|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jun 27, 2013 12:11:05 GMT -8
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). The elephant in the room here is you. Amazing how all this codified talk in the rules about parental molly coddling a motley crew of players loses sight of the needs of one player in particular; but I digress, maybe.Are you enjoying the game? Just because it's your party does not mean you are not a player too. GM = System - not administrator. You have as much right to enjoy your game as any other player. More, if you're investing all the effort upfront rather than just bureaucrating it..... So is the elephant in the room enjoying the game with all the other animals?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 13:23:47 GMT -8
Should you opt for the rails, I suggest a gentle transition. It is easier to find their comfort zone if you slowly slide from the sand to the rails than if you slam the e-brake and put them on hard core rails right away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 14:04:01 GMT -8
I am enjoying the game. These situations have created some high drama and the fact that the sister was killed led the party on a path of revenge that has turned them against their own house. It has made the game very interesting.
What I do not enjoy is being the target of grumpy gripers when they players do not like some outcomes. It could just be the nature of my group who like to complain a lot. I have even heard them complain about being railroaded and having not enough choices in other games.
I have explained to they how I want this to be open ended and I am going to work with them to make the solutions that they choose possible but if the set up is there and the rolls are failed I have to carry out the consequences that have been set up that made the situation interesting in the first place or I would feel like I am building drama disingenuously. If I have a had a giant eagle swoop in and pick up the sister and carry her to safety they would surely all hate the game within a couple of sessions.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jun 27, 2013 21:18:58 GMT -8
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 would actually argue otherwise. All those warnings lessened the threat a lot. No really guys!!! This time I mean it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 21:58:48 GMT -8
Lol true. Although how it went down was after they didnt listen to his first warning he slices off her ring finger, because it was offered to him in marriage, then said last chance. And was promptly hit in the hand by the weakest damage rolled arrow ever. Whats an evil villain to do? The party also just killed his father, so all bets were off from his perspective.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jun 27, 2013 22:15:17 GMT -8
What I do not enjoy is being the target of grumpy gripers when they players do not like some outcomes. It could just be the nature of my group who like to complain a lot. I have even heard them complain about being railroaded and having not enough choices in other games. So what you're really saying, after a revision of the novel this Thread is, is that you are playing with a group of unappreciative twats. Time for a new group.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 22:17:50 GMT -8
New thread title is drunken rantings and rabelings.
|
|
|
Post by Twilight Struggler on Jun 28, 2013 7:19:19 GMT -8
Was miniatures involved in the combat? IMO, open-end and high drama should never include miniatures. Players tend to focus more on tactics than in the current drama being played. In the FATE system, players and villains are usually in the same zone. As such, players would/could have narrated a plan to sneak behind the villain and save the sister. But the GM could then add his two cents in by saying "yes and" or "yes but".
I think the "rails" they want are really player/GM created deus ex machini. IE. players and GMs should both make the rails.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jun 28, 2013 7:50:42 GMT -8
created deus ex machini. IE. Anyone else understand Internet Explorer?
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jun 28, 2013 8:04:01 GMT -8
created deus ex machini. IE. Anyone else understand Internet Explorer? I.E = 'Id Est' = 'that is' Aaron
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jun 28, 2013 8:12:10 GMT -8
Anyone else understand Internet Explorer? I.E = 'Id Est' = 'that is' Aaron So you're saying IE is embedded into the OS. I know that.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jun 28, 2013 11:40:40 GMT -8
JiB, sometimes people play games because they don't want real life.... True and at that point it comes down to a question of what flavor of game are you after. In my mind, a game of thrones game might very well have choices that do not provide easy answers and situations where it's not a question of winning but of taking the least unpleasant result. JiB
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jun 28, 2013 11:43:20 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. That's fine. The way I read it they want a clear way to win and I'm just saying that not all situations will offer that much clarity. Everyone's mileage is going to vary. JiB
|
|
dnddad
Journeyman Douchebag
They're bullywugs aren't they Pat...
Posts: 200
Preferred Game Systems: WEG D6 Star Wars, Shadowrun 2nd, Battletech 3rd, Mechwarrior 2nd, AD&D 2nd, AFMBE rev, Savage Worlds Deluxe, Usagi Yojimbo, Marvel Super Heroes Advanced
Currently Playing: Frostgrave & Boltaction
Currently Running: from my problems
Favorite Species of Monkey: Spong
|
Post by dnddad on Jun 29, 2013 6:44:01 GMT -8
The difference between rails and sand box is an illusion. Either you give them the funyun on a hook, or you let them find it themselves. If they don't play along be an ass and kick their asses right through the door with the mighty boot of the GM.
|
|
|
Post by daeglan on Jul 7, 2013 13:01:30 GMT -8
You should make dastardly villains in a sandbox game. Flesh out the one that strikes a cord and motivates them.
|
|