HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Apr 10, 2012 18:07:04 GMT -8
Hey fellow HJers. I've got a problem and am looking for some help from y'all. Last night was our third Apocalypse World session, and after I signed off of Skype I felt like the game was turning into a giant stinking turd just waiting to be flushed down the toilet into oblivion. I'm looking for advice from the group here about how to turn it around.
First, some background. I've been chomping at the bit to run AW for a while now because it's different from other games we've played in the past; it's very player driven. The GM never rolls dice and pretty much only does things in reaction to players actions. The book really spoke to me, since the type of game it instructs people to create/run is very similar to my GMing style. If I were to collect my thoughts on GMing, arrange them in a form that other people could understand, and put them onto paper they would look very similar to the AW rulebook. Basically, it's very collaborative and relies on the players to 'make things come true'.
Now the problem, at least from my perspective, is that the players are just sitting back waiting for something to happen rather than going out and making things happen. If they do that though, then nothing will happen and they'll just continue to sit there, or follow the lead of NPCs.
That doesn't mean I've not presented them with situations to get involved with. One of the PCs is kind of like a wasteland preacher with a "family" of about 20 followers. Another PC is an enforcer for this preacher guy, and the third is friends (kind of) with the enforcer PC. All three of them are part of a large roving caravan of about 100 people. Because of a failed die roll at the beginning of the first session, the preacher's "family" turned savage for a bit, and I used that to (I thought) create some drama. The enforcer and friend came across two of the preacher's followers looting a body that they'd obviously killed. Meanwhile the leader of the caravan slashed open the face of another follower after she bit off his ear for treating her roughly (she's a prostitute).
Both situations got resolved with a rather undramatic "don't do it again" sort of solution, which is fine. I guess. I wasn't really expecting violence, but I was expecting something to come out of those events. While the situations were getting resolved, I could feel the players waiting for me to drive the story forward. They would say something brief or take some small action that wouldn't really do anything, and then wait for a response from me. This is the exact reverse of how I want the game to go.
I want my players to drive the story. Any advice on how I can "flip" them?
|
|
azuretalon
Journeyman Douchebag
I poop violence!!!
Posts: 150
|
Post by azuretalon on Apr 10, 2012 18:21:43 GMT -8
Well the obvious, as usual, is to talk to them and tell them this. See if they understand you want more out of them.
That aside, my advice is my usual "fucking torture them." I have told this story on here before, I think, but I had a player who I wanted to be more engaged. I would say "what are you doing" and he would tell me "I don't know, whatever." So I told him he woke up in a rusted out car on blocks, in the middle of the Arizona desert (the game was set local in the Midwest), with one arm covered in mustard, and a cat named Bratwurst (it was on the collar) sitting on his chest. Now, when I ask him what he's up to, he has a goddamned answer for me.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Apr 10, 2012 18:41:02 GMT -8
Now the problem, at least from my perspective, is that the players are just sitting back waiting for something to happen rather than going out and making things happen.
This is the bane of my existence. Most of the time I start campaigns with 1 or 2 of my usual players, then the rest are rookies that have never played these games. Its the reality of gaming in North Georgia. Usually by the 3rd game the non-gamers have left, and the ones that want to stick with it have bought the books and are talking level up strategy. My answer would be: give it time if they are really wanting to be gamers. Are they really gamers? I'm not trying to be elitist, I'm genuinely asking this. Do they buy the books? Do they make an attempt to read the books? Did they make background stories and discuss the game outside of the table? Would they listen to Happy Jack's Podcast? If they don't do this, then they might just be friends that want to do things with their friends. Analogy: If a couple of you were REALLY into Street Fighter IV, they'd probably come over and play some rounds, drink some beer, and generally have fun with their friends. But they aren't going to buy the game and learn the characters. They hate Claw guy, and like school girl. That one time they did a upper cut on purpose. I know there is plenty of advice and suggestions on how to "mold" people into better players, but they have to want to be players in the first place. Otherwise it is up to the GM to adapt to the way they want to play. If they play it more like a board game, and want to "win" at the end of the night, then figure a way to do that where its fun for YOU and THEM. I have had groups that NEED to be railroaded. The more I would railroad them, the better feedback I'd get the next day. Some of them turned into gamers, some of them just had fun with their friends. Everyone won.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2012 5:19:12 GMT -8
I'd say put them in a situation where they HAVE to put their mind to work or something bad happens, like putting them in prison waiting to be executed. It could also be something unrelated to your game, like the players being tired from work, where resceduling the session would help a lot. For instance one of my players was working huge hours for the whole week and at friday/saturday was PC gaming his ass off from dusk till dawn, so when he came to the weekly session at the afternoon he was unwilling to do anything other than roll dice and that dragged the rest of the group down.
|
|
tappy
Journeyman Douchebag
Host
Posts: 192
Preferred Game Systems: Apoc World, Monsterhearts, L5r, Wod
Favorite Species of Monkey: Space Monkey
|
Post by tappy on Apr 11, 2012 5:32:39 GMT -8
Fuck, dude, I don't know.
