Dominating Play (long)

[wyrdlyng]

Setup: I'm playing in a weekly/bi-weekly D&D game run by my wife. The current group is 6 players in size and is the result of combining 2 groups, 1 good and 1 evil, together into 1 bigger group. As I was a player in both groups I have 2 characters, which isn't a problem for me as I've GMed for most of my natural life. My concern is that of the entire group, my characters are the only ones with defined goals.

One character is a Lawful Cleric of the god of Retribution. He seeks out the guilty and smites them. As I was the most experienced player he became the de facto leader of the good group (which consisted of 1 ranger/rogue, 1 dwarf barbarian, and 1 wizard). He was also the only one with a goal (become the right hand man of the god he follows) which is pursued and coming about. Subsequently there are more sessions focusing around his goals and his religion.

My other character is a Drow assassin. The evil group consisted of 1 orc barbarian and 1 fighter. Additionally, the evil group sold their souls (which is what tied them together) to a powerful demon. The group followed the fighter as his wish was to assemble an army and take over the world. (The Barbarian's wish was to become the greatest warrior and my character wished for the power to destroy the Drow and their god. )

Okay, the two groups, sans my Drow, come together as we prepare to do the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil adventure. The evil barbarian and fighter are told by their patron demon to help the Cleric destroy the cult within. The good group is following a trail of evil clerics which burned an innocent town down to the ground and killed all of its citizens.

First snag, the player of the fighter decides that his character is more of an organizer than a direct fighter and decides to switch to a new character; he creates a monk. My elf is busy with other things and I play my cleric as the groups merge and start towards the temple. The monk comes along for the ride. (As de facto leader and being Lawful Neutral my character lets the evil barbarian and monk into the group with little trouble.)

Second snag, my Cleric is supposed to die. It's part of the story for his eventual goals. So the group goes to the moathouse and fights a powerful blue dragon (since we're much higher level going into this than recommended the foes are also beefed up). After a noble sacrifice to save the wizard my cleric gets obliterated by lightning. Only some ashes remain. The dragon leaves after being heavily wounded.

Here is when the trouble begins. The good dwarf and ranger want to press on and explore further. The rest of the group wants to fall back to town and regroup. The monk is disgusted with the dwarf and ranger for not reacting to the death of the cleric. The wizard and evil barbarian feel the same. After a 30 minute real-time, in-character debate in the middle of the courtyard the group finally leaves back to town. It is evident to everyone, both in and out of character, that with the cleric dead the group has no leader.

So, the group now realizes that they lack a solid reason to go into the temple. My Cleric was always very reserved and private and never told them exactly why he did the things he did. Since their characters had no goals of their own they just followed him around. The dwarf wants to kill stuff. The ranger wants to fulfill the cleric's quest out of respect but doesn't know what it is aside from going into the temple. The monk wants to protect the wizard and will follow whatever she does. The evil barbarian is confused since he was supposed to help the cleric destroy the cult. What the wizard will do is uncertain.

So next session I am bringing my Drow into this mix. My Drow has a definite reason for going into the temple. The patron he really is working for wants to sabotage the demon's goals and get my Drow his soul back. He knows that the demon wants something in the temple and is out to find out what it is before the demon can get her hands on it. To this end my Drow needs the group. My Drow can get the group motivated by pulling the strings of the wizard and the others. But should he?

Since the other characters still do not have any long term goals am I dominating play by leading them into following the goals of my characters?Part of me says no because they couldn't come up with anything on their own in the months that we've been playing. Another part of me wonder if they haven't come up with anything because they've been too complacent and just followed my character around. Making it worse is that none of the other characters want the job of leader (except maybe the wizard but the player might not want it).

Additionally, I know a bit more about the campaign as this is the first campaign that my wife's run and I'm helping her out. We're not trying to railroad the campaign but the only other player who indicated a goal for their character and pursued it was the fighter who put himself as an NPC.

So, do I herd the group towards the direction of my goals or let them try and figure out what to do? Since the last time they tried to figure out what to do it took an half-hour and since there are strong Law vs. Chaos personality clashes between the characters I'm worried that they might end up 1) wandering off separately or 2) fighting each other.

Any thoughts or advice?

[Mike Holmes]

Ask the players?

What do they want? Once you open the discussion up to the players (and leave the characters out of it; we don't care what they think) you'll probably be able to determine what to do. Do they want you to provide a leader? Or do they not care about motives? Perhaps they are looking for something more gamist that involves less plot. Maybe they do want to be railroaded to the Temple so they can get on with it.

