Wandering Characters

[rgrove0172]

Just that as the plot develops, players know by their skills where to jump in at, or how to create a situation that allows them to jump in.

Ok gotcha!

I paint all the background colour in broad strokes and let their imagination fill in the rest.

An interesting metaphor but hard to imagine. Even an eloquently stated "The city is a dirty, immoral mass of humanity" wouldnt replace the players actually discovering this for themselves, in my opinion.

I guess it is the difference between a Frazetta painting and an Elmore painting.

Oh now that was dirty. You know from our correspondence that Im a huge Frazetta fan. Referring to it that way leaves me pretty much defenseless. Foul! Foul!

That would have bored me and my players to distraction.

Possibly, but it didnt mine. They never knew if each encounter or detail was going to develop into something or not, so they gave it thier full attention. "Are we supposed to save the old man?" "Who is that guy that seems to be following us?" Etc. Just as newcomers would be a bit overwhelmed in a sprawl like Shadizar, so were my players. They still dont know if any of the situations they experienced will end up important in the grand scheme of things, or if they were simply the result of life in the city.

I guess since I grew up reading Howard,

Ive been reading Howard as well, for about 30 years now. You are quiet correct that he managed to convey a wealth of information in only a few sentences. He did indeed manage to fill the reader's imagination with all sorts of wonderful imagery with but a hint of detail. I try to present the locales and such in a similar manner as well, but players typically want more. Descriptions of architecture, manner of dress, layout of interiors, style of weapons, details on character, personality, tone of voice etc. These all have an important part to play. They can make a seemingly meaningless encounter with a caravan guard, relaying news from the east, into an interesting and fun encounter, further imbedding the players into the rich Hyborian melieu.

Out of curiosity, what would be your definition of impure roleplaying?

Well there was that time my character got drunk and hit on my buddy's wife's character - but thast probably not what you meant huh?
I meant there was only a couple combats played out during the session, which normally takes quite a bit of time. Most of the game was the interaction of the characters and the environment, NPC negotiations, visiting certain locales, experiencing the flavor of Shadizar.

 

[Koda]

That would have bored me and my players to distraction.

Possibly, but it didnt mine. They never knew if each encounter or detail was going to develop into something or not, so they gave it thier full attention. "Are we supposed to save the old man?" "Who is that guy that seems to be following us?" Etc. Just as newcomers would be a bit overwhelmed in a sprawl like Shadizar, so were my players. They still dont know if any of the situations they experienced will end up important in the grand scheme of things, or if they were simply the result of life in the city.

I think part of your problem with the players leaving lies here. By spending so much time in the city with no plotline developing, I think you gave the world and open ended feel. They really have no reason to stay in Shadizar more than any other city as adventurers if they are left to make their own way in the world. I think this style of GMing actually encourages the players to wander and seek oppurtunity and adventure. Which is a lot of fun because it can open up so many plot devices.....but if you want them to stay in Shadizar, give them a reason to want to stay.

 

[Oly]

My take is that that again breaks the "social contract"

I can understand the benefit of having an agreement between players before hand but it would classify, in my opinion, as the ultimate representation of "hedging". Here we dont even try and disguise the influence on the player's actions, instead we just tell them "You have to do this, lets all agree". Some players might not mind, some might.

I don't view it as hedging at all.

About the only real influence on the player's actions is not to do too many things that will exclude the other players from the game. It's about keeping it social and fun for everybody, it's meant to be a group experience and I'm keen to keep it that way.

So it's more a case of "Please don't do that" rather than "you have to do this."

Mmm, maybe I did make it my job after all.

The players might do this on thier own but I think most groups would expect the GM to set up the situation and explain thier coming together.

Most groups I've played with expect the players and the GM to work together to set up the campaign and how the group came to be together and is able to stay together.

When it's a new campaign I'm used to the players doing most of the talking and saying "how's about this" while the GM provides input and guidance as to what will work with the tone of the campaign that he has in mind.

Again for me I think it's a time thing. If a player wants to play something that's out of the "norm" for the campaign setting then I don't want to have to spend time working out how to get that character involved in the campaign and with the group. Keeping with my perception of gaming as being a social thing that's something that the group can take on thus making sure that everyone's happy with what's going on.

 

[Clovenhoof]

I agree. Also, the GM can't read the players' minds. So if they tell him beforehand what they would like to do, he can prepare accordingly (like, read up on the areas they want to see etc.).
Calling any kind of the GM metagame influence "hedging" (or "railroading") is stupid. As I said before, a GM is not a computer game where all the data is stored on a disk and can be called up at any moment anyone feels like it.
As some others have already said, coming to an agreement what kind of behaviour should be avoided is nothing but social for the group and fair for the GM.

