The problems of players.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Sidhain,

Thanks for sticking with the thread. "Blame" is not the issue - even in the phrases you quoted, interpreting them as blame-oriented shows me that you are pretty wrapped up in this issue, emotionally.

I'd still like to discuss this from the GM point of view, but I think you don't want to. Painstakingly re-stating any point of mine, in order to remove the context of blame, or stepping outside the notion of "story" or "adventure," in order to see how player-input is antithetical to some of the adventure descriptions you've given, would be frustrating to both of us.

Here's my solution. Your situation reminds me very greatly of Jesse Burneko's from over a year ago, in which he was pretty upset about (a) his GM-skills being challenged (in his view) by our discussions of Narrativism and (b) the fact that his long-term game wasn't turning out to be enjoyable, when he thought about it.

Jesse, correct me if I'm mis-representing you, but it seems to me that your first attempts to incorporate more player-input into your group produced some very uncomfortable, very weird sensations for you - and, incidentally, raised a lot of blame-issues within the group itself. A great deal of this had to do with your expectations of what players "should" do when presented with a particular set of "clues" embedded in chance encounters.

Jesse - maybe you're the guy to deal with this thread rather than me. Oh! Paul Czege, and Christopher Kubasik (who's out of town right now, away from his computer), you guys might be good at this too.

Best,
Ron

[Roy]

Hi Sidhain,

When I first came to the Forge, there were times I felt I was being personally attacked and had to unfairly defend myself.  I'll tell you that some of those posts really stung me.

But the truth is that the other members weren't attacking me.  They were asking me questions that forced me to think about things that had been bothering me for a while.  Like a surgical laser, their questions pinpointed the exact problems I didn't really want to address.

Please understand that no one is attacking you.  You don't have to defend yourself.  We're all just very passionate about our gaming and want to help out any way we can.    

If you're anything like me, you might want to take a closer look at the very things you're trying to defend.  The fact that you are defending them might help you find something that's been bothering you without even realizing it.

These players expressed an interest in playing this game, as written with them having significant control. One player triggered his own phobia, a step in the right direction but only a step.

It could be that your players just don't know how to take control.  A lot of people I've played with find freedom very stifling.  You may need to teach them how to use that freedom in appropriate ways.

But how do you teach them?  Create a character and play with them until they get the hang of it.  Just make sure you play a supporting character that doesn't steal their thunder.  

I want solutions darn it! :)

Here are a couple of things I suggest trying.  

#1 -- REWARDS

Pick up a couple of bags of the individually-wrapped bite-sized version of your players' favorite candy bar.  When a player does something during the session that you're wanting to encourage, say "cool" and give them a bar.  After a few bars, they'll get the picture.

This is a metagame reward used to reinforce the behavior you're wanting to encourage.  

The thing you have to watch with this method is to make sure you're not just rewarding them for doing something you personally find interesting.  You need to reward them for using the techniques you're trying to teach them, even if they use it in a way you don't personally like.  The players are not there just to entertain you.


#2 -- ENGAGE THE PLAYER

Get everyone together for a quick meeting before the next session.  Just having dinner together is a great excuse.  

Tell them you're wanting to try something a little bit different during the next session and ask them to help you with it.

Describe a setting for the next session, like the building that caught on fire.  Then ask each of them to contribute something that would make that setting more interesting for them, like a villain that's behind it or maybe someone in the fire that they'd like to save.

After you've got their suggestions, stop talking about the game and just have fun together.  You'll probably find them coming back to the game and adding other suggestions for the setting. This is a great sign that you're getting them interested and excited.  

During your prep time for the next session, weave every single one of their suggestions into the situation and turn them loose.

The trick is to get the players interested and involved in the situation, then let the players find a way to get their characters involved.  Hats off to Ron for making this point in the Sorcerer & Sword supplement for Sorcerer.  

You might also want to check out the Universalis essay "The Importance of the Social Contract".  Check out Universalis while you're there; it's pretty damn awesome.

I hope these suggestions help you get your game going in the right direction.


I'd like to say thanks to everyone at The Forge.  You've helped me explore new ideas, better myself, and enjoy gaming again.  Extra warm thanks go out to Ron, Mike, Ralph (Valamir), and Scott (Moose).  

Roy

[Sidhain]

If my post came off as offensive, then I apologise. I assure you that was not my intention. At times I feel the need to make analogies to make a point, under no circumstances ever take these analogies to be a direct reflection on your game.

Sorry, if I offended.

Not really offended per se--just irritated--offense is much deeper *L* It's jus tit is /very/ frustrating to have a normally good group of players suddenly /stop/ performing past behaviours even though these behaviours are what they said they wanted. Perhaps it's performance anxiety on their part?! *shrugs*

[Sidhain]

Maybe your players just aren't very proficient or comfortable with a game or playstyle that allows them more character "freedom".