Ask.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Alex,

Well, I gotta say, multiple elements of your account lead me to be very pessimistic.

1) The merging of two groups - why? purely social? the assumption that more is better? because it's cool, for an unspecified reason?

2) The "good" and "evil" (as well as Law vs. Chaos) difference between the groups - are they supposed to work together, clash internally, what? (And by "supposed" I am referring to the acknowledged social contract among all the players/GM)

3) The new GM dealing with already-established play groups and characters

4) The "GM behind the curtain," ie, you - which means, basically, that both you and your wife are (a) responsible for what happens and (b) not responsible for the GMing

5) The apparent lack of accord or discussion among the group about where "the story" comes from - it sounds like me like you all need to decide about that, right now

So, all together, I don't see much beyond a lot of aggravation. Ultimately, you have to get some more communication going. But even to do that, you need to decide what you want to do.

* Do you want to run this game? If so, do so, and quit being the GM behind the curtain. If not, then back off, and let the GM make these decisions.

* Do you want the "story" to emerge from character decisions? If so, then it's perfectly OK for some or none of them to go to the Temple - it's even (gasp) OK for the group to split apart and for lots of multiple-scene play to occur. If not, then start the next game at the door of the Temple and tell'em to shut up and like it.

There's no point to having discussions unless you, yourself, are clear about these things.

Best,
Ron

[Clay]

Alex,

Something that was very aparent from your post was that most of the characters were minor background characters in the main story.  This is why they are disinterested. I know because I'm dealing with all of these issues in a Star Wars game, where there's one central story and we all seem to be minor characters. The jargon term for that around here is protagonism, or in this case a lack of it.  But to get rid of big scary words, nobody has their own story.

For long term play, each character should have their own story. The best examples are TV dramas like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Friends or E.R., where the plots intersect each other. External complications are laid upon it, which often help the plots to intersect when aliances are formed to deal with the external problem.

If the players aren't committed enough to their characters to come up with a plot spontaneously, lead them into their won plot. An encounter with a sympathetic character, who suddenly finds themselves in need of assistance, isn't amis. Enemies can be made to pursue. The point is to establish human relationships that people learn to care about.  This takes some effort to develop the characters, but it will pay off.

[wyrdlyng]

Let me try and answer some of these.

1) The merging of two groups - why?

Purely for the sake of convenience. We'd meet with one group on Saturday and the other on Sunday. Unfortunately, this took up most of the weekend and with my wife going back to school and myself trying to do likewise we need more "free" time on weekends. The two groups came together into one which now meets every other Saturday.

2) The "good" and "evil" (as well as Law vs. Chaos) difference between the groups - are they supposed to work together, clash internally, what?

The alignment differences between the groups wasn't/isn't a problem. All are supposed to work together. Any internal clashes were part of the characters' personalities and mostly revolved around Law vs. Chaos. The strongest conflict point is between the purely Lawful Cleric and the "acts like purely Chaotic Dwarf."

This is handled in-game but is primarily a result of the Dwarf's player being interested in little more than combat. When the player gets impatient he wanders off and starts looking for fights. If you describe a scene without combat to him his response is (and this is a direct quote) "Okay. Whatever."

3) The new GM dealing with already-established play groups and characters

As she was running for both groups before. The two groups of players have met several times usually for card games and boardgames. This is the first time they try and roleplay together.

4) The "GM behind the curtain," ie, you

She's responsible, I just try and keep things moving along and help everyone with the rules. Which is perhaps where the problem emerges. :/

5) The apparent lack of accord or discussion among the group about where "the story" comes from - it sounds like me like you all need to decide about that, right now

Here is where a lot of problem stems. Our group consist of 4 experienced players and 3 relatively inexperienced players. My wife, myself and our two friends have been playing rpgs for a long time and have been playing together as a group for several years. These guys can craft strong characters who can drive a story with minimal "push."

The other 3 are relatively inexperienced. 1 only played 1st Edition D&D many years ago. Another, the Dwarf's player, has played nothing but AD&D for many years. The last one is new to roleplaying but has caught on very quickly, made a well rounded character and has some direction to her. Of the three she's the one who makes the most effort to roleplay (and she also get frustrated with the other two as well, especially with her boyfriend).

* Do you want to run this game?

I don't want to to run though it's hard not to. I WANT the other players to do things to lead the story. The experienced players can do this and provide a lot of hooks for my wife to throw at them. I want to get the others to do so as well but I don't know how. We've tried telling them this but they tend to stare at us blankly. The other female player in the group (which mentioned before) is starting to pick up on this as is, to a lesser extent, her boyfriend. The Dwarf's player still treats this like face-to-face Diablo.