EDIT:
besides, if you bought for instance a $13 module, then usually with the intention of playing it. So you prepare it and next session, offer the party the opportunity to get into it and play that module with you. And if you're honest, you _expect_ the players to accept it and play. So, if _my_ gaming group decided to stall and see what happens when they decline the mission, I'd simply call it a night.

 

[rgrove0172]

Thanks Clovenhoof, I appreciate your comments. I agree totally. Its kind of waht Ive been driving at all along.

 

[Sutek]

In our first game, for instance, the one Ive been eluding to, we spent almost 2 hours just getting the players acquainted with the setting. They strode the back streets of the Desert in Shadizar. Frequented some tavern, did some bartering, interrupted a theft by some street urchins harrassing an old man, watched a cat-fight between two harlots that turned deadly, etc. It was a colorful and interesting journey through the city I felt would be home for several sessions. There wasnt a single plot element relayed in that time but it was hardly wasted. When the beginnings of my storyline began, over 2 hours later - they felt like they knew the City, at least a bit. A hour or so later they found themselves pursued by a superior group of henchmen. The chase through the river district of the Maul encompassed and hour all by itself, and never resulted in open-combat. Hastily sketched building formations, alleyways and the meriad of skill checks and maneuvers used to escape thier foe was exciting stuff - but it took time to do it with the detail and attention it deserved. We played out an extremely simple adventure that spanned 3 days in the game in about 10 hours. There were only 3 combats in the entire session, each taking about 30 minutes, the rest of the time was pure roleplaying.

It looks like there was a lot of interaction between the group and the city. That's good. But if I told people playing in one of my games that two harlots started fighting, they'd ignore it or pull them apart expecting one or the other of them to lead them to the story.

In other words, I can't see in that description anything that bonds the characters to a cause, however minor, and even some guards chasing them doesn't feel like "plot" any more than the other randome encounters do. What happened is that they were feeling bored and directionless with so many unimportant encounters to thier potential careers as adventureers...that they made thier own direction.

That's when players decide to wander off. Not because it's too dangerous there (with only three combats, danger couldn't have really been the issue) but because they want something to mean something to them. They're telling you that they aren't engaged enough here, so they wander over there. It's that simple really.

They never knew if each encounter or detail was going to develop into something or not, so they gave it thier full attention. "Are we supposed to save the old man?" "Who is that guy that seems to be following us?" Etc. Just as newcomers would be a bit overwhelmed in a sprawl like Shadizar, so were my players. They still dont know if any of the situations they experienced will end up important in the grand scheme of things, or if they were simply the result of life in the city.

See? They were given no direction, and too many incongrous parts overwhelmed them, so they split....left the city.

 

[rgrove0172]

Sorry Sutek I couldnt disagree with you more, and I think my players would too.

Your comment on waiting for an event to lead them to the "story" assumes that everything that happens day to day is directly related to a particular plot. Thats just way to linear for my group. They want to feel that they are living in Hyboria, not following a script. Now, granted, I plot out my games pretty strictly sometimes but include lots of side stuff to disguise it. The players get the feeling they are at the whim of fate and have to decide or themselves if an event is important or not.

I would think they would laugh at your comment about being bored. The game was an extremely successfult one. They found themselves in the midst of a dire situation and had to rangle several key characters and situations to meerly survive it. Dont think for a minute that just because there were only 3 actual combats that the game was without conflict, they managed instead to avoid several fights, all of which could very well have done them in. The pursuit of the guards was a very important element as it turns out, as it directed them to a key introduction with a major NPC.

You equate the danger of the city with the number of combats. Thats an extremely superficial perception. The danger they spoke of was a result of cheating a powerful underworld figure, ruining the reputation of a noble and failing to finish off a key enemy that will no doubt seek revenge, with help. Together these elements have made Shadizar a risky place, with eyes around every corner and a dagger waiting in every shadow. Thats their reason for leaving. I didnt plan it, it happened -

Im not questioning the way the game turned out, only that it results in my wasting a lot of time on the area when they elect to leave so quickly. Sure there are ways to make them stick around, thats what this thread was all about.

 

[Sutek]

I absoulutely do not equate danger with number of combats. Conflict does not equal combat. I also do not argue that Shadizar is not a risky place. But if the character spend all of thier time there avoiding risk and getting nowhere, dodging trouble but not being enlightened, all they end up doin gis evading the slightest chance of a dagger in the back but not having any further reason to stay there unless that's what they enjoy - keeping vigilant for the danger of random villainy over being able to make a plan to confront and overcome it. The latter is the joy of the player in any RPG - overcoming adversity to advance and better your character.

