front of you and other witnesses, what are you gonna do Johnny? I would suggest a direct conversation with them about what they want and what you want out of the game. GoT is not a pretty universe where things always go your way, and often when it looks like things are going to go well, you end up at a Red Wedding. I'm just sayin'. JiB
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Jun 27, 2013 5:39:12 GMT -8
JiB, sometimes people play games because they don't want real life....
|
|
daniel
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 217
|
Post by daniel on Jun 27, 2013 6:07:09 GMT -8
<Quote> 2. It sounds to me like the players want clear choices where there is always a way for them to "win." I have some bad news for them, life is not like that, life is messy and things usually have a cost no matter what you choose. </quote>
Well yes but lets not loose sight of ware THIS IS A GAME, not to interrupt anybody's "Role-playing is serious business vibe"
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Jun 27, 2013 6:19:04 GMT -8
I can't seem to vote in the poll. Is it closed? I think I can simplify the advice : having a Goal isn't the same as having Rails. Quoted for truth. Possibly if the players have an idea of an ultimate goal, then they'll have a basis on which to decide whether accomplishing it is worth risking the possibility that (say) the villain will kill one of the PCs' sisters. Otherwise, you just put them in a no-win situation that doesn't clearly "mean" anything or build toward anything, and I can see why that would frustrate them. 2. It sounds to me like the players want clear choices where there is always a way for them to "win." I have some bad news for them, life is not like that, life is messy and things usually have a cost no matter what you choose. Obviously, I don't know the people involved, but from how I read it, I don't think they necessarily want to "win"; they just resented being put into a random no-win situation. Not wanting "you're screwed no matter what you do" isn't the same as wanting to win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 8:29:17 GMT -8
... I don't know the people involved, but from how I read it, I don't think they necessarily want to "win"; they just resented being put into a random no-win situation ... See, the way I read it, the players were blinded by "fog of war" (all too common in RPG combat) and failed to discern and consciously select from their options. In a way, they created their own rails and were then unhappy with the results. As implied in my earlier comment, I really don't think it's out of place in such cases for the GM to call attention to options and their likely outcomes—no rails required.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Jun 27, 2013 9:04:37 GMT -8
I would also point out that it seems that you are taking the players' negative feedback personally. If you've expressed this sort of sentiment to them, that's a great way to ensure you don't get any more honest feedback.
Just sayin'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 10:43:18 GMT -8
I don't believe it was a no win scenario. They came up with a way to win, shoot the weapon out of the villain's hand, then bum rush him. I told them the mechanics of how it will work. The damage roll was crap causing the disarm to fail. Pissing the villain off who then kills his hostage.
I am pretty sure they all knew sticking this guy with an arrow and not killing or disarming him will lead to the hostages death. Especially after many warnings from him. I don't think if I would have said out of character, "If you don't disarm him, he will kill her!" would have mattered much and giving this type of exposition takes away from the narrative.
I do get frustrated with my players not being able to admit what they like in my games and their delight in complaining. I save my rants for drunken late night posts here and spare them the complaints though. I am pretty sure they like the high risk and reward style but also very much like bitching when it didn't go their way and look for things to blame, often me.
Perhaps they think they want a clear direction and solution dictated by me so that they don't feel like the plan and direction they have created was wrong if things do not resolve in a positive way. If I give the direction or plan and then I make it fail then it is clearly just me being a dick.
I wholeheartedly believe that this open ended and high risk/reward style is what they like and why they are constantly coming back for more and wanting me to GM even when other games are being ran and other games that people want to run (even the GMs of those games would rather play in my game than run theirs).
They come up with the plan, I tell them how the game mechanics will work, and if it fails there will be consequences. This leads to some of our greatest role playing moments when something crazy is cooked up and somehow all of the dice fall in line and they have great moments of victory.
If they knew the direction and path was clear and they knew that I would not allow it to fail then I believe they would quickly lose interest and those moments of victory would suddenly mean very little when there was nothing at stake, no planning to be done and no direction to choose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 11:19:25 GMT -8
Fair enough, Lampage. Sounds to me like you have the situation well in hand.
|
|