* Do you want the "story" to emerge from character decisions?

I'd love to see this but when my wife tries they tend to just sit there and wait for something to happen. To break the long silence I do something and try to get the ball rolling but no one pick it up from there.


The thing that confuses me is that two of the three newer players have come up with some really good character backgrounds with good hooks. But both never talk about their backgrounds and when a hook is thrown they don't pursue it. Example, shadow creatures similar to those who attacked the Dwarf's homeland appear and chase us. We face them in battle and then...

And then nothing. The Dwarf has no reaction to this and doesn't make any mention of the possible link to his past or ask to investigate it. So we continue on as if it never happens. In contrast, my cleric discovers his family's ancestral mace for sale from a vendor in a city. After threatening the merchant to learn how he came to possess it the cleric begins planning a future journey to his home to discover why it ended up in the city they're in.

I guess the main point of frustration is that the newer players don't provide hooks for their characters or don't react to them when they appear. So in order to keep from sitting at the table staring at each other in silence I have my character follow one of his hooks.

So my question is how to you get players to Protagonize themselves? If we could do this I wouldn't feel the need to grab the reins, so to speak.

[wyrdlyng]

Something that was very aparent from your post was that most of the characters were minor background characters in the main story. This is why they are disinterested.

This is true but it's because they don't do anything to make themselves anything more than that. Of the newer players only the female player makes any kind of connection with NPCs that she meets.

If the players aren't committed enough to their characters to come up with a plot spontaneously, lead them into their won plot.

This is what my wife's trying but how do you do that without railroading them into it? ("Dammit, you will be the star of this episode and like it!")

I think that the habits they picked up from old D&D are keeping them from being more than just Interchangeable_Party_Member_3 and Interchangeable_Party_Member_4. I'd like to break them of this but I don't know how. Telling them flat out doesn't work.

[Mike Holmes]

It's hard to know where to start.

A number of your responses are quite confusing. It sounds like there are only two players who are the problem, but then you say that of all the players, only you provide any direction to the group of adventurers. So are the other players a problem or not?

Telling them flat out doesn't work.

So, you've indicated to them that you think they should provide more motivation for their characters? And they refuse to do so?

This is a classic GNS problem, I think. It sounds very simply like you have two players who very much prefer Gamism. Have you considered that they just might not like the style of play that you are trying to get them to conform to? This will not go away, no matter what you throw in. Reason? They are playing D&D, a very Gamist system. The system is telling them that they are playing appropriately, so they continue to play in the style that they are comfortable with.

Unfortunately, there is little you can do.
[initiate Standard Solutions for GNS incompatibility text]
1. Ignore their play style, and play around it. This sounds like something you'd rather not do, but it is often the only workable choice. This may mean catering to their gamism occasionally, or they may leave.
2. Try to convince them to play another way. It sounds like you've already tried. Perhaps you can use better arguments, or tailor the system to help. But it seems to be the consensus of most who've tried it, that it works only rarely.
3. Stop playing with them. Harsh, but effective. Find players who want to play like you do.

It sounds to me like you want to do number 2. Well, Dr. Mikey's standard prescription is to play a system that is more suited to your style. Have everyone try SOAP. Or something like it. Once they've tried SOAP, they will at least have an idea of the sort of approach that you are proposing. Wherin player decisions drive the plots. Then you can discuss it from there, and see if they can change in the other game. But don't be surprised if they say no. Some of my players have, and apparently this is a fairly common reaction. So, good luck.

As I was saying, you can't have picked a worse game system for your intended style. Can you change systems? Try a subtle change like TROS, and tell them that you're just changing for the more realistic combat. That might sucker them into, that sort of play you're looking for once they get a hold of the Spiritual Attributes. OTOH, probably not, these sound like entrenched Gamists. You might just get something awful looking.

Sorry the prognosis isn't better.

Mike

[wyrdlyng]

Sorry about the confusion. I guess the core of the problem is that there are two players who have different styles of play from the rest of the group. The rest of the group can mix and match styles fairly well (add some Narrativism to a mostly Gamist system like D&D, etc.).

Originally the problem was the three newer player but one of them has moved beyond purely Gamist play fairly rapidly.

I know that D&D is a Gamist system but it was the only common linking point between the newer players and they wanted to try it.

I would like to do the 2nd listed option and we (the rest of the group) is trying to nudge the two remaining players into something closer to what the rest of the group is comfortable with.