When you say that you don't mind how things turned out, but in the same breath say that you feel like you wasted your time, then you really aren't fine with the way things turned out. I'm telling you why it happened, because in my 30+ years of running and playing RPGs, I've been on both sides of that situation. When I'm a player and a GM constantly throws dissimilar obstacles up in front of my so that I have to fight or circumvent them, I hope that there's eventually some connectedness to it all, or we've all wasted our time. When I'm a GM I try very hard to make a storyline appear right from the start so that players have some direction to go in, but I leave it loose enough so that if they go left when I anticipated right I can adapt and go with the flow.

What I'm saying is that if your players are getting sidtracked and making connections that arent'there in your "script" - sod the script and go with the players. Make them win by making the connections they expect at the on-set, and get them liking the small conflicts in the locale that you want them to stay in. The mugged old man leads them to a brothel where the two harlots scrap which leads them to thier owner which leads them to that key NPC.

Just as conflict does not equate to combat, neither does it equate to a constant threat of attack. Plus, with the rep that Shadizar has, noplce else is going to be as threatening, so now you're going to be inconsistant with the world mythos if you "up the ante" whereever they end up next.

Believe me, I see your dilema, but I'm just offering my first hand experience, not trying to attack you or tell you that you screwed up. It's totally salvagable, but I think the level of detail and the saturation with random conflict just for the sake of it (to make Shadizar feel really dangerous) backfired big time, and no matter what your players say or how interested they were during the game, they left because they were bored with it. By that I mean that they go tired of dealing with it, not that they were put to sleep by your meanderings (lol).

You essentially said "I have these carrots to motivate you all", and then handed them razor blades. They see no carrots, so they leave razor blade town. Either that, or they looked at razorblade for several hours hoping one of them would lead to a yummy carrot, and when that didn't happen, they went to find carrots someplace else.

 

[Clovenhoof]

Well, as a GM I've often had my players throw themselves onto a minor description detail although I never wanted them to even _think_ it was of any relevance to them.
And I do not even describe things in such a detail as rgrove here has related to us. I can't even give an example off hand, but more than once I was just close to yelling "Will you leave that BLOODY bouzouki (whatever) alone, it has NOTHING to do with your problems!"
Sort of like the "lava pool" example described further up.

 

[Sutek]

Knights of the Dinner Table and the "magic cow" comes to mind. Classic D&D catoon that every gamer should check out.

The GM says that the characters are on a road, and they can't go right because of a huge mountain range, and they can't go left because of a fence, but there's a cityy down the road in the distance. The players all focus on the fence. They ask what's on the other side of the fence, and the GM sighs and tells them it's just a cow in a field. They continue to investigate, and the GM explains the fence is too high to climb, goes deep into the ground, the gap between the slats is too small to crawl through, the material is indestructible and can't be cut, etc, and wouldnt' they rather just head on down the road to the city. They players all agree that the cow is the key. The GM is agast and perplexed as to how they could possibly think a bloody cow is so much more important to anything that may exist in the city, to which they reply "Someone's gone to a lot of trouble to keep people from getting to that cow, so it must be pretty magickal."

He lets them have it an the cow follows them around for a good long time never doing anything magickal, but they protect it with thier life under the precept that it might!

:roll:

The trick is to just roll with the punches and be able to GM on the fly, but it takes practice and it takes a willingness to let go or be prepared to have plots develop without you players being involved. Just because the players don't go to the cite right away doesn't mean that the baddies there give up on thier plans of world domination or whatever.

 

[Clovenhoof]

*rofl* that's frickin hilarious!

 

[rgrove0172]

not trying to attack you or tell you that you screwed up.

Understood, sorry if I came off defensive.

(to make Shadizar feel really dangerous) backfired big time

You got me there, your absolutely right. I succeeded wonderfully at scaring the crap out of them! Yeah for me!

"I have these carrots to motivate you all", and then handed them razor blades.

Well said, I think you are right. I took Vincent's section in Book 1 of the Shadizar module which suggests you not treat Shadizar like any other town and really play up the evil there, to heart. I failed however to contrast it with much of anything positive. Your probably right, subconsciously even they figured "lets get the hell out of this dump"

"Will you leave that BLOODY bouzouki (whatever) alone, it has NOTHING to do with your problems!"

I really enjoyed this quoate Clovenhoof. Its happened to me too. Casually mention something for a bit of color and suddenly the players are off and running because of it. For example I mentioned in our game a squad of private guardsmen escorting a group of Kushite slaves toting an unknown noble behind a curtain of viels. It was just part of the market scene but they followed the group for sometime, discussing various possibilities. I felt just as you say - "leave it alone!"

Thanks for the story on the cow Sutek, cant say Ive ever heard that one. It makes an excellant point.

I appreciate all of your help!
[/quote]