I'm fascinated with the way play in this game I'm running is turning out.

For a quick background: Until about two years ago, the last time I played D&D was in 1987 or so. I finally got too frustrated with how the game didn't support what I wanted. I think I went on to play loads of other games, none of them that great, but the key is that I missed years of influence that apparently have driven the players I'm with to act the way they do. I'm completely baffled by it.

Another note: I don't mean to bash on the system. I think it's okay. I just find the player behavior really weird.

After all that kicker stuff I told you about previously, they've reverted to this feral, eat-or-be-eaten state. They check for traps all the time, and I've even said I don't like the whole traps thing, and of course they've yet to find one.

One of them actually commented in play that an opponent should have done something more threatening, like such-and-such sort of spell combo.

And the most interesting thing was this post-game email, of which an excerpt is:

We can't carry all the gold around with us whereever we go. So,
if we want to make our party official we should designate a base of
operations and figure out the safest place to store our treasure. I don't
think FR has the equivalent of a banking system. If they do its very
corrupt and not where our money should be going. [that player's character] is for us finding a Good/Powerful organization to have as allies and ask them to look after our loot for us. Otherwise we are just asking for trouble.

Man, get a ringer player.

I've played in these sorts of D&D games many a time. Out of what started as perverse enjoyment at the uncomfortableness of others, my character would literally kick in any door if he didn't know what was behind it. After about two sessions, though, everyone else started to break the "I-spend-10-precious-minutes-of-real-time-looking-for-traps" mode they were stuck in.

Hey Matt,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you seem to be the odd man out. Taking a lesson from Clinton's Donjon, I would say the players are telling you they want traps. They want a challenge, and at least one of them has taken time to point it out to you. They are doing their best to think everything though, and you deride them for their play style.

Frankly, I could care less about touchy-feely foofiness, and I get the impression your players feel the same way. They play D&D because it skips all of that and gets right to the fun stuff. As long as you antagonize them, they will deperately keep trying to get the game in line with what they want, instead of trying to meet you halfway. You, as the gamemaster, need to be the one who calls for a truce and makes concessions. You are "in charge", but they outnumber you, and ultimately they have all the power.

Sorry if I seem harsh, but I have been down these roads many times. If I am misinterpreting what has actually happened, then fill us in with the details, and we will have another go of it.

Later,
Grant

Believe it or not, there is a player like that. In fact, he's pretty much exactly like that. He's a dwarf loaded to the hilt with gear. And he has a kickass name to boot.

In the game...

Me: "with a spot roll like that you manage to notice goblins peeking around corners here, here and here."

Dwarf guy: "Goblins? I charge."


This conversation happened after that battle:

Dwarf: "Okay, what's the mage have on him?"

Traps guy: "No, my character is looting that body. I already said."

Dwarf: "Dude, you're still unconscious from the color spray spell."

Traps guy feverishly tries to do math to prove he could have somehow made it in time to loot first.

Hey,

H'm. Matt, have you considered just going all-out Gamist killer GM?

I don't mean "I'm God, you die," but rather, setting up bastard traps, constant enemies, savagely-dangerous set-pieces, and the plain old, tourney-style, "You'll die if you are unlucky, inattentive, or fail in the requisite ruthlessness."

I was just re-reading the old Giants modules, and I was struck by the advice that the frost giants' kids' garments were about the right size for player-characters, and that by wearing them, the PCs might pass as the giant-kids from 20 feet away. Which is to say, if you run into the giant-kids' rumpus room, simply kill them and take their clothes.

And this was written in straight face, pure-tactic prose. The message is, your characters will die if you aren't ruthless and don't think. And if you're really unlucky at the wrong moment, you can die anyway. But I'm fair about it; the rules apply in all the same ways, all the time, and I'll always tell you what you see before you make a decision.

Seems to be what they want. Why not do it?

Best,
Ron

abridged quote:

Ron Edwards wrote: Hey,

H'm. Matt, have you considered just going all-out Gamist killer GM?

Seems to be what they want. Why not do it?

Hey,

Sounds like a classic GNS mis-match to me. 'Course, I'm not there, and I'm going only from your descriptions. Disregard if I'm off-base.

The only advice I can give is that it's neither appropriate nor desirable to try to change the players' preferences if they show no signs or interest in other modes of play. Or, speaking less ethically/socially and more realistically, it's not bloody likely that you or anyone would succeed.

Bear in mind that what you're perceiving as abused-animal behavior may indeed be that, or (based on your admitted preference) may be perfectly wonderful play that isn't to your taste.

I am interested in your phrase "taken in," in your first post - which is to say, you as GM are shepherding or otherwise responsible for the players' enjoyment. Perhaps it's not significant. But it leads me to ask, because you haven't stated the Social Contract side of all of this at all, why are you playing with this group in the first place?

Best,
Ron

Matt,

I have one suggestion. Run modules. I find Gamist play WAY more enjoyable if I don't have to put any creative effort into the actual planning process. My weekday night group wanted one shot at a semi-long term D&D game. So, I said, all right but here's the deal: It has to be Ravenloft and I refuse to write the adventures.

So, I went and basically obtained every 2nd Edition module ever written for Ravenloft in .pdf format. Then, I ordered them acording to difficulty and then shifted some around to keep with Ravenloft's history.

And it's working out just fine. Sure there's no uber-campaign storyline but for this game we all agreed none of us case about that. It's all about "just finally getting to play those higher level D&D characters." And in some sense it's also about examing the assumptions behind the modules' designs. You wouldn't believe how many times my players have almost broken a module just by being friendly to the NPCs.

Caveat: Ravenloft modules are lightly drifted toward Sim-Situation rather than pure Gamism so might experience might not be totally 100% on the mark.