Seriously, this is the mystery of the ages... player engagement is something video game companies spend outrageous amounts of money to hire psychological think tanks to pour over. I think you actually CAN play video games, because a video game RPG is actually the opposite of a TT RPG. there is no RPG that is as on the rails as a video game RPG. the story is written, and you just experience as a reward for killing enough monsters.
Explaining to people that they can do ANYTHING, and that their character is going to have some real desires and plans can be very difficult.
I would point you towards Jane McGonagal's four points of engagement.. maybe something can be gleaned form that.
1. the feeling of being good at something: have each player write down their character's long term plan, based on their skills, resources and backstory. Then give them hooks to set them on that path. If the plan is consistent with the character, let them have some early success at it, and that feeling of success may drive them further down that road.
2. Meaningful work to do: When they do something that is consistent with their character's long term plan, give them a concrete feeling that it is changing the game world. like, big time.
Not just subtle story things, but something that is impactful on their character and the party. The guy who is trying to be a journalist writes an article on a horse race. OS what right? what if the dilettante heiress who owns the horse like the article and comes to meet him with a bottle of champagne to say "thanks". Sparks fly, and now she wants to get engaged to him, damn all convention! She is willing to do things for her fiance, such as charter a steamship so he and his friends can investigate an ancient city in assyria, but she will miss him terribly until he gets home. Be creative and loose, and make them feel like these things are a game changer... because hell, they are! maybe they will start to learn that there is so much they can do, and start becoming proactive, instead of reactive.
|
|
willh
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 220
|
Post by willh on Apr 11, 2012 5:38:03 GMT -8
Announce off screen badness, or whatever it's called. When they investigate they find the bodies of three or four family members and a survivor who tells the PCs someone took the children.
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Apr 11, 2012 7:17:40 GMT -8
I'd start by asking them probing questions about their characters. The point is to make them actually think about their character as a person. Unless they see their character as more than a reactive machine, they'll never start taking the initiative. If they're pretty good RPers, and you don't think that something like that would be helpful (or if you've already done it,) you might be able to kind of "trick" them into driving the story. Sometimes, the sheer greatness of the realm of possibilities freezes players into a perpetual state of indecision. Providing them with a summary of their situation, perhaps with some slight emphasis on important points that they might take action on, might jumpstart their brains again.
If they really need some major handholding for driving the story, try this: have each player write at least three goals that drive their character. Tell them that when they feel like they've reached a standstill, and that nothing is going on, that their character should do something to satisfy, or get closer to, one of those goals. Have them share the goals with you, but only with each other in character.
I think the most annoying part of this problem is that there's actually very little that you can do to fix it! It's like teaching: you've got to get them to see the light on their own; all you can do is kind of guide them along the way. By constantly dropping hooks, you're just perpetuating the problem, but if you don't, they'll just sit there until you do. I've got a similar situation with my players, and I'm trying to slowly show them that RPG's require more thought than the video games that brought them here.
Best of luck!
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Apr 11, 2012 7:51:47 GMT -8
I run across this more often than I would like. I ran a Fireborn game several years ago. It started off with each of the characters having met at a local cafe, and being attacked by crazed street people who burst into flame when they died. The leader of the gang dropped some clues about the character's secret, and who was after them. Some of the players tried to investigate. One of them "went home and made some dinner"... My jaw actually dropped for a moment.
In my new game, a Feng Shui reskin, I've told all of them, straight out, that the game lives and dies on their doing something. I will be COMPLETELY reactionary.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Apr 11, 2012 7:53:00 GMT -8
I'm afraid I'm also in the fuck if I know camp. I will, however, try to explain what I do in this situation ...
1. If they won't get up and move themselves throw something that will force them to. I realize that you've tried and put things in front of them but they have yet to bite. So make the fish come to them as it were. As an example, one of my favorites is the case of the mistaken identity ...
Some bad guy somewhere nearby has done something and the pc's have been blamed for it now the establishment is against them and they need to try to escape and figure out what really happened. If they choose not to do anything or stand around in utter befuddlement have them arrested and brought to trial then if they don't even try to convince the judge have them thrown to (fill in the name of vile beast) and if they STILL don't do anything to help themselves have them be eaten ... Dickish? Maybe but they have been given ample opportunity to take control of their own fate and have chosen not to. I say it's on them.
