I Need More Feedback from My Players

[algi]

Because I hate reading long posts, but love to write them, I make some chapters. Sorry for the long foreword, just skip it if you think it doesn't help.

To summarize my problem:

My players don't give meaningful feedback and I would like some suggestions how I could change that.

My background as GM:

I started GMing in the first half of the '90s . We had no RPG in Hungary (that's a lie, but almost true), so I tried to GM an own system based on Fighting Fantasy. Soon a Hu version of AD&D arrived (it's called Magus, if you know it), and I GMed it many-many-many times. I didn't care about the PCs, neither about the setting. The worst cases was when I used ideas from Star Trek TNG. At least one of the player was a munchkin, he memorized the rules wich helped me much, because I didn't have to page through the rulesbook for attack roll modifiers. One of the other players did nothing, chose only the obvious decisions and sometimes missed even that. The other players (including myself) laughed at him many times.

Later we tried many-many other RPGs, like Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Star Wars, Mutant Chronicles, etc. We loved playing RPGs, but it always lacked something. One of the things was, we always made characters to carry them on and play out their lives. (Sorry, I don't know the English name of this kind of game. Maybe "campaign"?) But every time we played only one session and made new characters next time.

They begin playing cards and I stopped playing with them. 6 years passed. In this 6 years I went to university and played only 4 times altogether. 2 GMings were among these, Aeon Trinity. The players knew what they wanted and we knew that we wanted the same from the game, so we enjoyed it. (One of the players we didn't know and he acted strangely in our eyes. It was sure natural for himself.)

After the 6 years pause I decided to GM again. I posted an ad on an RPG site and I have now one party and we are playing a Hu game called Codex. This was the first time I realized that I am a bad GM.

Problems in Earliest Sessions:

• Most players have been talking most of the time about thing not relating at all to the game.
• Two of the players have been playing very passively. One of them (who has never played RPG before!) have been choosing always the obvious decision and there was at least one instance when he didn't choose at all, while there was an obvious decision. (In short: they were on fire and he did nothing.) The other passive player chooses mostly the aggressive decisions, except when choosing profane decisions (like having some cocoa when something is lurking in a dead village at night). (Well, I don't see the latter as a real problem. She likes to play warriors and I can live with it. And I don't think that the mood is something that has to overrule the players decisions. If a player wants to act his/her character like "fuck the mood", I don't think that's a problem. Maybe a symptom of a problem wich the player articulates throw his/her character, but not a problem itself.)
• The players weren't listening to the happenings. I had to repeat important things all over again wich irritated me very much and made hard for them to make real decisions.
• I spoke to them as a very-very bad actor would act when pushed onto the stage. They didn't enjoy it, the sessions were very short and they felt no proble to end them. But they keep telling me that it was good.

What I Accomplished Since

• I began to use some adventurewriting techniques that made the sessions more exciting. (I made them up myself, you can find some part of it here: http://www.rpglaboratory.com/algi/the_secret_mechanics.) This was the first time that the aggressive passive player said that this session was the best until that time.
• Before the last session I talked to three of them one by one. (I don't want them to influence each other.) Two of them said that he would like to have more in-character things and more roleplaying in the sense of drama. One of them (the passive inexperienced player) told me that he has no expectations just waits for what is coming. I told him that he should prepare for changes. After this I used a method I read in the corebook of the game (Codex) wich is: 45 minutes of play and 15 minutes of break. I added a rule to it: at the beginning of a session every PC gets 20 XPs. Every talking about things that don't relate to the game is -1 XP. (100 XP is one level. It's a traditional fantasy RPG with long skill list, etc.) I think that the effect was awesome compared to the problems we had. At the end the players didn't want to end the session and the two passive players had the best lines in the end. One of the other players had a very cool insight and thing like that.
• There were some other modifications at the last session: I asked the players to help me GM. Most notably: one of the players haven't attend the session before the last one, so we had to explain his PC's absence. I asked him for a reason and I used the "Yes, but..." method (sorry, don't know where I read about it). He wanted to start a side adventure based upon the adventure just finished and I made it into a personal matter. Another time when I had to introduce four similar NPCs, I asked the players to help me give them simple personalities. It really rocked, because it would've been lame if I had to figure out and I think some of them even liked the result.
• The players don't know the setting, nor the rules, so at the beginning I haven't required any conceptualization, only mechanical Chargen. In exchange for that I asked them to tell stories by the side of a campfire for many XPs (15 each story). I failed because only one of them told a tale (the inexperienced passive player, because I asked him to be the first one).