But still, you might want to break out Return To the Temple of Elemental Evil and see what happens both for their enjoyment and yours.

Jesse

Matt,

I found myself in this situation recently myself. My regular group really loves all things Star Wars, and they're pretty cool with d20 as well. I frankly loath both Star Wars, d20, and the GM vs Players mentality that goes with them. The only thing that's really working for me is to play with a group who likes a different style of play. We can't meet as regularly, but when we do the sessions are great and we're always eager for the next one.

If you're determined to stay with these guys, try a change of system. Different systems promote different modes of play, but most importantly, a system change causes a shift in player mindset. It's a good way to try moving closer together in your chosen play styles.

And if they won't play another system, you can always cut your losses and find another group. Or go without for a while, take a break and see what else will work for you.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hey,

Sounds like a classic GNS mis-match to me. 'Course, I'm not there, and I'm going only from your descriptions. Disregard if I'm off-base.

The only advice I can give is that it's neither appropriate nor desirable to try to change the players' preferences if they show no signs or interest in other modes of play. Or, speaking less ethically/socially and more realistically, it's not bloody likely that you or anyone would succeed.

Bear in mind that what you're perceiving as abused-animal behavior may indeed be that, or (based on your admitted preference) may be perfectly wonderful play that isn't to your taste.

I am interested in your phrase "taken in," in your first post - which is to say, you as GM are shepherding or otherwise responsible for the players' enjoyment. Perhaps it's not significant. But it leads me to ask, because you haven't stated the Social Contract side of all of this at all, why are you playing with this group in the first place?

Best,
Ron

Clay wrote:

If you're determined to stay with these guys, try a change of system. Different systems promote different modes of play, but most importantly, a system change causes a shift in player mindset. It's a good way to try moving closer together in your chosen play styles.

Matt Wilson wrote: The conclusion I'm coming to, aside from some agreement to the GNS mismatch, is that a staunchly gamist game like D&D isn't the right way to introduce alternate modes of play. I think I'd be much better off showing up some Sunday and saying, "let's take a break from D&D and try this game for one session."

Mike Holmes wrote: Duh!

Matt Wilson wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Duh!

Well, that made me laugh out loud. I thought it was kind of a "duh" moment as well. I bet if I stop sticking this fork in my eye it'll hurt less.

I think my ideal mode is a N/S mix. I like rules-light S like Fudge, but I want N stuff to drive play.

jburneko wrote: So, I went and basically obtained every 2nd Edition module ever written for Ravenloft in .pdf format. Then, I ordered them acording to difficulty and then shifted some around to keep with Ravenloft's history.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Matt Wilson wrote: I think my ideal mode is a N/S mix. I like rules-light S like Fudge, but I want N stuff to drive play.

Hmm. Over the Edge?

Mike

Matt Wilson wrote: After all that kicker stuff I told you about previously, they've reverted to this feral, eat-or-be-eaten state.

This might be too obvious to need saying, but it almost sounded like you wanted a narrativist play style, but were still taking them through dungeons. The players will react to what you present them, and if you continue to present them with dungeons, they'll continue to kill the monsters and loot the bodies.

If you change what you present to them, they'll react to it in a different way. Don't present locations to explore with monsters to fight. Give them problems that involve people, that involve themselves. This takes a lot more planning and work on your part, but it will give you something closer to the style of play you're looking for.

This is one of the reasons for changing systems. D&D is all about killing the monsters and looting the bodies. Other games are about other things. Find a concept that folks will be interested in, like westerns, horror or science fiction. Then find a system that lets you play with that concept and can be picked up quickly by the group. My group has their own favorites: Dust Devils for westerns, Call of Cthulhu for horror and Traveller for science fiction.

Grab the system, then spend some time to create a scenario that promotes the things you want to see. You'll also need to make sure that it incorporates the things they're interested in. So long as it has both, it's likely to be a hit.

Clay wrote: D&D is all about killing the monsters and looting the bodies.

I'll back up Clinton there and cite my own D&D game as an example of just that: a fine Narrativist D&D game.

FYI: the other players and I have been actively emailing about a solution to the problem. I'm getting responses like this:

If we are voting for a preferred playing style. I vote for storytelling

I'm willing to adjust to whatever the GM has in mind.

Matt, is the delay-for-traps problem concentrated with one player who sets the mood for the whole group? I run a narravativist D&D game, and have for more than a decade, and I know from painful experience that one strong-willed and paranoid player can slow the entire group down to a crawl. I once had a three room quirky dungeon that was designed for four hours of play; it took them two and a half game sessions to finish. I think that's the point that I switched to primarily political adventures. *grin*

I ended up chatting with the person on a metagame level, asking them to be less paranoid because it was slowing down play so much. It was clumsy, but turned out to be both fast and effective.

Matt Wilson wrote: FYI: the other players and I have been actively emailing about a solution to the problem. I'm getting responses like this:
::snip::

Clinton R. Nixon wrote: I, for one, think Matt could run a fine narrativist experience using D&D (whatever that may be) with his players if that's what they want.

My comment about "what d&d is about" seems to have derailed my point, for which I appologize.

My main point remains that the players are going to respond to what you present them. If you put dungeon crawling in front of them and they're rewarded for it, they'll stay in that mode. D&D does dungeon crawls nicely, other systems excel at other things. Find one that excels at the things you and your group want to see, build the scenario to suit, and watch the magic happen.

I saw this happen in my own group, which had been dungeon crawling for years before the switch to Traveller and Call of Cthulhu. Neither of those games encourage killing monsters and looting the bodies, and they encourage other things that we found we liked better.