It's possible, but then the question becomes "why this time and why now"

 

From your previous posts I gather that you normally run games that drive (or lead) the characters to an adventure's conclusion.  If that's the case then your players probably just need time to loosen up and get in the swing of a playstyle they have limited experience with.  Old habits die hard.  Give them some time, and a little direction, and don't look at these initial play sessions as some kind of failure.

A lot of it has to do with "What game do I want to use", the vast majority are yes traditional games because most of them are familiar with that--they are easy to obtain for the non net people, and they've at least been able to flip through them in the game store. The "less" rigid games, I've been playing around with off and on for some time---and one of them is a big time Larp players (which has similarities of play--putting the person in control of "doing" themselves more often than a standard GM/Player game.)


Anyway thank you all for your comments, it's not that I don't consider them mind you, but I tried really hard to head off all these issues that I'd gleaned from reading here...

[Sidhain]

Please understand that no one is attacking you.  You don't have to defend yourself.  We're all just very passionate about our gaming and want to help out any way we can.    

I don't percieve it as attacks per se, just trying to apportion responsibility for why the game didn't work as expected--rather than to find ways to keep it from happenning next time.

Now yes we need to know /why/ it didn't work first--but I went in girded with information from here on how and why it could go awry, and discussing these issues with these same players. So /my/ expectations were simply what the players had stated. It resulted in a game that was fairly flat, and short.

It could be that your players just don't know how to take control.  A lot of people I've played with find freedom very stifling.  You may need to teach them how to use that freedom in appropriate ways.

It is entirely possible--although they've done it in other games I've run for them (independently)

But how do you teach them?  Create a character and play with them until they get the hang of it.  Just make sure you play a supporting character that doesn't steal their thunder.  

Well part of that was why I had Vigil in the "side-plot" so that he could show up and "teach" them how the heroes of old were, and why it's not so bad to try it that way--but, I have to get them to involve themself. I've had too many game where I simplay slapped a mentor type on pc's (I like the X-men formula *LOL*) so I was trying to avoid him being a full on mentor and more a "Kindly old guy" who can help nudge them the right way.

#1 -- REWARDS


#2 -- ENGAGE THE PLAYER

Both good ideas thank you. Bribery does work from time to time.

Tell them you're wanting to try something a little bit different during the next session and ask them to help you with it.

Well that was somewhat what we were doing this session...
the real issue with getting them together for dinner is well--getting them together, game time is precious, and few of us have schedules that meet and make time available more than once a week.

Describe a setting for the next session, like the building that caught on fire.  Then ask each of them to contribute something that would make that setting more interesting for them, like a villain that's behind it or maybe someone in the fire that they'd like to save.

Alright, this is doable in some sessions.

After you've got their suggestions, stop talking about the game and just have fun together.  You'll probably find them coming back to the game and adding other suggestions for the setting. This is a great sign that you're getting them interested and excited.  

Well the fire was derived from "we want a challenge that is non-combat, but still life threatening" and fires, natural disasters and so on are great for this.

.

I hope these suggestions help you get your game going in the right direction.

It is appreciated as with all the comments (except the whose to blame ones :)P Joke!)

[Roy]

Well part of that was why I had Vigil in the "side-plot" so that he could show up and "teach" them how the heroes of old were, and why it's not so bad to try it that way--but, I have to get them to involve themself.

It seems to me that you're confusing two separate issues, that of teaching your players and teaching the characters.  You don't need to teach the characters how "heroes of old were", you need to teach the players how to use the techniques you're giving them access to.  

Try playing a regular hero alongside the other players and let them learn to be better players by watching you.  When they've got the hang of it, kill your character off.  You'll get a great adventure out of it too.

Both good ideas thank you. Bribery does work from time to time.

You can look at a reward system as bribery if you want, but rewards lie at the very core of our being.  I don't know if it's just human nature or if it's just so ingrained in us since we were young, but do not discount the effects of a good reward system.  If you want a certain behavior out of anyone, you have to encourage it.  It's just a Fact of Life.

You don't have to reward players with candy as long as you reward them with something.  Try rewarding them with the excitement in your voice when you say "Cool!  That sounds great!".  Get creative.

Well the fire was derived from "we want a challenge that is non-combat, but still life threatening" and fires, natural disasters and so on are great for this.

If my suggestion on engaging the players won't work as is for you, change it.  Sit down at the next session and tell them you've been horrendously busy with work (life, whatever) and you haven't really had the time to prepare, but you still really want to play ... so everyone is a GM this week.  "So what dastardly disaster are we going to stop tonight, everyone?"  

If everyone looks at each other with blank stares, say "How about a fire?  No, we did that last week ..."  

Once someone pipes up with something interesting, say "Cool!  That sounds like a lot of fun!  But we'll be done with that in ... like 5 minutes.  What kind of complication can we add to that to make it more fun?"  Just keep them thinking and adding twists until you're all satisfied, then play.