My problem:

My problem is, that they always tell me that it is good and I don't know what to do, because I know that it isn't. If this is good, it's not enough for me. I don't know how good or bad their former experiences had been, but if this is better... As I talked to them I think I understood right that we want the same kind of roleplaying. (Please, don't ask me about Big Model and GNS terms regarding this.) I see some small, but important differences between our needs, but I think that is not as a big gap that would make understandable the style of their play.

I think with this carrot-and-stick method I started on the right path, because the aggressive passive player told me again that it was better then the other sessions and I generally got the feedback from the players that they wanted to continue that session. But I can't ask, because everytime I ask, they tell me, that it was "good". (Like when asking your wife about sex some months before divorce.)

A Suggestion

At Spin TJ McCrea and Filip Luszczyk suggested a method wich I call Bad Karma - Good Karma. (They gave no name.) Every time a player notices something that (s)he likes about my GMing, (s)he gets a point wich (s)he can use later to generate GM-fiat things that (s)he would like to see. Everytime a player notices something that (s)he doesn't like about my GMing, (s)he gets a point that can be used to veto something I GMed.

What do you think would help me make the game more enjoyable? Is anything that should be important and I missed?

Gabor

[TonyLB]

Well, you seem to assume that your players are secretly filled with a burning desire for something more ... which doesn't seem to be the case.  Maybe their desires are modest.

What we know for sure is that you, personally, want more from the game.  So why are you concentrating on how to get that by manipulating the other players, rather than how to do it for yourself?

What do you want from the game?  How can you, personally, achieve it?  Are you sure that the other players need to change what they're doing?  What if you change what you're doing in order to more directly serve your own needs?

[Callan S.]

Hi Algi,

You've got quite a problem - imagine you were going to run six games, three of which you know your players don't like, and three of which you know your players like. AND you tell the players what sort of game each is going to be, so they can see it'll be one they don't or do like.

It sounds like your players would turn up to all six games!

They wouldn't wouldn't look after themselves - they'd turn up to the games they know they'd hate as much as they'd turn up to the games they know they'd like.

That's a major problem, because they wont do anything to look after themselves. This means they'll never give feedback that would look after themselves either.


So, what if you were to take Tony's advice - write up what you yourself find really exciting and say 'for this session, only come if this excites you' and hand them a comprehensive write up of what your excited about?

This is a hard question - if someone lies to you by turning up even when it's not exciting for them, do you still want to give the liar a good time? Someone who's lieing to you?

[algi]

Sorry, but I don't understand the thing about "lying". One thing is that I don't want to moralize about who is lying about what. I like them, they are my pals. I want them to enjoy the game, but seemingly they don't enjoy it. Yes, it's true they can't articulate their needs, but it's not a cause not to entertain them by good GMing. If every player in the world could tell what (s)he needs, their wouldn't be any need for theories. It's not like they don't care what they play, it's like they have no other GM and they are stuck with me.

And it's not like I don't see any signs of the unsatisfaction:

- One of the players signed while playing that he doesn't like when talking about other stuff.
- Another player did it, too. I talked to him about this and he said it's a sore point in the party. They would like to play that, but he doesn't see any hope for it. (Because they always want to tell the joke that came to their minds, etc.)
- I talked to another player about this and he said, too, that he very much would like to play more like that.
- Another player gave some minimal feedback when the sessions became more like what I strive to achieve. She said both times: "This was the best this far."
- And there is one player who doesn't know what roleplaying incorporates, but is open to anything. Interestingly he is the one with the most realworld references while playing.

I think this is quite straightforward that they want to play like "that". I suppose that what I think about "that" is mostly right, but there are still many facets to it. There are many signs of a good session and I don't know wich they would like to have. A good story wich I wrote for them? Or to write the story together with me? Or to have their characters in important decisionsmaking situations? Or to enjoy the scenery of the setting?

My problem is that their feedback is minimal. I try to use mechanical tools, because it opens another opportunity for them to tell me what's wrong and what's good beside minimal oral feedback. My question is: Is there anything else I could do apart from not caring about their needs?

Don't misunderstand me, I don't want to be negative on your advice. I think that what I want and what they want are mostly the same. And I'm already trying to achieve what I want and see if they want that. (So, your advice is already done.) I just would like two more things: to know more about what they want AND (probably this is just as important) quicken up the change. Maybe I wasn't clear about that in my forst post.