The basic point being if they won't act on their own and be proactive force them to be reactive. It may actually be what the players want. I'm not above that but I do so with the idea of trying to spur them to action.
Just (as always) my 2 krupplenicks yaddah yaddah yaddah ...
JiB
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Apr 11, 2012 15:22:46 GMT -8
It's the RPG version of structure hunger. It's the same problem with real RPG sandboxes. Many players (maybe a majority) wish to be INVOLVED in a story rather than create a story.
They come at it with the attitude of, "I created a character, I gave him a back story and now I'm ready to conquer whatever you put in front of him."
Most players *expect* that you have something in mind. Additionally, they don't want to do the "wrong" thing. This leaves them paralyzed.
Consider throwing them a real plot hook -- something with meat and depth.
More on this later. Maybe a topic...
|
|
kevinr
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 158
|
Post by kevinr on Apr 11, 2012 17:09:45 GMT -8
I have found that with a new game It usually works best for me to railroad the group for a session or two so they can get the feel off their characters and how they react in certain situations and then toss a few hooks out and see if they are interested in them. Just have to stay flexible and blow up the train tracks as soon as they will let you. If it is in the first session all the better.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Apr 11, 2012 18:36:39 GMT -8
Thanks for the advice everyone. Stu, I would love to hear a HJ's episode on this topic. Also the reverse as well; how players can get their GMs to run more sandbox-style games. As a player, I hate being railroaded or lead on linear-plot games.
They players I'm playing with are my usual group, and are pretty decent RPers. I mean, we're friends too, but it was our mutual love of games and gaming that brought us together. So it's not an issue of them not really wanting to play. At least I hope not. Scheduling could be an issue too, I guess. Part of the reason we're only playing for an hour a week is because people are busy and it's difficult to synch our schedules.
As far as character background goes, we did something different that might have thrown the players off. During character creation (which was the first session) I asked a bunch of loaded/charged questions that I hoped would get the players thinking about their PCs and create drama. Stuff like "So Garber, you're new to the caravan. How many people did you kill in your old group before they kicked you out?", "Dust, where and with whom do you usually sleep? Uh huh. And why didn't you sleep there last night?", "Tor, what's the most brutal way you've seen someone die out here. Uh huh. Why did the guy you killed that way deserve to die?" and so on. It was the first time we've done this, and it might have thrown them off a bit.
As I mentioned, the setting and NPCs around the PCs are supposed to develop organically (if I do things "by the book" which I am trying to do). Like If one of the players responds with "Oh, I usually sleep under my wagon with my brother and his wife." then *bam* all those things and people just popped into existence. I can then ask all sorts of questions like "How do you pull that wagon?" "Horses need a lot of food. Where do you get it from?" "What's the relationship between you and your brother like?" and so on and so forth. As Stu said though, I think at least one of the players expects me to have a story ready and is reluctant to 'derail' my story. I have told him that there is no story other than what he and the other players initiate, but I don't really think he gets it. This is the guy who plans out like 6 months worth (play time) of plot when he GMs, yet claims that we can "go anywhere and do anything".
Maybe I just have to bite the bullet and give them a big hefty whack with a clue-by-four. But that means I'd have to come up with a story going on around them for the PCs to investigate, which I was really trying to avoid. Again, I feel like that is me, the GM, driving the story forward instead of having the players do it. Grrr...