If you get done too quick, start another scene the same way.  Or have one of the other players start a scene.

Roy

[Sidhain]

Hi Sidhain,

Thanks for sticking with the thread. "Blame" is not the issue - even in the phrases you quoted, interpreting them as blame-oriented shows me that you are pretty wrapped up in this issue, emotionally.

Yeah yeah Admantium skull---I stick with things to the bitter end, but it takes blackhole cutters to get anything new in my skull :)

I'd still like to discuss this from the GM point of view, but I think you don't want to. Painstakingly re-stating any point of mine, in order to remove the context of blame, or stepping outside the notion of "story" or "adventure," in order to see how player-input is antithetical to some of the adventure descriptions you've given, would be frustrating to both of us.

From a GM point of view--I gave them the tools (the rules) the suggestion of styles of play, and ran what they asked so I'm not sure, what your trying to say--There is a reason I beleve I put 'adventure' elsewhere in quotes, simply because it's not what it was /really/ but that's the closest word from traditional gaming that I had.

[Sidhain]

It seems to me that you're confusing two separate issues, that of teaching your players and teaching the characters.  You don't need to teach the characters how "heroes of old were", you need to teach the players how to use the techniques you're giving them access to.  

Well perhaps perhaps I misspoke--see the thing as I see it is that the characters weren't interacting with the world--to me that is a "fix the characters/game" situation, as the players in /other games/ have no problem playing their characters to interact with the world. So if in one game they work and do things in a manner which is consistent with their stated goals for the game--I expect that to carry over in /another/ game.


And I didn't say bribery was a /bad thing/ :)

You don't have to reward players with candy as long as you reward them with something.  Try rewarding them with the excitement in your voice when you say "Cool!  That sounds great!".

Now this goes back to the the presumptions that I didn't do this or something similar---I did--for example when the player activated his own phobia,I was delighted and reacted that way. My response was "Way cool! that's a neat idea" Now it's not a bad idea if it hadn't been tried already.

If my suggestion on engaging the players won't work as is for you, change it.  Sit down at the next session and tell them you've been horrendously busy with work (life, whatever) and you haven't really had the time to prepare, but you still really want to play ... so everyone is a GM this week.  "So what dastardly disaster are we going to stop tonight, everyone?"  

Alright.

[Roy]

see the thing as I see it is that the characters weren't interacting with the world--to me that is a "fix the characters/game" situation, as the players in /other games/ have no problem playing their characters to interact with the world. So if in one game they work and do things in a manner which is consistent with their stated goals for the game--I expect that to carry over in /another/ game.

The characters are an extension of the player, so I would look really hard at what's causing the behavior in the players that is being manifested in the characters.

Here are some problems I can come up with off the top of my head:
1)  Players are not familiar with the genre and not sure what their characters are supposed to do.  Solution:  teach the players about the genre.
2)  Players are not engaged by the setting and don't care enough to get their characters involved.  Solution:  have the players create a setting that engages them.
3)  Players are used to playing game X and are not sure how to play characters in this game.  Solution:  show the players how to play by playing a support character yourself.  
4)  Players don't really believe they have any control over the setting.  Deep down they just think you're going to lead them along the same way you've always done in more traditional games.  Solution:  force them to take control by not preparing anything.

If anyone else can think of any additional problems, please chime in.

Now this goes back to the the presumptions that I didn't do this or something similar---I did--for example when the player activated his own phobia,I was delighted and reacted that way.

We're not mindreaders.  

I would suggest you pinpoint an exact situation or two that you're having problems with, then give us as detailed an account as you can.  You might also want to do a bit of soulsearching and figure out what it is you're not enjoying about roleplaying.  

Roy

[Sidhain]

Here are some problems I can come up with off the top of my head:
1)  Players are not familiar with the genre and not sure what their characters are supposed to do.  Solution:  teach the players about the genre.
2)  Players are not engaged by the setting and don't care enough to get their characters involved.  Solution:  have the players create a setting that engages them.
3)  Players are used to playing game X and are not sure how to play characters in this game.  Solution:  show the players how to play by playing a support character yourself.  
4)  Players don't really believe they have any control over the setting.  Deep down they just think you're going to lead them along the same way you've always done in more traditional games.  Solution:  force them to take control by not preparing anything.

Well, some of this perhaps is accurate, some of it is not, because as I stated we did discuss the differences between H&S and some of the other games we've played. Talking with one of my players she suggested it may have been just the fact that there were only two of them--and the energy level of being a small group wasn't high enough.

We're not mindreaders.  

Nope, none of us are.

You might also want to do a bit of soulsearching and figure out what it is you're not enjoying about roleplaying.  