Thanks,
Gabor

[TonyLB]

I don't think that they'll make a conscious choice to get on board with a new program until they've come to a conscious realization that they want something out of it.  So whatever they may be unconsciously desiring, I'm not sure it matters on a practical level.

Yeah, I understand that you are picking up signs (like human beings do) that tell you things, maybe even true things, about your friends that they don't yet realize.  But what I'm saying is that them realizing these things is the critical moment when things will start to change for them ... and you can't really influence that very well.  You've tried, and they're clearly not on some cusp where a few well chosen words from you will help them to figure out what they want.

Personally, I think that you're better off dealing with your friends as they actually are ... unwilling to articulate or pursue any plan for fun above and beyond what they're getting now ... than you are in trying to rewire their minds from the outside.  That's why I was giving the advice that you try to find something fun for you to do within the context of where the group is now.

[algi]

I think I'm starting to understand your point. That is I shouldn't bother about feedback just do what I think is right. Do I understand it right? I really didn't expect this answer.

Gabor

[Filip Luszczyk]

Gabor,

It sounds like you're not having the best fun while running your games (i.e. your "I'm bad GM" comments), and this is like missing the point. Once gaming becomes a chore, it stops being fun - so it seems what you need is to start having fun yourself, indeed, whatever it takes. Obviously, you can't have fun at the expense of your players, but if it was impossible for every member of your group, you included, to have fun at the same - it would be leading nowhere, anyway.

Now, if the general approach to RPGs in Hungary is similar to that in Poland, as I expect, then I suppose your "I'm bad GM" comments might be the result of unrealistically high cultural gaming standards. For example, it sounds like you're extremely strict when it comes to tabletalk and stuff, and this seems to be a source of problems for at least one of you (even if part of the group is fine with it). Maybe approaching the game more casually could lessen the pressure?

Also, if I think about your comments on Spin forum, there might be a problem with the detailed setting. The game is quite content heavy, I suppose - thick tome of rules and a detailed setting. As you've mentioned on Spin, none of the players have read it all. So, I think they might be intimidated by the amount of things they don't know about, and consequently choose to act in a safe, passive way. Then, it's possible your, as you described it, "paternal" approach pushes them deeper into this stance - as it's clear for them you're always the only one who knows what to do.

There's a whole lot on your shoulders then, and I think the game could benefit from unloading some of this weight. For example, if the game is setting heavy, chances are slim you're use every single bit of the info contained in the book during your campaign. So, maybe you could establish the general outline, and make things open for their input (e.g. if they ask if there is somethign in the realm they're travelling through, ask them if they'd like it to be there and simply add it if they are positive).

If you're not certain about their opinions, you could try to elicit better feedback by asking more specific questions. Rather than general "was it good?", ask about specific scenes that you're not sure about, or ask what they think wbout your specific decisions.

Also, I recommend trying some lightweight system for a more casual one-shot session with the group - something short and easy enough that everyone can learn the whole game in 15 minutes and more player-driven. Maybe InSpectres (the demo version is free, pretty playable and whole 4 pages long), The Pool (a free, short and very minimalist game), Wushu (very lite system with some interesting narrative tricks, free version available) or TSoY (it's longer and more meaty, but there's a free Creative Commons version of the game available). This would give both you and your players a better comparison, I think.

[TonyLB]

I think I'm starting to understand your point. That is I shouldn't bother about feedback just do what I think is right. Do I understand it right? I really didn't expect this answer.

I think I'm recommending more of a step back from what looks (to me) like more attention to the need for feedback than is necessarily contributing to your fun.

If you have a problem in a game, talking to the players is a critical tool to help solve it.  But if the problem with the game is that you're asking them for their opinions, and their lack of answers is making you crazy ... well then, the search for communication is becoming a problem rather than a solution.  Does that make sense?

[algi]

Filip,

I think I wrote too much and haven't told enough. I started off with a more hippie like approach: "Do whatever like around the gaming table." and I myself throwed in some jokes, because they seemed to enjoy this. But it really hurt the enjoyment of the play. They didn't notice when something happened and every time I tried to play one scene in-character, most players first reaction was throwing a joke out-of-character instead. I think this is a problem. And it is not a solution that we won't play anything in-character, because it not just the in-character thing, rather the in-game voice thing. They aren't escaping from playing in-character, they are escaping from doing anything meaningful.

I see that the new thing introduced (rules and collaboration) helped to get closer to "that kind of play" what I strive to achieve and wich I think they will enjoy more than the kind of play wich they played thus far.