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Apr 11, 2012 20:05:26 GMT -8
I want my players to drive the story. Any advice on how I can "flip" them? 1. Show them something they all want. 2. Put somebody in the way. 3. Make them think they can do something about Mr. #2. Now, I'm guessing people in a post-apocolyptic place primarily want to GTFO of Crappyland. So the caravan stumbles across a nearly-dead wanderer who convinces someone in the party that there's a Paradise out there. Something survived your setting's doom of choice. It'd be tough, but they can get there. Then he promptly dies. After that, you should probably be able to rip off the first couple seasons of Battlestar Galactica until you decide to let them get there or find out the crazy sons of bitches really did blow it all up. This doesn't have to be an A to B to C process. Make supply shortages, traitors, external threats, and a competing prophet and let them decide what has priority.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Apr 12, 2012 0:21:13 GMT -8
Never under-estimate or under-value the currency of cliché. When you're shooting for 100% newness, and uncharted territory, people will tend to fold. OR, worse, fly off in every direction. "Usual RP buddies" save you from the latter fate. I asked a bunch of loaded/charged questions that I hoped would get the players thinking about their PCs and create drama. Stuff like "So Garber, you're new to the caravan. How many people did you kill in your old group before they kicked you out?" ... and it might have thrown them off a bit. In research we call these questions LEADING questions. These presuppose something (a value, a behaviour, etc.) You may not see this as railroading but it certainly is and it has invalidated many studies because the answers do not correlate with the respondents. This is not to say your questions are not GREAT ones. You were not opinion polling but RPing. They show panache on your part. You have jumped the group right into the story. Now, however, their behaviour may be asking you, "what happened?" The ball is in your court. I think at least one of the players expects me to have a story ready and is reluctant to 'derail' my story. I have told him that there is no story other than what he and the other players initiate, but I don't really think he gets it. This is the guy who plans out like 6 months worth (play time) of plot when he GMs, yet claims that we can "go anywhere and do anything." Your leading questions (deeds) do not support your words. You have discrepancy in communications here. I want to point something out about "this guy" and preparation before improvisation. This may be an off-topic side note, or it might relax the anathema you feel about you having a plan for the sandbox play you want to have happen here. I will take on the role of this guy and advocate because I have been misunderstood in this regard as well. This guy, me ;D , plans a campaign for his players months ahead in play time. The players start by meeting on the road headed for a destination I have given them with complementary agendas I have handed each of them as an opening. They arrive together, fulfill or do not fulfill their agenda, and do whatever they want. The social contract we have as players is for a certain game in a certain style to play out. In my case an OSR political game. This is my pay off as player/DM. I figure out who the Big white hats are and who the Big black hats are and why they are opposing each other. I look at power bases and trickle down the line to low-level NPCs the PCs may (or may not) choose to have contact. The PCs are level one. They need contact with my world. So I find them some mentors - potentially white hats, or black hats. Maybe even taupe hats. They need money and XP so I lay out different adventure hooks for them: rat infestation, a dragon's hoard, goblin raiders, ruins, etc. In any of these adventures, they will find a piece of the puzzle about the black hats and about the white hats. They will gain privileged information. [Going back to the social contract.] They can handle the rats for the innkeeper and get a reward or tackle the dragon and die. Or they can do something else - where they will find a piece of that political puzzle I have mapped out for which we agreed to play. At some point, they will attract the interest of the white hats and/or the black hats. These factions fight each other off-screen on an event clock, from which some information leaks to the PCs through news sources and rumour mills - all during the course of whatever it is they do within their sandbox at that particular time. So I have planned months in advance for a campaign that will last years. But I would say that this is a sandbox game - with the proviso that we agreed to lead into a political end game at a future point. Some people have told me, and advertise, this is railroading. I dislike railroading so I am concerned about other people who share my RP sensibilities (whom I wish to attract to my game!) being turned off. The perception vs the reality - because there is a perception that planning = railroading. And if this story of mine highlights something you are hesitating about, if you perceive "this guy" to be a railroader, you may be falling victim to your own perception; and your game may lack the necessary prepared structure to break itself out of its own inertia. While it is fun to play as a multi-faceted player behind the DM's screen, the DM is more than a player. That is why I make the social contract I do, because the DM has allot of work and must be the drive for the player's story in a proper sandbox. It's not just being responsive on the fly or about juggling things as they occur, or even knowing the rules by the book better than anyone else at the table. It's about having all the parts and pieces in mind, which is why "this guy" prepares for the tabletop improvisation. You may have to do more than you originally thought for your players, which won't prevent you from enjoying a sandbox with the other players. This ties back to their initial expectations from the leading questions you gave them, which were GREAT RP bits IMO. Ironically, you may feel they are unimpressed or uninspired at this moment. The reality may be they are very impressed and are waiting for more from you along the lines of those initial questions.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Apr 12, 2012 6:20:10 GMT -8
I've said this on the cast more than once but I think it bears repeating. In my opinion an unstructured sandbox (sand pile might actually be a better term) does not actually work with most groups in most situations. What I try to do is build a sandbox and throw toys into it for them to play with if they want. In the case of the current campaign I'm running (caveat here I have awesome players) I threw one toy into the box and let them go. I had other toys if that one didn't appeal to them but they are so totally all over the core plot line right now that I don't even need anything else. Though I do end up having to make stuff up most nights because they are so inventive that they play with it in ways that I never thought of. If anyone is interested and wants to read the recaps from the sessions to date they are here www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/sturmgeist/adventure-logI think I will have to write this up in more detail and post it to douchy dm. Cheers, JiB
|
|