Annoying Players

[kristof65]

As Gm you can't rely on your expectations of what the players should or might do. If they just did what you expected, there'd be no point them being there. Personaly as a GM I believe that I have a responsibility to entertain them. There are more of them than there are of me, so in general their idea of what is fun should trump mine, or at least it certainly shouldn't be irrelevent compared to mine. As GM you have huge power, and with that power comes responsibility otherwise you're just ego-tripping.

I agree. And I often have the most fun when the PCs do something I don't expect. I had a game with a new (to me) batch of players. They were exploring some catacombs, and found a passage to what was a deeper level to be explored later on because it was well above their skill levels. In a variation of the empty room syndrome, everything I did to discourage them from going that way only made them more determined. It ended with a near TPK, me using a bit of Deus Ex Machina to rescue them with some NPCs. I hardly wanted to kill off all the PCs of people I'd known for about 3 game sessions. The rescue, something I did to keep it from being a TPK and completely impromptu, wound up introducing them to some very colorful, and eventually recurring NPCs. While that was fun in and of itself, it was the what happened about a year later that gave me real joy.

The campaign path called for the PCs to find and visit the lost city of Tenandryl. They had clues leading them to people who supposedly had visited Tenandryl, so they began by looking one of them up. As part of the NPCs personality, she advised them "Tenandryl is a place left best buried" and wouldn't give them any information. At that point, I expected them to go onto the next person on the list and get the info. Instead, they freaked out, and figured they weren't supposed to go there - because the last time I had hinted about "don't go there", they almost died. They went off in a different direction, so I dropped more clues about Tenandryl. They avoided them. We had some wonderful side adventures, then I began "throwing" the other NPCs with knowledge of the place at them to get them to go there. The first couple they encountered, the encounters went something like this:

PCs: "So, Luna says that Tenandryl is a place best left buried."
NPC: "She would say that, and for the most part, I agree"
PCs: "Ok, we've heard enough. Buh bye!"

I really began taunting them at that point. I'd give obvious clues to Tenandryl's location, but counter it with more of the "don't go there" stuff. They wanted to go there, but they were deathly afraid. It went on for six months or so.

Eventually, I had an old friend come into town, and he joined us for a session - he played one of the NPCs who knew about Tenandryl's location as a PC that session, and offered to actually lead them there. It was one of the best sessions ever, as one by one the PCs (and players) fears about what was actually in Tenadryl were shattered. They had built it up in their minds as an absolute death trap, a place from which they would be lucky to survive, the reality had always been much different - it was simply a place that, while mildly dangerous, contained secrets that would forever change their worldview. They were so pissed at themselves about the sidetracking they had done in search of answers that were in Tenandryl.

Afterwards, we did all agree it was mostly my fault they were scared to go there - they were really following the cues I gave them in that regard. But they also admitted they were glad things went the way they did - that the moments when it dawned on them the real nature of Tenandryl was all the more precious for their stubborness in avoiding it.

So while I completely agree it can be annoying when players don't do as you expect them to, I also think it's important to take some time to step back and not only analyze why they didn't do as expected, but how you can turn that to your advantage, and make it even more entertaining.

 

[locarno24]

So while I completely agree it can be annoying when players don't do as you expect them to, I also think it's important to take some time to step back and not only analyze why they didn't do as expected, but how you can turn that to your advantage, and make it even more entertaining.

Agree wholeheartedly!

But after they all went in, and the characters were told by the Patron to close the doors and let nobody in - and "Don't peek if you know what's good for you!" - you know what they did that was so annoying?

They listened to the Patron.

That's right. They took the Patron at his word, stood around the rest of the night, were good little boys and never once went anywhere near the crystal clear window panel in the warehouse doors.

As said, in that sort of situation, a bit of railroading is good. Starting the gunfight without them (audible from outside!) might work. Especially if they realise they're not gonna get paid if they leg it.

Traveller is a more difficult system than some to railroad the players once they get to a certain level, though; once they have the option to raise right leg and flee the star system it can get problematic.

 

[kristof65]

Traveller is a more difficult system than some to railroad the players once they get to a certain level, though; once they have the option to raise right leg and flee the star system it can get problematic.

On the flip side of things, that very fact about Traveller taught me a great deal about improvising and going with the flow as a GM.

Way back in the early CT days when I first started roleplaying, I ran a campaign for my two best friends from school. Their PCs were ex-military, and I had a nice plot in mind for them becoming hired guns for wealthy, but mostly good patrons, acting as paramilitary security forces. Their first mission was to escort a valuable cargo between two systems.

My friends, however, thought it would be funny to instead steal the cargo and sell it. They didn't really do this because their PCs would do it (we weren't quite that sophisticated back then), but because it would annoy me. And it did. I foiled their plan, they came up with another one. Finally, after 4-5 attempts to steal the cargo, I gave in, and let them get away with it. The entire Traveller campaign became this meta-game of them thinking "How can we do exactly the opposite of what the GM wants me to do?" vs me thinking "How can I make them take the path I want, without them thinking it's my idea?"

Juvenile? Yes
Educational? Oh, very much so.

Because of the vast array of options a Traveller PC has in deciding where to go next, a GM really has to learn to improvise - much more so than your typical D&D GM, anyway.

All in all, I think GMing Traveller a lot early in my GMing career made me a better GM overall.

 

[Leo Knight]

This thread cuts to one of the central frustrations I've had with RPGs. In books, movies, and other plotted entertainment, they leave out the boring or frustrating bits. Characters usually figure out "what they're supposed to do" by the end of the episode. They do so because a writer makes them do so. If a daunting obstacle shows up ten minutes in, they usually don't give up, because then, there's no show.