I think you hit the problematic point with the setting-heavy thing. I didn't think about it, but now as you say. I will realize your advice making an outline of the campaign for the players to fill in. It's goind to be a good continuation of what I tried to do last time. The other thing wich came to my mind was that I should "teach them" the setting. I have some problem getting into the mood of the setting at the beginning of the session. Maybe it would benefit all of us if I would tell a story, a legend or something from the setting that sets the mood for the session and gives some info about the setting.

The problems with lightweight systems is, that we have a rather sceptical RPG culture. "We" don't know anything about indie games and Nar and rules-light systems. We only know the thicker the sourcebook, the better. I think Codex is one of the finest of the Hungarian games if not the finest, because has an enjoyable setting and has some interesting rules wich are just like as they would have indie influence (it has seperate rules for task and conflict resolution) and it has a whole phylosophy behind its magic. To tell the truth, I think we (the party and me) will/would really benefit if we would really embrace this game. (I have the assumption that it will/would have the effect as reading a philosophical book instead of an adventure book, but just as enjoyable and fun.)

I think it's time to write up a list of WMDs I'm going to use on my party.

Tony,

Well, it makes sense, but I think it would defeat the cause, if you understand what I mean. Feedback is not intended to be lar't pour lar't. But I won't forget not to get too enthusiastic getting feedback when I already decided what to do. And I think I already decided it, only waited for some reinforcement from you, guys.

Gabor

[Callan S.]

Hi Gabor,

Sorry, I floundered with the lying thing. I feel the idea's important, but have trouble articulating how.

Sorry, but I don't understand the thing about "lying". One thing is that I don't want to moralize about who is lying about what.

I didn't mean to judge it at a moral level, but at a mechanical level. For example, say someone cheats at a dice roll. Ignore how cheating is a bad thing, that's not my point. My point would be that if they cheated, the system clearly wasn't right for them. Would you agree?

The system I suggested was that they only come if they are excited about X. If they come to play even though they aren't excited about X, that's cheating. Again, never mind the moral level. The important thing is, the system of only coming if your excited about X is clearly demonstrated to be wrong for them.

The thing is, probably every game you've GM'ed runs under that system. Every time you've said you'll GM to anyone, you've probably talked about the important bit, the exciting bit, the bit you'd come for. Of course that's also saying that if you don't like that, best not to turn up. Even if you find the X factor that excites them, the system your used to presenting it in (ie, turn up if it excites you) is wrong for them. They will still be unhappy, even though it has X factor all over the place, because the system it's presented in is wrong for them. That's if they would turn up to the suggestion I gave before AND be unhappy.

Take the idea with a grain of salt though

[algi]

Callan,

Now I understand it. Although it's a bit more complicated, or rather more simple in this culture. We can't talk about how an RPG session will be, because we don't have the words for it. I can't say to people that "we will have a mostly Sim game with a drift to Nar and I prefer actor stance over director stance, but writer stance is welcome, too." They don't know these terms. And it's not just they don't know Forge. It's they don't know nothing about that there is RPG theory. They don't care. They just wanna roleplay without thinking about it. Most people in this culture don't understand that parlor games are much more complicated than computer games. You know, it's like FPS deathmatch anywhere in the world: they expect from you not to "camp" even in a historical World War I game, without thinking about it. The only difference is that they don't even know terms like "camping" in FPS.

The other problem is wich I think is important: there is not such a choice not to show up. If they want to roleplay at all, they have to play with me or try to find another GM. They wouldn't do the latter because social reasons (not to stab me in the back and such things). We have no clubs, we don't know many other roleplayers, because there are not many of us and who we know is not such a big gamer to jump on every gaming occasion.

Switching games is a difficult thing, too, because of the scepsism and the expectations, so we locked these things. We can't choose an easy and grand solution, for example changing the GM, changing the game and anything like that is out of question. At least until I tried every tool and neither worked. That will be the moment, when I propose playing freeform Star Wars or something like that. (They wouldn't play Universalis for example, because "it's not a roleplaying game".)

Wich means: there are the players, there is the GM, there is this game. We are stuck with those for now. I have to handle these problems, not circumvent them. I think exactly this is where theory should help, but I don't know how to apply it, if at all possible. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not eager to use theory and nothing else, it's not like a proving ground, I can use any suggestions or help. In fact I already got much help here and at the Spin forum, but help can't be enough, can it.

Thanks.