THere ya go trying to psychic friends network me--- :) Stop trying to mind read you can't do it :)P

See I enjoy role-playing a great deal, I just didn't enjoy a /single/ session of a single game. Not RP in general. (Although what sadly most of the world calls RP is not what I want---you know CRPG style hack and slash and power up characters, just not my thing.)

[Ian O'Rourke]

I'm not sure how we can help at the moment, as you seem to be doing pretty much all we can suggest - without knowing the dynamics of your group to a rediculous level.

As a side note, is this a one-off thing after one sessions, or have these problems exhibited over a number of sessions of this campaign? I only ask becaue if it is a blip it may not be worth worrying about?

If you've detailed this and I've missed it, then I apologise in advance.

[Sidhain]

Ian,
thanks for sticking with me on this *L*

Anyway basically it was/is meant to be a continuing game a "comic book title" that continues, however my local problem with players (all of them have variable and different schedules so getting a large group of them together at one time is difficult) and I decided to run a game in which I'd just "go with whoever I had at the time" the first game session we'd discussed the rules, they'd been handled pre made pc's and I ran it to give them "how this system works" with four players. Now at the end of that session I told them they could make their own characters and that this session (with pre made characters) just a "fit" (Long story dealing with the fact that I had scenes they played out as superheroes and scenes in a mental hospital, and so on) in essence that construct was entirely designed to allow me to show them how the game worked without stepping on "what they want for the game".  Trying to get all four back together again /since/ then has proven impossible (one has a new job, and hours are usually the opposite of my own since we work at the same place)--now the second session involved only one of the original four and another player (who we've played with before, but wasn't available for the first session)---this session went wonderfully--the heroes interacted with each other, with the environement and so on. The next session included the one who'd been at the /other two games/ and one from the first session but not the second--and the problems from this session the actual 3rd that are tied together by common backfrop and the one recurring pc.

Interesingly enough both the players in the third session did fine in the first and I'mb eginning to suspect it has something to do with player personality---some players assume leadership-roles in a game, unconsciously perhaps they give shape to other players ideas--they /being there/ helps the others act out more comfortably, play their roles more smoothly because they do it so naturally.

I note this as a player myself occasionally and far to rarely if I'm in a group the group tends to be more immersive because I simply won't accept less in my own playing style--me using accents and character traits provides an easier time for others to do the same, and this may be the same situation, but from across the table.

[Ian O'Rourke]

Yikes, my head hurts. I must admit, you are a braver man than me going with such a rotating group of players. I'd be inclined to have not gamed at all under those criteria - but then I'm picky :)

Okay, I must admit to having some trouble decoding the paragraph wher you describe who was at what session - and it sounds like you might have reached a conclusion with respect to one element of your problem? I got the impression this was because someone was missing from the third session (and again I'm assuming it is the third session that is 'faulty') that sort of provided inspiration in the second?

But then I re-read your post and I got to thinking the people there on the second session where in the third, then my logic fell apart.

I must admit, in my experience, though others people's experiences may differ, in such a 'who will turn up this week' campaign structure it can be hard to keep the 'energy' level up no matter what style of game you're trying to create. At the same time, the game sounds very young, with only two official sessions (I assume I have this right?) and as such you may be worrying too much at this point? It might be a blip?

As you no doubt know, sometimes things just fail 'to go', people may be tired, or may be someone is missing who provides a bit of impetus. At this stage, unless it continues for a number of sessions I'd go with the flow. Of course, with your rotating player set-up it might be hard to factor in a solution from analysing more 'broken' sessions - assuming they occur.

Since you noted that you sometimes provide this impetus as a player - is it not possible to provide that impetus as the GM? You may well be doing all this, all we can do is suggest.

Overall though, I'd just go with the flow for a bit, and see what happens. Giving advice in this manner is like shooting in the dark a lot of time :)

[Sidhain]

Ian--basically I had one recurring player through all three sessions, the others varied each session.

Skipiing to the end--as a GM, I do provide some energy in my games, and inspiration but I really am trying to turn the game more significantly over to my players and step back from being so involved. It may not work with some players, and I suspect the best way may be as Roy suggested to literally maek me a "pc" to step in and play with them--since the game allows a GM to step back a bit it might just work--allowing me to play the person and not worry so much  about running the world/rules/situation.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I think that the "more player control and/or investment" concept pretty much requires full attendance. I don't see how a variable player-roster can result in the kind of effect you're looking for.

The reason for this is that Author stance requires perspective and interest in one another's characters beyond experiencing one's own character. To do this - and to riff off what's happening with another character, when playing one's own - the data have to be there. By "data," I mean the experience and interest of watching what the other guys (players) have done, both within the current session and during the previous sessions.

Without full attendance, a player has lost a huge amount of that necessary data and furthermore, has little sense of causal flow - and that's really important for the "more player control" to work as well.

Best,
Ron