My wife has tried tailoring the system away from the "kill and loot" methodology of D&D by doing things like rewarding for good roleplaying and granting the group items that increase in power as the group does so that accumulating a horde of magic is no longer necessary.

I'd love to try SOAP or something more Narrativist. I've just held off due to fear of shocking them. Maybe I should stop hesitating and try it as a fill-in for a week.

I'd like to move away from D&D to another system for many reasons (I dont like High Fantasy, D&D's a bad mix of realistic and abstract, etc.).  I keep meaning to order a copy of Riddle since it sounds like something most of our group would play. Perhaps that would work better than throwing them into a purely Narrativist game cold turkey.

[Mike Holmes]

I'd love to try SOAP or something more Narrativist. I've just held off due to fear of shocking them. Maybe I should stop hesitating and try it as a fill-in for a week.

The cool thing about SOAP is that it takes about an hour to teach the rules, make characters, and play the entire game. Hour and a half at the outmost. So you can pass it off as just a lark. End a session that is going slowly a bit early and throw it in. Or offer it as a warm up. Especially if a player is running late. So it doesn't have to replace a session.

In any case, I suggest SOAP pretty much because it is so easy to get in under the radar for the reasons I mention above. Otherwise I'd suggest Hero Wars for a more serious Narrativist interjection. InSpectres is also a good way to go.

Mike

[Jake Norwood]

I keep meaning to order a copy of Riddle since it sounds like something most of our group would play. Perhaps that would work better than throwing them into a purely Narrativist game cold turkey.

A shameless plug, but TROS will be available to the general public via FLGSs everywhere at the very beginning of this month. Ask for it by name!

;-)

Seriously, though, TROS is perfect for converting a gamist or simulationist group to more narrative play...or so they tell me!

Jake

[Paul Czege]

Hey Alex,

I'd love to try SOAP or something more Narrativist. I've just held off due to fear of shocking them. Maybe I should stop hesitating and try it as a fill-in for a week.

The only problem I've found with SOAP is that guys often just don't get it, and struggle with deciding on genre appropriate behaviors. In our game of SOAP last summer, for instance, my friend Jim had his character stop at McDonald's for lunch.

That's one of the reasons I typically recommend InSpectres. I've yet to find anyone who struggles with the genre.

On the other hand, if you've got more than one female player, especially if they're the type that just can't force themselves to learn which dice to roll in D&D, then I'd say go for SOAP. The women will fall naturally into authority roles they've never occupied before, and it'll shake your group up a bit.

Paul

[Gordon C. Landis]

I'd love to try SOAP or something more Narrativist. I've just held off due to fear of shocking them. Maybe I should stop hesitating and try it as a fill-in for a week.

Yes.  SOAP, or InSpectres, or something you/your wife build off The Pool.      You have to establish if your other players are actually interested in this Protagonism/Narrativist thing, even a litle bit, or it really doesn't matter what you do - they won't play the way you'd like, because they don't like it and it isn't fun for them.  Note this doesn't mean they have to LOVE the session of SOAP (or whatever) that you play, but if they aren't at least intrigued by it, you've got some (in GNS terms) non-Narrativists and you should abandon trying to "make" them play that way.

If this happens, and you're commited to playing together anyway, get "Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering" and try to apply his advice about satisfying different player types in the same game.

Gordon

That's my thoughts

[hyphz]

These symptoms you've described sound very, very familiar to me, especially the Dwarf's player.  

He isn't going to try and trace the shadow creatures because he knows their origin probably isn't in the module.  He says 'whatever' to non-combat situations because he knows they're probably text boxes with a binary eventual outcome.  He loves combat because only in combat do the rules give him sufficient backing for him to force the GM to allow him to make a difference in the adventure.  

Now, I don't think *YOUR* GMing is like this.  But the classic 'old school' D&D GM is, and if he's experienced with that, he's learned all these things.  And at some point he probably knew that if he questioned how things worked in the dungeon or asked where the shadow creatures came from or didn't do the obvious response to the boxed text, then things came to a crashing halt and the GM blamed him  socially for disrupting the game.  That's a pretty strong negative reinforcer.

And the killer is that just telling them that those rules no longer apply, that they CAN do that kind of thing now, usually doesn't work.  Partly because they were told BEFORE that they were participating in a story as a hero (in spite of the restrictions).. but, far more dangerously, because their mental system may well simply no longer see roleplaying as a creative activity.  No matter how much they want to make story, the creative resources necessary just aren't activated in their minds because they're so used to not needing them.  