[Frank Tarcikowski]

Hi Gabor,

My first advice to you is: Do not try to teach your players role-playing theory! There is no other way to put them off more safely. Plus, I can say from experience that you'll probably think you have understood the theory about 3-5 times and then realize you actually hadn't before you finally understand it well enough to really use it successfully. Especially GNS. That thing you said about "mostly Sim with a drift to Nar" confirms this feeling to me. Anyway, that's not what you should be worrying about right now.

The point is that you've been carrying the whole weight of responsibility for your group's fun all alone for some time. Now you want them to share the load. You want them to invest more, but they don't want to. My impression is that you don't need their input in order to become a better GM and make the game more enjoyable for them. You need their input in order to make the game more enjoyable for you, because it's boring to you to be the only one who ever actually comes up with something meaningful.

The bad news is: It may well be that you are stuck in this situation. I've been there, and had to admit that I would not get the input I wanted from the players. The good news is: It needs not be hopeless. I would suggest that you shift your focus from working on techniques to working on fictional content. Bear in mind that I am only guessing, but if I am guessing correctly, this might help. Ask them stuff about their characters. Let them make up NPCs they would like to meet, places they would like to visit, or problems they would like to solve (especially with regard to the character / drama stuff they mentioned). Then bring these things up in-game, and give them a chance to add something, or ask them if this is how they had imagined it. This just might get your players involved in a way that makes play more interesting and meaningful to you as well.

And maybe, if they care more about what happens in-game, they'll even start doing more "in character" dialogue and such. You don't make things meaningful by treating them as meaningful, you know. They either mean something or they don't, and get treated accordingly.

As for your GMing techniques, well, it seems that you have been working on yourself very hard and that you are doing a good job by now! You started out in a situation where your players only kept showing up out of politeness and didn't really enjoy themselves very much, and you have changed that situation to one where the players seem to have fun regularly. That's a great accomplishment!

- Frank

[Callan S.]

The other problem is wich I think is important: there is not such a choice not to show up. If they want to roleplay at all, they have to play with me or try to find another GM. They wouldn't do the latter because social reasons (not to stab me in the back and such things).

Do you know that giving feedback is like risking stabbing you in the back? Any time they say they don't like something, it's saying 'I'd rather not play with a GM who has to have that'. The risk is, you might have to have the thing they dislike. There's a risk you can't change on that issue. And then your both staring at each other, knowing the roleplaying relationship can't go on, and that everything would have been okay if the player had kept his mouth shut. So they keep their mouths shut.

In the situation you've ended up in, I think your left at blindly stabbing for what might work. I have a quick idea that might help that a tiny bit, but do you think I seem to be a little bit on track with what I've said?

[algi]

Frank,

Yes, I indeed want to avoid using GNS or any other theory, thatswhy I used that funny quote. And indeed I am thinking about playing with content with questions about their PCs and planning some introductions to "set the mood", etc. And thanks for the good words, I will keep them in mind.

Callan,

Well, I think you are right about this something wich is similar to couples that won't tell some things at the beginning of their relationship not to hurt each other, but end up hating to be with each other, because don't want to admit they lied, not to hurt each other even much more. So, I think you hit the point of the problem, although I think you and Filip are seeing this problem more darkly than I. I'm really open to any suggestions that might help.

The news is we are going to play on this Sunday and I'm soon starting to work on the session. I think I'm going to post here my plans when I'm ready and a report about how the session went.

Thanks, everybody.

[Callan S.]

Hi Gabor,

Actually your couples example was something I was going to say myself, so I think were understanding each other pretty well.

Okay, as I said I think your left a stabbing blindly in the dark. But here's a quick idea - find part of the game they or atleast one of them don't seem to like much. I'm refering rules they don't like. Write up a version that you think they would like. Then write up another, different version that you also think they'd like. Also write out the rule as it is normally.

Now, you have each of these write ups on a sheet, and you place them on the table during play. And you tell the players that if they want to use either of the new write ups, they pick up the one they want and put it on top of the write up of the old rules. IMPORTANT: You also say that you wont touch any of the sheets - you can't move them, only they can.

Now, the thing is I'm guessing they wont touch any of it and you'll just end up using the old rules. But that's not the point - the point is to have the rule of them being in charge of this, just sitting there in play. This normalises it - it's kind of like an arachnophobe resting his hand near a spider to just get used to it. The might not touch the spider/write ups, but they are getting used to having that power just sitting there with them and nothing bad happening to them or the group or your friendships.

How's that sound, in terms of its goal (normalisation) and the mechanics involved to reach that goal?