I came to this hobby with those expectations. Every once in a while, when things really clicked, amazing action movie things happened. More often, not. One wag once described RPGs as "ten minutes of fun crammed into four hours". I figured the way to make my games more exciting was to make them more like movies or TV: more plot twists, more mystery. A lot of the published adventures of the time were like this. For ultimate railroading, The "Dragonlance" modules by TSR are exhibit A, and the old GDW adventure "Expedition to Zhodane" is exhibit B. The players had to follow the plot. But if they went off the rails, no more game. And of course, players resent being led by the noses.

One eureka moment I had: In a Traveller scenario, I had a planet with a religious cult centered on what turned out to be an Ancient artifact. The opening hook was a weird procession of hooded, chanting figures moving through the starport, carrying mysterious icons. I ran this for two groups. The first were friends of mine. I knew their tastes, and figured they would follow the hook. They did, and much fun ensued. I ran the exact same adventure for another group, relative strangers. The characters not only walked away from the situation, but one player, the de facto leader, told me, "This is boring!" Same exact scenario, same sequence, same presentation, opposite results. Players often don't do what you plan on. Actually, less of a eureka, and more a 2X4 upside my head.

Another eureka was playing a boardgame based on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". The board is a Clue style map of Sunnydale, the pieces are characters and monsters. One player is the Evil One, running all foes, the other players run one or more good guys. What impresed me was how much adventure took place. Foes were slain, heroes sacrificed bravely, artifacts were uncovered and destroyed, and all without any preparation whatever. Just the map, the roles, the rules.

I'm still trying to figure this out for myself. I think the more clear and direct the goals are (Slay the vampire, steal the cargo, etc.) the more likely it will play well. That's why Patron enconters work well. Also, most players seem to like active over passive. They would rather "steal the cargo" than "guard the cargo". But I still have a hard time letting go of the "plot model".

 

[Ishmael]

I think its important to remember that its not 'GM vs players' or 'GM entertains players', rather, its 'GM + players = group storytelling = improv theater'.

As improv theater, the GM acts as the director, and the players act as main characters in a play with no set dialogue. The GM's role is to keep the story moving and the players' roles are to provide characterizations and character actions. If either the GM or the players don't like this, then maybe they should play a good old fashioned wargame/boardgame instead.

That said, poor ensemble acting or a poor director can sink a good play, whereas a good director or ensemble can make any plot shine.
After the game play time is over, everyone should have the opportunity to give a quick 'movie review' of the play so each session can be better than the last.

*world building, gearhead building, npc chargen = sets, props and extras

 

[simonh]

I'm still trying to figure this out for myself. I think the more clear and direct the goals are (Slay the vampire, steal the cargo, etc.) the more likely it will play well. That's why Patron enconters work well. Also, most players seem to like active over passive. They would rather "steal the cargo" than "guard the cargo". But I still have a hard time letting go of the "plot model".

For at least the last 15 years or so every game I've run the characters have had specific jobs to do. They weren't a random collection of independently created characters that 'met at a tavern' or some such. In one game they were a diplomatic mission to a rival city. In another they were the crew of a military resupply vessel on a milk run of border outposts. If the characters have responsibilities and overall objectives, it's much easier to get them involved in plots. People will come to them with information because of their role and duties, similarly they will have rivals and enemies for the same reason.

If the characters are just random neutrals wherever they go, you will always have problems getting them into the action. In one Traveller game I played in we spent several sessions faffing around not knowing what we were supposed to be doing. The GM said later that he wanted to run the game realistically, if we didn't pick up on a clue, then tough we missed it. That's just stupid. How are you to know which clues are worth following and which aren't? You end up back in empty room syndrome, jumping at shadows.

The best dramas, and the best RPG sessions, are about facing tough choices, and dealing with the consequences of those choices. I don't mind being lead into an adventure or directed towards the action. Railroading to me is where you don't have choices and are powerless to affect the outcome of events. It's a balancing act, sure, but I think for most players so long as they believe that they had some real decisions to make and weren't just playing out assigned roles in the plot, then a bit of direction and stage management is fine if it keeps the game moving.

Simon Hibbs

 

[rust]

For at least the last 15 years or so every game I've run the characters have had specific jobs to do.

While I use specific jobs and a certain degree of railroading only for the
introductory adventure of a new campaign, to make the players and their
characters familiar with the new setting in a somewhat structured way, I
also make sure that the player characters are not just "carefree wande-
rers". They have well defined positions within the social framework of the
setting, and those around them expect them to act accordingly by accep-
ting the duties and responsibilities that come with the position.

However, my settings are "sandboxes", so I do not provide any preplan-
ned adventures. The introductory adventure of a new campaign leads the
player characters into a situation where they have a number of options
for their next activities, but it is up to the players to decide how their cha-
racters will move on from there. Since the setting has an ongoing back-
ground history, with events happening whether the characters react to
them or not, inactivity is rarely a choice, because this tends to make the
situation only more difficult and dangerous for the player characters.

 

[kristof65]

I, too, have found it's better to have PCs together for a reason. In my fantasy campaigns, I'll often have a prophecy of which all the PCs find themselves a part of, and no matter what they do, the prophecy keeps finding them. In my modern campaigns, the PCs will all usually work for the same company or organization.

For Traveller, I like to use a spaceship as the glue that holds the PCs together. My favorite method is to give all the PCs part ownership of a run down tramp frieghter full of secrets - usually by inheriting it as repayment for some favor they did to a mutual acquaintance.

I've found that when all the PCs have an ownership share of the ship, there is more of an incentive for PCs to stay with the party, rather than strike out on their own. After all, they have a vested interest in the ship. If a particular PC needs to leave the group, they can sell out to the players new character. I also usually keep back a few of the inherited ship shares for use as a reason for future PCs/NPCs to join the group.