I also think D&D tends to compound the problem; you always tend to wound up with a 'led party' in D&D games because the rigid class separation means that no character is individually competent to cope with anything that the system says they should be able to cope with.  Cooperation is not just a good idea; there's no option if you want to live.  For this reason, although splitting up the party might be good if you want a player created story, D&D's system won't help you run it; even all its balancing rules are designed for parties.  If you split the party INSIDE the Temple in RtToEE then you're probably dead the first time you meet something (it's a HARD module).  

I've seen a parallel problem in my own D&D group.  We had a loud and annoying player, who led the party and also did ludicrous in-character actions that annoyed the other players (abandoning the party in a dragon's lair, announcing that he had other people's items, holding the halfling thief out of a boat window over the mouth of a sea monster..).  He stopped when asked, but then all that was left was a bunch of silent people (yes, myself included, and I'm not proud) who had no clue what to say, or even how to tactically play their own characters, because they had been so used to the leader telling them (IC and OOC) what to do and them basically just coming up with IC excuses for doing it.  Of course, the silence got really boring, and so the leader always got effectively asked to start again because, unpleasant as it was, it was the 'local maximum'.  People just disconnected as far as possible from their own characters so that they could get their entertainment by laughing when the leader player hosed or mocked the party, and if they lost that bit of treasure by him randomly claiming he had it then, hey, so what?  They knew that would happen when they picked it up.  Of course, the campaign collapsed.

(We did get it back, though, because the leader player started playing a wizard - which is one of the classes in D&D that is most dependant on others.  I notice your party leader was a Cleric - the LEAST dependant class, especially in 3E.  I don't know if a similar thing would work for you, though.)

Thing is, I don't think the guy in your post is a Gamist.  All the Gamists I know DON'T say "yea, whatever" to non-combat; they play along and give an in-character response whose effect is to bring the combat nearer (even the really hardcore non-roleplayers still manage an "I shall smite the dread foe in thy name, sirrah" or something equally cliched.)

Definately running another game would be good, but I've been told by another GM I used to know that they had a player like this who played brilliantly in another game system, and then reverted right back again when the group went back to D&D.

[Clay]

This is what my wife's trying but how do you do that without railroading them into it? ("Dammit, you will be the star of this episode and like it!")

I think that the habits they picked up from old D&D are keeping them from being more than just Interchangeable_Party_Member_3 and Interchangeable_Party_Member_4. I'd like to break them of this but I don't know how. Telling them flat out doesn't work.

You do it without railroading by loading them on a truck and driving them to where you want them to go.

We've talked about this in other forums, but I'll bring it up again here: it isn't railroading so long as the actions of the GM do not remove the options for the players. By the very definition of trying to make someone a protagonist, you aren't railroading them.  

Try this approach:

Put the party in a difficult spot.  Something that fighting their way out of is an obviously bad solution. If one of the party members is prone to drunken debauchery, have them wake up with a dead body.  Make sure that the city watch is close to hand and the character is aprehended.  Also make sure that there's no real chance that the party is going to be able to break the accused out.  Then have someone else (decidedly sympathetic) show up and say that they saw someone slinking away from the scene of the murder.  This should create a debt of honor, especially if its clear that the character would have hung otherwise.  Have this person do something with the party for a while.  Then have this person get into trouble that needs the character's help to get out of.

That will get at least one of the characters involved.  If the targetted player remains detached and uninvolved, their character is quite clearly sociopathic, and a personal extinction may be in order. If news of this lack of concern gets out (and any GM worth their salt will arrange for it to get out), people will shun the character and the people around him(her). Nothing spreads faster than bad news, so people are eventually going to refuse to do business with them.  Drop heavy hints that this is starting, and immediately present them with an option to redeem their name - someone to rescue.

You aren't railroading them.  You're presenting them with opportunities. By their actions, they choosing to be heros or villains.

[hyphz]

That will get at least one of the characters involved.  If the targetted player remains detached and uninvolved, their character is quite clearly sociopathic, and a personal extinction may be in order. If news of this lack of concern gets out (and any GM worth their salt will arrange for it to get out), people will shun the character and the people around him(her). Nothing spreads faster than bad news, so people are eventually going to refuse to do business with them.  Drop heavy hints that this is starting, and immediately present them with an option to redeem their name - someone to rescue.

This *is* railroading.  You're making one option (going to the NPC's aid) obviously better than all others.  The player has the 'choice' of going after the guy who helped him or having his ability to function shut down.  I do not think it will take him long to decide, or that it will make him feel like a protagonist.